Israel hits Palestine again while West Cheers Them On
-
Originally posted by Arkansaw:
In any case we should be siding with Israel, the roots of SAF lies in IDF anyway
lol
-
In any case we should be siding with Israel, the roots of SAF lies in IDF anyway
What if IDF attacks SAF?
-
Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling
The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets.
Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.
To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave.
They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.
There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered.
How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.
The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution.
The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.
Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out.
They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.
It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.
The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.
Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future."
Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.
The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."
Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply.
And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.
The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
But if that's the case, then the justification for Operation Cast Lead is a lie, because the Israeli leadership themselves admitted that it was planned more than six months before.
What's wrong with having a plan? Israel can anticipate Hamas' action.
The bottom line is for Hamas to not fire the rockets so that Israel can shelve her plan indefinitely.
-
One man's freedom fighter, another's terrorist.
Hamas, in the eyes of liberals, Palestinians etc, is a freedom fighter organization which seeks to liberate Palestine and overthrow the 'illegal' Israeli entity. And yet, due to its violent means, it is considered to be a terrorist by its adversaries. This is entirely normal. There are two sides in any story.
I bet the British Empire would have considered George Washington a terrorist and a traitor to the British Empire for instigating the armed rebellion against it. Wouldn't Imperial Japan consider Lim Bo Seng and his fellow resistance fighters from Force 136 a terrorist group for their attacks against them? How about Mandela, Ghandhi, CCP etc. History is ripe of such examples.
Its all a matter of perspective. There are no true terrorists in history. Just ideological rivals armed with a gun, F-16s and perhaps a ticking time bomb strapped on the chest...
A real tragedy. It seems despite lessons from human history, we never seem to learn that violence is often a short term solution for a long term problem. It will never create a lasting resolution. Only dialogue can.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling
The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets.
Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.
To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave.
They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.
There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered.
How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.
The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution.
The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.
Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out.
They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.
It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.
The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.
Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future."
Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.
The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."
Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply.
And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.
The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."
About Johann Hari:
Since he began work as a journalist, Johann has been attacked in print by the National Review, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, John Pilger, Daniel Craig, Peter Oborne, Private Eye, the Socialist Worker, Cristina Odone, Jon Gaunt, the Spectator, Andrew Neil, Mark Steyn, the British National Party, Medialens, al Muhajaroun and Richard Littlejohn.
'Prince' Turki Al-Faisal, the Saudi Ambassador to Britain, has accused Johann of "waging a private jihad against the House of Saud". (He's right). Johann has been called 'Maoist' by Nick Cohen, "Stalinist" by Noam Chomsky, 'Horrible Hari' by Niall Ferguson, "an uppity little queer" by Bruce Anderson, 'a drug addict' by George Galloway, "fat" by the Dalai Lama and "a cunt" by Busted.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
What's wrong with having a plan? Israel can anticipate Hamas' action.
The bottom line is for Hamas to not fire the rockets so that Israel can shelve her plan indefinitely.
Aiya its like which came first chicken or the egg.The bottom line is for Hamas to not fire the rockets so that Israel can shelve her plan indefinitely.
And another would reply that Hamas wouldnt have fired rockets if Israel had opened up Gaza borders.
And another would reply...
In the end, it would lead back to the 1940s when Palestine was partioned into Israel and Arab Palestine by the West.
Until the legality of the Partition can be resolved, this conflict will not end.
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
Aiya its like which came first chicken or the egg.The bottom line is for Hamas to not fire the rockets so that Israel can shelve her plan indefinitely.
And another would reply that Hamas wouldnt have fired rockets if Israel had opened up Gaza borders.
And another would reply...
In the end, it would lead back to the 1940s when Palestine was partioned into Israel and Arab Palestine by the West.
Until the legality of the Partition can be resolved, this conflict will not end.
Aiya, initial action counts, not retaliatory action.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Aiya, initial action counts, not retaliatory action.
Haha I dont get you. :) -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I don't support taking away palestinian territory to create a state for jews.
to the arab, israel may be taking the original land from the palestinian.
but think for a moment...
the arab demand the destruction of israel in 1948. to any race (israel in this case), this is justified for a offensive gihad(survival resistance) against their enemy(the arab world).
and know what, israel prevail from 1948. and enlarge their land in the 1967 6 six day war.
IMO, it is justified for all the defeated enemy (iran,iraq, jordan,syria,egypt, turkey?) in 1948 war to be occupied by israel. but israel is a small nation to occupy a vast territory as such.
so whether you like it or not, IDF is there to stay. you cant change their actions, neither can i . we only talk for discussion . lol.
in war, all is bullshit, fight only for the person next to you.
