The incursion into Palestine...

Wrestlemania

Here's one do any of us really do any work, if we all had a job debating it would be far handier!:)

gubugirl

re 3)
Israeli spokesperson told Morning Ireland, RTE Radio this morning that no missiles fired from helicopter and no gunfire was directed at the crowd. Said gunfire was directed at 'a structure' to stop the advancing crowd and it was during this gunfire that people got hit.
Repeated claim that gunman or gunmen seen in the crowd.
He also agreed that Israel was bound by Geneva Convention (which is more than can be said for the US, where Rumsfeld is on record saying war on terrorism is not bound by Geneva Convention) but failed to say how it might apply in this instance.
The spokesman also said that the incursion was justified on the basis that it is through this area that terrorists smuggle guns through from Eygpt. As if attempts to close off smuggling routes has ever deterred smugglers, much-less gun-runners.
Surely it's no coincidence that Israel chose to take this latest outrageous step as Bush told a pro-Israeli Jewish lobby in the US that he supported 'Israel's right to defend itself'.
The US absention from the UN vote condemning the incursion does not change a thing. The damage is done, 14 are dead, and its full steam ahead for Sharon's buffer zone project.

What really staggers me is how the only friends Israel is prepared to accept are those who either support their mad policy or turn a blind eye to it.

Look - we're talking tanks and helicopters against a crowd of protestors some distance away who might have had some armed people in their midst who were classified as gunmen.

I can't see why you're putting so much emphasis on the tanks and helicopters being there. The protest was marched through an acknowledged combat zone, and when have the Israeli's ever faced any group in Palestine with "half-measures"? Just about every incident that involves palestinians being injured/killed has tanks or helicopters nearby. Personally, I view their presence at that march, as being the normal run of things. Its rare that I haven't heard of the Israeli's having such equipment nearby.

What I am driving at is that teh statement is able to present with no uncertainty why the crowd which was several hundred strong had to be fired on.

I don't know. If the IDF did indeed fire directly into the protestors, then you have my agreement.

He has since cleared that up - he believes Palestinians are inherently untrustworthy, and - by implication - Israelise to be trustworthy.

I don't know who's more trustworthy. Everything that happens there and is reported needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Theres alot of bias and propaganda floating around every incident that happens.

halkar

It is not like Israelis attacking a protest on their soil, who gives them any right to be in there, who gives them right to demolish these houses and fire as they please, remember the two kids were shot on the roof? Any actions they take they do not ask Palestinians. Before you demolish anywhere, why not first provide these people with somewhere to go and give time to get ready? What the hell Israel thinks that they can walk in other territories and think that they will get away with it and then talk about they want peace? Everything they do is so stupid which gives no hint of peace there. Sure there are terrorists but all they do is to provoke them more and when they see their busses blowen up ask themselves why is it happening.
It is ok for them to build their arsenals to threat the region and now they are worried about the tunnels. Don't worry Israel, if you take their weapons of their hands they will use their fist on your face, you kill one you will have 10 after you. So much for your peace efforts.

Wolfie

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Whilst the majority are all against the IDF and tatics, how can you take the word of the Palestinains as credible, look at the lies of Jenin etc.

Mistakes are made but what morons run towards MBT fire and Rocket fire, lunatics and in regard to suicide the Palestinains are great at that life to them in (general) seems very cheap.

I would sooner trust those ordinary people than trust the editted and composed statements from a war criminals government. Sharon should be tried for crimes against humanity like Milosevic.

And you should have some respect for those killed, rather than calling them idiots. But you have a point, who would march towards rocket fire. Nobody except those people who have lost everything else, their only resistance left is to die. Thats assuming the warmongering IDF didnt just launch straight into them anyway (which I'm inclined to believe).

Israel respond to stone throwers with tanks, destroy police and infrastructure in Paelstinian 'settlements' (it's where they are from, the Jews havent lived there for 2 thousand years). By that mentality the Celtic people can all claim the black forest region of France as our own land. How many more kids will they shoot dead before there is justice for the palestinians?

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
In a way this is like the looting control in Iraq last year. In Basra, the British shot 5 people on the first signs of looting - no more looting. In Baghdad the Americans failed to take responsibility and looting / rapes / murders, etc. got out of control.

Originally posted by bonkey
Interesting point Vic.... hmmm....

Sorry. I am in no way justifying what is alledged to have happened as there would appear to be a fundamental failure in the legitimacy of those doing it.

As the occupying powers in Iraq, the British & Americans had a responsibility to maintain law and order, thsi is not the case with the demonstration at hand.

shotamoose

Interesting story from the BBC here on how the backlash is being handled: Israeli cabinet minister reprimanded for empathising with Palestinians

The Israeli justice minister has infuriated cabinet colleagues by saying the army offensive in Gaza reminded him of his family's woes in World War II.

Yosef Lapid said a TV picture of an elderly Palestinian woman in the rubble reminded him of his grandmother.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reprimanded Mr Lapid, who denied he was drawing comparisons with the Holocaust.

...

In an interview with Israel Defence Forces radio, Mr Lapid revealed that the army was considering demolishing another 2,000 homes in Rafah to widen the so-called Philadelphi road on the border with Egypt.

Referring to the TV picture, Mr Lapid said he was "talking about an old woman crouching on all fours, searching for her medicines in the ruins of her house and that she made me think of my grandmother".

"I said that if we carry on like this, we will be expelled from the United Nations and those responsible will stand trial at The Hague," Mr Lapid told Israel radio, describing his argument in cabinet.

...

Israeli political sources quoted by Reuters said Prime Minister Sharon scolded Mr Lapid at the cabinet meeting, denouncing his remarks as "unacceptable and intolerable".

And Health Minister Danny Naveh of Mr Sharon's right-wing Likud party, said Mr Lapid "can argue about demolishing houses... but you can't draw these kinds of analogies".

What kind of analogies? Analogies that compare Palesitinian suffering to Israeli suffering? What's going on here - is it that some Israeli politicians think they have a monopoly on legitimate sympathy, or do they just think Palestinians are sub-human?

halkar

They have been sub-human for a long time while rest of the world watching and Israel getting away with everything they do to these people. Isrealis think they were there before Palestinians and so much 2000 year old bla bla. Some might argue over Palestinians being from Jordan or Lebanon but what is true is most of Israelis are from Russia and Eastern European countries and now they think they own the lands there because it was promised them for some long time ago. Makes me wonder why they waited 2000 years then? I guess Messiah as arrived for Israel, United States of Messiah! God save the world.
And some calls Palestinians being brain washed :rolleyes:

Israel respond to stone throwers with tanks, destroy police and infrastructure in Paelstinian 'settlements'

Oh, come on. If the Israeli's approached them in Riot gear, they'd be sniped and shot at. Either way it would turn out bad. The Protestors knew there would be a confrontation. Its just another way to gain Media attention. The organisers of the march/protest are not innocent for the deaths happening. I'm not approving the Israeli response, but please realise that any normal method used here in the west, wouldn't work as well there.

What's going on here - is it that some Israeli politicians think they have a monopoly on legitimate sympathy, or do they just think Palestinians are sub-human?

Palestinians being sub-human to the Israelis? I know some Israeli's think along those lines. At least thats the impression I've received from a number (5-6 people) I know online. And their reasoning is that they've been at war so long that there's bound to be some opinions along those lines, just as Palestinians probably think similiar thoughts about Israeli's.

And some calls Palestinians being brain washed

Some would. Just as I'd consider alot of your comments in this thread as being slightly brain-washed also.

halkar

Originally posted by klaz
....Palestinians being sub-human to the Israelis? I know some Israeli's think along those lines. At least thats the impression I've received from a number (5-6 people) I know online. And their reasoning is that they've been at war so long that there's bound to be some opinions along those lines, just as Palestinians probably think similiar thoughts about Israeli's.

It is not the Isrealis that are thrown out of their homes and living in refugee camps while being watch by snipers without any freedom.
As for what Palestinians think, Isreali government should have thought that when they were flooding the country with jews. Then again do Isrealis care about Palestinians? Can you show me one peace effort ever Israel did? There are always Racist demands in all of their peace efforts and they think they will fool the world.
Can you explaine to me why every Jew on the world has a right to move Israel and have right to have Israeli passport and yet Palestinians that born there doesn't have any rights? Yet any arabs that wants to marry someone in Palestinian terrirtories are expected to leave Israel or live apart?
And yes, I am brainwashed, I have a secular Jew girlfriend lives in Israel, being there few times, seeing both Israel and Palestinian teritories. I guess I brain washed myselves. There are a minority jews whom are secular and not listened or can't even open their mouths there. Democracy?
I guess we are too busy with trying to bring secular democratic government to Iraq and yet ignoring Israel.


Here is a link about Land of Israel . I don't need to be brainwashed to understand this..

bonkey

Feeling the need to repeat myself, I would draw your attention to what I put in the first post of this thread :

I accept that many people here have diametrically opposed views on who is right and wrong in the overall Palestinian conflict.

Let me be very, very clear. I am not interested in dicussing that in this thread. If you want to discuss that, go somewhere else, start your own thread, or keep quiet.

Please either remain on the issue at hand, or take it elsewhere. This doesn't need to descend into a carbon-copy "my side is right and your side is wrong" to-and-fro like virtually every other thread on the subject. Can you not discuss the issue at hand?

The incursion? The legitimacy of it? The justification if - as is alleged - a massive amount of agricultural area was ruined for no apparent or offered reason? The want of the Israelis to come back and expand the road further to 300m, flattening more and more homes? The leaving of the town without basic services such as electricity - not even undoing the damage they had caused to the innocent bystanders?

There's plenty there for anyone to discuss, and more to boot. Thats what this thread is supposed to be for. So please...leave it that way.

jc

Memnoch

in my opinion this incident constitues a war crime.

As i've mentioned in posts before, its a crime under the geneva convention to deprive civillians of basic recources such as electricity , clean water etc, no matter WHAT your reason is.

In this case its not as if they are even "accidentaly" destryoing the civillian infrastructure. They are doing so quite deliberately. And I would love to see some evidence that shows that every single one of those houses that was destroyed had a weapon smuggling tunnel underneath it.

Even the US abstained from veto'ing the UN resolutation condemning Israel's actions in Rafah.

There is no justification for these actions. And it has rightfully drawn condemnation from all corners of international society. Will this however change anything in practical terms? I doubt it.. israel it seems will go unpunished.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
And I would love to see some evidence that shows that every single one of those houses that was destroyed had a weapon smuggling tunnel underneath it.

They apparently found two tunnels in total....although I admit I'm not sure if thats in this operation, or in total, ever.

jc

Wolfie

Originally posted by klaz
Oh, come on. If the Israeli's approached them in Riot gear, they'd be sniped and shot at. Either way it would turn out bad. The Protestors knew there would be a confrontation. Its just another way to gain Media attention. The organisers of the march/protest are not innocent for the deaths happening. I'm not approving the Israeli response, but please realise that any normal method used here in the west, wouldn't work as well there.

It's extremely difficult for me to argue with your powers of clairvoyance... I am not able to see into the future, like you are, or see how various hypotheticals would have worked.

Likewise, I'm just an average Irish bloke, who sits and watches the middle east crisis on television, and reads it in the paper, and not an expert like you, who knows for a fact that western methods (democracy, law, order and accountability?) would not work in Palestine. I also dont know all the protestors, like you seem to, so dont know whether they were actually marching to get themselves killed so that they could get some press attention. Cant see myself marching into rockets to get into the Herald, but thats just me, obviously the Palestinians are different and strange to us.... Cop on man!

Cop on man!

Think about what I said. I said that using the approaches used in the west aren't applicable because Palestine is a warzone. Police in Riot gear would be vulnerable to those armed within the crowd. Seems reasonable to me that the IDF try to protect their own troops as much as possible, by using tanks and such. I don't condone the firing into the crowd of protestors, but at the same time, I don't want to see Israelis suffering more causalties because they used Western responses to marches.

It's extremely difficult for me to argue with your powers of clairvoyance... I am not able to see into the future, like you are, or see how various hypotheticals would have worked.

I can't see into the future, but I can reasonably be sure that if i organise a march within an area that is an acknowledged firezone, there will be causulties. People will die, from stray shots. Regardless, of whether the IDF purposely fired into the crowd, should any firefight occur, innocents would be killed. Or are you going to dismiss the claims that there were armed "civilians" within the march?

