Two ceasefires ...

[Tribesman]

....and nothing achieved
Straight back to the positions both sides had before the slaughter , with each blaming the other and both claiming victory .

[KukriKhan]

...and perfect timing: 2 days before the new Yank Boss takes over, "cease fire" is called.

I guess each side wanted to get their licks in before it drew a frown from Washington.

[HoreTore]

A small question:

Were cluster bombs used in Gaza?

[KukriKhan]

The blogosphere is divided about 50-50 on that question. The major media says: "No" (so far). I haven't found any pics/video of them being used.

[rasoforos]

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/01/17/robertson.israel.shocking.news.cnn

This video says much about the situation to my opinion...

The only purpose served is that good people, thousands of them, will turn into fanatics due to the actions of two very immoral governments.

The quota of civilians was reached and its a technical timeout for adverts...

[Fragony]

I am amazed

[Kralizec]

A small question:

Were cluster bombs used in Gaza?

Not that I'm aware of, but Hamas claims Israel used white phosphorous on one occasion.

[Che Roriniho]

Not that I'm aware of, but Hamas claims Israel used white phosphorous on one occasion.

No, they did, on the UN Building. What utter Bastards the Israelis have been. Won't let any medicine in, and they bomb the stuff that's already there.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not that I'm aware of, but Hamas claims Israel used white phosphorous on one occasion.

Rather ironic considering that Hamas also fired white phosphorous shells. At any rate, white phosphorous is legal if used as a screening tool - and as of yet, I don't think that there is any reliable evidence that it was or was not used to screen.

[HoreTore]

Not that I'm aware of, but Hamas claims Israel used white phosphorous on one occasion.

I know the general status on phosphorous and DIME weapons, but I haven't heard much of cluster bombs... But I suppose we would know it if they did use them, as the sound they make is very distinctive, and the journalists were within hearing range of Gaza, and Gilbert and Fosse would've heard them from Shifa...

They dropped a truckload of cluster bombs on Lebanon(IIRC, almost every cluster bomb used was fired during that last day) during the last 12 hours before the ceasefire there, it'll be interesting to find out if they did the same thing this time.... And if they didn't, then why they chose not to do it this time.

[Furunculus]

No, they did, on the UN Building. What utter Bastards the Israelis have been. Won't let any medicine in, and they bomb the stuff that's already there.

do you want to dig out a link for that champ? i.e. some reputable news source that confirms that cluster munitions were in fact dropped on the UN building.

p.s. if it turned out that the israelies had not, would that alter your opinion that they had been utter bastards?

[CountArach]

do you want to dig out a link for that champ? i.e. some reputable news source that confirms that cluster munitions were in fact dropped on the UN building.

p.s. if it turned out that the israelies had not, would that alter your opinion that they had been utter bastards?
You misunderstand him - he was talking about the use of white phosphorous, not the use of cluster munitions.

Can someone explain to me what was gained out of this invasion?

[HoreTore]

do you want to dig out a link for that champ? i.e. some reputable news source that confirms that cluster munitions were in fact dropped on the UN building.

From haaretz.com (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052331.html):


The ground invasion was preceded by large-scale artillery shelling from around 4 P.M., intended to "soften" the targets as artillery batteries deployed along the Strip in recent days began bombarding Hamas targets and open areas near the border. Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas.

Hmmmmmm.......

[Che Roriniho]

Can someone explain to me what was gained out of this invasion?

Basically nothing, except the reason for more suicide bombings. Well done Israel, you really are quite Stupid.

[Tribesman]

Can someone explain to me what was gained out of this invasion?

Well it screwed Fatah didn't it , that must have been the intention so it counts as a gain for the Israeli government doesn't it .

Hore those cluster munitions your post refers to is the bombardment of the bulldozed areas next to the prison fence to clear any possible landmines so it doesn't count on the list of war crimes commited during this pointless little middle eastern episode .

[Fragony]

well,

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/boemdichtbij.jpg

But I couldn't care less really.

[Guildenstern]

I am amazed
I'm amazed by the number of Gazans who died in this 22 day war.

And all this war for what? Has Hamas been weakened?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm amazed by the number of Gazans who died in this 22 day war.


I'm amazed by the fairly good number of Hamas militants that were killed. Good on Israel.

[Strike For The South]

*yawn*

[HoreTore]

Hore those cluster munitions your post refers to is the bombardment of the bulldozed areas next to the prison fence to clear any possible landmines so it doesn't count on the list of war crimes commited during this pointless little middle eastern episode .

Ah.

But what's the point in clearing land mines by dropping in a bunch of new land mines?

[HoreTore]

I'm amazed by the fairly good number of Hamas militants that were killed. Good on Israel.

Uhm..... And just how many was that, really? A hundred? "Wow".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Uhm..... And just how many was that, really? A hundred? "Wow".

As I pointed out on the first page of the first thread, which was relatively close to the beginning of the conflict, even Hamas acknowledged that more than this amount of militants had died.

[HoreTore]

As I pointed out on the first page of the first thread, which was relatively close to the beginning of the conflict, even Hamas acknowledged that more than this amount of militants had died.

There are roughly 1200 confirmed kills(but this will undoubtedly rise). Roughly 400 of those are children alone. Then add in the women. Then add in the old people. Then add in the civilian male population. That doesn't leave many left for Hamas fighters, now does it?

And as an added bonus, how many thousands new recruits do you think they'll get because of this? Win-win for Hamas. A resounding defeat for Israel and the palestinian people.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There are roughly 1200 confirmed kills(but this will undoubtedly rise). Roughly 400 of those are children alone. Then add in the women. Then add in the old people. Then add in the civilian male population. That doesn't leave many left for Hamas fighters, now does it?


Firstly, them being children does not necessarily mean that they were not Hamas fighters. (http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.HTML) Secondly, Hamas militant deaths have been estimated as between four hundred and six hundred and fifty, plus another hundred and fifty-odd police officers - which is probably a pretty good job by Israel considering the closeness with which Hamas operates around civilians. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd5_1232298137)

[Scurvy]

Firstly, them being children does not necessarily mean that they were not Hamas fighters.

Hard to know how many children 'are' fighters, and how many are forced/told to do things, as with child soldiers in Africa etc. --> there will certainly be many more as they grow older, having seen what Israel did...


Hamas militant deaths have been estimated as between four hundred and six hundred and fifty, plus another hundred and fifty-odd police officers - which is probably a pretty good job by Israel

Estimated by who? --> there is not really any way of knowing how many Hamas fighters have died/ how many there were in the first place, certainly very few of the highest ranking Hamas officicals have been killed, and how many non-Hamas terrorists are still around



considering the closeness with which Hamas operates around civilians.

its not the civilians fault that Hamas happen to operate near to them...

:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Well done Mars , you just justified dozens of bombings in Israel .:dizzy2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hard to know how many children 'are' fighters, and how many are forced/told to do things, as with child soldiers in Africa etc.

Does it matter? They're trying to kill you either way.


Estimated by who? --> there is not really any way of knowing how many Hamas fighters have died/ how many there were in the first place, certainly very few of the highest ranking Hamas officicals have been killed, and how many non-Hamas terrorists are still around

I was tempted to provide eight or nine laughing smilies, but instead Palestinian organizations have been claiming about 650-700 of the dead as civilians, it is safe to assume that the rest are not.



its not the civilians fault that Hamas happen to operate near to them...

Not in and of itself, but it does absolve the IDF of some of the blame for killing those civilians if Hamas was firing bullets, mortars, and missiles from right next to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza/index.html

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15466


Well done Mars , you just justified dozens of bombings in Israel .

My turn. :2thumbsup:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Oh dear Mars , keep up to date will you . The Isreali claims featured in that CNN story were shown to be bollox and they were still bollox even after they changed their version of events three times :coffeenews:


My turn.
So you demonstrate a lack of comprehension , congratulations:2thumbsup:
Well Mars exercise that thing in your head and see the reason exactly how you justified lots and lots of bombings in Israel .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aye, Tribes doþ have you þere.

[CountArach]

I'm amazed by the fairly good number of Hamas militants that were killed. Good on Israel.
And how many people saw their relatives killed for no good reason? How many of these people will become militants?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

For this to end; there needs to be around 20 years of sustained peace. Countless, pointless and un-winnable wars does nothing for each side. The countless endless cycles of threats and counter threats; violence and counter-violence is not furthering the people on either side of the conflict. Only time and a sense of progress will temper the extremes on both sides. the middle ground must feel they have something gained for their struggle to be moderate.

Both sides need to give the sticks a rest and try the carrot...


edit: on a side note i thought the title was going to be Two ceasefires ...one cup.

[Incongruous]

And how many people saw their relatives killed for no good reason? How many of these people will become militants?

Ha! Does it matter! The mighty nation of Israel will simply declare war on Gaza again in a few years and kill them all!:laugh4:

On a more serious note, the wave of suicide bombings this aburd conflict will create will help Israel in its demonisation of the Palestinians.

[HoreTore]

Firstly, them being children does not necessarily mean that they were not Hamas fighters. (http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.HTML) Secondly, Hamas militant deaths have been estimated as between four hundred and six hundred and fifty, plus another hundred and fifty-odd police officers - which is probably a pretty good job by Israel considering the closeness with which Hamas operates around civilians. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd5_1232298137)

Uhm.... 500 dead fighters? That's a good number? Do you know how many will take up arms because of this? It's ridiculous to think that number will be counted in hundreds, it will at least be in the thousands.

And then you have the 70.000 who want to take up arms in Iran alone because of this...

No, there's no denying that this is a resounding long-term defeat by Israel. Thousands of people around the world want to take up arms against them, and they've alienated their allies even more. The only thing Israel has won by this is more enemies.

[Gregoshi]

...and perfect timing: 2 days before the new Yank Boss takes over, "cease fire" is called.

I guess each side wanted to get their licks in before it drew a frown from Washington.
This reminded me of a political cartoon from 1983 back when I collected the funnier of such things:

https://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h12/gbresslr/Org%20Pictures/LebaneseCeasefire.jpg

[Tribesman]

This reminded me of a political cartoon from 1983 back when I collected the funnier of such things:

The good old days of the civil war where they called ceasefires to let the banks open so they could get the money to pay the wages of all the different militias so they could get them back fighting again .

[julius_caesar_the_first]

On a more serious note, the wave of suicide bombings this aburd conflict will create will help Israel in its demonisation of the Palestinians.

And the resulting Israeli offensive will help Hamas in it's demonisation of Israel and justify the next round of suicide bombings. And we're back where we started.:blank2:

[rasoforos]

Firstly, them being children does not necessarily mean that they were not Hamas fighters. (http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.HTML)



We are reaching new moral lows here... This is unexplored territory...The justification of killing children because some might have been forced to fight for terrorists.

...I bet some of the Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps were criminals too. Hell, some of the kids there might have stolen things or engaged in criminal activity...

...Dont lose your soul trying to justify things mate.

[Meneldil]

which is probably a pretty good job by Israel considering the closeness with which Hamas operates around civilians. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd5_1232298137)

Is that the famous 'Hamas use civilians as human shields' thingy? Because all I see is people voluntarily running around to see what's going on. Not some Hamas people lining up 8 years old children and hidding behind them while firing at the IDF.

[Hooahguy]

Is that the famous 'Hamas use civilians as human shields' thingy? Because all I see is people voluntarily running around to see what's going on. Not some Hamas people lining up 8 years old children and hidding behind them while firing at the IDF.
i saw a video of hamas doing exaclty that (lining kids up and shooting behind them) somwhere on youtube. ill try to find it if i can....

[Banquo's Ghost]

~:rolleyes:

Recriminations are, no doubt, going to keep these threads full of colourful metaphor for some time, but maybe there is room for some debate on what happens next?

There is a new administration about to take office in the United States. Several posters have previously trumpeted the "interests" of the US as reason for the recent unthinking and uncritical stance on Israeli actions.

Given the intellectual abilities of many of our members, perhaps we can try and explore in a constructive way what might be the subtleties of an Obama approach to this most destructive of adventures by Israel?

This opinion piece from Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056660.html) gives a thoughtful starting point. What are the US interests in the Levant? Would it actually be useful for a hard-liner like Netanyahu to win the coming elections, on the basis that there is naught worse than a mediocre lame-duck like Olmert to command the trust of Israelis when making peace?


Obama has two choices. First, he can let the Israelis bleed and kill all the way to an ostracized apartheid state, observing from the sidelines as Israel endangers peace in the Middle East and undermines his country's interests, just as George Marshall predicted. The second option is to stand at Israel's side in its struggle to achieve peace and maintain its Jewish and moral character en route to regional acceptance, which has been offered by 22 Arab states. Or in other words, to finish Truman's work

[Hooahguy]

i expected as much from haaretz....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is that the famous 'Hamas use civilians as human shields' thingy? Because all I see is people voluntarily running around to see what's going on. Not some Hamas people lining up 8 years old children and hidding behind them while firing at the IDF.

Firstly, some civilians even volunteer to be used this way. Secondly, in the modern age, using a human shield doesn't necessarily mean walking behind them - it can mean hiding weapons or fighters in their basements or schools, or firing from the middle of crowds or from among apartment buildings which are full, videos of which I have shown.


We are reaching new moral lows here... This is unexplored territory...The justification of killing children because some might have been forced to fight for terrorists.

If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back. And since you have already violated Godwin's Law, allow me to use the example of underage children in the Volkssturm. The Soviets, in my opinion, had every right to shoot at them. You obviously disagree.


...I bet some of the Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps were criminals too. Hell, some of the kids there might have stolen things or engaged in criminal activity...

That relates? Care to make a logical explanation as to how?


Uhm.... 500 dead fighters? That's a good number?

That is still five hundred dead Hamas militants, and the fact is that they're dead. They may be replaced, but they're not getting up.


Do you know how many will take up arms because of this? It's ridiculous to think that number will be counted in hundreds, it will at least be in the thousands.

Isn't that what people say after every war Israel is involved in? But really, I think it is quite naive to believe that Israel will just sit there through so many bombardments. Did they go too far? Perhaps. Do I blame them? Not in the slightest.


So you demonstrate a lack of comprehension , congratulations

...you completely missed the point. Then again, a lot of others probably did as well, so perhaps that was my fault.

[Don Corleone]

At the end of the day, it all boils down to who supports a two-state solution and who does not. Hamas does not support a two-state solution, never has and never will. They would rather die themselves then allow the Israelis to live there. Note the use of the term Hamas, not Palestinian. Israel does not do itself any service by continuing to conflate the two, nor does the U.S.

We need to provide viable alternatives to the Palestian people. Be it Fatah or other leadership within the Palestinian community, we have to find a way to get the Palestinians to choose leadership other than Hamas.

Has anybody ever seen any numbers on the number of Palestinians that would accept a two-state solution? Is there a political will to be sought? At the end of the day, if Palestinians would rather die killing Israelis then live alongside them, we're all in a holding pattern.

As for the issues that have always been the last 5%, rather than trying to split hairs, why don't they give one hair to one side and one hair to the other? Why not allow for Right of Return, but Jerusalem stays as part of Israel?

[Tribesman]

saw a video of hamas doing exaclty that
Didn't you look at videos of the IDF doing exactly that too ?:dizzy2:

i expected as much from haaretz....
Then read Arutz Sheva instead if you don't like thinking .



Interesting piece BG , it does raise the question of what exactly are Americas (or any other countries) interests in Israel ?
Pretty much bugger all really as it stands , rather like an illegitimate spoilt child who is both a drain and an embarrassment yet who misguided charity and warped sense of responsibility deems worth yet another chance to prove that it can grow up and stop its petulant tantrums .
As another piece in that paper today (and several other Israeli papers) mention it is time for a change , the constant round of military action and refusal to meaningfully talk is achieving nothing and will never achieve anything apart from moreof the same . Add to that the Saudis saying that their renewed offer of peace isn't going to be an offer that remains open indefinately unless it is acted upon by Israel .


Don I notice you are refering to Hamas as a single entity that is opposed to a two state solution , that isn't true anymore than describing Fatah as a single entity that is in favour of a two state solution .


If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back.
Really ? So if an armed robber starts shooting at the police from a crowded bank the police should just shoot back .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Didn't you look at videos of the IDF doing exactly that too ?:dizzy2:


In the only cases I can find of the IDF conclusively being proven to use human shields (which the Israeli Supreme Court defined as clearly illegal), the commanders in question were punished.

[Tribesman]

In the only cases I can find of the IDF conclusively being proven to use human shields (which the Israeli Supreme Court defined as clearly illegal), the commanders in question were punished.
You mean that those who were caught on video with incontravertable evidence in the period after many court cases finally led to a supreme court ruling get an official reprimand .
Have you seen this years ones from the West Bank ? them official reprimands are a real deterrent ain't they :yes:

[Fragony]

Really ? So if an armed robber starts shooting at the police from a crowded bank the police should just shoot back .

Well yes, can't be of much use when you are dead.

It's so very very predictable Israel is going to pull out and Hamas claims victory, and they will be able to sell it people want to believe, round # comming up.

[julius_caesar_the_first]

If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back. And since you have already violated Godwin's Law, allow me to use the example of underage children in the Volkssturm. The Soviets, in my opinion, had every right to shoot at them. You obviously disagree.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you...to a point.

