Israel in the Gaza Strip

rowie · 31 January 2009

nick2fish said:
Here's another couple of clueless statements for ya

The suffering of the Palestine people will never cease while Hamas is in control
The Israel-Gaza strip conflict will never be resolved while Hamas is in control
The rocket attacks and tunnel building that led to the border blockages will not stop while Hamas is in charge
No aid from Egypt will be forthcoming while Hamas is the governing body in Gaza
And Israel blockages of Gaza border areas will never be lifted while Hamas is the ruling entity in Palestine
More clueless statements later, cheers

Nick, first the Palestinian Authority and Fatah were Israels enemies, now Hamas (democratically elected) are their enemy. If Hamas are ousted and replaced by another authority, who is to say that they wont be recognised as well? You have to reach a stage where you question the intention of Israel for opposing any authority recognised by the Palestinians. Mind you, Hamas were at one stage in the past created and funded by Mossad and Israel themselves. They funded them and created them to form a fundamentalist movement to undermine Arafat and the PA. When will all this stop? When Hamas stops firing rockets or are ousted? I highly doubt that...

rederob · 31 January 2009

nick2fish said:
Here's another couple of clueless statements for ya

Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.
Ultimately, the solution lies with concessions from Israel. Not from Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority, as they have lost much already and seem willing to lose even more to gain some control over their destiny.

And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete, the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected. Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade. If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels. Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.

IFocus · 31 January 2009

rederob said:
Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.
Ultimately, the solution lies with concessions from Israel. Not from Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority, as they have lost much already and seem willing to lose even more to gain some control over their destiny.

And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete, the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected. Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade. If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels. Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.

Strong statements Rederob but then I guess that's what the mess digs up.

If I can just point out that Hamas is a organization that is backed by Iran in an Arab part of the world.

I struggle to understand your logic when looking at Iran's intentions.

I think the whole thing is beyond a solution full stop

rederob · 31 January 2009

IFocus said:
If I can just point out that Hamas is a organization that is backed by Iran in an Arab part of the world.

I struggle to understand your logic when looking at Iran's intentions.

I think the whole thing is beyond a solution full stop

Thanks for your thoughts IFocus.
There's a few thousand years history involved in the Palestinian issue, and a few people here can't even work out more recent events and their implications.
This thread can explore what Israel's role is in resolving what's disputed, or it can take the opposite side.
Either way, all parties must ultimately agree on a course of action leading to a lasting peace.
Israel is delusional if it thinks that a mere withdrawal from occupied territories is the recipe for success.
And so is Hamas if it thinks it will ever get rid of the Jews in Israel.
However, I don't think this issue is beyond a solution.

As for Iran backing Hamas, I say "so what".
Iran's backing meant diddly squat in the recent conflict.

As for "Iran's intentions", I'm not sure what you mean. Iran will be a small bit player in the region, well behind Saudi Arabia and, in 5-6 years time, probably behind Iraq as well.
]

nick2fish · 31 January 2009

rederob said:
Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.

And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete, the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected. Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade. If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels. Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.

Oh are you talking about the Total blockage (2007) not the Military blockage in (2000)
A Blockade is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as an "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts

Yeah you right on that one.
And Israel aren't half smart....they think that keeping the blockage(total) in tact will somehow weaken Hamas power in the Gaza....

Any thoughts on my other points or is that eye of yours still having trouble opening ?

rederob · 31 January 2009

nick2fish said:
Any thoughts on my other points or is that eye of yours still having trouble opening ?

If I had to devote time to all your errors of fact it would become an occupation, with abundant overtime.

Macquack · 31 January 2009

nick2fish said:
Oh are you talking about the Total blockage (2007) not the Military blockage in (2000)
A Blockade is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as an "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts

Yeah you right on that one.
And Israel aren't half smart....they think that keeping the blockage(total) in tact will somehow weaken Hamas power in the Gaza....

Any thoughts on my other points or is that eye of yours still having trouble opening ?

nick2fish, you highlight an anomaly here.

Hamas cease their "act of war" of firing rockets into Israel.

