Israeli Attacks Gaza Strip, Killing 200+

[Ceska]

The ball is in Hamas' court on this one. If they want the restrictions lifted they must grant Israel one most basic and fundamental right; to live in peace.

• To live in peace where? If the Palestinians had the more powerful military and took by force and occupied Haifa, Nazareth, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in violation of UN charter, would the Israeli's let them "live in peace"? Would you grant the Palestinians the same "fundamental right" in that case?

You missed a few related ones from before...

• Isn't it also overly simplistic to fail to recognize that Israel is the occupier?

Hard to claim to be a victim when you are sitting on somebody else's land taken by force.

• Whose land is next? Is invading and occupying and continued settlement in the land of others a sign of "just wanting to live in peace"?

• Should Israel return to it's Pre-1967 borders?

• Doesn't Israel at least share some responsibility in this conflict?

 

[davey99]

Don't flatter yourself! I am sure the israeli's take no pleasure in having to kill innocent civilians caught in a unescapable hell because (HAMAS) doesn't even value its own citizens lives! or is that to deep for most to see? :dunno:

Oh really? But Israel has no problem attacking UN aid trying to get into Gaza...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-israel-palestinians,0,1004280.story

Headline "UN halts aid shipments to Gaza, citing Israeli attacks on staff and installations"

Let me say it now ISRAELI ATTACKS ON STAFF AND INSTALLATIONS...of the UN for fuck sake! There must be Hamas in the UN??? Will that be Israel's excuse Marlo? Please, do tell.

Here's the first paragraph "GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — The United Nations says it is halting all aid deliveries to the besieged Gaza Strip. It is citing a series of Israeli attacks on U.N. staff and installations."

I don't see Hamas attacking the UN, why? Because they need aid that Israel has halted, and when the UN tries to enter to help the Palestinians, Israel bombs them!

It's fucking genocide, look up the meaning. Just because Israels our only ally in the Mid East gives them no right to attack UN staff and recklessly bomb a country...if that's the case, they're no better then Hamas.

 

[Philbert]

• To live in peace where? If the Palestinians had the more powerful military and took by force and occupied Haifa, Nazareth, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in violation of UN charter, would the Israeli's let them "live in peace"? Would you grant the Palestinians the same "fundamental right" in that case?

You missed a few related ones from before...

• Isn't it also overly simplistic to fail to recognize that Israel is the occupier?

Hard to claim to be a victim when you are sitting on somebody else's land taken by force.

• Whose land is next? Is invading and occupying and continued settlement in the land of others a sign of "just wanting to live in peace"?

• Should Israel return to it's Pre-1967 borders?

• Doesn't Israel at least share some responsibility in this conflict?

1) No. Israeli politics involves arguing, voting, and spirited debate (2 Jews, 3 opinions); Hamas shoots you, breaks your arm, or kills you if you are a political opponent. Where do you see any equivalency?
2) No, that's blatantly wrong and incorrect.
3) No one's land...Israel "occupied" those territories after being attacked by overwhelmingly larger military forces, to keep such an invasion from occuring again.
4) That would be beyond stupid, since no fool would invite the utter destruction of their family by inviting their deadliest enemy to live right next door.
5) There is no comparison to the Israelis and any of the Islamic countries and groups in the area. This constant attempt at equivalency is dogma driven and bears no real connection to reality. There is no rule in the Universe that says every situation is equal, only that there is always 2 sides; you seem to confuse that fact constantly.

 

[jamrak]

• To live in peace where? If the Palestinians had the more powerful military and took by force and occupied Haifa, Nazareth, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in violation of UN charter, would the Israeli's let them "live in peace"? Would you grant the Palestinians the same "fundamental right" in that case?

You missed a few related ones from before...

• Isn't it also overly simplistic to fail to recognize that Israel is the occupier?

Hard to claim to be a victim when you are sitting on somebody else's land taken by force.

• Whose land is next? Is invading and occupying and continued settlement in the land of others a sign of "just wanting to live in peace"?

• Should Israel return to it's Pre-1967 borders?

• Doesn't Israel at least share some responsibility in this conflict?

