UN political chief criticizes Israel for new settlement plans

[Seastallion]

...

Israel has a buffer zone. They can set up detectors that are sensitive enough to stop most tunnels.

Who are you to advise Israel on technical security matters? Israel is a TINY country. It is surrounded by hostiles on all sides except the sea. It's so easy for people who aren't Israelis to suggest pat "solutions" for Israel ... no risk to their lives, is it?

Why do you avoid the fact that the settlements are an issue?

As for who I am... I am one of the people forced to help pay to defend a country that cannot seem to do it on their own. Billions annually.

Would probably get the OT axe - but most of the military aid funds provided to Israel by the USA remains in the USA. It is

basically working out pretty well for USA arms manufacturers. More like the USA funding USA firms. There are exceptions,

but for the most part the above stands.

It's still tax dollars not being used for the community at large.

[Jay Sata]

Hamas are not the bad boys. Israel paints them to be.

Sure they retaliate in a tit for tat style. In other words to use some old style syntax you smite me and I smite you.

Israel executed lots of innocent civilians in the conflict earlier this summer.

The IRA did some pretty nasty stuff as did both sides in the Balkans war.

What Israel has to avoid is fomenting extreme radicals such as ISIS clones who would randomly attack Jewish people anywhere in the world.

As the saying goes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Ulysses G.]

You raise the rocket threat from Gaza all the time but the truth is they are no more than glorified fireworks.

Unless they happen to hit you or your property, Then they are lethal bombs, which is exactly what Hamas intends them to be. The dishonest rhetoric of the apologists for radical Islam gets more and more ridiculous.

Hamas are not the bad boys. Israel paints them to be.

They just target civilians, murder their own people and convince them to act as human shields. I guess your point is that they are not quite as barbaric as ISIS, but they are still loathsome savages that were democratically elected by Gazans to represent them.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[Morch]

Who are you to advise Israel on technical security matters? Israel is a TINY country. It is surrounded by hostiles on all sides except the sea. It's so easy for people who aren't Israelis to suggest pat "solutions" for Israel ... no risk to their lives, is it?

Why do you avoid the fact that the settlements are an issue?

As for who I am... I am one of the people forced to help pay to defend a country that cannot seem to do it on their own. Billions annually.

Would probably get the OT axe - but most of the military aid funds provided to Israel by the USA remains in the USA. It is

basically working out pretty well for USA arms manufacturers. More like the USA funding USA firms. There are exceptions,

but for the most part the above stands.

Re: funding to defend Israel (and yes the settlements are an issue thus on topic. I helped pay for Iron Dome.

So of course I have a vested interest in how Israel spends my tax money.

Yes the area is smaller and thus easier to put detectors in. I agree with the UN and almost all countries, that Israel must stop the illegal settlements.

He did have a great idea though. I will contact my senators and congressman. It is something decent I can do to push for peace. I will suggest that we give absolutely no more aid to Israel until Israel stops new settlements and negotiates in good faith.

I can completely understand a USA citizen wishing tax dollars being used differently. The point I was making is that the military aid budget allocated to Israel by the USA mostly stays in the USA. I would guess some senators/congressmen would consider twice before cutting budgets eventually providing jobs in their states. Not that it should stop you from writing to them, of course.

As for the tunnel detection issue - easier said than done, usually sorted quickly on forums such as this, bit tougher to manage in reality, it seems. Not going to dig this up, but this came up in an older topic, and many a link were provided to show certain difficulties with solving the problem.

[Morch]

I will contact my senators and congressman. It is something decent I can do to push for peace.

I will suggest that we give absolutely no more aid to Israel until Israel stops new settlements and negotiates in good faith.

Can any genuine peace arise from anyone / anything being pushed?

More a question if there is ever a genuine peace to begin with. I think peace is something that grows on people, and takes a long time to take root. People do not simply change their attitudes overnight, just because a peace of paper was signed.

Wishing for a "genuine" or "true" peace is often used as an excuse, though, which makes it harder for "lesser" status peace options to come about.

I'll take a sullen, bitter, grumpy peace over most violent conflicts. Brotherly love is optional at a later date. So long as no eyes gets poked - it will do.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Morch

[Morch]

Reasonable question, do you think the settlements are not pushing the Palestinians?

It probably depends on where they are built (population density / the wealth of, and kind of settlers etc).

