Israel 'ready for escalation' of Gaza conflict

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for the link. I have read about the Jewish Voice for Peace and have now learned a bit more about them. I see nothing objectionable about what they represent. Anti-Zionist doesn’t mean anti-semitic, and furthermore, believing that Israel shouldn’t exist as a state is a tenable (though at this point unrealistic) position.

Israel—whether it ought to exist as a state or not—is in fact a state, and it’s not going away. Now the two sides have got to find a way to co-exist in peace and dignity.

So I have read your article in its entirety. Did you watch the video all the way through?
 
Thank you for the link. I have read about the Jewish Voice for Peace and have now learned a bit more about them. I see nothing objectionable about what they represent. Anti-Zionist doesn’t mean anti-semitic, and furthermore, believing that Israel shouldn’t exist as a state is a tenable (though at this point unrealistic) position.

Israel—whether it ought to exist as a state or not—is in fact a state, and it’s not going away. Now the two sides have got to find a way to co-exist in peace and dignity.

So I have read your article in its entirety. Did you watch the video all the way through?
They are the Jewish equivalent of “Catholics for Choice” I have no interest in watching their video
 
They are the Jewish equivalent of “Catholics for Choice” I have no interest in watching their video
Forgive me, but it is regrettable that you have closed your mind. You are saying, "there is another point of view, but I don’t care to look into it. You won’t even look at the video, eh?

Also, your comparison is “less than strong.” Catholics for Choice is about abortion. Jewish Voice for Peace is about non-violence.

But the fact that you won’t even consider other points of view is discrediting. There are many people in Israel and “Palestine” who also won’t even begin to understand someone else’s point of view, and that is largely why there is no peace there.
 
They are the Jewish equivalent of “Catholics for Choice” I have no interest in watching their video
logical fallacy your point is now invalid. Source doesn’t determined truth. You can not damn the source.
 
Because the UN forces a nation(Palestine) to be cut in two for the sake of Israel after WW2.

Its wasn’t theirs to give.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y58njT2oXfE

Now that we are stuck with things the way they are this is what we have. A super power supporting a nation that doesn’t need to exist and a people being displaced.
You don’t seem to know much about international law pertaining to war, or about history. The entire area in which Israel is located was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, whose capital was in Turkey (Constantinople, now known as Istanbul).

The Ottoman Empire was not doing too well at the last turn of the century (1800s t 1900s), then allied itself with Germany in the First World War. When the Central Powers lost the war, the Ottoman Empire lost its lands to the British, French, and Russians against whom it had fought.

Thus the area around Israel was partitioned between the British and the French. Israel and the surrounding territory, then known as Palestine, and Jordan went to England, Lebanon and Syrai went to France.

So , yes, it was theirs to give.
 
Wow, I just viewed the video someone else had posted earlier. Really interesting and eye-opening. It’s an intro to Isreali-Palestinian struggle, produced by Jewish Voice for Peace:

youtube.com/watch?featur…&v=Y58njT2oXfE

I recommend it for those seeking a different point of view. It lasts about 5 minutes.
Extremely impressive video!

Jewish Voice for Peace is affiliated with the BDS movement, something I guarantee keeps Netanyahu up at night. The Likud government fears BDS much more than they fear Hamas.
 
You don’t seem to know much about international law pertaining to war, or about history. The entire area in which Israel is located was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, whose capital was in Turkey (Constantinople, now known as Istanbul).

The Ottoman Empire was not doing too well at the last turn of the century (1800s t 1900s), then allied itself with Germany in the First World War. When the Central Powers lost the war, the Ottoman Empire lost its lands to the British, French, and Russians against whom it had fought.

Thus the area around Israel was partitioned between the British and the French. Israel and the surrounding territory, then known as Palestine, and Jordan went to England, Lebanon and Syrai went to France.

So , yes, it was theirs to give.
Might makes right argument eh?

Yes theirs on paper not by right. People should be free to themselves.
 
Yes theirs on paper. People should be free to themselves.
OK but Israel are people free to themselves and on paper, historically and factual today? So your saying this is a land grab by Palestine rocket and tunnel or just a violent way to dictate to people free to themselves and on paper?
 
72-hr ceasefire, apparently all agree.

“This cease-fire is critical to giving innocent civilians a much-needed reprieve from violence,” the State Department said in its statement. “During this period, civilians in Gaza will receive urgently needed humanitarian relief, and the opportunity to carry out vital functions, including burying the dead, taking care of the injured, and restocking food supplies. Overdue repairs on essential water and energy infrastructure could also continue during this period.”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2F07%2F31%2Fgaza-crisis-israel-hamas-agree-to-72-hour-humanitarian-cease-fire%2F&ei=V8LaU6yfA4ea8gHdi4CABg&usg=AFQjCNE_2O0XLBVEB9NUuM0F1r5mTtwFZw
Thank you !
What about Adoration time tomorrow?
Don’t need to answer. Just a proposal.
 
Might makes right argument eh?

Yes theirs on paper not by right. People should be free to themselves.
Yes, the right of self-determination of peoples… So, before the British and French, the area was ruled by the Ottomans, and the Moslems had previously conquered the peoples who were there: the Christians, who fulfilled Judaism, and the Jews to whom God had given the land, who were living under Byzantine rule at the time.

Who makes up a people? Who gets an area which has been under foreign occupation for most of its history?

Additionally, the idea of the right of self-determination of peoples very clearly leads to anarchy, most esp in a world in which not all adhere to (at a minimum) natural law. We see the incipient anarchy in Quebec and in Spain (Basques, esp). We see what happened when Hitler decided the Germans as a people needed more space: Lebensraum. We see what happens when two peoples are mixed together (Ukraine). So to be honest, the so-called right to self-determination does not work as a basis on which to make decisions because of the frequency of competing claims.
 
Since we are sharing points of view:

I had come to Indonesia with a delegation of U.S. faith leaders, organized by Legacy International and sponsored by the State Department, to speak at universities and community centers about religious pluralism in America. It wasn’t my turn to present that day, so I enjoyed a brief respite as I debated how and whether to address the poster with these members of Muhammadiyah, one of the largest Muslim organizations in Indonesia. In the end, I had little choice. “I have a question for the rabbi,” began one attendee during a Q&A session: “Why do Jews kill Muslim children?”

Heart pounding, I stood up. I spoke of my pain at the loss of life among Gazan civilians, tragically including so many children. And then I took a deep breath. “I noticed the poster in the entranceway,” I began. I praised the group for raising money for humanitarian relief. But, I continued, “When you call for an end to the Zionist entity, I want you to know that you’re talking about my family and my friends and my people.” I spoke of my own commitments to Israel, of the significance of Israel to the Jewish people, and of my firm belief that a two-state solution will allow both peoples to live securely and peacefully.

To my shock, the audience applauded. Afterwards, many of those present told me that they had never before thought about who might live in Israel. That they had never thought a two-state solution to be possible. That they had believed that Jews wanted only to kill Muslims. And they crossed out the final line of the poster.



During the current war between Israel and Hamas, we desperately need radical empathy. By this, I mean opening ourselves to the pain of the other exactly at the moment when we are terrified of this other, and exactly at the moment when fear for our lives and for our loved ones pushes us inward.



Today, we suffer through increasingly vitriolic language from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian partisans, and — even more frighteningly — violent protests in Europe, Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories and even the United States. Strident voices ignore or deny the painful narrative of the other.

The pro-Palestinian side places all blame on Israel and the occupation, dismisses or justifies rocket attacks on major Israeli cities, and allows criticism of Israel to slide into ugly anti-Semitism. “Rocket attacks from Gaza are a desperate response to these injustices [of occupation],” Waleed Ahmad writes in Mondoweiss. “No people would ever tolerate an oppressive occupation and an unjust siege, so why should the Palestinians?” Protesters in London, Paris and Berlin have held signs saying “Hitler was right” and encouraging the reading of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”



On the pro-Israel side, too, many respond callously to the soaring numbers of Palestinian casualties or even deny the veracity of these reports, place sole blame on Hamas for the deaths of civilians, and take Hamas’s actions as permission to demonize all Muslims. In the Wall Street Journal, Thane Rosenbaum wrote, “you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen.” A prominent settler rabbi justified killing innocents, and even destroying Gaza.



This is what we need to hear instead: pro-Palestinian voices that empathize with the Israelis racing for shelter, that denounce terrorism and rocket attacks, and that refuse to tolerate any anti-Semitic tropes masquerading as criticism of Israeli policy. In one powerful and much-circulated op-ed, for instance, a Palestinian-American student calls for pro-Palestinian protesters to utterly reject anti-Semitism.

And we need to hear pro-Israel voices expressing authentic grief at the deaths of Palestinian children, calling for protection for civilian populations, acknowledging the damage inflicted by 47 years of occupation, and denouncing any language that dehumanizes Palestinians or Muslims. I’m proud that T’ruah, where I serve as executive director, was the only organization to issue a rabbinic opinion discrediting Rabbi Lior’s claim that Judaism permits murdering innocents. In Israel, organizations including B’tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel humanize and protect Palestinians while remaining steadfastly committed to the security of Israel.

From:Way too many people still believe these hideous stereotypes about Israelis and Palestinians
washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/31/way-too-many-people-still-believe-these-hideous-stereotypes-about-israelis-and-palestinians/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
 
Confusing. First you say that both sides accepted it, then you say only one side. Please clarity.

Also, wanting the state of Israel wiped off the face of the Earth is not the same thing as wanting Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. The latter is genocide, while the former simply states that Israel, created only in the 1948, became a country unlawfully, and should go back to not existing.
A two-state compromise is at least a practical solution, while Israel’s “going back to not existing” is surely unrealistic despite the anti-Zionist (and in some cases, anti-Jewish) feelings of the Palestinians and other Arabs.
 
Last I heard was that Israel is close to destroying all of the Hamas tunnels they went in to find. Maybe we are getting to the end of this - hopefully.
 
Thank you for the link. I have read about the Jewish Voice for Peace and have now learned a bit more about them. I see nothing objectionable about what they represent. Anti-Zionist doesn’t mean anti-semitic, and furthermore, believing that Israel shouldn’t exist as a state is a tenable (though at this point unrealistic) position.

Israel—whether it ought to exist as a state or not—is in fact a state, and it’s not going away. Now the two sides have got to find a way to co-exist in peace and dignity.

So I have read your article in its entirety. Did you watch the video all the way through?
The fact is, “theadvocate” - that if the Palestinians disarmed, they would remain in existence. If Israel disarmed, they would be invaded and destroyed. That is the difference. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have genocide on their minds. Both sides are not morally equivalent at all. The unfortunate thing is so many attempting to sound reasonable on this issue use the anti-Zionism as a smokescreen for anti-Semitism.

Ishii
 
The fact is, “theadvocate” - that if the Palestinians disarmed, they would remain in existence. If Israel disarmed, they would be invaded and destroyed. That is the difference. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have genocide on their minds. Both sides are not morally equivalent at all. The unfortunate thing is so many attempting to sound reasonable on this issue use the anti-Zionism as a smokescreen for anti-Semitism.

Ishii
Based on the indiscriminate and unrestrained actions of the Israeli army, it seems they don’t have the moral high ground either.

The Israelis need to end their settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal according to international law. Occupiers need to be removed.

Hamas is extreme, but they have the most influence for now. They don’t represent all the their people. Neither do the extremist Zionists, who would never relinquish the West Bank no matter what—they believe that the Judea and Samaria biblically belongs to them. But that seems to be who is in power on the Israeli side.
 
Both sides are not morally equivalent at all.
If the news reports are correct, Israel has launched attacks on children sleeping in a UN safety zone and on children in hospitals and on children playing on the beach. There are reports of more than 1000 casualties on the Palestinian side. My personal opinion is that if Israel wants to wage war, it would be well advised to target soldiers and other fighting personnel in Gaza and to avoid targeting and killing sleeping children in hospitals or in UN facilities. I don’t see where sleeping children pose a threat to anyone and why Israelis believe that children must be targeted and killed.
news.yahoo.com/un-rights-chief-slams-israels-defiance-international-law-143824163.html;_ylt=A0SO806iSttTziEANRNXNyoA
 
Its impossible, thats a highly populated area and its war. Further with urban warfare the intention for Hamas is to use all civilians.

8 Rockets plus mortars fired by Hamas that breaks the 72 hr ceasefire. After they accepted it. Then airstrikes and tank movement started by Israel. Violence broke out by the Egypt border.

And everyone sees where the tunnels into Jerusalem and continued rockets fired are a cause for war. And no war is humanitarian. Foolish for Hamas to expect what they will not give to others in the humanitarian paradigm.

No-one is coming to help Hamas. Egypt dis-invited them to the ceasefire and peace talks.
 
If the news reports are correct, Israel has launched attacks on children sleeping in a UN safety zone and on children in hospitals and on children playing on the beach. There are reports of more than 1000 casualties on the Palestinian side. My personal opinion is that if Israel wants to wage war, it would be well advised to target soldiers and other fighting personnel in Gaza and to avoid targeting and killing sleeping children in hospitals or in UN facilities. I don’t see where sleeping children pose a threat to anyone and why Israelis believe that children must be targeted and killed.
news.yahoo.com/un-rights-chief-slams-israels-defiance-international-law-143824163.html;_ylt=A0SO806iSttTziEANRNXNyoA
Israel has accused Palestinian Islamists Hamas and other militants of hiding out among the civilian population and using UN facilities and other sites to store weapons and launch rocket attacks.

Pillay said that under international law, civilian facilities should not be attacked, but can lose their protected status if used for military purposes.

Even then, she said, due warning must be given before an attack, in order to allow civilians to be evacuated.
And Israel has followed these rules.

Every time “a group under Israeli occupation” and Israel are fghting, things go the same way. The group (PLO, Hamas, etc) fires from schools and other civilian locations, Israel aims to take out the weapons and fighters, the group then tells *only *that Israel fired at a civilian place and everyone who was killed (and sometimes a few who weren’t) was a civilian, mostly women and children.

Does Israel ever do the wrong thing? Yes, it does. But the difference is that when an Israeli commits some crime or atrocity, *Israel investigates, finds, and punishes the perpetrator. *This is not the case with Hamas, et al, who generally *celebrate *the wrongdoings the members of their side commit.

And everything in the press is always presented from the point of view of those seen as the underdog. I remember reading a new article many years ago: the headline was something like Fighting Resumes …; and the fact that that PLO (or whoever) was the one to break the ceasefire wasn’t mentioned until the 4th paragraph, after listing what Israel had done in the first 3.

Israel is accusd in huge headlines on the front page “over the fold”… the results of the investigations clearing the Israelis are on p 34 in a tiny article.

And so on… There is a bigotry *against *the West which dominates the news and leads to a skewing of the news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top