Gaza and Israel suffer deadliest day

[dr_lucas]

Dr Lucas,

>>after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.

 

...wrong!

 

Haaretz reports something different

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

 

Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

 

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative. 

 

...plus an indefinite truce.

wrong? Am I?

 

[b]

The Hamas Covenant also known as Hamas Charter, refers to the Charter of the Hamas, issued on 18 August 1988, outlining the movement founding identity, stand, and aims.^[1]

The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,^[2] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.^[3][4] The charter also states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they "stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region".^[5] The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam.^[1]

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."^[6] Hamas have moved away from their charter since they decided to go for political office.^[7] In 2009 interviews with the BBC, Tony Blair claimed that Hamas does not accept the existence of Israel and continues to pursue their objectives through terror and violence; Sir Jeremy Greenstock however argued that they have not adopted their charter since they won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006 as part of their political program.^[8] Instead they have moved to a more secular stance.^[7] In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.^[9] In contrast to this, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar stated that any talk of the 1967 lines is "just a phase" until Hamas has a chance to "regain the land...even if we [Hamas] have to do so inch by inch."^[10] Other Hamas leaders, including Ismail Haniyah and Khaled Meshaalhave also stated repeatedly that "Palestine – from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, from its north to its south – is our land, our right, and our homeland. There will be no relinquishing or forsaking even an inch or small part of it,"^[11] and that "we shall not relinquish the Islamic waqf on the land of Palestine, and Jerusalem shall not be divided into Western and Eastern Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a single united [city], and Palestine stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and from Naqoura [Rosh Ha-Niqra] to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] in the south."^[

^[/b]

^{Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant}

[dr_lucas]

 

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

 

 

 

Unfair? It got nothing to with respect.

First, I was talking about NATO, the UN and Multi-national force which were proposed as a guarantee to Israel's safety if and when it gave Hamas all they demanded.

Since you stated they have no mandate to fight, then they can't guarantee Israel's safety obviously, so the proposal is ridiculous.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

 

 

Yes, because that it is entirely reasonable and well within the realm of probability.

 

 

eh?

[dr_lucas]

 

 

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

 

 

 

In your mind UG, how would you envision such a thing happening? Would they drive them out by force? Line the Palestinians up and march them across the land to Jordan by gunpoint? Ask them politely? Load them up on jets? 

 

Given that you have already said that all Gazans could be terrorists, I can't imagine you would let them on planes. So I'm assuming a physical march would be in order eh?

 

 

UG was just cynic (while his main point was spot on - Israel has no interest in occupying any land) and you are being sarcastic.
Not all Gazans are terrorists. There are many good, peace-loving civilians there.

The problem is that out of 1.8 million residents there, it has between 20% - 25% extremists who believe in JIHAD against Israel, Jews, USA and the "profane" west (many of them actively participating in terrorism), which is around the same percentage of Muslim extremists in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

[Ulysses G.]

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

 
 
In your mind UG, how would you envision such a thing happening?

You mean 66 years ago? All Israel would have had to do was not encourage Arabs to stay, which, in retrospect, was probably the biggest mistake that they ever made. Most of them would have left on their own, because they knew what their leaders would do to the enemy, if the tables were turned. Many Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel and a lot of them did. That is why 20% of the population are of Arab heritage today.
Palestinians Arabs left their homes in 194749 for many different reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies - to make it easier to "slaughter the Jews" - many were expelled for strategic reasons, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of battle.

The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Israels Proclamation of Independence, issued on May 14, 1948, also invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new nation:

"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions. . . . We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all." Edited July 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

 

 

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

Unfair? It got nothing to with respect. First, I was talking about NATO, the UN and Multi-national force which were proposed as a guarantee to Israel's safety if and when it gave Hamas all they demanded. Since you stated they have no mandate to fight, then they can't guarantee Israel's safety obviously, so the proposal is ridiculous.

 

Ok, I located an article that covers the PA proposal that NATO, no mention of UN member countries forces, to provide security five years after Israel and PA reach a peace agreement. Has Abbas altered his proposal since the last round of negotiations?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/opinion/abbass-nato-proposal.html?_r=0

 

another article for comparison...

