Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIsrael attack Gaza, December 2008

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
Author
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Israel attack Gaza, December 2008
    Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 00:06

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnJOE4BR01X.html

 

Hamas denying Gaza wounded treatment in Egypt

Sun 28 Dec 2008, 9:22 GMT

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said on Sunday the Islamist group Hamas was not allowing Palestinians wounded in Israel's attacks on Gaza to cross into Egypt for treatment.

"We are waiting for the wounded Palestinians to cross. They are not being allowed to cross," he told reporters. Asked who was to blame, he said: "Ask the party in control on the ground in Gaza."

Hamas has been in control in the Gaza Strip since June 2007.

 
Angry 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Israel calls up 6,500 troops amid signs of ground assault

 

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 5:43PM GMT 28 Dec 2008

...
 
 
What do you know about the military capabilities of Hamás? Do you think is possible a performance in battle like Hezbulá in 2006? I suppose they have the typical soviet weaponry Aks-RPGs-RPKs, according with a israelí fellow of other forum Hamás has iranians instructors with they and they are launching Grad rockets into Ashkelón. But few of these weapons aren't good tactically... I suppose, if Hamás don't have RPG-29, they will use IEDs, mines, molotov cocktails...
 
 
Three scenarios if the ground attack is launched:
 
1. The Tzahal enter Gaza with few opposition, destroy the strategical weaponry, some palestinians die, and the situation the same than now.
2. The Tzahal enter Gaza but with a hard opposition, modern weaponry take down their Merkavas and should retreat.
3. The Tzahal enter Gaza and encounter a hard opposition based on close combat and home made weaponry, the palestinians suffer great casualties. This is the blodiest scenario.
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 00:08
Originally posted by pinguin

I am just waiting what is Obama going to say about this attack.
Let's see if the change really comes, or it was just rethoric to win an election.
The U.S. is the only nation with the power to make Israel to reason. After all, Israel lives on subsidies from the U.S., so the official silence is just a form of complicity.
 
 
I agree with you, althought is possible that Obama don't want complicty or don't like the situaton, the silence mean acceptance of that situation, "quien calla otorga" you know Smile
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 01:58
Originally posted by Parnell

There is a problem in this debate, as one side, usually self-righteous holier than thou folks (Usually leftists) wander along and come out with a line like the first response to this thread, which doesn't exactly help. Saying 'motherf*cking Joos' is about as productive.

Most people with a heart can sympathise with families who are having their homes blown out by a rocket, irrelevant to which side of a wall they come from, or to what their annual income might be. But always blaming one side (Israel) oversimplifies the issue and lets some really bad apples (Hamas) think they can continue to have the moral high ground in every dispute.

How do you deal with an adversary who won't recognise your right to existence?

I'm no 'zionist' or 'western capitalist pig', but sometimes enough is enough already with the crazy rhetoric. Someone needs to grab someone else by the hand and sit down like adults and work the god damn thing out. Otherwise, like our grandparents have seen with us, our grandchildren will be reading reports of another bomb in some town in some place in Palestine. And there will still be people like Beylerbyi ready to jump onboard with a typically thoughtless and self-righteous remark.


Well the thing is that Yes! the Zionists caused this to begin with and do not seem like they want to stop, not that the Bible Belt protestant movements do not help either. So uhm... when you start something it is your fault, the fact that it continued so long is debatable, but the constant encroachments and undermining statehood, human rights, etc... isn't exactly the right way to show us that there are two sides to this story. No one is saying that the Jewish victims of violence are not a bad thing, it is a horrible thing, but it doesn't change the fact of whose fault this is.




Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 02:26
The use of term Zionist is a form of antisemitism.

You have a superstitious fear of using the name Israel. And by the way, the Quran itself is supporting Zionism.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 02:32
Originally posted by Menumorut

The use of term Zionist is a form of antisemitism.

You have a superstitious fear of using the name Israel. And by the way, the Quran itself is supporting Zionism.
 
