Netanyahu's victims

[Grasshopper]

Thank you for that elucidation. (Tho' it was like trying to pull hen's teeth to get it).
This clarification, of course, directly contradicts your claim in a previous post that : "Israel, in turn, should realise that it is engaged in a much more sinister form of Apartheid than was the case in South Africa".
But we'll leave it at that, yeah?; I promise I won't labour it s'long as you undertake not to repeat it.

It, of course, does not contradict it.....principally due to the fact that the SA apartheid regime never resorted to bombing the sh*t out of Transkei to maintain control......hence it was inherently less sinister than the sledgehammer tactics employed by Big Ben.

I trust the helps elucidate my viewpoint in a way that you can assimilate, without further clarification on my part.

I should add that, after probably getting-on for a decade of on/off similar jousts with Clivex, I am these days somewhat inured to any form of rib-tickling. I will defend my corner, but won't be suckered into a froth by cheeky-monkey tactics. As per my previous - it's either chaos or stalemate on these threads, and they usually fizzle-out when the latter prevails.

Give it two weeks and we'll all still be pals, and grateful we live West of the cess-pit of the Holy Land.....which I continue to maintain could do with carpet-bombing out of existence.

 

[clivex]

And I don't recall the anc firing thousands of missiles at Johannesburg. I think if they had, there might just have been a response? Don't you? Unbelievable....

It's like the idiotic comment made on this thread that Hamas is "irrelevant to this".

What fcking world do people live in?

 

[Grasshopper]

And I don't recall the anc firing thousands of missiles at Johannesburg

Jesus christ

Cause and Effect......when you address this fundamental (and I sorta admire your steadfast refusal to do so), then we can discuss this matter further.

And...please....no more selective quoting - context is everything. Your approach only strengthens my argument, rather than dilutes it.

 

[clivex]

Cop out

There is NO justification for the Hamas continuing attack on Israel. The attacks make any addressing of the "cause" a whole lot less likely.

I believe that hamas will do anything possible to prevent a solution. It's their jihad and only a cursory look at their beliefs and charter tells you all you need to know about their ultimate intentions

Whilst there has been some evidence of a split within Hamas, to many within the movement this is a religious war with no end

 

[Grasshopper]

Fair enough.

Question: is there, indeed has there ever been, any justification for Israel's developments on land defined as Occupied Territory under International Law?

Was there any justification for the actions of the French Resistance during WW2?

See what I mean?

 

[clivex]

I trust the helps elucidate my viewpoint in a way that you can assimilate, without further clarification on my part.
:

(C) professor Stanley unwin

 

[clivex]

Fair enough.

Question: is there, indeed has there ever been, any justification for Israel's developments on land defined as Occupied Territory under International Law?

Was there any justification for the actions of the French Resistance during WW2?

See what I mean?

There are no settlements in gaza.

 

[Grasshopper]

(C) professor Stanley unwin

 

[Grasshopper]

There are no settlements in gaza.

And I'm accused of copping-out....?

This answer really is a thing of beauty.

Stalemate has been reached. I have nothing further to add.

 

[marbler]

Suggest you look in a history book that covers more than the last eight years, before commenting on the 'real' cause.

You've quoted one sentence from my post then taken it out of context, mind you this wouldn't be the first time.

What I was trying to say is that Isreal have deliberately been overly forceful insofar as to make a statement to leaders like Obama, in light of the fact he shook hands last year with the Iranians behind their back.

I'm not suggesting he is the cause, but the Iranian deal last year was one example of how to antagonise Isreal and back them in a corner.

 

[Grasshopper]

You've quoted one sentence from my post then taken it out of context, mind you this wouldn't be the first time.

What I was trying to say is that Isreal have deliberately been overly forceful insofar as to make a statement to leaders like Obama, in light of the fact he shook hands last year with the Iranians behind their back.

I'm not suggesting he is the cause, but the Iranian deal last year was one example of how to antagonise Isreal and back them in a corner.

I quoted the part where you suggested that Obama was to blame for the current Israeli action.

I disagree wholly with your previous and re-stated assertion, that the Israeli incursion into Gaza is a response to the minute improvement in US/Iranian relations.

My previous post had the word 'drivel' edited out of it, on grounds of being a bit unnecessary, but since you bring the subject back up, that's exactly what I think of your suggestion.

 

[marbler]

I disagree wholly with your previous and re-stated assertion, that the Israeli incursion into Gaza is a response to the minute improvement in US/Iranian relations.

Answer me this...were relations between Obama and the Isreali's good before this latest incident?

Do you think the Isreali's were happy about the secret deals with Iran last year?

Do you think this provacative response to the rocket attacks may be more of a statement to a weak American leader on foreign policy, a two-finger gesture if you will, than a 'response' as such.?

I understand if you do not agree, and I'm not arguing this case for the sake of wanting to make you agree.
Its' a forum, if I take part I'm obliged to give my opinion, thats all.

 

[Grey]

Answer me this...were relations between Obama and the Isreali's good before this latest incident?

Do you think the Isreali's were happy about the secret deals with Iran last year?

Do you think this provacative response to the rocket attacks may be more of a statement to a weak American leader on foreign policy, a two-finger gesture if you will, than a 'response' as such.?

I understand if you do not agree, and I'm not arguing this case for the sake of wanting to make you agree.
Its' a forum, if I take part I'm obliged to give my opinion, thats all.

Are you suggesting that the Israel Tom is playing with and being especially hard on the Gaza Jerry in order to tell Obama off for talking to Iran?

If that is the suggestion I don't think it's correct, because Israel already did something very similar to Gaza a few years ago, before any sign of a rapprochement with Iran.

I think the Israeli position is a lot simpler, they are taking the opportunity of the rocket attacks to do as much harm to Hamas and intimidation of the people of Gaza as they can get away with. I was accused of emotive language when I used the word 'crush' the other day, but Israeli spokesmen have themselves used it a number of times. Gaza resistance, Gaza tunnels, Hamas, Hamas infrastructure must all be "crushed" and the response to a soldier being captured will also be "crushing".

The ghastly thing about the present situation is that both sides are purely acting out roles that have no regard to loss of life, the hatred being stored up for the future or the need to eventually find a solution.

By the way, there have been frequent references to Hamas's jihad tendency, and it does exist. But there are plenty of people on the other side and well represented in the Israeli cabinet who are equally confident that the God of Israel is the superior being and will obtain the respect and territory that he deserves.

Claims that Israel is a secular state are disingenuous. It is first and foremost a state for Jewish people, especially those who understandably lost all confidence in their chances of ever living securely in Europe, and nothing will be allowed to compromise this. In recent years, moreover, the secular tone of the founding fathers has been less influential as various religious parties have gained ground and places around the cabinet table.

 

[Maruco]

Why are the pro-Palestine posters on this thread so prone to exaggeration? Claims and statements such as above need to be challenged.
Israel continues to supply electricity to Gaza in spite of the current conflict, and in spite of The Palestinian Authority owing the Israel Electric Corp over $400 million for past consumption.
Water supply is the responsibility of the Palestinian Water Authority. Half the available water is lost due to leakage in the local distribution system. This allied with the failure to drill new wells is down to bad governance by the Palestinian government. Rather than building tunnels and setting up rocket launching sites, the Palestinian authority ( Hamas) would have served their citizens far better by using their resources to improve the general quality of life.
And "whole communities are literally starving"? Oh please. (That's an insult to the genuinely starving people in other parts of the world).

_________________________________________________________

 

[clivex]

Taking advantage of rocket attacks

Vile..

And the alternative is they just accept them?

Fcking ridiculous

It never occurs to the thick left on here that there wouldn't be an attack on gaza if tehre werent rocket attacks? Is that a bit complicated?

You really think they should sit there and do nothing?

If Hamas want a state and peace, which they most certainly do not, then they could not have found a worse method of achieving that aim. There is no way that Israel should feel in any way obliged to give in to military attacks on their territory.

Is it really so difficult to understand that the blockade would be unacceptable to the non israel l haters if gaza was willing to talk peace rather than a clear intention to import more and more lethal weapons?

They could even have another Oslo agreement, with all their demands met,

To walk away from..

 

[clivex]

Hams jihad tendency "does exist"

Oh really. Their charter, the basis of their whole being (as if that needs explaining) is clear enough. It would make their natiional socialists heros blush wouldn't it?

They want to exterminate the state of Israel ( gas chambers? chemical missiles? limited nuclear strike? )!and references to jews worldwide but ok, it was just a comment in passing I suppose

 

[Grasshopper]

Answer me this...were relations between Obama and the Isreali's good before this latest incident?

