Hamas is looking for a new face.
story
When Hamas was busy planning suicide bombings on buses during the second intifada, Dr. Sarraj called on Palestinians to march to Israeli military checkpoints with flowers. Now Hamas is consulting with him.
"I had a meeting three months ago with top leaders of Hamas and urged them to pursue non-violent tactics," Dr. Sarraj said. "One of them said to me, 'You are asking us for a non-violent intellectual revolution.' "
What will it take for the world to protest against the favoured Israel?
"It's not a security issue. Israel could stop easily by just opening fire, like what happens in totalitarian countries," said Mr. Barak. "But the high casualties will harm Israel's image.
"The danger is that the world will at some point force us to stop the steps we are doing right now, like reducing electricity," Mr. Barak said.
Last week, the European Union called for Israel to end its eight-month siege on Gaza, but no country has yet threatened Israel with sanctions.
So we wait for them to start openly slaughtering masses of peaceful gatherings? Oh, wait. I think it's already been decided that we don't care about that in the middle east. At some point the rest of the world might want to decide that enough is enough.
The Gaza Siege
The Gaza Siege
When the Palestinians show that they want to co-exist peacefully with Israel, the violence will end. The problem is, they want to see the destruction of Israel and Israel, being the sensitive people they are, don't want to be destroyed.
Rather than protesting the policies of Israel, people should be protesting the policies of neighboring Arab countries that maintain the Israel/Palestinian problem for political purposes. They don't allow Palestinians to immigrate to or work in their countries.
Namaste
Rather than protesting the policies of Israel, people should be protesting the policies of neighboring Arab countries that maintain the Israel/Palestinian problem for political purposes. They don't allow Palestinians to immigrate to or work in their countries.
Namaste
The Gaza Siege
My understanding of neighbouring countries is that they won't accept Palestinian immigrants because, if they do, the Palestinians will never be allowed to return home.
This is a two sided battle in which one group took over the country of another group and arranged land ownership so that no Arab can live with equality in the new country of Israel. Some of the Arabs chose violent rebellion, some have chosen peaceful techniques. The peaceful action has been ignored because of the actions of the violent groups.
This is a two sided battle in which one group took over the country of another group and arranged land ownership so that no Arab can live with equality in the new country of Israel. Some of the Arabs chose violent rebellion, some have chosen peaceful techniques. The peaceful action has been ignored because of the actions of the violent groups.
The Gaza Siege
koan;784610 wrote: My understanding of neighbouring countries is that they won't accept Palestinian immigrants because, if they do, the Palestinians will never be allowed to return home.
This is a two sided battle in which one group took over the country of another group and arranged land ownership so that no Arab can live with equality in the new country of Israel. Some of the Arabs chose violent rebellion, some have chosen peaceful techniques. The peaceful action has been ignored because of the actions of the violent groups.
I don't believe that is Right View, my friend. Many Arabs live in Israel, own land, and even hold public office. The only thing they can't do is serve in the military. For Israel to survive as an independent state, it must preserve it's majority. Allowing open immigration of Arabs would quickly result in the loss of that majority and soon the demise of Israel.
As far as one group taking over the country of another group, that is not what happened. There has never been an independent Palestinian state. Besides it having been the nation of Israel some 2000 years ago, there had been Jews and Arabs living together on that land for hundreds of years while it was part of the Ottoman Empire and then as a British colony.
The current situation is the result of the Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian Arabs fled into what is now the Gaza Strip and West Bank while the Jews stayed and fought for their independence. After they won, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries were kicked off their land or murdered. Those who could, migrated to Israel.
This is a two sided battle in which one group took over the country of another group and arranged land ownership so that no Arab can live with equality in the new country of Israel. Some of the Arabs chose violent rebellion, some have chosen peaceful techniques. The peaceful action has been ignored because of the actions of the violent groups.
I don't believe that is Right View, my friend. Many Arabs live in Israel, own land, and even hold public office. The only thing they can't do is serve in the military. For Israel to survive as an independent state, it must preserve it's majority. Allowing open immigration of Arabs would quickly result in the loss of that majority and soon the demise of Israel.
As far as one group taking over the country of another group, that is not what happened. There has never been an independent Palestinian state. Besides it having been the nation of Israel some 2000 years ago, there had been Jews and Arabs living together on that land for hundreds of years while it was part of the Ottoman Empire and then as a British colony.
The current situation is the result of the Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian Arabs fled into what is now the Gaza Strip and West Bank while the Jews stayed and fought for their independence. After they won, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries were kicked off their land or murdered. Those who could, migrated to Israel.
The Gaza Siege
koan;784521 wrote: Hamas is looking for a new face.
story
When Hamas was busy planning suicide bombings on buses during the second intifada, Dr. Sarraj called on Palestinians to march to Israeli military checkpoints with flowers. Now Hamas is consulting with him.
"I had a meeting three months ago with top leaders of Hamas and urged them to pursue non-violent tactics," Dr. Sarraj said. "One of them said to me, 'You are asking us for a non-violent intellectual revolution.' "
What will it take for the world to protest against the favoured Israel?
"It's not a security issue. Israel could stop easily by just opening fire, like what happens in totalitarian countries," said Mr. Barak. "But the high casualties will harm Israel's image.
"The danger is that the world will at some point force us to stop the steps we are doing right now, like reducing electricity," Mr. Barak said.
Last week, the European Union called for Israel to end its eight-month siege on Gaza, but no country has yet threatened Israel with sanctions.
So we wait for them to start openly slaughtering masses of peaceful gatherings? Oh, wait. I think it's already been decided that we don't care about that in the middle east. At some point the rest of the world might want to decide that enough is enough.
It worked for ghandi so who knows. Israel isn't a totalitarian state for all it's faults. Machine gunning unarmed civilians would not go down well although I suppose they could claim they saw a weapon on one of them. The thing is the militants don't want peace and violence becomes it's own end.
story
When Hamas was busy planning suicide bombings on buses during the second intifada, Dr. Sarraj called on Palestinians to march to Israeli military checkpoints with flowers. Now Hamas is consulting with him.
"I had a meeting three months ago with top leaders of Hamas and urged them to pursue non-violent tactics," Dr. Sarraj said. "One of them said to me, 'You are asking us for a non-violent intellectual revolution.' "
What will it take for the world to protest against the favoured Israel?
"It's not a security issue. Israel could stop easily by just opening fire, like what happens in totalitarian countries," said Mr. Barak. "But the high casualties will harm Israel's image.
"The danger is that the world will at some point force us to stop the steps we are doing right now, like reducing electricity," Mr. Barak said.
Last week, the European Union called for Israel to end its eight-month siege on Gaza, but no country has yet threatened Israel with sanctions.
So we wait for them to start openly slaughtering masses of peaceful gatherings? Oh, wait. I think it's already been decided that we don't care about that in the middle east. At some point the rest of the world might want to decide that enough is enough.
It worked for ghandi so who knows. Israel isn't a totalitarian state for all it's faults. Machine gunning unarmed civilians would not go down well although I suppose they could claim they saw a weapon on one of them. The thing is the militants don't want peace and violence becomes it's own end.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;784602 wrote: When the Palestinians show that they want to co-exist peacefully with Israel, the violence will end. The problem is, they want to see the destruction of Israel and Israel, being the sensitive people they are, don't want to be destroyed.
Rather than protesting the policies of Israel, people should be protesting the policies of neighboring Arab countries that maintain the Israel/Palestinian problem for political purposes. They don't allow Palestinians to immigrate to or work in their countries.
Namaste
When both sides are prepared to co-exist peacefully with each other it will end - not before.
