Israel in the Gaza Strip

[lucas]

Your comment about the difference between assasination and murder was so beside the point that it simply does no justice to rederobs post. I think it really shows that you either refuse to understand what he is trying to say or u just cant understand. Your posts are quite baffling. Even this post about how 2 sides are fighting different wars - seriously, wtf?

Of course, on the other hand, it could simply show that you don't understand what am I saying. But that would be too simple an explanation I suppose. Either way, I am not going to join the dots for you.

 

[rowie]

Of course, on the other hand, it could simply show that you don't understand what am I saying. But that would be too simple an explanation I suppose. Either way, I am not going to join the dots for you.

No more responses to u from me. All the best!

 

[nick2fish]

Your posts continue to show a mind numbing ignorance of common knowledge.
The Palestinians have less land today than ever.
To say that 3-4 years ago they had "nothing" is a plain and simple lie, or sheer stupidity.
.

Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.

If you can tell me in what country some of your Palestine re;atives were living in 3-4 years ago and if that country had any chance(>2.5%) of becoming a Palestine State, I will except all of the above.

Cheers, and pls leave out the 60 yr history.... it doesn't apply anymore(not my call)

 

[mavirk]

I have met many Israelis and many Palestinians in my time, and much prefer the Israelis.

The Palestinians are a dreadfully tribal people, riven by petty hatred for the outside world and for other Palestinians. Israelis make good friends and loyalty is their strong point.

That is just my experience of them both.

The Israelis can be tiresome at times but need a land to call their own, I would support them against the Arab collective which surrounds them.

gg

Next time Israelis should kill most of the tribal Palestinians. And the time after that when Arabs kill most of the Israelis, the surviving land-needers can come and settle in some part of Victoria.

I wonder what Hurst might say on these cycles.

 

[wayneL]

hmmm lets see. terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create fear, generally to achieve an ideological goal, it deliberately targets civilians and seeks to create mass havoc and casualties.

assassination is the targetted killing of an individual (or small group of individuals) for ideological, military or various unhinged purposes. by definition they are very different things.

Not according to western governments. Icelandic assets were seized under terrorism laws in the UK, a bozo with a laser pen arrested under terrorism laws in the US, but I digress, let's just stick to the various dictionary definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

Israel's actions in the occupied territories are well within the definition. (as are the actions of Hamas et al)

The term was coined in France where the state ruled its own people via terrorism, the etymology and history of the word thus:

terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).

There is no question that the Israeli state is employing terrorism to control the Palestinian. Equally, no question that Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

That is the long and short of it.

To believe that only one side is wrong and the other side is right is nothing short of an amazing bias based on.... whatever. But I disagree with nickfish, you cannot ignore the recent 60 years of history. Y#ou can accept it as having happened and work within that frame, but you can't ignore it.

crap

let's see, israel bulldozes palestinian houses gives us the independent (uk), the ny times, cnn, the obligitory wiki link and a few blogs, all on the first results page.

the three of you are like peas in a pod, just because someone holds different ideas (which are referenced to various sources that are continually discredited by you armchair experts) we're manipulated, nieve, ignorant, don't have the facts, blah blah blah. get off your high horse.

Forgive my confusion, but your link verifies my point, then you go on on a dummy spit. What is your point here?

 

[rowie]

Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.

If you can tell me in what country some of your Palestine re;atives were living in 3-4 years ago and if that country had any chance(>2.5%) of becoming a Palestine State, I will except all of the above.

Cheers, and pls leave out the 60 yr history.... it doesn't apply anymore(not my call)

Nick, if I may try to explain what rederob is getting at, its not that complicated - you wrote, and I quote "3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can". This clearly implies that they have more today (a sardine can of land) than they had 3 or 4 years ago (nothing). Rederob was simply pointing out your lack of understanding on this point by stating the fact that palestinians have less today than they have ever in the history of this conflict.

 

[rederob]

The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.

There is no step out of "checkmate" - it's game over.

On the other hand, Israel could try abiding by the countless UN resolutions that gave Palestinians some rightful claims, given the circumstances.

In response to disarray and the difference between murder, terrorism and assassinations: Others have made several points, but with respect to Israel's extrajudicaial assassinations there was an aspect you again, kindly, omitted. The death toll of unintended is far higher than that of so called terrorists. In some cases only unintended are killed - again, googling will give dozens of references. Rather makes a mockery of the "assassination" idea.

I won't argue that, over time, terrorist and assassination events have not been sizable in number. That's because the majority are tit for tat. To lay the blame on one side more than the other is an exercise in futility.

 

[rederob]

Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.

I am in a quandary. You seem to be aware of your condition which, perhaps, makes you less stupid than you might lay claim.

The remainder of your reply confirms your plight.

I appreciate your honesty.

 

[lucas]

There is no step out of "checkmate" - it's game over.

You are right - it wasn't a reference to a game but to reality - what to do once the game is over. The game is over for Hamas. There is nothing for Palestine if Hamas remains in power.

