Israel / Gaza

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You can bet if the Israeli and Gazan situations were reversed, and Hamas was killing so many Israeli civilians, the US would be raining down airstrikes on the darker coloured of the two races.

 

You feel that Barack Obama is prejudiced against dark skinned people? Please expand on this interesting argument. The usual allegation levelled against the USA on here is that their actions are inevitably motivated by the desire to control the worlds oil supply - yet another lazy argument that doesn't seem to fit all that well with the actual situation.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just a couple of questions . How many Jews have been killed by these "rockets" raining down on Israel (illegal state) and how big is the Palestinian Air Force ?

 

So I take it that if only the IDF were to fail in its duty and allow Hamas to kill more Israeli citizens then you'd look upon the Israeli case more sympathetically? You are another of those you feel that war is supposed to be 'fair' then.

 

Also, how do you square your claim that Israeli is an "illegal state" with the fact that the UN explicitly recognises Israel's right to exist? For that matter when was there ever a Palestinian state and how are you reconciling this view with the provisions of the Balfour Declaration?

[pap]

I'm still left with the sense that you're not arguing for anything, Charlie.

 

Saying that, I did see something on the Stop the War site which seems to enumerate your position.

 

A fairytale narrative of Western foreign policy which includes the following essential components:

 

The world is divided into good guys and bad guys. The good guys consist of all Western governments and their allies, whether taken individually or collectively as members of the ‘international community’. Like Don Quixote, these governments are out there in a perilous world, perpetually slaying dragons, saving maidens in distress, and fighting injustice.

 

On the other side there are assorted dictatorships, authoritarian and undemocratic states, terrorists, jihadists, gangster states like Russia and ‘bad guys’ who are out there doing evil.

 

In this fairy tale world ‘we’ have no aggressive intentions. We do not engage in realpolitik. We have no ulterior motives. Our foreign policy is guided entirely by lofty moral principles. We have no geostrategic or economic interests. Energy resources and pipeline routes do not interest us.

 

We do not and never would conspire to bring about ‘regime change’ or other political outcomes to suit our geopolitical interests, and nor do our allies, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of ‘conspiracy theory.’ We do not engage in ‘terrorism’ and never ‘talk to terrorists’ or deal with states or organizations that do. We are led by decent folk, who only want to do the decent thing.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/is-a-key-nato-member-plotting-to-fake-a-terrorist-attack-to-justify-war-on-syria#.U-nPPfldXch

This is a mere placeholder based on your input. Feel free to disagree and state an actual case.

[pap]

Missed this from Alexei Sayle when the interview first came out.

 

I always try and think of the psychology of the nation and the psychology of the people behind it, and I said it in 2009 during Cast Lead that Israel seemed to me to be like a teenager that's never been given any boundaries, that is endlessly indulged by its doting parents, the West, and has kind of become psychopath as a result.

 

But now, thinking about it, you could also say that Israel is now the Jimmy Savile of nation states, it clearly doesn't care about damaging the lives of children, it thinks that everybody else is in the wrong, and it is endlessly in the right.

 

And also it's a state that is endlessly again indulged by the power, by Western powers, by governments everywhere because they're frightened of it, frightened of it physically in some ways and of its kind of anger and of the power that it wields and its influence.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tMvefZAsw

[View From The Top]

Of someone violently evicts me from my home and moves my family into the shed at the bottom of the garden and then isolates me from the rest of the world I may well get ****sed off and throw stones at the windows. If the aggressor then decides the response is to kill my kids by blowing up the shed is that an proportionate response?

[pap]

Of someone violently evicts me from my home and moves my family into the shed at the bottom of the garden and then isolates me from the rest of the world I may well get ****sed off and throw stones at the windows. If the aggressor then decides the response is to kill my kids by blowing up the shed is that an proportionate response?

 

Have you heard about this?

 

Hamas offered a decade long truce, based on ten conditions.

 

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/report-israel-conditions.html

 

Quite reasonable, heavily reported in the Israeli press, but not something I've seen reported here. Isn't Hamas' inflexibility supposed to be the justification for these attacks?

 

Article dated 16th July 2014.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of someone violently evicts me from my home and moves my family into the shed at the bottom of the garden and then isolates me from the rest of the world I may well get ****sed off and throw stones at the windows. If the aggressor then decides the response is to kill my kids by blowing up the shed is that an proportionate response?

