Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 1,056 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Arturius Fischer wrote:
Well, there's that. Again, Israel is the only one who has actually bothered to prosecute its people when they do wrong. That puts them above their opponents.

Yes and such a success it has been... since they've continued doing it.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
In addition, are both Israel and Hamas a party of the Geneva Conventions? You should read those things very carefully... especially the part where if you and your opponent are not a party to those accords then you are not obliged to be limited by them. It's recommended, and considered a 'good on you' if you do, but if you're fighting a non-signatory, it really doesn't matter.

Well, they might be... if they, you know, were allowed to actually have their own state.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
In addition, are both Israel and Hamas a party of the Geneva Conventions? You should read those things very carefully... especially the part where if you and your opponent are not a party to those accords then you are not obliged to be limited by them. It's recommended, and considered a 'good on you' if you do, but if you're fighting a non-signatory, it really doesn't matter.

Well, a) Israel is a party to the Convention.

b) Hamas is not. But as Gentle Giant says, that's because they're not allowed to be, not being a state.
c) That doesn't matter, because the Conventions cover the case of non-state resistance movements.

Again, Israel is the Occupying Power. That makes it different than a war between two states.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, these are accusations by the IDF. Which is not exactly an impartial 3rd party. The UN claims the weapons found in a vacant school recently were the first time.
Hmmm... are the accusations by Hamas an impartial 3rd party?

No. Of course not. The UN, HRW and Amnesty are however.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
There is little to no hard evidence supporting the IDF's claims, other than that there is rocket fire from within Gaza.
Rocket fire being, apparently, not hard evidence.

It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.

Arturius Fischer wrote:


thejeff wrote:
Frankly, what they should do is not conduct military operations in a dense urban environment...
An overly simplistic approach toward a complicated subject. Perhaps terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at people who are willing to go to war over it? See--equally simplistic.

Yes, the part you left unsnipped is an overly simplistic approach.

Nonetheless, you're correct that terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at Israel, but Israel's approach is counterproductive if what they want is to reduce rocket fire. In addition to causing high civilian casualties, they've also drawn far more rocket fire by ending the truce than they'd seen total in the months preceding the current conflict. And set back any progress towards moderation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:


TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it.

I wouldn't call a demotion much of a punishment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:


TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it.
I wouldn't call a demotion much of a punishment.

Particularly when they get demoted to prime minister...


Wikipedia: Hamas: Children and women as human shields

More sophistry:

It's kind of amazing how many non-Hamas people are cited as examples of Hamas using human shields in that article.

No expert, as I've said, but I follow the link on Popular Resistance Committees, and I find that they are a separate faction, third in size after Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The PFLP (GC), of course, are also not Hamas.

The Human Rights Watch press release about their previous press release about the PRC is worth linking, I think:

Human Rights Watch Statement on our November 22 Press Release


I remember Israel's government explaining Arafat is a terrorist, then that Fatah is refusing to stop terrorists, then now that Hamas are terrorists...

Would Israel ask itself one day how comes they're only facing terrorists discontinuously for the last 50 years?

If Israeli people believe this action (killing "precise targets" among hundreds of civilian victims) will bring them peace, they're gullible and deluding themselves. It's what they're already doing for at least 20 years. The only thing Israel is doing, is making a natural selection of the most hateful and smartest activists. And by killing as many Palestinians supporting peace as as many Palestinians supporting war, Israel promotes extremism and war among them.

Soon or later there'll be some terrible terrorist act in Israel if they can't smother Palestinians' hate and hopelessness. And, considering the past decades, killing them makes them only more hateful and dangerous.

Kill the men and the children will hate you, kill the children too and the women will hate you. Kill them all and you'll hate yourself.

Get all the lessons from Second World War, not just one.
It's not the strongest that survives, it's the most adaptative. And, in a mutating Middle-East, Israel decided to be the strongest to protect itself...


17 times... 17 times the location of the UN school that was bombed this morning had been communicated to Israel.
And a market bombed by Israel during a supposed cease-fire.

Liberty's Edge

GentleGiant wrote:

17 times... 17 times the location of the UN school that was bombed this morning had been communicated to Israel.

And a market bombed by Israel during a supposed cease-fire.

Is this the ceasefire that saw rockets from Palestine break the agreement and Israel retaliate? That cease fire?

Quote:

Israel authorized a four-hour "humanitarian window" Wednesday in Gaza, but it lasted nowhere near that long.

Militants continued to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel during the announced time frame, and Israel responded with airstrikes.

And that school, would that be the one that militants were using to fire upon Israeli soldiers?

Quote:

But Israel said a group of militants fired at Israeli soldiers from the vicinity, and the soldiers "responded by firing at the origin of the fire," a military spokesman said.

"If our forces were involved in a firefight, it's because Hamas has decided that it's open season on the U.N.," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told CNN Wednesday.

And let's remember:

Quote:
"More than 200 rockets fired from Gaza have hit Gaza since July 8. Palestinian terrorists fire from civilian areas and hit their own people," the IDF said on Twitter, along with videos that the military said show Hamas fighters launching attacks from inside homes, mosques, hospitals and schools.

And while Hamas has been attacking Israel from civilian targets, and firing upon their own civilian targets, what has Israel been up to?

Quote:

The Israeli Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, announced on Twitter that Israel has sent into Gaza more than 4 million liters of diesel for the power station, 3 million liters of fuel and 800,000 liters of benzene for transportation, and 1.6 tons of gas for domestic use during the conflict.

In the wake of the power plant being hit, the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories "is working with Israeli civilian and military officials, international organizations and Palestinian representatives to try and find immediate solutions," the ministry said.
Forty-three trucks "carrying over 750 tons of food, medicine & supplies" entered Gaza Wednesday from Israel, the ministry said. It provided information on how people can donate humanitarian supplies, and a contact at the Palestinian Customs Agency.
Some Palestinians have been brought into Israel from Gaza for medical care, the ministry said.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:


And while Hamas has been attacking Israel from civilian targets, and firing upon their own civilian targets, what has Israel been up to?

Blowing up markets, schools, bakeries, hospitals, utilities, etc.

Also go to gaza sometime, all they have is "civilian" areas, it is little more than a concentration camp. Isreal learned from it's peoples suffering in ww2, they learned how to inflict it.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew R wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


And while Hamas has been attacking Israel from civilian targets, and firing upon their own civilian targets, what has Israel been up to?

Blowing up markets, schools, bakeries, hospitals, utilities, etc.

So they're attacking the places that Hamas is attacking from. I wonder if there's a correlation. . .

Quote:
Also go to gaza sometime, all they have is "civilian" areas, it is little more than a concentration camp. Isreal learned from it's peoples suffering in ww2, they learned how to inflict it.

They must not have learned very well, I don't recall them launching hundreds of rocket attacks per year out of concentration camps. . .


thejeff wrote:
]It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.

Video of rocket fire from the Abu Nur school.

Dark Archive

Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.
Video of rocket fire from the Abu Nur school.

Yeah seeing some of the comments on that one are really not winning me over (Even if the footage is real). Also is it footage from the school that was shelled or a random school?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As I've said before, no expert here, just a dude who loads trucks who happens to be a lifelong communist with a passing interest in world affairs and a search engine, but, if the case was as clear as many seem to think, then I have a hard time understanding why CNN reports that it is "complicated" or that they've got someone from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which sounds like a plutocrat thing to me, but I could be wrong) saying "It would be impossible at this point to say how much truth there is to the human shield argument." I'm sure there's a CAMERA article or Breitbart report that claims otherwise, but I find it hard to believe either of them are purveyors of Islamist propaganda.

A binary toggle is not 'complicated'. Just because a CNN guy says that it is does not make it true. It's fairly cut and dry--if something being used meets the criteria of using 'human shields', then that's exactly what it is.

Furthermore, it's amusing to see people defend Hamas in this instance saying "it's complicated" while, with a straight face, directly claiming beyond any doubt that Israelis use the technique and are 100% culpable for it. NOT saying that you are saying that or trying to imply you are being shady.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm getting tired, so I may be getting sloppy, but I don't see how hiding rockets in a vacant school is "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations." I mean, how are you rendering a point immune from military operations if you're hiding rockets there?

The military weapons are not being placed in areas where civilians do not frequent. "Schools" are not in any sense a legal place to place military weaponry. Furthermore, you have to go deeper into 'vacant'. Does 'vacant' mean 'permanently abandoned' or 'temporarily evacuated for the duration of the fighting'? If the former, it gets a little better. You know, until they hide them in the UN Schools.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't know. Maybe I'm descending into sophistry, but I have a cynical suspicion that international law is all about sophistry.

This is not cynicism, this is sane observation of facts.

---

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You said the other countries did not wall off the palastinian areas. The pertinant bit of information is the labled picture of the wall there between Egypt and Gaza.

Ah, I gotcha. See, I forgot to put '...' at the end of that sentence, to imply it was sarcastic. Of COURSE the surrounding nations have walled off Palestine and rarely let refugees filter through when they are under attack. But obviously only Israel gets criticism for that as the sole responsible group for 'imprisoning' them. The Palestinian refugees in other nations are kept in refugee status permanently, worse than second class citizens, and there is little rancor expressed toward them. And this is done simply to have a way of keeping their own people united in a common goal. Of course, that wanders off the main topic, so I'll pull up there and go back to the main point.

Thanks for clarifying, BTW.

GentleGIant" wrote:

"Well, the argument was that Hamas is really, really bad because they use "human shields" (depending on the definition of that) and Israel doesn't!

Except they do.

That's not MY argument. Hamas is really really bad because it is a racist terrorist organization devoted to genocide, turning innocent women and children into suicidal murderbots, seeks to conquer everyone under its religious extremist banner, does not recognize the difference between innocent people and legal combatants, and uses every underhanded illegal trick possible in order to eek out an edge... and then tries to spin it to make them look noble.

Incidentally, it may or may not use 'human shields', depending on definition, and that gets added to the heap of 'underhanded illegal trick'.

GentleGiant wrote:
Yes and such a success it has been... since they've continued doing it.

I know, right? I mean (SARCASM: ON!), every other place a crime has been committed, there was only ever one instance of that crime that ever occurred, and nobody ever committed it again. Only one murder, only one arson, only one theft. (SARCASM: OFF.)

I know this comes as a shock, but.. amazingly enough... crime continues to happen. And again, I point out, in this conflict only Israel is bothering to try and prosecute it when it occurs. Thank you for proving that point.

GentleGiant wrote:
Well, they might be... if they, you know, were allowed to actually have their own state.

Don't need to be. Nations can declare war on terrorist organizations whether or not they own their own nation. Those wars have been going on for awhile.

