Thousands march for Gaza in London, clashes in Paris over Israeli onslaught

[dr_lucas]

Yes, dr_lucas, that Khaled Mashal.

It is unfortunate that Israel's aggression, as mentioned in your quote, made him withdraw his previous agreement to co existence.

BTW, Ulysses G; will you treat dr_lucas' Wikipedia quote with the same contempt as you did mine; or will you accept it as it supports your viewpoint?

 

Even if that excuse was true (calling the Israeli reaction to Hamas terror - aggression), it is also odd that you quote something that is not relevant today as a counter argument to post by another member about something happening today.

[7by7]

BTW, Ulysses G; will you treat dr_lucas' Wikipedia quote with the same contempt as you did mine; or will you accept it as it supports your viewpoint?

 

At last he answers a question!

 

The answer being, as suspected, that anything which supports his view point is acceptable; no matter where it came from.

[dr_lucas]

 

That is very different from planning utter GENOCIDE and advertising it. 

 

So answer me this; what is Israel's ultimate goal in bombing and killing and maiming thousand's of innocent Palestinians?

 

All their current tactics are doing is strengthening world opinion against them, and more importantly strengthening Palestinian support for Hamas and their aims.

 

That can't be their aim, so what is?

 

As has been said, Israel refraining from it's massive over retaliation and instead holding out the olive branch may work. They certainly have nothing to lose by trying as they can resume their destruction of Gaza anytime they wish.

 

 

What thousands of innocents?

Even the traditionally anti-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian BBC had to admit today that Hamas' provided casualty figures have been "inaccurate" and questions the claim that the IDF attacked "indiscriminately".

Full Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

 

 

 

Caution needed with Gaza casualty figures

 

In the Gaza conflict, most news organisations have been quoting from the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which leads a group of humanitarian organisations known as the Protection Cluster.

Its recent report said that as of 6 August, 1,843 Palestinians had been killed and 66 Israelis and one Thai national since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on 8 July.

Of those Palestinians, the status of 279 could not be identified, at least 1,354 were civilians, including 415 children and 214 women, the UN body reported.

So there were 216 members of armed groups killed, and another 725 men who were civilians. Among civilians, more than three times as many men were killed as women, while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

The UN report carries a caveat with its figures: "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications."

There has been some research suggesting that men in general are more likely to die in conflict than women, although no typical ratio is given.

Nonetheless, if the Israeli attacks have been "indiscriminate", as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women.

Matthias Behnk, from OHCHR, told BBC News that the organisation would not want to speculate about why there had been so many adult male casualties, adding that because they were having to deal with a lot of casualties in a short time, they had "focused primarily on recording the casualties".

"As such, we have not at this stage conducted a detailed analysis of trends of civilian casualties, for example in relation to the reasons why different groups are affected and the types of incidents, but hope to carry this out at some point in the coming future," he said.

"However, even in the compiling of these preliminary figures, we cross-verify between different sources, not only media and several different human rights organisations, but also use other sources, including, for example, names of alleged fighters released by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and notices by armed groups in Gaza claiming someone as a member."

A number of other news organisations have been considering the civilian-to-fighter ratio.

An analysis by the New York Times looked at the names of 1,431 casualties and found that "the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll. They are 9% of Gaza's 1.7 million residents, but 34% of those killed whose ages were provided."

"At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71% of the population and 33% of the known-age casualties."

The list of names and ages of the dead published by al-Jazeera also found men aged between 20 and 29 to be significantly overrepresented.

The IDF say they have killed at least 253 Hamas operatives, 147 Islamic Jihad operatives, 65 "operatives of various organisations" and 603 "operatives whose affiliation is unknown", although they also stress that this is not a final number.

Spokesman Capt Eytan Buchman told BBC News that "the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation".

He said that part of the reason for the discrepancy between the figures was "when militants are brought to hospitals, they are brought in civilian clothing, obscuring terrorist affiliations".

"Hamas also has given local residents directives to obscure militant identities," he said.

"It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF."

[casualbiker]

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

You mean like this? This is productive you think?
 

 

 
 
 
May be it depends how you define productive?  
 
Martin Luther King’s street protests in the 1960s were ugly but surely you wouldn't try to argue they were unproductive?
 
