American Secular zionist checking in. Solid read inside this forum. Never been on A Moving train.
Hammas leadership in Gaza refusal to recognize the the State of Israel will forever make it impossible for there to be peace in the middle east. Almost as simple as that.
i do not recognise the state of israel in its current form either.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
American Secular zionist checking in. Solid read inside this forum. Never been on A Moving train.
Hammas leadership in Gaza refusal to recognize the the State of Israel will forever make it impossible for there to be peace in the middle east. Almost as simple as that.
i do not recognise the state of israel in its current form either.
You mean it's current form of constantly under attack from the rest of the Middle East? I agree. That's a terrible way for them to have to live.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
It's not hyperbole. It's fact. And has been answered.
But, if you'd like an explanation, you need none further than numerous quotes by Hamas, Iran and others regarding their desire to wipe Israel AND its people off the face of the Earth.
no it hasn't.
fact- israel will continue to expand settlements because it believes it is entitiled to all of that land going to the sea. it has been expanding settlements, stealing land, oppressing the people who are living there, killing activists such as Rachel Corrie, and thumbing it's nose at the international community and breaking international law by carrying out summary executions for years.
if "israel" were called "iraq" the united states would have called it a terrorist state and invaded it just as it did iraq.
and again,. the quote that iran's leader said about "wiping israel off of the map", has been thoroughly debunked as a poor translation. byrnzie has posted numerous articles stating as such. but as long as people who think like you and know as little about the topic as you cling to that there will always be conflict. by repeating that mistranslated line you are perpetuating the conflict. by allowing the settlements to expand you are perpetuating the conflict.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
wow, all this because palestine is petitioning the UN for member status on 11/29. i guess they had to take out the leadership to insure that they can not influnce the member states of the UN.
let's not forget that israel is attacking sites in the syrian civil war too.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
- if Hamas and their supporters dropped their weapons, Israel would not attack. If Israel dropped it's weapons, it would cease to exist. Therefore, Israel does respect Palestinian lives more than the opposite.
do u think that if both sides drop their guns,this will stop???
no,,cos "other"countries with interest in the area will not let them...
one simple provocation will fuck everything up...
this shit will never ends...
Right. I said Hamas AND their supporters. Those drop their weapons, it is over.
Israel drops its weapons (without the above TRULY happening) and it is gone. FACT.
it will never be over til israel adheres to international law and ceases to expand its settlements. i dont think you fully grasp the situation. to me all youre seeing is the violence against the israelis and not the root cause. and if by some miracle you do see the root cause you dont seem to see it as a valid reason for the palestinians rising up against their oppressor. i would dearly love to see how you would react in the same situation. the conflict between the israel and the palestinians goes beyond religion.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
American Secular zionist checking in. Solid read inside this forum. Never been on A Moving train.
Hammas leadership in Gaza refusal to recognize the the State of Israel will forever make it impossible for there to be peace in the middle east. Almost as simple as that.
i do not recognise the state of israel in its current form either.
You mean it's current form of constantly under attack from the rest of the Middle East? I agree. That's a terrible way for them to have to live.
oh please.. poor poor israel.. always being the target of agression.. always being supported by the biggest bullies in the world. why is it the onis is always on the palecxtinians to stop attacking israel. why does no politician have the balls to call israel on their flouting of international law. why are they allowed to continually expand their illegal settlements and NO ONE thinks to voice the opinion that this could well be the reason for the palestinians beign so pissed off and that hmmm maybe israel might want to pull their horns in and look at what THEYRE doing? are we still carrying so much guilt from the shoah that we are blinded.. must we always seek to demonise 'the other' at the expense of justice. im not saying israel is the only one at fault here.. but as the more powerful of the partners in this situation it is they who hold the power to reverse the animosity. the onus must always be on the oppressor and never on the oppressed. did we blame the black man in south africa for apartheid?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
...
fact- israel will continue to expand settlements because it believes it is entitiled to all of that land going to the sea. it has been expanding settlements, stealing land, oppressing the people who are living there, killing activists such as Rachel Corrie, and thumbing it's nose at the international community and breaking international law by carrying out summary executions for years....
where was the outrage from america over the killing of one of their own???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Disagree. Israel is fighting to protect itself. If it was fighting a war, Gaza would be gone.
If someone started lobbing bombs at Canada and not recognizing it's existence, you would call that a political war?
I'm going to recede into the night. I explained I'm new to this. I'm not looking for argument. I'm trying to learn about this extremely complex but overly simplified conflict.
I'll be read only on this unless I have a question. I just wish I could find a person or some literature that wasn't so biased on the issue.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Disagree. Israel is fighting to protect itself. If it was fighting a war, Gaza would be gone.
