Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

SeanW · 17-11-2012 07:31PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

Jelle1880 · 17-11-2012 07:47PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

That truce was brokered the day earlier, as outlined here:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline

You haven't contested a single fact from the article I originally linked (which happens to be the one I link above); you have done nothing to back up your claims here, you have just asserted, and appear just to be trying to dishonestly smear the factual claims of a perfectly valid source.

Try contesting any of the actual facts; you arguments so far have been totally unbacked assertions (some of which have turned out to be quite enormously false) and smears.

Do you know what 'informal ceasefire' means ?

There was no official ceasefire, no armistics, nothing of the kind.

You seem to forget that Israel has been officialy at war with Hamas for years now.

There has almost never been peace between them, so the fact that they supposedly broke some sort of informal ceasefire means nothing.

Just like it probably wouldn't mean a thing if Hamas had done the same.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 07:55PM

SeanW wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

SeanW wrote:

Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.

Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

That they primarily focus on reporting on Palestine is not anymore one-sided than an Irish newspaper focusing primarily on reporting about Ireland; it's the accuracy and factual correctness of the writing that matters, and that alone.

If it were one-sided, EI would lie, make false claims, and misreport facts, to present Palestine in a more favourable light; they do not do this, and nobody has shown that there are any factually false claims in the articles I posted.

What EI (and MediaLens) have criticized of the BBC, is that the BBC did not contest factually false claims in their shows, and presented many factually false claims themselves, thus the BBC have been one-sided, through factually false claims.

Chuck Stone · 17-11-2012 07:55PM

SeanW wrote: »

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

He's saying that if you believe what EI have written is inaccurate:

1. Pull the quote you believe is inaccurate/dishonest/biased.

2. Refute it by finding credible evidence to the contrary.

Is it really that hard to get?

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 07:59PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Do you know what 'informal ceasefire' means ?

There was no official ceasefire, no armistics, nothing of the kind.

You seem to forget that Israel has been officialy at war with Hamas for years now.

There has almost never been peace between them, so the fact that they supposedly broke some sort of informal ceasefire means nothing.

Just like it probably wouldn't mean a thing if Hamas had done the same.

Heh; ya I guess Israel can attack Gaza at any time, for any reason then, and they'll be free from fault.

Even though I disagree with a lot of the details here, at least we've finally agreed that Israel is responsible for breaking the truce on the 14th, and thus for re-initiating and escalating the conflict.

Jelle1880 · 17-11-2012 08:05PM

Only if you think that events of 3 days earlier have absolutely no part in this...

Which tends to be the usual way of things in all of this, people choosing to ignore events that happened prior just so they can blame one of the sides.

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 08:15PM

I think at this juncture with the hyperbole flying and people unwisely using a biased source like Electronic Intifada (you'd have thought the clue is in the name) it's worth remembering some facts over accusations of Israel not wanting peace or the excuse of 'settlements' being the issue.

First of all, palestinian terrorism (and that's exactly what it is) pre-dates all settlements. It pre-dates any occupation and most crucially, pre-dates Israel's founding. For example, in 1929 the Jews of Hebron who had lived there for Millennia, were massacred and driven off their land. The palestinians still live in their homes.

Secondly, Israel is about 70% smaller that it was after its wars. Contrary to popular belief about expanding - Israel has handed parts of the Judea & Samaria (West Bank) over to palestinian control, has handed southern Lebanon over, has handed the Sinai over and has handed Gaza over.

That's 4 major land concessions bearing in mind Israel was the victor. In return for these concessions, Israel has faced terrorism, attempted attacks and threats every single day of its existence.

It's also worth remembering that far from being this land-grabbing state lauding it up on large swathes of land, Israel is the size of Wales. Israel sits on roughly 0.6% of middle eastern land, whilst Arabs sit on 99.4% of middle east land.

There are 56 Islamic countries, 22 Arab countries

There is 1 Jewish state, 1 Israeli country.

It's time the Irish started to actually educate themselves and THINK about this, instead of succumbing to emotional and instinctive support for a people they think they share an affinity with - because you couldn't be further from the truth.

SeanW · 17-11-2012 08:32PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

He's saying that if you believe what EI have written is inaccurate:

1. Pull the quote you believe is inaccurate/dishonest/biased.

2. Refute it by finding credible evidence to the contrary.

Is it really that hard to get?

Consider, for a moment, that it might be possible for one to take the view that the current dispute is the result of faults on both sides.

Then consider that a source as clearly biased as something with "Intifada" in the name, is no more credible than those anti-Palestinian ads that appeared in parts of the U.S. characterising the Israelis simply as "civilized" and the Palenstinians exclusively as "savage."

That they primarily focus on reporting on Palestine is not anymore one-sided than an Irish newspaper focusing primarily on reporting about Ireland; it's the accuracy and factual correctness of the writing that matters, and that alone.

Question: If EI is simply the equivalent of an Irish newspaper, does it resemble the Irish Times or more so that of An Phoblacht or Indymedia?

Suff · 17-11-2012 09:03PM

Merk35 wrote: »

First of all, palestinian terrorism (and that's exactly what it is) pre-dates all settlements. It pre-dates any occupation and most crucially, pre-dates Israel's founding. For example, in 1929 the Jews of Hebron who had lived there for Millennia, were massacred and driven off their land.

Bold statement.

It is justified IMHO when a foreign group settles on your land and declare it as their own. Only I would use the term self defence, and not terrorism!

Correction, The Jewish causality in that incident were new settlers / arrivals to Palestine, they weren't part of the Arab population - therefore it wasn't their land. That's why they were labelled by their faith rather than their nationality. You know, Arabs doesn't necessary mean Muslims.

The violence was largely due to a protest organised by the Joseph Klausner's Pro-Wailing Wall Committee who had assembled at the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting "the Wall is ours" raising the Jewish national flag and singing the "Hatikvah" song (Hope). Rumours spread that the Jews had attacked local residents and had cursed the name of the Prophet Muhamad PBUH. In retaliation an Arab demonstration marched to the Wall. The rioting spread and escalated into violence.

The palestinians still live in their homes.

Indeed, squeezed into the slivers of what was once their home land, while others forced into refugee camps in neighbouring Arab countries, and the rest got scattered all over the world.

Secondly, Israel is about 70% smaller that it was after its wars. Contrary to popular belief about expanding - Israel has handed parts of the Judea & Samaria (West Bank) over to palestinian control, has handed southern Lebanon over, has handed the Sinai over and has handed Gaza over. That's 4 major land concessions bearing in mind Israel was the victor. In return for these concessions, Israel has faced terrorism, attempted attacks and threats every single day of its existence.

Zionism talking here.. anyway, that land wasn't theirs to 'give it away' in the first place, they had occupied it by the use of force.

It's also worth remembering that far from being this land-grabbing state lauding it up on large swathes of land, Israel is the size of Wales.

The following image would be a good reply to your claim 'land-grabbing'

There are 56 Islamic countries, 22 Arab countries
There is 1 Jewish state, 1 Israeli country.

This is silly, its like saying there are 189 Christian countries, 137 English speaking countries. Again Arabs means Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Israel is a sate established on colonial and religious doctrine.

It's time the Irish started to actually educate themselves and THINK about this, instead of succumbing to emotional and instinctive support for a people they think they share an affinity with - because you couldn't be further from the truth.

I would suggest you do the same.

Nodin · 17-11-2012 09:08PM

Merk35 wrote: »

I think at this (.........)because you couldn't be further from the truth.

Half truths and misdirection, I'm afraid. The fact is that Israel is illegally occupying & colonising the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, and controls Gazas resources, borders etc.

Chuck Stone · 17-11-2012 09:09PM

SeanW wrote: »

a source as clearly biased as something with "Intifada" in the name, is no more credible than those anti-Palestinian ads that appeared in parts of the U.S. characterising the Israelis simply as "civilized" and the Palenstinians exclusively as "savage."

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Take RT for example. People are constantly writing it off as a Russian propaganda outlet. Now this may be, on the whole, true but it does not mean that everything they report on is lies.

There are some well respected journalists and intellectuals deliberately pushed to the margins by the mainstream media so the only places they can get their opinions/commentary heard is on channels like RT or Al Jazeera. CNN, Fox News, Sky and to a lesser extent the BBC do not give airtime to people who speak truth to power.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 09:13PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Only if you think that events of 3 days earlier have absolutely no part in this...

Which tends to be the usual way of things in all of this, people choosing to ignore events that happened prior just so they can blame one of the sides.

No you've pretty much acknowledged they broke the truce, imposed on the day earlier; you try to get around this, by faffing around with some vague argument "the ceasefire wasn't real anyway, so it doesn't matter if they break it...or something", but this is nothing to do with any earlier ceasefire, this is the truce that both sides agreed upon on the 13th.

If you want to go back further, you can also see that between the 1st-3rd of November, nothing was happening on either side, until the Israeli's killed an unarmed, mentally unfit man, for getting near a buffer zone, thus reigniting issues.

So that's two very clear escalations of the conflict by Israel, and with more, perfectly reliably documented on the EI article.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 09:19PM

SeanW wrote: »

Consider, for a moment, that it might be possible for one to take the view that the current dispute is the result of faults on both sides.

Then consider that a source as clearly biased as something with "Intifada" in the name, is no more credible than those anti-Palestinian ads that appeared in parts of the U.S. characterising the Israelis simply as "civilized" and the Palenstinians exclusively as "savage."

Question: If EI is simply the equivalent of an Irish newspaper, does it resemble the Irish Times or more so that of An Phoblacht or Indymedia?

And again, the utterly stupid argument, that 'intifada' in the name, discredits the website; as I said earlier, it's such a ridiculous clutching of straws that.

If the site is so biased, surely it is easy to find one single factual inaccuracy in any of the articles I posted from it?

It's simple: If you can't do that, you are being knowingly dishonest, solely for the purpose of trying to smear the site, without providing any substance to your arguments.

I mean really, the only argument people have against the site at this stage is its name for christs sake, heh.

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 09:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

Half truths and misdirection, I'm afraid. The fact is that Israel is illegally occupying & colonising the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, and controls Gazas resources, borders etc.

"Arab" East Jerusalem is where the Jews were ethnically cleansed from by the Jordanians a.k.a 'palestinians. You didn't know that though because it doesn't appear in the electronic intifada.

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 09:26PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you want to go back further, you can also see that between the 1st-3rd of November, nothing was happening on either side, until the Israeli's killed an unarmed, mentally unfit man, for getting near a buffer zone, thus reigniting issues.

Just to furnish you with some information about your heroic palestinian fighters - sending mentally ill people towards the border fence in Gaza or towards checkpoints in WB, is something that has happened probably over a couple of dozen times now. It's sadly a tactic they use. They have also strapped suicide vests onto them. A tactic also employed by Pakistani terrorists.

Nodin · 17-11-2012 09:26PM

Merk35 wrote: »

"Arab" East Jerusalem is where the Jews were ethnically cleansed from by the Jordanians a.k.a 'palestinians. You didn't know that though because it doesn't appear in the electronic intifada.

...I presume theres some point you're trying to make with that...?

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 09:32PM

Nodin wrote: »

...I presume theres some point you're trying to make with that...?

I think you mentioned something about occupying, colonisation etc. I'm just reminding you that your romanticised version of palestinians should also include their ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem. That is the only reason why you now call it "Arab" East Jerusalem. I thought you might be interested, but it appears you're not too bothered about the Jews expelled from their homes.

Nodin · 17-11-2012 09:46PM

Merk35 wrote: »

I think you mentioned something about occupying, colonisation etc. I'm just reminding you that your romanticised version of palestinians should also include their ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem. That is the only reason why you now call it "Arab" East Jerusalem. I thought you might be interested, but it appears you're not too bothered about the Jews expelled from their homes.

I wasn't aware I'd a romaticised view of anything. The fact is that its Arab East Jerusalem thats occupied by the state of Israel now, and the palestinian occupants that are under pressure from that state. Similarily the West Bank, Golan etc.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 09:47PM

Merk35 wrote: »

Just to furnish you with some information about your heroic palestinian fighters - sending mentally ill people towards the border fence in Gaza or towards checkpoints in WB, is something that has happened probably over a couple of dozen times now. It's sadly a tactic they use. They have also strapped suicide vests onto them. A tactic also employed by Pakistani terrorists.

Yes so sad, them forcing the poor Israeli soldiers to open fire on this unarmed, mentally ill person. The Israeli soldiers had no choice of course, it was an act of self-defense; who knows what this mentally ill (and thus probably rabidly irrational) person, might have been capable of?

Nodin · 17-11-2012 09:54PM

Merk35 wrote: »

Interesting. So Jews are forced out of their homes in East Jerusalem, and you simply accept the new occupiers there (Arabs).

.....there have been Palestinians present in Jerusalem for no small length of time themselves. To declare them all "occupiers" and blame them for something done by the state of Jordan is a nonsense.

Do you accept that Israel is colonising Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan?

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 09:57PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes so sad, them forcing the poor Israeli soldiers to open fire on this unarmed, mentally ill person. The Israeli soldiers had no choice of course, it was an act of self-defense; who knows what this mentally ill (and thus probably rabidly irrational) person, might have been capable of?

Your childish sarcasm is a window into why you're essentially wrong in everything you've posted thus far.

For your own safety, whether you're mental or sane (I can't quite decide) please don't approach any border fence in the world that separates two warring sides, you'll be toast. Whether that's trying to walk up to Indian troops on the border with Pakistan, or going to have a chat to some North Korean soldiers from the Southern side.

Approaching border fences, especially in a suspicious manner will very likely get you killed.

Added to that the penchant for palestinians to blow themselves up, means that distance between soldier and approaching person is vital.

Still, I'm sure an internationally proscribed Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group like Hamas would not do anything to harm the Palestinians. They're a great bunch of lads.

Oh look, I did a sarcasm too.

EURATS · 17-11-2012 09:59PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Provided its not a digital one!

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 10:04PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....there have been Palestinians present in Jerusalem for no small length of time themselves. To declare them all "occupiers" and blame them for something done by the state of Jordan is a nonsense. 
 
Do you accept that Israel is colonising Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan?

Of course if we want to talk about length of time in Jerusalem, I'm duty bound to remind you that Jewish presence there pre-dates Islam by about 2,000 years and palestinians by 3,400 ish.

Additionally, Arab Muslims originated in Mecca some 700 miles away from Judaism's birthplace in Jerusalem - so quite what Arab Muslims are doing claiming dibs on a city 700 miles away from their origin, is a mystery to me. One might suggest they waged war of conquests and occupations - but you've already shown a very high tolerance for Arab occupation and a very low one for Jewish.

As for the Golan, of course historically a Jewish area - I think Syria had jurisdiction for a mere 17 years if I recall from memory. They waged war on Israel and lost. Tough **** really.

The poor Mexicans waged war on the US. Got their arse handed to them and lost Texas. I don't think the Americans are handing it back.

Still, nice to see you support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem a mere 3 years after the Holocaust. It sheds some light on the real motivation being some Irish views.

Nodin · 17-11-2012 10:10PM

Merk35 wrote: »

 
 

Of course if we want to talk about length of time in Jerusalem, I'm duty bound to remind you that Jewish presence there pre-dates Islam by about 2,000 years and Palestinians by 3,400 ish.Additionally, Arab Muslims originated in Mecca some 700 miles away from Judaism's birthplace in Jerusalem - so quite what Arab Muslims are doing claiming dibs on a city 700 miles away from their origin, is a mystery to me. .

You'll find they're actually closely related.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf

Merk35 wrote: »

One might suggest they waged war (.......)are handing it back.
.

Theres no validity accorded or given to the notion that territory can be legitamately acquired by force.

Again - do you accept that Israel is colonising the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan etc?

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 10:11PM

Merk35 wrote: »

Your childish sarcasm is a window into why you're essentially wrong in everything you've posted thus far.

For your own safety, whether you're mental or sane (I can't quite decide) please don't approach any border fence in the world that separates two warring sides, you'll be toast. Whether that's trying to walk up to Indian troops on the border with Pakistan, or going to have a chat to some North Korean soldiers from the Southern side.

Approaching border fences, especially in a suspicious manner will very likely get you killed.

Added to that the penchant for palestinians to blow themselves up, means that distance between soldier and approaching person is vital.

Still, I'm sure an internationally proscribed Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group like Hamas would not do anything to harm the Palestinians. They're a great bunch of lads.

Oh look, I did a sarcasm too.

Oh I see, he approached the border, and in a suspicious manner? You seem to be very well informed on this incident, perhaps you can provide a source of info?

