Israel bombs 160 sites in Gaza overnight. Mod Warnings in First Post.

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

No. But as I said before it wasn't being used as a gas. It is an element of creating smokescreens to assist troop movements.

If it was used as a smokescreen how come people died from inhaling it, its a poor excuse imo, as a self proclaimed democracy I think the Israeli's should be a bit more responsible in there choice of weaponry.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

I said "shooting anyway", not "shooting them anyway." The difference being that in the first case the intended target would be something else, such as the shipping container which according to some reports was what they were shooting at to begin with, or maybe some other reason which was not within the knowledge of witnesses, the other implies that the individuals themselves were the intended targets.

Ok as far as I'm aware there are universal laws of war but individual armies also have their own rules of war,? is that correct or incorrect?..you seem versed on the rules of war I'm wondering who's rules they are? can you provide a link please or some sort of material so I can have a look where you're coming from. I'd like to read it please.

BlaasForRafa

NufcNavan wrote: »

I know that, but the only report I've seen is from an Iranian station and a few claims on twitter. There have been journalists in Gaza tweeting all day about the bombing etc. but no one has mentioned white phosphorous.

Last time around presstv claimed an Israeli F-15 was shot down. It never happened.

The Iranians and palestinians know how much of a fuss is created in west about WP so they're just itching for the IDF to actually use it so they start firing out propaganda.

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Last time around presstv claimed an Israeli F-15 was shot down. It never happened.

The Iranians and palestinians know how much of a fuss is created in west about WP so they're just itching for the IDF to actually use it so they start firing out propaganda.

The Israelis have already committed a number of warcrimes in Gaza use of wp will just add to the list. Have you seen the video on the thread over in afterhours of the civilian in a green top looking for his family in the rubble being butchered by the brave IDF? what say you is that a war crime or not?...

Manic Moran

Gringo180 wrote: »

No laws against using a highly toxic gas on a civilian population?

For starters, it's an incendiary. Its purpose is to burn things, not poison people. Its alternate purpose is to create a smoke screen, not to poison people.

Oh, and the fumes aren't "Highly toxic". They're catergorised as an irritant. US Army Field Manual 4-02.285:

Symptoms. Field concentrations of the smoke may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.
[...]
Treatment. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid.

.

So, no, no laws against it with the two aforementioned exceptions: As an incendiary it may not be delivered by aircraft over an urban area, and the normal rules applicable to all munitions about having a valid primary military purpose which merits the risk to population. Oh, and, I guess you can't use it against personnel for the irritant effect, but as the irritant effect is so minor anyway, there's little point to it. Besides, the burning is far more effective.

WakeUp wrote: »

Ok as far as I'm aware there are universal laws of war but individual armies also have their own rules of war,? is that correct or incorrect?..you seem versed on the rules of war I'm wondering who's rules they are? can you provide a link please or some sort of material so I can have a look where you're coming from. I'd like to read it please.

There are, I guess, two levels. The only "Laws of War" are those created by international treaty such as the Hague or Geneva Conventions. All signatories are bound by them. That said, some unwritten laws have come about.

The next level is national policy. A number of countries which are not signatories to the conventions have declared that their position will be to abide by the regulations anyway. The general purpose for this is so that if they're engaged in operations against a signatory that various rules will be followed anyway, sortof an agreement of honor. Legal enforcement, however, is internal to the nation's military, effectively as a rule of engagement.

A rule of engagement is a limitation placed upon a military by its own chain of command, almost always for political purposes. RsOE will never be more permissive than the laws of war allow. (At least, they shouldn't be. If they are, adherence to RsOE cannot be relied upon as a defense to a charge of a violation of the laws of war). RsOE can be changed by any commander of sufficient granted authority, usually a theatre commander. For example, US Army RsOE in Afghanistan were set by the senior US Commander in Afghanistan. Violation of an ROE is not a war crime, but it may be a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Queen's Regulations, or similar, as disobedience of a direct order at the very least, possibly more depending on the situation. However, RsOE almost always have a loophole at the end, along the lines of "Nothing in the above restrictions should be considered as preventing a soldier from taking any actions he deems necessary to preserve his life, that of a colleague, or an innocent third party"