In the midst of densely populated areas? Possibly yes, as tends to happen anywhere in the world where population density and competition for various resources leads to disputes. I mean, that goes on even where I live, where people get very territorial over a neighbour building a fence / wall that just might impose one inch over what the neighbour believes is the approved boundary, or a tree that may block some sun in the surrounding garden. Councils and planning permission act as the intermiediatory on those matters.

On the hill tops with quiet valleys below and little else on the horizon? Possibly not. I can think of one of the settlements I've been to where daily life was a quiet co-existence between the two peoples. Both just kept themselves to themselves. Arabs tended to their crops and herded goats down in a very peacefull Wadi (I met some of them and was given fresh ground water hauled up in a bucket, and had a chat with them. No stories of woe, from them), and the Jews had their super smart and polished housing estates up on the hills with sateliite dishes on the roofs and air conditions supermarkets just down the road for their food, instead of self growing. Jews went for walks and mountain biked through the Wadi, and Arab workers were sometimes involved in building projects in settlements. As I've mentioned before on the forum, it was a surprise to me just how non eventfull daily life was in the disputed territory of the West Bank. It tends to be portrayed online and on the 6 O'clock news as a persistent constant pressure pot of provokations, of adrenaline charge, tear gas and an intolerable imposition of flare ups over mere inches of land, as though it must be like lobsters all rolling around in a boiling pot. I suspect this would apply to areas like Hebron (didn't get there) more so, but overall the disputed territory has plenty of room where a surprisingly quiet co-existence is going on. The only time I saw flare ups was riots in and around camps like Qalandia, Balata etc, notorious flash points of rabble rousing by imams, the equivalent of sink estates that the rest of the population didn't pay attention to.

Well, this would depend on current events during your visit, things change quite dramatically with the slightest flair up. Cannot guess which specific place you are talking about, but yes - there are a few spots which are relatively less touched by strife and violence.

Generally speaking, the West Bank is pretty dense as far as population goes, especially when considering agriculture still plays a major part. Most places, the settlers and the Palestinians are pretty near each other, which tends to cause friction. Obviously, this is more so in certain areas, especially Hebron (and a few other spots). That does not make co-existence smooth and easy in other places, just relatively so.

Not quite sure how the "plenty of room" conclusion was reached, guess it is a matter of perspective. Or perhaps I do not exactly understand in which meaning this was asserted - plenty of room for...?

The stereotyping is nice, by the way, but most Palestinians shop the same way Israelis do, albeit in less fancier surroundings.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Scott

[Morch]

Sweden did the right thing,rest of the Europa needs to follow and recognize Palestine.

No need to consult Israel, eh?

Not sure what this "right thing" is supposed to be for, because it's certainly not at all helpful to bringing about a peaceful two state solution.

The most popular party in West Bank and Gaza is radical Jihadist terrorist Hamas and the majority of "Palestinians" are in favor of violence against Israel.

It's hilarious to me that European "liberal progressives" think doing the "right thing" is to give further international credibility to the incredibly non-progressive Hamas movement. Even funnier when Jews, gays, and feminist women fall for this trendy "Free Palestine River to the sea" Hamas movement, in other words wipe out Israel. Understood from Islamists, of course, welcome to Middle East politics.

This is a recipe for more war, much more war. Thank you very much, Sweden, and it's ilk.

Also while I don't agree with building more "settlements" people are deluding themselves if that actually believe that stopping new settlements would mean most Palestinians would magically recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The settlements issue is a crutch. Look at what happened when Israel left Gaza, did that bring peace? Duh.

They may have "left" Gaza, but they have deprived them of the means of becoming independent by denying them the right to have shipping coming to their port. Very much a Claytons "left".

If you were a Gazan, would you accept the sham that Israel left them with?

Gaza? Independent? Wasn't Gaza part of the Palestinian Authority. previous to the Hamas takeover? On the same account, you may want to add Egypt to the list of wrongdoers, for not opening its border with the Gaza Strip. Then add the Palestinian Authority for insisting all monies go through its channels, as it is the official representative of the Palestinians (and add most donor countries for accepting this position).

Israel did not "hand back" Gaza, it pulled out unilaterally. That much is true. It wasn't out of kindness, just out of a realization the maintaining presence there was too costly and futile. It also took a combination of a popular right wing prime minister and public support to pull it through (same story with the Egypt peace deal).

Leaving free access to Gaza was never an option, and it wasn't only Israel who saw it this way.

[Morch]

No need to consult Israel, eh?

Not sure what this "right thing" is supposed to be for, because it's certainly not at all helpful to bringing about a peaceful two state solution.

The most popular party in West Bank and Gaza is radical Jihadist terrorist Hamas and the majority of "Palestinians" are in favor of violence against Israel.

It's hilarious to me that European "liberal progressives" think doing the "right thing" is to give further international credibility to the incredibly non-progressive Hamas movement. Even funnier when Jews, gays, and feminist women fall for this trendy "Free Palestine River to the sea" Hamas movement, in other words wipe out Israel. Understood from Islamists, of course, welcome to Middle East politics.

This is a recipe for more war, much more war. Thank you very much, Sweden, and it's ilk.

Also while I don't agree with building more "settlements" people are deluding themselves if that actually believe that stopping new settlements would mean most Palestinians would magically recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The settlements issue is a crutch. Look at what happened when Israel left Gaza, did that bring peace? Duh.

They may have "left" Gaza, but they have deprived them of the means of becoming independent by denying them the right to have shipping coming to their port. Very much a Claytons "left".

If you were a Gazan, would you accept the sham that Israel left them with?

If I were a Gazan? That's a laugh. A gay Jewish Gazan wouldn't be allowed to live by their Islamofascist government. On the other hand, in Israel there are gay Arab Muslim Israeli citizens .. go figure.

Somewhat more seriously ... the problem with opening up ports in Gaza is that their government is dedicated to kicking out/killing the Jews of Israel through violent means. What's Israel supposed to do? Just let them?

What's the alternative? Keep the status quo for ever?

At some stage, things will have to change, but there appears to be no plans by Israel to do anything to resolve the situation.

If Israel doesn't do something to change things for the better for the Gazans, eventually it will come back to bite them on the bum.

Even if it takes a hundred years, eventually Israel will regret it didn't free the Gazans before they elected Hamas.

An alternative would be to make sure that there is a viable apparatus for monitoring goods getting into Gaza. This should not be a major issue unless the rulers of Gaza (read Hamas) had reason to refuse such solutions. Mind, it would curb a significant part of their income on top of maintaining operations against Israel harder.

That's on a practical, technical level. Going further, well, Gaza is part of Palestine - so probably ought to be dealt with in the frame work of a general Israeli-Palestinian agreement, rather than being a separate issue. The Palestinian divide makes this notion somewhat complicated at present.

[Morch]

You raise the rocket threat from Gaza all the time but the truth is they are no more than glorified fireworks.

What puzzles me is the sophisticated Iron Dome missile system developed in part by Israel cannot cope?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

Iron Dome (Hebrew: כִּפַּת בַּרְזֶל, kippat barzel) is a mobile all-weather air defense system developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.

‎

Given the threat you raise by the agricultural style rockets that emerge from Gaza why can this Iron Dome system not neutralise these basic missiles?

Am I missing something?

No, you're only pretending to.

This issue was discussed in depth during the Gaza fighting, including by yourself.

The short version, Iron Dome is not 100% proof, and therefore maintaining routine life under rocket fire is not a reality.

As mentioned it works great until a rockets does hit. Guessing you never had the misfortune of being under rocket fire,

which makes you take it so lightly.

But then again, you knew all this.

[Morch]

Krauthammer develops his knowledge and opinion from many many years of personal research - his commentary is completely independent of FoxNews... Krauthammer is highly respected by many in the profession - people of all political persuasions ... How about challenging his position and analysis instead of attacking FoxNews? Your post is vacant of any originality or substance ... just a silly distraction as you have nothing of substance to say.

I would like to see evidence that he is highly respected by anyone other than redneck Fox viewers (not saying all Fox viewers are redneck, just referring to that portion of the audience). I find it extremely doubtful.

Reading the piece offered above, he makes the outrageous claim that Hamas only fire rockets at Israel to draw retaliatory fire, so that they have Palestinian bodies to show the world.

Such a preposterous claim needs more than just opinion to back it up.

He makes false and emotive statements such as "Israel...has been warred upon for 66 years..." Whereas the fact is Israel is has been the instigator and the aggressor.

