Israeli

[jonby]

franki68 said:

Alpinestars said:

Thanks. You're right, to cleanse is to get rid of completely. Semantics or plain disingenuous?

I'm just trying to educate myself and establish whether indigenous people were displaced, either explicitly or implicitly? My question is qualitative, we can all argue about the quantative aspects.

So far, it seems like they were, and the sources I am trying to glean from are Israeli sources. There are lots of Arab sources which obviously corroborate this position.

Do you not believe any "cleansing" took place, either directly or constructively?

Edited by Alpinestars on Friday 1st August 15:04

no,of course arabs were displaced,as I mentioned previously some were forced out,some left through fear ,some left because the arab league told them too,and some didnt leave.The use of the word cleansing though is odious,has it been applied to any other displaced population ? And they are not the indigenous people.It is a land that has been conquered many times and had massive immigration into it at many points throughout history .
the palestinians have claimed to be descended from the philistines (I think someone referred to that on this thread earlier) ,but since it was pointed out the philistines were actually greek/cypriot invaders ,the palestinians now try to claim they were descendants of the caanites.
the oNly constant has been a near continual jewish presence for 3000 years.
may I suggest some research on the dna shared between those palestinians who have long ties to israel and the jews ,it suggests that they are descended from jews ,its actually something both sides agree on...keeping quiet.It suits neither side to admit to it,but it is an interesting area of research.

well put

[Mr_B]

dudleybloke said:

I heard a commotion a few mins ago and found a pro-palestinian rally taking place in dudley town centre.


http://youtu.be/eeV1DPCUXhw

Several councillors there sticking their oar in with all the blame going to Israel and calling Palestinians brave freedom fighters.
No mention of Hamas rockets either.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/30/Pro-Palestinian-Protestors-Block-Tunnel-In-Support-Of-Hamas

Waving ISIS flags and using a tunnel to do it. Classy and ironic.

Edited by Mr_B on Friday 1st August 18:45

[jonby]

Mrr T said:

Scuffers said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Let me ask you a question then...a yes or no answer.
Have the UN,the bbc,cnn etc been conned before by Hamas/palestinians?

Conned is probably not the right word, played is a better one.

I do think the media are conning the public. Not perhaps by deliberately making things up but by not putting a story in context.

So headline reads:

Israeli bomb school killing hundreds.

Now if they wrote what they actually knew it would be.

A Hamas spokes man has told us an Israeli bomb has hit a school and killed hundreds.
We have been taken under strict Hamas control to what looks like a school and allowed to look at some rooms with blood on the floor, We have no idea whose blood it is.
Hamas say there where no weapons there but it was 5 hours after the strike we where shown the building
We where then taken to see some bodies who Hamas said where killed in the building.
We where then taken to see some injured people who Hamas said where injured the building.We where not allowed to talk to the injured with out our Hamas guide being present.
Israel said nothing.

I agree with you in sentiment, but to be fair, yours is an extreme an example as the one that you are responding to. Some instances may be that extreme but there is patently more 'proof' in many of the reported incidents than your hypothetical example. We just never seem to get a reasoned middle ground - i guess that;s the nature of media.

There is no question that my blood boils when I see some of the headlines then read the content and see the spin. The media agenda is to me a real problem. I fully accept however (and have posted previously on this) that the 'other side' read the same articles and interpret them as being pro-Israel. That is part of the problem in Europe & America in terms of support for each 'side' and the growing problems of anti semitism

Can I just point out by the way that for all I disagree with a number of posters on here, I have seen incredibly little that I would term anti-semitic. There is a real growing problem with that in Europe and the current situation makes it worse. But to be anti current Israeli policy does not by any means in itself mean that person is anti semitic. It's the interchangeable use of 'jew' & 'israeli' in the wrong context that is the primary contributor to anti semitism and as I say, I've seen almost none of that on here.

[Funkycoldribena]

jonby said:

Can I just point out by the way that for all I disagree with a number of posters on here, I have seen incredibly little that I would term anti-semitic. There is a real growing problem with that in Europe and the current situation makes it worse. But to be anti current Israeli policy does not by any means in itself mean that person is anti semitic. It's the interchangeable use of 'jew' & 'israeli' in the wrong context that is the primary contributor to anti semitism and as I say, I've seen almost none of that on here.

You must have missed the earlier parts of this thread that were binned!

[JagLover]

Hamas clearly took advantage of the ceasefire to attack an Israeli unit and achieve its aim of capturing a soldier. But as per usual much of the blame for the renewed conflict gets laid on Israel.

Rather than these periodic eruptions of conflict Israel would probably be better off securing the Gaza strip, no matter the cost. The decision to abandon it looked momentarily hopeful for peace but has just left a missile launch site next to Israeli territory, any attempt to combat which seems to lead inevitably to worldwide condemnation.

[Mrr T]

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

[deadslow]

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Does an occupying army not have a duty of care for the civilian population?

[Mrr T]

jonby said:

I agree with you in sentiment, but to be fair, yours is an extreme an example as the one that you are responding to. Some instances may be that extreme but there is patently more 'proof' in many of the reported incidents than your hypothetical example. We just never seem to get a reasoned middle ground - i guess that;s the nature of media.

There is no question that my blood boils when I see some of the headlines then read the content and see the spin. The media agenda is to me a real problem. I fully accept however (and have posted previously on this) that the 'other side' read the same articles and interpret them as being pro-Israel. That is part of the problem in Europe & America in terms of support for each 'side' and the growing problems of anti semitism

Can I just point out by the way that for all I disagree with a number of posters on here, I have seen incredibly little that I would term anti-semitic. There is a real growing problem with that in Europe and the current situation makes it worse. But to be anti current Israeli policy does not by any means in itself mean that person is anti semitic. It's the interchangeable use of 'jew' & 'israeli' in the wrong context that is the primary contributor to anti semitism and as I say, I've seen almost none of that on here.

I agree I was taking an extreme example. But what seems to be constantly ignored is how little we know.
I know for example Hamas is launching missiles into Israel, and Israel is invading and firing in to Gaza.
I think there is some creditability to the Israel figures for their causalities, and a UN press release saying they had seen Hamas weapon in a school.
The rest is just guess work.

[Fittster]

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Sending missiles into a school isn't a war crime?

[Mrr T]

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Does an occupying army not have a duty of care for the civilian population?

Only if they are “protected persons”.

[deadslow]

Mrr T said:

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Does an occupying army not have a duty of care for the civilian population?

Only if they are “protected persons”.

Oh, that's fine then carry on with the slaughter.

[Mrr T]

Fittster said:

Sending missiles into a school isn't a war crime?

It does depend upon the circumstances if the school was occupied by “protected persons. But in my view the population of Gaza are not “protected persons” so the answer is NO.
Are you from the UK?

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A child dying instantly, regardless of however violently, is surely better than watching your child starve to death over a period of months, wasting away before your eyes. Death by starvation is extremely painful and unpleasant.

Circa 50K children a day die of starvation.

Ps. I am not trying to minimise the awfulness of children being blown to bits.

So what exactly are you trying to do?

[Mrr T]

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Does an occupying army not have a duty of care for the civilian population?

Only if they are “protected persons”.

Oh, that's fine then carry on with the slaughter.

I answered a very specific question. I actually believe it is possible Israel is treating the population of Gaza as “protected persons” even though it is not required to under the Geneva Convention.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Countdown was suggesting that a child being killed in a missile strike was worse than the way most children die in the world. I'm not so sure, given most die of starvation. That's all.

[JensenA]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Being killed by a Missile is sudden, bloody and un-expecte, but more importantly it is a deliberate act.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The firing of the missile may be deliberate, the hitting of the child less so. Kids die of starvation due to corruption, war, etc, many of which are deliberate acts.

[anonymous-user]

Aye, starvation has many causes such as war, corruption, natural disaster, mismanagement, poor birth control, poor education, unreliable weather...... Some of these things are a result of nature, some are because of man's decisions. Some of man's decisions are negligent, some are unfortunate, some are deliberate.
Missiles have nothing to do with nature, they are man's creation, the launch is man's decision, there is intent in that decision, intent to destroy with the knowledge that innocent people may be killed.

[deadslow]

Mrr T said:

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

deadslow said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

Mrr T said:

RedTrident said:

If Israel, with all its surveillance and pr machine could have provided any alternative narrative it would have. Instead they have been forced to a ceasefire.

Do you really think Israel would be prepared to produce any details on its intelligence gathering that led up to the strike?

If it protected them against a war crime, yes absolutely. They've produced evidence before.

Why would they produce evidence? They have NOT committed war crimes. Unlike Hamas.

Does an occupying army not have a duty of care for the civilian population?

Only if they are “protected persons”.

Oh, that's fine then carry on with the slaughter.

I answered a very specific question. I actually believe it is possible Israel is treating the population of Gaza as “protected persons” even though it is not required to under the Geneva Convention.

Ah, that would explain why they murder 100 per day.

[supersingle]

deadslow said:

Ah, that would explain why they murder 100 per day.

Is all killing murder? Even in war?