The Palestine thread

[whitey]

Lads, Palestine has to understand that Hamas is a problem for any reasonable observer.

Look at the pros and cons of the rockets:

Pros:

None that I can see
(I note a few comments here along the lines of 'sure they have to do something' -  but this is completely absurd if it is the only argument. Leadership should be better thought out.)

Cons:

It triggers the slaughter of their own people;
It gives Israel's brutal responses gravitas with Americans which is the only public opinion that really counts;
It can distance the Palestinian cause from people otherwise likely to be on their side;
It easily allows them to be called terrorists/Islamic militants etc - a stunt which works well on the extremely dim;
It complies beautifully with the propaganda of convenient and always flexible 'The War on Terror';

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you fire a rocket knowing that it would achieve nothing and in return everyone in your house and the neighbouring houses were likely to be killed?

Israel's leadership is the problem here and always will be. In a fair world these attacks would be stopped and Netanyahu and co would be up for War Crimes.

But sometimes life is a bitch and you get w*nkers for neighbours.

The Palestinians need smarter leadership and not adolescent reactionaries. To my mind, South Africa's road to getting rid of Apartheid began when Nelson Mandela rejected violence.

Probably the post with the most common sense in the entire thread

To make a comparison that most people will understand.....would we have peace in Ireland today if the 32CSM (and not Sinn Fein) held sway over Republican public perception?

[seafoid]

Lads, Palestine has to understand that Hamas is a problem for any reasonable observer.

Look at the pros and cons of the rockets:

Pros:

None that I can see
(I note a few comments here along the lines of 'sure they have to do something' -  but this is completely absurd if it is the only argument. Leadership should be better thought out.)

Cons:

It triggers the slaughter of their own people;
It gives Israel's brutal responses gravitas with Americans which is the only public opinion that really counts;
It can distance the Palestinian cause from people otherwise likely to be on their side;
It easily allows them to be called terrorists/Islamic militants etc - a stunt which works well on the extremely dim;
It complies beautifully with the propaganda of convenient and always flexible 'The War on Terror';

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you fire a rocket knowing that it would achieve nothing and in return everyone in your house and the neighbouring houses were likely to be killed?

Israel's leadership is the problem here and always will be. In a fair world these attacks would be stopped and Netanyahu and co would be up for War Crimes.

But sometimes life is a bitch and you get w*nkers for neighbours.

The Palestinians need smarter leadership and not adolescent reactionaries. To my mind, South Africa's road to getting rid of Apartheid began when Nelson Mandela rejected violence.

Israel runs the occupation on violence. And previously made concessions under pressure- the first intifada led to Oslo and the second to the pullout of the settlers from Gaza.

What are the Palestinians supposed to do  ?
Israel won't give the Palestinians a State.

The Palestine Papers outlined Israel's position
http://www.theguardian.com/world/series/palestine-papers-documents

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-We-cant-expect-Israel-to-take-in-a-million-refugees
"Livni: My problem is that of security. Some said to me that there would be violence among my people if I evacuated them, but the pressure will be less if I give the right to choose. I cannot bear the responsibility of their life in case they are exposed to danger and then the army will have to interfere. "
And here Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni insists on annexing the settlement of Ariel – which lies some 15 miles to the east of the Israeli border, deep in the West Bank: Livni: "The idea behind our desire to annex Ariel settlement was not to get more water but because thousands of people live there. We want to have an answer for those who have lived there for forty years."


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/01/27/erekat-finally-hits-mark#
"Livni is recorded confirming what Palestinians have always accused Israeli governments of doing: creating facts on the ground to prevent the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza."
When Mr Erekat asked Ms Livni: "Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?". She replied: "No. In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you have to choose not to have the right of choice afterwards. These are the basic pillars."
"Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state". She conceded that it had been "the policy of the government for a really long time".
Another choice comment from Livni, this one from a Nov. 13, 2007 meeting, where she and Abu Ala (Qurei) were discussing what should be included in the "terms of reference" for the upcoming Annapolis meeting (the eighth meeting on this question):
AA: International law?
Livni : NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer...But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.


Israel despite all the weaponry has the weakness of its reliance on international opinion and political support.