I'm just an average Irish bloke, who sits and watches the middle east crisis on television, and reads it in the paper, and not an expert like you, who knows for a fact that western methods (democracy, law, order and accountability?) would not work in Palestine. I also dont know all the protestors, like you seem to, so dont know whether they were actually marching to get themselves killed so that they could get some press attention.

Let me ask you this. How would you apply western methods of dealing with "peaceful" demonstrators, when faced with a crowd, when some of them are carrying weapons, and are perfectly capable of using them?

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
How would you apply western methods of dealing with "peaceful" demonstrators, when faced with a crowd, when some of them are carrying weapons, and are perfectly capable of using them?

You left out "when operating outside your own country and judiciary" in that question.

jc

You left out "when operating outside your own country and judiciary" in that question

I thought you didn't want to get sidetracked? And I didn't leave it out, cause it doesn't have any bearing on the question.

Wrestlemania

Who actually does own the country ??

The Palestinians seem incapable of ruling themselves.!

HelterSkelter

3) The reports I've heard (off sky and news24) have said that...[/B]

You must be mad believing anything from Sky News (don't know about news24). Go to news.bbc.co.uk for a more balanced view.

Hobbes

Its just another way to gain Media attention.

So the better thing for them to do is just to sit there and not protest and accept everything that is done to them?

Lemming

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Who actually does own the country ??

The Palestinians seem incapable of ruling themselves.!

Funnily enough because they're not being given the chance to rule themselves. Then the Israeli government demands crack-downs on this and that (which is fair enough), and then go and destroy the security services capabilities that would be needed. Then they turn around and say "you're not being serious about it. We're gonna do it because you're state-sponsoring them by proxy of not dealing with them"

So the better thing for them to do is just to sit there and not protest and accept everything that is done to them?

I never said for them not to protest. What i did say was they picked an area that was dangerous with full knowledge that injuries, and possibly deaths would occur. Or are you going to tell me that its not my fault when walking through a minefield, that I get my leg blown off? (A minefield with loads of Signs)

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I thought you didn't want to get sidetracked?

How does me pointing out that Rafah is actually outside Israel's borders turn the "highly-on-topic"* discussion about how Israel should deal with Palestinian protestors in general into a "sidetracked"* discussion about how Israel should deal with Palestinian protestors in the specific situation that the topic refers to???

(*=sarcasm was used here)

And I didn't leave it out, cause it doesn't have any bearing on the question.

Yes it does, because for a start "westernised" approaches for dealing with this type of event presupposes the legitimacy of authority of those involved in the crowd-control. The Israeli's have this inside their own borders. In places like Rafah, they do not.

It is further relevant because even in the situation where "westernised" crowd-control turns to the army rather than the police-force, it is still in an area where deploying the army is acting inside its own borders, with the full legitacy of law behind it. The Israeli military has exactly a sum total of NO legitimacy whatsoever inside Palestinian borders, even if Palestine is not formally recognised as a nation.

In short,the whole concept of whether or not "western crowd-control techniques" would work or not only makes sense when you completely ignore the fact that you're talking about an operation outisde Israel's official borders and thus not legally subject to its police or military and start talking in the theoretical.

So...going back to your first point...no...I do not want to get sidetracked. Thats why I tried to subtly point out that the entire "westernised methods" was nothing but a sidetrack.

Apparently subtlety wasn't sufficient.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Or are you going to tell me that its not my fault when walking through a minefield, that I get my leg blown off? (A minefield with loads of Signs)

Or how about a better example. Your living in a minefield put by people you go to protest at who just happen to be living where more mines are?

Or are you going to tell me they should protest somewhere else in palistine because it safer? Last time I checked it was all the same.

Moriarty

Originally posted by HelterSkelter
You must be mad believing anything from Sky News (don't know about news24). Go to news.bbc.co.uk for a more balanced view.

Simple question: why? Sky's international reporting is of a fairly high standard. Fox news != Sky news.

The very same storys that are on the BBC website are shown on news24, what with news24 being the BBC's 24 hour news channel.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
What i did say was they picked an area that was dangerous with full knowledge that injuries, and possibly deaths would occur.

And out of concern for their safety, the Israeli's opened up with larger and larger calibre weapons?