If an Israeli soldier finds him or herself looking down the barrel of an AK-47 held by a child that has been told all his life that the Israelis are evil monsters that have to be exterminated then it's a situation of kill or be killed. It's not a pretty picture but that's life sometimes.

But as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) most of the children that died were killed by bombs or artillery shells. How can a pilot see from a cockpit that the child was a Hamas fighter? He can't. It's just wrong to kill children just because some might have been mislead to fire a gun for Hamas in a propaganda video.



As for American policy I think that, from a strictly pragmatical point of view, Israel receives too much support. They are a small state with no resources and that is hated by all the states in the region (or at least the people of those states). They are alienating, much more valuable, potential allies as well giving many governments in the region a way to distract their own people from their lack of freedom and democracy. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying let Israel burn, but the US could easily Israel to accept just about any peace plan by threatening to cut off the aid it gives.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Have you seen this years ones from the West Bank ? them official reprimands are a real deterrent ain't they :yes:

The difference is that IDF commanders in the field sometimes use human shields in direct violation of the orders they are given by their commanders. Hamas, on the other hand, constantly uses human shields in complete obedience to the orders they are given by their commanders.


But as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) most of the children that died were killed by bombs or artillery shells. How can a pilot see from a cockpit that the child was a Hamas fighter? He can't. It's just wrong to kill children just because some might have been mislead to fire a gun for Hamas in a propaganda video.

This is probably true. I wasn't saying that it was right to kill children in this scenario, simply that the fact that children and militants are not mutually exclusive. However, I don't think that most of the dead children, militants or otherwise, were specifically targeted. This leads back to the human shield argument.

[Don Corleone]

Didn't you look at videos of the IDF doing exactly that too ?:dizzy2:

Don I notice you are refering to Hamas as a single entity that is opposed to a two state solution , that isn't true anymore than describing Fatah as a single entity that is in favour of a two state solution .


Are there operators within Hamas that would accept a two-state solution, given the chance? Probably. Do they hold sufficient autonomy and power to mold Hamas in a direction that would at large accept a two-state solution? Probably not. I'm not saying 'every Hamas member', I'm speaking of the results of the organization as a whole.

Honestly, I don't know why Israel and the U.S. don't go into the West Bank, talk to some of the political leaders and explain to them "Want to be the Nasser of Palestine? We'll build your nation for you, here are the details... just get your people to quit bombing cafes and lobbing rockets and we'll do it". In fact, when you consider Carter's and Clinton's stances, I imagine we probably have. So I have to assume that nobody with the political will to actually achieve such a goal has the desire to. And I don't know that 'we' can change that. That's a decision the Palestians are making for themselves.

[Tribesman]

It's so very very predictable Israel is going to pull out and Hamas claims victory, and they will be able to sell it people want to believe, round # comming up.

What were Israels stated aims at the start of the operation Frag ?
Before Israel announced the ceasefire (or indeed after it) which of those aims had been achieved ? Was it none , none , none or none ?

[Fragony]

But as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) most of the children that died were killed by bombs or artillery shells. How can a pilot see from a cockpit that the child was a Hamas fighter? He can't. It's just wrong to kill children just because some might have been mislead to fire a gun for Hamas in a propaganda video..

Who is killing who then? If you can convince a retard that jumping into the river mid-winter is a great idea then you are guilty when he freezes to death. Israel just can not do nothing, everybody should be able to at least understand that.

[Watchman]

I daresay the issue is rather that they do rather too much of all the wrong things and little if none of the good things...

"A man who sleeps in rain cannot fault the gods for catching a cold" is a chestnut that applies to Tel Aviv as well.

[Kralizec]

Are there operators within Hamas that would accept a two-state solution, given the chance? Probably. Do they hold sufficient autonomy and power to mold Hamas in a direction that would at large accept a two-state solution? Probably not. I'm not saying 'every Hamas member', I'm speaking of the results of the organization as a whole.

Honestly, I don't know why Israel and the U.S. don't go into the West Bank, talk to some of the political leaders and explain to them "Want to be the Nasser of Palestine? We'll build your nation for you, here are the details... just get your people to quit bombing cafes and lobbing rockets and we'll do it". In fact, when you consider Carter's and Clinton's stances, I imagine we probably have. So I have to assume that nobody with the political will to actually achieve such a goal has the desire to. And I don't know that 'we' can change that. That's a decision the Palestians are making for themselves.

The Likud party (not in power right now, I know) explicitly opposes Palestinian statehood and approves the colonisation of the west bank and rejected the withdrawal from Gaza by Sharon. I don't know the other parties' official positions of these, but probably are more ambiguous or simply not outspoken about it.

Till Israel dismantles their settlements, ie return to the 1967 borders with the Palestinians, I can't "support Israel" or believe their lip service statements to long term peace, no matter how much I loathe Hamas. How can you honestly expect a stable state to emerge on a territory dotted with hostile settlements?

[Don Corleone]

The Likud party (not in power right now, I know) explicitly opposes Palestinian statehood and approves the colonisation of the west bank and rejected the withdrawal from Gaza by Sharon. I don't know the other parties' official positions of these, but probably are more ambiguous or simply not outspoken about it.

Till Israel dismantles their settlements, ie return to the 1967 borders with the Palestinians, I can't "support Israel" or believe their lip service statements to long term peace, no matter how much I loathe Hamas. How can you honestly expect a stable state to emerge on a territory dotted with hostile settlements?

You'll never catch me saying that Israel has been blameless in all of this. You're absolutely right, the settlements are an unavoidable obstruction to a path forward. That being said, Israel has proven repeatedly that given the right motivational prompting, they'll have them down in months if not weeks.

Yes, you're right, there are hard-liners in Israel. But the last time I checked, there was something like 80+% support in Israel for a sovereign, autonomous Palestinian state. There is the political will to make the two-state solution work, even if it means dismantling settlements. Some of the harder issues might start dragging that number down, things like right of return, water rights, arms agreements, the status of Jerusalem, etc.

I have no doubt that if President Obama went to Israel (assuming Likkud wasn't in power at the time) and said
okay, here's the deal... we're going back to 1967, Palestinians that can provide proof of ownership will be recognized but there will not be a blanket 'right of return', Jerusalem will be jointly mandated city, with access available to all, in all sites. In exchange, Palestine will recognize Israel's right to exist, will agree to a peace treaty and will work with the IDF to end cross-border raids and terrorism. then the Israelis would move heaven and earth (and a :daisy:load of settlements) to make that happen.

I do not have anywhere near the same confidence level with the Palestinians. I met a very intelligent, kind, reflective Palestinian in Stockholm last fall. He made some excellent arguments about the Palestinians right to exist, about the need for a stable state to check Islamic fundamentalism, which is apparently growing rampantly among the camps, which he bemoaned since traditionally, the Palestinians were viewed as being level-headed and moderate in the Arab world (so said he, not me). But when I posed the question to him of a two-state solution, his style changed. He was still polite, but his statements seemed an attempt to obfuscate. On the right of Israel to exist, he said "all people have a right to live". I myself could drive a truck through that statement, so I continued to press. At the end of the day, the guy, who was intelligent, rational and understood the ramifications of what he was saying, could not bring himself to say he believed in a right of existence for an Israeli state. I laud him on his honesty, but I ask myself... if this is where their most moderate, most tolerant viewpoints BEGIN.... can there ever be peace?

I do not believe the Palestinians, as a people, believe in a two state solution. I've posted articles before that Tribesman will disavow, but they come from the founding charters of Hizbollah and Hamas. They don't just deny the right of Israel as a nation to exist, they deny the right of non-muslims as individual people to exist, and these are the people the Palestinians chose to lead them. I know the majority of the Islamic world don't share that view, at least I hope they don't, but I don't see any sort of resistance to such viewpoints when espoused, and in that, I see a tolerance of intolerance that is very telling about future prospects for peace.

[Watchman]

I remain unconvinced by arguments based on willingness to take dramatic "wartime" declarations at a face value, doubly so given the Middle Eastern tradition of poetic exaggeration in public rhetoric.

[HoreTore]

Isn't that what people say after every war Israel is involved in? But really, I think it is quite naive to believe that Israel will just sit there through so many bombardments. Did they go too far? Perhaps. Do I blame them? Not in the slightest.

They have one response when the terrorists are palestinians, and they have another one when the terrorists are jews. If they used the same method they use against the jewish terrorists against Hamas, they might actually accomplish something.

[Tribesman]

I've posted articles before that Tribesman will disavow, but they come from the founding charters of Hizbollah and Hamas. They don't just deny the right of Israel as a nation to exist, they deny the right of non-muslims as individual people to exist
Of course I shall disavow that , unless you also mention that it is taken from Islamic scripture and both Jewish and Christian scripture also say the same about people who follow the wrong faith at the end of times (or mormons and scientologists for that matter) .


