# Don't throw stones at bigger people than you they might be "Israeli"



## S.L.F (30 Dec 2008)

Watching the news over the last couple of days I have a lot of sympathy for the ordinary Joe soap on the street or in the morgue but I'm damned if I can find any sympathy for Hamas at all.

I just don't get it, the last time Hamas crossed the border and took 2 Israeli soldiers from their post, Israel bombed their country back into the stoneage.

Why oh why would they risk it again by firing rockets back into Israel again?

Hamas itself have declared their main goal is the destruction of Israel so what choice does Israel have but to attack?


----------



## rmelly (31 Dec 2008)

It's nice for a change in Ireland to see a post or comment where the poster isn't automatically blaming Israel, regardless of the particular circumstances.


----------



## z104 (31 Dec 2008)

It would be similiar to the people up north throwing stones at the paras and the paras replying by bombing everybody in the area as a response. The response was disproportionate to the Palastine aggression.


Israel are still occupying land that they should not be. They should move back to the land they were given at Palastines expense in 1947. When Palastine was divided in two to accomodate the Jewish people. Maybe then a peaceful cooperation can be found.


----------



## mercman (31 Dec 2008)

A number of circumstances have been tried but Hamas each time change their objectives and the situation continually goes back to a war. Apparently Hamas have been continually firing their rockets for months with little cessation. It now does appear that others are providing arms with larger range missiles to try and destruct Israel. The entire situation looks bleak to say the least and unless and until some common ground is achieved more innocent lives will be lost - but the Palestinians have no value on life whether it be their own or others.


----------



## rmelly (31 Dec 2008)

Niallers said:


> It would be similiar to the people up north throwing stones at the paras and the paras replying by bombing everybody in the area as a response. The response was disproportionate to the Palastine aggression.


 
Just to clarify, the current situation isn't over stone throwing.



> Israel are still occupying land that they should not be. They should move back to the land they were given at Palastines expense in 1947. When Palastine was divided in two to accomodate the Jewish people. Maybe then a peaceful cooperation can be found.


 
As far as I'm concerned any land they occupied they're entitled to keep. If they choose to give any away as part of peace deal settlements, it's entirely their choice, if they are happy it doesn't compromise their security etc. Land 'fairly won' in wars instigated by their enemies is fair game to my mind.

Unfortunately their neighbours will only be happy when the nation and it's people are wiped from the face of the earth.


----------



## z104 (31 Dec 2008)

each Israely airstrike just recruits more Palestinians to fight with HAMAS. We've seen it in Ireland with the IRA and Loyalists. It's really sad and so obvious that it will never end unless the tit for tat ends.


----------



## S.L.F (31 Dec 2008)

Niallers said:


> each Israeli airstrike just recruits more Palestinians to fight with HAMAS.



Each rocket attack on Israel (of which there have been hundreds) has seen Israel become more militant, but what else can Israel do but attack



Niallers said:


> We've seen it in Ireland with the IRA and Loyalists.



I thought the IRA's problem was to do with Britain occupying a part that doesn't belong to it, not with the loyalists.

Since it is HAMAS who are in power in Gaza (unless I'm mistaken which I'm pretty sure I'm not) they are the ones who call the shots (or rockets)

If FF went mad and started to fire rockets into Britain what do you think would happen?

They would plead with us to stop, then go to the EU, the UN European court and everywhere else they could to stop the rockets but when all those avenues have failed what else is there to do.

Invading Gaza is a very very costly exercise, it is far cheaper to use aircraft and bomb every known HAMAS building you can find.



Niallers said:


> It's really sad and so obvious that it will never end unless the tit for tat ends.



It is very sad but I don't have any solutions, I just know you can't fire hundreds of rockets into Israel and think they won't respond with military force, Israel just doesn't have any other choice.


----------



## mercman (31 Dec 2008)

And then our own Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin condemns Israel for defending itself. What an Anti-Semetic Muppet !! 

The Government here should read the facts rather than rely on the misleading Propaganda been passed about.


----------



## Simeon (31 Dec 2008)

The Hammas spokesman brought religion into it by saying that other Islamic nations would back them! Now, whether one thinks Islam is either a religion or way of life, I would imagine that most people in the world would rather be in a country which wasn't under Sharia law or one of it's many offshoots. It is very easy to fall into the 'victim scenario' trap .......... and these sons of the desert are top of the league for wailing/shouting/gesticulating. The quality of life in the camps is very poor, but Hammas need that to keep the recruitment going. Also the sending of mentally challenged kids/adults to their doom (unless they actually believe the whole virgin fantasy) should be more widely reported in the press. Arafat hid countless millions away ......... again the result of idealism being corrupted by power/money. So Israel, return Gaza and the West Bank ......... under an internationally supervised plan ....... give the necessary aid to Palestinians to go forward, acknowledging Israel's right to exist being paramount to the receiving of aid. And after a five year break, any serious breaches should be treated as war crimes ......... and dealt with as such.


----------



## Purple (31 Dec 2008)

Niallers said:


> Israel are still occupying land that they should not be. They should move back to the land they were given at Palastines expense in 1947. When Palastine was divided in two to accomodate the Jewish people. Maybe then a peaceful cooperation can be found.


 Read your history. Palestine was divided into two when the Arabs, lead by the Jordanians, invaded at exactly the same time that the British handed over their old (post WWI) league of nations mandate to the UN. (The British were given most of the old Ottoman Empire lands in the Middle East to administer but by the late 30's had granted independence to most of the Arab states. The formal intent to establish a Jewish homeland also dates from this post First World War period).
The Jordanian King Abdallah was open in his desire to expand his territory, a desire which dated back to the post Ottoman dream of establishing a greater Hashemite Kingdom across the Fertile Crescent. So the Jordanians (along with the six other members of the Arab league, invaded Palestine, ostensibly to stop the formation of a Zionist state. It was clear well before the invasion that Abdallah did not intend to withdraw or establish a Palestinian state. This was confirmed in 1950 when Jordan held elections on both sides of the Jordan river (their border was east of it) referring to the Palestinian part as the 'West Bank of the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom'.

So... if Israel withdraws from the West Bank who should they give the land back to?
Why are UN declarations about returning to 1948 borders only looked at in the context of Israel? Why is the requirement on all parties to respect the sovereignty of their neighbours ignored?
Why did the Arab League betray the Palestinian people so utterly in the 40's and 50's?


----------



## Sunny (31 Dec 2008)

My sister works for a NGO and has visited every war torn area in the past ten years and always says that it is Gaza that causes her to despair the most. She said they are the normal civilians are the most amazing people she has met but they are living in conditions beyond belief. Whatever the politcal situation, the world needs to face the fact that there is a humanitarian disaster happening and a State i.e. Israel is blocking aid from getting in. This is totally unacceptable and there is no defence for it. 

As for Israels decison to use Air Strikes, what do they hope to achieve? They won't bring down Hamas, they haven't stopped the missiles and they have killed over 300 people compared to 4 Israelis while causing massive instability in the region. Personally I would love troops to enter Gaza and take down every single member of Hamas and every other militant group. Its not going to happen though. Look what happened when Israel they attacked Lebanon in 2006. They are not going to that again. So within the next couple of days we are going to be back at exactly the same situation as before. They will be some sort of ceasefire which both sides will break and nothing will have been achieved apart from more misery and despair. There will only ever be a political solution to this problem but I will be damned if I know how it would work.

And anyone who accuses anyone who dares to criticise Israel of being anti-semetic should take not part in any discussion on the subject. This is not an argument that be broken down to good v evil or right v wrong. Both sides are as bad as each other. Lets be honest here, the whole region is a basket case


----------



## Purple (31 Dec 2008)

Sunny said:


> My sister works for a NGO and has visited every war torn area in the past ten years and always says that it is Gaza that causes her to despair the most. She said they are the normal civilians are the most amazing people she has met but they are living in conditions beyond belief. Whatever the politcal situation, the world needs to face the fact that there is a humanitarian disaster happening and a State i.e. Israel is blocking aid from getting in. This is totally unacceptable and there is no defence for it.
> 
> As for Israels decison to use Air Strikes, what do they hope to achieve? They won't bring down Hamas, they haven't stopped the missiles and they have killed over 300 people compared to 4 Israelis while causing massive instability in the region. Personally I would love troops to enter Gaza and take down every single member of Hamas and every other militant group. Its not going to happen though. Look what happened when Israel they attacked Lebanon in 2006. They are not going to that again. So within the next couple of days we are going to be back at exactly the same situation as before. They will be some sort of ceasefire which both sides will break and nothing will have been achieved apart from more misery and despair. There will only ever be a political solution to this problem but I will be damned if I know how it would work.
> 
> And anyone who accuses anyone who dares to criticise Israel of being anti-semetic should take not part in any discussion on the subject. This is not an argument that be broken down to good v evil or right v wrong. Both sides are as bad as each other. Lets be honest here, the whole region is a basket case


I agree with most of what you say but the UN Agency for Palestinian refugees said that around 50-60 civilians have been killed. That means that 250+ Hamas fighters have been killed which I see no problem with.
I don't agree that both sides are as bad as each other; Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been better off when they have been rules by Israel since their own leaders have shown themselves to be incompetent and corrupt (with Arafat up there with Idi Amine for stealing the wealth of his starving people). Israel does not initiate the attacks and the root cause of the “Palestinian problem” is the betrayal of them by their Arab brothers in general and Jordan in particular. It should be remembered that the Arab League blocked all attempts to get up a Palestinian government in Palestine in 1948 of a government in exile before that. The Palestinian people were nothing more than a political football back then and nothing has changed (despite the pro-Palestinian rhetoric in the charter of the Arab league).
While I have huge sympathy with the civilian population on the ground the reason they are in the situation that are in is because they seek to destroy their neighbour, ironically the only one they have which has ever done anything to help them.


----------



## Slash (31 Dec 2008)

mercman said:


> And then our own Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin condemns Israel for defending itself. What an Anti-Semetic Muppet !!



Criticising Israel for attacking Gaza is not anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.


----------



## WaterSprite (31 Dec 2008)

Sunny said:


> And anyone who accuses anyone who dares to criticise Israel of being anti-semetic should take not part in any discussion on the subject.



I agree whole-heartedly - anyone should be able to comment on a country's foreign policies without being accused of religious intolerance.  Criticising particular actions taken by Israel is not anti-semitic, no more than criticising actions by Palestine (or Iran, or Malasia) is anti-Islamic.  Part of the problem with the entire debate is that people are accused of antisemitism  if they disagree with any actions by the Israeli state. I, for one, am not prepared to accept that moniker, but I do feel entitled to have and state my opinions on the actions of the Israeli state.

That said, I agree that Israel should be able to address attacks on its country, but surely they actually have the expertise and military equipment to do so without such huge loss of civilian life?  Also, the (current) geography of the area makes it hopeless for humanitarian aid to get through if Israel refuses it to be allowed through.  I don't think anyone would support Hamas' attacks on Israel, but from a political perspective at least, it seems counter-productive for Israel to respond in its current manner.

Sprite


----------



## Purple (31 Dec 2008)

Slash said:


> Criticising Israel for attacking Gaza is not anti-Semitism.
> 
> Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.


Yes but what else would you attribute his utterance to; ignorance and stupidity or an attempt to court the vote of the ignorant and stupid Irish people who are blindly pro-Palestinian?


----------



## Purple (31 Dec 2008)

WaterSprite said:


> I agree whole-heartedly - anyone should be able to comment on a country's foreign policies without being accused of religious intolerance.  Criticising particular actions taken by Israel is not anti-semitic, no more than criticising actions by Palestine (or Iran, or Malasia) is anti-Islamic.  Part of the problem with the entire debate is that people are accused of antisemitism  if they disagree with any actions by the Israeli state. I, for one, am not prepared to accept that moniker, but I do feel entitled to have and state my opinions on the actions of the Israeli state.
> 
> That said, I agree that Israel should be able to address attacks on its country, but surely they actually have the expertise and military equipment to do so without such huge loss of civilian life?  Also, the (current) geography of the area makes it hopeless for humanitarian aid to get through if Israel refuses it to be allowed through.  I don't think anyone would support Hamas' attacks on Israel, but from a political perspective at least, it seems counter-productive for Israel to respond in its current manner.
> 
> Sprite


250+ gunmen killed with 50-60 civilians... hard to see any way they could have done better than that.


----------



## Simeon (31 Dec 2008)

Well said Purple! This whole affair is being propped up by other Arab states for their invidious purposes. Palestinians wake up, take a deep breadth and think for yourselves. Only then will you achieve peace, prosperity and a future for your children. You are being used by your fellow Arabs.


----------



## rmelly (31 Dec 2008)

WaterSprite said:


> That said, I agree that Israel should be able to address attacks on its country, but surely they actually have the expertise and military equipment to do so without such huge loss of civilian life?


 
Difficult when the targets have no regard for their own people, using them as human shields, launching rocket attacks from school yards etc.

80% plus of the dead were enemy combatants.


----------



## DublinTexas (31 Dec 2008)

Why is everybody automatically saying that Israel is equal to Jews? Only 76.1% of Israeli citizens are part of some sort of Judaism followed by 16.2% Muslim and than some other minorities. 

Following this thinking the Republic of Ireland is a catholic state and anything done here is fault of the faith based corporation called Roman Catholic Church and in theory we all should accept the Pope as our head of state. This is given that there are about 86.82% of Roman Catholic people here.

But beside that the State of Israel has the right to defend itself and that is independed from them occupying land that they gained during the 1948 war in which let’s face it they were at lot of times victorious.

Do I think that they should return land they occupy in the West Bank to the Arab Palestine State? Sure very fast. 

But beside that, if someone is going to fire 80+ rockets a day on my property you will see me very fast taking action and that action will lead to them not longer being able to do it because I take away their rockets, supply routes and people. What is wrong with that, it’s anybody’s right to defend himself against aggressions.

Hamās (after all a terrorist organization) was elected by the people in Gaza fully knowing that Hamās does not accept Israel and is nothing else than a Muppet of Iran.

Unfortunately these people are cowards hiding in the middle of civil population, kinder gardens and schools to fire rockets. So the IDF will unfortunately cause some civilian collateral damage in their attempt to take away the infrastructure, supplies and supply routes. If these cowards would not hide behind children than this would not happen. 

This is not longer a war between 2 sites on a battle ground where both sides wear uniforms and the areas of combat are clearly visible. 

So what do you want Israel to do? Live with Hamās firing Rockets etc to harm civilian population (Hamās is not targeting military installations but civilians) just because the IDF might cause collateral damage in their attempt to go after Hamās?

And also let’s not forget that at the same time the IDF is going after Hamās the IDF is actually assisting in delivering humanitarian supplies to the Gaza strip. They do everything to not do what Hamās is doing, target civilians. 

I am sorry for any loss of live on any side, but it’s down to Hamās not the IDF.

There is no easy solution to this but imagine you have to live in a shelter just because you get rockets into your kinder garden every day. Would you accept that or take action to protect your children? I would not.


----------



## shanegl (31 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> 250+ gunmen killed with 50-60 civilians... hard to see any way they could have done better than that.



Indeed. Unfortunately the massive bias is shown in many Western media outlets when they quote the death toll on both sides. Rarely do they distinguish between Palestinian terrorists and Palestinian civilians.


----------



## Nemesis (31 Dec 2008)

rmelly said:


> As far as I'm concerned any land they occupied they're entitled to keep. If they choose to give any away as part of peace deal settlements, it's entirely their choice, if they are happy it doesn't compromise their security etc. Land 'fairly won' in wars instigated by their enemies is fair game to my mind.



How simple: you win land in war, it's yours. End of story. But in truth it's nowhere near as simple as that. This is not solely a question of land, it's about the rights of a people. There are 2.4 million people living in those lands in the West Bank who while being effectively controlled by and subject to the state of Israel have no citizenship or voting rights within that state. That has been the position since the 1967 war. There are 1.5 million people living in Gaza which is also subject to air, sea and land border control by Israel. It is effectively a prison, not a state. Israel can choke it of supplies at any time. They too are citizens of nowhere, the leftovers that Israel could never incorporate into itself without changing the fundamental nature of the state itself. As long as this unjust situation persists there will be resentment, bitterness and ultimately conflict.

The solution of course would be either the creation of a Palestinian state or the extension of full citizenship of Israel to all Palestinians in the territories captured in 67. The present arrangement is neither one thing nor the other and has been allowed to fester and degenerate into the most brutal and intractable of conflicts. Remember around 20% of Israel's population (inside its pre-1967 frontiers) is Palestinian Arab. They have full citizenship and the right to vote in elections. While relations between Arabs and Jews are not perfect, nothing remotely resembling the Intifada has occurred within this community nor growing Islamisation and radicalisation by the likes of Hamas. Hamas is a product of years of Israeli occupation without any resolution to the status of the Palestinians living there. Indeed, in the early years the Israeli authorities turned a blind eye to the growth of the movement if not encouraged its development as they saw it as a way to divide Palestinian society and weaken the then dominant PLO. However, it grew beyond their control and turned into the monster it is today, making its terrible power to influence events all too clear with a wave of suicide bombings beginning in the mid-90s after the signing of the Oslo accords. 

Israel chopped off the head of one dragon (Arafat and the PLO) only for another more vicious and uncontrollable to appear in the shape of Hamas. Same can be said of Hezbollah. They did not exist in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon to dislodge the PLO. Hezbollah was born as a reaction to the Israeli presence in Shia areas (and also to the export of the ideas of the Iranian revolution of 1979). It goes on and on, the mishandling of one conflict mutates into something else and peace is further away then ever


----------



## Purple (1 Jan 2009)

The West Bank should never have been part of Jordan; it took it by force from the British/UN Mandated territory. Israel took it only after Jordan had invaded Israel and held it because of its important geographical qualities (high ground that can be used to fire shells into half of Israel and the fact that the Jordan River created a barrier to Jordanian invasion again). 
It should also be remembered that Jordan has consistently refused to allow Palestinians from the West Bank to immigrate to Jordan (indeed during conflicts the Arab league has acted as one to keep their borders closed).

Gaza was held for the same geographical reasons.

The problem was created by the Arabs and the Arab league indeed when the Palestinian National Council was established in 1948 the Jordanian and Iraqi forces refused to allow delegates from areas they controlled to attend because it was seen by them as an anti-Hashemite and an Egyptian and Saudi puppet whereas they dominated the Higher Arab Institute. The Higher Arab Institute was set up by the Arab League with no Palestinian representatives even though they had their own Higher Arab Committee which was set up in 1936 but outlawed by the  British soon after (sorry, I can’t remember when).

I offer the above detail simply to show that the Palestinian people have been sold out and deliberately undermined (to say the least) by the Arab world in an attempt to throw mud at Israel by keeping an open sore on their doorstep. Every time Israel engages and tries to sort things out at least one Arab country acts to undermine its efforts. It used to be Jordan and Egypt, now its Syria and Iran (with plenty of Saudi money in the mix at every turn).   

The bottom line is that a resolution is in the interests of Israel but is opposed by the leadership of most of the Arab world.


----------



## Nemesis (1 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> I offer the above detail simply to show that the Palestinian people have been sold out and deliberately undermined (to say the least) by the Arab world in an attempt to throw mud at Israel by keeping an open sore on their doorstep. Every time Israel engages and tries to sort things out at least one Arab country acts to undermine its efforts. It used to be Jordan and Egypt, now its Syria and Iran (with plenty of Saudi money in the mix at every turn).
> 
> The bottom line is that a resolution is in the interests of Israel but is opposed by the leadership of most of the Arab world.



I accept your central point that the Palestinian people have been sold out and undermined by the Arab world in the past (the most obvious being the rejection of the 1947 UN Partition plan which was a fair compromise for everybody). However I believe your analysis is not a true reflection of the position as it exists today. 

Firstly, I would not include Iran as part of the Arab world for obvious reasons but also because it is a Shia state as well. Iran is distrusted and indeed despised by most of the Sunni Arab world (with the notable exception of Syria). The Arab states feel Iran has "hijacked their issue" if you like, that they are messing in the affairs of the Sunni Arab world to further their own influence and power in the region. Secondly, I would not accept that the Arab world today is bent on the destruction of Israel. Yes, they don't like its presence in the region, if it disappeared tomorrow they would not shed a tear but they are realistic about it. Israel is not going away and most accept they must normalise relations with it. 

Look at recent history. Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979, Jordan in 1994 (in which they abandoned any claim to the West Bank). Syria holds out because it has not been offered the same land deal as Egypt (the return of all the Golan Heights just as Egypt received all the Sinai). There are complicating factors in the case of the Golan mainly centring on access to fresh water at Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) and I understand it is not a simple issue to resolve but while it remains unresolved Syria will continue to adopt a hostile stance. As such it will see Hezbollah and Hamas as leverage it can use against Israel to get what it wants. In 2002 Saudi Arabia and the Arab League proposed a peace plan that would offer Israel fully normalised relations with the Arab world if it withdrew to its pre-1967 borders. This is a major step forward and shows that if agreement on a Palestinian state can be found plus a resolution of the Golan Heights issue then wider peace and long-term stability should be possible.

The greatest problem in dealing with all of this is the regime in Iran. It is most unfortunate that just when the Arab world was waking up to the fact it had to accept Israel's existence the Islamic revolution occurred in Iran and it then decided to get involved in the dispute. Nevertheless it should not in itself stop progress on a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Lastly, I would say if people are critical of Israel and its actions over the years, they have good reason to be. For me the key issue is the relentless expansion of settlements across the West Bank since 1967. This has turned a difficult problem into a near impossible one. The whole idea has been to colonise and control the territory without any thought for how that affects the existing Palestinian population or how it impacts future possibilities for a negotiated agreement. I suggest anyone interested in this issue to check out  to learn more about how this affects Palestinian life. The case of  in particular is a good illustration of how the presence of settlements can inflict misery on the Palestinian population.


----------



## Purple (1 Jan 2009)

I accept most of what you say but the pre-67 border was indefensible. Israel needs a de-militarised zone on the West bank of the Jordan and control of the Golan Heights.
Syria needs Israeli support to regain control in Lebanon. Israel may well support them in this as it will undermine Hammas. 
I suspect that most of the Palestinian population in Gaza would leave if the Egyptians let them in but they don't want tens of thousands of radicalised youth’s destabilising their country. The same goes for the Jordanians and anyone who wants to leave the West bank.

I do not support the settlers in the West Bank but whatever happens it will never be an economically viable state so it will rely on the largess of Israel, Jordan or Syria. If I was them I'd go for the Jews.

I don't think anyone doesn't accept that the plight of the Palestinian people is grave but they chose a terrorist group to lead them and they choose to allow their leaders to fire rockets into the only country that has ever done anything for them.

The bottom line is that as long as the Suez Canal is secure America won't budge, Egypt is part of the Western sphere of influence, Jordan has no stomach or inclination to step in, Syria is far too weak, Iran has its own internal problems and the Wahhabi’s in Saudi rely on the US to stay in power. The only country that has any real interest in sorting things out is Israel.


----------



## DublinTexas (1 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> I accept most of what you say but the pre-67 border was indefensible. Israel needs a de-militarised zone on the West bank of the Jordan and control of the Golan Heights.
> Syria needs Israeli support to regain control in Lebanon. Israel may well support them in this as it will undermine Hammas.
> I suspect that most of the Palestinian population in Gaza would leave if the Egyptians let them in but they don't want tens of thousands of radicalised youth’s destabilising their country. The same goes for the Jordanians and anyone who wants to leave the West bank.
> 
> ...


 

I fully agree with the line "The only country that has any real interest in sorting things out is Israel.".

Israel needs a reliable and stable Palestine state so that they are having secure borders and can continue using the labour resources that are outside their borders. The israeli economy heavily relies on workers coming in from the plestinian controlled areas. So if the borders are closed noboy is coming to work.

Egypt could open it's borders with Gaza and let civilians out but they don't do that because they fear terrorists come with them and continue to attack Israel from Egypt soil. So instead they once again try to negociate a period of "peace".

I actualy feel sorry for the terrorist supporters down at the GOP standing there in the freezing cold today demonstrating the "agressor" while their bedfellows are continue to send rockets into kinder gardens. 

Let's face it the only solution is to get ride of Hamas, retract out of the west bank, accept a palestinian state and have some sort of normal relations. But as long as terrorists are firing rockets into Israel and as the cowards they are hide behind civilians there is very little hope of that.


----------



## Nemesis (1 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> I accept most of what you say but the pre-67 border was indefensible. Israel needs a de-militarised zone on the West bank of the Jordan and control of the Golan Heights.



Well for an indefensible border, the IDF did a pretty good job of defending it at the time  

Seriously though, I understand what you're saying but I think the solution is a declaration that Israel is not opposed to transferring full control of the Jordan valley to a future Palestinian state but only when it no longer feels threatened by its neighbours. This would obviously require a comprehensive peace deal that would finally deal with outstanding issues with Syria and Lebanon as well as full normalisation of relations with all other Arab states in the region. No settlement without agreement with a Palestinian state should occur in that zone in the interim. I don't know how long that period could last, it could be 10, 20 years or more but full sovereignty would depend on a total transformation in the nature of relations in the region which I believe would be possible in the years following a comprehensive peace deal. The key thing is that Israel would do nothing to prejudice the final borders of a Palestinian state while it maintained a presence in that zone for security purposes only.

Israel has in the past been prepared to hand back the Golan Heights (under Ehud Barak's government in 2000). The stumbling block was not so much the heights themselves but control over Lake Tiberias. Israel wished to retain a strip of land along the east bank of the lake. Syria was not prepared to accept this.



Purple said:


> Syria needs Israeli support to regain control in Lebanon. Israel may well support them in this as it will undermine Hammas.
> I suspect that most of the Palestinian population in Gaza would leave if the Egyptians let them in but they don't want tens of thousands of radicalised youth’s destabilising their country. The same goes for the Jordanians and anyone who wants to leave the West bank.



I must say I don't like the casual acceptance that migration of Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank to Jordan is a desirable outcome. You are talking about people who have lived for generations there, who consider themselves Palestinian and do not feel they can just fit in as part of any other Arab nation. I don't see why they should have to leave just because those in the settler movement want to set up new towns on their land. I also know that there was some migration of Arabs to the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 but the majority of the population lived there long before that.

I would ask only one thing of Israel: to stop the continuing settlement activity in the West Bank and to desist from Ariel Sharon's idea of "creating facts on the ground". The settlements causing the most friction and trouble such as Hebron should be dismantled. It makes no sense to plant the most extreme hardline elements of Israeli society in the middle of Palestinian populations with the huge security presence and disruption to Palestinian life it necessarily entails. It is a guaranteed recipe to breed resentment and bitterness. And in that environment extremist groups thrive.


----------



## Purple (1 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Well for an indefensible border, the IDF did a pretty good job of defending it at the time
> 
> Seriously though, I understand what you're saying but I think the solution is a declaration that Israel is not opposed to transferring full control of the Jordan valley to a future Palestinian state but only when it no longer feels threatened by its neighbours. This would obviously require a comprehensive peace deal that would finally deal with outstanding issues with Syria and Lebanon as well as full normalisation of relations with all other Arab states in the region. No settlement without agreement with a Palestinian state should occur in that zone in the interim. I don't know how long that period could last, it could be 10, 20 years or more but full sovereignty would depend on a total transformation in the nature of relations in the region which I believe would be possible in the years following a comprehensive peace deal. The key thing is that Israel would do nothing to prejudice the final borders of a Palestinian state while it maintained a presence in that zone for security purposes only.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of that. My point about Jordan closing its border was simply that they didn't want the problem to go away and now they don't want the extremists.

On the topic of the current air strikes I think it is remarkable that they have killed so few civilians. Pro-Israeli sources say a few dozen, the UN people on the ground in Palestine (who can be taken to be pro Palestinian) says around 50. The pin-point accuracy of the attacks, considering the volume of ordinance fires (up to 100 tonnes on the first night), is beyond anything even the US could achieve and is decades ahead of what Russia managed recently in Georgia.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Jan 2009)

Predictably this thread has become a debate on the whole ME situation. The OP suggests a less ambitious discussion point. What did Hamas expect and was the Israeli reaction disproportionate? 

On the latter question we do have a body count score of 400 to 4 which looks a bit one sided but OTOH we have 25% innocent casualties v 100% civilians killed by Hamas.  We also can assume that Hamas would have been delighted with a better hit rate and maybe thousands of Israelis dead.

If you are a "neutral" what is the proportional retalation?


----------



## mercman (2 Jan 2009)

For those that want to incredibly want to doubt the purpose of the Israeli matter of self defence and search to protect their own people, it might be prudent to have a look at www.bicom.org.uk. 

Then your opinion might be changed and in case anyone at the Gov.Dept knows anyone, they might pass the link to the Minister who might have a thoughtful and respectful remark on the matter, prior to him making comments on something he knows little about.


----------



## diarmuidc (2 Jan 2009)

Slash said:


> Criticising Israel for attacking Gaza is not anti-Semitism.
> 
> Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.



We wouldn't want fact or accuracy to get in the way of a good "argument"


----------



## S.L.F (3 Jan 2009)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Predictably this thread has become a debate on the whole ME situation. The OP suggests a less ambitious discussion point. What did Hamas expect and was the Israeli reaction disproportionate?
> 
> On the latter question we do have a body count score of 400 to 4 which looks a bit one sided but OTOH we have 25% innocent casualties v 100% civilians killed by Hamas.  We also can assume that Hamas would have been delighted with a better hit rate and maybe thousands of Israelis dead.
> 
> If you are a "neutral" what is the proportional _*retalation*_?



I seem to recall a poster by the name of harchibald who was giving a poster by the name of Television a hard time due to spelling errors.

_*retaliation*_ is the proper spelling.

.............................................................................

I'm a simple man, the politics of the middle east are hard for anybody to understand.

What I know is the Palestinian people had the land the worked on for generations bought out from under them.

The people who sold that land to the Israeli people were Arabs.

The Palestinian people have been betrayed by everybody.

Regarding numbers of dead you can put it down to numbers or statistics  but what I see is not a single tragedy but 404 tragedies, and that's just the ones killed.

