Israeli plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza

The Palestinians elected the Hamas government. The children of Gaza are the victims of their parents' choices.

 

The Children and babies being indiscriminately slaughtered did not elect Hamas .. that their relatives voted for Hamas many years ago does not justify collective punishment in my books.

What is bizarre is the belief that Hamas attacks on Israeli Civilians are justified on the basis that Israeli's elected Bibi. Seems like a big pile of hypocrisy topped off by a spoonful of disrespect for international law.

 

I'm not sure you typed what you meant, but I'll reply to what is there.
Hamas started this war by targeting civilians. That is something Israel has never done.
Israel tries to avoid civilian deaths. Hamas deliberately puts civilians in the line of fire.
Palestinian babies and children who have died were killed by the choices of their parents.

 

It never happened.

 

Israeli Jews are better at killing women and children.

 

In the same way the children of Israel were victims of their parents' choices on October 7th?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...a-palestinian-state-in-gaza-west-bank-report/

"'I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and [the West Bank] after the war,' the Kan public broadcaster quotes Netanyahu as having told the lawmakers."

 

No. Because Israel is a lawfully created state which did not attack Gaza.

 

Still no ethnic cleansing, eh?

 

The above is an excellent example of half assed internet surfing.

The source abive provides has no first hand source from Rabin.


The above article is a butchered abbreviation of:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/38640

However to simply read the above is not the full context of what the incident refers to.

For that full context I suggest you read this article:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/lydda-1948

Now supposedly the info above allegedly from Rabin's memoirs, was published in the New York Times (October 23, 1979) and was reprinted in Palestine Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 6 (October 1979), p. 11, but the problem is the person above does not have the exact quotes taken in their full context.

In fact if you go to The Rabin Memoirs. University of California Press, 1996, p. 383, it states this:

"Allon and I held a consultation. I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out. We took them on foot toward the Ben Horon road, assuming that the Arab Legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us."

Earlier according to Rabin in a 1977 interview with Michael Bar-Zohar, he said: " Allon asked what was to be done with the residents; in response, Ben-Gurion had waved his hand and said, "garesh otam"—"expel them."

However in the manuscript of his memoirs in 1979, Rabin wrote that Ben-Gurion had not spoken, but had only waved his hand.

The bottom line? To deflect from Hamas and the refusal of Hamas and the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, some will surf the net to produce butchered falsely misrepresented references trying to revise history to depict what Jews did in 1948 as ethnic cleansing to justify today's terrorism and refusal to recognize Israel as a state.

Most people who come on this forum and quote, do not actually read. They surf second hand sites not reading the actual full historic time line of events. They read articles that fragment and remove bits and pieces of events and comments from their actual context giving them a new meaning which is inaccurate.

Here is a classic example of how the above works.

I start and isolate the comment from Ben Gurion:

"27 July 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos: “We have never wanted to dispossess the Arabs [but] because Britain is giving them part of the country which had been promised to us, it is fair that the Arabs in our state be transferred to the Arab portion” "

You won't see it quoted by anti Israelis. Here is what they will quote:

"5 October 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places- then we have force at our disposal.”

Or they will quote this from Ben Gurion:

Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on 12 July 1937: “the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish State…. We have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.”
(Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p. 299)

If you read all 3 in chronological sequence their actual accurate context is clear. When you cut them and fragment them into 3 diassociated comments their context would not be clear.

TransJordan was created out of 80% of Palestinian to be JEWISH free by Britain in direct contradiction of the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate given to Britain to create a Jewish state where the British created TransJordan. That is what Ben Gurion was responding to.

The attempt by the above person is to remove history from its context to pretend Jews arbitrarily simply showed up to expel Palestinians. No in fact Palestinians were not expelled they were given 80% of Palestine as a Jewish free state. So of course Ben Gurion is talking about scrambling to save what little land is left for Jews of Palestine. It didn't come about in an arbitrary vacuum and to this day this and other forums are full of revisionist crap conveniently ignoring that Jordan is already a Jew free Palestinian state and for that matter there are 14 colonial border invented Muslim states all Jew free. In fact 900,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from these states and the very few who remain are defined as "dhimmi" a term the person above will not discuss because if he did that he would have to acknowledge the 14 Muslim states of the Middle East do not separate Islamic Sharia law from the state and so define Jews as inferior citizens segregated to ghettos and an inability to own land or have any legal rights a Muslim does while the Muslims of Israel have every damn legal right an Israeli Jew or other non Jewish Israeli has and NO Jew has in those 14 Muslim states.

No Israel did not just come about as a response to the discrimination by Christian states culminating in the holocaust, it also came about because of the discrimination by Muslim states.

Jews created a state to escape the state discrimination of Muslim and Christian states equally. It did not come about in a vacuum. It came about in a geographic area where Jews were always an indigenous people who pre-existed Christians and Muslims.

 

[QUOTE="Death, post: 1074587246, member: 7667"]The above is an excellent example of half assed internet surfing.

The source abive provides has no first hand source from Rabin.


The above article is a butchered abbreviation of:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/38640

However to simply read the above is not the full context of what the incident refers to.

For that full context I suggest you read this article:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/lydda-1948

Now supposedly the info above allegedly from Rabin's memoirs, was published in the New York Times (October 23, 1979) and was reprinted in Palestine Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 6 (October 1979), p. 11, but the problem is the person above does not have the exact quotes taken in their full context.

In fact if you go to The Rabin Memoirs. University of California Press, 1996, p. 383, it states this:

"Allon and I held a consultation. I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out. We took them on foot toward the Ben Horon road, assuming that the Arab Legion would be obliged to look after them, thereby shouldering logistic difficulties which would burden its fighting capacity, making things easier for us."

Earlier according to Rabin in a 1977 interview with Michael Bar-Zohar, he said: " Allon asked what was to be done with the residents; in response, Ben-Gurion had waved his hand and said, "garesh otam"—"expel them."

However in the manuscript of his memoirs in 1979, Rabin wrote that Ben-Gurion had not spoken, but had only waved his hand.

The bottom line? To deflect from Hamas and the refusal of Hamas and the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, some will surf the net to produce butchered falsely misrepresented references trying to revise history to depict what Jews did in 1948 as ethnic cleansing to justify today's terrorism and refusal to recognize Israel as a state.

Most people who come on this forum and quote, do not actually read. They surf second hand sites not reading the actual full historic time line of events. They read articles that fragment and remove bits and pieces of events and comments from their actual context giving them a new meaning which is inaccurate.

Here is a classic example of how the above works.

I start and isolate the comment from Ben Gurion:

"27 July 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos: “We have never wanted to dispossess the Arabs [but] because Britain is giving them part of the country which had been promised to us, it is fair that the Arabs in our state be transferred to the Arab portion” "

You won't see it quoted by anti Israelis. Here is what they will quote:

"5 October 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his 16 year old son Amos: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places- then we have force at our disposal.”

Or they will quote this from Ben Gurion:

Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on 12 July 1937: “the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish State…. We have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.”
(Ben-Gurion, Zichronot [Memoirs], Vol. 4, p. 299)

If you read all 3 in chronological sequence their actual accurate context is clear. When you cut them and fragment them into 3 diassociated comments their context would not be clear.

TransJordan was created out of 80% of Palestinian to be JEWISH free by Britain in direct contradiction of the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate given to Britain to create a Jewish state where the British created TransJordan. That is what Ben Gurion was responding to.

The attempt by the above person is to remove history from its context to pretend Jews arbitrarily simply showed up to expel Palestinians. No in fact Palestinians were not expelled they were given 80% of Palestine as a Jewish free state. So of course Ben Gurion is talking about scrambling to save what little land is left for Jews of Palestine. It didn't come about in an arbitrary vacuum and to this day this and other forums are full of revisionist crap conveniently ignoring that Jordan is already a Jew free Palestinian state and for that matter there are 14 colonial border invented Muslim states all Jew free. In fact 900,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from these states and the very few who remain are defined as "dhimmi" a term the person above will not discuss because if he did that he would have to acknowledge the 14 Muslim states of the Middle East do not separate Islamic Sharia law from the state and so define Jews as inferior citizens segregated to ghettos and an inability to own land or have any legal rights a Muslim does while the Muslims of Israel have every damn legal right an Israeli Jew or other non Jewish Israeli has and NO Jew has in those 14 Muslim states.

No Israel did not just come about as a response to the discrimination by Christian states culminating in the holocaust, it also came about because of the discrimination by Muslim states.

Jews created a state to escape the state discrimination of Muslim and Christian states equally. It did not come about in a vacuum. It came about in a geographic area where Jews were always an indigenous people who pre-existed Christians and Muslims.[/QUOTE]
Rabin:

"I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out. "

 

Israel is a racist, apartheid ethno-state that's been condemned by 227 UNSC Resolutions since 1948:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...l#United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions

 

Zionism, meaning some so-called "right" in the name of Jews to take land belonging to some other people, to establish a Jewish state in Palestine called Israel (and now pushing for a Greater Israel on that basis), is inherently racist.

Zionism, meaning an attempt by Jews to establish a legitimate homeland in Palestine, with the consent of the rightful owners of lands at issue, through emigration by Jews seeking refuge from the racism and bigotry of Europe to such lands, overtime creating the conditions for establishment of a Jewish homeland, would have been largely unobjectionable. At least, no more so than immigration is elsewhere. I personally would have welcomed it.

 

The claim that Israel has never targeted civilians is false .. on steroids .. leave it at that because it has no bearing on your absurd position that Hamas attacks on Israeli Civilians are justified on the basis that Israeli's elected radical neocon Zionists and in BIbi's case a multiple time war criminal .. crimes against humanity .. Ethnic Cleanser .. Terrorist State leader ..

Hope that clears it up given you seem to have had trouble ingesting the first time Your position that the babies and children killed by Hamas were killed by the choices of their Parents ..

 

Israelis accepted the UN partition. Palestinians did not, and chose war instead. Everything afterward flowed from that rejection.

 

Every death in Gaza is to the Hamas account.

 

Israeli tanks advance deeper into Gaza under cover of heavy airstrikes
Fighting was focused in central and southern Gaza on Saturday. The Israeli military said troops raided the Hamas military intelligence headquarters in Khan Younis.

Gaza officials: 165 people killed in 24 hours »

 

"Responsibility refers to the obligation to perform the delegated task" Here that rests with:

1. Those members of Hamas who are charged with protecting its citizens from external israeli threats.
2. The Israeli military and public official's duty to protect its citizens from terror.

" To be accountable, is to answer for the consequence of the delegated task" . Here that rests with:

1. All those Hamas decision-makers from the politicians to the planners, to the cell leaders to the private terrorists, who's conduct and actions leads directly to the death of Israeli innocents.
2. All those Israeli decision-makers from the politicians to the generals to the sargents to the private military soldiers, who's conduct and actions leads directly to the death of Palestinian innocents.

Insofar as there is a cycle of violence and cruelty here, each moment, each day, each decision that renews this cycle, correspondingly renews both the responsibility and accountability of these players for new next cycle.

 

Hamas chose war; the deaths are to their account.
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them
all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

 

War and terror are mirror images of each other reflecting tactics that both sides have periodically chosen over and over and over again. There is a responsibility to protect and defend, and an accountability for innocent lives taken that is renewed with each decision made.

 

Principles which the Israelis observe, and Hamas do not.

 

Okay, so I am dealing with an Israeli partisan and propaganda purveyer when I read your posts. Its always good to know the agenda of the poster.

 

All good. I don't take poor spellers' posts seriously.

 

I don't take people seriously who do not know how to write and punctuate a complete sentence.

 

As you wish.

 

I was being disingenuous, actualy I take people seriously if I can understand their ideas, respect their ideas and imagine some evidence to support those ideas. I pay much less attention to spelling (or punctuation) than you do. Even if they are assumed to be lazy or ignorant in their presentation, they can still have fine intellectual contributions to offer..