Israel/Palestine thread with mention to the catalysy- 3 Israeli missing teens and the mobilization for conflict

[PointOfViewGun]

My response was about Day 1, May 14, 1948. It was stated by another that the Israeli's should have followed the European suggestion that Israel call the Arabs and explain a few things and that would prevented the wars then and since. Wasn't making an argument about what they wrote compared to what they did.

Plan Dalet's purpose was not to "ethnically cleanse" Arabs, otherwise there wouldn't have been the 150,000 who stayed and became Israelis. It was an operational plan to secure Israel's perimeter and supply lines from the real threat of 5th column actions. That the outcome was some broken treaties, that conflict with some villages may have been avoidable, terrible mistakes happened in the tactical operations and some Arabs who may not have taken sides were forced to flee doesn't make it any worse than the removal of Jews from East Jerusalem and the eviction of Jews from the Arab states that I notice you didn't mention. In any event, my response had nothing to do with Plan Dalet or the Arab expulsion of about 850,000 Jews from their homes and the nearly 100,000 Jews being removed from Arab controlled Jerusalem.

The point is that you tell people better with what you do, not what you say. Few terrible mistakes don't cause about 700 thousand people to flee. In Ben-Gurion's words:

The cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet.

Those that remained in Israel for whatever reason didn't become equal citizens but lived under martial law for 17 years. A lot become present absentees for Israel to take their land.

[white-wolf]

From TV news:

One Israeli soldier is captured by Hamas, it seems.

At today's operations, at least 13 Israeli soldiers died, Palestinian dead are 60 including civilians. In revenge, IDF heavily bombed a neighborhood at Gaza, civilians have been trying to flee in Panic.

[Sir Walter]

My response was about Day 1, May 14, 1948. It was stated by another that the Israeli's should have followed the European suggestion that Israel call the Arabs and explain a few things and that would prevented the wars then and since. Wasn't making an argument about today.

My response was about Day 1, May 14, 1948. It was stated by another that the Israeli's should have followed the European suggestion that Israel call the Arabs and explain a few things and that would prevented the wars then and since. Wasn't making an argument about what they wrote compared to what they did.

"Political Mudpit: Use this forum to discuss current events and specific individuals in politics today."

If you can't defend what Israel are doing right now, you're posting in the wrong forum.

[PointOfViewGun]

John Kerry's latest off-mike remarks:

Kerry's comments are clear. "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation," he says, then repeats it. "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation." It's an apparent reference to Israel's insistence that its incursion into the region would be limited. "It's escalating significantly," the person on the phone replies, and Kerry then says: "We've got to get over there. I think we ought to go tonight." He then calls it "crazy" to be "sitting around."

[Diocle]

Is there any political or military meaning in launching rockets against Israeli from Gaza? No, it's one of the most idiotic choices an idiot can take.

So, why did Hamas launch rockets against Israeli well knowing that they have no hope to do anything military relevant to stop the Israeli counter attack? Why?

Because this is their way to conduct Palestinian interior policy, their target is Abu Mazen, and this is the way in which this scum is trying to beat him.

[PointOfViewGun]

Is there any political or military meaning in launching rockets against Israeli from Gaza? No, it's one of the most idiotic choices an idiot can take.
So, why did Hamas launch rockets against Israeli well knowing that they have no hope to do anything military relevant to stop the Israeli counter attack? Why?
Because this is their way to conduct Palestinian interior policy, their target is Abu Mazen, and this is the way in which this scum is trying to beat him.

Because they have to show response. If they don't then someone else will take over. How does rockets attack Abbas?

[Papay]

While i understand why some Isrealis might feel insecure with Hamas what happens now its a very bad choice. Not only Israel causes unessecarry death and destruction but it upgrades Hamas to a heroic organisation. In times when the west tries to reduce the influence of Islamist movements, having Hamas gaining sympathy is very dangerous

[Diocle]

How does rockets attack Abbas?

Making him loosing his appeal among the Palestinians of the Territories. Hamas hasn't any military objective, actually this is their way to take the control of the Authority, it's sad, especially for their own citizens but they could care less about their own people.

Please if you are able to find a good reason why you should launch rockets against a target like Israel, tell me what is this reason, because seriously, I don't see it.

I don't see even one military, tactical or strategical reason to launch tens of rockets against Israel. You can't beat Israel, you can't damage its military infrastructure, you have no hope to beat their army on the field so... why? Why launching their idiotic rockets? Probably there is a political reason but which one? Can Hamas damage the American foreign policy using rockets? Can they damage the Israeli government? No, they can't, instead they are helping Bibi Netanyau's position. Have they a hope to move the Middle Eastern politic scenery with their rockets? I don't think. Do they hope that Europe would do something? Please!

So, what is their political objective? IMO it's an interior objective, they want to hegemonize the Palestinin policy, and to do this, being a mass of brain-dead criminals, they launch their idiotic rockets.

[PointOfViewGun]

Making him loosing his appeal among the Palestinians of the Territories. Hamas hasn't any military objective, actually this is their way to take the control of the Authority, it's sad, especially for their own citizens but they could care less about their own people.

Please if you are able to find a good reason why you should launch rockets against a target like Israel, tell me what is this reason, because seriously, I don't see it.

I don't see even one military, tactical or strategical reason to launch tens of rockets against Israel. You can't beat Israel, you can't damage its military infrastructure, you have no hope to beat their army on the field so... why? Why launching their idiotic rockets? Probably there is a political reason but which one? Can Hamas damage the American foreign policy using rockets? Can they damage the Israeli government? No, they can't, instead they are helping Bibi Netanyau's position. Have they a hope to move the Middle Eastern politic scenery with their rockets? I don't think. Do they hope that Europe would do something? Please!

So, what is their political objective? IMO it's an interior objective, they want to hegemonize the Palestinin policy, and to do this, being a mass of brain-dead criminals, they launch their idiotic rockets.

What's the point of asking questions in a response that you ignore the answer of from the post you respond to?

Ten's of thousands? That's a 2001-2008 worth of rockets.

[Aawulf]

"Political Mudpit: Use this forum to discuss current events and specific individuals in politics today."

If you can't defend what Israel are doing right now, you're posting in the wrong forum.

Play word games elsewhere. Childishly manipulating a response to mean something other than the obvious and stated intent is a distraction. I was responding to a specific claim. The claim made was completely relevant to what goes on today and as does my response.

You should delete your post because it is off topic and harassment and then I will delete this response to it because it is ridiculous tit for tat that contributes nothing to the discussion. Also, do you not realize that your logic would dictate that your reference, "the US Declaration of Independence guaranteed "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for slaves in most of the following century" would also not be suitable for the Political Mudpit. Now quit the games and focus on the topics, please. Geez!

[Love Mountain]

While i understand why some Isrealis might feel insecure with Hamas what happens now its a very bad choice. Not only Israel causes unessecarry death and destruction but it upgrades Hamas to a heroic organisation. In times when the west tries to reduce the influence of Islamist movements, having Hamas gaining sympathy is very dangerous

It's a waste of time. Israel should have occupied the rest of Palestine a long time ago. When it comes down to it, I'd trust Israel to work out ethnic difficulties eventually, whereas extremists In Hamas and organizations like Hezbollha, would happily start a Genocide.

[Papay]

Where did Israeli leaders were born? From Wikipedia

David Ben-Gurion(Prime minister 1948-1954, 1955-1963) Born in Poland
Chaim Weizmann(President 1949-1952) Born in Belarus
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi(President 1952-1963) Born in Ukraine
Zalman Shazar(President 1963-1973) Born in Belarus
Moshe Sharett(Prime minister 1954-1955) Born in Ukraine
Golda Meir(Prime minister 1969-1974)Born in Ukraine
Levi Eshkol(Prime minister 1963-1969) Born in Ukraine
Moshe Dayan.Not a president or a prime minister. But he played an important role.He was actually born there. But his parents were born in Ukraine....
Menachem Begin(President 1977-1983) Born In Belarus
Yitzhak Rabin(Prime minister 1974-1977, 1992-1995)Born in Jerusalem. His parents were from ukraine
Yitzhak Navon(President 1978-1983)Now here we have a very rear phenomenon of a local jew. Born In Jerusalem from a local jew family
Chaim Herzog(President 1983-1993)Born in Ireland
Yitzhak Shamir(Prime minister 1983-84,1986-1992)Born in Belarus
Shimon Peres(Prime minister 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996, President from 2007) Born in Poland
Ezer Weizman(President 1993-2000) Another case of a Jew who comes from an old local Jew family
Moshe Katsav(President 2000-2007)Born in Iran
Ehud Barak(Prime minister 1999-2001) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)
Benjamin Netanyahu(Prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-) Born in Israel(parents from Poland)
Ehud Olmert(Prime minister 2006-2009) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)
Ariel Sharon(Prime minister 2001-2006) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)

[Menelik_I]

Where did Israeli leaders were born? From Wikipedia

David Ben-Gurion(Prime minister 1948-1954, 1955-1963) Born in Poland
Chaim Weizmann(President 1949-1952) Born in Belarus
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi(President 1952-1963) Born in Ukraine
Zalman Shazar(President 1963-1973) Born in Belarus
Moshe Sharett(Prime minister 1954-1955) Born in Ukraine
Golda Meir(Prime minister 1969-1974)Born in Ukraine
Levi Eshkol(Prime minister 1963-1969) Born in Ukraine
Moshe Dayan.Not a president or a prime minister. But he played an important role.He was actually born there. But his parents were born in Ukraine....
Menachem Begin(President 1977-1983) Born In Belarus
Yitzhak Rabin(Prime minister 1974-1977, 1992-1995)Born in Jerusalem. His parents were from ukraine
Yitzhak Navon(President 1978-1983)Now here we have a very rear phenomenon of a local jew. Born In Jerusalem from a local jew family
Chaim Herzog(President 1983-1993)Born in Ireland
Yitzhak Shamir(Prime minister 1983-84,1986-1992)Born in Belarus
Shimon Peres(Prime minister 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996, President from 2007) Born in Poland
Ezer Weizman(President 1993-2000) Another case of a Jew who comes from an old local Jew family
Moshe Katsav(President 2000-2007)Born in Iran
Ehud Barak(Prime minister 1999-2001) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)
Benjamin Netanyahu(Prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-) Born in Israel(parents from Poland)
Ehud Olmert(Prime minister 2006-2009) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)
Ariel Sharon(Prime minister 2001-2006) Born in Israel(parents from Ukraine)

Logic : Latino Immigrants GOOD ... Jewish Immigrants BAD

[Caduet]

It's a waste of time. Israel should have occupied the rest of Palestine a long time ago. When it comes down to it, I'd trust Israel to work out ethnic difficulties eventually.

Work out ethnic difficulties via ethnic cleansing.

There is no peaceful coexistence with Israel. You want Hamas to lay down their arms and just take the circumcised dicking? This is what will happen anyway. No matter how peaceful you are, no matter what creed you follow, the jews will remove your ass.

whereas extremists In Hamas and organizations like Hezbollha, would happily start a Genocide.

Yea im sure. Hezbollah can do that in Lebanon whenever they want. Leb military couldn't do crap to stop them.

[hellheaven1987]

Jewish Immigrants BAD

Logic: Zionists are not Jews.

[Papay]

Logic : Latino Immigrants GOOD ... Jewish Immigrants BAD

I am quite sure than if Latino immigrants rebelled in california to create a new latino state you would support them

[Menelik_I]

I am quite sure than if Latino immigrants rebelled in california to create a new latino state you would support them

If Amareicans were bloodthirsty totalitarian religious nutters who collaborate with the Nazies ? Of course I would.

Hamas is gloating about having kidnapped an Israeli soldier ..... Let's pray it ain't true

[Aawulf]

Thanks for agreeing with me. ...

Au contraire. My following response is an effort to put to rest this ridiculous game of cat and mouse. I have attempted to faithfully quote or refer to links for additional quotes because copying does not capture quotes and many of your quotes don't have sources anchored to them. I have split the response to this particular post of yours to reflect the chronological order of your arguments. I have also taken the liberty to move this response to the Israel/Palestinian thread where it is "on topic".

Obviously you have mistaken something said by someone other than me. I said, "Who hijacked it from whom? Where is the source? I will even point you in the right direction: Germany in the late 19th century because it sounded more intelligent than "Jew Hater".

I am quick to apologize when I am wrong and have done so when the occasion arose, but I don't apologize because someone else's posts demonstrate a stubborn inability to learn as usually observed in prejudices and arrogance."

In no way does that agree with, "Just because some people hijacked the word to highlight themselves doesn't change the definition of a word. Oh, also, I notice that you're refusing to give an apology for the previous page. Convenient." You never answered who the hijacker was and who from it was supposedly hijacked. You were busted again claiming victory for yourself where there was complete and utter defeat. YOU WERE WRONG and have the audacity to look for an apology from me.

I pointed out that Haganah conducted terror attacks. You objected. I quoted Ilan Pappé. You objected, calling him unreliable, and pointed at Benny Morris as a credible source. I quoted Benny Morris on Haganah's terror attacks. After ignoring being proven totally wrong you're now insulting me by claiming that I have a stubborn inability to learn. Did I miss anything?

Evidently you did. I have had a near impossible time trying to keep up with what you are arguing because you change the arguments as the old ones are rebuked. Add to that I have ignored entire posts because of the absurd premises in them and I frankly don't really want to have anything to do with you.

Spoiler for Your first claim was that "Even in 1948, Israelis didn't fight for their lives, they fought for land. They did not initially declare an Israel in the lands of Jewish villages. Their first move was that of a conquest. Arab armies followed after.": 

Nobody was trying to establish Israel. UN wasn't attempting to establish Israel and ignore Palestinians. UN was trying to mediate a solution to the Palestinian question. Tensions were already on the rise between Jews and Arabs inhabiting the general area. Which is why the creation of Israel was proposed, because it's probably better to separate the two communities rather than watch them kill each other in a few years. Ironically that's what kicked off the 1948 war.
...

...
Sukiyama is asserting that Israel exists primarily because of the blood of the Jews, not some 3rd party. Its not like we were dropping bombs on Arab tank columns in 1948. The legality of their independence would have meant nothing had they not won in 1948. No one was coming to save them, it was fight and win or they all die. It didn't have to be that way. There was a shared state solution put forward which the Arabs promptly wiped their asses with. War it was!...

Way to go on historical revisionism. Peaceful resolution that you're referring to gave majority of the land, including natural resources, to the minority of the people. Even in 1948, Israelis didn't fight for their lives, they fought for land. They did not initially declare an Israel in the lands of Jewish villages. Their first move was that of a conquest. Arab armies followed after.

If they were not nation a before they are one now. Mostly thanks Israel, since occupation and armed conflict did create a group of people that is different from Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc. They are no different than Israeli's pre-1948.

Aawulf related reply: Any claim that Israel was not fighting for their lives is disputed by even the Arabs who there in 1948. Jamal Husseini, the unofficial Arab delegate to the UN from 1946-48 and , told the UN Security Council on April 16, 1948:
"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." -Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.

Spoiler for Here the claim changes to 15MAY48 and Plan Dalet's objectives and how it planned expansion outside of Israel's borders and never mind that the Arabs had rejected Israel's creation and they were already fighting.": 

...
1948 Arab-Israeli war started on 15th of May, 1948. Israel declared it's independence a day before that.

Plan Dalet, the plan to expand lands of the Jews outside of the borders outlined by UN, was created long before Israeli declaration of independence. Haganah's chief of operations Allon is quoted to say: "If it wasn't for the Arab invasion there would have been no stop to the expansion of the forces of Haganah who could have, with the same drive, reached the natural borders of western Israel."...

Aawulf related reply: The "Palestinian" Arabs and volunteers began their attacks in January, hence the reason any claim that Israel started the fighting is completely in conflict with historical facts. Kind of explains why the Palestinians admitted they started the war even before you thought that there was a war, doesn't it?

But it doesn't really matter, does it? The hatred for Israel is really something entirely independent of any mythical distortion of the historical facts or the stereotypes of their behavior.

...
Try to attack me with accusations of hatred of Israel all you want. At least I get the basic facts right. If Jews were indeed fighting a defensive war back then we wouldn't have them conquering lands outside their Jewish state allocated to them by the UN plan. These lands were often strictly Arab towns. In fact, as part of the Plan Dalet, 8 operations out of 13 were outside that Jewish state.

I honestly don't give a damn on what some random person said on the issue back then if it's not backed by reality. It's not Palestinians that admitted anything. You merely came up with one guy supposedly admitting it which wasn't even relevant to the 1948 war I was talking about.

You talk about Arabs starting their attacks in January. Yet, I can find many accounts on attacks from Jews, often amounting to outright terrorism:
...
It might indeed have been an Arab who fired the first shot. That doesn't justify what comes next. Just because someone attacked you before doesn't make your next attack defensive. You can call them retaliation if you want but then I can easily call Arab attacks as a retaliation against Jewish colonization of Palestine.

Spoiler for Here the claim changes to so what that the Arabs fired the first shot. Lets talk about Jewish attacks instead.: 

Aawulf related reply: Stop moving the goal posts!
...
Claiming Israel started the war despite the spokesman for the Palestinians at the UN admitted that it was the Arabs who started it is plain stubborn attachment to a myth and trying desperately to not be wrong in the absence of being correct. Even the Arab League contradicted in one of your sources what some of the Israel haters claim:
According to the Arab League General Safwat:
"Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first"...

What a pathetic bunch of posts you got there. You even have the guts to accuse me of being stubbornly attached to a myth. I'm not the one bending the truth, I'm not the one lying. You say that one of my sources contradicts me, or more eloquently you put me as Israeli hater, but you end up quoting a piece from Wikipedia and not the link I provided. Meanwhile, you completely ignore the quote I provided from Haganah's chief of operations about how they'd advance regardless of the Arab invasion. A quote supported by their many operations on non-Jewish lands.

Moving the goal post? From what to what exactly? We're talking about the 1947 UN partition plane which was a partition plan that involved today's Palestine and Israel, not Jordan. That is a simple fact. Here is the text of the resolution 181.

Talk about moving the goal post. We were first talking about the 1948 Arab Israeli war. Then you moved the goal post to beginning of January 1948. Now that I've shown you attacks from Jews in 1947, some amounting to outright terrorism, of course you're ignoring that all together. As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about what people say especially when the reality on the ground is different. Moreover, you're claiming that Jews have always fought for their lives, hence always been on the defensive. None of the quotes you come up with support that. You're claiming defensive nature of Jewish attacks but your quotes only point at a retaliatory nature when reality on the ground shows a nature of conquest from Jewish operations.
...
Your posts hit a whole new level of failure. They're nothing more than pure blind propaganda that is completely divorced from reality. It is no surprise that instead of focusing on individual points we're discussing you have to reiterate Arab hatred for Jews over and over again regardless of how relevant it is to the points we're discussing. We're still in this mess because there are enough people who fall for your foul narrative that tries to completely rewrite history to something its not.

Aawulf related reply: I didn't think you had anything to say.

If your posts evidenced reading the thread though and not just admiring it's own words, one could've learned some things. Among the facts that refuted your posts' Chomsky -ish version of history, is the fact that other people have been posting here and one even includes the wiki quote that so flabbergasted your post. This is not about the person behind your posts and I am personally done with that person here because his posts have been adequately schooled and it isn't my fault that the posts' predisposed prejudices blinds anyone from learning.

Your posts have failed so utterly in a topic that you're defending so religiously that I recon there is no hope. You have no other tactic other than to claim victory while ignoring all your failures. You couldn't even get the basics right about this conflict. Sadly, this is no different than many narratives pushed out in the media or online through utterly ignorant and often deceptive arguments. No wonder this conflict is half a century old and still going strong. You have shown us how facts, common sense and proper discussions are avoided when defense of Israel is in concern. Thank you so much for demonstrating that.

Our discussion ended several hours ago when your posts proved a prejudice that makes your views inflexible but requires those in discussions with you to adjust to an ever changing argument.

Your first point was:
"Even in 1948, Israelis didn't fight for their lives, they fought for land. They did not initially declare an Israel in the lands of Jewish villages. Their first move was that of a conquest. Arab armies followed after."-Setekh

After I proved otherwise with quotes from the Arab Liberation Army and the Palestinian spokesman at the UN, which you acknowledged with:
"It might indeed have been an Arab who fired the first shot."-Setekh

Then as if none of this was recorded, your posts revert back to the original bogus claim
"I honestly don't give a damn on what some random person said on the issue back then if it's not backed by reality. It's not Palestinians that admitted anything. You merely came up with one guy supposedly admitting it which wasn't even relevant to the 1948 war I was talking about.

You talk about Arabs starting their attacks in January. Yet, I can find many accounts on attacks from Jews, often amounting to outright terrorism:"-Setekh

Yeah, the Palestinian spokesman at the UN and the General commanding the Arab Liberation Army are less credible than your opinion.

I will gladly continue discussing this with others.

You're doing your best to deflect the realities of your ups and bending the truth, but, just like you said your failures are already recorded. The funny part is that your quotations of my words don't even contradict each other. Nonetheless, such failed connections is all you can come up with. You couldn't even figure out which lands the UN tried to partition. It's simply pathetic. Nothing more. I hope that we're done with your show no...

Aawulf Ignored Setekh

Spoiler for Here Setekh enters a discussion and Aawulf ignores him except to remind Setekh that he wants nothing to do with him.: 

They are invading right now with a ground offensive which you'd think would reduce the rate considerably as hopefully IDF soldiers are more discriminate than bombardments. Except that prior to their invasion they are shelling areas, and are so paranoid about having any IDF soldiers being taken hostage again that they are just as likely to ramp up the civilian casualties.


I'm kinda curious how someone like Aawulf will defend the killing of 4 children who were playing soccer on the beach, surely all part of some diabolical human shield scheme and completely unavoidable.

But its okay I'm sure Israel called to warn them. And in fairness they did fire a "warning" mortar that killed one of them, before firing the next shot that killed the rest fleeing in the opposite direction.

But hey Golda Meir sure would be beaming with pride right about now!

How did all start up again? Three Israeli children were kidnapped and murdered, right? Did Israel start bombing Gaza then? NO!

Then a Palestinian child was found murdered and it was like someone left the animal cages open. Did the Arabs start bombing Israel then? No. Because they had already been firing rockets into Israel!

Lets compare and contrast since someone has trouble with moral relativity. Israel has arrested six suspects for the Palestinian teen. Netanyahu has phoned the father of the slain Palestinian boy and promised justice.

On the Arab hand, even though the suspects for the murder of the three Israeli boys have been known since the beginning and they have been at large for longer, no arrests or phone calls to the families of the slain boys. But the mother of one of the Palestinian suspects did say she could never be more proud of her son if he was responsible. Is that clear? Any misunderstanding here?

I don't defend the indefensible. If you believe they intentional killed those boys playing on the beach, then there is no point in us even discussing this issue because your view is too jaded to see reality. Surely you acknowledge that we are not talking about Myrtle Beach, South Carolina? Gaza is a war zone and it was made so by Hamas.

And since you seem to appreciate the wisdom of Golda Meir:
"...we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.” -Golda Meir
How is your sense of outrage doing with the UN announcing that they found a rocket stockpile in a school? May as well rationalize that too.

From the obvious bias in your post, there is no way in Hell you and I will find any agreement on this matter, so take notice that I have no intention of replying to you in this thread anymore because I don't find joy in arguing for the sake of arguing.

Spin, baby, spin...

Yes, how did it all start? What did Israel do after the kidnappings? Let's see:
How did it all really start though? After all, it's not like that burned Palestinian kid was the first kid to be killed this year. One such example:
Want an other one? Sure:
When was Mohammed Abu Khadeir, the Palestinian child you refer to, burned alive? On July 2nd. When was the three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped? On June 12. You argue as if no airstrikes happened between the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers and this child's murder or even before the kidnappings.
July 1st:
June 11th:
April 21th:
February 9th:
I believe you get the picture. Rockets, airstrikes, rockets, airstrikes, etc etc etc. What is the common denominator? Gaza is blockaded and West Bank and East Jerusalem is being colonized.

Rockets are certainly fired from Gaza but was there really much of an increase to justify an operation? Not really. I posted a link to the Israeli army blog back on July 8th. It had rocket numbers from Gaza before this conflict. If I remember correctly it was around 200 but today its 450 up to July 8th. It's quite low when other years are considered.

2013 is an especially interesting year with 41 rockets. You talk about the Palestinian kid's death opening the animal cages. Such a distasteful choice of words, yet, it's also weird that in 2013 Israel killed more Palestinians in West Bank than they did in 2011 and 2012 combined. I wonder what the Arabs were doing. If they were using that kids death as a reason to attack Israel then they had many more reasons before that. Don't you think?

Let me put this here too to complete the picture:
The true Gaza back-story that the Israelis aren’t telling this week from Robert Fisk on Independent:
But, oh yes, Hamas started it all. They're the ones colonizing West Bank and East Jerusalem, yes. I hope that you're familiar with sarcasm? Great.

As a courtesy, since your post replied to mine, this is a reminder that I won't respond to your posts in this thread. I don't even read your posts in this thread anymore. Israeliphobia is as ugly as most other forms of bigotry and I am not qualified to treat it.

What a pathetic response. Israeliphobia? Why make up words to attack people? So weak. Ignore all you want. I'll continue to debunk your blind propaganda when I see fit. It's your funeral. Enjoy the service.

Spoiler for Here Setekh enters a discussion claiming that Israel started it all and that it is Aawulf changing the start date of the fighting.: 

That is absurd. Israel expends resources to protect it's civilians in bomb shelters and the constant use of them is hard on Israel's economy and terrifying for those huddling in them. Does Hamas spend it's resources on bomb shelters or rockets? Surely they made their choice and it doesn't matter that they do not have as much resources, it matters what they do with the resources they have. Hamas purposely hides rockets in hospitals and schools because they have so little regard for human life. The difference between one party trying to avoid civilian casualties and the other making no such effort is EVERYTHING we need to know about the character of the two; if it isn't, then why would anyone bother? Imagine what Hamas would do with the ability to do more.
...
The three teens, including an American citizen, were kidnapped on June 12. Hamas had fired rockets on June 11, which was met with the response of an airstrike. The rockets came before the kidnapping and the rounding up of known and suspected terrorists.
...
Since we have now established that Hamas was firing rockets before the kids were even kidnapped, this argument that Israel started it up by rounding up Hamas members is clearly no longer reasonable.
...
Just remember where you heard it first.

I couldn't find any references to it, so I have coined it. It is a legitimately definable condition as there hasn't been any hesitation to describe the Israeli phobia of Palestinians in Academic circles. And other similar conditions have existed for generations such as Franco-phobia and Sinophobia, which are commonly known and accepted as legitimate.

Israeliphobia
[iz-rey-lee-foh-bee-uh]
noun

encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward Israel or people who are identified or perceived as being Israeli or sympathetic to Israel
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Israel and Israelis
...
I would argue that Israeliphobia and antisemitism are mutually independent, but not mutually exclusive. A person could be possessed by neither, one, the other or both simultaneously.
...
I am an American and feeling rather secure here in Virginia, but thank you for the genuine concern for my well being.

Despite the obvious effort at sarcasm, there is historical precedent to suggest fighting endless wars is more costly in terms of human loss and waste of resources than shorter and more decisive victories that cost more in the short term. In fact, there are even studies contrasting the overall losses sustained and delivered by "cautious" military commanders to the more determined and aggressive commanders which could be argued is a microcosm of what would be a strategic view. Sun Tzu even had a chapter devoted to the notion that no nation benefits from prolonged warfare and therefore victory is essential.

Nevertheless, any argument suggesting a consideration for a decisive victory necessitating a clear victor and unconditional surrender is not the same as calling for genocide. "There's no peace for the wicked" and that is why Hamas, not all Arabs in Gaza, must be utterly destroyed.
...
So you would argue the Allied invasion of Normandy made the Allies the bad guys because of the civilian losses? How many children were killed by the Allies from the air, land and sea while trying to dislodge Germans? War is Hell and that is why a bad peace is always preferable to war, but that doesn't mean it is rational for a nation to pretend they are not being attacked and in a war. I teared up for the children killed while playing on the beach, thought their dad was an idiot for having them play there and considered what would possess anyone to conclude Israel intentionally targeted children who were just playing.

I am responding to this on the proper thread, so sorry for any confusion about how your post is replied to here. Nevertheless, your commentary should be reviewed because Hamas fired rockets on June 11, even before the kidnapping of the Israeli children. Israel returned fire with an airstrike aimed at a Hamas target on June 11, but didn't fire first. And by your reasoning that firing first broke the terms, I look forward to your posts condemning Hamas and correcting those who are misinformed as to who fired first.

January 22, 2014:
February, 2014:
March 19, 2014:
March, 2014:
May, 2014:
Meanwhile Gaza is still blockaded, and West Bank and East Jerusalem are still being colonized.

Spoiler for Here Setekh shifts gears and adds that based on Aawulf's BBC article Hamas couldn't have started the fight in January, but of course that wasn't the case at all.: 

Someone is still trying to misinform everyone that Israel started the fight and used http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25838376 from January 22, sharing only as a quote, "Two Palestinian militants have been killed by an Israeli air strike in the northern Gaza Strip, officials say." Well then, how more clear could it be? Except the same article also said:
"He was behind several rocket attacks, including one after former PM Ariel Sharon's funeral last week," (my emphasis on LAST WEEK)

...Zaanin and the other man killed in the air strike, his cousin, belonged to Islamic Jihad.

Islamic Jihad, which has been blamed by Israel for a recent surge in rocket and mortar attacks, confirmed Zaanin was a member but did not comment on the other man's affiliation."

There have been several references to Hamas's motives for the rocket attacks that have increased over the last 5 or 6 months, while others have argued there were none until Israel rounded up Hamas members after the kidnapping of the three Israeli children. I read an article on BBC News that some may find as interesting and thought provoking as I did and others will find it to be "just more propaganda" because they won't actually read it or will disagree with it. Disagreement is welcome, of course.
...

Nobody claimed that there were no rockets before Israelis started mass arrests.

So, Hamas started this conflict in January, 2014? You initially gave June 11 as that date. I can find more airstrikes before that if you want. Should I?

What's to disagree in the BBC article? You do realize it's not necessarily backing up your words, do you? For example, it says:


If this is the case, how can Hamas start this conflict in January (since you moved the date from June to January)?

Don't shoot yourself in the leg.

1. I am not even talking to you.
2. You were wrong again. (notice the period)
3. The source was unrelated and for information and potential further discussion only, not for your endless and fruitless arguments. And, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU! That said, I am including a definition of "most" for you and what followed your chosen quote, which wasn't as helpful as you thought for your argument:
"But not only has Hamas condoned attacks when it suited it. It is also wary of being seen as "Fatah II" - a reference to the notion that Fatah became Israel's de facto enforcer by agreeing to end violence and arrest those continuing with violence without the guarantee of a Palestinian state.
As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deteriorated, rocket attacks from Gaza increased in the first five months of 2014."
4. It was you who moved the date from June 12 to January! I had asserted that the claim that it was the fault of Israel because of the arrests following the kidnapping of the Israeli teens didn't make sense because rockets were flying on June 11, before the kidnapping on June 12. You won't be able to manufacture a way to win this argument no matter how many ways you try. In fact, wasn't it you who first mentioned June 12 and me who corrected you that it was again rockets fired first? I can understand someone being wrong all the time, but I don't think it is too much to expect honesty.

Like diarrhea, crap just spews from some people. This is why I don't want anything to do with you on this thread. Too much Israeliphobia to argue rationally.

most
[mohst]
adjective superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1.in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2.in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3.greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.
noun
4.the greatest quantity, amount, or degree; the utmost: The most I can hope for is a passing grade.
5.the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish.
6.the greatest number: The most this room will seat is 150.
7.the majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most.
8.the most, Slang. the ultimate in something: He's the most. That movie was the most.

Of all the amateur historians, surely we agree what the most profound effect of the V1 and V2 rockets on Londoners was, right? Anybody? Class? Bueller?

That one side has taken measures to defend itself and thereby suffers less is not an exoneration for the effort of the attacker. That Hamas invested so heavily in rockets and Israel in turn invested heavier in the Iron Dome and bomb shelters reveals Israel's value of people over the political advantage of suffering deaths to rockets. Hamas doesn't get a pass because it has been outplayed no more than a fugitive would be excused because he only killed three cops when emptying his magazine in the attempt to kill a whole lot more.

