[desertdude]

The whole Quagmire is very easy to explain, Saudi does not like Iran and since Iran and Hamas are buddies. A friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[desertdude]

Renouncing my Israeli citizenship

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/renouncin ... nship.html

[Goober911]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, I am asking you what your threshold of acceptable is. Hamas is shooting missiles all over Israel with the express intent of killing civilians and if they'd killed 1,000 Jews they'd be celebrating in the streets.

So 1,000 people are dead as a direct result of the actions of a government they freely elected and you cry about it.

You know that not one more Palestinian would die if Hamas were to stop shooting missiles right now? That's all it takes for peace is for Hamas to stop waging war.

But they won't do that and you irrationally blame Israel for the result of Hamas' actions.

Utterly absurd.

Back up Bucky, my question was posted long ago.
To difficult for ya?

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So 1,000 people are dead as a direct result of the actions of a government

Yes and that would be the Israeli govt.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You know that not one more Palestinian would die if Hamas were to stop shooting missiles right now?

Which is an absolute and blantant lie, on average one Palestinian is killed every four days, including women and children is so called "peace time".

[BRAH]

desertdude desertdude:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So 1,000 people are dead as a direct result of the actions of a government

Yes and that would be the Israeli govt.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You know that not one more Palestinian would die if Hamas were to stop shooting missiles right now?

Which is an absolute and blantant lie, on average one Palestinian is killed every four days, including women and children is so called "peace time".

Hamas has no responsibility for those 1000 deaths? Hamas just rejected the latest Cease-Fire put forward by Egypt and The Palestinian Authority but that doesn't matter because once again you blame the Israeli Government while giving Hamas a free pass, you're such a Fucking Hypocrite.

[N_Fiddledog]

Media You May Have Missed

Top Secret Hamas Command Bunker in Gaza Revealed

"The idea that one of Hamas’ main command bunkers is located beneath Shifa Hospital in Gaza City is one of the worst-kept secrets of the Gaza war. So why aren’t reporters in Gaza ferreting it out? The precise location of a large underground bunker equipped with sophisticated communications equipment and housing some part of the leadership of a major terrorist organization beneath a major hospital would seem to qualify as a world-class scoop—the kind that might merit a Pulitzer, or at least a Polk.

So why isn’t the fact that Hamas uses Shifa Hospital as a command post making headlines? "

More at Link



Nick Casey, The Wall Street Journal's Middle East Correspondent, posted a photo to Twitter of a Hamas spokesman being interviewed on camera at Gaza's Al Shifa Hospital, which Hamas uses as a base. The photo has since been removed. Photo: Nick Casey / Twitter.

IDF Commander: Hamas Using UNRWA Gear to Build Tunnels

"The head of the IDF’s secretive Maglan commando unit said Hamas in Gaza is using UNRWA equipment to dig its longest tunnels under Israeli territory."

More at link

Israel Blames Hamas For Gaza Children's Deaths

"

Israel has accused Hamas of misfiring two rockets - one of which struck Gaza's main hospital and the other a refugee camp, killing nine children.

Palestinian officials had earlier suggested Israeli missiles were to blame for the strikes on the outpatient clinic at Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the nearby Al Shati refugee camp.

A Palestinian official said at least 10 people in total were killed in the strike on the camp, and a further 46 injured.

However, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) denied responsibility for the attacks and said it had not been operating in the area.

Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, an Israeli army spokesman, rubbished the claims as "ridiculous" and told Sky News: "The Israeli Defence Forces did not carry out any strikes in that area. Shifa Hospital was not a target, nor was the Shati Beach camp.

"Both of those locations were struck by terrorist rockets that were launched towards Israel and fell short."

The IDF also tweeted: "Since the beginning of the operation #IDF has documented approximately 200 rockets & mortars that landed short within #Gaza."





More at link from Sky News

More on that story from Algemeiner


IDF: Mortar round landed in empty UNRWA yard, did not kill Gazans

"An Israeli army inquiry into fighting at a UN facility in Beit Hanoun Thursday found that IDF mortars did not play a role in the killing of 16 people in the school courtyard, dismissing claims that the military was responsible for their deaths. "

More at Link



Media Watchdog Asks Why WSJ Reporters Deleted Twitter Photos Implicating Hamas in War Crimes

"Two reporters in Gaza for The Wall Street Journal have deleted photographs that implicate Hamas in war crimes, namely using the Al Shifa hospital as a military headquarters, and media watchdog CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, on Tuesday asked them why the posts were removed? "



http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/29/me ... ar-crimes/

14 Ways Hamas weaponizes women, children, animals

[N_Fiddledog]

