So why do people hate Israel? - Page 75




 
--
 
June 19th, 2012  
r.fox
 
 
even though the Israelis controll the Gaze by seige (which i dont agree with) they only really did it in an attempt to stop terrorists attacking form those areas, namely the Gaza strip and the West Bank. although anybody with a basic knowage of partisan activities or about the german occupations in Europe could have known that supressing a population dosnt stop terrorist/freedom fighters etc, it gives them more of a reason
June 19th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by r.fox
even though the Israelis controll the Gaze by seige (which i dont agree with) they only really did it in an attempt to stop terrorists attacking form those areas, namely the Gaza strip and the West Bank. although anybody with a basic knowage of partisan activities or about the german occupations in Europe could have known that supressing a population dosnt stop terrorist/freedom fighters etc, it gives them more of a reason
Here is an interesting article...
Does Israel really want peace?
by Jane Young
If Israel is serious about peace it would have extended the settlement construction moratorium. Instead it coldly snipped the brake cables on this haggling train wreck leaving it up to everyone else to prevent the derailment, while it s******s all the way to the digger.

Perhaps it is time to really consider that Israel does not want peace with the Palestinians, and once again the world is being toyed with. After all Prime Minister Netanyahu has already been caught out once boasting of destroying the Oslo accords with his own hands.

As President Obama sought broad support from the United Nations for his Middle-East peace plan, he won huge applause when he said plainly that by making this current peace effort work, next year’s UN AGM would welcome an “independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel”.

No-one from the Israeli delegation was in the chamber to hear their country’s greatest single benefactor in terms of money, arms and deflections of international hostility.

It was a Jewish holiday, but surely someone could have turned up for the relatively short speech, just to make sure when the cameras panned those in attendance it didn’t look like Israel had boycotted Obama, and the leadership had a first hand account.

There were no ‘holiday’ signs on the empty seats and it looked bad. More strangely, Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t even come to the UN this year, despite the platform it would have given him from which to show the world he is serious this time. Perhaps the other coincidence – that of the meeting taking place as the partial moratorium on settlement construction ended – was more of a reason to stay away. He certainly avoided any face to face pleas and then condemnation of world leaders for his refusal to extend the construction moratorium in the interests of keeping the peace talks going.

It is difficult to imagine what he would have said in defence of his actions had he taken his turn with the talkie-stick.

It is little wonder Israel has an image problem, but perhaps scarier still is Sarkozy’s decision to inject himself into the play as the potential broker-in-chief. Sarko sure has an eye for the main stage.

Basically the world is sick and tired of the seemingly endless rounds of peace talks and negotiations, walk-outs and disasters that constitute the train wreck of Middle East Peace. But the costs of the status quo remaining as such are too high. A moral world can not walk away from poverty, humiliation and despair of Palestinians, nor the relatively limited risk of danger for some Jews within rocket range of Gaza.

However Time magazine recently took a closer look at a growing phenomenon beginning to surface in academic and popular media – that life is pretty good for most Israelis, many of whom are feeling prosperous and steadily disengaged from the whole peace process. Tel Aviv is buzzing financially, its famous café lifestyle is picture-postcard stuff, the beaches are great, real estate prices are up, and Palestinians are seen as more of a nuisance than strategic threat.

Couple this with the Jews only suburbs – often built on appropriated Palestinian land but not available to Arab tenants – and the Jews-only highways which facilitate direct routes to and from the West Bank, while a ‘security’ fence shutters out Palestinian life and it all begs the question of why bother tipping up a fairly acceptable status-quo.

Netanyahu has tremendous pressure from his right-wing coalition, which features prominently politicians who have been as extreme as calling for all Palestinians to be driven from the Jewish state. Many, including Netanyahu, are on record declaring they will never tolerate division of Jerusalem. That sets an automatic precondition on any talks, as the Palestinians have called for East Jerusalem to be the capital of their eventual sovereign state.

Of course Palestinians having a sovereign state is also a no-no from Netanyahu’s point of view because he insists they can’t be militarized and must be controlled by Israel’s defence forces - not that that fits the definition of ‘sovereign’ acceptable to other nations, including Israel.

And the list goes on…and the pressure Netanyahu is under grows as he knows his coalition could easily implode, particularly if the ultra-Zionists are backed by a mood on the street that prefers to get on with its new domestic reality, warts and all.

Palestinian President Abbas is also under great pressure now settlement construction has resumed. Not massive construction at this stage it is true, but the deliberate flaunting of the issue by settlers bussed in for celebrations beneath blue and white balloons and amidst huge earthmoving machinery when the ‘freeze’ expired, makes Abbas’ job nigh on impossible.

To his credit he did not storm off on the stroke of midnight, but he now needs to consult with the Arab League to find a credible formula for explaining to Palestinians and Arabs in general that talks can continue despite Israelis eating up the very land that is under negotiation.

It is such land that is at the core of this boondoggle and that is why the settlements issue is so touchy.

Walking out of the talks will not solve anything, but if talks are again a tool for keeping everything ticking along and so allowing more and more land to be grabbed, eventually there will be nothing left to talk about. The ‘facts on the ground’ will be that the greater landmass of Israel can no longer be rationally divided into two states. Two viable states that is. Not a very rich one with water, transport, agriculture, manufacturing, exports and all the rest, that ‘suffers’ an impoverished neighbouring cot case.

By refusing to extend the settlement moratorium, which was incomplete anyway, Netanyahu has sucked the oxygen out of the peace-talks, and made an incredibly perilous process even more so.

It is no secret he doesn’t like Obama – and the feelings are likely mutual – but Obama is not the disaster for Israel he is so consistently painted by hardline Jewish Zionists and their American Christian Zionist counterparts..

Obama is the first American president to get off his tush at the beginning of his term so he can have a fair chance of achieving peace that is more than a band-aid hastily applied during the dying days of an administration, only to fall off in short order. Sure he’s already got his Nobel, so he’s trying to earn it. Politically he too has much on the line.

It remains to be hoped that Netanyahu actually wants peace because that is not the impression he is again giving to the world through actions...not just words.

He has categorically failed his one tangible but also highly symbolic opportunity. There will be few opportunities, if any, remaining if he does not play his part in dragging this round of talks out of the danger zone.

http://pundit.co.nz/content/does-isr...lly-want-peace

Much like politicians the world over Israel tells us what we want to hear in order to placate the masses but in every case an excuse to kill peace talks always seems to crop up.

Now I accept that both parties are guilty of this type of action and if Palestinian guilt makes them terrorists what does Israeli guilt make them, in the end you have to hold both sides to the same standards and you can not condemn one as being terrorists while allowing the other to get off scott free.
June 19th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
^^^ I'll leave it at that, although I don't see Palestinian resistance as terrorism any more than that of the French Marquis.
--
June 19th, 2012  
benaakatz
 
 
the french marquis didn't target german women or children. that's the difference. and it's a big one
June 19th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benaakatz
the french marquis didn't target german women or children. that's the difference. and it's a big one
So if Hamas or who ever fired a rocket into a building with the express purpose of killing an Israeli soldier but killed a few civilians in the process you would accept that as a valid military strike?

If yes then perhaps you could save civilian lives by allowing Hamas more accurate weapons, if no then why do you accept the same scenario when Israel fires a rocket into a building to kill an Hamas official?

If Hamas or whatever Palestinian group kill an Israeli official overseas why is it unacceptable yet when Israel kills one of said Palestinian groups officials overseas you pass off as the "right of self defence"?

Both sides kill women and children don't delude yourself into thinking it is perfectly justifiable for one side to do it.

As I have pointed out, people allow Israel to hide behind "self-defence" yet it is Israel occupying Palestinian land even if you only accept West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian land.

Hypocrisy has saved Israel up until now but even the most deluded Israel supporter must realise the world is slowly but surely opening both eyes to this mess and its perpetrators.
June 19th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Perhaps this is one reason people hate Israel.
June 19th, 2012  
benaakatz
 
 
i completely support the right of the palestinians to a state on the WB and gaza strip. i support the two state solution.

if palestinian militants want to resist that's their prerogative. but if you play with fire, expect to get burnt. in my opinion non violent protest is a much more effective tactic, and this has largely been adopted by the palestinians, especially in the WB

the point with the rockets is that they are fired at civilians and that is not okay. if you are going to resist that is your prerogative, but you can't indiscriminately fire rockets at civilian towns and cities.

and monty, every other country in a war would fire in a building to take out fighters from the other side. that's just common sense. of course, try and limit civilian casualties, but war is war. and if you are fighting and firing from civilian areas, in civilian neighborhoods and homes, the enemy will fire back at you. if you want to ensure that your own civis are not harmed, do not wage a war in a dense, populated, built up area.
June 19th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
See this is typical of the situation you incite a problem by artificially dumping a population into an area that is already occupied, they fight back and in return become "terrorists".

As you pointed out the Germans saw the French resistance as terrorists yet at no stage did it ever cross their mind that the French resistance only existed because the Germans were occupying France.

Tell me how many Palestinian women and children have died in this conflict?

Now tell me why those Palestinian women and children deserved to die?

Then tell me if the roles were reversed and it was Palestinians occupying Tel Aviv would it be acceptable for Jews to fire rockets at any Palestinian settlements built in Tel Aviv?

The reality is that you can not defend your position without a healthy dose of hypocrisy.
June 19th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benaakatz
the french marquis didn't target german women or children. that's the difference. and it's a big one
The Germans never occupied France with their women and children, that's why. Had they have done so, I'm sure that the Marquis would have attacked them too, and with good reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benaakatz
the point with the rockets is that they are fired at civilians and that is not okay. if you are going to resist that is your prerogative, but you can't indiscriminately fire rockets at civilian towns and cities.
What else can you do if the Israelis build their towns and cities on illegally occupied land then fill them with civilians, using them as human shields?

It seems that the Israelis not only use Palestinian children as human shields, but they are not too worried about using their own civil populace as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Perhaps this is one reason people hate Israel.
Here's the final photo in that series. Showing how after he was stripped and murdered by the Israelis they posed a Robot alongside him and then allowed the Press to take photos alleging that he was a suicide bomber and the robot was to remove his vest. The photos clearly show that he was wearing no vest prior to his execution.

June 19th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benaakatz
and monty, every other country in a war would fire in a building to take out fighters from the other side. that's just common sense. of course, try and limit civilian casualties, but war is war. and if you are fighting and firing from civilian areas, in civilian neighborhoods and homes, the enemy will fire back at you. if you want to ensure that your own civis are not harmed, do not wage a war in a dense, populated, built up area.
If I intend to shoot my neighbour because he killed my mother is it ok to kill his family and those of the houses next to him in order to ensure I get him?

As I have said, Israel is losing it is becoming harder and harder to defend its actions just a couple of years ago this thread would have been full of people coming to Israel's aid now it is muted at best, the fact is that many people no longer can make a distinction between Israel and those it fights and it is only a matter of time before Israel is seen as worse than those it fights.

It will be interesting to see how public opinion stands a couple of years from now but in the mean time I am off back to the WW2 forum where the arguments are less repetitive.
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism