Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

[Morch]

 

 

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked

 

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

 

 

1. Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.
2. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
3. This Israeli operation, among others, was caused by rocket fire from Gaza.
4. Israel avoids civilian casualties, but Hamas aims to kill civilians
5. Hamas hides its weapons in homes, mosques and schools and uses human shields.

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked#

 

 

 

This article was written by Noura Erakat is a Palestinian American and a contributing editor of Jadaliyya which is an Arab news site, so hardly a neutral view of what is happening.
 

 

 

Oh, and the views of an obviously emotive anonymous poster on Thai Visa are more credible than Ms Erakat's???

Or perhaps only the Jerusalem Post will do? Or maybe just those sections of US / European media that demonstrate George Orwell's "Newspeak" is alive and well and living in Israel.

 

I totally understand why you object to this article, as it is much more than an opinion piece. It is literate and logical. It provides facts and analysis to support the arguments. It demands a considered response from anyone with any shred of objectivity.

 

You would be doing very well if you could respond half as succinctly as she expresses her points. She offers a much higher level of debate than is found amongst the majority of TV apologists for the Israeli invasion. Thankyou OP for drawing this article to my attention.
 

 

 

Pointing out that an article (and yes, its still an opinion peace) is far from objective is not an objection.

And yes, I find that some posters here definitely show some quality knowledge of the conflict and related issues, and this

is acknowledged even if I do not share their opinions and views. Granted, not many of these around.

 

The Jerusalem Post at least have people writing for it which are a tad closer to events and got first hand experience with

some of its aspects. Might not be the most objective source around, that's for sure. However, no one claimed it is - so not

sure what the point actually was...

 

If, as you complain, the level of debate on TVF is such low quality, what would be the point of debunking the debunking?

Not as if Noura Erakat will respond, is it?  Probably earn a one liner with the built in "Israel apologist" drivel. I'll give NE

this, at least she knows enough about facts in order to twist them around nicely. Most people posting on these topics here

do not manage even than much.

[simple1]

 

You remind of something that if I posted the words I would be banned, but they would be entirely suited to one who supports every last deed of the terrorist state of Israel

 

So you are OK with Iran burning the lips of an Iranian Christian because he did no fast during Ramadan? Is Iran more democratic than Israel? And maybe you agree with the deaths in Syria where Iran is using Hezbolah to save Assad's regime? Arab Killing Arab.

 

To the mods. I would hope that you do not delete, and allow Kalebiran to answer my questions. I would argue that as Iran sponsors Hamas and supply them with Rockets. It would be useful to know what an Iranian thinks.  And maybe try to justify Iran's behaviour towards it's own citizens and the wider Middle east. It has relevance IMO.   

 

 

Inflammatory nonsense!. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. During the Iranian populations' peaceful Arab Spring demonstrations, they were brutally suppressed. The actions of the Islamic extremists do not represent the majority of the Iranian people.

 

 

It's off topic, but where was the support for the Arab Spring demonstrators, who again were brutally suppressed by Assad, that has now flowed through to the truly terrible consequences in Syria. Where were the meaningful actions, prior to the Arab Spring, against Assad when he was killing and torturing thousands of people speaking out against his rule, including children? Where was the support for the FSA that was created after the Arab Spring suppression? There are many other parties who have contributed to the disaster in Syria.

 

However, you're just playing inflammatory games, do you really want the Sunni extremists to win in Syria, who are even more extreme than the Assad regeme.

[Asiantravel]

 

Keep in mind he is a Jew.

The old, "THIS Jew agrees with me" trick. How about the millions that don't?

 

 

 

What about the  old, "THIS Jew doesnt agree with me" trick.?

 

 

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." — David Ben-Gurion   -the first Prime Minister of Israel

[Ulysses G.]

Why do you types insist on printing false information and FAKE QUOTES? You usually get caught and readers know not to trust your posts. 

 

 

Summary: Fabricated quote, false source

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=57&x_article=2256

[Asiantravel]

Why do you types insist on printing false information and FAKE QUOTES? You usually get caught and readers know not to trust your posts. 

 

 

Summary: Fabricated quote, false source

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775

 

fake ???

says who ??

oh camera .........................

 

CAMERA is widely regarded as a pro-Israeli lobby group that as put by Journalist and author Robert I. Friedman

 

[Ulysses G.]

It is a FAKE QUOTE and typical of your posts.

 

The quote "We must use terror, assassination . . ." is false. It does not appear in the source cited (Michael Ben-Zohar's biography of B-G), but only in secondary sources which purport to quote it from there. It does not appear in the Koenig Report either. 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Ben-Gurion

[Asiantravel]

It is a FAKE QUOTE and typical of your posts.