For further reading on the US side of things, see The Law of War Handbook ( http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf ) which is a reference book put out by the JAG school (military lawyer school), and for what the average soldier needs to know, look for US Army manual FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf , and the Cliff's Notes version, FM 27-2 "Your conduct in combat under the laws of war"
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/conduct-in-combat-1984.pdf

The US military has taken the position of "If we issue it to you, you can use it however you like as long as it doesn't violate the above handbooks". As a result, a soldier need not concern himself with the technicalities of if he is actually authorised to use the exploding 20mm round from his AA gun against infantry if he happens to come across them, or if he can legally fire his Smoke-WP against the enemy in that building over there to burn them out. It is unreasonable to expect a soldier to know every single detail, and the Army simply takes the approach of trying to avoid the problem in the first place.

Both sides are in the wrong as is mostly the case

Royal Irish

Its completely legal to use white phosphorus as a smoke screen but in 2008 they did use it as an incendiary in Gaza which is a densely populated area which is against the Geneva convention.

hatrickpatrick

I honestly find it impossible to understand how anyone could support the Israeli side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I've tried very hard but I genuinely don't understand it - I've never heard a single coherent argument to justify the continued theft of land from defenseless civilians, and as far as I'm concerned without being able to justify this fundamental issue, it's impossible to support the Israeli side in any other capacity.

Manic Moran

Royal Irish wrote: »

Its completely legal to use white phosphorus as a smoke screen but in 2008 they did use it as an incendiary in Gaza which is a densely populated area which is against the Geneva convention.

No, it's not, as it was artillery delivered.

If you think it is against the Geneva Convention, go find me the citation. I'll get you started: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

I'll give you another hint. You're probably not thinking of the Geneva Convention anyway, you're thinking of Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Which is predominantly a stupid article anyway, as it's illegal to make civilian populations the target of -any- weapons, incendiary or otherwise. The only thing it adds is the prohibition on air delivery.

wes

Israel-Gaza conflict: The myth of Hamas’s human shield

Independent.co.uk investigates Israel claims about Hamas using Human Shields, and doesn't find any evidence to supports Israel assertion.

Now considering the various murderous outrages the media have witnessed committed by the IDF, the appalling number of civilians being murdered, the use of flechettes in tank shells in densely populated area like Gaza.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the IDF, are not engaged in a targeted campaign, but rather best case scenario are being indiscriminate in there assault, if not out and out shooting anything that moves, and the murder of the 4 children on a Gaza beach would speak to that conclusion.

Royal Irish

That human shields claims from Israel was always bull****. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Manic Moran

One reporter group, another reporter group.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052702303833804580019453359717126

In one of those strikes, a group of Palestinians positioned themselves on the roof of the Kaware home in the Gaza town of Khan Younis after a warning. They had hoped to act as human shields to prevent an attack, according to a family member.

The strike went ahead and eight people died, the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza said, drawing new attention to the Israeli practice.

That said, that wasn't specifically a Hamas thing, it is reported as a spontaneous act.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

That said, that wasn't specifically a Hamas thing, it is reported as a spontaneous act.

Fair enough, and completely stupid thing for the individuals involved to do, as the IDF has no issues with killing civilians, but its hard to judge people, who have no where to run to, and have been under siege for years. Not to sure people living under such conditions, will act rationally.

The fact remains that the claims made by the Israeli government of Hamas using Human Shields has no evidence to back it up, and the claims of a targeted operation is highly questionable on the basis of the facts I mentioned in my earlier post.

shedweller

Manic Moran wrote: »

For starters, it's an incendiary. Its purpose is to burn things, not poison people. Its alternate purpose is to create a smoke screen, not to poison people.

Oh, and the fumes aren't "Highly toxic". They're catergorised as an irritant. US Army Field Manual 4-02.285:

.