Sarcasm aside, I'm not much inclined to tangle deeply with your borderline-xenophobic/racist arguments "penchant for palestinians to blow themselves up", as they're sufficiently lacking in credibility, that I don't need to.

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 10:22PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh I see, he approached the border, and in a suspicious manner? You seem to be very well informed on this incident, perhaps you can provide a source of info?

I'm afraid you're showing a real naivety with regards to border fences and rules of engagement.

Essentially, if it doesn't stop - you're not only permitted to fire, but are obligated to under rules of engagement.

So whether that's a dog, a man with tourettes or a blonde 20 year old hot piece of tail.

As I said (and I know it's hard for you to accept from your heroes) but Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa and swords of Allah Jallala association of martyrs, have a history of sending mentally ill people towards border fences and checkpoints.

Sadly, a dead mental patient is worth a lot of propaganda points.

Merk35 · 17-11-2012 10:31PM

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no validity accorded or given to the notion that territory can be legitamately acquired by force.

There is according to you. "Arab" East Jerusalem, remember? the same East Jerusalem that the Jews were removed from.

Again, you support occupation as long as its Arab. My only surprise is that you have the gall to post that and still expect to be taken seriously.

Nodin · 17-11-2012 10:39PM

Merk35 wrote: »

There is according to you. .

Actually, no, I didn't come up with that one. It's been rejected effectively since the end of WWII.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/da/da.html

Again - do you accept that Israel is colonising the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan etc?

Offy · 17-11-2012 10:46PM

Merk35 wrote: »

There is according to you. "Arab" East Jerusalem, remember? the same East Jerusalem that the Jews were removed from.

Again, you support occupation as long as its Arab. My only surprise is that you have the gall to post that and still expect to be taken seriously.

My only surprise is that you have the gall to post that and still expect to be taken seriously. When and why did you join this site? What religion are you? Where in the world do you live and where do you come from. I noly ask because you sound like a Jewish propaganda machine.

Suff · 17-11-2012 10:47PM

Merk35 wrote: »

Of course if we want to talk about length of time in Jerusalem, I'm duty bound to remind you that Jewish presence there pre-dates Islam by about 2,000 years and palestinians by 3,400 ish.

Judaism is a religion and not a race. The Palestinians are the descendants of the people who have lived there since time began. They, like any other, did change with the times, they became Jews, Christians, Muslims and changed their language from Ugaritic language to Hebrew, Syriac to Aramaic then to Arabic. Israelis on the other hand are descendants of European, Asian and African Jews. But that doesn't mean that they can back track their faith-line to claim a land.

Additionally, Arab Muslims originated in Mecca some 700 miles away from Judaism's birthplace in Jerusalem - so quite what Arab Muslims are doing claiming dibs on a city 700 miles away from their origin, is a mystery to me. One might suggest they waged war of conquests and occupations - but you've already shown a very high tolerance for Arab occupation and a very low one for Jewish.

Again, Islam is a faith and not a race. Also, Arabs are not a race... its a language. The Arabs didn't come from Mecca, the 'Arabs of Cham' as they were called, have been there for centuries before Islam. With the growing influence of the Arabic language, it took over from Aramaic. People of the region started using it due to its close similarity to Aramaic. It took a relatively short time for Arabic to become their language. And to this day, the arabic in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine is called 'Levantine Arabic' which is a result of the adoption of Arabic by speakers with a marked Aramaic substrate. Like me

This is what I've been pointing out that Israel have been trying to create a Jewish race to distinguish itself from the rest of the world.

As for the Golan, of course historically a Jewish area - I think Syria had jurisdiction for a mere 17 years if I recall from memory. They waged war on Israel and lost. Tough **** really.

Ah yes, but the Jews that did live there were Aramaic Syrians.

Jewish is completely different to Israeli.

With such attitude, we can call all Europe Christendom, and Saudi for example; Islamia or something stupid like that.

Still, nice to see you support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem a mere 3 years after the Holocaust. It sheds some light on the real motivation being some Irish views.

If there's any ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem it is done by the Israeli government against the Jerusalem Arabs population of Christians, Muslims and Jews. This is well documented, since 1967. Just do a little research under the term 'Judaization of Jerusalem'.

Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

Comments