to not understand how you can fire missiles targeting civilians and it not be a war crime

[Itsaboatjack]

now I'm not especially knowledgable about the problems in the middle east but surely firing missiles into a city intentionally killing civilians is some kind of war crime?

But alis, Israel was never 'gifted' by the allies! Which allies are you talking about? The UN agreed a partition plan in 1947. Most of the land would have gone to the Palestinians. They said no and a civil war began (or rather escalated) The British got sick and tired of the whole mess (it was always a mandate, never a colony) and said 'we're out of here' and Israel declared independence in 1948 and was promptly invaded by armies from 5 different Arab states (who everyone thought would win). Not sure on what silver platter you believe Israel was handed?

Oh puleez dippy. You obviously know nothing about the creation of the state of Israel.

The UN - the partition plan lacked foresight. Which is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight of course.

Diopy The Israeli government are acting wrongfully or Israel existing is wrong? If you mean the latter you will find yourself to have a minority opinion.

Since then UN partition plan was never implemented, I don't see how it lacked foresight. Id say the Palestinians lacked foresight since if they'd have accepted the plan and tried to work peacefully with the Jewish presence then things would have worked out much better for them and the whole nakba could have been avoided

Dreaming bohemian - but gazans don't live under missile fire day in day our. Israelis do. Were it not for the constant bombardment of Israel from Gaza over the past few months Israel would not be attacking.
I truly sorry for innocent people within Gaza who are caught up in this

Mizza, the daily living conditions in Gaza, imposed by Israel, are without question one of the causes and provocations of conflict and armed response.

www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel039s-gaza-blockade-continues-suffocate-daily-life-20100118

Daily obstructions and humiliations, abuses of power and interference, lack of freedom to move so that people can end up spending hours stuck in blockades simply trying to get to work, planning abuses that let Israeli developments siphon off all the water leaving none for Palestinian settlements in the area, or which dump israeli sewage on Palestinian lands, add to that losses of life and property, the IDF shooting kids and journalists and other non combatants, and its pretty easy to see why the situation is volatile. There is an incessant provocation built into that situation which you'd have to be practically super human to resist.

Problems in Middle East boil down to two simple facts:

1. Too much religion.
2. Not enough real-estate.

I didn't say the partition plan was implemented.

Elaine: why should Palestine have agreed to any plan whatsoever?

"Elaine: why should Palestine have agreed to any plan whatsoever?"

Alis, so is your argument that Israel shouldn't exist and/or that it shouldn't exist in the region where their people have dwelled since the 8th century BC?

I think the "Israel broke the ceasefire" diatribe is ironic, considering the "fire" never "ceased" is the first place.

Ask people in South Israel about the "ceasefire" - they were bombed constantly over the Summer.

Dear Religionists,

Please please stop killing each other.

Best wishes,

Atheists.

Elaine. That was a fairly reductive response.

Of course I don't think Israel shouldn't exist. No right thinking person thinks that. Arguing it shouldn't exist is as odd to me as arguing Spain shouldn't exist.

I wasn't walking about my views. I was asking about Palestinians and their view point. "They were there first" must seem a bad argument from their point of view.

*talking.

Sadly I know some people in RL who are using an anit-Israeli sentiment as a guise for anti-Semitic rabble rousing.

I would bet it's more widespread than just the couple of people I know.

Alis that wasn't Elaine, it was me.

"They were there first" must seem a bad argument from their point of view."

But that's their argument too, isn't it? Along with people in this thread that have mentioned many times that the Israeli "stole Palestinian land" and shouldn't be in the region because Palestinians were already there.

You can't have it both ways.

Fry apparently that's sheer paranoia and you aren't even allowed to mention it, because it simply doesn't happen... ever.

Sadly I know some people in RL who resopnd to any questioning if the actions of the state of Israel with cries of anti-Semitism. The two need to be kept separate.

So it was Poppy. Apologies Elaine.

That isn't my argument,more reasoning out the logic of both sides arguments. I suppose the Palestinian argument could be "we were here in more numbers,most recently".

It's a futile argument on both sides in many ways. Primarily because Israel is here to stay and the Israelis aren't just going to shrug and leave the region,nor should they,I hasten to add.

I just can't see how there will ever be peace in the region,though I truly hope it does happen,and soon.

So where is the line between proportionate and disproportionate?

Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai is reported by The Yeshiva World News to have said, "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages, destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water." Haaretz also reports that Yishai stated, "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages."

Hmm. The Romans had water infrastructures. Plus there is already a water shortage in Gaza which has been reported by organisations like amnesty, to the point that it was common to have barrels on roofs to collect rainwater.

So what is he actually saying with that comment?

And Gilad Sharon (son of Ariel) has said
There is no middle path here ? either the Gazans and their infrastructure are made to pay the price, or we reoccupy the entire Gaza Strip. followed by We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza.

he justifies this by saying
The desire to prevent harm to innocent civilians in Gaza will ultimately lead to harming the truly innocent: the residents of southern Israel. The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren?t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences.

Well apart from the fact that in any democratic election, 100% of the people do not elect a political party and by that token sizeable percentages of the population have to put up with leaders they don't like and don't agree with (often a majority of the population), the abdication of any level of responsibility and the tones of wanting to 'wipe out' others is appalling.

I don't think either side is right. Far from it. But it is alarming when those with the power and ability to actually carry out such threats are saying things like this in the manner in which they are.

"But it is alarming when those with the power and ability to actually carry out such threats are saying things like this in the manner in which they are."

Gilad Sharon is a reservist and a farmer. He has no power to carry out anything, so no need to be alarm on that account.

*alarmed

Gilad is still in a position of power, simply by nature of the fact of who his father is. It makes him influential.

There is indisputable Archeological and Historical evidence that the Jewish people have an unbroken link with the region for the past 3,000 years, which predates any other people in the region.

Under Turkish rule, the area was mainly left undeveloped and the Gaza region was described in numerous reports as an arid region with no crops, orchards or vineyards until the Jewish people started farming it again.

As I pointed up thread, you can't have it both ways:

If you argue that Jews shouldn't return to the area because "muslim palestinian whose ancestors were palestinians, had farmed and worked the land for generations and generations", it can be argued that the Jewish people had claim to the land before that.

Inversely, if you argue that the Jewish claim is worthless because the "we were here first" is not a fair argument, you can't say that Israel shouldn't be in the region because Palestinians were already living there first

Anyway, I have no interest in discussing the "merits" or "worthiness" of Israel's existence when it seems to be general consensus that they hold that right already.

There's a difference between acknowledging a right and agreeing that they hold that right to the exclusion and detriment of the rights of others, though.