NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm actually laughing at you, not "the truth."

Yes, it is true that the Nazis were worse than the Israelis. Boy, you got me. Golly gee.

The morality of either Israel of the third Reich is hardly germane; if Hotwife is just illustrating the potential damage bombardment of a city can cause, in light of the almighty hissyfit the west has thrown because a few Palestininans have been caught in a warzone, I see no point attacking him thus.

In one bombing run... gee, if the IAF with modern weapons were really trying to kill Palestinians, you would think there would be far, far more casualties at a much higher rate...

If they were trying to kill Palestinians, I would expect that there would be dead Palestinians.

There are.

The question of whether or not they kill as many people as NAZI GERMANY is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Like what, that's the new standard of morality? Unless you kill as many as NAZI FUCKING GERMANY you're in the green? Puh-lease.

But you just wanted to troll and say stupid shit and go "lol, I win" rather than make a relevant argument. That's OK. I used to get a kick out of annoying people by being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious too.

The morality of either Israel of the third Reich is hardly germane; if Hotwife is just illustrating the potential damage bombardment of a city can cause, in light of the almighty hissyfit the west has thrown because a few Palestininans have been caught in a warzone, I see no point attacking him thus.

TOTAL FUCKING WAR. Stop comparing TOTAL WAR with the current situation.

Jesus.....

If they were trying to kill Palestinians, I would expect that there would be dead Palestinians.

There are.

The question of whether or not they kill as many people as NAZI GERMANY is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Like what, that's the new standard of morality? Unless you kill as many as NAZI FUCKING GERMANY you're in the green? Puh-lease.

But you just wanted to troll and say stupid shit and go "lol, I win" rather than make a relevant argument. That's OK. I used to get a kick out of annoying people by being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious too.

I'm not discussing morality. Anyone who had the slightest inkling of what modern weaponry can do in terms of killing people wholesale compared to the technology of WW II would know that the Israelis are not engaged in a massacre.

You're missing the point entirely, and taking the argument into some Nazi morality schtick.

The point is merely a technological one.

TOTAL FUCKING WAR. Stop comparing TOTAL WAR with the current situation.

Jesus.....

I'm comparing technological capabilities.

Jesus...

TOTAL FUCKING WAR. Stop comparing TOTAL WAR with the current situation.

Jesus.....

Why? Given the disproportionate response the majority of British media have made to the conflict, you'd be easily forgiven for thinking the four horsemen had called up a few mates and raised Biblical hell.

Why? Given the disproportionate response the majority of British media have made to the conflict, you'd be easily forgiven for thinking the four horsemen had called up a few mates and raised Biblical hell.

Do you mean disproportionate response in terms of coverage or in terms of being biased in its reporting?
Because I haven't seen much bias - just reporting of what's happening in the conflict area and the coverage I feel is fairly proportionate in that the conflict zone represents a symbological conflict between large groups of theologically different people... not to mention another humanitarian crisis for the world to deal with.

Hotwife, I was the "someone" that you incorrectly quoted. I said that the IDF trying to eradicate Hamas was a bit like the British army trying to eradicate the IRA.

Yootopia did his usual one-line dismissal about it not being remotely similar and then you went on this big tangent about the bombing of Belfast in the Blitz.
I'm not suggesting that you read the whole thread but maybe trying to accurately read the last few pages would help.
N.A.S. I don't think that I agree with you on peace at gunpoint - not when terrorism is involved. If you aint got nothing, you aint got nothing to lose. An organisation can exist using guerilla tactics and until it achieves its demands it can operate for a very long time if it has support from a section of the population. This is a war that can't be conventionally "won"

Do you mean disproportionate response in terms of coverage or in terms of being biased in its reporting?
Because I haven't seen much bias - just reporting of what's happening in the conflict area and the coverage I feel is fairly proportionate in that the conflict zone represents a symbological conflict between large groups of theologically different people.

It's the way the news frames the whole thing. You would think that

a) all of the Palestinian-reported casualty reports are true (which we know by experience in Jenin that they are completely unreliable)

b) the IAF is carpet-bombing the entire area into rubble

c) the Israeli Army is exclusively shooting women and children

d) the Israelis have it on paper that they've planned genocide

Hotwife, I was the "someone" that you incorrectly quoted. I said that the IDF trying to eradicate Hamas was a bit like the British army trying to eradicate the IRA.

Yootopia did his usual one-line dismissal about it not being remotely similar and then you went on this big tangent about the bombing of Belfast in the Blitz.
I'm not suggesting that you read the whole thread but maybe trying to accurately read the last few pages would help.
N.A.S. I don't think that I agree with you on peace at gunpoint - not when terrorism is involved. If you aint got nothing, you aint got nothing to lose. An organisation can exist using guerilla tactics and until it achieves its demands it can operate for a very long time if it has support from a section of the population. This is a war that can't be conventionally "won"

It's nothing like the UK and Northern Ireland. It's you that brought the tangent to Ireland.

I'm not discussing morality. Anyone who had the slightest inkling of what modern weaponry can do in terms of killing people wholesale compared to the technology of WW II would know that the Israelis are not engaged in a massacre.

300 dead children sounds kind of like a massacre to me.

Just because it's not as stupidly bloody and prolific as Nazi Germany's tactics means jack shit. It's completely irrelevant.

You're missing the point entirely, and taking the argument into some Nazi morality schtick.

oh, what is the argument then...

The point is merely a technological one.

lol

My bad, I thought you were talking about the subject at hand. Instead you were just pointing out that weapons today are more lethal than WWII weaponry.

Huh. OK. Well, I'll just point out that they're more accurate, and not used in the same way as in WWII, hence war has fewer casualties in general.

I'm not saying your attempt that you didn't try to make to justify Israel by comparing them to Nazis is wrong, mind you. I'm just talking about weapons and shit. I win!

I'm not saying your attempt that you didn't try to make to justify Israel by comparing them to Nazis is wrong, mind you. I'm just talking about weapons and shit. I win!

I win because you make random assumptions about what I post, instead of reading my post.

I'm saying it's pretty obvious to anyone with knowledge of how modern weapons work that they aren't engaged in a massacre.

BTW, on the subject of 300 children, I bet you believed the Palestinians when they said that thousands were killed in Jenin, mostly women and children, and that you didn't believe the ICRC and Amnesty International reports afterwards that showed that only 45 to 56 people were killed, mostly fighting age males.

Right now, you would be an idiot to believe the Palestinian casualty reports.

No Hotwife, you are trying to swing th ediscussion around to military capability when others were discussing the possibility of ending the war.

No Hotwife, you are trying to swing th ediscussion around to military capability when others were discussing the possibility of ending the war.

At the rate things are going, in a week, Hamas members will either be dead or captured. It's almost finished in Gaza.

It's the way the news frames the whole thing. You would think that

a) all of the Palestinian-reported casualty reports are true (which we know by experience in Jenin that they are completely unreliable)

b) the IAF is carpet-bombing the entire area into rubble

c) the Israeli Army is exclusively shooting women and children

d) the Israelis have it on paper that they've planned genocide

Utter shite!.. BBC, Sky and C4 have always been clear to distinguish between confirmed reports (which can't be verified because the IDF won't allow independant international investigators in the conflict zone) and the unconfirmed reports from Palestinian hospitals and Hamas.

I've never once got the impression that the IDF is 'carpet bombing' Gaza - I have always got the impression that the IDF are continually bombarding different positions throught the area with artillery shells and some long-range tank fire. Can you cite any circumstance where the British media have made or suggested any such claim?

Your third point is just idiotic - or perhaps you got this information from those friends you spoke to during your American Presidential Elections? Again - cite please where British media has once suggested or reported that only women and children are being shot by the IDF?

Both sides have extremist elements and both of these elements have most certainly decided that the only way to 'win' is to wipe the other side off the face of the world. You however are claiming that you've got the impression from British media reporting that Israel is out to commit genocide - so please cite where you got these impressions from.

At the rate things are going, in a week, Hamas members will either be dead or captured. It's almost finished in Gaza.

And a short while after that, the rockets or other attacks will start again.

Utter shite!.. BBC, Sky and C4 have always been clear to distinguish between confirmed reports (which can't be verified because the IDF won't allow independant international investigators in the conflict zone) and the unconfirmed reports from Palestinian hospitals and Hamas.

I've never once got the impression that the IDF is 'carpet bombing' Gaza - I have always got the impression that the IDF are continually bombarding different positions throught the area with artillery shells and some long-range tank fire. Can you cite any circumstance where the British media have made or suggested any such claim?

Your third point is just idiotic - or perhaps you got this information from those friends you spoke to during your American Presidential Elections? Again - cite please where British media has once suggested or reported that only women and children are being shot by the IDF?

Both sides have extremist elements and both of these elements have most certainly decided that the only way to 'win' is to wipe the other side off the face of the world. You however are claiming that you've got the impression from British media reporting that Israel is out to commit genocide - so please cite where you got these impressions from.

Unconfirmed reports on casualty counts should not be reported.

Unconfirmed reports of women and children killed should not be reported.

In earlier days, news organizations practiced "journalism" - that is, they only reported things they could confirm.

Nowadays, to get the ad revenue, or make a political point, news organizations report things that are not confirmed, and cover their asses by saying "these are unconfirmed reports".

Well, it's an unconfirmed report that there are Martians on Earth...

Reporting unconfirmed numbers only serves an inflammatory purpose, and is not journalism.

And a short while after that, the rockets or other attacks will start again.

Not if Hamas members are dead or captured, and the Israelis subjugate Gaza.

And a short while after that, the rockets or other attacks will start again.

Exactly, Hotwife seems to think that defeating Hamas will result in "it all being over" and that must be one of the silliest things he thinks - surely he doesn't actually believe that it will all end after the IDF 'defeats' Hamas?

Exactly, Hotwife seems to think that defeating Hamas will result in "it all being over" and that must be one of the silliest things he thinks - surely he doesn't actually believe that it will all end after the IDF 'defeats' Hamas?

You'll notice the Palestinians in the West Bank are suitably cowed.

Once Hamas members are dead or captured, and the borders permanently secured against tunneling, how will any future resistance get any weapons?

Eh?

They'll be too busy trying to rebuild their homes.

I win because you make random assumptions about what I post, instead of reading my post.

I'm saying it's pretty obvious to anyone with knowledge of how modern weapons work that they aren't engaged in a massacre.

See, now we're back to how you're making an attempt to morally justify Israel by comparing them favorably to Nazis.

I mean how you're not making that attempt, at all. You only brought up a Nazi attack because you just enjoy talking about weaponry.

BTW, on the subject of 300 children, I bet you believed the Palestinians when they said that thousands were killed in Jenin

I believe UNICEF (http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-14-voa28.cfm) about the 300 children. I also believe you're trying to change the subject now that you're only remaining 'argument' is "lol, I win!"

You'll notice the Palestinians in the West Bank are suitably cowed.

Once Hamas members are dead or captured, and the borders permanently secured against tunneling, how will any future resistance get any weapons?

Eh?

They'll be too busy trying to rebuild their homes.

They built a big wall around the West Bank and snipe people who wander too close... yes... that seems very... well it seems more like they're just ignoring the situation rather than solving the situation. Whilst I won't deny that the West Bank does seem a lot more subdued, I have no doubt that the same thoughts and ideologies that brought about Hamas and plenty of other terrorist groups will come back into play again in the future with regards to Israel/Palestine.

N.A.S. I don't think that I agree with you on peace at gunpoint - not when terrorism is involved. If you aint got nothing, you aint got nothing to lose. An organisation can exist using guerilla tactics and until it achieves its demands it can operate for a very long time if it has support from a section of the population. This is a war that can't be conventionally "won"

I'll concede that I didn't go into much detail, but if you can force the two parties to the table with strength of arms, why stop at a truce? A long term deal that results in a two state solution might be realizable if both parties have everything to lose if they break it.

Dealing with Israel is easy. Draw a line on the map between the two factions, declare it a DMZ, and kill anyone entering it, settlers, IDF, whatever. If they fire artillery or cruise missiles, level a base in retaliation. Eventually, they'll get the idea, or launch nukes and bring a different sort of peace to the Middle East. I don't think the fire eaters in the upper circles are that stupid, but if they want to commit suicide that badly, I say oblige them.

Dealing with Palestine, a little harder. It would probably involve a lot of police action combined with restoration works and infrastructure. Create a border security cordon. Everyone and anything going in or out gets inspected. No weapons allowed. Humanitarian concerns can be handled by whoever is funding this shebang, but they've got to be done competently and fairly.

Palestine is a mess and if it's going to have a chance of working as a state and not a pseudo anarchy, it will have to be reformed from ground up starting with an Orwellian police state. Deal with Hamas/PLA, whichever. Tell them that if they want a place in the new set up, they either shape up and play ball, or they can push up daisies. They may blather that it's a puppet government, but make sure the government posts are open to anyone local who's competent and not a froth mouthed fire eater (reformed ones accepted). They'll bite. The leadership likes their power too much to let it go if there's an easy way in. Once they're in, make it very clear that it will be by new rules, and if they break those rules, there is no hole in the ground that will hide them now that you have their names and faces.

That would be how you'd bring peace to the affair. The downside would be that it would take a huge investment of resources, military assets and being the villain to both sides for years until they finally stop being children.

And that downside is why it'll never happen. Nobody cares enough to invest that sort of time and money.

They built a big wall around the West Bank and snipe people who wander too close... yes... that seems very... well it seems more like they're just ignoring the situation rather than solving the situation. Whilst I won't deny that the West Bank does seem a lot more subdued, I have no doubt that the same thoughts and ideologies that brought about Hamas and plenty of other terrorist groups will come back into play again in the future with regards to Israel/Palestine.

If they're surrounded, and can't get materials to make rockets, there can't be rockets.

If they're surrounded, and can't get materials to make rockets, there can't be rockets.

True but the underlying reason for conflict is still there so there will inevitably still be violence committed toward Israel in that respect. Also - you haven't cited any sources where you claimed to have gotten the impression about a few things that I think you're talking bull about.

What are the root causes for Hamas' attacks on Israel?

Could we say that they are the same as the root causes of terrorism?

Could we say that they are the same as the root causes of terrorism?

How can you explain what a "root cause for terrorism" is? That's entirely too open.

True but the underlying reason for conflict is still there so there will inevitably still be violence committed toward Israel in that respect. Also - you haven't cited any sources where you claimed to have gotten the impression about a few things that I think you're talking bull about.

I need a source to indicate that reporting unsubstantiated claims from organizations that have a reputation for exaggerating casualty numbers (See Jenin - you can google how much that was faked and exaggerated) is not journalism? I explained why I got that impression, and you obviously didn't read my explanation.

If you can't see it, no amount of links will help you.

In other news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479987,00.html

We can believe the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Human rights groups have accused Israel of unlawfully using white phosphorous shells against populated areas. The weapon can burn anything it touches and is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks.

The Israeli military has said only that it uses munitions in accordance with international law. The International Committee for the Red Cross has said it has no evidence that Israel has improperly used the shells.

How can you explain what a "root cause for terrorism" is? That's entirely too open.

Everyone has a different reason for killing. GoG probably believes it's only the poor and uneducated who do terrorist acts.

I guess that explains the college educated middle class guys who flew airliners into the World Trade Center.

You object to the use of the word 'genocide' (as I do) when referring to the Israeli administration's policy on Gaza/The West Bank, because only those on the fringes of Likud are actually using language that indicates ethnic cleansing/genocide
Stop right there: you claim to "object" to the use of the word "genocide", and then use it, before you've even finished the same sentence? Nobody in Likud is using language that indicates "genocide". The talk of "transfer" (or "ethnic cleansing", to describe it more harshly but quite accurately) is, however, obviously counterproductive to any moves toward peace.
yet you wish to make a silly blanket statement that the entire Palestinian 'side' is motivated towards genocide?
The leadership of Hamas, supported by the majority in Gaza. Not the entire population, of course, but trying to pretend that most of the Palestinians want peace is ignoring the most basic problem in this whole situation.

I need a source to indicate that reporting unsubstantiated claims from organizations that have a reputation for exaggerating casualty numbers (See Jenin - you can google how much that was faked and exaggerated) is not journalism? I explained why I got that impression, and you obviously didn't read my explanation.

If you can't see it, no amount of links will help you.

In other news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479987,00.html

We can believe the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Reporting on the unsubstantiated figures from Hamas whilst at the same time reporting on the 'official' figures from other organisations is reporting and is very different than what you claim - that media sources exclusively used the unsubstantiated figures and put them forward as a verified fact; which would have given you the impression that Israel is killing 1000+ people. You speak bull.

