1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 7:00pm

dlofnep wrote: »

They've killed more Palestinian Civilians in the past 1 week than Palestinians have killed Israelis in the past 3 years. How morally superior of them.

Numbers have nothing to do with it. I've explained this already in previous posts.
Comperative damage is a very idealistic notion, but war is not idealistic - war is about causing as much damage as you can to your adversary, while keeping yourself out of harm's way as much as possible.

A party which embraces war (such as Hamas) should and probably does take it into consideration.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2009 7:00pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Israel are guilty of war crimes in their slaughter over the last week.

They are? What war crimes, specifically?

dublincelt wrote: »

What an intrinsicly racist post!

Are the mods on here happy to tolerate that level of Racist abuse??

If you have a problem with a post, report it. For the record, I don't take it as racist: it's just taking a particular side in the dispute, as most posts in this thread have.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 7:02pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Besides, what does asymmetry have to do with the conflict?

They're attacking a defenceless area with modern military equipment.

Yet you had no problem with the asymmetry when the Hamas fired dozens of rockets everyday on Israel while Israel did nothing?

If occupying the land for 40 years, having driven the Palestinians there in the first place 20 years before, building illegal settlements on the land over 40 years from then until today, implementing a blockade and collective punishment (for voting the wrong way in an election), shelling them unprovoked (Israel doing it's own unprovoked shelling), denying the Palestinians their state and any level of decent human existence doesn't provide enough symmetry for you there I don't know what will.

Should the Israelis target fewer Hamas terrorists because they didn’t kill enough Israelis yet?

They should begin the negotiations Hamas has offered them.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 7:09pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

They are? What war crimes, specifically?

Violating Articles 33 & 147 of the Geneva Convention, for a start. Many prominent figures have said the same. Desmond Tutu for one.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 7:16pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Violating Articles 33 & 147 of the Geneva Convention, for a start. Many prominent figures have said the same. Desmond Tutu for one.

Both sides should abide by the Geneva convention, seems both sides don't...

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 7:27pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Both sides should abide by the Geneva convention, seems both sides don't...

Germany and Britain both committed war crimes during WWII. Does that make them equally wrong or equally right? If not, why?

Honest question. Answer it.

BlackWizard · 05-01-2009 7:27pm

Article 147 is hard to avoid once you go to war...

And I've no idea where you are getting article 33 out of. Any examples of this?

I really hate this argument. This land was once ours, we lost it, but now want it back wah wah wah.

I've no issues with a group going to war for land, but claiming they are not at war and are just claiming what is "rightfully" theres is just crazy talk. At least the Africans will come out and say "this is war because we want our land back".

If occupying the land for 40 years, having driven the Palestinians there in the first place 20 years before, building illegal settlements on the land over 40 years from then until today, implementing a blockade and collective punishment (for voting the wrong way in an election), shelling them unprovoked (Israel doing it's own unprovoked shelling), denying the Palestinians their state and any level of decent human existence doesn't provide enough symmetry for you there I don't know what will.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 7:31pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They're attacking a defenceless area with modern military equipment.

So?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

If occupying the land for 40 years, having driven the Palestinians there in the first place 20 years before, building illegal settlements on the land over 40 years from then until today, implementing a blockade and collective punishment (for voting the wrong way in an election), shelling them unprovoked (Israel doing it's own unprovoked shelling), denying the Palestinians their state and any level of decent human existence doesn't provide enough symmetry for you there I don't know what will.

Where do I even start with this tirade…

The land is the Israel’s. The Arabs occupied it for 2000 years.

The Palestinians were subjects of many masters, never had their own nationality prior to mid 20th century.

I don’t like the settlements either – but they are another weapon in this ongoing conflict.

The blockade and the wall were implemented to stop suicide bombers – surprisingly enough they seem to work.

Collective punishment? Not in my opinion – The Palestinians are paying a heavy price as a national group for the mistakes they made as a national group by choosing a group of terrorists to lead them, and for their constant violence.

Israel doesn’t shell unprovoked. They shell on the basis of very specific intelligence relating to “ticking bombs” – terrorists that are involved in preparing atrocities against Israel. No one in Israel wakes up in the morning and bombs a Palestinian school just because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Israel is not denying the Palestinians their state. Israel has already acknowledged the right of the Palestinians for a country in words and deeds. Hamas on the other hand, still announces a Jihad against Israel, to kill all Jews, and doesn’t acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The Palestinian have no decent life because all the funds they get from EU & US donations go to corrupt pockets and weapon buying. Hardly anything is left for the Palestinian people after Hamas takes what it can.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They should begin the negotiations Hamas has offered them.

Hamas offered nothing so far, as far as I know. Maybe Hamas should stop firing rockets before negotiations start though…

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 7:34pm

BlackWizard wrote: »

Article 147 is hard to avoid once you go to war...

And I've no idea where you are getting article 33 out of. Any examples of this?

It's pretty pointless to get into the semantics of war crimes, first which ones were being committed was answered, 1 is apparently "unavoidable", the other examples are being asked for, it will be an endless process trying get it across to some people. I think it's enough to mention specific areas being cited as being violated and mention that prominent humanitarians are saying the same thing.

I really hate this argument. This land was once ours, we lost it, but now want it back wah wah wah.

Tell that to the Poles.

I've no issues with a group going to war for land, but claiming they are not at war and are just claiming what is "rightfully" theres is just crazy talk. At least the Africans will come out and say "this is war because we want our land back".

What on earth are you talking about?

If you'd followed the debate you'd know that a 2-state solution based along 1967 borders with some modifications is a viable one all sides, including extremists on both sides, agree upon.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 7:39pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Germany and Britain both committed war crimes during WWII. Does that make them equally wrong or equally right? If not, why?

Honest question. Answer it.

I'll give you an honest answer: as far as military oriented campaigns are concerned - both are neither right or wrong. Both did what they had to do to win the war.

Thats said, when Germany went on the genocide path with the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc, they became the ultimate evil.

If Britain or the US would have gone on mass killings of millions of people as an agenda of hate, I would have said that they are part of the same ultimate evil.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 7:44pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

If you'd followed the debate you'd know that a 2-state solution based along 1967 borders with some modifications is a viable one all sides, including extremists on both sides, agree upon.

Actually, as far as I know, Hamas is against a two state solution.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2009 7:47pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's pretty pointless to get into the semantics of war crimes, first which ones were being committed was answered, 1 is apparently "unavoidable", the other examples are being asked for, it will be an endless process trying get it across to some people. I think it's enough to mention specific areas being cited as being violated and mention that prominent humanitarians are saying the same thing.

No, it's not. It's far too easy to say "they're guilty of war crimes" - whether or not they are is, at best, a topic for debate. For every alleged war crime, a case can - and will - be made for the action involved being permissible under the rules of war.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 8:01pm

munchester29 wrote: »

So?

Christ Almighty. You asked about symmetry. I responded. That's "so".

Where do I even start with this tirade…

Interesting that Israeli terrorism supporters always reply with "rant", "tirade" (it was anything but) and so on when things are spelled out in black and white. It's an often-remarked-upon phenomenon. I think it indicates a high level of exposure to certain kinds of media. Anything that challenges the impressions obtained from this can only be explained logically to that person as a "rant" or "tirade", because it just couldn't be valid, could it? It's just not possible. So a smear of "rant" is the only logical reply.

The land is the Israel’s. The Arabs occupied it for 2000 years.

Lol, what an absolutely laughable suggestion. You must know absolutely nothing about the history of the place. For a start there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for more than 2,000 years. Having that presence does not automatically guarantee or deny you the right to found a state there. There are about a million other factors which need to be considered. If we were to give back land based purely on which populations were where at some arbitrary point in time (why not 5,000 years, or 100,000 years and we could give it back to Sudanese, or 1800 and we could give it to the Romans, 80 and we could give it to the British, 100 and we could give it to what is now the "Palestinian" population, I could go on) there'd be no end to this sort of thing. It's a ridiculous notion.

The Palestinians were subjects of many masters, never had their own nationality prior to mid 20th century.

Palestinians/Jews.

I don’t like the settlements either – but they are another weapon in this ongoing conflict.

There are also completely illegal under international law, counter-productive in securing Israel's future, a roadblock to any peace deal, expensive, unneccessary and they result in misery for the Palestinians. They should go, tomorrow.

The blockade and the wall were implemented to stop suicide bombers – surprisingly enough they seem to work.

I agree re the wall. The blockade has nothing to do with suicide bombings. Unless they planned on attacking Egypt. The wall would have worked even better had it been built inside Israel's 1967 borders, at present it creates many problems politically and logistically for Palestinians, it's more of a case of keeping them in to their pens rather than out of Israel.

Collective punishment? Not in my opinion – The Palestinians are paying a heavy price as a national group for the mistakes they made as a national group by choosing a group of terrorists to lead them, and for their constant violence.

So you're saying it's not collective punishment AND it IS collective punishment? The intellectual rigour you've applied to your position is outstanding. Bravo.

Israel doesn’t shell unprovoked.

Israel has and is today, shelling areas unprovoked. Take out a newspaper and read it.

They also use rocket fire as an excuse to murder civilians deliberately, take a look at Qana, investigations say they shelled civilians deliberately. Massacred over 100.

Israel is not denying the Palestinians their state.

It is. You know more on the subject than Jimmy Carter?

Israel has already acknowledged the right of the Palestinians for a country in words and deeds.

It's denying it. I can give you one example which proves it - illegal West Bank settlements which continue today.

Hamas on the other hand, still announces a Jihad against Israel, to kill all Jews, and doesn’t acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

As has been said on this thread about 100 times, a point you ignore with admirable consistency, Hamas has offered to negotiate on the subject of Israel on many issues, including it's a peaceful settlement which in itself is a recognition of sorts. All Israel has to do to secure this peace is comply with international rulings and pre-existing international law. Ehud Olmert agrees 100% with that statement, as I've previously pointed out.

The Palestinian have no decent life because all the funds they get from EU & US donations go to corrupt pocket

Of the PLO, who the US and Israel support heavily.

and weapon buying.

Some weapons are undoubtedly bought, this is not the reason for Palestinian poverty.

Hardly anything is left for the Palestinian people after Hamas takes what it can.

Rubbish. How do you think Hamas gained respect in the first place? Through social programs. Read up a bit would you. You have any sources? Unless you provide sources for these claims you'll continue to appear ill-informed on the subject. Your rants are completely ill-informed.

Hamas offered nothing so far, as far as I know. Maybe Hamas should stop firing rockets before negotiations start though…

Hamas has offered a ceasefire.

No offence but you appear not to be aware of even basic facts about the conflict and the history of the situation, indeed you've done a good job of ignoring facts provided repeatedly in the length of this thread. Can I politely suggest you take the time to read back on this thread, the arguments you keep coming up with have been dealt with about 20 times before in each case, in some cases in response to you yourself.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 8:05pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Actually, as far as I know, Hamas is against a two state solution.

Do the mods ban or at least warn people for flogging a dead horse? I.e. repeating arguments ad nauseum that have been countered about 100 times before by myself and others. Really drags the thread down. Hamas has offered solution, a 2-state solution based on 1967's borders. It's actually quite a reasonable solution. Google it.

Sand · 05-01-2009 8:11pm

Do the mods ban or at least warn people for flogging a dead horse?

If they did, everyone who posted in this thread would be banned. Including yourself.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 8:18pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. It's far too easy to say "they're guilty of war crimes" - whether or not they are is, at best, a topic for debate. For every alleged war crime, a case can - and will - be made for the action involved being permissible under the rules of war.