And how else can ordinary people express their anger and frustration when the see genocide occurring?

Where are the demonstrations against Hamas. They were the one's firing rockets into Israel after all!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

 

That is very different from planning utter GENOCIDE and advertising it.

 
So answer me this; what is Israel's ultimate goal in bombing and killing and maiming thousand's of innocent Palestinians?

 

Their ultimate aim is to stop the Palestinians from making war on Israel - to stop the attacks, rockets, suicide bombers and so forth that they have had to put up with for 100 years.

Just ignoring terrorism and hoping for the best,  because of "world opinion" - for behavior that these hypocrites would NOT put up with in their own countries -  never works.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

 

Yes, dr_lucas, that Khaled Mashal.

It is unfortunate that Israel's aggression, as mentioned in your quote, made him withdraw his previous agreement to co existence.

BTW, Ulysses G; will you treat dr_lucas' Wikipedia quote with the same contempt as you did mine; or will you accept it as it supports your viewpoint?

 

Even if that excuse was true (calling the Israeli reaction to Hamas terror - aggression), it is also odd that you quote something that is not relevant today as a counter argument to post by another member about something happening today.

 

 

That you cannot see the relevance through your prejudice is not really my problem; but:-

 

Israel say they wont enter into negotiations with Hamas because Hams calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. 

 

Yet Hamas was willing to change that and accept the state of Israel and negotiate with Israel.

 

Israel would not accept that.

 

Israel's over reaction to an Hamas attack led to them retracting their previous statement.

 

As I have repeatedly said, I am not a supporter of any terrorist organisation; and that includes Hamas.

 

But I am a supporter of the right of the Palestinian people to have their stolen land returned to them and to live their lives in peace.

 

As I am a supporter of the right of the Israeli people to live their lives in peace.

 

If the Israeli government were to offer a cease fire, to state that they would not respond to any breaks of that ceasefire by Hamas and to agree to enter into negotiations without any preconditions then I believe there is a chance that the above may come to pass.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that the current Israeli government will only be satisfied when there are no more Palestinians left.

[GentlemanJim]

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

 

 

 

That is very different from planning utter GENOCIDE and advertising it.

 
So answer me this; what is Israel's ultimate goal in bombing and killing and maiming thousand's of innocent Palestinians?

 

Their ultimate aim is to stop the Palestinians from making war on Israel - to stop the attacks, rockets, suicide bombers and so forth that they have had to put up with for 100 years.

Just ignoring terrorism and hoping for the best,  because of "world opinion" - for behavior that these hypocrites would NOT put up with in their own countries -  never works.

 

 

Wow! 100 years now. How quickly history gets changed by those that want it changing. Have you been doing some editing on select wiki pages by any chance? It might explain a few things.

[Ulysses G.]

 

BTW, Ulysses G; will you treat dr_lucas' Wikipedia quote with the same contempt as you did mine; or will you accept it as it supports your viewpoint?

 
At last he answers a question!

 

More dishonesty. I haven't answered anything yet. I am not on your timetable. As usual, I will address it when I decide to.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.   Please address the topic and not the opinion of other posters.  

 

Some members are very close to a suspension.

[Pattszero]

 

 

 

I wonder if anyone (incl. 'moderate' muslims) is gonna march to protest the horrific mass killings of ISIS.
...Nope...
It's safer to bash Israel...no fatwas or beheadings to worry about.
 

Some of the supposed Gaza protest marches in Europe saw people attending waving ISIS flags, little wonder our resident humanitarians don't want to mention them.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand
 

 
What are you talking about?  Only psychopaths and clowns would support ISIS - and to be fair, there are ,plenty of them going around. 
 
Luckily they are well outnumbered by those of us with a brain. 
 
It could well be argued that Israel has deflected attention from ISIS at this moment - and allowed them to take an even deeper stranglehold on the areas they control.  
 
So don't go using one or two flags in a crowd of thousands as justification.  

You are right in a way, Populist trendy protesters would far rather obsess about Israel than ISIS, there is a clear apartheid when it comes to suffering where everyone goes automatically to the top of the list if Israel can somehow be blamed for their plight the rest are minor news.

P.s Here are some of your tiny minority of clowns.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/27/isis-s-black-flags-are-flying-in-europe.html

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

 

 

I'm not right in a way - I'm right.  

 

The zealots and psychopaths on both sides are out of control.  

 

So feel free to post a million links to articles like the Daily Beast -

 

I walked past a guy selling the Morning Star today which is full of images of Israeli  cruelty.  

 

I treat both sides with equal contempt - peace will never reign as long as we allow the psychopaths and clowns to run the agenda.    

[7by7]

 

 

That is very different from planning utter GENOCIDE and advertising it.

 
So answer me this; what is Israel's ultimate goal in bombing and killing and maiming thousand's of innocent Palestinians?

 

Their ultimate aim is to stop the Palestinians from making war on Israel - to stop the attacks, rockets, suicide bombers and so forth that they have had to put up with for 100 years.

Just ignoring terrorism and hoping for the best,  because of "world opinion" - for behavior that these hypocrites would NOT put up with in their own countries -  never works.

 

 

Difficult for Israel to have put up with attacks for 100 years when the state of Israel has only existed for 66 years!

 

I am not saying that Israel should just ignore terrorism.

 

The UK 'put up' with terrorism in the UK for many years without bombing the republican strongholds in Ulster, let alone targets in the Republic. (A friend of mine was in the Horse and Groom in Guildford when the bomb went off; had it done so 15 minutes later I'd have been there with him.)

 

Had the UK government reacted to every IRA outrage in the way the Israeli government is then they, rightly, would have been subject to the same international condemnation as the Israeli government are now receiving.

 

Yet we eventually managed to come to a settlement which was accepted by both sides (apart from a few hard line Republicans and Unionists) because the UK government was willing, admittedly eventually, to sit down and talk without any preconditions.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel say they wont enter into negotiations with Hamas because Hams calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. 
 
Yet Hamas was willing to change that and accept the state of Israel and negotiate with Israel.
 
Israel would not accept that.

It has been pointed out to you that there is no clear indication that Hamas was actually willing to do that. You are getting as bad as the other poster that keeps posting the same discredited nonsense over and over.

[7by7]

Discredited by whom?

 

There was a chance which Israel ignored.

 

Why?

Edited August 9, 2014 by 7by7

[Ulysses G.]

That is very different from planning utter GENOCIDE and advertising it.

 
So answer me this; what is Israel's ultimate goal in bombing and killing and maiming thousand's of innocent Palestinians?

Their ultimate aim is to stop the Palestinians from making war on Israel - to stop the attacks, rockets, suicide bombers and so forth that they have had to put up with for 100 years.
Just ignoring terrorism and hoping for the best,  because of "world opinion" - for behavior that these hypocrites would NOT put up with in their own countries -  never works.

 
Difficult for Israel to have put up with attacks for 100 years when the state of Israel has only existed for 66 years!

The Jews that created Israel were being attacked by Arabs near the turn of last century and it to took them decades to start fighting back in a serious way. The fighting started long before the Jews beat 5 Arab armies in 1948. Israel did not just appear out of thin air.

[GentlemanJim]

 

Israel say they wont enter into negotiations with Hamas because Hams calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. 
 
Yet Hamas was willing to change that and accept the state of Israel and negotiate with Israel.
 
Israel would not accept that.

It has been pointed out to you that there is no clear indication that Hamas was actually willing to do that. You are getting as bad as the other poster that keeps posting the same discredited nonsense over and over.

 

But it has only been pointed out by people like you. And your credibility and authority on the subject is what exactly?

[Ulysses G.]

Discredited by whom?

Elsewhere in the original article that contained the very selective quote that you posted - just for starters.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

Yes, dr_lucas, that Khaled Mashal.

It is unfortunate that Israel's aggression, as mentioned in your quote, made him withdraw his previous agreement to co existence.

BTW, Ulysses G; will you treat dr_lucas' Wikipedia quote with the same contempt as you did mine; or will you accept it as it supports your viewpoint?

 

Even if that excuse was true (calling the Israeli reaction to Hamas terror - aggression), it is also odd that you quote something that is not relevant today as a counter argument to post by another member about something happening today.