---

TheJeff wrote:
Keeping the various domestic parties inline and keeping them focused on the external enemy, cause that gets you support.

I read that in the Hamas charter too.

TheJeff wrote:

Well, a) Israel is a party to the Convention.

b) Hamas is not. But as Gentle Giant says, that's because they're not allowed to be, not being a state.
c) That doesn't matter, because the Conventions cover the case of non-state resistance movements.

Again, Israel is the Occupying Power. That makes it different than a war between two states.

Again, read the terms. Being a party to the convention does not mean you need to abide by it to enemies who are not. That covered area applies to those areas as well. As long as they aren't actively trying to wipe out Palestine itself, they are technically abiding by the terms. It's a very Lawful Neutral approach. Kinda a-hole-ish, but if you have some other plan for dealing with the situation when people who live to kill you are trying to find ever more clever ways to do so, I'm all ears.

TheJeff wrote:
No. Of course not. The UN, HRW and Amnesty are however.

Interesting, beings as there has been more than one time this has happened. It seems to me like they need to be a bit more careful with what gets placed in their areas. It's almost like Hamas is using those areas as shields.

TheJeff wrote:
It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.

Irontruth recently handled this one. Probably won't be considered 'hard evidence' though.

However, I'll argue this. If they fire from an area that has people who are not Hamas, that is proof positive that they are, in fact, using human shields to escape retaliation. Are all those shots coming from empty hills and fields, with none coming from populated areas?

TheJeff wrote:
Yes, the part you left unsnipped is an overly simplistic approach.

I know, I was quoting you.

TheJeff wrote:
Nonetheless, you're correct that terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at Israel, but Israel's approach is counterproductive if what they want is to reduce rocket fire. In addition to causing high civilian casualties, they've also drawn far more rocket fire by ending the truce than they'd seen total in the months preceding the current conflict. And set back any progress towards moderation.

Are you referring to the truces where rockets were fired at Israel, the truces that Hamas openly said they would not agree to, or some other one where Israel has attacked unprovoked during a truce?

---

Angstspawn wrote:
I remember Israel's government explaining Arafat is a terrorist, then that Fatah is refusing to stop terrorists, then now that Hamas are terrorists...

Read my quotes from the Hamas charter on the previous page. By their own admission of their goals, they are a terrorist organization. No need for Israeli conspiracy theories.

Angstspawn wrote:
The only thing Israel is doing, is making a natural selection of the most hateful and smartest activists. And by killing as many Palestinians supporting peace as as many Palestinians supporting war, Israel promotes extremism and war among them.

Arguable, if a third of the population elected terrorists to lead them.

And what exactly is so bad about wiping out the hateful and smartest ones? That seems like a good strategic position against people who have stated they want to wipe you from the map.

---

ShadowcatX wrote:

So they're attacking the places that Hamas is attacking from. I wonder if there's a correlation. . .

They must not have learned very well, I don't recall them launching hundreds of rocket attacks per year out of concentration camps. . .

You, sir or ma'am, are a hoot to read. Sometimes simple replies like this are the best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As I've said before, no expert here, just a dude who loads trucks who happens to be a lifelong communist with a passing interest in world affairs and a search engine, but, if the case was as clear as many seem to think, then I have a hard time understanding why CNN reports that it is "complicated" or that they've got someone from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which sounds like a plutocrat thing to me, but I could be wrong) saying "It would be impossible at this point to say how much truth there is to the human shield argument." I'm sure there's a CAMERA article or Breitbart report that claims otherwise, but I find it hard to believe either of them are purveyors of Islamist propaganda.

A binary toggle is not 'complicated'. Just because a CNN guy says that it is does not make it true. It's fairly cut and dry--if something being used meets the criteria of using 'human shields', then that's exactly what it is.

Furthermore, it's amusing to see people defend Hamas in this instance saying "it's complicated" while, with a straight face, directly claiming beyond any doubt that Israelis use the technique and are 100% culpable for it. NOT saying that you are saying that or trying to imply you are being shady.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm getting tired, so I may be getting sloppy, but I don't see how hiding rockets in a vacant school is "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations." I mean, how are you rendering a point immune from military operations if you're hiding rockets there?
The military weapons are not being placed in areas where civilians do not frequent. "Schools" are not in any sense a legal place to place military weaponry. Furthermore, you have to go deeper into 'vacant'. Does 'vacant' mean 'permanently abandoned' or 'temporarily evacuated for the duration of the fighting'? If the former, it gets a...

I don't think the CNN reporter who called it "complicated" has been posting in here, have they?

Anyway, placing weapons in schools may be illegal, immoral, etc., etc., etc., but I still don't see it as using "human shields" under any legal definition that has thus far been presented. Which is what I was talking about in the post quoted.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
"BigNorseWolf wrote:

You said the other countries did not wall off the palastinian areas. The pertinant bit of information is the labled picture of the wall there between Egypt and Gaza.

Ah, I gotcha. See, I forgot to put '...' at the end of that sentence, to imply it was sarcastic. Of COURSE the surrounding nations have walled off Palestine and rarely let refugees filter through when they are under attack. But obviously only Israel gets criticism for that as the sole responsible group for 'imprisoning' them. The Palestinian refugees in other nations are kept in refugee status permanently, worse than second class citizens, and there is little rancor expressed toward them. And this is done simply to have a way of keeping their own people united in a common goal. Of course, that wanders off the main topic, so I'll pull up there and go back to the main point.

By "other countries" you mean Egypt, since no other countries border Gaza. Or even the Palestinian areas of the West Bank. And Egypt is well paid by the US for keeping its deal with Israel to control the Gaza border.

BTW, can you please not put all your replies into one big post. It makes it much harder to respond. Thanks.


thejeff wrote:
BTW, can you please not put all your replies into one big post. It makes it much harder to respond. Thanks.

Or, alternatively, always respond to me first so I can just hit the "Reply" button.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.
Video of rocket fire from the Abu Nur school.
Yeah seeing some of the comments on that one are really not winning me over (Even if the footage is real). Also is it footage from the school that was shelled or a random school?

Near as I can tell the Abu Nur school has not been shelled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:

Well, a) Israel is a party to the Convention.
b) Hamas is not. But as Gentle Giant says, that's because they're not allowed to be, not being a state.
c) That doesn't matter, because the Conventions cover the case of non-state resistance movements.

Again, Israel is the Occupying Power. That makes it different than a war between two states.

Again, read the terms. Being a party to the convention does not mean you need to abide by it to enemies who are not. That covered area applies to those areas as well. As long as they aren't actively trying to wipe out Palestine itself, they are technically abiding by the terms. It's a very Lawful Neutral approach. Kinda a-hole-ish, but if you have some other plan for dealing with the situation when people who live to kill you are trying to find ever more clever ways to do so, I'm all ears.

Only nation states can be parties to the Convention. That's what it is. It's a treaty between states. Hamas is not a state. Nor is Palestine. Neither of them can sign the Convention. That does not mean any signatory has a free hand in dealing with non-state actors.

I suggest you read the terms, particularly the sections on Occupations and on Resistance movements.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nonetheless, you're correct that terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at Israel, but Israel's approach is counterproductive if what they want is to reduce rocket fire. In addition to causing high civilian casualties, they've also drawn far more rocket fire by ending the truce than they'd seen total in the months preceding the current conflict. And set back any progress towards moderation.
Are you referring to the truces where rockets were fired at Israel, the truces that Hamas openly said they would not agree to, or some other one where Israel has attacked unprovoked during a truce?

That would be the truce during which Hamas did not fire rockets at Israel, during which, according to Israeli spokesmen Hamas did its best to keep other groups from doing so. The terms of the truce from 2012 did not set Hamas the impossible task of guaranteeing no rocket fire from other groups in Gaza.

By looking at the difference in rocket fire between this confrontation and the preceding months, you can see what happens when Hamas wants to attack. Still not doing any damage in Israel of course, but if the goal is to stop rocket fire, this isn't the way to go about it. As I said, far more rocket fire during less than a month than in the year and half of truce beforehand.

Of course, the rocket fire is only a pretext, so this being a stupid means of stopping it doesn't matter.


Henry Siegman, Leading Voice of U.S. Jewry, on Gaza: "A Slaughter of Innocents"

Former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress for almost 20 years on Gaza, fleeing Hitler and the '48 war.

Looks like it should be interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well.

As I've repeated multiple times throughout this thread, I'm no expert, but after listening to Rabbi Siegman, I think I am more pro-Hamas than ever.


ShadowcatX wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

17 times... 17 times the location of the UN school that was bombed this morning had been communicated to Israel.

And a market bombed by Israel during a supposed cease-fire.

Is this the ceasefire that saw rockets from Palestine break the agreement and Israel retaliate? That cease fire?

Quote:

Israel authorized a four-hour "humanitarian window" Wednesday in Gaza, but it lasted nowhere near that long.

Militants continued to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel during the announced time frame, and Israel responded with airstrikes.
And that school, would that be the one that militants were using to fire upon Israeli soldiers?

It was the cease fire that caused people to go to an open air fruit and vegetable market to hurriedly buy supplies. So no, it wasn't where any supposed rockets were fired from.

And no, it was a girl's school housing around 3000 refugees along with UN workers. It wasn't hit by stray Hamas rockets either, as I saw one Israeli military officer speculate (how convenient, eh?). Unless Hamas suddenly has acquired self-propelled howitzers capable of firing the shells that hit the school.
At 5 in the morning.
I'm astounded by the inability to admit that the IDF could actually do this.

Edit: I'm sure people has seen this already.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
YOU say the entire occupation is illegal. This does not mean you are correct. From your point of view, because of that, the entire thing is considered one massive unlawful exercise.

Using the UN international law because its the only thing that generally applies..

The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel’s occupation "an affront to international law."[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than 4 decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[8] Linky

Quote:
I have no problem with the IDF killing members of a terrorist organization whose established goal is to annihilate Israel.

If they had any chance of actually doing this i might agree, but as it is its like shooting someone's chiuaua for trying to rip your face off.

Conversely, what is the difference between this and shooting members of the Isreali government, who's goal (that they've acted on) is to maintain a racist/theocratic state, take land, and impose ridiculously harsh economic conditions on millions of innocent people?

Quote:
I will have a problem with the land being occupied permanently after the military action.

Its been 50 years and its still expanding. At what point do you say is permanent?

Quote:
Despite this, however, when it comes to a 'moral high ground', they are well above Hamas, though obviously quite below the innocent bystanders.

Well thats just an opinion...

