Israel should be proud

fuck

RM291946 wrote:

I only got part way into reading this before I saw you are going off topic from what I was writing, which makes the rest irrelevent to me.

You're a joke. It's not off topic and it's not irrelevant. The correct word you are looking for is irrefutable.

In that post I was not talking about "Israel vs.Hamas, who is worse."
I was talking about Hamas vs.Palestinian civilians. It was Hamas who admitted to having the tunnels so they can get weapons.

Your post originally said "so it can ONLY get weapons." I'm not denying that Hamas brings weapons through tunnels. But you said instead of them bringing food, they bring weapons. In the english language, that's a very distinct way of saying something. Also, you fail to provide any proof, again.

It is Hamas that have done nothing to build up Gaza..

Yes, because Israel has not allowed anything into the country that could be used to buy supplies. Right now the UN is demanding supplies to be let into Gaza so that they can begin reconstruction because they have NOTHING there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7841430.stm

what happened to the money given them from their own civilians? Who knows, all I can say is it's known they aren't doing squat with it to help civilians.

They can't buy anything when Israel allows nothing into the Strip.

And it was Hamas that put the delicate 3 week cease fire in jeapordy, and no doubt, the potential sustaned cease fire after that point, by continuing to fire rockets into Israel.

You're nothing but a liar. You provide no evidence, no links, nothing. Just your lies. Everyone here can see that you simply give propaganda (the worst kind, by the way. You suck as an Israeli spokesperson), and that you can't back anything up with logic or facts.

It is Hamas that is attempting to take control over West Bank from Mahmud Abbas(who, despite being Palestinian, and not Israeli, has said all the same things I am repeating..curious thing, huh?) who has maintain relative peace there.

Again, you try to distort facts. You act as if Hamas is trying to "seize control" against people's wishes. The Palestinian people have been voting in favor of Hamas because they see Abbas as nothing btu a collaborator and a traitor who does nothing for the Palestinian people, but rather for Israel. There has not been relative peace in the West Bank, Palestinians are still living under harsh occupation, they're still getting shot, and abused by settlers in the area. The only reason there is no peace in Gaza is because Israel won't allow it.

If they cared about the civilian's they would leave West Bank alone. But they want to bring the terror there too, cos like Israel, they want more territory, no matter how the civilians feel about it, or what is best for their safety.

The civilians are voting for Hamas so clearly Hamas is doing something right for them. The rest of what you say is just ridiculous. "They want more territory." They want Israel out of occupied lands. They offered a 20-year ceasefire if Israel simply withdrew from the occupied territories like the rest of the world wants. Why is Hamas proposing what the world wants, yet they are persecuted, whilst Israel simply massacres innocent people and goes against peace?

That's not propoganda. Feel embarrassed only for yourself.

Now I'm embarrassed for myself because I'm responding to someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

NoK

Does anyone know much about George Mitchell? (the man that Obama appointed middle east envoy). I know his relation to North Ireland but can't find much about the middle east. (outlaw, byrnzie, commy, roland and driftin'?)

Flutter Girl

nok- I read it and it's a very well made point.

But I am not talking about Vichy French, and the like, I am speaking solely about what Gaza has turned to look like since Hamas took control.

Again, I was not talking about Israel, so it had no bearing on what I posted.

I didn't really go have a look at West Bank last time I was in Israel, so I won't argue what you say about that.

outlaw- Irrefutable? How? I was not talking about Israel at all, and what you wrote was about Hamas vs Israel..
It had nothing to do with what I was talking about....

Hamas has said about the weapons. shall I disagree with them? Why are everyone but the militants starving? That's what they keep showing, how starving all the people are..If Hamas is bringing in the food, why are they all suffering from hunger?

They could get supplies in thru the tunnels, why haven't they?

I'm a liar? They were reporting all about it hours after the cease fire agreement was made. It was right on the front pages of AOL and Yahoo no less..

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast ... tion_world

West Bank has been in relative peace between them and Israel.

If anyone has claim to West Bank, it's Jordan, the last country that fully controlled the region. since they stopped controlling it it has been considered noone's land. I forget the term..I used it previously. The region is up for grabs. Any powerful military can claim it if they want it.

Voting for someone doesn't say anything about how good they are...
Case's in point- Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro, saddam Hussein, Hitler..just to name a few...

I've said it twice, I'll say it again, Israel are bullies and should recognise Gaza and West Bank as Palestine. I'm not bringing them into this..not when Nok has a tendency to ignore when I say things like the above, pretending I'm oh so pro-Israel and never criticise them. The only thing I'll talk about is my criticism of Hamas. Nothing more. Hence why your post was irrelevent (irrelevant?) to me.

I'm not a he.

Commy

if it wasn't for the underground tunnels most of Gaza would starve. 80% of Gazans rely on food aid to survive. when Israel unleashed its military in this last round of aggression-UN food shipments were stopped, as a truck driver was shot in the head by Israeli forces. without those tunnels Gaza would be a graveyard. moreso than it already is.


sure they smuggle weapons through them, but they are primarily used to feed the 1.5 million or so Gazans.

Flutter Girl

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast ... cnnSTCText

"The important point is the disregard for human life in using entrances to civilian homes,"

nah, can't be true..cos they care about their civilians and all they are doing is trying to help their people to freedom..right.

NoK

RM291946 wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/hamas.sketch/index.html#cnnSTCText

"The important point is the disregard for human life in using entrances to civilian homes,"

nah, can't be true..cos they care about their civilians and all they are doing is trying to help their people to freedom..right.

Yes because I'm going to believe the IDF. Regardless, it is irrelevant. Gaza is too overcrowded so anywhere Hamas fires from is likely to contain civilians. If the Israelis did not inflict such a lethal blockade, break the ceasefire and attack Gaza, Hamas wouldn't be firing as we have proven to you previously.

NoK

RM291946 wrote:

nok- I read it and it's a very well made point.

But I am not talking about Vichy French, and the like, I am speaking solely about what Gaza has turned to look like since Hamas took control.

Again, I was not talking about Israel, so it had no bearing on what I posted.

Your arguments, as Norman Finkelstein puts it, "reverse the cause and effect dilemma". Gaza turned into what it is not because Hamas took over but because of the Israeli blockade and other reasons I have mentioned numerously. To "not talk about Israel" does not make them any less responsible.

RM291946 wrote:

I didn't really go have a look at West Bank last time I was in Israel, so I won't argue what you say about that.

Hamas has said about the weapons. shall I disagree with them? Why are everyone but the militants starving? That's what they keep showing, how starving all the people are..If Hamas is bringing in the food, why are they all suffering from hunger?

They could get supplies in thru the tunnels, why haven't they?

West Bank has been in relative peace between them and Israel.

The West bank is not being bombarded because there are Israeli settlers among the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the west bank are subjected to different forms of aggression (the wall, occupation, land stealing, checkpoints, etc.).

The tunnels were used to smuggle food and necessities, and probably used to smuggle fertilizers and such by Hamas. I'd like to see you try and feed 1.5 million people through smuggling in tunnels. There are a great article about how the smuggling through tunnels was the most dangerous "job" in the world since these tunnels had a tendency to collapse at any moment in time. Do you think it is acceptable for them to have to resort to smuggle food and water? That violates International Law.

RM291946 wrote:

If anyone has claim to West Bank, it's Jordan, the last country that fully controlled the region. since they stopped controlling it it has been considered noone's land. I forget the term..I used it previously. The region is up for grabs. Any powerful military can claim it if they want it.

Ever heard of "British Mandate of Palestine". Just because Jordan occupied it doesn't mean its theirs to keep. Same applies to the Israelis.

RM291946 wrote:

I've said it twice, I'll say it again, Israel are bullies and should recognise Gaza and West Bank as Palestine. I'm not bringing them into this..not when Nok has a tendency to ignore when I say things like the above, pretending I'm oh so pro-Israel and never criticise them. The only thing I'll talk about is my criticism of Hamas. Nothing more. Hence why your post was irrelevent (irrelevant?) to me.

We can both agree that in reality you blame Hamas solely for the problems in that region. Any criticisms you make of Israel are only to save face and make your arguments slightly more acceptable. It seems I am not the only one that's seen through this.

Byrnzie

RM291946 wrote:

It is Hamas that have done nothing to build up Gaza..what happened to the money given them from their own civilians? Who knows, all I can say is it's known they aren't doing squat with it to help civilians.

Actually, Hamas have been very successful at building Gaza's infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. Nothing you've said here is true.
Instead of simply spouting these untruths, why don't you provide some evidence to support your statements? Maybe because no evidence exists that supports your statements?

RM291946 wrote:

And it was Hamas that put the delicate 3 week cease fire in jeapordy, and no doubt, the potential sustaned cease fire after that point, by continuing to fire rockets into Israel.

Another lie. Israel broke the ceaefire on November 5th when it killed 6 Palestinians in an incursion into Gaza. It also broke the terms of te ceasefire by refusing to fully lift the blockade which was described by the U.N as a crime against humanity.
I notice that you chose to conveniently leave these facts out of your post.

RM291946 wrote:

It is Hamas that is attempting to take control over West Bank from Mahmud Abbas(who, despite being Palestinian, and not Israeli, has said all the same things I am repeating..curious thing, huh?) who has maintain relative peace there. If they cared about the civilian's they would leave West Bank alone. But they want to bring the terror there too, cos like Israel, they want more territory, no matter how the civilians feel about it, or what is best for their safety.

Hamas is attempting to take control of the West Bank you say? Please provide some evidence to support your statement.

You talk of the 'relative peace' in the West Bank. Do you have any idea what Israel has been doing in around the West Bank since it's non-withdrawal from Gaza? Do you have any idea how many new illegal Jewish-only settlements Israel has built in the past 5 years?
No, of course you don't.


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D ... y/4222.htm
'...In a stunning admission, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser said that the purpose of the Israeli government's policy was to suspend diplomatic moves to establish a Palestinian state. "The significance of the 'disengagement' plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weissglas told Haaretz....

"You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... [W]hat I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... -palestine
'...Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison...'

Byrnzie

RM291946 wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/hamas.sketch/index.html#cnnSTCText

"The important point is the disregard for human life in using entrances to civilian homes,"

nah, can't be true..cos they care about their civilians and all they are doing is trying to help their people to freedom..right.

Interesting. The Israeli's have a long history of using civilians as human shields and also of deliberately targeting unarmed civilians.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Sh ... _Hanun.asp
20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun

'..Article 28 of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of civilians as human shields by placing them alongside soldiers or military facilities, with the hope of attaining immunity from attack. The official commentary of the Convention refers to this practice, which was common in the Second World War as "cruel and barbaric." The Convention, in Articles 31 and 51, also prohibits the use of physical or moral coercion on civilians or forcing them to carry out military tasks.

Despite these prohibitions, for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives...'



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel
Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity

'...His orders were, he told the Guardian, "'Every person you see on the street, kill him'. And we would just do it."

...Assaf is not alone. In recent months dozens of soldiers, including the son of an an Israeli general, all recently discharged, have come forward to share their stories of how they were ordered in briefings to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand.

The soldiers were brought into contact with the Guardian with the assistance of Breaking the Silence, a pressure group of former soldiers who want the Israeli public to confront the reality of army activities. The group insisted on anonymity of its witnesses to protect the soldiers from persecution and prosecution.

Although those speaking out are a tiny proportion, their testimonies reflect a widespread culture of impunity, according to Sarit Michaeli of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem...'

Heineken Helen

NoK wrote:

Does anyone know much about George Mitchell? (the man that Obama appointed middle east envoy). I know his relation to North Ireland but can't find much about the middle east. (outlaw, byrnzie, commy, roland and driftin'?)

Wow, I didn't know he was appointed middle east envoy... good choice :shock: the man done good in Northern Ireland

Heineken Helen

JonnyPistachio wrote:

What the fuck is wrong with them? All those kids killed - there's no excuse for that.

And that should really be the bottom line... end of discussion... but I'm guessing it won't be :(

SkeeterB

Heineken Helen wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

What the fuck is wrong with them? All those kids killed - there's no excuse for that.

And that should really be the bottom line... end of discussion... but I'm guessing it won't be :(

It's not because Hamas is firing rockets in the exact same locations where kids are. Israel is striking targets where rockets are being fired from. So how can it be end of discussion?

Keep in mind that in 2005, after occupying Gaza for 38 years, the Israeli government forced 8,500 of its own settlers out of Gaza, leaving the future of Gaza to the Palestinians. But, instead of buying peace, the response of Hamas has been over 3,000 rocket attacks on Israel.

Secretary-of-State-to-be Hillary Clinton's recent speech about the Palestinian-Israeli War in Gaza showed a steely resolve when she said that the U.S. will not negotiate with the Hamas-backed Palestinians unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israeli's right to exist.

Think about it this way in terms of the United States. Say we were enemies with Canada but decided that in order to instill peace, we gave them Michigan. A few years later, they weren't satisfied and began launching rockets (behind women and children) all over the country.

NoK

SkeeterB wrote:

It's not because Hamas is firing rockets in the exact same locations where kids are. Israel is striking targets where rockets are being fired from. So how can it be end of discussion?

Keep in mind that in 2005, after occupying Gaza for 38 years, the Israeli government forced 8,500 of its own settlers out of Gaza, leaving the future of Gaza to the Palestinians. But, instead of buying peace, the response of Hamas has been over 3,000 rocket attacks on Israel.

Secretary-of-State-to-be Hillary Clinton's recent speech about the Palestinian-Israeli War in Gaza showed a steely resolve when she said that the U.S. will not negotiate with the Hamas-backed Palestinians unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israeli's right to exist.

Think about it this way in terms of the United States. Say we were enemies with Canada but decided that in order to instill peace, we gave them Michigan. A few years later, they weren't satisfied and began launching rockets (behind women and children) all over the country.

Have you read any of the articles posted? Your first statement is bullshit. The Israelis were carpet bombing the Gaza strip regardless of whether Hamas has fired from the location or not. The UN has been bombed even though there were no Hamas militants in site and THE ISRAELIS ADMITTED THIS. There are reports of people being asked to leave their homes to be searched by the IDF then getting shot at by the same soldiers. Listen to the reports on Democracy Now! about the father who watched two of his girls get shot and killed while they walked out of their house (OBEYING ORDERS) and the third getting serious spinal injuries.

You obviously try to ignore the stranglehold the Israelis placed on Gaza. The Palestinians are living under constant subjugation. There is no peace until the occupation is removed.

Finally, your analogy is false. First off the Israelis are dismantling settlements that are on OCCUPIED LAND. They are not giving them land they are returning what they stole and then stealing other land in the West Bank. If you had read what Byrnzie posted earlier you would see that even the Israelis admit the reason they did this is to STOP PEACE.

Anyone who thinks Clinton has a steely resolve because she said she would not negotiate with Hamas has no idea what is going on. How exactly would spewing what has been said in the past 8 years give her steely resolve? Steely resolve would require her condemn the occupation and the bombing and destruction in Gaza that killed so many civilians.

WOW MAN! What a whopper! She doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas. DID YOU HEAR THAT! This is HUGEEEEEEEEE MANNNNN lets celebrate.. Oh wait isn't that whats been going on for fucking centuries already.

NoK

Heineken Helen wrote:

Wow, I didn't know he was appointed middle east envoy... good choice :shock: the man done good in Northern Ireland

Yah he's already been dispatched as well to try and strengthen the ceasefire. I've heard he's done good in Ireland, still trying to see his position on the middle east though.

Byrnzie

SkeeterB wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Keep in mind that in 2005, after occupying Gaza for 38 years, the Israeli government forced 8,500 of its own settlers out of Gaza, leaving the future of Gaza to the Palestinians. But, instead of buying peace, the response of Hamas has been over 3,000 rocket attacks on Israel.

Did you not read anything posted above? No, thought not. Most of those poor unfortunate illegal settlers were probably re-housed in new illegal Jewish-only settlements around the West Bank that same year.

On Israel's supposed withdrawal from Gaza:

From Norman Finkelstein - ' Beyond Chutzpah':
'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."


On the 3 year illegal blockade of Gaza:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane. ... endocument

'...Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Protective action must be taken immediately to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life, and in view of the emergency situation that is producing a humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding day by day. However difficult politically, it is time to act. At the very least, an urgent effort should be made at the United Nations to implement the agreed norm of a 'responsibility to protect' a civilian population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a Crime Against Humanity.'

Flutter Girl

sorry Helen..but I have to add this..

Nok- okay I'll give you that, but they are still a terror. How stupid do you got to be to not realise that firing missiles at the folk holding you down is only going to piss them off? You get more with honey than vinegar.

Regarding Jordan, any land like that can be taken..if you have the military power to do so, it's your's to take. It's how countries formed in the first place. It's barbaric, but truth. Which actually reminds me of something I had completely forgotten. Territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, including Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem, are rightfully theirs, no matter what any previous mandate was made. You fight, you win, it's yours. That is how it's been since the dawn of the concept of owning territory.

Funny, I clearly recall stating things like Israel prevented aid from getting in, etc...solely blaming Hamas? No.



Byrnzie- You want me to show evidence but you do not provide any for your own statements. I've said before I go by what my family tells me and what I've seen. I already stated it is a piss poor source for arguements on here, but it's more than what you are giving for this one.

Nov.5? I'm talking of the current cease fire guy...

Members of the Hamas terror group are the rightful representatives of the Palestinian people and should control the entire West Bank just as they rule the Gaza Strip, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, the Hamas chief in Gaza, told WND in an exclusive interview.

the Israeli government has been negotiating the evacuation of most of the West Bank as part of U.S.-backed talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

Haniyeh said earlier this week that Hamas had no intention of repeating its Gaza takeover in the West Bank, where Abbas' secular Fatah faction remains dominant.
"Israel says the party in Ramallah [Fatah] serves Israel, and if Israel quits the West Bank, Hamas will take it over. And we say this is true," Zahar said at a rally for Hamas supporters in Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

As for the rest of what you said, see what I wrote to Nok about the 6 day war. Argue till your blue in the face. Israel won it, the territories are theirs.

Commy

The problem with that RM, is that Israel is violating international law whenever they take more land.


International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

mickeyrat

Commy wrote:

The problem with that RM, is that Israel is violating international law whenever they take more land.


International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

Local population meaning the Palestinian population ALREADY in place . Not the settlers.

Flutter Girl

Commy wrote:

The problem with that RM, is that Israel is violating international law whenever they take more land.


International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

When did the rules of war to seize territory get so complicated :?

Commy

mickeyrat wrote:

Commy wrote:

The problem with that RM, is that Israel is violating international law whenever they take more land.


International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

Local population meaning the Palestinian population ALREADY in place . Not the settlers.

right. local population being palestinians in this case.