If someone started lobbing bombs at Canada and not recognizing it's existence, you would call that a political war?
I'm going to recede into the night. I explained I'm new to this. I'm not looking for argument. I'm trying to learn about this extremely complex but overly simplified conflict.
I'll be read only on this unless I have a question.
dont let him fool you hugh.. its not as simple as israel just having bombs lobbed at it. the palestinian people have cause. how edson should have worded it is if someone started lobbing bomba at canada whilst they were oppressing said bomb lobbers, would you call that a political war? he does both you and himself a disservice, not to mention the palestinians, when he omits the root cause of this conflict. we can not be selective in presenting the information when it comes to conflicts like this. we must show reason and cause, not just actions. the media shows the israleis 'defending' themselves against the rocket attacks from the palestininas in gaza.. yet they do not ask why.. they do not ask why the palestinians are confined to the gaza strip. all we are told is hamas is firing missiles at tel aviv.. oh no not tel aviv!!!
read history hugh, read it all. not just one source or one side but from many and all. then decide for yourself knowledge is a weapon. use it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Israel has never explicitly annexed the West Bank (and has affirmatively voted down attempts from within the government to do so). The territory was conquered in a military conflict ('67 war) and until there is another sovereign to whom Israel can cede responsibility for the territory (in this case a Palestinian state) through a negotiated withdrawal its continued occupation of the territory is legal (which is not to say that all the actions taken in furtherance of the occupation are legal - that's a seperate question). As usual you've collapsed a number of very complicated realities about which you seem to personally be only partially informed into one utterly inaccurate and inadequate black and white conclusion.
Hamas are the legal representatives of the Palestinian people. So the Occupied territories should be ceded to them. Though of course Israel is reluctant to do this, just as was reluctant to cede any territory to the PLO before them. And labeling them terrorists as an excuse to continue the occupation holds no water.
As for the situation being complicated, it isn't. The whole of the international community recognizes that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, and that Israel must withdraw all of it's forces from the territories it seized during and after the 1967 war. Nothing complicated about that.
The idea that all means are legitimate in resistance to occupation is logically indefensible unless you're willing to give up on any notion of morality, law and ethics altogether. And if you aren't able to draw any moral limits then I fail to see why anyone should take you seriously when you fling moral accusations at Israel. You just aren't credible.
The morality of resistance is that if someone is stamping on your throat then you retaliate by any means necessary in order to force that person to back off.
But I understand how you can view such retaliation as immoral. I mean, were the various Jewish partisan and resistance groups in Nazi Occupied Europe immoral for blowing up trains that may or may not have been carrying civilians?
As for the situation being complicated, it isn't. The whole of the international community recognizes that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, and that Israel must withdraw all of it's forces from the territories it seized during and after the 1967 war. Nothing complicated about that.
if it's truly as cut and dry as you say, why is no one doing anything about it? is it all because the US backs Israel?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I would profer that Israel is on the same ethical ground as us on this - life is better than death. (Which is not to argue or say that they don't kill people. But, the fact that they wouldn't strap a bomb to themselves to attack others, make a point, "defend themselves or whatever you'd like to call it). Can the same be said for Hamas and other similarly situated terrorist organizations?
So what you're saying here is that Palestinians are intrinsically hateful and murderous, and they have no respect for life, whereas the Israeli's are peace-loving humanitarians who feel deeply hurt every time one of their bombs, bullets, or phosphorous shells, kills a Palestinian woman or child?
Interesting.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/b ... srael/5955 Book Review: The Case Against Israel - Michael Neumann
As for “terrorism”, which he defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much' - Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel Is Coming To An End
P.116: "Indiscriminate attacks differ from direct attacks against civilians,' Israel's leading authority on International law, Yoram Dinstein, observed, in that "the attacker is not actually trying to harm the civilian population": the injury to the civilians is merely a matter of "no concern to the attacker." From the standpoint of LOIAC [Law of International Armed Conflict], there is no genuine difference between a premeditated attack against civilians (or civilian objects) and a reckless disregard of the principle of distinction: they are equally forbidden. [Yoram Dinstein - 'The Conduct of Hostilities under the law of International Armed Conflict' 2004].
As for the situation being complicated, it isn't. The whole of the international community recognizes that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, and that Israel must withdraw all of it's forces from the territories it seized during and after the 1967 war. Nothing complicated about that.
if it's truly as cut and dry as you say, why is no one doing anything about it? is it all because the US backs Israel?
politics hugh, politics.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if it's truly as cut and dry as you say, why is no one doing anything about it? is it all because the US backs Israel?
Mostly, yes. The U.S uses it's power of automatic veto to suppress any criticism of Israel, and any attempt by the international community to force Israel to abide by international law.
What is the international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict?
One of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Although this conflict has been depicted as among the most intricate, the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world in fact concur on the basis of its resolution. In the jargon of the so-called peace process, the “final status” issues are supposed to be so intractable that they need be deferred until the last stage of negotiations. These final status issues include borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. The documentary record shows, however, that, on the terms for resolving these allegedly controversial” issues, Israel and the United States stand virtually alone.
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3]
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
Disagree. Israel is fighting to protect itself. If it was fighting a war, Gaza would be gone.
If someone started lobbing bombs at Canada and not recognizing it's existence, you would call that a political war?
I'm going to recede into the night. I explained I'm new to this. I'm not looking for argument. I'm trying to learn about this extremely complex but overly simplified conflict.
I'll be read only on this unless I have a question. I just wish I could find a person or some literature that wasn't so biased on the issue.
Unfortunately, you probably won't find any. You really have to do your own research about the facts. As others have said, it's not simple and there's a lot of wrong on both sides.
I will repeat myself and leave you with one thought as you learn about the facts.
If Israel simply laid down it's arms, what would happen?
If Hamas and it's supporters laid down their arms what would happen?
I mean either of those individually with no guarantees from the other side.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I would profer that Israel is on the same ethical ground as us on this - life is better than death. (Which is not to argue or say that they don't kill people. But, the fact that they wouldn't strap a bomb to themselves to attack others, make a point, "defend themselves or whatever you'd like to call it). Can the same be said for Hamas and other similarly situated terrorist organizations?
So what you're saying here is that Palestinians are intrinsically hateful and murderous, and they have no respect for life, whereas the Israeli's are peace-loving humanitarians who feel deeply hurt every time one of their bombs, bullets, or phosphorous shells, kills a Palestinian woman or child?
]
Not Palestinians. Hamas.
And, no. Israel would not do that intentionally. They are not bombing indiscremanently (SP?) as Hamas is.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I would profer that Israel is on the same ethical ground as us on this - life is better than death. (Which is not to argue or say that they don't kill people. But, the fact that they wouldn't strap a bomb to themselves to attack others, make a point, "defend themselves or whatever you'd like to call it). Can the same be said for Hamas and other similarly situated terrorist organizations?
So what you're saying here is that Palestinians are intrinsically hateful and murderous, and they have no respect for life, whereas the Israeli's are peace-loving humanitarians who feel deeply hurt every time one of their bombs, bullets, or phosphorous shells, kills a Palestinian woman or child?
]
Not Palestinians. Hamas.
And, no. Israel would not do that intentionally. They are not bombing indiscremanently (SP?) as Hamas is.
Seems to me there have been some indiscrimminate attacks on Israel's part, with an army chief of staff making statements like this:
Israeli Army Chief: Don’t Just Attack Random Houses
Urges Troops Attacking Gaza to 'Pay Attention'
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/19/isra ... om-houses/
While touring military deployments in southern Israel today, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Benny Gantz admonished division commanders to “pay attention not to just take random houses and fire at them unnecessarily.”
The comments come just a day after a very high profile incident in which Israel attacked a seemingly random house and discovered it was full of civilians, including a large number of children. Israeli officials blamed the incident on a “targeting” mistake.
Though public criticism of the 2008-09 Israeli invasion of Gaza was kept fairly limited, post-war criticism of the seemingly random nature of a lot of Israeli attacks grew in the months and years to follow. Already, there is a palpable sense in the Israeli press that massive civilian death tolls are going to be a lot tougher to paper over this time around.
It’s also going to be difficult to avoid, because the Israeli government seems determined to escalate attacks on the tiny strip but doesn’t seem to have all that many real targets, and is measuring its escalation in quantity of targets hit, without any indication that they are hitting much other than random houses.
This "targeting mistake", this single attack, wiping out a family of 12, tripled the entire number of israeli casualties.
The reality is complicated; mired in corruption, haunted by division, but is ultimately a product of obscene oppression. So obscene, that many, namely Israel and the US, would rather pretend it simply was not true - not real - but it is.
Israel controls the movement of all people and goods along Gaza's northern borders, as well as all its territorial waters and airspace, except a small strip along the southern border with Egypt, which has largely remained closed. Israel does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. It also controls the movements of water, food, medicine, and people by land.
In October, after a three-year battle by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose its so-called "Red Lines" document. No, not that cartoon/drawing Netanyahu made at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program, this was a document drafted in early 2008 that provided a calculation of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition and widespread starvation.
And yet, Israel claims it no longer occupies Gaza.
The health ministry of Israel determined at the time that Palestinians in Gaza needed an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition. To meet that number, Israel would need to allow 170 trucks of food a day inside Gaza. However, despite the study, less than half of the minimum amount required was actually allowed to enter Gaza daily. Before the blockade, Israel allowed 400 trucks through, by comparison.
