1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Macha · 27-01-2009 5:55pm

concussion wrote: »

Neither would I. But neither do I agree that they get bombed at every safe zone they go to as you inferred.
One is too many in any case.

I didn't infer anything! I just said that I wouldn't phrase the bombing of UN safehavens as "only three". I did not imply or suggest that more than 3 had been bombed.

BlaasforRafa, both ceasefires were unilateral and on their own terms.

BlaasForRafa · 27-01-2009 6:01pm

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't infer anything! I just said that I wouldn't phrase the bombing of UN safehavens as "only three". I did not imply or suggest that more than 3 had been bombed.

BlaasforRafa, both ceasefires were unilateral and on their own terms.

Perhaps Hamas are trying to provoke Israel into more retaliation so they can put more civilians in the firing line.

BlaasForRafa · 27-01-2009 6:03pm

Nodin wrote: »

...that would require Israel to negotiate with them.....

That would require Hamas to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to EXIST.

wes · 27-01-2009 6:09pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The police are part of the Hamas organisation and infrastructure so they are not innocent parties.

Nonsense. They are civilians. Hamas are the de facto government and hence control the civilian apparatus, like the police. By attacking the police, Israel attacked civilians plain and simple.

wes · 27-01-2009 6:11pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That would require Hamas to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to EXIST.

Which would require borders for them to recognise.

turgon · 27-01-2009 6:13pm

So what do all ye "Israel are the eternal evil and everything is solely their fault" crew have to say about the bombing?

Id say ye are all wrong.

Macha · 27-01-2009 6:15pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That would require Hamas to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to EXIST.

Get your facts straight. From 2006:

Hamas official says group ready for 'two-state' solution

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

wes · 27-01-2009 6:18pm

turgon wrote: »

So what do all ye "Israel are the eternal evil and everything is solely their fault" crew have to say about the bombing?

Id say ye are all wrong.

I'd say there is no one who fits that description here.

concussion · 27-01-2009 6:31pm

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't infer anything! I just said that I wouldn't phrase the bombing of UN safehavens as "only three". I did not imply or suggest that more than 3 had been bombed.

I apologise then, I took you up wrong.

paulaa · 27-01-2009 6:38pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Perhaps Hamas are trying to provoke Israel into more retaliation so they can put more civilians in the firing line.

I'm glad you brought the provocation issue up.
If anything the provocation has been coming from Livni & Co for the last few days. She has been slipping in the polls and needed to do something to get back in favour.Even her brother is supporting Netanyahu (Channel 2).

For the last few days they have been threatening to assassinate the Hammas MPs and more airstrikes on Gaza. While they were making these threats, no rockets were fired and Hammas were quiet. They, instead, were in Egypt holding reconciliation talks with Fatah and trying to agree terms for a truce with Israel through the Egyptians.

I wouldn't put it past Israel to have engineered this incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059079.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058556.html

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 6:40pm

taconnol wrote: »

Get your facts straight. From 2006:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

A more recent article:

"We agree on the [Palestinian] state with the borders of June 4, 1967, Jerusalem as its capital, fully sovereign without settlements, the right of return, but without the recognition of Israel," Meshaal said at a news conference in Damascus, Syria."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/21/carter.hamas/index.html

Macha · 27-01-2009 6:49pm

concussion wrote: »

I apologise then, I took you up wrong.

No worries

The joys of digital communication. I can see how you would have thought that - I wasn't very clearn.

munchester29 wrote: »

A more recent article:

"We agree on the [Palestinian] state with the borders of June 4, 1967, Jerusalem as its capital, fully sovereign without settlements, the right of return, but without the recognition of Israel," Meshaal said at a news conference in Damascus, Syria."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/21/carter.hamas/index.html

An article from the next day...:

The former US president Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the leaders of the Islamist movement Hamas would accept a two-state peace agreement with Israel as long as it was approved by a Palestinian referendum or a newly elected government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/israelandthepalestinians.usa

I feel like I'm playing poker. "I see your article from April 21st and raise you...".

Question: Does Israel accept at two-state solution at the 1967 borders and even if they state they do, does the existence of illegal settlements in Gaza or the West Bank invalidate any statements they may make?

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 6:56pm

paulaa wrote: »

I'm glad you brought the provocation issue up.
If anything the provocation has been coming from Livni & Co for the last few days. She has been slipping in the polls and needed to do something to get back in favour.Even her brother is supporting Netanyahu (Channel 2).

For the last few days they have been threatening to assassinate the Hammas MPs and more airstrikes on Gaza. While they were making these threats, no rockets were fired and Hammas were quiet. They, instead, were in Egypt holding reconciliation talks with Fatah and trying to agree terms for a truce with Israel through the Egyptians.

I wouldn't put it past Israel to have engineered this incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059079.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058556.html

Both sides have been threatening each other for years. Talk is cheap in the Middle East.
Besides, do you honestly think that verbal threats warrant a murderous attack?
(Because if you do – you just supplied justification for every attack Israel has ever made on the Palestinians)

Suggesting that Israel engineered this attack on its own soldiers is ridiculous.

Yogabba · 27-01-2009 6:59pm

If the rockets Hamas fire are so harmless, how come they managed to kill two Palestinian little girls back in December?

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:04pm

Yogabba wrote: »

If the rockets Hamas fire are so harmless, how come they managed to kill two Palestinian little girls back in December?

Nobody is saying they are harmless but the casualty figures on both sides speak for themselves.

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 7:06pm

taconnol wrote: »

No worries The joys of digital communication. I can see how you would have thought that - I wasn't very clearn.

An article from the next day...:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/israelandthepalestinians.usa

I feel like I'm playing poker. "I see your article from April 21st and raise you..."

I tend to listen to the horse’s mouth (Hamas in this case). The article I supplied quoted one of the most senior Hamas leaders. The one you supplied quoted Jimmy Carter. I really want to believe Jimmy, but I’m afraid what Hamas themselves are actually saying carries more weight.

taconnol wrote: »

Question: Does Israel accept at two-state solution at the 1967 borders and even if they state they do, does the existence of illegal settlements in Gaza or the West Bank invalidate any statements they may make?

Israel has already declared that it accepts a two state solution based on the 1967 borders:

“JERUSALEM, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in a newspaper interview published on Thursday that failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians could threaten Israel's long-term survival.”

“Olmert said that four years ago, when deputy to former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, he had already stated Israel should withdraw from most of the land captured in 1967.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL29189110

As for the settlements – Israel has a claim to some of them. Like it or not – that’s Israel’s claim.
This means that the settlements will be one of the major negotiation points during a peace process, so the existence of the settlements doesn’t invalidate Israeli statements.
In fact, Israel is actually very clear on the subject, and has shown its willingness to negotiate land for peace when they left Gaza.

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:09pm

munchester29 wrote: »

I tend to listen to the horse’s mouth (Hamas in this case). The article I supplied quoted one of the most senior Hamas leaders. The one you supplied quoted Jimmy Carter. I really want to believe Jimmy, but I’m afraid what Hamas themselves are actually saying carries more weight.

Sorry but the article I quoted was from a day later, suggesting they had conisdered the idea further.

munchester29 wrote: »

As for the settlements – Israel has a claim to some of them. Like it or not – that’s Israel’s claim.

Irrelevant. Either they stick to the 1967 borders or they don't

munchester29 wrote: »

This means that the settlements will be one of the major negotiation points during a peace process, so the existence of the settlements doesn’t invalidate Israeli statements.

You still haven't presented a convincing argument for the justification of the settlements other than "Tough". You'll have to do a better than that.

munchester29 wrote: »

In fact, Israel is actually very clear on the subject, and has shown its willingness to negotiate land for peace when they left Gaza.

Oh land for peace? How convenient for Israel. What's that? They end up with more land? Well I never...

paulaa · 27-01-2009 7:19pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Both sides have been threatening each other for years. Talk is cheap in the Middle East.
Besides, do you honestly think that verbal threats warrant a murderous attack?
(Because if you do – you just supplied justification for every attack Israel has ever made on the Palestinians)

Suggesting that Israel engineered this attack on its own soldiers is ridiculous.

Talk is cheap everywhere but do you honestly think it's acceptable during a very tenuous ceasefire? It certainly doesn't do much for Israel's claims that they want peace.
I am in no way justifying any attacks from either Hammas or Israel, I've stated that before but you must have missed it.
Israel and her apologists frequently use bluster from Hammas about not recognishing the state of Israel and about wanting to run them into the sea to justify their ott attacks on Gaza. They don't need any help from me.

It wouldn't be the first time Israel has falsified events and re-written history, so I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility especially with the provocative talk and threats of the last few days

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 7:20pm

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but the article I quoted was from a day later, suggesting they had conisdered the idea further.

How old the article is doesn’t matter. What matters is who the speakers are.

taconnol wrote: »

Irrelevant. Either they stick to the 1967 borders or they don't

This is very relevant actually. When the time comes and borders are agreed on, the borders will be based on the 1967 borders, but there will be many adjustments – some because of de facto reasons (such as existing settlements, geographical continuity of areas and cities, Israel’s claims, Palestinian claims, etc).

Just one example for something that people don’t really think about too often – Israel conquered the west bank & Gaza in 1967 during a war between sovereign countries. Under international law, Israel now has certain rights (and responsibilities) in these conquered areas. This will have an effect on future negotiations.

taconnol wrote: »

You still haven't presented a convincing argument for the justification of the settlements other than "Tough". You'll have to do a better than that.

I have no justification for settlements; I’m opposed to most of them. They are a fact of life though, like it or not.

taconnol wrote: »

Oh land for peace? How convenient for Israel. What's that? They end up with more land? Well I never...

If you have any specific statistics that show Israel controls more land after leaving Gaza than before, please, show them…

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 7:27pm

paulaa wrote: »

Talk is cheap everywhere but do you honestly think it's acceptable during a very tenuous ceasefire? It certainly doesn't do much for Israel's claims that they want peace.
I am in no way justifying any attacks from either Hammas or Israel, I've stated that before but you must have missed it.
Israel and her apologists frequently use bluster from Hammas about not recognishing the state of Israel and about wanting to run them into the sea to justify their ott attacks on Gaza. They don't need any help from me.

It wouldn't be the first time Israel has falsified events and re-written history, so I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility especially with the provocative talk and threats of the last few days

Threats in the Middle East are part of the political system.
Hamas has also made threats towards Israel (in regards to Gilad Shalit, for example), and so Israel threats them back. Nothing new.

I'm interested to know - what reason do you think Israel has to kill their own soldiers?

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:28pm

munchester29 wrote: »

How old the article is doesn’t matter. What matters is who the speakers are.

LOL this is quite funny. Just choose criteria that suit you! Of course the date matters because their stance can change.

munchester29 wrote: »

This is very relevant actually. When the time comes and borders are agreed on, the borders will be based on the 1967 borders, but there will be many adjustments – some because of de facto reasons (such as existing settlements, geographical continuity of areas and cities, Israel’s claims, Palestinian claims, etc).

Just one example for something that people don’t really think about too often – Israel conquered the west bank & Gaza in 1967 during a war between sovereign countries. Under international law, Israel now has certain rights (and responsibilities) in these conquered areas. This will have an effect on future negotiations.

Again, they either respect 1967 borders or not. The whole point of reverting to these borders is to try and push past what has happened since then. Trying to take all what has happened since 1967 into consideration will drag the whole thing down into bickering and fighting.

munchester29 wrote: »

If you have any specific statistics that show Israel controls more land after leaving Gaza than before, please, show them…

I'm not claiming that at all. I was merely responding to your assertion that Israel is happy to trade peace for land. I can think of quite a few nations that took a similar stance, historically.

Offy · 27-01-2009 7:37pm

munchester29 wrote: »

I'm interested to know - what reason do you think Israel has to kill their own soldiers?

PR maybe? A smoke screen maybe? Or maybe Israel is simply run by murderous nutters that like to kill people, they dont care where those people are from judging from the last few decades.

Just out of curiosity, why are you defending Israel with such zest? What is your interest in defending a system that repeatability murder civilians from various nations?

munchester29 · 27-01-2009 7:38pm

taconnol wrote: »

LOL this is quite funny. Just choose criteria that suit you! Of course the date matters because their stance can change.

In such a case, I would expect you to supply a link to a more recent article where Hamas officials are quoted, not Jimmy Carter.

taconnol wrote: »

Again, they either respect 1967 borders or not. The whole point of reverting to these borders is to try and push past what has happened since then. Trying to take all what has happened since 1967 into consideration will drag the whole thing down into bickering and fighting.

Oh, the bickering and fighting will be there all right…
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what is going to happen. I think that all parties involved are aware of this.
Even UN resolution 242 calls for “withdrawal from territories” and not “withdrawal from all territories” or “withdrawal from the territories”. International law experts have already commented on this specific wording and its meaning.

IRISH RAIL · 27-01-2009 7:47pm

Offy wrote: »

PR maybe? A smoke screen maybe? Or maybe Israel is simply run by murderous nutters that like to kill people, they dont care where those people are from judging from the last few decades.

Just out of curiosity, why are you defending Israel with such zest? What is your interest in defending a system that repeatability murder civilians from various nations?

If you changed Israel to hamas then the first statement would ring true
and secondly no one has to explain to anyone why they support any side you wil find everyone has a personal deciding angle in this conflict.

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:51pm

munchester29 wrote: »

In such a case, I would expect you to supply a link to a more recent article where Hamas officials are quoted, not Jimmy Carter.

Will this suffice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel

It is from Hamas spokesperson. I suppose it's the closest they've come.

munchester29 wrote: »

Oh, the bickering and fighting will be there all right…
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what is going to happen. I think that all parties involved are aware of this.
Even UN resolution 242 calls for “withdrawal from territories” and not “withdrawal from all territories” or “withdrawal from the territories”. International law experts have already commented on this specific wording and its meaning.

I fear you are right. Nevertheless, it is disingenuous for Israel to trumpet that it is happy to return to 1967 borders...except for this bit..and that settlement..oh and that village over there.

BlaasForRafa · 27-01-2009 8:05pm

taconnol wrote: »

Get your facts straight. From 2006:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm

My facts are right, yours are not. Hamas has not said that the state of Israel has a right to exist.

BlaasForRafa · 27-01-2009 8:11pm

paulaa wrote: »

I'm glad you brought the provocation issue up.
If anything the provocation has been coming from Livni & Co for the last few days. She has been slipping in the polls and needed to do something to get back in favour.Even her brother is supporting Netanyahu (Channel 2).

For the last few days they have been threatening to assassinate the Hammas MPs and more airstrikes on Gaza. While they were making these threats, no rockets were fired and Hammas were quiet. They, instead, were in Egypt holding reconciliation talks with Fatah and trying to agree terms for a truce with Israel through the Egyptians.

I wouldn't put it past Israel to have engineered this incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059079.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058556.html

More conspiracy theory crap. Big deal about threats, the palestinians are the ones who planted a bomb and killed a soldier, that is the fact here. They know that that will bring a response.

Jack Bauer999 · 27-01-2009 8:15pm

Just out of curiosity, why are you defending Israel with such zest? What is your interest in defending a system that repeatability murder civilians from various nations?[/QUOTE]

even hitler had supporters!, at least there are very much in the minority now.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3331279,00.html
"Respondents as a whole listed Israel last among placed they would like to visit and its people were also voted the "most unwelcoming in the world."

wonder what result they would get now!

was interesting, was at the laughter lounge on sat nite and there was a
Jewish comedian came on, he tried to test the crowd with a gaza joke
which went down like a lead baloon, resulting in booing!

Offy · 27-01-2009 8:16pm

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

secondly no one has to explain to anyone why they support any side you wil find everyone has a personal deciding angle in this conflict.

Thats very true but its through discussion that we gain understanding. I just think its better to sit down and talk things out rather than pick up a gun and kill people. I dont understand munchester29 views so Im trying to learn about them from him. munchester29 ofcourse does not have to answer but would that not indicate a lack of willingness to debate? Kinda like the Israelis do, your know the kill everyone we dont like way of living, like what the Nazis did to the Jews. The Nazis didnt talk much either did they? How can Israel sit down at a negotiation table if their not willing to talk?

paulaa · 27-01-2009 8:16pm

munchester29 wrote: »

Threats in the Middle East are part of the political system.
Hamas has also made threats towards Israel (in regards to Gilad Shalit, for example), and so Israel threats them back. Nothing new.

I'm interested to know - what reason do you think Israel has to kill their own soldiers?

As you say, talk is cheap in the Middle East but so is life, on all sides.

It's a strange fact but if you look back over the last several elections, Israel always seems to involve herself in an attack on someone, in the weeks before hand. This has been going on for years and it seems that those who are the most hardline and warmongering are the ones that get voted in.

They send their troops into yet another futile, unnecessary "war" in order to grab power. Their policies constantly put their troops in danger, yes I know that's what soldiers do, but imo a lot of it is unnecessary and contrived.

1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Comments