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

wes

seanaway wrote: »

All countries have immigration rules. Muslims can live in Israel but...do you think a Jew could emigrate and be allowed citizenship in, let's say Saudi Arabia?

Democracy in Israel.
None in:
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Yemen

Or maybe they should ty applying to Iran? Oops No. Sorry. Sharia law there. oops again... isn't that real theocracy in action?

Your post is the height of hypocrisy and whataboutery. How is Israel's given special treatment to those of the Jewish Religion, not an example of a Religious law? Either its wrong when anyone does it, or its ok for everyone.

FTA69

seanaway wrote: »

All countries have immigration rules. Muslims can live in Israel but...do you think a Jew could emigrate and be allowed citizenship in, let's say Saudi Arabia?

Democracy in Israel.
None in:
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Yemen

Or maybe they should ty applying to Iran? Oops No. Sorry. Sharia law there. oops again... isn't that real theocracy in action?

What nonsense is this? Do you realise that Jews can be found in nearly every Muslim country in the world and that there are Jewish MPs in Iran? Are you familiar with the fact that Jews took refuge in and thrived in the Islamic World for centuries?

seanaway

wes wrote: »

Your post is the height of hypocrisy and whataboutery. How is Israel's given special treatment to those of the Jewish Religion, not an example of a Religious law? Either its wrong when anyone does it, or its ok for everyone.

that's an emotional response. you haven;'t answered teh question posed about Iran etc...

seanaway

FTA69 wrote: »

What nonsense is this? Do you realise that Jews can be found in nearly every Muslim country in the world and that there are Jewish MPs in Iran? Are you familiar with the fact that Jews took refuge in and thrived in the Islamic World for centuries?

Yes I am.

The reply was about Israeli laws on immigration.

seanaway

Nodin wrote: »

Why are you putting all those groups together?

You realise the PLO has effectively been on ceasefire for years now?

Did they not all at one time send people into battle? I don't think the Mr Arafat ever hesitated before sending people to hijack airliners etc...
That's why it's in there.

seanaway

Nodin wrote: »

If you'd be as good as to get back to me on this.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91325039&postcount=390

I'm confused as to why you keep referring to "Jews" in place of the state of Israel, Israelis.

Because it is/was/has been the stated aim of opponents of Israel and the propaganda used agaianst Israel usually avoids the use of teh words Jew/Jewish so that those trying to push Jews into the sea can't be called anti-semitic.

It would put off those who throw their hands up in horror at one side of the atrocities being commited by both sides. Generally, these are people who, though well intentioned, have never spent any real time in a land held holy by three major religions and therefore rely on one sided storytelling to achieve 'understanding' of the reality on the ground.

Dr. Fadhil Jamali, Iraqi Representative to the United Nations, speaking to the Arab League, February 6, 1955:

I asked them (Arab League members) how Palestine was lost. It had been lost for two basic reasons: one, because we deluded ourselves by underestimating the power of our opponent and by thinking that the Jews were not powerful. The highest official in the League said that with 300 soldiers or North African Volunteers we could throw the Jews into the sea. The war started and His Excellency then said that with 3,000 North African Volunteers we could throw them into the sea. The second reason was that we thought that we were strong enough to face the world but the fact was that we did not estimate our own strength correctly. This then was the issue of Palestine. It seemed a trifling thing at the time but we did not know that behind the Jews of Palestine stood World Zionism with its resources in every major country.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

that's an emotional response. you haven;'t answered teh question posed about Iran etc...

A simple statement of fact, and Iran is irrelevant to a thread about Israel and Gaza, and is just a typical attempt to try and change the subject.

Israel is no secular state, the law on Jewish immigration is just one example of that, another is the lack of civil marriage, then there are the constant statement by Israeli politicians that Israel is a "Jewish state", there are also the unequal laws in regards to Palestinians:

Court upholds law banning Palestinian spouses from living in Israel

The entire notion that Iran is this or that is irrelevant to what Israel is doing, its just an attempt to distract and an typical tactic used by those trying to defend Israels atrocities against Palestinians.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

Dr. Fadhil Jamali, Iraqi Representative to the United Nations, speaking to

Ah the history game, 2 can play at that.

Here is a quote from the late 1800s from the father of Zionism:

As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

Another from the 1st Israeli Prime Minister:

Ben-Gurion hailed Lord Peel's recommendations: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... during the days of the First and Second Temples ... an opportunity which we never dared to dream in our wildest imaginings." In August 1937 he told the emergency 20th Zionist Congress, convened in Zurich: "We do not want to dispossess, [but piecemeal] transfer of population [through Jewish purchase and the removal of Arab tenant farmers] occurred previously, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon and in other places ... Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out ... Transfer is what will make possible a comprehensive [Jewish] settlement programme. Thankfully, the Arab people have vast empty areas [in Transjordan and Iraq]. Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale."

It should be noted that Zionism was a European ideology, and the vast majority of Zionists were from Europe, and that there colonial project is no different than the European colonial project in the America's.

So long before a single Zionist arrived in Palestine, the intention from the leaders from the start was always removal of the Palestinians living there. The entire notion that the Palestinians should have accepted a European colonial project at the time is absurd.

seanaway

wes wrote: »

A simple statement of fact, and Iran is irrelevant to a thread about Israel and Gaza, and is just a typical attempt to try and change the subject.

Israel is no secular state, the law on Jewish immigration is just one example of that, another is the lack of civil marriage, then there are the constant statement by Israeli politicians that Israel is a "Jewish state", there are also the unequal laws in regards to Palestinians:

Court upholds law banning Palestinian spouses from living in Israel

The entire notion that Iran is this or that is irrelevant to what Israel is doing, its just an attempt to distract and an typical tactic used by those trying to defend Israels atrocities against Palestinians.

Who said it was secular?
I said democratic.

You can be democratic without being secular.
Ireland did it for years.

As for changing the subject- if it isn't about religion then it's about an Arab-Israeli.

Bringing in other arab states isn't changing the subject therefore. It is giving the wider context to the issues at hand.

If you think it isn't religious however, ask yourself this question.

'Why did Hamas pick Israeli Jews and not Israeli Muslims to kidnap and murder?/

wes

seanaway wrote: »

Who said it was secular?
I said democratic.

You can be democratic without being secular.
Ireland did it for years.

Democracies are not a case of majority rule by one ethnic groups over another. Israel is no democracy either.

seanaway wrote: »

As for changing the subject- if it isn't about religion then it's about an Arab-Israeli.

You were going on about Iran, so yes you were trying to change the subject, a well worn tactic used in these threads.

seanaway wrote: »

Bringing in other arab states isn't changing the subject therefore. It is giving the wider context to the issues at hand.

Iran is not an Arab state, and has 0 involvement in the current conflict in Gaza, so yes its most certainly irrelevant.

seanaway wrote: »

If you think it isn't religious however, ask yourself this question.

'Why did Hamas pick Israeli Jews and not Israeli Muslims to kidnap and murder?/

Hamas didn't kidnap anyone, there is 0 evidence of this, and yet this claim that no proof has yet to be provided, is still being made. So firstly your claim is simply false, as Israel has provided 0 proof of Hamas involvement, and news reports (that Netanyahu gagged the Israeli media from reporting for weeks) suggested that actually Netanyahu, knew they were dead from the get go, and Hamas were not the culprits, and yet he decided to start the most recent conflict for his own political aims.

Also, the 3 settler teenagers (one of whom was a soldier btw, and according to Israel, if they were Palestinians they would consider them valid targets it should be noted) were likely kidnapped and murdered as revenge, due to being from the Hebron settlement, who regularly attack Palestinians.

So, your entire premise completely flawed, as its lacks any basis in the currently available facts.

RiteofPassage

Jews believe the bible.

Bible tells them their God'd chosen people and future world leaders. (maybe true)

Do the math- hence the reason for apartheid state.

seanaway

WES:Ah the history game, 2 can play at that.

Far too serious a topic for a game. I was not quoting history to score points. I was answering a question posted about why i mentioned 'Jewish state' instead of 'Israeli State'.


WES:Democracies are not a case of majority rule by one ethnic groups over another. Israel is no democracy either.

Eh. I think you'll find that the point of democracy is that it;s 'majority rule'.
At least in Israel there is a mandate from people to politicians - in free and fair elections. That is , like it or not, an exercise in real democracy. Whether on likes the outcome or not is neither here nor there.

I agree Iran is not an Arab state and has no place in Israeli affairs. A pity some of the nutty fundamentalists who receive training there wouldn't tell them so.

RiteofPassage

Israeli elections are not really democracy. its set up as a Jewish majority state.

Imagine if protestants were allowed to take measures that ensured that they maintained 60% population in Northern Ireland. There would be murder.

A big reason for de-escalation of conflict in North is equality and secularism.

Its definitely a happier place now.

seanaway

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Israeli elections are not really democracy. its set up as a Jewish majority state.

Imagine if protestants were allowed to take measures that ensured that they maintained 60% population in Northern Ireland. There would be murder.