Every border of almost every country is the result of many wars and ocupations. What is the time or age, we should go back to restore the justice?

What about indigenous population of the USA? or South America? Or lets go back to Europe. Were the borders of the Roman Empire the most right and correct borders of all time? Or maybe all the borders should be like in 15th century? or 4th? Which one is the most fair variant, and WHY?

It can't be any impersonal opinion of which borders you can count as the most appropriate and rightful. Because if you say "lets go back to 1967", any other person can ask you "why not to 1564"? Both of this dates have the same level of justifiability.

The only consensus of opinion can be based on such a thing, which is called legitimacy. In fact, this is what the UN was created for. If bigger amount of countries accept and recognize the existance of the state Israel, it means that it is legitimate. Maybe this is not the best way, but there is not better way to do it. It is like any election. If one candidate has 75% of votes - he is the winner. And you have to accept it. Even if you do not like him. But not to run with AK-47 and cry that he must die. It will be disrespect to 75% of citizens who vote for him, and in case of Israel, it is a disrespect to all the countries who recognize it. It is a dead end street - to set yourself against the whole society/majority of countries in the world, and at the same time to expect them to support you in the fight with elected candidate/Israel.

 

[davey99]

1) No. Israeli politics involves arguing, voting, and spirited debate (2 Jews, 3 opinions); Hamas shoots you, breaks your arm, or kills you if you are a political opponent. Where do you see any equivalency?

5) There is no comparison to the Israelis and any of the Islamic countries and groups in the area. This constant attempt at equivalency is dogma driven and bears no real connection to reality. There is no rule in the Universe that says every situation is equal, only that there is always 2 sides; you seem to confuse that fact constantly.

1) Hamas doesn't kill or break Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi arms. Stop trying to make them see like the mighty evil of the middle east when all of that area are against Israel. You have 10 guys and all hate one guy, the US has sided with that one guy based on pity...perfect analogy for Israel.

5) Phil, you're in Texas, right? If the Mexicans invaded Texas and won, taking back that entire state and trying to kill you, your friends etc...I'm sure you'd just let them take it and move...right?...right?

 

[jamrak]

5) Phil, you're in Texas, right? If the Mexicans invaded Texas and won, taking back that entire state and trying to kill you, your friends etc...I'm sure you'd just let them take it and move...right?...right?

where are, davey99? no matter.. If, let call them lunatics started to blow-up buses, shops in your area, and launch several rockets almost every day hoping to kill you and members of your family, would you say to them: "OK, lunatics. We gonna quit. This is my house, I build it... And I was born here, but fuck it. You are so determined and rightful, that I want to give it to you. Also there is a small farm, which I was cultivating with my dad, whom you had recently killed, so you can take it too. And use it. Kisses and ciao!" Would you? would you? :2 cents:

 

[Philbert]

1) Hamas doesn't kill or break Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi arms. Stop trying to make them see like the mighty evil of the middle east when all of that area are against Israel. You have 10 guys and all hate one guy, the US has sided with that one guy based on pity...perfect analogy for Israel.

5) Phil, you're in Texas, right? If the Mexicans invaded Texas and won, taking back that entire state and trying to kill you, your friends etc...I'm sure you'd just let them take it and move...right?...right?

Do you try and get everything as wrong and backwards as possible?
Or are you just "Special"?

 

[Dawn]

(...) We gonna quit. This is my house, I build it... And I was born here, but fuck it. You are so determined and rightful, that I want to give it to you. Also there is a small farm, which I was cultivating with my dad, whom you had recently killed, so you can take it too. And use it. Kisses and ciao!" Would you? would you? :2 cents:

I just kept what could fit in a palestinian mouth regarding Israel.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - as i don't disagree with you at all, Jamrak

 

[Ceska]

Every border of almost every country is the result of many wars and ocupations. What is the time or age, we should go back to restore the justice?

What about indigenous population of the USA? or South America? Or lets go back to Europe. Were the borders of the Roman Empire the most right and correct borders of all time? Or maybe all the borders should be like in 15th century? or 4th? Which one is the most fair variant, and WHY?

This is a great point. (In fact, it was the one I made in an earlier post)
Where were you to make this point in 1967?

