• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh. I had no idea. Since the US military exposes every new cohort of recruits to tear gas as part of their basic training, I naturally assumed that it was expected to be a common battlefield experience, like just about everything else we were exposed to as part of our basic training.

On the other hand, they did also train us in the initial identification and treatment of nerve gas poisoning, and in the proper response to a nuclear blast situated in that sweet spot between "to close to matter" and "too far away to matter". It never crossed my mind that either of those events would be at all common on the battlefield.

On the other other hand, they didn't actually expose us to nerve poison or nuclear blasts, but they did give us each a pretty serious lungful of tear gas.

Nope. It's illegal because people are worried about escalation. You use tear gas so the other side moves onto blister agents and before you know where you are you are chucking VX agent at each other.
If that's the reasoning, then it totally makes sense why tear gas is prohibited on the battlefield but not in riot control: rioters don't have the wherewithal to escalate from total industrial tear gas warfare to to total industrial nerve gas warfare. Indeed, rioters don't have the wherewithal to escalate to total industrial anything (if they did, they wouldn't be rioters, they'd be assembly-line workers).

Even if they escalate to gas masks, using tear gas doesn't really open any Pandora's boxes, does it?
 
Hey HoverBoarder, I think you post some good stuff but you said that both sides have justification to attack the other. I think you are falling into the "balanced" fallacy. That the truth must be somewhere in the middle of competing claims.

Do you think Hamas had good reason to attack Israel with rockets launched from and at civilian sites?

Hey Virus,

You are definitely right on this.

I meant to say that both sides have a long list of justifications for attacking each other, but I regret saying that any of those reasons were "valid," at least on the Palestinian side. I think Israel is mostly justified for their attacks, as they are mostly done in self defense including in 1967.

I do not agree with just about anything that Hamas has done, and their use of schools and other civilian areas in order to encourage civilian deaths that they use for propoganda is definitely not something that I support.


So what can we do? Yitzchak Molcho, the envoy for Netanyahu, and the Palestinian negotiator are both in Washington for separate talks with Clinton today, but it does not look like they can agree on any terms to get back to negotiations. Even if the PLO and Israel reach some kind of agreement, Hamas is not ready to take any steps to move towards peace.


What do you think should be done to give Israel long term peace when they are dealing with neighbors like Hamas?

A recent poll of Palestinians found that 70% of Palestinians believe that a third Intifada would break out if negotiations failed, compared to 72% that were opposed to an Intifada it last year. Many of the Palestinians believed that this Intifada could be peaceful as some demonstrations in the Arab Spring were, but 25% of those polled said that they would prefer a violent Intifada.
 
The muslim brotherhood was declared legal as a political movement in egypt, I can only hope they don't get into power by buying the poor and intimidating the rest. Renouncing peace is next.

good job obama -.-
 
Last edited:
The muslim brotherhood was declared legal as a political movement in egypt, I can only hope they don't get into power by buying the poor and intimidating the rest. Renouncing peace is next.

good job obama -.-

The Muslim Brotherhood is also legal in Israel. :)
 
Naksa Day Commemorates Decades of Israeli State Terror

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3...-day-commemorates-decades-of-israel#more17801

from the article, jhere is a list of israeli agression against palestinians in the last couple of weeks:
Supported, funded and armed by Washington, Israelis terrorize Palestinians daily. From late May to early June alone, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), Palestine News Network, and others reported:

-- an Iraq Bourin village child wounded;

-- in Bil'in village, one resident wounded, another 15 arrested, including eight international human rights activists against Israel's illegal Separation Wall, stealing up to 12% of Palestinian land when completed;

-- on May 29 at 1AM, Israeli forces stormed Bil'in village, panicking residents with sound bombs while they slept;

-- on June 3, IDF troops attacked weekly Bil'in anti-Wall protesters with tear gas, sound bombs, rubber bullets, and sprayed sewage water, injuring six and many others from asphyxiating fumes;

-- Israel conducted 47 incursions into West Bank communities and one in central Gaza, arresting 29, including four children and two women;

-- two Jenin charitable organizations were closed and eight artisan wells destroyed;

-- a Qalqilya construction materials shop was bulldozed;

-- Israeli vessels fired on Palestinian fishermen, crashing into and destroying one boat in Gazan waters, injuring its occupant, rescued by others nearby;

-- Israeli tanks, military vehicles and bulldozers breached Gaza's border east of the al-Buriage refugee camp, terrorizing residents and razing agricultural land gratuitously;

-- Israeli soldiers shot and wounded a Gazan man in Gaza City's al-Zeitoun neighborhood;

-- extremist Israeli settlers attacked a Palestinian shepherd in Madma village, burning four dunams of farmland there;

-- other settlers attacked a Palestinian youth in central Hebron's al-Dbuya area, injuring him;
 
I disagree with your responses to Thunder, but as I said, "Whether you call Israel an Apartheid State or not, the fact is that the present system is not sustainable or beneficial to the security or moral structure of the State. "
Which parts do you disagree with?

Well if it is not sustainable, than they need a sustainable solution.
Well, duh! There have been serious attempts to solve these issues, but maximalist demands and the lack of budging on the Palestinian side has been the prime issue, from Arafat to Abbas.

I think that solution should include land swaps including land that Jordan gives up, the Israeli's should keep the Golan Heights for security reaons, and there should be a discussion on rights.
Whose rights? You keep bringing up these issues of rights but refuse to acknowledge that Israeli Arabs, those with citizenship, and those with permanent residency, have individual rights.

The demand that Israel be a Jewish State is a loaded term, and should be changed, and the Palestinians intentions largely from Hamas that they would continue to engage in terrorist attacks on Israel whether they get a State or not needs to be addressed.
No, it shouldn't. Israel is a democratic and Jewish state. Its a state religion and has a right of return. These exist elsewhere and I don't see it being an issue there either.

The demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish State is a loaded term for two reasons.

1) It does not address the rights on non-Jewish people living in Israel.

2) It is designed to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes and homeland.
You keep bringing this issue of rights up without any justification for it.

As for the 2nd point, the issue of refugees has become one sided since the issue of Jewish refugees has been totally removed from any UN resolutions post-242. There are also requirements to said return and to concept behind losing 3 wars of belligerency where there has been Palestinian involvement.

As far as rights go, this should just be explicitly addressed. As I know that you are not worried about this, but the Palestinians are. For the right to return, they should just give the Palestinians the right to return to the newly created Palestinian State while maintaining limits on the return to Israel.
Are you now obfuscating Palestinians of a future Palestinian state and those residing in Israel? The latter has been addressed and that's why I don't have an issue with it since the issue doesn't exist in the first place.

One way to address this would be to base this definition in a similar fashion to Article 4 of the Palestinian Constitution.

ARTICLE 4
1.Islam Judaism is the official religion in PalestineIsrael. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2.The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation. The protection of the Jewish people and Israeli citizens shall be the main source of legislation.
3.Arabic Hebrew shall be the official language.
Israel actually practices this. The PA/PLO simply pays lip-service to it. Their leadership has unequivocally denied any Jewish heritage to Jerusalem and the rest of Jewish holy site that exist throughout modern Israel and the territories.

The rest of laden with false premises.

Well, I don't, that's why I consider it to be one of the two main barriers to finding a peaceful solution.
There significantly more issues than the two main ones you pointed out above.

Clearly, the lost of trust on both sides that the other party will negotiate in good faith, and the issue of Palestinian access to holy sites in Jerusalem are major issues, but the demand of a "Jewish State," and the fact that Hamas has said that they will use any future State to base attacks on Israel are extremely difficult things to overcome.
There's been no real trust on both sides for obvious reasons, ie riots, intifadas, 3 major wars instigated by the Arab league with Palestinian support. You keep bringing up the red herring of a Jewish state, as if that's a core issue, as with the farce of building on already existing settlement blocs that would be part of future land swaps. The PA/PLO has been stone-walling and will continue to do so.

Hamas advocates a violent jihad, Fatah simply a passive one of changing demographics. The majority of Palestinians see a two-state solution as a precursor to a one-state solution where Israel will be either taken out by force or by a shift in demographics.
 
Last edited:
Nope. It's illegal because people are worried about escalation. You use tear gas so the other side moves onto blister agents and before you know where you are you are chucking VX agent at each other.
Isn't the reasoning behind using CS gas during wartime is that the opposing sides, mainly that of state-actors, might interpret this gas as something else besides CS and thus pass the threshold in using chemical weapons from non-conventional weapons during war time operations? This is of course assuming a number of issues:

-That a non-state actor such as those faced by coalition forces in Iraq/Afghanistan, adhere to the rules of engagement and do not pass the threshold into using CS gas.

These insurgents have passed this threshold long before the Coalition's usage of CS gas in theaters like Fallujah:

Chlorine bombings in Iraq

-Which leads on the the 2nd point, is this restriction of using CS gas in wartime, absolute, even after chemical agents such as chlorine, which have lasting and damaging effects (which CS gas doesn't), have been used by those you are fighting against?

Personally, I don't think the restrictions on CS gas is absolute once the threshold has already been passed by the opposing side(s).

-Why would one not use such methods in urban combat situations when one can effectively minimize collateral damage when civilians reside in the combat zone? The Americans used it to great effect in Vietnam just for this reason.
 
Propaganda is based on what is effective for the target audience.

Both perpetuate the violence.
How does this rhetoric even answer the question? Again, show me in Israeli media where there is propaganda as seen on PA-state run tv and Hamas run tv channels. There's plenty to choose from in Palestinian-run media.

Why would you consider a cycle of violence to be farce? The IDF attacks the Palestinians and builds walls because they feel they have to protect themselves from Palestinian groups like Hamas which attack them and call for Israel to be destroyed (which is a valid positions). On the other side, the Palestinians attack Israel because they get bombed by the IDF, because of the settlements in the West Bank, and because the Israelis impose restrictions on them (also valid positions).
The barrier, where the was a small portion of actual wall (about 5-6%) to protect from snipers, was built against a malady of Palestinian terrorist groups, along with those of the PLO and their affiliates (which at some point did include Hamas), was built to prevent further escalations and the need to go into the WB to go after these terrorist groups.

The settlements predominantly reside on land where there were Jews residing prior to the Jordanian and Arab league expulsions after 1948, all permitted under the mandate, ie settlement in what is now referred to as the WB.

Where are Palestinians getting bombed? Gaza? Well, cease firing mortars and missiles, and there won't be any directed missiles and artillery against these mortar/missiles squads required.

None of these above reasons are a justification for the 'cycle of violence' skit. As in, remove the instances of Palestinian terrorism, there wouldn't be the Israeli side to perpetuate this supposed cycle.

Both sides have more than enough justifications to attack each other forever.
If you run with these false premises, sure. But in reality, no. Imagine if the Palestinians accepted the partition plan? Imagine if they accept a state where Jews aren't perpetually at the whim of the Islamic uhmmah? We wouldn't be discussing this on this forum at all.

Well I did read all 108 pages, and HOLY FAKE GOD, it took a long time!

As I just stated, I think there are ways to still accomplish the same goals of demanding recognition from the Palestinians of Israel's right to exist, but in a way that the moderates at least could accept.
FYI, I'm secular. So the hapless attempt at trolling by bolding 'HOLY FAKE GOD' has no effect on me. If only these 'Where's Waldo' moderates actually exist within the Palestinian leadership...imagine.
 
Last edited:
You keep bringing this issue of rights up without any justification for it.

As for the 2nd point, the issue of refugees has become one sided since the issue of Jewish refugees has been totally removed from any UN resolutions post-242. There are also requirements to said return and to concept behind losing 3 wars of belligerency where there has been Palestinian involvement.

Are you now obfuscating Palestinians of a future Palestinian state and those residing in Israel? The latter has been addressed and that's why I don't have an issue with it since the issue doesn't exist in the first place.

Israel actually practices this. The PA/PLO simply pays lip-service to it. Their leadership has unequivocally denied any Jewish heritage to Jerusalem and the rest of Jewish holy site that exist throughout modern Israel and the territories.

The rest of laden with false premises.

There significantly more issues than the two main ones you pointed out above.

There's been no real trust on both sides for obvious reasons, ie riots, intifadas, 3 major wars instigated by the Arab league with Palestinian support. You keep bringing up the red herring of a Jewish state, as if that's a core issue, as with the farce of building on already existing settlement blocs that would be part of future land swaps. The PA/PLO has been stone-walling and will continue to do so.

Hamas advocates a violent jihad, Fatah simply a passive one of changing demographics. The majority of Palestinians see a two-state solution as a precursor to a one-state solution where Israel will be either taken out by force or by a shift in demographics.

Ok, well I was just bringing up ideas to help as there didn't seem to be much talk of actually finding a solution to this problem except for one post from Thunder.

I thought my use of the modified Article 4 of the Palestinian constitution as another way to say that Israel would be a Jewish State was a good idea, since it could be something that more Palestinians could support and accept as a necessary precondition for recognizing Israel's right to exist. But it was just an idea to work on figuring out a longer term solution.

As far as rights go, I know that it is not something that you or many Israeli's think is an issue, but many Palestinians do. Even if it is something that you say that Israel already does, they will need to address it with the Palestinians in negotiations (if those ever happen).


And maybe finding a 'solution' is not the solution at all. As Virus and Joey pointed out, a future Palestinian would just be used as a staging ground to base terrorist attacks on Israel, and Virus even posted a video of a Hamas official saying that they would do just that. I suppose until Hamas comes up with a real plan to have real peace, than the concept of a Palestinian State fixing all of the problems is just naive. We can want a group to do the opposite from what they say they are going to do, but doesn't make it any more likely.

Maybe what needs to be done is to just build more walls and wait out the Palestinians for another 50 or 100 years until they are serious about peace.



FYI, I'm secular. So the hapless attempt at trolling by bolding 'HOLY FAKE GOD' has no effect on me. If only these 'Where's Waldo' moderates actually exist within the Palestinian leadership...imagine.

Well, no disrespect was intended on that, I just wanted to express that reading through over 4,000 posts took a very long time. Saying "Holy God," or "Jesus Christ" in exasperation is something that I had gotten used to saying, but I have not believed in god for over a decade, and it seemed silly to keep saying that. So I now say "holy fake god!"
 
Just a quick note. HoverBoarder, a new poster, writes things about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A lot of what he writes is critical of Israel. Some people here disagree with him. But does anybody call him an antisemite? Does anybody declare he wants Israel destroyed or supports those who do? No. Why? Because whatever his views, clearly he is interested in the subject and tries to learn about it and be fair.

He is, in short, an addition to a group of regular posters on the subject -- I can name quite a few other ones -- who are often critical of Israel but who, at most, some people consider naive or wrong, not antisemitic or for Israel's annihilation.

So contrary to what is often claimed here, criticism of Israel is not seen by the pro-Israeli folks as being antisemitic. Rants about "zionist" control of the media / USA / Congress / world, gross double standards for Israel, supporting blood libels against it, etc., are seen as antisemitic -- because they are simply the same old antisemitic rants, thinly disguised by replacing "Jew" with "zionist" or "Israeli".
 
"Why use the tear gas last? Why shoot first? Why fire into the bodies, into the unarmed marchers, and kill them, when all along you were equipped with the proven means to disperse them without death and blood?

It seems, then, there was a choice for the occupying force. And they made the that choice. The choice to kill, to speak with death and blood across the impossible distance."

'The Impossible Distance: A Choice to Kill'
 
Just a quick note. HoverBoarder, a new poster, writes things about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A lot of what he writes is critical of Israel. Some people here disagree with him. But does anybody call him an antisemite? Does anybody declare he wants Israel destroyed or supports those who do? No. Why? Because whatever his views, clearly he is interested in the subject and tries to learn about it and be fair.

He is, in short, an addition to a group of regular posters on the subject -- I can name quite a few other ones -- who are often critical of Israel but who, at most, some people consider naive or wrong, not antisemitic or for Israel's annihilation.

So contrary to what is often claimed here, criticism of Israel is not seen by the pro-Israeli folks as being antisemitic. Rants about "zionist" control of the media / USA / Congress / world, gross double standards for Israel, supporting blood libels against it, etc., are seen as antisemitic -- because they are simply the same old antisemitic rants, thinly disguised by replacing "Jew" with "zionist" or "Israeli".

I would definitely agree with that. People love to have their prejudices, but hate to be called prejudice.


So what do you think should be done about the peace negotiations that the White House has been trying to start up?

Is there anything that can be done to allow peace talks to resume? Do you think there should be peace talks at all?

It sounds like the main thing holding back the peace talks is Hamas.

There has been talk of an Egyptian brokered deal to finally get Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, but that does not fix the fact that Hamas is unwilling to have peace whether they get a Palestinian State or not. Which is a sad detriment to all Palestinians and Israelis.
 
There was a good bit from the article I posted about the negotiations to free the hostage Gilad Shalit that Hamas has been holding for almost five years. The article also reported on Syria's use of the Palestinians to try to breach Israel's border as they did three weeks ago in order to deflect attention away once again from their crackdown and killing of their citizens:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF08Ak03.html

This evolving situation was further complicated on Sunday by Syria's staging of a provocation on Israel's northern border. Over the weekend the uprising against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was rekindled, and Friday reportedly became the deadliest day so far, with over 60 protesters killed in the city of Hama. Predictably, Assad responded by escalating the tension with Israel. On Naksa day, he tried to recreate the events of three weeks earlier, when hundreds of Palestinian refugees living in Syria broke through the border fence and briefly entered an Israeli Druze town.

