Israel vs Palestine

[Volourn]

"Hamas doesn't care about Palestinians? Sez who?"
 

Sez Hamas. Repeatedly. Do you anything about Hamas or just pretend to? They LOATHE  the typical Palestinian.

[Gromnir]

http://t.co/zShZb0q1Xe

 

seeing as how espoused goals o' hamas is to eliminate israel and that they believe that no part o' palestine can be relinquished as, in its entirety, plaestine is a holy possession o' the muslim people, am wondering  to whom this statement is properly applied:

 

"It bothers me that these people could wipe out a nation and manipulate perception into making themselves the good guys."

 

sounds more like hamas goals and tactics. and israel clear don't wanna wipe out the people o' gaza or even hamas. the arab casualties in gaza would be far higher if israel were aiming for genocide (which is functional impossible too as in spite of israeli military capabilities, is no way they can eleimitate the arabs.) israel want to hurt hamas, but they don't actual wanna eliminate them. a weak and friendless hamas is easy to counter. israel doesn't want another power vacuum in gaza. last time there was such a political void, hamas came to power. israel is going in to bloody hamas.

 

conversely, the arab nations bordering israel has literally tried to exterminate the jews from so-called palestine multiple times. the US, recognizing the promises made to the jews by the British in 1917 and the UN in 1947, has given support to israel (albeit lukewarm support at times) its only dependable and constant ally in the region. to abandon israel to the tender mercies o' the arabs o' the region would be seen as a profound act o' bad faith. 

 

as for the media, we think far too many news outlets is caught up in the tragedy o' civilian casualties given that this is exactly the fight hamas were provoking. news outlets appear to be going out o' there way to downplay the misdeeds o' hamas while lamenting the loss o' innocent human life in gaza. 

 

perhaps your real question should be why isn't the arab powers acting or concerned? the west knows better than to get involved save for sending peace negotiators and giving melodramatic speeches at the UN. is far more curious why the arab powers is ignoring the "plight" of hamas. why don't the arab powers care 'bout all those dead palestinian children in gaza?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

That's easy imo. Cut off the ~3 Billion in annual "aid" and technology and they will fold like a beach chair.

and that is one o' the problems... and why we asked which western powers. US only has one real ally in the middle east: israel. not only that, most amaericans, even with mounting casualties in gaza, support the idf actions.  so, take US sanctions off the table for the nonce as they don't seem at all realistic. sure, if death toll gets too high, the US will threaten, by which time the idf will probable be moping up and preparing for the next major hamas conflict 2 years from now.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I share Gromnirs sentiment  but also the situation is not as black and white as saying " Lets stop aid or enforce sanctions against Israel as this will improve the situation"

 

The reality is Hamas is considered an Islamic extremist group, linked to other groups like Hezbollah,  and almost all Western countries grapple with the problem of Islamic extremism. So no Western country wants to unintentionally empower any fundamentalist group by weakening Israel. And Hamas has been very provocative by firing the rockets

 

So it justifies funding genocide? US has given support to terroris... freedom fighters before, they have no problem when it seems to suit their agenda; I guess they don't mind what their allies do as long as its not done to them.

Personally I just dislike how media is treating this, by pulling out whomever dares report anything negative about Israel and how the West has taken a meek, consenting attitude towards the whole thing. It bothers me that these people could wipe out a nation and manipulate perception into making themselves the good guys.

 

 

Do you really consider what the Israeli's are doing as genocide? Also how do you know the media is pulling out anything negative about Israel, do you have any links you can share about this or is this more your perception?

 

Because in South Africa most people, outside the Jewish community, are very critical of Israel

 

I was mostly referring to the US and in particular NBC and CNN

 

this is the first link I found, I will try to remember where I read/watched the original report and post a link if I find it.

I'm pretty sure that it was either Vice or the Young Turks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/nbc-news-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza_n_5596268.html

 

Anyway the thing is that bomb hits on a beach on Palestine in front of a hotel where journalists where staying and kills 3 boys. The reporter (Ayman)  was staying at the hotel and had met the the 3 victims shortly before the incident.

 

There was also a lady from CNN but I can't seem to find it right now.

[Gfted1]

Why are the West Bank and Gaza Strip blockaded by Jordan and Egypt respectively? Why cant they get the stuff they need through those countries that they border?

[Malcador]

Is the West Bank under blockade ? I had thought that punishment was for Gaza as Hamas is strong there, versus Fatah in the West Bank who's not as hostile.

[Gfted1]

TBH, I don't know if the West Bank is blockaded. I assumed so since you always hear about how the Palestinians are forced to live in squalor, cant get stuff, etc...

[Gromnir]

Is the West Bank under blockade ? I had thought that punishment was for Gaza as Hamas is strong there, versus Fatah in the West Bank who's not as hostile.

 

Why are the West Bank and Gaza Strip blockaded by Jordan and Egypt respectively? Why cant they get the stuff they need through those countries that they border?

gaza is where hamas is. that is the difference.

 

west bank is blockaded along israeli boarder. this were done to reduce/eliminate suicide bombings. 2001 peace talks broke down (last time israel seemed serious 'bout peace) after which second intifada kicks into high gear catching israel a bit unprepared. where negotiations failed to protect israel, the fence has been marvelously effective. is no complete blockade of the west bank.

 

again, the west being cautious is not the least bit surprising. however, given the history o' the region, arab unwillingness to aid hamas is almost unique.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps orogun fails to recognize that western news outlets covered the very temporary dismissal o' Mohyeldin quite extensively. as a former al-jazeera reporter, we suspect his objectivity were considered a bit suspect from the get go. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/business/media/nbc-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-is-returned-to-gaza.html?_r=0

 

and cnn

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/meast/mideast-conflict-children/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

regardless, the actual news story proves kinda the opposite o' what orogun suggests. cnn coverage o' the incident that Mohyeldin opined about were the most melodramatic we saw anywhere.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

IDF should not have bothered with airstrikes at all and just rely on ground forces to get the work done.  500 lb bombs aimed well still take out large areas and kill bystanders.

 

Some of the strikes certainly are legitimate military strikes, even if most/ many are simple collective punishment. A direct ground invasion would have had far more losses than Israel have suffered at present, and that is far more important to Israel than Palestinian losses. In the end Lebanon 2006 ended without Israel achieving their aims because they lost too many soldiers and equipment, not because they were killing lots of Lebanese civilians.

 

 

who the hell democratically elects a terrorist organization into power?

 

Even as a rhetorical question that's... pretty leaky, whichever way you look at it.

 

Ah, the answer is Israel! Of course! Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, the first PMs from Likud, were both leaders of Lehi/ Stern Gang, Ariel Sharon was convicted of complicity in genocide in Lebanon and was widely rumoured to have bulldozed Egyptian prisoners in trenches in 1967 as well, various Likud coalition partners in government have or have had ludicrously policies like deporting the entire arab population (in cattle carts perhaps, for maximum irony).

 

Complaints about electing terrorists are pot/ kettle/ black, at best. Plus there's actually dozens of other counters. Nelson Mandela, designated terrorist of the ANC; Gerry Adams et al from Sinn Fein, political arm of the IRA etc etc.

[Gromnir]

 

IDF should not have bothered with airstrikes at all and just rely on ground forces to get the work done.  500 lb bombs aimed well still take out large areas and kill bystanders.

 

Some of the strikes certainly are legitimate military strikes, even if most/ many are simple collective punishment. A direct ground invasion would have had far more losses than Israel have suffered at present, and that is far more important to Israel than Palestinian losses. In the end Lebanon 2006 ended without Israel achieving their aims because they lost too many soldiers and equipment, not because they were killing lots of Lebanese civilians.

 

 

who the hell democratically elects a terrorist organization into power?

 

Even as a rhetorical question that's... pretty leaky, whichever way you look at it.

 

Ah, the answer is Israel! Of course! Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, the first PMs from Likud, were both leaders of Lehi/ Stern Gang, Ariel Sharon was convicted of complicity in genocide in Lebanon and was widely rumoured to have bulldozed Egyptian prisoners in trenches in 1967 as well, various Likud coalition partners in government have or have had ludicrously policies like deporting the entire arab population (in cattle carts perhaps, for maximum irony).

 

Complaints about electing terrorists are pot/ kettle/ black, at best. Plus there's actually dozens of other counters. Nelson Mandela, designated terrorist of the ANC; Gerry Adams et al from Sinn Fein, political arm of the IRA etc etc.

 

more misleading. menachem begin, for example were involved in more than a few terrorist actions during the pre-1948 years. the thing is, when he were elected, it were as a member of herut, and while there were actual a great deal o' opposition to herut as it drew unfavorable comparisons to more than a few extreme far-right organizations that were active at that time, it were not, by any stretch o' the imagination, a terrorist organization. no suprise, but the general public didn't know about the terrorist past o folks like begin... 'cause guess what, most normal people don't advertise that they is terrorists. why? because they know that people react with revulsion and fear when confronted by terrorists. the dirty past o' the folks you mention is largely irrelevant in the present context. is no more relevant than is electing folks who is later revealed to be child molesters. we don't blame the public for electing terrorists they weren't aware of o' anymore than we blame 'em for electing congressman who like to email their junk.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/sydney-leather-anthony-weiner-phone-sex-politics_n_3704117.html

 

conversely, when the guy being elected has a party platform of Kill The Infidels, you gotta wonder 'bout the folks electing him/her. get real and at least try and find something analogous.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Have to guess that there's more to their platform. Also, they have good campaign partners in the IDF for obvious reasons as well. I guess the take away is that the unarmed people in Gaza shouldn't whine.

[Mor]

 

Why are the West Bank and Gaza Strip blockaded by Jordan and Egypt respectively? Why cant they get the stuff they need through those countries that they border?

gaza is where hamas is. that is the difference.

 

west bank is blockaded along israeli boarder. this were done to reduce/eliminate suicide bombings. 2001 peace talks broke down (last time israel seemed serious 'bout peace) after which second intifada kicks into high gear catching israel a bit unprepared. where negotiations failed to protect israel, the fence has been marvelously effective. is no complete blockade of the west bank.

 

Pardon my English, but Blockade doesn't seem like an appropriate term, its like saying that USA blockading Mexico because they have a border fence between them.. and as far as I know West Bank has never been under "blockade"**, at best you can say is that the fence blocked illegal entry. iirc Israel at its narrow point is less then 10miles wide, most of it highly populated area, which placed terrorist a short hike away under cover of darkness from the nearest mall, thus the fence.

 

**although the Palestinian Authority has yet to gain full sovereignty over that territory (pending final agreement) and is limited in various security aspects per the agreements.

 

 

On the other hand, Gaza had been "blockaded" few times, since Hamas armed take over of it and the split of PA(West-Bank). Hamas who decided not to recognize Israel, the international agreements signed with it, and renouncing violence has thought to use the unsupervised sea route to smuggle weapons and isreal enforced a sea blockade. However, the land routes from Gaza to Egypt and Israel remained opened to everything else. (Although until very recently Egypt enforcement at their border was very lacking, allowing Hamas todo as they pleased. Which is exactly the scenario Israel is trying to avoid with West Bank Jordan. Considering the recent upheaval in Iraq/Syria I don't see Jordan trying too hard, which will upset its substantial Palestinians population, which they trying to appease)

 

 

again, the west being cautious is not the least bit surprising. however, given the history o' the region, arab unwillingness to aid hamas is almost unique.

It depends how you look at it. Don't forget Iran is still steering the pot, there is larger arabic game here, which is why Hamas tried to cut out Egypt of the picture. Edited July 23, 2014 by Mor

[Orogun01]

ps orogun fails to recognize that western news outlets covered the very temporary dismissal o' Mohyeldin quite extensively. as a former al-jazeera reporter, we suspect his objectivity were considered a bit suspect from the get go. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/business/media/nbc-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-is-returned-to-gaza.html?_r=0

 

and cnn

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/meast/mideast-conflict-children/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

regardless, the actual news story proves kinda the opposite o' what orogun suggests. cnn coverage o' the incident that Mohyeldin opined about were the most melodramatic we saw anywhere.

He was a correspondent for NBC who was there when the events happened and whose firsthand account they failed to broadcast as well as the removal of 2 different Tweets one of which said that the US defense had said that the bombardment was Hamas fault for not accepting a cease fire. Actual NBC coverage of the incident  happened on the other side of the wall on Tel Aviv instead of the scene.

 

The CNN incident was a lady (whose name I forget) that was doing a report on Israelis cheering while rockets where being fired and later tweeted about being threatened by them, I paraphrase "if you don't say what we want you to say we will break your car" she also called them pricks. After complaints from pro Israel groups she was called back.

 

As for NBC, the higher ups are under scrutiny and criticism from members of the press for their actions and how the official reason Alyam was called back (safety concerns) contradicts them sending another reporter at the same time. It is known that this was a decision by higher ups.

 

At the very least you can say that they are threading carefully and that they don't want to offend, ergo they are biased towards Israel.

[Gorgon]

Why are the West Bank and Gaza Strip blockaded by Jordan and Egypt respectively? Why cant they get the stuff they need through those countries that they border?

I imagine it's because those countries don't want to get sucked into conflict with Israel. It's not their cause. Egypt is cracking down on militant Ïslam (the muslim brotherhood). Jordan is still ruled by a king. There are tunnels on those borders too though and a black economy. 

[Gromnir]

 

ps orogun fails to recognize that western news outlets covered the very temporary dismissal o' Mohyeldin quite extensively. as a former al-jazeera reporter, we suspect his objectivity were considered a bit suspect from the get go. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/business/media/nbc-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-is-returned-to-gaza.html?_r=0

 

and cnn

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/meast/mideast-conflict-children/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

regardless, the actual news story proves kinda the opposite o' what orogun suggests. cnn coverage o' the incident that Mohyeldin opined about were the most melodramatic we saw anywhere.

He was a correspondent for NBC who was there when the events happened and whose firsthand account they failed to broadcast as well as the removal of 2 different Tweets one of which said that the US defense had said that the bombardment was Hamas fault for not accepting a cease fire. Actual NBC coverage of the incident  happened on the other side of the wall on Tel Aviv instead of the scene.

 

The CNN incident was a lady (whose name I forget) that was doing a report on Israelis cheering while rockets where being fired and later tweeted about being threatened by them, I paraphrase "if you don't say what we want you to say we will break your car" she also called them pricks. After complaints from pro Israel groups she was called back.

 

As for NBC, the higher ups are under scrutiny and criticism from members of the press for their actions and how the official reason Alyam was called back (safety concerns) contradicts them sending another reporter at the same time. It is known that this was a decision by higher ups.

 

At the very least you can say that they are threading carefully and that they don't want to offend, ergo they are biased towards Israel.

 

 

you aren't making sense.

 

the incident that the former al-jazeera guy tweeted about were covered by everybody. no cover-up. no sweeping under the rug. no hiding. yeah, the network clear didn't like what it thought were his bias, but nothing were being hidden from the public eye. again, you thinks cnn and nbc is worstest, but look again at the cnn coverage o' the kids getting killed at the beach story. try and sell us on it being pro-israeli. 

 

also, we recall seeing the other report you mention (two is all you got?) and that were reported from cnn as well. the woman in question observed that israelis were cheering as gaza bombardment started... were speaking to wolf blitzer at the time. no cover-up. what she got in trouble for were a tweet she made afterwards. her tweet stated the israeli locales threatened to destroy her car and she called 'em scum... all o' which were covered by multiple western news sources. what on earth do you think is being covered up?

