Palestinian peace plan put before UN

[mania]

Seems some confusion as to numbers/placement of deaths

But really any deaths on either side is too many & a waste of life

Stats I have seen on the most recent event is as follows

UN casualty figures: 8 July to 26 August 2014

Palestinians dead Total = 2104

Men-1356

Women-253

Children-495

Injured- 10,224

Israeli Dead Total =69

Men 68

Women - 0

Children - 1

Injured- dozens (don't know why no number is provided?)

Edited December 19, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

The quoted LIE was that "over 500 children were killed in a school in Gaza", not in the whole conflict, and anyone under 18 is listed as a child, even though many Palestinian terrorists are teenagers. Any soldier/terrorist in a military conflict is fair game, including "children".

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[mania]

The quoted LIE was that "over 500 children were killed in a school in Gaza", not in the whole conflict

Yes I noted the school claim & just assumed it had something to do with a UN school that was hit

according to a UN report where 3300 Palestinians had taken refuge....

but figured the number was a total as I remember reading about 500 kids dead at the end of the

8 July to 26 August 2014 attacks.

At the end of the day I feel as I first said...It is a pity either way for all concerned...both sides.

I do not think the dead (Israeli or Palestinian) care much about the exact location of their death.

Edited December 19, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

I do not think the dead (Israeli or Palestinian) care much about the exact location of their death.

Falsely claiming that 500 children were killed in one school would imply that many more were killed elsewhere, hence the LIE. It is bad enough calling Hamas soldiers "children" when they were involved in the fighting.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[mania]

It is bad enough calling Hamas soldiers "children" when they were involved in the fighting.

Again it is all a shame but if your saying only "soldiers" were killed...

I would say I saw many dead that were not as big as a rifle much less able to wield one.

In any case sad to see this whole thing go on & on & on

I do not buy the claim one has to do this first either.

What I see is something that both sides can live with needs to be agreed on

It can only go so far & in many minds that has long been reached.

If they cannot settle it others should step in & settle it....But that is another subject of speculation

[Ulysses G.]

I DID not say that "only soldiers were killed". Those are your words. I said that anyone under 18 was counted as a "child", including all the Palestinian teenagers fighting for Hamas.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

The OP should be changed to Palestinians look to force unilateral peace plan without negotiation. To try and enforce a deadline on the Israelis without a reciprocal commitment to anything is pie in the sky nonsense. How about a commitment from all Palestinian factions to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and to stop preaching hatred from cradle to grave through it's media?

Israel has been dragging its heels for 47 years supposedly negotiating a peace deal but all the while imposing their own unilateral plan grabbing more land, ethnically cleansing Palestinians, building colonies and annexing Jerusalem. Enough already.

The PA, all Arab countries, and Iran have agreed to recognize Israel years ago, secure borders, exchange of ambassadors, trade agreements... the works.

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

Hamas has agreed to an indefinite truce, and a Palestinian state within the 67 borders which implies an Israeli state on the other side of the fence. With the benefits of peace and prosperity they would eventually be sidelined, as will the Zionist extremists. The Hamas charter and Likud's greater Israel will become museum relics.

This is actually doing Israel a favour. Anything smaller than the 67 borders would not be a viable state when the Palestinian diaspora returns. Any attempt by Israel to completely ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from the West Bank I don’t think even the USA would allow and would lead to more war. So if Israel is not careful it will be left with a one sate solution having to absorb 5 million Palestinians, and when they become equal citizens, inviting another 4 million in the diaspora.

The writing is on the wall. It's time Israel joined the 21st century.

Israel cannot be said to have dragged its heels since 1967. There were no immediate calls for negotiation from the Palestinians side, or from the Arab countries participating in that war. Were the Palestinians waiting since 1967 around some negotiating table? And yet, it would seem only Israel was "dragging its heels". Care to choose another date to start your count from?

Was Iran really part of the Arab Peace Initiative? One of the underlining issues of the summit (both 2002 and 2007) was countering Iran's influence. The PA did support the Initiative, but the Hamas actually carried a massive terrorist attack on the day it was announced. Lebanon's supporting or not supporting the Initiative was (and is) of no consequences as it is hardly a functioning state (what with Hezbollah acting independently). Regardless of these corrections - it would have been better for Israel to talk with the Arab nations, even if things were not as rosy as presented.