And the airport is now closed. Which is a pretty big deal.

It's a very long game of chess really. 
   

[johnneycool]

Lads, Palestine has to understand that Hamas is a problem for any reasonable observer.

Look at the pros and cons of the rockets:

Pros:

None that I can see
(I note a few comments here along the lines of 'sure they have to do something' -  but this is completely absurd if it is the only argument. Leadership should be better thought out.)

Cons:

It triggers the slaughter of their own people;
It gives Israel's brutal responses gravitas with Americans which is the only public opinion that really counts;
It can distance the Palestinian cause from people otherwise likely to be on their side;
It easily allows them to be called terrorists/Islamic militants etc - a stunt which works well on the extremely dim;
It complies beautifully with the propaganda of convenient and always flexible 'The War on Terror';

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you fire a rocket knowing that it would achieve nothing and in return everyone in your house and the neighbouring houses were likely to be killed?

Israel's leadership is the problem here and always will be. In a fair world these attacks would be stopped and Netanyahu and co would be up for War Crimes.

But sometimes life is a bitch and you get w*nkers for neighbours.

The Palestinians need smarter leadership and not adolescent reactionaries. To my mind, South Africa's road to getting rid of Apartheid began when Nelson Mandela rejected violence.

Probably the post with the most common sense in the entire thread

To make a comparison that most people will understand.....would we have peace in Ireland today if the 32CSM (and not Sinn Fein) held sway over Republican public perception?

To make a better comparison, would nationalists in the north have any form of parity with their unionist neighbours if it wasn't for the IRA after the civil rights movements had been shot off the streets?

Israel IMO has made it very hard for any moderate Palestinians to gain a foothold in that area.

[muppet]

Lads, Palestine has to understand that Hamas is a problem for any reasonable observer.

Look at the pros and cons of the rockets:

Pros:

None that I can see
(I note a few comments here along the lines of 'sure they have to do something' -  but this is completely absurd if it is the only argument. Leadership should be better thought out.)

Cons:

It triggers the slaughter of their own people;
It gives Israel's brutal responses gravitas with Americans which is the only public opinion that really counts;
It can distance the Palestinian cause from people otherwise likely to be on their side;
It easily allows them to be called terrorists/Islamic militants etc - a stunt which works well on the extremely dim;
It complies beautifully with the propaganda of convenient and always flexible 'The War on Terror';

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you fire a rocket knowing that it would achieve nothing and in return everyone in your house and the neighbouring houses were likely to be killed?

Israel's leadership is the problem here and always will be. In a fair world these attacks would be stopped and Netanyahu and co would be up for War Crimes.

But sometimes life is a bitch and you get w*nkers for neighbours.

The Palestinians need smarter leadership and not adolescent reactionaries. To my mind, South Africa's road to getting rid of Apartheid began when Nelson Mandela rejected violence.

Probably the post with the most common sense in the entire thread

To make a comparison that most people will understand.....would we have peace in Ireland today if the 32CSM (and not Sinn Fein) held sway over Republican public perception?

To make a better comparison, would nationalists in the north have any form of parity with their unionist neighbours if it wasn't for the IRA after the civil rights movements had been shot off the streets?

Israel IMO has made it very hard for any moderate Palestinians to gain a foothold in that area.

And yet progress only happened when the ceasefires were declared. During the troubles all we saw were bodies, not strategic gains by anyone. It might feel good to fight back, and I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, but it has to lead somewhere.

Also, the Palestinians don't have lobbyists or influence in the States like we had/have. If Britain responded the way Israel does, there would have been uproar in the States.

[seafoid]

The Palestinians as well as the Jewish religion are prisoners of Zionism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPVTC9frqMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ_qCQylv-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixYEZ9M_dU

Meanwhile thousands of Israelis are stranded overseas as a direct result of operation Protective Edge

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-conflict-2014/1.606817

The whole thing is a complete clusterfuck that makes Norn Irn look like my wee pony

[whitey]

Lads, Palestine has to understand that Hamas is a problem for any reasonable observer.

Look at the pros and cons of the rockets:

Pros:

None that I can see
(I note a few comments here along the lines of 'sure they have to do something' -  but this is completely absurd if it is the only argument. Leadership should be better thought out.)

