Scores die in Israeli air strikes

Cali Red said:
Well rockets landing in your city streets is a real problem also. With that choice Isreals response was certain. Until both sides can start over and negotiate with real intention of peace this will not end. Given the deep nature of the hatred and the idealologies involved I can't see an end that doesn't include many many deaths.
Click to expand...

It was Israel's choice whether to produce this response or a more measured one. They went for an optinon that resulted in 300 deaths. Rockets are bad, by all means, but blockades and bombings from the air are much worse.

It seems that Hamas shake a stick at Israel and get blasted with a shotgun for it. Reminds me of the way colonists pacified native Americans: you kill one of us, we kill 50 of you.
 
I cannot agree about the 'who was here first' argument Sults....that is the entire problem with that region....if both sides can accept about the 'now'...that there are many who have been born in the region on both sides and therefore call the land home, then we can accept that both sides have equal rights there.

to me that has to be the starting point of the discussion. We cannot go back and right the wrongs that have been done on both sides. If they both accept that there is a genuine desire for living in peace if not in brotherly love, then it can work.

As impossible as it may seem, it is possible to live and work with your enemies,as long as there is mutual respect for the others existence and rights.
 
vardamir1 said:
It seems that Hamas shake a stick at Israel and get blasted with a shotgun for it. Reminds me of the way colonists pacified native Americans: you kill one of us, we kill 50 of you.
Click to expand...

But doesn't it make you think just why Hamas picked this fight?

I mean - unless they are retards - they clearly calculated and therefore hoped this response?
 
Sultan said:
Unlike the majority of present Israeli's, the Palestinians great grandfathers were born in that region.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that where people's great grandfather's were born is relevant. Why do people cling to tribal mentalities in a globalised world?
 
Red Dreams said:
I cannot agree about the 'who was here first' argument Sults.....
Click to expand...

Agreed, and to be fair, it's pointless.

That's why I said any future peace negotiations should be based on 1967 borders. I don't hold much hope seeing Israel are militarily too powerful to talk peace.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't agree that where people's great grandfather's were born is relevant. Why do people cling to tribal mentalities in a globalised world?
Click to expand...

I agree Mike.

That post was a response to Fearless asking for proof of Palestinian existence in the region.
 
Sultan said:
That's why I said any future peace negotiations should be based on 1967 borders. I don't hold much hope seeing Israel are militarily too powerful to talk peace.
Click to expand...

But why the 1967 borders? Why not just sit down now and negotiate some new ones with concessions on both sides? Forget what happened over 40 years ago...
 
I mean this whole 'who was here first' argument...so is it correct to say whichever race,tribe what have you is able to prove that they were there first should therefore have rights to the land?

that is ridiculous.

it seems to me that if both parties are interested in working it out, they can, but if the objective is to settle scores, then it is only logical that the side that has more firepower will win....now that should be a no brainer.....

realistically Israel can wipe out its neighbors.....is that the provocation Hamas wants? I find that hard to believe.
 
RedKaos said:
Israel dont seem to consider the human side of things when involving in such procedures.

Take the Lebanon war a few years ago as an example - Hezbollah capture a few Israeli soldiers, and in response the Israelis completely demolish Beirut.

The same thing has happened now. In striking back against a broken ceasefire, Israelis decide to ruthlessly kill 300.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Israel, their whole "raison d'etre" is based on "Never Again" and basically the strength of their Military Forces is a guarantee to that.
Unfortunately that Strength often manifests itself as Ruthlessness (and disproportionate) but every Israeli action is conscious of the fact that in the 1930s and 1940s (and indeed centuries before) their (ie Jewish) passivity was perceived as weakness and they paid too high a price thru their passivity.
They are therefore determined to ACT and REACT as only they see fit.
OVER REACTING (which has I think lost it many friends in the West) is not an issue for the vast majority of Israelis.
OVER REACTING is considered better than NOT ACTING or UNDER ACTING.

Every action (and for historical reasons) is based on NEVER AGAIN.
And frankly anything other than a permenant sense of being on a war footing cannot be sold in Israel. (in part because any government is answerable to the ballot box).

They are beyond the normal boundaries of reasoned realpolitik and its probably not worth the carbon footprint to set up conferences to bring the sides together. Both are basket cases in terms of normal diplomatic interaction.

It all has a well defined chronology.
Impasse on peace process (what a nonsensical term)
Palestinians fire rockets
Israel responds/over reacts
Both sides send out their Internet Warriors
USA, Britain, France etc urge caution.
Secretary of State Rice/Clinton visits Tel Aviv and Gaza
Photo Opportunity (firm handshakes all round)
Israel withdraws
Much rhetoric about how we all pulled back from the brink.....tears of Palestinian and Israeli mothers are the same blah blah blah

And in a few months the whole macabre dance starts up again.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
But why the 1967 borders? Why not just sit down now and negotiate some new ones with concessions on both sides? Forget what happened over 40 years ago...
Click to expand...

