Couple with six children killed in Palestine

Dan_Solo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

My god the Palestinians have a Minister for struggle against the barriers. We know something has gone to pieces when they start having Ministers for this purpose.

Yes, this shows you exactly how onerous the Israeli imposed prison camp conditions are in Gaza when they need such a minister with sole responsibility for this.

KingBrian2

tayto lover wrote: »

They are living in a huge concentration camp controlled and manipulated by the Israeli Govt.
Nothing more..

Israel's population is increasing at a staggering level. I've seen figures over the years going from 4-5-7-8 million. This is greatly disturbing to the Palestinian people. Allowing the country to free flow with all these people in a condensed region with Arabs is a recipe for disaster. What are the Gazans doing? they are rearming and preparing for full on war. The solution to the Peace process does not lie with firing rockets into Jewish towns or denying the existence of a Israeli homeland. Parties that subscribe to this narrow vision are outcasts who will never be happy until their sharia law is imposed on all people. They are already making Gazan life miserable for the inhabitants.

TommyKnocker

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Oh, well that changes the facts entirely :rolleyes:



Being part of the military, for one.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_stone-throwing

Wikipedia is your source, you're joking right?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

IrishTrajan

No

Nodin wrote: »

The Palestinians are being colonised and are denied legal recourse. As a result resistance armed and otherwise against the occupation is fully justified. Why anyone would think otherwise often suprises me.

And the initial wars were started by Palestine. If you're going to justify Palestinian violence, then Israeli retaliatory strikes are just as justifiable.

IrishTrajan

No

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Wikipedia is your source, you're joking right?

Can you drop the pseudo-intellectual "wikipedia isn't valid" argument? You're aware Wikipedia uses sources, correct?

Dan_Solo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Israel's population is increasing at a staggering level. I've seen figures over the years going from 4-5-7-8 million. This is greatly disturbing to the Palestinian people. Allowing the country to free flow with all these people in a condensed region with Arabs is a recipe for disaster. What are the Gazans doing? they are rearming and preparing for full on war. The solution to the Peace process does not lie with firing rockets into Jewish towns or denying the existence of a Israeli homeland. Parties that subscribe to this narrow vision are outcasts who will never be happy until their sharia law is imposed on all people. They are already making Gazan life miserable for the inhabitants.

Wild guess here... your solution is for Gazans to leave the fridge well stocked and have fresh linen on the beds then march en masse into the Mediterranean?
Or are you peddling the "don't resist and they'll stop stealing your country" nonsense?

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And the initial wars were started by Palestine. If you're going to justify Palestinian violence, then Israeli retaliatory strikes are just as justifiable.

If Palestinians attack Israeli citizens then the Israeli army is within their right to retaliate.

Dan_Solo

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And the initial wars were started by Palestine. If you're going to justify Palestinian violence, then Israeli retaliatory strikes are just as justifiable.

Yeah, just like WW2 was started by all those countries who resisted German invasion.

Dan_Solo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If Palestinians attack Israeli citizens then the Israeli army is within their right to retaliate.

Oh I see. So all attacks on Israelis are by Palestinian forces? That's convenient isn't it? This doesn't apply to settlers attacking Palestinian villages I suppose?
Now I wonder why not...

KingBrian2

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh I see. So all attacks on Israelis are by Palestinian forces? That's convenient isn't it? This doesn't apply to settlers attacking Palestinian villages I suppose?
Now I wonder why not...

Were talking about the actions of Israeli state forces, what the settlers do is entirely different. Israel cannot be held responsible for every misdeed the settler citizens commit. The only way that changes is if domestic polices change. They grant the Palestinians a state of their own, allow them to reenter Jerusalem and return the Golan Heights to Syria. If attacks on settlers continue without condemnation by Palestinians than we get creeping Hamasisation of the West Bank.

tayto lover

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If Palestinians attack Israeli citizens then the Israeli army is within their right to retaliate.

Now you have just shown your ignorance of the situation the Palestinians find themselves in. You have ignored the barriers, the land-grabbing and the protecting of the settlers who have broken many laws.

Should Israel be bombed because they have broken UN sanctions too?

