Hamas Chief says firing rockets at Israel is their right

[JaJae]

The truce between Palestine and Israel was broke last week. Current reports I've read claim Hamas declared the truce off before Israel did. Some moderates in the government want to keep the truce, but Hamas it seems wants the truce broken.

Essentially the background is this... Hamas militants were setting up bombs in the Gaza strip. A clear violation of the cease fire agreement. Israel responded by attacking the militants. In response Hamas calls off the truce and starts firing rockets into Israel.

Israel then calls off the truce and says they will defend themselves through all necessary means. Today Israel killed three more Palestinian militants who were setting up bombs on the border fence.

The Hamas chief was questioned by the media and states:

Meshal, in comments after talks between Egyptian and Palestinian leaders in Cairo on Saturday, said that "firing rockets (at Israeli territory) is the right of the Palestinian people, and a matter of legitimate resistance against the occupier."

Hamas chief says attacks on Israel are 'legitimate resistance' - Haaretz - Israel News

Apparently they have the right to violate the cease fire and to indiscriminately fire rockets into Israel. Somehow in their warped world view Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself.

Israel doesn't use their civilians to hide behind. Their military targets are known. Yet Hamas doesn't attack them. They fire randomly into Israeli territory in hopes of hitting whatever.

This all occurred shortly after Palestine asked for the embargoes to be lifted. They claim their people are suffering. It's strange, they manage to get their hands on military weapons and explosives to re-arm themselves despite the terms of their cease-fire, but can't seem to muster up food to ease the suffering of their people.

[RMNIXON]

So what happened to the Israeli killing innocent Palestinians to start this? They were setting up bombs? I thought they were just out shopping!

Not to go overboard with sarcasm. Ok I will!


Just how many Palestinains could Israel kill if they were as blood thristy as we have been led to believe? I am thinking in the hundreds of thousands in minutes!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So what happened to the Israeli killing innocent Palestinians to start this? They were setting up bombs? I thought they were just out shopping!

One innocent girl was killed. Which is tragic, but I blame the Palestinians for it, not Israel. If Palestine gave a damn about their civilians they wouldn't use them as bullet shields.

[Donkey®]

Setting up bombs as a defensive measure is not an "attack" on Israel. Israel is allowed to set up checkpoints and detain people left and right "defensively" but the Palestinians can't do anything? I am sure Israel has NEVER set any mines or anything of the sort trying to protect themselves from attack. Get over it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Setting up bombs as a defensive measure is not an "attack" on Israel. Israel is allowed to set up checkpoints and detain people left and right "defensively" but the Palestinians can't do anything? I am sure Israel has NEVER set any mines or anything of the sort trying to protect themselves from attack. Get over it.

The lengths people go to defend Palestine from breaking the cease fire agreements. Yet if Israel were the one who broke the cease fire the phrase "Get over it" wouldn't be spoken.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The lengths people go to defend Palestine from breaking the cease fire agreements. Yet if Israel were the one who broke the cease fire the phrase "Get over it" wouldn't be spoken.

Weren't they setting up bombs in their own territory? How is that offensive?

Look at the lengths some will go to defend Israel in this thread.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Weren't they setting up bombs in their own territory? How is that offensive?

Look at the lengths some will go to defend Israel in this thread.

Because they are not supposed to be doing so. It's an act of aggression because the militants have been baiting and attacking Israel for decades. As soon as the truce is broken and they kidnap more Israeli soldiers or fire rockets into Israel they become weapons against the Israelis. They pro-actively violated their cease fire agreement not only be re-arming themselves but also by setting up bombs with the intention of killing Israelis when the truce was broken... which they conveniently did after Israel attacked the people who violated the cease fire.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because they are not supposed to be doing so. It's an act of aggression because the militants have been baiting and attacking Israel for decades. As soon as the truce is broken and they kidnap more Israeli soldiers or fire rockets into Israel they become weapons against the Israelis. They pro-actively violated their cease fire agreement not only be re-arming themselves but also by setting up bombs with the intention of killing Israelis when the truce was broken... which they conveniently did after Israel attacked the people who violated the cease fire.

Do you have a link to the agreement?

I find it hard to believe they aren't allowed to do what they want in their own territory.

So are they not allowed to defend themselves at all?

[motivez]

Israel did break the cease fire agreement by launching an aggressive military operation on Palestinian territory. I don't agree with firing rockets blindly into Israeli territory, but the idea that either side should allow themselves to be attacked without response is a ridiculous concept.

While I certainly place blame on the Palestinians for what they are responsible for, until they have autonomy over their lands and the ability to defend it without the fear of Israel coming in and killing their children and causing misery for the people, they will always be viewed as the enemy.

Neither side has really made an effort to provide the groundwork to have a two state solution be realistic, but Israel providing assurances they wont violate Palestinian borders whenever they feel like it and allowing them to secure their own territory and control water, resources, roads, and so forth is a first step that needs to precede almost anything else.

It is unrealistic to expect an oppressed people to stop acting like oppressed people (fighting back, supporting militias which resist oppression, and so forth) while they continue to suffer oppression.

That said, the people of Palestine are going to have to take control of their destiny and demand those in control of their government put pressure on the militias to end violence and engage Israel in talks for their destiny.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to make Israel seem like a benign entity who bears no responsibility for the current situation and can do no wrong.

In almost every situation, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of each side of the story.. the sooner people stop deluding themselves into thinking only one side is responsible for the present situation and begin to put pressure on both, the sooner we'll actually see some progress in the region.

I think American foreign policy can play a big role in that, hopefully the next President will care more about America's image overseas and our position as the diplomatic power house we should be.. instead of treating diplomacy like a reward that can only be bestowed on countries that already agree with us.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Do you have a link to the agreement?

I find it hard to believe they aren't allowed to do what they want in their own territory.

So are they not allowed to defend themselves at all?

Looking for it, but found this little gem:

"The cease-fire has been over for a long time, and Israel is responsible for that," the spokesman, Abu Obeida, told the Voice of Palestine radio station. "We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers."

Israel claims the rocket barrage was another diversion to kidnap an Israel soldier and the bombs on the fence were being planted to cover their tracks. Israel prevented it.

This is the same tactic they used the last time they kidnapped soldiers from Israel.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Do you have a link to the agreement?

I find it hard to believe they aren't allowed to do what they want in their own territory.

So are they not allowed to defend themselves at all?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Some people don't want to treat the sides as equals and ask the same things of both of them.

It's a ridiculous notion to expect people to not provide for their own defense in the face of attacks on their territory. We don't ask it of Israel, and shouldn't ask it of the Palestinians.

You don't treat someone you want something from like a child when they aren't one. You treat them like an adult with respect.

[Nonphixion]

The solution, I think is three-fold

1. We need Israeli security
2. We need Palestinian autonomy
3. We need open access to the 3 holiest sites in the region by the humans residing in the lands of Palestine and Israel, access to which cannot be blocked under any circumstances by either entity.

edit: and a fourth would be
We need honest and open talks between the people of both nations, distinctly devoid of racism and who-shot-first and who-retaliated-in-response.

[Kytro]

I find it hard to really care too much about what goes on between Israel and militants.

Both sides believe they are in the right, and both sides are willing to kill and use violence as a "solution".

The governments/organisations involved don't want peace as much as some other goal

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Setting up bombs as a defensive measure is not an "attack" on Israel.

Originally Posted by Scrum

Weren't they setting up bombs in their own territory? How is that offensive?

Not setting up bombs was part of the cease fire. So even though they agreed not to set up bombs, it's ok that they set up bombs and israel should just STFU even though the palestinians broke part of their agreement?

Look at the lengths some will go to defend palestine in this thread.

:fixed:

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Do you have a link to the agreement?

No, but I found this

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Saturday's incident marked the second time in four days that Hamas breached the cease-fire reached in November.

They breached the cease fire by planting bombs so a ban on planting bombs must be in the cease fire.

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

The solution, in my opinion, is three-fold

1. We need Israeli security
2. We need Palestinian autonomy
3. We need open access to the 3 holiest sites in the region by the humans residing in the lands of Palestine and Israel, access to which cannot be blocked under any circumstances by either entity.

Mine is

1. we should back up
2. we should tell israel and palestine "end this"
3. we should recognize the govt of whoever wins that war.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

They breached the cease fire by planting bombs so a ban on planting bombs must be in the cease fire.

At least according to the media.

Who knows if they have looked up to see if it's a violation or if they are just parroting what an official told them.

Until we are shown proof that they signed an agreement saying they can't defend themselves on their side of the border, there is no reason to assume they can't. No matter what the media says.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

At least according to the media.

No, according to the the cease fire... The media has nothing to do with the cease-fire. Shortly after the cease-fire was signed Israel mounted military engagements on Hamas militants that were re-arming... they attacked convoys, etc because it was against their cease-fire agreements.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, according to the the cease fire... The media has nothing to do with the cease-fire. Shortly after the cease-fire was signed Israel mounted military engagements on Hamas militants that were re-arming... they attacked convoys, etc because it was against their cease-fire agreements.

I'll ask again, have you seen the agreement?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'll ask again, have you seen the agreement?

When it as first signed, yes. I read it back in November. Have you?