This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

In the same way average Palestinians want a truce because Israeli rockets are actually coming through their kitchen rooves?

I think that most Israelis believe that any truce with Hamas is just Hamas taking time out to prepare for the next war. There were rumours that Hamas had planned a big capturing attempt on the Jewish new year but I don't know if that's true.
It was also reported on some Israeli news sites that al qassam brigades made a statement to that effect (just a preparation for next war). Again, I haven't seen the statement so I don't know if it is true.
In short, Israelis fear a truce allowing Hamas to build up a whole new array of tunnels into Israel which the only way of stopping is the destruction of Hamas. Assuming you are right that Palestinians want a truce (which I don't really know how you know that) then I would point out that from their perspective they either don't think Israel would break it or just think that they'd have the same threat, whether at war or not and thus may as well live in their homes...

Reply 5401

momosteiny

Original post by Jammy Duel

As I said, Israel may exist now, probably won't in 1000 years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone within a few centuries.

I'm more inclined to say that you wanting Israel to exist forevermore is wishful thinking, whereas my expecting Israel to cease existing in a few centuries is the product of rational thought.

Many would have said that about the Jews 2500 years ago...

Reply 5402

MAESTRO265

Original post by tsr1269

I accept your capitulation graciously.

I sincerely look forward to our next encounter....

Why can't Hamas store and fire rockets from less densely populated areas and away from important social infrastructure such as schools? This is a genuine question.

Surely the situation would be simplified by this course of action as Israeli bombardment would cause less civilian impact. Have Hamas station their rockets in sparsely and desolate locations then Israeli fire would be concentrated at these coordinates. It's a win win situation as Hamas and Israel both have less blood on their hands. So as I stated why do Hamas not do this, I am curious?

Reply 5403

Jammy Duel

Original post by momosteiny

Many would have said that about the Jews 2500 years ago...

Since when was "Jews" a state, or for that matter at serious risk of total genocide?

Reply 5404

tsr1269

Original post by MAESTRO265

Why can't Hamas store and fire rockets from less densely populated areas and away from important social infrastructure such as schools? This is a genuine question.

I refer you to the little research I undertook at the behest of UniofLife.

Surely the situation would be simplified by this course of action as Israeli bombardment would cause less civilian impact. Have Hamas station their rockets in sparsely and desolate locations then Israeli fire would be concentrated at these coordinates. It's a win win situation as Hamas and Israel both have less blood on their hands. So as I stated why do Hamas not do this, I am curious?

If Israel are so concerned about the "civilian impact", then they wouldn't bomb the Gazans in the first place.

The Israeli's are only complaining, whining and throwing tantrums because HAMAS are "not making it easy for them". I mean, some naiive young person suggested the other day, that HAMAS should just line up in a row and have Israel bomb them. To that, I stated HAMAS should just commit suicide as it'll probably save on the fuel that Israel would need in their planes to bomb HAMAS.

The Settler State is a whining, childish, pathetic little country who is only throwing a tantrum because HAMAS are making it harder for them and Israel is coming worse off.

Reply 5405

momosteiny

Original post by Jammy Duel

Since when was "Jews" a state, or for that matter at serious risk of total genocide?

I'm not 100 percent sure how the Jews not being a state is really connected to my point.
Jews have been under attack both spiritually and physically for a ridiculous length of time and its pretty amazing that they are still here.
My point was that I am not sure if you can apply 'rational' assumptions to destruction of a nation or state.
I do apologise though, as I have no idea if my point has any bearing at all on your previous conversation, I just wanted to point that out.

Reply 5406

MAESTRO265

Original post by tsr1269

I refer you to the little research I undertook at the behest of UniofLife.

If Israel are so concerned about the "civilian impact", then they wouldn't bomb the Gazans in the first place.

