1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

TOMASJ

(It's worth noting that the UN document does't attempt to affix blame for any of the incidents, staying only with reasonably provable facts)

But the UN does want concrete assurances from Israel that they can carry on with the humanitarian work,
and I wouldn't think it to protect them from falling leaflets,
Funny they want the assurances from the "democrat country of Israel" and not from the "Terrorist Hamas" speaks volumes

dresden8

So, the prevailing attitude of a lot of posters on this thread is that because Hamas are scum who kill Palestinian civilians, the Israeli's are doing the right thing in bombing Palestinian civilians.

Class, pure class.

TOMASJ

concussion wrote: »

I asked a genuine question - why didn't they build bomb shelters when they were building their schools, hospitals etc. I didn't say they should not have built hospitals, that is you twisting my words, as can be seen with these over-reactions:

I heard it reported that "even one of the bomb shelters in Israel" would not stop the bombs being used by the IDF from busting the concrete and causing carnage to those within,
maybe one of the military experts here will elaborate

TOMASJ

Also came across these reports
From the New York times, based on information from the Israeli military

Are the guys who own the New York Times not Jewish, and if so would they not have a biased view in the subject,

wes

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are the guys who own the New York Times not Jewish, and if so would they not have a biased view in the subject,

Saying that is just as bad as the posters who are constantly accusing the Palestinians of some kind of bias and it doesn't help the conversation, when Jews or Palestinians words are not trusted due to an accident of birth.

ionix5891

some interesting reading with links below




The United States and the Birth of Islamism by Robert Dreyfuss
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4920

Anyone who supports Islamism is falling into a well prepared trap. By putting Hamas in power, the Israelis paved a very precise road to current atrocities.

---

The Israeli government created Hamas according to Prime Minister Olmert in the Jerusalem Post.

"Netanyahu established Hamas, gave it life , freed Sheikh Yassin and gave him the opportunity to blossom"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359844280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

Hamas history tied to Israel

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

wes

@ionix5891

Some interesting stuff there. Especially the comments from Olmert, which are pretty damning.

Just a one thing, the first link you posted is not working for me. It may be broken.

**EDIT**
Did a quick google, is this the story you were posting?:
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4920

ionix5891

wes wrote: »

@ionix5891

Some interesting stuff there. Especially the comments from Olmert, which are pretty damning.

Just a one thing, the first link you posted is not working for me. It may be broken.

**EDIT**
Did a quick google, is this the story you were posting?:
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4920

that site seems more unstable than boards :P

Serenity Now!

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are the guys who own the New York Times not Jewish, and if so would they not have a biased view in the subject,

Oh ffs...:rolleyes:

The right calls the NYT 'Left-wing' and now the 'left' calls it 'right-wing'???

Being Jewish doesn't pigeon-hole a person to being pro-Israel regardless of what Israel does.

Nodin

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are the guys who own the New York Times not Jewish, and if so would they not have a biased view in the subject,

No. There is no Jewish hive-mind, there is no Muslim hive-mind. The NYT may be a pro-Israeli paper ( or not) but don't pre-judge on religon.

wes

ionix5891 wrote: »

that site seems more unstable than boards :P

Yeah it does. That link worked for me in anyways.

ionix5891

heres another well linked/sourced article


http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449


some quotes on the politics behind this slaughter

Again, the motive was to offset Arafat's influence and divide the Palestinians. In the short term, this may have worked to some extent; in the longer term, however, it backfired badly – as demonstrated by the results of the recent Palestinian election.

In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel's control over the occupied territories

ionix5891

more interesting reading

this time exploring the "they don't recognise Israel issue"

http://ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html

No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment – even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is – at best – utterly nonsensical.

First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are the guys who own the New York Times not Jewish, and if so would they not have a biased view in the subject,

The funny thing about questioning the NY Times is that I stated they got their info directly from the Israeli military - yet you question the paper being pro-Israeli

The second link is from the Associated Press.

