IDF shoot 60-2,000 wounded.

The well known "peaceful civilian demonstrators" are using incendiary kites to set their Jewish neighbours' fields on fire. This afternoon's peaceful demonstration at the fields of Kibbutz Gevim.


 
The well known "peaceful civilian demonstrators" are using incendiary kites to set their Jewish neighbours' fields on fire. This afternoon's peaceful demonstration at the fields of Kibbutz Gevim.


CAST LEAD 155 WP Walts.
 
Except Israeli Jews don’t have this curious western obsession with rememberance of the dead of the holocaust.

Never forget is not what they say, they say never again.
A gargantuan difference and one which we all thank you for drawing to our attention.


said nobody.
 
On 2 occasions 2000 Ish Clinton negotiations and 2009 Israel offered to withdraw to 67 Borders -remove settlements and in 2009 agreed to split Jerusalem Demographically.

In 2000 Arafat dismissed these Israeli concessions out of hand - didn't attempt a counter offer and lanched the 2nd Intifada - Even the Arabs couldn't believe it

In 2009 Hamas rejected it and started their next rocket campaign.

I would contend that in both cases the Israelis signing up to a peace plan embodying territorial claims and borders is them accepting a Geographical state of Israel.
This chap appears to disagree with you re the Oslo processes, placing the blame for the failure on Israel.

Being a Jewish Oxford don I suspect he's biased.

The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process
 
.....and [in] 2009 Israel offered to withdraw to 67 Borders -remove settlements and in 2009 agreed to split Jerusalem Demographically.

In 2009 Hamas rejected it and started their next rocket campaign.
You forgot to mention, per Wiki, that the 2009 "offer" required "recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel; Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return. He [Netanyahu] also claimed that Israeli settlements retain a right to growth and expansion in the West Bank."

A more disingenuous "offer" would be hard to imagine.
 
Last edited:
On 2 occasions 2000 Ish Clinton negotiations and 2009 Israel offered to withdraw to 67 Borders -remove settlements and in 2009 agreed to split Jerusalem Demographically.

In 2000 Arafat dismissed these Israeli concessions out of hand - didn't attempt a counter offer and lanched the 2nd Intifada - Even the Arabs couldn't believe it

In 2009 Hamas rejected it and started their next rocket campaign.

I would contend that in both cases the Israelis signing up to a peace plan embodying territorial claims and borders is them accepting a Geographical state of Israel.
What are your sources?
Several pals were shot on the israeli side having breached it.

Re the image, which of the many impressive Gazan mountain ranges is that in the background?
What are your sources?
 
Last edited:
An odd definition of illegally occupied, by that logic the Allies and the Soviets illegally occupied Germany after WWII.
So what what about Guantanamo Bay;.The Septics according to the Cubans are illegally occupying their land.Or is this just another case of do as I say not as I do?
 
Israeli commanders said there was no non-lethal alternative that would stop a determined crowd from breaking through the fence.

Israeli military officers have no regrets over use of lethal force at Gaza protests

By Raf Sanchez


23 MAY 2018 • 10:50 AM

A senior IDF commander supervising a team of Israeli snipers at the Gaza border spoke of their mission to stop Palestinians coming through the thin fence that separates Gaza from Israel, Raf Sanchez reports in The telegraph.


“Was there an option where we could stop them cutting the fence and coming into Israel without using a lethal weapon? The answer is no,” he said. “They have a hard and deep hatred of Israel and if they came into Israel I think there is no question of what they are going to do.”

In interviews with The Telegraph and in public statements, they spoke instead of pride in their troops and in the success of their military mission: no Palestinians made it through the fence and no Israeli soldiers or civilians were killed or injured.

They voiced frustration at what they considered knee-jerk criticism of their use of live fire by people who did not understand the situation on the ground.

Israeli commanders said there was no non-lethal alternative that would stop a determined crowd from breaking through the fence. Rubber bullets are effective only at short range and are fired from cumbersome specialised weapons that are slow to reload. Teargas disperses quickly and the Mediterranean wind meant the noxious clouds often blew away from the demonstrators and towards Israeli forces.

For the commanders, there was no question of waiting for the protesters to come through the fence and arresting them on the other side. The risk of an attack on Israeli civilians was too high, they said. “We can’t have the fence open for even one minute,” said one infantry battalion commander. “We need to stop them here.”

The officer is Druze, part of an Arabic-speaking minority from northern Israel. Druze soldiers are famed their ferocity in battle and are highly valued by the IDF for their Arabic skills. “I speak Arabic. I know what can happen in this region. Look at Syria. You can imagine what can happen if they cross the fence,” he said.

While the battlefield commanders quietly declared victory, the Israeli military’s spokesmen seemed to concede they had been defeated in the battle of narratives.

Lt Col Jonathan Conricus said in a leaked briefing to US Jewish groups that Hamas had won the public relations battle “by a knockout”, as TV screens filled with images of dead and wounded Palestinians.

“If in order to win the international propaganda war I need to lie like Hamas, then I prefer to tell the truth and lose,” wrote Brigadier General Ronen Manelis, the IDF’s top spokesman. “The IDF will win where it matters - protecting our civilians in the face of terror.”
 
This chap appears to disagree with you re the Oslo processes, placing the blame for the failure on Israel.

Being a Jewish Oxford don I suspect he's biased.

The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process
Ah right Im not jumping up and down screaming Izzy Cnut Izzy Cnut, therefore I must automatically believe any anti Israeli comment is from a biased source.
Oh dear have a fail - Ive been quite up front about condemning BOTH sides.

You forgot to mention, per Wiki, that the 2009 "offer" required "recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel; Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return. He [Netanyahu] also claimed that Israeli settlements retain a right to growth and expansion in the West Bank."

A more disingenuous "offer" would be hard to imagine.

You queried wether Israel had agreed to fixing Borders - I put forward 2 occasions Israel had done so

I omitted many things regarding these events as I didn't consider them relevant to the point (fixing borders)
I didn't say The Israelis were good guys - I didn't say all the deals were fair -

Taken with your previous comment viz I would scream bias (based on no evidence whatsoever other than I made a singular point marginally in Israels favour (agreed borders) Your response appears to be insinuating - I deliberately left out anti Israeli points to promote Israels position.
I hope that's a misunderstanding on my part - Because it would be highly disingenuous (and worthy of the likes of 118 and other conspiraloons ) to ask a question and then condemn a response because it didn't include X Y and Z that weren't asked about. It would also mean that you've fallen into the idiocy trap of assuming that Disagreeing with A = 100% supports B.

Re Oslo - I dont think I laid blame at anyones door - (Though I did in 2000 Arafat)
As for the Isreali demands in 2009

"recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; Perfectly reasonable
demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, Unreasonable in the long term - short term whilst an unreasonable request its probably not a bad Idea - in reality it would pretty much happen by default - be a few years before Palestine can look to develop real armed forces
along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel - Again not unreasonable (depending on how it foresees the border drawn ) and I assume means holding onto the Golan Heights and bloody big fences. How Israel polices its border is up to them (ditto the Pals) - caveat Pals border includes its coastline - Israel cannot continue to control an independent Palestines coastline
Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, Im failing to see a problem with this - Jerusalem will be demographically split the Palestinians could also claim it as their capital.
and renounce their claim to a right of return. This ones very contextual - does it mean no Palestinian can ever emigrate - Unreasonable- or does it mean a Palestinian state must renounce its claim on Israeli territory - In the interests of peace that's probably the only way forward - the time to settle the borders is prior to signing this clause

In context demanding Eire renounces claims to NI rather than Nobody from Eire can go there 2 very different things

He [Netanyahu] also claimed that Israeli settlements retain a right to growth and expansion in the West Bank." I think that was the keeping 94% of the west bank clause rather than a licence to encroach - which unreasonable or not is a negotiating point - If it meant an unlimited scope then yes obviously unreasonable and totally ridiculous

On the face of it its not clear how unreasonable these unreasonable demands are - the headlines may not reflect the actual small print - See my bold text - They may be completely unreasonable or completely reasonable it depends whats actually meant (which may or may not reflect the Wiki article)
 
So what what about Guantanamo Bay;.The Septics according to the Cubans are illegally occupying their land.Or is this just another case of do as I say not as I do?
Lease agreement and rent is paid(Castro even cashed one check then let the others pile up). Helps to actually know some facts

Here, educate yourself-
Avalon Project - Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations; February 23, 1903

Avalon Project - Lease to the United States by the Government of Cuba of Certain Areas of Land and Water for Naval or Coaling Stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda; July 2, 1903
Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949: Canada-Czechoslovakia
 

Latest Threads

Top