To ignore the role of Israel's occupation of Gaza is to ignore the fundamental fact needed to frame the latest escalation in reality rather than rhetoric and propaganda.
To do otherwise, flagrantly falsifies the reality of the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the ground in Gaza.
The reality is complicated; mired in corruption, haunted by division, but is ultimately a product of obscene oppression. So obscene, that many, namely Israel and the US, would rather pretend it simply was not true - not real - but it is.
Israel controls the movement of all people and goods along Gaza's northern borders, as well as all its territorial waters and airspace, except a small strip along the southern border with Egypt, which has largely remained closed. Israel does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. It also controls the movements of water, food, medicine, and people by land.
In October, after a three-year battle by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose its so-called "Red Lines" document. No, not that cartoon/drawing Netanyahu made at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program, this was a document drafted in early 2008 that provided a calculation of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition and widespread starvation.
And yet, Israel claims it no longer occupies Gaza.
The health ministry of Israel determined at the time that Palestinians in Gaza needed an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition. To meet that number, Israel would need to allow 170 trucks of food a day inside Gaza. However, despite the study, less than half of the minimum amount required was actually allowed to enter Gaza daily. Before the blockade, Israel allowed 400 trucks through, by comparison.
WATCH: Israeli Strikes Repeatedly Attack Journalists
When Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005, it claimed that this was the end of Gaza's occupation. But this report is one of countless examples of Israel's punishment of Palestinians living in Gaza, and one that must be included in order to put into context Israel's latest offensive.
The United Nations, continues to refer to Gaza as an occupied territory. But Israel has long been indifferent to the United Nations and its resolutions condemning the country.
On November 17, Israeli strikes damaged a UN-run school next to the Civil Department of the Ministry of Interior building in Gaza City's Tal al-Hawa neighborhood. This photo was taken by @annepaq, a French photographer based in Palestine for years.
On the very same day, Israel's official Twitter account @IDFSpokesperson tweeted a link to a video hosted on their official YouTube channel, featuring an animated film that depicts militants firing rockets from a school clearly marked with UNRWA insignia.
The UN agency denies the allegations made that suggest that Palestinian militants are using UNRWA schools or facilities in Gaza to fire rockets into Israel.
The media and social media coverage has beem exceptional, "Now, Gaza is under the microscope, whether via social media, print, radio, TV - there is no ignoring what is raging within."
Perhaps, for that reason, Israel has repeatedly targeted several buildings that house local and foreign journalists. The offices of Al-Arabiya, Russia Today, Reuters, AFP, Britain's Sky News, German ARD, Al-Quds, and other local media outlets were all damaged. Israel has killed at least three journalists and wounded dozens more. The 11-month old baby of BBC journalist Jihad Misharawi was also killed by an Israeli airstrike.
Twenty-year old cameraman Khader al-Zahhar had his right leg blown off when a rocket shot through the roof of one of the buildings.
The timing of these attacks on journalists is also significant.
As the Committee To Protect Journalists's International Press Freedom Awards began in New York City, in Gaza, Israelis airstrikes shattered the windows of many international and local reporters like NBC Foreign Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin in Gaza. The BBC Middle East Bureau Chief Paul Danahar, CNN's Anderson Cooper and The Washington Post's Cairo Bureau Chief Abigail Hauslohner were all there tweeting.
This is the trouble with Israel's social media and PR efforts: they conveniently omit the facts that matter. Under the Geneva Convention, targeting journalists or civilians is considered a war crime.
But Netanyahu spokesman Marc Regev appeared on Al Jazeera this week and tried to blame the journalists themselves for their deaths, questioning whether Palestinian and local journalists should be considered journalists and insisting that the strikes on the building only hit and affected the roof.
The idea that all means are legitimate in resistance to occupation is logically indefensible unless you're willing to give up on any notion of morality, law and ethics altogether. And if you aren't able to draw any moral limits then I fail to see why anyone should take you seriously when you fling moral accusations at Israel. You just aren't credible.
The morality of resistance is that if someone is stamping on your throat then you retaliate by any means necessary in order to force that person to remove his back off.
But I understand how you can view such retaliation as immoral. I mean, were the various Jewish partisan and resistance groups in Nazi Occupied Europe immoral for blowing up trains that may or may not have been carrying civilians?
I'm going to ignore the historical point because I actually don't think that ever happened. As far as I know, and I happen to know quite a bit on this subject, Jewish partisans during the war never attacked German civilians, if for no other reason then that the only Germans in the areas that saw partisan activity (generally Eastern Europe) were in the military. But that's really a side point...
Yet again, your argument is far too simplistic (which is often a problem with arguments by analogy). That said, to use the terms of your analogy, the man with a boot on his throat can certainly use all reasonable means to protect himself against the person attacking him. He can't, however, blindly attack everyone who just so happens to be associated with his attacker. If the man finds a gun lying next to him and in fear for his life shoots the man whose boot is crushing his throat, that's one thing. It's quite another thing to grab the gun and shoot the man's daughter while she's playing in the yard next door. Morality functions through the identification of meaningful distinctions. If you refuse to draw those distinctions then you are affectively no longer really engaging in a moral discourse.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
why is israel ignoring the terms? why will they not agree to terms? why are they rejecting the terms?
the news sites are saying hamas has agreeable terms but israel is rejecting the terms....could it be that everyone brokering for a cease fire is pressuring the israeli government to stop settlement expansion and lift the blockade? are they asking for the 2 things that hamas and the palestinian people have been asking for for decades? could it be that israel is on shaky ground morally and politically??
if those 2 things were conceded by israel it would be political suicide for bibi with the election coming up in january. i guess he can not appear to be "weak", or what the rest of the sane world would call "sane"... either that or they are just holding off on an agreement so they can get every last combat sortie in...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A senior Israeli official explained that the final draft of the understandings prepared by Egyptian intelligence was unacceptable to Israel. On several issues, he said, the Egyptians adopted Hamas' positions, particularly in regard to opening the border crossings, easing the naval blockade of Gaza and eliminating the 500-meter buffer zone on the Palestinian side of the border fence. Currently Israel does not allow Palestinians to enter this zone.
A senior Israeli official explained that the final draft of the understandings prepared by Egyptian intelligence was unacceptable to Israel. On several issues, he said, the Egyptians adopted Hamas' positions, particularly in regard to opening the border crossings, easing the naval blockade of Gaza and eliminating the 500-meter buffer zone on the Palestinian side of the border fence. Currently Israel does not allow Palestinians to enter this zone.
unfortunately with bibi and the likud leading the israeli government and elections coming up i doubt that any of those terms will be agreed to..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
...that way, I won't have to keep repeating myself. Israel has been indiscriminately killing civilians - Labanese & Palestinian, for decades. And the proof of this has been extensively documented.
I'm going to ignore the historical point because I actually don't think that ever happened. As far as I know, and I happen to know quite a bit on this subject, Jewish partisans during the war never attacked German civilians, if for no other reason then that the only Germans in the areas that saw partisan activity (generally Eastern Europe) were in the military. But that's really a side point...
Yet again, your argument is far too simplistic (which is often a problem with arguments by analogy). That said, to use the terms of your analogy, the man with a boot on his throat can certainly use all reasonable means to protect himself against the person attacking him. He can't, however, blindly attack everyone who just so happens to be associated with his attacker. If the man finds a gun lying next to him and in fear for his life shoots the man whose boot is crushing his throat, that's one thing. It's quite another thing to grab the gun and shoot the man's daughter while she's playing in the yard next door. Morality functions through the identification of meaningful distinctions. If you refuse to draw those distinctions then you are affectively no longer really engaging in a moral discourse.
And if attacking his daughter was a sure-fire way to cause the man who was strangulating him with his boot heel to back off, and that the attacker knew that by crushing the mans throat with his boot he was placing his own family in danger of retaliation, then why would it be immoral for the victim to attack his daughter? Surely the immorality lies in the attacker not simply backing off and ceasing his violence?
Your last response shows an absolute lack of fundamental moral understanding. I would hope that the other people reading this thread can recognize that as easily as I can.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
if israeilians was not jewish,the things will be different...and hate less
if palestinians has a big power behind to support them..lets say Russia,things will be different..
when you grow up with hate and loose favo people,its easier to do things that we here think is unbeliavable
this shit there will ever ends cosa "others" dont want peace..\
and by others,i mean both sides supporters....
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Your last response shows an absolute lack of fundamental moral understanding. I would hope that the other people reading this thread can recognize that as easily as I can.
And I would hope that people reading this thread can see the difference between the violence of someone under a brutal military occupation and all of the oppression, beatings, house demolitions, random incursions, missile attacks, white phosphorous attacks, checkpoints, and general humiliation that goes with it, and the violence of the oppressor...despite your efforts to portray them as being on an equal footing.
