• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict [UN: 1,525+ Palestinian dead, mostly civilian; 66 Israeli]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yarden24

Member
GaimeGuy said:
After Israel and Egypt established peace, Egypt was banished from the Arab League for a decade, and both Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated by extemists from their own countries.
Click to expand...

yitzhak rabin wasn't prime minister when the peace agreement with egypt was established, he was assassinated 20 years later anyway...
 
T

Terra Firma

Banned
Goliath said:
Not exactly.....

Israel was formed after WWII as a place for the hundreds of thousands displaced Jews that had no where to go. Most countries took in certain amounts but they didn't want to take on the whole lot so what they did was form Israel on a BRITISH COLONY. (Border creations and countries getting carved apart, two Germanys, was common post WWII)

Now immediately after the declaration of the formation of Israel the Arab League, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. They took their forced to Palestine and mounted an attack. After 10 months of fighting an agreement was made and a set of boarders was established.

However this battle initiated by the Arab League led to a huge demographic shift in what is now Israel. Wealthy arabs fled to protect themselves and their money, other arabs fled out of fear for their life, some fled because they were incouraged by the Arab League and the Grand Mufti to not live under the rule of a Jew and finally some were expelled by Zionists authorities.

So no your idea of it's formation is not correct.
Click to expand...

Do you even know the difference between a colony and a mandate?

Palestine was not a British colony. Britain was the administrator. The natives were majority Palestinian Arabs, with a small minority of Palestinian Jews. After the defeat of the Ottomans at the end of the first World War, Britain took control of the land that is Palestine. France took control over Syria, is another example. They were all mandates, not colonies. France wasn't getting its civilians to move to Syria and start establishing cities. Similarly, Britain was not getting British civilians and creating British settlements.

After political pressure from Zionist groups in the UK, Jewish groups within Israel, as well as terrorism from Jewish groups in Israel aimed at fellow Jews, Arabs, and the British, Britain wanted to wash its hands of the territory. So, it capitulated to their demands and gave majority of the land to the relatively small Jewish population. The UN had also declared that Jerusalem would be UN controlled, with Arabs and Jews living within. This of course resulted in a large number of Arabs living in the newly declared Israel to leave.

It has to be noted that before the creation of the State of Israel by the UN against the wishes of the Arabs (you know, the party that would ACTUALLY be affected by this!), Jewish ownership of Palestinian land was in the ballpark of 7%.

The majority of Palestinian Arabs left because of expulsion and because they did not want to be caught in the crossfire. This is normal for any war, where civilians seek refuge away from the war. But it is expected that after the war, the refugees would return to their homes. Israel did not allow that.
 
M

makingmusic476

Member
GaimeGuy said:
The british colony of palestine was set to be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state. Jews accepted the partition plan, arabs did not. After Israel declared its independence, joint Arab forces from Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestinians, and I think one or two other nations, invaded Israel. different sections of land came under control of different militaries over the course of the war. When the war ended in 1949, the land that had been partitioned for a rejected palestinian state was now under the occupation of different countries - Egypt (The UAR) was administering the Gaza Strip. Jordan was in control of the West Bank. Syria was in de facto control of the Golan Heights. And the rest of the former british colony of Palestine was under control of Israel. There was no Palestine. Just Israel, Jordan, and Egypt (I don't remember if the golan heights were considerd part of the colony or not)

In 1967, a ramp up to war between Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Israel was occurring. All countries had troops and tanks placed at the borders. Israeli intelligence intercepted Egyptian communications about an Egyptian airstrike followed by a joint force land invasion set to be executed late June 5th / June 6th. Israel launched a pre-emptive airstrike early June 5th which crippled the Egyptian air force, and the six day war broke out. Six days later, Israel had captured the Gaza Strip AND the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The Yom Kippur War in 1973 saw Syria overrun most of the Golan Heights, but then Israel retake it in a counterattack.

In 1978, as part of the Egypt-Israel peace agreement, Israel returned the Sinai pensinsula to Egypt.

That's a really short version of how Israel was established, how the arab state of Palestine was proposed but never came to be, and how Israel came to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.
Click to expand...
I imagine the Arabs would've considered Israel's declaration of independence to be Israel assuming the authority to determine the borders in the region, and weren't happy.

Does anybody here have any sources that provide a window into the mindsets guiding the various actors in the 1948 conflict?
 
