Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

:lol:

I wonder how many who voted for him are sitting next to their laptops typing "war crimes" now.
The UK parliament voted 412 to 149 in favor of the war, which means neither of the only two electable parties really came out of it looking particularly good.

So even if he's despised for that, there wasn't much people could electorally do about it.
 
GAZA, ISRAEL AND 'HUMAN SHIELDS'

What does it mean to use human shields? Employed by the Germans and Japanese in the second word war, the tactic is premised on an underlying trust in your enemy's humanity. It appeals to the compassion and mercy of the combatant that they not slaughter the innocent in order to avenge their target. The 'shield' is not the human bodies surrounding the 'guilty' party, the shield is the clemency that mankind instinctively affords the innocent. The shield evaporates only when confronted by an enemy who is not merely a fellow solder locked in a power battle, but a psychopath unconcerned with the pain of others. Such is the case with the Hamas. They are faced with an enemy who is willing to obliterate pregnant women, babies, kids, handicapped people, schools and crowded hospitals in order to smash their target. The Israelis repeatedly demonstrate a pathological disregard for any life that is not a Jewish life, and it is for this reason alone, that the Hamas are utterly incapable of ever using 'human shields.'

However, Netanyahu, pro Israeli media and Zionist supporters can't resist endlessly recycling their trope that the Hamas use civilians to guard their rockets. They are clearly flummoxed as to why this assertion does nothing to quell the snowballing international outrage at the massacres they are committing. Their argument attempts to plant in our minds the notion that the Hamas actively invite the Israeli military to slaughter and maim innocents and, in doing so, prove that their savagery deserves to be annihilated. Paradoxically therefore, according to the twisted logic of Zionists, the more innocent Palestinians that die, the worse the Palestinians are. As a collective they are guilty of being innocent.

But this propaganda ploy doesn't work. Not only does it not work, it boomerangs completely. Every time a Zionist apologist repeats their 'human shield' accusations they merely advertise their own deficit of basic humanity. They tell us 'the Hamas think we have empathy for our fellow human beings, but if you look at the casualty figures, you'll see how mistaken they are.'

The other issues at play here are the rights of the Palestinians to defend themselves and the pragmatics of warfare in a refugee camp. Israel is extremely fond of telling the world that they have the right to defend themselves. They enjoy a nuclear arsenal, cutting edge American weaponry and the formidable Iron Dome technology. Yet, although Israel constantly brags about its own egalitarian credentials, for some reason Israel refuses to grant the Palestinian people this same intrinsic right to defense that it demands for itself. Palestinians are not allowed to protect themselves. They are not allowed to fight. Instead we are invited to imagine that it is somehow acceptable for the Palestinians to have no weaponry whatsoever, no army, no solders, no rights. We are lead to believe that the only way for Palestinians to prove their integrity, is to lie down like lambs and quietly live out the unspeakably miserable lives of squalor, poverty and despair that Israel has designed for them. In short, Israel wishes the Palestinians were suicidal but, inconveniently, they keep proving to us that they are not.

Obviously asking a people to passively embrace their own ethnic cleansing is implausible. One would hope that the Jews, more than anyone, might be capable of grasping such a fundamental truth - but sadly not. Given then, that the people of Gaza, like any other human beings, have right to defense, where exactly should they store their weapons? In the rolling valleys and tumbling hills of Haraat al-Daraj? Amid the fauna-filled acres of Shuja'iyya? Gaza is home to approximately 1.8 million people, it is 25 miles long by 5 to 7 miles wide and sealed by both an Egyptian and Israeli blockade. It is the most crowded open air prison on earth. The only place to feasibly store weapons is inevitably in the proximity of the people forced to live there cheek by jowl. Israel has now ordered some 43% of the territory to be evacuated. But where to? The Kafka-esque request to insist people go, knowing there is nowhere to go to, is clearly there to benefit Israeli PR, not save lives. And it doesn't fool anyone. There are currently hundreds of thousands of displaced. The schools that have opened to receive those fleeing are already overflowing and Palestinians that endured the bombings of schools during Operation cast Lead, know that even a so called 'refuge' can not guarantee safety. Lets be clear: the only people putting the Palestinians in danger are the Israelis. The only people killing innocent people are the Israelis. The Hamas may not be the party that the chattering classes of the West would want to govern them, but they are democratically elected and they have as much right as Israel, Britain, France and America to fight against an oppressor that quite literally wants to 'wipe them off the map.' They face a tough job, but one thing they can't do is use human shields against an enemy that doesn't recognise them as human.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gaz...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
 
The profound hypocrisy of those who rage against Israel and stand silent in the face of true genocide, murder and rape and destruction on a astonishing scale in the adjoining Arab countries can only be understood, if at their core we see this as a fundamental attack not just on Israel but on Jews as a whole. 



