It's news from Gaza. But the authors are not Hamas.

Realise that almost all the news reported by the media originated from Hamas "journalists".

Whoever considers the Palestinian Authority, the IDF, and Palestinian Christians less reliable than Hamas should skip this article. It probably contains only lies.

Anybody else, please take a moment to understand the positions of three non-Hamas sides in this conflict.

 

I cant see the links from work.  But do you really expect either the "Obama" Mainstream Media or liberals (with exceptions as noted in another thread) to believe anything not put out by Hamas?

I find it hard to believe you are that naive.  If Hamas does not spoon feed them the information, it must just be another propaganda effort by the "evil" Jews.

No. This is for the sake of people like you, KFC, conservatives and Christians.

You have a right to know the truth.

And Arab Christians and Muslims opposed to Hamas have a right not to be forgotten.

 

Sadly American Jews are Liberal to the tune of around 75% in America, why I have no Idea, they parrot the [party line including the line of the "evil Jews In Israel" I have great fear that Obama will withdraw American support from Israel putting the Jews back against the wall and making them deploy nukes, this in itself is scary as it will be the beginning of WW3 I believe. If this happens truly we will be in "end days"

You are by far NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. you just have strong views, anyone branding you an Anti-Semite has their head up their ass. I too am tired of this never ending conflict no matter who starts it or who finishes it. I am sick to death of war period, our war, their war, all war, slowly we have finished defining ourselves {the human race}| as unworthy to live any longer. Face it G-D made a mistake creating us. He needs to wipe us all out and start over without the need for conflict ingrained in us.

It's normal to be sick of this ongoing "conflict" That in and of itself does not make one an anti-Semite. I think there are many that are desensitized by the whole thing, and other that could careless. I don't necessary find fault with these groups. Attention spans are short after all.

I also don't think Leauki is calling everyone that is against Israel an anti-Semite. You have to ask people why they hate another person they don't even know based on an idea. Did someone from that group cheat, pick on, wrote a bad check, etc. to the person? It's too easy to dislike a group for being different, it's much hard to dislike a person that you see and interact with everyday (unless there is a more direct reason). The truth is liberals need something to hate or at least oppose. Now that their great nemesis Bush is gone (and conservative are licking their wounds) what's left? How about the rights sidekick, Israel? Liberals would die without an agenda. The problem here is they are playing directly into the hands of Hamas supporters. The liberals get a cause and Hamas gets a mouthpiece, win win. But I doubt these two groups would really like each other much if you could put them together in a room.

This really puts Obama in a tough spot. Only 60% voted and it wasn't a huge win (popular vote) in what should have been a landslide victory. But he gave up the kitchen sink and promised everything to everyone for a vote. So is he going to leave his core supporters wanting or is he going to anger the silent majority? If he backs out on Israel his core supporters will love him for it but it will just energize the right and independents to vote him out next go round. If he supports Israel his core will erode, can independents make up for the loss? You know it would have been a boring 4 years if McCain won. These next four years should be great theater.

Israel's motive is survival. I wouldn't support other motives. And while I respect people who question Israel's _strategies_ or _actions_, I do indeed believe that questioning Israel's _motives_ is anti-Semitic.

What rational (i.e. non-racist) reason is there to believe that a country under constant attack would NOT have survival as its motive? How sick would Israel (and hence nearly all middle-eastern Jews) have to be to pursue a different motive?

For example, if you tell me that attacking Gaza is wrong because it kills too many people while not achieving anything, I would regard that as a criticism of Israel's strategies or actions but not as anti-Semitic.

But if you told me that attacking Gaza is wrong and Israel doesn't do it in self-defence but because Israel just loves killing people and finally found an excuse again to do so, I would regard that "criticism" of Israel as anti-Semitic, because the axiom "Jews love to kill people" is an inherent principle used to arrive at that conclusion.

(And it doesn't matter to me if you would exclude European Jews and just refer to middle-eastern Jews when you say it.)

 

Yes. But the fact that all such criticism might be slapped down as racism doesn't mean that none of the "criticism" is racism.

 

 

The Arabs might be my opposition but I doubt you will find many Israelis or Jews who will paint them as monsters worthy of nothing but death. So I am not sure I understand your point.

I can confirm that I do believe that terrorists should be killed, regardless of their nationality or religion. I can also assure you that if there was a group like Hamas on "Israel's side" which would advocate a culture of death and genocide, I would be opposed to it.

(There are racist groups on the Israeli side, but they are few in number, have very little support, and no influence in Israeli politics.)

 

For that I am not sorry because I really don't care.

Even if the death of Israel and all middle-eastern Jews would somehow preserve world peace (and I doubt it would), I would do what I can to prevent it from happening.

But I do also believe that if Israel falls, somebody else will be next. These things don't stop.

You would have to destroy all Jews and Arabs, perhaps, and possibly the Iranians and maybe all Muslims.

Who needs a world war if preventing the world war is likely to cause more deaths?

 

In my experience most Israelis are used to the rest of the world seeing them as evil.



The number reported came from Hamas, not Israel. Maybe it is closer to 25%. I don't know.

However, given the size of the territory, even 25% is low. The smaller the territory the more difficult it is to hit only combatants.




I think I can answer that question, actually both of them.

Let me answer the second first:

If opposing Hamas results in violence, that is obviously Hamas' fault. If by not opposing Hamas the violence can be directed at Jews instead, it is still Hamas' fault. And if finally the violence arrives back at Hamas and those who didn't oppose them at first, it remains Hamas' fault.

Perhaps you misunderstand Israel's motives still. Israel's motives are not to be the good guys. The motive is winning and surviving. Better them than us. Let them decide whether there will be a war and let us decide who is going to die in it. It's not about good or evil, it's about making it clear that opposing Hamas BEFORE they start a war is cheaper than waiting for Israel to respond.

As for the first question, I can answer that too; because it is exactly (except for the olive trees) what happened to my father's family in Germany in 1945.

The Nazis started a war and the vast majority of Germans didn't oppose them, out of fear, probably. And the Germans paid for it, including my father's parents. They were stuck there, and like the rest of Germany (and especially Berlin), they were victims of allied bombing raids.

They, like all Germans, SHOULD have spoken up against the Nazis before the war. But they didn't. And SOMEONE was going to pay the price for what the Nazis did.

I remain convinced that the only way to stop these things from happening is to make sure that people are more afraid of not speaking up than they are of speaking up. And it isn't a moral dilemma for me, because I have seen the alternative.

Someone will pay for Hamas' violence. And the IDF will make sure that it won't be Israelis.

I wish no harm on Gaza's civilians just like I wished no harm on my grand parents in 1945. I would prefer it if nobody died in Gaza and if nobody had died in Berlin in 1945. But I do realise that SOMEONE was going to pay. And I have no doubt that Germans, including my own family, were better candidates for it than the Polish/Americans/British/etc. that the Germans attacked. The allies had to make a decision, and they had to make the decision that IF someone must die, it MUST be the enemy, not your own people.

The fact that those decisions have to be made is caused by evil, but making those decisions is not.




The "massacre" of Jenin was exposed as a hoax even by the UN.

And the massacre in the "camp" in Lebanon was perpetrated by Catholic Lebanese under the command of Elie Hobeika (I think his name was) who fled to Syria afterwards. I don't know if he is still alive, but I guess both the Christians in Lebanon and all of Israel would like to have a word with him. (The rest of the world doesn't care about him and blames Israel.)

If there is another massacre I have overlooked, please tell me about it.

The latest massacre in a "Palestinian refugee camp" (does anybody ever refer to HaTikvah, Tel Aviv as a "refugee camp" given that it houses Jewish refugees from Yemen?) was perpetrated by the regular Lebanese army in northern Lebanon.

I fail to see why any of these have to be ignored for the sake of Israel.

In that case I would recommend to the rest of the world not to march on the streets calling for a continuation of the war.

I have seen hatred for Israel among people in the west (i.e. the rest of the world) that is far beyond any hatred for Israel I have encountered among Arabs living in the region.

Perhaps it is time to turn this thing around and ask the rest of the world to leave Israel and her enemies alone.

Israel and the PLO are certainly sick of the rest of the world giving money and immoral support to Hamas and have their peace threatened.

But I don't think that the world is "sick of dealing with this shit". Most seem to be taking sides and many are supporting Hamas (instead of the PLO).

I doubt that Hamas (or even Hizbullah) would have much influence in "Palestine" without the support they get from the rest of the world!

 

Israel won wars against the Arabs when they had Soviet support and before Israel had US support.

All things being equal, without foreign support the larger numbers would eventually win, barring miracles.

Ben Gurion said that "in Israel to be a realist one has to believe in miracles", but how many miracles will Israel get?

 

Very good. I can live with that, with "live" being the key word.

 

It's simple. It's because of what activities are questioned and how.

Sometimes "activities" are simply made up by those "questioning" them.

Often activitives are criticised when Israel does them but not when others do them.

In many cases activities are simply "assigned" to Israel, even if others did them.

In the last few years the world took options away from Israel and then condemned Israel for using one of the remaining options.

And finally some activities are simply declared war crimes when Israel does them.

The most common "criticisms" of Israel are simply about things Israel has never done or been. Refusing to acknowledge guilt for crimes one never committed doesn't mean that one regards oneself as an angel.

America and Israel are not the good guys. But they are the two countries that for some reason everybody holds to a higher standard. We should be proud of that. But we shouldn't allow it to make foreign policy for us.

Holding one group of people to a different standard than others is racism.

 

I think it's simply a case of showing them that attacking Israel is going to be expensive. It worked with Hizbullah in another widely criticised "attack". Since 2006 Hizbullah have been quiet. A few rockets were fired from Lebanon this last week, but Hizbullah made it clear that it wasn't them and the Lebanese police said they acted against those who fired the rockets. Apparently bringing death and destruction to the source WORKS.

When later this year somebody in Gaza fires rockets into Israel and is punished by some sort of Arab police force for it (not because firing rockets at kindergardens is wrong but because it WILL result in having your neighbourhood destroyed), while Hamas feel that taking credit for firing rockets is more dangerous than it's worth in propaganda value, the mission will have been successful.

 

That's actually what they are doing now. The air strikes were just preparation.

Don't forget that all the news you heard so far came from Hamas. For all we know Israel might have hit ONLY terrorists and ALL the civilian deaths might have been caused by Hamas blowing up schools, which they would have done anyway if Israel had invaded without airstrikes.

Incidentally, such searches are very different from what you probably imagine them to be like. Gaza is VERY dangerous territory. You can easily end up in a war between different Arab factions completely unrelated to your search if you don't switch off the militants first.

 

Note that I wished that bringing freedom from occupation and open borders to the source had worked.

But in both cases Israel did that, in southern Lebanon and Gaza, it brought rockets instead.

 

Yes, I have heard about him.

All the news outlets have men in Gaza. But those are ONLY men acceptable to Hamas.

Men not acceptable to Hamas in any way, even those sympathetic to their "cause" or even those vehemently anti-Israel will NOT report from Gaza, you can be sure about that.

Those journalists report what Hamas want them to report.

(And I am sure that some of them don't mind.)

 

The BBC has shown itself to be fervently anti-American and Anti Israel in its reporting, this is my observation, not just my opinion.

Notice how liberals try to change the question?  They cannot debate the issue, so they have to change the question into a rhetorical one that cannot be debated.

The only way to keep them honest (to all others as they will never be honest to themselves) is to keep going back to the original question - which you will find they cannot answer and will not attempt to because it will show them they are wrong.

the BBC has the "local hiring initiative"... they beleive a "local" would give a better viewpoint than a british reporter. So by policy their local reporters are just that, local... So the BBC reporters in gaza are gaza born muslim arabs. muslim arabs who are amiable to the hamas that is.

Little whip, I don't know enough to tell if you are an anti semite or not, but I can tell you are a moron. Firstly, there are no "two sides" like said you are sick of. This article alone discusses 4 completely different factions. The IDF, the hamas, the PLO, and palastinian christians. And there are further "sides" and seperations within various groups.

Furthermore, the most naive thing is the retarded liberal notion that it takes two to have a conflict. Every victim, be it of rape, burglery, war, or almost any other crime can understand it. They did not have "conflict", they had simply been prayed upon. USUALLY there is someone at fault, not ALWAYS, but usually. Only very rarely is there a situation where everyone is equally at fault.