Do you think the Isreali's were happy about the secret deals with Iran last year?

Do you think this provacative response to the rocket attacks may be more of a statement to a weak American leader on foreign policy, a two-finger gesture if you will, than a 'response' as such.?

I understand if you do not agree, and I'm not arguing this case for the sake of wanting to make you agree.
Its' a forum, if I take part I'm obliged to give my opinion, thats all.

Here's my answer.

The suggestion that the Israeli incursion into Gaza, is simply a means to giving Obama a bloody-nose for having the cheek to speak to Iran is utter drivel; requiring anyone holding this position to ignore every other influence at play over the course of the last 70 years - and particularly those years since the first Intifada.

You seem keen - for whatever reason - to paint Obama as a "weak President", but have produced a theory which holds absolutely no water on any level. Israel is 100% dependent on American support, and without it, she would long since have been consumed in a regional fire-storm. The motivation to pi*iss them off is therefore zero.

No-one is suggesting you're not permitted to have an opinion. But if you choose to express that opinion, be ready for it be dissected.

Clive, there wouldn't be any need for rocket-attacks, indeed no need for Hamas itself, if Israel wasn't occupying Palestinian territory.

Cause and Effect. It would be good if the 'thick right' on here were prepared to address this crucial fundamental, but the question is always dodged.

 

[clivex]

Thats garbage. Rocket attacks are the only option to so called "occupation"?

doesnt it even cross the mind that it is just about the worst option?

 

[Grasshopper]

Your stock answer when you don't want to answer a question.

I honestly don't know why you even contribute to these discussions. You're a total fraud, and hold the dialogue back.

 

[clivex]

ive answered every question. something you seem to have difficulty doing

you really think that israel should give into demands from a group like hamas when they take the approach they do? with their beliefs? disgusting as they are

 

[icebreaker]

Clive, there wouldn't be any need for rocket-attacks, indeed no need for Hamas itself, if Israel wasn't occupying Palestinian territory.

But didn't Israel disengage totally from Gaza back in 2005 -- pulling out its army units and dismantling Jewish settlements. If I remember correctly, weren't those Jewish settlers who refused to leave Gaza forcibly evicted by the Israelii army?
Maybe I'm wrong ?

 

[icebreaker]

ive answered every question. something you seem to have difficulty doing

Heh heh. :lol:

 

[clivex]

But didn't Israel disengage totally from Gaza back in 2005 -- pulling out its army units and dismantling Jewish settlements. If I remember correctly, weren't those Jewish settlers who refused to leave Gaza forcibly evicted by the Israelii army?
Maybe I'm wrong ?

You would think that would not need stating wouldn't you?

And they responded by electing the nazis. As rotten as fatah was and is, that was not a good move... Not even the foresight to see that that would be the end of any future elections.

 

[Grasshopper]

But didn't Israel disengage totally from Gaza back in 2005 -- pulling out its army units and dismantling Jewish settlements. If I remember correctly, weren't those Jewish settlers who refused to leave Gaza forcibly evicted by the Israelii army?
Maybe I'm wrong ?

Didn't Israel immediately start blockading Gaza when Hamas were voted into power as part of a democratic election? Maybe I'm wrong?

Like I say - it's always either chaos or stalemate on these threads. Playing the blame-game is pointless, but what's always disappointing is that many of the principal contributors here have no desire to discuss or propose a way forward......preferring instead to indulge in he says/she says rock-throwing (pardon the pun) - which makes for exceedingly tedious 'debate'.

I'll leave you too it.

 

[clivex]

Didn't Israel immediately start blockading Gaza when Hamas were voted into power as part of a democratic election? Maybe I'm wrong?

Like I say - it's always either chaos or stalemate on these threads. Playing the blame-game is pointless, but what's always disappointing is that many of the principal contributors here have no desire to discuss or propose a way forward......preferring instead to indulge in he says/she says rock-throwing (pardon the pun) - which makes for exceedingly tedious 'debate'.

I'll leave you too it.

Rubbish

I stated a "way forward" earlier in the thread

The blockade has been fully justified by the actions of Hamas which were military attack and terrorism right from the very first day. And it's not just Israel that blockaded them is it?