1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Call Me Jimmy

wes wrote: »

The "Fog of war" excuse is an old one as well.

Israel's actions and there denials are making them look very bad, especially when the UN are the ones saying there wrong.

I haven't read about this incident yet, but when I'm trying to determine if something is true I apply Judge Judy's logic "if it doesn't make sense, it probably ain't true".

So, Israel hitting a UN transport when they know no fighters are there doesn't make sense (especially if they care about the propaganda war which many say they do).

As I said, I haven't read about it but the damage it would do to the Israelis cause would outweigh the possible satisfaction of destroying the supplies/aid whatever.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Richard Kramer once wrote in his book how Israel is nothing but a laboratory.

It was summed up in an interview he mentioned in his book 'Why Israel Failed' when he spoke to an israeli political figure in disbelief in the aftermath of Israel's first target killing (that of Abbas Musawi), years later, when the US Army carried out there first of the Iraq campaign, Kramer got a phone call from his intervieve to congratulate him on Americas doing. He simply said to Kramer; You see, Israel is a laboratory.

I took a lot from that piece of the book. Very interesting read, helped my understanding a lot.

youcrazyjesus!

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I haven't read about this incident yet, but when I'm trying to determine if something is true I apply Judge Judy's logic "if it doesn't make sense, it probably ain't true".

So, Israel hitting a UN transport when they know no fighters are there doesn't make sense (especially if they care about the propaganda war which many say they do).

As I said, I haven't read about it but the damage it would do to the Israelis cause would outweigh the possible satisfaction of destroying the supplies/aid whatever.

I politely suggest you read up on the history of attacks on UN personnel by IDF. Its not the first time this has happened.
The UN gives IDF GPS location and marks it out with flags. UN and civilians are then attacked in
2 separate incidents.
UN organises aid shipment with IDF, its then taken out by an IDF tank.

Do you see a pattern emerging?

The arrogance and contempt, not to mention criminality of these actions, is worrying.

Call Me Jimmy

But how is that not political suicide for the israeli's? They say that there were fighters among the UN convoy every time? Or that it was an accident? How come the UN hasn't come down hard on them? (I don't mean in terms of sanctions because I'm pretty sure they can be vetoed) but surely strong condemnation? Excuse the ignorance please.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

But how is that not political suicide for the israeli's? They say that there were fighters among the UN convoy every time? Or that it was an accident? How come the UN hasn't come down hard on them? (I don't mean in terms of sanctions because I'm pretty sure they can be vetoed) but surely strong condemnation? Excuse the ignorance please.

Allies, its allies

youcrazyjesus!

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

But how is that not political suicide for the israeli's? They say that there were fighters among the UN convoy every time? Or that it was an accident? How come the UN hasn't come down hard on them? (I don't mean in terms of sanctions because I'm pretty sure they can be vetoed, but surely strong condemnation? Excuse the ignorance.

The UN have condemned them. They have stopped aid shipments stating attacks on its personnel by IDF as the reason.
Read the news.

Israel do it because they can get away with it, because people like you refuse to accept what's in front of their eyes in black
and white and will instead come up with the most fantastical interpretations which ignore history and facts. You ask questions about things that are a few mouse clicks away.

They do it because they, like the US, have contempt for the UN and international law, it doesn't apply to them. They don't want the UN involved unless its useful to them.
when your objective is to terrorise the civilian population it doesn't matter that they are in UN buildings. Just attack them anyway.

So you see there are many reasons.

youcrazyjesus!

Israel has not commented but you can be sure there'll be an excuse involving Hamas.

MackDeToaster

wes wrote: »

Also, its simply ridiculous to distrust the UN due to the ethnicity of some of there workers. If you have proof of the UN lieing about this, please provide it.

Maybe not lieing, but certainly being made use of..

Here's one... http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL05686115

Admission before he stepped down ..
Peter Hansen, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA in Gaza, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation two days ago that some UNRWA workers are Hamas terrorists. "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll" Hansen said.

* Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, revealed that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed Fatah members on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish communities. In addition, Nahd said he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12-kg. explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.


* August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confessed to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance. He said he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed as part of his UNRWA job to transmit messages among Hamas members in various PA-controlled towns.



* February 2002: Ala Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confessed to having carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.


My opinion - I don't give a fcuk about either of this lot really, but there is nothing black and white here, it's war, and neither side is innocent of blame and I've seen enough lies from both. However, of the two, Hamas are definitely the worst, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean I support Israel, just that I see them as being the lesser evil, i.e. the least morally disgusting, and Hamas are simply indefensible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

marius

munchester29 wrote: »

Once again, try to pay attention...

I said - Israel (as in the Israeli government) does not use pictures of dead Israeli children in propaganda efforts.

Ah I see....so it is only propeganda if it is an official government source where the pictures are....sorry - I did not realise this....

munchester29 wrote: »

Now, since I have been seeing horrific pictures of hurt Palestinian children on many official palestinial government news channels and in official palestinial government newspapers, but have yet to see pictures of hurt Israeli children, I think my point is a valid one.

I fixed your post above.....I assume this is what you meant because otherwise you are talking out of your arse......which as we have seen never happens

youcrazyjesus!

The article is actually quite fair IMO.

Using humanitarian vehicles or buildings for cover is inexcusable and stupid. It's also counter-productive. As is firing on them, particulary where you have been in close contact with that agency in relation to a specific movement.

Sand

So you accept then that there is every chance that UN facilities and staff are involved in the Hamas terrorism?

Using humanitarian vehicles or buildings for cover is inexcusable and stupid. It's also counter-productive. As is firing on them, particulary where you have been in close contact with that agency in relation to a specific movement.

No, its brilliant. Think about it - you kill the IDF, you win. The IDF kill you [ UN staff, UN vehicles, UN buildings], you win. A cant lose strategy for a government that honestly couldnt care less about its people.

youcrazyjesus!

Sand wrote: »

So you accept then that there is every chance that UN facilities and staff are involved in the Hamas terrorism?

The UN and Hamas are not in league. Non-Palestinian UN staff would be horrified if they came across anything like that. They'd take action immediately to end it.

Read the article. It makes fair points. All of these actions were done surreptitiously. I don't doubt some of them are true but to what extent or whether all instances admitted to are true is questionable. I take the word of the UN, John Ging said he is almost certain there were no Hamas nearby and as I've said before, it wouldn't matter a damn if there were. Were
paratroopers justified shooting dead 14 innocents on Bloody Sunday because somebody took a potshot at them? No. It's wrong, attacking Gaza in such a way in itself is wrong, the occupation is wrong and the treatment of Palestinians is wrong.

No, its brilliant. Think about it - you kill the IDF, you win. The IDF kill you [ UN staff, UN vehicles, UN buildings], you win. A cant lose strategy for a government that honestly couldnt care less about its people.

They do care I'm sure. Their methods are questionable to say the least but unlike some I don't buy into childminded propaganda which says Hamas run around like the zombies from 28 Days Later. I take a more considered view.

They want the blockade to end and all hostilities to end. They link the two. They have also offered Israel a total solution to the conflict, one which mirrors almost exactly what international law and UN rulings have to say, one which to Hamas is a humiliating defeat and an abandonment of their original goal of destroying the apartheid state. But it would mean everything to Palestinians and would be a vindication for the population in occupied territories after 40 years. It would also mean peace and security for every citizen of the former mandate, I support it 100%. As do important people on both sides.

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

So it seems some offences do justify killing:(

In that situation? Absolutely. We did it, the French did it, the Russians overdid it, the groups trying to found the Israeli state did it....Can't resist an occupation when you're undermined from within, and theres no secure place to put the bastards. Part of the Palestinian problem is the way they have an 'open' structure which makes them too easy to penetrate with human intelligence.

( I don't oppose violence, I oppose those who wage wars of aggression and oppress others. Different ball game.)

munchester29

Nodin wrote: »

In that situation? Absolutely. We did it, the French did it, the Russians overdid it, the groups trying to found the Israeli state did it....Can't resist an occupation when you're undermined from within, and theres no secure place to put the bastards. Part of the Palestinian problem is the way they have an 'open' structure which makes them too easy to penetrate with human intelligence.

( I don't oppose violence, I oppose those who wage wars of aggression and oppress others. Different ball game.)

But where is the logic then?

You are allowed to kill your own people who cooperate with the enemy, yet at the same time, you are not allowed to kill your enemy?

munchester29

marius wrote: »

I fixed your post above.....I assume this is what you meant because otherwise you are talking out of your arse......which as we have seen never happens

No, these pictures and video clips were shown on all major networks and web sites - Sky, BBC, even CNN.
So apparently my arse makes better arguments than you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814490.stm

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They have also offered Israel a total solution to the conflict, one which mirrors almost exactly what international law and UN rulings have to say, one which to Hamas is a humiliating defeat and an abandonment of their original goal of destroying the apartheid state.

I haven’t heard of such a proposal, can you attach a link so I can read about it?

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

I haven’t heard of such a proposal, can you attach a link so I can read about it?

Are you just taking the piss now? We had this arguement 2 or 3 days ago, I provided links a multiple number of times. Google it yourself or go back through my posts, you'll find it. I'm not posting it up for a 6th or 7th time.

The Saint

With regard on which side is the most trustworthy in their statements I will again what I've already posted twice in this thread and both times was ignored. To me it's pretty instructive in which side has been more trustworthy in the past.

Well I'd take what the Israeli military say with a very large pinch of salt. They said there was Hamas fighters launching rockets or mortars from there. A UN spokesman said that while they weren't certain they didn't think that this was the case around the time of the attack.

After every major incident with mass killings and killing of UN personnelle the Israeli army usually immidiately state that they were being attacked from that position, it was being used as a launching pad, it was a storehouse, etc. When the UN state that they think differently and conduct an investigation they are usually proved to be right and the Israelis tend to stay quiet. This is the same with regard to human rights organizations. By the time the investigation is done it's not news anymore.

This has been the case in:
Bombing of a UN compound in Qana killing 106 in 1996
Killing of an (English) UNRWA worker in a UN compond in Jenin in 2002
Destruction of a UN World Food Programme warehouse in 2002
Bombing of a house in Qana killing 54 people in 2006

I'm sure there are more if I could be bothered looking. In all these cases the Israeli's initially stated that they were being attacked from these positions or that there were terrorists there. In each case when an independent investigation was carried out they were proved to be false.

Israel seems to have a default position when things like this happen so I think it would be wise to take what they say with a generous dose of salt. I'll wait for the independent investigation into this but history leads to me lean more towards the UN's version of events.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Are you just taking the piss now? We had this arguement 2 or 3 days ago, I provided links a multiple number of times. Google it yourself or go back through my posts, you'll find it. I'm not posting it up for a 6th or 7th time.

I thought you were talking about something new from today.
You already know what I think about the other Hamas offers. I wouldn't have bothered repeating that argument from a few days ago.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

I thought you were talking about something new from today.

The offer still stands today, or at least as soon as there's a viable ceasefire.

You already know what I think about the other Hamas offers. I wouldn't have bothered repeating that argument from a few days ago.

*bangs head off desk repeatedly* :rolleyes:

I wasn't responding to you and didn't have you in mind when posting that. The thread doesn't involve only you. Move on.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

*bangs head off desk repeatedly* :rolleyes:

I wasn't responding to you and didn't have you in mind when posting that. The thread doesn't involve only you. Move on.

Well, you quoted me when you replied...

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Well, you quoted me when you replied...

No, I didn't. Stop being so God damned lazy and go back 1 solitary page and read what I was responding to. For the love of God.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58519615&postcount=1573

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

*bangs head off desk repeatedly* :rolleyes:

I wasn't responding to you and didn't have you in mind when posting that. The thread doesn't involve only you. Move on.

Just in case you were referring to your original post and not to my request for additional info - I think it's legitimate for anyone here to ask you questions when you make statements.

Unless you have something specific against me , in which case I have no problem never asking you an additional question.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Just in case you were referring to your original post and not to my request for additional info - I think it's legitimate for anyone here to ask you questions when you make statements.

"You already know what I think about the other Hamas offers"

I was not responding to you, it did not require a response from you, hence my reply.

This has gone OT. Just take a few seconds to look at who is writing what in future before replying.

Sand

The UN and Hamas are not in league. Non-Palestinian UN staff would be horrified if they came across anything like that. They'd take action immediately to end it

The UN and Hamas share staff to some degree. Even local members of the UN who arent Hamas members could have very strong sympathies with Hamas. Hence, UN statements and investigations have to be taken with a large pinch of salt as they are based on local staff testimony.

As for Non-Palestinian UN staff, some might be horrified. Others might be like many posters in this thread, deeply sympathetic to the Palestinians, and misguidely willing to turn a blind eye to Hamas activity within UN facilities.

Lets not forget, the UN relies on the goodwill of Hamas to operate in the Gaza strip. It cannot get confrontational with Hamas.

I take the word of the UN, John Ging said he is almost certain there were no Hamas nearby and as I've said before, it wouldn't matter a damn if there were.

Why? The Israeli fire wasnt directed at the school. It merely landed near the school. The Israelis claim they were taking fire from a position, they returned fire, and the shrapnel hit the school. If there were Hamas fighters there, then it would support the IDF claims.

No one has come up with a good reason for why the IDF would deliberately target a UN school for no cause, sparking of a PR ****storm. Was it just that they felt especially evil that day?

They do care I'm sure. Their methods are questionable to say the least but unlike some I don't buy into childminded propaganda which says Hamas run around like the zombies from 28 Days Later. I take a more considered view.

There is no evidence they give a damn about the Palestinians. Why would they have a militarily ineffective rocket campaign, launched from civillian areas that only served to provoke IDF retaliation which they cannot defend the Palestinian people from? What purpose does that serve? What does it say about their priorities, and where the welfare of Palestinians come on that list?

Even the most anti-Israeli poster on this thread would agree that Hamas doesnt give a damn about the Palestinians. That is why all pleas to take actions save the Palestinians are directed to Israel, not to Hamas. No one bothers wasting their time appealing to Hamas to compromise to protect Palestinians civillians. Everyone recognises that Israel cares more about the Palestinian people than Hamas does. The Palestinian government is a death cult which urges its people to kill themselves and praises useless, meaningless death.

They want the blockade to end and all hostilities to end.

Nope, they want the blockade to end, so they can get weapons and ammunition into Gaza so they can strike Israel more often. They do not want all hostilities to end. They merely wish for a truce [ not peace, a temporary ceasefire, but never peace] until they are ready to destroy Israel.

Israel wants peace. Hamas wants a ceasefire. Thats the difference.

wes

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I haven't read about this incident yet, but when I'm trying to determine if something is true I apply Judge Judy's logic "if it doesn't make sense, it probably ain't true".

So, Israel hitting a UN transport when they know no fighters are there doesn't make sense (especially if they care about the propaganda war which many say they do).

As I said, I haven't read about it but the damage it would do to the Israelis cause would outweigh the possible satisfaction of destroying the supplies/aid whatever.

When has Israel actions actually resulted in anything happening to them? Have they lost any money from the US or anything like that? Nothing ever happens when they do stuff like this. So why should they care.

munchester29

wes wrote: »

When has Israel actions actually resulted in anything happening to them? Have they lost any money from the US or anything like that? Nothing ever happens when they do stuff like this. So why should they care.

So why don't they bomb the hell out of Gaza? Why use such reserve, when they could end the whole thing in a matter of days?

concussion

Steviemak wrote: »

Then the Israeli shouldn't escort the Red Cross - just let them in and do their job. They don't need to be protected from the Palestinians - its the israeli's killing aid workers

Yes they should. As should all other parties to the conflict. Aid workers are expected to be protected and allowed to do their job by all sides.

I'm also not implying that they need to be protected from Hamas, I'm saying that you can't have unarmed aid workers going trying to do their job in the middle of a battle. I'm also saying the Israelis should have made every effort to secure the area so they could go in and rescue people.

Maybe they did try to secure the area. We don't know if they did or didn't and we don't know what the security situation was during that time. All we know is the RC wanted to go in and the IDF said no.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Sand wrote: »

The Palestinian government is a death cult which urges its people to kill themselves and praises useless, meaningless death.

Well who drove them into that ideological corner? People change their outlook in the face of adversity. Back in the early days of the Israeli state, it was looked upon as a 'small socialist paradise' or whatever, but now, look where their priorities lie, their nation is based around a military-industiral complex. Hardly something the Allies would have forseen in the aftermath of WWII. Israel NEEDS enemies, and its quite easy unearth them.

wes

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Maybe not lieing, but certainly being made use of..

Here's one... http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL05686115

Admission before he stepped down ..
Peter Hansen, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA in Gaza, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation two days ago that some UNRWA workers are Hamas terrorists. "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll" Hansen said.

* Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, revealed that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed Fatah members on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish communities. In addition, Nahd said he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12-kg. explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.


* August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confessed to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance. He said he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed as part of his UNRWA job to transmit messages among Hamas members in various PA-controlled towns.



* February 2002: Ala Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confessed to having carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.


My opinion - I don't give a fcuk about either of this lot really, but there is nothing black and white here, it's war, and neither side is innocent of blame and I've seen enough lies from both. However, of the two, Hamas are definitely the worst, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean I support Israel, just that I see them as being the lesser evil, i.e. the least morally disgusting, and Hamas are simply indefensible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Okay firstly Memri:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MEMRI

Have a read. There not a thrust worthy source.

Secondly, you have any proof people are lieing in the current incident? Remember, its not the Palestinian members of the UN, who are just saying what happened. You seem to have no issue believe what Peter Hansen is saying. Why not believe what current UN representatives are saying then?

Also, the IDF have hardly been truthful in the past themselves.