Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

IDF forces kill terrorists infiltrating into Israel
Residents of Erez, Nir Am asked to remain in their homes; fighting in eastern Gaza continues, 10 terrorists killed.

Yoav Zitun

Latest Update: 07.21.14, 08:54 / Israel News
Terrorists infiltrated into Israeli territory Monday morning between two kibbutzim, Erez and Nir Am. After two hours, in which residents were directed to remain indoors and lock their doors – roads were even closed to traffic south of Ashkelon – IDF forces killed the terrorists.
 
How would you define Zionism then TwoSheds? Imo, the line between Zionism and Judaism is extremely blurred just as the line of anti-semitism and anti-zionism is blurred.

Zionism is the right of Jews for self-determination. Opposing Zionism is, well, singling out the Jews as a people who are not entitled to that right.
 
Zionism is the right of Jews for self-determination. Opposing Zionism is, well, sinling out the Jews as a people who are not entitled to that right.
Exactly. Zionism is a large part of Judaism. For example the Haggadah has a whole chapter devoted on returning to Jerusalem.

If anything, anti-zionism is the modern day anti-semitism by and large.
 
Actually no, the issue arrises because the 'right' of the Jews for self-determination (and actually as we can see in world politics, no people or race is entitled to it as a right) came at the expense of the 'right' of another people for self-determination, a right they're still denied in every way over 60 years later.

Do you genuinely believe, deep down, that there would be anywhere near as much aggravation, if any at all, if a) the Jews had already been living there rather than mass immigrating in or b) the land had been empty? That people would oppose Zionism in those circumstances? If the state hadn't been built on ethnic cleansing and subsequently occupation?
 
And attacking Jewish cemeteries and Synagogues isn't 'pretty much' anti-semitism, its barn door anti-semitism and absolutely despicable.
 
Actually no, the issue arrises because the 'right' of the Jews for self-determination (and actually as we can see in world politics, no people or race is entitled to it as a right) came at the expense of the 'right' of another people for self-determination, a right they're still denied in every way over 60 years later.

Do you genuinely believe, deep down, that there would be anywhere near as much aggravation, if any at all, if a) the Jews had already been living there rather than mass immigrating in or b) the land had been empty? That people would oppose Zionism in those circumstances? If the state hadn't been built on ethnic cleansing and subsequently occupation?

In reference to both of your points, the Jews have been living in the Levant for over thousands of years. The land was mostly empty, barring the few major cities.

Yes I do, because most people either overtly or covertly despise the fact that the Jews can defend themselves and have their own country. This as I alluded to in an earlier post, often masks itself as Anti-Zionism
 
Actually no, the issue arrises because the 'right' of the Jews for self-determination (and actually as we can see in world politics, no people or race is entitled to it as a right) came at the expense of the 'right' of another people for self-determination, a right they're still denied in every way over 60 years later.

Do you genuinely believe, deep down, that there would be anywhere near as much aggravation, if any at all, if a) the Jews had already been living there rather than mass immigrating in or b) the land had been empty? That people would oppose Zionism in those circumstances? If the state hadn't been built on ethnic cleansing and subsequently occupation?

Feck off with the ethnic cleansing claims. 20% of our population are Arabs. More Jews were expelled from Arab states than the other way round.

There are no ifs and buts when the right of Jews for self-determination in their homeland is concerned. And when those who deny the Jews their right "criticize Zionism" they should not hide behind calls for proportionality. They are angry and frustrated at Israel's existence and not the death of innocent Arabs. They don't give a feck about those as is evident from the Syria thread.
 
It is by far the largest reason. Of course any valid criticisms of Israel and it's own policies are fine as long as you can back them up with facts and figures.

Physically or verbally attacking Jewish institutions, such as synagogues or cemeteries (e.g. in Paris), as a means of protesting against Israel pretty much is.

Another thing that irks me personally is the rank hypocrisy of people being so quick to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon when there are atrocities going on in places close to Israel, like the Sudan and Syria..... One thing I'm fairly certain about through my own experiences on this subject is that if Israel wasn't a "Jewish" state would anyone give a feck like they do now? Probably not...

