Slashdot Mirror
The High-Tech Warfare Behind the Israel - Hamas Conflict
Taco Cowboy writes The Israel — Hamas conflict in Gaza is not only about bombs, missiles, bullets, but also about cyberwarfare, battles of the mind over social media, smart underground tunnels and cloud-based missile launching systems. The tunnels that Hamas has dug deep beneath Gaza are embedded with high tech gadgets, courtesy of Qatar, which has funded Hamas with billions to equipped their tunnels with intelligent sensors which are networked to control centers enabling the command and control staff to quickly notify operatives nearby that IDF units are advancing inside a certain tunnel, allowing for rapid deployment of attack units and the setting up of bobby traps inside the tunnel.
In addition, Hamas has automated its rocket firing system using networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers. "Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken," said Aviad Dadon, a senior cyber-security adviser at several Israeli government ministries. While Doha is allowing Hamas to use its technology to fight Israel, it's their own cyber-security the leaders of Qatar are worried about. For the Qataris, the war between Israel and Hamas is a proving ground to see how their investments in cyber systems have paid of — Qatar is very worried that one of its Gulf rivals — specifically Saudi Arabia — will use technology to attack it, and Qatar spends a great deal of money each year on shoring up its cyber-technology.
In addition, Hamas has automated its rocket firing system using networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers. "Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken," said Aviad Dadon, a senior cyber-security adviser at several Israeli government ministries. While Doha is allowing Hamas to use its technology to fight Israel, it's their own cyber-security the leaders of Qatar are worried about. For the Qataris, the war between Israel and Hamas is a proving ground to see how their investments in cyber systems have paid of — Qatar is very worried that one of its Gulf rivals — specifically Saudi Arabia — will use technology to attack it, and Qatar spends a great deal of money each year on shoring up its cyber-technology.
Just another article that makes big claims yet shockingly thin on any details. How are we on /. meant to have any discussion on this when there's nothing tech-worthy - just some questionable allegations.
Weird. I'm quite sure there was a conflict even before Hamas existed.
As far back as Vietnam (and probably long before), insurgents quickly learned that to stay near their launchers while engaging a technologically superior foe meant a quick death. The Viet Cong used mirrors, doorbells, and other low tech to monitor their tunnels to great effect.
If Hamas were funded with billions, they would not be limited to firing 500-Euro worth DIY rockets... But then again the article is from "timesofisrael.com", which I suspect is a strong believer in the idea that the entire world is conspiring to help Hamas bring terror over Israel, and whoever thinks otherwise is obviously promoting antisemitism. /. was not about promoting a particular political agenda - even if it is thrown a thin "tech" veil...
I thought
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I wasn't aware British police was active in Gaza.
Although there's a measure of efficacy that can only be achieved in real time conflict, there's a downside.
The technology is also exposed to your enemy, theoretically allowing different defense methods to be tested.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
That's not an article about the high tech warfare behind the Israel-Hamas conflict. It's an article about the alleged use of some pretty run-of-the-mill technology by one side (Hamas) with no reference to the actual sophisticated technology used by the other side (Israel). If the article in itself isn't necessarily so, the phrasing of the headline and the summary here is an attempt to portray this conflict as something other than the massively one-sided affair that it actually is. It's a whitewash pure and simple. I wish both sides would just stop killing each other but seriously, "cloud-based launching software"? So Hamas can launch unguided rockets without having to stand next to them. Sounds pretty nasty compared to sophisticated air defence, MBTs, total air superiority and massed artillery.
Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth. How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!
Strange, anytime I hear from someone who is accused of being anti-Israeli all they talk about is how Israel lies about the impact of Hamas attacks, betrays any agreements it makes and won't be happy until there are no more Palestinians left to persecute, and then that person usually accuses the Western Media of ignoring all this.
Ever consider that the issue is more complicated than one side good, one side evil?
The moment Israel returns to their pre-1945 borders, Hamas stops shooting, period.
oh, please, just stop trying to justify what Israel is doing. They didn't even really know who actually killed those three people when they started bombing. They still don't know.
If this discussion is going to descend in to 'Hamas as terrorists' then we should recognise the use of the word 'terrorism' as an adjective used to vilify one side and make an opposing side seem legitimate. The American revolutionaries were also considered terrorists as was Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. However, I don’t support Hamas’ use of violence to further their desire for a sovereign state. In fact, the state of Israel itself was founded a ‘terrorist organisation’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... "The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period." - well that's great. But you realise Hamas are firing because they live in an occupation and under siege? They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity. Israel has ignored its commitment to a 2-state solution in 2009. In 2012 it made agreements for a ceasefire but began laying siege to Gaza and throughout 2013 largely ignored any attempts of establishing peace (note: during this period Hamas had not killed or kidnapped a single Israeli civilian). In April this year, the talks collapsed as Abbas sought Palestinian membership in 15 UN conventions and reconciled with Hamas, and Israel made a surprise announcement of plans for 700 new settlements and refused to free a last batch of Palestinian prisoners which included Israeli-Arab citizens. That was April this year, before any of this conflict. Israel made clear it doesn't want Palestinians to pursue a non-violent route to statehood either. There you have it, if Israel wants peace it must offer the Palestinians what they have a right to - a fully functioning state with control over its own future. Don't call them Hamas terrorists for pursuing what they're entitled to and have been brutally denied even when seeking it peacefully.
Where is the "-1, delusional paranoid idiot" mod? Guess I'll have to settle for troll.
"Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken,"
So let me see if I understand what you're saying: A bunch of guys who are at war set up a rocket launcher with a timer, then go away leaving it unguarded so that anyone can walk up to it and, oh, I don't know, shut it off, blow it up, steal it, etc.?
Gimme a break.
Exactly. Once they stop defending their homeland and surrender to the occupying forces the conflict will stop.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Since when is Slashdot a pro Israel propaganda outlet? This "story" about Hamas' high tech weapons is supposed to make Israel's genocidal orgy look justified?
Fuck. That.
The summary says Qatar is worried of being attacked and overtaken in a technological arms race, by Saudi Arabia. Really? Since when?
From TFA:
I'd like something a little more substantive to back this up. The paragraph concludes:
Sorry, I gotta take any news value coming from TFA with a chunk of salt.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
The sole source of information for the article is "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup." Is that an independent source?
What do most Americans know about the background to the Israel Palestinian conflict, which has been going for 67 years?
Sure, I'm willing to believe that Hamas has some technology behind what they're doing, but it surely can't be anywhere near as advanced as what the IDF has. The Israel / Hamas conflict is about as mismatched as it would be if the US went to war with Bolivia. I'm sure if that happened, some people in the American press would point out that the Bolivians have rifles, while forgetting to mention that we have nuclear subs and airfraft carriers.
Facts have a liberal bias.
The first wide spread use of the word "terrorist" in mass-media afaik is in German second world war propaganda to describe the Soviet partisans on the Eastern front.
Every European with an inkling of historical knowledge is going to look at any state calling any group "terrorists" with at least a modicum of suspicion.
As an aside, does anyone else see some similarities in the current situation in the West-bank/Gaza and the Jewish uprising in the ghetto of Warsaw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Your ISP catches you stealing three videos or launching three rockets and you get cut off. Its right there in your Terms Of Service.
Cloud-based, probably wireless command an control systems are pretty esy to rednedr useless by a technologically advanced enemy like Israel. Heck, just fire up a cell phone jammer.
Have gnu, will travel.
I do feel that the Arabs are getting a raw deal in relation to the west and Israel there needs to be some really deep thinking going on. For example it is just dandy to have a timer and an auto launch ability on these small missiles but where does it lead? If one finds that most often the hostiles are not near the launch site the launch site will still be hit hard and probably some other place, perhaps randomly selected, in hope of getting the point across. Naturally hatred will result and it may be that large area saturation bombing starts to take place. And if that level of strike does not work the US and Israel are faced with two choices. One is pulling out and letting the region descend into total chaos and violence. The other more drastic choice is total war and the elimination of the regions existence. Considering the military history of the US as well as the ability and the readily available weaponry this conflict could end when places such as Palestine are simply exterminated. The suicide bomber like tactics are not something well addressed by a conventional military as uniforms are not used. But we are very, very good at things like carpet bombing or fire bombing major cities. I am suggesting that the terror tactics can never lead to any victory unless the US somehow decides it is OK to lose the region which is very unlikely.
"A plague on both your houses" = "I've no idea what your problems are and I can't be bothered to find out". Or very often anyway.
How the hell did this piece of unsubstantiated propagandic crap make it into the Slashdot feed?
Straight from a "reliable" Israeli source, no less.
How about this one?
Israeli military announce they will bomb al-Shifa hospital in Gaza
The difference between those two stories? The second one is probably true, and it shows the true face of this conflict.
Also, please remember who set up Hamas in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't Palestine.)
Ahh yes, YouTube user "ziv121213". He's world-renowned as an expert on the Israeli side of the debate and would never upload a false video just to troll people.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Gaza started as only a city. It's history is long and colorful, and smattered with conquests by many other civilizations, including Egypt, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the Asyrians, Great Britain, and many others, the list goes on, spanning about 4000 years. It wasn't until the 20th century that Gaza was officially given to the Palestinians as anything more than a mere conquered (many times over), city, and it wasn't until 1948, that a Palestinian government, was officially recognized by the world at large as anything but a band of nomadic tribes, wandering around the Middle East.
Until 1948, Palestine was a part of Israel, within it's borders, even though modern times didn't recognize Israel as it's own political entity, history shows Israel something larger than a mere city for more than 5000 years. Yes, it has also changed hands over the centuries, but by and far, it's been governed by the same people far longer than Gaza was by the Palestinians.
It was 20th century politics and the UN that finally enacted a Palestine, and it was the UN that gave more than just a city to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been fighting a war to take over more than what's theirs for far longer than any can remember, and they've been in another country's/state's land wandering around homeless until the 20th century.
This is not about religion, or religious ideologies, it's about politics, and empire building. The Israeli's have had control of that land for far longer than any one civilization, it's part of their territory, they were forced to give it up by the UN, who really have no true authority to give an other's real estate away. The Palestinian government, and by that governance, the people, have been aggressors against the government and people who, historically, have controlled that territory longer than anyone else in history.
Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't know, but history is quite an eye opener.
If this discussion is going to descend in to 'Hamas as terrorists' then we should recognise the use of the word 'terrorism' as an adjective used to vilify one side and make an opposing side seem legitimate.
True enough. And it's not just "terrorism" that gets used this way. It's a common ploy in any propaganda.
Taken at face value, though, it means "pursuing your goals by means of inflicting terror", as in do horrible things to scare people into doing your will or at least acquiescing to your doings. Question then is, does hamas do that?
From this very safe very long distance I say, no. The rockets aren't effective at killing people and by now everybody knows this. So it's not about the terror (any longer). What they're instead trying to do is to provoke Israel into reacting, then they sacrifice their own by using them as human shields, generating a death toll that then gets used to stir up an "Israel is killing us!" frenzy. And it's working pretty well.
It is cynically, callously using lives to try and secure political gains, but not really terrorism.
"The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period." - well that's great. But you realise Hamas are firing because they live in an occupation and under siege?
They're firing because they're pursuing the goal of total annihilation of Israel. The occupation and under siege parts are fairly hard to make stick unless you squint really hard and wilfully ignore both hamas' own actions and the parts where Israel gave up plenty occupied territory complete with infrastructure for their mortal enemies to live and thrive in. You can make the case that when two are fighting two have some guilt, but that is not this argument. This is pure one-sided entirely self-serving rationalisation. It's popular enough in the Arab world, but still one-sided.
Don't call them Hamas terrorists for pursuing what they're entitled to and have been brutally denied even when seeking it peacefully.
Are they? Have they? I think they've been given more than their fair share and thrown much of it away with the explicit goal of trying to exterminate Israel. I also think that hamas isn't nearly as entitled as it thinks it is. Again, this is propaganda. Don't believe me? Well, you've been busily pointing at previous doings, so let me add one 1977 interview. Since you know your history so well, you know exactly what I'm talking about and also why your claims to entitlement are that much bunk.
"networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers"
What's the difference between this and cell-phone activated stuff they've been using for years? (source: any war movie featuring IEDs)
It's on the Internet.. and they've found out how to use TIME CLOCKS!?
If this discussion is going to descend in to 'Hamas as terrorists' then we should recognise the use of the word 'terrorism' as an adjective used to vilify one side and make an opposing side seem legitimate.
Except that it isn't just Israel identifying them as such. I believe United States and Egypt strongly agree.
I donâ(TM)t support Hamasâ(TM) use of violence to further their desire for a sovereign state
Hamas certainly doesn't want "their own state". Palestinians located in Gaza do, but Hamas most certainly doesn't care - they are more interested in destruction of Israel and would be more than willing to sacrifice every innocent civilian in Gaza.
They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity.
Hamas is unwilling (and never have) to recognize Israel's right to exist. I would think that would be a prerequisite for negotiation. You know, where the other side allows for the possibility of your existence?
Don't call them Hamas terrorists for pursuing what they're entitled to and have been brutally denied even when seeking it peacefully.
Palestinians are not Hamas terrorists. Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization, that had done terrorist acts to Egypt too. Have you ever wondered why why demand that Egypt open up their borders? Why do you think the Gaza-Egypt border is just as closed as the Gaza-Israeli one? Muslim on Muslim hate?
Seriously? Two state solution? Refresh my memory - who is it who has *rejected* a 2-state solution repeatedly? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't Israel.
Palestinians rejected 2-state proposals in 1937 and 1947 which were *accepted* by the Jewish leadership. Why? Because the Arabs were too busy shouting that Israel had no right to exist. Then the Arab-Israeli war (1948) and the Six day war (1967), as well as a constant stream of attacks and sabotage by Palestinian militants convinced Israel that the Arabs had no real interest in negotiations or peace - in fact, Hamas' charter specifically names their objective:
In more recent years, Israel has stated its willingness to give up nearly the entirety of the lands they gained in 1967 in exchange for peaceful coexistence, but even that isn't good enough - the rockets keep falling, and the bombs keep exploding.
But yeah, given Israel's history - of both being willing to accept a 2-state solution, and defending themselves against attacks by organizations hell-bent on their destruction, I can see how you'd conclude that Israel is the one who is dead-set on not accepting a 2-state solution.
But please, bring up settlements now. Let's talk about the settlements that Israel evacuated in the Sinai and Gaza when it withdrew from those territories. Do you really think if they actually felt the Palestinian leaders were *serious* about recognizing Israel and living peacefully alongside them, that the Israeli government would - for a single second - hesitate to evacuate the other settlements as well?
What kinds of utter BS propaganda is this?
Did you know
>>The military announced early Sunday that 23-year-old Hadar Goldin of the Givati infantry brigade had been killed in battle on Friday.
So they bombed away and killed 35+ Palestinians on a lie. Buddy wasn't kidanpped he was killed in battle.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
Wait a minute. Where is this summary even remotely pro-anything but technology? It's simply outlining the high tech that's being employed in this conflict, it by no means draws any conclusions of that conflict.
