Richard Falk, no less, the dude who promotes 9/11 conspiracies, Supported Iranian Revolution and Ruhollah Khomeini Defended Violent Vietnam War Protesters (murderers) Falk who was appointed to his current UN position by Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann - well known Israel hater and a member of The Sandinista National Liberation Front to boot. Yep, lunatics like him are usually not on Israel's side.
Israel withdrew forces stationed in Gaza, but did not withdraw from Gaza. Their withdrawal is worse for Gaza's people, because Israel cut the movement of goods and taxes in and out of Gaza. They have put a wall around Gaza. They have put a maritime blocade, and air cover. In addition, anyone in Gaza is in the fire range of military towers with lights pointed on refugee camps during the night, and people cannot sleep. Therefore Israel transforrmed Gaza into a high security prison with the difference that they do not give food/shelter/medicine to the prisoners, and murder some if others speak out. The presence of troop in Gaza is better for pals than their withdrawal. Since they have been in a prison with no hope in sight and in such conditions, what do you want them to do? To die without saying a word? [/B][/QUOTE]
Surely you meant to say those in disagreement (like Richard Falk) with Israel's actions are lunatics.....
Actually he was a lunatic on a number of other issues as my previous post demonstrated. That he is virulently anti-Israel simply made him a terrible and dishonest UN Rapporteer on Israel. He should have excused himself, the way any self-respecting judge does when he/she has strong feelings on an issue.
Israel withdrew forces stationed in Gaza, but did not withdraw from Gaza. Their withdrawal is worse for Gaza's people, because Israel cut the movement of goods and taxes in and out of Gaza. Nonsense, Israel never touched their taxes and the blockade was imposed after Hamas came to power, canceled all previous agreements and thousands of rockets fell on Israeli towns. They have put a wall around Gaza. That's called borders. Therefore Israel transforrmed Gaza into a high security prison with the difference that they do not give food/shelter/medicine to the prisoners, Huh. Do they look hungry, thick, homeless while they bury their Hamas #3? The difference is prisons don't have their own elections, government, police, military...And they don't fire rockets at their neighbors.
Are you happy now? reports from middle east of 9 israel soldiers dead, 2 captured, and 30 wounded (two seriously). These people, while soldiers, are human too. Do they deserve to die? I do not think so. The world would be better without this madness. I call for peace to come.
Yes, Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip after the civil-war-like 2007 clashes - after they won the 2006 election. You shouldn't pretend they didn't win that election, regardless of what you/we might think of Hamas. I think I agree with your second point, in the sense that most Palestinians probably would prefer to be without Hamas alltogether. I think they see it more as a desperate necessity than what they ultimately want. And Hamas most likely are using various extortion schemes, blackmail and liquidations to maintain power and boost their status. Your comment on 9/11 and muslim demonstrations is somewhat out of context here in my opinion. It seems like the moderate Palestinians are allied with Fatah, and that Fatah's current strategy is to stay as moderate as they can, distance themselves from Fatah, and continue to present themselves as the alternative rulers of the Strip/West Bank to US/Israel, and then basicly wait for US/Israel to "do something" with Hamas. Fatah simply isn't strong enough.
Quote from a_person: Of course having Hamas on their border they had a plan on how to deal with Gaza, it does not change the fact that Livni was in Egypt desperately trying to renew the ceasefire and avoid exercising this plan altogether while Hamas was sabotaging it by lobbing hundreds of rockets into Israel. Oh, I'm sure Israel have all sorts of plans - it's a relatively well-organised country with one of the most competent armies in the world. I meant that Israel probably have altered their scheme for what they want to make out of Gaza. But I don't think Israel was "desparately trying to renew the ceasefire", and I also think Hamas to a certain extent expected/wanted what's happening now. They're radical, and if there's anything learnt from radical Islamists it's that suffering for the general population creates hatred that shifts the radicals more into favour. Last I heard, all humanitarian aid was coming through. When you elect terrorists, they start a war with a powerful neighbor and you don't have enough hospitals - what can I say, tough luck. And please allow me to remain skeptical about the whole humanitarian situation in Gaza. I've been hearing how "Gaza is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe" for the last 10 years without seeing a shred of evidence of the actual crisis. If they act like the boy who cried wolf - at some point they lose credibility Here you're dead wrong. There is no supplies coming in. The international call for a ceasefire is to allow humanitarian aid to enter the warzone. Looks like you don't see any evidence of that because you're just not looking, or you refuse to register what you see. Democracy and responsibility: So, because the US elected W twice they would be fair game for anything? Of course, what do you think, we elect W, he starts a war against a sovereign country, of course we are fair game. We expect the enemy to follow international law and not target civilians but other than that if my government starts a war and I am in any way shape or form part of the war effort - I am fair game. Now, with "anything" I really mean that. Suicide attacks. Civilian targets. Dressing up an ambulance with explosives and heading towards a military checkpoint. I agree with you that wars between sovereign countries must follow international conventions. However throughout history, wars have been fought where civilian murders have been a deliberate (and effective) strategy. What is the difference between the WWII bombing of Dresden, the WWII London Blitz, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs and what we today regard as terrorism targetting civilians? This is a grey area, and distinctions are murky.