Israel/Palestine

THANK YOU CLIVE . . .

it is refreshing and reassuring to see someone with a real and comprehensive grasp of this impossible situation. . . . and who is brave enough to call it as it is . . . .

I honestly don't get it . . . . So many of you are ready and eager to condemn the Israelis as bullies and war-mongering murdering bastards, yet THEY ARE THE ONES who have genuinely made efforts to endeavour to accommodate the 'Palestinian problem' and resolve this impossible situation . . . . whilst there's no secret that a HUGE part of Hamas' existence is embedded in their ethos not to rest until THEY WIPE THE STATE OF ISRAEL OFF THE FACE OF THE MAP. . . .TO DENY THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST
F*ck me, should you choose to delve the anals of history to determine the provenance of occuaption of half the world . . . . todays atlas would be a little different.
In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop bombing Israel (and ITS CIVILIANS) and not only f*cking agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire, but actually UPHOLD their commitments for a change.
 
Last edited:
The questions of who did what to whom when are so tangled that they won't be sorted out even centuries after peace settles some day on Israel and Palestine.

What is clear enough though is that blockading Gaza for years and imposing a collective punishment on all its inhabitants for the Hamas rocket campaign is not acceptable. Killing hundreds in retaliation for the latest round of single figure casualties cannot be condoned.

Such a disproportionate response confirms the residents of Gaza in their support of Hamas and loses Israel friends in places where they need them, so why do they do it?

Maybe the hawks in the Israeli government and army are having one last outing before Bush goes and Obama takes over. Or maybe attacking Gaza on this scale is easier than taking on the out of control settlers, who are prepared to use violence against their own government to achieve their aims, and undermine at present Israel's ability to deliver their side of a negotiated solution.
 
Killing hundreds in retaliation for the latest round of single figure casualties cannot be condoned.
Click to expand...

this is garbage. Israel is NOT targeting civilians. Hamas is.

So as ever, with the pathetic left, no solution is offered...

This idea that the operation can only kill numbers on a tit for tat basis is bizarre. Simpleton thinking frankly. Israel was obliged to go in and tackle the centres of violence. They dont fire a missile and then say "oh i think we got one there , we had better turn back"

Moving on from the clueless posts, one thing struck me today...

Hamas is seemingly split over this. They are suprisingly reticent publically, which is a sure sign that all is not well within the organisation. I suspect israel know this all too well (they wouldnt miss it)

Back to the BBC coverage, PM on R4 gave a superb 20 minute summary today with excellent interviews and well thought out and balanced points from both angles.Interesting Bowen was nowhere to be seen....

Flobble.... Thanks. But I think we know what drives the lefts continual and non thinking condemnation of the Jewish state....
 
very intersesting both the egyptian goverment and some saudi arabian goverment backed papers !! whilst condemming the excessice force have condemmed hamas for being the cause

it seems hamas will have to rely on morning star readers and iran for moral support
 
Sheikh. You rarely post anything of substance, but either put up or shut up.

No one on either side has denied that its been Hamas positions that have been targeted full stop. Understand?
 
clivex said:
Sheikh. You rarely post anything of substance, but either put up or shut up.

No one on either side has denied that its been Hamas positions that have been targeted full stop. Understand?
Click to expand...

I rarely post on any subject that your involved in because you are so entrenched in your delusions it's pointless. Now and again I just like to point out comments where you excel yourself like.

Israel is NOT targeting civilians
Click to expand...

I'll shut up now and let you back to your deranged ramblings.
 
sheik

no one including arab goverments have claimed that isreal is targeting civilians

do u think if they just wanted to kill civilians they could not do it in a more subtle less headline grabbing way

even goverments and ministers that are condeming the raids are not denying the target is hamas only that the reaction is heavy handed

if hamas is so concerned about innocent civilians why dont they move their offices and weapons away from areas where civilians reside/work

could it possiblly be that if they stay in crowded areas provoke isreal into attacking them they can be assured of some civilian casulties to use as propoganda

its not a new idea
 
Quote:
Killing hundreds in retaliation for the latest round of single figure casualties cannot be condoned.

this is garbage. Israel is NOT targeting civilians. Hamas is.
Click to expand...
Clivex, that is an old trick. Who in this debate actually said Israel was targeting civilians? Not even your friend Jeremy said that. That said, their actions make civilian casualties inevitable.

You haven't explained how it is in Israel's own best interests to behave in this excessive way.

Prince Regent, that is interesting information about a possible split in Hamas. I can well believe it. There is no future in refusing to recognise the state of Israel and calling for its destruction, and some of the thinkers in that movement must be well aware of it.

Mind you, there is little point making a deal with Israel until they show they can deliver. Are the Israelis able and willing to deal with their own extremists, who refuse to recognise the authority of their own government and are prepared to resist them with arms?
 
could it possiblly be that if they stay in crowded areas provoke isreal into attacking them they can be assured of some civilian casulties to use as propoganda
Click to expand...

Very true

Grey... I would be very suprised indeed if the israelis were that concerned about their own extreme elements. There hasnt been any real evidence of a serious armed threat from them so far and given what israel has coped with for 50 odd years, wouldnt expect that such a threat would be a concern
 
You haven't explained how it is in Israel's own best interests to behave in this excessive way.
Click to expand...

Yes i have. It is the Israelis goverment's duty to first and foremost protect its own citizens. Not to worry about what the Guardian or wishy washy western europeans think

As i have said continuously throughtout this thread, why should they tolerate continued daily attacks? Are they supposed to wait until a hamas bomb hits a school? What sort of goverment would that be?

They had to take action. And in doing so, there is no point at all in a half hearted slap across hamas's face so that the euopean left cannot get upset about the jews again. It is a military exercise and no one here has any idea as to how effective it will be
 
Very. The state is as secure as it has ever been and Iran apart, no neighbouring countries would contemplate attack or seriously question the states existence

1967 was magnificcent of course as were actions such as entebbe. Some of the stuff in Lebanon.. alot less so

No country under threat from terorism can base its policy on a hand wringing "we musnt upset them". Its all very well for outsiders with their prejudices to spout this stuff, but they arent living through it.
 
Its all very well for outsiders with their prejudices to spout this stuff, but they arent living through it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure any Palestinian stuck in Gaza this week would say exactly the same thing about your views, clivex, so let's accept that we are all outsiders struggling to understand a very complex situation.

I hope that the current Israeli aggression turns out to be a prelude to the negotiations that the Obama presidency will surely be seeking.

It's true that Israel is in a position of strength vis a vis its enemies. Ehud Barak said as much in an interview on the occasion of his stepping down from the presidency last September which received very little publicity outside Israel. He said that Israel had the military capacity to crush any of its immediate neighbours and that a solution to the Iran threat was best left to more powerful allies.

Given this position of relative security, Barak now thinks it's time for Israel to start negotiating the return of territory to Syria and the Palestinians in return for recognition of the right of Israel to a peaceful existence. He acknowledged that this would be in contradiction to the approach he and his colleagues had adopted all his political career of maximising territory.

One of the many obstacles, perhaps the main obstacle, to a negotiated peace will be the 100,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank and elsewhere who would resist the Israeli government politically and, in some cases, militarily and would have to be forcibly evacuated.

They are highly motivated, well armed and have the backing of many in mainstream politics in Israel proper, including Barak himself until recently. The Israeli security forces won't enjoy taking them on and their public won't tolerate the strong arm tactics employed against their neighbours being used on their own people.
 
If anything has been ‘disproportionate’, it’s been Israel’s refusal to take such action during the years when its southern citizens have been terrorised by rockets and other missiles raining down on them from Gaza. No other country in the world would have sat on its hands for so long in such circumstances. But whenever Israel defends itself militarily, its response is said to be ‘disproportionate’. The malice, ignorance and sheer idiocy of this claim is refuted here comprehensively by Dore Gold, who points out that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wholly in accordance with international law. This permits Israel to launch such an operation to prevent itself from being further attacked. Moreover, it defines ‘disproportionate’ force as when
force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.
​
But Israel has demonstrably not been targeting civilians but Hamas terrorists. Despite the wicked impression given by the media, most of the casualties in this operation have been Hamas operatives. Even Hamas itself has admitted that the vast majority of sites Israel has hit were part of their military infrastructure. UNRWA officials in the Gaza Strip have put the number of deaths at 310, of whom 51 were civilians. The rest were Hamas terrorists.
Certainly, some civilian casualties are regrettably inevitable in any such situation – but particularly so in Gaza, since Hamas has deliberately sited its terrorist infrastructure amongst the civilian population.
Those who scream ‘disproportionate’ think – grotesquely -- that not enough Israelis have been killed. But that’s in part because Israel cares enough about human life to construct air raid shelters where its beleaguered civilians take cover; Hamas deliberately stores its rockets and other apparatus of mass murder below apartment blocks and in centres of population in order to get as many of its own people killed as possible as a propaganda weapon. Hamas is thus guilty of war crimes not just against Israelis but against the Palestinian people. Yet on this there is – fantastically, surreally – almost total silence in the west, which blames Israel instead. Historical resonances, anyone
Click to expand...

A perfectly put piece...
 
Grey

Firstly, Obamas policy towards Israel will not vary from Bush's. in fact Bush was the first US president (i think) to actually call for a Palestinian state. Obama's pre election speeches were also strongly pro israel and anti terrorism

The west bank settlements are a huge headache and encouraging them was a huge mistake. Frankly if independence is agreed, then the settlers will have to live with it. Still, arabs live happily in Israel (a country where they actually get a vote!) so why not....

the Israeli action is to my mind gauged to exploit the split in hamas. Israel will of course know exactly what is going on there (mossad is second to none) and the calls for a new administration are timed perfectly. Marginalise the lunatics and do business with the progressives

Again, the lack of rhetoric from Hamas remains significant
 
As somebody put it on telly the other night, under Bush the US role in Middle East disputes has degenerated into being holder of the Israeli coat. I will be surprised if Obama allows that to continue.
 
So what has Obama said about this weeks events?

and this line varies not one iota from Bush

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction"
 
clivex said:
Very. The state is as secure as it has ever been and Iran apart, no neighbouring countries would contemplate attack or seriously question the states existence

1967 was magnificcent of course as were actions such as entebbe. Some of the stuff in Lebanon.. alot less so

No country under threat from terorism can base its policy on a hand wringing "we musnt upset them". Its all very well for outsiders with their prejudices to spout this stuff, but they arent living through it.
Click to expand...

The security of Israel as a nation rests largely on the tacit support of the US. So I would question how much effect Israel's actions have had - surely the US looming in the background is a much bigger deterrent?

I wonder will the incoming US administration be as laissez faire as those in the past? I think little will change to be honest - has Obama really taken a stance on the situation before?

My reference to the 40 years is indicative of the fact that Israel's actions / reactions have done nothing to address or resolve the underlying causes of the conflict - it's still happening and no progress will ever be made at this rate.

One adage both sides would do well to remember is that 'you can only make peace with your enemies' - not a chance that either side will be able to overcome their prejudices to do so in the foreseeable future.
 
Dont totally agree. Firstly i think israel is strong enough now not to be concerned about threats at this point in time. None of the neighbours seem to be keen to pick a real fight. I think Israel has been strong enough without US supprot for some time now. The one future concern is Iran and a nuclear bomb

You can make peace with enemies but certain enemies will remain beyond the pale. Israel can talk to Fatah because there is common ground.Maybe there will be with Hamas, but not if sections of Hamas maintain a neo nazi and Al Quaeda stance on the mere existance of Jews

Al quaeda is an enemy of the west but their agenda is so extreme that its impossible to negotiate
My reference to the 40 years is indicative of the fact that Israel's actions / reactions have done nothing to address or resolve the underlying causes of the conflict
Click to expand...

Dont agree. The Oslo accord was not "nothing"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top