Just by the by, the belief that a UN resolution is always some kind of act of Solomon is not inevitably the case. All countries that vote for them have their own agendas.

 

[rederob]

Just by the by, the belief that a UN resolution is always some kind of act of Solomon is not inevitably the case. All countries that vote for them have their own agendas.

It does not take the wisdom of Solomon to work out that if you take someones property, they might be deeply offended. The UN resolutions seek to give Palestinians something in return for their dispossession. Most would consider that a fair arrangement.

 

[lucas]

It doesn't take an act of Solomon to realise Israel is here to stay and Hamas' stated position of bringing about the annihalation of the enemy is suicide.

But this is going around in circles again.

 

[rederob]

But this is going around in circles again.

Only because you twist the argument.
Why did the Palestinians of Gaza elect Hamas, if it sealed their death warrant?
Perhaps they would prefer to die for a cause than live without hope?
Why does Israel deny them the basics of living with dignity, knowing full well how they, as Jews, have suffered similar humilities and persecution?

But let's go back to your first point:

It doesn't take an act of Solomon to realise Israel is here

I would differ.
Israel is surrounded on all sides by Arabs. In a few years time (after this recession is over), these oil rich nations will have the US eating out of their hands, and they will be lobbying against America's unbridled support of Israel.
Americans will have the choice of maintaining their lifestyles or continuing to support Israel.
Israel's only defence will be the nuclear option.
The can of worms opens....

 

[lucas]

Although I don't necessarily trumpet the arguments in this link, it shows that there are other ways to view these UN Resolutions. Please, I only give the link to show there are other - no doubt biased but other - ways to view everything:

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/UN-resolutions.pdf

 

[lucas]

Only because you twist the argument.

Israel's only defence will be the nuclear option.
The can of worms opens....

I twist nothing.

Surely, your latter statement is a defence of Israel's bullish stance.

 

[rederob]

I only give the link to show there are other - no doubt biased but other - ways to view everything:

There are:
Lucas owns a property, and has a mortgage.
Rederob is homeless and, after being mistreated by the same bank as Lucas, is given Lucas's house by the bank.
Lucas can live elsewhere on the property, but the house is now Rederob's - no mortgage to pay!
Lucas takes the bank to court, who agree with Lucas that his treatment is unfair.
The bank has washed its hands of the matter. Rederob owns the house and Lucas was given the right to remain on the property.
Rederob and Lucas can work it out between themselves.
Lucas is unhappy. He throws rocks at the house to annoy Rederob.
Rederob kills his pets.
Lucas throws more rocks at his house.
Rederob cuts off his power and water, and stops him from leaving the property to buy food, or visit the doctor.
Lucas goes to other neighbours for help.
They sneak him some scraps, and lots more rocks to throw at the house.
Lucas goes back to court, and time and again they agree he is hard done by, occasionally mediating some settlement that never last long.
Lucas throws more and more rocks, so Rederob bulldozes his lean to on the fenceline.
Lucas has surely learned a valuable lesson: Don't mess with me because there are harsh consequences.

Now, somewhere in the above there is a circular argument.
Or do we have "checkmate"?

 

[Happy]

From ABC, 22 Jan. 09
Hamas declares victory in Gaza
By Middle East correspondent Ben Knight

The political leader of Hamas has declared that his organisation won the recent war in the Gaza Strip.
Khaled Meshaal who is exiled in Syria, says Hamas stopped Israel achieving its aims.
On Wednesday, Israel's army said it had completely withdrawn from the strip, although troops will remain near the border and its spy-planes continue to fly over the territory.
News of the withdrawal sent people back onto the streets for the first time in weeks, as shops opened and people began restocking, after three weeks when many had barely left their houses.
While the fighting has ended in Gaza, the battle to rebuild the territory is just beginning and the destruction is immense.
Whole neighbourhoods have been literally flattened. People are sleeping out under carpets strung across the branches of trees.

The Hamas leadership is still in hiding.

It is official now, Hamas won!

 

[disarray]

Not according to western governments. Icelandic assets were seized under terrorism laws in the UK, a bozo with a laser pen arrested under terrorism laws in the US, but I digress, let's just stick to the various dictionary definitions:

regardless of the recent tendency of western governments to apply the label "terror" to pretty much anything they wish to stamp out, it doen't change the fact that asassination and terrorism are different actions designed to achieve different outcomes, and so are different things.

There is no question that the Israeli state is employing terrorism to control the Palestinian. Equally, no question that Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

right. i never said otherwise.

To believe that only one side is wrong and the other side is right is nothing short of an amazing bias based on.... whatever.

i don't think anyone has taken a position at any time in this entire thread that one side is "right" and the other is "wrong". i have never said the israelis are right, i just refute positions that make the palestinians out to be innocent victims of israeli aggression when the truth is both sides are guilty and have been for a long time.

But I disagree with nickfish, you cannot ignore the recent 60 years of history. Y#ou can accept it as having happened and work within that frame, but you can't ignore it.

but you have to get over it or it get back to the endless "so and so did so and so" going back to the dawn of time and nothing will ever get resolved. each side has to drop the victim mentality and the claim on moral righteousness or nothing will change.

Forgive my confusion, but your link verifies my point, then you go on on a dummy spit. What is your point here?

no it doesn't. you said the media ignores incidences where palestinians are on the receiving end of injustice, like the bulldozing of houses in their territories. i did a search on "palestinian home bulldozed" and get links from mainstream media outlets, wiki and blogs about palestinians homes being bulldozed. therefore the media doesn't ignore the palestinians, it actively reports on them.

and its hardly a dummy spit, i'm just starting to get a bit sick of the peanut gallery going "give me sources", "oh no not that source, its no good" like the only reliable and accurate source is one which suits your own arguments. like rowie going that public video statements by hamas leaders aren't conclusive, or rob saying israeli ministry sources are fairy tales, or you saying photos which are clear as day are photoshops or inconclusive, and then the points raised and references quoted are refuted with nothing more than unreferenced opinion. it's very lazy and demonstrates an extreme degree of narrow mindedness, which you then turn around and accuse everyone else of having. i find this behaviour to be extremely hypocritical and expect better from educated and intelligent people like yourselves.

 

[lucas]

There are:
Lucas owns a property, and has a mortgage.
Rederob is homeless and, after being mistreated by the same bank as Lucas, is given Lucas's house by the bank.
Lucas can live elsewhere on the property, but the house is now Rederob's - no mortgage to pay!
Lucas takes the bank to court, who agree with Lucas that his treatment is unfair.
The bank has washed its hands of the matter. Rederob owns the house and Lucas was given the right to remain on the property.
Rederob and Lucas can work it out between themselves.
Lucas is unhappy. He throws rocks at the house to annoy Rederob.
Rederob kills his pets.
Lucas throws more rocks at his house.
Rederob cuts off his power and water, and stops him from leaving the property to buy food, or visit the doctor.
Lucas goes to other neighbours for help.
They sneak him some scraps, and lots more rocks to throw at the house.
Lucas goes back to court, and time and again they agree he is hard done by, occasionally mediating some settlement that never last long.
Lucas throws more and more rocks, so Rederob bulldozes his lean to on the fenceline.
Lucas has surely learned a valuable lesson: Don't mess with me because there are harsh consequences.

Now, somewhere in the above there is a circular argument.
Or do we have "checkmate"?

It's a clever analogy. I like clever. Thanks. Of course, it omits much, but it's only an analogy.

But you're wasting your time trying to prove to me that Israel is "a bad guy". I know that. What I have been painstakingly pointing out is that Israel is not "the bad guy".

And, yes, it's checkmate - but Hamas and most arab nations still want a replay. Tough. For Israel too.

 

[lucas]

I suppose most reading this thread will have read Gaddafi's recent comments. If not, here is a report:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/one-state-is-way-forward-gaddafi/2009/01/23/1232471539791.html

One state is the way forward to peace in Mideast: Gaddafi

A combined one-state solution is the best way forward for Israel and the Palestinians to finally put an end to "perpetual war," Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has written in The New York Times.

"The history of Israel/Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards -- a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups; a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions.

"This is why it gets so complicated when members of either party claims the right to assert that it is their land," Gaddafi wrote.

After the surge in deadly violence in Gaza, Gaddafi argued that "everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward.

"A just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired rhetoric of partition and two-state solutions," he said.

The Libyan leader argued that a two-state solution inevitably would create an unworkable security threat to Israel, while partitioning the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, also would not work.

"Buffer zones symbolise exclusion and breed tension. Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically," Gaddafi wrote, so "the compromise is one state for all, an 'Isratine' that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it."

"Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel," Gaddafi added, noting that "there are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel."

In the latest casualty toll, Gaza medics said the recent Israeli offensive had killed 1330 people, at least half of them civilians including 437 children. Another 5450 were wounded, including 1890 children.

Interesting. Fat chance though I would think.

But I read an article recently (Time?) about the Jewish State being in peril internally simply because the number of Muslims inside Israel at present is increasing so fast that democratic voting might eventually turn against the Jews. I can't find the article again and I can only remember the gist of it, so don't quote me.

That would seem to make Gaddafi's idea unworkable given Israel's paranoia about being overrun???

Still, it's an alternative. And any alternative to the recent bloodletting has to be considered.

 

[Happy]

But I read an article recently (Time?) about the Jewish State being in peril internally simply because the number of Muslims inside Israel at present is increasing so fast that democratic voting might eventually turn against the Jews. I can't find the article again and I can only remember the gist of it, so don't quote me.

That would seem to make Gaddafi's idea unworkable given Israel's paranoia about being overrun???

Still, it's an alternative. And any alternative to the recent bloodletting has to be considered.

Maybe one child policy for minorities, (while they are still minor of course).