 

But if before finding yourself in the shed you had attempted to kill this person while they were still a mere 'babe in arms' as it were, and then chosen to repeatedly assaulted him during his adolescence as well, perhaps an eviction would not seem to be an entirely unreasonable reaction?

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

[Jonnyboy]

You feel that Barack Obama is prejudiced against dark skinned people? Please expand on this interesting argument. The usual allegation levelled against the USA on here is that their actions are inevitably motivated by the desire to control the worlds oil supply - yet another lazy argument that doesn't seem to fit all that well with the actual situation.

 

You're not as intelligent as you pretend to be.

[View From The Top]

But if before finding yourself in the shed you had attempted to kill this person while they were still a mere 'babe in arms' as it were, and then chosen to repeatedly assaulted him during his adolescence as well, perhaps an eviction would not seem to be an entirely unreasonable reaction?

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

 

Now re-read what you've written and tell me you actually believe that tripe.

[pap]

Stop the War UK have done an excellent job of not only promoting the Gazan cause, but also defusing any of the nastier charges that have been levelled at supporters.

 

This piece enumerates a list of quotes from famous Jews that oppose Israel. A few tasters.

 

The (Israeli) state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.

 

In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid. To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by "apartheid" you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse

 

I find myself in the odd position of not being a Zionist ... I think it is wrong for anyone to feel that there is anything special about any one heritage of whatever kind. It is delightful to have the human heritage exist in a thousand varieties, for it makes for greater interest, but as soon as one variety is thought to be more important than another, the groundwork is laid for destroying them all.

 

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/from-albert-einstein-to-noam-chomsky-famous-jews-who-have-opposed-israel#.U-s2Q_ldXcg

[pap]

Couple of other bits and pieces. In the world of live entertainment, a lot of big names are pulling out of planned performances in Israel. Few have cited political reasons for doing so; it's mostly on the grounds of safety and insurance, etc.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/08/11/cancelled-israeli-concerts-have-cost-the-industry-20-million/

 

The other news is from Hollywood. Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz signed an open letter along with other high profile Spaniards, calling for stronger action from the EU and using the word genocide to describe proceedings:-

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/penelope-cruz-and-javier-bardem-sign-open-letter-condemning-israel-for-genocide-in-gaza-9637188.html

 

Strongly rumoured that they'll be blacklisted for speaking out.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/cruz-and-bardem-face-fury-of-hollywood-following-genocide-letter-condemning-israel-9659707.html

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Now re-read what you've written and tell me you actually believe that tripe.

 

I was merely expanding on a analogy of your own. Now if you don't like analogies then you'd probably do well to steer clear of them in future.

 

Now please address the issue - how can you live in the same 'house' as someone who wants to kill you?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You're not as intelligent as you pretend to be.

 

Not many are.

 

You have chosen to make the sweeping allegation that US foreign policy is motivated by racial considerations. In reply I pointed out that the President and Command in Chief of the US armed forces is himself a 'black' man. There would seem to be a inconsistency in your argument here.

 

But if you don't want to talk about Obama - and I can see why - please explain why this black man's deeply prejudiced administration is now actively engaged in both protecting and providing humanitarian relief to some rather 'dark skinned' people trapped on high ground in northern Iraq?

[Bearsy]

how can you live in the same 'house' as someone who wants to kill you?

 

[video=youtube_share;cI3S9K0SpSQ]

[View From The Top]

I was merely expanding on a analogy of your own. Now if you don't like analogies then you'd probably do well to steer clear of them in future.

 

Now please address the issue - how can you live in the same 'house' as someone who wants to kill you?

 

If it's my house and they attempt to evict me, claiming it for themselves, then I have every right to fight for it.

 

Not a hard concept to grasp.

Edited 13 August, 2014 by View From The Top

[pap]

Not many are.

 

You have chosen to make the sweeping allegation that US foreign policy is motivated by racial considerations. In reply I pointed out that the President and Command in Chief of the US armed forces is himself a 'black' man. There would seem to be a inconsistency in your argument here.

 

But if you don't want to talk about Obama - and I can see why - please explain why this black man's deeply prejudiced administration is now actively engaged in both protecting and providing humanitarian relief to some rather 'dark skinned' people trapped on high ground in northern Iraq?

 

He doesn't need to answer your strawman nonsense, Charlie. His initial point was already constrained to Israel and Gazans, and the likely US action if the ratio of Israel/Gazan casualties were reversed. When he said "the darker coloured of the two races", I'm sure he was only referring to the "two races" in the Israel/Gazan conflict.

 

It's not like he wrote a novel either. I expect he's just confused at how someone is able to take his very specific point and turn it into an argument that he, or indeed no-one else, has made. Your responses look like those of a exam student that didn't read the question properly.

[pap]

[Aziz Yebda]

Good to see Hamas ruining another peace treaty with their rockets, i'm sure they fired them from schools so Israel look like proper *****s when they blow the crap out them back.

 

BOYCOTT ISRAEL

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I may have lost count now, but I believe that since the IDF withdrew from Gaza a few weeks ago the number of tentative ceasefire agreements that have ended when Hamas has decided to abandon negotiations and renew their (rather ineffectual) rocket bombardment of southern Israel now numbers eleven or more. The Palestinian side will no doubt claim that Israel is not negotiating in good faith. Israel might respond that it is difficult to negotiate meaningfully with someone who is committed to violence if they don't get their own way. Be that as it may, as everyone who has been paying attention should know it is Israeli policy to responded aggressively to all attacks upon them. Now this may (or may not) be wise or effective policy in the long run, but it is however beyond all possible doubt a predictable outcome.

 

I read today that the wife and young child of a Hamas leader were (reportedly) killed yesterday when a IDF weapon destroyed their home. I can only see that as one more awful tragedy among many the people of the region have experienced.

 

At least one person on here will try to tell you that Israel is to blame for all this Human misery, and I don't doubt for one moment that a Israeli weapon did indeed strike this property. It seems to me however that Hamas is well aware of what will happen to their own people when they decide to attack Israel. Therefore I say these two deaths (and many others for that matter) are not only the result of IDF action, they are also the inevitable result of Hamas policy too. Perhaps the truth is that Israel and Gaza are trapped in a kind of intermittent low intensity war that has been underway now for decades. A war that shows no sign of ending anytime soon.

 

In the face of the intractable nature of this long war those who continue to confuse the Middle East of today, with the Wild West of Hollywood mythology, really do need to learn that this is not a simple 'white hat v black hat' situation - lest they make a even bigger fool of themselves then they have already.

Edited 20 August, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Jonnyboy]

Not many are.

 

You have chosen to make the sweeping allegation that US foreign policy is motivated by racial considerations. In reply I pointed out that the President and Command in Chief of the US armed forces is himself a 'black' man. There would seem to be a inconsistency in your argument here.

 

But if you don't want to talk about Obama - and I can see why - please explain why this black man's deeply prejudiced administration is now actively engaged in both protecting and providing humanitarian relief to some rather 'dark skinned' people trapped on high ground in northern Iraq?

 

And yet under Obama's administration, black Americans are still a poverty stricken underclass. The president isn't racist but the country's system is.

 

If, for example, Syria were firing artillery indiscriminately into Israeli civilians areas, the Patriots would swiftly descend on the muslamics.

[pap]

I may have lost count now, but I believe that since the IDF withdrew from Gaza a few weeks ago the number of tentative ceasefire agreements that have ended when Hamas has decided to abandon negotiations and renew their (rather ineffectual) rocket bombardment of southern Israel now numbers eleven or more. The Palestinian side will no doubt claim that Israel is not negotiating in good faith. Israel might respond that it is difficult to negotiate meaningfully with someone who is committed to violence if they don't get their own way. Be that as it may, as everyone who has been paying attention should know it is Israeli policy to responded aggressively to all attacks upon them. Now this may (or may not) be wise or effective policy in the long run, but it is however beyond all possible doubt a predictable outcome.

 

I read today that the wife and young child of a Hamas leader were (reportedly) killed yesterday when a IDF weapon destroyed their home. I can only see that as one more awful tragedy among many the people of the region have experienced.

 

At least one person on here will try to tell you that Israel is to blame for all this Human misery, and I don't doubt for one moment that a Israeli weapon did indeed strike this property. It seems to me however that Hamas is well aware of what will happen to their own people when they decide to attack Israel. Therefore I say these two deaths (and many others for that matter) are not only the result of IDF action, they are also the inevitable result of Hamas policy too. Perhaps the truth is that Israel and Gaza are trapped in a kind of intermittent low intensity war that has been underway now for decades. A war that shows no sign of ending anytime soon.

 

In the face of the intractable nature of this long war those who continue to confuse the Middle East of today, with the Wild West of Hollywood mythology, really do need to learn that this is not a simple 'white hat v black hat' situation - lest they make a even bigger fool of themselves then they have already.

 

Under international law, an occupied people has the right to resist its occupier.

 

Were the French Resistance terrorists?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And yet under Obama's administration, black Americans are still a poverty stricken underclass. The president isn't racist but the country's system is.

 

If, for example, Syria were firing artillery indiscriminately into Israeli civilians areas, the Patriots would swiftly descend on the muslamics.

 

I can't argue that the USA does not have it share (more than its share in some respects) of social problems - as recent events in Missouri demonstrate. The very fact however that a black man has been elected (and then re-elected) as President does kind of suggest to me that the USA is not today a institutionally racist nation taken in the whole. But yes they still have a long way to go and progress is too slow.

 

At the Federal level is the US constitution, or US foreign policy, driven by a racist agenda? I'm thinking here that this too is not an entirely straightforward or simple question. Perhaps it may be better to say that US policy towards Israel is driven more by electoral - rather than racial - considerations.

 

The ever infallible Wikipedia tells me that there are many more Jews in the US than there are Muslims. So if a government elected by the people decides to conduct its foreign policy in accordance with the express wishes of those same people ... well is that not exactly what it is supposed to be doing?

[Jonnyboy]

I can't argue that the USA does not have it share (more than its share in some respects) of social problems - as recent events in Missouri demonstrate. The very fact however that a black man has been elected (and then re-elected) as President does kind of suggest to me that the USA is not today a institutionally racist nation taken in the whole. But yes they still have a long way to go and progress is too slow.

 

At the Federal level is the US constitution, or US foreign policy, driven by a racist agenda? I'm thinking here that this too is not an entirely straightforward or simple question. Perhaps it may be better to say that US policy towards Israel is driven more by electoral - rather than racial - considerations.

 

The ever infallible Wikipedia tells me that there are many more Jews in the US than there are Muslims. So if a government elected by the people decides to conduct its foreign policy in accordance with the express wishes of those same people ... well is that not exactly what it is supposed to be doing?

 

So every other Muslim government is well within their rights to attack Israel then in order to protect Muslims?

 

And so the cycle of death continues.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Under international law, an occupied people has the right to resist its occupier.

 

Were the French Resistance terrorists?

 

Your comparison with Nazi Germany is again odious, and before attempting to lecture this forum on international law I would advise you to first familiarise yourself with Article 51 of the UN Charter:

 

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

 

Israel is a member of the UN and it is under armed attack. Therefore measures taken to defend itself against said attack from Hamas are (arguably) legal under international law.

 

QED.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So every other Muslim government is well within their rights to attack Israel then in order to protect Muslims?

 

 

Israel has been attacked many times during its short existence by Arab states - few (if any) of which were functioning democracies by the way.

[pap]

Your comparison with Nazi Germany is again odious, and before attempting to lecture this forum on international law I would advise you to first familiarise yourself with Article 51 of the UN Charter:

 

 

 

Israel is a member of the UN and it is under armed attack. Therefore measures taken to defend itself against said attack from Hamas are (arguably) legal under international law.

 

QED.

 

Israel defending itself. Mild examples. Google "Gaza", switch to the Images tab and then tell me this is defence.

 

[Jonnyboy]

Israel has been attacked many times during its short existence by Arab states - few (if any) of which were functioning democracies by the way.

 

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi

[Jonnyboy]

Oh yeah I forgot the dead don't matter when they're Gazan.

[hypochondriac]

Your comparison with Nazi Germany is again odious, and before attempting to lecture this forum on international law I would advise you to first familiarise yourself with Article 51 of the UN Charter:

 

 

 

Israel is a member of the UN and it is under armed attack. Therefore measures taken to defend itself against said attack from Hamas are (arguably) legal under international law.

 

QED.

 

Come on now. I don't think whatever anyone says you can legitimately argue that Israel is defending itself. It's a hugely disproportionate response from Israel. I can see Israel's point to an extent, but let's not pretend that the actual reason for this isn't that they want to wipe Palestine from the map. Nothing to do with defence in reality.

Edited 20 August, 2014 by hypochondriac

[pap]

Come on now. I don't think whatever anyone says you can legitimately argue that Israel is defending itself. It's a hugely disproportionate response from Israel. I can see Israel's point to an extent, but let's not pretend that the actual reason for this isn't that they want to wipe Palestine from the map. Nothing to do with defence in reality.

 

I can see Israel's need to respond, but the nature of the response is disgusting, disproportionate and indicative of the overall direction of travel. Israel would like the Palestinians gone, is committing war crimes in furtherance of that objective, but would like the world to think that it is a moderate, civilized country regardless. Big ask.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israels-propaganda-machine-is-finally-starting-to-misfire-9636417.html

 

there are signs of Israeli leaders getting rattled. Mr Netanyahu complained on CNN that Hamas wants “to pile up as many civilian dead as they can” and “to use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause.” Even the best propaganda machine cannot explain away massacres of civilians as happened in Lebanon at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and at Qana in 1996 and 2006.

 

Charlie would be in full agreement with Netanyahu, presumably.

[pap]

US-Israel relations have been a little frostier of late.

 

The United States on Wednesday charged Israel had targeted members of a Palestinian family whose teenaged son was kidnapped and killed in July along with two cousins, who are US citizens.

 

 

Tensions between Palestinians and Israelis in annexed east Jerusalem plunged to a new low on July 2 when 16-year-old Mohammed Abu Khder was snatched from an east Jerusalem street and later found burned alive.

 

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-accuses-israel-targeting-kin-murdered-palestinian-teen-023421588.html#iGeSeA8

[alpine_saint]

So every other Muslim government is well within their rights to attack Israel then in order to protect Muslims?

 

And so the cycle of death continues.

 

Didnt they try that and come away with a bloody nose a couple of times during the 60s/70s ?

 

As Charlie points out, most attempts at a ceasefire recently have ended with more Hamas rockets into Gaza, usually fired from places where if the IDF respond Hamas will have lots of nice footage of collateral damage.

 

Oh, and Hamas also know EXACTLY how Israeli will respond in advance.

 

The world aint black-and-white.

[pap]

Didnt they try that and come away with a bloody nose a couple of times during the 60s/70s ?

 

As Charlie points out, most attempts at a ceasefire recently have ended with more Hamas rockets into Gaza, usually fired from places where if the IDF respond Hamas will have lots of nice footage of collateral damage.

 

Oh, and Hamas also know EXACTLY how Israeli will respond in advance.

 

The world aint black-and-white.

 

The Israelis don't constrain their retaliations to the point of origin of the attack, more as an excuse to go after infrastructure and human lives.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Come on now. I don't think whatever anyone says you can legitimately argue that Israel is defending itself. It's a hugely disproportionate response from Israel. I can see Israel's point to an extent, but let's not pretend that the actual reason for this isn't that they want to wipe Palestine from the map. Nothing to do with defence in reality.

 

To be frank about it I don't necessarily think that Israel's response to Hamas terror is entirely wise or proportionate either. But that of course is a easy thing to say from the relative comfort and safety of southern England. Were we having this conversation from the border areas of southern Israel on the other hand, with everything we hold dear exposed to constant attack, we might well both adopt a different opinion on that. A question of perspective if you like.

 

As for Israel's objective in Gaza, it seems to me that if Israel really wanted to erase Gaza from the map - as you put it - then the IDF are more than capable of doing just that. So those criticising the IDF for the scale and violence of their actions in Gaza should bare in mind that Israeli is a regional superpower and their military are more than capable of laying waste the entire Gaza Strip should they see fit to do so - in about a month perhaps. So hard as it will be for some to accept the destruction we have seen in Gaza recently is actually the Israeli version of what a limited response looks like.

 

The analogy I will employ here is that if you come at Israel armed with a knife, then they will pull out a gun. Come at them with a gun and they'll drop a 1000kg laser guided bomb through your bedroom window. You can debate whether that is just or unjust from now until kingdom come. What you can't argue about is that this is exactly what will happen.

 

.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[aintforever]

As for Israel's objective in Gaza, it seems to me that if Israel really wanted to erase Gaza from the map - as you put it - then the IDF are more than capable of doing just that. So those criticising the IDF for the scale and violence of their actions in Gaza should bare in mind that Israeli is a regional superpower and their military are more than capable of laying waste the entire Gaza Strip should they see fit to do so - in about a month perhaps. So hard as it will be for some to accept the destruction we have seen in Gaza recently is actually the Israeli version of what a limited response looks like.

.

 

Oh come on Charlie, they have the military capability but no country can just carpet bomb another country out of existence and get away with it in this day and age. Israel do the maximum possible damage to the people of Gaza that they can get away with before international pressure gets too hot. As much as they would love to lay the whole of Gaza to waste they know they would not get away with it.

 

If they are just after the Hamas military what the hell is taking out Gaza's only power station going to achieve apart from cause suffering and hardship to all the innocent population?

[hypochondriac]

Oh come on Charlie, they have the military capability but no country can just carpet bomb another country out of existence and get away with it in this day and age. Israel do the maximum possible damage to the people of Gaza that they can get away with before international pressure gets too hot. As much as they would love to lay the whole of Gaza to waste they know they would not get away with it.

 

If they are just after the Hamas military what the hell is taking out Gaza's only power station going to achieve apart from cause suffering and hardship to all the innocent population?

 

Exactly this. Israel does what they can get away with.

[Viking Warrior]

The Israeli hawks have not learnt anything about peace after the atrocities hitler carried out . Then there was Palestine in 1946/47 , it was okay to murder British soldiers who went to protect them .

The Palestine and Israeli joe public deserve to live in peace . Yes protect you people but it is about time the israeli hawks and Hamas stopped killing innocents on both sides and allow peace to take place

[pap]

Oh come on Charlie, they have the military capability but no country can just carpet bomb another country out of existence and get away with it in this day and age. Israel do the maximum possible damage to the people of Gaza that they can get away with before international pressure gets too hot. As much as they would love to lay the whole of Gaza to waste they know they would not get away with it.

 

If they are just after the Hamas military what the hell is taking out Gaza's only power station going to achieve apart from cause suffering and hardship to all the innocent population?

 

Exactly this. Israel does what they can get away with.

 

This campaign looks like it has been designed to make Gaza unlivable. So much infrastructure targeted; schools, hospitals, water supplies - the power station. Many of the reported wounded may die because of lack of facilities further down the line, perhaps dwarfing the direct casualties of this conflict over the long term.

 

You are both right; Israel does what it can get away with, and on this particular occasion, it has been very lucky that there have been other events that have overshadowed their war crimes, otherwise I am sure the critical voices would ring even louder.

 

It has barred Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch from entering Gaza.

http://rt.com/news/181184-israel-hrw-amnesty-barred/

 

It has also sought US help in avoiding war crimes charges in the ICC.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/06/netanyahu-asks-us-to-help-israel-avoid-war-crime-charges/

 

The Israelis are attempting to avoid scrutiny, rewrite the letter of the law, while totally violating its spirit.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Oh come on Charlie, they have the military capability but no country can just carpet bomb another country out of existence and get away with it in this day and age. Israel do the maximum possible damage to the people of Gaza that they can get away with before international pressure gets too hot. As much as they would love to lay the whole of Gaza to waste they know they would not get away with it.

 

If they are just after the Hamas military what the hell is taking out Gaza's only power station going to achieve apart from cause suffering and hardship to all the innocent population?

 

You'd be surprised what countries 'get away' with. For instance Russia (in effect) annexed the Crimea not very long ago and seems to have gotten away with that. China maintains what looks very much like a brutal military occupation of Tibet without any meaningful sanction being applied against them either. Israel's actions in Gaza on the other hand are harsh for sure, but this recent story from 'The Guardian' illustrates that these are hard times:

 

The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) said it had found a cache of rockets at one of its schools in Gaza and deplored those who had put them there for placing civilians in harm's way. "This is yet another flagrant violation of the neutrality of our premises. We call on all the warring parties to respect the inviolability of UN property," said a spokesman. Israel has targeted some UNRWA sites in its current offensive and has in the past said the agency's property was being used for hostile purposes.

 

If Hamas has indeed sunk so low as to hide rockets in Palestinian schools, then either the IDF destroys these schools and gets criticised for that apparent 'warcrime', or it leaves the schools alone and abandons its duty to defend Israel instead. Put yourself in the place of the Israeli military and then tell me how 'easy' their job is. No doubt Hamas takes full advantage of the electricity grid too, but I suspect that the primary motive behind Israel's attack on the power station was to demonstrate to the Palestinian people that their continuing support for Hamas will have consequences to them. In my view it is a matter of profound regret when the targeting of infrastructure vital to maintaining a decent standard of living for non combatants occurs, just as I don't support terrorist groups attacking innocent civilians with rockets either. However as a student of military history I understand why this kind of sh1t happens in war.

 

What I just can't understand is why some on here continue to describe this conflict as a simple good guys v bad guys situation.

[Jonnyboy]

Because it's not a real war. Those rockets that are the whole excuse for Israel's atrocities have killed what, 1 elderly lady?

[pap]

Hamas is ISIS. ISIS is Hamas.

 

http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/netanyahu-hamas-is-isis-isis-is-hamas,53f6026a025312186c406b2b

 

Way to equate raping barbarians with the representatives of the people you're cleansing.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Because it's not a real war. Those rockets that are the whole excuse for Israel's atrocities have killed what, 1 elderly lady?

 

Well Johnny this conflict looks very much like a passable imitation of a war to me - indeed what else do you want to call it?

 

The reason the rocket attacks on Israel don't cause more civilian casualties is of course not because of some unlikely display of humanitarian restraint from Hamas, it is rather because the IDF responds effectively to each attack. That is achieved both via a combination of their 'Iron Dome' missile defence system and by counter-strikes undertaken against Hamas targets in Gaza. Obviously as Hamas wear no uniform and launch their attacks from within civilian areas innocent Palestinians are bound to get caught up in the crossfire. I'm sure everyone on here agrees that this is an appalling situation, but I see no way out of it until both sides agree to enter into meaningful negotiations.

 

But if you really feel that not enough innocent Israeli civilians are being killed in this conflict then please give me a number that you would find satisfactory ... fifty, a hundred, a thousand? Maybe in a perverse way if Israel were to allow such a thing then their international reputation might actually benefit. But for some reason they seem reluctant to contemplate paying a 'butchers bill' that is that high - not sufficiently cynical perhaps.

 

 

As for the rocket attacks on Israel being the 'whole' (your term) justification for the latest outbreak of fighting that is simply not true. The principle reason given when the IDF crossed the border into Gaza was that the network of tunnels Hamas had constructed under the border represented a genuine threat to the security of Israel. Now anyone desiring to argue that the Hamas tunnels were in fact harmless constructions that were not built with a mind to attacking Israel is welcome to make that case on here - indeed I hope someone is rash enough to do so because I'm just waiting to get my teeth stuck into that juicy morsel.

[pap]

Well Johnny this conflict looks very much like a passable imitation of a war to me - indeed what else do you want to call it?

 

The latest series of massacres in Israel's program of ethnic cleansing and eventual land clearance.

 

The reason the rocket attacks on Israel don't cause more civilian casualties is of course not because of some unlikely display of humanitarian restraint from Hamas, it is rather because the IDF responds effectively to each attack. That is achieved both via a combination of their 'Iron Dome' missile defence system and by counter-strikes undertaken against Hamas targets in Gaza. Obviously as Hamas wear no uniform and launch their attacks from within civilian areas innocent Palestinians are bound to get caught up in the crossfire. I'm sure everyone on here agrees that this is an appalling situation, but I see no way out of it until both sides agree to enter into meaningful negotiations.

 

But if you really feel that not enough innocent Israeli civilians are being killed in this conflict then please give me a number that you would find satisfactory ... fifty, a hundred, a thousand? Maybe in a perverse way if Israel were to allow such a thing then their international reputation might actually benefit. But for some reason they seem reluctant to contemplate paying a 'butchers bill' that is that high - not sufficiently cynical perhaps.

 

 

As for the rocket attacks on Israel being the 'whole' (your term) justification for the latest outbreak of fighting that is simply not true. The principle reason given when the IDF crossed the border into Gaza was that the network of tunnels Hamas had constructed under the border represented a genuine threat to the security of Israel. Now anyone desiring to argue that the Hamas tunnels were in fact harmless constructions that were not built with a mind to attacking Israel is welcome to make that case on here - indeed I hope someone is rash enough to do so because I'm just waiting to get my teeth stuck into that juicy morsel.

 

I'm trying to work out what you are, Charlie.

 

The long term, and preferred theory, is that you're a relatively harmless Middle Englander that has perhaps let too much "collective achievement" define you as a person. There is plenty of evidence for this; your opinions are unfailingly pro-British. Your reviews of historical shows over on the TV thread give an impression of man that not only believed, but lapped up whatever it is your brain has just processed, normally wistful remembrances of our Empire or WW2 days. You take pride in achievements that are not your own, to the extent where you can't handle any conflict with your interpretation of events, because it plays havoc with the composite system of self-worth you've developed.

 

If the idea that your government or its allies are incapable of performing evil acts, then I'd give up the history and start on Power Rangers.

 

Of course, this is just a theory which I'm floating to you for confirmation. If I'm wrong, we can discuss alternatives.

[alpine_saint]

The Israelis don't constrain their retaliations to the point of origin of the attack, more as an excuse to go after infrastructure and human lives.

 

Whereas Hamas know (and care) exactly where their rockets are going to land......

[pap]

Whereas Hamas know (and care) exactly where their rockets are going to land......

 

Most of those rockets are completely ineffective, and are the biggest present that Hamas could give to Israel's objectives, which is to ethnic cleanse and depopulate their land of Palestinians.

 

I know you like to be a contrary chap, Alps. Would you disagree with that assessment?

[Batman]

Most of those rockets are completely ineffective, and are the biggest present that Hamas could give to Israel's objectives, which is to ethnic cleanse and depopulate their land of Palestinians.

 

I know you like to be a contrary chap, Alps. Would you disagree with that assessment?

The Iron Dome is a huge success, it seems

Hamas have got their hands on UAV's and attempting raids by sea.

not they have a chance

[shurlock]

The Iron Dome is a huge success, it seems

Hamas have got their hands on UAV's and attempting raids by sea.

not they have a chance

 

The sieve reference is just for you - stick to peeling spuds.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/25/israels-iron-dome-is-more-like-an-iron-sieve/

[Batman]

The sieve reference is just for you - stick to peeling spuds.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/25/israels-iron-dome-is-more-like-an-iron-sieve/

 

why the insult

you can get anything you want off the internet

90% success rate according to this....but you MUST be right, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-iron-dome-defense/2014/07/14/32c948a2-0bb4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_graphic.html

 

all these from various authorities on both sides

 

The system is widely credited here with allowing Israel to endure more than 1,000 rocket attacks in the past week without a single fatality as of Monday night.

 

 

The Iron Dome system has rendered rockets so ineffective that Hamas and its allies have, in recent days, been attempting more-creative ways of attacking Israel. Last week, a Hamas commando unit tried to infiltrate Israel by sea before being cut down on the beach by Israeli fire. On Monday, the Islamist militant group launched a drone that hovered over the southern city of Ashdod.

 

But critics say the system also has taken some of the pressure off Israel’s leaders to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

 

claimed the system intercepted up to 85 per cent of the rockets fired from Gaza, although that number has been called into question. Some analysts in Israel have pointed out that as most rockets are invisible to the naked eye when in the sky, what is shown to the public could simply be footage of the Iron Dome missiles self-destructing in mid-air.

 

Bur other analysts state there is "no doubt" that the system works. And Time magazine’s defence expert Mark Thompson says the "lack of Israeli casualties suggests Iron Dome is the most effective, most tested missile shield the world has ever seen."

 

 

Israel says that almost 1,000 rockets have been fired into its territory by Palestinian militants since hostilities began on 8 July, and that 87 per cent of them have been intercepted and destroyed by Iron Dome.

Edited 22 August, 2014 by Batman

[shurlock]

why the insult

you can get anything you want off the internet

90% success rate according to this....but you MUST be right, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-iron-dome-defense/2014/07/14/32c948a2-0bb4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_graphic.html

 

Its based on a rigorous paper from physicists at MIT - so its not any old thing from the internet.

 

If glossy graphics that draw on Israel's reported figures are your thing, fill your boots. In the real world, Israel refuses to release all its unvarnished data. Surprised anyone even lets you near a potato peeler.

[Batman]

Its based on a rigorous paper from physicists at MIT - so its not any old thing from the internet.

 

If glossy graphics that draw on Israel's reported figures are your thing, fill your boots. Surprised anyone even lets you near a potato peeler.

 

why are you so aggressive?

you have taken one point of view as fact, nothing more

none of us know the real deal.

 

I still not getting how insinuating that someone is a chef is some sot of insult.

is it supposed to be some sort of degrading job?

Edited 22 August, 2014 by Batman