How should Palestine defend itself?

fran17

Sand wrote: »

They're not let off the hook. They are named and shamed like you have done here. What is odd that when the Hamas government elected by has its leadership making statements like "O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one" the same people who thank your post will make excuses for straight up genocidal statements of intent.

There is a high degree of bias there.

That said, the whole premise of the OPs question is fatally flawed. I don't think Hamas is doing the slightest thing to defend Palestinians. I think Israel would agree to a ceasefire today on simple terms of "You don't shoot rockets at us. We wont fire missiles at you". That would immediately end the losses of life on both sides. If that was the priority, both sides would embrace it.

But Hamas will not accept such terms, despite the terrible suffering of their people. Hamas are spending the lives and blood of Palestinian children to try and buy political or economic concessions.

Yet they are the plucky underdog in the propaganda of the Guardianistas.

I really had to read this post twice."hamas are spending the lives and blood of Palestinian children"! the mass murder of over 700 people,including 160 children,in the gaza strip by one of the most powerful and advanced militaries in the world and you choose to place the blame and the justification for this at Palestine's own door.
the lack of empathy and basic humanity shown by the pro Israeli people,organisations and media outlets in the past two weeks has been nothing short of shameful imo.is there no crime that the state of Israel can commit that these people will not condone?
and the silence from mr.obama and his wife on the murders of these children,when they are so outspoken on childrens rights and welfare,is really the most disgusting level of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

................
That said, the whole premise of the OPs question is fatally flawed. I don't think Hamas is doing the slightest thing to defend Palestinians. I think Israel would agree to a ceasefire today on simple terms of "You don't shoot rockets at us. We wont fire missiles at you". That would immediately end the losses of life on both sides. If that was the priority, both sides would embrace it.
.................

What gives you that notion? This is a Likud government coalition government, not some European centrists. They want to weaken Hamas and will do so by (a) killing of Hamas members and (b) destruction of Gazan infrastructure. A secondary objective is to strain the new Hamas/Fatah unity government. The rockets are way, way down the list.

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

They're not let off the hook. They are named and shamed like you have done here. What is odd that when the Hamas government elected by has its leadership making statements like "O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one" the same people who thank your post will make excuses for straight up genocidal statements of intent.

There is a high degree of bias there.

That said, the whole premise of the OPs question is fatally flawed. I don't think Hamas is doing the slightest thing to defend Palestinians. I think Israel would agree to a ceasefire today on simple terms of "You don't shoot rockets at us. We wont fire missiles at you". That would immediately end the losses of life on both sides. If that was the priority, both sides would embrace it.

But Hamas will not accept such terms, despite the terrible suffering of their people. Hamas are spending the lives and blood of Palestinian children to try and buy political or economic concessions.

Yet they are the plucky underdog in the propaganda of the Guardianistas.

Anybody who genuinely sets out to examine the conflict and its history can't help but develop a certain view of it, which you might call bias, most would call reality.

This is not a balanced conflict, and comments which purport to show "balance" (which you haven't even attempted to do, as shown by your rather lazy "Guardianistas" comment, a stock cliche which shows a high degree of bias) are by definition inherently unbalanced and biased.

The thread is in fact an attempt to introduce some balance, as we only ever hear about Israel's right to defend itself, never Palestine's.

Why do you think that is?

Sand

fran17 wrote: »

I really had to read this post twice."hamas are spending the lives and blood of Palestinian children"! the mass murder of over 700 people,including 160 children,in the gaza strip by one of the most powerful and advanced militaries in the world and you choose to place the blame and the justification for this at Palestine's own door.
the lack of empathy and basic humanity shown by the pro Israeli people,organisations and media outlets in the past two weeks has been nothing short of shameful imo.is there no crime that the state of Israel can commit that these people will not condone?
and the silence from mr.obama and his wife on the murders of these children,when they are so outspoken on childrens rights and welfare,is really the most disgusting level of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed.

