Messages

A civilian is someone who takes no part in attacks. Anyone throwing rocks or a petrol bomb is trying to severely injure/kill someone and has given up the right to be described as civilian.

You already know what I think about settlements.

Do you condone the palestinian tactic of sending children out to riot, in the full knowledge that they are likely to be shot?

[They have killed civilians while targetting terrorists, and that is a complete and utter tragedy and a shame, but I don't believe they have deliberately targetted civilians]

Where did I say that a knife wasn't a lethal weapon? You avoided the question I asked I notice. Do you mind if I ask you another question - how do you come to know so much about Israel/Palestinian relations. To you go there?

Plain and simple, no, they have not targetted civilians. They have killed civilians while targetting terrorists, and that is a complete and utter tragedy and a shame, but I don't believe they have deliberately targetted civilians. It does nothing to advance their aims or desires. Why would they? I believe they need to be more sure of their intelligence before ordering a strike, but you can never be 100% sure when you fire a missile. Israel is hampered by the fact that palestinian terrorists embed themselves in civilian buildings as a means of defense and are well known for using women and children as  human shields.

Bollocks. They kill an awful lot of civilians, Beaver. And they have the finest tech in the world. And they are all accidents are they?
I'm sorry. That is just ridiculous.

An awful lot of Palestinian kids are shot in the head rather the legs, you know. The best thing would be an international inquiry to get to the truth. Would you support one?

The finest tech in the world is only as good as it's weakest link, which is intelligence. If palestinian informers are giving wrong or out of date information, then mistakes are going to happen unfortunately.
An awful lot of palestinians throw an awful lot of rocks and petrol bombs. They are trying to kill the soldiers and jews they are attacking, and the soldiers and jews have every right to defend themselves. If someone was to throw a petrol bomb at me while I was armed, I'm going to blow the cnut away. What would you do, disarm them? Ask them politely to stop. If you'd ever fired a semi automatic weapon you'd know that trying to hit a target in the legs is a hell of a shot. Shooting a moving target isn't like in cowboy films.

Beaver

Has the war on terror done away with the need for the Geneva conventions and the rules of war in your view?

There are different types of war requiring very different measures to counteract the threat since the Geneva conventions were drawn up. The basic rules apply.

So did Hamas have the right under the new rules of war to execute Shalit?

NO. Shalit was a captured soldier, protected under the Geneva convention.

What about torture? Does Israel have the right to torture prisoners?

As much right as Hamas and Fatah have. Guess who uses torture more on palestinians. I'll give you a clue, it isn't Israel.

Does Hizballah have the right under the new rules of war to starve Jewish prisoners to death?

No one has the right to starve any prisoners to death, but if a prisoner goes on hunger strike, then he can bloody well starve.

Why do you hold Israel to a higher standard of human rights than the palestinians. If you were as concerned about palestinian rights as you are about being anti Israeli then you would be more concerned about getting rid of Hamas and Fatah who you know fine rightly are bleeding them dry.


I've a question for you. Do you believe the state of Israel has the right to stay where they are, within the pre 67 borders?

I do. Pay compensation to the Palestinians and fire away.
Those people have been there for a while now and they have nowhere else to go. The kids there now- it is not their fault their grandparents ethnically cleansed the natives in 1948.
But they have to stop blackguarding the Palestinians.

The problem with that is that Hamas and Fatah have stated many times that palestine is from the Jordan to the sea. All of Israel as well as PA. They won't tolerate any jews in their palestine.

And the settlers can f**k off.

Correct. I've never been in favour of the settlements, but it doesn't give palestinians the right to murder them in their beds.

Israel has signed international treaties on human rights and it's rich and calls itself a democracy and it's OECD and Peres told the president of Cameroon that "a Jews and apartheid do not go together" so it's right to hold it to its commitments.

Yet palestinians aren't expected to honour their commitments to peace.

Where did I say that a knife wasn't a lethal weapon? You avoided the question I asked I notice. Do you mind if I ask you another question - how do you come to know so much about Israel/Palestinian relations. To you go there?

Plain and simple, no, they have not targetted civilians. They have killed civilians while targetting terrorists, and that is a complete and utter tragedy and a shame, but I don't believe they have deliberately targetted civilians. It does nothing to advance their aims or desires. Why would they? I believe they need to be more sure of their intelligence before ordering a strike, but you can never be 100% sure when you fire a missile. Israel is hampered by the fact that palestinian terrorists embed themselves in civilian buildings as a means of defense and are well known for using women and children as  human shields.

Beaver

Has the war on terror done away with the need for the Geneva conventions and the rules of war in your view?

There are different types of war requiring very different measures to counteract the threat since the Geneva conventions were drawn up. The basic rules apply.

So did Hamas have the right under the new rules of war to execute Shalit?

NO. Shalit was a captured soldier, protected under the Geneva convention.

What about torture? Does Israel have the right to torture prisoners?

As much right as Hamas and Fatah have. Guess who uses torture more on palestinians. I'll give you a clue, it isn't Israel.

Does Hizballah have the right under the new rules of war to starve Jewish prisoners to death?

No one has the right to starve any prisoners to death, but if a prisoner goes on hunger strike, then he can bloody well starve.
[/quote]

Why do you hold Israel to a higher standard of human rights than the palestinians. If you were as concerned about palestinian rights as you are about being anti Israeli then you would be more concerned about getting rid of Hamas and Fatah who you know fine rightly are bleeding them dry.


I've a question for you. Do you believe the state of Israel has the right to stay where they are, within the pre 67 borders?

Ball debeaver - Are you saying you don't believe Israel has targeted civilians? In my opinion Israel is a rogue regime that murders men, women and children for its own selfish reasons. The rest of the world knows this hence the UN resolutions but the problem is the US, with its very powerful Jewish lobby, stops any serious action being taken. Before you start I know that Hamas have done and continue to do some horrific things also but we have to apply some scale to this. Israels murders with the top of the range weapons of mass destruction, has a nuclear arsenal and think it is fair enough to nuke a market full of people if some Hamas target is also there. Hamas fires the equivalent of a Cap gun in response.

I don't understand how anyone could take the side of Israel in this.

Don't give me that nonsense. A knife or home made grad rocket will kill you just as dead as a $10mil guided missile.

Two years ago 2 palestinian youths murdered 5 members of the Fogel family armed with nothing but knives. (up until they stole the father's AR15 which they used after they slit their throats) Suicide bombers have murdered dozens with simple bombs strapped to them. The technology involved in the actual armaments Israel has at it's disposal has no bearing on the threat they face from an enemy possessing comparatively primative weapons.

Beaver

Has the war on terror done away with the need for the Geneva conventions and the rules of war in your view?

There are different types of war requiring very different measures to counteract the threat since the Geneva conventions were drawn up. The basic rules apply.

Can I ask a stupid question please? This thread, just like the conflict there, seems to be a constant retrenchment of the same opinions. A bit of quiet, and then another mad flurry.

It is absolutely ridiculous to see the same incident being portrayed in diametrically opposed manners from both sides. How is anyone not on the ground supposed to know who to believe?

So, my question is, "Is there a UN observer or mission in Israel, Gaza and/or Palestine?" If so, what do they actually say? I'd love to hear a neutral's perspective, and I'm sorry, but vested interests on either side are not neutral. I don't want to read what the IDF say, or what some 'witness' who may well have been a participant in an attack says. What do the UN say? And if the UN are not there, why not? Who or what is stopping them?

Apologies if this is Middle-East 101, but no harm to focus the mind sometimes.

Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country and the reason is that the US vetoes any "sanctions" against them. If truth be told no one really cares about the Palestinians .....yes now and again there is the odd lip service paid. What really gets me is the utter ambivalence shown by other Arab nations....basically they pretend that they are all united under Islam but underneath it all they hate each other every bit as much as Israel do. A very sad state of affairs and both sides are losers in all of this.