A big reason for de-escalation of conflict in North is equality and secularism.

Its definitely a happier place now.

So by that reasoning Palestine (de facto state/ Gaza-West BAnk)is not democratic either - right?

RiteofPassage

seanaway wrote: »

So by that reasoning Palestine is not democratic either - right?

Palestine never existed in the past or present. So it is neither a democracy or anything else.

it was never, and will never be an independent state in my opinion.

seanaway

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Palestine never existed in the past or present. So it is neither a democracy or anything else.

it was never, and will never be an independent state in my opinion.

So in other words all this Hamas stuff is aboout wnating a state that never actally existed then - whereas Israel has.

Maybe someone should tell them to stop inventing this Palestinian homeland then and just live in peace within the state of Israel - just as many other arabs do.

RiteofPassage

If I was Israeli, I wouldn't be using an Arab state as a benchmark on how to run my democracy.

The Palestinians obviously cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery. There is a full blown invasion of their territory and they are not offering any resistance. I doubt they are capable at all, of running a democracy, or anything else for that matter.

seanaway

RiteofPassage wrote: »

If I was Israeli, I wouldn't be using an Arab state as a benchmark on how to run my democracy.

The Palestinians obviously cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery. There is a full blown invasion of their territory and they are not offering any resistance. I doubt they are capable at all, of running a democracy, or anything else for that matter.

We agree on that then. So why not just let the Israelis run things for them? A fact is this.

Israelis want peace. They signed a deal with Egypt and not a shot fired between them since.

I met hundreds of Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians in my time over there. One thing the young Israeli soldiers said to me over and over was all they wanted was to be young. No conscription. No shooting. No suicide bombings. and so on.

Are there fundamentalists on both sides who would not concur with these sentiments ? Absolutely.

The one thing that has been proven is that when Israel is left alone - it leaves others alone.

The same cannot be said of the hostile countries surrounding it.

It was Hamas who rejected the recent peace moves not Israel.

Hamas does not want peace - it wants power.

As I have said in other posts.

There are many well meaning people out there who are being used by Hamas.

What they are doing is dangerous. To legitimise a fundamentalist group will not serve the Palestinians who will have to live with them. Quite the opposite. Look at those who have escaped ISIS and what they have to say.
Look at the Taliban - welcomed by those who thought they were liberators.

If history has taught us anything it is that those who allow themselves to be placated and succumb to fundamentalist thinking in any guise are like those who feed the crocodile hoping it will eat them last.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

Far too serious a topic for a game. I was not quoting history to score points. I was answering a question posted about why i mentioned 'Jewish state' instead of 'Israeli State'.

Apologies, I misunderstood.

seanaway wrote: »

Eh. I think you'll find that the point of democracy is that it;s 'majority rule'.

I would disagree, democracy is suppose to represent everyone, and not just the majority. Giving preferential treatment to one group over another is not something a democracy does.

seanaway wrote: »

At least in Israel there is a mandate from people to politicians - in free and fair elections. That is , like it or not, an exercise in real democracy. Whether on likes the outcome or not is neither here nor there.

It not about whether I like the outcome. Its about Israel claiming on the one hand to be a Jewish state and on the other a democracy. A real democracy does not give preferential treatment to one ethnic group. Israel can't have it both ways, either there one or the other.

Then, there is the occupied territories, which is just further proof of why Israel is not a democracy.

seanaway

wes wrote: »

Apologies, I misunderstood.

Apology accepted. Hard to keep on top with so many posts:)

I would disagree, democracy is suppose to represent everyone, and not just the majority. Giving preferential treatment to one group over another is not something a democracy does.

A democracy can represent everyone without having to see to it that everyone gets exactly the same treatment. It is based on majority rule.
Example: In Sweden alcohol can only be sold by state run shops (except weak piss water beer).
One chap decided to challenge this and sold wine in hs shop in the wilder part of the country as the nearest state shop was far away.

The state won their case that it was about people's health.
This despite the fact that many Swedes think it is a dumb system.

They can't have their way though because the majority still vote for politicians who uphold the health belief.


It not about whether I like the outcome. Its about Israel claiming on the one hand to be a Jewish state and on the other a democracy. A real democracy does not give preferential treatment to one ethnic group. Israel can't have it both ways, either there one or the other.

Then, there is the occupied territories, which is just further proof of why Israel is not a democracy.

Occupied territories such as the Golan Heights are occupied to protect Israel. They would never have been occupied had Israel not been subjected to unprovoked invasion.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

Israelis want peace. They signed a deal with Egypt and not a shot fired between them since.