Yet, Israel continue their "act of war" in the blockade of the Gaza Strip!

nick2fish · 31 January 2009

Nice pickup Macquack, but have the rockets really stopped? One fired from Gaza into Israel on the 29/01, prompting Israeli retaliation.

nick2fish · 1 February 2009

rederob said:
If I had to devote time to all your errors of fact it would become an occupation, with abundant overtime.

Well Rederob, If I may call you by your post name, you have made your first mistake in a game of chess, by personalizing yourself with your opponent.
The above quote is very funny to me...
But it is amusing because I do not live in a war-torn country and my relatives are not dieing in view of where I stand.
I am not suffering a hunger of which I cannot Stand.
Your posts to my goading are, in my view a synopsis of the situation we are so vehemently discussing.
Or are we?????????????
We go home every day to a comfortable dwelling assured that even though we invest in shares, we are safe cause of the nice neighborhood we reside in.
But no we can't be content with that even though we have seen millions die in Africa on our 48" Plasma, we have to rant and rave about a conflict which has had its infancy in before time, has had its modern footprint turned all muddy and slippery and the end result IS the loss of innocents.
More innocents to follow I predict.
Now I assume you are a pretty Sharp man Mr Rederob, because you are obviously an investor, but would you invest in an Hamas government.
Could you really see if you were on the board of directors that this way forward was for the benefit of your company and shareholders.
Would not some light surface in the deep dark caverns of was once a brain say "Lets Talk" (maybe even lets) work it out..........
But no cause the Palestine cause,..... is a far greater call than just the sick and the dieing isn't it,.... or even the land we live in

This is my last go on this topic, because for now the invasion has ceased, forces withdraw, retaliation on provocation , or so the story goes............

Rederob.............Peace....................................................................

Cheers

GumbyLearner · 6 February 2009

UN backs down on 'school massacre' in Gaza

THE UN has retracted claims over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an Israeli mortar attack that killed 43 people did not hit a school run by a UN agency.

The January 6 incident, described at the time as the "school massacre", figured prominently in accusations that Israel committed war crimes in the deaths of hundreds of civilians during the war.

A statement issued yesterday by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Human Affairs acknowledged that it had wrongly blamed the deaths at the time on the "shelling of the UNRWA (Relief and Works Agency) school".

"The humanitarian co-ordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school," the statement said.

The clarification came several days after a journalist for Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, Patrick Martin, interviewed Palestinians living near the school and a teacher, who told him that none of the casualties were in the school but on the street outside.

In a television interview the day of the incident at a Gaza hospital where casualties were brought, the UNRWA operations director in Gaza, John Ging, an Irish national, did not explicitly say the shells had hit the school but he left that impression.

"Those in the school were all families seeking refuge," he said. "There's nowhere safe in Gaza."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013734-601,00.html

robert toms · 6 February 2009

GumbyLearner said:
UN backs down on 'school massacre' in Gaza

THE UN has retracted claims over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an Israeli mortar attack that killed 43 people did not hit a school run by a UN agency.

The January 6 incident, described at the time as the "school massacre", figured prominently in accusations that Israel committed war crimes in the deaths of hundreds of civilians during the war.

A statement issued yesterday by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Human Affairs acknowledged that it had wrongly blamed the deaths at the time on the "shelling of the UNRWA (Relief and Works Agency) school".

"The humanitarian co-ordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school," the statement said.

The clarification came several days after a journalist for Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, Patrick Martin, interviewed Palestinians living near the school and a teacher, who told him that none of the casualties were in the school but on the street outside.

In a television interview the day of the incident at a Gaza hospital where casualties were brought, the UNRWA operations director in Gaza, John Ging, an Irish national, did not explicitly say the shells had hit the school but he left that impression.

"Those in the school were all families seeking refuge," he said. "There's nowhere safe in Gaza."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013734-601,00.html

I see that you quote the Australian as your source....can you do better than That ?
The foreign editor of the Australian is one Greg Sheridan...he that spends holidays in Israel.I have heard him in private conversations and his credibility regarding the Middle East is zero...due to his loyalties.
He also knew all about WMDs in Iraq and knows what a monumental danger Iran is to world peace.
Can you get a more objective source ?

darnsmall · 6 February 2009

Noam chomsky, has a speech on youtube about this topic. I haven't finished watching it yet and haven't referenced his claims against Israel as yet. But he talks about some interesting stuff that is going on in that region; not surprising really.

One thing that is surprising, is that we still discuss this topic after all these years. It's still misrepresented in the media, it still has no solution, and we still go around in the same circles.

I'm a little confused as to why Israel hasn't gone down the path of mass genocide, they're trying to do it in a slow and measured way. But if you can just waltz into another country and attack, and nothing happens...and if you can do it again...again nothing happens. Why not just solve the problem by rounding up all the people you want to get rid of, and get rid of them?

I'm sure America will support them down this road and they can all claim they're just trying to pre-emptively protect their land.
I won't be surprised the day Iran gets a nuke and just drops it on them. I think they're the only ones that will end up doing anything. And then maybe the Jews can all move into America and call that their home. Why not make the next US pres; Jewish.

I see no point in protesting against Israel since, at the end of the day we in Australia aren't going to base an election around this. Labor tried to yank that thread with Iraq previously and got them no where. And at the end of the day the only change will come through polotics. It will either come from within Israel as they vote for a political party that wants to resolve the issue with Palestine and Islam, or it will come from everyone around the globe voting in parties that will take a stance against Israel; probably only a rare chance if they do go down the genocide path...so in summary; nothing will happen, nothing will change, we simply don't care enough to do anything.

The Muffin Man · 6 February 2009

Hmm, so it seems the IDF did not hit the UN school. Just another example of the misinformation coming from that area. Oh how can people get it all so wrong? It's done on purpose people, to skew your view on one side or another.

rederob · 6 February 2009

The Muffin Man said:
Hmm, so it seems the IDF did not hit the UN school. Just another example of the misinformation coming from that area. Oh how can people get it all so wrong? It's done on purpose people, to skew your view on one side or another.

This is the UN statement:

Protection of Civilians
Clarification: While correctly reported on 6 January that Israeli shells landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia, resulting in an initial estimate of 30 fatalities, the Situation Report of 7 January referred to ‘the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia.’ The Humanitarian Coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. According to UNRWA, the number of fatalities is over 40, many of them among the 1,368 people who had taken refuge in the school.

So long as refugees were killed outside the school it's OK?
Almost 1400 Palestinians were killed in the conflict, contrasted with 14 Israelis (including 3 civilians).
The Cooks and Muffin Men keenly overlook a kill ratio of 100:1 - that's OK!
Or the kill ratio against Palestinian children alone of 30:1 - not bad at all!

Getting back to the media article, it's moot to note that it leads as "UN backs down...", whereas there was only ever a "clarification". The pro-Israeli media have now cleverly conned readers into thinking that maybe the people killed outside the school were the bad guys after all. The evidence suggests they were mostly those who had previously sought refuge there.

shaunQ · 6 February 2009

There can be no denying that Israel is one of the most racist and repressive first-world countries in the world, and hides their atrocities with their fantastic propaganda machine.

darnsmall · 9 February 2009

rederob said:
This is the UN statement:
So long as refugees were killed outside the school it's OK?
Almost 1400 Palestinians were killed in the conflict, contrasted with 14 Israelis (including 3 civilians).
The Cooks and Muffin Men keenly overlook a kill ratio of 100:1 - that's OK!
Or the kill ratio against Palestinian children alone of 30:1 - not bad at all!

Getting back to the media article, it's moot to note that it leads as "UN backs down...", whereas there was only ever a "clarification". The pro-Israeli media have now cleverly conned readers into thinking that maybe the people killed outside the school were the bad guys after all. The evidence suggests they were mostly those who had previously sought refuge there.

