Congressman: Jewish settlers are like termites

Yes, I'd like some examples.

Sorry, but I don't participate in the "avoid answering a question by asking another question" game.

 

the Arab

Maybe this will knock some sense in your turbulance
when archaelogy connects eery stone to the Jwish people, when the Hebraic language is 4000years old, and the Hebrew language carries on from the time of Moses, puts your theory to shreds... The Arabs are recent infiltrators to the land of Israel and have practically no Archaelogil connections to the Land.

 

The ones like Ol' Hnk spent too much time listening to the town drunk, John Lewis. He's the Klan with a tan.

 

Thank you. http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/jewish-terrorism-debunking-three-claims.html?m=1

Now to the extent that this taken to be true how does that change your view if at all?

This is a fascinating aspect. When we see forum members confronted with someting they don't expect to see what the effect in their views are.

Perhaps you'll ;

Dismissed as propaganda

Taken as read

Ignored because arabs àre somehow much worse

 

One example - the purpose of this thread is not fisking Falk, so if you want more you'll have to start a new thread.

He writes:

He forgets, of course, to tell us what exactly are the people of Gaza collectively punished for, claiming only that the blockade has little to do with security. That's two blatant lies in one short sentence.

Hamas' terror attacks against civilians in Israel are well documented, and long predate the blockade. Hamas in Gaza has also been very busy dropping missiles on Israeli civilians since 2001. Hamas leadership is quite outspoken regarding the organization's goal to destroy Israel, it's written in their Charter - "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it". As long as Hamas rules Gaza, there can be no peace, only ceasefires. They declared war on us, not the other way round. The blockade is not punishment, is self defense.

I bet you never heard of "Gaza Victory" conference, or the declaration issued by the participants. Otherwise it would have been very, very clear to you that Hamas and its allies are hardcore Islamists, bent on world domination. From the Istanbul declaration (see Appendix):

Now please tell us how blockading Hamas ruled Gaza is collective punishment for the Gazans (punishment for what?), and has nothing whatsoever to do, in the slightest, with security concerns.

Weapons and other essentials... for jihad, what else...but the Zionists, evil, evil Zionists...

 

As you can see here;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

The restrictions on gaza have a much longer history than 2007 onwards.

As also can be seen the restrictions were based on the election of Hamas in free and fair elections and subsequent takeover.

Thus it is difficult to see how the restrictions are not a collective punishment.

That said . Israel has every moral right to completely stop everything entering and leaving it's own territory.

But all Gazan air and sea space? All movement of Gazan people? Gazan fishing ?

One can clearly see that Israel would not accept such a thing.

As for Hamas aims and charter. Hamas and Palestinians have every right to oppose the takeover of the land they lived in.

But that doesn't mean an accommodation cannot be reached. This has been shown across the world.

Lastly. If Hamas and Israel came to a truce. To the extent that it holds is that not a reasonable outcome? Or do you really just want Palestinians to change their views on history of Palestine as one of an unjust takeover from Europe?

If this is a question of trust. Can we expect Israel to be trusted indefinitely?

 

It is to be hoped that international law codifies morality. It is, for example, a violation of international law to build settlements on another people's occupied land after a war, such as the Israelis are doing in Palestine.

 

Archaeological digs cannot confer a right of ownership to land already inhabited by others.

 

No, the restrictions were not based on the election of Hamas. As your own link shows. the Quartet endorsed the blockade (which prompted the Istanbul conference) at the time, because they understood as well as Israel the danger posed by the takeover of Gaza by a violent Islamist organization. The restrictions have always been based on Hamas own actions and their refusal to adhere to the peace process.

Shooting coalition partners and throwing them off roofs has never been the trademark of a sane democratic government, so please spare me the "free and fair elections" melodrama.

Opening Gaza's borders and allowing the jihadists back in - equipped with bare necessities of life as mentioned in the Istanbul document - would be a collective punishment for Israelis, a death sentence for our children. Hell, no.

Israel is blockading Gaza because we love life.

This post shows how little you know about Israel, Hamas, Gaza, the conflict.