It can't be any impersonal opinion of which borders you can count as the most appropriate and rightful. Because if you say "lets go back to 1967", any other person can ask you "why not to 1564"? Both of this dates have the same level of justifiability.

In your next sentence you yourself explain why the pre-1967 borders can be considered to have more legitimacy.

The only consensus of opinion can be based on such a thing, which is called legitimacy. In fact, this is what the UN was created for. If bigger amount of countries accept and recognize the existance of the state Israel...

Recognizing the State of Israel does not mean accepting any borders Israel chooses. Israel continues to occupy and settle areas outside it's legitimate (by your definition) territory.

 

[Philbert]

where are, davey99? no matter.. If, let call them lunatics started to blow-up buses, shops in your area, and launch several rockets almost every day hoping to kill you and members of your family, would you say to them: "OK, lunatics. We gonna quit. This is my house, I build it... And I was born here, but fuck it. You are so determined and rightful, that I want to give it to you. Also there is a small farm, which I was cultivating with my dad, whom you had recently killed, so you can take it too. And use it. Kisses and ciao!" Would you? would you? :2 cents:

I do believe he would; after all, he truly believes that the US Government killed 3000 people on 911 so they could justify a war, and Christians are waging war on Islam. Have you read some of his first posts? A true waste of space ... except for the comic relief.


http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2828821&postcount=204

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2829602&postcount=223

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2829759&postcount=230

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2829800&postcount=234

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2834832&postcount=293

 

[Marlo Manson]

Oh really? But Israel has no problem attacking UN aid trying to get into Gaza...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-israel-palestinians,0,1004280.story

Headline "UN halts aid shipments to Gaza, citing Israeli attacks on staff and installations"

Let me say it now ISRAELI ATTACKS ON STAFF AND INSTALLATIONS...of the UN for fuck sake! There must be Hamas in the UN??? Will that be Israel's excuse Marlo? Please, do tell.

Here's the first paragraph "GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — The United Nations says it is halting all aid deliveries to the besieged Gaza Strip. It is citing a series of Israeli attacks on U.N. staff and installations."

I don't see Hamas attacking the UN, why? Because they need aid that Israel has halted, and when the UN tries to enter to help the Palestinians, Israel bombs them!

It's fucking genocide, look up the meaning. Just because Israels our only ally in the Mid East gives them no right to attack UN staff and recklessly bomb a country...if that's the case, they're no better then Hamas.

I have nothing against you, but I don't feel israel is given any slack, having been fired upon frequently with no reprisals coming to every missile launched into its state / country if you will!

I don't have time to open your link @ the moment, but I find it very hard to believe israel would fire on staff and installations, if it is determined that they are doing so it is a warning to stay away, I am sure NO staff or UN installations have been injured or killed? am I correct? this would indicate its only warning fire!

I am guessing the reasoning behind israel not letting the UN through to provide aid is just another deterent for hamas to consider when it takes on such a catasrophic arsenal!

I just don't think israel has any pleasure or intent on killing innocent civilians of palestine, if hamas, hezzbolah, and all the other terrorist factions would halt their lust for killing JEWS, israel wouldn't have to resort to such harsh actions to delay or warn UN staff in the manner they do..

 

[Friday on my mind]

I just kept what could fit in a palestinian mouth regarding Israel.

Thats what came to my mind when I read it,eithier side could say exactly that and it would have validity for both.

This is a great point. (In fact, it was the one I made in an earlier post)
Where were you to make this point in 1967?


In your next sentence you yourself explain why the pre-1967 borders can be considered to have more legitimacy.



Recognizing the State of Israel does not mean accepting any borders Israel chooses. Israel continues to occupy and settle areas outside it's legitimate (by your definition) territory.

I am pretty sure there have been UN resolutions calling for a return to 67 borders,no? And lets not forget the 5 permanent members of the security council particulary the US and the UK who can veto any resolution which might want to condemn or put sanctions on what some other members might feel is Israel overstepping it's legitiamate actions.

 

[Dawn]

I don't have time to open your link @ the moment, but I find it very hard to believe israel would fire on staff and installations, if it is determined that they are doing so it is a warning to stay away, I am sure NO staff or UN installations have been injured or killed? am I correct? this would indicate its only warning fire!

I am guessing the reasoning behind israel not letting the UN through to provide aid is just another deterent for hamas to consider when it takes on such a catasrophic arsenal!

According to the article, it happened. I would love a double check on that (if anyone have time to find another source to confirm the info).

From the article:

U.N. spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said the U.N. coordinated the delivery with Israel, and the vehicle was marked with a U.N. flag and insignia when it was shot in northern Gaza. The Israeli army said it was investigating.

"The U.N. is suspending its aid operations in Gaza until we can get safety and security guarantees for our staff," spokesman Chris Gunness said. "We've been coordinating with them (Israeli forces) and yet our staff continue to be hit and killed."

 

[Ceska]

1) No. Israeli politics involves arguing, voting, and spirited debate (2 Jews, 3 opinions); Hamas shoots you, breaks your arm, or kills you if you are a political opponent. Where do you see any equivalency?
2) No, that's blatantly wrong and incorrect.
3) No one's land...Israel "occupied" those territories after being attacked by overwhelmingly larger military forces, to keep such an invasion from occurring again.
4) That would be beyond stupid, since no fool would invite the utter destruction of their family by inviting their deadliest enemy to live right next door.
5) There is no comparison to the Israelis and any of the Islamic countries and groups in the area. This constant attempt at equivalency is dogma driven and bears no real connection to reality. There is no rule in the Universe that says every situation is equal, only that there is always 2 sides; you seem to confuse that fact constantly.

1) What? This isn't even about the topic. The point (again) was to explain that the assumption of a "fundamental right" to "live in peace" for a forceful occupier is overly simplistic to say the least.
2) Explanation? Just no, huh.
3) If that is the reason, did it really work? Is Israel safer? Who will Israel decide to occupy if it is attacked by Iran?
How much territory will it conquer before it feels satisfied, ... I mean safe.
4) Israel did move in right next door....to neighbors that don't like it very much. Or hadn't you heard?
Also Israel has considered returning "some" of the land conquered and occupied. Or hadn't you heard?
5) Read the sentence again. I am not saying it would be the same. (any more than 700 lives vs 10 is an equivalency).
In fact, it is more complex than you realize; there are more than just 2 sides involved.
I am saying that Israel is not some innocent lamb being randomly attacked
for no reason as they are being characterized here.

You don't seem to understand what an analogy is.
An analogy doesn't require all aspects to be "equal", only the points that are analogous.
(in this case simultaneous "occupation" and the "expectation to "just live in peace").
If someone says "that lake is smooth as glass" they are not saying (as you would apparently believe) that the
lake is glass in all respects, only that is shares the analogous trait of "smoothness".

 

[Ceska]

Friday[/URL][/B] on my mind, post: 2841235, member: 44516"]Thats what came to my mind when I read it,eithier side could say exactly that and it would have validity for both.

A moral equivalency?
Interesting concept...

Friday[/URL][/B] on my mind, post: 2841235, member: 44516"]
I am pretty sure there have been UN resolutions calling for a return to 67 borders,no?

Resolution 242

Friday[/URL][/B] on my mind, post: 2841235, member: 44516"]
And lets not forget the 5 permanent members of the security council particulary the US and the UK who can veto any resolution which might want to condemn or put sanctions on what some other members might feel is Israel overstepping it's legitiamate actions.

Poor United States.... so often voting alone...

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

 

[Member2019]

Does anyone actually read ALL accounts?

OLet me say it now ISRAELI ATTACKS ON STAFF AND INSTALLATIONS...of the UN for fuck sake! There must be Hamas in the UN??? Will that be Israel's excuse Marlo? Please, do tell.

I must be an idiot.

I mean, I read a number of accounts of the incident. Here are the facts:

- Various weapons create pressure and concussions

- Weapons are not always 100% accurate

Side Note: The US has more recent developed the small diameter bomb (SDB) with an integrated JADAM kit (which has reduced collateral damage 10-fold on traditional Mk 80 series bombs over those with Paveway laser kits, at least for non-high speed/mobile) to combine both greatly reduced pressure/concussion with the massive increase in accuracy, respectively

- Everyone agrees that Hamas was not in the building

- Several eye-witnesses state that a Hamas rocket team was using the building for cover

- In addition to helicopter-based, real-time video, Israel also has gained increased access to both military and their own, domestic designed "drones" that can use detection with IR (image recognition) to track suspects

Now some of the bigger questions were, assuming there was a rocket team ...

- When/why did Israel go after the rocket team at that time?

- Was it after they had fired from elsewhere and they were tracking them?

- Were they going to fire (or again if they did before)?

- How did Israel miss that the UN building was nearby / being use for cover (if you assume a rocket team was there)?

- Or if they didn't miss that fact, why did they fire?

 

[Member2019]

Not surprising ...

Poor United States.... so often voting alone...
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html

Just like many times.

And people wonder why the US was "the only one" saying Iraq had WMDs, and how we were "stupid" when we didn't turn up any sizeable caches in 2003+.

Hint: The problem is that people only focus on when the US was wrong, and ignore when other members of the Security Council were wrong, in the past -- on Iraq, on Hamas, etc...

 

[guest111]

Another great move done by Israel

UN halts Gaza aid after convoy hit

"UNRWA decided to suspend all its operations in the Gaza Strip because of the increasing hostile actions against its premises and personnel," Adnan Abu Hasna, a Gaza-based spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, said on Thursday.

The move came after Israeli tanks shelled a UN convoy earlier in the day, killing a Palestinian UN worker and injuring two others, as lorries were travelling to the Erez crossing to pick up humanitarian supplies meant to have been allowed in during a three-hour suspension of fire.

At least three UN-run schools have also been hit by Israeli fire, killing scores of civilians, during the 13 days of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009181482839688.html


UN proposal for Gaza truce floated
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200918163258250578.html

Is this gonna be a new war?
Rockets from Lebanon hit Israel
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091855216577820.html


UN suspends Gaza aid operations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm

 

[guest111]

From UN: No fighters in targeted school
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...410769377.html



That's another example of the confusion ruling the battlefield... Who is right; who is wrong?

I hardly beleive Israel could bomb a school without evidence of it being used by the Hamas forces.

Personnally, i trust Isreal word on that. They have no reasons at all to bomb anything non-Hamas forces related. Regardless of what the UN or anyone else could say (even if i usually trust the UN more than anyone in such situation). I just don't beleive Isreal could act otherwise. Or maybe the Israel Intelligence had erronous info about the school?

I wouldnt put anything by them. They are probably being atleast irresponsible

You said yourself that they have been in there 12 days, they might not have individual targets. Personally, I think they are doing a search and destroy mission of what they "suspect" to be militants. They probably don't have an exit strategy either.

 

[Ceska]

Re: Not surprising ...

Just like many times.

And people wonder why the US was "the only one" saying Iraq had WMDs, and how we were "stupid" when we didn't turn up any sizeable caches in 2003+.

Hint: The problem is that people only focus on when the US was wrong, and ignore when other members of the Security Council were wrong, in the past -- on Iraq, on Hamas, etc...

In general there is truth in this .. but ...

Only huh?

• So are you saying that in the 40+ vetoes the U.S was right and all the other countries were wrong.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-Ju...5/0505014.html
(Damn they're good.)

• So are you saying that the U.S. was right after all about Iraq WMD?

(btw the U.S wasn't alone on believing this)

• To make me feel much better, please give me the laundry list of times when the U.S voted alone in opposition to the world and was proven right.

And you didn't answer previous post...

Sorry, I must have missed this. Can you please identify where in this thread anybody stated that Israel should not exist at all. Thanks.


Hamas certainly adds fuel to the fire and causes suffering...
I'm curious...

• Do you believe that Israel should return to it's pre-1967 borders?
• Does Israel's expansion of territory and settlement outside its borders as well as control of Palestinian access to water and other resources in any way reinforce the "circle of vengeance"?
• Don't other parties share responsibility in breaking this cycle?
• Doesn't Israel?