Synagogue attack: Netanyahu vow in 'battle for Jerusalem'

[Morch]

They are not going to win the hearts of the world, no matter what they do, but they will defend their nation and keep growing stronger and and more successful, as they have done since they began 66 years ago.

Jews and Muslims fought together against the Christians during early crussades in several battles of Jerusalem.

Why do they claim now to defend themselves in vain against Muslims ?

If you would have followed local media, the terminology of Battle/War/Defending Jerusalem/Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa was in wide use these last few weeks, mostly from the Palestinian side. If anything, Abbas ought to sue Netanyahu for plagiarism. Fanning the flames (usually by singing the tunes they think their home crowd likes) is something leaders of both sides do.

.

[Scott]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed.

[Morch]

" Mr Netanyahu ordered the homes of the attackers to be destroyed, saying: "We are in a battle over Jerusalem, our eternal capital."".

Once again Israel is going ahead with the international crime of collective punishment.

Once again Israel is going to find every excuse it can to displace Arabs and insert Jews in their place, to try to overrun Jerusalem.

Once again, Israel is going to exact hugely disproportionate revenge.

Netanyahu is taking a gamble here. He's gambling that the international community will be so shocked at the atrocity that they will turn a blind eye to this next iteration of Zionist ethnic cleansing.

He may succeed in his gamble, or maybe the world is awake enough to his devious and bloody methods that they will not tolerate another massacre of Palestinians.

I think it will be a close call. It all depends on how well the propaganda machine gets into gear.

Well, not like a Jewish family will come to build a house over the demolished one (IF it will indeed be demolished),

Where was anything mentioned about exacting hugely disproportionate revenge?

You are not even bothering to qualify those statements....

Do you actually know about something planned along the lines of "ethnic cleansing"?

And you talk about propaganda machine getting in gear, no less....

" Mr Netanyahu vowed to "settle the score with every terrorist" "

Netanyahu is talking about revenge. Revenge upon every person he considers a terrorist, ie every member and supporter of Hamas....ie the majority of the population of Gaza. It's pretty clear. You only have to read the reports of what transpired in the last 2 massive offensives against Gaza in the last 5 years to draw a reasonable conclusion as to what he means.

If you think Netanyahu is not trying to clear out Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, then you have not been seeing what has been gradually happening for decades.

Preempt propaganda with the truth and in the absence of hard facts, reasonable conclusions.

What Netanyau said was a pretty standard issue response. The very same was said before by countless Israeli politicians, army and security officers. The expanded interpretation you choose to give is not a fact. Instead of bringing up Gaza, one could simply count the number of times similar statements were made, and deduce that they are not always acted upon, and certainly not on a grand scale.

If you think that this time is somehow different than others and that on this occasion Netanyahu actually intends to follow through on his words, please explain how and why. Considering that the latest Gaza fighting just ended, and the bills it carries are starting to accumulate (both diplomatic and economic), and the rather unstable state Netanyhu's coalition is in, very doubtful he could muster support for anything resembling the fighting in Gaza.

Not aware of any Israeli prime minister who did not support the expansion of Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Difference in nuance and style, at most. The official efforts are usually not directed at displacing Arab residents, but toward the building of new neighborhoods, and the creation of territorial continuity. The other side of the coin is ongoing neglect of Arab areas in East Jerusalem (again, something which cannot be directly attributed to a specific government) which led to a reality of lawlessness, poverty and of course, more resentment. This was not a policy aimed at making Arabs leave town, but rather a non-policy of what to do about the situation. This sort of thing can be evidenced in many areas of Israeli policy making, not just in relation to the Palestinians or Jerusalem.

One of things that did escalate during the last years is the purchase of Palestinian real estate in East Jerusalem by various private organizations (most with religious and right wing connections). The purchases by themselves are legal in terms of paperwork, payments etc. (whether ownership of ANY land in East Jerusalem may be transferred is another question, but a total ban would be very problematic mostly for the Palestinians). The main issue is less about legality, though, because even if it is, the acts themselves are obviously provocative and bound to increase friction between the sides.