Cons:

It triggers the slaughter of their own people;
It gives Israel's brutal responses gravitas with Americans which is the only public opinion that really counts;
It can distance the Palestinian cause from people otherwise likely to be on their side;
It easily allows them to be called terrorists/Islamic militants etc - a stunt which works well on the extremely dim;
It complies beautifully with the propaganda of convenient and always flexible 'The War on Terror';

Ask yourselves this question:

Would you fire a rocket knowing that it would achieve nothing and in return everyone in your house and the neighbouring houses were likely to be killed?

Israel's leadership is the problem here and always will be. In a fair world these attacks would be stopped and Netanyahu and co would be up for War Crimes.

But sometimes life is a bitch and you get w*nkers for neighbours.

The Palestinians need smarter leadership and not adolescent reactionaries. To my mind, South Africa's road to getting rid of Apartheid began when Nelson Mandela rejected violence.

Probably the post with the most common sense in the entire thread

To make a comparison that most people will understand.....would we have peace in Ireland today if the 32CSM (and not Sinn Fein) held sway over Republican public perception?

To make a better comparison, would nationalists in the north have any form of parity with their unionist neighbours if it wasn't for the IRA after the civil rights movements had been shot off the streets?

Israel IMO has made it very hard for any moderate Palestinians to gain a foothold in that area.

Possibly and probably.  The civil rights movement in the North was part of a wider worldwide civil rights movement percolating at the time..with the Deep South and France as the Epi-center.

I think that pressure would have been brought to bear from various outside parties (Namely EU and US) that would have accelerated the process.  30 years of war certainly didn't improve the lot of many Catholics

[muppet]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-may-be-committing-war-crimes-un-rights-envoy-says-1.1875522

Hamas says it will keep fighting until its demands are met, including the release of several hundred supporters recently arrested in the West Bank and a freeing up of Gaza's borders.

Beyond brainless.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28437626

Israel's Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, said her country was acting according to international law.

"It is regrettable civilians are killed, but when we call on them to vacate and Hamas calls on them to stay, then that is what happens," she told Israel radio.

Ms Livni also described the UN Human Rights Council as an "anti-Israel" body.

So they issue a warning, the 'militants' leave, and Israel kills the civilians left behind. Both Hamas and Israel are guilty of war crimes imho.

[seafoid]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/israel-may-be-committing-war-crimes-un-rights-envoy-says-1.1875522

Hamas says it will keep fighting until its demands are met, including the release of several hundred supporters recently arrested in the West Bank and a freeing up of Gaza's borders.

Beyond brainless.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28437626

Israel's Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, said her country was acting according to international law.

"It is regrettable civilians are killed, but when we call on them to vacate and Hamas calls on them to stay, then that is what happens," she told Israel radio.

Ms Livni also described the UN Human Rights Council as an "anti-Israel" body.

So they issue a warning, the 'militants' leave, and Israel kills the civilians left behind. Both Hamas and Israel are guilty of war crimes imho.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.606714
Israel is in a bind.
More and more cabinet ministers and senior officials are becoming convinced that the pattern we were accustomed to on previous occasions, whereby Hamas and Israel deal with each other indirectly through Egypt, producing some kind of ceasefire agreement, won't work this time. A different exit strategy needs to be found, one that Hamas will find difficult to veto.
One idea making the rounds in the defense establishment, the foreign ministry and among experts in think tanks with direct links to the Prime Minister's and Defense Minister's bureaus is to recreate the exit plan from the second Lebanon War. According to this idea, Israel, in coordination with the US and other allies, as well as with Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League, will propose a Security Council Resolution, similar to Resolution number 1701 which ended that war in 2006.
Beyond a ceasefire, that resolution was intended to advance Israel's diplomatic objectives such as the strengthening of Lebanon's government's hold on its southern district, the international isolation of Hezbollah, the demilitarization of southern Lebanon from rockets and heavy weaponry and the stationing of international observers on the border. Resolution 1701 was a continuation of the earlier Resolution 1559, which called for the disarming of Hezbollah and other armed militias in Lebanon.
The same principles could serve Israel's diplomatic goals in the days following the fighting in Gaza. A UN resolution to end the hostilities should include the following principles:
a) A declaration that the lawful government in Gaza is that of the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas. Implicitly, this will oblige Israel to work with the Palestinian unity government.
b) A redeployment of Palestinian Authority forces along Gaza's borders and at border crossings into Israel and Egypt.
c) Erection of a mechanism that will ensure demilitarization of the Gaza Strip from rockets, tunnels and heavy weapons, along with the sending of UN inspectors to different locations throughout the Strip. These inspectors will report back to the Security Council every 3-6 months. Even if not a single rocket is dismantled, this problem will be brought to the forefront of world attention.
d) A meaningful change in Israel's policies with regard to border crossings, particularly concerning the passage of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank.
e) A lifting of the naval siege and the construction of a deep water harbor under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority and a strong international force.
f) The rehabilitation of Gaza's economy and infrastructure under international supervision that will prevent the diversion of building materials to the construction of bunkers and tunnels by terrorist organizations.
Resolution 1701 which ended the second Lebanon war wasn't perfect