Comments
i do not recognise the state of israel in its current form either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You mean it's current form of constantly under attack from the rest of the Middle East? I agree. That's a terrible way for them to have to live.
fact- israel will continue to expand settlements because it believes it is entitiled to all of that land going to the sea. it has been expanding settlements, stealing land, oppressing the people who are living there, killing activists such as Rachel Corrie, and thumbing it's nose at the international community and breaking international law by carrying out summary executions for years.
if "israel" were called "iraq" the united states would have called it a terrorist state and invaded it just as it did iraq.
and again,. the quote that iran's leader said about "wiping israel off of the map", has been thoroughly debunked as a poor translation. byrnzie has posted numerous articles stating as such. but as long as people who think like you and know as little about the topic as you cling to that there will always be conflict. by repeating that mistranslated line you are perpetuating the conflict. by allowing the settlements to expand you are perpetuating the conflict.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
let's not forget that israel is attacking sites in the syrian civil war too.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it will never be over til israel adheres to international law and ceases to expand its settlements. i dont think you fully grasp the situation. to me all youre seeing is the violence against the israelis and not the root cause. and if by some miracle you do see the root cause you dont seem to see it as a valid reason for the palestinians rising up against their oppressor. i would dearly love to see how you would react in the same situation. the conflict between the israel and the palestinians goes beyond religion.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh please.. poor poor israel.. always being the target of agression.. always being supported by the biggest bullies in the world. why is it the onis is always on the palecxtinians to stop attacking israel. why does no politician have the balls to call israel on their flouting of international law. why are they allowed to continually expand their illegal settlements and NO ONE thinks to voice the opinion that this could well be the reason for the palestinians beign so pissed off and that hmmm maybe israel might want to pull their horns in and look at what THEYRE doing? are we still carrying so much guilt from the shoah that we are blinded.. must we always seek to demonise 'the other' at the expense of justice. im not saying israel is the only one at fault here.. but as the more powerful of the partners in this situation it is they who hold the power to reverse the animosity. the onus must always be on the oppressor and never on the oppressed. did we blame the black man in south africa for apartheid?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
where was the outrage from america over the killing of one of their own???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm going to recede into the night. I explained I'm new to this. I'm not looking for argument. I'm trying to learn about this extremely complex but overly simplified conflict.
I'll be read only on this unless I have a question. I just wish I could find a person or some literature that wasn't so biased on the issue.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
dont let him fool you hugh.. its not as simple as israel just having bombs lobbed at it. the palestinian people have cause. how edson should have worded it is if someone started lobbing bomba at canada whilst they were oppressing said bomb lobbers, would you call that a political war? he does both you and himself a disservice, not to mention the palestinians, when he omits the root cause of this conflict. we can not be selective in presenting the information when it comes to conflicts like this. we must show reason and cause, not just actions. the media shows the israleis 'defending' themselves against the rocket attacks from the palestininas in gaza.. yet they do not ask why.. they do not ask why the palestinians are confined to the gaza strip. all we are told is hamas is firing missiles at tel aviv.. oh no not tel aviv!!!
read history hugh, read it all. not just one source or one side but from many and all. then decide for yourself knowledge is a weapon. use it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.machsomwatch.org/en (israeli women against occupation)
http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/
http://www.btselem.org/
Hamas are the legal representatives of the Palestinian people. So the Occupied territories should be ceded to them. Though of course Israel is reluctant to do this, just as was reluctant to cede any territory to the PLO before them. And labeling them terrorists as an excuse to continue the occupation holds no water.
As for the situation being complicated, it isn't. The whole of the international community recognizes that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, and that Israel must withdraw all of it's forces from the territories it seized during and after the 1967 war. Nothing complicated about that.
The morality of resistance is that if someone is stamping on your throat then you retaliate by any means necessary in order to force that person to back off.
But I understand how you can view such retaliation as immoral. I mean, were the various Jewish partisan and resistance groups in Nazi Occupied Europe immoral for blowing up trains that may or may not have been carrying civilians?
if it's truly as cut and dry as you say, why is no one doing anything about it? is it all because the US backs Israel?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So what you're saying here is that Palestinians are intrinsically hateful and murderous, and they have no respect for life, whereas the Israeli's are peace-loving humanitarians who feel deeply hurt every time one of their bombs, bullets, or phosphorous shells, kills a Palestinian woman or child?
Interesting.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/b ... srael/5955
Book Review: The Case Against Israel - Michael Neumann
As for “terrorism”, which he defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much' - Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel Is Coming To An End
P.116: "Indiscriminate attacks differ from direct attacks against civilians,' Israel's leading authority on International law, Yoram Dinstein, observed, in that "the attacker is not actually trying to harm the civilian population": the injury to the civilians is merely a matter of "no concern to the attacker." From the standpoint of LOIAC [Law of International Armed Conflict], there is no genuine difference between a premeditated attack against civilians (or civilian objects) and a reckless disregard of the principle of distinction: they are equally forbidden. [Yoram Dinstein - 'The Conduct of Hostilities under the law of International Armed Conflict' 2004].
politics hugh, politics.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Of course it is...
Mostly, yes. The U.S uses it's power of automatic veto to suppress any criticism of Israel, and any attempt by the international community to force Israel to abide by international law.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolv ... om-gandhi/
What is the international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict?
One of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Although this conflict has been depicted as among the most intricate, the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world in fact concur on the basis of its resolution. In the jargon of the so-called peace process, the “final status” issues are supposed to be so intractable that they need be deferred until the last stage of negotiations. These final status issues include borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. The documentary record shows, however, that, on the terms for resolving these allegedly controversial” issues, Israel and the United States stand virtually alone.
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3]
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
as an australian id like to publicly voice my disgust for, and my absolutely lack of support of australias veto of these resolutions.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Unfortunately, you probably won't find any. You really have to do your own research about the facts. As others have said, it's not simple and there's a lot of wrong on both sides.
I will repeat myself and leave you with one thought as you learn about the facts.
If Israel simply laid down it's arms, what would happen?
If Hamas and it's supporters laid down their arms what would happen?
I mean either of those individually with no guarantees from the other side.
Not Palestinians. Hamas.
And, no. Israel would not do that intentionally. They are not bombing indiscremanently (SP?) as Hamas is.
Israeli Army Chief: Don’t Just Attack Random Houses
Urges Troops Attacking Gaza to 'Pay Attention'
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/11/19/isra ... om-houses/
While touring military deployments in southern Israel today, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Benny Gantz admonished division commanders to “pay attention not to just take random houses and fire at them unnecessarily.”
The comments come just a day after a very high profile incident in which Israel attacked a seemingly random house and discovered it was full of civilians, including a large number of children. Israeli officials blamed the incident on a “targeting” mistake.
Though public criticism of the 2008-09 Israeli invasion of Gaza was kept fairly limited, post-war criticism of the seemingly random nature of a lot of Israeli attacks grew in the months and years to follow. Already, there is a palpable sense in the Israeli press that massive civilian death tolls are going to be a lot tougher to paper over this time around.
It’s also going to be difficult to avoid, because the Israeli government seems determined to escalate attacks on the tiny strip but doesn’t seem to have all that many real targets, and is measuring its escalation in quantity of targets hit, without any indication that they are hitting much other than random houses.
This "targeting mistake", this single attack, wiping out a family of 12, tripled the entire number of israeli casualties.
Israel controls the movement of all people and goods along Gaza's northern borders, as well as all its territorial waters and airspace, except a small strip along the southern border with Egypt, which has largely remained closed. Israel does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. It also controls the movements of water, food, medicine, and people by land.
In October, after a three-year battle by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose its so-called "Red Lines" document. No, not that cartoon/drawing Netanyahu made at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program, this was a document drafted in early 2008 that provided a calculation of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition and widespread starvation.
And yet, Israel claims it no longer occupies Gaza.
The health ministry of Israel determined at the time that Palestinians in Gaza needed an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition. To meet that number, Israel would need to allow 170 trucks of food a day inside Gaza. However, despite the study, less than half of the minimum amount required was actually allowed to enter Gaza daily. Before the blockade, Israel allowed 400 trucks through, by comparison.
To ignore the role of Israel's occupation of Gaza is to ignore the fundamental fact needed to frame the latest escalation in reality rather than rhetoric and propaganda.
To do otherwise, flagrantly falsifies the reality of the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the ground in Gaza.
The reality is complicated; mired in corruption, haunted by division, but is ultimately a product of obscene oppression. So obscene, that many, namely Israel and the US, would rather pretend it simply was not true - not real - but it is.
Israel controls the movement of all people and goods along Gaza's northern borders, as well as all its territorial waters and airspace, except a small strip along the southern border with Egypt, which has largely remained closed. Israel does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. It also controls the movements of water, food, medicine, and people by land.
In October, after a three-year battle by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose its so-called "Red Lines" document. No, not that cartoon/drawing Netanyahu made at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program, this was a document drafted in early 2008 that provided a calculation of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition and widespread starvation.
And yet, Israel claims it no longer occupies Gaza.
The health ministry of Israel determined at the time that Palestinians in Gaza needed an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition. To meet that number, Israel would need to allow 170 trucks of food a day inside Gaza. However, despite the study, less than half of the minimum amount required was actually allowed to enter Gaza daily. Before the blockade, Israel allowed 400 trucks through, by comparison.
WATCH: Israeli Strikes Repeatedly Attack Journalists
When Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005, it claimed that this was the end of Gaza's occupation. But this report is one of countless examples of Israel's punishment of Palestinians living in Gaza, and one that must be included in order to put into context Israel's latest offensive.
The United Nations, continues to refer to Gaza as an occupied territory. But Israel has long been indifferent to the United Nations and its resolutions condemning the country.