This media blitz, fostered and egged on by Hamas (and others) does exactly what is intended: It creates a myth and fosters a narrative. This narrative is a 21st century version of the Protocols of Zion, geared, manipulated and magnified by all the tools of social and established media, wittingly or unwittingly. 


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4549539,00.html
 
The profound hypocrisy of those who rage against Israel and stand silent in the face of true genocide, murder and rape and destruction on a astonishing scale in the adjoining Arab countries can only be understood, if at their core we see this as a fundamental attack not just on Israel but on Jews as a whole. 



This media blitz, fostered and egged on by Hamas (and others) does exactly what is intended: It creates a myth and fosters a narrative. This narrative is a 21st century version of the Protocols of Zion, geared, manipulated and magnified by all the tools of social and established media, wittingly or unwittingly. 


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4549539,00.html
Interesting theory.

Why would the media want to take the side of these adjoining Arab countries?

At least in the States, people just don't care (generally, unless we're at war in that particular place at that particular time) what is happening in what we call the third world. We won't read those articles.

But we will read a story about Israel for whatever reason. The media certainly aren't the gatekeepers of ethics or morality.
 
The UK parliament voted 412 to 149 in favor of the war, which means neither of the only two electable parties really came out of it looking particularly good.

So even if he's despised for that, there wasn't much people could electorally do about it.

Boycott the elections? I'm not talking about Boycotting British goods obviously which would be impractical, but protesting the war crimes by not voting would have been a firm stance by the British public.

What was (and still is) the civilian death toll in Iraq again?
 
Big bald headlines wont change the truth, it's just news and there is a huge deference between news and truth.

You bet your arse they won't. You may recall the story of 4 year old Mohammed Sadallah. Truth eventually filtered out on that one too.
 
I really can't tell, watching news in the US.

Accuracy much less truth in news in the US is a relic of the past while Israel remains the most repugnant society on the planet and their continuing genocide of the Palestinian people is just as hypocritical

We're at a real low point in the history of mankind, evil is carrying on with impunity. Of course, history has a way of course correcting too
 
Accuracy much less truth in news in the US is a relic of the past while Israel remains the most repugnant society on the planet and their continuing genocide of the Palestinian people is just as hypocritical

We're at a real low point in the history of mankind, evil is carrying on with impunity. Of course, history has a way of course correcting too

Welcome back. We missed your insight.
 
GAZA, ISRAEL AND 'HUMAN SHIELDS'

What does it mean to use human shields? Employed by the Germans and Japanese in the second word war, the tactic is premised on an underlying trust in your enemy's humanity. It appeals to the compassion and mercy of the combatant that they not slaughter the innocent in order to avenge their target. The 'shield' is not the human bodies surrounding the 'guilty' party, the shield is the clemency that mankind instinctively affords the innocent. The shield evaporates only when confronted by an enemy who is not merely a fellow solder locked in a power battle, but a psychopath unconcerned with the pain of others. Such is the case with the Hamas. They are faced with an enemy who is willing to obliterate pregnant women, babies, kids, handicapped people, schools and crowded hospitals in order to smash their target. The Israelis repeatedly demonstrate a pathological disregard for any life that is not a Jewish life, and it is for this reason alone, that the Hamas are utterly incapable of ever using 'human shields.'

However, Netanyahu, pro Israeli media and Zionist supporters can't resist endlessly recycling their trope that the Hamas use civilians to guard their rockets. They are clearly flummoxed as to why this assertion does nothing to quell the snowballing international outrage at the massacres they are committing. Their argument attempts to plant in our minds the notion that the Hamas actively invite the Israeli military to slaughter and maim innocents and, in doing so, prove that their savagery deserves to be annihilated. Paradoxically therefore, according to the twisted logic of Zionists, the more innocent Palestinians that die, the worse the Palestinians are. As a collective they are guilty of being innocent.