That is an interesting claim to make.

There are several problems with your claim. Firstly, since 2002 a comprehensive peace deal from the Arab League has been offer, and which Israel has ignored for over a decade. The offer is still on the table btw.

Secondly, the most recent peace talks fell apart, after Israel went back on agreements they made with the PA, during the talks.

Thirdly, illegal settlements have been growing non-stop since 1967, there are now over half million settlers on occupied Palestinian land.

So, based on the most recent behavior, I would suggest that your statement is simple untrue.

seanaway wrote: »

I met hundreds of Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians in my time over there. One thing the young Israeli soldiers said to me over and over was all they wanted was to be young. No conscription. No shooting. No suicide bombings. and so on.

Well occupations have a cost, and that cost, tends to be retaliation, by the people being occupied.

I would say that the Palestinians the victims of the occupation are in a far worse state than the average Israeli, by any observable measure, and we get confirmation of effect of the Israels occupation and colonial project via the like of the World Bank, as well as many other International organizations.

seanaway wrote: »

The one thing that has been proven is that when Israel is left alone - it leaves others alone.

Over half a million settlers in illegal settlers, prove you wrong, I am afraid.

seanaway wrote: »

The same cannot be said of the hostile countries surrounding it.

The Arab peace plan from 2002, which is still on the table (ignored by Israel for over a decade and counting), tells another story.

seanaway wrote: »

It was Hamas who rejected the recent peace moves not Israel.

Hamas does not want peace - it wants power.

The most recent peace talks, fell apart due to Israel going back on there word.

If you talking about the most recent, cease fire, I agree Hamas should have accepted it to end the madness.

However, there is one major problem with the ceasefire, in that no one told them about it, they heard about it in the media. It seem pretty clear to me that the whole ceasefire was setup to fail, as the Egyptian military Junta hate Hamas, as Hamas were friendly with the previous democratically elected government.

seanaway wrote: »

As I have said in other posts.

There are many well meaning people out there who are being used by Hamas.

What they are doing is dangerous. To legitimise a fundamentalist group will not serve the Palestinians who will have to live with them. Quite the opposite. Look at those who have escaped ISIS and what they have to say.
Look at the Taliban - welcomed by those who thought they were liberators.

If history has taught us anything it is that those who allow themselves to be placated and succumb to fundamentalist thinking in any guise are like those who feed the crocodile hoping it will eat them last.

Hamas while an awful bunch of idiots, are not ISIS or the Taliban. Hamas exist due to the Israeli occupation and settlement project, without either of those, they would be a few angry people, who everyone would ignore.

wes

seanaway wrote: »

Occupied territories such as the Golan Heights are occupied to protect Israel. They would never have been occupied had Israel not been subjected to unprovoked invasion.

The 1967 conflict was launched by Israel..... So what unprovoked invasion do you speak of?

Also, interesting how you ignore the Arab peace plan from 2002 (still on the table), which would give a full peace with the entire Arab league, and yet oddly Israel has chosen there settlements over peace. Surely a comprehensive peace, with the entire Arab League, would ensure peace, as opposed to holding on to land that doesn't belong to them?

As for the rest of you reply, its hard to read being part of my quote, which you did in error. However, your example is not comparable. Equal rights for people, is part of democracy, as long as Israel give preferential treatment to one ethnic groups over another, they are not a democracy.

wes

Some news from the Guardian:

According to military analyst Alex Fishman, writing in Yedioth Ahronoth: "The tanks, which serve as the heart of the assault force, received an order to open fire at anything that moved. The area and the targets are due to be seized by the morning hours. From here on, [the army] will start to clear the ground, in what could last for several days, depending on political developments."

Look forward to the condemnations of Israeli terrorism. I think its clear at this point, there is 0 difference between the tactics of Israel and Hamas, as both are being indiscriminate, and yet Israel gets away with it.

Once again extremists in Israeli celebrating the assault on Gaza:
Israelis cheer and celebrate as missiles hit Gaza, live on CNN

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The 1967 conflict was launched by Israel..... So what unprovoked invasion do you speak of?

Syria had been shelling Galilee area for years before 1967. War was going to happen anyway, it was just a matter of when not if and Israel initiating it was the only way they could see of winning, the cost of losing for Israel would have been their existence.

SeaBreezes

seanaway wrote: »

We agree on that then. So why not just let the Israelis run things for them? A fact is this.

Israelis want peace. They signed a deal with Egypt and not a shot fired between them since.

I met hundreds of Israelis and Arabs/Palestinians in my time over there. One thing the young Israeli soldiers said to me over and over was all they wanted was to be young. No conscription. No shooting. No suicide bombings. and so on.

Are there fundamentalists on both sides who would not concur with these sentiments ? Absolutely.

>>>The one thing that has been proven is that when Israel is left alone - it leaves others alone.

The same cannot be said of the hostile countries surrounding it.

It was Hamas who rejected the recent peace moves not Israel.

Hamas does not want peace - it wants power.

As I have said in other posts.

There are many well meaning people out there who are being used by Hamas.

What they are doing is dangerous. To legitimise a fundamentalist group will not serve the Palestinians who will have to live with them. Quite the opposite. Look at those who have escaped ISIS and what they have to say.
Look at the Taliban - welcomed by those who thought they were liberators.

If history has taught us anything it is that those who allow themselves to be placated and succumb to fundamentalist thinking in any guise are like those who feed the crocodile hoping it will eat them last.

Im not so sure on that one:
From the website irishcentral.com story on the Rachel Corrie the ship sent to try and get past the Israel Blockade (and remember this was during 'peace' times with Hamas:

"The Rachel Corrie was abandoned in the town of Dundalk, near the Irish border by its owners after it was discovered they had not paid the crew, all from Lithuania. Free Gaza activists bought the ship for $100,000.
Organizers say that on May Day weekend, a mini convoy of vans loaded with medical supplies from eight different cities in Ireland and England will be delivering and loading these supplies on the ship.
People in Norway have donated more than 6 tons of paper and school supplies with a goal of 25 tons to be loaded as cargo.

Israel refuses to allow paper and supplies in for the children."


From the website of globalpolicy.org:

"Since the war of 1967, Palestinians have come to accept the reality of Israel within the 1948 boundaries. The land dispute has increasingly focused on Israel's occupation of the remaining territories -- the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 stipulate that Israel must withdraw completely from these territories. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip on 12 September 2005, but continues to build many Jewish settlements in the other territories, actions deemed illegal by virtually all other states. The Oslo Accords (1993) and the Road Map (2003) have failed to reach a land agreement between the parties or to bring Israeli withdrawal.
Since 2002, the Israeli government has been building a "security fence" that winds deep into Palestinian territory, claiming the barrier would keep Palestinian suicide bombers from striking Israeli citizens. But this separation wall is a major de facto annexation of Palestinian territories. By building the wall and increasing settlement expansion, Israel retains control over important Palestinian economic areas, agricultural grounds and natural resources like water. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's West Bank barrier violates international law, but the unequal struggle over the land of Palestine continues."

And what happened to the ACTUAL person Rachel Corrie? Bulldozed to death. Because she was in the way.

Is that what you mean by 'leaving others alone'?

Dont get me wrong, I WANT peace for Israel, and I want the bombs on both sides to stop.
But for peace, you need dignity and quality of life on both sides.

A gradual starvation (blockade wont allow childrens supplies??) , dispossession, continued expansion into the west bank and forcibly removing Palestinian farmers from the lands they have worked for generations, to give them to settlers, is illegal and immoral.

This current policy of genocide of millions of people is evil and it is wrong and it is never going to bring peace. All it will bring is more extremism.

Seriously, have you watched Occupation101? Its on youtube and its fact.
You should watch it, Id be interested in your opinion.

golfball37

Until Israel stop the land grab and dispossession of families in the West Bank they'll never have any moral high ground, even over heathens like Hamas.

How many million indigineous refugees have been created since 1967 I wonder? This is wrong plain and simple and fighting back against this is an imperative for any Palestinian same as it was for a paddy 100 years ago.

Israel deserves to exist as they won the 1967 war fair and square, they should have respected the border drawn by that war though. They are out of Gaza now but should have done so 40 years earlier. They need to stop the ethnic cleansing in the West bank before any Western democracy takes them serious as an equal.

Nodin

SeaBreezes wrote: »

And yet, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:

..............

Israel is not a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Please stop being silly.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Syria had been shelling Galilee area for years before 1967. War was going to happen anyway, it was just a matter of when not if and Israel initiating it was the only way they could see of winning, the cost of losing for Israel would have been their existence.

There was most certainly was fighting on both sides at that point in time. The fact remains, Israel was not invaded unprovoked. Both sides engaged in regular provocation.

As for the war was going to happen, I would disagree, for example a large chunk of Egyptian forces were engaged elsewhere in the Middle East at the time, so I disagree, that there was some sort of conflict that had to happen.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

Did they not all at one time send people into battle? I don't think the Mr Arafat ever hesitated before sending people to hijack airliners etc...
That's why it's in there.

