Israel v Hamas

I understand all that, but as an American, raised on US Military bases, the grandchild of a WWII Navy vet, I have some heartburn with another American serving in a foreign military. Simple as that. Israel and their interests are academic to me, but the United States is the country that raised me and Max Steinberg. Now he's dead, and I'm still not quite right with it.

 

Loll

 

What society would you reintegrate them into when neither side accepts partition as a solution? In all of the examples you have given, those parties had the courage to talk to each other, and were able to rise above the effects of the relatively small groups of extremists baying for blood to do what was best for the majority of the people - peaceful, negotiated solutions. Given that Hamas is a small terrorist organisation it is quite clearly the responsibility of Israel as a huge, aggressive military state to do what is best for innocents. In fact, Israel has destroyed three UN protected schools in as many weeks. Schools that they knew were there! Schools! And this is from a state, not a terrorist organisation! Just imagine the sheer outrage if the tables were turned and the Palestinian state (not Hamas), if you can call it that, had destroyed UN protected schools in Israel?

Hamas is an irrelevance. Israel uses Hamas as a reason to wield its massive military power. In most of the other lengthy civil conflicts, both sides were wanting a solution to prevent further loss of life, backed by international pressure. Israel has the backing of the West to treat Palestinians and Hamas as though they are one and the same, and this conflict has simply reinforced that.

Israel might eventually accept partition once it has claimed all of the land it wants of course, but that isn't really a progressive partition.

All this has done is destroy the lives of thousands and thousands of innocent Palestinians, ruin what little infrastructure was left and rightfully radicalise those Palestinians left in the rubble and misery.

At best, and I mean at very, very best, the Israeli right to Palestine is no more than exactly equal to that of the Palestinians. Nothing that has happened over the last 70 years reflects this. Personally I don't think there is anything that you could call a direct comparison.

 

Not sure where to even start with this one....so many inaccuracies and one sides views

How would you negotiate with a terror group that will only accept your extinction as a win?
Israel has shown to be happy to trade land for peace, Egypt and 2000 Camp David comes to mind?

I will repeat what I have consistently said throughout this thread....when the Arab world puts greater pressure on Hamas to allow true democratic elections and they stop their terror campaign against Israel then peace, and a far better life, will follow for those in Gaza

Until then we will always get a repeat of Israel defending itself/being the aggressor

 

To address your second point first, not many people are bothered about whether it is defence or aggression from Israel. The controversy lies in the excessive, punitive, counterproductive and indiscriminate nature of it.

On the first point, I imagine I'm the same way the columbiam government negotiated with a terrorist organisation who had a states goal to destroy it, the same way the British government negotiated with a terrorist group who had a stated goal to remove, the same way the Panamanian government e.t.c ...

 

But who actually provides both sides with the weapons to carry out these atrocities ?

 

George Galloway declares Bradford an Israel free zone.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-galloway-declares-bradford-an-israelfree-zone-9653894.html

 

My view: It will end when Palestinians have economic security and no longer worry for their future. Bombing them just undermines what will move them towards peace today, and tomorrow. To fight today is to lose today and tomorrow.

By the way, my great uncle Jack was in the British Army from 1939 until '45, so I am aware of Americans volunteering in advance of US involvement in WWII. There are many other examples too. Of course there was the Lincoln brigade in the Spanish civil war. The AVG "Flying Tigers" flew against the Japanese in China. Irish-Americans volunteered to fight against the US and for Mexico in the Mexican American war. I'm sure there are others I'm unaware of.

In many cases, they are clear cut in their circumstances, good from bad... Not so in others. Still, I've got very mixed feelings about it.

 

Having today visited the 9/11 memorial it is a sharp reminder of the devastation that terror organisations can create

The Palestinian situation will only end when the they elect a non terrorist organisation to govern them. Then real peace discussions involving land, money and infrastructure can begin

 

I'm still not totally convinced the inner circle weren't somehow aware of the planned 9/11 strikes beforehand. Of course they wouldn't of reckoned with the towers collapsing as they were supposedly able to withstand such hits but I've always felt uneasy that jets weren't scrambled after the first tower was hit. There was time enough between strikes and that it was no accident was so blatantly obvious, you only had to look at a the perfect visability to draw that conclusion; I did in null-komma-nix though not so the U.S. media, it was always an accident to them until Washington got hit.

 

Never really bought into conspiracy theories until the entire Navy Seal Team, responsible for killing Bin Laden, were wiped out

 

False flag attacks have gone on throughout history ... didn't you know that they only count as conspiracy when done by "the bad guys"?

 

The conspiracy theories are funny, but in a sad way.

