Israeli missiles hit PA compound

[cal04]

Israeli aircraft have fired missiles into the Palestinian Authority's Gaza City compound, near to the offices of President Mahmoud Abbas.
The two missile attacks wounded two Palestinians and left deep craters on a landing strip close to the Palestinian Authority offices.

Mr Abbas was reportedly at his offices in the West Bank at the time.
The Israel military confirmed the attack, but said it was targeting militants who fire rockets into Israel. The army said the strike came in response to several homemade Palestinian rocket attacks fired on southern Israel earlier on Tuesday.

A spokeswoman said they wanted to "send a message" to the Palestinians that such attacks would not be tolerated, the AFP news agency reported.

Mr Abbas' spokesman condemned the attacks and called on the US and the West to intervene. "This escalation will lead the area to more violence and instability," Nabil Abu Rdeneh said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4876192.stm

[Benbow]

1. State terrorism n/t

[Tom Joad]

3. State Terror as usual, that's exactly right.

[Englander]

8. That it is. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

14. Terror is as terror does. If it walk like a duck and quacks like a duck..

Terrorist acts are not confined to the dirt-covered poor. Terrorism can just as easily come from a hellfire missile launched off a U.S.-built Apache as from a suicide bomber.

The world is no fool on this point either.

PB

[barb162]

28. No, those were messages

Per article:

The army said the strike came in response to several homemade Palestinian rocket attacks fired on southern Israel earlier on Tuesday.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said they wanted to "send a message" to the Palestinians that such attacks would not be tolerated, the AFP news agency reported

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Terrorism and message sending isn't exclusive...

And it's incredibly hypocritical to be opposed to rocket attacks only when they come from one side in a conflict...

Violet...

[Burning Water]

52. It's not where

they come from. It's who they're aimed at. Enemy combatants or innocent civilians?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Some seem to think all Palestinians are enemy combatants...

Israel launched a rocket attack on a RESIDENTIAL area, which makes it a pretty safe assumption that they were aimed at a RESIDENTIAL area....

Violet...

[Burning Water]

58. With terrorists residing there.

You've got to go after them where they are.

This is considerably different from blowing up a bus, say, with the intention of killing as many people as possible. Hey, if they can target the Knesset, OK. That's where Israel's leaders are.

What the Palestinians consistently fail to admit is that if they have the right to wage war on Israel, then Israel also has the right to wage war on them. With all that that implies.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Terrorists also reside in the settlements and in Israel...

So I take it that you've got no problem with going after them where they are? Or does that only apply when it comes to Palestinians?

Sorry, but bombing residential areas IS targetting civilians. There's no amount of window dressing that can make it any less stinky than it is...

If you have no problems with going after Israel's leaders, how do you feel about those who assassinated that Israeli minister being imprisoned and then Israel destroying the prison and in the process murdering two other people just coz Israel seemed to think they weren't being treated harshly enough? Surely you must have had issues with the fact that they were imprisoned in the first place?


Violet...

[Burning Water]

60. My real beef is

with the Israeli government that treats terrorists as common criminals instead of waging ruthless and relentless war upon them until they are either all dead or all put down their weapons.

Is that plain enough for you?

Violet. Is it really possible that you cannot tell the moral difference between targeting innocent people and targeting terrorists? If so, I feel sorry for you.

Israel is not a terrorist state regardless of what Hamas would have you believe. They try to limit the collateral damage as much as possible. Hamas,the PLO, and other such groups, on the other hand, try to inflict as much damage as possible to innocent people in an effort to terrorize them into bending their government to the will of the terrorists. Rather like Republicans, wouldn't you say?

Sure, there may be a Israeli official living within the square mile area around some suicide bomber's explosion. But he didn't try to kill him. Sure, the terrorist commanders wife and kids may be killed when an Israeli cruise missile gets him at dinner. If their lives were so important to him, why was he anywhere near them when he knew he was a target. The responsibility lies with the Palestinian terrorist. Israel has often called off attacks when they knew there were innocent civilians around. Finally, how innocent can they be if they willingly make human shields of themselves to protect some of the worse men on the planet??