That being said, Israel has proven repeatedly that given the right motivational prompting, they'll have them down in months if not weeks.

Actually they havn't Don ,they have shown that they will pull out of settlements if they are too expensive to maintain .
Now there might be some motivational prompting that can be applied , like taking away all grants dollar for dollar your government gives Israel for every dollar Israel spends on the illegal settlements . Also you could put a blanket ban on the "charity" drives you have over in the US where people can make Aliyah by proxy by funding the illegal settlemants (or in the case of the nuttier christians give money to recreate Israel so they can become Christians at the end of the world).

[Goofball]

We are reaching new moral lows here... This is unexplored territory...The justification of killing children because some might have been forced to fight for terrorists.

...I bet some of the Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps were criminals too. Hell, some of the kids there might have stolen things or engaged in criminal activity...

...Dont lose your soul trying to justify things mate.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. If you have children trying to kill you by firing bullets at you/strapping bombs to themselves and getting on busses/launching missiles at you, as much as it is distasteful, you can't simply turn cheek because they may or may not be being forced to fight or you yourself will die. You have to kill them first. It's your only sane option. Are you really saying that on a field of battle soldiers should have to aim away from enemy soldiers who appear to be underage?

As for all of those who are saying this Israeli offensive is only justification for more Palestinians to turn to terrorism, I have another suggestion: perhaps it's justification for Palestinians to turn on their own corrupt leadership and oust them from power because of this destruction that they regularly invite upon their own people. You all make it sound like the only option that Palestinians have is to become murderers. That's not true.

[Fragony]

the wrong faith at the end of times (or mormons and scientologists for that matter) .


Not that much in a hurry these christians and jews. Classical islamphilist response by the way, do not forget to mention that christians once burned witches.

[Incongruous]

You'll never catch me saying that Israel has been blameless in all of this. You're absolutely right, the settlements are an unavoidable obstruction to a path forward. That being said, Israel has proven repeatedly that given the right motivational prompting, they'll have them down in months if not weeks.

Yes, you're right, there are hard-liners in Israel. But the last time I checked, there was something like 80+% support in Israel for a sovereign, autonomous Palestinian state. There is the political will to make the two-state solution work, even if it means dismantling settlements. Some of the harder issues might start dragging that number down, things like right of return, water rights, arms agreements, the status of Jerusalem, etc.

I have no doubt that if President Obama went to Israel (assuming Likkud wasn't in power at the time) and said then the Israelis would move heaven and earth (and a :daisy:load of settlements) to make that happen.

I do not have anywhere near the same confidence level with the Palestinians. I met a very intelligent, kind, reflective Palestinian in Stockholm last fall. He made some excellent arguments about the Palestinians right to exist, about the need for a stable state to check Islamic fundamentalism, which is apparently growing rampantly among the camps, which he bemoaned since traditionally, the Palestinians were viewed as being level-headed and moderate in the Arab world (so said he, not me). But when I posed the question to him of a two-state solution, his style changed. He was still polite, but his statements seemed an attempt to obfuscate. On the right of Israel to exist, he said "all people have a right to live". I myself could drive a truck through that statement, so I continued to press. At the end of the day, the guy, who was intelligent, rational and understood the ramifications of what he was saying, could not bring himself to say he believed in a right of existence for an Israeli state. I laud him on his honesty, but I ask myself... if this is where their most moderate, most tolerant viewpoints BEGIN.... can there ever be peace?

I do not believe the Palestinians, as a people, believe in a two state solution. I've posted articles before that Tribesman will disavow, but they come from the founding charters of Hizbollah and Hamas. They don't just deny the right of Israel as a nation to exist, they deny the right of non-muslims as individual people to exist, and these are the people the Palestinians chose to lead them. I know the majority of the Islamic world don't share that view, at least I hope they don't, but I don't see any sort of resistance to such viewpoints when espoused, and in that, I see a tolerance of intolerance that is very telling about future prospects for peace.

Excellent Don, have you been keeping up to date? Indeed have you read anything about Hamas recently? If so then you would know that some changes have occured.

Israel is utterly to shoulder the blame for this cock up, they pull out of Gaza and biuld fortress settlements in the Westbank! They steal more land! They biuld a giant wall and create a concentration camp! They shoot civilians in the street! They deny pregnant Palestinian women the right to medical treatment, in effect murdering babies!

How much evil will it take fro you Americans to kick these racist nutters out of power? You could do it in a second, the only reason Israel exists is because of you guys.

Israel has proven the U.S to be a lie.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If so then you would know that some changes have occured.

So you just ignored the Reuters link I posted in the last thread about Hamas still wanting to destroy Israel?

[Incongruous]

So you just ignored the Reuters link I posted in the last thread about Hamas still wanting to destroy Israel?

What link?
I remember you posting a lot of questionable links, and what am I to expect from a PoS outlet like Reuters? As if those guys give damn about the truth past the what their paymasters want, cover up and slander of the Palestinians is a well known trick of the Western Corporate Media, Reuters included.

But still, if you would point me to what you posted, I will read.

[Strike For The South]

What link?
I remember you posting a lot of questionable links, and what am I to expect from a PoS outlet like Reuters? As if those guys give damn about the truth past the what their paymasters want, cover up and slander of the Palestinians is a well known trick of the Western Corporate Media, Reuters included.

But still, if you would point me to what you posted, I will read.

It seems every link that has anything positive about Israelis or negative about Palestinians is biased. How convenient!

[Incongruous]

It seems every link that has anything positive about Israelis or negative about Palestinians is biased. How convenient!

Indeed, it is, tell me Strike had you ever heard the Western Media talk about the plans D? Or how about the time when it looked like sanctioned suicide bombings would be off the table, until the Israelis decided that would be an awful thing? Have you read about Israeli torture of Palestinian protesters, breaking limbs with rocks?

Indeed, did you even know that Israel is biult upon the ashes of Palestine?!
Shocking I know...

[Strike For The South]

Indeed, it is, tell me Strike had you ever heard the Western Media talk about the plans D? Or how about the time when it looked like sanctioned suicide bombings would be off the table, until the Israelis decided that would be an awful thing? Have you read about Israeli torture of Palestinian protesters, breaking limbs with rocks?

Indeed, did you even know that Israel is biult upon the ashes of Palestine?!
Shocking I know...

Why do you care so much? There are more deserving people. Like people who are actually being opposed instead of just perpetuating a cycle of violence.

[Incongruous]

Why do you care so much? There are more deserving people. Like people who are actually being opposed instead of just perpetuating a cycle of violence.

The Palestinians are not just being "opposed" Strike, they have been on the recieving end of what is officially termed genocide.

Why do I care so much?
Because not enough people do, too many educated people have simply become recorders for the sound bites of the brokers of power in the modern world, and too many have lapped up the lies about Palestine.

It is unjust.

Here are some links about our "liberal" media.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=AJcxj_Kvu7A&feature=PlayList&p=7FF3FE243B3E7732&playnext=1&index=23

http://www.medialens.org/

[Lord Winter]

Come on Bopa, it may be bad but its not Genocide. Try to see both sides of an issue too, before you start bashing us for blindness.

[Strike For The South]

Genocide? Pah. They are fighting a war. One in which the other is better equipped and better trained. Simply because they are horrible at it does not mean they are victims of genocide.

[Tribesman]

Not that much in a hurry these christians and jews.
Really ?
Do you remember a certain poster here from London whose little signature called for the "end of time now !!!!!!!" ?
Which religion was he ?
Have you read any of the christian zionist stuff ?
How about those radical fundamentalists who want to (and attempted to ) rebuild the temple to bring the rapture ?
Then you have the fruitcakes like Koresh who wanted lots of guns for the upcoming armageddon .
How about Palins old pastor who was preparing for the imminent hordes who would flee to Alaska for salvation , not to mention all the kooks during the election claiming Obama was from the book of revelation though they were really funny as they must have some really strange translation of scripture to be "quoting" what they quoted ?
(the funniest of those biblical "quotes" must have been the one from down Georgia way who said that Rev:13 says "an olive skinned Muslim from Asia will rise to power in America and he is the antichrist")

So Frag , you have obviously had your head in the sand and when you say ...

Classical islamphilist response by the way
...as it actually demonstrates your usual islamophobia which you cherish so much .




breaking limbs with rocks?

Be fair Bopa , after lots of complaints and getting caught on camera the government did tell its army to tell its soldiers that they shouldn't go round breaking childrens arms with rocks and rifle butts anymore .

[Incongruous]

Come on Bopa, it may be bad but its not Genocide. Try to see both sides of an issue too, before you start bashing us for blindness.

Have you read the specifications for genocide?
Do you realise that what Israel si doing in Gaza is now classed as genocide?
Did you read that medialens report?