Z

Zen

Banned
Orenhy said:
That is related to the israelis who killed the palestenian guy, not the palestenians who killed the 3 israelis. there is a mini link is that post regarding the actual "gag order" you are talking about. The whole post just links all sorts of stuff from all over with little facts, just general claims that sound like they support the facts.
Click to expand...

Well hopefully he updates it, in general is seems fairly accurate even taking your complaints at face value.
 
L

LNBL

Member
zeroOman said:
U should read this comment in reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c...f_a_young_unarmed_gazan_man_shot_dead/cj5gcxu

People suddenly seem to have very short memories. I suggest they read this wikipedia page. Or if they'd like, keep reading.

To counter the short memory, I wrote out this long ass thing quoting from major news sites, mostly Israeli and The Economist to avoid accusations of bias, to give context to where we find ourselves now. If it is a link it is a quotation, and all emphasis is mine:

For background, After the last big Israeli effort to stop the rockets, in November 2012, it was agreed that, along with a ceasefire, the blockade of Gaza would gradually be lifted and the crossings into Egypt and Israel would be opened. The ceasefire generally held, but the siege continued. As Gazans see it, they have remained cruelly shut up in an open-air prison. Firing rockets, many of them argue, is the only way they can protest, even though they know the Israelis are bound, from time to time, to punish them.

In early June, Israel was upset that Hamas had made peace with Fatah. Israel meanwhile refused to allow the passage of at least three prospective ministers from the Gaza Strip to the occupied West Bank, while it called on the international community to shun the new Palestinian government.

On Sunday Israel's security cabinet, convened by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, agreed on a series of punitive measures, including the withholding of some tax it collects on the PA's behalf, and freezing negotiations with the Palestinians as long as Hamas agreed to its the consensus government.

A gag order was placed on all matters relating to the investigation of the 3 kidnapped teens — creating a ringing dichotomy between what some reporters and security officials knew (that the teens had likely been swiftly murdered) and what was being said to the public (namely, that the forces were operating under the assumption that the teens were alive). That evening searchers found the kidnappers’ abandoned, torched Hyundai, with eight bullet holes and the boys’ DNA. There was no doubt.

Yet, operating on the public's assumption that they were alive, Israel launched Brothers Keeper.

Despite releasing no evidence implicating Hamas, Mr Netanyahu sounded determined at the outset to blame Hamas’s leadership, warning that it would “pay a heavy price” for the kidnapping.

It was clear from the beginning that the kidnappers weren’t acting on orders from Hamas leadership in Gaza or Damascus. Hamas’ Hebron branch [the suspects] — more a crime family than a clandestine organization — had a history of acting without the leaders’ knowledge, sometimes against their interests. Yet Netanyahu repeatedly insisted Hamas was responsible for the crime and would pay for it.

In the search for the kidnapped Israelis a series of charitable organisations that used to be run by Hamas were closed down and a dairy, which employs hundreds of Palestinians, was demolished. According to the UN, during the search at least ten Palestinians, including two under 18, have been killed in the West Bank. The army has arrested 530 Palestinians, doubling the number of those detained without trial or charge. About half the 1,000 or so Palestinians freed in 2011 in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been captured by Hamas in 2006, were put back behind bars. The Israeli army also resumed its practice of blowing up the houses of militants, a tactic not used since the end of the Palestinians’ last intifada, or uprising, in 2005.

Hours after the killing was announced, Israeli aircraft pounded the Gaza Strip, which Hamas controls. Palestinians fired dozens of rockets from the coastal enclave into Israel.

The increase in rocket fire was partly intended as a protest against the round-up of prisoners. Any ceasefire, says Hamas, must include the release at least of those detained in the past month.

From the conclusion to The Economist article on 5 July, Whoever is responsible for the murders, Mr Netanyahu seems certain to cite them as a reason to bash Hamas in both the Palestinian territories in the hope that the unity government, which the American government cautiously welcomed, will fall apart. And it is equally certain that a growing number of Palestinians will cheer on those who violently respond.

On July 7 a senior Hamas official told The Times of Israel that the group does not accept the idea that “quiet will be answered with quiet” in the Gaza Strip, saying that if Israel wants peace in the South it must release all the prisoners freed in exchange for Gilad Shalit who were recently re-arrested following the abduction of the three Israeli teens.

"Chief spokesman of the Israeli military, Brigadier General Moti Almoz, speaking July 8 on Army Radio’s morning show: “We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard.”"

