CNN confirms Israel broke ceasefire first
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
BBC: Israel admits: "No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c
All the things everyone has said about Hamas starting this war by firing rocket were wrong. Israel broke the ceasefire first. It seems that Israel's last excuse, last shred of credibility, is gone. I think the main reason Isreal broke the ceasefire was that thier goverment where in risk of not being voted for next election because they where not combating hamas.
Don't forget the US Election, and the government handover. Left them with a perfect opportunity....
| Quote: |
Israel’s Lies
Henry Siegman
Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.
I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.
Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’ |
Rest of the article at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.htmlHandfleisch, think you've made your point everywhere, we got the message LOUD and CLEAR. What is the point of this posting, exactly, as I would prefer you to write something that is your own rather than have to read quotes from newspapers all the time with bolded headings just to make sure we get it? 
But surely you must realize that there are lies on both sides, right? That's why this needs to be settled in a court, where actual evidence can be presented, and not just claims and accusations along with questionable media coverage. War boosted extremists in Gaza, says U.N. official
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/01/23/war-boosted-extremists-in-gaza-says-un-official/
So the stated goals of the massacre were a failure, but surely the Likud and Labor parties in Israel will benefit in the upcoming elections. And who cares about the murder of hundreds of women and children and ruining thousands of lives as long as some Israeli politicians profit? | ocalhoun wrote: |
But surely you must realize that there are lies on both sides, right? That's why this needs to be settled in a court, where actual evidence can be presented, and not just claims and accusations along with questionable media coverage. |
Agreed Ocalhoun. This is probably being deliberated right now behind the scenes. Charges and counter-charges being made, and it will take its natural course of investigations. I've noted more press reporters today being careful in how they phrase their reports, referring to allegations, rather than facts when they are discussing the bombings of the school and use of phosphorus.Charges and counter-charges being made.... More news on what happened and what did not happen in the Gaza war. What really happened, only God knows... the rest of us are left to judge and reason for ourselves wheter to believe or not to:
Palestinian civilians: Hamas made us stay in homes used by gunmen
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024567.php
Haaretz.com - Italian paper: Gazans say Hamas kept them in homes used by gunmen
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057874.html | handfleisch wrote: |
| And who cares about the murder of hundreds of women and children and ruining thousands of lives as long as some Israeli politicians profit? |
Sexist bastard | Kelvin wrote: |
Charges and counter-charges being made.... More news on what happened and what did not happen in the Gaza war. What really happened, only God knows... the rest of us are left to judge and reason for ourselves wheter to believe or not to:
Palestinian civilians: Hamas made us stay in homes used by gunmen
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024567.php
Haaretz.com - Italian paper: Gazans say Hamas kept them in homes used by gunmen
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057874.html |
Thanks Kelvin, must say these counter-charges are almost as extreme as the charges. But great to be able to read something from the other side, what it says fits the picture too. The jury is out on this one for sure! BTW in your opinion what link has the Italian Newspaper that has reported on this have with the Palestinians in Gaza that the other newspapers did not have?A Guy named Mustafa is claiming the Israelis broke the ceasefire first, why am I not surprised? And why does this not change my mind at all?
No need to ellaborate I think.
| LimpFish wrote: |
A Guy named Mustafa is claiming the Israelis broke the ceasefire first, why am I not surprised? And why does this not change my mind at all?
No need to ellaborate I think. |
Err....so by the same logic anyone called Shimon, Daniel, Gideon, Simeon, Mirrian, Hannah, or any of the other potential 'Jewish' first names should also be ignored? You don't see any problem with that?Israeli war crimes with missiles made is USA
Amesty Int'l is documenting war crimes in the Israeli invasion of Gaza; US weapons were used.
| Quote: |
Hours before Israel announced a ceasefire, an Amnesty International fact finding mission gained access to Gaza. Their initial reports are disturbing: the team found first hand evidence of war crimes, serious violations of international law and possible crimes against humanity by all parties to the conflict.
AI researchers continue investigating attacks against southern Israel and are currently documenting the true scale of devastation wrought on civilians in Gaza. The stories they report are harrowing.
In the early afternoon of January 4th, three young paramedics walked through a field on a rescue mission to save a group of wounded men in a nearby orchard. A 12-year-old boy, standing by his house, assisted the operation by pointing to where the men could be found. An Israeli air strike on the area killed all four.
The bodies of the four victims could not be retrieved for two days. Ambulance crews who tried to approach the site came under fire from Israeli forces.
Our researchers later traveled to the scene of the strike with the two ambulance drivers who witnessed the attack. They met with the boy’s distraught mother and found the remains of the missile. The label of the missile read, “guided missile, surface attack” and cited the United States as the country of origin.
This is just one of many similar stories.
Under the Geneva Conventions, medical personnel searching, collecting, transporting or treating the wounded must be protected and respected in all circumstances. Clearly, this was not the case on Jan. 4th.
|
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090129002&lang=e | Bikerman wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | A Guy named Mustafa is claiming the Israelis broke the ceasefire first, why am I not surprised? And why does this not change my mind at all?