Be fair Bopa , after lots of complaints and getting caught on camera the government did tell its army to tell its soldiers that they shouldn't go round breaking childrens arms with rocks and rifle butts anymore .

Oh how kind of them, smearing excrement all over their schools is a better choice...
You have to love the humanism of Israel.

[Fragony]

Really ?
Do you remember a certain poster here from London whose little signature called for the "end of time now !!!!!!!" ?
Which religion was he ?
Have you read any of the christian zionist stuff ?
How about those radical fundamentalists who want to (and attempted to ) rebuild the temple to bring the rapture ?
Then you have the fruitcakes like Koresh who wanted lots of guns for the upcoming armageddon .
How about Palins old pastor who was preparing for the imminent hordes who would flee to Alaska for salvation , not to mention all the kooks during the election claiming Obama was from the book of revelation though they were really funny as they must have some really strange translation of scripture to be "quoting" what they quoted ?
(the funniest of those biblical "quotes" must have been the one from down Georgia way who said that Rev:13 says "an olive skinned Muslim from Asia will rise to power in America and he is the antichrist")

So Frag , you have obviously had your head in the sand and when you say ...

...as it actually demonstrates your usual islamophobia which you cherish so much .


Think what you want, I only care about what you do. That tiny difference between being silly and being nuts. If it is what it is then it is simply that. Look at what you have to bring up, how deep you actually dig to justify Hamas, and for what they want to kill an entire nation and it's people, now who is deluded.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The American fundamentalists want to destroy Israel as well, they just want to build it up first. At least Hamas talk a remotely straight game.

Those US Evangelicals are awaiting the rapture and as far as they are concerned Scotty isn't going to be beaming up a single Jew.

It's interesting about beliefs like those held by the Isaelis and Palastinians. To be honest I don't believe the Israeli people believe in a two=state solution, the Biblical Kingdom of Israel was four times the size of the current country. The Israelis might be willing to accept temporary defeat in return for long term completion of their ultimate goal.

Having said that the Palastinians are no better, though they arguably have far more right to be very very angry.

[LittleGrizzly]

I wonder just how many more victorys like this Israel can afford ?

Im not sure about palestinians will for the two state solution but i see the real problem lying with israeli civilians, i mean if they give the palestinians water it means less water for them, if they give the palestinians land it means less land for them, why give all this up when you can continue to discredit any peace deals or talks as the enemy are far too evil to deal with. Simply put i believe israeli's would rather kill and be killed than give up the thier advantages.

[Incongruous]

I wonder just how many more victorys like this Israel can afford ?

Im not sure about palestinians will for the two state solution but i see the real problem lying with israeli civilians, i mean if they give the palestinians water it means less water for them, if they give the palestinians land it means less land for them, why give all this up when you can continue to discredit any peace deals or talks as the enemy are far too evil to deal with. Simply put i believe israeli's would rather kill and be killed than give up the thier advantages.

I disagree, the Israelis are the victims of powerful and consistent propoganda to intensify an already dangerous situation. I doubt I would be break from such tappestries of lies, I would probably go on living and breathing ignorance. What Israelis and the West require, is decent men walking the halls of power, there are plenty of them in Israel. I know some who came to my university last year, they were men who had the courage to criticize their own people, for me that would be hard, for Jew it would be torture. But they did it and they have proven that Israelis can, if they try hard enough, come to decent resolutions about the Palestinians.
They mirror many Palestinians...

[Fragony]

The courage to sing the hyms of the leftist church? There is nothing brave about attacking Israel it's the salonsocialist consensus.

[Tribesman]

Look at what you have to bring up, how deep you actually dig to justify Hamas
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That isn't digging deep or justifying Hamas Frag , it just shows how little you think .


who is deluded.
Good question .
Can you get access to one of those magic glass things Frag ?
If you can take a good look at it as you will find the deluded person in the mirror .:yes:

[Husar]

Of course I shall disavow that , unless you also mention that it is taken from Islamic scripture and both Jewish and Christian scripture also say the same about people who follow the wrong faith at the end of times (or mormons and scientologists for that matter) .

But (oh, look, I will now disagree with Tribesman), for me there is certainly a difference between "God wants us to slaughter them now!" and "God wants us to be nice to them now, try to convert/save them, but he will come later and kill them himself.".
The bible does not say christians should kill the unbelievers in the end times, it says God himself will send heavenly creatures/plagues to do just that, quite different in terms of how the believers are supposed to act.

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That isn't digging deep or justifying Hamas Frag , it just shows how little you think .


Of course not Tribes you are just putting it into perspective. Mormons and Hamas are really the same thing. Thinking that the end is nigh is just as criminal as blowing up a schoolbus full of kids. Building a temple for rapture is just as nasty as completely whiping out a country and it's people. Maybe it's a good thing that I don't think that much it isn't meant for everyone.

carry on

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But (oh, look, I will now disagree with Tribesman), for me there is certainly a difference between "God wants us to slaughter them now!" and "God wants us to be nice to them now, try to convert/save them, but he will come later and kill them himself.".
The bible does not say christians should kill the unbelievers in the end times, it says God himself will send heavenly creatures/plagues to do just that, quite different in terms of how the believers are supposed to act.

"If you hand offends you cut it off"? That, among many other passages in the Gospel and Epistles has been used oft times to justify Holy War, mainly on the grounds that the bad belief/religion could be used to infect good Christians.

[Husar]

"If you hand offends you cut it off"? That, among many other passages in the Gospel and Epistles has been used oft times to justify Holy War, mainly on the grounds that the bad belief/religion could be used to infect good Christians.

Well, if you take it like that then atheism is dangerous as well if you take survival of the fittest to mean you have to kill all the other weaklings. :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Maybe it's a good thing that I don't think that much it isn't meant for everyone.

I hadn't noticed :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Building a temple for rapture is just as nasty as completely whiping out a country and it's people.
If the intention is the same then it is equally as nasty .

[Fragony]

If the intention is the same then it is equally as nasty .

Yeah Tribes of course, might seem odd to you but if someone is keen on praying me to death I don't really mind that much, it's cute. Not so cute, blowing up busses with children, and desiring the complete extermination of a country and it's people, and if that wasn't enough they must kill them wherever they find them, so even the trees and stones they are hiding behind will cry out 'A JEW'!
Why the nuance? Why the need to put something as sick as that into perspective? Why can't you come to terms with Hamas being absolute sickos (who have killed more palestinians then Israel could ever hope to)? They put their money where their mouth is, there isn't anything they wouldn't do, they use children and pregnant women as human shields, they (the democratically elected government olol) hold mass executions of political adversaries, wall BLAM RATATATATA. Why the love? I will never accuse you of antisemitism, pretty sure you aren't one and are just amazed, but are you really making a point or just trying to win a discussion.

[Pannonian]

Having said that the Palastinians are no better, though they arguably have far more right to be very very angry.
Ceasefire or no ceasefire, both sides are making war on each other. The Palestinians are doing so with exceedingly unwise PR though, by trying to blow Israelis up. The Israelis, OTOH, are doing so more insidiously, by taking Palestinian land. Ironically, historically, killing another kingdom's people could be papered over, with some suitable compensation and sweet talking, but landgrabbing was seen as a far more serious casus belli.

[Fragony]

Ceasefire or no ceasefire, both sides are making war on each other. The Palestinians are doing so with exceedingly unwise PR though, by trying to blow Israelis up.

Oh? That unwise? Nobody gives a crap about blown up Israeli's 'they had it comming because they [insert accusation here]'. It's what is behind this conflict that is winning the propaganda-war, look at all the hugs and kisses these :daisy: :daisy: get.

[Pannonian]

Oh? That unwise? Nobody gives a crap about blown up Israeli's 'they had it comming because they [insert accusation here]'. It's what is behind this conflict that is winning the propaganda-war, look at all the hugs and kisses these :daisy: :daisy: get.
That's part of the blowing up Israelis bit, in that their method of pursuing the war is geared towards blowing up Israelis, while the Israeli method of pursuing the war is to annex more Palestinian land.

[Hooahguy]

Have you read the specifications for genocide?
Do you realise that what Israel si doing in Gaza is now classed as genocide?
Did you read that medialens report?
wait.... let me get this straight.... you think israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:
according to webster, the definition of genocide is:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

lets see. we arent rounding up Palestinians and killing them. we arent massacring israeli Palestinians, and they have rights and can vote and can bring cases to the supreme court of israel.
that, my friend, is not genocide. if it really was genocide, then arabs in israel would be rounded up and killed. but they arent.

and who classes the situation in gaza a genocide? colin powell? the UN? who else wants to condemn israel when there are really serious human rights abuses in china and such countries, apartheid for women in arab countries, and they say little about that.

you may say because israel is a democracy, it mjust act better, but my good sir, a nation is a nation. just because a country may be a dictatorship, does not make it less responsible for human rights violations. in fact, Professor Irwin Cotler, a leading scholar in human rights said that the singling out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena is a modern form of anti-semitism. if you want ill post the other eight sets of modern anti-semitism which he identifies. :wink3:

let me be clear- i acknowledge that israel has committed human rights abuses, and i condemn them. it was wrong that they did them and nothing can excuse the abuses. but to overly condemn them and much less other countries is just wrong. one who is truly for human rights would be equal to all countries in terms of condemnation.

o ya, about that medialens report, medialens is known to be biased, just like CAMERA can be. you dont let me use CAMERA but you use medialens? :inquisitive:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

and who classes the situation in gaza a genocide?