So, no, no laws against it with the two aforementioned exceptions: As an incendiary it may not be delivered by aircraft over an urban area, and the normal rules applicable to all munitions about having a valid primary military purpose which merits the risk to population. Oh, and, I guess you can't use it against personnel for the irritant effect, but as the irritant effect is so minor anyway, there's little point to it. Besides, the burning is far more effective.



There are, I guess, two levels. The only "Laws of War" are those created by international treaty such as the Hague or Geneva Conventions. All signatories are bound by them. That said, some unwritten laws have come about.

The next level is national policy. A number of countries which are not signatories to the conventions have declared that their position will be to abide by the regulations anyway. The general purpose for this is so that if they're engaged in operations against a signatory that various rules will be followed anyway, sortof an agreement of honor. Legal enforcement, however, is internal to the nation's military, effectively as a rule of engagement.

A rule of engagement is a limitation placed upon a military by its own chain of command, almost always for political purposes. RsOE will never be more permissive than the laws of war allow. (At least, they shouldn't be. If they are, adherence to RsOE cannot be relied upon as a defense to a charge of a violation of the laws of war). RsOE can be changed by any commander of sufficient granted authority, usually a theatre commander. For example, US Army RsOE in Afghanistan were set by the senior US Commander in Afghanistan. Violation of an ROE is not a war crime, but it may be a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Queen's Regulations, or similar, as disobedience of a direct order at the very least, possibly more depending on the situation. However, RsOE almost always have a loophole at the end, along the lines of "Nothing in the above restrictions should be considered as preventing a soldier from taking any actions he deems necessary to preserve his life, that of a colleague, or an innocent third party"

For further reading on the US side of things, see The Law of War Handbook ( http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf ) which is a reference book put out by the JAG school (military lawyer school), and for what the average soldier needs to know, look for US Army manual FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf , and the Cliff's Notes version, FM 27-2 "Your conduct in combat under the laws of war"
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/conduct-in-combat-1984.pdf

The US military has taken the position of "If we issue it to you, you can use it however you like as long as it doesn't violate the above handbooks". As a result, a soldier need not concern himself with the technicalities of if he is actually authorised to use the exploding 20mm round from his AA gun against infantry if he happens to come across them, or if he can legally fire his Smoke-WP against the enemy in that building over there to burn them out. It is unreasonable to expect a soldier to know every single detail, and the Army simply takes the approach of trying to avoid the problem in the first place.

You have seen the cavernous burned holes in people from a few years ago over Christmas?
I was under the impression that it was a little bit more than a minor irritant!
All your other words dont mean so much with that in mind.

Manic Moran

shedweller wrote: »

I was under the impression that it was a little bit more than a minor irritant!
All your other words dont mean so much with that in mind.

As I said, it's an incendiary, its job is to burn. And, whether you like it or not, burning people is a legitimate way of killing and wounding people in warfare and is not prohibited. It's horrible, it's terrifying, it is the most fearsome sort of weapon and death likely found on today's battlefield until you get to chemical/biological/radiological weapons. But it's legal.

The gas/smoke/fumes produced by WP are the irritant and, as I mentioned, not exactly the most significant thing about the munition.

The bottom line is that unless one sees an airplane or helicopter dropping WP munitions over Gaza, one cannot point to any instance of its use in Gaza and immediately declare it a war crime, no matter how impressive the smoke, flame, and burning craters in bodies happen to be. It is the simple legal reality. More information is required, and for those of us commenting on it on the Internet, that information is not available to us.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I said, it's an incendiary, its job is to burn. And, whether you like it or not, burning people is a legitimate way of killing and wounding people in warfare and is not prohibited. It's horrible, it's terrifying, it is the most fearsome sort of weapon and death likely found on today's battlefield until you get to chemical/biological/radiological weapons. But it's legal.

The gas/smoke/fumes produced by WP are the irritant and, as I mentioned, not exactly the most significant thing about the munition.

The bottom line is that unless one sees an airplane or helicopter dropping WP munitions over Gaza, one cannot point to any instance of its use in Gaza and immediately declare it a war crime, no matter how impressive the smoke, flame, and burning craters in bodies happen to be. It is the simple legal reality. More information is required, and for those of us commenting on it on the Internet, that information is not available to us.

