Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 17:21:28
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 17:50:54
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
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 18:24:48
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.
the other is a khaibar-1 m302 artillery rocket Israel Navy popped a ship carrying 40 of them destined to Gaza
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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]
Think we need Israel to go nail the crap out of ISIS
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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.
To be fair, many of us protested those military actions as well, there's been fearsome criticism of Iraq campaign, and justifiably so.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
When have these countries' armies ever given advance warning to targets? Usually it's drone strike one and done.
and we're off to the races
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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.
Jihadin wrote: Think we need Israel to go nail the crap out of ISIS
Apparently the Kurds have mustered their Peshmurga and are sending 10,000 troops to fight ISIS.
Note, this is an "apparently".
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/04 19:19:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Agreed, but we need to quit giving money to the PA as well.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You keep saying they'd be refugee camps, but they wouldn't be, regardless how much you pretend.
