News from a Red Cross Worker In Gaza
A Boing Boing reader writes:
I do not take sides, as the Gaza civilians are victims of both Hamas and the Israelis. FYI my nephew works for the ICRC in Gaza, and therefore has first-hand knowledge of what's happening on the ground. Here is a summary of what he said in a recent phone call to his family.Previously: Al Jazeera Releases Gaza Video Archive Under Creative Commons License- He's holding on in a bunker with metal shutters, he cannot bail out because he is responsible for too many people looking up to him, but 4 ICRC expats have left because of physical/mental exhaustion, and his Palestinian colleagues (Red Cross/Red Crescent) are equally exhausted, plus they have to get back to their families at night and organize survival (assuming their home hasn't been destroyed yet.)
- He has to organize the evacuation and taking care of the dead and wounded (100 yesterday.)
- The Israeli army deliberately intimidates, and aims at humanitarian groups, and they did shoot at an ICRC ambulance convoy three days ago, nearly killing a driver.
- Everything is demolished, and sometimes the ICRC has to use donkey carts because it is the only way to get through, and get at the dead and wounded. The Israeli army refuses to help.
- Palestinian kids are traumatized mentally, and forever.
- Both sides [Hamas & Israelis] have turned mad.
- The media doesn't always tell the truth. For instance, the supposedly phosphor bombs are only a rumor, and nothing is confirmed. My nephew thinks that they are only lighting devices, but that they can burn people.
- Norwegian doctors based in Gaza have denounced Israel's use of phosphor bombs, but there is no substantiated evidence.
- There were talks about having humanitarian planes taking wounded Palestinian kids to Europe for care-taking. That is not the solution: those kids are traumatized to start with ("terrorized" as my nephew put it,) they only speak Arabic, they are better kept with their families. There are great doctors in Gaza, but the long Israeli-enforced apartheid and subsequent shortages limit their ability to work. The best thing to do is to send doctors in the immediate area, i.e. setting field hospitals in Rafat on the border with Egypt, or on the border with Israel with doctors who speak Arabic.
- The ICRC president came for one day to motivate the Gaza team, and said that this conflict was ICRC's worst since the Solferino battle, which prompted Henri Dunant to create the Red Cross (Wikipedia reference).
- The (reduced) IRC team in Gaza has enough food, water and electricity reserves for the time being, but they have to work with constant bombardment/shelling, i.e. no sleep. They think that they are doing a great job, but don't have much hope for the future of the Gaza people.
Update: A brief editor's note here, to address some readers' concern that this post might imply an editorial position that human rights violations are being committed by only one side in the conflict. The head of the ICRC issued a statement last week calling for Hamas to cease targeting civilians, also, and there are reports Hamas fighters have hijacked ambulances or aid convoys for use as military vehicles (I am looking for verifiable reports, will add notes as I find). Regarding the submitter's comment that "The Israeli army deliberately intimidates, and aims at humanitarian groups, and they did shoot at an ICRC ambulance convoy three days ago, nearly killing a driver" -- we will note, for context, that there are reports of similar violations by Hamas fighters.
Update 2: Regarding the submitter's note about a recent incident in which an ICRC ambulance convoy was shot, news reports indicate that it happened within the past week. Here are several news links related to this story:
* Red Cross restricts Gaza operations after coming under attack
* Gaza: le CICR n'escortera plus les ambulances palestiniennes
* Ambulance Trip from Gaza a Harrowing Ride
* Gaza: the challenge of reaching civilians in need
* Gaza "no place for civilians": ICRC
* Aid groups report way into Israel is deadly
And regarding the submitter's note that there is no evidence phosphorus bombs are being used on Gaza targets -- there is evidence now. Link 1, Link 2, Link 3.
the latest
latest episodes
Not taking 'sides' when people are being murdered is a good way to ensure that it'll keep happening. The side to take is against anyone, Hamas or Israel or U.S. or anyone who is murdering civilians indiscriminately as punishment for crimes they had nothing to do with. Is there any really good idea to try and stay 'neutral' on this issue?
the only side to take is "human".
Those aren't kids, they are members of Hamas! What do they expect, human rights? Too bad, Palestinians are non-humans in Israel, and they just don't have the good sense to die, and quit interfering with the great Zionist project.
Gaza=Warsaw
#1, the Red Cross has to stay neutral, otherwise they can't do their job (which doesn't include, or is not supposed to include, politics).
I'm not sure I can trust any information regarding the conflict, spclly f t's cmng frm th Plstnns wh hv lng nd prd hstry f mkng thngs p. 'm stll sdng wth srl, thgh.
Never mind, Vendorx.
I have always found it to be the case that when someone says they're not taking sides, they are.
I'm pleasantly surprised none of the astroturfers have posted yet.
Some1: this information isn't from Palestinians.
"Both sides have turned mad" -- Sums it up well.
Blame the insurgents for that... they have a habit of using ambulances to ferry men and arms around. The Israeli army never really knows if an ambulance is genuine or not...
[URL]
Video clearly shows Palestinian gunmen climbing into a hijacked UN ambulance.
So Some1 we meet again. What to say when brutality works, eh?
More fotos at Cryptome:
http://www.cryptome.org/
Iraq/Afghanistan go on too:
http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/
There are "two sides" to every conflict: the hit-er and the hit-ee.
So, so, so so sick of the Zionist apologists that are all over the web these days. Can't find it just now, but there was a story a while back about how Israel uses a dedicated force of PAID bloggers to flood message boards to get their side of the story out. That U.S. tax dollars are already flooding into Israel at an obscene rate ( $4 Billion, $6 Billion? who knows really...) is an injury. That those same tax dollars are used to pay for propoganda is the insulting.
@#1
humanity has been killing each other for thousands of years, and will continue. Civilian casualties are part of war, and war is part of our race. I'm not pro killing civilians, but you need to take a realistic viewpoint instead of an idealistic one.
Just to be clear on the Israeli white phosphorous rounds it's pretty obvious to me that they are probably American-manufactured M825 WP smoke projectiles.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/smoke.htm
If you look at that link you'll see photos that match what we've seen on television exploding over the skies of Gaza. The truth of the matter is that they aren't exactly a straightforward White Phosphorous round but rather an explosive charge which throws felt discs impregnated with phosphorous (which burns upon contact with oxygen) designed to create a smoke screen. The US used the same thing in Fallujah a few years back. Although the Israelis haven't signed the agreement that bans the use of these weapons it's debatable as to whether they are using them for the intended purpose (smoke screens) or are sort of accidentally on purpose using them for a nastier purpose. It's nasty stuff regardless.
"The Norvac (Norwegian doctors) representatives (who keep denouncing the "phosphor bombs") had better take care of the wounded rather than spend their time talking to the media. The ICRC doctors privilege doing a great job to talking to the press."
As a norwegian I would like to comment a few words on this. The organization is called Norwac. From what those doctors have said, their help is not necessary from a medical point of view. They have very good doctors in this field (war medicine). The most important thing for the locals working in that hospital has been that the world has not forgotten about the palestinians. They have also been the only westerners in Palestine because no journalist is allowed in. They have also said that the only time they have spoken to the media has been in breaks. Theese guys have been working with Palestine for 30-40 years, I don't think it is helpful to complain about their work when they actually are helping civilians down there. I'm sure ICRC is doing a great job, and so is Norwac. I don't think one should complain about those patching civilians together, look at those ripping em' apart instead.
manicbassman: Will blaming the insurgenets bring back the ambulance driver if the Israeli had gunned down the driver? I don't know but I keep thinking back to the poem:
In Palestine, they came first for the children, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a child...
Re: White phosphorous, see this definitive report from Al Jazeera proving that it has at the very least been used in populated areas - usually for smoke screen/illumination. This use does not however eliminate the fact that it is by definition an indiscriminate and vicious weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPw-mqGkL9M&feature=channel_page
Since news from inside Gaza is nearly impossible to come by, reliable reports from third parties (i.e. Norwegian doctors) are very valuable. Doctors are the front line in human rights enforcement and reporting; without their testimony, the rest of the world cannot know of the true human costs of the devastation. Also, you can only perform amputations and dig shrapnel out of children for so long before you have to take a 'break' to describe the horrors to the international media.
I salute and applaud this report from this ICRC volunteer, but feel that some of his criticism (as addressed above) is somewhat misplaced. I hope for safety for all internationals and all residents in Gaza.
no support to countries committing war crimes.
BTW transferring your civilian population to occupied territories is a war crime.
@ 11
60 yrs f llgl ccptn, gncd, blckds, trtr, ssssntns by srl nc t s mrc bckng trrrsts s pr sl.
grt t s mrcn mltry ndstrl cmplx mkng bllns frm rms sls t mrdr nncnt ppl h!
nlyss: Nw S-srl rms dl (BBC)
http://nws.bbc.c.k/1/h/wrld/mddl_st/6949904.stm
FT: Thrsdy, 16 gst 2007, 16:02 GMT 17:02 K
Ths nw grmnt sts ncrsd lvls f S mltry d fr srl vr th cmng dcd.
n brd trms, srl wll rcv ttl f sm $30bn (ÂŁ14.8bn) n mltry d, sgnfcnt ncrs vr $24bn (ÂŁ12bn) t rcvd vr th pst 10 yrs.
S RMS D T SRL
$30bn vr 10 yrs
1st pymnt f $2.55bn n 2008
nnl pymnts rsng t $3.1bn by 2011
26.3% cn b spnt n srl
Rst mst b spnt n S rms
(D = FR wpns Pd fr by th S Tx pyr, bt t mst b yr wy f lf tht mslms ht h!)
NVR frgt Rchl Crr mrdrd by n srl blldzr.
http://www.ggl.c.k/srch?clnt=frfx-&rls=rg.mzll%3n-GB%3ffcl&chnnl=s&hl=n&q=Rchl+Crr&mt=&btnG=Ggl+Srch
Thr ws th pblc 9/11 cmmssn n c-spn sttng tht th mn rsn fr th 9/11 ttcks ws th cntnd spprt fr srl n thr qst t clns th ccpd stt "Plstn" C-Spn vd cn b fnd n ytb nd hr s th lnk: http://www.ytb.cm/wtch?v=J1bm2GPFfg&ftr=sr
srl Vlts N Scrty Cncl, ccpyng Syr's Lnd wth Nm Chmsky: http://www.ytb.cm/wtch?v=2vj45865jp
The comment cocerning his observation about what have been described as "phosphor bombs" are very accurate. The many headline photographs showing airbursts with many small trails of white smoke are a 155mm artillery projectile referred to as the "M825 improved smoke munition." It does indeed contain white phosphorous but it is not the same shell nor the same effects as the older "bursting train" white phosphorous round that is used for its incendiary effects.
Instead of exploding in a fireball like conventional WP, M825 rounds are a base ejecting canister projectile (and "expelling train") that contains a payload of felt wedges that are impregnated with WP. It is fuzed to burst in the air and scatter the felt wedges over a large area. The wedges begin to smoulder upon contact with air and continue to burn as more surface area is exposed to oxygen. When I say "smoulder" it is really a slow burning at a very high temperature of approximately 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. If WP felt wedges were to land around you, you would be surrounded by thick white noxious (though not at toxic levels) smoke and anything on which the wedges landed would probably be set aflame. I've been downwind of WP smoke and you'll have to trust me (or not) when I tell you that it's not even as noxious as teargas much less anything used in WWI or by the Hussein regime in the Anfel campaign.
The biggest threat to the populace of Gaza from the M825 WP is not injury from the felt wedges themselves but from the fires that they start. The reasons that the M825 is being employed is for visual obscuration of the areas on which ground troops are advancing. The smokescreen (which can persist for 5-10 minutes) will conceal the advance of infantry or other maneuver forces from snipers. That's the artilleryman's summary of the use of WP in the Gaza campaign. WP, yes but, it's not your grandaddy's WillyPete.
It surprises me to hear that the Norwegian doctors 'keep denouncing the "phosphor bombs"'. I have heard them a lot on the news (here in Norway) and haven't heard them talk about phosphor once. But they are talking about the strange injuries they have been getting.
From http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24905242-5005961,00.html :
"""The weapon "causes the tissue to be torn from the flesh. It looks very different (from a shrapnel injury). I have seen and treated a lot of different injuries for the last 30 years in different war zones, and this looks completely different", Mr Fosse, 58, said."""
As mentioned earlier the ICRC can't side with one country over another if they want to continue their humanitarian mission, so their only "side" is that of the civilian population. There is a difference between political neutrality and keeping quiet about ongoing suffering. If "neutrality" meant the latter we wouldn't have heard this report at all.
I for one don't see any reason why any of us need to choose between supporting Hamas and Israel over this one. As far as I can tell both are using tactics that indiscriminately slaughter civilians, so neither is the "good guy" in this conflict.
"There are "two sides" to every conflict: the hit-er and the hit-ee."
Actually, what makes it a conflict is that there is a hit-er and another hit-er. (And each claims to be the hit-ee.)
ARKIZZLE:
I was speaking in general terms.MOJAVE:
What's wrong with that? They also have a YouTube channel.BRNSPR:
srl hs tkn mny stps t vd clltrl dmg, whrs Hms dsn't vn rcgnz th cncpt f clltrl dmg. Thy dn't vn cr bt thr >wn cvlns."BTW transferring your civilian population to occupied territories is a war crime. "
That's an ironic argument considering that Israel forcibly removed ALL Israeli settlers from Gaza three years ago. They gave it entirely to the Palestinians. There were no Israeli settlers in Gaza and there was a ceasefire in place until...somebody launched rocket attacks on the civilian population of the other guy. That bears repeating. A cease fire was in place and it was unilaterally broken. Not by one rocket or two rockets or by ten rockets but by dozens. Day after day.
The Palestinians in Gaza voted Hamas into power and then watched as a civil war between Hamas and Fatah was fought and Hamas won. Hamas broke the ceasefire by attacking civilians. Hamas wasted the money donated to help their impoverished people by using it to build smuggling tunnels and buying hudreds of missiles with which the carefully conspired to break a ceasefire. Hamas hides among their own people and attempts to draw fire from the Israelis for the propaganda value of scenes of wounded civilians. Hamas is to blame for all of this. The ceasefire would still be in place and every one of those Palestinian civilians and all of their homes and businesses would be intact if Hamas had not attacked the civilian population of southern Israel.
I think not taking sides is a natural reaction to the utter insanity happening there.
I still really wonder what will happen when Obama officially becomes President? Could this latest flare-up be some odd political move? Could Syria announce a deal with Israel to wipe Hamas off of the face of the earth and give protection to the Palestinians.
UKCannonfodder - you keep pasting that same comment in every Israel post. Please stop.
Some1:
Like I said, that doesn't mean I have to support Israel either. Especially when they are willing to take out an entire family to eliminate one person.
Weren't you the guy who said in an earlier thread that there is no meaningful distinction between an authority that actively commits an atrocity and one that merely allows it to happen on his watch? By that logic it doesn't even matter if Israel is killing children on purpose or not, the fact remains that they are doing so.
Neither side a hero here.
@ Mojave
Be careful with your definition of a Zionist. Zionism, though a popular catchphrase, can refer to a great many things within Judaism/Jewish culture and history. Instead of condemning anyone of a particular belief or doctrine, take issue with the political structures that you disagree with. There are many forms of Zionism - political, religious, etc. and not all forms of 'Zionism' apply to a by-arms occupation of the land of Israel in the middle-east.
The issue with this situation is it is not cut-and-dry, or simple. One side is not right, and neither is the other. Just because one side of the conflict commits acts that injure and kill civilians does not absolve the other side of its actions. This applies to both parties in the conflict.
Condemning people with different ideologies, beliefs, information, and political stance as 'Zionist Apologists' comes off as snarky and uninformed.
and let's not forget the REAL root cause of this savage butchery. That both sides believe the land under their feet was promised to them by a mythical real estate agent many, many moons ago. It would be laughable if there weren't so many dead kids.
No, #23 the ceasefire held until the Israelis staged an incursion.
OTOH IMHO this is a civil war and has all the complexities of a civil war, between groups who base their respective self-identities along racial and religious lines, but who share the same physical[ = geographical] space.
To achieve peace, simply end all discrimination based on religion and race, by anyone, at any time, in any context.
That is all; all the rest simply follows.
So we must encourage all sides here, and in other violent conflicts too, to stop defining themselves as being in any way essentially in opposition to each other.
This specific example is a civil war in my idiosyncratic book; IMO one day, those who call themselves Israeli and those who call themselves Palestinian will live peacefully and prosperously cheek by jowl, as if in an aartment building, as the cousins (if not yet brothers & sisters) that they are.
For those who laugh at me, and say this can never happen, think Anglos and Saxons, and of the sexiness of the exotic; given a long enough time of co-existence, human affection and living in close physical proximity will do the rest.
#29: I don't think that's really the root cause so much as the excuse. People don't need mythical deities to slaughter each other, they just make a convenient alibi.
Both sides are crazy is a good summary.
Although if the Red Cross claims this is the worst they've seen since Solerno, they haven't been paying much attention. Or they're lying for effect. Neither of which is encouraging.
The New York Times disagrees with your timeline. Israel had launched neither air strikes nor a ground incursion when Hamas began their rocket attacks on Dec 19, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html
"The military wing of Hamas said in a statement that the rocket fire was “a response to Zionist aggression in Gaza and West Bank” and to the economic embargo that Israel had imposed on Gaza. "
Unspecified "aggression" that did not include air strikes or ground attacks. A cease fire was in place and being honored by both sides. Until. Hamas. broke it.
t's lmst ntrtnng t wtch ths cllssly pnntd xchng n th cmmnts vry tm thr's pst bt th Mddl st.
