The result of brutal occupation? (Tel Aviv attack)

[zenith-nadir]

I presume you are referring to suicide bombers? I was referring more to examples such as the continuing mortar and rocket attacks Hamas have been engaged in since the elections.

Actually the Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have been firing rockets into Israel lately. Ironically the rocket in question is the Qassam rocket which Hamas developed and began firing into Israel five years ago.

The PA under Arafat was obligated to stop Palestinian terrorists from firing rockets into Israel, so was the PA under Abbas and so is the PA under Hamas. Yet the rockets continue daily.

Apr. 19, 2006 10:28

The IDF started shelling Kassam rocket launch pads in the northern Gaza Strip on Wednesday after a rocket was fired from the area earlier in the day, landing near Kibbutz Karmiya.

If it was the Israeli boarder I would have no problem with them sealing them however as far as I am aware the coastline in question is not part of what Israel considers is its coastline?

The Gaza coastline could be opened if the Palestinian Authority fulfilled it's obligations to disarm and dismantle the known and designated terror organizations operating from it's soil. Until then the Gaza coastline remains closed to all except small-time fishermen.

I have already explained - any nation is (as far as I am concerned) entitled to protect itself from direct attacks, and it I was an Israeli I would want to know that the money poured into the defence of Israel was being well spent and any attacks on Israeli territory would result in immediate retaliation against the direct attacker.

The problem with that is by the time you have a suicide bomber inside Israel it may be too late. So to prevent suicide bombers and rocket launchers one must go after them at their source much like how America went after Al Queda at it's source in Afghanistan rather than waiting to stop Al Queda as they are perpetrating an attack inside America.

This could all end tomorrow, literally, and negotiations could resume if the Palestinian Authority only clamped down on it's own home-grown terrorist industry that every one on earth knows to exsist. But, alas, the opposite is true.

 

[Darat]

Actually the Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have been firing rockets into Israel lately. Ironically the rocket in question is the Qassam rocket which Hamas developed and began firing into Israel five years ago.

The PA under Arafat was obligated to stop Palestinian terrorists from firing rockets into Israel, so was the PA under Abbas and so is the PA under Hamas. Yet the rockets continue daily.

And?

The Gaza coastline could be opened if the Palestinian Authority fulfilled it's obligations to disarm and dismantle the known and designated terror organizations operating from it's soil. Until then the Gaza coastline remains closed to all except small-time fishermen.

That wasn't the question I asked. My question was is this coastline part of what Israel considers to be its coastline or would it be part of a coastline of Palestine (if there was a nation of Palestine)?

The problem with that is by the time you have a suicide bomber inside Israel it may be too late. So to prevent suicide bombers and rocket launchers one must go after them at their source much like how America went after Al Queda at it's source in Afghanistan rather than waiting to stop Al Queda as they are perpetrating an attack inside America.

Yet you have provided the evidence is that this does not prevent the suicide bombers or the rocket attacks. A rational approach would be to try something new - which thankfully the Israelis are doing.

This could all end tomorrow, literally, and negotiations could resume if the Palestinian Authority only clamped down on it's own home-grown terrorist industry that every one on earth knows to exsist. But, alas, the opposite is true.

Obviously but so what?

 

[zenith-nadir]

My question was is this coastline part of what Israel considers to be its coastline or would it be part of a coastline of Palestine (if there was a nation of Palestine)?

The coastline would be part of the future Palestinian state if they ever stop terrorizing and sit down to negotiate the details.

Yet you have provided the evidence is that this does not prevent the suicide bombers or the rocket attacks.

Not all of them are stopped, as the Tel Aviv bombing proves, but many others are stopped before they step foot inside Israel. (cite, cite, cite, cite, cite)

 

[Darat]

The coastline would be part of the future Palestinian state if they ever stop terrorizing and sit down to negotiate the details.

Thanks for the clarification - then my previous comment stands - i.e. Israel should "disengage" at this coastline.

Not all of them are stopped, as the Tel Aviv bombing proves, but many others are stopped before they step foot inside Israel. (cite, cite, cite, cite, cite)

Which is again evidence that the policy that has been pursued for decades e.g. trying to reason with the myriad of representatives of the proto-state and the "engagement" does not work.

You seem to be wanting the Israelis to continue to pursue the policy of "engagement and occupation" - why when it hasn't worked so far?

 

[zenith-nadir]

You seem to be wanting the Israelis to continue to pursue the policy of "engagement and occupation" - why when it hasn't worked so far?