-
Originally posted by NEWater:
This statement is laughable as heck.
These comics are irrelevant to my statement. Unlike Arabs, the Christians don't bear grudges against a people for an event that happened 2,000 years ago.
-
Arabs can declare holy war anytime they want
they end up butt-raped by the Israelis all the time
you'd have thought they'd learn their lesson by now, but nooo. idiocy prevails in the land of these sand-hoppers
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
Haha I dont get you. :)Don't get it and u still laugh?
Think ! Why did Israel close the border?
No, shall I say, explain why.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
If you regard Hamas as terrorist organisation, then what about Irgun?
Do you consider Irgun a terrorist organisation?
Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[2][3], The Times (of London) [4][5], the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry[6], and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill[7], Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.[8] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
Menachem
Begin (help·info) (Hebrew: ×žÖ°× Ö·×—Öµ×� בְּגִין, Polish: MieczysÅ‚aw Biegun, Russian: Менахем Вольфович Бегин, 16 August 1913 – 9 March
1992) was the sixth prime minister of the
State of Israel. Before the establishment of the state, he was
the leader of the Irgun, playing a central role in
Jewish resistance to the British Mandate of
Palestine.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
xtreyier, what are your views on Irgun?
Menachem Begin, was a leader of Irgun and later a prime minister of Israel.
I'm especially interested in the Deir Yassin Massacre because it was committed by the jews. However, this was not the beginning of the massacres in 1948.
In January of 1948, armed Arabs ambushed a Jewish convoy on the way to a beseiged settlement, Etzion Bloc. All 35 Jews were murdered and their bodies mutilated. There were many more massacres commited by Arabs against Jews way back in the 1920s and 1930s.
It was the many massacres of Jews over the years that formed the motivation for the Deir Yassin Massacre.
-
Will peace come when the Isrealis learn to throw stones?
Proportionate response.
-
The latest agression by the IDF has been a continous and seemingly endless crusade by the zionist entity since its inauguration from 1948. We have to address this topic of discussion from an intellectual perspective. To the reader my previous two statements may reflect a paradoxical contradiction, however in no light have I ever and will ever sanction atrocities towards innocent civilians, the elderly, women and children on both sides of the fence. The media dosage which we Singaporeans are exposed to is a parrot of western media coverage and journalism which is heavily biased towards the Zionists. Time and time again American media portrays the Israelis as the victims of homemade bombs through various wordplays, subtlety, selective ommision of information and shallow regard of the history of this conflict. We cannot view this conflict as a mere Palestinian-Israeli conflict but more as globalised conflict between two opposing sides. This statement is made in due consideration to its effect and consequences on other parts of our world. Such effects include radicalisation of misled and impressionable Muslims whom are lured and taunted into the realm of wrongful aggression against misperceived oppresors as well as global oil prices which affect our pockets. Israel have time and time again violated U.N resolutions and in selfish defence of its zionist cause, commited atrocities in utter defiance of the world community. The malevolent nature of its extremist jewish ring wing influences its public policies to a larger extent, but extraordinarily sublime to the massses. Its meticulous but zealous manipulation of the world has tremendous consequences for us all. These Zionist will forseeably be the fundamental causation of a seemingly impending world war which will cause us all misery and carnage. Even in our peaceful Singapore will not be spared from the overarching consequences of the Israelis zionist tirade. The world desperately needs a leader who is able to tame this Zionst entity in the most amicable manner possible lest its very uncontrollable dynamics manifests near doom for humankind on the whole. The Arab-Israeli or Muslim-Judaist discord has to be nipped in the bud. The Arab Initiative proposed by King Abdullah to surrender its unlawful occupation from its preemptive strike of 1967 of its neighbours in return for peace and harmony with the larger Muslim world surprisingly commanded the support of the typically disparate Arab entities. The initiative was a good first start. Now it is time to second it.
-
The sad fact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such that no end seems in sight. Greater Israeli is the penultimate objective of many a hawkish Israeli lawmaker. This entails the destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque in the vicinity of Temple mount whereby radical Jews believe is the exact site of the sacred temple of King Solomon. This is a fact and a fearsome one too. It is perceived by the Zionists as their biblical right vis a vis Theodore Herzl's quote of the Israelites claim to pre 1948 Palestine. The global repercussions of any attempt to destroy the third holiest shrine of the Muslim faith, the Al-Aqsa mosque, is shuddering. Jewish terrorist of far right organizations have time and time again endeavoured to commit this malicious task. The consequential scenario would speculatively, probably be as such (God Forbid): Muslim countries in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Southasia mobilizes their armies and defence forces. A conventional attack on Tel Aviv would be inevitable and the U.S would immediately come to Israel's Aid. Alliances and allegances would be formed, albeit a more even and proportional one than the allies vs axis of WWII. Israel, with due consideration of its zealous and disproportionate nature of striking at its enemy would employ its nuclear armourmant to strike at its opponents forcing a similar retaliation by nuclear armed Muslim nations such as Iran and Pakistan. Knowing the Zionists only too well, the Zionist may even deliberate strikes of the Muslim's holier shrines as a means of striking fear into its opponents. The U.S flexes its nuclear muscle, Nuclear begets Nuclear and the World goes back to the Middle Ages.With this, other nations may take the opportunity to settle old discords via proxies. This is all because of a particular entity's claim to Yahweh given rights to a small group of people, in full oblivion of the rest of its 'creation'.
-
hmm i saw the news, the air strike quite nice, sorry if it offends anyone, but i've never seen artillery strikes before
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
They consider Hamas as legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation and oppression.
How to capture them and turn them over?
That is impossible.
Poh, is the killing of innocents, as well as placing your own fellow citizens - innocent men, women and children - in the line of fire, legitimate means to achieve a political aim of sovereignity claims?
Worse still, use a peaceful religion to gain sympathisers, hurting that religion and its moderate followers?
Do not besmirch the good name of freedom fighters. They are brave men and women who place themselves in the line of fire, or draw fire, but never allowing the people whom they are attempting to liberate be IN THE FIRE!
Hamas are just pure barbaric animals and anybody or nation who supports them are equally barbarians. Some of the more moderate Arab states had condemn Hamas.
Poh, do you support the Hamas and give legitimacy to their ideology? Because if you do, you frighten me, just as the more radical Indonesians muslims frightens me.
Killing of innocents, espacially infidels - not only jews but everyone else of us, is justifiable to achieve their religious or political aim.
You are a known hater of one man in the ruling party. Are you going to use such means, putting us your fellow citizens, in the line of fire to achieve your aims?
-
It is known facts that Israel has invaded and occupied lands of neighoubring countries.
That's why the people retaliate and being resistance to Israel occupation.
Is this occupation justified just because the victims are muslim? No
Is it justifiable for Israel army to launch mass attack to neighbouring countries just because the people retaliate their invasion? depends on each individual.
Israel problem is actually a plot from US. US want to control this oil producing area but they don't have the moral ground to attack and colonize these area, that's why they build a strong war machine agent there, to control the nearby countries, at any cost.
Israel conflict with other arab nations will be reduced when following occur:
1) When the oil storage finish, or if the world has discover a cheaper alternative of oil
2) When the American Jews no longer control the elite and the thinking of US government
3) Of coz also if Israel return the land that they occupied during many wars in the past. Or Arabians surrender to Israel, give away their lands and migrate to other place. -
Get your facts straight!
Very briefly:-
1. Jews and arabs lived in palestine right up to 1948
2. Palestine, part which became Jordan now, was occupied by our ex-colonnial masters England in the 18th century.
3. England promised the jews statehood in the 1920s.
4. 1948, UN declared Israel statehood, majority voted by nations around the world, except arab states who against worldwide opinion, vowed vengence on the tiny state .
5. Israel took back jews whom were not wanted in Europe, or subjected to living in slums around the world, turn the desert and swamp state to a thriving green land again.
5. In 1967, the arab states combined and attacked Israel, a tiny nation. Israel stood alone again as it did during the holocaust, but this time routed the muslim army within a few days, and seize control of lands the arabs could not defend, so as to prevent further attacks on Israeli citizens.
There are more, and i seek that you open your mind, understand objectively before forming your opinions. It doesnt matter if you side with anyone or don't, but be informed and not be used as a tool by others.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Get your facts straight!
Very briefly:-
1. Jews and arabs lived in palestine right up to 1948
2. Palestine, part which became Jordan now, was occupied by our ex-colonnial masters England in the 18th century.
3. England promised the jews statehood in the 1920s.
4. 1948, UN declared Israel statehood, majority voted by nations around the world, except arab states who against worldwide opinion, vowed vengence on the tiny state .
5. Israel took back jews whom were not wanted in Europe, or subjected to living in slums around the world, turn the desert and swamp state to a thriving green land again.
5. In 1967, the arab states combined and attacked Israel, a tiny nation. Israel stood alone again as it did during the holocaust, but this time routed the muslim army within a few days, and seize control of lands the arabs could not defend, so as to prevent further attacks on Israeli citizens.
There are more, and i seek that you open your mind, understand objectively before forming your opinions. It doesnt matter if you side with anyone or don't, but be informed and not be used as a tool by others.
What facts? More like shades of gray.
-
Dear Xtreyer, I would like to point out several inconsistencies and ambiguity in your facts. 1) Palestine leading up to Israel's inauguration in 1948 was occupied by majoritily Arabs with a mere 5% Jewish populace. In modern history, the Jews never really did governed the land of Palestine. It has been changing hands between the Muslims and Christians. 3) The Jews were promised sovereignty of Palestine long before 1920 and this was ratified with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. (A controversial condition attached to this was Chaim Weizmann's talents in producing accetone which is greatly required for Britain's war efforts). 4) Ben Gurion, A Zionist declared Israeli independence himself. It was only in 1949 that U.N gave it official recognition. Only 13 nations initially gave Israel de jure recognation, not the entire world. 5) It was not Israel which was not wanted in other parts of the world minus Germany but it is their utmost desire to claim their so-called biblical right to Palestine. 6)In 1967, Israel was the entity which conducted preemptive strikes on its Arab neighbour which caught them in surprise. The Arab nations attacked only in retaliation. It was only the Yom Kippur War which the Arab nations combined to go to war with Israel. So do not attempt to boast writings of a pathetic shot at scholarly analysis when you can't even get your facts and dates right. As I mention unconditional support for this Zionist cause will cause mayhem for you and your family and all of us.
-
I personally feel Hamas is a legitimate (it won the elections) freedom fighter organization.
Hamas = Mandela, Lim Bo Seng, George Washington, CCP etc
Note all of the above used force and violence to liberate their country from foreign/illegal occupation.
If Hmas succeeds in liberating Palestine from the Isrealis Occupation, it would be lauded as a determined resistnace fighter groups. If it fails, it will merely join the annals of history as a violent bunch of fanatics.
I think George Washington killed more British than Hamas ever did to the Israelis :)
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Comparing the present Gaza strip to the Warsaw Ghetto of the 1940s will take a leap of speculative imagination.In the 1940s, the Warsaw Ghetto was purposefully built by the Nazis to isolate the Jewish community as part of a FINAL SOLUTION to exterminate German CITIZENS of Jewish descent.
The Gaza Strip was governed by an ELECTED HAMAS government that decided to unilaterally evict themselves from the Palestinian "Central" Government, and UNILATERALLY declared themselves a separate entity from the West Bank.
The HAMAS government continued to allow itself to be used as a proxy of Iran, and execute the Iranian determined destruction of the State of Israel by all means.
The present condition - that the residents of the Gaza Strip have now found themselves in - was self-imposed when they did not reject the HAMAS-Iranian agenda but embraced it.
Was Israel singularly responsible to wall the residents into the Gaza Strip, or have the Egyptians also similarly been alarmed by the HAMAS-Iranian agenda - when the Gaza Strip share a common border with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsular, and the Egyptian has similarly restricted border crossings ?
The economic situation and living condition in the Gaza Strip is brought about by the Palestinians residents themselves in their continued stupidity in supporting the HAMAS-Iranian agenda, instead of working as a unified community to confront Israel based on their own Palestinian Agenda.
Really? Gaza has frequently been described as an open air prison with 1.5 million prisoners. Since 2007, Israel has restricted medical supplies, food and fuel from reaching the Gazans, destroying all semblence of a proper life. In addition, Israeli settlers regularly harass the Palestinians with the protection of the IDF.
How is using F-16s against homemade rockets and bombs not like molotov cocktails against Panzer tanks? In fact, today's comparison is even more ridiculous.
I agree that any nation has the right to self-defence, naturally Israel as well. And that includes Iran. But, if it continues oppressing the Palestinian people, expanding settlements that harrass Palestinians, restricting medical supplies, food and fuel, putting up an obscene amount of checkpoints that make life horribly inconvenient (and thats an understatement) for the Gazans, then why should the Gazans take it lying down? Tell me, does Israel deserve retaliation from its inhumane behaviour?
If Egypt blocks its border with Gaza, then it is complicit with the inhumane bloodshed. Thats why Egyptian flags were also burned during riots. Even though Palestinians are Arabs, the other Arab countries refuse to treat them like brothers. So such for the Islamic brotherhood.