There are also ones injured or maimed.

My view on the whole score issue is every person killed by either side is someones father, mother, sister, brother son, daughter or friend.

I hate war and all that goes with it I just don't see that Israel has a choice but to do what it has to do.


----------



## mercman (3 Jan 2009)

Slash said:


> Criticising Israel for attacking Gaza is not anti-Semitism.
> 
> Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.



Have you studied the make up and composition of Israel ?


----------



## Nemesis (3 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> I seem to recall a poster by the name of harchibald who was giving a poster by the name of Television a hard time due to spelling errors.
> 
> _*retaliation*_ is the proper spelling.



That looks to me like a typo. There's a difference between the odd typo and multiple spelling mistakes across several posts. 



S.L.F said:


> I hate war and all that goes with it I just don't see that Israel has a choice but to do what it has to do.



At this immediate juncture, Israel may very well have little choice but to respond in some fashion to counter rocket attacks but if they have no choice it is because of bad decisions in the past that have left them with no choice. Israel has been in control of the West Bank and Gaza for over 40 years yet felt they could somehow leave the status of the Palestinians unresolved while continuing settlement activity where they liked. It was only after the first Palestinian Intifada beginning in 1987 that they were forced to seriously confront the issue. If Palestinians remained compliant, did just what they were told, accepted being citizens of nowhere with no democratic voice in the state that governed them then it seems Israel would have been quite happy to continue with the status quo and never do anything about it.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and dismantled the settlements there it was part of Ariel Sharon's plan for a unilateral "resolution" to the Palestinian issue. This was a ridiculous concept and many predicted it would not work. Pulling out of Gaza was pointless unless you also resolved the final status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank at the same time. But the idea was that you could seal off Gaza and forget about it. The rocket attacks and attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers are in a sense Hamas saying: "We're still here, you can't just seal us off and think this fight is over". These attacks are indiscriminate and clearly intolerable from an Israeli perspective but they are perhaps not unexpected.

Finally, as horrible as Hamas is, as despicable as their acts, they are not just some tiny band of Islamic extremists with limited support. They are a broad political movement, a movement that gained a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in free and fair elections held in 2006. This outcome had a lot to do with past incompetence and corruption among Fatah leaders plus a long history of Hamas providing welfare and social services to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. You can't just bomb an organisation like that out of existence. At some stage there has to be talks, as distasteful as that idea is.

Hamas does not recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. That appears to be an insurmountable problem. However it is prepared to countenance a "long term truce" if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders. Now clearly this would be an idiotic final agreement for Israel to sign up to. Why would anyone hand over territory and make concessions to an enemy whose stated aim was to attack again in the future greatly emboldened and strengthened from such a deal? However it does show some willingness to be flexible and pragmatic on the part of Hamas, however small. I feel here Hamas is a prisoner to its own ideology and history and that it can't initiate negotiations on better initial terms than this without alienating many in the movement. It is certainly not going to change its attitude to Israel's right to exist in advance of talks because others demand it to, be that Israel itself, the US or European states. This would be interpreted as bowing down before the "enemy" when the centrepiece of its ideology is "resistance". It might perhaps be compared to demanding the IRA in 1994 immediately say the war is over and that it recognised the legitimacy of the 6 county state. Hard to imagine things getting anywhere from that starting point given the Republican movement's mindset.

Again, I've dragged the discussion off topic somewhat and gone on too long, but I feel you can't discuss the present violence in isolation from the wider context and recent history of the conflict. There are underlying reasons why the present events are taking place and one cannot simply ignore a discussion of them.


----------



## Purple (3 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Israel has been in control of the West Bank and Gaza for over 40 years yet felt they could somehow leave the status of the Palestinians unresolved while continuing settlement activity where they liked. It was only after the first Palestinian Intifada beginning in 1987 that they were forced to seriously confront the issue. If Palestinians remained compliant, did just what they were told, accepted being citizens of nowhere with no democratic voice in the state that governed them then it seems Israel would have been quite happy to continue with the status quo and never do anything about it.


Israel took over in '67 so they weren't going to do much for the first few years. They engaged publicly in '87... So it was a 10-15 year period where they did nothing publicly, not 40 years. BTW, through the 70's and early 80's the other players in the area weren't going to do much to help.

I agree that Israel could have done more but it is unfair to single them out. Jordan created the West Bank and if Egypt hadn't started a war Gaza wouldn't exist. 
The here and now of the last 15-20 years is that Israel has (most of the time) tried to sort out the Palestinian issue but the Palestinian leadership has done all it could to undermine their own people. Maybe in the past this was because they were making so much money out of their suffering and now it is because they are fundamentalist nut-jobs.

BTW your point on corruption before Hammas is well made and is in common with the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood and their brand of fundamentalism through East Africa (Somalia in the 80's and 90's, Kenya in the 90's and today etc, etc). This followed on from the corruption and economic desolation that very flawed democracy brought to much of sub-Saharan Africa up to the mid 80's. It is interesting that socialist/Marxist rebels were fighting for secular democracies in Africa up to the mid 80's but now most rebel groups in the area have a distinctly religious identity. 
Sorry for dragging the thread even more off-topic but it shows that there is a precedent for groups like Hammas to fill the vacuum left by corrupt secular leadership.


----------



## Nemesis (3 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Israel took over in '67 so they weren't going to do much for the first few years. They engaged publicly in '87... So it was a 10-15 year period where they did nothing publicly, not 40 years. BTW, through the 70's and early 80's the other players in the area weren't going to do much to help.
> 
> I agree that Israel could have done more but it is unfair to single them out. Jordan created the West Bank and if Egypt hadn't started a war Gaza wouldn't exist.
> The here and now of the last 15-20 years is that Israel has (most of the time) tried to sort out the Palestinian issue but the Palestinian leadership has done all it could to undermine their own people. Maybe in the past this was because they were making so much money out of their suffering and now it is because they are fundamentalist nut-jobs.



I don't believe my comments about Israel are unfair. Israel could have done a lot more. When they took control of the territories it became their primary responsibility how they were governed and how the people there were treated. 

They had a number of choices. They could decide they wanted to incorporate the newly conquered territory into the state of Israel and annex it outright bringing their borders officially to the river Jordan. They would not do this because they would have to address the status of the Palestinians living there and extend to them the same rights of citizenship those Palestinians living inside Israel itself enjoy. This would fundamentally alter the demographic character of the state, possibly leaving Jews in a minority after a number of years. So short of forcibly expelling the Palestinian population from the territories, this option was out.

The sensible thing to do was recognise that there was a serious issue here as to what was to happen the Palestinian population in the longer term. Some forward thinking here might have indicated that the development of a Palestinian state would be in the longer term interests of Israel itself as well as the Palestinians. Israel could have shaped this state's development fostering moderate political leadership in the process, setting up a nascent Palestinian parliament and democratic structures and giving the local population a voice in what decisions were made in their lands while maintaining military control of the frontiers and key strategic points so as to bolster Israel's security from outside attack. Settlement and development of the land should have been with the consent of the local population. If settlements were linked to improvements in the local economy and the provision of jobs, facilities etc. they might find that they would not face insurmountable opposition.

Instead of that they decided to allow massive settlement to take place in the territories without the Palestinian population being asked as much as their views on it. Take a look at  to see what I'm talking about. The question of settlements is not some minor side issue, it's absolutely central to the  whole conflict and hardening of ordinary Palestinian opinion against Israel over the years. Many of these settlements are full of the most extreme religious fanatics you're ever likely to find anywhere and require a massive military presence to protect the local Palestinian population from attack as much as to protect the settlers themselves. Anyone with eyes in their head could see this approach was a recipe for trouble down the line. The intractable mess we see today is a direct consequence of these actions.


----------



## Purple (3 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> I don't believe my comments about Israel are unfair. Israel could have done a lot more. When they took control of the territories it became their primary responsibility how they were governed and how the people there were treated.
> 
> They had a number of choices. They could decide they wanted to incorporate the newly conquered territory into the state of Israel and annex it outright bringing their borders officially to the river Jordan. They would not do this because they would have to address the status of the Palestinians living there and extend to them the same rights of citizenship those Palestinians living inside Israel itself enjoy. This would fundamentally alter the demographic character of the state, possibly leaving Jews in a minority after a number of years. So short of forcibly expelling the Palestinian population from the territories, this option was out.
> 
> ...



While I agree on the settler issue I don't think that Israel would have been allowed to construct a Palestinian state on the West Bank as too many Arab countries have an interest in keeping the wound open. Jordan is no longer a protagonist but Syria and Iran are, not to mention the vast sums of private Arab money than seem to be available to train and equip terrorists but seem to disappear when schools and hospitals are needed.  

Israel is no angel, not by a long shot, but its actions in the West Bank (in particular) and Gaza cannot be seen in isolation. 
The settler issue is a different matter; that is just plain wrong.


----------



## diarmuidc (5 Jan 2009)

mercman said:


> Have you studied the make up and composition of Israel ?


By that logic anyone criticising Hamas must be Islamophobic as the composition of Hamas is mostly Muslim.
*
*


----------



## mercman (5 Jan 2009)

diarmuidc said:


> By that logic anyone criticising Hamas must be Islamophobic as the composition of Hamas is mostly Muslim.



Please do not insinuate that any of my comments are discriminatory. My posts are based on the well published facts.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jan 2009)

mercman said:


> Please do not insinuate that any of my comments are discriminatory. My posts are based on the well published facts.


 
You called our Minister of Foreign Affairs a Anti-Semetic muppet because he criticised Israel. People are simply pointing out that criticising a Country's policies whatever it's demographic makeup is not Anti-Semetic. By the way I would remove your comment about Micheal Martin on the first page if I was you. I have seen solicitors letters sent out for less.


----------



## mercman (5 Jan 2009)

Sunny, thank you for the comments which are noted. I am unable to remove my comments so therefore, I express my apologies. Nothing personal intended. 
The site bicom.org.uk is an independent site that details the matters.


----------



## johnnygman (6 Jan 2009)

Perhaps no one getting killed at all, its not a game, war dosent solve anything, how many years diod it take us to learn that lesson in this country...


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

johnnygman said:


> Perhaps no one getting killed at all, its not a game, war dosent solve anything, how many years diod it take us to learn that lesson in this country...


Of course war solves things. 
War stopped National Socialism, war stopped the spread of Communism, war got us our independence, war gave America her independence and the ability to fight a war saved the people of Israel from total annihilation by their Arab neighbours in 1948 and 1967.

Is war a good thing? No
Do innocent people get killed in a war (even by the “good guys”)? Yes.
In the days leading up to the D-Day landing the Allies killed thousands of French men, women and children while they bombed from the air and shelled from the sea in an attempt to knock out key German targets. Wars are nasty and bloody affairs, there’s no way around it, but just as the Allied didn’t start the shooting in June 1944 the Israelis didn’t start it in 2008.

Question; If your neighbour was shooting at you and your family would you just let it pass because he had a crap gun and was a crap aim, or would you try to stop him?
If you tried to stop him would you do all you could to do so without getting killed or would you also use a crap gun because he had one and you were concerned about “proportionality”?


----------



## Sunny (6 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Question; If your neighbour was shooting at you and your family would you just let it pass because he had a crap gun and was a crap aim, or would you try to stop him?
> If you tried to stop him would you do all you could to do so without getting killed or would you also use a crap gun because he had one and you were concerned about “proportionality”?


 
I probably wouldn't blow up a school to get him if that was where he was shooting from though. Especially if I knew the chances of him hitting a member of my family was quiet slim. How many Israelis have died from these rockets in the past five years? I am willing to bet it is a small percentage of the amount of palestinian civilians who have killed by Israel in the same period. And that's not trying to justify a terrorist act against Israel but proportionality has to come into it. Otherwise the police could justify shooting someone who was throwing stones at them.

And whatever about using crap guns, I certainly would find it hard to justify using weapons like these.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> And that's not trying to justify a terrorist act against Israel but proportionality has to come into it.



What proportion would be suitable 50%-50%?

Are we going to view this as 1 Palistinian to 1 Israeli or should we go by % of population.

When does it become alright for Israel to protect itself from the rocket attacks?

It has to be remembered that if it shows any weakness in this issus the rest of its arab neighbours will get more involved.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> I probably wouldn't blow up a school to get him if that was where he was shooting from though.


What if you dropped leaflets and called the school to tell them to get civilians out of it because you were going to blow it up (like the Israelis do)?


----------



## Sunny (6 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> What proportion would be suitable 50%-50%?
> 
> Are we going to view this as 1 Palistinian to 1 Israeli or should we go by % of population.
> 
> ...


 
Where did I say Israel didn't have a right to defend itself against rocket attacks? 

You can't take the concept of proportionality out of the equation because it is enshrined in international law. Deciding what is and isn't a proportionate repsonse is way beyond my pay grade though but I have seen and heard enough to cause me to begin to question some of its actions. Israel has the right to defend itself but it doesn't have a blank check on the matter. I would have reservations about bombing the university and the police stations and their very broad definition of enemy combatants for starters. And then there is the question of if they really are using White Phosphorus in a built up area. 

There is no military solution to this problem. And do you honestly think other Arab Countries aren't going get more involved if this continues. There is already growing unrest in moderate Countries like Eygpt and Turkey. One can only imagine what Iran and the Hisballah in Lebanon are thinking. This campaign is the best advertisement for Islamic Extremist groups since Abu Ghraib.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> What if you dropped leaflets and called the school to tell them to get civilians out of it because you were going to blow it up (like the Israelis do)?


 
Fair point.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jan 2009)

Guess they didn't have time to send a letter.

[broken link removed]

Oh and you add Israel blocking foreign journalists from entering Gaza as another concern of mine.


----------



## Nemesis (6 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> It has to be remembered that if it shows any weakness in this issus the rest of its arab neighbours will get more involved.



What other Arab countries would get involved if Israel were to cease operations now or for that matter if they did not commence them in the first place?

The greater danger as Sunny alludes to is the prospect of moderate governments in Egypt, Jordan etc coming under pressure from their own populations as they see more and more images of Palestinian suffering broadcast on their TV screens.

Israel has the right to take action against Hamas but the danger is any successes they achieve in degrading them militarily will be offset by creating instability elsewhere in the region and further radicalising Palestinian opinion. In particular, it places enormous strains on Mahmound Abbas and Fatah who could come out the real loser from this encounter.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> The greater danger as Sunny alludes to is the prospect of moderate governments in Egypt, Jordan etc coming under pressure from their own populations as they see more and more images of Palestinian suffering broadcast on their TV screens.
> 
> Israel has the right to take action against Hamas but the danger is any successes they achieve in degrading them militarily will be offset by creating instability elsewhere in the region and further radicalising Palestinian opinion. In particular, it places enormous strains on Mahmound Abbas and Fatah who could come out the real loser from this encounter.


 I agree. Diplomacy will have to take place. It is the only think that will solve the problem, short of wiping out the entire population of Gaza (and while Hamas would not think twice about killing every Jewish man woman and child the Israelis would never sink to that level).


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> Guess they didn't have time to send a letter.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Oh and you add Israel blocking foreign journalists from entering Gaza as another concern of mine.



RTE are up there with Al Jazeera as one of the most biased and anti-Israeli media outlets we have access to in Ireland. Their TV news coverage of the conflict so far is sickeningly biased.
If I was Israel I would be wary of letting RTE into Gaza to broadcast their anti-Israeli propaganda.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> RTE are up there with Al Jazeera as one of the most biased and anti-Israeli media outlets we have access to in Ireland. Their TV news coverage of the conflict so far is sickeningly biased.
> If I was Israel I would be wary of letting RTE into Gaza to broadcast their anti-Israeli propaganda.


 

Fair enough (I don't think RTE have anyone brave enough to go there anyway!) but surely not every international media from CNN to the BBC to the Washington Post is anti-Israeli. Why aren't they allowed in?


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> Fair enough (I don't think RTE have anyone brave enough to go there anyway!) but surely not every international media from CNN to the BBC to the Washington Post is anti-Israeli. Why aren't they allowed in?


I do take your point and so do the Israeli courts since they have required that the IDF let journalists into Gaza. I think they are looking to manage the whole affair but I do think the media should have access.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> What other Arab countries would get involved if Israel were to cease operations now or for that matter if they did not commence them in the first place?



Israel had no choice it had to start the bombardment and invasion.

Israel has to be seen to be tough as they are surrounded by enemies.

If Israel left Palestine tomorrow how long do you think i would take for the rockets to start again.



Nemesis said:


> The greater danger as Sunny alludes to is the prospect of moderate governments in Egypt, Jordan etc coming under pressure from their own populations as they see more and more images of Palestinian suffering broadcast on their TV screens.



Since the Palestinian people are broke where does the money for their rockets come from?



Nemesis said:


> Israel has the right to take action against Hamas but the danger is any successes they achieve in degrading them militarily will be offset by creating instability elsewhere in the region and further radicalising Palestinian opinion. In particular, it places enormous strains on Mahmound Abbas and Fatah who could come out the real loser from this encounter.



I think for Israel damned if you do and damned if you dont would be the most apt phrase.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Israel had no choice it had to start the bombardment and invasion.
> 
> Israel has to be seen to be tough as they are surrounded by enemies.


 I agree on both points



S.L.F said:


> If Israel left Palestine tomorrow how long do you think i would take for the rockets to start again?


 Tomorrow evening?





S.L.F said:


> Since the Palestinian people are broke where does the money for their rockets come from?


Very good question. Let me add to it: If they can’t get aid in how did they get 8000 rockets in? (And just in case anyone thinks they are all locally made glorified fireworks they are firing 122mm Grad type Katyusha Missiles with a 40 mile range, not the sort of thing you McGyver up in the basement). The fact that the Katyusha missiles are getting from Iran, into Egypt, and then on into Gaza should show Israel who its friends are. 




S.L.F said:


> I think for Israel damned if you do and damned if you don’t would be the most apt phrase.


 Yep, that about sums it up.


----------



## room305 (6 Jan 2009)

johnnygman said:


> Perhaps no one getting killed at all, its not a game, war dosent solve anything, how many years diod it take us to learn that lesson in this country...



I'm guessing a long time since we still celebrate the 1916 uprising and the war of independence.



Purple said:


> Very good question. Let me add to it: If they can’t get aid in how did they get 8000 rockets in? (And just in case anyone thinks they are all locally made glorified fireworks they are firing 122mm Grad type Katyusha Missiles with a 40 mile range, not the sort of thing you McGyver up in the basement). The fact that the Katyusha missiles are getting from Iran, into Egypt, and then on into Gaza should show Israel who its friends are.



Tells you everything about how little the likes of Iran care about the plight of the Palestinian people and how they are viewed as little more than a political football to kick the Israelis with.



Purple said:


> RTE are up there with Al Jazeera as one of the most biased and anti-Israeli media outlets we have access to in Ireland. Their TV news coverage of the conflict so far is sickeningly biased.
> If I was Israel I would be wary of letting RTE into Gaza to broadcast their anti-Israeli propaganda.



Got to concur on this front. They're not even attempting to show the Israeli side and barely bother to distinguish between Hamas militants and ordinary civilians in their reports.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Oops, just re-read my last post; the 122mm Grad type Katyusha Missiles has a range of 40Km, not 40 miles.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Oops, just re-read my last post; the 122mm Grad type Katyusha Missiles has a range of 40Km, not 40 miles.



I'm sure the guys who fire these things wish it was 40 miles.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

room305 said:


> Tells you everything about how little the likes of Iran care about the plight of the Palestinian people and how they are viewed as little more than a political football to kick the Israelis with.



Which goes back to the point about how the Arab world sold out the Palestinians in the 20's and particularly in the 40's when the Arab League found it more important to use them as a lever for their internal power struggle (between the Jordanian led group and the Egyptian led group) then to allow them to have their own representation or form their own government in exile. They didn't let a representative into their club (in the form of the PLO) in 'till the 70's. Maybe Arafat used some of the money he stole from his own people to buy a seat at the table or maybe it was his impressive terrorist record?


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jan 2009)

Just did a bit of searching on the net about the rockets they use against Israel.

The type of ordinance that goes into some of their rockets makes for interesting reading.

1 of their rockets carries 40,000 ball bearings so anybody within a 50 meter radius is either dead meat or going to be very badly injured.

I don't know what these rockets cost but I'll bet it would be more then I make in a month.

Imagine if the characters who fund this terror were to put their money into helping the Palestinian people instead of giving them rockets.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Imagine if the characters who fund this terror were to put their money into helping the Palestinian people instead of giving them rockets.



And really that's the crux of it; in a holy land where money rushes up out of the ground the people in a small strip of land are left to rot and the only country that has ever given them anything is the one country that they have sworn to destroy. Meanwhile what they need it infrastructure and food and all their rich Arab neighbours give them is religious hatred and the instruments of death.


----------



## rabbit (7 Jan 2009)

I agree 100%, and its refreshing to read the above , instead of the anti-Israeli propoganda we get so much of.


----------



## Shawady (7 Jan 2009)

Interesting article in the Indo about it.


----------



## Nemesis (7 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Israel had no choice it had to start the bombardment and invasion.
> 
> Israel has to be seen to be tough as they are surrounded by enemies.
> 
> If Israel left Palestine tomorrow how long do you think i would take for the rockets to start again.



If Israel unilaterally pulled out from the entire territory without an agreed final settlement, I'm sure violence would continue. That's one of the errors they made with Gaza. Ariel Sharon decided he and he alone was going to decide the borders of a Palestinian state and somehow that would solve the problem. Clearly, it didn't.



S.L.F said:


> Since the Palestinian people are broke where does the money for their rockets come from?



I'm not quite sure how this comment relates to what I posted but if you're insinuating the money is coming from the governments of Egypt or Jordan then you're simply wrong. The main backing for Hamas and Hezbollah comes from Iran which as I've already outlined is a regional rival to the predominantly Sunni Arab states. You seem to have a rather vague general sense that somehow all Arab states in the region have the same position towards the state of Israel. This is not the case and political leaders in Israel more than anyone know this. Egypt and Jordan have normal relations with Israel and Israel certainly doesn't want to see the present regimes there overthrown by Islamists. Such a development would make the situation in the whole region immeasurably worse. 




Purple said:


> The fact that the Katyusha missiles are getting from Iran, into Egypt, and then on into Gaza should show Israel who its friends are.



Israel does not regard the present Egyptian government as complicit in the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The rocket attacks began in 2001 and Israel was in full occupation of Gaza until 2005. Even they could not fully control the transit of arms through tunnels when they had soldiers on the ground controlling their side of the border.




Purple said:


> ...and the only country that has ever given them anything is the one country that they have sworn to destroy.




Purple, you keep repeating this line. You would think from reading it that Israel has only ever extended the hand of friendship to the Palestinians. I don't see how doing  to the West Bank since 1967 is giving the Palestinians anything. It's a slow insidious takeover of the land, cutting off one Palestinian area from another and strangling the prospects for a Palestinian state. All the while keeping Palestinians under military control and without any democratic voice in the development that takes place around them.



Shawady said:


> Interesting article in the Indo about it.



So what's Myers point here? that Israel would have been better to engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967 and completely expel the indigenous population? Well at least it would be consistent with what the settler movement are trying to do today.


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Israel does not regard the present Egyptian government as complicit in the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The rocket attacks began in 2001 and Israel was in full occupation of Gaza until 2005. Even they could not fully control the transit of arms through tunnels when they had soldiers on the ground controlling their side of the border.


 Just because Israel was in Gaza in 2001 it doesn’t follow that they fully controlled it. They also know that the less they say against moderate Arab states the better. 


Nemesis said:


> Purple, you keep repeating this line. You would think from reading it that Israel has only ever extended the hand of friendship to the Palestinians. I don't see how doing  to the West Bank since 1967 is giving the Palestinians anything. It's a slow insidious takeover of the land, cutting off one Palestinian area from another and strangling the prospects for a Palestinian state. All the while keeping Palestinians under military control and without any democratic voice in the development that takes place around them.


 Israel gave aid and even arms to the Palestinian Authority under Arafat when they set up their own government. The Arab world gave them nothing because they were a secular government.


Nemesis said:


> So what's Myers point here? that Israel would have been better to engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967 and completely expel the indigenous population? Well at least it would be consistent with what the settler movement are trying to do today.


 If they did in 1947 what was done across Europe at that time then yes, the problem would not exist now. In the context of today’s morality it would not be acceptable but it would have been then (particularly since the Arab League had just invaded and attempted to kill every Jew in Palestine).


----------



## ollie323 (28 Jan 2009)

I get the feeling that this debate will go on forever. I was never a fan of debates, mostly because i couldn't debate my way out of a wet paper bag! Having said that, i found this and thought it made for interesting reading:
I'm not biased either way but when i read that Israel is funded for weapons to the tune of $3bn per year and is showering Palestine with depleted uranium, which is actually nuclear waste, i tend to feel sick. Here is a link to pictures taken in Gaza during the raid:
I ask everyone to look closely at these pictures and make their own minds up.

ollie


----------



## S.L.F (28 Jan 2009)

ollie323 said:


> I was never a fan of debates,


 
Neither is HAMAS and thus the problem.


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2009)

From looking at their site Ollie they are clearly very anti American with strong left wing leanings.
Ask yourself; who benefits from civilian casualties in Gaza? It sure isn't Israel. They didn't "shower" the people of Gaza with anything, since if they wanted to they could kill every one of them within hours (even without nuclear weapons).
Their tactics may have been heavy handed and counterproductive in the long term (I don't think so but time will tell) but I don't accept for a minute that they targeted civilians. That's not to say they didn't kill any, they did, but they were not the targets. 
If Hamas didn't want civilians killed they shouldn't have used them as human shields.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> From looking at their site Ollie they are clearly very anti American with strong left wing leanings.
> Ask yourself; who benefits from civilian casualties in Gaza? It sure isn't Israel. They didn't "shower" the people of Gaza with anything, since if they wanted to they could kill every one of them within hours (even without nuclear weapons).
> Their tactics may have been heavy handed and counterproductive in the long term (I don't think so but time will tell) but I don't accept for a minute that they targeted civilians. That's not to say they didn't kill any, they did, but they were not the targets.
> If Hamas didn't want civilians killed they shouldn't have used them as human shields.


 
Purple I admire your posts and I agree with alot of what you say but I can't help but think you are a bit naive on this. I don't think the Israeli Government or Military as a whole deliberately targeted civillians but I think there is now enough evidence from independent sources such as the Red Cross and the UN to suggest that invdividual units and soldiers with the Israeli army have cases to answer for. The fact that Israel has acted so quickly to say they would not put forward any of their troops to answer questions on possible crimes backs this up. For example there is no question anymore that White Phosperous was used in built up areas. Israel are saying one brigade was repsonsible but it still broke international law whoever was responsible.


----------



## mercman (29 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> Israel are saying one brigade was repsonsible but it still broke international law whoever was responsible.



So therefore it remains satisfactory to strap explosives to a person and let them go into Israel onto a bus or in a crowded restaurant and blow themselves up and as many around them as possible. Or to launch rockets directed towards Israel from a school or place of worship, regardless of the religion. I suppose this is OK by International law standards.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> Purple I admire your posts and I agree with alot of what you say but I can't help but think you are a bit naive on this. I don't think the Israeli Government or Military as a whole deliberately targeted civillians but I think there is now enough evidence from independent sources such as the Red Cross and the UN to suggest that invdividual units and soldiers with the Israeli army have cases to answer for. The fact that Israel has acted so quickly to say they would not put forward any of their troops to answer questions on possible crimes backs this up. For example there is no question anymore that White Phosperous was used in built up areas. Israel are saying one brigade was repsonsible but it still broke international law whoever was responsible.


Since Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary if crimes have been committed groups within the state can take legal action against the government and/or military. This has happened before.
I am not suggesting, and have not suggested, that individuals within the Israeli military have no questions to answer. I do make the point that it is not the policy of the Israeli state to target civilians.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jan 2009)

mercman said:


> So therefore it remains satisfactory to strap explosives to a person and let them go into Israel onto a bus or in a crowded restaurant and blow themselves up and as many around them as possible. Or to launch rockets directed towards Israel from a school or place of worship, regardless of the religion. I suppose this is OK by International law standards.


 
What are you talking about? Where did I suggest it wasn't against the law? Once again people assume that because you criticise Israel, you are supporting Hammas. Its pathetic.

International Law covers actions that are acceptable during times of armed conflict. Are you suggesting that Israel's behaviour drops to the same standards as a terrorist organisation like Hammas or should it as a democratic State be held to higher standards of behaviour like the Geneva Convention. If we really want fight terrorists at their own game and show lack of regard for civilian life, the US should probably have nuked Afganistan and half of Pakistan after 9/11. Countries like the US and Israel have to stand for something better than the people they are fighting against.


----------



## mercman (29 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> What are you talking about? Where did I suggest it wasn't against the law? Once again people assume that because you criticise Israel, you are supporting Hammas. Its pathetic.



My post was not a criticism of yours. It was making the point that the International community should not maintain blame against Israel whilst others are hell bent at wiping the Israeli nation off the planet. Israel has to stand for something better than what it is fighting against, but it has the right to protect its citizens. As for Hammas, they were voted in by their people, which knew full well of their agenda. No war will ever be won by slaughtering innocent civilians, but in the same token there is an urgent need to, once and for all, cease the bloodshed, blame game and Anti & Pro propaganda which the average populus has to read, hear and endure.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jan 2009)

mercman said:


> My post was not a criticism of yours. It was making the point that the International community should not maintain blame against Israel whilst others are hell bent at wiping the Israeli nation off the planet. Israel has to stand for something better than what it is fighting against, but it has the right to protect its citizens. As for Hammas, they were voted in by their people, which knew full well of their agenda. No war will ever be won by slaughtering innocent civilians, but in the same token there is an urgent need to, once and for all, cease the bloodshed, blame game and Anti & Pro propaganda which the average populus has to read, hear and endure.


 
Oh sorry. Thought you were implying I was saying suicide bombers were not against any law or something!


----------



## mathepac (30 Jan 2009)

While not wishing to take sides in this latest conflict, I think we need to be cognizant of where the seeds were sown.

In 1917, Great Britain and her allies were at war with Germany and her allies. With cousin Nicholas in Russia dead and the Bolsheviks in control, the perception at the British cabinet table was that the Bolshevik leaders in Russia were primarily Zionist. With Lord Rothschild, an active Zionist,  at the head of the banking and business family in Britain and other Rothschilds and Zionists holding the purse-strings in America, Balfour, former Prime Minister and then Foreign Secretary, issued one of the most extraordinary documents in 20th century history, which forms the basis of the conflict that still rages.

The document, later incorporated into what is generally referred to as the Balfour Declaration stated in part that His Germanic Majesty and his Government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" but with the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

This 67-word letter, which at the time was classified and kept secret from  "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", Britain's allies, and the British public was to serve a number of purposes :


 Keep the Rothschilds and other Zionist bankers money flowing in Britain to support the war effort
 Ditto in America as the USA's on-going financial and material support for Britain in the German family dispute was critical
 Keep the Bolshevik [perceived as Zionist] leadership in Russia sweet and prevent them siding with poor dead Nicky's cousin Willy in Germany against his other cousin in Britain.
 As usual, the Brits in issuing the document, made a number of assumptions which proved false :


 That “ the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" in no way conflicted with “ the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” or others
 That “ Palestine” meant the same thing to them as it did to the Zionists and “ non-Jewish communities” [the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 had carved up Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan etc. between the French and the Brits]
 That Jewish immigration into Palestine would grow and give Jews a population majority in the area. It grew from 1914 to a trickle in the early 1920's, 1926 saw it cease, 1927 / 28 saw net emigration out of the area, which was only stemmed by the 1929 crash.
 In 1918 when the letter and Declaration were de-classified and published, there were storms of protest world-wide and riots in Palestine.

From 1918 to 1948 at least six different British-led committees, enquiries, commissions and investigations were instituted to no avail to try and solve the “Palestinian problem”, created by Balfour’s letter, until in 1948 the Irgun eventually kicked the Brits out.

Which brings the history missing from earlier posts in the thread up to date, and in my mind explains why perfidious Albion is once again at the root of the on-going problems in the area, wringing hands and shaking heads in despair as to why these former colonials can’t learn to live together peacefully.


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2009)

mathepac said:


> While not wishing to take sides in this latest conflict, I think we need to be cognizant of where the seeds were sown.
> 
> In 1917, Great Britain and her allies were at war with Germany and her allies. With cousin Nicholas in Russia dead and the Bolsheviks in control, the perception at the British cabinet table was that the Bolshevik leaders in Russia were primarily Zionist. With Lord Rothschild, an active Zionist,  at the head of the banking and business family in Britain and other Rothschilds and Zionists holding the purse-strings in America, Balfour, former Prime Minister and then Foreign Secretary, issued one of the most extraordinary documents in 20th century history, which forms the basis of the conflict that still rages.
> 
> ...



Where did you get your immigration figures from? The only comprehensive census was done by the British in the 30’s. The Ottoman census carried out pre First World War were deeply flawed as they didn’t count non-nationals and it was used as a basis for conscription so the local Muslim population tried to avoid being counted. 
In the 20’s and 30’s there was a big influx of both Jews and Arabs. The Arabs were following the relatively rich Jews to their new settlements and working for them.

You have also ignored the fact that if the Arab League had not invaded the day after the UN took charge the state of Israel in its present form wouldn’t exist. 

None of this really matters as it has happened and will not change (and if you go back far enough each side can cite events that but right on their side.  
What does matter is now and what can and should be done to sort things out.


----------



## mathepac (30 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Where did you get your immigration figures from? ...


Encyclopaedia Brittanica print edition 1983.


Purple said:


> ...You have also ignored the fact that if the Arab League had not invaded the day after the UN took charge the state of Israel in its present form wouldn’t exist...


I didn't know that the UN was ever in charge of Israel (or Palestine). I know about the UNSCOP proposals approved by the General Assembly in November 1947, but I believe that was the limit of their involvement.

The two invasions in 1948, January by unofficial irregular volunteers, and May, saw Jewish Palestine / Israel occupy lands that were part of the UNSCOP Arab portion of the partitioned lands and after the "official" invasion in May, the lands Israel occupied were ceded to them as part of the Armistice with the Arab League countries.

Interestingly, only the United States and the USSR gave immediate recognition to the new State of Israel when it was proclaimed on May 14, 1948.


Purple said:


> ... None of this really matters as it has happened and will not change (and if you go back far enough each side can cite events that but right on their side...


I believe it does as the mess is largely the creation of the double-dealing former  colonists (France, Britain, the Ottomans, etc.) and all parties in the area are still aggrieved at their treatment.


Purple said:


> ... What does matter is now and what can and should be done to sort things out.


I wish I knew the answer to this one. All I can say for sure is that based on its history,  Israel will defend itself and its population from any and all threats.


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2009)

mathepac said:


> I didn't know that the UN was ever in charge of Israel (or Palestine). I know about the UNSCOP proposals approved by the General Assembly in November 1947, but I believe that was the limit of their involvement.


If you read this post from another thread it shows the map of the proposed plan put forward by the UN. If the Arab league had not invaded this is what the Palestinians would have got. 
The political history around the formation of the Arab League is very interesting. The Palestinian question was an issue back then but right from the 1920's Arab nations sold the Palestinians out. They were nothing more than a football between the Hashemite/Jordanian faction and the Egyptian faction in the original Arab League.
This is the most balanced source I have found on population in Ottoman and British Mandated Palestine. It's a good read if that sort of stuff floats your boat.


----------



## RMCF (1 Feb 2009)

So a ceasefire was called on the 18th Jan, and I am sure that it came as a great relief to the people of Gaza, after their terrible hammering at the hands of an OTT military.

You'd think that they would welcome a bit of peace and quiet to try to get back to some normality. So what do Hamas do? Start firing rockets into Israel again. What exactly are they thinking? And how can they expect the world to feel sorry for them when they try to start it all up again?

There's no profit in peace, is there?


----------



## mercman (1 Feb 2009)

And today the leader of the Palestinians Mahmoud Abbas is now blaming Hammas for placing the Palestinian people in danger. So the world blames Israel, Israel stops, Hammas reluctantly stops and starts again. I don't see the world press condeming Hammas for firing rockets, injuring persons or in fact breaking the cease fire. And their supporters in this country have now taking to verbally abusing people for not signing their propaganda sheets. But of course the rules on Anti Israel or Anti Semitism propaganda are different nowadays -- isn't that right Minister Martin ??


----------



## S.L.F (1 Feb 2009)

RMCF said:


> So a ceasefire was called on the 18th Jan, and I am sure that it came as a great relief to the people of Gaza, after their terrible hammering at the hands of an OTT military.
> 
> You'd think that they would welcome a bit of peace and quiet to try to get back to some normality. So what do Hamas do? Start firing rockets into Israel again. What exactly are they thinking? And how can they expect the world to feel sorry for them when they try to start it all up again?
> 
> There's no profit in peace, is there?


 
If they keep sending rockets into Israel, Israel will have to invade again,

It is my belief that if the Israeli's gave HAMAS everything they wanted they'd still send rockets over into Israel.


----------



## Sunny (2 Feb 2009)

Yeah you have to wonder what goes through their heads. Terrorists really are stupid. They could have played the sympathy card for a while and argued for the ending of the blockade and got worldwide political support for it. Also shows how pointless the Israeli invasion was.


----------



## S.L.F (2 Feb 2009)

Sunny said:


> Yeah you have to wonder what goes through their heads. Terrorists really are stupid. They could have played the sympathy card for a while and argued for the ending of the blockade and got worldwide political support for it. Also shows how pointless the Israeli invasion was.


 
This is the thing everybody forgets the problem is not the terrorists, its the people who fund them and give them the weapons and who train them and who brain wash them into "The Cause".


----------



## ollie323 (18 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> They didn't "shower" the people of Gaza with anything, since if they wanted to they could kill every one of them within hours (even without nuclear weapons).


Yes they have
[broken link removed]

ollie


----------



## DublinTexas (18 Feb 2009)

ollie323 said:


> Yes they have
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ollie


 
Now just because the country that founds the terrorist is spreading such statements on one of their "news" webpages which are made to look like a legit BBC site does not mean that their is truth to it.

If you type in that "Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims" into google you see that there is very little neutral coverage on this, mostly it's blogs and other left wing groups repeating the same presstv.

Now I'm not saying the the IDF might not have used weapons that they should not have used, but if there is a reliable source of facts and evidence than for sure that would be a war crime and we would see some UN action.


----------



## ollie323 (24 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> If you type in that "Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims" into google you see that there is very little neutral coverage on this


Of course it's not very neutral. There is nothing neutral about depleted uranium. I have to agree with your point about the bias of the website but what's the alternative? Present a balanced neutral view on your own people getting hammered and blasted into oblivion? Come on, everybody knows thats not going to happen. Would you have a balanced opinion if an invading army came in here and hosed DU and white phosphorus at us? Like hell you would!
Remember the channel 4 documentary on how little the media were allowed to see of the Gaza invasion? That was to stop the world seeing what really went on there. I just researched the subject and found pictures taken by people actually in gaza. Combine that with what everybody already knows about the us/israeli military and it's a given that DU and white phosporus was used and will continue to be used in future conflicts/invasions.

ollie


----------



## mercman (24 Feb 2009)

I am in no way condoning that the use of these weapons is correct in any manner, but some seem to make out that hurdling rockets into Israel aiming to kill as many Jews as possible is acceptable but any counter reaction is unacceptable, immoral etc. Therefore self defence is a one way corridor in the minds of many.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2009)

If someone breaks into my house with a knife and I have a shotgun under the bed I don’t leave it there so that we can have a fair fight; I shoot at the guy with the sole aim of taking him out while minimising the risk of bodily harm to me. Proportionality is for people who aren’t getting shot at.


----------



## DublinTexas (24 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> If someone breaks into my house with a knife and I have a shotgun under the bed I don’t leave it there so that we can have a fair fight; I shoot at the guy with the sole aim of taking him out while minimising the risk of bodily harm to me. Proportionality is for people who aren’t getting shot at.


