• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did isreal Attack gaza on nov 4th?

JSt0rm

Lifer
Text

Its a long article but i pasted a bit of it here.


Israel?s actions are part of a new round of provocation and reaction after a mostly successful cease fire was declared in June. Why now? The Palestine Monitor provides an explanation:

The fact that Palestinians are moving forward in their internal dialogue and attempts to reunite the West Bank and Gaza Strip as we speak; the fact Israel is undergoing a political transition which has effectively frozen the Annapolis Process to the point that Sec. Rice must return once more to ?thaw? it out; and the fact that the attacks occurred on Tuesday night while the entire world watched the US elections and where almost no news time could be spared to discuss the events, seems almost too well timed to be purely an act of pre-emptive self defense by the IDF.

A renewal of violence emanating from the Gaza Strip will throw a spanner in the works of the internal Palestinian dialogue.

This spanner in the works began on November 4th when Israel broke the cease fire by launching an attack on Gaza. In fact, even the Jerusalem Post ? in an editorial claiming that Gazan?s suffering from lack of food and fuel is ?self-inflicted? admits that the first hostile act was Israeli:

But lately, Hamas has been setting the stage for the next round. On November 4, the IDF destroyed a tunnel that Israeli intelligence believed was going to be used - at any moment - to infiltrate into Israel for the purpose of kidnaping soldiers. Since then Hamas has fired 60 Kassams and 20 mortars at southern Israel.

As the Palestine Monitor notes,

Quite predictably, Hamas? reaction to the invasion was to launch a number of rockets into the Negev, further terrorizing the civilian population of two small towns who had lived in a rather peaceful state for nearly five months. Though we condemn these attacks whole-heartedly, it is the disturbing logical conclusion to the Israeli invasion. In other words, Israel knew that their invasion would provoke a response?

++++++++++

I don't mean to get in the middle of this. I think both sides should lay down the weapons but I was listening to npr on the way to work and one caller asked why there was no coverage of the attacks on Gaza on the 4th of November. Well i did a quick search and found this article talking about it. The link might have a pro Palestine slant but if the basics of the article are true then didn't Israel break the cease fire? I'm sure a lot of you who have followed this thing much closer then myself already know about this but it came as a surprise to me as this news hasn't filtered down to those of us that aren't really glued to the tv about this issue.
 
Digging a tunnel that can be used to launch a attack on Israel is the same in my books as placing a rocket launcher on a hill, pointing it at a Israeli town and lighting the fuse. It hasn't fired yet but it's about to, would you wait and see if it was your town/countrymen?

Also even Egypt is against hamas when they kicked the PA out of gaza. A terrorist group became the government of that area, would you have rather a ground assault be launched resulting in 100x the lose of life?

-edit- and yes, the blockade didn't work but it was a good try to peacefully remove the terrorist group from power.
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Right well of course. But were they taking rocket fire before during the last cease fire?

Yes, they have been taking rocket fire nearly daily. One of the biggest criticism's is Israel adhering to agreements and forcing jewish settlers out only to have these douchebag's move their rocket operations up and shoot further into Isreal
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Right well of course. But were they taking rocket fire before during the last cease fire?

Get some credible sources and you'll get a real debate (as real as it gets on AT P&N anyway). The source is not just "Maybe" biased, they're in the tank for Hamas and when they write something like "In other words, Israel knew that their invasion would provoke a response? ", they not only know full damn well that Israel was acting in it's defense and that Hamas knew full well that sending rockets into Israel would warrant a response. The fact that Israel hasn't responded till now in force just amazes me. Olmert is an absolute moron, impotent and incapable of defending his own country until polls tell him it's the right thing to do.
 
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Right well of course. But were they taking rocket fire before during the last cease fire?

Yes, they have been taking rocket fire nearly daily. One of the biggest criticism's is Israel adhering to agreements and forcing jewish settlers out only to have these douchebag's move their rocket operations up and shoot further into Isreal

Were they taking rocket fire before nov 4th? I mean in the recent past. I know they have taken rocket fire before 🙂
 
They were taking rocket & motar fire from the morning the cease fire went into effect.

Hamas stated that they would not stop others from doing so.
Whether Hamas initially was actually shooting them is questionable. However, aftwards, Hamas would brag about it.
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They were taking rocket & motar fire from the morning the cease fire went into effect.

Hamas stated that they would not stop others from doing so.
Whether Hamas initially was actually shooting them is questionable. However, aftwards, Hamas would brag about it.

ok I did here about that but i didn't know if it started before nov 4th. I still think violence begets violence and the only real violent solution for Israel is complete extermination. That would put an interesting twist on history to say the least.
 
Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Digging a tunnel that can be used to launch a attack on Israel is the same in my books as placing a rocket launcher on a hill, pointing it at a Israeli town and lighting the fuse. It hasn't fired yet but it's about to, would you wait and see if it was your town/countrymen?

Also even Egypt is against hamas when they kicked the PA out of gaza. A terrorist group became the government of that area, would you have rather a ground assault be launched resulting in 100x the lose of life?

-edit- and yes, the blockade didn't work but it was a good try to peacefully remove the terrorist group from power.

So didn't Israel have jets, tanks, and a shit ton of other weapons pointed at Gaza? How is that any different then Hama's preparation?
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Wrong. they are still firing and have said they will not stop.
 
Since the beginning of Israel (after WWII) this part of the world has been chanting death to Israel with no exception... so it really doesn't matter who striked first or on Nov. 4 2008.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Tell that to the fucktards who insist on continuing the rocket launches.
 
Seems to be a miscommunication with the people:

The government buildings targeted Tuesday were empty, as Gazans became fearful of venturing out into the streets. For Ziad Koraz, whose nearby home was damaged in the attack on the government compound Tuesday, that violence gratuitously put Gaza civilians at risk.

"More than 17 missiles were directed at an empty government compound, without regard for civilians who lived nearby," Koraz said. "If someone committed a crime, they should go after him, not after an entire nation."

Friend, you elected Hamas, they are your government. When your government precipitates an act of war by firing rockets into a neighboring country, the appropriate response is going to be a retalitory act of war. "Someone" didn't commit a crime, your government commited military action. Sorry if civilians live nearby a government compound and were casualties in a retalitory attack on that compound, but the civilians were not the targets of the strike, unlike when your elected government carries out its military strikes with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.
 
"More than 17 missiles were directed at an empty government compound, without regard for civilians who lived nearby," Koraz said. "If someone committed a crime, they should go after him, not after an entire nation."

That is the most assinine statement I have ever read.
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues on any level!!
 
Originally posted by: jonks
unlike when your elected government carries out its military strikes with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.

this is what i don't understand. Why do they think that this action will get them anything? If they really want to have an impact on the international community how about they stop attacking and just let people say hey why is Israel starving these people. Instead of having suicide bombers how about just having people commit suicide until the attacks stop. That would have a strong effect on the international community. Like that monk who set himself on fire in protest of the Vietnam war.
 
Originally posted by: Gand1
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Tell that to the fucktards who insist on continuing the rocket launches.

I don't recall Great Britain showing such force to the Irish when the IRA insisted on continuously bombing civilian locations. There was much more casualties suffered there than in Israel. In any case, both sides need to lighten up and talk it out. It's getting out of hand....
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.
Why - Hamas never stopped the violence

Apparently if you look at the PR coming out of the Hamas "leadership" from their hidiholes, they will not be defeated and will increase the assault. Sounds like a declaration of war.

 
Originally posted by: SandEagle
Originally posted by: Gand1
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Tell that to the fucktards who insist on continuing the rocket launches.

I don't recall Great Britain showing such force to the Irish when the IRA insisted on continuously bombing civilian locations. There was much more casualties suffered there than in Israel. In any case, both sides need to lighten up and talk it out. It's getting out of hand....

It has been proven time and time again that Israel has no reliable partner at the negotiating table, so talking does nothing. An agreement with Hamas arent worth the paper it's written on, especially when Hamas' main charter calls on the destruction of Israel.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: SandEagle
Originally posted by: Gand1
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Tell that to the fucktards who insist on continuing the rocket launches.

I don't recall Great Britain showing such force to the Irish when the IRA insisted on continuously bombing civilian locations. There was much more casualties suffered there than in Israel. In any case, both sides need to lighten up and talk it out. It's getting out of hand....

It has been proven time and time again that Israel has no reliable partner at the negotiating table, so talking does nothing. An agreement with Hamas arent worth the paper it's written on, especially when Hamas' main charter calls on the destruction of Israel.

No shit Israel keeps bombing any partner. And Israel has called for the destruction of Hamas I guess they are equal.
 
Originally posted by: Gand1
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
i'm not trying to debate the issue. I'm just trying to understand more about it. I am far enough away from this thing that i don't want to take any sides. There are enough people on either side of this. I'm just asking. Oh and the bolded quote is from a Palestinian paper so yes I'm sure that part is biased. But the article also quotes a Israeli paper.

Both sides have been going at it, yeah we get that. Do you want this bloodbath to continue indefinitely, or do you want to see it stopped by one side surrendering - and if so, who should be forced to surrender and meet the other side's conditions?

If you want to try and claim both sides should, and no war should be allowed to conclude - then you'll only guarantee that this bloodbath continues well into then next decade. THEN how many lives do you think will be lost? Better to finish the job and to never have to return.

Israel is the one that has to stop the violence Gaza has already been defeated they can't surrender.

Tell that to the fucktards who insist on continuing the rocket launches.

That is what defeat has looked like for thousands of years. Only instead of rockets it was bullets and before bullets it was stones.
 
Back
Top