The Israeli's are only complaining, whining and throwing tantrums because HAMAS are "not making it easy for them". I mean, some naiive young person suggested the other day, that HAMAS should just line up in a row and have Israel bomb them. To that, I stated HAMAS should just commit suicide as it'll probably save on the fuel that Israel would need in their planes to bomb HAMAS.

The Settler State is a whining, childish, pathetic little country who is only throwing a tantrum because HAMAS are making it harder for them and Israel is coming worse off.

I must say that was a very thorough post, I couldn't ask for more but instead of taking your word for it I will do some of my own digging but nonetheless not a bad bit of research there.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#2010_local_elections
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_local_elections,_2010
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_local_elections,_2012

So you came to the conclusion it would not be economical or feasible and overall the practicalities of having the rockets stationed at these unpopulated sites would be illogical considering the motives of Hamas. So it leaves Hamas with limited options. Considering the people of Palestine voted them in the first term(I must add the 2010 and 2012 elections were strangely canceled by Hamas authorities seems a little odd to me if I may say so myself, I'll link in some wiki sources or any media related sources at your request) surely Hamas has a moral duty to protect its citizens at all costs. If they know their rockets will not make a sufficient impact on the Israeli offensive why risk the lives of their citizens. Hamas could of been on the moral high ground but decided not to.

Israel's primary concern is the impact of their civilians foremost (as any other country would do) and so instead of sitting back defending against rockets for months and if not years they decided to destroy rocket bases. They have a moral duty to protect their citizens at all costs.

I do not understand why you suggest Israel are behaving in such a manner. "Whining" and "childish" are hardly representative of the Israeli government or IDF. Whatever we think of them the Israeli government is an intellectual and professional authority(hate them or like them you can not compare them to kids, I might as well compare Hamas to sheep but no point throwing inaccurate insults around). They have foreign and Home Secretaries as we do, they have ministers in the business, agricultural and environmental sectors as we do. They also have a collection of diplomats who represent them on the world stage. I do not believe they are moaning and think they are carrying out the offensive with the intention of doing so whether it is wrong or right.

Reply 5407

stevie2

Same tricks they did with Jenin etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfCJ23umcBI

Reply 5408

tsr1269

Original post by MAESTRO265

I must say that was a very thorough post, I couldn't ask for more but instead of taking your word for it I will do some of my own digging but nonetheless not a bad bit of research there.

Thank you. I appreciate you reading through that post and your willingness to critique it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#2010_local_elections
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_local_elections,_2010
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_local_elections,_2012

So you came to the conclusion it would not be economical or feasible and overall the practicalities of having the rockets stationed at these unpopulated sites would be illogical considering the motives of Hamas. So it leaves Hamas with limited options. Considering the people of Palestine voted them in the first term(I must add the 2010 and 2012 elections were strangely canceled by Hamas authorities seems a little odd to me if I may say so myself, I'll link in some wiki sources or any media related sources at your request) surely Hamas has a moral duty to protect its citizens at all costs. If they know their rockets will not make a sufficient impact on the Israeli offensive why risk the lives of their citizens. Hamas could of been on the moral high ground but decided not to.

I didn't want to split your post off into little chunks as it is intertwined so I'll make a list:

a) Economical, infeasible, impractical - HAMAS, or more accurately, the Palestinians as a whole rely have finite resources which they themselves do not control.

In fact, the Settler State (SS from here on in) withholds tax receipts from the Palestinians as a punishment for forming a reconciliation agreement which intended to hold elections which have been postponed for a number of years.

As such, the funding is limited and in such a circumstance, it is economical, feasible and practical to want to get the most out of the little funds that you are in possession of (efficiency). That is the reason why it makes absolutely no sense for "resistance groups" in Gaza to spend huge amounts of money launching a 150KM range rocket at a town which is only 40KM away from Gaza.

Furthermore, with what little funding HAMAS receives, it spends more than 90% of it's activities on welfare for the Gazans. This is a welcome respite for the Palestinians who are in dire straits due to the economic blockade and the corruption which is inherent in the Fatah administration.

b) Moral duty - In your opinion, how do you think HAMAS can "protect it's citizens"?

Israel's primary concern is the impact of their civilians foremost (as any other country would do) and so instead of sitting back defending against rockets for months and if not years they decided to destroy rocket bases. They have a moral duty to protect their citizens at all costs.

They have the Iron Dome. The ID is considered to be a defense. Launching operations and instigating wars against the beleaguered Palestinian people who are living under occupation is an aggressive attack.

The Palestinians have a "moral duty" to break the occupation of their territories by the SS.

I do not understand why you suggest Israel are behaving in such a manner. "Whining" and "childish" are hardly representative of the Israeli government or IDF. Whatever we think of them the Israeli government is an intellectual and professional authority(hate them or like them you can not compare them to kids, I might as well compare Hamas to sheep but no point throwing inaccurate insults around). They have foreign and Home Secretaries as we do, they have ministers in the business, agricultural and environmental sectors as we do. They also have a collection of diplomats who represent them on the world stage. I do not believe they are moaning and think they are carrying out the offensive with the intention of doing so whether it is wrong or right.

So instead of defending their actions, why do they complain and whine and throw tantrums about the tactics of HAMAS?

Why does the SS resort to whataboutery, mistruths, lies and propaganda to justify their actions? Why does the SS complain about the media coverage about the dead Gazans? Why does the SS throw a hissy fit when the UNHRC decides to investigate their war crimes in Gaza?

There is no other State which I have known (even America) that engages in such whining or constant complaints. The SS is only concerned about it's image and the PR coverage of the conflict. It doesn't give a crap about the Palestinians. The longer the SS exists, the harder it will become for them to justify the ongoing atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.

The fact that it has to resort to such measures (which are inexcusable and doesn't even come close to justifying their own actions) and then complain about the PR coverage indicates to anyone that they are like a child, both in age and personality.

"The SS is a troublesome child who was born out of the violation of it's mother and who is now displaying the psychotic and violent tendencies of it's father".

Such a creature should never have been born...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5409

Al-farhan

Original post by stevie2

Same tricks they did with Jenin etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfCJ23umcBI

Desperate hesbara.
Firstly, every single person there is speaking with a very heavy Egyptian dialect not a single person speaks with Levant/palastinian accent, even the music played is by Egyptian singer .
Second not a single green hamas bandanna is seen anywhere.
Thirdly it seems like a brotherhood demonstration or even remembering rabia.

Reply 5410

stevie2

Original post by Al-farhan

After some 15 years of dialogue, i know who can never be trusted in anything they say.

Reply 5411

tsr1269

Original post by UniOfLife

"Off-topic" and "non-constructive" stuff

Thank you for your efforts in replying.

I'm afraid that I didn't read fully past the first two paragraphs as the premise of your argument was incorrect and it would have been a futile waste of time.

By attempting to move the goalposts, you have indicated that your capitulation to a demand which was at your behest. This, as always, I have accepted graciously.

I hope that we get another opportunity to converse as I would like to clear up some of the other erroneous views and misconceptions that you supposedly hold...

Reply 5412

UniOfLife

Original post by tsr1269

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post something like this again a day after posting something more or less identical.

In any case it's fairly obvious that I have not moved any goalposts and if anyone has it is you. The sequence of events was simply this:

1) Someone asked "Why are there rocket sites in the middle of cities"
2) You replied: "Where else shall they put them?"
3) I proved that there is plenty of other space outside of cities to put them
4) You tried to prove that those spaces are not as strategically useful as the spaces in cities

Since 3 and 4 are not by any means mutually exclusive I think we can see that I did not move goalposts and your response did not disprove what I said. In fact, we are in total agreement that it makes sense for Hamas to fire their rockets from cities because this gives them the maximum strategic advantage. I just think, like other sane rational human beings, that this is an immoral and illegal thing to do.

So, unless you intend to show that Hamas physically cannot store and fire rockets from outside cities then I think we both agree.

Please feel free to have the last word as is your wont. I imagine it will not relate in any way to the actual content of my post and merely be self-congratulatory.

Reply 5413

tsr1269

Original post by UniOfLife

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post something like this again a day after posting something more or less identical.

Because the other two were deleted for some reason.

I thank you for encouraging me to do a little bit of research because I uncovered quite a gem in the course of it. I never would have been able to put my arguments on the Israel/Palestine conflict more forcefully had it not been for you.

So once again, thank you for helping me disseminate the truth out there. Didn't I say that "WE" would do it together and you didn't believe me?

Reply 5414

Meenglishnogood

Original post by anarchism101

There are no separate states for Native Americans or Aborigines, nor is there any significant call for them. .

but as i said already they were all given their own land ( in US , states too) to recognise their historic heritage in those countires)
if you have an issue with this, why should there then be a separate palestinian state then?

Original post by anarchism101

How exactly does history say it? .

there is plenty of historic record of the hebrew tribes being basedin levant, from the romans to the egyptians to europeans . there is zero record of any muslim or even arab settlemnt there, until of course the arabs invaded jerusalem much much later.

Original post by anarchism101

Not really getting what you're saying here; are you saying that the people who lived in Canaan (as it was then) before the Jews arrived were wiped out by the Muslim conquest? .

no, the egyptian pharoes may have certainly done this before the muslims got there

Original post by anarchism101

No, not all the Muslims and Christians - only enough of them to guarantee a large Jewish demographic majority. .

whatever it is , i see no problem in them having a constitution that requires a jewish majortity government, seeing as it was setup as a jewish state and homeland, as i would iran or saudi have a muslim only run state.

Original post by anarchism101

As noted above, the Native Americans and Aborigines do not have a separate state, yet still live in their homeland. they were both given land of their own to own, (consequentally much of it was sold off/leased by them for profit, but thats beside the point)

Furthermore, the idea of a Jewish state inherently restricts the right of non-Jews to live there, as it necessitates that Jews must be in the majority. .

so does saudi (in terms of citezenship anyway. tell me is a non muslim allowed to enter mecca?

Original post by anarchism101

The Jews first came to what is now Israel/Palestine in about 1300-1200 BCE. As noted above, there were people there before them. Therefore, history tells us that there have not always been Jews in Palestine. .

agreed but the cannanittes/ ancient egyptian pharoes etc no longer exist. the celts used to exist first here in UK before the anglo saxons, but they do not anymore.

Original post by anarchism101

There were Arabs in the Levant long before Islam existed too, what's your point? .

were there? how do you know, and in what numbers?

Original post by anarchism101

The Muslims did not attempt to wipe them all out. Most of the Jews were forced out by the Romans before the Muslims even got there. Indeed, when the Muslims took over the region the Jewish communities began to grow and prosper for the first time in centuries (for example, the Muslims allowed - even encouraged - the Jews to live in Jerusalem again - something the Romans had banned for 500 years).
.

so then why do muslims today have a problem with the jews having their own state in the homeland that judaism was established? i agree the hypocrisy highlights the moronic nature of islamist thinking

Original post by anarchism101

But Muslims do not consider the Jews to be Abraham's people - they consider themselves to be Abraham's people. From their point of view, the Jews departed from the Covenant when they did not accept first Jesus and then Mohammed as prophets. .

and their holy book - the torah which states abraham was sent to jerusalem as the jews homeland - is also the holy book of the muslims. so by a purely theological argument, you are contradicting yourself also.
but as i always have said there are other reasons why jews belong in jerusalem, from historical, political and even moral standpoint.