The third link is from the Jerusalem Post reporting on what the Associated Press had said.

Three sources saying there were militants present at the school and no-one has a comment to make??

I agree with Wes when he says we have to move past this bias. If we can't trust the Associated Press who do we believe??

TOMASJ wrote: »

I heard it reported that "even one of the bomb shelters in Israel" would not stop the bombs being used by the IDF from busting the concrete and causing carnage to those within,
maybe one of the military experts here will elaborate

A direct hit on an underground shelter would probably destroy it, no arguement. However air strikes with large bombs are preplanned so if they did bomb a marked shelter there's no way they could say they were reacting to an immediate threat. A bomb shelter would protect civilians against small arms, cannon fire, mortars, tank rounds, artillery and fire from helis and aircraft doing close air support with rockets etc.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nope. I tend not to keep that close tabs on it. They certainly don't often make the news, though I've no idea if it's because it's just not dramatic enough. Evidently you do, though, since you say 'usually' and not 'always.'

I'd be very interested to see some info on that if you have it. Anyway, I was primarily talking about events with mass casualties such as the shelling of the school and I haven't found any info. It isn't like the IDF are not prone to being quite condervative with the truth. Take the 1996 shelling of the UN post in Qana. Isreal vehemently denied that there was a drone operating in the area. Then a video emerged showing that there was indeed a drone as well as two helicopters operating in the area.

The UN appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. His conclusions were:

“ (a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors. [15]
”
Investigation by Amnesty International
Amnesty International conducted an on-site investigation of the incident in collaboration with military experts, using interviews with UNIFIL staff and civilians in the compound, and posing questions to the IDF, who did not reply. Amnesty concluded, "the IDF intentionally attacked the UN compound, although the motives for doing so remain unclear. The IDF have failed to substantiate their claim that the attack was a mistake. Even if they were to do so they would still bear responsibility for killing so many civilians by taking the risk to launch an attack so close to the UN compound."[16]

So it would seem in this case, and I'd assume it would be the same in all cases of this nature, that the investigation was carried out by an independent military expert. It also seems that the Israeli's weren't exactly honest in the aftermath of the event.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oftentimes, however, I would wager that it would be becase the Israelis cannot be proven correct because it simply isn't within the bounds of capability.

For example, compare the UN truck/tank shell incident with the school incident.

Claim: Israeli tanks firing shells caused the deaths and wounds.
Evidence: Two individuals (and one body) currently in a hospital.
Possible end-states directly resulting from the claim, 2 in number.
i They have gunshot wounds.
ii They have fragmentation wounds.

If i then the claim that Israeli shells caused the casualties cannot be correct. It doesn't say who did do the shooting, but does tear down the UN story.
If ii, the UN claim is probably correct for there is physical evidence corroborating it. This can be done at any time in the next couple of weeks, until the wounds heal.

Compare with the school incident.
Claim: Israeli shells were fired into an area from which no Hamas fire was occuring.
Evidence: Witness statements from personnel at the school, personnel in the IDF.
Possible end-states: At least 4 main ones.
1) There was no Hamas activity. The witnesses are correct, the IDF are lying.
2) There was no Hamas activity. The witnesses are correct, the IDF are mistaken.
3) There was Hamas activity. The witnesses did not notice it, are being honest to the best of their knowledge, the IDF are telling the truth.
4) There was Hamas activity. The witnesses did notice it, are lying, the IDF are telling the truth.

There is no current evidence as to the presence, or not, of Hamas activity. (Unless you count the claims of the two identified Hamas mortarmen being amongst the dead, but we'll ignore that)

The UN claim is impossible to disprove as the only possible empirical proof can be provided by organisations with equipment which continuously monitor the area. In this case, the only people in the area with counter-battery radars or surveillance are the Israelis, and their equipment may not record anything other than readouts that could not be presented, even if anyone was willing to believe them.

The vast majority of the controversial claims seem to be of a similar nature to the UN school above. A whole load of testimony, but the only people with the more reliable mechanical equipment are the other side. Which people don't want to believe, because they're skeptical and prefer to go with testimony.

This is highly speculative and assumes that all info that the UN have is based on eyewitness testimony. I'n not a military expert but I'd put more faith in the UN's version of events (based on past experience based on info I provided before) than the IDF. The UN say they are 99.9% sure there were no Hamas in the compound. The Israelis have already changed their story saying now that there was no fire from within the compound. While your hypotheticals and speculation above are interesting that is all they are. We have a precident to go by.

Manic Moran wrote: »

(It's worth noting that the UN document does't attempt to affix blame for any of the incidents, staying only with reasonably provable facts)
NTM

Does this not directly contradict what you have said above? Above you are stating that the UN's version of events could not be true because of incomplete evidence but in this case you state that the UN only deals with reasonable provable facts.

marius

horseflesh wrote: »

Never mind that Manic was clearly talking in terms of military might, and nothing else :rolleyes:

the point seems to have gone over your head.....the only examples he could give of one country with overwhelming military might attacking another country was Hitlers Germany and Saddam's Iraq. Not a great comment on Israel in the current situation.

Manic Moran

The Israelis have already changed their story saying now that there was no fire from within the compound.

First I've heard of it. I had always understood the position to be 'near' the school, not 'in' the school. That was how it was described in the earliest reports I read.

Above you are stating that the UN's version of events could not be true because of incomplete evidence but in this case you state that the UN only deals with reasonable provable facts.

It's the difference between conclusions and not conclusions. The UN document I quote makes correctly no conclusions because the facts to not lead to any. No blame is being assigned to counter. UN personnel saying "The Israelis deliberately struck the school" or "Since the co-ordinates had been reported, there was no reason the school should have been hit" are making conclusions with limits within the data and assigning blame.

Funny they want the assurances from the "democrat country of Israel" and not from the "Terrorist Hamas" speaks volumes

Could be that they don't grant a Hamas assurance the worth of the audio tape it's made on, so why even bother looking for an assurance from them? Just go with the best situation they can get.

NTM

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's the difference between conclusions and not conclusions. The UN document I quote makes correctly no conclusions because the facts to not lead to any. No blame is being assigned to counter. UN personnel saying "The Israelis deliberately struck the school" or "Since the co-ordinates had been reported, there was no reason the school should have been hit" are making conclusions with limits within the data and assigning blame.

The UN have not said the shelling was intentional. I think the UN are always very careful not to assign blame. They have called for an independent investigation into the event. It will be interesting if Israel will allow or cooperate with such an investigation.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

First I've heard of it. I had always understood the position to be 'near' the school, not 'in' the school. That was how it was described in the earliest reports I read.

From Haaretz:

An IDF spokesman said that troops had fired mortar rounds at the school, after militants barricaded inside shot mortar shells at the Israeli forces.

"Initial checks ... show that from inside the school mortars were fired at Israeli forces," a spokesman said. "In response, the forces fired a number of mortar rounds into the area."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html

The IDF have already changed their position on this. I'm also sure that UN personelle would be aware if there were mortars being fired from within their school.

youcrazyjesus!

The Saint wrote: »

From Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html

The IDF have already changed their position on this. I'm also sure that UN personelle would be aware if there were mortars being fired from within their school.