KingBrian2

tayto lover wrote: »

Now you have just shown your ignorance of the situation the Palestinians find themselves in. You have ignored the barriers, the land-grabbing and the protecting of the settlers who have broken many laws.

Should Israel be bombed because they have broken UN sanctions too?

Your getting away from the headline of this thread. Couple with six children killed. They are Israeli citizens suffering as a result of actions committed by Palestinian terrorists. Those children have lost a Father and a Mother. Those responsible must be brought to justice and the Palestinians must condemn such attacks.

hatrickpatrick

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Oh, well that changes the facts entirely :rolleyes:



Being part of the military, for one.

Hamas aren't officially part of any military either, yet those who believe that military targets are fair game believe that Hamas fighters are also fair game.

The only difference is that Hamas regularly tries to kill civilians while settlers merely violently steal their property on a routine basis and only occasionally kill them.
I don't see why they should be differentiated. If you think they should, please explain how.

hatrickpatrick

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That worked out so well the previous two times they did it. It's not like Jordanians and Egyptians and Palestinians immediately began low-level armed crossings and then raping and murdering their civilians or anything. It's not like Egyptians and Jordanians and Palestinians and Syrians tried to rush the border to destroy the Israelis.

Well of course they did, the Israelis had given back a tiny fraction of the land they had stolen while at the same time vowing to hold on to the other 90% of it in perpetuity.

It's easy to be facetious, but that simply isn't going to happen. Hamas won't give up until all of Israel/Palestine comes under their control, and Israel isn't going to give up its Statehood.

The majority of Palestinians don't seem to want that, and Hamas relies on popular support for its power - just as any movement does.

There's no easy answer to this conflict.

There isn't, but there are definite starting points. In any conflict whose basis involves theft, the return of the stolen goods is a pretty basic grounding for reconciliation.

hatrickpatrick

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I would say that they are there to keep the peace but that inevitably becomes a one sided affair. If the law was equally applied to both sides then that might be a start but letting settlers get away with stuff that palestinians are arrested/prosecuted for makes things far worse.

The settlers have no right to be there in the first place. The Israeli government has no right to any presence there in the first place. Any administrative, policing or military force under the command of the Israeli government is acting without legitimacy the minute they set foot on any land outside the green line.

Ergo, they are not there to keep the peace. They are there to keep stolen property.

justanotherone

Billy86 wrote: »

Clearly that is what a good few people think they should do, though. Just shut up and die. It`s their own fault for being Muslim, they had it coming.

It's quite obvious you are being sarcastic.

On the other hand, this was deadly (quite literally) serious.

Nodin regarding the murder of parents of 6 children.

"I'm not comfortable with it happening in front of the children, but after that, no, I'm not pushed. They're colonists, they're in an occupied zone."

Not the first time yer man has callously suggested folk deaths are irrelevant, or even deserved, to him either.

Billy86

justanotherone wrote: »

It's quite obvious you are being sarcastic.

On the other hand, this was deadly (quite literally) serious.

Nodin regarding the murder of parents of 6 children.

"I'm not comfortable with it happening in front of the children, but after that, no, I'm not pushed. They're colonists, they're in an occupied zone."

Not the first time yer man has callously suggested folk deaths are irrelevant, or even deserved, to him either.

I'm not saying I agree with the murders, but I can definitely understand where the people were coming from. After all, their friends and families have been getting murdered for decades simply because they are Muslim and live on the land that they actually own.

But at the end of the day, both sides are coming out pretty sh*tty from there and there are no winners.

IrishTrajan

No

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yeah, just like WW2 was started by all those countries who resisted German invasion.

If the Germans were buying houses in France, and the French decided to treat the Germans as "dhimmi" despite a European edict making such acts illegal, then going on to lynch Germans in the streets and invading Germany as soon they could, then yes, your analogy would be correct.

However, it isn't, and your ignorance of the facts does not make it so.

justanotherone

Billy86, it is quite clear you were being sarcastic.

On the other hand, some posters seem not just ambivilent about murder of people with different political beliefs, they appear at times almost sympathetic to the act of murder.

IrishTrajan

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hamas aren't officially part of any military either, yet those who believe that military targets are fair game believe that Hamas fighters are also fair game.

The only difference is that Hamas regularly tries to kill civilians while settlers merely violently steal their property on a routine basis and only occasionally kill them.
I don't see why they should be differentiated. If you think they should, please explain how.

Hamas are a militant organization and are, effectively, the Palestinian military arm. Comparing them with civilian settlers is farcical.

IrishTrajan

No

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with the murders, but I can definitely understand where the people were coming from. After all, their friends and families have been getting murdered for decades simply because they are Muslim and live on the land that they actually own.

But at the end of the day, both sides are coming out pretty sh*tty from there and there are no winners.

You know like 15% of Israel's population are Arabs/Palestinians, right? This isn't some religious crusade by the Israelis. Palestine started both wars, it's not like Israel went "jeez, who can we beat up today".

riffmongous

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Hamas are a militant organization and are, effectively, the Palestinian military arm. Comparing them with civilian settlers is farcical.

Arent the settlers all militarily trained from their time in the Israeli army and very well equipped by all accounts?

IrishTrajan

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well of course they did, the Israelis had given back a tiny fraction of the land they had stolen while at the same time vowing to hold on to the other 90% of it in perpetuity.

That tends to happen when you invade someone and lose. Why would the winner willingly give up everything they gained in the war, including strategic depth?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The majority of Palestinians don't seem to want that, and Hamas relies on popular support for its power - just as any movement does.

You're honestly telling me that most, if not a very significant majority, of Palestinians don't mind Israel existing? Come on, they've been quite open in their belief that Israel shouldn't exist.

IrishTrajan

No

riffmongous wrote: »

Arent the settlers all militarily trained from their time in the Israeli army and very well equipped by all accounts?

Finland also has conscription, does that make every civilian in Finland a legitimate military target? And not everyone gets conscripted, it's simply not feasible.

Dan_Solo

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If the Germans were buying houses in France, and the French decided to treat the Germans as "dhimmi" despite a European edict making such acts illegal, then going on to lynch Germans in the streets and invading Germany as soon they could, then yes, your analogy would be correct.

However, it isn't, and your ignorance of the facts does not make it so.

Waffle.
You are claiming Palestinians are to blame for defending themselves and that they "start wars" with Israel whenever they resist Zionist colonial aggression. Yeah, sit back and take it Gaza, if you fight back then you started it apparently.
Laughable stuff.

riffmongous

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Finland also has conscription, does that make every civilian in Finland a legitimate military target? And not everyone gets conscripted, it's simply not feasible.

I just think your original comparison is a bit willfully ignorant regarding the capacities of the settlers

end of the road

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That tends to happen when you invade someone and lose. Why would the winner willingly give up everything they gained in the war, including strategic depth?



You're honestly telling me that most, if not a very significant majority, of Palestinians don't mind Israel existing? Come on, they've been quite open in their belief that Israel shouldn't exist.

anything outside the pre-1967 borders is not israely land. they have no right or legitimate claim to it. its not strategic.

KingBrian2

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Waffle.
You are claiming Palestinians are to blame for defending themselves and that they "start wars" with Israel whenever they resist Zionist colonial aggression. Yeah, sit back and take it Gaza, if you fight back then you started it apparently.
Laughable stuff.

Gaza continues to stream rockets into Israel, subject their inhabitants to a nightmarish reality. Imposing sharia law is resisting Zionist colonial aggression in your eyes then we have their attacks on Fatah.

hatrickpatrick

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Hamas are a militant organization and are, effectively, the Palestinian military arm. Comparing them with civilian settlers is farcical.

What makes the militant and the settlers non militant? One uses violence to kill, the other uses violence to steal, and to kill occasionally.

On what basis are you differentiating?

hatrickpatrick

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That tends to happen when you invade someone and lose. Why would the winner willingly give up everything they gained in the war, including strategic depth?

Because displacing innocent civilians even from land captured during war is illegal under international law. If the Israelis want to be treated like a civilised country and not as a savage country, they have to obey the aforementioned.

Also, you are aware that it was Israel who declared war first in 1967, right?

You're honestly telling me that most, if not a very significant majority, of Palestinians don't mind Israel existing? Come on, they've been quite open in their belief that Israel shouldn't exist.

Citation needed?