John Pilger I suppose, who Bopa trusts over the entire "mainstream Western media." This has the probably not unintentional effect of rendering our sources effectively useless, as demonstrated above. :dizzy2:

[Pannonian]

wait.... let me get this straight.... you think israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:
according to webster, the definition of genocide is:


lets see. we arent rounding up Palestinians and killing them. we arent massacring israeli Palestinians, and they have rights and can vote and can bring cases to the supreme court of israel.
that, my friend, is not genocide. if it really was genocide, then arabs in israel would be rounded up and killed. but they arent.

All Israel is doing is just an old-fashioned landgrab, rather than genocide. Encroaching on the neighbour's territory, which, if they're strong enough to resist, they can declare war over it, and if they're not, they'll just have to accept it, or appeal to a stronger ally. A bit unfashionable nowadays, but not genocide.

[Hooahguy]

land grab? israel hasn't taken land since '67. but it did give back gaza, and i dont think the recent conflict was to take it back.

[Tribesman]

the definition of genocide is:

Quote:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

lets see. we arent rounding up Palestinians and killing them.

Lets see , what is the definition of "destruction" ?:dizzy2:



Why the nuance? Why the need to put something as sick as that into perspective?

Because Fragony everything needs to be put in perspective , take that example from their scripture that is used , then for perpsective see how it is used and compare it to all the other scriptures that talk of the same event ...no difference really between any of them is there .
So from that perspective it is completely irrelevant
Then put it in the perpective that you are trying to use it ...well you don't even have to leave the charter to see that your perspective is completely flawed , you take an unrelated thing and try and relate it to something else entirely .
See if you can follow this , its quite simple .
An end of time thing with death to the unbelievers refers to an end of time thing where there will be death to the unbelievers .
A piece that says that a state must be destroyed and people of all religions shall live in peace says a state must be destroyed and people of all religions shall live in peace .

What you are doing is taking part of one , adding it to another that isn't related and coming up with
"destroy the State and death to the unbelievers" .
Which to put it mildly is complete bollox .:yes:


land grab? israel hasn't taken land since '67.
Really ?
Then what is it doing in Gharjar ?

[Hooahguy]

Lets see , what is the definition of "destruction" ?:dizzy2:
whats your point?



Really ?
Then what is it doing in Gharjar ?
the person i was referring to was describing land grabs from Palestinians, or at least thats what i interpreted it as. not lebanese.

[Hax]

to destroy (third-person singular simple present destroys (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroys), present participle destroying (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroying), simple past and past participle destroyed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroyed)) (transitive)


To damage (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/damage) beyond use (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/use) or repair (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/repair).
The earthquake destroyed several apartment complexes.
To put down (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/put_down) or euthanize (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euthanize). Destroy a rabid (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rabid) dog.
(colloquial (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#C)) To defeat (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defeat) soundly (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soundly).

...

[Tribesman]

whats your point?
Oh sorry I didn't realise it was that hard to understand .
The point was what is the definition of "destruction" ?:yes:
If you are in any doubt or it is a little bit too hard for you to understand then take some of Olmerts words about what his recent intentions have been and then try and figure how they can be described as anything other than a textbook definition of genocide.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

land grab? israel hasn't taken land since '67. but it did give back gaza, and i dont think the recent conflict was to take it back.

The settlements in the Westbank are 100% illegal, so is the Wall, it encroaches on Palastinian terretory.

[Pannonian]

land grab? israel hasn't taken land since '67. but it did give back gaza, and i dont think the recent conflict was to take it back.
It's steadily taking chunks off the West Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement), which is where it wants land, rather than Gaza, where it doesn't. If state A claims control of and takes over land ostensibly under the control of state B, I'd call that an act of war.

[Hooahguy]

[/LIST]
...
i know what it means. im not an idiot.


Oh sorry I didn't realise it was that hard to understand .
The point was what is the definition of "destruction" ?:yes:
If you are in any doubt or it is a little bit too hard for you to understand then take some of Olmerts words about what his recent intentions have been and then try and figure how they can be described as anything other than a textbook definition of genocide.
how? wanting to destroy hamas is genocide? jeez. :inquisitive:
ive looked through the internet and found nothing about olmert saying we should do a genocide against the Palestinians.
if you are talking about when he said this,

"Hamas must not gain any legitimacy from the restoration process, as it is the one responsible for the destruction in the Strip," Olmert said.
he said destruction in the Strip not destruction of the strip. there is a difference.

if we were really doing genocide, why dont we just firebomb the place? kill em' all. since the world seems to think we are doing that, why dont we do it, since no one wants to hear what we have to say anyhow.


The settlements in the Westbank are 100% illegal, so is the Wall, it encroaches on Palastinian terretory.
the west bank is occupied territory, thus the entire area is "grabbed land." grabbed land within grabbed land. thats like a double negative right there.

btw while the fence may be deemed illegal in international eyes, it has saved HUNDREDS of israeli lives. do i need to bring in statistics to prove it?

[Hooahguy]

It's steadily taking chunks off the West Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement), which is where it wants land, rather than Gaza, where it doesn't. If state A claims control of and takes over land ostensibly under the control of state B, I'd call that an act of war.
actually, jordan controlled the west bank from '48-'67, not the palestinians. was there any condemnation over that? i doubt it.
the six day was a defensive war, whether you like it or not. egypt and syria were gearing for war, and israel had no choice but to stop them. most military historians regard it as such, as they do all pre-emptive strikes.
land taken in defensive wars isnt illigal.
so it really all depends on whether you think the 6 day war was offisive or defensive.

besides, giving back the west bank would be disasterous. most of israel would now be in range of rocket fire.

[Pannonian]

actually, jordan controlled the west bank from '48-'67, not the palestinians. was there any condemnation over that? i doubt it.
the six day was a defensive war, whether you like it or not. egypt and syria were gearing for war, and israel had no choice but to stop them. most military historians regard it as such, as they do all pre-emptive strikes.
land taken in defensive wars isnt illigal.
so it really all depends on whether you think the 6 day war was offisive or defensive.

besides, giving back the west bank would be disasterous. most of israel would now be in range of rocket fire.
Actually, most of the maps I've seen show the growth of settlements since the 1990s. Whatever Israel grabbed as a result of the earlier wars, I see as the legitimate result of open warfare. It's the encroachment whilst claiming that it's observing the peace that I have issues with. Either make war and grab land as a consequence, or stay within your borders and claim peace. What the Palestinians are doing is disgusting, but what the Israelis are doing is hypocritical. Both are making war, and neither observes any ceasefires.

[Hooahguy]

true, the growth of that area is because of a massive aliyah by american jews to israel, among other countries.
but though it is illigal, it is by no means ok for that reason to blow up buses with innocent civilians in the name of allah. nor is it ok to bomb palestinian homes as retaliation for the horrific suicide bombings.

EDIT: wait- you say

Either make war and grab land as a consequence, or stay within your borders and claim peace.

they did that. it was called the 6 day war. well, they didnt make it, but they did take it in war.

the issue now is that if israel does give back the west bank, will it turn into another base for shooting rockets like gaza turned out to be.

[Tribesman]

how? wanting to destroy hamas is genocide? jeez.
Oh dear, it appears you posted a definition but didn't read it . That was rather silly wasn't it .

if we were really doing genocide
Still don't know what it means do you

i know what it means. im not an idiot.

Errrrrrrr........
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


actually, jordan controlled the west bank from '48-'67, not the palestinians. was there any condemnation over that? i doubt it.

you really don't know history much do you


btw while the fence may be deemed illegal in international eyes
Errrr...it is deemed illegal in the domestic courts too . But hey when does the Israeli government follow Israeli courts when the ruling is about arabs eh ?

land taken in defensive wars isnt illigal.
You really do pile it on don't you .:dizzy2:
Could you give us another laugh and try and show a law that says that ?



What the Palestinians are doing is disgusting, but what the Israelis are doing is hypocritical.
Its easier to say both are hypocritical and disgusting .
If people say that Israel is allowed to establish a state through violence and expulsions then it means that the palestinians are also allowed to establish a state through violence and expulsions .