 

The quote "We must use terror, assassination . . ." is false. It does not appear in the source cited (Michael Ben-Zohar's biography of B-G), but only in secondary sources which purport to quote it from there. It does not appear in the Koenig Report either. 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Ben-Gurion

 

 

yeah yeah

 

so this is the latest tactic when somebody finds an unpalatable quote from the past its simply labelled fake

[ggold]

 

It is a FAKE QUOTE and typical of your posts.

 

The quote "We must use terror, assassination . . ." is false. It does not appear in the source cited (Michael Ben-Zohar's biography of B-G), but only in secondary sources which purport to quote it from there. It does not appear in the Koenig Report either. 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Ben-Gurion

 

 

yeah yeah

 

so this is the latest tactic when somebody finds an unpalatable quote from the past its simply labelled fake

 

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=57&x_article=2256

 

Rev. Alex Awad has agreed to remove a quote falsely attributed to Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion

 

One of the more egregious problems of his presentation is his use of a quote falsely attributed to Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion. During his talk, Rev. Alex quotes Ben Gurion as having said “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

 

It is a FAKE QUOTE and typical of your posts.

 

The quote "We must use terror, assassination . . ." is false. It does not appear in the source cited (Michael Ben-Zohar's biography of B-G), but only in secondary sources which purport to quote it from there. It does not appear in the Koenig Report either. 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Ben-Gurion

 

 

yeah yeah

 

so this is the latest tactic when somebody finds an unpalatable quote from the past its simply labelled fake

 

 

 

If you and your ilk were not getting all your information on Israel straight from hateful blogs, you would not keep coming up with these FAKE QUOTES. All you have to do is Google them first and look at which websites are displaying them. You will see thousands on crazy blogs that are far from credible sources. Once in a while a legitimate website that specializes in quotes might make a mistake and post one, but very infrequently.

 

"The thing about quotes on the Internet is that you cannot confirm their validity."

- Abraham Lincoln

http://weknowmemes.com/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internet/

[Kalebiran]

 

It is a FAKE QUOTE and typical of your posts.
 
The quote "We must use terror, assassination . . ." is false. It does not appear in the source cited (Michael Ben-Zohar's biography of B-G), but only in secondary sources which purport to quote it from there. It does not appear in the Koenig Report either. 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Ben-Gurion

 
 
yeah yeah
 
so this is the latest tactic when somebody finds an unpalatable quote from the past its simply labelled fake
 

 
 
If you and your ilk were not getting all your information on Israel straight from hateful blogs, you would not keep coming up with these FAKE QUOTES. All you have to do is Google them first and look at which websites are displaying them. You will see thousands on crazy blogs that are far from credible sources. Once in a while a legitimate website that specializes in quotes might make a mistake and post one, but very infrequently.
 
"The thing about quotes on the Internet is that you cannot confirm their validity."
- Abraham Lincoln
http://weknowmemes.com/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internet/

Fake? coming from a"garbage in, garbage out " proponent .You can see Regev spouting the Israeli excuses. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jqBTtXKKT_8&autoplay=1

[ggold]

 

 

 

Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked

 

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

 

 

1. Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.
2. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
3. This Israeli operation, among others, was caused by rocket fire from Gaza.
4. Israel avoids civilian casualties, but Hamas aims to kill civilians
5. Hamas hides its weapons in homes, mosques and schools and uses human shields.

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked#

 

 

 

This article was written by Noura Erakat is a Palestinian American and a contributing editor of Jadaliyya which is an Arab news site, so hardly a neutral view of what is happening.
 

 

 

Oh, and the views of an obviously emotive anonymous poster on Thai Visa are more credible than Ms Erakat's???

Or perhaps only the Jerusalem Post will do? Or maybe just those sections of US / European media that demonstrate George Orwell's "Newspeak" is alive and well and living in Israel.

 

I totally understand why you object to this article, as it is much more than an opinion piece. It is literate and logical. It provides facts and analysis to support the arguments. It demands a considered response from anyone with any shred of objectivity.

 

You would be doing very well if you could respond half as succinctly as she expresses her points. She offers a much higher level of debate than is found amongst the majority of TV apologists for the Israeli invasion. Thankyou OP for drawing this article to my attention.
 

 

 

Pointing out that an article (and yes, its still an opinion peace) is far from objective is not an objection.

And yes, I find that some posters here definitely show some quality knowledge of the conflict and related issues, and this

is acknowledged even if I do not share their opinions and views. Granted, not many of these around.

