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

[NeverSure]

The position that demonizes Zionism / Israeli Jewish statehood as being exactly equivalent to horrendous colonialism such as Belgium in Africa fails to admit there are MAJOR differences.

 

For example:

 

1. Yes, accept it or not, there is a deeply important connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. It is based on REAL HISTORY ... where the Jewish people did originally come from. All Jews know that. We say -- NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM. Jews can be entirely secular and feel this connection. Even though Jews have ethnic diversity among Jews, there is an undeniable TRIBAL aspect to the Jewish people .. that's not wrong or right, it's just the way it is. Key word: ETHNORELIGIOUS

 

Did Belgium have any connection like that in Africa or even claim it? OF COURSE NOT!

 

2. The thousands of years of persecution of Jewish people in many countries of the world. This was not the only reason for the idea of Zionism to gain in popularity, but it was certainly a part of it, and this feeling was there WELL BEFORE the holocaust.

 

Were the Belgiums a persecuted minority group? OF COURSE NOT!

 

3. Were Jews attracted to Israel to virtually enslave  non-Jews? Were Jews attracted by unusually rich natural resources? No and no. If it was for natural resources, the Jews would have gone to SAUDI, yes?

 

Again, different than Belgium. 

 

Look at the death rates of "natives" in Africa caused by Belgium compared to what has happened in Israel. Not comparable in the slightest.

 

So please don't play games and act like the Jewish connection in Israel isn't a UNIQUE situation, which merits looking at in its own right.  Of course nobody is suggesting Palestinians don't have grievances as they surely do. 

 

JT, I agreed with everything you said and was about to hit the like button until your last sentence.

 

1. Who are these so-called "Palestinians" and where did they come from?

 

2. Whoever they are, what grievances do they have that justify all of the acts of terrorism against Israel down through the years both inside Israel with bombs and from outside with countless rockets?

 

3. Is terrorism with thousands of inaccurate missiles that can kill indiscriminately ever justified? How about suicide bombers on busses and in businesses inside another sovereign nation?

 

4. Wherever these so-called "Palestinians" are, do their "grievances" justify being terrorists?

[Pattszero]

^^ There you go again - denying the rights of the indigenous people. 

 

It's appalling. 

[NeverSure]

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly aware of the "many" issues that start wars. 

 

Anyone that uses the bible as a pretext now should be ashamed of themselves.  

So pretty girl or oil reserves is an honorable reason?

 

By the way, do you know what Arabs scream when they kill someone, going to kill someone, want to kill someone or celebrate the death of someone?

 

 

Yes I do,  so they are equally at fault.  

 

Does that make you feel better? 

 

Now, the point is, these Europeans invaded the country under a false pretence.

 

Anyone using biblical justification for this invasion is a clown. 

 

 

"Anyone using biblical justification for this invasion is a clown."

 

It amazes me how so many people use the UN treaties and declarations to describe "war crimes" until they don't like a UN decision and then they cry bloody murder.

 

I don't need "Biblical justification." The UN gave land to Israel after WWII and that's the end of that story. If Israel, now a sovereign nation, wants to invite or allow more people into ITS country, up to them. BTW about 20% of the population in Israel is Arab and mostly Muslim.

 

If a whole bunch of bigger and more established countries wanted to start the Six Day War against Israel, then they should have expected some ramifications. That's not to mention the other wars started against Israel since WWII.

 

Many countries are sitting on land they won as spoils of war. I wouldn't have blamed Israel if, after being attacked a few times, they took everything the so-called "Palestinians" are sitting on in addition to land they did take, just to establish a security zone.

 

Again, don't fret your pretty head about "fairy tales." Just concentrate on real current history starting in 1947.

 

 

That's not the end of that story - the UN at that time was a weak glove puppet to the white colonial masters, allied with the US with its extensive history of land grabbing and riding roughshod over indigenous people.

 

To some extent it still is - only now the post-war stitch up that forms the permanent members of the security council is under pressure from the emerging countries.  It's time for a root and branch reform of that white man's invention - and the removal of the veto. 

 

The counties that wield the veto can only be relied upon for one thing - acting in their own narrow interest.

 

White man's guilt, white man's burden - never mind the little brown people - grab the land and hand it to the white Europeans.  

 

Sickening - and pitiful that educated people can't see the UN, especially at that time, for what it was. 

 

The Guilty White Man's Club. 

 

 

On other UN resolutions and conventions, I suspect that you'd be the first one to yell "International law" if someone else did something you didn't approve of.

[Pattszero]

International law is held in the hands of the few - and they wield it to suit themselves. 

 

A prime example was that was the bastardization of international law by Bush & Blair re the Iraq conflict.  