- pstng frm Brt
Blowing things up out of proportion, though...
Anyhow, an analysis, better than wot I wot:
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne Dyer article_ Battlefield Gaza.txt
At least there's no ads on this op-ed.
Israel and Hamas had a working ceasefire from July 2008 to November 2008. Israel violated the ceasefire in November when in response to finding a tunnel coming out of a land it was blockading, turned it into a Gulf of Tonkin incident, invaded Gaza and killed several members of Hamas. Hamas rocket attacks resumed immediately after that.
http://www.warhw.com/2009/01/06/israeli-ceasefire-violation-november-2008/
Israel has blockaded Gaza since 2006. Jimmy Carter declared it a human rights crime in May 2008. Another Nobel Peace Prize winner protested Israel's blockade of Gaza in October 2008.
This blockade was enforced while the ceasefire was in place. When Israel violated the ceasefire, Hamas resumed rocket attacks. In response to rocket attacks, Israel tightened the blockade, freezing banks, fuel, electricity, and humanitarian aid. In response, Hamas increased rocket attacks against Israel. In response to continuing rocket attacks, Israel bombarded and invaded Gaza in December 2008.
For the entire year of 2008, Hamas attacks killed 26 Israelis. Half of them soldiers. Most of them were killed prior to the cease fire of July 2008. When Hamas rockets resumed in November, they would kill another half dozen Israelis. Israel used these half dozen deaths to justify a full out bombardment adn invasion of Gaza killing 500 innocent civilians in two weeks so far.
Unspecified "aggression" that did not include air strikes or ground attacks.
Ahem. Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen. You may have missed that one on account of the US Election that was happening.
Personally I don't have much patience with anybody being holier than anyone else here, though my thinking does seem to incline to the position that greater power - including the power to do damage - implies greater responsibility.
I am clipping this from another blog. It very neatly sums up my feelings.
@35
Would it be better if there was no public forum to discuss these issues? Is it preferable if no western media covered the goings-on?
Also, geographic location does not imply intelligence, nor does it signal a well-informed viewpoint, especially this day in age.
If you feel beholden to contribute something to the discussion, let it be something that doesn't detract from it more - enlighten us as to your superior viewpoint on the situation instead of complaining abut the discourse that is taking place.
Mohammed Ali, Oxfam’s Advocacy and Media Researcher, blogs from his home in Gaza city
America's unwavering military and economic support of the Shah of Iran from 1953 to 1979 is what radicalized Iran and sparked the Iranian Revolution.
America's unwavering military and economic support of Saddam Hussein from 1982-1990 is what armed a madman with thousands of tons of WMD's.
America's unwavering support of Israel is what inspired Muhammed Atta to attack the US after the Israeli military committed the Qana Massacre in Lebanon, 1996.
America cannot afford another Shah of Iran, another Saddam Hussein, or another Israeli massacre.
The UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and other groups have condemned Israels current bombardment and invasion of Gaza to be violations of internation laws, violations of human rights, and potential war crimes.
And it wouldn't be the first time that blind, unquestioning, support of a militant power in the middle east ended up biting us in the ass.
Hold Hamas responsible for the deaths of 26 Israelis it killed in 2008. Hold Israel responsible for the 500 civilians it killed in Gaza in the last two weeks. Not taking sides means holding both sides responsible for their actions.
If Gazans are victims of both Israel and Hamas, then the same can be said for the residents of Sderot. After all if Israel wanted peace it would sign-up to the now six year old Arab peace plan, already signed by every Arab nation AND Hamas . This plan would give recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for a green-line Palestine and East Jerusalem; a clear counter to the suggestion that Hamas exists only to destroy Israel.
However it is clear that Israel (and their backers) don't want peace, because if they did then Israel would not have broken the ceasefire on November 4th, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians-egypt) prompting Hamas to begin Quassam rocket attacks the next day. This means that people like SpectacularlyUnimpressed @23 above, are either willfully ignorant or worse...
Sometimes, forced to recognize facts, supporters of Israel will argue that the Nov 4 killings and other such murders don't count as breaking the ceasefire as the victims were 'Hamas militants' planning or preparing attacks on Israel. However this logic, reversed, would justify Hamas assassinations of Israeli politicians and civil servants - American ones too, eh, given that the USA facilitates the occupation and the slaughter.
There will be no peace in the "Holy Land" unless it is a just peace. Just as in South Africa, or Australia, or the USA, or New Zealand - there was no peace until the colonized or enslaved won their full civil rights (however poorly realized). Just as there was no peace in Vietnam before the French and Americans were forced out, or in Northern Ireland before meaningful negotiations were opened between the British and the Republicans.
Enough already!
A brief point on the blockade of Gaza by Israel. Remember how when Nasser closed the Suez Canal Israel took it as Casus Belli - an act of war?*
Hamas could have made the same argument at any time since the blockade was imposed - the blockade is a constant, continuing violation of any 'ceasefire'. Hamas have clearly been very patient and forgiving of Israeli aggression, only responding when Israel intensified its provocations with the Nov 4 killings.
* It's not as if Nasser's closing of the canal threatened to collapse the Israeli economy, starving Israeli children and imprisoning the entire population or anything. But then Israel wanted that war - so any excuse would do.
I watch nature documentaries of bees attacking and taking over hives, or ant colonies going after each other, or squirrels fighting over a tree (they're quite territorial) and sometimes I think, "maybe this is just what humans do."
"The ICRC doctors privilege doing a great job to talking to the press."
And these are obviously mutually exclusive activities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_rebuilding_gaza
Israel's economic damage inflicted on Gaza: 1.4 billion dollars
Tens of thousands of Gazans have been displaced from their homes.
250,000 Gazans without electricity.
4,000 civilian homes destroyed.
16,000 civilian homes damaged.
Effects of a two-year long blockade of Gaza:
unemployment: 50%
most of Gaza's 4,000 manufacturers shut down due to Israel's imposed export ban.
80% of drinking water is substandard.
Tens of millions of untreated sewage discharged into the Medetteranean Sea every day.
It could take five years for Gaza to rebuild.
Per capita income: $650 a year
60% of Gazan's live below the poverty line.
I used to wonder if a localized nuclear war would finally bring peace by rendering the land uninhabitable. Now I see there would just be a generation growing up with radiation poisoning
gregLondon @42
Yes, yes, yes. Would anyone here disagree with that?
Something some of us can do that might actually help a tiny corner of someone's life:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=medical+aid+Gaza+charity&btnG=Search&meta=
who knows which charities put the funds towards less death and suffering? Can anyone recommend?
Thanks all, I knew Israel had broken the cease-fire, but I'm not a memory disk. Guess the NYTimes got things wrong in the Mideast, again...
Here's a link to Dyer's index, via which you can get to his Gaza column which I tried to link to earlier:
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles2008.htm
I've found Dyer to have a pragmatic take on military current affairs.
And here's a link to a Counterpunch article (by Brian Eno!) deploring this action:
http://www.counterpunch.org/eno01022009.html
As I said above: end all discrimination based on race or religion by anyone anywhere in any context.
Problem solved.
War sucks. If you don't like it, there's a clear way to peace: surrender. The goal of any warring country is to make war suck so much that their enemy finds surrender preferable. If surrender isn't yet a palatable option, war clearly doesn't suck enough.
If both sides of this conflict prefer war to peace, who are we to say they're wrong?
Both Israel and Gaza have democratically elected governments. This isn't a policy enforced on them by a dictator.
"democratically elected governments"? Hamas is leadership by clan chieftain. Israel isn't much better.
Brnspr:
gn, srl s tryng nt t cs clltrl dmg whrs Hms dsn't vn cr bt thr wn cvlns. srl nd Hms r nt mrlly ql. Nt vn cls.GLY CNCK:
Jhd s nt pn t ngttn. t wll nly stp whn th Jws hv ll bn cnvrtd, sbjgtd r klld, r whn th Plstnns r ll gn. Mslms hv bn t wr wth nfdls s lng s thy hv xstd. dn't s why tht wld sddnly chng.Well, I personally am willing to let the Egyptians make the call on Gaza - they've got them blockaded too, eh?
Although I distinctly do NOT recall any discussion of Egypt's (non)action in the MSM, nor any discussion of what the man-in-the-souk feels vi-a-vis his government's policy. It's like there's a big void, where Egypt ought to be, in the discussion of the suffering in Gaza.
If you go to the website of B'Tselem,
B'Tselem
(Israel's leading human rights org), it shows that IDF violations regarding protecting innocent civilian lives have indeed taken place in the past and have been numerous. This does not prove or disprove the claim made in this testimony. It shows it's possible that is it true.
If both sides of this conflict prefer war to peace, who are we to say they're wrong?
Because Israel is committing what the world calls war crimes using American weapons and American money. And America is responsible for the militants and dictators it foolishly supports. Nixon allowed the Shah of Iran to purchase any American weapon he wanted. Reagan allowed Saddam Hussein access to biological and chemical agents, military hardware, and intelligence.