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Crystal clear...

You use the term terrorist loose and fast when it comes to Palestinians but don't use the same standards when it comes to Israelis and in that way manage to convince yrself that there's no Israeli terrorists in Israel or in the settlements (and using yr logic all settlers are legitimate targets as they willingly make human shields of themselves to shelter terrorists among them who attack Palestinian civilians). And to top that off, you've got no problems with the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians when Israel does its heavyhanded retaliations that in this case involved bombing residential areas. Feel sorry for me all you like, coz with that sort of attitude I know I'm doing okay. I'll worry about my own moral stance when you stop feeling sorry for me :)



Violet...

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

44. That's what terrorism is, barb.

Blowing up a civilian building 'sends a message', deliberately targeting & destroying
a civilian building, is terrorism.

The spokes-bot admits it, she admits that this act of State terrorism was exactly that,
an act of State terrorism, by saying that the civilian building was deliberately
targeted, & that there was a purpose behind that intentional targeting.

[Andromeda]

40. Delete

[endarkenment]

2. What would our reaction be if the palestinians

rocketed the Israeli Knesset to 'send a message' of displeasure regarding Israeli attacks against Palestinians?

[Benbow]

4. It would be mixed up with our reaction to Israel's immediate retaliatory

carpet-bombing of a Palestian shopping centre or village.

[endarkenment]

5. which would be to blame the palestinians for the dead palestinians.

Better to build a ghetto wall around an unviable bantustan and just let tham all slowly die. What a farce.

[King Mongo]

9. Revenge is wrong....

...no matter who practices such. Being the occupying power, however, it makes sense for Israel to protect Palestinians while fighting against crime. I would demand the same from the Hamas if they occupied Israel.

Revenge often has a tendency of leaning towards terrorism, if it is not a form of terrorism already.

[endarkenment]

10. "protect Palestinians while fighting against crime"

Lobbing rockets at government offices, not matter who does it, is not protecting anyone by fighting crime.

[King Mongo]

12. Agreed.

Lobbing rockets at government offices is leaning towards terrrism, if it is not already terrorism. My argument is that Israel should protect Palestinians while fighting against crime, without practicing revenge or terror. If Israel does not want to protect Palestinians, preferring to threaten or even kill civilians, then it must be pressured to recognize that Palestine exists as an independent non-occupied nation.

Actually, both sides need to be pressured to recognize that both exists as independent non-occupied nations, regardless if revenge, terror or other forms of violence is practiced by either

[occuserpens]

6. The residence of Abbas attacked

2006-04-04 The residence of Abbas attacked http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME06.htm

[pelsar]

7. and the usual crowd...

complains if israel shoots some missles as warning...far better to let the palestenains shoot their missles without the IDF bothering them,.....so they can aim better, correct the angles..and kill israelis...


always the preference here.

[endarkenment]

11. no it isn't always the preference here

This was not intended to disrupt the folks shooting rockets at israel, it was an attempt to warn the abbas government that more reprisals would be coming soon. Where exactly did anyone here support letting the palestinians shoot their missiles? I must have missed that post.

There would be no discussion here had the headline been "Israelis shoot palestinians attempting to fire rockets into Israel'. But that wasn't the headline as that is not what happened.

[pelsar]

13. reality check.....

....israel cant prevent the palestenains from shooting rockets....there is only so much the technology can do with out resorting to massive bombing. The only ones who can prevent it are the palestenains themselves..who are doing nothing..hence they are in essence supporting them. In fact at times the PA security services would actually get out of the way.

Secondly, When israel does attempt to gather information (recon flights) prevent the shootings by artillary...both are constantly condemed here.....so attempts at preventing the firings are considered evil

so whereas people may not "support" the palestenians when they shoot missles, at the sametime they condem any and every practical israeli response....hence the preference for israeli dead.

in fact if you take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x120138 you will find very feable responses, which in practical terms means...let the israelis be killed.

to be fair one poster did mention that "transfer" would be a solution, ethnic cleansing in other words. Moving the 150,000 israelis in range of the palestenain missles and move them further out....

however, as in the thread above...suggestions are welcome, got any?

[endarkenment]

15. Within this thread the objection was to slamming a rocket

into the PA offices. You are off condemning other posters (the infamous other posters) in other threads. Sorry, but I am not going to play that game.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Not playing the game is a very good idea...

And as an 'other poster' who has found one of her suggestions has morphed into things she never ever suggested like 'transfer' and 'ethnic cleansing', it's one of the reasons I refuse to play the game anymore. Especially when the poster repeatedly demanding that everyone give answers (the correct answer of course is to support anything Israel does regardless of the injury or death it causes to Palestinians) only seems to be pissed off and outraged when rockets are aimed at Israel and not when they're aimed at Palestinians...

Violet...

[pelsar]

17. any answer that works....

i'm quite open to real suggestions....even if they do include transfer....at least that what i would call moving 150,000 people from their homes.....(what would you call it?)

but at least it was a suggestion, for that i give you credit. Outside of that......its always silence. I am more than happy to critize israeli policy, provide that there are suggestions that work.....but i never seem to get the chance

I realize that the difference escapes many , but if the palestenains werent shooting rockets from gaza, israel wouldnt have to do anything......funny how that works. Blame israel for the palestenians trying to kill israelis...

[King Mongo]

24. Can Israel recognize that Palestine exists?

Would Palestinians shoot rockets if Israel recognized that Palestine exists? It seems to me as if Israel is shooting rockets since the Hamas won't recongize that Israel exists. Thus, both are shooting rockets for the same reason and one is not better than the other.

It is always wrong to forcefully move people from their homes due to race or religion. The illegal settlers will make happy Palestinian citizens. The best was to discourage racism, is to let people be with and become those whom they hate.

[pelsar]

32. why are the palestenains shooting rockets?

israel LEFT gaza....no israelis are there....what are they doing trying to kill israelis?

please dont try to make this into some kind of political statement with hamas...the day israel left gaza and ever since that day, missles have been shot out of gaza in attempts to kill israelis....its that simple.

the hamas was not in power when it started......if the palestenaisn would stop shooting israel, which LEFT gaza, would not have to do anything....its really that simple.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Israel's been using rocket attacks for a long time...

They've used them in attempts to kill Palestinians in the past. So yr claim that if the Qassams stopped, then Israel wouldn't need to do anything isn't very credible...

You keep on acting as though leaving Gaza was the only thing Israel needed to do for there to be peace. That assumption is incorrect and totally ignores the West Bank and issues like the refugees and Jerusalem...

Violet...

[King Mongo]

41. This is correct...

It is not correct to claim that an occupation does not exist when Palestinians in the West Bank are denied citizenship in Israel. As long as an occupation exists, the occupied have the right to defend themselves from the occupation.

[pelsar]

46. the gaza assumption...

as in the lebanon assumption is that if israel returns to intl recognized borders that "the other side' will no longer attempt to kill israelis

both assumptions were wrong.

[King Mongo]

51. If violence was a justification to annex occupied territory...

...then both sides would have an equal justifications to annex land from the other. Israel does not have a greater right to grab land than Palestinians and vice versa.

[pelsar]

62. nor do the palestenians have the right to kill israelis...

the whole agument is something like this: Israel returns to 67 borders and the palestenains stop trying to kill israelis.

seems to me thats is exacty what hizballa said: israel leaves lebanon, we'll stop trying to kill israelis...guess what?...they still are.

gaza?....heres a chance for the palestenains to prove themselves...no occupation there?...time to take better aim and kill israelis

________

the 67 border argument doesnt really seem to hold up very well...oh and the hamas?...they dont even believe in the 67 borders....which means haifa is also considered occupied.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Pelsar, Israel has zero intention of returning to the 67 borders...

It never has intended to do so at any point. Israel doesn't even believe in the 67 borders, so I find it a bit of a double standard when people complain that Hamas doesn't believe in the 67 borders either...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

53. The Israel assumption...

..that it could continue to kill Palestinians after the disengagement and think that everyone would forget the West Bank even existed was a very incorrect assumption...

Israel has not returned to internationally recognised borders, and has no intention of doing so, btw...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

56. hmm....

"Israel has not returned to internationally recognised borders, and has no intention of doing so, btw..."

Besides your opinion, you know what those "internationally recognized borders" are? Please don't tell us the "Green Line," because that is just not true!

[pelsar]

65. lebanon? gaza?

guess those things never happened....of course attacks from those same places still keep coming (but its probably israels fault).......guess intl borders dont seem to be recognized by "certain palestenian/arab groups that insist of attacking israel"

and hamas?...oh so now hamas which doesnt even recognze israels or even Jews right to live as equals is now being compared to the israeli govt.....

[Violet_Crumble]

66. What has that got to do with what I said in my post??

Absolutely nothing from what I can see...

Violet...

[pelsar]

67. 67 borders...

N.Israel?..lebanon?

Gaza?.....all are now at pre67 borders....you wrote that israel has no intention of going back to 67....facts are different.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Pelsar, yr the one that brought up the internationally recognised borders.

..in the post I was replying to....

The facts are not different in any way at all. Israel has no intention at all of returning to the 67 borders and if you are claiming otherwise, the Israeli govt has made repeated statements that prove you wrong on this one...

And what is it with this pretense that Gaza was the only territory occupied by Israel in 1967? There's the much larger West Bank that seems to be ignored by some for some strange reason...

Violet...

[pelsar]

69. west bank...

will have its time...i'm not ignoring it..but it seems foolish to bring jerusalem/Hadera/Afula within range of mortors and kassams when the palestenains cant even control gaza. (as usual, if the kassam start flying out of the 'withdrawn westbank" the recommended/legal israeli response should be....evacuation? or let israelis be killed?)

in fact the 67 borders wont be returned given the physical situation in the westbank..but then the 67 borders were not one of peace anyway...and in no way guarantee peace of any sort.....ask hamas

what will happen in time is a compromise or land swap.....but given that missles still fly out of gaza and the hizballa still attacks from the N. border, it only makes sense to wait until those areas get sorted out.

of coures if its done sooner....and the kassams fly out of the west bank..perhaps your evacuation plan can be implemented..except the only evacuation that would keep israelis out of range is in the sea. (of course the alternative is the usual one........)

[Violet_Crumble]

70. No, the West Bank won't have its time..

I'll repeat this again. Israel has never at any stage and is not currently intending to return to the 67 borders. That has zero to do with any red herrings about missiles etc. That's just the way it's always been...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

71. Nor does Israel HAVE to return to the '67 'borders.'

Why do some seem to think that Resolution 242 declares that the '67 "borders," are the 'be all to end all'? Why is the onus always on Israel? Are there not other parties involved?

[pelsar]

72. remind me....

many said that about gaza, i dont recall if you were one of them...but there must have been dozens of posts hows its just a trick etc.

but your mixing up giving the westbank to the palestenaisn (returning would mean returning it to jordan who annexed it) vs 67 borders. Those borders have no magic to them..as many palestenain farmers kept attacking israeli families pre 67.

however when the palestenians do get their westbank back....as in gaza (dont those missles count?) they might very well shoot missles and mortors.....or is your suggestion that if they do, israel should evacuate jersualem?

why are the potential shooting of missles from the westbank a "red hearing".....you dont thinks its possible?

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Returning vs giving...

Israel would be returning the West Bank to the people who have always lived there. Giving it to them denotes that Isreal has some form of ownership over it to give it away to whoever it likes. Jordan has long ago given up any claims to the West Bank, btw...

