Discussion
In case I missed it posted before.
Noam Chomsky’s statement on Israel’s aggression in Gaza:
“The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.
The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians.
Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war. It is not a war, it is murder.
When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. That’s not defense. Call it what you like, it’s not defense.”
Noam Chomsky’s statement on Israel’s aggression in Gaza:
“The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.
The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians.
Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war. It is not a war, it is murder.
When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. That’s not defense. Call it what you like, it’s not defense.”
Jimbeaux said:
Art0ir said:
Jimbeaux said:
Have we solved anything yet? No? OK, I'll check back later. 
I told you what I think needs to be done. You're probably the only one on thread with less than six degrees of separation from the people that can make it happen 
what a load of cobblers.
if they wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza, they would have done it in the first week.
yes, 1,000 casualties is bad, but when you consider that's half the number of rockets fired at Israel, you kind of get the bigger picture.
I see in the news another hospital has been hit apparently, after rockets were fired from it.
this is during what was supposed to be a cease-fire...
Let's face it, Hamas have no options left, they can;t stop now else they will have achieved nothing for all the deaths and hardship they have brought upon Gaza, they are desperate for the blockade to be lifted, but quite apart from Israel not wishing to open the door (and the inevitable suicide attacks etc), Egypt are never going to open their border to the looneys that are the mates of the Muslim brotherhood, no matter what Israel thinks.
if they wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza, they would have done it in the first week.
yes, 1,000 casualties is bad, but when you consider that's half the number of rockets fired at Israel, you kind of get the bigger picture.
I see in the news another hospital has been hit apparently, after rockets were fired from it.
this is during what was supposed to be a cease-fire...
Let's face it, Hamas have no options left, they can;t stop now else they will have achieved nothing for all the deaths and hardship they have brought upon Gaza, they are desperate for the blockade to be lifted, but quite apart from Israel not wishing to open the door (and the inevitable suicide attacks etc), Egypt are never going to open their border to the looneys that are the mates of the Muslim brotherhood, no matter what Israel thinks.
Funkycoldribena said:
franki68 said:
allnighter said:
do not care much for Hamas, so let's be clear about that.Hamas and Israel carry the responsibility for this situation. Targetting civilians VIOLATES international law, whether it's done by Hamas or Israel.Can we at least agree on that?
Dragging Israel before the International Criminal Court on accusations of war crimes is a non-starter, said a senior Palestinian official, because the Palestinians themselves are guilty of blatant war crimes.“The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets,” Ibrahim Khraishi (pictured), the Palestinian ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council, told Palestinian Authority TV last week.
By contrast, Khraishi said that Israel had very cleverly adhered to international rules of engagement, so even if the Palestinian death toll is higher, legally Israel is still in the right.
“Many of our people in Gaza appeared on TV and said that the Israelis warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment. In such a case, if someone is killed, the law considers it a mistake rather than an intentional killing because [the Israelis] followed the legal procedures,” he explained
allnighter said:
hen you engage in aerial bombardment of a densely populated area, you know the consequences of your actions well in advance. When you dismiss the subsequent subhuman Palestinian limbless babies and headless children as collateral damage, then you belong to the a different species that lacks any moral fibre whatsoever.The same thing applies to Hamas and their callous targeting of innocent Israeli citizens, in case you have any intention of producing one of your 'whataboutism' lame combacks.
what would you have them do then?ignore the rockets and tunnels?
allnighter said:
John Dugard is professor of law at the University of Pretoria, emeritus professor of the University of Leiden and former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/201...
IIRC, the recently departed Libyan leader was the U.N.'s recent pick to chair the Human Rights Committee; therefore, their record on any such things (including who they choose) should probably be questioned. Sorry for the O/T, now back to defending the pure "Palestinians" against the Deathstar pilots. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/201...
Art0ir said:
Jimbeaux said:
Art0ir said:
Jimbeaux said:
Have we solved anything yet? No? OK, I'll check back later.
I told you what I think needs to be done. You're probably the only one on thread with less than six degrees of separation from the people that can make it happen Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
what would you have them do then?
ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Stop Settlement building for a start. Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
what would you have them do then?
ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Stop Settlement building for a start. Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
h about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.Scuffers said:
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
what would you have them do then?
ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Stop Settlement building for a start. Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
Jimbeaux said:
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
what would you have them do then?
ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Stop Settlement building for a start. Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.ignore the rockets and tunnels?
Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
h about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.OK, but if you want solid peace in the future, sometimes you have to compromise. Magnanimity & all that
Mermaid said:
OK, but if you want solid peace in the future, sometimes you have to compromise. Magnanimity & all that
latest news is the latest hospital that apparently got hit was not that at all, it was a compound next door, and IDF are saying they did not fire on it, it was a long range rocket being launched that blew up.
they have also added that the beach explosion was a hamas rocket that failed, and not a naval shell, (they do say they had shelled a hut earlier)
Jimbeaux said:
The 1967 borders might be a problem. You see, five nations attacked with the intent of wiping them off the grid; therefore, the desire for a "buffer" might be a stubborn one. Again, don't attack, lose, then bh about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.
Re: "attack, lose, and bh about wanting your land back. The rest of your post seems reasonable to me.hing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.The buffer argument is ridiculous. Firstly Israel has borders with Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon, there is no buffer there. So exactly how the WB would act as a buffer I'm not sure (or even who against). Secondly if Israel occupies a land, then fills it with jewish people, it is no longer a buffer. It would become Israel proper (or part of the "Eretz" Israel that many Zionists are trying to achieve). Perhaps Israel should ask the Egyptians and Jordanians to create a 12 mile wide buffer inside their own borders.
Jimbeaux said:
The 1967 borders might be a problem. You see, five nations attacked with the intent of wiping them off the grid;
Complete nonsense, ridiculous, strawman, revisionist nonsense, ill informed, propagandist and worst of all designed to not only propagate the "war" but also aggravate the nations who Israel pre emptively struck and STARTED a war with. A war to capture land that has effectively continued for nearly 50 years.Israel was never and has never been invaded/attacked or anywhere near threatened by any other than daft rhetoric and a few harsh words.
Countdown said:
Re: "attack, lose, and bhing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.
sorry, will you give up on this bullshing about wanting your land back" - most occupiers either give the land back or absorb the land and the people as their own citizens. So Israel should annexe the whole of the WB and give Palestinians full rights. :scratcchin: Israel wants the land but not the people so the only solution AFAICS is ethnic cleansing.t?it's nothing like ethnic cleansing
Countdown said:
The buffer argument is ridiculous. Firstly Israel has borders with Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon, there is no buffer there. So exactly how the WB would act as a buffer I'm not sure (or even who against). Secondly if Israel occupies a land, then fills it with jewish people, it is no longer a buffer. It would become Israel proper (or part of the "Eretz" Israel that many Zionists are trying to achieve). Perhaps Israel should ask the Egyptians and Jordanians to create a 12 mile wide buffer inside their own borders.
Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon are not sending suicide bombers and launching attacks on Israel.please try and remember why they created the buffer in the first place and why the blockade, it's not for fun.
BlackLabel said:
In an ideal world that is what should happen however Hamas or no Hamas there will always be a small minority of those from the Palestinian territories who will launch some kind of attack on Israel - be it rockets or suicide bombings. And Israel of course will retaliate in the manner it has done so recently. And round and round we go.
Personally I think those currently in Gaza/The West Bank or have historical ties to the region (within say the last 100 years not 2000+years ago) should be given financial incentives to re settle elsewhere in the world. Preferably other Middle Eastern nations who, along with Israel, should fund it all.
The remaining few hundred thousand should be given Israeli citizenship and the whole region (Israel+Gaza+WB) should just be one country.
____________
'The Wall' has all but stopped the suicide bombings.
Phil
Personally I think those currently in Gaza/The West Bank or have historical ties to the region (within say the last 100 years not 2000+years ago) should be given financial incentives to re settle elsewhere in the world. Preferably other Middle Eastern nations who, along with Israel, should fund it all.
The remaining few hundred thousand should be given Israeli citizenship and the whole region (Israel+Gaza+WB) should just be one country.
____________
'The Wall' has all but stopped the suicide bombings.
Phil
Countdown said:
Negotiate a viable two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.
Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
Because if the sole aim of France was to wipe Britain off the face of the Earth, and France in the past had had control of Kent, I wouldn't want to give if back to them. Regardless of how I got it. Any reason why this wouldn't be fair, in your opinion?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff