Israel planned to break ceasefire


by Sunny
28th December, 2008 at 10:24 pm    

The Haaretz reports (via Moments of Clarity):

Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public – all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces “Cast Lead” operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, which began Saturday morning. The disinformation effort, according to defense officials, took Hamas by surprise and served to significantly increase the number of its casualties in the strike.

Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.

Oh wait, I thought they were just retaliating against a recent upsurge in rocket attacks?
Meanwhile, a writer on Harry’s Place reckons that a fatwa calling for Muslims “to defend the defenceless women, children and people in Gaza in any way possible,” is inciting terrorism. That’s a bit bizarre, I thought Israelis were also engaging in ‘self-defence’? Are they also engaging in terrorism or does this only apply when Muslims want to defend their own? Maybe someone could enlighten me.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Middle East






51 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Israel planned to break ceasefire – Politics Unlimited | UK politics news

    [...] Read Israel planned to break ceasefire at Pickled Politics [...]




  1. marvin — on 28th December, 2008 at 10:33 pm  

    Oh wait, I thought they were just retaliating against a recent upsurge in rocket attacks?

    The Israelis must be psychic then. How could they possibly know, in advance, there would be an upsurge in rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel? I’m stumped.

  2. Steve M — on 28th December, 2008 at 10:42 pm  

    “Oh wait, I thought they were just retaliating against a recent upsurge in rocket attacks?”

    I’m not sure ‘cute’ really suits you Sunny. I suspect you know that over the last seven years thousands of missiles have been fired from Gaza. I suppose that Israel could have waited until Hamas obtained more, better and bigger rockets capable of causing higher numbers of civilian casualties. That’s what most countries would have done, right?

  3. chris — on 28th December, 2008 at 11:12 pm  

    Of course it was planned. That said, this won’t stop Livni et al from claiming otherwise – i.e. that it was carried out in response to increased rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, as Livni herself has tonight stated.

    Surely, we must also ask questions of Egypt? Just read reports that they opened fire on Palestinians attempting to flee across the border. They should hang their heads in shame.

  4. Sunny — on 28th December, 2008 at 11:32 pm  

    How could they possibly know, in advance, there would be an upsurge in rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel? I’m stumped.

    The upsurge gave them the excuse they wanted?

    I suspect you know that over the last seven years thousands of missiles have been fired from Gaza.

    Steve, and how many Palestinian civilians have died compared to Israelis?

    That’s what most countries would have done, right?

    How about going back to the 1967 borders, stop building illegal settlements and withdraw from the currently illegal ones?

  5. reader — on 28th December, 2008 at 11:33 pm  

    Yes, of course, a fatwa from Iran’s Supreme Leader which claims that:

    “All Palestinian combatants and all the Islamic world’s pious people are obliged to defend the defenceless women, children and people in Gaza in any way possible. Whoever is killed in this legitimate defence is considered a martyr”

    really shouldn’t be interpreted as a call for terrorist attacks. After all, Iran doesn’t support terrorism, does it. Nor has Hamas, Iran’s client in Gaza, ever carried out terrorist attacks. Of course not. Neither has Hezbollah, that other group of sages the regime backs. And “any way possible” with reference to “all the Islamic world’s pious people” is not sinister language coming from Tehran, no, not at all.

    Furthermore, the Iranian regime is a great defender of “their own”, isn’t it. All those Iranian dissidents in Evin prison, they must be ZioCons, eh?

    Sunny for C4 CEO!

  6. Steve M — on 28th December, 2008 at 11:45 pm  

    “How about going back to the 1967 borders, stop building illegal settlements and withdraw from the currently illegal ones?”

    How about a negotiated and agreed settlement to do just that?

  7. David — on 28th December, 2008 at 11:59 pm  

    “How about a negotiated and agreed settlement to do just that?”

    On whose terms?

  8. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:02 am  

    I meant the term ‘settlement’ to imply agreement. The terms are simply that both those representing the Palestinians and those representing the Israelis should be prepared to give up something for the sake of peace.

  9. fug — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:43 am  

    see what i mean by playing the iranian card? totally orthogonal.

  10. Katy Newton — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:47 am  

    Deleted. I’m not getting into this here again. We all know it’ll degenerate into mindless antisemitism around comment 100 so why waste my time?

  11. soru — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:57 am  

    ‘I thought they were just retaliating against a recent upsurge in rocket attacks?’

    Israeli defense minister: what can we do about this recent upsurge in rocket attacks?

    Israeli general: Fucked if I know: the idea that there might be such an upsurge in attacks was totally off our radar. The very idea of the anti-Israeli militant group Hamas launching rocket attacks on Israel – who’d have thought it eh? It was a complete black swan, as in principle unpredictable as bankers being paid million quid bonuses on three month results not thinking beyond the point at which the money hit their trousers.

    Israeli defense minister: get me another general, this one seems to be broken.

  12. chris — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:04 am  

    Steve M, do your research. Even Hamas had signed up to the Arab peace initiative, an agreement offering complete normalisation in exchange for withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the Occupied Territories. Of course, the Israeli govt was not happy with this, no matter how reasonable it is.

  13. Danny S — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:10 am  

    Have you actually read the Haaretz article?

    “According to the sources, Barak maintained that although the lull would allow Hamas to prepare for a showdown with Israel, the Israeli army needed time to prepare, as well.”

    “The plan of action that was implemented in Operation Cast Lead remained only a blueprint until a month ago, when tensions soared after the IDF carried out an incursion into Gaza during the ceasefire to take out a tunnel which the army said was intended to facilitate an attack by Palestinian militants on IDF troops.”

    “However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire.”

    “The final decision was made on Friday morning… Barak sat down with Olmert and Livni several hours later for a final meeting, in which the trio gave the air force its orders.”

    Whatever you feel about the Israeli attacks, it’s not unreasonable for Barak to expect and plan for the ceasefire to break down and for Hamas to resume their rocket attacks on Israeli citizens. In fact, it would be negligent of him not to.

  14. chris — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:37 am  

    Danny S, you talk about the breakdown of the ceasefire while quoting an article that clearly references an incident, or an “incursion” as the Israeli govt claims, which, under any terms, represents a contravention of that agreement.

    The ceasefire ended some time ago, if it ever really existed.

  15. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 2:01 am  

    After all, Iran doesn’t support terrorism, does it. Nor has Hamas, Iran’s client in Gaza, ever carried out terrorist attacks.

    And I can point out loads of cladestine operations by Israel and the US that also break loads of international treaties and kill innocent people.

    My question was, is calling for the defence of innocent and defenceless women and children terrorism now?

  16. Danny S — on 29th December, 2008 at 2:19 am  

    Chris, the incident refered to in the article relates to the Israelis taking out a tunnel built by Hamas to faciliate an attack on Israeli soldiers.

    Surely, given the Israeli army’s experience with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, the construction of the tunnel was itself a breach of the ceasefire to which it had to respond?

  17. soru — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:05 am  

    ‘And I can point out loads of cladestine operations by Israel and the US that also break loads of international treaties and kill innocent people.’

    So, they are a possible means of action. Therefore someone, from either side, calling for everything possible to be done, without caveat or clarification, is calling for such things to be done.

    Is there something about I/P that makes so many people constitutionally incapable of treating the various actors by some common coherent set of standards?

    If officials in the Iranian government are explicitly calling for a war without rules, a war of extermination against the Jews, then a case should be submitted to the international court naming those individuals for incitement to war-crimes and genocide. The charge sheet should carry the name of every dead Israeli and Palestinian civilian.

    The same would go for any Israeli, US or British senior official making comparable statements (though I don’t think the Hague should waste time on those nutters on comment threads who want to nuke Mecca, or whatever).