"Engagement" yes, "occupation", no. I want peace. I want a peace where a palestinian can live beside and Israeli and an Israeli can live beside a Palestinian if they so choose.

What the Palestinians want is a 100% jew-free zone™ where they live, release of all Palestinian prisoners, half of Jerusalem, and for every 1948-1967 Palestinian to be granted the right of return to Israel unconditionally. These ultimatums cannot be fulfilled. They are pipe dreams sold to the Palestinians by Arafat.

Abbas: I won't give up demand for right of return of refugees

PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas told the Palestinian parliament Tuesday that he would follow in Yasser Arafat's footsteps and demand that Israel recognize the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

Abbas' ideas about a peace deal with Israel have always been close to those of Arafat: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as a capital, and Israeli recognition of the right of return of some four million refugees and their descendants.

Sunday 12 March 2006, 13:26 Makka Time, 10:26 GMT

The main points of Hamas's draft government programme posted on its website:

• Pursuit of the armed struggle [against Israel] until achieving our goals.
• The right of return and reparations are a right for all Palestinians.
• Free all Palestinian prisoners.
• The negotiations are a means and not an end.

 

[Mycroft]

I understand all that but my opinion is that it is no more Israel's business what the proto-state imports then it is what France imports to the UK (well OK we are both part of the EU so we do have some say via the EU on what France can and can not import but I'm sure you get the idea).

And I can guess a possible objection you may bring up regarding this free-market approach e.g. no other purpose but to use these against Israel. However there is nothing to stop Israel blasting the hell out of anyone and anyplace in the proto-state if they try to use any such imports against Israel.

I tend to agree with you, but it's virtually impossible to reconcile these two principles. So long as the UN is there condemning every defensive action Israel takes and the pro-Palestinian crowd is there to exaggerate and obfuscate every Israeli action, no defensive action Israel ever takes will ever be acknowledged as and appropriate use of force.

 

[Mycroft]

Which is again evidence that the policy that has been pursued for decades e.g. trying to reason with the myriad of representatives of the proto-state and the "engagement" does not work.

You seem to be wanting the Israelis to continue to pursue the policy of "engagement and occupation" - why when it hasn't worked so far?

Isn't there an excluded middle here? It's not a choice between engagement and occupation and absolutely no engagement is it?

 

[zenith-nadir]

...and the pro-Palestinian crowd is there to exaggerate and obfuscate every Israeli action...

Case in point.

The Guardian - Wednesday April 19, 2006

Monday's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv rightly drew international condemnation, yet criticism of Israel's relentless shelling of civilian population centres in the occupied Gaza Strip has been blocked by the US at the UN security council.

Has Israel been relentless shelling of civilian population centres in the occupied Gaza Strip? Nope. But that doesn't stop the Guardian from printing Israel does.

Is Gaza occupied? Nope. But that doesn't stop the Guardian from printing it still is.

The Guardian - Wednesday April 19, 2006

This month alone, Israeli forces have killed more than 30 Palestinians, including at least six children, and injured 130 others, while about 200 shells have been fired into the Gaza Strip every day.

Notice how the Guardian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants. Surely their editor must know the difference, or he is totally unqualified for the job, yet the Guardian still makes the choice to lump Palestinian combatants killed in with non-combatants killed simply to make Israeli actions sound worse.

Notice too that there is nary a mention of Palestinians firing rockets into Israel...none at all.

This is a perfect example of the exaggeration and obfuscation perpetrated by even the British media when it comes to Israeli actions. That is why when JREFers cite "The Guardian" they might as well just shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Darat]

Isn't there an excluded middle here? It's not a choice between engagement and occupation and absolutely no engagement is it?

As I've said before I think Israel should consider the proto-state as a state that has declared war on Israel so yes there may still be some communication and so on but I don't think it should be anything like what we have seen over the last few decades.

 

[Darat]

Case in point.

Has Israel been relentless shelling of civilian population centres in the occupied Gaza Strip? Nope. But that doesn't stop the Guardian from printing Israel does.

Is Gaza occupied? Nope. But that doesn't stop the Guardian from printing it still is.

Notice how the Guardian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants. Surely their editor must know the difference, or he is totally unqualified for the job, yet the Guardian still makes the choice to lump Palestinian combatants killed in with non-combatants killed simply to make Israeli actions sound worse.

Notice too that there is nary a mention of Palestinians firing rockets into Israel...none at all.

This is a perfect example of the exaggeration and obfuscation perpetrated by even the British media when it comes to Israeli actions. That is why when JREFers cite "The Guardian" they might as well just shoot themselves in the foot.