To break down all his fallacy, lies, distortions and sheer blatant unobjective bias would take this post way off topic, but I did need to respond to your groundless claim that the source in question is reputable.

Whenever in doubt radical Islam's intentions, ask them, or listen to what they tell you. The problem with so many today is that they refuse to believe, or hear, what muslims tell us. "Does Hamas use human shields?" Yes, the answer is not only an overwhelming "yes" by observation and patent evidence but Hamas repeatedly tells us they do.

"Does Hamas fire rockets to draw retalitory fire upon the local civilian population?" Yes; Hamas has a policy of inviting Palestinians to love death as much as jews love life. Hamas has a clearly articulated policy of using human shields. Hamas fires rockets from schools. Hamas fires rockets from hospitals. The chain of reasoning is sound- Hamas fires rockets to draw retalitory fire on innocents to use numbers of their own dead as an instrument of policy. I will avoid the obvious moral rebuke that is invited but will point out only the most savage of history's despots have used such cunning. But I am not alone.

When considering anything regarding this region... anything! Context applies, to a point. There are clear moral imperatives for the palestinian cause. There are clear legal imperatives for the Israeli claims. However, the context of unbriddled hatred and evil should always inform our path, not emotions; evidence Hamas policy.

http://honestreporting.com/foreign-journalists-acknowledge-hamas-human-shields-tactics/

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8076.htm

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/08/05/the-medias-role-in-hamas-war-strategy/

http://www.shalomlife.com/news/25803/hamas-admits-to-launching-rockets-from-civilian-areas/

http://blog.godreports.com/2014/08/captured-hamas-warfare-manual-dictates-use-of-human-shields/

http://peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/481016/-Hamas-Admits-Using-Women-and-Children-as-Human-Shields-w-video

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/after-video-evidence-hamas-finally-admits-having-used-human-shields-by-mistake-4000-times/

http://honestreporting.com/hamas-reveals-media-strategy/

If the mainly harmless rockets are calculated to bring retaliation, why would Israel retaliate? Please don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox.

I would say that if any action is calculated to bring retaliation, it is settlement building.

The difference between harmless rockets and settlements is that the settlements actually do impact on large numbers of Palestinians, and thus retaliation is obliged.

Just before we stray completely back to topic.......Harmless rockets, human shields, asking for retaliation. If the rockets are to draw fire, if there are civilians in the way, there is all the more reason to NOT fire back. Why does Israel inflict the civilian casualties if it is what Hamas wants?

Another one who haven't been under rocket fire. There is not way to maintain ordinary, everyday life with constant alarms, rockets exploding overhead (the Iron Dome as well). While the Iron Dome is good, it is not perfect - most people would not gamble their lives even on these odds. Why would any government accept attacks on its population?

What you fail to see, is that both Israel and the Palestinian poke each other at every chance they get. This is not something just one of the sides does. Many a time these jabs are tied to internal conflicts (or for domestic gain), not just the Israel-Palestine one. Basically, there's a lot of trolling all around - usually in the hope that someone will lose its temper and then the troll can call on the Mods, while "exposing" the vileness of the other side.

Rockets are harmless, settlements aren't. Really? Rockets do not impact large numbers of Israelis? So, all that running to shelters, the economy being hit - that's all a fairy tale? Retaliation is obliged? Giving your blessing to armed struggle in the West Bank now?

Israel retaliates because the rockets are not harmless as you postulate. There doesn't have to be a huge death toll in order for them to disrupt life and be a threat. Most governments are in the habit of protecting their citizens and territory against such attacks. There is no viable way to avoid civilian casualties when fighting in densely populated urban areas. If memory serves, the Israeli government did not strike back massively right away, as there was some hope things may cool down somehow.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Scott

[MJP]

^^Outta likes for the day. Morch is quite right.

[Morch]

Who are you to advise Israel on technical security matters? Israel is a TINY country. It is surrounded by hostiles on all sides except the sea. It's so easy for people who aren't Israelis to suggest pat "solutions" for Israel ... no risk to their lives, is it?

Why do you avoid the fact that the settlements are an issue?

As for who I am... I am one of the people forced to help pay to defend a country that cannot seem to do it on their own. Billions annually.

Would probably get the OT axe - but most of the military aid funds provided to Israel by the USA remains in the USA. It is

basically working out pretty well for USA arms manufacturers. More like the USA funding USA firms. There are exceptions,

but for the most part the above stands.

It's still tax dollars not being used for the community at large.

It's tax dollars creating workplaces and generating income for USA firms. One may not like or approve of the "Israel connection", but there are beneficiaries in the USA as well. Like most subsidies, everyone pays (through taxes), not necessarily everyone benefits.

If it makes you feel better, this sometimes causes losses to competing Israeli firms.

[Morch]

Hamas are not the bad boys. Israel paints them to be.

Sure they retaliate in a tit for tat style. In other words to use some old style syntax you smite me and I smite you.

Israel executed lots of innocent civilians in the conflict earlier this summer.

The IRA did some pretty nasty stuff as did both sides in the Balkans war.

What Israel has to avoid is fomenting extreme radicals such as ISIS clones who would randomly attack Jewish people anywhere in the world.

As the saying goes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Hamas are not bad guys. Right. They just hit back if Israel attack. Right. When they threw the Fatah people from building they were only retaliating as well, I assume? And when they applaud terrorist attacks and murders of civilians, they don't really mean it.

Israel did not "execute" civilians, civilians were killed during fighting in dense urban areas, where Hamas chose to hole up. There were civilians executed in Gaza, by Hamas, on suspicion of being spies.

Ah, now Israel bears the responsibility for as yet non-existent international terror attacks by IS, perfect logic.

As the saying goes, get your thoughts in order before posting, and get a clue.

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm how much did the US pay to develop Iron Dome? How much did we just pay to Rafael to make more?

[up-country_sinclair]

Every day of the year the USA gives Israel over 8.2 million dollars. Rain or shine. No matter how many Palestinian children are murdered or land is stolen by "settlers".

[Jay Sata]

The question is why give a developed country that sort of cash?

[Morch]

Hmmmm how much did the US pay to develop Iron Dome? How much did we just pay to Rafael to make more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Funding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Plans_for_co-production_with_the_United_States

[Morch]

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

Every day of the year the USA gives Israel over 8.2 million dollars. Rain or shine. No matter how many Palestinian children are murdered or land is stolen by "settlers".

The question is why give a developed country that sort of cash?

Guess some of you are hard to grasp the concept - so once more, the USA government gives Israel money which mostly can be used to buy stuff from USA firms. Israel benefits, true - and so do USA firms.

It may be said that this should stop in light of political differences (such as the conflict with the Palestinians), or any other reason. Write your man on the hill if you're not happy with it. May want to check the vote tally on these funds, though, and make sure you're not registered in a state where firms benefit

from this.

[Seastallion]

Whenever in doubt radical Islam's intentions, ask them, or listen to what they tell you. The problem with so many today is that they refuse to believe, or hear, what muslims tell us. "Does Hamas use human shields?" Yes, the answer is not only an overwhelming "yes" by observation and patent evidence but Hamas repeatedly tells us they do.

"Does Hamas fire rockets to draw retalitory fire upon the local civilian population?" Yes; Hamas has a policy of inviting Palestinians to love death as much as jews love life. Hamas has a clearly articulated policy of using human shields. Hamas fires rockets from schools. Hamas fires rockets from hospitals. The chain of reasoning is sound- Hamas fires rockets to draw retalitory fire on innocents to use numbers of their own dead as an instrument of policy. I will avoid the obvious moral rebuke that is invited but will point out only the most savage of history's despots have used such cunning. But I am not alone.

When considering anything regarding this region... anything! Context applies, to a point. There are clear moral imperatives for the palestinian cause. There are clear legal imperatives for the Israeli claims. However, the context of unbriddled hatred and evil should always inform our path, not emotions; evidence Hamas policy.

http://honestreporting.com/foreign-journalists-acknowledge-hamas-human-shields-tactics/

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8076.htm

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/08/05/the-medias-role-in-hamas-war-strategy/

http://www.shalomlife.com/news/25803/hamas-admits-to-launching-rockets-from-civilian-areas/

http://blog.godreports.com/2014/08/captured-hamas-warfare-manual-dictates-use-of-human-shields/

http://peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/481016/-Hamas-Admits-Using-Women-and-Children-as-Human-Shields-w-video

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/after-video-evidence-hamas-finally-admits-having-used-human-shields-by-mistake-4000-times/

http://honestreporting.com/hamas-reveals-media-strategy/

If the mainly harmless rockets are calculated to bring retaliation, why would Israel retaliate? Please don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox.