When Israel committed the Qana Massacre in 1996, Muhhamad Atta signed a suicide will that same day. Five years later, he was flying an airplane into the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Whether America takes responsibility or not, we pay the costs one way or another.
"f Gzns r vctms f bth srl nd Hms, thn th sm cn b sd fr th rsdnts f Sdrt. ftr ll f srl wntd pc t wld sgn-p t th nw sx yr ld rb pc pln, lrdy sgnd by vry rb ntn ND Hms ."
N, Jssh, Hms hs nt sgnd ny pc pln t ll, nd n fct hs rptdly rjctd t. Thr ffcl pstn rmns xctly s sttd n thr chrtr: th prmnnt lmntn f th "Znst ntty", nd th mrdr f ll Jws btwn th rvr nd th s. Th rb pc pln s jst PR xrcs. t's jst tlk. Nn f th rb ntns hv ctlly tkn ny cncrt stps t rcgnz srl r t nd th wr, nd n fct, cntn t spply Hms wth mny nd/r wpns.
some1: Israel is trying not to cause collateral damage whereas Hamas doesn't even care about their own civilians.
I've been trying to put my finger on something that's been bugging me for a while now, and this just clarified it for me. You're arguing for a morality based solely on feelings. If you feel badly about doing something, you can morally do it. If you didn't intend to do something, that somehow negates the fact that you just did it.
Morality is not defined by intent alone. Morality is defined by actions as well.
And when action is grossly misaligned by the stated "intent", action wins.
You do not get to claim the high ground simply because you didn't "intend" to kill 500 civilians while none-the-less killing 500 civilians.
This is nothing more than the abusive husband about to beat his wife, telling her "this will hurt me more than it will hurt you". As if feeling bad or sad about some action removes the immorality of that action. And it's propaganda horseshit.
Israel and Hamas are not morally equal. Not even close.
Hamas killed about 20 Israeli civilians in 2008.
Israel killed about 500 Gazan civilians in the last two weeks.
That's what actually happened, regardless of whatever emotional baggage you want to attach to it.
And from the simple perspective of what the Geneva Convention calls "proportionality", you're right:
Not even close.
Hamas has not signed any peace plan at all
Buzz. Wrong answer. Hamas and Israel had a working ceasefire from July 2008 to November 2008, which was working until Israel violated it by killing several members of Hamas.
@MIKE
Below is a quote from a recent analysis by Sara Roy and A. Norton, two Ph.D researchers from Harvard and Chicago, respectively.
Some1, I do not think you know anything at all about 'jihad', as I very much doubt that you have read or studied the documentary foundation of the concepts, beyond what you've been told. From my own limited understanding, 'jihad' is an internal undertaking of the believer with respect to 'inner demons"; it is the heretics of Islam who urge non-tolerance of non-muslims under this cloak.
I also note that there were many centuries indeed where the Palestinians suffered Jews and Christians to live amongst them unmolested.
Finally I note that 20% of the Palestinians are of the Christian faith.
some1:
Nice dodge, but I'm not trying to argue moral equivalency. I'm saying that both sides have been taking actions that are morally indefensible.
You can make a case for either side being the greater villain. Hamas has shown greater disregard for killing civilians, but intentionally or not Israel has tallied up a much bigger body count. Personally I'm not even going to bother arguing which is worse, because both are bad and I don't see the need to endorse either strategy.
UglyCanuck@55 "It's like there's a big void, where Egypt ought to be, in the discussion of the suffering in Gaza."
The dictator in Egypt dances to the same organ-grinder as Israel.
Mike@58. Well no proposed settlement is more than a "PR exercise" until all the relevant parties sign up to it, but thanks for the correction. It seems that Hamas spokesmen have said different things at different times regarding this plan, but so far as I can make out the latest is that they "would not oppose" or "would not express opposition to the plan" or similar language.
If such a plan were realized, but Hamas failed to adjust then I've no doubt that Hamas would lose the support of both the various Arab states and the Palestinian electorate.
As for Arab states supplying Hamas with money and weapons - so what - as long as the occupation continues Palestinians are right to resist (not "have the right" mind, "are right").
End the Occupation, end the colonization of the West Bank - that is square one.
Better still would be the, um, expiration, of blood-and-soil, ethnically-exclusive states everywhere they exist.
Ahem.
Probability equals one.
Sorry about that.
War will continue as long as there are dozens of paramilitary groups operating in the region, regardless of ceasefires or agreements between political factions.
The most important thing that needs to be done is to separate (permanently) the violent people from the pacifists.
This issue is not talked about or taken seriously, but it has more chance of working that the stupid ideas about stoping the killers from killing.
Anyhow the focus on Hamas horrible charter is diversionary - the secular PLO was demonized in the same way as being "beyond the pale" and unworthy.
Chsng sd n ths cnflct s mprtnt. T ny mmbr f fr wrld th chc shld b sy...
Hms s fndmntlstc trrr rgnztn. Hv'nt nyn sn th jys fstvts n th strts f Gz ftr 9/11?
Hw cn nyn sympthz wth rlgs xtrmsts wh dclr tm nd tm gn thr hp fr th dstrctn f srl?
D y spprt frdm f spch? D y cnsdr mn nd wmn ql? D y chs t dct yr chldrn n th snctty f lf nd nt th glrfctn f dth?
gr, thr hv bn wrng dngs, th sttn s cmplx nd t s nt ll blck nd wht. Bt by cllng thm frdm fghtrs nd nt trrrsts, cllng thr ctns s dffnsv nd nt Jhd, frgttng th fct tht tns f thsnds f srls spnt th pst 8 yrs n stt f cnstnt fr- tht s rlly t mch.
srl lft Gz strp nd ts grcltrl grnds fr th plstnns- Hms chs t nvst n mssls nstd f grnhss, n rmmnts nstd f xpndng thr cts. Th sttn tdy cld hv bn dffrnt.
Haven't seen the Norwegian doctors talk about white phosphorus at all, but I have read their descriptions of the strange new wounds caused by Israeli DIME (Dense Inert-Metal Explosive) munitions.
Though this was front-page news a couple days ago in France's largest newspaper, haven't seen a peep about this in the US mainstream press.
Ironically, though the DIME weapons cause horrendous amputation wounds and implant carcinogenic shrapnel microparticles, the Israelis apparently use these munitions because their very small lethal radius reduces "collateral damage" incidents.
avon rounds for howitzers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. This thread is not a new instantiation of the old Israel/Palestinians/Gaza thread. Please don't treat it as one, and by "please" I mean "thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter."
2. This thread is a conversation. Talk to each other. Whenever possible, write new sentences.
3. "All Palestinians" = "Hamas" is no longer an acceptable position here. Neither is asserting that Hamas/all Palestinians/all Muslims/etc. are just plain evil, and/or lack human emotions.
4. I don't want to see the Hamas Charter invoked again, for three reasons:
First, because those who invoke it never explain how its existence obliges Israel to conduct its current campaign against the Gaza Strip.
Second, because invoking it just means Greg London will have to once again reply by quoting an assortment of appalling and repellent statements about Israel's intentions toward the Palestinians which have been made by highly placed Israeli officials and politicians.
Third, because those who invoke the Hamas Charter, and are replied to by Greg London and others, have a poor record of explaining why Israel is obliged, and why it's different when Israel says it.
===
We can all do better than this.
ManicBassman @9: Yes, and anyone could secretly be a homicidal sociopath, Patient Zero for a slow-burning new disease that's going to wipe out half the human race, a shapeshifting alien monster, the time traveller who fathered Adolph Hitler, or a BART transit cop. We still don't indiscriminately shoot them, especially when they've got a big red cross on their truck and the Israeli military knows what they're doing.
Mojave @11, please use italics rather than boldface. The link you're trying to remember was posted by Takuan early in the main Israel/Palestine/Gaza thread.
Godzilla @12, please explain why killing civilians represents a realistic viewpoint.
UKCannonfodder @18, so sorry about your vowels. Please feel free to re-post your points in a less deliberately inflammatory fashion.
Unimpressed @19, thank you the technical info. It's admirably clear.
Some1 @23, see my earlier announcements.
SpectacularlyUnimpressed @25, see what comes of making arguments that have been made before?
Sleepy @27, it's nice to know you acknowledge the need for moderation. Now it's just a matter of implementation.
Akezys @29, clarity is always a good thing, but it would help if you explained why that term is inaccurate, and suggested some better ones.
Mojave @30, we have enough on our hands without dragging god into it.
Thalia @33, I got the impression that they were saying they haven't had to work under conditions this bad since Solferino.
Unimpressed @34, you know what's going to happen. Why bother?
Bassemb @35, you win the prize for most pointless comment of the week. Congratulations.
Mojave @39, it's a very nice quote. I just have a few procedural points.
First, I hope it's only a portion of the original article. If it's all or nearly all of it, and the author doesn't use a Creative Commons license, quoting it is an impropriety.
Second, always give credit. Egoboo costs nothing to give, and its absence will unduly grieve the author. Adding a link back to the source will make the author even happier.
Third, please don't use boldface for emphasis or quotation. Put (caret)boldface(close caret) at the start of your quotation, and (caret)/boldface(close caret) at the end. This will automatically indent it and put big red quotation marks on it.
Akezys @40, well said. My thought exactly.
Some1 @54, see my earlier announcements.
===
I am now going to turn comments back on. Everyone, please strive to be civil, and to say new things.
why was my post and link disemvowelled??? It wasn't offensive, it directly quoted a passage from the article (which amazingly got disemvowelled), added my comment and a link to back me up. I wrote the truth as I saw it, offering a genuine reason why the IAF are so jumpy about ambulances...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisaku
ManicBassman, if having some malfeasant use a Red Cross vehicle as cover means it's okay to shoot at all of them indiscriminately, then that principle should apply to Red Cross vehicles everywhere, not just in the Gaza Strip when the IDF is doing the shooting. After all, no one can be sure that any ambulance doesn't contain terrorists. And yet, in most times and places, they don't get shot up.
I may have been wrong to disemvowel your comment. I'm not sure. It was the one I hesitated over the most. But it's two in the morning here in Brooklyn, my vision's getting blurry, and I am not up to sorting that out. I'll stick a reminder in the middle of my screen so your comment will be the first thing I deal with tomorrow.
G'night --
my understanding of DIME: It's a bomb. Normal bombs have a metal case that fragments into big heavy chunks that can fly at high speeds for a long distance from the point of explosion. DIME bombs replace the metal case with a carbon fiber case. It's lightweight and shatters into lightweight fragments that don't do much damage. Instead, the shrapnel is in teh form of tungsten dust. With a high initial energy blast, the dust is lethal, but since it is so lightweight, it quickly slows down from air resistance, and the lethal radius is much smaller. Basically, it's just a bomb, designed to have a small kill radius.
The fucker of it all, though, is that the alloy of tungsten used is allegedly toxic. It messes with your immune system, screws with your DNA, and causes cancer. Combined with the fact that the dust is tiny and shotgunned into the victim's body, means you've basically got an untreatable wound that slowly kills its victim with cancer, immune deficiency, or whatever can kill you from heavy metal poisoning.
I believe the Geneva Convention has something in it about prohibiting shrapnel weapons that use shrapnel that can't be detected by xrays. So, in that regard, DIME weapons might violate Geneva.
g'nite Brooklyn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5UY1t47TNY
I wrote the truth as I saw it, offering a genuine reason why the IAF are so jumpy about ambulances
Er, but, combat is jumpy. Which means at any roadblock, the car you're trying to stop may have a suicide bomber in it, or a family trying to flee the carnage of war. The woman walking on the street may be a civilian or she may have a suicide vest under her shawl.
And the rules of war, the Geneva Convention, still applies. You do not get to disregard the Geneva Convention because you're "jumpy". War is jumpy, not just ambulances during a war. The taxicab. The horsedrawn cart. Everything is a potential threat. And you have to follow the rule of law and not simply kill anyone who's status as combatant or civilian you don't know.
the terminator sweeps the planet, who is rising?
jumpy? BART jumpy?
looks like Israel is ramping up its barrage against Gaza. Reminds me of their last minute cluster-bomb barrage against Lebanon just before the ceasefire was to take effect. Like they're trying to get their last licks in and then yell "no touchback".
It sounds like even the Israeli government has realized if totally fucked this one up. Of course, no politician in the history of the world has ever admitted it made a mistake. And we can expect no less from Israel.
What will follow will probably look something like this: Israel will ramp up its shelling for one last big show for the Hawks in Israel. They will want to look tough for the elections coming up in February.
then they will agree to some form of a ceasefire and pull back from Gaza while mumbling how they could have had total victory if only the world weren't such haters of Israel.
I'm guessing the pullback will happen on Jan 18 or so. Israel doesn't want to have the war still going on after Obama is sworn in. If the war is still going by then, Obama will most likely be on teh phone to the Israeli Prime Minister having a conversation to the effect of "Don't make me pull this fucking car over, cause I will do it". Obama will win political points if he can take a mideast war and get a ceasefire. So Israel knows Obama will have pressure to secure a ceasefire if none exists on Jan 20.
On the other hand, Israeli politicians won't want to look like they caved to US pressure. So they'll want to agree to some ceasefire before the 20th and pretend it was totally their idea, and totally a victory for them.
Prepare for the Israeli government to shift from massive bombardment to a "Mission Accomplished" statement around the 18th or so. They probably won't want to do it on the 19th or 20th, because even the most moronic Israeli apologist will realize that the Israli government is simply cowering before the new administration. So, the 17th or 18th will be "Mission Accomplished" day.
The only thing I can't quite figure yet is the blockade. I think they realize that they screwed the pooch so badly that pressure will be on them to drop the whole blockade. BUt that would give Hamas a massive politcal victory, and Israel will not want to do that, no matter how much it ends up hurting Israel later on. This is standard short-term-thinking of political bullshit during a war.
I'm going to guess that Israel will most likely lift most aspects of the blockade, but insist on keeping the "theory" of the blockade in place. THsi will allow them to spin it like they're still in control of Gaza to the Israeli voters, just in time for the February elections.
Like any standard politician, they will be unable and unwilling to admit any mistakes or wrongdoing on the part, therefore they will be unwilling to accept tha the blockade was a human rights crime. And giving up the blockade completely would mean admitting the blockade was wrong. So, they will have incentive to keep some form of the blockade in place to look tough.
Anyway, that's my prediction.
A withdrawal by Jan 18. Total palestinian dead 1400. Civilians killed: 700. And some form of the blockade left in place in some form of legal document that approves the idea of a blockade if Israel so decides.
I wouldn't bet on it, but that's my prediction.
The reason Palestinians are being killed is because far right-wingers have taken control of Israel since Rabin was killed/9-11 and the other 70-80% of the population is being intimidated in that special way that only Jews can do to other Jews.
After spending close to 2/3 of my life with both populations (Pal/Isr), this is the first time I cannot defend one side in any way whatsoever. This is ethnic cleansing and the weird dissembling and general uncomfortableness of most MSM, and even Indie outlets, to address the situation in a realistic way is just stomach churning.
Brainspore @21, the side to take, as stated earlier by Takuan, is the 'human' side. The conflict in this instance isn't "Hamas or Israel." It is made up of Hamas, Israel, and a bunch of civilians. The civilians are the 'right' side to support, and the other two are to be condemned, loudly. However, you and others do make a good point that anyone with a mandate to go in and save lives, like a red cross worker, who might actually be at risk of threatening that mandate by expressing such condemnation, would have a good reason to not do so.
GODZILLA @12, there is absolutely nothing 'realistic' about appealing to the past as a reason to not try and change the future. "It'll always be this way," is just an appeal to a lack of vision, from mocking heavier than air flight to dismissing universal suffrage. And yet those who try to use precedent to define the absolute limits of what is possible are, time and time again, proven incorrect. Positive change occurs regularly in the world, accomplished by people who realize that such change is realistic if you work for it, instead of hiding behind irrational platitudes out of fear or laziness.
I think comparing this situation with the UK / Northern Ireland / IRA is useful. The IRA killed civilians in small numbers as a means to a political end. The British government did not respond by fighting a war. Instead the Army and Police killed IRA people (in smaller numbers). Wikipedia says that from 1968 to 1998 a total of 3524 people were killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
Which, I think, makes the behaviour of the IDF seem unreasonable, or disproportionate.
It is a civil war I tells ya; these people will one day be living together happily.
As in Northern Ireland, we must neuter the "hard men".
Preventing political advantage accruing to aggressors is the way to go, natch.
That's why resistance to foreign military occupation is a right, and for some, a duty.
That the most effective resistance in the age of instant global communications is non-violent is yet being learned.
why does everything have to be balanced? what the israelies are doing and have done since their cancerous country's creation is fucking BARBARIC. If i was packed into a few square miles with a million other people, not being able to move freely, and under constant degradation i would devote my life to harming my oppressors.
Just take a look at who's wiping who off the map: http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/iran/iran/palaestina-wird-von-der-landkarte-getilgt.jpg
Israel just shelled the UN Headquarters in Gaza, setting the place on fire, destroying tons of food and humanitarian supplies, and forcing hundreds of palestinians who had sought refuge there to flee.
article
Teresa @74: Yes, my comment was not about the post, it was about the comments themselves.
I get upset when I read comments here by blinded, misinformed people. It brings back memories of the same happening when we were getting bombed by Israel in 2006. Same disproportionate retaliation. Same eventual failure at achieving any objective of their offensive. Same sloppy execution. Red Cross vehicles targeted. And I won't even mention the civilian casualties.
And yet I would go online and I would read people writing about how it's a measured and justified response, and how all the news about civilians getting hit and aid vehicles hindered, is false and propaganda.