I personally feel the post is in just the right context for a /. article, its about technology, not about who's using it (though there's talk of who's supplied whom, but still fails to cast a good or bad tilt on it.)
Not even a week ago: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline
Hamas can't even power their social media campaign (i.e. their lifeblood) continuously, but we're supposed to believe they can coordinate rocket fire over the same internet while also deploying Aperture science into their tunnels?
And this from an unnamed IDF contractor talking to a media outlet that has quite literally called for the genocide of Palestinians?
Good job, guys.
terror is a tactic, not an ism dude. never judge a man till you walk a kilometer in his shoes.
will work for dragon quest localization
>deliberately targetted the school Israel just bombed.
I am not a fan of Israel, but that was the one for me as well. When you here the propaganda from the Pro-gaza/hamas reporters. They acknowledge that Hamas put a rocket launcher at the UN school when UN security was no longer present and that the students were hidden in the shadows from satellite imagery. So they were able to force Gaza parents (or they voluntarily sacrificed their children) to place their students into a school stacked up next to a rocket launcher, all for a PR blitz to show how Israel "targeted" a school. When you stack up children next to your military equipment, thinking it is a no lose situation, either your children protect the rocket launcher, or the enemy kills your children and you are happy to be able to use them for PR, it is clear Hamas has no morals. Now I realize this is Hamas doing this, not all of those in Gaza, but they are overwhelmingly OK with Hamas doing this on their behalf.
If the rest of the world "got out of it" and Israel had no scruples it could be over tomorrow.
History suggests this would not be the case. After the 2012 ceasefire no rockets were fired at Israel for 3 months, not one, yet Israel continued to attacked Gaza with 287 documented vioations.
There are no settlers in Gaza.
This conflict didn't start in Gaza. It started in the West Bank, with the murder of three teenage settlers. Then Israel accused Hamas of the murder (based on no evidence whatsoever) and proceeded to arrest hundreds of people. Only then did the conflict spread to Gaza.
Also check-out this analysis of the "massacre" at Shijaiyah (warning: some of the content is pretty graphic). While I'm not convinced that everything in the analysis is 100% correct, the basic gist seems pretty indisputable...
location of U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center.
Let's stop pretending here, okay? Just like with Iran/Iraq, you make more money when you play both sides.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What you say is irrelevant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13331522
Quote : "Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US, EU, Canada and Japan due to its long record of attacks and its refusal to renounce violence. Under the group's charter, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel."
"The rockets aren't effective at killing people "
Irrelevant. They do kill people and constant daily alerts do disrupt normal life.
Mod this propaganda.
Korma: Good
The amazing thing about propagandists is that one day they'll tell us how great Gaza is and how Palestinians are all liars who want to make it sound like they have it bad (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.567496). Then the next they'll come and tell us that Gaza has been chaotic since 2005, presumable because Palestinians are too dumb for self-rule. Plus you have to define 'pulled out completely'. It seems to me that the IDF has been reentering Gaza periodically since 2005 and that Israel still maintains a large degree of control over what and who gets to enter and leave Gaza. They just realized that it was much easier to cordon off the area and do some "grass mowing" (seriously, that's how they refer to it) from time to time, rather than directly maintain occupation in the midst of a hostile population and widespread international condemnation.
Terrorism refers to a specific tactic, the deliberate targeting of civilians to create fear and terror in the population rather than for a specific military objective such as the destruction of industry. If Hamas is launching rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, then they are engaging in terrorism, pure and simple. Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although some days it's pretty hard to tell that from the news. The irony is that while Israel might not be engaging in terrorism as a matter of policy, their military activity does far more to terrorize the civilian population and results in far more civilian deaths that Hamas. So I guess that raises a question- from a moral standpoint, which is worse? Deliberately targeting civilians but not being that good at hitting them? Or deliberately avoiding civilians, but not being that good at missing them?
Seems to me that you are a little lopsided there.
Four teens werr kidnapped and murdered in two separate instances. First was three israeli teens then a palistimian teen. It was after the pslistimian teen was murdered that Hamas started lobbing rockets at Israel.
So either you are ignoring the facts or you are some how construing the second murder as the official state responce from Israel. In either case, you got your facts wrong.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by 'recognize Israel's right to exist". If it means that the Palestinians are supposed to say that it's fine for the Israelis to keep their own separate state while they're confined to their little Bantustans, then it's no wonder that they're not so keen on doing this. The two-state solution is literally apartheid since it involves separating the inhabitants of Palestine based on their ethnicity/religion and letting them develop separately.
They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity.
Can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? As evidence that you are wrong I enter this phrase from the Hamas charter: "...initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion[.]” There is more that suggests you are mistaken, do you have any evidence to support what you claim?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This conflict started in Basel Switzerland when the First Zionist Congress assembled in 1897 and decided to turn Palestine into a Jewish State.
I live in Israel, in an area which is inside the "green line" (i.e. - it was Israel since 1948). All around the town I live in are Arab cities, all of them also inside the green line, all of their inhabitants Israeli citizens with equal rights to me (though some missing obligations). If a two state solution is scheduled to go through (and unless "areas exchange" change that), all of those currently Israeli citizens are scheduled to remain so.
I suggest you get your facts straight when claiming separation on ethnicity. I am literally[1] holding my breath waiting for your apology for wrongly using "apartheid".
As for the area being small: I'm anxiously waiting to hear your proposed solution. I'm sure it is going to be enlightened, grounded on facts and peaceful.
Shachar
1 - Obviously, I'm not literally holding my breath. Since, however, I don't expect you to apologies either, the two parts of the sentence are equally true.
Israel has said it will only stop once it has destroyed all the tunnels that the Palestinians built. That implies that even if they surrendered immediately Israel would continue to keep soldiers on the ground there until the demolition work was complete.
I also somehow doubt that Israel would lift the blockade on the area, dismantle their wall, demolish their settlements and then allow the Palestinians to live freely and prosper. The current round of fighting might end for a while but the conflict would certainly not be resolved.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That Israel has been manipulating public opinion through its control of the media is obvious at this stage.
Zionist propaganda has probably been influencing the media for at least a century. It, no doubt, played it's part in the creation of Israel in 1948.
Look how far from the discussion is the fact that this whole conflict started with an escalation over the murdered teenagers. Murders that, to this day, have not been investigated.
There dosn't appear to be any obvious connection between these murders and Gaza either.
Rockets fired since 2001. Blockade started in 2007.
What I wonder is, if the Palestinian have a time machine (which is the only explanation to this, as well as many other, rationalization of their actions), how come they are not rich enough to buy the allegedly pro-Israeli media?
Shachar
Two-state solution = apartheid. Would the ANC have accepted a two-state solution in South Africa, which would only have vindicated the racist ideology of white South Africans who claimed that blacks and whites had to be separate? That's something that pro-Israel people never understand. Whenever someone says 'apartheid', they'll talk to you about the Arab minority in Israel, which completely misses the point. Apartheid, in this case, refers to the fact that, in the area that is historically known as Palestine, there is apartheid in that the goal is to have a Jewish state and a Palestinian state even though both groups believe that they have claims over the entire land.
This is why it's very different from many other conflicts: in Ukraine, for instance, you could potentially partition the land since you have a rather clear line dividing east and west over language and political views. Same in (South) Sudan for instance where you could separate majority Muslim populations from majority Christian ones. Not so much in Palestine, at least if you go back to 1946 before there were large population transfers.