Reporting on the unsubstantiated figures from Hamas whilst at the same time reporting on the 'official' figures from other organisations is reporting and is very different than what you claim - that media sources exclusively used the unsubstantiated figures and put them forward as a verified fact; which would have given you the impression that Israel is killing 1000+ people. You speak bull.

Unsubstantiated numbers should never be reported. You're missing the point.

By reporting ANY unsubstantiated numbers, especially with sources who have traditionally lied (see Jenin) by orders of magnitude, the media are giving the impression that over a thousand, maybe more, mostly women and children, have been killed.

When it's not substantiated, it shouldn't be news.

I never said they put it forward as a verified fact - I said they're reporting this shit and it's unsubstantiated.

That's not bull - reporting unsubstantiated stuff on the news is bull.

Unsubstantiated numbers should never be reported. You're missing the point.

By reporting ANY unsubstantiated numbers, especially with sources who have traditionally lied (see Jenin) by orders of magnitude, the media are giving the impression that over a thousand, maybe more, mostly women and children, have been killed.

When it's not substantiated, it shouldn't be news.

I never said they put it forward as a verified fact - I said they're reporting this shit and it's unsubstantiated.

That's not bull - reporting unsubstantiated stuff on the news is bull.

I disagree - unconfirmed reports are still reports of the situation on the ground and more often than not, it would seem that those unconfirmed reports still carry some truth. Also, needless to say that if reporters were actually allowed in the conflict zone by the IDF then news outlets wouldn't only have Hamas, Palestinian Hospitals and the IDF to quote from.

I disagree - unconfirmed reports are still reports of the situation on the ground and more often than not, it would seem that those unconfirmed reports still carry some truth. Also, needless to say that if reporters were actually allowed in the conflict zone by the IDF then news outlets wouldn't only have Hamas, Palestinian Hospitals and the IDF to quote from.

It's not just the IDF regulating reporters.

If you're in Gaza areas under Hamas control, you won't be reporting without going through Hamas.

Unconfirmed reports based on lies that have been traditionally off by orders of magnitude is not reporting. It's sensationalism.

Reports of casualties by Palestinians more often than not are lies.

See Jenin. And see how the ICRC and Amnesty International both caught them in a massive lie.

It's not just the IDF regulating reporters.

If you're in Gaza areas under Hamas control, you won't be reporting without going through Hamas.

Unconfirmed reports based on lies that have been traditionally off by orders of magnitude is not reporting. It's sensationalism.

Reports of casualties by Palestinians more often than not are lies.

See Jenin. And see how the ICRC and Amnesty International both caught them in a massive lie.

Fair enough - news reporting is sensationalism but from the looks of it, it is unbiased sensationalism at least.
:P

Fair enough - news reporting is sensationalism but from the looks of it, it is unbiased sensationalism at least.
:P

Journalism should report zero unsubstantiated reports. Zero.

Otherwise, it's not news, and it's not journalism. There used to be standards...

We can believe the International Committee of the Red Cross.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5074TO20090108

"The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable."

Stop right there: you claim to "object" to the use of the word "genocide", and then use it, before you've even finished the same sentence?
Read what I've written.

I object to the use of the term 'genocide' being bandied about, thrown at either the Israeli administration or Hamas, because neither group consistantly advocates such extreme behaviour; though both, at times, have had members using language that would indicate such beliefs.

The leadership of Hamas, supported by the majority in Gaza. Not the entire population, of course, but trying to pretend that most of the Palestinians want peace is ignoring the most basic problem in this whole situation.
Not wanting peace =/= wanting genocide.

Moreover, I'd debate whether the majority of Palestinians are perfectly fine with constant war and suffering, happy to forego peaceful existence.

How can you explain what a "root cause for terrorism" is? That's entirely too open.

Rather than attempt to define what one of them might be, I was trying to put together an approach to stop the attacks against Israel by Hamas. As far as I can tell, neither side has made much effort in trying to address why there is violence in the first place, and why it continues.

Trying to bomb the problem out of existence doesn't seem to work.

Perhaps addressing the root causes of the attacks would work. Some research (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dgupta/articles/RootCause.pdf) has been done on the root causes of terrorism. Perhaps we could use some critical analysis of the situation and try to implement policies that would provide long term solutions.

Rather than attempt to define what one of them might be, I was trying to put together an approach to stop the attacks against Israel by Hamas. As far as I can tell, neither side has made much effort in trying to address why there is violence in the first place, and why it continues.

Trying to bomb the problem out of existence doesn't seem to work.

Perhaps addressing the root causes of the attacks would work. Some research (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dgupta/articles/RootCause.pdf) has been done on the root causes of terrorism. Perhaps we could use some critical analysis of the situation and try to implement policies that would provide long term solutions.

Critical analysis of the situation?

Anti-Semite.

I don't know if this has been posted yet:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152009/news/worldnews/israel_shells_un_headquarters_in_gaza_150292.htm
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the military fired artillery shells at the U.N. compound after Hamas militants opened fire from the location. Three people were wounded.

They did apologize for it, though.

Not wanting peace =/= wanting genocide.60 years of occupation and land grab == gradual genocide/ethnic_cleansing

60 years of occupation and land grab == gradual genocide/ethnic_cleansing

Really?


Come on people. Either Israel really sucks at Genocide, or theyre not doing it.

From ABC News:

Israeli Defense Force officials told ABC News that Hamas Interior Minister Said Siam was killed today during an Israeli airstrike on his brothers home in Gaza.

Hamas television is also reporting that Siam was killed in what it says was an air strike that flattened a home in Gaza City. A top aide, Siam’s brother and his brother’s family were also killed, they reported. Siam is considered to be among Hamas’ top five leaders in Gaza.

Well, "flattened" isn't the operative word in an airstrike. "Cratered" is more like it. Or, alternatively, "2000 pound curb stomp".

If they run out of local Hamas leaders in Gaza, who will surrender?

Read what I've written.
I did. You immediately followed your "objection" to the use of the word with-- a use of the word, specifically throwing it at the Israeli side.
I object to the use of the term 'genocide' being bandied about, thrown at either the Israeli administration or Hamas, because neither group consistantly advocates such extreme behaviour; though both, at times, have had members using language that would indicate such beliefs.
That is doubly dishonest. NO party in the Israeli administration has ever advocated genocide. Hamas, on the other hand, DOES advocate genocide, in its founding documents and its consistent refusal to repudiate that position.

Not wanting peace =/= wanting genocide.
True. The majority of the Palestinians do not advocate genocide (well, no pollsters has ever outright asked "Would you favor killing all the Jews?" but, when asked about possible end-states which involve a continued existence of an Israel that has been given back some of the lands, majorities do indicate their acceptance of that). However, they do not find genocide advocates to be outside the pale, just part of the respectable circle of "diversity of viewpoints" that they can even vote for.
Moreover, I'd debate whether the majority of Palestinians are perfectly fine with constant war and suffering, happy to forego peaceful existence.
They are under the delusion that continuing the violence is somehow going to end their suffering, and "fellow travellers" on the left only help to feed this delusion. Strong majorities of Palestinians always say they are in favor of continuing the violence. Until that changes, they will just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into the hole.

We have a modern army, and we've been hit for more than 13 people. We're farther away of course, but that's still a pretty decent counter-whatever ratio.

Who are 'we'?

Is this an America thing? I'm not sure Hamas has 'hit us' for any number, have they? And what 'terror' attacks we've had, have originated IN this country, even if the people were from elsewhere.

You're comparing locked borders, and an asymmetric war... with pre 9/11 America (apparently).

Not if Hamas members are dead or captured, and the Israelis subjugate Gaza.

Don't you claim you served in a military, somewhere? That was you, wasn't it?

I'm finding it hard to reconcile someone with actual experience... saying things as naive as these.

Enemy combatants are not always clearly marked. Hamas don't have Hamas jackets that they are compelled to wear during military activity. Israel can't 'kill or capture' Hamas members... because they don't know who Hamas members are.

Will they get some?

Sure - the ones they can identify.

As for the 'subjugate Gaza' clause - even the French maintained a resistance under occupation by one of the most well-organised subjugating powers in two thousand years. There are ALWAYS partisans.

Seriously - crack a history book sometime.

Don't you claim you served in a military, somewhere? That was you, wasn't it?

I'm finding it hard to reconcile someone with actual experience... saying things as naive as these.

Enemy combatants are not always clearly marked. Hamas don't have Hamas jackets that they are compelled to wear during military activity. Israel can't 'kill or capture' Hamas members... because they don't know who Hamas members are.

Will they get some?

Sure - the ones they can identify.

As for the 'subjugate Gaza' clause - even the French maintained a resistance under occupation by one of the most well-organised subjugating powers in two thousand years. There are ALWAYS partisans.

Seriously - crack a history book sometime.

While you are to a certain extent right (there are always partisans), if you can get them down to a controllable number, you can keep the lid on the problem with police, rather than military, actions. This was the situation throughout the Northern Irish "Troubles". While terrorist acts were occurring and blood did flow, general life continued unabated.

Which is the best that can be hoped for from a military solution.

The leadership of Hamas, supported by the majority in Gaza. Not the entire population, of course, but trying to pretend that most of the Palestinians want peace is ignoring the most basic problem in this whole situation.

...the occupation and Israeli expansion.

Not if Hamas members are dead or captured, and the Israelis subjugate Gaza..

....and seeing as they couldn't do that when they occupied it for over 4 decades, how are they going to do it now?

When it's not substantiated, it shouldn't be news.


What are you going to do, revoke free press?

'News' is information. It isn't necessarily accurate, or even true. It is based on BEST intelligence. If your source says "1500 dead", that's what you print.

If another source then says... "Err, surely you mean 6 dead", THAT is what you should print.

But the one correcting the other, doesn't mean you shouldn't report the first.

Reports of casualties by Palestinians more often than not are lies.


Which you keep saying, but not showing.

You preach, you don't debate.

...the occupation and Israeli expansion.

Every Palestinian knows that if Hamas and Fatah were to somehow completely give up without getting anything out of it from Israel, they'd all be reduced to second-class kaffirs like black South Africans were even when the ANC was in terrorism mode.

I'm surprised to see how naive you are. Gaza is a very, very tiny area. If you seal off the Egyptian border with an Israeli buffer zone, the rest of the border is far too easily controlled. You can also permanently shut down the Gaza airport.

With no means of getting much in the way of weapons in, there's not much opportunity for resistance. And if you wall the place in, and don't allow them to come into Israel, there's even less chance.

Hamas in Gaza is also under unique pressure to fight to the end - not because they really want to die, but because Iran is threatening to cut off the flow of weapons if they fail or quit. You lose a lot of guys that way, and we're already in that endgame right now.

Lose your leaders, nearly all of your fighters, all of your weapons, and get walled in with no more supply of weapons, and your patron (who is using you as a proxy) gives up on you - well, you had better think of a way to peacefully co-exist, because resistance sucks.

Most French cooperated with the Nazis. There was no organized resistance at all until the British SOE actually organized it - otherwise, there would have been no French Resistance.

Read a history book sometime.

Which you keep saying, but not showing.

You preach, you don't debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

What are you going to do, revoke free press?

'News' is information. It isn't necessarily accurate, or even true. It is based on BEST intelligence. If your source says "1500 dead", that's what you print.

If another source then says... "Err, surely you mean 6 dead", THAT is what you should print.

But the one correcting the other, doesn't mean you shouldn't report the first.

Note Kimchi hasn't raised a stinker about Israel defying its own Supreme Court with the media blockade of Gaza. Tell you much?

Note Kimchi hasn't raised a stinker about Israel defying its own Supreme Court with the media blockade of Gaza. Tell you much?

You mean Hamas allows free press inside Gaza?

here's a shocker - if you want to get shot, just report something they don't want to hear.

While you are to a certain extent right (there are always partisans), if you can get them down to a controllable number, you can keep the lid on the problem with police, rather than military, actions. This was the situation throughout the Northern Irish "Troubles". While terrorist acts were occurring and blood did flow, general life continued unabated.

Which is the best that can be hoped for from a military solution.

A couple of little points.

1) The situation did generally continue, and terrorist attacks did occur. Occupying Gaza wouldn't kill Hamas, it would just make it (further) underground, and it wouldn't stop strikes.

2) During the 'Troubles', military action was ongoing - it was just lowlevel. Israel would have to maintain army presence in Gaza indefinitely, and it wouldn't remove the threat. Hell - we don't even need to look at Ireland for that... it's still happening in Iraq, literally, today.

3) Responses to 'terror' differ. Compare the British responses to IRA actions, and the scale of the US response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

Poisoning the well. Logical fallacy.

Learn to debate.

Unconfirmed reports on casualty counts should not be reported.

Unconfirmed reports of women and children killed should not be reported.
Yes, they should - when one side effectively stops journalists from doing their jobs.

I see no problem, as long as the media make sure to include a disclaimer that it's unconfirmed.

What are the root causes for Hamas' attacks on Israel?

Could we say that they are the same as the root causes of terrorism?
Maybe, but I'm not sure there's a direct parallell. Hamas is born out of resistance to an occupation, and is a resistance movement at heart. It's not fighting out of the desire for political change, but what it views as a battle for survival.

I would say that the root causes are the continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

In other news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479987,00.html
Human rights groups have accused Israel of unlawfully using white phosphorous shells against populated areas. The weapon can burn anything it touches and is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks.

The Israeli military has said only that it uses munitions in accordance with international law. The International Committee for the Red Cross has said it has no evidence that Israel has improperly used the shells.
We can believe the International Committee of the Red Cross.

You know what's funny about that?

Israel may have fired white phosphorous shells into a UN compound.

The head of the UN aid agency in Gaza has accused the Israeli military of firing what was believed to be white phosphorus shells at its compound.

John Ging told the BBC that in spite of discussions with the Israeli liaison, "three rounds that emitted phosphorus" hit a corner of the Gaza City facility.

Israel's military said all weapons it used complied with international law.

Phosphorus shells are legal to use as a battlefield obscurant, but are banned from use where civilians may be harmed.

Human Rights Watch says it has observed "dozens and dozens" of white phosphorus shells being fired by Israel at the Gaza Strip - a heavily populated civilian area where its use is prohibited.

Palestinian medical officials said they had treated large numbers of casualties with unusual burns that were extremely painful to treat and could be consistent with exposure to white phosphorus (WP).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm

Confirmation would be proof positive.

Poisoning the well. Logical fallacy.

Learn to debate.

Proof that they lie about casualty figures and like to imply the Israelis engage in massacres.

Looks like proof to me, and is not poisoning the well.

Poisoning the well. Logical fallacy.

Learn to debate.

ah, no. You asked, he answered.

You mean Hamas allows free press inside Gaza?

here's a shocker - if you want to get shot, just report something they don't want to hear.

Talking about Israel, not Hamas. Who has the Supreme Court that declared the blockade of media coverage to be illegal? Who's the one with the actual military power to enforce the blockade? Who's touting itself as the Bastion of Democracy in the Middle East?

You're not going to say it's Hamas for all of the above, are you?

Seriously Kimchi, your Ace Ventura impressions are rather tiresome.

I'm surprised to see how naive you are. Gaza is a very, very tiny area. If you seal off the Egyptian border with an Israeli buffer zone, the rest of the border is far too easily controlled. You can also permanently shut down the Gaza airport.

With no means of getting much in the way of weapons in, there's not much opportunity for resistance. And if you wall the place in, and don't allow them to come into Israel, there's even less chance.

Hamas in Gaza is also under unique pressure to fight to the end - not because they really want to die, but because Iran is threatening to cut off the flow of weapons if they fail or quit. You lose a lot of guys that way, and we're already in that endgame right now.

Lose your leaders, nearly all of your fighters, all of your weapons, and get walled in with no more supply of weapons, and your patron (who is using you as a proxy) gives up on you - well, you had better think of a way to peacefully co-exist, because resistance sucks.

Most French cooperated with the Nazis. There was no organized resistance at all until the British SOE actually organized it - otherwise, there would have been no French Resistance.

Read a history book sometime.

I assume this is to me, since it makes a couple of hamfisted attempts at utilising my own rhetoric.

So - forgive me if it wasn't, but I'm going to answer as though it was intended that I should.

The scale of the country is irrelevent. The suppliers of weapons are irrelevent. One of the sternest resistances that the huge Roman Empire had to contend with, was a bunch of heathens running around on an island you could now cover end-to-end in a day of driving. Isolated.