Then Protective Edge was launched. Fast forward 2 weeks to today, since the Op. began:

IDF has attacked some 2,800 terror [sic] targets.

The IDF has confirmed at least 1,497 [rockets] have landed in Israel,

and,

More than 600 Palestinians and 30 Israelis have been killed

So basically this operation is about breaking up the unity govt. Not stopping rockets. If it wanted to stop rockets it would have kept the ceasefire agreements or released the Hamas people it had re-arrested on false pretexts, after agreeing to release them. It is almost universally recognised among political analysts that this is the purpose of the attack on Hamas.

Zbiegniew Brzezinski had this to say:
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Terra Firma said:
After political pressure from Zionist groups in the UK, Jewish groups within Israel, as well as terrorism from Jewish groups in Israel aimed at fellow Jews, Arabs, and the British, Britain wanted to wash its hands of the territory. So, it capitulated to their demands and gave majority of the land to the relatively small Jewish population. The UN had also declared that Jerusalem would be UN controlled, with Arabs and Jews living within. This of course resulted in a large number of Arabs living in the newly declared Israel to leave.

It has to be noted that before the creation of the State of Israel by the UN against the wishes of the Arabs (you know, the party that would ACTUALLY be affected by this!), Jewish ownership of Palestinian land was in the ballpark of 7%.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. For now, I'm going to only discuss the land distribution.

I5W881c.png


Under the proposal, yes, approximatley 56% of the land was to be given to Israel. However, the majority of this land was the Negev Desert - It was roughly 85% of the infertile and uninhabited land contained within the mandate. The reason why more land was given to Israel was in order to accomodate what was predicted to be a much more significant amount of immigration to the country, as it was the first-and-only-of-its-kind Jewish state, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Israel was only given 1/3rd of the coastline, though, and less freshwater, and it would be up to the Israelis to cultivate the desert land they were accomodated, if the state was to be able to succeed.

The plan strived to maximize political division between the two states. According to the plan, Jews and Arabs living in the Jewish state would become citizens of the Jewish state and Jews and Arabs living in the Arab state would become citizens of the Arab state. The plan was set up to accomodate as many of the Jews in the region to be in the Jewish state, which meant including some areas with arab majorities (but significant jewish minorities) in the Jewish state, resulting in a significant Arab minority and a slight Jewish majority in Israel. This was the best they could do with the 3:1 population ratio in the Mandate area at the time. Arabs were given the most developed land in the region in order to best accomodate the existing (and larger) arab population. Jews were given lesser quality, but slightly more, land in the region in order to best accomodate the higher levels of predicted immigration.

I don't think it was an unreasonable proposal, especially since Britain had promised both Arabs and Jews their own nations in the area.


And the reason why jews owned so little land is because of legal restrictions on Jewish land ownership in the region (which was not uncommon in general at the time - statutory restrictions on Jewish land ownership persisted in several communities in America well into the 70s)
 
D

Dash27

Member
Dude Abides said:
Kinda, it seems. Not very good at it, apparently.



Who knows? They do not seem to be particularly careful about it, in any event. What is the acceptable dead civilian:destroyed rocket ratio in your estimation?



What is the point of this question? Is it your assertion that there is no limit to the number of civilians that can be justifiably killed so long as they are killed in an attempt to destroy rockets and tunnels?
Click to expand...

I'd need to know a few things to be able to answer that. How many rockets must be fired until Israel can try and stop it? When they do try, can you give me the template they should follow to stop it without casualties? Meaning a past example of a similar situation where a military or police force stopped 1000 random bombs from inside homes and schools without casualties. I'd say they should do at least as well as the best efforts ever made.
 
S

sindbadthesailor

Member
And it goes on and on

"Columns of people are heading west of Beit Hanoun, looking for a safe shelter. This is not war, this is annihilation," said 17-year-old Hamed Ayman.

"I once dreamt of becoming a doctor. Today I am homeless. They should watch out for what I could become next."
Click to expand...

Gaza bloodshed deepens, airlines shun Israel

Ideally, if enough airlines shun Israel for long enough, the economic damage would be enough to force them to not only pull back from their latest war, but to also ease the blockade.
 
S

Skyzard

Banned
zeroOman said:
U should read this comment in reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c...f_a_young_unarmed_gazan_man_shot_dead/cj5gcxu

People suddenly seem to have very short memories. I suggest they read this wikipedia page. Or if they'd like, keep reading.

To counter the short memory, I wrote out this long ass thing quoting from major news sites, mostly Israeli and The Economist to avoid accusations of bias, to give context to where we find ourselves now. If it is a link it is a quotation, and all emphasis is mine:

For background, After the last big Israeli effort to stop the rockets, in November 2012, it was agreed that, along with a ceasefire, the blockade of Gaza would gradually be lifted and the crossings into Egypt and Israel would be opened. The ceasefire generally held, but the siege continued. As Gazans see it, they have remained cruelly shut up in an open-air prison. Firing rockets, many of them argue, is the only way they can protest, even though they know the Israelis are bound, from time to time, to punish them.

In early June, Israel was upset that Hamas had made peace with Fatah. Israel meanwhile refused to allow the passage of at least three prospective ministers from the Gaza Strip to the occupied West Bank, while it called on the international community to shun the new Palestinian government.

On Sunday Israel's security cabinet, convened by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, agreed on a series of punitive measures, including the withholding of some tax it collects on the PA's behalf, and freezing negotiations with the Palestinians as long as Hamas agreed to its the consensus government.

A gag order was placed on all matters relating to the investigation of the 3 kidnapped teens — creating a ringing dichotomy between what some reporters and security officials knew (that the teens had likely been swiftly murdered) and what was being said to the public (namely, that the forces were operating under the assumption that the teens were alive). That evening searchers found the kidnappers’ abandoned, torched Hyundai, with eight bullet holes and the boys’ DNA. There was no doubt.

Yet, operating on the public's assumption that they were alive, Israel launched Brothers Keeper.

Despite releasing no evidence implicating Hamas, Mr Netanyahu sounded determined at the outset to blame Hamas’s leadership, warning that it would “pay a heavy price” for the kidnapping.

It was clear from the beginning that the kidnappers weren’t acting on orders from Hamas leadership in Gaza or Damascus. Hamas’ Hebron branch [the suspects] — more a crime family than a clandestine organization — had a history of acting without the leaders’ knowledge, sometimes against their interests. Yet Netanyahu repeatedly insisted Hamas was responsible for the crime and would pay for it.

In the search for the kidnapped Israelis a series of charitable organisations that used to be run by Hamas were closed down and a dairy, which employs hundreds of Palestinians, was demolished. According to the UN, during the search at least ten Palestinians, including two under 18, have been killed in the West Bank. The army has arrested 530 Palestinians, doubling the number of those detained without trial or charge. About half the 1,000 or so Palestinians freed in 2011 in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been captured by Hamas in 2006, were put back behind bars. The Israeli army also resumed its practice of blowing up the houses of militants, a tactic not used since the end of the Palestinians’ last intifada, or uprising, in 2005.

Hours after the killing was announced, Israeli aircraft pounded the Gaza Strip, which Hamas controls. Palestinians fired dozens of rockets from the coastal enclave into Israel.

The increase in rocket fire was partly intended as a protest against the round-up of prisoners. Any ceasefire, says Hamas, must include the release at least of those detained in the past month.

From the conclusion to The Economist article on 5 July, Whoever is responsible for the murders, Mr Netanyahu seems certain to cite them as a reason to bash Hamas in both the Palestinian territories in the hope that the unity government, which the American government cautiously welcomed, will fall apart. And it is equally certain that a growing number of Palestinians will cheer on those who violently respond.

On July 7 a senior Hamas official told The Times of Israel that the group does not accept the idea that “quiet will be answered with quiet” in the Gaza Strip, saying that if Israel wants peace in the South it must release all the prisoners freed in exchange for Gilad Shalit who were recently re-arrested following the abduction of the three Israeli teens.

"Chief spokesman of the Israeli military, Brigadier General Moti Almoz, speaking July 8 on Army Radio’s morning show: “We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard.”"

Then Protective Edge was launched. Fast forward 2 weeks to today, since the Op. began:

IDF has attacked some 2,800 terror [sic] targets.

The IDF has confirmed at least 1,497 [rockets] have landed in Israel,

and,

More than 600 Palestinians and 30 Israelis have been killed

So basically this operation is about breaking up the unity govt. Not stopping rockets. If it wanted to stop rockets it would have kept the ceasefire agreements or released the Hamas people it had re-arrested on false pretexts, after agreeing to release them. It is almost universally recognised among political analysts that this is the purpose of the attack on Hamas.

Zbiegniew Brzezinski had this to say:
Click to expand...

And why does it want to do that?

Unity government = more likely to get peace due to becoming more moderate. Possibly gaining more international support and potentially, less rockets.

If Israel doesn't want peace, then what does it want?

...

RNDr96M.png
 
S

soul

Member
m_shortpants said:
I'm actually surprised at the flight ban. Seems like indirect sanctions. If my understanding is correct, this was a governmental issue, right?
Click to expand...

The reason behind it is probably indirect sanctions by the Obama administration, or so most Israelis actually think, but the official reason is a rocket that hit directly in Lod. Quoting from Wikipedia:

Israel's main international airport, Ben Gurion International Airport (previously known as Lydda Airport, RAF Lydda, and Lod Airport) is located on the outskirts of the city.
Click to expand...
 
S

sonicmj1

Member
Zeeman said:
That doesn't seem to fit with the narrative presented by this article: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died
It seems like talks were happening and there were issues on both sides, but the real end was when Fatah joined with Hamas in government.
Click to expand...

This article is incredibly long, but also incredibly thorough, covering perspectives on all sides. It definitely helped me understand another step leading up to this current conflict.

The short version is that John Kerry felt that now (late 2013-early 2014) was the best window to make a move towards peace happen. Netanyahu was being squeezed from the right wing by his coalition, ready to rake him over the coals for the slightest concession on Palestine. Abbas and his government were impatient to get a deal done after years of negotiations that lead to nothing to show their constituents. Eventually, at the precipice of a deal, the Palestinians set a deadline, Israel didn't respect it, and the whole thing blew up. Now it's come to this.

This passage felt particularly meaningful to me:

Two weeks later, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met at a hotel west of Jerusalem. Both sides showed up angry. Erekat and Shtayyeh were steaming at new Israeli settlement plans that had been announced immediately after the second prisoner release days earlier, and at Netanyahu’s (false) claim in an interview that Abbas had accepted the new building in return for the prisoners. Meanwhile, Livni and Molho, who had adhered rigorously to Kerry’s gag order on the talks, were incensed by a slew of Palestinian news stories that they believed their counterparts had leaked. Both sides, excepting Molho, were frustrated at the lack of progress they’d made over three months. And the claustrophobic setting—a small bedroom that had been converted into a conference room—didn’t help to calm nerves.

Erekat stormed into the room and slammed his briefcase on the table. In recent weeks, with the talks faltering, he had begun drafting a Palestinian Plan B that would include ending Fatah's six-year-old rift with Hamas and resuming the U.N. campaign—steps that would doom the process. Pointing at the briefcase, he declared: “This case contains our requests to join fifteen U.N. treaties and conventions, and my president will get my suggestion that he should sign them immediately if you say it was prisoners for settlements. And if he doesn’t approve it, I will resign tonight.”

“You can’t do this,” Livni said, raising her voice. “This is not what we agreed on.”

“What we agreed on was prisoners for no-U.N., not prisoners for settlements,” he barked.

“Stop shouting,” Livni said. “You’re being unfair.” But Erekat kept yelling that the settlements were making him a pariah among his people.

As Livni listened to Erekat complain about his political problems, something inside her snapped. “Do you think this is easy for me?” she shouted. She recited a litany of some of the worst Palestinian prisoners that Israel was releasing for the sake of the talks: one who had murdered an elderly Holocaust survivor, another who had stabbed two teenagers, yet another who had hurled a firebomb at a bus, killing a mother and her children. “These are your heroes,” she said, disdainfully. “I don’t know why they are your heroes, but I pushed to release them to get these talks started so we could get a peace deal, so if I can do it, you can accept a few houses. Houses can be demolished. We can’t put those murderers back in jail, and I can’t get back three lives that were just taken.”

Erekat shot back: “What should I tell all the Palestinians who were killed?”
Click to expand...

There's no trust after years of failures on both sides. Certainly not enough trust to make big concessions, or to survive the enormous number of interfering obstacles negotiators face. You can see it clearly enough in this thread, how much each party mistrusts the other. Both sides are right to be wary, but the result of that wariness is more conflict and more bloodshed.

It's so fucking frustrating, and it's so hard to get dialogue going about it because everyone's ready to pounce on anyone who suggests that they might lean slightly towards one side or another. And after decades of vile rhetoric and legitimate injuries piling up in all directions, who can blame them?