And that's what's happening now too. So, I'm sorry if my original comment turned out to be snide and unsubstantial (no sarcasm meant.) I guess at least over here there aren't any "let's just nuke those goatfucking ragheads and be done with it" that permeate other online threads.
This is another story that B'Tselem is trying to corroborate:
BBC NEWS | Israelis 'shot at fleeing Gazans'
Bassemb, if you read all the related thrads, you will see a fair majority condemning the IDF actions going on in Gaza.
There are a number of astro-turfers (and some genuine supporters) consistently towing the IDF line, but they are mostly being drowned out by people who care about the civilians involved and won't put up with the "justified response" crap.
ManicBassist, the note I left on my screen got moved by my husband before I got up. I just restored your vowels, but I can't reconstruct the URL. Sorry about that. Could you re-post it?
Bassemb, thank you very much for clearing that up. Boing Boing tends to get a lot of attitude-intensive "I'm so superior to all this" comments from people who basically have nothing to say, and I totally mistook your comment for one of those.
Do please stick around, if you'd like. Letting other voices be heard, and maintaining a civil conversation, is why I was being Godzilla!Moderator last night.
these people will one day be living together happily.
An Israeli once said to me that Israelis and Palestinians still get along better with each other than black and white people do in the US. That would square with my perception that comments coming from the conflict area are sadder, but less enraged than those coming from North America.
article
An Israeli thinktank (center-right thinktank, no less) issued a report in december saying that Israel violated the truce with Hamas.
"the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".
Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day
The article goes on to say that Israel's violation of the ceasefire is part of a larger pattern.
According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada
It also added some more quotes to the list of Israeli vows for declaring war against all of Gaza:
from Major-General Gadi Eisenkot that appeared in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth in October:
"We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective these [the villages] are military bases ... This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorised."
Not only is this directly advocating the commision of war crimes, it was official Israeli policy, and part of its war plans. ANyone who argues the disproportionate killing of palestinians is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect of war is a rube or a shill.
lastly, in response to those who exclaim that Israel is the only democracy in teh middle east: Israel's Central Elections Committee recently voted overwhelmingly to bar Arab-led parties from participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Democracy or apartheid?
And so it goes.
Judaism has nothing AT ALL to do with Zionism, Muslims have nothing to do with Islam"ism" the contrary is. Both are poisons. As long as Israel continues to be a religious State, shit will always happen. This goes also for Iran and the upcoming government of the Palestinian country. Whatever the religion is, this should strictly be taken away from politics and stay in a private environment(home and temples).
Democracy please, not theocracy!!!
Teresa Nielsen Hayden, a core priniciple of democracy is the right of expressing your opinion. I might not agree with you but I will fight for your right to be heard. Why did you choose to "disemvowel" my original message is beyond me. Especially as you leave other posts with racial slur as seen in post #83- " that special way that only Jews can do to other Jews".
Before posting my original post, I thoroughly read every post in this thread. I thought my opinion, as shallow and misinformed as you might say it is, has it's place amongst other readres' opinions.
I've been to Gaza strip twice- once as a combat IDF soldier protecting settlements from ifiltartors, and a few months later, willingly and whole heartedly evacuating the very same settlements in hope for a better future for Israel and the palestinians. I later went on to become a youth instructor in the Kibbutzim near Sderot, and tried my very best to find a way to not let the hope for peace die out in the hearts of those under constant, daily bombing. Does'nt my opinion count at all?
Every time you consider Hamas as an equal side in an international conflict you wrong the very people who need protection from it the most- the Palestinians. People in their posts keep saying how we should just talk with Hamas and eveything will be solved. Try talking with the people burning your flags, bombing your cities and declaring repeatedly their endless hope for your annihilation. A pretty one sided conversation that would be."Cease Fire"- tell it as it was, an opportunity to stock up ammunition, buy improved missiles and rockets and better prepare for a day when the highest goal would be accomplished- the establishment a fundamental muslim country on the ruins of Israel.
"People in their posts keep saying how we should just talk with Hamas and eveything will be solved."
I don't think too many, if any, have said that.
Decks,
You will find the answer to these, and many other, interesting questions in the:
Moderation Policy thread.
Also, your post was inflammatory, one-sided and reeked of astro-turf. I intended to reply but the thread was locked when I tried. Here is the comment I unposted:
"Decks, that assessment completely misses out any of Israel's actions, including: blockades, barriers, illegal settlements, collateral damage, >10x civilian casualties.. Read all the other Gaza threads, with a particular eye out for Greg London's comments.. then we'll talk."
"I've been to Gaza strip twice .. protecting settlements"
Yup.
Decks,
I approved the anonymous comment to which you referred because it raises the issue that Israel is not a hive mind with a single purpose. It's a country full of nice people that's being run by the crazy minority, just like the adjoining nations, just like the US.
Decks, your post started out with this: "choosing sides should be easy. Hamas is a terrorist organization".
I want you to scroll to the top of this thread and read the title of the original post.
Do you see the word "Hamas"? No. This thread is about Gaza, not Hamas. Hamas is an organization. Gaza is a land. Not all who live in Gaza are Hamas.
This is a fundamental distinction that a lot of Israeli apologists refuse to acknowledge. The Israeli government has repeatedly made statements to the exact contrary: that all of Gaza literally all of it is Hamas. That there is no distinction between Hamas militants and Gazan civilians.
hasn't anyone seen the joyous festivitis in the streets of Gaza after 9/11?
First of all, do we condemn an entire people to death for such a demonstration? If not, then what exactly is your point of bringing this up other than an attempt to demonize an entire people? Second of all, invoking 9/11 to reinvoke the anger of 9/11 is an attempt to argue the logical fallacy that "something must be done" without addressing what exactly the "something" is. Read this for an explanation.
Something must be done about Hamas rockets. No one here is disputing that. We're disputing what must be done. And what Israel is doing right now, a lot of people take issue with.
who declare time and time again there hope for the destruction of israel
Read this (declaring all of Gaza a hostile entity among others) and this (Palestinians are a cancer, etc). I also recently posted this (we will wield disproportionate power). All of these are statements from Israeli officials of one sort or another, essentially calling for wiping out all of Gaza, calling for treating all palestinians in Gaza as a cancer, all palestinians in Gaza as indistinguishable from militants.
So, stop invoking the "They call for the destruction of Israel" as justification when Israel officials have done exactly the same thing.
tens of thousands of Israelis spent the past years in a constant state of fear
You want to compare ten thousand Israelis being afraid to 1,100 Palestinians being killed and argue that 10,000 is greater than 1,100 so Israel's response is morally defensible?
An Israeli apologist tried comparing thousands of Hamas rockets being greater than 200 innocent palestinians killed, and thousands > hundreds, therefore Israel's actions are morally defensible.
You're both trying to compare apples and oranges to get a numeric comparison that looks good.
Hamas killed 26 Israelis in 2008. most before the cease fire in July. In the last two weeks, Israel killed 1100 palestinians, about 500 or 600 of which were innocent, unarmed civilians. Women and children.
Compare 26 innocents to 600 innocents and give me a moral assessment. Don't compare ten thousand Hamas rockets to three hundred palestinians killed and expect me to take that as a serious moral argument.
Israel left Gaza
And Israel has blockaded it ever since.
Hamas choose to invest in missiles instead of greenhouses
Read this post. Unemployment is at 50%. per capita income is $650 a year. 60% of gazans live below the poverty level. And you talk about "investing in greenhouses"? Most can barely survive day to day.
There is actually very little to your post other than avoiding any distinction between Gazans and Hamas, and invoking variouis reasons why Hamas deserves to be destroyed while ignoring the question of cost, which is what this thread is actually about.
This thread is about the cost of Israel's attempt to deal with Hamas. There was absolutely nothing in your post that actually addressed the cost to civilians in Gaza. Meaning there was nothing in your post that addressed the actual topic of this thread.
No one here called Hamas freedom fighters. But you took a thread about the cost Israel is inflicting on innocent Gazans and turned it around to accuse us of calling Hamas freedom fighters. You took criticism of Israel and turned it into meaning we support Hamas.
This is the standard propaganda tactic that Amercan's protesting the invasion and occupation of Iraq had to put up with for the last 6 years. To oppose the invasion of Iraq was to be an Al Queda sympathizer. And that's bullshit.
People here are protesting Israel's invasion of Gaza because of the hundreds of innocent civilians it has killed thus far. You then accused us of being Hamas sympathizers. And that's bullshit. It might have been unintentional bullshit on your part, but there was nothing in your post that differentiated your position from that of a standard typical neoconservative. You didn't actually engage in the topic at hand, the cost in human lives being paid by Gaza right now. And you accused us of being enemy sympathizers.
meanwhile, you talk about generalities of Hamas being evil, yet one of my last posts showed that even an Israeli think tank says that Israel violated the Israel/Hamas ceasefire in November, and a university study found that Israel violated lulls in violence 80% of the time. Israel instigated violence 80% of the time. Hamas 20%. These are specific facts that contradict the "Hamas is evil, Hamas is wholly at fault, Hamas deserves to be destroyed" mantra you're suggesting here.
Thr s lt f vtrl nd ngr nd rgmnt hr, nd mch f t s thghtfl nd pssnt.
Mst f t s gnst th dcsn by srl t g nt Gz t ttck Hms whch hs s ts dctrn th rdctn f th cntry f srl. f y r fr Hms, thn y r fr ths dctrn.
Mst f th psts sm t b frm mrcns, wh rd BngBng's wndrfl psts bt wtchs wth cgrtt lghtrs, nd btfl Srs ctlgs nd wrs fr wy. Dnt gt mny psts bt th lvs f rqs nd wht knd f cff tbls thy r sng, bt hy, thts why sbscrb t BngBng.
f w r gng t ncld "Wrs f th Wrld" lts ncld th jst ns s wll s th ns ts sy t hv pk t! Nt t mny qnt vn hndd rtcls bt rq r 9/11 hr...
nywys, lwys gd t s th S rdrs str n thr sfs (mst b btwn ftbll ssns vr thr) nd dd sm 2cnts wrth t hw thr ppl cn rn thr cntrs, sfgrd thr ctzns, nd dfnd thr brdrs..
h lk, smthng nw n th sprts chnnl.. Gtt rn!
some 2cents worth to how other people can run their countries
Did the Geneva Convention suddenly become void such that when someone violates it, no one can complain? Did international law dissappear recently and no one told me?
More importantly, can lazy, indifferent Americans on our sofas watching football and so on, can we have any say as to who the American government will support internationally? If the US government currently pumps 3 billion dollars a year into Israel, can we have a say if we don't like the idea of our tax dollars going to Israel when the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and other organizations have all said Israel violated international laws, human rights laws, and laws of war?
I'm just asking, is all.
MYoung, there is no way of telling where people are from without them directly mentioning it. Probably best not to assume.
Nor to assume that the people who read BB live in a frilly, knitted mario-design cocoon of safety - devoid of news or deeper opinion on the state of the world.
I'm ashamed that I was totally buying into the IDF propaganda as spoon-fed to the MSM.
I like Takuan's characterization of Hamas and Israel as "two madmen in a burning house, clubbing each other with babies." I mean I like it in the sense that I think it's accurate, not that it's pretty.
I didn't know that Israel broke the ceasefire. And the thoroughness of the blockade wasn't clear to me, either, 'til I read things posted here. Comparisons to the Warsaw Ghetto really do spring to mind.
Sometimes I think the best comparison we can hope for is to Vorkosigan Vashnoi...where no one dares to go, and those who do die before they breed.
TNH 73: Put (caret)boldface(close caret) at the start of your quotation, and (caret)/boldface(close caret) at the end. This will automatically indent it and put big red quotation marks on it.
I think you mean blockquote rather than boldface. <blockquote>Text you wanna quote<blockquote>
I forgot to say thanks to Greg London, and sorry for not listening to you earlier.
And that second <blockquote> should be </blockquote>, dammit.
MYoung15, are you actually 15? Your grammar makes me think you're older, but your bitter (and misplaced) sarcasm makes me think you might just be a teenager who's better at writing than most. Not that bitter sarcasm is immature or anything, but in my experience almost all teenagers acquire a taste for it.
As Greg quite rightly points out, Americans know that we're funding the Israeli planes dropping the white phosphorus smoke/incindiary bombs on the Palestinians. It's not just our right to have opinions about it, it's our DUTY.
And what "just wars" did you have in mind, pray? I suppose you could argue that the war in Afghanistan was just, since we were after Al Qaeda, who really did attack us, and the Taliban were harboring him. (I said it's arguable, not that I necessarily think so.) Other than that, I can't think of any JUST war fought by anyone in my lifetime (b. 1959, in case you want to refute).
I wish this NUANCE would be picked up by those who post. No one here is "for Hamas".
It is possible to oppose the ACTIONS of the Israeli government and the opinions of its supporters without supporting HAMAS.
It is possible to support the Palestinian people living in a ghetto turned war zone, while also opposing the violence perpetrated by Hamas and the Israeli government.
It is possible to understand Hamas and its actions, without condoning violence.
It is possible to support the Israeli people, while also recognizing we are stuck with a lawless state that refuses to fairly compensate its victims.
Please leave your childish sarcasm at the door. For anyone who claims to know anything about the U.S., it should be obvious that those who comment here are often better informed and less likely to blindly support ANY government or organization. That is why I read bb.
FoetusNail...
HEAR FRICKIN' HEAR.
Thank you for saying that.
First of all let me be clear about it- I, and many more Israelis are opposed to the viciuos cycle of violence between us and the Palestinians. In other times you would find me waving banners and shuoting my lungs out for peace. The majority of poeple in Israel are (or at least were before this operation) for the establishment of a palestinian country.
Is it too much to ask it would be governned by the least fatalist faction? Treatises and agreements are signed by governments.
When Yasser Arafat and later, Mahmoud Abbas were in charge, Israel provided money for the palestinian economy, food and gas for it's people and guns and ammunition for its police froces.
Sadly, a great deal of that money went into Arafats' bank accounts and for several terrorist organizations. Ammunition from the authorities' police froces found its way to the hands of extremists and ended pointing at us.
The palestinian people in Gaza are trapped in the clutches of extremists and I feel sorry for them. Many palestians in need were treated in Israeli hospitals during the years- especially children undergoing complex and expensive medical treatments. After Hamas won the election many acts of cruelty were inflicdted upon Fatah police officials by Hamas militants. Today these Fatah members are treated in Israel also.
The world stood idly by as Hamas took over Gaza, nothing, or not much, was done by anyone to stop Hamas' ammuntion race. As dumb as you might say it is, I hope the palestinian now understand, as Hamas cowers and hides beneath their hospitals and uses them as human shields, that Hamas does'nt have any prospective for a better future for them.
About the Blockade- a sad fact is that the gates from which the humanitarian convoys were admissioned were attacked by Hamas. Furthermore- Israel is the only country in the world that I can think of that is expected to deliver- on it's tax payers' money- supplies to the ahuthority that vows to destroy it. Furthermore, this authority for the last three yaers is holding an abducted IDF soldier, denying red cross' attempt to see him and appointing a minister(show me another government in the wrold with that kind of a minister!) in charge of the negotiation for his life. Give them supplies and see it all going to their camps and militants.
Greglondon,
I've read your links and I understand what you're trying to say, but building a case over an idiot politician who tried to sound tough? Is that your argument?
That miserable choice of words was out of place and was said by a man out of power.
The amount of casualties on the palestinian side is tragic, but I do not feel the need to apologize for The amount of Israeli casualties being small- years of training in running to protected areas and the shutting of schools and work places near the Gaza strip must have helped save some lives.
Wait..
Decks, you think the difference in Palestinian and Israeli casualties is because the Israelis can dodge better?
Please, Its because they are better at offence, not defence.
Except that the unspoken proviso to that statement is always, "just so long as all the land which was taken over the last sixty years doesn't have to be handed back".
What has happened here looks to me just like any other sort of colonial situation. And just like America or Ireland, it's dragging on with stupid futile violence, and likely to drag on for a hundred years more.
If we could look at this situation with an eye to history, maybe we could start to talk about ways out of it, instead of having futile debates about how many rockets are equal to how much white phosphorus.
a great deal of that money went into Arafats' bank accounts and for several terrorist organizations.
Wait, are we condeming all palestinians because of the corruption of its political leaders? Is that what justifies bombarding and invading a land now?
news flash: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has formally resigned. Olmert is facing five separate police investigations involving allegations of bribery, corruption and other improprieties."
I've read your links and I understand what you're trying to say, but building a case over an idiot politician who tried to sound tough? Is that your argument?
Exactly how does this same defense of "idiot" Israeli politicians become inapplicable to equally idiotic Hamas politicians? How do you define "idiot" that it excuses Israeli politicians but condemns Hamas politicians? I'm just curious.
My argument is this: Israel and hamas have said exactly the same things and you cite Hamas statements as cause to condemn Hamas yet you casually dismiss Israeli statements as nothing more than "idiotic" politicians tryign to sound tough.
Sound tough? Because they're thumping their chests and ranting about killing palestinian civilians, that makes is OK? Because they're idiots? Who happen to be in charge of the ISraeli government? Who happen to be commanders of the Israeli military? These people are idiots? So their statements are excusable?
Is that your argument? That they're calling for the killing of civilians but their morons so we should forgive them?
Do you seriously think that Hamas chest thumping tryign to sound tough and vowing ot kill Israelis comes from any different mentality than Israeli chest thumping trying to sound tough and vowing to kill palestinians?
This is exactly the hypocracy I'm talking about. Either you ignore chest thumping idiots on both sides, or you condemn chest thumping idiots on both sides. But to condemn Hamas chest thumping idiots while excusing Isaeli chest thumping idiots is hypocracy.