"Oh look...there's a bunch of people walking towards a several-day-long ongoing fire-fight where small and large-calibre weapons are being used, as well as rockets etc. OH NO! THEY MIGHT BE HURT!"

"Quick...lets scare them off firing small- and large- calibre weapons not-quite-towards them. That will stop them walking nearer to the ongoing firefight and keep them safe."

"Oh...look...somehow, some of the protestors have gotten hurt, whilst we all turned away and stopped catching them to see what was happening. We don't know how they got hurt, but its their own fault for walking towards that firefight. If they hadn't done so, we wouldn't have had to fire towards(ish) them for their own protection, and wouldn't have had this mysterious circumstance where we don't know what happened, but some of them got killed while we weren't watching to see whether or not our discouragement tactics worked.


I'm sorry...but who are we kidding here?

If the Palestinian protestors were walking into a firefight, then firing near them to "warn them off" would only make sense if they didn't know there was a firefight on in the first place....which is ridiculous.

If the Israeli's don't know what killed those who died, then the only conclusion can be that they had decided they weren't worth watching any more. Why? They were known to be gun-=carrying. THey were approaching a firefight, adn they were enough of a threat to apparently move from machine-gun to (possibly) gunship-missile, to (definitely) multiple tank rounds. Then all of a sudden no-one was watching to see whather or not this stuff took effect?????

Sorry...but there's only so far credibility and blame can be stretched.

jc

Wrestlemania

Originally posted by Lemming
Funnily enough because they're not being given the chance to rule themselves. Then the Israeli government demands crack-downs on this and that (which is fair enough), and then go and destroy the security services capabilities that would be needed. Then they turn around and say "you're not being serious about it. We're gonna do it because you're state-sponsoring them by proxy of not dealing with them"

The Fact is that they were given every chance, but the likes of Arafat (Who is in fact of Jewish Moroccan Decent) decided to ciphen large quantities of money to his Swiss bank account and other members of the PA did this also if not them all.

The Fail to control Hamas and the other organisations, maybe that is because hamas have no time for Arafat and they were actually originally set-up by Israel with Yassin to counter the PLO in Gaza.

Yes I think the people want a democratic government but not while the cronies are there.

It is now so Ironic to think that last week Col.Gadaffi of Libya said there should be no PA but an Israel incorporating the both communities, I thought I was going mad when I heard it and wow was I shocked.

The Operation in Rafah was a counter insurgency operation to destroy tunnels but it seems always and more and more than the radical groups rally there own people to death for the means of propaganda and maybe those people killed by Sniper fire were in fact killed by there own, to be honest it is not to hard to believe.


These operations are not for the hell of it, they have a purpose to destroy terrorist infrastructure not to demoralise the local population as we in the west are been feed.

Water that was cut of was isolated and not purposely done. Also why should Jewish settler not settle were they go the majority of the time they purchase the land or buildings which is legal or they move to desolate mountain or hill tops.

The IDF while being human are a very professional army compared to their adversaries who think any human in their way is fair game.

Israel are not hell bent of destruction but merely reactionary. And tell me if the same was going on in Europe or the west in general you think the government would not take draconian measures off course they would.


We all call them the big bad aggressor yet this intifada was called by the radical groups in Sep.2000 and for what?? A lot of people have died because of what was a relatively minor incident.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Water that was cut of was isolated and not purposely done.

Nor was supply repaired and restored afterwards, despite it allegedly being an accident.

And just how isolated was it, by the way, according to your sources? Anything I've seen says 50%, which is - technically - isolated.

Also why should Jewish settler not settle were they go the majority of the time they purchase the land or buildings which is legal or they move to desolate mountain or hill tops.

Do they agree to be subject to , and abide by, the laws of the Palestinian Authority to whom that land is under the juridistiction of? If so, then they have every right to settle there. If not, then they don't.

The IDF while being human are a very professional army compared to their adversaries who think any human in their way is fair game.

Comparison's serve no-one. Its not about being better than the other guy.

Israel are not hell bent of destruction but merely reactionary.

That would be arguably the case, yes. Lets assume it is so....what does it prove? What is its relevance?

If you commit one atrocity in reaction to another, does that make it acceptable? If not, then why should Israeli actions not be judged rather than the reasons, when it is Palestinian actions which are being rigtly condemned.