You must have missed that the two quotes you posted here were from "Comment" sections and that they are both clearly labled as being by:

· Manuel Hassassian is the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative to the UK
www.nad-plo.org

Now you may argue that they shouldn't give him any space to propagate his views but you can't expect such a piece to be "balanced" or say that represents the journalism of the newspaper it appears in. "Comment" pieces aren't meant to be journalistic balanced, they are opinion pieces.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You must have missed that the two quotes you posted here were from "Comment" sections

Nope. I am perfectly clear that what I cited was from A) The Guardian, B) in the "Israel & the Middle East Special Reports section" and C) under "comment and debate".

Now you may argue that they shouldn't give him any space to propagate his views but you can't expect such a piece to be "balanced" or say that represents the journalism of the newspaper it appears in. "Comment" pieces aren't meant to be journalistic balanced, they are opinion pieces.

Editors at large newspapers and magazines receive hundreds of submissions each week and choose what to publish. In this case the editors of The Guardian chose to publish an Op-Ed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative to the UK.

Op-ed writers should not be allowed to write complete fabrications and then have those fabrications printed in a newspaper. One would expect at least the bare minimum of editorial guidelines from The Guardian. That is my whole point about exaggeration and obfuscation.

 

[Darat]

Nope. I am perfectly clear that what I cited was from A) The Guardian, B) in the "Israel & the Middle East Special Reports section" and C) under "comment and debate".

Your post does not make that clear.

You then went on to say that "Notice how the Guardian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants. Surely their editor must know the difference, or he is totally unqualified for the job, yet the Guardian still makes the choice to lump Palestinian combatants killed in with non-combatants killed simply to make Israeli actions sound worse."

What you should have said to avoid misrepresenting the facts was "Notice how Manuel Hassassian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants...."

Editors at large newspapers and magazines receive hundreds of submissions each week and choose what to publish. In this case the editors of The Guardian chose to publish an Op-Ed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative to the UK.

Op-ed writers should not be allowed to write complete fabrications and then have those fabrications printed in a newspaper. One would expect at least the bare minimum of editorial guidelines from The Guardian. That is my whole point about exaggeration and obfuscation.

I am surprised that someone who so vigorous proclaimed support for the freedom of the press in regards to the "Mohammad Cartoons" now calls for the censoring of the press when they publish something you disagree with.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You then went on to say that "Notice how the Guardian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants. Surely their editor must know the difference, or he is totally unqualified for the job, yet the Guardian still makes the choice to lump Palestinian combatants killed in with non-combatants killed simply to make Israeli actions sound worse."

I shall repeat what I said. Editors at large newspapers and magazines receive hundreds of submissions each week and choose what to publish. In this case the editors of The Guardian chose to publish an Op-Ed that has representations in it that are 100% false.

What you should have said to avoid misrepresenting the facts was "Notice how Manuel Hassassian doesn't differenciate between combatants and non-combatants...."

I didn't misrepresent facts. Editors at large newspapers and magazines receive hundreds of submissions each week and choose what to publish. In this case the editors of The Guardian chose to publish an Op-Ed that has representations in it that are 100% false.

I am surprised that someone who so vigorous proclaimed support for the freedom of the press in regards to the "Mohammad Cartoons" now calls for the censoring of the press when they publish something you disagree with.

Now I know you are baiting me. I did not say the word "censor", in fact nowhere in this thread do I say "we must censor The Guardian." I challenge you to show JREFers where I said "the Guardian should be censored." Go for it.

The editors of The Guardian chose to publish an OpEd that has representations that are 100% false. Period. Which is my point about exaggeration and obfuscation by pro-Palestinian entities.

 

[The Fool]

Let's deal with the utter fabrications in that one sentence.

This should be fun....watch how its done kiddies.

1) The Rafah crossing into Egypt is controlled by the Palestinians. The crossing operates under joint Egyptian-Palestinian management and under European Union supervision. Palestinians are free to travel through the Rafah crossing into Egypt at their leisure. They do not have to "beg passage".

rubbish, absolute rubbish...
Egypt determines who enters Egypt..If you are claiming that Palestinians decide if they can enter Egypt you are either completely uninformed or lying..

So ZN claims that needing Egyptian permission to enter Egypt is a fabrication. Can I assume needing American permission to enter america is a fabrication too? ZN...please tell me of any other countries beside Egypt who don't get to decide who enters and who doesn't.

2) There is no fuel embargo, none whatsoever, no one has placed a legal prohibition on fuel commerce with the Palestinians. Ergo they do not have to cross the Sinai on foot.

yes...my mistake. When I said fuel I should have said everything. So is that the fabrication ZN...that I said fuel and forgot to add in that its not just fuel? Oh yea...Its not an embargo is it....I could sell fuel (or anything else) to Gaza if I wanted too. I'll just have to pretend the shut gates and IDF are not there....But wait! There is still the possibility of trucking it in through the sinia desert.You've already explained how you don't need Egyptian permission to enter Egypt!!!..or possibly even employing scuba divers to float the goods across the med..(under the Israeli navy)

JREfers why do you debate someone who posts total demonstrable fabrications?

demonstrable? I put it to you that both your claims have died of heart failure at the start line....

 

[The Fool]

dup

 

[zenith-nadir]

This should be fun....watch how its done kiddies.

rubbish, absolute rubbish...Egypt determines who enters Egypt..If you are claiming that Palestinians decide if they can enter Egypt you are either completely uninformed or lying..

11/25/2005

The advisor for the Palestinian presidency Nabil Abu Rudinah said that operating the Rafah border crossing with Egypt will start tomorrow at a rate of four hours to be increased gradually. In a joint press conference with the chairman of the European observers mission Piatro Pestolizi, he said that the sovereignty on the crossing will be in Palestinian hands.

The Palestinian civil affairs minister Muhammad Dahlan said that an agreement was made with the Egyptian side to exempt Palestinians who are over 40 years old or under 18 year old from getting an entry visa to Egypt.

Egypt said the border is to be opened 24 hours a day.

So ZN claims that needing Egyptian permission to enter Egypt is a fabrication.

11/24/2005

An Egyptian and Palestinian agreement was concluded a number of measures including exempting people under age 18, and above 40 age from obtaining entry visa in addition to previously exempted people; e.g. women, students at Egyptian universities, holders of diplomatic passports, those seeking medical treatment, members of official delegations and Palestinian merchants in coordination with the Authority," the Egyptian government said.

The report added "The two sides agreed that the crossing will operate around-the-clock and throughout the whole year.

To my next "fabrication".

yes...my mistake. When I said fuel I should have said everything.

Please cite the relevant documents which prove there is an "everything" embargo - your word - on the Palestinians.

I put it to you that both your claims have died of heart failure at the start line....

 

[Rob Lister]

more interesting is the restrictions Egypt places on the boarders.

"exempting people under age 18, and above 40 age from obtaining entry visa"

They know. The PA has a problem. One they've fostered for decades. Now they must deal with it. Exporting it is becoming increasingly difficult.

 

[zenith-nadir]

more interesting is the restrictions Egypt places on the boarders. "exempting people under age 18, and above 40 age from obtaining entry visa"

Palestinians under 18 and over 40 are free to cross into Egypt without an entry visa. They are exempt. So are women, students at Egyptian universities, holders of diplomatic passports, those seeking medical treatment, members of official delegations and Palestinian merchants.

The only Palestinians which need Egyptian permission - an entry visa - to enter Egypt are Palestinian males between 18 & 40 who do not fall in those categories.

The fool sure showed me huh?

 

[The Fool]

To my next "fabrication".

Please cite the relevant documents which prove there is an "everything" embargo - your word - on the Palestinians.

Seal off Gaza they cry! But don't forget to deny it actually means stuff can't get through.....


Also ZN...why do you quote access rules decided by Egypt in support of a claim that Egypt doesn't set the access rules?

Bizzare....you support sealing off gaza, you applaud it....but then deny it can be referred to as an embargo. You claim Egypt has no say in who enters then site rules and guidelines worked out and agreed to by Egypt...

 

[zenith-nadir]

Also ZN...why do you quote access rules decided by Egypt in support of a claim that Egypt doesn't set the access rules?

I am not going to play feed the troll. You said "Egypt determines who enters Egypt". I proved with documentation that Egypt does not determine who enters Egypt if they are under 18 and over 40, women, students at Egyptian universities, holders of diplomatic passports, those seeking medical treatment, members of official delegations and Palestinian merchants. End of story.

You claim Egypt has no say in who enters then site rules and guidelines worked out and agreed to by Egypt...

And the guidlines say if Palestinians are under 18 and over 40, women, students at Egyptian universities, holders of diplomatic passports, those seeking medical treatment, members of official delegations and Palestinian merchants the Egyptians have no say.

Have a nice day.