IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

[eugene]

well i don't know what's there not to get, the government and like 99% of the public consider gaza not a part of israel, i don't know what can you do to prove it to yourself, do a survey among the israelis you know ?

gaza is not a country, it's a small region ruled by what's considered a terrorist organization among numerous western nations, and which is in constant conflict with israel. the fact that it still gets humanitarian aid thru israel and some services from israel doesn't make it israel.

the fact that gaza bombs israeli south should make it clear that it doesn't consider itself a part of israel as well.

[brian trageskin]

“It [israel] doesn’t like journalists telling the truth and communicating facts and footage – the evidence of what it does. The most prominent example of that is from May 2010 [israel attacked a Gaza flotilla], when Israel deliberately destroyed the memory cards of journalists… Israel also jammed communications, including satellite communication and cellular communication… So Israel is simply trying to suppress the truth,” Fear told RT.

 

http://rt.com/news/gaza-media-center-strike-977/

[pcock]

killing people is the new black

[brian trageskin]

according to Thierry Meyssan, what's going on in Gaza can be explained this way:

 

the US administration being modified (new US secretaries of state and of defense are to be nominated), israel takes advantage of the situation to strike. in what purpose?

israel is getting rid of all opponents to Khaled Mechaal, the ex-political leader of hamas, who is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. every Hamas leader who's opposed to Mechaal has to be killed. the idea is to make Mechaal the president of a palestinian State in Jordan, and to transfer the population of Gaza (and possibly of the West Bank too) in Jordan, in order to annex the emptied lands.

Mechaal, exiled in Damas under syrian protection, became an opponent to Assad and moved to Qatar where emir Hamad al-Thani was generous to him ( ).

the timing of the operation not only has to do with the changing of the US government, but also with the fact that the Russian army is about to arrive in near east to become the new protectors of israel, while the american troops are leaving the area. israel has to act quickly, before russians unfold their troops.

[goDel]

well i don't know what's there not to get, the government and like 99% of the public consider gaza not a part of israel, i don't know what can you do to prove it to yourself, do a survey among the israelis you know ?

gaza is not a country, it's a small region ruled by what's considered a terrorist organization among numerous western nations, and which is in constant conflict with israel. the fact that it still gets humanitarian aid thru israel and some services from israel doesn't make it israel.

the fact that gaza bombs israeli south should make it clear that it doesn't consider itself a part of israel as well.

 

Well the zionists were called terrorists once as well (see the BBC docu). Whether Hamas is an organisation of terrorists or freedom fighters, or neither is not really relevant. What is relevant is what would help the current situation.

 

Gaza might not be a country in your eyes. But as long as Gaza, or Palestina is not a country, Israel is not a country as well. For how can Israel exist if Palestina can't? One can't exist without the other existing as well.

 

The fact that Gaza gets humanitarian aid only tells there's some serious issues going on over there. And the fact that bombs are shot from within Gaza to the other part of the wall doesn't make it clear the people within the walls don't consider themselves as something larger than what's within those walls. If your girlfriend yells at you and is throwing plates at you, that doesn't mean your relationship is over. It means there's some serious issues that need to be discussed. If there was no relationship, she wouldn't yell at you, or throw plates at you now would it?

 

The way Israel is putting his wife inside some concrete walled chamber hoping for her to calm down in some way, is not really a successful way to solve the current problems. The solution starts when both sides will start to be less dismissive about each other. And because Israel is the dominant partner in the relation, Israel is the one to set the example. Knowing that Gaza will be angry for plenty a time to come. And rightly so, imo.

[brian trageskin]

apparently, the assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari was ordered by the emir of Qatar and approved by Hamas, because Jabari was an ally of Iran. that would explain why the emir visited Gaza recently.

[brian trageskin]

fuck, i really don't get who Hamas work for.

