Israel, Palestine, and everything related

Remove this Banner Ad

I've heard this before, but I can't remember where. Have you got any links I can have a squiz at?

Which bit?

Can't say I've read too much on these bits of late, but they seem logical.

Either way, my point was more that if you want to blame 'what happened to cause that', you'll be winding back a very very long way through history. I doubt any single point was critical to that argument.
 

FalcoX

All Australian
Aug 16, 2009
813
663
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
'Israel committed "war crimes" by destroying four landmark buildings in Gaza - including three multi-storey blocks of flats - in the final phase of last summer's 50-day war with Hamas, Amnesty International alleged on Tuesday.

The aerial demolition of the four structures is described in a 32-page report, which documents how the attacks left hundreds of people homeless and destroyed numerous businesses.

While the buildings were evacuated before being destroyed and no-one was killed, Amnesty said the action amounted to "collective punishment" of a civilian population - a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

Philip Luther, the director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme, added: "All the evidence we have shows this large scale destruction was carried out deliberately and with no military justification. Both the facts on the ground and statements made by Israeli military spokespeople at the time indicate that the attacks were a collective punishment against the people of Gaza and were designed to destroy their already precarious livelihoods."'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ower-blocks-were-war-crimes-says-Amnesty.html
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
'Israel committed "war crimes" by destroying four landmark buildings in Gaza - including three multi-storey blocks of flats - in the final phase of last summer's 50-day war with Hamas, Amnesty International alleged on Tuesday.

The aerial demolition of the four structures is described in a 32-page report, which documents how the attacks left hundreds of people homeless and destroyed numerous businesses.

While the buildings were evacuated before being destroyed and no-one was killed, Amnesty said the action amounted to "collective punishment" of a civilian population - a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

Philip Luther, the director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme, added: "All the evidence we have shows this large scale destruction was carried out deliberately and with no military justification. Both the facts on the ground and statements made by Israeli military spokespeople at the time indicate that the attacks were a collective punishment against the people of Gaza and were designed to destroy their already precarious livelihoods."'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ower-blocks-were-war-crimes-says-Amnesty.html

The above article goes on to say:

"The Israeli Embassy in London responded by accusing Amnesty of focusing on "monetary losses to Palestinian civilians, rather than investigate the systematic and deliberate firing of rockets and mortars at Israel's civilian population by an internationally-recognised Jihadist terror group".

The embassy stressed how Amnesty "acknowledges that the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, including advance phone calls, the dropping of leaflets, notice to residents to maintain a safe distance from the buildings, as well as 'knock on the roof' warning missiles. These measures are unprecedented in modern warfare".

Meanwhile, added the embassy, Amnesty "ignores the clear evidence that Hamas systematically and deliberately used civilian infrastructure for military purposes".
 
Jan 13, 2001
15,892
6,917
Waiting at the door for the pub to reopen
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
Meanwhile, added the embassy, Amnesty "ignores the clear evidence that Hamas systematically and deliberately used civilian infrastructure for military purposes".
In an area as densely populated as Gaza co-use areas are going to have to exist where military buildings are neighbouring housing.

Still haven't seen a single pro-Israel person explain why Israel has racist double standards that means a Palestinian accused of a terrorist attack against Israel will see his family home destroy or that of relatives, whilst an Israeli who commits a terrorist attack doesn't suffer the same fate.

Israel is a fundamentally racist country and the sooner they remove veto powers at the UN which allows the USA to protect them the better the world will be.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
In an area as densely populated as Gaza co-use areas are going to have to exist where military buildings are neighbouring housing.

Of course, Gaza is densely populated, but Hamas have said themselves that they do use civilian infrastructure (and civilians) as cover whilst they fire rockets at Israel - meaning it's not a matter of debate.. they actually do it deliberately. Poor excuse for mine.

Still haven't seen a single pro-Israel person explain why Israel has racist double standards that means a Palestinian accused of a terrorist attack against Israel will see his family home destroy or that of relatives, whilst an Israeli who commits a terrorist attack doesn't suffer the same fate.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I support Israel but I do not support this tactic. This tactic is also opposed by many Israelis and even the military. So calling Israel in its entirety racist because of this controversial thing is quite childish and lacks logical thought.

The reason that they do it (as they say) is to act as a deterrent of future terrorist attacks. And we all know that Hamas use terrorism regularly as a tactic. It's a solution they use quite often and readily in other words. Due to its regularity, this measure has been put in place. The reason they probably don't demolish an Israeli terrorist attack (probably) is because it is extremely unusual for Israeli citizens to blow themselves up killing innocent Palestinians. It is not a tactic used by Israeli citizens, and the overwhelming majority of Israel does NOT support this barbaric tribalism behaviour (which cannot be said for the Palestinians unfortunately). Consequently using the exact same reasoning as before, there is no deterrent in demolishing the Israeli citizens home.

You can say that's racist.. and when you look at it in isolation ignoring the history of both sides, maybe it is. But I say - if there is no terrorism, this would not be an issue. Resolve issues with dialogue (recognising Israel's right to exist and not calling for its destruction would be a start), build trust, not through violence and terrorism - which is what they keep reverting to.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Of course, Gaza is densely populated, but Hamas have said themselves that they do use civilian infrastructure (and civilians) as cover whilst they fire rockets at Israel - meaning it's not a matter of debate.. they actually do it deliberately. Poor excuse for mine.



Firstly, I'd like to point out that I support Israel but I do not support this tactic. This tactic is also opposed by many Israelis and even the military. So calling Israel in its entirety racist because of this controversial thing is quite childish and lacks logical thought.


You can say that's racist.. and when you look at it in isolation ignoring the history of both sides, maybe it is. But I say - if there is no terrorism, this would not be an issue. Resolve issues with dialogue (recognising Israel's right to exist and not calling for its destruction would be a start), build trust, not through violence and terrorism - which is what they keep reverting to.


I too tend to dismiss the racist tag. I think the hard right of Israeli politics doesnt want to resolve the conflict. They dont want to have to hand back land they have occupied. They dont want a two state solution. Its all about keeping what they have taken for quasi religious reasons.

Its a sad situation but it will continue whilst the extreme self interest continues, on both sides really. Its just that Israel holds the whip hand when looking at a solution. They are in occupation, they have the military power. They hold the solution in their hands. I just hope enough of the Israeli public understand that.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I too tend to dismiss the racist tag. I think the hard right of Israeli politics doesnt want to resolve the conflict. They dont want to have to hand back land they have occupied. They dont want a two state solution. Its all about keeping what they have taken for quasi religious reasons.

Its a sad situation but it will continue whilst the extreme self interest continues, on both sides really. Its just that Israel holds the whip hand when looking at a solution. They are in occupation, they have the military power. They hold the solution in their hands. I just hope enough of the Israeli public understand that.

Some valid points you raise, particularly with the extremes on both sides.

However, I hold a different view when it comes to the first step to a solution. Although Israel has the 'whip' and power, I think it starts with the Palestinian leadership ousting Hamas (or equivalent Jihadist terror group) and setting up a peaceful leadership that is ready to recognise Israel, denounce terrorism and violence with a vision for a 2 state solution living side by side in peace.

I form this reason because there is no way Israel will willingly hand over land to a terror group who is trying their best, within there limitations, of cleansing Israel from Israelis/jews/non-muslims. Israel going back to 1967 borders leaves them belly up from a defensive point of view. However, if the Palestinians denounced terrorism, violence and their vision of wiping Israel off the map, there is no reason for Israel to feel threatened.

In other words, before Israel go back to 1967 or whatever borders, they need assurance that they wont be attacked, that their cafe's and buses will be safe and that they will live peacefully side by side (much like how they have done with Egypt).

First step to peace starts with the Palestinians accepting the fact Israel is here to stay. Steps 2, 3, 4.. will flow from that and this is when Israel can use its 'power' to effect change.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Some valid points you raise, particularly with the extremes on both sides.

However, I hold a different view when it comes to the first step to a solution. Although Israel has the 'whip' and power, I think it starts with the Palestinian leadership ousting Hamas (or equivalent Jihadist terror group) and setting up a peaceful leadership that is ready to recognise Israel, denounce terrorism and violence with a vision for a 2 state solution living side by side in peace.

I form this reason because there is no way Israel will willingly hand over land to a terror group who is trying their best, within there limitations, of cleansing Israel from Israelis/jews/non-muslims. Israel going back to 1967 borders leaves them belly up from a defensive point of view. However, if the Palestinians denounced terrorism, violence and their vision of wiping Israel off the map, there is no reason for Israel to feel threatened.