    Imagine the prospects for peace and prosperity if international law and collective security could prove themselves as applying to all states in the region equally…

  18. Reality — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:33 am  

    soru

    “Is there something about I/P that makes so many people constitutionally incapable of treating the various actors by some common coherent set of standards? ”

    The Jewish lobby in the US and its strangehold over the political scene there

    “If officials in the Iranian government are explicitly calling for a war without rules, a war of extermination against the Jews, then a case should be submitted to the international court naming those individuals for incitement to war-crimes and genocide. The charge sheet should carry the name of every dead Israeli and Palestinian civilian.

    The same would go for any Israeli, US or British senior official making comparable statements (though I don’t think the Hague should waste time on those nutters on comment threads who want to nuke Mecca, or whatever).”

    Unbelievable that you think officials should be charged for SAYING things but not charged for MURDERING
    thousands as Bush, Blair and Olmert have done.

    Iran never called for war against the Jews – if it did it wouldnt have the largest Jewish population in the ME outside Israel . Rabbis in Israel have often called for the killing of Arabs which you can do with impunity in the Jewish state.

    So what about Tom Tancredo Republican candiate who called for nuking Mecca?

    Effectively you are saying a Jewish life is worth more than an Arab one

  19. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:36 am  

    If officials in the Iranian government are explicitly calling for a war without rules, a war of extermination against the Jews

    Which has not happened here.

    Is there something about I/P that makes so many people constitutionally incapable of treating the various actors by some common coherent set of standards?

    Maybe I should be asking you that question.

  20. Viqtoria — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:08 am  

    When I was in Jerusalem some years back I made friends with the Palestinian shop proprietor who had over charged me and then I went back complaining so he agreed to return some of my money.It was really my fault since I had not bargained him down to the proper price, and he was a good man, just a shrewd busilness man as that’s how it goes. Interestingly, after that we became friends and he offered me some Hashish. While high, he admitted Israel treats Palestinians in Jerusalum far better than any Arab countries treat them, but the problem, he said, was that power hungry Palestinians bully peace loving Palestinians who want to just work and live side by side with Israelis. Actually, he said, he felt the Israeli government was very fair under the circumstances. he also liked the fact that there were three different religions because Jews are off on Saturdays, Christians on Sundays, and Muslims on Fridays. They can each patronize each other’s establishments on their off days! He also said the good Palestinians are suffering for the sins of the bad ones and unfortunately the good ones are too afraid of the bad ones to live in peace as they want to. That is what he told me.I say, its too bad that power hungry and unreasonable Palestinians violated the cease fire and caused the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians as of course Israel has to retaliate if they are to be taken seriously.

  21. Cold Beer — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:10 am  

    Marvin: The Israelis must be psychic then. How could they possibly know, in advance, there would be an upsurge in rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel? I’m stumped.

    Probably because in June, Israel and Hamas agreed upon a six month ceasefire. Does it really take psychic powers to know that a six month ceasefire will expire in six months?

    Israel was in favour of extending the ceasefire, but they obviously made preparations in case Hamas disagreed. As it turned out, Hamas launched a barrage of rockets at the Western Negev. That probably counts as disagreement.

  22. Hasabara — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:17 am  

    The Zionist spin of the I/P conflict is a truly astonishing masterpiece of political propaganada
    where the 4th most powerful army in the world, a nuclear power backed totally by the worlds only hyper power is the underdog and an indigenous people armed with stones and tin rockets are the agressors.

    Where a bunch of white European colonialists have come to a land and expelled its native non-white population all the while portraying the non-white people as racists.

    In the past Israel justified its occupation as a bulwark against arab nationalism, then communism , now Islam. It set up Hamas to weaken Fatah and now seeks to weaken Hamas and strengthen Fatah

    It potrays itself as the victim while slaughtering a hundred times the number of its civilians that are killed and while being a rich first worl country (recieving $3bn a year in aid!!!) against a third world population it has starved and dispossessed.

  23. marvin — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:39 am  

    Well Katy, you will certainly get your fair share of delusional lunatics, and fair earlier than that, see #21

    Many lies in one, well done.

    “third world population it has starved and dispossessed.”

    Which has a life expectancy which is similar to Glasgow, around 72 for males. In comparison to Zimbabwe, which is 34 years. But people like you are obssessed with the ‘zionist’ enemy.

    Viqtoria #21

    Very enlightening :P Hate filled Hasbara could never understand this.

  24. Boyo — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:38 am  

    Your conclusions about this do seem a bit off the mark Sunny – OF COURSE they planned it – the military of all nations have plans in place for many eventualities and it is hardly surprising they had one ready to go in this instance. If they hadn’t then civilian casualties would be much higher – even the BBC reports that Hamas admit almost all casualties have been militants.

    Since you mention HP, the last paras of a recent post I think are somewhat more telling:

    “Take Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PA, who back in March, accused Israel of carrying out a “Holocaust” in Gaza. Hamas, he has said very publicly, could have avoided the Israeli attack: “We spoke to them and told them ‘Please, we ask you not to end the cease-fire. Let it continue. We want to protect the Gaza Strip. We don’t want it to be destroyed.’”

    Or take Egypt, which is accusing Hamas of imposing a blockade on injured civilians trying to leave Gaza for medical treatment. As ambulances arrived at the Rafah border crossing, and tons of medical equipment landed at the nearby El Arish airport, a security official said, “No one has come in, we don’t know why they’re closed on the other side.”

    It’s not hard to hazard a guess. Hamas thrives on abject misery: that’s why it callously goaded Israel into this operation, that’s why it refuses to evacuate the wounded while theatrically announcing that Gaza’s own hospitals cannot cope. The more awareness of the true nature of Hamas spreads among Arabs and Muslims, the more hopeful the outlook in the long run.”

  25. Boyo — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:46 am  

    “The upsurge gave them the excuse they wanted?”

    Maybe so, but as I’ve tried to explain before, one side is as bad as the other and only outside intervention will work. Taking sides just perpetuates matters.

  26. fug — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:04 am  

    The ugliness of israel, its psychotic and self worshipping nature are clear despite all this military bravado the press is giving it. It seems bound by habit to earn itself and as a consequence, the greater Jewish community even more enemies. In a twisted way it does in the end serve the ‘Israel is our fortress logic’, though its probably Lipvi trying to grow herself some testicles.

    the UN birthed the illegitimate entity in the first place, and the Brit’s historic cowtowing to Zionist terror tactics needs to be highlighted.

    I wonder if david milliband and co can actually summon the spine to do anything. I doubt obama-clinton will move their arses and wouldnt ever expect them to. But that doesnt really matter, there are other actors in the arena. Power to them.

  27. chairwoman — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:56 am  

    Fug – What a nasty little toad you are, along with your cohorts Hasabara and Reality.

    Your cod sympathy for the ‘greater Jewish community’ turns my stomach.

    You got antisemitism? Bring it on, I’ve heard it all before.

  28. Rumbold — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:12 am  

    As has been pointed out, there is nothing wrong in military preparations when you have a violent enemy next door who fires rockets at you and wants to wipe you off the map.

    But it still doesn’t excuse the way in which Israel has attacked Gaza. Yes, no operation would ever be completly free of civilian casualities, as Hamas cower behind women and children, but this level of non-combatant deaths cannot be justified.

  29. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:38 am  

    “My question was, is calling for the defence of innocent and defenceless women and children terrorism now?” – Sunny

    Ben Cohen on Harry’s Place wrote the following:

    Not to be outdone, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a call for Muslims everywhere to engage in acts of terrorism (”All Palestinian combatants and all the Islamic world’s pious people are obliged to defend the defenceless women, children and people in Gaza in any way possible. Whoever is killed in this legitimate defence is considered a martyr.”)

    So Ben Cohen has equated the ‘in any way possible’ with terrorism.

    My view is that it is absolutely correct for the Gazans to do everything possible to protect the women and children and that the most effective way to do this would be to keep them well away from any areas that are likely to be targeted (as far as that is possible). My view is also that the Ayatollah’s preference would be precisely the opposite.

  30. fug — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:45 am  

    My love for palestinians, postzionist jews and unzionised jews makes your damaged goods emotional blackmail (antisemeticness accusation) pointless for anything other than a) thickening your safety blanket and ear muffs and b) most probably to demonise folks like me.

    and no i dont buy drugs from a jewish dealer (#20). anecdotal guff!

    I killed none of your ancestors, that is not my cultural guilt button. You should know that.

    Israel is a liability for Jews, I hope they come up with a better idea someday. This one hurts and poisons the whole world. It is a Pharoanic State.

  31. Refresh — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:58 am  

    There is something about Israeli Adventures and the festive season. It almost ties in with what companies do when it comes redundancies – wait for Christmas.

    Perhaps its when the world ‘that matters’ goes to sleep or at least switches out the bad news.

    Condi Rice praises Bush for changing the conversation in the Middle East; Ariel Sharon is famous for creating facts on the ground and now Livni wants to enhance the dialogue before Netanyahu does.

    I’ve never heard such vile filth.

    Meanwhile, there are commentators here who rely on 3rd party statements to obfuscate the meaning of morality and decency.

    I think its time for honesty – again. Here is a piece that is worth mulling over.

    ‘Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html

    ‘There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, “We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?” It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.

    The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: “The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians… this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely.”‘

  32. Rumbold — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:04 pm  

    Refresh:

    i just read that as well. It was a very good piece.

  33. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:06 pm  

    There are many different and freely expressed points of view in Israel, including that of Dov Weisglass.

  34. Hasabara — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:56 pm  

    chairwoman

    “Fug – What a nasty little toad you are, along with your cohorts Hasabara and Reality.

    Your cod sympathy for the ‘greater Jewish community’ turns my stomach.

    You got antisemitism? Bring it on, I’ve heard it all before”

    Yep because a few nasty comments about a racist state which collectively starves and slaughters an entire people “turns your stomach” more than the death of Ay-rab women and children. What a true zionist you are.

    You are more concerned someone will say something unkind about your pirate state than with that same state creating a new Warsaw ghetto.

    Were Israel to annihiliate the entire Arab population of Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem the main concern of zionists would be that someone might criticise Israel. This is the depraved mentality we are dealing with.

    Im glad a fascist racist Nazi like you condemns me -I wear every zionazi invective as a badge of pride

    And who made you chairwoman anyway? Was it G-d in the Bible?

  35. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:09 pm  

    “Were Israel to annihiliate the entire Arab population of Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem the main concern of zionists would be that someone might criticise Israel.”

    Israel wouldn’t do that and any sane and informed person knows that. If they’d wanted to annihilate the Arabs of Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem they would have done so. The Arab populations of each of these places has increased massively since both 1948 and 1967 and continues to expand.

    To go on such vile head-trips is somewhat depraved in itself, isn’t it?

  36. chairwoman — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:21 pm  

    I am neither a Nazi, nor someone who uses words like Ay-rab, nor am I of a people who wishes to annihilate another people.

    I am from a people who have been bullied, reviled and murdered for 2000 years, some of whom would like the opportunity to co-exist peacefully, within secure borders, in what we have always considered to be our ancestral home.

    I actually know what fascism and nazi-ism means, intemperate use of those words demean them and take away their sting.

    Racist? You dare call me racist? It is Hamas in particular, that calls for the destruction of the Jews, and non-Jews on this site who criticise a whole people collectively.

    As we used to say in sixties ‘War’s a bad scene, Man’, and indeed it is, for once the scholar, or the doctor, or the farmer, or whatever, gets a weapon in his hand, he becomes an extension of that weapon, and don’t kid yourselves that you would behave with any more dignity or humanity.

    And as for who made me, if you mean who made me, then obviously it was my mother and father. If you mean who made me chairwoman, it was that mosquito in Venice back in 2004

  37. marvin — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:19 pm  

    Hasabara I think your comments towards Chairwoman are vile, unwarranted, shrill and delusional.