 

 

That you cannot see the relevance through your prejudice is not really my problem; but:-

 

Israel say they wont enter into negotiations with Hamas because Hams calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. 

 

Yet Hamas was willing to change that and accept the state of Israel and negotiate with Israel.

 

Israel would not accept that.

 

Israel's over reaction to an Hamas attack led to them retracting their previous statement.

 

As I have repeatedly said, I am not a supporter of any terrorist organisation; and that includes Hamas.

 

But I am a supporter of the right of the Palestinian people to have their stolen land returned to them and to live their lives in peace.

 

As I am a supporter of the right of the Israeli people to live their lives in peace.

 

If the Israeli government were to offer a cease fire, to state that they would not respond to any breaks of that ceasefire by Hamas and to agree to enter into negotiations without any preconditions then I believe there is a chance that the above may come to pass.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that the current Israeli government will only be satisfied when there are no more Palestinians left.

 

 

That you cannot see the relevance through your prejudice is not really my problem; but:-

Hamas never said they will negotiate peace or anything  other than Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders, for a periodic cease fire, until conditions are more favorable for them to continue their attacks and Jihad master plan.

Hamas was never willing to change anything. Actions speak louder than words and Khaled Mashal words change daily, depends on the audience. Mohammed Deif (commander of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas) is more consistent (and persistent) tho.

Israel would not accept what? Got any factual information to provide other than your own opinion?

Israel over reaction? I wonder what your reaction would be if terrorist constantly bomb your city, suicide bomb in your buses, suicide in your markets, suicide bomb in your resaurants, suicide bomb in your shopping malls, shoot your civilians.

Your prejudiced opinion about the current Israeli government has been noted. Facts prove otherwise tho.

 

I am also supporting the right of the Palestinians to get their lands back, according to Olmert's 2009 proposal of 1967 borders plan. Sadly, Palestinians seem to not support it tho: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

[Ulysses G.]

Israel say they wont enter into negotiations with Hamas because Hams calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. 
 
Yet Hamas was willing to change that and accept the state of Israel and negotiate with Israel.
 
Israel would not accept that.

It has been pointed out to you that there is no clear indication that Hamas was actually willing to do that. You are getting as bad as the other poster that keeps posting the same discredited nonsense over and over.

But it has only been pointed out by people like you.

Not really. I posted a second quote from the original article that he used a quote from to make his claim. It contradicted his point. There is no real evidence that Hamas was willing to change their charter.

[Mossfinn]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/brian-eno-on-the-israelgaza-crisis-how-can-you-justify-images-such-as-this-9643916.html

 

An open letter from Brian Eno, I don't expect many of you to read it, but those that do may find it enlightening, I will post the response from a different perspective next.

[Mossfinn]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/peter-schwartz-responds-to-brian-enos-open-letter-on-israelgaza-crisis-9643922.html

 

As stated an alternative view

[Ulysses G.]

Someone already posted it. Eno does not know what he is talking about, but he is very passionate about sharing his delusional beliefs. He should stick to making rock music. He  actually  knows something about that. 

Edited August 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

Their ultimate aim is to stop the Palestinians from making war on Israel - to stop the attacks, rockets, suicide bombers and so forth that they have had to put up with for 100 years.

Just ignoring terrorism and hoping for the best,  because of "world opinion" - for behavior that these hypocrites would NOT put up with in their own countries -  never works.

 

 

Difficult for Israel to have put up with attacks for 100 years when the state of Israel has only existed for 66 years!

 

I am not saying that Israel should just ignore terrorism.

 

The UK 'put up' with terrorism in the UK for many years without bombing the republican strongholds in Ulster, let alone targets in the Republic. (A friend of mine was in the Horse and Groom in Guildford when the bomb went off; had it done so 15 minutes later I'd have been there with him.)

 

Had the UK government reacted to every IRA outrage in the way the Israeli government is then they, rightly, would have been subject to the same international condemnation as the Israeli government are now receiving.

 

Yet we eventually managed to come to a settlement which was accepted by both sides (apart from a few hard line Republicans and Unionists) because the UK government was willing, admittedly eventually, to sit down and talk without any preconditions.