Why not let Israel run over Gaza, and West Bank for a few weeks, leaving a few square KM and then negotiate?

There must be a timeframe where any settlement has to begin.
 
Sultan said:
Agreed, and to be fair, it's pointless.

That's why I said any future peace negotiations should be based on 1967 borders. I don't hold much hope seeing Israel are militarily too powerful to talk peace.
Click to expand...

..but why use the 1967 borders...unless both sides agree that is the correct point. I think the starting point is to recognize...look we are here...and we both Want to live in peace.
 
Fearless said:
But doesn't it make you think just why Hamas picked this fight?

I mean - unless they are retards - they clearly calculated and therefore hoped this response?
Click to expand...

It's the defiance of a madman who shakes the stick at a tank, or stands in front of one, like that guy in Tiananmen square. You know you will get killed, you know the odds are against you, but you still act because of anger and defiance.

I already asked you - what else did you expect Hamas to do? If you were under years of oppression, if you were going on the back of a crippling blockade, would you just do nothing? If you treat people like dogs then they behave like dogs.
 
Red Dreams said:
..but why use the 1967 borders...unless both sides agree that is the correct point. I think the starting point is to recognize...look we are here...and we both Want to live in peace.
Click to expand...

Because Israel has been grabbing land since it's creation in 1948.

Why reward aggresion?
 
Sultan said:
Why not let Israel run over Gaza, and West Bank for a few weeks, leaving a few square KM and then negotiate?

There must be a timeframe where any setlement has to begin.
Click to expand...

Just because there are Israeli settlements on areas of land does not mean that after negotiation those areas have to be in Israel. The whole point of negotiation is to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

A good move would be to declare some sort of buffer zone where no development is allowed by either side. And policed by the UN for a certain amount of time. Move people of both sides off the buffer zone and back into their respective territories.
 
Sultan said:
Because Israel has been grabbing land since it's creation in 1948.

Why reward aggresion?
Click to expand...

Hold on.

Was it not Jordan and Egypt and Syria who aggressed? And as a result lost land that they themselves illegally (by dint of war) grabbed in 48?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't agree that where people's great grandfather's were born is relevant. Why do people cling to tribal mentalities in a globalised world?
Click to expand...

I agree. This would be just like the Baltic states discriminating against people whose grandfathers weren't born on their territory. What matters is where the people live now, and that is a two-state solution in which both states are viable, and the most logical way forward is a solution precisely along 1967 lines.

Do not forget that a lot of Jews were kicked out of Muslim countries in the past 60 years, and settled in Israel, just like Arabs were kicked out of Israel and the Occupied territories in that period.
 
vardamir1 said:
It's the defiance of a madman who shakes the stick at a tank, or stands in front of one, like that guy in Tiananmen square. You know you will get killed, you know the odds are against you, but you still act because of anger and defiance.

I already asked you - what else did you expect Hamas to do? If you were under years of oppression, if you were going on the back of a crippling blockade, would you just do nothing? If you treat people like dogs then they behave like dogs.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between fronting out a tank and blowing up a cafe full of people.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Just because there are Israeli settlements on areas of land does not mean that after negotiation those areas have to be in Israel. The whole point of negotiation is to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

A good move would be to declare some sort of buffer zone where no development is allowed by either side. And policed by the UN for a certain amount of time. Move people of both sides off the buffer zone and back into their respective territories.
Click to expand...

Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders
By Amira Hass, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies
Tags: Gaza, Israel News, Hamas

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative.

Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British prime minister Tony Blair, asked Haniyeh to repeat his offer. He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.

In response to a question about the international community's impression that there are two Palestinian states, Haniyeh said: "We don't have a state, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank. Gaza is under siege and the West Bank is occupied. What we have in the Gaza Strip is not a state, but rather a regime of an elected government. A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967."

The parliamentary delegation was led by Baron Nazir Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan and is a member of the British House of Lords. Ahmed, Britain's second Muslim peer and the only one born Muslim, related how, 10 years ago, he was sworn into the House of Lords using a Koran. "And now you represent us," Haniyeh told him on Saturday.

Ahmed asked Haniyeh about Hamas' relations with Iran and requested his response to the claims of "our Zionist friends" that Hamas, like Iran, seeks to destroy the State of Israel and throw the Jews into the sea.