There were Qassam attacks from Gaza long before the disengagement, so it's not like the disengagement was responsible for them happening. Likewise, any argument that Israel shouldn't remove every last illegal settlement from the West Bank out of fear of future rocket attacks is a red herring. If they're going to happen, they're going to happen, regardless of whether Israel is physically occupying the territory or not...

If the Green Line isn't considered a border, and there's really nothing wrong with Israel annexing chunks of the West Bank, then why wouldn't the same reasoning also apply and there'd be nothing at all wrong with a Palestinian state emerging that annexes chunks of what is now Israel?

Violet....

[pelsar]

75. thats right....

the green line isnt a border...and just as Israel may "annex" chunks of the westbank so to the emerging palestenian state my annex chunks of israel.


hence the final borders are something that has to be agreed upon...the 67 lines are not an "agreed upon line"
________________

there were kassams pre disengagement, and israel as the occupying power had full responsabilty for their shooting or non shooting. That is no longer the case, the PA is now the "occupying power" and as such is responsable. Israel can no longer send in troops, set ambushs for those shooters, arrest those who are shooting. If you didnt notice the numbers, their accuracy, their distance has increased since israel left (we watch those little details). The whole idea of leaving gaza was so that the palestenain there could start improving their lives, without us on their heads.... instead of trying to kill israelis.....we were mistaken.

The red herring:
there are no mortors or kassams coming out of the west bank now because israel is the occupying power...if israel leaves, israel will no longer have the ability via the checkpoints/raids/arrests to stop their importation and setup...so its quite likly that when israel leaves the kassams will then appear. (I didnt know that terrorizing israelis is now considerd a "Red Herring" i'll have to remember that one).

and of course we're back to the usual: israel, according to many here, will have no legal means to combat them, and hence the preference for israelis to evacuate the cities within range: Jersualem, Lod, Hadera, Afula, beit shemesh, Netanya......a solution, but i believe there really isnt much place to evacuate them too

[King Mongo]

42. Why does israel not recognize that Palestine exists...

...as an independent unoccupied nation? If Israel was not attempting to annex occupied territory, then it would certainly be mind-boggling if citizens of an independent unoccupied nation were using violence against another nation.

[pelsar]

30. morphing....

yes your "evacuation" got morphed into "transfer"...just like pre67 fedayin become "farmers trying to get back their land"...or the wall becoming an apartheid wall, or the IDF becoming the IOF......

or the gazans being hooked in to the israeli electrical grid becomes a form of occupation....

i can also do the "rape word definition" which is so common on this board. Personally i find it rather absurd but after being on the receiving end of such "loaded words" i guessed it was time to use the local language.

so in that light...removing 150,000+ israelis from their homes becomes "transfer" racial cleansing, against intl law......etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I'd prefer it if you gave me credit for what I actually say...

..as opposed to what I didn't say. And what I didn't say or even imply was that creating a buffer zone within Israel (and remember that my comment was in a thread where there was talk of creating buffer zones in Gaza) is 'transfer' or 'ethnic cleansing'...

What yr saying makes no sense at all. You have a problem with terms that other posters use, so to make a statement you use terms that by no stretch of the imagination fit the situation to claim I'm actually saying I support these terms? Oh-kay, but now I'm going to explain to you why temporarily evacuating Israelis from their homes is no more ethnic cleansing than it was when large numbers of people in my city were evacuated from their homes that were in the path of a huge firestorm:

Ethnic cleansing, much like genocide, involves the intent to permanently remove all people of a racial, religious or ethnic group (usually a minority) from a country. Israel evacuating its own citizens temporarily from their homes for their own safety does not under any weird stretching of things become ethnic cleansing..

Though considering that I went back to the original thread where I made a few suggestions and saw that accusations of ethnic cleansing and violations of international law weren't forthcoming from you when it came to the Israeli Agriculture minister advocating that Gazans be bombed out of their homes and forced to flee elsewhere, I'm wondering what the difference is between Palestinians and Israelis....

Violet...

[pelsar]

45. i actually understood what you meant....

and i also understand very well the definitions of ethnic cleansing/apartheid/ etc......and I also know that given the simple fact that my neighbors in the villages around me are arabs, were not touched in the 48 war..and so there was no "ethnic cleansing during 1948. Nor was there genocide, as were so often accused of it here.

nor is there apartheid since the measures taken against the palestenians are based on their nationality and not their genetic makeup. (yes it appears to be in many cases, but that doesnt mean raping the definition is then "ok".

Nor were the fedayin attacking israel pre 67 "farmers trying to get their land back by massacring israelis.

you inquire if I think you support the "raping of the english language"...yes i believe you 've described the wall as apartiheid, the electricity going to gaza as "occupation electricty' (or something simaler).

I would be more than happy to stick to real definitions...it makes for better communications. As far as me commenting on the idiotic statements of israeli or palestenian policitians...i usually refrain from it. The exceptions being if its from the PM (israeli or palestenian)...too many of them say too many stuiped things for me to really get excited over it. As an israeli they embarrasse the hell out of me, and for the palestenains, well i just figure they're our parallels

[Violet_Crumble]

55. No, I don't think you did at all...

If you had, you wouldn't have tried to tell someone else I suggested ethnic cleansing as a solution for anything. I'm not interested in stupid games where I get told I've referred to the separation barrier as the 'apartheid wall' (though ages ago I did in response to some nonsense where a few posters referred to it as a 'peace fence'). Apart from that time I refer to it as a separation barrier. I've also never said 'occupation electricity' or anything similar. I also did not say all incidents that Israel claimed to be terrorism was farmers trying to get to their land: I said many of those sorts of incidents were, and they created conflict between Israel and Jordan over it. I'm not interested in what anyone else calls anything, and don't see why I'm being held responsible for what other posters say. Should I bail you up over every out there thing any 'supporter' of Israel says?

You do not understand the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide if you think having some neighbours of the group that was targetted means it didn't happen. Let's use Australia as an example and I dare anyone to try to argue that what happened wasn't genocide or ethnic cleansing. I've lived in the same neighbourhood as Aboriginals, I've visited Aboriginal communities in north-west NSW, and I've had work colleagues who've been Aboriginals. So using that 'my neighbours are a member of that group, therefore genocide couldn't have happened' argument, all that is proof that there was no genocide carried out on the Aboriginal people. Clearly it's all a nasty-arse lie by Australia-haters. Yeah, and Saddam's getting a raw deal being charged with the genocide of Iraqi Kurds. Haven't they checked and noticed that Kurds live in Iraq, so how could that have been genocide? I'm hoping I don't have to tack a sarcasm tag on this, btw...

I'm not particularly interested in yr personal approval over what terms I use. If those terms are correct, I'm going to use them and back up why I use them with some pretty compelling explanations. Which is what I'm going to do right now when faced by anyone who claims what was done to the Palestinians in 48 wasn't ethnic cleansing Note that I see a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide, though both are crimes against humanity. Nor until recently was I convinced that what happened in 48 was ethnic cleansing:

• Plan D provided proof of intent to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from what was to become Israel.
  
• 'Transfer' was talked about a fair bit back before it happened.
  
• The refusal to allow any Palestinians displaced from their homes to return adds to the argument that it was ethnic cleansing.
  
• The denial I see about what was done to the Palestinians in the 1940's is similar to the more common forms of genocide denial that appear to follow on the tail of many genocides and acts of ethnic cleansing.
  

For the record, I also consider the forced expulsion (I'm exluding those who left voluntarily for the promise of a better life in Israel) of Jews from Arab states as ethnic cleansing. To be consistant, no-one can claim what was done to the Palestinians was or wasn't ethnic cleansing and then claim the opposite for Jews in Arab states. Unfortunately far too many people seem to make exactly that mistake...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

57. clarification....

You say, "For the record, I also consider the forced expulsion (I'm excluding those For the record, I also consider the forced expulsion (I'm excluding those who left voluntarily for the promise of a better life in Israel) of Jews from Arab states as ethnic cleansing. To be consistent, no-one can claim what was done to the Palestinians was or wasn't ethnic cleansing and then claim the opposite for Jews in Arab states. Unfortunately far too many people seem to make exactly that mistake..."

Does this mean you were against the "forced expulsion" of Jewish settlers in Gaza? Do you also "exclude" those Arabs who left voluntarily for the promise of the destruction of Israel? To be consistent, no-one can claim what was done to the Jews in Arab nations was or wasn't ethnic cleansing and then claim the opposite for Palestinians in Israel. Unfortunately far too many people seem to make exactly that mistake...

[pelsar]

18. the rockets

were shot in a 'vacuum"...there was a reason...or does that ruin the "bad evil israeli terrorism narration"

hey how about this: the palestenans stop trying to kill israelis from gaza....maybe that might work?

[Englander]

47. Colonialism's no fun when the natives fight back, uh? n/t

[pelsar]

48. they're on the losing end.....

and it keeps getting worse and worse for them......

[Englander]

49. Bibi? n/t

[Tom Joad]

20. Get the F*** out of Palestine

By that i mean, *all* the west bank, and *all* of Gaza.

Mr. Olmert, tear down that wall that runs in the middle of the west bank!

Ending military occupation.
It's not only a good idea, its the law.

[pelsar]

21. and when the missles...

keep coming.....only this time they'll be hitting jerusalem, Hadera, Afula etc....

then your proposal is......?

[Tom Joad]

22. I tell you, Israel needs to abide by international law.

Even Hamas has said that it will agree to a truce if Israel just leaves West Bank and Gaza.

You, and more importantly Olmert, and Labor, have all said that settlers must remain in the West Bank, that Gaza must remain under Israeli control, that the wall must run thru the West Bank. That is a policy that is asking for armed resistance. These are policies of violence, and they will be responded to by violence. All that is very tragic, but true.

We must remember who is the occupier, who is the victims of that occupation.

Like these fools in DC must understand (and only Murtha has caught on a bit to this common sense, though i really oppose his idea that US troops belong anywhere in the ME) ... occupation creates the resistance, and the only solution is complete withdraw.

Someday Israel might figure this out.

[pelsar]

23. cant answer the question?

it is precisly the question that you seem not to be able to answer that is on the minds of every israeli.....if you cant answer even that one, you should not be asking for actions that may very well lead to such a situation.....

try answering it....instead of avoiding it...

in fact it was the very same question i asked many here as israel pulled out of gaza and guess what?....nobody seem to answer it and when the kassams (30) came flying over the day after the pullout....(surprise)

so.....scenario A says israel pullouts out and their is peace....

Scenario B (the more likly one) says israel pulls out and the missles and mortors start flying.....so the legal and effective response advocated is___________________________________

(seems we've been here before.....)

(and no i have never said that the settlers must remain....)

[barb162]

26. Truce? How very nice. I think a truce isn't good enough

How about a PERMANENT agreement to end all fighting, acts of terrorism, etc. And when the "truce" is over, Hamas wants all of Israel, right? At least that's how the charter reads.

Yours "...a truce if Israel just leaves West Bank and Gaza," hmmm, does that still imply a two state solution or one state. Sounds like a one state solution to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Yes, total surrender is much preferable, isn't it?

This PERMANENT agreement to end all fighting etc would obviously only apply to the Palestinians and Israel wouldn't be expected to cease any violence?

If Israel doesn't leave the West Bank and Gaza, how exactly do you think two states are going to emerge? The insistance that settlements in the West Bank must remain is what's going to make a two-state solution something that can never happen...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Seems to be with some.

The problem is that some want Israel to give a "total surrender."

This 'agreement' to end all fighting is really just a ploy to allow Israel to be pummeled with weapons and "suck it up," much like the first Iraq war.

As for Israel not leaving Gaza, you have not heard that Israel has withdrawn? The insistence that the "Green Line" is a a UN sanctioned border is what is making negotiations improbable because the PA and the world seem to think the "Green Line" are some type of border.

[King Mongo]

25. There are two methods in dealing with violence in occupied regions...

A) Arrest those who violate the law

B) Work with people to reduce hostilities and conflict.

Threatening or even targetting to kill innocent poeple is never a solution to solving crime. Israel does not have the right to drop bombs on civilian buildings in occupied territory for purposes of threats, revenge or murder.

Once both sides recongize that both exists, however, either side may have the right to declare war and terrorism is often rather tolerated during war between two nations.

[barb162]

27. Israel does have the right to drop bombs to protect itself

[Violet_Crumble]

37. How is dropping bombs on civilian buildings protecting itself??

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

39. uninhabited government buildings. n/t

[King Mongo]

43. So, blowing up a possibly uninhabited embassy is not terror?

I don't understand how the act of blowing up civilian buildings, which may not have people in them, is an act of defense. Certainly, it is an act of defense to blow up a weapons factory, but a civilian compound? Of course, terror has often been practiced by many for self-defense purposes, as seen during WWII, and thus it does make sense for people to argue that terror, such as blowing up civilian buildings, is a valid form of self-defense. But, I feel that law enforcement can be achieved without practicing terror.

[pelsar]

29. arrest? by whom?

the question that is usually not answered...is "post withdrawl"...as in gaza today.

The palestenains are not stopping the misssles (and if there are further withdrawls, its reasonable to assume there will be additional missle launching sites). Nor are they even trying....


thats the situation.....whether or not there is someone to work with is an open question, given the chaos in Gaza its seems that there is no one in charge:-lots of "inter gang/neighborhood fighting

Nor is it reasonable for israel to go into gaza an "arrest" those who firing the missles (are then even violating a law?)

so....from what i understand from practical point of view, your suggestion for israel is to do nothing that will in essence either slow down the shooting or halt it (missles are fired sometimes from behind apts)

which brings us to the conclusion that for at least in the meantime its best for israelis to be killed than have the IDF attempt to do something about it.....(unless you have a suggestion that has not been tried by the IDF? leaflests, targeting open fields, warning shots, etc)

or evacuation from israels border areas that are within range....

[King Mongo]

50. As long as the land is occupied...

...Palestinians have the right to use violence or non-violence to defend themselves from the occupation power. If Israel, being the occupying power, is not in the position to arrest those in its territory who practice crime, then certainly it is best for Israel to end the unnecessary occupation, since Israel is unable to maintain law and order due to public unhappiness to the occupation.

>>suggestion for israel is to do nothing that will in essence either slow down the shooting or halt it

There is nothing that Israel can do to reduce violence, as long as the occupation persists. The best thing that Israel can do, is to recognize that Palestine exists as an independent non-occupied nation, of which one can declare war against, if necessary.

[pelsar]

61. declare war and kill more....?

so i understand that your solution is that israel should leave the westbank and if the palestenians continue to attack as in gaza then israel should declare war and attack the palestenains and retake the land...

did i get that right?...if israel declares war, can they then use larger bombs?...


and since those in gaza are still attacking israel from your point of view, israel should do nothing right now, let them declare themselves a state, while attacking...then israeli can carpet bomb gaza?...

[Behind the Aegis]

31. .

"Ending military occupation.
It's not only a good idea, its the law."

Seems to me you are forgetting that the "law" you speak of addresses more than just what Israel is supposed to do. Actually, the law is 'conditional.'

[bemildred]

19. I didn't think the Palestinians were all that fond of Mr. Abbas.

So it's hard to figure out message this would send to them. "We will shoot rockets at your leaders if they try to negotiate!" maybe, or maybe that classic line from the movie Con Air: "Nobody move, or the bunny gets it!"