 
And you do that accepting the risk that you will go to jail for it because defending your home is not lawfull, you have to retreat.

While I agree with this scenario I would not say that the IDF should use everything they have in this (because I don't want a radioactive waistland) but they must use resonable weapons at their disposal.

Just because Hamaz and Iran are using illegial weapons does not mean the IDF should also use them. UD is not a good weapon to use if there are civilians arround but I'm sure that IDF is taking this very seriously and will get down to the bottom of it.


----------



## mercman (24 Feb 2009)

So it remains OK for you to be hacked to death, as you wouldn't want to use the Shotgun as you are in the game of wanting to die in a fair way !! Proportionality in the Gaza / Israeli conflict remains that the Israelis are better placed to defend themselves or the other side have a rotten shot. The Israelis primarily targeted members of Hamas. It is not their fault if Hamas used children or women as shields or moving targets.


----------



## UptheDeise (24 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This is the thing everybody forgets the problem is not the terrorists, its the people who fund them and give them the weapons and who train them and who brain wash them into "The Cause".


 
The problems lies with both the terrorists and there supporters. Nobody brainwashes anyone unless they are quite willing to accept whatever cause is on offer.

The terrorists are much at fault here.


----------



## ollie323 (24 Feb 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> The problems lies with both the terrorists and there supporters. Nobody brainwashes anyone unless they are quite willing to accept whatever cause is on offer.
> 
> The terrorists are much at fault here.


True, there is fault on both sides. However, israel blockaded the gazans and prevented any goods or services from entering the area. This was naturally going to result in a pressure cooker effect with the resultant sudden release of that pressure. People can only take so much. 

ollie


----------



## mercman (24 Feb 2009)

Ollie. I think you might have this one slightly wrong. The Israelis blockaded the Gazans only after they were bombarded day after day and month after month with their rockets. What did anyone expect them to do.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Feb 2009)

mercman said:


> The Israelis blockaded the Gazans only after they were bombarded day after day and month after month with their rockets. What did anyone expect them to do.


 
This is my whole point


----------



## PaddyW (25 Feb 2009)

If I had a spud gun and my mate next door had an uzi, I certainly wouldn't wanna pee him off by shooting at him with me spud gun every day.


----------



## zephyro (25 Feb 2009)

PaddyW said:


> If I had a spud gun and my mate next door had an uzi, I certainly wouldn't wanna pee him off by shooting at him with me spud gun every day.



What if the local council decided to give your house to your mate and told you that you had to live in the toolshed?


----------



## PaddyW (25 Feb 2009)

The spudgun still wouldn't be much use to me.

They couldn't anyway, because I own the house and there'd be some fun if they tried give it away!


----------



## zephyro (25 Feb 2009)

PaddyW said:


> The spudgun still wouldn't be much use to me.



It wouldn't, but you might be tempted to use it anyway.



PaddyW said:


> They couldn't anyway, because I own the house and there'd be some fun if they tried give it away!



Admittedly it's not a realistic analogy but I think you have misunderstood. The Arab population also thought they owned most of the territory awarded to Israel under the U.N. Partition Plan. There has indeed been "some fun" since that plan was passed.


----------



## mercman (25 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> The Arab population also thought they owned most of the territory awarded to Israel under the U.N. Partition Plan.



Well why don't they take their grievance out with those that devised the plan instead of continually blasting Israel.


----------



## zephyro (25 Feb 2009)

mercman said:


> Well why don't they take their grievance out with those that devised the plan instead of continually blasting Israel.



Palestine is not a member of the United Nations. The most powerful member of the U.N. also tends not to be sympathetic to their grievance.


----------



## mercman (25 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> Palestine is not a member of the United Nations. The most powerful member of the U.N. also tends not to be sympathetic to their grievance.



Maybe, but it doesn't give them the right to keep trying to murder their neighbours, especially when they have been brain washed by other nations.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> The Arab population also thought they owned most of the territory awarded to Israel under the U.N. Partition Plan.



The UN partition plan would have given most of the land to the Arabs. The fact is that the Arabs invaded the day after the UN took control of Palestine and tried to take it all. The Jews kicked their collective asses and the border of Israel was established along the ceasefire lines. The next time the Arabs invaded Israel took control of Gaza (which was taken by force by Egypt in 1948 from the British Mandated area), The Golan Heights (which was given to Syria, then the French mandated area of Palestine, in the 20’s by the British resulting in many thousands of Jewish settlers being displaced) and the West Bank (taken by force by Jordan in 1948 from the British Mandated area).


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> Palestine is not a member of the United Nations. The most powerful member of the U.N. also tends not to be sympathetic to their grievance.


 No, but it was granted observer status on 22 November 1974, more than two years before it was let in to the Arab League.


----------



## zephyro (26 Feb 2009)

Purple said:


> The UN partition plan would have given most of the land to the Arabs.



Incorrect, about 43% of Mandatory Palestine was allocated to the Arab state. In addition, only 7% of Palestine was in Jewish possession by 1947.

It's quite clear where your sympathies lie. Can you say with confidence that they would remain unchanged if, for the sake of argument, the U.N. had decided to partition this country and allocate Leinster and Munster to a Jewish state?


----------



## mercman (26 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> It's quite clear where your sympathies lie.



I hate to create a conflict between posters, but each time there is a conflict in the Middle East, the blame always gets apportioned to Israel and the Jewish State. Absolutely no where in modern history has Israel started any type of conflict, but the world is hell bent is making determined efforts to blame a minority. Is it any wonder that Israel has to maintain a comprehensive military arsenal. The Arabs states do not wish to make any kind of peace moves with the Israelis and overall Jews worldwide have to be thrown and endure Anti Semitic slander to fuel a cause which was not of the Israelis/Jewish making in the first instance.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2009)

zephyro said:


> Incorrect, about 43% of Mandatory Palestine was allocated to the Arab state. In addition, only 7% of Palestine was in Jewish possession by 1947.


 I am sure you are aware of the 1939 white paper which imposed prohibitions and restrictions on land transfers to the Jewish citizenry and that as a result much of the Jewish settlement was done informally (almost always through land purchase rather than squatting or land grap)



zephyro said:


> It's quite clear where your sympathies lie. Can you say with confidence that they would remain unchanged if, for the sake of argument, the U.N. had decided to partition this country and allocate Leinster and Munster to a Jewish state?


 My sympathies lie with both sides but I recognise that the bad guys of the piece have been the Arab states who have worked hard not to solve the problem.
Your analogy would be more fitting if the UN gave the six counties of Ulster that are part of the UK to the Irish Republic.


----------



## Chocks away (20 Mar 2009)

Interesting reading     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/middleeast/20gaza.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
 Have any of the posters had second thoughts after reading this?


----------



## mercman (20 Mar 2009)

Do you really think that the article warrants comment. So it is OK for the Palestinians to deploy Suicide bombers into Israel to kill as many as possible without warning. But Israel is not permitted to defend its own people. The entire debacle of this entire conflict has been well noted here. I think it pretty useless and stubborn to try and assemble support for a bunch of terrorists. Check as to why this conflict restarted itself - them we all might take the perspective that it is so wrong to kill Palestinian women and children, but it is equally as wrong to murder Israelis. The only difference is that the Palestinians would slaughter ten times more Israelis if they were able.


----------



## Sunny (20 Mar 2009)

mercman said:


> Do you really think that the article warrants comment. So it is OK for the Palestinians to deploy Suicide bombers into Israel to kill as many as possible without warning. But Israel is not permitted to defend its own people. The entire debacle of this entire conflict has been well noted here. I think it pretty useless and stubborn to try and assemble support for a bunch of terrorists. Check as to why this conflict restarted itself - them we all might take the perspective that it is so wrong to kill Palestinian women and children, but it is equally as wrong to murder Israelis. The only difference is that the Palestinians would slaughter ten times more Israelis if they were able.


 
Why do people continually throw the line "_So it is OK for the Palestinians to deploy Suicide bombers into Israel to kill as many as possible without warning. But Israel is not permitted to defend its own people_" at people as soon as anyone dares criticise Israel. Thats not what the poster was suggesting at all as you know well. I also don't think he was trying to assemble support for terrorists
You seem to be suggesting that we should Israel by the same standards that we judge Hammas. But why should we? Developed civilised democratic countries have to be judged using higher standards or else what are we fighting against in this so called war on terror?
I have been critical of the level of force used by Israel since day one and I do believe that they have a serious case to answer for some of their actions. However, articles like this and the reaction of many Israeli people to the stories coming out show that unlike Hammas, Israel does genuinely care about the loss of human life and for that reason they deserve our support in their battle against terrorists. That support doesn't extend to a blank cheque and it doesn't exempt them from having to answer for their actions just like the scrutinty the US has faced in places like Iraq and guantanamo bay.


----------



## mercman (20 Mar 2009)

Sunny said:


> I have been critical of the level of force used by Israel since day one and I do believe that they have a serious case to answer for some of their actions.



So Hammas has no questions to be answered as to why they broke the cease fire in the first instance. Or the groups collecting signatures or money on Irish streets who make efforts to intimidate people that do not wish to offer support for terrorists although they do so quietly.


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2009)

Sunny said:


> Why do people continually throw the line "_So it is OK for the Palestinians to deploy Suicide bombers into Israel to kill as many as possible without warning. But Israel is not permitted to defend its own people_" at people as soon as anyone dares criticise Israel. Thats not what the poster was suggesting at all as you know well. I also don't think he was trying to assemble support for terrorists
> You seem to be suggesting that we should Israel by the same standards that we judge Hammas. But why should we? Developed civilised democratic countries have to be judged using higher standards or else what are we fighting against in this so called war on terror?
> I have been critical of the level of force used by Israel since day one and I do believe that they have a serious case to answer for some of their actions. However, articles like this and the reaction of many Israeli people to the stories coming out show that unlike Hammas, Israel does genuinely care about the loss of human life and for that reason they deserve our support in their battle against terrorists. That support doesn't extend to a blank cheque and it doesn't exempt them from having to answer for their actions just like the scrutinty the US has faced in places like Iraq and guantanamo bay.


Well said


----------