But this propaganda ploy doesn't work. Not only does it not work, it boomerangs completely. Every time a Zionist apologist repeats their 'human shield' accusations they merely advertise their own deficit of basic humanity. They tell us 'the Hamas think we have empathy for our fellow human beings, but if you look at the casualty figures, you'll see how mistaken they are.'

That's a ridiculous piece, essentially saying that if you use a human shield and the enemy decides to attack anyway, then it's not a human shield and you've done nothing wrong. If anything knowing your enemy has no regard for your citizens makes putting them deliberately in harms way even more abhorrent than using them as a shield in the genuine hope your enemy won't attack.
 
Welcome back. We missed your insight.

Just as your lack of perspective or humanity is well established

You are simply no different
tumblr_mcy5osuW7u1ryjwc0.gif
 
That's a ridiculous piece, essentially saying that if you use a human shield and the enemy decides to attack anyway, then it's not a human shield and you've done nothing wrong. If anything knowing your enemy has no regard for your citizens makes putting them deliberately in harms way even more abhorrent than using them as a shield in the genuine hope your enemy won't attack.

I think they were suggesting that Hamas isn't trying to use human shields, and rather suggesting that no matter where Hamas might store munitions it's going to be near civilians as Gaza is densely populated.
 
Accuracy much less truth in news in the US is a relic of the past while Israel remains the most repugnant society on the planet and their continuing genocide of the Palestinian people is just as hypocritical

We're at a real low point in the history of mankind, evil is carrying on with impunity. Of course, history has a way of course correcting too
I don't know, history is pretty ugly.
 
I think they were suggesting that Hamas isn't trying to use human shields, and rather suggesting that no matter where Hamas might store munitions it's going to be near civilians as Gaza is densely populated.

I think on that count it's probably a bit of both to be honest, whilst there is certainly a lack of space, at the same time Hamas have quite clearly deliberately used certain locations that should have been used under no circumstance to carry out their campaign.

The problem Israel of course have trying to justify this is there are far too many situations alongside hitting legitimate targets, where they have either deliberately taken civilians out or have people serving in their army who are totally inept. Either way they need to sort their shit out and do much much more to protect the civilians in Gaza.

There just seems to be too much of a culture of just blaming one side or the other, especially on Facebook where people just get sucked in by child death counts whilst having no idea what the whole thing is about. (That's not aimed at you, just sort of rambling now).
 
I think on that count it's probably a bit of both to be honest, whilst there is certainly a lack of space, at the same time Hamas have quite clearly deliberately used certain locations that should have been used under no circumstance to carry out their campaign.

The problem Israel of course have trying to justify this is there are far too many situations alongside hitting legitimate targets, where they have either deliberately taken civilians out or have people serving in their army who are totally inept. Either way they need to sort their shit out and do much much more to protect the civilians in Gaza.

There just seems to be too much of a culture of just blaming one side or the other, especially on Facebook where people just get sucked in by child death counts whilst having no idea what the whole thing is about. (That's not aimed at you, just sort of rambling now).

With such a monumental advantage in arms and technology you'd think they could take their time and do it 'right', aka much fewer civilian casualties.

Personally I think you have to empower the Palestinians if you're Israel, but I'm certainly an amateur when it comes to this issue and I try to show as much respect to both sides as possible. It's a Catch-22 situation at this point.
 
I think they were suggesting that Hamas isn't trying to use human shields, and rather suggesting that no matter where Hamas might store munitions it's going to be near civilians as Gaza is densely populated.

The question as to why Hamas should even need to have rockets in the first place hasn't occurred to anyone?
 
The question as to why Hamas should even need to have rockets in the first place hasn't occurred to anyone?

The question should be asked is what drove the people to supporting Hamas at elections. The process of establishing a Palestinian state is too slow.
 
May I ask if anyone here refuses to recognise Israel as a valid state, and if so, do you think that by believing this you are (by definition) an anti-semite?
 
May I ask if anyone here refuses to recognise Israel as a valid state, and if so, do you think that by believing this you are (by definition) an anti-semite?

I don't think you can link those two, to be honest. I'm in favour of there being an Israeli state but the way it was created and the way the west carved the land up is a fairly easy thing to take issue with, if you wanted to. I'm not sure you can label anyone who questions the validity of Israel anti-Semitic purely off the back of that.
 