In my case, I criticize the state of Israel for its actions. That state is secular, at least in theory, and the world has perfect right to judge its actions against other people, like we do with any other state.
 
Even more, it is not even the Israel people who must we judge, but the current government, and its decisions.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 02:37
Es Bih,

I agree completely! Personally, I don't believe it was ever right or sensible to 'create' a Jewish homeland and to effectively eject those people who lived there prior to it. The state of Israel has no ethical foundations in legitimacy.

However, the fact of the matter is that Israel is there now, and that its not going anywere. And the fact that so many of its citizens have set roots there perhaps gives it a certain legitimacy it once lacked. However, rehashing the events of 1948 doesn't further the debate in any way... These debates have been had time and time again. Its time to make new historical events - which don't involve rockets and bombs.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 02:39
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Parnell

There is a problem in this debate, as one side, usually self-righteous holier than thou folks (Usually leftists) wander along and come out with a line like the first response to this thread, which doesn't exactly help. Saying 'motherf*cking Joos' is about as productive.

Most people with a heart can sympathise with families who are having their homes blown out by a rocket, irrelevant to which side of a wall they come from, or to what their annual income might be. But always blaming one side (Israel) oversimplifies the issue and lets some really bad apples (Hamas) think they can continue to have the moral high ground in every dispute.

How do you deal with an adversary who won't recognise your right to existence?

I'm no 'zionist' or 'western capitalist pig', but sometimes enough is enough already with the crazy rhetoric. Someone needs to grab someone else by the hand and sit down like adults and work the god damn thing out. Otherwise, like our grandparents have seen with us, our grandchildren will be reading reports of another bomb in some town in some place in Palestine. And there will still be people like Beylerbyi ready to jump onboard with a typically thoughtless and self-righteous remark.


Well the thing is that Yes! the Zionists caused this to begin with and do not seem like they want to stop, not that the Bible Belt protestant movements do not help either. So uhm... when you start something it is your fault, the fact that it continued so long is debatable, but the constant encroachments and undermining statehood, human rights, etc... isn't exactly the right way to show us that there are two sides to this story. No one is saying that the Jewish victims of violence are not a bad thing, it is a horrible thing, but it doesn't change the fact of whose fault this is.


I actually think that trying to assign absolute fault is precisely the form of oversimplification that Parnell was talking about, and it certainly doesn't help things. The fact remains that the actions of the government of Israel, as well as the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like, only serve to exacerbate a problem that is complicated enough to begin with. It is quite easy to accuse, and both sides in this conflict have shown no reluctance to do so. The problem is that this leaves us where we were to begin with. If the nation of Israel manages to hold its territory, and the world is still around, in a few centuries, they will be considered the historically legitimate rulers of the region by the vast majority. The concept of historical "ownership" is a complicated thing. This makes the plea for reasonable judgment, so eloquently presented by Parnell, of the greatest import. Until people stop lecturing about the situation and start thinking about it, it will continue to get worse. Trying to set the question in terms of one-party fault is detrimental to the dialogue that needs to take place.

I'm not saying that I have a solution; indeed, I haven't heard one that is anywhere close to satisfactory. What I am saying is that one sided demands and proclamations will only make things worse. Both sides are at "fault" in this, and both are guilty of providing their critics with a great deal of polemical fodder.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 02:45
The problem is not that there are other partners in crime there are problems that the most oppressive and the one with the biggest armament gets  away with it, while the one that has 20% of the impact gets the bad wrap. Isn't that the warped situation?


Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 03:00
Originally posted by es_bih

The problem is not that there are other partners in crime there are problems that the most oppressive and the one with the biggest armament gets  away with it, while the one that has 20% of the impact gets the bad wrap. Isn't that the warped situation?




I understand, es_bih, and I have my own problems with the actions of the Israeli government -- regarding the oppression of Christians, as well as other humanitarian issues. That said, increasingly we have an ill-informed polemic developing, wherein governments and popular support in the West are the exact inverse of those in the Arab world, and wherein academics in the West simply adopt, often without rational examination, much of the anti-Israeli propaganda from the Arab world. You will find that Israel is actually the party that gets a "bad wrap" in intellectual circles in the West, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. None of this is helpful; until we abandon the whole dynamic in which we have traditionally contextualized this issue, we are doomed to the failures of the past. Israel is here to stay; Palestine should be made secure as well. Until Israelis can be guaranteed freedom from rocket attacks, there will be repercussions; until Palestinians can be guaranteed freedom from incursions and repressive measures, there will be repercussions. There is no one "villain" here.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 03:43
irony is Hamas was supported by Israel in its early days as a counter weight to Arafat. Another example of using religiously focused political organisations* as a weapon and then having it blow up in your face.

*hopefully that term is accpetable to OmarWink


Edited by Leonidas - 29-Dec-2008 at 03:44
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:30
Originally posted by Menumorut

The use of term Zionist is a form of antisemitism.


Hardly, they self-describe as such. In and of itself, it's not a pejorative term - simply the name of a political movement. The term was originally coined by Nathan Birnbaum, himself a Zionist at the time, and was since taken up by groups like the Zionist Congresses and the World Zionist Organization.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:40
Originally posted by Menumorut

The use of term Zionist is a form of antisemitism.

You have a superstitious fear of using the name Israel. And by the way, the Quran itself is supporting Zionism.


The Qu'ran states that one innocent life lost amounts to the same as all of humanity lost, thus I am sure I know my own religion a tad bit more than yourself Big smile. Such a theological standpoint denotes obviously that the Qu'ran would not support the "zionist" actions undertaken, o you know throwing people off their property, killing off innocents, and such...

I do not have a superstitious fear of Zionism nor is the term Zionist anti-semetic, as for one, to be anti-semetic it would have to apply to all semetic peoples of who the Jews (and even then only the semetic Jews) are a very small minority off.

Zionism in its purest form is the creation of a homeland in a territory where the deascendants of the Jews and other people around there that stayed lands. It is a religious ideology, backed with a heavy dosage of secularism via the European channel of secular ethnic Jews moving back in and around WWII.

And thus transformed into a more imperialist form of nationalism as evidenced in the last few decades.

Now again Hamas isn't exactly guilt-free, nor are acts of terrorism, but please spare us your overly enlightened (of course a tad bit of sarcasm implied Big smile) opinion.

I know Christians as well as Muslim Palestinains and none of them are too fond of strangers living in their homes (literary in a lot of cases). Embarrassed But of course you are the saviour of this discussion as usual... I guess...

I will leave you now with that to ponder, not that I expect you to leave a bit more open minded that has proven futile countless times.

Star


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:41
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Menumorut

The use of term Zionist is a form of antisemitism.


Hardly, they self-describe as such. In and of itself, it's not a pejorative term - simply the name of a political movement. The term was originally coined by Nathan Birnbaum, himself a Zionist at the time, and was since taken up by groups like the Zionist Congresses and the World Zionist Organization.



Uhm Menu says no thus Menu knows best Tongue
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:46
Originally posted by Parnell

Es Bih,

I agree completely! Personally, I don't believe it was ever right or sensible to 'create' a Jewish homeland and to effectively eject those people who lived there prior to it. The state of Israel has no ethical foundations in legitimacy.

However, the fact of the matter is that Israel is there now, and that its not going anywere. And the fact that so many of its citizens have set roots there perhaps gives it a certain legitimacy it once lacked. However, rehashing the events of 1948 doesn't further the debate in any way... These debates have been had time and time again. Its time to make new historical events - which don't involve rockets and bombs.


The problem is that unless the group that did that brings more to the table than just talk and byzantine politics * with a good bit of ass kissing via Pat and crew * we won't see that happen in the near future. No one with half a brain would say that Israel should go. It is there now and has to be dealt with in real time, not in a pre 47 mentality. You must understand it is kind of hard for the other side to just lay down their pathetic excuse for arms as there is no real concept of a future on the horizon, especially with subduing themselves.

You don't go to a ghetto and give someone a second hand book that springs the whole neighborhood back to vibrant and viable life, you eliminate the reason for that decrepit state of existence (economic, social, etc..) and then the downward spiral is reversed. Same situation here, but a differenct concept.


Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:49
Originally posted by Parnell

Es Bih,

I agree completely! Personally, I don't believe it was ever right or sensible to 'create' a Jewish homeland and to effectively eject those people who lived there prior to it. The state of Israel has no ethical foundations in legitimacy.


I'm of a divided mind about this. Creating Israel was a bad idea, but I think the fault lies strictly with the Western Allies, who did little or nothing during or after the war to provide guarantees for the safety of Jewish populations. Immigrants were turned away, and attempts to set aside land in places like Canada were rejected. We dumped the problem on the Middle East, and now look down our noses at the participants to the conflict as if we're above that sort of thing.

As far as it's legitimacy - I don't think a state can legitimately be founded on an ethno-religious basis, at least, not a state that claims to be a member of Western civilization. On the other hand, it is legitimate in the sense that there is no credible political alternative. Giving the whole territory over to Hamas and hoping they'll be nice to the Jewish inhabitants is an exercise in wishful thinking, even if it could be done. Israel has certainly violated the safety, human rights and very life of Palestinians, but let's keep the scale in mind; as conflicts go, this one is fairly low-intensity (since 2000, there have been less than 6000 fatalities .... contrast with Congo, where 2-2.5 million have died in the same period). Under Hamas, I fear, this number would expand rapidly as Palestinians sought revenge for years of oppression.

What's needed is international intervention, something along the lines of UNFICYP in Cyprus, a permanent mission.



Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 06:53
Hello to you all
 
The problem in Palestine is simple enough and complex enough to understand.
 
Hamas is an ideological group yes, but it proved throughout the years it was open to negotiations and settlements. Yes it was dedicated to ending Israel but it was dedicated to ending Israel as a state not to kill jews or bring another Holocaust. In their vision they are not different than Shas except Shas leaders (who call for the total expulsion of non Jews from all Palestine and some of their Rabbis have issues religious rulings justifing the murder of civilians even if they were months old) are welcomed as responsible politicians in the White house and the EU. Hamas on the other hand are terrorists and anti-democratic even if it was democratically elected.
 
In the past 6 months Hamas proved itself a responsible partner having not only ended firing rockets as the ceae fire dictated but also cracked on those who did. Over 20 members of Islamic Jihad died in confrontations with Hamas over this issue. Yet the US/EU were silent on the near daily breaking of the agreement which killed some 50 civilians in that same period. When the blame was put on Hamas by the entire world for the expiration of the ceasefire and they responded to agression by firing tin rockets that 90% of them fall on empty fields they became the agressors. Now why should anyone demand the Arabs as a whole and Palestinians particularly to trust Israel when they clearly don't stick to the agreements they signed themselves?
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 07:37
Originally posted by edgewaters

Hardly, they self-describe as such. In and of itself, it's not a pejorative term - simply the name of a political movement. The term was originally coined by Nathan Birnbaum, himself a Zionist at the time, and was since taken up by groups like the Zionist Congresses and the World Zionist Organization.


It's rather a pejorative term in the today context and anyway, it has not place in a discussion like this. With the exception of Muslim countries most of the world consider the state of Israel legitimate and the reason the Muslims have other opinion is obviously religious. Its a religious conflict, not political.


Originally posted by es-bih


The Qu'ran states that one innocent life lost amounts to the same as all of humanity lost, thus I am sure I know my own religion a tad bit more than yourself Big smile. Such a theological standpoint denotes obviously that the Qu'ran would not support the "zionist" actions undertaken, o you know throwing people off their property, killing off innocents, and such...


You may know that this idea is taken by Muhammad from a Jewish religious text



The Mishnah say(Sanhedrin 4: 5):

For this reason, man [i.e. the first human being] was created alone to teach that whoever destroys a single life is as though he had destroyed an entire universe, and whoever saves a single life is as if he had saved an entire universe.



I do not have a superstitious fear of Zionism nor is the term Zionist anti-semetic, as for one, to be anti-semetic it would have to apply to all semetic peoples of who the Jews (and even then only the semetic Jews) are a very small minority off.


As long as the term Zionists is used by Muslims and conspirationist believers and not by other political representatives or public voices, even they usually are adversary of the state of Israel it can hardly be said is something else than a religious or superstitious atitude.



Zionism in its purest form is the creation of a homeland in a territory where the deascendants of the Jews and other people around there that stayed lands. It is a religious ideology, backed with a heavy dosage of secularism via the European channel of secular ethnic Jews moving back in and around WWII.


If its a religious ideology, how do you explain that most religious Jews are anti-Zionists? The Jewish supporter of Zionism are from the lesser religious segment of the Jewish people.




And I repeat: Quran itself says that this land is given by God to Jews. See here all those passages.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 07:47
Originally posted by Al Jassas

 
Hamas is an ideological group yes, but it proved throughout the years it was open to negotiations and settlements. Yes it was dedicated to ending Israel but it was dedicated to ending Israel as a state not to kill jews or bring another Holocaust. I
problem is that a big position to take into negotiations and quite uncompromising. The other problem here is, this position can be twisted quite easily in the western media  and by Israel.

 Bring back the Saudi peace proposal as the foundation.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 08:13
Originally posted by Menumorut

As long as the term Zionists is used by Muslims and conspirationist believers and not by other political representatives or public voices, even they usually are adversary of the state of Israel


Sorry but this is just incorrect. "Zionist" is NOT a term used exclusively by opponents of Israel at all, and it never has been. For example:

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/default.asp

http://www.doingzionism.org.il/

http://www.zionistarchives.org.il/ZA/pMainE.aspx

There are literally thousands of other examples.

The term has acquired disreputable connotations due to the behaviour of its adherents, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS the correct term for the political movement. Dropping or changing words because they are inconvenient is an Orwellian manipulation of language ...

If its a religious ideology, how do you explain that most religious Jews are anti-Zionists? The Jewish supporter of Zionism are from the lesser religious segment of the Jewish people.


Wrong, only a few very small Orthodox groups oppose Zionism. The majority of Orthodox sects support Zionism.

It's not exactly a religious ideology; there are many secular Zionists. On the other hand, it has pseudo-religious elements. The notion that the Jewish homeland HAD to be in the Levant is purely religious in origin, and was a tenet adopted early in the history of the movement (I can't remember which Zionist Congress at which it was adopted, but all those who disagreed were expelled from future congresses).
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2008 at 08:41
Originally posted by edgewaters

The term has acquired disreputable connotations due to the behaviour of its adherents, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS the correct term for the political movement. Dropping or changing words because they are inconvenient is an Orwellian manipulation of language ...


What behaviour? Do you refer to the foundation of Israel or to the way Israeli authorities manage the problems of Palestinians?



Wrong, only a few very small Orthodox groups oppose Zionism. The majority of Orthodox sects support Zionism.

It's not exactly a religious ideology; there are many secular Zionists. On the other hand, it has pseudo-religious elements. The notion that the Jewish homeland HAD to be in the Levant is purely religious in origin, and was a tenet adopted early in the history of the movement (I can't remember which Zionist Congress at which it was adopted, but all those who disagreed were expelled from future congresses).


I said that the most religious, I should said most conservative. But they are not very small, 600,000-800,000 out of 5.4 million Israeli Jews, not to speak about Jews outside Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi




Anyway, you should learn about the relation between Anti-Zionism and the new Antisemitism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.