If you look at population statistics from that era, you find that Palestinians outnumbered Jews virtually everywhere. If you had had a free and fair referendum and assuming that people would have voted along ethnic lines (why would Jews vote against having their own state, why would Palestinians decide that they wanted to be ruled by Jews), the Jewish state would have been the Jaffa region, period. And that's a huge problem. The right to self-determination is not only for white people, even though it took Western countries close to 20 years to finally realize that. The Jewish people certainly had the right to go to Palestine, purchase land following willing-buyer-willing-seller principles and perhaps one day become a majority there. I believe in open borders, so I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when people claim that the fact that their ancestors may or may not have been forced to leave that area 2000 years ago means that they now have a right to exclude people who are currently living there. We all have roots somewhere in modern-day Kenya, that doesn't mean it's now okay for me to go and colonize that place. There's been invasions, etc. for thousands of years everywhere on earth and we don't go back 2000 or 3000 years to see who *really* has a claim on the land.
Is it Hamas, because the 'evil Jew' refuses to make peace? And because they were there before the Jews came? Is it the 'evil Jews", because they were there before the Ottoman Empire practically kicked them out if they didn't want to convert to Islam? At least here we know that Judaism existed first.
Just like the native american indians existed first in the US before they were fucked over by the european settlers who now rule the country and own all the land? if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.
The two state solution involves pretty much drawing the borders where they are now with the exception of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is sacred ground to Christianity, Islam and Judaism so the only fair option is that it is ruled by no single religion and is shared by all as the cradle of all religions. This is simply the only fair option.
Sure, there are extremists on the arab side who would like to drive into the sea, they have to realise that simply will not happen. There are also people within Israel though who view the promised land, as handed down to the Jews by god as sacred and that includes all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, these people also have to realise that driving that many Arabs from their current homes is also out of the question. Once all parties back away from these extremes only then will there be peace.
I dont read
That area has been inhabited by Jews for centuries. It's isn't an only arab area as you might imagine.
In addition in modern Israel 20% of the citizens are muslim arabs with the same rights as everyone.
It's the opposite of apartheid.
Calling a 2 state solution apartheid would be like calling California & Texas apartheid 'cause it isn't united with Mexico. (Whose areas once belonged to Mexico)
PS : The word Palestine that you mean is a modern invention. The ancient Palestine is something completely different.
And it doesn't help Israel in the least when the pro-Israelis repeatedly lie their asses off.
Above AC should be modded as informative as it highlights the social media aspect mentioned in the summary.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
George Friedman of Stratfor has an excellent analysis of the situation. His opening statement is, "We have long argued that the Arab-Israeli conflict is inherently insoluble." Definitely worth a read.
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression. The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period. Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth. How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!
Your naivete would be cute if it wasn't for all the dead children!
Israel will not stop when Hamas stops firing rockets. I suspect Israel will stop the slaughter the moment when the Palestinians cede ownership of their natural gas fields to Israel for free. http://www.globalresearch.ca/w...
Also, how do you know these things about Hamas if the medias doesn't cover it? Of course the media covers Hamas's acts of terror. The part that is lacking is the fact that vast majority of Hamas's terror is aimed at Palestinians who belong to rival factions or who don't pay their protection dues on time.
There was "conflict" before humans existed. You'll have to be more specific.
Learn to love Alaska
if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.
So, because they were successfully exterminated long enough ago, they lose all rights?
Learn to love Alaska
Two-state solution = apartheid.
So the USA and Canada are in apartheid? It's a two-state solution, by treaty, after wars and skirmishes.
Same as the US and Mexico.
The two-state solutions I've seen were more like India/Pakistan. And not ideal, it was better than the one-state solution (so say the historians).
Learn to love Alaska
Hamas seems to recruit children really early, these days.
Stop being a retarded idiot. We are talking specifically about this latest incident.
Go troll somewhere else
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
Coverage I've seen usually consists of an interview with an Israeli followed by the same interview with a Palestinian ... both questioned, both spew the very same tired talking points day in and day out which Interviewer is mostly disinclined to follow up on even in instances where they know or should know information provided is misleading or false.
This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression.
I assume Palestinians say conflict would end the second Israeli's stop making their lives miserable.
So what's the problem? Seems easy enough to give both sides what they want...
Unless true motives are couched in fundamentally indefensible geopolitical calculations....but ... but this could... never.. I mean.... how many of you really deep down in your hearts believed the US went to war with Iraq because of fears of terrorists and Mushroom clouds? This is what leaders continuously do throughout recorded history. They spout bullshit for public consumption... and sadly people regurgitate it as if rooting for a sporting event.
Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth.
When old Ben comes on US television waving his arm asserting there is no blockade when questioned it would seem to me Hamas is not the only liar.
How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!
More people are routinely killed in a single hour of Israeli strikes than over a decade and a half of rocket bombardments from Gaza. You tell me.
Both sides are a bunch of immoral inhuman assholes if you want my opinion. Why doesn't the western media portray that side of the story!
You can't expect them to collaborate with their 'enemy'
The only thing they can do is guerilla warfare or agree to the occupation.
If they didn't have the support from the palestinian public eg: if Israel was actually civil
with these people instead of raiding them en masse and 'interrogating' their children then Hamas
wouldn't exist as it is now anyway. Punishing everybody for the crimes of a few is wrong policy.
Threat the people like people, work your informants
and send special ops to the actual terrorists, that's how you get them.
Yes these are just 'born' troublemakers: Bohemians and barbarians. It's not like men have fought each other for resources before.
Absolutely this.
Let's focus on the clever sensors in tunnels whilst ignoring the oddly fallible technology of one of the most advanced armies in the world whose bombs and soldiers can't distinguish between terrorists and kids in a god damn schools.
You know who certainly is not using technology, the 250+ kids murdered in the last 26 days. Most of whom have been imprisoned in a large open air prison for the entirety of their short lives (by people who hate them but graciously allow them the minimal amount of food, water and medical attention).
Screw all those who kill kids and screw any attempt to rationalize such killings as being as a response to mere threats or due to the other side. It's simple, if you fire the weapon that kills civilians / kid(s) it is you that is the murdering bastard who hopefully will rot in hell/prison for warcrimes.
First off, Israel had to chase away as many nonjews as possible and deny their return before they could safely allow non-Jews to vote in the Jewish State. Still, for the last nearly fifty years, most of the non-jews living under israeli rule haven't been able to vote, half of them are refugees from the ethnic cleansing that created Israell. Millions of people languish under Israel's bootheel and they don't get to vote for the government that actually rules their lives. Meanwhile, Israel is constructing massive colonies on land that doesn't belong to it for the exclusive use of Jews. There are even roads going right through the Palestinians land connecting the colonies with Israel and each other that the Palestinians are forbidden to use. Palestinians get rounded up by troops and prosecuted in military courts while justice in the colonies is dispensed by police and Israeli courts. Separate towns, separate roads. separate justice: it's not apartheid it's hafrada! Of course, the apartheid is only temporary because the goal is to cleanse the area as much as possible so it can all be incorporated into Israel without any "demographic threat."
There never was a country of Palestine. Go kill the Jordanians that slaughtered the rebellious "Palestinians" back when they were called Trans-Jordanians.
Well they sure as hell let all their "leaders" steal the aid money from around the world and stuff it into Swiss banks. Oh, wait, I forget the Arafat made billions of dollars from his Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah.
and the Jews certain lived in that area before a single "Palestinian" ever existed.
I agree. Fundamentally, we should get out of Israel's way and let the middle-east situation play out. Russia and China could give all Arab countries weapons for free and they would still lose to the skill of Israel's military. Anyone that thinks Israel will fall to any Arab nation is delusional.
Please don't talk about Ukraine if you don't really know anything about it and its history.
As war becomes more Tech vs Tech, slight technical advantages can snowball into huge military advantages. Especially if you can modify the actions of your enemies systems in real-time.
I18N == Intergalacticization
We don't have a good definition of "Terrorism" that is shared among us all, so the term becomes kicked around and abused. So I've stopped using it. By the way, the Hebrew word for terrorism does not involve the concept of terror or fear.
The governments involved, including the PA, have come to believe in a "Two State Solution", but Hamas does not. And Hamas is in a position to threaten the success of any 2-state plan, by taking over the West Bank, and starting another war with Israel. I believe this is the reason that Hamas is being destroyed. I think this is why the PA and several Arab states are very muted in their criticism of Israel during this war: Hamas is their enemy too.
If Israel does not destroy Hamas this time around, then my theory is probably wrong.
Hamas never sought anything peacefully. The PA has engaged in diplomacy, but Hamas, not. The rest of your narrative is one-sided, propagandistic and tendentious, too.
I18N == Intergalacticization
There is no wow about it. Specific things were said about specific incidents or events. Just because other things have happened does not preclude anyone from talking about a specific set of things.
Like I said, stop being a retarded idiot.
No, I called you a retarded idiot and told you to troll somewhere else. You see, words have meanings and they are used to communicate things called thoughts. You would do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the words you are reading so people wouldn't think you are a retarded idiot trying to troll a discussion.
Just web search for 'Qatar vs Saudi Arabia' and you'll see over a billion results. Hot enough for you?
I18N == Intergalacticization
"This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression. "
No, it would not.
This conflict began in the late 1800's when the Jews decided to create "home-land for the Jewish people", which meant to create a racist state which was for Jews only, on a land that was already populated and whose population had *never* at any time contained more than 8% Jew. In order to make lebensraum for the racist Jew only state, the Jews committed acts of terror which resulted in the native population of non-Jews be pushed out as refugees into Gaza, West Bank and surrounding Arab states.
That is the cause of the problem. The Arabs did not create the "conflict". The Jews did. Hamas does not "attack" Israel. Israel attacked the Arabs and Hamas is their legitimate and legally allowed resistance to the occupation of their lands - yes, that includes Tel Aviv and all of what you would call "Israel".
Hamas represents the refugees who do have the right to use violence in order to regain control of their territory from which they have been illegally expelled and which the Jews have annexed, which is an illegal action. This conflict will end when the Jews agree to allow the refugees to return to live in the land as equals under the law. That is the only condition under which Hamas or any other militant resistance organisation should ever agree to a ceasefire.
The Israelis can NEVER claim self-defence. Ever. Period. They only option they have as a "self-defence", is to obey the law and allow the refugees to return to live as equals under the law on the land.
How dare you suggest that the western media, which is controlled by Jewish people who support Israel, somehow side with Hamas! You are clearly a hasbara troll. This entire article is trying to give the impression that Hamas have "high-technology" at their disposal. Utter nonsense. A Hamas rocket barely makes an impact when it lands. It has no guidance system and no explosive warhead. The Israeli missiles are guided missiles of the highest technology and carry huge explosive payloads that can kill everyone within a 100 metre radius. It is extremely disingenuous to compare the number of Hamas rockets fired with the number of Israel rockets fired. It is like comparing the number of punches landed in a fight between a two year old girl and Mike Tyson in his prime.
Some of the offices in the building I work in have "high-tech sensors" that tell them when the door opens inward by ringing a little bell. They're dangling pieces of metal that hit a momentary switch tied to a doorbell ringer. Are those the "high-tech" devices described in such detail in the article?
fencepost
just a little off
"That area has been inhabited by Jews for centuries" - the population of Jews was less than 8%. Sure there were some Jews there, but only 8%. The Jews decided in 1897 to create a Jew only state on a land that contained only 8% Jews. That is the entire cause of the "conflict". Here are the numbers from a Jewish, pro-Israel website:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...
"In addition in modern Israel 20% of the citizens are muslim arabs with the same rights as everyone."
Those Arabs are the descendants of Arabs who were already living on the land before 1948. The Jews tried to get rid of them, many fled in terror but unfortunately for the Jews, some of them did not. If Muslim Arabs are so welcome in Israel, then please tell us how many Muslim Arabs immigrated to Israel and became full Israeli citizens last year compared to Jews? How about over the last 10 years?
"PS : The word Palestine that you mean is a modern invention. The ancient Palestine is something completely different."
Spare us your crappy word plays. The word Palestinian has come to mean: "A non-Jewish person who has the right to live in the land which in modern days is called Palestine/Israel". Just like the word Anti-Semite in modern times has come to mean a person (like me) who dislikes Jews - their beliefs, their culture and their behaviour even though the word "Semite" does not mean "Jew".
What you write is complete and utter bullshit and you clearly know nothing factual about the history of the region. The fact is that there was never more than 8% Jew in the land we call Palestine/Israel today, until the Jews decided to create a racist Jew only state in that land in the late 1800's. All of the troubles stem from this. Trying to create a Jew only state on land that was inhabited by fewer than 8% Jews.
Don't believe it? Well tell it to your Jewish friends - they might need to change history to suit your ridiculous viewpoint!
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...
"Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't know, but history is quite an eye opener." It is easy to answer this question! The Jews are wrong and Hamas is right. Hamas has the right to resist the occupation and annexation of their land, and their exclusion from living on it as equals under the law, using violence. That is their right. Israel does not have the right to claim self-defence when it acts to defend the existence of Israel wherever Israel is defined as a Jew only state built on the land of the refugees to whom it refuses the right to return to live as equals under the law on the land. When Israel accepts the right of return of the refugees to live in the land as equals under the law, then Israel can claim that it is a legitimate state and has the right the defend itself.
Look, you are obviously a bit doughy, so here is a simple analogy for your tiny brain to process: I break into your house and start raping your wife. You try to defend her by attacking me with your puny body. I turn around and snap your head off of your body. The police come to arrest me. I tell them that I was acting in self-defence - because you attacked me. The "Community", which consists of people under my control and in my pay, agree with me and I am accordingly rewarded for heroically managing to defend myself against your attack by being allowed into your 18 year old daughters bedroom for some more "fun"! That is the best analogy of the Israel/Palestine conflict which has ever been written.
"I'm anxiously waiting to hear your proposed solution."
The solution is easy. Allow the return of the refugees and their descendants to live as equals under the law on the land.
The reason you won't agree to this is because Israel is a racist Jew only State and you don't want more non-Jews to be there because it would by definition signify the end of the Zionist enterprise. Hasbaras will likely come back and claim that Israel is a multicultural nation and has many Muslim Arabs.
I will ask them a question right now:
How many Muslim Arabs who were not born in Israel/Palestine immigrated into Israel and were granted full Israeli Citizenship with equal rights, Israeli passports etc.., last year? What about over the past 10 years?
How many non-Jewish Africans, Chinese and Indians were granted full Israeli Citizenship with equal rights, Israeli passports etc.., last year? What about over the past 10 years? What official Israeli government programs exist to encourage the immigration of qualified non Jewish Indians, Chinese and Africans into Israel on a pathway to eventually become full Israeli citizens, to raise their children as full Israeli citizens and access its health care and education etc...? The answer, as you know is close to, if not completely equal to, ZERO. So let's not pretend that Israel is not a racist Jew only state.
Now you will want to claim that Jews are not a race and therefore Israel cannot be a racist state. You know, I suspect, that that argument is utter bullshit and is based on the semantics of the word "race" which has been altered over time and are aware that there are many references to "Jewish Race" throughout the literature, not to mention the many Jewish studies on DNA which try to prove that there is such a thing as Jewish DNA (aka race). You know that there are many people who are defined by Israel to be Jewish even though they are Atheists, showing that Jewishness has nothing to do with religious belief - their Jewishness being defined by having been born to Jewish parents (aka DNA aka race). So let's not play that game.
If you want peace then give the refugees the right to return to live in the land as equals under the law as full citizens and don't define the state as the Jewish State. If you want an escalating war which is leaving the Jewish People looking increasingly bad, globally, then continue to murder children with your US supplied WMD's. It is your choice as a Jew really. You are making a bed, and soon you might have to lay in it.
Genocide? Really? When Hamas stores and fires missiles from civilian centers, what is Israel supposed to do? Politely ask Hamas to step away from their human shields.
I don't know who said this but it sums the situation up quite clearly: "Israel uses missiles to protect its civilians. Hamas uses civilians to protect its missiles".
I know that will be bad for my karma but I find this stories' title disgusting.
Indeed there is a war between Israel and Hamas, but at the same time, there is the genocide of Palestinian People by Israel. Most of the ones who die are not Hamas fighters. Their only crime was to live in a territory Israel considers its own. Reducing the conflict to the fight between Israel and Hamas is a petty trick to hide the genocide.
Uh, yes, when Hamas fires rockets into Israel (which I think you can safely consider an act of war) Israel does "re-enter" Gaza. I suppose you'd be happy if those darned Jews just took it as victims, like the good old days. Sorry, those days are over.
You would like to live in a world where "nation state" is a dead concept. Regardless of whether I think this is a good aim or not, a simple look at the facts will show you it is not a practical aim.
There are very few states in the world which are not "nation states". Most of those are binational states or multi-national states. They don't fare very well. In the best case end of the spectrum you have Canada and Finland, where it sort-of works, but is very far from the ideal you're trying to paint. On the worst end of the spectrum you have Czechoslovakia and, in particular, Lebanon (which has spent about half of the past century in civil wars).
Then there are non-national states. America is, formally, one. A simple look at a dollar bill will show you just how much it isn't. While it did start out as immigrants' land, we now have an "American nationality", with typical religion, language, and a way of thought that is an American as apple pie.
The only non-national state I can think of which is successful in being one is Australia, in fact. It only does so by celebrating and enshrining the differences. This is something most people are not easily up to.
People tend to group around people who are like them. It's a human thing. I think it is pointless to fight it.
Shachar
Rule of thumb: if you find you need to provide my end of the argument in order to win, you are probably wrong. e.g.:
No, that's not it at all. The Zionist enterprise was about creating a Jewish state, but that term does not mean what you think it means. It is not about creating a state only for Jewish (religion) people, but about creating a national home for the Jewish people. That phrasing is actually the subtitle of the Zionist charter.
Which means Israel is not, and was never meant to be, a Jews only state. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide references.
The reason I would not agree to an indiscriminate return is not because I don't like to see Arabs around (I wouldn't buy a home where I did were that the case). It's because that would turn Israel into an Arab state (i.e. - it would replace one nation's state with another). One look at the personal freedom, economics and personal safety track record of neighboring countries is enough, and that's the case where Arabs rule over Arabs. As a rule, they like me even less than they like themselves.
Your willingness to gamble away my property, my freedom and my life is touching, but I think I'm going to pass none the less.
A nation state has every right to preserve its character through immigration control. All countries filter out immigrants, and Israel isn't even the only democracy to use religion as a criteria. Your insinuation that that's wrong needs citations.
Strawman. I never made that argument. Next.
Shachar
mtthwbrnd here.
"Which means Israel is not, and was never meant to be, a Jews only state. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide references."
The only reference I need to provide is (1) your own answer...
"A nation state has every right to preserve its character through immigration control."
and (2) combined with the fact that the immigration control employed by Israel has not let any non-Jewish Chinese, Indian or African people gain full citizenship! That shows that the Israeli policy is a Jew only immigration policy which can only lead to a Jew only state. If only those pesky Arabs could have been eliminated in '48!
" and Israel isn't even the only democracy to use religion as a criteria."
Jewish is not a religion according to Israeli immigration policy. There are many Atheist and non-religious Jews who have gained citizenship of Israel on the basis of them being classified by the Israeli government as Jewish.
Please list the democracies which discriminate in their immigration policy in order to preserve the "character" of the demographics in their nation state? Any European Democracies? Does the US do that? Does the UK do that? Do any European nations do that? Does Australia do that? Does New Zealand do that? Does Canada do that? No! They do not. So which ones are you referring to?
"Strawman. I never made that argument. " Glad that you concede that Jewish is a racial trait, not a religious one and did not even bother to refute it.
EInstein rejected Israel for good reason. Albert related Zionists to Nazis. My God, the man was right!
Canada gives you more points if you speak French. The USA requires that you speak English in order to get accepted. In fact, language is a factor for many of the countries you specify.
I will, however, concede a mistake on the immigration policy. It seems (preliminary, I'm still looking into it) that around 2005 the European union decided that's unethical, and has been forcing member states to forego those policies. Today these policies are much less evident than they were.
Which does not mean this is, necessarily, a good thing. I'll tell you what. Let's wait ten more years. If the European union is still around, the member states have not turned Muslim, and these rules are still in effect, let's talk again.
You also said this, however:
This is manifestly and provably wrong. About a decade ago the government decided to start stricter enforcement against illigal immigrant workers. That enforcement exposed a problem: many of those had children born in Israel, speaking Hebrew as their primary language, and being, for all intent and purposes, Israeli. The enforcement meant they were being extradicted to a country they have never even seen.
This resulted in a public outcry. The result is a law that was passed in 2006, that gave illegal residents citizenship under certain conditions. There are not many Indians who enjoyed this law, but you will find plenty of Chinese and African desent people who received citizenship.
There are few things of note here, all totally refuting your assertion of a racist Jew only state. The first is that they did not receive citizenship through some fluke or loophole. The law was changed in particular to allow them to receive it. The second was that this was not some lone legistlator's initiative. This was a result of a public outcry. This is what the country is about. I don't know anyone who thinks this undermines or contradict the Zionist aim.
Being Jewish isn't a racial trait. Discriminating based on it, however, is racist. I didn't think you'd be anal enough to care about this distinction, so I didn't bother making it.
Shachar
What would the IDF do if rockets were fired from near a Jewish town? A) fire missiles at civilians sheltering in the school B) something else.
This is the problem. The response to an attack from an Arab area is to hit the area hard with heavy artillery, killing many civilians. But they would never do this if the civilians were Jewish. It is an inherently racist policy.
Some numbers to put things into perspective: a graph showing israeli/palestinian deaths over time, and a graph showing the displacement of people and changes in territory over time.
"in Ukraine, for instance, you could potentially partition the land since you have a rather clear line dividing east and west over language and political views"
Not in the slightest bit true. Even in Crimea which Russian annexed there was less than 50% (I believe it was 41%) support to join Russia before Putin ran his own rigged poll. In Eastern Ukraine support is even lower, the majority still want to be part of Ukraine, so if you split it off on the whining of a handful of Russian separatists then you'd be in no better a position.
"If you look at population statistics from that era, you find that Palestinians outnumbered Jews virtually everywhere."
But that's the problem, people like you insist on cherry picking a completely arbitrary point in time and go hey, I'm right! but you're ignoring the many earlier points in history where even Jewish and Christian folk were the majority - the Jews originally expelled by Palestines such that they were the majority at the point in time that you cherry picked.
This is actually similar to Ukraine, right now Putin is moving Russians into Crimea so that he can claim that Crimea can't ever become Ukrainian again because hey look, a Russian majority now live there!
You can't just take an arbitrary point in time to suit your agenda. If you want to be objective you could argue that given that Judaism is a far older religion than both Christianity and Islam that surely by definition it takes precedence in the region? But despite it's objectivity as a measure I'm not sure where exactly it would get us - even if you used an objective measure it's not going to change the fact people are fighting there and now. Whatever metric you use to try and justify who should and shouldn't be there people will still fight for their own interests.
Picking arbitrary points in time as you have to provide worthless justification doesn't help anyone. Why is your claim of 1946 more worthwhile than a claim from 2006 where Jews are the majority. You're saying we don't get back 2000 years, but why are you saying we go back 70 years? why 70? why not 90? why not 5? why not 10? why not 100? why not 1000? why not 2000?
The fact you've picked 70 odd (well, nearly 80) years is arbitrary, but you've picked it because you have a predetermined bias in support of one group over the other - you might as well have cut your post short and just said "I support the Palestinian claim" because everything else you said tells us absolutely nothing of value beyond that - it's just dressing to try and make it look like you're posting something other than personal opinion, which you're obviously not.
I wonder, how a highly sofisticated networked cloud-based launch system is able to function without electricity... if so , only on batteries? Maybe the palestinians, hamas and/or Qatar, should sell their technology, im pretty sure Elon Musk and others are quite interested on this super high tech system that works without infrastructure in place!
Ahhhh, yes, the pesky subject of 'who fired what' first. I'm pretty sure that dealing with rocket attacks, which miraculously start to increase whenever Israel conducts a 'military' operation, does not justify the genocide of innocent civilians and children.
Israel needs to be careful and Jews everywhere need to reject this otherwise we'll end up with the kind of anti-Semitism we really don't want.
Genocide? Really?
Yes really. Bombing the shit out of schools, repeatedly, to the point where it looks less like collateral damage and more like systematic targetting of civilians and children and ethnic cleansing is not acceptable.
What's ironic is Jewish people should be acutely more aware of this than most.
I feel like there's a Billy Joel song here...
Still not a country, only a concept. Anytime you wish to cough up government credentials from the country of Palestine, please do. In the meantime, stop dreaming about things that don't exist. Oh, BTW, how did that Transjordan thing work out for the "Palestinians"? Yeah.
Ahhhh, yes, the pesky subject of 'who fired what' first. I'm pretty sure that dealing with rocket attacks, which miraculously start to increase whenever Israel conducts a 'military' operation, does not justify the genocide of innocent civilians and children.
This thing is a mess on both sides, but how can you call shells that land on a school "genocide" and not apply the same label to rockets fired on Israeli cities?
Genocide is the systematic extinction of people on the basis of some trait like race. I can't imagine that too many Israelis live in Gaza, so if they really wanted to do Genocide they'd just bombard the whole place until nothing was moving.
This is a tit-for-tat artillery war between two powers using weapons that have poor accuracy and basically just kill whoever is standing by where they land. The only real difference is that the Israelis are better at shooting down rockets than Hamas is at shooting down shells.
I really don't think the children are so dumb that they don't realize standing next to a missile is a safe location.
Children are far, FAR easier to convince to do anything and to buy into any exaggerated story, be it patriotic, religious, heroic or simply "cool", than adults.
Regardless of the flag.
On a side note...
Just this morning I read on a local, Bosnian, portal about a "15-year-old Bosnian citizen" being killed in Gaza.
I won't go into the whole citizenship thing, but let's just say that the kid and his father who was quoted in the text are about as Bosnian in name and appearance as are those Chinese who live and work in Bosnia.
Probably a little less as Chinese are currently living and working here and not in Middle East.
But the point of the story is father's comment.
How "his son's blood was very costly, but for the precious Palestine, no cost is too high".
Regardless of the veracity of those words, THAT IS the image and mindset promoted by the Palestinian sources.
Be they establishment's or private.
That is what kids have been taught there for decades now.
Thus, standing GUARD next to a missile for those kids is not dumb but BRAVE AND GLORIOUS.
Feel free to imagine "The Minstrel Boy" playing over this post.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No, that's not it at all. The Zionist enterprise was about creating a Jewish state, but that term does not mean what you think it means. It is not about creating a state only for Jewish (religion) people, but about creating a national home for the Jewish people. That phrasing is actually the subtitle of the Zionist charter.
Which means Israel is not, and was never meant to be, a Jews only state. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide references.
That's possibly one of the most creative descriptions of the Israeli state I have ever read, but then Israel and Jewish people
The reason I would not agree to an indiscriminate return is not because I don't like to see Arabs around (I wouldn't buy a home where I did were that the case). It's because that would turn Israel into an Arab state (i.e. - it would replace one nation's state with another).
The fact that you're talking in those terms of an 'Arab' and an 'Israeli' state betrays what you and the rest of us know to be true.
Incomplete sentence...... .....but then Israel and Jewish people tend to frame things in that manner.
So I can move into your house while you are at work. You "historical" claim to that land is invalid, as I got there since then.
I get the argument, but this is basically how every national border on Earth was drawn. I doubt a single parcel of land has clear title back to the first human who slept on it.
If you can move into somebody's house while they're away at work and hold off the government's attempts to return it to them for long enough, you'll be recognized as the owner of that property. It is pretty hard to make this work for a single home though - it works better if you take over a piece of land the size of Missouri - then your entire army isn't within the kill radius of a single hand grenade.
Actually, the US isn't all that far off from apartheid with the whole red-state/blue-state thing (in which case 52% of the state population is happy, and 48% disagrees with just about everything being done). A proportional democracy would probably go a long way towards fixing that.
The US/Canada or US/Mexico borders are also hardly the result of some kind of UN-like peace process. Wars were fought and the border ended up where it ended up. There certainly were foreign powers involved (especially with Canada), but they weren't so overwhelmingly powerful compared to the local nations that they could just draw up a border in a smoke-filled room and force everybody to abide by it.
Actually, the US war of 1812 isn't too far off from Israel vs Palestine. The UK certainly outclassed the US back then in every way, but they didn't care to exterminate the US citizens and they knew they couldn't govern them long-term, so they fought a limited war, all the while being constrained by the need to spend the bulk of their military resources against more serious threats.
Propaganda notwithstanding the Israeli army has no desire to kill all the Palestinians, and they know they can't really govern them either, so they generally try to contain them and avoid doing much more despite their being able to do so, in part out of a desire to avoid foreign intervention.
There are other groups that support a Palestinian state that aren't crazed religious fanatics. Don't pretend that you have to support Hamas to support the Palestinian plight.
A big problem is that for whatever reason the locals tend to elect folks like Hamas. This is a problem, as are the idiots who keep electing crusaders in the US.
Democracy doesn't work well when huge segments of the population have no respect for individual liberty, especially religious liberty. It turns into two wolves and a sheep voting over what is for dinner.
Know that I don't think that the concept of "nation state" is dead? That I think that Jews have a right of self-determination in addition to the Palestinians?
And merely because I'm both Jewish and Israeli doesn't mean my explanation is wrong. Well, to most thinking people, at least. If you think it is incorrect, by all means, provide references. I'd have provided references myself, except I'm not sure which part of my description you have issues with. If it's either the focus on "Jewish people", or the acceptance of minority rights, I'd need to point you no further than Israel's declaration of independence. Both are very prominent.
Shachar
1. Disappear two Hamas members.
2. Kidnap and kill two Israelis and leave their bodies somewhere suggestive.
3. "Find" bodies.
4. Rejoice at pretext to decimate the population of Palestine and push the borders back further.
You really think that Israel would kill their own citizens and blame Hamas just so that they can grab some land that they pulled out of a few years ago?
I prefer the version where Israel is trying to stop the palestians attacking Israel and targetting civilians with rockets (which happens to be a war crime). In fact Israel's behaviour is best explained by them wanting peace and Hamas's behaviour is best explained by them wanting to destroy Israel. And by amazing coincidence that is exactly what the two side say they are trying to do.
I don't disagree. I was just pointing out the folly in the GP's statements.
Learn to love Alaska
So borders set by international treaty are evil. But ones set by local wars are a good thing?
Learn to love Alaska
Hamas is in charge there because in free and fair elections they were overwhelmingly voted in by the Palestinians who knew full well that they are a terrorist organization.
When Hamas stores and fires missiles from civilian centers, what is Israel supposed to do? Politely ask Hamas to step away from their human shields.
First, it's never been proven they have been using human shields. Second, have you fucking seen Gaza?! Just pick a map, and remember it's one of the most densely populated area in the world. What the hell do you expect? Hamas building military bases far away from civilians? Where?!
You'd think people who usually spend time on slashdot are smart enough to actually open at least Wikipedia and inform themselves.
What you write is complete and utter bullshit and you clearly know nothing factual about the history of the region. The fact is that there was never more than 8% Jew in the land we call Palestine/Israel today, until the Jews decided to create a racist Jew only state in that land in the late 1800's. All of the troubles stem from this. Trying to create a Jew only state on land that was inhabited by fewer than 8% Jews.
Don't believe it? Well tell it to your Jewish friends - they might need to change history to suit your ridiculous viewpoint!
I didn't say Jews, I never mentioned any religious groups, I even stated it's not about religion, if you read my comment. It's about the political groups.
"Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't know, but history is quite an eye opener." It is easy to answer this question! The Jews are wrong and Hamas is right. Hamas has the right to resist the occupation and annexation of their land, and their exclusion from living on it as equals under the law, using violence. That is their right. Israel does not have the right to claim self-defence when it acts to defend the existence of Israel wherever Israel is defined as a Jew only state built on the land of the refugees to whom it refuses the right to return to live as equals under the law on the land. When Israel accepts the right of return of the refugees to live in the land as equals under the law, then Israel can claim that it is a legitimate state and has the right the defend itself.
You obviously don't know history, and you obviously want to make and keep this a religious issue. The fact that you side with those willing to kill themselves in the process of killing others, in an attempt to be served by virgins, shows it clearly.
Look, you are obviously a bit doughy, so here is a simple analogy for your tiny brain to process: I break into your house and start raping your wife. You try to defend her by attacking me with your puny body. I turn around and snap your head off of your body. The police come to arrest me. I tell them that I was acting in self-defence - because you attacked me. The "Community", which consists of people under my control and in my pay, agree with me and I am accordingly rewarded for heroically managing to defend myself against your attack by being allowed into your 18 year old daughters bedroom for some more "fun"! That is the best analogy of the Israel/Palestine conflict which has ever been written.
And here we finally see where intelligence comes in, insults and examples of propaganda. Go read your history, not the Quran or the Bible, and learn to show a little respect to others if you wish to have a proper debate with them, those who have to lower themselves to slinging insults aren't worth the time or effort.
So borders set by international treaty are evil. But ones set by local wars are a good thing?
Hardly. I'm just saying that might makes right is basically how just about every border on the planet got drawn. It is a bit naive to think that it will work any differently in Gaza.
"Where is the U.N. Human Rights Council? Where is Amnesty International? Where is Human Rights Watch? Where is the international media and Middle East pundits. Where are all the lawfare experts? Here is 'Exhibit A' to indict Hamas for war crimes and crimes against humanity by placing the people of Gaza as human shields," said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, dean and founder and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
From the IDF Blog:
IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians.
Throughout Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has continuously used the civilian population of Gaza as human shields. The discovery of a Hamas “urban warfare” manual by IDF forces reveals that Hamas’ callous use of the Gazan population was intentional and preplanned.
This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.
The Manual:
In a portion entitled “Limiting the Use of Weapons,” the manual explains that:
The soldiers and commanders (of the IDF) must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and [destruction of] civilian facilities. It is difficult for them to get the most use out of their firearms, especially of supporting fire [e.g. artillery].
Clearly Hamas knows the IDF will limit its use of weapons in order to avoid harming civilians, including refraining from using larger firepower to support for infantry.
The manual goes on to explain that the “presence of civilians are pockets of resistance” that cause three major problems for advancing troops:
(1) Problems with opening fire
(2) Problems in controlling the civilian population during operations and afterward
(3) Assurance of supplying medical care to civilians who need it
Lastly, the manual discusses the benefits for Hamas when civilian homes are destroyed:
The destruction of civilian homes: This increases the hatred of the citizens towards the attackers [the IDF] and increases their gathering [support] around the city defenders (resistance forces[i.e. Hamas]).
It is clear that Hamas actually desires the destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, knowing it will increase hatred for the IDF and support their fighters.
https://www.kintera.com/accoun...
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
One response
https://www.kintera.com/accoun...
A Hamas manual on "Urban Warfare" found by the Israeli Defense Forces makes it unmistakably clear that Hamas desires civilian casualties amongst its own people and encourages its fighters to engage in battles in civilian populated areas in order to draw an Israeli response.
"Where is the U.N. Human Rights Council? Where is Amnesty International? Where is Human Rights Watch? Where is the international media and Middle East pundits. Where are all the lawfare experts? Here is 'Exhibit A' to indict Hamas for war crimes and crimes against humanity by placing the people of Gaza as human shields," said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, dean and founder and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
From the IDF Blog:
IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians.
Throughout Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has continuously used the civilian population of Gaza as human shields. The discovery of a Hamas “urban warfare” manual by IDF forces reveals that Hamas’ callous use of the Gazan population was intentional and preplanned.
This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.
The Manual:
In a portion entitled “Limiting the Use of Weapons,” the manual explains that:
The soldiers and commanders (of the IDF) must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and [destruction of] civilian facilities. It is difficult for them to get the most use out of their firearms, especially of supporting fire [e.g. artillery].
Clearly Hamas knows the IDF will limit its use of weapons in order to avoid harming civilians, including refraining from using larger firepower to support for infantry.
The manual goes on to explain that the “presence of civilians are pockets of resistance” that cause three major problems for advancing troops:
(1) Problems with opening fire
(2) Problems in controlling the civilian population during operations and afterward
(3) Assurance of supplying medical care to civilians who need it
Lastly, the manual discusses the benefits for Hamas when civilian homes are destroyed:
The destruction of civilian homes: This increases the hatred of the citizens towards the attackers [the IDF] and increases their gathering [support] around the city defenders (resistance forces[i.e. Hamas]).
It is clear that Hamas actually desires the destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, knowing it will increase hatred for the IDF and support their fighters.
Why Shuja’iya is Important
It is also of no small importance that this manual belongs to the Shuja’iya Brigade. The IDF fought a major battle in the neighborhood of Shuja’iya, which had been turned into a terrorist stronghold. The discovery of this manual suggests that the destruction in Shuja’iya was always part of Hamas’ plan.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Film at 11?
So unsurprising.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Jews worldwide = 18 million and Muslims = 1.8 billion
Why Israel thinks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... will make their future generations safe/secure?
Casteism