Because resistance movements use the weapons and tactics that are available to them. And if that involves rockets aimed across borders, that's what you see... and if it involves building bombs, that's what you see... and if it involves homemade nitrate fertiliser explosives... that's what you see.

Even a casual look at history would have shown you this, which is why I'm questioning your qualification to debate this particular topic. Look at Russian partisans fighting asymmetric wars in situations where the resistance was isolated to one CITY.

A couple of little points.

1) The situation did generally continue, and terrorist attacks did occur. Occupying Gaza wouldn't kill Hamas, it would just make it (further) underground, and it wouldn't stop strikes.

2) During the 'Troubles', military action was ongoing - it was just lowlevel. Israel would have to maintain army presence in Gaza indefinitely, and it wouldn't remove the threat. Hell - we don't even need to look at Ireland for that... it's still happening in Iraq, literally, today.

3) Responses to 'terror' differ. Compare the British responses to IRA actions, and the scale of the US response.

Sorry, but patrols, light weapons, arrests, trials and open operations? That's not military action; even if they use military for it, it's still policing. It's as far down as military ops can drive an insurgency; after that it's police methods or negotiation.

ah, no. You asked, he answered.

No, he didn't. He cited an example from a different engagement, as though it was relevent to this situation. He said Palestinians lie 'more often than not'... and his evidence is an isolated instance.

That doesn't prove that any other Palestinian figure, ever, has been wrong. It certainly doesn't affect the validity of numbers HERE.

What he's doing, is poisoning the well. He's saying the source is bad, and thus the data is bad... but he's providing no evidence that THIS data is bad.


Hell - if we really want to split hairs - his source doesn't even show that anyone lied in THAT case, either - it just shows that the 'official death toll' doesn't match claims. Which doesn't mean those claims were actually wrong.

Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan ...the most basic problem in this whole situation

....the occupation and Israeli expansion.

Before 1967, when there was no occupation, and Israel was not expanding, the problem was the same. I will keep pointing that out to you until you get it. Returning to the pre-1967 situation, without a change in Palestinian attitudes, would increase Israel's casualties, and since the Israelis are crazy but not stupid, it is not going to happen. Last year I was somewhat hopeful that a "peace through exhaustion" might take hold; right now, I am less so, but perhaps once the Israelis pull out the heat of emotions will subside and the Palestinians will wonder why they started this.
To some extent I do agree with you: Israel ought, at the same time or very soon, confront the most assholish of the settlers and get them out of there, starting with the worst to make it plain that they all must go. Otherwise Abbas is just going to look useless to the West Bankers, and Gaza might again become the least of the Israelis' problems. But for God's sake stop trying to tell me that the "occupation" was the start of this problem, when I am old enough to remember otherwise.

No, he didn't. He cited an example from a different engagement, as though it was relevent to this situation. He said Palestinians lie 'more often than not'... and his evidence is an isolated instance.

That doesn't prove that any other Palestinian figure, ever, has been wrong. It certainly doesn't affect the validity of numbers HERE.

What he's doing, is poisoning the well. He's saying the source is bad, and thus the data is bad... but he's providing no evidence that THIS data is bad.


Hell - if we really want to split hairs - his source doesn't even show that anyone lied in THAT case, either - it just shows that the 'official death toll' doesn't match claims. Which doesn't mean those claims were actually wrong.

There were two separate investigations by the ICRC and Amnesty - which show there was no massacre.

I'm willing to bet money - that if the ICRC does an investigation after the Gaza incident, that casualty rates will be far lower than the Palestinians have claimed, especially civilian casualties.

Sorry, but patrols, light weapons, arrests, trials and open operations? That's not military action; even if they use military for it,


Curious... I'd say that's exactly... one could say, definitively, what it is.


...it's still policing. It's as far down as military ops can drive an insurgency; after that it's police methods or negotiation.

Yes. Which is why that scenario won't work... just as it never has worked.

There were two separate investigations by the ICRC and Amnesty - which show there was no massacre.


You really don't understand, do you?

What they 'showed' - was that they couldn't confirm a massacre.

That's not the same thing at all.


I'm willing to bet money - that if the ICRC does an investigation after the Gaza incident, that casualty rates will be far lower than the Palestinians have claimed, especially civilian casualties.

Your 'bet' is not evidence. And, based on what you've presented so far, it's not really worth considering.

You mean Hamas allows free press inside Gaza?

here's a shocker - if you want to get shot, just report something they don't want to hear.

Oooh, I'd like to wee your examples of that happening to western journalists!

Proof that they lie about casualty figures and like to imply the Israelis engage in massacres.


Only if you're not very good at critical analysis of evidence.

What you presented doesn't prove that anyone lied. At all.

It doesn't prove that they 'like to imply' anything.


Those two factors aside - assuming for a second that the source actually said what you WISH it said - it still doesn't prove anything about the current struggle, the current figures, or the current intentions of Israel vis-a-vis massacres.


Looks like proof to me, and is not poisoning the well.

You don't understand what 'poisoning the well' means, do you?

So far today...

...Israel has bombed the UNWRA HQ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm) in Gaza, possibly with white phosphorus. Ehud Olmert has apologized for the attack.

...Palestinian sources say that the number of dead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828884.stm) have passed 1,000. Of course, it "is impossible to independently confirm casualty figures as Israel has refused to allow international journalists to enter Gaza. "

...the Hamas interior minister is killed.

...two hospitals in Gaza City are hit by Israeli fire: the al-Quds hospital and a Red Crescent hospital, the Red Cross says. Israeli troops kept firefighters from going to the hospital until Jakob Kellenberger met with Barak and Livni in Tel Aviv.

Returning to the pre-1967 situation, without a change in Palestinian attitudes, would increase Israel's casualties, and since the Israelis are crazy but not stupid, it is not going to happen.
As in, giving up a desire for a Palestinian state?

two hospitals in Gaza City are hit by Israeli fire: the al-Quds hospital and a Red Crescent hospital, the Red Cross says. Israeli troops kept firefighters from going to the hospital until Jakob Kellenberger met with Barak and Livni in Tel Aviv.

Source? I've heard of this earlier today, but I'd like to read more about it. Tried checking google, but no luck.

Oooh, I'd like to wee your examples of that happening to western journalists!

Watch, he'll bring up Daniel Pearl even though it'll have absolutely nothing to do with Hamas.

Source? I've heard of this earlier today, but I'd like to read more about it. Tried checking google, but no luck.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jyFkuDwRRn48sN_QplJkot535nQg

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFtVdO5p6benIXGgQQCrBIWoeRKQ

The stories diverge at some points, even these two both from the AP. No surprise, as the problem with verification still persists. It's best to see if the picture has become more clear tomorrow. Google "Al-Quds hospital" for results.

Links and words
Thanks.
Also, shit...

Links and wordsThanks.
Also, shit...

:tongue:

PA will ask UNSC to use force if truce bid fails (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950869475&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Now, there is no way the US would not veto such a resolution, but I still have to say this to the UN:

Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT authorize force against Israel. It will either destroy the UN's credibility (in the event that the mission is a total faliure) or provide the spark for World War III (should Israel resort to nuclear weapons).

Now, I'm a pretty strong Israel supporter, but that's not why I'm saying this. I'm saying this because average UN task force v. the IDF would result in the defeat of said task force. It would be even shorter if the UN also tried to force Hamas to stop fighting.

Actually, that might help after all. I've changed my mind. UN, authorize a task force with orders to enforce a ceasefire and disarm both the IDF and Hamas. After all, the best place to bury the hatchet is in someone's skull.

PA will ask UNSC to use force if truce bid fails (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950869475&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Now, there is no way the US would not veto such a resolution, but I still have to say this to the UN:

Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT authorize force against Israel. It will either destroy the UN's credibility (in the event that the mission is a total faliure) or provide the spark for World War III (should Israel resort to nuclear weapons).

Now, I'm a pretty strong Israel supporter, but that's not why I'm saying this. I'm saying this because average UN task force v. the IDF would result in the defeat of said task force. It would be even shorter if the UN also tried to force Hamas to stop fighting.

Actually, that might help after all. I've changed my mind. UN, authorize a task force with orders to enforce a ceasefire and disarm both the IDF and Hamas. After all, the best place to bury the hatchet is in someone's skull.

It sounds like a good idea, to me. I think you're (wayyyy) over-imagining the potential fallout, and I think the US (being SO far up Israel's ass) would do their damnedest to shoot such a gesture down, but an impartial force 'policing' the area is a tried and true way of dealing with the worst excesses of these sorts of situations.

What you don't take into consideration is that Hamas, the terrorists that rule and opress Gazans, use their homes, hospitals, schools and mosques as places to bombard Israel with rockets. They do not value their civilian's lives the way Israel values theirs. Also, keep in mind that Hamas ended the cease-fire in the first place and barraged Israel with 70 rockets in one day. What would you do if your neighbors were launching rockets at innocent people? Before you say anything, Israel is trying to destroy rocket launching sites and military commanders which, as I've said before, are hidden within civilian buildings.:rolleyes:Try to research before you post.

Who are 'we'?

Is this an America thing? I'm not sure Hamas has 'hit us' for any number, have they? And what 'terror' attacks we've had, have originated IN this country, even if the people were from elsewhere.

You're comparing locked borders, and an asymmetric war... with pre 9/11 America (apparently).

I wasn't referring to Hamas, but to similar groups, that have attacked us (us being the US).

But yeah, you're right, its not the same thing. And we haven't been hit really since 9/11, so you make a good point.

You know, we tend to take sides and thus chose the media that reinforces (and forms) our viewpoint. Thus we often parrot out cliches that are often merely factional propaganda. George Orwell had a great deal to say on this when he wrote "Politics and the English Language" (1946). Here is what a Berkley academic had to say on revisiting Orwell's thoughts:
Getting inside us
Even Orwell would be surprised at the sophistication of modern propaganda.
By Orville Schell
Los Angeles Times, November 4, 2007
George Orwell, who did so much to call attention to the ways in which the totalitarian movements of the last century corrupted political life, understood almost intuitively how propaganda was fundamental in their success. Drawing on his experiences with fascism in the Spanish Civil War and his knowledge of Russian communism, he examined how, by controlling language and discourse, and through the relentless repetition of half-truths and lies, official propaganda could sway and control the thinking of ordinary people.

In "Politics and the English Language" (1946), perhaps his most influential essay, Orwell held language out as a critical "instrument for expressing rather than for concealing or preventing thought." By pointing out the increasingly complex ways in which corrupted language precipitates chains of cause and effect that lead to corrupted thinking and distorted politics, his essay has become one of our most durable literary monuments on language and propaganda. (The term "propaganda" was born in 1622, when Pope Gregory XV established a committee of cardinals, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, or Congregation for Propagating the Faith. It was established much as departments of propaganda were later established by communist parties: to create orthodoxy by making sure priests were properly inoculated with canonic doctrine before being dispatched on evangelistic missions abroad.)
As in Catholicism, in which the wrong use of words could bring charges of apostasy and the church tried to control what was said and written, Orwell worried over the political effects of governmental control of language.

"A man may take a drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks," he wrote. "It is the same thing that is happening with the English language. If one gets rid of these habits, one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration. ... Above all what is needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around."

If Orwell were to return to our post-1984 world, it would be interesting to know what he might make of the situation. For, as horrified as he was during the middle of the last century by what he saw of propaganda's capacity to distort and corrupt, he nonetheless retained naive optimism in the inviolability of the individual soul, where, he believed, human qualities such as love, loyalty and devotion might still find refuge. Indeed, he almost quaintly believed that though "they" could control everything in the external world, "they can't get inside you."
What Orwell could not know in the 1930s and 1940s was that totalitarianism and its propaganda apparatus would ultimately succeed in penetrating "the inner heart" of individuals. Nor could he have known how much more sophisticated propaganda was destined to become -- how in the end of the 20th century, latter-day avatars would graft onto this already dark art a whole host of new and extremely powerful elements.

Orville Schell, the former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, is the director of the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-schell4nov04,0,977371.story

It sounds like a good idea, to me. I think you're (wayyyy) over-imagining the potential fallout, and I think the US (being SO far up Israel's ass) would do their damnedest to shoot such a gesture down, but an impartial force 'policing' the area is a tried and true way of dealing with the worst excesses of these sorts of situations.

After the ceasefire starts, sure. He was talking about doing it if the ceasefire is rejected, which implies using force to bring it about.

I wasn't referring to Hamas, but to similar groups, that have attacked us (us being the US).

But yeah, you're right, its not the same thing. And we haven't been hit really since 9/11, so you make a good point.

Ah. We're on the same page, now. :)

Ah. We're on the same page, now. :)

Is the reason Hamas is going heavy with the rockets because they have a hard time getting into Israel now?

I've heard about a big wall, attempts at tunnels, heavy check points. Has all of that been effective in preventing close range small-arms attacks in Israel, and Hamas is going to rockets?

Or have rockets been the main weapon for Hamas for a while?

After the ceasefire starts, sure. He was talking about doing it if the ceasefire is rejected, which implies using force to bring it about.

What's the worst that could happen?

Israel fires on the UN? That's happening already.

If the UN put a serious peacekeeping force in and enforced a DMZ, I'm not convinced that Israel would really want to push it too hard, even with the US being their significant-other. I'm pretty sure it would hold Hamas from doing much of anything - so it would really depend on what kind of psycho mood the Israeli fatcats were in.

If cool heads prevailed... peace on both sides. Of a sort.

If hot heads prevailed... I don't know, I don't think the Israeli hostshots would really push it. I'm pretty sure the US would be leaning on them like hell (if it somehow got passed over and above the US bias) to chill out. It wouldn't be worth the diplomatic tensions.

What's the worst that could happen?

Israel fires on the UN? That's happening already.

If the UN put a serious peacekeeping force in and enforced a DMZ, I'm not convinced that Israel would really want to push it too hard, even with the US being their significant-other. I'm pretty sure it would hold Hamas from doing much of anything - so it would really depend on what kind of psycho mood the Israeli fatcats were in.

If cool heads prevailed... peace on both sides. Of a sort.

If hot heads prevailed... I don't know, I don't think the Israeli hostshots would really push it. I'm pretty sure the US would be leaning on them like hell (if it somehow got passed over and above the US bias) to chill out. It wouldn't be worth the diplomatic tensions.

What's the worst that could happen? Israel fires on the UN, UN fires back, UN refuses to apologize, Israel calls in reinforcements and treats the peacekeepers as hostile.

Extremely unlikely, I'll admit. But Israel's patience with Hamas has run out. They will not stop fighting until they can be sure that Hamas will no longer be shooting rockets into Israeli territory. And if a UN peacekeeper force got in the way, Israel might try to remove that obstacle.

The papers are suggesting that a truce is close and that Israel is considering Egypt's peace plan seriously. Maybe Israeli strategists this operation into Gaza will have succeeded in weakening Hamas to a point where its organisation is in tatters and that the general Palestinian population will have learnt a lesson.
The lack of any really significant military assistance for Hamas from Arab neighbours (with the exception of Hezbollah's rockets from Lebanon) must dishearten Hamas. Israel is in a superior position militarily.
However, this military victory may be very costly to both parties. War? What is it good for?
Here's what Europa has to say on the matter:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BxDOSxtBnbE&NR=1

War? What is it good for?

Absolutely nothin!

*dances until being sacked by many many people*

Is the reason Hamas is going heavy with the rockets because they have a hard time getting into Israel now?

I've heard about a big wall, attempts at tunnels, heavy check points. Has all of that been effective in preventing close range small-arms attacks in Israel, and Hamas is going to rockets?

Or have rockets been the main weapon for Hamas for a while?

Rocket attacks are an artifact of the Israeli incursion into Ramallah (which I'm sure we all remember), and subsequent action.

Prior to that time, Hamas acted through direct suicide-bombing.

The effectiveness of checkpoints, etc might be debatable - effectively, if it has done anything, it's made 'targetted-indiscriminate' violence into 'untargetted-indiscriminate' violence.

What might be more of a contributing factor, is the overwhelming use of heavy weaponry by Israel in 2002. Suicide-bombs are 'good' against civilians, but they aren't as much use against military targets, they require getting close, and they cost personnel with every use. It's an escalation - Hamas can now strike at range, and without as much risk to their own agents.

What's the worst that could happen? Israel fires on the UN, UN fires back, UN refuses to apologize, Israel calls in reinforcements and treats the peacekeepers as hostile.


The only difference in that scenario, and what has been happening, is that the UN hasn't been treating Israel as hostile.

Who exactly would Israel call in?


Extremely unlikely, I'll admit.


More - unrealistic.


But Israel's patience with Hamas has run out. They will not stop fighting until they can be sure that Hamas will no longer be shooting rockets into Israeli territory.


Which is a bullshit story.

Israel has been pushing the situation in the region. Hamas twice offered truce in exchange for complete withdrawal from captured territories and formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza... and yet Israel has (for example) not only maintained settlement on the West Bank, but continued building settlements - in the face of not only those truce efforts, but actual UN resolutions.

Israel is not interested in finding peace with Hamas... or with Palestine, itself. Israel is interested in peace ONLY on it's own terms.


And if a UN peacekeeper force got in the way, Israel might try to remove that obstacle.

And there is the problem - to Israel, international law and international presence... is 'an obstacle'.

Here is an Israeli academic's analysis of what Israelis are thinking...and as importantly, why they are thinking it; "Apocalypse Now?":

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Apocalypse Now?
How is it that Israelis, as Ethan Bronner reports, are almost universally in favor of the Gaza operation, including the way it's been prosecuted, while government leaders and educated people around the globe, even those disgusted by Hamas missile attacks, condemn the operation, and especially the way it's been prosecuted?



What's so strange, as veteran Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy rails, is that ordinary Israelis know as well as anybody that hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including perhaps 300 children, have been killed or maimed, and yet this horror has not become a significant part of public debate. For a small minority of peace activists, even a few people in the south, the price in blood has seemed much too high for ending random missile attacks. But most will argue, not entirely convincingly, for humanitarian relief—and then spur on the IDF.



Israelis, I hasten to add, are as sickened and frightened by military violence as the rest of the world is, even by their own. They may feel a superficial pleasure in retaliation for the missiles, or a satisfied relief in seeing the IDF perform in a coordinated, disciplined way, but they are not immune to doubts. There were two blockbuster films over the last couple of years, both anti-war films lamenting actions in Lebanon, "Beaufort" and the throat-clenching "Waltz With Bashir." My Palestinian friends will cringe when I say this, but most Israelis think of Israeli soldiers as children, too.

Ron Ben-Yishai, the veteran war correspondent whose revulsion over Sabra and Shatila was featured in “Waltz With Bashir,” now supports keeping up "the pressure." One young soldier, interviewed this week on the radio, spoke with obvious sadness and compunction—but also with grim determination—about blowing up houses on the edge of Gaza city. He said, haltingly, that he feels he has had to harden his heart: "If it is their house or my house, I suppose I have to destroy their house," he said.



HOW COULD THE vast majority of Israelis feel it morally defensible to take actions bound to result in the deaths of so many kids; how for the sake of gains everybody assumes will be, in the grand scheme of things, tactical and temporary?



There is a big clue in that soldier's apocalyptic language. Israelis speak about this operation entirely in terms of Hamas' capabilities. Israelis are asking: Do you not see that any pain they have the capability to inflict on us they will inflict, sooner or later, so we have to go after those capabilities, if not once and for all, then now, while we can? Have you not looked at their covenant? Can you not see how their Iranian patron is arming them? Israelis are intrigued by levels of Hamas' motivation, but never by Palestinian motives more generally. The latter are not ever mentioned because they are assumed to be irrelevant to the confrontation in Gaza. It is their house or our house.



Think about this. Occupation, preventive detentions, 300,000 settlers, the annexation and walling off of East Jerusalem, checkpoints, house demolitions, economic collapse, Gaza becoming Somalia—all the things that all Palestinians care about all the time, all the things that people abroad cannot get out of their minds—all irrelevant. Forget for a moment what Hamas is. The point is, for most Israelis nothing Hamas says—i.e., lift the siege, negotiate a “hundred year cease-fire,” subject any deal to a referendum—can be responded to by diplomatic or other means. Their sad choice, most Israelis think, is to attack Hamas, even at the expense of mauling Gaza’s citizens. Their vague goal—as Tom Friedman surmises, a little too much like King David counting up enemy foreskins—is that although the attack will redouble hatred for Israel , it will significantly raise levels of resentment for Hamas. Hell, hatred for Israel is absolute anyway.



WHY APOCALYPSE, of all times, now, when Israel’s military power seems so incomparable? Why extend the vendetta culture in which Hamas thrives?

What needs to be understood—and Israelis themselves don’t see this easily—is that Hamas’ professed commitment to Israel’s destruction torments a kind of collective unconscious. Any Palestinian threat seems an “existential” one. I am not referring here to some “holocaust complex” outsiders like to go on about (though, God knows, filtered memories of the European genocide are in the emotional background). Nor do Israelis fear that they could never make restitution to Palestinians for dispossession, for the Naqba, though this fear brings us closer to the truth. I am referring to something more actual, a kind of projection from everyday knowledge of Israel’s political and legal structure, which Israelis feel protective (if not vaguely guilty) about—a structure they rightly suppose no self-respecting Palestinian could ever accept.



Israelis, you see, ask another question, which is not at all about Gaza: How can we have a Jewish state if this cannot really accommodate non-Jewish citizens? Is it not obvious that, in the end of ends, they just don’t want us here? One can challenge Israelis on what Palestinians mean by "want" and "here." The great problem is that Israelis themselves don't really know what they mean by "us." This makes public debate increasingly defensive, frustrated, strident. It makes politics dangerous.



IT IS NO accident that—just last week, as the Gaza attack raged—Israeli Arabs took to the streets, while a majority of Knesset parties, including Kadima, voted to strip the Arab parties of the right to participate in the upcoming elections (a right, most agree, the High Court will restore). For the growing discomfort of Israeli Jews with the country's Arab citizens, and vice versa, is very much reflected in Israel's fierce response in Gaza. The prosecution of this attack suggests, not just a fear of some next crisis, but of the chronic crisis; the presumed challenge to Israel always waiting around the bend, causing Israelis to prove—so they think—that they have overwhelming staying power.



What is the crime these Arab parties have committed? They insist on Israel being "a state of its citizens," not a "Jewish and democratic state." To foreign ears, this sounds like a distinction without a difference. Why not a democratic state, patently Jewish insofar as it is Hebrew-speaking, much like France is “French.” But since 1948, Israelis have allowed "Jewish state” to evolve in curious ways: most land is reserved for “Jewish settlement,” the state gives the orthodox rabbinate control over marriage and aspects of citizenship, the whole of Jerusalem is decreed a Jewish patrimony, and so forth. (I take this all up in The Hebrew Republic.)



While the Arab minority, 20% of the population, has been marginalized, Israel has spawned a kind of Judean settler state around Jerusalem and the West Bank, which Israelis are reluctant to confront for the sake of Palestinians. For most, the word democracy has come to mean, more than anything else, maintaining “a Jewish majority.”



And this Jewish state, Israelis know in a day-to-day kind of way, is something that they would reject if they were in the shoes of Israeli Arabs. Lurking behind this knowledge is the not unreasonable fear that any peace they make with the Palestinians will unravel as the rejection of Israel by its own Arab citizens unspools.



Sadly, you see, Israelis see their Jewish state as a bone in the throat of Palestinians, not just historically, but still. They feel themselves, increasingly, in a desperate “existential” fight where no holds are barred now, because no holds will be barred later. Show weakness about what is yours, and you are a baby-step away from Bosnia. Which is, of course, what Serbians thought, and how "Bosnia" began.

snip

Very enlightening.

The papers are suggesting that a truce is close and that Israel is considering Egypt's peace plan seriously. Maybe Israeli strategists this operation into Gaza will have succeeded in weakening Hamas to a point where its organisation is in tatters and that the general Palestinian population will have learnt a lesson.

Israel is considering truce now because they think they have battered Hamas as much as they're going to be able to, for now. They cannot seriously have thought of staying in Gaza for long; Obama's Inauguration Day is when they would like to be out, or in process of withdrawing.
The lack of any really significant military assistance for Hamas from Arab neighbours (with the exception of Hezbollah's rockets from Lebanon) must dishearten Hamas.

There weren't any Hezbollah rockets. When a few rockets came over from the Lebanese border, of course Hezbollah was immediately suspected, but it turned out to be Palestinian militants, who ran out of rockets quickly and didn't a lick of support from Hezbollah either.

Rocket attacks are an artifact of the Israeli incursion into Ramallah (which I'm sure we all remember), and subsequent action.

Prior to that time, Hamas acted through direct suicide-bombing.

The effectiveness of checkpoints, etc might be debatable - effectively, if it has done anything, it's made 'targetted-indiscriminate' violence into 'untargetted-indiscriminate' violence.

What might be more of a contributing factor, is the overwhelming use of heavy weaponry by Israel in 2002. Suicide-bombs are 'good' against civilians, but they aren't as much use against military targets, they require getting close, and they cost personnel with every use. It's an escalation - Hamas can now strike at range, and without as much risk to their own agents.

Yeah, but it doesn't look like they're doing that much damage. Is it a function of "We can't really hurt Israel's military that much, this is all we can do"?

Yeah, but it doesn't look like they're doing that much damage. Is it a function of "We can't really hurt Israel's military that much, this is all we can do"?

I suspect Hamas (the military wing, at least) can realistically be termed as 'terrorist', legitimately - because they use the THREAT of violence in order to try to change the policy of another body (it isn't really the rockets, it's the fact that there'll be more rockets, and you never know when).

Hamas can't fight Israel. They can't fight the military. What they can do, is make a lot of noise, and fuss, and scare some people. Is it an efficient way to kill people? Really, no - casualty comparison for dead-and-wounded in Israel's recent incursion versus the total casualty count for Hamas rockets since 2002... lean HEAVILY in favour of Israel. (Hamas rockets have accounted for somewhere in the ballpark of a dozen Israeli fatalities, and not even five hundred wounded.)

So - killing people isn't the point. Which is a capacity where the remote, lower-risk rocket becomes a big advantage over suicide-bombs. After all - it's less important that it hurts, than that it hits. Fear is the goal.

Israel's apparent success on the battlefiled may ironically, hasten the creation of a Palestinian state (or two)....maybe statelets.
There will be enormous world pressure placed on Israeli politicians to do something about settler provocations now that the IDF has (at least temporarily) weakened Hamas.
The bombing of the UN compound was a grave mistake which Defence Minister Ehud Barak has apologised profusely for. I really hope that real peace talks gain momentum from this - so a least something positive can emerge from all this destruction and loss of life.

Israel's apparent success on the battlefiled may ironically, hasten the creation of a Palestinian state (or two)....maybe statelets.
There will be enormous world pressure placed on Israeli politicians to do something about settler provocations now that the IDF has (at least temporarily) weakened Hamas.
The bombing of the UN compound was a grave mistake which Defence Minister Ehud Barak has apologised profusely for. I really hope that real peace talks gain momentum from this - so a least something positive can emerge from all this destruction and loss of life.

Agreed.

This is getting insane.

If Israel withdraws, the UN should bring sanctions against Israel, Or, if the UN cannot do it because of the United States' protests, EU should seriously think about it.

I'm sick of Israel getting a free ride on human right's violations, as one person pointed out, they must really suck at genocide, but it's not so much that they suck at genocide, it's that they don't want to make it look like they're really committing genocide, but they've already done it culturally to these people.

Otherwise Abbas is just going to look useless to the West Bankers, and Gaza might again become the least of the Israelis' problems. But for God's sake stop trying to tell me that the "occupation" was the start of this problem, when I am old enough to remember otherwise.

It's the start of the current debacle, its responsible for radicalising more of the Palestinian population. A withdrawal would not be a return to 1967 because there'd be a Palestinian state, rather than a bunch of angry Palestinians in areas controlled by other Arab states and used for their purposes.


Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT authorize force against Israel. It will either destroy the UN's credibility .

....quite the opposite.

The UN Security Council is the only body that can authorise force against any nation and that requires all permanent members of the UNSC to agree (or at least not to veto the motion). It ain't gonna happen. The US has always backed Israel.
So however pissed off many nations are with the Israeli shelling of the UN Gaza, HQ, the only repercussions that I can see will be renewed calls for Israel to leave Gaza and for there to be a ceasefire.
However, a more serious issues is that Israel may have even fewer friends and supporters than previously.... on the other hand, as Machiavelli said, "It is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved."
I personally believe that Israel's long term future lies with having neighbours who are prosperous and working and trading with Israel.

What's the worst that could happen? Israel fires on the UN, UN fires back, UN refuses to apologize, Israel calls in reinforcements and treats the peacekeepers as hostile.

Extremely unlikely, I'll admit. But Israel's patience with Hamas has run out. They will not stop fighting until they can be sure that Hamas will no longer be shooting rockets into Israeli territory. And if a UN peacekeeper force got in the way, Israel might try to remove that obstacle.

As they should.

Israel should keep going until Hamas is eliminated. If the damn UN wants to side with terrorists, then Israel should eradicate any UN troops sent in to aid the terrorists.

The UN should shut the fuck and let Israel end this problem once and for all.

Or, the UN should try and send troops in. And get blown the fuck up.

(Does the UN have the capability to even move large amounts of troops without US logistics?)

I personally believe that Israel's long term future lies with having neighbours who are prosperous and working and trading with Israel.
I agree, but as long as it treats its Arabic and Islamic populace as second-class citizens, that will be difficult.

Dear Trollgard,
I don't think you have really assessed the UN's role here. Perhaps you're confusing it with NATO. Only very biassed commentators would ever accuse it of siding with terrorists. You know like those neo-con rednecks who know all the words to "We don't smoke marihuana in Muskokee".

In Security matters the UN Security Council calls the shots (The permanent members of the UNSC are the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China) if any permanent member vetos a proposal, then that proposal doesn't happen.
I believe that George Bush and the neo-cons spreaded the lie that the Security Council was a friend of the terrorists because France, China and Russia wouldn't authorise his invasion of Iraq. Only the UK under Tony Blair took George the chimp seriously on this.
Maybe he should have heeded the warnings eh?

Dear Trollgard,
I don't think you have really assessed the UN's role here. Perhaps you're confusing it with NATO. Only very biassed commentators would ever accuse it of siding with terrorists. You know like those neo-con rednecks who know all the words to "We don't smoke marihuana in Muskokee".

In Security matters the UN Security Council calls the shots (The permanent members of the UNSC are the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China) if any permanent member vetos a proposal, then that proposal doesn't happen.
I believe that George Bush and the neo-cons spreaded the lie that the Security Council was a friend of the terrorists because France, China and Russia wouldn't authorise his invasion of Iraq. Only the UK under Tony Blair took George the chimp seriously on this.
Maybe he should have heeded the warnings eh?

It wouldn't happen, but hypothetically if it dead, Israel should destroy them.

Also, the UN doesn't support terrorists my ass.

Israel found weapons on UN planes headed towards the Palestinians. I didn't see this in print- I heard from word of mouth, so I can't verify this, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Collectivity, thank you for that article.

It's confirmed something I've been suspecting: the Israeli people have accepted HAMAS' position. Which is very unfortunate, given that said position is, approximately, "Peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible."

Israel is not, currently, conducting a Genocide campaign; not even close. BUt this shift in attitude makes it possible.

I don't think that Israel is conducting a genocide campaign either. Phrases like "genocide campaign" become cliched propaganda.
However, Israeli politicians have pushed Palestinians off their land and turned a blind eye to settler attacks on Palestinians. It's true that the IDF did attempt to stop some of the vicious attacks in December - but it seemed to be slap on the wrist policing and some settlers were shooting at Palestinian houses. That, and the heavily policed embargo around Gaza were reason enough for Hamas to break the truce.
However, it wasn't much of a truce as Hamas fired Quassam rockets at nearby Israeli settlements. As for their refusal to recognise the state of Israel, that in itself does not consitute a reason to go to war - however threatening it may be perceived to be.
Let's face it. Hamas thought it was an "unfair peace" and the population of Gaza agreed with them. I must say that the attitude of the Israeli parties was not predisposed to making peace with the Gazans. What is remarkable is that the West Bank Palestinians did not join in. Maybe because nobody likes Hamas.
Well Israel was pretty fortunate in this little war and the Gazans were less so. Over a thousand dead. Hardly precision shelling...schools, hospitals and the UN compound...War is Hell! Especially when everything is so crammed up against each other. Of course the IDF didn't deliberately target the UN compound. But isn't it awfully symbolic?
The burning UN compound..... international security imperilled. Tsouris! (Hebrew for trouble, I think)

Israel found weapons on UN planes headed towards the Palestinians. I didn't see this in print- I heard from word of mouth, so I can't verify this, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

I hear you run naked on church grounds throwing jello at the church goers while pretending to be a ninja before driving off in a bright pink go kart and the police have you on their top ten wanted lists. I also have no reason to disbelieve it.

