I don't know, I guess roughly 90 minutes of showing "restraint" towards the people your constitution says multiple times must be killed down to the last man, woman & child means Hamas was at least partially 'honest' about honouring the truce?!
I think it needs to be considered that trhe Palestinian people have no part of this (omg it's the one issue I'm serious on ) and suffer accordingly.
Egypt attacked Israel, Israel occupied gaza. 50 years on they are still there. Making the population live like gak.
If that was my country I KNOW where I would be.
You guys from the US . Why is Israel integral to US defence? I believe I read this this week, if not before.
From my point of view Israel is anti- US interest in the region as it gets EVERYONE else offside in the region.
Why support 1 country that gets everyone else in the region offside?
Why spend all of your time supporting a team that consistently (as the teams around there state) runs offside and disagrees with the referee.
Why spend your states money on something that alienates 90% of teams in the region and supports 1?
I fail to see how that supports US foreign policy, in fact I'd say it undermines it.
Look at it from their point of view.
A country that only existed as an empire for 400 years (and that's being generous) after having a terrorist campaign against Britain and not being promised a homeland after ww1 gets a country granted by the UN after ww2.
No one in that area wanted that country....in that area Jews had been better treated and more homogernous than anywhere bar Spain before the christians got there.
So not only did the colonial powers dislocate the region along non tribal lines, they also destabalised it along non religious lines which beforehand never made a great problem... in fact less of a problem than compared to europe.
They come up and divide their country..then some witch does something... then for the next 60 years you live in as police state where you have no control over your own property and law.
They demolish your houses to make way for the people who invaded your country, with no recourse of law.
somehow you guys are the guys in the wrong.Mainly because Egypt invaded 60 years ago. I think the palestinians should be held account for that
Have you guiys read what they have not been able to buy for 20 years????????????
It's fething bs
Why spend all of your time supporting a team that consistently (as the teams around there state) runs offside and disagrees with the referee.
Why spend your states money on something that alienates 90% of teams in the region and supports 1?
I fail to see how that supports US foreign policy, in fact I'd say it undermines it.
Look at it from their point of view.
A country that only existed as an empire for 400 years (and that's being generous) after having a terrorist campaign against Britain and not being promised a homeland after ww1 gets a country granted by the UN after ww2.
No one in that area wanted that country....in that area Jews had been better treated and more homogernous than anywhere bar Spain before the christians got there.
So not only did the colonial powers dislocate the region along non tribal lines, they also destabalised it along non religious lines which beforehand never made a great problem... in fact less of a problem than compared to europe.
They come up and divide their country..then some witch does something... then for the next 60 years you live in as police state where you have no control over your own property and law.
They demolish your houses to make way for the people who invaded your country, with no recourse of law.
somehow you guys are the guys in the wrong.
I think it's to do with some sort of guilt feeling for WW2 combined with religion.
Jesus was a jew after all, and Americans in general appear to live Jesus
Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
Experiment 626 wrote: I don't know, I guess roughly 90 minutes of showing "restraint" towards the people your constitution says multiple times must be killed down to the last man, woman & child means Hamas was at least partially 'honest' about honouring the truce?!
Taking a break to reload does not constitute a cease fire....
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
No, but they should work it out themselves, its not our fight to fight.
Sometimes the bad guys just win.
If they pick a fight with us, then lets just blow them off the planet, but for now we should spend more time worrying about our own country.
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I also wouldn't be bothered by them going "mad dog" and turning the entire Middle East into a glowing pile of ash. Both sides are at fault in this one and there is no solution that is going to work other than war.
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
No, but they should work it out themselves, its not our fight to fight.
Sometimes the bad guys just win.
If they pick a fight with us, then lets just blow them off the planet, but for now we should spend more time worrying about our own country.
Um... we're not fighting them... the Israeli themselves are.
Soooo Israel should stop acting beligerant and act like a country with a real future in that region.
Israel should stop occupying regions it cannot control without outside support. They will never control Gaza, there is only one way they can do it and that's abhorrent.
Without US military support Israel could not exist, fething think about that.
I will say even with support vietnam.
Oh america lost that one?
fething learn when to lose.
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I also wouldn't be bothered by them going "mad dog" and turning the entire Middle East into a glowing pile of ash. Both sides are at fault in this one and there is no solution that is going to work other than war.
Bullockist wrote: Agreed, that's why the US should stop propping up it's military. Honestly, what does all that dollar get the US, except hostile nations,
Soooo... Israel should stop fighting and be willing to be wiped off the earth?
That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I also wouldn't be bothered by them going "mad dog" and turning the entire Middle East into a glowing pile of ash. Both sides are at fault in this one and there is no solution that is going to work other than war.
Ah, disgusting opinion is disgusting.
Good job!
Sure why not. Let them all kill each other and then we can play a LARP of Fallout on location.
Bullockist wrote: Soooo Israel should stop acting beligerant and act like a country with a real future in that region.
The Hamas is a group that deserves our sympathy? The same group that led 160 Palestinian children to their deaths as their small bodies were used to help build the terror tunnels?
Israel should stop occupying regions it cannot control without outside support. They will never control Gaza, there is only one way they can do it and that's abhorrent.
They didn't occupy Gaza.
Without US military support Israel could not exist, fething think about that.
*meh* they've been on their own for awhile dude.
I will say even with support vietnam. Oh america lost that one?
Yeah... but, that's a political loss, not militarily.
Well, anyone suggesting it would not be a bother if the middle east was nuked is an individual who is either trolling/joking or seriously disturbed/delusional.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well, anyone seriously suggesting it would not be a bother if the middle east was nuked is an individual who is either trolling or disturbed/delusional.
Psudo trolling, Psudo for real.
I don't want them to nuke each other.
.... because, fallout.
But seriously I could care less what they are doing over there if it doesn't concern me. Let them kill each other until they can learn to be friends or at least tolerate each other.
One of two things will happen.
1. They will kill each other until they finally agree to disagree and come to a resolution.
2. They will kill each other until only one faction is left and then..... resolution.
Either way I don't want any part of it, if they start pointing guns at my kids, then we have a problem but until then, its sad but we need to keep our fingers out of other country's pudding.
Bullockist wrote:trex that's the best view I have heard out of the US in my whole time on dakka. Do you wear a tin hat?
MrDwhitey wrote:Well, anyone seriously suggesting it would not be a bother if the middle east was nuked is an individual who is either trolling or disturbed/delusional.
The reality is people die. Empires rise, fall, and fade away into the annals of history. The creation of Israel was a grievous error and only succeeded in destabilizing the region further. Israeli Jews and Muslims have no desire to cooperate or coexist peacefully. They've chosen their path. Let them reap the death they seek.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well, anyone seriously suggesting it would not be a bother if the middle east was nuked is an individual who is either trolling or disturbed/delusional.
Psudo trolling, Psudo for real.
I don't want them to nuke each other.
.... because, fallout.
But seriously I could care less what they are doing over there if it doesn't concern me. Let them kill each other until they can learn to be friends or at least tolerate each other.
One of two things will happen.
1. They will kill each other until they finally agree to disagree and come to a resolution.
2. They will kill each other until only one faction is left and then..... resolution.
Either way I don't want any part of it, if they start pointing guns at my kids, then we have a problem but until then, its sad but we need to keep our fingers out of other country's pudding.
Over 2000 nuclear devices have been detonated in the past 60 years. Probably in excess of one hundred in the western United States alone. Fallout appears to be largely a myth.
Bullockist wrote:trex that's the best view I have heard out of the US in my whole time on dakka. Do you wear a tin hat?
MrDwhitey wrote:Well, anyone seriously suggesting it would not be a bother if the middle east was nuked is an individual who is either trolling or disturbed/delusional.
The reality is people die. Empires rise, fall, and fade away into the annals of history. The creation of Israel was a grievous error and only succeeded in destabilizing the region further. Israeli Jews and Muslims have no desire to cooperate or coexist peacefully. They've chosen their path. Let them reap the death they seek.
MrDwhitey wrote: "people die" is a hell of a lot different from "I wouldn't be bothered by the middle east being nuked"
Kids are raped by men and women, but I'm not bothered because eh, it's reality that it'll happen.
Kids being raped is just the tip of the iceberg. Humanity's innate self destructive tendencies know no bounds. Individuals might be saintly, but as a whole our species is a monstrous fiend.
This conflict will end when they want it to end, right now both sides seem willing to carry on the fight with there military units be they IDF or Hama's brigades.
And its gaining momentum, Israel just recently called in 16k more troops to readiness.
MrDwhitey wrote: "people die" is a hell of a lot different from "I wouldn't be bothered by the middle east being nuked"
Kids are raped by men and women, but I'm not bothered because eh, it's reality that it'll happen.
I have the same outlook as I do for them here.
Kill the rapists.
It's wrong, it's unfortunate, but they need to do what they need to do. There are a ton of atrocities in the world, we can't fix them all. I would much rather have our military here securing our boarders and taking care of issue that need to be taken care of at home.
Bullockist wrote: I think it needs to be considered that trhe Palestinian people have no part of this (omg it's the one issue I'm serious on ) and suffer accordingly.
Egypt attacked Israel, Israel occupied gaza. 50 years on they are still there. Making the population live like gak.
If that was my country I KNOW where I would be.
You guys from the US . Why is Israel integral to US defence? I believe I read this this week, if not before.
From my point of view Israel is anti- US interest in the region as it gets EVERYONE else offside in the region.
Why support 1 country that gets everyone else in the region offside?
Israel left Gaza in 2005. So...you're completely wrong. Sorry.
Bullockist wrote: Soooo Israel should stop acting beligerant and act like a country with a real future in that region.
The Hamas is a group that deserves our sympathy? The same group that led 160 Palestinian children to their deaths as their small bodies were used to help build the terror tunnels? BY the same angle the IDF does worse gak
Israel should stop occupying regions it cannot control without outside support. They will never control Gaza, there is only one way they can do it and that's abhorrent.
They didn't occupy Gaza. they did , how did they obtain Gaza as a territory then? magic?
Without US military support Israel could not exist, fething think about that.
*meh* they've been on their own for awhile dude.bs you gave them 1 billion dollar rearmament - as in ammunition about 10 days ago
I will say even with support vietnam.
Oh america lost that one?
Yeah... but, that's a political loss, not militarily.
fething learn when to lose.
How 'bout... feth no! 'Cuz, 'Merrica!!!
you guys lose every time you get in a foriegn war...you just got to stop doing them.
Bullockist wrote: Soooo Israel should stop acting beligerant and act like a country with a real future in that region.
The Hamas is a group that deserves our sympathy? The same group that led 160 Palestinian children to their deaths as their small bodies were used to help build the terror tunnels? BY the same angle the IDF does worse gak
Israel should stop occupying regions it cannot control without outside support. They will never control Gaza, there is only one way they can do it and that's abhorrent.
They didn't occupy Gaza. they did , how did they obtain Gaza as a territory then? magic?
Without US military support Israel could not exist, fething think about that.
*meh* they've been on their own for awhile dude.bs you gave them 1 billion dollar rearmament - as in ammunition about 10 days ago
I will say even with support vietnam.
Oh america lost that one?
Yeah... but, that's a political loss, not militarily.
fething learn when to lose.
How 'bout... feth no! 'Cuz, 'Merrica!!!
you guys lose every time you get in a foriegn war...you just got to stop doing them.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Just going to pick this out to say something I noticed last night. I'm heavily into boardgames and was looking into one that has come out recently about Vietnam (Lake of Fire or something). Did you know that the flavour text says the massacre was of 22 civilians?
Big difference from a day of machine gunning and raping that ended in 300+ deaths.
Back on Israel and Hamas, Hamas is full of fething gak and I fething despise them. A terror group that managed to get into power over Israel making a mistake and not adhering to a peace deal, and then making it impossible to be removed from power so they can keep hitting the big bad Izzie. Hamas don't give a flying gak about the people of Palestine.
Israels leadership I also have a distinct dislike for, but it's a lot less currently than with Hamas. On both sides though, I just feel bad for the people being used by their respective leaders. Israel just have the ability to defend and attack far better than anything Hamas could hope for.
On a complete side note, I would love to visit Israel some day. And even though its purpose is depressing, I would love to see the Iron Dome in real life.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Where would you even draw that conclusion from?
The history of America (and the world for that matter) is built over the corpses of the losers. Show some maturation.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Where would you even draw that conclusion from?
The history of America (and the world for that matter) is built over the corpses of the losers. Show some maturation.
Exactly. Which is why Israel has a right to exist as a nation. People fought and died for its right to exist. Who are you to say otherwise?
Where is this happening? I assume there is a conflict line where people are fighting over. Are people actually venturing into contested territory to get raped? And if the bad guys are coming to town to rape people, why don't they just kill them? Or is the problem that they don't have guns?
Not trolling here, seriously asking, I don't follow stuff from other countries, let alone stuff here at home.... I just can't understand how people can find time to drop trou and get to the rapin while gunfire is a thing.
There's a video called this land is mine, a animation.
Basically people have been during over that corner of world for thousands of years, and people think it will just stop now because we all see it on tv and disagree is a mad idea.
People have not changed, only when they do may there be peace.
Just going to pick this out to say something I noticed last night. I'm heavily into boardgames and was looking into one that has come out recently about Vietnam (Lake of Fire or something). Did you know that the flavour text says the massacre was of 22 civilians?
Big difference from a day of machine gunning and raping that ended in 300+ deaths.
Back on Israel and Hamas, Hamas is full of fething gak and I fething despise them. A terror group that managed to get into power over Israel making a mistake and not adhering to a peace deal, and then making it impossible to be removed from power so they can keep hitting the big bad Izzie. Hamas don't give a flying gak about the people of Palestine.
Israels leadership I also have a distinct dislike for, but it's a lot less currently than with Hamas. On both sides though, I just feel bad for the people being used by their respective leaders. Israel just have the ability to defend and attack far better than anything Hamas could hope for.
On a complete side note, I would love to visit Israel some day. And even though its purpose is depressing, I would love to see the Iron Dome in real life.
Gonna have to disagree, if it was your countrty taken over and the occypying ( i cannot spell ) power treated your people like gak over 3 generations how would you react?
I'd be with hamas
you have some witches maiming your populous or saomeone who might get you free...after 50 years that has to seem like a good deal. I've read books by left wing Israelis and it isn't kind to the state.
Where is this happening? I assume there is a conflict line where people are fighting over. Are people actually venturing into contested territory to get raped? And if the bad guys are coming to town to rape people, why don't they just kill them? Or is the problem that they don't have guns?
Not trolling here, seriously asking, I don't follow stuff from other countries, let alone stuff here at home.... I just can't understand how people can find time to drop trou and get to the rapin while gunfire is a thing.
You know when soldiers get to a population centre with no defence, they can have free reign of the civilians, backed up as they are with an army?
And that's not even discussing civilian opportunists who use the lack of police/deterrents/retribution and confusion during a war.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Where would you even draw that conclusion from?
The history of America (and the world for that matter) is built over the corpses of the losers. Show some maturation.
Exactly. Which is why Israel has a right to exist as a nation. People fought and died for its right to exist. Who are you to say otherwise?
Where is this happening? I assume there is a conflict line where people are fighting over. Are people actually venturing into contested territory to get raped? And if the bad guys are coming to town to rape people, why don't they just kill them? Or is the problem that they don't have guns?
Not trolling here, seriously asking, I don't follow stuff from other countries, let alone stuff here at home.... I just can't understand how people can find time to drop trou and get to the rapin while gunfire is a thing.
You know when soldiers get to a population centre with no defence, they can have free reign of the civilians, backed up as they are with an army?
And that's not even discussing civilian opportunists who use the lack of police/deterrents/retribution and confusion during a war.
I guess so, its just hard to understand living in the US.
Gonna have to disagree, if it was your countrty taken over and the occypying ( i cannot spell ) power treated your people like gak over 3 generations how would you react? I'd be with hamas you have some witches maiming your populous or saomeone who might get you free...after 50 years that has to seem like a good deal. I've read books by left wing Israelis and it isn't kind to the state.
And there's a reason people who are personally part of a case aren't allowed on juries.
Just because Israel does bad gak doesn't make Hamas a good deal. Hamas is fething evil.
"some witches maiming your populous" Hamas do that to the Palestinians too. Hamas lovingly perpetuates a situation (alongside Israel) that causes Palestinians to suffer.
"someone who might get you free" which is how the Nazis got in. Just saying.
Bad times make people vote for those that promise the most regardless of how unlikely it is they'll achieve it.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Where would you even draw that conclusion from?
The history of America (and the world for that matter) is built over the corpses of the losers. Show some maturation.
Exactly. Which is why Israel has a right to exist as a nation. People fought and died for its right to exist. Who are you to say otherwise?
By that right champ so does Palestine.
For a start it has existed LONGER than israel.
...except that they, and the rest of their Arab Nationalist brothers got their asses handed to them trying to murder all the Jews there in 1948, 1967, and 1973.
And the whole "we were here first" argument is completely ridiculous. There was never any such thing as Palestinians. They were Syrians and Jordanians living in the British Mandate. They were never their own distinct people, with a culture and nation. "Palestinians" are on record saying this. That argument is ludicrous and irrelevant. Israel is there now. Deal with it.
trexmeyer wrote: Israel has no business existing as a nation, but it's too late to go back and keep it from being established. Way to go guys! Now we have a xenophobic hyper religious state armed with god knows how many nuclear devices, a feth all you attitude, and a damn fine military.
It's only going to get worse.
Israel is not even close to "hyper-religious." The majority of Israelis serving in the army aren't orthodox, and the majority of the ultra-orthodox don't serve in the army.
Thank you for your opinion of a nation's right to exist though. I'm assuming that you have no problem with the United States having been built over the corpses of millions of murdered Native Americans?
Where would you even draw that conclusion from?
The history of America (and the world for that matter) is built over the corpses of the losers. Show some maturation.
Exactly. Which is why Israel has a right to exist as a nation. People fought and died for its right to exist. Who are you to say otherwise?
By that right champ so does Palestine.
For a start it has existed LONGER than israel.
And was taken by conquest, rather than "k here you have some land enjoy - signed UK"
And was taken by conquest, rather than "k here you have some land enjoy - signed UK"
Is that your version of Israel's War of Independence in 1948? Because it's completely wrong. Literally 1% of Israel's population died in that war. That's one out of every 100 people. They fought for that land.
and failed to maintain the territory or pacify it.
The true mark of conquest.
If you are doing a gak job, just stop.
In 60 years you still haven't managed to pacify an area through violence and privation. Maybe it's time for a new tack. Or maybe not and you could post "thumbs Up" pictures of guys whilst they are killing civillians.
Jews will never control Gaza nor as an extension after there invasion release in the 1990s.... the levant.
The seeds were sown.
Just going to pick this out to say something I noticed last night. I'm heavily into boardgames and was looking into one that has come out recently about Vietnam (Lake of Fire or something). Did you know that the flavour text says the massacre was of 22 civilians?
Big difference from a day of machine gunning and raping that ended in 300+ deaths.
Back on Israel and Hamas, Hamas is full of fething gak and I fething despise them. A terror group that managed to get into power over Israel making a mistake and not adhering to a peace deal, and then making it impossible to be removed from power so they can keep hitting the big bad Izzie. Hamas don't give a flying gak about the people of Palestine.
Israels leadership I also have a distinct dislike for, but it's a lot less currently than with Hamas. On both sides though, I just feel bad for the people being used by their respective leaders. Israel just have the ability to defend and attack far better than anything Hamas could hope for.
On a complete side note, I would love to visit Israel some day. And even though its purpose is depressing, I would love to see the Iron Dome in real life.
Gonna have to disagree, if it was your countrty taken over and the occypying ( i cannot spell ) power treated your people like gak over 3 generations how would you react?
I'd be with hamas
you have some witches maiming your populous or saomeone who might get you free...after 50 years that has to seem like a good deal. I've read books by left wing Israelis and it isn't kind to the state.
A son of the Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, Mosab Hassan Yousef, was interviewed on CNN. He has rejected Hamas and is now a Christian. In the interview, Yousef bluntly reminds us of what Hamas is really about... and it’s definitely not about the safety of Palistinians:
“Hamas does not care about the lives of Palestinians, or the lives of Israelis, or Americans; they don’t care about their own lives,” Yousef said. “They consider dying for their ideology a way of worship.
“Hamas is not seeking coexistence and compromise; Hamas is seeking conquest,” he added.
“The destruction of the state of Israel is not Hamas’ final destination. Hamas’ final destination is building an Islamic caliphate – an Islamic state on the rubble of every other civilization.”
Yousef, who was meant to be the heir to his father’s leadership role in Hamas, said Palestinian children as young as five years old are taught to be willing to take their own lives to achieve Hamas’s goals, as he was taught at a young age. “When I look at the children of Gaza, and I know what they are fed, I know that they have no choice,” he said.
Yousef said that Hamas targets civilians “as a tool of war” and that they were prepared for this from the age of 5 years old.
Nuggz, as far as I can tell you're both right when put together.
British Mandate said "k have it, but we ain't helping you keep it", then the Arab states said "lol no" and the Jews went "feth off" for a year till the Arab states were forced out. I could be completely wrong though.
Wow, dakka autocorrects insults to 'witches'. Ouch.
Anyways, I'm only surprised at the way the tempo is escalating in this conflict. didn't the last ceasefire last 4 hours before it broke? Israel won't keep agreeing to them if Hamas keeps breaking them.
Bullockist wrote: and failed to maintain the territory or pacify it.
The true mark of conquest.
If you are doing a gak job, just stop.
In 60 years you still haven't managed to pacify an area through violence and privation. Maybe it's time for a new tack. Or maybe not and you could post "thumbs Up" pictures of guys whilst they are killing civillians.
Jews will never control Gaza nor as an extension after there invasion release in the 1990s.... the levant.
The seeds were sown.
Bahahahahaha...this post...
They're doing a fantastic job. They turned a worthless strip of desert into a viable country that produces more technological innovation than all of the Muslim countries in the region combined. But please, tell me more about how much of a gak job they're doing.
The problem is not the job they're doing. It's that they're surrounded by psychopathic Islamic death cultists. Same problem that the Russians are having in Dagestan, that Indians had/have with Pakistan, that is happening in Indonesia, France is having in France, and the rest of the world over.
Up until 2005 the situation in Gaza wasn't really all that bad. It wasn't until Israel left Gaza that the real gak show started. Once Israel stops listening to the international community and does what needs to be done, there will be peace in the region.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Nuggz, as far as I can tell you're both right when put together.
British Mandate said "k have it, but we ain't helping you keep it", then the Arab states said "lol no" and the Jews went "feth off" for a year till the Arab states were forced out. I could be completely wrong though.
This is accurate.
Please note...
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
well, on the same note Israel is about territory as seen from the invasion of lebanon. 20 ish years in lebanon. How many other countries dowes Israel need to invade. They are the wildcard of the middle east, I do not understand how allying to them helps anyone.
They fuckling demolished farmlands, and in that area farmlands is not cheap, unless you are a jewish settler of course.
Bullockist wrote: well, on the same note Israel is about territory as seen from the invasion of lebanon. 20 ish years in lebanon. How many other countries dowes Israel need to invade. They are the wildcard of the middle east, I do not understand how allying to them helps anyone.
And it continues...
Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was using it as a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks. Everyone who actually knows something about the region knows this. If Israel is so interested in conquering territory, why the hell did it give the entire Sinai peninsula back to the Egyptians?
Come on bro, you're like 0 for 10. It's time to give up and just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
Thing is they wqere being terrorists between ww1 and WW2 themselves in regard to the british empire...oh them good guy jews.
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
Thing is they wqere being terrorists between ww1 and WW2 themselves in regard to the british empire...oh them good guy jews.
Bullockist wrote: well, on the same note Israel is about territory as seen from the invasion of lebanon. 20 ish years in lebanon. How many other countries dowes Israel need to invade. They are the wildcard of the middle east, I do not understand how allying to them helps anyone.
And it continues...
Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was using it as a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks. Everyone who actually knows something about the region knows this. If Israel is so interested in conquering territory, why the hell did it give the entire Sinai peninsula back to the Egyptians?
Come on bro, you're like 0 for 10. It's time to give up and just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's like your country is 0-10 on how to maintain peace with countries around them. Nevermind that combatting insurrection was found to be effective in the 1950s you just keep doing what you do. Which is defending the Israeli state by occupying other territories.
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
Thing is they wqere being terrorists between ww1 and WW2 themselves in regard to the british empire...oh them good guy jews.
Ahhhhh so your true colors are showing. Usually people have the decency to say "Zionists" but you actually admit that your problem is with Jews. Thanks for the honesty.
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
Thing is they wqere being terrorists between ww1 and WW2 themselves in regard to the british empire...oh them good guy jews.
What in the world are you talking about?
after ww1 the israelis had a concerted campaign against british rule. go look it up. it happened.
Bullockist wrote: well, on the same note Israel is about territory as seen from the invasion of lebanon. 20 ish years in lebanon. How many other countries dowes Israel need to invade. They are the wildcard of the middle east, I do not understand how allying to them helps anyone.
And it continues...
Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was using it as a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks. Everyone who actually knows something about the region knows this. If Israel is so interested in conquering territory, why the hell did it give the entire Sinai peninsula back to the Egyptians?
Come on bro, you're like 0 for 10. It's time to give up and just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's like your country is 0-10 on how to maintain peace with countries around them. Nevermind that combatting insurrection was found to be effective in the 1950s you just keep doing what you do. Which is defending the Israeli state by occupying other territories.
0 for 11 now. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Israel has had a lasting peace with both Egypt and Jordan, and it's honored those peace treaties.
Keep digging. Your posts are the best pro-Israel propaganda I've seen in a long time.
There's a difference between a parent (the British, in this analogy) saying, "Here ya go kiddo, here's a brand new car!" and what actually happened, which is more like, "OK, I'll give you permission to buy a car if you can pay for it yourself."
Thing is they wqere being terrorists between ww1 and WW2 themselves in regard to the british empire...oh them good guy jews.
Ahhhhh so your true colors are showing. Usually people have the decency to say "Zionists" but you actually admit that your problem is with Jews. Thanks for the honesty.
I made a mistake, I regard Jews ( I fethed up there) as separate to Israel. Jews are cool, Israelis as a country are something well different.
Normally I say Israelis cozx I have serious problems with them, in regard to my local area , a local group of Jews wanted wires on the telegraph poles to demark sabbath zones, I was totally on their side.That said when it comes to Palestine, israelis don't even feature....coz your witches.
Anyway nuggs keep doing thumbs up pictures of soldiers killing civilians...It's great.
Over 2000 nuclear devices have been detonated in the past 60 years. Probably in excess of one hundred in the western United States alone. Fallout appears to be largely a myth.
The majority of those devices were detonated underground, specifically because of concerns about fallout, which is very, very real. There are more than a few cancer-riddled veterans who spent the early 1950s walking toward mushroom clouds who can vouch for that. Also everyone who worked on that John Wayne Genghis Khan movie (filmed on location in a radioactive wasteland!)...
MrDwhitey wrote: whembly, there was a lot of "Zionist" terrorism by two groups, Irgun and Lehi after WW2.
It was roundly condemned by pretty much all Jews outside of those organisations as far as I recall.
Yeah... I realized that... for some reason I thought he was talking about *now*.
when in regard to israel has anything not beeen referred to as now? israel had a brief empire of about 200 years, everything else was under, untill 50 years ago.
MrDwhitey wrote: whembly, there was a lot of "Zionist" terrorism by two groups, Irgun and Lehi after WW2.
It was roundly condemned by pretty much all Jews outside of those organisations as far as I recall.
Yeah... I realized that... for some reason I thought he was talking about *now*.
when in regard to israel has anything not beeen referred to as now? israel had a brief empire of about 200 years, everything else was under, untill 50 years ago.
Sigh... and why should it matter now?
Just think what could have been.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. The vast international aid that flowed to Gaza could have been used to build the foundation of a nation.
Israel left this in 2005:
Spoiler:
This is what it looks like now:
Spoiler:
Rather than forging economic ties with the world and ya know, building their own nation, they chose to have military ties with Iran and Hezbollah to achieve the goal of the Hamas charter... the destruction of Israel.
The Hamas built tunnels and rocket infrastructures to achieve that objective.
The amount of concrete used to build those tunnels amounted to approximately 800,000 tons. Which is an incredible amount...
It took only 110,000 tons of concrete to build this in Dubai:
Whembly they are an occupied country. Things don't work in an occupied country unless the opressor works with the operessed. ref: any modern fight that wasn't between armies.
Yeah it took concrete to build, have you ever noticed that building materials for the most part are banned? they build it with magic?
If building world ties was so important to building a nation explain why the US was one of the few to vote against...surely freedom.supply a nation who is the enemy of every one close to it? That's peace.
ISRAEL HAS OCCUPIED GAZA FOR 60 YEARS. IF THAT WAS YOUR COUNTRY, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK?
it was egypt who invaded israel, not palestine.
Israel have marked time on the peace process from mid 90's onwards, they chose not to take a great peace.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why support israel? it makes no sense for the US particularly with its worries of terrorism
Bullockist wrote: Whembly they are an occupied country. Things don't work in an occupied country unless the opressor works with the operessed. ref: any modern fight that wasn't between armies.
So why is Israel in the occupied territories? Explain the justification.
Yeah it took concrete to build, have you ever noticed that building materials for the most part are banned? they build it with magic?
The ones identified as dual-use, yep. There's a reason for that blockaid.
If building world ties was so important to building a nation explain why the US was one of the few to vote against...surely freedom.supply a nation who is the enemy of every one close to it? That's peace.
Um... wut? You're not being coherent here...
ISRAEL HAS OCCUPIED GAZA FOR 60 YEARS. IF THAT WAS YOUR COUNTRY, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK?
Not since 2005.
it was egypt who invaded israel, not palestine.
So, now you admit that palestine as a country didn't exist?
Israel have marked time on the peace process from mid 90's onwards, they chose not to take a great peace.
Wut? Another incoherent sentence...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: His point is that by supporting Israel, the US is now a target for more terrorist groups.
O.o
We'd still be a target even if we didn't support Israel. Osama Bin Laden's own letter to American stated as such.
Israel is in gaza and the west bank to gain territory, nothing more. Trouble is they have done a gak job of it and rely on another countries funds to do it.
They have made a territory that is not able to be held with their own military budget. Since in the 50's Britain made the best attempt vs irregular forces in Maylasia (I don't think anyone has "won" since Israel defininately are not making any effort to pacify the country...in fact I'd argue the opposite. to actually win an irregular war
Israel hold themselves up as people that can build schools ect in Gaza...I gather you see the problem there.
If the US wants a good ally why choose the one country that everyone hates and is on a war footing (singularly in the world about 4 countries. It makes no diplomatic sense.
oh not since 2005? in lebanon not since 1995? I'm glad that people have such short memories of people who invade their country PEOPLE REMEMBER!
Israel had the best peace offer ever off fatah in the mid 90's , they chose not to take it. That is Israels choice.
Lose the 1960's Israel victim mentality....ffs it's 2014
You're misunderstanding. I specifically said "more", whembly.
The US would yes, still be a target for various groups. By supporting more people it will as a consequence be targeted by more also. Just how it is. When you align yourself to more issues, you gain more people who hate/love you. That's just how it works.
I have not stated whether I agree with America supporting Israel or not in saying this, I'm just explaining what Bullockist meant.
MrDwhitey wrote: You're misunderstanding. I specifically said "more", whembly.
The US would yes, still be a target for various groups. By supporting more people it will as a consequence be targeted by more also. Just how it is. When you align yourself to more issues, you gain more people who hate/love you. That's just how it works.
I have not stated whether I agree with America supporting Israel or not in saying this, I'm just explaining what Bullockist meant.
Bullockist wrote: whether you agree or not the US supporting Israel makes it a bigger target. is there an anti israel party in the democrats? I've nevber heard of one
Isn't support of Israel something both parties quietly agree on? Could be wrong.
whembly, when a country is that big and has its finger in that many pies, everyones gonna be looking at it from the corners of their eyes.
Bullockist wrote: Israel is in gaza and the west bank to gain territory, nothing more. Trouble is they have done a gak job of it and rely on another countries funds to do it.
They have made a territory that is not able to be held with their own military budget. Since in the 50's Britain made the best attempt vs irregular forces in Maylasia (I don't think anyone has "won" since Israel defininately are not making any effort to pacify the country...in fact I'd argue the opposite. to actually win an irregular war
Israel hold themselves up as people that can build schools ect in Gaza...I gather you see the problem there.
If the US wants a good ally why choose the one country that everyone hates and is on a war footing (singularly in the world about 4 countries. It makes no diplomatic sense.
oh not since 2005? in lebanon not since 1995? I'm glad that people have such short memories of people who invade their country PEOPLE REMEMBER!
Israel had the best peace offer ever off fatah in the mid 90's , they chose not to take it. That is Israels choice.
Lose the 1960's Israel victim mentality....ffs it's 2014
Not sure if serious...
Israel = the only true democratic state in the region. Has forged a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan and has equality laws similar to our own. (ie: you do realise that there are Palastinian judges, members of parliament and other high ranking & respected jobs in big, bad, "apparently the most evil nation on Earth" Israel?)
Hamas = Islamist nutt jobs who's only goal in life is to systematically exterminate every last Jew on Earth... and then follow it up by exterminating every non-Muslim, as well as those Muslims who aren't "true Muslims" by their definition, such as the supposedly sub-human Ahmadii Muslims.
But sure, let's all decry Israel as vilest country of all time and throw our lot in with the psychos who want nothing more than to kill us all, because "reasons"
I have a solution, stop sticking you nose in every ones business....lets face it the only people who believe the whole ":worlds policeman" are dumb americans.It's about power and nothing else. Worlds policeman? Oh yes Britain did it 100 years ago and it did so well for india.
Bullockist wrote: whether you agree or not the US supporting Israel makes it a bigger target. is there an anti israel party in the democrats? I've nevber heard of one
Isn't support of Israel something both parties quietly agree on? Could be wrong.
Sorta.
I remember Pat Buchannon (a Republican) claimed that Bush only went into Iraq because of Israel.
whembly, when a country is that big and has its finger in that many pies, everyones gonna be looking at it from the corners of their eyes.
Bullockist wrote: Israel is in gaza and the west bank to gain territory, nothing more. Trouble is they have done a gak job of it and rely on another countries funds to do it.
They have made a territory that is not able to be held with their own military budget. Since in the 50's Britain made the best attempt vs irregular forces in Maylasia (I don't think anyone has "won" since Israel defininately are not making any effort to pacify the country...in fact I'd argue the opposite. to actually win an irregular war
Israel hold themselves up as people that can build schools ect in Gaza...I gather you see the problem there.
If the US wants a good ally why choose the one country that everyone hates and is on a war footing (singularly in the world about 4 countries. It makes no diplomatic sense.
oh not since 2005? in lebanon not since 1995? I'm glad that people have such short memories of people who invade their country PEOPLE REMEMBER!
Israel had the best peace offer ever off fatah in the mid 90's , they chose not to take it. That is Israels choice.
Lose the 1960's Israel victim mentality....ffs it's 2014
Not sure if serious...
Israel = the only true democratic state in the region. Has forged a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan and has equality laws similar to our own. (ie: you do realise that there are Palastinian judges, members of parliament and other high ranking & respected jobs in big, bad, "apparently the most evil nation on Earth" Israel?)
Hamas = Islamist nutt jobs who's only goal in life is to systematically exterminate every last Jew on Earth... and then follow it up by exterminating every non-Muslim, as well as those Muslims who aren't "true Muslims" by their definition, such as the supposedly sub-human Ahmadii Muslims.
But sure, let's all decry Israel as vilest country of all time and throw our lot in with the psychos who want nothing more than to kill us all, because "reasons"
Not sure if you realise but Israel can do anything they want with the land( with palestinians) with no legal recourse. yep 40 year old olive groves...that's a settlement. what can you do? oh yes go to a military court.
democratic state doesn't mean gak......ally with the one state that everyone hates and where does that get you? oh yes everyone loves democracy automatiically.
I can paint the right wing party of israel in a similar light...and yes they have said it. Why does the US support a group that will lose unless they have military support.
Bullockist wrote: Israel is in gaza and the west bank to gain territory, nothing more. Trouble is they have done a gak job of it and rely on another countries funds to do it.
They have made a territory that is not able to be held with their own military budget. Since in the 50's Britain made the best attempt vs irregular forces in Maylasia (I don't think anyone has "won" since Israel defininately are not making any effort to pacify the country...in fact I'd argue the opposite. to actually win an irregular war
Israel hold themselves up as people that can build schools ect in Gaza...I gather you see the problem there.
If the US wants a good ally why choose the one country that everyone hates and is on a war footing (singularly in the world about 4 countries. It makes no diplomatic sense.
oh not since 2005? in lebanon not since 1995? I'm glad that people have such short memories of people who invade their country PEOPLE REMEMBER!
Israel had the best peace offer ever off fatah in the mid 90's , they chose not to take it. That is Israels choice.
Lose the 1960's Israel victim mentality....ffs it's 2014
Not sure if serious...
Israel = the only true democratic state in the region. Has forged a lasting peace with both Egypt & Jordan and has equality laws similar to our own. (ie: you do realise that there are Palastinian judges, members of parliament and other high ranking & respected jobs in big, bad, "apparently the most evil nation on Earth" Israel?)
Hamas = Islamist nutt jobs who's only goal in life is to systematically exterminate every last Jew on Earth... and then follow it up by exterminating every non-Muslim, as well as those Muslims who aren't "true Muslims" by their definition, such as the supposedly sub-human Ahmadii Muslims.
But sure, let's all decry Israel as vilest country of all time and throw our lot in with the psychos who want nothing more than to kill us all, because "reasons"
Not sure if you realise but Israel can do anything they want with the land( with palestinians) with no legal recourse. yep 40 year old olive groves...that's a settlement. what can you do? oh yes go to a military court.
democratic state doesn't mean gak......ally with the one state that everyone hates and where does that get you? oh yes everyone loves democracy automatiically.
I can paint the right wing party of israel in a similar light...and yes they have said it. Why does the US support a group that will lose unless they have military support.
I only said that because I assumed rightly that pat buchanin was political deadwood ( I never even knew who he was until you spouted him) ...and man was i right.
WD wembley!
On a logical note, non pat buchanin, why support Israel?
Bullockist, you keep stating that Israel is an 'occupying power'.They really aren't, by any possible definition of the word. They do not hold political sway, they have no troops garrisoned there, and they make no claims with regards to owning it.
Israel took the territory temporarily after a war with Egypt some time back. They withdrew all troops, dismantled all settlements, and gave the Palestinians political independence back in 2005.
Whereupon the Palestinian populace turned around and legitimately and democratically elected a Government that had an express manifesto of invading/destroying Israel. So Hamas aren't a fringe group that can be separated from the Palestinians, they won a MAJORITY in an election over there. And having won that election, they then proceeded to stockpile as many missiles as possible, butcher all political rivals within the country, and dig assault tunnels on Israel.
Gaza is not an occupied country with Hamas a plucky minority group of freedom fighters. Gaza is an independent country with an elected government that has declared war on Israel. When the V1's came flying into Britain,(Godwin time) we didn't sit here and talk about how the Nazi's were actually a minority in Germany and worry about the consequences of retaliation upon German citizens. We just threw as many bomber craft back as we could. This is a similar scenario, albeit this time with the side being attacked being considerably better armed than the one doing the attacking.
The United States has provided Israel with $233.7 billion in aid (after adjusting for inflation) since the state was formed in 1948 through the end of last year, research by TheMarker has found.
Sure alot/most of that gets recycled back into the the pockets of fat rich white guys who pay for lobbyists and own companies er .. the USA
Since then, U.S. aid has been about $3 billion annually, of which $1.8 billion is military assistance with the rest for civilian purposes. In 1998 Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first term as prime minister, led a drive to convert the civilian portion to military aid, totaling $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year.
Some 70% of the aid is designated for Israeli purchases of military equipment from American companies.
But they're not really "on their own" as you put it.
Which, TBF, is probably just as well as I don't think the nation would have survived otherwise.
And given the ...... "extreme" ... views held by many of their neighbours with regards to Israel's inhabitants one doubts the population would have fared well if the nation had/does fall.
The United States has provided Israel with $233.7 billion in aid (after adjusting for inflation) since the state was formed in 1948 through the end of last year, research by TheMarker has found.
Sure alot/most of that gets recycled back into the the pockets of fat rich white guys who pay for lobbyists and own companies er .. the USA
Since then, U.S. aid has been about $3 billion annually, of which $1.8 billion is military assistance with the rest for civilian purposes. In 1998 Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first term as prime minister, led a drive to convert the civilian portion to military aid, totaling $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year.
Some 70% of the aid is designated for Israeli purchases of military equipment from American companies.
But they're not really "on their own" as you put it.
Which, TBF, is probably just as well as I don't think the nation would have survived otherwise.
Well, yeah... but, he made is sound like the US Military itself was supporting Israel...
Which, honestly, Israel doesn't need that kind of help.
Bullockist wrote: you guys lose every time you get in a foriegn war...you just got to stop doing them.
France still speaks French, and Australia still speaks English doesn't it?? I'd say we're actually pretty damn good at the war part of things.
Back on topic.... I'm to the point where, I don't support Israel, but I don't NOT support them either.... At the same time, I definitely do NOT support Hamas.
I recall amongst the T-shirt vendors in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv .. or maybe even Eilat ...? ... back in 199ohcrapwasitthatlongago! aside from the usual "hilarious" and "amusing" slogans and images there was several designs along the line of : image of a gun or a helicopter with the caption underneath of " America don't worry Israel is behind you!"
.. say what you like but gotta admire the Chutzpah there
Bullockist wrote: you guys lose every time you get in a foriegn war...you just got to stop doing them.
France still speaks French, and Australia still speaks English doesn't it?? I'd say we're actually pretty damn good at the war part of things.
Spoiler:
Back on topic.... I'm to the point where, I don't support Israel, but I don't NOT support them either.... At the same time, I definitely do NOT support Hamas.
Let's not forget that the "westward expansion" was also the most successful act of Imperialism in the last few centuries. It was horrific, but textbook. Send in colonists and exterminate the native population.
Where is this happening? I assume there is a conflict line where people are fighting over. Are people actually venturing into contested territory to get raped? And if the bad guys are coming to town to rape people, why don't they just kill them? Or is the problem that they don't have guns?
Not trolling here, seriously asking, I don't follow stuff from other countries, let alone stuff here at home.... I just can't understand how people can find time to drop trou and get to the rapin while gunfire is a thing.
Rape was actually used as a pretty horrendous weapon of terror during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.
I'd say google it, but it's some pretty despicable gak so I wouldn't actually recommend you go read it...
Rape during war has historically occurred for several reasons, intensified sexual desires after killing, as an act of terrorism, and to breed out the native population. It's really the ultimate insult to another people. Not only did you just kill all the men, you raped all the women, and impregnated them with the bastard offspring of the very people that just gutted your husbands, fathers, and brothers.
Not after killing, after fighting; which is the primary reason. Terrorism is secondary, most of the time. And breeding out the population is barely significant at all.
Bullockist wrote: I think it needs to be considered that trhe Palestinian people have no part of this (omg it's the one issue I'm serious on ) and suffer accordingly.
Egypt attacked Israel, Israel occupied gaza. 50 years on they are still there. Making the population live like gak.
If that was my country I KNOW where I would be.
You guys from the US . Why is Israel integral to US defence? I believe I read this this week, if not before.
From my point of view Israel is anti- US interest in the region as it gets EVERYONE else offside in the region.
Why support 1 country that gets everyone else in the region offside?
1.
Because the christian fundamentalists in the US wants Israel to rebuild some temple so God can return and start the rapture. Just think of them as a death cult that shows up in large numbers to vote. So Israel gets a free pass no matter what atrocities it is committing, ie bombing yet another school used by the UN as a school and bomb shelter. Because when the rapture happens all the 'good christians' in the states will be taken up to heaven and the jews in Israel will be left behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple "Third Temple will be rebuilt when the Anti-Christ, often identified as the political leader of a trans-national alliance similar to the European Union or the United Nations, secures a peace treaty between the modern nation of Israel and its neighbours following a global war. The Anti-Christ later uses the temple as a venue for proclaiming himself as God and the long-awaited Messiah, demanding worship from humanity."
2.
A unstable is also a good place to fight a endless series of wars which makes huge profits for those who work in the war industries.
Ketara wrote: Bullockist, you keep stating that Israel is an 'occupying power'.They really aren't, by any possible definition of the word. They do not hold political sway, they have no troops garrisoned there, and they make no claims with regards to owning it.
Israel took the territory temporarily after a war with Egypt some time back. They withdrew all troops, dismantled all settlements, and gave the Palestinians political independence back in 2005.
Whereupon the Palestinian populace turned around and legitimately and democratically elected a Government that had an express manifesto of invading/destroying Israel. So Hamas aren't a fringe group that can be separated from the Palestinians, they won a MAJORITY in an election over there. And having won that election, they then proceeded to stockpile as many missiles as possible, butcher all political rivals within the country, and dig assault tunnels on Israel.
Gaza is not an occupied country with Hamas a plucky minority group of freedom fighters. Gaza is an independent country with an elected government that has declared war on Israel. When the V1's came flying into Britain,(Godwin time) we didn't sit here and talk about how the Nazi's were actually a minority in Germany and worry about the consequences of retaliation upon German citizens. We just threw as many bomber craft back as we could. This is a similar scenario, albeit this time with the side being attacked being considerably better armed than the one doing the attacking.
Just want to point out that the previous Palestinian government political party was far weaker, didn't provide social services (The hama's were providing food and Social Service to the people at the time), and was letting Israel stomp all over certain treaties at the time without a single word.
When the former government is letting your people get stomped on by another, and this other political group (hamas) is giving food, social services, garbage pickup, and other such things. You tend to look at them in a far more glowing light.
Over 2000 nuclear devices have been detonated in the past 60 years. Probably in excess of one hundred in the western United States alone. Fallout appears to be largely a myth.
The majority of those devices were detonated underground, specifically because of concerns about fallout, which is very, very real. There are more than a few cancer-riddled veterans who spent the early 1950s walking toward mushroom clouds who can vouch for that. Also everyone who worked on that John Wayne Genghis Khan movie (filmed on location in a radioactive wasteland!)...
Yep. I live in Utah and the "Downwinders" in St. George have a lot of cancer happening.
Ketara wrote: Bullockist, you keep stating that Israel is an 'occupying power'.They really aren't, by any possible definition of the word. They do not hold political sway, they have no troops garrisoned there, and they make no claims with regards to owning it.
Israel took the territory temporarily after a war with Egypt some time back. They withdrew all troops, dismantled all settlements, and gave the Palestinians political independence back in 2005.
Whereupon the Palestinian populace turned around and legitimately and democratically elected a Government that had an express manifesto of invading/destroying Israel. So Hamas aren't a fringe group that can be separated from the Palestinians, they won a MAJORITY in an election over there. And having won that election, they then proceeded to stockpile as many missiles as possible, butcher all political rivals within the country, and dig assault tunnels on Israel.
Gaza is not an occupied country with Hamas a plucky minority group of freedom fighters. Gaza is an independent country with an elected government that has declared war on Israel. When the V1's came flying into Britain,(Godwin time) we didn't sit here and talk about how the Nazi's were actually a minority in Germany and worry about the consequences of retaliation upon German citizens. We just threw as many bomber craft back as we could. This is a similar scenario, albeit this time with the side being attacked being considerably better armed than the one doing the attacking.
Just want to point out that the previous Palestinian government political party was far weaker, didn't provide social services (The hama's were providing food and Social Service to the people at the time), and was letting Israel stomp all over certain treaties at the time without a single word.
When the former government is letting your people get stomped on by another, and this other political group (hamas) is giving food, social services, garbage pickup, and other such things. You tend to look at them in a far more glowing light.
I know I'd pick a lack of social services over being used as a human shield. YMMV of course.
Ketara wrote: Bullockist, you keep stating that Israel is an 'occupying power'.They really aren't, by any possible definition of the word. They do not hold political sway, they have no troops garrisoned there, and they make no claims with regards to owning it.
Israel took the territory temporarily after a war with Egypt some time back. They withdrew all troops, dismantled all settlements, and gave the Palestinians political independence back in 2005.
Whereupon the Palestinian populace turned around and legitimately and democratically elected a Government that had an express manifesto of invading/destroying Israel. So Hamas aren't a fringe group that can be separated from the Palestinians, they won a MAJORITY in an election over there. And having won that election, they then proceeded to stockpile as many missiles as possible, butcher all political rivals within the country, and dig assault tunnels on Israel.
Gaza is not an occupied country with Hamas a plucky minority group of freedom fighters. Gaza is an independent country with an elected government that has declared war on Israel. When the V1's came flying into Britain,(Godwin time) we didn't sit here and talk about how the Nazi's were actually a minority in Germany and worry about the consequences of retaliation upon German citizens. We just threw as many bomber craft back as we could. This is a similar scenario, albeit this time with the side being attacked being considerably better armed than the one doing the attacking.
Just want to point out that the previous Palestinian government political party was far weaker, didn't provide social services (The hama's were providing food and Social Service to the people at the time), and was letting Israel stomp all over certain treaties at the time without a single word.
When the former government is letting your people get stomped on by another, and this other political group (hamas) is giving food, social services, garbage pickup, and other such things. You tend to look at them in a far more glowing light.
I know I'd pick a lack of social services over being used as a human shield. YMMV of course.
They weren't exactly in full "Screw the Civilians" mode at the time, they were the "Shining Beacon to the people".
Yeah. Hamas are evil extremists, but it was Israeli intransigence that de-legitimised the PLO and resulted in extremists being elected.
Before Israel's (western supported) defeat of the various countries in the region, there were many secular and more liberal states in the region. The creation and support for Israel destabilised the region and caused the uptick of extremism.
That's what happens when sentimentality, religious extremism, and the world's most horrific humanitarian disaster all combine to make some crappy policy choices.
There's probably no hope for the region any more. It's more polarised and extreme now than it was in the 90s, on both sides. I reckon people "pick sides" primarily based on who they find it easier to empathise with.
If Israel was at all serious about peace it would stop settlement expansion in the West Bank and lift the blockade of goods like cement into Gaza though. Hamas are treacherous scum, but all the alternatives to Hamas were systematically undermined by Israel.
On June 17, 2010, the Israel cabinet agreed to ease the restrictions on items permitted into the Gaza strip.
List no. 1: Items Subject to Specific Permission
1. Arms and Munitions: forbidden transfer under all circumstances across Israel's frontiers without specific permits - as defined in the Control of Exports Security Order (Arms and Munitions) 5768-2008, and in the Control of Exports Security Order (Missile Equipment) 5768-2008.
2. Dual Use goods and items: liable to be used, side by side with their civilian purposes, for the development, production, installation or enhancement of military capabilities and terrorist capacities. This list comprises:
Items listed under the Wassenaar Arrangement: As specified in the updated (2008) "Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies - List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions List."
Items whose entry into the PA Areas is controlled based on Israeli legislation: i.e. materials and equipment liable to be used for terror attacks and technology that could be used by terrorists - as defined in the Control of Exports Security Order (Controlled Dual Use Equipment Transferred to the PA Areas) 5768-2008 and in Orders of the OC Central Command.
These lists include, in detail, a range of chemicals used in the production of explosives (including certain fertilizers); specific types of metal profiles; ball bearings; lathes and their parts; composite materials; hunting knives and machetes; optical equipment, such as lasers and night vision goggles; certain navigation aides; diving equipment; parachutes, gliders and other nonmotorized airborne vehicles; flares and fireworks; avionics and flight control equipment; missile related computer technologies; rock drills and equipment drawing water from excavated sites. Items not necessarily included in the lists above but whose entry into Gaza is controlled, as detailed below:
i. Items and chemicals which could be used in the production of high trajectory weapons (rockets and mortars) by Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza - Fertilizers or other mixtures - specifically containing KCl at more than 5%; Epoxy and Vinyl Ester resins; Hardeners for Epoxy Resins containing Amides or Amines; Accelerators for Vinyl Esters; HTPB; Water purification solutions at concentrations higher than 11%.
ii. Items used as raw materials for improving protection for terror activists - Fibers or woven fabrics containing Carbon or Glass variants.
iii. Vessels.
List No. 2: Construction Items and Materials to be Allowed Entry into Gaza only for PA-authorized Projects Implemented by the International Community
Israel will only permit their entry into Gaza to facilitate construction projects in Gaza which have been authorized by the PA and implemented and monitored by the international community. The often cited reason is that such materials could be used by Hamas for military purposes (building bunkers, fortifying positions and digging tunnels)
This list includes:
Portland cement and lime (in bulk, bags or barrels)
Natural and Quarry aggregates and all varieties of gravel
Ready concrete
Precast concrete elements and products
Steel elements and/or construction products
Iron for foundations and columns, at any diameter (including wielded steel nets)
Steel cables of any width
Forms for construction elements (plastics or galvanized iron)
Industrialized forms for casting concrete
Plastic or composite beams more than 4 mm thick
Thermal isolation materials and products
Blocs (at any width) - Concrete; Silicate; Ytong or its equivalent; or gypsum
Materials and products for sealing structures
Asphalt and its components (Bitumen, emulsion) in aggregate or packaged
Steel elements or framing products for construction
Cast concrete elements and products for drainage over 1 m in diameter
Precast units and sea-borne containers
Vehicles, excluding private cars and including 4X4 vehicles and other categories of motor vehicles liable to be used in terror activities
Lumber beams and boards more than 2 cm thick, (liable to be used in "offensive" tunneling aimed at penetrating Israeli territory), unless incorporated in finished products
Specific procedures, on a case by case basis, will be established so as to permit the transfer of such lumber for other purposes in Gaza.
If Israel was at all serious about peace it would stop settlement expansion in the West Bank and lift the blockade of goods like cement into Gaza though. Hamas are treacherous scum, but all the alternatives to Hamas were systematically undermined by Israel.
I agree on the settlement expansion. Fatah are horribly corrupt, but they can be dealt with rationally. That's where Israel comes into being the aggressor more in my books.
But Hamas in Gaza? I swap sides. If the Isle of Jersey suddenly started stockpiling missiles to fire at Britain, I'd be fully in favour of an extensive naval blockade there. The Palestinian people in Gaza elected an aggressive government. Let them reap what they sowed, in the same way WW1 Germany was blockaded off during hostilities. Let them pay their debts afterwards like ex-Napoleonic France. If you vote to start a war of aggression, I have little sympathy.
This war will not end quickly nor go away quietly.
My personal anecdote to add for the day:
I work retail. Literally everyday we get a customer or more who are from Israel who come in to purchase products from my store (yes, they are tourists and yes, they are still on vacation or visiting here with the war going on).
Today was especially poignant as one person shopping around for several minutes came up right in the middle of a typical customer transaction I was ringing up and pretty much began a tirade about how horrible Hamas is and felt that all the Palestinians were at fault for what was happening.
This person chided CNN for continuing to show the plight of the Palestinian people through videos and coverage.
She said she felt bad a little bit for the people living in Gaza at first but eventually came full circle and believes that they should all be wiped out instead. Yes, she advocated full scale genocide of the entire populace. And yes, they are doing it to themselves. They cannot take care of themselves and all they know how to do is make bombs and kill innocent civilians.
This person pointed out that all the little children that are the victims will become future terrorists because of all the violence they see and being trained for.
And what made her views come into stark contrast was she finally stated her two sons are fighting in the war there (thus inferring her Israeli citizenship). One who was in his 30's with five children is fighting in the direct combat squads and another who was early 20's with one child just got called up as part of the second round of reservists.
As a neutral observer to this reaction, I tried a mediated, politically neutral response to her response explaining war is unfortunate and cyclical, ushering the customers I helped out quickly before she turned on them again. Another person, a gentleman behind her, supported her wholehearted in her views and stated America will defend Israel, claiming that soldiers from the US will be there before long.
With two sons directly in the war effort and her staunch support of Israel, I can see crystal clear why this war will not end soon. With the gentleman, I can see the undying loyalty the average American exhibits. Everyone has too deep a stake in this to pull out. And if that is a prevailing view in Israel, I have no doubt that as the casualties mount for Palestinians, very few Israels will shed any tears on this matter.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: It's pretty heartless to have little sympathy for the children in Gaza.
The children did not elect the government. They are victims in this more than anyone else.
But as they grow up to maturity, it will be their decision on how the future of Palestine/Israel will be determined. I do not think this war and any other wars they have suffered will help make them positive contributors to any future resolutions to future conflicts.
Gah. This entire topic makes me angry and depressed. I should avoid these threads.
War is never about happiness and calm. Death reigns and famine often follows.
