Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[Togo]

The three slivers included the Negeb desert.

The desert's quite large. Why are you calling it a 'sliver'?

That would explain why there's very little industry in Gaza and the West Bank.

Blockade and artillery fire are renowned for their beneficial effects on industrial production.

 

[Jayjay]

Utterly false.

The three "tiny slivers of land" amounted to more than half of Palestine, while the people slated to recieve it amounted to less than 1/3 of the population. And the overwhelming majority of the favored group were recent arrivals from Europe. And they rejected the proposed borders because they wanted even more, so they implemented Plan Dalet and grabbed all the agricultural and industrial areas they could. The Partition Plan was never implemented.

But don't let that stop you from telling Zionist myths and fairy tales about the three tiny slivers of land and the plucky, noble, gentle folks who made the desert bloom just as soon as they figured out how to get rid of the natives settle the inexplicably abandoned villages of the nasty, brutish semites Christians and Muslims terrorists who used to live there.

Where the fuck do you get your history from, Hamas history books?
Industrial, agriculture? The three slivers included the Negeb desert. That would explain why there's very little industry in Gaza and the West Bank. [Samaria] Those thieving Joos stole it all.

Indeed. Why did the proposed Jewish state include the Negev desert, despite Negev having hardly any Jewish presence at the time? Doesn't that tell you that the partition plan was unfair and ignored the legitimate Arab claims?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're blaming Israel for not taking risks in order to avoid killing the human shields.

The IDF made a choice. The IDF is responsible for its choices and the consequences of those choices. There is no blame there - it is a recognition of reality. When Hamas makes choices or people in a church being fired upon make choices, you have no trouble pointing out the consequences of those choices and holding them responsible for those choices. In fact, you explicitly blame them for their choices. But you seem incapable of recognizing that the IDF is responsible for its choices and their consequences. Why is that?

Of course, in this particular case, there is no evidence that Hamas was using anyone as a human shield, which makes your replies appear even more ideologically based and even less tethered to reality.

Evidence of Hamas' use of human shields has been presented in the past. You simply stick your head in the sand, mostly by saying Israeli sources aren't credible but there have been various other reporters who have talked about what's going on once they are no longer under the thumb of Hamas. Most of them don't talk because they value being able to "report" the "news" higher than telling the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

The IDF made a choice. The IDF is responsible for its choices and the consequences of those choices. There is no blame there - it is a recognition of reality. When Hamas makes choices or people in a church being fired upon make choices, you have no trouble pointing out the consequences of those choices and holding them responsible for those choices. In fact, you explicitly blame them for their choices. But you seem incapable of recognizing that the IDF is responsible for its choices and their consequences. Why is that?

Of course, in this particular case, there is no evidence that Hamas was using anyone as a human shield, which makes your replies appear even more ideologically based and even less tethered to reality.

Evidence of Hamas' use of human shields has been presented in the past.

Which is not evidence of human shield use in this instance.

You simply stick your head in the sand, mostly by saying Israeli sources aren't credible but there have been various other reporters who have talked about what's going on once they are no longer under the thumb of Hamas. Most of them don't talk because they value being able to "report" the "news" higher than telling the truth.

I said that there was no evidence that this children were human shields. A relevant response (in contradistinction to your own irrelevant example of a double standard) would address that specific point instead of making a hilarious example of a double standard with an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[untermensche]

One must first accept the premise that Israel has the right to kill at will to accept the idea that people can be used as shields.

Israel has no right to attack people in Gaza and kill whoever it thinks is a Hamas member defending from an Israeli attack.

What Israel has as an occupying power are responsibilities to ensure people are not hurt. If rockets are being fired that is the cost of oppression. Israel has no right to try to throw these costs on to the Palestinians in Gaza.

It has peaceful methods to end this which it doesn't even pursue. It's leaders prefer the posture of the intransigent violent psychopath.

 

[angelo]

Where the fuck do you get your history from, Hamas history books?
Industrial, agriculture? The three slivers included the Negeb desert. That would explain why there's very little industry in Gaza and the West Bank. [Samaria] Those thieving Joos stole it all.

Indeed. Why did the proposed Jewish state include the Negev desert, despite Negev having hardly any Jewish presence at the time? Doesn't that tell you that the partition plan was unfair and ignored the legitimate Arab claims?

All the middle East was part of the Ottoman empire, which was defeated and the victors partitioned it. The Ottoman empire was Turkish, not Arab. The Arabs that were there are from various Islamic invasions that occurred centuries ago. There never were "Palestinians" until 1964.. Judea and Samaria were Jewish lands until 65-70ad when the Romans killed one million Jews and dispersed the rest to various parts of the Empire. But a core of them remained behind and have been there ever since. It was the Romans who named it Palestine as another slap in the face of the Jews. They named it that after the Jews enemies the Philistines who were red headed not Arabs!

 

[angelo]

One must first accept the premise that Israel has the right to kill at will to accept the idea that people can be used as shields.

Israel has no right to attack people in Gaza and kill whoever it thinks is a Hamas member defending from an Israeli attack.

What Israel has as an occupying power are responsibilities to ensure people are not hurt. If rockets are being fired that is the cost of oppression. Israel has no right to try to throw these costs on to the Palestinians in Gaza.

It has peaceful methods to end this which it doesn't even pursue. It's leaders prefer the posture of the intransigent violent psychopath.

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

Indeed. Why did the proposed Jewish state include the Negev desert, despite Negev having hardly any Jewish presence at the time? Doesn't that tell you that the partition plan was unfair and ignored the legitimate Arab claims?

All the middle East was part of the Ottoman empire, which was defeated and the victors partitioned it. The Ottoman empire was Turkish, not Arab. The Arabs that were there are from various Islamic invasions that occurred centuries ago. There never were "Palestinians" until 1964.. Judea and Samaria were Jewish lands until 65-70ad when the Romans killed one million Jews and dispersed the rest to various parts of the Empire. But a core of them remained behind and have been there ever since. It was the Romans who named it Palestine as another slap in the face of the Jews. They named it that after the Jews enemies the Philistines who were red headed not Arabs!

If the Romans named the region "Palestine" then the habitants were Palestinians. So your claim that there were no Palestinians before 1964 is utter nonsense.

 

[Jayjay]

One must first accept the premise that Israel has the right to kill at will to accept the idea that people can be used as shields.

Israel has no right to attack people in Gaza and kill whoever it thinks is a Hamas member defending from an Israeli attack.

What Israel has as an occupying power are responsibilities to ensure people are not hurt. If rockets are being fired that is the cost of oppression. Israel has no right to try to throw these costs on to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel is not occupying Gaza. And that half-assed reasoning can be turned the other way around: Israel's oppression is the cost of Hamas firing rockets at Israel, and Hamas has no right to try to throw these costs to citizens of Israel. Like Loren, you are trying to apply a different standard to Palestinians and Jews for no good reason.

It has peaceful methods to end this which it doesn't even pursue. It's leaders prefer the posture of the intransigent violent psychopath.

You have just accurately described Hamas.

 

[untermensche]

One must first accept the premise that Israel has the right to kill at will to accept the idea that people can be used as shields.

Israel has no right to attack people in Gaza and kill whoever it thinks is a Hamas member defending from an Israeli attack.

What Israel has as an occupying power are responsibilities to ensure people are not hurt. If rockets are being fired that is the cost of oppression. Israel has no right to try to throw these costs on to the Palestinians in Gaza.

It has peaceful methods to end this which it doesn't even pursue. It's leaders prefer the posture of the intransigent violent psychopath.

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

 

[angelo]

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

Bullshit!!! And some how I think you know it!!

 

[angelo]

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

The Arabs rejected the offer. The aggressors all met in Khartoum in 1967 and issued a joint statement which is generally referred as "The Three No`s. " No recognition of Israel; No negotiations ; No peace ". That is the reason Israeli troops continued to occupy Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 war. Under pressure from the U S and much of the world's governments, Israel evacuated around 7000 of it's people and the IDF. What was their reward? Continued rocket and suicide bombers, making Gaza a terrorist enclave. And what of numerous greenhouses left behind? A ready established agriculture which if utilised as intended, would add to the economy of Gaza and Palestinians in general. All the greenhouses were destroyed along with other infrastructure left behind by the Israelis.
The same thing would happen if Israel was stupid enough to pull out completely out of the West Bank. In fact it would be suicide on their part.
These people cannot be negotiated with, their leaders have to be eliminated. One can't negotiate with someone who wants to kill you.

 

[Arctish]

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

Bullshit!!! And some how I think you know it!!

angelo, can you provide a list of the Palestinian demands and show us the offer Israel made that met 95% of them?

We all know Israel refused to meet the 2 main Palestinian demands: the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees and Israel withdrawing it's troops to it's own side of the 1967 borders. So how do you figure Israel offered 95% of what the Palestinians were demanding? What other demands were there?

 

[untermensche]

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

Bullshit!!! And some how I think you know it!!

You are not worth discussing this with.

You have no knowledge of what has gone on.

 

[laughing dog]

Israel is not occupying Gaza. And that half-assed reasoning can be turned the other way around: Israel's oppression is the cost of Hamas firing rockets at Israel, and Hamas has no right to try to throw these costs to citizens of Israel. Like Loren, you are trying to apply a different standard to Palestinians and Jews for no good reason.

Given the gov't of Israel's policies and actions in the West Bank, there is every reason to expect that it would find new reasons and methods to oppress the population and gov't in Gaza.

 

[Jayjay]

Israel is not occupying Gaza. And that half-assed reasoning can be turned the other way around: Israel's oppression is the cost of Hamas firing rockets at Israel, and Hamas has no right to try to throw these costs to citizens of Israel. Like Loren, you are trying to apply a different standard to Palestinians and Jews for no good reason.

Given the gov't of Israel's policies and actions in the West Bank, there is every reason to expect that it would find new reasons and methods to oppress the population and gov't in Gaza.

What reasons are those? Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinians just for fun; it wants the land in West Bank and East Jerusalem. But it has already withdrawn from Gaza and has shown no particular intent to return.

 

[laughing dog]

Given the gov't of Israel's policies and actions in the West Bank, there is every reason to expect that it would find new reasons and methods to oppress the population and gov't in Gaza.

What reasons are those? Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinians just for fun; it wants the land in West Bank and East Jerusalem. But it has already withdrawn from Gaza and has shown no particular intent to return.

You confuse "oppression" with "intent to return". And you assume oppression is the only method available to obtain those lands.

The Israelis view Arabs as a threat and will do so for a very long time, regardless of the validity of the perception at any point. The hysterical and counterfactual observations of the pro-Israel contingent in these threads is an example of the irrationality on all sides that is present.

 

[Jayjay]

What reasons are those? Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinians just for fun; it wants the land in West Bank and East Jerusalem. But it has already withdrawn from Gaza and has shown no particular intent to return.

You confuse "oppression" with "intent to return". And you assume oppression is the only method available to obtain those lands.

The Israelis view Arabs as a threat and will do so for a very long time, regardless of the validity of the perception at any point. The hysterical and counterfactual observations of the pro-Israel contingent in these threads is an example of the irrationality on all sides that is present.

What's irrational is to think that Israel would not leave Gaza alone, if Gaza left it alone. Of course not overnight, precisely because of the reason you stated, but most of the things Israel is doing in Gaza is a net loss to Israel, and there is no reason to think that the remaining issues (such as having an airport, free flow of goods from Egypt and by the sea, and fishing rights) could not be negotiated after a while. That's not the case in West Bank, where the continued land theft gives Israel a profit motive to continue the present course.

Israel gets along just fine with all of its other neighbours. Even Lebanon and Syria.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One must first accept the premise that Israel has the right to kill at will to accept the idea that people can be used as shields.

Israel has no right to attack people in Gaza and kill whoever it thinks is a Hamas member defending from an Israeli attack.

All nations have the right of self defense. When they are being attacked they can shoot at those doing the attacking.

What Israel has as an occupying power are responsibilities to ensure people are not hurt. If rockets are being fired that is the cost of oppression. Israel has no right to try to throw these costs on to the Palestinians in Gaza.

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

It has peaceful methods to end this which it doesn't even pursue. It's leaders prefer the posture of the intransigent violent psychopath.

Your continued insistence that peaceful methods exist doesn't make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Arafat and other terrorist leaders never wanted peace. They want to push the Jews into the sea. At Palestinian rallies they chant "from the river to the sea " .
They were given a chance to form a state on more than one occasion, on one occasion they were offered 95% of their demands but they still walked away. They want nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

This is fantasy.

There is no near agreement that the Palestinians were offered 95% of their stated demands.

The closest they ever got was Taba. And Israel walked away not the Palestinians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

Wikipedia is not a credible source for subjective matters about Israel/Palestine issues.


Arafat was saying no, no, no, no and ran out the clock. You blame Israel for that.