Israeli Air Strike Kills 155 in Gaza [Archive]

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 08:45 AM

The blockade of Gaza was a crime against humanity.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity#International_Criminal_Cour t)

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague (Netherlands) and the Rome Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The definition of what is a "crime against humanity" for ICC proceedings has significantly broadened from its original legal definition or that used by the UN,[13] and Article 7 of the treaty stated that:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[14]:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Mmmmmmmmm... nope. No trade restrictions on that list. ;)

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity#International_Criminal_Cour t)

To fall under the Rome Statute, a crime against humanity which is defined in Article 7.1 must be "part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population".

Yet Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at civilians inside Israel actually does fall under the current international legal definition of a "crime against humanity."

Thunder

27th December 2008, 08:50 AM

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 09:54 AM

Israel was definately guilty of (E) and (K). The blockade severaly punished 1 million innocent Palestinian civilians..

Innocent? :boggled:

January, 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm) - In elections held in 10 districts of Gaza this week, Hamas won at least 75 seats out of 118 seats.

So why are Israelis responsible for their governments' actions and Palestinians are not? Never understood that paradox. ;)

....for the crime of electing a government that Israel did not like.

Seems like other people don't like them much either.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[19] the European Union,[20][21][22][23] Israel,[24] Japan,[25] and the United States,[26] and is banned in Jordan.[27] Australia[28] and the United Kingdom[29]

Hamas was a bad choice,

Ah...ya. Turns out Hamas is as corrupt and inept as Hamas claimed Fatah was.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 10:16 AM

You happy now Birdstrike?

Everyone else understands that Israel has killed more civilians in 30 minutes that Hamas has killed in years.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 10:18 AM

Innocent? :boggled:

.

Yes innocent. Your vile collective disdain for the Palestinians is disgusting many people.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 11:19 AM

Innocent? :boggled:
So why are Israelis responsible for their governments' actions and Palestinians are not? Never understood that paradox. ;)
Seems like other people don't like them much either.
Ah...ya. Turns out Hamas is as corrupt and inept as Hamas claimed Fatah was.

Hamas was a horrible choice. But only allowing in enough food, water, medicine, and fuel, into Gaza....that would prevent a humanitarian disaster....is tantamount to slow Genocide.

Is Hamas right to fire pesky little rockets into Israel? No.

Dr Adequate

27th December 2008, 11:21 AM

Mmmmmmmmm... nope. No trade restrictions on that list. And nothing about firing rockets, either.

So what?

Thunder

27th December 2008, 11:25 AM

And nothing about firing rockets, either.

So what?

Birdstrike is trying to tell us that there is nothing wrong with limiting the amount of food, water, medicine, and fuel...allowed into a country of 1 million people...only inorder to prevent a humanitarian disaster (aka mass starvation)...

...is not a crime against humanity.

If New York State only allowed in to Long Island enough food, water, medicine, and fuel, to prevent mass starvation..because they didnt like their choice of Nassau and Suffolk County legislatures, this would be a crime against humanity like no other.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 11:39 AM

Israel was definately guilty of (E) and (K). The blockade severaly punished 1 million innocent Palestinian civilians for the crime of electing a government that Israel did not like.

Hamas was a bad choice, but Israel's response to this choice was even worse.

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Israel is guilty of at least (a), (d), (e), (h), (j) and (k)

scissorhands

27th December 2008, 11:56 AM

"Everyone else understands that Israel has killed more civilians in 30 minutes that Hamas has killed in years."

What information do you have regarding civilian deaths from these airstrikes?
From what I have seen the strikes were targetted at security compounds, weapons storage and training camps.
Granted many of these are within urban conurbations, but I havent seen any tally of civilian deaths as opposed to militant deaths.
What is the source for your statement?

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 12:06 PM

What information do you have regarding civilian deaths from these airstrikes?
From what I have seen the strikes were targetted at security compounds, weapons storage and training camps.
Granted many of these are within urban conurbations, but I havent seen any tally of civilian deaths as opposed to militant deaths.
What is the source for your statement?

Oh dear there's always one isn't there? :rolleyes:

Even the mainstream media realize they can't be total Zionist Apologists this time.

The source is all over the world's media if you want to open your eyes and quit trying to gloss over this horrendous attack.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 12:08 PM

I have not heard any breakdown of those killed by civilian/militant. And I am listening to CNN constantly.

scissorhands

27th December 2008, 12:09 PM

So you cant actually give a figure or the source of your information?

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 12:12 PM

And nothing about firing rockets, either

Really? You post that on a skeptics message board? really? After I linked to the legal description of a "Crime Against Humanity?"

The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.

1) Hamas is the "de facto authority" in Gaza.
2) They "have a policy" of condoning Qassam rockets to be fired from their territory at civilians inside Israel.
3) This policy by Hamas "intentionally causes great suffering, and serious injury to body and to the mental and physical health" of civilians living under the daily barrages of Qassam rockets.

That's my position. It clearly falls within the legal definition of a crime against humanity. If you have an alternate reality to present I would be happy to read it.

Skeptic

27th December 2008, 12:20 PM

Look, TFT, you support an organization whose expressed goal is the destruction of Israel and a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

You think the Jewish state should be destroyed and those in it expelled or killed in a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

You defend as "freedom fighters" those whose expressed, and actual, goal is to kill as many Jews as possible and create a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

You repeat, practically word for word, the age-old "Jews control the world" mantra, thinly replacing it with a "Zionist control the world" or "AIPAC controls the world".

This is antisemitism.

You condemn as "murder" the Jews daring to strike back, instead of quietly lying down and dying.

This is antisemitism.

You support ethnic cleansing of "occupied Palestine" -- all the area from the sea to the Jordan river -- from the "Zionists", that is, from all Jews.

This is antisemitism.

And please, cut the nonsense about this being only "anti-Zionism". Not all anti-Zionism is antisemitism, but YOUR "Anti-Zionism" obviously is: you are a supporter of a neo-Nazi organization (Hamas) whose official goal is genocide and ethnic cleansing of all Jews it can lay its hands on.

This is antisemitism.

Trying to get yourself off the hook by claiming you only want a genocide and ethnically cleanse the Jews from "occupied Palestine" is like saying that you don't hate Blacks, because you only want all Blacks in the USA killed or expelled, you have no opinion about Black living in Africa.

That is clearly racism, and for the same reason your position is clearly antisemitism.

Also, don't try to get yourself off the hook with the "some Jews are not Zionists" nonsense. While some Jews are not Zionists, indeed, most of them oppose the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews.

You support it. That is antisemitism.

Besides, even if you can find few loony jews who do supprot Hamas & co., so what? The KKK also can find some loony Blacks who support sending all Blacks back to Africa, as well.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 12:21 PM

How many Israeli civilians have Hamas killed?

scissorhands

27th December 2008, 12:28 PM

How many Israeli civilians have Hamas killed?

The official tally of just hamas suicide bombings in Israel is 480.
And yes, they were intentionally targetting civilians.

WildCat

27th December 2008, 12:28 PM

How many Israeli civilians have Hamas killed?
It's really completely irrelevant. They are trying to kill as many as they can.

Note Israel is not trying to kill as many Palestinians as they can.

Keep making excuses for Hamas and the majority of Palestinians in Gaza who support them, the more you do the more you out yourself as an anti-semite, if there's anyone still on the fence about it. At least MaGZ doesn't cowardly try to hide it as you do.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 12:30 PM

Look, TFT, you support an organization whose expressed goal is the destruction of Israel and a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

You think the Jewish state should be destroyed and those in it expelled or killed in a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

You defend as "freedom fighters" those whose expressed, and actual, goal is to kill as many Jews as possible and create a second holocaust.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

You repeat, practically word for word, the age-old "Jews control the world" mantra, thinly replacing it with a "Zionist control the world" or "AIPAC controls the world".

This is antisemitism.

Lies

You condemn as "murder" the Jews daring to strike back, instead of quietly lying down and dying.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

You support ethnic cleansing of "occupied Palestine" -- all the area from the sea to the Jordan river -- from the "Zionists", that is, from all Jews.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

And please, cut the nonsense about this being only "anti-Zionism". Not all anti-Zionism is antisemitism, but YOUR "Anti-Zionism" obviously is: you are a supporter of a neo-Nazi organization (Hamas) whose official goal is genocide and ethnic cleansing of all Jews it can lay its hands on.

This is antisemitism.

Lies

Trying to get yourself off the hook by claiming you only want a genocide and ethnically cleanse the Jews from "occupied Palestine" is like saying that you don't hate Blacks, because you only want all Blacks in the USA killed or expelled, you have no opinion about Black living in Africa.

That is clearly racism, and for the same reason your position is clearly antisemitism.

Lies

Also, don't try to get yourself off the hook with the "some Jews are not Zionists" nonsense. While some Jews are not Zionists, indeed, most of them oppose the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews.

You support it. That is antisemitism.

Lies

Besides, even if you can find few loony jews who do supprot Hamas & co., so what? The KKK also can find some loony Blacks who support sending all Blacks back to Africa, as well.

What a load of ranting nonsense. And you're accusations are lies, complete lies.

The following is not lies, it is a direct quote from Skeptic's racist post here ..

Of course, the Palestinians could have defeated this evil plan by not killing civilians.

But hey, killing civilians randomly is what Palestinians do.

I don't support the killing of innocent civilians whatever their race

You are a lair and a racist Skeptic. You've blown you're cover now.

Skeptic is outed as a racist and he retorts with irrational and offensive ranting lies. Skeptic has shown his true colors!

Unlike Skeptic I can back up all of my accusations

Unlike Skeptic I have not one ounce of racism in my body.

Skeptics very offensive and completely untrue defamatory accusations above say more about Skeptic than anything else!!

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 12:34 PM

Hamas was a horrible choice. But only allowing in enough food, water, medicine, and fuel, into Gaza....that would prevent a humanitarian disaster....is tantamount to slow Genocide.

Is Hamas right to fire pesky little rockets into Israel? No.

What makes me sad is that even with a smart guy like you your morality has been so skewed by propaganda you can easily parallel food aid with firing mortars and rockets at civilians. I just can't. Never will. Ever.

We agree to disagree.

gdnp

27th December 2008, 12:39 PM

Dr Adequate

27th December 2008, 12:41 PM

Really? You post that on a skeptics message board? really? After I linked to the legal description of a "Crime Against Humanity?"

1) Hamas is the "de facto authority" in Gaza.
2) They "have a policy" of condoning Qassam rockets to be fired from their territory at civilians inside Israel.
3) This policy by Hamas "intentionally causes great suffering, and serious injury to body and to the mental and physical health" of civilians living under the daily barrages of Qassam rockets.

That's my position. It clearly falls within the legal definition of a crime against humanity. If you have an alternate reality to present I would be happy to read it. Sheesh, you don't think much, do you?

My point was, of course, that the definition of a "war crime" does not specify the method by which the crimes are committed. The definition of "war crime" does not specifically talk about blockades, it does not specifically talk about rocket attacks, and it does not specifically talk about flying monkeys with poison fangs. It does not, in short, detail the method by which one perpetrates "a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings".

In the same way, if you look up your state's definition of "murder" it does not specifically mention poisoning people with strychnine. But that doesn't mean that someone who does so is not a murderer.

Therefore, to say that the blockade can't be a crime against humanity simply on the grounds that the definition of a "crime against humanity" doesn't mention blockades is fatuous.

Please note that I have not argued that the blockade is a "crime against humanity", I am merely pointing out the reason why your argument that it isn't a "crime against humanity" is dumber than a glass hammer.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 12:43 PM

Skeptic, Not everyone who opposes Israeli policies is a Hamas supporter. Not everyone who makes a statement in support of the Palestinian people in Gaza supports the destruction of the state of Israel or the Hamas charter.

They obviously do to Skeptic. This isn't the first time Skeptic has spewed up a whole barrage of lies and accusations of racism against people because they oppose the agenda of the Zionist Movement to claim all of Palestine.

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 12:45 PM

What makes me sad is that even with a smart guy like you your morality has been so skewed by propaganda you can easily parallel food aid with firing mortars and rockets at civilians. I just can't. Never will. Ever.

We agree to disagree.

Even though I disagree with parky on many things, I do recognize that unlike many here, he does have some 'morality'

gdnp

27th December 2008, 12:45 PM

What makes me sad is that even with a smart guy like you your morality has been so skewed by propaganda you can easily parallel food aid with firing mortars and rockets at civilians. I just can't. Never will. Ever.

We agree to disagree.

And yet the child who dies from the lack of medicine and malnutrition is just as dead as the child killed by a mortar. And their mothers both mourn just the same, and hate the people that they hold responsible just the same. Go figure.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

WildCat

27th December 2008, 12:49 PM

They obviously do to Skeptic. This isn't the first time Skeptic has spewed up a whole barrage of lies and accusations of racism against people because they oppose the agenda of the Zionist Movement to claim all of Palestine.
You're an anti-semite because you think a majority of Israelis wish to claim all of Palestine. Odd that the Israeli extremist parties get only a small percentage of the vote then, isn't it?

Now, the Gazans, OTOH, overwhelmingy elected a government that wants to destroy Israel and claim all the territory for themselves. And yet, you save all your wrath for the government that doesn't want all the territory for themselves... :rolleyes:

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 12:50 PM

Sheesh, you don't think much, do you?

My point was, of course, that...

I am afraid I am not psychic. So instead of vague hints next time you want to make a point just say my point is "__________________."

It's a much more effective way to communicate. ;)

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 12:56 PM

And yet the child who dies from the lack of medicine and malnutrition is just as dead as the child killed by a mortar. And their mothers both mourn just the same, and hate the people that they hold responsible just the same. Go figure.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The child in your analogy suffers from the lack of medicine and malnutrition because of actions - see: Qassam rockets - by the "de facto authority" in Gaza. The other child suffers because of actions - see: mortars AND Qassams - fired by the "de facto authority" in Gaza.

I think the responsibility essentially lies with the "de facto authority" in Gaza. That is my position which shall never wave.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 12:58 PM

The child in your analogy suffers from the lack of medicine and malnutrition because of actions - see: Qassam rockets - by the "de facto authority" in Gaza. The other child suffers because of actions - see: mortars AND Qassams - fired by the "de facto authority" in Gaza.

I think the responsibility essentially lies with the "de facto authority" in Gaza. That is my position which shall never wave.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza, which kept food, medicine, and fuel, from reaching Gaza, began BEFORE the Hamas started shooting rockets at Israel.

It was a reaction to Hamas winning the election. Not a retaliation to rocket fire.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 01:00 PM

T because they oppose the agenda of the Zionist Movement to claim all of Palestine.

What is it going to take for you to stop saying that lie?

gdnp

27th December 2008, 01:15 PM

Skeptic

27th December 2008, 01:18 PM

Any doubt about the real source of the sympathy for the Palestinian children by the usual gang of idiots here can be seen that none of them, ever, posted anything against the suffering of the Jews in the towns constantly bombed by Hamas (except to excuse Hamas). Nor do they care for the suffering of the Palestinians when other Palestinians or Arabs mistreat them.

It is only Palestinians suffering caused by Israel -- no matter in what context -- that they care about. Even if the cause is the fact that the Palestinians, by a landslide, elected a genocidal government whose goal is the killing and/or expulsion of all Jews. But have we ever heard any of these folks say a word about, say, the expulsion of all Palestinians from Kuwait, or Libya, or the Jordanian massacre of hundreds of them in "Black September", etc., etc.?

Never.

Why? Because they can't blame "Zionistic imperialism" or the equivalent. The Palestinians, for these folks, exist only as puppets in the passion play of "good natives vs. evil imperialists". Even if the passion play were remotely accurate, that would have been bad. Being more or less the opposite of reality, it's far worse. The real source of their "sympathy" towards the Palestinians is simply a narcissistic desire to feel good about themselves for "supporting the victims of imperialistic opression", and the Palestinians as the designated victim group.

If I were a Palestinian, I would be very worried about those guys. To be sure, being moral idiots, these folks will instinctively support the Palestinians until Israel is destroyed (and then claim the Jews had it coming -- "imperialists" and "colonialists", you know). But what then? What when the usual dictatorial thug takes control of "liberated Palestine", jails all opponents, steals all their money, and tortures anybody he can? Don't count on the usual gang of idiots to support Palestinian "human rights" THEN. If they cannot be seen as "victims of evil Zionistic imperialism" (or whatever), they usual gand of idiots just does not care.

We've seen this before on this forum, during the heyday of the Oslo "peace" process. We'd have endless chatter about "violation of Palestinian human rights" UNTIL the city or area where these human rights were violated were turned over to the thugs of the Palestinian Authority. THEN said city -- which usually had suffered far worse human rights abuses under the PA than it ever did under Israeli rule -- instantly ceased to exist for our brave defenders of human rights, and the cause celebre moved on to "violations of Palestinian human rights" in some other city or area still under Israeli control.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 01:21 PM

The comparison between doofy little rockets fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which killed someone once every 100 hits....and a debilitating inhumane blockade on 1 million people, is an insane comparison.

I love the State of Israel..and I love the Jewish people. But the blockade was inhumane and criminal.

Like a TRUE skeptic, I am able to make my judgement calls and opinions regardless of my personal, emotional, and political ties.

Too bad I can't say the same for some of the folks here.

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 01:34 PM

The Israeli blockade of Gaza, which kept food, medicine, and fuel, from reaching Gaza, began BEFORE the Hamas started shooting rockets at Israel.

It was a reaction to Hamas winning the election. Not a retaliation to rocket fire.beat me to it.

expected response: "Hamas is a terrorist organization and it is still their fault because they are a terrorist organization".

http://www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=2)

Hamas seized control of Gaza in June in a brief war, routing the rival Western-backed forces of Fatah. The Palestinian president and Fatah chief, Mahmoud Abbas, set up a caretaker government led by Mr. Fayyad, an independent economist, whose writ is limited to the West Bank.

After the takeover, Israel sealed its border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that the Fatah forces had fled and were no longer providing security on the other side. Israel, like the United States and the European Union, lists Hamas as a terrorist group and will not deal with it.

That nytimes article is from your own post in another thread Parky76 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4298534#post4298534). That's why debating you guys is pointless.

Absolutely wrong. Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election. They did not wait for any Hamas actions to make such a move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=1

Go to paragraph 6.

The Hamas election was in January 2006. The NYTimes article YOU LINKED TO in another thread is dated Dec 2007. So the claim "Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election," is debunked, by you Parky76!

:dl:

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 01:41 PM

Thunder

27th December 2008, 01:49 PM

That nytimes article is from your own post in another thread Parky76 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4298534#post4298534). That's why debating you guys is pointless.

The Hamas election was in January 2006. The NYTimes article YOU LINKED TO in another thread is dated Dec 2007. So the claim "Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election," is debunked, by you Parky76!

:dl:

Yes. But Israel's blockade did not occur as a result of a violent act upon Israel by Hamas. So you can tell your laughing puppy he can stop now.

:D

BirdStrike

27th December 2008, 02:02 PM

Yes. But Israel's blockade did not occur as a result of a violent act upon Israel by Hamas. So you can tell your laughing puppy he can stop now.

:D

You said this:

Absolutely wrong. Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election. They did not wait for any Hamas actions to make such a move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=1

Go to paragraph 6.

There the quote and link to your statement. In that post you cited a nytimes article that clearly reads:

Hamas seized control of Gaza in June in a brief war, routing the rival Western-backed forces of Fatah. The Palestinian president and Fatah chief, Mahmoud Abbas, set up a caretaker government led by Mr. Fayyad, an independent economist, whose writ is limited to the West Bank.

After the takeover, Israel sealed its border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that the Fatah forces had fled and were no longer providing security on the other side.

You debunked your own claim! Which was:

Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election

....With the nytimes link you posted. Hamas was elected in January 2006, not June 2007. And therefore, there is nothing to debate.

WildCat

27th December 2008, 02:30 PM

Interesting column in Haaretz today: The worst anti-Israel charges you'll hear in wartime (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html).
It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza.

They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback.

They will fight one another in the United Nations as well, unashamedly one-sided in their concern for human life.

Herewith the first in a two-part guide to the 10 most gratuitous, least productive, most resolutely ingenuous claims likely to be hurled in an effort to attack Israel.

The first five are arguments of the anti-Israel left, claims which are, curiously, as tired as they are unflagging.
And yes, we've seen these same arguments right here at the JREF!

The Fool

27th December 2008, 02:41 PM

You're an anti-semite because you think a majority of Israelis wish to claim all of Palestine. Odd that the Israeli extremist parties get only a small percentage of the vote then, isn't it?

Now, the Gazans, OTOH, overwhelmingy elected a government that wants to destroy Israel and claim all the territory for themselves. And yet, you save all your wrath for the government that doesn't want all the territory for themselves... :rolleyes:

Likud only gets a small percentage of the vote? This is one of your best...

I notice that the mouth foaming anti-semite hunters have lost control again, i would suggest they chill out a little as some of them are on a last warning for this behavior.

webfusion

27th December 2008, 03:05 PM

OK, parky76, why did you just change your avatar to the menorah? (and it's not even the Hannukah menorah)

Policenaut

27th December 2008, 03:40 PM

OK, parky76, why did you just change your avatar to the menorah? (and it's not even the Hannukah menorah)

According to wiki it's from the Jewish Legion who fought the Ottoman Empire in WWI.

Thunder

27th December 2008, 03:41 PM

According to wiki it's from the Jewish Legion who fought the Ottoman Empire in WWI.

Give that man a full-sour pickle!!!

Safe-Keeper

27th December 2008, 03:49 PM

Gaspode

27th December 2008, 07:05 PM

Please keep it civil.

webfusion

27th December 2008, 07:30 PM

"We'd be better off just copy-pasting existing threads, as they all play out the same way."

There is some truth to that. Heck, we even had a Moderator come in to interject an Exclamation Point comment. What MidEast thread could be complete without that!

meanwhile, reports are coming out of Gaza saying that Tawfik Jabber, the commander of Hamas' police force in Gaza; his adjutant, Ismail al-Ja'abri, commander of the defense and security directorate; and Abu-Ahmad Ashur, Hamas' Gaza central district governor, have all been killed, and the IAF is continuing to fly more missions (Sunday) -- Another 20 Gaza targets were destroyed overnight by F-16 fighter-bombers.

The United Nations Security Council is due to hold an Emergency Session in New York City at 10PM Eastern Standard Time.

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 07:40 PM

According to wiki it's from the Jewish Legion who fought the Ottoman Empire in WWI.

That's a nicer way than saying it's a Hebrew version of a French Tickler. :p

As to the OP:

Well s:rule10, Merry Christmas.

Peace on Earth and Good Will Toward Men.

Except in the Holy Land, with them it's "As you were, back to your corners, and come out fighting!"

The words don't matter, which is what the JREF scrum is about for the umpteenth time. The actions are what matters. It's also what people remember, when they choose to act.

Balkan Ghosts moved east a few thousand furlongs for fifty, Alex. :(

DR

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 07:47 PM

It's worthless trying to discuss a 'war' in which killing civilians for arbitrary reasons and brutal revenge has become so accepted by both sides and the sides have gotten so polarized. We'd be better off just copy-pasting existing threads, as they all play out the same way.
My dear friend: Darth's long standing definition of war is "a political act of armed force." The use of force with a political aim. War was war long before anyone sat down and tried to set rules and ritual. Funnily enough, a lot of varying civilizations put forth rules and preferred styles, but enforcing the rules has always been more an act of wilfull adherence than anything else.

"Civilians" as a target is still a matter of war, no matter how distressing it is to any of us to consider that. Trying to classify the sort of war, a political struggle involving armed force, that is going on between the Pals and Israel is not all that easy, but I'd say a state of belligerency exists, from the evidence.

Hence, a war. (And an ugly little thing it is indeed.)

War is war. The rules are, well, still rules, but the officials toss the flag and as often as not get ignored.

It's not a game. It's not a sport. It is intramural homicide.

That's what it is.

DR

Safe-Keeper

27th December 2008, 07:51 PM

The United Nations Security Council is due to hold an Emergency Session in New York City at 10PM Eastern Standard Time.Don't they usually wait until everything is over with:p?

webfusion

27th December 2008, 07:57 PM

Hi D-R.

"War is war."

Tonight was the 7th lamp of Hanukkah -- tomorrow night the Festival of Lights will conclude.
A holiday commemorating the Victory in War of the Maccabees. (http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/activity/maccabees/pages/JMaccabee.html)

...The attacks of the Maccabees were wreaking havoc and mayhem wherever there was oppression of the Jews...

The symbolism is not lost on the Israelis of today.

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 07:58 PM

Don't they usually wait until everything is over with:p?
No. They don't always wait until it is over. The Egyptian Third Army was thus spared from annihilation in detail in 1973.

DR

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 08:00 PM

The symbolism is not lost on the Israelis of today.
It's not as though this wasn't predictable, given that war is waged in symbols as much as with kinetic means anymore.

*sigh*

The killings will continue. Unhappy 2009 in advance, web. :(

DR

articulett

27th December 2008, 08:36 PM

For pith...
I might have to steal it--

Do you find that pretending that you're right brings you the same satisfaction as being right --- or have you never been in a position to make the comparison?

davefoc

27th December 2008, 08:49 PM

Has Israel precipitated the rocket attacks by its treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?

I don't know the answer, I intend the above as a legitimate question.

From my perspective, things are going more or less along the lines I expected. I continue to believe that Israel did what was in everyone's interest by getting out of the Gaza strip. Getting into the Gaza strip was an horrendous idea that is indicative of what I see as some of Israel's most disgusting behavior.

Getting out of the Gaza strip was a move toward reason and justice by Israel. I did not expect it to produce an instant peace. What I had hoped was that a government would develop in the Gaza strip that would see it as an important aspect of their survival to forcefully curtail attacks on Israeli territory from Gaza.

So far that hasn't happened. As a result, it looks to me like these attacks by Israel on the Gaza strip are the most legitimate military actions of its entire history. Hamas and Palestinians may not accept the legitimacy of Israel for generations to come but they need to accept the legitimacy of Israel for practical reasons at least.

I think the founding of Israel was a bad idea, but that deed is done and the destruction of Israel is no more legitimate than the destruction of any other country that exists today on land previously occupied by somebody else.

Hamas can either deal with that reality or it will be destroyed. That is the practical situation and it needs to come to grips with it regardless of whether it accepts the morality of that situation.

lionking

27th December 2008, 10:05 PM

Has Israel precipitated the rocket attacks by its treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?

I don't know the answer, I intend the above as a legitimate question.

From my perspective, things are going more or less along the lines I expected. I continue to believe that Israel did what was in everyone's interest by getting out of the Gaza strip. Getting into the Gaza strip was an horrendous idea that is indicative of what I see as some of Israel's most disgusting behavior.

Getting out of the Gaza strip was a move toward reason and justice by Israel. I did not expect it to produce an instant peace. What I had hoped was that a government would develop in the Gaza strip that would see it as an important aspect of their survival to forcefully curtail attacks on Israel territory from Gaza.

So far that hasn't happened. As a result, it looks to me like these attacks by Israel on the Gaza strip are the most legitimate military actions of its entire history. Hamas and Palestinians may not accept the legitimacy of Israel for generations to come but they need to accept the legitimacy of Israel for practical reasons at least.

I think the founding of Israel was a bad idea, but that deed is done and the destruction of Israel is no more legitimate than the destruction of any other country that exists today on land previously occupied by somebody else.

Hamas can either deal with that reality or it will be destroyed. That is the practical situation and it needs to come to grips with it regardless of whether it accepts the morality of that situation.
My views exactly. I wonder how other posters would respond if they lived in a country bordered by another country which had the stated policy to destroy your homeland?

PixyMisa

27th December 2008, 10:17 PM

Question: What about the border between Gaza and Egypt?

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 10:50 PM

You're an anti-semite because you think a majority of Israelis wish to claim all of Palestine. Odd that the Israeli extremist parties get only a small percentage of the vote then, isn't it?

The rabid anti-semite police are at it again. And further they are using lies again I see. You know damn well I have never said the Majority of Israelis wish to claim all of Palestine.

And even if I did it wouldn't make me a racist. Teh Zinist Movement wants all of Palestine. For the ameobas in the house that's a political issue and is nothing to do with racism.

This obsessive shouting of "Anti-Semite!" is a total joke now.

"You are an Anti-Semite because <insert any old crap here>"

It's got so absurd that'll it will be soon an honour to be called an Anti-Semite by you silly obsessives.

It's the real victims of racism I feel sorry for.

Pathetic!

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 10:51 PM

Getting into the Gaza strip was an horrendous idea that is indicative of what I see as some of Israel's most disgusting behavior.
Dave, getting into the Gaza Strip was a byproduct of the 1967 war. I do not wish to derail into that war's course and commencement, but maybe you were referring to settlements or other features of what was going on in Gaza once it ended up in Israeli possession, along with all of Sinai, after the 1967 war?

More resolution on what you meant, please? :confused:
Getting out of the Gaza strip was a move toward reason and justice by Israel. I did not expect it to produce an instant peace.
It was a good move. Of course it isn't instant peace, it wasn't the only issue.

I admit Sharon surprised me there. Of all people ( IIRC he was a proponent of aggressive expansion of West Bank settlements back in the 80's) I'd not have predicted that.

DR

Darth Rotor

27th December 2008, 10:58 PM

And further they are using lies again I see. You know damn well I have never said the Majority of Israelis wish to claim all of Palestine.
An interesting set up to what follows.
And even if I did it wouldn't make me a racist. Teh Zinist Movement wants all of Palestine. For the ameobas in the house that's a political issue and is nothing to do with racism.
Yes, it has to do with nationalism.
This obsessive shouting of "Anti-Semite!" is a total joke now. "You are an Anti-Semite because <insert any old crap here>"
It's got so absurd that'll it will be soon an honour to be called an Anti-Semite by you silly obsessives.
Your notion of honor is curious, but to each his own.
It's the real victims of racism I feel sorry for.
Such as?

DR

Tin Foil Timothy

27th December 2008, 11:19 PM

It's the real victims of racism I feel sorry for.

Such as?

DR

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You couldn't make it up!!!!! The obsessives who shout anti-semitism at every political criticism have even forgotten who the real victims of racism are. I couldn't have wished for a better proof so soon. Amazing!!

So for those who have forgotten what real racism really is....

The real victims of racism are those attacked simply for the color of their skin or what ethnicity they belong to. Remember them? Poor souls forgotten about while the Anti-semitic police get on with frothing at the mouth ( thanks The Fool ;) ) over labeling political criticism with racism.

Darth Rotor wins the Nobel Prize for the complete discarding of real racism 2008. His post succinctly sums up the whole farce.

note: has special frame waiting for the inevitable kindergarten post about the number of emoticons

davefoc

28th December 2008, 12:27 AM

Dave, getting into the Gaza Strip was a byproduct of the 1967 war. I do not wish to derail into that war's course and commencement, but maybe you were referring to settlements or other features of what was going on in Gaza once it ended up in Israeli possession, along with all of Sinai, after the 1967 war?

More resolution on what you meant, please? :confused:

...

You are correct. I was referring to the building of Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip.

ETA: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my intent.

KoihimeNakamura

28th December 2008, 12:54 AM

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You couldn't make it up!!!!! The obsessives who shout anti-semitism at every political criticism have even forgotten who the real victims of racism are. I couldn't have wished for a better proof so soon. Amazing!!

So for those who have forgotten what real racism really is....

The real victims of racism are those attacked simply for the color of their skin or what ethnicity they belong to. Remember them? Poor souls forgotten about while the Anti-semitic police get on with frothing at the mouth ( thanks The Fool ;) ) over labeling political criticism with racism.

Darth Rotor wins the Nobel Prize for the complete discarding of real racism 2008. His post succinctly sums up the whole farce.

note: has special frame waiting for the inevitable kindergarten post about the number of emoticons

Did it occur to you that DR hasn't argued once in this thread for Isreal or that anything but war is bad? Maybe you should have answered his comment sincerly, AND THEN WAITED FOR HIS RESPONSE TO JUMP ON HIM.

.. Just a thought.

yairhol

28th December 2008, 01:27 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645437,00.html

Egypt (http://forums.randi.org/unescape(this.href)) "collaborated" with Israel (http://forums.randi.org/unescape(this.href)) in its Gaza attack and lulled Hamas (http://forums.randi.org/unescape(this.href)) into thinking the Israel Defense Forces would not attack Gaza, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi reported Sunday.

Seems like Egypt is finally doing something against its and Israel's common foe.

At last the good guys have the upper hand again.

This may turn out to be a happy Hannukah for the thousands of Israeli civilians living for years under Hammas rocket attacks.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 01:53 AM

Typical Hamas response. We're getting our butts kicked... and it's not our fault! Egypt "collaborated" with Israel! It's ALWAYS someone else's fault when you deal with these guys. :rolleyes:

I was at the BBC just now. Their lead story has a close-up of a Palestinian child holding a bloody rag to his head, with the caption "Israel renews air strikes on Gaza." I see their anti-Israel spin masters are in full gear.

Think of the Israeli Palestinian children for gods sakes!!!!!! :rolleyes:

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 02:42 AM

My views exactly. I wonder how other posters would respond if they lived in a country bordered by another country which had the stated policy to destroy your homeland?

AFAIK, that's exactly how the Palestinians see it, too.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 02:52 AM

And yet you, unlike everyone else on this thread, were whining about how you couldn't understand my point.

So let me ask: is there anyone else reading this thread who didn't understand me?

Anyone?