I come from a part of world who don't give two fcks about Jews. We have no issues with Jews or Muslims at all. I still think what's going on including Zionism is absolutely ruthless and unfair. Just because holy texts entitle you to a land doesn't mean you are entitled to it. By that rule, the Hindutva campaign currently in India would have the whole country Hindu. What does that make me? A Hindu Hater?

And to say that because things are going on Sudan and Syria excuses Israel of its own conduct or attention is absolutely hogwash. No doubt those stories are as important, but so is this one as well. The reason why this story gets coverage, at least in our part of the world, is because its an invasion, by one State into another, unlike the earlier stories where its a domestic issue. No doubt lots of it gets sensationalized but its relevant. For me, its forms a narrative of how political and economic power can translate into an unrestricted use of force and basically unsanctioned massacre of people.
 
I come from a part of world who don't give two fcks about Jews. We have no issues with Jews or Muslims at all. I still think what's going on including Zionism is absolutely ruthless and unfair. Just because holy texts entitle you to a land doesn't mean you are entitled to it. By that rule, the Hindutva campaign currently in India would have the whole country Hindu. What does that make me? A Hindu Hater?

And to say that because things are going on Sudan and Syria excuses Israel of its own conduct or attention is absolutely hogwash. No doubt those stories are as important, but so is this one as well. The reason why this story gets coverage, at least in our part of the world, is because its an invasion, by one State into another, unlike the earlier stories where its a domestic issue. No doubt lots of it gets sensationalized but its relevant. For me, its forms a narrative of how political and economic power can translate into an unrestricted use of force and basically unsanctioned massacre of people.

So your saying genocide is a "domestic issue"....? I merely cited those two countries as an example of how people focus their energies on Israel when there are far more worse things happening elsewhere in the world. Such is people's somewhat strange fixation on Israel and it's actions.
 
Feck off with the ethnic cleansing claims. 20% of our population are Arabs. More Jews were expelled from Arab states than the other way round.

There are no ifs and buts when the right of Jews for self-determination in their homeland is concerned. And when those who deny the Jews their right "criticize Zionism" they should not hide behind calls for proportionality. They are angry and frustrated at Israel's existence and not the death of innocent Arabs. They don't give a feck about those as is evident from the Syria thread.

Did Israel or did they not ethnically cleanse Palestinians in 1948? And the word 'Arab' is such a pointless word, it is 250 million people that is linked by language (just about) and some aspects of religion.

And how the hell can you tell me to feck off with ethnic cleansing claims and then a mere 2 sentences later, admit that 'Arabs' were expelled and try to turn it into a pissing content about who expelled more.

You have completely ignored my points and carried on with the usual emotional crap about Syria. Of course for some people this is about anti-semitism and that is appalling. What is going on in Syria is also appalling and should be covered in a large part as well (though I think partly the reason for that is because of fatigue, it has been going on unabetted for 3 years now, whereas this has an underlying level of 'calm' and then flares up every few years).

The other major differences include the prominence of both diaspora Jews and Palestinians in Western countries, the fact that Israel enjoys a level of support that Syria or Sudan do not in the Western community and because, unlike Syria and Sudan, Israel claims to be both a democracy and to hold the most moral army in the world.

Unfortunately, your bias clouds your ability to see why someone may be against the apportioning of land by France and Britain to give one population land while taking away land from another population.
 
So your saying genocide is a "domestic issue"....? I merely cited those two countries as an example of how people focus their energies on Israel when there are far more worse things happening elsewhere in the world. Such is people's somewhat strange fixation on Israel and it's actions.

Read..

And to say that because things are going on Sudan and Syria excuses Israel of its own conduct or attention is absolutely hogwash. No doubt those stories are as important, but so is this one as well.
 
In reference to both of your points, the Jews have been living in the Levant for over thousands of years. The land was mostly empty, barring the few major cities.

Yes I do, because most people either overtly or covertly despise the fact that the Jews can defend themselves and have their own country. This as I alluded to in an earlier post, often masks itself as Anti-Zionism

The land wasn't mostly empty in Israel/Palestine, there were over a million inhabitants there by the 1920s and approximately 2 million by 1948, largely due to mass Jewish immigration.

Obviously there were some Jews living in the land that is now Israel Palestine living there at the turn of the century but it was a very small number and was boosted hugely by mass immigration (mostly by European Jews at this time, later by Arab Jews). This is a historical fact.

Ok. If you genuinely believe that most people on the planet would be slobbering with disgust at Israel if the Jews had simply been present already in the land without another population there due to an inbuilt anti-semitism across all of the world's countries, races and religions, I'm not really sure there is any point continuing the discussion to be completely honest.
 
The land wasn't mostly empty in Israel/Palestine, there were over a million inhabitants there by the 1920s and approximately 2 million by 1948, largely due to mass Jewish immigration.

Obviously there were some Jews living in the land that is now Israel Palestine living there at the turn of the century but it was a very small number and was boosted hugely by mass immigration (mostly by European Jews at this time, later by Arab Jews). This is a historical fact.

It is a key historical fact but you seemingly miss a few historical facts as well. The fact that the Jews who did move to Israel were fleeing from persecution and a callous attempt to wipe them out. You also miss the Peel Commission of 1937, where the Palestinians were offered a lion-share of the territory and refused it.

Again the Jews were present in Palestine for 1000s of years.
 
Did Israel or did they not ethnically cleanse Palestinians in 1948? And the word 'Arab' is such a pointless word, it is 250 million people that is linked by language (just about) and some aspects of religion.

Well, they have had something else in common over the last century or so.

And how the hell can you tell me to feck off with ethnic cleansing claims and then a mere 2 sentences later, admit that 'Arabs' were expelled and try to turn it into a pissing content about who expelled more.

Do we really have to go back into the history of the conflict to once again explain what led to the eventual refugee issue? If care for human rights is behind the support the Palestinians get here you would expect 900,000 Jewsih refugees to get the same level of empathy.

You have completely ignored my points and carried on with the usual emotional crap about Syria. Of course for some people this is about anti-semitism and that is appalling. What is going on in Syria is also appalling and should be covered in a large part as well (though I think partly the reason for that is because of fatigue, it has been going on unabetted for 3 years now, whereas this has an underlying level of 'calm' and then flares up every few years).

Thanks very much for that. I bet this has at least something to do with the fact that people don't have that fatigue when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The other major differences include the prominence of both diaspora Jews and Palestinians in Western countries, the fact that Israel enjoys a level of support that Syria or Sudan do not in the Western community and because, unlike Syria and Sudan, Israel claims to be both a democracy and to hold the most moral army in the world.

Is it not? As for the most moral army thing, I don't buy that but do you? If not, is that a good enough reason for singling Israel out for special treatment? I believe our soldiers are no better or worse than those of other Western countries in this respect, and the way we're treated smacks of double standards.

Unfortunately, your bias clouds your ability to see why someone may be against the apportioning of land by France and Britain to give one population land while taking away land from another population.

I am biased, plain and simple. Never tried to argue otherwise. Would you agree that those who deny Israel's right to exist are biased too?

Despite my bias I try to stick to historical facts. The Arabs were allocated the vast majority of the territory of Palestine, which didn't "belong" to any Arab before. How is that taking away land from one population and give it to another?
 
The land wasn't mostly empty in Israel/Palestine, there were over a million inhabitants there by the 1920s and approximately 2 million by 1948, largely due to mass Jewish immigration.

Obviously there were some Jews living in the land that is now Israel Palestine living there at the turn of the century but it was a very small number and was boosted hugely by mass immigration (mostly by European Jews at this time, later by Arab Jews). This is a historical fact.

Ok. If you genuinely believe that most people on the planet would be slobbering with disgust at Israel if the Jews had simply been present already in the land without another population there due to an inbuilt anti-semitism across all of the world's countries, races and religions, I'm not really sure there is any point continuing the discussion to be completely honest.