 

 

You keep on posting lengthy comparisons of Hamas to the IRA, while Hamas and the entire situation is nothing like the one with the IRA.

When I asked you to tell me what you disagree with in the ambassador's article, you kept on dodging it. You do seem to be very persistent, however, on pushing others to answer you.

Care to elaborate what you disagree with?

 

DUBLIN — Since my arrival in Ireland about a year ago as Israel's ambassador, it has been suggested to me in almost every conversation with Irish officials, academics, journalists and ordinary people that Israelis and Palestinians should learn from Northern Ireland's peace process and apply some of its principles if there is ever to be an end to our conflict. Since the successful implementation of peace through power sharing in Northern Ireland in May 2007, this model has been recommended to me with even stronger conviction.

In particular, I am told that Israel should talk to Hamas, as Britain and Ireland spoke to the IRA. After all, the IRA, as a terrorist organization, moderated its position, gave up arms, abandoned the use of terrorism and accepted an agreement based on compromise. Now those former political enemies share power in the same administration. But would a similar process lead Hamas to end its campaign of violence and accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace with Israel?

While there are some similarities between these two complex and protracted conflicts, and indeed some lessons can be learned, it is a dangerous exercise to conclude that they are the same because of their largely different historical, geopolitical and cultural circumstances. Especially, the different importance attached to religious beliefs in the IRA's and Hamas's political platforms.

Underlying my Irish friends' advice is the expectation that should Israel start a dialogue with Hamas, the latter will change its ideology, renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, stop all acts of violence, suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacksand relinquish its weapons.

Such expectation is rooted in the assumption that when two parties with diametrically opposing views engage in a dialogue, the dynamic created changes the chemistry of the conflict, moderates the positions of both sides and makes a compromise possible. Although this theory may be valid in some cases, unfortunately it is not in the case of Hamas.

One of the main differences between Hamas and the IRA is the role played by religion in their ideologies. While most IRA members were Catholic and religion was a factor, its political platform and vision was the unification of the island of Ireland, not defined in religious terms. The religious beliefs of its members did not block the way to a political compromise.

By contrast, the ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, that of a radical version of Islam, which is not open to influence or change. The political vision and religious belief of Hamas are one and the same; therefore, change is unlikely.

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

The Hamas Charter, adopted in 1988 and still very much in effect, defines the land of Palestine as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations. It adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11).

The Charter's preface states "Israel will arise and will remain existent only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Furthermore, it defines the enemy explicitly as an ethnic-religious group - the Jewish people. Hamas officials continue in their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. In contrast, the IRA never questioned Britain's right to exist.

The difference also applies to the practical level. After the IRA ceasefire of 1994, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, called in as a mediator, laid down ground rules for participation in the Northern Ireland talks. All the parties to the conflict then agreed to a code of conduct. The first principle was a commitment by all sides to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means" of resolving political issues. The second was a commitment to "the total disarmament" of all paramilitary groups. Sadly such principles cannot be reconciled with the Hamas Charter, its religious ideology and the concept of the duty to wage holy war (jihad), which will inherently always take precedence.

In fact, the whole idea of a peace process and the use of mediators are ruled out by the Charter. Mediators would not be welcome, since "those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the unbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam" (Article 13).

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.

Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

[Scott]

The IRA is off-topic.   The next person who brings it up will get a suspension.   Numerous posts have been deleted about the IRA and public notices have been posted.  

 

 

[CBR250]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/brian-eno-on-the-israelgaza-crisis-how-can-you-justify-images-such-as-this-9643916.html

 

An open letter from Brian Eno, I don't expect many of you to read it, but those that do may find it enlightening, I will post the response from a different perspective next.

 

Thanks for posting this letter - Brian Eno is a great muso, and it now appears he is also a great humanitarian.

[midas]

As this thread is about marching, Pakistan is joining in tomorrow Sunday the 10th. It sounds like it could draw quite a large  crowd

 

 

 

JuD sources said that besides Multan, the caravans of JuD workers from Shujabad, Jalalpur Pirwala, Khanewal, Mailsi, Kabirwala, Gujrat and Muzaffargarh will also participate in the march to make the event successful.

 

 

 

http://www.nation.com.pk/national/07-Aug-2014/jud-anti-israel-march-on-10th

 

[Mossfinn]

 

 

Anyone who would post such a foolish piece of propaganda has a lot of nerve  talking about other people's "limitations". 

 

But I posted a response to it as well, I always like to see an alternative view. But, as old, I see things don't change, no response to views, entrenched positions and all that. You don't need to answer my questions, I understand they are difficult for you. However, just a little understanding would be helpful.
 

 

I appreciate the posts Mossfinn, but welcome to the Israeli right wing of TV. The response to your well worded posts was a little aggressive don't you think. There must be a lot of nerves touched somewhere.

 

 

Hi Jim, it is not the problem of aggression, internet warriors are just that, a lot of space with no real body, if you know what I mean.

 

Just one perspective in a sea of turmoil and hinted at in the attachments, Israel always had the high moral ground, up to and including the disgraceful way their people were not only murdered on an industrial scale, but the way it was ignored in detail by the allied powers, until other priorities were dealt with. This collective embarrassment and sense of need to recompense has lost all sight in a responsible solution.

 

This will not be answered but:

 

The action in Gaza is in response to rockets being fired?

 

How many Israelis have died because of the rockets?

 

How many Israelis have died because of the incursion?

 

Do the math,

 

So what is this all about? I wonder what response I will get?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Johpa]

Why would anyone protesting about the slaughter of the innocent women and children in Palestine be expected to carry flags and slogans saying 'Israel has a right to exist',

 

 

Ya know Jim, when I think of "slaughter" I conjure up images of people being lined up and murdered in mass:  I think of the Nazis in WWII; I think of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; I think of the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda.  And as much as I abhor the deaths in Gaza,  I find the use of the term "slaughter" to be incorrect and demonstrating historical ignorance.  If you can find me images where Israelis line up innocent people and then proceed to kill them in the same way the animals are killed in the slaughter houses of the world, as other regimes have done in the examples I have provided above, then I shall stand corrected.  But until then I maintain that you and the others who use the term are....(deleted to avoid suspension).

[Jay Sata]

Try and drag this off topic if you like but the protests continue.


Tens of thousands of people have taken part in a rally for Gaza in London.

The demonstration came amid renewed violence between Israel and Palestinian militants after a three-day ceasefire ended on Friday.

An emergency appeal in the UK for people affected by the conflict in Gaza has raised £4.5m in less than 24 hours, the Disasters Emergency Committee said.

Downing Street has said the UK is sending a team of NHS medical experts to the region to help those injured.

'Noisy but peaceful'
Saturday's demonstration, organised by the Stop the War coalition and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, saw participants march past the US embassy on their way to a rally in Hyde Park.

Speakers there included Labour MP Diane Abbott, who told the crowd British people "stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza". She said it was the "biggest demonstration yet" about Gaza.

Source BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28715052 Edited August 9, 2014 by Jay Sata

[GentlemanJim]

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

 

 

Why would anyone protesting about the slaughter of the innocent women and children in Palestine be expected to carry flags and slogans saying 'Israel has a right to exist',

 

 

Ya know Jim, when I think of "slaughter" I conjure up images of people being lined up and murdered in mass:  I think of the Nazis in WWII; I think of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; I think of the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda.  And as much as I abhor the deaths in Gaza,  I find the use of the term "slaughter" to be incorrect and demonstrating historical ignorance.  If you can find me images where Israelis line up innocent people and then proceed to kill them in the same way the animals are killed in the slaughter houses of the world, as other regimes have done in the examples I have provided above, then I shall stand corrected.  But until then I maintain that you and the others who use the term are....(deleted to avoid suspension).

 

 

Ya know Johpa, I don't really care about your hidden expletives at the end of your post nor your rhetoric.  Pol Pot, the Tutsis etc did not have missiles and bomb delivery systems accurate to within 1 meter, and if they did they would have used them. If you are differentiating the term slaughter by the use of a knife, gun or bomb then I feel sorry for you. The term slaughter is applied to someone using lethal force against people (or animals) unable to defend themselves. Whether lined up in the street and shot, or a terrified innocent family huddled together in a house that is bombed, they all end up in pieces.

 

'It is slaughter, h_ll it is even a massacre. If you want to debate about the term slaughter then you dont seem to have a grip on priorities or reality. The women and children in Gaza are being slaughtered. There are plenty of images of the aftermath far too graphic to put on this forum, so go and find your own. ISIS are currently slaughtering Christians with knives, is that more to your liking for a slaughter. The fact is both sets of victims are innocent and defenceless, the result is the same and the numerical tally is even more in Gaza. So you and the normal crew who 'liked' your post go and ponder on that for a while, it is yet another insight into the minds of the pro-Israeli's on here. If it is not slaughter then what is it? Massacre, ethnic cleansing, Genocide or would it ease your conscience to call it collateral damage - I bet it would.

[dr_lucas]

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

 

 

Why would anyone protesting about the slaughter of the innocent women and children in Palestine be expected to carry flags and slogans saying 'Israel has a right to exist',

 

 

Ya know Jim, when I think of "slaughter" I conjure up images of people being lined up and murdered in mass:  I think of the Nazis in WWII; I think of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; I think of the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda.  And as much as I abhor the deaths in Gaza,  I find the use of the term "slaughter" to be incorrect and demonstrating historical ignorance.  If you can find me images where Israelis line up innocent people and then proceed to kill them in the same way the animals are killed in the slaughter houses of the world, as other regimes have done in the examples I have provided above, then I shall stand corrected.  But until then I maintain that you and the others who use the term are....(deleted to avoid suspension).

 

 

Ya know Johpa, I don't really care about your hidden expletives at the end of your post nor your rhetoric.  Pol Pot, the Tutsis etc did not have missiles and bomb delivery systems accurate to within 1 meter, and if they did they would have used them. If you are differentiating the term slaughter by the use of a knife, gun or bomb then I feel sorry for you. The term slaughter is applied to someone using lethal force against people (or animals) unable to defend themselves. Whether lined up in the street and shot, or a terrified innocent family huddled together in a house that is bombed, they all end up in pieces.

 

'It is slaughter, h_ll it is even a massacre. If you want to debate about the term slaughter then you dont seem to have a grip on priorities or reality. The women and children in Gaza are being slaughtered. There are plenty of images of the aftermath far too graphic to put on this forum, so go and find your own. ISIS are currently slaughtering Christians with knives, is that more to your liking for a slaughter. The fact is both sets of victims are innocent and defenceless, the result is the same and the numerical tally is even more in Gaza. So you and the normal crew who 'liked' your post go and ponder on that for a while, it is yet another insight into the minds of the pro-Israeli's on here. If it is not slaughter then what is it? Massacre, ethnic cleansing, Genocide or would it ease your conscience to call it collateral damage - I bet it would.

 

It is a war. A war on terror in a urban area, not in the desert.

Sadly, innocents die in wars and the images are always far too graphic, even when there is no genocide, no slaughter, no massacre and no ethnic cleansing. In all these legal terms, there must be intent to kill. Do you suggest the IDF intends to kill and deliberately targets civilians? 

There are, without a doubt, accidents (indeliberate civilian casualties) as well when fighting in a condense populated & very hostile urban area, full of Hamas armed guerrilla militants (many of them dressed as IDF soldiers or blend in a group of civilians to camouflage themselves), hidden rockets, bombs & civilians used as human shields. And when hospitals, schools, mosques, UN ambulances and other civilian properties are used to assault soldiers.

The IDF has accidentally killed and injured its own soldiers ("friendly fire") on more than one occasion (many of these incidents, in most armies, don't even get publicized in order to not hurt morale obviously). Are they now slaughtering their own soldiers?

Have you ever seen an army or nation (including the ones Johpa mentioned) which conducts "genocide" setup a hospital to treat the wounded of the side it tries to kill?

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-idf-sets-up-field-hospital-for-gazans-1000956531

 

Have you ever seen an army which conducts "genocide" provide humanitarian aid to the side it tries to kill?

http://www.jspacenews.com/idf-works-bring-humanitarian-aid-to-gaza/

 

Or to an enemy state's civilians (Syria):

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.561530

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxC11QMMf9c&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bwiour-iM&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg

Edited August 9, 2014 by dr_lucas