Is it a justified one though? There is a difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:

That's not MY argument. Hamas is really really bad because it is a racist terrorist organization devoted to genocide, turning innocent women and children into suicidal murderbots, seeks to conquer everyone under its religious extremist banner, does not recognize the difference between innocent people and legal combatants, and uses every underhanded illegal trick possible in order to eek out an edge... and then tries to spin it to make them look noble.

Incidentally, it may or may not use 'human shields', depending on definition, and that gets added to the heap of 'underhanded illegal trick'.

Can I then count on you to apply the same derision you direct towards Hamas to the racist Israeli organization (party) which is devoted to genocide, seeks to conquer everyone under its religious extremist banner, does not recognize the difference between innocent people and legal combatants, and uses every underhanded illegal trick possible in order to eek out an edge... and then tries to spin it to make them look noble?

Arturius Fischer wrote:

I know, right? I mean (SARCASM: ON!), every other place a crime has been committed, there was only ever one instance of that crime that ever occurred, and nobody ever committed it again. Only one murder, only one arson, only one theft. (SARCASM: OFF.)

I know this comes as a shock, but.. amazingly enough... crime continues to happen. And again, I point out, in this conflict only Israel is bothering to try and prosecute it when it occurs. Thank you for proving that point.

You're absolutely right, how silly of me to count on a state's freakin' MILITARY to uphold those rules within their ranks even after 3 years.

Silly me to expect discipline from trained soldiers.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
Don't need to be. Nations can declare war on terrorist organizations whether or not they own their own nation. Those wars have been going on for awhile.

You asked whether both sides had signed the Geneva Conventions. How many non-recognized states has done that? That was what I was replying to.


I read a piece written by a Danish member of parliament today, which in some ways sums up the situation for the Palestinians.
I've quickly translated it for everyone to read:

Quote:

"It's all the fault of Hamas!" That's something you hear often in these days. Hamas is a terrorist organization - and there's some truth to that. "As long as Hamas rules in Gaza there will be no peaceful solution. The Palestinians must elect moderate leaders - not until then can they live in peace."

I deeply wish for a peaceful solution, so let's dwell for a moment by the results the Palestinians will accomplish by electing more moderate leaders. We don't have to move far away. Just a hop on over to the West Bank where Fatah - the more moderate Palestinians, rule.

What has Israel done to demonstrate to the Palestinians that moderate leaders make all the difference?

Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.

My question is then: Is this the Promised Land that Israel seeks to entice the Palestinians with, if only they turn their backs on Hamas and become more moderate?

I can certainly understand if Palestinians have a hard time seeing life in the West Bank as a promising future. Roughly put the choice stands between war in Gaza and apartheid in the West Bank.

Israels safety is paramount to the Israeli government. Anyone can understand that. But is the road to safety not better served by actually putting a promising future in the sights of the moderate Palestinians? Isn't the better solution to strengthen the moderate forces by giving them space and human dignity?

The Exchange

From a funny Israeli blog I follow:

"Palestinians have recently claimed in the U.N that the Israeli Iron Dome prevents them from their basic right to shoot at Israel. In addition, multiple witnesses have recorded Iron Domes targeting and destroying Palestinians rockets that were attempting to leave the war zone."

On a more serious note i democracy in Israel has taken a plunge yesterday, as Arabin member of the Israeli parliament Hanin Zoebi was suspended from duty for six month (the maximum punishment possible without a trial) because she said that the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli children (those who triggered the current landslide) were not terrorists. She also called for Israeli Arabs to protest in non violent ways against the war. The explanation behind her punishment is that freedom of speech does not apply when saying things that could be understood as a hate speech, or in support of terrorism. For comparison, not so long ago an Jewish member of the Parliament said that anyone in the government who would be willing to return territories to Palestinians should be killed. He was suspended for 1 day.


Arturius, your thoughts on this?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well.

As I've repeated multiple times throughout this thread, I'm no expert, but after listening to Rabbi Siegman, I think I am more pro-Hamas than ever.

From the Hamas charter:

Quote:
“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”


Andrew R wrote:
Also go to gaza sometime, all they have is "civilian" areas, it is little more than a concentration camp. Israel learned from it's peoples suffering in WW2, they learned how to inflict it.

First Gaza can't be honestly compared to a nazi concentration camp, not even to Warsaw's ghetto.

Also, Israel wasn't suffering from WW2, quite the contrary, it was benefiting from it and greatly!
People in the concentration camps were European Jewish (French, German, Polish, etc...) not Israeli citizen.
Israel was nationalizing the ashes and suffering of these people to get advantages, money and cheap manpower.

While disgusting, using the European guilty complicity and the religious link with shoa's victims was smart as it allowed very quickly the creation and viability of a new nation.

Now Israel thinks might makes right and strengthen itself to dominate its neighbors, which is not without some logic and positive results.
It'll be interesting to see the future, as over history it's military might associated to cultural assimilation that create great countries. We'll see if military might only can be enough.


GentleGiant wrote:

I read a piece written by a Danish member of parliament today, which in some ways sums up the situation for the Palestinians.

I've quickly translated it for everyone to read:

Quote:

"It's all the fault of Hamas!" That's something you hear often in these days. Hamas is a terrorist organization - and there's some truth to that. "As long as Hamas rules in Gaza there will be no peaceful solution. The Palestinians must elect moderate leaders - not until then can they live in peace."

I deeply wish for a peaceful solution, so let's dwell for a moment by the results the Palestinians will accomplish by electing more moderate leaders. We don't have to move far away. Just a hop on over to the West Bank where Fatah - the more moderate Palestinians, rule.

