BF2S Forums Hamas 'would recognise' pre-1967 Israel

Poseidon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Does it change anything that they're from years earlier? It proves that that's what they do. Their tactics don't magically change in 2 years.

It changes a lot. When the IDF claim that rockets were being fired from a school and then "back that up" with videos, you expect them to be current. Whereas UN eyewitnesses on the scene claim the contrary to be true.

It's indicative of a level of dishonesty simply to back up their military ambitions.

Much like the way they claimed WP wasn't being used at all, then claimed it was only being used in unpopulated areas (lol@ unpopulated areas in Gaza - it's only about 20 miles long and 5 miles wide) - whereas all the accounts and the number of WP burn victims strongly suggest that its use in populated areas was widespread.

I'm not saying it WAS from years earlier...I haven't seen much proof to the contrary.

A level of dishonesty? They already know most of the world hates them. Why would they even bother posting the videos if they weren't true?

You mean like this:

Haaretz wrote:

The United Nations is claiming Israeli military officers have admitted there was no Palestinian gunfire emanating from inside an UNRWA school in Gaza which was shelled by an IDF tank.

Dozens of Palestinians were killed in the shelling.

In addition, UNRWA Thursday announced it will cease activities in the Strip due to the death of an UNRWA staffer in an IDF shelling during Thursday morning's humanitarian hiatus.

UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness told Haaretz yesterday that the army had conceded wrongdoing.

"In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Gunness said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional."

He noted that all the footage released by the IDF of militants firing from inside the school was from 2007 and not from the incident itself.

"There are no up-to-date photos," Gunness said. "In 2007, we abandoned the site and only then did the militants take it over."

The UNRWA is now demanding an objective investigation into whether the school shelling constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, and if so, that those responsible stand trial.

The UN reported Thursday that a Palestinian working for the UNRWA was killed by an IDF tank shell while driving an aid truck at the Erez border crossing. The organization claims the UN truck was well-marked and the incident took place during the humanitarian hiatus slated to allow Gaza residents to acquire supplies

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html

Poseidon wrote:

Oh god. Not the UNRWA school again. Israel's apologized (take of it what you will). I and others have condemned the act. What more do you guys want? Sheesh.

But honestly, do you think that Hamas' tactics are just suddenly going to change? Do you seriously think they're not firing from massive civilian locations like schools?

I don't doubt it happens.

Far less often than is made out. I've seen loads of evidence over the years of Israel using all sorts of tactics (most often recycling imcriminating videos - particularly in the case of Hezbollah) to make it look like they do much more of it than they actually do.

The UNRWA school is one example. It's a good example, because there are lots of credible witnesses about and it's high profile. There are other big examples;the IDF rounding up 100 civilians into a house "for their safety" and then shelling it - killing many of them, the use of WP in civilian areas - if it hasn't happened (as Israel claim) how are there so many civilians with WP burns?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-03 13:42:01)

Bertster7 wrote:

The UNRWA school is one example. It's a good example, because there are lots of credible witnesses about and it's high profile.

Beg your pardon?

Haaretz wrote:

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit one of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools after all.

It seems that the UN has been under pressure to put the record straight after doubts arose that the school had actually been targeted. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said Monday that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.

Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school."

UNRWA, an agency whose sole purpose is to work with Palestinian refugees, said in response Tuesday that it had maintained from the day of attack that the wounded were outside of the school compound.

san4 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The UNRWA school is one example. It's a good example, because there are lots of credible witnesses about and it's high profile.

Beg your pardon?

Haaretz wrote:

UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit one of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools after all.

It seems that the UN has been under pressure to put the record straight after doubts arose that the school had actually been targeted. Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, said Monday that the IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound, and not on the compound itself.

Gaylord said that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school."

UNRWA, an agency whose sole purpose is to work with Palestinian refugees, said in response Tuesday that it had maintained from the day of attack that the wounded were outside of the school compound.

Imagine that; an incident that every armchair pundit around was pointing at to vilify israel turned out to be "Not Exactly what happened".

Shocker.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Vax wrote:

Imagine that; an incident that every armchair pundit around was pointing at to vilify israel turned out to be "Not Exactly what happened".

Shocker.

It was still an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 innocent civilians. Whether it hit a school or just outside the school, it does not change the fact 43 people were killed because of it.

Questions about the veracity of the claims that the school had been hit by the IDF were also raised last week by the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail. The newspaper said that a teacher in the UNRWA compound at the time of the strike "was adamant" that no people had been killed inside the compound.

The newspaper quoted the teacher as saying that, "I could see some of the people had been injured... But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere."

The newspaper said that the teacher had been told by the UN not to speak to the media. "Three of my students were killed," he said. "But they were all outside."

So gullible.
"43 innocent civilians"
How do we know that NONE of them were involved in fighting ? You are aware that these militants blend easily with the population, and they do it on purpose. 


You guys (especially the OP) should read this, it's from a Palestinian reporter
Then come back and tell me if you still think Hamas ever  "would recognize Isreal" ... '67 borders or not.

Vax wrote:

So gullible.
"43 innocent civilians"
How do we know that NONE of them were involved in fighting ? You are aware that these militants blend easily with the population, and they do it on purpose. 


You guys (especially the OP) should read this, it's from a Palestinian reporter
Then come back and tell me if you still think Hamas ever  "would recognize Isreal" ... '67 borders or not.

We know none of them were involved in the fighting because the IDF has said the deaths occured when a mortar went off course. If it had been described as a direct hit, than sure, maybe some of them were militants. Seeing as how the IDF said it went off course, I don't think they intended to kill 43 INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Unless your claim is that they were aiming for militants within the 43 civilians. Maybe there was a militant among them. I guess mortar fire is perfect for killing that guy...

Come back after reading the accounts of the UN and tell me the IDF have acted to protect the civlian population, because apart from dropping a leaflet before your neighbourhood gets bombed, is about all they have done. I don't think mention of the blockade preventing ambulances and medical supplies is something you'll consider helpful to the dead and dying civilian population? Opening the border for 3 hours each day isn't anywhere close enough for ambulances to get in and pull the wounded out who are in dire need of aid.

san4 wrote:

True. Forty-three deaths are always a bad thing, even if some of the dead are combatants.

None of the dead were combatants. The mortars that killed 43 people went off course. The IDF have said so.

san4 wrote:

On a less serious note, the fact that non-combatants were killed and injured in the fighting in Gaza is a devastating indictment of Israel because no civilians have ever been harmed in any war ever.

On a more serious note, the fact that non-combatants have been so carelessly fired upon by mortar fire, air strikes, tank shells, white phosphorus and killed in the thousands is a devastating indictment of Israel because no civilians have ever been so ignored in such a war to claim militants and end rocket fire.

san4 wrote:

Also Israel had no right whatsoever to take military action to prevent the government of Gaza from continuing to commit war crimes against Israeli non-combatants.

Israel has no right whatsoever to take military action that is committing war crimes because they see the enemy as doing the same.

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2009-02-03 21:26:13)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Vax wrote:

So gullible.
"43 innocent civilians"
How do we know that NONE of them were involved in fighting ? You are aware that these militants blend easily with the population, and they do it on purpose. 


You guys (especially the OP) should read this, it's from a Palestinian reporter
Then come back and tell me if you still think Hamas ever  "would recognize Isreal" ... '67 borders or not.

We know none of them were involved in the fighting because the IDF has said the deaths occured when a mortar went off course. If it had been described as a direct hit, than sure, maybe some of them were militants. Seeing as how the IDF said it went off course, I don't think they intended to kill 43 INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Unless your claim is that they were aiming for militants within the 43 civilians. Maybe there was a militant among them. I guess mortar fire is perfect for killing that guy...

I'm not the one making claims, I don't pretend to know exactly what happened. That was my point.. people are so quick to yell "innocent civilians"
If it was an errant shelling, that killed only innocent families, thats terrible... but ffs, It wouldn't be a demonstration of the IDF purposely killing civs, which some seem to be trying to prove.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Come back after reading the accounts of the UN and tell me the IDF have acted to protect the civlian population, because apart from dropping a leaflet before your neighbourhood gets bombed, is about all they have done. I don't think mention of the blockade preventing ambulances and medical supplies is something you'll consider helpful to the dead and dying civilian population? Opening the border for 3 hours each day isn't anywhere close enough for ambulances to get in and pull the wounded out who are in dire need of aid.

Meh, i've heard/read a lot. There is crap and BS on both sides, and it's much more complicated than this tit for tat propaganda game   
I suggest again reading that article, and then ask if you think Hamas (as portrayed here in this topic)  are 'willing negotiators' or, even capable responsible actors at all

PS, i'm not pushing that article as some kind of backup for "arguments" or whatever; I think it contains some real insight, I learned something, and my question above is for real

Last edited by Vax (2009-02-03 22:27:30)

Harmor wrote:

If New Zealand fired rockets indiscriminately into Australia, what would Australia response be?  FYI, firing a rocket with no precision into a civilian population is against the GC.

Put the matter before the UN, put our Navy off the NZ coast (assuming they're not on holiday) and tell the New Zealanders to send enough butter to cover the cost of the damage would be my guess.
Any negotiated settlement would require their rugby team to wear pink tutus, at least for the Haka.

Dunno, was the bombardment of Berlin terrorism?
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Those attacks didn't use particularly discriminate weapons.
(Unilaterally attacking another country is a war crime however)

BTW I feel that whenever you negotiate with a group of people you legitimise the actions that forced the negotiations.

Still better to negotiate than fight it out.
When you've caused the grievance in the first place you might even gain some credit, better than lowering yourself into the gutter and fighting back with illegitimate means.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-04 01:22:49)

this is old news, Hamas have been telling israel to go back to the 1967 borders and they will recognise them and make peace.

Hamas also offered Israel 3 TIMES a 10 year truce, where Israel had to go back to the 1967 borders for it to happen, and guess what the innocent peace loving Israel said on all occasions??? No.


its clear who is making an effort for peace and who is the obstacle to it

Last edited by rammunition (2009-02-04 01:56:25)

Some of you talk about Hamas firing rockets as if they have no reason to.

andy12 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Some of you talk about Hamas firing rockets as if they have no reason to.

To dig some trenches 3 miles away from the nearest town? Lol.

Haha, speaking of trenches you know that's the only way they can get medical supplies past the Gaza bloackade?

andy12 wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

andy12 wrote:

To dig some trenches 3 miles away from the nearest town? Lol.

Haha, speaking of trenches you know that's the only way they can get medical supplies past the Gaza bloackade?

In packages complete with Ak47's, ammo, a few bandages for the excuse factor and a few RPG's?

Somehow they can't quite reach the same standard of military might the IDF enjoys. Guess it's hard to smuggle in helicopter gunships and tanks. If only they had the US to supply them like the Israeli's do.

Oh well.