Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August

Pyr0 · 01-08-2014 03:42PM

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Cheers. Read down some replies. The building beside hospital told to evacuate.

Not that that's any better

"lol we missed the building beside the hospital and hit the hospital dead on instead, our bad"

RustyNut · 01-08-2014 03:44PM

pedro1234 wrote: »

PM me and we'll continue the discussion there. I don't want to be accused of bringing the thread "off topic" any further.

:D:D

Tuisceanch · 01-08-2014 03:46PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I think the problem is that the phrase "Palestinians voted with guns to their heads" doesn't reflect the fine details of the situation you witnessed - armed Hamas people calling to houses, and the tour guides comments - which are compatible with what observers would call "a free and fair election".

Is that so? What do you base that assertion on?

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I'd be more worried about their treatment of their political opponents and dissenters, but that's a story for another day.

Would you worry for them being killed by Israeli rockets?

JamboMac · 01-08-2014 03:46PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

Another question which baffles me is why there hasn't been a call for a peace keeping/enforcing force has not been invited to place boots on the ground in Gaza (my suspicion is an Israeli protest against it).

They where on about 80 pages ago and they where pointed to the relevant thread.;)

pedro1234 · 01-08-2014 03:49PM

RustyNut wrote: »

Next :D:D

I really have no idea what you're smiling about.

I can continue the discussion here if you would prefer.

I have been accused of dragging the thread off topic, hence my request.

I'm not avoiding anything.

Tuisceanch · 01-08-2014 03:50PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

Another question which baffles me is why there hasn't been a call for a peace keeping/enforcing force has not been invited to place boots on the ground in Gaza (my suspicion is an Israeli protest against it).

They're all reprehensible and so what is your justification for this situation and the other situations.

You do know that with the US veto the UN is blocked? If you don't know that then who are you to lecture anybody.

hatrickpatrick · 01-08-2014 03:52PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?

For the bajillionth time, most atrocities in those countries are not defended and enabled by a hypocritical Western superpower that we are all asked consistently to worship as a beacon of freedom and justice. That marks this conflict out as very different to most others.

RustyNut · 01-08-2014 03:52PM

pedro1234 wrote: »

I really have no idea what you're smiling about.

I can continue the discussion here if you would prefer.

I have been accused of dragging the thread off topic, hence my request.

I'm not avoiding anything.

OK

Putin · 01-08-2014 03:55PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.?.

Possibly because this thread is specifically titled the Israel - Palestine Conflict thread. So what relevance does Syria have in here? Why don't you start a morality thread on that, rather the create further derailment of the actual thread topic?

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

Not as bad as the people who generalise and insult everyone with the same brush. It's safe to assume that not everyone has the time to participate in every thread they feel strongly about. I've only got the chance to start posting in here and I feel very strongly about the issue. So am I a bandwagon jumper? Or does that insult not apply to me?

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

Another question which baffles me is why there hasn't been a call for a peace keeping/enforcing force has not been invited to place boots on the ground in Gaza (my suspicion is an Israeli protest against it).

The Yanks will veto it.

Tuisceanch · 01-08-2014 03:57PM

Sound of silence as their operators are consulted about changing tactics.

TeddyTedson · 01-08-2014 03:58PM

I would be surprised if this conflict isn't still continuing when my generation dies.
I hope I'm wrong. People kill each other for such stupid bull****.

R P McMurphy · 01-08-2014 03:59PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

Another question which baffles me is why there hasn't been a call for a peace keeping/enforcing force has not been invited to place boots on the ground in Gaza (my suspicion is an Israeli protest against it).

What moral dilema?

Donkey Oaty · 01-08-2014 03:59PM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Sound of silence as their operators are consulted about changing tactics.

Maybe you could list a few points that have been made that you disagree with?

Tuisceanch · 01-08-2014 04:03PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Maybe you could list a few points that have been made that you disagree with?

I answered all the ones you made and you didn't respond or did you conveniently forget that? I've made my position abundantly clear in this thread and argued my points coherently so why don't you make the same effort and act with as much class as you can muster.

MadYaker · 01-08-2014 04:05PM

That 3 day cease fire to hold up for long

ElChe32 · 01-08-2014 04:06PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

I'm still waiting to see someone explain their moral dilema when it comes to choosing whether the child is Syrian, Israeli or a starving, malnutritioned child from a third world developing country before being morally outraged.

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

Another question which baffles me is why there hasn't been a call for a peace keeping/enforcing force has not been invited to place boots on the ground in Gaza (my suspicion is an Israeli protest against it).

It was a request of Hamas to have UN peacekeepers controlling checkpoints in and out of Gaza. Their list of demands for a 10 year truce have been denied by Israel.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/report-israel-conditions.html

JamboMac · 01-08-2014 04:11PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I would be surprised if this conflict isn't still continuing when my generation dies.
I hope I'm wrong. People kill each other for such stupid bull****.

Gaza won't exist in 10 years time.

TeddyTedson · 01-08-2014 04:12PM

JamboMac wrote: »

Gaza won't exist in 10 years time.

Where will the people go?
Probably be a good thing for the sake of peoples lives wouldn't it.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-08-2014 04:12PM

ElChe32 wrote: »

It was a request of Hamas to have UN peacekeepers controlling checkpoints in and out of Gaza. Their list of demands for a 10 year truce have been denied by Israel.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/report-israel-conditions.html

From that report;

Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border.

Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths.

Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people.

Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision.

Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers.

Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations.

International forces on the borders.

Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement.

Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.

Seems to me to be pretty resonable demands.. Since Israel has a lot of UN agencies working inside Israel plus UNIFIL and UNDOF operating on its northern borders I have to wonder whats there to hide in Gaza!.

Dan_Solo · 01-08-2014 04:14PM

Aurelia Melted Surfer wrote: »

As appauling as Israel's onslaught on the innocent of Gaza is it seems a big old bandwagon tends to ride through these threads, where are the jumpers when it comes to Syria and developing countries?.

They're the same place as your standard issue Zionist apologist whataboutery.

pedro1234 · 01-08-2014 04:14PM

The really sad thing about all of this, is that almost everyone agreed decades ago that a two party solution was what was required to solve the Israel Palestine issue. So why haven't we got it? The messianic rabbis and mullahs and priests are to blame. If they had kept out of it, this would have been put to bed long ago.

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

The exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a quarrel that now features the threat of nuclear war. Religion poisons everything. As well as a menace to civilization, it has become a threat to human survival.

JamboMac · 01-08-2014 04:16PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Where will the people go?
Probably be a good thing for the sake of peoples lives wouldn't it.

When the population is small enough Israel will take it and slowly drive out the rest.

I doubt any other Muslim country will take them in.

Dan_Solo · 01-08-2014 04:20PM

pedro1234 wrote: »

The really sad thing about all of this, is that almost everyone agreed decades ago that a two party solution was what was required to solve the Israel Palestine issue. So why haven't we got it? The messianic rabbis and mullahs and priests are to blame. If they had kept out of it, this would have been put to bed long ago.

No, ISRAEL and the USA are to blame. Palestine isn't even a proper country in the UN's eyes thanks to their veto power.

TeddyTedson · 01-08-2014 04:21PM

JamboMac wrote: »

When the population is small enough Israel will take it and slowly drive out the rest.

I doubt any other Muslim country will take them in.

Surely the UN or US wouldn't stand for this? I'm clueless though, would they?
I know the US support Israelis in defending themselves but they'd hardly support this?

BikeQueery · 01-08-2014 04:22PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Surely the UN or US wouldn't stand for this? I'm clueless though, would they?
I know the US support Israelis in defending themselves but they'd hardly support this?

They are supporting it and have been for years. It's a slow ongoing process.

Manic Moran · 01-08-2014 04:24PM

wes wrote: »

A ceasefire means a cease to hostilities on both sides. Destroying a tunnel is a violation of that, end of. Pretending otherwise, clearly shows that supporters of IDF murderous rampage, are either completely delusional or a purposeful lieing. At this point, I could care less, the amount of lies and bull**** have gotten ridiculous. Deliberately misrepresenting facts, again and again, that all I am seeing here from supporters of the IDF.

I'm not sure that is actually the case. It might depend on what the wording of the truce was.

"Israel will take no fire upon the forces of Hamas except in self defense, and will not advance further into Gaza", for example, does not preclude the destruction of tunnels already in Israel's area of control.

I've been looking around, but can't find the actual terms. If you have a link, I'll be happy to look at them.

A refusal to resupply the IDF with ammunition would have been a shot across the bows

Again, it may depend on wording. Israel is one of the few approved suppliers to the US military of munitions. It is entirely possible that the US munitions dump in Israel consists of Israeli-produced munitions, and part of the agreement would be that the Israelis could reclaim the ammunition they produced and they stored if they felt they needed it. If so, that would have tied US hands. And, again, I have not found the details to verify.

JamboMac · 01-08-2014 04:24PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Surely the UN or US wouldn't stand for this? I'm clueless though, would they?
I know the US support Israelis in defending themselves but they'd hardly support this?

How you may believe how Israel came to exist and the real way it was created might just open your eyes.

Dan_Solo · 01-08-2014 04:24PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Surely the UN or US wouldn't stand for this? I'm clueless though, would they?
I know the US support Israelis in defending themselves but they'd hardly support this?

Look at what was formerly the West Bank. Now wholly annexed by Israel.
This is what the US means when it says it backs Israel: unconditionally.

Dan_Solo · 01-08-2014 04:26PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure that is actually the case. It might depend on what the wording of the truce was.

"Israel will take no fire upon the forces of Hamas except in self defense, and will not advance further into Gaza", for example, does not preclude the destruction of tunnels already in Israel's area of control.

I've been looking around, but can't find the actual terms. If you have a link, I'll be happy to look at them.

Israel have created yet another "security buffer zone" a.k.a. a land grab.
Same old same old. They'll have a ceasefire when they think they've stolen enough for now.

Donkey Oaty · 01-08-2014 04:27PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've been looking around, but can't find the actual terms. If you have a link, I'll be happy to look at them.

I don't know fine details of the document, but the newswires stated from the outset when the truce was agreed that Israel would continue to dismantle the tunnels. Hamas is claiming that it was tank fire by the Israelis that broke the truce rather than their tunnel work.

Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

Comments

Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August