Whatever about being near the school, being barricaded in is another thing and absolutely not true. So the IDF is lying.

elshambo

Time for a little psychobabble

Most of the post ive read on here that are defending Israel

1.do not say anything about pity/shame/sorro for the innocent who are dying

2.do however spend there time picking holes in posts, where 1 word is wrong

or MADE UP EXAMPLE: someone says 20 kids died in a house and the reply will be that the number of dead is wrong as 2 are still on life support

3. Are aimed at winding up the other side in order to make them post something in anger that can be attacked

4.Pull someone on something, when corrected move on to pulling someone else and either ignore the post where they were corrected or work an angle off it
Eg. Not building new settlements, they are expanding old ones, AND er i must go:mad:

Now the babble part

either

A) They dont care and want the brown babies to be wiped out
or
They are so immeresed in the everyones against us culture of a country surrounded by enemies that they refuse to see that they are supporting murdering scum

They have seen all the old&new stories of soilders hastling pregnant women and taking peoples permits and selling them, children stoning houses in front of Israel soilders and again either

A) Love it
or
B)They are so immeresed in the everyones against us culture of a country surrounded by enemies that they refuse to see that they are supporting a country who have made 3rd class citezens out of their neighbours

OOH and lads ive left a few spelling mistakes in their to be attacked in the usual pathetic fashion!:eek:

*
Mossad DID set up Hamas
Hamas were set up to attack Israel and give Israel a REASON to attack.
its an old soviet trick
Hamas then changed direction

**
I came on this thread on neither side, seeing the pro israel posts in here and the recent press realease's on the news im swayed

OOh and lads no matter how bigoteed the world is according to you
IF EVERYONE IS AGAINST YOU IT 99.9% OF THE TIME MEANS YOU ARE SO SO WRONG THAT YOU WILL KNOW IT YOURSELF

I would like all the pro Israel posters to state why they are so pro israel,
why they are so sure that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong
and if they have any connection to the country,

I think most of the pro-Palestinians have said why they are on that side

The people who need to read this either wont or will and will think to themselves that "he is just another bigot"

Serenity Now!

elshambo wrote: »

TMossad DID set up Hamas
Hamas were set up to attack Israel and give Israel a REASON to attack.
its an old soviet trick
Hamas then changed direction

You're of the ilk who say London was bombed by MI6 on 7th July 2005, aren't you?
:rolleyes:

TOMASJ

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You're of the ilk who say London was bombed by MI6 on 7th July 2005, aren't you?
:rolleyes:

More sidetracking

TOMASJ

Could be that they don't grant a Hamas assurance the worth of the audio tape it's made on, so why even bother looking for an assurance from them? Just go with the best situation they can get.

And what do you think an Israel Army assurance is worth, when after the UN was given the OK by "whatever means" from the IDF to go ahead to distribute aid, the IDF kill you and try to blame someone else.

elshambo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You're of the ilk who say London was bombed by MI6 on 7th July 2005, aren't you?
:rolleyes:

NO, no im not!:eek:

You are of the ilk that everyone else is wrong and you are right, arnt you!?:eek::o

Your probably part of Category C, the one i left out

ooh and it was nice of you to prove the point of my overall post:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o

lwellan dowd

C'mon give the poor Israelis a break.........they've had a tough week defending their women and children, OAPs schools and hospitals from these rocket launching Hammas nutjobs.

concussion

elshambo wrote: »

Eg. Not building new settlements, they are expanding old ones, AND er i must go:mad:

Must clear my diary from now til peace is declared in the Middle East. Didn't realise that 24 hour attendance is was a pre-requisite of this forum :rolleyes:

ionix5891

lwellan dowd wrote: »

C'mon give the poor Israelis a break.........they've had a tough week defending their women and children, OAPs schools and hospitals from these rocket launching Hammas nutjobs.

and how many of them actually died due to these rockets? compares to the Palestinians slaughtered


can the moderators maybe check this guys IP? 2 posts all in this thread , registered only few days ago...

concussion

I don't think it's trolling, I think it's satire.

elshambo

concussion wrote: »

Must clear my diary from now til peace is declared in the Middle East. Didn't realise that 24 hour attendance is was a pre-requisite of this forum :rolleyes:

go on i will repeat it just for you

ooh and it was nice of you to prove the point of my overall post:o:o.....:o
:rolleyes:

concussion wrote: »

I don't think it's trolling, I think it's satire.

ooh the satire, murdering children, oooh hilarious!

Stay Classy!:o