Hamas is offering Israel a 10-year truce if it accepts 10 conditions. The Jerusalem Post reports, based on an Israeli Channel 2 newscast.
1. Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border. 2. Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths. 3. Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people. 4. Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision. 5. Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers. 6. Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations. 7. International forces on the borders. 8. Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque. 9. Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement. 10. Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.
Are these demands unreasonable or extreme ?
That's all they're asking for? Shit, they should also ask for the arrest of Netanyahu and his fucken cabinet. In my honest opinion, they didn't ask for ENOUGH.
these are the most basic needs for any society, it says a lot they have to even ask for this...the one that sticks out is having to ask for access to the mosque...that should be a given... israel is going to have to meet all these, none of them are unreasonable at all..they're gonna look like bastards if they dont..
Hamas is offering Israel a 10-year truce if it accepts 10 conditions. The Jerusalem Post reports, based on an Israeli Channel 2 newscast.
1. Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border. 2. Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths. 3. Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people. 4. Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision. 5. Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers. 6. Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations. 7. International forces on the borders. 8. Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque. 9. Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement. 10. Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.
Are these demands unreasonable or extreme ?
I said I was done discussing and I am done debating. but even I think this is a reasonable.This would be a great first step.Borders and land talks could be next.
The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense ~ by Chris Hedges
'...The number of dead in Gaza resulting from the Israeli assault has topped 650, and about 80 percent have been civilians. The number of wounded Palestinians is over 4,000 and a substantial fraction of these victims are children. At what point do the numbers of dead and wounded justify self-defense? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? At what point do Palestinians have the elemental right to protect their families and their homes?
Article 51 does not answer these specific questions, but the International Court of Justice does in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. The court ruled in that case that a state must endure an armed attack before it can resort to self-defense. The definition of an armed attack, in addition to being “action by regular armed forces across an international border,” includes sending or sponsoring armed bands, mercenaries or irregulars that commit acts of force against another state. The court held that any state under attack must first request outside assistance before undertaking armed self-defense. According to U.N. Charter Article 51, a state’s right to self-defense ends when the Security Council meets the terms of the article by “tak[ing] the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The failure of the international community to respond has left the Palestinians with no choice. The United States, since Israel’s establishment in 1948, has vetoed in the U.N. Security Council more than 40 resolutions that sought to curb Israel’s lust for occupation and violence against the Palestinians. And it has ignored the few successful resolutions aimed at safeguarding Palestinian rights, such as Security Council Resolution 465, passed in 1980.
Resolution 465 stated that the “Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The resolution went on to warn Israel that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
Israel, as an occupying power, is in direct violation of Article III of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention lays out the minimum standards for the protection of civilians in a conflict that is not international in scope. Article 3(1) states that those who take no active role in hostilities must be treated humanely, without discrimination, regardless of racial, social, religious or economic distinctions. The article prohibits certain acts commonly carried out against noncombatants in regions of armed conflict, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It prohibits the taking of hostages as well as sentences given without adequate due process of law. Article 3(2) mandates care for the sick and wounded.
Israel has not only violated the tenets of Article III but has amply fulfilled the conditions of an aggressor state as defined by Article 51. But for Israel, as for the United States, international law holds little importance. The U.S. ignored the verdict of the international court in Nicaragua v. United States and, along with Israel, does not accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It does not matter how many Palestinians are killed or wounded, how many Palestinian homes are demolished, how dire the poverty becomes in Gaza or the West Bank, how many years Gaza is under a blockade or how many settlements go up on Palestinian territory. Israel, with our protection, can act with impunity.
Why There Has Never Been Another Jewish State in the Last 2000 Years http://www.truetorahjews.org/neverbeen The Israeli Cabinet has approved a law that requires new citizens to declare their loyalty to a "Jewish state." Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a prerequisite to halting settlement construction.
In defense of the new law, Netanyahu noted that "there is no other Jewish state in the world."