What has Israel done to demonstrate to the Palestinians that moderate leaders make all the difference?

Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.

My question is then: Is this the Promised Land that Israel seeks to entice the Palestinians with, if only they turn their backs on Hamas and become more moderate?

I can certainly understand if Palestinians have a hard time seeing life in the West Bank as a promising future. Roughly put the choice stands between war in Gaza and

...

That politician's statement contains an error which is pretty big. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. None. When Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, they forcefully removed all Jewish settlers.

Even at the height of Jewish settlement in the strip, there were fewer than 7000 Jews living in Gaza, not 500,000.

There certainly are still lots of settlers in the West Bank.


I think once Hamas loses power and perhaps Fatah takes over things will be easier for both sides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

I read a piece written by a Danish member of parliament today, which in some ways sums up the situation for the Palestinians.

I've quickly translated it for everyone to read:

Quote:

"It's all the fault of Hamas!" That's something you hear often in these days. Hamas is a terrorist organization - and there's some truth to that. "As long as Hamas rules in Gaza there will be no peaceful solution. The Palestinians must elect moderate leaders - not until then can they live in peace."

Just a hop on over to the West Bank where Fatah - the more moderate Palestinians, rule.

What has Israel done to demonstrate to the Palestinians that moderate leaders make all the difference?

Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.

That politician's statement contains an error which is pretty big. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. None. When Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, they forcefully removed all Jewish settlers.

Even at the height of Jewish settlement in the strip, there were fewer than 7000 Jews living in Gaza, not 500,000.

There certainly are still lots of settlers in the West Bank.

No error. He's describing the West Bank, not Gaza. He's doing so as an illustration of the peaceful solution that Gazans could expect if they forsook Hamas and violence and elected moderate leaders.


Angstspawn wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Also go to gaza sometime, all they have is "civilian" areas, it is little more than a concentration camp. Israel learned from it's peoples suffering in WW2, they learned how to inflict it.

First Gaza can't be honestly compared to a nazi concentration camp, not even to Warsaw's ghetto.

Also, Israel wasn't suffering from WW2, quite the contrary, it was benefiting from it and greatly!
People in the concentration camps were European Jewish (French, German, Polish, etc...) not Israeli citizen.
Israel was nationalizing the ashes and suffering of these people to get advantages, money and cheap manpower.

While disgusting, using the European guilty complicity and the religious link with shoa's victims was smart as it allowed very quickly the creation and viability of a new nation.

There was no Israel during WWII, so obviously no Israeli citizens were in the concentration camps. OTOH, many who survived the camps, or who escaped but lost relatives there, did come to Israel, so in that sense Israeli citizens suffered in WWII.


Irontruth wrote:


Quote:
“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”

Except the eucalyptus tree for some strange reason. Apparently they're supposed to have australia or something...


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well.

As I've repeated multiple times throughout this thread, I'm no expert, but after listening to Rabbi Siegman, I think I am more pro-Hamas than ever.

From the Hamas charter:

Quote:
“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”
Rabbi Siegman wrote:


But a more important point to be made here—and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest—the state of Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in Netanyahu’s government—very important parties, not marginal parties—including his own, the Likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state anywhere in Palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennett’s party, the HaBayit HaYehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a Palestinian state, anywhere in Palestine
<...>
The largest caucus, parliamentary caucus, in Israel’s Knesset is called the caucus of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema, which the Likud leads.<...> An "eretz," in English—in English, it means the whole land of Israel. This is a parliamentary caucus, the largest caucus in the Knesset, which is totally dedicated to not permit any government to establish a Palestinian state anywhere in the land of Israel, headed by Likud, senior Likud members of Knesset, and headed—a party that is headed by the prime minister of Israel.

Not quite as florid as "kill teh jews", but it makes it easy to see why some might think peace isn't really an option. Or that Israel's talk of peace and self-defense isn't exactly honest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I didn't really grasp what Citizen Sweetman was saying earlier (as I said, this is a dense thread) but after listening to Rabbi Siegman about the "mind-boggling hypocrisy" (maybe a paraphrase), I am pretty much done listening to any American apologists for Zionism, fake leftie or otherwise.

That being said, I posted out of an emotional response to listening to Rabbi Siegman. I am not any more pro-Hamas than I was before. I'm just more anti-Zionist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, I didn't really grasp what Citizen Sweetman was saying earlier (as I said, this is a dense thread) but after listening to Rabbi Siegman about the "mind-boggling hypocrisy" (maybe a paraphrase), I am pretty much done listening to any American apologists for Zionism, fake leftie or otherwise.

That being said, I posted out of an emotional response to listening to Rabbi Siegman. I am not any more pro-Hamas than I was before. I'm just more anti-Zionist.

That I'd agree with. Despite what some may think from my posts here, I'm not at all "pro-Hamas". I do think they're more pragmatic and willing to deal than people give them credit for - despite the evil crap in their Charter.

They've been willing to deal with Fatah and even offer long term peace deals to Israel, as well as shown themselves able to keep the shorter term ones.
In a way, I suspect they're trapped. They've got enough hardliners that if they moderate too much without getting anything out of it, they'll fracture, or create openings for Islamic Jihad and other even more extreme groups. And they may be more useful to Israel as the bad guy than in any kind of deal, so they can't actually get any concessions.


thejeff wrote:
There was no Israel during WWII, so obviously no Israeli citizens were in the concentration camps. OTOH, many who survived the camps, or who escaped but lost relatives there, did come to Israel, so in that sense Israeli citizens suffered in WWII.

Many also went back to their former countries or some other.

I like the concept of suffering by adoption (it's a very profitable concept of empathy)... but it makes no sense.

Israel was smart, no question about it but Israel is not among the countries who suffered from WWII. It just welcomed (and not always well) people who did.
Anyway, if it's still working so far, it would be stupid not to continue to use it, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
There was no Israel during WWII, so obviously no Israeli citizens were in the concentration camps. OTOH, many who survived the camps, or who escaped but lost relatives there, did come to Israel, so in that sense Israeli citizens suffered in WWII.

Many also went back to their former countries or some other.

I like the concept of suffering by adoption (it's a very profitable concept of empathy)... but it makes no sense.

Israel was smart, no question about it but Israel is not among the countries who suffered from WWII. It just welcomed (and not always well) people who did.
Anyway, if it's still working so far, it would be stupid not to continue to use it, isn't it?

As you say, Israel is not among the countries who suffered from WWII. As I said, Israel did not exist during WWII.

What Andrew said was "Israel learned from it's peoples suffering in WW2". Many of the people of Isreal, particularly in the early years, had lived through, fled from and/or lost relatives to the Holocaust. To suggest that the people of of Israel did not suffer in WWII is beyond nonsense.

That some of them may have learned the wrong lesson from that suffering is a tragedy of it's own.


Do unto others before they do unto you.


thejeff wrote:
To suggest that the people of of Israel did not suffer in WWII is beyond nonsense.

Did Israel had to manage risks of civil war?

Did Israel had to reconstruct itself?
Did Israel had to make peace with IIIrd Reich?
Did Israel had to suffer the Cold War?

Again, Israel welcomed people who suffered monstrously and made their suffering its. No doubt welcoming refugees was not easy. But again, as a country, Israel suffered very few of the WWII and its consequences. If Israel was tasting what is a massive war for more than 6 days it won't be entering that easily new ones all the time.

Israel considered itself a victim of a crime against humanity while it's showing no humanity in battle using phosphorous, nails filed bombs or whatever to kill its enemies.
Israel was deploying less energy to track and eliminate nazi war criminals than it does to find and assassinate Hamas terrorists.
Not knowing what is a war, what it is to burrow hundreds of thousands of your soldiers and civilians, not knowing what it is to make peace with those who killed your fathers and brothers to save your children and grandchildren, Israel is using bombs without control.

If Israel had suffer WWII not just through adoption it would not treat Palestinians the way it does.
If Israel had suffer from WWII it would know that to avoid a new war you have to accept more victims for a while and to lie to yourself about it.
If Israel was suffering from WWII it would understand how the victims found a way to befriend their tormentors.

A strong army can stop fights, but war is only ended by diplomacy and politics.
Israel is strong and considers it doesn't need to make any compromise or effort to reach peace. So far so good, but soon or later it happens you loose a war, and the price you have to pay depends on the way you were treating your enemies.

Because Israel is living on a tale, it can argue victims of Shoa would support IDF against the Palestinians, in the name of their safety. For sure it's not told like this but it's implicit.
Of the crime against humanity Israel remembers only the crime, not the humanity.
I imagine many IDF soldiers think they get some revenge against some nazi atrocity to kill Palestinians like this.

How Israelis can believe this action will end the war? They should remember one of the sentence written on the wall of Warsaw's ghetto to know what will be Palestinians next move:
"When a bee stings at you it doesn't expect to survive, but if bee were not stinging they had disappear long time ago."

The Exchange

Quote:


Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.

Second Intifida. The entire middle east is a tangled net of cause and effect. The lives of Palestinians in the western bank used to be a LOT better before the second Intifada happened. they could cross the borders to Israel rather easily, and many of them worked in Israel.

And, the western bank has it's own issues. In the most recent round of peace talks, they refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. And, although like others said already there are extremists in Israel who do not acknowledge the rights of Palestinians to have their own state, that is *not* the official stance of Israel. I have seen Netanyahu say loud and clear in the national television that he is willing to recognize the west bank as a Palestinian state if they extend the same courtesy to Israel. They did not, and they are also not willing to give up the Right of Return.


Lord Snow wrote:


Quote:


Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.
Second Intifida. The entire middle east is a tangled net of cause and effect. The lives of Palestinians in the western bank used to be a LOT better before the second Intifada happened. they could cross the borders to Israel rather easily, and many of them worked in Israel.

And yet, even before the Second Intifada, while life was better, there was still no state and the settlements continued to grow. Peace and moderation might get them better conditions, but they still don't end the occupation.


Lord Snow wrote:
And, the western bank has it's own issues. In the most recent round of peace talks, they refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.

Of course they don't. That gives them a right to refuse the right of return, deny people the ability to vote, and continue their oppression if thats what it takes to maintain a jewish state.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


Quote:


Here 2.7 million Palestinians live clumped together in an area the size of Funen (Danish island). You see, it also needs to house the 500,000 Israeli settlers - and, of course, safety zones, walls and such lovely things. Over the last 20 years more than 15,000 Palestinian homes have been removed to make room for more than 50,000 new Israeli homes. UN reports that boys aged 12-14 are being detained/incarcerated. Israeli military has a massive presence and a frightening wall more than 400 km long cuts through the area. It separates Palestinian villages, cuts people off from their farm land and forces people to subject themselves to military examination and even life threatening delays at check points. In the Danish debate it's not unheard of to describe the situation in the West Bank as apartheid-like conditions.
Second Intifida. The entire middle east is a tangled net of cause and effect. The lives of Palestinians in the western bank used to be a LOT better before the second Intifada happened. they could cross the borders to Israel rather easily, and many of them worked in Israel.
And yet, even before the Second Intifada, while life was better, there was still no state and the settlements continued to grow. Peace and moderation might get them better conditions, but they still don't end the occupation.