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

IMHO, if something is perceived to be ambiguous or not clear, it's always best to just ask them for clarification. It makes everything so much easier for all involved.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 02:58 AM

What information do you have regarding civilian deaths from these airstrikes?
From what I have seen the strikes were targetted at security compounds, weapons storage and training camps.
Granted many of these are within urban conurbations, but I havent seen any tally of civilian deaths as opposed to militant deaths.
What is the source for your statement?

IIRC, in every year of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, more Palestinians die than Israeli's. More Palestinian children die each year. We just don't tend to hear about it.

I found this, it is the death rate since 2000 listed.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 02:58 AM

IMHO, if something is perceived to be ambiguous or not clear, it's always best to just ask them for clarification. It makes everything so much easier for all involved.

Thank you.

I would prefer clarification over childish chest beating, and no-so-subtle insults referring to my stupidity. That is why I refused to help __________ polarize this thread further.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 03:20 AM

IIRC, in every year of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, more Palestinians die than Israeli's. More Palestinian children die each year. We just don't tend to hear about it.

I found this, it is the death rate since 2000 listed.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument

This is why I have a big problem with that link a_unique_person. It clearly states:

Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends*
Introduction

Since the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 until the end of July 2007, at least 5,848 people have been killed either directly or as an indirect consequence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1/ This figure includes all persons regardless of their ethnic origin, nationality, gender, age, status as civilian or combatant and regardless of the circumstances or cause.

It is no different than listing all the casualties in Iraq, and not distinguishing the civilians from the combatants. That list you cited adds combatants to the civilian totals. Which is really misleading... and frankly biased.

Not saying you're wrong, but IMHO an unbiased list should differentiate combatants to civilians in their totals when analyzing casualty figures.

lionking

28th December 2008, 03:35 AM

AFAIK, that's exactly how the Palestinians see it, too.
The current government of Israel has a policy for the destruction of Palestine?

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 04:30 AM

labeling political criticism with racism.

Firing rockets at civilians is "political criticism", firing back at the perpetrators is "racism".

Got it. :rolleyes:

ddt

28th December 2008, 05:01 AM

This is why I have a big problem with that link a_unique_person. It clearly states:

It is no different than listing all the casualties in Iraq, and not distinguishing the civilians from the combatants. That list you cited adds combatants to the civilian totals. Which is really misleading... and frankly biased.
It does distinguish between civilians and combatants:
It is considerably more difficult to distinguish precisely who amongst those Palestinians killed were civilians. Since September 2000, of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces, whose status was known 7/, 59% were civilians and 41% were engaged in hostilities at the time of their death.

Not saying you're wrong, but IMHO an unbiased list should differentiate combatants to civilians in their totals when analyzing casualty figures.
You may have read footnote 1, which says that their data comes from the UN OCHA database and the B'Tselem database (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp). The latter is accessible online and gives quite extensive information on each and every person killed - a click on the numbers in the main page gives you a table of all those persons comprised in that number. I have in the past made scripts to produce my own graphs from that info, it's quite easy (when you know XSLT). So feel free to produce your own numbers...

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 05:30 AM

Has Israel precipitated the rocket attacks by its treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip?

I don't know the answer, I intend the above as a legitimate question.

Through the blockade, for example?

I think the founding of Israel was a bad idea, but that deed is done and the destruction of Israel is no more legitimate than the destruction of any other country that exists today on land previously occupied by somebody else.

Hamas can either deal with that reality or it will be destroyed. That is the practical situation and it needs to come to grips with it regardless of whether it accepts the morality of that situation.

Hamas has dealt with it by offering to accept a 2-state solution:
Meshal: Hamas backs Palestinian state in '67 borders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970807.html

Hamas supports the united Palestinian position calling for the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam.

So Hamas has offered a 2-state solution along the 1967 borders. So has the rest of the Arab world.

Everytime this is mentioned, someone brings up Hamas' charter. In spite of the fact that everyone knows what is in the Hamas charter, including the members (leaders) of Hamas who have stated their support for the offer.

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 05:36 AM

They should update their charter then.

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 05:43 AM

Question: What about the border between Gaza and Egypt?

Opened every now again, but never enough.

Israel has some control of the border:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing

The Rafah crossing was opened on 25 November 2005 and operated nearly daily until 25 June 2006.[1] Since that time it has been closed by Israel on 86% of days due to security reasons.[1] It was not opened for the export of goods.[1] In June 2007, the crossing was closed entirely after the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip.

And Egypt needs Israel's permission to increase troops in the border area:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1201523788535

Following disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Israel allowed the deployment of 750 Egyptian soldiers along the border, but has since refused requests from Cairo to increase the number. Egypt claims that to effectively combat the weapons-smuggling industry in Rafah, it requires additional forces along the border.

The EU refuses to monitor the border unless Fatah controls the Gazan side of it.

Not that Egypt is blameless. They could open the border if the government had enough spine to be anything other than collaborators:

Feb 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7233212.stm

Egypt's foreign minister says no more Palestinians will be allowed to come over from Gaza, threatening to "break the legs" any new illegal infiltrators.

"Anyone who breaches the border will have their legs broken," Ahmed Abul Gheit said in a television interview.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 05:52 AM

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 05:58 AM

The current government of Israel has a policy for the destruction of Palestine?

Before Israel was created, the Palestinians were aware of the intentions of the Zionsists, to create a Jewish state where they lived, and wished to create their own state after centuries of serfdom under the ruthless rule of the Ottaman's.

The current government's policy is the creation of Bantustaans. They were unacceptable when South Africa proposed them for their apartheid state, they are unacceptable now for the same reason.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 06:00 AM

ddt,

I had a look at your link to the btselem website and particularly at the list of palestinian minors killed by the IDF.

The example below seems to be a common theme throughout the list.

What is it about hamas, that they are so keen to put their own children in harms way?

What is it about Israeli governments that they subsidise housing in the West Bank settlements and Sderot for the poor and immigrants?

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 06:02 AM

I cant see what that has to do with my question.
Still, are you suggesting that governments shouldnt subsidise housing for poor people?

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 06:05 AM

I cant see what that has to do with my question.
Still, are you suggesting that governments shouldnt subsidise housing for poor people?

I said, cheap housing was subsidised in dangerous areas for poor people and immigrants in israel.

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 06:05 AM

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 06:07 AM

Woah, moral equivalency gone awry. :boggled:

No.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 06:11 AM

I said, cheap housing was subsidised in dangerous areas for poor people and immigrants in israel.

And can you remind everyone why Sderot is considered dangerous?
I havent noticed the IDF setting up missile batteries and shooting at Gaza from Sderot?

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 06:14 AM

No.

So you're saying it's OK to launch rockets and send suicide bombers at these people because they are putting themselves in harm's way? Since when building homes (even if illegitimately) kills people?

That's the moral equivalent of having Palestinian kids nearby rocket launchers?

Explain that to me.

webfusion

28th December 2008, 06:18 AM

I was curious what all the fuss was about, so I revisted Page 1, and read Post # 9

It seemed to be saying that the firing of rockets against Israel wasn't a crime anyway and shouldn't be covered under the International Laws cited. That's how I took it.

Only when given the clarification offered within Post # 27 did I understand the actual point.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298434&postcount=27

Thank you for your continued participation.
============================

FireGarden, the embargo did not precipitate the rocket attacks.
The rocket attacks precipitated the embargo.

We've been all over this already, starting from Post #34 in this thread -- please go back and read the following exchange.
The mistaken claim:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298486&postcount=34
and the response:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298577&postcount=41

For the record, the first rocket fell on Israel on 16 April 2001.
Rocket attacks from mid-2004 to September 2005 killed six Israeli civilians.
From September 2005 to May 2007, Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 locally-made rockets toward Israel. They killed another four and injured 75 Israeli civilians.
--- HRW (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/06/30/israelgaza-strip-rockets-and-shelling-violate-laws-war)

(The "indiscriminate firing" charges led to an IDF artillery moratorium, in Nov. 2006)

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 06:24 AM

So you're saying it's OK to launch rockets and send suicide bombers at these people because they are putting themselves in harm's way? Since when building homes (even if illegitimately) kills people?

That's the moral equivalent of having Palestinian kids nearby rocket launchers?

Explain that to me.

I never said it was OK to launch rockets and send suicide bombers, I think it is counterproductive, but this is a war, and if you don't expect civilians to be targets, you are ignoring the long history of war. Sending civilians into the disputed areas to establish 'facts on the ground' was cynical at best.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 06:27 AM

Sending civilians into the disputed areas to establish 'facts on the ground' was cynical at best.

So Sderot is a disputed area?

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 06:29 AM

I never said it was OK to launch rockets and send suicide bombers, I think it is counterproductive, but this is a war, and if you don't expect civilians to be targets, you are ignoring the long history of war. Sending civilians into the disputed areas to establish 'facts on the ground' was cynical at best.

Then you are equating building homes with launching rockets, and you are saying that retaliating violently against both is equally fair game because it's "war".

As I said, moral equivalency gone awry.

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 06:42 AM

ddt,

I had a look at your link to the btselem website and particularly at the list of palestinian minors killed by the IDF.

The example below seems to be a common theme throughout the list.

Muhammad 'Atiyyah Hassan Klub
16 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 24.10.2007 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while standing next to rocket launchers that had fired Qassams at Israel.

What is it about hamas, that they are so keen to put their own children in harms way?

Empty rocket launchers? After the rockets had been fired, or before? If after, how long after?

Here's a link to the list, btw:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=13&region=GAZA

What do you think of this justification?:
http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/20/2142505.html

-------- has been under constant bombardment from ----- since the first day of the conflict.

[...] The residents who had friends, family or money for alternate housing out of missile range had left, leaving behind the few who had neither the funds nor connections that would allow them to escape the missiles crashing and booming on their town day and night. The noise was terrifying, people were dying outside, the kids were scared out of their minds and they had been told over and over that some man named ----- was responsible for their having to cower underground for days on end.

On the day that photo was taken, the girls had emerged from the underground bomb shelters for the first time in five days. A new army unit had just arrived in the town and was preparing to shell the area across the border. The unit attracted the attention of twelve photojournalists - ----- and foreign. The girls and their families gathered around to check out the big attraction in the small town - foreigners. They were relieved and probably a little giddy at being outside in the fresh air for the first time in days. They were probably happy to talk to people. And they enjoyed the attention of the photographers.

[...] The parents handed the markers to the kids and they drew little ------ flags on the shells.

I left some names blank. After all, what justifies one side should justify the other. The issue, as you can tell from the link, was Israeli girls writing on missiles. As the above indicates, it was a battle situation with soldiers in the area.

ddt

28th December 2008, 06:43 AM

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 06:51 AM

So Sderot is a disputed area?

I think AUP might be thinking of Rika's argument in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4297835#post4297835

But that doesn't involve Sderot.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 06:57 AM

Can you quantify this 'common theme'? You have the complete info, so you can count how many were killed while standing next to rocket launchers. A break-down in age and gender is also helpful. It's also helpful to not only quantify this with minors, but with the complete casualty list.

You have access to the list.
It is a very noticeable theme, along with being shot while "watching" armed shoot outs, metres away from the action.

The list also mentions many instances of minors actually participating in attacks when killed.

I am not trying to absolve the IDF of all blame for innocent civilian deaths, just showing how deceptive such statistics can be.

Do you have indications why they were standing there?

No and since the list gives such sparse information about the actual circumstances of the deaths it lists, I doubt its a very useful guide.

PixyMisa

28th December 2008, 07:02 AM

Opened every now again, but never enough.

Israel has some control of the border:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing

Thanks. So the situation is a total mess there as well. I knew some of that (like when the Palestinians blew up the wall back in January) but didn't have the full picture.

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 07:14 AM

Empty rocket launchers? After the rockets had been fired, or before? If after, how long after?
2. Do you have indications why they were standing there? I can think of several possible explanations:
(a) Hamas (or whichever organization operated those rocket launchers) had instructed them to stand there and stay put.
(b) They had voluntarily stood there while the rocket launcher was operated and were too late in fleeing for the IDF return fire.
(c) They were attracted to the abandoned rocket launcher and went to look at it at the time the IDF had pinpointed it and opened fire at it.
Do you have sources which lean the one or the other way? It can very well be a ploy on the side of Hamas, it can also be excessive risk taking by young males, or both, or for other reasons you or I have not thought of.

This is beyond the point, what is a kid doing anywhere near a rocket launcher, for whatever reason? Don't the parents care for the safety of their children?

ddt

28th December 2008, 07:27 AM

You have access to the list.
It is a very noticeable theme, along with being shot while "watching" armed shoot outs, metres away from the action.
Yes, I have access to the list, and I also mentioned that you extract your own numbers from it. You raised the point of minors standing next to rocket launchers, so the onus is on you to quantify that point. The same for the second point you raise. My point is: you can quantify the points you raise, so you should do that when raising them.

The list also mentions many instances of minors actually participating in attacks when killed.
Again, how many? And at what age? IIRC, there are various countries around the world that take minors (i.e., people below 18) into the military.

I am not trying to absolve the IDF of all blame for innocent civilian deaths, just showing how deceptive such statistics can be.
No, but quantify then the things you take issue with.

No and since the list gives such sparse information about the actual circumstances of the deaths it lists, I doubt its a very useful guide.
I've seen various reports with statistics on the deaths in this conflict, and none of them had public source material. This is the only public database I'm aware of, and indeed, in some cases the description does give rise to additional questions. But it's, IMHO, infinitely better than no source material at all.

Pardalis

28th December 2008, 07:40 AM

Oh please, I just saw this (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image2-2.png) on CNN... Photo OP anyone?

There's no way these kids were in the vehicle when it was struck, so what's the point of posting this picture?

Again, how many? And at what age? IIRC, there are various countries around the world that take minors (i.e., people below 18) into the military.

That makes it OK? I don't understand your point.

The only thing left we need is a Michael Jackson song.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 07:54 AM

Yes, I have access to the list, and I also mentioned that you extract your own numbers from it. You raised the point of minors standing next to rocket launchers, so the onus is on you to quantify that point.

I have no intention of doing work that you should have already done before using the list as if it was a respectable and accurate source.
I have already pointed out how the list, when examined, shows numerous examples of hamas blatant disregard for the safety of palestinian children.

This is the only public database I'm aware of, and indeed, in some cases the description does give rise to additional questions. But it's, IMHO, infinitely better than no source material at all.

If badly put together databases produced by agenda driven organisations are your kind of thing then feel free to continue taking them at face value.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 07:57 AM

Oh please, I just saw this (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/Image2-2.png) on CNN... Photo OP anyone?

There's no way these kids were in the vehicle when it was struck, so what's the point of posting this picture? That makes it OK? I don't understand your point. The only thing left we need is a Michael Jackson song.

Because the children are used as pawns by the media too. Nothing better than juxtapositioning a child against a war zone to sell your product.

I noticed the BBC took down their "child picture," and now has a Palestinian man and woman walking through smoke. Alternatively I only see - as I look this very moment - only pictures of IDF soldiers. IDF soldiers vs Palestinian civilians is the subliminal message.

Where are the pics of the Qassam squads and Hamas militants? Magically they are not at the BBC. ;)

ddt

28th December 2008, 08:20 AM

Again, how many? And at what age? IIRC, there are various countries around the world that take minors (i.e., people below 18) into the military.
That makes it OK? I don't understand your point.

The only thing left we need is a Michael Jackson song.
I was not referring to child soldiers in Africa. The UN Conventions of the Right of a Child says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children):
State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
E.g., Britain has a minimum recruitment age of 16. Note that the person listed by scissorheads was 16.

This is beyond the point, what is a kid doing anywhere near a rocket launcher, for whatever reason? Don't the parents care for the safety of their children?
How many 16 year olds listen to their parents?
How many 16 year olds drive carelessly?
How many 16 year olds drive while drunk?
Etc.

I have no intention of doing work that you should have already done before using the list as if it was a respectable and accurate source.
I have already pointed out how the list, when examined, shows numerous examples of hamas blatant disregard for the safety of palestinian children.

If badly put together databases produced by agenda driven organisations are your kind of thing then feel free to continue taking them at face value.
You have given 1 example of a 16-year old killed while standing next to a rocket launcher. You have not shown Hamas responsibility for that.

Until you show, with numbers, there is indeed a considerable amount of those cases, and moreover, you show by citing research on the matter, that this is indeed due to Hamas' involvement, you have no point whatsoever.

The onus to provide such numbers is on you, not on me. That is very clear. You could have asked very kindly if I could calculate those numbers, but given your attitude you've blown that opportunity.

And even when, you have not shown they were combatants, and you have not shown they're incorrectly listed as minors. You have not shown that B'Tselem's database is "badly put together".

And lastly, are you aware what B'Tselem is? It is an Israeli human rights organization, run by Israelis. I guess you would call them "self hating Jews?"

yairhol

28th December 2008, 08:49 AM

This is beyond the point, what is a kid doing anywhere near a rocket launcher, for whatever reason? Don't the parents care for the safety of their children?

This brings me back to a thread I once started:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106503

It is still so true.

