Discussion
Scuffers said:
Do you honestly think they want to have to do this? quite apart from the human tragedies going on a daily basis, do you not this that Israel would love NOT to have to spend a very high proportion of their GDP on defence?
don't you think the reservists that are constantly having to be called up would rather not have to be risking life and limb in these operations?
Let's be clear here, NOBODY wants this, except HAMAS.
I think it is quite clear from many posts on here suggesting that Israel is happy wiping out the Palestinians for the sake of a greater Jewish state.don't you think the reservists that are constantly having to be called up would rather not have to be risking life and limb in these operations?
Let's be clear here, NOBODY wants this, except HAMAS.
If they seriously didn't want this, as you have said, then why is there a continuation of settlements on occupied land, which is illegal under international law (which everyone excepts, inc the US, but only Israel doesn't)
The whole world can't be wrong and for Israel to be right, right?
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
la bla bla, more nonesense. If you assert that there is a bottle of whiskey in your neighbour's garden at least provide some evidence, that's what we're discussing here, concrete evidence, do not respond to me by saying "Oh no you provide evidence that said bottle of Whiskey is not there!".That's just plain dumb. Replace bottle of Whiskey with UFO, God, Angel or Mr Tumble.The conclusion is always the same! The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence, otherwise anyone can claim anything about anybody whether they are murderous thugs or outstanding citizens. Capisce?
As for your last statement, well, Israel is the "occupier" remember? Only Israel's actions, as in state sponsored terrorism benefit Hamas.Hamas do not need me or others here on PH to benefit them. Israel is doing a fine job of rallying the whole Palestinian population around it. The sooner Israel knows that, the better.
Incidentally, the best chances for Israel to achieve peace have come and gone, never to return I guess.It was when Arafat was at the head of a secular Fatah. Dealing with a secular Fatah provided the best opportunity to deal with people who are not motivated by religion and extremism.
Well, Israel's lack of vision and will for peace at the time meant they exercised pressure on Arafat and Fatah, and helped destabilise them by helping financially and logistically the creation of Hamas, and giving it enough force to threaten Fatah. You reap what you sow, and now Hamas, the Islamists who were Israel's creation are a thorn on its side.
Had Israel agreed to the two state solution with Fatah (regardless of corruption etc...) as the main party and Palestine as a sovereign country in the real sense of the word and as outlined by Fatah at the time, we would have had a secular Palestine, and Hamas would have been consigned to history books. I could say Israel never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace.
Toys pram, bigger bang.As for your last statement, well, Israel is the "occupier" remember? Only Israel's actions, as in state sponsored terrorism benefit Hamas.Hamas do not need me or others here on PH to benefit them. Israel is doing a fine job of rallying the whole Palestinian population around it. The sooner Israel knows that, the better.
Incidentally, the best chances for Israel to achieve peace have come and gone, never to return I guess.It was when Arafat was at the head of a secular Fatah. Dealing with a secular Fatah provided the best opportunity to deal with people who are not motivated by religion and extremism.
Well, Israel's lack of vision and will for peace at the time meant they exercised pressure on Arafat and Fatah, and helped destabilise them by helping financially and logistically the creation of Hamas, and giving it enough force to threaten Fatah. You reap what you sow, and now Hamas, the Islamists who were Israel's creation are a thorn on its side.
Had Israel agreed to the two state solution with Fatah (regardless of corruption etc...) as the main party and Palestine as a sovereign country in the real sense of the word and as outlined by Fatah at the time, we would have had a secular Palestine, and Hamas would have been consigned to history books. I could say Israel never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace.
You are clearly have such a profound and deep understanding of the subject I am sure my wisdom can add nothing to your profound bigotry.
s1962a said:
I don't know enough about hamas to suggest anything. News reports say they have asked for an easing of the blockade of Gaza in return for a ceasefire. No idea what they would do.
Just to clarify the easing was on the crossing with Egypt. There is speculation and no more that they did this as they knew it would be unacceptable to Egypt since Hamas had actively backed the previous Egypt Government. it would then be Eqypts fault that the cease fire was rejected not Hamas.
s1962a said:
My point is around the killing of innocent children. I wonder if the IDF deliberate as hard as you have suggested when they wipe out an entire family to target one militant.
Just to clarify the easing was on the crossing with Egypt. There is speculation and no more that they did this as they knew it would be unacceptable to Egypt since Hamas had actively backed the previous Egypt Government. it would then be Eqypts fault that the cease fire was rejected not Hamas.
Just like us in Afganistan I assume they have rules of engagement. Decisions to launch attacks then have to be evaluated against the risks to civilian casualties based on these rules. I doubt the decisions are easy, I am also sure some will fire when others would not. I also know there will also be mistakes, errors and misfires.
Combat is hell. The question is what else can you do when people lob missiles into your country, Except try to reduce there ability to do it.
SR7492 said:
Scuffers said:
Do you honestly think they want to have to do this? quite apart from the human tragedies going on a daily basis, do you not this that Israel would love NOT to have to spend a very high proportion of their GDP on defence?
don't you think the reservists that are constantly having to be called up would rather not have to be risking life and limb in these operations?
Let's be clear here, NOBODY wants this, except HAMAS.
I think it is quite clear from many posts on here suggesting that Israel is happy wiping out the Palestinians for the sake of a greater Jewish state.don't you think the reservists that are constantly having to be called up would rather not have to be risking life and limb in these operations?
Let's be clear here, NOBODY wants this, except HAMAS.
If they seriously didn't want this, as you have said, then why is there a continuation of settlements on occupied land, which is illegal under international law (which everyone excepts, inc the US, but only Israel doesn't)
The whole world can't be wrong and for Israel to be right, right?
I am sure there are some hard liners that do want to wipe out Gaza, (much the same as their are brit that love to abuse children here etc.) the point is the majority are normal people who just want a safe/quiet life.
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
go on, answer that one, then just maybe you might understand why they are so keen to keep it.
Yes, I agree, building on it does not help, but once again, I could say the same for developers here.
JuniorD said:
Having read and contributed to this thread, it is clear that there is nothing more to be said the those PHers who can justify, and are seemigly comfortbale with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Gaza. In fact, it would seem that there is nothing beyond the pale when it comes to Irsraeli options for dealing with the Gazans. The PH humanitarians are wasting their time.
It's not a waste of time, we just have to remind some people that real life is not Hollywood's John Mcclane where it does not matter if people get blown to bits.People on both sides of the conflict are burying their children and loved ones.A Jewish mother who recently lost her 2nd son in the army said on TV: "It does not matter what happened, we need to talk, we need to talk!"
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
I am sure there are some hard liners that do want to wipe out Gaza, (much the same as their are brit that love to abuse children here etc.) the point is the majority are normal people who just want a safe/quiet life.
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
go on, answer that one, then just maybe you might understand why they are so keen to keep it.
Yes, I agree, building on it does not help, but once again, I could say the same for developers here.
'some hard liners' you mean the current Israeli government right?I am sure there are some hard liners that do want to wipe out Gaza, (much the same as their are brit that love to abuse children here etc.) the point is the majority are normal people who just want a safe/quiet life.
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
go on, answer that one, then just maybe you might understand why they are so keen to keep it.
Yes, I agree, building on it does not help, but once again, I could say the same for developers here.
There have been some good posts on the history of the land, I suggest to go back a few pages as it seems like you missed this.
allnighter said:
ight on Mrr T, you've already revealed your prejudice, and now you are simply throwing accusations of 'profound bigotry' as whichever view does not conform with your own position of wilful ignorance. Unless, of course, you are capable of refuting what you conveniently glossed over concerning Israel and its tactics of short-termism.
Yes I am very prejudice against bigotry. Lets be clear. You demand I prove Hamas are hiding missiles behind civilian target, which I obviously cannot do. You then get very cross when I ask you to prove they are not. I assume you did not get the irony.
You then post a lengthy tirade about Israel which are only your opinions but no supporting facts.and demand I produce facts you are wrong.
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
Nor is yours by the looks of it.Scuffers said:
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!
RedTrident said:
Israel's ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, has reportedly said that the Israeli army should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for its “unimaginable restraint” in Gaza.
What a contradiction.http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-n...
"But Hamas also uses its strategy of human shields because it works… Because time after time, when Palestinian civilians die, when those heart-wrenching pictures of women and children appear on television – pictures that would move any decent human being – the blame is placed on Israel and the pressure is put on Israel"
So knowing that hamas is using little children as human shields you bomb them anyway. And then suggest a Nobel Peace prize because you could have bombed more, but didn't?
Edited by s1962a on Tuesday 22 July 15:28
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
ight on Mrr T, you've already revealed your prejudice, and now you are simply throwing accusations of 'profound bigotry' as whichever view does not conform with your own position of wilful ignorance. Unless, of course, you are capable of refuting what you conveniently glossed over concerning Israel and its tactics of short-termism.
Yes I am very prejudice against bigotry. Lets be clear. You demand I prove Hamas are hiding missiles behind civilian target, which I obviously cannot do. You then get very cross when I ask you to prove they are not. I assume you did not get the irony.
Mrr T said:
You then post a lengthy tirade about Israel which are only your opinions but no supporting facts.and demand I produce facts you are wrong.
Look it up you, or are you being lazy and intellectually dishonest?s1962a said:
What a contradiction.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-n...
