NationStates Jolt Archive

More irrelevenwombling.

We're not talking about what weapons the US wants to have.



O hes always like this when he's aroused. He's happy as a pig in shite with all this going on.

If you examine the casualty claims of both sides, instead of just Hamas (and the UN "observers" are by no means impartial), I doubt that more than 30% of the casualties and deaths sustained so far are civilians.
More like 40%-50%.

Oh, and that Norwegian doctor who is running the Gaza hospital is a shill for Hamas. If the UN is getting casualty numbers from him, they're all false.
Simple bullshit.


Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor in Gaza, is all over the mainstream media, claiming that Israel is indiscriminately and purposely murdering civilians.
Just like the ICRC.

He’s given interviews to the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, the Independent, Sky News, and the New York Times, among others.

And in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, this supposedly impartial Norwegian doctor (actually a radical Marxist member of Norway’s Red party) expressed support for the hijackers.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:

“The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created.

It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.”

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:

“Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.”
And how does that make him a "shill for terrorists" in general? Of course he's gonna be influenced by his political views, but that doesn't destroy his credibility. Especially not while Israel at the same time blocks journalists from entering Gaza - in direct contravention of their own Supreme Court - thus forcing him into the position of being one of the few non-Palestinian (And you would discount any Palestinian source anyway) sources to inform the outside world of what's going on in Gaza.

And what about Erik Fosse? He tells the same story.

He's the source of most of the reports on casualties in Gaza.
No, he reports on the casualties seen at the Shifa hospital. Not the entire Gaza Strip.

He's been caught staging photos of him "working to resuscitate" a dead child with some Hamas members.
Source.

It's been pointed out that he wasn't really doing anything except posing.
Source.

The other sources of reports are UNRWA employees - all of which are Palestinians.
Except those who aren't.

http://www.un.org/unrwa/organization/pdf/ComGen_Sep08.pdf

So I don't believe their numbers. They'll be exaggerated lies, just as those were in Jenin. Complete and utter fabrications.
Believe what you want. There are some sources I trust, and those show an unreasonable amount of civilian casualties.

More irrelevenwombling.

We're not talking about what weapons the US wants to have.

We're talking about what Israel is doing with the weapons it DOES have.

Very well. But it seems a little two-faced to let HAMAS off for not killing people because their tech is crap, then crucify Israel because their tech works but also creates civilian casualties.

I think intent does have to be taken into account here. HAMAS is deliberately trying to kill and hurt as many cvilians as possible. Israel obviously is trying to kill their attackers with minimal civlian casualties. If that wasn't the case, they'd just Daisycutter the whole zone.

Very well. But it seems a little two-faced to let HAMAS off for not killing people because their tech is crap, then crucify Israel because their tech works but also creates civilian casualties.

I think intent does have to be taken into account here. HAMAS is deliberately trying to kill and hurt as many cvilians as possible. Israel obviously is trying to kill their attackers with minimal civlian casualties. If that wasn't the case, they'd just Daisycutter the whole zone.

Are you arguing that they TARGET Red Cross and UN convoys?

Funny he mentions Iraq "just after" 2001, when the invasion that caused all the hastle didn't come till 2003.

He was still irate about the US attacking Iraq in 1991, one of those claiming that the sanctions against the Saddam regime after the Gulf War was a deliberate mass murder of Iraqi children.

Are you arguing that they TARGET Red Cross and UN convoys?

Okay...now you've got me. I have NO IDEA how you get from what I said to that comment. Seriously, you're going to have to walk me through the logic on that one.

The UN aren't impartial? ANd your evidence would be...
We all know that those damned Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Falk)are out to destroy Israel...

Funny he mentions Iraq "just after" 2001, when the invasion that caused all the hastle didn't come till 2003.

The source of most of that shite seems to be right wing blobsters too....

I smell shite.
The quote is authentic (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2001/09/30/284907.html), but it's easy to miss the context. He does not approve of the attacks, but he says that the attackers has the same moral right to attack America and kill civilians there as America has to attack Iraq and kill civilians there. And he says that terror is a bad weapon, which is one of the few things I agree with in his statement.

But the quote is hardly a clear endorsement of terrorism.

Okay...now you've got me. I have NO IDEA how you get from what I said to that comment. Seriously, you're going to have to walk me through the logic on that one.

Read this and see if that makes it more clear:


The news of the past few days has shown Israel to be hitting some rather unorthodox targets.

If you argue they're not firing indiscriminately, that means they consider the Red Cross, and UN aid convoys, to be valid targets.

If you want to argue that those incidents are stupid mistakes... then they're not discriminating.

Then he must be a right wing person who staged his own photos in Gaza.

There's no truth to accusations by bloggers that a Palestinian camera crew staged a video showing the death of the videographer's brother after an Israeli rocket attack, said the team's employer.

"It's absolute nonsense," Paul Martin, co-owner of World News and Features, said of accusations leveled by bloggers at videographer Ashraf Mashharawi.

Raafat Hamdouna, administrative director at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, said Friday that "Mahmoud Khalil Mashharawi, a 12-year-old, was brought to the hospital, and he was breathing, but he was hit in the head and all over his body by shrapnel. He died later in the hospital. He was treated by the Norwegian team. When he was brought in, he was breathing. The team did their best to save him. I am not really sure if they even tried to rush him to the surgery room, because he was badly hurt."
Martin said accusations that Mashharawi owns a company that hosts Hamas Web sites were falsely based on Mashharawi having worked at a company that created the PS suffix to allow anyone of any political persuasion to create Palestinian Web sites.

The video footage appeared on CNN television networks and on CNN.com for 24 hours before CNN removed the material in the belief that it had no further right to use it. CNN, standing by the video, has since reposted it. Some bloggers had cited its removal as evidence that CNN did not stand by its reporting.

Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi's brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved.

In the video of the incident, the boy appears lifeless when brought to into the hospital.

In a brief conversation with CNN, Mashharawi said that doctors tried everything they could to save his brother and that he rejected suggestions that any of his work was inauthentic.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/gaza.video.accusations/index.html

Since you, as usual, don't bother to source your random accusations, I'm only guessing that this is what you're referring to. And if so: Wrong again.

Also:

A truck which belongs to the Norwegian People's Aid (NPA) (Norsk Folkehjelp) was hit and destroyed in a residential area in Gaza by an Israeli rocket late Friday evening, says NPA leader Petter Eide.

According to Eide, the truck was clearly marked with NPA's emblem on the roof, as well s a flag.

The truck was parked outside the home of one of NPA's local employees, at Beach Camp, just north of Gaza City and there are no military targets in the area, Eide says.

Because this looks like a target (http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21467/26/):

http://www.lnu.no/img/upload/nfu2.gif

Since you, as usual, don't bother to source your random accusations, I'm only guessing that this is what you're referring to. And if so: Wrong again.

Indeed. This is all too similar to the 'Jimmy Carter-Nazi sympathiser' shite.

Israel isn't going to stop this until Hamas is wiped out, that's because if they call a ceasefire Hamas will simply rearm, start the stuff all over again.

Then Israel will ONCE AGAIN come into Gaza killing people right and left.

Then Ceasefire...

Then the whole cycle repeats.

Also:



Because this looks like a target (http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21467/26/):

You do know that rockets are usually fired from beyond visual sight range right?

That said Israel really shouldn't use them.

Norwegian doctors Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse has left the Gaza Strip and are now in Egypt, more than half a week after schedule because of delays due to attacks and warnings from Israel.

Are you arguing that they TARGET Red Cross and UN convoys?

Might be. Remember what happened in 2006 with a convoy of lebanese refugees.

You know, it wouldn't be the first time in history for a military force to target deliberately civilian buildings, hospitals etc. You know, there are jerks everywhere, both behind a tank's sights, and in etat-majeurs. Destroying hospitals, and blocking food convoys, is quite effective in cutting the capabilities of an enemy.

You do know that rockets are usually fired from beyond visual sight range right?

That said Israel really shouldn't use them.

So either they targeted the car deliberately despite its clear markings, or the Israelis don't actually know what they're firing at... Neither is good news.

Read this and see if that makes it more clear:

Ah, thanks Gravlen, that does clarify it.

In response, I would say that Grave'n'Idle is creating a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to try to be discriminating and still make stupid mistakes; though in this case I would strongly suspect that Israel is, in fact, deliberately targetting UN and RC convoys, with the idea of eliminating the aid and comfort they are giving to HAMAS. A reprehensible act, though I can understand the reasoning.

This thread might last longer than the conflict itself. :tongue:

This thread might last longer than the conflict itself. :tongue:

Well obviously it will, because people will discuss the ceasefire and the aftermath.

The real culprits of the conflict are being punished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7819561.stm

The boycott, aimed at US support of Israel which has mounted the offensive in Gaza, is spearheaded by the Malaysian Islamic Consumers Association as well as the Muslim Restaurant Operators Association.

More than 2,000 Muslim restaurants in Malaysia have said they would remove Coca-Cola from their menus from Friday.

Down with Coca-Coca! Those Zionist bastards.

Wut?

So either they targeted the car deliberately despite its clear markings, or the Israelis don't actually know what they're firing at... Neither is good news.
I think they just point where they last saw the mortars\bullets fired from.

Same situation for that school.

They should just halt artillery and use ground troops.

Same situation for that school.

They've admitted that there was no mortar fire from the school they bombed.

They've admitted that there was no mortar fire from the school they bombed.

Was it a mistake, then?

Was it a mistake, then?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. All foreign aid organizations reported their building positions to the IDF and then IDF lied and released year-old propaganda about militants attacking from the school. I would buy a hat and eat it if it was a mistake.

Was it a mistake, then?

We may never know.

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Thousands of demonstrators in Madrid Sunday called for a halt to Israel's attacks on Gaza, in a protest whose sponsors included Spain's ruling Socialist Party.


Demonstrators gather in Madrid Sunday to protest against the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

more photos » Spain's Socialist Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, did not attend but among the 65 organizations sponsoring the event was the Madrid branch of his Socialist Party.

Socialist Party banners waved under cold, sunny skies near Madrid's central Puerta del Sol plaza, while nearby banners from other sponsors - including numerous non-governmental organizations - accused Israel of "state terrorism" and called for an end to the "genocide" in Gaza.

Last Thursday, during a visit to Madrid by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Zapatero sharply criticized Israel, calling its response to Hamas rockets fired at Israel "disproportionate."

Zapatero also voiced his "deepest rejection of the situation taking so many innocent lives."



We should just all hold hands and sing "we are the world". Maybe that will stop them.....but it probably won't.

Was it a mistake, then?

Two clearly marked UN schools, one UN convoy, one Red Cross convoy, three mobile clinics run by the Danish DanChurchAid, one truck from the Norwegian People's Aid, the Al Durra hospital and several ambulances. That's just some examples of attacks that can only be explained as accidents - unless there's some level of malevolence in the IDF.

And in the words of the IDF:
At the same time, the army is using very heavy firepower. The IDF admitted as much before the cameras for the first time Wednesday. "We are very violent. We are not shying away from any method of preventing casualties among our troops," said Lt. Colonel Amir, commander of a combat engineers unit, Wednesday.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053590.html

Regardless, such mistakes are unacceptable.

Also, after the "Terrorist enabler" (:rolleyes:) Dr. Gilbert left the Gaza Strip, his estimations were that 41% of the killed are women and children, an estimate viewed as conservative by some.

The only thing going to stop it is the US putting its foot down.

Two clearly marked UN schools, one UN convoy, one Red Cross convoy, three mobile clinics run by the Danish DanChurchAid, one truck from the Norwegian People's Aid, the Al Durra hospital and several ambulances. That's just some examples of attacks that can only be explained as accidents - unless there's some level of malevolence in the IDF.

And no telling how many Red Crescent convoys. The IDF is obviously trying to kill Palestinians. Bombing foreign aid group buildings and convoys that are marked as foreign aid locations? Shelling a building they themselves put people in for protection? The IDF either of their own accord or by command of the zionist hawks trying to get reelected is trying to either start a war or drive everyone out of Gaza.

The only thing going to stop it is the US putting its foot down.

Well, that or a rogue asteroid knocking the place about a bit.

Hmm. (http://volokh.com/posts/1231615267.shtml)

They've admitted that there was no mortar fire from the school they bombed.

Source?

Hmm. (http://volokh.com/posts/1231615267.shtml)

Ah, yes, a pro-Israel right wing blog site with a does of conspirecy.

The only thing going to stop it is the US putting its foot down.
The US won't. Not yet anyway. And with the abstaining in the UN seen by Israel as a de facto veto, things will keep going.

Hamas won't live up to the resolution either, mind.

Israel say they're nearing their goals though. I wonder...

Hmm. (http://volokh.com/posts/1231615267.shtml)

Hmm what? Hmm bullshit? If so, yes indeed.

Source?
Well, step by step after the attacks:

An inquiry into the incident revealed that the IDF soldiers acted according to procedures and fired back at gunmen firing mortar shells from the school. The investigation also revealed that Hamas launching cells were operating within the school.
Jan 6. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651804,00.html)

Israel is considering submitting a complaint to the United Nations of Hamas' use of the world body's facilities for terror purposes, after 30 people were killed when an Israeli army artillery shell struck a UN school in Gaza. Israeli troops say that they were fired on from the building.