They have nothing to do with each other.

Arafat is dead. The PLO have been on effective ceasefire for years now.

Reading your posts, one would never know the settlements existed.

RiteofPassage

Nodin wrote: »

Israel is not a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Please stop being silly.

WHy are people (particularly israeli supporters) obsessed with Iran.

Oh yeah cause its Persia, Israel is a theocracy in my opinion.

Established due to a religious scripture for Jewish people. Takes name from bible.

Its whole raison d'etre is religious

wes

RiteofPassage wrote: »

WHy are people (particularly israeli supporters) obsessed with Iran.

Oh yeah cause its Persia, Israel is a theocracy in my opinion.

Established due to a religious scripture for Jewish people. Takes name from bible.

Its whole raison d'etre is religious

A theocracy, is a state that is ruled by the priesthood. In the case of Iran, it is ruled by there Imams, who are a Priestly caste similar to a Catholic priest.

Now a country like Israel that has Religious laws, but is not run by there Priesthood (Rabbi's in the case of Israel) is not a theocracy. Now Israel is not a secular state either, but its not a theocracy. Pakistan would be a state with Religious laws, but not run by a Priesthood.

Nodin

RiteofPassage wrote: »

WHy are people (particularly israeli supporters) obsessed with Iran.

You'd have to ask them.

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Oh yeah cause its Persia, Israel is a theocracy in my opinion.

..............

There is an objective definition of a theocracy, and I'm afraid it does not occur with your opinion.

seanaway

wes wrote: »

The 1967 conflict was launched by Israel..... So what unprovoked invasion do you speak of?

Also, interesting how you ignore the Arab peace plan from 2002 (still on the table), which would give a full peace with the entire Arab league, and yet oddly Israel has chosen there settlements over peace. Surely a comprehensive peace, with the entire Arab League, would ensure peace, as opposed to holding on to land that doesn't belong to them?

As for the rest of you reply, its hard to read being part of my quote, which you did in error. However, your example is not comparable. Equal rights for people, is part of democracy, as long as Israel give preferential treatment to one ethnic groups over another, they are not a democracy.

You are correct. Israel 'launched' the first strike of the 1967 war. It did not however start it. There is a difference. Israel made a pre-emptive strike to ensure it wasn't wiped from the map as Arab forces were massed and ready to invade.
Who would not have done the same thing?

It's a little like saying France and Britain started the 2nd world war because they issued a declaration of war on Germany for invading Poland.


You are well informed and obviously speak from the heart WES but do not let propaganda blur the facts. Hamas hold the key to peace in all this. They do not want peace. They prefer war. They know Israel can never afford to be seen as weak or unprepared to strike when struck. They use this to their advantage and the disadvantage of normal peaceful Palestinians.

For the record. I would love nothing more than for Israel and Palestinians to live side by side in peace. One day it may happen but never while there are fundamentalists who wish the total destruction of Israel.

RE: The Arab Peace idea

After a meeting between the Israeli and Jordanian foreign ministers:

In other words: the two foreign ministers said they had good and constructive talks, and would take them back to the Arab League — “and were never heard of again,” the Israeli official said. “We did try to reach out to the Arab League, but they disappeared. We did it openly and publicly, but it did not help moderate Hamas, whose extremism and striving for power and violence is still there.” Later that summer, Hamas took over Gaza in a bloody coup. The rest is history: the Palestinian Authority fails to accept Olmert’s 2008 offer for a Palestinian state, two wars with Hamas in Gaza, a stalled peace process.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

You are correct.(.................)two wars with Hamas in Gaza, a stalled peace process.

One could swear Hamas was the one colonising Israel.

Gringo180

Reports that Israeli's are now using an unfamiliar toxic gas in Gaza, if true how can the world stand by and let this go on :(

I'll be taking that one with a pinch of salt tbh.

Gringo180

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll be taking that one with a pinch of salt tbh.

They have previous for it.

Links? Not sure how they can have previous for something new. :P

Gringo180

Deleted User wrote: »

Links? Not sure how they can have previous for something new. :P

They used white phospurus in Gaza a few years back.

seanaway

Gringo180 wrote: »

They used white phospurus in Gaza a few years back.

It's a horrible weapon.

However, I think it important that how it was used be cleared up.

Israel used white phos as part of shells to creat smokescreens not as a weapon in their own right.

Last year the IDF said it would stop its use.

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

It's a horrible weapon.

However, I think it important that how it was used be cleared up.

Israel used white phos as part of shells to creat smokescreens not as a weapon in their own right.

Last year the IDF said it would stop its use.

Doesn't condone it in the slightest. People died horrific deaths, literally been cooked from the inside out by the use of it. Its one of many war crimes Israel have committed.

WakeUp

seanaway wrote: »

It's a horrible weapon.

However, I think it important that how it was used be cleared up.

Israel used white phos as part of shells to creat smokescreens not as a weapon in their own right.

Last year the IDF said it would stop its use.

That's a really watery attempt at justifying the use of that weapon , a particularly cruel and nasty weapon. a Phuckin smokescreen. pathetic.

Gringo180

WakeUp wrote: »

That's a really watery attempt at justifying the use of that weapon , a particularly cruel and nasty weapon. a Phuckin smokescreen. pathetic.

Sickening to be honest.

SeaBreezes

seanaway wrote: »

It's a horrible weapon.

However, I think it important that how it was used be cleared up.

Israel used white phos as part of shells to creat smokescreens not as a weapon in their own right.

Last year the IDF said it would stop its use.

Didnt know what white phosphorous was, so looked it up.. found this on Wikipedia:

Gaza War (2008–2009)[edit]


An Israeli white phosphorous round explodes over a Gaza residential area. 11 January 2009
In its early statements the Israeli military repeatedly denied using white phosphorus, saying "We categorically deny the use of white phosphorus", and "The IDF acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus." It eventually admitted its use and stopped using the shells, however, saying that a "media buzz" led to its decision to do so.[29]

Numerous reports from human right groups during the war indicated that white phosphorus shells were being used by Israel in populated areas.[30][31][32]

Human Rights Watch said shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded Palestinian refugee camp[33] and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge.[34] Additionally, Human Rights Watch said that white phosphorus injuries were suspected in the cases of ten burn victims.[35] The International Red Cross stated that phosphorus weapons had been used in the conflict but would not comment publicly on the legality of Israel’s use of the weapon, pending further investigation, contrary to what had been attributed to the ICRC in a number of media reports.[35][36][37]

Human Rights Watch said its experts in the region had witnessed the use of white phosphorus. Kenneth Roth, the organisation's executive director, added: "This is a chemical compound that burns structures and burns people. It should not be used in populated areas."[38]

Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found "indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus" in crowded civilian residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.[39] Donatella Rovera, the head of an Amnesty fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, said: "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes."[40]

On 5 January the Times reported that telltale smoke associated with white phosphorus had been seen in areas of a shelling. On 12 January it was reported that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims were in Nasser Hospital. On 16 January the UNRWA headquarters was hit with phosphorus munitions.[41] As a result of the hit, the compound was set ablaze.[42]

Many other observers, including Human Rights Watch military experts, reported seeing white phosphorus air bursts over Gaza City and the Jabalya refugee camp.[43] The BBC published a photograph of two shells exploding over a densely populated area on 11 January.[44]

Since Protocol III, of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons regulates Incendiary Weapons, and shells containing White Phosphorus,may be legal even in populated areas, more information is required to determine the legality of any shell landing in populated areas.[45]

The IDF stated on 13 January that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."[46]

On 14 January, Israeli news sources Haaretz and Ynetnews reported that a mortar shell containing white phosphorus was fired from Gaza and exploded without damage or injury in an open space in the Eshkol area.[33][47] The official foreign press spokesman for the Israeli Police, Micky Rosenfeld, stated that the shell had landed in a field near Sderot.[48][49] A day after the attack, a researcher for Human Rights Watch travelled to Sderot to investigate the claim. One resident said he had heard about a mortar shell, possibly with white phosphorus, landing in a field outside of town but could not specify where. When pressed for information, Rosenfeld could give no further insight, telling Human Rights Watch that "all I have is what's in the press release." Local authorities in Sderot also told the researcher that they were unaware of the attack.[49]

On 15 January, the United Nations compound, housing numerous refugees in Gaza City, was struck by Israeli white phosphorus artillery shells, setting fire to pallets of relief materials and igniting several large fuel storage tanks. A UN spokesperson indicated that there were difficulties in attempting to extinguish the fires because of the white phosphorus and stated "You can’t put it [white phosphorus] out with traditional methods such as fire extinguishers. You need sand but we do not have any sand in the compound."[50][51] Senior Israeli defense officials maintain that the shelling using white phosphorus munitions was in response to Israeli military personnel being fired upon by Hamas fighters who were in proximity to the UN headquarters, and was used for smoke.[52] The Israeli army investigated improper use of WP in the conflict, particularly in one incident in which 20 WP shells were fired in a built-up area of Beit Lahiya.[53]