In other words, before Israel go back to 1967 or whatever borders, they need assurance that they wont be attacked, that their cafe's and buses will be safe and that they will live peacefully side by side (much like how they have done with Egypt).

First step to peace starts with the Palestinians accepting the fact Israel is here to stay. Steps 2, 3, 4.. will flow from that and this is when Israel can use its 'power' to effect change.

Well that is the Israeli right wing approach. Disregard the occupation of someone elses land, screw the population down & wait for the pips to squeak. When they do squeak, point the finger & shout 'Terrorists'.

History is repleate with countries which get occupied & fight the invader. Its a natural reaction to losing ones land & heritage.

Israel has the power to work towards a 2 state solution, not the will.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Well that is the Israeli right wing approach. Disregard the occupation of someone elses land, screw the population down & wait for the pips to squeak. When they do squeak, point the finger & shout 'Terrorists'.

History is repleate with countries which get occupied & fight the invader. Its a natural reaction to losing ones land & heritage.

Israel has the power to work towards a 2 state solution, not the will.

Its not the right wing approach, its the common sense approach in regard to a solution. The left typically ignore logic and reason when it comes to problem solving, and like to point fingers to those who appear to be in power.

If Israel pull their entire population back to whatever borders (say 1967), with the Palestinians maintaining their "death to Israel" attitude, what would happen? Would Hamas call it square and live peacefully? Would Israel have put its own population in immediate danger (particularly along what is now a 6km wide coastal strip)?

You can figure that one out.

What happened last time Israel withdraw and gave land to the Palestinians? it didn't work out too well for the Israelis (or the Palestinians for that matter).

Using their 'power' to withdraw immediately without the Palestinians changing their stance is like handing a murderer a gun.

No peace or solution can be made until the Palestinian leadership change their stance and care more for their own state than they care about wiping out Israel.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jan 13, 2001
15,892
6,917
Waiting at the door for the pub to reopen
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
Of course, Gaza is densely populated, but Hamas have said themselves that they do use civilian infrastructure (and civilians) as cover whilst they fire rockets at Israel - meaning it's not a matter of debate.. they actually do it deliberately. Poor excuse for mine.
Can't remember anyone imprisoned for Israeli army using children as human shields when going from door to door a few years back.

The reason that they do it (as they say) is to act as a deterrent of future terrorist attacks. And we all know that Hamas use terrorism regularly as a tactic. It's a solution they use quite often and readily in other words. Due to its regularity, this measure has been put in place. The reason they probably don't demolish an Israeli terrorist attack (probably) is because it is extremely unusual for Israeli citizens to blow themselves up killing innocent Palestinians. It is not a tactic used by Israeli citizens, and the overwhelming majority of Israel does NOT support this barbaric tribalism behaviour (which cannot be said for the Palestinians unfortunately). Consequently using the exact same reasoning as before, there is no deterrent in demolishing the Israeli citizens home.

You can say that's racist.. and when you look at it in isolation ignoring the history of both sides, maybe it is. But I say - if there is no terrorism, this would not be an issue. Resolve issues with dialogue (recognising Israel's right to exist and not calling for its destruction would be a start), build trust, not through violence and terrorism - which is what they keep reverting to.
When you have nothing really to lose then the deterrent is no longer effective. Israel has failed to grasp this concept and keep this stupid idea that they will resolve it by force, that will never happen. Both sides need to talk effectively, but the preconditions placed on talks by Israel shows that they aren't really interested.

We can just hope that there might be a change with the upcoming elections that will lead to having someone in power who is actually interested in peace not propoganda
 
Still haven't seen a single pro-Israel person explain why Israel has racist double standards that means a Palestinian accused of a terrorist attack against Israel will see his family home destroy or that of relatives, whilst an Israeli who commits a terrorist attack doesn't suffer the same fate.

Maybe because the families of Israeli's who do that don't collect money from Hamas.

It's like a proceeds of crime situation...Don't let people profit from their illegal acts.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/11/t...ab-bank-helping-reward-hamas-suicide-bombers/
 
When you have nothing really to lose then the deterrent is no longer effective. Israel has failed to grasp this concept and keep this stupid idea that they will resolve it by force, that will never happen. Both sides need to talk effectively, but the preconditions placed on talks by Israel shows that they aren't really interested.

Israel has been quite clear about talks..their main goal is peace. When it's clear that whatever concessions they make wont bring peace, why should they bother?

Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel. To totally wipe them out. They best they've offered in terms of talks is 'give us more than the last deal, and we'll give you a 20 year ceasefire' (which given their track record, is unlikely to be kept). This also goes against what they tell their own people. Why would Israel agree to anything like that?

We can just hope that there might be a change with the upcoming elections that will lead to having someone in power who is actually interested in peace not propoganda

When can we expect this from Hamas?
 
Well that is the Israeli right wing approach. Disregard the occupation of someone elses land, screw the population down & wait for the pips to squeak. When they do squeak, point the finger & shout 'Terrorists'.

Actually, Israel, through most of it's history has had governments that would be described as left wing.

History is repleate with countries which get occupied & fight the invader. Its a natural reaction to losing ones land & heritage.

Israel has the power to work towards a 2 state solution, not the will.

Work with who? Tell me, where has Hamas suggested they'd accept a 2 state solution?
 
In an area as densely populated as Gaza co-use areas are going to have to exist where military buildings are neighbouring housing.

Really?

Just checked google maps...Yes, Gaza is quite densely populated, but there are still plenty of 'open' areas.

They don't 'have to' exist next to civilians, they WANT TO.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Israel has been quite clear about talks..their main goal is peace. When it's clear that whatever concessions they make wont bring peace, why should they bother?

Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel. To totally wipe them out. They best they've offered in terms of talks is 'give us more than the last deal, and we'll give you a 20 year ceasefire' (which given their track record, is unlikely to be kept). This also goes against what they tell their own people. Why would Israel agree to anything like that?



When can we expect this from Hamas?

Exactly. And this is why there can't be peace, well, until the Palestinians rid themselves of a terror jihadist group running the show.

You can't make peace with someone who wants you dead, and is immovable in that stance. Everything comes back to this focal point.

Trying to make peace with Hamas is like trying to make peace with a great white shark in open water.
 
Jun 11, 2007
21,095
20,215
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Israel has been quite clear about talks..their main goal is peace.

Not quite correct. Their goal is a solution that preserves the Jewish majority and Jewish character of Israel and the prevention of the emergence of a State such as Australia, where no one race/religion is promoted over any other (at least as per our Constitution). According to their interpretation of history God gave them, and them alone, rights over that area, and they'll be damned if demographics are gonna make things more equitable.

This is why Israel never intended to formally annex the Occupied Territories.
 

strauchnyy

Premiership Player
Aug 17, 2009
4,222
8,023
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Not quite correct. Their goal is a solution that preserves the Jewish majority and Jewish character of Israel and the prevention of the emergence of a State such as Australia, where no one race/religion is promoted over any other (at least as per our Constitution). According to their interpretation of history God gave them, and them alone, rights over that area, and they'll be damned if demographics are gonna make things more equitable.

This is why Israel never intended to formally annex the Occupied Territories.

Just a question Geelong_Sicko, with your views on secularism, do you also share the same view when it comes to every other nation in the middle east? Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen etc that all uphold strict religious law and by comparison, are in stark contrast to Israel.

Yes, Israel by its foundation is 'Jewish', but no stricter than say, India is buddhist, or Australia is Christian. They make it a Jewish homeland yes, but you are still allowed to drive on the sabbath, buy ham/pork on the street corner, there are no 'religious police', woman have equal rights, gays are not targeted (all unlike their surrounding neighbours). IF say, the Palestinians managed to take over, it would be FAR MORE 'religious' and less secular. It would have the same feel as the ISIS territories in Iraq.

The extreme orthodox/religious jews in Israel who believe it is their 'god given land' are just as bad as the Palestinian extremists. Because they justify their cause by some book. But, unlike the Palestinians, Israel by overwhelming majority are secular, not religious, in fact no more 'Jewish' than the ordinary Australian is 'Christian'. I for one and very thankful that there is one such country that shares similar values to us (Australia) in a region driven by islamic religious tribalism.
 
Not quite correct. Their goal is a solution that preserves the Jewish majority and Jewish character of Israel and the prevention of the emergence of a State such as Australia, where no one race/religion is promoted over any other (at least as per our Constitution). According to their interpretation of history God gave them, and them alone, rights over that area, and they'll be damned if demographics are gonna make things more equitable.

This is why Israel never intended to formally annex the Occupied Territories.

OK, the Israeli goal in the peace talks is for peace.

Look at the history of the talks...they (Israel & PLO/PA) were very close until Hamas jumped in and insisted it wasn't good enough and they'd keep the Jihad going until Israel was completely gone. Israel decided why bother making the concessions they were making when they would effectively get nothing in return.
 
Jun 11, 2007
21,095
20,215
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Just a question Geelong_Sicko, with your views on secularism, do you also share the same view when it comes to every other nation in the middle east? Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen etc that all uphold strict religious law and by comparison, are in stark contrast to Israel.

Yes. I view an Islamic State as reprehensible as I would a Jewish or a Christian state. To be demographically leaning towards one religion may be unavoidable - Australia is, demographically speaking, a Christian state - but to LEGISLATE in favour of one religion or one culture's complete dominance of all others in that nation?

No, I don't think that's right.

For the record, I think Iran would be far better off without an Ayatollah and his Council of Mullahs (or whatever they're called). In my opinion a big broom of secularism needs to sweep the Middle East clean of extremist influences and the religious dominance of all the nations within. I hoped the Arab Spring would somehow function as a catalyst for needed change, but obviously it wasn't to be.

Yes, Israel by its foundation is 'Jewish', but no stricter than say, India is buddhist, or Australia is Christian. They make it a Jewish homeland yes, but you are still allowed to drive on the sabbath, buy ham/pork on the street corner, there are no 'religious police', woman have equal rights, gays are not targeted (all unlike their surrounding neighbours). IF say, the Palestinians managed to take over, it would be FAR MORE 'religious' and less secular. It would have the same feel as the ISIS territories in Iraq.

The extreme orthodox/religious jews in Israel who believe it is their 'god given land' are just as bad as the Palestinian extremists. Because they justify their cause by some book. But, unlike the Palestinians, Israel by overwhelming majority are secular, not religious, in fact no more 'Jewish' than the ordinary Australian is 'Christian'. I for one and very thankful that there is one such country that shares similar values to us (Australia) in a region driven by islamic religious tribalism.

At one stage though, the Palestinian movement was very secular. The fact that the PLO/Fatah appeared to be going nowhere in their negotiations with the Jewish State seemed to fan the flames of extremism

http://www.boell.de/en/2010/03/12/islam-versus-secularism-palestine-hamas-vs-fatah
...In 1974, the Arab countries recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza acknowledged the PLO's legitimacy and refused to enter into any negotiations with the Israeli government without the backing and support of the PLO. Public opinion polls conducted during the early 1980s in the West Bank showed that 90 percent of the respondents supported the PLO and its leader, Yasser Arafat.

The PLO was very popular among the Palestinians which made hard for the Islamic groups to compete with it before its expulsion from Lebanon in the summer of 1982. The departure of the PLO and its fighters from Lebanon to Arab countries like Yemen, Sudan, Algeria, and Tunisia, far away from Israel weakened the PLO's military choices. Palestinian secular groups, particularly Fatah, the backbone of the PLO, wasted no opportunity in search of diplomatic alternatives to end the Israeli occupation and establish a Palestinian independent state, but Israel ignored the PLO its diplomatic efforts.

Arab nationalism first, and then Palestinian nationalism represented by the secular PLO failed to end the Israeli occupation and secure the political rights of the Palestinians. Some of the Palestinians, particularly the younger generation, have sought alternatives to secularism.

The alternative to many was the return to Islam.

Islam served for the young generation as a "force of ethnic identity, attachment to the land, and cultural purity of the Palestinians." Islam was already there, but strong Islamic groups to recruit the youth were absent from the scene during much of the 1970s...

It's good that the vast majority of Israelis are secular, as you note. Maybe what they need to do is seek out the secular moderates from the Palestinian side, and both embrace the other. Sideline Hamas. Sideline Islamic Jihad. Sideline the Jewish hard-right parties.

No Jew should EVER have to fear for their lives for the 'crime' of being Jewish. But they need to realise that they are simply one people amongst many, none any better than the other, and definitely none worse. We live on one planet. It's all of our homeland.
 
Aug 31, 2012
2,565
4,938
Pining for the fjords
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
******* stupid game
In my opinion a big broom of secularism needs to sweep the Middle East clean of extremist influences and the religious dominance of all the nations within. I hoped the Arab Spring would somehow function as a catalyst for needed change, but obviously it wasn't to be.

You didn't notice that the leaders of the Arab Spring called themselves the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with similar un-secular names elsewhere?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back