Our revenge will be in Tel Aviv, Jihad warns Israel after assassination

[GabysPoppy]

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Islamic Jihad warned that it would wreak its revenge within Israel as thousands of people gathered for the funeral of one of the organisation's military leaders who was assassinated in an air strike.

"Your blood will not flow without a price being paid. Our answer will be in Tel Aviv," senior Jihad leader Abdullah al-Shami told mourners by loudspeaker in central Gaza after the death of his cousin Aziz al-Shami on Saturday.

"Our resistance and jihad will continue until the end of the occupation on our land, all of the land of Palestine.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&ncid=1515&e=1&u=/afp/20040208/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_gaza_funeral_040208132353

Anyone question what is meant by this jihad or what this group considers Palestine?

[Forkboy]

1. sigh

and their answer will lead to Israel's answer,which will lead to IJ's answer,which will lead to Israel's answer,which will lead to...

on it goes :-(

[forgethell]

2. What's the answer?

Obviously, one side, or the other, must be totally defeated, like the South was in the Civil War, or the Axis in WW2, or even the USA in Vietnam.

Both sides have goals that either cannot, or will not be comprimised. So all that is left is to pick your side. It is really depressing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Yes, one side must have victory

Either the terrorists or civilization. I choose civilization.

[Forkboy]

5. I'll choose civilization

when I see it.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

6. the civilization

that rules over millions of lives without allowing them a vote - that shinning "true democracy" in the middle east much better them than the "other side" which consists of noting but terrorists, not Palestinians just terrorists. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Noncitizens don't vote

You and I don't get to vote in Israeli elections either, I might add.

[Djinn]

11. but the HUGE difference is

I'm not likely to get shot by the ADF when I pop out for milk.
People who live in the occupied territories are not citis\zens and have no vote - therefore the Israeli government should have NO power over their lives

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Right now

The people who live in the disputed territories aren't citizens of ANY nation. Even they don't want to be Israelis, which is only fair because Israel doesn't want them either.

No other state claims the area in question, which means they don't vote except in the bogus PA elections.

However, they will remain in their status until the situation is resolved permanently -- creating a Palestinian state that stops terrorism.

[Aidoneus]

16. they don't have tanks ripping up my street either,

I might add..

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. People in your neighborhood

Probably aren't terrorists either.

[Aidoneus]

18. I don't know that..

might have to torture them, claim their pool & yards for myself, and then destroy their homes just to be safe.. if they weren't before, they would be after I did that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Israel's neighborhood is a bit nastier than where you live

It's had to fight numerous wars and has been victimized by an ongoing onslaught of terror for over three decades.

[Djinn]

19. could be?

maybe I should shoot missles at them from a helicopter ... you know just in case

[aquart]

4. "Assassinated in an air strike"?

Is that some equivalent of touching with a ten-foot pole?

Is that precision bombing or what?

[HawkerHurricane]

7. "Assassination by air strike"

Kind of like "we know where he's going to have dinner, so we'll fire a bunch of missiles at that resteraunt and hope we get him... oh, and sorry about killing the owner and his family and all his neighbors and that one missile that hit the wrong part of town, and we really wish he had actually been at that resteraunt because then we wouldn't have wasted all those missiles and killed all those people to no purpose"

[ex_jew]

13. Yet another death for Netzarim

..snip..

One source said that intelligence indicated Shami was currently involved in planning an attack against Netzarim, which lies just to the south of Gaza City.

unsnip

Why doesn't Sharon just close the damn place now rather than dragging things out ? You know IJ will take revenge, and then those deaths too will be attributable to Netzarim. If you're going to abandon it anyway, is there a point in getting more people killed over it ?

[tinnypriv]

14. He has to gain US consent first

Because he has to arrange the "reward". See this item from Israeli analysts:

...

"When it becomes clear what we’re getting in return and what Israel might achieve through the withdrawal from Gaza, many people will change their mind", said senior sources close to Sharon.

The compensation package ... is supposed to be coordinated with the US during the PM's visit to Washington and the preparatory visit by Sharon's Bureau Chief, Dov Weissglass.

The compensation package to the right is to include the annexation of Ma’ale Adumim and the Gush Etzion bloc, US agreement to further constructions in central settlements, on which there is a consensus in Israel, US approval of the present path of the fence, a US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and a US consent that no Israeli settlement will be removed from the West Bank till a final agreement will be reached.