It is a topic for debate you're right, it would be better in a new thread dedicated specifically to it. Despite it being the opinion of learned people that crimes are being committed (despite difficulty due to Western journalists being denied access by Israel), you asked a poster to cite specific crimes, they were cited, the next response said 1 was "inevitable" and asked for examples, after examples will be given the next one will deny the examples given constitute war crimes and so on. It's a pointless exercise in the context of this thread imo.

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 8:19pm

Sand wrote: »

If they did, everyone who posted in this thread would be banned. Including yourself.

Well I'm responding to them, not bringing them up myself. And I'm not talking about general arguments, specific facts are willfully ignored despite being provided. What's more is that they could expand on it and move the debate on. Someone would say, "Hamas has offered Israel a workable solution in the eyes of most Palestinians. Israel refuses". This is an indisputable fact. Now, you could say "Hamas is not genuine, it's not workable for Israelis, Israel has a right to the West Bank, Israel shouldn't consider it until Hamas ends it's ceasefire, Israel shouldn't consider it until Hamas changes it's charter" and move the debate forward but this doesn't happen. Instead the fact is completely ignored, people respond, mantra like with "Hamas doesn't want peace, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel" and so on. It's mindbogglingly ignorant.

Manic Moran · 05-01-2009 8:30pm

areas being cited as being violated and mention that prominent humanitarians are saying the same thing.

The problem with humanitarians is that they tend to be a bit idealistic. Bless them, they do a good, needed and worthy job, and many of them have great personal courage, but they wouldn't be humanitarians in the first place if they didn't have some pretty major objections to anything they personally perceive as an injustice. I'm going to be just as biased as them in the opposite direction speaking from the military point of view, and say that vague generalisations like "147 and 33 are being violated" do not stand up. You don't charge someone in court and say "He robbed a bank and a post office", you charge each offence separately and provide something to back them up individually.

It's denying it. I can give you one example which proves it - illegal West Bank settlements which continue today.

They certainly are a bit of a sticky issue. Israel has shown a willingness to abandon a number of their settlements in the past, I'm sure some of the others will be abandoned in the future pursuant to an agreement. I doubt they all will go. The longer it takes for the two sides to come to some agreement on paper, the more time Israel has to build settlements. I think it's going to be a similar nature to the Irish partition. The Palestinians simply aren't going to get everything back to the 1967 borders, just like Ireland had to give up on the six counties for a while. Maybe they should but reality and idealism don't always match.

Hamas has offered a ceasefire

On its terms of basically "No change. We'll stop shooting for a while, you stop beating the crap out of us for a while." That will settle nothing. This is going to keep going on, like Lebanon 06, until terms acceptable to Israel are met. (It helps to have the bigger stick, I guess). If that includes international peacekeepers, or a public unequivocal announcement of "We acknowledge Israel's right to exist", neither which Hamas likes, they're probably just going to have to grin and bear it.

NTM

Nodin · 05-01-2009 8:42pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Two soldiers and a child, taking cover behind a wall. There are about 100 assumptions you have to make in order to think that it is evidence of the israelis using children as human shields. Even more if ye imply that it is policy of the military.

It was official policy for many years. It was only finally banned in 2005.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shields/Index.asp

youcrazyjesus! · 05-01-2009 8:43pm

vague generalisations like "147 and 33 are being violated"

These 2 Articles were cited in response to claims that accusations of war crimes are vague generalisations.

do not stand up. You don't charge someone in court and say "He robbed a bank and a post office", you charge each offence separately and provide something to back them up individually.

I've already said why examples are pointless. I've read accounts which I believe to be accounts of war crimes. Other will disagree. I feel happy to be on the same page as Desmond Tutu on this.

They certainly are a bit of a sticky issue. Israel has shown a willingness to abandon a number of their settlements in the past, I'm sure some of the others will be abandoned in the future pursuant to an agreement. I doubt they all will go.

Read up on what Ehud Olmert has to say on the subject. It was provided in this thread.

The longer it takes for the two sides to come to some agreement on paper, the more time Israel has to build settlements. I think it's going to be a similar nature to the Irish partition.

As opposed to the foundation of Israel itself based on a partition? Why should or would they even consider further partition? The West Bank is heavily partitioned and the Palestinians, quite rightly, won't stand for it.

The Palestinians simply aren't going to get everything back to the 1967 borders, just like Ireland had to give up on the six counties for a while. Maybe they should but reality and idealism don't always match.

According to Ehud Olmert, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister, the Palestinians will and should get all the land back, he said it's the only way to guarantee peace and security for Israel. I agree with him 100%. You and other "pro-Israelis" don't. Do you know something he doesn't?

On its terms of basically "No change. We'll stop shooting for a while, you stop beating the crap out of us for a while."

They've offered ceasefires in this case and others going back years. They offered Israel a 10 year "hudna", which is more than a mere ceasefire. Israel refuses to even consider it or respond to it.

Good points though.

ionix5891 · 05-01-2009 8:47pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem with humanitarians is that they tend to be a bit idealistic. Bless them, they do a good, needed and worthy job, and many of them have great personal courage, but they wouldn't be humanitarians in the first place if they didn't have some pretty major objections to anything they personally perceive as an injustice. I'm going to be just as biased as them in the opposite direction speaking from the military point of view, and say that vague generalisations like "147 and 33 are being violated" do not stand up. You don't charge someone in court and say "He robbed a bank and a post office", you charge each offence separately and provide something to back them up individually.

They certainly are a bit of a sticky issue. Israel has shown a willingness to abandon a number of their settlements in the past, I'm sure some of the others will be abandoned in the future pursuant to an agreement. I doubt they all will go. The longer it takes for the two sides to come to some agreement on paper, the more time Israel has to build settlements. I think it's going to be a similar nature to the Irish partition. The Palestinians simply aren't going to get everything back to the 1967 borders, just like Ireland had to give up on the six counties for a while. Maybe they should but reality and idealism don't always match.

On its terms of basically "No change. We'll stop shooting for a while, you stop beating the crap out of us for a while." That will settle nothing. This is going to keep going on, like Lebanon 06, until terms acceptable to Israel are met. (It helps to have the bigger stick, I guess). If that includes international peacekeepers, which Hamas doesn't like, they're probably just going to have to grin and bear it.

NTM

no that would be like Irish loosing all the counties but mayo in west (gaza?) and 3 in east dublin, kildare, wicklow (west bank?)

and after decades of occupation and raping of the remaining counties to find out that all they might get is the land west of the Corrib and bad patches up the Dublin mountains

anyways i wouldnt trust a word from anyone from the US posting here as the Israeli propaganda lobby is strong there, wait till the trolls from http://giyus.org/ come posting here

quattro777 · 05-01-2009 8:55pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Christ Almighty. You asked about symmetry. I responded. That's "so".

Interesting that Israeli terrorism supporters always reply with "rant", "tirade" (it was anything but) and so on when things are spelled out in black and white. It's an often-remarked-upon phenomenon. I think it indicates a high level of exposure to certain kinds of media. Anything that challenges the impressions obtained from this can only be explained logically to that person as a "rant" or "tirade", because it just couldn't be valid, could it? It's just not possible. So a smear of "rant" is the only logical reply.

Lol, what an absolutely laughable suggestion. You must know absolutely nothing about the history of the place. For a start there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for more than 2,000 years. Having that presence does not automatically guarantee or deny you the right to found a state there. There are about a million other factors which need to be considered. If we were to give back land based purely on which populations were where at some arbitrary point in time (why not 5,000 years, or 100,000 years and we could give it back to Sudanese, or 1800 and we could give it to the Romans, 80 and we could give it to the British, 100 and we could give it to what is now the "Palestinian" population, I could go on).

Palestinians/Jews.

There are also completely illegal under international law, counter-productive in securing Israel's future, a roadblock to any peace deal, expensive, unneccessary and they result in misery for the Palestinians. They should go, tomorrow.

I agree re the wall. The blockade has nothing to do with suicide bombings. Unless they planned on attacking Egypt. The wall would have worked even better had it been built inside Israel's 1967 borders, at present it creates many problems politically and logistically for Palestinians, it's more of a case of keeping them in to their pens rather than out of Israel.

So you're saying it's not collective punishment AND it IS collective punishment? The intellectual rigour you've applied to your position is outstanding. Bravo.

Israel has and is today, shelling areas unprovoked. Take out a newspaper and read it.

They also use rocket fire as an excuse to murder civilians deliberately, take a look at Qana, investigations say they shelled civilians deliberately. Massacred over 100.

It is. You know more on the subject than Jimmy Carter?

It's denying it. I can give you one example which proves it - illegal West Bank settlements which continue today.

As has been said on this thread about 100 times, a point you ignore with admirable consistency, Hamas has offered to negotiate on the subject of Israel on many issues, including it's a peaceful settlement which in itself is a recognition of sorts. All Israel has to do to secure this peace is comply with international rulings and pre-existing international law. Ehud Olmert agrees 100% with that statement, as I've previously pointed out.

Of the PLO, who the US and Israel support heavily.

Some weapons are undoubtedly bought, this is not the reason for Palestinian poverty.

Rubbish. How do you think Hamas gained respect in the first place? Through social programs. Read up a bit would you. You have any sources? Unless you provide sources for these claims you'll continue to appear ill-informed on the subject. Your rants are completely ill-informed.

Hamas has offered a ceasefire.

No offence but you appear not to be aware of even basic facts about the conflict and the history of the situation, indeed you've done a good job of ignoring facts provided repeatedly in the length of this thread. Can I politely suggest you take the time to read back on this thread, the arguments you keep coming up with have been dealt with about 20 times before in each case, in some cases in response to you yourself.

Well said, after reading this entire thread its obvious that this guy is sourcing his replies from the official "Israeli propaganda handbook" where facts are a nuisance. He is either some kind of Israeli apparatchick or insane.
I have seen this on several forums of late and it really annoys me when people with hidden adgendas try to muddy the waters in this way.
I have no axe to grind with either side in this, I'm not Israeli/Arab or Jewish/Muslim
but I can tell right from wrong when I see it.

GuanYin · 05-01-2009 8:59pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

anyways i wouldnt trust a word from anyone from the US posting here as the Israeli propaganda lobby is strong there, wait till the trolls from http://giyus.org/ come posting here

If you're going to generalize and discount posters from the debate (including me) based on their location and not their input to the discussion, then maybe this isn'tthe right forum for you.

ionix5891 · 05-01-2009 9:05pm

GuanYin wrote: »

If you're going to generalize and discount posters from the debate (including me) based on their location and not their input to the discussion, then maybe this isn'tthe right forum for you.

maybe moderators like yourself can keep an eye on any new posters with non irish ip addresses?

that would help keep some of us reassured that we are not pawns in some propaganda machine

im not accusing anyone of anything but I believe the members here should be aware of GYIUS and other Israeli propaganda organizations being active on any discussions relating to the middle east

.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 9:08pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Do the mods ban or at least warn people for flogging a dead horse? I.e. repeating arguments ad nauseum that have been countered about 100 times before by myself and others. Really drags the thread down. Hamas has offered solution, a 2-state solution based on 1967's borders. It's actually quite a reasonable solution. Google it.

I'm afraid on this one I would like a link. Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist, let alone live peacefully besides Israel

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 9:10pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

maybe moderators like yourself can keep an eye on any new posters with non irish ip addresses?

that would help keep some of us reassured that we are not pawns in some propaganda machine

im not accusing anyone of anything but I believe the members here should be aware of GYIUS and other Israeli propaganda organizations being active on any discussions relating to the middle east

.

Sounds a bit paranoid if you ask me. Israeli PR is crappy, and I doubt they will invest so much time and effort trying to convince the Irish people of all people...

ionix5891 · 05-01-2009 9:14pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Sounds a bit paranoid if you ask me. Israeli PR is crappy, and I doubt they will invest so much time and effort trying to convince the Irish people of all people...

