Imagine if the characters who fund this terror were to put their money into helping the Palestinian people instead of giving them rockets.
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.
Since the Palestinian people are broke where does the money for their rockets come from?
The fact that the Katyusha missiles are getting from Iran, into Egypt, and then on into Gaza should show Israel who its friends are.
...and the only country that has ever given them anything is the one country that they have sworn to destroy.
Interesting article in the Indo about it.
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.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.
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.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.
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).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.
I was never a fan of debates,
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 :
As usual, the Brits in issuing the document, made a number of assumptions which proved false :
- 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.
In 1918 when the letter and Declaration were de-classified and published, there were storms of protest world-wide and riots in Palestine.
- 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.
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.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica print edition 1983.Where did you get your immigration figures from? ...
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....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 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.... 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 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.... What does matter is now and what can and should be done to sort things out.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?