The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

a buffer zone is exactly that. it removed its significant sitting army that it had there some time ago. though that decision may have to be reversed given hamas' actions over the last few weeks.

It's on Gazan land which means that your statement that the Israeli's militarily withdrew and are no longer occupying Gazan land is demonstrably false:

no thats not what i had said, it must be your thinking thats retarded. i said israel was punching well above its weight, as a tiny country with natural resources and population incomparable to its enemies- it would be deemed the 'underdog' It has survived in the middle east purley based on ingenuity. It has become a major military power -but why you may ask? purley because of the fact it was surrounded by hostiles since the 1960s, it had to become a military power purely to survive. apart form winning 3 outnumbered wars, it has been also the target for every jihadi nutcase on the planet

I understand why those who have lost families in this conflict would be angry at Israel, I would be too, but part of the blame should also lie on Hamas for not doing all they can to stop the conflict. You can blame the 'aggressor' but you also have to blame your government too because if they had simply accepted the ceasefire, the fighting would stop.

what is 'gazan' land there was a major military occupation of entire gaza following similar hamas terrorist activites over a decade ago, then the israelis withdrew, after much lobbying by usa and others i remind you. howver they maintaind a buffer zone, to protect the boundaries with israeli towns.

the very fact that the standing army withdrew is what has allowed hamas to once again build an operating terrorist network in gaza

So you know the difference between "mass immigration" and military conquest? Please explain to us the difference...



I'm glad you have seen the errors of your statements.



It takes two to tango. One hand cannot clap on it's own.



But it's not just Muslims standing up for Palestine. It's Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Denmark, France and any number of countries which have condemned the "Israeli aggression" and their appalling human rights infringements against the Palestinians.

But mostly the US funding/political leverage, of course. They want to project their power in the Middle East, remind the OPEC countries who's boss.

It's easy to succeed despite few natural resources if you have unnatural resources, i.e. investment. Once you have a foothold it's easier to make even more money/gain even more power as well.

So you allow the bully to take your dinner money and hope he doesn't keep kicking and punching you?



The UN HRC begs to differ. How can you be a "liberal democracy" if you subjugate, occupy, oppress and sanction state murder?



And Gaza would still be a prison. No, let me correct that. Gaza would have almost disappeared having carried the weight of god knows how many settlements.

If you want a stark comparison between what "ceasefire" and "resistance" entails, take a look at the land that the PA controls in the West Bank, which is arguably not Israeli land.

It's pretty self-explanatory, so I'm puzzled by your question. There is no occupation because there is no occupation. Israel withdrew all military and civilians from Gaza a decade ago.

I don't agree with the bully analogy. If you keep kicking and punching someone who is far larger than you, don't be surprised when they kick and punch you back. I might not agree with Israeli, and I might not condone the way Israel is handling this but I certaintly don't buy Hamas as the victim in all of this. Israel is better at defending itself against Hamas, if Hamas had the resources, Hamas would have killed far more Israeli civilians. Hamas wants to kill more people but can't. Thats the difference between the Israeli government and Hamas. While you may argue that Israel isn't safeguarding the Palestinians well enough, it is blatantly obvious that Israel's intention isn't to kill as many civilians as possible, because if it was, far more civilians would be dead now. Probably in the thousands with Israel's resources. However, Hamas is purposely trying to kill as many Israeli's as possible, that is their intent.

The whole region, under the British mandate was called Palestine.



How does a defensive action result in the total conquest of someone else's lands? The answer is that it does not. Israel is the aggressor. The maps of Israel then and now prove it.

So what do you propose? More fighting which leads to more Palestinian deaths? What is the solution to all this? Israel isn't going to go anywhere, no matter how hard Hamas fights, Israel will fight harder. There are only two possible ways this could end, with no more fighting or with more Palestinian deaths. Israel won't lose, and everyone knows that. Hamas has to make the decision, lose more Palestinians or continue a hopeless fight.

x

but do they advocate military action against israel? No, why?

Israel withdrew to the 67 lines in Gaza.

They have no right to be firing rockets and indeed the international community has come down on Israel's side.