So you want the holyland and your neighborhood to be Juden Frei.

You're calling for ethnic cleansing, you realize.

That will work, right?

Many people that live in Israel were born there. That is their home.

Israel/Palestine is already one state, with a large percentage refused their rights as citizens. A large percentage of Israelis do not respect the rights of the people that were mostly there first, which is tragic. They've cause so much suffering for so long for so many innocent folks. So anyone that refuses to get along with their fellow citizens of the state of Israel/Palestine should leave.

With the severe attitudes of so many in Israel, the future will be difficult. But a one state solution is the only possible way this can turn out well. The Israelis will have to be forced from the outside when even the US can't tolerate them anymore.

As much as some people may seem to desire it. I don't think Israel should be expected to stand by while they are slaughtered.

No, they shouldn't.

Thousands are being slaughtered, the vast majority of them civilians. Should they simply stand by?

Israel tried to and they got a sneak attack.

That is the difference. Israel did try to simply stand by and Hamas used that to attack them.

Also, unless Israel has worked hard to preserve Gaza's communication infrastructure, it's not reasonable to fault Palestinians for failing to get the news of a ceasefire in a timely fashion.

why are so many non aggressors dying?

had begun, according to those Twitter timestamps. The timing of those who heard the conflagration at the southern tunnel within Gaza, as it occurred, indicates that the IDF discovered unidentified combatants inside a tunnel they were clearing, then suicide bomb blast and exchange of fire was heard and noted by tweeters, which is when the IDF soldier was taken prisoner as he was dragged back into tunnel...all happened before the agreed upon ceasefire.

Twitter is all ablaze with this verification of the timing.

With the reliability of this age of information that we live in, some "official" lies will be noted as just that, due to technological abilities. But only if the foxes guarding the henhouse aren't the ones who conduct the "official" investigation.




Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
Free Palestine!

...of violating the 72-hour truce, which disintegrated in less than two hours."

Except then the "fair and balanced" NY Times Pulls out their stenographer to repeat Israeli claims (they did so and so then SUBSEQUENTLY Israel attacked) and never even guesses at what the Palestinian side of the story might be.

DULink: http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10025321636

What do you want them to do Willy?

wtf happened to this world.

Pretty much want to scream.

Gaza Strip: 'Palestinian Genocide is Permissible' Claims Israeli Writer


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-strip-palestinian-genocide-permissible-claims-israeli-writer-1459390

Obviously, someone(s) condoned it. If Israelis did not feel that way, it would not have been published to begin with.

Blog posts on the site aren't reviewed in advance any more than posts here are. Did Skinner "condone" the post that subsequently was taken down in this thread? Of course not.
And the post wasn't authored by an "Israeli" -- it was an American. But accuracy hasn't been and isn't a strong concern for those attacking Israel.

We both know that. The article was posted in the paper I linked to and also in the paper the author's father founded.

nt

connection to Israel? What he wrote doesn't count because he didn't write it in Israel? Is one less Jewish when in US than when in Israel? Maybe you're saying Jews in Israel don't read US publications written for Jewish people?


It was published in an Israeli paper in Israel and it was published in a paper in the US written for a Jewish population.

Here's an article from the International Business Times.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-yochanan-gordon-when-genocide-permissible-writer-took-cues-father-5-towns-jewish-times-1646520

Yochanan Gordon, the Times of Israel blogger whose “When Genocide is Permissible” post was taken down by the online publication amid a backlash over his apparent support for wiping out the Palestinian population, says much of his writing “stems from his father,” according to his bio on the site.

Based on that description, it’s no surprise that his father, 5 Towns Jewish Times founder Larry Gordon, wrote a similar piece in the early days of the latest round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although the column did not go as far as to say genocide against Palestinians is justifiable. In a July 18 post in his Long Island, New York, newspaper, Larry Gordon said the idea of innocent Palestinians is “nonsense.”



While both sites purged the story, Yochanan Gordon continued to defend his views on his Twitter account. When a user responded to his latest tweet, he said, “Every other path to coexistence has failed miserably. [Israel has] been the Jewish homeland for 3,000 years. Do we leave now?”

Gordon’s Twitter account has since been deleted.

The piece was a blog, as even the articles you cite acknowledge.
It was not written by an Israeli as your post suggested.
It did not appear "in" the Times, it appeared on a blog site hosted by the Times that is not edited by the Times.

You ask whether what he wrote doesn't count because he didn't write it in Israel.
I'll ask you something back: does it count that he wasn't Israeli but is an American Jew or in your mind are all Jews Israelis and all Israelis Jews?

Hint: They're not.

In fact I will go so far as to say that he believes himself an Israeli and Israel his homeland.

The last paragraph of the article I posted has his quote

Yochanan Gordon continued to defend his views on his Twitter account. When a user responded to his latest tweet, he said, “Every other path to coexistence has failed miserably. been the Jewish homeland for 3,000 years. Do we leave now?”


And the answer to your question- No, but many are and many also consider themselves to be- as evidenced in bold.

nt

Any Jewish person can go to Israel and claim Israeli citizenship. I don't think that once they do, that they are held prisoner there or are required to live out their lives there. I believe they are free to come and go as they like. No?

Claiming a ceasefire violation over an incident that occurred before the ceasefire -- while at the same time (i.e. after the ceasefire was agreed to but before it was to begin) continuing the shelling of the civilian population of Gaza.

So true.

when it returns fire.

At best, they will add a token statement about Hamas.
They will ignore the reality:
Israel agreed to the ceasefire
No Palestinian would have been killed by Israel if the ceasefire sustained
Hamas broke the ceasefire
Israel will respond - justifiably so.
There will be unavoidable Palestinian casualties, including children.

Those casualties are on the Hamas who broke the ceasefire.

This is simple logic. Wake up folks.

Some Vietnamese killed American GIs in the are of the village. So, we will kill any Vietnamese because they might have been, or aided, the Vietnamese who did the killing.

and another government in Gaza, will they become the new bad guy?

I personally believe that most of this hot mess came out of Palestinians wanting a unified government.

Thoughts?

question is, run by whom? I doubt that Hamas has much support in the West Bank. The fact that the Gazans decided to elect Hamas to represent them has been a tragic mistake for all the Palestinians and has set back prospects for a unified Palestinian government immesurably.

Who would Israel's government and it's backers consider a genuine government.

Displace Hamas, who would you like to see them take over?

Which Palestinian group do you feel is fit to govern Gaza?

If some vietnamese had not killed some American GI's, no Vietnamese villagers would have died in that fashion. Causality is really easy...........

"Gaza health officials said more than 35 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded as Israeli forces bombarded the Rafah area."

How is this "returning fire"? A few guys come out of a tunnel and attack Israeli soldiers, capturing one, and Israel reciprocates by indiscriminately shelling a neighborhood? See, this is where the Israeli leadership loses me. Yes, they get attacked, yes they have every right to defend themselves but they do so in a completely inappropriate and entirely out of proportion manner. Time and again the Israelis kill civilians, children, destroy infrastructure and seize territory, none of which have anything to do with what they are supposedly responding to. The logic seems to be that whatever damage is done to Israel will be returned tenfold, and often visited upon people who had little to do with the original attack.

What chance has peace under such circumstances? Say what you will about the Palestinian people's responsibility for the actions of Hamas or lone cell groups, how does any of this bring any of us closer to a peaceful solution? Does anyone think that there will be even one Palestinian anywhere who will see the damage Israel is doing to them and say "Well, we kind of deserved it and we are getting annihilated so I guess we'd better repent"? No, they will simply hate Israel even more than before of course, and commit to getting payback whatever the cost.

Peace cannot be had until the STRONGER of a pair of combatants devotes themselves to the idea, and stays that course no matter the provocation. If the stronger of the two instead attempts through force to gain concession from the weaker, and the weaker will not concede, peace will not be had until one side is completely eliminated.

Peace is not the stronger group to lay there and take whatever can be dished out by the weaker regardless of what provocation and no matter what duration.

Further, there is no way to maintain such a policy in any democracy. You will just be run out on a rail and someone that will put more value on the life of its citizens above their attackers will win and hell will be unleashed. Not entirely dissimilar to what has already played out here. There was a time when Israel had much more moderate leadership and less heavy handed policies and these people were run out in favor of actual security for themselves. Night Club bombings, kidnappings, murders, and getting blown up on the side of the road will do that and then people will insist that superior strength be used because otherwise it has no purpose.

I don't know where this idea comes from, what historical model are you drawing from that such is a workable strategy?

Since everything else you posted hinges on arguing against that strawman you set up there is little point in responding to it.

There is a parallel in history you may find useful to ponder however. Once there was a terrorist attack on the nation with the strongest military the world has ever seen. It was a terrible thing, and that nation responded by invading two countries, only one of which had any connection whatever to the criminal group who committed the attack, and that connection was hardly a full-blown endorsement of the group.

How'd that work out?

No, Israel can respond PROPORTIONATELY. They can, but they do not. They could treat each attack as the criminal case it should be, seek out the perpetrators, and punish them and only them. When this proves impossible there are other avenues to pursue justice, as every other nation on Earth seems to be aware of but Israel (and occasionally the US) is not. Killing innocents only guarantees a continuation, indeed an escalation, in violence.

What good do you imagine will result from the Israeli assault on Gaza?

when you said they should stay the course no matter the provocation...

your words... own them.

oh, and launching rockets into civilian areas is not a crime... it is an act of war.

sP

Like they do in the movies.

It that from the BAGHDAD BOB School of Military Warfare ?

if we had fought a Total War campaign. But we fought a bullshit hearts and minds campaign that was doomed to failure. I have four Iraq tours under my belt and have come to hate the terms hearts and minds and stabilization. Military's exist to kill people and break things. If you use them, use them all the way. For good or for ill, Israel seems to grasp this simple warfighting concept that we abandoned after World War II.

into "political" concessions that satisfy the winner (of course, when I was a kid, the US was engaged in justifying the horrific collateral damage on Japanese civilians by use of nukes).

Under that sort of thinking, which I believe if still shared by most US warhawks, it seems unlikely that the stronger combatant wouldn't dedicate itself to piece until the weaker concedes their justification to war is hopeless or wrong.

And there I think is a big part of the problem. Since before the founding of the modern state, the Zionist movement has acted in a manner that is seen as wrong by some members of every successive generations of Palestinians, in whom hope is renewed that conflict will bring about a resolution that doesn't leave them yearning for a return to what they see as their homeland.

By that standard, Israel had already violated the ceasefire by continuing bombing and shelling attacks against civilians during the night before the ceasefire was due to take effect.

Oh, but that's different...

Nobody knows what is going on, because people on both sides are accounting that they don't know what is going on.

It's easy to proclaim one side is roses, honey and beauty.

The other side is tasked by basic survival, no water or electricity because of something they may have voted against at the polls. Children die as a result of it.

Congratulations, Israeli leadership. You have graduated into being as savage and idiotic as those you imagine to be in Gaza.

Except their children are dead, their elderly were made to suffer before dying in a shelled out convalesce home, and you are bombing hospitals.

If that is morality, I want no part of it.

And leave a vacuum for a group like ISIS/ISIL to fill...won't that be better?

Perish the thought)

Maybe I'm wrong; no doubt someone will tell me if I am.

...for having the temerity to vote for whom they wanted.

Chicken or the egg.

Israel hammers their enemy disproportionately under circumstances their own intelligence officers can't say was certainly a Hamas attack, then eventually agree to ceasefire. It seems inevitable that a response will occur, then everyone forgets the original reason for the original hammering, and only remembers the Hamas response.

Israel then is justified with further hammering.

At least that was a Hamas vs. soldier fight.

Hamas doesn't have the honor to keep the cease fire, so they are responsible. Still, the civilians are being collectively punished. There's no way to justify that over kill.

but pretending that Hamas, or the Palestinians for that matter, are a unified force under centralised direct command and control in any way similar to an army seems to be kind of wilfully blind. (And your rant overlooks the salient fact that the current round of violence and IDF incursion into Gaza began with an IDF attack. After the Israeli government whipped up a deliberate frenzy in the media of "looking" for three abducted teenagers they knew were already dead (there was an emergency phone call by one of the teenagers on which gunfure was heard; this was supressed under a gag order), who weren't abducted by Hamas.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264800/how-netanyahu-turned-a-police-matter-into-a-war

And is it possible to negotiate with colonialist settlers who want to push you off of your ancestral lands? I suppose we could ask the Sioux about that. Or the Herero.

I'm saying you're apparently unaware of the strategic goal of Israel's campaign in Gaza. Which is pretty clearly to wreck the unity agreement announced between Hamas and Fatah (looks like that's probably working).

Let's not forget this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html

And Israel used the kidnapping as pretext to sweep the West Bank and imprison hundreds of Palestinians (including around 50 who'd been freed as part of the prisoner exchange for Gilad Shalit). Israel is not acting in good faith and sought to provoke exactly the sort of response they got.

You may wish to believe that Israel is always the victim and only acts out of the purest of motives; I would submit that that's very far from the truth.

with doubting the veracity of Israel's accounts of same. Hamas is not the only militant faction in Gaza, and communications are..not the best. (And the capture of a soldier by resistance fighters is not "kidnapping".)

More evidence. Those who want Israel to submit to a ceasefire cry no tears when their sons are murdered and abducted.

Israel simply needs to destroy Hamas. It is the only way forward.

How many Palestinians do they currently hold prisoner? And what's the relative body count? Mote and beam.

You call them "resistance fighters".

If Israelis want to be killed and their people taken hostage, then they should listen to you.

Otherwise, not so much.

There are conflicting reports of the timeline of events and of who bears the responsibility.

It's a war. You kill the other side. If they hide their weapons on schools, mosques playgrounds and civilian homes you do your best to minimize civilian casualties, but it's a war. In 2003, the Iraqis hid tanks in walled compounds that housed civilians. We dropped artillery, used Apache Hellfires and called in the Air Force to target those weapons. I was in the invasion, I saw it and as a result of that, I wholeheartedly support Israel. Which is actually difficult for me as I was a PLO supporter when I was younger. Being in a war and seeing how an enemy that does not care for its own people and uses them as human shields has a way of putting combat into perspective.

Israel is occupying Palestinian territory and has done since 1967. Presenting it as a "war" and pretending that both sides are somehow equal is just as ignorant (or, stupid) as pretending that Israel is the injured party. If Israel cared about peace they'd withdraw from the settlements. Instead they've chosen to behave as colonists, building illegal settlements in illegally-occupied territory.

Also:

Here. And they said they would keep destroying tunnels before the ceasefire (in fact, it was one of their conditions), so that shouldn't surprise anyone. I suppose the fighters in the tunnel should have said, “go ahead and blow it up…could you give us 30 minutes to collect our stuff first?”

But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

But hey, that doesn't mean that it's one of the Israeli patrols Netanyahu said would continue to be destroying tunnels! Maybe it was an Israeli force sent out to find the tunnels and play hide and seek in them.

Which Hamas agreed to.

And looking for something and actively blowing it up are two very different ideas. Maybe you think Israel was trying to figure out where the tunnels were? Which is completely justified given they were then attack from those same tunnels.

Howl for peace. Cheer death.

that allowed Israel to continue to search for and dismantle the tunnels.

Maybe your guys can go blow up a bunch of Palestinian kids to make you feel better.

You claim to support peace, yet you cheer when hamas violates a ceasefire. I'm sure you'll go right back to demanding there is a ceasefire. Which you'll cheer when Hamas violates it to kill more Israelis.

Curious and curiouser,

Quite interesting mental gymnastics there. And though Hamas apparently agreed they the Israelis could continue their tunnel destruction, I haven't seen any evidence that they agreed to not defend themselves when the soldiers came to blow them up.

When they were attacked by innocent hamas members simply not wanting to be blown up, like you implied.

It is also true that under the terms of the ceasefire, Israel had a right to continue to destroy the tunnels. So even if what you implied was true, it wouldn't change anything.

But I suppose screaming lie first and asking questions later is useful for deflection. They were allowed to do what they did. But there's no evidence so far that those in the tunnels had to sit their when they came to destroy them.

Which I think would qualify as at minimum a misrepresentation of the facts.

Now you're saying actively firing upon forces that you agreed to a ceasefire with shouldn't be considered a violation of the ceasefire, because they were in a location that it was agreed to under the ceasefire could be destroyed?

and not defend them?

Oh no that turned out to be a lie.
I wonder how long it will take until we find out this is a lie too.

What lie? I've seen an assertion that Israel may have known they were already dead, which remains unproven but no indication the three killed themselves or were killed by other citizens in a regular crime.

You think Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Your solution? Destroy Hamas.

Typical one-sided morality of the harcore Zionists. Don't you wish you could come up with a final solution to that irritating Palestinian problem?

Yes?

One is a national liberation army.

The other is a racist colonial power.

Apparently the word of Bibi Netanyahu is good enough for some people. Probably the same people who believed that Iraq had WMDs. Odd that such people would be posting on DU, but I guess big tent and all, right-wing hawks are welcome too.

Oh, and the article also mentions the killing of 35 Palestinians. Strange that you would ignore them and focus on the 2 Israeli soldiers. Are their lives really 20X more important than those of the Palestinians?

further into Palestinian territory immediatly after the cease fire? They were not supposed to move further in but stay in place? Is there any clarification?

Chamberlain was Prime Minister of a nation that had no means with which to fight at the time of his tenure, facing down a potential enemy that, at the time, could have simply rolled over great Britain (and nearly did so, even after the UK had time to build up its capability.) He could have led a charge to war, sure - and in so doing would have basically thrown the UK down a big, deep hole to nowhere, which would have settled the western Front permanently in Germany's favor.

Chamberlain was right, at the time, under the circumstances.

The Soviets were willing to intervene to protect Czechoslovakia in 1938. Meanwhile, the German general staff was on the verge of revolt over the prospect of a war with the west in 1938 (only after the west buckled demonstrating weakness did they consent to Hitlers imperial designs).

The French alone had more and better tanks than the Germans (this is a fact, look it up). The reason they lost in 1940 was the western democracies alienated their allies and employed woefully out of date tactics (spiting their armored forces up instead of concentrating them in divisions). The primary responsibility for this leadership failure lays with politicians like Chamberlain who refused to confront the reality of the war to come.

It wasn't a "display of weakness," it was actual weakness on the part of the UK. it didn't have the men, the means, or the manufacturing to engage in a war on the continent. And Chamberlain was not president of France nor the party chairman of the USSR, he was the prime Minister of Great Britain. He had a choice to make, and his position in making that choice was one that gave his country time to prepare for the inevitable, rather than throwing in half-cocked against a superior foe. it was either a bad position or a worse position, and he chose the one of the two that gave his country time to arm and prepare.

Just think if it'd been Churchill, the UK would have likely been engaged in Spain at the time, the Irish would be piled up in smoking heaps, and he would have been nuking Moscow as soon as that technology became available. There's your non-Dove position.

Western non-intervention in Spain is one of the key factors that allowed Hitler to think he could get away with spreading fascism across central Europe. Just like how it was disgusting when we stood by and watched as the Italian invaded Ethiopia.

The UK was the main driver behind the Czechoslovakian capitulation The french and the soviets were willing to fight, as they should have, but the UK destroyed that resolve by accepting the Italian "deal" that formed the framework of Czechoslovakia's doom.

I guess that is too hard to understand when you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

US president Barack Obama blamed Hamas for the swift collapse of the latest Gaza ceasefire, accusing the Palestinian group of launching a "barbaric" attack.

President Obama said on Friday it would be "very hard" to get another truce in the Gaza Strip unless Hamas showed it was serious about laying down its arms and could be trusted to keep its word.

"If they are serious about trying to trying to resolve this situation, that soldier needs to be unconditionally released, as soon as possible," Obama told a surprise press conference.

"I think it's going to be very hard to put a ceasefire back together again if Israelis and the international community can't feel confident that Hamas can follow through on a ceasefire commitment."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/us-accuses-hamas-gaza-truce-breach-20148120376379906.html

...but killing over a thousand civilians, targeting hospitals, schools, and UN refugee centers ISN'T?

I'm sick and tired of the Israel-bashing!

Yet another brand spanking new ultra-Zionist on DU. Is school out already?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/14/israel-pay-students-propaganda_n_3755782.html

Israel To Pay Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda
The Huffington Post UK | By Lucy Sherriff
Email
Posted: 14/08/2013 16:33 BST Updated: 14/08/2013 16:46 BST Print Article FACEBOOK

Israel has announced it will pay university students to circulate pro-Israeli information on social media networks, without having to identify themselves as working for the government.

The move was publicised in a statement from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, the Associated Press reported. Students will receive scholarships to "engage international audiences online" and combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel, it was alleged.

In 2012, a Palestinian-run blog reported similar arrangements between the National Union of Israeli Students and the Israeli government. Students would be paid $2,000 to post pro-Israel messages online for five hours a week.

According to Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, the most recent proposition is being spearheaded by Danny Seaman, who was slammed by the media for writing anti-Muslim messages on Facebook.

Students will be organised into units at each university, with a chief co-ordinator who receives a full scholarship, three desk co-ordinators for language, graphics and research who receive lesser scholarships and students termed “activists” who will receive a “minimal scholarship”, the Independent reported.

My only problem is with your mischaracterization of Hamas apologists as "doves". Dove is not a dirty word, and a real dove would not serve as a useful idiot for Hamas.

If some people here claim that they have to kill Hamas, does that mean everybody who voted for Hamas or is this just a synonym for Gaza?

You need to wake up and smell the bull**** you are shoveling.

A disproportionate response to a disproportionate response to rockets fired on Israel as a part of a decades old dispute of territory.

Under your theory Israel should whack half a million Gazans to get at a few thousand Hamas...

I know! Israel can give the remaining Palestinians the right to build casinos! That'll make it all better!

Sheesh!