Morever, the package is to include an Israeli declaration (US backed) of the framework of any military response to terror acts against Israel, or rocket fire from out of Gaza after withdrawal. Jerusalem hopes to get an agreement in front of the American's (that) Israel be permitted to respond by severe bombing, liable to also kill many civilians, if shooting continues inside of the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal - a similar balance of terror exists on the Lebanese border.

...

(emphases added to highlight the items which Americans should be concerned with)

http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/ART642268.html (Hebrew)

[Gimel]

31. US: Don’t annex territory while removing Gaza settlements

...any annexation of territory or transfer of settlers from Gaza to the West Bank is unacceptable.

The U.S strongly objects to Israel annexing any more territory as part of Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan, according to a message sent to Israel from Washington last week.

The Americans also object to the idea of transferring settlers from the Gaza strip to the West Bank in the event that Israel evacuates the Gaza settlements. The U.S made it clear that it would view such an initiative as a breach of Israel’s commitment to freeze settlement activity.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Sunday presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a number of messages that were received from the US in recent days. The Americans said they would not “prevent” Israel from unilaterally evacuating settlements, and that they support such a move in principle. That said, Washington views Sharon’s plan as complementing the road map, not replacing it. Thus, the Americans are refuting all rumors insinuating that they acknowledge the road map has failed.

<more>
full story...

[Aidoneus]

15. probably the same thing that Israeli meteorologists consider theirs

I'm not sure whether they're going to follow Hamas' lead and consider a conditional compromise on '67-occupied Palestine in exchange for a decent settlement, and leave the question of '48-occupied Palestine to a future generation.

[Jim Sagle]

21. That's bull. Any settlement needs to recognize Israel once and for all.

Otherwise Israel has no incentive to agree to anything.

[Aidoneus]

22. where did I suggest the contrary?

I'm not willing to argue this point tonight, but I'd like to know exactly what you're referring to..

[GabysPoppy]

23. I might guess this little tidbit you wrote.

"leave the question of '48-occupied Palestine to a future generation."

If that doesn't imply the right of Israel to exist, I don't know what you meant. Why not clarify that "afterthought" for everyone?

[bluesoul]

24. Right now the only existence in danger

is that of Palestinians and their state. Israeli already has all that plus the unconditional support of the only superpower in the world, sadly...

[GabysPoppy]

25. If you were responding to his 1948 reference

You totally lost me. But feel free to respond to that question if you choose.

[bluesoul]

26. I was replying to the constant claims

about how Israel is "threatened" and that it's existence is in question. Considering the "facts on ground" and who is the one actually losing homes, land and it's agriculture that is laughable. Palestinians are the one losing their land and they are being driven out. Not Israelis.

[Aidoneus]

27. oh, that

nothing is permanent.. leaving it open to some future generation is just their way of saving pride while conditionally capitulating on some of the demands of the Zionists(*), in exchange for crumbs of a side dish off its plate, when the main course is theirs by right. Be glad.

(*)--but not enough of them, of course--if my own experience here is any indicator of what it's like in the big version, there's always some new hoop to jump through waiting just around the corner)

As a response to Jim, the incentive for Israel is to feel fortunate that they're being allowed to get away with the lion's share of what was already stolen, and that a fraction of that is all that is on the table for discussion (though not according to Sharon's recent slip, apparently, but I'll wait to see if another bit about that is whispered before giving it any more than raised eyebrow). Anything else is just greedy.

If you didn't get the "Israeli meteorologists" remark, just ask--it's pretty much the same answer, just flying from the other direction. That's interesting for the brazen hypocrisy, if little else. And that also goes for the "crumbs of a sidedish" remark, in case the meaning isn't quite as obvious as I think it is. I realize that it's not good form to have to explain what is supposed to be a witty remark (they sometimes fall more flat than I had intended when translated from gray matter to 1s and 0s), but I'll buck the traditions this time in order to have the more interesting lines be read as I intended them.

[GabysPoppy]

28. So I was right in the first place

I didn't misread your statement.

[Aidoneus]

29. how exactly did you read it?

I get nervous when people try to read things into what I say other than what I have, in fact, specifically said..

one-liners in response don't exactly make for a stimulating discussion..

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.