Actually, the fact that there is no other Jewish state is because it is un-Jewish to have a state. Throughout their 2000-year-long exile, Jews have had many opportunities to establish their own state, but they voluntarily refrained from doing so, knowing that G-d commanded them to wait for His redemption, via the messiah.
In about the year 132 CE, Bar Kochba led a Jewish revolt against Rome and established a Jewish kingdom. The Talmud relates that Bar Kochba claimed to be the messiah. The Sages tested him, and when they were satisfied that he was not the messiah, they killed him. We see clearly that subsequent to the destruction of the Temple, the Talmudic Sages were against the existence of any Jewish state before the coming of the messiah.
In 1536, the Portuguese Inquisition was launched, and Jews became subject to severe persecution and public burnings. The Jews of Portugal saw an opportunity to take over the kingdom, but one old Jewish sage asked G-d, using a Kabbalistic method, if this was the right thing to do. G-d replied with the words of the Song of Songs 2:7, "I adjure you not arouse or awaken..." - the very verse quoted by the Talmud as the source that Jews are not allowed to force the end of exile. As a result, the plan to revolt was scrapped.
In 1826, when Mordecai Noah proposed to found an all-Jewish state or colony on Grand Island near Buffalo, New York, and send letters to the rabbis of Europe asking them to be leaders in the new state, here is the answer he got from Abraham de Cologna, Chief Rabbi of Paris:
"The venerable Messrs. Herschell and Mendola, Chief Rabbis at London, and myself, thank him, but positively refuse the appointments he has been pleased to confer upon us. We declare that according to our dogmas, God alone knows the epoch of the Israelitish restoration, that he alone will make it known to the whole universe by signs entirely unequivocal, and that every attempt on our part to reassemble with any politico-national design is forbidden, as an act of high treason against the Divine Majesty."
Such was always the Jewish viewpoint, accepted as obvious by all Jews, everywhere, throughout 19 centuries. It was only Jews who knew nothing of Judaism, such as Herzl and his colleagues, who could conceive of a "Jewish state."
So we reiterate: Netanyahu, you have no right to ask anyone - Jew or non-Jew - to recognize your state as a Jewish state, since its entire existence violates the Jewish religion. We protest and condemn the use of OUR name for YOUR state.
Hamas is offering Israel a 10-year truce if it accepts 10 conditions. The Jerusalem Post reports, based on an Israeli Channel 2 newscast.
1. Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border. 2. Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths. 3. Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people. 4. Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision. 5. Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers. 6. Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations. 7. International forces on the borders. 8. Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque. 9. Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement. 10. Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.
Are these demands unreasonable or extreme ?
That's all they're asking for? Shit, they should also ask for the arrest of Netanyahu and his fucken cabinet. In my honest opinion, they didn't ask for ENOUGH.
first of all, let's just use our heads here for a minute.
the united states is going to advise israel to decline these terms because of #2, #4, #6, #7 #8, #9, and #10.
2. if these people were not tried, why would israel give them up? this attack united a lot of the israeli public and increased support for israel to finally attack.
4. the US and israel would never allow an international seaport and airport to exist and be solely under UN supervision. the UN has routinely voted to condemn israeli actions, why would israel cede anything, especially control of something so important to the UN??? this would require the united states and israel to take a "hands off" approach, which everyone knows is impossible.
6. same as above. why would israel cede control of anything to the UN and arab nations? bibi would be impeached or something like that.
7. why would israel invite international forces on the borders? again, this would require and "hands off" apporoach, and israel has never been known to take that approach, especially the last 10 years. they have to be involved in everything in the region.
8. easing condition and permits to pray at Al Aqsa Mosque, which is in jeursalem, would be like asking the tsa to stop screening people before boarding planes or entering national monuments. that ain't gonna happen.
9. this idea makes me laugh. does anyone really think israel would agree to that??