Hamas referred to a truce, not peace. As was pointed out many times, the meaning of truce could be quite different within the Muslim context (covered in depth on older posts, and others, perhaps arjundadawn would care to give another explanation, but for the short version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna ). Trying to imply that Hamas somehow recognizes Israel or that it accepts it as a fixture goes against many a statement (even recent ones) by Hamas leadership. Your optimism as to the ease with which Hamas can be sidelined is more wishful thinking then actually having a clue of how deeply rooted Hamas is.

[Morch]

The PA, all Arab countries, and Iran have agreed to recognize Israel years ago, secure borders, exchange of ambassadors, trade agreements... the works.

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

As usual, you did not read your link very well. Hamas has NOT accepted the plan and they control half off the Palestinian government. The deal can NOT proceed without them. Your own link disproves your fantasy.

That month, Mahmoud al-Zahar declared unequivocally: "Hamas will never change its position regardless of the pressure's intensity" and "We will never recognize the Arab initiative."[48]

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

Read my post more carefully,UG. I did not include Hamas in the Arab Peace Initiative link... I said the PA, all Arab countries and Iran. Then read the next paragraph for Hamas. Moreover I stated quite clearly that they will not recognize Israel but will accept an Israel within 67 borders.

I would expect a peace deal would go to a referendum of all Palestinians, and all Israelis. We would see who carries most weight then on both sides of the border...the extremists or the majority who want simply peace.

Hamas have on many occasions offered an indefinite truce.

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

Hamas did not offer indefinite truce on "many occasions". Even the linked article actually mentions a long term one, not an indefinite truce. Rehashing of the same link (or links covering the same visit), without a mention of the circumstances and context in which they were said is also noted. Just as a reminder, this was Hamas trying to do its best to get international acceptance, after parting ways with the Fatah and the PA.

Was this reported in say, Gaza? Were similar things said during speeches there? Are recent statements any indication that this is a reality? What Hamas leaders say on the world stage is not always what they say in their home court. Nothing out of the ordinary about that.

Is referendum regarding a peace deal something which exists in Israeli or Palestinian law? Are chances of pulling it through better this way or is a parliamentary vote safer? Where does the knowledge that the majority of the population is pro-peace? (on either side).

[Morch]

I said Hamas will not recognize Israel, but it will accept it with an indefinite truce within its 67 borders.

That does absolutely no effect on the initiative you have been touting as a done deal and it does absolutely nothing for Israel's security concerns. It has absolutely no meaning and would only benefit Hamas. The whole idea is just plain foolish.

That's what negotiations are all about....of which there have very few lately. I'm sure Israel could address it's security concerns as part of negotiations.

Once an agreement has been reached and both sides realize the benefits of years of peace and prosperity, extremists on both sides would be sidelined. If not and Israel is truly threatened...not just by a handful of hotheads who want to disrupt the peace (there will always be some of them on both sides) ..Israel is the 4th most powerful military force in the world with the most powerful country as its chief ally, and they could reverse the whole process over a long weekend.

You obviously prefer the status quo of a managed conflict. I have never seen you offer a sensible alternative peace plan that would be acceptable to both sides.

Whether you like it or not, peace will happen one day. If the Jordanian plan and global recognition helps, all the better.

Trouble with this optimistic rosy colored view is that it has little to do with realities in the Middle East. The hate, distrust, tribalism, and internal divisions run way deeper than most people imagine or are aware of.

It all sounds so very simple, isn't it? "Once an agreement is reached" - framework for talks isn't even agreed upon. The "benefits of years of peace and prosperity" - is that supposed to mean that the extremists would be sidelines after years? What would these extremists do in the mean time, seat idle and wait to be sidelined? Or was it meant as in once the sides realize the potential benefits of future prosperity they will make haste and sideline them nasty extremists?

What prosperity would that be, by the way? Unless someone else picks up the huge tabs involved with these potential peace agreements, the economic upheaval will not necessarily be a positive one.

Israel reversing the whole process over a long weekend? Seriously? There was just a limited warfare operation carried out in Gaza. Other than taking two months without ending in a decisive result it brought about massive casualties and destruction for the Palestinian side, a diplomatic backlash and economic crisis to Israel. And as for "truly threatened" - who is to be the judge of that?

And no, pointing out to difficulties, flaws in posts, inaccuracies and such is not a preference for the current status quo.

[Morch]

You obviously prefer the status quo of a managed conflict.

Wrong again. I prefer that the Palestinians stop the terrorism, honor their agreements, recognize Israel as a Jewish state and sign a peace treaty. They have avoided doing so for 66 years and have ended up in a purgatory of their own making.