And tell me if the same was going on in Europe or the west in general you think the government would not take draconian measures off course they would.

And draconian measures - like some imposed in Northern Ireland by the British - would be widely criticised, if not outright condemned by other governments and the people in general. Again - just because others may also do it does not make it acceptable, so again I ask what the relevance of the argument is?

A lot of people have died because of what was a relatively minor incident.

Makes you wonder where the wisdom in reactionary aggression on either side is, doesn't it?

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by Moriarty
Simple question: why? Sky's international reporting is of a fairly high standard. Fox news != Sky news.

The very same storys that are on the BBC website are shown on news24, what with news24 being the BBC's 24 hour news channel.

Moriarty - the reason is that sky news is owned by the same guy that owns Fox news... Ruport Murdoch... however that being said, sky news's "reporting" and standards are a bit higher than that of fox news because in the UK Ruport Murdoch supports Labour.

Still sky news are no where near close to being as unbiased as the BBC.

I remember watching sky news a while back, I think this was just as the iraq war was about to get started. They had a live debate with a guy from an anti-war movement and some former republican senator.

The republican senator constantly and continually cut over, and spoke over the anti-war guy, with complete blatent untruths and lies. While the anti-war guy was trying to point out some facts to support the arguements he was trying to make...

this was despite the fact that the anti-war guy had been silent for his part when it was her turn to speak.

The sky news "mediator" who was supposed to be asking the "tough" questions of both sides, was doing nothing to stop this, in fact she seemed to be jumping in to be helping the republican senator from time to time, and indeed was laughing off the fact that the other guy was not getting a chance to present his view in the "debate".

I mean as a responsible reporter she should have been contradicting or questioning the obvious lies told by the republican woman instead of teaming up on one of the parties in the debate.

This is exactly the kind of debate that happens on fox news shows, eg hannity and colmes, where they seemingly invite ppl from two sides of the arguement. But while one person gets to present their view uninterrupted, the other person is constantly cut off, spoken over, not even allowed to finish most of their sentences. Then they let the guy start to speak towards the "end" of that segment before again cutting him off and saying "well thank you both for being here, thats all we have time for".

You can see just how "fair" they are in the arguement if you compare the amount of time that the "conservative" guy gets to speak, compared to the amount of time the "liberal" person gets to speak, and this is exactly what I saw on that sky news program as well.

This is just one example of where sky news shows its true colors.

edit - by the way, if you want REAL journalism, watch HARD TALK with Tim Sebastian on BBC NEWS 24, now THAT is journalism, if only we had more honest reporters with backbone like this guy, the world would be a different place.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Memnoch
Moriarty - the reason is that sky news is owned by the same guy that owns Fox news... Ruport Murdoch...

"No shit sherlock"

There are vast swathes of the media owned by news corp. I'll presume from your implications that every news paper and tv station that they own is just another fox news with different window dressing, as far as you're concerned.

Originally posted by Memnoch
however that being said, sky news's "reporting" and standards are a bit higher than that of fox news because in the UK Ruport Murdoch supports Labour.

.. uh. What? Hang on, you're saying that Sky news is the way it is because it supports the (left-wing) current government in power in the UK, but Fox news are the way they are because they.... don't support the current (right-wing) government in power in the USA? You then imply that Fox and Sky have the same (right-wing) editorial biases. What zee foook!?

Originally posted by Memnoch
Still sky news are no where near close to being as unbiased as the BBC.

Can you find me some international reporting from both on the same or similar incident that demonstrates Skys blatant bias?

Originally posted by Memnoch
I remember watching sky news a while back ... stuff... This is just one example of where sky news shows its true colors.

And for your example I could truthfully retort with examples where they may favour the 'left' argument. Never-the-less, if this bias is so indemic throughout sky, you should have no problems giving a few examples of what I asked above ^.

Originally posted by Memnoch
edit - by the way, if you want REAL journalism, watch HARD TALK with Tim Sebastian on BBC NEWS 24, now THAT is journalism, if only we had more honest reporters with backbone like this guy, the world would be a different place.

At what point did I say that I either (a) watched sky exclusively or (b) didn't watch a lot of news24?