Me? I ignore chest thumping idiots. Why? Because pragmatically, every side in a war will thump their chests through the war, through the peace process, during negotiations, and after peace has arrived. If you demand that peace cannot be possible until the other side stops thumping their chests, then you're basically arguing that you get to wage war against them as long as they don't like you.
It's the war equivalent of "The beatings will continue until morale improves". You could probably write it like "We will bomb you until you fucking love us", and its an attitude that will do nothing but guarantee an endless series of wars. Oh, and hey, what's been going on in Israel but an endless series of wars...
The amount of casualties on the palestinian side is tragic, but I do not feel the need to apologize for The amount of Israeli casualties being small- years of training in running to protected areas and the shutting of schools and work places near the Gaza strip must have helped save some lives.
For the entirety of 2008, Hamas fired about 17 tons of explosives at Israel, killing about 18 people.
In the last three weeks, Israel has probably fired about 1,000 tons of high explosives at the people of Gaza, killing about 1000 civilians.
Hamas fired 17 tons => 17 Israelis dead
Israel fired 1000 tons => 1000 gazans dead
And you think the sole reason Israel inflicted more casualties is because the Palestinians don't know how to duck?
Did you seriously just make that argument?
Gee, wally, I don't know, instead of that, maybe all the dead palestinians has something to do with the grossly disproportional response that the Israeli military launched at Gaza.
YOu want to talk about gross irresponsibility, this is it right here. A refusal to acknowledge the effects that one's actions cause on others. Hey, I know, maybe, just maybe, the number of innocent palestinians killed has something to do with the total tonnage of bombs, artillery shells, rockets, and missiles that Israel has dropped on Gaza in teh last three weeks.
Maybe a bunch of guys with homemade rockets can only inflict a certain level of damage. And maybe, just maybe, a nation with the fourth largest military in the world can inflict several orders of magnitude more damage. Especially when they drop several orders of magnitude more explosives on their targets.
But no, you don't want to talk about that. instead you try to bring it back to an emotional argument about Israelis being forced to duck from Hamas bombs. Change the subject from Israel's military actions causing the palestinian deaths to Israel being a victim.
Give me a break.
Decks: did you read the links I posted that show how Bush elected Hamas? Would you blame Gazans for Bush's actions?
GREG LONDON, you are more than invited to read the Hamas party manifest, written in 1988 and standing still. That is where Hamas' intention are stated clearly. You may also find it in the many tapes released by Hamas' leaders after the suicide bombing attacks in Israel. Every once in a while we are reminded by Hamas of these intentions by more tapes, posters and interviews in different media. google it.
And what do you know, after negotiations with Egypt, Spain, Britain, France and the United States, Hamas was offered a cease fire, including the full extraction of Israeli forces from Gaza in exchange for internationl observers being posted at the passages in and out the Gaza strip. I leave it to you to find Hamas' leaders' Halad Mashaal refusal.
I sincerly meant what I said about that politician, today he's a 'has been', I'm not even sure if he's still in politics. Of course if that does'nt satisfy you, you could always remind yourself about the secret plans written in the Protocoles of the elders of Zion....
The fact that Israel has such a strong army just goes to show that it chose not to strike with all its might and power. If Israel would have really wanted to destroy Gaza, she could have done that in a matter of hours. But that idea is not even an option. Show me another country with that military abilty who chose not take drastic measures against everyday terror uopn its citizens for eight years.
And by the way, come visit the south of Israel, You're invited. Spend a week of constant alarms, and the terror of not knowing what will day bring for your loved ones and yourself. Try it for a week- they've been living it day in and day out for eight years. Then we'll see if you have the nerve to talk about "homemade rockets [that] can only inflict a certain level of damage".
RODBOD, why is it so easy to raise the question on Israels' right to exist? Jewish communities have existed continuosly in the land of Israel for over 2,000 years, it has been in the longing of the Jewish people for almost the same amount of time. In modern times, Jews began to re-settle the land since 1881 by populating and working lands bought and paid for. the world acknowledges our right to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Israel for almost a hundred years, and later voted for our right to establish Israel- an equal member in the U.N.
We have fought and paid for that right ever since.
Why not qustion the right of existence of France and Belgium for their past colonial crimes in Africa? What about Sudan and the ongoing massacre in Darfur (whose refugees find shelter in Israel)? The Chinese government hunts down any opposition- have you heard about the Falon-Gong? Why not dissolve China?
I wonder....
Decks: are more than invited to read the Hamas party manifest, written in 1988
Your ability to ignore the point while maintaining some illusion of engaging the point is really quite impressive. Seriously.
I sincerly meant what I said about that politician, today he's a 'has been'
Deputy Defence Minister Vilnai tried to get all of Gaza declared a "hostile entity" to strip its civilians of protection from the Geneva Convention is true rules-gaming lawyering. Something that would no judge at the Hague would ever buy.
He also said "We want to stop supplying electricity to (Gaza), stop supplying them with water and medicine” which is a clear admission of collective punishment on a civilian population.
Then he promised to bring a holocaust upon Gaza.
Then Vilnai's boss, Defence Minister Ehud Barak revealed that his officials were working on a way to make it lawful for the army to direct artillery fire and air strikes at civilian neighbourhoods of Gaza in response to rocket fire.
Then Vilnai proposed declaring areas of Gaza “combat zones” in which the army would have free rein to kill civilians.
All of which are attempts to find some way to remove teh Geneva Convention restrictions meant to protect civilians and clearly illegal.
Major-General Gadi Eisenkot said "We will wield disproportionate power against every village" another admission of violating the Geneva Convention.
The fact that Israel has such a strong army just goes to show that it chose not to strike with all its might and power.
Do you seriously believe your own propaganda?
Israel announced that they intend to have troops out of Gaza before Obama is inaugurated. Israel didn't hold back out of their own sense of morality, they actually opened fire with everything that they thought they could get away with, for as long as they thought they could get away with it.
Israel is acting little better than a child trying to get away with as much as it can before its parents get home.
And by the way, come visit the south of Israel, You're invited.
I've been in Israel when a suicide bomber attacked in a city. It doesn't change anything. All you're doing is appealing to fear and attempting to cover up the immorality of Israel's actions. on 9/10, my wife and I may very well have flown on one of the planes that got hijacked the next day. I could just as easily say that you need to live in New York during 9/11 before you condemn America for invading Iraq in March 2003.
9/11 doesn't justify America's invasion of Iraq anymore than Hamas rockets from 8 years ago justify Israel's recent response. Appealing to fear is just an attempt to cloud the actual issue.
Israel had a working ceasefire with Hamas. The rockets had stopped. An israeli think tank came out in December and agreed with this assessment and said Israel instigated the violence by attacking and killing members of Hamas on November 4, and by tightening the blockade on November 5.
If Israel was really only concerned about stopping the rockets, it could have done so by renewing the ceasefire in exchange for lifting the blockade. But Israel didn't want to be seen as making any concessions to Hamas, and so went to war killing hundreds of children, so it could look tough for the february elections.
Israel still doesn't want to make any concessions to Hamas. The current ceasefire is unilateral. Israel has made no agreements and says it could resume combat if it chooses. Egypt and Hamas have offered a ceasefire that would last a year if Israel would lift the illegal blockade of Gaza. Israel refuses.
Therefore this has nothign to do with rockets.
Hamas stopped firing rockets during the ceasefire and Israel rewarded it by violating the ceasefire, tightening the blockade, and eventually invading Gaza.
Based solely on its actions, no palestinian has any reason at all to trust Israel. Israel can only offer propaganda, "trust us", and other nonsense that completely disagrees with its behaviour.
That's a straw man; I didn't "question the right of Israel to exist". And I wonder what proportion of the land was bought at market value, what proportion bought at a knockdown price from people too frightened to stay, and what proportion expropriated?
I suppose you mean the Balfour declaration? Equating 'the world' to the British Government, politicking during wartime, is disingenuous at best.
Anyway, enough of the history. Like I said before, we need to get past that and figure out ways of improving the situation.
the world acknowledges our right to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Israel for almost a hundred years,
I didn't notice this till rodbod pointed it out.
Israel was created by a UN mandate.
Yet Israel ignored UN demands for a ceasefire from the very beginning. the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, the British Prime MInister, are all demanding investigations into possible Israeli war crimes. And Amnesty, the Red Cross, and at least two Nobel Peace Prize winners have condemned Israel's blockade of Gaza as a human rights crime.
"the world" has spoken.
Israel only invokes "the world" when "the world" agrees with it. When "the world" tells Israel to stop doing whatever its doing, Israel insists that it is a victim and "the world" is out to get it.
To quote the president of the UN, "It's unbelievable that a country that owes its existence to a general assembly resolution could be so disdainful of the resolutions that emanate from the UN."
put another way, hypocracy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911321467988347.html
Just in case anyone was in doubt that Israel was using illegal phosphorous weapons (and there seem to be a few in preceding posts). You might want to take a look at this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5556027.ece
Peace and Hope
FatherCrow