Israel claim that they only respond to Palestinian violence but who's tit is who's tat? You cannot leave people without food, water, fuel, electricity, houses and land and expect them not to protest.
Both peoples need to put their house in order and stop trying to put all of the blame on the other.
Rather than protesting the policies of Israel, people should be protesting the policies of neighboring Arab countries that maintain the Israel/Palestinian problem for political purposes. They don't allow Palestinians to immigrate to or work in their countries.
Namaste
When both sides are prepared to co-exist peacefully with each other it will end - not before.
Israel claim that they only respond to Palestinian violence but who's tit is who's tat? You cannot leave people without food, water, fuel, electricity, houses and land and expect them not to protest.
Both peoples need to put their house in order and stop trying to put all of the blame on the other.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;784860 wrote: I don't believe that is Right View, my friend. Many Arabs live in Israel, own land, and even hold public office. The only thing they can't do is serve in the military. For Israel to survive as an independent state, it must preserve it's majority. Allowing open immigration of Arabs would quickly result in the loss of that majority and soon the demise of Israel.
As far as one group taking over the country of another group, that is not what happened. There has never been an independent Palestinian state. Besides it having been the nation of Israel some 2000 years ago, there had been Jews and Arabs living together on that land for hundreds of years while it was part of the Ottoman Empire and then as a British colony.
The current situation is the result of the Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian Arabs fled into what is now the Gaza Strip and West Bank while the Jews stayed and fought for their independence. After they won, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries were kicked off their land or murdered. Those who could, migrated to Israel.
And when, in your opinion, did the Arab-Israeli war start?
As for one group taking over the country of another group, in the 1920s the Arabs outnumbered the Jews 6 to 1 (Arabs = 78.3%, Jews = 11.2%, Christian = 9.5%). Currently the figures are Arabs = 18.5%, Jews = 77.2%, Christian = 4.3%. Sounds like a takeover to me.
As far as one group taking over the country of another group, that is not what happened. There has never been an independent Palestinian state. Besides it having been the nation of Israel some 2000 years ago, there had been Jews and Arabs living together on that land for hundreds of years while it was part of the Ottoman Empire and then as a British colony.
The current situation is the result of the Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian Arabs fled into what is now the Gaza Strip and West Bank while the Jews stayed and fought for their independence. After they won, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries were kicked off their land or murdered. Those who could, migrated to Israel.
And when, in your opinion, did the Arab-Israeli war start?
As for one group taking over the country of another group, in the 1920s the Arabs outnumbered the Jews 6 to 1 (Arabs = 78.3%, Jews = 11.2%, Christian = 9.5%). Currently the figures are Arabs = 18.5%, Jews = 77.2%, Christian = 4.3%. Sounds like a takeover to me.
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;784965 wrote: And when, in your opinion, did the Arab-Israeli war start?
The day after Israel declared its independence.
As for one group taking over the country of another group, in the 1920s the Arabs outnumbered the Jews 6 to 1 (Arabs = 78.3%, Jews = 11.2%, Christian = 9.5%). Currently the figures are Arabs = 18.5%, Jews = 77.2%, Christian = 4.3%. Sounds like a takeover to me.
In the 1920s, whites were a dominant majority in California. They no longer make up the majority with the Hispanic and Asian population growing rapidly. Does that mean Hispanics and Asians are taking over California? Could be, but it's not a forceful takeover, and neither was the Israeli takeover.
The day after Israel declared its independence.
As for one group taking over the country of another group, in the 1920s the Arabs outnumbered the Jews 6 to 1 (Arabs = 78.3%, Jews = 11.2%, Christian = 9.5%). Currently the figures are Arabs = 18.5%, Jews = 77.2%, Christian = 4.3%. Sounds like a takeover to me.
In the 1920s, whites were a dominant majority in California. They no longer make up the majority with the Hispanic and Asian population growing rapidly. Does that mean Hispanics and Asians are taking over California? Could be, but it's not a forceful takeover, and neither was the Israeli takeover.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;785050 wrote: The day after Israel declared its independence.
In the 1920s, whites were a dominant majority in California. They no longer make up the majority with the Hispanic and Asian population growing rapidly. Does that mean Hispanics and Asians are taking over California? Could be, but it's not a forceful takeover, and neither was the Israeli takeover.
The war had been going on long before that - look up Deir Yassin and the fall of Jaffa and check out the dates.
BTW - the last I heard, California was not a country and the Hispanics and Asians are not killing or forcibly expelling the locals. Apart from that, the Hispanics owned California well before the "Americans" got there - check out the place names and tell me their origins.
In the 1920s, whites were a dominant majority in California. They no longer make up the majority with the Hispanic and Asian population growing rapidly. Does that mean Hispanics and Asians are taking over California? Could be, but it's not a forceful takeover, and neither was the Israeli takeover.
The war had been going on long before that - look up Deir Yassin and the fall of Jaffa and check out the dates.
BTW - the last I heard, California was not a country and the Hispanics and Asians are not killing or forcibly expelling the locals. Apart from that, the Hispanics owned California well before the "Americans" got there - check out the place names and tell me their origins.
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;785061 wrote: The war had been going on long before that - look up Deir Yassin and the fall of Jaffa and check out the dates.
The Deir Yassin battle was part of the civil war -- not the Arab-Israeli war.
BTW - the last I heard, California was not a country and the Hispanics and Asians are not killing or forcibly expelling the locals. Apart from that, the Hispanics owned California well before the "Americans" got there - check out the place names and tell me their origins.
And the Jews were in Israel long before the Arabs. In fact, there is evidence that the Israelites actually emerged out of the people of Canaan.
The Deir Yassin battle was part of the civil war -- not the Arab-Israeli war.
BTW - the last I heard, California was not a country and the Hispanics and Asians are not killing or forcibly expelling the locals. Apart from that, the Hispanics owned California well before the "Americans" got there - check out the place names and tell me their origins.
And the Jews were in Israel long before the Arabs. In fact, there is evidence that the Israelites actually emerged out of the people of Canaan.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;785549 wrote: The Deir Yassin battle was part of the civil war -- not the Arab-Israeli war.
And the Jews were in Israel long before the Arabs. In fact, there is evidence that the Israelites actually emerged out of the people of Canaan.
I really do not give a damn what you call it, it was the war between the Arabs and the (proto) Israelis that is still continuing to this day. And Deir Yassin was not a battle, it was a massacre.
If you want to include ancient history then the Kelts and Gaels should be suing for restitution of their homelands in central Europe, the Germans would reclaim their lands in eastern Europe and the Americans and the Australians wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The point is that neither side can win by continuing the way they are and both sides need to come to terms with the fact.
Claiming "we're only responding to their crimes" or "it was our land two thousand years ago" does nothing to solve the problem
And the Jews were in Israel long before the Arabs. In fact, there is evidence that the Israelites actually emerged out of the people of Canaan.
I really do not give a damn what you call it, it was the war between the Arabs and the (proto) Israelis that is still continuing to this day. And Deir Yassin was not a battle, it was a massacre.
If you want to include ancient history then the Kelts and Gaels should be suing for restitution of their homelands in central Europe, the Germans would reclaim their lands in eastern Europe and the Americans and the Australians wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The point is that neither side can win by continuing the way they are and both sides need to come to terms with the fact.
Claiming "we're only responding to their crimes" or "it was our land two thousand years ago" does nothing to solve the problem
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;785941 wrote: I really do not give a damn what you call it, it was the war between the Arabs and the (proto) Israelis that is still continuing to this day. And Deir Yassin was not a battle, it was a massacre.
Pulllleeze. Spare me the talking points from anti-Israel websites. I've heard them all before.
Pulllleeze. Spare me the talking points from anti-Israel websites. I've heard them all before.
The Gaza Siege
Today's news is filled with reports on how Hamas killed an Israeli with a rocket. They say that first then mention that Israel killed 12 Palestinians, including a 6 month old baby.
The Israeli strike in Gaza happened first but is printed second in every story I've read so far.
The Israeli strike in Gaza happened first but is printed second in every story I've read so far.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;786118 wrote: Pulllleeze. Spare me the talking points from anti-Israel websites. I've heard them all before.
Which one? The Encyclopaedia Britannica? the report of the Red Cross?
Having heard them all before does not make them false.
Shall we take the first point? In what way was the fighting in 1947 that led to the fall of Jaffa and Haifa not part of the Arab Israeli conflict?
Which one? The Encyclopaedia Britannica? the report of the Red Cross?
Having heard them all before does not make them false.
Shall we take the first point? In what way was the fighting in 1947 that led to the fall of Jaffa and Haifa not part of the Arab Israeli conflict?
The Gaza Siege
koan;786123 wrote: Today's news is filled with reports on how Hamas killed an Israeli with a rocket. They say that first then mention that Israel killed 12 Palestinians, including a 6 month old baby.
The Israeli strike in Gaza happened first but is printed second in every story I've read so far.
NY Times wrote: The latest surge of hostilities started on Wednesday morning, when the Israeli air force carried out a strike in southern Gaza hitting a minivan on a road west of Khan Yunis and killing five members of the Qassam Brigades.
Southern Israel then came under heavy rocket fire, with more than 40 rockets launched from Gaza on Wednesday, the Israeli Army said. Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, claimed responsibility for the rocket fire, saying it had been retaliating for the Israeli strike.
In a second Israeli airstrike carried out amid the rocket fire, two Palestinian youths were killed and 12 other civilians were wounded, Dr. Muawiya Hassanein, director of emergency medical services in Gaza, said. A third young boy died later. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the strike had been aimed at a rocket-firing squad, and witnesses in Gaza told Palestinian news media that the civilians had been hit while watching Hamas militants fire the rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world ... ref=slogin
The Israeli strike in Gaza happened first but is printed second in every story I've read so far.
NY Times wrote: The latest surge of hostilities started on Wednesday morning, when the Israeli air force carried out a strike in southern Gaza hitting a minivan on a road west of Khan Yunis and killing five members of the Qassam Brigades.
Southern Israel then came under heavy rocket fire, with more than 40 rockets launched from Gaza on Wednesday, the Israeli Army said. Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, claimed responsibility for the rocket fire, saying it had been retaliating for the Israeli strike.
In a second Israeli airstrike carried out amid the rocket fire, two Palestinian youths were killed and 12 other civilians were wounded, Dr. Muawiya Hassanein, director of emergency medical services in Gaza, said. A third young boy died later. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the strike had been aimed at a rocket-firing squad, and witnesses in Gaza told Palestinian news media that the civilians had been hit while watching Hamas militants fire the rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world ... ref=slogin
The Gaza Siege
The article you linked starts out:
JERUSALEM — Palestinian militants in Gaza fired four rockets into the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon on Thursday, hitting a house, the Israeli police said. Israeli airstrikes in Gaza killed at least 11 Palestinians, including four young boys, Palestinian medical officials said.
No one was hurt in the attacks on Ashkelon, but the attack will probably be seen in Israel as an escalation of the conflict. Ashkelon, a city of 120,000 people, has been an occasional target of rockets in the past, but the scale of attacks on Thursday was unprecedented.
The police in Ashkelon said six rockets were fired, and four landed in the city. It was the first time there had been a direct hit on a house. The Israeli Army said that five rockets had been fired into Ashkelon.
The rockets were manufactured Grad-type rockets, which have a longer range than the homemade, relatively crude Qassam rockets that are usually fired at the Israeli town of Sderot and farming communities bordering the Gaza Strip, and were made in Iran, according to an Israeli security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give out such information.
So... thanks for proving my point.
Odd how that's published tomorrow by date. It's still the 28th in New York, isn't it?
JERUSALEM — Palestinian militants in Gaza fired four rockets into the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon on Thursday, hitting a house, the Israeli police said. Israeli airstrikes in Gaza killed at least 11 Palestinians, including four young boys, Palestinian medical officials said.
No one was hurt in the attacks on Ashkelon, but the attack will probably be seen in Israel as an escalation of the conflict. Ashkelon, a city of 120,000 people, has been an occasional target of rockets in the past, but the scale of attacks on Thursday was unprecedented.
The police in Ashkelon said six rockets were fired, and four landed in the city. It was the first time there had been a direct hit on a house. The Israeli Army said that five rockets had been fired into Ashkelon.
The rockets were manufactured Grad-type rockets, which have a longer range than the homemade, relatively crude Qassam rockets that are usually fired at the Israeli town of Sderot and farming communities bordering the Gaza Strip, and were made in Iran, according to an Israeli security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give out such information.
So... thanks for proving my point.
Odd how that's published tomorrow by date. It's still the 28th in New York, isn't it?
The Gaza Siege
koan;786689 wrote: Odd how that's published tomorrow by date. It's still the 28th in New York, isn't it?
Hey, you're right! :wah:
It's the 29th in the Middle East, though.
Hey, you're right! :wah:
It's the 29th in the Middle East, though.
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;786146 wrote: Which one? The Encyclopaedia Britannica? the report of the Red Cross?
Having heard them all before does not make them false.
Shall we take the first point? In what way was the fighting in 1947 that led to the fall of Jaffa and Haifa not part of the Arab Israeli conflict?
The Arab-Israeli war was between Israel and neighboring Arab countries -- not the Palestinians. That was part of the civil war.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from areas where there were a large number of civilians.
Having heard them all before does not make them false.
Shall we take the first point? In what way was the fighting in 1947 that led to the fall of Jaffa and Haifa not part of the Arab Israeli conflict?
The Arab-Israeli war was between Israel and neighboring Arab countries -- not the Palestinians. That was part of the civil war.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from areas where there were a large number of civilians.
The Gaza Siege
The BBC's take on the killings :-
Four Palestinian children have been killed in an Israeli air strike in the northern Gaza Strip, local medics say.
Reports say they were playing near the Jabaliya refugee camp. Israel said it had targeted a rocket-launching cell.
Later, a Hamas militant was killed in an Israeli air strike near Beit Hanoun and a security post near the house of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya was hit.
On Wednesday, a rocket fired by Hamas killed an Israeli student near Sderot, the first such death in nine months.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 269154.stm
Four Palestinian children have been killed in an Israeli air strike in the northern Gaza Strip, local medics say.
Reports say they were playing near the Jabaliya refugee camp. Israel said it had targeted a rocket-launching cell.
Later, a Hamas militant was killed in an Israeli air strike near Beit Hanoun and a security post near the house of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya was hit.
On Wednesday, a rocket fired by Hamas killed an Israeli student near Sderot, the first such death in nine months.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 269154.stm
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;786778 wrote: The Arab-Israeli war was between Israel and neighboring Arab countries -- not the Palestinians. That was part of the civil war.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from areas where there were a large number of civilians.
Most of my information comes from the printed word rather tha the internet - including the aforementioned Encyclopaedia Britannica and report of Dr Raynier, the Red Cross inspector who arrived the day after. The eye witness account of Meir Pail (an Israeli intelligence operative) made interesting reading as did the apology of David Ben-Gurion - later the first Prime Minister of Israel.
Here's an Israeli site posted by Scrat last time we discussed the matter :-
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/
On April 9, 1948, the Irgun and Lehi attacked the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, which had had a peace pact with its Jewish neighbors, and massacred over a hundred noncombatants. This act had no significance in the defense of Jerusalem, and may have brought great harm by forming the motivation for subsequent Arab massacres. It has become a rallying point for hatred of Israel and Zionism.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from areas where there were a large number of civilians.
Most of my information comes from the printed word rather tha the internet - including the aforementioned Encyclopaedia Britannica and report of Dr Raynier, the Red Cross inspector who arrived the day after. The eye witness account of Meir Pail (an Israeli intelligence operative) made interesting reading as did the apology of David Ben-Gurion - later the first Prime Minister of Israel.
Here's an Israeli site posted by Scrat last time we discussed the matter :-
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/
On April 9, 1948, the Irgun and Lehi attacked the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, which had had a peace pact with its Jewish neighbors, and massacred over a hundred noncombatants. This act had no significance in the defense of Jerusalem, and may have brought great harm by forming the motivation for subsequent Arab massacres. It has become a rallying point for hatred of Israel and Zionism.
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;787002 wrote: Most of my information comes from the printed word rather tha the internet - including the aforementioned Encyclopaedia Britannica and report of Dr Raynier, the Red Cross inspector who arrived the day after. The eye witness account of Meir Pail (an Israeli intelligence operative) made interesting reading as did the apology of David Ben-Gurion - later the first Prime Minister of Israel.
Sorry, unless you can give me an unbiased source, you have no argument. Next time I'm at the library I'll look in up in Britannica to find out exactly what they wrote.
Sorry, unless you can give me an unbiased source, you have no argument. Next time I'm at the library I'll look in up in Britannica to find out exactly what they wrote.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;787010 wrote: Sorry, unless you can give me an unbiased source, you have no argument. Next time I'm at the library I'll look in up in Britannica to find out exactly what they wrote.
What's biassed about the Red Cross?
In what way is an IDF intelligence operative biassed?
Why should David Ben-Gurion be biassed?
I would suggest that it's you that have no argument and therefore come back with a stock response.
What's biassed about the Red Cross?
In what way is an IDF intelligence operative biassed?
Why should David Ben-Gurion be biassed?
I would suggest that it's you that have no argument and therefore come back with a stock response.
The Gaza Siege
Bryn Mawr;787014 wrote: What's biassed about the Red Cross?
In what way is an IDF intelligence operative biassed?
Why should David Ben-Gurion be biassed?
I would suggest that it's you that have no argument and therefore come back with a stock response.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While there may have been a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from from among civilians, the same way they fight now. Naturally, there's going to be collateral damage. It's probably true there were some atrocities committed. That's happened on both sides. It's happened in the U.S. and by our military in wars we've been involved in.
If England would have partitioned the land instead of just bailing out, there might not be the problem we have today.
In what way is an IDF intelligence operative biassed?
Why should David Ben-Gurion be biassed?
I would suggest that it's you that have no argument and therefore come back with a stock response.
How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While there may have been a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from from among civilians, the same way they fight now. Naturally, there's going to be collateral damage. It's probably true there were some atrocities committed. That's happened on both sides. It's happened in the U.S. and by our military in wars we've been involved in.
If England would have partitioned the land instead of just bailing out, there might not be the problem we have today.
The Gaza Siege
Benjamin;787163 wrote: How about posting a link to a credible source for your Deir Yassin information. I think you'll find that much of it is in fact a myth. While there may have been a large number of civilians were killed (around 100), the militants were fighting from from among civilians, the same way they fight now. Naturally, there's going to be collateral damage. It's probably true there were some atrocities committed. That's happened on both sides. It's happened in the U.S. and by our military in wars we've been involved in.
If England would have partitioned the land instead of just bailing out, there might not be the problem we have today.
I have posted three perfectly acceptable sources - my copies are paper but I'm sure you can find them on the internet if you look.
If you know anything about Deir Yassim you will know the evidence presented at the time - between 90 and 120 civilian dead with less than 10 possible "combatants" is hardly collateral damage.
If England would have partitioned the land instead of just bailing out, there might not be the problem we have today.
I have posted three perfectly acceptable sources - my copies are paper but I'm sure you can find them on the internet if you look.
If you know anything about Deir Yassim you will know the evidence presented at the time - between 90 and 120 civilian dead with less than 10 possible "combatants" is hardly collateral damage.
The Gaza Siege
So we wait for them to start openly slaughtering masses of peaceful gatherings? Oh, wait. I think it's already been decided that we don't care about that in the middle east. At some point the rest of the world might want to decide that enough is enough.
Youre being glib of course.
Youre being glib of course.
I AM AWESOME MAN
The Gaza Siege
Israel's warning: rocket fire from Gaza will result in a Palestinian 'holocaust'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 90004.html
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is thought to be very wary of authorising a major ground offensive in Gaza. But Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee and a hawkish member of Mr Olmert's ruling Kadima party, said yesterday: "The State of Israel must make a strategic decision to order the IDF to prepare quickly to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel." He said the IDF should prepare to remain in those areas for years if necessary.
Yossi Beilin, the former minister and ex-leader of the left of centre Meretz Party, said that a diplomatic rather than military solution was needed.
He said that Hamas had at least twice made requests "via a third party" to agree a truce. He added: "My solution is to reach a ceasefire with Hamas."
A Haaretz-Dialog poll this week showed that 64 per cent of Israelis were in favour of such an agreement to end the rocket fire, and secure the release of the Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Gaza militants in June 2006.
On a visit to Ashkelon, however, the Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, gave little sign that the government was contemplating such a course. "Hamas is directly responsible for the current situation and will be the one to bear the cost of our response. An Israeli response is necessary and will be carried out," he said.
Ismail Haniyeh, the de facto Hamas prime minister in Gaza, speaking at a mosque near his home in his first public appearance for a month, said: "What does a large-scale raid mean? You [Israelis] were in the Gaza Strip and you quit because of the resistance."
Like it or not hamas is the group that was elected to power in gaza. Turning round and ignoring the result just because it wan't the one you wanted just perpetuates the violence.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, the israeli's should be able to understand that. The first Israeli leaders were themselves terrorists, the israeli state was born in the middle of terrorism it shouldn't be too hard a concept to sit down and come to a peace agreement with another terrorist organisation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 90004.html
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is thought to be very wary of authorising a major ground offensive in Gaza. But Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee and a hawkish member of Mr Olmert's ruling Kadima party, said yesterday: "The State of Israel must make a strategic decision to order the IDF to prepare quickly to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel." He said the IDF should prepare to remain in those areas for years if necessary.
Yossi Beilin, the former minister and ex-leader of the left of centre Meretz Party, said that a diplomatic rather than military solution was needed.
He said that Hamas had at least twice made requests "via a third party" to agree a truce. He added: "My solution is to reach a ceasefire with Hamas."
A Haaretz-Dialog poll this week showed that 64 per cent of Israelis were in favour of such an agreement to end the rocket fire, and secure the release of the Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Gaza militants in June 2006.
On a visit to Ashkelon, however, the Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, gave little sign that the government was contemplating such a course. "Hamas is directly responsible for the current situation and will be the one to bear the cost of our response. An Israeli response is necessary and will be carried out," he said.
Ismail Haniyeh, the de facto Hamas prime minister in Gaza, speaking at a mosque near his home in his first public appearance for a month, said: "What does a large-scale raid mean? You [Israelis] were in the Gaza Strip and you quit because of the resistance."
Like it or not hamas is the group that was elected to power in gaza. Turning round and ignoring the result just because it wan't the one you wanted just perpetuates the violence.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, the israeli's should be able to understand that. The first Israeli leaders were themselves terrorists, the israeli state was born in the middle of terrorism it shouldn't be too hard a concept to sit down and come to a peace agreement with another terrorist organisation.