Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

Hoplite · Mar 8, 2010

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1n4kMDVdxs"]YouTube- Fresh Israeli-Palestinian talks run into brick wall[/ame]

I'm finding it more and more difficult to be supportive of Israel as this conflict continues. Their invasion of Gaza was NOT a positive step.

digsbe · Mar 8, 2010

I think the military defensive operation was a very important step. For years Sderot (and now Ashdod) have been hit with missiles from Gaza. They didn't stop, so Israel had to do what any sane nation would do and defend the citizens who have to deal with missiles hitting their schools and homes. Operation cast lead was an important step, it shows that military action will be done to defend Israeli citizens. The Gazans "elected" Hamas, Hamas fires missiles into Israel, Israel ignores the missiles for a while and then decides to defend its people. Sometimes force is necessary, and if Israel defending itself damages peace then the Palestinians just aren't being peaceful. Also, I wouldn't take Al Jezeera as a non biased source. Calling it all "Jewish construction" isn't right. Why can't Jews live and build in the West Bank? Arabs can do the same in Israel. This is what I don't find reasonable and honestly incredibly racist. No Jews are allowed in Gaza, all Jews were forced out of their homes, and now they say no Jews allowed in the West Bank. Yet Arabs live freely in Israel and enjoy every right as an Israeli citizen... There can be Arab Israelis, why can't there be Jewish Palestinians?

Degreez · Mar 9, 2010

digsbe said:
Calling it all "Jewish construction" isn't right. Why can't Jews live and build in the West Bank? Arabs can do the same in Israel. This is what I don't find reasonable and honestly incredibly racist. No Jews are allowed in Gaza, all Jews were forced out of their homes, and now they say no Jews allowed in the West Bank. Yet Arabs live freely in Israel and enjoy every right as an Israeli citizen... There can be Arab Israelis, why can't there be Jewish Palestinians?

Apparently international laws governing the administration of occupied territories is not "reasonable and incredibly racist".

ludahai · Mar 9, 2010

Degreez said:
Apparently international laws governing the administration of occupied territories is not "reasonable and incredibly racist".

His point was that while the Israeli government allows Arabs to live and build in Israel-proper, the international community has a fit every time the Israelis so much as repair a house in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

Gardener · Mar 9, 2010

Degreez said:
Apparently international laws governing the administration of occupied territories is not "reasonable and incredibly racist".

Those who support Juden free territories sure are.

Gardener · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
YouTube- Fresh Israeli-Palestinian talks run into brick wall

I'm finding it more and more difficult to be supportive of Israel as this conflict continues. Their invasion of Gaza was NOT a positive step.

Do you find it difficult to support Israelis because of the fact they have been clensed from Gaza despite the fact that ancient Jewish settlements there predate Muslim, or do you find it difficult to support Israel because those Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians have been unleashing unremitting, ethnic-based terror upon Jews for decades?

ludahai · Mar 9, 2010

Why can't people realize that the Muslims have been engaging in jihad and have invaded and occupied mostly Christian (but also Jewish) lands since the 7th century? And look at the recent spate of barbaric Muslim behavior in Malaysia (church bombings and intentional desecration of the Eucharist) and Nigeria (slashing to death of Christians of all ages).

Gardener · Mar 9, 2010

ludahai said:
Why can't people realize that the Muslims have been engaging in jihad and have invaded and occupied mostly Christian (but also Jewish) lands since the 7th century? And look at the recent spate of barbaric Muslim behavior in Malaysia (church bombings and intentional desecration of the Eucharist) and Nigeria (slashing to death of Christians of all ages).

Bethlehem is another good example. When the PLO took over in 1995, it was 60% Christian. 15 short years later, it is nearly 85% Muslim.

It's sure an easy matter to get ignorant people to support totalitarianism, isn't it?

ludahai · Mar 9, 2010

Gardener said:
Bethlehem is another good example. When the PLO took over in 1995, it was 60% Christian. 15 short years later, it is nearly 85% Muslim.

It's sure an easy matter to get ignorant people to support totalitarianism, isn't it?

Vatican to Study Christian Exodus from Middle East - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Many cases of Arab harassment of Christians in PA areas have been reported in recent years, and the phenomenon of Christians seeking to leave the area is not new. Back in May 2004, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, visited then-President Moshe Katzav in Jerusalem and acknowledged that the “increasing Christian emigration from the Holy Land in general, and Bethlehem in particular, is troubling to the Vatican.”

Though, as a Roman Catholic, I disagree with the basic Vatican conclusion as cited in the article.

Apocalypse · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
I'm finding it more and more difficult to be supportive of Israel as this conflict continues. Their invasion of Gaza was NOT a positive step.

It's not a matter of positiveness or negativeness, it was a necessary act to maintain the security of the Israeli citizens living in Southern Israel.

Hoplite · Mar 9, 2010

Apocalypse said:
It's not a matter of positiveness or negativeness, it was a necessary act to maintain the security of the Israeli citizens living in Southern Israel.

Shooting at civilians, the use of white phosphorous (which, incidentally, is banned by the Geneva convention), and firing on UN convoys doesnt seem like a very effective way to maintain security.

Erod · Mar 9, 2010

I think Israel shows incredible restraint. When the day comes they go postal, I won't blame them in the least.

Apocalypse · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
Shooting at civilians, the use of white phosphorous (which, incidentally, is banned by the Geneva convention), and firing on UN convoys doesnt seem like a very effective way to maintain security.

Then first of all you're ultimately wrong even in your own realm of truth, since statistics show that the situation before operation Cast Lead(hundreds of rockets per week) and the situation after operation Cast Lead(1 rocket per month) are incomparable.

Secondly, white phosphorous is not banned, that's hiding half the truth, it is completely allowed in non-civilian areas.
It's also one of the poorest ways to try and kill an individual, it's a slowly moving source of heat and light, and the only reason why it's banned in civilian areas is because it cannot be used in a discriminating way.
It would be way more effective, of course, to simply drop a half-ton bomb was there ever an intent to do harm to civilians.

And finally, the IDF has had no intentions in attacking civilians, nor would it have gained any of its interest by killing civilians, and rather the contrary is true.
The dropping of leaflets, phoning to homes, and three hours of humanitarian aid during every day in the operation were all meant to minimize the civilians lost lives.

I have no doubt that a person who chooses to post an al-Jazeera report instead of referring to a moderate non-biased source would not take a change of heart in his opinions, and hence I am effectively wasting my time here, but do realize that I would not avoid giving the real version of the truth when confronted with false statements.

Goobieman · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
Shooting at civilians...

Hamas and Hezboulah terrorists are civilians who hide among innocent civilians. Because of the nature of the conflict -- one side being all civilians - civilians must be shot at.

the use of white phosphorous (which, incidentally, is banned by the Geneva convention),

Incorrect. WP in the use against military targets is not explicitly banned by any treaty.

and firing on UN convoys...

IIRC, this was a mistake. It is certainly not common practice, or a matter ofpolicy.

doesnt seem like a very effective way to maintain security.

No wonder, given the folly of basing your conclusion on the 'facts' presented here.

Manc Skipper · Mar 9, 2010

The Vice President of the USA visits to further the peace process, and the day before he arrives, Israel announces the building approval of a further 114 illegal houses in the occupied West Bank. Another brick wall hit.

Hoplite · Mar 9, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Then first of all you're ultimately wrong even in your own realm of truth, since statistics show that the situation before operation Cast Lead(hundreds of rockets per week) and the situation after operation Cast Lead(1 rocket per month) are incomparable.

And this makes it ok to shoot down Palestinian civilians?

Secondly, white phosphorous is not banned, that's hiding half the truth, it is completely allowed in non-civilian areas.
It's also one of the poorest ways to try and kill an individual, it's a slowly moving source of heat and light, and the only reason why it's banned in civilian areas is because it cannot be used in a discriminating way.
It would be way more effective, of course, to simply drop a half-ton bomb was there ever an intent to do harm to civilians.

The Gaza strip IS a civilian area.

And finally, the IDF has had no intentions in attacking civilians, nor would it have gained any of its interest by killing civilians, and rather the contrary is true.

Regardless of the intentions, the fact remains that the IDF fired on and killed Palestinian civilians.

The dropping of leaflets, phoning to homes, and three hours of humanitarian aid during every day in the operation were all meant to minimize the civilians lost lives.

Just under 1,000 Palestinian civilians were killed, that doesnt sound like limiting civilian casualties.

I have no doubt that a person who chooses to post an al-Jazeera report instead of referring to a moderate non-biased source would not take a change of heart in his opinions, and hence I am effectively wasting my time here, but do realize that I would not avoid giving the real version of the truth when confronted with false statements.

Can you point to why the report is inaccurate?

Goobieman said:
Hamas and Hezboulah terrorists are civilians who hide among innocent civilians. Because of the nature of the conflict -- one side being all civilians - civilians must be shot at.

I'm sorry but that's a sickening statement. You fight groups like Hamas and Hezbollah not with an open ground war where civilians are in danger.

Incorrect. WP in the use against military targets is not explicitly banned by any treaty.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

IIRC, this was a mistake. It is certainly not common practice, or a matter ofpolicy.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

UN buildings were also fired on, repeatedly. Was that a "mistake" too?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29558&Cr=gaza&Cr1=unrwa

No wonder, given the folly of basing your conclusion on the 'facts' presented here.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

The excuse of going into Gaza to eject Hamas militants...flimsy and I want to see some proof that ANY military operation would do some good but I could accept it. But the Israelis seemed to be firing on everyone and everything they could see. It doesn't seem like they even cared what they hit. I'm behind a serious and well-planned attempt to destroy a true terrorist organization or group but this seems more like an exercise in revenge for Israel than anything else. Almost a thousand Palestinians killed, five thousand injured, and for what? What has Israel gained? Hamas is STILL firing rockets, people are STLL fighting the Israelis.

I mean, maybe it's me bein Irish but I cant abide or support a military operation that gives every impression of treating civilians like target practice.

Apocalypse · Mar 9, 2010

Manc Skipper said:
The Vice President of the USA visits to further the peace process, and the day before he arrives, Israel announces the building approval of a further 114 illegal houses in the occupied West Bank. Another brick wall hit.

You are referring to the building in East Jerusalem.
Israel has considered Eastern Jerusalem as an annexed Israeli land, simply put a part of Israel, since the six-day war(1967).

The Israeli government's freeze of the West Bank settlements hence has no ruling over East Jerusalem, and business go as usual there.

Goobieman · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
I'm sorry but that's a sickening statement.

The truth is often ugly, and is not for the weak.

You fight groups like Hamas and Hezbollah not with an open ground war where civilians are in danger.

You arent paying attention.... Hamas and Hezbollah hide among civilians, making this impossible. They do it because they know that when the Israelis attack them and civilians die, people like you will blame the monstorous Israelis.

If Hamas has a mortar in the middle of a school campus, lobbing shells into Israel, and if Israel hits that mortar, the schoolkids that die as a result are the responsibility of the terrorists that chose the mortar site, not the Israelis.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

Against military targets.
Your claim was tha WP use is banned by the GC. It is not.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

"SO frequently"? I heard of it happening once.
As I said -- its not a matter of policy or routine, it was a mistake made by soldiers in a combat situation.

UN buildings were also fired on, repeatedly. Was that a "mistake" too?

UN buidings in the area of legitimate targets were hit. Big difference.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

And if the picture you're painting were accurate, I'd agree with you.
However, you're only seeing what you want to see and refusing to see the reality of the circumstance.

Apocalypse · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
And this makes it ok to shoot down Palestinian civilians?

Are Palestinian civilians being deliberately targeted under IDF orders?
Absolutely no.

The Gaza strip IS a civilian area.

Which is why there are holes within the international law that surround this conflict.
The Gazan government, the terrorist organization of Hamas, launches rockets at Israeli civilians from civilian complexes and buildings.
That officially makes it a military zone, but civilians still live there.

Regardless of the intentions, the fact remains that the IDF fired on and killed Palestinian civilians.

Yes, the IDF's weapons have caused civilians deaths, and so did NATO's weapons, so did any other Western army's weapons really.
Israel is not unique in this case, and the Israeli right to self defense is definitely existent and undeniable.

Just under 1,000 Palestinian civilians were killed, that doesnt sound like limiting civilian casualties.

Actually it does, even though the IDF figures point at 295 civilians killed, around 900 is also considered to be very low when considering the number of bombs dropped in the area.

Can you point to why the report is inaccurate?

Were I referring to the specific report's inaccuracy I would gladly take the time to review it for you.
I was merely speaking on the fact that you've chosen al-Jazeera as your source over other sources.

They used white phosphorous in populated civilian areas.

Where militants target Israeli civilians from.

If it was a mistake, why did it happen so frequently? UN convoys are clearly marked to identify them so this sort of "mistake" doesnt happen.

Frequently?
During the operation there was only one major hit on a UN facility.
I remind you that the Gaza Strip is one of the biggest host of UN facilities.

Gunning down unarmed civilians and attacking United Nations relief convoys and structures is NOT an acceptable way to wage a war.

Civilians and UN personnel were not targeted.
They were hit, as a result of being in a war-zone.
Obviously not because of their fault, but because of the ones who've made it a war zone, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

The terrorists pick the zone where they'll launch a rocket or attack Israel from, it's not like Israel simply drops a bomb on a convoy because it hates the UN or whatever you're trying to draw here.

gunner · Mar 9, 2010

Apocalypse said:
You are referring to the building in East Jerusalem.
Israel has considered Eastern Jerusalem as an annexed Israeli land, simply put a part of Israel, since the six-day war(1967).

The Israeli government's freeze of the West Bank settlements hence has no ruling over East Jerusalem, and business go as usual there.

Unfortunately, it pertains to one of the many contentious issues

"Israel has announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank, but the curbs exclude East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want their capital. "

The article goes on to say,

"Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are considered illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this."

BBC News - Biden sees 'moment of opportunity' for Mid-East peace

Paul

Hoplite · Mar 9, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Are Palestinian civilians being deliberately targeted under IDF orders?
Absolutely no.

A thousand dead, five thousand wounded, could've ****ing fooled me.

Which is why there are holes within the international law that surround this conflict.
The Gazan government, the terrorist organization of Hamas, launches rockets at Israeli civilians from civilian complexes and buildings.
That officially makes it a military zone, but civilians still live there.

There's no bloody holes, Gaza is a civilian area which means it's against international law to use weapons like this.

Yes, the IDF's weapons have caused civilians deaths, and so did NATO's weapons, so did any other Western army's weapons really.
Israel is not unique in this case, and the Israeli right to self defense is definitely existent and undeniable.

Yes because unarmed civilians pose so much of a threat to the IDF. Defense is one thing, revenge is quite another.

Actually it does, even though the IDF figures point at 295 civilians killed, around 900 is also considered to be very low when considering the number of bombs dropped in the area.

Were I referring to the specific report's inaccuracy I would gladly take the time to review it for you.
I was merely speaking on the fact that you've chosen al-Jazeera as your source over other sources.

Can you provide me proof that Al-Jazeera English is skewed or seriously biased?

Where militants target Israeli civilians from.

And how, again, does this justify attacking civilians, UN convoys, and UN buildings?

Frequently?
During the operation there was only one major hit on a UN facility.
I remind you that the Gaza Strip is one of the biggest host of UN facilities.

It shouldnt have happened at all, if the IDF is a professional army why were they attacking schools, civilian supply lines, UN supply depots for civilians, and other UN facilities.

Civilians and UN personnel were not targeted.
They were hit, as a result of being in a war-zone.
Obviously not because of their fault, but because of the ones who've made it a war zone, the terrorist organization of Hamas.

How in the name of hell do you accidentally hit over a thousand civilians and half a dozen UN structures?

The terrorists pick the zone where they'll launch a rocket or attack Israel from, it's not like Israel simply drops a bomb on a convoy because it hates the UN or whatever you're trying to draw here.

My point is that Israel's invasion seems more like a stab at revenge, not security.

Apocalypse · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
A thousand dead, five thousand wounded, could've ****ing fooled me.

And?
Are hundreds of thousands not dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?
And again, IDF figures point at 295 deaths.

There's no bloody holes, Gaza is a civilian area which means it's against international law to use weapons like this.

I can only point you to re-read the phrase you were commenting on with a statement like this.
When militants launch attacks from an area, it's a military zone.
Do you somehow pretend that Israelis have no right to self defense as long as their attackers do this from a complex of buildings?
Because that would expose your argument's biggest weakness.

Yes because unarmed civilians pose so much of a threat to the IDF. Defense is one thing, revenge is quite another.

Unarmed civilians were not targeted.
Militants were.

Can you provide me proof that Al-Jazeera English is skewed or seriously biased?

I do not think I need to bring proof to point at the obvious, but yeah why not.
Lebanon elite turns out to celebrate terrorist Samir Kuntar's engagement - Haaretz - Israel News

And how, again, does this justify attacking civilians, UN convoys, and UN buildings?

None of the above were targeted.

It shouldnt have happened at all, if the IDF is a professional army why were they attacking

Mistakes happen all the time, especially during wars on terrorist organizations that hide in civilian areas.
Read on NATO's operations for a better understanding, the understanding that you're obviously lacking when you blame the IDF with the targeting of civilians without being able to explain the dropping of leaflets, the phoning to homes and the 3 hours of humanitarian time.

How in the name of hell do you accidentally hit over a thousand civilians and half a dozen UN structures?

295 according to IDF figures, and it happens, quite logically, when you are engaging in a war with an organization hiding in a dense civilian populated area.

My point is that Israel's invasion seems more like a stab at revenge, not security.

Then it only seems to you so, as this is purely an act of self-defense and is completely legitimate.

Crunch · Mar 9, 2010

:applaud

Apocalypse said:
Then first of all you're ultimately wrong even in your own realm of truth, since statistics show that the situation before operation Cast Lead(hundreds of rockets per week) and the situation after operation Cast Lead(1 rocket per month) are incomparable.

