Israel moves forces near Gaza border

[webfact]

Israel moves forces near to Gaza as boy's funeral delayed

JERUSALEM: -- Israel has deployed extra forces along the border with the Gaza Strip amid heightened tensions with the Palestinians.

Israel says the move is part of its response to mortar and rocket fire from Palestinian militants from Gaza.

Earlier on Thursday, Israel launched air strikes against the territory.

Tensions are high after the murders of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank and the murder of a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem.

Ten Palestinians were injured in the Israel Defense Forces bombardment of Gaza, which followed barrages of rockets from the territory into southern Israel.

Sirens were sounded in communities across the south of Israel, sending residents running to bomb shelters. A soldier was reported to have been slightly injured in Eshkol.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28148976

[bbc]2014-07-04[/bbc]

[Ulysses G.]

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

[rethaier]

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 

And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.  Israel is a terrorist nation and it's high time people woke up to that and stopped supporting them.

[Ulysses G.]

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.

 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

[Jeffreyake]

 

 

And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths

 

 

oh yeah, over the top? so who decide how much do lives of three young men costs? you? try to explain this to their families...

Edited July 4, 2014 by Jeffreyake

[techboy]

Forever and forever.  I do not believe that either side truly wants peace.

[Morch]

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 

And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.  Israel is a terrorist nation and it's high time people woke up to that and stopped supporting them.

 

 

The current round of hostilities started before the kidnapping of three Israelis.

While the kidnapping and murder surely added fuel to the fire, they are not the underlying reason for the current

conflagration.

 

This has more to do with Hamas domestic troubles than anything else. Hamas was losing ground as the leader

of the struggle against Israel, in favor of Islamic Jihad an other organizations - mainly because of the cease fire

arranged after the last round. Regional events in Syria, Iraq and Egypt added to that.

 

Hamas also suffers from a chronic economic crisis, which was one of the main reasons it went along with the

Palestinian reconciliation and unification deal. This didn't work out quite as expected so far, with the PA balking

at picking up the tab for Hamas bills and Hamas further seen as getting soft on Israel (by proxy, through the PA).

 

I think they are going for the usual thing, which is picking a fight - getting the local population back in tow as Israel

responds, speaking war domestically, shedding victim tears to the world. When things get too hot, Egypt and the PA

barter a deal, which may or may not squeeze some concessions from either party (Israel, Egypt, PA) in return for

promises from the Hamas.

 

 

Edit: Right on cue....

 

 

Hamas 'to announce Gaza ceasefire' A ceasefire is due to be announced between Hamas and Israel following exchanges of fire along the border with the Gaza Strip, the BBC understands.

 

A source with the militant Palestinian group said a truce had been brokered by Egyptian intelligence officials.

 

Scores of rockets from Gaza have hit southern Israel in recent days and Israel has responded with air strikes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28156268

Edited July 4, 2014 by Morch

[vogie]

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.
 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

I think the Palestinians have a lot to complain about! It doesn't matter how much land the Iraelis have, they are still quite happy to take more. What realistic chance does the Palestinians have in a fight with the Israelis when the West has provided the Israelis with weapons such as armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, missiles, planes, helicopters, and warships, whilst the Palestinians have rocks and suicide bombers, doesn't seem very fair to me?

[Baerboxer]

 

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.

 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

 

 

Interesting. So you would have had no problem if the British RAF had bombed certain parts of Belfast or Londonderry in retaliation for the IRA's indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilians? 

 

The frustrations of dealing with terrorists who attack soft targets whilst claiming to be freedom fighters is the same for all countries. The standard for judging the level of retaliation permissible should be the same. No double standards,

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.
 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

I think the Palestinians have a lot to complain about! It doesn't matter how much land the Iraelis have, they are still quite happy to take more. What realistic chance does the Palestinians have in a fight with the Israelis when the West has provided the Israelis with weapons such as armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, missiles, planes, helicopters, and warships, whilst the Palestinians have rocks and suicide bombers, doesn't seem very fair to me?

 

 

Guess you missed the part where Hamas & Co. keeps firing rockets and mortars at Israel.

 

While the balance of power is clearly in Israel's favor, the Palestinian do have an arsenal comprising a bit more than rocks. No need to overdo things.

 

Edit: Them rockets are fired from territories Israel stepped away from, and are under Hamas's control. While things are more complicated in the West Bank, the fuss it is currently not so much about additional land grabs, but more to  do with expanding existing settlements (which are indeed considered illegal by most of the international community).
 

Edited July 5, 2014 by Scott

[transam]

 

 

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.
 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

I think the Palestinians have a lot to complain about! It doesn't matter how much land the Iraelis have, they are still quite happy to take more. What realistic chance does the Palestinians have in a fight with the Israelis when the West has provided the Israelis with weapons such as armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, missiles, planes, helicopters, and warships, whilst the Palestinians have rocks and suicide bombers, doesn't seem very fair to me?

 

 

After the Holocaust stuff, and if l were Jewish, I would build up all it took to not let piss taking happen again.  
 

[Morch]

 

 

 

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.

 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

 

 

Interesting. So you would have had no problem if the British RAF had bombed certain parts of Belfast or Londonderry in retaliation for the IRA's indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilians? 

 

The frustrations of dealing with terrorists who attack soft targets whilst claiming to be freedom fighters is the same for all countries. The standard for judging the level of retaliation permissible should be the same. No double standards,

 

 

 

 

By your example the IAF would need to conduct air raids on cities with Palestinian population within Israel, say Jerusalem. This never happened. Not sure if there's a good parallel in the UK.

 

I agree with the latter part of your post, though. Then again, most countries passing criticism are not and were never under similar conditions.

[khunken]

 

 

 

 

 
And I suppose the fact that they shot the first missiles in a typical over the top retaliation for the deaths of three youths does not give the palestinians the right to fight back.

 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

 

 

Interesting. So you would have had no problem if the British RAF had bombed certain parts of Belfast or Londonderry in retaliation for the IRA's indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilians? 

 

The frustrations of dealing with terrorists who attack soft targets whilst claiming to be freedom fighters is the same for all countries. The standard for judging the level of retaliation permissible should be the same. No double standards,

 

 

 

 

By your example the IAF would need to conduct air raids on cities with Palestinian population within Israel, say

Jerusalem. This never happened. Not sure if there's a good parallel in the UK.

 

I agree with the latter part of your post, though.

Then again, most countries passing criticism are not and were never under similar conditions.

 

 

The problem is a long-standing one (& Baerboxer's analogy IS correct) where one side claims the right to bomb and execute supposed rocket firers (with collateral damage) and the other to fire rockets which sometimes maim & kill. Sometimes the Israelis start the round and sometimes the Palestinians in Gaza do.

 

Another invasion of Gaza won't go down too well internationally even in the US. It achieves nothing except more innocent deaths, destruction and more determination from the Palestinians to continue.

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

Isreal shot those missiles at Hamas, the terrorist organization that they say was behind the kidnappings. The Palestinians are - as usual - targeting civilians, but, they can "fight back" all they want. However, they should not complain about the consequences when Israel responds with massive force. 

 

 

Interesting. So you would have had no problem if the British RAF had bombed certain parts of Belfast or Londonderry in retaliation for the IRA's indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilians? 

 

The frustrations of dealing with terrorists who attack soft targets whilst claiming to be freedom fighters is the same for all countries. The standard for judging the level of retaliation permissible should be the same. No double standards,

 

 

 

 

By your example the IAF would need to conduct air raids on cities with Palestinian population within Israel, say

Jerusalem. This never happened. Not sure if there's a good parallel in the UK.

 

I agree with the latter part of your post, though.

Then again, most countries passing criticism are not and were never under similar conditions.

 

 

The problem is a long-standing one (& Baerboxer's analogy IS correct) where one side claims the right to bomb and execute supposed rocket firers (with collateral damage) and the other to fire rockets which sometimes maim & kill. Sometimes the Israelis start the round and sometimes the Palestinians in Gaza do.

 

Another invasion of Gaza won't go down too well internationally even in the US. It achieves nothing except more innocent deaths, destruction and more determination from the Palestinians to continue.

 

 

 

Saying the analogy is correct does not invest the claim with more substance, even when capital letters are used.

 

The analogy aside, I do not think that these rounds of hostilities are always started by the Palestinians. The way both sides justify their action is by dubbing them retribution, response, being preemptive etc. There's always a reason to do violence. That's one thing both sides excel at. It doesn't matter much that sometimes these justifications are true - the thing is that they go round and round in a circle. Whenever they take a break, it can be counted on that the routine will be put back on track - sometimes by the main players, sometimes by their sideshows.