"Our ties with Iran are like those with other Muslim states. Does a besieged people that is waiting breathlessly for a ship to come from the sea want to throw the Jews into the ocean? Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation," Haniyeh said.

The protest boat Dignity anchored at Gaza port Saturday morning, carrying nine MPs from Britain and Ireland, one from Switzerland and one from Italy. The parliamentarians sought to express their opposition to the Gaza blockade and see for themselves its effect on Gaza's population. The 11 were among a few dozen members of European parliaments who about two weeks ago were refused entrance to Gaza at the Rafah crossing by Egyptian officials.

This was the Dignity's third voyage from Cyprus to Gaza in 10 days, and the third time in three months the Free Gaza Movement organized a protest sail and visit to Gaza.

The peak of the group's first day in Gaza was their meeting with Haniyeh at his official guesthouse in Gaza City's exclusive Rimal area - formerly the guesthouse of Yasser Arafat. The two-hour meeting was a good-natured affair, at the end of which the parliamentarians noted their host's pleasant manner.

"Your visit proves that the Palestinian people is not alone in its struggle against the blockade and that many of the peoples of the free and cultured world support us," Haniyeh told his guests.

He explained to them why Hamas boycotted the talks with Fatah that were scheduled to begin on Sunday in Cairo. "We had 17 political detainees [from Fatah, held without trial and without being charged] being held in harsh conditions - I'm not proud of that," Haniyeh said. "They were released. We expected a similar measure from our brothers in Ramallah, but unfortunately the situation only worsened ahead of the meeting in Cairo."

According to Haniyeh, about 400 Hamas activists are being held in Palestinian Authority jails in the West Bank, and all requests to release them have fallen on deaf ears.

Haniyeh said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' statements to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit prove that the United States won't allow the two Palestinian factions to reach a reconciliation. He said the PA must shake off the "American fist" gripping it.

The European politicians took with them a ton of medical supplies and three medical scanners used for spinal injuries, said Arafat Shoukri, 37, a doctor based in Britain.

"We are taking very basic medical supplies like paracetamol and painkillers. We were shocked when we got the list from the Health Ministry in Gaza - it means they don't have anything," Shoukri said.

International aid agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have said virtually no medical supplies were reaching Gaza
 
MikeUpNorth said:
But why the 1967 borders? Why not just sit down now and negotiate some new ones with concessions on both sides? Forget what happened over 40 years ago...
Click to expand...

because that way you wouldn't get very far in your negotiations. You need some concrete framework to work on. Otherwise every Israeli settlement, every strategic point will become a potential stalling point to the whole process.
 
Still no one's given me an answer to why Israel wants to keep expanding (assuming that they do)?
 
vardamir1 said:
Do not forget that a lot of Jews were kicked out of Muslim countries in the past 60 years, and settled in Israel, just like Arabs were kicked out of Israel and the Occupied territories in that period.
Click to expand...

Appreciate that - thank you.

Difference is that we absorbed our refugees as well as 2 million Arabs.

The palestinians have been left to fester by the oil shieks and slaughtered by Jordan and Kuwait.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Still no one's given me an answer to why Israel wants to keep expanding (assuming that they do)?
Click to expand...

Israel doesn't.

Thats why we gave back the Sinia, Gaza, left lebanon and offering 90% of the West bank. all gained after being attacked.

Hardy expansionist
 
Fitzjames said:
In fairness to Israel, their whole "raison d'etre" is based on "Never Again" and basically the strength of their Military Forces is a guarantee to that.
Unfortunately that Strength often manifests itself as Ruthlessness (and disproportionate) but every Israeli action is conscious of the fact that in the 1930s and 1940s (and indeed centuries before) their (ie Jewish) passivity was perceived as weakness and they paid too high a price thru their passivity.
They are therefore determined to ACT and REACT as only they see fit.
OVER REACTING (which has I think lost it many friends in the West) is not an issue for the vast majority of Israelis.
OVER REACTING is considered better than NOT ACTING or UNDER ACTING.

Every action (and for historical reasons) is based on NEVER AGAIN.
And frankly anything other than a permenant sense of being on a war footing cannot be sold in Israel. (in part because any government is answerable to the ballot box).

They are beyond the normal boundaries of reasoned realpolitik and its probably not worth the carbon footprint to set up conferences to bring the sides together. Both are basket cases in terms of normal diplomatic interaction.