The question as to why Hamas should even need to have rockets in the first place hasn't occurred to anyone?

Of course it has.

It's not like the Palestinians came from Europe to kick the Israelis off the land they'd been on for hundreds of years.

Of course battles over territory are rife in human history, and it's a recent concept that such a thing is evil (usually it's just evil when your enemy does it, but not when you do it).

Again I'm an amateur on this issue so I won't pretend to know all the answers.
 
I don't think you can link those two, to be honest. I'm in favour of there being an Israeli state but the way it was created and the way the west carved the land up is a fairly easy thing to take issue with, if you wanted to. I'm not sure you can label anyone who questions the validity of Israel anti-Semitic purely off the back of that.

If you really buy the line that Israel was the result of an unfair carve-up, then yes, it is easy to take issue with.

Problem is that it wasn't.

Israel was legally established via the UN, the wording included the 'UNIQUE HISTORICAL RIGHTS' of the Jews; if this is not accounted as sovereign state holder the UN and all laws become meaningless. No such status was given to anyone else. If one invents ways to negate Israel's rights - how about the 22 Islamic states which were not established via the UN, which never existed before and its disregarding of a host of non-muslims in Arabia - like the Copts, Kurds and over a million Jews living there for centuries?

Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history, nor robbed the historical names of other peoples (Philistine/Palestine) or dumped mosques in the known holy sites of other peoples. Israel is facing genocidal demands which are based on 100% known false notions. The triple-hank job for the palestine Arabs is a sham - its only the 'Jewish problem' raising its head again.

Ask yourself this - why there was no calls for a Palestinian State when Jordan occupied the so called West Bank after the 1948 war?
 
I don't think you can link those two, to be honest. I'm in favour of there being an Israeli state but the way it was created and the way the west carved the land up is a fairly easy thing to take issue with, if you wanted to. I'm not sure you can label anyone who questions the validity of Israel anti-Semitic purely off the back of that.

I feel being called anti-Semetic is a method Israel have used to stop people questioning the validity, or even anything Israel do. The fact you can be arrested for this too, I feel that any grumbling towards this can be labeled as 'anti-Semetic'. A bit like being an enemy of the state in the Communist Stalin era.
 
If you really buy the line that Israel was the result of an unfair carve-up, then yes, it is easy to take issue with.

The fairness of the carve up as viewed by various groups isn't really relevant. The land was divided between two groups of people artificially. However you look at it there is reason to be aggrieved. Like I say I'm all for an Israeli state, that doesn't mean I have to be blind to any cause for grievance from other parties, does it?
 
I feel being called anti-Semetic is a method Israel have used to stop people questioning the validity, or even anything Israel do. The fact you can be arrested for this too, I feel that any grumbling towards this can be labeled as 'anti-Semetic'. A bit like being an enemy of the state in the Communist Stalin era.

Yes. Many Jewish people agree with this.

Joel Beinin in “Silencing Critics Not Way to Middle East Peace,” an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, discussed the campaign to silence critics of Israeli policy. Beinin, a professor of history at Stanford University, is active in Jewish Voice for Peace and an editor of Jewish Peace News.3 Here is what he had to say about the campaign to attack critics of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians:

Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist lobby knows it cannot win based on facts. An honest discussion can only lead to one conclusion: The status quo in which Israel declares it alone has rights and intends to impose its will on the weaker Palestinians, stripping them permanently of their land, resources and rights, cannot lead to a lasting peace. We need an open debate and the freedom to discuss uncomfortable facts and explore the full range of policy options. Only then can we adopt a foreign policy that serves American interests and one that could actually bring a just peace to Palestinians and Israelis
 
If you really buy the line that Israel was the result of an unfair carve-up, then yes, it is easy to take issue with.

Problem is that it wasn't.

Israel was legally established via the UN, the wording included the 'UNIQUE HISTORICAL RIGHTS' of the Jews; if this is not accounted as sovereign state holder the UN and all laws become meaningless. No such status was given to anyone else. If one invents ways to negate Israel's rights - how about the 22 Islamic states which were not established via the UN, which never existed before and its disregarding of a host of non-muslims in Arabia - like the Copts, Kurds and over a million Jews living there for centuries?

Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history, nor robbed the historical names of other peoples (Philistine/Palestine) or dumped mosques in the known holy sites of other peoples. Israel is facing genocidal demands which are based on 100% known false notions. The triple-hank job for the palestine Arabs is a sham - its only the 'Jewish problem' raising its head again.

Ask yourself this - why there was no calls for a Palestinian State when Jordan occupied the so called West Bank after the 1948 war?

Kurds are non-Muslims?
 
I feel being called anti-Semetic is a method Israel have used to stop people questioning the validity, or even anything Israel do. The fact you can be arrested for this too, I feel that any grumbling towards this can be labeled as 'anti-Semetic'. A bit like being an enemy of the state in the Communist Stalin era.

To be fair, Israelis tend to use the word a little too much, towards different types of criticism or whatever. Having said that, anti semitism certainly exists and sometimes it's hard to know what's behind one's opinions and declarations.
 
The question as to why Hamas should even need to have rockets in the first place hasn't occurred to anyone?

Part of Hamas need rockets, because they still think they can destroy Israel. Other parts of Hamas and non-Hamas Palestinians need rockets, because it is the only way they can inflict some minor payback to Israel for what they perceive an unjust occupation, unjust siege and the unjust killing of their relatives. But most importantly, Hamas and any Palestinians need rockets as a bargaining chip. Palestinians do not have much to offer to Israel other than peace. But they are only able to offer peace if they can inflict war on Israel.

Imagine if Hamas would give away all of their rockets. What would happen? Without rockets Palestinians cannot give Israel a choice between war and peace. And without war the rest of the world stops caring about the conflict and won't pressure Israel into negotiations. So if international interest and pressure stops and if Palestinians were not able to attack Israel why would Israel seek compromise? Why would any prime minister of Israel give up any land, give up any settlement or make any other concession to the much hated Arabs when he cannot get anything in return from Palestinians? He would only alienate voters with anti-arab resentments, when instead he could buy votes by building new settlements. That is not even speculation. If peaceful behaviour was the key to a better sovereign future for Palestinians and if Israel was really willing to make peace with Palestinians if only they stopped the violence, then you would think that Israel would go out of their way to give Abbas intangible and tangible results for his rather peaceful approach as opposed to the bombing inflicted on Gaza. Do you think that is happening?

For Palestinians it appears that if they do not fight, they won't get anywhere. They won't get a viable state and they will have to watch as Israel builds more and more settlements further compromising any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. If they do fight, a lot of them die, but at least the rest of the world is forced to deal with the subject and maybe one day they can inflict enough damage on Israel (again) to force Israel into a reasonable interest in peace.

Of course, you still have large parts of Hamas who won't make any peace at all and it's understandable that Israel is afraid of making compromises and ending up without peace in the end. So any deal will have to involve enforceable guarantees to Israel. Not sure if any countries are willing to send troops that might end up in a fight with Islamist militants in Gaza. It's complicated, but do you think Israel is doing a great job to support the peaceful approach of Abbas?
 
GAZA, ISRAEL AND 'HUMAN SHIELDS'

What does it mean to use human shields? Employed by the Germans and Japanese in the second word war, the tactic is premised on an underlying trust in your enemy's humanity. It appeals to the compassion and mercy of the combatant that they not slaughter the innocent in order to avenge their target. The 'shield' is not the human bodies surrounding the 'guilty' party, the shield is the clemency that mankind instinctively affords the innocent. The shield evaporates only when confronted by an enemy who is not merely a fellow solder locked in a power battle, but a psychopath unconcerned with the pain of others. Such is the case with the Hamas. They are faced with an enemy who is willing to obliterate pregnant women, babies, kids, handicapped people, schools and crowded hospitals in order to smash their target. The Israelis repeatedly demonstrate a pathological disregard for any life that is not a Jewish life, and it is for this reason alone, that the Hamas are utterly incapable of ever using 'human shields.'

However, Netanyahu, pro Israeli media and Zionist supporters can't resist endlessly recycling their trope that the Hamas use civilians to guard their rockets. They are clearly flummoxed as to why this assertion does nothing to quell the snowballing international outrage at the massacres they are committing. Their argument attempts to plant in our minds the notion that the Hamas actively invite the Israeli military to slaughter and maim innocents and, in doing so, prove that their savagery deserves to be annihilated. Paradoxically therefore, according to the twisted logic of Zionists, the more innocent Palestinians that die, the worse the Palestinians are. As a collective they are guilty of being innocent.

