Israel's latest attacks on Gaza.

iceage

Someone had to mention it here so I'd thought I'd get the ball rolling.

Think this might be the safest place to bring it up.

Discussion, debate, solutions maybe.


Was gonna remove the solutions thingy, but hey you never know.

marco murphy

What military objectives does bombing a university achieve - apart from killing and injuring civilians?
It has become very clear at this stage that Israel is persuing an agenda. That is to destroy the Palestinians as a people, force them to leave rather than live in fear, so they can expand their ''Jewish Homeland''.

Poccington

If you break a ceasefire, launch a rocket attack at another country and kill one of it's citizens... Don't start crying when they hit back. Of course, by striking back Israel has played into Hamas' hands but such is life.

Local-womanizer

Poccington wrote: »

If you break a ceasefire, launch a rocket attack at another country and kill one of it's citizens... Don't start crying when they hit back. Of course, by striking back Israel has played into Hamas' hands but such is life.

Exactly,you cant critsise one side and not the other.The two are as bad as each other,but since Israel are the "America" of the middle east people are quick to berate them.As pointed out,Hamas broke the ceasefire knowing well that it would stoke a retalition from Israel and create support from the world as the poor defenceless group defending their people.

Seen a very good documentry on More 4 about Hamas and how they exploit poor people,children and disabled people into becoming suicide bombers for them,end result is a devestated family and someone dead for another mans beliefs.

Manic Moran

What military objectives does bombing a university achieve - apart from killing and injuring civilians?
It has become very clear at this stage that Israel is persuing an agenda. That is to destroy the Palestinians as a people, force them to leave rather than live in fear, so they can expand their ''Jewish Homeland''.

Is that not a direct carbon copy of your post in the politics forum? I refer you back to that forum for further discussion.

NTM

marco murphy

Poccington wrote: »

If you break a ceasefire, launch a rocket attack at another country and kill one of it's citizens... Don't start crying when they hit back. Of course, by striking back Israel has played into Hamas' hands but such is life.

Who broke the ceasefire? It expired. Palestinians are a dying people, they either do nothing, or fight back. I know what I would do. Being a prison, they can't leave. Whether you believe the start of this conflict was when Israel attacked, or whether you believe it is from 1948, or 1967, Israel is wrong. Don't blame the actions of the oppressor on the oppressed.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Exactly,you cant critsise one side and not the other.The two are as bad as each other,but since Israel are the "America" of the middle east people are quick to berate them.As pointed out,Hamas broke the ceasefire knowing well that it would stoke a retalition from Israel and create support from the world as the poor defenceless group defending their people.

Seen a very good documentry on More 4 about Hamas and how they exploit poor people,children and disabled people into becoming suicide bombers for them,end result is a devestated family and someone dead for another mans beliefs.

Thats exactly what the person you quoted did, he criticized one side, so.
As far as I am concerned there was no ceasfire. Israel attacked Gaza 150 times during it and Hamas fired back in retaliation. The blockcade was intesified in the run up to the expiration. Don't blame Hamas for not extending a ceasefire which the people didn't benefit from. As I say, these people are sieged, its a lose lose situation for them.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is that not a direct carbon copy of your post in the politics forum? I refer you back to that forum for further discussion.

NTM

It is yes.
I won't be replying, no disrespect, we'll never agree. But I think it's a case of guilty till proven innocent. You can't take Israels word for it. I choose to believe all the indepdent (i.e. non political) professors in the University.
I also understand where your coming from.




Gush Shalom: Israel broke Gaza ceasefire

arybvtcw0eolkf

Perestroika wrote: »

It is yes.
I won't be replying, no disrespect, we'll never agree.

I don't care if you have respect for MM or not, but you should have respect for this forum and not post stuff if your not willing to debate your argument.

And if you would rather keep that discussion to the political forum and not here then please don't carry your argument with the Israeli's here.

As for the discussion here.

Well the Pals are reaping what they've sown, and its brilliant that Ehud Barak is Israel's defence minister right now too.