No need to ellaborate I think. |
Err....so by the same logic anyone called Shimon, Daniel, Gideon, Simeon, Mirrian, Hannah, or any of the other potential 'Jewish' first names should also be ignored? You don't see any problem with that? |
I prefer objective observations rather than statements from people who have obvious risks of being partial. I saw on TV a few weeks ago an interview with two UN observators who had been working with observations of these kinds of conflicts for the UN for about 15 years. They said that Israel for sure is using a lot of violence, but the reason it sometimes hits schools/hospitals etc, is that Hamas deliberately stores weapons and stuff in those places, to in that way try to create bad PR for Israel and get the world public to feel sorry for Hamas. Apparently, most of the times the Hamas knows Israel will bomb someplace, and get out of there themselves, but they dont tell the children in school or thte people in the hospitals that it will happen. Hamas just gets out of there themselves, brings their weapons, and let the hospitals and schools be destroyed, it is part of their tactics.
Furthermore, they both agreed that the numbers stated by the Hamas and palestinians as of how many civilians have been killed, can without risk be cut in half to get closer to the actual number.
I personally believe these guys more than for an example, Mustafa, and certainly believe them more than I believe Bikerman. | handfleisch wrote: |
Israeli war crimes with missiles made is USA
Amesty Int'l is documenting war crimes in the Israeli invasion of Gaza; US weapons were used.
|
Doesn't everybody already know Israel uses US-made weapons?
Makes me wonder... Who manufactures the rockets that Hamas fires? | LimpFish wrote: |
I saw on TV a few weeks ago an interview with two UN observators who had been working with observations of these kinds of conflicts for the UN for about 15 years. They said that Israel for sure is using a lot of violence, but the reason it sometimes hits schools/hospitals etc, is that Hamas deliberately stores weapons and stuff in those places, to in that way try to create bad PR for Israel and get the world public to feel sorry for Hamas. Apparently, most of the times the Hamas knows Israel will bomb someplace, and get out of there themselves, but they dont tell the children in school or thte people in the hospitals that it will happen. Hamas just gets out of there themselves, brings their weapons, and let the hospitals and schools be destroyed, it is part of their tactics.
Furthermore, they both agreed that the numbers stated by the Hamas and palestinians as of how many civilians have been killed, can without risk be cut in half to get closer to the actual number. |
Thanks LimpFish, one thing for sure, you cannot rely on Hamas for the truth. There is smoke to the truth, but their ability to state the truth, truthfully, is another matter altogether. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Makes me wonder... Who manufactures the rockets that Hamas fires? |
Excellent question! Maybe Handfleisch has some materials for us on this one. 
PS: Am writing this at Gatwick Airport and this funny commercial computer cannot copy, cut and paste. So couldn't reply to two postings in one posting. | deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Makes me wonder... Who manufactures the rockets that Hamas fires? |
Excellent question! Maybe Handfleisch has some materials for us on this one.
PS: Am writing this at Gatwick Airport and this funny commercial computer cannot copy, cut and paste. So couldn't reply to two postings in one posting. |
I guess none of your computers has Google, or maybe you just haven't heard of it. Otherwise you easily get the answer to your own question, that Hamas uses such things as Qassam missiles, mainly manufactured within Gaza, and Chinese copies of Russian-made Grads smuggled in.
But that's not the point, which is usually ignored: Israeli forces mowing down innocent people. In fact, I have stopped posting here much because the point is so often ignored and the replies are so willfully lame. I didn't bother to point out reports of Israelis shooting grandmothers and children waving white flags -- because I don't want to hear the ugly denial.
Hint: links are for you to get more info
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/gaza-residents-waving-white-flags-shot-dead-as-they-flee-their-homes-14138998.html
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/jerusalem/2009/01/the-white-flags-of-gaza.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/60853.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3655753,00.html
One last thing -- if you want to get some insight about Israel and Palestine, watch this excellent report from (crazy liberal not-to-be-trusted-blah-blah) CBS's 60 Minutes program. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n | handfleisch wrote: |
| I didn't bother to point out reports of Israelis shooting grandmothers and children waving white flags -- because I don't want to hear the ugly denial. |
Glad you didn't Handfleisch. Think it has to do with overload of the same materials to the point of bombarding. Also, it would be nice to get your own opinion, rather than quotes and links all the time.
Last edited by deanhills on Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in totalTonight has been particularly bad for Frihost timing out and the database coming up with critical errors. When I submitted my posting, it published double. However I did not get any credit in number of postings or points for either of the two.