Also, the UN doesn't support terrorists my ass.


The UN what? The UN Security Council members? The UN General Assembly members? The World Health Organisation? The Food and Agriculture Organisation? The United Nations Children's Fund? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?

Specify.

Oh, you mean "the UN" as in a collection of individual states. Well, shit. I've never heard of individual states supporting terrorist organisations in my life.

The UN what? The UN Security Council members? The UN General Assembly members? The World Health Organisation? The Food and Agriculture Organisation? The United Nations Children's Fund? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?

Specify.

Oh, you mean "the UN" as in a collection of individual states. Well, shit. I've never heard of individual states supporting terrorist organisations in my life.

UNICEF, I beleive. Dastardly bunch, with the kids and the collection boxes and such.

The UN what? The UN Security Council members? The UN General Assembly members? The World Health Organisation? The Food and Agriculture Organisation? The United Nations Children's Fund? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?

Specify.

Oh, you mean "the UN" as in a collection of individual states. Well, shit. I've never heard of individual states supporting terrorist organisations in my life.

Actually, the UN has admitted hiring Hamas members to work for UN offices and schools in Gaza, and admitted that they make zero effort to vet if the person is a terrorist or not.

So it's likely that they've hired, and paid, terrorists.

The UN also makes no effort to guard their own aid shipments. Apparently, as soon as the aid gets inside Gaza, Hamas has been taking them over, and selling the food and medicine to whoever can afford it, and taking the rest for themselves.

That sounds like "support" to me.

Actually, the UN has admitted hiring Hamas members to work for UN offices and schools in Gaza, and admitted that they make zero effort to vet if the person is a terrorist or not.

So it's likely that they've hired, and paid, terrorists.

The UN also makes no effort to guard their own aid shipments. Apparently, as soon as the aid gets inside Gaza, Hamas has been taking them over, and selling the food and medicine to whoever can afford it, and taking the rest for themselves.

That sounds like "support" to me.

What do you mean by 'Hamas'? While not quite as clueless sounding as the other post above that referred to what 'the UN does' (like 'the UN' is a cohesive unit), ignoring the fact that Hamas has two separate groups, serving two different purposes... well, isn't much better.

(And, incidentally, while some nations have both wings of 'Hamas' listed as terror organisations... not all do. Not even all UN nations do. So - depending on who specifically is doing the employing, there is not any intrinsic 'fault' in hiring members of the political Hamas).

admitted that they make zero effort to vet if the person is a terrorist or not.


Source?

You are pretty reckless in the allegations Hotwife. "Likely" + unconfirmed sources. Where do you get this stuff from?
It sounds like you are taking this information from a right-wing UN bash to me!

As they should.


There's a reason you specifically want to see Israel destroyed?


Israel should keep going until Hamas is eliminated.


Given that members of Israels own government have said that Hamas was basically formed BY Israel (they blame Netanyahu) that would seem a peculiarly circular arrangement.


If the damn UN wants to side with terrorists, then Israel should eradicate any UN troops sent in to aid the terrorists.


The 'UN' doesn't want to 'side with terrorists'. Perhaps you don't udnerstand what a 'peace keeping force' does - it stops both/all 'sides' from conflicting.

What members of the UN have been talking about, isn't 'siding' with anyone - it's stopping the killing. Why do you see reducing killing as a bad thing?


The UN should shut the fuck and let Israel end this problem once and for all.


Hamas would agree with you.

Of course, given that they think Israel IS the problem...


Or, the UN should try and send troops in. And get blown the fuck up.


Israel may feel brave when the US backs them up, but they're more practised at picking away at gray areas, than at standing in front of trucks.

That is to say - foolhardy or no, Israel WILL skirt the law and play politics... but they're not dumb enough to declare war on the collective UN member-
states.


(Does the UN have the capability to even move large amounts of troops without US logistics?)

Yes.

You are pretty reckless in the allegations Hotwife. "Likely" + unconfirmed sources. Where do you get this stuff from?
It sounds like you are taking this information from a right-wing UN bash to me!

Based on previous form in this thread, where requests for evidence have been met with either nothing, or irrelevence... I think it's fairly safe to say Hotwife is trolling.

The UN what? The UN Security Council members? The UN General Assembly members? The World Health Organisation? The Food and Agriculture Organisation? The United Nations Children's Fund? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?

Specify.

I believe he means the UNRWA ("Refugee Works Administration"), the agency in charge of keeping Palestinians in a state of welfare dependency permanently (as opposed to the UNHRC, which deals with refugees from any non-Palestinian group).
Given that members of Israels own government have said that Hamas was basically formed BY Israel (they blame Netanyahu) that would seem a peculiarly circular arrangement.

That's a peculiarly bizarre assertion: source?

Source?

In 2004, former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Company, "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime." He added, "We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another."

...two hospitals in Gaza City are hit by Israeli fire: the al-Quds hospital and a Red Crescent hospital, the Red Cross says. Israeli troops kept firefighters from going to the hospital until Jakob Kellenberger met with Barak and Livni in Tel Aviv.

Seems it was the same hospital, but it was hit twice. The hospital, with room for 100 patients, is now no longer in use (http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00943/PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL_943451g.jpg), and the patients have been moved to the Shifa hospital. The ambulance drivers connected to the al Quds-hospotal are now apparently working out of their own homes.

In 2004, former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Company, "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime." He added, "We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another."

"We demand of our staff, whatever their political persuasion is, that they behave in accordance with UN standards and norms for neutrality," he added.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4211.htm

Why didn't you just link the article? Trying to quote mine?

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/4211.htm

Why didn't you just link the article? Trying to quote mine?

That's not where I got it from.

Frankly, it's all over the internet that Hamas was hired by the UN. That the UN doesn't give a shit if they pay terrorists. And it's pretty obvious that aside from "asking nicely", the UN fails every time to enforce its rules on "neutrality" in the behavior of the staff that they hire from Palestinian sources.

PA will ask UNSC to use force if truce bid fails (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950869475&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Now, there is no way the US would not veto such a resolution, but I still have to say this to the UN:

Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT authorize force against Israel.
As you say, the US would veto. And no other UNSC member would vote for it. Well, no permanent members...

It will either destroy the UN's credibility (in the event that the mission is a total faliure) or provide the spark for World War III (should Israel resort to nuclear weapons).
Neither, I think.

Now, I'm a pretty strong Israel supporter, but that's not why I'm saying this. I'm saying this because average UN task force v. the IDF would result in the defeat of said task force.
An "average UN task force"? That's not what was used in Iraq during Gulf I, was it? If the US were to vote for it, they could offer up troops as well...


What would you do if your neighbors were launching rockets at innocent people?
I don't know; What would you do if you were being occupied?

The papers are suggesting that a truce is close and that Israel is considering Egypt's peace plan seriously.
Well, nobody really believes that this will continue past the life of the Bush Administration. Four more days at max?


Or, the UN should try and send troops in. And get blown the fuck up.
Why do you hate America?

(Does the UN have the capability to even move large amounts of troops without US logistics?)
Why "without the US"?

Israel found weapons on UN planes headed towards the Palestinians. I didn't see this in print- I heard from word of mouth, so I can't verify this, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.
If you're gonna make stuff up, at least try to make it believable, mm'kay?

UN planes? From where to where? Seriously, where would they be landing?

Actually, the UN has admitted hiring Hamas members to work for UN offices and schools in Gaza, and admitted that they make zero effort to vet if the person is a terrorist or not.
They didn't vet them for being hamas members or not. There's a difference.



The UN also makes no effort to guard their own aid shipments.
Because Israel would allow them to bring weapons onto the strip?

Apparently, as soon as the aid gets inside Gaza, Hamas has been taking them over, and selling the food and medicine to whoever can afford it, and taking the rest for themselves.
Not true. Some aid has been taken over. Most of it has not been stolen by Hamas.

Frankly, it's all over the internet

:tongue:

That's a peculiarly bizarre assertion: source?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359844280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"To that, Olmert replied, "Netanyahu has gone back to being the same old Netanyahu," and accused him of directly contributing to strengthening the Hamas movement by releasing the movement's founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, during his term as prime minister.


"Netanyahu established Hamas, gave it life, freed Sheikh Yassin and gave him the opportunity to blossom," he said, adding that the current political situation in the Palestinian Authority came about "because of the nonsense that was done while Netanyahu was prime minister"

(The emphasis there is mine).

That's not where I got it from.

Frankly, it's all over the internet that Hamas was hired by the UN. That the UN doesn't give a shit if they pay terrorists. And it's pretty obvious that aside from "asking nicely", the UN fails every time to enforce its rules on "neutrality" in the behavior of the staff that they hire from Palestinian sources.

So, you're saying that the American government are state sponsors of terror?

So, you're saying that the American government are state sponsors of terror?

Well there are claims that the CIA funneled money (directly) into Hamas through the 90's...

Well there are claims that the CIA funneled money (directly) into Hamas through the 90's...

I've heard that. And I heard a bit about the American Government and the IRA, back before 9/11, too... and involvement with mujahedin, perhaps.

Another one of those cases where it's only bad when someone else does it.

I've heard that. And I heard a bit about the American Government and the IRA, back before 9/11, too... and involvement with mujahedin, perhaps.

Oh, no, that was just Rambo III. Richard Crenna didn't REALLY try to give Stinger Missiles to the mujahedin. That was just a story.

There is no way we'd arm, train, finance, or supply a group that would serve as a founding organization for Al Queda.

What?

I wonder if Bin Laden still has his ciaproxies.org e-mail address, or if they took him off the mail server...

Oh, no, that was just Rambo III. Richard Crenna didn't REALLY try to give Stinger Missiles to the mujahedin. That was just a story.

There is no way we'd arm, train, finance, or supply a group that would serve as a founding organization for Al Queda.

What?

I wonder if Bin Laden still has his ciaproxies.org e-mail address, or if they took him off the mail server...

It's pot nossible, I tell you.

American foreign policy being a clusterfuck that comes back to bite us in the ass later? Couldn't happen.

It's pot nossible, I tell you.

American foreign policy being a clusterfuck that comes back to bite us in the ass later? Couldn't happen.

Part in jest, part serious, it would be funny if we were currently sending weapons, money, attack helicoptors, training, etc, to a bunch of South American countries that in 20 years will be as big a problem for us as anyone in the Middle East. Off-topic, though.

So, in an Ennis book, it was suggested (fictionally) that some SAS and British Intelligence people actually liked the previous Troubles in Ireland because it was "bloody good on-the-job training".

Could something similar be happening between Israel/Hamas?

I've heard that. And I heard a bit about the American Government and the IRA, back before 9/11, too... and involvement with mujahedin, perhaps.

Another one of those cases where it's only bad when someone else does it.

The American government and their rabid ultra-right wing supporters being two faced hypocritical scum? Nooooo...

The Melbourne Age has just published this report of Israel agreeing "in principle" to an Egyptian peace proposal. The problem with this, however, is that the agreement is with Al Fatah rather than Hamas and presumes that Al Fatah will take over Gaza. Does anyone see a problem with this? Will Gazans view Fatah's role as legitimate?
Others on this web have been paessimistic about any truce being enacted now, holding up for long. I must say that I'm sceptical that Zippy and Condy can make this work, but who knows?
Israel poised to call halt to Gaza offensive: source
January 17, 2009 - 1:35PM
Israel looked poised on Friday to call a unilateral halt to its deadliest ever offensive on Gaza after securing backing from the US and Egypt to prevent arms smuggling into the Hamas-run enclave.

A senior government official said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's security cabinet was expected to vote in favour of a proposal at a meeting on Saturday night under which Israel would silence its guns after a three-week offensive even without a reciprocal agreement from the Islamists of Hamas.

However under the terms of the proposal, Israeli troops would remain inside the territory for an unspecified period, a senior Israeli government official said.

"The security cabinet is expected to vote in favour of a unilateral ceasefire at tomorrow's meeting following the signing of the memorandum in Washington and significant progress made in Cairo," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Israeli forces will remain in Gaza after the unilateral ceasefire takes place."

The breakthrough came after Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement in Washington with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice under which the US would step up its levels of surveillance to prevent smuggling into Gaza, and a top envoy returned from talks with officials in Cairo.

"Olmert was satisfied with the results of the talks in Cairo, which answered Israel's basic requirements for a thorough answer to Israel's demands to halt rocket fire and an agreement on coordination between Israel and Egypt on the opening of the crossings" in Gaza, added the official.

"Olmert was satisfied with the (US) memorandum and the Egyptian talks."

However although Olmert is in favour of the unilateral ceasefire plan, its approval is not certain as the security cabinet has shown previous divisions over the conduct of the war which was designed to put an end to the firing of rockets from Hamas.

Even as the stage was being set for a possible end to the Israeli offensive, which has so far claimed more than 1,150 Palestinian lives, the military was staging a fresh wave of deadly air strikes on the beleaguered territory.

At least 10 people were killed late on Friday in an Israeli strike on a house in Gaza City during a funeral wake, according to Palestinian medics.

They were not immediately able to say whether the explosion was caused by a tank shell or an air strike.

The deaths came shortly after a woman and her five children -- all under the age of 13 -- were killed when an air strike destroyed their house in Jabaliya, north of Gaza City, according to medics.

Earlier Khaled Meshaal, the exiled head of Hamas's politburo, told Arab leaders that his movement would not accept any ceasefire that did not provide for a full Israeli pullout and the opening of Gaza's borders, including into Egypt.

"I assure you: despite all the destruction in Gaza, we will not accept Israel's conditions for a ceasefire," he told a meeting of Arab and other leaders in Doha shortly before Hamas was invited to Cairo for a fresh round of talks.

The summit hosted by Qatar to address the Gaza war was boycotted by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority, whose leaders will instead attend an Arab League gathering in Kuwait on Monday.

Clamping down on the porous Gaza-Egypt border, where hundreds of underground tunnels form Hamas's main rear supply route, has been a key Israeli demand for ending the offensive that has has also wounded around 5,160 people.

After signing the deal in Washington, Livni told Israeli television that smuggling weapons into Gaza was tantamount to firing at Israel.

"They continue doing this, Israel has the right to respond," she said.

Rice said she hoped the agreement, under which the US will step up its surveillance on land, at sea and in the air in a bid to stamp out arms smuggling, would advance efforts to secure a ceasefire.

"There's a lot of work ahead here, but I certainly hope that we can push this to conclusion or ceasefire very, very soon."

Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in June 2007 in a violent coup that ousted forces loyal to the Western-backed Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, wants to be represented at Gaza's Rafah border crossing with Egypt.

Israel however has demanded that the border be monitored by Abbas's forces, and rejected a proposal by Hamas, conveyed via Egypt, for a year-long renewable ceasefire, according to an Israeli diplomatic source.

AFP

I've heard that. And I heard a bit about the American Government and the IRA, back before 9/11, too... and involvement with mujahedin, perhaps.

Another one of those cases where it's only bad when someone else does it.

That should be the motto of the U.S.

Israel found weapons on UN planes headed towards the Palestinians. I didn't see this in print- I heard from word of mouth, so I can't verify this, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

What a blatant, bald faced lie, and how utterly gullible you were to believe it, if you really even do.


And if you have "no reason to disbelieve it", frankly, we cant help you.

Everyone should remember that "Truth is the first casualty of war". Now who could possibly have an interest in spreading a rumour that the UN is supporting the terrorists?
Hmmmmm!

I smell neo-con

Everyone should remember that "Truth is the first casualty of war". Now who could possibly have an interest in spreading a rumour that the UN is supporting the terrorists?
Hmmmmm!

I smell neo-con

Which, considering the poster, I have no issue imagining him hanging out with NeoCons and listening to Ann Coulter.

Its just a smear. Hell, its an outright lie, and anyone who believes it is deluded, and is willing to suspend their disbelief as far as they need to to justify their irrational hatred for the UN (which is usually based in nothing other then a childish 'WE DONT HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU NEENER NEENER!' rebellious teen mentality).

Which, considering the poster, I have no issue imagining him hanging out with NeoCons and listening to Ann Coulter.

Its just a smear. Hell, its an outright lie, and anyone who believes it is deluded

Some people just like to believe everything they hear.

Some people just like to believe everything they hear.

Especially when it will justify their irrational world view.

Especially when it will justify their irrational world view.

Of course, how else do you expect these people to live in their shattered existence?

I wonder if William Kristol patron saint of the Project for a New American Century would support the view that the UN is run bytowel-head loving commies.
Here's his own bio:
William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Mr. Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.


