Israel Shells U.N. Building in Gaza and Media Center -- Charged With Using White Phosphorus

The Israelis are complete shits. And war criminals. Israel is both a failed and a rogue state. The 60 year Zionist experiment in Palestine has failed.

Steve 41oo wrote:

The Israelis are complete shits. And war criminals. Israel is both a failed and a rogue state. The 60 year Zionist experiment in Palestine has failed.

Have to agree now. Especially after seeing the story of a 2-year-old girl with a severed spinal cord after being shot in the back by an Israeli soldier. Exactly what threat was she posing?

The Israel Defense Forces is investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.

The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza.

Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law.

According to senior army officers, the IDF used two phosphorus-based weapons in Gaza. One, the sources said, actually contains almost no phosphorus. These are simple smoke bombs - 155mm artillery shells - with a trace of phosphorus to ignite them.

Alkalai's probe is thus focusing on the second type: phosphorus shells, either 81mm or 120mm, that are fired from mortar guns. About 200 such shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.

The one problematic incident was the reserve paratroops brigade that fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of Beit Lahiya. Many international organizations say phosphorus shells should not be used in heavily populated areas. The brigade's officers, however, say the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.

The 120mm shells, a recent acquisition, have a computerized targeting system attached to a GPS. Brigade commanders say they were very effective, but they were also responsible for two very serious mishaps: a strike on a UNRWA school that killed 42 Palestinians and a friendly fire incident that seriously wounded two officers.

Dear hearts, the state and people of Israel have come to the conclusion that we can no longer allow you to keep and maintain any of your little groups of kept savages on our door step.

We are going to be generous: You have thirty days to find a place within the slammite world, that is, the gigantic swath of territory between the wall of China and the west coast of Africa which shows as green on maps indicating nations under the sway of the peculiar form of devil worship known as I-slam, in which to put the "palestinian" savages, and that place needs to be at least 1000 kilometers from Israel.

Any which we find any closer than that on day 31, we're going to simply ******* kill. **** you and have a nice day.

The Israelis are complete shits.

And war criminals.

Israel is both a failed and a rogue state.

The 60 year Zionist experiment in Palestine has failed.

Cancers are also another issue with regards using unconventional weapons

Steve 41oo wrote:

The Israelis are complete shits. And war criminals. Israel is both a failed and a rogue state. The 60 year Zionist experiment in Palestine has failed.

Have to agree now. Especially after seeing the story of a 2-year-old girl with a severed spinal cord after being shot in the back by an Israeli soldier. Exactly what threat was she posing?

They only care about one thing, and that's Eretz Israel. That aim is incompatible with a viable Palestinian state. So they do anything in furtherance of that goal.

Attacking Gaza may be ostensibly to eliminate rockets, but the hidden agenda, as with the attack on Lebanon 2007, is to provoke war with Iran and get the United States to eliminate its nuclear capability.

Anything in Israeli eyes justifies that, including the murder of children.

Was Israel's attempt to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Was Israel's attempt to pull out of Palestinian areas unilaterally an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

oralloy wrote:

Was Israel's attempt to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Was Israel's attempt to pull out of Palestinian areas unilaterally an attempt to avoid the creation of a Palestinian state?

Israel is not monolithic. They have political parties that did, in fact, object to all of those things. They've had leaders assassinated over it.

Yes, there is a significant portion of Israelis in the government who have explicitly and consistently opposed the creation of the Palestinian state and any withdrawals.

On the other hand there are others who prefer a two-state solution.

What we just witnessed in Gaza was the result of the political climate swinging from one side to the other. Israeli politics is taking a turn towards the hawks right now, and with its most hawkish leaders you don't need to read between the lines to see the avoidance of the Palestinian state.

Likud is one of the major political parties in Israel, and their leader is giving the incumbent party a significant challenge. They have made very clear that they reject any Palestinian state in Gaza or the West Bank as they passed a resolution to oppose any creation of a Palestinian state within Greater Israel.

Israel's politics is swinging back to their hawks who do, in fact, oppose and wish to avoid a Palestinian state, and the Gaza invasion is largely an attempt by the incumbent party to fend off this political challenge from the more hawkish party.

So yes, to say that "Israel" avoids the creation of the Palestinian state is not completely true, but it's just as untrue to neglect to see that they frequently do have leaders who do.

Yes, but those people have not been in power for some time. The Israeli people as a whole have been trying to achieve a two-state solution for some time -- first with Barak trying to negotiate in 2000, and then when all that achieved was a series of suicide bombings, with Sharon trying to pull out unilaterally.

This swing to the right is being caused by the fact that no matter what Israel does to try to make peace with the Palestinians, the result is more Palestinian attacks on them, and more people around the world accusing Israel of not trying to make peace.

If I were an Israeli voter I'd be about ready to embrace the hawks too.

But I think this action in Gaza has probably given Kadima another chance.

oralloy wrote:

Yes, but those people have not been in power for some time. The Israeli people as a whole have been trying to achieve a two-state solution for some time -- first with Barak trying to negotiate in 2000, and then when all that achieved was a series of suicide bombings, with Sharon trying to pull out unilaterally.

Nonsense. Sharon was the prime minister of Israel with the Likud party when they passed their resolution against a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river.

In his later years he broke with his party, formed Kadima and did, in fact, push toward a two-state solution

but Kadima has since taken a turn towards being Hawkish under pressure from the Israeli right that says Israel's military capabilities had not been demonstrated recently enough.

The elements in Israel that object to a two-state solution are in positions of power today,

and you can't pretend that this kind of Zionism has died out. It's alive and well and is still influencing Israeli foreign policy to the greatest extent that it is able.

oralloy wrote:

This swing to the right is being caused by the fact that no matter what Israel does to try to make peace with the Palestinians, the result is more Palestinian attacks on them, and more people around the world accusing Israel of not trying to make peace.

This is a false statement. Israeli disengagement resulted in a marked decrease in attacks on them. Furthermore, their attacks on Palestinians often result directly in retaliatory attacks on them.

oralloy wrote:

But I think this action in Gaza has probably given Kadima another chance.

You may be right, and by Kadima playing hawks in Gaza they may be able to resist the challenge that even greater hawks pose. It's a pretty sad commentary on the state of affairs that each side of this conflict faces such great political pressure from within to make idiotic and counter-productive decisions.

This was when they were reeling under the Palestinian response to Barak's attempt to negotiate a Palestinian state.

Not all that much later. The push for unilateral separation was the main theme of Sharon's prime ministership.

They are turning hawkish because the Israeli voters are sick of the Palestinians attacking them, and are going to vote for someone who will take action against the Palestinians.

If Olmert and Livni hadn't taken action, the voters would have thrown them out and replaced them with someone who would have taken action.

Robert Gentel wrote:

The elements in Israel that object to a two-state solution are in positions of power today,

Actually the people in power still favor unilateral separation. They just need to get the Palestinians to stop firing artillery at Israeli civilians.

Right, but while it exists, it has not really been able to have much influence for some time.

It was not Israeli hawks who derailed Barak's negotiations. It was Palestinian suicide bombers who derailed it.

It was not Israeli hawks who halted the unilateral pullout from Palestinian lands. It was artillery fire from Gaza that stopped it.

The voters are only turning to the hawks now because they want someone to stop the Palestinians from firing artillery at people.

When Barak tried to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state, the result was a massive wave of suicide bombings, mostly targeting Israeli teenagers at nightclubs, which resulted in the eventual collapse of both the negotiations and the Barak government.

When Sharon and Olmert tried to pull out of Palestinian lands unilaterally, the result was an endless barrage of artillery fired on civilian towns near the Gaza strip.

The only things I've seen that has ended up being counterproductive so far are the attempts to create a Palestinian state.

That said, I suspect that if Kadima wins the next election, we'll see yet another attempt at unilateral separation.

Maybe if the rocketfire is kept under wraps, we'll see a Palestinian state.

If not, we'll see the government collapse and Likud voted into power.

oralloy wrote:

This was when they were reeling under the Palestinian response to Barak's attempt to negotiate a Palestinian state.

That was not their response to the attempt to negotiate a Palestinian state, it was their response to Israel's refusal to make the crucial concessions that Palestinians demanded.

The Palestinians are to blame for walking out on negotiations but they did not launch the attacks because of efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood, but rather because the Israelis refused to offer them a viable state while they were foolish enough to think that the attacks were their political pressure to motivate them to do so.

What Israel was offering was not a viable state,

The talks broke down, and Palestinians are to blame for trying to negotiate with the threat of violence, but Israel shares significant blame for failing to make the needed concessions to reach an agreement.

Israel has since come much closer to terms with having to make the concessions it was unable to bring herself to make then.

oralloy wrote:

Not all that much later. The push for unilateral separation was the main theme of Sharon's prime ministership.

He was elected in 2001. He withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and had a stroke in December. His successor became acting PM on Jan 4th, 2006.

oralloy wrote:

If Olmert and Livni hadn't taken action, the voters would have thrown them out and replaced them with someone who would have taken action.

I agree. But this is why I don't think it's accurate for you to portray Israeli politics as being so accommodating to a two-state solution.

oralloy wrote:

It was not Israeli hawks who derailed Barak's negotiations. It was Palestinian suicide bombers who derailed it.

Neither side was willing to reach an agreement. Israeli hawks did, in fact, have a lot to do with what Israel was willing to concede.

Walking out on the negotiations was a foolish move by Palestinians, but let's not pretend that they were leading to a viable two-state solution.

Israel steadfastly refused to make concessions that were crucial to any self-sustaining Palestinian state and they were not getting any closer to an agreement.

And regardless of who you like to blame for it all, I think you can agree with me that any such violence postpones peace, as neither side can control their extremists when the blood is running hot.

Both were wrong to fail to reach these critical concessions. Israel did not offer an acceptable territorial solution (their offer would initially give Palestinians only 73% of the West Bank, while they are compelled by a UN resolution to return it all) with contiguous land (the West Bank would had been parted in half by an Israeli-controlled roadway etc) and was not a viable Palestinian state.

The Israeli offer also failed to put the most important religious sites for Palestinians under Palestinian sovereignty, instead offering "custody"

Furthermore, while the negotiation failure promoted a wave of attacks that Arafat failed to contain, it wasn't till Sharon provocatively toured the Temple Mount complex stating that it would forever remain in Israeli control did the real conflagration erupt.

A Palestinian stone-throwing protest was repressed violently, killing 4 Palestinians and it's worth noting that Sharon was running against the incumbents as hawkish opposition.

oralloy wrote:

When Sharon and Olmert tried to pull out of Palestinian lands unilaterally, the result was an endless barrage of artillery fired on civilian towns near the Gaza strip.

The artillery was not a result of the decision to withdraw, and its increase merely represented the fact that Palestinians could no longer threaten Israelis through more effective means.

The Israeli withdrawal saved countless Israeli lives, as the artillery and rockets present orders of magnitude less threat to Israel.

oralloy wrote:

That said, I suspect that if Kadima wins the next election, we'll see yet another attempt at unilateral separation.

Maybe if the rocketfire is kept under wraps, we'll see a Palestinian state.

If the rocket fire is kept under wraps, there's a good chance that a provocative assassination or attack by Israel will be pushed through in an attempt to break the calm and reduce pressure to make territorial concessions.

The suicide bombings happened all through the negotiation process, up to the point when both the negotiations and the Barak government collapsed. There was no "refusal" to grant concessions, although the negotiations collapsed before some subjects were agreed.

It is hard to know what concessions would have been made had the Palestinians not destroyed the negotiations with their suicide bombings, but Israel was making plenty of concessions before the process was derailed.

What is not viable about this offer?

http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment-final-status-options/final-status-map-presented-by-israel-taba-mar-2001/final_status_map_taba.pdf

What concession(s) was Israel not making?

Actually, all the current positions I've seen so far offer less than Barak offered.

Yes, but the push to pull out of Gaza did not come out of the blue in 2005. They had been discussing it for a little while, and planning how to pull it off.

Because that is what Barak was trying to negotiate in 2000, and it is what Sharon/Olmert/Livni hope to force with their unilateral separation.

What concession(s) did the hawks prevent Israel from offering?

There is no need to pretend. That is exactly what the negotiations were leading to.

I don't think the Palestinians walked out. As I remember it, the negotiations collapsed because Barak's government collapsed. (If anything the Israelis walked out when their government collapsed and they lost authority to speak for the Israeli people.)

What concession(s) did Israel steadfastly refuse to give?

It certainly looked to me like they were getting closer. The maps kept changing as new offers were made.

Depends. I think Israel's recent war could encourage peace, if it leads to a cessation of rocketfire, and lets Israel pull out more.

Who cares what the initial offer would have given? The offer was modified extensively as negotiations progressed.

The Taba offer would have given the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank (in one contiguous block), East Jerusalem as their capital, and it would have transferred some Israeli land to Gaza to compensate for what land they would have kept in the West Bank.

I'd like to see anyone show how this offer was either unacceptable or unviable.

That is wrong in two ways. First, Israel did offer to put "Palestinian religious sites" under Palestinian sovereignty.

And second, there are "no Palestinian religious sites" in Jerusalem. There are instead Jewish religious sites that Muslims illegally occupy.

I thought it was a travesty that Barak offered to give up the Temple Mount.

(To tell you the truth, I stopped supporting the negotiations at that point. One reason I now support unilateral separation is because it means that Israel does not have to give up the Temple Mount.)

What negotiation failure? Negotiations continued up to when Barak was voted out of office.

There is nothing provocative about Sharon touring the Jews' most important religious site. He has every right to do so.

And Israel has every right to keep it forever.

If anything was provocative, it was the way the Palestinians on the site were digging up and destroying archaeological remains from the site.

Stones are deadly weapons.

That's an interesting notion.

So you think the Palestinians could have been able to launch rockets while under occupation, but didn't bother because they had more effective means to attack at the time?

Maybe so, but the rockets are still intolerable to the Israeli voters, and have to be stopped.

I'm pretty sure that Kadima's unilateral separation plan intends to make "the wall" Israel's new border with the Palestinian state. As such, I think they are willing to give up everything "behind the wall".

If Likud comes to power though, I'm sure they have other ideas.

And the roadway Israel proposed, that would connect Gaza and the West Bank was to be under Israel's control, with their ability to shut them off from each other at will.

Neither side was coming to the table with a mandate to make the required concessions from their peoples.

oralloy wrote:

Actually, all the current positions I've seen so far offer less than Barak offered.

That's just not true. The US and international positions call for 1967 borders.

oralloy wrote:

Because that is what Barak was trying to negotiate in 2000, and it is what Sharon/Olmert/Livni hope to force with their unilateral separation.

They were also trying to officialize too much settlement of Palestinian land, and still opposed a litany of requirements for sovereignty.

oralloy wrote:

There is no need to pretend. That is exactly what the negotiations were leading to.

We'll have to disagree on this.

oralloy wrote:

It certainly looked to me like they were getting closer. The maps kept changing as new offers were made.

Yes, but each offer they made essentially annexed more Palestinian land as defined by 1967 borders, which already represent significant annexation.

oralloy wrote:

The Taba offer would have given the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank (in one contiguous block), East Jerusalem as their capital, and it would have transferred some Israeli land to Gaza to compensate for what land they would have kept in the West Bank.

This is simply false. The offer was for an initial 73% of the West Bank with only an eventual 91%.

The Israeli's final offer was to annex an additional 10% of Palestinian land.

oralloy wrote:

That is wrong in two ways. First, Israel did offer to put "Palestinian religious sites" under Palestinian sovereignty.

False. They offered "religious sovereignty" but not the legal definition of the term. They were offering custodianship but not the legal concept of sovereignty.

oralloy wrote:

And second, there are "no Palestinian religious sites" in Jerusalem. There are instead Jewish religious sites that Muslims illegally occupy.

Ok, name the law then.

oralloy wrote:

I thought it was a travesty that Barak offered to give up the Temple Mount.

Well I disagree, that was one thing I give him credit for, and that Sharon tried to ruin with his visit to the Temple Mount complex.

oralloy wrote:

(To tell you the truth, I stopped supporting the negotiations at that point. One reason I now support unilateral separation is because it means that Israel does not have to give up the Temple Mount.)

Why on earth do you object to Israel giving up the Temple Mount?

Israel's annexation of their side of Jerusalem would be Israel's gain from the negotiations. Right now they have the facts on the ground but not even the US recognizes it, they would basically officialize their Jerusalem annexation in exchange for sharing of the city with Palestinians.

oralloy wrote:

There is nothing provocative about Sharon touring the Jews' most important religious site. He has every right to do so.

He may have every right to do so but that doesn't make it non-provocative. He was undermining negotiations with his proclamation that it should remain forever in Israeli control.

oralloy wrote:

If anything was provocative, it was the way the Palestinians on the site were digging up and destroying archaeological remains from the site.

Sure, killing four of them for throwing stones is not provocative.

oralloy wrote:

Stones are deadly weapons.

They can be, but they weren't. Israel did kill Palestinians in return.

oralloy wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Kadima's unilateral separation plan intends to make "the wall" Israel's new border with the Palestinian state. As such, I think they are willing to give up everything "behind the wall".

The wall is not a full border,

and also represents more annexation that they need to negotiate swaps for,