For the Palestinians, they're boxed in with extremists who will never let Israel exist if they will allow it.
For Israelis, they're boxed into a mentality that it's us versus them. They feel locked in a cage with nothing but hungry lions outside, but in their own paranoia, have trapped in others for their own self-preservation.
There are no black and whites here, just varying shades of death and grey moralities.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Out of curiosity what set her off on the people in the store, was the news on a TV nearby or something?
We have a radio that plays popular music and no TVs, no newspapers about.
Nothing. Absolutely out of no where. She was shopping in the store for about ten-fifteen minutes, placed some items at the counter, then literally surged forward behind two other ladies I was ringing up and started up talking points about the Israeli perspective on the war and then going in to much more extreme territories.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: It's pretty heartless to have little sympathy for the children in Gaza.
I have as much sympathy for them as I do the starving orphans in Africa where the Presidents drive around in BMW. People grow up in less than ideal circumstances everywhere, and it sucks. But I cannot condemn Israel for striking back when struck at. If Hamas sets up a mortar next to a school, fires off a few rounds, and then packs up and tries to run before the Israeli counterstrike comes whistling in, I can't fault Israel for trying to nail them before they do so. Every one of those mortars that gets eliminated is one that cannot kill their citizens. And the first duty of every Government is to protect the lives of their citizens.
When we blockaded Germany in WW1, the children who went hungry there didn't elect the Government. They didn't vote for the country that sent their daddy to get gunned down in the trenches. But they suffered anyway. Such, alas, is the way of the world. Not everyone gets three square meals a day, a good education, loving parents, and a peaceful upbringing.
For the Palestinians, they're boxed in with extremists who will never let Israel exist if they will allow it.
The Palestinians voted Hamas in as a majority. It's not quite as if there's a hundred people for every Hamas member. Remember that. They voted them in. Whilst I accept that you can agree with some policies of a party and not the rest, if the Tory party made a key part of their manifesto, 'Kill all the Frenchman and occupy France', I'm pretty sure they'd get a lot less votes. And if we then lobbed missiles at France and they threw them back, we couldn't exactly complain.
Ketara wrote: The Palestinian people in Gaza elected an aggressive government. Let them reap what they sowed
The median age in Gaza is 18.2. (Source) Hamas came to power in the palestinian elections of 2006 (Source) The median person now, would have been 10 when Hamas came to power. Even now, half the population of Gaza isn't old enough to vote, let alone to have voted in Hamas, so ignoring the fact that Hamas only recieved 45% of the vote (Source again), the majority of the country that is alive today would not have been old enough to vote when Hamas came to power. Are you really saying that the majority of the country should "reap what they sowed" when they had absolutely nothing to do with the sowing of it? Seriously?
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: It's pretty heartless to have little sympathy for the children in Gaza.
I have as much sympathy for them as I do the starving orphans in Africa where the Presidents drive around in BMW. People grow up in less than ideal circumstances everywhere, and it sucks. But I cannot condemn Israel for striking back when struck at. If Hamas sets up a mortar next to a school, fires off a few rounds, and then packs up and tries to run before the Israeli counterstrike comes whistling in, I can't fault Israel for trying to nail them before they do so. Every one of those mortars that gets eliminated is one that cannot kill their citizens. And the first duty of every Government is to protect the lives of their citizens.
When we blockaded Germany in WW1, the children who went hungry there didn't elect the Government. They didn't vote for the country that sent their daddy to get gunned down in the trenches. But they suffered anyway. Such, alas, is the way of the world. Not everyone gets three square meals a day, a good education, loving parents, and a peaceful upbringing.
Now, we've all seen arguments for "who started" this fight, but this right here is what I can definitely agree with... as my own children grow up, I'll be teaching them that to start a fight is wrong (as often times, that is getting into bully territory), but if someone else throws the first punch, you'd damn well better protect yourself, and end the fight. Compared to what we KNOW Israel is capable of, they really are just trying to pimp slap Hamas, when it seems that a Tyson hook is what is needed.
Ketara wrote: The Palestinian people in Gaza elected an aggressive government. Let them reap what they sowed
The median age in Gaza is 18.2. (Source) Hamas came to power in the palestinian elections of 2006 (Source) The median person now, would have been 10 when Hamas came to power. Even now, half the population of Gaza isn't old enough to vote, let alone to have voted in Hamas, so ignoring the fact that Hamas only recieved 45% of the vote (Source again), the majority of the country that is alive today would not have been old enough to vote when Hamas came to power. Are you really saying that the majority of the country should "reap what they sowed" when they had absolutely nothing to do with the sowing of it? Seriously?
Look at those figures again. What they tell me is half the country was at voting age when the last election rolled around, and roughly one in two of those people voted Hamas. In other words, roughly one in four people in Gaza today voted Hamas. In comparison, only one in three voted Conservative in the UK 2010 General Election, and they run the country. If the Tories had run on a manifesto of , 'let's bomb France', then yes, I would say that the UK deserved to reap what it sowed when the inevitable counterstrike from France came. Even though only 33% of the country voted for them. Likewise, I stand consistent on that stance with Hamas.
If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
And how far should the Palestinians be punished for supporting Hamas? 1.7 million people live in the Gaza Strip. How much should these people be punished for supporting the militants who are now engaged in a death struggle with Israel? How much sympathy can be wrought if the number of dead escalates into the thousands and the displaced population approaches one million?
Goliath wrote: Hamas came to power in the palestinian elections of 2006 (Source) The median person now, would have been 10 when Hamas came to power. Even now, half the population of Gaza isn't old enough to vote, let alone to have voted in Hamas, so ignoring the fact that Hamas only recieved 45% of the vote (Source again), the majority of the country that is alive today would not have been old enough to vote when Hamas came to power. Are you really saying that the majority of the country should "reap what they sowed" when they had absolutely nothing to do with the sowing of it? Seriously?
Look at those figures again. What they tell me is half the country was at voting age when the last election rolled around, and roughly one in two of those people voted Hamas. In other words, roughly one in four people in Gaza today voted Hamas. In comparison, only one in three voted Conservative in the UK 2010 General Election, and they run the country. If the Tories had run on a manifesto of , 'let's bomb France', then yes, I would say that the UK deserved to reap what it sowed when the inevitable counterstrike from France came. Even though only 33% of the country voted for them. Likewise, I stand consistent on that stance with Hamas.
If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
I suppose. I guess the issue I have with it is that the reason most people didn't vote wasn't because they couldn't be bothered (as would be the case in the tory example you gave) but that they were children, and therefore ineligible to vote, but they're still supposed to just live with it.
To be honest this entire war just makes me miserable, especially with the habit the internet has of making it so that no-one is allowed to see the middle ground; Either the Israelis are oppresive monsters that are committing genocide against unarmed civilians and hospitals, or Hamas is a bunch of "Islamist nutt jobs who's only goal in life is to systematically exterminate every last Jew on Earth" (a direct quote from this thread), there is no compromise at all, and the fact that it's gotten to this point upsets me.
If you'd told me when I was 12 that the crap that was happening in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank would still be happening eight years later, I would have told you you were really silly, and then laughed at you for being silly, but now here we are, I'm now 20, and they're still blowing the ever-loving crap out of each other.
The world sucks, hardcore. Be thankful if you live in a nation not out to murder or imprison its own citizens for having a divergent thought. Be thankful your government will go out of its way to protect you abroad and give you rights and services domestically not because of you individually, but of who you are by the happenstance of where you were born or what passports you hold.
We can sit in a home, safe from the relative "evils" out there and armchair any discussion on a forum dedicated to a luxury/hobby.
The people in other places huddle in misery, missing or dead relatives not there to comfort them, amenities scarce or non-existent, death lurking from any given point, and revenge perhaps in the offering whether immediate or festering in the future. I pity these people, but their fate is not in my hands.
Only those in power who preach peace and civility towards fellow humans have the capacity to do something. But how long must we wait until enough of these people say "Stop" and end the conflict?
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: It's pretty heartless to have little sympathy for the children in Gaza.
I have as much sympathy for them as I do the starving orphans in Africa where the Presidents drive around in BMW. People grow up in less than ideal circumstances everywhere, and it sucks. But I cannot condemn Israel for striking back when struck at. If Hamas sets up a mortar next to a school, fires off a few rounds, and then packs up and tries to run before the Israeli counterstrike comes whistling in, I can't fault Israel for trying to nail them before they do so. Every one of those mortars that gets eliminated is one that cannot kill their citizens. And the first duty of every Government is to protect the lives of their citizens.
When we blockaded Germany in WW1, the children who went hungry there didn't elect the Government. They didn't vote for the country that sent their daddy to get gunned down in the trenches. But they suffered anyway. Such, alas, is the way of the world. Not everyone gets three square meals a day, a good education, loving parents, and a peaceful upbringing.
Now, we've all seen arguments for "who started" this fight, but this right here is what I can definitely agree with... as my own children grow up, I'll be teaching them that to start a fight is wrong (as often times, that is getting into bully territory), but if someone else throws the first punch, you'd damn well better protect yourself, and end the fight. Compared to what we KNOW Israel is capable of, they really are just trying to pimp slap Hamas, when it seems that a Tyson hook is what is needed.
Guess it's a shame there's not many christians involved in the conflict, or there might be a bit more turning the other cheek.
It's not difficult to see how Hamas comes to power. The Palestinians were displaced initially. The wars fought to destroy Israel and restore a status quo they would find acceptable were incompetently lead and under-resourced, and therefore their "side" (though in reality few were really on the "side" of the Palestinians) lost to the much better lead and resourced Israeli military.
Over decades, each attempt at resolving differences through diplomacy fails as Israel refuses to recognise or deal with the PLO for a long time, or flat out does not honour agreements. The PLO becomes de-legitimised after decades of failure to get any concessions from Israel, and the population begin to look for answers elsewhere. Hamas offers a simple answer - the Israelis won't negotiate and trample on agreements, so let's destroy them. Militants in Lebanon had been "successful" in "driving off" the Israelis (the reality is a little less heroic, the Israelis were leaving anyway and their exit was accelerated due to increased militant activity). Hamas promise to emulate these "successes", the only successes the Palestinians have to write home about in practically forever.They get voted in, and everything gets worse.
Given the situation, and how long it's been going on, and how little the international community cares about their situation, I can totally see why Hamas got into power. It's a mistake, and they're paying for it now, but other options had yielded nothing, either.
Hamas is terrible, but it's success stems from Israel's inflexibility in dealing with the Palestinians. Refuse to deal with the reasonable people, and you get left with the unreasonable people.
Given how long it's all gone on, and the vast store of ill feeling on both sides, perhaps there's no chance of a peaceful solution any more. Plenty of Palestinians want Israel completely destroyed and all the Jews there killed, and plenty of Israelis want all the Palestinians dead or driven off. The whole thing has been a disaster from start to present, and I have no doubt the "finish" will be equally disastrous.
As far as American policy goes, I just don't get it. American support for Israel is expensive, and in terms of foreign relations it's the number 1 reason why countries in the region have a problem with the US. It seems like a no-win situation for the US and I don't get why more Americans aren't arguing for a scaling back of support or at least a harsher stance with regard to Israel's excesses. When I read threads here, I see a lot of "Right on!" attitudes towards Israel's hardline stances, but the fact is, these stances are not working. Hardline is met with hardline, and both sides become more extreme, leading to an escalating cycle of bloodshed.
And how far should the Palestinians be punished for supporting Hamas? 1.7 million people live in the Gaza Strip. How much should these people be punished for supporting the militants who are now engaged in a death struggle with Israel? How much sympathy can be wrought if the number of dead escalates into the thousands and the displaced population approaches one million?
I will say this. If my Government was advocating chucking missiles at the US for no reason, initiated hostilities, and we were currently under aerial attack from the US for that very reason, I wouldn't be blaming the US. I'd eithe rbe fleeing the country, or if that wasn't possible, trying to find some way of toppling my Government from whatever insanity had taken them. Because that's what it is. In the same way the UK could not hope to defeat the US militarily right now, Hamas has no chance of defeating Israel. It's war for the sake of war, blood spilt for the sake of spilling blood.
I see no sort of Palestinian attempt to topple Hamas. Why? Because Fatah knows that this time around, the two are playing for keeps. And after Israel crushes Hamas into the ground, Fatah can pick up the pieces whilst still decrying Israel the whole time. So they're more than happy to sit back and watch Hamas be smooshed.
Goliath wrote: I suppose. I guess the issue I have with it is that the reason most people didn't vote wasn't because they couldn't be bothered (as would be the case in the tory example you gave) but that they were children, and therefore ineligible to vote, but they're still supposed to just live with it.
To be honest this entire war just makes me miserable, especially with the habit the internet has of making it so that no-one is allowed to see the middle ground; Either the Israelis are oppresive monsters that are committing genocide against unarmed civilians and hospitals, or Hamas is a bunch of "Islamist nutt jobs who's only goal in life is to systematically exterminate every last Jew on Earth" (a direct quote from this thread), there is no compromise at all, and the fact that it's gotten to this point upsets me.
That's what makes me laugh. In the last thread, I was accused of being waaay too pro-Israel at first, and then after I ducked out for a week and came back, too pro-Palestinian. People tend to tar you with a brush of being 'for or against' depending on where their own political sympathis lie. The Pro-Palestinians ignore Hamas, their desire for genocide and use of human shields, and the pro-Israeli's regard everything Israel does as being for the security of their nation. Both are blind to the wrongdoing on opposing sides.
As I said earlier, I very much tend to side with Israel against Hamas in Gaza, but am very much not impressed with their actions on the West Bank.
WarOne wrote:The world sucks, hardcore. Be thankful if you live in a nation not out to murder or imprison its own citizens for having a divergent thought. Be thankful your government will go out of its way to protect you abroad and give you rights and services domestically not because of you individually, but of who you are by the happenstance of where you were born or what passports you hold.
We can sit in a home, safe from the relative "evils" out there and armchair any discussion on a forum dedicated to a luxury/hobby.
The people in other places huddle in misery, missing or dead relatives not there to comfort them, amenities scarce or non-existent, death lurking from any given point, and revenge perhaps in the offering whether immediate or festering in the future. I pity these people, but their fate is not in my hands.
Only those in power who preach peace and civility towards fellow humans have the capacity to do something. But how long must we wait until enough of these people say "Stop" and end the conflict?
As someone who's actually fled a home country in fear of my life, when everything started crumbling down, I appreciate what the UK has to offer far more than most of those born here.
For those of you who keep asking why the US supports Israel yet are to lazy to do the research it is simply this:
The Suez Canal and a safe strategic forward marshaling point for ground forces to control the overland trade route between the Middle East and Africa.
Also-
Israel is the US's insurance policy against the Suadi's suddenly deciding to become militant.
In all honesty, aside from a desire by some religious types to have a stable group in charge of the holy place they want to visit. Most Americans don't really give a hoot about the Israeli's except that they are an ally and help us project military force in support of american interests.
For those that are judge-mental-"ists" about the US involvement in the area, I would point out that the US didn't create the middle east problem. In fact we tried to talk our European allies from making this and other mistakes after the world war.
Yeah, 'murica didn't create this problem but when the gak boiled over and started to stink up the world we have worked hard at trying to reduce the heat and to put the lid back on.
focusedfire wrote: Most Americans don't really give a hoot about the Israeli's except that they are an ally and help us project military force in support of american interests.
The Israelis are our "ally" in the sense that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our "allies". It's a pretty lopsided relationship.
I don't care what they do - obviously both sides in this conflict are pretty enthusiastic about killing tons of Palestinians, so go have a blast I guess, guys - I just would like the US to stop supporting them with equipment and funds.
We have a lot of crumbling infrastructure at home that the 1.1 billion dollars (and counting!) we've thrown at Iron Dome could have fixed up.
Ketara wrote: If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
That might have something to do with the fact that Hamas is a murderous bunch of thugs who have a tendency to kill people who disagree with them, no?
MrDwhitey wrote: whembly, there was a lot of "Zionist" terrorism by two groups, Irgun and Lehi after WW2.
It was roundly condemned by pretty much all Jews outside of those organisations as far as I recall.
In 1948 Lehi murdered the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte. 1949 an amnesty was granted to all members of the group. 40 years later Yitzhak Shamir had become prime minister. There's even a military decoration named after Lehi. There's been a nominal condemnation, but the actions seem to speak otherwise.
Considering Bernadotte was instrumental in the rescue of thousands of concentration camp prisoners during WWII, I'd say that's a rather strange way to thank him.
Ketara wrote: If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
That might have something to do with the fact that Hamas is a murderous bunch of thugs who have a tendency to kill people who disagree with them, no?
If that's your belief, then surely you'd be in favour of the Israeli Army attacking in force to destroy the oppressing Hamas overlords of the Palestinian people, right?
Besides which, the electoral roll would seem to indicate that they're not exactly just a fringe extremist movement. They actually, y'know, got a lot of people to vote for them.
Again... that's the US giving *stuff* to Israel... rather than the US Military "supporting" them. Big distinction... we're essentially one big arms trafficer.
Yeah but the Palestinians are not stupid, and neither are the surrounding countries. They know the shells that are killing Palestinians are supplied by the US, so the only conclusion they can draw is that the US must at best absolutely not care about Palestinian lives and at worst, the US hates Arabs, since it always sides with Israel against the various Arab nations, and keeps Israel propped up.
Any serious answer to the question "Why do people in the middle east hate america" has got to have "Support For Israel" near the top of the list.
Ketara wrote: If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
That might have something to do with the fact that Hamas is a murderous bunch of thugs who have a tendency to kill people who disagree with them, no?
If that's your belief, then surely you'd be in favour of the Israeli Army attacking in force to destroy the oppressing Hamas overlords of the Palestinian people, right?
Besides which, the electoral roll would seem to indicate that they're not exactly just a fringe extremist movement. They actually, y'know, got a lot of people to vote for them.
I would if it weren't for the fact that such action will just drive more people to Hamas. Bombing to win the hearts and minds of people doesn't really work.
Ketara wrote: If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
That might have something to do with the fact that Hamas is a murderous bunch of thugs who have a tendency to kill people who disagree with them, no?
If that's your belief, then surely you'd be in favour of the Israeli Army attacking in force to destroy the oppressing Hamas overlords of the Palestinian people, right?
Besides which, the electoral roll would seem to indicate that they're not exactly just a fringe extremist movement. They actually, y'know, got a lot of people to vote for them.
I would if it weren't for the fact that such action will just drive more people to Hamas. Bombing to win the hearts and minds of people doesn't really work.
If Stalinists came to power here, declared war on the US, and started lobbing missiles, you can bet I'd be rooting for the US to blow the crap out of them.
Oh wait. Are we still pretending that Hamas doesn't already have the 'hearts and minds of the people'? (or at least a large chunk of them)
Ketara wrote: If you are prepared to let your Government commit violence and hostility in your name, then you stand complicit. I see no demonstrations against Hamas, no peace movements. Nothing that would leave me to believe that the Hamas Government is not generally representative (to at least 50%) of the people of Gaza.
That might have something to do with the fact that Hamas is a murderous bunch of thugs who have a tendency to kill people who disagree with them, no?
If that's your belief, then surely you'd be in favour of the Israeli Army attacking in force to destroy the oppressing Hamas overlords of the Palestinian people, right?
Besides which, the electoral roll would seem to indicate that they're not exactly just a fringe extremist movement. They actually, y'know, got a lot of people to vote for them.
I would if it weren't for the fact that such action will just drive more people to Hamas. Bombing to win the hearts and minds of people doesn't really work.
If Stalinists came to power here, declared war on the US, and started lobbing missiles, you can bet I'd be rooting for the US to blow the crap out of them.
Oh wait. Are we still pretending that Hamas doesn't already have the 'hearts and minds of the people'? (or at least a large chunk of them)
Your comparison is off. Did the Stalinists live in the UK and then get kicked out because the rest of the world felt like it?
Your comparison is off. Did the Stalinists live in the UK and then get kicked out because the rest of the world felt like it?
...what? Sorry, last time I checked, the Palestinians in Gaza haven't been kicked out of anywhere(they still live in Gaza. hence the existence of a problem?). What's more, in my comparison above that you've quoted, the Stalinists are representative of Hamas, not the Palestinians generally. Thus rendering your above comment completely moot.
Indeed. You say "lobbing missiles with no reason" but that is completely disingenuous.
Okay. Allow me to expand my example for you ( also I never said 'no reason' in that statement, look again).
Let's assume in my example that Britain was once part of a United Nations of Europe that went to war with the USA. The USA won and temporarily occupied Britain, but withdrew all troops nine years ago, giving Britain political independence. The British then immediately turned around and voted in a Stalinist party with an express manifesto of obliterating the USA. The Americans responded by instituting a blockade of Britain. Now nine years on, the Stalinist Party has started launching missiles and amphibious infiltration squads against the US because it knows that if it can't break the blockade, its days of rule are numbered. The US hits the launch sites where it can, but unfortunately, the Stalinists base as many missiles as possible next to schools and hospitals, so that they can trumpet about civilian casualties (whilst trying their best to kill as many Americans civilians as possible).
The British then immediately turned around and voted in a Stalinist party with an express manifesto of obliterating the USA.
It's like you don't seem to remember they had other political parties before Hama's.
Because it's irrelevant to my example? The Stalinist party was voted in, and is currently in power at the time of the conflict nine years later in my example. I mean, I could detail every evolution of the Whigs and Liberal Democrats a hundred years before this fictional scenario and more, but it's hardly relevant (unless you have a pressing desire to learn about British political history).
And how far should the Palestinians be punished for supporting Hamas? 1.7 million people live in the Gaza Strip. How much should these people be punished for supporting the militants who are now engaged in a death struggle with Israel? How much sympathy can be wrought if the number of dead escalates into the thousands and the displaced population approaches one million?
I will say this. If my Government was advocating chucking missiles at the US for no reason, initiated hostilities, and we were currently under aerial attack from the US for that very reason, I wouldn't be blaming the US. I'd eithe rbe fleeing the country, or if that wasn't possible, trying to find some way of toppling my Government from whatever insanity had taken them. Because that's what it is. In the same way the UK could not hope to defeat the US militarily right now, Hamas has no chance of defeating Israel. It's war for the sake of war, blood spilt for the sake of spilling blood.
I see no sort of Palestinian attempt to topple Hamas. Why? Because Fatah knows that this time around, the two are playing for keeps. And after Israel crushes Hamas into the ground, Fatah can pick up the pieces whilst still decrying Israel the whole time. So they're more than happy to sit back and watch Hamas be smooshed.
The example in your more recent post is simiplified to the point of being meaningless. You've left out the transplanting of people from the fertile, useable lands they were living in to small strips of useless boarderland. If the US administration in question had pushed the entire population of England into Scotland and Wales, your analogy might by starting to gain some traction, but in the end it's useless to talk about what any of us would do in the same situation. I know I'd probably be supporting Hamas if I was a Palestinian living in Gaza, perhaps even militant enough to fight for them.
The example in your more recent post is simiplified to the point of being meaningless. You've left out the transplanting of people from the fertile, useable lands they were living in to small strips of useless boarderland. If the US administration in question had pushed the entire population of England into Scotland and Wales, your analogy might by starting to gain some traction, but in the end it's useless to talk about what any of us would do in the same situation. I know I'd probably be supporting Hamas if I was a Palestinian living in Gaza, perhaps even militant enough to fight for them.
Far enough on the quote Da Boss, I thought you were referencing my previous post and example, not several posts back.
With regards to transplanting people, this is the first I've heard on Israel having done Soviet style forced migrations. Source please?
EDIT:- I've done some poking around, and the closest thing I can find is the relocation of people from the Al-Shati Camp in 1971, but that was a refugee camp of people fleeing from the Arabic invasions of Israel (so they weren't based there originally to begin with), and they were only being moved to another part of Gaza, not outside of it. Not only that, most of the current Gazan population wasn't alive at the time. So I'm not sure what this transplanting of people you're referring to is.
A lot of people in this thread seem to have their head in the sand. I really can't believe some of the things that people are typing. Just unbelievably ignorant. While I'm not going to get into the issue too deeply, I'll just state one observation on the current situation.
There have been almost 1700 Palestinian deaths since the Israelis started this last operation. The UN estimates that 60% of these are civilian. That's over ONE THOUSAND CIVILIANS killed. I have it on good authority, that actual number is higher, however.
I don't think anyone is disputing that the civilian loss of life is overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side, or that it's tragic. It's when you try to use that as a basis for making some other argument that it gets slippery.
Ouze wrote: I don't think anyone is disputing that the civilian loss of life is overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side, or that it's tragic. It's when you try to use that as a basis for making some other argument that it gets slippery.
This, in a nutshell. Civilian casualties are nasty. Alas, war isn't just a matter of subtracting one sides casualties from the other sides ones, and declaring the one with the most the moral victors.
Not exactly, Ketara. My apologies for being so brief on all these posts, as we could be here all day arguing, and I don't really want to get into this thread too much. Last one on this topic.
In Nazi Germany there were many educated people who read the papers and truly believed that they knew what was going on in the world. The situation has not changed much today, even in the "West".
The 4th and 5th paragraphs are relevant, as is the link to the partition plan which awarded 56% of the land (and most of the best land) to the Israelis.
"Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56%) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7% of it and remained a minority (33% in 1946[88]) of the population.[89] There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[89] However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the Negev desert.[43][90] The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"[91][92]"
Bear in mind that after the 1948 war Israel took even more of that land, and later expansions have made a mockery of even that lopsided distribution of land.
1.8 million Gazans live in an area half the size of Ireland's smallest county.
Oh wait. Are we still pretending that Hamas doesn't already have the 'hearts and minds of the people'? (or at least a large chunk of them)
Hamas has the "hearts and minds" of the people in large part because they have lots of guns, and haven't demonstrated a particular interest Palestinian lives. Also, they control the tunnels, which means they control much of the influx of food into Gaza.
Godwinned! Oh those Westerners, being all Nazi-like by assuming they know what's going on because they read articles from various sources on the subject. If reading articles is not a way to establish an informed opinion, how may I do so without being an accidental Fascist, Barksdale?
Allow me a counterpoint- Germany invented the V-1, the original militarily useless anti-civilian terror rocket. Now, unlike Hamas, they didn't hide them in schools and surround them with children, but they did enjoy launching them at their enemies.
The USA was clearly the more reprehensible of the two nations- their reckless carpet bombing and unnecessary ground invasion killed tens of thousands of German civilians, and the USA suffered very few civilian casualties!
And now for my bonus round- this war had gone the same way 20 years ago! Germany , naturally, had every right to fight its 'rebellion' against the harsh economic penalties that were placed upon it for waging war with most of Europe.
Look, everyone stinks in this situation- and I really doubt that Israel set out to kill civilians, or that the Palestinians want to die for Hamas. Nobody voted in the Nazis because they wanted every Jew slaughtered, it just came with the extra territory and economic boost.
What I oppose is waging war by targeting civilian centers, and hiding your means of warfare behind children. Being inept does not give you the right to plead the victim while firing rockets at cities. For that reason, I sincerely hope that Israel is able to remove Hamas from the region, though I have no idea what it will take to do that. Separating an insurgent from a civilian is nearly impossible if they aren't actively firing a weapon, or launching a rocket.
Rarely have forces like Hamas been destroyed through force- but through delegitimising them, compromising with them, and removing the need for their existence by improving living standards.
However, I am not optimistic that that would work in the case of Gaza, as it is so extreme and the hatreds run so deep on either side.
Meh no biggy this happens all the time israel is pulling a russia... or is it the other way around since it's founding israel has been pushing their boreders then saying hey look when I push them they hit me now I get to shoot them.
Da Boss wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Israel
The 4th and 5th paragraphs are relevant, as is the link to the partition plan which awarded 56% of the land (and most of the best land) to the Israelis.
"Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56%) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7% of it and remained a minority (33% in 1946[88]) of the population.[89] There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[89] However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the Negev desert.[43][90] The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"[91][92]"
Bear in mind that after the 1948 war Israel took even more of that land, and later expansions have made a mockery of even that lopsided distribution of land.
1.8 million Gazans live in an area half the size of Ireland's smallest county.
I didn't realise that we were rolling back to the nineteen forties here. When I made my comment about firing off missiles, I was talking about the current administration and conflict. Quite frankly, I'm not sure you can use the relocation of your great-grandparents as a legitimate reason to start trying to kill civilians.
Well, I suppose you could, but as my great-grandparents went through something similar, and I'm not busy trying to bring down various Governments, I like to think that not everyone has to follow that reasoning.
Oh wait. Are we still pretending that Hamas doesn't already have the 'hearts and minds of the people'? (or at least a large chunk of them)
Hamas has the "hearts and minds" of the people in large part because they have lots of guns, and haven't demonstrated a particular interest Palestinian lives. Also, they control the tunnels, which means they control much of the influx of food into Gaza.
What about the 2005 election results? Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you here about how Hamas has managed to keep the 'hearts and minds' so to speak, but I do think that support of Hamas is based on more than just the power equation and economic coercion.
Da Boss wrote:Rarely have forces like Hamas been destroyed through force- but through delegitimising them, compromising with them, and removing the need for their existence by improving living standards.
However, I am not optimistic that that would work in the case of Gaza, as it is so extreme and the hatreds run so deep on either side.
The funny thing is, I think that this may actually remove Hamas as a power. Perhaps then, things will finally be able to move forward. One thing that is certain is that whilst Hamas controls Gaza, there will be no chance for things to get better. Removing them can only help the equation.
However, I am not optimistic that that would work in the case of Gaza, as it is so extreme and the hatreds run so deep on either side.
Not to mention in other countries.
I vividly remember being a symposium on Israel/Palestine in Chicago. A guy asked me why we don't see more stories coming out of Palestine, and I suggested its because their telecom network is bad, and most anything directly sourced from there would be written or spoken in Arabic. His immediate response was "Well, that's not Israel's fault!". And I said "I never said it was." He then said "Well, you insinuated it!". And continued to browbeat me for like 5 minutes, deliberately talking over me and making a scene until I Vir Cottoed him and walked away.
Ketara: The reason you're not trying to bring down governments despite your great-grandparents losing their lands might be because you are living a fairly comfortable life in Britain, not still trapped in the same place they were with the people who took the land in question a stone's throw away. It's a little difficult for the Gazans to move on without leaving the area, something the desperate poverty and limitations on movement makes pretty damn difficult.
You seem pretty dead set on having no empathy for the Gazans though, so I may be through arguing with you on this point.
What about the 2005 election results? Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you here about how Hamas has managed to keep the 'hearts and minds' so to speak, but I do think that support of Hamas is based on more than just the power equation and economic coercion.
I think its a lot like Tammany Hall. In case anyone isn't familiar with Tammany Hall, when immigrants would come off the boat stateside Tammany would send guys down to the docks with food to hand out. They also hired thugs to crack the heads of opposing party supporters. The difference with Hamas is that everyone is effectively fenced in by Israel and Egypt, they control a lot of the continual food supply, and a lot of Gaza residents resent the fact it needs to be the case. But they blame Israel because Hamas has lots of guns and control over their food supply.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: The reason you're not trying to bring down governments despite your great-grandparents losing their lands might be because you are living a fairly comfortable life in Britain, not still trapped in the same place they were with the people who took the land in question a stone's throw away. It's a little difficult for the Gazans to move on without leaving the area, something the desperate poverty and limitations on movement makes pretty damn difficult.
You seem pretty dead set on having no empathy for the Gazans though, so I may be through arguing with you on this point.
If I'm coming across as having no empathy for the Gazans, then that isn't my intent, and I'm giving off the wrong impression.
Conflict and poverty are horrible things. I was evicted from Zimbabwe with my entire family when I was a kid due to Mugabe's thugs threatening to shoot anyone caught living in my neighbourhood. I remember packing everything we could find in five minutes and travelling to a friends house outside of the dangerzone because we had no idea what was going to happen next. I've seen firsthand levels of poverty and starvation that people in the West are barely capable of intellectually conceiving. I once saw a man gunned down for the outrageous crime of being drunk and near President Mugabe's house at the wrong time of day.
I know just how tenuous and fragile the rule of law can be, and just how much for granted most people in Britain take things. So please, don't point at the fact that I now live in the UK and imply that my sheltered upbringing makes me unable to understand these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians in the West Bank, and the way they get forced off their land. I have a lot of time for Palestinians who get treated as second class citizens within Israel, and strongly feel that Israel needs to get it's game together there before it can be truly called a democracy. I believe that Israel should be a secular state, not a Jewish one. I believe that Gazans should be able to go to University, and not be blockaded in. I side with the Palestinians on many issues.
But at the same time, I look at Gaza Strip, and I see repeated attempts by Israel over the last twenty years, since the Accords of Oslo, to make Gaza into a self-governing, peaceful, independent nation. They dismantled their settlements. They make no claim to want to own it. Indeed, had they the choice, they'd ignore it altogether.
But the Gazans elected Hamas. They have continued to support and sustain Hamas. The ultimate reason Fatah got ousted was because Hamas had more support there than Fatah did. Violence was only part of that equation. And when your governing power is determined to war with a stronger power, the people will suffer. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish that Hamas didn't insist on stockpiling missiles inside hospitals and firing mortars next to schools. But at the same time, I understand that for the Israeli's to have any hope of safeguarding their citizens, citizens who currently spend half their day sitting in shelters, their lives disrupted whilst they wait for the all clear, they must strike back at those attacking them.
Having empathy for the Palestinians, is ultimately very easy. You look at a few pictures of casualties, and go 'Isn't this terrible!' Having empathy for those having to ditch their car in the middle of the road and go running for the nearest shelter in a panic every day is a lot harder, because there's a lot less obvious bloodshed and trauma. But empathy is required nonetheless.
Da Boss wrote: I'm looking at the same situation and drawing very different conclusions, Ketara.
Fair enough. The world would be a boring place if all were alike. I would however, appreciate you not accusing me of having no empathy. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't both abhor the waste of human life in situations like this.
I'm sorry for doing that. When you make statements about having no sympathy for the Gazans, it gets my back up, because of the polarised debate around this issue. The way you expressed yourself above is much clearer, and I shouldn't have assumed the worst the way I did.
I'll try and keep my temper in check in future- this issue seems to be particularly bad for getting me wound up and cranky.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify- I'd probably have stopped posting in sheer irritation in your position.
Just going to pick this out to say something I noticed last night. I'm heavily into boardgames and was looking into one that has come out recently about Vietnam (Lake of Fire or something). Did you know that the flavour text says the massacre was of 22 civilians?
Big difference from a day of machine gunning and raping that ended in 300+ deaths.
Back on Israel and Hamas, Hamas is full of fething gak and I fething despise them. A terror group that managed to get into power over Israel making a mistake and not adhering to a peace deal, and then making it impossible to be removed from power so they can keep hitting the big bad Izzie. Hamas don't give a flying gak about the people of Palestine.
Israels leadership I also have a distinct dislike for, but it's a lot less currently than with Hamas. On both sides though, I just feel bad for the people being used by their respective leaders. Israel just have the ability to defend and attack far better than anything Hamas could hope for.
On a complete side note, I would love to visit Israel some day. And even though its purpose is depressing, I would love to see the Iron Dome in real life.
Gonna have to disagree, if it was your countrty taken over and the occypying ( i cannot spell ) power treated your people like gak over 3 generations how would you react?
I'd be with hamas
you have some witches maiming your populous or saomeone who might get you free...after 50 years that has to seem like a good deal. I've read books by left wing Israelis and it isn't kind to the state.
And If I were Israel I would have firebombed your ass by now with nothing absolutely nothing being alive in Gaza now. Whats your point?
MrDwhitey wrote: Hey look, it's that inhumane, insane bluster again!
Thats not bluster. Why do you think thats bluster? Empires used to do that all the time.
This will not end until one side or the other is dead or they have agreed to become one nation. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel. Many in Israel want to exterminate Hamas. The people who are smart just get the hell out of there.
MrDwhitey wrote: Hey look, it's that inhumane, insane bluster again!
Thats not bluster. Why do you think thats bluster? Empires used to do that all the time.
This will not end until one side or the other is dead or they have agreed to become one nation. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel. Many in Israel want to exterminate Hamas. The people who are smart just get the hell out of there.
Doing that now in an age of Nukes usually means far worse cause and effect.
Or at least when you go from Skirmishes to full blown War.
MrDwhitey wrote: Hey look, it's that inhumane, insane bluster again!
Thats not bluster. Why do you think thats bluster? Empires used to do that all the time.
This will not end until one side or the other is dead or they have agreed to become one nation. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel. Many in Israel want to exterminate Hamas. The people who are smart just get the hell out of there.
And where would they go? are you offering to take them in and let them move next door?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
MrDwhitey wrote: Hey look, it's that inhumane, insane bluster again!
Thats not bluster. Why do you think thats bluster? Empires used to do that all the time.
This will not end until one side or the other is dead or they have agreed to become one nation. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel. Many in Israel want to exterminate Hamas. The people who are smart just get the hell out of there.
And where would they go? are you offering to take them in and let them move next door?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Once upon a time, America cared less about where people came from.
Today, we cannot even decide what to do with people coming here and/or how to classify them.
MrDwhitey wrote: Hey look, it's that inhumane, insane bluster again!
Thats not bluster. Why do you think thats bluster? Empires used to do that all the time.
This will not end until one side or the other is dead or they have agreed to become one nation. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel. Many in Israel want to exterminate Hamas. The people who are smart just get the hell out of there.
And where would they go? are you offering to take them in and let them move next door?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Once upon a time, America cared less about where people came from.
Today, we cannot even decide what to do with people coming here and/or how to classify them.
Right near the Statue of Liberty we had Ellis Island. Where vast majority immigrants were examined, filed, and processed into the US
As for Hamas and Israel. How many here have lived under the situation. Very and I mean very few of us have live under rocket and mortar attacks where a good chunk of indig population willing to kill you
sirlynchmob wrote: And where would they go? are you offering to take them in and let them move next door?
An awful lot of Palestinians have emigrated to the US, yes.
But no. I think their Arab neighbors who screech about the Palestinian cause and the abomination that is Israel day in and day out should take them. Except they won't. Their borders are harder to get across if you're a Palestinian than, ironically, Israel's.
Most of the arabic neighbours couldn't care less about the Palestinian people except as a brickbat to throw at the Israelis. To them, the Palestinians are nothing more than a convenient verbal weapon they can utilise at the UN. Beyond that, they quite simply do not want to know.
Looks like the UN got nailed again. Thus far IDF has not commented on this one, but frankly we're deep into 'making war on civilians' at this point.
That is exactly what is going on. I can picture it now, over at Israeli General HQ....
'Hey sir! There's a group of orphans with terminal cancer congregating at this location!
'Excellent work Captain Yakov! Take half a dozen aircraft and kill every last one of them! Make it rain with blood! Don't you just love making war on civilians?'
'Sir, it's the only reason I get up in the morning'.
I am so damn glad I don't live over there in the middle of all that crap. On the Palistinian side, I envision the fear of having people next door storing weapons in their house, or in a school, hospital, etc. and making attacks from those buildings, endangering the children within. I also try to imagine the degree of frustration and hate there must be of having been displaced when Israel was refounded and land that had been in the family for generations, taken.
On the Israeli side, having no where else to feel attached to after enduring centuries of pograms and also having had land taken and neighbors they thought were friends turning on them like animals, feeling like Israel is their hope and promise for survival.
Bullockist wrote: I think it needs to be considered that trhe Palestinian people have no part of this (omg it's the one issue I'm serious on ) and suffer accordingly.
Egypt attacked Israel, Israel occupied gaza. 50 years on they are still there. Making the population live like gak.
If that was my country I KNOW where I would be.
You guys from the US . Why is Israel integral to US defence? I believe I read this this week, if not before.
From my point of view Israel is anti- US interest in the region as it gets EVERYONE else offside in the region.
Why support 1 country that gets everyone else in the region offside?
Israel left Gaza in 2005. So...you're completely wrong. Sorry.
Usual BS answer there Nuggz.
Technically Israel left gGaza in 2005, as in they moved out settlers, and it a remote technicality too.
However they did not:
- dismantle roadblocks
- stop overflying with military aircraft at will
- stop sending in tanks and troops at will
- stop blockading the region of essential goods, and Israel still maintains a blockade list of goods it will not allow into Gaza, most of which are harmless like paper.
Israel hasn't left Gaza, its merely pulled the settlers out and got its mouthpieces to say it has left Gaza,
Israel will have pulled out of Gaza when Gaza is free, when people can come and go and trade without Israeli interference. When Israel stops blocking the Gazan's and other Palestinian's right to representation and sovereign status.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: The reason you're not trying to bring down governments despite your great-grandparents losing their lands might be because you are living a fairly comfortable life in Britain, not still trapped in the same place they were with the people who took the land in question a stone's throw away. It's a little difficult for the Gazans to move on without leaving the area, something the desperate poverty and limitations on movement makes pretty damn difficult.
You seem pretty dead set on having no empathy for the Gazans though, so I may be through arguing with you on this point.
If I'm coming across as having no empathy for the Gazans, then that isn't my intent, and I'm giving off the wrong impression.
Conflict and poverty are horrible things. I was evicted from Zimbabwe with my entire family when I was a kid due to Mugabe's thugs threatening to shoot anyone caught living in my neighbourhood. I remember packing everything we could find in five minutes and travelling to a friends house outside of the dangerzone because we had no idea what was going to happen next. I've seen firsthand levels of poverty and starvation that people in the West are barely capable of intellectually conceiving. I once saw a man gunned down for the outrageous crime of being drunk and near President Mugabe's house at the wrong time of day.
I know just how tenuous and fragile the rule of law can be, and just how much for granted most people in Britain take things. So please, don't point at the fact that I now live in the UK and imply that my sheltered upbringing makes me unable to understand these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians in the West Bank, and the way they get forced off their land. I have a lot of time for Palestinians who get treated as second class citizens within Israel, and strongly feel that Israel needs to get it's game together there before it can be truly called a democracy. I believe that Israel should be a secular state, not a Jewish one. I believe that Gazans should be able to go to University, and not be blockaded in. I side with the Palestinians on many issues.
But at the same time, I look at Gaza Strip, and I see repeated attempts by Israel over the last twenty years, since the Accords of Oslo, to make Gaza into a self-governing, peaceful, independent nation. They dismantled their settlements. They make no claim to want to own it. Indeed, had they the choice, they'd ignore it altogether.
But the Gazans elected Hamas. They have continued to support and sustain Hamas. The ultimate reason Fatah got ousted was because Hamas had more support there than Fatah did. Violence was only part of that equation. And when your governing power is determined to war with a stronger power, the people will suffer. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish that Hamas didn't insist on stockpiling missiles inside hospitals and firing mortars next to schools. But at the same time, I understand that for the Israeli's to have any hope of safeguarding their citizens, citizens who currently spend half their day sitting in shelters, their lives disrupted whilst they wait for the all clear, they must strike back at those attacking them.
Having empathy for the Palestinians, is ultimately very easy. You look at a few pictures of casualties, and go 'Isn't this terrible!' Having empathy for those having to ditch their car in the middle of the road and go running for the nearest shelter in a panic every day is a lot harder, because there's a lot less obvious bloodshed and trauma. But empathy is required nonetheless.
Exalted... pretty much sums up where I'm coming from, but in a much more concise, tactful manner.
Technically Israel left gGaza in 2005, as in they moved out settlers, and it a remote technicality too.
However they did not:
- dismantle roadblocks
So you're saying that there are Israeli police/soldiers manning roadblocks within Gaza Strip all year around? Can I have a source on that please?
- stop overflying with military aircraft at will
Fair enough on that one, although I'm not entirely sure that ignoring airspace rights quite equates to occupying Gaza.
- stop sending in tanks and troops at will
They only send in troops when they have to, aka when Hamas starts firing off missiles into Israel. Bad things tend to happen to Israeli squads that wander around backstreets in Gaza. Troops are not a constant presence there, except when hostilities have been engaged in.
- stop blockading the region of essential goods, and Israel still maintains a blockade list of goods it will not allow into Gaza, most of which are harmless like paper.
See, I still sort of agree with the Israelis on this one. The people were free to elect a Government, and they elected a Government dedicated to the overthrow of Israel. But that action had consequences, because being an openly hostile Government to your neighbours means that sometimes they enact blockades. If you don't want a blockade, don't elect a hostile Government.
Israel hasn't left Gaza, its merely pulled the settlers out
Wait, what? They've pulled out all their guys, but they haven't left?
Israel will have pulled out of Gaza when Gaza is free,
They rule themselves. So they're free in that regard.
when people can come and go and trade without Israeli interference.
I think you need to differentiate between a 'blockade' and an 'occupation'. The two are different things. The Israelis left Gaza. Just because they continue to have an effect on the economy of Gaza doesn't mean they own or occupy Gaza.
When Israel stops blocking the Gazan's and other Palestinian's right to representation and sovereign status.
See, I'm against Israel continuing to block Palestine being recognised independently at the UN. I just don't equate that with Israel occupying Gaza. I just see it as.....well, Israel blocking recognition of Palestine at the UN.
That is exactly what is going on. I can picture it now, over at Israeli General HQ....
'Hey sir! There's a group of orphans with terminal cancer congregating at this location!
'Excellent work Captain Yakov! Take half a dozen aircraft and kill every last one of them! Make it rain with blood! Don't you just love making war on civilians?'
'Sir, it's the only reason I get up in the morning'.
It's certainly better than the conversation after the "action" is done....
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning! This one time, they were dug in real deep, in a hospital and a school.... It smells like... Victory"
IDF's justification is that three members of Islamic Jihad were seen near by on a motorcycle. Admittedly, that's one fairly overloaded bike, but giving them the benefit of the doubt on that there's still a massive level of WTF....
Not to put too fine a point on it, but...
Gaza...
is looking kinda familiar....
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Yes. There are no Hamas missiles. There are no infiltration tunnels designed to have people pop out and kill civilians. It is an illusive political fabrication designed to justify war, but using your superior skills, you have seen what we cannot.
"The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution."
— J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter, #1))
Yes. There are no Hamas missiles. There are no infiltration tunnels designed to have people pop out and kill civilians.
Let's put some context into this however.
Thus far, Hamas' rockets have killed exactly 1 Israeli civilian. Another one was killed by mortar fire on an Israeli military checkpoint. There have been a total of ~65 Israeli dead, a majority of those are IDF that entered Gaza. Thus far every emergence from a tunnel into Israeli territory has been either immediately noticed and destroyed, or have only thus far engaged IDF targets.
Meanwhile there have been 1200-1800 Gazan's killed, with most sources considering the bulk of those as civilian casualties, even the IDF won't confirm a majority of those killed aren't civilians.
I mean, I'm not saying Hamas aren't some serious scumbags, they are, but ah...something is off here.
Any word how close to completing their (Israel) mission on shutting down the tunnels on Gaza/Israel side? Up to 60+ tunnels or did I misheard? Total count of missiles fired by Hamas? Cost per missile?
Yes. There are no Hamas missiles. There are no infiltration tunnels designed to have people pop out and kill civilians.
Let's put some context into this however.
Thus far, Hamas' rockets have killed exactly 1 Israeli civilian. Another one was killed by mortar fire on an Israeli military checkpoint. There have been a total of ~65 Israeli dead, a majority of those are IDF that entered Gaza. Thus far every emergence from a tunnel into Israeli territory has been either immediately noticed and destroyed, or have only thus far engaged IDF targets.
Meanwhile there have been 1200-1800 Gazan's killed, with most sources considering the bulk of those as civilian casualties, even the IDF won't confirm a majority of those killed aren't civilians.
I mean, I'm not saying Hamas aren't some serious scumbags, they are, but ah...something is off here.
You make it a mission of your country to exterminate an entire country, said country is far superior to you in military technology, yet, they cry when they lose the war. I'm sorry, civilian deaths are certainly tragic and I don't agree with a lot of things Israel does. Taking out rockets, mortars and tunnels aren't those things.
If you look at the general statements made by anti-Israel people they should just roll over and get murdered by the surrounding Islamic countries, because that's pretty much the only other option they have.
Yes. There are no Hamas missiles. There are no infiltration tunnels designed to have people pop out and kill civilians.
Let's put some context into this however.
Thus far, Hamas' rockets have killed exactly 1 Israeli civilian. Another one was killed by mortar fire on an Israeli military checkpoint. There have been a total of ~65 Israeli dead, a majority of those are IDF that entered Gaza. Thus far every emergence from a tunnel into Israeli territory has been either immediately noticed and destroyed, or have only thus far engaged IDF targets.
Meanwhile there have been 1200-1800 Gazan's killed, with most sources considering the bulk of those as civilian casualties, even the IDF won't confirm a majority of those killed aren't civilians.
I mean, I'm not saying Hamas aren't some serious scumbags, they are, but ah...something is off here.
You make it a mission of your country to exterminate an entire country, said country is far superior to you in military technology, yet, they cry when they lose the war. I'm sorry, civilian deaths are certainly tragic and I don't agree with a lot of things Israel does. Taking out rockets, mortars and tunnels aren't those things.
If you look at the general statements made by anti-Israel people they should just roll over and get murdered by the surrounding Islamic countries, because that's pretty much the only other option they have.
Concur...
FYI... Hamas fired 119 rockets against Israel. That's 119 attempts to kill Israeli.
Yes. There are no Hamas missiles. There are no infiltration tunnels designed to have people pop out and kill civilians.
Let's put some context into this however.
Thus far, Hamas' rockets have killed exactly 1 Israeli civilian. Another one was killed by mortar fire on an Israeli military checkpoint. There have been a total of ~65 Israeli dead, a majority of those are IDF that entered Gaza. Thus far every emergence from a tunnel into Israeli territory has been either immediately noticed and destroyed, or have only thus far engaged IDF targets.
Meanwhile there have been 1200-1800 Gazan's killed, with most sources considering the bulk of those as civilian casualties, even the IDF won't confirm a majority of those killed aren't civilians.
I mean, I'm not saying Hamas aren't some serious scumbags, they are, but ah...something is off here.
There's nothing wrong with arguing that Israel should possibly exercise greater caution when targeting their counterstrikes. There's nothing wrong with querying whether or not Israel perhaps should take more of a humanitarian approach due to their clear overall military competence and far more effective defence system. But then again I could illustrate further context to what you've put above, from the psychological effect of children having to hide in shelters three times a day, the number of missiles fired (it numbers in the thousands), the amount of economic damage to Israel from lost productivity and physical missile and mortar damage, the pure luck in the fact that only IDF targets have been hit in tunnels (and it has been luck, the intention was to get civilians), and so on.
I'm not sure which side in that debate I'd bat for, because frankly, I can see both sides, and I'm not arrogant enough to presume that my opinion would be the morally correct one in what is an inherently morally messy minefield of bad choices and worse choices.
What I object to is the lazy thinking that portrays Israel as some sort of Cobra Commander-esque outfit determined to butcher as many innocent civilians under the pretext of patriotic expansionism/nationalism/racism as they can.
Da Boss wrote: Ah come on Ketara. That's a very unfair characterisation of the arguments against Israeli policy here.
You want to talk about psychological effects, okay, but it all swings both ways.
I'm talking specifically about one fellow's posts there with that remark about lazy thinking, namely BaronIveaghs (and perhaps one or two posts made back in the last thread a week ago by various people). Not yours, or Vaktathi's.
Da Boss wrote: Ah come on Ketara. That's a very unfair characterisation of the arguments against Israeli policy here.
You want to talk about psychological effects, okay, but it all swings both ways.
I'm talking specifically about one fellow's posts there with that remark about lazy thinking, namely BaronIveaghs (and perhaps one or two posts made back in the last thread a week ago by various people). Not yours, or Vaktathi's.
Fair enough on that one, although I'm not entirely sure that ignoring airspace rights quite equates to occupying Gaza.
Because its policy to overfly Gaza at low altitude at supersonic speeds, this os not permitted in most countires under most circumstances. Israel also does this even when there are no rockets being fired.
They only send in troops when they have to, aka when Hamas starts firing off missiles into Israel. Bad things tend to happen to Israeli squads that wander around backstreets in Gaza. Troops are not a constant presence there, except when hostilities have been engaged in.
It is a bit rich to say that Israel is reacting to Hamas, it is more the other way around.
Whenyou look at the shortlist of goods on the embargo list, when you consider the level of bombing and devastation and total overreaction it is unfair to say that Israel is only retaliating to agrterssion, they are aggressors too.
- stop blockading the region of essential goods, and Israel still maintains a blockade list of goods it will not allow into Gaza, most of which are harmless like paper.
See, I still sort of agree with the Israelis on this one. The people were free to elect a Government, and they elected a Government dedicated to the overthrow of Israel. But that action had consequences, because being an openly hostile Government to your neighbours means that sometimes they enact blockades. If you don't want a blockade, don't elect a hostile Government.
Have you considered the possibility that Gaza is hostile because its under embargo. The oppression did not begin with the election of Hamas.
Also ask how you would feel if stuff like perfume and chocolate and parer were considered too good for you, how about toothpaste. The Israelis even banned wheelchairs, refridgerators (in a hot country!)
Take a look:
According to Amnesty International, the Economist, Haaretz and UN reports, prior to June 2010, the following was banned or restricted:
Food. According to a UN report, importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice has been restricted.[15] Pasta has since been allowed. Sugar has always been allowed.[14] Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy are now permitted.[16] Fruit, milk products in small packages and frozen food products are also allowed.[14] Dry food,[17] ginger and chocolate were at one point barred.[18]
Household items. A4 paper,[18] crayons, stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments have been, at times, banned for import.[17] According to AFP other banned goods include toilet paper,[4] though the BBC lists it as permitted.[3] According to the Haaretz the following items were banned in 2009: books, candles, crayons, clothing, cups, cutlery, crockery, electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, glasses, light bulbs, matches, musical instruments, needles, sheets, blankets, shoes, mattresses, spare machine and car parts, and threads.[14]
Reconstruction materials. Amnesty International and other organisations report that cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings.[19] A UN report by Kevin M. Cahill said reconstruction was halted because of lack of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials.[15]
Fuel. Fuel had not been imported from Israel since 2008. While fuel is available from Egypt, in contrast to Israeli fuel, it damages the newer cars in Gaza and causes malfunctions. Israel allowed only limited amounts of industrial fuel into Gaza prior to June 2010.[14]
Agriculture and fishing. According to Gisha, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate, hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries, were at one point barred.[18]
Medical material. Batteries for hearing aids have been restricted.[15] Wheelchairs, at various times, have been banned.[17]
According to the Haaretz, the number of items allowed into Gaza, as of May 2010, is about 100. Before the blockade, some 4,000 items were allowed. Gisha states that a large Israeli supermarket holds 10,000-15,000 items.
The only reason to ban most of these items is to oppress the people, and oppressed people lash out.
Israel hasn't left Gaza, its merely pulled the settlers out
Wait, what? They've pulled out all their guys, but they haven't left?
Ok, lets take 'Ketara logic' to its full conclusion.
The US and UK did not occupy Iraq because we didn't move in settlers.
It doesn't matter how many or how few Israeli settlements there are, what matters is how many soldiers there are and how much the Israeli state dictates what Gaza can have.
Israel will have pulled out of Gaza when Gaza is free,
They rule themselves. So they're free in that regard.
They rule tyhemselves so long as they build no infraastructure, own negligible property and don't import items too good for them. Come on, think it through.
when people can come and go and trade without Israeli interference.
I think you need to differentiate between a 'blockade' and an 'occupation'. The two are different things. The Israelis left Gaza. Just because they continue to have an effect on the economy of Gaza doesn't mean they own or occupy Gaza.
Israel occupies Gaza by exercising direct control over Gaza. Due to modern technology the boots on the ground dont need to be on the same ground, thery just need to control the same ground.
Extensive item bans are direct control, infrastructure dismantling is control, let alone assassination or kidnapping of those individuals capable of trying to build said infrastructure. As what happened to the technical manager of Gazas only working power station.
Look Gaza might have their own electricity.... kidnap the person behind it, and put him on trail in a kangaroo court.
You should know from your experiences with Zanu PF that you don't need to be present to occupy, you just need to be a short drive away and every now and then come back and take anything needed to stabilise an infrastructure. Only in Israelis case the policy is well through out, not random acts of state looting.
It takes a lot of infrastructure to build a viable community with modern technology, Gaza is systematically denied this, and whatever is built is knocked down.
We know this is true because of the targets Israel chooses. Unlike Hamas rockets Israel has pinpoint accuracy, yet still manages to bomb Un shelters, even twice bombed a centre operated by the Chinese government. This was most likely a message.
When Israel stops blocking the Gazan's and other Palestinian's right to representation and sovereign status.
See, I'm against Israel continuing to block Palestine being recognised independently at the UN. I just don't equate that with Israel occupying Gaza. I just see it as.....well, Israel blocking recognition of Palestine at the UN.
