Netanyahu: Israel to Continue ‘Full Scale’ Offensive Against Hamas

[PoliticAverse]

In an address from Tel Aviv Saturday afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel’s military offensive against Hamas would continue “at full scale” to bring back the quiet,” at which point Israel would encourage the international community to help Gaza rebuild its infrastructure.

On Friday Israel declared itself done with ceasefires after Hamas almost immediately broke a 72-hour cessation in hostilities, and said it would unilaterally see through military operations against Gaza. There was chatter Saturday that Israel was bringing its operations to a close, but Netanyahu offered no sign that forces would be withdrawn from Gaza imminently.

Netanyahu said that the Israeli military had already destroyed thousands of Hamas terrorist targets and shut down a number of the tunnels that had been used to kidnap Israeli citizens and soldiers. “We managed to hurt severely the strategic system Hamas built for many years,” Netanyahu said.

Read the rest at: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/netanyahu-israel-to-continue-full-scale-offensive-against-hamas/

[peacebird]

1. "at which point Israel would encourage the international community to help Gaza rebuild"

I suggest we divert all our aid dollars from Israel to Gaza to help them rebuild their infrastructure.

[King_David]

2. Quatar should pay a hefty sum of $

They allegedly funded Hamas weaponry and tunnels.

[peacebird]

3. As long as all our international aid to Israel goes to rebuild Gaza instead, it's fine. Let Q add in

[CJCRANE]

5. I always wonder

how much of this is a game?

We fund one side and our allies fund the other side.

It's getting to the point where it's becoming absurd, like in Syria where we support the rebels, but are nominally against the same rebels in Iraq.

[notadmblnd]

6. If I'm not mistaken Israel itself funded Hamas at one time. Member? Schools, Universities, etc.

Back when Israel wanted to weaken the PLO. You member. So I'm thinking Israel should pay just as hefty of a sum to rebuild.

But I'll just be happy if Israel has learned it's lesson and doesn't support another up and coming terrorist group to weaken Hamas.

[oberliner]

16. And Abe Lincoln was a Republican

Hamas in the early days was nothing like Hamas today.

The PLO were the ones conducting terrorist acts (brazenly and openly) back during that time. Hamas wasn't.

[notadmblnd]

23. Yes, the PLO was Israel's oppressor

Then the powers that be in in Israel decided, hey, let's support this new group. With a little bit of luck they'll do our dirty work for us and weaken ole Yassir's PLO. Israel even provided some military training cause they wanted Yassir taken care of real good. So Hamas and Israel were great friends and they took care of that horrible oppressor of the Israeli people together.

Now, it would be lovely if the story ended there and peace ruled the land for ever and ever. But that was not to be the case.

One day, just out of the blue, Hamas suddenly and without reason, started lobbing rockets at their peaceful friends. Overnight Israels peaceful Palestinian partners turned into the subhuman monsters that they are today.

Even animals only attack for two reasons, food and fear. As we all know, Palestinians eat their own children, so all that can be left is fear.

So please, explain to me why would Hamas and the Palestinian people have a need to fear their great peaceful friend Israel?

I know, I know... Israel is innocent.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

53. One of the best rejoinders I've seen in a damn while.

Perfecto!

[notadmblnd]

62. Notice how the Israel apologists here at DU have not responded to my question?

I guess if they can't shut down discussion by calling people who criticize Israels behavior names, they just ignore what one posts.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

63. Yes, and I used to be one of those apologists.

Then decided to study the conflict inside out. I came to the conclusion that if you want to remain true honest appraisal of the facts, then Israel's actions cannot be defended.

Now, I'm called a self-hating Jew.

Then I know they got nothing.

[Shaktimaan]

65. You are mistaken about that.

What is meant by Israel's notorious "support" of Hamas is that (unlike the PLO), Israel didn't actively act against them.

There was no funding, arms, schools, etc. Just a lack of suppression.

[notadmblnd]

66. No, I don't think so..

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a
counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute
support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious
alternative," said a former senior CIA official.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/677821/-If-Hamas-is-so-bad-why-did-Israel-fund-it#

Need more?

[Shaktimaan]

68. Yeah. I do need more.

Everything I've read about this from established sources says the opposite. A dailykos diary citing one named source and one anonymous one isn't really going to do it. Do you have anything more substantial?

I looked it up and found this WSJ article. It's about Hamas' roots and is well worth a real read. Of course if new information has come out I'm interested to know about it. I'm merely relating what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that actual funding took place and was later buried. It's just to my knowledge that didn't occur.

When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.[\div]

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847?mobile=y

[notadmblnd]

69. okie dokie.

Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs:

“In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel’s control over the occupied territories.”

In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a “humanitarian” organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.

Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll. Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO: the Israelis allowed Yassin’s group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.

Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/27/hamas-son-of-israel/

[Shaktimaan]

70. Makes sense.

This is basically what I said earlier. Israel didn't offer direct support such as funding, arms or assistance so much as allow the group to exist and expand. They may have paid collaborators, as they always have and still do. But Hamas, (especially in the form it takes today), didn't receive any direct support from Israel. Rather it benefitted from policies that allowed it to operate. This in and of itself was clearly a mistake, but at the time it wasn't an unreasonable policy decision to make. The group we're discussing was very different than what it became while the PLO constituted Israel's primary threat.

[notadmblnd]

71. Right, I understand. Israel is totally innocent.

Israel has always been oppressed by the Palestinian people. For no reason at all. They are the good guys. Palestinians are subhuman child eating monsters. Death is their creed, they care not for their own lives, why would they care for any one elses?

[Shaktimaan]

72. That's hardly what I said.

But feel free to attempt to disagree intelligently. If you do in fact disagree with anything I wrote. It wasn't particularly out there stuff you know.

It's instructive to see how you view those who disagree w you though. If I refute your point I must be a rabid racist. Very nuanced.

[notadmblnd]

73. You said Israel only gave them moral suppport not financial

I give you two articles, both stating that Israel provided financial support of Hamas . Still you deny and defend Israel.

Israel did far more to create the current monster than they and their apologists take responsibility for. Hamas did not turn on their benefactors for no reason at all.

Seriously, any fool (and I may be one of them) can see that the excuse- that Israel is merely defending itself is total BS.

[Shaktimaan]

75. Right.

Two articles stated that Israel gave Hamas funding. Neither article gave any examples beyond Israel paying off collaborators that it chose itself. Certainly neither stated that Israel actually trained Hamas operatives as you posted.

I asked you for any information you had from legitimate sources. One was a dailykos diary and the other was a blog post penned by someone who also wrote about Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Nothing he cited suggested direct funding of Gaza or Israeli training programs for them either.

If Israel built Hamas to the extent you suggest then simply link to something that actually explains it. Something with legitimacy would be preferable.

So if self-defense has nothing to do with this, then what exactly do you think is the rationale for the current action?

[notadmblnd]

76. If I could give you citations from the creator himself, I suspect you would claim

unreliable sources.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'm going to ask you though- what do you think is going to be the results of the actions Israel has taken?

will it be the annihilation of the Palestinians do unto them before they can do what Israel claims the Palestinians want to do to Israel? Maybe the actions are just to terrorize by murdering so many children, old people, and women in the hopes that the people will turn on Hamas and make them stop with the rockets? By the way, why is it that Israel is always looking to others to do it's dirty work? And if Israel does succeed in obtaining a"sustained quiet", how do you think the world will see it. I can tell you how the worlds sees what Israel is doing right now, and it's not pretty.

World leaders are standing up and condemning these actions. Latin America has recalled ambassadors, Spain canceling an arms shipment. Boycotts and sanctions.

The US is still currently an ally of Israel, do you really think that once Israel has turned the entire world against themselves, that the US is gonna hang with her for long?

Is it acceptable to you that Israel becomes a pariah state? Because that is where Israel is headed.

[Scootaloo]

12. Legally it should all come out of Israel's pocket

As it is the occupying power, that is its obligation. Failing an ability (as opposed to desire) to pay for it all, then Israel needs to step out of the way and let other, more able nations do it under their own advisement... also an obligation.



but then Israel's been ignoring its obligations as an occupying power since 1948, so no surprises i guess.

[King_David]

14. You a lawyer ? Be interesting if there was one to give an opinion

[Scootaloo]

17. No, I'm a chef, but I have access to the relevant laws, as do you

Google's just a few finger-motions away Look up "rights and obligations of the occupying power" or something like that.

[King_David]

26. Ahh So it was a feel good guess then

I'm a stickler for accuracy thanks.

[Scootaloo]

28. Hardly. As I suggested, look it up

It's not wizardry, Dave.

[King_David]

30. I think it was not an expert opinion

[Fantastic Anarchist]

54. You don't have to be an expert to be able to read ...

... reading is essential, and one doesn't have to be an expert to get a grasp on things.

It really isn't sorcery, King_David.

[King_David]

56. Well if that's the case no need for Lawyers

What a waste of all those law schools.
All that is needed is the Internet and the ability to read.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

58. Really?

I can read about physics, and even understand it, and not be a physicist.

But let's take your fallacy even further. If people can't gain understanding through reading, why bother reading at all? I mean, if we still won't be experts on a subject, even after reading about it, we really have no use for reading? Am I right?

[King_David]

59. Wrong person to get into that discussion,

Philosophical discussions not really my thing .

Enjoy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. Nice concession.

I'm glad we got that resolved.

All the best.

[delete_bush]

40. So, international law is your

specialty? If I were you, I'd stick to the soup of the day.

[Scootaloo]

42. I notice that neither you or Dave have countered what i said

Instead choosing ad hominem fallacies instead.

The occupier is responsible for the conditions, upkeep, and progress of the territory they occupy. That's not just the law, it's common sense.

[Shaktimaan]

20. Quick question.

What exactly was Israel occupying IYO between 1948-1967?

[Scootaloo]

29. Maybe go back to the seven other times I've answered this question from you.

But no, since you ask.

When Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, it also decalred its boundaries. This is mandatory for all states in order to be recognized, and of course to join the United nations - How does one grant recognition to a state, if you don't actually know where that state is, correct?

Anyway, Israel declared its borders as mirroring the lines suggested by UN Resolution 181:

My dear Mr. President:
I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

However, at that time, Israel exercised military control of some fairly extensive tracts of territory beyond those declared borders. That these chunks of territory were not part of Israel is made clear by the provisional government of Israel on May 31 1948 in reply to a letter from the UNSC which asked where Israel exercised control;

at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard [1]. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.

This includes Jerusalem, legally a city under occupation

It is after all no more legal for Israel to acquire territory through force, or to perform unilateral annexations, than it is for any other nations.

[kayecy]

43. A very interesting piece of research.....

A very interesting piece of research. This raises several questions on Israeli policy.

1. I understand that Israel claims the settlements do no break International Law because the West Bank is not occupied.

2. What grounds did Israel have for annexing East Jerusalem?

3. What grounds are there for changing Israel's stated (& UN approved) Nov 27, 1947 frontiers?


Facts on the ground?

[Scootaloo]

44. Good questions, and i'll try to answer...

1) The legal status of Palestine as occupied territory has not changed. That the Palestinian Authority has some (very limited) home rule in some (again, very limited) parts of the west bank, and that Israel has removed an internal presence from Gaza does not change the status of the territories; Israel still exercises final, superior authority over the breadth of the west bank, and still has full military control over the territory of gaza, as shown by the seven years of blockade. The settlements absolutely break international law, as they represent a transfer of the occupier's population into occupied territory. "Transfer" need not be forcible to qualify as transfer.

2) None. Territory cannot be unilaterally annexed. it can be traded away in mutual negotiations. This is the first and foremost way for a nation to acquire new territory (Or for that matter, another to lose territory.) Nor can the people of Jerusalem declare their independence and voluntarily join Israel, because independence cannot be declared while under occupation - you can only declare your rule over territory you are sovereign over, and the people of Jerusalem are occupied - that it is an occupation by a friendly power for some citizens of the city does not make it not-occupied.

3) UN Resolution 181 was a suggestion, and was not binding on either party (the UN has no authority at all to alter territorial boundaries, whether between states or non-state entities). However in my link I showed that Israel used this suggestion as the bounds for their claimed territory (these bounds were not formally approved until, I think, 1950, due to the UK - a veto member of the UNSC - holding out for a de jure party government in Israel, rather than the de facto acting government that had been in place prior.) Much as with the answer to #2, though, there is no way to unilaterally alter these bounds once they are declared. You can't call "backsies" on territorial claims, basically. What Israel declared on May 13, 1948, is what is legally Israel's. Anything beyond those bounds is not Israel's.

A related issue;

One of the common claims made is that "the Palestinians rejected a state!" In fact they did not, they opposed partition, which is a whole 'nother position entirely. But even so, they would have been unable to declare a state anyway - prior to may 13, 1948, the entire territory was occupied by the british. The very minute that occupation ended, Israel declared its independence - and four hours later, the Arab League entered the Palestinian territory to intervene in the ongoing civil war there, resulting in the remainder of the former mandate coming under their occupation.

A territory under occupation is, as I mentioned, not sovereign and thus, cannot claim independence, until it regains control of the territory it is laying claim to.

Simply put there was only ever a four-hour window in which an Independent Palestinian State could have emerged - and that Palestinian state would have been greatly truncated at the time of the declaration. At the time, most of Palestine's leadership was dead, imprisoned, or exiled, with the entire territory in a huge mess due to that civil war. There was no way to utilize that four-hour window, even had the Palestinians wanted to carve off big chunks of their territory in addition to the 60% that hadjust been claimed by Israel.

[kayecy]

45. Many thanks for those explanations.........

Many thanks for those explanations.......I guess the remaining question is why would the US which is a big supporter of International Law, support Israeli’s apparently illegal claims?

In particular:
1 Why have the various US presidents, at best, remained quiet over the last few decades as Israel’s settlement activities have increased?

2. Why has even Obama proposed two states based on the green-line (in itself beyond the 1947 frontier) minus the 3% or so occupied by some of those settlements constructed by flouting International Law?


I don’t see how the US can on one hand bring sanctions against Russia for breaking International Law and yet act as a Guardian Angel for Israel which has been flouting the law for years!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. You answered your own question.

The US really doesn't have a moral authority on international law due to her (our) hypocrisy and inconsistency in following such laws, as well as, supporting Israel via UNSC vetoes.

So, yeah, the US acts hypocritically.

[Shaktimaan]

64. Oh right

Yes, I remember refuting this argument some time ago in a post you never responded to. No worries, I'm happy to do it again.

Your Truman library document is an announcement from The Jewish Agency in the US, not from Israel. Regardless, it was followed by de facto recognition by the US.

Now, this next bit is key. In September 1948, (well after your UN letter exchange occurred), the provisional government of Israel passed a law and issued the following statement announcing the annexation of all land gained during the recent war.

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/areajurisdictionpowersord.htm

It was after this announcement, (and the subsequent elections), that the US granted de jure recognition. Which is obviously far more legitimate than simple de facto recognition. It was also well after this announcement that the UN voted to grant Israel membership.

Please also note that the UN's acceptance of Israel followed the 1949 armistice agreement, which officially set Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt. Borders officially recognized and confirmed by those treaties and related parties, including the UN. (Borders which also happen to lie well outside of the UN's proposed partition borders.)

Aaaannnnd, that should just about do it. Didn't you ever wonder why no resolutions or legal arguments or rights groups ever tried to advance that explanation before you? It's simply not accurate. I mean, come on... your key piece of "evidence" was an "official announcement from Israel" postmarked from Massachusetts.

[Scootaloo]

74. Your reality is out of date by about 700 years, shaktimaan

Give or take - when was the last time the Mongols tore through Eurasia, seizing territory with "might makes right"?

1) If Israel passed a law annexing those territories, then those territories were outside Israel's borders. Duh.

2) It is illegal to unilaterally annex territory outside your borders.

3) The armistice agreements specifically do not prejudice on the issue of borders - this is why it's an "armistice line" and not a "border." The peace treaties both specifically do not prejudge on the issue of the border of Palestinian territory - this allows some legal wriggling for Jordan and Egypt to recognize a Palestinian state should one emerge without bothering with Israel.

4) This issue actually constitutes the bulk of UN resolutions with regard to Israel. Israel's declared annexation of East Jerusalem alone has been declared null and void several times by the United nations Security council.

Also pardon me if I hold that the official representative of Israel in the United States knows what the fuck he was talking about.

[Shaktimaan]

77. No. It's all up to date.

1. Doesn't really matter how you choose to view it. The fact remains that Israel declared its sovereign authority over the land in question, which was then accepted by the UN, the US and the world at large via recognition and acceptance to the UN.

2. Obviously that's not the case wrt unclaimed territory. Because the area in question is accepted as legally belonging to Israel.

3. You're right about this one. It wasn't until their respective peace agreements that the borders of Israel, Jordan and Egypt were officially demarcated. But they were. So that happened.

4. I notice you only mention east Jerusalem. An area we aren't discussing right now. We're talking about the land between the partition agreement's boundaries and the area claimed by Israel (pre-67.) If the UN really considered that area to be occupied/illegally annexed by Israel then please cite.

5. So you're actually going to claim that a document from a US organization has greater validity than an official declaration from the actual Israeli government? One that post dates yours? Seriously?

Doesn't really matter what he said, does it? The (actual) declaration came later, and was accepted by the UN and international community.

It's kind of like talking to a birther, or a vaccine opponent. It doesn't matter if every relevant fact supports my argument. You'll clearly put your faith in any tertiary scrap of detritus that seems to bolster your existing viewpoint. Even when it means trusting Jenny McCarthy over your own doctor.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

15. Israel doesn't owe a dime to anyone.

Palestinians freely elected terrorists into power. They started the war, let them reap what they sowed.

Maybe they will learn something this time. Not counting on it though.

[Scootaloo]

18. Yeah, that's not even remotely how it works

This sort of logic says it's cool to kill Israelis for voting in Likud, or Americans for voting in Republicans, or whoever. Which is manifestly NOT the case.

In fact it's rather disgusting that you think it IS the case. You're basically advocating the mass murder of people who vote "incorrectly." Even for an "Israel Supporter" that's some pretty deep fascist shit.

[whosinpower1]

19. Well said, nt

[bemildred]

27. +1. nt

[Jefferson23]

32. Maybe what you just said will penetrate and be understood, maybe..good on you for

stating it. Well done.

[stranger81]

34. Well put. In addition, just about half of Gaza's population is under age and not eligible to vote.

Which, to me, begs the question of why Israel has killed more children than Hamas fighters during this engagement.

[notadmblnd]

24. Am I to understand that you feel that the old terrorists were better than the new terrorists?

[CJCRANE]

4. He wants to bring back "the quiet".

I've noticed that word used a couple of times in this context.

It's almost like Frank Luntz has advised him not to use the word "peace".

[regnaD kciN]

11. The "quiet" of the graveyard…

[Phlem]

7. Nothing is going to come from this.

We are sadly joined at the hip strategically with Israel.

Seems all our government can manage is bluster, I don't see any hard line response against the cleansing of Palestinians from Israel anytime soon.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Huh?

What "cleansing of Palestinians from Israel" are you referring to?

People come up with the goofiest stuff.

[Phlem]

31. Bombing women, and children relentlessly yea, real goofy.

[King_David]

35. I guess you couldn't answer his question

So you answered some other question?

[Phlem]

36. Oh give me a break.

I only said it's the cleansing of Palestinians not any one else. But if you want to get into the specifics and forgo the consequences then go right ahead. Killing the fucking innocent know matter how you try to reconcile it, is still 1000% wrong.

Good night Princess.

Oh and please, enlighten me on to why that's OK.

[King_David]

46. "Good night Princess". ?????

WTF do you think you talking to ?

I take offense weather or not you yourself are gay .

And if you are not gay I consider your post homophobic.

[Phlem]

47. GEE "KING DAVID",

I should have guessed YOU would take offense. I'm talking to someone who has no clue what I'm talking about.

Welcome to DU.

jayzuz.

[Shaktimaan]

37. In Israel?

First of all, Israel hasn't bombed any Palestinians living in Israel, much less ethnically cleansed them.

Secondly, the issue we're discussing isn't whether Israel's actions in Gaza are justified or not, but whether they constitute ethnic cleansing. As no one's been cleansed from Gaza I don't see how it could be characterized as ethic cleansing.

But you said "in Israel." To my knowledge no Palestinians at all are being ethnically cleansed from Israel.

Words do have specific meanings, you know.

[Phlem]

38. where in this does it say Israel is bombing Palestinians in Israel?

"We are sadly joined at the hip strategically with Israel"

Where?

And when I say "joined at the hip strategically with Israel", It's a shared relationship for a strategic position globally. As if Israel is the only place.

Really? Your asking me this "Words do have specific meanings, you know."?

jayzuz.

I know it's not ethnic cleansing as UN schools are getting bombed as well. But you know, whatever we can do to make people look over here instead of over there.

[Shaktimaan]

39. Here.

I don't see any hard line response against the cleansing of Palestinians from Israel anytime soon.

I know it's not ethnic cleansing as UN schools are getting bombed as well. But you know, whatever we can do to make people look over here instead of over there.

No idea what that means.

[Phlem]

41. Ahh

I was looking at the Israel map before and after and saw how much Palestine had lost at present. Not condoning Palestinians actions back then but they have a sliver of land to live on now that is relentlessly getting carpet bombed. The map is 95% Israel as of 2000.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html

But I've seen a more updated map which paints a 98% Israel occupancy and I sill cannot reconcile what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and innocents. Especially the innocents. They are so close to each other, one wonders why a more strategical strike isn't used compared to the shock and awe we are seeing?

Still way fucking not right.

Still disgusting.

[PoliticAverse]

8. Jerusalem Post article on Netanyahu's comments...

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Watch-Live-Netanyahu-addresses-the-nation-as-army-begins-withdrawing-troops-from-Gaza-369819

[whosinpower1]

9. Has Netanyahu heard of the Pottery Barn rule?

Israel is the occupying power. It is their responsibility to fix what they destroyed. I think they need to find the money from all the funding they receive, period.

I also think the UN should unilaterally cease UN relief in Gaza.

If Mr Netanyahu is so wise, let him deal with the full brunt of being an occupier, instead of blaming Arab states, the UN, America, and everyone else who is critical of the disproportionate destruction.

[Shaktimaan]

22. The occupation ended in 2005.

And your suggestion to shut down all UNRWA operations in Gaza seems to be a perfect example of how some people who are ostensibly pro palestinian are actually far more fixated on punishing Israel regardless of the human cost to the palestinian people.

What possible benefit could you possibly anticipate from shutting down all UNRWA schools, jobs, food programs and other programs in Gaza?

[whosinpower1]

33. Interesting

If the whole world turned their backs on the palistinians, you know because they support evil Hamas, they voted for them, they are constantly creating problems for Israel - sending rockets perpetually, building TUNNELS, suicide bombers.....all that stuff.

If the rest of the world agreed with Netanyahu that the palistinians simply are not DESPERATE enough to abandon terrorism, and so withdrew support......you are suggesting that this punishes Israel.

The occupation has remained in place, in spirit, ever since Hamas has retained control (?) of Gaza.

This thing that is the Israeli/palistinian conflict has gone on far too long. Clearly, if the UN, America, Israel, the Arab states, were doing things right - the conflict would have ended long ago. But it hasn't. No one seems to be truly interested in peace. So, why not just take the veil away. Mankind are just a bunch of shits.

All that aid does is just kick the can down the road. No other conflict has ever had the degree and sheer amount of aid provided to a people. It is the longest running aid program in the history of the UN. What has it accomplished? Israel just bombed another school today. Why should the UN stay under hostile conditions? If the UN leaves - this punishes Israel?!? wow.

[Phlem]

48. oooh be afraid.

Your talking to "KING DAVID", he might take offense.




Excellent points.

[Shaktimaan]

67. Right.

Your meaning was quite clear although you ignored my question. You stated that the UN should withhold all support so that:

If Mr Netanyahu is so wise, let him deal with the full brunt of being an occupier, instead of blaming Arab states, the UN, America, and everyone else who is critical of the disproportionat

Aka: Make Israel deal with it.

Of course, since Israel isn't occupying Gaza, it's not actually under any obligation to provide the kinds of services the UNRWA provides.

That said, you advocated this course of action DESPITE the devastating effect it would have on the Palestinians. That was my point. That the well being of the people you are supposedly committed to actually takes a back seat to punishing Israel.

I'll ask you again though... What benefit could possibly be gained by the UNRWA ceasing aid to Gaza?

Or we're you merely being facetious?

[azurnoir]

10. and it's come full circle today from redoploying to we're staying

but there is this announced when they were redeploying what happens to these people now?

Israel says Gazans in two areas can return to their homes
Tunnel-destroying work ends in Beit Lahiya and al-Atatara, but IDF warns returning residents of Hamas booby traps

The announcement, confirmed by Palestinian sources, marked the first time since Israel launched its ground offensive against Hamas targets in Gaza on July 17 that the IDF told Gaza residents it had completed its military operations in a specific area.

Residents of those two areas had previously been urged to move south, ahead of IDF activity. The announcement came with the withdrawal of IDF forces from the areas.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-gazans-in-two-areas-can-return-to-their-homes/#ixzz39Gqm5NSN

and in coming full circle 2 things happened first the family of the captured soldier spoke up and asked Netanyahu not to leave Gaza until he is found and Hamas proclaimed victory, both of which probably 'influenced' Bibi's decision

[Scootaloo]

13. One almost thinks Israel has no idea what it's doing

But then you remember back to 2009...

As Israeli commentator Ofer Shelah put it: "In the face of enemies who have opted for a strategy of attrition and attacking from a distance, Israel will present itself as a 'crazy country', the kind that will respond (albeit after a great deal of time) in a massive and unfettered assault, with no proportion to the amount of casualties it has endured."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7940624.stm

It's called the Dahiya Doctrine, after the town that Israel utterly destroyed in Lebanon in 2006.

[kayecy]

25. With the result that another UN school has been hit.....

With the result that yet another UN school has been hit.....Result....Seven Palestinians killed and dozens injured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

09.35 UK time Sunday, 3rd August 2014

[bemildred]

49. Gaza shelled during Israel's limited truce

A Gaza City house has been shelled and other areas in Gaza have been fired upon since an Israeli-declared seven-hour humanitarian truce has come into effect.

The Gaza Health Ministry said a child was killed and 30 people, mostly women and children, were wounded in the strike on Monday on a house in Shati refugee camp.

An Israeli military spokeswoman told news agency Reuters she was checking the report.

Israel earlier declared that it was holding fire in parts of the Gaza Strip for seven hours, amid world outrage over a deadly strike on a UN school in the Palestinian territory.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/israel-declares-limited-gaza-truce-2014847754570160.html

[bemildred]

50. Gaza: Israeli Soldiers Shoot and Kill Fleeing Civilians

(Gaza) – Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes.

Seven Palestinians who had fled Khuza’a described to Human Rights Watch the grave dangers that civilians have faced in trying to flee the town, near the Israeli border, to seek safety in Khan Younis. These included repeated shelling that struck apparent civilian structures, lack of access to necessary medical care, and the threat of attack from Israeli forces as they tried to leave the area.

“When will there be justice for the civilians in Khuza’a, who suffered shelling for days, then faced deadly attacks by Israeli soldiers after being ordered to leave the town?” asked Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director.

Khuza’a, which has a population of about 10,000, was the scene of fighting between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups during an Israeli ground offensive in the area on July 23, Israeli news media reported. Israeli forces provided general warnings to Khuza’a residents to leave the area prior to July 21. While the laws of war encourage “advance, effective warnings” of attacks, the failure of civilians to abide by warnings does not make them lawful targets of attack – for obvious reasons, since many people do not flee because of infirmity, fear, lack of a place to go, or any number of other reasons. The remaining presence of such civilians despite a warning to flee cannot be ignored when attacks are carried out, as Israeli forces have done previously.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/04/gaza-israeli-soldiers-shoot-and-kill-fleeing-civilians

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. But that's Human Rights Watch ...

... you know they can't be trusted.

[bemildred]

51. Israel Uses Palestinians as Human Shields but US Lawmakers Condemn Hamas

Both houses of the US Congress are considering passing a resolution that condemns Hamas for using human shields despite not having any evidence to prove Hamas is employing this tactic.

Over the last 22 days, the Israeli army has deliberately bombed family homes, UN shelters, schools, places of worship, hospitals, water infrastructure and more, killing more than 1,300 Palestinians, 80 percent of whom have been civilians, including nearly 300 children.

In propaganda echoed by the US State Department, the Israeli government has repeatedly claimed that Hamas is using women and children as human shields to protect its weapons and rocket launchers, forcing Israel to massacre innocent Palestinians.

The only evidence Israel has provided for this unsubstantiated accusation is cartoon sketches.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25362-israel-uses-palestinians-as-human-shields-but-us-lawmakers-condemn-hamas

[bemildred]

52. Turkey refuses joint energy policy with Israel

Turkey will not co-operate with Israel on energy policy while it is attacking Gaza, Energy Minister Taner Yildiz has said.

Speaking at a press conference in Ankara on Monday, Yildiz said any proposal for a natural gas pipeline between Israel and Europe, via Turkey, could not go ahead for political reasons.

He said: "An energy project's economic feasibility is also important as its political feasibility and now, if we build a natural gas pipeline between Israel and Turkey, innocent children's blood would flow from this pipeline."

Yildiz added: "Now there is an unjust situation in Gaza but if the attacks stop, Turkey could discuss energy [with Israel]."

http://www.aa.com.tr/en/rss/368563--turkey-refuses-joint-energy-policy-with-israel

[Jefferson23]

61. TURKEY ONLY COUNTRY TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISRAELI AGGRESSION, SAYS CHOMSKY

ISTANBUL –

The world renowned U.S. intellectual Noam Chomsky said that Turkey is the only country who explicitly opposes Israel's atrocious operations in Gaza and continuous U.S. support of Israel has created anti-Americanism in Muslims around the world. "Turkey is the only country that has explicitly displayed its stern attitude toward Israel and has opposed Israel's oppression of Palestine," Chomsky told state-run Anadolu Agency.

He reiterated that the world expected too much from the "international community," accentuating that there was no such thing as the international community and that ordinary people are deceived in believing it exists.

http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2014/07/26/turkey-only-country-to-speak-out-against-israeli-aggression-says-chomsky

In contrast from a correspondent in Turkey:

It’s bizarre being in Turkey, where everyone agrees that Israel is bad, but people still protest only in condemnation as if people need to be aware who the “bad guys” are, rather than against the government, for failing to take action (Erdoğan’s family has personal trade relations with Israel in addition to the fact that trade with Israel is at a record high at present, plus military relations have not been severed, and any changes in diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey are taken by the Israeli side, that is, they’ve limited their embassy staff for safety reasons, rather than been recalled like Latin American countries are doing).