Gaza: Bullet Points, Moment of Silence, Open Thread
Above, "A Moment of Silence," a short video art piece -- and paper art, red ink on calligraphy stock -- about the conflict in Gaza. Calligraphy and video by Flickr user Yaronimus.
Judging from the very high amount of discussion traffic in Gaza-related posts from last week, our audience still has a lot to say about what's happening in the current conflict between the Israeli military and Hamas, in Gaza. Here are a few quick news items I've been reading today, and space for an open discussion. As always, with topics like this that tend to draw very passionate responses: please, keep it civil and respectful. The Boing Boing community includes friends and family in Israel, and friends and family in Gaza.
* The guys at Wired's Danger Room blog have been posting very astute analysis of recent events, including the use of phosphorus bombs *by both sides*, and impact on civilians.
* Danger Room also has a much-updated post up about today's attack by Israeli forces on a United Nations compound in Gaza. Israel's defense minister has apologized, describing the incident as a "grave mistake." Here's a related report in the NYT.
* Daoud Kuttab, a forward-thinking and peace-minded Palestinian journalist, has the distinction of having been arrested by both Israeli and Palestinian authorities in the past. I tend to think that when a reporter's work upsets officials on both sides in a conflict, he's probably doing something right. Kuttab has a post up today about the independent radio station he co-founded turning to a "citizen journalist" model during the current crisis. The short version: there weren't enough reporters to cover all of the action, including protests in Amman, so they turned to listeners in the streets -- including taxicab drivers. Read: Jordan Radio Goes Citizen Reporter.
Previously on Boing Boing:
* News from a Red Cross Worker In Gaza
* Gaza Attacks: Two Related Reactions, in Second Life and Twitter
* Global Voices' coverage of Gaza Strip Bombings (and how to keep the coverage alive)
* Al Jazeera Releases Gaza Video Archive Under Creative Commons License
* Israel Invades Gaza: Online coverage, "citizen reporter" resources.
the latest
latest episodes
best point I've seen made rarely, by Doug Muder of The Weekly Sift:
"Many of the things done by terrorists (and corresponding anti-terrorist extremists) may look crazy, but they are actually part of a coherent strategy. To understand that strategy you need to grasp one key idea: If you're an extremist, your first enemy isn't the extremist of the opposite side, it's the moderate of your own side. Opposing extremists are actually allies in a battle against the center.
Let me repeat that, because it takes a while to sink in: Opposing extremists are actually allies in a battle against the center. They'll fight each other in the second round, after the center is eliminated.
Now, I'm not saying that opposing extremists actually conspire. They don't need to. But those cycles of attack-and-reprisal that look insane and counterproductive are in fact very productive, if the purpose is to derail any possible compromise and make the center untenable."
his page is http://weeklysift.blogspot.com/2009/01/untitled_12.html , and the rest of the post is excellent as well)
The idea that Hamas is using phosphorus bomb is rather bizarre. I'm not saying it's not true, just that it's very unlikely and doesn't make much sense. First, unlike Israel and its US-supplied F-16, Hamas has no way of delivering it. Furthermore, the claim that Hamas used it came right after the publication of proofs that Israel used it illegally.
In any case, what this argument does at best, much like almost all of those supporting this massacre, is prove that the Israeli government is no better than Hamas, a supposedly very bad fundamentalist terrorist organisation.
Not only is it not a good justification for what Israel is doing, but it's a clear admission of guilt.
If you're an extremist, your first enemy isn't the extremist of the opposite side, it's the moderate of your own side.
I like that too.
Please visit this site and sign the petition if you agree with it's message.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/?cl=170340784&v=2691
With over 1000 Palestinians and 13 Israelis killed and the death toll mounting daily as the Gaza offensive escalates, we're urgently demanding action to end the violence and protect civilians.
Sign the petition below calling for robust international action to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and take further crucial steps toward a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East -- we've made progress at the Security Council but the Gaza violence is still escalating -- our message and numbers signing will be published in US ads (opposite) and delivered to key powers in the coming days:
A couple things:
First off, I don't think anyone was really much interested in the Nazi side of the story during WWII. They were the villains, mercilessly killing civilians in cold blood while claiming moral superiority. I realize I am equating Israelis with Nazis, and yes, that's intentional. I'm not willing to wait for the outcome of this to conclude that the Israelis acted in a way that was genocidal by any definition. I've been following ths "conflict" all my life and I know the facts. No need to bother with moral equivalence as there is none: Palestine is under brutal occupation for 60 years. That's all you need to know.
Second, responding to The Boy, while it is certainly the right of the "center" to express their desire for a peaceful solution, it is also the right of the "extremists" to resist a resolution that they don't see as being in their best interests. Right now, what most people deem the "center" is Mahmoud Abbas, who in comparison makes Benedict Arnold a fervent patriot. Abbas' strategy as a quisling is to acqiesce to all Israeli demands and simply allow the subjugation of the Palestinians to be cemented into place. He is not even the elected leader of the Palestinians anymore, his term of President having expired yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that his regime operated illegtimately after their failed coup against the democractically elected government of Hamas. Meanwhile, Hamas represents legitimate resistance to illegal Israeli occupation. Hamas are only considered terrorists because they are THEIR freedom fighters. If they were ours they'd be heroes. They are only considered "extreme" because the Israeli government declared them such (of course it would), the American government went along (tail wags dog), and the American press does its part to be fair and balanced by reporting only those facts that toe the government line. Or else.
Lastly, if this comment is not "civil" enough for the discussion then I apologize that this is a not a "civil" affair. Genocide is currently taking place, and people on the sidelines are simply arguing over definitions and semantics. It's disgraceful.
The claims about white phosphorus are getting tiresome as phrased. As the Wired article discusses, the Red Cross agrees that there is zero evidence that the WP is being used in any way other than for illumination. An argument can be made that Israel shouldn't be using WP for smoke or illumination in close confines like it is. That claim has been made also but for reasons I don't fully understand is not getting as much press.
Note that in contrast the Hamas use of WP is clearly aimed at civilians (as are almost all the Hamas attacks). And note that contrary to Nixar's comment above it is clear that Hamas is using WP in shells if one bothered to read the sources, Hamas is using its standard delivery mechanisms. (There's also a slightly more BoingBoing appropriate element to this since Hamas likely got its WP by recovering WP from the Israelis).
@Fuzzlebutt the center is an interesting and uncertain thing. as soon as the ceasefire fell apart, Hamas (who,yes, has a much more militant stance towards Israel than does Abbas) wanted to renegotiate the ceasefire on better terms for Gaza. Around the same time, rockets were fired. The center here, which was Hamas (seriously, yes, Hamas) agreeing temporarily to prolonging the two-state solution, was completely undermined by terrorists, and by Israels reaction. Hamas has to fight like hell now because the center is untenable - there was a moment, briefly, before all this happened, where the center could have worked. But terrorism, and Israel's subsequent response, prevented any hope of the center prevailing.
I've heard many calls to support the Palestinian people by boycotting products Made In Israel, but wouldn't it be more helpful (when this is over) to support the Palestinian people by buying products Made In Gaza?
Are there any products Made In Gaza?
Also, Hamas isn't a terrorist organization just because one group says it is.
Hamas is mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, grandmothers, grandfathers, teachers, doctors, deliverymen, grocers, technicians, computer programmers, store owners, scientists, social workers, engineers, etc., i.e. PEOPLE, all who are wondering why the hell it is that they are forced to live under the yoke of oppression by a brutal regime that represses their natural desires to live and breath freely.
Why don't you try living under a brutal occupation for 60 years (3 generations) that forces you from your own home, from your own land, and robs you of your culture and your history and treats you not even like a second class citizen, because Palestinians aren't citizens of ANY nation, being simply unfortunate victims in a place that inspires the most irrational lust and greed of anything that Earth has to offer. Yeah, why don't you live like that for that long, then see how you would feel about people living in nice houses and breathing free air calling you a terrorist for trying to resist the injustice that was foisted upon you.
Why don't you imagine being born into occupation, and having your life and growth stunted because another people want what you have so much that they are willing to exterminate you to get it.
If you can't, or won't, see it from their side then you need not comment. You aren't worthy.
Sorry for the repost:
Joshuaz: from the original AP article:
"The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally."
"However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza.."
Here's another article I found illuminating. Note that it is written by Norman H. Olsen and his son. Norman H. Olsen served for 26 years as a member of the US Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years as counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. He was most recently associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0112/p09s01-coop.html
While the ceasefire continued, Israel blocked all manner of food and medical supplies to Gaza, reducing the population to subsistence levels and total desperation, nobody cared and nobody noticed. There was practically no mention of them in the news.
Here's a quote from Olsen's article,
"Its efforts stymied, the US has for more than a year inflexibly backed Israel's embargo of Gaza and its collective punishment of the Strip's 1.5 million residents. The recent six-month cease-fire saw a near cessation of rocket fire into Israel and calm along the border, yet the economic siege was further tightened.
Gaza's economy has collapsed, and the population, displaced for decades from their farms and villages, relies ever more on food aid from Hamas and the UN. The US expresses shock that Gazans resort to using smuggling tunnels for survival rather than passively accepting the suffering inflicted by the embargo. What would we expect Americans to do in the same circumstances? With no easing of the blockade, the missile launches have increased in range and frequency, yielding massive Israeli response."
The Boy, to what terrorism are you referring which broke the truce? Do you perhaps mean the terrorism that Israel unleashed on November 4, when it killed 6 Hamas men, which is in fact when the truce was officially broken?
As for the rest of your comments, they are bizarre fictions that you are attempting to project onto the facts that have no resemblance to the reality of the situation. Any pretense that Israel was genuinely interested in reaching an accord with the Palestinians was thoroughly shattered when they rejected the will of the Palestinians who voted Hamas in as their political leaders. It tore down the facade of this ridiculous sham, and yet bizarrely people still want to believe they are observing the same old narrative of two states trying to live side by side in peace.
How many more "accidental" bombings of clearly marked UN buildings by the Israelis is it going to take for people to finally open their eyes? Or do you always believe the convenient excuse that there were "gunmen" or "terrorists" firing rockets from next to the "target"? Did you know they used that excuse when they bombed the UN refuge in Qana, Lebanon in 2006? Did you know they used the same excuse when they bombed the UN refuge in Qana, Lebanon in 1996?
I know we like to paint our demons dumb and ruthless, but Hamas are not irrational actors. They are a group presenting resistance to an occupation regime. They do not intentionally put their own families and people in danger, despite what the occupation regime wants you to believe. I've never encountered more gullibility than when I read discussions about Israel.
Thank you, Considerphi, for posting that information, which seems to get lost when the bombs start falling and the propaganda stops flowing. In true ADHD style, the American press forgets what happened the week before and acts like history starts the moment an Israeli civilian is killed or injured. Meanwhile, Palestinians are being killed and injured nearly every day of every week, but the NY Times never sees fit to print that news.
Arkizzle. Yes, and if the evidence changes over the next few days I'll be happy to reevaluate the situation then. But the fact is that is that at this point there is zero evidence.
Fuzzlebut, you are correct that Hamas is composed of "mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, grandmothers, grandfathers...". And mothers, fathers sisters, brothers etc. can be terrorists. An organization which deliberately targets civilian populations is generally labeled a terrorist organization. Hamas does that. People in such an organization who work towards such ends are terrorists.
Your other claims are similarly either wrong or missing vital context. For example, your claim that the Palestian people are "forced to live under the yoke of oppression by a brutal regime that represses their natural desires to live and breath freely." The fact is that the Palestians have had a variety of different living conditions and that things got much worse for them post the second Intifadah. Moreover, if there is any brutal regime over the Palestinians it is that of Hamas which kills people suspected of cooperating with the Israelis or persecutes them for simply being gay.
Hamas is an organization committed to the complete destruction of Israel. If they are the moderates simply because Fatah is willing to actually negotiate and cooperate in way that might eventually lead to long-term peace then the term moderate has lost all meaning.
"An organization which deliberately targets civilian populations is generally labeled a terrorist organization. Hamas does that. People in such an organization who work towards such ends are terrorists."
Sorry, I don't buy that particular line of bull. Never mentioned is the fact that Sderot, a frequent target of their rocket attacks, harbors a military base. Hamas, unfortunately, doesn't have the luxury of "precision" weapons. Israel, however, does, and it can't even avoid killing civilians (as far as we know most of those killed so far were in fact civilians).
By your definiton, the IDF are also terrorists. So you can't have it both ways.
"Moreover, if there is any brutal regime over the Palestinians it is that of Hamas which kills people suspected of cooperating with the Israelis or persecutes them for simply being gay."
And what does Israel do to Arabs that are suspected of cooperating with Palestinian resistance groups? Shower them with sweets and flowers, perhaps? And I suppose Orthodox Jews are so accepting of gays, as do conservative Christians in the US, right? I didn't realize that rejection of homosexuality was exclusive to Hamas. What other red herrings do you wish to fish out for us today?
"Hamas is an organization committed to the complete destruction of Israel."
And I suppose Israel is dedicated to the growth and nurturing of Hamas? Come on, give me a break here! You are just spewing tired cliches that you picked up from various talking heads on TV. Why don't you THINK about this RATIONALLY for a change instead of the kneejerk reaction you are vomitting here?
Fatah is not acting in the interests of the Palestinians, but rather in the interests of Fatah. They are not negotiating, just cooperating (as you admonish). They are collaborators, like the Vichy regime in France were collaborators with the Nazis. And as the great Norman Finkelstein asked, who do we celebrate today? The Vichy regime, or La Resistance?
If Israel was interested in negotiations, they would have lifted the siege on Gaza well before the 6 months of calm that Hamas agreed to and obliged. And it's not like the Israelis haven't done the same thing before. Israel has NEVER NEVER NEVER fulfilled its side of the deal when it comes to negotiating over a Palestinian state. Abbas did everything Israel asked of him, and what did he get? More checkpoints, more settlements, and more oppression. I'll bet you never heard about any of that from the talking heads on TV that you worship.
You have short term memory syndrome. You simply ignore all of Israel's previous history. This is how they ALWAYS act. ALWAYS. Just because you only choose to focus on the last 3 months of time doesn't mean the previous 100 years of history didn't happen.
Sorry, I didn't intend for that comment to descend into such negativity, but then how is one supposed to react to such odious ideas?
These are not polite times.
fl srry fr th Plstnn cvlns (*Ths tht cndmn th cts f Hms nd smlr grps.). thr thn tht, wld lv t s srl cntn thr ffnsv ntl thy pt gd dnt nd lmnt sm f ths slmc xtrmsts. Hrd t fl srry fr thm whn ths grp s cmmttng cts f wr (By frng rckts...cntnng ttcks gnst srl) gnst srl. Wht dd thy xpct? Wht d sm f y n th fr lft xpct? ('m cntrst) srl t crss t's rms r bnd vr? Hll n. f y cmmt n ct f wr y shld xpct nthng lss thn sd nmy t cm t y wth ts fll mltry mght nd rtlt.
Sd Sm s dd...gd rddnc. Thy nd t tk t mr lk hm!
Fuzzlebut,
Sderot has a small military installation nearby. No effort by Hamas has been made to target that installation. Moreover, Hamas rockets have been launched at many other Israeli cities such as Askelon. And Israel has much closer military installations which Hamas could target if it wanted to.
That's before we get to the fact that Hamas has sent suicide bombers to buses and cafes. Wikipedia has a list of all those attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks ). In the vast majority of those cases no attempt has been made to target Israeli soldiers. In some of those cases, the bomber blew themselves up on buses with zero soldiers and many children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_HaNavi_bus_bombing ). Hamas has repeatedly engaged in deliberate acts of terror against civilian populations. To claim that is "bull" is to be divorced from reality.
Moreover, your attempt to claim that this is somehow similar to the IDF is ridiculous. The IDF does not deliberately target civilians. One can claim that possibly the IDF doesn't do as much as it should to minimize civilian casulties but there's no moral calculus that puts that in the same category as deliberately targeting children.
Finally, the point about gays was not a "red herring". I could list many other examples of groups who have suffered under Hamas (the Bedouins for example and many Palestinian Christians). (And incidentally, the treatment of gays in Israel contrary to your implication, is far better. That's why the gay Palestinians try so desperately to live in Israel). The fact is that Hamas is a regime which hates diversity in all forms.
And yes, Israel is not committed to the destruction of Hamas in so far as if Hamas were to not fight Israel, Israel would have no problem with Hamas.
I'm dismayed that you find the term "cooperate" to be a term of admonishment. Organizations and countries can cooperate with each other to achieve mutual goals even if they don't see eye to eye on everything. The notion that cooperation for mutual benefit makes everyone "collaborators" is precisely the sort of attitude that makes it so difficult to achieve anything resembling peace in the region.
Moving on, to compare Fatah to Vichy France (which includes implicitly repeating your earlier comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany) is just appalling. The difference between cooperating in limited ways with a government one doesn't like and working as the tools of a government which engaged in genocide of multiple ethnic groups is appalling.
As to your last remark, I'd like to hear an explanation of why you think Israel should list any blockade when it is clearly doing a very good job of preventing further suicide bombings.
Oh, and one other note regarding the ad hominem attacks Fuzzlebut: they aren't helping your case much. Especially the one about TV? I don't even own a television.
both sides leadership exploit the situation. If the conflict ends, they would have to get real jobs.
@H4X0R
I'm a centrist
So, the "centrist" position is now embodied by a "love" for more violence that's killing far more civilians than combatants. Sad. But I suppose there's a good chance that most of those dead women and children didn't "...condemn the acts of Hamas and similar groups", so they had it coming.
Maybe they need to be told the requirements of an appropriate level of condemnation. Is there a web petition or something they can sign?
The IDF may not deliberately target civilians, but they certainly do not care about churning them into littlre more than collateral damage.
Even if you view Hamas as nothing more than bloodthristy terrorist, it's no justification for the way the IDF are treating Gaza residents, even if they happen to be near or related to Hamas members.
Please leave distractive issues like gay rights out of this. Even I don't want to kill people (at least in the generic sense) to attain equal rights for my tribe.