Mr. Kristol recently co-authored The New York Times bestseller The War Over Iraq: America's Mission and Saddam's Tyranny.

He and his PNAC cronies planned the war in Iraq before it happened. The PNAC realised that discrediting the UN was a necessary step in their plan to seize the diminishing oil reserves.
Here is a 2002 issue of the Weekly Standard where he foreshadows the invasion of Iraq:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/882wsqal.asp

That should be the motto of the U.S.

What's that old saying? "From your lips, to god's ears"?

What's that old saying? "From your lips, to god's ears"?

or "one nation, under christ" whichever one you like :tongue:

What a blatant, bald faced lie, and how utterly gullible you were to believe it, if you really even do.


And if you have "no reason to disbelieve it", frankly, we cant help you.

I'm just saying what I heard. Passing it on through the grapevine.

Now I have a dim view of the UN to start, so I'm more inclined to give stuff like this I hear a few moments thought.

So basically there is no proof for or against this rumor. I'll see if I can find out where the person who told me this got his information.


Everyone should remember that "Truth is the first casualty of war". Now who could possibly have an interest in spreading a rumour that the UN is supporting the terrorists?
Hmmmmm!

I smell neo-con

You smell wrong.

But, I think I smell liberal pig.

Which, considering the poster, I have no issue imagining him hanging out with NeoCons and listening to Ann Coulter.

Its just a smear. Hell, its an outright lie, and anyone who believes it is deluded, and is willing to suspend their disbelief as far as they need to to justify their irrational hatred for the UN (which is usually based in nothing other then a childish 'WE DONT HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU NEENER NEENER!' rebellious teen mentality).

You imagine wrong.

Like I said above, I'm passing along what I heard. Now I heard this from a friend who doesn't make a habit of lying.

[snip]


You imagine wrong.

Like I said above, I'm passing along what I heard. Now I heard this from a friend who doesn't make a habit of lying.

Just because your friend doesn't lie, does not mean that he/she isn't misinformed.

Just because your friend doesn't lie, does not mean that he/she isn't misinformed.

True. That is why when I see him next I'm going to press for more information.

True. That is why when I see him next I'm going to press for more information.

For all you know he/she just heard something from some buddy that he/she thinks is reliable...see where I am going with this?


I'm not trying to start a fight, it's just for your own good. :P

Trollgaard, it might help if you stopped referring to the "UN" (a very large body with a multiplicity of internal factions, with representatives of people from literally all over the map) and referred more specifically to the "UNRWA" (a specific organization tied to the Palestinians from its founding).

I'm just saying what I heard. Passing it on through the grapevine.


And if it's bullshit, you're just passing on bullshit.

That's the problem with this kind of 'evidence' (it's not even 'anecdotal')... there's no quality control, and you (apparently) haven't really tried to verify it.


Now I have a dim view of the UN to start, so I'm more inclined to give stuff like this I hear a few moments thought.


You admit your own bias is a negative factor in assessing the evidence.


So basically there is no proof for or against this rumor. I'll see if I can find out where the person who told me this got his information.


There is 'proof' against this 'rumour' - the simple fact that it should be all over the front pages if it's not bullshit.

A complete lack of reporting it... suggests it's bullshit.


You smell wrong.

But, I think I smell liberal pig.


Suggesting you might be a 'neo-con' would be suspecting you of certain party affiliations. Saying that another poster is a 'liberal pig' is basically a flame.

You might want to think about that.

Tmut, this is from the World Zionist Organisation website. All Zionists should remember that it was the UN that legitimated the state of Israel on May 11 1949, in resolution 181. What was also in resolution 181 was the UN recognising the state of Palestine - which obviously is yet to happen. When it does, perhaps Israel will enjoy real peace and better relations with more countries (Baruch Hashem!):

Israel Joins the United Nations - May 11, 1949
By: 12th House



There are few nations of the world that can claim legitimacy like Israel. As a result of United Nations Resolution 181, the international community of nations, under the auspices of the newly formed United Nations, moved to divide the British mandate of Palestine into two nations: a Jewish State and an Arab State.



Background: Israel Joins the United Nations

While the Arab states refused to accept this partition, Israel accepted the partition. Sadly, this refusal to accept the partition led to more than five decades of political and military hostility. It is important to recognize that Israel is a legitimate member of the international community.

On May 11, 1949, Israel officially joined the United Nations as an equal. While many United Nations resolutions and efforts have not been favorable to Israel due to mass voting by the Arab and former Soviet bloc countries, what is important is that Israel is a full member with all the rights and privileges of her counterpart members within the United Nations.


Event Ideas:
1) Thank You UN... Thank You World – as a result of UN Resolution 181, Israel gained her statehood. A simple flyer campaign and editorials to the campus paper would be more than sufficient to get this message across.

2) UN Fundraiser – The United Nations is a non-governmental organization that survives off the membership fees of its member nations and private donations. The UN has many exciting initiatives to help people around the world. Here is an opportunity to do a fundraiser on your campus or community for one of these UN projects.

3) Model UN – Many communities and campuses have model United Nations programs. While this may be outside the "norm" for your organization, it might be an interesting experiment to participate in one of these model UN projects.

If it is too much to construct a complete model UN, break it down to explore one of the major multi-lateral issues of the Middle East Peace Process with all parties represented.


Alternative Dates:
UN Day United Nations Adopts Resolution 181


Resources:
Information Department, Israel Embassy and Consulates United Nations National Model United Nations Conference

Source: www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1041 - 42k

Don't worry trollgaard, I forgive you. I wasn't referring to you, by the way.
Fox News et al do all they can to undermine the UN. The myth that the UN sponsors terrorism is right up there with Iraq has WMDs and Saddam and Bin Laden are working together.
Goebbels said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
Does because Bush is stepping down is no reason to think that the neo cons will desist from repeating lies.
But Jeez, "I heard it from a friend" is not going to get you an honours degree at Yale is it?

Don't worry trollgaard, I forgive you. I wasn't referring to you, by the way.
Fox News et al do all they can to undermine the UN. The myth that the UN sponsors terrorism is right up there with Iraq has WMDs and Saddam and Bin Laden are working together.
Goebbels said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
Does because Bush is stepping down is no reason to think that the neo cons will desist from repeating lies.
But Jeez, "I heard it from a friend" is not going to get you an honours degree at Yale is it?

Fox news also likes to make Obama look worse than Jimmy Carter (in their eyes) and he hasn't stepped in office yet.

By the way, I do not condone Un resolutions that single out Israel for its racism while ignoring racism in other countries.

However, I do believe that there is endemic racism in Israel and that Palestinians are indeed treated less equally than Jewish citizens.
Currently, parties in Israel are trying to deny Palestinian Israelis the vote.
This is an outrageous example of racism. Counties that have a state religion become racist very quickly, whether it be Moslem states, Jewish States, Hindu States, Christian states etc.
Religion is a pretty nasty business. I hope thatIsrael goes secular soon and the rabbinate stops trying to run the state. This is a very very reactionary period in Middle East politics but people must acknowledge that much of the reaction is fundamentalist Christian and Moslem.

By the way, I do not condone Un resolutions that single out Israel for its racism while ignoring racism in other countries.

However, I do believe that there is endemic racism in Israel and that Palestinians are indeed treated less equally than Jewish citizens.
Currently, parties in Israel are trying to deny Palestinian Israelis the vote.
This is an outrageous example of racism. Counties that have a state religion become racist very quickly, whether it be Moslem states, Jewish States, Hindu States, Christian states etc.
Religion is a pretty nasty business. I hope thatIsrael goes secular soon and the rabbinate stops trying to run the state. This is a very very reactionary period in Middle East politics but people must acknowledge that much of the reaction is fundamentalist Christian and Moslem.

Theres racism in Israel?

*dies of shock*

Israelis ARE the new Nazis.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/16/uk.israel.debate/index.html

I have said that all along.

Read something yesterday where a Turkish Muslim living in NZ kicked two Hebrew speaking people out of his cafe.. People were getting angry about it I think, "breach of human rights"... Lol, c'mon. Good on the cafe owner.

Read something yesterday where a Turkish Muslim living in NZ kicked two Hebrew speaking people out of his cafe.. People were getting angry about it I think, "breach of human rights"... Lol, c'mon. Good on the cafe owner.human rights? how is following a hateful deity and annoying everybody a human right?

human rights? how is following a hateful deity and annoying everybody a human right?

Um, yes, Go fuck yourself Lesbo. :mad: I'm guessing you're a fan of Coulter?

But, I think I smell liberal pig.

human rights? how is following a hateful deity and annoying everybody a human right?

Um, yes, Go fuck yourself Lesbo. :mad: I'm guessing you're a fan of Coulter?

Trollgaard, cut out the flaming. HappyLesbo, stop trolling. Talemetros, warned for flaming.

Um, yes, Go fuck yourself Lesbo. :mad: I'm guessing you're a fan of Coulter?Just read your bible. The Jewish god is a genocidal maniac, just like his followers who set up a state in Palestine. Just count the dead Arabs.
And what is Coulter?

Just read your bible. The Jewish god is a genocidal maniac, just like his followers who set up a state in Palestine. Just count the dead Arabs.

The Muslim god is the same god though. A genocidal maniac who wants to kill all non-believers.
And what is Coulter?

Ann Coulter. Female Bill O'Reilly.

It would be foolish to believe that there are no conspiracies associated with all interested parties in the labyrinthine Middle East conflict. I view people who say inflammatory things about Jews and Arabs as contributing to that conflict.

For several years, neo-Nazi groups have been alternately attacking Jewish and Moslem groups to stir up ill-will between them (and they are not the only ones). When Jews and Arabs fight each other, anti-semitic white racists just sit back and smile.
That's why I am immediately suspicious of anyone who starts doing extreme racial slurs. To me it looks like tag-team trolling here boys. I think you're working together and donning female identities like "Hotwife" and "HappyLesbo" doesn't fool me. If you can't address the issue, please continue your banter on "Stormfront" or some related site.

The Muslim god is the same god though. A genocidal maniac who wants to kill all non-believers.The Muslim god indeed is the Jewish god. But Jews started this shit (cf. Joshua, Elijah). And they are the ones who kill Palestinians out of an ideology of racial superiority. Zionism is racism, and Israel is the state born out of Zionism.
Ann Coulter. Female Bill O'Reilly.Do not refer to tv people who are only known in the US.

It would be foolish to believe that there are no conspiracies associated with all interested parties in the labyrinthine Middle East conflict. I view people who say inflammatory things about Jews and Arabs as contributing to that conflict.

For several years, neo-Nazi groups have been alternately attacking Jewish and Moslem groups to stir up ill-will between them (and they are not the only ones). When Jews and Arabs fight each other, anti-semitic white racists just sit back and smile.
That's why I am immediately suspicious of anyone who starts doing extreme racial slurs. To me it looks like tag-team trolling here boys. I think you're working together and donning female identities like "Hotwife" and "HappyLesbo" doesn't fool me. If you can't address the issue, please continue your banter on "Stormfront" or some related site.Opposition to Judaism and what derived from it is not automatically related to Nazis. Jews have been a ideologically misguided and intellectually challenged group of religious fanatics long before anything like national socialism evolved. The adherence to a deity like the biblical god in the manner that Jews do it (or Mormons or JWs or any other fundamentalist grouping), is simply disgusting and despicable, and a state based on such rubbish is something the world does not need.

I am not a great fan of angry Sky Gods myself, happyLesbo but I choose not to attack those who do worship them. It's bad manners apart from anything else. It also opens you up to a charge of racism - particularly if there is a deliberate intent to distract, attack and stir things up.
Now could you please clarify for me that you are:
1. Happy
2. A female and a "Lesbo"
3. Not a neo-Nazi?

If you are under 18 I will apologise.(Because you are just naive and ignorant). If you are over 18, then you should know better than to have been so consistently offensive and boringly repetitive.

I'm just saying what I heard. Passing it on through the grapevine.

Now I have a dim view of the UN to start, so I'm more inclined to give stuff like this I hear a few moments thought.
But you don't think about how plausible it is, it seems. You don't think critically about it. Because if you had, you'd ask yourself: To what airport were the planes heading? Since there's no functioning airport in the Gaza Strip...

So basically there is no proof for or against this rumor.
Oh dear lord... :rolleyes:

Israelis ARE the new Nazis.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/16/uk.israel.debate/index.html

I have said that all along.
And you're still wrong.

Read something yesterday where a Turkish Muslim living in NZ kicked two Hebrew speaking people out of his cafe.. People were getting angry about it I think, "breach of human rights"... Lol, c'mon. Good on the cafe owner.
I think that's sad. :(

Just because you're speaking hebrew doesn't mean you're a supporter of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. I think it was a dick move by the cafe owner.

I think that's sad. :(

Just because you're speaking hebrew doesn't mean you're a supporter of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. I think it was a dick move by the cafe owner.

Gotta agree. Not all Hebrew speakers are Jewish, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis support the situation in Gaza. Like almost all generalizations, it fails on a thousand fronts.

Still, justified or not, the proprietor of a business always has the right to refuse service.

I am not a great fan of angry Sky Gods myself, happyLesbo but I choose not to attack those who do worship them.Why not? The worship is what creates the Sky Gods in the first place. There is something inherently wrong with adherents of such superstitions. There is a certain mental deficiency in religious people, which is unfortunate since it affects such a great part of humankind.

1. I am very happy.
2. I am bisexual, but leaning towards women.
3. I despise Nationalsocialism just the same as Judaism and other fundamentalisms. It is all the same crap and it attracts the same kind of people.

Good, HappyLesbo! Then I respect you for your views - but you need to work on how you express them and avoid banging the same old drum.
Don't stereotype yourself - others are more than willing to do it for you.

p.s. Have you thought of a name change. I lean towards "Brian" (You're not the messiah just a very naughty boy!)

Always look on the bright side!

A reporter from the BBC has made it into Gaza. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7834419.stm)

We have seen their "surgical" air strikes. There is no doubt the Israelis have tried hard to hit their targets accurately. The police station opposite the UN warehouse is now just a crater.

But there are plenty of bomb sites where there is extensive collateral damage. It is no wonder there have been so many civilian casualties. In the house in which we are staying the windows are all left open, in case the pressure from one of the blasts should blow the glass out.

Another UN school may have been hit by the Israelis, and Palestinian rockets are still being fired at Israel. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7834255.stm)
United Nations officials say two children, aged five and seven, were killed when Israeli tank fire hit a UN school where hundreds had taken shelter in the northern town of Beit Lahiya.

A spokesman for Unrwa in Gaza, Chris Gunness, said: "There has to be an investigation to determine whether a war crime has been committed."
But on Friday Palestinian militants in Gaza reportedly fired more than 15 rockets at southern Israel, leaving five Israelis wounded.

And UN food distribution centers are running again after the Israeli bombing of the UNRWA building which destroyed tonns of food supplies and medicine.

Gotta agree. Not all Hebrew speakers are Jewish, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis support the situation in Gaza. Like almost all generalizations, it fails on a thousand fronts.

Still, justified or not, the proprietor of a business always has the right to refuse service.

That last part is debatable - but for another thread, so I won't kick you for it here ;)

Exclusion is crappy no matter who is doing it but forgiveness has to be earned too.

I hope that the ethical debate that we have on Nation states is reproduced in millions of places around the world.

If we don't believe that we can make the world a better place, then what's our purpose on this planet?

If we don't believe that we can make the world a better place, then what's our purpose on this planet?

Oh, as a whole, humanity probably could. Humanity just doesn't choose to. All that bickering, bloodshed, and outright evil. Humanity chooses it.

And please spare me the bits and bobs of charity/altruism that dot history. It's a drop in the bucket of war mongering that is human history.

Unconfirmed messages indicate that Israel considers their goals reached, and that Olmert will deliver a televised speech confirming this around 21:00 local time.

Anything can happen in the mean time, so this is all subject to change.

So let's take this back in time to before the Good Friday Agreement, and a few thousand miles across to England and Northern Ireland. If every time the IRA set off a bomb or shot somebody the English had attacked Belfast, Derry, Enniskillen etc with planes, tanks and missiles, would the US have accepted it?

Oh, as a whole, humanity probably could. Humanity just doesn't choose to. All that bickering, bloodshed, and outright evil. Humanity chooses it.

And please spare me the bits and bobs of charity/altruism that dot history. It's a drop in the bucket of war mongering that is human history.

Most of the time we are not killing each other.
So if we spend more hours of the day not killing each other we can't be all that bad can we?
I'm pretty sure most of us will get through our whole life without killing someone.