I had to read your post twice. To figure out if it actually said anything to the points I raised, or anything new.

It didn't.

@Nodin

What gives you that notion? This is a Likud government coalition government, not some European centrists. They want to weaken Hamas and will do so by (a) killing of Hamas members and (b) destruction of Gazan infrastructure. A secondary objective is to strain the new Hamas/Fatah unity government. The rockets are way, way down the list.

Israel have offered and held to two truces already. One was opened ended, which Hamas entirely ignored and broke. The second was temporary on humanitarian grounds, which Hamas held to by all accounts, but where they ignored any potential to expand it.

Israel seems to be quite realistic about Hamas - they know it cant be wiped out militarily. If Hamas attack Israel, they try to degrade their capability to do so. However, they would much prefer a situation where Hamas does not attack Israel. There is nothing in Gaza that the Israelis want. They withdrew after-all.

As the initial truce broken by Hamas has shown, Israel is happy to agree to a ceasefire. It is Hamas who is trying to buy concessions with blood.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Israel have offered and held to two truces already. One was opened ended, which Hamas entirely ignored and broke. The second was temporary on humanitarian grounds, which Hamas held to by all accounts, but where they ignored any potential to expand it.

Israel seems to be quite realistic about Hamas - they know it cant be wiped out militarily. If Hamas attack Israel, they try to degrade their capability to do so. However, they would much prefer a situation where Hamas does not attack Israel. There is nothing in Gaza that the Israelis want. They withdrew after-all.

As the initial truce broken by Hamas has shown, Israel is happy to agree to a ceasefire. It is Hamas who is trying to buy concessions with blood.

You seem uninformed. As I said, its about weakening Hamas, rather than any wish to take land in Gaza.

Sand

sid waddell wrote: »

Anybody who genuinely sets out to examine the conflict and its history can't help but develop a certain view of it, which you might call bias, most would call reality.

No, the biased would call it reality. The realistic call it bias. I've yet to encounter anyone who "genuinely sets out to examine the conflict". It is raw and ongoing. Conflicts long finished still draw heat and anger more than light, let alone the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

People pick sides, denounce the atrocities of "them" and either approve of the atrocities carried out by "us" or by a remarkable level of denial don't even hear about them.

This is not a balanced conflict, and comments which purport to show "balance" (which you haven't even attempted to do, as shown by your rather lazy "Guardianistas" comment, a stock cliche which shows a high degree of bias) are by definition inherently unbalanced and biased.

Of course its not balanced. The Israelis have tanks and jets. The Palestinians have home made rockets and assault rifles. There is some logical conclusions the Palestinians should draw from that, but for now, Hamas prefers to spend blood to buy concessions.

As for "Guardianistas" - sure, I'm biased against hand wringing, emotionally overwrought do nothings facebooking their way to a better world.

The thread is in fact an attempt to introduce some balance, as we only ever hear about Israel's right to defend itself, never Palestine's.

Why do you think that is?

That remarkable level of denial I mentioned earlier?

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

You seem uninformed. As I said, its about weakening Hamas, rather than any wish to take land in Gaza.

You seem uninformed. Israel offers ceasefires. Hamas breaks them. That's the objective reality.

Draw a conclusion: Who is most interested ending the conflict and the loss of Palestinian lives? The people offering the truces or the people who break them?

esteve

Sand wrote: »

You seem uninformed. Israel offers ceasefires. Hamas breaks them. That's the objective reality.

Absolute drivel and not based on any fact, only media spin. This is a place for debating facts, you would be best leaving this sort of untruth in a fox news comments section, you would fit right in there.

Neon_Lights

Those Israeli zionist jews (if you could call them jews or belonging to any religion) are as bad as the facists that oblitetated them during world war 2

Sand

esteve wrote: »

Absolute drivel and not based on any fact, only media spin. This is a place for debating facts, you would be best leaving this sort of untruth in a fox news comments section, you would fit right in there.

Again, that remarkable level of denial I mentioned on full display here.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

You seem uninformed. Israel offers ceasefires. Hamas breaks them. That's the objective reality.

News to me. This may be because I'm slow to take the word of a state that's been in violation of international law since 1967.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

I think Israel would agree to a ceasefire today on simple terms of "You don't shoot rockets at us. We wont fire missiles at you". That would immediately end the losses of life on both sides. If that was the priority, both sides would embrace it.

Again, absolute drivel not based in any fact.

When there were no rockets being fried by either side, there were reports of pregnant Palestinian women not being allowed to get through checkpoints to get to much needed hospitals and loosing their unborn children the backs of vans. All of this in Palestinian land under Israeli occupation during ceasefires.

Dredd_J

Discover oil and all your problems are solved. All the superpowers will be in to back you up.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

Again, that remarkable level of denial I mentioned on full display here.

What level of denial, please point it out!? Have you reread your original post? Shocking and simply untrue on so many levels but it is what you have based your opinion on. I do not know if you are wishfully ignorant or simply do not know the history of the situation in Palestine and Israel, but reading what you have written makes me confused, as it is so illogical

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

News to me. This may be because I'm slow to take the word of a state that's been in violation of international law since 1967.

So no bias then?

@esteve

Again, absolute drivel not based in any fact.

Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. You really need to present an argument or viewpoint of your own to contribute to the discussion. Using big words like "drivel" doesn't impress anyone.

I think though the past 10-15 minutes highlights the level of group think and lazy bias that characterises the Guardianista support of Hamas and the Palestinians. Offering an uncontroversial opinion that Hamas is not actually defending the Palestinian people sparks 4 posters and a thanks chain for posts that don't offer any evidence for Hamas actually defending the Palestinians, but instead go into emotive attacks with a dollop of denial on top.

This thread, and others like it, are for people to violently agree with each other, not for actual discussion of even the most uncontroversial topics.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

Again, that remarkable level of denial I mentioned on full display here.

Again, what denial is it you refer to? I have read endless books on the conflict, attended numerous lectures and debates and taken part in many protests, where both Israelis and Palestinians stand side by side.

For you to simply spat out denial, because the general feeling on this tread goes against what yourself believe in, it is completely obtuse and does not form an argument, it is just an empty sentence void of any meaning.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

So no bias then?

...........

You referred to objective fact - that is one. Israel has been in violation since 1967. While Hamas are far from saints, the fact is that the Israeli state has been indulging in aggressive and illegal expansionism since before that group was founded. As such its pronouncements and declared motives can't be taken at face value without some examination.

JeffKenna

Realistically Palestine can't defend itself. I don't think there's any other answer to the question.

International pressure must come upon Israel. Not just because it's in the news at the moment, but because this has been happening for far far too long.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

So no bias then?

@esteve


Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. You really need to present an argument or viewpoint of your own to contribute to the discussion. Using big words like "drivel" doesn't impress anyone.

I think though the past 10-15 minutes highlights the level of group think and lazy bias that characterises the Guardianista support of Hamas and the Palestinians. Offering an uncontroversial opinion that Hamas is not actually defending the Palestinian people sparks 4 posters and a thanks chain for posts that don't offer any evidence for Hamas actually defending the Palestinians, but instead go into emotive attacks with a dollop of denial on top.

This thread, and others like it, are for people to violently agree with each other, not for actual discussion of even the most uncontroversial topics.

I use the word drivel because it is the best way to describe what you are spouting here. You are simply referring to everybody here as Guardanistas, wow well done for coming up with that term, really great debating by you.

You have presented no facts or anything of that matter. You have simply said, Israel want peace, they have tried and Hamas wont accept it. Unfortunately, the facts do not support this so unless you want to have an educated, factual debate, I do not understand why you are on this thread.

Unfortunately for you, people on this thread are well read on the subject matter, so they will not simply accept your baseless summary of the stuation. That is why i suggested you go to the comment section on fox news, it may be more suited to somebody with your intellect.

Sand

@esteve

Unfortunately for you, people on this thread are well read on the subject matter, so they will not simply accept your baseless summary of the stuation. That is why i suggested you go to the comment section on fox news, it may be more suited to somebody with your intellect.

If I were you, I'd edit that last bit. It verges into attacking the poster which is against the rules.

And so far, nobody has in anyway demonstrated they are well read on the subject matter. They've demonstrated that they are angry (and perhaps justifiably) and that they are biased, but not that they are well read on the conflict.

@Nodin

You referred to objective fact - that is one. Israel has been in violation since 1967. While Hamas are far from saints, the fact is that the Israeli state has been indulging in aggressive and illegal expansionism since before that group was founded. As such its pronouncements and declared motives can't be taken at face value without some examination.

I'm sure you can rationalise your bias. Everyone can. However, the objective reality is that Israel has been quick to embrace cease fire proposals and peace efforts, whereas Hamas have gone on record that they will not support a ceasefire unless they get concessions.

I saw an interesting comment earlier today that noted that right-wingers find it hard to acknowledge the science for global warming, because the state is going to be a big part of the solution with its ability to set laws, regulations and minimum standards. Right wingers don't like the state, or state driven solutions, so wilfully ignore the science for global warming.

When it comes to acknowledging that Israel has been most willing to agree and hold to a ceasefire, do you think it present similar difficulties for those who are supportive of the Palestinian side?

rizzodun

In my opinion, Israel would gladly stop attacks on Palestine, all they ask is for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to submit to their will and allow the Israeli government control their land, population, and financial situation.

The easiest way to stop attacks from Israel is to stop giving them excuses to attack, the problem the Palestinans have is that it doesn't take much for the Israelis to have an excuse, and thanks to the US, they have full backing to treat that part of the Middle East as they wish, don't attack in retaliation for disputed settlements and more get built, even if they lifted the blockade in Gaza they would still want to control what is shipped into the region. All the governments of the world will do is condemn their actions, merely lip service.

Palestine is more or less on it's own, with no central power willing to back it, thus leaving them with no choice to resort to the only thing they think will work, rocket attacks on Israel, unfortunately, it doesn't work, it just gives Israel a reason to level the place, while the world watches, and give the radicals in Palestine more support.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

@esteve


If I were you, I'd edit that last bit. It verges into attacking the poster which is against the rules.

Make a complaint to moderator then and stop crying about it as I was directly attacking you as you come across as completely ill informed and blissfully ignorant. I don't have time to enter into a debate where the logic is, Israel want peace and have tried to get it but Hamas always break the truce..blah blah blah. I think we have all moved on from there.

I'm beyond debating at this level.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

@esteve


If I were you, I'd edit that last bit. It verges into attacking the poster which is against the rules.

And so far, nobody has in anyway demonstrated they are well read on the subject matter. They've demonstrated that they are angry (and perhaps justifiably) and that they are biased, but not that they are well read on the conflict.

I'm sure you can rationalise your bias. Everyone can. However, the objective reality is that Israel has been quick to embrace cease fire proposals and peace efforts, whereas Hamas have gone on record that they will not support a ceasefire unless they get concessions.

Being more adept at the art of PR says little of real intentions.

Sand

esteve wrote: »

Make a complaint to moderator then and stop crying about it as I was directly attacking you as you come across as completely ill informed and blissfully ignorant. I don't have time to enter into a debate where the logic is, Israel want peace and have tried to get it but Hamas always break the truce..blah blah blah. I think we have all moved on from there.

I'm beyond debating at this level.

I don't disagree with your last point. There is surely some higher forum seeking your wise and insightful input. But you do highlight my point about the emotional nature of the argument.

Apparently someone who has read "endless books on the conflict, attended numerous lectures and debates and taken part in many protests" and yet not able to take part in a simple debate without breaching the very simple forum rules that say don't attack the other person. Indeed, you haven't been able to actually counter *any* point I've made.

And no, saying "drivel" doesn't count.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Being more adept at the art of PR says little of real intentions.

Sure, but lets agree - Hamas is willing to accept further deaths of Palestinian children if it means they can get a ceasefire with concessions. That is the objective reality.

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

@esteve


If I were you, I'd edit that last bit. It verges into attacking the poster which is against the rules.

And so far, nobody has in anyway demonstrated they are well read on the subject matter. They've demonstrated that they are angry (and perhaps justifiably) and that they are biased, but not that they are well read on the conflict.

@Nodin



I'm sure you can rationalise your bias. Everyone can. However, the objective reality is that Israel has been quick to embrace cease fire proposals and peace efforts, whereas Hamas have gone on record that they will not support a ceasefire unless they get concessions.

I saw an interesting comment earlier today that noted that right-wingers find it hard to acknowledge the science for global warming, because the state is going to be a big part of the solution with its ability to set laws, regulations and minimum standards. Right wingers don't like the state, or state driven solutions, so wilfully ignore the science for global warming.

When it comes to acknowledging that Israel has been most willing to agree and hold to a ceasefire, do you think it present similar difficulties for those who are supportive of the Palestinian side?

It's interesting that you mention global warming, as the tactics employed by supporters of Israel are very similar to the climate change denial lobby. Both have very well funded lobby groups and are expert at pushing their propaganda in the media, which attempts to stifle debate by framing any discussion around a few stock cliches and untruths, and stonewalling on key questions. It's basically professional trolling. And of course, there's a large crossover between the people who support the climate change denial lobby and those who support what Israel does. One only has to look at the US media to see that.

esteve

Sand wrote: »

I don't disagree with your last point. There is surely some higher forum seeking your wise and insightful input. But you do highlight my point about the emotional nature of the argument.

Apparently someone who has read "endless books on the conflict, attended numerous lectures and debates and taken part in many protests" and yet not able to take part in a simple debate without breaching the very simple forum rules that say don't attack the other person. Indeed, you haven't been able to actually counter *any* point I've made.

And no, saying "drivel" doesn't count.

And calling people Guardanistas, apart from not being funny or intelligent serves little in this debate, just like me questioning your intellect which from your posts, was very questionable.

And saying that Israel want truce, and Hamas always stop this happening, does not make it true.

This is really why i get irritated as we are still at first base arguing this point which is simply not true.

I broke the forum rules, get over it and make a factual point.

I will, during previous truces, Israel continued to expand and illegally occupy land in the West Bank. That action in its very nature breaks any truce.

sid waddell

Sand wrote: »

So no bias then?

I note you failed to engage with the point that Israel has been in violation of international law since 1967.

Has it or has it not?

In the words of Sean Hannity - it's a yes or no question.

droidman123

F7Z wrote: »

The only way the Palestinian people can stand up for themselves is to stand up to Hamas and other extremist groups and say no to their bull****. No to electing them to government, no to allowing them to store munitions in public buildings, etc. Easier said than done of course as Palestinians see them as the lesser of two evils when compared to Israel, and probably have a mass case of Stockholm syndrome since they are seen as "protectors" in an oxymoronic sense. I've discussed this at length with my close friend who is born to Palestinian parents and he agrees it's the only way out for the people of Gaza in particular. Stuck between two terrorist forces, but at least go for the one you can reach. First of all though the UN needs to pull its thumb out of its arse and intervene in what is basically genocide

Who are you to tell the people of Palestine who to vote for and who not to vote for? You don't believe in democracy?

blinding

The problem for the Palestinians/Hamas is that they are just no good at it.

They have to keep practising and learning and if they eventually get good enough at killing enough of their enemies then maybe there could be some meaningful negotiations.

Mind you the Israelis will probably Nuke them so where do you go from here ?

In essence the palestinians/hamas have to become more of a threat to Israel.

Some people won't like my analysis but its my opinion and I am entitled to it.