 

The Jerusalem Post at least have people writing for it which are a tad closer to events and got first hand experience with

some of its aspects. Might not be the most objective source around, that's for sure. However, no one claimed it is - so not

sure what the point actually was...

 

If, as you complain, the level of debate on TVF is such low quality, what would be the point of debunking the debunking?

Not as if Noura Erakat will respond, is it?  Probably earn a one liner with the built in "Israel apologist" drivel. I'll give NE

this, at least she knows enough about facts in order to twist them around nicely. Most people posting on these topics here

do not manage even than much.

 

 

Kind of debunks his attempt at intellectual debate!

[Pattszero]

 

 

 

They are appalled at the actions of Israel.  

 

I can understand that. It is natural for Jews to care about Israel, whether supporting or opposing current government policy. I would say to them if they don't live in Israel with the rockets and the terror tunnels maybe they should consider why it is that the vast majority of Israelis DO support the current military action. It's easy to be a liberal from afar, not so easy up close.

 

 

They live in Israel. 

 

OK.

Of course, anyone can say anything on the internet.

I am sure there are many such people in Israel.

But there is a war on now. 

 

 

No doubt you will have seen this already -  this cute denial that many of you guys have got does you no favours - 

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.608514  

 

There's strong worldwide anti-war sentiment within the Jewish community.  

[Pattszero]

 

 

 

 

Again, the distinction between the late Rabin and Zionists is in your mind only. I doubt very much that Rabin ever perceived

himself as anything other than a staunch Zionist. Domination of the right wing in Israeli politics was actually evident even at

the time - one of the reasons Rabin managed to get elected was precisely because he was seen as one of the right-most on

the left wing. The parliamentary majority of his coalition was quite marginal when it came to certain key votes.

 

Posting maps from a biased website which presents facts in a less than candid manner is one way to go about proving a

point. Just as an example, the UN partition plan does seem to give the future Israel large tracts of land. In effect, most of

the southern part is desert, and was sparsely populated, with the main indigenous population being Bedouin rather than

Palestinian (well, they weren't called that at the time, but even today Arabs are very conscious of such differences). That

peace of real estate which made for at least half of the future Israel was not, for the most part, a place where Palestinians

"lived and farmed for centuries".  In the same way, there is hardly any mention (other than that the Palestinians rejected

the partition plan) of a certain war being fought and it just presented as if Israel took over Palestinian lands out of the blue.

 

More of the same follows, but this has been pointed out and visited numerous times on these topics,

 

 

I agree totally - Rabin was not an angel. But he was a hell of a lot closer to being one than the leaders inflicted on Israel since those more hopeful times. I don't think that Avigdor Lieberman could have been an MP, never mind a Foreign Minister, back then. And I am not aware of Israel using any underhanded strategies (some would say that Israel is quite sophisticated at such stratagems) to push promising Palestinian leaders forward. Such as MUstafa Baghuti, whom we have discussed briefly in the past. He is a committed peace activist, and enjoys a reasonable level of popularity amongst Palestinians. He gained about 20% of the vote in the 2005 Presidential elections. May have got even more, but he claims that Israel covertly supported Abbas throughout the Presidential campaign. This was not a case of "sour grapes", as he is not that sort of person, and he raised these accusations during, not after, the campaign.

 

In fact - and I happily acknowledge that this is purely opinion, albeit expressed by many commentators -  that Netanyahu was so peed off with Fatah and Hamas becoming a single voice he was desperate for a war. Yet Fatah was clearly to be the senior partner, which would have boded well for trying to deal with a single voice (and one a little more moderate). He also - according to some commentators, so again only opinion - was furious that Palestine recently sought to sign up to some International Conventions. Yet, in the interests of peace, surely one would want Palestine to tie itself into the constraints of the international community? All of Netanyahu's responses seem nonsensical - unless one tries them out through the lens of more land theft. Then they fit quite neatly. Divide (Fatah and Hamas) and conquer. Approve a huge increase in the expansion of settlements in the West Bank while supposedly engaged in a peace process. Whip up the fervor of war amongst the population. Treat the representatives of your greatest ally - the USA - with disdain, if not contempt. It fits. And the parsimonious explanation is traditionally the one preferred by both philosophy and science when faced with an array of facts.
 

And if you don't like the map I provided, please accept my invitation to use more neutral sources to post maps of the spread of illegal settlements, the "administrative" and "legal" theft of privately owned Palestinian lands, the land grab of the Apartheid Wall, the annexation in East Jerusalem etc etc.

 

 

There were other right wing MPs at the time, spewing off pretty much the same ideology as Lieberman does today. Rabin's

coalition did not include the right wing parties, hence having someone as Lieberman as a minister was never an option.

 

So, now it is Israel's responsibility to shape Palestinian leadership? There were a few attempts at that prior to the Oslo

accords, didn't go to well for those involved or for Israeli interests. And of course, then the almost certain claim would be

that such leaders are doing the will of Israel etc. Can't force leaders on people, and Israel's ability to manipulate domestic

politics of Palestinians and neighboring countries is seriously questioned.

 

Mustafa Barghouti does not represent anything but fringe. His party won less than 3% of the votes on the last election, and

that was when running in a joint list with like-minded groups. The 20% vote on the 2005 presidential elections was when the

Hamas did not participate. It was interpreted as a vote against corruption and Abbas, rather than expressed support for the

relatively moderate views presented by Barghouti. As a rule, almost any political failure by Palestinian leader is traditionally

attributed to Israel, these are not cases of "sour grapes" - it's almost expected.

 

As for the Palestinian reconciliation effort - Not a Netanyahu fan to say the least, and do not suspect him of any intentions

of getting ahead with the peace process. That said, one have to apply some selective reading in order to accommodate the

views presented.

 

The reconciliation agreement was far from a done deal. There were numerous issues that were put aside, and there were

serious issues which were never agreed upon, and which by themselves make the deal a non-starter, even if photo-ops and

ceremonies were held.

 

Speaking as a single voice? Hamas did not commit to stopping the armed struggle, nor did Hamas say it will take part in any

negotiations. What it did say, in a very generalized way and not through main leaders is that it will let the PA get on with it,

but keep options open. At the same time, Hamas refused to hand over control over its military wing in any way or form, and

the same goes for weapons. On the other hand, Hamas did expect the PA to immediately pick the tab for Hamas official's

salaries (including some of the military wing). The PA, naturally, was not that keen on the prospect - both because this was

to lose leverage over Hamas and also due to trust issues dating back a few years.

 

There were elections in the deal as well. Now, the elections are a bit tricky for the PA, as Hamas does garner electoral

support even in the West Bank. How much is anyone's guess, but conceivable  Hamas could win the elections. What

then? Who is the senior partner and who's voice is dominant?

 

Hamas never changed its position regarding recognizing Israel or reaching a permanent solution of the conflict through

diplomacy. In fact, it is committed to a long term vision of freeing all the land through the destruction of Israel. Under these

conditions, and without renouncing this aim - what grounds are there for negotiations?

 

Personally, I do not care much whether the Palestinian apply (and accepted) to various international bodies. Carries very

little meaning when most countries already recognize them. Israel insistence on this is indeed silly. As far as I understand

the basis for this resistance has to do with the the agreements in which such things as international status etc. should be

determined through consultation rather as a one sided action. Note that the PA does not go the full mile with this yet, as

it would certainly be a clear breach of agreements and would give Israel a wonderful excuse to pull back on all things

agreed so far (not that little as some may think). Would also make things tricky for some of its foreign backers (mostly the

USA and the EU).

 

Netanyahu is not germane to this conflict. He is just another mediocre leader which exemplifies the leadership crisis that

plagues both sides for quite a while now. Place any of the other relevant leaders under the same magnifying glass and 

the all look the same - petty, self serving and short sighted.

 

As for the site linked - not about "like" or "not like". I have no problems (and I usually do not post a rebuttal) to things I do

not contest or find factually incorrect. My comment was that the map itself was correct, and the accompanying text was

misleading, in case this was hard to follow. My opinion on the terminology you keep on using is known.

 

 

Wake up. 

 

It's gone way beyond Hamas now.   

 

No one is interested in anything other - 

 

Than the continual Israeli slaughter of children.   

 

.  

[Pattszero]

Re the protest in Tel Aviv - 

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.608514  

 

It's interesting to me that the police broke it up in the interests of the safety of the participants. 

 

Democrats legally and peacefully protesting. 

 

I wonder how many democrats and peace lovers in Gaza would love to protest against Hamas, but know that a bullet awaits them.  

 

And yet the bombs rain down.  

[Jingthing]

No doubt you will have seen this already -  this cute denial that many of you guys have got does you no favours - 

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.608514

 

There's strong worldwide anti-war sentiment within the Jewish community.  

 

In Israel, something like 90 percent-ish support of Operation Protective Edge.

Other than that, you're just playing annoying ad hominem games of no relevance.

[Scott]

This thread has passed it's use-by date.  There are numerous other threads on the situation which are more current, please feel free to post in those.

 

//CLOSED//