I'm just guessing, but maybe people wouldn't watch the news if it was full of stories about nice things that people did today.

See, when you look at it like that, pros & cons... it' really quite nice here.

See you late humans... I'm off out to stuff my fat westerners face x

So let's take this back in time to before the Good Friday Agreement, and a few thousand miles across to England and Northern Ireland. If every time the IRA set off a bomb or shot somebody the English had attacked Belfast, Derry, Enniskillen etc with planes, tanks and missiles, would the US have accepted it?

I think that situation is a lot different. The borders were more porous, the IRA wasn't targeting civilians, there wasn't the same general hatred of the English as the Middle East has for Israel. On top of that, the IRA wasn't setting up mortars and rockets in residential areas and cack-handedly lobbing explosives into downtown London.

You'd do something too.

Most of the time we are not killing each other. False. Most of the time we are killing each other. Go back through recorded history and try to find years in which there is not a war going on.

the IRA wasn't targeting civilians

Bullshit.

cack-handedly lobbing explosives into downtown London.

1991 attack on Downing street? 2000 attack on MI6? They both used mortars.

I think that situation is a lot different. The borders were more porous, the IRA wasn't targeting civilians, there wasn't the same general hatred of the English as the Middle East has for Israel. On top of that, the IRA wasn't setting up mortars and rockets in residential areas and cack-handedly lobbing explosives into downtown London.

You'd do something too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_IRA_Actions

Read and learn. The PIRA were as big a bunch of bastards as Hamas.

and cack-handedly lobbing explosives into downtown London.

Oh, and the mortar attacks on Heathrow.

That's not where I got it from.

Frankly, it's all over the internet that Hamas was hired by the UN. That the UN doesn't give a shit if they pay terrorists. And it's pretty obvious that aside from "asking nicely", the UN fails every time to enforce its rules on "neutrality" in the behavior of the staff that they hire from Palestinian sources.


Its not obvious at all.

"all over the internet"....is that a legal axiom denoting unquestionable truth?

10 metres off the whole Brit war cabinet was hardly cack handed. Considering it was from an improvised mortar on the back of a converted van it was a damn good effort.

He said they weren't lobbing mortars cack handed into London, read the post.

*snip*

Your argument consists of individualized examples of experience and attempting to put it on a species wide issue. It doesn't work. Just because you're not fighting a war now doesn't mean it's not being fought by another of the same species somewhere on this planet.

He said they weren't lobbing mortars cack handed into London, read the post.


I have amended my foolishness.

The Muslim god indeed is the Jewish god. But Jews started this shit (cf. Joshua, Elijah). And they are the ones who kill Palestinians out of an ideology of racial superiority. Zionism is racism, and Israel is the state born out of Zionism.

BUWHAHAHAHA!

Oh God, youre not even a good troll.

BUWHAHAHAHA!

Oh God, youre not even a good troll.

*Chuckles*

BUWHAHAHAHA!

Oh God, youre not even a good troll.
Jews think they have a divine right to Palestine and the right to remove the population there. That's based on the ideology of being the "Chosen People". That is pure racism. It was racism in the bible and it is racism in Israel today. Joshua and Elijah are Judaism's heroes, like Sharon is Israel's: all genocidal maniacs.

Jews think they have a divine right to Palestine and the right to remove the population there. That's based on the ideology of being the "Chosen People". That is pure racism. It was racism in the bible and it is racism in Israel today. Joshua and Elijah are Judaism's heroes, like Sharon is Israel's: all genocidal maniacs.

Slight thing, though. No one has ever SAID that they wanted to kill all the Palastinians. How do you know?

Slight thing, though. No one has ever SAID that they wanted to kill all the Palastinians. How do you know?

1) You want to emphasize "ever" not "said." That just looks dumb. Unless you are saying some one has written it before. Or mimed it

2) Yes they have. Hardliner Zionists have said so before.

1) You want to emphasize "ever" not "said." That just looks dumb. Unless you are saying some one has written it before. Or mimed it

2) Yes they have. Hardliner Zionists have said so before.

I know. I don't really give a shit . I live thousand of miles away. Sorry if you thought other wise.

I retract my earlier statements about the severity of the IRA's actions. I was badly underinformed. We didn't get a lot of media coverage on those events statesides, but I shouldn't have made a statement based on my perceptions. I still think the hatred against Israel is much more intense in the Middle East than that conflict however.

I know. I don't really give a shit . I live thousand of miles away. Sorry if you thought other wise.

Oh sorry, I assumed you wern't being a dick.

I know. I don't really give a shit . I live thousand of miles away. Sorry if you thought other wise.

Why post it then? That looks a lot like trolling.

I did. You immediately followed your "objection" to the use of the word with-- a use of the word, specifically throwing it at the Israeli side.
Why put 'objection' in scare quotes, as if I somehow don't object to the notion that Israelis/Palestinians only want genocide of Palestinians/Israelis? I do object to that notion; it'd be laughable false, if it weren't such a grim situation.

If my meaning wasn't clear, let me be clear now: claiming that Israelis/Palestinians only want genocide of Palestinians/Israelis is false, unhelpful and inflammatory.

Israel declares ceasefire:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel announced late Saturday night that the Israeli military would begin a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza within hours while negotiations continued on how to stop the resupply of Hamas through smuggling from Egypt.


Mr. Olmert, who said all Israeli objectives for the war had been reached, said Israel was responding positively to a call by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt earlier in the day for an immediate cease-fire, in a clearly orchestrated move by two countries that both see the Hamas movement in Gaza as a threat. Meanwhile, Hamas leaders outside Gaza have insisted that the group will fight on, regardless of any Israeli declaration.


The Israeli cease-fire, which becomes effective at 2 a.m. Sunday, could mean an effective end to a three-week-old war that has killed at least 1,200 Palestinians, with more buried under rubble, and 13 Israelis. But even then, the shape of any lasting peace was far from clear.

Israel has signaled that its troops will stay in Gaza until a formal truce is signed that meets Israeli goals of stopping rocket fire from Gaza and sharply hindering the smuggling of arms, weapons, cash and fighters into Gaza through tunnels from Egypt. But the government says it will not sign any deal with Hamas, which is committed to Israel’s destruction and whose rule over Gaza Israel does not want to recognize.

Also, Israeli officials said that they reserved the right to attack again in the future if Hamas kept firing rockets into Israel. Hamas, battered but hardly broken, is expected to reassert its political control over Gaza and to resist any attempt to restore a presence for Fatah, the rival faction that runs the Palestinian Authority, within Gaza.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?ref=middleeast

You know, even in the last hours before the ceasefire, to more little Palestinian kids were killed. It's just bloody tragic! I hope this truce can last.

Israel announces truce
January 18, 2009 - 9:09AM
The Israeli security cabinet has voted in favour of a unilateral ceasefire in its 22-day-old war in the Gaza Strip.

Eight members of the powerful gathering voted in favour of the ceasefire, with two voting against and one abstaining, an official said.

The decision would halt the deadliest offensive Israel has ever launched on the territory, one that has killed more than 1200 Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel's war in Gaza had achieved all its goals.

"We have reached all the goals of the war, and beyond," Mr Olmert said in a speech after the vote.

The offensive in Gaza would end at 11am (AEDT) on Sunday but troops will remain in the enclave for the time being and will respond to Hamas fire, he said.

"If our enemies decide to strike back and want to carry on then the Israeli army will consider itself free to respond with force," he said.

In response Hamas, an Islamist group which has ruled Gaza since 2007 and is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state, said it would not accept the presence of a single Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip.

"The Zionist enemy must stop all its aggression, completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip, lift the blockade, and open the crossings. We will not accept the presence of a single soldier in Gaza," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said.

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, who had been striving to broker a bilateral truce between the Israelis and Hamas, said only an unconditional ceasefire would suffice and called for all troops to leave the territory.

Mr Mubarak and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are to co-host a summit on Gaza in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik on Sunday, which will also be attended by a string of European leaders, the king of Jordan and UN chief Ban ki-Moon.

In the hours before the security cabinet meeting, Israel kept lobbing shells into the densely populated urban area, while to the north in Beit Lahiya a UN-run school was set ablaze by bombs.

Two brothers, aged five and seven, were killed and another dozen people wounded in the attack, in which burning embers trailing smoke rained down on a school where about 1600 people were sheltering, setting parts of it alight.

AFP

You know, even in the last hours before the ceasefire, to more little Palestinian kids were killed. It's just bloody tragic! I hope this truce can last.

It won't. Some settler will waltz through the IDF checkpoints and gun down some Palestinians or some idiot Palestinian will open fire on the IDF checkpoints (or shoot rockets), or maybe the IDF checkpoints will shoot some people for the hell of it (not like they haven't before), or maybe one side will note they're not doing well domestically and start a false flag operation to boost their standings, and they'll be back to square one.

Any truce will only benefit Ham-ass, who will use it to reposition themselves and ready further attacks on Israel.

The best way to end this conflict permanently is to permanently liquidate Ham-ass, and to force the Palestinians to accept that they will never destroy Israel, but that recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to peaceful co-existence is their only hope.

The best way to end this conflict permanently is to permanently liquidate Ham-ass, and to force the Palestinians to accept that they will never destroy Israel, but that recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to peaceful co-existence is their only hope.
Presumeably, then, you'd oppose this ceasefire and wish for hostilities to continue until every member, supporter and sympathiser with Hamas (now and in the future) was killed?

Any truce will only benefit Ham-ass, who will use it to reposition themselves and ready further attacks on Israel.

The best way to end this conflict permanently is to permanently liquidate Ham-ass, and to force the Palestinians to accept that they will never destroy Israel, but that recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to peaceful co-existence is their only hope.

Youd be easier to take seriously without the little childish shots at groups, FYI.

Any truce will only benefit Ham-ass, who will use it to reposition themselves and ready further attacks on Israel.

The best way to end this conflict permanently is to permanently liquidate Ham-ass, and to force the Palestinians to accept that they will never destroy Israel, but that recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to peaceful co-existence is their only hope.
Yeah... Even though it was poorly stated, there is a small point in there. The Hamas is going to continue hostilities towards Israel and vice-versa until one of them is destroyed, and, to be honest, Hamas is probably not only the easiest to remove from power, but less-likely to turn on us later and bite us in the ass...

The Hamas is going to continue hostilities towards Israel and vice-versa until one of them is destroyed
Or one of them relaxes their position...

Or one of them relaxes their position...Are the chances of this happening realistic?

Are the chances of this happening realistic?
Not at the moment, certainly not with Hamas.

The ball's in Israel's court, so to speak.

The ball's in Israel's court, so to speak.
Who will only be in silent preparation for the next attack so they can let loose on Gaza, again. Neither group is peaceful, Israel is just diplomatic about it.

Not at the moment, certainly not with Hamas.

The ball's in Israel's court, so to speak.I'm not going to get my hopes up about it, then.

Who will only be in silent preparation for the next attack so they can let loose on Gaza, again. Neither group is peaceful, Israel is just diplomatic about it."Hey, at least we're smiling while we stab you!"

...?

I have amended my foolishness.
Always a first time :p
Yes they have. Hardliner Zionists have said so before.
Who? When? (Not that I doubt that some asshole somewhere has said such things, but I want to know how far into the fringe you have to go to find a source).
Why put 'objection' in scare quotes, as if I somehow don't object to the notion that Israelis/Palestinians only want genocide of Palestinians/Israelis? I do object to that notion; it'd be laughable false, if it weren't such a grim situation.
Then why did you do it yourself? I put "objection" in quotes because your self-contradiction made it appear that there was nothing sincere at all about your "objection".
If my meaning wasn't clear, let me be clear now: claiming that Israelis/Palestinians only want genocide of Palestinians/Israelis is false, unhelpful and inflammatory.
Claiming that Palestinians (some of them, not all of them, of course: but unfortunately that "some" includes the elected leadership of Gaza) do want genocide of Israelis is simply a fact. Claiming the reverse is simply a falsehood.
Neither group is peaceful, Israel is just diplomatic about it.
"Diplomacy is the art of saying, Nice doggie, Nice doggie, while hunting for a rock" -- Talleyrand

Israel would like Fatah to take over Gaza and basically kick Hamas out. I'm not sure if Farah can do it or would want to do it....... it doesn't want war with Israel but it wouldn't want to be seen as Israel's puppet. Clearly Israel does not want to do business with Hamas.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.gaza/index.html

Terrorists fired more rockets into Israel after the ceasefire.

They are digging their own graves. They deserve whatever is coming to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.gaza/index.html

Terrorists fired more rockets into Israel after the ceasefire.

They are digging their own graves. They deserve whatever is coming to them.

Israel 'declared a ceasefire' that didn't involve actually moving any troops or ultimately stopping fighting. They kept troops on the ground, with the express order to return fire. That's not a 'ceasefire' - that's a political ploy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.gaza/index.html

Terrorists fired more rockets into Israel after the ceasefire.

They are digging their own graves. They deserve whatever is coming to them."We'll stop shooting, but we'll just leave all of our soldiers sitting around on your land."

Sounds an awful lot like what "Big Brother" is doing, huh?

Israel 'declared a ceasefire' that didn't involve actually moving any troops or ultimately stopping fighting. They kept troops on the ground, with the express order to return fire. That's not a 'ceasefire' - that's a political ploy.

Orders to not return fire would be suicidal.

If Palestinians can't even honor a ceasefire for a whole day, there isn't hope for a lasting peace. Israel should continue and destroy Hamas completely.

Orders to not return fire would be suicidal.

If Palestinians can't even honor a ceasefire for a whole day, there isn't hope for a lasting peace. Israel should continue and destroy Hamas completely.What about the rest of the Palestinians?

And you're confusing me. Do you mean all Palestinians, or just Hamas?

Orders to not return fire would be suicidal.


Declaring a 'ceasefire' where you don't actually intend to honour even the 'cease' part, is dishonest.


If Palestinians can't even honor a ceasefire for a whole day, there isn't hope for a lasting peace. Israel should continue and destroy Hamas completely.

By 'Palestinians', I assume you mean Hamas?

Hamas didn't offer a ceasefire - in fact, they said that they thought the Israeli claims of ceasefire were bogus and dishonest, and that no good faith was being shown.

The only people who violated a ceasefire - were the Israelis. But that's okay, because it was a bullshit 'ceasefire' anyway... you can't have a ceasefire where you don't cease fire.

The sad thing isn't that they play these kind of bullshit political games.

The sad thing is that people like you play along.

What about the rest of the Palestinians?

After seeing them dance in the streets after 9/11, I don't give a damn. There is no room in my heart for pity for them. Let them rot.

Or maybe the rest of the Muslim world can act according to the tenants of Islam and offer them sanctuary.

Orders to not return fire would be suicidal.

If Palestinians can't even honor a ceasefire for a whole day, there isn't hope for a lasting peace. Israel should continue and destroy Hamas completely.

Straw man much? A ceasefire is meaningless tripe if you move more troops into position during the ceasefire.

And in case you want to gripe about it being a ceasefire, Israel also attacked nations doing the exact same thing (massing troops) during peacetime. By your logic, Israel should be destroyed completely then.

After seeing them dance in the streets after 9/11, I don't give a damn. There is no room in my heart for pity for them. Let them rot.

You mean like how Americans advocated and celebrated invasions and massacres of Iraqi populations? You're right. Americans deserve no pity. They should all, ALL, rot.

After seeing them dance in the streets after 9/11, I don't give a damn. There is no room in my heart for pity for them. Let them rot.

Or maybe the rest of the Muslim world can act according to the tenants of Islam and offer them sanctuary.

Tenets.

You saw people dance in the streets after 9/11. I remember news stories of Sikhs and Hindus being attacked in America. Hey - what do you know, there's no geographical statute of limitations on people doing stupid shit.

You seem to be judging all Palestinians on the actions of a few. You lack either empathy, compassion, or a clue. You choose.

After seeing them dance in the streets after 9/11, I don't give a damn. There is no room in my heart for pity for them. Let them rot.

Or maybe the rest of the Muslim world can act according to the tenants of Islam and offer them sanctuary.Collective punishment is perfectly fine with you, then?

Straw man much? A ceasefire is meaningless tripe if you move more troops into position during the ceasefire.

And in case you want to gripe about it being a ceasefire, Israel also attacked nations doing the exact same thing (massing troops) during peacetime. By your logic, Israel should be destroyed completely then.

It's bullshit anyway - Olmert expressly said to return fire. It was conditional in the 'ceasefire'. That's not a cease-fire.