10. this would require construction, and construction materials are not allowed into gaza. ever wonder why all of the buildings are less than 5 or 6 stories?? because all of the building materials that are allowed in are shite, and will not support the weight of taller structures.
so in short, israel might only agree to 3 or 4 of these. for sure not the whole thing.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
'...The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that "Americans agree that Israel 'has a right to defensible borders'. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm. For instance, support for Israel's right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967."
...There is a list of words and phrases to be used and a list of those to be avoided. Schmaltz is at a premium: "The best way, the only way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect." Above all, Israel's desire for peace with the Palestinians should be emphasised at all times because this what Americans overwhelmingly want to happen. But any pressure on Israel to actually make peace can be reduced by saying "one step at a time, one day at a time", which will be accepted as "a commonsense approach to the land-for-peace equation".
Dr Luntz cites as an example of an "effective Israeli sound bite" one which reads: "I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child."
The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be emphasised.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted with approval for saying that it is "time for someone to ask Hamas: what exactly are YOU doing to bring prosperity to your people". The hypocrisy of this beggars belief: it is the seven-year-old Israeli economic siege that has reduced the Gaza to poverty and misery.
On every occasion, the presentation of events by Israeli spokesmen is geared to giving Americans and Europeans the impression that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians and is prepared to compromise to achieve this, when all the evidence is that it does not. Though it was not intended as such, few more revealing studies have been written about modern Israel in times of war and peace.
Did anyone see David Gregory basically trying to defend Israel's bombing of the UN school on Meet the Skewed Press this morning. That should up his AIPAC/zio street cred enough to keep the job they were talking about taking from him.
oh ya, it appears the war crimes are raising Netenyahoo's stress level. Did you see that herple on his lip. another flareup kije that and he may be lookin for a FOURTH wife.
Claim that Hamas killed 3 teens is turning out to be the WMD of Gaza onslaught Adam Horowitz and Phil Weiss on July 26, 2014 132 Micky Rosenfeld
Micky Rosenfeld
Truth is famously the first casualty of war, and the Israeli war on Gaza is no exception. Yesterday Jon Donnison of the BBC pulled the rug out from under the Israeli government’s pretext for the Gaza onslaught with a series of tweets about a conversation he’d had with Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld about the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June.
The boys were not killed by Hamas, Rosenfeld told Donnison, as he reported on Twitter: (see link for tweets, eats up characters here. mickeyrat ) The version of events is so important, because what the Weapons of Mass Destruction were to the Iraq war — a dubious pretext — the three teens are to the Gaza onslaught. Let’s review.
The three teens were abducted on June 12. That same day Israeli authorities received a desperate phone call from one of the boys that contained gunfire at its conclusion. The supposition that the boys were dead was advanced when Israeli authorities found the car in which the abduction had taken place, with evidence they’d been shot.
The information about the gunshots on that desperate last phone call was widely known in the media, but as we reported, the Israeli government issued a gag order against these facts being published. And over the last two-and-a-half weeks of June, the Israelis launched extensive raids across the West Bank, locking down Hebron, supposedly to find the boys. But the major focus of the raids was rooting out Hamas affiliates and arresting them. In fact, the purpose of the raids seemed to be to break up the recent unity government between Hamas and Fatah, which Israel has vigorously opposed.
The boys’ bodies were found on June 30, in a shallow grave in the West Bank; and again the deaths were exploited to punish Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said then, “Hamas is responsible… Hamas will pay.”
By June 16, Hamas increased rocket fire into Israel in response to the crackdown in the West Bank. Israel ramped up its attacks on Gaza conducting 6 airstrikes that wounded two.
On July 7, eight days after the teens bodies were found, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, and it has now killed about 900 people in Gaza, most of them civilians.
As in the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction, many observers and journalists never bought the Israeli story. We didn’t. Annie Robbins picked up reports that Israeli authorities believed that a rogue faction of Hamas was responsible for the killings weeks before Donnison’s tweets– on June 16, she reported Hamas’s denial, calling the Israeli allegations “stupid.”Allison Deger also reported as much. Max Fisher was on to the dishonest Israeli strategy at Vox.
