Synagogue attack: Netanyahu vow in 'battle for Jerusalem'

[Jingthing]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

[simple1]

@Morch. Good to see you're back & commenting. Whilst some may disagree with you, your coherency, IMO, is a postive contribution

[simple1]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

Your response obviously did not answer my question.

What I questioned was did the Israeli Govt / military articulate the reasoning / justification for targeting utility infrastructure.

[bangon04]

"Mr Netanyahu vowed to "settle the score with every terrorist" saying that those "who want to uproot us from our state and capital... will not succeed"."

and probably he will do his best to keep his word in this case, as long as the US has no serious objection to a bit of punishment genocide.

Pity Netanyahoo doesn't try to keep any of his other promises to the arabs

Use of the word genocide in this context is a typical Israel demonization lie. Criticize Israel rationally. Fine. False charges. Not fine.

Yes you are quite right. What I meant to say was Ethnic Cleansing.

Netanyahoo has never and will never negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians.

The Jewish Lobby in New York and Washington DC partially fund and shield Netanyahoo from the consequences ie worldwide condemnation and sanctions. They are mostly not Israelis. They are US Citizens.

But how long will the massive crimes against the Jewish people be used to justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine?

[jdinasia]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

International Humanitarian Law states not only is there no justification for collective punishment, it also states total war is illegal.

[Scott]

I suggest you get back to the topic of the attack on the Synagogue.

[chuckd]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

International Humanitarian Law states not only is there no justification for collective punishment, it also states total war is illegal.

What does International Humanitarian Law say about slaughtering innocent people as they pray in a house of worship?

[jdinasia]

It is illegal.

Doesn't matter if it is a synagogue or a mosque.

[thaibeachlovers]

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

I don't sympathise with Hamas, but Israel does use collective punishment, which is illegal under international law.

[Ulysses G.]

Shooting thousands of rockets into Israel is illegal under international law, but the usual suspects do nothing but make excuses for doing that.

There is no justification for attacking a Synagogue full of peaceful worshipers.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

@Morch. Good to see you're back & commenting. Whilst some may disagree with you, your coherency, IMO, is a postive contribution

Morch should be Thaivisa member of the year.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

Your response obviously did not answer my question.

What I questioned was did the Israeli Govt / military articulate the reasoning / justification for targeting utility infrastructure.

Surprise surprise. I am not a spokesman for the Israeli government nor am I even Israeli. So ... stop baiting me

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Israel's overall justification of action in the recent Gaza "war" were the rockets and tunnels. Obviously.

Your response obviously did not answer my question.

What I questioned was did the Israeli Govt / military articulate the reasoning / justification for targeting utility infrastructure.

Surprise surprise. I am not a spokesman for the Israeli government nor am I even Israeli. So ... stop baiting me

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So happy to offer opinions usually, but now avoid?

Edited November 22, 2014 by Seastallion

[Ulysses G.]

You asked him to give you the government of Israel's reasoning. You should try Google.

[Morch]

@Morch. Good to see you're back & commenting. Whilst some may disagree with you, your coherency, IMO, is a postive contribution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

[willyumiii]

Christians, Muslims and Jews....

All believe in the same fantasy,the same god!

Yet they all hate and kill each other at every opportunity.

Their insanity has the potential to start a conflict large enough to kill off most, if not all, of the human population of this planet.

Is there any way the sane people of this world can stop them??

I, for one, do not want to die for the sake of the ridiculous religious superstitions of these idiots!

[Jingthing]

It's not only about religion.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[simple1]

You asked him to give you the government of Israel's reasoning. You should try Google.

JT is usually never slow to come foreward with opinion concerning Israeli actions / policies. However moving along...

Located the content below when searching in relevance to Gaza. Unsure if the content has been discussed before and vigorously denied or justified by TV members.

The Dahiya doctrine is a military strategy put forth by the Israeli general Gadi Eizenkot that pertains to asymmetric warfare in an urban setting, in which the army deliberately targets civilians and civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence.

A bit more historical background…

According to analyst Gabi Siboni at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies: "With an outbreak of hostilities [with Hezbollah], the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses.

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

Edited November 22, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

I have never heard of it before, but the Dahiya strategy sounds like the exact same doctrine used by most Arabs. To them, Zionists are criminals, yet all of Israels citizens are Zionists, including Jews who do not endorse Zionism. It is said that turnabout is fair play.

Using this strategy, the IDF would attack residential areas which double as enemy command centers. They would apply massive force and cause great damage and destruction. From their standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases - Hamas fires rockets from schoolyards and store its weapons in mosques and peoples homes.

The problem is not with the way the IDF fights - considering the warnings it provides the civilian populations and the precautions it takes when opening fire - but with the world's understanding of modern guerrilla warfare. The Dahiya strategy's objective is to avoid a protracted underground war and it could be justified by the enemies own actions and beliefs.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Lissos]

I watched a piece on al Jazeera this morning detailing how the widow of one of the synagogue attackers is going to have her Jerusalem residency removed. I felt mixed initially as to whether this was fair or not, until they interviewed her. Going by al Jazeera's translation at least, she saw her husband as a martyr which in itself suggests that she sees her husband's death not as being stopped in his tracks while in the middle of carrying out a murder spree, but as have sacrificed his life with his acts for some kind of greater good / goal / struggle etc etc. Simultaneously she was whinging that now her young child was without a father and the family is alone because 'they' (the Israelis) killed him and took him from the family. As I see it, he had already abandoned her and the child to fend for themselves when he knowingly set off to carry out the killing spree in the Syngaogue, and as she appears to see him as a hero even now, then any sympathy I had for the removal of her Jerusalem residency evaporated once she opened her mouth for the cameras.

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched a piece on al Jazeera this morning detailing how the widow of one of the synagogue attackers is going to have her Jerusalem residency removed. I felt mixed initially as to whether this was fair or not, until they interviewed her. Going by al Jazeera's translation at least, she saw her husband as a martyr which in itself suggests that she sees her husband's death not as being stopped in his tracks while in the middle of carrying out a murder spree, but as have sacrificed his life with his acts for some kind of greater good / goal / struggle etc etc. Simultaneously she was whinging that now her young child was without a father and the family is alone because 'they' (the Israelis) killed him and took him from the family. As I see it, he had already abandoned her and the child to fend for themselves when he knowingly set off to carry out the killing spree in the Syngaogue, and as she appears to see him as a hero even now, then any sympathy I had for the removal of her Jerusalem residency evaporated once she opened her mouth for the cameras.

Going by your logic, the French Resistance were not heros attacking an oppressive and violent occupation of their land by a foreign power, but simply terrorists.

In case you don't get it, destroying houses like that is COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT which is ILLEGAL under international law. The only thing that will be achieved is creating more Palestinian resistance fighters.

[thaibeachlovers]

Christians, Muslims and Jews....

All believe in the same fantasy,the same god!

Yet they all hate and kill each other at every opportunity.

Their insanity has the potential to start a conflict large enough to kill off most, if not all, of the human population of this planet.

Is there any way the sane people of this world can stop them??

I, for one, do not want to die for the sake of the ridiculous religious superstitions of these idiots!

Is there any way the sane people of this world can stop them??

No.

Actually, it's nothing to do with religion, but all to do with power and politics. Does "do not kill" and "do unto others as you would they do unto you" sound like a call to go and murder other people? However for 600 years the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland killed each other.

[Lissos]

I watched a piece on al Jazeera this morning detailing how the widow of one of the synagogue attackers is going to have her Jerusalem residency removed. I felt mixed initially as to whether this was fair or not, until they interviewed her. Going by al Jazeera's translation at least, she saw her husband as a martyr which in itself suggests that she sees her husband's death not as being stopped in his tracks while in the middle of carrying out a murder spree, but as have sacrificed his life with his acts for some kind of greater good / goal / struggle etc etc. Simultaneously she was whinging that now her young child was without a father and the family is alone because 'they' (the Israelis) killed him and took him from the family. As I see it, he had already abandoned her and the child to fend for themselves when he knowingly set off to carry out the killing spree in the Syngaogue, and as she appears to see him as a hero even now, then any sympathy I had for the removal of her Jerusalem residency evaporated once she opened her mouth for the cameras.

Going by your logic, the French Resistance were not heros attacking an oppressive and violent occupation of their land by a foreign power, but simply terrorists.

In case you don't get it, destroying houses like that is COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT which is ILLEGAL under international law. The only thing that will be achieved is creating more Palestinian resistance fighters.

The French Resistance carried out pre-meditated murderous attacks on people in prayer, did they?

The only 'thing' the man's so called 'resistance' and his supportive widow have achieved from murdering Rabbis at prayer, is removal of Jerusalem residency.

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched a piece on al Jazeera this morning detailing how the widow of one of the synagogue attackers is going to have her Jerusalem residency removed. I felt mixed initially as to whether this was fair or not, until they interviewed her. Going by al Jazeera's translation at least, she saw her husband as a martyr which in itself suggests that she sees her husband's death not as being stopped in his tracks while in the middle of carrying out a murder spree, but as have sacrificed his life with his acts for some kind of greater good / goal / struggle etc etc. Simultaneously she was whinging that now her young child was without a father and the family is alone because 'they' (the Israelis) killed him and took him from the family. As I see it, he had already abandoned her and the child to fend for themselves when he knowingly set off to carry out the killing spree in the Syngaogue, and as she appears to see him as a hero even now, then any sympathy I had for the removal of her Jerusalem residency evaporated once she opened her mouth for the cameras.

Going by your logic, the French Resistance were not heros attacking an oppressive and violent occupation of their land by a foreign power, but simply terrorists.

In case you don't get it, destroying houses like that is COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT which is ILLEGAL under international law. The only thing that will be achieved is creating more Palestinian resistance fighters.

The French Resistance carried out pre-meditated murderous attacks on people in prayer, did they?

The only 'thing' the man's so called 'resistance' and his supportive widow have achieved from murdering Rabbis at prayer, is removal of Jerusalem residency.

is removal of Jerusalem residency.

Which illegal under international law. Why don't you address that?

[Jingthing]

The Israeli high court has frozen any further house demolitions of terrorists. Not a final decision ... a freeze on further actions for now.

The bodies of the terrorist cousins from the synagogue terror attack have still not been released. That seems surprising.

As far as the revocation of Jerusalem residency rights, well that lady with her pro-terrorist views will feel at home outside Jerusalem.

Official Palestinian Authority Media:

[Lissos]

is removal of Jerusalem residency.

Which illegal under international law. Why don't you address that?

I long ago recognised that the - "international law" line is merely something which Israel's general detractors or the far more serious and calculating direct opponents of Israel pick up whenever it suits them to demand adherence to international law. In the case of the later, an attempt to hammer Israel from another angle in the absence of being able to enact far more gratuitous damage (which they would, if they could). Boycott movements and similar, the same. It is all just another arm of the overall jihad hiding behind a veneer. I say that because I don't believe they care one jot about international law. It is only the Israeli side in this conflict from which they demand adherence to international law. Various actions along the way carried out by individuals or militant groups connected to so called 'resistance' to Israel, are generally given a free pass of 'empathy'. No demand for the multitude of militias to adhere to international law in how they conduct their 'resistance'. Nor would I expect it from Israel's opponents, because I don't live in a dream world. All the wailing about "international law" is a non starter with me, for that reason. Israelis have the 'dugri' to identify when somebody is probably best not retaining within your circle of friends, and one of them is the man's wife who even now is trying to spin this to sound like that whole matter was anything other than a tragedy not only for those at prayer in the synagogue but also for herself and her child. In her spin, she portrayed it as if Israel wrecked her family. No, her husband wrecked her family when he made that lucid decision to leave them both and go on what was essentially a suicide mission. Doing so abandoned them to a life of struggle, regardless of whether Israel later removed her residency or not. Perhaps the only real victim in the family is the child, who is probably completely unaware of the future their father just consigned them to.

[Ulysses G.]

It is only the Israeli side in this conflict from which they demand adherence to international law.

Exactly. It is called hypocrisy.

[Seastallion]

is removal of Jerusalem residency.

Which illegal under international law. Why don't you address that?

It is only the Israeli side in this conflict from which they demand adherence to international law.

If, for the sake of argument, we say that is true, (which I don't think it is), but lets say....

When someone breaks the law, and then the victim of that law being broken breaks the law in reaction, who should be the first one forced to cease and desist continued breaking of the law? The first perpetrator or the second?

I think most reasonable people would address the first law breaker first.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians are the ones who broke the law first, but the UN "Human Rights Council" pretty much ignores it. When I was in the Marines, they taught us to do anything to our enemy that they did to us and to do it worse - not "official" policy of course.

[chuckd]

is removal of Jerusalem residency.

Which illegal under international law. Why don't you address that?

It is only the Israeli side in this conflict from which they demand adherence to international law.

If, for the sake of argument, we say that is true, (which I don't think it is), but lets say....

When someone breaks the law, and then the victim of that law being broken breaks the law in reaction, who should be the first one forced to cease and desist continued breaking of the law? The first perpetrator or the second?

I think most reasonable people would address the first law breaker first.

Most reasonable people would say two wrongs don't make a right.