"But Hamas also uses its strategy of human shields because it works… Because time after time, when Palestinian civilians die, when those heart-wrenching pictures of women and children appear on television – pictures that would move any decent human being – the blame is placed on Israel and the pressure is put on Israel"
So knowing that hamas is using little children as human shields you bomb them anyway. And then suggest a Nobel Peace prize because you could have bombed more, but didn't?
Its easy to find fault but you have never suggested an alternative. http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-n...
"But Hamas also uses its strategy of human shields because it works… Because time after time, when Palestinian civilians die, when those heart-wrenching pictures of women and children appear on television – pictures that would move any decent human being – the blame is placed on Israel and the pressure is put on Israel"
So knowing that hamas is using little children as human shields you bomb them anyway. And then suggest a Nobel Peace prize because you could have bombed more, but didn't?
Edited by s1962a on Tuesday 22 July 15:28
Should they just allow Hamas to rain missiles on Israel and accept the inevitable casualties?
F
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!Good lord........who'd have thought it?
allnighter said:
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
Nor is yours by the looks of it.Scuffers said:
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!
Mrr T said:
Its easy to find fault but you have never suggested an alternative.
Should they just allow Hamas to rain missiles on Israel and accept the inevitable casualties?
You mean the zero casualties? Which was the case, not one Israeli life was lost due to missile attacks in the run up to this ground invasion, take a look back through the thread. Israeli lives are being lost now because they're sending their sons over the border on foot to fight an unwinable war.Should they just allow Hamas to rain missiles on Israel and accept the inevitable casualties?
FredClogs said:
Mrr T said:
Its easy to find fault but you have never suggested an alternative.
Should they just allow Hamas to rain missiles on Israel and accept the inevitable casualties?
You mean the zero casualties? Which was the case, not one Israeli life was lost due to missile attacks in the run up to this ground invasion, take a look back through the thread. Israeli lives are being lost now because they're sending their sons over the border on foot to fight an unwinable war.Should they just allow Hamas to rain missiles on Israel and accept the inevitable casualties?
now, just try and imagine how many there would have been without iron dome?
Look people, for all your hand wringing, the simple way to stop this is for Hamas to stop firing rockets.
yes, it really is that simple.
I know this probably does not fit with your sense of injustice etc, but it's the only way it will end.
Scuffers said:
Look people, for all your hand wringing, the simple way to stop this is for Hamas to stop firing rockets.
yes, it really is that simple.
I know this probably does not fit with your sense of injustice etc, but it's the only way it will end.
Someone give this man the noble prize . . . . . . . . amazing!yes, it really is that simple.
I know this probably does not fit with your sense of injustice etc, but it's the only way it will end.
FredClogs said:
You mean the zero casualties? Which was the case, not one Israeli life was lost due to missile attacks in the run up to this ground invasion, take a look back through the thread. Israeli lives are being lost now because they're sending their sons over the border on foot to fight an unwinable war.
Yes there where no casualties in Israel because of the dome, the general inefficiencies of the missiles, and plenty of bomb shelters. The problem is the dome is very expensive to maintain, I believe its about $50k per missile.
So at some point the dome will not work and Hamas will get lucky, in their terms, and you will get a big bang and lots of Israeli casualties.
Why did they go into Gaza. There are two answers. For lots on here the view will be to indiscriminately kill lots of kids. In my view to wear down Hamas capabilities so reducing the likely of that bad day. Will it work who knows.
REALIST123 said:
F
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!Good lord........who'd have thought it?
Not the histories of those conflict I have read but if you post it here it must be true..allnighter said:
Scuffers said:
your grasp on history is not great is it?
Nor is yours by the looks of it.Scuffers said:
Now, back to the occupied land, why was it occupied in the first place?
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
History records that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the "Six day War". Of course Israel sold it to the rest of the world as a "preemtive strike". Yet both U.S and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would attack was close to Nil.
The CIA confirmed that Israel had "overwhelming superiority" in force of arms, and in the event of war, defeat the Arab forces within 2 weeks and within one week if it attacked first, which is what actually occurred. Nasser's rhetoric was nothing more than that, a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world. He knew what the Israelis are capable of and he was aware of their military might in the region.
And as for the 1973 war, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake what's lawfully theirs namely the Sinai and the Golan Heights, this joint operation was described and sold to the rest of the world as an "invasion" against Israel, a fallacy that ignores the June 1967 U.N resolution 242 calling Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Technically speaking Egypt and Syria "invaded" their own territory, then illegally occupied by Israel. To describe it as an "Invasion" assumes the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights,West Bank , and Gaza Strip were Iraeli Territories. This false narrative fits in with the fallacious larger narrative that Israel is the "victim" of Arab "invasion" and "aggression" which I have no doubt you subscribe to yourself!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff