Israel, Hamas vow no let up in Gaza fighting

I demand that the state of Israel not leave Gaza without bringing my child back home to me

PR gold, this emotional soundbite. But how many more mothers' hearts will this demand break?

And so BOTH sides have again committed to repeat more of the same, exact, violent actions and reactions. I'm sure that the military industrial complex is "over the moon" (after hearing this statement) I bet they are giving each other "high fives" ,while the average civilians loose, in soo many ways!

Hamas is in for some more pounding.

Hamas starts shooting, then tells the world that their civilians are dying in response to it.

People who want to talk about Palestinian children should spend all of their efforts trying to convince Palestinian militants that children will die if they use violence. They should send them photos and the names of people killed the last time they decided to negotiate using war. But that won't happen if people feel violence is a legitimate path to Palestinian statehood.

You either want revenge or statehood, but you can't have both. Westerners should stop telling the Palestianians that they support a violent resistance.

Chances of achieving a more permanent ceasefire nosedived on Friday after Israel said it believed Hamas militants had captured a 23-year-old soldier in a Friday morning ambush near the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Israel now admits the soldier was killed in action, not kidnapped. That didn't stop them from carrying out Nazi-like civilian reprisals. -- "Immediately afterwards, Israel bombarded the Rafah area in shelling that is still ongoing, with medics saying it killed 114 people in 24 hours.

Yabits, you support violent resistance, which means you accept the consequences.

Yabits, you support violent resistance, which means you accept the consequences.

On a personal level, I support and have always supported non-violent resistance, so your statement about me is wrong. I can understand and sympathize with those who react to injustice with violence, as a violent response is preferable to passivity.

The ones who heap injustice and violence on others will not escape consequences. The "Jewish state" was not intended to be the abomination it has become.

The goal of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and kill all of the Jewish population. They do have atomic weapons if needed and if threaten with destruction will use them.

The goal of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and kill all of the Jewish population.

False. From wiki " In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel."

They were fighting for their own 'dignity' !

Yabits

Israel now admits the soldier was killed in action, not kidnapped.

And by an Israeli bombardment, no less.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28627888

Superlib

Yabits, you support violent resistance, which means you accept the consequences.

I love these kinds of comments. Typed, with scant doubt, by one who lives in a peaceful, democratic, ruled-by-common law country that likely has never been occupied and subject to crippling sanctions and brutal reprisals, and whose worst issue might be the slightly elevated rate of unemployment, or the rising price of a bunch of bananas.

If your country was occupied and controlled by a foreign power SuperLib, what would you do?

"Palestine" was never occupied although those Arabs call themselves "Palestinians" now are suffering the consequences of their stupid decisions - Never agree to Israel state, Always say NO to peace, Invest your money in terror and not in development and education and then cry that you had a Nakba, Naksa or whatever this will give you "Free World" support by people who really wants to help the poor but actually funding this process that goes forever. keep them poor ignorant Islamic and angry - thats the way to peace.

the surrounding Arab countries always used these Arabs to move their internal problems outside Egypt is the first one who does not do it these days and thats extraordinary.

if you still think there was such state, please answer the following questions:

When was Palestine established and by whom ? What were its borders ? What were its capital and main cities? What was its main Economy established on ? What form of political government used to be in that state can you name any leader of Palestine before Arafat ? what was the language, coin, religion of that state ? in any time, what was the exchange rate of the Palestinian coin against US dollar/Yen/Pound ? Now - since there was never a country with this name - why is it occupied and from whom ?

(Hint: the west bank was occupied at 67 by Israel from Jordan who occupied it illegally from the British who occupied it from the Turks for some reason (what were they doing there in the first place ? ). Gaza was occupied from Egypt - which never wanted it back even when Israel handed over the Sinai desert to Egypt during the peace agreement).

@mongolll

You go on and on about countries. Have you ever heard of territories?

If a people have no capital cities, currency, economy etc. do that people just disappear from your view?

Its interesting, but your view seems to deny the ancient Hebrews of the Egyptian captivity existence, not just the Palestinians. Excuses and verbal trickery such as yours were also used to deny Native American nations (yes, NATIONS) their land and right to exist, just you do with Palestinians.

BTW, Palestine declared independence in 1988. Israel denies that state the right to exist and has been subverting it all this time, even before independence was declared. Even the United States did not seem much of a country during its 8 year struggle against Great Britain you now. Palestine will be the same until Israel recognizes their right to exist on the very land they live on.

@crush them. The mission statement of Hamas is to destroy Israel. They put their children in front of their bombs and then cry Israel is killing their children when Israel is destroying their bombs. You can not live side by side with someone whose sworn mission is to kill every Jew. Hamas needs to be destroyed. They block the people in Gaza from finding shelter before an Israeli bombing so that they can say Israel is killing civilians. The children are taught to shoot and kill any Israeli they see and yes, the children have weapons. Israel is one of the most humane nations in the world and will rebuild the Gaza strip after the war is ended and there is no more threat from Hamas.

And the killing of innocent civilians continues.

False. From wiki " In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel

Actually, it is true. Hamas has stated time and time again that they would be willing to have a non-renewable 10 year truce with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. Read that again, please. Non-renewable under any circumstances. Further, it has long been the policy of Hamas that the purpose of such a long term truce would be to be able to prepare for the complete liberation of 'all of Palestine', ie: Israel. So, no. Hamas does not want a true peace with Israel. It just wants more time to be able to destroy it.

Enjoy:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has dismissed as ridiculous a proposal from the main Palestinian militant group, Hamas, to declare a 10-year truce if the Jewish state withdraws from territory occupied since 1967.

Top Hamas official Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi told Reuters late on Sunday Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation".

http://web.archive.org/web/20040306192510/http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2416620?view=Eircomnet

Now, unless you have something new to add to this, Hamas' proposal for a 'truce' is a not only a non-starter, it has absolutely nothing to do with discussing a real peaceful two state solution.

Tamarama: If your country was occupied and controlled by a foreign power SuperLib, what would you do?

I'd start firing rockets into the neighboring country indiscriminately hoping that I can kill innocent civilians. Next, I'd elect a terrorist government that no one in the world would want to work with besides Iran. If I were a part of that government then naturally I'd rule my people with an iron fist and even kill my brothers on the county next to mine. I'd devote all of my time and resources away from education and instead teach my kids that killing innocents is a worthy way to live your life. I'd start endless wars with a much stronger force while I stayed in a safe location. And naturally, I'd send children to the schools where I hid the weapons.

That's the right answer, yes?

At some point you need to hold the militants responsible for their actions. Your entire approach is that they were decent folks and Israel made them into killers. But plenty of Palestinians are not killers. By supporting the militants you support making everyone in the region suffer and you make peace impossible. Stop excusing rocket fire. It only leads to more misery for the Palestinian people.

Yabits: I can understand and sympathize with those who react to injustice with violence, as a violent response is preferable to passivity.

Name one other conflict where you support the targeting and killing of innocents as the form of violent resistance. I'm betting you have carved out a special exception for the "Zionists." Over the past few years I've seen your comments grow more and more radical and now you're calling for the destruction of Israel, pure and simple. The difference is that you try to hide behind long-winded rhetoric as if you've come to an educated, logical conclusion that killing innocents is OK. You've already made the leap that justifies ANY violent response as acceptable, even ones that targets civilians.

You've already made the leap that justifies ANY violent response as acceptable, even ones that targets civilians

Israel is a heavily militarized society, kind of like a modern day Sparta. The vast majority of people 16 and over have a military connection. This is simply a point of fact. I have never made any such "leap" that you are referring to.

now you're calling for the destruction of Israel, pure and simple.

As I have said on several occasions, I am in favor of democracy and a people's right to self-determination. If democracy -- one person; one vote -- threatens to abolish the Zionist state, the problem is not with democracy, but with the state.

That is hardly radical. Or violent. I would like to see the Zionist state peacefully dissolved because of what it is doing to Judaism. But that is not up to me, but to a much higher source to deal with the abomination. A quasi-religious party leader to calls for death of all Palestinians? A state that sends goons to a European city to torture and cripple an orthodox rabbi?

“I can understand and sympathize with those who react to injustice with violence”

By that do you mean that you understand and feel sorry for those who react to injustice with violence? Or that you understand and support the actions of those who react to injustice with violence?

The verb sympathize can go both ways.

Maybe the answer can be found in:

“as a violent response is preferable to passivity.”

What I take away from that is that you are saying that it is preferable to be violent than to be passive. If that’s the case, then I feel SuperLib’s statement is at least partly correct in that you support violent resistance, but are unwilling to accept the consequences.

then I feel SuperLib’s statement is at least partly correct in that you support violent resistance, but are unwilling to accept the consequences.

If you are asking if I would "accept" reprisals being carried out on civilians because of the death or capture of a soldier, and mine is the vastly superior force, I would reply that I'm not a monster.

What I find ironic is that these questions are being asked of me by people who themselves support massive violence against innocent civilians.

What I find ironic is that these questions are being asked of me by people who themselves support massive violence against innocent civilians.

Nope. I have not seen anyone write that. Please show me one poster who has written that they support massive violence against innocent civilian. What the people who are asking these questions seem to support is simply Israel's right to exist side by side in peace with a Palestinian state. You know, the very thing you are passionately against.

What the people who are asking these questions seem to support is simply Israel's right to exist side by side in peace with a Palestinian state. You know, the very thing you are passionately against.

As I have written here and elsewhere, the Zionists have never wanted to live peacefully with a Palestinian state.

The transition from British Mandate to U.N. plan was the ideal time to have accomplished it, and the Zionists actively subverted that plan.

Please show me one poster who has written that they support massive violence against innocent civilian.

The people who are unable to acknowledge that the Zionists have engaged in mass-murder and ethnic cleansing from before the time the U.N. plan was supposed to take effect -- and from thereafter -- are demonstrating their support by silent assent.

@slumdog,

What the people who are asking these questions seem to support is simply Israel's right to exist side by side in peace with a Palestinian state.

If only Israel was simply existing side by side in peace, instead of constantly stealing land to fulfill Likud's avowed aims of

"Jewish settlement in Judea & Samaria and in Galilee, and ...united Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel."

http://www.likud.org.il/en/about-the-likud/history-of-the-movement

If you are asking if I would "accept" reprisals being carried out on civilians because of the death or capture of a soldier, and mine is the vastly superior force

No that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking if you feel sorry for Hamas for resorting to violence resistance; or if you support Hamas in it's violent response.

I'm asking if you feel sorry for Hamas for resorting to violence resistance; or if you support Hamas in it's violent response.

I am asking you: Do you support international law? Or do you have one set of standards for the Zionist state and another for Arabs? International law grants a people fighting an illegal occupation the right to use “all necessary means at their disposal” to end their occupation, and the occupied “are entitled to seek and receive support” (I quote here from several United Nations resolutions). Armed resistance was used in the American Revolution, the Afghan resistance against Russia (which the U.S. supported), the French resistance against the Nazis, and even in the Nazi concentration camps, or, more famously, in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Before someone chimes in about the Zionists leaving Gaza, it is true they pulled out settlements so that Israeli citizens would not get caught in the crossfire, but they completely control airspace and have blockaded access to Gaza by sea. These are acts of war.

When a people are subject and witness to an injustice, it would be wrong for them to surrender as long as they have the ability and will to survive and resist.

SenseNotSoCommon,

I generally do not agree with the Likud platforms.

Jewish settlement in Judea & Samaria and in Galilee, and ...united Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel."

This was the aim in 1977. That does not mean it is the same goal now. United Jerusalem is a different issue, however. Israel has annexed Jerusalem, but in the 2000 and 2001 talks there was a lot of agreement about Jerusalem between the two sides. It can be worked out, but not if the sides never meet and never negotiate. Hamas and yabits are against negotiations and against a peaceful two state solution. That is why I find it ironic that yabits continues to write:

the Zionists have never wanted to live peacefully with a Palestinian state.

When he knows it to be false. Yitzhak Rabin was a Zionist and was for a peaceful two state solution. Barak was also for a peaceful two state solution and negotiated in 2000 and 2001 for such a solution. The negotations went very well by accounts from both sides.

So, yabits, you can keep repeating this falsehood, but it is just that. A falsehood.

Even Netanyahu has said that he is willing to negotiate for a peaceful two state solution. Why didn't the Palestinians agree to meet when they heard this? What are they waiting for? For one, they are waiting for Hamas, which like yabits, are against a peaceful two state solution and any negotiations with Israel that would lead to one.

Before someone chimes in about the Zionists leaving Gaza, it is true they pulled out settlements so that Israeli citizens would not get caught in the crossfire, but they completely control airspace and have blockaded access to Gaza by sea.

? You keep writing this and you are still incorrect. You are well aware that the sanctions against Gaza started when Hamas rejected the agreements made between the PLA, Egypt and Israel. When Israel left, the Palestinians were indeed joyous and dancing in the streets at their new found freedom. Palestinians were crossing the border from Gaza into Egypt legally for the first time, including when Egypt controlled the Gaza strip from 1948 to 1967. It was Hamas' actions that led to the sanctions and then to the blockade. Hamas is against peace and the ones they are hurting the most are their own people. People they are supposed to be helping.

Kent Mcgraw : The mission statement of Hamas is to destroy Israel.

This book review of "Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, and Violence" is well worth reading for those interested in getting a deeper understanding of Hamas and the reason for their popularity among the residents of Gaza than that offered by the mainstream media...

http://www.wfs.org/node/936

Some quotes...

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans resoundingly demanded that their leaders take up arms against Islamic militants and the governments who sponsor them. The minority of Americans who expressed hope in nonmilitary solutions were derided or sidelined, and in some cases, openly attacked. Can anyone expect that the Palestinian people, who have suffered proportionately much more damage than America did, will not do the same?

The shared experience of occupation, curfews and collective punishment accelerated this process as did the rapid expansion of Israeli settlements, competition for water resources, attacks on religious sites, and public calls for the transfer of Palestinians out of Palestine, which made Palestinians fear that their land and identity were under threat.

Hamas gained more popular support in the 1990s once most Palestinians realized that the 1993 Oslo accords could not halt Israeli settlements or improve the Palestinian economy; Hamas’ opposition to the peace process became a more credible argument...In the eyes of most Palestinians resistance was achieving more for them than the peace process ever would.

Also, this is an excerpt from last night's BBC interview with Palestinian spokes person Dr. Hanan Ashwari...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFf7AnJ9InA

“I can understand and sympathize with those who react to injustice with violence”

Okay, let’s try one more time.

Yabits,

When you use the phrase “understand and sympathize” are you using the word sympathize to indicate that you:

A) Have a feeling of compassionate sympathy for those who have been forced to “react to injustice with violence?” or

B) Are in accord with and support “those who react to injustice with violence?”

It’s a simple, straight up question and a simple, straight up answer is all that is asked for.

If only Israel was simply existing side by side in peace, instead of constantly stealing land to fulfill Likud's avowed aims of

SenseNotSoCommon,

The only solution is the peaceful two state solution. I am for this and you are for this. Netanyahu has offered to talk. It has not been the Israelis that walked away from the talks in 2013. It was the Palestinians. Now, I completely disagree with the building of settlements, especially during negotiations. It is a slap in the face. I get that. But, instead of repeating history and walking away from negotiations, I would love to see the Palestinians stick with it and get their nation already.

In the end, Hamas does not want negotiations and does not want a peaceful two state solution. It has been established that yabits feels exactly the same way.

So, while the settlement building is problematic, the goal is a peaceful two state solution and the sooner the Palestinians let themselves get sidetracked and stick with negotiations until the end is the sooner they will get the nation they deserve. Not negotiating has gotten Palestinians nothing but more misery.

@Kuya 808,

Repeated baiting of a poster cannot alter the inalienable rights of the oppressed to seek self determination.

International Law (UNGA A/RES/37/43; 3 December 1982):

Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.

@Slumdog,

To recover from this abomination, Israel must now execute massive action for peace, at great financial and political - but no blood - sacrifice.

The big question is, can Netanyahu be another F. W. de Klerk?

SenseNotSoCommonAUG. 04, 2014 - 03:10PM JST

I think you misread the intent of my inquiry, I'm simply curious and would like to know. No baiting, no traps; just curious, that's all.

To recover from this abomination, Israel must now execute massive action for peace, at great financial and political - but no blood - sacrifice.

I agree with your comments vis-a-vis Israel, but a solution is impossible without Hamas' agreement.

The big question is, can Netanyahu be another F. W. de Klerk?

Within that big question is the question of who will be the Mandela for the Palestinians and how to get Hamas on board. Without a real partner on both sides (all sides?), the world will just keep seeing the same things repeated again and again.

Kuya 808,

I think you misread the intent of my inquiry, I'm simply curious and would like to know. No baiting, no traps; just curious, that's all.

Noted with thanks. The world has in dire need of curiosity. Please accept my apologies.

When you use the phrase “understand and sympathize” are you using the word sympathize to indicate that you:

A) Have a feeling of compassionate sympathy for those who have been forced to “react to injustice with violence?” or

B) Are in accord with and support “those who react to injustice with violence?”

A is definitely true. B is true only if non-violent means have been explored and proven inadequate, and a dire humanitarian crisis exists.

To Sense's statement about an Israeli leader being a DeKlerk (or a Gorbachev). Neither of those two had to confront religious radicals who believe God gave the Jews complete sanction over Palestine and that giving any land back is treason. The two-state solution that the Zionists are trying to press upon Arabs is the apartheid Bantustan solution. It simply won't bring peace, but a major new foothold for Zionists to continue slaughtering Arabs.

Within that big question is the question of who will be the Mandela for the Palestinians and how to get Hamas on board.

Try Marwad Barghouti:

His propensity to unite Fatah and Hamas into one powerful liberation movement insisting on a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders makes him a dangerous threat to Israel's political establishment. Barghouti's message is so powerful that Hamas has rallied behind him

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/10/palestine-mandela-2013102574743124101.html

Hi, SenseNotSoCommon,

Marwan Barghouti is an interesting character. Would that he would have a chance to run in some sort of election to become the leader of the Palestinians. But, I wonder if that is possible. It would be nice if Israel would see the wisdom of releasing him and letting him use his influence to make peace. His existence does give me hope though