The Israel Defense Forces soldiers attacked the UN-run girl's school near the Jabalya refugee camp in self-defense, saying militants barricaded inside began firing mortar rounds at them.
Jan. 7. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053233.html)

Israeli military officials insist that the mortars were fired from within the crowded schoolyard and that Hamas is using civilians as human shields. The IDF gave the names of two Hamas combatants it says were killed inside the school — Imad and Hassan Abu Askar — who allegedly fired the mortars. But the IDF did not explain how it was able to identify them among the many casualties. Troops did not visit the school after the attack, nor did the IDF have access to a casualty list from Gaza's hospitals.
Time, Jan. 7. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html)

After the attack, the Israeli military said an initial inquiry had shown that several mortar shells had been fired at Israeli forces "from within the Jabaliya school" and that Israeli forces had returned fire.

However, a UN spokesman yesterday said the military had admitted that this account was no longer accurate. "In private briefings with diplomats the Israeli army has admitted that the militant fire from Jabaliya did not come from within a UN compound but outside and therefore allegations that this fire came from inside our compound are completely baseless," said Chris Gunness, spokesman for UNWRA.

Last night, the Israel Defence Force, stood by its initial account."The source of the fire was from within the school compound and that we returned fire and we have intelligence information that we hit the actual mortar firing squad that was firing at us," said Captain Benjamin Rutland, an Israeli military spokesman.
Jan. 8. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/gaza-israelandthepalestinians1)

Followed by

A preliminary investigation into the fatal shooting by the Israel Defense Forces into a United Nations building in northern Gaza on Tuesday reveals the Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters
The probe, which was conducted by the Paratrooper Brigade whose troops were responsible for the area, found that the army's location system to pinpoint launch sites indicated that militants had launched a Qassam rocket into Israel from within a yard adjacent to the courtyard of the UN building.

The troops had intended to launch a smart missile to take out the Palestinian launch team but a technical malfunction made this impossible, according to the probe. The commanders of the force instead decided to fire on the Qassam team with mortar shells equipped with a Global Positioning System for accurate fire.

However, the GPS element has an error margin of 30 meters and one of the three rounds fired by the paratrooper force slammed into the building owned by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA.

Two of the rounds hit the yard used to launch rockets into Israel, killing two members of Hamas' military wing who probably belonged to the squad that fired the rockets.

Nonetheless, in discussing the incident with Haaretz, some IDF officers say the force should have refrained from using mortar rounds and relied instead on more accurate fire. Military sources said the UNRWA building was marked on the maps of forces operating in the area.
Jan. 11. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054284.html)

So they've gone from barricaded inside the building to an adjacent yard.

In a quoted article:
However, the GPS element has an error margin of 30 meters

Military GPS is much more accurate than that.

It’s not new news, they already did in Lebanon.

The question is, can you use such uncontrollable devices in a high density populated area?
I think it’s not. What’s next? Using a nuke, because Hamas used a catapult on some people?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6075408.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Phosphorus
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911114222894141.html

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVY4NUKowzg

there are no civilians in gaza. when mothers use thier children as bombs then all is fair. i wish Israel a complete and TOTAL victory over the terrorist.

there are no civilians in gaza. when mothers use thier children as bombs then all is fair. i wish Israel a complete and TOTAL victory over the terrorist.

Classifying the people in Gaza as non-humans, remembers me about Nazi Germany.

Btw, Israel killed 4 or 5 times more Palestinian people, as the other side killed jews.

One starts to wonder who the terrorist is.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=578040

Classifying the people in Gaza as non-humans, remembers me about Nazi Germany.

There's a difference between calling someone a noncivillian and calling someone a nonhuman. Grabbing a weapon and firing it in combat doesn't make one nonhuman, but it does make one noncivillian.

Classifying the people in Gaza as non-humans, remembers me about Nazi Germany.

Btw, Israel killed 4 or 5 times more Palestinian people, as the other side killed jews.

One starts to wonder who the terrorist is.

I'm going to go with the side that started the current fighting (after seeing Isreal's previous responses, how can anyone be surprised by their current response? The best predictor of the future is the past, people).

There's a difference between calling someone a noncivillian and calling someone a nonhuman. Grabbing a weapon and firing it in combat doesn't make one nonhuman, but it does make one noncivillian.

I am pretty sure that the majority of the Palestinian people aren't grabbing weapons.

And the topic is not about which side is all good and which one is evil. It's about using devices as white phosphor bombs in urban environments.

Classifying the people in Gaza as non-humans, remembers me about Nazi Germany.

Btw, Israel killed 4 or 5 times more Palestinian people, as the other side killed jews.

One starts to wonder who the terrorist is.

So because they're winning, they're the bad guys now?

there are no civilians in gaza.

Patently absurd, by definition untrue.

when mothers use thier children as bombs then all is fair.

Again patently absurd, and untrue.

i wish Israel a complete and TOTAL victory over the terrorist.

Grow up. War isn't some bullshit entertainment that happens only in TV-Land. These are real people you're hoping will die.

So because they're winning, they're the bad guys now?

No one is winning.

Hamas tried to wipe out Fatah, then turned Gaza into a military base with the help of their partners in Hezbollah. The Israelis are using WP Smoke rounds as illumination. It's a shame that the Hamas fighters are using civilians as human shields, but human shield or not, they started it by firing on civilians-first their own, then Israelis. Fighting house-to-house is playing THEIR game, by THEIR rules.

Honestly, the Israelis shouldn't be using WP Illumination rounds, they should be using Napalm-and lots of it-in the short term, very inhumane, but in the long term, it ends the fighting and destroys the weapons emplacements with the least casualties over the shortest period.

This entire situation can be traced back to one thing-when someone tells you "I want to kill you", and fires weapons, you don't sit down and try to find a way to appease them by giving them ground they can use to fire weapons on your civilians and kill them. The Israelis didn't take the threat seriously even when they were being attacked, they still aren't, and that's going to cost them.

The Arab world has tried three times to exterminate the Israelis using conventional methods (four, actually-the renege on the 1948 borders was the first, but that was more the fault of the British), 1956, 1967, and 1973. Failing that, the Arab world has been training and paying the same palestinian arabs that same arab world won't accept as immigrants to kill israelis and jews (and the occasional European). Perez was stupid to believe that shaking hands with Clinton and Arafat would bring any semblance of peace- you don't negotiate with someone who has no ability to control his militants, and you don't negotiate with people who want you dead, and feel empowered by sympathetic antisemites in Europe.

Hamas tried to wipe out Fatah, then turned Gaza into a military base with the help of their partners in Hezbollah. The Israelis are using WP Smoke rounds as illumination. It's a shame that the Hamas fighters are using civilians as human shields, but human shield or not, they started it by firing on civilians-first their own, then Israelis. Fighting house-to-house is playing THEIR game, by THEIR rules.

Honestly, the Israelis shouldn't be using WP Illumination rounds, they should be using Napalm-and lots of it-in the short term, very inhumane, but in the long term, it ends the fighting and destroys the weapons emplacements with the least casualties over the shortest period.

This entire situation can be traced back to one thing-when someone tells you "I want to kill you", and fires weapons, you don't sit down and try to find a way to appease them by giving them ground they can use to fire weapons on your civilians and kill them. The Israelis didn't take the threat seriously even when they were being attacked, they still aren't, and that's going to cost them.

The Arab world has tried three times to exterminate the Israelis using conventional methods (four, actually-the renege on the 1948 borders was the first, but that was more the fault of the British), 1956, 1967, and 1973. Failing that, the Arab world has been training and paying the same palestinian arabs that same arab world won't accept as immigrants to kill israelis and jews (and the occasional European). Perez was stupid to believe that shaking hands with Clinton and Arafat would bring any semblance of peace- you don't negotiate with someone who has no ability to control his militants, and you don't negotiate with people who want you dead, and feel empowered by sympathetic antisemites in Europe.

It's rather difficult not to use civilians as a shield in Gaza. The population density is one of the highest in the world.

This thread is not about which side is all good and which one is all evil. IMHO, they are both assholes.

Using napalm or phosphor bombs is not the game of Hamas.

Hamas tried to wipe out Fatah, then turned Gaza into a military base with the help of their partners in Hezbollah. The Israelis are using WP Smoke rounds as illumination. It's a shame that the Hamas fighters are using civilians as human shields, but human shield or not

Ah the "human shield" fallacy. Funny, every time any Palestinian dies, it was a "Human shield." I guess we know this through magical omniscient telepathy eh?


Honestly, the Israelis shouldn't be using WP Illumination rounds, they should be using Napalm and lots of it-in the short term, very inhumane, but in the long term, it ends the fighting and destroys the weapons emplacements with the least casualties over the shortest period.

Honestly, this is a stupid, lunatic and frankly genocidal idea.

You don't even have any numbers - not one - to back this shit up. I'm just supposed to go, "Oh okay, using napalm on civilians will be more humane in the long run!" because you say so? Fuck that. Support these ridiculous claims or, better yet, don't even bother making them.


This entire situation can be traced back to one thing-when someone tells you "I want to kill you", and fires weapons, you don't sit down and try to find a way to appease them by giving them ground they can use to fire weapons on your civilians and kill them.

No, your attempt to boil the entire situation down into "two men enter, one man leave" doesn't fly. Politics is more complicated than that.

The Israelis didn't take the threat seriously even when they were being attacked, they still aren't, and that's going to cost them.

Oh so they aren't even taking it seriously! Yeah the bombs are just playing around for fun! And the blood and death? It's just boys being boys.

The Arab world has tried three times to exterminate the Israelis using conventional methods (four, actually-the renege on the 1948 borders was the first, but that was more the fault of the British), 1956, 1967, and 1973.

"the Arab world" is not an entity any more than "the Jewish world" is. Fail.

No one is attempting to "exterminate the Israelis" right now. Fail.

Failing that, the Arab world has been training and paying the same palestinian arabs that same arab world won't accept as immigrants to kill israelis and jews (and the occasional European). Perez was stupid to believe that shaking hands with Clinton and Arafat would bring any semblance of peace- you don't negotiate with someone who has no ability to control his militants, and you don't negotiate with people who want you dead, and feel empowered by sympathetic antisemites in Europe.

Looks like we're approaching the part where you label anyone who disagrees with your violent, callous, and irrational position an anti-semite.

That carries no moral credit when you're arguing people drop napalm on civilians.

Ah the "human shield" fallacy. Funny, every time any Palestinian dies, it was a "Human shield." I guess we know this through magical omniscient telepathy eh?

We know this through HAMAS' actions. They launch missiles from heavily populated areas IN ORDER to get civilian casualties when Israel strikes back.



Honestly, this is a stupid, lunatic and frankly genocidal idea.

You don't even have any numbers - not one - to back this shit up. I'm just supposed to go, "Oh okay, using napalm on civilians will be more humane in the long run!" because you say so? Fuck that. Support these ridiculous claims or, better yet, don't even bother making them.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. He's completely correct.

If Israel bows to "International Opinion" and stops attacking, HAMAS will not. The situation will go on and on, never ending, until someone has the guts to stand up and END IT.

Numbers? You're just asking for bullshit.



No, your attempt to boil the entire situation down into "two men enter, one man leave" doesn't fly. Politics is more complicated than that.

Wrong. In this case it really IS that simple. HAMAS dies, or Israel dies. HAMAS has made that clear in their charter, and their actions prove they mean it.


Oh so they aren't even taking it seriously! Yeah the bombs are just playing around for fun! And the blood and death? It's just boys being boys.

He's not wrong. If Israel was taking HAMAS seriously, they wouldn't be using WP. OR Napalm.

They'd be using Daisycutters.


"the Arab world" is not an entity any more than "the Jewish world" is. Fail.

Bullshit. They form a voting bloc at the UN, have more in common with one another than anyone else, and stand together on most issues. They're not a single, monolithic state, and they do have internal disputes, but "The Arab World" very much exists.

No one is attempting to "exterminate the Israelis" right now. Fail.

UTTER bullshit. HAMAS and Hezbollah both have this as a STATED OBJECTIVE. I see no reason to believe they are lying.

Military GPS is much more accurate than that.

ONLY if you have the appropriate descrambler codes. It wouldn't surprise me if the US hasn't kept Israel up to date on those.

We know this through HAMAS' actions. They launch missiles from heavily populated areas IN ORDER to get civilian casualties when Israel strikes back.





There's nothing ridiculous about it. He's completely correct.

If Israel bows to "International Opinion" and stops attacking, HAMAS will not. The situation will go on and on, never ending, until someone has the guts to stand up and END IT.

Numbers? You're just asking for bullshit.





Wrong. In this case it really IS that simple. HAMAS dies, or Israel dies. HAMAS has made that clear in their charter, and their actions prove they mean it.




He's not wrong. If Israel was taking HAMAS seriously, they wouldn't be using WP. OR Napalm.

They'd be using Daisycutters.




Bullshit. They form a voting bloc at the UN, have more in common with one another than anyone else, and stand together on most issues. They're not a single, monolithic state, and they do have internal disputes, but "The Arab World" very much exists.