[Hooahguy]

Errrrrrrr........
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
i thought we were past the insults. :inquisitive:



you really don't know history much do you
no, i do. i just dont read revisionist history books. :dizzy2:


Errrr...it is deemed illegal in the domestic courts too . But hey when does the Israeli government follow Israeli courts when the ruling is about arabs eh ?
yo genius- ask the head of the israeli Supreme court yourself. he said that the fence is only illegal once it no longer serves its purpose as a security fence and then becomes a fence only to keep Palestinians in.
- not terrorists out

You really do pile it on don't you .:dizzy2:
Could you give us another laugh and try and show a law that says that ?
sure. my source comes from professor David J. Bederman of Emory university, who teaches public international law, legal methods, admiralty, constitutional law, legal history.

[Tribesman]

sure. my source comes from professor David J. Bederman of Emory university
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Could you write to him and get him to post the non-existant law then :idea2:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

no, i do. i just dont read revisionist history books.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Then you should have no difficulty in naming the countries that condemned the Jordanian occupation and illegal annexation of the West Bank .
no wait , hold on that list might be just a little too big for you to post , why not just name the countries that didn't condemn it :idea2:


i thought we were past the insults.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I thought you might have realised by now that it helps if what you write has some basis in fact or shows even a basic knowledge of what you are talking about .
In this case you have several times gone back to a simple thing which is taken from a dictionary and repeatedly shown that you don't know what it means .
Besides which that line you used is the very definition of a really big idiot , as everyone is an idiot but the biggest idiot of all is the one who claims he isn't .


yo genius- ask the head of the israeli Supreme court yourself. he said that the fence is only illegal once it no longer serves its purpose as a security fence and then becomes a fence only to keep Palestinians in.
- not terrorists out

That was the first ruling Hooah , the second ruling says they are completly unconvinced of the military neccecity of the fence and every section will have to be reviewed by the court to establish its legality . Since the review has not taken place yet then the courts have not said it is legal they have said they question its legality .

[Hooahguy]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Could you write to him and get him to post the non-existant law then :idea2:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
while im waiting for him to answer, can YOU post me the law that says its illegal?


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Then you should have no difficulty in naming the countries that condemned the Jordanian occupation and illegal annexation of the West Bank .
no wait , hold on that list might be just a little too big for you to post , why not just name the countries that didn't condemn it :idea2:
EDIT: i find that the actual occupation wasnt condemned. it was the attempt to annex it. the only country to recognize the annexed part was the UK.



That was the first ruling Hooah , the second ruling says they are completly unconvinced of the military neccecity of the fence and every section will have to be reviewed by the court to establish its legality . Since the review has not taken place yet then the courts have not said it is legal they have said they question its legality .
hm. this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/05/israel1) is probably the ruling you are referring to. according to it, they only werent convinced of its military necessity for one area. not the whole thing.

[Fragony]

Because Fragony everything needs to be put in perspective , take that example from their scripture that is used , then for perpsective see how it is used and compare it to all the other scriptures that talk of the same event ...no difference really between any of them is there .


Do we need to put the actions of the lords army in Africa into any perspective? They are christians and complete utter filth. This will probably get me a storm of smily's but I don't discriminate there, Hamas is scum, the lords army is scum. Scriptures don't matter, what you think doesn't matter, only what you do, and when it has been done you can place it into perspective and then intentions matter but only in how far we condemn it, I don't really care why someone does something that terrible. But not before something has been done. Rapture folks are creeps but they are pretty much harmless, just some silly cult. But Hamas is a big and truly sick bunch there are loads of differences.

[Incongruous]

John Pilger I suppose, who Bopa trusts over the entire "mainstream Western media." This has the probably not unintentional effect of rendering our sources effectively useless, as demonstrated above. :dizzy2:

Damn straight I trust him more than bloody Reuters or the BlahBlahC, both outlets coverage of Palestine is sickening and faulty, the repeated and continued use of the line "Hamas takeover of Gaza" should kinda make it obvious to anyone who knows anything about Gaza that they have interests which curtail their abilities to report the truth.

But hey Mars, you keep on reading the good read...

Yeah and its just John Pilger Mars, discount the actual definition of genocide and the realities of Gaza as you see fit.
In fact, just discount reality.

[Pannonian]

true, the growth of that area is because of a massive aliyah by american jews to israel, among other countries.
but though it is illigal, it is by no means ok for that reason to blow up buses with innocent civilians in the name of allah. nor is it ok to bomb palestinian homes as retaliation for the horrific suicide bombings.

EDIT: wait- you say


they did that. it was called the 6 day war. well, they didnt make it, but they did take it in war.

the issue now is that if israel does give back the west bank, will it turn into another base for shooting rockets like gaza turned out to be.
Israel made some agreement that supposedly gave back some of that land. Israel then took back some of that land, whilst claiming that they're are at peace. I'm not talking about the 1960s here, I'm talking about Rabin and after. That's an act of war, and the other party are allowed to fight back in return, if they have the power to do so. That they've done so in the wrong manner doesn't make Israel's annexation of these lands right. The argument about needing the land to protect Israel from rockets is BS as well, because buffers and enforced DMZs should be uninhabited. Instead, these landgrabs are colonised, thus providing the pretext for further landgrabs because the earlier ones are threatened, which provide the pretext for further landgrabs, etc.

Palestine isn't the only party to have unofficially prosecuted war in the last 20 years regardless of agreements, Israel have been no less guilty. The difference is that Israel have done so in a manner that has resulted in less negative PR.

[Tribesman]

while im waiting for him to answer, can YOU post me the law that says its illegal?

Ah so you don't know .
Would you like a clue ?
Three really important bits are
in all circumstances.
shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict
in any manner whatsoever
Now perhaps since you seem to have problems with your "research" thing you may have difficulty finding the law that says it is illegal , but you could try really hard and start by finding the laws of war written after WWII and read them .
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


i find that the actual occupation wasnt condemned. it was the attempt to annex it. the only country to recognize the annexed part was the UK.

The war and resulting occupation were condemned , in fact the people who condemned it remained resolved in their condemnation . :idea2:
Of course Britain was the country , because they were the ones that had armed and trained the arab legion and provided the army officers for the Hashemites to take over parts of Palestine and crush any Palestinian opposition . Plus of course Israel sort of recognised it because they had done a deal with the Hashemites before the declaration of independance to split the land alloted to the palestinian arab state between them .

they only werent convinced of its military necessity for one area. not the whole thing.
No the second ruling allows for a further review of the legality of the whole fence because the previous ruling on its legality was based on information that they had found to be somewhat dubious .




Do we need to put the actions of the lords army in Africa into any perspective?
Yes , as without perspective there is no real view .

[Hooahguy]

Ah so you don't know .
Would you like a clue ?
Three really important bits are
in all circumstances.
shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict
in any manner whatsoever
Now perhaps since you seem to have problems with your "research" thing you may have difficulty finding the law that says it is illegal , but you could try really hard and start by finding the laws of war written after WWII and read them .
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

no genius. cite the specific law. not summarize it. i could just as easily say "land taken in defensive wars are legal." now, you would say thats bollox because i didnt cite the law, but you just did that yourself.

[Hooahguy]

The argument about needing the land to protect Israel from rockets is BS as well, because buffers and enforced DMZs should be uninhabited.
you think that just because there is a DMZ rockets cant fly over it?:inquisitive:
look at this map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Ashdod_Israel_Map.png

rockets from gaza have hit the city of Ashdod. no where near the accuracy of the rockets landing in sderot and ashkelon, but they still hit. now, can you imagine a DMZ that wide?
i certainly cant. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

no genius. cite the specific law. not summarize it. i could just as easily say "land taken in defensive wars are legal." now, you would say thats bollox because i didnt cite the law, but you just did that yourself.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The difference being that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about , so when you say bollox it carries about as much weight as all the rest of your invented "facts" .
If you are still having trouble with your "research" try thinking about international laws concerning warfare that are named after a little place high up in Europe that starts with the letter G .



Meanwhile in other news it appears that the IDF did commit war crimes in the recent episode , but are saying it was only one reserve brigade that did it and they are really very very sorry for the mistake .:yes:
Which is quite a turnaround considering they initially claimed they were not using phosphorous at all , then claimed that they were not really using phosphorous as they were only using one sort of phosphorous shell that didn't really contain that much phosphorous honestly , then claiming that OK they were using more than one type of phosphorous shell but only in accordance with the laws of war .
So the propognda machine unravells and leaves Israel with yet another PR disaster ...and of course the threatened arrest of Livni for war crimes when she arrives in europe tomorrow .:oops:

[Fragony]

Doesn't the Geneva convention only cover the treatment of war-prisoners? Not knowing just asking.