Bits and Pieces



Almost 2000 Palestinians have died in Syrian conflict

Hamas government praises, encourages human shields

Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to build Terror Tunnels

UNRWA Gives Rockets to Hamas

For Second Time Rockets Found at Un School

Rockets found in UNRWA for third time



Have you ever heard of that program on Hamas's Al Aqsa TV called Pioneers of Tomorrow, or something like that. It's a show that uses live puppet rip-off versions of western child's icons like Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny to holler about killing the Jews and dying for Hamas (they say Allah) and such. The characters always wind up getting what they call "martyred".

$1:

Now it happened for real as the show’s chicken, Karkour, died, supposedly in an Israeli air strike.



According to his brother, who wrote an article for Electronic Intifada, Mohammed Alareer, who played a giant chicken, was the 26th member of the family to die in Israeli attacks. That tells us that this is, unsurprisingly, a Hamas clan.

“The death of my brother will come as a shock to the large numbers of children,” his brother wrote.

I doubt it.

Considering how often Al Aqsa kills off its crazy homicidal costumed characters, it would be more surprising to the kiddies if he didn’t get blown up at some point.

I’m sure they’ll just replace him with a giant skunk who will tell the kids to blow themselves up for Hamas. Meanwhile a giant chicken learned a lesson about telling little kids to die for Hamas.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreen ... ir-strike/

[xerxes]

$1:

Gaza myths and facts: what American Jewish leaders won't tell you
By Peter Beinart

If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale:Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel. American Jewish leaders use this narrative to justify their skepticism of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. But in crucial ways, it’s wrong. And without understanding why it’s wrong, you can’t understand why this war is wrong too. Let’s take the claims in turn.

Israel Left Gaza
It’s true that in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s more than 8,000 settlers from Gaza. (At America’s urging, he also dismantled four small settlements in the West Bank). But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha has detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland). “Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still
an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state. By 2004, when Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawal, the Road Map for Peace that he had signed with Mahmoud Abbas was going nowhere. Into the void came two international proposals for a two state
solution. The first was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, in which every member of the Arab League offered to recognize Israel if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. The second was the 2003 Geneva Initiative, in which former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators publicly agreed upon the details of a two state plan. As the political scientists Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman have detailed, Sharon feared the United States would get behind one or both plans, and pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines. “Only an Israeli initiative,” Sharon argued, “will keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives.”
Sharon saw several advantages to withdrawing settlers from Gaza. First, it would save money, since in Gaza Israel was deploying a disproportionately high number of soldiers to protect a relatively small number of settlers. Second, by (supposedly) ridding Israel of its responsibility for millions of Palestinians, the withdrawal would leave Israel and the West Bank with a larger Jewish majority. Third, the
withdrawal would prevent the administration of George W. Bush from embracing the Saudi or Geneva plans, and pushing hard—as Bill Clinton had done—for a Palestinian state.

Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, put it bluntly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a
discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Gaza withdrawal did not meet minimal Palestinian demands. Not even the most moderate Palestinian leader would have accepted a long-term arrangement in which Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza while maintaining control of the Strip’s borders and deepening Israeli control of the West Bank. (Even in the 2005, the year Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the overall settler population rose, in part because some Gazan settlers relocated to the West Bank).

In fact, Sharon’s advisors did not expect withdrawing Gaza’s settlers to satisfy the Palestinians. Nor did not they expect it to end Palestinian terrorism. Ehud Olmert, a key figure in the disengagement plan (and someone who himself later embraced Palestinian statehood), acknowledged that “terror will continue” after the removal of Gaza’s settlers. The key word is “continue.” Contrary to the American Jewish
narrative, militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of thesecond intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.

Hamas Seized Power
I can already hear the objections. Even if withdrawing settlers from Gaza didn’t give the Palestinians a state, it might have made Israelis more willing to support one in the future - if only Hamas had not seized power and turned Gaza into a citadel of terror. But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank
and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote - forty-five percent - but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament.

To the extent American Jewish leaders acknowledge that Hamas won an election (as opposed to taking power by force), they usually chalk its victory up to Palestinian enthusiasm for the organization’s 1988 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction (The president of the New York board of rabbis said recently that anyone who voted for Hamas should be considered a combatant, not a civilian). But that’s almost certainly not the reason Hamas won. For starters, Hamas didn’t make Israel’s destruction a major theme of its election campaign. In its 2006 campaign manifesto, the group actually fudged the question by saying only that it wanted an “independent state whose capital is Jerusalem” plus fulfillment of the right of return.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that by 2006 Hamas had embraced the two state solution. Only that Hamas recognized that running against the two state solution was not the best way to win Palestinian votes. The polling bears this out. According to exit polls conducted by the prominent Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, 75 percent of Palestinian voters—and a remarkable 60 percent of Hamas voters—said they
supported a Palestinian unity government dedicated to achieving a two state solution.

So why did Hamas win? Because, according to Shikaki, only fifteen percent of voters called the peace process their most important issue. A full two-thirds cited either corruption or law and order. It’s vital to remember that 2006 was the first Palestinian election in more than ten years. During the previous decade, Palestinians had grown increasingly frustrated by Fatah’s unaccountable, lawless and incompetent rule. According to exit polls, 85 percent of voters called Fatah corrupt. Hamas, by contrast, because it had never wielded power and because its charitable arm effectively delivered social services, enjoyed a reputation for competence and honesty. Hamas won, in other words, for the same reason voters all across the world boot out parties that have grown unresponsive and self-interested
after years in power. That’s not just Shikaki’s judgment. It’s also Bill Clinton’s. As Clinton explained in 2009, “a lot of Palestinians were upset that they [Fatah] were not delivering the services. They didn’t think it [Fatah] was an entirely honest operation and a lot of people were going to vote for Hamas not because they wanted terrorist tactics…but because they thought they might get better service, better government…They [also] won because Fatah carelessly and foolishly ran both its slates in too many parliamentary seats.”

This doesn’t change the fact that Hamas’ election confronted Israel and the United States with a serious problem. After its victory, Hamas called for a national unity government with Fatah “for the purpose of ending the occupation and settlements and achieving a complete withdrawal from the lands occupied [by Israel] in 1967, including Jerusalem, so that the region enjoys calm and stability during this phase.” But those final words—“this phase”—made Israelis understandably skeptical that Hamas had changed its long-term goals. The organization still refused to recognize Israel, and given that Israel had refused to talk to the PLO until it formally accepted Israel’s right to exist in 1993, it’s not surprising that Israel demanded Hamas meet the same standard. Still, Israel and the U.S. would have been wiser to follow the counsel of former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who called for Sharon to try to forge a long-term truce with Hamas. Israel could also have pushed Hamas to pledge that if Abbas—who remained PA president—negotiated a deal with Israel, Hamas would accept the will of the Palestinian people as expressed in a referendum, something the group’s leaders have subsequently promised to do.

Instead, the Bush administration—suddenly less enamored of Middle Eastern democracy--pressured Abbas to dissolve the Palestinian parliament and rule by emergency decree. Israel, which also wanted Abbas to defy the election results, withheld the tax and customs revenue it had collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf. Knowing Hamas would resist Abbas’ efforts to annul the election, especially in Gaza, where it was strong on the ground, the Bushies also began urging Abbas’ former national security advisor, a Gazan named Mohammed Dahlan, to seize power in the Strip by force. As David Rose later detailed in an extraordinary article in Vanity Fair, Condoleezza Rice pushed Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to buy weapons for Dahlan, and for Israel to allow them to enter Gaza. As General Mark Dayton, US security coordinator for the Palestinians, told Dahlan in November 2006, “We also need you to build up your forces in order to take on
Hamas.”

Unfortunately for the Bush administration, Dahlan’s forces were weaker than they looked. And when the battle for Gaza began, Hamas won it easily, and brutally. In response, Abbas declared emergency rule in the West Bank., So yes, members of Hamas did throw their Fatah opponents off rooftops. Some of that may have been payback because Dahlan was widely believed to have overseen the torture of Hamas members in the 1990s. Regardless, in winning the battle for Gaza, Hamas—which had already
shed much Israeli blood - shed Palestinian blood too.

But to suggest that Hamas “seized power” - as American Jewish leaders often do - ignores the fact that Hamas’ brutal takeover occurred in response to an attempted Fatah coup backed by the United States and Israel. In the words of David Wurmser, who resigned as Dick Cheney’s Middle East advisor a month after Hamas’ takeover, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen.

The Greenhouses
Israel responded to Hamas’ election victory by further restricting access in and out of Gaza. As it happens, these restrictions played a key role in explaining why Gaza’s greenhouses did not help it become Singapore. American Jewish leaders usually tell the story this way: When the settlers left, Israel handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians, hoping they would use them to create jobs. Instead, Palestinians tore them down in an anti-Jewish rage.

But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded
by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not.

The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating. This lost harvest was the most recognizable sign of Gaza’s declining fortunes and the biggest personal disappointment
during my mandate.”

The point of dredging up this history is not to suggest that Israel deserves all the blame for its long and bitter conflict with Hamas. It does not. Hamas bears the blame for every rocket it fires, and those rockets have not only left Israelis scarred and disillusioned. They have also badly undermined the Palestinian cause.

The point is to show—contrary to the establishment American Jewish narrative—that Israel has repeatedly played into Hamas’ hands by not strengthening those Palestinians willing to pursue statehood through nonviolence and mutual recognition. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when Sharon refused to seriously entertain the Arab and Geneva peace plans. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it refused to support a
Palestinian unity government that could have given Abbas the democratic legitimacy that would have strengthened his ability to cut a two state deal. And Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it responded to the group’s takeover of Gaza with a blockade that—although it has some legitimate security features—has destroyed Gaza’s economy, breeding the hatred and despair on which Hamas thrives.

In the ten years since Jewish settlers left, Israeli policy toward Gaza has been as militarily resourceful as it has been politically blind. Tragically,
that remains the case during this war. Yet tragically, the American Jewish establishment keeps cheering Israel on.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.608008

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So 1,000 people are dead as a direct result of the actions of a government

Yes and that would be the Israeli govt.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You know that not one more Palestinian would die if Hamas were to stop shooting missiles right now?

Which is an absolute and blantant lie, on average one Palestinian is killed every four days, including women and children is so called "peace time".

Hamas needs to accept the cease-fire or accept the responsibility for further attacks.

Period.

[andyt]

I think Hamas has played into Israeli hands just as much as vice versa. Israel doesn't want peace anymore than Hamas. They are two sides of the same coin, with the same objectives - push the enemy off the lands you desire.

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

$1:

By Peter Beinart
I am a Liberal; I wrote The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again,



Therefore, it must be, it has to be............ All Bush's fault.

[Goober911]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, I am asking you what your threshold of acceptable is. Hamas is shooting missiles all over Israel with the express intent of killing civilians and if they'd killed 1,000 Jews they'd be celebrating in the streets.

So 1,000 people are dead as a direct result of the actions of a government they freely elected and you cry about it.

You know that not one more Palestinian would die if Hamas were to stop shooting missiles right now? That's all it takes for peace is for Hamas to stop waging war.

But they won't do that and you irrationally blame Israel for the result of Hamas' actions.

Utterly absurd.

I do not take any satisfaction in the death toll.
Nor do I blame bad parenting for 10 children's deaths.
Yep, we do differ.
Oh yes peace, but no peace agreement. I assume you are OK with that?

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanks Xerxes. That was an interesting article. A lot of it I'd like to hear the side I favor argue, but it's good to know that's what's being said over on your side.

I'm not sure I understand why it's occupation if a country secures the border though. If that's what the left is requiring us to believe now, why wouldn't Egypt be co-occupiers with Israel? Do they not control their border with Gaza, or is their some key difference in the way they do it that makes one nation an occupier and the other not?

I'd like to hear the Condeleeza Rice version on whether or not she sparked the war between Hamas and Fatah. I'm sure "Abbas’ former national security advisor, a Gazan named Mohammed Dahlan" is a fine fellow, but let's investigate the possibility he may have a different opinion than Connie concerning what she was up to.

Same with the guy managing the greenhouses. He has an opinion about why the greenhouse deal failed, and apparently it wasn't his fault. What a shocker. But did I miss something there. Were the greenhouses destroyed or weren't they. It seems to me that might be a key little detail in deciding who is telling the truth on that one.

And yes I'm sure there are many reasons the Gazans voted in Hamas. There are many reasons the Americans voted in Obama for this second term, but ultimately they did it. Apparently polls show if the vote were held again Romney would win by a landslide. Too bad so sad, but if you didn't know what was coming in a second term after seeing the first one I lose whatever craps I have to give.

But again, thanks for the read. Good one.

[Goober911]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/3 ... &ir=Canada

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Goober911 Goober911:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/sean-hannity-russell-brand-response-geraldo_n_5637081.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

from the link

$1:

"You have seen what happened at the UN school today, Sean. We can no longer ignore what has happened," he said.

Rivera is right, we can no longer ignore what's happening. Hamas is now using UN schools to hide weapons and ammo.
Funny though, how the left-wing doesn't seem to have a problem with that either.