It was unilateral - so Hamas' actions have no bearing on whether it was successful, it can ONLY be judged on what Israel did. And they used air superiority to attack rockets, and they fired on gun emplacements. Two occassions - no cease of fire.

Also - you note that Troll said 'not returning fire would be suicidal'... the rockets they 'returned fire' on didn't injure anyone. How is ignoring that 'suicide'?

Tenets.

You saw people dance in the streets after 9/11. I remember news stories of Sikhs and Hindus being attacked in America. Hey - what do you know, there's no geographical statute of limitations on people doing stupid shit.

You seem to be judging all Palestinians on the actions of a few. You lack either empathy, compassion, or a clue. You choose.

Have no empathy and no compassion for Palestinians.

None. I used to. I used to find the whole Israel/Palesitine conflict saddening. I wanted peace and cooperation.

No more.

There can be no peace.

There can be no peace.“There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be trodden by the mighty and powerful.” -Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama.

Is that what you mean? Or do you mean that you, personally, will accept nothing other than complete genocide?

“There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be trodden by the mighty and powerful.” -Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama.

Is that what you mean? Or do you mean that you, personally, will accept nothing other than complete genocide?

I'm saying that the Israelis and Palestinians seem to have become blood enemies, and that most likely one side will wipe out or drive out the other.

I don't give a damn what happens to the Palestinians. I won't shed a tear.

I'm saying that the Israelis and Palestinians seem to have become blood enemies, and that most likely one side will wipe out or drive out the other.

I don't give a damn what happens to the Palestinians. I won't shed a tear.That's nice, but you're not making any sense here.

You won't shed a tear if every Palestinian or Israeli dies, or do you mean that you won't care if either side "wins"? Though I don't know how you can call genocide winning, other than in the technical sense.

That's nice, but you're not making any sense here.

You won't shed a tear if every Palestinian or Israeli dies, or do you mean that you won't care if either side "wins"? Though I don't know how you can call genocide winning, other than in the technical sense.

It's pretty obvious.

I don't care about the Palestinians. I never said I wanted genocide.

I'd prefer, and expect, Israel to win.

It's pretty obvious.

I don't care about the Palestinians. I never said I wanted genocide.

I'd prefer, and expect, Israel to win.

Or you can stop all the emo posturing, just admit you're riding on the Ebil Mozlem Bandwagon Express and everyone can go on with their lives.

I'm saying that the Israelis and Palestinians seem to have become blood enemies, and that most likely one side will wipe out or drive out the other.

I don't give a damn what happens to the Palestinians. I won't shed a tear.

Hmm... So by your apathy you silently accept that Hamas represents the Palestinians, despite Palestinians claims to the opposite. You won't shed a tear for Israeli atrocities towards innocent children, and lack empathy because some people on both sides hate each other.

Yep. You are a part of the problem now. Congratulations.

Declaring a 'ceasefire' where you don't actually intend to honour even the 'cease' part, is dishonest.



By 'Palestinians', I assume you mean Hamas?

Hamas didn't offer a ceasefire - in fact, they said that they thought the Israeli claims of ceasefire were bogus and dishonest, and that no good faith was being shown.

The only people who violated a ceasefire - were the Israelis. But that's okay, because it was a bullshit 'ceasefire' anyway... you can't have a ceasefire where you don't cease fire.

The sad thing isn't that they play these kind of bullshit political games.

The sad thing is that people like you play along.

I agree with this.

It took seven hours for them to break their unilateral cease fire, and the first civilian casualty after the truce has been reported.

And what kind of truce is this? What would motivate Hamas to abide by it? Israel will keep personel and equipment in Gaza for the time being. They will retaliate towards any percieved threat. They will keep the blocade going. I mean, why wouldn't Hamas want to keep fighting?

Israel 'declared a ceasefire' that didn't involve actually moving any troops or ultimately stopping fighting. They kept troops on the ground, with the express order to return fire. That's not a 'ceasefire' - that's a political ploy.


Correct - Internet pint of stout for you. Thats worth a pack of your internet cookies, but you'd be better off not exchanging it. Puts hairs on yer chest.

I'd prefer, and expect, Israel to win.
Israel lost this war when pictures of the first casualties started pouring out of Gaza. Secular Arab states have been marginalised, Fatah and Abbas look entirely importent, states opposed to Hamas have openly declared support for them, Israel looks more like the bogey man than ever and Hamas has got a new generation of radicals who will more than welcome the eternal struggle against and destruction of Israel just as they see Israel destroying Gaza.

Hamas dangled a carrot in front of Israel's face. One day, Israel may learn not to bite, but given the last 50 years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I won't hold my breath.

Then why did you do it yourself? I put "objection" in quotes because your self-contradiction made it appear that there was nothing sincere at all about your "objection".
What "self-contradiction"? Certain persons on both 'sides' of this conflict have used language that could be construed as promoting ethnic cleansing or genocide; but this does not mean that the statement "Israelis/Palestinians want genocide" is a truthful one.

Claiming that Palestinians (some of them, not all of them, of course: but unfortunately that "some" includes the elected leadership of Gaza) do want genocide of Israelis is simply a fact.
Get a grip, man.

Some people in Gaza hold extremist views, but why tar everyone with the same brush? Some US Americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago, including certain members of the US elected leadership. But it'd be foolish to make the statement that "US Americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago".

Making a blanket statement of such harsh connatations does nothing to help the situation.

Do not refer to tv people who are only known in the US.

I know of them, and I'm not in the US.

I agree with this.

It took seven hours for them to break their unilateral cease fire, and the first civilian casualty after the truce has been reported.

And what kind of truce is this? What would motivate Hamas to abide by it? Israel will keep personel and equipment in Gaza for the time being. They will retaliate towards any percieved threat. They will keep the blocade going. I mean, why wouldn't Hamas want to keep fighting?

To stop having the people they're supposed to be protecting blown to bits by Israeli munitions? To give themselves a breather and recuperate? Maybe even to show they CAN work with the Israelis, and maybe open a dialog towards getting that damned blockade lifted? Which is the only way it ever will be?

Sorry, guys, but I'm calling DOUBLE STANDARD here. When HAMAS called a unilateral cease fire, but offered no reason for Israel to accept it, you were all over Israel for not accepting it. Now Israel is basically doing the same thing and you're tripping all over yourselves making excuses for HAMAS.

Hypocrites.

Now Israel is basically doing the same thing and you're tripping all over yourselves making excuses for HAMAS.
They're a militant orgnaisation violently opposed to Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories. Is it little wonder that they'd violently oppose further Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories?

Pointing out the obvious isn't making up excuses; noting that a certain action is going to provoke a certain group isn't an argument in favour of said group.

Now Israel is basically doing the same thing and you're tripping all over yourselves making excuses for HAMAS.

Israel hasn't done the same thing though. They want to keep soldiers in Gaza for a week or so.

They're a militant orgnaisation violently opposed to Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories. Is it little wonder that they'd violently oppose further Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories?

Pointing out the obvious isn't making up excuses; noting that a certain action is going to provoke a certain group isn't an argument in favour of said group.

Actually, they're a militant organization violently opposed to the existence of Israel. I you wish to categorize a group, get their motivations right. They do not give a shit about the Palestinians.

And if you want to state the obvious, why did no one accept that Israel has no desire to negotiate with people who have, as their primary motivation, mass murder?

They're a militant orgnaisation violently opposed to Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories. Is it little wonder that they'd violently oppose further Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories?

Pointing out the obvious isn't making up excuses; noting that a certain action is going to provoke a certain group isn't an argument in favour of said group.


So what you are basically saying is, Israel are occupying the Palestinian territories and should leave. The whole area should be could Palestine and shouldn't be even in part a State of Israel.

Q.E.D. No matter what the Israelis do, whilst they do it in the name of the State of Israel it will be wrong.

Have I understood you correctly sir?

Israel hasn't done the same thing though. They want to keep soldiers in Gaza for a week or so.

No, Israel is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Declaring a cease-fire, giving the other side no reason to go along, then using it to vilify the enemy when they don't.

YES, it's a cynical political ploy. I'm just calling out the hypocrites who are responding differently to this one than when HAMAS pulled the exact same ploy.

False. Most of the time we are killing each other. Go back through recorded history and try to find years in which there is not a war going on.

If you take any year... then add up the number of people whom are killing and call that number X
Then in that same year add up the total population of the planet and call that figure Y

If Y>X
Then most of the time we aren't killing each other

It strikes me that Hamas and the Israeli government have no real reason to stop the continuing warfare, as both basically use it to justify their existance.

Actually, they're a militant organization violently opposed to the existence of Israel.
That also. The two stated aims do not invalidate each other.

I you wish to categorize a group, get their motivations right. They do not give a shit about the Palestinians.
On the contrary, the most certainly do. Indeed, they are fighting at considerable cost for Palestinians, while providing basic infrastructure and suport. Which makes it all the more a tragedy that they are so misguided.

And if you want to state the obvious, why did no one accept that Israel has no desire to negotiate with people who have, as their primary motivation, mass murder?
Because it's a position that will only further the cycle of bloodshed. Israel is in general control of the situation, but it is nigh-on impossible to completely root out a guerilla militant movement with a large support base within Gaza. Negotiations will have to happen, hopefully with someone like Abbas at the table, if we are going to see a stepping down of hostilities.



So what you are basically saying is, Israel are occupying the Palestinian territories and should leave. The whole area should be could Palestine and shouldn't be even in part a State of Israel.
I'm saying the current situation is obviously not conducive to peace, and that Israel's current tactics even less so. Further, that a dividing wall, checkpoints and harsh limitations on Palestinian liberty does little but fuel support for militant groups such as Hamas, and that Israel has the power (and responsibility, even) to help rectify the situation.

Q.E.D. No matter what the Israelis do, whilst they do it in the name of the State of Israel it will be wrong.

Have I understood you correctly sir?
No, you have completely misunderstood me, and moreover seem to have little grasp of inferential logic, sir.

Your argument consists of individualized examples of experience and attempting to put it on a species wide issue. It doesn't work. Just because you're not fighting a war now doesn't mean it's not being fought by another of the same species somewhere on this planet.

I wake up at 08:00 and have washed showered and eaten breakfast by 09:00
then go to work and make a few phone calls with a break for lunch and return to the office for 13:30. I finish all I need to do early and sneak out by 16:30, head off to one of our many lovely parks and find a secluded spot by 17:15.
Then by 17:30 I find a good victim. Normally the kill is quick and I make it home 20minutes before my wife gets home so I have time to remove the blood and clean up.
My wife and I enjoy a light pleasant meal around 19:30, enjoy a lovely glass of wine and I ask her about her day. We retire for bed and normally we're asleep by midnight before the whole process starts again.

So as you can see the vast majority of my time I'm not killing anyone, in fact in a 24hr day I only allow 30 mins max for murder.

Now I don't know how typical I am, but I'm still convinced it's a nice world because most of the time (our time) we're not killing each other.

Perhaps you shouldn't dwell on all those nasty reports you read everyday in the newspapers.

Perhaps we could go for a walk in the park some time?

To stop having the people they're supposed to be protecting blown to bits by Israeli munitions?
Has even Hamas claimed that they're suppose to protect the Palestinians? Their goal is to fight for Palestine, regardless of civilian casualties.

To give themselves a breather and recuperate? Maybe even to show they CAN work with the Israelis, and maybe open a dialog towards getting that damned blockade lifted? Which is the only way it ever will be?
When Israel stands deeper in Gaza, more the occupier now than at any point in the last few years? To beg for the blocade to be lifted when Israel won't even listen to the UN or the US at this point?

Sorry, guys, but I'm calling DOUBLE STANDARD here. When HAMAS called a unilateral cease fire, but offered no reason for Israel to accept it, you were all over Israel for not accepting it.
Show me where I did that.

Now Israel is basically doing the same thing and you're tripping all over yourselves making excuses for HAMAS.
No, I'm saying why they're doing what they're doing. Why you shouldn't be surprised when the rockets keep flying even if Israel has declared a unilateral truce. Offering up explanations isn't making excuses.

Hypocrites.
Only because you refuse to understand what I'm actually saying, since you apparently would prefer to demonize my posts.

No, Israel is doing EXACTLY the same thing. Declaring a cease-fire, giving the other side no reason to go along, then using it to vilify the enemy when they don't.

YES, it's a cynical political ploy. I'm just calling out the hypocrites who are responding differently to this one than when HAMAS pulled the exact same ploy.

When did Hamas declare a unilateral cease fire, by the way?

That also. The two stated aims do not invalidate each other.

I haven't ever heard the welfare of the Palestinians ever being stated as being one of their goals. However, if you have, then you are reasonably correct.


On the contrary, the most certainly do. Indeed, they are fighting at considerable cost for Palestinians, while providing basic infrastructure and suport. Which makes it all the more a tragedy that they are so misguided.

Well, no, they AREN'T providing basic infrastructure. That said, it is not their fault in entirety, and I'd be willing to accept that they WOULD do so if they could - though I would also note they seem more interested in smuggling in Qassam Rockets than food and medicine.

However, while they are, indeed figting at considerable COST to the Palestinians of Gaza, I would question whether they are fighting for the BENEFIT of the Palestinians of Gaza. The Gazans will pay the price, but the benefit goes to HAMAS.

Because it's a position that will only further the cycle of bloodshed. Israel is in general control of the situation, but it is nigh-on impossible to completely root out a guerilla militant movement with a large support base within Gaza. Negotiations will have to happen, hopefully with someone like Abbas at the table, if we are going to see a stepping down of hostilities.

All true. Now, why aren't you lambasting HAMAS for not negtiating when the opportunity has arisen?

When did Hamas declare a unilateral cease fire, by the way?

For goodness sake, don't you remember even six months ago? people have only been attacking Israel about not accepting it ever since...

I haven't ever heard the welfare of the Palestinians ever being stated as being one of their goals. However, if you have, then you are reasonably correct.
You misunderstand.

I was saying that being a militant orgnaisation violently opposed to Israeli involvement in the Palestinian territories, and being a militant organization violently opposed to the existence of Israel, aren't mutually exclusive.

However, while they are, indeed figting at considerable COST to the Palestinians of Gaza, I would question whether they are fighting for the BENEFIT of the Palestinians of Gaza. The Gazans will pay the price, but the benefit goes to HAMAS.
Yes, I'd broadly agree with this.

Hamas certainly aren't helping much.

All true. Now, why aren't you lambasting HAMAS for not negtiating when the opportunity has arisen?
Why, indeed, haven't I lambasted all sorts of wrong actions?

I obviously support them all... :rolleyes:

Has even Hamas claimed that they're suppose to protect the Palestinians? Their goal is to fight for Palestine, regardless of civilian casualties.

Bollocks. When you get elected to governance, protection of the goverened is part of the package. If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't accept the position.



No, I'm saying why they're doing what they're doing. Why you shouldn't be surprised when the rockets keep flying even if Israel has declared a unilateral truce. Offering up explanations isn't making excuses.

Okay. Where were you when Israel wasn't accepting HAMAS' ceasefire?


Only because you refuse to understand what I'm actually saying, since you apparently would prefer to demonize my posts.

I find it interesting that when I call you on it you're "explaining", but you don't bother to make the distinction any other time.

I haven't ever heard the welfare of the Palestinians ever being stated as being one of their goals. However, if you have, then you are reasonably correct.
And you haven't stopped to wonder why they spend so much money on Palestinian welfare?

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#6


Well, no, they AREN'T providing basic infrastructure.
Not right now, no. Before the current situation, yes.

That said, it is not their fault in entirety, and I'd be willing to accept that they WOULD do so if they could - though I would also note they seem more interested in smuggling in Qassam Rockets than food and medicine.
That's because you haven't been listening again. The tunnels have been used to smuggle food, medicine and general goods to a larger degree than the smuggling of weapons.

However, while they are, indeed figting at considerable COST to the Palestinians of Gaza, I would question whether they are fighting for the BENEFIT of the Palestinians of Gaza. The Gazans will pay the price, but the benefit goes to HAMAS.
To Hamas, the ends justify the means and every civilian casualty is a martyr.

For goodness sake, don't you remember even six months ago? people have only been attacking Israel about not accepting it ever since...
You mean the two-sided deal they made with Israel? That Israel claimed they accepted? That wasn't a unilateral cease fire. Try again.

Bollocks. When you get elected to governance, protection of the goverened is part of the package. If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't accept the position.
I would imagine members of Hamas believe firing rockets into Israel and fighting over Gaza is "protection of the governed".