Now Rosenfeld’s statement is going all over the world.
Joseph Dana has been all over the revelation.
Hamas didn’t kidnap the 3 Israeli teens, this piece and many others in the US press could use a correction: …
So has Ayman Mohyeldin:
This would be an imp shift for Israel which blamed Hamas entirely in justifying why it launched gaza war
And New York Magazine is even more cynical about this matter than we are. From Katie Zavadski’s story, It Turns Out Hamas Didn’t Kidnap and Kill the 3 Israeli Teens After All:
Repeated inconsistencies in Israeli descriptions of the situation have sparked debate over whether Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into a confrontation. Israeli intelligence is also said to have known that the boys were dead shortly after they disappeared, but to have maintained public optimism about their safe return to beef up support from the Jewish diaspora.
As Donnison said, we can only hope that the three-teens pretext is broadly examined, not just in Israeli and Palestinian public life, but in the American media. It is hardly the first time that a false story about endangered security has been used to justify Israeli violence, from the Lavon affair in Egypt in the 50s to Moshe Dayan’s confession about provoking Syrian attacks that were used to precipitate the Six Day war. The only good news is that many in the west are now seeing through the tactic and beginning to question the veracity of Israeli government sources.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
In times of shit like this, no matter how difficult it is for them, I'm sending a happy eid to my palestinian brothers and sisters. Instead of celebrating with families, holding hands and daughters and sons, some of you are collecting families. Know that the world is watching and trying to do what they can to free you from this prison you're jailed in. May you guys have at least some time to see whatever family you have left before the onslaught begins again. I wish we could do more, but it's hard when one group strangleholds our own leaders. I hope some day your enemies will be able to look at you to your face and apologize for the 60+years of hell. Who knows, maybe one day soon everyone will realize that you're all cousins who believe in the same god but with just different rules. And can live TOGETHER by each other. It's got to happen. The old regime leaders can't lead forever, it's up to the younger generation to put a stop to this. To be sick of blood shed to be sick of feeling miserable to be sick of death. And just want to live together, peacefully. I hope that day comes soon for all sides. Until then, be safe gaza.
Meshaal: We are ready to coexist with Jews, but not 'occupiers' 27/07/2014
Israel resumed its bombardment of the Gaza Strip for the 20th day on Sunday afternoon, as Hamas leader Meshaal stressed that the group was ready to "coexist with the Jews" but would not tolerate "occupiers
...On Saturday, Meshaal was interviewed by US broadcaster PBS in the Qatari capital Doha while in Gaza the party was under assault from Israeli forces in renewed fighting.
A full version of the interview will be broadcast late on Monday, but excerpts were revealed on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
Asked by veteran interviewer Charlie Rose whether he could foresee living beside Israelis in peace, Meshaal said only a future Palestinian state could decide whether to recognize Israel.
"We are not fanatics, we are not fundamentalists. We are not actually fighting the Jews because they are Jews per se. We do not fight any other races. We fight the occupiers," he said.
"I'm ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians and the Arabs and non-Arabs," he said. "However, I do not coexist with the occupiers."
Pressed on whether Palestinians could recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state, Meshaal reiterated Hamas' position -- the group does not recognize Israel.
"When we have a Palestinian state then the Palestinian state will decide on its policies. You cannot actually ask me about the future. I answered you," he said.
"But Palestinian people can have their say when they have their own state without occupation."
The United States and other governments have harshly blamed Hamas for the ongoing slaughter in Gaza because they refused a unilateral “ceasefire” declared by Israel on 14 July through its Egyptian proxy.
But as dozens of prominent figures in Gaza civil society write, “Hamas represented the sentiment of the vast majority of residents when it rejected the unilateral ceasefire proposed by Egypt and Israel without consulting anyone in Gaza.”
“We share the broadly held public sentiment that it is unacceptable to merely return to the status quo” of devastating Israeli siege on Gaza, the civil society leaders said. “To do so would mean a return to a living death.”
