Israeli soldiers reveal: ‘This is how we fought in Gaza’

[hmm 979]

You don't even know what are you talking about! Israel has freezed its settlements plans multiple times. Palestinians are always demanding more and more, they're not really into peace. 

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/34002-140612-israel-freezes-west-bank-s-expansion-plans

http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-declares-10-month-settlement-freeze-to-restart-peace-talks-1.3435

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4640852,00.html

 

​And sure it matters. Hamas has to be abandoned first by Palestinian public before anyone expects Israel to work for a peaceful solution. Israel can handle this conflict for decades to come, it's the Palestinians that are suffering. They better change their leadership if its not matching their statehood-goals.

​Why is it considered "demanding more" that they want possession of their own sovereign territory? The settlements shouldn't be there in the first place and freezing the building of more ones isn't good enough. 

[Didymus 34,380]

You don't even know what are you talking about! Israel has freezed its settlements plans multiple times. Palestinians are always demanding more and more, they're not really into peace. 

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/34002-140612-israel-freezes-west-bank-s-expansion-plans

http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-declares-10-month-settlement-freeze-to-restart-peace-talks-1.3435

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4640852,00.html

​And sure it matters. Hamas has to be abandoned first by Palestinian public before anyone expects Israel to work for a peaceful solution. Israel can handle this conflict for decades to come, it's the Palestinians that are suffering. They better change their leadership if its not matching their statehood-goals.

​1. He kept on building in Jerusalem.

2. It was only a freeze for completely new buildings, excluding public buildings.

3. The above two are why Palestinians weren't happy and why they didn't start negotiations: a complete freeze was demanded and denied. The U.S. and other world powers agreed with Palestine in this matter.

4. That freeze is long gone: the expansion that was announced in August 2014 will be the largest of the last 30 years, so good luck convincing Palestinians (and me) that Israel is more than willing to freeze building/expansion to start a peace process.

So yeah, sorry to disappoint you: I do know what I'm talking about.

And I agreed with Palestinians abandoning Hamas, but not before Netanyahu agrees to a Palestinian State in the future and if illegal settlement expansion/area appropriation is completely stopped.

[Dolev 867]

​Why is it considered "demanding more" that they want possession of their own sovereign territory? The settlements shouldn't be there in the first place and freezing the building of more ones isn't good enough. 

​Well the settlements are already there and if you're deluding yourself into thinking that Israel will withdraw with no peace agreements being signed first seeing what happened in Gaza then you're one sided af. Also, let's not with the "sovereign territory". They never had one.

​1. He kept on building in Jerusalem.

2. It was only a freeze for completely new buildings, excluding public buildings.

3. The above two are why Palestinians weren't happy and why they didn't start negotiations: a complete freeze was demanded and denied. The U.S. and other world powers agreed with Palestine in this matter.

4. That freeze is long gone: the expansion that was announced in August 2014 will be the largest of the last 30 years, so good luck convincing Palestinians (and me) that Israel is more than willing to freeze building/expansion to start a peace process.

So yeah, sorry to disappoint you: I do know what I'm talking about.

And I agreed with Palestinians abandoning Hamas, but not before Netanyahu agrees to a Palestinian State in the future and if illegal settlement expansion/area appropriation is completely stopped.

​1. He cancelled plans to build in Jerusalem tho it is the capital state of Israel. Please tell me what other country in the world will go this far.

2. "It was only a freeze for completely new buildings" well duh? old building are supposed to be already build. 

3. They're never happy that's nothing new. You'll never get all your wish for in negotiations, that's why you're doing it.

4. Did you really expect Israel to sit and wait for Hamas to recognize the country or maybe for the PLO to be ready to even talk with Israel? I've said it before, Israel can handle it for decades to come, not them.

So Hamas should continue murdering Israelis inwhile?

[Didymus 34,380]

​Well the settlements are already there and if you're deluding yourself into thinking that Israel will withdraw with no peace agreements being signed first seeing what happened in Gaza then you're one sided af. Also, let's not with the "sovereign territory". They never had one.

​1. He cancelled plans to build in Jerusalem tho it is the capital state of Israel. Please tell me what other country in the world will go this far.

2. "It was only a freeze for completely new buildings" well duh? old building are supposed to be already build. 

3. They're never happy that's nothing new. You'll never get all your wish for in negotiations, that's why you're doing it.

4. Did you really expect Israel to sit and wait for Hamas to recognize the country or maybe for the PLO to be ready to even talk with Israel? I've said it before, Israel can handle it for decades to come, not them.

So Hamas should continue murdering Israelis inwhile?

​Since all the other points are in no way a relevant or worthy response to mine, I'm only gonna respond to your (hilarious because it's dumb) attitude on the second one: I meant that all the buildings that were already planned, or in the process of being built were carried out. The freeze was only for buildings that were going to be planned in the period of the freeze. That doesn't mean a freeze of settlement building at all and that's why Palestinians (and the rest of the world) rejected it as a peace offering.

And you're wrong about negotiations. They hadn't even started yet. Freezing settlement building (a practice which is illegal under international law and has been the cause of growing American/European dismay towards Israel for decades) was the prerequisite for negotiations.

[hmm 979]

​Well the settlements are already there and if you're deluding yourself into thinking that Israel will withdraw with no peace agreements being signed first seeing what happened in Gaza then you're one sided af. Also, let's not with the "sovereign territory". They never had one.

​1. He cancelled plans to build in Jerusalem tho it is the capital state of Israel. Please tell me what other country in the world will go this far.

2. "It was only a freeze for completely new buildings" well duh? old building are supposed to be already build. 

3. They're never happy that's nothing new. You'll never get all your wish for in negotiations, that's why you're doing it.

4. Did you really expect Israel to sit and wait for Hamas to recognize the country or maybe for the PLO to be ready to even talk with Israel? I've said it before, Israel can handle it for decades to come, not them.

So Hamas should continue murdering Israelis inwhile?

I definitely don't expect Israel to remove their settlements because for one; they haven't exactly got a reputation for following international law and obviously because of fear which is understandable. Both sides aren't doing enough to promote peace but Israel being the western, democratic nation that it is could easily be doing more. 

​Nobody else apart from Israel (not even the US) recognises Jerusalem as solely Israel's capital and no UN resolution has ever agreed with that. It's a completely different situation to "any other country in the world". 

You've taken this completely off-topic anyway; it's irrelevant to the original article.

Actually it's unfair to blame you solely for it going off-topic so ignore that bit  

 

[Dolev 867]

​Since all the other points are in no way a relevant or worthy response to mine, I'm only gonna respond to your (hilarious because it's dumb) attitude on the second one: I meant that all the buildings that were already planned, or in the process of being built were carried out. The freeze was only for buildings that were going to be planned in the period of the freeze. That doesn't mean a freeze of settlement building at all and that's why Palestinians (and the rest of the world) rejected it as a peace offering.

And you're wrong about negotiations. They hadn't even started yet. Freezing settlement building (a practice which is illegal under international law and has been the cause of growing American/European dismay towards Israel for decades) was the prerequisite for negotiations.

​If you don't find a reason to respond just don't. You're not doing me any favour.  I guess that's just your way to keep on ignoring one side?

[Dolev 867]

I definitely don't expect Israel to remove their settlements because for one; they haven't exactly got a reputation for following international law. Both sides aren't doing enough to promote peace but Israel being the western, democratic nation that it is could easily be doing more. 

​Nobody else apart from Israel (not even the US) recognises Jerusalem as solely Israel's capital and no UN resolution has ever agreed with that. It's a completely different situation to "any other country in the world". 

You've taken this completely off-topic anyway; it's irrelevant to the original article.

 

​Jerusalem's is Israel capital whether the world agrees or not. The fact that Israel was ready to give up on building in its own capital speaks for Israel's will for peace. 

[Didymus 34,380]

​If you don't find a reason to respond just don't. You're not doing me any favour.  I guess that's just your way to keep on ignoring one side?

​I did find a reason to respond, though (point number two, like I said), so I did respond and I gave a good response too I just ignored (if you can even call it that) your other remarks because they were laughably weak and didn't even begin to call mine into question.

Plus, if I had been ignoring "one side" I wouldn't have agreed with you and Woolfsmck on one crucial point: Hamas needs to go. The only reason why we're having this discussion is because you quoted a reply to Woolfsmck, misunderstanding me and coming at me with partial truths which I have successfully countered with proof, even though you refuse to acknowledge it from a person who according to you "doesn't know what he's talking about".

All you can offer in this discussion is a biased, partial reference to historical facts to support your "Palestinians don't want peace" argument that you have used for months. Totally understandable but it's getting really old, so at least have the courtesy to drop the half-ass factual references and just expose your opinion for what it is: an opinion, unfounded by documentable events. Then we can at least discuss what's actually happening with people who care to discuss what's happening instead of being pulled into a discussion where facts are manipulated and used to promote inflated opinions that, quite frankly, are completely irrelevant and hindering in a thread like this. It will make discussing for all of us a hell of a lot easier, trust me.

But, I digress, feel free to reply to my earlier post too. If you thought I wouldn't notice how you tried to ignore my novel points by ironically claiming that I was ignoring you with the post itself (still don't quite get how you thought anyone would buy that based on my reply to you), you're wrong.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

EU assistance and U.S. help in backing off Israel military activity will not exist as long as Hamas has a foothold in Palestine. 

Negotions , consessions, aid all remain at a trickel to nonexistant when Fanatical Leadership is in charge.

Palestinian demands will continue to go unfulfilled and the outcry of 'warcrimes' will go unheard has most will view these as selfinflicted wounds. 

Only those blind to objective observation will view the Palestinian plight as purely victimisation by Israel.

[Dolev 867]

​I did find a reason to respond, though (point number two, like I said), so I did respond and I gave a good response too I just ignored (if you can even call it that) your other remarks because they were laughably weak and didn't even begin to call mine into question.

Plus, if I had been ignoring "one side" I wouldn't have agreed with you and Woolfsmck on one crucial point: Hamas needs to go. The only reason why we're having this discussion is because you quoted a reply to Woolfsmck, misunderstanding me and coming at me with partial truths which I have successfully countered with proof, even though you refuse to acknowledge it from a person who according to you "doesn't know what he's talking about".

All you can offer in this discussion is a biased, partial reference to historical facts to support your "Palestinians don't want peace" argument that you have used for months. Totally understandable but it's getting really old, so at least have the courtesy to drop the half-ass factual references and just expose your opinion for what it is: an opinion, unfounded by documentable events. Then we can at least discuss what's actually happening with people who care to discuss what's happening instead of being pulled into a discussion where facts are manipulated and used to promote inflated opinions that, quite frankly, are completely irrelevant and hindering in a thread like this. It will make discussing for all of us a hell of a lot easier, trust me.

But, I digress, feel free to reply to my earlier post too. If you thought I wouldn't notice how you tried to ignore my novel points by ironically claiming that I was ignoring you with the post itself (still don't quite get how you thought anyone would buy that based on my reply to you), you're wrong.

​I struggle to see how any energy I'll put into this discussion will be helpful if you're coming with this attitude towards my comments which are purely based on Israeli public concerns for safety. Call it whatever you want, it just unacceptable in my opinion that you're fine with a terror organization killing people from both sides as long as Israel is not fulfilling 100% of the Pals. demands.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

 

​

Basically, Palestinians are victims of Israels "existance" because they own all the land that is 'occupied' ...All demands lead to the elimination of Israel completely and justify any*terrorist* 'freedom' fighters  attacks against Israel..

Whenever they lose a battle, they snivel about civilian casualties.  

Any other discussion is pure hogwash regarding the situation in that region imo. 

[Dolev 867]

Basically, Palestinians are victims of Israels "existance" because they own all the land that is 'occupied' ...All demands lead to the elimination of Israel completely and justify any*terrorist* 'freedom' fighters  attacks against Israel..

Whenever they lose a battle, they snivel about civilian casualties.  

Any other discussion is pure hogwash regarding the situation in that region imo. 

​That's how it always was. Many people that are living far away in the west will never get how is it to live in a hostile neighborhood like the ME is. This conflict today is not as simple as some people might think. Palestinians could have a country 67 years ago if they would have accept the partition plan, they just seem to have other priorities, even 'till these days.

[Jjang 2,262]

​That's how it always was. Many people that are living far away in the west will never get how is it to live in a hostile neighborhood like the ME is. This conflict today is not as simple as some people might think. Palestinians could have a country 67 years ago if they would have accept the partition plan, they just seem to have other priorities, even 'till these days.

​The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public only, while Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.

They had every right to disagree on the partition's terms, why not? you tell me. It was arranged / planned by the British administration without their knowledge of it being even put into consideration for a reason(s).

The civil war broke out before the plan was even implemented, anyway.

-------------------

Didy's posts are pretty constructive if you ask me, i don't understand why you guys insit on going out of your way to twist his sayings. Just stop. Please. - that's a request, not a demand. (just in case you were planning on twisting that too).

 

[Dolev 867]

​The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public only, while Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.

They had every right to disagree on the partition's terms, why not? you tell me. It was arranged / planned by the British administration without their knowledge of it being even put into consideration for a reason(s).

The civil war broke out before the plan was even implemented, anyway.

​The partition plan was suppose to put an end to this war. Why could the Jewish side compromise and accept it but the Pals. couldn't?

You can actually see in Israel's deceleration of independence that the Jewish leadership wanted to move away from the wars towards normalization, and it was before the big attack started:

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

[uo111 5,282]

​The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public only, while Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.

They had every right to disagree on the partition's terms, why not? you tell me. It was arranged / planned by the British administration without their knowledge of it being even put into consideration for a reason(s).

The civil war broke out before the plan was even implemented, anyway.

-------------------

Didy's posts are pretty constructive if you ask me, i don't understand why you guys insit on going out of your way to twist his sayings. Just stop. Please. - that's a request, not a demand. (just in case you were planning on twisting that too).

 

​The brits owned the land. The original plan was very generous and the Jewish people did not come in and push all the Palestinians out. Rather the Palestinians got all their allies to try to wage war on a very new Israel and Israel won. Then they tried it again, and again, and again, and Israel kept winning.

The idea that the Palestinians have been victims of Israel from the beginning seems pretty disingenuous.