Every arab country the palestinians have gone to as refugees refuses to let them integrate into the community, even going as far as to restrict travel, work and medicine. They deny the palestinians the exact same things they castigate Israel for.  Arab nations have a long history of grand gestures of promising aid to the palestinians, then refusing to cough up when it comes to the crunch. It suits the arab nations to use the palestinian refugees as pawns in their game of oneupmanship against Israel.

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico murder journalists too. So easy to call them terrorists.
Ordinary Jews need the protection of laws, Beaver. They won't always have the IDF.

The Brits called Pat  Finucane a terrorist, you know. the UDF could have murdered Poilin ni Chiarain with that Israeli approach.I think Israel is going really deep into the darkness with this.

And who decides who is a terrorist?   

What in the name of jehovah are you babbling on about? They were both claimed as members of Hamas, by Hamas.

Are you trying to say Hamas are some community group and aren't really a terrorist organisation? 

Do you think civilian Army radio staff are legitimate military targets? 
And has the war on terror changed the rules of war in your opinion?

They weren't civilians. Hamas proudly declared they were members. "Jihadi martyrs"
Civilians aren't the same as soldiers or members of terrorist organisations. A cleaner in an army installation is completely different from a soldier in the same installation. Your argument holds no water.
Any soldier working for army radio can be called a legitimate target.

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico murder journalists too. So easy to call them terrorists.
Ordinary Jews need the protection of laws, Beaver. They won't always have the IDF.

The Brits called Pat  Finucane a terrorist, you know. the UDF could have murdered Poilin ni Chiarain with that Israeli approach.I think Israel is going really deep into the darkness with this.

And who decides who is a terrorist?   

What in the name of jehovah are you babbling on about? They were both claimed as members of Hamas, by Hamas.

Are you trying to say Hamas are some community group and aren't really a terrorist organisation? 

And exactly the same in yours BalldeBeaver. Except the emotive language is coming from the pro-Israeli side. That's the most confusing thing. Everyone who comments seems to have some skin in the game. There's no Bill Clinton figure to play his saxaphone and tell everyone to cop on. And worse, there seems to be very little media that's not either naturally slanted pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. It's a shame because it makes debates such as the one here fairly pointless. Seafoid and give her dixie (for whom I have great respect after seeing his Tyrone to Gaza exploits) will give the Palestinian slant on things, while yourself and Mike Sheehy will give the Israeli slant. Black is White and White is Black basically.

Unfortunately, that is the way of this conflict. The war in the media is just as important as the war in the streets, but the fact that there is so much conflicting information coming out just makes it more important that we do debate it in an open forum, where people such as yourself can get a balanced, informed view of whats happening and not just one sided propoganda.

I don't doubt for one minute that GHD's reasons for wanting to help the palestinians may be honourable, but he is giving ligitimacy to a terrorist organisation by working hand in hand with them to break the blockade. That is shameful. There are other far more worthy and legitimate ways to help those ordinary Gazans he feels needs it, without resorting to supplying aid to terrorists. A simple google search will show you Gazans are in more danger from Hamas than they are from Israel.

Is there a UN statement on this? What do they say about not being in Israel? See even this wording

"Thus did the Goldstone Report, executed on behalf of all nations united in pursuit of truth, become the lodestone that attracted the attention of the world and brought condemnation to the state of Israel. In retaliation for such an act, he suffered the consequences of those who act treacherously to their masters, the Zionist powers that used time-tested punishments of those who find fault with the tribe: damnation, isolation, coercion, rejection, humiliation, and expulsion from his own. Thus did the false gods expose themselves, forcing Richard Goldstone to retract his own words in a blind attempt to seek solace in the tribe that condemned him."

Is so loaded with emotive words that you tend to focus on the anger rather than what happened. I'd not be angry about what happened the Report, more with how or why Israel blocked the observers. Are observers allowed in now?