While most Israeli governments actively supported adding new neighborhoods in Jerusalem, the private efforts are mostly a PITA for them. Obviously, a right wing prime minister will not go against it (for ideological and electoral considerations), but not sure how a center/left wing prime minister could wiggle out of this one without taking a political hit (the slogan that he's re-dividing Jerusalem, or some other emotive statement along this line would come up for sure).

Since you seem in command of facts, would you like to enlighten me on which Arab neighborhoods were "cleared" in recent times? Did the number of Palestinian residents decrease in a dramatic fashion?

You are not preempting anything, just airing your own notions. They are not based on hard facts, but are assesments made from a biased point of view and rely on partial information. There was nothing in my post that could be considered propaganda, by the way - there were some actual facts, and some questions as to what your assertions are based on.

[Morch]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues. If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide? The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

[Morch]

Blame Hamas for that. They purposely set off rockets from heavily populated areas, convinced civilians to act as human shields, used a hospital as their HQ and fired missles at Israel from its parking lot.

Some background on that:

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

As I've been suggesting for some time...Hamas WILL lose support if Israel would only strike a deal with Fatah.

Interesting. No issues with unverified anonymous statements when they somehow support your position? Where are the usual demands for "proof"? Unless much mistaken, such claims as appear in the link were denounced as vile Israeli propaganda when they were brought up on other occasions. And what, no issues with Gatestone now?

There's an illusion that somehow Palestinians are just waiting to throw the yoke of Hamas, if there was only peace with Israel. Holding on to this notion ignores the amount of actual popular support Hamas receives on topics having naught to do with Israel, and on how deeply ingrained Hamas is in Palestinian politics and society.

[jdinasia]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

[Morch]

Blame Hamas for that. They purposely set off rockets from heavily populated areas, convinced civilians to act as human shields, used a hospital as their HQ and fired missles at Israel from its parking lot.

How many times do you have to trot that one out. The so called rockets are next to useless.

If the Iron Dome is so great why not use it against these fireworks.

Netanyahu will go down in Israeli history as a failed politician who delivered nothing apart from his monthly pay check to the bank.

If he is so worried about terrorism and Muslims why is he not engaged with the mess in Syria and the threat of ISIS.

The latter should concern him more than any thoughts of Iran attacking Israel.

If they started beheading Jews what would he do?

Trying to use high tech warfare on low tech terrorists does not work anywhere in the world.

The USA discovered that in Vietnam.

The rockets are next to useless how? In that they did not inflict a large number of casualties? The rockets achieved their aims perfectly - they severely disrupted life in Israel, terrorized a large portion of the populace,

forced the Israeli government to act, and despite all the IDF efforts - the rocket launches did not cease due to military strikes. If one follows Hamas media outlets, rockets hit pretty accurately and cause a lot of damage - untrue as it is, there's some domestic propaganda value to be gained as well.

Iron Dome is the best thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately, it is not provide a 100% protection against rockets, and is not very effective vs. mortar fire. The other downside is financial, rockets are much cheaper.

Not quite sure what was your point regarding Syria and IS, my guess is that there was non. Israel has not interest to get involved in yet another conflict, and open a new front. If and when IS becomes a problem for Israel it will be addressed. That Israel does not play an active part in the anti-IS coalition is a given considering the sensitivities of some coalition members and public opinion in the Arab world. Beheading Jews where? In Iraq? Syria?

Technology may not win a war against low tech resistance or terrorism, and despite continuous long standing statements to the contrary, I am sure that both politicians and army general are aware of it. The ritual promises, vows and whatnot to end the threat of terrorism are intended, like in most other places, for public consumption and political ends. In other formulations, the goals are often defined as containing a threat, making the other side re-consider, buying time. These things can be achieved by military technology, but of course, there has to be some actual goal at the end of the road - in this case, it seems like the "managing" of the conflict became the goal itself.

[Ulysses G.]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

[jdinasia]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Only expected by people that accept collective punishment.

I don't see support for that from any direction.

[Jingthing]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Morch]

And so the propaganda machine revs it's engines, as I predicted at the beginning of this thread.

Recall the emergency meeting at the UN called by Jordan a few weeks ago to remonstrate about Israel's intentions for Al Aqsa? Netanyahu's subsequent trip to Jordan?

People behind the scenes know very well that the incitement comes from Israel, but slimy Netanyahu spins the blame, very disingenuously, onto Abbas.

I say disingenuously, because after the chief of Israel's Shin Bet security service contradicted Netanyahu ( " “Abu Mazen isn’t interested in terror and isn’t pushing for terror, not even under the table,” Cohen told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, a comment that nearly all Israeli media interpreted as a direct rebuttal to Netanyahu’s accusations. "), Netanyahu had to back away from his claim...." Netanyahu insisted that everything Cohen had told the Knesset committee was “correct,” and that there was no disagreement between him and Cohen on the question of Abbas’s culpability. "

(Abu Mazen is what Israelis call Abbas)

Read more: Why Netanyahu thinks blaming Abbas is vital for peace | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-netanyahu-thinks-blaming-abbas-is-vital-for-peace/#ixzz3Jc0isMaV

Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

You're either testing what "disingenuous" means or did not fully read the article quoted. The next paragraphs say

The media frenzy that surrounded the seeming clash between the prime minister and his Shin Bet chief highlighted the political significance of Netanyahu’s claim against Abbas. For the right, the argument that Abbas is inciting terror proves that peace talks are impossible. For the left, the intelligence chief’s assessment that Abbas is not in favor of terror attacks proves that peace talks remain a moral and viable imperative, and that Israel’s right-wing government is at least as responsible for their failure as the Palestinians. As the left-wing Haaretz daily argued in its Wednesday editorial, the “real motivation” behind Netanyahu’s accusations is “to deepen the fracture with the Palestinians, and torpedo any possibility of a future agreement.”

Yet the press coverage of Cohen’s remarks, like the political responses to Netanyahu’s accusations, tell only half the story.

While Cohen did indeed tell lawmakers that Abbas was not seeking violence, he also said “the recent incitement by Palestinian Authority leaders, led by Abu Mazen, on issues connected with Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, contribute to and affect the high level of violence in the field, especially in Jerusalem.” And he added: “There are people in the Palestinian public who understand [Abbas’s] criticism [of Israel] as legitimating attacks.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-netanyahu-thinks-blaming-abbas-is-vital-for-peace/#ixzz3Jc0isMaV

Not quite as simplistic and one-sided as you present. The article actually dwells on this a bit more, some interesting reading there, even if one does not accept all premises.

A bit rich to repetitively spray propaganda accusations indiscriminately, while engaging in such cherry picking and selective reading.

If it unclear to anyone following the events, there are no saints and innocents on this one - fanning the flames is something representatives of both sides indulge in continuously. Sadly, some posters seem to feel it necessary to emulate them. It can be argued if the Palestinian do it more, or if the Israelis started it (and vice versa) - unless, of course, this sort of argument sounds a bit under-age....

[jdinasia]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No, but perhaps you should check out a bit of international humanitarian law, then get back with us.

[Ulysses G.]

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Indeed it is. Another hateful talking point with no actual basis and there are enough differing legal opinions on "international humanitarian law" to make it about as meaningless a charge as you can make.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Some background on that:

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

As I've been suggesting for some time...Hamas WILL lose support if Israel would only strike a deal with Fatah.

But Netanyahu will never strike a deal with Fatah because he doesn't believe in the two state solution and doesn't want peace. The deal was on the table just a few months ago and Israel walked away. And now the Israeli public is suffering the consequences with their blood spilling in the streets--and this will likely continue to do so until they elect representatives who genuinely do want to reach a lasting peace.

There's a misguided notion which some keep re-hashing that somehow the creation of the Palestinian Unity government meant that Hamas accepted the two-state solution and gave its full consent for negotiations with Israel. This is not the case and it never was.

As mentioned in many of my posts - even if a center/left wing candidate will actually succeed in forming a coalition, it is still far from certain he could pull through a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Reason being that when a right wing prime minister does it, he gets automatic support from the center/left + elements of his "home team". A center/left PM does not usually get this luxury (in addition to being demonized as a traitor). These dynamics are not likely to change in the near future. Current leadership and next crop look pretty dismal as well.

And of course, the illusion that the Palestinian leadership and public are just eager to sign a peace agreement is quite out there. They pretty much have the mirror image of the Israeli situation, in some instances even worse.