When Ehud Barak last stood for election to PM he stood on a platform for peace, if elected he promised to have his troops out of Lebanon in two years (he done it in his first six months and caught us with our pants down in UNIFIL), he also promised limited autonomy to the Palestinian Authority with a promise of more to come as time went on.

This he more or less achieved, he gave Gaza its first international airport (built with Israeli money) and a sea port with free access, he provided them with electricity and water from Israel and set in motion their (Pals) first free elections. All was going swimmingly.

Then Ariel Sharon visited the Temple mound, the Palestinians took great offence :rolleyes: kicked off the second intifada (I've been unfortunete enough to have been in the region for both intifada I & II), there was a vote of no confidence in the Barak government, which they lost.

Sharon got power, told the Palestinians they'd rue the day they got a homeland from him. The Pals continued the intifada with suicide bombers and rocket attacks on Israel, the Israeli's withdrew from Gaza (even the Egyptians didn't want it back)...

And so.. You reap what you sow.

munchester29

Perestroika wrote: »

Who broke the ceasefire? It expired. Palestinians are a dying people, they either do nothing, or fight back. I know what I would do. Being a prison, they can't leave. Whether you believe the start of this conflict was when Israel attacked, or whether you believe it is from 1948, or 1967, Israel is wrong. Don't blame the actions of the oppressor on the oppressed.

As for what started when…

Benny Morris, an Israeli historian who he is considered as a biased historian by most Israelis and is often quoted by Palestinian supporters, sent a letter to the Irish times stating the following:

“ISRAEL-HATERS are fond of citing my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections. In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, (Palestinian Arabs) launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders).
There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15.
It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that midway in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.“

Perestroika wrote: »

Thats exactly what the person you quoted did, he criticized one side, so.
As far as I am concerned there was no ceasfire. Israel attacked Gaza 150 times during it and Hamas fired back in retaliation. The blockcade was intesified in the run up to the expiration. Don't blame Hamas for not extending a ceasefire which the people didn't benefit from. As I say, these people are sieged, its a lose lose situation for them.

Well, there was no ceasefire really. Hamas and the other groups in Gaza kept firing rockets and mortar shells into Israel throughout the ceasefire.
The ceasefire was mostly held by Israel, who only attacked if they had confirmed intelligence of “ticking bombs” – terrorists who were on their way to fire rockets/mortars on Israel, or were busy executing other terrorist acts.

The blockade is in place because Hamas uses any route they can to continue and arm themselves with more explosives and weapons. They don’t care about anything else, in particular the well being of the Palestinians, and they proved that when they bombed the border pass through which Israel sends fuel and other supplies to the Palestinians in Gaza (that incident happened a few months ago, and resulted in the closing of the border pass for a few days, which resulted in more suffering to the Palestinians).
I think it is natural that Israel doesn’t allow its enemy to stockpile arms which will be used against Israel – let’s not forget that all through the ceasefire Hamas declared openly that the ceasefire is just a chance for them to store arms and train more suicide bombers and soldiers to continue the fight against Israel – they never saw it as an opening for peace, only as an opening to arm themselves better without being bothered by Israel.

No doubt the Palestinians are suffering, but in my opinion they brought it upon themselves by electing Hamas as the official government.

People do tend to end up paying for their elected government’s actions…

arybvtcw0eolkf

Poccington wrote: »

.

Reminds me of a story I heard when I was in the middle east.

A turtle and a scorpion where at The Nile river hoping to cross.

The scorpion asked the turtle for a life o his back...

"No" replied the turtle, "If I do that you'll sting me and I'll die"...

"Don't be silly" said the scorpion "if I did that then we'll both surely die"....

"Ok, hop on then" said the turtle......

Half way across the scorpion stung the turtle on his neck. Looking up at the scorpion the turtle said with his dying breath "Hey, why did you do that. Now we're both gonna die"......

The Scorpion replied "Hey buddy, its the middle east - its what we do".

Ont thing I've learned from debating the Middle East, and in particular Israel and the Palestinians. Both sides of the argument will both be so deeply entrenched in they're respective beliefs that neither side is willing to listen to the other (case in point above I believe).

So I rarely debate it. Militarily I'll debate the pro's & con's of the tactics used by either side, since I'm military and not political I think thats fair. Plus I've been to the middle east and seen the tactics used by all sides there so I'd consider that I'm a little bit qualified to speak on that subject too.

However I'm very much pro-Israel in my beliefs, but in a debate I try my best to be unbiased. Having said that, I looked through the discussion in the political forum, and the view's expressed re. the IDF, tactics, Hamas, human shields, suicide bombers etc are soo damn stupid I couldn't possibly give the guys there my time and considered opinion.

And it makes me laugh to see our government condemn Israel, what a joke that is.

Poccington

Perestroika wrote: »

Who broke the ceasefire? It expired. Palestinians are a dying people, they either do nothing, or fight back. I know what I would do. Being a prison, they can't leave. Whether you believe the start of this conflict was when Israel attacked, or whether you believe it is from 1948, or 1967, Israel is wrong. Don't blame the actions of the oppressor on the oppressed.

So when Hamas continued their rocket attacks once the ceasefire had expired, although the rocket attacks never stopped even when the ceasefire was in place and Israel finally strikes back.... It's Israel that's in the wrong? Israel is wrong to respond to the constant attacks from Hamas, even though it held back during the months of the ceasefire even though they were still under attack from Palestinians?

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see how Hamas are in anyway blameless in this situation.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I wonder will all the Irish friends of Palestinians make representations to the various Palestinian bodies and campaign for the return of Private Kevin Joyce's body.

More on Pte Kevin Joyce and the search for his body.

Pte Joyce was kidnapped and murdered by the Palestinians in Lebanon, although its believed they know the location of his remains they refuse to reveal the information, but instead continue to use him as a political pawn in their little tussle between the Irish government and the Israeli's.

The same people who argue for the Palestinians will condemn the IRA attacks in N.I. and the UK, but turn a blind eye to the fact the the PLO were largely trained by the IRA in camps accross the Middle East and Africa.

edanto

I'm military and not political

How in the world someone could have that point of view is beyond me. As if a military POV is somehow politically neutral or in a different sphere to political argument. I appreciate that may be the case in this forum, this is my first visit, but I feel it's absurd to pretend that military actions are somehow separate to politics.

A point of order on the 'don't poke me in the eye or I'll punch you' cartoon above. For accuracy, the Orange character should deny the right of the Green character to exist, and the Green character should be in a cage, starving, economically destitute and be accompanied by a civilian population suffering collective punishment.

But don't take my word for it. Here's some reported speech by Mary Robinson.
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/index2.asp?id=1153903
The former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, said in a radio interview, "It´s almost unbelievable that the world doesn't care while this is happening." She stressed that "their whole civilization has been destroyed, I'm not exaggerating."

Robinson promised: "When I see 1.4 million trapped in a situation of collective punishment, without rights, I have to raise that, and I will go on raising it."

It sickens me to the see the Israeli state impose on the Palestinians the same type of collective punishment that the Nazis were executed for in WWII.

munchester29

Sorry, but the UN human rights commission is no more than a bad joke.
An organization that is dedicated to human rights yet has China and Iran as board members… I think I really don’t have to add to that…

edanto

I think you do. I am quoting Mary Robinson as a herself, not as a representative of the UNHCR. You're distracting attention from the criticism.

Can you address her points? Are you somehow more trustable than her? Why?

munchester29

edanto wrote: »

I think you do. I am quoting Mary Robinson as a herself, not as a representative of the UNHCR. You're distracting attention from the criticism.

Can you address her points? Are you somehow more trustable than her? Why?

Mary Robinson builds on her UNHRC credentials. She held the highest ranking position in a failed and biased organization that suffered criticism even from UN diplomats over its biased approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/the_un_human_rights_council_ecosoc_and_ngos_

So, I would have been very surprised if I heard her condemning the Palestinians for something - anything, I would even be surprised if she talked about Chad or Darfur for a change instead of about Israel and the Palestinians, but guess what - no reasons to be surprised by what she has to say.
Can’t take her seriously though – she has done/said nothing to deserve it.

edanto

A biased approach? You mean it took a position, as opposed to being wishy washy and diplomatic. It drew evidence-based conclusions.

Criticism by NGO Monitor is dubious. NGO Monitor says on the About Us page that "We intend to publicize distortions of human rights issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict and provide information and context for the benefit of NGOs working in the Middle East." It is revealing that they only ever accuse NGOs of being anti-Israeli.

If their true purpose was to publicise all distortions, then they would have accused some NGOs of being pro-Israeli. The fact that they don't makes their bias clear.

Mary Robinson is the person with the most just moral compass that I have ever met. She was instrumental in achieving some watershed rulings from the the European courts before winning the Irish presidency. If she says that Israel is guilty of the war crime known as Collective Punishment, then I believe her.

iceage wrote: »

Someone had to mention it here so I'd thought I'd get the ball rolling.

Think this might be the safest place to bring it up.

Discussion, debate, solutions maybe.
.

I'm heading out so I won't be on the thread long, but I wanted to propose some solutions.

(a) Israel recognise the right of Palestine to exist, and this is reciprocated.

(b) Both governments agree to arbitration by the International Court of Justice as regards borders, access to water etc.

(c) The US agrees to give some % of the $3bn it currently gives Israel in military aid to fund a UN peacekeeping group composed of soldiers and police from around the world, and the EU and ASEAN/Asian union match the funding.

(d) Major changes to the UN power structure (seems outdated to have the victors of WWII as the permanent security council, why not rotate all seats?)

munchester29

edanto wrote: »

A biased approach? You mean it took a position, as opposed to being wishy washy and diplomatic. It drew evidence-based conclusions.

One does have to wonder though – how come no conclusions were drawn when buses exploded on a daily basis in Israel, when suicide bombers blew themselves up in Israeli malls?

By biased approach, I mean that it’s kind of strange that most of the UN human right council time is dedicated to condemning Israel, especially when you consider what has been going on in Chad, Darfur, China, Iran, and a few other hot spots (in some – hundreds of thousands are already dead). Just seems odd…
It also seems odd that no one is condemning the Palestinian violence against Israel, or against their own Palestinian brethren…

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm

edanto wrote: »

Mary Robinson is the person with the most just moral compass that I have ever met. She was instrumental in achieving some watershed rulings from the the European courts before winning the Irish presidency. If she says that Israel is guilty of the war crime known as Collective Punishment, then I believe her.

So, to sum things up – Mary Robinson says it’s so, so you believe her.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m sure that she is a very nice person, and has only but good intentions, but unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you care to learn from history – Chamberlain and Hitler…

I am willing to bet you that I could take Mary Robinson and show her a few sights here in Dublin that will make her lose sleep at night, and condemn the Irish government…

When all you allow yourself to see is what you want to see, and what other people show you, well… you don’t see much…



Also, in regards to the steps you have mentioned to resolve the conflict, I think you will find that Israeli practically agreed to all of them, while Hamas doesn’t even agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

marco murphy

Mairt wrote: »

I don't care if you have respect for MM or not, but you should have respect for this forum and not post stuff if your not willing to debate your argument.

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing Manic Moran.
Not only that, you haven't made any attempt to debate the University issue yourself.

Well the Pals are reaping what they've sown, and its brilliant that Ehud Barak is Israel's defence minister right now too.
When Ehud Barak last stood for election to PM he stood on a platform for peace, if elected he promised to have his troops out of Lebanon in two years (he done it in his first six months and caught us with our pants down in UNIFIL), he also promised limited autonomy to the Palestinian Authority with a promise of more to come as time went on.

So all Palestinians, deserve what they get really, is that what you're on about. The issue here is Israels onslaught in Gaza I believe, rather than Lebanon. Regardless, they are the oppressors.

This he more or less achieved, he gave Gaza its first international airport (built with Israeli money) and a sea port with free access, he provided them with electricity and water from Israel and set in motion their (Pals) first free elections. All was going swimmingly.

Isn't that fantastic. How democratic of him. He gave them an airport and a seaport that would later be blockaded and bombed, because it they were used to bring vital medical supplies to the people of Gaza. They also provide much of the electricity and water, but they also turn it off at regular intervals resulting in deaths in hospitals. Isn't that great.

And so.. You reap what you sow.

Elaborate.

munchester29 wrote: »

The blockade is in place because Hamas uses any route they can to continue and arm themselves with more explosives and weapons.

That is absolutely no justification to stop medical supplies and to cut off electricity and water at regular intervals. No justification at all.

I think it is natural that Israel doesn’t allow its enemy to stockpile arms which will be used against Israel – let’s not forget that all through the ceasefire Hamas declared openly that the ceasefire is just a chance for them to store arms and train more suicide bombers and soldiers to continue the fight against Israel

So this all out assault is because of Hamas stockpiling weapons?
Either way, the murder of schoolchildren is not justified.

– they never saw it as an opening for peace, only as an opening to arm themselves better without being bothered by Israel.

But if as you say the Israeli blockade was to stop arms supply then how could they have armed themselves?
You're the only one suggesting this, I haven't even heard the Israelis saying Hamas stocked up.

No doubt the Palestinians are suffering, but in my opinion they brought it upon themselves by electing Hamas as the official government.

So the American people deserve everything they get for electing Bush.
So the people gunned down in Derry city 1972 deserved everything they got.
So the Israeli people deserve everything they get for electing an agressive Government.
Is this the doctrine of the Israeli DF? Doubt it.

People do tend to end up paying for their elected government’s actions…

Oh, they tend, so that makes it ok.

Mairt wrote: »

So I rarely debate it. Militarily I'll debate the pro's & con's of the tactics used by either side, since I'm military and not political

Nearly all of your points were political and not military in nature.

I think thats fair. Plus I've been to the middle east and seen the tactics used by all sides there so I'd consider that I'm a little bit qualified to speak on that subject too.

What tactics did the innocent people of Palestine use? (You call them ''Pals'' I believe)
I was also in the Middle East, namely the West Bank. I've experienced first hand the harrasment at the hands of the Israeli DF. And to think thats nothing compared to what Palestinians trying to live each day are experiencing.

However I'm very much pro-Israel in my beliefs

Political.

And it makes me laugh to see our government condemn Israel, what a joke that is.

Why is that then? I assume while in the Middle East you were upholding peace.

Poccington wrote: »

So when Hamas continued their rocket attacks once the ceasefire had expired, although the rocket attacks never stopped even when the ceasefire was in place and Israel finally strikes back.... It's Israel that's in the wrong?

Yes, they are, because of the nature of their attacks.
These are only attacks that get publicised. Type in Gaza siege into google, you'll see what I'm taking about.

Israel is wrong to respond to the constant attacks from Hamas, even though it held back during the months of the ceasefire even though they were still under attack from Palestinians?

Israel did respond to the attacks, by selective targetting and collective punishment, which is no more than criminal. Turning off electricity, water, blockading of medical supplies, etc.

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see how Hamas are in anyway blameless in this situation.

They aren't blameless, in this particullar situation (which has been defined by the media). What about the persecutions of Palestinians from day one?

Mairt wrote: »

I wonder will all the Irish friends of Palestinians make representations to the various Palestinian bodies and campaign for the return of Private Kevin Joyce's body.

Perhaps they won't, because it has nothing to do with this. Anyone who wants to could always set up a lobby group to campaign for that very reason.

Pte Joyce was kidnapped and murdered by the Palestinians in Lebanon, although its believed they know the location of his remains they refuse to reveal the information, but instead continue to use him as a political pawn in their little tussle between the Irish government and the Israeli's.

Use him as a pawn, for what are they pawning for?

The same people who argue for the Palestinians will condemn the IRA attacks in N.I. and the UK, but turn a blind eye to the fact the the PLO were largely trained by the IRA in camps accross the Middle East and Africa.

Republican I see.
What evidence is there to suggest the PLO were trained by the IRA?
Where in the Middle East and where in Africa. Rubbish accusations really.
And not in the slightest anything to do with this.
You do realise who the ''PLO'' are now don't you? (Clue: not Hamas)

By biased approach, I mean that it’s kind of strange that most of the UN human right council time is dedicated to condemning Israel, especially when you consider what has been going on in Chad, Darfur, China, Iran, and a few other hot spots (in some – hundreds of thousands are already dead). Just seems odd…
It also seems odd that no one is condemning the Palestinian violence against Israel, or against their own Palestinian brethren…

Trying to get my head around this, its especially prevailent on this site.
People condemn Israel, and rightly so. But others reciprocate by blaming the other site.
The people condemning Israel say that is no justification. The others then say that there is lack of condemnation of the other side. The next step is to criticize a whole load of other countries and ask why they dont get condemned.
Why don't you yourself condemn Israel, or do you support its actions?
The fact really is, the countries you listed are condemned, on a weekly basis, for whatever reasons, but yet again, they have nothing to do with this thread.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I was going to reply to some of the above ^^

But after carefull consideration I've decided that as a staunch Israeli supporter, plus Moderator on this forum that it would be unfair of me to get into a heated debate here as I couldn't promise to remain completely unbiased.

I've been debating these issue's for year's now, and I've never once seen someone's view changed.

I do truely feel that Irish people are very neive when it comes to the Israeli/Arab debate.

With all that said, I'm backing out of this discussion.

Lets keep in clean guys.

Also, there's discussion on this issue on at least two other forums here on boards.ie if your just here to use the military forum as a platform to spew your clap trap posted on other boards (I'm directing this at everyone) and not debate it then I'll edit/delete your post accordingly.

Have a good one lads, and remember next week when this is all over we'll all still be friends here

munchester29

What I meant, if to put in numeric terms, is this:

Conflict A has seen 10,000 dead over 10 years
Conflict B has seen 100,000 dead over 10 years
conflict C has seen 1,000,000 dead over 10 years

I would expect that the UN human rights council's time would be spent thus:
1% on conflict A
9% on conflict B
90% on conflict C

Instead, what we see today is the UN spending 90% of its time on conflict A, which can't be explained by anything else than a biased approach to the conflict.

edanto

It also seems odd that no one is condemning the Palestinian violence against Israel
rubbish
Also, in regards to the steps you have mentioned to resolve the conflict, I think you will find that Israeli practically agreed to all of them, while Hamas doesn’t even agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Please back up this claim. I contend that Israel do not acknowledge the right of the Palestinian state to exist.

Look at the record of the US in vetoing UN resolutions critical of Israel.

What are your solutions?

Do you support the Irish state's position?

iceage

This is troubling. I must admit when I started this thread I didn't expect it to head in this direction. I like most here realise the passionate feelings for each side of this despicable conflict but my intention was not to inflame or cause ill will or bad feeling here on this Forum.

Also I must admit my ignorance as to the ongoing thread in the Political Forum, an area I do not frequent, If I had realised there was a previous post on this subject I would have left it. Let the politics to the politicians..talkers and do'ers, I know which one I am.

Mods close this or move it if you see fit.

edanto

Lets try and stick to the issues aroundthe politics of war. Who benefits from the conflict between Israel and Palestine and how?

Why does US politics favour keeping this conflict going? Which corporations/lobbies have a material interest in the war?

Manic Moran

Please back up this claim. I contend that Israel do not acknowledge the right of the Palestinian state to exist.

In the counterpart thread on the politics forum someone quoted to me an ICJ advisory proceeding which basically put beyond rational doubt that the Geneva Conventions applied in the occupied territories. The same ICJ case also accepts that Israel has acknowledged the existance of independent Palestinians. Granted, the date on this Opinion was 2004, but I am unaware of a change in Israeli policy since then.

some ICJ Judge named Koroma wrote:

Such existence has moreover been recognized by Israel in
the exchange of letteirs of 9 September 1993 between Mr. Yasser Arafat,
President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Mr.
Yitzhak Rabin, lsraeli Prime Minister. In that correspondence, the President
of the PL0 recognized "the right of the State of Israel to exist in
peace and security" and made various other commitments. In reply, the
Israeli Prime Minister informed him that, in the light of those commitments,
"the Governnlent of Israel has decided to recognize the PL0 as
the representative of the Palestinian people". The Israeli-Palestinian
Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September
1995 also refers a number of times to the Palestinian people and
its "legitimate rights" (Preamble, paras. 4, 7, 8; Article II, para. 2;
Article III, paras. 1 and 3; Article XXII, para. 2). The Court considers
that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General
Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions (see, for
example, resolution 9;8/163 of 22 December 2003)

He gave them an airport and a seaport that would later be blockaded and bombed, because it they were used to bring vital medical supplies to the people of Gaza

Granted, my detailed knowledge of the geography of the area is a little hazy, but does not Gaza have a land border with another country which Israel does not control? Is there any particular reason these vital medical supplies are not diverted along this route or why the country which controls this border is not being treated to the same vehemence?

NTM

edanto

Yes, Israel acknowledges the existence of the Palestinian people, and how could they not, as they have occupied/controlled their territories for a long time now.

But they will not, to date, engage in the two-state solution. And thus my contention that they refuse to allow the existence of the Palestinian state.

I've put your question about Egypt to the embassy and I'll see what they come back with.

Another angle on the politics of war is the economic stranglehold that Israel has imposed.

wiki wrote:

Following the 2006 legislative elections, won by Hamas, Israel has ceased transferring the $55 million tax-receipts to the PA; since the PA has no access point (ports, airports, etc.) to receive taxes, it is Israel that is charged with this duty. These funds accounted for a third of the PA's budget, two thirds of its proper budget, and ensure the wages of 160 000 Palestinian civil servants (among them 60 000 security and police officers), on which a third of the Palestinian population is dependent.

Not to mention replacing Palestinian workers in Israel with other nationalities and making border crossing a lottery - hurting the income of the Palestinian people.


In the meantime, any ideas on answers to the questions I raised in my last post?

Who benefits from the conflict between Israel and Palestine and how?

BlaasForRafa

edanto wrote: »

How in the world someone could have that point of view is beyond me. As if a military POV is somehow politically neutral or in a different sphere to political argument. I appreciate that may be the case in this forum, this is my first visit, but I feel it's absurd to pretend that military actions are somehow separate to politics.

A point of order on the 'don't poke me in the eye or I'll punch you' cartoon above. For accuracy, the Orange character should deny the right of the Green character to exist, and the Green character should be in a cage, starving, economically destitute and be accompanied by a civilian population suffering collective punishment.

Wrong.

Hamas does not acknowledge the state of Israels right to exist and wants to wipe it off the map and the jews with it. The Israeli people would love to have peace but their facing enemies whose greatest wish is the genocide of the jews.

BlaasForRafa

Mairt wrote: »

So I rarely debate it. Militarily I'll debate the pro's & con's of the tactics used by either side, since I'm military and not political I think thats fair. Plus I've been to the middle east and seen the tactics used by all sides there so I'd consider that I'm a little bit qualified to speak on that subject too.

Thats cool, I'm not military but I have an interest in military history and tbh the rest of this thread is going on the same lines as the politics forum with a back and forth between the pro-pal and pro-israel camps.

As to whats happening tactically I would say the Israelis missed a big opportunity to launch an incursion into Gaza on day 1/2 of the attack when the Hamas organisation was still reeling from the shock of the attack.

Now that they'll have had time to set up ambushes and killing zones within the towns bordering israel and mine the approaches thus almost certainly increasing IDF casualties in the event of an incursion. The israelis put too much stock in air power now, same as they did in the war against hizbollah.

Manic Moran

Now that they'll have had time to set up ambushes and killing zones within the towns bordering israel and mine the approaches thus almost certainly increasing IDF casualties in the event of an incursion

On the other hand, a set-piece fight like that also will increase Hamas casualties. The Israeli goal can't be just to gain control of terrain: In this case, the terrain means nothing. They have effective control over it via the blockades anyway, at least as long as the Egyptian border remains closed. They can't really go in and search every square foot for weapons either, it would be too difficult. The best thing they can do is kill Hamas fighters, and the problem there is finding them. If Hamas wishes to engage in open fighting as would be encouraged in such a defensive situation, that's the best way of finding them.

NTM

irishbran77

Israel says it's retaliating against Hamas. This excuse is common to all Israeli activities, including the war against Hezbollah a few years ago. And it's horribly reasonable. It makes sense that anyone would defend themselves and should be allowed to do so without being accused of being an aggressor. The mindless repetition of this nonsense doesn't stand up to even a tiny fraction of knowledge of the past year in Israel/Palestine.

Israel carried out raids and targeted assassinations in Gaza since the disengagement in 2005. Hamas didn't stop firing rockets into Israel but did cut it down from hundreds down to a little over a dozen a month. While this isn't to credit Hamas, it does serve to pull back the veil of 'innocent actor' status Israel currently enjoys in the media. Settlers are still attacking local Palestinians, there are still settlements being developed and land being stolen. And some could argue that legally, Israel has been automatically the aggressor since 1967 when it took these lands against international law.

When a refugee population is attacked by a more militarily advanced group with little concern for civilian causilities (and lets not mention whether road traffic policemen and entry level Hamas men are legitimate targets) there should be no debate as to whether the attacks should continue. I forget whether I'm talking about the Palestinians, the Tibetans or the Darfurians.

Local-womanizer

edanto wrote: »

Yes, Israel acknowledges the existence of the Palestinian people, and how could they not, as they have occupied/controlled their territories for a long time now.

But they will not, to date, engage in the two-state solution. And thus my contention that they refuse to allow the existence of the Palestinian state.

Who benefits from the conflict between Israel and Palestine and how?

Do you honestly think that if Israel acknowledged a Palestinian state that all the problems would cease?Imo the conflict has turned into something more than the politics,more about the deep seeded hatred and mistrust of each other.Until that mistrust and hatred is put aside their will always be conflict in that region.And as usual it is the civilians caught up in the middle of it who suffer the most.

capt fantastic

well there is no point really trying to say who started this fight. because isreal was was a region of land taken from arab people to give them somehting they could call a home by forgine powers back in 1922.

because this was a league of nations mandate that allowed this to happen there really isnt anyone left to blame.

this was always oppossed to by th the local arabs. in the end the united nations came along in 1947 and created the state of isreal. this was a as bad as putting a cat in a bag full of dogs because it really just gave the arabs an outlined target.

at the core of it all it isnt really the isrealies fault because as far as they were concerned they were offer a state situated around land that was very important to them. so why not.

it isnt the arabs fault because they had a piece of land that was very impartant to them taken away and filled with a people they dont like at all.

so the arabs go lets take it back not matter what, it ws ours oringally and it means alot to us.

the isrealies go this is ours now it means alot to us defend it at all cost.

if your going to blame any one blame the brithish from 1922 who decided to make the region a home land for jewish people.but thier all dead by now so no chance of at yelling at soemone for all this.

as for who gains from the confilict. i dont know which exact weapons companys are gaining form this but it is a fact some of them are. but i have always found it strange how isreal has america on a leash i mean try going for president when you dont like isreal.