Demands made for the release of Israeli soldier hostage

[Bob_the_lost]

What has that got to do with anything.

Hate vs logic and hate wins hands down. What are Israel going to do if they do kill the soldier? Clusterbomb Gaza? Once he's dead there's nothing for them to get by staying there.

The downside could be some sort of move against hamas as the ruling body, the hostages they took would be a good start. Then again it would now be a case of Israel clearly practicing collective punishment after a terrible terrorist activity that Hamas's governing body would condem (I'm sure that can be arranged).

 

[CyberRose]

Well they might very well use it as an excuse to reoccupy Gaza (not to mention all the casualties that would result in the susequent retaliatory attacks caused by the death of the soldier) It could spark off a third Intifada then we'd be right back at square one...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Excuses are easy to come by. If israel wanted Gaza they'd still be there. Retaliatory attacks are probable. Then again holding him will result in attacks too.

Release might be the option that saves the most lives, but if Hamas can be counted on to fold under pressure from the army then that's what will happen every time they try something. How many powerplants and bridges does Gaza have? How many elected officals can they afford to lose on unscheduled hollidays?

 

[CyberRose]

I just dont think kidnapping this soldier was a clever thing to do. I just dont know what they were hoping to achieve? Did they honestly think Israel would agree to their terms? Not likely.

Hamas should have been concentrating on healing it's rift with Fatah. In my opinion that means agreeing with Fatah/PLO that there should be a two state solution and that Israel should be recognised. Now I know that doesn't wash well with a lot in here (or in Palestine!) but I can't see any way of progressing with out this happening. If Hamas did recognise Israel then the ball would be in Israel's court, whereas now the onus is on Hamas to recognise Israel. The whole international community (bar Iran!) is waiting for this also. Once this happens international aid will resume (hopefully improving the lot of the Palestinians) and then we can move to the next stage in the process which is negotiating borders.

That's just my opinion of what needs to be done and I'm sorry if people feel different but that's my opinion.

I don't think kidnapping this soldier will in anyway achieve this next stage in the process in fact it will delay it. I just feel that Hamas was on the verge of recognising Israel and the situation might be looking up for a change but then this happens. Maybe that was the intention of the kidnappers all along? If they didn't think Israel were gonna give in to their demands then maybe the plan was to provoke a reaction from Israel that would force Hamas to stick to it's policy of non-recognition???

 

[Fullyplumped]

maybe the plan was to provoke a reaction from Israel that would force Hamas to stick to it's policy of non-recognition???

Exactly. Palestinian politics gives real power to whoever is prepared to make the dramatic gesture. Israeli politics is based on the perceived virtue of not being prepared to tolerate such gestures. "If in doubt, kill some people" works for both sides.

I have known quite a few Palestinians and Israeli people in my time. They're humans, just like the rest of us. They all say they want peace, and they sound sincere, but not at any price and I think both sides are capable of carrying on this mad cycle of violence for a long time yet. Previous moves in this direction have been scuppered by reactions such as have been seen in the past few days. All it took was a small number of attacks to get us back here.

In my judgement the initiative needs to be taken by the Palestinians. Leaders need to emerge who can connect wiith the people, who can resist the temptation to react, who can effectively suppress the extremists, and who can survive long enough to see a programme through. The Israelis need the same, but I think that Palestinians need to take the initiative, so that an Israeli leader can reciprocate.

The trouble is that this will be portrayed as as a defeat. It would be the opposite, and could lead to a future of the Palestinian people who would be able to build a sustainable nation state.

The alternative is that Israel is destroyed. Moono, and others, are you in favour of this? It could only happen by external action - as envisaged by the current PM of Iran - and because of the geography of the place the destruction would be equally catastrophic for the Palestinians, and the response by the USA (and us) would bode ill for the citizens of the surrounding dictatorships. The powers that could accomplish this are no friends of the Palestinians, and many of them are well aware of this.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm a partisan counter-propagandist actually, but I'm not denying that my whole weight is behind justice and the rule of law.

Well I think only when it suits the Palestinian case. You have a view of justice which is one sided.

 

[moono]

Cyber rose;

moono...

The thing with solely basing your arguments on law is sometimes the laws aren't right/just. Plus they can be interpreted either way. In this example, I heard an Israeli official justify arresting Hamas politicians by pointing out that Hamas is an internationally recognised terrorist group (which technically it is) and that arresting members of a terrorist group is well within the law...

And on a more general Israel/Palestine note, both sides have interpreted international law to justify their various activities, just as you are doing, so why do you assume your interpretation is correct and the other wrong?

I don't. I try to look at the law myself first, then I try to gather the interpretations of accredited experts, when possible. Generally, I've found it's pretty safe to conclude that something is 'illegal' when the overwhelming consensus of authoritative sources calls it as such.
For example, Israel occupies Palestine illegally. This is the general consensus and it, the occupation, is even classified as illegal by the Israeli High Court. In an instance like that the correct application of the law would lead to a completely bloodless solution. Israel should return to internationally-recognised borders.

Dream world ? Maybe, but it's attainable if people respect the law and help improve the law, not denigrate the law as you've just done . Still, you've also said some really dumb things earlier so I won't take your previous post too seriously.
Interpretation of the law ? Go for it.

Example; According to an American State Department definition of 'terrorist', governments cannot be classified as such. Technically, Hamas should have ceased to have been classified as 'terrorist' as soon as they were elected. That's according to American law. EU classifications may differ and UN classifications too. So, technically, Hamas are not terrorists ( as America is the dominant name-caller ) and they are not 'technically' terrorists as you suggested earlier. The arrest of the Hamas government is therefore seen as illegal.
That's my 'interpretation' and I'll proceed in that direction until some wiser person informs me otherwise.

Fullyplumped;

Well I think only when it suits the Palestinian case. You have a view of justice which is one sided.

I'm working for the prosecution. I want to see the Zionists found guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean that I would pervert justice though. The path to justice is very obvious in many instances.

The alternative is that Israel is destroyed. Moono, and others, are you in favour of this?

Again, 'Israel' and 'Zionism' are NOT synonymous. Nobody would miss Zionism if it disappeared overnight.
Except maybe coffin-makers. And arms dealers.

 

[CyberRose]

Care to expand on "really dumb things"?

And...

So, technically, Hamas are not terrorists and they are not 'technically' terrorists as you suggested earlier

According to the governments of America, EU, Israel, and so on, Hamas are a terrorist group. According to your source they aren't. Which somewhat proves my point no?

 

[moono]

I've just said, according to the policies of America, as detailed by the American State Department, governments cannot be classified as 'terrorist' groups.
If Hamas could afford, or had access to, a half-decent American lawyer firm then the case for having the 'classification' lifted would be very strong. Of course, the American government would move the goalposts but then they'd be exposing themselves to similar classifications by other countries.

So no, it doesn't prove your point at all. You won't succeed in dislodging Law from the top rung of the moral ladder so you might as well quit trying.

Why would you want to anyway ? What would you have left ?

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: "Anyone notice HAMAS being wrong?" Noooo....just launching at least 6 Qassams a day since Israel left. Just kidnapping an Israeli citizen [Sasson Nuriel, last September 1 month after Israsel left Gaza] and mutilating his corpse after torturing and killing him, retaining a Charter that calls for the annihilation of every Jew on Earth...Nothing much, right?

"Collective punishment." Tell me, are Qassams collective punishment?

"No death penalty for ATTEMPTED murder." moono, Qassams have killed well over 20 Israelis to date. It passed the watermark long ago.

"Injury rates for Qassams." Not relevant. the point is that they are launched into civilian areas without aiming and without a specific objective. Even the patsys at Human Rights Watch are forced to condemn them on a wholesale level.

"Being a member of the 'Palestinian' parliament is not a crime in of itself." Nope, but membership in HAMAS is, even against PA Law.

Spandex: No, it is not over reaction. It is meant as a proactive deterrant, not as retaliation...despite what Western journalists decide for themselves.

"Journalists favor Israel." Utter nonsense. Read the Guardian? Independant? NY Times? Chicago Tribune? International World Herald?

"Seems that Israeli actions are legitamate." Well, as I stated above it is not that way at all. however it should be as Israel is a legitamate nation, terrorist organisations own no such legitamacy.

ZAMB: "If Americans Knew..." Here is a site for you: "CAMERA." Also, "Truth in middle East Reporting". both will offer totally opposite takes on that same subject.

As for the BBC, you are very mistaken. British Jewish groups have leveled charges aginst the BBC for decades in this regard.


TomA: Israel could not care less about undermining the PA. In fact it is doing the opposite so far as the Abbas/Fatah faction is concerned. Itis HAMAS that concerns Israel.

BarkingMad: "Let's get this straight: Israel kidnapped members of a democraticaly elected government." Please get this straight: Israel ARRESTED criminals. Those men are members of an illegal militant group, a terrorist organisation. their having been elected has nothing to do with that fact. They are not arrested because they hold ministerial positions, but because they are killers.

TeeJay: "Is it a warcrime to bomb a tv station that broadcasts propaganda..." Your blurb is one hundred percent correct! The benefit is the key. All these harpies whining about International Law, while ignoring organisations who should not even exist under those same laws haven't the faintest understanding of military doctrine and its parameters under International Law.

FullyPlumped: "Israel and the 'Palestinians' are equally culpable." How do you claim that a sovereign state protecting its citizens and an illegal terrorist organisation are equal?

CrazyDiamond: As per your friend in Lebanon, some Lebanese love Israel, some hate it. Your friend's opinion is your friend's opinion and nothing more.

CyberRose: Israel will NEVER reoocupy Gaza. Mathamatics does not allow it.

 

[Lock&Light]

Members take note; this is where it started and this is the twat that started it. Any following strike is a reprisal. Lol.

FFS, moono. People have been pointing out your partizanship from the first moment you arrived here. Everything that is being said to you is already a reprisal.

 

[moono]

Tut tut. Content, L&L, content.

 

[moono]

Rachamim;

Moono: "Anyone notice HAMAS being wrong?" Noooo....just launching at least 6 Qassams a day since Israel left. Just kidnapping an Israeli citizen [Sasson Nuriel, last September 1 month after Israsel left Gaza] and mutilating his corpse after torturing and killing him, retaining a Charter that calls for the annihilation of every Jew on Earth...Nothing much, right?

"Collective punishment." Tell me, are Qassams collective punishment?

"No death penalty for ATTEMPTED murder." moono, Qassams have killed well over 20 Israelis to date. It passed the watermark long ago.

"Injury rates for Qassams." Not relevant. the point is that they are launched into civilian areas without aiming and without a specific objective. Even the patsys at Human Rights Watch are forced to condemn them on a wholesale level.

"Being a member of the 'Palestinian' parliament is not a crime in of itself." Nope, but membership in HAMAS is, even against PA Law.

Proof, Rachamim ? Hamas have largely maintained a ceasefire since August 2004, until driven to break it recently by Zionist aggressions well-documented here. During that time the Zionists murdered over eight hundred Palestinians, many of them women, many of them children and many of them without any associations with resistance groups. Over eight hundred.

This figure is drawn from the files of the Palestinian Red Crescent, an on-the-spot humane organisation afilliated to the International Red Cross. The Zionists have attempted to link even this humanitarian group with so-called 'terrorist' activities. Included in these 'activities' might be the PRC's diligence in producing accurate records of Palestinians slain.

The Zionists are clearly guilty of collective punishment and will be brought to book in due course. You think Wiesenthal was tenacious ? You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[big footed fred]

I wonder if bombing a bus full of civillians is collective punishment for Israel's actions in Palestine.

I hate to quote my own post but come on moono give me an answer.

 

[Lock&Light]

Tut tut. Content, L&L, content.

Thinking that you are doesn't make you clever, moono.

 

[Fullyplumped]

FullyPlumped: "Israel and the 'Palestinians' are equally culpable." How do you claim that a sovereign state protecting its citizens and an illegal terrorist organisation are equal?

I acknowledge that Israel is a sovereign state, and I acknowledge that its government feels that by engaging in exemplary and collective punishment of Palestinian communities it honestly believes that it is trying to protect its citizens. I think that what Israel is doing amounts to the systematic use of terror. I don't care what US or other law says and how legal systems define terrorism - I am not a state or a court. I also think that what the armed groups acting as agents of the Palestinian nation are doing is terrorism. Their legality or illegality according to particular sets of laws is irrelevant.

What both sets of forces are doing is equally terrorism.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I hate to quote my own post but come on moono give me an answer.

What he said. Come on Moono.

 

[moono]

What he said. Come on Moono.

I don't engage with that dumb son-of-a-bitch. You might as well talk with a large pudding.

Topic, please.

Fullyplumped;

What both sets of forces are doing is equally terrorism.

No, it's very unequal, actually. Zionist terror kills way, way more civilians then the periodic Palestinian nutter bombing run. Zionists also terrorise in many other ways. Zionists are also the invaders, in case you'd forgotten.

 

[CyberRose]

I've just said, according to the policies of America, as detailed by the American State Department, governments cannot be classified as 'terrorist' groups.
If Hamas could afford, or had access to, a half-decent American lawyer firm then the case for having the 'classification' lifted would be very strong. Of course, the American government would move the goalposts but then they'd be exposing themselves to similar classifications by other countries.

So no, it doesn't prove your point at all. You won't succeed in dislodging Law from the top rung of the moral ladder so you might as well quit trying.

Why would you want to anyway ? What would you have left ?

Are you doing this on purpose? I am not arguing whether or not Hamas is or is not a terrorist group (and I don't intend to). My point is that you say you only base your opinions on "the rule of law" and that's what puts the Palestinians in the right and Israel in the wrong. I then said that laws can be wrong (eg. apartheid South African law) and also that laws are open to interpretation (hence the reason we have courts to decide who is right or wrong according to law) and that international law concerning Israel/Palestine has been interpreted by both sides to justify their actions and also 'prove' to the rest of the world they are carrying out their respinsibilities under that law.

My point was...I don't agree that basing your opinions solely on laws is particulaly useful, unless you are simply looking for easy excuses for your position (just like the intrepretations of the laws (UN Resolutions in this case) have given both the Israelis and Palestinians (and their sympathisers) excuses to justify their actions)

Then (!) I made the mistake of giving you an example that you (or someone else) had commented on (as you or whoever it was commented on the illegality of arresting Hamas leaders) by saying an Israeli official (<----- please note: "Israeli Official", not ME!) had said "Hamas are defined by the US, EU, etc etc as a terrorist organisation and it is not illegal to arrest terrorists". I used this as an example to show you that people use their interpretation of the law to justify their actions (and in your case your opinions) and IT WORKS BOTH WAYS

So, if you want to argue your definition of the law over whether Hamas is a terrorist organisation then I suggest you contact the Israeli official and have a word with him...

But if you want to describe my posts as "really dumb" then I suggest you read them first

 

[TAE]

What both sets of forces are doing is equally terrorism.

Hurrah, something we agree on.

No, it's very unequal, actually. Zionist terror kills way, way more civilians then the periodic Palestinian nutter bombing run. Zionists also terrorise in many other ways.

Equally, not equal.

Zionists are also the invaders, in case you'd forgotten.

Do you mean invaders of gaza/westbank or invaders of what is now called Israel?

 

[moono]

international law concerning Israel/Palestine has been interpreted by both sides to justify their actions and also 'prove' to the rest of the world they are carrying out their respinsibilities under that law.

Don't omit that it's proving extremely difficult to test the law, and to bring the Zionists to justice from my viewpoint, because America vetoes any moves in that direction. All we have to guage the probable outcome of legal investigation of Zionist activities are the non-binding ( yet highly fucking indicative) rulings of the UN General Assembly ( which America can't veto ).

So, if you want to argue your definition of the law over whether Hamas is a terrorist organisation then I suggest you contact the Israeli official and have a word with him...

There's already a thread on it somewhere, an attempt to get people to discuss who decides upon who is a 'terrorist' and, more importantly, what is the procedure for having such 'classifications' removed. Nobody was over-interested. It's easier to shout 'terrorist' along with the mob.

Equally, not equal.

Dismissed as an attempt to diminish the vast differences in scale.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I don't engage with that dumb son-of-a-bitch. You might as well talk with a large pudding.

OK, but maybe you'll engage with me. I wonder if bombing a bus full of civillians is collective punishment for Israel's actions in Palestine.

 

[TAE]

Don't omit that it's proving extremely difficult to test the law, and to bring the Zionists to justice from my viewpoint, because America vetoes any moves in that direction.

Indeed.

Dismissed as an attempt to diminish the vast differences in scale.

Never-the-less, it is true that both sides use terror against people who are not directly involved in the conflict(s).

 

[big footed fred]

I don't engage with that dumb son-of-a-bitch. You might as well talk with a large pudding.

Make it a yorkshire pudding please moono.

But back to the question. Is it unreasonable to ask you what makes blanking out electricity to Palestinians collective punishment but killing civillians on a bus or in a shopping centre a legitimate target.

Why is targeting one group of people not directly involved bad but targeting the other OK ?

Regardless of what you thing of me it's a fair question and deserves an answer if you wish to remain credible.

 

[CyberRose]

There's already a thread on it somewhere, an attempt to get people to discuss who decides upon who is a 'terrorist' and, more importantly, what is the procedure for having such 'classifications' removed. Nobody was over-interested. It's easier to shout 'terrorist' along with the mob.

That's because the definition of whether a group is terrorist or not is whether you support them or not

 

[Fullyplumped]

Zionist terror kills way, way more civilians then the periodic Palestinian nutter bombing run.

Certainly, more Palestinians have been Killed by Israeli forces than have Israelis been killed by Palestinian forces. The ratio is roughly 4 to 1. Not way, way more, and I'm sure the Palestinians aren't keeping a methodical score.

 

[moono]

Really ? I'll kick you in the bollox four times and you kick me just the once. It's way, way more.

Oh, they're keeping a score alright.

OK, but maybe you'll engage with me. I wonder if bombing a bus full of civillians is collective punishment for Israel's actions in Palestine.

Which bus full of civilians is this ? Is it a hypothetical bus ? You might know whereas it's just something that the pudding has read someplace. Was this bombing in retaliation for some Zionist atrocity ? Give me some details, please, and then I can see what's what.

TAE;

Never-the-less, it is true that both sides use terror against people who are not directly involved in the conflict(s).

Not necessarily, although I'm inclined to agree. However, and in the spirit of investigation....

The 'settlers' are certainly engaged in the conflict. They are, in a manner of speaking, the cause of the conflict. They are also inside Palestinian territory.

Some Palestinian attack groups claim that their targets, within Israel, were off-duty IOF soldiers.

Others claim that ALL Israelis are 'directly involved' because Israel operates a conscription system. All Israeli citizens either are, have been , or will be, IOF soldiers.

 

[TAE]

Fullyplumped, since when is a ration of 4:1 not "way way more" ?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Since when is a ratio of 4:1 not "way way more" ?

40 to 1 or 400 to one would be way way more. Both sides are taking lumps out of each other. It could get worse than it is.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Which bus full of civilians is this ? You might know whereas it's just something that the pudding has read someplace. Was this bombing in retaliation for some Zionist atrocity ? Give me some details, please, and then I can see what's what.

Well a quick google found this.

Why would "retaliation for some Zionist atrocity" justify killings of this kind? Aren't all these killings, by both sides, a retaliation for the last thing?