Molinaro

28th December 2008, 09:11 AM

Yes innocent. Your vile collective disdain for the Palestinians is disgusting many people.

Who made you the spokesperson for these many people?

If you have an opinion, offer it as your own. It serves no purpose to pretend you speaking for others. Let them speak for themself.

I fully support the actions taken by Israel. That the complainers can simply ignore the continued rocket fire into Israel that led to this counter attack does not surprise me in the least.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 09:23 AM

You have given 1 example of a 16-year old killed while standing next to a rocket launcher. You have not shown Hamas responsibility for that.

Until you show, with numbers, there is indeed a considerable amount of those cases, and moreover, you show by citing research on the matter, that this is indeed due to Hamas' involvement, you have no point whatsoever.

I get the feeling that you have never examined the list or if you have then you have no intention of pointing out the remarkable amount of cases of palestinian children being killed while nearby quassam rocket launchers.
Many much younger than 16.
Feel free to ignore this fact, other people may want to go and look though.

Heres the link again.

http://tinyurl.com/ndy4x

And lastly, are you aware what B'Tselem is? It is an Israeli human rights organization, run by Israelis. I guess you would call them "self hating Jews?"

I am well aware what B'Tselem is and well aware of whose human rights are paramount to them.
Perhaps they should spend more time lecturing hamas about using civilians as human shields, rather than lecturing Israel for trying to protect its citizens.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 09:26 AM

I fully support the actions taken by Israel.

Me too.

I mean really, if Hamas fires over 200+ rockets in a week, a "proportional" response - in my view - means crushing Hamas. A "proportional" response does not mean hitting Hamas gently so that they still feel like fighting. It's war, not a game of checkers.

And before the usual "just a few Palestinians voted for Hamas" meme is invoked:

Washington Post Foreign Service (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2005Jan28.html)

The radical Palestinian group Hamas, which has conducted numerous suicide bombings against Israelis and which the United States considers a terrorist organization, won an overwhelming victory in Thursday's local elections in the Gaza Strip, capturing almost two-thirds of all the seats being contested and seizing power in seven of the 10 towns where elections were held, according to independent analyses of results released on Friday.

Voter turnout was more than 80 percent.

After the past couple days maybe people will really think twice before electing Islamist terror organization to lead them.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 09:28 AM

I would too support Israel's actions, if it was not for the criminal blockade upon Gaza.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 09:43 AM

I would too support Israel's actions, if it was not for the criminal blockade upon Gaza.

...which began after Hamas took control of Gaza in a bloody coup. ;)

Washington Post Foreign Service (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400145.html)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the Palestinian government Thursday and declared a state of emergency after rival Hamas forces took complete control of the Gaza Strip in what the Islamic movement called the territory's "liberation."

"Gaza is out of control, and in my mind it's a coup that has happened there," said Saeb Erekat, a Fatah lawmaker from the West Bank who is the chief Palestinian negotiator with Israel. "The decision Hamas has made in recent days has torn Gaza from the West Bank."

edited to add:

http://news.bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4595917.stm)

The crisis has also prompted the European Commission to suspend humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14287044.htm)

The European Commission has suspended humanitarian aid to Gaza because of "suicidal" fighting among Palestinian factions and will only resume it if violence stops, the EU's top aid official said on Thursday.

"The humanitarian situation is catastrophic, we have had to withdraw our (aid) operators," European Aid and Development Commissioner Louis Michel told Reuters. "It's dramatic and it's unacceptable."

EU ministers suspend aid to Hamas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895068.stm)

EU foreign ministers have endorsed a temporary halt to direct aid to the Palestinian government led by Hamas. The EU says it cannot fund the organisation unless it renounces violence, recognises Israel and commits to past peace agreements.

So if the EU can suspend humanitarian aid to Gaza because of Hamas fighting with Fatah, Israel has the right to suspend humanitarian aid to Gaza because of Hamas fighting with Israel.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 09:53 AM

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 09:58 AM

President Abbas says Hamas is preventing injured Palestinians from going to Egypt for medical care. I don't doubt it.

He also blaims Hamas for whats going in. He begged them to renew the cease-fire and they said no.

Abbas should be happy! Israel is doing Fatah's dirty work for him. ;)

Thunder

28th December 2008, 10:15 AM

It does sorta appear that way

ddt

28th December 2008, 10:18 AM

I get the feeling that you have never examined the list or if you have then you have no intention of pointing out the remarkable amount of cases of palestinian children being killed while nearby quassam rocket launchers.
Many much younger than 16.
Feel free to ignore this fact, other people may want to go and look though.
I get the feeling you're grasping at straws to try to discredit B'Tselem's list.

Answer two straight questions:
1) was this person incorrectly listed as a minor?
2) was this person incorrectly listed as "not taking part in hostilities"?
and the same for the other "remarkable amount of cases" you claim.

And have you read the clarification[/U: to the lists:
B’Tselem emphasizes that the listing of a person as a civilian, or having not participated in the fighting, or the inclusion of any other details regarding the cause of death, does not indicate that the person or entity that killed the individual violated the law, or that the deceased was innocent, or that any other legal or moral conclusion can be drawn from the facts.

Anything beyond that is your own interpretation. And instead of trying to discredit the list, you should cherish the level of detail it provides so that you could come up with an accurate count of Palestinian minors that have been killed while standing next to a rocket launcher. But you refuse, now for the third time, to come up with such a number - calculating which would cost less time than the posts you squander on refusing to do so.

Heres the link again.

[url]http://tinyurl.com/ndy4x (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Clarifications.asp)
What's wrong with the original link? I sense an ulterior motive in providing this alternative link.

I am well aware what B'Tselem is and well aware of whose human rights are paramount to them.
Perhaps they should spend more time lecturing hamas about using civilians as human shields, rather than lecturing Israel for trying to protect its citizens.
More unsubstantiated allegiations. B'Tselem does not distinguish between Palestinian or Israeli or any other lives. And they also condemn and lecture Hamas or other Palestinian factions, like here (http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20081225.asp) and here (http://www.btselem.org/English/Inter_Palestinian_Violations/) and here (http://www.btselem.org/english/inter_palestinian_violations/20071118_Killing_of_Demonstrators_By_Hamas_Executi ve_Force_in_Gaza.asp).

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 10:43 AM

Answer two straight questions:
1) was this person incorrectly listed as a minor?
2) was this person incorrectly listed as "not taking part in hostilities"?
and the same for the other "remarkable amount of cases" you claim.

I have no idea about the accuracy of any of the information in that list.
Take that up with the website.

I am interested in the remarkable amount of cases involving children being killed around quassam launching sites.

What's wrong with the original link? I sense an ulterior motive in providing this alternative link.

And apart from making it easier for people to find rather than scrolling back looking for it, what would that motive be?

This is becoming amusing now.

ddt

28th December 2008, 10:54 AM

I have no idea about the accuracy of any of the information in that list.
Take that up with the website.
You're the one questioning its accuracy. You take it up with them.

I am interested in the remarkable amount of cases involving children being killed around quassam launching sites.
The fourth time you mention a "remarkable amount" without specifying a number, although you could count it.

And apart from making it easier for people to find rather than scrolling back looking for it, what would that motive be?
I don't see why a tinyurl would make it easier for people to find it than the actual url. You could have provided the actual url (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp) again, if you're worried that people can't find it a couple of posts up.

This is becoming amusing now.
It's indeed becoming amusing how you evade to substantiate your own allegations.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 10:55 AM

B'Tselem does not distinguish between Palestinian or Israeli or any other lives. And they also condemn and lecture Hamas or other Palestinian factions, like here and here and here.

Meaningless statements when you consider that the end result of their lobbying means the IDF being forced to fight with one arm tied behind its back, while its opponents use civilians as human shields and have no interest in any pronouncements or condemnations from B'Tselem.

BTW, your concern about my tinyurl link is funny.
God only knows what you think my ulterior motive is.
Its a habit of mine to use them.
Nothing sinister.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 11:14 AM

I am interested in the remarkable amount of cases involving children being killed around quassam launching sites.

That is because these launching sites are sometimes hidden amongst homes.

Video of IAF destroying Qassam launching pad located in residential area.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945)

In this Qassam video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3IBttqOAgA&feature=related) at :43 seconds, :53 seconds, 1:25, 1:30, 1:52, 2:44, 4:24, 5:00, you can see Qassam rockets being fired from civilian areas and even building rooftops.

In this Qassam video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKquF1q49o&feature=related) you can see the buildings next to the launchpad, and hear the people cheering as the missles are fired.

In this video mortars are fired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs&feature=related) at Israel from the front entrance of a school in Gaza.

Now I hear this a lot, "the Qassams are crude weapons that don't really cause much damage," here is raw footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFMih_S2AR0&feature=related) of a Qassam exploding in a back yard in Sderot. I sure the hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near that!

Thunder

28th December 2008, 11:44 AM

The blockade was wrong. The missiles from Gaza were wrong. Both sides were wrong, and both sides should stop the violence now.

Safe-Keeper

28th December 2008, 11:54 AM

I know next to nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more than the bare basics, but let me just say this:

Just that a populace votes for a party you don't like, regardless of whether or not you can put the 'terrorist' stamp on them, doesn't make them combatants.

Scenario:

The US populace elects George W. Bush and the GOP.
Bush and the GOP invades Iraq.
The American civilian populace is hit by an attack stemming from Iraq.
An Iraqi spokesman states that 'this should teach them not to elect Christian war mongers into power again'.

BirdStrike, I have a nasty feeling that you would be outraged if #3 happened. Please explain why, making sure to reconcile your view with your stance that it's totally acceptable to kill civilians if they vote for a party that initiates a conflict.

Thank you.

This is beyond the point, what is a kid doing anywhere near a rocket launcher, for whatever reason? Don't the parents care for the safety of their children? What I do know is that it was supposedly a favorite Hezbollah tactic to drive to whatever they wanted destroyed, fire a rocket or two, drive away... and sit back and watch the fireworks as the IDF pelted the area with missiles.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 12:18 PM

The blockade was wrong. The missiles from Gaza were wrong. Both sides were wrong, and both sides should stop the violence now.

I should be clear as well. I am not happy about the humanitarian aid restrictions. I am not happy that Palestinian families are desperate for food and other essentials. If I had my way there would be no humanitarian aid restrictions.

But we are talking about some really bad guys. The real thing. Here's a video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/252068/kassam_rocket_in_un_car/) of militants moving rockets in a UN vehicle in Gaza - :33 sec. Hamas also steals the humanitarian aid (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0983878), and fuel (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870521477&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), for it's operations. The international aid they don't pay for, or steal, is taxed (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-08/2007-08-20-voa51.cfm). We went through all that in specific details in another thread. Hamas capitalizes on humanitarian aid.

So the only way to punish Hamas, and control Hamas's grip on Gaza, is to cut it's supply lines - see: aid shipments. If Hamas handed Gaza back to the Palestinian Authority, renounced terrorism, and stopped firing rockets at Israel, then there would be no need to restrict it's supply lines.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 12:27 PM

Hamas....is bad. Their civil war with Fatah...was bad.

But Israel limiting the amount of food, water, medicine, and fuel, they allowed into Gaza....only being enough to prevent a "humanitarian disaster"...was a very very bad inhumane move.

Israel should have used blockades ONLY as a response to violent acts, and ONLY in ways that can logically prevent the movement of weapons, missiles, etc.

Blocking road imports....from Israel...in order to prevent Syria and Iran from sending in long range missiles....is as stupid as the USA blockading Canada in order to prevent Iraqis from getting Iranian IEDs.

What is the solution now? Stop the Israeli attacks, stop the blockade on Gaza, and stop the Hamas rocket attacks. I see no other way that will not lead to 10,000 Palestinian civilian and Hamas deaths and hundreds of Israeli civilian and military deaths.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 12:36 PM

Blocking road imports....from Israel...in order to prevent Syria and Iran from sending in long range missiles...

1) Not all of Gazas borders and road crossings are with Israel.
2) The blockade also involves importation from sea.

As long as Hamas is in control of Gaza and has a policy of bombarding Israel with rockets, it would be insane not to police the borders of Gaza.
Obviously if basic humanitarian aid is being stopped then that is wrong.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 12:41 PM

1) Not all of Gazas borders and road crossings are with Israel.
2) The blockade also involves importation from sea.

As long as Hamas is in control of Gaza and has a policy of bombarding Israel with rockets, it would be insane not to police the borders of Gaza.
Obviously if basic humanitarian aid is being stopped then that is wrong.

While Hamas rules Gaza, it is only prudent that Israel checks all imports very carefully for weapons. But there is no reason why ALL food, medicine, fuel, civilian supplies, should not get through.

Hungry people...make angry people.

If Israel was using food and medicine as a weapon against Hamas, then they have commited a war crime.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 12:47 PM

"If Israel was using food and medicine as a weapon against Hamas,"

Any evidence of this?

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 12:49 PM

The US populace elects George W. Bush and the GOP.
Bush and the GOP invades Iraq.
The American civilian populace is hit by an attack stemming from Iraq.
An Iraqi spokesman states that 'this should teach them not to elect Christian war mongers into power again'.

BirdStrike, I have a nasty feeling that you would be outraged if #3 happened. Please explain why, making sure to reconcile your view with your stance that it's totally acceptable to kill civilians if they vote for a party that initiates a conflict.

Thank you.

In WW2 were German civilians killed? How about British civilians? How about in Bosnia? Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? Show me a war where civilians are not killed because of hostilities, or decisions by governments. I don't like killing anyone, but if I am at war, and it's you or meSafe-Keeper, I pick me. Sorry.

Regarding the Palestinians in Gaza... Hamas didn't just drop out of a gumdrop tree one day, they've been around for over a decade. Every Palestinian knows who Hamas is, they know about the jihad, they know about the suicide bombers, they know about the rockets. Yet in Gaza two thirds still voted for Hamas, with an 80%+ voter turnout (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2005Jan28.html).

They say it's because of Fatah's corruption, which to an extent I agree, but it turns out Safe-Keeper Hamas is as corrupt as Fatah, (see my post above to Parky76). So I am not happy that civilians are killed, but the blame can be layed at the feet of Hamas, they were repeatedly warned, and failed to heed the warnings.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 12:50 PM

They allowed in only enough food and medicine to prevent mass starvation and mass death from illness. It doesn't take a genius to see that they hoped the blockade would force a Palestinian rebellion against Hamas.

That was the goal. It failed. If anything, it made the people love Hamas even more. I think they would rather die then kneel to the demands of Israel.

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 12:51 PM

The blockade was wrong. The missiles from Gaza were wrong. Both sides were wrong, and both sides should stop the violence now.

The international community should stop the violence. It won't end otherwise -- it might pause.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 12:52 PM

The international community should stop the violence. It won't end otherwise -- it might pause.

Agreed.

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 12:52 PM

FireGarden

28th December 2008, 01:00 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456495581&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

President Abbas says Hamas is preventing injured Palestinians from going to Egypt for medical care. I don't doubt it.

He also blaims Hamas for whats going in. He begged them to renew the cease-fire and they said no.

Why don't you doubt it?
What could Hamas gain by not letting the wounded out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801881.stm

Cairo says dozens of empty ambulances are at the Rafah crossing - the only one to Gaza which avoids Israel.

Hamas said it was drawing up lists of the injured but that it was difficult getting them to the border because of the ongoing Israeli air strikes.

Also, Reuters is saying the Egyptians have fired upon Palestinians who have crossed out of a warzone into Egypt:
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnLS331475.html

Dozens of Palestinians crossed into Egyptian territory from Gaza on Sunday as Egyptian riot police fired in the air to fend them off, witnesses said.

Reuters correspondent Yusri Mohamed said he had met several Palestinians on the Egyptian side of the border and they told him they had slipped across at holes in the border wall.

It was not immediately clear how the holes appeared in the wall but the exodus began within an hour of Israeli air raids aimed at tunnels along the Egyptian border.

Bursts of gunfire were audible by telephone from Rafah as the Egyptian police tried to frighten the Palestinians off. Gaza hospitals said they were treating 10 people wounded by Egyptian police shooting at Rafah.

I guess that's how Egypt treats refugees.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 01:05 PM

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html)

Israel gave in to requests from the Red Cross and others to allow 16 trucks loaded with fuel, food and medical supplies into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing Sunday morning. Egypt sent 20 ambulances to its border with Gaza, an Egyptian official said.

The Red Cross and World Food Program trucks, which carried rice, wheat and medical supplies, were the first deliveries allowed by Israel since 80 trucks moved through Friday after Israel opened three border crossings.

80 trucks Friday, 16 today, (Sunday), all during hostilities...the Israeli blockade in action. ;)

Thunder

28th December 2008, 01:05 PM

Why don't you doubt it?
What could Hamas gain by not letting the wounded out?

This would not be the 1st, 4th, or 8th time the safety and welfare of the Palestinian people was used as a political propaganda tool by their fellow Arabs and their own government.

Dead and injured Palestinians make great pictures on BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera.

Safe-Keeper

28th December 2008, 01:06 PM

In WW2 were German civilians killed? How about British civilians? How about in Bosnia? Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? Show me a war where civilians are not killed because of hostilities, or decisions by governments. I don't like killing anyone, but if I am at war, and it's you or meSafe-Keeper, I pick me. Sorry. So it's OK to intentionally target Palestinian civilians because the British targeted German civilians in WWII. Makes perfect sense, that.

Regarding the Palestinians in Gaza... Hamas didn't just drop out of a gumdrop tree one day, they've been around for over a decade. Every Palestinian knows who Hamas is, they know about the jihad, they know about the suicide bombers, they know about the rockets. Yet in Gaza two thirds still voted for Hamas, with an 80%+ voter turnout (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2005Jan28.html). You've already stated that the Palestinian civilians voted for Hamas, the same way the Republicans voted for Bush. I fail to see why you're reiterating your point.

Answer my question, please: if you feel it's OK to intentionally target civilians who vote for a regime that wages war or conducts terrorism, would you be OK with Iraqi commandos traveling to the USA and killing US civilians? If no, please reconcile your two contradictory stances.

They say it's because of Fatah's corruption, which to an extent I agree, but it turns out Safe-Keeper Hamas is as corrupt as Fatah, (see my post above to Parky76). So I am not happy that civilians are killed, but the blame can be layed at the feet of Hamas, they were repeatedly warned, and failed to heed the warnings. Nonsense. You are responsible for an action you carried out. "He asked for it" is a ridiculously thin defense when you've actually done something wrong. It's that bloody simple.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 01:07 PM

80 trucks Friday, 16 today, (Sunday), all during hostilities...the Israeli blockade in action. ;)

Wow, after the Red Cross begged Israel to let in trucks full of supplies and food, Israel let them in.

Olmert is a real &&^%$&# mensch.

ddt

28th December 2008, 01:09 PM

I asked for evidence, not an opinion.

How about this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm) for a starter?
Since Hamas took control of Gaza, its 1.5m people have been relying on less than a quarter of the volume of imported supplies they received in December 2005. Some weeks, significantly less than that has arrived.
and read on, of course.

Note the first graph. While it doesn't show every month, isn't it telling about Israel's attitude about the ceasefire that the number of imports in October 2008, when the ceasefire worked, is actually lower than in July 2008, at the start of the ceasefire?

Doctor Evil

28th December 2008, 01:10 PM

Wow, after the Red Cross begged Israel to let in trucks full of supplies and food, Israel let them in.

Olmert is a real &&^%$&# mensch.

Can you supply some statistics on the numbers of trucks each month?

Tin Foil Timothy

28th December 2008, 01:12 PM

So it's OK to intentionally target Palestinian civilians because the British targeted German civilians in WWII. Makes perfect sense, that.

It's standard practise to answer any criticism of Israel or the Zionist Movement by either shouting Anti-semitism or bringing up other world injustices in an attempt to show Israel's behavior is OK because it's happened elsewhere in teh world and elsewhere in history.

I think it's an elementary lesson in ADL school ;)

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 01:12 PM

So it's OK to intentionally target Palestinian civilians because the British targeted German civilians in WWII. Makes perfect sense, that.

Im not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion.
How is Israel intentionally targetting civilians?
They do their best to avoid them, unlike Hamas.

Also can you provide some evidence that the British intentionally targetted German civilians in WW2?
Maybe you should have used the German Blitz on London as a better example.

Tin Foil Timothy

28th December 2008, 01:23 PM

Thank you.

I would prefer clarification over childish chest beating, and no-so-subtle insults referring to my stupidity. That is why I refused to help __________ polarize this thread further.

It speaks for itself. See my signature. :D

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 01:30 PM

So it's OK to intentionally target Palestinian civilians because the British targeted German civilians in WWII. Makes perfect sense, that.

That's called a strawman. What I tried to convey is that civilians always pay with their lives during wartime. Not that "it's ok to intentionally target Palestinian civilians."

You've already stated that the Palestinian civilians voted for Hamas, the same way the Republicans voted for Bush. I fail to see why you're reiterating your point.

Because you seek absolution for the people who voted for, and support, Hamas. You seem to want to remove ownership and responsibility from the people who put Hamas into power.

Answer my question, please: if you feel it's OK to intentionally target civilians who vote for a regime that wages war or conducts terrorism, would you be OK with Iraqi commandos traveling to the USA and killing US civilians? If no, please reconcile your two contradictory stances.

Asked and answered. I've never said it's ok "to intentionally target civilians."

Nonsense. You are responsible for an action you carried out. "He asked for it" is a ridiculously thin defense when you've actually done something wrong. It's that bloody simple.

Two thirds of Gazans voted for Hamas, with an 80%+ voter turnout. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2005Jan28.html) I refuse to absolve them of their democratic choice. The people spoke. Hamas acted. Here we are. :(

edited to add:

Russia asks Israel to end Gaza attacks, let in aid (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS305586.htm)

MOSCOW, Dec 28 (Reuters) - Russia urged Israel on South OssetiaSunday to end military attacks Gori that had killed nearly South Ossetia 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip South Ossetia and allow humanitarian supplies Gori into the territory South Ossetia, Russia's Foreign Ministry said.

ya, i added the South Ossetia and Gori.

;)

Only a few short months ago (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/2000+dead+in+conflict+between+georgia+and+russia/2389772)

Georgia declares a state of war with Russia in its dispute over South Ossetia, amid claims of 2,000 deaths and tens of thousands of refugees.

Georgia has accused Russia of a "full-scale military invasion" in breakaway South Ossetia.

Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, who has flown close to the region, said his country's actions were "totally legitimate".

Such hypocrisy on this planet we live on.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 03:09 PM

Sorry to bump, but I just have to.

Suicide bomber kills 1, wounds 16 at protest against Gaza raids in Iraq (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050663.html)

A suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up Sunday amid a crowd of demonstrators in northern Iraq who were protesting Israel's air strikes on Gaza, killing one demonstrator and wounding 16 others, Iraqi police said.

:id: :id: :id:

scissorhands

28th December 2008, 03:16 PM

How about this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm) for a starter?

and read on, of course.

Note the first graph. While it doesn't show every month, isn't it telling about Israel's attitude about the ceasefire that the number of imports in October 2008, when the ceasefire worked, is actually lower than in July 2008, at the start of the ceasefire?

Yet both months show considerably larger imports than before the ceasefire, how interesting indeed.

Tin Foil Timothy

28th December 2008, 04:15 PM

Im not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion.
How is Israel intentionally targetting civilians?
They do their best to avoid them, unlike Hamas.

Evidence please?

WildCat

28th December 2008, 04:22 PM

Empty rocket launchers? After the rockets had been fired, or before? If after, how long after?
Because there's no way those launchers would ever be used to... launch more rockets!

The rationalizing in this thread is astonishing.

WildCat

28th December 2008, 04:37 PM

Just that a populace votes for a party you don't like, regardless of whether or not you can put the 'terrorist' stamp on them, doesn't make them combatants.
Congratulations! You have successfully refuted a point nobody has made!

dudalb

28th December 2008, 04:42 PM

Interesting column in Haaretz today: The worst anti-Israel charges you'll hear in wartime (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html).

And yes, we've seen these same arguments right here at the JREF!

I think Isreal overreacted to the Hamas attacks, but I am getting very tired of how some people here attempt to excuse or justify everything Hamas does.
And yes, I think a number of them advocate the destruction of Israel and genocide that would accompany that, but they don't have the honest guts to say so in so many words.

WildCat

28th December 2008, 04:45 PM

So it's OK to intentionally target Palestinian civilians because the British targeted German civilians in WWII. Makes perfect sense, that.
Again, you demonstrate your incredible knack for refuting arguments nobody has made!

ddt

28th December 2008, 06:37 PM

Yet both months show considerably larger imports than before the ceasefire, how interesting indeed.

:eye-poppi You'd like to compare the amount of imports during the ceasefire with those at the begin of the year, when Israel blocked them nearly all with a resulting international outcry???

The UN Office for Coordination of Human Affairs has a nice set of tables (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_humanitarian_monitor_table_2008_10_englis h.pdf), up to date until October. From page 6:

Period | Food | Fuel | Other(*)
Monthly av. 2005 | n/a | n/a | 3527
Monthly av. 2006 | 156 | 583 | 1598
Monthly av. 2007 | n/a | n/a | n/a
Nov. 2007 | 24 | 403 | 0
Dec. 2007 | 18 | 364 | 0
Jan. 2008 | 18 | n/a | 0
Feb. 2008 | 21 | n/a | 0
Mar. 2008 | 14 | n/a | 0
Apr. 2008 | 13 | 129 | 0
May 2008 | 21 | n/a | 0
June 2008 | 30 | 237 | 0
July 2008 | 107 | n/a | 0
Aug. 2008 | 59 | 342 | 0
Sep. 2008 | 84 | 342 | 0
Oct. 2008 | 50 | 245 | 0

(*) mainly construction materials.

And for some more reading pleasure: the Israeli organization Gisha (http://gisha.org/), Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, have published a position paper (http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications_english/Publications%20and%20Reports_English/Gaza%20Closure%20Defined%20Eng(1).pdf) on the closure of Gaza by the Israeli government. Their position is summarized by"
Not a siege, not a blockade, not economic sanctions -> Closure imposed for purposes of collective punishment.

ddt

28th December 2008, 07:01 PM

I think Isreal overreacted to the Hamas attacks, but I am getting very tired of how some people here attempt to excuse or justify everything Hamas does.
And yes, I think a number of them advocate the destruction of Israel and genocide that would accompany that, but they don't have the honest guts to say so in so many words.

Why don't you just give names of the people you mean? I have seen very little to none in the way of Hamas apologists (contrary to the existence of Israel apologists).

What tires me is those who just depict Hamas one-dimensionally as a terrorist organization, seemingly not only to argue that you shouldn't talk with them, but also that you shouldn't look into how the organization is composed.

Hamas really is too much of a power factor (now) to just try to ignore it. Peace cannot be achieved without Hamas' position also being factored in. To quote Dr. Jeroen Gunning (http://www.iofc.nl/node/27959), a Dutch researcher who studied Hamas and published a book about it half a year ago:
To shed some light onto Hamas’ behaviour, I will address the following four issues. First, I will show that Hamas, rather than being a ‘total spoiler’ – a political actor who is uncompromisingly intent on wrecking a peace process – has on various occasions acted to allow the peace process to move forward. This is important because it suggests that, despite the organisation’s ideological opposition to the peace process, there is a possibility that Hamas can be induced to accept a political settlement, even if it falls short of its stated end goal of liberating all of Palestine (and thus eradicating Israel). The key is to establish under what conditions Hamas is likely to do so.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 07:13 PM

gtc

28th December 2008, 07:17 PM

What tires me is those who just depict Hamas one-dimensionally as a terrorist organization,

And Charlie Manson is one-dimensionally portrayed as a psychopathic cult leader.

gtc

28th December 2008, 07:30 PM

To quote Dr. Jeroen Gunning (http://www.iofc.nl/node/27959), a Dutch researcher who studied Hamas and published a book about it half a year ago:

Let's see what he wrote after the paragraph you quoted:

There are various examples of Hamas temporarily shelving its long-term goal of liberating all of historic Palestine in return for domestic political gains – most prominent among them, the de facto ceasefire preceding the 1996 legislative election, its 2003 and 2005 ceasefire declarations, and its participation in the January 2006 legislative election, despite this being held in the context of an eventual two-state solution.

So the actions it undertook to 'peace process to move forward' involve temporarily refraining from pursuing the destruction of Israel.

During both the 2003 and 2005-6 ceasefires, operations did not stop completely and Hamas was accused of facilitating other militant groups to attack. Nevertheless, the marked drop in the annual Israeli death toll following the 2005 ceasefire, from over a 100 to around 30 (most of which were the responsibility of other groups), and the absence of suicide operations carried out by Hamas since 2005 suggest that, if not a complete ceasefire, this was at least a serious reduction in armed hostilities.

And during these ceasefires, dozens of Israelis still died.

So the steps that Hamas took were merely temporary reductions in the intensity of its attacks on Israel. But lets see how these actions point to the 'possibility that Hamas can be induced to accept a political settlement,'

This may not have been a strategic shift towards accepting a long-term political settlement. But a tactical compromise is often the first step on the road to strategic compromise

So its simply that strategic compromises have often been preceded by tactical compromises.

There is an enormous amount of wishful thinking surrounding Hamas. I wonder why that is?

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 07:42 PM

And Charlie Manson is one-dimensionally portrayed as a psychopathic cult leader.

The German people of today are no different to the German people of Nazi Germany. Collective irrationality is common throughout history.

To portray the existence of Hamas as psychopathic behaviour is simplistic and self defeating, just as the spreading of the anti-semitism of "The Protocols" is. If you like to read Bradley Burson, as I do, he has just as many examples of collectively stupid and immoral behaviour that have occured on the part of Israel as he has of Palestinians.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 07:46 PM

This is beyond the point, what is a kid doing anywhere near a rocket launcher, for whatever reason? Don't the parents care for the safety of their children?

You don't know, you have no evidence of why, so you can't draw any conclusions.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 07:46 PM

The German people of today are no different to the German people of Nazi Germany. .

you have no idea what you're talking about

gtc

28th December 2008, 07:53 PM

AUP,

My post was pointing out that Hamas's terrorist activities shouldn't be downplayed. I wasn't suggesting that all Palestinians are terrorists or that Israel has never behaved irrationally or immorally.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 07:53 PM

you have no idea what you're talking about

The German people of today are no different to the German people of Nazi Germany. Can you tell me what has changed? Did they suddenly get smarter a lot smarter? The Germans of the early 20th century were the scientifically most advanced nation on earth. Something happened to the German nation to create the horror of Nazi Germany, but the people then are no different to the people now.

Safe-Keeper

28th December 2008, 08:14 PM

Im not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion.
How is Israel intentionally targetting civilians?Attacking a city and killing and hurting nearly only civilians is intentionally targeting civilians.

Also can you provide some evidence that the British intentionally targetted German civilians in WW2?Oh, I don't know. Truth to be told, I don't really know where to start.

Dresden ring a bell?

Maybe you should have used the German Blitz on London as a better example.Perhaps. But BirdStrike brought up the British, so my reply addressed the British, who bombed German cities indiscriminately as much as the Germans bombed British cities. The British were, for lack of a better term, the good guys of WWII. This didn't, however, prevent them from doing some pretty nasty things.

That's called a strawman. What I tried to convey is that civilians always pay with their lives during wartime. Not that "it's ok to intentionally target Palestinian civilians."OK, now I'm really confused. We have a situation in which Israelis intentionally make the Israeli populace suffer without regard for such banalities as 'innocence' or 'civilian'. You state that this is OK, I address your point, and you (and your buddy) pretend you never made the point in the first place.

What about this?
Because you seek absolution for the people who voted for, and support, Hamas. You seem to want to remove ownership and responsibility from the people who put Hamas into power.Just that a populace votes for a party you don't like, regardless of whether or not you can put the 'terrorist' stamp on them, doesn't make them combatants.
Congratulations! You have successfully refuted a point nobody has made!I give up this thread.
* Safe-Keeper comes back in
OK, maybe just walking out on the discussion was hastened and silly of me. It's just a forum thread, and the statements so far haven't been that-- wait, what's this?
The German people of today are no different to the German people of Nazi Germany. Can you tell me what has changed? Did they suddenly get smarter a lot smarter? The Germans of the early 20th century were the scientifically most advanced nation on earth. Something happened to the German nation to create the horror of Nazi Germany, but the people then are no different to the people now.* Safe-Keeper leaves.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 08:16 PM

The German people of today are no different to the German people of Nazi Germany. Can you tell me what has changed? Did they suddenly get smarter a lot smarter? The Germans of the early 20th century were the scientifically most advanced nation on earth. Something happened to the German nation to create the horror of Nazi Germany, but the people then are no different to the people now.

r u jewish?

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 08:28 PM

r u jewish?

No, but my great grandfather was. He left Germany in he late 1800's because the thought Germany was becoming too anti-semitic.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 08:32 PM

I believe, that the Germans have paid their debt in full....several times over. And I am Jewish.

The Fool

28th December 2008, 08:33 PM

No, but my great grandfather was. He left Germany in he late 1800's because the thought Germany was becoming too anti-semitic.

sounds like he knew what he was talking about!

Thunder

28th December 2008, 08:35 PM

So.....how many more billions of dollars does Germany have to give Israel before we forgive them?

Sefarst

28th December 2008, 08:36 PM

Attacking a city and killing and hurting nearly only civilians is intentionally targeting civilians.

Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but is there anything to be said if Hamas deliberately fires their rocket launchers from civilian areas knowing that Israeli retaliatory strikes on them will kill civilians, giving Hamas a propaganda victory?

In the case of Israel trying to retaliate against the Hezbollah tactics you mentioned earlier, would Israel be intentionally targeting civilians because Hezbollah launched a rocket from a neighborhood, moved it, and the retaliatory strike killed some people there?

Israel has an obligation to avoid killing civilians, but how do you fight an enemy that hides among them?

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 08:44 PM

I believe, that the Germans have paid their debt in full....several times over. And I am Jewish.

I think you misunderstand my point. When I say the Germans of today are no different, I mean as people. I have met Germans, and Austrians. They have a weird sense of humour, but a no different to anyone else when you talk to them. Whatever happened back in Nazi Germany, it was a period of collective insanity. My point is, how do ordinary people do such stupid things? Nazi Germany is an extreme example, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another more moderate one.

skepticalbeliever

28th December 2008, 08:53 PM

Sefarst

28th December 2008, 08:56 PM

I think you misunderstand my point. When I say the Germans of today are no different, I mean as people. I have met Germans, and Austrians. They have a weird sense of humour, but a no different to anyone else when you talk to them. Whatever happened back in Nazi Germany, it was a period of collective insanity. My point is, how do ordinary people do such stupid things? Nazi Germany is an extreme example, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another more moderate one.

Indoctrination into a cult of personality and an Us vs. Them mentality?

The Fool

28th December 2008, 08:57 PM

Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but is there anything to be said if Hamas deliberately fires their rocket launchers from civilian areas knowing that Israeli retaliatory strikes on them will kill civilians, giving Hamas a propaganda victory?

In the case of Israel trying to retaliate against the Hezbollah tactics you mentioned earlier, would Israel be intentionally targeting civilians because Hezbollah launched a rocket from a neighborhood, moved it, and the retaliatory strike killed some people there?

Israel has an obligation to avoid killing civilians, but how do you fight an enemy that hides among them?

Same way people have fought all the previous enemies that have "hid among them" all over the world. Isreals failing is in what it does after it has taken military control. It just........keeps control.....as if the means is an end.

Sefarst

28th December 2008, 09:14 PM

Same way people have fought all the previous enemies that have "hid among them" all over the world. Isreals failing is in what it does after it has taken military control. It just........keeps control.....as if the means is an end.

They've shown they're willing to negotiate as the situation with Fatah indicates. Hamas has said they won't negotiate with Israel under any circumstances.

A spokesman for Hamas on Saturday said negotiations with Israel is out of the question and the Islamic movement will never recognize "the enemy."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_8413681.htm

What do you do with Hamas in that situation?

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 09:17 PM

They've shown they're willing to negotiate as the situation with Fatah indicates. Hamas has said they won't negotiate with Israel under any circumstances.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_8413681.htm

What do you do with Hamas in that situation?

Hamas has said that before, and negotiated a truce.

gdnp

28th December 2008, 09:58 PM

....With the nytimes link you posted. Hamas was elected in January 2006, not June 2007. And therefore, there is nothing to debate.

Thank you for correcting my error. I read a report that stated that the blockade began when Hamas took control of Gaza, which I read as when they won the election, when in fact the blockade did not begin until they took military control.

Of course, the main point still stands: the blockade was not the result of any offensive action by Hamas against Israel, but was an Israeli response to infighting by different Palestinian factions.

WildCat

28th December 2008, 10:19 PM

What about this?
I give up this thread.
* Safe-Keeper comes back in
OK, maybe just walking out on the discussion was hastened and silly of me. It's just a forum thread, and the statements so far haven't been that-- wait, what's this?
* Safe-Keeper leaves.
How about instead of feigning astonishment you back up your claim that Isarael has targeted civilians? Or that anyone here advocated Israel targeting civilians?

WildCat

28th December 2008, 10:23 PM

Hamas has said that before, and negotiated a truce.
For the sole purpose of rearming without the threat of attack.

WildCat

28th December 2008, 10:25 PM

Thank you for correcting my error. I read a report that stated that the blockade began when Hamas took control of Gaza, which I read as when they won the election, when in fact the blockade did not begin until they took military control.

Of course, the main point still stands: the blockade was not the result of any offensive action by Hamas against Israel, but was an Israeli response to infighting by different Palestinian factions.
Actually it's a response to laws prohibiting support of internationally recognized terrorist groups. There is no loophole allowing support of terrorist groups just because they are also the government.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 11:19 PM

Of course, the main point still stands: the blockade was not the result of any offensive action by Hamas against Israel, but was an Israeli response to infighting by different Palestinian factions.

ENOUGH crocodile tears about the blockade already. Seriously.

The European Union could halt tens of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians if Hamas wins Palestinian elections next month and fails to renounce violence, the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said Sunday.

Dec 2005 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/18/news/pals.php)

EU foreign ministers have endorsed a temporary halt to direct aid to the Palestinian government led by Hamas.

April 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895068.stm)

The EU suspended its humanitarian aid projects in the Gaza Strip on Thursday as Hamas effectively took control of the territory in battles with the rival Fatah movement, prompting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-Fatah unity government.

June 2007 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-eu-gaza_N.htm)

Gazans have been suffering a fourth day of power outages after the European Union suspended an aid scheme under which it finances fuel supplies.

August 2007 (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/08/200852514117804920.html)

There is not one post about the EU suspending aid. Not a single one. Go ahead posters find a complaint at JREF about the EU's halt of humanitarian aid to Gaza. I'll wait. :mad:

All I get is:

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

While you are also searching for the EU suspending aid complaints at JREF I remind you there are pages and pages and pages at JREF full of complaints when Israel suspends aid while under fire by Hamas rockets. Some have even used it to justify the rockets! see: 12+ pages in the "Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'" thread as an example.

This is typical when it comes to Israel. Take an issue, and build it into a huge "crime against humanity", and never mention that other countries did the VERY SAME THING. (See: Russia and South Ossetia/Gori as another example, and Russia wasn't even under fire!)

Frankly this blatant hypocrisy makes my blood boil to the tipping point when it appears repeatedly. It is propaganda designed specifically to minimize the Palestinians role in this mess, and maximize the demonization of Israel. And many are acting as useful idiots by participating in it! You know it and I know it.

a_unique_person

28th December 2008, 11:22 PM

For the sole purpose of rearming without the threat of attack.

Are you a mind reader? It's entirely possible, it's also possible they are serious about a longer term peace. The current situation in Gaza is untenable. They will lose power soon at the rate they are going.

BirdStrike

28th December 2008, 11:31 PM

Are you a mind reader? It's entirely possible, it's also possible they are serious about a longer term peace. The current situation in Gaza is untenable. They will lose power soon at the rate they are going.

Have you completely forgotten about the decade of suicide bombers? The repeated calls for jihad? The Hamas Charter. The parades with thousands of Hamas supporters fist-pumping their AK-47s chanting "death to Israel, death to the USA!!!""

Have you?

You place waaaaaaaaaay too much faith in Hamas a_unique_person. They are no different than Al Qaeda. The only difference is Hamas leaders wear tailored suits.

gdnp

28th December 2008, 11:53 PM

Not that Egypt is blameless. They could open the border if the government had enough spine to be anything other than collaborators:

Feb 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7233212.stmI think Israel might be thrilled if Egypt would open the border to Gaza. Then they could shut the gate on the Israeli side permanently and Gaza's humanitarian crisis would become Egypt's problem. Israel could still attack Gaza targets when missiles target Siderot, but they would have one less headache.

.
So if the EU can suspend humanitarian aid to Gaza because of Hamas fighting with Fatah, Israel has the right to suspend humanitarian aid to Gaza because of Hamas fighting with Israel.The EU suspended aid because the security situation did not allow it to be delivered safely. This is not why Israel has maintained the food blockade. It is to punish Hamas and those who voted for them.

While Hamas rules Gaza, it is only prudent that Israel checks all imports very carefully for weapons. But there is no reason why ALL food, medicine, fuel, civilian supplies, should not get through.

Hungry people...make angry people.

If Israel was using food and medicine as a weapon against Hamas, then they have commited a war crime.exactly

And before the usual "just a few Palestinians voted for Hamas" meme is invoked:
After the past couple days maybe people will really think twice before electing Islamist terror organization to lead them.

Regarding the Palestinians in Gaza... Hamas didn't just drop out of a gumdrop tree one day, they've been around for over a decade. Every Palestinian knows who Hamas is, they know about the jihad, they know about the suicide bombers, they know about the rockets. Yet in Gaza two thirds still voted for Hamas, with an 80%+ voter turnout (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2005Jan28.html).

You continue to repeat this 2/3 of the vote figure, I presume because Hamas won 77 of 118 seats. The election, however, was held using a block voting system: Hamas may therefore have won a considerably smaller proportion of the vote. I have been unable to find the actual vote totals in about 2 hours of searching. Do you have a reference showing that Hamas received 2/3 of the vote, rather than 2/3 of the seats? This is quite an important distinction if you wish to claim that Hamas has overwhelming support from the Palestinian population.

After all, Obama won 100% of the presidency but only a bit more than 50% of the vote.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 12:02 AM

The EU suspended aid because the security situation did not allow it to be delivered safely. This is not why Israel has maintained the food blockade. It is to punish Hamas and those who voted for them.

I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly take your word for it. Find the quote by the EU where they state "because the security situation did not allow it to be delivered safely."

I shall wait. Along with waiting for the cited JREF posts complaining about the EU halting aid to Gaza.

While I am waiting for those citations, and the onus is now on you to find it to back up your claim..... let's say you are right, so the EU can suspend aid over delivery problems but Israel should not suspend aid while under attack by Hamas in Gaza. Is that the rationale we are dealing with here in a nutshell?

edited to add:

Egypt says Hamas not allowing wounded to leave Gaza (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081228/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazaegyptaid_081228101521)

RAFAH, Egypt (AFP) – Egypt on Sunday blamed Hamas for not letting hundreds of Palestinians wounded by Israeli air strikes leave the Gaza Strip for treatment, with dozens of empty ambulances waiting on the border.

"No one has come in, we don't know why they're closed on the other side," a senior border security official told AFP. Several plane- and truck-loads of aid are also waiting to be allowed into the Gaza Strip, a security official said.

"The wounded are barred from crossing" into Egypt, Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said in Cairo, blaming "those who control Gaza. We are waiting for the wounded to cross."

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 12:22 AM

You place waaaaaaaaaay too much faith in Hamas a_unique_person. They are no different than Al Qaeda. The only difference is Hamas leaders wear tailored suits.

And what would you compare the Israeli Establishment with birdstrike?

Let's see? Creating apartheid, ghettos, near starvation, collective punishments, stealing of possessions, etc, etc

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 12:28 AM

I blame this crisis on the arabs. Why don't they condem it when hamas killes one of their own children when a rocket misfires and doesn't hit israel? I guess they ease theyr guilt by offering those dead children to allah as martyers.

Israel should retake Gaza, it is in the pals best intrest. They can't govern them selves.

Oh dear. nothing to do with a country with designs on expansionism being created where other people already lived then?

I say we all get together and self declare the United States of JREF in France. We can displace all the French in a tightly packed ghetto and when they fight back and fire crude rockets at us we can blame them.

nice!

KoihimeNakamura

29th December 2008, 12:40 AM

What you said isn't right. It's not even wrong.

gdnp

29th December 2008, 12:41 AM

I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly take your word for it. Find the quote by the EU where they state "because the security situation did not allow it to be delivered safely."

I shall wait.

Will this do? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-eu-gaza_N.htm)

Separately, Michel, the EU humanitarian aid official, announced a halt to 16 EU relief projects in Gaza "because of lack of security."

Perhaps you should read your own links.

I think an apology is in order

I shall wait.

While we're waiting, let's look a bit more at the European suspension of aid you wish to equate with the Israeli blockade: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895068.stm)

EU foreign ministers have endorsed a temporary halt to direct aid to the Palestinian government led by Hamas.

The EU says it cannot fund the organisation unless it renounces violence, recognises Israel and commits to past peace agreements.

Hamas, which won elections in January, is described as a terrorist group by the EU and the United States.

The EU, the biggest aid donor to the Palestinians, is expected to maintain some humanitarian aid.

The EU's External Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said she supported the European Commission's proposal which was backed by foreign ministers.

"But at the same time, of course, we will want to stand by the Palestinian people as we always said and we'll want to help them with their basic needs, that means water, electricity, that means maybe education, that means food aid," she said.

So, based on your own link, it seems that the EU was not calling for a temporary suspension of aid, just a temporary suspension of aid to the Hamas led Palestinian Government As perhaps you know, the Palestinian government is not particularly flush with revenue sources. There are no exports since Israel closed the borders, and you seem to have problems with them taxing humanitarian aid, which leaves the government dependent on foreign donations not only to supply food, fuel, and medicine but also to pay government employees: policemen, teachers, fire fighters, bureaucrats, social workers, etc.

The United States and the EU cut official aid to the Palestinians when Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, took office in March 2006. But the EU then launched an alternate aid scheme for Palestinian hardship cases — such as public servants who went unpaid as outside aid evaporated — that bypasses the government...

As the Gaza fighting intensified, EU Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner Louis Michel called for "a humanitarian truce to allow injured people to be evacuated and basic assistance — food, water and medical aid — to be delivered."

Let's see: Hamas takes over...the EU does not wish to distribute aid through a Hamas controlled channels, so it sets up alternative channels bypassing Hamas. Sure doesn't sound like they wanted to cut off food and fuel to the Palestinian people, does it? Now isn't this a bit different than the Israeli blockade of all food, fuel, and medical supplies into Gaza?

a_unique_person

29th December 2008, 12:44 AM

Have you completely forgotten about the decade of suicide bombers? The repeated calls for jihad? The Hamas Charter. The parades with thousands of Hamas supporters fist-pumping their AK-47s chanting "death to Israel, death to the USA!!!""

Have you?

You place waaaaaaaaaay too much faith in Hamas a_unique_person. They are no different than Al Qaeda. The only difference is Hamas leaders wear tailored suits.

I am putting no faith in Hamas. Hamas is very different to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesn't actually have to do anything, it is responsible for no-one. Hamas has promised the Palestinians it can look after them. When people have to feed out of rubbish bins, it clearly has failed on that promise.

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 12:46 AM

I think an apology is in order

I shall wait.

gdnp .. see my signature to see what you're dealing with. shrug :)

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 12:49 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html

gdnp

29th December 2008, 12:50 AM

edited to add:
Quote:
Egypt says Hamas not allowing wounded to leave Gaza

RAFAH, Egypt (AFP) – Egypt on Sunday blamed Hamas for not letting hundreds of Palestinians wounded by Israeli air strikes leave the Gaza Strip for treatment, with dozens of empty ambulances waiting on the border.

"No one has come in, we don't know why they're closed on the other side," a senior border security official told AFP. Several plane- and truck-loads of aid are also waiting to be allowed into the Gaza Strip, a security official said.

"The wounded are barred from crossing" into Egypt, Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said in Cairo, blaming "those who control Gaza. We are waiting for the wounded to cross."
__________________

Gee...it's almost as if that the attacks of Hamas's command and control centers and government offices had disrupted their ability to coordinate the delivery of medical supplies and the evacuate the injured.

No, it must be Hamas trying to create more martyrs by letting the injured die.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 01:05 AM

Will this do? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-eu-gaza_N.htm)

You proved my point. The EU halted aid.

Separately, Michel, the EU humanitarian aid official, announced a halt to 16 EU relief projects in Gaza "because of lack of security."

So I ask again. The EU can suspend aid over security concerns, but Israel should not suspend aid over security concerns. Is that your position?

So, based on your own link, it seems that the EU was not calling for a temporary suspension of aid, just a temporary suspension of aid to the Hamas led Palestinian Government

So I ask again. The EU can suspend aid to the Hamas led Palestinian Government, but Israel should not suspend aid to the Hamas-led "government" in Gaza? Is that your position?

As perhaps you know, the Palestinian government is not particularly flush with revenue sources. There are no exports since Israel closed the borders, and you seem to have problems with them taxing humanitarian aid, which leaves the government dependent on foreign donations not only to supply food, fuel, and medicine but also to pay government employees: policemen, teachers, fire fighters, bureaucrats, social workers, etc.

Ya, I have a HUGE problem with Hamas stealing (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0983878) and capitalizing (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-08/2007-08-20-voa51.cfm) on international aid they didn't pay a dime for. Ya. I have a huge problem with that. edspecially when the people they are stealing from, and taxing don't have a dime!

Let's see: Hamas takes over...the EU does not wish to distribute aid through a Hamas controlled channels, so it sets up alternative channels bypassing Hamas. Sure doesn't sound like they wanted to cut off food and fuel to the Palestinian people, does it? Now isn't this a bit different than the Israeli blockade of all food, fuel, and medical supplies into Gaza?

Nope. Both are wishes not to distribute aid through a Hamas controlled channels. The hypocrisy is it's ok for the EU to do it, and not ok for Israel to do the same thing.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 01:09 AM

Gee...it's almost as if that the attacks of Hamas's command and control centers and government offices had disrupted their ability to coordinate the delivery of medical supplies and the evacuate the injured.

