falxori

Recap of the events: 12:00 - A civilian bus is ambushed by three terrorists. 7 wounded. Luckily the driver stayed cool and kept driving and ran away from them. 12:30- First responders Were hit by a series of IEDs, several were wounded. 12:40- Mortar shells on a civilian car. No casualties. 13:30 - attack on another bus. Not clear if a suicide bomber or anti tank missile. Luckily the bus was empty. The driver was killed. Also an anti tank missile fired on a civilian car, killing 4. At least 4 missiles fired from Gaza on the port city of Ashdod, 2-3 are intercepted by the new "iron done" defense system. Total of 8 dead (6 civilians) and dozens of wounded. There seems to have been some intel on this attack and special forces were on alert in the area. This is a terrible attack but it could have been much much worse. I'm happy Israel managed to nail those directly responsible right away. And to those who say Israel should not retaliate, what would you do? "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

You make unsupported claims and then treat them as fact... The Human rights committee (and much of the UN) is a biased, political entity and it cannot be taken seriously. Focusing on Israel 99% of the time is an insult and more than I feel sorry for Israel, I feel sorry for the many issues it overlooks. The statistics doesn't show Israel is so nasty. It simply shows how focused and targeted the UN (and the Human rights committee especially) is against Israel. You keep bringing this up. Have you even read the relevant Geneva convention documents? It clearly states that all combatants and military installations must be clearly marked and distinguishable from civilians and away from civilian areas. You can't shoot from a back yard and store missiles in a school and then whine when it is attacked. If you use civilian buildings for attacks, they are not protected by the Geneva convention. they become a legitimate target. But, instead of making vague accusations like that, let's talk specifics... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I didn't call anybody anti Semitic. I said that some (if not much) of the Israel bashing trend has its roots in antisemitism. Documented by who? The UN Human rights committee? the one that was headed by Libya and had Syria on the board? the one that focuses on Israel 99% of the time and ignores pretty much anything else that is going on in the world? This committee, much like the UN itself with the 50+ Arab/Muslim majority is a joke. The can "declare" the world is flat, it doesn't make it true. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

And I respect that. All I said is that you have to "be on the ground" on both sides and really understand the history and events that took place in order to put everything in the right perspective Agreed "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I didn't say you were. I said that a lot of the anti Israel agenda is originated in anti semitism (anti jew for you) Oh please no. just not that... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

Yes. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel. It is naive to think that much of the recent "Israel bashing" trend in Europe doesn't have its root in 2000 years of antisemitism. Did I say they weren't? call it semantics but when people say anti semitism, the meaning is anti jews usually. What are you smoking? But since you raised the issue of indigenous people. Most of what you call Palestinians moved to the area of Arabia in the 18th century (and yes, this IS a fact). Does it mean their claim in this region is not valid? no. but your attempt to deny 3000 years of linkage between this land and the JEwish people is absurd. google the riots in the 20s and 30s. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

So are anti semites... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I don't know that specific person. All I'm saying is that you should consider the possibility that what brought him there was bias. I doubt you'll find many unbiased people who go there to "observe". I think your comment contradict your previous statement. If they're actions are against Israeli law (which in some cases it is), how can you say that the military protects them? When they build where they shouldn't, they are evicted. Again, I'm not saying there is no unauthorized building. I'm saying that when it's not authorized, it is usually followed by a court order and they are removed. Well if my father decided to be stupid, go to Vegas and spend all of his money, I will pay for his "sins" too, right? or should I blame the casino and ask for my money back? It will change when they "accept" the fact that their fathers were wrong and try something different. Accepting Israel's right to exist would be a nice first step. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

And Israel is not "Jewish" in the religious meaning (although I would like it to have more state/religion separation). It's Jewish in the same way France is French and the US is American "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I guess no one saw the need to state the obvious. on the same note of reciprocity, 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs (As in Palestinians) that were within Israel's borders when it was founded. These citizens will remain in Israel naturally. Yet, the Palestinians refuse to allow any of the jewish settleres who are in the west bank to stay as a minority in a Palestinian state. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I appreciate the fact that you were there for youreself but even being there doesn't mean you see the whole story. you see what the people your with want you to see. And you think these "observers" are unbiased? 99% of them come to the west bank with a VERY strong agenda. don't be fooled into thinking they're unbiased. Like any country controls its border. there is a border between Gaza and Egypt that is open. you can go in through there if you wish. Did you also go to the Israeli town of Sderot were rockets have been falling for years now? Have you checked out the remains of blown up busses in Israel which were the cause of the security fence/wall people talk about so much? I don't agree some of the things the settlers do but saying that they are "allowed to walk in and evict people" is simply not true. When setters build where they are not allowed they are evicted by the military There was no 1948 partition plan. The partition plan you are talking about was REJECTED by the Arabs who started a war (and lost). Does it seem logical to you that one can reject a plan, go to war, lose and then ask for the same terms? Would Israel have been offered the same plan had it lost the 1948 war? "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

Israel was founded as the home of the Jewish people with equal rights to other minorities. One does not exclude the other. Israel is the home of those who consider themselves Israelis. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I think you (and many others here) confuse "Jewish" as religion and "Jewish" as a nation. The term "Jewish state" is less about the religion (Israel has the most freedom of religion in the world, especially for non Jews). It is more about having a home land for the Jewish nation, which based on the past 2000 years is needed. As for the two state solution, you should know the most Israelis (including the government) support that idea. But for that to work, it has to be clear that each nation gets a well defined homeland. otherwise you'll have another round of violence if/when the Arab minority in Israel decides one day that they want to break away from Israel and join Palestine. The main thing that doesn't allow this solution to become reality is the Palestinian refusal to "end all claims" and announce that the dispute over land is over. From their point of view, they want to allow all of the 1948 Arabs back into Israel. This doesn't fit well with a state for each nations. Exactly as the Jewish refugees of 1948 found their new home in Israel the 1948 Arab refugees must find their home in Palestine. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I'm sorry you had a bad experience in Ben Gurion but I wouldn't call that a false positive. A false positive would mean you wouldn't have been allowed to proceed and board your flight. Security there is often a hassle and it's very annoying for us Israelis when our friends are being detained and questioned. You said all the needed to do is search your bags instead of asking the same questions over and over but thats not the point. Carrying explosives is a concern but it's ot the only one. Profiling in Ben Gurion is mostly behavioral (not saying nationality is not an issue too) and thats why they ask you all these (stupid) questions. If you know your story straight and don't get nervous it's sometimes more important than what you have in your bag. Again, I'm sorry you had a bad experience and I hope you'll come again, keeping in mind that it is a necessary evil. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

This is a completely different thing. This is Syrian troops shooting Syrian citizens that oppose the government (been going on for weeks). Most likely the Syrian government is sending people to clash with Israel in an attempt to divert attention from its own internal clashes. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

If moving troops close to the border and blockading is against the terms of the armistice, doing so violates the armistice. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

If the armistice terms is no military presence in the Sinay, UN peace keepers and free access, moving troops where they are not allowed is armed aggression "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

not the same. The state of war ended when Japan surrendered in 1945. but, if you insist... If Japan would violate the terms specified in the agreement that ended the war, then yes, the US would have the right to declare war on it. Now, if Japan would also blockade the US and mobilize its army, the US would have every right to launch a preemptive strike. Violating an armistice terms is an act of war. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

A state of war existed since 1948, when Egypt invaded Israel (and fired the first shot). before 1967 there was an an armistice. All of the Egyptian actions mentioned above (troops in the Sinai, kicking the UN peacekeepers and the blockade) violated that armistice. When the Egyptians broke the armistice and declared they are going to destroy Israel, that is more than enough to be considered a state of war. Things are not as simple as who shot first but if you insist, the state of war existed since 1948 where the Egyptians shot firts "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

You've got to be kidding me... 1967 war broke after the Egyptians moved troops into the demilitarized Sinai, blockaded Israel's access to the red sea, kicked out the UN peace keepers and publicly announced that it was going to destroy Israel. claiming that "Israel started it" because it shot first is simplistic and misses what took place. Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt was a tactical move when war was unavoidable. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

By that logic, starting a war is a win-win situation. Either you win or you go back to the same border. I doubt that logic will prevent many wars.. History is very much on my side of the statement. Your claim would only be valid is Israel initiated wars with the goal of capturing land. And to your point about Mexico, what if the Mexican government waived its claimed on the parts captured by the US? After all, neither Jordan nor Egypt wanted the West Bank and the Gaza Strip back. Since you rely on international borders, these areas were Jordan and Egypt, not Palestine. Again, I support a Palestinian state but it is not a given. I simply reject your initial claim that Israel started a war in order to expand when it actively tried to avoid fighting Jordan in 1967 "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

That is simply not true. Israel responded to wars that were forced upon it. Even in 1967, when Israel took control of the west bank, Israel warned King Hussein not to join the war (which he did, based on the Egyptian lies that Israel is about to fall). going on with your analogy, what if Mexico attacked Arizona and lost? I (like most Israelis) have no interest in controlling 4M Palestinians and I'll be happy for them to have a state if a way is found that will keep Israel's security. Saying that Israel "attempted to expand their borders by force" is simply not true "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I still own my soul and I'm damn proud of it, thank you... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."