 

Bush administration and you can't deny he wasn't itching to finish his fathers handiwork. There's also that slimy black stuff!

 

The alien parasite from the x-files? Or was that a metaphor all along!?

 

Nicaragua, Guatamala, Viet Nam, Bay of Pigs etc. ... all false flag or invented pretexts for involvement. What's so funny?
I'll just mention that had those 911 aircraft not been so fuelled up an estimated one to two hundred victims (mostly janitors and lower office staff) could have been expected. I.E. just enough to cause public outrage and give (supposed) reason to start a war with Iraq whose ties to Bin Laden were tenuous at the most.

I'm not saying there was conspiracy but if it is ever proven there was I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

 

My top 5 conspiracy theories (all of which I think are b*ll*cks) in no particular order:

1. 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government
2. The holocaust didn't happen
3. Diana was murdered
4. Anything to do with the Illuminati and The New World Order
5. The moon landing was actually filmed in a movie studio

 

Ah! just what I'd expect ... bury it in with the loony tunes

Do you really believe the CIA are that clueless? They've already said they were expecting a terrorist attack and it certainly wasn't the first time the WTC had been targeted. WHERE WERE THE JETS? if not for the first strike then the second? .... surely nobody is that stupid!

 

Even if jets had been scrambled right away could they really have ordered planes full of Americans to be shot down without the benefit of hindsight?

 

They could if they knew the towers would collapse killing thousands ... but maybe somebody didn't think of that.
Those passengers were doomed from the outset.

 

Making use of hindsight is one of the privileges of those only being involved via a computer keyboard and the only split second decision they will ever make themselves is - tea or coffee!

 

Back on topic. I feel that Hummus is much better on flatbread than Isreal so therefore I stand behind hummus.

 

I was laying a slate floor at the time, does that count? My first words on seeing the clear blue New York skies were "that's not an accident" ... then I switched on the percolator, it was an easy choice.

 

Nothing gets past you then. You should be running the CIA.

 

Do I believe that the CIA thought there would be an imminent terror strike? Possibly
Do I believe that they knew it would be a plane hijack attack aimed at the White House/Pentagon/Twin Towers? No
Do I believe that they had enough time to avert it? No, I believe that, by the time they realised it was a terror strike, it was all too late
Do I believe the US Government arranged it to create an excuse to attack Iraq? No

 

At the Pro Israel march in London there was a banner saying "We want Hummus not Hamas".....it made me laugh

 

Do I believe that the CIA thought there would be an imminent terror strike? Undoubtedly
Do I believe that they knew it would be a plane hijack attack aimed at the White House/Pentagon/Twin Towers? possibly, WTC = terrorist magnet
Do I believe that they had enough time to avert it? They were half expecting it ... they had time (at least for the second)
Do I believe the US Government arranged it to create an excuse to attack Iraq? No but they may have weighed up the consequences of allowing it (i.e. collateral damage). PS. not necessarily the government but powerful persons within and without of it.

 

WOOP! WOOP! Conspiraloonacy Alert!

Actually there were two conspiracies, but only consequential ones. There was a conspiracy to draw attention away from Saudi Arabia where most of the attackers came from and a conspiracy to blame Iraq, which had nothing to do with it and had no Al Queda whatsover until we invaded.

 

You forgot the wmd's btw ... So why then? Unfinished business with Iraq, Oil, to ground test their latest weapons? ... Ask me it was all of the above but there is one glaring fact that nobody mentions; They couldn't just march in, they had to show justification to be there and conveniently 911 did just that!. Does anyone really believe that the US wouldn't sacrifice a few (a projected say 150) innocent lives for such a goal? you don't have to read too far back in your history books for that answer.

 

It's just way too complicated a conspiracy to pull off. How could they bank on no Edward Snowdens to spill the beans from the hundreds who would have needed to have knowledge? You are also forgetting that they had no justification any way and still had to invent (WMD anyone?) it.

When you are that powerful you can simply ride the opportunities that come along. The USA is always at war, they don't need to find an excuse to test their weapons.

 

Too complicated??? .... I'm not accusing the USA of anything but negligence, after the first there was time to take out the other rogue aircraft - they did nothing! The burning question is 'did they know more than they have let on?'

 

Like Halfwayline I have been to the 911 memorial museum. One area there shows a graphical display of all the aircraft flying over America before, during and after the suicide missions. It's amazing how quickly several THOUSAND planes were grounded. Picking up the ones that were hijacked was an impossibility so quickly after the first crash when nobody knew for sure it was terrorism or a terrible accident, or even if any others had been hijacked.

There was no time to act, and that's exactly how the terrorists planned it.