You'll find that about Seafoid's posts, all emotive sound bites, but very little substance.

Big story in the US. A museum honouring journalists killed in war has bowed to Israeli pressure and refuses to honour 2 Palestinians who worked for a TV station linked to Hamas.

http://www.newseum.org/press-info/press-materials/press-releases/2013/journalist-memorial-update.html

"Terrorism has altered the landscape in many areas, including the rules of war and engagement, law, investigative and interrogation techniques, and the detention of enemy combatants. Journalism is no exception."

So say the Assads decide Marie Colvin was a terrorist her death is kosher.

So you believe that terrorists (who's day job was in a news organisation) should be honoured the same as a neutral journalist, who looks for nothing more than the truth?

Bizzare world you live in.

Can I ask a stupid question please? This thread, just like the conflict there, seems to be a constant retrenchment of the same opinions. A bit of quiet, and then another mad flurry.

It is absolutely ridiculous to see the same incident being portrayed in diametrically opposed manners from both sides. How is anyone not on the ground supposed to know who to believe?

So, my question is, "Is there a UN observer or mission in Israel, Gaza and/or Palestine?" If so, what do they actually say? I'd love to hear a neutral's perspective, and I'm sorry, but vested interests on either side are not neutral. I don't want to read what the IDF say, or what some 'witness' who may well have been a participant in an attack says. What do the UN say? And if the UN are not there, why not? Who or what is stopping them?

Apologies if this is Middle-East 101, but no harm to focus the mind sometimes.

The U.N.'s Human Rights Council special rapporteur for the Palestinians Richard Falk has come under a lot of pressure lately to resign due to his continued anti Israeli stance, and is viewed by Israel especially as overtly pro palestinian. Plaestinians are the only refugees in history to be given special status by the UN, in that their descendants (even children and grandchildren born long after they arrived in their host nation) are given refugee status by UN, while no other victim of any conflict worldwide gets the same treatment. Why?

Sorry to tell you, but a completely neutral view point is almost impossible to find. You don't believe the Israeli version, but I can assure you, the palestinian version of what happens there will always be to blame Israel. The Israeli version may initially blame the palestinians, but as the fog lifts and if it comes out that Israel was to blame, then the truth usually comes out in the Israeli press. The palestinian press will never go against the party line in favour of the Israeli narrative because there is no such thing as a "free press" in palestine. There have been many documented attacks on and murders of journalists who dare to print what they see as the truth in palestinian areas.


This is an old article (2004), but it sums up perfectly why there is only one side of the argument that gets out of palestinian controlled areas.


Telling the Truth about the Palestinians

A briefing by Khaled Abu Toameh
April 27, 2004


Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab, is the West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post and U.S. News and World Report. He previously served as a senior writer for the Jerusalem Report, and a correspondent for Al-Fajr. He has produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC and many other networks, including ones that exposed the connection between Arafat and payments to the armed wing of Fatah and the financial corruption within the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Abu Toameh received his BA in English Literature from the Hebrew University and currently lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three children. He addressed the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia on April 27, 2004.

As an Arab journalist working among Palestinians, I am often asked if I feel threatened while I work. I am indeed frequently placed in life-threatening situations, yet the threats I experience do not come from the Israeli occupation, but from Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA). At least 12 Palestinian journalists have been attacked by masked men in the past four months in what appears to be an organized campaign to intimidate the media. Only days ago, a photographer working for Agence France-Presse had his arms broken by a masked man in Ramallah. Agence France-Presse did not do anything about this attack, but a great outcry is raised when Israeli soldiers allegedly harass journalists in the territories.

The Lack of Independence in the Palestinian Media

Twenty years ago, while studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, I worked for the PLO's newspaper Al Fajr (The Dawn). Al Fajr was more than a paper; it was a PLO institution. At the paper we basically received and carried out orders from Arafat's office in Tunisia. Although I eventually became an editor there, I did not mention my position at Al Fajr on my resume for years because I did not consider the work that went on there to be real journalism. Now, after being censured for my outspokenly critical views of the Palestinian media, I consider my time at Al Fajr testament to my knowledge of the lack of journalistic freedom at the PLO newspaper.

I continue to witness what is happening to the Palestinian media under Arafat. Many of my Palestinian colleagues actually envy me for writing for an Israeli paper. Working for the PLO, I was not able to write a word of my own free will. Yet in two years at the Jerusalem Post my editors have never told me what to write. I can function as a journalist at the Jerusalem Post in a way that many Palestinians have tried to function under Arafat, but have failed.

Arafat's Attack on Free Speech

When Arafat returned to the West Bank and Gaza from his exile, his security forces ignored pursuing terrorists and instead arrested independent journalists not loyal enough to the PLO. Over 38 journalists were forced out of their jobs or the country. This was not given much attention by the foreign media because at the time Arafat was allowed to do whatever he wanted in the name of Oslo. Although they did not cover the story heavily, I was not alone in pointing out to foreign journalists that the first thing Arafat did when PLO returned to the territories was to restrict freedom of speech.

Arafat has complete control over the Palestinian media to this day. Almost all Palestinian newspapers are financed by the PLO, and serve as a mouthpiece for the organization, which is basically Arafat's office. Some days the headlines for the three major Palestinians papers are identical. The lack of freedom at these papers is a big disappointment for Palestinian journalists; they were freer to write what they wanted under Israeli occupation before the PLO returned from exile.

Arafat's suppression of free speech is another example of an Arab leader not allowing the people to speak out. In this way Arafat is no different from other Arab dictators, who see the role of the media as subservient to – and a mouthpiece for – their regimes. In the Arab world, if you are an independent journalist or you criticize the regime, then you are branded a traitor – and that kind of suppression of dissent is how dictatorial Arab regimes survive.

Palestinian Media and their Impact on Foreign Media

The lack of free speech in the territories should not be dismissed as an internal Palestinian problem. When Palestinian journalists are intimidated, it affects foreign journalists, who depend on Palestinians to be their guides and translators in the territories. When foreign journalists interview Palestinians, many translators often mistranslate or even reprimand Palestinian interviewees critical of the Palestinian Authority, and foreign journalists' ability to accurately gather facts is thus hampered.

Another problem with the Palestinian media is the sad fact that some Palestinian journalists see themselves as foot soldiers serving the revolution. These so-called journalists are often politically affiliated with one group or another. Under the PA, you basically cannot be a journalist if you are not a member of Fatah or the security forces. All the credible independent journalists have been fired by the three major Palestinian newspapers, and there are many professional Palestinian journalists, but they have been forced to seek work with the Arab and foreign media.

There are some in the foreign media who knowingly hire consultants or journalists who are really political activists, and rely heavily on them for their reporting. These "consultants" include former security prisoners and political activists who are hired by major media organizations, including American ones, who are often aware of these so-called journalists' problematic backgrounds. Despite the bias of their consultants, which inevitably affects their reporting, the media organizations keep quiet about the consultants' backgrounds. It is hard to say if this acquiescence by foreign media organizations is due to intimidation or to the need to maintain a good relationship with the PA, but it seriously affects the ability of journalists in the region to report the facts on the ground to the world.

Conclusion

People in the rest of the world therefore do not get an accurate picture of what happens in the region, and there are two parties to blame for this journalistic failure. Partly to blame are foreign journalists who allow themselves to be misled by some of their Palestinian consultants. The bulk of the blame, however, rests with the PA, whose tyrannical approach and control of the media creates an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among Palestinian journalists.

http://www.meforum.org/604/telling-the-truth-about-the-palestinians




Good luck trying to get your head round it. 

Totally.



As he is clearly talking about the attack he suffered and the on-going rock attacks on jewish owned cars by palestinians, then it is perfectly right of him to take this attitude.
Why should it be OK for palestinians to attack elderly rabbis and jewish cars, then cry when the jews hit back?