Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states

[sheepshagger]

but,like almost all of your co-workers, you live in secure compounds and have virtually no contact with the locals. This kind of existence certainly does not qualify you as a consultant on foreign affairs nor does your youth give you the benefit of wisdom.

 

And just where do you get your information, I have only stayed in a compound for 2 weeks out of nearly 20 years of working in the middle east, 90% of the folk I work with are locals I do not need to import a hammer jockey from the UK at £500/day I can pick one up localy for peanuts

 

Crofter If I got my info from the net I would be able to provide a link but as I live in the real world you'll have to look for them your self. I could advise you to go to medical sans son frontier (forgive the spelling my english is barely passable so I'm buggered when it comes to french), the red cross I'm sure will provide figures for their outfit. as will christian aid even red crescent have lost workers there. lets not forget the BBC whose support for the palestinians did not leave them imune either.

 

claudias you say that telling hammas you are not a muslim and will not convert to islam is antagonising them.

They will certainly not advocate the deliberate antagonisation of the Hamas authorities which you would place on my visit.

 

very intolerant of them dont you think.

 

so from your post we can deduce that you think not being a muslim will antagonise hammas and will get you killed

 

Is the encouragement of suicide not illegal?

 

and yet you think the israeli's who also happen to not be muslim (antagonistic boobalubes or what) have no right to defend themselves when attacked by intollerant biggots.

 

 

I would love to spend time in Palestine helping to right some of the wrongs which warmongers like you have wrought, however I believe in the old adage "When in Rome do as the Romans do".

 

warmongers like me how do you figure that one I would like nothing more for hammas to cease its attacks on israel but that only happens when israel knocks the turd out of them.

 

palestinians are great at strapping explosives to their kids "to fight evil", but when the easiest thing for them to do would be to turn on hammas and force them to give up their attacks which bring massive retaliation from the israeli's they do sweet FA.

 

so please claudias take up my offer, show us you are not full of turd with your statements of "i would love to go to palestine" because from where I'm sitting you sound pretty hollow.

 

I believe in the old adage of "be true to yourself and others at all times"

thats why I first went to the middle east and then on to the rest of the world to see for myself, to form opinions based on my own experiance not what someone else tells me. so you may not agree with me but you can not say I'm wrong because you have no fukcing idea.

 

Unless one has direct personal experience then all information is merely hearsay? I think not.

 

Erik look up hearsay in the dictionary, wikipedia probably says "a multi talented pop group", the oxford press will have the real definition.

my understanding is any info gained second hand ie not direct from the horses mouth is hearsay.

[crofter]

Crofter If I got my info from the net I would be able to provide a link but as I live in the real world you'll have to look for them your self. I could advise you to go to medical sans son frontier (forgive the spelling my english is barely passable so I'm buggered when it comes to french), the red cross I'm sure will provide figures for their outfit. as will christian aid even red crescent have lost workers there. lets not forget the BBC whose support for the palestinians did not leave them imune either.

 

 

OK, you are in the real world, tell me the name of a murdered aid worker - murdered by palestinians, and not the IDF.

[sheepshagger]

try looking where i sugested crofter I honestly cant be arsed the only news I get from the internet is the shetland times online when overseas.

[crofter]

I would like nothing more for hammas to cease its attacks on israel but that only happens when israel knocks the poop out of them.

 

 

Wrong. Hamas and Israel agreed a 6 month ceasefire in June 2008. Hamas did stop firing rockets into Israel but Israel did not allow humanitarian aid to enter gaza as they agreed. Read my responses to Gibber earlier in this thread for the details. Hamas was willing to negotiate a long term ceasefire in December 2008, but Israels response was to invade Gaza. I agree with you that Hamas are a bunch of dangerous extremists, but you should get your facts right.

[crofter]

try looking where i sugested crofter I honestly cant be arsed the only news I get from the internet is the shetland times online when overseas.

 

OK, I am maybe misunderstanding you - are you speaking about recently (last month or so) or in general over the last couple of decades?

[sheepshagger]

I am talking over the last 20+ years, but i would be very suprised if none had been killed or kidnapped by palestinians in the last few months. it was ongoing the whole time I spent there.

[EM]

Erik look up hearsay in the dictionary,

Hmmm, given that terminology is something I'm particularly interested in, I could not fail to take up such an invitation. I had in fact already checked the various references to find out how wide/narrow usage of hearsay is defined. It turns out to be even more narrowly defined than I'd expected.

 

There are two meanings; a common usage, and a more specific legal definition. Inherent to both meanings is lack of substantiation.

 

...the oxford press will have the real definition.

The full OED is not available online, but its compact version gives:

 

Hearsay: information which cannot be adequately substantiated; rumour

 

 

my understanding is any info gained second hand ie not direct from the horses mouth is hearsay.

I can't find any such definition. From either a scientific or legal point of view, the veracity of information is determined on the basis of likelihood. Hearsay information is second hand information, but crucially, unverifiable. Information which is second hand, but can be substantiated is not hearsay.

[Gibber]

Wrong. Hamas and Israel agreed a 6 month ceasefire in June 2008. Hamas did stop firing rockets into Israel but Israel did not allow humanitarian aid to enter gaza as they agreed. Read my responses to Gibber earlier in this thread for the details. Hamas was willing to negotiate a long term ceasefire in December 2008, but Israels response was to invade Gaza. I agree with you that Hamas are a bunch of dangerous extremists, but you should get your facts right.

 

When you say cessation of rocket attacks you really mean lull or reduction since the attacks didn't stop. Hamas had no more reason to increase the attacks to 125 rockets and 68 mortars (your unbiased source) during the ceasefire than it did to dig a tunnel to try to kidnap Israeli soldiers during the ceasefire. Hamas' declaration to end the ceasefire was not supported by Israel, "ceasefire was in the Palestinians' interest and ought to continue indefinitely."

[crofter]

Hamas' declaration to end the ceasefire was not supported by Israel, "ceasefire was in the Palestinians' interest and ought to continue indefinitely."

 

Surely the ceasefire was better for civilians on BOTH sides? Or would have been if Israel had eased the blockade on Gaza (Which they had agreed to do in June) Sure, you can argue that Hamas might have tried harder to prevent rockets being fired from Gaza from June onwards, but given that a stated objective of the Israeli military action in December/January was to reduce the number of rocket attacks, you have to wonder why 1 rocket in September and 1 in October was not a satisfactory "reduction". Since the Israelis knew Hamas were tunneling into Israel, why did they not wait until the militants poked their heads up into Israeli territory before they shot them?

[Gibber]

Surely the ceasefire was better for civilians on BOTH sides? ....but given that a stated objective of the Israeli military action in December/January was to reduce the number of rocket attacks, you have to wonder why 1 rocket in September and 1 in October was not a satisfactory "reduction".

 

Yes, hence "ceasefire was in the Palestinians' [and Israel's] interest and ought to continue indefinitely."

 

Or would have been if Israel had eased the blockade on Gaza

 

Israel did ease the blockade, goods entering Gaza increased but not to the extent Hamas wanted.

 

Since the Israelis knew Hamas were tunneling into Israel, why did they not wait until the militants poked their heads up into Israeli territory before they shot them?

 

Because there is more chance of Israelis getting killed I would imagine. Prevention better than cure.

[crofter]

 

Yes, hence "ceasefire was in the Palestinians' [and Israel's] interest and ought to continue indefinitely."

 

 

 

Israel did ease the blockade, goods entering Gaza increased but not to the extent Hamas wanted.

 

 

 

Because there is more chance of Israelis getting killed I would imagine. Prevention better than cure.

 

OK, I misunderstood your original post. Why then do you think Israel was unwilling to re-negotiate a longer term ceasefire in December?

 

According to the UN: "since June of 2008 a ceasefire had been observed by both sides, with some infractions taking place, but without altering the willingness of both sides to uphold the ceasefire. During this period Israel had been expected to lift, or at least ease the blockade that had imposed severe hardships on the entire population of Gaza, especially through restraints on the supply of food, medicine and medical equipment, and fuel, but failed to do so."

 

Your last point is fair enough, although it did result in the fragile "peace" or "lull" or whatever you want to call it being shattered.

[Gibber]

OK, I misunderstood your original post. Why then do you think Israel was unwilling to re-negotiate a longer term ceasefire in December?

 

Do you remember where this was reported?

 

Your last point is fair enough, although it did result in the fragile "peace" or "lull" or whatever you want to call it being shattered.

 

I would put the blame on Hamas for digging the tunnels in this case.

[crofter]

OK, I misunderstood your original post. Why then do you think Israel was unwilling to re-negotiate a longer term ceasefire in December?

 

Do you remember where this was reported?

 

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

 

"Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal."

 

"The Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment Thursday on whether there had been any discussion of a ceasefire proposal from Hamas in mid-December that would have stopped the rocket firing. "

 

 

Your last point is fair enough, although it did result in the fragile "peace" or "lull" or whatever you want to call it being shattered.

 

I would put the blame on Hamas for digging the tunnels in this case.

 

Yes, although I get a bit tired of hearing that every attack on a hospital or school or whatever is because Hamas was using it, or "in the vicinity" of it, I am inclined to agree with you in this case. But, who really knows?

[ArabiaTerra]

Yes, although I get a bit tired of hearing that every attack on a hospital or school or whatever is because Hamas was using it, or "in the vicinity" of it, I am inclined to agree with you in this case. But, who really knows?

The thing is, if Hamas have been seen firing from a school or hospital, then the Israeli's have it on tape, so lets see the tapes. Lets see the video evidence that led the Israeli's to conclude that Hamas are firing from that school or that hospital therefore it is a legitimate target.

 

Without this, we only have the Israeli's word that Hamas were doing it countered by Hamas swearing that they weren't.

[Claudias]

 

claudias you say that telling hammas you are not a muslim and will not convert to islam is antagonising them.

They will certainly not advocate the deliberate antagonisation of the Hamas authorities which you would place on my visit.

 

very intolerant of them dont you think.

 

I believe in the old adage of "be true to yourself and others at all times"

thats why I first went to the middle east and then on to the rest of the world to see for myself, to form opinions based on my own experiance not what someone else tells me. so you may not agree with me but you can not say I'm wrong because you have no fukcing idea.

 

[/quote/]

 

You were the one who stated that telling Hammas that I am not a Muslim and would not convert would get me killed I can't be bothered to go back to your earlier posts to copy and paste.

 

You went to the Middle East and then on to the rest of the world because that was where the big money was not because you had some noble idea of widening your own experience. Had you been able to do the same job and get the same salary at Sullom you may never have left home.

 

I do say that you are wrong when you state that all Palestinians,particularly Hammas, are evil and all Israelis are saints. This merely shows intolerance. Of that I do have some fukcing idea.

 

I think that all that we have established is that you are a big mouth and that I was an idiot in attempting to goad you. I will go back to lurking. No doubt you will boast to all and sundry that you have defeated me. So be it.

 

Edited to correct spelling.