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

BlaasForRafa

WakeUp wrote: »

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

I know you like easy answers but in a warzone there rarely are any. There are a number of factors involved, did the IDF intend to hit the hospital? If so, were Hamas launching rockets or mortars from the vicinity of the hospital? If the IDF intentionally hit the hospital then there must have been a reason, it seems unlikely that they would do so just for the laugh or whatever you seem to think.

If Hamas were launching rockets or mortars they're hardly going to admit it. Do you think that Hamas wouldn't put civilians in danger?

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I know you like easy answers but in a warzone there rarely are any. There are a number of factors involved, did the IDF intend to hit the hospital? If so, were Hamas launching rockets or mortars from the vicinity of the hospital? If the IDF intentionally hit the hospital then there must have been a reason, it seems unlikely that they would do so just for the laugh or whatever you seem to think.

If Hamas were launching rockets or mortars they're hardly going to admit it. Do you think that Hamas wouldn't put civilians in danger?

Well I'll be damned. even for IDF apologists the attempted defending of a hospital being deliberately targeted is a new low though not surprising. So once again Israeli soldiers kill civilians - they pulled the trigger they are to blame for the killings -and once again it's the fault of Hamas?. It matters not why they bombed a hospital the fact is they bombed a hospital an intensive care unit. the more I talk and listen to some of you people the more I'm convinced that a lot of you suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance. and the more my views on this particular conflict become entrenched. Bibi is a sociopath that much is certain though I am beginning to wonder about the wider Israeli public/supporters at large at least some of them. the concept of even the most basic moral responsibility just doesn't exist it's absent a blank void like the vastness of space - never their fault always someone else's. unbelievable.

Manic Moran

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

Manic Moran

WakeUp wrote: »

Shelling the 2nd and 3rd floor of a hospital - the intensive care unit (two patients killed in their beds) that can be immediately declared a war crime right? I mean you're not even going to attempt to explain that away or dress it up. it's a warcrime?... thank you for those links you posted for me and taking the time to do that.

If they actually shot at the hospital and had no reason to, yes, it would be.

R P McMurphy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

12 shells hit the hospital though, not a building beside it. The shells landed in the administration building, the intensive care unit and the surgery department.

Kev2Dee

Any more news on the Israelis using those DIME weapons? Saw on BBC news the other night they interviewed a doctor and he said the wounds hes seen so far are consistent with DIME weaponry?

tayto lover

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated that the target was a building next to the hospital, injuries were caused mainly by secondary effects. The international aid worker there who was interviewed wasn't decrying the attack, but instead was advocating for an evacuation of wounded and sick people out of Gaza so that they were no longer at risk from the crossfire.

The Israelis, PR be damned, have made it clear that they will hit any target of military value. If it happens to be near or in a hospital, that's not Israel's problem legally. Only for PR.

Maybe the football the young lads on the beach were using contained a bomb :rolleyes:

NIMAN

Thing I don't understand is this
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/us-to-call-for-immediate-ceasefire-as-gaza-assault-claims-at-least-550-lives-30448777.html

USA calling for an immediate ceasefire and making public noises about the assault not being right, yet still providing $3bn of arms per year to Israel.

Why not stop giving them a single cent, or supplying them with any arms? I realise that the Jewish community are powerful in the US, but how they ignore some atrocities whilst invading due to others is just sad.

tayto lover

NIMAN wrote: »

Thing I don't understand is this
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/us-to-call-for-immediate-ceasefire-as-gaza-assault-claims-at-least-550-lives-30448777.html

USA calling for an immediate ceasefire and making public noises about the assault not being right, yet still providing $3bn of arms per year to Israel.

Why not stop giving them a single cent, or supplying them with any arms? I realise that the Jewish community are powerful in the US, but how they ignore some atrocities whilst invading due to others is just sad.

Sad AND hypocritical.

Gringo180

Manic Moran wrote: »

The BBC report I saw last night indicated
.