40,000 members with GIYUS? i dunno maybe the wont bother with our little board but you regularly see them active on NY Times, Guardian and other large sites

just the fact that such propaganda organizations exist makes one wonder...

sceptre · 05-01-2009 9:42pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

just the fact that such propaganda organizations exist makes one wonder...

Both sides in this argument have their own propaganda machines, some well-funded and active on the larger media outlets pushing their own point of view.

GuanYin · 05-01-2009 9:44pm

We don't pander to propaganda organizations of any kind or side and we treat all topics and threads with the same policies. If something needs to be done, let us worry about it.

In the meantime, I think there are some very intelligent and reasoned US posters here and I think your comments do them a dis-service.

Lets keep the discussion based on the topic and the points and not start pre-empting background checks.

That is our job.

Back on topic.

munchester29 · 05-01-2009 9:52pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Christ Almighty. You asked about symmetry. I responded. That's "so".

Sorry, I thought my meaning was clear – symmetry has nothing to do with warfare.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Interesting that Israeli terrorism supporters always reply with "rant", "tirade" (it was anything but) and so on when things are spelled out in black and white. It's an often-remarked-upon phenomenon. I think it indicates a high level of exposure to certain kinds of media. Anything that challenges the impressions obtained from this can only be explained logically to that person as a "rant" or "tirade", because it just couldn't be valid, could it? It's just not possible. So a smear of "rant" is the only logical reply.

I called it a tirade, because you had several issues bundled up in one sentence, instead of making a point and explaining your view.
I also think I expanded a bit on each of your points, so I doubt you could describe my responses as smears of “rant”. You didn’t bother replying on any of my comments though, only on one word I used. If you were offended by that word I do apologize, not my intention.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Lol, what an absolutely laughable suggestion. You must know absolutely nothing about the history of the place. For a start there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for more than 2,000 years. Having that presence does not automatically guarantee or deny you the right to found a state there. There are about a million other factors which need to be considered. If we were to give back land based purely on which populations were where at some arbitrary point in time (why not 5,000 years, or 100,000 years and we could give it back to Sudanese, or 1800 and we could give it to the Romans, 80 and we could give it to the British, 100 and we could give it to what is now the "Palestinian" population, I could go on) there'd be no end to this sort of thing. It's a ridiculous notion.

Yet in your mind, only the Palestinians are entitled to the land, so what do you base your opinion on if not on historical roots?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There are also completely illegal under international law, counter-productive in securing Israel's future, a roadblock to any peace deal, expensive, unneccessary and they result in misery for the Palestinians. They should go, tomorrow.

I agree with you there. So do most of the Israelis. Still, it will never happen before the violence stops, only increase.
Dismantling settlements takes months under a best case scenario. Stopping rocket fire and suicide attacks takes a decision and a relatively short period of time in which to assert a valid ceasefire.
So which option should we go for first?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I agree re the wall. The blockade has nothing to do with suicide bombings. Unless they planned on attacking Egypt. The wall would have worked even better had it been built inside Israel's 1967 borders, at present it creates many problems politically and logistically for Palestinians, it's more of a case of keeping them in to their pens rather than out of Israel.

The blockade is purely to stop weapon smuggling. Don’t forget that since Israel left Gaza, Hamas has been equipping themselves senseless with more rockets, more explosives and more weapons which are used against Israel, they have increased the firing range of their rockets which caused more Israelis to be within firing range, etc. Israel does whatever it can to stop this, and a blockade is better for everyone involved when you consider the other option is non stop attacks on Gaza.

The fact is – when Hamas doesn’t fire rockets or attacks Israel – the passes are opened and the Israeli do not stop any of the aid after its inspected.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

So you're saying it's not collective punishment AND it IS collective punishment? The intellectual rigour you've applied to your position is outstanding. Bravo.

If you would have read my comment a bit slower maybe, then you would understand exactly what I meant. Very simple – Israel is defending itself. It isn’t after a “collective punishment” for the Palestinians. The Palestinian suffer because of themselves, so you might as well say – the Palestinians are collectively punishing themselves by continuing to attack Israel.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Israel has and is today, shelling areas unprovoked. Take out a newspaper and read it.

You show me a link from 2006, to a story where both sides claim different things, and at the end nothing was actually proved. Both sides stick to their opinions, and both sides might be correct. You just choose to take one side’s word over the other’s.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They also use rocket fire as an excuse to murder civilians deliberately, take a look at Qana, investigations say they shelled civilians deliberately. Massacred over 100.

So, rocket fire is an innocent victimless natural phenomenon?
Again with that “murder civilians deliberately”, “massacre” nonsense? You forgot the “ethnic cleansing” part…
So far, the only ones who target and murder civilians intentionally are the Palestinians. Including their own civilians.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It is. You know more on the subject than Jimmy Carter?

I guess I do, and I’m supported by a website known for supporting the Palestinian cause, so I doubt they have a reason to lie:
“…Reality on the ground has been forcing Israel and the U.S. to budge a bit, however, and it is unclear whether such outrageous demands are real. Not only have Israel and the U.S. had to acknowledge Hamas, but they also have been forced by events to recognize the power of the Shia fundamentalist Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.”

http://www.marxisthumanismtoday.org/node/38

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's denying it. I can give you one example which proves it - illegal West Bank settlements which continue today.

The continuation of settlements doesn’t have anything to do with recognizing Hamas and the Palestinians.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

As has been said on this thread about 100 times, a point you ignore with admirable consistency, Hamas has offered to negotiate on the subject of Israel on many issues, including it's a peaceful settlement which in itself is a recognition of sorts. All Israel has to do to secure this peace is comply with international rulings and pre-existing international law. Ehud Olmert agrees 100% with that statement, as I've previously pointed out.

It can be said a million times more – the Hamas charter is very clear on the subject.
The only thing Hamas has ever offered is a ceasefire similar to the last one – Israel is not supposed to move an inch against Hamas, but Hamas can still fire rockets, build up its weapon and explosive depots, and basically do whatever they want whenever they want.
I really wonder why Israel doesn’t fall for the same trick again…

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Of the PLO, who the US and Israel support heavily.

The PLO were corrupt beyond belief, but they were less fanatic than Hamas (or more realistic, if you prefer), so peace talks with them might have actually achieved something in the end.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Rubbish. How do you think Hamas gained respect in the first place? Through social programs. Read up a bit would you. You have any sources? Unless you provide sources for these claims you'll continue to appear ill-informed on the subject. Your rants are completely ill-informed.

That was true when the PLO ruled, and Hamas gained popularity through charity. Now that they rule Gaza, they spend the money on weapons. There are even reports of Hamas confiscating humanitarian aid sent to the Palestinian people, to distribute it between Hamas activists.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Hamas has offered a ceasefire.

As far as I know they haven’t, please provide a link to an article or something

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

No offence but you appear not to be aware of even basic facts about the conflict and the history of the situation, indeed you've done a good job of ignoring facts provided repeatedly in the length of this thread. Can I politely suggest you take the time to read back on this thread, the arguments you keep coming up with have been dealt with about 20 times before in each case, in some cases in response to you yourself.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
You can say something a gazillion times, still doesn’t make it true.
I can honestly say that I try to answer any argument raised against what I say, and if you go over my posts I think it is clear enough.
As far as knowledge in regards to the conflict - I have been in Israel many times. I have also been to Gaza, Lebanon, the west bank, etc more time than I’d care to remember.
I’ve worked and talked with Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians.
I’ve been reading books, articles, assays and even comics on the conflict. I’ve been doing it for the past 20 years or so.
If you can say the same, then maybe our knowledge is on the same level…

If not, then I suggest you do a bit of reading yourself, but try to expand beyond the usual Palestinian propaganda sites…

1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Comments