[Morch]

As I've been suggesting for some time...Hamas WILL lose support if Israel would only strike a deal with Fatah.

But Netanyahu will never strike a deal with Fatah because he doesn't believe in the two state solution and doesn't want peace. The deal was on the table just a few months ago and Israel walked away. And now the Israeli public is suffering the consequences with their blood spilling in the streets--and this will likely continue to do so until they elect representatives who genuinely do want to reach a lasting peace.

Netanyahu will never strike a deal with anybody. He doesn't want any deal. He will continue to shift the goalposts....now he is insisting that Palestine change their education curriculum, or no deal.

Next, when that happens, he will say he can't deal with people who insist their wives wear burkas, because they are a security threat. Any excuse. Prolong it and more settlements occur....eventually the necessary land swaps will be such that it will be impossible to carve the 2 states....and once again, no deal.

Yes, he does that often. Changing the goal posts, setting up new conditions, making excuses, delaying.

On the other hand, got to say that the Palestinians give him so many opportunities to play these games.

This is, for example, why I am so much less optimistic on the prospect of Hamas losing support.

In very much the same way, they are bound to do the equivalent of the above, extract a reaction and get

the whole mess started again. This is nothing new.

It needs to be acknowledged that there are parties on both sides which do not really want a compromise,

and that this is not limited to one or the other. This, however, does not necessarily mean that each and every

grievance raised is faux. The thing is that these issues are brought up as condition to begin negotiations

whereas they ought to be what negotiations will result it - rarely need a peace agreement between two

nations fully accepting each other with mutual respect.

[Morch]

In Israel at least there is a trend to honestly look more critically at their history, and you don't get murdered by fellow Jews for publishing about that.

In the west bank and Gaza, nothing like that.

Especially Gaza, dissent equals certain death from your fellow Arab brothers.

I have noticed that the "Zionist" websites that the usual suspects complain about are pretty much entirely historically accurate. Although they tend to soften negative actions by Israel, they do report them.

On the other hand, every Palestinian "historical" site that I've ever seen was packed with fabrications and not reliable at all. Morch might know of an accurate one, but I have never stumbled upon one.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe the truth is getting harder to dissemble on pro Israeli websites.

Actually, no.

Re-visiting a nation's history and historical narrative is something that happens after things settle down (assuming some dramatic Independence struggle) and a sort of normalcy prevails. That usually does not work for countries and nations in the making, where the unity and righteousness of the national narrative is a central element of the struggle.

In relation to Israel, this trend can be identified with the New Historians (visited this on earlier topics), some of which are regularly quoted on these discussions. The observation itself is not new, and even appears in some of their writings. This is not to say that the ideas expressed by these scholars are necessarily widely or warmly accepted, but they are heard.

It would probably take the Palestinians a long while to get there, what with not achieving their goals so far. There are also other contributing factors (such as supporting a relatively open and plural society), which lack of may compound things further.

A bit off topic, carry on.

[Morch]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Not to sure about the "certainly" bit.

Some of the IDF attacks very probably fall into this category, and some may even constitute worse offenses.

On the other hand, on other occasions the IDF made efforts to notify civilians ahead of attacks, give a grace period to evacuate and so forth. This might not seem genuinely humane, but in some of these instances it was more than what international law dictates. The international laws governing warfare are not really that fair, when it comes to legalities seems like as long as a side is following prescribed procedures, some things are legit (regardless of actual damages and effect). There is a lot of talk about taking Israel to the international court over this, but less substance it seems. Proceedings deal with specific cases and details, not wholesale accusations. Remains to be seen which actions, if any, will make it to trial. If push comes to shove, it could be expected that Israel will counter by bringing up Hamas rocket fire - this is a clear violation, for example (and by your definition, "collective punishment").

I do wonder how posters claiming this was genocide, collective punishment and the like, feel about similar military operations conducted elsewhere. Is the genocide/collective punishment something endemic to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is this a general point of view and moral stand?

[Morch]

His last 'punishment ' of Gaza's civilians over the deaths of three hitchhikers in the West Bank certainly looked genocide to me.

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No, but perhaps you should check out a bit of international humanitarian law, then get back with us.

Use of densely populated urban areas for military deployment is legally and morally sound?

[Ulysses G.]

I do wonder how posters claiming this was genocide, collective punishment and the like, feel about similar military operations conducted elsewhere. Is the genocide/collective punishment something endemic to the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict, or is this a general point of view and moral stand?

I don't think you have to do a lot of guessing. The same few posters obsessively post about each and every charge against Israel and largely ignore much worse happenings elsewhere. They have a lot in common with so-called UN "Human Rights Council".

[dexterm]

In Israel at least there is a trend to honestly look more critically at their history, and you don't get murdered by fellow Jews for publishing about that.

In the west bank and Gaza, nothing like that.

Especially Gaza, dissent equals certain death from your fellow Arab brothers.

I have noticed that the "Zionist" websites that the usual suspects complain about are pretty much entirely historically accurate. Although they tend to soften negative actions by Israel, they do report them.

On the other hand, every Palestinian "historical" site that I've ever seen was packed with fabrications and not reliable at all. Morch might know of an accurate one, but I have never stumbled upon one.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe the truth is getting harder to dissemble on pro Israeli websites.

Actually, no.

Re-visiting a nation's history and historical narrative is something that happens after things settle down (assuming some dramatic Independence struggle) and a sort of normalcy prevails. That usually does not work for countries and nations in the making, where the unity and righteousness of the national narrative is a central element of the struggle.

In relation to Israel, this trend can be identified with the New Historians (visited this on earlier topics), some of which are regularly quoted on these discussions. The observation itself is not new, and even appears in some of their writings. This is not to say that the ideas expressed by these scholars are necessarily widely or warmly accepted, but they are heard.

It would probably take the Palestinians a long while to get there, what with not achieving their goals so far. There are also other contributing factors (such as supporting a relatively open and plural society), which lack of may compound things further.

A bit off topic, carry on.

Precisely... Israel is still re-writing history.

[Scott]

Stay on topic and keep your personal opinion of other posters to yourself.

[Seastallion]

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues.

If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Meaningless buzzword, no. Actual term with a meaning, yes. As defined in the Geneva Convention.

Where is the "defence" in demolishing the homes of the families of criminals? That's not defence by any definition!

I know you don't like to face the truth, but it was the acts of WW2 Nazis that drove the drafters of this particular part of the Geneva Convention.

" By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to “intimidatory measures to terrorize the population” in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.” ".4

Therein lies at least one parallel to Nazis.

The only demonstrable irrationality here is jumping from "collective punishment buzzword" to "defend against forces openly seeking her destruction".

[Morch]

I have noticed that the "Zionist" websites that the usual suspects complain about are pretty much entirely historically accurate. Although they tend to soften negative actions by Israel, they do report them.

On the other hand, every Palestinian "historical" site that I've ever seen was packed with fabrications and not reliable at all. Morch might know of an accurate one, but I have never stumbled upon one.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe the truth is getting harder to dissemble on pro Israeli websites.

Actually, no.

Re-visiting a nation's history and historical narrative is something that happens after things settle down (assuming some dramatic Independence struggle) and a sort of normalcy prevails. That usually does not work for countries and nations in the making, where the unity and righteousness of the national narrative is a central element of the struggle.

In relation to Israel, this trend can be identified with the New Historians (visited this on earlier topics), some of which are regularly quoted on these discussions. The observation itself is not new, and even appears in some of their writings. This is not to say that the ideas expressed by these scholars are necessarily widely or warmly accepted, but they are heard.

It would probably take the Palestinians a long while to get there, what with not achieving their goals so far. There are also other contributing factors (such as supporting a relatively open and plural society), which lack of may compound things further.

A bit off topic, carry on.

Precisely... Israel is still re-writing history.

Nope. Precisely shows you either did not understand the post or chose not to.

History is not a monolithic unchangeable construct. History is reevaluated and re-written all the time, it is part of what

history is. Israel itself does re-write history, Israeli historian may. Since you quote some of these historians when it suits

your agenda, it is quite amusing that you would cast doubt on their credibility.

If, for some reason, you suppose that the ideas and notions of current historians will not be revised and reevaluated in

the future, let me burst your bubble, they too would be discarded when their time comes.

Much in the same way, if and when Palestinian historian get to it, their narrative will be torn apart and reassembled again,

with some parts left on the floor of the editing room.

The notion that this is somehow a unique political point scored couldn't be more ridiculous

[Morch]

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Meaningless buzzword, no. Actual term with a meaning, yes. As defined in the Geneva Convention.

Where is the "defence" in demolishing the homes of the families of criminals? That's not defence by any definition!

I know you don't like to face the truth, but it was the acts of WW2 Nazis that drove the drafters of this particular part of the Geneva Convention.

" By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to “intimidatory measures to terrorize the population” in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.” ".4

Therein lies at least one parallel to Nazis.

The only demonstrable irrationality here is jumping from "collective punishment buzzword" to "defend against forces openly seeking her destruction".

Since you're already reading up on these issues - what's the take on embedding military forces and operations within a

densely populated urban area? Or for that matter, the responsibility of governing authority toward the safety of its civilians?

Last but not least - anything about in discriminant mass firing of unguided projectiles on civilian population without warning?

Now, of course you could have quoted from the Geneva convention texts without a bogus comparison to the Nazis, but

wouldn't carry the same imaginary punch then, eh?

[Seastallion]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe the truth is getting harder to dissemble on pro Israeli websites.

Actually, no.

Re-visiting a nation's history and historical narrative is something that happens after things settle down (assuming some dramatic Independence struggle) and a sort of normalcy prevails. That usually does not work for countries and nations in the making, where the unity and righteousness of the national narrative is a central element of the struggle.

In relation to Israel, this trend can be identified with the New Historians (visited this on earlier topics), some of which are regularly quoted on these discussions. The observation itself is not new, and even appears in some of their writings. This is not to say that the ideas expressed by these scholars are necessarily widely or warmly accepted, but they are heard.

It would probably take the Palestinians a long while to get there, what with not achieving their goals so far. There are also other contributing factors (such as supporting a relatively open and plural society), which lack of may compound things further.

A bit off topic, carry on.

Precisely... Israel is still re-writing history.

Nope. Precisely shows you either did not understand the post or chose not to.

History is not a monolithic unchangeable construct. History is reevaluated and re-written all the time, it is part of what

history is. Israel itself does re-write history, Israeli historian may. Since you quote some of these historians when it suits

your agenda, it is quite amusing that you would cast doubt on their credibility.

If, for some reason, you suppose that the ideas and notions of current historians will not be revised and reevaluated in

the future, let me burst your bubble, they too would be discarded when their time comes.

Much in the same way, if and when Palestinian historian get to it, their narrative will be torn apart and reassembled again,

with some parts left on the floor of the editing room.

The notion that this is somehow a unique political point scored couldn't be more ridiculous

You are mostly correct, but what you are failing to recognise is that there is "history" as defined by various historians, and actual truth.

To the victor goes the right to write history, is indeed a common actuality, but there is no denying what actually happened.

[Seastallion]

Some background on that:

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

As I've been suggesting for some time...Hamas WILL lose support if Israel would only strike a deal with Fatah.

Interesting. No issues with unverified anonymous statements when they somehow support your position? Where are the usual demands for "proof"? Unless much mistaken, such claims as appear in the link were denounced as vile Israeli propaganda when they were brought up on other occasions. And what, no issues with Gatestone now?

There's an illusion that somehow Palestinians are just waiting to throw the yoke of Hamas, if there was only peace with Israel. Holding on to this notion ignores the amount of actual popular support Hamas receives on topics having naught to do with Israel, and on how deeply ingrained Hamas is in Palestinian politics and society.

As to your first paragraph.....lets use it to "rebutt" most of the pro-Israeli opinions posted here.

If someone links to a "source", why can that same source not be used to show another view? If the first poster assumes it is a good source.....then they need to take note of it.

As to your 2nd paragraph, I refer you back to your first paragraph.

[jdinasia]

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Indeed it is. Another hateful talking point with no actual basis and there are enough differing legal opinions on "international humanitarian law" to make it about as meaningless a charge as you can make.

Other than the fact that collective punishment is described in both Geneva and the Rome statutes

[Morch]

Actually, no.

Re-visiting a nation's history and historical narrative is something that happens after things settle down (assuming some dramatic Independence struggle) and a sort of normalcy prevails. That usually does not work for countries and nations in the making, where the unity and righteousness of the national narrative is a central element of the struggle.

In relation to Israel, this trend can be identified with the New Historians (visited this on earlier topics), some of which are regularly quoted on these discussions. The observation itself is not new, and even appears in some of their writings. This is not to say that the ideas expressed by these scholars are necessarily widely or warmly accepted, but they are heard.

It would probably take the Palestinians a long while to get there, what with not achieving their goals so far. There are also other contributing factors (such as supporting a relatively open and plural society), which lack of may compound things further.

A bit off topic, carry on.

Precisely... Israel is still re-writing history.

Nope. Precisely shows you either did not understand the post or chose not to.

History is not a monolithic unchangeable construct. History is reevaluated and re-written all the time, it is part of what

history is. Israel itself does re-write history, Israeli historian may. Since you quote some of these historians when it suits

your agenda, it is quite amusing that you would cast doubt on their credibility.

If, for some reason, you suppose that the ideas and notions of current historians will not be revised and reevaluated in

the future, let me burst your bubble, they too would be discarded when their time comes.

Much in the same way, if and when Palestinian historian get to it, their narrative will be torn apart and reassembled again,

with some parts left on the floor of the editing room.

The notion that this is somehow a unique political point scored couldn't be more ridiculous

You are mostly correct, but what you are failing to recognise is that there is "history" as defined by various historians, and actual truth.

To the victor goes the right to write history, is indeed a common actuality, but there is no denying what actually happened.

There might be factual events, with our knowledge of them being more or less accurate. That could be termed chronology. The interpretation of the meaning of these events, while putting them in context is history.

As everyone who had an argument with his wife...scrap that, mine is always right....but ok, an argument with anyone but the wife....facts could sometimes be agreed upon, interpretation less so.

This gets compounded when alternative or differing accounts of what actually happened exist.

[Morch]

Some background on that:

*edited out - too many quotes*

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4706/gazan-hamas-war-crimes

As I've been suggesting for some time...Hamas WILL lose support if Israel would only strike a deal with Fatah.

Interesting. No issues with unverified anonymous statements when they somehow support your position? Where are the usual demands for "proof"? Unless much mistaken, such claims as appear in the link were denounced as vile Israeli propaganda when they were brought up on other occasions. And what, no issues with Gatestone now?

There's an illusion that somehow Palestinians are just waiting to throw the yoke of Hamas, if there was only peace with Israel. Holding on to this notion ignores the amount of actual popular support Hamas receives on topics having naught to do with Israel, and on how deeply ingrained Hamas is in Palestinian politics and society.

As to your first paragraph.....lets use it to "rebutt" most of the pro-Israeli opinions posted here.

If someone links to a "source", why can that same source not be used to show another view? If the first poster assumes it is a good source.....then they need to take note of it.

As to your 2nd paragraph, I refer you back to your first paragraph.

Because there has to be some consistency. One either accepts a source/information or one doesn't. To discredit material when it does not suit the agenda, and embrace it when it does is disingenuous.

It is another matter when someone accepts the source/information presented but challenges the interpretation. As similar links were described as Israeli propaganda etc. it seems odd to pick them as reference now.

Not quite sure what your referral to the first paragraph was supposed to mean.

Regardless, may want to have a read on the author, quite a character (and of course, on his own agenda).

[simple1]

Well, that might have to do with hyperbole issues. If the death toll during the Gaza fighting amounts to genocide, do you consider any similar scale conflict a genocide?

The fighting in Gaza had a lot more backdrop than "revenge".

Not genocide, but certainly collective punishment.

Only if you consider every war "collective punishment" Hamas purposely launch rockets from heavily populated areas and people get killed when Israel strikes back. It is to be expected.

Collective punishment is just one if those almost meaningless buzzwords used to demonize Israel by Hamas sympathizers who irrationally faili to accept that Israel has every right to defend herself against forces openly seeking her destruction.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Post removed to enable reply.

In my opinion the destruction civilian infrastructure, such as power & water treament plants in Gaza by Israeli forces, is 'collective punishment' & would contribute to civilian deaths as happened in Iraq.. Did the Israeli government provide 'justification' for their actions.