I stop reading after that!

walshb

The money and arms is to help Israel defend against all of its neighbors. Unfortunately it's the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences.

K-9

Gringo180 wrote: »

I stop reading after that!

You don't take anything the BBC does seriously?

wes

walshb wrote: »

The money and arms is to help Israel defend against all of its neighbors. Unfortunately it's the Palestinians who are suffering the consequences.

That reasoning doesn't hold water anymore, I am afraid. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. Secondly as of 2002 the Arab league has offered a full and comprehensive peace with all of them (also backed by the OIC), that Israel has ignored for the last decade. It seem pretty clear that money received is defacto for defending settlement expansion.

gallag

If Israel pulled out of the west bank, Golan heights etc tomorrow and paid billions in compensation they would still be under attack. Israel is surrounded by muslim countries determined to destroy them, Israel makes it obvious that they will track the trajectory of a rocked and return fire within 30sec, if Hamas choose to launch from a school then who's fault is it if that school becomes rubble 30 seconds later?

The biggest threat is the tunnels! People don't appreciate the scale of them ,Imagine a scenario where Iran, who's leadership has called for Israel to be wiped of the map and possess nuclear weapons give Hamas the ability to achieve their stated goal with a tunnel bomb, they need to destroy the tunnels at all costs.

Hamas have a pretty slick propaganda machine, you all seen the recent video of an unarmed man being shot by an Israeli sniper? Why were they all speaking English? Why no blood? Palestine is just the political hot potato of the day and you guys lap it up!! 2500 die every day through starvation! Where is their protests?

Israel are constantly under attack and nothing will change that, look at their history, in 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan with backing and support from over a dozen muslim countries amass on Israel's boarders to literally wipe them out, this was the six day war, at the end Israel captures the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, theWest Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and theGolan Heights from Syria. These sights are from that point the spoils of war, why should Israel hand back these strategic sites to countries that will just use them to attack again? Seriously answer that?

Then in 1973 the Yom Kippur War, just look at the countries lined up to eradicate Israel again! Seriously click the link and look! How would it of went for Israel if it handed the lands back only to be attacked again?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

"The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories onYom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter theSinai Peninsula and Golan Heightsrespectively, which had been captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union initiated massive resupply efforts to their respective allies during the war, and this led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers.[44]

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. After crossing the cease-fire lines, Egyptian forces advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and managed to halt the Egyptian offensive, settling into a stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had managed to push the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. They then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts ofDamascus. As Egyptian president Anwar Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally, he believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during the negotiations. He therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but the attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counterattacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards Cairo in over a week of heavy fighting that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides."

Israel will never be left in piece.

wes

gallag wrote: »

If Israel pulled out of the west bank, Golan heights etc tomorrow and paid billions in compensation they would still be under attack. Israel is surrounded by muslim countries determined to destroy them

That a nice lie, one that is very easy to disprove. Last time I checked, peace with Egypt and Jordan, is working just fine.

Also, the following peace ignored by Israel for a over a decade and counting:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

Also, supported by the OIC:
OIC throws its weight behind Kingdom’s Mideast peace plan

So a peace plan, offered over a decade ago, that would result in full recognition by the entire Arab league, but also every single Muslim majority state, as per the OIC support for it.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

That a nice lie, one that is very easy to disprove. Last time I checked, peace with Egypt and Jordan, is working just fine.

Also, the following peace ignored by Israel for a over a decade and counting:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

Also, supported by the OIC:
OIC throws its weight behind Kingdom’s Mideast peace plan

So a peace plan, offered over a decade ago, that would result in full recognition by the entire Arab league, but also every single Muslim majority state, as per the OIC support for it.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The inclusion of this clause "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights" could be seen as dooming it to fail before it even began. Leaving out the whole west bank mess, the Golan is just too strategic an area to give up. There was never any indication that the Syrians under Assad would commit to any kind of meaningful peace with Israel in the way that Jordan and Egypt did.

On the subject of the Israeli soldier being captured that the palestinians celebrated so wildly the other day, the current theory in Israel media is that they may have taken his corpse or part of it from the APC. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183205#.U85RGfldV8E
I had seen earlier reports already that the bodies of the dead troops were badly burned after the Hamas ambush. It seems unlikely that Hamas personnel would rescue him from a fiercely burning apc. It seems that it's taken this long to identify the bodies due to the fire after the ambush and it may be for this reason that Hamas haven't produced more concrete evidence for their claims as yet.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The inclusion of this clause "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights" could be seen as dooming it to fail before it even began. Leaving out the whole west bank mess, the Golan is just too strategic an area to give up.

The reason its strategic is due to the lack of peace with Syria. Any peace will include a return of the Golan Heights. The fact remains that Israel has spent over 10 years ignoring the offer, and it clearly shows that Israel has path to peace with everyone in the region, and as such there is 0 justifications for military aid to them, with a peace offer like that on the table, and its still on the table btw.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was never any indication that the Syrians under Assad would commit to any kind of meaningful peace with Israel in the way that Jordan and Egypt did.

The whole Arab League agreed to it and that included the Syrian's, last I checked. Israel as I said earlier has completely ignored it.

walshb

wes wrote: »

.

So, yeah what your saying is a lie.

No, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who despise their very existence. Peace for now. We live in the now, but don't think for a second that because there isn't violence or war between Israel and its (other) neighbors that the feelings of hate for Israel have abated!

wes

walshb wrote: »

No, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who despise their very existence. Peace for now.

The arab peace plan, and the support from the OIC for it proves you wrong. You saying that your right, is proof of nothing. The Arab league are clearly willing to accept Israel, and normalize relations.

walshb wrote: »

We live in the now, but don't think for a second that because there isn't violence or war between Israel and its (other) neighbors that the feelings of hate for Israel have abated!

I never said there were no ill feeling towards Israel and vice versa, just that there is peace offer on the table, that offer full recognition to Israel from pretty much everyone, and you instead you dismiss it, just like Israel has done for the last decade. The offer, exists in the here and now, and has since 2002, and has been ignored. I have yet to see a single reasonable explanation for this. Israel could have at least discussed the terms if they didn't like them, but it was ignored completely instead.

Its seem pretty clear to me that Israel doesn't want peace, and that seems to go for some supporters as well. Its good that we know where some people stand on this.

gallag

wes wrote: »

The arab peace plan, and the support from the OIC for it proves you wrong. You saying that your right, is proof of nothing.



I never said there were no ill feeling towards Israel and vice versa, just that there is peace offer on the table, that offer full recognition to Israel from pretty much everyone, and you instead you dismiss it, just like Israel has done for the last decade.

Its seem pretty clear to me that Israel doesn't want peace, and that seems to go for some of supporters as well.

The peace plan is just that, a plan, all these countries have tried many times in the past to wipe Israel out, why on earth would Israel surrender the strategic lands that are insuring it's survival because someone wrote words on a bit of paper? If the lives of millions were in your hands would you relinquish the Golan heights to Syria? A country that is so unstable that who knows who will be ruling it is 1 year, the only thing you can be sure of is whoever is ruling Syria they will not be Israel friendly! ! Would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria at this current time?

Gringo180

K-9 wrote: »

You don't take anything the BBC does seriously?

Not when it comes to this conflict. Not one mention did that pro Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday get, you would think when 100,000 people line the streets in protest it would be reported on.

wes

gallag wrote: »

The peace plan is just that, a plan, all these countries have tried many times in the past to wipe Israel out, why on earth would Israel surrender the strategic lands that are insuring it's survival because someone wrote words on a bit of paper?

The Israeli's did there best to remove all the Palestinians from there homes, so there not in any position to claim innocence in the conflict. Israel has happily attacked when it has suited them as well.

You make peace with your enemies, that is how it works. The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have worked, and people like yourself, would claim they were basically evil like you are doing now in regards to the rest of the Arab league.

gallag wrote: »

If the lives of millions were in your hands would you relinquish the Golan heights to Syria? A country that is so unstable that who knows who will be ruling it is 1 year, the only thing you can be sure of is whoever is ruling Syria they will not be Israel friendly! ! Would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria at this current time?