But this propaganda ploy doesn't work. Not only does it not work, it boomerangs completely. Every time a Zionist apologist repeats their 'human shield' accusations they merely advertise their own deficit of basic humanity. They tell us 'the Hamas think we have empathy for our fellow human beings, but if you look at the casualty figures, you'll see how mistaken they are.'

The other issues at play here are the rights of the Palestinians to defend themselves and the pragmatics of warfare in a refugee camp. Israel is extremely fond of telling the world that they have the right to defend themselves. They enjoy a nuclear arsenal, cutting edge American weaponry and the formidable Iron Dome technology. Yet, although Israel constantly brags about its own egalitarian credentials, for some reason Israel refuses to grant the Palestinian people this same intrinsic right to defense that it demands for itself. Palestinians are not allowed to protect themselves. They are not allowed to fight. Instead we are invited to imagine that it is somehow acceptable for the Palestinians to have no weaponry whatsoever, no army, no solders, no rights. We are lead to believe that the only way for Palestinians to prove their integrity, is to lie down like lambs and quietly live out the unspeakably miserable lives of squalor, poverty and despair that Israel has designed for them. In short, Israel wishes the Palestinians were suicidal but, inconveniently, they keep proving to us that they are not.

Obviously asking a people to passively embrace their own ethnic cleansing is implausible. One would hope that the Jews, more than anyone, might be capable of grasping such a fundamental truth - but sadly not. Given then, that the people of Gaza, like any other human beings, have right to defense, where exactly should they store their weapons? In the rolling valleys and tumbling hills of Haraat al-Daraj? Amid the fauna-filled acres of Shuja'iyya? Gaza is home to approximately 1.8 million people, it is 25 miles long by 5 to 7 miles wide and sealed by both an Egyptian and Israeli blockade. It is the most crowded open air prison on earth. The only place to feasibly store weapons is inevitably in the proximity of the people forced to live there cheek by jowl. Israel has now ordered some 43% of the territory to be evacuated. But where to? The Kafka-esque request to insist people go, knowing there is nowhere to go to, is clearly there to benefit Israeli PR, not save lives. And it doesn't fool anyone. There are currently hundreds of thousands of displaced. The schools that have opened to receive those fleeing are already overflowing and Palestinians that endured the bombings of schools during Operation cast Lead, know that even a so called 'refuge' can not guarantee safety. Lets be clear: the only people putting the Palestinians in danger are the Israelis. The only people killing innocent people are the Israelis. The Hamas may not be the party that the chattering classes of the West would want to govern them, but they are democratically elected and they have as much right as Israel, Britain, France and America to fight against an oppressor that quite literally wants to 'wipe them off the map.' They face a tough job, but one thing they can't do is use human shields against an enemy that doesn't recognise them as human.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gaz...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
It's funny how Israelis only talk of Palestinians as humans when they refer to them as human shields...
 
If you really buy the line that Israel was the result of an unfair carve-up, then yes, it is easy to take issue with.

Problem is that it wasn't.

Israel was legally established via the UN, the wording included the 'UNIQUE HISTORICAL RIGHTS' of the Jews; if this is not accounted as sovereign state holder the UN and all laws become meaningless. No such status was given to anyone else. If one invents ways to negate Israel's rights - how about the 22 Islamic states which were not established via the UN, which never existed before and its disregarding of a host of non-muslims in Arabia - like the Copts, Kurds and over a million Jews living there for centuries?

Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history, nor robbed the historical names of other peoples (Philistine/Palestine) or dumped mosques in the known holy sites of other peoples. Israel is facing genocidal demands which are based on 100% known false notions. The triple-hank job for the palestine Arabs is a sham - its only the 'Jewish problem' raising its head again.

Ask yourself this - why there was no calls for a Palestinian State when Jordan occupied the so called West Bank after the 1948 war?

I don't think the bolded is fair, laws can change and it doesn't negate all the other laws of a governing body.
 
May I ask if anyone here refuses to recognise Israel as a valid state, and if so, do you think that by believing this you are (by definition) an anti-semite?

Being opposed to the state of Israel or their actions doesn't automatically make you anti-Semitic. There are surely valid reasons for holding those opinions that have nothing to do with any unfair bias? In fact I'd imagine it's very frustrating to be accused of anti-semitism when you're trying to make reasonable and logical arguments that aren't based in any sort of hatred.

Anyway, arguing that Israel isn't a valid state is a bit pointless at this stage, isn't it? From any pragmatic point of view that's a battle that was lost a long time ago.
 
Part of Hamas need rockets, because they still think they can destroy Israel. Other parts of Hamas and non-Hamas Palestinians need rockets, because it is the only way they can inflict some minor payback to Israel for what they perceive an unjust occupation, unjust siege and the unjust killing of their relatives. But most importantly, Hamas and any Palestinians need rockets as a bargaining chip. Palestinians do not have much to offer to Israel other than peace. But they are only able to offer peace if they can inflict war on Israel.

Imagine if Hamas would give away all of their rockets. What would happen? Without rockets Palestinians cannot give Israel a choice between war and peace. And without war the rest of the world stops caring about the conflict and won't pressure Israel into negotiations. So if international interest and pressure stops and if Palestinians were not able to attack Israel why would Israel seek compromise? Why would any prime minister of Israel give up any land, give up any settlement or make any other concession to the much hated Arabs when he cannot get anything in return from Palestinians? He would only alienate voters with anti-arab resentments, when instead he could buy votes by building new settlements. That is not even speculation. If peaceful behaviour was the key to a better sovereign future for Palestinians and if Israel was really willing to make peace with Palestinians if only they stopped the violence, then you would think that Israel would go out of their way to give Abbas intangible and tangible results for his rather peaceful approach as opposed to the bombing inflicted on Gaza. Do you think that is happening?

For Palestinians it appears that if they do not fight, they won't get anywhere. They won't get a viable state and they will have to watch as Israel builds more and more settlements further compromising any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. If they do fight, a lot of them die, but at least the rest of the world is forced to deal with the subject and maybe one day they can inflict enough damage on Israel (again) to force Israel into a reasonable interest in peace.

Of course, you still have large parts of Hamas who won't make any peace at all and it's understandable that Israel is afraid of making compromises and ending up without peace in the end. So any deal will have to involve enforceable guarantees to Israel. Not sure if any countries are willing to send troops that might end up in a fight with Islamist militants in Gaza. It's complicated, but do you think Israel is doing a great job to support the peaceful approach of Abbas?

Not sure why you're so full of praise about Abbas, to me he's not worse but not much better than the Hamas. Not someone who desires peace either. With him every negotiation and any talks with Israel are contingent on this and that. It's ridiculous. Also, probably the only reason why WB is not firing rockets against Israel is because its territory is controlled by the Israeli army. Unlike the Gazan border to Egypt, through which weapons are smuggled into Gaza.

You talk about the building of settlements. How's that relevant to Gaza? Israel pulled out a decade ago and since then there were literally no attempts whatsoever to even try employing a NON-VIOLENT strategy. It was clear from day one that Israel's pull-out will only make it even more difficult in the long run- as we can see from the current example, the Hamas building an underground world and going through cycles of arming themselves, attacking Israel, being bombed to oblivion, and then the same Spiel over again.

I'm pretty sure Israel's interest is to make peace with all their neighbouring countries. Egypt and Jordan being a prime example. Lebanon possibly ages ago if it weren't for the Hizbollah. Being a secular democracy I cant really see Israel giving two shits about much else but taking care of their own business - tourism, economy, education, technology, prosperity, bla bla etc. The Hamas and their disciples, however, are still living in a weird, dark world, propagating this surreal mindset in which the entire purpose of existence is not about creating conditions that would create some sort of economical progress for themselves, for example, but only bring harm and destruction to the Jews. (And yes, this is a war not against Israel, but first and foremost against Jews, imo).

So yeah, all in all a bit of a perverted logic. Day 18 and they're still firing rockets. Fantastic!
 
Being opposed to the state of Israel or their actions doesn't automatically make you anti-Semitic. There are surely valid reasons for holding those opinions that have nothing to do with any unfair bias? In fact I'd imagine it's very frustrating to be accused of anti-semitism when you're trying to make reasonable and logical arguments that aren't based in any sort of hatred.

Anyway, arguing that Israel isn't a valid state is a bit pointless at this stage, isn't it? From any pragmatic point of view that's a battle that was lost a long time ago.

You sound so sad :(