 

I don't think that the Israeli government wants another invasion of Gaza, at least not at this time. Things in the Middle East being what they are, might not be the best of times to start a front. Plus it will cost them whatever support they got as a result of the triple murder. They would like to get the rocket fire stopped, though, and disturb the Palestinian unification thing. So while I don't think there will be an invasion right now, air raids could go on unless a ceasefire is reached (seems like there are negotiations underway).

 

The Hamas is not really all too keen on another invasion too - they just needed some prestige injection and possible some economic and political gains from Egypt and the PA. Then again, the level of control they can exercise is not a solid assurance.

 

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

 

[khunken]

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. So you would have had no problem if the British RAF had bombed certain parts of Belfast or Londonderry in retaliation for the IRA's indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilians? 

 

The frustrations of dealing with terrorists who attack soft targets whilst claiming to be freedom fighters is the same for all countries. The standard for judging the level of retaliation permissible should be the same. No double standards,

 

 

 

 

By your example the IAF would need to conduct air raids on cities with Palestinian population within Israel, say

Jerusalem. This never happened. Not sure if there's a good parallel in the UK.

 

I agree with the latter part of your post, though.

Then again, most countries passing criticism are not and were never under similar conditions.

 

 

The problem is a long-standing one (& Baerboxer's analogy IS correct) where one side claims the right to bomb and execute supposed rocket firers (with collateral damage) and the other to fire rockets which sometimes maim & kill. Sometimes the Israelis start the round and sometimes the Palestinians in Gaza do.

 

Another invasion of Gaza won't go down too well internationally even in the US. It achieves nothing except more innocent deaths, destruction and more determination from the Palestinians to continue.

 

 

 

Saying the analogy is correct does not invest the claim with more substance, even when capital letters are used.

 

The analogy aside, I do not think that these rounds of hostilities are always started by the Palestinians. The way both

sides justify their action is by dubbing them retribution, response, being preemptive etc. There's always a reason to do

violence. That's one thing both sides excel at. It doesn't matter much that sometimes these justifications are true - the

thing is that they go round and round in a circle. Whenever they take a break, it can be counted on that the routine will

be put back on track - sometimes by the main players, sometimes by their sideshows.

 

I don't think that the Israeli government wants another invasion of Gaza, at least not at this time. Things in the Middle

East being what they are, might not be the best of times to start a front. Plus it will cost them whatever support they

got as a result of the triple murder. They would like to get the rocket fire stopped, though, and disturb the Palestinian

unification thing. So while I don't think there will be an invasion right now, air raids could go on unless a ceasefire is

reached (seems like there are negotiations underway).

 

The Hamas is not really all too keen on another invasion too - they just needed some prestige injection and possible

some economic and political gains from Egypt and the PA. Then again, the level of control they can exercise is not

a solid assurance.

 

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

Just to respond to your pedantic comment about the capitalised 'IS' - it was only there for emphasis not 'substance'.

 

I agree with the rest of your post. Hamas did lose some support after the military took control in Egypt but it should not be forgotten that they won they last election that the US & Israel allowed in Palestine.

 

I'll leave it at that even though the outlook for the Palestinians in the short-term is grim.

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

By your example the IAF would need to conduct air raids on cities with Palestinian population within Israel, say

Jerusalem. This never happened. Not sure if there's a good parallel in the UK.

 

I agree with the latter part of your post, though.

Then again, most countries passing criticism are not and were never under similar conditions.

 

 

The problem is a long-standing one (& Baerboxer's analogy IS correct) where one side claims the right to bomb and execute supposed rocket firers (with collateral damage) and the other to fire rockets which sometimes maim & kill. Sometimes the Israelis start the round and sometimes the Palestinians in Gaza do.

 

Another invasion of Gaza won't go down too well internationally even in the US. It achieves nothing except more innocent deaths, destruction and more determination from the Palestinians to continue.

 

 

 

Saying the analogy is correct does not invest the claim with more substance, even when capital letters are used.

 

The analogy aside, I do not think that these rounds of hostilities are always started by the Palestinians. The way both

sides justify their action is by dubbing them retribution, response, being preemptive etc. There's always a reason to do

violence. That's one thing both sides excel at. It doesn't matter much that sometimes these justifications are true - the

thing is that they go round and round in a circle. Whenever they take a break, it can be counted on that the routine will

be put back on track - sometimes by the main players, sometimes by their sideshows.

 

I don't think that the Israeli government wants another invasion of Gaza, at least not at this time. Things in the Middle

East being what they are, might not be the best of times to start a front. Plus it will cost them whatever support they

got as a result of the triple murder. They would like to get the rocket fire stopped, though, and disturb the Palestinian

unification thing. So while I don't think there will be an invasion right now, air raids could go on unless a ceasefire is

reached (seems like there are negotiations underway).

 

The Hamas is not really all too keen on another invasion too - they just needed some prestige injection and possible

some economic and political gains from Egypt and the PA. Then again, the level of control they can exercise is not

a solid assurance.

 

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

Just to respond to your pedantic comment about the capitalised 'IS' - it was only there for emphasis not 'substance'.

 

I agree with the rest of your post. Hamas did lose some support after the military took control in Egypt but it should not be forgotten that they won they last election that the US & Israel allowed in Palestine.

 

I'll leave it at that even though the outlook for the Palestinians in the short-term is grim.

 

 

 

Not pedantic in the least, just that repeating something with does not hold merit doesn't make it true.

Can emphasis it all day long, wouldn't change the fact that the analogy is wrong.

 

Hamas losing support after the Muslim Brotherhood's rout in Egypt is one thing.

The have plenty of issues domestically, mostly not being able to pay the bills and provide for their

citizens. This is sometimes a direct result of their own decisions (as in not willing to deal directly with

Israel or the PA) and sometimes resulting from decisions of neighbors (Egypt and Israel blocking

access).

 

The election was conducted after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. I don't think there were any

further elections in Gaza, but that's probably Israel and the USA's fault as well - wouldn't have

anything to do with Hamas massacring the Fatah people a year after said elections. The Palestinian

have enough of a mess with their own political divisions, they do not need Israel nor the USA to make

it so.

 

With the murdered Arab boy's funeral going on right now, got to hope cooler heads will prevail. Such 

actions as putting up new illegal settlements isn't going to improve things. Hopefully the Israeli Government

will dismantle them soonish.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/tense-calm-jerusalem-palestinian-funeral-24425405

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Settlers-build-two-new-West-Bank-outposts-in-response-to-teen-deaths-361118

 

 

[hawker9000]

Forever and forever.  I do not believe that either side truly wants peace.

 

Well, I don't think Israel truly wants peace with terrorist organizations and paramilitaries openly, consistently, and combatively committed to the elimination of the Israeli state, no.   Duh!

 

But you & others who make statements like this, saying Israel wouldn't love to have peace in the region, are just being foolish, blind, and petulant, and are part of the problem.  Israel is obviously not going to give up its right to exist.

[ABCer]

If Israeli want peace they must take all of Gaza, clean out (exterminate) Hamas and leave back home. No other options. No talks. No treaties. No ceasefires. Hamas is a TERRORIST organisation, period.

[Ulysses G.]

As long as those rocket and mortar attacks continue, Israel is more than justified to put a stop to it by using force against terrorist groups.

And to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children?

Civilians are always killed in wartime. It is an unfortunate fact. However, when they are being used as human shields by an Islamic terrorist group, collateral damage is even more difficult than usual to avoid.
Nevertheless, the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza has to be degraded as much as possible. No nation on earth would allow thousands of rockets to be shot into their territory. Edited August 8, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not Jewish and I strongly suspect that you are not either - although you announce it in practically every post. Anybody can be anything on the Internet, as you well know.

By the way, Hamas has just violated yet another truce with rockets fired into Israel. These savages have either rejected or violated every single ceasefire since this conflict began.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[boychick]

UlyssesG

you confess that you are not Jewish, however you question my  birthright.

 

My apologies for accusing you of being Jewish.

 

I must say I  am relieved to see your not Jewish,  sad to say though your comments are doing untold damage to our people.

 

Your situation and posts in my view makes your violence instigating comments even more nauseating

[Scott]

Posts deleted.   This thread has been resurrected for the purpose of trolling. 

 

//CLOSED//