Even before the Intifada, they refused to give up the right of return or recognize Israel for what it is. They have been given multiple chances to get their freedom, if they agree to drop these demands. They refused them all. One cannot expect Israel to give freedom to a neighboring nation that would rise with the basic notion that Israel is not legitimate, that Jerusalem (which Israel considers to be it's capital) does not belong to Israel, and that their citizens should have a right to return and claim many of the territories at the very heart of Israel. The fault for the continued occupation is partly on the Palestinians, too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it has nothing to do with the Palestinians not wanting to agree to their being ethnically cleansed by a theocracy.

The Exchange

Krensky wrote:
Because it has nothing to do with the Palestinians not wanting to agree to their being ethnically cleansed by a theocracy.

It doesn't have much to do with that, no.

First, because it's not an ethnic cleansing. There are Arabs in Israel and there is no real chance of them being expelled from the country. The Palestinians in the West Bank will not be cleansed from anywhere if they give up a right of return - quite the contrary, all the illegal settlements of Jews in the Western Bank are likely to be expelled. They will have those territories (and many more, if there will be a return to the 67 borders) and their own country to coexist with Israel.

Second, because for Palestinians, the notion of the lands of their ancestors is very important. More important than some Western World idea of ethnic cleansing. They mostly care about getting their lands back. And in the case of Jerusalem it's all about religion.

So, despite my opinions about the racism of Israel, there's no real threat of ethnic cleansing, and that's not the primary concern of Palestinians at all.


Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Because it has nothing to do with the Palestinians not wanting to agree to their being ethnically cleansed by a theocracy.

It doesn't have much to do with that, no.

First, because it's not an ethnic cleansing. There are Arabs in Israel and there is no real chance of them being expelled from the country. The Palestinians in the West Bank will not be cleansed from anywhere if they give up a right of return - quite the contrary, all the illegal settlements of Jews in the Western Bank are likely to be expelled. They will have those territories (and many more, if there will be a return to the 67 borders) and their own country to coexist with Israel.

Second, because for Palestinians, the notion of the lands of their ancestors is very important. More important than some Western World idea of ethnic cleansing. They mostly care about getting their lands back. And in the case of Jerusalem it's all about religion.

So, despite my opinions about the racism of Israel, there's no real threat of ethnic cleansing, and that's not the primary concern of Palestinians at all.

You're far more optimistic about that than I am. I don't think those illegal settlements will be removed. I don't think Israel has any intention of giving up what it's taken of the West Bank, whatever Fatah agrees to. There will always be some reason to delay or deny.

Unless the costs of keeping them grow too high. Which is essentially what happened in Gaza.

BTW do you mean the ones Israel considers illegal or basically all of them, since they're pretty much all illegal under international law? If the first, that's a deal killer right there. There's no viable state under those conditions.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Because it has nothing to do with the Palestinians not wanting to agree to their being ethnically cleansed by a theocracy.

It doesn't have much to do with that, no.

First, because it's not an ethnic cleansing. There are Arabs in Israel and there is no real chance of them being expelled from the country. The Palestinians in the West Bank will not be cleansed from anywhere if they give up a right of return - quite the contrary, all the illegal settlements of Jews in the Western Bank are likely to be expelled. They will have those territories (and many more, if there will be a return to the 67 borders) and their own country to coexist with Israel.

Second, because for Palestinians, the notion of the lands of their ancestors is very important. More important than some Western World idea of ethnic cleansing. They mostly care about getting their lands back. And in the case of Jerusalem it's all about religion.

So, despite my opinions about the racism of Israel, there's no real threat of ethnic cleansing, and that's not the primary concern of Palestinians at all.

You're far more optimistic about that than I am. I don't think those illegal settlements will be removed. I don't think Israel has any intention of giving up what it's taken of the West Bank, whatever Fatah agrees to. There will always be some reason to delay or deny.

Unless the costs of keeping them grow too high. Which is essentially what happened in Gaza.

BTW do you mean the ones Israel considers illegal or basically all of them, since they're pretty much all illegal under international law? If the first, that's a deal killer right there. There's no viable state under those conditions.

Most peace talks revolve around a return to the '67 borders or some revised version of them that would be accepted by both sides, so in that vain I'm referring to all of the settlements, not just those that are illegal in Israel as well as everywhere else.

And about your suspicion that Israel won't remove the illegal settlement - maybe so, maybe not. Personally I think that the settlers themselves would return to Israel on their own, given that none of them even know Arabic and they would have no chance to integrate into any Palestinian society. Staying means that even if they won't get lynched right away (a very real possibility), all the privileges they used to have at the expense of Palestinians would disappear. Many of them could be tried and sent to jail for various crimes. Even if they don't, their life style would degrade dramatically.
Any sane agreement would include the removal of those settlements. If you don't believe that Israel is capable of sanity... well, that's an opinion, but not one that I can respect very much.

601 to 650 of 1,056 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.