-
Features
Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds in retaliation for joining ICC
- Thread starter Davka
- Start date
The attack decision was their own. The funding was Hamas.
Not nonsense, but a major misinterpretation of the facts.
Of course the invasion was to some extent preplanned. If it wasn't the Israeli generals should be court martialed for dereliction of duty. Israel perfectly well knows there are going to be more incidents with Gaza and any competent military makes plans to deal with expected threats.
That's not to say that there was an intention to actually execute the plan until Hamas started throwing a whole bunch of rockets.
untermensche
Contributor
A lot more conclusive than the claim that Israel had to bomb a lot of civilians (again) in Gaza because it was somehow looking for three boys.
It is partially the truth and that is why Israel has trouble with an outside court looking at what it does.
And of course all Israel can do is threaten and cause more hardship.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Israel did not bomb Gaza at that time. The bodies were found before the Gaza operation even began... the Israeli bombings in Gaza were responses to rockets fired from Gaza, not any reprisals towards Hamas for the kidnapping.
The search was a reasonable reaction to the kidnapping. This is why kidnappings are a really bad way for Palestinians to resist the occupation. It would be much more effective to have just killed the kids and left the bodies to be found, so that Israel would not have an excuse to use such overwhelming force.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Do you have no conscience? Just asking.
Davka
Senior Member
And the rockets were fired in response to Israeli settlers burning a Palestinian teen alive.
"he hit me first" goes back into ancient history in the region. It's long past time to stop reprisals, punishments, and so on. The only way to end a childish feud is for one side or the other to decide to act like a grown-up. Bibi's coalition is incapable of doing so, and Hamas was established for the purpose of throwing more effective fits, so it's unlikely that anything will change any time soon.
untermensche
Contributor
There was no justification for the aggression into Gaza.
It was done for many reasons. To terrorize. As reprisals for the unwillingness of everybody in Gaza to fully submit to Israeli oppression. To destroy infrastructure and make life more miserable for people in Gaza.
It was a clear war crime and that is why Israel threatens and withholds when simply the suggestion that the matter be examined is mentioned.
A search is not bombing and destroying and shooting at civilians standing on the beach.
A search is not whatever an aggressive power says it is.
Reality check time:
Israel didn't do anything to Gaza in the hunt for the boys. Israel bombed Gaza because Hamas reacted to the hunt by throwing a bunch of rockets.
- - - Updated - - -
What does a conscience have to do with reporting the truth?
Or is this a veiled way of saying I'm lying?
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Factually incorrect. Several small Palestinian militias began launching small rockets and mortars in response to the burning attacks on Palestinian teenagers. Israel's response was to hold Hamas DIRECTLY responsible for those attacks and retaliated by launching air strikes against Hamas leaders. It was at THAT point that Hamas' rocket teams began to open fire, using weapons far more powerful than the small garage-made shit that had been fired previously.
The truth is the people who kidnapped those hitchhikers weren't acting under the control of Hamas in any meaningful way, and holding Hamas responsible for their actions is disingenuous at best.
This, of course, is to ignore the fact that the Israeli settlements are illegal and those teenagers had no business being in Palestinian territory in the first place. You are quick to blame Hamas for launching attacks from heavily populated civilian areas, but I'd be curious to know what you make of Israel sending its civilians deep into hostile territory as an excuse to build military garrisons. If Hamas is guilty of using human shields, then the settlers are a human lance.
You don't have several small groups launching from Gaza without Hamas agreeing.
Hamas funded them. The fact that they acted independently in deciding to actually do it is irrelevant.
1) The de-facto line is the fence. They were within it.
2) They certainly weren't in Gaza.
untermensche
Contributor
It is only the de facto line according to Israel.
According to the vast majority of the world and UN Resolutions and international law the settlements are illegal and the people living there are criminals and the Israeli government is criminal for violently defending them.
The line the rest of the world uses isn't a real border at all, just an armistice line.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
You're right. It isn't a real border. Israel won't have real borders until it is forced to establish them.
Nevertheless, the 1967 Armistice Line is the border the international community recognizes, the one the PLO recognized when it recognized Israel's right to exist, and it's the line that delineates what Israel can claim as it's own and what is clearly and obviously an Occupied Territory.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
How can anyone have a rational discussion with anyone who asks "What does a conscience have to do with reporting the truth?"?
The bit about a conscience was not a rebuttal at all as it in no way challenged the accuracy of the statement. It's just a derail, as is this continuation of the idea.
angelo
Deleted
The 67 borders are indefensible. Were Israel to withdraw to the 67 border it would mean terrorist been able to attack Israeli citizens within their mist. Hamas charter is the genocide of all Jews. Israel has a right to secure borders. Hamas have no intention of dropping their charter or of ever accepting a Jewish state. The past history shows that.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
And yet, Israel has managed to defend them quite successfully for the past 47 years. But perhaps you're right, that border will prove to be indefensible, in which case Israel should pull back closer to the 1948 borders ASAP.
Terrorists are able to attack any nation's citizens from within their midst. Even the most peaceful and stable societies have this problem. It's not an impediment to having genuine borders.
Also, having thousands of citizens living in hundreds of scattered settlements surrounded by the people whose land was stolen to build them increases the risk of attack. Defending the 1967 border is child's play compared to the difficulty of defending the settlements and the roads leading to them. So if you are concerned about defensible borders, the only sensible position to take is to support a complete withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank and to consolidate the protected area as much as possible. Do you?
Debatable, but irrelevant to the subject of Israel's refusal to recognize a border with the not-Israel part of the West Bank, or to even admit such a place exists.
Yes, Israelis have a right to live in peace and security, as do the Palestinians. At the moment, Israel has no intention of accepting a Palestinian State in Palestine, as past history and current events show. But that doesn't mean there can't be a border that the international community and the Palestinian leadership recognizes as the place where Israel ends and not-Israel begins. That border is the 1967 Armistice Line, and every single Israeli living outside it is living outside of Israel.
Last edited:
angelo
Deleted
That's bullshit! You are either been selective or don't know that at the Camp David meeting with President Clinton, Israel agreed to 90% of Palestinian demands and still Arafat and his delegation of terrorist walked out on any agreement being settled. On the contrary, it's the Palestinians who refuse to accept an Israeli state under any circumstances. Their charter of it been Palestinian land from the river to the sea means genocide for all Jews in the middle east.