Izrael, Palestina i arapske zemlje

[Milivolt]

Izrael se samo ponasa u skladu sa najboljim tekovinama JNA.Ako neko puca na vojnika (citaj ako Hmas baci bombu u Izraelu), odmah unisti sve sto dolazi iz pravca odakle je dosao metak (citaj: unisti Gazu, kuce, sve koji se nadju na putu).

To je doktrina svake vojske --- naročito američke !

[Аврам Гојић]

Ne, nije, ali nema veze. Nego - Izrael više ne može da demantuje upotrebu belog fosfora, zato što sada konačno neki pravi ljudi, a ne samo žitelji Gaze, imaju direktno iskustvo sa ovim oružjem koje ostavlja strašne opekotine i apsolutno se ne sme koristiti u urbanim zonama:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5521925.eceUN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shellsThe United Nations headquarters of its aid agency is on fire after being hit by Israeli artilleryUN says its aid agency is on fire after Israeli artillery attackPhilippe NaughtonThe main UN compound in Gaza was ablaze today after being struck by Israeli artillery fire and a spokesman said that the building had been hit by what was thought to be white phosphorus shells.The attack on the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa), which co-ordinates relief operations in the Gaza Strip, came as Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, arrived in Israel on a mission to secure a ceasefire and will plunge relations between Israel and the world body to a new lowChris Gunness, an Unrwa spokesman, said that the building was hit by what was believed to be three white phosphorous shells, which burn at extremely high temperatures. He said that UN workers had been unable to put out the blaze with standard fire extinguishers.Related Links * Spent shells prove use of white phosphorus * Strange burns increase phosphorus concerns * Phosphorus claims bolstered by burn victims Mr Gunness said that three people had been injured. The Israeli military has consistently denied using white phosphorus shells in breach of international law. However, a Times investigation has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious burns from white phosphorus.

[Roger Sanchez]

Susan Rice:

The flaws and disappointing actions within the UN are rooted in its potential to serve as an engine for progress. All nations understand the importance of this institution. That is why countries like Sudan, North Korea and Cuba work so hard to render bodies like the UN Human Rights Council ineffective and objectionable. It is why efforts to pass Security Council resolutions on abuses in places from Zimbabwe to Burma occasion such fierce debate, and don't always succeed. It is also why many try to use the UN to willfully and unfairly condemn our ally Israel. When effective and principled UN action is blocked, our frustration naturally grows, but that should only cause us to redouble our efforts to ensure that the United Nations lives up to its founding principles.

šta'š Zajcev, i poslije 20. 1. same old.

[ArleKino]

Riža svira nježniku - fino je uvaliti priču o Kubi, Bjelorusiji, Sjevernoj Koreji...u kontekst izraelskog iživljavanja nad civilima Gaze, ali jedno nema veze sa drugim. Kažu da "nije žvaka za seljaka", ali Rižina žvaka je baš to - izgovor za filistre koji podržavaju nacionističko divljanje da mirnije spavaju.

[dillinger]

Analiza koja mi je dosta približila istorijat sukoba, taktiku zaraćenih strana i ostalo:Gaza 2008: Micro-Wars and Macro-Wars

Israel's political tradition seeks expansion if possible; if not possible, it seeks a balance of power with its enemies. If that is not possible, it seeks to be held harmless from its avowed foes. If that is not possible, it is willing to wage total war to punish the enemy population until it accepts at least a cold peace. (I mean by "total war" war on the civilian population in which the guerrilla group is embedded, as for instance dropping a million cluster bombs on the farms of south Lebanon in 2006 or half-starving Gazan children in 2007-2008, methods illegal in international law but routinely deployed by Israeli leaders and defended by most Zionists everywhere.) Where necessary, Israel is willing to give up territorial expansion to get the cold peace......The main immediate problem for the Israelis is that simply preventing Hamas from waging an ever more sophisticated microwar is an extremely short-term and technical objective. It may or may not be achievable by the methods of the current war, which appear so far to be conventional methods. Its outcome is not very material to a settlement of the larger issues.The big long-term problem Israel has is that its assiduous colonization of the West Bank has made a two-state solution almost impossible, turning it into an Apartheid state. And if you go on practicing Apartheid long enough, that begins to attact boycotts and sanctions. And forestalling a Palestinian state means that likely the Palestinians will all end up Israeli citizens.I was on the radio recently with John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, and he expressed the hope that Egypt would take back Gaza and Jordan what is left of the West Bank. You may as well dream of pink unicorns on Venus. It isn't going to happen. The Palestinians are Israel's problem. War on them, circumscribe them, colonize them all you like. They aren't going anywhere, and you can't keep them stateless and virtually enslaved forever, occasionally exterminating some of them as though they were vermin when they make too much trouble. That, sooner or later, will lead to boycotts by rising economic powers and by Europe that could be extremely damaging to Israel's long-term prospects as a state.

Edited January 15, 2009 by dillinger

[Budja]

Gledam BBC Question Time. Ide deo o Gazi.Nikad neprijatnija atmosfera, poviseni tonovi, emocije, istorija, Biblija...

[Roger Sanchez]

A vidiš, na terenu upravo suprotno.HAMASu se opet lagano pristaje na primirje.Navode se uobičajeni uvjeti, otvaranje prijelaza, povlačenje IDFa iz Gaze.Međutim, 1 najvažniji conditio sine qua non, 1 dealbreaker je da Abu Mazenovi graničari ne budu stacionirani u Rafahu. Ma, mogu i Turci, samo ne braća Palestinci.Toliko o 1 brizi za 1 narod.

[Gandalf]

A vidiš, na terenu upravo suprotno.HAMASu se opet lagano pristaje na primirje.Navode se uobičajeni uvjeti, otvaranje prijelaza, povlačenje IDFa iz Gaze.Međutim, 1 najvažniji conditio sine qua non, 1 dealbreaker je da Abu Mazenovi graničari ne budu stacionirani u Rafahu. Ma, mogu i Turci, samo ne braća Palestinci.Toliko o 1 brizi za 1 narod.

i za Hamas i za Gazane bi npr. Turci mozda bili bolja varijanta. Izraelci ne kontrolisu tursku vojsku, dok ce Dahlan slusati i raditi sve sto mu se kaze.

Muhammad Dahlan, who had long been regarded as the candidate of the Bush administration and its allies. In April 2003, Yasser Arafat had been under pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to name Dahlan as head of Palestinian security.In late 2006, Rice got Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to agree to provide covert military training and money to equip a major increase in Dahlan's militia.http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45297

Edited January 15, 2009 by Gandalf

[nautilus]

A zasto bi Izrael pristao na uslove Hamasa?

[Budja]

Situacija na "terenu" kaze da ne treba.No mozda bi neko pokazivanje "dobre volje" bilo prikladno kako bi se Hamas ukljucio u politicki zivot. Dovodjenje nelegitmne protivnicke milicije u gradjanskom ratu nazad u Gazu nije korak ka mirnom resenju vec samo podrivanje kako bi se demonstriralo kako su, eto, Palestinci pretnja regionu koji ni sami sa sobom ne mogu da se dogovore.Cini mi se da niko nije odgovorio sta je u strateskom smislu donelo ubistvo seika Jasima 2004.

[Gandalf]

A zasto bi Izrael pristao na uslove Hamasa?

jer Izrael gubi rat. standardna pojava u ovakvim sukobima je da jaca strana dobija bitke, i gubi rat.Hamas ne moze da pobedi u direktnom sudaru sa IDF-om, niti oni gaje iluziju da to mogu da urade. Hamasu je bitno da prezivi. nije ovo poker, ovo je sah.u Kataru se desila interesantna stvar - Katar i Turska su se jasno svrstali uz Hamas, protiv "umerenih" diktatora (Egipat i Saudi) i Abasa. sto nije nimalo naivno, obzirom da su Katar i Turska do sada bili neutralni u sudaru izmedju politickih islamista i "umerenih".pri tome, treba imati u da je Al Dzazira katarska televizija. ubedljivo najmocniji i najuticajniji medij u regionu. Edited January 16, 2009 by Gandalf

[Gandalf]

Cini mi se da niko nije odgovorio sta je u strateskom smislu donelo ubistvo seika Jasima 2004.

Izraelcima nista, Amerima ustanak u Faludzi.

[nautilus]

Izrael, koliko sam ja shvatio, ima dva uslova za prekid rata. Gilad Shalit i garancije za prestanak raketiranja. Sta znaci poraz u Gazi? To sto nece ostvariti ova dva cilja? Mislim da su iz libanske lekcije naucili da se ubistvima i ratom ne mogu unistiti pokreti kao sto su Hamas i Hezbolah i da zbog toga nisu sebi postavili za cilj unistenje Hamasa.Izraelski problem je u nacinu na koji vode ovaj rat a ne u motivima i razlozima za vodjenje rata. Nacin na koji vode rat doveo je do gubitka medijskog rata. Izrael ne shvata da, koliko god da su njihovi razlozi opravdani, moraju voditi racuna o nacinu. A da je Hamas cisto zlo, jeste. (pogledati spoiler)

Ono sto se ne shvata jeste da politika "na ljutu ranu ljutu travu" ne prolazi. Izrael dobija ovaj rat. Dobice sigurnost na jugu. Na dugi rok gube jedinog saveznika u regionu (Tursku) i ruse sve mostove koji su sagradjeni sa komsijama. To je njihov poraz.

[Gandalf]

Izrael, koliko sam ja shvatio, ima dva uslova za prekid rata. Gilad Shalit i garancije za prestanak raketiranja.Sta znaci poraz u Gazi? To sto nece ostvariti ova dva cilja?

to su mogli i bez ovolikih zrtava. naravno, Izrael dobija ovu bitku, tu nema spora.kako bilo, ilustrativan je klasican dijalog izmedju pukovnika Harija Samersa i nekog severnovijetnamskog oficira tokom pregovora u Parizu. na Samersovu konstataciju da su Vijetnamci potuceni u svakom direktnom sudaru sa Amerima, Vijetnamac odgovara, "Tacno, ali to nije bitno."

[wall]

jer Izrael gubi rat. standardna pojava u ovakvim sukobima je da jaca strana dobija bitke, i gubi rat.Hamas ne moze da pobedi u direktnom sudaru sa IDF-om, niti oni gaje iluziju da to mogu da urade. Hamasu je bitno da prezivi. nije ovo poker, ovo je sah.

I ja tako mislim i još bih dodao da obično ovakve konflikte gube oni koji imaju "više" da izgube dugotrajnim, iscrpljujućim sukobom.