[syd syside]

http://youtu.be/JTwRRwUb4IE

[Alcofribas]

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

 

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

 

in no way can it be realistically maintained that israel left gaza in 2005. israel first turned the place into a nightmare, then moved a few thousand settlers out of it to newly expanded (illegal) settlements in the westbank with a $870 million compensation package (which btw the shitty government completely fucked up iirc). that's hardly a withdrawal in itself, it's just an upgrade to better settlements. but what is more israel continued to severely restrict access in and out of gaza and maintained completel control over borders and airspace. how is that a withdrawal exactly? then the palestinians had a free election there...and how did israel react to that shit? and just look at the aftermath of summer rains man... yeah, so it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that israel "left" gaza and the palestinians responded with rockets, endangering the safety of israelis. basically, israel got its settlers outta gaza and then pummeled the shit out of it.

 

i mean, look what's missing from your post: there's no mention of palestinian safety whatsoever. if the safety of innocent civilians is top priority and is a key component to the law being applicable in the region, you can't simply ignore the conditions israel inflicts on the palestinians and talk about rockets from gaza. and once you take a real look at what is being done to the palestinians...well, it kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

 

you jumble up a lot of facts. first of all even if all of the gaza settlers moved from gaza to west bank it would still improve the situation for palestinians as west bank is not as densely populated as gaza (all of israeli settlements sit on less than 3% of west bank). but you really have no way of knowing where they were relocated, most of the still haven't relocated from temporary homes inside israel proper.

 

the israeli blockade started after the hamas came to power, not straight after disengagement as you claim, hamas made clear that it will not abide by the abligations palestinian authority made to israel. i mean the cause and effect should be pretty obvious when you compare the hamas ruled gaza and pa ruled west bank. the palestinians rockets continued before and after the disengagement.

 

if you really want i can pretty much link every "look at what's been done to palestinians" to the things the palestinians did to israelis pretty much up to the beginning of 20's century. israel is simply more sophisticated and powerful so it has means to prevent the palestinains from fully realizing the plans of the more radical groups.

 

i fail to see how the heavily subsidized settlers moving from gaza to the wb improved the situation in any way whatsoever for the palestinians.

 

with respect to the control of the territories and airspace, please read at least the first sentence of this article:

 

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters

 

the facts are not on your side here.

 

your last point is simply absurd, i'm sorry. you can't excuse war crimes by claiming they were done to prevent...war crimes. your point is just completely hypocritical. israel has a right to defend itself, even from potential rather than actual threats, and even to the extent of gross disproportionate force which is often flagrantly against international law (white phosphorous, cluster bombs, targeting civilian infrastructure, etc etc). but the palestians basically have no rights whatsoever.

 

three israelis were killed by gaza rockets. over 50 palestinians -- many of them civilians -- have now been killed in israel's "defensive" reaction. And now israel's interior minister is announcing that the plan is "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years" that's not defense bro. that's bloodlust.

[Alcofribas]

edit: and obama's response to this? he announces his support of israel's "right to defend itself." so, again, no rights for palestinians and "defense" in israeli's case can be to send a country back to the middle ages. cool story, bro

[syd syside]

Side note:

 

The people who say, "Israel should go ahead and speak with Hamas" to achieve some kind of peace agreement. At approx. 2005 Israel has agreed to the Quartet terms, that state the following:

 

Israel will speak with Hamas, if:

 

1. Hamas will recognize the state of Israel.

2. Hamas will cease all terrorist activity and stop firing missiles/suicide bombers at Israel.

3. Hamas will recognize all past terms agreed with Israel.

 

Hamas doesn't meet any one of those conditions.

 

And therefore what is there to negotiate when one side doesn't accept the other's right to exist?

[Alcofribas]

when has israel ever "recognized palestine's right to exist?" never.

 

israel also regularly carries out extrajudicial killings in the territories, home demolitions, rocket fire of their own, illegal abductions and arrests, blockades, etc.

 

 

[syd syside]

when has israel ever "recognized palestine's right to exist?" never.

 

israel also regularly carries out extrajudicial killings in the territories, home demolitions, rocket fire of their own, illegal abductions and arrests, blockades, etc.

 

Well I think Israel should exist and should cease military action, but the situation is more complex than that. Since the inception of Israel they have been at war. Unless you think Israel shouldn't exist, how exactly would you handle this situation if you were in charge of politics/military in Israel? If you let down your defense and get Israelis killed, you would lose support politically and someone more aggressive would be supported. The only route is to minimize civilian deaths and to get better control over information/dialogue in that region to encourage less radical leadership in surrounding regions. Only then can this be at peace because the only peaceful solution is a cease fire and two state solution. The taking over of settlements and extending borders I believe is a military defense and exists more for that purpose as Israel does have a rising 20% population of Arabs from surrounding regions. This situation is pretty simple when it comes down to the conflict. The solution is what is very difficult to determine. And I see a lot of blame being put on Israel without much discussion on what they should be doing.

[goDel]

No. The point is why the palestinians in Gaza are pointing their rockets at Israel? To destroy it? If that was the goal, why were they sitting on their Iranian 75miles rockets for all this time and shoot some homemade crap into some open land?

 

As long as Israel is unable to look past the Palestinian anger and look past the narrative the Palestinians want to push them in the sea, there won't be a solution. The only reason this narrative even exists is because of the Palestinian feeling of not having been taken seriously. Meanwhile Israel is locking them in some cellar because their afraid "their crazy Palestinian uncle" will ruin their house.

 

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever? Will there be some crazy uncles shooting rockets? I'm sure there will be a couple shooting their crap out of habit. But it wouldn't be the end the world Israel is trying to make the rest of the world believe. Because besides being extremely angry, the people in Gaza are extremely tired as well. At some point people just want to move on. And as long as Israel will keep on babysitting the people in Gaza, the people in Gaza have a good reason to fight. Think of the people in Gaza as the crazy teen who wants to get rid of his dominant parents.

[eugene]

well i don't know what's there not to get, the government and like 99% of the public consider gaza not a part of israel, i don't know what can you do to prove it to yourself, do a survey among the israelis you know ?

gaza is not a country, it's a small region ruled by what's considered a terrorist organization among numerous western nations, and which is in constant conflict with israel. the fact that it still gets humanitarian aid thru israel and some services from israel doesn't make it israel.

the fact that gaza bombs israeli south should make it clear that it doesn't consider itself a part of israel as well.

 

Well the zionists were called terrorists once as well (see the BBC docu). Whether Hamas is an organisation of terrorists or freedom fighters, or neither is not really relevant. What is relevant is what would help the current situation.

 

Gaza might not be a country in your eyes. But as long as Gaza, or Palestina is not a country, Israel is not a country as well. For how can Israel exist if Palestina can't? One can't exist without the other existing as well.

 

The fact that Gaza gets humanitarian aid only tells there's some serious issues going on over there. And the fact that bombs are shot from within Gaza to the other part of the wall doesn't make it clear the people within the walls don't consider themselves as something larger than what's within those walls. If your girlfriend yells at you and is throwing plates at you, that doesn't mean your relationship is over. It means there's some serious issues that need to be discussed. If there was no relationship, she wouldn't yell at you, or throw plates at you now would it?

 

The way Israel is putting his wife inside some concrete walled chamber hoping for her to calm down in some way, is not really a successful way to solve the current problems. The solution starts when both sides will start to be less dismissive about each other. And because Israel is the dominant partner in the relation, Israel is the one to set the example. Knowing that Gaza will be angry for plenty a time to come. And rightly so, imo.

 

well the fact on the grounds state otherwise, israel has been internationally considered a country since 48 regardless of the status of palestinians, whether they were ruled by egypt and jordan - 48-67 , israel 67-94, or partial self rule - 94-till today, plus the palestinians citizens of israel proper.

 

palestinians do not accept the zionist rule of israel as something of their own, just as most of israelis don't consider gaza or hamas leadership as part of them, it's pretty elementary and quite surprising to me that there's a lack of clarity about this issue.

the boyfriend-girlfriend/husband-wife analogy is no good, it's two very different nations fighting for the same land, where many palestinians see current day israel as potential palestine and large minority of israelis have territorial aspirations towards west bank, but not gaza. the international consensus about the end of the conflict also goes along those borders, west banks, east jerusalem and gaza go to palestinians and the rest to israel, two nation states for two nations.

[eugene]

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever?

see what happened in 47, and prior to that. the conflict goes back to the beginning of 20th century not the 1967 occupation as some people like to portray.

[goDel]

well the fact on the grounds state otherwise, israel has been internationally considered a country since 48 regardless of the status of palestinians, whether they were ruled by egypt and jordan - 48-67 , israel 67-94, or partial self rule - 94-till today, plus the palestinians citizens of israel proper.