Original post by anarchism101

Also you're conflating Muslims and Arabs. Muslims have considered Jerusalem to be sacred for nearly as long as Islam has existed. .

the first muslims were largely arab, and their territories and settlements all in arabia. islams first real link to jeruslaem ( depending on what you beelive as fact/fcition) was mohamemds claimed visin of flying to heaven from a rock in jerusalem on the back of a winged donkey. this is islamic tradition that essentially drove the early muslims to seize jerusalem under islamic control. but in reality all of islam was formualted and grew in arabia in the lands around and including mecca and medina, on entirely the otherside of the middle east.

Original post by anarchism101

I wasn't making an argument for legitimacy of any particular state, I was responding to the previous poster saying that the Muslim conquest was the Muslims "taking other people's land", and implying that the 'other people" in question were the Jews - yet at the time of the conquest the Jews were neither the political controllers nor the demographic majority of the area.

agreed, but his statement still applied, the muslims were invadeing and conquereing land controlled by the byzantine empire ( which happened to be levant) the early muslims have the complete track record of invading other peoples lands and imposeing islamic rule - from the entire middle east, to north africa into southern/central europe and into fringes of asia - so much so that most muslims today are the ancestors of people that were conquered and colonised at some point by islamic armies - so his point still stands . The fact taht the jews were not intially in control of heir homeland doesnt detract from the logic of now giving them a homeland there. the arabs werent in control of mecca till the british took control of it and gave the muslims a holy city either.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5415

Super Cicero

Every single war Israel has participated in has been out of self-defence - either because hostile neighbours attacked them first seeking to exterminate the Jewish people, or because they were forced to strike first (such as in 1967 when Syria was about to cut off Israel's water supply and Israel had solid intelligence the Arabs were going to attack).

A two-state solution is a fantasy. If Israel withdrew from Judaea & Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank") then extremists would take over there just like they did in Gaza after Israel withdrew. Israel would have no strategic depth if it withdrew and so would not be able to defend itself. Israel should encourage more settlements in Judaea & Samaria, and then annex the region - but Palestinians living in the region should be given devolved autonomous administrations underneath Israeli sovereignity, but should not be allowed to vote in national elections. Or alternatively, they could have Jordanian citizenship and be able to vote in Jordanian elections - despite living under Israeli control. Jordan already is the Palestinian state.

No division of Eretz Yisrael. No tolerance for Islamic terrorist organisations like Hamas - annihilate them. Construct the Third Temple on Temple Mount. This is the solution that is needed.

Reply 5416

Chindits

Interesting developments.

The middle east being as complex as ever. It looks like the spat between Egypt and Qatar is now affecting the truce between Israel and Hamas.

Is Qatar responsible for the collapse of the cease-fire in the South?

A senior Fatah official is quoted by the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as saying that the Qatari government threatened to expel the Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, if the Palestinian Islamist group agreed to the Egyptian cease-fire proposal.

Mashaal, who is based in Qatar, has been blamed by Israeli officials in recent days for sabotaging a long-term truce along the Gaza front by repeatedly making new demands that Jerusalem is unwilling to meet.

The Fatah official told Al-Hayat that Hamas has insisted that Qatar be given a seat at the negotiating table in Cairo. According to the official, Hamas wants either the Qatari foreign minister or the head of intelligence to be permitted to take part in the discussions.

Egypt has adamantly refused to permit Qatar to participate in the cease-fire talks, according to the report. Cairo wants a Qatari apology for the government's policies toward Egypt since the military coup against the Muslim Brotherhood brought Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to power.

Reply 5417

Jammy Duel

Original post by Chindits

Interesting developments.

The middle east being as complex as ever. It looks like the spat between Egypt and Qatar is now affecting the truce between Israel and Hamas.

Did I just see this right...You for once suggested that Hamas isn't responsible for something :eek:

Reply 5418

tsr1269

Well, that was awkward...

Reply 5419

Meenglishnogood

Original post by tsr1269

Well, that was awkward...

as far as i was aware , the term zionist simply refered to a jew that followed the principle that jews were to have a homeland as per their Torah. it has been hijacked i think by various anti-jewish peoples, islamists included, to try and use it in a derogatory manor, similar to various racial terms etc