Yes, they should negotiate a peace, on the basis of the decade old peace offer from the Arab league.

The peace deal, is with the whole Arab League, and it offers everything Israel claims to want. BTW, the deal has been around for over a decade, and was on offer long before the most recent trouble in Syria. The deal has been ignored for a well over a decade now.

As, I said earlier, its good to know where some people stand. Still no good reason for ignoring the peace plan, other than the other guy is evil nonsense that we hear from supporters of Israel all the time.

gallag

wes wrote: »

The Israeli's did there best to remove all the Palestinians from there homes, so there not in any position to claim innocence in the conflict. Israel has happily attacked when it has suited them as well.

You make peace with your enemies, that is how it works. The peace deals with Egypt and Jordan have worked, and people like yourself, would claim they were basically evil like you are doing now in regards to the rest of the Arab league.



Yes, they should negotiate a peace, on the basis of the decade old peace offer from the Arab league.

The peace deal, is with the whole Arab League, and it offers everything Israel claims to want. BTW, the deal has been around for over a decade, and was on offer long before the most recent trouble in Syria. The deal has been ignored for a well over a decade now.

As, I said earlier, its good to know where some people stand. Still no good reason for ignoring the peace plan, other than the other guy is evil nonsense that we hear from supporters of Israel all the time.

So you really can't understand why Israel would not want to surrender the strategic Golan heights to Syria to make that peace plan workable? Surely with hindsight it was a master stroke not doing that! Imagine Syria now also had the Golan Heights! ! Please answer, if you were in charge of Israel right now would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria?

wes

gallag wrote: »

So you really can't understand why Israel would not want to surrender the strategic Golan heights to Syria to make that peace plan workable? Surely with hindsight it was a master stroke not doing that!

Extremists were saying the same thing about peace with Egypt and that worked out fine. No wars with Egypt since the peace treaty last i checked.

gallag wrote: »

Imagine Syria now also had the Golan Heights! ! Please answer, if you were in charge of Israel right now would you hand the Golan Heights to Syria?

I said yes, they should negotiate a peace deal. You are being rather obtuse about things. Also, as I said before the peace deal was on the table for 10 years.

Again, its good to know where certain people stand.

gallag

wes wrote: »

Extremists were saying the same thing about peace with Egypt and that worked out fine. No wars with Egypt since the peace treaty last i checked.



I said yes, they should negotiate a peace deal. You are being rather obtuse about things. Also, as I said before the peace deal was on the table for 10 years.

Again, its good to know where certain people stand.

The peace deal with Egypt did not involve handing over such a vitally important strategic location as the Golan Heights! !!!!!!!! And your point about the deal being on the table for 10 years actually makes my point, within 10 years hindsight has proven that Israel was correct in not handing over the Golan Heights, complete radicals could be in power in Syria in short time creating a disaster for Israel! Do you not agree with the benefit of hindsight Israel was correct in thinking that relinquishing the Golan Heights would be to risky to enable the peace plan?

wes

gallag wrote: »

The peace deal with Egypt did not involve handing over such a vitally important strategic location as the Golan Heights! !!!!!!!!

Yes, yes, I have heard the extremist excuse against peace several times already. Once again, the Golan stop being strategic, when there is a peace deal.

gallag wrote: »

And your point about the deal being on the table for 10 years actually makes my point, within 10 years hindsight has proven that Israel was correct in not handing over the Golan Heights, complete radicals could be in power in Syria in short time creating a disaster for Israel!

Well, no it actually proves my point of the lack of interest in peace, as the deal is still on the table, and instability will not last forever in Syria.

gallag wrote: »

Do you not agree with the benefit of hindsight Israel was correct in thinking that relinquishing the Golan Heights would be to risky to enable the peace plan?

The peace plan isn't just about the Golan Heights, and secondly rejecting the peace deal was the wrong move. If, some radicals attacked Israel after making a peace deal, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on internationally, so a peace deal would have been the right move. Instead more excuses from those against peace.

Ping Chow Chi

Didn't Israel hand the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt that boarders their country? And Egypt has gone through many turbulent changes resently ... and the peace has remained. The conculsion I would draw from this is that if you hand back captured territory, you can have a lasting peace.

seanaway

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didn't Israel hand the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt that boarders their country? And Egypt has gone through many turbulent changes resently ... and the peace has remained. The conculsion I would draw from this is that if you hand back captured territory, you can have a lasting peace.

Slightly different issues. The Golan heights are a strategic location. WHile the Sinai acted as a buffer it was not as strategically important as the Golan. The Israelis pretty much took Sinai off Egypt as the Egyptian army couldn't run away fast enough form the onslaught.

The Golan was harder to take and offers a point which overlooks Israel.

Syrai has also long been a much more vociferous anti-Israeli voice in the region.

Gringo180

According to the Israeli ambassador to the United States, the IDF deserves the Nobel peace prize for its restraint in Gaza.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-for-unimaginable-restraint/

wes

Gringo180 wrote: »

According to the Israeli ambassador to the United States, the IDF deserves the Nobel peace prize for its restraint in Gaza.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-for-unimaginable-restraint/

I think the Ambassador is engaged in some real life trolling.

Gringo180

wes wrote: »

I think the Ambassador is engaged in some real life trolling.

Its absolutely bonkers, these people are crazy.

seanaway

If you read the entire article much of what he says makes perfect sense to anyone who has seen the effects of a group like Hamas on civilians they are claiming to represent.

-- Hamas is “doing everything to put Palestinian civilians into harm’s way – by ignoring IDF warnings to evacuate, by forcing Palestinians to serve as human shields, and by placing missile batteries next to playgrounds, hospitals and homes,” he said. “And you know why Hamas is doing this? It’s not only because of the evil they represent – and it may not be politically correct, but they are evil. After all, an organization that is capable of producing scores of suicide bombers doesn’t care a whit about Palestinian civilians losing their lives.--

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

If you read the entire article much of what he says makes perfect sense to anyone who has seen the effects of a group like Hamas on civilians they are claiming to represent.

-- Hamas is “doing everything to put Palestinian civilians into harm’s way – by ignoring IDF warnings to evacuate, by forcing Palestinians to serve as human shields, and by placing missile batteries next to playgrounds, hospitals and homes,” he said. “And you know why Hamas is doing this? It’s not only because of the evil they represent – and it may not be politically correct, but they are evil. After all, an organization that is capable of producing scores of suicide bombers doesn’t care a whit about Palestinian civilians losing their lives.--

He also points out that British forces flattened cities in Nazi Germany as a sort of justification to what the IDF are doing in Gaza, now I dont mean to be smart but that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever read (Hitler was on the move trying to occupy other countries). This man is a clown and an apologist of one of the worst atrocities in Gaza and I am quickly coming to the opinion you are too. You continue to defend the indefensible.

seanaway

Gringo180 wrote: »

He also points out that British forces flattened cities in Nazi Germany as a sort of justification to what the IDF are doing in Gaza, now I dont mean to be smart but that is one of the most ridiculous things I ever read (Hitler was on the move trying to occupy other countries). This man is a clown and an apologist of one of the worst atrocities in Gaza and I am quickly coming to the opinion you are too. You continue to defend the indefensible.

No. You are reading into the article what you want. His pooint is that if Israel did bomb they wouldn't be the first to have done it.

His point is they are NOT doing it but providing warnings in multiple ways to civilians to avoid casualties. Of course, Hamas sympathisers like yourself will only ever have a narrow hate filled view and will even find a 'reason' for the following:

The report added that IDF soldiers being treated in Israeli hospitals for injuries sustained when fighting in Gaza said they encountered 13- and 14-year-old Palestinian children running at them wearing explosives-laden suicide-bomber belts.

Hamas must have great love for the children in their midst to send them out like this. Brave booys aren't they? Cowardly scum of the earth every one of them.