[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Goober911 Goober911:

So what purpose does this serve...

An Israeli-Egyptian blockade...

Maybe you should ask those mean old Egyptians why they're blockading Gaza and Hamas? Obviously, not just Israel is having problems with these people.

$1.5 billion buys a lot of love...or in this case, it buys a lot of blindness.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Palestinians, eh?

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Like I said, how many times do you have to watch Pee Wee Herman climab into the ring with Mike Tyson before you just wanna yell "Stay down FFS"?

I don't think Pee Wee is convinced that if he stays down that will be the end of it and all will be good tho.

Well I would counter that with the readily idenitifiable observation that there is no military option for them. A commitment to non-violence worked for Ghandi and King. Well, it actually didn't work out personally for either of them since they were both murdered, but you know what I mean.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not complaining at all. My opinion is that the people in the occupied territories or whatever they are called need to renounce violence. They are faced with a vastly superior adversary who can and will crush them. That is what is happening. It is a smack down.

Sounds sensible Zip. Here's one...tell him. Good luck with that.

Like I said, how many times do you have to watch Pee Wee Herman climab into the ring with Mike Tyson before you just wanna yell "Stay down FFS"?

Those of you who want Israle to go on doing what theya re doing, or who want the Palestinains do go on with what they are doing are just voting for teh status quo because this has been going on for decades with no significant change.

After this there will a period of quiet and then another uprising. And the band played on.

Early 1990's television had this scenario predicted quite accurately. Israel is the big guy who's just bored by the entire thing by this point.

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Palestinians, eh?

Possibly, but I doubt that is a major concern.

Egypt has been pretty open and honest, in terms of discussing Palestine/Israel (a rarity), and every time it is discussed it ultimately comes down to money.

Egypt doesn't have enough fiscal strength to help, and that is including the aid that will be lost if the border is opened.

They are damned no matter which course of action they take.

Edit to add:

If any nation should be stepping in to assist in this mess, it should be the Saudi's.

They have the resources to do it, but when the King hates the Palestinians as much as the Jews...I guess this is going swimmingly.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

I haven't read that view expressed in our Lame Stream Media = can you provide some links where they say what you claim?

Now there's a challenge. Brah accuses the mainstream of ignoring certain news. You want him to post the news they ignore. Can you not see the challenge there?

Here's something you can show. There are allegations that Hamas intimidates Reporters into publishing only news it wants to get out the way it wants it there. Want some links.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-thre ... civilians/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... d=noscript

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/2014/0 ... rters.html

Here's what the allegations look like, so you don't have to click.

$1:

About 30 Palestinians were killed and more than 120 injured in fierce clashes that erupted in the Gaza Strip recently between Hamas militiamen and members of Jund Ansar Allah, a hitherto unknown group that is affiliated with Al-Qaeda. According to eyewitnesses, many of the victims were innocent civilians, including women and children, who were caught in the crossfire.

Many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are referring to the events as a “real massacre.” They quote eyewitnesses as saying that during the fighting, Hamas militiamen stopped ambulances and “executed” men whom they suspected belonged to Jund Ansar Allah.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have yet to publish reports about the bloody events; Hamas has banned journalists and human rights activists from entering Rafah or interviewing the wounded in hospitals.

Despite the disturbing eyewitness accounts, the United Nations Security Council did not meet to condemn the alleged massacre. Belgium, France and Sweden did not even bother to respond.

One of the reasons why the international community prefers to turn a blind eye to such events is the absence of an anti-Israel angle to the story.

As far as the mainstream media in the US and Europe is concerned, an Israeli soldier who, for example, confiscates a mobile phone from a Palestinian at a checkpoint is more important than a story than the death of 30 Palestinians and the wounding of more than 120 others.

For many Western journalists, Hamas firing rockets at a mosque is obviously not such a big story, especially in light of the fact that no Israeli soldier was involved.

As a veteran foreign journalist based in Jerusalem explained, “It’s much easier to sell to the editor an anti-Israel story than one that criticizes Hamas or Fatah.”

The international media cannot complain that its representatives are not permitted to enter the Gaza Strip. Many foreign journalists are today free to travel to the Gaza Strip either through Israel or Egypt.

Ironically, Israel allows more journalists to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing than Egypt does. In fact, many Western journalists who attempted to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah terminal were turned back by Egyptian authorities.

The problem is that foreign journalists who manage to cross into the Gaza Strip face many restrictions imposed by the Hamas government. Local facilitators hired by foreign journalists are also under scrutiny by the Hamas government. That is why they are careful not to bring the dirty laundry out by telling the foreign media about things that could reflect negatively on Hamas.

Many of the reports about what is happening in the Gaza Strip are written by journalists who sit in offices in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Their reports are almost always based in what they are told by their local stringers and facilitators. Besides being exposed to intimidation, a large number of these locals are actually affiliated with Hamas and serve as the movement’s unofficial spokesmen.

Some foreign journalists justify their behavior by arguing that they are too scared to report anything that might anger Hamas. They express fear that they would not be able to return to the Gaza Strip if they published such stories.

Journalists who are afraid to report the truth should not be covering a conflict like the Israeli-Arab one. They should go back to their editors and demand that they be reassigned to cover sports or the environment. As long as such journalists continue to operate in the region, Hamas will feel safe to bomb as many mosques as it wants and to kill as many Palestinians as it wants.

Some members of Jund Ansar Allah, including its leader and founder, Abdel Latif Moussa, blew themselves up in the midst of civilians, killing and wounding many people.

Hamas’s security forces fired rockets at a mosque in Rafah where scores of members of Jund Ansar Allah had barricaded themselves. Later, these security forces fired rocket-propelled grenades at several houses in the town.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/755/t ... atrocities

And here's some support from Israeli media on that story in the first paragraph you most likely haven't heard of.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protecti ... aza-369331

So yeah, the kind of stuff you haven't heard are all the massacres and Hamas rockets falling short wiping out hospital courtyards and such. The mainstream might make the odd, side of the mouth comment, but you don't get the whole story with the kind of stress such stories deserve.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the problem. It's straight from the horse's mouth. More specifically straight from Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal's mouth.

It's fine to say, all Israel has to do is just negotiate, but you have to ask who you're negotiating with, and is that possible. I imagine you Neville Chamberlain fans out there believe it's not a problem, but others among us are skeptical.

Let Meshaal tell you himself that there can be no negotiations without first meeting his preconditions. But say you're Israel, and you do a Neville to get past that first roadblock, the next one is he will not accept your existence. He tells you so at about 2:20. How do you "negotiate" with that? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody? Neville?

[desertdude]

Yup Israel defending itself again.

( As per mod request ) Warning 18+ watch at your own discretion.



Both the effectiveness of the Iron Dome Missile system ( just like its famous predecessor the Patriot from the first gulf war ) and Hamas missiles have been exaggerated.

Israel wont release any figures as to how well their system works i.e missiles intercepted, some expert says as low as 5% of the time, Israel claims 85%. Nor will they release how many of those Hamas over sized bottle rockets have actually hit Israeli cities or the damage done.

Israel says 2500+ rockets have been fired and only two casualties ( One Thai TFW and one Palestinian bedouin, the third was from mortar fire close to the border ) So Israel fired 2500 in return to intercept them ? That must be one hell of a shit show going on in the sky, but yet Israel insists its airports are safe for International travel and threw a hissy fit when flights were banned and obediently US withdrew. If a hundred birds show up at an airport its considered dangerous for aircraft. Something doesn't add up.

http://www.jta.org/2014/07/23/news-opin ... -scientist

[desertdude]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's the problem. It's straight from the horse's mouth. More specifically straight from Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal's mouth.

It's fine to say, all Israel has to do is just negotiate, but you have to ask who you're negotiating with, and is that possible. I imagine you Neville Chamberlain fans out there believe it's not a problem, but others among us are skeptical.

Let Meshaal tell you himself that there can be no negotiations without first meeting his preconditions. But say you're Israel, and you do a Neville to get past that first roadblock, the next one is he will not accept your existence. He tells you so at about 2:20. How do you "negotiate" with that? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody? Neville?

I'm going to break tradition and directly address you.

There is nothing of the sort of what you alledge, its in video right in front of you, you posted it.

I'll post the transcript of those bits for you even

$1:

CHARLIE ROSE, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: That is exactly what Secretary Kerry has asked to be negotiated after the cease-fire, to have a week of cease-fire. So you could do that.

But you are asking that to be done as a precondition to the negotiations.

MESHAAL (through translator): This is not a prerequisite. Life is not a prerequisite. Life is a right for our people in Palestine.

Can't argue with that. Life is a right for everyone and the siege has been squeezing the life out of Gaza for the last 7 years.

The other bit

$1:

MESHAAL (through translator): I can't coexist with occupation.

ROSE: Without occupation, you can coexist?

(CROSSTALK)

MESHAAL (through translator): I'm ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians and with the Arabs and non-Arabs and with those who agree with my ideas and those who disagree with them.

However, I do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers, and those who...

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: It's one thing to say you want to coexist with the Jews. It's another thing you want to coexist with the state of Israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of Israel? Do you want to represent -- do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MESHAAL (through translator): No. I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers. I do coexist with other...

(CROSSTALK)

Nothing wrong with that either, no body would agree to with an occupying force and very rarely have.

$1:

ROSE: I'm assuming they're no longer occupiers. At that point, do you want to coexist and recognize their right to exist, as they would recognize your right to exist?
MESHAAL (through translator): When we have a Palestinian state, then the Palestinian state will decide on its policies.

Something the Israelis have never said, that they are willing to recognize a Palestinian state, they just keep banging on about how the Palestinians must recognize Israel, something that has been done a dozen times, including hamas in the past as stated earlier in this thread and doesn't deny it here either. Once a Palestinian state is formed, the people will decide. And that has been answered in the affirmative already.

In a nut shell, Willing to recognize Israel, yes. Once Israel stops occupying Palestine and reciprocates with recognizing a Palestinian state as well.

[N_Fiddledog]

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

They have the resources to do it, but when the King hates the Palestinians as much as the Jews...I guess this is going swimmingly.

Okay...and why do the Saudis hate the Palestinians just as much as the Jews do?

Do you think perhaps that the Palestinians are the common denominator here?

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

I'm going to break tradition and directly address you.

Your choice. I reply.

You watched the same video I did. You came to a different conclusion. Fair enough.

Here's somebody who agrees with what I heard.

$1:

So there you have it. The leader of Hamas says, point blank, it does not want a two-state solution. Yet scores of liberal commentators continue to make arguments like this: “We have to get a solution. And it has to be a two-state solution. And it has to be basically encouraged, if not imposed, I think, from without.”

This is an example of what social scientists call “motivated reasoning.” It refers to when people hold to a false belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this instance, the Hamas charter and the Hamas leader don’t accept Israel’s right to exist. And yet liberals don’t seem to care. They appear to be content to live in world made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust. A world of make believe. And so in the context of Israel’s war with Hamas, they continue to revert to arguments that simply don’t apply–for example, arguing that Israel needs to “end the occupation” despite the fact that Israel completely withdrew from Gaza nearly a decade ago.

Israel, on the other hand, has to live and survive in reality. Israelis know the nature of the enemy they face–implacable, committed, ruthless, malevolent. Given all this, and given that Israel itself is a nation of extraordinary moral and political achievements, you might think that the United States government would be fully supportive of the Jewish state in its war against Hamas. But you would be wrong.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/ ... the-truth/

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

Something the Israelis have never said, that they are willing to recognize a Palestinian state,

Israel has accepted the possibility of two state solutions in the past.

http://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-is ... e-solution

The current problem, and it is in flux is...

$1:

Even more importantly, Hamas' actions in essentially closing down international air traffic into Israel, considerably reduces the prospect of any two-state solution. Israel will now be more reluctant than ever to give up military control over the West Bank, which is even closer to Ben Gurion Airport than is Gaza.

Were Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank—as distinguished from its civilian settlements deep in the West Bank—it would risk the possibility of a Hamas takeover. That is precisely what happened when Israel removed both its civilian settlements and its military presence in Gaza. Hamas took control, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian targets and have now succeeded in stopping international air traffic into and out of Israel.

Israel could not accept the risk of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and the resulting Hamas rocket attacks at the nearby Ben Gurion Airport. It may still be possible to create a two-state solution whereby Israel withdraws its civilian settlers from most of the West Bank and agrees to land swaps for areas that now contain large settlement blocks. But Israel will have to retain military control over its security borders, which extend to the Jordan River. It will also have to maintain a sufficient military presence to assure that what happened in Gaza does not happen in the West Bank. These military realities do not have to exist forever. Israel's military presence could be reduced if the Palestinian Authority were to maintain effective control over the West Bank and prevent terrorists from using that area to send rockets and terrorists into Israel.

The new reality caused by Hamas' shutting down of international air travel to and from Israel would plainly justify an Israeli demand that it maintain military control over the West Bank in any two-state deal. The Israeli public would never accept a deal that did not include a continued Israeli military presence in the West Bank. They have learned the tragic lesson of Gaza and they will not allow it to be repeated in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, however, is unlikely to accept such a condition, though it should. This will simply make it far more difficult for an agreement to be reached.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4467/ ... el-airport

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Okay...and why do the Saudis hate the Palestinians just as much as the Jews do?

Do you think perhaps that the Palestinians are the common denominator here?

Not really, and quite frankly I thought you were smarter than that, but, you could just be playing possum with me, so...

The Saudi's hate democracy.

If multiple Arab states become democratic, and even worse, a democratic Muslim nation living in peace with a democratic Jewish nation...the royals are going to have a problem.

Long story short, if a miracle happens and Palestine and Israel achieve a lasting peace, there is going to be a major internal issue for a lot of the surrounding Arab nations. The only real downside to that, is that, so far, the replacements for the current crop of rulers have been significantly worse than their predecessors.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

Something the Israelis have never said, that they are willing to recognize a Palestinian state,

Yeah, like this guy would never lie to the Western media.

[desertdude]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Israel has accepted the possibility of two state solutions in the past.

http://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-is ... e-solution

Key phrase: possibility of two state solutions, as in yeah..maybe. but, still never out right put it on record that yes Israel will recognize Palestine. The link talks about Israel accepting UN resolutions, which is meaningless, at last count Israel has or is rejecting or ignoring 60 UN resolutions . So that point in null and void.

Talks about Camp David 2000 which was basically. Let Israel keep its settlements ( i.e stolen land ) and if it carves up and ghetto-izez the west bank into smaller blocks, sorry too bad nothing we can do about it. It would have many small pockets of land surrounded completely by settlements in many cases. So shame on Palestinians for demanding full sovereignity of West bank.

Also asked for was a very soft and toned down version for the right of return for the refugees if they choose to or accept compensation, but they refugees would be highly discouraged from going back and only limited numbers allowed in, that is if they wanted to go back in the first place. Israel outright denied it claiming the refugee problem was of not their doing, hence they should not have to deal with.

Israel also wanted to maintain military presence inside and on Palestinian borders and as well as use its air space as it own, wonder how many sovereign nations would accept that.

So yeah shame on the Palestinians for not accepting almost everything exactly the way it was. The biggest thing they might get, would be, maybe a token title of a country.

Yeah so Israel is willing to accept a two sate solution as long as both the states are theirs

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The current problem, and it is in flux is...

$1:

Even more importantly, Hamas' actions in essentially closing down international air traffic into Israel, considerably reduces the prospect of any two-state solution. Israel will now be more reluctant than ever to give up military control over the West Bank, which is even closer to Ben Gurion Airport than is Gaza.

Were Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank—as distinguished from its civilian settlements deep in the West Bank—it would risk the possibility of a Hamas takeover. That is precisely what happened when Israel removed both its civilian settlements and its military presence in Gaza. Hamas took control, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian targets and have now succeeded in stopping international air traffic into and out of Israel.

Israel could not accept the risk of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and the resulting Hamas rocket attacks at the nearby Ben Gurion Airport. It may still be possible to create a two-state solution whereby Israel withdraws its civilian settlers from most of the West Bank and agrees to land swaps for areas that now contain large settlement blocks. But Israel will have to retain military control over its security borders, which extend to the Jordan River. It will also have to maintain a sufficient military presence to assure that what happened in Gaza does not happen in the West Bank. These military realities do not have to exist forever. Israel's military presence could be reduced if the Palestinian Authority were to maintain effective control over the West Bank and prevent terrorists from using that area to send rockets and terrorists into Israel.

The new reality caused by Hamas' shutting down of international air travel to and from Israel would plainly justify an Israeli demand that it maintain military control over the West Bank in any two-state deal. The Israeli public would never accept a deal that did not include a continued Israeli military presence in the West Bank. They have learned the tragic lesson of Gaza and they will not allow it to be repeated in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, however, is unlikely to accept such a condition, though it should. This will simply make it far more difficult for an agreement to be reached.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4467/ ... el-airport

All this is basically just lots of excuses trying to justify the illegal military occupation by Israel and nothing less can be expected from Gatestone Institute either.