 

As long as Israel considers the international opinion as more important to the Palestinian opinion, crap will keep on go going. I'm sure you know enough about human psychology to understand this obvious point.

[goDel]

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever?

see what happened in 47, and prior to that. the conflict goes back to the beginning of 20th century not the 1967 occupation as some people like to portray.

 

Have you seen the BBC docu? What happened in 47 exactly which makes you think Israel has got a point?

 

All I see is some Jews taking revenge on some folks because of what happened to them in Europe. Ever thought of Gaza being a huge Auschwitz? Or the analogy between the big wall in Berlin between East and West, and the wall around Gaza? The events in Israel are the ripples in a lake. And the stone was thrown by Hitler in Europe.

[eugene]

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

 

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

 

in no way can it be realistically maintained that israel left gaza in 2005. israel first turned the place into a nightmare, then moved a few thousand settlers out of it to newly expanded (illegal) settlements in the westbank with a $870 million compensation package (which btw the shitty government completely fucked up iirc). that's hardly a withdrawal in itself, it's just an upgrade to better settlements. but what is more israel continued to severely restrict access in and out of gaza and maintained completel control over borders and airspace. how is that a withdrawal exactly? then the palestinians had a free election there...and how did israel react to that shit? and just look at the aftermath of summer rains man... yeah, so it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that israel "left" gaza and the palestinians responded with rockets, endangering the safety of israelis. basically, israel got its settlers outta gaza and then pummeled the shit out of it.

 

i mean, look what's missing from your post: there's no mention of palestinian safety whatsoever. if the safety of innocent civilians is top priority and is a key component to the law being applicable in the region, you can't simply ignore the conditions israel inflicts on the palestinians and talk about rockets from gaza. and once you take a real look at what is being done to the palestinians...well, it kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

 

you jumble up a lot of facts. first of all even if all of the gaza settlers moved from gaza to west bank it would still improve the situation for palestinians as west bank is not as densely populated as gaza (all of israeli settlements sit on less than 3% of west bank). but you really have no way of knowing where they were relocated, most of the still haven't relocated from temporary homes inside israel proper.

 

the israeli blockade started after the hamas came to power, not straight after disengagement as you claim, hamas made clear that it will not abide by the abligations palestinian authority made to israel. i mean the cause and effect should be pretty obvious when you compare the hamas ruled gaza and pa ruled west bank. the palestinians rockets continued before and after the disengagement.

 

if you really want i can pretty much link every "look at what's been done to palestinians" to the things the palestinians did to israelis pretty much up to the beginning of 20's century. israel is simply more sophisticated and powerful so it has means to prevent the palestinains from fully realizing the plans of the more radical groups.

 

i fail to see how the heavily subsidized settlers moving from gaza to the wb improved the situation in any way whatsoever for the palestinians.

 

with respect to the control of the territories and airspace, please read at least the first sentence of this article:

 

http://www.btselem.o...ritorial_waters

 

the facts are not on your side here.

 

your last point is simply absurd, i'm sorry. you can't excuse war crimes by claiming they were done to prevent...war crimes. your point is just completely hypocritical. israel has a right to defend itself, even from potential rather than actual threats, and even to the extent of gross disproportionate force which is often flagrantly against international law (white phosphorous, cluster bombs, targeting civilian infrastructure, etc etc). but the palestians basically have no rights whatsoever.

 

three israelis were killed by gaza rockets. over 50 palestinians -- many of them civilians -- have now been killed in israel's "defensive" reaction. And now israel's interior minister is announcing that the plan is "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years" that's not defense bro. that's bloodlust.

the disengagement plan didn't turn gaza into a sovereign state, i didn't claim anything like that, but it did ease up its conditions compared to what was before, and then after the hamas came to power the conditions in gaza worsened a lot, to summarize:

2007-now < 1947-1967 < 1967-94 < 2005-2007

 

war crimes for war crimes is a very acceptable tactic in the area, without resorting to warcrimes the sides would find themselves at a disadvantage. the palestinians can't do much besides shooting rockets into population concentrations and given the nature of hamas, fighting it always claims civilian lives. for example there have been about 1000 warcrimes (a warcrime for every rocket shot at the civilians, right ?) perpterated by palestinians in the last week. i really don't understand this call for "proportionate response" do you want 50 more isralies to get killed so you'll feel some kind of satisfaction ? it's two different nations fighting and noone wants to sacrifice its people for the sake of balance or international approval.

 

don't let the talking heads fool you, unless something really horrible happens this flare up will end before the week is over.

[eugene]

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever?

see what happened in 47, and prior to that. the conflict goes back to the beginning of 20th century not the 1967 occupation as some people like to portray.

 

Have you seen the BBC docu? What happened in 47 exactly which makes you think Israel has got a point?

 

All I see is some Jews taking revenge on some folks because of what happened to them in Europe. Ever thought of Gaza being a huge Auschwitz? Or the analogy between the big wall in Berlin between East and West, and the wall around Gaza? The events in Israel are the ripples in a lake. And the stone was thrown by Hitler in Europe.

the point of looking at 1947 is to show that arabs didn't accept the existence of jewish state in the area and started a war, and it seems that most of them (though the numbers have shifted) don't accept it till this day.

it's two completely different nations man, try to internalize that idea, it's nothing like the germans of east and west.

also, the idea of zionism was born way before hitler.

[Alcofribas]

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

 

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

 

in no way can it be realistically maintained that israel left gaza in 2005. israel first turned the place into a nightmare, then moved a few thousand settlers out of it to newly expanded (illegal) settlements in the westbank with a $870 million compensation package (which btw the shitty government completely fucked up iirc). that's hardly a withdrawal in itself, it's just an upgrade to better settlements. but what is more israel continued to severely restrict access in and out of gaza and maintained completel control over borders and airspace. how is that a withdrawal exactly? then the palestinians had a free election there...and how did israel react to that shit? and just look at the aftermath of summer rains man... yeah, so it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that israel "left" gaza and the palestinians responded with rockets, endangering the safety of israelis. basically, israel got its settlers outta gaza and then pummeled the shit out of it.

 

i mean, look what's missing from your post: there's no mention of palestinian safety whatsoever. if the safety of innocent civilians is top priority and is a key component to the law being applicable in the region, you can't simply ignore the conditions israel inflicts on the palestinians and talk about rockets from gaza. and once you take a real look at what is being done to the palestinians...well, it kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

 

you jumble up a lot of facts. first of all even if all of the gaza settlers moved from gaza to west bank it would still improve the situation for palestinians as west bank is not as densely populated as gaza (all of israeli settlements sit on less than 3% of west bank). but you really have no way of knowing where they were relocated, most of the still haven't relocated from temporary homes inside israel proper.

 

the israeli blockade started after the hamas came to power, not straight after disengagement as you claim, hamas made clear that it will not abide by the abligations palestinian authority made to israel. i mean the cause and effect should be pretty obvious when you compare the hamas ruled gaza and pa ruled west bank. the palestinians rockets continued before and after the disengagement.

 

if you really want i can pretty much link every "look at what's been done to palestinians" to the things the palestinians did to israelis pretty much up to the beginning of 20's century. israel is simply more sophisticated and powerful so it has means to prevent the palestinains from fully realizing the plans of the more radical groups.

 

i fail to see how the heavily subsidized settlers moving from gaza to the wb improved the situation in any way whatsoever for the palestinians.

 

with respect to the control of the territories and airspace, please read at least the first sentence of this article:

 

http://www.btselem.o...ritorial_waters

 

the facts are not on your side here.

 

your last point is simply absurd, i'm sorry. you can't excuse war crimes by claiming they were done to prevent...war crimes. your point is just completely hypocritical. israel has a right to defend itself, even from potential rather than actual threats, and even to the extent of gross disproportionate force which is often flagrantly against international law (white phosphorous, cluster bombs, targeting civilian infrastructure, etc etc). but the palestians basically have no rights whatsoever.

 

three israelis were killed by gaza rockets. over 50 palestinians -- many of them civilians -- have now been killed in israel's "defensive" reaction. And now israel's interior minister is announcing that the plan is "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years" that's not defense bro. that's bloodlust.

the disengagement plan didn't turn gaza into a sovereign state, i didn't claim anything like that, but it did ease up its conditions compared to what was before, and then after the hamas came to power the conditions in gaza worsened a lot, to summarize:

2007-now < 1947-1967 < 1967-94 < 2005-2007

 

war crimes for war crimes is a very acceptable tactic in the area, without resorting to warcrimes the sides would find themselves at a disadvantage. the palestinians can't do much besides shooting rockets into population concentrations and given the nature of hamas, fighting it always claims civilian lives. for example there have been about 1000 warcrimes (a warcrime for every rocket shot at the civilians, right ?) perpterated by palestinians in the last week. i really don't understand this call for "proportionate response" do you want 50 more isralies to get killed so you'll feel some kind of satisfaction ? it's two different nations fighting and noone wants to sacrifice its people for the sake of balance or international approval.

 

don't let the talking heads fool you, unless something really horrible happens this flare up will end before the week is over.

 

agree with you on the last point for sure.

[goDel]

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever?

see what happened in 47, and prior to that. the conflict goes back to the beginning of 20th century not the 1967 occupation as some people like to portray.

 

Have you seen the BBC docu? What happened in 47 exactly which makes you think Israel has got a point?

 

All I see is some Jews taking revenge on some folks because of what happened to them in Europe. Ever thought of Gaza being a huge Auschwitz? Or the analogy between the big wall in Berlin between East and West, and the wall around Gaza? The events in Israel are the ripples in a lake. And the stone was thrown by Hitler in Europe.

the point of looking at 1947 is to show that arabs didn't accept the existence of jewish state in the area and started a war, and it seems that most of them (though the numbers have shifted) don't accept it till this day.

it's two completely different nations man, try to internalize that idea, it's nothing like the germans of east and west.

also, the idea of zionism was born way before hitler.

 

The idea of Zionism became popular in Europe due to the growth of antisemitism which climaxed under Hitler (already in the 30s), sending lots and lots of Jewish refugees to Palestina. Where Jews and Palestinians happened to live next to each other for who knows how long. Thousands of years perhaps? Anyways, the events in 36-39 are more more telling than 47-48. And why should the '47 Palestinians have accepted a Jewish state exactly?

[Redruth]

both sides are wrong, as usual

[Alcofribas]

troon, let's move to israel together and open up a little mom and pop boomkat store? OK?

[eugene]

What would you think would actually happen when Israel break down the walls around Gaza and stop controlling their borders immediately, and stop bothering their Gaza neighbours in any way whatsoever?

see what happened in 47, and prior to that. the conflict goes back to the beginning of 20th century not the 1967 occupation as some people like to portray.

 

Have you seen the BBC docu? What happened in 47 exactly which makes you think Israel has got a point?

 

All I see is some Jews taking revenge on some folks because of what happened to them in Europe. Ever thought of Gaza being a huge Auschwitz? Or the analogy between the big wall in Berlin between East and West, and the wall around Gaza? The events in Israel are the ripples in a lake. And the stone was thrown by Hitler in Europe.

the point of looking at 1947 is to show that arabs didn't accept the existence of jewish state in the area and started a war, and it seems that most of them (though the numbers have shifted) don't accept it till this day.

it's two completely different nations man, try to internalize that idea, it's nothing like the germans of east and west.

also, the idea of zionism was born way before hitler.

 

The idea of Zionism became popular in Europe due to the growth of antisemitism which climaxed under Hitler (already in the 30s), sending lots and lots of Jewish refugees to Palestina. Where Jews and Palestinians happened to live next to each other for who knows how long. Thousands of years perhaps? Anyways, the events in 36-39 are more more telling than 47-48. And why should the '47 Palestinians have accepted a Jewish state exactly?

there are various ways of not accepting something, the arab reaction to it was "fuck that, let's kill the jews and build ourselves a country" more or less, though i don't deny that the partition plan wasn't in their favor. the jewish leadership made it very clear that the rights of those who would find themselves under jewish state would be preserved, the war damaged those intentions. though despite the problems, arabs living in israel do have the same rights as jews since 1964, west bank is a different story.

i like to summarize the events that led to the 48 war as a clash of jewish-european ethnocentrism and serious lack of rationality of arabs.