 

journalists is just as likely to get themselves in trouble with social media as is artists and athletes. there is a perhaps unreasonable notion that journalists should be complete objective even in a freaking war zone.  that strikes us as a bit silly. the thing is, given how polarizing this conflict is, networks is foolishly trying to pretend as if their reporters is better then regular folks... objective and pure. is a crock, but am at least understanding the motivation.

 

nevertheless, is no cover-ups based on your examples. there very well could be cover-ups going on as we speak, but you is giving us very well-known examples wherein the underlying stories were televised and printed multiple times. try to spin as a cover-up is... odd. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

I don't think there is a cover up, just a story that hasn't been given the attention it deserves by national media. I never said it was a cover I said that perception of the situation was being manipulated. It seems to me that there is some under reporting by national outlets.

[Gromnir]

 

Personally I just dislike how media is treating this, by pulling out whomever dares report anything negative about Israel and how the West has taken a meek, consenting attitude towards the whole thing. It bothers me that these people could wipe out a nation and manipulate perception into making themselves the good guys.

 

see, now we got a quote o' what you actually said. you then point that cnn and nbc is the biggest perpetrators o' journalistic lack o' integrity.

 

...

 

now that you has had a chance to reflect, it is not that you is claiming that the media is " pulling out whomever dares report anything negative about Israel," and you is instead concerned that two stories about journalist being removed for their tweets is not getting enough coverage.  well, good for you... sorta.

 

btw, one reason the cnn reporter story didn't get much coverage is 'cause she apologized for her inappropriate tweet. whether you think she shoulda' apologized or not, am suspecting her fellow journalists respected her decision. the other story, the one with the former al jazeera reporter, got ridiculous amounts o' attention from an incredible range o' news outlets. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/business/media/nbc-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-is-returned-to-gaza.html?_r=0

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/nbc-reporter-ayman-mohyeldin-back-in-gaza.html

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-a-reporter-in-gaza-removed-by-nbc-20140718-column.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/20/media/ayman-mohyeldin-nbc-news/

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/16/what-happened-when-palestinian-children-were-killed-in-front-of-a-hotel-full-of-journalists/

 

etc.

 

am not certain how much more coverage you wanted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TrashMan]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202270954356983

[Gromnir]

'cause everybody knows that if you put it in the form o' a cartoon it must be true. 

 

*snort*

 

every issue in your cartoon were already discussed earlier in this thread... like the 50% land nonsense. cartoon does have nice stick figures though. chris avellone would be proud.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TrashMan]

But 'cause it's in cartoon form it must be fiction?

 

HA!

[Gromnir]

where we say that? the arguments made in the cartoon were not credible when made in print in this thread. you then post a cartoon summation. we observe that the cartoon doesn't make more true.  your reasoning is flawed.

 

sad little stick figures don't make more true. maybe a weak mind finds stick figures more sympathetic than the reality o' hamas, but we hope most folks ain't so easily manipulated.

 

oh, and another aside, how would you like to be a jew living in iran or syria? 'cause those poor arabs has historically been so concerned 'bout the civil and human rights o' non-muslims, yes?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/24/christian-woman-once-condemned-to-death-in-sudan-for-her-faith-meets-pope-francis/

 

is additionaly disappointing as the sudan is one o' the most tolerant muslim countries.

 

let all the arabs back into their previous lands (side note: the lands they woulda' had if they had gone along with the UN partition instead of initiating a war o' extermination against the jews) and now the israelis gotta displace citizens who has been living and improving lands for decades and they add an overtly hostile and majority population into the mix. does that make any sense to anybody? even here in the US, the Oglala and Lakota don't actual expect or demand US citizens to be displaced from the Black Hills, 'cause that would be stupid. oh, and we has seen just how well arab nations has handled recent experiments with democracy.... but am certain the palestinian arabs wouldn't take advantage o' the situation once they were a majority populace in a democratic state along with israeli jews.

 

*snort*

 

cartoon were funny and sad. we don't swallow all the zionist nonsense from israel either, but that cartoon were so misleading as to be utterly useless.

 

but no, being a cartoon isn't what made it useless. however, being a cartoon didn't make it more believable or true. duh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

every issue in your cartoon were already discussed earlier in this thread... like the 50% land nonsense.

 

Funny, the only 50% land nonsense I can remember is someone (now who was it, I know he had some sort of posting schtick and it deffo wasn't Bruce or Volo...) claiming many areas of Palestine had greater than 50% ownership by Jews. Which was nonsense and shown to be false even within proposed partition Israel, done with maps and stats that tend to make things believable and true but for some reason were unbelievable and false in this case, even the one he posted himself, thinking it proved his point.

[Gromnir]

 

every issue in your cartoon were already discussed earlier in this thread... like the 50% land nonsense.

 

Funny, the only 50% land nonsense I can remember is someone (now who was it, I know he had some sort of posting schtick and it deffo wasn't Bruce or Volo...) claiming many areas of Palestine had greater than 50% ownership by Jews. Which was nonsense and shown to be false even within proposed partition Israel, done with maps and stats that tend to make things believable and true but for some reason were unbelievable and false in this case, even the one he posted himself, thinking it proved his point.

 

uh, that is exactly what the maps did show. in the northern portion o' the map o' what is now israel, the UN had partitioned two areas that were to be eventually jewish. in these areas, the jewish population were already exceeding arabs and land ownership of Habitable land were also greater than arabs in those areas. the very first point o' chapter 2 o' the unscop report, The Elements of the Conflict, were an observation that Palastine were, "26,000 square kilometres or a little over 10,000 square miles, but about halt of this area is uninhabitable." at end of the report, in the partition plan portion, unscop also observed that jewish population and land ownership by 1946-47 were majority jewish in the northern Habitable partitioned areas. from our reading o' the unscop report, the well-intentioned but naive folks did seem a little dismissive of the smallish population o' bedouins in the negev, which we has always thought were a tragedy. 

 

now again, 'cause zor not seem to get this, a map that shows green v. white or white v. red for arab v. jewish ownership in the british mandate ignores what?  c'mon, lets see if you learned anything from this thread.

 

...

 

uninhabitable land would not appear as one o' the aforementioned colors.  

 

...

 

non arab and non jewish owned land would also necessarily be a color other than those mentioned.

 

*sigh* it seems that some folks is extreme slow learners. 

 

in any event, on paper it were looking like the jews were the folks getting screwed by the partition plan. not only had unscorp recognized that british limits on jewish immigration during mandate years had been excessive, but the largest % o' their +50% o' land were the negev freaking desert. cut up the proverbial cow and give the jews the hooves, legs and head n' stuff. sure, is better than 50%, but stuff jews got were what you makes hot dogs outta. that being said, the negev did give the jews access to the red sea, which were probable making up for the crap cuts they were otherwise being handed.

 

and furthermore, 'cause this never seems to sink in, the partition plan were never actually implemented 'cause every neighboring arab nation, plus the arabs living in the british mandate, and a few helper nations such as pakistan, invaded immediately after the British withdrew.  the express purpose o' the arab invasion were kinda familiar as it were same as hamas... to be exterminating the jewish population. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Ah, so it's now owned inhabitable land, I see.

 

Your eback must get sore, what with all the shifting of goalposts you've been doing.

[Gromnir]

*eye-roll*

 

our position has not changed. 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66123-israel-vs-palestine/?p=1468288

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66123-israel-vs-palestine/?p=1466216

 

is nothing new from us. am not sure if you is being obtuse for fun our without realizing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Well, I do have to admit I do find it highly amusing that you accuse others of being disingenuous or obtuse, seeing as you didn't link to your first post on the subject which contains a rather inconvenient line about many Jewish majority areas, with no equivocation at all about habitability.