It all has a well defined chronology.
Impasse on peace process (what a nonsensical term)
Palestinians fire rockets
Israel responds/over reacts
Both sides send out their Internet Warriors
USA, Britain, France etc urge caution.
Secretary of State Rice/Clinton visits Tel Aviv and Gaza
Photo Opportunity (firm handshakes all round)
Israel withdraws
Much rhetoric about how we all pulled back from the brink.....tears of Palestinian and Israeli mothers are the same blah blah blah

And in a few months the whole macabre dance starts up again.
Click to expand...

and neutrals like us get totally ignored in the process... I agree that Israel feels it should do whatever it takes, all I am saying is that to me, and to most normal people in my opinion this is unacceptable.

problem is, the Palestinian response is 'if you want 'Never Again', why don't you go to Central Europe and build a state there?'
 
vardamir1 said:
and neutrals like us get totally ignored in the process... I agree that Israel feels it should do whatever it takes, all I am saying is that to me, and to most normal people in my opinion this is unacceptable.

problem is, the Palestinian response is 'if you want 'Never Again', why don't you go to Central Europe and build a state there?'
Click to expand...

That is the problem.
 
Fearless said:
Hold on.

Was it not Jordan and Egypt and Syria who aggressed? And as a result lost land that they themselves illegally (by dint of war) grabbed in 48?
Click to expand...

But you attacked in 1956 and you attacked Lebanon twice: you cannot say that you were the innocent victims in this.

Also in 1967 you attacked pre-emptively, so it could be argued that you were the aggressors.
 
vardamir1 said:
because that way you wouldn't get very far in your negotiations. You need some concrete framework to work on. Otherwise every Israeli settlement, every strategic point will become a potential stalling point to the whole process.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Convenience is a good enough reason I guess.
 
vardamir1 said:
But you attacked in 1956 and you attacked Lebanon twice: you cannot say that you were the innocent victims in this.

Also in 1967 you attacked pre-emptively, so it could be argued that you were the aggressors.
Click to expand...

The PLO - like Hamas - bombarded Northern Israel from lebananon.

In 67, Nasser closed the Straits illegally, told the UN to piss off and massed all the Arab armies on Israels borders.
 
Fearless said:
There's a big difference between fronting out a tank and blowing up a cafe full of people.
Click to expand...

there is: the latter kills more people. But the difference between blowing up cafes with bombs and blowing up universites with missiles is minimal.

You still haven't answered what you expected Hamas to do here though. Did you expect them to greet you with a bunch of flowers after everything you did to their people over the years? To answer a blockade which killed many people with deference? If you were in their shoes, what would you have done?
 
Fearless said:
Israel doesn't.

Thats why we gave back the Sinia, Gaza, left lebanon and offering 90% of the West bank. all gained after being attacked.

Hardy expansionist
Click to expand...

what was wrong with offering 100%? And, crucially, giving back Jerusalem?
 
Fearless said:
Appreciate that - thank you.

Difference is that we absorbed our refugees as well as 2 million Arabs.

The palestinians have been left to fester by the oil shieks and slaughtered by Jordan and Kuwait.
Click to expand...

they have. But that does not excuse your actions against them in the slightest.
 
The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations." - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech, May 1967
 
Fearless said:
That is the problem.
Click to expand...

you can understand them though - if some nation came out of thin air and decided to build a state in London (say the Celts or the Italians, citing the Roman Empire), people would tell them to go screw themselves, which is what the Palestinians have been telling you for the last 100 years. Equally, if G commits genocide against J, it is G who should really provide the territory for J to live in, not some innocent third party A.

But that is in the past, and so a fair sharing of the territory is the only way forward now.
 
vardamir1 said:
you can understand them though - if some nation came out of thin air and decided to build a state in London (say the Celts or the Italians, citing the Roman Empire), people would tell them to go screw themselves, which is what the Palestinians have been telling you for the last 100 years. Equally, if G commits genocide against J, it is G who should really provide the territory for J to live in, not some innocent third party A.

But that is in the past, and so a fair sharing of the territory is the only way forward now.
Click to expand...

well put...
 
vardamir1 said:
you can understand them though - if some nation came out of thin air and decided to build a state in London (say the Celts or the Italians, citing the Roman Empire), people would tell them to go screw themselves, which is what the Palestinians have been telling you for the last 100 years. Equally, if G commits genocide against J, it is G who should really provide the territory for J to live in, not some innocent third party A.

But that is in the past, and so a fair sharing of the territory is the only way forward now.
Click to expand...

You again seem to believe that the Palestine Arabs were the sole inhabitanats and the invading Jews came out of thin air.

Jews have been the longest constant in the region and the Arabs far less so. The british were in charge of palestine - before them the turks. The Arabs got 3/4 of palestine in 1922....its called Jordan.

The question is now how many Palestines do they want?

I'm off to bed mate - hope you gt your BMW back with all it's wheels on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.