The "mass immigration" is the return of an expelled people to its homeland. Historic justice.

Again, we've done this a million times here. Fact is that the State of Israel exists and has no intention of going away. I guess the Palestinians don't have an immediate plan of this sort either. How do we not add fuel to the fire? By not de-legitimizing Israel, giving the Palestinians (yet again) a false hope that Israel would be eliminated. Haven't they learned anything from such past false hopes? Haven't you?
 
It is a key historical fact but you seemingly miss a few historical facts as well. The fact that the Jews who did move to Israel were fleeing from persecution and a callous attempt to wipe them out. You also miss the Peel Commission of 1937, where the Palestinians were offered a lion-share of the territory and refused it.

Again the Jews were present in Palestine for 1000s of years.

Why are you refering to this land in its Roman name?
 
Palestine was it's name for quite a while up until 1948.

The Palestinian leadership's logic never fails to amuse me. How dare you exist there brick wall, I'll headbutt you brick wall. Ow my head hurts, how dare you brick wall!?!

False hope. And their "sympathizers" do them disservice.
 
Israel exists because they used terrorist tactics to get statehood. Now they condemn the Palestinians for using such tactics.

They even killed many of their own people with their reckless terrorism. Then many of these terrorists became high ranking Israeli government figures all the way up to Prime Minister.

Why did they have to use such tactics? Simply because they didn't have an army.

Then the international community wonders why the Palestinians see terrorism as they way forward.

Now before anybody jumps down my throat I'm not saying any of this is right.

But till Israel and the international community see this as a political problem there will be no solution. This isn't a conflict that can ever be solved militarily.
 
Gaza health ministry says that white phosphorous is being used by Israeli army in eastern Gaza.
 
Israel exists because they used terrorist tactics to get statehood. Now they condemn the Palestinians for using such tactics.

They even killed many of their own people with their reckless terrorism. Then many of these terrorists became high ranking Israeli government figures all the way up to Prime Minister.

Why did they have to use such tactics? Simply because they didn't have an army.

Then the international community wonders why the Palestinians see terrorism as they way forward.

Now before anybody jumps down my throat I'm not saying any of this is right.

But till Israel and the international community see this as a political problem there will be no solution. This isn't a conflict that can ever be solved militarily.

Israel exists because it managed to win a war that included terrorist acts from both sides, and because it has not lost a war since.
 
Israel exists because it managed to win a war that included terrorist acts from both sides, and because it has not lost a war since.

Exactly. Israelis have historically been terrorists as well as the Palestinians. So whoever is the best at terrorism wins out. Just like in some many other parts of the world.
 
Israel exists because it managed to win a war that included terrorist acts from both sides, and because it has not lost a war since.
Begin and the actions of the Irgun were disgraceful. Ben Gurion, once he had learnt the extent of the Irgun's actions and atrocities outlawed them.

Could not agree more with that. All sour grapes because puny little Israel somehow has managed to last this long.
 
World's most humanitarian army™ seems to have been using flechette shells in Gaza. They're definitely only targetting Hamas militants and not civilians.

Israel using flechette shells in Gaza
Palestinian human rights group accuses Israel military of using shells that spray out thousands of tiny and potentially lethal darts

Flechette-shell-darts-009.jpg

An image provided by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights of darts from a flechette shell it says the Israeli military fired in Gaza last week.
The Israeli military is using flechette shells, which spray out thousands of tiny and potentially lethal metal darts, in its military operation in Gaza.

Six flechette shells were fired towards the village of Khuzaa, east of Khan Younis, on 17 July, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. Nahla Khalil Najjar, 37, suffered injuries to her chest, it said. PCHR provided a picture of flechettes taken by a fieldworker last week.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) did not deny using the shells in the conflict. "As a rule, the IDF only employs weapons that have been determined lawful under international law, and in a manner which fully conforms with the laws of armed conflict," a spokesperson said in response to a request for specific comment on the deployment of flechettes.

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, describes a flechette shell as "an anti-personnel weapon that is generally fired from a tank. The shell explodes in the air and releases thousands of metal darts 37.5mm in length, which disperse in a conical arch 300 metres long and about 90 metres wide".

The munitions are not prohibited under international humanitarian law, but according to B'Tselem, "other rules of humanitarian law render their use in the Gaza Strip illegal. One of the most fundamental principles is the obligation to distinguish between those who are involved and those who are not involved in the fighting, and to avoid to the extent possible injury to those who are not involved. Deriving from this principle is the prohibition of the use of an imprecise weapon which is likely to result in civilian injuries."

Flechette-shell-darts-emb-011.jpg


The legality of flechette munitions was upheld by the Israeli supreme court in 2002, and according to an Israeli military source, they are particularly effective against enemy fighters operating in areas covered by vegetation.

The source said a number of armies around the world deploy flechette shells, and that they were intended solely for use against legitimate military targets in accordance with international law.

The IDF has deployed flechette shells in Gaza and Lebanon before. B'Tselem has documented the deaths of nine Palestinians in Gaza from flechettes in 2001 and 2002. Flechettes have also killed and wounded dozens of civilians, including women and children, in conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Israeli military deployed artillery shells containing white phosphorous in densely populated areas of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009, causing scores of deaths and extensive burns. It initially issued a categorical denial of reports of the use of white phosphorous, but later admitted it, saying the weapon was only used to create smokescreens.

Human Rights Watch said its use of the munitions in Operation Cast Lead was indiscriminate and evidence of war crimes.

In response to a legal challenge, the IDF said last year it would "avoid the use in built-up areas of artillery shells containing white phosphorus, with two narrow exceptions." The exceptions were not disclosed.
 
There appears to be a saracasm contest here for some reason. Check out the following to appreciate why Israel can not consider the role of the UN here as totally impartial. There are countless examples of bias, but since minds are already made up I'll post the bottom line:

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias
August 17, 2013 3:30 pm 1 comment


Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. Photo: WEF.

JNS.org - In a rare admission, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday that there is U.N. bias against Israel.

Speaking to university students at the U.N. Headquarters in Jerusalem, Ban stated that Israel, as a U.N. member, should get the same treatment as other nations. “Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination,” he said.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/08/17/ban-ki-moon-admits-united-nations-anti-israel-bias/

The title and the content is absolutely misleading?. Where does he say that UN is biased. He said in general there is bias, which is his opinion. Classic twisting of quotes.

And If UN was indeed biased against Israel, The war would have not even started.
 
World's most humanitarian army™ seems to have been using flechette shells in Gaza. They're definitely only targetting Hamas militants and not civilians.

Nah mate, its not actually happening. You see, its the media agenda. They are actually fired by Hamas on their own people.
 
Begin and the actions of the Irgun were disgraceful. Ben Gurion, once he had learnt the extent of the Irgun's actions and atrocities outlawed them.

Could not agree more with that. All sour grapes because puny little Israel somehow has managed to last this long.

So the grievances of 5 million displaced Palestinians, Gaza being sieged and razed as we speak and illegal settlements are just sour grapes then?
 
The title and the content is absolutely misleading?. Where does he say that UN is biased. He said in general there is bias, which is his opinion. Classic twisting of quotes.

And If UN was indeed biased against Israel, The war would have not even started.

OK, so let's try another opinion...

Kofi Annan Criticizes UN’s Anti-Israel Record

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has proved once again that high officials of the world body can and should speak out against the pernicious anti-Israel propaganda campaign that has hijacked many of its key institutions. Here’s what he told the Security Council on December 12, 2006:

Mr. President,

It is completely right and understandable to support the Palestinian people, who have suffered so much. But Palestinians and their supporters will never be truly effective if they focus solely on Israel's transgressions, without conceding any justice or legitimacy to Israel's own concerns, and without being willing to admit that Israel's opponents have themselves committed appalling and inexcusable crimes. No resistance to occupation can justify terrorism. We should all be united in our unequivocal rejection of terror as a political instrument.

I also believe the actions of some UN bodies may themselves be counterproductive. The Human Rights Council, for example, has already held three special sessions focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I hope the Council will take care to handle the issue in an impartial way, and not allow it to monopolize attention at the expense of other situations where there are no less grave violations, or even worse.

In the same vein, those who complain that the Security Council is guilty of a “double standard” -- applying sanctions to Arab and Muslim Governments but not to Israel -- should take care that they themselves do not apply double standards in the other direction, by holding Israel to a standard of behaviour they are unwilling to apply to other States, to Israel's adversaries, or indeed to themselves.

Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel's behaviour. But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. There have been decades of resolutions. There has been a proliferation of special committees, sessions and Secretariat divisions and units. Has any of this had an effect on Israel's policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great Organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?

Even worse, some of the rhetoric used in connection with the issue implies a refusal to concede the very legitimacy of Israel's existence, let alone the validity of its security concerns. We must never forget that Jews have very good historical reasons for taking seriously any threat to Israel's existence. What was done to Jews and others by the Nazis remains an undeniable tragedy, unique in human history. Today, Israelis are often confronted with words and actions that seem to confirm their fear that the goal of their adversaries is to extinguish their existence as a state, and as a people.

Therefore, those who want to be heard on Palestine should not deny or minimize that history, or the connection many Jews feel for their historic homeland. Rather, they should acknowledge Israel's security concerns, and make clear that their criticism is rooted not in hatred or intolerance, but in a desire for justice, self-determination and peaceful coexistence.
 
Its irrelevant what the UN's stance is. Israel could kill a million a Palestinians and the United States would still veto any condemnation in the security council.
 
"Palestinian human rights group...."...any word from them on firing rockets from populated areas in Gaza and on populated areas in Israel?
 
The displaced Palestinians were aggrieved because the Arab Nations intent on wiping Israel out in 1948 promised victory, yet when they were beaten refused to let most of them back in. Definitely not Israel's fault in that regard.

Illegal settlements should definitely be stopped, 100% agree with you on that issue.

Gaza being under siege and subsequently being raised is down to Hamas and their stupid tactics. All this talk of it being down to desperation and starvation is utter nonsense as well. Whilst the Palestinians receive a large sum of money in aid, Hamas is intent on spending it on the destruction of Israel rather than the advancement of it's people. They are also 8th place in world overweight population rankings. How can this be so if they are on the brink of starvation and death? The Hamas leadership are all sat in their manors in Qatar and the like using their own people as cannon fodder. I find that absolutely shocking and yet most of the world seems to focus on Israel.

The argument that Israel is using disproportionate levels of force is stupid as well. Stop firing the fecking rockets then this would all stop, it is that straight forward.
 
Its irrelevant what the UN's stance is. Israel could kill a million a Palestinians and the United States would still veto any condemnation in the security council.

It's not irrelevant. Some people argue that Israel is getting a fair treatment, which it doesn't. Israel is a UN member state which other UN member states seek to eliminate. Then come the ultimate victims, who depite being an underdog vow to to see the end to Israel existence. Little wonder we (and the US) see the UN as an irrelvance.
 
The title and the content is absolutely misleading?. Where does he say that UN is biased. He said in general there is bias, which is his opinion. Classic twisting of quotes.

And If UN was indeed biased against Israel, The war would have not even started.

So Ban Ki-Moon and Kofi Annan both think the UN is biased against Israel. That makes it two opinions. Pretty important opinions on the matter too.
 
It's not irrelevant. Some people argue that Israel is getting a fair treatment, which it doesn't. Israel is a UN member state which other UN member states seek to eliminate. Then come the ultimate victims, who depite being an underdog vow to to see the end to Israel existence. Little wonder we (and the US) see the UN as an irrelvance.

14 of 15 member UN states (including anti-Semitic Britain and Jew-hating France) support resolutions condemning illegal settlements. The US nullify every one of those resolutions with their vetoes. You're not getting a rough deal.