What happened merited a Hollywood action movie. Israeli troops, placed on high alert and their numbers increased, put into use a wide array of crowd control measures ranging from obstacles to tear gas to rubber-coated bullets. When these failed, snipers opened fire, allegedly at the lower bodies of protesters trying to breach the fence. Some reports mention the use of dogs.

The protesters made things worse for themselves, since they reportedly violated several ceasefires to which Israel agreed, and thus made the evacuation of the wounded more difficult. They also threw Molotov cocktails which started a bush fire and set off old anti-tank land mines on the Syrian side of the border.

Syrian TV, positioned strategically to cover the events as fully as possible, claimed that at least 23 died and over 300 were injured, but these figures are hard to verify. Israel claims that the number is a "gross overestimate". [9] Many of the wounded, according to Israeli analysts, were probably hurt by the land mines, and some of the dead probably died of blood loss as the Red Cross was unable to reach them.

On Monday, the United States condemned Syria for the incitement and expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself. "This is clearly an attempt by Syria to incite these kinds of protests," Department of State spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. Since the Syrian army had no trouble preventing a similar demonstration the next day, on Monday, arguments that it could do nothing about the Naksa day events seem preposterous. Syrian opposition sources, meanwhile, told reporters that the regime had in fact paid the demonstrators, offering $1,000 to each one alongside $10,000 to the family to each killed.

According to a report that surfaced on Tuesday, moreover, at least 14 Palestinian were shot dead by the security forces of their own leaders on Monday in a refugee camp in Syria. A crowd rioted following the funerals of dead Naksa day protesters, and accused the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) of putting them in the line of Israeli fire. [10] This is a very strong indication that the demonstrators themselves feel exploited, most likely by some of their own corrupt strong men in collusion with Assad.
 
Last edited:
"Why use the tear gas last? Why shoot first? Why fire into the bodies, into the unarmed marchers, and kill them, when all along you were equipped with the proven means to disperse them without death and blood?

It seems, then, there was a choice for the occupying force. And they made the that choice. The choice to kill, to speak with death and blood across the impossible distance."

Your comments are about the Syrian army, right? Well said.
 
Some people have so much hatred for Israel that they can't resist a good propaganda stunt. Even if it's served up by a filthy little fascist regime.
 
Just a quick note. HoverBoarder, a new poster, writes things about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A lot of what he writes is critical of Israel. Some people here disagree with him. But does anybody call him an antisemite? Does anybody declare he wants Israel destroyed or supports those who do? No. Why? Because whatever his views, clearly he is interested in the subject and tries to learn about it and be fair.

He is, in short, an addition to a group of regular posters on the subject -- I can name quite a few other ones -- who are often critical of Israel but who, at most, some people consider naive or wrong, not antisemitic or for Israel's annihilation.

So contrary to what is often claimed here, criticism of Israel is not seen by the pro-Israeli folks as being antisemitic. Rants about "zionist" control of the media / USA / Congress / world, gross double standards for Israel, supporting blood libels against it, etc., are seen as antisemitic -- because they are simply the same old antisemitic rants, thinly disguised by replacing "Jew" with "zionist" or "Israeli".

sorry but its not possible to determine if you are calling hoverboarder or anyone else an anti-semite as you persistantly refuse to name the people you address your rants at.....prefering the "usual idiots" or some such description.

As for hoverboarder, he has not been here long....you probably need a little longer to decide what he "really believes"...
 
Originally Posted by Skeptic
Just a quick note. HoverBoarder, a new poster, writes things about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A lot of what he writes is critical of Israel. Some people here disagree with him. But does anybody call him an antisemite? Does anybody declare he wants Israel destroyed or supports those who do? No. Why? Because whatever his views, clearly he is interested in the subject and tries to learn about it and be fair.


Hoverboarder only has 84 posts. As he accumulates more, and continues to criticize and expose Israeli inhumane, racist, and brutal policies, he will eventually suffer the same fate as ANYONE else here who dares to be critical of Israel and right-wing Zionism: he will be falsely and baselessly labeled a Jew-hater, a Nazi-lover, a liar for Hamas, an anti-Semite, and all the other epithets used these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom