15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:18 am
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
ithout the repeated car bombings and suicide bombings, Israel would not be occupying the west bank and parts of Gaza.


This is an outright lie. Israel occupied the Gaza strip and the West Bank militarily in the 1967 war. Car bombings and suicide bombers were unknown in those days. The Israelis had had their eye on those territories, and espeically on the West Bank and Jerusalem, for a long time, and could hardly wait for an excuse. You're just making **** up now.


Making **** up? hardly. I am talking about today, not 1967. Things have changed since then. Israel left Gaza, remember? Why are they back there again now? Because muslim terrorists keep conducting attacks from territory Israel does not keep a firm grasp on.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:22 am
From today's The Guardian, page 23:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6901/zwischenablage01jp1.jpg
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:41 am
A year later, Gazans say Israel's pullout was a mirage

Quote:
GAZA CITY: Gaza marked the first anniversary of the start of Israel's pullout from the coastal strip Tuesday amid bitterness that the end of the Jewish settlements did not bring an end to occupation and bloodshed. At midnight on August 15, 2005, Israel began withdrawing 8,000 Jewish settlers and thousands of troops from Gaza, the start of a month-long operation to end the country's 38-year occupation. But a year later residents in the impoverished strip continue to die from Israeli fire, the economy is in shambles and the mood is grim.

"They say they withdrew, but the occupation is going on in Gaza," said Abu Yasser, 50, a shop owner in Gaza City. "They're still everywhere and the killing and the shelling is continuing despite the withdrawal."

Immediately following the pullout last year, hope was high in both Gaza and Israel that the move would mark a major step toward a Palestinian state on the one hand, and security for Israel on the other.

But the optimism was short-lived.

For Palestinians, Israel still tightly controlled the borders of the territory and the army continued to carry out raids targeting militants in the strip, strikes that often left civilians dead.

For Israel, Palestinian militants continued to fire rockets from the strip into the country and smuggle weapons.

The situation further deteriorated after Hamas swept to power after a January parliamentary elections. The Islamist movement enjoyed massive support for having spearheaded attacks against the occupation and developing a very efficient charity network.

Gaza's fragile economy took another hit when the Palestinian Authority's Western bankrollers decided to cut off aid until the Hamas-dominated government recognized Israel's right to exist.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

And on June 28, Israel launched a massive offensive into Gaza, three days after militants killed two soldiers and abducted a third during a cross-border raid.

Since then, at least 175 Palestinians have been killed in the strikes, most of them civilians.

Much of the infrastructure of Gaza, one of the world's most densely populated areas with 1.4 million residents, has been destroyed, including its sole power plant. In the heat of the Mediterranean summer, electricity became rationed and sewage left untreated.

The sealing off of the territory has been hermetic, with the only crossing point to the outside world, to Egypt in the southern town of Rafah, closed almost non-stop.

"Many Palestinians hoped Gaza would become the embryo for an independent Palestinian state, but this hope has disappeared because of Palestinian leaders' inability to build [a state] and continued Israeli offensives," said Hani Habib, journalist and political analyst.

"It is now clear, one year after the departure of Israeli forces, that the occupation is continuing," Habib added. "Israel still exercises total control over all aspects of inhabitants' lives."

"The economic situation has deteriorated dramatically. There's no buyers, no sellers, no way out of Gaza and no life here. Everything has stopped and we don't know if or when it's going to get any better," said Said Yasser, a shop owner in Gaza City.

"The siege is everywhere, on the government, on the president, on the people," he lamented.

"We thought that the situation would get better ... We thought that there would be freedom of movement ... after the liberation of Gaza," said Said Elias, an employee at a hospital in Gaza City. "But the opposite happened. The situation is the worst we have ever faced. And the Israeli aggression has become more cruel ... We are in a new prison called Gaza."
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:02 am
McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
ithout the repeated car bombings and suicide bombings, Israel would not be occupying the west bank and parts of Gaza.


This is an outright lie. Israel occupied the Gaza strip and the West Bank militarily in the 1967 war. Car bombings and suicide bombers were unknown in those days. The Israelis had had their eye on those territories, and espeically on the West Bank and Jerusalem, for a long time, and could hardly wait for an excuse. You're just making **** up now.


Making **** up? hardly. I am talking about today, not 1967. Things have changed since then. Israel left Gaza, remember? Why are they back there again now? Because muslim terrorists keep conducting attacks from territory Israel does not keep a firm grasp on.


McGentrix, I think your getting over your head again. Be careful.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:08 am
The Gaza Strip has been occupied for 38 years. While Israel had removed all of its civilian and military presence in the Gaza Strip, it continued to supervise and guard the external envelope on land excepting a border crossing with Egypt, which is jointly run by the Palestinian National Authority and the European Union. Israel also maintained exclusive control in the air space of Gaza, and continued to conduct military activities, including incursions, in the territory.
Israel has given no assurances that there will be a lessening of trade restrictions on goods coming out of the Gaza strip. The average per capita Palestinian annual income there in 2001 was $625 US dollars (Israel: $24,600 US dollars).
Only months after the withdrawal, a 3,000 strong detachment of the Israeli Defense Forces moved back into the Gaza Strip in a coordinated action codenamed Operation Summer Rains. According to Israel the operation was launched in response to the kidnap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 25 June, although other sources have pointed out that the current crisis was triggered when the IDF kidnapped two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother, from their home in Gaza the day before.
As revel's article pointed out, the situation has since severely deteriorated for the Palestinian population.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:48 am
old europe wrote:
The Gaza Strip has been occupied for 38 years. ....


That's because the "palestinians" living there are a bunch of bloodthirsty, crazed lunatics.

I'll say it again, there is one and only one rational solution to this problem, and that is that the slammite world has to be forced to find a place to put the "palestinians", and that place has to be sufficiently remote and isolated that they cannot harm anybody or anything other than themselves.

Anything else is wishful thinking and it's the kind of wishful thinking that gets people killed.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:54 am
Quote:
...

Italy's commitment stems from its proximity to the Middle East and Prime Minister Romano Prodi's wish to reverse the isolation in Europe that Rome suffered because of the pro-U.S. position of his predecessor Silvio Berlusconi.

France disappointed some allies by appearing to downgrade an earlier troop pledge but Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy indicated on Wednesday that Paris could dispatch more soldiers once the terms of the mission were set.

You can't decide just like that to send in thousands of men," he told France 2 television.

French sources did not rule out further reinforcements being sent once the rules of engagement -- the code governing how the U.N. troops will be allowed to operate -- were set.

"We never said this was our last word," one French source said of the pledge of 200 troops. "We hope to get enough clarification to see how we can make further reinforcements".

U.N. chief Annan is due to attend Friday's meeting of foreign ministers from the EU's 25 states and explain how the U.N. force, known as UNIFIL, will operate.

According to a U.N. document obtained by Reuters, new rules of engagement for the U.N. troops permit soldiers to shoot in self-defense, use force to protect civilians and resist armed attempts to interfere with their duties.
source: reuters
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:09 am
It is noteworthy that media outlets in the United States--the chimerical "liberal media" of conservative Chicken Little hysteria--routinely neglects to mention Israeli actions such as the kidnapping which OE refers to. Regardless of what complexion one alleges for media outlets in the United States, it is impossible not to see that they overwhelmingly tell the Israeli version of events.

This story at The Telegraph (UK) about the kidnapping of Shalit makes no mention of the kidnapping of the Palestinians the day before. The story does note that the death of Shalit's two comrades were the first Israeli deaths since the alleged pull-out in Septerment, 2005, and taking notice of the roughly 25 Palestinian deaths, described as "mostly civilians" in that same time period.

This article at The Washington Post about the kidnapping of Shalit makes no mention of the kidnapping of the Palestinians the day before. They only refer to one of the fringe groups which claimed responsibility for the kidnapping (along with at least three other groups) make a claim of retaliation for an attack on their training camp.

I've spent about an hour now looking for a story about Gilad Shalit--kidnapped June 25, 2006--which mentions the kidnapping of two Palestinians on June 24, 2006, and i haven't found a one. In fact, i couldn't find a single news story by American or English news media who mentioned that kidnapping until i came upon this archived BBC report of that kidnapping. I was not able to find a single American source which mentioned it, nor an American source which mentioned it in connection with the kidnapping of Shalit.

BBC story of the kidnapping of two Palestinians on June 24, 2006, the day before Gilad Shalit was kidnapped

It is amazing how conservatives continue to claim that Israel is just defending itself from unprovoked attacks. But given the one-sided nature of the news they get, i suppose i shouldn't be surprised.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:31 am
Setanta wrote:

It is amazing how conservatives continue to claim that Israel is just defending itself from unprovoked attacks. But given the one-sided nature of the news they get, i suppose i shouldn't be surprised.


I think it is more complicated than that. Sometimes the Israelis are indeed defending themselves from unprovoked attacks. (and sometimes the converse is true,) Many of their polirtcal supporters here are not conservatives at all -- support for Israel cuts across the historical political divide in this country, indeed over the past four decades political support for Israel has come primarily from Democrats and self-styled progressives. The shift to which you refer is a fairly recent phenomenon and the new alignments it is promoting are far from complete. If you are amazed at certain contemporary claims on behalf of Israel by some conservatives, you should be equally amazed by the decades of such expressions from liberal Democrats that preceded them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:42 am
George is correct to take me to task for specifying only conservatives--and, of course, my frustration arises of recent date. However, he is wrong to atttempt to suggest that support of Israel was once somehow a uniquely liberal Democratic stance to which conservatives have just recently turned. When Harry Truman recognized the state of Israel in 1948, he was in a bitter campaign fight, and the allegation that his recognition of Israel was done for political reasons is not that far-fetched. But the Congress was controlled by the Republicans by 1948, and no objection was raised by them. Eisenhower was President in 1956, and he warned the Israelis when they invaded Gaza during the Suez crisis, but there was no public outcry by conservatives. In 1967, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Americans publicly derieded the the Arab states. Within days of the start of the war, and before it ended, i found an Arab "joke" book in Brentano's in Washington, and it was on a table by itself and selling like hotcakes--stuff such as "How can you tell an Egyptian tank? The back-up lights."

Richard Nixon put no pressure on Israel to accomodate the Palestinians, and completely ignored the Jordanian expulsion of the Palestinains and their settlement in southern Lebanon. He did nothing to ameliorate the 1973 war. Carter, at the least, put sufficient pressure on Sadat to get a treaty signed between Egypt (Israel's most populous hostile neighbor) and Israel which has endured. Reagan put no pressure on Israel, and when he sent Marines to Beirut, he made not the least effort to make the Israelis withdraw from the Lebanon--they were there until Clinton was President.

In short, an inferential claim that conservatives were not supporters of Israel while liberals were, just won't wash.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:57 am
BBB
The balance was tipped when christian evangelicals dominated the republican party and saw George Bush as their path to the second coming of christ. Hence, Israel can do no wrong. They will go to heaven and the rest of us will burn in hell. Oooh, I'm scared.

1 Thessalonians 5:2-3: "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. Zechariah 12:2-3

For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and Safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape."

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:09 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The balance was tipped when christian evangelicals dominated the republican party and saw George Bush as their path to the second coming of christ. Hence, Israel can do no wrong. They will go to heaven and the rest of us will burn in hell. Oooh, I'm scared.

1 Thessalonians 5:2-3: "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. Zechariah 12:2-3

For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and Safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape."

BBB


So, let me get this straight ... George Bush was elected, and therefore you blame him and the Republican Party because you're going to burn in Hell?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:26 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
So how about you condemning Hezbollah for not abiding by any rules of decency and stop condemning Israel for doing what is reasonable to stop indecent activities of Hezbollah?


I strongly condemn Hezbollah for not abiding by the Geneva Conventions, and you will find no post of mine where I have ever said anything to the contrary.
I don't condemn Israel for doing what is reasonable. I strongly condemn Israel for not abiding by the Geneva Conventions, though.

It's really not that hard, in my mind, once you get past the wrong perception that one side automatically can claim the moral high ground, for whatever reason, and start looking at the violations of both sides.


The thing is that in this current conflict, I have not seen anything Israel has done that I would not deem within boundaries of human decency. The only thing they could have done differently is just lie down and give up, and essentially that's what world opinion has too often been asking them to do. As it is they performed much less efficiently and effectively that they could have purely because they were pulling their punches out of this notion of 'decency'.

So, again there is no conclusion to the conflict and again there will be no peace; just a lull until the peacekeepers weary of there task some years down the line and stop enforcing a cease fire.

I can defend Israel against all the others, not because she is perfect because she certainly is not, but because I 100% believe that if her neighbors were not sucide bombing, kidnapping, and firing various kinds of artillery at her, and/or threatening various kinds of violence, Israel would not initiate any hostilities toward any of her neighbors. Israel is not the problem here.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 01:17 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is that in this current conflict, I have not seen anything Israel has done that I would not deem within boundaries of human decency.


Well, in the current conflict I haven't seen Hezbollah or Hamas stage any suicide attacks either, if that's your yardstick for acting "within boundaries of human decency". Have you?

On the other hand, you know that Israel has stated the reason for the military action in Lebanon that left hundreds dead and thousands homeless was the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah claimed the kidnapping was in support of the Palestinians (and don't ask me if I think that Hamas and Hezbollah are the same, as you have done before) and in support of the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier near Gaza. There, too, Israel stated that the kidnapping was the reason for massive military action that killed hundreds and put thousands in a life-threatening situation.

Now, my question would be: do you think that the kidnapping of a soldier during a raid on Israeli territory is "within boundaries of human decency" or not?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 01:25 pm
from Ha'aretz...more here
Quote:
Amnesty: Israel broke int'l law in war

By The Associated Press

LONDON - In a report to be released Wednesday, Amnesty International accuses Israel of war crimes, saying it broke international law by deliberately destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure during its recent war with Hezbollah guerrillas.

The human rights group said initial evidence, including the pattern and scope of the Israeli attacks, high number of civilian casualties, widespread damage and statements by Israeli officials "indicate that such destruction was deliberate and part of a military strategy, rather than 'collateral damage.'"

Amnesty International, whose delegates monitored the fighting in both Israel and Lebanon, said Israel violated international laws banning direct attacks on civilians and barring indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks.

The group urged the United Nations to look into whether both combatants, Israel and Hezbollah, broke international law.

Amnesty International said it would address Hezbollah's attacks on Israel separately.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 01:35 pm
Quote:
Public opinion across Europe is heavily against the Israeli action, and although official responses have vacillated between understanding and condemnation, the mood is hardening.
Jane's Defense Weekly/foreign report
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 03:23 pm
I guess that Israel is not allowed to defend itself. In all the wars named, Israel was attacked first. Even in the 1956 conflict, there were a series of Egyptian actions against Israel preceding the latter's attack on the Suez Canal.

Conventions permit the use of cluster bombs provided they are not used indiscriminately on civilians. They were used on Hez forces that, unfortunately, hide behind civilians in civilian areas. It is unfair to expect Israel to forgo the use of certain weapons due to the Hez actions.

Israel dropped leaflets before attacking heavily populated areas containing Hez forces. Thus, some apartment buildings housing Hez may have been destroyed after the civilians were warned away. Were the riders on the buses blown up by Hez given warnings? Ha!

All Lebanon has to do is sit down in peace with Israel, as did Jordan and Egypt, to work out differences. Guess why this is not happening.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 03:30 pm
Israel did not "attack" the Suez canal in 1956. Anglo-French airborne forces occupied the canal, and Isrealis were told to remain outside of a zone ten miles from the canal--and they complied.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 03:35 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is that in this current conflict, I have not seen anything Israel has done that I would not deem within boundaries of human decency.


Well, in the current conflict I haven't seen Hezbollah or Hamas stage any suicide attacks either, if that's your yardstick for acting "within boundaries of human decency". Have you?

On the other hand, you know that Israel has stated the reason for the military action in Lebanon that left hundreds dead and thousands homeless was the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah claimed the kidnapping was in support of the Palestinians (and don't ask me if I think that Hamas and Hezbollah are the same, as you have done before) and in support of the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier near Gaza. There, too, Israel stated that the kidnapping was the reason for massive military action that killed hundreds and put thousands in a life-threatening situation.

Now, my question would be: do you think that the kidnapping of a soldier during a raid on Israeli territory is "within boundaries of human decency" or not?


I have never claimed that Hamas and Hezbollah were the same. I was pretty clear about that in my comments in the thread starter. I have inadvertently said one when I intended the other or named the wrong group in a particular situation/incident.

Just once, I wish you would demonstrate the decency to take my whole statement in context instead of plucking out one statement to set up as a strawman.

And just once I wish you and the others in the Anti-Israel group here would have the honesty to admit what this conflict was about. Israel never stated that the kidnapping was the reason for massive military action. The kidnapping triggered a very honoable attempt from Israel to rescue their soldiers--would you wish your German govenrment/military to do any less in that situation? The massive military action was the direct result of Hezbollah launching thousands of Syrian/Iranian furnished rockets into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. This is the one fact that you seem to want to ignore.

If Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers for the express purpose of a prisoner exchange as they claim, and did not harm the soldiers, I would not condone that as civilized behavior, but would not consider it to be outside the bounds of human decency. One would have to believe that Hezbollah gives a tinker's damn about any human life, however, which they have clearly demonstrated they do not, to believe that was their true motive. It further stretches Hezbollah's credibility that they had their rocket launchers in place and loaded with rockets ready to fire.

I do not see rocket attacks for the express purpose of injuring and killing civilians to be within the bounds of human decency.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 03:40 pm
Please provide evidence for the outrageous claim that Hezbollah had launched thousands of rockets into Israeli territory prior to the Israeli attack on the Lebanon.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 03:21:38