[muppet]

But Israel denies Palestine's right to exist, defend itself and any other dogma you can think of, that only works one way.

[seafoid]

But Israel denies Palestine's right to exist, defend itself and any other dogma you can think of, that only works one way.

Israel is defending itself
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/this-video-gives-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-life-in-gaza-this-week--gk80oPgC-x

Behind the sadism, there is something really needy about Israel, as if they know it could all be lost suddenly, if the world loses patience with them.

[Wildweasel74]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk9C_5CICiU&feature=youtu.be

George Galloway view on things

[give her dixie]

Did Hamas not call a 'ceasefire' in 2012 only for the Israelis to ignore??

Good article for you on ceasefire violations

http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/02/06/the-truth-about-cease-fire-violations-between-israel-and-gaza/

[93-DY-SAM]

Watched the iTV news there at 10 and they had a report from a hospital in Gaza. There was a 3 year old girl with severe burns amongst other injuries whose family had been wiped out and another child who couldn't have been much more than one with similar injuries. Both in casts and wrapped in bandages and with severe facial burns. If only they were isolated incidents (one is still one too many) but unfortunately they are not. Can someone explain to me how killing and injuring so many children can be justified under any circumstances? 

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-07-23/the-toddler-3-who-will-have-to-bear-the-scars-of-the-middle-east-conflict/

[give her dixie]

Rossiewanderer, your argument us so incredibly stupid I'm wondering are you a troll. Let me reverse this. Do you think it is reasonable for IDF to retaliate to aggression from Hamas by targeting civilian areas for shelling (illegal in international law), target hospitals and schools with the net result that 80% of victims are civilian. Is that reasonable? You should be ashamed of yourself.

It doesn t matter what Rossiewander thinks Itchy. And it doesn t matter what I think either.

But the US media and the US president don t seem to see anything unreasonable there. Neither do the British, Irish, French, German, Italian. And they do count. Israel are obviously being given carte blanche to deal with this as they see fit. I suspect they would wipe out gaza with nukes if they could without contaminating themselves. If they did use nukes at least they would know they would remain immune from criticism from the west.

Now that flights into Israel have been cancelled, expect a step up in intensity of the Gaza gig to get the job done and get the show back on the road.

Moysider

I wonder if the FAA decision on flights from the States isn't a warning from Obama to Israel to cop on .
Israel is now reported to be looking for a dignified exit from the mess it chose to start.

Monday - The Hamas rockets are so dangerous we have no choice but to go into Gaza and destroy them and everything which stands in our way.
Tuesday - Those rockets wont do any harm. Keep on flying.

There is no fear of rockets for the hundreds who gather on the hills every day and night to cheer on the slaughter

[give her dixie]

While maintaining support from these same people they're apparently ordering to stand under Israeli bombs?

Good man

Lol-you have no idea who you're dealing with here

My wife's 2 nephews served in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. They salty with these terrorists first hand. You have no idea as to the depths these monsters will sink

I know. Those 2 monsters and their President had no reason to invade and occupy Iraq or Afghanistan, and sure look at what they got up to. 1 million + dead, and their oil stolen. Lovely lads those 2 nephews