On 17 January, Peter Herby, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross Arms Unit , confirmed the use of white phosphorus weapons by Israel in Gaza, outlined the rules applicable to phosphorus weapons and explained the ICRC's approach to the issue.[54]

On 20 January, Paul Wood of the BBC reports from Gaza on white phosphorus use in civilian areas. Amnesty team weapon expert Christopher Cobb-Smith, who witnessed the shelling by the IDF during the conflict, reported "we saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army."[55]

On 26 January, after weeks of fighting in which Israel either strenuously denied it was using white phosphorus weaponry, or insisted any use was "in line with international law", the nation's Ministry of Defence admitted using white phosphorus in densely populated Gaza.[56][57][58]

On 25 March 2009, USA Based Human Rights Organization Human Rights Watch published a 71-page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.[59]

White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire – but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks. [59]

The Israeli government released a report in July 2009 that confirmed that the IDF used white phosphorus in both exploding munitions and smoke projectiles. The report acknowledged the use of exploding munitions by Israeli ground and naval forces. The report argues that the use of these munitions was limited to unpopulated areas for marking and signaling and not as an anti-personnel weapon.[60] The Israeli government report further stated that smoke screening projectiles were the majority of the munitions containing white phosphorus employed by the IDF and that these were very effective in that role. The report states that at no time did IDF forces have the objective of inflicting any harm on the civilian population.[60]

Head of the UN Fact Finding Mission Justice Richard Goldstone presented the report of the Mission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 29 September 2009, urging the Council and the international community as a whole to put an end to impunity for violations of international law in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.[61] The Goldstone report accepted that white phosphorus is not illegal under international law but did find that the Israelis were "systematically reckless in determining its use in build-up areas". It also called for serious consideration to be given to the banning of its use as an obscurant.[62]

Human Rights Watch claimed in its report that instead of white phosphorus, the Israeli military had a non-lethal alternative at its disposal- smoke shells produced by Israel Military Industries.

In 2010, Anchel Pfeffer of Haaretz claimed that the Israeli report to the UN included a section discussing two senior Israeli officers who were responsible for firing white phosphorus artillery shells on a United Nations compound and were reprimanded earlier that year.[63] This was later disproved. The officers were reprimanded for permitting artillery shot in that same combat, and Israel continued to claim that its use of phosphorus in that combat was only for smoke.[64]

seanaway

Think everyone should read the first line of what I wrote.

No condoning or anything near it.

Seems pm Friday brings out the reactive crowd. Pity. This discussion was going reasonably well until now.

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

Think everyone should read the first line of what I wrote.

No condoning or anything near it.

Seems pm Friday brings out the reactive crowd. Pity. This discussion was going reasonably well until now.

seanaway wrote: »

It's a horrible weapon.

However, I think it important that how it was used be cleared up.

Israel used white phos as part of shells to creat smokescreens not as a weapon in their own right.

Last year the IDF said it would stop its use.

Why the use of the bolded word if your not condoning its use?

WakeUp

seanaway wrote: »

Think everyone should read the first line of what I wrote.

No condoning or anything near it.

Seems pm Friday brings out the reactive crowd. Pity. This discussion was going reasonably well until now.

No you were just making excuses for it being used you thought it "important" to tell us how and why the war crime was carried out. but it's cool they won't use it again . A shell that's really a smoke bomb and the smoke isn't really smoke no it's whitephosphorus. sure.

seanaway

Gringo180 wrote: »

They used white phospurus in Gaza a few years back.

Gringo180 wrote: »

Why the use of the bolded word if your not condoning its use?

Someone else may have used my words in bold but I certainly didn't.

Maybe you bolded them by accident ?

WakeUp

seanaway wrote: »

Someone else may have used my words in bold but I certainly didn't.

Maybe you bolded them by accident ?

Why is it "important" how a war crime is carried out. why is that important to you?

seanaway

WakeUp wrote: »

Why is it "important" how a war crime is carried out. why is that important to you?

Wake up. Why are you not answering yourself?

You claimed I used the word 'however' in bold. I didn't.

Now that you can't use that you look for some other imaginary 'fact' you read into my words.

I say again. I didn't use 'however' in bold.
Do you accept that simple statement?

I understand you are angry and you have every right to be. I don't argue against your anger.

However, if we are to discuss tehn it needs to be on mutual respect.

If not, we simply replicate the msitakes being made by those in the conflict.

Do you not agree?