The issue of what kind of weapons are used is not the central issue: a young (or elder) person who dies, dies no matter if what killed him was a stone or an atomic bomb and in both cases the pain of the family survivors is the same. In general I am under the impression that those who critic Israel because the use of that or any other weapon don't care about international law but just about demonizing Israel. If not, where did somebody write about the phosphorous bomb that was thrown by the Palestinians towards the Negev? The central problem is that the fight of the Arabs of the Land of Israel against Jewish Nationalism, in the past together with Fascist Europe, today together with the medioeval regime of the Persian Mullahs in Teheran, is only part of the global murderous Jihad against any non-Islamic attempt of political sovereignity. They allowed no political independence to the Christian Maronites but failed to destroy the Jewish State. They repress the copts and the iraqi nestorians, and actually succeded in repressing most of the Eastern Christendom.
when this world is really peace? no war no massive killing?
we only just can speak and comment while gaza's people are strugling for their lives. death body everywhere.
i don't know whos wrong whos right...i just sad
| blackjack21 wrote: |
when this world is really peace? no war no massive killing?
we only just can speak and comment while gaza's people are strugling for their lives. death body everywhere.
i don't know whos wrong whos right...i just sad |
True, but how about the innocent people we never hear about? Like the civilians in Sri Lanka who are caught in cross fire between Sri Lanka Government troops and the rebels? There is so much of the same suffering in the rest of the world. Take the Congo right now, and Government troops being upset by their Government, deserting their army, then go out looting, raping, and killing their own people. Nothing can be worse than that when civilians cannot even trust their own soldiers.Instead of demonizing the state of Israel, Hamas should be condemned because of crimes against humanity. As if their Nazi foundational charter would not be enough, their using of children, schools, hospitals and mosques as shields to defend themselves, is a serious war crime, leaving for now at a side their stealing of UNRWA aid to needy. Their attacks against Israel are bloody war crimes because they do not made the requirement of distinction between civilian and military targets, in violation of the Geneva convention. Israel has made a just use of force for self-defense against the aggression fulfilled by the medieval Hamas regime. The fact that during the Arab attacks Israeli victims were no many is a consequence that they invested heavily in shelters and in a prevention system. Hamas didn't invest in protecting a population for which they do not really care, but invested in weapons for aggression and in kindergardens where hate and war are teached. Israel was right in defending its population against the criminal actions of Hamas, although probably it stopped their actions too soon, instead of continuing and finishing the murderous Hamas regime.
Demonizing Israel and showing sympathy for this extreme anti-Jewish islamo-fascist organization, has brought anti-Jewish attacks all over the world, from Antalya in Turkey to Caracas, from Barcelona to Buenos Aires, from Holland to Toulouse in France. I believe it's time for people to arise against this new negative wave of hate and intolerance, for peace and people rights, against Hamas, Hizbollah and their Teheran patrons.
| GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote: |
Instead of demonizing the state of Israel, Hamas should be condemned because of crimes against humanity. As if their Nazi foundational charter would not be enough, their using of children, schools, hospitals and mosques as shields to defend themselves, is a serious war crime, leaving for now at a side their stealing of UNRWA aid to needy. Their attacks against Israel are bloody war crimes because they do not made the requirement of distinction between civilian and military targets, in violation of the Geneva convention. Israel has made a just use of force for self-defense against the aggression fulfilled by the medieval Hamas regime. The fact that during the Arab attacks Israeli victims were no many is a consequence that they invested heavily in shelters and in a prevention system. Hamas didn't invest in protecting a population for which they do not really care, but invested in weapons for aggression and in kindergardens where hate and war are teached. Israel was right in defending its population against the criminal actions of Hamas, although probably it stopped their actions too soon, instead of continuing and finishing the murderous Hamas regime.
Demonizing Israel and showing sympathy for this extreme anti-Jewish islamo-fascist organization, has brought anti-Jewish attacks all over the world, from Antalya in Turkey to Caracas, from Barcelona to Buenos Aires, from Holland to Toulouse in France. I believe it's time for people to arise against this new negative wave of hate and intolerance, for peace and people rights, against Hamas, Hizbollah and their Teheran patrons. |
Blah blah blah. The Israel gov't demonizes Israel when it kills 100 people to revenge 1, when its soldiers shoot children waving white flags, when it uses dayglo napalm in crowded urban areas. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Blah blah blah. The Israel gov't demonizes Israel when it kills 100 people to revenge 1, when its soldiers shoot children waving white flags, when it uses dayglo napalm in crowded urban areas. |
Should we add here .... Israel, aided and abetted by Hamas, as Hamas may just as well have held those 99 people up for target practice. Remember, they had a choice and somewhere in their reasonings they must have decided it is OK for their people to die. If it had not been OK, Hamas had a choice of not attacking Israel with missiles. This is a two-sided bad situation. None of the two sides is innocent. But of the two I would say Hamas is more guilty for putting innocent people in the way of war. They could have used the tunnels to smuggle those innocent people out, if their lives had been as valuable as they claim they were. But I am certain that for Hamas those lives were more valuable when they were caught in bullets from Israel and lost for the media and the world to witness. | deanhills wrote: |
Should we add here .... Israel, aided and abetted by Hamas, as Hamas may just as well have held those 99 people up for target practice. Remember, they had a choice and somewhere in their reasonings they must have decided it is OK for their people to die. If it had not been OK, Hamas had a choice of not attacking Israel with missiles. This is a two-sided bad situation. None of the two sides is innocent. But of the two I would say Hamas is more guilty for putting innocent people in the way of war. They could have used the tunnels to smuggle those innocent people out, if their lives had been as valuable as they claim they were. But I am certain that for Hamas those lives were more valuable when they were caught in bullets from Israel and lost for the media and the world to witness. |
You're basically being a massacre apologist. Can you cite facts that all the innocent victims were intentionally planned by Hamas? No, of course not. Can you cite a reason supported by any international law for Israel starting the bombing and killing in the first place? No, of course not because there isn't one, and Israel has been hammered in the court of international opinion because of it.
