Morch

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28559537

No warning. Israel fires rocket at UN refugee school killing Children because they believed there were" Mortar rockets in the vicinity" Ahh  I see. So it's tough luck to babies and infants if they are nearby? A shame on humanity . The last word doesn't include a certain zionist state .

And in other news...

 

U.N. says more rockets found at one of its Gaza schools

 

 

GAZA, July 29 (Reuters) - The United Nations agency that looks after Palestinian refugees said on Tuesday it had found a cache of rockets at one of its schools in the Gaza Strip and deplored those who had put them there.

 

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) spokesman Chris Gunness condemned those responsible for placing civilians in harm's way by storing the rockets at the school but he did not specifically blame any particular party.

 

"We condemn the group or groups who endangered civilians by placing these munitions in our school. This is yet another flagrant violation of the neutrality of our premises. We call on all the warring parties to respect the inviolability of U.N. property," Gunness said in a statement.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0Q45TO20140729
 

 

 

I beg to differ.

Nonsense. You can "differ" all you want. It is there in black and white. There were many rockets before the dates that you have picked out of nowhere and many afterwards. The rockets never "stopped".

 

 

 

 

I think you will find that the peaks on your charts in 2008 and 2012 occurred during  Israel's previous invasions of Gaza, and were a response, not a cause. 

 

I'm sure there must be an equivalent bar chart of assassinated Palestinians which prompt the frustrated rocket fire.

 

Try this one http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4756436/IP_conflict_deaths_total.png

 

 

Assassinated, for real? Even the link you provided does not use this term.

Then again, it seems to ignore certain death (such as the killings associated with Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip).

 

 

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now.

As you have been told - and shown - repeatedly, the response was to numerous rocket attacks over many months and years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014

 

 

I beg to differ. One man's showing is another man's obfuscation.

 

You fail to mention the numerous IDF killings and assassinations over many months and years, which may account for numerous rockets fired in frustration at Israel. 

 

If you follow your own link you will find 2 rockets fired in early June, one on 1st one on 14th, which is exactly what I said. If this current invasion (with over 1200 Palestinian and 53 Israeli soldiers dead) was all about Israel wanting to Stop the Rockets, they had more or less already achieved that on June 12 when the teens were kidnapped. 

 

I agree that there are often complex reasons behind a conflict starting. There had also been recent targeted killings of Palestinians by IDF in May and June, and the cold blooded murder of 2 Palestinian teens in Beitunia on May 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitunia_killings

 

But the incident that lit the blue touch paper was the kidnapping of the 3 teens, and Netanyahu's claim on 15th June "Hamas is responsible".

 

So while agreeing that conflicts are started by complex reasons, the only things cited are specific violent incidents.

The underlying conditions which led to the current hostilities were detailed in quite a few posts all over these topics,

continuing to treat them as secondary to one specific incident or another hints at either a very simplified view of the

situation or at some inherent bias.

 

There are millions of Jews in Israel. The vast majority were born there. They aren't going anywhere.

 

 

The state of Israel was created in 1948. Sixty-six years ago.

 

Sixty, seventy, eighty, one hundred, two hundred, years is just a drop in the bucket.  More than a few nations have come and gone in that period of time.  And I'm sure everyone of the people living there didn't think they were "going anywhere".  But in the end, they did go somewhere:  to the scrapheap of history.

 

By this logic it could apply to the Palestinians as well...

That long term historical processes may change national boundaries, and even the existence of societies and civilizations is a given. Doubt most nations and leaders plan this far, though.
 

If ever proof was needed that Israel uses the USA. Dont be so naive. The State has no intention of talking about giving up land. "We stole it and we are the law in this region" Says the "democratic" terrorist state"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/28/john-kerry-and-white-house-fire-back-at-scathing-criticism-of-failed-u-s-ceasefire-plan/

Welcome to TVF.

The link provided does not include bogus quote alluded - could you possibly provide a clear reference?
 

 

 

 

The conventional thinking on these issues is that there are two approaches to a problem like this:
 
1.   Military
2.   Political
 
In the case of Hamas the military solution is to closely related to the political solution.   

I don't get what you are saying.
Currently, Hamas is losing the war, but israel is losing the propaganda battle, and where the people go, western politicians must eventually follow.
 