On November 17, Israeli strikes damaged a UN-run school next to the Civil Department of the Ministry of Interior building in Gaza City's Tal al-Hawa neighborhood. This photo was taken by @annepaq, a French photographer based in Palestine for years.
On the very same day, Israel's official Twitter account @IDFSpokesperson tweeted a link to a video hosted on their official YouTube channel, featuring an animated film that depicts militants firing rockets from a school clearly marked with UNRWA insignia.
The UN agency denies the allegations made that suggest that Palestinian militants are using UNRWA schools or facilities in Gaza to fire rockets into Israel.
The media and social media coverage has beem exceptional, "Now, Gaza is under the microscope, whether via social media, print, radio, TV - there is no ignoring what is raging within."
Perhaps, for that reason, Israel has repeatedly targeted several buildings that house local and foreign journalists. The offices of Al-Arabiya, Russia Today, Reuters, AFP, Britain's Sky News, German ARD, Al-Quds, and other local media outlets were all damaged. Israel has killed at least three journalists and wounded dozens more. The 11-month old baby of BBC journalist Jihad Misharawi was also killed by an Israeli airstrike.
Twenty-year old cameraman Khader al-Zahhar had his right leg blown off when a rocket shot through the roof of one of the buildings.
The timing of these attacks on journalists is also significant.
As the Committee To Protect Journalists's International Press Freedom Awards began in New York City, in Gaza, Israelis airstrikes shattered the windows of many international and local reporters like NBC Foreign Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin in Gaza. The BBC Middle East Bureau Chief Paul Danahar, CNN's Anderson Cooper and The Washington Post's Cairo Bureau Chief Abigail Hauslohner were all there tweeting.
This is the trouble with Israel's social media and PR efforts: they conveniently omit the facts that matter. Under the Geneva Convention, targeting journalists or civilians is considered a war crime.
But Netanyahu spokesman Marc Regev appeared on Al Jazeera this week and tried to blame the journalists themselves for their deaths, questioning whether Palestinian and local journalists should be considered journalists and insisting that the strikes on the building only hit and affected the roof.
I'm going to ignore the historical point because I actually don't think that ever happened. As far as I know, and I happen to know quite a bit on this subject, Jewish partisans during the war never attacked German civilians, if for no other reason then that the only Germans in the areas that saw partisan activity (generally Eastern Europe) were in the military. But that's really a side point...
Yet again, your argument is far too simplistic (which is often a problem with arguments by analogy). That said, to use the terms of your analogy, the man with a boot on his throat can certainly use all reasonable means to protect himself against the person attacking him. He can't, however, blindly attack everyone who just so happens to be associated with his attacker. If the man finds a gun lying next to him and in fear for his life shoots the man whose boot is crushing his throat, that's one thing. It's quite another thing to grab the gun and shoot the man's daughter while she's playing in the yard next door. Morality functions through the identification of meaningful distinctions. If you refuse to draw those distinctions then you are affectively no longer really engaging in a moral discourse.
the news sites are saying hamas has agreeable terms but israel is rejecting the terms....could it be that everyone brokering for a cease fire is pressuring the israeli government to stop settlement expansion and lift the blockade? are they asking for the 2 things that hamas and the palestinian people have been asking for for decades? could it be that israel is on shaky ground morally and politically??
if those 2 things were conceded by israel it would be political suicide for bibi with the election coming up in january. i guess he can not appear to be "weak", or what the rest of the sane world would call "sane"... either that or they are just holding off on an agreement so they can get every last combat sortie in...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I suggest you do your homework my friend: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=199263&start=15#p4751968
...that way, I won't have to keep repeating myself. Israel has been indiscriminately killing civilians - Labanese & Palestinian, for decades. And the proof of this has been extensively documented.
And if attacking his daughter was a sure-fire way to cause the man who was strangulating him with his boot heel to back off, and that the attacker knew that by crushing the mans throat with his boot he was placing his own family in danger of retaliation, then why would it be immoral for the victim to attack his daughter? Surely the immorality lies in the attacker not simply backing off and ceasing his violence?
if israeilians was not jewish,the things will be different...and hate less
if palestinians has a big power behind to support them..lets say Russia,things will be different..
when you grow up with hate and loose favo people,its easier to do things that we here think is unbeliavable
this shit there will ever ends cosa "others" dont want peace..\
and by others,i mean both sides supporters....
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
And I would hope that people reading this thread can see the difference between the violence of someone under a brutal military occupation and all of the oppression, beatings, house demolitions, random incursions, missile attacks, white phosphorous attacks, checkpoints, and general humiliation that goes with it, and the violence of the oppressor...despite your efforts to portray them as being on an equal footing.