Your argument: If someone lines up innocent people against a wall, it is okay to kill them all. And the fault goes not to the ones who pulled the triggers, put to the ones who lined them up there. That's sick. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Your argument: If someone lines up innocent people against a wall, it is okay to kill them all. And the fault goes not to the ones who pulled the triggers, put to the ones who lined them up there. That's sick. |
No, his argument is that if you, as a military or para-military organization, place civilians near your operating areas or you conduct military operations out of civilian areas, or store military supplies in civilian areas, or move military equipment, supplies, and forces through civilian areas, then those civilians are acceptable collateral damage provided that the military objective value outweighs the potential civilian death toll as a consequence.
That is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying Israel acted properly in every circumstance, nor I'm condemning even one Israeli act (because I am not and will never be an expert on any given incident), but the law is gray in this regard, not black and white.
But I agree with deanhills that it is in Hamas' best interest to make sure that as many civilians die by Israeli hands as possible. This is a 4th Generation conflict, and therefore media, public opinion, and propaganda play an arguably more important role than military action.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
But I agree with deanhills that it is in Hamas' best interest to make sure that as many civilians die by Israeli hands as possible. This is a 4th Generation conflict, and therefore media, public opinion, and propaganda play an arguably more important role than military action.
Respectfully,
M |
This works both ways -- you would have to agree that it is in Israel's best interest to make sure one or two people die from Hamas rockets, so that their bombing campaign superficially seems justified.
I reject both as being no excuse for Israel to bomb and kill so many innocents. Period. And that's the worldwide human rights community's opinion too.
And of course you are all ignoring the incidents that had nothing to do Hamas hiding among civilians -- like Israel opening fire on women and children waving white flags.
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1005084.html
| Quote: |
The allegation is one of at least five such white flag incidents that human rights investigators are looking into across the Gaza Strip. It's part of a growing pattern of alleged abuses that have raised concerns that some Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes during their 22-day military campaign in Gaza.
"The evidence we've gathered in two of the cases so far is exceedingly strong," said Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch working in the Gaza Strip. "All the research so far suggests they shot civilians that were leaving their homes with white flags."
Along with the white flag incidents, Human Rights Watch is calling for an international investigation into widespread charges that Israel prevented medical teams from helping wounded Palestinians trapped in their homes and needlessly demolished hundreds of houses, including dozens in Ezbt Abed Rabbo.
"This was not a rogue unit," Abrahams said. "The needless civilian deaths resulted from concrete decisions made by the military." |
I really find it sick that people are repeating ad nauseum this "human shield" nonsense after such a one-sided, unilateral attack that killed so many innocents and ruined so many lives and destroyed any idea of peace in the region for years and years. | handfleisch wrote: |
| This works both ways -- you would have to agree that it is in Israel's best interest to make sure one or two people die from Hamas rockets, so that their bombing campaign superficially seems justified. |
I respectfully disagree. World opinion for the most part is against Israel under any circumstances. What could Israel do to find favor with you, for example? Nations and people as a whole could care less if a couple of Israeli civilians die here and a couple die there. In order for Israel to gain any sympathy or sway opinion in the court of international public opinion, the Israeli death toll would have to be substantial. And even then I doubt many people would care outside of the U.S. and other pockets elsewhere. Would you shed a tear if you awoke tomorrow to find Israel overwhelmed by enemies and the Jews fleeing Palestine in a second Diaspora?
Furthermore, you say they need the deaths to justify their military campaigns. Well, on this I disagree with Israel although I do sympathize with their position. In a 4th Generation war like this one, the nation-state (Israel) can gain nothing (or very little at best) through military victories. Any military action by Israel, no matter how carefully executed, will play into the hands of their sub-national enemies. In all brutal honesty the only violent solution that would bring peace to Israel would be the extermination of the Palestinian people. Just as logically the only solution that would satisfy all Palestinians would be the annihilation of Israel.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
I respectfully disagree. World opinion for the most part is against Israel under any circumstances. What could Israel do to find favor with you, for example? Nations and people as a whole could care less if a couple of Israeli civilians die here and a couple die there. In order for Israel to gain any sympathy or sway opinion in the court of international public opinion, the Israeli death toll would have to be substantial. And even then I doubt many people would care outside of the U.S. and other pockets elsewhere. Would you shed a tear if you awoke tomorrow to find Israel overwhelmed by enemies and the Jews fleeing Palestine in a second Diaspora?