UTTER bullshit. HAMAS and Hezbollah both have this as a STATED OBJECTIVE. I see no reason to believe they are lying.


Can you stop this little intifada? The thread is not about who's wrong or good, but about the use of weapons like white phosphor bombs against civilians.

And they use "depleted" uranium weapons, which we know kill people for decennias and create malformations in newborn... and they're so insane, in addition of being war criminals, that they use them just a few kms away from their own cities of Ashkelon and Sderot ! Ultra-toxic uranium micro-particles won't stop at the border, and poison the people of those cities, killing more than the Hamas' Qassam did in the last few years...

We know this through HAMAS' actions. They launch missiles from heavily populated areas IN ORDER to get civilian casualties when Israel strikes back.

Gaza is a heavily populated area. Wake up.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. He's completely correct.

If Israel bows to "International Opinion" and stops attacking, HAMAS will not. The situation will go on and on, never ending, until someone has the guts to stand up and END IT.

Oh, that's what we need. More "guts." The firm, unbending resolve to "end it" by using napalm and bombs and rockets. We just haven't had enough of that, that's the real problem!

No. The situation will not end until both sides show more reason than they have or, for that matter, you and your little cohorts have.

Numbers? You're just asking for bullshit.

He claimed the use of napalm would cause "least casualties over the shortest period." The bullshit is entirely his - and yours too now, you can both be the proud co-owners.

Wrong. In this case it really IS that simple. HAMAS dies, or Israel dies.

All Palestinians are not "HAMAS."

And no, just because you have a simplistic, pseudo-macho attitude about this doesn't mean that's a reflection of reality.

He's not wrong. If Israel was taking HAMAS seriously, they wouldn't be using WP. OR Napalm.

They'd be using Daisycutters.

If you were taking this seriously, you wouldn't be saying stupid shit like that. He is wrong, and you are too. You are furthermore completely offensive individuals who obviously don't give two shits about human life.

They're not a single, monolithic state

So there is no need to pretend they are. Next?


UTTER bullshit. HAMAS and Hezbollah both have this as a STATED OBJECTIVE.

"And we will toss a few rockets into Israel. This will destroy them." Yes please show me that quote!

I have an objective to find a one true love and get married. Does that mean anytime I get laid, I am doing so with that purpose? No. So you are ignoring the situation in a ludicrous "ohnoes, Palestine is attempting to commit GENOCIDEzzZ!" spew.

The thread is not about who's wrong or good,

Right, it has bombing civilians in the subject title, but we're not supposed to pretend morality has anything to do with the subject.

The man is making pseudo-moral arguments in favor of using such bombs, but you don't want me to address those.

Yeah, how about you settle down.

The thread is not about who's wrong or good, but about the use of weapons like white phosphor bombs against civilians.

Why this needs it's own thread from the Mega-thread, I don't know.

WP isn't illegal. It has dual if not multiple purposes. States use it in the full knowledge of what may occur, however it is not an illegal weapon.

Moving right along......

ONLY if you have the appropriate descrambler codes. It wouldn't surprise me if the US hasn't kept Israel up to date on those.

Why wouldn't they? It's not like the US has ever done anything to disappoint Israel in the last 30 odd years.

Why this needs it's own thread from the Mega-thread, I don't know.

WP isn't illegal. It has dual if not multiple purposes. States use it in the full knowledge of what may occur, however it is not an illegal weapon.

Moving right along...... What he said, and if you start a war against a superior nation who’s almost as fanatical as you are then what do you expect.

What he said, and if you start a war against a superior nation who’s almost as fanatical as you are then what do you expect.

The Hamas didn't start a war. Israel was blockading Gaza, and a blockade is considered to be an act of war in international laws. So Israel started the war, by blockading.

So because they're winning, they're the bad guys now?

Israel is the bad guy because they use WMD's on residential areas.
If Iraq did this, the US would bomb them within 10 minutes, but because its Israel the US stands aside, nice double standard...

The Hamas didn't start a war. Israel was blockading Gaza, and a blockade is considered to be an act of war in international laws. So Israel started the war, by blockading.
not just by blockading. Israel started this specific conflict first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians in direct violation of the brokered ceasefire.

But hey, we don't want facts to get in the way of ranting and wanting to kill all ragheads, eh?
just waiting for Hotwife to make his appearance...

The Hamas didn't start a war. Israel was blockading Gaza, and a blockade is considered to be an act of war in international laws. So Israel started the war, by blockading.

So let me get this straight Israel just decided one day out of the blue just to be mean and to blockade Gaza. Just to be mean and for no good reason at all so they deserve to be attacked right? Oh wait, maybe it was because Gaza used those passes to kidnap soldiers, smuggle missiles and other arms in, to guess what, kill Israelis.

Ah the "human shield" fallacy. Funny, every time any Palestinian dies, it was a "Human shield." I guess we know this through magical omniscient telepathy eh?


Ok Trostia its time to put your cards on the table. No more bullshit. True or false, Hamas policy is to intentionally use civilian humans and structures as shields in their war against Israel.

So let me get this straight Israel just decided one day out of the blue just to be mean and to blockade Gaza. Just to be mean and for no good reason at all so they deserve to be attacked riught? Oh wait, maybe it was because Gaza used those passes to smuggle missiles and other arms in, to guess what, kill Israelis.


If one is entering your house, you will try to get rid of him by all means. If he's stronger and managed that you have to leave the house but are allowed to live in the garden, then your intruder may expect that you’ll visiting him from time to time.

For me, the Jews do not have to leave. People conquer people, it happens all the time and will happen again.

But should we allow that one folk are using stuff as white phosphor on ordinary civilians? IMHO, we should not. What’s next? Nukes? All in name of some god or revenge? The current invasion is only started up because some politicians want to be reelected in a few months. That’s it and it’s sick.

This isn’t helping the Jewish people either. Almost 1000 Palestine people were killed the last few weeks, entire families were destroyed.

The Israeli government couldn’t deliver a better recruitment plan for the hardcore Hamas side.

Ok Trostia its time to put your cards on the table. No more bullshit.

There is no "more" bullshit because there hasn't been bullshit (on my part) at all.

True or false, Hamas policy is to intentionally use civilian humans and structures as shields in their war against Israel.

True or false: you are aware of what a strawman is.

Ok Trostia its time to put your cards on the table. No more bullshit. True or false, Hamas policy is to intentionally use civilian humans and structures as shields in their war against Israel.

And even if they did, so what?

If a killer is hiding in some apartment block then we would not accept that the police are dynamiting the entire building, including with the people inside.

If it would happen, the responsible police officers would face jail-time.

There is no "more" bullshit because there hasn't been bullshit (on my part) at all.



True or false: you are aware of what a strawman is.

Yeah, we do know, Trostia, and this isn't one. You've claimed, effectively, that they aren't using human shields when others have claimed they are. Put up or shut up.

If a killer is hiding in some apartment block then we would not accept that the police are dynamiting the entire building, including with the people inside.

If it would happen, the responsible police officers would face jail-time.

Your wrong, if a killer is holed up in a building with innocents and there are shots fired inside, aimed in or out, then police swarm in shooting to kill every time, regardless of the chances of additional collateral damage.

Yeah, we do know, Trostia, and this isn't one. You've claimed, effectively, that they aren't using human shields when others have claimed they are. Put up or shut up.


It doesn't matter. It doesn't give the IDF the legal and moral right to demolish the entire area. It are still people, not objects.

And even if they did, so what?

If a killer is hiding in some apartment block then we would not accept that the police are dynamiting the entire building, including with the people inside.

If it would happen, the responsible police officers would face jail-time.

Sure. But Police and soldiers have two entirely different jobs: Police, to protect the populace and preserve order, and the populace includes the bystanders, and even the criminals. Soldiers' job can be sumed up as: Kill people and break stuff. They have NO obligation to people not on their side save those imposed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions - one of which states, quite clearly, that if one side is using civilians as human shields, they, and they alone, are responsible for the welfare of those people, and that an attacker may use any force he deems reasonable.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't give the IDF the legal and moral right to demolish the entire area. It are still people, not objects.

Actually, acccording to the Hague and Geneva conventions, it does indeed give them exactly that legal right.

Your wrong, if a killer is holed up in a building with innocents and there are shots fired inside, then police swarm in shooting to kill every time, regardless of the chances of additional collateral damage.


Not in my country, we are civilized.

Here they negotiate and usually there's a 'happy end'. And they certainly do not enter a building with a fire-at-will order.

Actually, acccording to the Hague and Geneva conventions, it does indeed give them exactly that legal right.


Is it? Show me the passage in the Geneva convention...

Not in my country, we are civilized.

Here they negotiate and usually there's a 'happy end'. And they certainly do not enter a building with a fire-at-will order.

Negotiations end when shots are fired, then its considered an immediate threat that needs to be terminated in a police action. Israel waited till the first 2000 shots were fired. They showed impressive restraint imo.

Is it? Show me the passage in the Geneva convention...

I'm not certain exactly where it is (it's been a few years since I read them), but I seem to recall it's in the Hague Conventions.

Sure. But Police and soldiers have two entirely different jobs: Police, to protect the populace and preserve order, and the populace includes the bystanders, and even the criminals. Soldiers' job can be sumed up as: Kill people and break stuff. They have NO obligation to people not on their side save those imposed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions - one of which states, quite clearly, that if one side is using civilians as human shields, they, and they alone, are responsible for the welfare of those people, and that an attacker may use any force he deems reasonable.

Define human shield in terms of proximity. Will you argue that UN schools and aid centers are human shields, and thereby should be bombed, because someone fired, not in the building or even in the compound, but from somewhere the neighborhood?

Sure. But Police and soldiers have two entirely different jobs: Police, to protect the populace and preserve order, and the populace includes the bystanders, and even the criminals. Soldiers' job can be sumed up as: Kill people and break stuff. They have NO obligation to people not on their side save those imposed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions - one of which states, quite clearly, that if one side is using civilians as human shields, they, and they alone, are responsible for the welfare of those people, and that an attacker may use any force he deems reasonable.

Soldiers and policemen do have different roles. But maybe that's the whole point. Israel is occupying the Palestine grounds and are thus responsible for the law and order. Maybe there's more need for ordinary policework than the disgusting duck shooting by the IDF.

Israel isn’t allowed to punish an entire population for the deeds of few.

Negotiations end when shots are fired, then its considered an immediate threat that needs to be terminated in a police action. Israel waited till the first 2000 shots were fired. They showed impressive restraint imo.

Is it? Both sides broke the no fire deal.

Define human shield in terms of proximity. Will you argue that UN schools and aid centers are human shields, and thereby should be bombed, because someone fired, not in the building or even in the compound, but from somewhere the neighborhood?

No. If fire was coming from those centers, then fair enough; otherwise, those are areas the IDF should deliberately avoid firng upon. In the recent case of the school, they should have used something more accurate than mortars.

I'm not certain exactly where it is (it's been a few years since I read them), but I seem to recall it's in the Hague Conventions.

There's also written that it's forbidden to punish an entire population for the deeds of few...

Soldiers and policemen do have different roles. But maybe that's the whole point. Israel is occupying the Palestine grounds and are thus responsible for the law and order. Maybe there's more need for ordinary policework than the disgusting duck shooting by the IDF.

Israel isn’t allowed to punish an entire population for the deeds of few.

Define "occupying". The IDF does not patrol or enforce law in Gaza - they've left that to HAMAS.

They surround Gaza, to be sure. And they have been blockading. But occupying?

Negotiations end when shots are fired, then its considered an immediate threat that needs to be terminated in a police action. Israel waited till the first 2000 shots were fired. They showed impressive restraint imo.
except, as I previously stated Israel was the one that broke this particular peace accord first in November when two separate attacks killed 10 Palestinians.
Heck they broke it just 5 days after signing it when they attacked and killed a Palestinian commander. such impressive restraint on Israel's part to wait a whole 5 days after agreeing to a treaty before breaking it, eh?

There's also written that it's forbidden to punish an entire population for the deeds of few...

Absolutely. But where does blowing up attackersbecome punishing those around the attackers? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else has developed a good rule for it either.

And blockades are specifically allowed by the Hague Convention. It's an act of war, but it's legal.

Geneva Convention additional protocol 51.7 "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations"

Define "occupying". The IDF does not patrol or enforce law in Gaza - they've left that to HAMAS.

They surround Gaza, to be sure. And they have been blockading. But occupying?

Israel occupied the country and left some filthy room in some corner.

Israel is really occupying an area. They enlarged the occupied land several times since 1948.

Geneva Convention additional protocol 51.7 "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations"


Where is written that the other party can kill those civilians?

Hamas tried to wipe out Fatah, .

Not that simple.......
The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.

Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandthepalestinians



It's a shame that the Hamas fighters are using civilians as human shields, .

An allegation thats far from proven.


The Arab world has tried three times to exterminate the Israelis using conventional methods (four, actually-the renege on the 1948 borders was the first, but that was more the fault of the British),.

"exterminate"? Hmmmmm. Sources?


and feel empowered by sympathetic antisemites in Europe.

Dear o dear. The usual hot air and blather.

Israel occupied the country and left some filthy room in some corner.

Israel is really occupying an area. They enlarged the occupied land several times since 1948.