Secondly, white phosphorous is not banned, that's hiding half the truth, it is completely allowed in non-civilian areas.
It's also one of the poorest ways to try and kill an individual, it's a slowly moving source of heat and light, and the only reason why it's banned in civilian areas is because it cannot be used in a discriminating way.
It would be way more effective, of course, to simply drop a half-ton bomb was there ever an intent to do harm to civilians.

And finally, the IDF has had no intentions in attacking civilians, nor would it have gained any of its interest by killing civilians, and rather the contrary is true.
The dropping of leaflets, phoning to homes, and three hours of humanitarian aid during every day in the operation were all meant to minimize the civilians lost lives.

I have no doubt that a person who chooses to post an al-Jazeera report instead of referring to a moderate non-biased source would not take a change of heart in his opinions, and hence I am effectively wasting my time here, but do realize that I would not avoid giving the real version of the truth when confronted with false statements.

:applaud

Goobieman · Mar 9, 2010

Hoplite said:
A thousand dead, five thousand wounded, could've ****ing fooled me.

Yeah, but that doesnt mean much.
When you target the weapons that are deliberately hidden among civilians, civilian casualties will be high. This is the fault of those who place the weapons, not those that attack the weapons.
Why dont you see this?

There's no bloody holes, Gaza is a civilian area which means it's against international law to use weapons like this.

Not all of Gaza is a 'civilian area', and the use of WP is only against 'international law' in limited circumstances. That there may be civilians around when it is used does not necessarily qualify.

Never mind that the presence of military targets generally negates the claim of 'civilian area'.

Yes because unarmed civilians pose so much of a threat to the IDF. Defense is one thing, revenge is quite another.

Why do yu keep ignoring the fact that the people targeted by the IDF are not unarmed?

And how, again, does this justify attacking civilians, UN convoys, and UN buildings?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the terrorists in/around/near these things are the targets?

It shouldnt have happened at all, if the IDF is a professional army....

When were you last in combat in a n urban area against terrorists that look like civilains?

How in the name of hell do you accidentally hit over a thousand civilians and half a dozen UN structures?

When the enemy hides in and among them, its really pretty easy.

My point is that Israel's invasion seems more like a stab at revenge, not security.

Given the 'facts' you present in support of that conclusion, its no wonder your conclusion is so very weak.

Hoplite · Mar 9, 2010

Apocalypse said:
And?
Are hundreds of thousands not dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yes they are, what does that have to do with this?

And again, IDF figures point at 295 deaths.

The United Nations and other Palestinian refugee organizations put that number up over a thousand. You'll forgive me if I'm not inclined to take the IDF's word at this point.

I can only point you to re-read the phrase you were commenting on with a statement like this.
When militants launch attacks from an area, it's a military zone.
Do you somehow pretend that Israelis have no right to self defense as long as their attackers do this from a complex of buildings?
Because that would expose your argument's biggest weakness.

Im arguin' that there's better ways to fight a war against an enemy like Hamas and Hezbollah than killing innocent people. The Israelis know damn well you arent going to get anywhere with a ground offensive against a group like that, any fool what can read knows that.

Unarmed civilians were not targeted.
Militants were.

Really? A thousand people, all militants?

I do not think I need to bring proof to point at the obvious, but yeah why not.
Lebanon elite turns out to celebrate terrorist Samir Kuntar's engagement - Haaretz - Israel News

I'm not finding much to support Al-Jazeera's being there beyond a journalistic capacity. I'm also not finding this story carried...pretty much anywhere else or Al-Jazeera mentioned as a guest anywhere else.

None of the above were targeted.
Mistakes happen all the time, especially during wars on terrorist organizations that hide in civilian areas.
Read on NATO's operations for a better understanding, the understanding that you're obviously lacking when you blame the IDF with the targeting of civilians without being able to explain the dropping of leaflets, the phoning to homes and the 3 hours of humanitarian time.

I dont contend that the IDF intentionally targeted civilians, I contend that they didnt stop their soldiers from doing so and gave little to no thought beyond what would look good in the papers for civilians.

295 according to IDF figures, and it happens, quite logically, when you are engaging in a war with an organization hiding in a dense civilian populated area.

A number which, as has been shown, is dramatically low.

Israel-Palestine Talks Run Into Brick Wall

Technomancer

Truth will set you free

Defender of the Faith

free market communist

free market communist

Defender of the Faith

free market communist

Defender of the Faith

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Technomancer

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Wrinkly member

Technomancer

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Technomancer

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Technomancer