I would say that if any action is calculated to bring retaliation, it is settlement building.

The difference between harmless rockets and settlements is that the settlements actually do impact on large numbers of Palestinians, and thus retaliation is obliged.

Just before we stray completely back to topic.......Harmless rockets, human shields, asking for retaliation. If the rockets are to draw fire, if there are civilians in the way, there is all the more reason to NOT fire back. Why does Israel inflict the civilian casualties if it is what Hamas wants?

Another one who haven't been under rocket fire.

There is not way to maintain ordinary, everyday life with constant alarms, rockets exploding overhead (the Iron Dome as well).

While the Iron Dome is good, it is not perfect - most people would not gamble their lives even on these odds. Why would any

government accept attacks on its population?

What you fail to see, is that both Israel and the Palestinian poke each other at every chance they get. This is not something just

one of the sides does. Many a time these jabs are tied to internal conflicts (or for domestic gain), not just the Israel-Palestine

one. Basically, there's a lot of trolling all around - usually in the hope that someone will lose its temper and then the troll can

call on the Mods, while "exposing" the vileness of the other side.

Rockets are harmless, settlements aren't. Really? Rockets do not impact large numbers of Israelis? So, all that running to

shelters, the economy being hit - that's all a fairy tale? Retaliation is obliged? Giving your blessing to armed struggle in the

West Bank now?

Israel retaliates because the rockets are not harmless as you postulate. There doesn't have to be a huge death toll in order

for them to disrupt life and be a threat. Most governments are in the habit of protecting their citizens and territory against such

attacks. There is no viable way to avoid civilian casualties when fighting in densely populated urban areas. If memory serves,

the Israeli government did not strike back massively right away, as there was some hope things may cool down somehow.

I wrote "mainly harmless rockets" (and the next reference to rockets that was still implied) AND it was in response to the pro-Israel post that stated as much. Please read with more care.

OK, so the Israelis do the dramatic screaming and running to shelters because a siren indicates that a "glorified firework" is about to land a few kilometers away in a field. That impact on their lives does not even come close to what the Palestinians face.

[Morch]

"Does Hamas fire rockets to draw retalitory fire upon the local civilian population?" Yes; Hamas has a policy of inviting Palestinians to love death as much as jews love life. Hamas has a clearly articulated policy of using human shields. Hamas fires rockets from schools. Hamas fires rockets from hospitals. The chain of reasoning is sound- Hamas fires rockets to draw retalitory fire on innocents to use numbers of their own dead as an instrument of policy. I will avoid the obvious moral rebuke that is invited but will point out only the most savage of history's despots have used such cunning. But I am not alone.

When considering anything regarding this region... anything! Context applies, to a point. There are clear moral imperatives for the palestinian cause. There are clear legal imperatives for the Israeli claims. However, the context of unbriddled hatred and evil should always inform our path, not emotions; evidence Hamas policy.

http://honestreporting.com/foreign-journalists-acknowledge-hamas-human-shields-tactics/

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8076.htm

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/08/05/the-medias-role-in-hamas-war-strategy/

http://www.shalomlife.com/news/25803/hamas-admits-to-launching-rockets-from-civilian-areas/

http://blog.godreports.com/2014/08/captured-hamas-warfare-manual-dictates-use-of-human-shields/

http://peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/481016/-Hamas-Admits-Using-Women-and-Children-as-Human-Shields-w-video

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/after-video-evidence-hamas-finally-admits-having-used-human-shields-by-mistake-4000-times/

http://honestreporting.com/hamas-reveals-media-strategy/

If the mainly harmless rockets are calculated to bring retaliation, why would Israel retaliate? Please don't throw me in the briar patch Brer Fox.

I would say that if any action is calculated to bring retaliation, it is settlement building.

The difference between harmless rockets and settlements is that the settlements actually do impact on large numbers of Palestinians, and thus retaliation is obliged.

Just before we stray completely back to topic.......Harmless rockets, human shields, asking for retaliation. If the rockets are to draw fire, if there are civilians in the way, there is all the more reason to NOT fire back. Why does Israel inflict the civilian casualties if it is what Hamas wants?

Another one who haven't been under rocket fire. There is not way to maintain ordinary, everyday life with constant alarms, rockets exploding overhead (the Iron Dome as well). While the Iron Dome is good, it is not perfect - most people would not gamble their lives even on these odds. Why would any government accept attacks on its population?

What you fail to see, is that both Israel and the Palestinian poke each other at every chance they get. This is not something just one of the sides does. Many a time these jabs are tied to internal conflicts (or for domestic gain), not just the Israel-Palestine one. Basically, there's a lot of trolling all around - usually in the hope that someone will lose its temper and then the troll can call on the Mods, while "exposing" the vileness of the other side.

Rockets are harmless, settlements aren't. Really? Rockets do not impact large numbers of Israelis? So, all that running to shelters, the economy being hit - that's all a fairy tale? Retaliation is obliged? Giving your blessing to armed struggle in the West Bank now?

Israel retaliates because the rockets are not harmless as you postulate. There doesn't have to be a huge death toll in order for them to disrupt life and be a threat. Most governments are in the habit of protecting their citizens and territory against such attacks. There is no viable way to avoid civilian casualties when fighting in densely populated urban areas. If memory serves, the Israeli government did not strike back massively right away, as there was some hope things may cool down somehow.

I wrote "mainly harmless rockets" (and the next reference to rockets that was still implied) AND it was in response to the pro-Israel post that stated as much. Please read with more care.

OK, so the Israelis do the dramatic screaming and running to shelters because a siren indicates that a "glorified firework" is about to land a few kilometers away in a field. That impact on their lives does not even come close to what the Palestinians face.

I am not responsible for the opinions of other posters, and not even to those of Krauthammer. I am still sure that you have never been under rocket fire, which makes you talk big on how harmless they are and belittling their effect on civilian population.

Was I comparing the the impact of attacks on the civilians in both sides? No. Was I denying the suffering of the Palestinians? No. But that ain't good enough, I suppose - some really need to believe that this conflict is totally one sided.

[Seastallion]

Another one who haven't been under rocket fire.

There is not way to maintain ordinary, everyday life with constant alarms, rockets exploding overhead (the Iron Dome as well). While the Iron Dome is good, it is not perfect - most people would not gamble their lives even on these odds. Why would any government accept attacks on its population?

What you fail to see, is that both Israel and the Palestinian poke each other at every chance they get. This is not something just one of the sides does. Many a time these jabs are tied to internal conflicts (or for domestic gain), not just the Israel-Palestine one. Basically, there's a lot of trolling all around - usually in the hope that someone will lose its temper and then the troll can call on the Mods, while "exposing" the vileness of the other side.

Rockets are harmless, settlements aren't. Really? Rockets do not impact large numbers of Israelis? So, all that running to shelters, the economy being hit - that's all a fairy tale? Retaliation is obliged? Giving your blessing to armed struggle in the West Bank now?

Israel retaliates because the rockets are not harmless as you postulate. There doesn't have to be a huge death toll in order for them to disrupt life and be a threat. Most governments are in the habit of protecting their citizens and territory against such attacks. There is no viable way to avoid civilian casualties when fighting in densely populated urban areas. If memory serves, the Israeli government did not strike back massively right away, as there was some hope things may cool down somehow.

I wrote "mainly harmless rockets" (and the next reference to rockets that was still implied) AND it was in response to the pro-Israel post that stated as much. Please read with more care.

OK, so the Israelis do the dramatic screaming and running to shelters because a siren indicates that a "glorified firework" is about to land a few kilometers away in a field. That impact on their lives does not even come close to what the Palestinians face.

I am not responsible for the opinions of other posters, and not even to those of Krauthammer. I am still sure that you have

never been under rocket fire, which makes you talk big on how harmless they are and belittling their effect on civilian population.

Was I comparing the the impact of attacks on the civilians in both sides? No. Was I denying the suffering of the Palestinians?

No. But that ain't good enough, I suppose - some really need to believe that this conflict is totally one sided.

Don't get me wrong. I consider you one of, if not the most moderate and even-handed participant in these debates, albeit you do seem to favour one side over the other. Just don't cherry pick my words, twist their meaning, or make sly barbs. It's beneath you.

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.

[thaibeachlovers]

What's the alternative? Keep the status quo for ever?

At some stage, things will have to change, but there appears to be no plans by Israel to do anything to resolve the situation.

If Israel doesn't do something to change things for the better for the Gazans, eventually it will come back to bite them on the bum.

Even if it takes a hundred years, eventually Israel will regret it didn't free the Gazans before they elected Hamas.

So it seems according to you all the problems the people of Gaza are having are 100 percent on the Israelis? Nothing about Egypt? Nothing about the rest of the Islamic world? Nothing about rockets? Nothing about their own choices in electing Hamas? Nothing about tunnels? Nothing about financial corruption of their leaders? Nothing about the oppression of their own people by their own leaders? Nothing about their genocidal antisemitic charter? Nothing about their non-acceptance of the existence of Israel?

That can't be taken seriously.

Occupy a people and treat them badly for generations and you get Gaza. Remember that quotation- you reap what you sow.

Last time I looked, Egypt wasn't shelling Gaza- Israel was.

[Jay Sata]

Also worth pointing out the guy sending the message on the part of the UN is a high ranking US politician.

John Kerry and others have been bending Netanyahu's ear and the US are applying a lot of pressure behind the scenes.

Meanwhile the right wingers behind Netanyahu are having to accept they have lost the Iran game and the US are moving to renew their relations with Tehran.

Israel is run by a coalition government and it will be interesting to see how the political scene pans out.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Ulysses G.]

Occupy a people and treat them badly for generations and you get Gaza.

Declare war on a sovereign nation, refuse to make peace for generations, destroy the infrastructure in Gaza when it is handed over to you, elect a terrorist group to represent you, use Gaza to as a rocket-launching pad and you get an armed terrorist camp with lots of restrictions on it. Who gets the blame for that?

[dexterm]

Occupy a people and treat them badly for generations and you get Gaza.

Declare war on a sovereign nation, refuse to make peace for generations, destroy the infrastructure in Gaza when it is handed over to you, elect a terrorist group to represent you, use Gaza to as a rocket-launching pad and you get an armed terrorist camp with lots of restrictions on it. Who gets the blame for that?

You seem to have a severe case of myth diarrhoea. I have debunked all of your fabrications previously, so no point in writing out another prescription for you.

[Ulysses G.]

You haven't debunked anything. You have posted a bunch of lies that your own links usually disprove. All anyone has to do is read them to know that your posts have nothing to do with them, or say the exact opposite from the information in the link.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

What's the alternative? Keep the status quo for ever?

At some stage, things will have to change, but there appears to be no plans by Israel to do anything to resolve the situation.

If Israel doesn't do something to change things for the better for the Gazans, eventually it will come back to bite them on the bum.

Even if it takes a hundred years, eventually Israel will regret it didn't free the Gazans before they elected Hamas.

So it seems according to you all the problems the people of Gaza are having are 100 percent on the Israelis? Nothing about Egypt? Nothing about the rest of the Islamic world? Nothing about rockets? Nothing about their own choices in electing Hamas? Nothing about tunnels? Nothing about financial corruption of their leaders? Nothing about the oppression of their own people by their own leaders? Nothing about their genocidal antisemitic charter? Nothing about their non-acceptance of the existence of Israel?

That can't be taken seriously.

Occupy a people and treat them badly for generations and you get Gaza. Remember that quotation- you reap what you sow.

Last time I looked, Egypt wasn't shelling Gaza- Israel was.

Egypt keeps its border passes with the Gaza Strip under strict control, and is in the process of setting up a wider buffer

zone along the border. While Israel gets most of the flak, Egypt is effectively maintaining its own blockade on the Gaza

Strip, and is not very receptive to Hamas demands relating to these issues.

The tightening of the Egyptian blockade (mostly acting decisively against smuggling tunnels) after el-Sisi rose to power,

is the major cause of the economic crisis which Hamas faced, and which served as a background for some of the main

events of the past months.

[Jingthing]

Egypt keeps its border passes with the Gaza Strip under strict control, and is in the process of setting up a wider buffer

zone along the border. While Israel gets most of the flak, Egypt is effectively maintaining its own blockade on the Gaza

Strip, and is not very receptive to Hamas demands relating to these issues.

The tightening of the Egyptian blockade (mostly acting decisively against smuggling tunnels) after el-Sisi rose to power,

is the major cause of the economic crisis which Hamas faced, and which served as a background for some of the main

events of the past months.

You should really know better by now. If it's something that can't be fully blamed on the "Zionists", it never happened ...

Edited November 20, 2014 by Jingthing