Furthermore, you say they need the deaths to justify their military campaigns. Well, on this I disagree with Israel although I do sympathize with their position. In a 4th Generation war like this one, the nation-state (Israel) can gain nothing (or very little at best) through military victories. Any military action by Israel, no matter how carefully executed, will play into the hands of their sub-national enemies. In all brutal honesty the only violent solution that would bring peace to Israel would be the extermination of the Palestinian people. Just as logically the only solution that would satisfy all Palestinians would be the annihilation of Israel.
Respectfully,
M |
It's not at all respectful disagreement for you to imply that I would welcome the destruction of Israel, and I don't accept it. That's simply a repellent, irrational and accusatory assertion that tends to question your veracity.
Your second point takes off on the hypothesis that Israel can gain nothing by military victories, which would lead us to wonder what they are motivated by. Three suppositions, not necessarily my views:
1. Money. Military spending & the circular nature of the US-Israel financial relationship. Use weapons, buy more weapons with more US billions in aid, all the warmakers stay rich.
2. Israeli fundamentalists. Some see signs that religious extremists have gained so much power in the Israeli military that a “theologization” has occurred, and Israel is in effect waging a Jihad, Old-Testament style, against the Palestinians. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=14193
3. Internal politics. It is a fact that the hawkish political parties all benefited from this attack on Gaza, which conveniently was right before the elections (which banned Arab parties). So: Massacre Gazans, get elected. | handfleisch wrote: |
Your second point takes off on the hypothesis that Israel can gain nothing by military victories, which would lead us to wonder what they are motivated by. Three suppositions, not necessarily my views:
1. Money. Military spending & the circular nature of the US-Israel financial relationship. Use weapons, buy more weapons with more US billions in aid, all the warmakers stay rich.
2. Israeli fundamentalists. Some see signs that religious extremists have gained so much power in the Israeli military that a “theologization” has occurred, and Israel is in effect waging a Jihad, Old-Testament style, against the Palestinians. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=14193
3. Internal politics. It is a fact that the hawkish political parties all benefited from this attack on Gaza, which conveniently was right before the elections (which banned Arab parties). So: Massacre Gazans, get elected. |
Handfleisch, you have just proven Moonspider's hypothesis about how little Israel is regarded by the world. The above three points, which are pretty plastic in their extreme (whether they are your personal views or not, you did quote them!), bear testimony to that.
More common sense ones would be:
1. Defending their country, Israel
2. Safety and security in protecting their border against repeated missile attacks by Hamas
3. Hamas's increased smuggling of weapons through Egypt, for use on Israel
To mention a few .... | handfleisch wrote: |
| It's not at all respectful disagreement for you to imply that I would welcome the destruction of Israel, and I don't accept it. That's simply a repellent, irrational and accusatory assertion that tends to question your veracity. |
My apologies if I offended. I did not mean to accuse, only to ask. Allow me to rephrase the question then. Do you honestly think much of the world would shed a tear in the aforementioned scenario?
But seriously, what would Israel have to do to win your favor? I've never read any comments against Hamas from you (my apologies if I've simply missed them), even though the very manner in which they wage warfare is illegal. They don't even recognize Israel's existence. Their goal is the destruction of Israel, not a negotiated settlement. I'd be hard pressed to find a single Hamas military action carried out in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as I understand them. Yet I don't hear anyone (or very few) crying for legal action against Hamas.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Your second point takes off on the hypothesis that Israel can gain nothing by military victories, which would lead us to wonder what they are motivated by. Three suppositions, not necessarily my views: |
My hypothesis is based on the supposition that Hamas is fighting a 4th Generation style war. Israel (in fact no nation-state) is equipped to do so. The United States is rapidly learning in Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Africa, etc. Britain has dealt with it with the IRA. But the problem is that nation-states still have large standing armies with which to fight, armies that are all but useless against a 4th Generation enemy if they are used in the traditional style of a 3rd generation war (which is the type of war all modern standing militaries are built to fight).
I did not mean to imply that Israel knowingly chose to fight a war in Gaza where they could not achieve a strategic victory (and which hands a strategic victory to Hamas). I'm just saying that Israel is doing what all nation-states have done when faced with 4th generation enemies, they've employed their militaries in 3rd generation style. I think such actions by Israel are indicative of nation-states being frustrated by sub-national players. We (nation-states) don't know how to deal with them, but we must or feel we must deal with them in a confrontation. So nation-states act as they are equipped and trained to do so. There's no grand conspiracy. Just psychology. Individuals and groups can only take so much before they react. And they will react however they know how, even if the reaction is not effective (or even counterproductive) in the long run.