Spoiler for Here Setekh now detours the argument to being that Israel often attacked Hamas despite the retaliation was in response to another Arab group's attacks.: 

What is this? A bed fight?

You have to make up your mind. Does January precede June or not? Do airstrike have some sort of special trait of not causing any retaliation, hence not be held responsible, or not? Perhaps logic and reason have different meaning for you. Of course, keep in mind that I'm giving you a head start by not even counting colonization of West Bank and East Jerusalem and blockade of Gaza. All you have to do is find a rocket attack before an airstrike, and, in return, I find an airstrike before that rocket attack. We can play this game of "Who did it first" for hours if you'd like, but, it will certainly rob your of the pleasure of blaming everything on Hamas. Israeli actions, however, do have a direct relation to the number of rockets fired from Gaza. The mass arrest campaign is the cause in this context. Unfortunately for you, this is what your BBC link suggests as well. The articles main purpose, however, is to analyze other important factors that influences Hamas. As you probably know, influence and cause don't mean the same thing.

Diving into wordplay, I see. A little use of logic on your part would be nice. Despite Hamas not being responsible of most rocket fires, a lot of Israeli airstrikes have been against Hamas targets. There are certainly countless of them from the past 6-7 months, this latest conflict excluded of course. That definition of the word "most" will certainly be useful to you right about now. What you did here is to shoot yourself in the leg, meaning, while trying to blame Hamas for escalation of the attacks you've managed to show that Israel often attacked Hamas despite not being responsible for the attacks on Israel, through your own link. Thank you for that.

On that continuous use of the word "Israeliphobia", that's just too funny to take it seriously. I'm sorry.

I don't even know what a bed fight is. But I am curious why the fonts and underlining was changed in your supposed quote of my comments? Aren't there rules about altering another member's quote such that it blatantly misrepresents the wording of the quoted member? Changing my emphasis in my quote to what you prefer to emphasize is kinda sleazy, don't you think?

Because I wanted to emphasize something else in your post which is what I commented on first? Sue me.

Spoiler for Here Aawulf responds to Sir Adrian and Setekh argues Plan Dalet's purpose was to ethnically cleanse the lands of Arabs.: 

Bloodshed which wouldn't have existed if on day 1 of obtaining its independence Israel would have done what Europe told it to do and said to the Arabs "look we follow different creeds but there is no reason we can't live together in harmony. This land belongs to both of us, lets develop it together". It wouldn't have stopped religious conflict in the region but Hamas would not exist today and the other extremists would have such a large following.
You'd think that a people who unjustly suffered through so many persecutions would learn about tolerance and be more accepting of others but instead Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem get pelted with rocks and spat at, heck last time i was there a woman from Serbia was sent to the hospital after one of those ultra-orthodox fellows dressed completely in black gave her the mother of all concussions.

As for ISIS, worry not, their time will come.

Before Day 1:

The Arabs had already told the world, less than a month before Independence Day, "that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." -Jamal Husseini, UN spokesman for Arabs in Palestine
The UN Palestine Commission reported to the UNSC (clearly Europeans included) in February that, "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." -UNSC Official Records, Special Supplement, (1948), p. 20

Day 1:

Declaration of Independence includes the following passage: "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The bold is obviously my emphasis. Everything you said the Europeans suggested and more is right in the Declaration of Independence.

Day 2:

The Arab armies attacked.


The theory that a friendly phone call is all that was required of the Israelis for peace was tested on 5JUN67 when Israel's Prime Minister had a message relayed asking King Hussein of Jordan to not get involved in the war. Jordan attacked less than 3 hours later.

Nations don't usually put the desire to oppress for the domination of one ethnic group on an other in a declaration of independence. Sadly, what Jews wrote on that document and what they did and still do are two very different things.

Plan Dalet was commissioned and executed before day 1 with the intention of ethnically cleansing the land from Arabs.

...
My response was about Day 1, May 14, 1948. It was stated by another that the Israeli's should have followed the European suggestion that Israel call the Arabs and explain a few things and that would prevented the wars then and since. Wasn't making an argument about what they wrote compared to what they did.

Plan Dalet's purpose was not to "ethnically cleanse" Arabs, otherwise there wouldn't have been the 150,000 who stayed and became Israelis. It was an operational plan to secure Israel's perimeter and supply lines from the real threat of 5th column actions. That the outcome was some broken treaties, that conflict with some villages may have been avoidable, terrible mistakes happened in the tactical operations and some Arabs who may not have taken sides were forced to flee doesn't make it any worse than the removal of Jews from East Jerusalem and the eviction of Jews from the Arab states that I notice you didn't mention. In any event, my response had nothing to do with Plan Dalet or the Arab expulsion of about 850,000 Jews from their homes and the nearly 100,000 Jews being removed from Arab controlled Jerusalem.

Spoiler for Here, on the Arab Riots thread, Setekh overstates his case and claims Haganah was as bad as Hamas.: 

On the other hand, we have Haganah, who become core of the Israeli army, and, Irgun becoming a political party in Israel.

Yeah. That Dr. Ruth Westheimer was a notorious cold-hearted terrorist of ill repute. Are there credible sources that support that the Haganah intentionally targeted civilians? Considering the concept of "restraint" from offensive operations was the cause of the split, creating the Irgun, it would seem counter-intuitive that a group opposed to counter-offensive operations against Arab military targets would be involved in the intentional targeting of civilians. And any group comparable to Hamas necessarily requires the agreement that the group intentionally targeted civilians. I guess it might be fair to equivocate them to Hamas to some degree if they used innocent children as human shields. Did they use use children as human shields?

I know it is claimed that the leader of Hamas had stated the Hamas charter is no longer relevant, but since they didn't write another or actually change the existing one because it is too complicated, surely it is fair to ask if the Haganah or even the Irgun had a charter calling for the killing of Muslims?

The Israeli army used innocent children as human shields in the last decade. Would you find them comparable to Hamas?

From a post of mine in an other thread that you yourself responded to:
...
More excerpts from that link about Haganah:
..
Thanks for proving to me that you respond to posts without reading them properly.

Ilan Pappe is a legitimate source now? The inventor of the Tantura Massacre, the man who lied about his reason for leaving for England, the alternative historian Communist darling of the leftist academia worldwide and pariah of Israel?

The Stern Gang is supposed to be what? They split with the Irgun to fight with Italy or Germany against the British. They eventually support the Soviet Union. The Stern Gang isn't even relevant to the discussion. They were not Haganah.

I told you I wasn't reading your posts anymore on that thread and I guess I will have to do the same here since your arguments are childish attacks lacking any decorum and just repeating the same nonsense over and over despite being proved wrong repeatedly. Dogged persistence, crappy attitude, childish presentation and wrong on the facts makes for an unenjoyable read. I will not miss seeing how "pathetic" everyone else is.

He is a priah for daring to tell the truth about Israel, I'd be more worried about the accuracy of his claims if he wasn't in all honesty....

There are credible "new historians". Benny Morris, a leader among them and even coined the term, wrote of Ilan Pappe, "At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two." Feel free to read an article where he spells out specific examples of outright fraud, manipulation of the record and manufacturing sources. Pappe is a good leftist's Communist academian and radical who's career has been advanced because of his controversy rather than his skill or contributions.

Color me surprised that you're merely dismissing it as unreliable without backing up your claims the slightest. That's not what proving me wrong is. But, yeah, attack me, deflect the issue all you want.

Are you telling us that if I can quote Benny Morris you will apologize? Pages 196-197 from Benny Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998:

Spoiler for Here Setekh jumps in assuming anti-Semite actually had a meaning at some point that differs from what it means today and he stubbornly refuses to admit he screwed up.: 

BNP, Front Nationale, the White Power groups in general would all like a word. Also something that confuses me, Arabs are a Semitic people as well, so why isn't hating them anti-Semitism?

Anti-semitism is and has always been defined as being about Jews, not Semites. Just another word with a meaning not conjured by the name. That is why I coined a word to differentiate where the hatred is for Israel and not so much the Jews per se, like the American Jews who love to hate Israel and posture themselves as the good Jews.

Israeliphobia
[iz-rey-lee-foh-bee-uh]
noun

encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward Israel or people who are identified or perceived as being Israeli or sympathetic to Israel
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Israel and Israelis...

Just because some people hijacked the word to highlight themselves doesn't change the definition of a word. Oh, also, I notice that you're refusing to give an apology for the previous page. Convenient.

Who hijacked it from whom? Where is the source? I will even point you in the right direction: Germany in the late 19th century because it sounded more intelligent than "Jew Hater".

I am quick to apologize when I am wrong and have done so when the occasion arose, but I don't apologize because someone else's posts demonstrate a stubborn inability to learn as usually observed in prejudices and arrogance. Please stop addressing me directly and stick to the topic of my posts, if you must at all. I will grant you the same courtesy...

Apologize to you, my butt.

[Papay]

If Amareicans were bloodthirsty totalitarian religious nutters who collaborate with the Nazies ? Of course I would.

Hamas is gloating about having kidnapped an Israeli soldier ..... Let's pray it ain't true

Why not give all Muslim lands to the Jews then? Even better why not return Angola to Portugal. Surely you wont like it but, i think Portugal "is better" than African countries. So it has the right to steal African land

[PointOfViewGun]

So, Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and some more countries that were aligned with Nazis in WWII are good game for colonizing despite the local's objections? Well, your previous post showed that you had no logic but this one is a step beyond that, Menelik_I...

Au contraire. My following response is an effort to put to rest this ridiculous game of cat and mouse. I have attempted to faithfully quote or refer to links for additional quotes because copying does not capture quotes and many of your quotes don't have sources anchored to them. I have split the response to this particular post of yours to reflect the chronological order of your arguments. I have also taken the liberty to move this response to the Israel/Palestinian thread where it is "on topic".

If I ever provided a quote then I also provided a link to it. If there are any cases where there are no links then it was a mistake. At best it would be one or two case. Don't lie about my posts.

Obviously you have mistaken something said by someone other than me. I said, "Who hijacked it from whom? Where is the source? I will even point you in the right direction: Germany in the late 19th century because it sounded more intelligent than "Jew Hater".

Which agrees with what I said. You can't point at someone hijacking the word without agreeing to the idea that the word was hijacked.

Evidently you did. I have had a near impossible time trying to keep up with what you are arguing because you change the arguments as the old ones are rebuked. Add to that I have ignored entire posts because of the absurd premises in them and I frankly don't really want to have anything to do with you.

So, you will apologize now or at least acknowledge that Haganah conducted terror attacks?

...

Looks like rest of your post is nothing more than a claim of "victory" on your part while completely ignoring my responses (sometimes not even copy pasting them). The way that portion of your post is constructed is very sad I'm afraid. It is nothing more than spam. Don't spam the forum just because you're not willing to acknowledge when your claims don't stand out by their own merit.