Yes. In each case, due to being attacked (or in one case, striking first at a force that was going to attack them - which I consider quite reasonable).

Also, the Palestinian Authority's area is not bad. It's as good land as any in the area (which is not especially good, true, but that's so throughout the region).

But they moved out of Gaza some years ago now. Is it really an occupation when you aren't running the place?

No. If fire was coming from those centers, then fair enough; otherwise, those are areas the IDF should deliberately avoid firng upon. In the recent case of the school, they should have used something more accurate than mortars.

Excellent, that brings us to the next question. What if the strikes were not accidental, but deliberate in an attempt to remove any possible aid or relief to the Palestinian people while using the human shield claim as a deflection? The falsified claims bear this possibility out.

"exterminate"? Hmmmmm. Sources?


The stated objectives of the nations involved in the attacks? Nasser was particularly clear on the issue.

The stated objectives of the nations involved in the attacks? Nasser was particularly clear on the issue.

Sources.....

Im just quick reading parts of the Convention, this is interesting...Article 51 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions forbids attack by any method which treats as a single target a number of clearly distinct military targets in a town or village which also contain a similar concentration of civilians.

Actually, acccording to the Hague and Geneva conventions, it does indeed give them exactly that legal right.

To bomb humanitarian convoy of the Red Cross or the UN ? To bomb a UN school ? No, those are *war crimes* for the Geneva conventions. The same applies to transfering population to occupied land (colonies) and to the building of the wall in Palestinian land, or to blockading humanitarian help. All those are *war crimes* and if it were someone else than Israel, they would be brought in front of an international court.

Negotiations end when shots are fired, then its considered an immediate threat that needs to be terminated in a police action. Israel waited till the first 2000 shots were fired. They showed impressive restraint imo.

No, the Hamas respected a 6 months truce. Israel didn't.

Yes. In each case, due to being attacked (or in one case, striking first at a force that was going to attack them - which I consider quite reasonable).

Also, the Palestinian Authority's area is not bad. It's as good land as any in the area (which is not especially good, true, but that's so throughout the region).

But they moved out of Gaza some years ago now. Is it really an occupation when you aren't running the place?


Palestina is more than just the Gaza strip. Palestine was almost all of Israel. Since 1948 it is occupied and enlarged by military moves or illegal settlers.

Israel often entered the Gaza strip to arrest and kill people. So they are an occupier. I don't think that the Canadian police can cross the US border to kill or arrest people inside USA...

Excellent, that brings us to the next question. What if the strikes were not accidental, but deliberate in an attempt to remove any possible aid or relief to the Palestinian people while using the human shield claim as a deflection? The falsified claims bear this possibility out.

Oh, I find this quite plausible. Please unsderstand - while I believe the Israelis are in the right in this case, ultimate blame lies on both sides. I still have hope for a two-state solution - but I no longer believe HAMAS can be a part of that.

And blockades are specifically allowed by the Hague Convention. It's an act of war, but it's legal.

It is an act of war, making the Hamas answer an act of defense, and making Israel the attacker, not the other way around.

But then, according to Geneva conventions, blockade on food and drugs is illegal - you can blockade, but you have to let humanitarian shipment to go through.

Sources.....

Look for yourself. Google up "The Six-Day War" and "The Yom Kippur War". They'll explain much better than I can.

Geneva Convention additional protocol 51.7 "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations"

That only means that if the Hamas do that, they commit a war crime, and they should be judged - I don't object to that, I don't have any sympathy for the Hamas.

But what you quoted doesn't allow the attacking force to blow all the civilian of the areas.

It is an act of war, making the Hamas answer an act of defense, and making Israel the attacker, not the other way around.

But then, according to Geneva conventions, blockade on food and drugs is illegal - you can blockade, but you have to let humanitarian shipment to go through.

Yes, and Israel has been doing that. The UN has not claimed they are not.

To bomb humanitarian convoy of the Red Cross or the UN ? To bomb a UN school ? No, those are *war crimes* for the Geneva conventions. The same applies to transfering population to occupied land (colonies) and to the building of the wall in Palestinian land, or to blockading humanitarian help. All those are *war crimes* and if it were someone else than Israel, they would be brought in front of an international court.

No, they wouldn't. I actually agree with you, but the winners never get called on things like this.

However, please read what I was responding to. I was not defending anything you are talking about.

Palestina is more than just the Gaza strip. Palestine was almost all of Israel. Since 1948 it is occupied and enlarged by military moves or illegal settlers.

Israel often entered the Gaza strip to arrest and kill people. So they are an occupier. I don't think that the Canadian police can cross the US border to kill or arrest people inside USA...

Well, if you're going to define the occupied area as "the whole region", then Israel will never be able to withdraw sufficiently to satisfy you.

The stated objectives of the nations involved in the attacks? Nasser was particularly clear on the issue.

That was quite old. Yes, Arab countries, at first, wanted to destroy Israel. It's perfectly understandable, if someone were giving part of France to the Apache people, Europe will probably attack this new Apache nation. Names are purely fictional, but the idea remains.

But things changed since them. Israeli built cities, many are born there, it's their land now. Arab countries and Palestinian accept the existence of Israel - they are not happy about it, but they accept it.

They just want a decent amount of land to be left to the Palestinian, something Israel completely refuses (colonies, wall, ...). Even the Hamas, which charter still claim to destroy Israel, proposed a 10-years truce, and accepted the "prisonners peace plan" which includes an Israel state within the "green line". So even them are ready to accept Israel, IF Israel allows a decent Palestinian state to exist.

Why wouldn't they? It's not like the US has ever done anything to disappoint Israel in the last 30 odd years.

Because Israel has a habit of getting the US involved in crap they don't want to be involved in. In this case, the US can basically just be quiet and say nothing - they're not involved.

Military GPS is much more accurate than that.

I am pretty sure that civilian GPS is more accurate than that.

That was quite old. Yes, Arab countries, at first, wanted to destroy Israel. It's perfectly understandable, if someone were giving part of France to the Apache people, Europe will probably attack this new Apache nation. Names are purely fictional, but the idea remains.

But things changed since them. Israeli built cities, many are born there, it's their land now. Arab countries and Palestinian accept the existence of Israel - they are not happy about it, but they accept it.

They just want a decent amount of land to be left to the Palestinian, something Israel completely refuses (colonies, wall, ...). Even the Hamas, which charter still claim to destroy Israel, proposed a 10-years truce, and accepted the "prisonners peace plan" which includes an Israel state within the "green line". So even them are ready to accept Israel, IF Israel allows a decent Palestinian state to exist.

I hadn't heard of a ten-year truce. That would have been good.

However, if by "the Green Line" you mean the 1948 borders, well, that just isn't going to happen. Israel took the land beyond those areas from their attackers, and had every right to do so. Particularly, Israel can't give up any part of Jerusalem - their own religious parties will never allow it.

And I should note, Arafat was offered, effectively, a Palestinian state. He turned it down.

Yes, and Israel has been doing that. The UN has not claimed they are not.

Israel is blockading humanitarian shipment. They even opened the fire, in international water, on a boat carrying medical supplies for Gaza !

I am pretty sure that civilian GPS is more accurate than that.

Depends on the type and where in the world you are. Some areas are better covered than others.

Israel is blockading humanitarian shipment. They even opened the fire, in international water, on a boat carrying medical supplies for Gaza !

Sorry, should have been clearer. They haven't been before the current offensive.

I hadn't heard of a ten-year truce. That would have been good.

Israel refused it.

However, if by "the Green Line" you mean the 1948 borders,

The "green line" is the 1949 borders, much more favorable to Israel than the 1948 borders.

Particularly, Israel can't give up any part of Jerusalem - their own religious parties will never allow it.

Unless we put enough pressure on them so they accept it... remember Israel only exists because the USA and the EU are supporting them.

The "green line" is the 1949 borders, much more favorable to Israel than the 1948 borders.

That might be possible, but only if they can make a binding agreement with Syria. They won't give up the Golan Heights until then, due to the startegic importance of the Heights.


Unless we put enough pressure on them so they accept it... remember Israel only exists because the USA and the EU are supporting them.

No. Seriously, it will not happen. The Knesset would go it alone before they would release one inch of Jerusalem.

Oh, and Israel did quite well in 1948, with no help from anyone.

Look for yourself. Google up "The Six-Day War" and "The Yom Kippur War". They'll explain much better than I can.

I'm familiar with the conflicts. I don't recall genocide amongst the war aims.

Oh, and Israel did quite well in 1948, with no help from anyone.

Then let them do it again.....

Can you stop this little intifada? The thread is not about who's wrong or good, but about the use of weapons like white phosphor bombs against civilians.

which you've alleged, yet not provided any evidence for. None of your news links demonstrate that this is what is goingo n now.

I'm familiar with the conflicts. I don't recall genocide amongst the war aims.

If you were gang ninjaed by countries that had your destruction as part of their national public policy what would you worry about?

If you were gang ninjaed by countries that had your destruction as part of their national public policy what would you worry about?

Destruction of the state is not the same as "extermination". Using it in this context is usually an emotive ploy.

The real culprits of the conflict are being punished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7819561.stm



Down with Coca-Coca! Those Zionist bastards.

Wut?

Even stranger considering Coca Cola was once considered anti-Semitic for refusing to do business in Israel.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/israel.asp

which you've alleged, yet not provided any evidence for. None of your news links demonstrate that this is what is goingo n now.

Maybe there's something wrong with your finger. You actual have to click on the links.

"Israel accused of using white phosphorus

Human rights groups have expressed concern that a highly flammable weapon used by Israel could be causing additional casualties among civilians in Gaza."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911114222894141.html

And the film on Youtube is the same being used by all kind of European TV stations.

Destruction of the state is not the same as "extermination". Using it in this context is usually an emotive ploy.

Possibly so, and I'm willing to accept that it was being used as hyperbole, but then, I wasn't the target. When someone talks about "driving the Jews into the sea", you have to expect the IDF to take him at his word.

Destruction of the state is not the same as "extermination".

And it's naive in the extreme to act as if those who call for the destruction of the state of Israel don't intend an equal fate for the inhabitants.

"drive them into the sea" leaves little room for interpretation as to what they intend for the people of Israel. So stop acting like we're dealing with people whose sole objection is just the existance of the Israeli state.

Even stranger considering Coca Cola was once considered anti-Semitic for refusing to do business in Israel.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/israel.asp

It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

And it's naive in the extreme to act as if those who call for the destruction of the state of Israel don't intend an equal fate for the inhabitants.

"drive them into the sea" leaves little room for interpretation as to what they intend for the people of Israel. So stop acting like we're dealing with people whose sole objection is just the existance of the Israeli state.

It's pretty clear in the following video of Hamas speakers and leaders that what they want is to kill every Jew (and every American, while they're at it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg

And it's naive in the extreme to act as if those who call for the destruction of the state of Israel don't intend an equal fate for the inhabitants.


Genocide isn't that common.

And they use "depleted" uranium weapons, which we know kill people for decennias and create malformations in newborn... and they're so insane, in addition of being war criminals, that they use them just a few kms away from their own cities of Ashkelon and Sderot ! Ultra-toxic uranium micro-particles won't stop at the border, and poison the people of those cities, killing more than the Hamas' Qassam did in the last few years...
I'm sure the Israelis are using masses of DU shells in Gaza, to destroy Hamas's pretty deadly armoured forces -_-

DU is not cheap to make and it doesn't blow stuff up, it penetrates it and sets fire a bit. You wouldn't shoot it at a building if you had cheaper alternatives, which you almost certainly will.

We can't solve the problems in Israel-Palestine.

So, I say:

* Build a wall around Israel
* Install huge football-alike tribunes around the area.
* Demand high ticket prices and offer hot beer.
* Watch and enjoy

Let the games begin.

So say we all.

Genocide isn't that common.

I'm speaking less of result and more of intent. Do I believe that Israel would willingly carry out a genocide of the Palestinian people, if given opportunity? No, I do not.

Do I believe certain groups (Syria, Iran, some factions in Palestine and Lebanon) would willingly carry out a genocide of the Israeli people, if given the opportunity? Yes, I do. They've said so themselves.

I'm speaking less of result and more of intent. Do I believe that Israel would willingly carry out a genocide of the Palestinian people, if given opportunity? No, I do not.

Do I believe certain groups (Syria, Iran, some factions in Palestine and Lebanon) would willingly carry out a genocide of the Israeli people, if given the opportunity? Yes, I do. They've said so themselves.

I would say that certain factions within each of those nations would attempt genocide of the Israelis.

I would also say that certain factions within the Israeli government would also attempt genocide of the Palestinians.

In my opinion, Israel has the right to defend itself against terror attacks such as shooting random rockets into civilian centers. But if that is the intent of these military exercises, I can't help but think that it's failing miserably.

I would say that certain factions within each of those nations would attempt genocide of the Israelis.

I would also say that certain factions within the Israeli government would also attempt genocide of the Palestinians.

I'm not so sure that there's any faction of the Israeli government that is actually willing to engage in genocide against anyone, really. I'm sure some might hold that view, but it's too weak to have any actual affect on policy.

I'm not so sure that there's any faction of the Israeli government that is actually willing to engage in genocide against anyone, really. I'm sure some might hold that view, but it's too weak to have any actual affect on policy.