Respectfully,
MI definitely learned a lot from Moonspider's posting. I think when Israel started its offensive at end of December, it knew what it was doing and the damages it was going to incur to itself with regard to its international reputation. I am almost certain that the US and the UK had been fully informed as well as Hamas warned. Think that is proof already that Hamas did not want peace. As Hamas ignored the warnings that Israel was going to retaliate to Hamas's continued missile attacks. The fact that Hamas continued is a clear indication that it wanted Israel's attack to happen. Since Hamas is hiding behind civilians, it knew that Israel would stand a good chance of hitting civilians and that would obviously be in Hamas's favour. Did Hamas try to protect the civilians, by getting them out of harm's way? It clearly did not.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Allow me to rephrase the question then. Do you honestly think much of the world would shed a tear in the aforementioned scenario? |
Of course they would. Your standards of reference must be very isolated if you can ask such a question. Everyone with humanity and a conscious would.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I've never read any comments against Hamas from you (my apologies if I've simply missed them), |
No apology necessary. Yes I have made such comments.
| Moonspider wrote: |
But seriously, what would Israel have to do to win your favor? |
How about abiding by the multitudes of UN resolutions calling for them to knock off their gross violations of human rights ?
How about allowing int'l monitors to police the crossings in which they treat Palestinians like cattle?
How about when the world representatives -- with the exception of themselves and the US -- vote to say their actions are wrong and must be stopped, maybe Israel could figure that it might just maybe be wrong?
How about not bombing universities and hospitals in Gaza? How about not flattening 100s of dwellings because a targeted person supposedly lived in one of them?
How about stop occupying other people lands? How about stop building illegal settlements? How about not having soldiers occupy Palestinians homes at will?
Watch this>>>>>>>> "Is Peace Out of Reach?" http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n and tell me what you think | handfleisch wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: |
But seriously, what would Israel have to do to win your favor? |
How about abiding by the multitudes of UN resolutions calling for them to knock off their gross violations of human rights ?
How about allowing int'l monitors to police the crossings in which they treat Palestinians like cattle?
How about when the world representatives -- with the exception of themselves and the US -- vote to say their actions are wrong and must be stopped, maybe Israel could figure that it might just maybe be wrong?
How about not bombing universities and hospitals in Gaza? How about not flattening 100s of dwellings because a targeted person supposedly lived in one of them?
How about stop occupying other people lands? How about stop building illegal settlements? How about not having soldiers occupy Palestinians homes at will? |
None of the above has been proven in an International Court, YET! Have you really anything good to say about Israel at all, as I have not heard a single good word from you yet. From what I have read in your postings (99% of it quoted from the media) they are all biased in favour of Hamas. If anything should appear in the press in its gory detail, you would flash it around without any hesitation or verification of the facts as soon as you possibly could. Go through all your postings about the Israeli-Palestinian War in Frihost, and they are all along the same theme. Atrocities upon atrocities by Israel. The bad stuff about Israel completely overwhelms everything in the most dramatic of tones. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | I've never read any comments against Hamas from you (my apologies if I've simply missed them), |
No apology necessary. Yes I have made such comments.
|
Examples? I don't remember any of them and if anybody would have noticed, it would be me. | deanhills wrote: |
| None of the above has been proven in an International Court, YET! Have you really anything good to say about Israel at all, as I have not heard a single good word from you yet. From what I have read in your postings (99% of it quoted from the media) they are all biased in favour of Hamas. If anything should appear in the press in its gory detail, you would flash it around without any hesitation or verification of the facts as soon as you possibly could. Go through all your postings about the Israeli-Palestinian War in Frihost, and they are all along the same theme. Atrocities upon atrocities by Israel. The bad stuff about Israel completely overwhelms everything in the most dramatic of tones. |
Your posts are notoriously wrong on facts, show little background knowledge, often make no sense, and on top of it all you are a Massacre Denier. You usually don't respond when you are corrected or shown to be ignorant. To now accuse me of bias in favor of Hamas is a cheap, sleazy tactic well outside the realm respectful disagreement. I am starting to think there is no point in replying to posts of yours, just as I ignore your already-discredited stablemate.My focus on Israel is well in keeping with an increasingly common worldwide view: Israel is becoming a pariah state like South African was in the 1980s. Just like it took people power to spark divestment and withdrawal of US support in South Africa, so the same is happening in terms of Israel and its inhumane policies.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Israeli_action_worse_than_apartheid/articleshow/4095282.cms
| Quote: |
Israeli action worse than apartheid: South Africa
DURBAN: South Africa on Sunday said that some of Israel's actions against Palestinians are worse than what happened during apartheid.
Condemning the Israeli attack against the Palestinians, President Kgalema Motlanthe said that the creation of new settlements within the West Bank which exclude Palestinians was one such example.
He also appreciated the role played by the international media in covering the incident. He was speaking at an international conference, 'Coalition for the Good and Charity', in Cape Town.
"This was not the first of such invasions and attacks. However in the past, these brutalities have always been concealed because of strict control of the news coming out of Palestine. But for the first time the sheer savagery of these attacks of innocent children and women have been com communicated to the world," he said.
|
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Your posts are notoriously wrong on facts, show little background knowledge, often make no sense, and on top of it all you are a Massacre Denier. You usually don't respond when you are corrected or shown to be ignorant. |
Mostly more true of yourself than of Deanhills.
(Except you're a little less of a massacre denier.)
The point is, you seem to be fixated on Israel's problems while completely ignoring Hamas' problems.
The posts you make are virtually identical to what I'd expect a Hamas member to be saying, except that the Hamas member would mention Allah more often. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Your posts are notoriously wrong on facts, show little background knowledge, often make no sense, and on top of it all you are a Massacre Denier. You usually don't respond when you are corrected or shown to be ignorant. To now accuse me of bias in favor of Hamas is a cheap, sleazy tactic well outside the realm respectful disagreement. I am starting to think there is no point in replying to posts of yours, just as I ignoare your already-discredited stablemate. |
Coming from you that is a compliment. Thanks Handfleisch. 
Back to the topic, give me one reason why I am apparently mistaken in your bias towards Hamas?The Boycott Israel movement just got a major boost.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066231.html
| Quote: |
Last update - 07:48 23/02/2009
Amnesty International urges freeze on arms sales to Israel
By Amira Hass
More than 20 countries sold Israel weapons and munitions whose use during Operation Cast Lead could constitute war crimes and might pose serious infractions of international law, according to a report to be released by Amnesty International on Monday.
The United States is at the top of the list of arms exporters to Israel, but France, Romania, Bosnia and Serbia are listed as well. Amnesty's report, entitled, " Fueling Conflict: Foreign Arms supplies to Israel/Gaza," details arms sales to Israel between 2004 and 2007, and publishes some of the organization's findings on the use of such weapons against civilians and civilian targets.
"Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate attacks are war crimes," the report states, describing such attacks during the war in Gaza. The organization recommends that all arms sales to Israel be frozen until "there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses."
The report further noted that Hamas and other Palestinian groups also used weapons indiscriminately against civilians. Although Amnesty cannot determine the direct supplier of non-homemade weapons (which are manufactured in Iran and Russia), it also calls for a moratorium on weapons sales and shipments to the Palestinians. The report also mentions that the types and quantity of weapons in Hamas' hands are much smaller than those in Israel's possession. |
| handfleisch wrote: |
| The report further noted that Hamas and other Palestinian groups also used weapons indiscriminately against civilians. Although Amnesty cannot determine the direct supplier of non-homemade weapons (which are manufactured in Iran and Russia), it also calls for a moratorium on weapons sales and shipments to the Palestinians. The report also mentions that the types and quantity of weapons in Hamas' hands are much smaller than those in Israel's possession. |
Thanks Handfleisch. This was a balanced article. Also sad. Wish one could end the war by moratorium on weapons, but here is the thing. The killers are not the weapons, but the people who use the weapons are the real killers. Think some of that is happening at schools in the US too. How do you put a moratorium on weapons, when they are so easily and cheaply available, and when people actually need them for their defense against those who attack them. This is a toughie.“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” - Benjamin Netanyahu
| sondosia wrote: |
| “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” - Benjamin Netanyahu |
Good quote. And a rather sad one. | deanhills wrote: |
| sondosia wrote: | | “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” - Benjamin Netanyahu |
Good quote. And a rather sad one. |
Also trite and inaccurate. If the Arabs put down their weapons there is a large contingent of the Israeli population who believe that the West Bank, Golan Heights and other territories are theirs by 'birthright'. Israel would be the only military power in the region and you would see a return to the 'settlement' expansion in the West Bank - indeed that is his stated goal. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | sondosia wrote: | | “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” - Benjamin Netanyahu |
Good quote. And a rather sad one. |
Also trite and inaccurate. If the Arabs put down their weapons there is a large contingent of the Israeli population who believe that the West Bank, Golan Heights and other territories are theirs by 'birthright'. Israel would be the only military power in the region and you would see a return to the 'settlement' expansion in the West Bank - indeed that is his stated goal. |
I interpreted the quote completely differently Chris. The way I interpreted it was that Arabs can put their weapons down with no damage to themselves, however when Jews put their weapons down, it will be at the cost of their own existence. | deanhills wrote: |
| I interpreted the quote completely differently Chris. The way I interpreted it was that Arabs can put their weapons down with no damage to themselves, however when Jews put their weapons down, it will be at the cost of their own existence. |
Well, as I said, that is not true.
There are over 4 million Palestinians who STILL live in refugee camps - 60 years after the 1948 conflict. 'Putting down their arms' means continuing to live in squalor, on the charity of others - I call that serious damage.
Netenyahu has an agenda and he speaks to that agenda. This is a trite sound-bite to that effect. What he calls 'putting down arms' is a rhetorical ploy. Nobody has suggested that Israel should disarm - what me and others do suggest is that Israel should not invade other countries using those arms. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I interpreted the quote completely differently Chris. The way I interpreted it was that Arabs can put their weapons down with no damage to themselves, however when Jews put their weapons down, it will be at the cost of their own existence. |
Well, as I said, that is not true.
There are over 4 million Palestinians who STILL live in refugee camps - 60 years after the 1948 conflict. 'Putting down their arms' means continuing to live in squalor, on the charity of others - I call that serious damage. |
The quote refers to Arabs, not Palestinians. The fact that Palestinians are living in refugee camps is not a good situation but I think it is quite unfair to blame that on Israel only. If it is as big an issue as the free world is making it out to be, why are their Governments doing nothing to solve the situation? How about the British who allowed this mess to happen in the first place?
http://hnn.us/articles/1713.html | deanhills wrote: |
| The quote refers to Arabs, not Palestinians. The fact that Palestinians are living in refugee camps is not a good situation but I think it is quite unfair to blame that on Israel only. If it is as big an issue as the free world is making it out to be, why are their Governments doing nothing to solve the situation? How about the British who started this whole mess in the first place? |
Err....reality check - the Palestinians in question are Arabs.
Nobody blames it entirely on Israel - certainly not me. The British Government does indeed have a shameful role in this whole episode - though to say that they started it is way too simplistic.
The stated position of the UK is that the Palestinians should have a state which is viable and autonomous. That is the stated position of most countries in the world. Now, if you are suggesting that the UK should go to war with Israel in order to achieve this then that is probably not a sensible option. The US is the major supporter of Israel and as long as the US continues to prevaricate, and does not use its influence to force a proper settlement, then the situation will remain the same. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Now, if you are suggesting that the UK should go to war with Israel in order to achieve this then that is probably not a sensible option. |
That would be pretty rediculous in the extreme Chris. What is irritating is that they are acting as though they had nothing to do with the disaster, no contrition, no admission of guilt or responsibility for what had happened, looking only from the outside in in a disassociated state, washing their hands in innocence while giving lots of advice as though Israel is completely on their own, and now of course the Americans to blame. That is hypocritical to me. British are notorious for that though. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Now, if you are suggesting that the UK should go to war with Israel in order to achieve this then that is probably not a sensible option. |
That would be pretty rediculous in the extreme Chris. What is irritating is that they are acting as though they had nothing to do with the disaster, no contrition, no admission of guilt or responsibility for what had happened, looking only from the outside in in a disassociated state, washing their hands in innocence while giving lots of advice as though Israel is completely on their own, and now of course the Americans to blame. That is hypocritical to me. British are notorious for that though. |
Well, I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect the British government to start hanging their heads in shame for something that happened before any of them were born. Do American politicians hold their hands up for the atrocities of the civil war or slavery? Of course not, it is unrealistic. The best that they can do is apologise for the actions of the past (a largely meaningless gesture) and try to set policy according to the demands of the present.
I am a strong critic of many aspects of the British Empire - including the Palestine issue - but that is not really the relevant question at this time. If you want to debate the evils of the British Empire then I'll happily do so, and I think you will find there are few more trenchant critics of it than myself...
Current policy seems to me to be the correct one - a viable and secure Palestinian state alongside a viable and secure Jewish state. Though I should say that I am opposed to ANY state based on theocracy, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Islamic, one has to deal with the realities and Israel certainly has a 'right' to exist, just as there should be a 'right' for Palestinians to exist in their own state. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I am a strong critic of many aspects of the British Empire - including the Palestine issue - but that is not really the relevant question at this time. |
I have no doubt that you would not have agreed with this and this is not a personal criticism Chris, it's about the UK Government. Your views on the matter are well known.
Similarly to your point of view that there should be some sort of trial for Bush and Blair and their accomplices, so that we could learn from this, perhaps the world needs to sit down and have a trial about this too instead of dealing with it as something in a distance that really has nothing to do with the world or the UK? Obviously Israel and Palestine have been unable to come to an agreement about peace as the fundamentals of both are in question for one another, so to get to grip with those fundamentals, we probably have to go back to what happened in 1948 and before, as well as all of that period to date. As nobody seems to be able to find a solution in the present for the problem. And perhaps part of the solution is that this should be a World problem and not only an Israel and Palestine problem, as the world has to take some responsibility for it. And that responsibility includes decisions that had been taken by the UK Government long before 1948, and including 1948.
By the way, I've never heard an apology from the UK Government yet anywhere in the world and it has a very solid legacy of disastrous decisions all over the globe. Not that an apology would mean anything. Acknowledgement of responsibility for the problem would be much more preferred. | Quote: |
Israeli soldiers admit to deliberate killing of Gaza civilians
Palestinian women sit next to the rubble of their destroyed houses in the Rafah border between Egypt and southern Gaza Strip
The Israeli army has been forced to open an investigation into the conduct of its troops in Gaza after damning testimony from its own front line soldiers revealed the killing of civilians and rules of engagement so lax that one combatant said that they amounted on occasion to “cold-blooded murder”.
The revelations, compiled by the head of an Israel military academy who declared that he was “shocked” at the findings, come as international rights groups are calling for independent inquiries into the conduct of both sides in the three-week Israeli offensive against Palestinian Islamists.
The soldiers’ testimonies include accounts of an unarmed old woman being shot at a distance of 100 yards, a woman and her two children being killed after Israeli soldiers ordered them from their house into the line of fire of a sniper and soldiers clearing houses by shooting anyone they encountered on sight.
“That’s the beauty of Gaza. You see a man walking, he doesn’t have to have a weapon, and you can shoot him,” one soldier told Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin pre-military academy, who asked him why a company commander ordered an elderly woman to be shot. |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5939611.ece