[FactionHeir]

Some analysis on Israel attacking civilian institutions:
http://iht.com/articles/2009/01/20/mideast/gaza.1-411704.php

Note that the article omits the attack on the UN and hospitals, which are obvious civilian institutions and focusses on "grayer" areas (I suppose from Israel's PoV) instead.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Doesn't the Geneva convention only cover the treatment of war-prisoners? Not knowing just asking.

No, the conventions protect non-combatants and those no longer able to fight.

Detail here (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions).

[Tribesman]

Doesn't the Geneva convention only cover the treatment of war-prisoners? Not knowing just asking.

That is why I specified laws after WWII , though of course it must also take into consideration other international laws both before and after . Two that would be specificlly relevant and in the same time frame as the Geneva IV would be the Nuremburg Principles and the UN Charter .
Face it , Hooah was trying b/s again and I seriously doubt that any lawyer let alone one specialising in international and maritime law like Bederman be would silly enough to make such a ridiculous claim given the legal impossibility of defining a defensive or agressive war (which is where the cornflake pact came unstuck) .

[Hooahguy]

given the legal impossibility of defining a defensive or agressive war
why is it a legal impossibility?

[Fragony]

Face it , Hooah was trying b/s again and I seriously doubt that any lawyer let alone one specialising in international and maritime law like Bederman be would silly enough to make such a ridiculous claim given the legal impossibility of defining a defensive or agressive war (which is where the cornflake pact came unstuck) .

Law? Seriously? It isn't a court it's a conflict.

[Tribesman]

why is it a legal impossibility?

Try it yourself , define war of aggression that can not also be defined as a war of defense , then get into the minefield of what is pre-emption .
You will then see that even if your non-existant law did exist neither the '48 war or any of the Israeli wars since can be defined as wars of defense .


Law? Seriously? It isn't a court it's a conflict.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually frag its a law about conduct and in this case aquisition/occupation .:idea2:

[Hooahguy]

Try it yourself , define war of aggression that can not also be defined as a war of defense , then get into the minefield of what is pre-emption .

a war of aggression: a war in which one country attacks with no reason to invade, like Iraq in Kuwait. goals are purely revenge and/or territorial gain.

a war of defense: a war in which one country is defending against an aggressor. now, under this category are pre-emptive strikes. pre-emptive strikes are when one country attacks after there is a mass amount of proof that war is eminent with another country.

in our case, both egypt and syria were massing troops as the border. radio stations there were calling for the destruction of israel. both countries were in war fervor. then egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all israeli ships, which can be interpreted as a declaration of war. then israel attacked in response to all this.



You will then see that even if your non-existant law did exist neither the '48 war or any of the Israeli wars since can be defined as wars of defense .
so you are saying the Yom Kippur war wasnt a defensive war? :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

a war of aggression: a war in which one country attacks with no reason to invade, like Iraq in Kuwait. goals are purely revenge and/or territorial gain.

a war of defense: a war in which one country is defending against an aggressor. now, under this category are pre-emptive strikes. pre-emptive strikes are when one country attacks after there is a mass amount of proof that war is eminent with another country.

in our case, both egypt and syria were massing troops as the border. radio stations there were calling for the destruction of israel. both countries were in war fervor. then egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all israeli ships, which can be interpreted as a declaration of war. then israel attacked in response to all this.

Can you prove Egypt and Syria didn't think Israel were going to attack them?

What if you pre-empt the pre-emption? Is it still defensive?

Is it defensive if you are defending land you shouldn't own?


so you are saying the Yom Kippur war wasnt a defensive war? :inquisitive:

Well, for starter Israel crossed into enemy territory, you could argue that a defensive war is merely one which repulses the aggressor. The Gulf War, while it crossed into Iraqi territory, did not result in the redrawing of national borders, merely the expulsion of the aggressor.

[Idaho]

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture (can be found in the given link). Please host pictures yourself. BG

Israel to probe phosphorus claims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7841999.stm)

'Probe' them? Deny the plain evidence that they used it widely in the attacks. That is terror tactics pure and simple? What military use can that have in this circumstance?

[Hooahguy]

Can you prove Egypt and Syria didn't think Israel were going to attack them?
mossad had intelligence that proved that egypt and syria were going to attack.


What if you pre-empt the pre-emption? Is it still defensive?
technically, yes. b/c they were going to attack, and you attacked in defense.


Is it defensive if you are defending land you shouldn't own?
land is land.


Well, for starter Israel crossed into enemy territory, you could argue that a defensive war is merely one which repulses the aggressor. The Gulf War, while it crossed into Iraqi territory, did not result in the redrawing of national borders, merely the expulsion of the aggressor.
chasing after a routing attacker? can be defined as aggression, i guess. but israel went back to the border after the war ended, not kept it.

[Tribesman]

a war of aggression: a war in which one country attacks with no reason to invade, like Iraq in Kuwait. goals are purely revenge and/or territorial gain.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Absolutely clueless .:dizzy2:
Can you start by listing the reasons Iraq had to invade Kuwait ?
You can do the long list or the short one , either will show that you are talking bollox again .


but israel went back to the border after the war ended, not kept it.
:dizzy2:
What bloody border ?
Don't you learn anything ? Israel hasn't got borders .

[Hooahguy]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Absolutely clueless .:dizzy2:
Can you start by listing the reasons Iraq had to invade Kuwait ?
You can do the long list or the short one , either will show that you are talking bollox again .
sure- they accused kuwait of stealing oil, even though it was later revealed that saddam decided to attack only a few months before the invasion. incidentaly it came after the iraq-iran war, and kuwait funded heavily iraq in the war, and iraq coudnt pay them back.


:dizzy2:
What bloody border ?
Don't you learn anything ? Israel hasn't got borders .
what are you insinuating? that israel isnt a legitimate country? :inquisitive:

[Incongruous]

sure- they accused kuwait of stealing oil, even though it was later revealed that saddam decided to attack only a few months before the invasion. incidentaly it came after the iraq-iran war, and kuwait funded heavily iraq in the war, and iraq coudnt pay them back.


what are you insinuating? that israel isnt a legitimate country? :inquisitive:

Well no, at least not in the form Israel seems to think.

Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing oil, the US & Co. didn't give a :daisy: about legalities and such, oh and the Saudis were acting up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

mossad had intelligence that proved that egypt and syria were going to attack.

Well, that must be true, because Israel won.



technically, yes. b/c they were going to attack, and you attacked in defense.

But what if they pre-empted your pre-emptive of their pre-empt? How far do you want to take this?


land is land.

Only in physical geography. If that were true in any other sense Israel would have been set up somwhere other than Palastine.


chasing after a routing attacker? can be defined as aggression, i guess. but israel went back to the border after the war ended, not kept it.

So Israel hasn't expanded beyond the original Jewish Homeland cobbled together to try to stop a war? Or is the country significantly larger today than in 1948.

To be perfectly honest though I have little sympathy with the Isaeli situation historically. Israel should never have been allowed to come into existence, the Jewish settlers should have been told that they WERE NOT allowed to carve a country out of another people's land. Having said that there are now 3rd and 4th generation Israelis, so the reversal of the UN's original spinelessness would be as inhumane as the original crime.

[Hooahguy]

But what if they pre-empted your pre-emptive of their pre-empt? How far do you want to take this?
:dizzy2: considering were getting nowhere, not far....



So Israel hasn't expanded beyond the original Jewish Homeland cobbled together to try to stop a war? Or is the country significantly larger today than in 1948.
i was talking about the 1973 war, but ok.

[Tribesman]

what are you insinuating? that israel isnt a legitimate country?
Country is the wrong word , the word you are looking for is State and yes Israel isn't one because a State requires defined borders to make its territory.


sure- they accused kuwait of stealing oil
Really ? Stealing oil by slant drilling , thats an agression against iraqi territory isn't it

kuwait funded heavily iraq in the war, and iraq coudnt pay them back.

wow an economic arguement .
That was the bit where they claimed the money only had to be paid back once the job was done and Kuwaits expansion of oil exports was damaging Iraqs economy
Is that like Israel saying Egypt was waging financial war against them by closing Egyptian territorial waters in the red sea to Isreali shipping harming the Israeli economy and thus justified an escalation of aggression ?
Hey and that don't even go into the territorial claims of Iraq or the nullification of the treaty giving autonomy to Kuwait or the unilateral declaration does it .

Can you see yet the impossibility of legally defining a war of defense or agression ?
Why not try an old favourite , Japans attack on America in 1941 .
Was it a war of aggression , a defensive war or a pre-emptive strike ?
Or was it all three ?:yes:


Well, that must be true, because Israel won.


Could you possibly tell that to the Norwegians as they seem to think a waiter got murdered because Israeli intelligence wasn't too intelligent .