To put the situation in context, Visualizing Palestine (visualizingpalestine.org) created this infographic that charts the routine violations of the last Egyptian-brokered ceasefire from 22 November 2012 until 7 July 2014.
This question is directed at any Israeli or Jewish person who reads this: Do you think that someone who opposes the actions of Israel in Palestine is antisemitic?
This question is directed at any Israeli or Jewish person who reads this: Do you think that someone who opposes the actions of Israel in Palestine is antisemitic?
Jewish here, and I can only speak for myself, but no, not at all.
Firstly, a Semite is not strictly a Jew or an Israeli, rather someone who speaks a Semitic language which includes Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Its current use is a bastardization of an original term which referred to someone from that region, and ought to be retired.
So, take that one step further, and if you don't mind, I'm going to re-pose your question... "Do you think that someone who opposes the actions of Israel in Palestine is anti-Israel?"
And now to answer that question - still no, not at all. I love my country (Canada) to death - but if I opposed an action of Canada's, I would hardly call myself anti-Canada, just that I disagree with a current policy/stance. And if I opposed a policy/stance that negatively impacted a large number of people, their quality of life, or even whether they earned the right to live - I don't think labelling would come into my head, to be honest, I would simply say I'm a human being with humanitarian interests.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
israel is going to have to meet all these, none of them are unreasonable at all..they're gonna look like bastards if they dont..
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
here's the UN petition
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/14413-ceasefire4gaza
The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense ~ by Chris Hedges
'...The number of dead in Gaza resulting from the Israeli assault has topped 650, and about 80 percent have been civilians. The number of wounded Palestinians is over 4,000 and a substantial fraction of these victims are children. At what point do the numbers of dead and wounded justify self-defense? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? At what point do Palestinians have the elemental right to protect their families and their homes?
Article 51 does not answer these specific questions, but the International Court of Justice does in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. The court ruled in that case that a state must endure an armed attack before it can resort to self-defense. The definition of an armed attack, in addition to being “action by regular armed forces across an international border,” includes sending or sponsoring armed bands, mercenaries or irregulars that commit acts of force against another state. The court held that any state under attack must first request outside assistance before undertaking armed self-defense. According to U.N. Charter Article 51, a state’s right to self-defense ends when the Security Council meets the terms of the article by “tak[ing] the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The failure of the international community to respond has left the Palestinians with no choice. The United States, since Israel’s establishment in 1948, has vetoed in the U.N. Security Council more than 40 resolutions that sought to curb Israel’s lust for occupation and violence against the Palestinians. And it has ignored the few successful resolutions aimed at safeguarding Palestinian rights, such as Security Council Resolution 465, passed in 1980.
Resolution 465 stated that the “Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The resolution went on to warn Israel that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
Israel, as an occupying power, is in direct violation of Article III of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention lays out the minimum standards for the protection of civilians in a conflict that is not international in scope. Article 3(1) states that those who take no active role in hostilities must be treated humanely, without discrimination, regardless of racial, social, religious or economic distinctions. The article prohibits certain acts commonly carried out against noncombatants in regions of armed conflict, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It prohibits the taking of hostages as well as sentences given without adequate due process of law. Article 3(2) mandates care for the sick and wounded.
Israel has not only violated the tenets of Article III but has amply fulfilled the conditions of an aggressor state as defined by Article 51. But for Israel, as for the United States, international law holds little importance. The U.S. ignored the verdict of the international court in Nicaragua v. United States and, along with Israel, does not accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It does not matter how many Palestinians are killed or wounded, how many Palestinian homes are demolished, how dire the poverty becomes in Gaza or the West Bank, how many years Gaza is under a blockade or how many settlements go up on Palestinian territory. Israel, with our protection, can act with impunity.
http://www.truetorahjews.org/neverbeen
The Israeli Cabinet has approved a law that requires new citizens to declare their loyalty to a "Jewish state." Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a prerequisite to halting settlement construction.
In defense of the new law, Netanyahu noted that "there is no other Jewish state in the world."
Actually, the fact that there is no other Jewish state is because it is un-Jewish to have a state. Throughout their 2000-year-long exile, Jews have had many opportunities to establish their own state, but they voluntarily refrained from doing so, knowing that G-d commanded them to wait for His redemption, via the messiah.
In about the year 132 CE, Bar Kochba led a Jewish revolt against Rome and established a Jewish kingdom. The Talmud relates that Bar Kochba claimed to be the messiah. The Sages tested him, and when they were satisfied that he was not the messiah, they killed him. We see clearly that subsequent to the destruction of the Temple, the Talmudic Sages were against the existence of any Jewish state before the coming of the messiah.
In 1536, the Portuguese Inquisition was launched, and Jews became subject to severe persecution and public burnings. The Jews of Portugal saw an opportunity to take over the kingdom, but one old Jewish sage asked G-d, using a Kabbalistic method, if this was the right thing to do. G-d replied with the words of the Song of Songs 2:7, "I adjure you not arouse or awaken..." - the very verse quoted by the Talmud as the source that Jews are not allowed to force the end of exile. As a result, the plan to revolt was scrapped.
In 1826, when Mordecai Noah proposed to found an all-Jewish state or colony on Grand Island near Buffalo, New York, and send letters to the rabbis of Europe asking them to be leaders in the new state, here is the answer he got from Abraham de Cologna, Chief Rabbi of Paris:
"The venerable Messrs. Herschell and Mendola, Chief Rabbis at London, and myself, thank him, but positively refuse the appointments he has been pleased to confer upon us. We declare that according to our dogmas, God alone knows the epoch of the Israelitish restoration, that he alone will make it known to the whole universe by signs entirely unequivocal, and that every attempt on our part to reassemble with any politico-national design is forbidden, as an act of high treason against the Divine Majesty."
Such was always the Jewish viewpoint, accepted as obvious by all Jews, everywhere, throughout 19 centuries. It was only Jews who knew nothing of Judaism, such as Herzl and his colleagues, who could conceive of a "Jewish state."
So we reiterate: Netanyahu, you have no right to ask anyone - Jew or non-Jew - to recognize your state as a Jewish state, since its entire existence violates the Jewish religion. We protest and condemn the use of OUR name for YOUR state.
this would be the worst thing i ever had to do.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the united states is going to advise israel to decline these terms because of #2, #4, #6, #7 #8, #9, and #10.
2. if these people were not tried, why would israel give them up? this attack united a lot of the israeli public and increased support for israel to finally attack.
4. the US and israel would never allow an international seaport and airport to exist and be solely under UN supervision. the UN has routinely voted to condemn israeli actions, why would israel cede anything, especially control of something so important to the UN??? this would require the united states and israel to take a "hands off" approach, which everyone knows is impossible.
6. same as above. why would israel cede control of anything to the UN and arab nations? bibi would be impeached or something like that.
7. why would israel invite international forces on the borders? again, this would require and "hands off" apporoach, and israel has never been known to take that approach, especially the last 10 years. they have to be involved in everything in the region.
8. easing condition and permits to pray at Al Aqsa Mosque, which is in jeursalem, would be like asking the tsa to stop screening people before boarding planes or entering national monuments. that ain't gonna happen.
9. this idea makes me laugh. does anyone really think israel would agree to that??
10. this would require construction, and construction materials are not allowed into gaza. ever wonder why all of the buildings are less than 5 or 6 stories?? because all of the building materials that are allowed in are shite, and will not support the weight of taller structures.
so in short, israel might only agree to 3 or 4 of these. for sure not the whole thing.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Israel-Gaza conflict: The secret report that helps Israelis to hide facts:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html
'...The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that "Americans agree that Israel 'has a right to defensible borders'. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm. For instance, support for Israel's right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967."
...There is a list of words and phrases to be used and a list of those to be avoided. Schmaltz is at a premium: "The best way, the only way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect." Above all, Israel's desire for peace with the Palestinians should be emphasised at all times because this what Americans overwhelmingly want to happen. But any pressure on Israel to actually make peace can be reduced by saying "one step at a time, one day at a time", which will be accepted as "a commonsense approach to the land-for-peace equation".
Dr Luntz cites as an example of an "effective Israeli sound bite" one which reads: "I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child."
The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be emphasised.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted with approval for saying that it is "time for someone to ask Hamas: what exactly are YOU doing to bring prosperity to your people". The hypocrisy of this beggars belief: it is the seven-year-old Israeli economic siege that has reduced the Gaza to poverty and misery.
On every occasion, the presentation of events by Israeli spokesmen is geared to giving Americans and Europeans the impression that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians and is prepared to compromise to achieve this, when all the evidence is that it does not. Though it was not intended as such, few more revealing studies have been written about modern Israel in times of war and peace.
oh ya, it appears the war crimes are raising Netenyahoo's stress level. Did you see that herple on his lip. another flareup kije that and he may be lookin for a FOURTH wife.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/killed-turning-onslaught.html
Claim that Hamas killed 3 teens is turning out to be the WMD of Gaza onslaught
Adam Horowitz and Phil Weiss on July 26, 2014 132
Micky Rosenfeld
Micky Rosenfeld
Truth is famously the first casualty of war, and the Israeli war on Gaza is no exception. Yesterday Jon Donnison of the BBC pulled the rug out from under the Israeli government’s pretext for the Gaza onslaught with a series of tweets about a conversation he’d had with Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld about the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June.
The boys were not killed by Hamas, Rosenfeld told Donnison, as he reported on Twitter:
(see link for tweets, eats up characters here. mickeyrat )
The version of events is so important, because what the Weapons of Mass Destruction were to the Iraq war — a dubious pretext — the three teens are to the Gaza onslaught. Let’s review.
The three teens were abducted on June 12. That same day Israeli authorities received a desperate phone call from one of the boys that contained gunfire at its conclusion. The supposition that the boys were dead was advanced when Israeli authorities found the car in which the abduction had taken place, with evidence they’d been shot.
The information about the gunshots on that desperate last phone call was widely known in the media, but as we reported, the Israeli government issued a gag order against these facts being published. And over the last two-and-a-half weeks of June, the Israelis launched extensive raids across the West Bank, locking down Hebron, supposedly to find the boys. But the major focus of the raids was rooting out Hamas affiliates and arresting them. In fact, the purpose of the raids seemed to be to break up the recent unity government between Hamas and Fatah, which Israel has vigorously opposed.
The boys’ bodies were found on June 30, in a shallow grave in the West Bank; and again the deaths were exploited to punish Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said then, “Hamas is responsible… Hamas will pay.”
By June 16, Hamas increased rocket fire into Israel in response to the crackdown in the West Bank. Israel ramped up its attacks on Gaza conducting 6 airstrikes that wounded two.
On July 7, eight days after the teens bodies were found, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, and it has now killed about 900 people in Gaza, most of them civilians.
As in the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction, many observers and journalists never bought the Israeli story. We didn’t. Annie Robbins picked up reports that Israeli authorities believed that a rogue faction of Hamas was responsible for the killings weeks before Donnison’s tweets– on June 16, she reported Hamas’s denial, calling the Israeli allegations “stupid.”Allison Deger also reported as much. Max Fisher was on to the dishonest Israeli strategy at Vox.
Now Rosenfeld’s statement is going all over the world.
Joseph Dana has been all over the revelation.
Hamas didn’t kidnap the 3 Israeli teens, this piece and many others in the US press could use a correction: …
So has Ayman Mohyeldin:
This would be an imp shift for Israel which blamed Hamas entirely in justifying why it launched gaza war
And New York Magazine is even more cynical about this matter than we are. From Katie Zavadski’s story, It Turns Out Hamas Didn’t Kidnap and Kill the 3 Israeli Teens After All:
Repeated inconsistencies in Israeli descriptions of the situation have sparked debate over whether Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into a confrontation. Israeli intelligence is also said to have known that the boys were dead shortly after they disappeared, but to have maintained public optimism about their safe return to beef up support from the Jewish diaspora.
As Donnison said, we can only hope that the three-teens pretext is broadly examined, not just in Israeli and Palestinian public life, but in the American media. It is hardly the first time that a false story about endangered security has been used to justify Israeli violence, from the Lavon affair in Egypt in the 50s to Moshe Dayan’s confession about provoking Syrian attacks that were used to precipitate the Six Day war. The only good news is that many in the west are now seeing through the tactic and beginning to question the veracity of Israeli government sources.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Meshaal: We are ready to coexist with Jews, but not 'occupiers'
27/07/2014
Israel resumed its bombardment of the Gaza Strip for the 20th day on Sunday afternoon, as Hamas leader Meshaal stressed that the group was ready to "coexist with the Jews" but would not tolerate "occupiers
...On Saturday, Meshaal was interviewed by US broadcaster PBS in the Qatari capital Doha while in Gaza the party was under assault from Israeli forces in renewed fighting.
A full version of the interview will be broadcast late on Monday, but excerpts were revealed on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
Asked by veteran interviewer Charlie Rose whether he could foresee living beside Israelis in peace, Meshaal said only a future Palestinian state could decide whether to recognize Israel.
"We are not fanatics, we are not fundamentalists. We are not actually fighting the Jews because they are Jews per se. We do not fight any other races. We fight the occupiers," he said.
"I'm ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians and the Arabs and non-Arabs," he said. "However, I do not coexist with the occupiers."
Pressed on whether Palestinians could recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state, Meshaal reiterated Hamas' position -- the group does not recognize Israel.
"When we have a Palestinian state then the Palestinian state will decide on its policies. You cannot actually ask me about the future. I answered you," he said.
"But Palestinian people can have their say when they have their own state without occupation."
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.607506?v=A8AA23E3ED0853B3F31709B9ECBC42E8
Everyone's fault except Israel
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/infographic-who-violates-ceasefires-more-israelis-or-palestinians
The United States and other governments have harshly blamed Hamas for the ongoing slaughter in Gaza because they refused a unilateral “ceasefire” declared by Israel on 14 July through its Egyptian proxy.
But as dozens of prominent figures in Gaza civil society write, “Hamas represented the sentiment of the vast majority of residents when it rejected the unilateral ceasefire proposed by Egypt and Israel without consulting anyone in Gaza.”
“We share the broadly held public sentiment that it is unacceptable to merely return to the status quo” of devastating Israeli siege on Gaza, the civil society leaders said. “To do so would mean a return to a living death.”
To put the situation in context, Visualizing Palestine (visualizingpalestine.org) created this infographic that charts the routine violations of the last Egyptian-brokered ceasefire from 22 November 2012 until 7 July 2014.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Firstly, a Semite is not strictly a Jew or an Israeli, rather someone who speaks a Semitic language which includes Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Its current use is a bastardization of an original term which referred to someone from that region, and ought to be retired.
So, take that one step further, and if you don't mind, I'm going to re-pose your question... "Do you think that someone who opposes the actions of Israel in Palestine is anti-Israel?"
And now to answer that question - still no, not at all. I love my country (Canada) to death - but if I opposed an action of Canada's, I would hardly call myself anti-Canada, just that I disagree with a current policy/stance. And if I opposed a policy/stance that negatively impacted a large number of people, their quality of life, or even whether they earned the right to live - I don't think labelling would come into my head, to be honest, I would simply say I'm a human being with humanitarian interests.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://news.yahoo.com/relative-lull-gaza-un-calls-cease-fire-061230450.html
warpigs