You make it sound like Israel's decision to blockade Gaza was just a temper tantrum. Do you seriously believe that Israel could survive - and thrive - on temper tantrums?

Ask yourself why there never was any attempt - locally and internationally - to free Gaza when it was under Egyptian military rule, Ask yourself why there had been terror attacks in Israel, organized by Egypt and carried out by Gazans, before 1967. When you'll find answers to those two questions, and cross reference them with Muslim Brotherhood ideology, maybe you'll understand why Israel has to impose the blockade on Hamas ruled Gaza. History didn't begin in 2007.

You might also ask yourself why was the PLO founded in 1964...

 

LOL Volunteer 'human shields' flock to Iraq


They don’t have to be forced to be used as a human shield. The IRC states

“”Rule 97. Human Shields
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. International and non-international armed conflicts In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.””

Nothing in there about being forced only that you are not to use people to protect military sites or resources. Hamas does that simply by operating amongst the civilians thus placing every one of them in danger as they hide in populated areas making use of civilians for cover.

Lowest civilian combatant ratio in the history of warfare while operating in a built up area. You just can’t get around the care and morality they put into minimizing Palestinian casualties to achieve this number.

Wrong. In major conflicts the rate of civilian deaths from Israeli fire goes way down to 1:30 as in 67 and 73.

Take it from a real expert that even your own source states “”There is no doubt that Col. Kemp has the credentials to speak as a counterinsurgency specialist””;

“”Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and adamant supporter of the IDF, spoke in 2011 about Israeli operations in the Gaza War. He said that a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare." He stated that this ratio was less than 1:1, and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios in NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1, according to anecdotal evidence).[49] Kemp argued that the low ratio was achieved through unprecedented measures by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, which included providing warnings to the population via telephone calls, radio broadcasts and leaflets, as well as granting pilots the discretion to abort a strike if they perceived too great a risk of civilian casualties. He also stated that the civilian casualties that did occur could be seen in light of what he said was Hamas' tactical use of Gazan civilians "as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters" and strategic use of them for exploitation of their deaths in the media.[50]””

You said it was coined in the first Gulf War and it was not. It has been in use long before that and, by your own Wiki article does not have to be forced upon the civilians or POWs rather making use of civilians be they forced or volunteer is making use of human shields.

“”In the second Gulf War These human shields traveled to Iraq of their own free will so the term means anybody who is attempting to deter an attack by their presence.””

Dictionary definition of human shield

""a person or group of people located or intentionally placed in a potential line of fire or in an area likely to be attacked. ""

Nothing in there about people having to be forced only used.

Your own definition from the wiki article you used

“”Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these combat targets.””

Nothing about being forced there but we know this means non forced placement as the following paragraph from your own link covers the forced placement;

"It may also refer to the use of persons to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing them to march in front of the combatants.””

"May also"refer meaning the first means a human shield where they are either there to begin with as the bulk of Palestinians are when Hamas uses them or persuaded to go there. In either case they are being used as Human Shields by Hamas.

Not EVEN AI? OMG, the Geneva conventions does though as detailed in my quote and link above and they are far more of an authority than AI or the ISO who only want to distance themselves from being accused of promoting the use of human shields when in fact, that ‘s exactly what they do!

I thought you said ""Every nation in the world attacks from its areas where they live both open and closed. "" and you can only come up with one example that occurred in one conflict and, one that occurred over sixty five years ago.

Lame

Hey everybody! Creation thinks Israel in 1948 is now "Every Nation!"

And while it is in appeal Hamas is still on the EU’s terrorist list with assets frozen. In short, the EU views them as a terrorist organization as I said earlier.

""EU keeps Hamas on terror list despite court ruling
Gaza group will remain on EU blacklist during council's appeal process, as Hamas calls decision 'unjust and wrong'.

“”Hamas remains on EU terror list””

There’s no excuse for terrorism. Hamas is an acknowledged terrorist group who target Israeli civilians so Israel takes out those resources as best they can achieving the lowest ratio of civilian losses in the history of warfare in built up areas. As for denying the self declared enemy of resources, air and sea movement nowhere in the annals of history is a self declared enemy given full freedom of movement in time of conflict so why on earth you attempt to make this a special case while excusing terrorism flies in the face of reasoning. There is no such think as collective punishment when defending oneself from those who attack you. If they were not attacking and negotiating while embracing peace and were then attacked I would agree it would be collective punishment but taking out areas where fire has come from is simply good military sense and is a universal tactic in wartime.

They show Hamas using people to protect their assets even though they may volunteer. That’s using human shields as per the GC, your own link and by definition.


UN report outlines how Hamas used kids as human shields


Hamas Spokesman Urges Gazans to Act as Human Shields for Hamas Leaders

Hamas Admits to Using Civilians as Human Shields

Hamas used civilians as human shields during the 2014 Gaza war

Conclusive Proof that Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields

Hamas Human Shields

Nowhere in the IRA official position is there anything of the sort that states they want to destroy England and wage a holy war by the rifle and gun. Poor analogy.

 

Bedouins are semi-nomadic, each tribe has its own territory.

There's a huge difference between "being allowed to live" and "invading a territory where they never lived". The Hashemites' territory was in the Arabian Peninsula. Would you endorse an invasion of Israeli Bedouins in Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that they are nomadic by nature and just chose to finally stop in Riyadh?

By the same token, Jews who were periodically forced to leave one European country and move to another - nomadic by circumstances - would have the same right to decide they finally want to stop somewhere in Switzerland.

Let me ask again: Do the Hashemite Bedouins from the Arabian Peninsula, who invaded most of Palestine in the '20 and again in 1948, have the moral right to live on occupied Palestinian territory?

Are you saying that millions of Jews systematically lie about who and what they are in order to steal land from Arabs?

It's very hard to answer your posts, because your premises are wrong. Jews have not lived in Palestine a thousand years ago. Jews have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, there have always been Jews in Palestine, there have always been Jews coming from Europe to Palestine. This concept of European Jews being a different species, one that had no connections whatsoever with Palestine throughout its history, is false.

Are you a communist?

This is wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number of people effectively spell discrimination for minorities and for individuals.

 

These are not legit inhabitants, but infiltrators/squatters exactly like the illegal people who infiltrated America. Please do your homework.
The place belonged to the Ottoman empire for 400, 400, 400, 400, (FOUR HUNDRED YEARS) from 1517 - 1917 when the British took over, that was the Ottoman Empire and there was no Palestine then and surely there is no Palestine now...

 

Unlike you, I believe land belongs to the inhabitants, not some distant imperial government.

 

LOL. This proves youre wrong, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2771529.stm
Numerous volunteer groups from all over the world going to Iraq. Something wrong there?

Uh no, there’s plenty in there about being forced;
Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.

Uh no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

Check your own source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2771529.stm
“The term "human shields" became common currency ahead of the last Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein threatened to place Westerners detained in Iraq at sites deemed likely to be attacked by the US-led coalition.”
People staying their own homes is not making use of human shields. And people voluntarily staying put in their neighbourhoods is not making use of human shields.
The Iraq volunteers placed themselves in harms way. They were not placed and therefore the Iraq government was not guilty of using human shields

LOL, check your own source; Contemporary defintion’
a person or persons put in a dangerous position or the line of fire in order to discourage an attack

Hmm. Deliberate placement? Sure Drew nothing about being forced right? Deliberate placement? Lets hear that again…..Deliberate placement.
Another cowardly wriggle.
Oh and then you quote wiki saying ‘may’ and add your own interpretation…lol
And indeed, Hamas has addressed this. Gaza is a small densely populated area from which Hamas fires from every where in Gaza. Get that? Everwhere;
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Pages/Rise-in-rocket-fire-from-Gaza-3-Jul-2014.aspx

LOL. I and most people on this forum will take Amnesty International’s interpretation and analysis of events long before they take yours Drew.
Here you go;

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/07/israelgaza-conflict-questions-and-answers/

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. Pathetic wriggling again. I only gave you Israel because its an easy example which you can look up yourself and which given your interests you may have some knowledge of.
But ok, another. Stalingrad. A battle fought in and around a city in which an entire Army group was brought in and trapped and encircled in a city.
Ok, now, bring it…

And the court has still ruled against Hamas being on the list.

There’s no excuse for collective punishment and starting a war against Palestinians which continues year after year. So Hamas takes on Israel the best it can, digging tunnels and hitting back at Israeli policy against normal Gazans, while Israel kills thousands in each punitive and pointless raid while spreading propaganda about its repeated lie about its superior civilian: combatant ratio.
Nowhere in the annals of history is a country such as Israel, a self declared enemy of Palestinians, ever laid siege to a people, denied their existence and received no response in return. Making Israel a special case doesn’t give Israel the excuses for its actions and doesn’t excuse Hamas actions either. Nor should it. The filthy view you continually trot out asks us to see Israeli military actions as circumspect and reasonable and Gazan conditions deserved or caused by Hamas. It’s immoral and wrong. Hamas has offered truce over and over and stuck to the last one in 2008 when during a truce that had lasted months it was attacked. Israel refuses to communicate formally with Hamas.

Sorry but asking people to stay in their homes is not using Human shields. The alternative is to see hundreds of thousands of people moving around Gaza.

No it wants to destroy Northern Ireland, by bringing into the fold of Southern Ireland. By the rifle and the gun.

No there’s no need to change the charter as long as Israel destroys Palestine. There only needs to a truce. The goal of taking Palestine can be considered aspirational rather than military policy – that’s what the IRA did.

It became irrelevant when Hamas agreed to the negotiating along the 67 lines.

Ive been entirely consistent, its you that’s wriggling – the rockets are not even targeting like modern artillery shells, they’re simply sent up in the air at a gradient. So no, they’re not targeting civilians. They’re targeting Israel, any civilians killed as collateral damage. Just like when Israel kills civilians – its ok in that context.

Nope, answered above.

Because its generally considered to be Jewish settlements. By the vast majority of inhabitants. And the western world because in the west our laws on guardianship, consent and capacity are generally the same.

I’m not sure, but it’s unlikely he’s been looking into the exact ages of responsibility in Israel. Besides Israeli laws on such are generally the same.

Given that generally Israeli laws are similar to the west and the vast majority of settlers are Jews he likely didn’t think he was including either children or arabs are Termite Jewish residents. Simple common logic using the laws generally used.

LOL. My bad, the one I refer to instead is;
Israel’s July 23, 2002 air attack on a crowded apartment block in Gaza City that assassinated the senior Hamas military leader, Salah Shehada, while also killing 15 civilians, 11 of them children, hours before a widely reported unilateral cease-fire declaration by the Fatah-linked Tanzim and Hamas, leading to the Hamas suicide bombing on August 4.
https://electronicintifada.net/cont...-policy-triggers-latest-suicide-bombings/4754

Except of course his comments here don’t make him an anti semite. Condemning settlers is a reasonable position.

No, he simply meant normal Jewish people of adult responsibility much as anyone does when speaking of nations of groups of people engaged in political action. To expect him to qualify every statement when criticising Jewish settlers to not include children is entirely senseless and unreasonable as nowhere else in normal discourse is this required as a matter of course.

The civilians are all collateral damage just as Palestinian civilians killed are.

No in fact I said the rockets were worse and they don’t have any official policy of targeting all Israelis as answered above.

Mostly garbage responses, all answered above. No need to respond here.

 

"Volunteer 'human shields' flock to Iraq"

Don't have to be forced to be a human shield dude.

Some but for the most part human shields are those used to protect military resources and one may volunteer as the idiots protecting Saddam were, be coincidental or already be there in place as the population of Gaza is or forced to be one.

Not cowardly but realistic. Volunteers may become human shields as there is no rule which states that they must be forced in order to become one. You have not shown any exclusive rule to state that.

A rocket is an offensive weapon desigened to terrorize and by your own definition they ""disrupt Israeli life enough to make them recognise that beseiging an entire population and denying it access to its own air and sea space is not without cost. ""

That you say this shows that firing them is not a defensive action to protect people in the here and now but rather to apply pressure to accomplish the goal you state thus there is no excuse for turning the entire Gaza area into a war zone whuile Hamas uses all people there as Human Shields

Not mine but the Geneva Convention. You don't like the GC when it proves you wrong, I can see that.

I never disputed that but they are still on the list as a terrorist organization thus the EU sees Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Palestinians declared war on Israel not the other way around. As well, their official charters, both the PA and Hamas call for the violent destruction of Israel so cease with your pathetic fibbing about collective punishment when the Palestinians are the ones who started and perpetuate this war. No nation in history has ever had the responsibility to actively aid their enemy while at war.

Firing non defensive weapons from those areas is using the people as human shields though.

There you go, nothing at all like what is going on in Israel.

No need to change their official position of destroying Israel by Jihad. I take it you support the war then. No wonder you excuse terrorism and the targeting of Israeli civilians by Hamas by saying they "disrupt Israeli life enough to make them recognise that beseiging an entire population and denying it access to its own air and sea space is not without cost."

They never changed their official position, it's still the violent destruction of Israel by Jihad.

At a rate of 5:1 and Hamas stating they target all Israelis. Only you say they don't really target civilians.

He said "Jewish people" and he's not talking about the West or Georgia, he's a racist piece of crud calling "Jewish people" termites.

They're not though. Nice try but if his intention was to apply western law to Israel then he should have stated he was doing so. He did not so, let's just go by what he actually said which was calling all Jewish people and residents of the settlements termites.

At least produce a text or a tweet from him to back up your case or we can just go by what he actually said which was calling all Jewish people and residents of the settlements termites.

LOL.

Sharon said "Had I known the outcome, I would have postponed the assassination." I should like to add that surrounding oneself with civilians is using Human Shields and this terrorist turned that apartment into a war zone by his presence. There is no safe place for terrorists, no R&R and they place everyone around them in danger.

But calling all residents and Jewish people is not. It makes him a racist pig.

The racist pig should qualify his statements when he calls residents, which include children, and Jewish people termites. It would save shills from wasting endless bandwidth on this thread from defending his antisemitic rantings.

Strange, Hamas says all Israelis are targets and there is no such policy in Israel. Hamas' kill ratio of 5 civilians for every combatant shows who they target and it is not the military they are after by their actions and own words.

Hamas: All Israelis now targets for missile attacks
Hamas: “All Israelis have now become legitimate targets”
Hamas: We Wouldn't Target Civilians if We Had Better Weapons
Hamas boasts that all Israeli cities are within its reach

Exactly. It's just a summary of your performance to date is all it is.


Defending the actions of a terrorist organization, links a year behind mine, didn't know kids become men and women at 12 in Judaism, thought Rantisi was killed in an apartment bombing when he was greased in a car by an Apache, congressman saying he's talking about Jewish people and residents you say he meant all Jews over 12 and all residents who are not Palestinians, telling us that rockets are not accurate and then telling us they are just as accurate as artillery that can hit the same target over and over from thirty miles away till the cows come home and then telling us they are not, telling us that Hamas leaders rescinded their charter when in fact they publicly state the exact same vile crap in their public speeches and the creme de la creme is telling us that it's perfectly fine to hide behind a million and a half men women and children to set up terrorist weapons to target civilians with, telling us that Hamas killing five civilians to every combatant is a good thing while Israel only kills one civilian to every combatant, telling us the IRA is just like Hamas which would mean they have the destruction of England by holy Jihad as their charter, and then telling us all that other nations fire from the middle of their cities all the time yet only produced one example from sixty five years ago, telling uys all that Hamas doesn't target civilians in Israel when their own leaders are quoted as saying such, defending a racist congressman by putting words in his mouth to do damage control.

My goodness, this list is growing.

 

Yes. You can volunteer. So what?

Yes. For the most part they're used to protect military resources..Gazan homes aren't military resources. The population of Gaza have few spaces and neither does Hamas. Doesnt mean Hamas is using Human Shields in the sense you mean of forcing people to stay. Are they firing from the city, in neighbourhoods? Certainly. Theyre firing from everywhere in Gaza. This is normal in warfare. Your logic holds that Hamas no longer fire from Gaza but instead wait to be vapourised in an open field.

You have not shown that Hamas has forced anyone to be a shield.

A rocket is no more defensive than an artillery shell or a bullet. And Hamas didn't turn gaza into a war zone or use human shields. Israel did.

Hamas has little option but to fire from where it lives. In Gaza. I'll believe AI who actually apply the term in context. Hamas no more uses human shields than Israel does with its settlements in the West Bank.

I'm satisfied that the EU court has ruled against the listing quite rightly.

No Israel declared war on the Palestinians not the other way around.
No people have ever accepted the takeover or division of their lands with an immigrant population.

Lol. What would you call a defensive weapon?

And no it isn't. It's the history of warfare.

Very much like what's going on in Israel/ Palestine.

Lol. I support Hamas in defending gaza from Israeli aggression. You support Israeli policy don't you? Pot meet kettle.

That's ok. As long as Israel seeks to destroy whatever is left of Palestinians territory and crush their future that's perfectly reasonable.

It's a pretty normal rate. And they simply can't target civilians. I'm not saying it. It's the facts of the rockets themselves. Put it this way. If a rocket hits a soldier instead did they miss or not?

No in fact he said "There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming," Johnson reportedly said."

Then he clarifies. Apologised for any offence and made the point;

The congressman responded on his Twitter account by saying that it was a "poor choice of words," and the ADL later expressed appreciation for the clarification.

"Poor choice of words — apologies for offense," Johnson wrote. "Point is settlement activity continues slowly undermine 2-state solution."

So really it's clear he's not an anti semite.

As above.

As above.

Sharon said alot of things. And destroyed peace process possibilities again and again. Still doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And um no. The IDF headquarters in Jerusalem is surrounded by civilian buildings. Doesnt make the population a human shield for the hq personnel. And bombing the IDF hq would equally result in many civilian casualties simply due to the built up urban nature of the area.

As above.

As above.

Yes you keep saying that but where in your links are any specific named spokesman saying all Israelis are targets?

Your link saying Hamas would hit soldiers more had they better weapons proves that they are not targetting civilians specifically.

Lol. Check out this list;

1/ Tried to justify the deaths of fifteen civilians by quoting Ariel Sharon's regretful words.

2/ Ignored the examples of fighting in and from urban areas and specifically left it out of further posts without even acknowledging the point made.

3/ Trying to pretend that Hamas rockets are just as capable of targeting as modern artillery despite no evidence or reasoning and then claiming that somehow israelis are being targeted because he claims Hamas said so according to jihadwatch rather than the BBC or some such credible organisation.

4/ Accused Amnesty international of justifying war crimes.

5/ Tried to pretend that a us congressman must have referred to Jewish children as insects because in Judaism people become adults with adult responsibility at twelve. This despite no evidence that the congressman even knows the differences in Jewish and Israeli law and the fact that he actually referred to the process in which settlements undermine the future state.

 

A fair question, it would depend if the local population had been asked about it and agreed. As it is, the Palestinian arabs population increase was not contributed to greatly by immigration. Nor did the bedoins who did arrive then strive for the imposition of their own state against the wishes of the local population.

Of course. Its their cultural and historical narrative, that Palestine was/ is theirs. That was the driver of zionism. Indeed there have always been jews in palestine. That didnt make them an overall majority in the 20th century. It didnt mean the locals agreed to divide their lands with them.

Im a humanist. One may allow qualifiers in many circumstances but the principal still applies. Any other option is completely immoral.

 

Uh no restrictions on Gaza have a much longer history than from simply 2007. I stated that already.

And no, after the winning of the election, a fight broke out between local Fatah chiefs and Hamas.

Its simply a question of trust, you have little reason to trust Hamas, they little reason to trust you. At some you merely need to break the cycle and observe a real truce - thats even if Hamas continues to make military preparations, because you get to do that yourself. From that, a period of peace can give power to less hardline elements and make the price of war too great to bear. This is the path of peace agreements with enemies across the world.



This post shows how little you know about Israel, Hamas, Gaza, the conflict.

You make it sound like Israel's decision to blockade Gaza was just a temper tantrum. Do you seriously believe that Israel could survive - and thrive - on temper tantrums?

Ask yourself why there never was any attempt - locally and internationally - to free Gaza when it was under Egyptian military rule, Ask yourself why there had been terror attacks in Israel, organized by Egypt and carried out by Gazans, before 1967. When you'll find answers to those two questions, and cross reference them with Muslim Brotherhood ideology, maybe you'll understand why Israel has to impose the blockade on Hamas ruled Gaza. History didn't begin in 2007.

You might also ask yourself why was the PLO founded in 1964...[/QUOTE]

 

LOL

So much for Colonel Kemp...

He’s the former British army officer who’s the toast of pro-Israel propaganda groups around the world. One of them has termed him the “voice of reason” for defending Israeli conduct in war.

But recent reports suggest former Colonel Richard Kemp is also a religious fundamentalist motivated in his ideological support for Israel by a hard-line Christian Zionism.

In July, Kemp spoke at the Christians United For Israel annual summit in Washington, DC. A report on one right-wing site said he had “delivered an impassioned defense of Israel that brought many in the room to tears.”

“Kemp began by revealing his own Christian faith,” claimed the report on Frontpage Mag (the site is run by David Horowitz, a key figure in America’s Islamophobia industry).

Speaking to the dead

Kemp also reportedly told his Christians United For Israel (CUFI) audience that he had communicated with the dead. According to the Frontpage Mag report, he had “that morning, spoken to Orde Wingate … ‘I spoke to him this morning at Arlington [military cemetery]’.”

The late British officer infamously led the Special Night Squad, a militia used to crush Palestinian rebels who fought against the British occupation in the 1930s. According to one history of the British occupation of Palestine, Wingate had “a passionate pro-Zionism born of the religious tenets he had absorbed as a member of the Plymouth Brethren” – a conservative Evangelical denomination.

The squad was mostly populated by Zionists with the British “knowing that they were simultaneously members of Haganah,” the militia which would in 1948 play the leading role in ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians. At the same time, “Arabs caught with arms were routinely prosecuted, and some hanged” while Haganah training and arming “had been winked at” (A. J. Sherman, Mandate Days, John Hopkins University Press: 1997, pp. 121, 151).

Kemp reportedly told his audience Wingate was “the greatest Christian Zionist in Britain.”

 

So?
10char

 

I couldn't care less if he was a four-handed cold-blooded lizardoid from Mardukka. His arguments still stand, unless you can prove that he is wrong on a professional level.

 

I don't need to prove anything. I merely wished to point out a balancing report as to the efficacy of his plainly biased position. I couldn't care less either if he was/is a four-handed cold blooded lizardoid from Mardukka, but I seriously doubt that he is; I'm fairly confident that the British Army doesn't routinely commission its officers from such beings - though perhaps you know better?

 

They are a bit like Australian settlers really. I like that Israel uses the word settlers rather than something like pioneers or something like that. Settlers is good.

 

The report you quoted is anything but balancing, unless you think that pointing to faults (real or imaginary, I don't know and don't care at this point) in someone's personal life and beliefs can be a valid argument against a professional point of view.

Kemp might be biased, that doesn't mean he's wrong. The efficacy of his position is given by the accuracy of his analysis. Anything to say about the analysis? Probably not, even your pals at electronic intifada couldn't, that's why they dug for what they think it's dirt.

 

This is the problem.

On on hand we have Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Iran's Qud's Force doing everything they can to destabilize Israel via small terrorist attacks and both the Hamas and Fatah leadership ae stealing as much Aid money as they can so they really do not want peace.....then you have the Israeli's who are getting over $20 Billion a year in U.S. Aid and they don't want that gravy train to stop.....then you have the hardcore Ultra-Orthodox Jews who are purposely settling right in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods as well as building large settlements in disputed areas.

And then I am asked to go over there....4 times....and play Babysitter.

AA