I think enough hold that view to explain some of Israel's latest actions. Especially in parties like Yisrael Beiteinu and Kadima and perhaps a small minority in Likud.

I would normally agree it is too weak to have an effect on policy, but lately in light of their military actions against things like UN and Danish humanitarian works, Im finding it harder to hold that position. Most likely theyre simply engaging in the WWII tactic of killing enough civillians to destroy Palastines will to fight, which is a detestable tactic that arguablly makes them no better than the terrorists. I am not willing to rule out some voices within the government calling for a "culling" however.

I consider myself a cheerleader for neither Israel or Palastine. But I cant justify Israel's recent military actions. They have a right to defend themselves from terrorists. That right does not extend to blowing up UN schools and Norwegian humanitarian aid.


EDIT: Genocide might still be the wrong word, as I dont think these groups would seek to destory the entire group of people. I do think however these groups in question would seek to remove all Arabs from Israel, but whatever means necessary.

Um I'm only recently back on civilization ...wha happened???

You've claimed, effectively, that they aren't using human shields

No, I haven't. See, this is the part where it's a strawman.

when others have claimed they are. Put up or shut up.

Others have claimed they always are, and that all Palestinians killed are the result of this, absolving Israel of all responsibility for their own actions and effectively blaming the victim.

And now you're trying to beat me on the head with this "OH SO YOU BELIEVE HAMAS IS PURE AND KIND, DO YOU" strawman, probably hoping to go "AHA. So we DO have the moral high ground, even though we're arguing in favor of using NAPALM on civilians!"

Nah. Doesn't fly.

Your wrong, if a killer is holed up in a building with innocents and there are shots fired inside, aimed in or out, then police swarm in shooting to kill every time, regardless of the chances of additional collateral damage.

If a killer is holed up in a building, they don't destroy the building. If shots have been fired in a building, they don't swarm in and attack some completely different building that happens to be in the same country.

And if the police kill innocent civilians, they ARE held accountable and its not just "Oh, those people got in the way of the bulletzz and shouldn't have voted for Hamas, lol children vote."

Have a dose of reality.

Even the Hamas, which charter still claim to destroy Israel, proposed a 10-years truce, and accepted the "prisonners peace plan" which includes an Israel state within the "green line".
Only for those 10 years, which they intend to use to accumulate enough arms to destroy all Israelis when they are ready.
So even them are ready to accept Israel, IF Israel allows a decent Palestinian state to exist.
No, they have been quite explicit that they will never accept Israel. At maximum, they are willing to allow some Israelis to survive: those who accept subordination to Islamic rule.

they intend to use to accumulate enough arms to destroy all Israelis when they are ready.

Proof?

They don't conceal their intentions, they state that openly.

Ah, yes, a pro-Israel right wing blog site with a does of conspirecy.


Hmm what? Hmm bullshit? If so, yes indeed.


While I'm sure ad hominem may get you by in a lot of arguments around here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist you actually disprove the claims of the article. I've watched the video myself, and they are persuasive.

While I'm sure ad hominem may get you by in a lot of arguments around here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist you actually disprove the claims of the article. I've watched the video myself, and they are persuasive.

I dont intend to take seriously someone who doesnt know what an "ad hominem" really is.

Nor do I waste my time disproving consipercy theories. Especially the tried and true right wing wackjob tin foil hat one of the "ebil lubruhl media" conspirecy.

I dont intend to take seriously someone who doesnt know what an "ad hominem" really is.

Nor do I waste my time disproving consipercy theories. Especially the tried and true right wing wackjob tin foil hat one of the "ebil lubruhl media" conspirecy.

Stop evading the question.

They don't conceal their intentions, they state that openly.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find such a statement documented somewhere.

Stop evading the question.

Read my post, Im not evading anything, just flat out saying I dont intend to waste my time.

I dont intend to take seriously someone who doesnt know what an "ad hominem" really is.

Nor do I waste my time disproving consipercy theories. Especially the tried and true right wing wackjob tin foil hat one of the "ebil lubruhl media" conspirecy.

The merits of the website nonwithstanding (and nonexistant), the following is a definition of an ad hominem fallacy:

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false

Attacking the website as "a pro-Israel right wing blog site with a does of conspirecy" instead of addressing their arguments certainly qualifies as ad hominem.

Attacking the website as "a pro-Israel right wing blog site with a does of conspirecy" instead of addressing their arguments certainly qualifies as ad hominem.

The fact that its a conspirecy theory website is the problem with their arguement.

The fact that its a conspirecy theory website is the problem with their arguement.

And you don't see how saying "it's a conspiracy theory website, therefore it must be wrong" is an ad hominem?

And you don't see how saying "it's a conspiracy theory website, therefore it must be wrong" is an ad hominem?

The weakness of the arguement is that it is a conspirecy theory that relies on poor, shoddy, and cirumstantial "evidence" that the writer interperts in the way he wants to see it.

Is dismissing Roswell and Government UFO cover ups because they are all based on evidence that amounts to conspirecy theories an ad hominem too?

The weakness of the arguement is that it is a conspirecy theory that relies on poor, shoddy, and cirumstantial "evidence" that the writer interperts in the way he wants to see it.

Is dismissing Roswell and Government UFO cover ups because they are all based on evidence that amounts to conspirecy theories an ad hominem too?

No, but then you didn't actually address any of the actual evidence, did you?

If Israel bows to "International Opinion" and stops attacking, HAMAS will not. The situation will go on and on, never ending, until someone has the guts to stand up and END IT.

Numbers? You're just asking for bullshit.
So because one group - Hamas - wants to destroy Israel, a genocide on the Palestinian people would be justified?


Wrong. In this case it really IS that simple. HAMAS dies, or Israel dies. HAMAS has made that clear in their charter, and their actions prove they mean it.
Does Hamas have the capability to destroy Israel? Are they a real threat?


He's not wrong. If Israel was taking HAMAS seriously, they wouldn't be using WP. OR Napalm.
So you're saying that they want to talk about peace with Hamas, but they don't take them seriously? Why would Hamas want to discuss peace with someone who doesn't take them seriously?


Bullshit. They form a voting bloc at the UN, have more in common with one another than anyone else, and stand together on most issues.
Right now, that would be "not supporting Hamas".

The Hamas didn't start a war. Israel was blockading Gaza, and a blockade is considered to be an act of war in international laws. So Israel started the war, by blockading.
This is false. Israel did not start the war by blocading. The war has been ongoing for quite some time.

Actually, acccording to the Hague and Geneva conventions, it does indeed give them exactly that legal right.
Even those conventions demand proportionality in the military responses. Israel fails in that regard.

Negotiations end when shots are fired, then its considered an immediate threat that needs to be terminated in a police action. Israel waited till the first 2000 shots were fired. They showed impressive restraint imo.
False. Israel broke the ceasefire many times, both by military and non-military means. They didn't show much restraint at all.

Define "occupying". The IDF does not patrol or enforce law in Gaza - they've left that to HAMAS.

They surround Gaza, to be sure. And they have been blockading. But occupying?
Yes. Israel does de facto occupy the Gaza Strip. They control all the borders (the Egyptian one by agreement with Egypt), the airspace and the sea. They control the resources, the power and the aid. They send troops in as they wish.

No, the Hamas respected a 6 months truce. Israel didn't.
False. Neither side can be said to have "respected" the truce. They accepted it for the most part.

I still have hope for a two-state solution
What's the alternative?

I hadn't heard of a ten-year truce. That would have been good.
Not really. The demands Hamas made really couldn't be met. And they reserved the right to end it at any point - to attack Israel.

Particularly, Israel can't give up any part of Jerusalem - their own religious parties will never allow it.
So Israel isn't seriously interested in peace?

And I should note, Arafat was offered, effectively, a Palestinian state. He turned it down.
Not exactly true. It was neither a Palestinian state (effectively or not) nor did he really turn it down.

And if it was true: Why not repeat that offer to Abbas and Fatah today?

We can't solve the problems in Israel-Palestine.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

While I'm sure ad hominem may get you by in a lot of arguments around here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist you actually disprove the claims of the article. I've watched the video myself, and they are persuasive.
The "article", as you so loosely use the term, has been debated before in the thread, and I refer you to my previous post on it.

Also, are you a doctor? Can you say that Gilbert and the other doctor whose name escapes me really were faking the procedures? On what basis would you say that? Do you doubt that the child is actually dead? Despite the video? If you don't dispute the words of Raafat Hamdouna, the administrative director at Shifa Hospital, and you do accept that the kid was dead, can you explain why the medical team would need to fake it? And why wouldn't they go through the motions properly if they were to stage it with this dead child?

Do you really doubt that there's so few injured and dying people in Gaza - an area where more than 50% of the inhabitants are children - that they would need to stage this? On what grounds do you claim that Dr. Gilbert lets patients suffer to take the time to put on a show?

CNN says there's no reason to doubt it. The team's employer says there's no truth to the accusations. Dr. Gilbert denies it. Dr. Fosse supports him and calls the accusations "laughable".

"Bullshit" was really all your snide link was worth, but I'll give you this. Now stop wasting my time.

My prediction: Palestine will be annexed by Israel and no one will hear of Palestinians again. Thats a terrible thing but we will let it happen because we hate brown people.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find such a statement documented somewhere.
Not difficult (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-rejects-insincere-hamas-offer-of-10year-truce-574542.html):
Dr Rantisi in a telephone interview with Reuters news agency, has conceded "it is difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation.

"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for [Israeli] withdrawal and the establishment of a state." His remarks follow similar comments by Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, who said recently that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Dr Rantisi said Hamas would never abandon its quest for the whole of mandate Palestine

My prediction: Palestine will be annexed by Israel and no one will hear of Palestinians again. Thats a terrible thing but we will let it happen because we hate brown people.

Do you think Israel will kill them all or make them all Israelis? I don't think either will happen.

Do you think Israel will kill them all or make them all Israelis? I don't think either will happen.

yah I don't see it either. my bet is more of the Egypt style . . .u know surround their army threaten to take their leadership by force then tell em to play nice or you'll actually do it and international pressure be damned.

Hamas keeps firing rockets towards Israel - no fatalities reported today.

Israeli missiles struck an ACT-supported clinic in Shaja'ih in Gaza city on Saturday night, run by the Middle East Council of Churches. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/222031/123167120895.htm) The clinic was totally destroyed, but no one was injured, since the building had been previously evacuated.

"The clinic is completely destroyed with all its equipment and medical supplies," reports Zack Sabella from the council's Department of Service to Palestinian Refugees.

"Minutes before the missile hit the building, which hosts the clinic, the Israeli Air Force fired a warning missile next to it, forcing all residents of the building and the adjacent buildings to flee the area. A short while after, the army directly hit the building and razed it completely."

And on the lighter side of things: War-correspondent Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYCxj8KXjQ) makes an ass out of himself.

Hey, guess what I know how this ends Israel wins!!! Read your Bible and you better hope this new President stays behind Israel as well other wise things could change real quick for this country. talk about change we can believe in!!!

Hey, guess what I know how this ends Israel wins!!! Read your Bible and...

Dude! Spoiler tags, please! I haven't gotten to the end yet, and I don't want to know this stuff yet: It destroys the tension and spoils the surprise ending.

Dude! Spoiler tags, please! I haven't gotten to the end yet, and I don't want to know this stuff yet: It destroys the tension and spoils the surprise ending.

turns out the butler did it.

turns out the butler did it.
The shifty eyes should have been a clue.

turns out the butler did it.
:eek2:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/smiley_fistshake.gif

I don't know if I should read the sequel or not now... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/dry.gif

Followup (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on the school that was hit: yes, militants were firing from next to it, and bombs were rigged within the school.

And on the lighter side of things: War-correspondent Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYCxj8KXjQ) makes an ass out of himself.

Oh sweet God.


Well, at least hes safe. Terrorists will only go after legit journalists.

:eek2:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Smilies%20and%20animated%20stuff/smiley_fistshake.gif

I don't know if I should read the sequel or not now... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/dry.gif

Don't bother. The second book is mostly about the son of the main character in the first one, and how he spends most of his time with a tranny showgirl named "Mary".

The ending gets a lil weird though.

Don't bother. The second book is mostly about the son of the main character in the first one, and how he spends most of his time with a tranny showgirl named "Mary".

The ending gets a lil weird though.

It lacks character development as well. In the first book, the main character is a mean, spitful, vindictive son of a bitch who sicks bears on kids. Total badass.


In the second book, suddenly he's all nice, forgiving, and loves everyone. Until the end. Then hes crazy again.

Followup (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on the school that was hit: yes, militants were firing from next to it, and bombs were rigged within the school.

Christopher Gunness of the UN Relief and Works Agency, responsible for the school, said the agency was "99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school.

terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school.
Not really.

My prediction: Palestine will be annexed by Israel and no one will hear of Palestinians again. Thats a terrible thing but we will let it happen because we hate brown people.

I know Palestinians and Israelis. Strip them naked and it's hard to tell them apart. "Brown people". I personally have a problem with oddly coloured orange people - I don't want them dead though

Followup (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on the school that was hit: yes, militants were firing from next to it, and bombs were rigged within the school.

Dude...did...did you read your own source? It doesnt say what you think it say.

My prediction: Palestine will be annexed by Israel and no one will hear of Palestinians again. Thats a terrible thing but we will let it happen because we hate brown people.
Your prediction is a ridiculous one.

I know Palestinians and Israelis. Strip them naked and it's hard to tell them apart. "Brown people". I personally have a problem with oddly coloured orange people - I don't want them dead though
Israelis and Palestinains are very different.

Israelis are made up mostly of Ashkenazi Jews (Jews from Northern/Central/Eastern/Western Europe) and Sephardic Jews (Jews from Southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East), and are thus from a variety of countries and continents, and range from the palest white of Europe to the darkest black of Ethiopia.

Palestinians are much more homogenous.

Dude...did...did you read your own source? It doesnt say what you think it say.

From that source, I'd like to expand on something:

"There's nowhere safe in Gaza. Everyone here is terrorized and traumatized," said John Ging, an Irishman who is the top UN official in Gaza.

The reason that nowhere is safe in Gaza is because Hamas militants, as did their Hezbollah friends in Lebanon, fire from areas populated with civilians because they know that it puts Israel in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

If Israel fires back, they risk destroying civilain infrastructure and killing civilians, thus hampering their international image, providing propoganda support for their opponents, and having to deal with innocent deaths on their consciences. If Israel doesn't fire back, then they simply can't fight back against the Hamas rocket attacks on their civilization, they empower their opponents because they show they will not respond in force, and they upset their population who will then feel undefended (and in terms of politics, vote their politicians out of power).

Hamas and Hezbollah know this, that's their strategy.

Israel tried it one way in their summer lebanon war (the not going all out on the enemy) and it obviously didn't work out for them well enough, so they're trying it the other way this time.

It makes sense, even if it isn't nice.

Followup (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on the school that was hit: yes, militants were firing from next to it, and bombs were rigged within the school.
You're 4-5 days behind...

Well, step by step after the attacks:

An inquiry into the incident revealed that the IDF soldiers acted according to procedures and fired back at gunmen firing mortar shells from the school. The investigation also revealed that Hamas launching cells were operating within the school.
Jan 6. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651804,00.html)

Israel is considering submitting a complaint to the United Nations of Hamas' use of the world body's facilities for terror purposes, after 30 people were killed when an Israeli army artillery shell struck a UN school in Gaza. Israeli troops say that they were fired on from the building.

The Israel Defense Forces soldiers attacked the UN-run girl's school near the Jabalya refugee camp in self-defense, saying militants barricaded inside began firing mortar rounds at them.
Jan. 7. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053233.html)

Israeli military officials insist that the mortars were fired from within the crowded schoolyard and that Hamas is using civilians as human shields. The IDF gave the names of two Hamas combatants it says were killed inside the school — Imad and Hassan Abu Askar — who allegedly fired the mortars. But the IDF did not explain how it was able to identify them among the many casualties. Troops did not visit the school after the attack, nor did the IDF have access to a casualty list from Gaza's hospitals.
Time, Jan. 7. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html)

After the attack, the Israeli military said an initial inquiry had shown that several mortar shells had been fired at Israeli forces "from within the Jabaliya school" and that Israeli forces had returned fire.

However, a UN spokesman yesterday said the military had admitted that this account was no longer accurate. "In private briefings with diplomats the Israeli army has admitted that the militant fire from Jabaliya did not come from within a UN compound but outside and therefore allegations that this fire came from inside our compound are completely baseless," said Chris Gunness, spokesman for UNWRA.

Last night, the Israel Defence Force, stood by its initial account."The source of the fire was from within the school compound and that we returned fire and we have intelligence information that we hit the actual mortar firing squad that was firing at us," said Captain Benjamin Rutland, an Israeli military spokesman.
Jan. 8. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/gaza-israelandthepalestinians1)

Followed by

A preliminary investigation into the fatal shooting by the Israel Defense Forces into a United Nations building in northern Gaza on Tuesday reveals the Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters
The probe, which was conducted by the Paratrooper Brigade whose troops were responsible for the area, found that the army's location system to pinpoint launch sites indicated that militants had launched a Qassam rocket into Israel from within a yard adjacent to the courtyard of the UN building.

The troops had intended to launch a smart missile to take out the Palestinian launch team but a technical malfunction made this impossible, according to the probe. The commanders of the force instead decided to fire on the Qassam team with mortar shells equipped with a Global Positioning System for accurate fire.

However, the GPS element has an error margin of 30 meters and one of the three rounds fired by the paratrooper force slammed into the building owned by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA.

Two of the rounds hit the yard used to launch rockets into Israel, killing two members of Hamas' military wing who probably belonged to the squad that fired the rockets.

Nonetheless, in discussing the incident with Haaretz, some IDF officers say the force should have refrained from using mortar rounds and relied instead on more accurate fire. Military sources said the UNRWA building was marked on the maps of forces operating in the area.
Jan. 11. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054284.html)

So they've gone from barricaded inside the building to an adjacent yard.

And as a side effect of the situation in Gaza:

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html)

The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

The ruling, made by the body that oversees the elections, reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.
The decision does not affect Arab lawmakers in predominantly Jewish parties or the country's communist party, which has a mixed list of Arab and Jewish candidates. Roughly one-fifth of Israel's 7 million citizens are Arabs. Israeli Arabs enjoy full citizenship rights, but have suffered from discrimination and poverty for decades.

Thats ridiculous. Thats like Obama banning members of the KKK for running for office. Its simply Undemocratic.

Followup (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on the school that was hit: yes, militants were firing from next to it, and bombs were rigged within the school.


Discounted days ago.

Dude...did...did you read your own source? It doesnt say what you think it say.
Yes I did:
"Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. "
I put more stock in what eyewitnesses have to say than in sources tied to either side of the conflict. The part about the secondary explosions, on the other hand, is from IDF, so take it or leave it ("Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there.").

So because one group - Hamas - wants to destroy Israel, a genocide on the Palestinian people would be justified?

No. Genocide is not justifiable. But sufficient force to neutralize HAMAS is.


Does Hamas have the capability to destroy Israel? Are they a real threat?

Yes. They have the will, and the numbers, to murder millions of people.

They don't have the capacity to defeat the IDF, but that doesn't mean they will always be in that situation. Now, capacity is not a good enough reason to attack someone - but if they then decide to open hostilities, well...


So you're saying that they want to talk about peace with Hamas, but they don't take them seriously? Why would Hamas want to discuss peace with someone who doesn't take them seriously?

No, I'm saying they're not treating HAMAS' military capacity with enough respect. Now that the IDF is moving in on the ground, I suspect they are going to pay for that.


Right now, that would be "not supporting Hamas".

Yes. I was pointing out that "The Arab World" does indeed exist - not saying it was part of this particular problem.

In point of fact, I think they've been admirably hands off about this situation.


So Israel isn't seriously interested in peace?

At this point, I'm not really sure. But I am certain they won't trade Jerusalem for peace.

In some cases, "peace" is just another word for "surrender". Everyone has something worth fighting for. For an awful lot of Israelis, Jerusalem falls into that category.


Not exactly true. It was neither a Palestinian state (effectively or not) nor did he really turn it down.

And if it was true: Why not repeat that offer to Abbas and Fatah today?

Because Abbas doesn't have the power to hold up his end of the deal. Arafat did.
[/QUOTE]

Yes I did:
"Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. "
I put more stock in what eyewitnesses have to say than in sources tied to either side of the conflict. The part about the secondary explosions, on the other hand, is from IDF, so take it or leave it ("Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there.").
The IDF stopped selling the story about secondary explosions days ago.

No. Genocide is not justifiable.
But you do agree to using napalm on a densly populated urban area?



Yes. They have the will, and the numbers, to murder millions of people.
I disagree with you there. They may have the desire, but they don't have the manpower or the resources, nor sufficient backing.

They don't have the capacity to defeat the IDF, but that doesn't mean they will always be in that situation. Now, capacity is not a good enough reason to attack someone - but if they then decide to open hostilities, well...


Because Abbas doesn't have the power to hold up his end of the deal. Arafat did.

Wouldn't such an offer empower Abbas sufficiently? If he had the backing of the US and other arab countries as well?

Yeah, we do know, Trostia, and this isn't one. You've claimed, effectively, that they aren't using human shields when others have claimed they are. Put up or shut up.

The problem - of course - would be how you were going to prove that injured civilians were 'human shields'.

We know that Israel have injured civilians that were NOT 'human shields', because they've done it within the last few days - not only firing on targets that weren't militants... but firing at targets that weren't even INVOLVED. Hell, they opened fire on the UN!

So - given the track record of claiming that they were hitting militants and accepting some collateral damage... and contrasting it with the fact that hospitals and schools have been hit when militants weren't there... and allowing for the fact that - in those SPECIFIC cases, Israel lied about militants...

Why would anyone accept the 'human shield' story?

No. Genocide is not justifiable. But sufficient force to neutralize HAMAS is.


Even if it required genocide?

The reason that nowhere is safe in Gaza is because Hamas militants, as did their Hezbollah friends in Lebanon, fire from areas populated with civilians because they know that it puts Israel in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

Explain Israeli fire on UN chartered and marked schools/aid centers which had no militant activity in them or their compounds and yet were bombed then. Then try to explain why they used false claims of militant activity to justify it.

Yes I did:
"Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. "

So not even inside the building or compound, but a street near it is fine now. How much longer before you start defending carpet bombing of entire cities on the same logic?

First it was inside the building or compound. Fine. I can go with that. Now you're saying "Oh, it's some street near the place". Complain about slippery slope all you want, you're doing it, so you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Hamas fires from the street in front of the school. Israel shoots back. Hamas then blows up the school, and blames Israel for it. This is just a larger replay of the Muhammad al-Durrah case.

Hamas fires from the street in front of the school. Israel shoots back. Hamas then blows up the school, and blames Israel for it. This is just a larger replay of the Muhammad al-Durrah case.

And you can provide proof that it was Hamas that did it? Or is this just an allegation? And if Hamas did it, why did Israel show year old photos claiming that Hamas was firing from the school, admitting that they actually did shell it when they supposedly "didn't" after their claims were shown to be false?

Explain that if you can.

Hamas fires from the street in front of the school. Israel shoots back. Hamas then blows up the school, and blames Israel for it. This is just a larger replay of the Muhammad al-Durrah case.

Bullshit.

If that was what happened, Israel wouldn't have opened by TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. But they did - they said they did it, and they gave a bullshit reason that they've gradually changed under continued pressure.

Now, it's clear they fired on the school. It's also clear they've fired on UN convoys, Red Cross convoys, church groups, and hospitals.

This isn't Israel being 'blamed' - this is Israel being war-criminals.

This isn't Israel being 'blamed' - this is Israel being war-criminals.

Ironically, its only those who lose the war that are charged with war crimes. You never saw WWII Allied leaders on trial, now did you? ;)

Hamas fires from the street in front of the school. Israel shoots back. Hamas then blows up the school, and blames Israel for it. This is just a larger replay of the Muhammad al-Durrah case.

More nonsense. They fucked up. Admit it, move on like a man and stop making a fool of yourself.

More nonsense. They fucked up. Admit it, move on like a man and stop making a fool of yourself.

Oh, they messed up certainly. The question was whether they messed up in their denying or they messed up with their targeting. One's a mistake. The other is a war crime cover up.

The problem - of course - would be how you were going to prove that injured civilians were 'human shields'.

We know that Israel have injured civilians that were NOT 'human shields', because they've done it within the last few days - not only firing on targets that weren't militants... but firing at targets that weren't even INVOLVED. Hell, they opened fire on the UN!

So - given the track record of claiming that they were hitting militants and accepting some collateral damage... and contrasting it with the fact that hospitals and schools have been hit when militants weren't there... and allowing for the fact that - in those SPECIFIC cases, Israel lied about militants...

Why would anyone accept the 'human shield' story?

Yes. Because HAMAS has done it and keeps on doing it.

Why do you keep assuming that if one side has repeatedly fucked up the other side is lily white?

Even if it required genocide?

Tough question. Fortunately, in this case, not one that needs an answer.

But you do agree to using napalm on a densly populated urban area?

In certain circumstances. If your intelligence shows a primarily militant population of the area, for instance, it could be justified, or to br certain of the destruction of weapons manufacturing facilities.

In other cases, more accurate weapons would be both more easily justified, and likely more effective.

I disagree with you there. They may have the desire, but they don't have the manpower or the resources, nor sufficient backing.

I will fully accept that our opinions differ.

Wouldn't such an offer empower Abbas sufficiently? If he had the backing of the US and other arab countries as well?

The offer in itself? No. The populace of Palestine has been taught to hate and distrust Israel - they would see Abbas as a collaborator if he accepted such a deal now, his influence would drop.

Now, if you could get the Arab countries to back the deal, that would be another story, but A) it would have to be unanimous and B) it would have to be presented as part of the offer, i.e. they would have to sign off on it before it was made to the Palestinians.

Even then, I do not believe HAMAS would accept such a deal. Their ultimate goal is the total destruction of Israel - a permanent peace is not in their best interests.

The offer in itself? No. The populace of Palestine has been taught to hate and distrust Israel .

...the majority of them taught by Israel itself through its own actions.

I'm not an expert in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I have my remarks on a few things...

...the jewish boys claim that they have the right to defend themselves.

Ok, sounds good. But they forget that the other side have that right too.

...the Palestinian boys claim it’s their country.

It’s not their country (anymore). The area was conquered several times by all kind of people. They are just unlucky that it’s located on a kind of San Andreas Fault, which is formed by several cultural tectonic plates. It’s raised by the Canaanites, conquered by the Jews, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Europeans, Turkish, British, Jews once more and I forget probably a few.

So it’s not the country of the Palestinians. Get over it, they’re unlucky to be conquered once more again.

…both sides accuse each other of breaking the laws of war.

They both do, but IMHO the Israelis are doing it better and harder. They really punish an entire population for the deeds of few. And this is going on for 60 years now.
The Palestinians do not have the fancy F16’s and Apaches to destroy entire house blocks, but they shoot from time to time a rocket which is missing its target in most cases.

…the Europeans moan that Israel isn’t listening.

Get over it! Europe is not a factor for Israel. Their reference is USA. If you like it or not, it’s like this. And no, Obama will not solve this disgusting conflict.

...the majority of them taught by Israel itself through its own actions.

Partially. But I think upbringing probably has more to do with it.

Partially. But I think upbringing probably has more to do with it.

Maybe, maybe not. It's true that people can be raised to hate by upbringing with no logical grounds whatsoever (racism for example), but you can't discount the hardening that privation and terror campaigns have on preventing anyone going "why should I hate?"

Partially. But I think upbringing probably has more to do with it.

Really.......

Given the numbers detained, the checkpoints, and deaths over four decades, theres not scarcely a family (particularily in Gaza) that hasn't felt the hand of the Israeli state, and it wasn't a gentle one. Do you have any fucking idea whatsoever about what Gaza was like when the Israelis were there? Or even the foggiest notion about its like in the West Bank? Seriously, your comment is so far off the mark its bizarre, even in the context of this subject and the kind of crap that comes out in association with it.

Maybe, maybe not. It's true that people can be raised to hate by upbringing with no logical grounds whatsoever (racism for example), but you can't discount the hardening that privation and terror campaigns have on preventing anyone going "why should I hate?"

Oh, absolutely. The only problem is, Palestinians are almost as badly oppressed by other Arab groups as they are by the Israelis.

That much oppression WILL lead to hate. It would then be upbringing that directs that hate.

Oh, absolutely. The only problem is, Palestinians are almost as badly oppressed by other Arab groups as they are by the Israelis.

In the OT?

Really.......

Given the numbers detained, the checkpoints, and deaths over four decades, theres not scarcely a family (particularily in Gaza) that hasn't felt the hand of the Israeli state, and it wasn't a gentle one. Do you have any fucking idea whatsoever about what Gaza was like when the Israelis were there? Or even the foggiest notion about its like in the West Bank? Seriously, your comment is so far off the mark its bizarre, even in the context of this subject and the kind of crap that comes out in association with it.

Did I say Israel's actions had nothing to do with it? I did not. And I DO have some idea of what Gaza was like.

But to blame that hate solely on those actions would be equally stupid. The propagation of hate through cultural and familial bonds is far more powerful than anything an outside force can ever do to earn hatred, for the simple reason that it is unquestioned. An individual can step past personal grievance by accepting an alternate point of view; to step past the grievances of family and culture requires the superhuman.

In the OT?

Absolutely. If only by their continuing refusal to allow Palestinians to leave the Occupied Territories.

Absolutely. If only by their continuing refusal to allow Palestinians to leave the Occupied Territories.

They allowed them in after 1948 and 1967. Were they to allow them leave as refugees now, it would merely allow Israel the opportunity to push them all out.

They allowed them in after 1948 and 1967. Were they to allow them leave as refugees now, it would merely allow Israel the opportunity to push them all out.

Yes, that's their "reasoning". But confining them to tiny refugee camps (as in the Lebanon) or just not allowing them entry at all (Saudi, Kuwait) certainly gives the lie to the idea that they give a damn about the individual Palestinians.

Did I say Israel's actions had nothing to do with it? I did not. And I DO have some idea of what Gaza was like.

But to blame that hate solely on those actions would be equally stupid.

Solely no, but certainly the majority of the blame lies on the occupier, not the occupied.

Solely no, but certainly the majority of the blame lies on the occupier, not the occupied.

For the propagation of hatred? Not in the least.

Yes, that's their "reasoning". But confining them to tiny refugee camps (as in the Lebanon) or just not allowing them entry at all (Saudi, Kuwait) certainly gives the lie to the idea that they give a damn about the individual Palestinians.

An unforunately quite valid one.

Lebanon treat them the worst of all the states, however theres no way they're letting them out for fear they'd bolster any of the various factions. And no, they don't give a damn about individuals.

Oh, absolutely. The only problem is, Palestinians are almost as badly oppressed by other Arab groups as they are by the Israelis.

That much oppression WILL lead to hate. It would then be upbringing that directs that hate.

If we discount the usual infighting though, the biggest bogeyman in the block to have that hatred directed at it is Israel. As it is, the Arab neighbors may be keeping the conflict going with money and arms on the sly, or keeping the ones who left in refugee camps, but that's not anywhere as immediately overt as Israeli offensives.

They've all got their hands in the cookie jar, but Israel's are currently the most obvious one.

If Israel had tried annexing Palestine and absorbing its people properly (unlike the 'equal but separate' practice they have now for their non-Jewish citizens) way back in the 70s, things might have been different now, but that's pretty impossible now.

What we have now is Israeli Jews taught to hate everyone but Israeli Jews (or maybe only those in their sect sometimes), and Palestinians returning the favor.

If we discount the usual infighting though, the biggest bogeyman in the block to have that hatred directed at it is Israel. As it is, the Arab neighbors may be keeping the conflict going with money and arms on the sly, or keeping the ones who left in refugee camps, but that's not anywhere as immediately overt as Israeli offensives.

They've all got their hands in the cookie jar, but Israel's are currently the most obvious one.

If Israel had tried annexing Palestine and absorbing its people properly (unlike the 'equal but separate' practice they have now for their non-Jewish citizens) way back in the 70s, things might have been different now, but that's pretty impossible now.

What we have now is Israeli Jews taught to hate everyone but Israeli Jews (or maybe only those in their sect sometimes), and Palestinians returning the favor.

No argument from me.

For the propagation of hatred? Not in the least.

You'll find a rifle muzzle in the face (in the literal sense) breeds hate like few other things. Go point it at sons, fathers and mothers and it just takes off.

You'll find a rifle muzzle in the face (in the literal sense) breeds hate like few other things. Go point it at sons, fathers and mothers and it just takes off.

I don't doubt the truth of that. All I'm saying is that who we're taught to hate has a greater overall effect than who we learn to hate from experience.

I don't doubt the truth of that. All I'm saying is that who we're taught to hate has a greater overall effect than who we learn to hate from experience.

To argue this further would encroach on the World Of Anecdote, and there I prefer not to tread. We will have to agree to differ.

From what I know of the conflict, it's not going to end until one side has completely exterminated the other.

Hamas and the similar groups will accept no peace except the destruction of the State of Israel. Many Israelis won't consider the war over until Hamas and company are totally eradicated. Somewhere in between are about six million people who are just trying to get on with their lives and can't because a bunch of extremists are chucking bombs at each other. Laying undue blame on either faction of extremists is kind of silly: they're both at fault. Mostly for being stupid.

It was stupid for the Palestinians to reject the original two-state plan. It was equally stupid for the Israelis to subsequently treat them as second-class citizens. Most of all, it was monumentally stupid for both sides to listen to a small group of people who stood to profit from years of violence and misery in the region. Arguments about who was there first or arguments pointing out somebody or other's war crimes are irrelevant, because practically any argument that can be applied to one side can also be applied to the other if you look deep enough.

(For reference, I spent a few days in Israel last week, close enough to hear rockets falling on Ashkelon and get my windows rattled by military aircraft passing overhead, and this was the general impression I got from the various news media and ordinary people, looking past the obvious biases.)

To argue this further would encroach on the World Of Anecdote, and there I prefer not to tread. We will have to agree to differ.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Dododecapod
Oh, absolutely. The only problem is, Palestinians are almost as badly oppressed by other Arab groups as they are by the Israelis.

In the OT?
Who was occupying the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967? Jordan and Egypt. Did the Palestinians launch any fewer attacks on Israelis back then? Quite the reverse.

Who was occupying the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967? Jordan and Egypt. Did the Palestinians launch any fewer attacks on Israelis back then? Quite the reverse.

Yes, they're just eternally evil. Divils.

Yes, they're just eternally evil. Divils.

They're mostly Muslims. That covers "Evil" and "Divil" under a wide blanket as-is.

They're mostly Muslims. That covers "Evil" and "Divil" under a wide blanket as-is.

True, true.

Yes. Because HAMAS has done it and keeps on doing it.

Why do you keep assuming that if one side has repeatedly fucked up the other side is lily white?

Did I say that?

On the contrary - you're making an assertion that basically - whatever Israel does is okay, because Hamas are naughty lil buggers. Apparently.

Tough question. Fortunately, in this case, not one that needs an answer.

Which is an evasion... and wrong.

The problem with the kind of assymetrical war we're seeing in the Middle East in recent years - is that even genocide might not be enough. The heavier the hand of the 'oppressor', the stronger a rallying call it is to other likeminded groups, sympathisers... and people that were standing on the sidelines.

The casualties that Israel are inflicting - and have been inflicting - are going to have the same effect as the US's heavy-handed approach to Iraq - it's going to up tension locally and globally - and will probably ultimately increase the conflict, by bringing fresh forces in.

If the situation was reversed - ie. it would be the Israeli kids who're dying by the cartload - USA, and most likely International Community, would have already intervened.

For the propagation of hatred? Not in the least.

I honestly don't think you'd say the same thing if you were living in an occupied state.

If the situation was reversed - ie. it would be the Israeli kids who're dying by the cartload - USA, and most likely International Community, would have already intervened.

True, this.

To argue this further would encroach on the World Of Anecdote, and there I prefer not to tread.
Perhaps then we might instead delve into the realm of Allegory and Metaphor? It would be interesting to hear your perspective, even if you don't state it with any philosophical authority.

It was stupid for the Palestinians to reject the original two-state plan.
Why? It was their home originally, after all. If you were evicted from your home because the state wanted to make your neighbourhood a purely Shinto community, and during the ongoing legal battle you were proposed the option of sharing a house in a nearby street with other evictees, wouldn't you object?

ADDITIONAL: Even given the argument that the Israelis owned it way before them, the allegory extends to someone who owned the house before you coming back and claiming rightful possession. You might end up being forced to acknowledge some legitimacy to their claim, but not only are you not going to like it, but you're going to demand that you not be made homeless as a result of their claim, since you were blameless in acquiring ownership of it.

I agree that the two state plan is probably what we'll need to do in the absence of a secular Israel, but I don't think it's reasonable to call them stupid for not liking the plan.

Yes, they're just eternally evil. Divils.

Do you have an alternate explanation?
I am sick and tired of hearing you claim that the Palestinian violence is caused by the occupation, when the reverse is true.

Do you have an alternate explanation?
.

They'd just been expelled en masse from their country. They were trying to get it back.

They'd just been expelled en masse from their country. They were trying to get it back.
From 1920-1947, what was their excuse then?

From 1920-1947, what was their excuse then?
Getting the other half back, perhaps? After all, the Shinto still owns your kitchen.

Getting the other half back, perhaps? After all, the Shinto still owns your kitchen.
Huh? The only places Jews were living in Palestine then were places Jews had BOUGHT. The question was whether Jewish immigrants, or Jews who had been living there for centuries, should be allowed the same legal rights as Muslims who had been living there for centuries, or had recently immigrated. At first the violence was only directed at Jewish immigrants (though not against Muslim immigrants), but from 1929 it was policy to kill all Jews, regardless of how long they had been in the country.

Getting the other half back, perhaps? After all, the Shinto still owns your kitchen.

Probably shouldn't have sold him the kitchen then, should you?

From 1920-1947, what was their excuse then?

Xenophobia, economic difficulties, unemployment (Them foreigners be stealin' ur jobs and ur lands!), stated policy of making a Jewish nation where the Palestinians already lived that the British seemed to go along with, clashes causing aggravation and anger, the "global attitude" towards jews filtering down, reprisal attacks causing more hate and anger, etc. etc.

There were a lot of excuses, most of them (if not all) bad. But that was then. This is now. All of the "Who did what in the 20's" talk is pointless and gets us nowhere, as the situation is vastly different now.

The Security Council resolution passed on Friday calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza was a source of embarrassment for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who helped prepare it but ultimately was ordered to back down from voting for it and abstain, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday.
Upon receiving word that the US was planning to vote in favor of the resolution - viewed by Israel as impractical and failing to address its security concerns - Olmert demanded to get Bush on the phone, and refused to back down after being told that the president was delivering a lecture in Philadelphia. Bush interrupted his lecture to answer Olmert's call, the premier said.

America could not vote in favor of such a resolution, Olmert told Bush. Soon afterwards, Rice abstained when votes were counted at the UN.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Olmert seems to think that Bush is his puppet, and that the US is at his beck and call.

Well, I guess only a really good ally could get away with gloating so openly about having caused the embarrassment of one of Bush's closest aids...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Olmert seems to think that Bush is his puppet, and that the US is at his beck and call.

Well, I guess only a really good ally could get away with gloating so openly about having caused the embarrassment of one of Bush's closest aids...

It also helps Israel that in the West, Muslims are generally considered a hivemind of Bugs/Tyrannids/Xenos.

Which is an evasion... and wrong.

Yes, it's an evasion. I thought that was pretty bloody obvious. But not wrong, because the Israelis are not conducting Genocide.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Olmert seems to think that Bush is his puppet, and that the US is at his beck and call.
Isn't he right? Wouldn't going against Olmert's wishes be a political suicide?

I say let em fight it out, they obviously just have nothing better to do than try and kill each other. Nothing can seem to stop them from doing it, so just let 'em.


*waits for rants*
*rants*

should anyone( America? the western world? NATO? the UN? lmao) be trying to stop them?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Olmert seems to think that Bush is his puppet, and that the US is at his beck and call.

Well, I guess only a really good ally could get away with gloating so openly about having caused the embarrassment of one of Bush's closest aids...


Wow. What a cocky peice of shit. Hes in for a rude awakening once Bush leaves if he still thinks we're his bitch.

It will be funny to see how he handles a president who doesnt think hes helping to bring about the final battle of Revelation by backing Israel.

Isn't he right? Wouldn't going against Olmert's wishes be a political suicide?For Bush? He's served out his two terms and isn't running for anything again.

For Bush? He's served out his two terms and isn't running for anything again.
I meant in general.

That is: "Oh noes! Our government/republican party/country doesn't care about the fate of the Holy Land anymore! Wail!" <add bashing involving heretics/ebil muzlimz/atheists/etc.. here>

And that's not even mentioning NWO :tongue:

btw. Will things really change with Obama/Biden (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3586542,00.html)?

btw. Will things really change with Obama (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3586542,00.html)?

To be honest, probably not too much. We'll probably shift more in line with Europe's reaction, but no further.

Interesting assessment on the already visible fallout from the Gaza operation. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054295.html)

Huh? The only places Jews were living in Palestine then were places Jews had BOUGHT.
Okay, the allegory doesn't quite work. I think the Palestinian perspective is more like the Shinto entirely legitimately buying your kitchen but changing the tone of your home entirely, including the bits they didn't buy, by turning the kitchen into a sushi restaurant. It seems somehow like they're unethically taking over the house, even though they don't extend beyond their actual territory. And that the Shinto... chef? has stated that they plan to make his place into the best sushi restaurant your country has ever seen with people coming for miles to taste their food doesn't fill you with confidence. You don't even like sushi. At least, not as far as you know, and you don't intend to try any after having seen the state of that kitchen.

Maybe the sushi restaurant is a great idea, and is exactly what your community needs to get things going. There's just something disconcerting about selling a kitchen and finding you have to deal with living over a place that smells like fish and has hundreds of people coming in to eat from when all you want to do is relax after a long day's work at the office.

You see what I'm getting at? The influx of westernised and relatively wealthy Jewish people to Palestine must have seemed like the sushi restaurant. The social and cultural change might have been a great idea, but it probably wasn't what they wanted, certainly not what they'd planned to deal with, and definitely provoked a response of some sort. The response they gave was disproportionate and out of line, doubtlessly, but not irrational. Frustration and the feeling of a loss of communal identity provoke very strong reactions in people, and it's no wonder they wanted to reclaim what they thought had been taken from them when their sale turned out to be more than they'd bargained for.

Yes, it's an evasion. I thought that was pretty bloody obvious. But not wrong, because the Israelis are not conducting Genocide.

Actually, since the Genocide Prevention Task Force (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380809948&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) isn't even allowed to ask that question, we can't really say whether the Israelis are conducting genocide or not.

I wonder why they're not allowed to investigate?

Does anyone know the current death toll from this war?

Does anyone know the current death toll from this war?

970 dead Palestinians, 4,300 wounded. Israel last I heard was at 13 dad.


Anyway, this is interesting:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911321467988347.html

Israel accused of Gaza 'genocide'

The president of the UN General Assembly has condemned Israel's killings of Palestinians in its Gaza offensive as "genocide".

Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann also told Al Jazeera he had never believed that the UN Security Council would be able to stop the violence in Gaza and that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, had practically told the UN to "mind their own business" by continuing the offensive.

"The number of victims in Gaza is increasing by the day... The situation is untenable. It's genocide," d'Escoto said at the UN in New York.

About 970 Palestinians have been killed and 4,300 injured since Israel began its Gaza offensive on December 27, which it says is to stop Palestinian fighters attacking Israel with rockets.

Emergency session

The UN General Assembly said on Tuesday that it was set to hold an emergency session on Thursday to discuss the crisis after a previous session was postponed last week ahead of a UN Security Council vote on the issue.

The Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, but Israel has escalated its offensive and Palestinian rocket fire has also continued.

"There have been some who were under the illusion that the Security Council would do something that could help the situation," d'Escoto said. "I never thought so.

"Now we're faced with not only with a lack of compliance but with a prime minister of Israel who has practically responded to the Security Council by saying 'mind your own business'.

"It's unbelievable that a country that owes its existence to a general assembly resolution could be so disdainful of the resolutions that emanate from the UN."

D'Escoto, a former Roman Catholic priest and Nicaragua foreign minister, is known for his outspoken criticism of Israel and last year likened Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the racist apartheid system previously used in South Africa.

Gabriela Shalev, Israel's ambassador to the UN, called d'Escoto an "Israel hater" for having hugged Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president and a vocal critic of Israel.

D'Escoto also said the UN had to bear some responsibility for the long-standing conflict in the Middle East as it had allowed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, leaving the Palestinians stateless.

"You have to attack problems at their root cause and the Palestinian people have been subjected to subhuman treatment for decades and this [the Israeli offensive] is going to make matters worse."

Ban visit

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, is travelling to the Middle East to press for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Ban will first visit Cairo, where he will meet Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, for talks on a joint French-Egyptian ceasefire initiative.

He then heads to Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and Kuwait where he said an Arab League economic summit will also hold talks on Gaza.

Officials said he would not visit Gaza because of the ongoing conflict.


I dont really agree with the UN's take, but its interesting.

Actually, since the Genocide Prevention Task Force (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380809948&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) isn't even allowed to ask that question, we can't really say whether the Israelis are conducting genocide or not.


wait a moment. Are you seriously saying that with a population that is one of the fastest growing in the world, and a two week war with one of the most modern and powerful armies in existence, that has amounted to a death toll of less than 1000, you need a report to tell you that Israel is not committing genocide?

Fucking seriously? Do you need a committee to issue you a report telling you when it's raining outside before you take an umbrella?

wait a moment. Are you seriously saying that with a population that is one of the fastest growing in the world, and a two week war with one of the most modern and powerful armies in existence, that has amounted to a death toll of less than 1000, you need a report to tell you that Israel is not committing genocide?

Fucking seriously? Do you need a committee to issue you a report telling you when it's raining outside before you take an umbrella?

I do think the term "genocide" is thrown around rather loosely in this situation.

As I said earlier, I think there are certian factions in Israel whose goal is the removal of all Palestinians from Israel's territory, with no more talk of two states. I think theyre willing to do whatever they need to do to "remove" the Palestinians. And I think that faction is having way too much of a say on policy.

wait a moment. Are you seriously saying that with a population that is one of the fastest growing in the world, and a two week war with one of the most modern and powerful armies in existence, that has amounted to a death toll of less than 1000, you need a report to tell you that Israel is not committing genocide?

Fucking seriously? Do you need a committee to issue you a report telling you when it's raining outside before you take an umbrella?

Are you suggesting that only the latest actions of Israel should be scutinised?

I do think the term "genocide" is thrown around rather loosely in this situation.

You have a point there. When it comes to casualties of war, throwing around the word genocide can be tricky.

I do think the term "genocide" is thrown around rather loosely in this situation.

ya think? And what makes it all the worse is the attitude by...some posters, that if you don't join in on the bandwagon of "Israel is committing genocide" that it means you must automatically agree with everything Israel does. edit: like, for example, this, which was so nicely, and with such perfect timing, provided for us:

Are you suggesting that only the latest actions of Israel should be scutinised?

I don't think Israel is always correct in their military actions. I think they have a right to defend themselves. I think they have a right to kill people who attack their country. I think in the process of doing so innocents will, unfortunately, die, but I still think their measures could be carried out with a bit more....openness to the idea of looking before shooting.

But to claim they're carrying out a genocide, which is to say that to actually believe that Israel is carrying out a systematic destruction of the Palestinian people, is not only insulting, but profoundly ignorant

Actually, since the Genocide Prevention Task Force (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380809948&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) isn't even allowed to ask that question, we can't really say whether the Israelis are conducting genocide or not.

I wonder why they're not allowed to investigate?

Look at your own link:

'"Its(The Task Force's) task is not to determine which situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute genocide, but to develop policy recommendations that enable the United States to prevent future genocides from occurring," Cohen, along with co-chair Madeleine Albright, said in a statement issued Tuesday night.'

You have a point there. When it comes to casualties of war, throwing around the word genocide can be tricky.

no, it's not "tricky". It's not "tricky" at all. Genocide is the organized attempt to deliberately and systematically destroy an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Do "casualties of war" as we have seen so far, indicate a deliberate attempt to systematically wipe out the Palestinian people? No? Has there ever, in the history of Israel, been anything to evidence any legitimate desire or attempt to remove the Palestinian people from the face of the earth? No?

Then it's not a fucking genocide.

And there's nothing tricky about that.

I don't think Israel is always correct in their military actions. I think they have a right to defend themselves. I think they have a right to kill people who attack their country. I think in the process of doing so innocents will, unfortunately, die, but I still think their measures could be carried out with a bit more....openness to the idea of looking before shooting.

I agree that any nation (including these two) has the right to protect their citizenry from lethal attacks. I think the current action does not do that. For either side.

But to claim they're carrying out a genocide, which is to say that to actually believe that Israel is carrying out a systematic destruction of the Palestinian people, is not only insulting, but profoundly ignorant.

I don't think it needs to be systematic. I would describe European colonisation of the Americas as genocide. Not systematic. But it did result in widespread death and cultural loss of several populations.

I don't think it needs to be systematic. I would describe European colonisation of the Americas as genocide. Not systematic. But it did result in widespread death and cultural loss of several populations.Gee, that's too bad. That's what genocide is.

I don't think it needs to be systematic. I would describe European colonisation of the Americas as genocide. Not systematic. But it did result in widespread death and cultural loss of several populations.

Then I suggest you take that up with Merriam-Webster. You're free to think as you wish, but words have meanings, and the idea that it is a systematic attempt is inherent in the meaning of the word.

Moreover, even if it was not, you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate that there has been "widespread death" or "cultural loss" in this circumstance.

I dont really agree with the UN's take, but its interesting.

It's the General Assembly.

A big pile of meh.

Look at your own link:

'"Its(The Task Force's) task is not to determine which situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute genocide, but to develop policy recommendations that enable the United States to prevent future genocides from occurring," Cohen, along with co-chair Madeleine Albright, said in a statement issued Tuesday night.'

And how will they do that? By looking at previous examples of genocide. In order to avoid genocides, they have to understand what causes them. In order to understand them, they have to study them. In order to study them, they have to decide which events in history constitute a genocide. Use your head and don't just believe what politicians say.

Use your head and don't just believe what politicians say.

wake up sheeple! :rolleyes:

I agree that any nation (including these two) has the right to protect their citizenry from lethal attacks. I think the current action does not do that. For either side.



I don't think it needs to be systematic. I would describe European colonisation of the Americas as genocide. Not systematic. But it did result in widespread death and cultural loss of several populations.

Genocide requires intent. Even if the europeans had never colonized the new world, the single largest cause of death would still have occurred - the spread of disease.

And how will they do that? By looking at previous examples of genocide. In order to avoid genocides, they have to understand what causes them. In order to understand them, they have to study them. In order to study them, they have to decide which events in history constitute a genocide. Use your head and don't just believe what politicians say.

Precisely. "What events in history." Events that are occuring now, obviously, all the information is not in on. The determination cannot be made.

Gee, that's too bad. That's what genocide is.

Then I suggest you take that up with Merriam-Webster. You're free to think as you wish, but words have meanings, and the idea that it is a systematic attempt is inherent in the meaning of the word.

Moreover, even if it was not, you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate that there has been "widespread death" or "cultural loss" in this circumstance.

Guess I was wrong about it being systematic. Oh well.

How would one decide if it was systematic?

We know that Darfur is pretty much a genocide. How do we see systematic behaviour there that we don't see here?

How much death is widespread death? Do we have numbers for this?

How does one define cultural loss?

Precisely. "What events in history." Events that are occuring now, obviously, all the information is not in on. The determination cannot be made.

Wait. If they can't determine what a genocide is, how are they supposed to come up with policy to prevent them?