The more I understand, the more hopeless it seems.
 
S

Skyzard

Banned
^

The Israeli prime minister's office said in a statement that the decision was a "travesty", adding that Israel had "gone to unprecedented lengths to keep Palestinian civilians out of harm's way".
Click to expand...


Can I give a "fuck you" to the abstainers? Is that allowed? Stay classy, US.
 
D

Dash27

Member
inm8num2 said:
LOL. News networks never cease to amaze me.

Also, Jebreal made an appearance on Democracy Now.
Click to expand...

I'm only 5 minutes in but she's very ah... animated.

So she starts off on MSNBC complaining that Netanyahu and people like him on the Israeli side gets a ton of air time, but we never hear from Palestinians, and that's bias. So who is the Palestinian equivalent of Netanyahu?

Who are the Palestinian officials? I know Abbas and that's it, and he's not the relevant guy for Gaza i would assume.

Edit: and now she's saying Hamas is the "ultimate liability" for the Palestinian people. Sooo... wtf. Hamas is the elected government.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
Anyone notice that NBC journalist who was pulled from the region got sent back? (his name is escaping me atm)
 
A

Ashes

Banned
Dash27 said:
I'm only 5 minutes in but she's very ah... animated.

So she starts off on MSNBC complaining that Netanyahu and people like him on the Israeli side gets a ton of air time, but we never hear from Palestinians, and that's bias. So who is the Palestinian equivalent of Netanyahu?

Who are the Palestinian officials? I know Abbas and that's it, and he's not the relevant guy for Gaza i would assume.
Click to expand...

Khaled Mashal. Leader. No idea where he is now. Maybe in Egypt or UAE or Saudi Arabia.
 
L

LNBL

Member
July 23, 2014 | Al Quds Hospital, Gaza. He did everything Israel warned him to do. But in the end it was not enough to save his family. Hassan Al Hallaq is a 35 year old IT manager at the Bank of Palestine. He was having dinner with his two sons, his wife, his mother, his sister and her husband and their son when two Israeli missiles hit their apartment building. His wife was 9 months pregnant with their third boy. Everyone died. He survived with a a badly broken leg and severe burns all over his face and body. I interviewed him while recovering at the hospital. "I have lost everything" he told me. Watch his interview on www.nbcnews.com #gaza #palestine #israel #hamas #reportage #photojournalism #protectiveedge
Click to expand...

Posted by Ayman Mohyeldin, NBC News Foreign Correspondent, on his Instagram. There is also a picture of the injured man.

http://instagram.com/p/qzfFXCHEJK/?modal=true
(not as gruesome as the earlier pictures we had in this thread. Though still blood on face and on his leg.)
 
A

Ashes

Banned
Dash27 said:
I'm only 5 minutes in but she's very ah... animated.

So she starts off on MSNBC complaining that Netanyahu and people like him on the Israeli side gets a ton of air time, but we never hear from Palestinians, and that's bias. So who is the Palestinian equivalent of Netanyahu?

Who are the Palestinian officials? I know Abbas and that's it, and he's not the relevant guy for Gaza i would assume.

Edit: and now she's saying Hamas is the "ultimate liability" for the Palestinian people. Sooo... wtf. Hamas is the elected government.
Click to expand...

Sometimes resistance is better served by being at the negotiating table rather than lobbying rockets. Hamas puts a dent into that line reasoning.
 
P

Partial Gamification

Banned
Dubbedinenglish said:
Great post. You see the the apologists claim this was a response to the kidnapping, but a little dillegence shows how this flare up began and how it was initiated.
Click to expand...

You caught the part about what immediately preceded the recent flare of violence?
In the search for the kidnapped Israelis a series of charitable organisations that used to be run by Hamas were closed down and a dairy, which employs hundreds of Palestinians, was demolished. According to the UN, during the search at least ten Palestinians, including two under 18, have been killed in the West Bank. The army has arrested 530 Palestinians, doubling the number of those detained without trial or charge. About half the 1,000 or so Palestinians freed in 2011 in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been captured by Hamas in 2006, were put back behind bars. The Israeli army also resumed its practice of blowing up the houses of militants, a tactic not used since the end of the Palestinians’ last intifada, or uprising, in 2005.

Hours after the killing was announced, Israeli aircraft pounded the Gaza Strip, which Hamas controls. Palestinians fired dozens of rockets from the coastal enclave into Israel.
Click to expand...

You can keep tracing it back but when you look at what started this killing, what end this violence seeks:
So basically this operation is about breaking up the unity govt. Not stopping rockets. If it wanted to stop rockets it would have kept the ceasefire agreements or released the Hamas people it had re-arrested on false pretexts, after agreeing to release them. It is almost universally recognised among political analysts that this is the purpose of the attack on Hamas.
Click to expand...

The kidnapping and gag-order on the investigation stirred up [a critical mass of] unrest and here we are.


I'm not justifying rocket attacks from HAMAS. I'd argue the Israelis wouldn't have a valid, within the Israeli government, reason for Protective Edge.

Would you please not throw around terms like "HAMAS [/Israeli :I had read you one way but it could go both ways] apologists;" and if you are driven to label someone that, do so directly.
 
M

Miles Quaritch

Member
K

KingK

Member
Dash27 said:
I'm only 5 minutes in but she's very ah... animated.

So she starts off on MSNBC complaining that Netanyahu and people like him on the Israeli side gets a ton of air time, but we never hear from Palestinians, and that's bias. So who is the Palestinian equivalent of Netanyahu?

Who are the Palestinian officials? I know Abbas and that's it, and he's not the relevant guy for Gaza i would assume.

Edit: and now she's saying Hamas is the "ultimate liability" for the Palestinian people. Sooo... wtf. Hamas is the elected government.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not like Hamas officials are the only ones capable of explaining context and showing the Palestinian/Gaza point of view regarding the occupation/siege/settlements. I think her criticism isn't specifically that they don't have enough Palestinian officials, but that they don't have enough of ANYBODY (officials, journalists, academics) to represent the Palestinians.

They have someone on the ground in Gaza show some gruesome images and relay some facts from the ground (and in the case of Ayman Mohyeldin, nearly get pulled from the region because of it), then have various pro-Israeli commentators (whether they be US/Israeli officials, lobbyists, academics, etc.) give excuses and defend Israel's viewpoint for the rest of the segment. They don't have that for the Palestinian side and quite frankly, it seems like that's an intentional move by all of the major networks.
 
Z

zpiders

Member
I normally have sympathy for Israel but for the life of me I can't feel anything but disgust with whats happening at the moment. The amount of innocent civilians being killed is an absolute disgrace.

The only lasting solution to this is for both parties to be locked in a room and only let out once they have agreed on how to move forward. Mass killing innocent people is only going to make more hate come towards Israels way from all corners of the world.
 
K

kess

Member
sonicmj1 said:
This article is incredibly long, but also incredibly thorough, covering perspectives on all sides. It definitely helped me understand another step leading up to this current conflict.

It's so fucking frustrating, and it's so hard to get dialogue going about it because everyone's ready to pounce on anyone who suggests that they might lean slightly towards one side or another. And after decades of vile rhetoric and legitimate injuries piling up in all directions, who can blame them?

The more I understand, the more hopeless it seems.
Click to expand...

The next generation of Likud almost makes Netanhayu look like a moderate in comparison. You have people like Tzipi Hovotely meeting with Glenn Beck, of all people, to speak about Islam.
 
D

Dash27

Member
KingK said:
Well, it's not like Hamas officials are the only ones capable of explaining context and showing the Palestinian/Gaza point of view regarding the occupation/siege/settlements. I think her criticism isn't specifically that they don't have enough Palestinian officials, but that they don't have enough of ANYBODY (officials, journalists, academics) to represent the Palestinians.

They have someone on the ground in Gaza show some gruesome images and relay some facts from the ground (and in the case of Ayman Mohyeldin, nearly get pulled from the region because of it), then have various pro-Israeli commentators (whether they be US/Israeli officials, lobbyists, academics, etc.) give excuses and defend Israel's viewpoint for the rest of the segment. They don't have that for the Palestinian side and quite frankly, it seems like that's an intentional move by all of the major networks.
Click to expand...

She was complaining that Israelis, and she named Netanyahu specifically at least once, get way more air time. I'd LOVE to hear from Hamas people. Not some PR guy, let me hear the real leaders of Hamas say something. Ask them about the rockets and tunnels like the Israelis are asked about the bombings. Example here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...each-other-for-rising-death-toll-in-conflict/

So it's the Israeli prime minister.... and this guy: Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative Party

So who is he? What is that Party? Does he have any say in anything going on or is he just commenting?
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Dash27 said:
I'd need to know a few things to be able to answer that. How many rockets must be fired until Israel can try and stop it? When they do try, can you give me the template they should follow to stop it without casualties? Meaning a past example of a similar situation where a military or police force stopped 1000 random bombs from inside homes and schools without casualties. I'd say they should do at least as well as the best efforts ever made.
Click to expand...

This post is bizarre. There is no minimum number of rockets that can be fired before Israel is justified in trying to prevent further rockets. Who suggested there was? And who said "without casualties"? The question is the relation of civilian casualties to the risk posed by the rockets that Israel is ostensibly trying to stop. In this latest action they are wildly out of proportion.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
KingK said:
Well, it's not like Hamas officials are the only ones capable of explaining context and showing the Palestinian/Gaza point of view regarding the occupation/siege/settlements. I think her criticism isn't specifically that they don't have enough Palestinian officials, but that they don't have enough of ANYBODY (officials, journalists, academics) to represent the Palestinians.

They have someone on the ground in Gaza show some gruesome images and relay some facts from the ground (and in the case of Ayman Mohyeldin, nearly get pulled from the region because of it), then have various pro-Israeli commentators (whether they be US/Israeli officials, lobbyists, academics, etc.) give excuses and defend Israel's viewpoint for the rest of the segment. They don't have that for the Palestinian side and quite frankly, it seems like that's an intentional move by all of the major networks.
Click to expand...
If anything I am glad we are at least having this conversation. I wish it penetrated the mainstream more. Right now the conversation is only in left leaning media and programs.
 
J

Jonm1010

Banned
Dash27 said:
I'm only 5 minutes in but she's very ah... animated.

So she starts off on MSNBC complaining that Netanyahu and people like him on the Israeli side gets a ton of air time, but we never hear from Palestinians, and that's bias. So who is the Palestinian equivalent of Netanyahu?

Who are the Palestinian officials? I know Abbas and that's it, and he's not the relevant guy for Gaza i would assume.

Edit: and now she's saying Hamas is the "ultimate liability" for the Palestinian people. Sooo... wtf. Hamas is the elected government.
Click to expand...
How thick are you? She lays it out pretty clearly. Gives you studies to look up if you so chose. It took me all of 5 minutes to find reports on the media coverage studies she cites.

The fact that you are asking who the Palestinian voices are speaks directly to te problem. Unless you legitimately feel that there are no willing Palestinian voices that would come in American TV to voice their grievances(which to give you the answer is untrue, democracy now for instance has had numerous Palestinian/Israeli academics and citizens that don't toe the Israeli line giving their varying opinions)

Heck just watch the msnbc piece. Their sole Palestinian reporters have been marginalized and pushed back against. One reporter was temporarily taken off assignment and the other, the lady you are quoting, was treated as an opposition when she expressed her views. In neither piece was Msnbc even mature enough to allow her to make her case without interruption. It's a news station for gods sake. I've seen countless pieces on every network where they allow Israeli spokespeople to make their case with little or no push back but when it comes to the very small minority of Palestinian voices there is relentless puch back and zero attempt to allow them to make there case without interruption.

If you can't even see that then you really show your stripes as being completely one sided and blinded by your bias.
 
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
Zeeman said:
That doesn't seem to fit with the narrative presented by this article: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died
It seems like talks were happening and there were issues on both sides, but the real end was when Fatah joined with Hamas in government.
Click to expand...

This is a damn good article that everyone should read. It's also just so sad reading the article that no matter how hard the U.S. tries to push for peace it always ends up blowing up in our face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gaza clashes: Dozens killed ahead of US embassy opening in Jerusalem
2 3 4 5
226
16K
Kenpachii replied
  • Locked
Hundreds of Palestinians flee as Israel opens dams into Gaza Valley [Update: fake]
2
66
13K
Melon Husk replied
  • Locked
UN Shelter in Gaza is hit by Israeli rocket fire leaving several people dead/injured
5 6 7 8 9
417
40K
KingK replied
  • Locked
New report recounts Israeli war crimes in 2014 Gaza war
37
5K
Jonm1010 replied
  • Locked
Israel denies entry to Gaza for UNHRC personel Investigating War Crimes
2
50
5K
slit replied
Top Bottom