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.572094

 

I seriously doubt that US/NATO could ever attain a concensus to provide "boots on the ground" security (Kerry has proposed only a U.S. military high-tech monitoring role with sensors and satellites, but no troops on the ground) let alone Israel agreeing to the Abbas proposal. e.g. Netanyahu did say Israel does not want NATO troops in the Jordan Valley. I would guess his position would have hardened in the past few weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Credo]

If you think the situation is complicated with two groups fighting, think of how complicated it would become if you add a 3rd group, such as the UN.   

 

They would be absolute sitting ducks.   That would add new meaning to the word "Human Shields."

 

[kblaze]

 

You mean 66 years ago? All Israel would have had to do was not encourage Arabs to stay, which, in retrospect, was probably the biggest mistake that they ever made. Most of them would have left on their own, because they knew what their leaders would do to the enemy, if the tables were turned. Many Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel and a lot of them did. That is why 20% of the population are of Arab heritage today.
Palestinians Arabs left their homes in 194749 for many different reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies - to make it easier to "slaughter the Jews" - many were expelled for strategic reasons, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of battle.

The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Israels Proclamation of Independence, issued on May 14, 1948, also invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new nation:

"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions. . . . We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

 

 

They encouraged them to stay? Ok

[dr_lucas]

 

 

You mean 66 years ago? All Israel would have had to do was not encourage Arabs to stay, which, in retrospect, was probably the biggest mistake that they ever made. Most of them would have left on their own, because they knew what their leaders would do to the enemy, if the tables were turned. Many Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel and a lot of them did. That is why 20% of the population are of Arab heritage today.
Palestinians Arabs left their homes in 194749 for many different reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies - to make it easier to "slaughter the Jews" - many were expelled for strategic reasons, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of battle.

The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Israels Proclamation of Independence, issued on May 14, 1948, also invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new nation:

"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions. . . . We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

 

 

They encouraged them to stay? Ok

 

 

Shocking, isn't it?

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

Unfair? It got nothing to with respect. First, I was talking about NATO, the UN and Multi-national force which were proposed as a guarantee to Israel's safety if and when it gave Hamas all they demanded. Since you stated they have no mandate to fight, then they can't guarantee Israel's safety obviously, so the proposal is ridiculous.

 

Ok, I located an article that covers the PA proposal that NATO, no mention of UN member countries forces, to provide security five years after Israel and PA reach a peace agreement. Has Abbas altered his proposal since the last round of negotiations?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/opinion/abbass-nato-proposal.html?_r=0

 

another article for comparison...

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.572094

 

I seriously doubt that US/NATO could ever attain a concensus to provide "boots on the ground" security (Kerry has proposed only a U.S. military high-tech monitoring role with sensors and satellites, but no troops on the ground) let alone Israel agreeing to the Abbas proposal. e.g. Netanyahu did say Israel does not want NATO troops in the Jordan Valley. I would guess his position would have hardened in the past few weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly because they won't provide "boots on the ground" is why the idea is useless and was not accepted. No "boots on the ground" = no real effective security the nations can guarantee Israel, which means, as I said, a ridiculous proposal. All Israel ultimately cares about, as most countries I guess, is its people safety & security.

Only real peace agreement, enforced by "boots on the ground" NATO forces, and a complete demilitarization of Palestine will be an accepted reasonable solution.

[Morch]

June 1-11        2 rockets fired by IJ fall harmlessly in fields

June 12           Netanyahu blames Hamas for 3 teens murder

All hell breaks loose. Result...

 

>600 Palestinians killed many of whom are innocent civilians; 3640 injured

118,300 homeless refugees.

Israelis living in fear in air raid shelters

Flights cancelled into Ben Gurion airport.

[Social] media awash with images of bloodied children

A new generation of bitter freedom fighters created

Anti Israeli protests world wide

Anti Semitic riots in Paris

2000 rockets fired

Israeli soldier missing, believed captured by Hamas.

30 Israelis dead

 

I wonder if Netanyahu sometimes thinks...Was it all worth it? What has been achieved that he couldn’t have got from an indefinite, unconditional truce with Hamas?

 

At a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ban Ki Moon urged Israel to exercise "maximum restraint", adding that "military action will not increase Israeli security in the longer term".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28416221

 

The only thing that will make Israel permanently secure is a just peace agreement.

 

And again with the arbitrary choice of dates as starting point....

And again with ignoring any factors and events other than the kidnapping....

And again with the false assumption that all the Palestinians are ready and willing to make peace....

 

A pity reality isn't as simple as that.

 

[Morch]

 

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

Posts removed to permit response.

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

 

 

 

Not much respect. Sorry.  For forces from third world countries this is nothing more than a meal ticket.  For forces from other countries - they mostly just want to get by and keep safe.

 

Their role is more to do with monitoring than providing actual security, so does not really address the issues.  I also recall UNIFIL forces letting terrorist pass them by, I also recall UNIFIL forces caught running drugs....

 

The whole concept is quite off mark.
 

[Morch]

 

 

The funny thing is that the Gaza strip originally belongs to Egypt. Israel occupied it in 1967 .....

 

The tragedy of Gaza has a complicated history. It was originally part of Transjordan and the people were part of the larger Levantine Arab population, which is distinct both linguistically and culturally from Egypt.  Egypt attacked Israel in 1947 and of course failed to defeat Israel, but it did manage to capture Gaza and occupy Gaza for next 40 years, treating the people as any other conquored peoples, as second class citizens at best.  So in 1947 you had native Gazans as well as refugees who fled Israel living in Gaza. The entire area became one extended refugee camp. Something somwhat similar happened in the West Bank where Arab refugees from Israel were forced to either stay in refugee camps on the West Bank or emmigrate elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge this is the only case I can think of where people of identical cultural identity were forced to stay in refugee camps by their cultural bretheren rather than being allowed to be absorbed into the larger popuation. The situation should be compared to that of India which was also partitioned around the same time. In India, during the partition,  there was a very large exchange of populations based upon religion, but in both situations HIndus refugees were absorbed into India just as Muslim refugees were absorbed into Pakistan.

 

 

According to the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, when the fighting stops refugees are allowed to return home, if they wish to. Israel has prevented this.

 

 

Are Jews/Israelis allowed to go back to their original Muslim homelands? Does this apply for third generation?  Did they get offered any compensation?

 

Where are those Palestinian refugees supposed to live, then? Does this Right of Return include handing back all lands and properties, thereby making a new refugee situation? Can Israel (or rather Israel and Palestine) really support such a mass immigration of people?  Do these returned get an Israeli citizenship? Are Arab Israelis and non-refugee Palestinians keen on handing back refugee properties held by them?

 

One liners are so full of foresight, not.
 

[Morch]

Dr Lucas,

>>after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.

 

...wrong!

 

Haaretz reports something different

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

 

Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

 

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative. 

 

...plus an indefinite truce.

 

That's a quote from 2008.  Note that it does not say much about peace or recognizing Israel.  The Hamas repeatedly says (as does Hamas sponsored media) the opposite.

 

The truce is neither indefinite (does not even say that on the article quoted) nor does it mean peace. It is more in line with a breather and regrouping period which is used to prepare for the next round in the struggle.

 

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

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

"No occupation of Gaza". 

They are certainly INSIDE of Gaza now. They control all the borders, except for those on the Egypt side, they control nearly all the coastal waters, they control what goes into Gaza, they control who can go into Gaza and who cannot. 

 

"Attempting to survive".  

Killing hundreds of civilians, destroying whole neighborhoods, inflicting life-altering injuries on thousands while some of your farmland gets hit by rockets and a couple of your civilians get killed = attempting to survive.

 

 

Saying that Israeli forces are inside Gaza now, does not mean that they were there before - there was no occupation of the Gaza Strip for some years now. Israeli troops went inside not without context, and did not re-occupy the area.

 

So yes, there's that pesky Egyptian border which sort of blows a hole threw this Evil Israel image. That is unless the next bit of wisdom will explain how Egypt is actually controlled by Israel and the USA (while conveniently ignoring both domestic and regional politics, not all having to do with Israel).

 

Attempting to survive might be overdoing it some, yes. Then again, the reason attacks from the Gaza Strip do less damage got plenty to do with Israel's effort and investment on this front. When borders were relatively open and suicide bombers (or just plain bomb attacks) were the method of choice for Hamas, casualty figures in Israel were higher.
 

 

 

Morch, you seem reasonable and I appreciate that. Please don't start throwing around "Evil Israel" in replies to me because I do not believe that at all and it is really tiresome how criticism of Israel gets spun by so many posters into something much more devious than what it actually is. I support Israel's right to exist. I also believe there should be a Palestinian state. 

 

your first paragraph; I never said that they were there before Protective Edge.

 

Your last paragraph; "the reason attacks from the Gaza Strip do less damage got plenty to do with Israel's effort and investment on this front" 

 

Why leave out the fact that Iron Dome is so successful largely because of US Taxpayer dollars? 

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/senate-subcommittee-approves-doubling-us-funds-israels-iron-dome-system-1629580

 

 

Why the Evil Israel remark? Because it seems some posters here see Israel as the sole cause of anything that has to do with the Palestinians and neighboring countries, not to mention the USA and the UN. Other than showing a pretty shallow grasp of conditions, histories and events in the Middle East, this approach is also quite demeaning toward the Palestinians (and the Egyptian, Jordanians and all the rest), as if what they do is of no consequence. Franky, I would be pissed if I was a Palestinian, and hearing over and over again how everything whatsoever is manipulated by Israel.

 

The blockade is a fine example as any - nothing to stop Egypt from setting up a temporary safe zone allowing children, women and elderly Gazans in, nothing to stop them from allowing humanitarian aid through. No one seems to expect them to, somehow. Ah yes, Egypt is a puppet state run by Israel and the USA (no, that's not in your post - been posted before).

 

No, you did not say the IDF was there before. But answering a "no occupation in Gaza" with "they are certainly inside now", does not seem to be quite to the point. 

 

I did not leave out USA funding, I just don't see Iron Dome as the only ingredient in the Israeli effort. It is a pretty new addition to a wide array of means, which include defensive, offensive and intelligence measures. In the same way I did not go into Hamas being funded by certain countries.
 

[Morch]

 

 

Dr Lucas,

>>after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.

 

...wrong!

 

Haaretz reports something different

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

 

Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

 

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative. 

 

...plus an indefinite truce.

 

Clearly you don't understand the nature of the beast.

A truce (hudna) is something arabs cry for, when they are weak.

When the power shifts in their way, they break it and attack.

There will never be peace in Israel...only when one side is annihilated.

 

 

It seems foolish not to accept an indefinite truce from Hamas if you really are serious about peace.

Talking is better than warring.

 

Shalom.

 

 

You keep going on about indefinite truce, while most offers had a defined time frame.  The Hamas truce offers did not include peace negotiations, more like a temporary cessation of hostilities.  There was usually other conditions involved (like full Right of Return), and less elements of recognizing Israel and accepting its permanent existence.

 

Also quite a difference in rhetoric when addressing Western representatives and the home crowd.
 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

 

 

Yes, because that it is entirely reasonable and well within the realm of probability.

 

 

Haifa's industrial area was targeted by Hezbollah more than once.  For Hamas it is still out of range, for now, but they did make the attempt, and if they could they would definitely go for it.

 

As opposed to the nuclear reactor near Dimona, this industrial area is mostly undefended. A critical hit of certain

facilities could indeed result in a massive amount of casualties.

 

 

[Johpa]

According to the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, when the fighting stops refugees are allowed to return home, if they wish to. Israel has prevented this.

 

A pipedream that ignores reality and ranks right up there with the fictitional biblical land claims from both sides as being a non-sequitur to any serious talk of a resolution of the conflict . Arab refugees are not going to be able to return to their homes in Israel. Jewish refugees from Arab countries are not going to get their homes back.  HIndu refugees in India are not going to get their homes back in Pakistan and Muslim refugees in Pakistan are not going to get their homes back in India.

 

If and when there is ever a peace settlement, I do belive it behooves Israel to make a significant donation to any future Arab state that includes the West Bank and Gaza as a token of compensation for lands taken after 1947.  But there is a need to look forward from the reality of the present and not to look backwards in a futile attempt to change the tides of history.
 

[MJP]

What's going on is indefensible. Netanyahu should be arrested and tried at the Hague for war crimes.

 

The best way of dealing with Hamas would have been to up the the capability and coverage of the anti-rocket iron dome system and flood Gaza with aid and kindness while at the same time rooting out Hamas rocket production and locations on the ground.

 

I believe this began with Netanyahu blaming Hamas for the murder of three Israeli teens, something Hamas denied, but Netanyahu wouldn't believe them. Now hundreds of children are dead. As of tonight 160 children have been killed and 1300 injured.

 

Time to rid ourselves of this utter delusion that countries and borders actually exist. In this regard, only men with guns exist.

[Jay Sata]

What's going on is indefensible. Netanyahu should be arrested and tried at the Hague for war crimes.

 

The best way of dealing with Hamas would have been to up the the capability and coverage of the anti-rocket iron dome system and flood Gaza with aid and kindness while at the same time rooting out Hamas rocket production and locations on the ground.

 

I believe this began with Netanyahu blaming Hamas for the murder of three Israeli teens, something Hamas denied, but Netanyahu wouldn't believe them. Now hundreds of children are dead. As of tonight 160 children have been killed and 1300 injured.

 

Time to rid ourselves of this utter delusion that countries and borders actually exist. In this regard, only men with guns exist.

I quite agree.

 

There is quite a lot of pointless diatribe on here but the facts are simple.

Hence this from the UN

 

The UN has said that Israel may have committed war crimes in its offensive against Hamas in Gaza, in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed in two weeks, and voted to launch an international inquiry. The US opposed the move, and 17 countries abstained.

"There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes," Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said in the debate in Geneva.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/israel-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza-un

Of course the US opposes the move as they fund Israel. (The only country in the Middle east with nuclear weapons).

[simple1]

 

 

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

Posts removed to permit response.

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

Not much respect. Sorry.  For forces from third world countries this is nothing more than a meal ticket.  For forces from other countries - they mostly just want to get by and keep safe.

 

Their role is more to do with monitoring than providing actual security, so does not really address the issues.  I also recall UNIFIL forces letting terrorist pass them by, I also recall UNIFIL forces caught running drugs....

 

The whole concept is quite off mark.

Maybe so, but the incident I referred to involved the deaths of unarmed observers, one each from Austria, China, Finland and Canada.

 

I do not know the rules of engagement for UNIFIL, but usually UN member countries are not permitted to engage in combat, so very likely they do not directly confront Hizbollah and other armed groups. Current UNIFIL mandate agreed between Lebanon & Israel at:

 

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unifil/mandate.shtml

 

UNFIL and related deaths, don't imagine they are all drug runners and cowards

 

• 287 troops
• 2 military observer
• 8 international civilian
• 7 local civilian

Edited July 23, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

There is quite a lot of pointless diatribe on here but the facts are simple.
Hence this from the UN

The UN has said that Israel may have committed war crimes

 

Since when is "MAY HAVE" considered a "fact"? 

 

By the way, the Secretary-General of the UN has reportedly been riding around on a private aircraft funded by the Qatari Government and they are supporters of Hamas. Does anyone trust the UN on this issue anymore? 

Edited July 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[brimacthai]

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

 

 

We see a lot of pictures of rocket and bomb attacks or the results of the attacks in Gaza but I haven't seen any pictures of the attacks or the results of the attacks in Israel from Gaza.

There are plenty out there - all caused by rockets shot from Gaza.
 

 
 

Thanks for sharing these pictures... I was just wondering why we're only seeing one side of the story... is that still or again? I'm so confused!

[Seastallion]

 

 

 

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

 

 

 

In your mind UG, how would you envision such a thing happening? Would they drive them out by force? Line the Palestinians up and march them across the land to Jordan by gunpoint? Ask them politely? Load them up on jets? 

 

Given that you have already said that all Gazans could be terrorists, I can't imagine you would let them on planes. So I'm assuming a physical march would be in order eh?

 

 

UG was just cynic (while his main point was spot on - Israel has no interest in occupying any land) and you are being sarcastic.
Not all Gazans are terrorists. There are many good, peace-loving civilians there.

The problem is that out of 1.8 million residents there, it has between 20% - 25% extremists who believe in JIHAD against Israel, Jews, USA and the "profane" west (many of them actively participating in terrorism), which is around the same percentage of Muslim extremists in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

 

The "Muslim" girl in the video was a patsy for the Bridgette woman. Her answer was pre-prepared rhetoric.

[Ulysses G.]

If so, spot on "rhetoric" indeed. She nailed it.  

[kblaze]

 

 

 

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

 

 

 

In your mind UG, how would you envision such a thing happening? Would they drive them out by force? Line the Palestinians up and march them across the land to Jordan by gunpoint? Ask them politely? Load them up on jets? 

 

Given that you have already said that all Gazans could be terrorists, I can't imagine you would let them on planes. So I'm assuming a physical march would be in order eh?

 

 

UG was just cynic (while his main point was spot on - Israel has no interest in occupying any land) and you are being sarcastic.
Not all Gazans are terrorists. There are many good, peace-loving civilians there.

The problem is that out of 1.8 million residents there, it has between 20% - 25% extremists who believe in JIHAD against Israel, Jews, USA and the "profane" west (many of them actively participating in terrorism), which is around the same percentage of Muslim extremists in the world

 

 

I agree 100% Dr. Lucas. I wish UG did too.

This is what he said when he was defending why ANY Gazan shouldn't be allowed to leave the strip to escape the bombing (I had asked him why they just can't let women and children leave);

 

Ulysses G., on 21 Jul 2014 - 21:47, said:

The point is that anyone could be a terrorist.

Edited July 24, 2014 by kblaze

[Ulysses G.]

I agree 100% Dr. Lucas. I wish UG did too.
This is what he said when he was defending why ANY Gazan shouldn't be allowed to leave the strip to escape the bombing (I had asked him why they just can't let women and children leave);
 
Ulysses G., on 21 Jul 2014 - 21:47, said:
[background=#f7f7f7]The point is that [/background]anyone[background=#f7f7f7] could be a terrorist.[/background]

You are - once again - being disingenuous and trying to put words in my mouth. THIS is the post that I replied to and if you had quoted it directly, it would have been quite easy to check it. My answer to you - that you quoted out of context - is right after this post.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741979-israel-prepares-for-ground-military-operation-98-dead-in-gaza-strip-airstrikes/?p=8133461 Edited July 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[kblaze]

 

I agree 100% Dr. Lucas. I wish UG did too.
This is what he said when he was defending why ANY Gazan shouldn't be allowed to leave the strip to escape the bombing (I had asked him why they just can't let women and children leave);
 
Ulysses G., on 21 Jul 2014 - 21:47, said:
The point is that anyone could be a terrorist.

You are - once again - being disingenuous and trying to put words in my mouth. THIS is the post that I replied to and if you had quoted it directly, it would have been quite easy to check it. My answer to you - that you quoted out of context - is right after this post.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741979-israel-prepares-for-ground-military-operation-98-dead-in-gaza-strip-airstrikes/?p=8133461

 

 

I'm not being disingenuous at all, it was your quote was it not?

 

Do you or do you not believe women and children should be allowed to leave Gaza?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.  

[Ulysses G.]

 

 

I agree 100% Dr. Lucas. I wish UG did too.
This is what he said when he was defending why ANY Gazan shouldn't be allowed to leave the strip to escape the bombing (I had asked him why they just can't let women and children leave);
 
Ulysses G., on 21 Jul 2014 - 21:47, said:
The point is that anyone could be a terrorist.

You are - once again - being disingenuous and trying to put words in my mouth. THIS is the post that I replied to and if you had quoted it directly, it would have been quite easy to check it. My answer to you - that you quoted out of context - is right after this post.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741979-israel-prepares-for-ground-military-operation-98-dead-in-gaza-strip-airstrikes/?p=8133461

 

 
I'm not being disingenuous at all, it was your quote was it not?

 

It was my quote about not knowing how many civilian casualties there really are. You purposely took the quote out of context and said that I was answering a question that did not exist anywhere close to my answer on another issue.

I am fine with allowing some women and children to leave Gaza under certain circumstances, but the government of Israel has a lot more idea than I do how to do it safely and efficiently.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.