Israeli attacks on Gaza complicate Obama's Mideast policy

Monday 29th December, 02:20 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 63 Total Comments Show All

itcher74 at 02:24 AM JST - 30th December

The Jews did not "steal" the Palestinians country. The United Nations used it's authority to create the state of Israel. The existence of Israel is a matter of international law.

If you speak of international law UN has demanded Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders and give independence to the remainding 20% of historic Palestine divided into West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. So Israel has no right occupying Gaza and as a occupying force the Palestinians people are protected by the 4th geneva Conventions. And as refugees Palestinians have a right of return. This is a right tthat the Palestinians have according to internatinal law. Although Israel has so far refused to recognize this right.

All refugees have an internationally recognized right to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. The United States government has forcefully supported this right in recent years for refugees from Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and elsewhere.

In the specific case of the Palestinians, this right was affirmed by the United Nations Resolution 194 of 1948, and has been reaffirmed repeatedly by that same body, and has also been recognized by independent organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

In 1948 Palestinian were dispossessed, displaced, and uprooted from their homes. 800,000 Palestinians (two-thirds of the population) became homeless and this was the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israeli forces depopulated 530 Palestinian towns and villages, most of which were demolished to prevent the return of the refugees. So this was an outright theft whether UN agreed to it or not. A person with morals and who believes in justice would no have a difficult time seeing the obvious. The newly established Israeli government confiscated Palestinian land and properties and turned them over to the newly arrived Jewish immigrants from Europe. Although Jews owned only about seven percent of the land, Israel was established on 78 percent of Palestine. Conclusion is that the Palestinians have got an unfair teratment until this day.

Now as I said earlier if someone still support someone who first stole some ones country, then killed and expeled the rightful citizens just to follow them and kill them in their refugee camps outside your stolen country they need to check their moral compass.
Betzee at 05:00 AM JST - 30th December

One can certainly criticize Obama for offering nothing new. But to do that, you gotta admit GWB's "ballots and bullets" approach failed.

The Israelis chose to act between administrations. President elect Obama deferred to lame duck Bush who gave the same advice he did in 2006, "Do what you gotta do, but try to minimize civilian casualties." So we can expect the Palestinians to drag out the bodies of dead women and children. This will be greeted with, "Well you used them as human shields cause you can't fight like men. Not our fault."

Bottom line: Another problem which has been dumped in Obama's lap.
SuperLib at 05:25 AM JST - 30th December

You cannot believe the reality that Israel isn't going anywhere while simultaneously believing that an armed struggle is the answer for the Palestinians.
SuperLib at 05:38 AM JST - 30th December

itcher: Now as I said earlier if someone still support someone who first stole some ones country, then killed and expeled the rightful citizens just to follow them and kill them in their refugee camps outside your stolen country they need to check their moral compass.

The militants' policy of revenge is counterproductive to the well-being of Palestinians. Unless you can come up with an answer for that then you're just wasting our time with your history lessons. I have 60 years of evidence on my side showing how an armed struggle hasn't gotten the Palestinians a pot to piss in. What evidence do you have that shows a policy of revenge is a good option?
buttamimi at 05:46 AM JST - 30th December

'The scale and ferocity of Israel's attacks came as a shock to many but tensions had been building after the expiry on 18 December of a ceasefire. Hamas had offered to renew the ceasefire if Israel reopened Gaza's border crossings. The strip had been sealed by Israel in an Economic Siege aimed at toppling Hamas. The blockade has brought the territory near Economic Collapse.'--The Independent.
buttamimi at 05:49 AM JST - 30th December

Leaders Lie, Civillian Die.--Robert Fisk, Independent: We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more – providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs – who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis – just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated". And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" – as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel – rightly – but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" – as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since – the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game – which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.

Exactly. Only the "rules" of the game don't change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street's crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which – let us remember – made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.

Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: "Wow, this blitz is awesome – we'd better recognise the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American 'peace process' in the Middle East!" Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?

Yes, let's remember Hamas's cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel's need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching – come to heel or we will crush you – is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who's never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army's "research and assessment division" announced that "no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them". Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn't want to lower ourselves to the IRA's level.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east – in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? – a well-known man in a turban smiles.
itcher74 at 05:52 AM JST - 30th December

> SuperLib .The militants' policy of revenge is counterproductive to the well-being of Palestinians.

As I already have said before to you is that every Palestinian leader has agreed to make a state of the remainding 20% of historic Palestine according to international law and agreements. So please do not waste my time in making me repeat the same lines over and over just for you.

Why is it that Israel will not agree to this and why is it that US agrees to this yet support Israeli occupation and aggression? And you should keep supporting the people who stole land and killed the rightful owners of the land and who has not ever apologized for stealing their home and land and placed them in refugee camps and now want to start a massacre because some people are firing home made rockets because they are starving.
Wolfpack at 07:06 AM JST - 30th December

itcher74 says:

If you speak of international law UN has demanded Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders and give independence to the remainding 20% of historic Palestine divided into West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Well, the problem with this argument is that Arab countries blew it by attacking and threatening Israel since the day of their lawful creation by the United Nations. If they were not attacked, Israel would not be "occupying" land that was not originally authorized to them by the UN. Arab nations believed that they could defeat Israel through force and their gamble resulted in defeat. The consequences of this are the loss of territory to the nation that was wrongly attacked to begin with. Why didn't Arab nations consider this potential outcome before they invaded Iraq on the day that the UN created Israel? The answer is that they were confident that they would win.

If and when Arab nations and the Palestinians agree to a peace treaty and non-aggression pact against the Israelis, then any claims for lands such as those in the Gaza could be considered. But whenever Israel unilaterally withdraws from occupied lands they are attacked from terrorist bases in the places they left. Israel has agreed in principle to land for peace and a two state solution. However, Arabs will not accept this because it still includes the existence of Israel in the Middle East.

I agree that Palestinian refugees should at least receive compensation for property that they have lost as a result of the UN action to create Israel and even for the land captured as a result of Arab invasions and military aggression against Israel. However, Israel should only provide such compensation as a part of a comprehensive non-aggression pact.

Now as I said earlier if someone still support someone who first stole some ones country, then killed and expeled the rightful citizens just to follow them and kill them in their refugee camps outside your stolen country they need to check their moral compass.

Anyone who supports terrorism - such as the Palestinians and many Arab countries such as Iran and Syria - are the ones that should be checking their moral compass. If Arabs and Palestinians would just stop attacking Israel then all is possible. But Arabs will not allow this because it means that Israel will continue to exist in the Middle East.
shiuu at 07:56 AM JST - 30th December

Wolfpack:

Well, the problem with this argument is that Arab countries blew it by attacking and threatening Israel since the day of their lawful creation by the United Nations. If they were not attacked, Israel would not be "occupying" land that was not originally authorized to them by the UN.

No kidding. Everyone cries about '67 borders but never stops to consider why those borders came into existence. Israel has been invaded again and again by its Arab neighbors -- wars that had they lost there's no doubt they would have been massacred to the last man (How do we know this? Because the Arabs said as much when they announced their intention to drive every last Jew into the sea) -- Too bad for the Arabs, Israel won ever one of those wars and seized territory in the process.

Israel is under no obligation to return territory seized during a defensive war. It'd be like telling the Chinese to give Manchuko back to the Japanese.

But guess what? Israel did give Gaza to the former Egyptians (that's right, there's never been a state known as "Palestine") -- and what did they get for it? The election of Hamas and thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.

Now Hamas is getting a well deserved punch in the mouth for their rocket attacks. I say good on the Israelis. Kill every last member of Hamas and start from zero. If the next Palestinian government launches rockets, do the same to them.
itcher74 at 08:33 AM JST - 30th December

Well, the problem with this argument is that Arab countries blew it by attacking and threatening Israel since the day of their lawful creation by the United Nations. If they were not attacked, Israel would not be "occupying" land that was not originally authorized to them by the UN. Arab nations believed that they could defeat Israel through force and their gamble resulted in defeat. The consequences of this are the loss of territory to the nation that was wrongly attacked to begin with. Why didn't Arab nations consider this potential outcome before they invaded Iraq on the day that the UN created Israel? The answer is that they were confident that they would win.

Apart from your fantasy which you pretend to be history you are basically not disagreeing with the fact that it was Israel who were the aggressors because they went in and stole land from the Palestinians and killed them first. Palestinians did not go and take land from the Jews and kill them first. Therefore since the aggressors are Israel the fault lies with Israel. That´s what I´m saying and everyone is saying this except those who can´t come to terms with reality. You who like to talk about UN. UN also have said backed by USA that United Nations Resolution 194 of 1948, which grants every Palestinian who were robbed of their land and property the Right Of return.

If and when Arab nations and the Palestinians agree to a peace treaty and non-aggression pact against the Israelis, then any claims for lands such as those in the Gaza could be considered. But whenever Israel unilaterally withdraws from occupied lands they are attacked from terrorist bases in the places they left. Israel has agreed in principle to land for peace and a two state solution. However, Arabs will not accept this because it still includes the existence of Israel in the Middle East.

As I already told SuperLib, every Palestinian leader has accepted to make a state according to 1967 borders. United Nations Resolution 242 of 1967 which also US agreed to states that Israel should return all land confiscated and occupied in 1967 which means West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The 1967 war was started when Israeli forces did a pre empty strike and moved into the rest of historic Palestine.
Wolfpack at 09:05 AM JST - 30th December

itcher74 says:

*Therefore since the aggressors are Israel the fault lies with Israel. *

It is a fact that on the day that Israel became a nation, Arab nations attacked them. Do you deny this fact? If so, then there is no use discussing this issue with you. Israel somehow defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. That was the beginning of the conflict that continues to this day. Arabs lost that war and have not gotten over it since. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the United Nations created the state of Israel. But they did and therefore, have a legitimate right to exist whether you like it or not. Israel was clearly not the aggressor from the beginning. If you believe otherwise then your facts and understanding of history are just wrong.

I don't agree with your assertion that Israel "stole" any land. The Arab nations lost this land in war. It was there fault for starting the war and they have paid the consequences for that mistake.

As I already told SuperLib, every Palestinian leader has accepted to make a state according to 1967 borders.

Again, you are incorrect. Yasser Arafat turned down President Clinton's effort to broker peace between the Israeli's and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords which would have traded land for peace. Arafat turned it down because he knew that Islamo-facist terrorists would have assasinated him if he had accepted the deal (just like Anwar Sadat was assasinted for his peace treat with Israel).

Look back on history and note that although Israel is not completely blameless (ie. the pre-emptive war of 1967), they have nearly always responded to aggression from terrorism or from attacks from Arab nations. Even in the case of the pre-emptive 1967 war, Arab nations were massing for war and Israeli just responded by gaining the advantage of surprise.

Why can't Palestinians give up on terrorism and just negotiate for peace and their land claims? I ask you or anyone else here - do the Palestinians, Hamas, the PLO, and all Arab nations want Israel to remain a nation in the Middle East? Well? The answer is obvious, they do not and therefore there will be no peace because at least Hamas, Syria, and Iran will never give up aggression against Israel until Israel is wiped off the map. Instead of using violence to achieve this aim, Arabs and Palestinians in particular should at least give up violence and use the United Nations to get rid of Israel. That is the only legitimate way to do so since the UN created Israel in the first place.
itcher74 at 09:35 AM JST - 30th December

It is a fact that on the day that Israel became a nation, Arab nations attacked them. Do you deny this fact? If so, then there is no use discussing this issue with you. Israel somehow defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. That was the beginning of the conflict that continues to this day.

You agreed with Right of Return and you say Arabs started the fight. If Arabs started the fight how come they have a right to return to their homes?

UN Partition Plan recommended that 56% of the land be set aside for a Jewish State, 42% for an Arab state and 2% for an internationalised Jerusalem and its surrounds, the world has not said a word about the land that was seized by Zionist terrorists before the State of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948. Through a series of shocking massacres, ethnic cleansing, of the native inhabitants the territory assigned to the Jews suddenly became 77% resulting in more than 750,000 Palestinians being forcibly expelled and dispossessed of their homes, personal property and their homeland.

Clinton never offered UN resolution 242 to Arafat. Even Arafat couldn´t say yes to that despite how much US bribed him. All US has to do is keep their promise and come to terms with reality.
skipthesong at 10:03 AM JST - 30th December

itcher74: let me ask, are you saying that if Israel pulls back behind those borders, that's it?
USARonin at 10:48 AM JST - 30th December

Wolfpack, well done. Terrorist apologists sometimes bring up that '67 Israeli preemptive strike.

Itcher74, if you had been Israel in '67, would you have waited to get annihilated? What the Arabs were imminently goin' to do was clear to Israel. And currently, where has appeasin' Palestinian supremacists ever gotten anyone? Gaza right now.

In general, there's a bunch of posters on threads like this who easily toss around the words 'genocide' or 'genocidal'. I suggest they look up the word and improve their English vocabulary so when they use the word in the future, they'll actually apply it correctly.
shams at 07:43 PM JST - 30th December

Shams, let your nation stabilize the area so we can take a smoke break.

If you have a very long somke break the area will stabilize.