Gaza school strike 'criminal' - UN

[David48]

UG ... seriously ... I have heaps of Maps which contradict what you suggest above.

But do we really want to do this?

If something is not correct, prove it. Do not expect us to rely on your "gut feelings". We have been over and over these things on these threads. Go back and read them, if you have questions.

UG ... it's not my opinion that counts in this debate .. but the World's opinion.

On that PR front ... Israel has lost this.

This is the bit I don't understand.

I'm a neutral ... my mind is open.

Attacking me is not going to win my heart.

Hearts and Minds will swing the balance for Israel.

MHO ... dismiss it if you wish.

,

[dr_lucas]

UG ... seriously ... I have heaps of Maps which contradict what you suggest above.

But do we really want to do this?

If something is not correct, prove it. Do not expect us to rely on your "gut feelings". We have been over and over these things on these threads. Go back and read them, if you have questions.

UG ... it's not my opinion that counts in this debate .. but the World's opinion.

On that PR front ... Israel has lost this.

This is the bit I don't understand.

I'm a neutral ... my mind is open.

Attacking me is not going to win my heart.

Hearts and Minds will swing the balance for Israel.

MHO ... dismiss it if you wish.

,

I am beginning to wonder if you really are interested in facts or just win an argument and/or maybe you are just bored tonight...?

What is inaccurate in the map?

You suggested you have plenty of maps that you can show to contradict this map.

Please prove it, but only from documented, neutral and accurate source.

[David48]

There is a well used statement that implies that ... "The first casualty when war comes is truth".

Let there be honesty and truth from both sides.

We don't seriously expect that from Hamas ... but we do from Israel.

Hamas, I don't take seriously ... I'm happy to pull that trigger.

.

[David48]

UG ... I'll stop this here and now ... truce declared.

I don't wish to focus on a point which may divide us.

Let us agree to disagree and move on.

EDIT ... ditto Dr Lucas

.

Edited August 22, 2014 by David48

[dr_lucas]

UG ... I'll stop this here and now ... truce declared.

I don't wish to focus on a point which may divide us.

Let us agree to disagree and move on.

EDIT ... ditto Dr Lucas

.

I am sorry, is this some kind of personal discussion? There is PM for that.

It's not about truce or war, it's about facts in discussion/debate (You wrote: "I desire a debate based on fact ").

You required facts to prove statements of other members, yet unwilling to prove, in the same exact way, your own statement - "I have heaps of Maps which contradict what you suggest above".

Edited August 22, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Ulysses G.]

Attacking me is not going to win my heart.

I'm not attacking you and I am not trying to win your heart. You are asking for "proof" of things that have been proved over and over again on these threads - along with credible evidence. Some of it is common knowledge, that you do not even seem to know.

If you are really interested in learning, go back and read every post by Morch, dr-lucas and Jopha. There are plenty of opinions that I don't agree with, but all the historical information is entirely factual. We are lucky to have all three of them.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

There is a well used statement that implies that ... "The first casualty when war comes is truth".

Let there be honesty and truth from both sides.

We don't seriously expect that from Hamas ... but we do from Israel.

Hamas, I don't take seriously ... I'm happy to pull that trigger.

.

David:

Should you ever get to Saudi Arabia, go to a place called Jareer Book Store (they are everywhere), look in the map or atlas section and try to find a map showing Israel.

None of the maps sold in Saudi Arabia have Israel on them. There, the entire land area is called Palestine.

By the way, if I present something as fact and provide a link or documents to support that fact, I have completed my post.

If you later consider my post to be false, it is your responsibility to challenge me with contrary data or links to support your challenge.

Edited August 22, 2014 by chuckd

[dr_lucas]

@chuckd, it was just an idiotic argument for the sake of argument, I am pretty sure he was bored or something.

Normally, on other topics, he makes good posts...

[Jingthing]

Some good information from the military perspective on the controversy about proportionality of Israeli military action and also some straight thinking about what is and what isn't a war crime:

Starting at about 19:20:

Edited August 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[coma]

After all this fighting, Hamas has just killed only its 4 civilian. Watch the Israeli over reaction.

[Ulysses G.]

They have fired thousand of rockets and disrupted life in Israel. Stopping terrorism is not "over-reacting."

[simple1]

Colonel Kemps' bleak assessment on the future of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-supportive-british-colonel-and-a-bleak-vision-of-endless-costly-military-operations/

Edited August 23, 2014 by simple1

[tpazzi]

Seems like the only thing Israel is accomplishing here is to ensure that the next generation of Israelis will be targets of future terrorism.

"The question is that I posed is how many new terrorists are being made?"

-Donald Rumsfeld

[Ulysses G.]

You mean just like for the last 100 years? That is on the Palestinian radicals and why they will live in purgatory until they change their evil ways and sign a peace treaty.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[tpazzi]

You mean just like for the last 100 years?

Keep saying "the last 100 years" the way you frequently do here - and when you are attacking someone's historical accuracy, for Buddha's sake- and you'll finally be right 34 years from now.

[tpazzi]

That is on the Palestinian radicals and why they will live in purgatory until they change their evil ways and sign a peace treaty.

And what is the Israeli plan to "change their evil ways?"

I've seen no offer from Israel for anything that would offer any hope to the non-radical Palestinians.

[Ulysses G.]

You mean just like for the last 100 years?

Keep saying "the last 100 years" the way you frequently do here - and when you are attacking someone's historical accuracy, for Buddha's sake- and you'll finally be right 34 years from now.

The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the area around the turn of last century. It has probably been more than 100 years.

I've seen no offer from Israel for anything that would offer any hope to the non-radical Palestinians.

Google:

The Oslo agreements

The Camp David Summit

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal in 2008

The Palestinians have blown deal after deal.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Thorgal]

Israel confiscated lands from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan after the Yum Kippor war.

Check out the map of UN resolution 181 from what it should be. If Israel respected this resolution there would be more peace in the region. But no, the israeli settlers movements are still ongoing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

It's a historical mistake to deny this fact and to simulate Arab agression under Israeli occupation in the region.

All countries in the region are part from the East. Only Israel is part of the West ?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Thorgal

[Ulysses G.]

Much of it, land that Jordan and Egypt had "confiscated" themselves, but the Israel-bashers never bother to mention that.

[cheeryble]

UG

Did you ever answer my post about acceptability of disproportionate collective punishment?

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas and I pointed out that Britain did exactly that against a much more deadly IRA bombing campaign right in it's capital lasting years or decades?

......and that having stuck to some principle, peace now more or less prevailed?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Jingthing]

On topic -- Israeli boy killed by Hamas rocket allegedly fired near a UNRWA SCHOOL. Get it now? Get why Israel is fully justified to go after military targets in civilian areas? Get it why that isn't a war crime?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/four-year-old-killed-in-mortar-attack-named-as-daniel-turgerman/

Edited August 23, 2014 by Jingthing

[krisb]

I get that Israel enjoy torturing it's next door neighbours.

Disgusting behaviour really from both sides of the fence. Both as pathetic as each other.

[Ulysses G.]

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas

I believe that I said, thousands of rockets, which no country on earth would put up with. We have already discussed this ad nauseam, but this articles addresses your claims very realistically.

Hamas is not the IRA

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[CBR250]

I get that Israel enjoy torturing it's next door neighbours.

Disgusting behaviour really from both sides of the fence. Both as pathetic as each other.

I share your disgust at both sides much of the time.

However, I also believe that the responsibility to make peace always rests with the big kid on the block. Israel refuses to play along with the peace emissaries from the USA, the EU, the UN. Israel has undermined every attempt at peace talks. This latest attack on Gaza came less than a month after a temporary Unity government had formed in Palestine that recognised the right of existence of Israel - Netanyahu's claimed central concern. A great opportunity to try to get some positive dialogue - and with 6 months before the next elections in Gaza a positive peace process would have sidelined Hamas effectively. But Netanyahu chose instead to talk up a war. Surely you must ask yourself why he acted in this manner? Why did he so angrily reject this peace overture from Palestine? As one could not say he is a stupid man, one can only conclude that peace is not his agenda. In fact, when you add this to his other actions over the past few years it is abundantly clear that he is deliberately maintaining conflict.

I have no love for Hamas either. The leaders of Hamas are at least as bad as the Israelis. But where I take sides goes back to my first statement - I believe that it is the responsibility of the big kid to force peace along. Without the big kid being interested, peace cannot happen. You just get the little kid kicked around more, and retaliating by throwing more stones. Which means the big kid needs to show who's boss. And so the cycle continues. (And meanwhile, if you are looking for a reason as to why the Big Kid wants to keep fighting - aside from egoism - look at the land. While there is no peace, Israel just keeps on stealing more and more land from Palestinians on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem).

[tpazzi]

The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the area around the turn of last century. It has probably been more than 100 years.

The Palestinians have blown deal after deal.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't go back to Samson's destruction of the Gaza Temple. Surely he was provoked.

As for the three "deals" which you claim the Palestinians "blew" :

The Oslo agreements

This was sabotaged internally in Israel with the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish fanatic. That allowed the rightwing Likud return to power under the leadership of Netanyahu who made no effort to conceal his deep antagonism to Oslo, denouncing it as incompatible with Israel's right to security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel. Read: Avi Shlaim's " Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations"

The Camp David Summit

Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks at Camp David says this: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book (Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy). But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal in 2008

This one refers to the one where Olmert refused to provide a map of the proposed territorial lines until after Abbas agreed to the entire deal. Abbas was not even given the chance to discuss it with the Fatah leadership. He has said he was willing to renew the talks from the point at which they ended with Olmert but never got the chance due to the maneuverings inside the Israeli Government. Olmert himself, blamed his own foreign minister (Tzipi Livni) and then defense minister (Ehud Barak) who both approached Codalezza Rice and asked that she not "enshrine" Olmert's proposal. This is described in Rice's book "No Higher Honor".

In the Art of War, Lao Tsu says: " If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet; do not press an enemy that is cornered."

My question still stands; What outlet is Israel leaving? What do you envision peace to look like? So far, the only inference you leave me to draw is that you support a total eradication of all Palestinians both the radicals, and non-radicals. Convince me I'm wrong.

[cheeryble]

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas

I believe that I said, thousands of rockets, which no country on earth would put up with. We have already discussed this ad nauseam, but this articles addresses your claims very realistically.

Hamas is not the IRA

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Without wishing to pettifog back about the danger of large bombs versus small rockets UG, it sounds as though the religious background is justifying disproportionate collective punishment for you.

Although the Palestinian efforts have historically not proved very dangerous statistically (no consolation if you happen to have one of their lumps of pipe hit you in the head of course), it seems to me that your justification for indiscriminate attack is little different to theirs.

I do not understand how it cannot be as clear as a bell that israeli policy has for years been "If they get out of hand we'll crush them so brutally (whilst making a PR show at carefully selecting targets and making phone calls) that the message will be clear. Stay in your place or your whole people will suffer."

Edited August 23, 2014 by cheeryble

[7by7]

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas

I believe that I said, thousands of rockets, which no country on earth would put up with. We have already discussed this ad nauseam, but this articles addresses your claims very realistically.

Hamas is not the IRA

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Yes, Hamas is not the IRA, Gaza is not Ireland, north or south. But there are enough parallels for the Northern Irish peace process to be used as a guide and example of what can be achieved if the state, Israel, is prepared to talk to the terrorists, Hamas.

Zion Evrony, who was Israeli ambassador to Dublin when he wrote the article 7 years ago, has his opinion. As shown to you repeatedly in other threads, many others have the opposite view.

[dr_lucas]

You have mixed a few facts, with half facts, your own (clearly one sided) opinion/interpretation and some additional manufactured facts.

Let's break it down:

As for the three "deals" which you claim the Palestinians "blew" :

The Oslo agreements

This was sabotaged internally in Israel with the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish fanatic. That allowed the rightwing Likud return to power under the leadership of Netanyahu who made no effort to conceal his deep antagonism to Oslo, denouncing it as incompatible with Israel's right to security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel. Read: Avi Shlaim's " Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations"

Rabin assassination by (the scum) Yigal Amir: Fact.

Your suggestion that this is the reason for the failure of the accords/agreements - Your opinion.

Netanyahu claiming that the Oslo accords do not answer Israel's security needs - Fact, which many security experts agree with him on. (By the way, he was objecting also Sharon's bilateral withdrawal from Gaza, saying Gaza will turn into "Gaza-stan" and the Palestinians will start rocket bombing Israeli civilians, which turned out to be an accurate prediction, almost instantly. Not to mention all the suicide bombers from Gaza, which the security barrier helped eliminate almost completely, as there were dropped to next to zero after building it).

Claiming Netanyahu said "The Jewish people have the right to the whole land of Israel" - I have never heard him saying that. What is "the whole land"? Did he say "exclusively"? Please provide credible citation, preferably a video of him saying that.

Here is a much more balanced and accurate article about the reasons for the failure of the Oslo agreements (Hint: Both sides to blame)

"The success of the Oslo process was predicated on a beneficial spiral of confidence-building measures that would bring Israelis and Palestinians ever closer to trusting in the possibility of peaceful co-existence. In actual fact, Oslo led to a series of claims and counter-claims of breaches of the accords that formed a negative spiral of mistrust and feelings of enmity.

In light of these facts, it might be said in hindsight that Oslo ultimately failed because while its fashioners set in motion a process that could potentially lead to trust and confidence, they did not establish mechanisms for monitoring violations or ensuring that claims of violations could be arbitrated and corrections could be guaranteed. Without such safeguards, the dynamic of the Oslo process fell prey to longstanding sentiments of mistrust and anger between Palestinians and Israelis."

Source: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/israel/History/1980-2000/Oslo_Negotiations/Failure.shtml

The Camp David Summit

Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks at Camp David says this: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book (Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy). But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem."

Ben-Ami further explained:

"Intellectually, I understand their logic. I understand that from their point of view they gave up on 78% in Oslo, so all the rest is theirs. I understand their point of view the process is a process of de-colonization and therefore they should not compromise, as the Congolese would not compromise with the Belgians. I even understand that according to them they made concessions that they were willing to accept the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and some settlements.

But in the end, after eight months of negotiations, I conclude that we are in conflict with a national movement that has severe pathological elements. This is a very sad, very tragic movement, but the heart of the tragedy is its' inability to set positive goals for itself.

At the end of the process it is impossible not to be impressed by the fact the more than Palestinians want a solution, they want to sit in Israel in the court's dock. More than they want their own country, they want to condemn our country. The deepest sense of their ethos is a very negative ethos. That's why unlike Zionism - they are unable to compromise. Because they do not have an image of their future society for which it's beneficial to compromise. Therefore, the process for this is not of reconciliation but of vindication. Correction of injustice. Appeal of our existence as a Jewish state."

Source: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%93%D7%AA_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%A4_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%93_(2000)

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal in 2008

This one refers to the one where Olmert refused to provide a map of the proposed territorial lines until after Abbas agreed to the entire deal. Abbas was not even given the chance to discuss it with the Fatah leadership. He has said he was willing to renew the talks from the point at which they ended with Olmert but never got the chance due to the maneuverings inside the Israeli Government. Olmert himself, blamed his own foreign minister (Tzipi Livni) and then defense minister (Ehud Barak) who both approached Codalezza Rice and asked that she not "enshrine" Olmert's proposal. This is described in Rice's book "No Higher Honor".

Olmert refused to provide a map? Completely false.
Olmert not only drew a map offering the return of almost all the WB with a few land-swaps (equivalent to 100% of the land), but Abbas took it with him to Ramallah. He never returned. He didn't outright refuse it, but him never returning to discuss it does have weight.

The fact that there were people in the Israeli government who objected to Olmert's plan has nothing to do with Abbas decisions or anything else. Almost every government's decisions have opposition, anywhere in the world. It's called - democracy.
There were MPs objecting to Gaza's withdrawal, yet it happened. There were MPs objecting to the Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon, yet it happened, There were MPs objecting to the withdrawal from Sinai, yet it happened. etc. etc.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/abbas-olmert-offered-pa-land-equaling-100-of-west-bank-1.1747

"In the Art of War, Lao Tsu says: " If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet; do not press an enemy that is cornered."

My question still stands; What outlet is Israel leaving? What do you envision peace to look like? So far, the only inference you leave me to draw is that you support a total eradication of all Palestinians both the radicals, and non-radicals. Convince me I'm wrong.

I hope the Arab leaders and terrorists surrounding Israel read your Lao Tsu quote. I would add "especially when your enemy is much stronger than you".

What outlet Israel is not leaving and to who? To Gazans? To the West Bank Palestinians?

Personally, I have no short term hopes for peace. I believe that eventually, one day, peace will have to be based on something similar to Olmert's map and peace plan.

[dr_lucas]

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas

I believe that I said, thousands of rockets, which no country on earth would put up with. We have already discussed this ad nauseam, but this articles addresses your claims very realistically.

Hamas is not the IRA

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Yes, Hamas is not the IRA, Gaza is not Ireland, north or south. But there are enough parallels for the Northern Irish peace process to be used as a guide and example of what can be achieved if the state, Israel, is prepared to talk to the terrorists, Hamas.

Zion Evrony, who was Israeli ambassador to Dublin when he wrote the article 7 years ago, has his opinion. As shown to you repeatedly in other threads, many others have the opposite view.

As shown to you repeatedly in other threads, many others have the same or similar view:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/752179-what-israel-must-do-now/page-8#entry8259275

[Ulysses G.]

You had said no nation would put up with indiscriminate weapons fired at civilian areas

I believe that I said, thousands of rockets, which no country on earth would put up with. We have already discussed this ad nauseam, but this articles addresses your claims very realistically.

Hamas is not the IRA

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Yes, Hamas is not the IRA, Gaza is not Ireland, north or south. But there are enough parallels for the Northern Irish peace process to be used as a guide and example of what can be achieved if the state, Israel, is prepared to talk to the terrorists, Hamas.

As you know, Israel IS willing to talk to Hamas if they recognize Israel. President Shimon Peres said, in order for talks to take place, Hamas must “accept the conditions of the Quartet [the US, the UN, EU and Russia],” which includes the cessation of terror, a recognition of Israel, and the acceptance of previous agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These are not conditions set by Israel, but by the international community.

The UK also insisted on conditions for formal talks with the IRA, so this is nothing new.