I can't answer for some of the other stuff on that list, but after seeing pictures of what those tunnels were made of, I can understand why this would be controlled:
Reconstruction materials. Amnesty International and other organisations report that cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings.[19] A UN report by Kevin M. Cahill said reconstruction was halted because of lack of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials.[15]
Jihadin wrote: Any word how close to completing their (Israel) mission on shutting down the tunnels on Gaza/Israel side? Up to 60+ tunnels or did I misheard? Total count of missiles fired by Hamas? Cost per missile?
Edit
Spelling
not sure about cost per missile, but america seems to be willing to fund the attacks by sending $225 Million to Israel. Hey look the republicans finally stopped deciding to filibuster everything and actually pass a bill.
The roadblocks arte between Gaza strip, and are under Israeli supervision, even the ones with Egypt. They enforce the embargo of goods.
So...are you talking about border guards? If not, then I'm afraid you need to be more specific (as I'm not following), and if so, then that would be silly, because every country has the right to stick guards/border control points along their border.
Because its policy to overfly Gaza at low altitude at supersonic speeds, this os not permitted in most countires under most circumstances. Israel also does this even when there are no rockets being fired.
First time I've heard this one, and if it is the case, I would be opposed to it as unnecessary on the part of the Israelis.
It is a bit rich to say that Israel is reacting to Hamas, it is more the other way around.
Whenyou look at the shortlist of goods on the embargo list, when you consider the level of bombing and devastation and total overreaction it is unfair to say that Israel is only retaliating to agrterssion, they are aggressors too.
Errr...if the chain of events is 'Hamas fires missiles' and the subsequent result is 'invasion by Israeli troops', then it is Israel reacting to Hamas. That's the immediate point of conflict that sparks the initiation of Israeli ground offensives. I mean, sure you can say, 'Ahh, but the point before that is the blockade', but then I can respond with 'That's because they elected Hamas, a hostile Government', to which you respond with, 'Yes but historical event x', and I do the same, ad infinitum until you end up in the figurative Garden of Eden.
To make any kind of meaningful statement about causation here, you kind of have to assume that there's free will involved, and look for where it could have occurred differently. Israel ONLY launches ground offensives when they are physically attacked. The blockade is in place all year round, and for the vast majority of the time, having the blockade in place does not force Hamas to fire missiles. Those are one off events, and occur more in relation to a combination of other factors coinciding, as opposed to purely the blockade.
Have you considered the possibility that Gaza is hostile because its under embargo. The oppression did not begin with the election of Hamas.
The blockade began due to the election of Hamas and the battle for Gaza. I think that Israel behaved unacceptably during several key points of that election, but the initiation of the blockade was mainly instituted because Hamas gained control. Now whilst you can do the same as above, and point to another historical event prior to that one as the ultimate cause of events in an attempt to make the Israeli's aggressors, like above again, I can keep pointing to prior events to that back to the start of the Universe.
Gaza was hostile to Israel prior to embargo. But Israel launched the embargo primarily in response to the takeover of power by Hamas (legally and illegally). Which as stated, I can understand, and don't fully disagree with. It's attempting to use economic pressure to force a change in circumstance desirable to you (as is being done with Russia). At this point, I'd say it hasn't been nearly as effective as hoped up until this point(missiles still got over the border), and indeed, if the situation were still the same, would be ready to recommend them attempting other means by about now.
However, this entire round of the conflict has been sparked by the fact that Hamas is being strangled. World circumstances have changed, and Syria/Iran no longer fund them. Therefore this whole blockade may have actually achieved it's objectives after all (the deposition of Hamas) when combined with current Israeli military movements. Whether that will spawn a new group is difficult to say at this stage, but with the elimination of Hamas, progress may finally be possible.
Ok, lets take 'Ketara logic' to its full conclusion.
The US and UK did not occupy Iraq because we didn't move in settlers.
We moved in soldiers who were there 24/7 a day and ruled directly. So your weird twisted version of my logic is factually inaccurate from the word go.
It doesn't matter how many or how few Israeli settlements there are, what matters is how many soldiers there are
There are no soldiers stationed directly there. Soldiers existing in potentia are not soldiers occupying in reality. This is a case of grammar I'm afraid.
They rule tyhemselves so long as they build no infraastructure, own negligible property and don't import items too good for them. Come on, think it through.
You could argue that due to American sanctions on Iran, Iran is currently occupied by America using this logic. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work.
Economic restrictions imposed from outside the border are not the same thing as an occupation. An occupation is
'the action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force.' And this is clearly not the case with Gaza. Groundpounders are only present at a time of direct conflict and hostilities.
Israel occupies Gaza by exercising direct control over Gaza.
So does Russia occupy Europe by exercising economic control over their gas supply? Does my local government occupy my house by influencing my ability to buy bombs and military grqade munitions on the open market? Exercising control does not equate to a military occupation. I can't ram this home any more forcefully. If that is your usage of the term 'military occupation', your usage is incorrect.
You should know from your experiences with Zanu PF that you don't need to be present to occupy, you just need to be a short drive away and every now and then come back and take anything needed to stabilise an infrastructure. Only in Israelis case the policy is well through out, not random acts of state looting.
Zanu PF does not occupy. They're the Government. Technically, every Government occupies its own country, which is why it would be silly to claim that Zanu PF occupies Zimbabwe. It's like accusing America of being occupied by America. Or indeed, Gaza of being occupied by Hamas.
It takes a lot of infrastructure to build a viable community with modern technology, Gaza is systematically denied this, and whatever is built is knocked down.
Okay. This is still not military occupation.
We know this is true because of the targets Israel chooses. Unlike Hamas rockets Israel has pinpoint accuracy, yet still manages to bomb Un shelters, even twice bombed a centre operated by the Chinese government. This was most likely a message.
Correct. The message is, 'If you set up your mortar next to a UN facility, we will still target counterbattery fire at you'. Whether this is the right choice is debatable, but its something of a murky grey area.
Gaza would be part of the Palestinian state.
I'm not convinced it would be any more. Fatah claims authority, but has little in Gaza. For all intents and purposes, Gaza has become a separate entity. Perhaps it would be better to treat it as such.
Two girls with a sign that reads "Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values." (Photo from The People of Israel Demand Vengeance/Facebook via)
In Israel, racism and extremism are exploding. It began shortly after the kidnapping of three Israeli boys – Naftali, Gilad and Eyal – in Gush Etzion, that led to the assault in Gaza which has seen over 1,000 killed. A Facebook page calling for the murder of Palestinians went viral. In one photo, a soldier posed broodingly with his gun, the word "vengeance" written on his chest. In another two teenage girls smiled happily with a banner saying, “Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values.”
A few days later, at the boy’s funeral in Modiin, the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu fanned the flames. “May God avenge their blood,” he said to the mourners that had gathered. “Vengeance for the blood of a small child, Satan has not yet created,” he tweeted later.
Bibi got his wish. Over the weeks that followed, videos began to emerge almost daily of right-wing mobs roving across cities from Jerusalem to Beer Sheva, waving Israeli flags and screaming “Death to Arabs!”
Many ended in physical assaults. Last Thursday two Palestinian men were attacked on Jaffer Street in West Jerusalem as they delivered food to a grocery market. The following day two more Palestinians men, Amir Shwiki and Samer Mahfouz, were beaten unconscious in the Eastern part of the city by a gang of 30 young Israelis wielding sticks and metal bars.
Nationalistic Israelis have also turned on Israelis who disagree with them. Photographs have even emerged of pro-war protestors dressed in t-shirts with “Good Night Left Side” prints, a slogan usually used by European neo-Nazis. Violence from these groups has reached unprecedented levels. Last week in Haifa, a city usually presented as a model of liberal co-existence, an anti-war rally was attacked by 700 people carrying weapons.
The worst is reserved for Palestinians. Four weeks ago in East Jerusalem, a group of Israeli men, acting in revenge, poured petrol down the throat of Mohammed Abu Khdeir and burnt him alive. For some his death, just like Jamal’s, was an aberration, an act without precedent from some mad fringe of Israel’s far-right. “What have we become?” an Israeli relative of mine asked that evening, shocked that somebody with “Jewish values” could commit such a crime.
But while the recent spate can be partly seen as a visceral reaction to the tragic killing of the three boys, this kind of violence is not really that new. Take the story of Jamal Julani. He was walking along a street near Zion Square when a group of young Jewish Israelis, one as young as 13, kicked him in the head over and over. "A Jew is a good soul, an Arab is a son of a bitch," overheard one bystander.
There were hundreds standing in Zion Square that evening in September, but nobody, not even a duty officer on the scene chose to intervene. When paramedics did arrive, it took ten minutes of defibrillation and constant CPR to restore the dying boy’s pulse. He had been so badly beaten that police at the scene had assumed he was already dead.
“Abu Khdeir’s murderers are not 'Jewish extremists’” said an editorial in Haaretz – Israel's answer to the Guardian. “They are the descendants and builders of a culture of hate and vengeance that is nurtured and fertilised by the guides of 'the Jewish state'."
Israel has never been the kind of free and open society it has tried so hard to project. Racism did not begin with the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir or the beating and attempted lynching of Jamal Julani. “Zionist doctrine has always pushed society in a very particular direction,” the academic Marcelo Svirsky told me on the phone two days ago. But it is getting worse. “There is a phenomenon happening right now across Israeli cities that I have not seen before, having lived in Israel for 25 years.”
One of the most striking aspects of this “phenomenon” is how young the people taking part appear to be. Those posting on social media, running amok in lynch mobs and crashing leftist rallies with sticks, chains and brass knuckles are, for the most part, young people – many in their mid-twenties, some in their teens.
Three weeks ago the activist and journalist David Sheen published an article on Storify called “Terrifying Tweets of Pre-Army Israeli Teens”, after he searched the word “Aravim”, Hebrew for Arab, into Twitter. What he found was a harrowing amount of morbid bile presented in the form of grotesque selfies from teenage girls.
Other quotes included "I spit on you, you stinking Arabs", "From the bottom of my heart, I wish for Arabs to be torched" and "Arabs may you be paralyzed & die with great suffering!"
What is going on? For anyone familiar with Israeli politics, the answer should be obvious. In the past month alone the stream of racism coming from politicians and religious authorities has been relentless. Take Avigdor Lieberman, the Foreign Minister, who called on Israelis to boycott Palestinians that don't support the war. Or take Ayelet Shaked, the Jewish Home party politician and member of the Knesset (Parliament) who recently called for the murder of Palestinian mothers. “They should follow their sons,” she said. “Nothing would be more just”.
“Those words the girls said are not in any way strange to the discourse in Israel,” Sheen told me. “When you translate it into English you realise how horrific it is, but in the Israeli context there's nothing shocking about it.”
"Price Tag attacks" on people taking action against settlers have grown in number without the police really trying to stop them. Vigilante patrols lead by extreme organisations like the state-funded Lehava have cropped up across the entire country to stop Jews and Arabs having romantic relationships. Perhaps the biggest victims of this fanaticism have been refugees from sub-Saharan Africa. Locked up in detainment centres, they’ve faced abuse from almost every part of the Israeli establishment. From the hundreds of Rabbis banning Jews from renting flats to Africans, to politicians like Eli Yishai, the ultra-orthodox Interior Minister who in 2012 said “until I can deport them I’ll lock them up to make their lives miserable.”
“Both governments under Netanyahu have been responsible for inciting racism,” Svirsky said. “They’ve put in place a long list of anti-equality and anti-Palestinian legislation in all areas of life. That’s why it’s become normal in political discourse to express extreme ideas towards Palestinians. The obsession with a state only for Jews has bought Israeli society into a racist abyss.”
For Israeli youth, things might have got marginally better in 2013 if a proposal by the left-wing Zionist party Meretz to have anti-racist education included in schools hadn’t been voted down by the Knesset. The bill had been submitted by the Arab-Israeli MK Issawi Freij after a theme park in Rishon Letzion admitted renting out its facilities on separate days to Jewish and Arab schools to “avoid conflict”.
Issawi’s fear that racism was growing in Israel’s schools echoed what others had been saying for years. In a recent study by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, half of all Jewish Israeli high school students said Arab-Israelis should not receive the same set of rights as Jews. Of those that identified as religious, half said the now familiar slogan “Death to Arabs” was legitimate.
In 2010 a group of concerned teachers sent a petition to the education ministry explaining precisely these fears. “We cannot remain silent in light of the increasing presence within the walls of schoolhouses of expressions of racism,” they said. “We see ourselves as educators who must issue a warning. The prevalence of racism and cruelty is growing among young people in Israel.”
According to Sheen many Israeli teachers, particularly those that teach civics, have become afraid to even broach the issue of human rights in the classroom. Earlier in the year Adam Verete, a teacher that dared to call the IDF an “immoral army”, was hauled before a tribunal and later fired after a pupil complained about his “extreme leftist” views. “They can't even bring up the topic without inciting in their students rage and racism,” Sheen said.
Of course, militarism and nationalism have always been part of the Israeli education system; embedded in history books, on maps on the walls, in cartoons of Palestinians on camel backs. But under Netanyahu’s watch, things seem to have gone further. The first major change of the former education minister Gideon Sa’ar, a man who described teachers as “lifelong draftees”, was to enlarge a programme designed to inspire even more enthusiasm for the army.
“Service in the IDF is not only an obligation but a privilege and a social value,” Sa’ar said at the time. “The connection between the school system and the IDF will become stronger in the context of the programme that I initiated." The budget for civic education, a rare space for critical debate on Israel and its “democratic values”, was cut in favour of an orthodox Jewish studies curriculum. Heritage tours to Hebron were introduced as a way of increasing support for settlements and the idea of Greater Israel. And whatever passing reference to an alternative Palestinian narrative that remained in school textbooks, was quickly removed.
“During the 1990s and early 2000s there was some kind of attempt to be more factual,” Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem told me. “There was an effort to be more academic and scientific, to speak about Palestinians, even if the ideology was the same. Today it’s back to simplified stories and sheer indoctrination. It’s going backwards.”
Though Israel remains a multicultural place, for the most part Palestinians and Israelis live deeply separate lives. Within the 1948 borders just five non-segregated schools are available for young children to meet and learn about one another. Within the occupied territories, physical barriers introduced after the Second Intifada mean contact is almost non-existent.
“There used to be so many more casual opportunities for Israelis and Palestinians to get to know each other,” Sheen said. “Now you have a whole generation – the terrifying-tweets cohort – that has never even known a Palestinian.”
Beyond the physical barriers the mental walls are perhaps even stronger. “I grew up without knowing any Palestinians,” Peled-Elhanan said. “All I had to do was cross to the other side of the city but the thought never occurred to me. This was the kind of education we got – that Palestinians if they exist at all, exist as an obstacle.”
Israel likes to use its status as the region’s only European-style democracy to fudge criticism of its occupation and siege. Usually this works. There is, particularly in the Jewish diaspora, a monumental gap between how Israel is represented and what is actually happening. But in the present conflict, with over 1,000 dead in Gaza and youngsters pouring through Israel in violent mobs, these delusions may finally be coming undone.
For those that live in Israel that do not support the war or the right-wing government, it is becoming more difficult to voice an opinion, and some people are weighing up their options. “Two nights ago there was big protest in Tel Aviv,” Sheen said. “A long-time leftist was holding up a sign that said ‘flee while you can’. In conversations I’ve had with hard-core activists, everyone has said they are preparing an escape plan. For people that have children or want to have children, this is no place to raise them.”
“[Israel should] designate certain open areas on the Sinai border, adjacent to the sea, in which the civilian population will be concentrated, far from the built-up areas that are used for launches and tunneling. In these areas, tent encampments will be established, until relevant emigration destinations are determined.”
And for those who don’t leave:
“[Gaza should be] shelled with maximum fire power. The entire civilian and military infrastructure of Hamas, its means of communication and of logistics, will be destroyed entirely, down to their foundations.”
To ensure maximum misery of the Palestinian people, he also adds that all electricity and water should be cut off from Palestinian use.
All bodes well for the future then eh ?
Concentration camps and mass exterminations .....?!?
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you
I found those links interested so I poked a little deeper into them. The first article, which you quoted, comes from a chap called Phillip Kleinfeld.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/israeli-racism-gaza-kleinfeld-511?utm_source=vicefbuk He's an aspiring journalist specialising in anti-facism, but if you scroll through his Twitter/Tumblr, you find that he's almost exclusively 95% about anti-Israel stuff on Palestine. That in no way invalidates anything he says necessarily, but I do feel it's necessary to set some context about the author of the piece.
It should also be recognised that he very deliberately sets a narrative with that piece. There are some very important points raised about the discrimination against Palestinians within Israel, and the slow rise of the nationalistic right wing. A lot of the writing is hyperbolic though, and examples very clearly cherry picked to give a specific image, in a way that I could do here to try and prove that facism was on the rise in the UK, or communism, or suchlike. It's not a bad piece, he conducts a lot of the interviews himself, but his writing is far from the impartiality a good journalist should strive for.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/israeli-newspaper-when-genocide-is-permissable/ With regards to the second link, the article being slated has been removed from the main newspapers website, and the author forbidden from publishing anymore using that platform. The blogger's article was in no way vetted by the newspaper, and was effectively a self-publication.
The Times of Israel maintains an open blog platform: Once we have accepted bloggers, we allow them to post their own items. This trust has rarely been abused. We are angry and appalled that it was in this case, and will take steps to prevent a recurrence.
So yes, I'm not sure the article proves anything except that occasionally a controversial post or piece gets published by online bloggers occasionally, God only knows I've seen enough of them put up on the Daily Mail/Guardian/wherever websites over the years.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/08/israeli-lawmaker-calls-for-genocide-of-palestinians-gets-5000-facebook-likes/ Pertaining to the third article, the woman in question who made the post under discussion represents the far right religious Zionist party 'Jewish Home'. She is a member of Knesset, which is disgusting, but then again, we have George Galloway here in the UK, they have Marine Le Pen in France, and so on. Unfortunately, there are usually enough nasty people on any countries political scene, and due to the political system set up in Israel, the religious far right can wield excessive power (something I believe they should change). It also doesn't help that in terms of social dynamics, the far right in Israel seems to have far more children, and it's beginning to affect the balance of power between secular and religious there. I don't believe it's such a big issue right now, but it may well be in a quarter of a centuries time.
The post he made that's being slammed was actually not quoted in entirety in that original link (again, a spot of cherry picking). It's still a very controversial post, but not quite so damning. There's a lot of throwing around of the terms 'concentration camps' and 'genocide' in the article, but those phrases are actually somewhat misleading, and several crucial points are left out altogether or rearranged to inspire shock/horror/disgust. His original op-ed piece and facebook post basically lay out the following as his solution for the situation:
1. Accept that as things stand, Gaza is a mess, the two state solution is not working.
2. Temporarily remove the population of Gaza to specifically established camps (run in strict accordance with international law, so with international observers, etc), level Gaza (as it's a dump), and rebuild it. Treat those who refuse to co-operate as Hamas fighters. Make their situation untenable by killing them or cutting off essentials whilst the resettlement/rebuilding in Gaza is in progress.
3. Officially absorb Gaza as part of Israel. Make the Gazans into official Israeli citizens after a short period of time and rehouse them in the newly rebuilt cities(after winnowing out the Hamas fighters). Alternatively, as many Gazans simply just want to get out of Gaza, offer them generous resettlement immigration grants and help to relocate them elsewhere in the world depending on where they want to go.
Now this is highly controversial, and is worrying on several humanitarian fronts(mainly with regards to Palestinians who disagree and don't want to co-operate). But let's be honest, placing people in temporary camps established in line with international law, before proceeding to grant them Israeli citizenship or resettlement packages isn't quite chucking them all in 'concentration camps' or committing 'genocide' as the article so gleefully portrays and misdirects.
I found those links interested so I poked a little deeper into them. The first article, which you quoted, comes from a chap called Phillip Kleinfeld.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/israeli-racism-gaza-kleinfeld-511?utm_source=vicefbuk He's an aspiring journalist specialising in anti-facism, but if you scroll through his Twitter/Tumblr, you find that he's almost exclusively 95% about anti-Israel stuff on Palestine. That in no way invalidates anything he says necessarily, but I do feel it's necessary to set some context about the author of the piece.
It's almost likfe this has been in the news a lot or is an ongoing event worth commenting on.
It should also be recognised that he very deliberately sets a narrative with that piece. There are some very important points raised about the discrimination against Palestinians within Israel, and the slow rise of the nationalistic right wing.
I'm not convinced it's been that slow as such -- merely accelerated by recent events globally, but MMV there.
A lot of the writing is hyperbolic though
I guess he should link to more youtube videos......
, and examples very clearly cherry picked to give a specific image, in a way that I could do here to try and prove that facism was on the rise in the UK, or communism,
Well firstly I think your use of the term "cherry picking" is misleading and hyperbolic. He's constructing an argument or a narrative, sure, and to that end he points out or lists events/actions that he believes support or show X/Y/Z but in terms of the point he's making he's not ignoring or omitting key statistics or the like.
.... I wish you every success in trying to prove that Communism is on the rise in the UK.
Communards might be due a comeback though, this 80s revival appears to be showing no signs of ending soon, alas.
or suchlike. It's not a bad piece, he conducts a lot of the interviews himself, but his writing is far from the impartiality a good journalist should strive for.
Fair enough, I don't see it as being as different in that regards as the rhetoric coming from the other side and that's ignoring all the professional outrage/click bait merchants like Hannity et al referenced earlier.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/israeli-newspaper-when-genocide-is-permissable/ With regards to the second link, the article being slated has been removed from the main newspapers website, and the author forbidden from publishing anymore using that platform. The blogger's article was in no way vetted by the newspaper, and was effectively a self-publication.
I'm more astonished/horrified a ( presumably) professional outlet saw fit to publish it.
One would suggest he " he very deliberately sets a narrative with that piece" , that " A lot of the writing is hyperbolic though" and uses " examples very clearly cherry picked to give a specific image" which is fine ..? No complaints or outrage over that.
The Times of Israel maintains an open blog platform: Once we have accepted bloggers, we allow them to post their own items. This trust has rarely been abused. We are angry and appalled that it was in this case, and will take steps to prevent a recurrence.
So yes, I'm not sure the article proves anything except that occasionally a controversial post or piece gets published by online bloggers occasionally, God only knows I've seen enough of them put up on the Daily Mail/Guardian/wherever websites over the years.
YMMV here but I don't recall any of the publications you mention publishing pieces arguing for genocide.
.. except in the housing market perhaps.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/08/israeli-lawmaker-calls-for-genocide-of-palestinians-gets-5000-facebook-likes/ Pertaining to the third article, the woman in question who made the post under discussion represents the far right religious Zionist party 'Jewish Home'. She is a member of Knesset, which is disgusting, but then again, we have George Galloway here in the UK, they have Marine Le Pen in France, and so on. Unfortunately, there are usually enough nasty people on any countries political scene, and due to the political system set up in Israel, the religious far right can wield excessive power (something I believe they should change). It also doesn't help that in terms of social dynamics, the far right in Israel seems to have far more children, and it's beginning to affect the balance of power between secular and religious there. I don't believe it's such a big issue right now, but it may well be in a quarter of a century's time.
How much power does Galloway have ? Le Pen has a bit more influence -- one notes the horrific scenes in Paris t'other weekend which was appalling in scope and nature and can't help but wonder ....
We're broadly agreed , ish, on the why this is happening but I still don't think that excuses a Govt. minister saying that and not -- AFAIK -- being sacked or censured.
... makes our politics look so dull in comparison.
Or sensible, it's so easy to get those two confused.
The post he made that's being slammed was actually not quoted in entirety in that original link (again, a spot of cherry picking). It's still a very controversial post, but not quite so damning. There's a lot of throwing around of the terms 'concentration camps' and 'genocide' in the article, but those phrases are actually somewhat misleading, and several crucial points are left out altogether or rearranged to inspire shock/horror/disgust. His original op-ed piece and facebook post basically lay out the following as his solution for the situation:
1. Accept that as things stand, Gaza is a mess, the two state solution is not working.
2. Temporarily remove the population of Gaza to specifically established camps (run in strict accordance with international law, so with international observers, etc), level Gaza (as it's a dump), and rebuild it. Treat those who refuse to co-operate as Hamas fighters. Make their situation untenable by killing them or cutting off essentials whilst the resettlement/rebuilding in Gaza is in progress.
3. Officially absorb Gaza as part of Israel. Make the Gazans into official Israeli citizens after a short period of time and rehouse them in the newly rebuilt cities(after winnowing out the Hamas fighters). Alternatively, as many Gazans simply just want to get out of Gaza, offer them generous resettlement immigration grants and help to relocate them elsewhere in the world depending on where they want to go.
Now this is highly controversial, and is worrying on several humanitarian fronts(mainly with regards to Palestinians who disagree and don't want to co-operate). But let's be honest, placing people in temporary camps established in line with international law, before proceeding to grant them Israeli citizenship or resettlement packages isn't quite chucking them all in 'concentration camps' or committing 'genocide' as the article so gleefully portrays and misdirects.
Da Boss wrote: What that is (moving people under threat of force from one location to another) is ethnic cleansing, and it is against international law.
"We come to the question: how is it with the women and the children? I have resolved even here on a completely clear solution. That is to say I do not consider myself justified in eradicating the men - so to speak killing or ordering them killed - and allowing the avengers in the shape of the children to grow up for our sons and grandsons." - Heinrich Himmler
Considering some of the other things Israel has done lately, I don't think international law is a concern of theirs. (Which is a state of affairs I find deeply ironic)
Further, we have a country under embargo, you know what most tunnels are used for, I'm willing to bet? Smuggling. Same as along the US boarder. How do you think they've been able to get enough goods into the place to keep from dying en mass?
The UN reported a year or two ago that Gaza would be uninhabitable by human beings by 2017 due to Israels sanctions.
The other issue I have with all this is: if Hamas has been firing 'thousands' of rockets, then where is the damage? Where are the civilians dead? Iron Dome was tested under ideal conditions and had an 80% success rate (IIRC). Which is actually very good for a missile intercept system. So if thousands of rockets have been fired, hundreds must be getting through.
It's almost likfe this has been in the news a lot or is an ongoing event worth commenting on.
I thought that might be the case, so I did actually go a bit further back then than two weeks or so. He did a tour of some rallies in France, but generally speaking, 95% of his stuff from within the last year or so is on Palestine.
Well firstly I think your use of the term "cherry picking" is misleading and hyperbolic. He's constructing an argument or a narrative, sure, and to that end he points out or lists events/actions that he believes support or show X/Y/Z but in terms of the point he's making he's not ignoring or omitting key statistics or the like.
By cherry picking, I'm saying that he's only selecting facts which support the 'Young Israeli's are racists/anti-Palestinian' narrative. For example, there's nothing regarding this story, or similar ones:-
That's not to say that there isn't some substance to his article, but it does cherry pick, in that there's nothing there with regards to Israeli/Palestinian youths getting along at all (because it doesn't fit the narrative).
.... I wish you every success in trying to prove that Communism is on the rise in the UK.
I couldn't prove it, but I could write a similar article talking about the number of University students who join communist societies whilst they're at university, espouse left wing politics, make up the majority number in left wing protests/rallies, etc. It would be a load of rubbish, but the point I was making was that by assembling certain 'facts' in certain ways, you can write a story on practically anything that seems legitimate at face value.
I'm more astonished/horrified a ( presumably) professional outlet saw fit to publish it.
One would suggest he " he very deliberately sets a narrative with that piece" , that " A lot of the writing is hyperbolic though" and uses " examples very clearly cherry picked to give a specific image" which is fine ..? No complaints or outrage over that.
The blogger had previously published an acceptable piece, which meant that he could automatically upload/publish pieces by himself to their website. So he uploaded his new piece, there was an outcry, the newspaper actually looked at it, realised what he'd put up, and removed it. It's really no more outrageous than someone posting a racist rant here on Dakka, it doesn't mean Dakka necessarily endorses it or reviewed it beforehand.
How much power does Galloway have ? Le Pen has a bit more influence -- one notes the horrific scenes in Paris t'other weekend which was appalling in scope and nature and can't help but wonder ....
We're broadly agreed , ish, on the why this is happening but I still don't think that excuses a Govt. minister saying that and not -- AFAIK -- being sacked or censured.
... makes our politics look so dull in comparison.
I agree totally. Its never a good thing when extremists start getting traction in mainstream politics.
It again more or less states the same thing (although the translation is a little botched and reads worse if you can't read Hebrew). Like I said, it's a controversial view, and one I wouldn't agree with on several ethical grounds. But it isn't quite 'concentration camps and genocide'.
By cherry picking, I'm saying that he's only selecting facts which support the 'Young Israeli's are racists/anti-Palestinian' narrative. For example, there's nothing regarding this story, or similar ones:-
That's not to say that there isn't some substance to his article, but it does cherry pick, in that there's nothing there with regards to Israeli/Palestinian youths getting along at all (because it doesn't fit the narrative).
I fail to see how stories about holiday camps that occur outside of the ME/area of conflict actually disprove his argument that there's been a trend of rascist/discriminatory legislation over the past few years that -- and this in his opinion -- "has" fanned the flames of hatred amongst the local inhabitants , most of whom never or rarely get to meet anyone from the opposition and certainly don't get invited to summer camps in North America.
.
I couldn't prove it, but I could write a similar article talking about the number of University students who join communist societies whilst they're at university, espouse left wing politics, make up the majority number in left wing protests/rallies, etc. It would be a load of rubbish,
Yes it would as none of those people are actually in power or enacting legislation.
but the point I was making was that by assembling certain 'facts' in certain ways, you can write a story on practically anything that seems legitimate at face value.
Obviously.
The blogger had previously published an acceptable piece, which meant that he could automatically upload/publish pieces by himself to their website. So he uploaded his new piece, there was an outcry, the newspaper actually looked at it, realised what he'd put up, and removed it. It's really no more outrageous than someone posting a racist rant here on Dakka, it doesn't mean Dakka necessarily endorses it or reviewed it beforehand.
The difference being of course Dakka isn't a news site -- toy soldiers/geekery aside of course -- and isn't publishing articles on situations in the ME. Given that the topic is obviously a little bit ... firey ... with regards to inflammatory rhetoric and calls for mass murder of Z/X/Y with monotonous regularity it's beyond a joke that this was permissible from a serious site.
If this had been an equally -- if not more -- hate filled rant from a Muslim site or publication I think it fair to say it would have been bandied about all over the place as "proof" of blah blah blah.
I did click through to the original article and again -- even with talk of "resettlement packages" -- still think it's a horrific piece that does indeed invoke concentration camps and the spectre of genocide and actually makes what he said worse.
Especially
Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.
.
which is pretty much a call for Lebensraum.
Take your word for it with regards to the hebrew version.
“[Israel should] designate certain open areas on the Sinai border, adjacent to the sea, in which the civilian population will be concentrated, far from the built-up areas that are used for launches and tunneling. In these areas, tent encampments will be established, until relevant emigration destinations are determined.”
And for those who don’t leave:
“[Gaza should be] shelled with maximum fire power. The entire civilian and military infrastructure of Hamas, its means of communication and of logistics, will be destroyed entirely, down to their foundations.”
To ensure maximum misery of the Palestinian people, he also adds that all electricity and water should be cut off from Palestinian use.
All bodes well for the future then eh ?
Concentration camps and mass exterminations .....?!?
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you
If you're making a serious point addictinginfo is not the best way to substantiate it
And you may want to read the Op-Ed itself instead of cherry picked quotes taken out of context -http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U9989fldWLE
Ultimatum – One warning from the Prime Minister of Israel to the enemy population, in which he announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. Hamas may unconditionally surrender and prevent the attack.
Attack – Attack the entire ‘target bank’ throughout Gaza with the IDF’s maximum force (and not a tiny fraction of it) with all the conventional means at its disposal. All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’. It is enough that we are hitting exact targets and that we gave them advance warning.
Siege – Parallel to the above, a total siege on Gaza. Nothing will enter the area. Israel, however, will allow exit from Gaza. (Civilians may go to Sinai, fighters may surrender to IDF forces).
Defense – Any place from which Israel or Israel’s forces were attacked will be immediately attacked with full force and no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’.
Conquer – After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.
Elimination- The GSS and IDF will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave.
Sovereignty – Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel. The coastal train line will be extended, as soon as possible, to reach the entire length of Gaza.
According to polls, most of the Arabs in Gaza wish to leave. Those who were not involved in anti-Israel activity will be offered a generous international emigration package. Those who choose to remain will receive permanent resident status. After a number of years of living in Israel and becoming accustomed to it, contingent on appropriate legislation in the Knesset and the authorization of the Minister of Interior, those who personally accept upon themselves Israel’s rule, substance and way of life of the Jewish State in its Land, will be offered Israeli citizenship
No mention of concentration camps, instead he wants a mas evacuation of civilians and non-combatants from Gaza to prevent them getting caught in the cross fire so that Israel can combat Hamas with less risk to civilians. His proposal even outlines Israel providing food, water, shelter, electricity, and other aid for the civilians.
You cannot in good faith claim that this was an argument for " Concentration camps and mass exterminations"
If you're making a serious point addictinginfo is not the best way to substantiate it
If you wish to contribute to the thread in a serious manner then it's probably worth you reading what the other posters say.
That way when they say
I did click through to the original article and again
And then go on to reference and quote from that piece that means they have actually read it.
And then you go on to try and make a point about cherry picking and taking things out of context.
Thanks
You cannot in good faith claim that this was an argument for " Concentration camps and mass exterminations"
I can, look :
instead he wants a mas (sic)_ evacuation of civilians and non-combatants from Gaza
so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?
They won't be able to go back to where they were "evacuated" from as
Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews.
And anyone who doesn't leave -- be it through stubbornness, religious devotion, maybe being held by cowards to be used as human shields against their will....
targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’....After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.
You cannot in good faith claim that this was an argument for " Concentration camps and mass exterminations"
I can, look :
instead he wants a mas (sic)_ evacuation of civilians and non-combatants from Gaza
so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?
If you read the Op-Ed and the Facebook post you would have noticed references to the Sinai, and also setting up full amenities. It seems somewhat strange to criticize one poster for allegedly not reading something, then ignoring the actual content yourself
reds8n wrote: Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews.
That part I do disagree with
reds8n wrote: And anyone who doesn't leave -- be it through stubbornness, religious devotion, maybe being held by cowards to be used as human shields against their will....
targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’....After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.
That would be out of context again. The military action you are quoting was advocated as taking place after civilians and non-combatants have left the area.
So still nothing to substantiate concentration camps (refugee camps yes), much less mass exterminations. Unless of course there is an attempt at Israel=Nazi Germany false equivalence
I think a cessation in the hostilities -- from both sides -- would be an excellent idea.
I can totally understand why Israel undertakes (some) of its actions --- and one is all too aware it's very easy indeed to say that "they should do X/Y/Z" when sat somewhere nice and safe not under threat of rocket attack or suicide bombing.
But -- and all nations have ( or will no doubt) --- step over the line at times, especially when at war.
But too much of this is just.... too far.
One does note -- referring to a point raised by Mr Ketara ( I think, apologies otherwise) -- that the other, mainly Islamic, nations in that area are not exactly falling over to help their brethren. As per usual.
I appreciate that some of the nations - Egypt for example -- have some issues of their own to work through, and there's odd reports today/recently about Saudi Arabia and Isis worries.
But -- and I admit to being no scholar here on this topic -- one would suggest that any deity is more likely to look favourably on those who send help or offer shelter to those in need than those who, I dunno... host football tournaments.
reds8n wrote: I think a cessation in the hostilities -- from both sides -- would be an excellent idea.
Agreed. I would hope that itt opens up the possibility for displays of good faith, rather than an opportunity to reload
reds8n wrote: But -- and all nations have ( or will no doubt) --- step over the line at times, especially when at war.
But too much of this is just.... too far.
Out of curiosity what do you think is "too far"?
reds8n wrote: One does note -- referring to a point raised by Mr Ketara ( I think, apologies otherwise) -- that the other, mainly Islamic, nations in that area are not exactly falling over to help their brethren. As per usual.
One school of thought is that this is now a proxy war between various Middle Eastern countries - not just between Hamas and Israel
Frazzled wrote: No other ME nation wants the Gazans because they are viewed as extreme trouble.
Even if Israel opened up the air and water, they would still be microscopic, surrounded by two other nations that have no interest in letting them in.
To be feasible, the only way to end this is annexation, by either Egypt or Israel. The West Bank is similar, but could be annexed by Jordan.
This is the solution most likely to result in a lasting peace (i.e., other Arab countries annexing the territories).
I should add that the above article was written by Moshe Feiglin, a hardline extremist whose views are basically repackaged Meir Kahane slogans. He's pretty much the Israeli equivalent of Ann Coulter, and a big name in the settler community. His views do not even come close to approximating the views of most Israelis.
so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?
If you read the Op-Ed and the Facebook post you would have noticed references to the Sinai, and also setting up full amenities. It seems somewhat strange to criticize one poster for allegedly not reading something, then ignoring the actual content yourself
I'll say again :
so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?
There's not like an abandoned city there just waiting for inhabitants.
It''ll be in camps.
That would be out of context again. The military action you are quoting was advocated as taking place after civilians and non-combatants have left the area.
Actually it's "if" they can leave. Otherwise it's all gloves are off, in the area then you're a target.
So still nothing to substantiate concentration camps (refugee camps yes)
, No, refugee camps are set up to receive those who are displaced by conflict, drought or perhaps have fled an area to seek better employment opportunities.
Concentration, or internment camps if you prefer " The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as suspect."
seems to fit the bill.
And note that these would be camps ran by the Govt. which has the aforementioned members therein which are calling for the deaths of Palestinian mothers.
Would you walk off quietly with them then ?
One would suggest that history shows that groups that do so rarely do well.
, much less mass exterminations
Except the for the untold numbers of those who'd be left behind.
I'm sure it'd be dead easy to move the best part of 2 million people around that region.
Piece of cake.
. Unless of course there is an attempt at Israel=Nazi Germany false equivalence
Not at all.
I do not think it at all plausible or even in the realms of sanity that Israel believes in a 1000 year Reich, Aryan supremacy or that Jewish people are subhuman.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Well for starters suggesting forcing the best part of 1.8 million people into camps and then .......
I should add that the above article was written by Moshe Feiglin, a hardline extremist whose views are basically repackaged Meir Kahane slogans. He's pretty much the Israeli equivalent of Ann Coulter, and a big name in the settler community. His views do not even come close to approximating the views of most Israelis.
That's somewhat reassuring.
.. about Israel anyway, is soemwhat horrific with regards to human nature perhaps but that's a whole other thread.
I just worry that -- whilst it's obviously never been flowers and polite applause -- this sort of rhetoric appears to be gaining a lot more traction and even viewed as not being that ridiculous.
Which -- and it's very limited -- isn't the Israel I know/remember.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
To play devil's advocate...
So are you saying it's impossible to be against a particular political philosophy without being against a particular set of people? Is the state of Israel synonymous with the entirety of Judaism?
For instance, if one were against the Reconquista movement to reclaim the western US advocated by some in Mexico, would that make one an anti-Mexican? If one is against the establishment of the Islamic State's caliphate, does that make one anti-muslim?
Or is it possible that political movements and states are not necessarily the same thing as the people they originate from?
so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?
There's not like an abandoned city there just waiting for inhabitants.
It''ll be in camps.
And I'll say it again - refugee camps, not concentration camps. Again, set up in the Sinai, with full amenities
reds8n wrote: Actually it's "if" they can leave. Otherwise it's all gloves are off, in the area then you're a target.
Well Hamas have just claimed that they do not use human shields ( ) so there should be little problem evacuating non-combatants. Anyone willing to fight and die, without sacrificing others, may of course stay
reds8n wrote: , No, refugee camps are set up to receive those who are displaced by conflict, drought or perhaps have fled an area to seek better employment opportunities.
You do know that the definition you put forward actually supports my argument, rather than undermines it
reds8n wrote: Concentration, or internment camps if you prefer " The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as suspect."
seems to fit the bill.
And this definition does not correspond to what is being proposed. The camps are set up to accommodate people who want to leave the conflict zone. Also the camps are being described as set up with full amenities, medical supplies, and aid. Hardly what could be described as harm conditions by any reasonable standard.
reds8n wrote: And note that these would be camps ran by the Govt. which has the aforementioned members therein which are calling for the deaths of Palestinian mothers.
Would you walk off quietly with them then ?
Could we get a source please, and one showing that this is the sentiments of a sizable and influential/significant group and not some lone voice or fringe element. Unless you want the UK judged on the basis of individuals such as George Galloway, or Nick Griffin
reds8n wrote: One would suggest that history shows that groups that do so rarely do well.
Is this another Israel=Nazi false equivalence?
reds8n wrote: Except the for the untold numbers of those who'd be left behind.
I'm sure it'd be dead easy to move the best part of 2 million people around that region.
Piece of cake.
1.7 million, so that is some significant rounding up. If a neutral third party assisted with the evacuation and running the camps that would help alleviate a lot of the distrust
I do not think it at all plausible or even in the realms of sanity that Israel believes in a 1000 year Reich, Aryan supremacy or that Jewish people are subhuman.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Good thing I haven't done that then. Even if I had it is still not as lazy as taking isolated examples (two idiots on Twitter), or taking statements out of context, or grossly distorting facts (like claiming a well set up humane refugee camp is a concentration camp)
reds8n wrote: Well for starters suggesting forcing the best part of 1.8 million people into camps and then .......
Firing hundreds of rockets at Israel isn't too far, but setting up refugee camps to minimize civilian casualties is?
I should add that the above article was written by Moshe Feiglin, a hardline extremist whose views are basically repackaged Meir Kahane slogans. He's pretty much the Israeli equivalent of Ann Coulter, and a big name in the settler community. His views do not even come close to approximating the views of most Israelis.
That's somewhat reassuring.
.. about Israel anyway, is soemwhat horrific with regards to human nature perhaps but that's a whole other thread.
I just worry that -- whilst it's obviously never been flowers and polite applause -- this sort of rhetoric appears to be gaining a lot more traction and even viewed as not being that ridiculous.
Which -- and it's very limited -- isn't the Israel I know/remember.
It isn't gaining traction that would make it a mainstream view. You know this is noise being made by a vocal minority on the fringes, yet instead of giving it such context you're equating this with mainstream sentiment in Israel. You are legitimizing this point of view by giving it credibility that it does not have, and distorting the actual mainstream view which makes any long term solution that much harder to obtain
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
Citation needed on that one.
You aren't going to find a global census of Jews who identify as Zionists, so a bit of inference is required.
About 90% of Jews identify as "very or somewhat emotionally attached to Israel." Of the larger portion of the community, zero percent identified as "not at all attached."
If you look at all of the polls, it looks like nearly all Jews are Zionists aside from a very small minority of ultra-orthodox.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
To play devil's advocate...
So are you saying it's impossible to be against a particular political philosophy without being against a particular set of people? Is the state of Israel synonymous with the entirety of Judaism?
For instance, if one were against the Reconquista movement to reclaim the western US advocated by some in Mexico, would that make one an anti-Mexican? If one is against the establishment of the Islamic State's caliphate, does that make one anti-muslim?
Or is it possible that political movements and states are not necessarily the same thing as the people they originate from?
The right of a state and people to exist is not a political philosophy in the same way that opposing the war on drugs is a political philosophy. We are talking about a view shared by nearly all Jews in the world - that Israel, the Jewish state, which has existed for over half a century, as a right to exist and that the people who live there have a right to security and safety.
Reconquista is an offensive movement to fundamentally change the United States. Establishing an Islamic caliphate would involve redrawing the map of the Middle East. Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
reds8n wrote: that the other, mainly Islamic, nations in that area are not exactly falling over to help their brethren. As per usual.
The great irony with this is, of course, that one of the main tenets of Islam is charity and taking care of others.... Which makes all those other Islamic nations "terrible Muslims" from the perspective of following their religious values
The often reviled ideology that gave rise to Israel has been an astonishing historical success.
They come from every corner of the country—investment bankers, farmers, computer geeks, jazz drummers, botany professors, car mechanics—leaving their jobs and their families. They put on uniforms that are invariably too tight or too baggy, sign out their gear and guns. Then, scrambling onto military vehicles, 70,000 reservists—women and men—join the young conscripts of what is proportionally the world's largest citizen army. They all know that some of them will return maimed or not at all. And yet, without hesitation or (for the most part) complaint, proudly responding to the call-up, Israelis stand ready to defend their nation. They risk their lives for an idea.
The idea is Zionism. It is the belief that the Jewish people should have their own sovereign state in the Land of Israel. Though founded less than 150 years ago, the Zionist movement sprung from a 4,000-year-long bond between the Jewish people and its historic homeland, an attachment sustained throughout 20 centuries of exile. This is why Zionism achieved its goals and remains relevant and rigorous today. It is why citizens of Israel—the state that Zionism created—willingly take up arms. They believe their idea is worth fighting for.
Yet Zionism, arguably more than any other contemporary ideology, is demonized. "All Zionists are legitimate targets everywhere in the world!" declared a banner recently paraded by anti-Israel protesters in Denmark. "Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances," warned a sign in the window of a Belgian cafe. A Jewish demonstrator in Iceland was accosted and told, "You Zionist pig, I'm going to behead you."
In certain academic and media circles, Zionism is synonymous with colonialism and imperialism. Critics on the radical right and left have likened it to racism or, worse, Nazism. And that is in the West. In the Middle East, Zionism is the ultimate abomination—the product of a Holocaust that many in the region deny ever happened while maintaining nevertheless that the Zionists deserved it.
What is it about Zionism that elicits such loathing? After all, the longing of a dispersed people for a state of their own cannot possibly be so repugnant, especially after that people endured centuries of massacres and expulsions, culminating in history's largest mass murder. Perhaps revulsion toward Zionism stems from its unusual blend of national identity, religion and loyalty to a land. Japan offers the closest parallel, but despite its rapacious past, Japanese nationalism doesn't evoke the abhorrence aroused by Zionism.
Clearly anti-Semitism, of both the European and Muslim varieties, plays a role. Cabals, money grubbing, plots to take over the world and murder babies—all the libels historically leveled at Jews are regularly hurled at Zionists. And like the anti-Semitic capitalists who saw all Jews as communists and the communists who painted capitalism as inherently Jewish, the opponents of Zionism portray it as the abominable Other.
But not all of Zionism's critics are bigoted, and not a few of them are Jewish. For a growing number of progressive Jews, Zionism is too militantly nationalist, while for many ultra-Orthodox Jews, the movement is insufficiently pious—even heretical. How can an idea so universally reviled retain its legitimacy, much less lay claim to success?
The answer is simple: Zionism worked. The chances were infinitesimal that a scattered national group could be assembled from some 70 countries into a sliver-sized territory shorn of resources and rich in adversaries and somehow survive, much less prosper. The odds that those immigrants would forge a national identity capable of producing a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities approximated zero.
Elsewhere in the world, indigenous languages are dying out, forests are being decimated, and the populations of industrialized nations are plummeting. Yet Zionism revived the Hebrew language, which is now more widely spoken than Danish and Finnish and will soon surpass Swedish. Zionist organizations planted hundreds of forests, enabling the land of Israel to enter the 21st century with more trees than it had at the end of the 19th. And the family values that Zionism fostered have produced the fastest natural growth rate in the modernized world and history's largest Jewish community. The average secular couple in Israel has at least three children, each a reaffirmation of confidence in Zionism's future.
Indeed, by just about any international criteria, Israel is not only successful but flourishing. The population is annually rated among the happiest, healthiest and most educated in the world. Life expectancy in Israel, reflecting its superb universal health-care system, significantly exceeds America's and that of most European countries. Unemployment is low, the economy robust. A global leader in innovation, Israel is home to R&D centers of some 300 high-tech companies, including Apple, Intel and Motorola. The beaches are teeming, the rock music is awesome, and the food is off the Zagat charts.
The democratic ideals integral to Zionist thought have withstood pressures that have precipitated coups and revolutions in numerous other nations. Today, Israel is one of the few states—along with Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.—that has never known a second of nondemocratic governance.
These accomplishments would be sufficiently astonishing if attained in North America or Northern Europe. But Zionism has prospered in the supremely inhospitable—indeed, lethal—environment of the Middle East. Two hours' drive east of the bustling nightclubs of Tel Aviv—less than the distance between New York and Philadelphia—is Jordan, home to more than a half million refugees from Syria's civil war. Traveling north from Tel Aviv for four hours would bring that driver to war-ravaged Damascus or, heading east, to the carnage in western Iraq. Turning south, in the time it takes to reach San Francisco from Los Angeles, the traveler would find himself in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
In a region reeling with ethnic strife and religious bloodshed, Zionism has engendered a multiethnic, multiracial and religiously diverse society. Arabs serve in the Israel Defense Forces, in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. While Christian communities of the Middle East are steadily eradicated, Israel's continues to grow. Israeli Arab Christians are, in fact, on average better educated and more affluent than Israeli Jews.
In view of these monumental achievements, one might think that Zionism would be admired rather than deplored. But Zionism stands accused of thwarting the national aspirations of Palestine's indigenous inhabitants, of oppressing and dispossessing them.
Never mind that the Jews were natives of the land—its Arabic place names reveal Hebrew palimpsests—millennia before the Palestinians or the rise of Palestinian nationalism. Never mind that in 1937, 1947, 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians received offers to divide the land and rejected them, usually with violence. And never mind that the majority of Zionism's adherents today still stand ready to share their patrimony in return for recognition of Jewish statehood and peace.
The response to date has been, at best, a refusal to remain at the negotiating table or, at worst, war. But Israelis refuse to relinquish the hope of resuming negotiations with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. To live in peace and security with our Palestinian neighbors remains the Zionist dream.
Still, for all of its triumphs, its resilience and openness to peace, Zionism fell short of some of its original goals. The agrarian, egalitarian society created by Zionist pioneers has been replaced by a dynamic, largely capitalist economy with yawning gaps between rich and poor. Mostly secular at its inception, Zionism has also spawned a rapidly expanding religious sector, some elements of which eschew the Jewish state.
About a fifth of Israel's population is non-Jewish, and though some communities (such as the Druse) are intensely patriotic and often serve in the army, others are much less so, and some even call for Israel's dissolution. And there is the issue of Judea and Samaria—what most of the world calls the West Bank—an area twice used to launch wars of national destruction against Israel but which, since its capture in 1967, has proved painfully divisive.
Many Zionists insist that these territories represent the cradle of Jewish civilization and must, by right, be settled. But others warn that continued rule over the West Bank's Palestinian population erodes Israel's moral foundation and will eventually force it to choose between being Jewish and remaining democratic.
Yet the most searing of Zionism's unfulfilled visions was that of a state in which Jews could be free from the fear of annihilation. The army imagined by Theodor Herzl, Zionism's founding father, marched in parades and saluted flag-waving crowds. The Israel Defense Forces, by contrast, with no time for marching, much less saluting, has remained in active combat mode since its founding in 1948. With the exception of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the ideological forbear of today's Likud Party, none of Zionism's early thinkers anticipated circumstances in which Jews would be permanently at arms. Few envisaged a state that would face multiple existential threats on a daily basis just because it is Jewish.
Confronted with such monumental threats, Israelis might be expected to flee abroad and prospective immigrants discouraged. But Israel has one of the lower emigration rates among developed countries while Jews continue to make aliyah—literally, in Hebrew, "to ascend"—to Israel. Surveys show that Israelis remain stubbornly optimistic about their country's future. And Jews keep on arriving, especially from Europe, where their security is swiftly eroding. Last week, thousands of Parisians went on an anti-Semitic rant, looting Jewish shops and attempting to ransack synagogues.
American Jews face no comparable threat, and yet numbers of them continue to make aliyah. They come not in search of refuge but to take up the Zionist challenge—to be, as the Israeli national anthem pledges, "a free people in our land, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem." American Jews have held every high office, from prime minister to Supreme Court chief justice to head of Israel's equivalent of the Fed, and are disproportionately prominent in Israel's civil society.
Hundreds of young Americans serve as "Lone Soldiers," without families in the country, and volunteer for front-line combat units. One of them, Max Steinberg from Los Angeles, fell in the first days of the current Gaza fighting. His funeral, on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, was attended by 30,000 people, most of them strangers, who came out of respect for this intrepid and selfless Zionist.
I also paid my respects to Max, whose Zionist journey was much like mine. After working on a kibbutz—a communal farm—I made aliyah and trained as a paratrooper. I participated in several wars, and my children have served as well, sometimes in battle. Our family has taken shelter from Iraqi Scuds and Hamas M-75s, and a suicide bomber killed one of our closest relatives.
Despite these trials, my Zionist life has been immensely fulfilling. And the reason wasn't Zionism's successes—not the Nobel Prizes gleaned by Israeli scholars, not the Israeli cures for chronic diseases or the breakthroughs in alternative energy. The reason—paradoxically, perhaps—was Zionism's failures.
Failure is the price of sovereignty. Statehood means making hard and often agonizing choices—whether to attack Hamas in Palestinian neighborhoods, for example, or to suffer rocket strikes on our own territory. It requires reconciling our desire to be enlightened with our longing to remain alive. Most onerously, sovereignty involves assuming responsibility. Zionism, in my definition, means Jewish responsibility. It means taking responsibility for our infrastructure, our defense, our society and the soul of our state. It is easy to claim responsibility for victories; setbacks are far harder to embrace.
But that is precisely the lure of Zionism. Growing up in America, I felt grateful to be born in a time when Jews could assume sovereign responsibilities. Statehood is messy, but I regarded that mess as a blessing denied to my forefathers for 2,000 years. I still feel privileged today, even as Israel grapples with circumstances that are at once perilous, painful and unjust. Fighting terrorists who shoot at us from behind their own children, our children in uniform continue to be killed and wounded while much of the world brands them as war criminals.
Zionism, nevertheless, will prevail. Deriving its energy from a people that refuses to disappear and its ethos from historically tested ideas, the Zionist project will thrive. We will be vilified, we will find ourselves increasingly alone, but we will defend the homes that Zionism inspired us to build.
The Israeli media have just reported the call-up of an additional 16,000 reservists. Even as I write, they too are mobilizing for active duty—aware of the dangers, grateful for the honor and ready to bear responsibility.
You do know that the definition you put forward actually supports my argument, rather than undermines it
Only if you're claiming that people who are told " leave here or die" are fleeing conflict as opposed to being forced out at gunpoint/under threat of extermination.
And this definition does not correspond to what is being proposed. The camps are set up to accommodate people who want to leave the conflict zone. Also the camps are being described as set up with full amenities, medical supplies, and aid. Hardly what could be described as harm conditions by any reasonable standard.
Again not "want to leave " but given no choice.
And you're honestly going to claim that they could set up these idyllic sounding camps, for that number of people, with no issues.
Really ? I don't think that's possible. At least not in the timeframe the article seems to be indicating.
Could we get a source please, and one showing that this is the sentiments of a sizable and influential/significant group and not some lone voice or fringe element. Unless you want the UK judged on the basis of individuals such as George Galloway, or Nick Griffin
AFAIK -- and hope -- she is indeed in somewhat of a minority. But one whose views seem to be more acceptable.
One hopes that's little more than the usual sort of Youtube commentator type crowd.
Is this another Israel=Nazi false equivalence?
You're really obsessed with nazis.
There's been various groups in history who've been " rounded up" and placed in camps or reservations etc etc, doesn't seem to end well for them.
1.7 million, so that is some significant rounding up. If a neutral third party assisted with the evacuation and running the camps that would help alleviate a lot of the distrust
I've read 18.2 M as the most common number and pretty much everything from 1.6 - 2M+
I'm not sure any 3rd party would want to be associated with such an act.
[qu
Good thing I haven't done that then. Even if I had it is still not as lazy as taking isolated examples (two idiots on Twitter), or taking statements out of context, or grossly distorting facts (like claiming a well set up humane refugee camp is a concentration camp)
You keep saying they'd be refugee camps, but they wouldn't be, regardless how much you pretend.
[
Firing hundreds of rockets at Israel isn't too far
Yes of course it is, it's stupid and monstrous act.
, but setting up refugee camps to minimize civilian casualties is?
Forcing people off the land under threat of death is different than setting up refugee camps IMO but you can't seem to see the difference.
So be it.
It isn't gaining traction
that would make it a mainstream view. You know this is noise being made by a vocal minority on the fringes, yet instead of giving it such context you're equating this with mainstream sentiment in Israel. You are legitimizing this point of view by giving it credibility that it does not have, and distorting the actual mainstream view which makes any long term solution that much harder to obtain
Just want to point out that other people did camps too (Americans to Japanese WW2 for example), you're rather hurting your own case by constantly bringing this up.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
You're right of course; I shall immediately cease any and all criticism of any of Israel's actions.
Their shelling of civilian buildings is entirely justified, and any insinuation to the contrary would rightfully be branded anti-semitism. Any defense of the palestinian populace is defense of a population entirely composed of terrorists, and is also incredibly anti-semitic. I shall also endeavour to stop paying any attention to statements by organisations such as the UN, or by other countries, that Israel's actions amount to war-crimes, as for me to pay them any heed would also be anti-semitic. Hell, when my friend Matt next acts like a dick when he's drunk, I will make sure I don't try to stop him getting violent in any way, as to do so would obviously be anti-semitic.
Seriously though, it's possible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, just like it's possible to criticise hamas witthout being islamophobic, or Barack Obama without being racist. To argue to the contrary is really really silly.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.
Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.
Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.
It's funny because there's a scottish referendum going on. Also england didn't start making buildins further and further into the scottish border, then say that the ground the buildings are on is England.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
You're right of course; I shall immediately cease any and all criticism of any of Israel's actions.
Their shelling of civilian buildings is entirely justified, and any insinuation to the contrary would rightfully be branded anti-semitism. Any defense of the palestinian populace is defense of a population entirely composed of terrorists, and is also incredibly anti-semitic. I shall also endeavour to stop paying any attention to statements by organisations such as the UN, or by other countries, that Israel's actions amount to war-crimes, as for me to pay them any heed would also be anti-semitic. Hell, when my friend Matt next acts like a dick when he's drunk, I will make sure I don't try to stop him getting violent in any way, as to do so would obviously be anti-semitic.
Seriously though, it's possible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, just like it's possible to criticise hamas witthout being islamophobic, or Barack Obama without being racist. To argue to the contrary is really really silly.
Israel has a right and obligation to protect its citizens. The UN has found, on at least three separate occasions, rockets being stored in its schools. Accusing Israel of war crimes is laughable. I'd like these armchair generals and tactical sages to offer some alternatives to what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth. Show me another military that has shown more restraint given similar daily mortar and rocket fire on its civilians.
Who would you prefer the IDF act like? The Russians? The US military? The Chinese? I'm confused.
It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.
Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.
It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.
Wrap it up folks! Israel confirmed to be beyond criticism.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.
Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.
If only there were someway of determining if, for example, the people of Scotland wanted to cast off the yoke of English oppression....
Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.
So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.
Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.
Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.
It's funny because there's a scottish referendum going on. Also england didn't start making buildins further and further into the scottish border, then say that the ground the buildings are on is England.
Nice attempt though Fraz!
Wales. Northern Ireland Stealing that Scottish oil. Where's the UN?!?!?!?!
And inversely. the US must immediately withdraw from the the Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Apache territories in the area formerly known as Texas. The Comanche Empire must also be vacated. In turn, the Comanche Empire must withdraw from Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Apache territories it stole from their rightful owners.
Mexico must withdraw from the Yucatan and give it back to Spain, which in turn must give it back to the Mayans. Central Mexico must be vacated and given to Spain which must be given back to the Aztecs, who must in turn give it back to to the Toltecs and in turn the Olmecs. Wow this is getting complicated.
EDIT: Query: has the UN passed a resolution decrying the downing of the Malaysian liner as a war crime yet? How about the Ukraine war in general? Has the UN passed a resolution decrying the destruction of historic sites by ISIS? The killing of Christians or Shiites by ISIS? If not why not?
Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.
Erm... not to be difficult, but you got peace in Ireland by getting the feth out in 1921.
Or were you referring to Northern Ireland? Because you still don't neccessarily have peace there, either.
The right of a state and people to exist is not a political philosophy in the same way that opposing the war on drugs is a political philosophy. We are talking about a view shared by nearly all Jews in the world - that Israel, the Jewish state, which has existed for over half a century, as a right to exist and that the people who live there have a right to security and safety.
Reconquista is an offensive movement to fundamentally change the United States. Establishing an Islamic caliphate would involve redrawing the map of the Middle East.
Again playing devils advocate here, effectively you're saying the distinction we're talking about here, when referring to people being racist/bigoted/etc against such ethnically centered political movements, is that one simply already occurred while the others have not?
That seems like an odd benchmark, especially as all the issues being raised with the others (redrawing maps, etc) occurred with Israel as well.
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders
Hrm, I think that one's up for dispute, particularly with regards to the West Bank.
If the average Palestinian would rise up and seize control of their country from Hamas they might be able to work out a sensible peace treaty with Israel.
As it stands the fight between Hamas and Israel will not end and the "average" Palestinian will continue to be caught in the middle.
Also, as long as Hamas continues to use UN buildings, schools, hospitals, and Palestinians as human shields then I submit that those same building and innocents will continue to die.
Palestinians want peace. Hamas want to eradicate Israel. Israel wants to continue to exist. Every one of those goals is in conflict with another.
And why doesn't Israel just annex the West Bank and make everyone Israeli citizens?
That's the single-state solution. THe problem with that is that then, it's likely that Israel will fail in the "Zionist State"... as the Jewish would likely be outnumbered.
Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.
Erm... not to be difficult, but you got peace in Ireland by getting the feth out in 1921.
Or were you referring to Northern Ireland? Because you still don't neccessarily have peace there, either.
Was referring to NI post Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to a long standing conflict.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.
So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...
wut? When did that happen?
The UN released a report last year, I did in fact make a thread about it at the time. Here is an article on it.
So why bring this up now?
We're talking about the conflict occuring in Gaza at the moment.
Besides... why are we taking reports from the HRC when there's obvious ax to grind?
Because when somebody claims the IDF is the most moral army in the world, it is rather relevant that they torture children.
The "everyone hates Israel" card is rather shaky, do you honestly think that UN, UNICEF and HRC staff all fabricate reports against Israel? Do you imagine this down to systemic antisemitism in those institutions?
Negative, I'm questioning the logic that being anti-zionist is the same as being anti-jewish when being against other such movements isn't synonymous with racism. The distinction then provided being that Israel already exists while the others haven't (and may never) come to fruition, which doesn't make much sense.
Because when somebody claims the IDF is the most moral army in the world, it is rather relevant that they torture children.
The "everyone hates Israel" card is rather shaky, do you honestly think that UN, UNICEF and HRC staff all fabricate reports against Israel? Do you imagine this down to systemic antisemitism in those institutions?
You should know me by now that I don't give 2-gak about the UN... especially the HRC. It's a farcial organization to the max.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Israel has a right and obligation to protect its citizens. The UN has found, on at least three separate occasions, rockets being stored in its schools. Accusing Israel of war crimes is laughable. I'd like these armchair generals and tactical sages to offer some alternatives to what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth. Show me another military that has shown more restraint given similar daily mortar and rocket fire on its civilians.
Who would you prefer the IDF act like? The Russians? The US military? The Chinese? I'm confused.
I was more making the point that from what you wrote, you were saying that any criticism of Israel in any manner, and about anything, is anti-semitic. Which is silly.
Negative, I'm questioning the logic that being anti-zionist is the same as being anti-jewish when being against other such movements isn't synonymous with racism. The distinction then provided being that Israel already exists while the others haven't (and may never) come to fruition, which doesn't make much sense.
And why doesn't Israel just annex the West Bank and make everyone Israeli citizens?
That's the single-state solution. THe problem with that is that then, it's likely that Israel will fail in the "Zionist State"... as the Jewish would likely be outnumbered.
*shrug*
Too bad total war isn't acceptable anymore...
So Israel is a Jewish state and not religion neutral? Didn't know that. Ok so alternatively West Bank and Gaza as an independent state, with a sky bridge (I would have said tunnel but clearly the Israelis would never tolerate that now...) between them. Gaza and WB would control their borders like avery other nation, including airspace (but that does not preclude their neighbors from maintaining their own border as well). Return to 1967 borders except Israel gets its physical connection to the Wailing Wall. Does that work? What other issues are there? Can I collect my Nobel peace prize now?
Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.
Erm... not to be difficult, but you got peace in Ireland by getting the feth out in 1921.
Or were you referring to Northern Ireland? Because you still don't neccessarily have peace there, either.
Was referring to NI post Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to a long standing conflict.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.
So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...
wut? When did that happen?
The UN released a report last year, I did in fact make a thread about it at the time. Here is an article on it.
So why bring this up now?
We're talking about the conflict occuring in Gaza at the moment.
Besides... why are we taking reports from the HRC when there's obvious ax to grind?
Because when somebody claims the IDF is the most moral army in the world, it is rather relevant that they torture children.
The "everyone hates Israel" card is rather shaky, do you honestly think that UN, UNICEF and HRC staff all fabricate reports against Israel? Do you imagine this down to systemic antisemitism in those institutions?
Every army has bad apples. You give a bunch of 18 year old kids machineguns and put them in dangerous situations, and you're going to get the occasional incident. This is unavoidable human nature. However...
What army in the world shows more restraint and consideration for civilians than Israel? Please, I can't wait to hear this.
New survey results show that violence is not a popular option among Palestinians and that Hamas is not benefiting from the current troubles, giving U.S. policymakers some breathing room to concentrate on more urgent crises in Iraq and Syria while backing practical steps to cool tensions.
A reliable new West Bank/Gaza public opinion survey conducted on June 15-17 -- the only such poll since the current kidnapping crisis began -- shows that Palestinian popular attitudes have hardened considerably on long-term issues of peace with Israel. Commissioned by The Washington Institute and conducted by a leading Palestinian pollster, the poll comprised face-to-face interviews with a standard random geographic probability sample of 1,200 adult Palestinians, yielding results with a 3% statistical margin of error. The responses indicate that fewer than 30% of Palestinians now support a "two-state solution": a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state in lasting peace with Israel. At the same time, some surprising signs of short-term pragmatism emerged -- especially, and even more surprisingly, in Gaza.
TWO-STATE SOLUTION SUDDENLY A MINORITY POSITION Regarding the longer-term, fundamental issue of a two-state solution, Palestinian public opinion has clearly taken a maximalist turn. Other recent polls, even after the collapse of the latest peace talks, showed a majority or plurality still favoring the goal of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside Israel (though the numbers were gradually declining). But now, a clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal "should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea."
On this key question, just 31% of West Bankers and 22% of Gazans would opt instead "to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution." And even fewer, contrary to other recent findings, pick a "one-state solution," in which "Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea." That is the preferred option of a mere 11% in the West Bank and 8% in Gaza.
This pattern is confirmed by other questions in the survey. For example, just one-third said that a two-state solution "should be the end of the conflict." Nearly two-thirds said "resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated." And only a third said that "it might be necessary to give up some of our claims so that our people and our children can have a better life.
Similarly, only a third said that a two-state solution would be their leadership's final goal. Instead, almost two-thirds said it would be "part of a 'program of stages,' to liberate all of historic Palestine later." This remarkable finding helps explain how a plurality or more of Palestinians can support President Mahmoud Abbas and reject a two-state solution at the same time.
BUT THE PUBLIC WANTS "POPULAR RESISTANCE," NOT VIOLENCE Despite continuing tensions over the June 12 kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank and Israel's resulting intensive searches and arrests, the Palestinian public is not turning toward large-scale violence. Rather, on tactical questions of relations with Israel, respondents broadly supported a nonviolent approach. The survey did not ask specifically about the latest kidnapping, which does appear fairly popular among Palestinians judging from traditional and social media content and anecdotal evidence.
In this survey, when asked whether Hamas "should maintain a ceasefire with Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank," a majority (56%) of West Bank respondents and a remarkable 70% of Gazans said yes. Similarly, asked if Hamas should accept Abbas's position that the new unity government renounce violence against Israel, West Bankers were evenly divided, but a majority (57%) of Gazans answered in the affirmative.
Nevertheless, "popular resistance against the occupation" -- such as demonstrations, strikes, marches, mass refusals to cooperate with Israel, and the like -- was seen as having a positive impact by most respondents in both territories: 62% in the West Bank and 73% in Gaza. And in the week since the survey was completed, Israel's shooting of several Palestinians and arrest of hundreds more in the course of searching for the kidnap victims may be turning the Palestinian public in a more actively hostile direction.
Both the kidnapping and a Palestinian hunger strike in Israeli jails have also maintained public attention on the prisoner issue. Asked what Israel could do "to convince Palestinians that it really wants peace," a large plurality picked "release more Palestinian prisoners." That option far outranked the others, each in the 15-20% range: "share Jerusalem as a joint capital," "stop building in settlements beyond the security barrier," or "grant Palestinians greater freedom of movement and crack down on settler attacks."
HAMAS IS NOT GAINING POLITICAL GROUND FROM THE CRISIS Most striking, and contrary to common misperception, Hamas is not gaining politically from the kidnapping. Asked who should be the president of Palestine in the next two years, a solid plurality in both the West Bank and Gaza named Abbas (30%) or other Fatah-affiliated leaders: Marwan Barghouti (12%), Muhammad Dahlan (10%), Rami Hamdallah (6%), Mustafa Barghouti (4%), Salam Fayyad (2%), or Mahmoud al-Aloul (1%). These findings strongly suggest that the Palestinian public as a whole has little or no desire to carry out any threats to "dissolve" the Palestinian Authority.
In stark contrast, Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal rated a combined total of just 9% support in the West Bank and 15% in Gaza. Another intriguing finding is that Dahlan has significant popular support among Gazans, at 20%. Also notable is that not one of the other old-guard Fatah figures, such as Abu Ala, Nabil Shaath, or Jibril Rajoub, attracted even 1% support in either the West Bank or Gaza.
MAJORITY WANT ISRAEL TO OFFER JOB OPPORTUNITIES Some additional and unexpected signs of short-term pragmatism showed up concerning bread-and-butter issues. Over 80% said they would "definitely" or "probably" want Israel to allow more Palestinians to work there. Around half said they would personally take "a good, high-paying job" inside Israel.
Moreover, despite narrow majority support for boycotting Israel, a larger majority said they would also like Israeli firms to offer more jobs inside the West Bank and Gaza. Nearly half said they would take such a position if available. This kind of pragmatism was particularly pronounced among the younger generation of adult Palestinians, those in the 18-to-35-year-old cohort. In a similar vein, among West Bankers in that group, more than three-quarters said they would like a new north-south highway bypassing Israeli checkpoints around Jerusalem. Among older West Bankers, that figure was somewhat lower, at around two-thirds.
DECRYING ISRAELI PRESSURE, BUT ALSO LOCAL CRIME AND CORRUPTION As Israel continues its search for the kidnap victims, Palestinian respondents voiced widespread concern about Israeli behavior in the territories -- but also about unrelated Palestinian behavior. In the West Bank, three-quarters see a "significant problem" with "threats and intimidation from Israeli soldiers and border guards," and with "delays and restrictions at checkpoints." Somewhat fewer West Bankers, but still a majority (63%), see "threats and intimidation from Jewish settlers" as a significant problem. These figures were all a bit lower in Gaza, where Israel's presence on the ground is much less intrusive.
Yet putting those numbers in perspective is the widespread negative perception of some Palestinian behavior. Among West Bankers, 72% view "corruption by Palestinian government officials" as a major problem; among Gazans, the proportion is 66%. Similarly, 77% of West Bankers and 71% of Gazans see local crime as a significant problem.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS These counterintuitive findings -- demonstrating that violence is not a popular option among Palestinians, and that Hamas is not benefiting from current troubles -- should give U.S. policymakers some needed breathing space to let the dust settle in this arena while concentrating on more urgent crises in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, the unexpected combination of short-term Palestinian popular pragmatism and long-term maximalism revealed by this survey suggests that U.S. policy should seriously consider abandoning all hope of a near-term, permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. In its place, Washington should focus on immediate steps to lower tensions, improve practical conditions, and perhaps set the stage for more moderate attitudes and more fruitful diplomatic discussions at some later date.
reds8n wrote: Only if you're claiming that people who are told " leave here or die" are fleeing conflict as opposed to being forced out at gunpoint/under threat of extermination.
That is such a fine distinction you are trying to make that I need a micrometer.
reds8n wrote: Again not "want to leave " but given no choice.
They have a choice, and are being made fully aware that the IDF intends to wipe out any combatants staying. Most people who do not harbour hostile intent will choose a conflict zone over a refugee camp
reds8n wrote: And you're honestly going to claim that they could set up these idyllic sounding camps, for that number of people, with no issues.
Strawman
reds8n wrote: Really ? I don't think that's possible. At least not in the timeframe the article seems to be indicating.
Which time frame was that? I don't recall seeing one laid out
AFAIK -- and hope -- she is indeed in somewhat of a minority. But one whose views seem to be more acceptable.
One hopes that's little more than the usual sort of Youtube commentator type crowd.
I'm not defending her words but she is talking about the mothers of the terrorists. Not all Palestinians, unless you consider them all terrorists which I would hope is not the case. This is again about comments being taken out of context in almost every post you have made.
She is an absolute minority figure, the same way that Nick Griffin is in the UK. Is he an acceptable standard to judge everyone else in the UK on?
You haven't shown that those views are becoming acceptable, much less mainstream. A few vocal people does not make the viewpoint mainstream. If you want to talk about a vile perspective calling for the wholesale slaughter of a people then I suggest you read the Hamas Charter.
There's been various groups in history who've been " rounded up" and placed in camps or reservations etc etc, doesn't seem to end well for them.
Just looking for clarification on your comment. No need to deflect. You are correct, that the Nazis were not the first to do so, but to many people the combination of concentration camps and mass extermination usually lead in one direction.
reds8n wrote: I've read 18.2 M as the most common number and pretty much everything from 1.6 - 2M+
I'm not sure any 3rd party would want to be associated with such an act.
I hope that the 18.2 million is a typo. I have seen the estimated population for Gaza as 1.8m for 2014, but the last confirmed figure was around 1.7m
reds8n wrote: You keep saying they'd be refugee camps, but they wouldn't be, regardless how much you pretend.
Shame that you own definition supported my argument while undermining your own. They won't be concentration camps, regardless of how much you pretend.
reds8n wrote: Forcing people off the land under threat of death is different than setting up refugee camps IMO but you can't seem to see the difference.
So be it.
If you equate a choice with consequences and "forcing people. . .under threat of death" as one in the same, as well as the inability to take quotes in context, then so be it.
My evidence is plain to see. You provided it; noise from fringe sources, and even then you had to take it out of context to make your point. Otherwise you would have had quotes from people who actually matter in Israel showing that was a mainstream view. Want to compare the platforms that the ruling parties of the Knesset ran on and the Hamas Charter to see which views about mass extermination are mainstream?
Same old.
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” — Samuel Adams
Every army has bad apples. You give a bunch of 18 year old kids machineguns and put them in dangerous situations, and you're going to get the occasional incident. This is unavoidable human nature.
Except of course this isnt just some 'bad apples', it is systemic, hence why Israel has need of a secret prison to torture people, and hence why so many former IDF are now speaking out about what they were ordered to do.
What army in the world shows more restraint and consideration for civilians than Israel? Please, I can't wait to hear this.
Any army that doesn't target hospitals and humanitarian centres, that doesn't use children as human shields when entering buildings, that doesn't target water supplies in a place where 90% of the water is unfit for human consumption. Shall I go on?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What army in the world shows more restraint and consideration for civilians than Israel?
Not perfect but better at consideration for civilians:
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
France
Canada
Well, 2 of those militaries are known for their etiquette, and being polite. 1 is too busy surviving in it's own country, and one is an automatic surrender
If you equate a choice with consequences and "forcing people. . .under threat of death" as one in the same, as well as the inability to take quotes in context, then so be it.
I suppose you could call 'leave or be exterminated' as a "choice with consequences".
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” — Samuel Adams
Want to compare the platforms that the ruling parties of the Knesset ran on and the Hamas Charter to see which views about mass extermination are mainstream?
Yes please, lets do that.
The charter of Likud states -
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
The charter of Hamas states -
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"
So both sides refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist.
On the rights of those not of the same religion we see some difference,
Likud states -
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
Hamas states -
"[Hamas] strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned."
So according to Likud if you are non Jewish you have essentially zero property rights, whilst Hamas allow people of all religions to share equal property rights.
The charter of Likud states -
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
The charter of Hamas states -
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"
So both sides refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist.
On the rights of those not of the same religion we see some difference,
Likud states -
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
Hamas states -
"[Hamas] strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned."
So according to Likud if you are non Jewish you have essentially zero property rights, whilst Hamas allow people of all religions to share equal property rights.
You quote Sam Adams back to me, then distort Likud's position that they do not want a Palestinian state in a certain area and you think that this means that they "refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist." Likud does not call for the extermination of people based on their religion, which is what was being discussed and which your selective quoting omitted.
Nice to know though that you omitted the charter of the group that Likud share power with as they are in favour of returning areas to Arab control. But that is an inconvenient fact for you.
Never heard Galloway or Le Pen call for any genocide.
We're not talking about xenophobia: "I don't like these people, expell them".
We're not even about talking about racism: "these people are inferior to us".
We're talking about genocide "these people are not worth living".
It's no Le Pen material. It's definitely something different, something that's not merely revolting, but downright evil.
Israel got a leader before Cease Fire went into effect. Now there's rumor's of Israel pulling back without a negotiated Cease Fire just to deny Hamas a standing in anything
That is such a fine distinction you are trying to make that I need a micrometer.
You really don't see a difference between choosing to flee a scene of conflict due to your own free will or being forced to leave under threat of death ?
They have a choice, and are being made fully aware that the IDF intends to wipe out any combatants staying. Most people who do not harbour hostile intent will choose a conflict zone over a refugee camp
Firstly they're going to wipe out everyone -- combatant or not .
... gonna assume you mean those who don't harbour hostile intent would choose the camp as opposed to the impending doom ? .. NOt quite sure what you mean otherwise ?
.. not sure. One likes to think that most people would choose the , hopefully, safer option. But people -- as we've seen are quite emotional over this issue and it wouldn't be the first time we've seen people preferring to stand their ground -- no USA ref, honest! -- or die where they were born on land they consider theirs.
Strawman
I fail to see how pointing out the physical impracticalities of the plan involves is a strawman. But YMMV.
Which time frame was that? I don't recall seeing one laid out
How long do you think it would take for a camp for ... 1 Million ..?.... odd people to be set up ?
I think the obvious intent in his statement was it to be sooner rather than later and I definitely didn't get the impression he was on about waiting around a couple of years while this was built or figured out.
I'm not defending her words but she is talking about the mothers of the terrorists. Not all Palestinians, unless you consider them all terrorists which I would hope is not the case. This is again about comments being taken out of context in almost every post you have made.
She is an absolute minority figure, the same way that Nick Griffin is in the UK. Is he an acceptable standard to judge everyone else in the UK on?
She is referring to the whole people " the entire Palestinian people is the enemy ... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."
She's an MP -- something Nick Griffin never managed so I think-- she as she could actually affect Govt. policy in a way he never could -- and never will now it seems --- so I think that comparison doesn't really work.
One is sure that you could select a random so-and-so from pretty much any town or city anywhere in the world and find someone with objectionable views on Y/Y/Z etc etc .
But those aren't elected officials.
You haven't shown that those views are becoming acceptable, much less mainstream. A few vocal people does not make the viewpoint mainstream. If you want to talk about a vile perspective calling for the wholesale slaughter of a people then I suggest you read the Hamas Charter.
Never had Mps making comments like this in the past.
Never had innocent people being attacked in the streets.
No issue condemning Hamas and their twisted propaganda either.
The situation isn't quite as binary as you seemingly persist in trying to make it.
Just looking for clarification on your comment. No need to deflect.
You doth protest too much.
You are correct, that the Nazis were not the first to do so, but to many people the combination of concentration camps and mass extermination usually lead in one direction.
They weren't the first.....they weren't the last.
I hope that the 18.2 million is a typo. I have seen the estimated population for Gaza as 1.8m for 2014, but the last confirmed figure was around 1.7m
Yeah, fat fingers.
Shame that you own definition supported my argument while undermining your own. They won't be concentration camps, regardless of how much you pretend.
Yes, they would be.
My evidence is plain to see.
No it isn't. You haven't provided any.
But them's your views and your perfectly entitled to them
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I was content to ignore you and your comparison with the I/P and the Good Friday Agreement, but now I feel compelled to respond
It was not a direct comparison, it was highlighting that allowing a group to live in prosperity means that people have less reasons to turn to terrorism, sorry if that wasn't clear.
dæl wrote: I suppose you could call 'leave or be exterminated' as a "choice with consequences".
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” — Samuel Adams
Imitation is a sincere form of flattery
Indeed it is, the most sincere so I am told.
You quote Sam Adams back to me, then distort Likud's position
I have distorted nothing, that is a direct quote from the Lukid charter.
that they do not want a Palestinian state in a certain area and you think that this means that they "refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist."
They are talking about the West Bank, which is literally the west bank of the Jordan. Hence they refuse the right of Palestine to exist, that isnt a distortion, that is the whole point of the statement.
Likud does not call for the extermination of people based on their religion, which is what was being discussed and which your selective quoting omitted.
I have included the often repeated statement from the Hamas charter, and note it seeks the "obliteration" of Israel, a state not a people. Please quote the relevant extract you think I have omitted. (I will however, omit that the Hamas leader has called the charter "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons.")
Nice to know though that you omitted the charter of the group that Likud share power with as they are in favour of returning areas to Arab control. But that is an inconvenient fact for you.
Not at all, that is a welcome fact, could you find me their charter or manifesto to look at?
I should point out, I do not support Hamas, their attacks on Israeli civilians (like all attacks on civilians) are morally repugnant, regardless of how effective (or not) they are.
reds8n wrote: I fail to see how pointing out the physical impracticalities of the plan involves is a strawman. But YMMV.
"And you're honestly going to claim that they could set up these idyllic sounding camps, for that number of people, with no issues." - when you ascribe arguments to me that I have not made that is text book strawman.
reds8n wrote: How long do you think it would take for a camp for ... 1 Million ..?.... odd people to be set up ?
I think the obvious intent in his statement was it to be sooner rather than later and I definitely didn't get the impression he was on about waiting around a couple of years while this was built or figured out.
So no time frame was actually specified, you're just making inferences on a plan that never had any serious chance of being put into practice.
reds8n wrote: She is referring to the whole people " the entire Palestinian people is the enemy ... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."
She's an MP -- something Nick Griffin never managed so I think-- she as she could actually affect Govt. policy in a way he never could -- and never will now it seems --- so I think that comparison doesn't really work.
One is sure that you could select a random so-and-so from pretty much any town or city anywhere in the world and find someone with objectionable views on Y/Y/Z etc etc .
But those aren't elected officials.
Yet she only called for the deaths of those providing material support to terrorists, not the entire people. Perhaps George Galloway is a better example instead of an MEP
reds8n wrote: Never had Mps making comments like this in the past.
Never had innocent people being attacked in the streets.
No issue condemning Hamas and their twisted propaganda either.
The situation isn't quite as binary as you seemingly persist in trying to make it.
Isolated incidents do not a trend make, as had been oft mentioned. The Hamas Charter is not "propaganda" it is their platform, their raison d'etre
No. No objective definition would suggest that a refugee camp (by your own definitions) is a concentration camp - much less claims of mass extermination.
reds8n wrote: No it isn't. You haven't provided any.
But them's your views and your perfectly entitled to them
I cannot provide evidence of people not holding views. I can, and have, provided evidence that those holding vile views are a distinct minority with little support. You can choose to ignore that if you so wish
My views, back up with evidence (in context to boot) and references, without a single strawman argument, or out of context quote.
dæl wrote: Hence they refuse the right of Palestine to exist, that isnt a distortion, that is the whole point of the statement.
Not wanting a political state established is not equivalent to wanting to exterminate a people
dæl wrote: I have included the often repeated statement from the Hamas charter, and note it seeks the "obliteration" of Israel, a state not a people. Please quote the relevant extract you think I have omitted. (I will however, omit that the Hamas leader has called the charter "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons.")
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
That isn't about removing the Jewish State of Israel. That is the wholesale murder of the Jews in Israel
dæl wrote: Not at all, that is a welcome fact, could you find me their charter or manifesto to look at?
One of the party's main policies is that of drawing the borders in such a way that areas with large Arab populations, such as the Triangle area and the Wadi Ara, both gained by Israel as part of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, would be transferred to Arab sovereignty. Known as the Lieberman Plan, such an arrangement would mean that the majority of Jews would live in Israel and the majority of Arabs would live in a future Palestinian state. In most cases there is no physical population transfer or demolition of houses, but creating a new border where none existed before, according to demographics.[28]
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/153, written in 2001, explicitly states: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the successor state shall attribute its nationality to the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the transferred territory and the predecessor state shall withdraw its nationality from such persons,” and Lieberman claims that this means Israel can legally transfer territory and citizens as a means of peace and ultimate conflict resolution.[28]
Avigdor Lieberman argues that the Arab residents see themselves not as Israelis but as Palestinians, and should therefore be encouraged to join the Palestinian Authority. Lieberman has presented this proposal as part of a potential peace deal aimed at establishing two separate national entities, one for Jews in Israel and the other for Arabs in Palestine. However, he is known to have an affinity for and is popular amongst the Druze population (the only Arab population to be fully drafted into the IDF), and has attracted a number of Druze voters, including some in the Golan Heights who voted for the party in protest.[29] Druze candidate Hamad Amar was elected to the Knesset on the party's list in 2009.[30]
Regarding Palestinian statehood, Liberman has said that he supports the creation of "a viable Palestinian state".[31]
The kind, considerate Europeans managed to kill millions of civilians during WWI and WWII bombing campaigns. There are videos from Iraq of British soldiers squealing with glee as their friends beat the crap out of Iraqi children.
The kind, considerate Europeans managed to kill millions of civilians during WWI and WWII bombing campaigns. There are videos from Iraq of British soldiers squealing with glee as their friends beat the crap out of Iraqi children.
Every army has bad apples. You give a bunch of 18 year old kids machineguns and put them in dangerous situations, and you're going to get the occasional incident. This is unavoidable human nature.
Except of course this isnt just some 'bad apples', it is systemic, hence why Israel has need of a secret prison to torture people, and hence why so many former IDF are now speaking out about what they were ordered to do.
What army in the world shows more restraint and consideration for civilians than Israel? Please, I can't wait to hear this.
Any army that doesn't target hospitals and humanitarian centres, that doesn't use children as human shields when entering buildings, that doesn't target water supplies in a place where 90% of the water is unfit for human consumption. Shall I go on?
First of all, Hamas fights from those hospitals and humanitarian centers, so it's not really accurate to say that Israel targets them improperly. They are legal targets when used for war, which they are.
I can dig up examples of rape and murder committed by armies of every country. No other country has ever, in the face of daily rocket and mortar attacks on its civilians, exercised as much restraint as Israel. It's a simple fact.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Usually when we present things like this, we provide proof.
Considering that really all you have done is conflate your opinion with "proof" there doesn't really seem to be a sudden need for it in OT, beyond calling for it as a rhetorical device to deflect criticism. Your extreme bias and myopic view on the subject is fairly well known, so it would also be a huge waste of time. One cannot reason with zealotry, after all.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Usually when we present things like this, we provide proof.
Considering that really all you have done is conflate your opinion with "proof" there doesn't really seem to be a sudden need for it in OT, beyond calling for it as a rhetorical device to deflect criticism. Your extreme bias and myopic view on the subject is fairly well known, so it would also be a huge waste of time. One cannot reason with zealotry, after all.
So what you're saying then is that you have no proof?
dæl wrote: Hence they refuse the right of Palestine to exist, that isnt a distortion, that is the whole point of the statement.
Not wanting a political state established is not equivalent to wanting to exterminate a people
So first of all you accuse me of "distorting Likud's position that they do not want a Palestinian state in a certain area and you think that this means that they "refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist."" I take it you now concede that Likud do refuse the right of Palestine to exist?
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
That isn't about removing the Jewish State of Israel. That is the wholesale murder of the Jews in Israel
First of all, Hamas fights from those hospitals and humanitarian centers, so it's not really accurate to say that Israel targets them improperly. They are legal targets when used for war, which they are.
There are very specific laws which cover when hospitals may be targetted, Israel do not comply with those laws. Therefore they are not "legal" targets.
I can dig up examples of rape and murder committed by armies of every country. No other country has ever, in the face of daily rocket and mortar attacks on its civilians, exercised as much restraint as Israel. It's a simple fact.
Have you even looked at things like Breaking the Silence? Or the article I posted about Camp 1391? Besides the fact that daily rocket attacks that do absolutely no damage are not a justification for anything, they are irrelevant when it comes to the behaviour of the IDF. If you have to qualify your statement that they are the most moral army in the world considering the rockets, then they aren't the most moral army in the world.
dæl wrote: So first of all you accuse me of "distorting Likud's position that they do not want a Palestinian state in a certain area and you think that this means that they "refuse to recognise the right of the other to exist."" I take it you now concede that Likud do refuse the right of Palestine to exist?
There is nothing to concede. I stated that Likud did not want the State of Palestine established, not that they wanted to wipe out the people who identify as Palestinians. You were attempting to compare the Likud charter and it's desire to prevent a Palestinian State (with no mention of killing off people) with the Hamas charter which explicitly calls for the death of Jews.
Interestingly, I'd bet putting rocket lanchers in schools and hospitals is also a war crime...
Both sides suck. Both sides seem entranched. Neither side knows of the greatness of Tex Mex. Declaiming one side but not the other is hypocrisy at its finest, especially when much bigger conflicts are occurring RIGHT NOW.
Frazzled wrote: Interestingly, I'd bet putting rocket lanchers in schools and hospitals is also a war crime...
Indeed.
The war crime here is that Hamas set up a firing position in a facility that was housing civilian refugees. (See Article 8.2 (b) of the Rome Statute.)
The Hamas war crime is only compounded by the fact that UNRWA says it notified the IDF at least 17 times that it was using the school to shelter refugees.
First of all, Hamas fights from those hospitals and humanitarian centers, so it's not really accurate to say that Israel targets them improperly. They are legal targets when used for war, which they are.
There are very specific laws which cover when hospitals may be targetted, Israel do not comply with those laws. Therefore they are not "legal" targets.
I can dig up examples of rape and murder committed by armies of every country. No other country has ever, in the face of daily rocket and mortar attacks on its civilians, exercised as much restraint as Israel. It's a simple fact.
Have you even looked at things like Breaking the Silence? Or the article I posted about Camp 1391? Besides the fact that daily rocket attacks that do absolutely no damage are not a justification for anything, they are irrelevant when it comes to the behaviour of the IDF. If you have to qualify your statement that they are the most moral army in the world considering the rockets, then they aren't the most moral army in the world.
Have you ever looked into things like the Vietnam War?
I'm not arguing that the IDF is perfect. I'm arguing that they show the greatest restraint of any Western military, and I challenge you to find a military that shows greater restraint. So far you have not done this. You only point out cases where the IDF is doing things wrong, when the fact of the matter is that EVERY military does these things.
The claims that the US military is morally superior and shows greater restraint are ludicrous. Even in GW1, over 3,000 Iraqi civilians died, and that was a conventional military engagement, not a guerilla conflict. I'm not badmouthing the US' performance in these conflicts, only stating that casualties are an unavoidable consequence of war.
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Just think. We could take these billions and put it into domestic Rum production research, with the goal of pummelling South America and dominating in the quality fine rums market.
I call it, the Frazzled Project. Make this dream happen people!
Frazzled wrote: Just think. We could take these billions and put it into domestic Rum production research, with the goal of pummelling South America and dominating in the quality fine rums market.
I call it, the Frazzled Project. Make this dream happen people!
I'm Lobbying for some of that money to go into much better brass poles. I am going to petition Bromsy, your Minister of Stripper Bars, to garner that money
So's when you call a cease fire, and then shell a market full of civvies. Considering the amount of Perfidy going on, I can't say that I can blame either side for not taking any called cease fires seriously.
Here's something, and I'm curious, do we have any proof that these firing positions existed? If so I've missed it. On the second school shelling it was supposedly based on the fact that three Islamic Jihad men were seen nearby on a motorcycle, which doesn't sound like much of a firing position.
I fail to see how stories about holiday camps that occur outside of the ME/area of conflict actually disprove his argument that there's been a trend of rascist/discriminatory legislation over the past few years that -- and this in his opinion -- "has" fanned the flames of hatred amongst the local inhabitants , most of whom never or rarely get to meet anyone from the opposition and certainly don't get invited to summer camps in North America.
Perhaps I'm not being clear. Essentially, what I'm saying is that a narrative has been constructed here, namely 'Young Israelis hate Palestinians', and so there are no articles/evidence mentioned or suggested that indicate 'Young Israelis and Palestinians can actually get along quite well together'. Hence my use of the term 'cherrypicking'. The camps in North America is an example of young people getting along together.
Having said that, no doubt as a journalist, it's a lot harder to construct a narrative of 'People get along'. There's always plenty of stuff in the media with regards to violence and protest rallies, but a lot fewer involving topics like, 'Young Israeli boy helps older Palestinian Lady carry her shopping', or 'Palestinian man feeds old male Israeli neighbours cat whilst on holiday'. I think that often the world is a far nicer place than the media actually portrays, and most people just want to get on with their lives.
The difference being of course Dakka isn't a news site -- toy soldiers/geekery aside of course -- and isn't publishing articles on situations in the ME. Given that the topic is obviously a little bit ... firey ... with regards to inflammatory rhetoric and calls for mass murder of Z/X/Y with monotonous regularity it's beyond a joke that this was permissible from a serious site.
If this had been an equally -- if not more -- hate filled rant from a Muslim site or publication I think it fair to say it would have been bandied about all over the place as "proof" of blah blah blah.
And this piece is being bandied about in exactly the same way. But ultimately, it was an unreviewed, uncritiqued commentary piece posted on the internet. I'm not really sure anyone can draw any kind of conclusion from that. It would be like commenting on the intellectual capacities of the American youth based on what you heard a 13 year old screaming down the microphone on Xbox Live.
I did click through to the original article and again -- even with talk of "resettlement packages" -- still think it's a horrific piece that does indeed invoke concentration camps and the spectre of genocide and actually makes what he said worse.
Especially
Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.
.
which is pretty much a call for Lebensraum.
Take your word for it with regards to the hebrew version.
Individually, none of it is necessarily that bad an idea. It's only when you begin to put it together, it turns into a catastrophe. If you work on the following facts:-
-Gaza is an economic and architectural quagmire that should seriously be rebuilt.
-A two state solution involving Gaza is extremely unlikely and implausible. West Bank possibly might make it, but Gaza will either need to go it alone as a separate state (which would be exceedingly difficult) or be absorbed by Israel.
-Hamas are nutters, and the world would be better off if they ceased to exist.
None of these are particularly objectionable to my mind. It's the methodology that becomes a problem. For example, the idea is that all Gazans will be evacuated to specialist built refugee camps temporarily whilst Gaza is razed, and rebuilt, and the Hamas fighters are sieved out. Sounds vaguely alright in principle. The article you linked to talks about 'concentration camps', but frankly I'd debate that such camps need necessarily be concentration camps in either the colloquial Nazi related sense, or even the more grim British South African sense. If such camps were genuinely temporary, had food, water, electricity, and heating, and were administered by international teams, then it frankly most likely be far nicer housing than I daresay most of them live in now.
But then you get to the crux. Do you believe Israel is capable or willing to set that up? Some would shout yes, others no. I'd say 'Perhaps'. But it would be a doubtful perhaps. I see too many things potentially going wrong, from people not being allowed back to land they own, to leaving those camps to become a newly impoverished class of worker/tenant for the Israeli landowners, to the camps simply not living up to expectations.
And even if (a big if), the camps were perfect models of sanitary lands of plenty, what about those who don't want to leave Gaza? The whole, 'Anyone who doesn't co-operate would be treated as a Hamas member and left to be buried in the rubble', is a ticket to mischief and civilian casualties on several levels to my mind. I think that if certain guarantees were given by the international community with regards to land ownership and the temporary nature of the camps, most people would be willing to give this a go. But you'll always have that one old geezer who's lived there for eighty years who'll be damned if he moves an inch. Does he really deserve to be shot for that?
Again, if international teams performed mediation, supervised the entire process, and dealt with things on a case by case basis, it might work. But how likely is that?
Now one has to consider the flip moral element to the equation, namely the old, 'if it causes 5,000 civilian casualties, but stabilises the place in preparation for a bright new future of unity between peoples, isn't it worth it?' Also known as 'ends justify the means'. But you start down shaky ground on that path. The final thing that bugs me is that yes, he does offer citizenship or plush immigration packages. But he pins the citizenship to a future committee decision. That stinks of things potentially going wrong to me.
So to summarise, I don't think the individual elements are all necessarily bad, or indeed the plan itself. I just highly doubt that it could be carried to fruition with things the way they are, and he seems a little too blase about Palestiniant casualties for my taste. It should be recognised though, that the plan isn't really quite, 'Let's bury all the Palestinians under mounds of their own dead in concentration camps', which is the impression the left wing articles tend to give off. It's a bit more detailed and complex than that.
Medium of Death wrote: Ketara, how is George Galloway even comparable to LePen or that Israeli nut job?
To be honest, I just picked two less than reputable politicians who've said some nasty things out of the air. I could could have said Griffins, or that Dutch nutjob (Geerts), or a plethora of other ones, he was just the first one that came to mind in association with the phrase 'slimy politicians I wouldn't touch with a ten foot bargepole who have a platform'.
[
Here's something, and I'm curious, do we have any proof that these firing positions existed? If so I've missed it. On the second school shelling it was supposedly based on the fact that three Islamic Jihad men were seen nearby on a motorcycle, which doesn't sound like much of a firing position.
To just flip that around for a minute, a lot of 'casualties' reported by Hamas actually aren't, or so I've heard. If an Israeli shell lands and someone gets a bit of shrapnel across the shoulder, it's a lot less effective than saying, 'Ten children with cancer were buried in the rubble!' Journalists tend to take the Hamas declarations of casualties at face value, which can make them somewhat easy to manipulate in that regard.
So's when you call a cease fire, and then shell a market full of civvies. Considering the amount of Perfidy going on, I can't say that I can blame either side for not taking any called cease fires seriously.
Here's something, and I'm curious, do we have any proof that these firing positions existed? If so I've missed it. On the second school shelling it was supposedly based on the fact that three Islamic Jihad men were seen nearby on a motorcycle, which doesn't sound like much of a firing position.
Baron. I'm not going to beat around the bush. Your a straight up Chuckle Head. You never heard of "Shoot and Scoot"? As for the "Cease Fire" either side could have have maintain the time duration to put the other side in a even worse moral position. As for your "motorcycle" incident I am under the impression those idiots did a "drive by" and got opted out in the process in front of a school. So either you were a Fobbit, CAB Chaser, or a TOCRoach...well you get the idea. Why I haven't really took part in the thread being I can relate to Israel situation in this round of combat
Civilian casualties are a given when fighting in a built up area.
Particularly when your weapon of choice is artillery or air strikes.
Notice I mention M109 Paladin. An Artillery system geared towards GPS coordinates. Basically in a ten meter strike hit zone. Notice its one shell instead of a typical Battery Strike? A Battery Fire Mission is spread over 100m blanket for four tubes. Notice the missiles and bombs are laser guided and not "dumb" ordinance
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Is that why 7 UN refugee shelters have been bombed? Israel is clearly committing war crimes and clearly targeting innocent civilians. They attacked the UN, I'm guessing the UN is in the right to try and pass all the resolutions they do against Israel.
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Is that why 7 UN refugee shelters have been bombed? Israel is clearly committing war crimes and clearly targeting innocent civilians. They attacked the UN, I'm guessing the UN is in the right to try and pass all the resolutions they do against Israel.
You're not reading... Hamas were firing at those locations. In war, when that happens, it becomes a legit target.
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Is that why 7 UN refugee shelters have been bombed? Israel is clearly committing war crimes and clearly targeting innocent civilians. They attacked the UN, I'm guessing the UN is in the right to try and pass all the resolutions they do against Israel.
You're not reading... Hamas were firing at those locations. In war, when that happens, it becomes a legit target.
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Is that why 7 UN refugee shelters have been bombed? Israel is clearly committing war crimes and clearly targeting innocent civilians. They attacked the UN, I'm guessing the UN is in the right to try and pass all the resolutions they do against Israel.
You're not reading... Hamas were firing at those locations. In war, when that happens, it becomes a legit target.
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
Hamas wears a uniform?
Edit
For all we know Hamas learned a trick or two from Insurgents from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Counter Battery Radar
Motar Tube with a block ice in it. Set up and go away. Ice melts enough for the round to drop and "foom"
or
Water container with a hole poke in the bottom for water to drain out. Drops enough to trigger the electrical surge to fire rockets. Just need a AA battery
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
It's a good thing that you were there, so you can say with conviction that Hamas was in fact not firing rockets from those locations.
most of the wounded/casualty footage and images reported seem to be of civilians, younger people and children from Hamas, but military from israel. Odd that Hamas rockets don't hit civilian targets but Israeli mortars do...
regardless Israel is supported by other nations mainly because certain nations made the mistake of giving them land and bringing them to power so there is a strange obligation to support them, and Israels ruling body is insane so there is a blackmail obligation to support them.
Dahiya Doctrine- israel will specifically target civilians if they get the chance. All civilians of a nation are considered the extremist military of that said nation.
for anyone who doesn't want to bother to look at that, Israel has basically said that it has a final Nuclear option and has Nuclear weapons aimed at pretty much every country within 3k miles of it- that has Nuclear weapons so if they go down they trigger nuclear war with every country that is armed for nuclear war nearby, ie hello europe.
Based on the story of samson knocking the pillars down to kill as many phillistines as possible in his own death
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
It's a good thing that you were there, so you can say with conviction that Hamas was in fact not firing rockets from those locations.
Oh I see, all the messages sent to Israel by the UN saying they were refugee camps and there are no weapons present aren't good enough for you?
You're the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand. I didn't see the crime, so no crime was committed.
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
It's a good thing that you were there, so you can say with conviction that Hamas was in fact not firing rockets from those locations.
Oh I see, all the messages sent to Israel by the UN saying they were refugee camps and there are no weapons present aren't good enough for you?
You're the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand. I didn't see the crime, so no crime was committed.
The UN has no credibility. They've admitted that Hamas was storing rockets in their schools not once, but THREE TIMES now. When UNRWA found rockets in their schools, they gave them back to Palestinian police, AKA Hamas.
The UN is helping Hamas...I trust a UAV operator who can actually see the situation on the ground over some Canadian shill on a wargaming website. Killing civilians is counterproductive to Israel's strategy in this war. If the IDF wanted to kill civilians, they would be doing it with artillery barrages, not precision strikes.
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
It's a good thing that you were there, so you can say with conviction that Hamas was in fact not firing rockets from those locations.
Oh I see, all the messages sent to Israel by the UN saying they were refugee camps and there are no weapons present aren't good enough for you?
You're the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand. I didn't see the crime, so no crime was committed.
The UN has no credibility. They've admitted that Hamas was storing rockets in their schools not once, but THREE TIMES now. When UNRWA found rockets in their schools, they gave them back to Palestinian police, AKA Hamas.
The UN is helping Hamas...I trust a UAV operator who can actually see the situation on the ground over some Canadian shill on a wargaming website. Killing civilians is counterproductive to Israel's strategy in this war. If the IDF wanted to kill civilians, they would be doing it with artillery barrages, not precision strikes.
those precision strikes that destroy entire blocks?
Isn't the US a member of the UN?
killing civilians is all israel seems capable of doing, hence 75% of the casualties are civilians. It seems to be their only strategy.
You should pull your head out of your .... the sand and look at the damage being done. As you obviously didn't watch the video I posted which showed the devastation being done.
You're not right, Hamas was not at those locations, rockets were not fired from those locations. They were UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE CAMPS! SEVEN refugee camps run by the UN.
or is your definition of these locations, rockets came from the gaza strip, so carpet bomb the entire gaza strip? It's all the gaza strip so close enough?
It's a good thing that you were there, so you can say with conviction that Hamas was in fact not firing rockets from those locations.
Oh I see, all the messages sent to Israel by the UN saying they were refugee camps and there are no weapons present aren't good enough for you?
You're the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand. I didn't see the crime, so no crime was committed.
The UN has no credibility. They've admitted that Hamas was storing rockets in their schools not once, but THREE TIMES now. When UNRWA found rockets in their schools, they gave them back to Palestinian police, AKA Hamas.
The UN is helping Hamas...I trust a UAV operator who can actually see the situation on the ground over some Canadian shill on a wargaming website. Killing civilians is counterproductive to Israel's strategy in this war. If the IDF wanted to kill civilians, they would be doing it with artillery barrages, not precision strikes.
those precision strikes that destroy entire blocks?
Isn't the US a member of the UN?
killing civilians is all israel seems capable of doing, hence 75% of the casualties are civilians. It seems to be their only strategy.
You should pull your head out of your .... the sand and look at the damage being done. As you obviously didn't watch the video I posted which showed the devastation being done.
How many were actual casualties and how many were willing participants in a human shield attempt? You are making it sound like the 1800+ civilians killed were deliberately gunned down by IDF.
How many were actual casualties and how many were willing participants in a human shield attempt? You are making it sound like the 1800+ civilians killed were deliberately gunned down by IDF.
But still, the Red Crescent was unable to reach many families. Furthermore, as reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Israel attacked a volunteer with the Red Crescent while he was attempted to treat the wounded.
Watch the video, does that man looking for his family look like he's armed? does it look like he's a participating as a human shield?
This human shield nonsense, is so you can sleep at night. thinking all those women & children deserved to die in what more people are calling a massacre and genocide.
reds8n wrote: that the other, mainly Islamic, nations in that area are not exactly falling over to help their brethren. As per usual.
The great irony with this is, of course, that one of the main tenets of Islam is charity and taking care of others.... Which makes all those other Islamic nations "terrible Muslims" from the perspective of following their religious values
There are plenty of things any country genuinely concerned about the Palestinians could do, from setting aside/divesting a small chunk of land of their own for Palestinians(there's plenty of underoccupied space in the Middle-East), to offering free citizenship to Palestinians. Heck, a lot of these countries already HAVE substantial Palestinian immigrant populations, and take great pleasure in discriminating the hell out of them.
The Palestinian people are just a tool most of them use to batter Israel with in international settings, because on just about every other front Israel outdoes them. Economically, militarily, democratically...
The charter of Likud states -
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
In all fairness, Likud is a hodgepodge compromise of conflicting interests and factions, and that could well have changed by tomorrow.
Goliath wrote: I shall also endeavour to stop paying any attention to statements by organisations such as the UN, or by other countries, that Israel's actions amount to war-crimes, as for me to pay them any heed would also be anti-semitic.
Frankly, I wouldn't pay much attention to the UN at all if I were you. Considering their Human Rights Committee has such bastions of freedom as Algeria on it, and their Security Council Jordan and Chad, their very existence is the ultimate hypocrisy. There's so much bias against Israel swimming around there from tinpot dictators and supreme monarchs for life who commit genocide/illegal abductions/imprisonments/torture every week, they make Israel look like a shining beacon of freedom for the Palestinian people in comparison.
A good example of this is how it is interesting to note that took forever to get any kind condemnation of Assad out of them, but Israel? Twenty minutes, a cup of coffee and a five minute cigarette break. The UN is so vastly biased when it comes to this issue, that paying any attention whatsoever to them on it is pointless. So Israel doesn't.
How many were actual casualties and how many were willing participants in a human shield attempt? You are making it sound like the 1800+ civilians killed were deliberately gunned down by IDF.
But still, the Red Crescent was unable to reach many families. Furthermore, as reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Israel attacked a volunteer with the Red Crescent while he was attempted to treat the wounded.
Watch the video, does that man looking for his family look like he's armed? does it look like he's a participating as a human shield?
This human shield nonsense, is so you can sleep at night. thinking all those women & children deserved to die in what more people are calling a massacre and genocide.
Really? The Human shield nonsense that Hamas leaders themselves have openly stated in interviews?
Guess what, Hamas is a terrible terrorist orginization that gives absolutely no regard for their own civilian lives. They are a means to an end.
Just want to point out since your bringing up Geneva Convention
ART. 4. — Hospital and safety zones shall fulfil the following conditions:
a) They shall comprise only a small part of the territory governed by the Power
which has established them.
b) They shall be thinly populated in relation to the possibilities of
accommodation.
c) They shall be far removed and free from all military objectives, or large
industrial or administrative establishments.
d) They shall not be situated in areas which, according to every probability,may
become important for the conduct of the war.
ART. 5.— Hospital and safety zones shall be subject to the following obligations:
a) The lines of communication and means of transport which they possess shall
not be used for the transport of military personnel or material, even in
transit.
b) They shall in no case be defended by military means.
ART. 6. — Hospital and safety zones shall be marked by means of oblique red
bands on a white ground, placed on the buildings and outer precincts.
Hams has to agree to
Zones reserved exclusively for the wounded and sick may be marked by means
of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) emblem on a white ground.
They may be similarly marked at night by means of appropriate illumination.
ART. 7. — The Powers shall communicate to all the High Contracting Parties in
peacetime or on the outbreak of hostilities, a list of the hospital and safety zones in
the territories governed by them. They shall also give notice of any new zones set
up during hostilities.
As soon as the adverse Party has received the above-mentioned notification, the
zone shall be regularly established.
If, however, the adverse Party considers that the conditions of the present
agreement have not been fulfilled, it may refuse to recognize the zone by giving
immediate notice thereof to the Party responsible for the said zone, or may make
its recognition of such zone dependent upon the institution of the control provided
for in Article 8.
ART. 8. — Any Power having recognized one or several hospital and safety zones
instituted by the adverse Party shall be entitled to demand control by one or more
Special Commissions, for the purpose of ascertaining if the zones fulfil the
conditions and obligations stipulated in the present agreement.
For this purpose, members of the Special Commissions shall at all times have
free access to the various zones and may even reside there permanently. They shall
be given all facilities for their duties of inspection.
ART. 9. — Should the Special Commissions note any facts which they consider
contrary to the stipulations of the present agreement, they shall at once draw the
attention of the Power governing the said zone to these facts, and shall fix a time
limit of five days within which the matter should be rectified.They shall duly notify
the Power who has recognized the zone.
If, when the time limit has expired, the Power governing the zone has not
complied with the warning, the adverse Party may declare that it is no longer bound
by the present agreement in respect of the said zone.
ART. 10. — Any Power setting up one or more hospital and safety zones, and the
adverse Parties to whom their existence has been notified, shall nominate or have
nominated by the Protecting Powers or by other neutral Powers, persons eligible to
be members of the Special Commissions mentioned in Articles 8 and 9.
ART. 11. — In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of
attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the
conflict.
ART. 12. — In the case of occupation of a territory, the hospital and safety zones
therein shall continue to be respected and utilized as such.
Yet the protected status is lost when an enemy combatant fires on or near the location of the hospital
Simply put, no one has a right to protection at a Hamas firing position. There is no international law or convention that mandates such protection. That’s what makes it a war crime to wage combat from behind protected persons or sites.
Is that why 7 UN refugee shelters have been bombed? Israel is clearly committing war crimes and clearly targeting innocent civilians. They attacked the UN, I'm guessing the UN is in the right to try and pass all the resolutions they do against Israel.
Yes that is why. Its like you read the post, stuck your fingers in your...ears and went blah blah.
Gaza: In the minutes before the ceasefire kicked in at Gaza this morning, Hamas fired a flurry of rockets towards Israel - 30 according to some counts.
Israel has argued that that these rockets are fired from civilian areas, and this is why its retaliatory strikes can result in civilian casualties.
But this morning, NDTV witnessed one such rocket silo being created under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect.
It began with a mysterious tent with a blue canopy that bobbed up yesterday (August 4) at 6:30 am in an open patch of land next to our window. We saw three men making a multitude of journeys in and out of the tent, sometimes with wires.
An hour later, they emerged, dismantled the tent, changed their clothes and walked away.
The next morning - today - we woke to news of the 72-hour ceasefire but just before it was to take effect, the rocket next to our hotel was fired. There was a loud explosion and a whooshing sound. The cloud of smoke that rose was captured by our cameraperson.
This report is being aired on NDTV and published on ndtv.com after our team left the Gaza strip - Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired. But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel's offensive on Gaza's civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.
Video at the link...
This shows a deliberate attempt to bait the IDF into a response to take out the rocket battery, which would necessarily put everyone in the neighborhood at risk. That has been Hamas’ strategy all along... This is a war crime, and it puts the responsibility of any civilian deaths on Hamas rather than the IDF.
However, with this "Shoot & Scoot" tactic, the only way to really end the rocket fire is to devastate Hamas’ ability to re-arm itself and deploy those weapons.
) and suffer accordingly.
... views held by many of their neighbours with regards to Israel's inhabitants one doubts the population would have fared well if the nation had/does fall.
