Israel Bombs Gaza - Hundreds Dead

[omairhr]

Hamas has ZERO support from most of the world's nations. It probably has support only from Iran and Syria. Even within Arab League, Egypt, Jordan and KSA are against Hamas. It was difficult to convince Arab League even to convene its meeting. Hamas is a terrorist organization that actively encourages suicide bombings. Its primitive rockets cannot match the overwhelming military force of Israel. And the world will not move a finger...

The argument that suicide bombings is the only way to force Israel to stop the atrocities is pure BS. The ONLY way to achieve Palestinian aspirations for a free Palestinian state is via non-violent civil disobedience as displayed during the first Intifada. Civil disobedience freed the Indian subcontinent from British colonialism and ended the apartheid regime in South Africa. Arafat knew this, but after his death, his successors have been too weak to keep the momentum going. Non-violent resistance is the only way for Palestinians to regain the world's support against Israeli occupation. Hamas will doom the Palestinians to more bloodshed and misery.

IF my brother is killed in one of those air attacks, there is nothing stopping me from taking 'revenge'.

Someone comes to your house. Kicks you out. Calls you 'terrorist' when you protest. The 'global police' is protecting the occupant. Cannot find justice from anywhere. Sacrifice your life in desperation. Thats the story of a Palestinian 'terrorist'.

World's support: When did Israel last care about 'world support' for Palestine? There are loads of UN resolutions ignored by Israel. The boundaries of current Israel extend far beyond those mandated by UN.

2nd world war and financial crises in UK freed India. There were and still are too many traitors in the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Omar1984]

If the Kashmiris, to a man, came out on the streets to protest against India in a non-violent manner, just like the blacks did in South Africa and Indians did in the days of the Raj, the Indian government would be in big trouble. The rest of the world would not ignore peaceful protestors being slaughtered ALL THE TIME. It would take time, but freedom would be theirs for the taking.

Have you forgotten what happened in spring/summer '08?

You're saying all those people protesting against Indian rule were violent?

They were not violent at all and still Indian troops shot so many peaceful protestors.

Thats why India is the largest hypocrisy in the world. Same with their best friend Israel.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Kashmir protests over assault on Gaza, 50 injured

SRINAGAR, India, Jan 2 (Reuters) - At least 50 people were injured when baton-wielding police in Indian Kashmir fired teargas shells on Friday to disperse hundreds of Muslims protesting at Israeli strikes on Gaza, police and witnesses said.

There were also demonstrations in other Indian cities, including New Delhi and Hyderabad.

In Kashmir's summer capital Srinagar, angry demonstrators shouting "Down with Zionist terrorism, down with Israel" burnt American and Israeli flags near Kashmir's grand mosque Jamia Masjid.

Police also clashed with stone-throwing demonstrators in several other parts of the city. Most of the protests were staged after Friday prayers.

"Policemen and some photojournalists are among the injured," Mohammad Syed, a police official said.

Israel says the attacks, which have killed more than 400 people, are designed to stop Hamas Islamists who rule the Gaza Strip from firing rockets on towns in the Jewish state.

Around 250 Muslims in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad also protested against the offensive outside the recently opened U.S. consulate on Friday, police said.

They tried to set fire to an effigy of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert but were stopped by police. There were further large protests in the Muslim-majority old part of the city.

A Reuters witness saw similar scenes in the capital, New Delhi, as protesters gathered outside India's largest mosque, similarly called Jama Masjid, to burn Israeli and American flags and an effigy.

The Indian government has joined international calls for a halt to the conflict, and promised $1 million in financial aid to affected families in Gaza.

In Srinagar earlier on Friday, the chief priest of Kashmir and senior separatist leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, led thousands of worshippers in a mass prayer for the slain Palestinians.

"Why is the world community silent when innocent, unarmed Muslims are killed in hundreds by Israel? It is a naked aggression," Farooq said at the city's grand mosque.

"Muslim countries must unite to fight for the liberation of Palestine, Iraq , Afghanistan and Kashmir."

Kashmir, which was hit by massive anti-India protests last year, is India's only Muslim-majority state. Officials say more than 47,000 people have been killed since simmering discontent against Indian rule turned into a full-blown rebellion in 1989. (Reporting By Sheikh Mushtaq; Editing By Matthias Williams and Sugita Katyal)

Kashmir protests over assault on Gaza, 50 injured | Reuters

 

[RedBaron]

2nd world war and financial crises in UK freed India. There were and still are too many traitors in the Indian subcontinent.

Wrong. Remember, the Brits ruled India because they made Profit. i.e. their revenues from India exceeded their cost.
WW II did not change that. India suffered no bombardment and did not suffer significant loss of life or property unlike Europe. The markets were running, transport was unaffected. If economics were the only reason, Brits would have hung on to India till the 1970s like they did in many African countries.

Your emotions on the Israeli actions are understandable, but violence begets violence only.

 

[Communist]

If the Kashmiris, to a man, came out on the streets to protest against India in a non-violent manner, just like the blacks did in South Africa and Indians did in the days of the Raj, the Indian government would be in big trouble. The rest of the world would not ignore peaceful protestors being slaughtered ALL THE TIME. It would take time, but freedom would be theirs for the taking.

But what has happened in Kashmir is this: The militant groups like LeT, Hizbul-Mujahedeen, etc. have frankly done India a favor by damaging the Kashmiri cause, just like Hamas has damaged the Palestinian cause. These groups have been declared terrorist organizations and has irreparably damaged any Kashmiri "azadi" aspirations for the near future. The world will not give Kashmir a second look and the Kashmiri militants can never win against the overwhelming might of the Indian armed forces. The Kashmiri electorate has realized this and decided they might as well turn up to vote for NC party whom they feel will give them at least "bijli, sadak, paani". The Kashmiri people may not be happy with Indian rule, but they are fed up with militancy...

But coming back to the topic, Hamas is a goner mate...

Who wants to die? Who wants to get slaughtered in the hands of some ferocious brutal imperialist forces? Who wants to make trouble for his own mothers and sisters, for his own family members? Who? Who? The answer is, dear Sir, no one. Even not a mad person. This is the basic human psychology. Every body wants to live. Every one has the fear for death.

Now, the Kashmiris had known for a long time even before 1947 what it feels to be treated like slaves for hours, days, weeks, years, decades and even almost for a century, that you are so lucky that you cannot feel. Look, violence gives birth to counter violence. Illegitimate indian hindu imperialist forces did never give the Kashmiris the chance to go for a non-violent protest or demand. And even had they put such a demand to get independence, illegitimate indian hindu brutal forces would never provide attention to that demand. Rather, indian hindu imperialist occupational army first started to use some offensive violent inhuman measures (such as arresting anyone without any evidence, applying third degree torture in army or police custody, making fake encounters, branding innocent boys as terrorists, raping thousands of Kashmiri women (even many bollywood films have been made on this particular subject from Dil Se.. to the recently released Dhoka and films reflect reality sometimes), preventing food supply, water supply, gas supply and other necessary items for living and finally turning the whole Kashmir valley as a mere concentration camp where talking about human rights even is a day dream. If at one night some fully armed military personnel suddenly come to your house in the name of raids, loot your precious assets like ornaments or jewelery, damages your furniture, burn your religious books, rape your sister at gun point in front of you and other family members, arrest your brother and take him to the custody interrogation and in the next day you find his dead body as army men claim he wanted to flee and so got shot, what will be your reaction? How many times will you loudly recite "bandemataram"? This may sound like a masala hindi movie story, but in the Kashmir valley, Kashmiri Muslims have been experiencing everyday such incidents and even wrose than such an incident. No complaints, because hindu imperialist army is enjoying Arm Forces' Special Power Act, therefore, no human rights, no red cross, no rationing, no international press, no outsider (those who live in other parts of india, lest they could become eyewitnesses), no movements (many Kashmiris are not allowed to go beyond a certain limit deep into india) and nothing, only bullets, tear gas cell, grenades, army convoy, curfew etc. Such a condition is there and Kashmiris are living in what indian hindus say, "bhu swarg". What an irony sir! What an overwhelming might an indian hindu army man has killing a six year old female child terrorist! Really overwhelming is such a brutality that even a ferocious wild animal like wolf may not show!!

Now you may ask me, why the great indian army soldiers are committing genocide, homicide, rapes etc. Well, it is a hindu conspiracy based upon a driving force of revenge on behalf of the hindu Kashmiri pundits and even Sikhs to some extent, and, I know, hindus of india will never accept this truth because (1) they have been systematically and entirely brainwashed, and (2) they are reluctant to expose and stigmatize the loop wholes of their false national sentiment which is essentially hindu.

What you call terrorism or militancy, I call struggle for existence. Yes, there is terrorism, I agree, but this term has often been intentionally used to confuse things, to falsely brand a group of people, to demonize a nation and sometimes religion, and in many times to gain vested political and economic interests (as Zionist America is doing in the Middle East after the break up of the Soviets) and to fulfill hostility and avenging. Terrorism is a crime just like other crimes and it should be taken as a crime with a criminal motive that is doing harm to people or terrorize them for no great reason.

You referred to the rule of the Raj. Good, you seem to know history. Have you heard the name of Khudiram Bose of Bengal Presidency during the rule of Raj? He is now called a martyr and is held with pride and honor. Well, he had killed two white women and was sentenced to death by the British Raj. He was called a criminal then, an indian terrorist in the eyes of the Raj. Now, on the contrary, he is called a courageous freedom fighter by the indian govt. Why such a drastic change in attitude? Because, the Raj is not ruling now. So is it, Jo Jita Wohi Sikandar? Apko kya lagta hain, janab?

 

[RedBaron]

Have you forgotten what happened in spring/summer '08?

You're saying all those people protesting against Indian rule were violent?

They were not violent at all and still Indian troops shot so many peaceful protestors.
.

Police shooting peaceful protestors happened in South Africa civil rights struggle and during India's freedom struggle. But it did not prevent independence.
The point I'm trying to make here is: luckily for India, in Kashmir there is nobody with the stature of Mandela, Arafat, Martin Luther King Jr or Gandhi.

 

[RedBaron]

Now you may ask me, why the great indian army soldiers are committing genocide, homicide, rapes etc. doing harm to people or terrorize them for no great reason.
...
You referred to the rule of the Raj. Good, you seem to know history. Have you heard the name of Khudiram Bose of Bengal Presidency during the rule of Raj? He is now called a martyr and is held with pride and honor. Well, he had killed two white women and was sentenced to death by the British Raj. He was called a criminal then, an indian terrorist in the eyes of the Raj. Now, on the contrary, he is called a courageous freedom fighter by the indian govt. Why such a drastic change in attitude? Because, the Raj is not ruling now. So is it, Jo Jita Wohi Sikandar? Apko kya lagta hain, janab?

I am the first to admit that a professional army among a civilian population causes terrible physical and mental suffering to civilians. Armies are harsh when dealing with civilian insurgencies. But remember: Indian army deployment in Kashmir was a response, NOT to civilian non-violent protests but a response to violent militancy back in the late 80's. When JKLF, HM and others equipped from Pak started engaging local forces, murdering Pandits, etc. GoI had to send in the Army. If protests were peaceful, it would not have happened. Many lives would have been saved, and indeed you may have very well seen the azadi movement succeeding.


Re: Khudiram Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar....none of these achieved India independence. They were individual "heroes" for the people, but did not inspire the masses to rise take up arms. Only Gandhi could create a truly people's movement by exhorting people to protest non-violently, and his ideas worked in South Africa (Nelson Mandela) and USA (Martin Luther King Jr).

And the only armed uprising in India, the 1857 Mutiny failed with Indian revolutionaries being blown from cannons. But due to the mutineers murderous acts, there was ZERO sympathy in Britain or in the rest of the world. It took 90 more years of civil struggle for India to win her independence.

Now before the mods ban me, can we please get back to the topic?

 

[pkpatriotic]

Israel can't bomb its way to peace

The assault on Gaza has more to do with internal politics than its national security. The U.S. needs to reengage forcefully in a Mideast peace process.
Rosa Brooks
January 1, 2009

It's a new year in an old and bloody world.
In Israel, politicians jockeying for power have launched the most lethal military assault on Palestinian territory in decades. Israel has justified its bombardment of Gaza on the grounds that Hamas broke a fragile, temporary cease-fire. The Israeli government is right to consider Hamas' rocket attacks on Israeli civilians inexcusable, but the timing of the Israeli military offensive has more to do with politics than anything else.

Ehud Barak, Israel's Labor Party defense minister, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister from the centrist Kadima party, are both contenders for prime minister in Israel's Feb. 6 national elections. A show of "toughness" against Hamas could help Labor and/or Kadima beat back the right-wing Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been leading in the polls. Meanwhile, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who faces corruption charges, has just a few weeks to restore his own tattered reputation.

Adding to the time pressure is U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's upcoming inauguration. As long as President Bush was in the White House, Israel could count on a U.S. administration that wasn't merely "supportive" of Israel but blindly, mindlessly so. Obama may be less willing to offer Israel blank checks. Thus this New Year's military offensive, timed for the crucial window before Israeli elections and Obama's swearing-in.

In a strictly military sense, Israel will "win" this battle against Hamas. For all its threats and bravado, Hamas is weak, and its weapons -- terrorism, homemade rockets -- are the weapons of the weak. Since 2001, Hamas has fired thousands of unguided Kassam rockets at Israel, but the rockets have killed only a handful of Israelis.

Israel's military, in contrast, is one of the most modern and effective in the world (thanks in part to an annual $3 billion in U.S. aid). Israel can easily bottle up the tiny Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million people. On Saturday, the first day of the offensive, Israeli bombs killed at least 180 Palestinians. By Wednesday, the Palestinian death toll exceeded 390.

But if there is no reason to doubt Israel's ability to pulverize Gaza, there's also no reason to think this offensive will improve Israeli security. Destruction of Hamas' infrastructure may temporarily slow Hamas rocket attacks, but sooner or later they'll resume.

The Israeli assault may even strengthen Hamas in the longer run and weaken its more moderate secular rival, Fatah. As Israel should know by now (as we all should know), dropping bombs in densely populated areas is a surefire way to radicalize civilians and get them to rally around the home team, however flawed.

Ironically, it's precisely this psychological phenomenon that Olmert, Barak and Livni are counting on among Israelis, but they seem to assume it doesn't exist among Palestinians. (Or, worse, they're too cynical to care, as long as they profit politically.)

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

It's time for the United States to wake up from its long slumber and reengage -- forcefully -- with the Middle East peace process. Only the U.S. -- Israel's primary supporter and main financial sponsor -- can push it to make the hard choices necessary for its own long-term security, as well as the region's. In January 2001, the Taba talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority came achingly close to a final settlement, but talks broke down after Likud's Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister on Feb. 6, 2001. Sharon refused to meet with Yasser Arafat, and newly inaugurated President George W. Bush had no interest in pushing Israel toward peace.

Eight years later, Israel faces another election, and we're about to swear in a new president. When he takes office, Obama needs to push both Israelis and Palestinians to sit back down, with the abandoned Taba agreements as the starting point. Here's to a less bloody 2009.

 

[A.Rahman]

http://sderot.aish.com/SderotPetitions/MissilesFromGaza.php

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6761/palastinianlandloss8tz.gif

 

[Pk_Thunder]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6761/palastinianlandloss8tz.gif

 

[Cheeta]

Irrespective of the differences between all Arabs or other groups. Needs a proper stand against the attackers as the ground assault has also started now.

 

[Jihad]

Israeli ground forces enter Gaza in escalation.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza after nightfall Saturday, launching a ground offensive that the military said would be a "lengthy operation" in a widening war on Gaza's Hamas rulers.

Heavy gun battles were reported as troops crossed the border into Gaza. Local TV networks broadcast images of troops marching into Gaza after dark.

"We have many many targets," Maj. Avital Leibovich told CNN. "To my estimation, it will be a lengthy operation." She said the goal of the operation was to take over the areas used by militants to launch rockets against Israel.

"The civilians are not our target, only militants, Hamas militants," she said.

Defense officials have said around 10,000 soldiers massed along the border in recent days. Heavy artillery fire in the early evening was intended to detonate Hamas explosive devices and mines planted along the border area before troops marched in.

It was not immediately clear how deep into Gaza the Israeli forces would go.

Israel's offensive against Hamas had begun with a week of aerial bombardment of Hamas target. Israel had held off on a ground offensive, in part because of concern about casualties among Israeli troops.

Hamas leaders have warned that they have prepared a violent welcome. They have also threatened to resume suicide attacks inside Israel.

Israeli ground forces enter Gaza in escalation - Yahoo! News

 

[pkpatriotic]

Dem leaders out of step with voters on Israel's attack on Gaza
January 3, 2009
BY GLEN GREENWALD

A new Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect between American public opinion on U.S. policy toward Israel and the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership.

Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44 percent to 41 percent, with 15 percent undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin. By stark contrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62 percent to 27 percent).

It's not at all surprising that Republican leaders -- from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine -- are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they're expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.

Much more notable is the fact that Democratic leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lock step in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.

While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views that Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel is in full force with this latest conflict.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet the leaders of both parties adopt identical positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?
More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)?

Equally noteworthy is that the factional breakdown regarding Israel-Gaza mirrors quite closely the factional alliances that arose with regard to the Iraq war. Just as was true with Iraq, one finds vigorous pro-war sentiment among the Dick Cheney/National Review/neoconservative/hard-core-GOP crowd, joined (as was true for Iraq) by some American liberals who typically oppose that faction yet eagerly join with them on Israel.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world -- Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership -- opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail. The parties with the superior military might -- the U.S. and Israel -- dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant. Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same, just as those who opposed the Iraq war were said to be "pro-Saddam," those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now "pro-Hamas."

There are certainly meaningful differences between the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Israeli attack on Gaza (most notably the fact that Hamas does shoot rockets into Israel and has killed Israeli civilians and Israel is blockading and occupying Palestinian land, whereas Iraq did not attack and could not attack the U.S. as the U.S. was sanctioning them and controlling their airspace). But the underlying logic of both wars is far more similar than different: military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless.

It's therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines. What's actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lock-step consensus among America's political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S. attack on Iraq.

 

[pkpatriotic]

If you (or I) were Palestinian - Israel News
By Yossi Sarid

This week I spoke with my students about the Gaza war, in the context of a class on national security. One student, who had expressed rather conservative, accepted opinions - that is opinions tending slightly to the right - succeeded in surprising me. Without any provocation on my part, he opened his heart and confessed: "If I were a young Palestinian," he said, "I'd fight the Jews fiercely, even by means of terror. Anyone who says anything different is telling you lies."

His remarks sounded familiar - I had already heard them before. Suddenly I remembered: About 10 years ago they were uttered by our defense minister, Ehud Barak. Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy had asked him then, as a candidate for prime minister, what he would do had he been born Palestinian and Barak replied frankly: "I would join a terror organization."

This is not my own answer; terrorism by individuals or organizations or states is always aimed at exacting casualties in a civilian population that has not drawn any blood. Not only is terror blind - consuming both the saint and the sinner - it also expands the circle of the hot-headed, whose blood rises to their brains: Our blood is on their heads, their blood is on our heads. And when an account of the blood of the innocent is opened, who can pay it in full, and when?

I hate all the terrorists in the world, whatever the purpose of their struggle. However, I support every active civil revolt against any occupation, and Israel too is among the despicable occupiers. Such revolt is both more just and more effective, and it does not extinguish one's spark of humanity. And perhaps I'm just too much of an old codger to be a terrorist.

But, and pay attention to this but, if a normative young person has a spontaneous answer that is different from mine, and that answer also escaped the mouth of an Israeli lieutenant general, then every individual must see himself as though his son is running with the wrong crowd. If things were the other way around, our son-whom-we-loved would be a damned terrorist, almost certainly, because he is of the third and fourth generation of refugeehood and oppression, and whence cometh salvation? He has nothing to lose but his chains.

Whereas we, his mother and father, would be weeping for the departing son because he will never return to see the land of his birth and us, except in his photograph on the wall as a shahid, a martyr. Would we detain him before he carries out his plan? Would we be able to hold him back if we wanted to? Would we not understand what he is feeling? What Ehud Barak understood in his day - would that be impossible for us to understand?

Young people who have no future will easily give up their future, which they can't see on the horizon. Their past as guttersnipes and their present as cursed unemployed idlers lock the opening to their hope: Their death is better than their life, and their death is even better than our life, as their oppressors - that is how they feel. From the day they are born to the day they leave this earth, they see their land ahead, to which they will not come as free people.

There are no good and bad peoples; there are only leaderships that behave responsibly or insanely. And now we are fighting those whom a goodly number of us would be like, had we been in their place for 41 and a half years.

 

[rubyjackass]

But what has happened in Kashmir is this: The militant groups like LeT, Hizbul-Mujahedeen, etc. have frankly done India a favor by damaging the Kashmiri cause, just like Hamas has damaged the Palestinian cause. These groups have been declared terrorist organizations and has irreparably damaged any Kashmiri "azadi" aspirations for the near future. The world will not give Kashmir a second look and the Kashmiri militants can never win against the overwhelming might of the Indian armed forces. The Kashmiri electorate has realized this and decided they might as well turn up to vote for NC party whom they feel will give them at least "bijli, sadak, paani". The Kashmiri people may not be happy with Indian rule, but they are fed up with militancy...

But coming back to the topic, Hamas is a goner mate...

Should not Kashmir to Palestine. They are entirely different.