Personally I think its makes no difference if they attack UN facilities or not. The UN is useless, what are they going to do anyway, a resolution? lol America will stop that.
As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should blame all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames

rederob · 9 February 2009

darnsmall said:
Personally I think its makes no difference if they attack UN facilities or not. The UN is useless, what are they going to do anyway, a resolution? lol America will stop that.

There are such things as "war crimes".
You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.

As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should blame all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames

Some demented logic flowing here.
If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
The answer you weren't seeking was that innocent people never deserve to die, no matter the instrument.
I suspect your IQ matches your calling.

disarray · 9 February 2009

rederob said:
There are such things as "war crimes".
You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.
Some demented logic flowing here.
If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
The answer you weren't seeking was that innocent people never deserve to die, no matter the instrument.
I suspect your IQ matches your calling.

you never let it rest will you? you just have to beat your chest and continue to do your best to jam your extemely limited vision of a complex issue down everyones throat.

your narrow mindedness and unwillingness to even listen to the other side of the argument makes it all but pointless to have any kind of civil and reasonable discussion with you. you consistently resort to child like namecalling and accusations of ignorance while dismissing out of hand the many valid (and referenced) points that have been presented to you. in response you have the gall to launch into one sided emotional tirades about how one side is like the spawn of satan and the other is some spotless enlightened peaceloving people who are on the receiving end of an unwarranted genocidal holocaust. if i didn't know better i'd suspect you were a raging anti-semite.

your hypcorisy is staggering, your inability to see any other side of the argument, or even concede that one exists, demonstrates a severe inability to apply basic critical thought (not to say manners), and quite frankly i find you pathetic.

good day to you sir.

darnsmall · 9 February 2009

rederob said:
There are such things as "war crimes".
You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.
Some demented logic flowing here.
If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
The answer you weren't seeking was that innocent people never deserve to die, no matter the instrument.
I suspect your IQ matches your calling.

Actually an interesting argument you raise here...are there such things as war crimes? If the US is behind you and says its not a crime; then is it? If you have the power and you are the victor, is it a war crime, or is it collateral, or some other wankery for "I don't really care cause I can kick your ass to and hand it to you if you like...try me"

Quite morally right, no one deserves to die...try telling that to the US when they're trying to sure up a few $trillion in oil though. Doesn't quite hold much weight.

I find it a little hypocritical to condemn Israel, I don't agree with them and think they're governing body comes across as being pretty messed up. And I imagine given the chance if the tables were turned the Palestinians wouldn't be too far off doing the sam. End of the day, I'm an Aussie citizen who's government isn't going to do a damn thing about the situation, and won't risk hurting our relationship with the $US. And so its a little insulting to pretend you give a **** about people being slaughtered while you live a very comfortable safe life in a country that is part of the problem. Jump on the bandwagon and get on board the Axis of Freedom and enjoy the gravy.

rederob · 9 February 2009

disarray said:
your hypcorisy is staggering, your inability to see any other side of the argument, or even concede that one exists, demonstrates a severe inability to apply basic critical thought (not to say manners), and quite frankly i find you pathetic.

I'm not sure what planet you were on when you posted, but my response was, inter alia, measured against a post including this sense:

darnsmall said:
As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should blame all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames

Why would we "blame" anyone for being architects of their own deaths when matters largely outside their control were the cause. To even contemplate including bush fire victims at this sensitive and emotional point in time is a touch callous, at best.
And you are accusing me of not being able to apply critical thought.

The interesting thing about war crimes is that they remain so until prosecution lapses, effectively meaning until the perpetrators are dead. Curious things happen in international affairs and the balance of power today may well be different in 10 or 20 years time. In years ahead America may not be able to "control" who is brought before it. So it is not inconceivable that the Chinese in 2030 have GW Bush in front of it for invading Iraq.

Israel in the Gaza Strip

rowie

rederob

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

rederob

nick2fish

rederob

Macquack

nick2fish

nick2fish

GumbyLearner

robert toms

darnsmall

The Muffin Man

rederob

shaunQ

darnsmall

rederob

disarray

darnsmall

rederob

Similar threads

Israel in the Gaza Strip

You are arguing with a Galah

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency