Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abbas proves he prefers posturing to a peace process

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abbas proves he prefers posturing to a peace process

    Abbas proves he prefers posturing to a peace process

    Friday, February 18, 2011; 8:11 PM

    PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas claims to be interested in negotiating a two-state peace settlement with Israel. For two years he has enjoyed the support of a U.S. president more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most, if not all, of his predecessors. Yet Mr. Abbas has mostly refused to participate in the direct peace talks that Barack Obama made one of his top foreign policy priorities - and now he has shown himself to be bent on embarrassing and antagonizing the U.S. administration.

    Rejecting direct appeals from both Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Abbas chose to persist on Friday with a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution that called on Israel to cease settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Though the administration supports this position - and has counterproductively pressed it at the expense of its larger diplomatic aims - it vetoed the resolution, as Mr. Abbas knew it would do. For a number of good reasons, including its hope of preserving the chance of peace negotiations, the Obama administration could not allow a one-sided U.N. condemnation of Israel.

    The only effect of the Palestinian initiative will be to embarrass the Obama administration at a delicate moment, when popular uprisings around the Middle East already are challenging pro-American leaders. It will have no impact on Israeli settlement construction, and it will deal a further blow to the prospects for peace talks. It will bolster the right-wing Israeli government. Conceivably, it could cause Arab protests now focused on autocratic rule to take an ugly anti-American turn.

    Mr. Abbas has known all of this all along. Yet he refused to set aside the resolution even when the administration offered a generous compromise - a proposed "presidential statement" from the Security Council criticizing Israeli settlements as well as the firing of rockets at Israel from Gaza. Mr. Obama is taking considerable heat from Congress just for proposing this outcome - and yet in a 50-minute phone call Thursday, he was unable to win the Palestinian president's assent.

    Mr. Abbas's stubbornness might seem spectacularly self-defeating - but only if one assumes that he is genuinely interested in a peace deal. In fact, the U.N. gambit allows him to posture as a champion of the Palestinian cause without having to consider any of the hard choices that would be needed to found a Palestinian state. It enables him to deflect criticism from the rival Hamas movement about his friendly relations with the United States. It might even allow him to head off a popular Palestinian rebellion against his own autocratic behavior - Mr. Abbas has failed to schedule overdue elections, including for his own post as president.

    The Obama administration has all along insisted that Mr. Abbas is willing and able to make peace with Israel - despite considerable evidence to the contrary. If the U.N. resolution veto has one good effect, perhaps it will be to prompt a reevaluation of a leader who has repeatedly proved both weak and intransigent.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    I find it hard to believe that Abbas is not interested in peace considering the huge amount of concessions he was willing to make that came out of the Palestinian Papers leak. I think his unwillingness to re-enter into negotiations is down to the fact that he believes it will be a waste of time. The concessions Abbas already made that were rejected by Israel nearly resulted in all out civil war in Palestine. What more could he offer without guaranteeing that the further resulting concessions will result in him being overthrown and Hamas gaining full control?

    Comment


    • #3
      Dude, seriously? For every concession the Palestinians have considered making, Israel has made tangible concessions and gotten nothing from it.

      Yesterday and today a group of 15 Hasidic Jews were shot at by a Palestinian Authority POLICEMAN after visiting Joseph's Tomb to pray (a privilege promised to them and guaranteed to Jews that freedom to practice religion would not be harmed in places under PA authority). Now, the PA is enraged that some Jews were killed and lit tires near Joseph's Tomb and tried to light the complex itself ablaze.

      So you tell me, is Abbas willing but scared of the Palestinian reaction, or is he just the leader of an entire group of unwilling people that will keep getting sympathy as long as they keep playing the victim?
      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
        Dude, seriously? For every concession the Palestinians have considered making, Israel has made tangible concessions and gotten nothing from it.

        Yesterday and today a group of 15 Hasidic Jews were shot at by a Palestinian Authority POLICEMAN after visiting Joseph's Tomb to pray (a privilege promised to them and guaranteed to Jews that freedom to practice religion would not be harmed in places under PA authority). Now, the PA is enraged that some Jews were killed and lit tires near Joseph's Tomb and tried to light the complex itself ablaze.

        So you tell me, is Abbas willing but scared of the Palestinian reaction, or is he just the leader of an entire group of unwilling people that will keep getting sympathy as long as they keep playing the victim?
        Why do you equate the actions of one person with Abbas and why on earth are you trying to equate youths setting fire to tyres with the PA setting fire to tyres?

        Also we still do not know whether the shooting was unjustified or not. From the Israeli military :

        "were shot by a Palestinian policeman who, after identifying suspicious movements, fired in their direction", the Israeli military said in a statement.


        The group, which included 15 visitors, reportedly did not coordinate its entry to Joseph's Tomb with the IDF.


        Now a question, if the IDF had shot at some palestinians who were not supposed to be somewhere and were acting suspiciously would you be so condemning before all the facts have come out?

        Even if it does turn out that the policeman had acted criminally I fail to see how that is reflective of Abbas and his intentions for peace, I mean how many Israeli soldiers have been charged with criminal actions and why doesn't that reflect on the successive Israeli governments in your opinion? Why the difference - could it be bias?

        Comment


        • #5
          Why do you equate the actions of one person with Abbas and why on earth are you trying to equate youths setting fire to tyres with the PA setting fire to tyres?
          I don't equate the actions of one person with Abbas, I equate the majority of a population's actions with Abbas.

          Also we still do not know whether the shooting was unjustified or not. From the Israeli military :
          While I'm not laying fault entirely at the feet of the PA (yes, the Hasidic Jews were idiots for not coordinating), this is also a well known thing, that they sneak into the tomb, and are usually escorted out. The fact that the policeman shot at them is a dangerous precedent.

          Now a question, if the IDF had shot at some palestinians who were not supposed to be somewhere and were acting suspiciously would you be so condemning before all the facts have come out?
          In the IDF we have strict rules on opening fire. Acting suspiciously is not enough. A suspect need to have means, intent and ability before you are even allowed to fire a warning shot into the air. If he has a Molotov cocktail and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you are allowed to shoot. If he has a knife and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you're not allowed to, since a knife is worthless in the situation. We rarely if ever shoot someone trying to run away unless they've already committed a crime worth shooting over, i.e. a stabbing, planting a bomb, etc... Trespassing is not a shooting offense.

          Even if it does turn out that the policeman had acted criminally I fail to see how that is reflective of Abbas and his intentions for peace, I mean how many Israeli soldiers have been charged with criminal actions and why doesn't that reflect on the successive Israeli governments in your opinion? Why the difference - could it be bias?
          Does the Goldstone report say anything to you?

          And yes, I will fully admit to being biased against Palestinians. I will even admit (and have admitted before) to being racist against them. There is one difference however: I am always willing to listen before passing judgment. As someone who is very acquainted with the region, the policies and the goings on, coupled with my hands on experience in the army spent in the West Bank and other areas dealing with Palestinians, I have managed to gain a pretty good gut instinct for this kind of stuff. Not perfect, but I can usually tell when something is wrong, is justified or is just plain fishy. This falls into the category of fishy, and is borderline wrong.
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
            I don't equate the actions of one person with Abbas, I equate the majority of a population's actions with Abbas.
            So the majority of the Palestinian people were setting tyres on fire? There were a few youths setting tyres on fire not over 2 million Palestinians just like there were a few Israeli youths in Hawara who went out and threw stones at Palestinians after.


            While I'm not laying fault entirely at the feet of the PA (yes, the Hasidic Jews were idiots for not coordinating), this is also a well known thing, that they sneak into the tomb, and are usually escorted out. The fact that the policeman shot at them is a dangerous precedent.
            To be honest it is only a dangerous precedent IF it turns out the policeman was wrong to shoot and only then if the policeman is acquitted of his actions.



            In the IDF we have strict rules on opening fire. Acting suspiciously is not enough. A suspect need to have means, intent and ability before you are even allowed to fire a warning shot into the air. If he has a Molotov cocktail and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you are allowed to shoot. If he has a knife and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you're not allowed to, since a knife is worthless in the situation. We rarely if ever shoot someone trying to run away unless they've already committed a crime worth shooting over, i.e. a stabbing, planting a bomb, etc... Trespassing is not a shooting offense.
            A quick youtube says different


            Does the Goldstone report say anything to you?
            It tells me that Israel and Hamas are culpable for war crimes.

            And yes, I will fully admit to being biased against Palestinians. I will even admit (and have admitted before) to being racist against them. There is one difference however: I am always willing to listen before passing judgment.
            No offence Ross, but if you're genuinely racist against Palestinians then I don't think your capable of discussing the issue rationally (which is understandable considering you are living in the zone of conflict). I have witnessed you regularly equating the criminal actions of Palestinian individuals with Palestinians as a whole and its nothing short of outright racism in my opinion. I commend you for being honest.

            As someone who is very acquainted with the region, the policies and the goings on, coupled with my hands on experience in the army spent in the West Bank and other areas dealing with Palestinians, I have managed to gain a pretty good gut instinct for this kind of stuff. Not perfect, but I can usually tell when something is wrong, is justified or is just plain fishy. This falls into the category of fishy, and is borderline wrong.
            No offence but your instincts are inevitably going to be tainted by your racism. Maybe the policeman was wrong, however the actions of the policeman are not an indication of Palestinians as a whole just like the actions of an Israeli soldier who unlawfully kills are not an indication of Israelis as a whole. Its wrong to think otherwise. I believe both sides are blinded by the fog of war and nothing is going to change until the racism on both sides stops.

            Comment


            • #7
              Neil, I don't have time to get into a long answer, and I probably won't be on again until tonight, but I've got one question for you: Did you even watch that video, or post it based solely on the title?

              Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired came from the IDF. Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired came from the Palestinians. Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired didn't come from Al-Jazeera snipers on the roof of one of the adjacent buildings. All you have in that video are shots fired and the bald faced assertion by two packs of liars, Al-Jazeera and the Palestinians Authority that Israelis shoot at medics, countered by the claims of a much more honest organization, the IDF, claiming that medics aren't shot at. Who you choose to believe is up to you, but I know who has the much better track record with regards to A: protecting innocent lives, B: telling the truth, and C: willingness to admit mistakes and culpability.

              One more thing: The medics in the video are not wearing medical insignia of any sign, no Red Cross, Shield, Crescent, Star of David, nothing, so according to the Geneva Convention they are fair game.
              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NeilE View Post
                It tells me that Israel and Hamas are culpable for war crimes.
                Surely you mean Israel and Palestine, or the current Israeli govt. and Hamas. That's if you don't wish to ascribe the actions of some to an entire nation? (this is rhetorical BTW...)
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  Neil, I don't have time to get into a long answer, and I probably won't be on again until tonight, but I've got one question for you: Did you even watch that video, or post it based solely on the title?
                  Yes I watched it, it could have been any one of the 38 instances in 2009 where palestinian medics were shot by Israeli forces. I just used it as an example, if you don't believe that particular video then there are official reports of such shootings as I have evidenced below.


                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired came from the IDF. Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired came from the Palestinians. Nowhere in that video is there any proof that the shots fired didn't come from Al-Jazeera snipers on the roof of one of the adjacent buildings. All you have in that video are shots fired and the bald faced assertion by two packs of liars, Al-Jazeera and the Palestinians Authority that Israelis shoot at medics, countered by the claims of a much more honest organization, the IDF, claiming that medics aren't shot at. Who you choose to believe is up to you, but I know who has the much better track record with regards to A: protecting innocent lives, B: telling the truth, and C: willingness to admit mistakes and culpability.
                  In 2009 16 medics were killed under Israeli fire and 22 were wounded according to the World Health Organization. I suppose they are lying as well?

                  One more thing: The medics in the video are not wearing medical insignia of any sign, no Red Cross, Shield, Crescent, Star of David, nothing, so according to the Geneva Convention they are fair game.
                  But I thought.....
                  In the IDF we have strict rules on opening fire. Acting suspiciously is not enough. A suspect need to have means, intent and ability before you are even allowed to fire a warning shot into the air. If he has a Molotov cocktail and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you are allowed to shoot. If he has a knife and is heading to a cliff overlooking a road Israelis travel on, you're not allowed to, since a knife is worthless in the situation. We rarely if ever shoot someone trying to run away unless they've already committed a crime worth shooting over, i.e. a stabbing, planting a bomb, etc... Trespassing is not a shooting offense.
                  So in your opinion, could an Israeli who is in a place where he is not supposed to be, and acting suspiciously, be fair game as well? Why is shooting Palestinian medics just trying to save lifes excused but the shooting of Israeli's who are trespassing in prohibited areas and acting suspiciously is not? (I don't agree with either by the way, I am just wondering why you differentiate)
                  Last edited by NeilE; 25 Apr 11,, 12:03.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                    Surely you mean Israel and Palestine, or the current Israeli govt. and Hamas. That's if you don't wish to ascribe the actions of some to an entire nation? (this is rhetorical BTW...)
                    Well Palestine isn't actually a state so thats why I don't ascribe the actions to a non existant nation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mind if I take these both at the same time?

                      Originally posted by NeilE View Post
                      So the majority of the Palestinian people were setting tyres on fire? There were a few youths setting tyres on fire not over 2 million Palestinians just like there were a few Israeli youths in Hawara who went out and threw stones at Palestinians after.
                      And yet whenever a few Israelis do something wrong, the entire country is blamed. Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron. Now, I'm not saying he was wrong, but look at what followed: The UN passed a resolution holding Israel responsible and "reminding" Israel of her responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. As if the actions of one nutjob were somehow government sanctioned

                      To be honest it is only a dangerous precedent IF it turns out the policeman was wrong to shoot and only then if the policeman is acquitted of his actions.
                      The wonderful thing about claiming "suspicious activity" is that it's a very large and broad claim. Anything can be suspicious.

                      However, like I said before, this is a normal occurrence and every single time they were detained and escorted out. Why was this time different? That's the question that really needs to be asked



                      A quick youtube says different
                      Answered already

                      It tells me that Israel and Hamas are culpable for war crimes.
                      Except for the fact that Goldstone later retracted his claims that Israel was culpable of war crimes. Civilians were not targeted as policy.

                      Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, said the following:

                      Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare...

                      ..The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

                      Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

                      More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.
                      The entire text can be seen here:

                      No offence Ross, but if you're genuinely racist against Palestinians then I don't think your capable of discussing the issue rationally (which is understandable considering you are living in the zone of conflict). I have witnessed you regularly equating the criminal actions of Palestinian individuals with Palestinians as a whole and its nothing short of outright racism in my opinion. I commend you for being honest.
                      It's just like I said: I am always willing to listen before I judge. And when the majority of a people behave and act in a certain way, then unfortunately a few innocent people will also be caught up in the assumption that they are all guilty.

                      Yes, I have been caught up in the conflict. I have seen an automobile accident between two Palestinian cars. When our IDF ambulance went to aid them, they were stoned. I have seen friends wounded since we tell people we are coming before we go in to arrest their neighbors, to get innocents out of the way. I have seen concession after concession that Israel has made, only to later suffer heavily instead of gaining peace.

                      Along with my original statement, there is another statement which I always make: I am not denying that Israel and the IDF are culpable. We also make mistakes. The difference is that the IDF makes mistakes, the PA does it on purpose. In this game, being less of an asshole makes you the winner, and Israel and the IDF are less assholes than the PA

                      No offence but your instincts are inevitably going to be tainted by your racism. Maybe the policeman was wrong, however the actions of the policeman are not an indication of Palestinians as a whole just like the actions of an Israeli soldier who unlawfully kills are not an indication of Israelis as a whole. Its wrong to think otherwise. I believe both sides are blinded by the fog of war and nothing is going to change until the racism on both sides stops.
                      It's not only the actions of one policeman, however. This thread originated with claim on the PA leader, Abbas, and his waffling, his unwillingness for peace. He is indicative of the majority of his nation. That is not racism. That is pragmatism and common sense.

                      Besides, I've already shown you before how mistakes and even planned incidents made on the Israeli side by individuals are equated towards the entire state. Why should the PA be any different?

                      Originally posted by NeilE View Post
                      Yes I watched it, it could have been any one of the 38 instances in 2009 where palestinian medics were shot by Israeli forces. I just used it as an example, if you don't believe that particular video then there are official reports of such shootings as I have evidenced below.


                      In 2009 16 medics were killed under Israeli fire and 22 were wounded according to the World Health Organization. I suppose they are lying as well?
                      ""However, in light of the difficult reality of warfare in the Gaza Strip carried out in urban and densely populated areas, medics who operate in the area take the risk upon themselves.""

                      From the same article. Do you think IDF medics are given a break, even though they wear Red Star of David's on their arms and emblazon them on their vehicles, thus granting them protection under international convention and law? A medic that doesn't wear a uniform and isn't identified as a medic is another combatant on the field as far as the GC is concerned

                      So in your opinion, could an Israeli who is in a place where he is not supposed to be, and acting suspiciously, be fair game as well? Why is shooting Palestinian medics just trying to save lifes excused but the shooting of Israeli's who are trespassing in prohibited areas and acting suspiciously is not? (I don't agree with either by the way, I am just wondering why you differentiate)
                      Of course he's fair game, if he fits all the criteria. What I gave before are the ROE that every single soldier is taught. Of course, each area has its own specifications.

                      In the video that you brought, the medics were not wearing uniforms or clear medic insignia and were therefore fair game.

                      There is a vast difference between combatants on a field of combat without medical insignia being shot at for trying to aid a wounded militant. That is fair game. You tell me, however, what armed force decides to shoot people that are running away and trying to leave, especially when it's an almost certainty that the only thing they did was trespass? The PA police, for one
                      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                        Mind if I take these both at the same time?



                        And yet whenever a few Israelis do something wrong, the entire country is blamed. Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron. Now, I'm not saying he was wrong, but look at what followed: The UN passed a resolution holding Israel responsible and "reminding" Israel of her responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. As if the actions of one nutjob were somehow government sanctioned
                        You complain about that but then go and equate the actions of one policeman as being sanctioned by the PA. It's double standards.


                        The wonderful thing about claiming "suspicious activity" is that it's a very large and broad claim. Anything can be suspicious.
                        Yes the IDF claimed it only a few months ago

                        Another soldier, who initiated the firing, was exonerated by investigators because a "suspicious movement caused [him] to feel his life was threatened". The dead man was asleep in bed when soldiers entered the room, according to his family. He was shot multiple times in the head and upper body.

                        The military said it deeply regretted the death of Amr Qawasme and acknowledged he was a civilian.



                        However, like I said before, this is a normal occurrence and every single time they were detained and escorted out. Why was this time different? That's the question that really needs to be asked
                        Who knows until the full facts come out. Maybe the policeman acted criminally maybe he didn't. However, if you believe that a medic getting out of an ambulance is fair game because they are in the wrong for not having a specific patch on their uniform (even though you can clearly see that theres a red crescent on the uniform I will pretend that isn't the case just to argue your point) then surely you believe someone who is actually acting illegally and doing something they shouldn't be doing is fair game?


                        Except for the fact that Goldstone later retracted his claims that Israel was culpable of war crimes. Civilians were not targeted as policy.
                        As appears from the Washington Post article, information subsequent to publication of the report did meet with the view that one correction should be made with regard to intentionality on the part of Israel," the judge said. "Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."
                        That doesn't to me sound like a retraction of the 12 other war crimes to me.



                        Yes, I have been caught up in the conflict. I have seen an automobile accident between two Palestinian cars. When our IDF ambulance went to aid them, they were stoned.
                        And I'm sure Palestinians have seen their ambulance crews coming to rescue people and being shot dead by the IDF.

                        I have seen friends wounded since we tell people we are coming before we go in to arrest their neighbors, to get innocents out of the way.
                        And I'm sure Palestinians have seen their innocent unarmed relatives brutally gunned down during such raids such as the incident I cited above where the IDF claimed a man who was asleep was acting suspiciously.

                        I have seen concession after concession that Israel has made, only to later suffer heavily instead of gaining peace.
                        The Palestinians are also suffering heavily, they're losing their land, they're suffering ten times more casualties, they struggle to get access to medical supplies and are restricted in their movement. If Israel were truly interested in peace then they would stop building settlements.

                        Along with my original statement, there is another statement which I always make: I am not denying that Israel and the IDF are culpable. We also make mistakes. The difference is that the IDF makes mistakes, the PA does it on purpose. In this game, being less of an asshole makes you the winner, and Israel and the IDF are less assholes than the PA
                        If you genuinely want to believe that every time Israel does something wrong it is a mistake then go ahead.

                        It's not only the actions of one policeman, however. This thread originated with claim on the PA leader, Abbas, and his waffling, his unwillingness for peace. He is indicative of the majority of his nation. That is not racism. That is pragmatism and common sense.
                        Out of interest on top of all the concessions made by Abbas in the Palestinian Paper leak, what more would you have liked Abbas to conceed?

                        Besides, I've already shown you before how mistakes and even planned incidents made on the Israeli side by individuals are equated towards the entire state. Why should the PA be any different?
                        Once again you compain about Israel being equated with the actions of a minority but then go ahead and equate the action of a minority with all Palestinians. Its double standards.

                        ""However, in light of the difficult reality of warfare in the Gaza Strip carried out in urban and densely populated areas, medics who operate in the area take the risk upon themselves.""

                        From the same article. Do you think IDF medics are given a break, even though they wear Red Star of David's on their arms and emblazon them on their vehicles, thus granting them protection under international convention and law? A medic that doesn't wear a uniform and isn't identified as a medic is another combatant on the field as far as the GC is concerned
                        Firstly those medics WERE wearing a uniform its the red crescent one as can clearly be seen. Secondly, are you actually justifying the shooting of Palestinian medics because IDF medics also get shot?

                        In the video that you brought, the medics were not wearing uniforms or clear medic insignia and were therefore fair game.
                        See above.

                        There is a vast difference between combatants on a field of combat without medical insignia being shot at for trying to aid a wounded militant. That is fair game.You tell me, however, what armed force decides to shoot people that are running away and trying to leave, especially when it's an almost certainty that the only thing they did was trespass? The PA police, for one
                        The IDF for another British peace activist was 'intentionally killed' | World news | guardian.co.uk


                        Also I left out the Kemp part because you have already shown that video to me before and I responded to it.
                        Last edited by NeilE; 26 Apr 11,, 16:35.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You complain about that but then go and equate the actions of one policeman as being sanctioned by the PA. It's double standards.
                          What works for the goose. I complain about it, but since it isn't gonna change, and since they seem to be the rules of the game in the region, who am I to not play by the rules? You want things to change? Talk to the other side. We've made too many unilateral concessions and gotten fcuked in the ass over them. No more. Time for the PA to make the first move, at least as far as I'm concerned


                          Yes the IDF claimed it only a few months ago

                          Different situations. One is a group of people leaving an area they were trespassing in, something they do all the time and is a normal occurrence. The other is a high-tension environment arresting a highly wanted suspect, where it was entirely possible that the suspicious activity was to pull a gun out from under a pillow (I've experienced that).

                          Was the shooting justified? No. Was it a mistake? Yes. And yet, like all unfortunate accidents it was investigated impartially and conclusions were reached.


                          Who knows until the full facts come out. Maybe the policeman acted criminally maybe he didn't. However, if you believe that a medic getting out of an ambulance is fair game because they are in the wrong for not having a specific patch on their uniform (even though you can clearly see that theres a red crescent on the uniform I will pretend that isn't the case just to argue your point) then surely you believe someone who is actually acting illegally and doing something they shouldn't be doing is fair game?
                          Once again, you haven't proven the shots were from IDF soldiers. Hamas militants are willing to use children as human shields, I don't think they wouldn't shoot their own medics if it would make for good PR. Until you can prove the shots were fired by IDF soldiers there's no real point discussing this case.

                          I've agreed before someone doing something they shouldn't be doing should be shot if the transgression warrants it. Leaving someplace after trespassing, a normal occurrence, is not a shooting offense.



                          That doesn't to me sound like a retraction of the 12 other war crimes to me.

                          From your quote: "Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration". The IDF is investigating the cases. In case of war crimes the appropriate people will be punished, as is done in a civilized country. Hamas is not investigating or punishing those responsible, Hamas is continuing with it's war crimes with indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations.


                          And I'm sure Palestinians have seen their ambulance crews coming to rescue people and being shot dead by the IDF.
                          I have never once heard of a Palestinian ambulance crew coming to save Israeli civilians and being shot at by IDF soldiers. If you're going to try and reverse the situation, do it properly.

                          And I'm sure Palestinians have seen their innocent unarmed relatives brutally gunned down during such raids such as the incident I cited above where the IDF claimed a man who was asleep was acting suspiciously.
                          Answered above. The IDF investigates and punishes where necessary. If you're going to assert that all IDF investigations are biased and can't be trusted, then we have nothing really left to talk about, do we?

                          The Palestinians are also suffering heavily, they're losing their land, they're suffering ten times more casualties, they struggle to get access to medical supplies and are restricted in their movement. If Israel were truly interested in peace then they would stop building settlements.
                          I agree, stop building settlements. However, there is a difference between building new settlements and expanding existing settlements. However, I would like to point out something: Until Obama came to power, settlement freeze was not a requisite to negotiations, but rather something to be dealt with in negotiations.

                          To follow your formula: If the Palestinians were truly interesting in peace, they would stop shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilian territories, would not intentionally shoot anti-tank guided missiles at school buses (incidentally, the 16 year old that was injured on the bus died last week) and would not plant bombs in crowded areas like the Jerusalem central bus station (exactly where I would have been standing 2 hours after the bomb went off)

                          If you genuinely want to believe that every time Israel does something wrong it is a mistake then go ahead.
                          No, I believe that the IDF makes mistakes which are investigated and corrected. Intentional actions are investigated, those responsible are tried and punished.

                          Out of interest on top of all the concessions made by Abbas in the Palestinian Paper leak, what more would you have liked Abbas to conceed?
                          Point by point:

                          Jerusalem: Abbas' "proposal" regarding Jerusalem was according to Erakat in actuality an Israeli proposal that was rejected by the Palestinians

                          Settlements and borders: A large part of the settlement expansion is done on privately owned land, the government has little say on what goes there. It can approve or deny permits, but if the permits are all legitimate the government has no reason to deny the approvals, though it still did during the settlement freeze.

                          The PA wanted authority over the four largest Israeli cities in the region, something even Condoleeza Rice said that "I don't think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Ma'ale Adumim". When the PA negotiator replied "or any Palestinian", Rice then told him "Then you won't have a state!"

                          It's easy for the PA to make unrealistic demands and then blame Israel for negotiations not working.

                          Napkin Map Peace Process: Prime Ministers changed, negotiation positions changed, just like the PA changed the settlement freeze demands.

                          Refugees: A non-issue, since by all definitions of the word there are little to no Palestinian refugees, and therefore there is no valid reason for a Palestinian right of return.

                          In total, Abbas made very few actual concessions, certainly nothing on the scale of offering Arafat and Abbas over 90% of their demands only to be turned down, or the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza that did absolutely jack shit towards peace but hurt Israel in both the long term and the short term.

                          Once again you compain about Israel being equated with the actions of a minority but then go ahead and equate the action of a minority with all Palestinians. Its double standards.
                          Asked and answered

                          Firstly those medics WERE wearing a uniform its the red crescent one as can clearly be seen. Secondly, are you actually justifying the shooting of Palestinian medics because IDF medics also get shot?
                          Once again, prove the shots came from IDF soldiers. Until then, there is no point discussing that video.

                          First of all, be specific. You want to answer my claim, answer with a story when an IDF soldier intentionally shot a trespasser in the back. Don't try and come up with something similar and hope it matches.

                          Now, did you read that article? The soldier was investigated, tried and punished. Aside from that it is full of assertions on behalf of the father, including this one: "There had been a "general policy" for soldiers to be able to shoot civilians in that area without fear of reprisals, he added." Not one shred or ounce of proof.

                          Let's not even begin to discuss the fact that as far as I'm aware, a Manchester court has no authority in Israel.

                          Also I left out the Kemp part because you have already shown that video to me before and I responded to it.
                          I honestly don't remember showing that to you, and I would love to see your response, whether here, or a link to your previous response.
                          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            NeilE, allow me to ask you something. Have you ever been in military service?

                            Can you imagine what would your reactions be after 2 weeks in IDF boots?
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              bigross I'm swamped with upcoming exams so I don't think I'll able to respond to all those points for a while, apologies I'll try get to them as soon as possible.

                              Doktor, I have never been in military service and I've no idea how my reactions would be (although I would hope that I would respond as I had been trained!)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X