No, it must be Hamas trying to create more martyrs by letting the injured die.

Here I'll solve the problem for you and Hamas gdnp:

Take two trucks and fill them with wounded, and drive to the Egyptian border, come back with medical supplies.

There.... in one sentence I solved the problem for you and Hamas... without using a command and control center OR government offices. :rolleyes:

29th December 2008, 01:56 AM

in European Boards the EU is pretty critisized for its halt on aid.

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 04:32 AM

in European Boards the EU is pretty critisized for its halt on aid.

Thanks for that useless bit of information.

The Fool

29th December 2008, 04:35 AM

They've shown they're willing to negotiate as the situation with Fatah indicates. Hamas has said they won't negotiate with Israel under any circumstances.

so what? Hamas won't negotiate. Then deal with someone who will. Join the right side in the Palestinian civil war and stop playing them off against each other.

What do you do with Hamas in that situation?
You don't. You certainly don't allow Hamas to run anything....They have demonstrated that they do not deserve that opportunity. If they want to be a terrorist organisation then lets treat them as one. The big oportunity is what you do after you have beaten up Hamas. I am going out on a limb here and predicting that Israel won't be forming a palestinian state...elected from a list of acceptable options. like Iraq. Should we simply continue a military occupation? That doesn't seem to have worked.

29th December 2008, 04:55 AM

Thanks for that useless bit of information.

no need to thnk me, it was not for you oc.

birdstrike asked why noone blames the EU.

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 05:11 AM

no need to thnk me, it was not for you oc.

birdstrike asked why noone blames the EU.

I'm sorry but a couple of anonymous people on the leftist truther fora you frequent don't really count.

29th December 2008, 05:17 AM

I'm sorry but a couple of anonymous people on the leftist truther fora you frequent don't really count.

sorry i dont frequent your right wing fora.....

and what european truther fora do i frequent?

are you out of arguments? or why do you feel it needed to make up crap about me? why the lies?

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 05:33 AM

birdstrike asked why noone blames the EU.

At JREF. Full stop.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Well it's been 5 hours and no one has come up with a post at JREF complaining about the EU halting fuel and food aid to Gaza. I will leave this challenge open for another 6 hours.

Here are the news stories cited again just to make it easy:

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895068.stm)
Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/08/200852514117804920.html)
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-eu-gaza_N.htm)

Funny how there are 13+ page threads about Israel restricting aid, and zero threads about the EU halting aid. I am fully prepared to be proven wrong, I want to be proven wrong. I certainly cant seem to find one post at JREF using the search tool.

That is why I consider the "Israeli blockade" meme crocodile tears by the people who rely on it. They have one level of standards for Israel to meet, and completely another for the EU to meet. I wonder why that is. ;)

29th December 2008, 05:48 AM

At JREF. Full stop.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Well it's been 5 hours and no one has come up with a post at JREF complaining about the EU halting fuel and food aid to Gaza. I will leave this challenge open for another 6 hours.

Here are the news stories cited again just to make it easy:

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895068.stm)
Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/08/200852514117804920.html)
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-eu-gaza_N.htm)

Funny how there are 13+ page threads about Israel restricting aid, and zero threads about the EU halting aid. I am fully prepared to be proven wrong, I want to be proven wrong. I certainly cant seem to find one post at JREF using the search tool.

That is why I consider the "Israeli blockade" meme crocodile tears by the people who rely on it. They have one level of standards for Israel to meet, and completely another for the EU to meet. I wonder why that is. ;)

yes the EU seem to be an no issue on JREF. I remember there was alot debate about the EU stopping sending aid to Palestina but indeed not on JREF.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 05:54 AM

yes the EU seem to be an no issue on JREF. I remember there was alot debate about the EU stopping sending aid to Palestina but indeed not on JREF.

I agree. There are zero posts at JREF about the EU halting aid to Gaza. And about 300 billion against Israel for restricting aid to Gaza.

That is why people like me feel a inner need to keep on top of this kinda stuff. Because it exposes the utter hypocrisy of it all, and shines a spot light on a left-wing liberal bias that is reserved for one country on earth, Israel.

edited to add:

The US/UK/Canada crossed the entire world to tackle terrorists in Afghanistan, surely Israel is allowed to do the same in it's own backyard.

29th December 2008, 06:04 AM

I agree. There are zero posts at JREF about the EU halting aid to Gaza. And about 300 billion against Israel for restricting aid to Gaza.

That is why people like me feel a inner need to keep on top of this kinda stuff. Because it exposes the utter hypocrisy of it all, and shines a spot light on a left-wing liberal bias that is reserved for one country on earth, Israel.

edited to add:

The US/UK/Canada crossed the entire world to tackle terrorists in Afghanistan, surely Israel is allowed to do the same in it's own backyard.

i dont know if it is hypocrisy or if it is just the fact that the EU doesnt play a role in the live of most poeple posting here?

and the EU does still pay billions to Palestina

I see you posting about Hamas crimes over and over again, but never see you post things critical about Israel or maybe its warcrimes.
most Israeli Newspaper seem far more balanced than you are for example.

ETA: yeah you crossed half the planet to hunt Al Queda in Afghanistan. and send alot lot innocent people to guantanamo. the CIA kidnaped people all over the globe that they suspect of beeing terrorists.
Israel also Kills people they suspect of beeing terrorists.

I dont know if that is a good thing.

fuelair

29th December 2008, 06:07 AM

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 06:18 AM

I see you posting about Hamas crimes over and over again, but never see you post things critical about Israel or maybe its warcrimes.

Never post critical things about Israel? I do it all the time, I've spoken out against poverty in Israel, the settlements in the West Bank, discrimination in Israel, how f-ed up orthodox jews are... many times since I joined JREF.

The fact remains that if the aid/people in Gaza is the real issue, it shouldn't matter who stop sending aid. But, alas, at JREF it does matter who restricts aid by 100 to 0.

A lesson in morality.

29th December 2008, 06:24 AM

The fact remains that if the aid/people in Gaza is the real issue, it shouldn't matter who stop sending aid.

this is very true.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 06:32 AM

The fact remains that if the aid/people in Gaza is the real issue, it shouldn't matter who stop sending aid. But, alas, at JREF it does matter who restricts aid by 100 to 0.

A lesson in morality.
No, a lesson in perspective.

On the other hand, is the EU supposed to run the blockade, a la CSS Alabama, in the face of armed Israeli maritime units?

Is that a practical solution for the EU, which is an economic union that is still not quite there on a unified security policy?

Which EU members ought to be establishing the policy of challenging and running the embargo on Gaza?

Greece? Italy? Spain? The Netherlands? The Swiss. (Doh, not much of a Navy there ...) The French?

DR

29th December 2008, 06:40 AM

Never post critical things about Israel? I do it all the time, I've spoken out against poverty in Israel, the settlements in the West Bank, discrimination in Israel, how f-ed up orthodox jews are... many times since I joined JREF.

The fact remains that if the aid/people in Gaza is the real issue, it shouldn't matter who stop sending aid. But, alas, at JREF it does matter who restricts aid by 100 to 0.

A lesson in morality.

another example of your hypocrisy would be.

you pointed out that Hamas is stealing from its people by taxing imported aid.
but with no post you pointed out the Israeli taxes on Imports. Israel is collecting taxations from imports via Israeli ports, in the name of Palestinians.

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 06:44 AM

This would not be the 1st, 4th, or 8th time the safety and welfare of the Palestinian people was used as a political propaganda tool by their fellow Arabs and their own government.

Dead and injured Palestinians make great pictures on BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera.

Palestinians being treated by Egyptian doctors would also be great. It would be better than any news item, because it would involve Egyptian doctors who have Egyptian families and many Egyptian patients learning first hand about what has happened to Palestinians. They would pass this infomation on. Doctors are more respected than journos. It would be a great way to spread the news. A propaganda coup of the first order in fact.

Plus it would involve border guards as eye-witnesses. That might help make them less willing to enforce the blockade.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 06:56 AM

Palestinians being treated by Egyptian doctors would also be great. It would be better than any news item, because it would involve Egyptian doctors who have Egyptian families and many Egyptian patients learning first hand about what has happened to Palestinians. They would pass this infomation on. Doctors are more respected than journos. It would be a great way to spread the news. A propaganda coup of the first order in fact.

Plus it would involve border guards as eye-witnesses. That might help make them less willing to enforce the blockade.

While I agree with your first paragraph, in terms of word of mouth spreading anecdotes about the Palestinians and their plight, you are confusing me: why are Egyptian borders not as valid as any other? Why should Egyptian border guards NOT do their sworn duty?

DR

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 07:13 AM

While I agree with your first paragraph, in terms of word of mouth spreading anecdotes about the Palestinians and their plight, you are confusing me: why are Egyptian borders not as valid as any other? Why should Egyptian border guards NOT do their sworn duty?

DR

Because of the human beings on the other side of the border.

gdnp

29th December 2008, 07:23 AM

You proved my point. The EU halted aid.So you admit I was right?

So I ask again. The EU can suspend aid over security concerns, but Israel should not suspend aid over security concerns. Is that your position?The EU suspended aid programs due to security concerns about those delivering the aid. Are you asserting that Israel is blockading Gaza because of their fear for the safety of the NON ISRAELIS who wish to deliver food and humanitarian supplies there? :rolleyes:

So I ask again. The EU can suspend aid to the Hamas led Palestinian Government, but Israel should not suspend aid to the Hamas-led "government" in Gaza? Is that your position?People have the right to refuse aid to anyone they wish. I was not aware that Israel has ever given aid to the Hamas led government. What you seem to wish to defend is Israel blocking other people from giving aid to the citizens of Gaza. Israel is blocking aid through both government and non-government channels.

Ya, I have a HUGE problem with Hamas stealing (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0983878) and capitalizing (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-08/2007-08-20-voa51.cfm) on international aid they didn't pay a dime for. Ya. I have a huge problem with that. edspecially when the people they are stealing from, and taxing don't have a dime as a result of the Israeli blockade!
fixed it for you.

Nope. Both are wishes not to distribute aid through a Hamas controlled channels. The hypocrisy is it's ok for the EU to do it, and not ok for Israel to do the same thing.Once again, you seem unable to differentiate aid to the Hamas led government and aid to the residents of Gaza. See above. Israel is blocking not only aid being distributed by Hamas but aid distributed by others.

Oh, and by the way, have you come up with a citation documenting Hamas receiving 2/3 of the vote in the January 2005 municipal elections? As a reminder, this is 2/3 of the votes, not 2/3 of the seats. We're still waiting on that.

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 07:38 AM

in European Boards the EU is pretty critisized for its halt on aid.

Chomsky called it the depths of depravity:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3483

On February 12, the statements of Osama bin Laden were reviewed in the New York Times by NYU law professor Noah Feldman. He described bin Laden’s descent into utter barbarism, reaching the depths when he advanced “the perverse claim that since the United States is a democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its government’s actions, and civilians are therefore fair targets.” Utter depravity, no doubt.

Two days later, the lead story in the Times casually reported that the United States and Israel are joining bin Laden in the lower depths of depravity.

Palestinians offended the masters by voting the wrong way in a free election. The population must therefore be punished for this crime. The “intention,” the correspondent observed, “is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections” so that President Mahmoud Abbas will be “compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.” Mechanisms of punishment of the population are outlined. The article also reports that Condoleezza Rice will visit the oil producers to ensure that they do not relieve the torture of the Palestinians. In short, bin Laden’s “perverse claim”; but when the United States advances the claim, it is not ultimate evil but rather righteous dedication to “democracy promotion.”

I started a thread on it at the time.

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 07:41 AM

Well it's been 5 hours and no one has come up with a post at JREF complaining about the EU halting fuel and food aid to Gaza. I will leave this challenge open for another 6 hours.

Why not try googling?
I mentioned it back in Aug 2006:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61409

You're right in the sense that the US gets more attention than the EU. But then again, the EU lacks balls, spine and guts.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 07:42 AM

Because of the human beings on the other side of the border.
Geopolitics 101 for your benefit:

Borders are still legally maintained the world over. There are established and recognized both legally and by custom and habit.

Why is this border, Egypt's border, less equal than others?

Special pleading? Special victim status? Appeal to Arab brotherhood?

What are you after here? Fallacy of special pleading is my guess, but you may have something else in mind.

Care to explain? I am all ears.

DR

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 07:49 AM

Special pleading?

Yes, special pleading.
Absolutely special pleading, because the situation is different than at other borders. It is special. It is not normal. It is not run of the mill. It is not ordinary, typical or average. In short: it is special.

29th December 2008, 07:53 AM

well I hate it that our border guards did fullfill their "sworn duty", atleast during WWII.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 07:57 AM

Yes, special pleading.
Absolutely special pleading, because the situation is different than at other borders. It is special. It is not normal. It is not run of the mill. It is not ordinary, typical or average. In short: it is special.

OK, I appreciate that. Now, let's look at this from the PoV of the Egyptian government, who has their share of problems with Islamists/extremists here and there in their own country. They look at Gaza, and see that mixed in with the everyday Achmed and Mossein, a bunch of the same Islamist sorts -- oh, crap, they are the elected political leadership in Gaza. Recall, Egypt has a working, functional relationship with Israel that is mutually beneficial to them, to include the annual Camp David bribe from the US in some billions a year.

Some options:

Seal the border
Open the border
Run the border with controlled access, in and out, and thus an ability to security screen the undesireables.

I guess you don't understand the American border problem. Mixed in with some simply poor and desperate folks are also criminals, drug runners, and other infiltrators.

Why would Egypt's border be any different? Why should they allow the "innocent" to act as cover for infiltration into Egypt of those they wish to keep out of Egypt?

What I see as an option is to use Egypt as a staging base for humanitarian aid and run it into Gaza through their border crossing sites/checkpoints. If they already do that, do more of it, or open another crossing into Gaza. Ask for UN assistance to do so.

Might work. Might help.

DR

Sefarst

29th December 2008, 08:01 AM

so what? Hamas won't negotiate. Then deal with someone who will. Join the right side in the Palestinian civil war and stop playing them off against each other.

Deal with whom? Israel's dealings with Fatah and the West Bank show that improvement can be made and that there might be a path to peace in all this.

You don't. You certainly don't allow Hamas to run anything....They have demonstrated that they do not deserve that opportunity. If they want to be a terrorist organisation then lets treat them as one. The big oportunity is what you do after you have beaten up Hamas. I am going out on a limb here and predicting that Israel won't be forming a palestinian state...elected from a list of acceptable options. like Iraq. Should we simply continue a military occupation? That doesn't seem to have worked.

So how can you say that Israel is treating military means as an end to themselves? If your solution is to get rid of Hamas first, what else can Israel do aside from what it's doing now? Democratic elections happened and Hamas was given power. Should Israel have stepped in and arrested/killed them all for taking power when it happened?

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 08:09 AM

DUP

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 08:12 AM

No, a lesson in perspective. On the other hand, is the EU supposed to run the blockade, a la CSS Alabama, in the face of armed Israeli maritime units?

DR

Here's my opinion.

1) Hamas is firing rockets at civilians in Israel.
2) Hamas took Gaza in a bloody coup.
3) Hamas steals international aid - food, supplies, and fuel.
4) Hamas taxes Gazans on the free international aid it doesn't steal.
5) Hamas theft and taxation of the international aid proves it is impossible to secure aid delivery inside Gaza. And that Hamas is capitalizing on the aid.

I don't see any other party responsible for the plight of Gazans than Hamas. Therefore - just like the EU - Israel has the right to cut off shipments to Hamas-run territory. If people have an issue with aid delivery then the address for that complaint is Hamas, not the people Hamas is firing rockets at.

another example of your hypocrisy would be. you pointed out that Hamas is stealing from its people by taxing imported aid. but with no post you pointed out the Israeli taxes on Imports. Israel is collecting taxations from imports via Israeli ports, in the name of Palestinians.

Israel = Hamas. Got it. Repeatedly. Thanks. :rolleyes:

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/29/gaza.humanitarian/index.html)

Israeli military sources said 50 trucks carrying humanitarian aid crossed into Gaza on Monday through the Kerem Shalom border crossing and more are expected to cross later in the day.

"We had about 40 trucks yesterday, we hope [to have] about 100 today," said Karen AbuZayd, the commissioner-general of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).

ETA

80 aid trucks Friday, 40 aid trucks Sunday, 50 aid trucks today, (Monday) through Israeli borders with Gaza. Just keeping track for everyone.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 09:07 AM

I don't see any other party responsible for the plight of Gazans than Hamas. Therefore - just like the EU - Israel has the right to cut off shipments to Hamas-run territory. If people have an issue with aid delivery then the address for that complaint is Hamas, not the people Hamas is firing rockets at.
(Aside: I note the OH-58D in your avatar. )

Looks like Burma without the rainforest.

Some things to ponder about Gaza.

It is about 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and between 6 and 12 kilometers (4–7.5 mi) wide, with a total area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi).

About 1.4 million Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip.
1.0 million are UN-registered refugees.
The majority of the Palestinians are descendants of refugees who fled from their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Total fertility rate of more than 5 children per woman. :eek:

Now, let's look at Bexar County, Texas.

Population 1,550,000 and growing.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1,257 square miles (3,255 km²), of which, 1,247 square miles (3,229 km²) of it is land and 10 square miles (25 km²) of it (0.78%) is water.

Consider likewise Harris County:

Harris County is a county located in the U.S. state of Texas within the Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown metropolitan area. 2007 estimate placed the population at 4,011,475)
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1,778 square miles (4,604 km²), of which, 1,729 square miles (4,478 km²) of it is land and 49 square miles (127 km²) of it (2.75%) is water.

You could tuck Gaza into either county.

Gaza is special in a global sense for what reason?

The vast majority of the population are Sunni Muslims, with an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 Christians.

Israel permitted 400 Gaza Christians to travel through Israel to Bethlehem for Christmas. Some Christian families settle in the West Bank, despite the illegality.

I got some of the general info from Wikipedia, but I'd like to point out how bizarre it is that both Egypt and Israel deem Gaza, which each has occupied (Egypt 1948-1967 and Israel 1967-2005) previously as a territory: this is a place that is not a nation state, but has generally recognized international borders.

@FireGarden: Your problem with the shoehorn issue (and those you cite for the convenience of agreeing with your position) is that using the term "occupied" often leads us to the 1907 Hague conventions and the rules of how an "occupying power" ought to behave. On that basis, it's easy to argue Israel is not the occupying power. The cookie cutter approach quite frankly doesn't work, which means your arguments are built on sand.

So, if Israel is the occupying power, why isn't Israel occupying gaza? It isn't. If you want to use the term "collective punishment" please point to me the state of war that exists that allows us to use that legally charged term in LOAC and apply it to Israel.

As I ask EJ, are Israel and (Gaza? Hamas?) at war? If yes, then the Blockade is fully legit, and your complaint about collective punishment irrelevant. However, if you can factually characterize Israeli strikes into Gaza as reprisals, with no military target/value, then perhaps the collective punishment objection ought to be raised. There may be fertile grounds for this.

If they are not at war, then the standard charge of 'collective punishment' is irrelevant. But more to the point, what those rules and legal terms were created for isn't what is going on in any case. The rules are obsolete.

We have a political conflict, which inlcudes armed means, for a political end -- something to do with the land in Gaza and its neighbor Israel -- underway that is between a state, Israel, and a non state political entity: Hamas. Hell, the PA isn't at war with Israel, though they too have some significant political disputes.

Is something wrong there? Yes. Very wrong. The larger struggle leaves, as any war does, the average folk on the street holding the feces encrusted end of the stick. This is not unique to Gaza.

The rules weren't built for this condition. Your shoehorning of state-to-state rules to this condition is selective, and no surprise, as those who so argue conventiently do so based on their political or social preferences/agenda. For example, if you have a cousin in Gaza, I'd not be surprised at your taking that side. Makes sense to me.

What to do? The Fool had a good idea: get Hamas out of there.

How? (That's a sixty four dollar question, of course.) As I asked above, and got no answer of utility, the folk are missing a chance for an election to change things. This is what comes from exporting democracy: the people get the government they deserve via their electoral choices, just as America does with its governments (and all of its failings.) Elections bring democracy, right? Right?

Who will bell the cat?

Right now the IAF and IDF are doing that, with the usual butcher's bill arriving in time for the New Year celebration. :(

But That Won't Get Hamas Out Of Gaza.

Let's look at Mozambique's civil war, mid 1970's to mid 1990's, for an instructive example of how outsiders' influence can keep a civil war going. It stopped when both SA and other third parties stopped pumping in support to various warring factions. Thus, until Iran and other third parties stop supporting Hamas, the Palestinian civil war, and Hamas' war with Israel ( that is what I think it is) will go on since the means will continue to be available.

Sit back, get your popcorn, and get ready for another fifty years of this crap. Unless someone comes up with a better idea.

All this rending of garments is over a speck of land that would fit into two Texas counties. (By no means the largest counties.) The dependent class of "refugee" since 1948 was created by forces larger than a single source. They are about 60% of the population of Gaza. And they keep on breeding.

My cynical view is that they are being used for someone else's political ends: that "someone else" includes numerous parties.

DR

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 09:17 AM

(Aside: I note the OH-58D in your avatar. )

DR

Finally found an avatar I am happy with. I'm a big Longbow fan. Best heli ever made. ;)

I got some of the general info from Wikipedia, but I'd like to point out how bizarre it is that both Egypt and Israel deem Gaza, which each has occupied (Egypt 1948-1967 and Israel 1967-2005) previously as a territory: this is a place that is not a nation state, but has generally recognized international borders.

DR

So true. Gaza was legally Egyptian territory for many decades if I recall correctly.

My cynical view is that they are being used for someone else's political ends: that "someone else" includes numerous parties.

DR

See: Iran thru Hamas policy czar Khaled Meshal. ;)

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 09:25 AM

See: Iran thru Hamas policy czar Khaled Meshal. ;)
Not them alone. IMO, and this is a guess, Sharon's longer term strategic view was that Gaza would serve as a test case to show "that we can't work with these people." Or, if things went well, that "we can work with these people" as an internal political strategy for use in dealing with the real estate/security problem Israel continually faces.

Israel would fit nicely within Texas as well ...

DR

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 09:47 AM

Not them alone. IMO, and this is a guess, Sharon's longer term strategic view was that Gaza would serve as a test case to show "that we can't work with these people." Or, if things went well, that "we can work with these people" as an internal political strategy for use in dealing with the real estate/security problem Israel continually faces.

DR

I think it was #1. Give the Palestinians enough rope and watch them hang themselves with it. And the promptly they did.

Israel would fit nicely within Texas as well ...

DR

My sister lived in the "Big D" for 20 years, been there many times - Hasidic jews with pickup trucks, belt buckles, and 10-gallon kipas... I like it! :D

davefoc

29th December 2008, 10:06 AM

How close to the truth are this guy's views?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-true-story-behind-thi_b_153825.html

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 10:19 AM

How close to the truth are this guy's views?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-true-story-behind-thi_b_153825.html

He lost me in the first sentence:

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza.....

Obviously his bias is CRYSTAL clear.

If Hamas shoots missiles and mortar shells at Israel, then it is justified to do what is necessary to persuade Hamas to stop.

see: trade restrictions

Since Hamas chose not to stop, then step two is to disable Hamas's ability to attack.

see: bombing Hamas

The author calls bombing Hamas "a crime." Yet no one is bombing the West Bank - funny that. :rolleyes: I guess it's because the government in the West Bank has chosen a different path than rockets.

ETA

aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008122813459308175.html)

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has blamed Hamas for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza, by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state.

He also blamed Hamas, which controls the coastal Gaza Strip territory, for disrupting national unity talks that could have paved the way for general and presidential elections.

Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Gaza, said the stance at all levels of the Hamas leadership was the same: "They will remain defiant in the face of any attacks and that the movement is larger that an single assault or attack.

"That they were democratically elected by the Palestinian people, and only through the ballot box will they leave the political scene."

I agree with the Palestinian president more than I agree with the huffingtonpost OP-ED piece cited above.

29th December 2008, 01:50 PM

No, a lesson in perspective.

On the other hand, is the EU supposed to run the blockade, a la CSS Alabama, in the face of armed Israeli maritime units?

Is that a practical solution for the EU, which is an economic union that is still not quite there on a unified security policy?

Which EU members ought to be establishing the policy of challenging and running the embargo on Gaza?

Greece? Italy? Spain? The Netherlands? The Swiss. (Doh, not much of a Navy there ...) The French?

DR

what? we even have a very impressive Aircraft carrier :D

http://haze.ch/wp-content//luft1.jpg

but we are not a member of the EU :)

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 01:56 PM

Birdstrike says the Palestinians should have moved on. He was challenged to tell us why the Zionists couldn't have moved on instead of destabilizing Middle East Peace by insisting on creating Israel.

29th December 2008, 01:56 PM

....
Israel = Hamas. Got it. Repeatedly. Thanks. :rolleyes:

....

your bias is clear :)

its OK for Israel to taxing aid for Palestina but when hamas is doing the same, you call it stealing....

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 02:32 PM

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 02:42 PM

Birdstrike says the Palestinians should have moved on. He was challenged to tell us why the Zionists couldn't have moved on instead of destabilizing Middle East Peace by insisting on creating Israel.
Tim, you are sixty years late. Time travel is fantasy. If you want to go backwards, why don't you ask why Mohammed had to create Islam? Why did Abraham have to insist in circumcisino? Damnit, why did Locke have to infest people with those dangerous ideas of his? Why did Columbus have to sail that darned ship? Why couldn't Jefferson stay at home and ball his wife instead of writing that damned Declaration?

DR

FireGarden

29th December 2008, 02:50 PM

How close to the truth are this guy's views?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-true-story-behind-thi_b_153825.html

I read the version in the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html

I think it's the same article. (Huffington Post is always blank in my browser!)

The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.

I certainly agree with that.

It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.

I won't bother with the Chomsky quote, having posted it recently, but here's the link:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3483

The Painter

29th December 2008, 02:55 PM

I will do a dance when every member of Hamas is dead. All of them should have be killed off at their inception. Better late than never. Death to Hamas

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 03:17 PM

your bias is clear :)

I am biased. 100% I chose Israel over Hamas. No question there. :)

its OK for Israel to taxing aid for Palestina but when hamas is doing the same, you call it stealing....

You are drawing a parallel between Hamas taxing Gazans on international aid that Hamas didn't pay for, and taxes Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

I still for life of me don't see where you are going with that. They are not the same. Hamas is capitalizing on International aid and Israel collects taxes on goods coming into Israel, and the Palestinian territories, under a customs agreement - part of the Oslo Accords.

p.s. nice carrier! :D

Thunder

29th December 2008, 03:23 PM

Birdstrike says the Palestinians should have moved on. He was challenged to tell us why the Zionists couldn't have moved on instead of destabilizing Middle East Peace by insisting on creating Israel.

If it wasn't for Israel, the Middle East would be at peace?

Thats a laugh. The Hashemites, the Sauds, and all the other tribal families would have been fighting amongst themselves, if they didn't have the Jews to yell at.

The United Arab Republic only includes Syria and Egypt. There is a reason for this..and it ain't Israel.

29th December 2008, 03:54 PM

I am biased. 100% I chose Israel over Hamas. No question there. :)

You are drawing a parallel between Hamas taxing Gazans on international aid that Hamas didn't pay for, and taxes Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

I still for life of me don't see where you are going with that. They are not the same. Hamas is capitalizing on International aid and Israel collects taxes on goods coming into Israel, and the Palestinian territories, under a customs agreement - part of the Oslo Accords.

p.s. nice carrier! :D

fair enough :)

about taxes.

Also before the Committee was a Report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (document A/63/375), which describes the Group’s activities during 2008 and outlines UNRWA’s current financial situation.

According to the report, the Agency had received $434.7 million in income for its cash and in-kind planned expenditures in 2007 against its $994.2 million budget for the biennium 2006-2007, leaving a large funding gap of $71 million for the year. The anticipated funding gap for 2008 as of 31 August was $78.7 million. The deficit against the 2008 project budget of $56.8 million was expected to reach $38.1 million.

The report states that, while it benefited from increased contributions from a number of major donors and favourable exchange rates, overall pledges made to UNRWA’s regular budget in 2008 were anticipated to fall significantly short of adjusted budgeted expenditures. That was due in part to unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel and food commodities, as well as staff salary increases granted because of rapidly rising local costs of living. The Agency appealed to donors to fully fund the biennium budget as a whole.

According to the report, the Agency was also concerned about port and related transit charges, which the Israeli authorities continued to impose on shipments entering the Gaza Strip, forcing UNRWA to pay $132,524 in 2007 and $91,853 between 1 January and 30 June 2008. In the Agency’s view, the charges were a direct tax from which it ought to be exempted under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd413.doc.htm

ETA: I choose Palestinians over Hamas.

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 04:35 PM

Thunder

29th December 2008, 04:48 PM

Evidence? or wishful speculation?

Evidence? Look at how the United Arab Republic fell apart. Look at the conflicts between the various powerful Arab tribes. The Arabs have never been unified....accept against Israel on the rare occasion.

Without Israel, the Arab states would not be at peace. Too many egos involved.

Examples? The Lebanese Civil War, the fact that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria all joined the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein.

dudalb

29th December 2008, 04:49 PM

Birdstrike says the Palestinians should have moved on. He was challenged to tell us why the Zionists couldn't have moved on instead of destabilizing Middle East Peace by insisting on creating Israel.

That is water under the bridge. There are Five Million Jews in Israel. What do you suggest we do.
Your charade of not being a Anti Semite is getting thinner every day.

Thunder

29th December 2008, 04:51 PM

Today, Israel killed the Hamas Health Minister, and attacked the University.

Those evil...Nazi....doctors and students!! How dare they throw grenades....er I mean books and thermometers....at Israel!!

:mad:

dudalb

29th December 2008, 04:54 PM

If it wasn't for Israel, the Middle East would be at peace?

Thats a laugh. The Hashemites, the Sauds, and all the other tribal families would have been fighting amongst themselves, if they didn't have the Jews to yell at.

The United Arab Republic only includes Syria and Egypt. There is a reason for this..and it ain't Israel.

Iran and Iraq had a nasty little war which had nothing to do with Israel's existence.
You had the spectacle in Jordan of the Jordanian government waging war agains the Palestinianas.
A professor of history I took a course on ancient Egypt from made the statment, when the conversation drifted into current events,that the only thing a Arab hates worse then an Israeli is another Arab. I think he was 100% correct.
What amuses me about Tin Foil Timothy is his constant harping on how the creation of Israel was a crime. What does he propose to do with the Five Million Jews who live in Israel.?

Thunder

29th December 2008, 04:54 PM

29th December 2008, 04:55 PM

if we only would feed the hungry kids in the world like we feed the spiral of violence

gtc

29th December 2008, 04:57 PM

It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities.

This is just an excuse.

Hamas has been trying to indiscriminately kill Israelis for many more years than the blockade has been in existence and for many more years than they have been in power.

Thunder

29th December 2008, 05:06 PM

Hamas knows where military bases are. They are fully capable of attacking non-combatants only...or at least making an attempt.

They never ever do.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 05:07 PM

about taxes.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd413.doc.htm

So Israel charged $132,524 in 2007, and $91,853 between 1 January and 30 June 2008.

I still don't see any parallel between Israel charging UNRWA port and related transit charges and Hamas taxing the Gazan people on aid they don't transit... or pay for.

I just don't see the parallel you are trying to make.

29th December 2008, 05:12 PM

So Israel charged $132,524 in 2007, and $91,853 between 1 January and 30 June 2008.

I still don't see any parallel between Israel charging UNRWA port and related transit charges and Hamas taxing the Gazan people on aid they don't transit... or pay for.

I just don't see the parallel you are trying to make.

you cant see it because of the bias i guess.

You also have no problem Israel collecting taxes on behalf of the Palestinians that they do not give to palestina.

Nor do you see a problem when Israel is taxing goods that should not be taxed.

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 05:21 PM

if we only would feed the hungry kids in the world like we feed the spiral of violence

You stole that from Michael Jackson didn't you? ;)

29th December 2008, 05:24 PM

You stole that from Michael Jackson didn't you? ;)

not that i am aware of.

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 05:31 PM

Your charade of not being a Anti Semite is getting thinner every day.

I agree. Defending anyone and everyone against charges of anti-Semitism, makes one's defense of the Palestinians and hatred of Israel seem very very...well..

suspect.

I think the Palestinians have no real friend in this guy.

Lots of Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-NWO folks, are also attacking Israel and defending the Palestinians. Their "support"..is not wanted and only works towards Israel's advantage.

Get over yourselves. I don't defend everyone against charges of Anti-Semitism. I defend people who are labelled Anti-semites by you people for political criticizms. I'll be first inline to condemn real racists

Your charade of bleating anti-Semite at every opportunity, even fabricating things to shout anti-Semite at on a slow day, is a complete farce. In fact it's doing those real victims of racism a disservice because your diverting attention away from the them.

It's got so ridiculous that every time some one shouts Anti-Semitism we have to waste time checking whether the charge is real or just some moron trying to stifle political criticism of Israel or Zionism.

You're not hurting me by bleating "anti-Semite!!", so if you're shouting it as ammunition from a forum warrior then you're wasting your time.

Anyway, you two are rubbish at it. Take a tip from the master of "Anti-Semitic rants" Skeptic. Here's a majestic example of his silly bleating. He doesn't even take a breath. Magnificent!!

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4298386&postcount=17

:D:D