I am not 100% sure of what I am saying either, but if the Israeli politicians decide to stop fighting they can tell the Israeli military to stop and they will.   In Hamas I am not sure who controls the militant wing and who is responsible for any political settlement.   The power structure seems a little nebulous with Hamas.   

I'm not sure Netanyahu will agree to a ceasefire, 86.5% of Israelis want to finish off Hamas, so he either follows overwhelming public opinion or he believes yet another guarantee from Kerry and the moving red line. I could be wrong, but I believe Hamas have gone too far now and they will now be dismantled, which contrary to widely held belief would IMHO be a good thing for the Palestinians in the long run.

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/07/27/israel-vs-hamas-ready-not/




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

 

Playing the public sentiment is easy.  What happens a day after Hamas is "finished off"? Who takes over?

Israel - is not really interested in re-occupation of the Gaza Strip. Egypt - won't go back there either, even if there was any legal/diplomatic way this could be a reality.  The PA - could, but would they risk being seen as collaborators with Israel?

Alternative local leadership - not aware of any viable one that is not a much worse option than Hamas. International force - not necessarily accepted by all sides, dubious chances when it comes to security issues.

 

 

The conventional thinking on these issues is that there are two approaches to a problem like this:

 

1.   Military

2.   Political

 

In the case of Hamas the military solution is to closely related to the political solution.   

I don't get what you are saying.

Currently, Hamas is losing the war, but israel is losing the propaganda battle, and where the people go, western politicians must eventually follow.

 

I am not 100% sure of what I am saying either, but if the Israeli politicians decide to stop fighting they can tell the Israeli military to stop and they will.   In Hamas I am not sure who controls the militant wing and who is responsible for any political settlement.   The power structure seems a little nebulous with Hamas.   

 

There are a few splits in Hamas leadership and control structure - military and political wings, leadership in the Gaza Strip and abroad. The usual way they try to do things is by reaching some sort of consensus between various powers, and until this is reached, things can drag on for quite a while. In theory, the military wing is subordinate (or something pretty similar) to the political wing, but actual control and obedience has to do with identity of individual leaders. The Gaza Strip vs. abroad leadership balance of power is trickier.
 

 

 

Watched interviews today with  both of the devil incarnate, Khaled Mashel and Hanan Ashrawi.

Both spewing out the usual hate messages from their luxurious sanctuaries.

Love the terms 'we' 'us' when referring to carrying on the good fight and how they are getting bombarded.

There is no we or us, they are never in danger, only the women and children they use as human shields at their rocket launching sites.

 

Hanan Ashrawi is actually one of the relatively moderate (or "can be reasoned with", whatever feels right) voices on the Palestinian side. She's also a Christian, and her political allegiance does not lie with Hamas as such. That she represents a general pro-Palestinian stance is expected. As far as I am aware she resides in the West Bank, although she does hop around the world a bit. No need to mix her with Hamas leadership abroad, even when both are interviewed by the same channel. The whole "devil incarnate" thing does do much good either.

 

Like it or not, there is a certain feeling of solidarity between Palestinians. Same thing can be said about Israelis and Jews. Having a sense of solidarity with the people is not quite the same as supporting all the policies and actions of the relevant leadership.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanan_Ashrawi
 

 

 

Hanan Ashrawi is the darling of the camera's and talks up a good game. People fall for her intellect.

She's done so ever since linking up with Arafat in the late 90's, she's not really worth discussing IMO.

 

However, do you happen to have a link to an interview where when asked, she has out rightly condemned suicide bombings as a weapon?

 

Choosing one's enemies is not always a possibility.

Relative to the available selection of Palestinian voices, Ashrawi is hardly as militant as others. That does not make her

a supporter of Israel or anything of the sort, but way better than Hamas and other extremists.

Seeing as you are the one who brought her name into this topic, "she's not really worth discussing IMO" is kinda funny.

Not sure if that will answer the question to your satisfaction, but that the best I can do without playing secretary:

 

The
issue of suicide bombers comes up inevitably. “What about the
suicide bombers? How do you feel about women and children being
blown up? What about the Passover Seder bombing?” How do you
provide some context to these horrible events?
 

The
targeting of civilians is inexcusable and cannot be justified. The
problem is people feel you’re justifying it when you tell them,
“A suicide bomber is not born, he or she is made”—they
emerge from a situation of tremendous injustice, or hopelessness,
or even extreme ideology. We’ve never had a suicidal culture
in Palestine. So this is an aberration. It’s something very
strange and very recent, from the mid-1990s. They started as a reaction
to the 1994 Baruch Goldstein massacre in the Ibrahimi mosque in
Hebron. Then there was the assassination of a couple of leaders
from Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The worse the situation becomes, the
more desperate and hopeless people are, the more extremism gains
sway. Extremism on one side feeds extremism on the other.

http://zcomm.org/zmagazine/an-interview-with-hanan-ashrawi-by-david-barsamian/

Please note that this is a pretty old interview, from 2003 and that I do not think getting into a detailed analysis of her response got much to do with the topic at hand. As someone tasked with expressing the Palestinian point of view, she is bound to present things in a certain manner.
 

 

 

IDF actions in the West Bank directed against Hamas, and developments in negotiations between Israel and the PA. As far as I can recall, there is no clear correlation with Israeli announcements regarding further building and expansion related to them illegal settlements in the West Bank.

 

 

Here is an example of Israeli punitive policy response to Palestinian actions, aligned to settlement expansion, there are others, headline...

Angry over new Palestinian government, Israel to expand settlements.

 

An Israeli politician quoted in the article.

 

"Housing Minister Uri Ariel, a long-time stalwart of the settlement movement, told Israeli media the construction plans were part of Israel’s  “punitive measures” against the Palestinians and an “appropriate Zionist response to the formation of the Palestinian terrorist government.”

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-us-palestinians-settlements-politics-20140605-story.html

 

The original bit quoted from my post:

 

That said, peaks in rocket fire from the Gaza Strip usually coincide with IDF actions in the Gaza Strip, IDF actions in the West Bank directed against Hamas, and developments in negotiations between Israel and the PA. As far as I can recall, there is no clear correlation with Israeli announcements regarding further building and expansion related to them illegal settlements in the West Bank.

I was referring to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip not being consistently correlated with Israeli announcements regarding illegal settlements in the West Bank, while suggesting that the rocket fire usually occurs in connection with other actions related to the IDF and the Israeli government.

No argument that Israeli governments routinely use expansion of illegal settlements as a threat/punitive action when things don't go their way. In my personal opinion, regardless of whether specific Israeli grievances are justified, further expansion of the illegal settlements serves mostly to make things worse (both in the short and the long run). I am not quite sure all of these announcements become a reality, but it does not matter all that much, as they contribute to the bad blood even just by being aired.

 

 

Watched interviews today with  both of the devil incarnate, Khaled Mashel and Hanan Ashrawi.

Both spewing out the usual hate messages from their luxurious sanctuaries.

Love the terms 'we' 'us' when referring to carrying on the good fight and how they are getting bombarded.

There is no we or us, they are never in danger, only the women and children they use as human shields at their rocket launching sites.

 

Hanan Ashrawi is actually one of the relatively moderate (or "can be reasoned with", whatever feels right) voices on the Palestinian side. She's also a Christian, and her political allegiance does not lie with Hamas as such. That she represents a general pro-Palestinian stance is expected. As far as I am aware she resides in the West Bank, although she does hop around the world a bit. No need to mix her with Hamas leadership abroad, even when both are interviewed by the same channel. The whole "devil incarnate" thing does do much good either.

 

Like it or not, there is a certain feeling of solidarity between Palestinians. Same thing can be said about Israelis and Jews. Having a sense of solidarity with the people is not quite the same as supporting all the policies and actions of the relevant leadership.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanan_Ashrawi
 

 

Not all Jews support israel. I saw a very interesting talk by  Peter Slezak on ABC last night when he condemned israel for what it is doing to Gaza.

https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/slezak.

 

Yes, well...sorts of ruins the claim made on a parallel topic that dissent is not allowed among Jews/Zionists/Israelis. There are many critical Jewish voices when it comes to Israeli governments and their policies. That is hardly news. Trying to find voices of dissent and self-criticism on the Palestinian side....somewhat harder.
 

 

 

 

 

There are actually many such organizations.

The are parties dedicated to peace as their main political platform.

The previous president of Israel was a man of peace.

 

 

 

Yes, there are thankfully many Israelis with a conscience, and who have a take on the issues with Palestine based in the idea of peaceful co-existence. Groups such as: Rabbis for peace, B'tselem, Gisha, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

The problem is that right wing zealots dominate the Israeli government. And they got there because the majority of Israelis support them.
 

 

All the organisations you mention are on one side (Israel)....how about the other side? 

Being a 'man of peace' is anathema to the arab thinking.

It is seen as unmanly and dishonourable.

 

 

Well, most of the responsibility for the continuation of the war does rest with the side that has the upper hand - in this case with Israel. People who who are having their land stolen and lack the level of military might to prevent it shouldn't be expected to be the main players in making peace with those doing the stealing. Having said that, there are indeed a few Arab organisations who work to try to promote peace in Palestine, often alongside Jewish organisations. If you do a search, you can find them quite easily. You might like to let us know on TV which ones you find acceptably open-minded.

 

I think that the generalisation you make about Arab men is not supportable. Being a "man of peace" is certainly not easy in Palestine - nor is it in Israel. Israeli peace activists are often subject to harassment and abuse by those who prefer violence as a means of solving differences.

 

I have had the privilege of meeting Palestinian men who are indeed men of peace, and consistently refuse to support violence despite being ill-treated and harmed themselves. One I met briefly a few years ago, and by whose sincerity and integrity I was very impressed, is Dr Mustafa Barghuti. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kamil_Mustafa_Barghuthi). He was recently interviewed on Al Jazeera about the current killings in Gaza, during which interview he expressed his opposition to the rockets fired by Hamas. Or any form of violence.

Also the late Edward Said - another Arab - was reknowned as a Palestinian intellectual who argued for the right to a Jewish homeland - and its peaceful coexistence alongside  a Palestinian state. These men are highly respected in much of the Arab community, even by those who do not share their views. Most generalisations are wrong, and the one you make about Arab men certainly is.
 

 

When you say that Barghuti and Said are highly respected in much of the Arab community - how is this reflected in Palestinian society and political system? As far as I am aware, their views are not widely accepted, even if they are accorded respect (especially true for the late Edward Said).
 

 

 

 

 

There are actually many such organizations.

The are parties dedicated to peace as their main political platform.

The previous president of Israel was a man of peace.

 

 

 

Yes, there are thankfully many Israelis with a conscience, and who have a take on the issues with Palestine based in the idea of peaceful co-existence. Groups such as: Rabbis for peace, B'tselem, Gisha, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

The problem is that right wing zealots dominate the Israeli government. And they got there because the majority of Israelis support them.
 

 

All the organisations you mention are on one side (Israel)....how about the other side? Being a 'man of peace' is anathema to the arab thinking. It is seen as unmanly and dishonourable.

 

 

Arab Peace Initiative (API) supported by OIC that represents 57 Islamic States,  I believe it's still on the table.

 

"In 2009, President Shimon Peres expressed satisfaction at the "u-turn" in the attitudes of Arab states toward peace with Israel as reflected in the Saudi initiative, though he did qualify his comments by saying: "Israel wasn't a partner to the wording of this initiative. Therefore it doesn't have to agree to every word"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

 

In the article below, dated 05/2014, also talks to the API, it's supported by a number of other Arab organisations.

 

A quote from the article:

 

"According to polls conducted in Israel, 75 per cent of the Israeli society was not aware of the initiative"

 

 

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/6329/21/Revisiting-the-Arab-Peace-Initiative.aspx

 

 

 

The Hamas rejected the initial offer (and carried out a mass terror attack to make the point) as well as its later re-endorsement.

Lebanon was (and is) in no position to uphold any serious treaty, the current situation in Syria (which took some pressure to go along with the initiative) precludes getting anything done on that front, and of course, Iraq is a mess.

The offer was on the table, and Israel should probably have gone for it. Even if the initial formulation was not perfect it could have served as setting a precedent for direct negotiations between most sides involved. An opportunity missed.

Technically still on the table, although not quite sure what real meaning does it carry under current regional conditions.

The quote regarding Israelis being unaware of the initiative is not sourced, as far as I could tell, so no idea which poll is referred to. In Israeli media it is usually termed the Saudi Initiative.
 

 

 

This is just an example that not all Israelis are bloodthirsty warmongerers. There is at least one organisation in Israel (can't remember the name) that seeks peace and opposes the oppression of the Palestinians.

 

It's the Netanyahus, Sharons & their right-wing supporters who are the ones responsible for numerous atrocities against the Palestinians, not only in Palestine too.

 

There are actually many such organizations.

The are parties dedicated to peace as their main political platform.

The previous president of Israel was a man of peace.

 

 

 

Yes, there are thankfully many Israelis with a conscience, and who have a take on the issues with Palestine based in the idea of peaceful co-existence. Groups such as: Rabbis for peace, B'tselem, Gisha, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

The problem is that right wing zealots dominate the Israeli government. And they got there because the majority of Israelis support them.
 

 

As the rest of my quoted post stated:

 

It does not make everyone serving in the IDF a right wing supporter, or even a bloodthirsty warmongers.

Many of those that serve in the IDF, still vote for left wing and pro-peace parties.

Reality a bit more complicated than black and white formulations.

Not every politician on the right wing is a zealot, even.  The current Israeli government is a coalition government, not all the parties are right wing, even.

A lot of Israelis support right wing parties because they do not see the left wing as offering anything tangent. The left wing (or peace camp) stance is being made a hard sale also due to the Palestinian side's actions (especially the Hamas).
 

 

 

 

This is just the tip of what most Jews know and think, but the voice of the Jewish majority are silenced by the powerful Political Zionist (as opposed to Religious Zionist) minority. We need to help the Jewish people liberate themselves from the Political Zionists who are bringing nothing but hatred and condemnation upon them.
 
People like Naomi Wolf, Gideon Levy are more famous examples of Jews who speak their minds - I'm hopeful that there are many more who will come forward now that the Zionist Genocide Machine is out 'mowing the lawn"
 
Jewish !=  Zionist

Yes. I am Jewish, and I cannot even discuss my opposing views with my Jewish friends in the US, without them doubting my "loyalty". I am called a Jew hater, and anti Zionist, and whatever other labels they can think of. Talk about thin skinned! Since when is dialogue discouraged? No dissent allowed? If I am sympathizing with the oppression of the Palestinians, I am somehow branded a traitor? I am starting the think this reeks of fascism, or something far more heinous. It certainly does not resemble anything related to a democratic point of view, nor an open, free debate of the merits. Israel tries to silence anyone speaking out against the party line.


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect
 

 
How is this group being "silenced"?
What party line would that be? There are quite a few of them in Israel.
 

In any way possible. Dissent simply is not allowed. You are called nasty names, you are branded a traitor, you are referred to as a Jewish hater, someone who hates his own people, or worse. It is a discussion that is discouraged in so many ways. Does not feel like a democratic point of view. Anything can be discussed, except Israeli policy. That is off the table.

And the party line of course refers to the liberal talking points. I used to be a liberal. But, in the US the liberal movement has lost all moral authority. It does not really stand for anything valid anymore. But, that is just my two cents worth. Both parties are broken down vessels.

Spidermike007

 

How does your friends having thin skin imply that Israel is silencing dissent? How is the current group being silenced?  How is dissent not allows when you see headline such as the current one?

There are more than one Israeli journalist routinely publishing very anti-government and anti-mainstream opinions.  There are anti-Zionist parties in the parliament (both Arab and Jewish).

I believe the word you look for is intolerance, which would describe public sentiment about these view more accurately.

If you are talking about position of USA Jews, well, can't say they are all that relevant in the current topic's context, most do not serve in the IDF anyway.

 

Nothing like trying to demand terms for a cease fire when you're getting your arse kicked... 
 

Killing hundreds and hundreds of innocent children and woman ain't exactly what I'd describe as 'getting your arse kicked' I think 'getting mass murdered' is a more appropriate description.

 

The people in the Gaza Strip are not the ones handling the negotiations on the their side, though.

The Hamas, as an organization does take a beating as well, and much of the conditions it insists upon got to do with his chances of rehabilitating its political position, control of the Gaza Strip and military might after the current hostilities end. If this was just about saving lives there would have been no issues with accepting the ceasefire.

 

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

 

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views. Although I must admit I prefer it when they do so with some semblance of rationality, a rare commodity amongst a few of the posters on here.

 

No, I didn't say "everything else is fluff". I didn't imply "everything else is fluff. I didn't suggest "everything else is fluff". I assure you I didn't even think "everything else is fluff". Read what I wrote again, I did in fact note quite carefully near my conclusion that "there are of course other substantive issues". But the main point I made is that there is a gigantic elephant in the room of conflict that no one is discussing - and it is the question of land. Sure, there are other issues that won't be easily resolved. For example, right of return. Compensation. And, as you note, security. Of course for both sides. And these concerns matter as well, but the largest piece of the peace puzzle is land. 

 

And you didn't respond to my invitation to offer views on this issue of land annexation, other than to acknowledge it is an issue. Then you say "No-one seems to be ignoring the issue". Well, they sure ignore it here on TV. Or maybe I missed the posts where you wrote about it? And it's largely absent from western media. As to Israeli media, I am not aware of even one Israeli spokesperson acknowledging that land annexation is even a small problem!

 

So let's accept for the moment that land annexation is, as you say, only one dimension of the overall picture -  but not just ignore it. In fact, isolating it from the confounding issues may help to clarify what part it plays.

 

So, a few questions for you: Do you approve of what is occurring on the West Bank with the annexation of land? Do you believe such annexation is defensible - or perhaps even justifiable? How can the divergent views on the issue of land best be brought together? I'm sure others, not only I, would welcome a few positive suggestions about a way forward rather than the constant "Israel is under attack by evil Muslims" posts that proliferate in threads about Israel on TV. And sure, I agree with your statement "Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and(sic) armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip". But that thoughtful "some" clearly does not include Netanyahu and his cronies, unfortunately for the majority of people in Gaza and Israel. I strongly believe that if Netanyahu had allowed issues of land annexation and future borders to be addressed candidly during the last peace negotiations, rather than using the pause in hostilities to annex even more land, there would not be a battle in Gaza today. It would have shown a willingness to find a solution, to show he is not merely an instrument of the Zionist project.

And <deleted> - "Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best."??? Where did that come from???  Have you been mixing up your posts?

 

 

You are answered in the spirit you post.

Making decisive claims without care for factual errors, calling posters lazy, or talking about banishing them, and in general using rhetoric which does little to promote discussion or debate. Latest in this line is announcing what the main point is (according to...?) with the added claim that it is an elephant in the room.

 

Writing a whole post about how the land issues (sorry, not going to play along with the "theft" bit) are the main problem, with a one liner mention that there are other issues, yeah....that sounds as if them other issues are fluff. That the land issues are paramount is your own opinion, and presenting this as an accepted fact is not something everyone need to accept.

 

I am still at a loss as to why anyone would claim that the land issues are ignored, and who are the ones ignoring them. This comes up almost every time the conflict is mentioned, and yet....an elephant in the room? How so? The claims that this topic does not appear on TVF (within related topics), Western and Israeli media is quite hilarious.  Not even sure where to begin here, when one makes such a claim.

 

One issue for this may be the terminology used - annexation in this context carries a quite specific meaning. Example, Israel did annexe the Golan Heights, thereby making it officially (at least as far as Israel is concerned, most countries do not recognize this) a part of the country. This is not the legal situation as far as most of the West Bank is concerned. It could be raised as a relevant issue with regard to east Jerusalem, though.

 

If you wish to talk about Israeli occupation, illegal settlements and, to an extent, land grabs - that's fine. When you call it all annexation that makes the initial claim inaccurate and harder to respond to in a serious manner.

 

Not being a Netanyahu fan, to say the least, as is quite apparent from my posts, not going to defend his conduct or his policies. My line on armed conflict not being the most conductive way to deal with real estate issues was actually more to do with Hamas. Hamas is basically a one trick pony. Netanyahu at least goes through the charade of diplomacy (all meant to waste time, for sure), but is not quite as one-dimensional as Hamas when it comes to dealing with the other side. In other words, for all his high talk, he can be pressured into accepting certain things.

 

One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them. Netanyahu represents a sizable public of Israelis, Hamas represents a sizable public as well. The pro-peace camps, on both sides are not in power and do not necessarily represent that many people. This is especially true for the Palestinian side (and there are understandable reasons for that). A lot of the people of both sides got an aggro set of mind.

 

While I do believe that Netanyahu is obstructive when it comes to peace, he is not alone and gets full cooperation from his Palestinian counterparts, especially the Hamas leadership. Hamas, despite what some posters repeatedly claim, does not see the 1967 lines as final borders.

 

I believe that the denying existence of security issues was either with another one of your posts in mind, or a bit carried over while editing my reply to one (if memory serves, something to do with the construction of the security barrier). If it is not something you feel rightly attributed to you, I apologize.

 

 

Play pedant if it pleases you. I altered my terminology to "land annexation" to allow for your sensibilities to the term "theft". So let's return to the original term, as we both know what it refers to. Theft of land is a fundamental reason behind the current conflict. Hamas would have been sidelined if Israel had sincerely addressed the issue of land with Fatah during the last peace talks. The odds are that the killings in Gaza at present would not be occurring if that last peace process had been approached by Israel with anything like sincerity.

 

"One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them." Here we go again!! Maybe people do make that mistake. I certainly don't, and I made no claim along those lines, and nowhere even inferred this. Why introduce such red herrings? It's tiresome. Of course Netanyahu gets support from the Israeli people. As does Hamas from Gazans - I suspect even more so now that they have witnessed Israel's destruction of much of the city and killed so many people - it's the perfect strategy if you wish to alienate and radicalise a population. If peace is the aim, not a very clever move, is it?

 

 

I do not think it pedantic. My believe is that the words used in expressing opinions have a lot of bearing on the shaping of underlying concepts. If one talks about "theft" or "annexation" then those terms create and enhance preconceptions with regard to a the side's relative positions and conduct. Being also legal terms, and one of them used in everyday speech, the effect is magnified. As I do not see either term as reflecting the situation or past events, I choose not to use the terminology picked. The tired "we both know" is rejected as well - I do not share your position.

Hamas's stance is that getting the 1967 lines back is just a step. There was never a clear statement that they will agree to a permanent existence of Israel as a state within those lines. The best offers made were to do with a variations of truces, in the context of continuing the armed struggle when condition allow it.

That most Israeli governments were not keen on making concessions when it came to peace with the Palestinians is a moot point. The same goes for most of the relevant Palestinian leaders, and hence, both sides leaders serve to prolong the issue.  Laying this on one of the sides is disingenuous, and as stated in many posts, I do not find it very conductive to tally and to compare each side's relative share of the blame - plenty to go around.

The point about both leadership having popular support was not a red herring at all. A lot of post talk about how common folk like nothing better than peace etc. This is not exactly how reality looks at ground level. There is a lot of hate, anger and trust issues on both sides, and willing crowds for those advocating violence. Leaders do not necessarily operate in a vacuum, and not always against the wishes of their voters. Perhaps what is needed are leaders who are brave enough to apply that old Rolling Stones line  - you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you find You get what you need.

 

 

What restrictions / punishments, if any, are there for Israeli citizens who refuse call up?

 

I think many are jailed, but IMO they deserve medals. And one day when hostilities end, a peace agreement signed and a truth and reconciliation tribunal established, they will receive due recognition.

 

 

Yes. You are right. Imprisonment is the immediate fate of those who choose not to murder women and children in the name of the IDF. And as the children of a particularly vengeful supernatural being, the Israeli people also find ways to ostracize and harass people of conscience - over and above any formal punishments.

 

It is this admirable minority of Israelis that provide a glimmer of hope that this cycle of war can one day end.

 

No, it isn't.

Imprisonment is actually quite uncommon in these cases. Most just get a free pass off reserve duty. Guess that's one way to dodge it if one wishes to.

This specific group is made up mostly of women, so doubtful they would have been asked to do any actual fighting. As far as I understand most have not even been called, and many of them are basically nominal reserve duty soldiers - that is, the IDF may call them, but unless all hell breaks loose it's not going to happen. And even then, perhaps not.

 

What restrictions / punishments, if any, are there for Israeli citizens who refuse call up?

 

I think many are jailed, but IMO they deserve medals. And one day when hostilities end, a peace agreement signed and a truth and reconciliation tribunal established, they will receive due recognition.

 

I think you make up things in order to score points.

There are not many who outright refuse, not that many coming to face trial and less being actually jailed.
 

 

Israel is a democracy.

Political dissent is allowed.

 

 

It's not quite so easy for Palestinian to say NO to Hamas:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/07/24/cnn-tonight-two-men-with-different-views-on-hamas.cnn&video_referrer=

 

Starting a bit after minute 3.

 

If Israel is a democracy why aren't Israeli Arabs allowed to serve in the army and marry who they like?

 

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.590228

 

They actually can serve if they want to, they are not required to, though.

Ismail Haniyeh's (Hamas leader) nephews did....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1520134/Hamas-leaders-three-sisters-live-secretly-in-Israel-as-full-citizens.html

If a person is a reservist, then I would guess that they are not a pacifist.   

Well, maybe not in the strict sense.

But bear in mind most of the IDF soldiers are drafted for compulsory service at the age of 18, and discharged at 20-21.

There isn't much choice about being assigned to be a reserve duty soldier, part and parcel of being enlisted in the first

place.

So people can develop their pacifist stance afterwards, while still being technically reserve duty soldiers.

What restrictions / punishments, if any, are there for Israeli citizens who refuse call up?

Technically, one could get imprisoned following a trial (military court). Don't recall for how long, but most cases seem

to be pretty short term, sometimes cut short when the media losses interest.

But generally, the IDF learned not to waste energy on these cases - it's a no win situation, and bad media coverage.

There are cases of people getting imprisoned, but most do not - it does seem at times that the one refusing actually

wants the attention and opts for that.

Note that dodging calls for reserve duty, under normal circumstances carry lighter punishments (if any) and are less

frowned upon by the public. Reserve duty called under emergency situations is different - refusal carries heavier

consequences in these cases, but again - not many end up in prison. On the other hand, not many outright refuse

and make a big deal out of it. People can wiggle their way out if they want without making a point.

After what has just occured at the UN school I think there will now be a lot more Israelis protesing , also intensive pressure on Israel from the US administration.
Appalling loss of life , massive propaganda boost for Hamas , fillup for every Anti Western Islamist group worldwide and for the Ultras in Israel who dont want peace at any cost.
Its an absolute tragedy and surely a sign that things must change , everybody has to learn to get along with each other.

Well, it's a bit absurd presently. They can't hold demonstrations as long as rockets are launched.

Had to cut short their biggest demonstration yet, as Hamas chose to wave the ceasefire extension.

Not that many people came, anyway.

There's also groups of right wing protestors, many times violent, which come in order to clash with

the stop the war crowd. Police is supposed to be neutral, but generally not too heavy handed with

the right wingers so far, unless someone pokes an eye (figure of speech).

 

This is just the tip of what most Jews know and think, but the voice of the Jewish majority are silenced by the powerful Political Zionist (as opposed to Religious Zionist) minority. We need to help the Jewish people liberate themselves from the Political Zionists who are bringing nothing but hatred and condemnation upon them.
 
People like Naomi Wolf, Gideon Levy are more famous examples of Jews who speak their minds - I'm hopeful that there are many more who will come forward now that the Zionist Genocide Machine is out 'mowing the lawn"
 
Jewish !=  Zionist

Yes. I am Jewish, and I cannot even discuss my opposing views with my Jewish friends in the US, without them doubting my "loyalty". I am called a Jew hater, and anti Zionist, and whatever other labels they can think of. Talk about thin skinned! Since when is dialogue discouraged? No dissent allowed? If I am sympathizing with the oppression of the Palestinians, I am somehow branded a traitor? I am starting the think this reeks of fascism, or something far more heinous. It certainly does not resemble anything related to a democratic point of view, nor an open, free debate of the merits. Israel tries to silence anyone speaking out against the party line.


Spidermike
Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

How is this group being "silenced"?

What party line would that be? There are quite a few of them in Israel.
 

This is just an example that not all Israelis are bloodthirsty warmongerers. There is at least one organisation in Israel (can't remember the name) that seeks peace and opposes the oppression of the Palestinians.

 

It's the Netanyahus, Sharons & their right-wing supporters who are the ones responsible for numerous atrocities against the Palestinians, not only in Palestine too.

There are actually many such organizations.

The are parties dedicated to peace as their main political platform.

The previous president of Israel was a man of peace.

It does not make everyone serving in the IDF a right wing supporter, or even a bloodthirsty warmongers.

Many of those that serve in the IDF, still vote for left wing and pro-peace parties. Reality a bit more complicated than

black and white formulations. Sharon is dead, btw.