Edited July 12, 2014 by Pattszero

[Pattszero]

All you guys oh so proud of the UN -  look how many times the US has veto'ed UN resolutions in connection with Israel.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

 

Giving the world the bird - and yet you talk about international law.  Appalling.  

Edited July 12, 2014 by Pattszero

[NeverSure]

^^ There you go again - denying the rights of the indigenous people. 

 

It's appalling. 

 

Asinine. Who are these "indigenous people" and where did they come from? If you mean the "Palestinian" imposters, they sure aren't indigenous.

 

There never was a people called Palestinians until after WWII when this bloody terrorist group hijacked the name from the old name of Palestine which was an area that included several countries.

 

There never was a country called Palestine and there never were, and there aren't Palestinians. They aren't even imposters. They are name inventors.

[NeverSure]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

International law is held in the hands of the few - and they wield it to suit themselves. 

 

A prime example was that was the bastardization of international law by Bush & Blair re the Iraq conflict.  

 

 

All you guys oh so proud of the UN -  look how many times the US has veto'ed UN resolutions in connection with Israel.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

 

Giving the world the bird - and yet you talk about international law.  Appalling.  

 

Deflect, go off topic with the usual Bush and Blair stuff - do anything except debate the facts or admit you're getting your butt kicked.

[Ulysses G.]

 

 

 

These people who have no territorial claim. 
 
Beyond a fairy story written three thousand years ago,

That and the fact that they have been living there for more than 3,700 years, that the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and that the Jewish people settled and developed the land - as well as winning 4 or 5 wars against overwhelming odds.

3,700 years ago? 4 'OR' 5 wars?
And, Jesus was a carpenter, or at least that's what I'm told. Alibaba and the 30 thieves is a good read too.

 

 

It's fantastical that people in this day and age are still using the bible as justification for land grabs and war.  

 

 

 

I am not sure who you are talking about. I'm not using the bible as justification for anything.

It is a fact that Jews have been living in the area known as Palestine for more than 3 millennia and there is plenty of evidence to prove it. Jews have maintained a meticulously documented  presence in Israel, beginning in the 2nd millennium B.C.E., continuing under a long series of Jewish kingdoms and foreign rulers, and through to the modern State of Israel. Conquerors, diplomats, pilgrims and visitors have left an abundance of references to the Jewish communities living there over all those years and Israel is filled with multiple archaeological and historical sites which testify to Jewish life over the centuries

[Scott]

This thread is starting to drift off topic.   Please try to stick to the topic and be civil toward other posters.  

[simple1]

 

^^ There you go again - denying the rights of the indigenous people. 

 

It's appalling. 

 

Asinine. Who are these "indigenous people" and where did they come from? If you mean the "Palestinian" imposters, they sure aren't indigenous.

 

There never was a people called Palestinians until after WWII when this bloody terrorist group hijacked the name from the old name of Palestine which was an area that included several countries.

 

There never was a country called Palestine and there never were, and there aren't Palestinians. They aren't even imposters. They are name inventors.

 

 

The area now designated 'Palestinian territory' is a component of a potential negotiation for a two state solution as presented by the West, prior to this I believe the "Partition Plan". To claim that those now identifying themselves as 'Palestinian' Arabs, the indigenous population, is a falsehood, defies political reality.

 

The Arabs have owned the massive majority of the land in the now State of Israel and surrounding areas for centuries. As a snapshot, in the 1880s there were less than 10,000 Jews living in the area now known as Israel. The Jewish people have enforced their own culture and laws, understandable, supported by international agreement upon the indigenous 'Palestinian' Arabs against their will.

 

As numerous people have stated there have been wrong actions by both sides of the conflict, in balance would you not agree the State of Israel and the international community have the greater number of 'wrongs' on their ledger in their dealings? It appears the only way forward is for the Palestinians Arabs to submit to the will of the powerful, realistic, but a bitter choice; likely to be a death sentence for those who sign up within the Palestinian political leadership

[Ulysses G.]

As a snapshot, in the 1880s there were less than 10,000 Jews living in the area now known as Israel.

"Indigenous" has nothing to do with large numbers and it is a well-documented fact that Jews were in the area long before the Arabs, who have only recently started calling themselves Palestinians and owned very little of the land. They were mostly just tenants. Absentee Arab landlords from other areas of the Ottoman Empire were the main owners as well as some land bought by Jews. The Jews were the indigenous people, if anyone was. Edited July 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

The UN calls for a ceasefire, but Israel is intent on continuing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/un-security-council-gaza-ceasefire-call

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Hamas is still firing 100s of rockets at civilians. All these terrorists have to do is stop. Canada tells the hypocritical UN to back off.

In a statement issued Saturday, Baird accused Pillay of focusing her comments on Israel and said that is neither "helpful nor reflective of the reality of this crisis."

Baird says there can't be any "moral equivalence" between a democratic state like Israel and Hamas, which he calls a listed terrorist organization with a blatant disregard for human life.
He says Israel's military has taken extraordinary steps to reduce civilian casualties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/12/canada-un-israel-military-action_n_5580338.html

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

 

As a snapshot, in the 1880s there were less than 10,000 Jews living in the area now known as Israel.

"Indigenous" has nothing to do with large numbers and it is a well-documented fact that Jews were in the area long before the Arabs, who have only recently started calling themselves Palestinians and owned very little of the land, They were mostly tenants. Absentee Arab landlords from other areas were the main owners as well as some bought by Jews. The Jews were the indigenous people, if anyone was.

 

 

Yep the Jews were members of the indigenous population way back. However, here we have a timeline table of the Jewish population, from a Jewish organisation, that refers to Israel / Palestine. Over 500 years (1517 to 1918) claims Jewish popualtion grew from 5,000 to 60,000, whereas non Jews grew from less than 300k to more than 600k. Jews were a small minority for centuries. With such a small minority how does this support Jewish claims for territorial rights based upon historical residence in the area'. Is it not true that political acceptable territorial rights claims are normally based upon majority ownership within a reasonable timeframe. BTW the figure I quoted of 10k Jews in 1880s is not supported in this particular report, my error.

 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

 

Don't you agree the term 'Palestinian' Arab is a Western construct articulated for the political process?

 

Off topic

 

In 1945, of the 26.4 million dunams of land in Mandatory Palestine, 12.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 million constituted the desertic Beersheba district. By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel controlled 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine.

 

As at 2007, the Israel Land Administration (ILA) managed 93% of Israel's land.  The remaining 7% of land was either privately owned or under the protection of religious authorities.

 

Use of land in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for a period of 49 or 98 years. Under Israeli law, the ILA cannot lease land to foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. In practice, foreigners may be allowed to lease if they show that they would qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return.

 

Know you are not an admirer of Wiki, but here’s the link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#Abandoned_Areas_Ordinance.2C_5708-1948

Edited July 13, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

Jews were a small minority for centuries.

Again. Indigenous has nothing to do with being a minority. The American Indians and the Australian Aborigines are both minorities, but they were still there before the white man and are the indigenous people in their areas and so are the Jews in the area called Palestine. The Jews were there first and never left. Therefore, Jewish claims for some territorial rights based upon historical residence in the area are perfectly reasonable. Edited July 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

All you guys oh so proud of the UN -  look how many times the US has veto'ed UN resolutions in connection with Israel.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

 

Giving the world the bird - and yet you talk about international law.  Appalling.  

 

Considering that there are other conflict and other regimes in the world - would you say that the amount of UN resolutions to do with Israel is proportionate to the level of its real "evilness"?

 

So the UN back in 1947 was no good - does this apply to the very same resolution which called for the creation of the state Palestine, then?

[Morch]

 

^^ There you go again - denying the rights of the indigenous people. 

 

It's appalling. 

 

Asinine. Who are these "indigenous people" and where did they come from? If you mean the "Palestinian" imposters, they sure aren't indigenous.

 

There never was a people called Palestinians until after WWII when this bloody terrorist group hijacked the name from the old name of Palestine which was an area that included several countries.

 

There never was a country called Palestine and there never were, and there aren't Palestinians. They aren't even imposters. They are name inventors.

 

 

I think it is rather immaterial now.  The Palestinians, under one name or another have their roots in the area. The Jews do as well.

 

Getting into a pissing contest about who was first, or who has more historical/religious right to the land is all very nice, but the reality nowadays is that both got a valid claim. Denying the other side existence as a people, or denial of other side's right to exist are both unacceptable, and lead nowhere.
 

[Morch]

The UN calls for a ceasefire, but Israel is intent on continuing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/un-security-council-gaza-ceasefire-call

 

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole. What ethnic cleansing?

[Ulysses G.]

All you guys oh so proud of the UN -  look how many times the US has veto'ed UN resolutions in connection with Israel.

I wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

[simple1]

 

Jews were a small minority for centuries.

Again. Indigenous has nothing to do with being a minority. The American Indians and the Australian Aborigines are both minorities, but they were still there before the white man and are the indigenous people in their areas and so are the Jews in the area called Palestine. The Jews were there first and never left. Therefore, Jewish claims for some territorial rights based upon historical residence in the area are perfectly reasonable.

 

 

As a matter of historical detail did not the Jews (Joshua) destroy / remove the then existing indigenous population, the Canaanites. Justification being the Canaanite territory was the "promised land"

[Ulysses G.]

You mean 3,000 years ago? I don't think so. They fought with them, but, as far as I know, they did not "destroy" them. They just moved to a smaller area. 

[simple1]

You mean 3,000 years ago? I don't think so. They fought with them, but, as far as I know, they did not "destroy" them. They just moved to a smaller area. 

 

very subtle

 

Thinking about the issue a bit more, I'm sure there must be studies, what is the genetic composition of the Arab versus the Jewish population who resided in the area over the centuries Is there any genetic difference within the 'indigenous' populace whether they be of the Islamic faith or Judaic faith?

 

[up-country_sinclair]

 

The UN calls for a ceasefire, but Israel is intent on continuing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/un-security-council-gaza-ceasefire-call

 

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole. What ethnic cleansing?

 

 

The ethnic cleansing you willingly turn your eyes from and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

The Israeli government is intent on murdering and displacing as many Palestinians as possible.

 

Richard Falk, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, told a news conference that Israeli policies bore "unacceptable characteristics of colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing".

 

"Every increment of enlarging the settlements or every incident of house demolition is a way of worsening the situation confronting the Palestinian people and reducing what prospects they might have as the outcome of supposed peace negotiations."

 

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-palestinian-israel-un-idUKBREA2K1JM20140321

 

 

Israel is engaged in a policy of systemic human rights abuses.  US President Obama needs to follow his conscience and allow justice to be served.

[Ulysses G.]

The ethnic cleansing you willingly turn your eyes from and pretend it doesn't exist.

Because it is a load of nonsense. The Palestinians lost every war that they started. If Israel wanted to "cleanse" them, they would be long gone.

[Morch]

 

 

The UN calls for a ceasefire, but Israel is intent on continuing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/un-security-council-gaza-ceasefire-call

 

 

 

 

 

Hyperbole. What ethnic cleansing?

 

 

The ethnic cleansing you willingly turn your eyes from and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

The Israeli government is intent on murdering and displacing as many Palestinians as possible.

 

Richard Falk, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, told a news conference that Israeli policies bore "unacceptable characteristics of colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing".

 

"Every increment of enlarging the settlements or every incident of house demolition is a way of worsening the situation confronting the Palestinian people and reducing what prospects they might have as the outcome of supposed peace negotiations."

 

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-palestinian-israel-un-idUKBREA2K1JM20140321

 

 

Israel is engaged in a policy of systemic human rights abuses.  US President Obama needs to follow his conscience and allow justice to be served.

 

 

Yes, yes....only that there are actually more Palestinians around today then there were when Israel was founded.

So would seem Israel is not quite getting the grasp of what ethnic cleansing means.

 

The current attacks are from Gaza Strip, in which there are no Israelis, no Israeli troops and no Israeli settlements.

How then, is Israel colonizing the Gaza Strip? And why do the Palestinians in the West Bank, which does have all

the Israeli illegal settlements, troop presence and such - do not engage in rocket attacks in the same way Hamas

does?

 

How is Israel further displacing Palestinians? Do tell. There is no mass deportation, there are hardly even any new

land grabs. At most (and yes, still illegal) there are sporadic attempts to build new settlements (often taken down by

the Israeli government) or expansion of existing settlements (granted, illegal). Displacement? Nope. There are even

more Palestinians around nowadays in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with populations rising - guess Israel doesn't

get the concept of displacement too.

 

Apartheid is a wonderful word, with great connotations. Israel having a minority of 20%+ Arabs, with civil right and

full political representation sort of negates the claim. While Israel's rule over the Palestinians is wrong on oh so many

levels, it does not amount to being termed Apartheid. Israel never annexed the Palestinians or their land.

 

 

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

 

[up-country_sinclair]

UN:  77% of the dead in Gaza are civilians.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/12/israel-northern-gaza-evacuate_n_5580851.html

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

 

 

 

Terror groups or freedom fighters ?

"Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends."

Hamas are a terrorist group. They purposely target innocent civilians.

 

 
Something Israel with the help of the US is of course not doing, right?

 

Right. Israel does not target civilians. Hamas DOES. You really should read the rest of the thread before responding.

 

Total rubbish my dear! If Israel does not target civilians, so why UN: 77% of the dead in Gaza are civilians ?? Bad, non-functioning weapons? Some civilians by pure chance standing in front of military people? Just some non-important collateral damage? Go ahead and put your justification out here or just shut up!

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

 

The actions of Israel and their allies the US (who is controlled as we know by Jews)

Thanks for letting everyone know exactly where you are coming from.

 

 

Will test you: tell me where I am from. You can even guess 3 times and I will tell you if you are right or not. Come on, pick up the challenge!

[Jingthing]

 

 

The actions of Israel and their allies the US (who is controlled as we know by Jews)

Thanks for letting everyone know exactly where you are coming from.

 

 

Will test you: tell me where I am from. You can even guess 3 times and I will tell you if you are right or not. Come on, pick up the challenge!

 

He wasn't being literal as far as geography. He was referring to your blatantly obvious bias against Jews.