BF2S Forums War in Gaza Official Thread

Fine, they recognise Israel for whatever reason, and not the 'Hamas will never recognise Israel because they are Islamic crazies' propaganda the Israelis would like you to believe.

Israel does not want to negotiate towards peace, its that simple, hence they refuse to negotiate with anyone, making up bullshit reasons for not doing so.

Ok let me ask one question. If hamas will recognize Israel when will Israel recognize Palestine. You can not say you recognize a country and while you do you build settlements on it.

bogo24dk wrote:

Ok let me ask one question. If hamas will recognize Israel when will Israel recognize Palestine. You can not say you recognize a country and while you do you build settlements on it.

Israel dismantled all of its settlements in Gaza. Israel has also repeatedly offered to dismantle most of its remaining settlements elsewhere.

And Hamas has repeatedly said it will not recognize Israel even if Israel dismantles its settlements and recognizes a Palestinian state. The Hamas charter says it will never recognize Israel under any conditions.

Israel has never agreed to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.
Hamas has offered to recognise Israel.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel has never agreed to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.
Hamas has offered to recognise Israel.

Israel has offered to dismantle many settlements in the West Bank and it has offered to partially compensate the Palestinians with land for settlements not dismantled in East Jerusalem. They are negotiating.

What is your evidence that Hamas has offered to recognize Israel? Why is the EU withholding billions of dollars of aid because it believes Hamas has not offered to recognize Israel? This excerpt from the article you posted seems relevant:

Article Dilbert_X posted wrote:

Senior Hamas officials, including the group's politburo chief Khaled Mashaal and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, recently reiterated that they would not give in to pressures and budgets and would not change the movement's principles, according to which Hamas does not recognize Israel.

Last edited by san4 (2009-01-09 05:14:44)

bogo24dk wrote:

san4 wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

It will only dismantle a part of them. Not all of them.

Perhaps. But so what?

Lisent to yourself. By saying so what is like saying i don't care if Israelis are stealing land i only care about hamas recognizing Israel. With that kind of blindness is war kept on.

No, it's saying they can negotiate an agreement that both sides find acceptable even if Israel doesn't dismantle every settlement. The Palestinian Authority has not insisted that every settlement be dismantled.

The reason to focus on Hamas is that they refuse to negotiate under any conditions, even if Israel dismantles all settlements. That's why the war continues in Gaza. There's total calm in the West Bank.

Ottomania wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

You look so funny from here while trying to defend Israel.

If you have read the link, you will see that Israeli Army approved the attack, after 16 month ceasefire. It is not only Hamas that ends truces.

oh, you still not satisfied, here comes from your press:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/

I did read the linked story. Hence the references to "barrage" and "rained down".

Pointing out clearly biased reporting is defending Israel?

You look so funny from here while trying to defend terrorists who target civilians to the detriment of the people they were elected to serve.

As to the story...the shelling was in response to placement of Qassam rockets, wasn't it? So who was it now that ended the truce? Was it the guys who launched the rockets or the guys who shelled the rocket launch sites in response? C'mon...the math isn't that hard.

yeah, rcoket launch sites at beach..

what are you talking about?

Shelling happened after 16 month truce.

So no one launched qassam rockets during the period of 16 months.

Then Israel sends artillery barrage to a beach full of civilian Gaza citizens.

If you still blame Hamas about this, I would say that you are clearly biased.

You say that the report is biased but you dont have an idea to support your statement.

There is a beach and people got shot by artillery.

Where the fuck is bias in this report?

I wonder why you still dont want to accept heavy fault of Israeli Army in this situation?

They have the latest technology, there is no room for "but there is hamas militants" "our barrage had fallen short" excuses.

And it can be UXO's that killed Israelis, not qassam rockets launched by Hamas. lol... your logic

Dude. Read the fucking article you linked. It refers to ONE explosion on a beach. The other rounds hit elsewhere. There was no "barrage". There was a single explosion of unknown origin. No forensics have ID'd it.

My logic is based on looking at the facts in the article from an objective viewpoint. If there had been evidence from the forensic investigation that showed anything definitive, I would accept that--regardless of what that investigation found.

Where is the bias? You'll never see it because it is totally in line with your world view. The bias in that article lies in the content. The only thing that journalist knows is 1) an explosion occurred on a Gaza beach; 2) some Palestinians were hurt/killed by said explosion; 3) Hamas claims it was an IDF boat shelling the beach (with a single round); 4) the IDF claims none of the shells they launched at Qassam rockets kilometers away from that site could have been at fault, due to time and distance differences; 5) Hamas doesn't refute the Qassam rocket claim; 6) there's no independent verification of either side of the story.

The last point is key...the report ignores that, uses inflammatory language (intentionally), describing a single explosion as a "barrage...raining down" on the beach...which clearly implies an entirely different situation than what the facts support. Hell, it's a completely different situation than if the IDF actually HAD dropped that shell on the beach.

The bottomline is that there are no facts in any of those articles supporting your view of the event. Perhaps there's some nuance you miss in the articles because English isn't your first language.

Pretend

FEOS wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I did read the linked story. Hence the references to "barrage" and "rained down".

Pointing out clearly biased reporting is defending Israel?

You look so funny from here while trying to defend terrorists who target civilians to the detriment of the people they were elected to serve.

As to the story...the shelling was in response to placement of Qassam rockets, wasn't it? So who was it now that ended the truce? Was it the guys who launched the rockets or the guys who shelled the rocket launch sites in response? C'mon...the math isn't that hard.

yeah, rcoket launch sites at beach..

what are you talking about?

Shelling happened after 16 month truce.

So no one launched qassam rockets during the period of 16 months.

Then Israel sends artillery barrage to a beach full of civilian Gaza citizens.

If you still blame Hamas about this, I would say that you are clearly biased.

You say that the report is biased but you dont have an idea to support your statement.

There is a beach and people got shot by artillery.

Where the fuck is bias in this report?

I wonder why you still dont want to accept heavy fault of Israeli Army in this situation?

They have the latest technology, there is no room for "but there is hamas militants" "our barrage had fallen short" excuses.

And it can be UXO's that killed Israelis, not qassam rockets launched by Hamas. lol... your logic

Dude. Read the fucking article you linked. It refers to ONE explosion on a beach. The other rounds hit elsewhere. There was no "barrage". There was a single explosion of unknown origin. No forensics have ID'd it.(Witnesses described several explosions that also injured dozens of other people who lay on the beach...)The Israeli army said it "regretted" the deaths and called a halt to the shelling.

My logic is based on looking at the facts in the article from an objective viewpoint. If there had been evidence from the forensic investigation that showed anything definitive, I would accept that--regardless of what that investigation found. Should I bring gun-cam footage to convict you?

Where is the bias? You'll never see it because it is totally in line with your world view. The bias in that article lies in the content. The only thing that journalist knows is 1) an explosion occurred on a Gaza beach; 2) some Palestinians were hurt/killed by said explosion; 3) Hamas claims it was an IDF boat shelling the beach (with a single round);Not single, you should read again 4) the IDF claims none of the shells they launched at Qassam rockets kilometers away from that site could have been at fault, due to time and distance differences; Same IDF regretted for what have they done5) Hamas doesn't refute the Qassam rocket claim;Like Israeli bombardment after Hamas rocket attacks nowadays, If someone starts a fight, other one responds. As I said before, Hamas hadnt achieved a rocket attack during 16 month period before beach shelling. You are missing this point all the time. 6) there's no independent verification of either side of the story.

The last point is key...the report ignores that, uses inflammatory language (intentionally), describing a single explosion as a "barrage...raining down" on the beach...which clearly implies an entirely different situation than what the facts support. Hell, it's a completely different situation than if the IDF actually HAD dropped that shell on the beach. Both links I have posted says multiple shells hit the beach

The bottomline is that there are no facts in any of those articles supporting your view of the event. Perhaps there's some nuance you miss in the articles because English isn't your first language.

You act like investigating a top secret report. I wonder why you doubt so much to understand this evidence. Maybe you conditioned yourself to much to believe that Israel would never ever kill civilians intentionally.

Last edited by Ottomania (2009-01-09 09:21:29)

Both sides rejected the UN cease fire terms.

Bert wrote:

The UN are demanding the strike be investigated as a war crime.

Oh cmon man, none of this will mean shit anyway. You just have to see how this so called security council resolution has done sweet fuck all. The UN is a fucking joke. Why should these Middle Eastern countries listen to a bunch of Europeans (includes USA) and Chinese (lol) anyway. That's what they're thinking and I won't blame them if they do.

Also whilst I agree that this looks like a war crime, why is it only this. What about all the other shit that's happened in the world by people, including I'll admit, by Allied forces in Iraq/Afghanistan, and by loads of other countries in other conflicts, and what about Hamas themselves, I still don't see "the UN" doing or saying anything about the rocket attacks. This is all ultimate lameness on behalf of everyone.

This world is gay, gay gay gay.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-01-09 11:39:01)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Both sides rejected the UN cease fire terms.

So what?

Of course Hamas will reject any ceasefire terms. If they continue to reject calls for ceasefires until Israel eventually withdraw, they will claim victory and boost their popularity immensely. This action by Israel is improving the popular standing of Hamas.

War crimes have nothing to do with ceasefires. The UN is demanding investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes - specifically, the incident I have mentioned about the IDF rounding up civilians (mostly women and children) into a single house and then repeatedly shelling that house. As horrific as many of the things Hamas does are, I don't think they've ever done anything quite as despicable as that and I hope those responsible do face charges for war crimes.

What the fuck do you mean so what? I was just updating the thread. Chill the hell out.

Hamas leaders sit down when they pee.