Palestinians have already and can do all of those things bar Netanyahu's racist demand. Yasser Arafat recognized the secular democratic state of Israel years ago. No Palestinian nor any other country in the world (maybe not even USA), nor even a large number of current Israeli MPs would recognize the Jewish supremacist state of Israel.

Did the Palestinians stop terrorism? Did the Palestinians honor all of their obligations under previous agreements?

Why make up stuff when there are even topic on TVF showing the opposite.

It does not make Israel right, it does not make Netanyahu's Jewish state condition ok. But a blanket statement absolving the Palestinians from all wrongdoing? Reality check obviously needed.

[Morch]

Look who's talking!

Why don't you PROVE that I am wrong about Israel NOT "slaughtering a school full of over 500 children in Gaza" for starters, since you are insinuating that I "virtually never write a completely honest post"?. Posting stupid accusations that you and your comrades can't prove and running away seems more your style.

You are lost cause. There is nothing, proved or not, that would change your extreme right zionist beliefs.

Hmm....that would seem to cut both ways on these topics....

[Morch]

In other words, the false claim that Israel "slaughtered a school full of over 500 children in Gaza" was an outright LIE and you keep trying to divert attention from that FACT - very typical of the obsessive Israel-bashers on this forum.

Pathetic.

the only fact (sorry, apparently that should be "FACT") that matters is that 495 children were slaughtered by Israel. The only one who is trying to divert attention is you-- with a silly semantic argument.

Such "silly semantic" pseudo-factoids have a tendency of being repeated ad nauseam until they acquire a reality of their own. This is how information gets twisted, and rumors get started and spread. Enough of that around without adding more to an already sorry state. There are quite a lot of actual facts which could be used to effectively bash either side, without resorting to inaccuracies, fables and made up details.

[dexterm]

I said Hamas will not recognize Israel, but it will accept it with an indefinite truce within its 67 borders.

That does absolutely no effect on the initiative you have been touting as a done deal and it does absolutely nothing for Israel's security concerns. It has absolutely no meaning and would only benefit Hamas. The whole idea is just plain foolish.

That's what negotiations are all about....of which there have very few lately. I'm sure Israel could address it's security concerns as part of negotiations.

Once an agreement has been reached and both sides realize the benefits of years of peace and prosperity, extremists on both sides would be sidelined. If not and Israel is truly threatened...not just by a handful of hotheads who want to disrupt the peace (there will always be some of them on both sides) ..Israel is the 4th most powerful military force in the world with the most powerful country as its chief ally, and they could reverse the whole process over a long weekend.

You obviously prefer the status quo of a managed conflict. I have never seen you offer a sensible alternative peace plan that would be acceptable to both sides.

Whether you like it or not, peace will happen one day. If the Jordanian plan and global recognition helps, all the better.

Trouble with this optimistic rosy colored view is that it has little to do with realities in the Middle East.

The hate, distrust, tribalism, and internal divisions run way deeper than most people imagine or are aware of.

It all sounds so very simple, isn't it? "Once an agreement is reached" - framework for talks isn't even agreed upon.

The "benefits of years of peace and prosperity" - is that supposed to mean that the extremists would be sidelines after years?

What would these extremists do in the mean time, seat idle and wait to be sidelined? Or was it meant as in once the sides

realize the potential benefits of future prosperity they will make haste and sideline them nasty extremists?

What prosperity would that be, by the way? Unless someone else picks up the huge tabs involved with these potential peace

agreements, the economic upheaval will not necessarily be a positive one.

Israel reversing the whole process over a long weekend? Seriously? There was just a limited warfare operation carried out

in Gaza. Other than taking two months without ending in a decisive result it brought about massive casualties and destruction

for the Palestinian side, a diplomatic backlash and economic crisis to Israel. And as for "truly threatened" - who is to be the

judge of that?

And no, pointing out to difficulties, flaws in posts, inaccuracies and such is not a preference for the current status quo.

Of course there is plenty of hatred and distrust on all sides, but you have to start somewhere.

All conflicts eventually come to an end.Just because of obstacles it doesn't mean giving up the search for the right formula, especially as it has been so tantalizingly close three times via the offices of Yitzah Rabin (before a Jewish right wing nut job assassinated him), at Camp David and with Olmert's plan.

You attempt to come across as the voice of reason, but you appear to be advocating the status quo.... a managed conflict. At best you are saying let's put it all in the too hard basket, because there are too many bad players on both sides.

Your most negative comment of all is when you dispute the resultant prosperity from a peace agreement. Tel Aviv would become the economic hub of the entire Middle east. Tourists would flock to Israel in their millions. Presumably you mean the eviction of colonists in the West Bank who shouldn't have been allowed to go there in the first place. Even that isn't insurmountable. You could swap land for large settlements that already border Israel, and the 60-70,000 in colonies deep in the West Bank either forcibly remove, or let them stay under PA control.. I doubt they'll want that.

The EU, USA, and global community would gladly pick up the tab for Jewish and Palestinian compensation...cheap at twice the price. They already frequently have to put their hands in their pockets to rebuild after a war. The global financial benefits would be enormous.

What's the definition of "Israel truly threatened". Well, lets hope someone other than Netanyahu will decide that. He'll start a war at the drop of a hat just to stay in power. Let the experts decide on checks and balances to address Israeli security concerns in a final agreement.

What's your suggestion for a solution to ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict then?

[Ulysses G.]

You attempt to come across as the voice of reason

The pot calling the kettle black, but Morch has a LOT more credentials in that regard than you do. He tries to see both sides and corrects inaccuracies about both parties, where you do nothing but attack Israel - and usually dishonestly - in practically every post. Searching your posting history provides plenty of evidence.

Morch does not pretend to have a solution to the conflict. That is a lot more honest than constantly insisting on silly "solutions" that have no logical basis, like some folks here tend to do. .

Edited December 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Asiantravel]

peace plans not going far in a hurry

Israel bombs Gaza for first time since summer assault

GAZA CITY: Israeli war jets bombed targets in the southern Gaza Strip, witnesses and the army said early Saturday, hours after a projectile from the besieged Palestinian enclave hit open ground in southern Israel.

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Dec-20/281747-israel-bombs-gaza-for-first-time-since-summer-assault.ashx

Edited December 20, 2014 by Asiantravel

[mania]

I DID not say that "only soldiers were killed". Those are your words. I said that anyone under 18 was counted as a "child", including all the Palestinian teenagers fighting for Hamas.

555 yes these topics become so confused one needs a schedule/program

Yes they were my word or more accurately a question

Again it is all a shame but if your saying only "soldiers" were killed...

The only reason I asked is one person said 500 killed at a school

I listed the UN stats of ALL dead

You replied

Falsely claiming that 500 children were killed in one school would imply that many more were killed elsewhere, hence the LIE.

It is bad enough calling Hamas soldiers "children" when they were involved in the fighting.

Which the first part is basically what I said/agreed with that the children number was a total.

What I questioned was your meaning of the underlined...That you stated it during that reply

made me wonder/ask if you thought the 500 number was basically all just under 18 year aged soldiers

whew...........as I said tough to respond to these topics which is why I usually do not.

It all gets so convoluted in the minutia

Let me stick to my original thought alone...that being

But really any deaths on either side is too many & a waste of life

Edited December 20, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

I DID not say that "only soldiers were killed". Those are your words. I said that anyone under 18 was counted as a "child", including all the Palestinian teenagers fighting for Hamas.

Yes they were my word or more accurately a question

Yes, they were your words and - as long as we are being "accurate" - it was NOT a question. It was an implied statement. I corrected a blatant lie that was posted on this thread and you have gone on and on trying distract from that correction with attempts at "logic" that fit your own agenda.

Are you going to carry on? It is getting really boring correcting you and your last very "convoluted" post does nothing to make your reasoning any clearer.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[mania]

I DID not say that "only soldiers were killed". Those are your words. I said that anyone under 18 was counted as a "child", including all the Palestinian teenagers fighting for Hamas.

Yes they were my word or more accurately a question

Yes, they were your words and - as long as we are being "accurate" - it was NOT a question. It was an implied statement. I corrected a blatant lie and you have gone on and on trying distract from that correction with attempts at "logic" that fit your own agenda.

Are you going to carry on? It is getting really boring correcting you and your last very "convoluted" post does nothing to make your position any clearer.

No I will pass & leave to the hardliners

[Morch]

That does absolutely no effect on the initiative you have been touting as a done deal and it does absolutely nothing for Israel's security concerns. It has absolutely no meaning and would only benefit Hamas. The whole idea is just plain foolish.

That's what negotiations are all about....of which there have very few lately. I'm sure Israel could address it's security concerns as part of negotiations.

Once an agreement has been reached and both sides realize the benefits of years of peace and prosperity, extremists on both sides would be sidelined. If not and Israel is truly threatened...not just by a handful of hotheads who want to disrupt the peace (there will always be some of them on both sides) ..Israel is the 4th most powerful military force in the world with the most powerful country as its chief ally, and they could reverse the whole process over a long weekend.

You obviously prefer the status quo of a managed conflict. I have never seen you offer a sensible alternative peace plan that would be acceptable to both sides.

Whether you like it or not, peace will happen one day. If the Jordanian plan and global recognition helps, all the better.

Trouble with this optimistic rosy colored view is that it has little to do with realities in the Middle East.

The hate, distrust, tribalism, and internal divisions run way deeper than most people imagine or are aware of.

It all sounds so very simple, isn't it? "Once an agreement is reached" - framework for talks isn't even agreed upon.

The "benefits of years of peace and prosperity" - is that supposed to mean that the extremists would be sidelines after years? What would these extremists do in the mean time, seat idle and wait to be sidelined? Or was it meant as in once the sides realize the potential benefits of future prosperity they will make haste and sideline them nasty extremists?

What prosperity would that be, by the way? Unless someone else picks up the huge tabs involved with these potential peace agreements, the economic upheaval will not necessarily be a positive one.

Israel reversing the whole process over a long weekend? Seriously? There was just a limited warfare operation carried out in Gaza. Other than taking two months without ending in a decisive result it brought about massive casualties and destruction for the Palestinian side, a diplomatic backlash and economic crisis to Israel. And as for "truly threatened" - who is to be the judge of that?

And no, pointing out to difficulties, flaws in posts, inaccuracies and such is not a preference for the current status quo.

Of course there is plenty of hatred and distrust on all sides, but you have to start somewhere.

All conflicts eventually come to an end.Just because of obstacles it doesn't mean giving up the search for the right formula, especially as it has been so tantalizingly close three times via the offices of Yitzah Rabin (before a Jewish right wing nut job assassinated him), at Camp David and with Olmert's plan.

You attempt to come across as the voice of reason, but you appear to be advocating the status quo.... a managed conflict. At best you are saying let's put it all in the too hard basket, because there are too many bad players on both sides.

Your most negative comment of all is when you dispute the resultant prosperity from a peace agreement. Tel Aviv would become the economic hub of the entire Middle east. Tourists would flock to Israel in their millions. Presumably you mean the eviction of colonists in the West Bank who shouldn't have been allowed to go there in the first place. Even that isn't insurmountable. You could swap land for large settlements that already border Israel, and the 60-70,000 in colonies deep in the West Bank either forcibly remove, or let them stay under PA control.. I doubt they'll want that.

The EU, USA, and global community would gladly pick up the tab for Jewish and Palestinian compensation...cheap at twice the price. They already frequently have to put their hands in their pockets to rebuild after a war. The global financial benefits would be enormous.

What's the definition of "Israel truly threatened". Well, lets hope someone other than Netanyahu will decide that. He'll start a war at the drop of a hat just to stay in power. Let the experts decide on checks and balances to address Israeli security concerns in a final agreement.

What's your suggestion for a solution to ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict then?

Once again, not accepting an optimistic rose tainted view of things to come does not indicate a preference for the current status quo, or quite the same as saying things are hopeless. Acknowledging the vast difficulties involved, and identifying the probable pitfalls, rather than wishing them away or flat our ignoring them is called realism. Definitely a more pesimistic view of the situation, but that got to do with how things ARE.

All conflicts come to an end, indeed. Not all of them end peacefully, though, and some take way longer than others. If one chooses to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a historical point of view, then yes - it would probably seem like just another episode, way down the line. The current conditions do not spell much to be hopeful about, as far as near future advancement of peace is concerned.

Plenty of misguided notions there regarding to how potentially close previous negotiations actually were. The one thing in common when considering the three mentioned occasions was that leaders were not actually fully empowered by their respective public opinion and support, nor did they have the political clout to go that extra mile. Claims to the contrary are simply another instance of brushing aside the political conditions and constrains at relevant times.

Rather than putting words in my mouth, or attributing notions which I do not subscribe to, how about addressing actual views posted? Nowhere did I say that things are hopeless, nowhere did I advocate the status quo (or conflict management), and nowhere did I claim that things are not doable because there are more than two (or as some posters seem to think, one) player taking part.

Yeah, the thing with this prosperity dream is that it jumps straight to the happy ending, while conveniently leaping over years to the future and ignoring present day and short term issues. In real life, people cannot be moved around without consequences. Take real estate as the easiest example - supposedly there are a few hundred thousands Israeli citizens living in the West Bank. Assuming many of them, if not most, would have

to relocate to Israel - what effect would that have on real estate demand and price? (the current situation being bad as it is). Or, how would the newly formed Palestine finance certain public services and infrastructures which will no longer be provided by Israel? Plenty more example of real life issues, which, granted, are easily wished away by a few lines on a forum post, but alas - a bit more pesky in reality.

The economic situation will not transform overnight. The expenditure required to carry out a comprehensive agreement is staggering. Will other countries pick up the tab? If the failed effort to cash the promised funds for Gaza's rehabilitation is an indication, perhaps not such a straightforward affair. Will the USA need to pay the bill again? Not sure this is something that would be entirely appreciated by the American public. The assertion that the World will gladly pay is an easy one to make - when one does not foot the bill nor bears responsibility for that moment when the promises are not fulfilled. Again, that rose tainted view of a fairy tale is not how things work in real life.

So experts are to decide regarding "truly threatened", marvelous. Now, who would these experts be? Who would appoint them? Same old - brushing things aside rather than addressing an issue.

Posted last night, following an invitation by another poster - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785296-israel-dismisses-palestinian-peace-deal-plan-as-gimmick/?p=8826249

[hard124get]

You are trying to distract from the LIE as posters like you usually do. You said, "the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total." PROVE IT.

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza

That is NOT 500 children in a school in Gaza as claimed. That was a blatant LIE and you and your ilk refuse to admit it as per usual. Why do you types have to mostly rely on obvious fabrications to make your case?

Read slowly. I did not claim there were 500 in the school. Israelis murdered a school full of children FULL STOP. 500 children in total. Some of the children were not in school, they were playing football on the beach and watching tv when they were murdered.

[Ulysses G.]

Er.... the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total.

Here is EXACTLY what you said. The Israelis did not "slaughter a school full of children", so no matter how you try to spin it now, you posted a blatant lie.

[Morch]

You are trying to distract from the LIE as posters like you usually do. You said, "the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total." PROVE IT.

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza

That is NOT 500 children in a school in Gaza as claimed. That was a blatant LIE and you and your ilk refuse to admit it as per usual. Why do you types have to mostly rely on obvious fabrications to make your case?

Read slowly. I did not claim there were 500 in the school. Israelis murdered a school full of children FULL STOP. 500 children in total. Some of the children were not in school, they were playing football on the beach and watching tv when they were murdered.

And it still does not make your statement true. Same goes for the rest of your similar posts on this topic.

Posted this a earlier, may want to read it - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/785060-palestinian-peace-plan-put-before-un/page-3#entry8826474

[arjunadawn]

I know this religious based hatred has been going on for thousands of years but you got to admit, the Jews haven't slaughtered a school full of children. Muslims need to be the first line against their own extremists. They need to denounce these animals with the same enthusiasm the exhibit when some draws a picture of Mohamed. Get you priorities in order then ask for help after that.

Er.... the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total.

Yes. Your effort to correct the record is correct; school children were killed, though this number is exaggerated. Even though Hamas, as a condition of their military training manual, makes it a near requirement to base missile batteries around hospitals and schools (with numerous journalists later testifying to this reality and their restrictions of reporting it), Israel succumbed to this diabolical strategy and their errant bombings killed the innocents you note above. But always context frames valid points such as yours. If left to your one line, appropriate, response above, Israel simply kills schoolchildren. Rarely in the history of warfare however, anywhere, has any leadership so openly used their own population as fodder for war of attrition has the Hamas and PA do to the unfortunate local arabs.

When one grows weary of surmising whether this is true or not, whether Hamas actually does this or not, then turn to Hamas' own leadership's explicit commentary on this policy; it is widely available in print audio, and video. This is what they do! They sacrifice school children and the injured and sick to mask military operations forcing Israel to concede the ruse or respond. That horrific reality is far more gut wrenching than your byline "..the Israels did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza."

[dexterm]

I know this religious based hatred has been going on for thousands of years but you got to admit, the Jews haven't slaughtered a school full of children. Muslims need to be the first line against their own extremists. They need to denounce these animals with the same enthusiasm the exhibit when some draws a picture of Mohamed. Get you priorities in order then ask for help after that.

Er.... the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total.

Yes. Your effort to correct the record is correct; school children were killed, though this number is exaggerated. Even though Hamas, as a condition of their military training manual, makes it a near requirement to base missile batteries around hospitals and schools (with numerous journalists later testifying to this reality and their restrictions of reporting it), Israel succumbed to this diabolical strategy and their errant bombings killed the innocents you note above. But always context frames valid points such as yours. If left to your one line, appropriate, response above, Israel simply kills schoolchildren. Rarely in the history of warfare however, anywhere, has any leadership so openly used their own population as fodder for war of attrition has the Hamas and PA do to the unfortunate local arabs.

When one grows weary of surmising whether this is true or not, whether Hamas actually does this or not, then turn to Hamas' own leadership's explicit commentary on this policy; it is widely available in print audio, and video. This is what they do! They sacrifice school children and the injured and sick to mask military operations forcing Israel to concede the ruse or respond. That horrific reality is far more gut wrenching than your byline "..the Israels did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza."

Your post betrays a cold indifference to the grief those Palestinian families must have gone through when they lost a child to Israeli missiles.

Google Images: Children Gaza killed to help you overcome your ennui.

[Morch]

I know this religious based hatred has been going on for thousands of years but you got to admit, the Jews haven't slaughtered a school full of children. Muslims need to be the first line against their own extremists. They need to denounce these animals with the same enthusiasm the exhibit when some draws a picture of Mohamed. Get you priorities in order then ask for help after that.

Er.... the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total.

Yes. Your effort to correct the record is correct; school children were killed, though this number is exaggerated. Even though Hamas, as a condition of their military training manual, makes it a near requirement to base missile batteries around hospitals and schools (with numerous journalists later testifying to this reality and their restrictions of reporting it), Israel succumbed to this diabolical strategy and their errant bombings killed the innocents you note above. But always context frames valid points such as yours. If left to your one line, appropriate, response above, Israel simply kills schoolchildren. Rarely in the history of warfare however, anywhere, has any leadership so openly used their own population as fodder for war of attrition has the Hamas and PA do to the unfortunate local arabs.

When one grows weary of surmising whether this is true or not, whether Hamas actually does this or not, then turn to Hamas' own leadership's explicit commentary on this policy; it is widely available in print audio, and video. This is what they do! They sacrifice school children and the injured and sick to mask military operations forcing Israel to concede the ruse or respond. That horrific reality is far more gut wrenching than your byline "..the Israels did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza."

Your post betrays a cold indifference to the grief those Palestinian families must have gone through when they lost a child to Israeli missiles.

Google Images: Children Gaza killed to help you overcome your ennui.

No, it does not.

All it does is simply point out that responsibility can be, at the very least, be a shared burden by Hamas and Israel. Note that there is not even an attempt do discuss the content of the post, but rather, merely a misguided emotive judgement of the poster. As it was apparently missed, the point of the post was exactly the images you refer to, and their intentional role in Hamas overall strategy.

[arjunadawn]

Er.... the Israelis did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza. Over 500 children in total.

Yes. Your effort to correct the record is correct; school children were killed, though this number is exaggerated. Even though Hamas, as a condition of their military training manual, makes it a near requirement to base missile batteries around hospitals and schools (with numerous journalists later testifying to this reality and their restrictions of reporting it), Israel succumbed to this diabolical strategy and their errant bombings killed the innocents you note above. But always context frames valid points such as yours. If left to your one line, appropriate, response above, Israel simply kills schoolchildren. Rarely in the history of warfare however, anywhere, has any leadership so openly used their own population as fodder for war of attrition has the Hamas and PA do to the unfortunate local arabs.

When one grows weary of surmising whether this is true or not, whether Hamas actually does this or not, then turn to Hamas' own leadership's explicit commentary on this policy; it is widely available in print audio, and video. This is what they do! They sacrifice school children and the injured and sick to mask military operations forcing Israel to concede the ruse or respond. That horrific reality is far more gut wrenching than your byline "..the Israels did slaughter a school full of children, recently in Gaza."

Your post betrays a cold indifference to the grief those Palestinian families must have gone through when they lost a child to Israeli missiles.

Google Images: Children Gaza killed to help you overcome your ennui.

No, it does not.

All it does is simply point out that responsibility can be, at the very least, be a shared burden by Hamas and Israel.

Note that there is not even an attempt do discuss the content of the post, but rather, merely a misguided emotive

judgement of the poster.

As it was apparently missed, the point of the post was exactly the images you refer to, and their intentional role in

Hamas overall strategy.

My post betrays nothing; for the proposes of considering the topic I subordinate my emotion; in fact, unless otherwise a heart-wrenching or warming story, why would anyone use emotion as a guiding ruler for their intellect and conclusions? The fallacy that emotion makes reason a good bedfellow is absurd. The scarecrow implication that since no remorse was noted in my post indifference exists is transparent; no emotion exists because this is not that place;p I was not making an emotive connection. You do not make the worse argument seem the better by appealing to ad hominen or emotional scarecrows- easy to beat those up, even when irrelevant to the matter at hand. After all, who can object to "for the children" stalking horse arguments? How I did not worship the dead does not render my points invalid.

For the record, however, it is utterly horrifying to see any of these types of victims in this or any part of the world. Insofar as a great majority of such victims are the Palestinians, and the weakest among them, it makes our recoil all the more brain numbing. These things are present yes, but the mere presence of these horrors suggests little, and is incomplete for sure. As it is abundantly clear that these (not all) events are/have been staged, managed, and/or facilitated as "martyrs" prudence and guarded repugnance is wisdom, not emotional response. Racing to this act, that crime, this bomb, and that horror, with bleeding hearts on sleeves serves to be no more than a useful dolt, a tool in a very sophisticated pysops war, on both sides.I again note the hidden savagery of making these unwitting children and patients targets far more egregious than the acts which injure them.

If ever a debate must quickly or often ever devolve to emotional imperatives something fundamental is lacking in one argument or the other. Emotion is a vital and useful aspect of our humanity and binds us, but it is also defines those different from us. As the West does not intentionally bomb civilians but Hamas intentionally offers them up, in this instance emotion serves to contrast, not collectively bridge divides.

[Morch]

Back on topic, Abbas visit Algeria, and releases a rather hardline statement:

Abbas Says to Cut Ties with Israel if U.N. Move Fails

Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas warned on Tuesday that his administration would "no longer deal" with Israel if a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a final peace deal fails.

"If the Arab-Palestinian initiative submitted to the Security Council to put an end to (Israeli) occupation doesn't pass, we will be forced to take the necessary political and legal decisions," Abbas was quoted as saying by the Algerian APS news agency.

"If it fails, we will no longer deal with the Israeli government, which will then be forced to assume its responsibilities as an occupier," he added.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/160331-abbas-says-to-cut-ties-with-israel-if-u-n-move-fails

He said similar things in the past, without actually following through - cutting coordination and relationship with Israel is easier said than done. Also carries implications (and complications) for the PA, Fatah and Abbas personally. The hardliner tone is usually for domestic consumption, either to garner public support, or deny it to the Hamas. The more interesting bit appears near the end of the linked article and quotes Abbas as saying that the Right of Return and release of Palestinian prisoners are pretty much incorporated in the Palestinian position. It is not that Abbas ever publicly let go of these two issues, but he is usually somewhat more vague in his statements.

The overall tone, the inclusion of these two issues and the basically ultimatum with regard to the proposal's acceptance by the UNSC, are a little out of sync with recent statements. Granted, there could be more than one factor contributing to this.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Scott

[mania]

As the West does not intentionally bomb civilians

Seriously...this is what you think is true?

[Ulysses G.]

As the West does not intentionally bomb civilians

Seriously...this is what you think is true?

Of course. The West tries not to, but they have to weigh the benefits of getting a high value target that would save more lives in the long run. EVERYONE bombed civilians in WW 2, but some of the human race has evolved since then.

[arjunadawn]

As the West does not intentionally bomb civilians

Seriously...this is what you think is true?

I think what amazes me is how much difficulty I had answering your question; I was surprised my gut didn't just offer up a "yes." I am confident there is something here for me to learn.

Its apparent to me the use of civilians as tools in war has been a constant companion and in the western tradition increasingly rejected over past centuries. Is the tendency innate, in war, to use anything and everyone, and the West still has trouble enforcing their own new "ethic?" Perhaps, but it is generally true at the operational level that western soldiers do not intentionally bomb civilians. Again, I sit here stunned at the simplicity of your question. Perhaps I believe something I want to believe is true. You dont have to provide examples of where my statement fails; I get it. I need more time. It seems so obvious when I contrasted this point. (A lot has to unravel for me to process this).