    It has no place in a sensible adult debate.

  38. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:29 pm  

    My view is also that the Ayatollah’s preference would be precisely the opposite.

    Steve, I’m afraid that demonstrates your bias. If a white person says protect women, children and the defenceless, you see that as self-defence. If a Muslim religious leader says the same, you automatically assume he’s advocating suicide bombings. That’s hardly a balanced viewpoint is it?
    You don’t think there are religious Muslim mullahs who are anti-terrorist?

    Boyo:
    Maybe so, but as I’ve tried to explain before, one side is as bad as the other and only outside intervention will work. Taking sides just perpetuates matters.

    As I said, I’m not taking sides – I think both sides are to blame for the breakdown of peace. Unlike Harry’s Place, I’m not just blaming one side.

    However, I do balk at then saying that the death of one Israeli is the same as the death of 300 Palestinians, because its not. If some Palestinian bomber had launched such a huge bomb that killed 300 Israelies and injured over a 1000, we’d see full scale invasion already in retaliation.

    So the double standards are all yours.

  39. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:37 pm  

    That is my stated view on the Ayatollah, not ‘a Muslim religious leader’. I don’t think that there are religious Muslim Mullahs who are anti-terrorist, I know there are. The Ayatollah is not one of them.

  40. marvin — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:05 pm  

    Sunny, the fatwa was cleverly worded, in that if taken literally by ears of decent people will mean simply to defend innocent people. I would take that to my ears, out of context, as a noble cause.

    Yet if you study terrorism, revolutionary/marxist/ islamist, “by any means necessary” necessarily includes terrorism and targeting of ‘enemy’ civilians.

    A group of hardline clerics who do not recognise Israel (sorry, the Zionist entity) at all are on their way ‘to fight’

    http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=15194

    We’ll see how the followers of the Ayatollah interpret the fatwa in the coming few days and weeks, I suspect. The fatwa could be deemed ‘irresponsible’ if there were only noble intentions.

  41. reader — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:18 pm  

    If a white person says protect women, children and the defenceless, you see that as self-defence. If a Muslim religious leader says the same, you automatically assume he’s advocating suicide bombings.

    Yes, when Iran’s supreme leader, that is, the leader of a country that backs the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah and has carried out terrorist operations of its own, calls for action by “all the Islamic world’s pious people” “in any way possible” and specifically mentions martyrdom, it is absolutely, positively racist to say he is advocating suicide bombing.

  42. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:23 pm  

    Well, I have to take people at their word, however difficult as that may sound… because Israel keeps saying its a democracy and is dedicated towards protecting innocent civilian life but its action say the complete opposite. And yet you folks are giving them leeway on those words.

  43. Niels C — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:11 pm  

    #Sunny

    ‘Oh wait, I thought they were just retaliating against a recent upsurge in rocket attacks?’

    You can critize Israeleans for a lot of things, but critize them for carefull planning ?
    I’ll guess they have learned from the partly fiasco in the latest war against Hizbollah.

  44. reader — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:37 pm  

    you folks are giving them leeway on those words

    Who are “you folks”?

    On Sunday Khaled Meshaal said this for Hamas from Damascus:

    “We called for a military intifada against the enemy. Resistance will continue through suicide missions.”

    He also said:

    “Neither rockets nor suicide operations are absurd, but negotiations are.”

    Doubtless Khameini didn’t mean to rile Meshaal or anyone else with his fatwa, and is on the line to Damascus right now arguing against suicide bombings. Obligatory action by “all the Islamic world’s pious people “in any way possible”, even if it ends in martyrdom, means stubbing your toe on your way to a peace march or something like that, I guess.

  45. ziodegradable — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:27 pm  

    marvin
    ” Hasabara I think your comments towards Chairwoman are vile, unwarranted, shrill and delusional.

    It has no place in a sensible adult debate.”

    But you dont consider Israel killing children vile. What a sick puppy you are.

    Given your vile ranting against the Palestinians your government is slaughetering Im very proud to upset ziofascists

    “Yet if you study terrorism, revolutionary/marxist/ islamist, “by any means necessary” necessarily includes terrorism and targeting of ‘enemy’ civilians.”

    You forgot to mention Judaic terrorism which Israel was built on and sustained by

    “Yesha Rabbinical Council: During time of war, enemy has no innocents

    Israel News
    The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as ‘innocents’ of the enemy.”

    All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians,” the statement said. ”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283720,00.html

    The fact you are trying to divert attention from Israels slaughter to pretty irelevant comments made by somone thousands of miles away is typical

  46. ziodegradable — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:31 pm  

    reader

    “and specifically mentions martyrdom, it is absolutely, positively racist to say he is advocating suicide bombing.”

    Its beyond me why suicide bombing is treated as a horror worse than cluster bombs, landmines mini nuclear devices and depleted uranium that the zionists and their allies use. They are certainly far less murderous against civilians.

    I suspect its because it is used by the weaker parties not by the larger armies.

    Samson was a suicide bomber and he isnt treated as a terrorist by zionists.

  47. hasbara — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:49 pm  

    chairwoman

    “I am from a people who have been bullied, reviled and murdered for 2000 years,”

    But you werent exterminated by Palestinians or Arabs but by Europeans. So why should the Arabs pay the price because the Germans exterminated 6 million of you ?

    And your people are now bullying, reviling and murdering the Palestinians. You must be so fvcking proud. But lets be honest only Jewish suffering really counts.

    ” some of whom would like the opportunity to co-exist peacefully, within secure borders, in what we have always considered to be our ancestral home.”"

    Which happens belongs to someone else. Why do you have to have a state on someone else’s land. I fully understand the need for a state but why one that necessitates the genocide (and ethnic cleansing is genocide) of its original inhabitants ? How can you steal someone land then say “we want to co exist peacefully”?

    Zionists demand respect for all the suffering Jews have had but are INCAPABLE of recognising the monstrosity of taking away the Palestinians lands to assuage the crimes of Europe.

  48. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:14 pm  

    ziodegradeable / hasbara,

    ziodegradeable,

    Have you considered that not everyone on the other side of the fence thinks what you think they do, viz:

    But you dont consider Israel killing children vile. What a sick puppy you are.

    Perhaps they are not the sick puppies you say they are? Perhaps they have compassion and no desire to see killing, of any sort?

    Perhaps they are human.

    Do I detect a slightly mysogynistic tone in your voice towards a nice lady?

    Perhaps I do.

    ———————————————–

    hasbara,

    I doubt very much that Chairwoman – who’s nom de guerre is frankly beyond your pathetic little brain.. despite it being spelled out for you – is your enemy. Unless you choose, of course to exclusively see good people as bad. Just ’cause. Which is your right. But not likely to get you any brownie points.

    Think again, both of you.

    I cannot put it more plainly than that.

    Thanks.

    Well, I can and I will, if you ever, ever come on here with less than respect.

  49. Refresh — on 30th December, 2008 at 12:03 am  

    Hasbara,

    I am not sure you really understood what Chairwoman was trying to say:

    ‘I am from a people who have been bullied, reviled and murdered for 2000 years, some of whom would like the opportunity to co-exist peacefully, within secure borders, in what we have always considered to be our ancestral home.’

    It is a tragedy that you could not see the opportunity to understand what makes this the most painful and incendiary of all the problems the world faces. And for Chairwoman to have put it in those terms is an honesty you must recognise.

    Chairwoman is a friend and for good reason. By all means present alternatives which accomodate your passionately held views, but for all our sakes do not presume antipathy where there is none.

  50. Indrak — on 30th December, 2008 at 12:27 am  

    #50:
    -so would you know why she wrote #27, unless she already knows these people and referenced something beyond this thread?

    And re “in what we have always considered to be our ancestral home”,
    any such claims pertaining to a flat earth are void;
    both in meaning and effect, since it is known to spin on an axis rather than be the stationary centre of the cosmos.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.