Just as an open question for everyone: What do you propose as a solution to the key point of the conflict?
"Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now internationally known as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Seems like irreconcilable positions eh? How do you plan to compromise and give everybody what they want? This is aimed at you Fuzzlebutt, since you seem to be taking the side of the Hamas at the moment.
What do you propose as a solution to the key point of the conflict?
Israel becomes a democratic, secular state. It's not rocket science. Everybody talks about them there crazy Islamic theocracies, but Israel is also founded on religion and ethnicity as the basis for full citizenship.
Why is that relevant Antinous? Show me an instance where the Israeli government could be compared to say, Iran, another ethnic theocracy.
can someone explain the high approval polls in Israel?
I'm going to offer a small but remotely related idea..
When the IRA were scuffling with the UK, if the IRA had written in its charter "the utter destruction of the UK" as a goal, nobody would have taken it as anything more than little men talking big.
Stance / trash-talk / psy-ops / posturing / propaganda.
Is this any different? Are Hamas' words in this regard even a remotely credible threat? Are they not just puffing themselves up to look a little bit scary in comparison to the Might of Israel?
This is a genuine question, related to the actual power of Hamas, rather than its fear-bolstered image.
wld lk ll th plgsts fr Hms t jst g vr thr nd prsnlly xpln t thm why thy shld stp frng rckts nt srl. 'm sr y cld rsn wth thm.
s sn s thy fnsh cttng yr hd ff, thy wll gt bck t bsnss.
Antinous, that's incorrect at multiple levels. Non-Jews can easily get full citizenship. It is just easier for people who are ethnically or religiously Jewish to become citizens. The level of theocracy is much smaller.
Also, Israel isn't a theocracy so much as a democracy with some elements of establish religion (that's why for example family law generally goes through religious courts but they have different religious courts set up for different religions(so for example, Muslims in Israel would go to an Islamic court for a divorce)).
Also, speaking as someone who is strongly in favor of the secularization of the Israeli government (seriously, I could spend hours ranting about how the current system is messed up) there's no reason to think that Hamas would find that situation to be any better. Hamas doesn't want a secular state, they want an Islamic state. A completely secular Israeli government wouldn't change much in that regard.
Exactly, their fundamental goal is to remove the Israeli state, Jewish/Zionist or not.
until I hear Palestinian voices here, I'm not accepting half a story.
JoshuaTerrell,
If you don't think that giving preference to one religious and ethnic group is a problem, you don't understand the concept of democracy. Or you've chosen to ignore it. Either way, it colors everything that you've written.
And yes, Israel is not committed to the destruction of Hamas in so far as if Hamas were to not fight Israel, Israel would have no problem with Hamas.
Wow. The moral hurdles you just jumped through makes me tired. I'm curious, do we measure morality by actions or words?
Because at first, you eagerly quoted Hamas's mission statement calling for the destruction of Israel as proof positive that Hamas is evil and worthy of total destruction regardless of the civilian cost.
When I pointed out a long list of quotes by Israeli officials calling for the complete destruction of Gaza, of making no distinction between civilian and militant (in violation of international law), of picking an arbitrary area of Gaza and completely leveling it, declaring all of Gaza a "hostile entity", of calling palestinians a cancer and the military some sort of "cure", of an Israeli general who came out and straight out admitted that Israel was going to bring a "disproportionate" response, you "poo poo" it with bullshit like above.
Israel may say such things, but it doesn't mean it. That's your defense. Israel won't actually do any of these terrible things, as long as Gaza does exactly what Israel wants.
In the last thread I pointed out that an Israeli think tank said that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was working and that Israel violated it. I pointed out a study by the university in jeruselem and in europe that studies lulls in violence in Israel, and they found that 80% of the time, Israel would initiate violence during a lull. Hamas would initiate violence 20% of the time during a lull.
So, since the actual facts fo violence keep showign that Israel is the aggressor, do I get to apply your same logic to Hamas? Hamas isn't committed to the destruction of Israel in so far as if Israel would stop violating ceasefires and instigating violence so much against Gaza, then Hamas would have no problem with Israel.
The weird thing?
That statement appears to have a pragmatic truth to it that you refuse to acknowledge.
Hamas and Israel had a working ceasefire from July to November of 2008. A working ceasefire. Pragmatically speaking that doesn't jive with your demonization of Hamas as mindless terrorists who hate Israel just because they're evil, mindless terrorists.
And guess what? Hamas has refused to go along with the latest UN demand for a ceasefire... wait for it... until Israel ceases firing into Gaza and withdraws its troops, (Wow. How evil of them to demand that Israel follow the ceasefire. What an unreasonable demand they put on Israel, huh?) and that Israel lift its blockade of gaza.
You know, that blockade that Nobel Peace Prize winners keep condemning as a human rights crime, keep protesting as illegal and immoral?
Yeah, that one. That's what Hamas wants guaranteed to agree to a longterm ceasefire. That Israel actually ceasefire, and that Israel lift the blockade universally condemned as illegal and immoral.
So, I say your argument at the top is pure bullshit. You say Israel wouldn't be committed to the destruction of Hamas if Hamas were to not fight Israel. but you had a ceasefire, you propaganda spewing shill, and Israel violated it on November 4. Hamas was not fighting Israel and Israel decided to kill several members of Hamas. And now, Hamas says it will agree to another ceasefire if Israel will ceasefire and if Israel will lift the illegal blockade of Gaza.
Israel is not committed to the destruction of Hamas in so far as if Hamas were to not fight Israel, Israel would have no problem with Hamas
stop shelling Gaza, get the invading Israeli army out of Gaza, and lift the illegal blockade, and Hamas will agree to a ceasefire.
If all Israel wants is for Hamas to stop fighting, then all Israel needs to do is stop fighting and lift the illegal blockade.
But Israel won't do it. Because Israel really is committed to the destruction of Hamas, even if Hamas were to top fighting it. You had a ceasefire, and Israel violated it. Hamas is prepared to agree to a new ceasefire, and Israel refuses to accept it.
It was there and Israel blew it. It's there now and Israel refuses to stop killing.
So I call bullshit on your little moral smokescreen.
Morality is measured by actions, and Israel's actions are that it continues it's killing of civlians. 1100 palestinians killed in the last two weeks by Israeli weapons. 600 or 700 of them were innocent, unarmed, uninvolved civilians.
Israel violated the workign ceasefire on November 4.
Israel has imposed an illegal blockade of Gaza for years.
Israel could have a ceasefire right now but it continues its aggression, its invasion and occupation of Gaza.
And those actions speak louder than any words you've got.
The Joshuas,
Do you imagine that Hamas grew out of a sewing circle or a bunch of WoW players? Does it not occur to you that such a radical organization was born because Israel is an apartheid state? Israel empowered Hamas in the same way that the US has been Al-Qaida's best recruiting tool for the last eight years. The victim meme isn't cutting it anymore.
THe Boy
"Now, I'm not saying that opposing extremists actually conspire."
No, that would be preposterous. Almost like suggesting that say... Israel created Hamas in order to justify their pogroms against them.
oh...
Antinous, I believe we want the same thing, and that's an end to the conflict, but my point is, your solution of turning Israel into a secular state is not the solution.
Let me quote, AGAIN, "Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now internationally known as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip."
Do you see any language in their that suggests the purpose of Hamas' violence is to "kill the Jew government?". The language is very clear.
And I would request that you not jump to conclusions about an ideals that you imagine I hold. Simply responding to my statements is simple enough, your use of rhetorical statements colors your messages as from someone who is poor at dialog.
Joshuaz: some specific factual tidbits that contradict your generalized sweeping statements:
An Israeli thinktank said 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
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.
remember that whole discussion we had about actions versus words, and how if actions and words don't line up, the thing to judge is a person's actions? Well, despite all your attempts to dress Israel up in a white, virgin, dress of innocent victim, Israel's actions show something else entirely. Given that, you might want to drop the sweeping generalizations cause when your sweeping generalizations stop lining up with specific facts, its what we in the business call "propaganda".
Oh, and speaking of how Israel wants to avoid civlian casualties: a quote from Major-General Gadi Eisenkot: "We will wield disproportionate power"
Lastly, Israel's Central Elections Committee recently voted overwhelmingly to bar Arab-led parties from participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Yeah, Israel is a democracy, if by democracy you mean it prohibits portions of its population from participating in the process.
">article.
Let me rephrase "Do you see any language in their that suggests the purpose of Hamas' violence is to "kill the Israeli's because their government is Jewish."
Greg, you make some valid points and you make others that are completely off the mark. There's a difference between some Israeli officials making comments about destroying the Palestinians and Israel being committed to the destruction of Hamas. Israel does not have anywhere in its Basic Law (Israel's closest equivalent to a Constitution) any call for the destruction of Hamas or the Palestinians. Hamas has a call for the destruction of Israel in its charter. In the case of Israel, one needs to find specific quotes of Israeli officials that advocate genocide or other atrocities. In the case of Hamas, one needs to do work to find statements that condemn such behavior.
Obviously, neither Israel nor Hamas are complete monoliths. But there are clear qualitative and quantitative differences.
As to issues of Israel initiating violence; I agree that Israel's history is not at all blameless and I don't intend to claim that Israel's actions have been a lily white. There are however serious issues with quantifying who ended any specific lull because the exact provocations are not clear and Israel frequently acts claiming that there is intelligence of an impending attack. This most recent crisis is a good example of how complicated these issues are. Israel's only "violation" of the recent cease fire was to stop the building of a tunnel into Israel. Since such tunnels are used to smuggle weapons, suicide bombers and to launch attacks, one can easily see that as a violation by Hamas.
You also assume that there is somehow a special burden on Israel at this moment in that Hamas keeps firing but somehow Israel is the one that must stand down.
It is also clear by the own description of Hamas that it has no interest in indefinite cease fires. Only hudnas to rearm and prepare for new attacks. Until Hamas is willing to accept the existence of Israel as a possibility in a long-term peaceful resolution the situation will not change.
Antinous,
I can't speak for the other Joshua, but I don't think you understand the history very well. First, claims that Israel is an "apartheid state" are simply false. Israel has a large Arab minority who have full rights. There are problems of discrimination but the notion that that is anything resembling "apartheid" is ridiculous. Many things have empowered Hamas but one of the main empowerments was the large scale corruption of the PLO. Hamas promised (and delivered) better basic services than the PLO. People understandably support the government that doesn't embezzle billions of dollars and then can't do garbage pick up. Some of Israel's actions have also helped make Hamas more popular. But to blame Hamas's existence, continued violence or its commitment to the destruction of Israel is not supported by the evidence.
Let me quote, AGAIN, "Hamas' charter calls for
Let me state a fact again, Hamas (you know, those guys who vowed for the destruction of Israel?) and Israel had a working ceasefire from July to November 2008. Israel violated the ceasefire.
actions speak louder than words.
If hamas says it wants Israel destroyed, but Hamas is willing to enter into a working ceasefire for months, then their actions speak louder than their words.
Likewise, If Israel says it is trying to avoid civilian casualties, and yet in two weeks it has killed an order of magnatude more innocent civilians than Hamas killed in all of 2008, then once again, their actions speak louder than their words.
The only people who want to quote Hamas's mission statement are people who don't want the conversation to end up talking about Israel's actions. You know, those actiosn that the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and a couple of Nobel Peace Prize winners have all condemned as violating international law?
I am not claiming that Israel is innocent, or justified, and I don't seem to have claimed that at all, you GregLondon and Antinous, are filling in the blanks with whatever you've decided I believe in. Again, stop thinking worrying about what I believe, and THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE.
Statement: Israel and Hamas are at war.
Statement 2: Israel and Hamas should NOT be at war.
Question: How can we stop this war in a way that is practical and reflects the best* interests of both sides.
*In this case "best" refers to what is actually the best thing for both sides, and not what they actually think.
Greg, the six killed by Israel were due to them trying to build a tunnel into Israel. So who violated that truce? That should be clear.
Second, disproportionate power doesn't mean trying to cause civilian casualties.
As to the GEC decision: First, the GEC didn't bar all Arab led parties. They barred two specific parties that had histories of calling for the destruction of the state. Most Arab parties are still eligible to run. Second, the decision is almost certainly going to be overruled by the Israeli Supreme Court (some of the right-wing groups have tried this exact stunt before). Third, even given points one and two I agree that barring Balad and UAL isn't good behavior and I'm not going to defend it. But many other countries ban parties. Western Europe does this quite frequently. I don't like it. It something I'd do if I were in charge. But it doesn't make them not democracies.
"Obviously, neither Israel nor Hamas are complete monoliths. But there are clear qualitative and quantitative differences."
Agreed. There is no clear moral line here.
Greg London: I need a link to where you are getting your information on Israeli officials soundbytes.
"Statement: Israel and Hamas are at war."
False: Palestine is a walled prison. All movement to and from is strictly controlled by the Israelis.
"Statement 2: Israel and Hamas should NOT be at war."
Debatable but I would fight to my death if Europeans invaded my country by force, stole my land and installed a brutal dictatorship. I would think I should be at war with foreign invaders.
"Question: How can we stop this war in a way that is practical and reflects the best* interests of both sides."
It will only end when the Israelis have succeeded in exterminating the Palestinians or some greater military force stops them.
JoshuaTerrell,
I'm talking about root causes and you're talking about symptoms. Hamas is a symptom, and yes, it is frequently the symptoms that kill the patient. But the root cause is an externally imposed state founded on preferential treatment for a single religion/ethnicity.
OK, since the Israeli apologists just keep on quoting the Hamas mission statement, I grouped all the quotes from Israeli officials into one spot here.
If we condemn Hamas based on its words, we must equally condemn Israel for its words as well. The Israeli apologists, of course, want to condemn Hamas for what it says, but then brush aside everything Israel has said. And that's just hypocracy adn propaganda.
Greg, the difference between some officials making statements and something being in the charter was already explained to you. There's nothing the Israeli basic law or any law, or its declaration of independence by Ben Gurion, that says anything about eliminating the Palestinians or eliminating Hamas. Do you see the distinction?
#41 JoshuaZ said -
"You also assume that there is somehow a special burden on Israel at this moment in that Hamas keeps firing but somehow Israel is the one that must stand down."
What an excellent idea.
Re the thing up at the top - does anyone know what the two words in Arabic script mean?
I think we are doing quite well here (no, really)
compare:
Jerusalem, Jan 13 (PTI) Israel's Central Elections Committee has disqualified Arab political parties from participating in the forthcoming February 10 general elections following a heated debate that saw incessant accusations of "racism" and "disloyalty" exchanged between Jewish and Arab parliamentarians.
The Arab parties, 'Balad' and 'United Arab List - Ta'al', were barred by the committee in a vote that reflected sharp polarisation among country's Jewish majority and Arab minority on community lines over the ongoing fighting in Gaza.
'Balad' was disqualified by a vote of 26 to three, with one abstention, while 21 committee members voted in favour of barring the 'United Arab List-Ta'al', with eight members voting against and two members abstaining.
The Central Elections Committee is comprised of members from all major political parties.
During the hearing yesterday, Arab lawmaker, Ahmad Tibi, charged Israel with "targeting civilians and committing genocide in Gaza.
"You went to war as an elections campaign strategy. Every vote for Kadima is a bullet in the chest of a Palestinian child," Tibi said.
An infuriated right wing 'Yisrael Beteinu, parliamentarian, David Rotem, responded by saying, "We thought you were a friend of Israel and therefore we didn't question your party list. Where were you for the past eight years when Sderot (southern Israeli town that has repeatedly come under rocket attacks) was under attack?" "You drink Palestinian blood. You are a racist," another Arab lawmaker Jamal Zahalka retorted. PTI
Josuaz, even an Israeli think tank said Israel violated the cease fire. A study conducted by universities in Tel Aviv and Europe found that during the lulls in violence, Israel initiated new violence 80% of the time. And an Israeli general in an interview said Israel will give a "disproportionate" response.
article.
Joshua Terrell asked:
Just as an open question for everyone: What do you propose as a solution to the key point of the conflict?
To which Antinous replied:
Israel becomes a democratic, secular state. It's not rocket science. Everybody talks about them there crazy Islamic theocracies, but Israel is also founded on religion and ethnicity as the basis for full citizenship.
...which is almost exactly what I would've said.
There is literally no reason beyond racism or bigotry that Jewish Israelis should not let Israel live up to its designation as a democracy and drop the "Jewish state" bullshit. If Israel was not a colony imposed on an indigeneous population, I'd say go tear it up! Have your Jew-only state. That's your right. But they founded it in the middle of an Arab civilization of many religious identities (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim). So it goes without saying that if they want the peace they claim to be seeking then drop the racial superiority and make the country, from the West Bank through Israel to Gaza, one democratic, SECULAR state.
If they won't accept that then neither will the Arabs. You'll have a race against time, and the Arabs will win that one (and are) handily.
The zionists really don't have much leverage here. Once the US collapses economically, Israel will be isolated, and woe unto it if it hasn't truly embarked on the path towards peace. Me? I'm betting on the total dissolution of Israel within our lifetimes. This sort of intransigence seems like its designed to be permanent to me.
Noen: People from one group are shooting at people from another group. Remind me again how this isn't war, or at least back up your statement about how Israel is "a walled prison". Prisoners don't tend to have guns, and to exert violence in a way that resembles a semi-organized fighting force.
"It will only end when the Israelis have succeeded in exterminating the Palestinians or some greater military force stops them."
Wow, giving up that easily? This statement assumes that you know the motives of the Israelis, which none of us do, and that there is only one way for this to end, which I believe is not true.
GregLondon: I'll concede that actions speak louder than words, but then you have to agree to stop using quotes as a basis for determining who the bad guy is, because it's obvious that both sides have nothing good to say.
Now we are talking about exactly why the IDF invaded Gaza Strip. Why do you think that is?
"Now we are talking about exactly why the IDF invaded Gaza Strip. Why do you think that is?"
A planned military objective, planned before and during the ceasefire?
Ask Greg for the link.
land,oil,water.
At #53: Having given it some thought, I think the idea of a secular Israel isn't a bad one. But think about the practical means by which you will go about imposing this sort of equality. Who's going to step in and say "Gee Israeli Parliament, maybe you should let some of them Arab fellers be politicians."
Not me for certain. There are many worse examples of inequality in world governments when compared to Israel (READ: African Mass Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict)
If any of you are implying that the United States (or the European Union or *snicker* Russia) would be the "greater military force", well I think that I'd like to vote on which theocracy to overthrow first.
Sorry to cloud the debate, but the main distinction I'm trying to make is that secularizing the Israeli state might be too extreme. How about forcing Israel to treat the Palestinian's fairly? That's a much easier to accomplish task then changing the basic structure of Israel's government.
Greg, the difference between some officials making statements and something being in the charter was already explained to you. There's nothing the Israeli basic law or any law, or its declaration of independence by Ben Gurion, that says anything about eliminating the Palestinians or eliminating Hamas. Do you see the distinction?
Yeah, I see the difference. if Hamas says it, its evil. If Israel says the exact same thing, its... different.
We call that hypocracy where we come from.
The only real difference is that Israel has written down somewhere its military and political plans to declare all of Gaza a "hostile entity" so that the Geneva Convention no longer applies and Israel has some legal bullshit loophole to kill all the civilians it can. Hamas just came out and said they want to kill all the Israelis they can, without going for a legal loophole.
But killing civilians is killing civilians, so both statements are equally condemnable if you want to condemn based on statements.
The other difference is Hamas published their papers. Israel has certainly written this down in various documents, but they've kept all teh papers classified, but they keep letting it slip out during interviews and elsewhere.
But that assumes I give a fuck if someone wrote it down versus said it verbally. Or if the papers are classified versus publically published. As if secret orders by Nixon to bomb Cambodia is somehow better than public orders by Nixon to bomb Cambodia? Give me a break. What is clear is that both Hamas and Israel have a mission statement to kill as many of the others as possible. Both are equally reprehensible statements or positions.
Equally reprehensible. But you want only to condemn Hamas. It's called hypocracy. There's no other word for it.
Now, again, there's words and then there's deeds. And for some reason, you have this fascination with words, while seemingly suffering from an ability to compare deeds. So, lets compare the actual implementations of these equally reprehensible positions to kill as many of the other as possible, whether civilian or combatant, shall we?
Israel killed about 600 innocent Palestinians in the last two weeks. Hamas killed about 26 innocent Israelis in the entire year of 2008. Most of which occurred before the ceasefire of July 2008.
Would you like to compare 600 dead to 26 dead, Joshuaz?
Or do you want to compare equally reprehensible mission statements and argue one is better due to some legalistic difference like "it isn't part of the official Israeli constitution, so Israel is better"? Really? That's your defense? Some legal, lawyeristic bullshit? We're going to kill as many palestinians as we can, but we're going to try to keep the plans secret? Thats somehow morally superior?
How about it's the exact same fucking mission statement, its jsut that Israel's approach to propaganda is different than Hamas's.
It's the same. So either condemn both as reprehensible or drop the statements and change the focus to looking at actual deeds that implement these mission statements. Or be a hypocrite. Your choice.
Who's going to step in and say "Gee Israeli Parliament, maybe you should let some of them Arab fellers be politicians."
I contend that most Israelis are just regular folks who would be happy to enjoy secularism. You could start with the "I can't get legally married because I'm not orthodox" demographic.
GregLondon: Just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's true. I read your page of quotes, and most of the quotes were fairly standard things officials say in wartime, and some could easily be taken out of context.
Until you prove to me that IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL it says that the fundamental purpose of the Israeli government is to wipe all Palestinian's off the face of the earth, then your arguments about "propaganda" and "hypocrisy" are unfounded. Equating off the cuff statements of officials and generals to a hard coded objective in an organization's founding literature is ridiculous. Stop trying to talk yourself out of the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Hamas' fundamental purpose is to kill Israeli's and to invade Israel. They have stated this, in writing, in interviews, everywhere. That is what they do, and why they send suicide bombers to kill school buses full of children.
Actions, words, stop arguing about the difference, because even if you think the policies of Hamas and the State of Israel are equally atrocious, that still doesn't hold into account the quantitative differences between the two organizations. One is a government, one is a terrorist group. They are different, and can be fairly interpreted differently.
#59 The "who" I'm referring to is the "outside military force". If the Israeli majority feels the need to change their politics to fit their needs, who am I to judge, I live in America.
JoshuaTerrell
"Noen: People from one group are shooting at people from another group. Remind me again how this isn't war,"
I never said it wasn't.
"or at least back up your statement about how Israel is "a walled prison". Prisoners don't tend to have guns, and to exert violence in a way that resembles a semi-organized fighting force."
You need photos of the walls? Prisoners don't smuggle in contraband? I was after all making a comparison. You were making a false equivalence as if Israel and Palestine were somehow on equal footing. I'm saying the relationship is not one of equals but more like that of warden/prisoner. I think it fits.
"Wow, giving up that easily? This statement assumes that you know the motives of the Israelis, which none of us do, and that there is only one way for this to end, which I believe is not true.
I take people at the their word. Israeli Zionists believe that their sky god promised them that land. That it rightfully belongs to them. Just like here in America we also believed that our sky god gave us this land. The usual result of either Christian or Jewish imperialism (or Arab or Hindu or whatever) is genocide. That is what happened in the American west and it's happening now in Palestine. The only way I know to stop a bully is for a bigger bully to make him. You believe that is not true. Fine with me, I just don't see it.
Ok, I going throw something completely different into this thread. A set of ideas for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The steps are as follows:
1. An immediate ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the lifting of the blockade with an international force to monitor traffic in and out of Gaza.
2. Hamas agrees to acknowledges the existence of Israel BUT in return Israel must acknowledge the Palestinian right of return.
3. Hamas and other militant groups agree to disarm and in return Israel agrees to the scaling back of its military. (The aim ultimately will be a 50% reduction by 2011.) This disarmament will be monitored by international forces and will only begin once there are binding peace treaties with Syria, Hizbollah and Iran.
4. The Separation Wall will be dismantled, checkpoints will be reduced, and restrictions on Palestinians seeking work inside Israel will be lifted.
5. A body called the Nakba Repatriation and Restitution Commission (with its powers enshrined in a new Law of Palestinian Return) will be set up to process the claims of Palestinians driven from their homes since 1947. Where they cannot be given back their land, they will be duly compensated. (Funding for this body will come from money that would formerly have gone into the military budget, along with contributions from the US, EU and the Arab League.)
6. A joint sitting of the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem will draft the constitution for a new state, the Federal Republic of Israel-Palestine. Among other things, this new state will be defined as a secular pluralist democracy that will extend citizenship to all citizens of Israel, residents of the Palestinian Territories, and any successful NRRC claimants resident in either.
7. The legislative body of this new state will consist of a lower House of Representatives and a senatorial Upper House, with equal numbers of seats for the main religious groups in the state. (As a transitional measure, the new state will have 2 presidents for its four years - one Jewish, the other Palestinian.)
8. General elections will be held, the new state will be born.
Discuss.
joshuaterrel: Until you prove to me that IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
In other words, you're going to invent some irrelevant demand, like where the mission statement was written down. If it was written on a classified internal memo from the prime minister to the defense minister, then it's OK. If it is written down in the constitution, then its condemnable.
Oh, and wouldn't you know it, that just happens to be where Hamas wrote it.
So, because Hamas wrote it on their constitution or whatever, and since you arbitrarily declared that the important thing is where it is written, you therefore get to condemn Hamas for saying exactly the same sort of shit that Israel says, but give Israel a pass.
Joshua, you think just because you invented some rule that where something is written determins whether or not it is a condemable statement, that people actully beleive that level of propaganda?
You may be fooling yourself and all the other apologists, but you're not fooling anyone else.
Equating off the cuff statements
Go away. Seriously. You're either a gullible rube who's only fooling himself, or you're an Israeli shill, pushing the propaganda.
Stop trying to talk yourself out of the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Ah, see, this is the "have you stopped beating your wife?" moment. Because I haven't said Hamas is not a terrorist organizaiton.
Thing is, if we determine the terrorist/not-terrorist status of an organization based on what it says, then we'd have to condemn both Hamas and Israel. If you want to play games with where they said it, then you're playing games to avoid being labeled what you are: a hypocrite.
The only purpose that written or verbal statements serve in court is establishing intent. Alice said she was going to murder Bob, and a week later Alice killed Bob. After the fact, she claimed it was self defense. BUt it it the statements before that actually reveal intent. Afterwards, it's just propaganda to try and fool the prosecuter and jury.
It doens't matter where it was written down. What is clear is that Israel has what we would call a "premeditated" intent to do harm to palestinian civilians. Hamas does to.
See how I keep doing that? I keep applying the same rules to both Israel and Hamas. Either they both showed intent to do harm to civilians or they both didn't show intent.
But if you wnat to play word games, then go ahead. there's already plenty of propaganda on this thread trying to put a smokescreen between Israel and its words and deeds.
non-jews outnumber jews. Therefore, jews will never agree to representative democracy. Solution: jews rethink what "jew" means. muslims rethink what "muslim" means.
As someone remarked, the majority in the center is under attack from the extremes of both sides. And so it becomes recursive; religion is unimportant except that abandoning it makes it important.
Solution: the powers with the money and guns forcibly deport and absorb everyone there and get on with building their gas fields, oil pipelines and military bases in an empty desert.
New Zion belongs in Texas. All 500,000 that would actually choose to live there. The other five and a half million would do fine anywhere.
As to fundamentalist islam; kill it it with prosperity. The feeders for the Taleban and al Quaeda will desert them wholesale if Halliburton et al turn their grossly inefficient pork barreling of weapons sales to the absurd vanity of consumer products. Count on it. You don't have to kill them to get their oil, just distract them with the same trash on television that works at home.
This is so damned obvious I can only conclude that the perverse sexual gratification Cheney and Rove get over masturbating to the sight of maimed, brown children is more important to them than the money.
JoshuaZ writes:
Hamas has a call for the destruction of Israel in its charter.
And why not? In order for the Palestinians to get their homeland back, they have to remove the colonizer. It's their right. The zionist forefathers of Israel made a huge miscalculation in choosing Palestine; they knew going into it there would be problems, but they thought they were managable.
In the case of Israel, one needs to find specific quotes of Israeli officials that advocate genocide or other atrocities.
If you read some of the early ideological writings of the zionist movement, you will find plain talk about the necessity to subjugate and eventually "transfer" (i.e. ethnically cleanse) the Arab population to make a Jewish state viable.
Don't take my word for it. Take Norman Finkelstein's, Tom Segev's, Benny Morris', Ilan Pape's, etc.
Since such tunnels are used to smuggle weapons, suicide bombers and to launch attacks, one can easily see that as a violation by Hamas.
Perhaps. We only have the IDF's word on this, and between you and me, I don't trust the guys. However, what we do know is that the tunnels were being used to ferry over essential supplies, such as foods, medicines, fuels, etc., since Israel had Gaza under (illegal) blockade. Gee, do ya think there's a connection?
I can't speak for the other Joshua, but I don't think you understand the history very well.
You're no Herodotus either.
JoshuaZ also writes:
Greg, the six killed by Israel were due to them trying to build a tunnel into Israel. So who violated that truce? That should be clear.
On what evidence, Joshua? The word of the IDF? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Perhaps if Israel allowed in international monitors then they could have secondary corroboration for these constant cries of "wolf".
Oh, I know what you're going to counter with, tricky Dick. You're going to tell us how Hamas rejected the idea of international monitors. Yes, they did, but because they know precisely what that entails: a primarily Western force that will spend most of its time hunting down and harassing Palestinians while ignoring the many violations by Israel of whatever agreement is in place.
Spare me your counter argument. It will fall on deaf ears.
human language evolved to scream obscenities at the apes in the next tree and, very seldom, to tell where the best fruit is. (paraphrased)
Have you stopped lately to think about what it is exactly that you are actually doing?
joshua: even if you think the policies of Hamas and the State of Israel are equally atrocious, that still doesn't hold into account the quantitative differences between the two organizations. One is a government, one is a terrorist group.
If you want to talk about quantitative differnences, then lets talk body counts. If you want to talk qualitative differences, then how do you want to measure quality? Because you said so?
Just so you know, the rules of war don't say "whoever is labeled good can kill as many civilians on the otehr side as they want".
Well, it seems that joshuaterrel is looking for an argument. Any argument will do. The actual sophistication of his arguments seem fairly one-dimensional and pretty arbitrary. He blips from one point to another, arguing one thing at one moment, and then going at a compleely different angle a moment later.
I don't think he's actually presented a single fact. However he's really good at coming up with arbitrary and capricious reasons why we can't interpret certain facts to mean ceratin things. And he doesn't really start from some agreed upon premises, show some argument, and reach some conclusion. He basically seems to simply jump to the conclusion he wants and assert that its true. Becaue he said so.
The one and only thing he has been repeatedly successful at is making sure the thread stays away from discussing teh real costs of this war. Instead his pearls of wisdom can be boiled down to "Israel good. Hamas bad. because I said so."
good news everybody! They are talking more seriously of a cease fire! This must come as a great comfort to all those blinded, de-limbed ,burned, mentally destroyed and irrevocably soiled by the murder of innocents. Oh joy. So wonderful it all has such important, lasting meaning. Make sure you vote again for those who brought you all this.
Everything is so much better now!
JoshuaTerrel writes:
I'll concede that actions speak louder than words, but then you have to agree to stop using quotes as a basis for determining who the bad guy is, because it's obvious that both sides have nothing good to say.
What's this "both sides" equivalency bullshit? This same tactic is always dredged up when Israel is criticized. It is literally childish. It's just the adult version of, "Well, HE called me a poopy head, so I had to call him a dumb butt!"
It is an attempt to minimize the responsibility of the aggressor, and to render the victim as an active participant in their own subjugation.
Sorry. Israel, as the occupying power, has responsibilities under international law that they have consistently failed to uphold. That they would like to shirk this responsbility are and somewhat successful thanks to the complicity of the US primarily and the rest of the Western world to an extent is not excuse.
Here it is in mathematical form:
Palestine + zionism * occupation = war crimes
Regarding message #57, it's just more ridiculous diversionary tactics.
"Look at these other states that are just as if not more horrible than Israel. Compared to them, Israel is a saint!"
Fart.
Until the next time.
it's just more ridiculous diversionary tactics.
Both Joshuas have pretty much done nothing but make sure the thread avoids discussing the damage to innocent people that Israel has inflicted on Gazans.
I'd just like to point out that Hamas, terrorist group or not, is ALSO a government: it was elected by the Palestinians. A pretty free and fair election, IIRC. The US didn't much like the result, and has continued to support Fatah. Hamas then split with Fatah, and the status of the Palestinian Authority has been dubious ever since...but the fact is, Hamas IS the elected government of the Palestinians.
Now, Joshua, you don't like that. Neither do I, frankly, though I don't like Fatah any better. But I also don't like the Israeli government. Does that mean it's OK for me to bomb Israel, supposing I have bombs and planes to do it? It does not.
No, Israel and Hamas aren't really comparable. But the difference is level of success, more than level of moral authority.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=29734
The de-humanizing of Hamas is easy to do. They themselves make it easy. They used suicide bombings, and now throw rockets. They take the Quran to the letter and even distort that letter. They boast they want to destroy Israel (except here). Many of them are pure anti-semites (except here).
And they probably throw rocks at puppies too?! I wouldn't be surprised. Also, I'm gay and they, like zealots of other religions, probably wouldn't like that. They might want to punch me or imprison me. MY POINT IS: For a minute, let's get over our pampered selves and our expectation of them to be 'civilised like us', because most of them grew up in misery, amongst camps for refugees whom Israel refuses the right of return, under the oppression and dispossession of Occupation. The had mainly the Quran as the scaffold upon which to build an ideology of resistance, and that got ugly.
Hamas's ugly anti-Israel pathology was preceded by Israel's anti-THEM. The PATHOGENESIS leads to Israel's anti-Palestinians: anti their right to live in dignity, rights, yadda yadda. Hamas is a resistance/liberationist movement, gone awry. They should have kept their resistance within certain limits. But Israel went awry also.
Call it a plea for moral relativism but I think the matter is just about context. The demands to 'wipe them out', as the IDF is indeed doing in Gaza, refuse this context.
This endless he-said she-said obscures the real point: show me which side in this conflict genuinely advocates for the rights of ALL people to live with dignity and free of fear. Any side that doesn't is the enemy of humanity and civilization.
forcing the discussion from the suffering going on right now to verbal he-said-she-said games is meant to distract from the actual suffering going on right now.
But a quick meta-analysis of the he-said-she-said quickly shows the larger pattern: Israel says something that Hamas says, but Israeli apologists say it's different. Both state their desire to kill civilians. And the larger pattern is that Israeli apologists do this in every arena.
Hamas kills civilians. Israel kills civilians.
But when Israel does it, its different.
Hamas does something. Israel does something.
But when Israel does it, its different.
How is it different? JoshuaT already explained it: Because he said so. A very good example is Joshuat's post at #60. last paragraph.
Even if Hamas and Israel's statements are equally attrocious, the two are different, because one is a "terrorist" organization and one is a "government"."terrorist" and "government" are labels, and resorting to labels rather than looking at words and deeds puts the moral judgement into the hands of the person assigning the label, in this case, Joshuat. Josh doesn't want to look at what has been said or what has been done. Instead he invokes his own labels for the two groups. One is "evil", the other is "good". And then we don't have to discuss the morality any more, because he told us who is right. This demonization is standard propaganda tactics.
Actions are the direct measure of morality.
Words indicate intent of those actions.
These are the things upon which people can make moral judgements.
Joshat has repeatedly attempted to redefine the morality of actions and words so that what matters is who did something, who said something, not what was said. Joshuat even blatantly tried subvert a discussion of the morality of actions and words by giving us the "qualitative" labels that should clarify that Israel is "good" and Hamas is "bad", regardless of what either one says or does.
Which is exactly what an "apologist" is. Their side is right and good no matter what their side says or does.
And its apologists like these who refuse to acknowledge any wrong on the part of their side that has led us into this nightmare of hundreds of innocent civilians killed.
LATE BREAKING UPDATE: Whatever else happens in the war on Gaza in the coming days, Hamas has now effectively won.
In the last couple of hours, an emergency meeting of Arab leaders, along with those of Turkey and Iran, was convened in Qatar. It was attended by everyone other Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and the opening speaker was Khalid Masheel of Hamas.
Like it or not, this event has effectively cemented Hamas as a legitimate international voice of the Palestinian people. Politically speaking, Mahmoud Abbas is, now dead duck.
In the days after Obama's inauguration, you can expect to see Hillary rushed to Ramallah to "have serious talks" and photo ops with his rotting political corpse, but this will mean little in the broader scheme of things.
Fatah will dump him in due course but they will still be savaged in the next election. Masheel will emerge as the man that Israel (and the US) is forced to negotiate with and there is nothing they will be able to do about it.
In short, this criminal escapade into Gaza by Israel has been an abysmal strategic failure and could possibly mark the beginning of the end of the Iron Wall, Israel's historical determination to show strength through the brutal application of military superiority.
Something for the hasbara operatives on this thread to mull over...
Hamas had the courage to confront Israel. Now the real question is, will the Western world have the courage to confront Israel as well? The obstructionists in this mess have lately (and for the past 4 decades) been the Americans, with Europe having been beaten into submission and converted into a codependent in the enabling of Israel to allow it to avoid negotiating a final settlement with the Palestinians.
This changes nothing for the Israelis, of course, and it changes everything for Hamas. They have now earned their respect. And Israel has lost its deterent. It is all decidedly downhill for Israel from here.
However, I've seen this game played before. I'm sure Obama/Billary will still talk about the need for Hamas to recognize Israel's "right to exist" (a ridiculous demand) and how Hamas needs to become civilized in order to be recognized as a "partner for peace". And things will go nowhere.
Remember that episode of Star Trek TNG where Picard has to go back to the Federation HQ on Earth and finds that all the top leadership has been infected with a parasite that has taken over their minds and is trying to effectively enslave the human race? I think that episode was trying to expose the pernicious infection of zionist parasites in American government that seem to have taken over the minds of our (admittedly mindless) politicians and hijacking American policy to pursue Israel's goals.
Whatever else happens in the war on Gaza in the coming days, Hamas has now effectively won.
Hamas won the moment Israeli warplanes started dropping bombs. You can't bomb an insurgent force into submission by killing the people they claim to defend. All it will do is push more civilians to join their ranks. It radicalizes the population against Israel.
It's the standard "Boston Massacre" lesson that a lot of governments refuse to learn.
A phrase that came out of Iraq after the US invaded and the insurgency grew and al queda and other foreign fighters started entering Iraq to fight american troops was this:
We're creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.
That's all Israel has done. The effects of that will probably take months before a backlash occurs. But the Israeli elections are in February, so the incumbents dont care. they wanted a short term campaign bump from launching a war.
Let's say for a moment that Hamas is nothing but a terrorist organization and the Israeli leadership is a government.
Bear with me here.
Governments, unlike terrorist organizations, have responsibilities under the Geneva convention. Governments are not allowed to bomb civilian areas even if that's the easiest way to eliminate insurgents, guerillas, or terrorists.
If members of Hamas have committed war crimes, they should be brought up on charges in the Hague. If Israel has, its government ministers (or whoever was ultimately responsible for the individual crimes) should be.
A terrorist threat, even a massive terrorist attack, does not justify suspending civilian rights or treating the Geneva Convention as a "quaint" relic of a bygone era. We've just spent the past eight years in the US learning why. (And yes, I think George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld (and perhaps others) are war criminals and should be remanded to the Hague at once. Not bloody likely, unfortunately.)
"Wht d y prps s sltn t th ky pnt f th cnflct?"
hv sm:
1. nvd srl. t's wll knwn tht thy D hv WMDs. nfrc rl dmcrcy. Cll t Psrl.
2. Rch Sds n ll th hgh plcs nstd f rch Jws. Strt gvng mny t Hms. Lt thm by th sm wpns. Lt thm hv n ql fght. t wll b vr sn.
3. Strt nfrcng th N rsltns gnst srl. Stp rwrdng thm.
4. Mk Nw srl n th hrt f mrc. Mv th wlng wll nd sm f tht thr stff, lk thy d wth Frnch cstls. N s bng Jw f y cnnt wl.
Well, interesting to see how the discussion has progressed since I tried to focus it on the center.
A lot, an awful lot has been said. And I'm going to skim over most of it. Yes, Israel was attacked by terrorists, and as a nation with the interest of its citizens at heart, has some right of response. Yes, innocent Gazans are dying as a result of this action. And yes, the numbers of innocents are different, and the weapons are different, and the way innocents are being killed, and the justifications for their deaths, all are different. But that isn't the point.
Hamas, which as stated above has the destruction of Israel in it's establishing document was willing to continue the ceasefire. That doesn't mean they were willing to permanently accept the two state solution. But it means that they had a willingness to prolong two-state existence. And Israel co-existed with a Hamas-governed state for the period of the initial ceasefire. These are centrist moves. These are aimed at stability and negotiation, and they don't have to explicitly be about co-existing forever. They are implicitly about co-existing for longer periods of time, and that enough. That's enough to build a center, for the violent rhetoric to be toned-down, and for moderates to prevail. The actions that sparked this conflict undermined all of that.
Our discussion here is good evidence of this. Anyone trying to articulate a position in the center is assailed by extremists from both sides. And violence is, excuse the term, polarizing as fuck. There is no way around that - once things get violent, it is incredibly hard to calm them down. And once things get violent, everyone retreats to their camps, grabs their guns/rocks/tanks/white phosphorous, and all hell breaks loose. Those left in the center flee, hide, or change their minds. The extremists win. Compromise and a peaceful solution lose.
I think that Hamas, in re-negotiating the ceasefire, was right to ask for better terms. I think that Israel, after the experience of intifadas strengthening after concessions in the late 1990s, was right to be hesitant about offering better terms. But I think almost everyone concerned would prefer the negotiations took place in a way that wasn't nihilistic war.
But that's done. The center has fallen. The conflict, already polarized to an insane degree, has yet again been polarized even further. Shit sucks.
So now what? We debate the relative war crimes. We examine weapons and look at UN resolutions. We match weapons to intended targets and to actual victims. And at this point, I don't think anyone sees a way out, which is a serious problem, because right now, a way out is what matters. We can have historians and the international criminal court look at evidence later. We can throw blame any time. But if we, the bloggerati, the intelligentsia, and the concerned citizens of everywhere, want our discussions to be of any use, if we want to spend mental resources on the situation, I think solutions are where we need to be headed. And not solutions like "all gazans dead" or "Israel gives up its right to exist". Solutions like a ceasefire with better terms, only now the time is way passed for that. The center is gone. The situation has changed. And we can only look fondly at what could have been. But we should be focusing on something else here.
Or perhaps create a wikihow page for "Israeli/Palestinian Peace". Yeah, I think that's the ticket.
I don't think anyone knows, Boy. I've been trying to think of ideas, and I can't.
The US could have intervened, maybe, if we hadn't squandered our military resources in the useless, bloody, and deeply immoral war in Iraq. (Oh, and our moral standing to say "you shouldn't be blowing up innocent people" to Israel. Squandered that too.)
The UN doesn't have the troops, and peacekeepers, FarScape aside, can keep the peace but cannot impose one where none exists.
If the current conflict could be stopped by anyone other than the Israelis, I think those parties would have stepped in by now. And going back to the status quo ante isn't acceptable to anyone.
Personally, I think Gaza and the West Bank need to become UN Protectorates for the next 40 years or so, administered by professional diplomats who report directly to the Secretary General. That might result in Israel dealing with them more honestly, and in less violence (and violation of the terms of agreements) generally.
But as for what to do right now...I got nothin'.
Kababok, can you make it about Israel and not about Jews, please.
You are dancing with antisemitism, and this is not the place for that.
"Our discussion here is good evidence of this. Anyone trying to articulate a position in the center is assailed by extremists from both sides."
I disagree.
The only extremists assailing anyone here, seem to be Israeli apologists demanding Israel's right to 'defend' itself. Otherwise nearly all the disussion is about stopping the fighting and stepping back.
Mostly here, it is moderate talk of peace, in its various forms, from a position of honesty. Not the destruction of Israel, nor the destruction of the Palistinians.
The US could have intervened, maybe, if we hadn't squandered our military
Ugh. US Marines. Beruit. 1983. No thanks.
The US is seen as a partisan player, a puppet of Israel. (and that accusation is fairly accurate.) There is almost no way US military forces could act as peace keeping forces in an area where the people see us as extremely biased.
What the US could have done is come out and actually condemned the attacks as disproportionate, rather than abstaining, during the UN votes.
The latest headlines say that Israel is "winding down" operations, which I expected to happen. They want a ceasefire agreement before Obama gets in office. It sounds like Israel is pushing for occupation of Gaza though, and that is really, really, really bad. It can only escalate the situation since it'll just create an endless stream of "little" attrocities by Israel until Hamas explodes again.
Israel cannot in any way be allowed to be the "peacekeeper" in Gaza. The fox cannot guard the henhouse.
Israel sounds like they're also pushing to maintain their crippling blockade. That too, will only cause more trouble down the road.
I think the only solution is that Obama's administration make it clear that it will pull Israel's support, Israel's 3 billion dollars in aid, and stop protecting Israel from the UN, unless Israel agree to some long term peace plan and implement it within a year. Something fast, something immediate. The longer it takes, the more likely some extremist will throw a bomb and fuck up all the works.
If Obama breaks and cowers before the Israel lobby, then expect at least another five years of sporadic violence, and no end in sight.
who is watching these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee
I don't disagree, Greg. I was just trying to come up with someone, anyone, who had even the capacity, never mind the will, to intervene militarily and stop this ethnic cleansing by force.
Came up empty.
So I don't think a military solution is possible. Diplomatic solutions...well, I'm not sanguine about that either.
just a point that is often missed:
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has explicitly stated Hamas would accept (tho not recognise) a state alongside Israel based on 67 borders:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rupp.php?articleid=10195
"Killing Jews is not our aim. For centuries we have lived in Palestine peacefully with Jews and Christians of all kinds. We are fighting Israel because it occupies our land and oppresses our people. We are fighting Israel to finish this occupation. We want to live freely on our land just as other nations. We want to have our own country just like other people. But the Zionist movement came from all over the world to occupy our land. And the real owner of the land has been kicked out. This is the root of the problem.
Because of many factors, we now accept to build a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967. But that doesn't mean that we recognize Israel. But we are prepared to make a long-term truce with Israel. Accepting the status of Israel without recognizing it.
Interviewer: But no recognition? Doesn't that mean continued tensions and war?
KM: No. There are plenty of examples where no recognition does not mean war. China and Taiwan, for example, have not recognized each other, but they trade and cooperate with each other. By withholding a formal recognition, we just don't want to give Israel the legitimacy for having taken our land in the first place."
#9 - I'm not sure how much is sourced from Gaza, but Zaytoun (www.zaytoun.org) is a fair trade supplier of Palestinian Olive Oil and other products which I can recommend
I was just trying to come up with someone, anyone, who had even the capacity, never mind the will, to intervene militarily and stop this ethnic cleansing by force.
You'd be talking about shooting down a fleet of F-16's and Apaches, taking out an army of M1 tanks, and wiping out their artillery. That's what would be needed to force an end. You'd be talking about thousands of Israeli troops being killed.
And Israel has nukes.
State-to-state war against Israel to stop this would only be an even more disproportionate response to Israel's disproportionate response to Gaza's homemade, horseshit-powered, rockets.
Israel timed this to take advantage of a lame duck president, to finish it before Obama is sworn in, and help out the February elections in Israel. This was a political war, not a war for survival. It was a war Israel chose to start, not something they had to do to survive. I don't know if that fact will be lost on Obama when he finally gets sworn in.
I'll see how Obama starts dealing with the mess once he's sworn in. Maybe there's hope. Maybe not.
Both Livni and her rival in teh elections, Barak, are now saying its time for a ceasefire.
Hamas says it will agree to a yearlong ceasefire if Israel withdraws in 5-7 days and lifts the blockade.
article
You'd be talking about shooting down a fleet of F-16's and Apaches, taking out an army of M1 tanks, and wiping out their artillery. That's what would be needed to force an end. You'd be talking about thousands of Israeli troops being killed.
Not really. I'd be talking about American troops going into places Israel shouldn't be bombing...which by now is anywhere in Gaza. They clearly don't care about killing Palestinian civilians, but American troops? I think they value their own hides more than that, nukes or no nukes.
But that would take a good deal more courage than shooting at the planes as you describe. I don't think anyone has the guts to order that.
As for the war being political, yes, just as the Iraq war was intended to be. Livni and her unholy cohorts are taking advantage of the last days of the Bush era.
I'm honestly not sure I should even bother at this point given some of the more ridiculous statements that are being made but I'll try anyways. First, it would be nice if the obnoxious insults and remarks stopped. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them part of hasbara. Maybe a little less well-poisoning and ad hominem attacks and maybe a little more logic might help. Possibly. I'm going to respond to some (not all) the open issues because frankly I don't have time right now to go into them all. If I have more time later I'll post a followup remark.
Regarding Greg's comment at #58: Since you don't seem to be getting the point I'll be more explicit: The point in who is saying it and how they are saying it isn't "legal bullshit" but an observation about the likelyhood of the group ever stopping to trying to destroy the other. When something an organization says something in its founding document its probably more likely insist on that until the end then than an organization that has said some members say something.
JoshuaTerrel: Israel doesn't have a Constitution.
Filmcement at 81: Yes, this war has helped Hamas's standing quite a bit in the Arab world and in Gaza. I think its clear that whether or not one agrees with Israel's actions they haven't been very successful.
Xopher, if there's any serious evidence of war crimes by Israeli officers I don't think anyone here would argue that that shouldn't be examined. However, to claim that anything going on now is "ethnic cleansing" is an insult to the millions of people who have lost their lives due to actual ethnic cleansing. 900, even a 1000 casualties are not ethnic cleansing. Please stop throwing around inaccurate and emotive terms.
Arkizzle at 89: Really? Why don't look at what Fuzzlebut and Kababok are saying? Frankly, claims that Fatah is evil because it tries to actually cooperate with Israel strikes me as the most extreme remarks there have been on this thread. Moreover, there's a degree of false moral relativism here: Someone can be a centrist and hope for peace and still think that one side is more morally culpable than another.
The Boy: Your are mainly correct. There's some real hope for long-term peace if by having longer and longer ceasefires. However, we should be sensibly worried about proposals that come from anyside with a fixed timetable for ceasefires. But you are correct that those are signs of hope.
Once again the leadership in exile of Hamas based out of Syria is demanding that the suffering people of Gaza continue to commit suicide by fighting to the death against a much stronger advisory while they, the leadership of Hamas, live in luxury in 5 star hotel accommodation in Damascus.
Here is a link to an Arab newspaper stating it is Hamas who has, as they have throughout this conflict, once again rejected every proposal for a ceasefire.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Palestine/239372
So, does this seem a little cowardly to anyone, that Mashal can refuse a ceasefire in the name of the suffering women and children of Gaza, while he himself lives it up in first class.
Similarly it is hypocritical of opponents of Israel here on this forum to repeatedly defend the Hamas leadership's rejection of all ceasefire proposals so far, including those of the UN Security Council and proposals from fellow Arabs and Muslim states. Yet at the same time these very same people on this forum, who have supported and explained away Hamas's repeated calls for continued fighting, talk endlessly of their concern for Palestinian suffering.
Please get your positions straight. Do you want
A) the people of Gaza to not suffer anymore, to make the necessary compromises for peace along with the compromises the Israelis will have to make so two countries, Arab Palestine and Jewish Israel live side by side in peace,
or do you want
B) the people of Gaza, and Israel too, to continue to suffer for yet another 50 or 100 years perhaps until maybe, after massive bloodshed 100% the land of Palestine can be returned to the Muslim fold ethnically cleansed of all Jews.
Because these two positions are mutually exclusive. Either you are against war on both sides and support both sides compromising and living in peace, two counties side by side, one Jewish the other Arab, or you support the continuation of mass suffering for the women, the children, the civilians on both sides probably for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.
Lets just pray President Obama will crack some heads together on both side and force them to make the compromises both sides are going to have to make and get this wasteful, and most importantly STUPID conflict over a bunch of freeking sand and rocks, final over and done with once and for all.
peace shalom salam.
while they, the leadership of Hamas, live in luxury in 5 star hotel accommodation in Damascus.
Oh please. As if Livni is out in the street with a flak jacket and M16. The absurdities to which you'll go to attempt to demonize your enemy has gotten silly. Get over yourself.
Similarly it is hypocritical of opponents of Israel here on this forum to repeatedly defend the Hamas leadership's rejection of all ceasefire proposals so far
Hamas wants Israel to ceasefire. That is its first demand. Since Israel is the aggressor in this war, since Israel is the invader in this war, Israel needs to withdraw from Gaza. That's the second demand. Both of these are natural extensions of UN demands. Hamas wants Israel to lift the blockade that has put half of Gaza below the poverty line, which, considering several Nobel Peace Prize winners have condemned the blockade as a human rights crime, seems fairly reasonable.
Israel wants to continue firing, wants to continue occupying Gaza, and doesn't want to lift the blockade. All three of which are immoral and indefensible.
And you want to condemn Hamas because they won't accept Israel's joke of a proposal? Israel's idea of a peace treaty is on par with the Treaty of Versailles. Israel wants a treaty they can use as a weapon, as a means to continue the collective punishment of all of Gaza.
However, to claim that anything going on now is "ethnic cleansing" is an insult to the millions of people who have lost their lives due to actual ethnic cleansing. 900, even a 1000 casualties are not ethnic cleansing.
I don't think the absolute number of people involved makes any difference to whether or not it's ethnic cleansing. When the only Jewish family in Georgetown, Delaware was driven out (and in that case NO ONE was killed, although there were death threats), I considered that an act of ethnic cleansing (though the cleansers did tell a little boy's mother that if she wanted them to stop calling him "Jew boy" she should tell him to "give his heart to Jesus," so perhaps conversion would have been acceptable), and now I consider Georgetown, DE a town of redneck scumbags who I wouldn't piss on to keep them from freezing.
Does it occur to you that there's a reason all those Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank? Do you think they prefer that to living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? Has it somehow completely escaped your notice that Israel's very formation was an act of ethnic cleansing?
I mean, please. The term is new, but the process isn't. Ferdinand and Isabella were doing ethnic cleansing when they threw the Jews out of Spain in 1492. "You may not live among us," remember that? Ethnic cleansing.
Here's my "Never Again" fantasy wish list:
1. Not a multinational force of peacekeepers, but a peacekeeping force under the authority of the United Nations drawn from several militaries across the world.
2. A UN command structure and independent military that could make such force not only possible but effective.
3. A willingness to utilize force by the UN that has, as far as I know, existed only in this Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_n_acquires_nuclear_weapon?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
joshuaz: Regarding Greg's comment at #58: Since you don't seem to be getting the point
Dude. I get it. YOu want two sets of rules. One to judge Israel by. One to judge Hamas by.
the likelyhood of the group ever stopping to trying to destroy the other.
Since you don't seem to get it I'll be more explicit. Israel violated the ceasefire. This was even acknowledged by an Israeli think tank back in December. And a study by tel aviv and european universities found that when there were lulls in the levels of violence, Israel instigated violence 80% of the time, compared to Hamas at 20%.
So, drop this pretentious crap about who is most likely to stop tryign to destroy the other. The facts speak far louder, and completely disagree with, your words.
However, to claim that anything going on now is "ethnic cleansing" is an insult to the millions of people who have lost their lives due to actual ethnic cleansing. 900, even a 1000 casualties are not ethnic cleansing. Please stop throwing around inaccurate and emotive terms.
quoting the President of the UN General Assembly as of 14 January 2009:
article
I'm sorry, Joshuaz, what were you saying?
Greg London wrote
“Hamas won the moment Israeli warplanes started dropping bombs. You can't bomb an insurgent force into submission by killing the people they claim to defend.”
Well not quite true. After the currently still in power Syrian regime did exactly this to the parent group of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, it permanently ended the insurgency in Syria.
By the way, Greg, don’t you find it a bit odd how Hamas is happy to base itself out of Damascus as a guest of the very same Syrian regime that proved itself to be infinitely more bloodthirsty and ruthless to the Islamists brothers of Hamas than Israel would ever dream of behaving?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
“2000 imprisoned Islamists were murdered in a massacre carried out by the uncle of the Syrian President, Rifaat al-Assad and Mohamed Bakeer in Tadmor Prison (Palmera prison).
Events culminated with a general insurrection in the conservative Sunni town of Hama in February 1982. Islamists and other opposition activists proclaimed Hama a "liberated city" and urged Syria to rise up against the "infidel". Brotherhood fighters swept the city of Ba'thists, breaking into the homes of government employees and suspected supporters of the regime, killing about 50. The goal of the attack on Hama was to halt the rebellious activities of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. The assault began on February 2 with extensive shelling of the town of 350 000 inhabitants. Before the attack, the Syrian government called for the city's surrender and warned that anyone remaining in the city would be considered as a rebel. Robert Fisk in his book Pity the Nation described how civilians were fleeing Hama while tanks and troops were moving towards the city's outskirts to start the siege. He cites reports of mass death and shortages of food and water from fleeing civilians and from soldiers .[3]
According to Amnesty International, the Syrian military bombed the old streets of the city from the air to facilitate the introduction of military forces and tanks through the narrow streets, where homes were crushed by tanks during the first four days of fighting. They also claim that the Syrian military pumped poison gas into buildings where insurgents were said to be hiding.
The army was mobilized, and Hafez again sent Rifaat's special forces and Mukhabarat agents to the city. After encountering fierce resistance, Rifaat's forces ringed the city with artillery and shelled it for three weeks. Afterward, military and internal security personnel were dispatched to comb through the rubble for surviving Brothers and their sympathizers.[4] Then followed several weeks of torture and mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers, killing many thousands, known as the Hama Massacre. Estimates of casualties vary from an estimated 7000 to 35,000 people killed, including about 1000 soldiers. [5] Journalist Robert Fisk, who was in Hama shortly after the massacre, estimated fatalities as high as 10,000.[6] The New York Times estimated the death toll as up to 20,000.[2] According to Thomas Friedman[7] Rifaat later boasted of killing 38,000 people. The Syrian Human Rights Committee estimates 30,000 to 40,000 were killed. Most of the old city was completely destroyed, including its palaces, mosques, ancient ruins and the famous Azzem Palace mansion. After the Hama uprising, the Islamist insurrection was broken, and the Brotherhood has since operated in exile.”
Xopher, what? When was a Jewish family driven out of Georgetown, DE, and by whom? (Perhaps by the large Guatemalan community there, or maybe the ethnic Haitians? It's a multi-ethnic town in my experience.) Was this before the civil war?
I ask because I live in Delaware, and I have friends and relatives in the Georgetown area, and this is the first I've heard of any such event.
Since it was ONE family claiming to be driven out (and as I've stated, this is the first I've heard of it) I'm not sure it makes sense to draw conclusions about how other people might be treated. Maybe that family were assholes... again, I really don't know, but if you give me more data I can personally investigate.
--Charlie
Ah, I underestimated the absolute treachery of the Israeli government.
Israel intends to "halt" its war on Gaza, because it doesn't want to agree to the formal ceasefire brokered by Egypt.
Israel intends to continue occupying Gaza, while halting its military operations, and while maintaining the illegal blockade of Gaza.
Of course, Israeli military walking around in Gaza might get shot at by some palestinian, and then Israel will declare it is "justified" in resuming its ethnic cleansing operations.
Israel intends to impose a unilateral cease fire. which will be awesome for Israeli officials up for reelection in a couple weeks. Israel won't have to cave in to any international demands. Israel will be able to maintain its military presence in Gaza. Israel will be able to maintain its blockade. ANd Israel will be able to use its military as a honey pot to attract some palestinian to shoot at them, justifying more disproportional responses from Israel.
The idea is that if Israel stops shooting, it may be able to weasel its way out of any UN or US pressure to agree to any formal ceasefire, any sort of long term viable ceasefire. Instead, this is nothing more than a ruse. If Hamas did this, Israel would accuse them of simply using the ceasefire as time to rearm. This is all Israel is doing. It's stopping the shelling of Gaza to reduce international pressure and attention so that it can continue its defacto occupation of Gaza.
Israel is in no way acting in good faith here. This is absolute treachery.
article
cohen: Sunni town of Hama in February 1982
Do you seriously want to dig that far into the past? because the Sabra and Shatila massacres occurred in 1982 as well. Maybe you should start a new thread since this is moving pretty far off topic. Or was that your point? Getting off topic?
http://amzuri.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/gaza_mother_dead_children.gif
JoshuaZ, yeah maybe. I was talking about the general feeling of all the 5 or 6 Gaza related threads.
This exact conversation has been going on about three weeks, and there has been comers and goers, but the general theme has been Stop The Fighting Now.
Anonymous 104: Xopher, what? When was a Jewish family driven out of Georgetown, DE, and by whom?
Families Challenging Religious Influence in Delaware Schools
If you think that's appropriate American behavior, I don't know what to say to you. These yahoos need to form their own country—and not by stealing land from the people who live on it now!
A tolerant Christian take on it: Dobrich: The Growing Subculture of Religious Exclusion and Prejudice in Public Schools
An atheist calls it by another name: Religious Bigotry in Delaware: Pogrom Expands to Include Muslims
here is an article, dated 24 November 2008, about a comprehensive peace plan offered to Israel by the Arab League:
Palestinian president Abbas urged Obama to back an Arab League proposal for comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel quitting all occupied Arab lands, ... the West Bank, Gaza, East Jeruselem, and Golan Heights ... lands captured by Israel during the 1967 war.
Asked about the advertisement, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that while she viewed the peace plan as “positive”, it needed revisions on issues such as the future of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem
At this same time, Livni is going over plans with Israeli generals for the bombardment adn invasion of Gaza. Israel had violated the working ceasefire on Novemnber 5. Two weeks later, the Arab League proposes a comprehensive peace plan to Israel that would normalize relations with all of its neighbors.
Rather than grab the long term gold because it might make her look weak during the election, Livni smiles, nods her head, says "that's nice", and continues working on her secret plans for invasion and reoccupation of Gaza.
And it just begs the question: Who is committed to the destruction of whom?????
Unbelievable.
Greg London
You ( not me, you) brought up the false claim that insurgencies are never put down by military means. I responded by doubting this claim of yours and disproved it with a wiki link showing Syria did exactly that, put down an Islamist insurgency within their own brother Syrians no less, with bombings and tanks, and in a way far more brutal, vastly more bloodthirsty than Israel could ever dream of. You respond by accusing me of changing the subject. Changing the subject? You are the one who raised this subject 3 posts before.
That is really rich, when responding directly to a claim of yours with a direct disproof is changing the subject. You think we are a bunch of fools? This is boing-boing, buddy, not your own private echo chamber. Your posts will be challenged with verifiable referenced facts.
Next you will accuse me of being a racist for caring about the deaths of 5 million Congolese in the civil war there, 25,000 alone in the same past 3 weeks that 1000 Gazans died. Oh yes, you already did that too.
Greg London
You respond to your claims being challenged by either calling me names, claiming I am changing the subject, or ignoring me.
Please answer the following questions while avoiding any of he above evasiveness.
1) why do you keep calling it an "Israeli" blockade when the correct term is an "Egyptian-Israeli" blockade as they have 20km border with Gaza that they have been and continue to this day to blockade? Is this some kind of racism on your part that you cannot bear to admit Arabs blockade fellow Arabs, and it is not just Jews doing it?
2) Is it not hypocritical of Syria to back Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies while at the same time ensuring not a bullet has been fired across the Syrian border into Israel since 1973. Is it not hypocritical of Syria to demand of its client Hamas that they fight to the death against a vastly superior opponent irregardless of the innocent Palestinian suffering involved while at the same time Syria ensures no Syrian will ever have to suffer in war with Israel in any way?
3) Is it not hypocritical of Hamas to be taking support and basing their leadership out of Syria, which has shown in the Hama massacre of who knows how many tens of thousands of Islamists and simple townsfolk, that Syria hates and fears Hamas's ideology far more that Syria hates and fears Israel's?
4) f t tr tht y r rlly cncrnd fr th sffrng f th Plstnns, nd yr cnstnt pstng f tls f hrrr sms t mply tht y d, s t nt hypcrtcl r rcst f y, nd n fct th whl wrld t shw lttl r n cncrn fr mny thr ppls n thr prts f th wrld wh hv n th pst, wh r t ths vry mmnt, nd wh wll cntn t n th ftr sffr n s mny ngng wrs nd cnflcts ll vr th wrld n vstly grtr nmbrs thn Plstnns hv vr sffrd?
Two Gun,
One more attempt to redirect this away from Israel/Palestine and I'll suspend you.
Cohen, as to number 4:
You have ZERO evidence that Greg, or anybody else onboard doesn't care about (or actively oppose) all the other wars and conflicts in the world.
You ( not me, you) brought up the false claim that insurgencies are never put down by military means. I responded by doubting this claim of yours and disproved it with a wiki link showing Syria did exactly that
Fucking hell, man, it's like playing whack a mole with you sometimes.
You took my first sentence about bombing someone into submission, ignored everything else I said about that topic, then went on some long rambling off topic rant to "disprove" that one sentence. Out of context.
Congratulations.
Here is everything else you ignored.
You can't bomb an insurgent force into submission by killing the people they claim to defend. All it will do is push more civilians to join their ranks. It radicalizes the population against Israel. It's the standard "Boston Massacre" lesson that a lot of governments refuse to learn. A phrase that came out of Iraq after the US invaded and the insurgency grew and al queda and other foreign fighters started entering Iraq to fight american troops was this: We're creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.
When the Brits were occupying the american colonies back around 1776, there were some folks who wanted independence cause they thought the brits were treatign them unfairly. But there were far more loyalists who wanted to remain under british rule. Then there was a little scuffle involving a squad of British troops occupying the town of Boston, whereupon these British troops had been harrased by the locals, rocks where thrown, and the British opened fire, killing 5 colonists. The event became known as the "Boston Massacre". Five people killed and it was deemed a massacre. The event polarized the colonies against its occupiers. There were still loyalists to be sure, but after the Boston Massacre, the attitude in the colonies swung towards revolution.
In the last three weeks, Israel has killed 1200 civilians. About 600 of which were unarmed civilians. women. children. killed by israeli guns. That equates to over 100 Boston Massacres. Israel's genocide in Gaza can only galvanize the people against Israel. It can only draw more people to fight it. It is a short-sighted approach that has been shown time and time again to fail.
Unless, of course, Israel is willing to kill every man, woman, and child in Gaza. Wipe the cancer off the face of the earth, like your totally off topic, and out of context, response mentioned happened in '82. If you're saying that Israel would be justified in killing tens fo thousands of Gazan civlians, then we've got bigger issues. Otherwise, it won't work.
And if it won't work, then why is Israel doing it? It is a totally short-sighted approach. It appears to be little more than Israel's politicians taking advantage of a lame duck US president and a couple months before Obama is sworn in to launch a war of opportunity to push up their approval ratings just in time for February elections. It certainly wasn't an existential threat. Israel violated the ceasfire and Hamas rockets resumed, causing the deaths of half a dozen Israelis. Certainly not the sort of thing that justifies killing 600 innocent palestinian civilians.
Israel is creating militants with its attrocities in Gaza faster than it can kill them.
that was what I was saying, and your out of context reply was nothing more than an off topic ramble you took as an opportunity to demonize one of Israel's enemies.
The only thing you proved is that it is possible to bomb an insurgency into submission if you're willing to kill tens of thousands of civlians. Are you willing to do that? If not, then congratulations, you proved something totally irrelevant to the conversation by taking one sentence, ignoring everything that came after it, and applying it to tactics that aren't even an option in this war.
Sorry Ant, didn't see you there.
Cohen, consider my comment answered.
Please answer the following questions while avoiding any of he above evasiveness.
first of all, who died and made you king?
Second of all, evasiveness? If anyone is being evasive, it is you. I've been calling for holding each side responsible for their actions. And every time, you try to push the conversation off into other topics.
You take one sentence out of context and use it as an opportunity to bring up the Hama Massacre, which is completely off topic. You keep bringing up the odd fact that Hamas leaders are in air conditioned buildings as if it somehow condemns them, yet Livni and Olmert and Barak haven't been seen with flak jackets going house to house in Gaza, so its totally irrelevent, and, actually, kind of stupid.
You post youtube links to some party that hamas had for one of its militants, which has nothing to do with all the innocent people Israel is kiling right now in Gaza, and has nothing to do with proportionality of Israel's response.
When I said the blockade was starving people in gaza, you post one picture of food in one store in Gaza that somehow proves me wrong, ignoring the fact that your blockade has pushed half of the people in Gaza below the poverty line and the annual income is something like $650 a year.
You bring up the Congo and other international incidents, arguing that the world should only focus on the worst human rights cases as some sort of weird moral relativism that Israel should be able to get away with any human rights crime, as long as someone else is doing something worse.
And a ways back, you argued that the huge mismatch in death toll between Israel and Gaza was "solely based on who was better able to avoid being killed", and had nothign to do with Israel shooting orders of magnitude more tons of explosives at Gaza than Hamas fired at Israel, nothing at all to do with the disproportional response.
You respond to your claims being challenged by ...
woah, woah, woah.
YOu want to challenge my claims???
Then lets be clear what my claims actually are:
(1) Hamas is responsible for the 26 innocent Israelis it killed in 2008. Israel is responsible for the 600 innocent Gazans it killed in the last three weeks.
(2) Hamas and Israel had a working ceasefire from July to November 2008. This ceasefire was violated by Israel on November 4, and then Israel placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.
(3) Israel's blockade of Gaza is a human rights crime and a Nobel Peace Prize winner protested the blockade in Novemnber 2008. The effects of Israel's two year long blockade: 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. Israel's blockade of Gaza has been condemned by Amnesty International as "collective punishment" back in January 2008, and by Human Rights Watch in February of 2008. And according to international law, collective punishments are prohibited under international humanitarian law in all circumstances.
(4) That Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza v i o l a t e International Law regarding the rules of war. The links in the word "violate" each points to links relating to those violations.
Now, if you seriously want to challenge my "claims", then my claims break down into those four main topics. If you want to change the topic by challenging me with off topic questions, that isn't really challenging my "claims", it's changing the topic.
In order of priority, most important to least important, it would be (1), (4), (2), (3). I made the change and somehow screwed up the cut and paste.
Well, here is another interesting little factoid that doesn't quite jive with Israel's propaganda: before this bomb and invade Gaza crap, Hamas had offered to renew its six-month cease-fire with Israel on condition that the border crossings from Egypt and Israel into Gaza be opened.
GUess what? Israel refused.
Did you get that?
Israel could have extended its ceasefire with Hamas if it had lifted its blockade of Gaza. Israel claims it imposed the blockade to stop Hamas from getting rocket parts. During the ceasefire, Hamas had stopped firing rockets. And yet Israel did not want to extend the ceasefire that had stopped the rockets.
What does that mean?
It means that anyone saying this has anything to do with rockets is full of shit. It means that Israel is trying to wipe out Hamas, and it doesn't care how many Palestinians it has to kill to do it.
Israel could have extended the ceasefire, continued living free of rocket attacks, if it lifted the blockade it said it imposed to stop the rockets. IF the blockade is meant to stop the rockets, and if the rockets stopped, then there is no more need for the blockade, right?
Instead, On November 4, Israel violated the very ceasefire that had stopped the rockets, and then on November 5, Israel laid seige to Gaza. When Hamas resumes rocket attacks after this violation of ceasefire, Israel escalates teh situation until they start a full scale bombardment and invasion of Gaza. All the time claiming that the bombardment and invasion is intended to stop the fucking rockets.
To all you Israeli propagandists out there: Are you fucking kidding me?
So, this is your bullshit story: The blockade was meant to stop the rockets. The ceasefire stopped the rockets. Hamas offers to extend the ceasefire that stopped the rockets if Israel lifts the blockade meant to stop the rockets, which have stopped. Instead, Israel violates the ceasefire that stopped the rockets. When Hamas resumes rockets in response to Israel's violation of the ceasefire that had stopped the rockets, Israel bombards and invades all of Gaza, killing hundreds of innocents. And Israel explains that it is killing these hundreds of innocents so that it can stop the god damn mother fucking rockets!
Let's be straight here: Israel doesn't give a fuck about stopping the rockets. Israel is trying to bring about the destruction of the whole of Hamas, and Israel doesn't give a flying fuck how many palestinians have to die to do this.
Israel's violation of the ceasefire on NOvemnber 4 and its seige of Gaza the next day was clearly a Gulf of Tonkin incident created by Israel to create some bullshit excuse to launch its bombardment and invasion of Gaza so it could go after Hamas. That's all this is, propaganda on Israel's part from start to finish. Complete and absolute bullshit.
I don't think so Greg. I have come to the conclusion that the current government of Israel does not want to eliminate Hamas.
Watching, reading, listening to the various posts, weighing, I have come to the conclusion that the current government of Israel - with the apparent approval of most Israelis - seeks to eliminate all Gazans.
arkizzle
I apologize.
Antinous
Does the topic under this thread include Syria and its relationship to Islamists and Hamas, its role as the main Arab backer both political and financially of Hamas, Syria's role as the host/controller of Hamas's leadership in exile, and Syria's guilt in exerting pressure on Hamas to keep refusing ceasefires ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/14/eveningnews/main4722185.shtml?source=mostpop_story
"Mr. Obama: ... Hillary Clinton, in her testimony during her confirmation hearing, expressed my views and the views of the administration. We're gonna have to take a regional approach. We're gonna have to involve Syria in discussions. We're gonna have to engage Iran in ways that we have not before. We've gotta have a clear bottom line that Israel's security is paramount. But that also we have to create a two-state solution where people can live side by side in peace."
Takuan, yeah, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt as to the extent of destruction they seek.
to anyone interested,
I just finished watching about 15 minutes of a MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that aired on January 15 which had as its guests Queen Noor of Jordan and Richard Haas from teh Council on Foreign Relations.
It's pretty good stuff.
At one point, Queen Noor says "There needs to be a new approach by the US that is more balanced, that holds both sides accountable for thair actions".
It's posted on Glen Greenwald's blog over here. Glen calls it a "shockingly balanced, candid and informed discussion of the Israeli war in Gaza and of the U.S.'s self-destructively one-sided policy towards Israel"
Shockingly candid for US TV to be sure. Good stuff.
cohen: Does the topic under this thread include Syria and its relationship to Islamists and Hamas
I don't know how Antinous will answer this, but here's mine:
When you can acknowledge that Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza was a disproportionate response, then whatever you want to bring up about Syria and anything else won't be motivated by the desire to throw the thread away from that topic.
Until you can acknowledge the facts around Israel's disproportionate response, Israel's violation of teh ceasefire, and the immorality of the blockade of Gaza, anything else you bring up is just an attempt to throw the thread onto some tangent.
Why? Because the actions of Hamas in no way grant Israel the right to violate the laws of war.
Every attempt thus far by you to throw the thread under the bus has been an attempt to direct the thread away from that basic fact, from your infatuation with the Congo, to your refusal to acknowledge the real affects of the blockade on civilians, to some perverse notion that the real reason that more Gazans have been killed than israelis was simply a matter of Israelis being able to dodge bullets better.
Acknowledge that Israel's blockade has put more than half of Gazans below poverty level.
Acknowledge that the reason more Gazans ahve been killed than Israelis is because Israel has dropped orders of magnitude more explosives on Gaza.
Acknowledge those basic facts, then whatever else you've got to say won't be motivated as an attempt to act as a smoke screen to avoid these facts.
If you can't acknowledge these irrefutable facts, then attempts to change the subject are more than likely attempts to avoid the facts.
Specifically, whatever Syria is doing with Hamas, can in no possible way legitimize Israel's killing of hundreds of innocent Gazans. I wouldn't mind talking about Syria if that conversation is not meant to keep Israel from being held responsible for its actions. But if you're only bringing it up so you don't have to come out and say "Hamas is reponsible for killing 26 innocent Israelis. Israel is responsible for killing 600 innocent Gazans", then yeah, whatever you've got to say about Syria is bullshit propaganda.
Syria really has nothing to do with whether Israel's actions in Gaza are legitimate. The killing of civilians are a violation of the rules of war whether Syria did something or not.
And since you've got a history of changing the subject, I'd be putting any attempt by you to bring up some tangential subject as suspect. Which is why I said that if you come out and acknowledge the facts that you seem so hard to avoid, (Israel is responsible for the civilians it kills. The blockade has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel violated a working ceasefire without justifiable cause. Etc), then the motivation to obfuscate those facts with topic changes goes away.
Till then, I'm guessing that any atempt by you to change the subject is just another attempt to get off the topic of Israel and make it a conversation about the Congo, Syria, yada, yada.
So until you can acknowledge those facts you seem so intent on avoiding, I'd say tangential comments like Syria were off topic.
GregLondon: You know way more about this than I do, and have much more firmly based arguments than anyone here.
But I have one request from you, and that is please just stop being a jerk. Name calling and rhetorical bullshit just clouds the argument and makes it hard to discuss this rationally. I'll try and structure my arguments more directly, concisely, and with more evidence if you try to avoid using rhetoric and propaganda to re-enforce your arguments.
I agree with the statements in your list on post #117, that state pretty succinctly the position the situation is in.
I think the idea that this debate is driving towards is to find a solution in which further conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis is avoided, an indefinite solution so to speak. I believe Filmcement had a good list of ideas that sort of got blown over in the flaming, I'll repost for your benefit.
1. An immediate ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the lifting of the blockade with an international force to monitor traffic in and out of Gaza.
2. Hamas agrees to acknowledges the existence of Israel BUT in return Israel must acknowledge the Palestinian right of return.
3. Hamas and other militant groups agree to disarm and in return Israel agrees to the scaling back of its military. (The aim ultimately will be a 50% reduction by 2011.) This disarmament will be monitored by international forces and will only begin once there are binding peace treaties with Syria, Hizbollah and Iran.
4. The Separation Wall will be dismantled, checkpoints will be reduced, and restrictions on Palestinians seeking work inside Israel will be lifted.
5. A body called the Nakba Repatriation and Restitution Commission (with its powers enshrined in a new Law of Palestinian Return) will be set up to process the claims of Palestinians driven from their homes since 1947. Where they cannot be given back their land, they will be duly compensated. (Funding for this body will come from money that would formerly have gone into the military budget, along with contributions from the US, EU and the Arab League.)
6. A joint sitting of the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem will draft the constitution for a new state, the Federal Republic of Israel-Palestine. Among other things, this new state will be defined as a secular pluralist democracy that will extend citizenship to all citizens of Israel, residents of the Palestinian Territories, and any successful NRRC claimants resident in either.
7. The legislative body of this new state will consist of a lower House of Representatives and a senatorial Upper House, with equal numbers of seats for the main religious groups in the state. (As a transitional measure, the new state will have 2 presidents for its four years - one Jewish, the other Palestinian.)
8. General elections will be held, the new state will be born.
Shall we discuss?
P.S. Et al: Again, I apologize for clouding the discussion with poorly developed arguments. I understand where most of you are coming from now, and I'll try to be more contributory.
Greg or anyone I suppose, I'm curious about a few things. If Israel were to open their border crossings, would that make them more vulnerable to a terrorist attack? Also, are Palestinians allowed to enter Egypt to attempt to meet basic needs? If so what needs aren't being met by being denied entrance to Israel? Is the main problem that its a situation like the Berlin wall, where families are separated or aren't allowed to go to their homes? I know if I were in their place, I'd have a huge problem with it. And I tend to take care of problems like that.
I recall hearing a piece on NPR a few years ago about some Palestinian families not being allowed to go to their homes where they've lived and worked date (or fig) farms (orchards?) for ages. I think the story said they had tended the orchards for over a thousand years, but it was at least hundreds. Anyway, the trees were dying, their farms and homes demolished. I'd hate being separated from the home I've had for a little over a decade, so I can't imagine what it would be like being separated from a home my family has lived in and a farm we've tended for centuries.
Thank goodness for this thread and the others before it were posted. I'm sure I know less about Israeli and Palestinian history than the vast majority here, but I've learned a lot and the comments and links have put faces on people that I've heard about for years, but usually blocked out when spoken about on the news.
And if I've said anything that has insulted or upset anyone with my comment, I apologize and I assure you, it was purely unintentional.
Greg: what is the root of your anger?
Any single partner or agent cannot bring peace in the Middle East.
Well said.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/16/noor/index.html
If Israel were to open their border crossings, would that make them more vulnerable to a terrorist attack?
That's sort of like asking "if America got rid of due restrictions on police like Due Process, rights to protect from unreasonable search and seizure, adn so on, would the US be less vulnerable to crime?"
keeping the border closed puts a massive burden on 1.5 innocent people. international law, i.e. the Geneva Convention, prohibits collectively punishing civilians in that way.
Also, are Palestinians allowed to enter Egypt to attempt to meet basic needs?
The border between Gaza and Egypt was opened for a couple days in January 2008.
Israel attempted to use that as excuse to argue that Gaza was no longer Israel's problem and Egypt could deal with it instead. Egypt didn't like that idea too much. Partly because they don't want a radicalized population created by Israel's blockade, and partly because getting Gaza as a reponsibility would totally suck given the conditions it is in. See below.
If so what needs aren't being met by being denied entrance to Israel?
well, to give you the 10,000 foot level view, I'll just quote the former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter from May 2008. He said:
A year ago, in January 2008, Amnesty International demanded that Israel lift the blockade, condemning it as "collective" punishment. That same month, the Red Cross released a similar statement that the blockade had put Gaza in a humanitarian crisis.
The blockade started in 2006 when Hamas won elections in Gaza and continued through to today. Its been going on for years. Basically, Israel tried to use the blockade as an attempt to get the population to reject the Hamas politicians they just elected. Now, Israel doesn't want to lift the blockade because Hamas is still in power, and lifting the blockade would be something that Hamas would claim victory for.
Basically, Israel fucked up, and miscalculated. They seemed to have thought that if they collectively punished all of Gaza, then the Gazans would come running to Israel as liberators. Sort of like Bush thought about our little fiasco into Iraq.
Anyway, suffice it to say, it's really, really, fucking bad in Gaza because of israel's blockade that's been going on for years.
before the bombardment and invasion started, sixty percent of the population in Gaza lived below the poverty level. unemployment was at 50%. raw sewage was flowing directly into the sea because treatmetn plants were inoperative. clean drinking water was hard to come by. The average yearly income was something like $650.
The bombardment and invasion in the last three weeks by Israel inflicted another additional 1.4 billion dollars worth of damages on Gaza. Estimates are that it will take about 5 years to rebuild.
Any single partner or agent cannot bring peace in the Middle East.
Yet, any single agent can aggravate the situation immensely, as we've seen time and time again and continue to see.
"First do no harm." would be a good start, inasmuch as any party has peace at heart. Unfortunately, violence, intimidation and domination has become their modus vivendi and that of most of their population. Makes me sick and angry: shit for heart must be catchy. So am I off here.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/16/gaza_invasion/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7834255.stm
I'm not certain, but I believe this is a picture of an Israeli white phosphorous shell exploding over a building in Gaza.
The article is here. Apparently, Israel shelled another UN run school, killing two people.
The UN has called for war crimes investigations relating to the shelling of its facilities in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians
Ys, WP hwtzr rnds r ftn frd nt th r t msk trp dvncs n th grnd. Ths s nt brch f th rls f wr. n fct, th CRC hs mntnd tht thr s n vdnc tht th DF hs sd WP n n llgl wy... thr s vdnc, hwvr, tht Hms hs dn s. Hms hs ls frd rckts nd mrtrs t srl nd DF trps frm mng cvlns. 'v yt t hr f ny wr crms nvstgtn f Hms.
ls - by wht rght cn th ntrntnl cmmnty dctt t cntry wh t mst llw nt ts trrtry? s svrgn ntn, srl dtrmns wh t llws nsd ts brdrs.
Also - by what right can the international community dictate to a country who it must allow into its territory? As a sovereign nation, Israel determines who it allows inside its borders.
Indeed, the international community should leave Israel to its own devices entirely. Stop financing it, stop having diplomatic relationship with it, stop selling it weapons, stop recognizing its existence. Israel brings to this world nothing but woes. It is a drain on the world resource, a menace to world peace, a drain on world good will and spirit.
Of course I don't believe any of this but I thought that saying things that way would have the necessary impact to make you understand that the international community pays the price for having a say into how Israel conducts itself.
Well, it's official. ISrael's treachery knows no bounds.
Israel refuses to sign any formal ceasefire with Hamas.
Israel imposed the blockade to stop the rockets. Israel and Hamas had a working ceasefire in July. Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire by a year in exchange for lifting the blockade. Israel not only refused to extend the ceasefire, Israel violated the ceasefire on November 4, killing members of Hamas and tightening the blockade. Israel then bombs and invades Gaza, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, all the while claiming it is doing so... wait for it... to stop the rockets
This is absolute horseshit propaganda.
The Israeli government doesn't give a fuck about the rockets. It refuses to allow Hamas to exist. It put the blockade in place to try to get Gazans to turn away from Hamas. But not only did it fail, it backfired on them. The sole justification for the blockade was to stop the rockets. When Hamas honored the ceasefire for four months, Israel no longer had justification for keeping the blockade in place. When Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire for a year, in exchange for Israel lifting the blockade, Israel's true intentions became clear. Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Hamas, and doesn't care how many innocent palestinians it kills to do that.
So, instead of extending the working ceasefire that had stopped the rockets, Israel invades Gaza, saying it is doing so to stop the fucking rockets.
Serously. Do all the Israeli apologists expect the world to believe this absolute bullshit?
Kp n mnd tht, vn BFR ths cnflct, thr ws crss n Gz s rslt f th srl blckd. Rsdnts f Nrthrn Gz hd ccss t wtr fr nly 6 hrs nc vry 3 dys. Th mn pwr plnt n Gz hd bn sht dwn snc Nv. 14 (nt ngh dsl nd brkn qpmnt -- whn nw prts wr shppd, srl ddn't lt thm thrgh cstms, thn rcntly strtd ctnng thm ff s "thy hd bn sttng n cstms fr mr thn 45 dys"). Nw ll th fd nd mdcn NRW hd ws brnd p whn srl shlld th N cmpnd (wth wht phsphrs?), nd 80,000 ppl hv n wtr r fd r fl.
[bt WP -- th lw s prtty clr. WP s lgl fr llmntng trp mvmnts, llgl whn drppd n ppls rs. Whch d y thnk th N cmpnd cs flls ndr?]
Mr mprtntly thgh:
Thr ws hmntrn crss n Gz BFR ths cnflct. Nw thr s cmplt hmntrn dsstr. sd frm th vry rl dngrs f wtrbrn dsss nd lck f fd, wtr, mdcl sppls, thr s bg prblm wth dspsl f bdy prts nd dd bds -- srl hs shlld grvyrds, nd thy wr rnnng t f spc nywy.
Thr r ls thsnds nd thsnds f chldrn wh hv bn svrly trmtzd -- tht s, th ns wh srvvd.
ppld ths f y skng dplmtc sltn n ths thrd. Bt w ls hv t wrk n slvng th rl-wrld prblm f strvng nd sck ppl. srl hs trnd wy (nd ls rmmd, n ntrntnl wtrs) shps brng hmntrn d. Hw cn w cnvnc th srls tht Plstnns ls hv th rght t xst, n th mst bsc sns?
By th wy, d nt spprt Hms r ts tctcs ny mr thn spprt srl's tctcs. jst thnk t s tm t thnk bt th ppl (nd lts f lttl chldrn) wh r dyng.
My mthr ds pcmkng wrk fr hr chrch nd rcntly trvld t srl nd Plstn. Sh sys tht nw thr r nw Chns fctrs thr cptlzng n th VRY chp lbr n th trrtrs -- snc thr r lts nd lts f pr, dsprt ppl wh nd t spprt thr fmls. n th lng trm, hw cn w wrk t crt wys fr Plstnns t srvv nd prspr? -- ths fctrs dn't sm lk th bst sltn.
rcmmnd J Scc's "Plstn" fr nyn wh wnts t gt sns f wht lf hs bn lk fr Plstnns n th lst dcd.
fr fr th whl wrld wth th knd f htrd nd xtrmsm tht s strrd by dsprtn nd sffrng n sttns lk ths. W mst sk t stp th sffrng n Gz r fc th cnsqncs.
ntns- m tryng t vry brfly rbt sm pnts Grg md, nt chng th sbjct r dmnt yr frm.
Grg Lndn
Y wrt 4 tms n ths thrd tht Gz s sppsdly dmpng rw swg nt th s nd ths s smhw prf f srl crlty. Y my nt knw t bt rw swg dmpng s vry cmmn. Fr xmpl, Vctr, Brtsh Clmb dmps 129 Mlln ltrs f rw swg nt th Strt f Jn d Fc ch dy
http://www.cnd.cm/vctrtmsclnst/ftrs/swg/ndx.html
Scnd, y kp mntnng th fct tht n bscr Nrwgn cmmtt bstwd n Jmmy Crtr nd svrl thrs ppsd t srl th Nbl Pc Prz nd s wht thy sy bt hw trrbl srl s hs sm xtr vl bynd wht ny rndm prsn wld lk y r m cld sy n th sbjct.
Dd y knw tht Shmn Prz, th crrnt Prsdnt f f th Stt f srl ls wn th Nbl Pc Prz n 1994? l Wsl n 1986? Wsl nd Prz hv dmtrclly ppsng vws n srl t ths f Jmmy Crtr nd ll thr wn th Pc Prz.
Dd y ls knw tht Hnry Kssngr ls wn ths prz n 1973 bt tht Mhtm Gndh nvr wn? S, pls Grg, whn qtng Jmmy Crtr, mntnng tht h ws th Nbl Prz wnnr s f ths gvs hs cmmnts n srl xtr trth s jst slly.
Two Gun Cohen:
There is plenty of evidence of Israeli cruelty... and of misguided Palestinian reactions to it. That is not the point. Please, let's stop bickering about who is right and try to help the people who are suffering.
- 80,000 Gazans without food, water, or fuel.
- No power -- very minimal electricity since mid-November.
- Overflowing graveyards (literally).
- Raw sewage all over the place, not just in the sea.
- (At least one) totally traumatized population.
IT'S TIME TO STOP KILLING, TIME TO STOP BICKERING.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
"Israel's military has carried out 50 air strikes in Gaza overnight as its cabinet prepares to vote on a proposal for a unilateral ceasefire."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7834255.stm
yeah, they want to kill as many as they can this time around. If they can push everyone out of the city, they'll level it before leaving. Making Gaza uninhabitable is the intent. I'd be checking who is behind a soon-to-happen push to drop immigration barriers to Palestinian refugees in open countries.
Grt
m srry bt y r vctm f wr prpgnd. Grt, m sr y r wll mnng nd pst by wht y hv hrd n yr chrch bt y hv shwn s n vdnc f strvtn n Gz n th pst yr, n vdnc f wtr shrtgs n th lst yr. Ths s jst smthng smn tld y nd y blv t.
Hr s pht f Lrn Bth, sstr-n-lw f Tny Blr. Bth ws n f ths wh trvld t Gz n Sptmbr, 08 n th "Fr Gz" bt frm Cyprs tht y mntnd n yr pst. n ths pht sh s sn byng chclt brs nd sd pp n n xtrmly wll stckd grcry str n Gz Cty.
http://www.dylf.cm/pht/02y2JZ8w445/lrn_bth
Hr s Lrn Bth tlkng n n ntrvw jst wks ftr th pht n th Gzn fd str ws tkn. Sh s tryng t sprd th knd f fls prpgnd tht y r vctm f. r Bth's rmrks bt strvtn rlly crdbl gvn th pht f hr n cmpltly pckd fd str n Gz jst wks bfr sh md ths cmmnts?
"Mthrs r brngng nfnts sffrng frm mlntrtn n Gz- By Brtsh Jrnlst Lrn Bth"
http://plstnvd.blgspt.cm/2008/09/gz-chldrn-sffr-frm-mlntrtn.html
s yr ys nd yr brn nd thnk fr yrslf.
@cohen
The one constant in your interventions is yours determination at blurring the issue and at emptying it of any meaning.
If you can find one example on Earth of somebody doing worse than Israel than you conclude that Israel has a right to do as much. You aim at making of your country the next to the worse on this planet and you think that it is going to help it? Hopefully you're doing this on orders otherwise Israel has in you either its worse defender or its best ennemy.
Then you try to discredit the Nobel committee and yet you try to use the Nobel prize to elevate Peres and Wiesel views: Wiesel won the literature prize and Peres won the Peace prize conjointly with Yasser Arafat (you know the ex-terrorist-with-whom-Israel-should-never-speak) for peace efforts.
You 'logic' is so twisted, your rhetoric meaningless that you put the already contrived Israeli disinformation machine to shame. I bet the IDF gave you a basement closet for an office.
eyes
http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/images/palestine/gaza-martyr.jpg
just google images "gaza victims"
Two Gun Cohen,
I don't let others think for me -- and I don't think you do your argument any favors by being dismissive and condescending.
Anyway, I think you are referring to a different aid ship (there have been several instances of aid boats being turned away from Gaza by the Israelis).
BBC on the incident I am referring to, in December:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7805075.stm
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 30 2008:
"Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, standing beside a damaged yacht, Tuesday accused the Israeli navy of ramming the vessel to halt the delivery of medical supplies to the embattled Gaza Strip.
“Our mission was a peaceful mission,” McKinney told CNN after she and 15 others aboard the boat made it safely to the harbor in the Lebanese seaport of Tyre."
But your rhetoric once again seems like a distraction from the real issue: people are suffering. Right now. Here is a story from MSNBC about the current crisis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28535589/
And a UN report from Dec 2008 about the ongoing crisis resulting from the blockade:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/3e3505fd18cfb035852575220052c893!OpenDocument
And where I got the figures about water shortages:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/roy_01_.html
That's the London Review of Books. Sarah Roy, who wrote the article, teaches at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
Of course we could do a battle of links to conflicting stories, but that won't help anyone.
I really wish that Israel AND all Palestinians would realize that the ongoing suffering, violence, and victimization is a terrible feedback loop. If people can go about their lives in safety and protect their children, they won't cherish the terrible resentments that lead to killing.
I really wish that Israel AND all Palestinians would realize that the ongoing suffering, violence, and victimization is a terrible feedback loop. If people can go about their lives in safety and protect their children, they won't cherish the terrible resentments that lead to killing
Any ass, with its two ounces brain, can realize that. They know about the loop and the continued violence: their present leaders are using it as a necessary justification for their reciprocal existence.
their present leaders are using it as a necessary justification for their reciprocal existence.
I would say that their leaders are using it as a necessary justification for reciprocal negation.... But yes, it is rather obvious. Even so -- I would say that the American MSM continues to recycle narratives based on the "why do they hate us?" false-innocence claim... And that most Israelis who support the IDF's actions continue to recycle that narrative, i.e. "they just keep shooting their missiles over here, with no provocation!"
And I think there is a kind of socioeconomic repression playing out in Gaza that doesn't get attention because of the much more blaring violence. People have no means to support themselves. This needs to be addressed. Among other things, Israel routinely destroys ancient olive and lemon groves in Palestine... destroys homes (and no, not just the homes of militants), and prevents Palestinians from holding paying jobs... and you know what they say about idle hands.
nc gn - by wht rght ds th ntrntnl cmmnty gt t dctt t srl wh t llws nt ts trrtry? nncnt sms t thnk tht ntrntnl d nd rcgntn f srl s sffcnt lcns fr thr ntns t b bl t dctt srl ts wn frgn plcy. f tht's th rtnl, t hs mplctns fr Plstnns s wll, wh rcv d nd rcgntn frm thr ntns - ntns wh pprntly shld b bl t dctt plcy t Hms nd Fth n tht bss.
s fr s WP - th WP rnds n th phts 'v sn wr rbrsts, wth sm trcs f th brnng phsphrs fltng dwn. Thr s n vdnc tht th N cmpnd ws ht wth WP - nd f thr wr trp mvmnts nrby, WP smk rnds r prfctly lgtmt rdnnc.
From Deutsche Welle, about the UNWRA shelling:
"...At least two key medical facilities and two press buildings were also hit in separate incidents.
"It looks like phosphorus, it smells like phosphorus and it burns like phosphorus," said Chris Gunness, a spokesman for UNRWA, the aid agency for Palestinian refugees, about the situation at the compound.
Some 700 Palestinians were inside the building, seeking refuge from the fighting, when it was hit, but the UN has since evacuated them to a nearby elementary school..."
Arguments about territorial sovereignty seem to fall a little flat when one of the main problems at issue is that one party (Gaza) has been prevented from HAVING territorial sovereignty at all, or ministering to the welfare of its citizens.
... gn - WP rnds r pprprt fr smk cvr drng nfntry prtns. Thr s s yt n vdnc th DF hs sd WP npprprtly... bckd p by th CRC. f thr ws WP smk rnd tht rbrst nrby, f crs th smll f phsphrs wld b n th r, nd sm f th brnng rsd my flt dwn.
f y dfn Gzn 'svrgnty' s 'blty t crc srl nt pnng ts brdrs t Gzns' thn n - Gzns hv nn f ths. nd shldn't hv. ntrstngly, mny hr sm t fl tht Gz shldn't hv t llw srls nt ts sl - mny f th sm ppl wh clm tht th srl rfsl t pn ts brdrs cnsttts sm srt f wr crm. ls, s hs bn sttd nmrs tms hr, srl ds nt cntrl th Gzn brdr wth gypt.
n thng fnd ntrstng hr s th lck f dscssn f th rb vs. Prsn spct f ths cnflct. Th mn rsn why rb ntns' spprt f Hms (prt frm Syr, f crs) s s lkwrm nd prfnctry s d t thr bng prcvd s pppts f Thrn - nd rn s sn s mr f thrt t th Mddl st thn srl mng mny rb stts.
@ splatter
What right?
The right of the innocent who are doing most of the dieing, getting wounded, maimed, burned, turned into psycho who will blow themselves up. By their right to lead normal, healthy, productive lives, free from fear and hatred.
Do you recognize those rights?
BTW yes, the Palestinians would owe to the world if it had helped them in a common measure with the help it gave to Israel and if their suffering wasn't largely outweighing their debts, thanks to you.
Israel 'to announce Gaza truce'
The Israeli cabinet is set to back an end to offensive military activities in the Gaza Strip, three weeks after attacks began, the BBC understands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835364.stm
Splatter --
True, there is disagreement about what hit the UN compound -- but UNWRA is standing by their claim that it was WP --
U.N. humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes is echoing the claim. Reuters quotes him as saying: "Those on the ground don't have any doubt that's what they were. If you were looking for confirmation, that looks like it to me."
I still have grave doubts that there could be a "legal" use such as you describe of WP in a place with the population density of Gaza. And since Israel has barred foreign journalists, we don't have much clarity about what's really going on there.
The question of the closed borders, though, is more than just a geopolitical tangle -- please see this UN report about the results of the blockade.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/3e3505fd18cfb035852575220052c893!OpenDocument
One of Hamas's key demands is, in fact, the opening of the border with Egypt -- so there is no question that it is controlled by the Israelis.
And you have a point about the Arab/Persian issue. I heard an interesting discussion about that topic on Friday's Democracy Now by Rashid Khalidi himself. He said: [Governments such as Egypt's] "have clearly separated themselves, those who have in effect supported or tacitly supported this Israeli offensive, because they desire to see Hamas weakened, governments like that of Egypt. And they are braving popular discontent."
Signing off to continue using my own "eyes and brain" (thank you twoguncohen)... thank (most of) you for the interesting and respectful discussion.
BBC video of Christian Fraser, reporting from Rafah:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7834419.stm
#152 pstd by mnncnt , Jnry 17, 2009 10:59 M
@ splttr
Wht rght?
Th rght f th nncnt wh r dng mst f th dng, gttng wndd, mmd, brnd, trnd nt psych wh wll blw thmslvs p. By thr rght t ld nrml, hlthy, prdctv lvs, fr frm fr nd htrd.
D y rcgnz ths rghts?
BTW ys, th Plstnns wld w t th wrld f t hd hlpd thm n cmmn msr wth th hlp t gv t srl nd f thr sffrng wsn't lrgly twghng thr dbts, thnks t y.
'm nt sr xctly wht 'rghts' y'r tryng t rtclt hr... sffrng ppl cn dctt frgn plcy t n ppsng cntry?
t lks t m lk ths ws mr f n mtv rspns t th plght f th sffrng Gzns. sympthz, bt stll s n 'rght'hr, thr thn th rght f svrgn ntn t dtrmn wh ds r ds nt pss bynd ts brdrs.
Th gyptn crssngs r nt cntrlld by srl - thy'r jntly cntrlld by gypt nd Hms. gypt, s mntnd bv, hs chsn t kps ts crssngs t Gz clsd, mst lkly t wkn Hms nd thrfr rnn nflnc n th rgn.
'v yt t s nyn sk th bvs qstn f "wt, wht ws Hms dng n th N cmpnd?"
Th nswr, f crs, s tht thy'r dng vrythng thy cn t mxmz cvln cslts by sng hmn shlds. Thr wld b fr fwr cslts f Hms hd vn th mst mnml rgrd fr th cvln ppltn.
FZZLBTT:
Gncd s crrntly tkng plc, nd ppl n th sdlns r smply rgng vr dfntns nd smntcs. t's dsgrcfl.
Thr s n "gncd" gng n. Y thr dn't knw wht th wrd mns r y'r dlbrtly sptng nnsns bcs flshds r th nly pssbl wy f dfndng th Plstnns.
Hms s mthrs, fthrs, sstrs, brthrs, nts, ncls, csns, nphws, ncs, grndmthrs, grndfthrs, tchrs, dctrs, dlvrymn, grcrs, tchncns, cmptr prgrmmrs, str wnrs, scntsts, scl wrkrs, ngnrs, tc., .. PPL
Y'r pplng t mtn. Hvng fmly nd jb dsn't mn smn cn't b trrrst. n fct, slmc trrrsts ftn r dctd nd mddl clss.
Yr rgmnts r cmpltly dsngns, nd s s th cs thy spprt.
nd spkng f th wy ppl hv bn spprtng th Plstns, chck t ll ths dmnstrtns bltntly cllng fr th gncd f Jws, nd th vlnt rts, nd th ttcks gnst Jws n rp nd lswhr. dn't s nyn tlkng bt >ths.
GRGLNDN:
Lkws, f srl sys t s tryng t vd cvln cslts, nd yt n tw wks t hs klld n rdr f mgntd mr nncnt cvlns thn Hms klld n ll f 2008, thn nc gn, thr ctns spk ldr thn thr wrds.
Y'r xpctng th mpssbl. srl cnnt vd clltrl dmg, spclly wth th tctcs Hms s sng.
ntrstng - srl plns csfr, Hms rprtdly vws t cntn th cnflct. SHld Hms b cndmnd f t cntns th cnflct?
ls - th clms tht srl 'vltd th csfr' n Nvmbr r smply wrng. Hms frd rckts nd mrtrs nt srl vry mnth ftr th csfr n Jn. S sld 6.
http://www.trrrsm-nf.rg.l/mlm_mltmd/nglsh/ng_n/pdf/pc_007.pdf
Splatter,
Israel is ceaseing fire unilaterally, meaning that none of the things Hamas wanted are being delivered. Hamas said they'd continue the conflict if Israel didn't take all troops out of Gaza and the blockades weren't lifted, amongst other things..
greta,
As I said in the other thread, please don't post speeches and please don't post the same speech in multiple threads.
Okay, let's try this again.
Two Gun,
Your arguments were insulting in both tone and content. If you have to stoop to calling the Nobel Prize committee an "obscure Norwegian committee", you've run out of intelligent things to say. I'm giving you a three day suspension.
Greta,
You're repetitive. With more than 150 comments in this thread and several thousand comments in the other Gaza threads, you're going to have to do more than just appeal for sympathy.
Splatter,
Go back and read the comments on the other Gaza threads and write me if you want your account reinstated.
hear hear, we may be getting fatigued but that doesn't mean we should permit ourselves to run out of thought. Though for the life of me I can't come up with a way to make things better.
Darn! For once I had a feisty one. The other propagandist were so limp.
Unicorn?
Although, on this topic, it's possible that we're way past unicorns..
nope, never. If anything, we owe it a unicorn.
Seems reasonable.. Have an appropriate one?
It's gotta REAK goodness and light.. glitter too.
Unicorn:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B0pKdXgNDbo
I'm throwing this one to the floor.
Bunneh!
It may not qualify as a proper unicorn chaser and may not appeal to everyone, but this is what I like to watch when I'm feeling down.
This lady is unicorn enough for me
Bunneh+long parsley+music=win!
Tom, ya big softy!
Nice one :)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054129.html
"As much as we try and improve, there is only so much you can do," says a former government media advisor, now making a killing in the private sector and for obvious reasons insisting on anonymity. "It doesn't matter if you think you can justify an operation in which civilians are killed, it will always look bad and trying to be a nice guy with hasbara is pointless, nice guys lose. We have to be devious and make up convincing stories or buy them out. War is dirty and so is the media war."
Interesting discussion on Charlie Rose this past Friday:
"An update on Gaza with Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, Roger Cohen of The International Herald Tribune and David Makovsky of The Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process."
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9976
This thread is dead. Move on.
it's just pining.
"it's just pining." -for the fjords.
Ha! I win!
We do get points for catching Monty Python lines - right? And, how many points did I win?
Haaretz is a balanced source, isn't it?
"One of the words that Zionist Jews, no matter what the level of their Hebrew, all know is hasbara, as in the question "why is Israel's hasbara so damn awful?"
Why is this term never translated into English? Because it literally doesn't mean public relations or media-management but "explaining." Hasbara is a prime product of what David Grossman called, "the word laundry."
PR, spin, presentation, they all smack of falsehood and hiding the truth. Hasbara instead is simply explaining the truth to those who have been exposed to biased and hostile sources: Just give us fair hearing and we will explain all.
But ultimately hasbara is self-defeating. Since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, we have been hearing how Israel is doing a lot better in hasbara this time. As part of the lessons from the Second Lebanon War, a national information directorate has been set up in the Prime Minister's office and there is a coordinated media strategy between all government agencies, the IDF, Israel's diplomatic missions, the Jewish Agency and private pro-Israel organizations.
It's all true, ministers for once are behaving themselves and for a large part only giving authorized interviews with foreign media and sticking firmly to the government's message; veteran spokespeople in a variety of languages have been brought in; and there is no shortage of written and visual information.
At the same time,though, the IDF has clamped down on the combat zone, using military police to enforce a closed-zone policy, not allowing the Israeli and international media corps access to the soldiers going in and out of Gaza in anything resembling the free-for-all that characterized the Second Lebanon War."
"Haaretz (Hebrew: ×”×רץ‎) (lit. "The Land", originally Hadashot Ha'aretz - "News of the Land"[2]) is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. It was founded in 1918 and is now published in both Hebrew and English in Berliner format. The English edition is published and sold together with the International Herald Tribune. Both Hebrew and English editions can be read on the Internet. In North America, it comes out as a weekly newspaper, combining articles from the Friday edition with a roundup from the rest of the week.
Compared to other mass circulation papers in Israel, Haaretz uses smaller headlines and print. Less space is devoted to pictures, and more to political analysis. Its editorial pages are considered influential among government leaders.[3] Apart from the news, Haaretz publishes feature articles on social and environmental issues, as well as book reviews, investigative reporting and political commentary.
The Hebrew edition has a core readership of 65,000. The English edition has a subscriber base of 15,000. [4][5] The newspaper itself has reported a paid subscribership of 65,000, daily sales of 72,000 copies, and 100,000 on weekends.[6]
Haaretz's readership includes Israel's intelligentsia and its political and economic elites.[7][8][9] According to one media study, "the likelihood of Haaretz readership rises with income, education, and age."[10] Despite its relatively low circulation, it is more influential than Israel's other major daily newspapers.[7]
The Ghosts of Gaza
Israel's unilateral ceasefire is nothing more than Israel's continued attempts to bring about the destruction of all of Hamas no matter what cost Israel inflicts on innocent Gazans.
All the formal ceasefires require that Israel withdraw from Gaza and that Israel lift the blockade. And Israel doesn't want to do that because of anythign to do with rockets.
Israel is simply trying to divert the international attention away from the hundreds of innocent civlians killed by Israeli guns. thsi isn't a path towards peace, this is an attempt by Israel to reserve the right to resume its war against Gaza in the future.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/hamas-gaza-israel-palestine-bombing
so, the idea seems to be to use Hamas as excuse to kill 1,000 Palestinians ( and frighten many, many more into giving up and leaving somehow) and then pull back leaving enough of Hamas and a rootstock of yet-enraged-again cannon fodder so as to ensure justification to attack again...
This thread is dead. Move on.
Hey, BB has now its own unilateral cease fire declaration!
ratchetted ethnic cleansing. Click...click...click...
From the article on CNN about the cease fire announcement:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.gaza/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Israel also announced Sunday it would open an emergency treatment center...Palestinians requiring more involved treatement will be sent to hospitals in Israel, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
Now imagine a kid, gravely wounded, which find him/herself completely helpless and surrounded by Israelis. Hopefully they will allow the parents to accompany the child but I'll bet anything that they won't since they would present a PR (they'll say 'security') risk. I also wonder if Israel is hoping that Hamas will see this as collaboration with the enemy and do something cruel: it is not beyond the devious thought process of both camps.
I have no doubts whatsoever that there are excellent persons in Israel that will do all they can to help the wounded, would it be only to assuage the profound guilt any normal human being should feel in their places. I find it revolting though that will have to comply to the baton of some political maestro to do so.
This is only more BS: the logical, efficient thing to do would be to re-equip the hospitals in Gaza, where the need and the expertise is. They are in dire need of it right now and will be even more so especially since, like everyone should know, this ceasefire will last just about the time necessary for Obama's inauguration, no more.
According to an Israeli military spokesman: "The operation is not over. This is only a holding of fire."
Hamas announced a ceasefire and gave Israel one week to withdraw its military from Gaza. It also demanded a lifting of Israel's illegal blockade.
Israel, always taking the high road of diplomacy and demonstrating it is so much better than Hamas, said through a military spokesman, "I'm sorry, Hamas will not give Israel a deadline to pull out its troops."
He then followed by sticking out his tongue and saying "neener, neener, neener."
This is nothing more than children with heavy firepower both trying to get in the last licks. This war against Gaza had nothign to do with stopping the rockets, the rockets had stopped from July to Novemnber, and then Israel violated that ceasefire. This is about israeli politicians looking tough in time for an election. This is nothing more than Israel refusing to withdraw troops from an illegal invasion and refusing to lift an illegal blockade because Hamas would claim it as a victory. Israel would rather continue doing illegal and immoral acts than allow Hamas a single concession.
At this point, this is nothing more than stupid, petty, mindless, chest thumping on Israel's part.
I can't agree with your perception Greg. These are not children: normal children would be horrified at the sight of what they'd done and run away crying. These are sadistic monsters, on both sides, who want to get their jollies and be treated as heroes.
think of it as a gang war.
I understand the analogy but it is the degree of sophistication of the tools and the exquisite refinement in their use that I find most indicative of sadism. The amount of time and dedication that it requires to reach such a degree of perfection can only be the fact of the middle aged and older.
A thread is dead, Joshua, when people stop commenting on it, or when a moderator or Boinger shuts it down.
If you want to abandon it, feel free; but don't try to tell the rest of us to move on, please.
kinda like cops?
Foetusnail, maybe some cops are that way and even them will tend toward some conclusion. In the Middle East, each time an accord of any sort was close (like Oslo), there always has been "interests" who reshuffled the cards so nothing could come to term.
"the degree of sophistication of the tools and the exquisite refinement".. like Hamas dragging the "unreliable" out into the streets and shooting them in the legs and finally the head? Like Israelis torturing the paraplegic son of a "subject" in his earshot?
Good (and stomach turning) examples. In the case of Hamas my guess is that the 'niceties' come before that conclusion, during the process used to determine this 'unreliability' and to convince the Gazans of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WME495PWWJE&feature=related
http://palnews24.blogspot.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836596.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/gaza-rafah-israel-residents
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11800
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
(report for the day:
Nothing appears to have changed much today. Israel has withdrawn some of its troops. Apparently reservists. full time, active duty troops are still in Gaza.
"Israeli army radio quoted unnamed military officials as saying that troops would pull out of Gaza by the time Barack Obama, the US president-elect, takes office on Tuesday."
The above is more evidence that this was a war of opportunity for Israeli politicians trying to boost their popularity just before the February elections. And trying to get away with it before Obama is sworn in.
The fact that Israel refuses to sign any peace deal, refuses to make any concessions to Hamas that might make Israel look weak, only reinforces that this is political. Any long term peace deal will require both sides to make some sort of formal agreement with each other, negotiate, exercise some level of diplomacy. The fact that ISrael refuses only indicates that Israel was only interested in short term gains, and the most obvious short term gain is the elections in February.
"Israel had said the aim of its operations in Gaza was to cripple Hamas's ability to launch rockets into the south of the country."
So, Israel continues to claim it was all about rockets, but Israel and Hamas had a formal working ceasefire that had lasted from July to November until Israel violated the ceasefire, and Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire for a year if Israel would lift its blockade of Gaza, a blockade Israel justifies as needed to stop the rockets. Rockets that killed about 17 Israelis in 2008, most before the start of the last ceasefire.
And yet, Israel launched this bombardment and invasion of Gaza. Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire for a year, but that would have meant Israeli politicians would have to make concessions to Hamas and lift the blockade of Gaza right before the elections. So, instead, Israel launched a war, claiming it was to stop the rockets, but more obviously was meant to make Israel look tough, further punish Gazans for the actions of Hamas, and attempt to inflict some sort of damage on Hamas.
In the last three weeks, Israel's politically motivated war killed 1,300 Gazans. About 400 of those Gazans were children. About 100 were women.
All, allegedly in response to Hamas rockets that killed 17 Israelis for the entire year.
Israel's war inflicted 1.5 billion dollars of damage on Gaza, 100,000 people have been forced from their homes, and 22,000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed.
All justified on the grounds of 17 Israelis killed.
Meanwhile, Israel continues its crushing, two year long blockade against all of Gaza, something Israel called an "act of war" when Egypt blockaded Israel in a previous war. Israel's blockade has been called a human rights crime by Jimmy Carter, condemned by Amnesty International and by the Human Rights Watch, among others. Prior to Israel's three week war against Gaza, Israel's blockade had pushed half of Gazans below the poverty level, pushed unemployment to 60%, and rendered many Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid for food, water, and medicine.
All justified on the grounds of 17 Israelis killed.
The conditions from Israel's lbockade were only made worse by ISrael's war on Gaza, inflicting one and a half billion dollars in damages, further damaging its infrastructure, and creating a level of damage that experts say will take five years to rebuild.
All justified on the grounds of 17 Israelis killed.
Israel killed hundreds of palestinian children, inflicted billions of dollars worth of damages, and rendered an entire people into utter poverty.
All justified on the grounds of 17 Israelis killed.
What Israel is doing is nothing more than ethnic cleansing, nothing more than genocide.
All of the damage shown in these pictures justified on the grounds of 17 Israelis killed.
photo
photo
photo
photo
photo
photo
photo
photo
Looking at these moonscapes of rubble, it's clear why the Israeli military refused to let journalists into Gaza, even though Israel's own Supreme Court ordered it to do so.
They wanted to hide the truth.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said "We are yet to discover the full scale of the appalling suffering, But what is already clear is that too many innocent civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed during the military offensive."
In other words, Israel's war against Gaza was a disproportional response to rockets that had killed 17 Israelis, rockets that had stopped from July to November of 2008 when Hamas observed a ceasefire, a ceasefire that Hamas had offered to extend for a year if Israel would lift its blockade.
And a disproportional war is against hte Geneva Convention.
"We see prima facie evidence that there have been war crimes and that is why we are calling for a thorough and independent investigation. It is not our job to jump to conclusions, we are saying that we are seeing prima facie evidence that is imperative it should be investigated."
Donatella Rovera
Amnesty International
Speaking from Gaza, on More4 News (UK, Channel 4)
Tak, how reliable is Globalresearch ? I find their tone, the words that they use and the strange scenario they try to sell most weird...
truthfully? I find him a bit of a nut-bar with axes to grind. That doesn't change the fact that there is frequently information there that is accurate, incendiary and censored elsewhere. You have to gather ALL sources, sift them and then make the risky move of a judgment call.
Xopher, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but I cast it into the sql.
My understanding of the Georgetown incident you referenced, as related to me by my local relatives, is that the media coverage is absurdly sensationalist but essentially correct.
The school board, and at least one local preacher, did indeed engage in clumsy, over-the-top efforts to convert a local Jewish family through intimidation and social discrimination after that family complained of the school board's blatant sponsorship of Christianity. The preacher and most of the board also misrepresented the Jewish family's behavior in sermons and speeches, in order to turn the Christian community against them, and refused to stop proselytizing them and singling them out until they eventually left town.
It's a blue-collar town that's nearly half Hispanic and immigrant black chicken-house workers, none of whom had anything to do with this as far as I know. The Jewish family hung out with the WASPs and that's who discriminated against them. Small-town white Christians. I'm told that the school board members no longer hold their seats, but I assume they are still active in their churches.
I will accept your definition of "ethnic cleansing" but I'm sorry you've chosen to associate it with the town, which has many fine and upright citizens, instead of with the Christians who deserve the blame. Delaware unfortunately has huge numbers of Catholics (and some child-molester priests) as well as other repressive and badly behaved Christian sects, but the non-Christians here are OK. We have a very strong Hindu community in the north, lots of UUs, Buddhists, Quakers, and Muslims of various flavors, and of course the University is a hotbed of atheism and agnosticism...
--Charlie
http://www.signandsight.com/features/1813.html
So, I've been pondering the propaganda and two little nuggets came up. There are two similar arguments I've heard on many different occaisions that apologists use to defend Israel relating to the civilian casualties that Israel inflicted on Gaza.
THe first argument goes something liek this: Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. If Israel really wanted to inflict civilian casualties, it has the firepower to level all of Gaza, to drop a nuke on it. Since Israel didn't level Gaza, Israel must be trying to avoid civilian casualties.
The second argument goes like this: Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. There are other attrocities going on in the world right now and in recent history where someone inflicted far greatere civilian casualties than Israel inflicted on Gaza. Since Israel didn't inflict those numbers of civilian casualties on Gaza, Israel must be trying to avoid civlian casualties.
The first boils down to "We were nicer than we could have been, so we were nice enough to satisfy the rules of war". The second boils down to "We were nicer than those guys were, so we were nice enough to satisfy the rules of war".
Both are extremely vulgar forms of moral relativism.
And both come up repeatedly by apologists to defend Israel's actions in Gaza.
I need ot make a note of this for the next time this crap comes up.
UN chief visits gaza, shocked and appalled.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11628022&ch=4226714&src=news
The last of Israel's troops leave Gaza
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians
Obama has named George Mitchell to be mideast envoy to deal with the israeli-palestinian problem. Mitchell wrote the Mitchell Report back in 2001.
"Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly."
I believe that. I also believe what we just saw was cold, calculated, cynical murder. By both sides.
The situtation has changed, those doing the dying have not.
I was wondering about the goals of the IDF's 'army of bloggers': I joked that they had been limp but I'd be surprised if they weren't very well prepared. My feeling is that they were content if they succeeded into getting most blaming Hamas too. This alone give Israel more margin to excuse their actions.
UN releases photos of Israeli white phosphorous bomb taken as the bomb is exploding over a UN compound in Gaza
Smokescreen my ass. There were no Israeli troops that needed a smokescreen here. THey were using whitephosporous as a weapon.
article
From that same article:
International law forbids white phosphorus use against military targets within areas where civilians are concentrated, except when the targets are clearly separated and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid casualties among non-combatants.
If the claims are proved, Israel's use of the chemical could form the basis of war crimes charges.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1203726
http://www.juancole.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html
Takuan, what search engines do you use? I couldn't find a result from google on the links you posted.
My English is awful so I appreciate such involuntary humor from pros of the language:
From the Juan Cole article:
On Thursday, Obama came out unambiguously against the use of waterboarding, a tool to which Bush and Cheney were attached...
One can only wish that they had been, at some point, attached to a waterboard; changes of perspective are good.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1211689
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/23/gaza-children-killed-israel
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
strong stuff
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090125/hamas_offices_090125/20090125?hub=TopStories
About the defense Israel intend to mount for its IDF members:
1- why would the accusations stop to the military since they were ordered by the political in this mess?
2- is the message that the accused will be defended or that the authority of no international tribunal can reach Israel?
3- isn't that 'defense' offer there more to ensure that the accused won't speak?
Ah, the solidarity of the gangsters...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2009/jan/26/bbc-gaza
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-in-israel-detachment-from-reality-is-now-the-norm-1488583.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/24/israelandthepalestinians-internationaltrade
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hamas-tried-to-hijack-ambulances-during-gaza-war/2009/01/25/1232818246374.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
iaminnocent: 3- isn't that 'defense' offer there more to ensure that the accused won't speak?
It's probably a matter of making sure everyone has their story/alibi straight.
We were just following orders, which at every level indicated that the target was hamas militants.
They probably want to make sure that no one talked with someone like Vilnai and said something like Vilnai would say, like bringing a holocaust on Gaza, or something like that.
"The front-runner in Israel's election (Netanyahu) said in an interview published Monday that he would let Jewish settlements expand in the West Bank"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
Israel, no rules, just right.
Please review this video segment in 60 minutes:
http://action.gazajustice.org/t/4436/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=963
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Gaza+peace+breached/1222450/story.html
#234: Please review this video segment in 60 minutes:
Israel clearly does not want peace. Israel wants all the land. Plain and simple. The settlements continue to expand and Israel does nothing to stop them. Meanwhile Israel makes it harder and harder for palestinians to continue living on their lands.
Israel wants the whole land for itself. End of story. Organized, methodical, patient, state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing.
Israel does not want a two state solution. Israel does not want a palestinian state. ISrael wants the palestinians to be pushed into Egypt and pushed into Syria and pushed into Lebanon, and Israel wants their land.
250,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian land and Israel wants to blame the problems on homemade rockets that killed 20 Israelis in a year?
Israel built a barricade that stole nearly one-tenth of palestinian land and they want to blame all the problems on Hamas?
A bunch of liars and thieves.
I wonder what Obama thought by naming Clinton to be the Secretary of State: she'll support 100% whatever the most vile and corrupted () leaders of Israel will undertake. Netanyahu succeding Olmert... Ha!... The Chains of Irony that strangle us. Oh Christ! Will anyone ever stop this disgusting madness?
About the Jews becoming the oppressors: I encounter every day examples of people doing to others exactly what they hated having done to themselves. I'd place the frequency of such behavior well over... Well those with the moral fortitude to respect The Commandment are almost as rare as saints when push comes to shove. I am not one of them: I just surprised myself wishing that the assimilation 'problem' the Jews have outside Israel gets 'total'... how far is this from ethnic cleansing really? Not as violent as other means but that much more hypocritical.
In the end, be it in the Middle East or in East Timor or in Sri Lanka or in Rwanda... there will be that kind of shit going on forever until there's a World Government. Mooahh-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
Oh God, did I woke up for seing myself go mad?
I think one could argue that the state of Israel has sworn an oath to the destruction of Palestinians as a people and to the destruction of any hope of there ever being a Palestinian state. By all measurable accounts, Israel's actions are indistinguishable from someone who had taken such an oath.
Argue as much as you want Greg but I am afraid that you'll remain out of luck. Israel has learned how to dance on the fine line that would get them irrevocably condemned by the International Community. They know how to play with our selfishness so we will allow them to commit some quite sizable atrocities but they'll never go for an all out cleansing, let alone a genocide. They are also extremely patient, thinking in term of centuries, even millennium. Like the slowest boa ever they will constrict the region until it empties itself of any Arab or, better, until any of those remaining become a completely docile minority that the Jews in Israel can show off as a sign of their superiority in every domain, including Human Rights... why the fuck not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks
A leaked report on Jewish settlements in the West Bank shows that the Israeli government was complicit in illegal construction on land owned by Palestinians, an Israeli human rights group says.
Israeli authorities are "systematically violating international law and the property rights of Palestinian residents,"
article
putting a tagline to Tak's link:
The Israeli defence ministry has concealed information about the extent of illegal settlement-building in the West Bank, a leading newspaper reports. It suggests most construction took place without the right permits, and more than 30 settlements were built in part on land owned by Palestinians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm
Anyone who thinks Israel wants peace, wants a two-state solution, is seriously deranged. They only want 1 state, and that state is Israel. Israel wants to slowly invade palestinian lands by settlements, encouraging and allowing them to steal palestinian land, and it wants to evict palestinians to Arab countries.
The term is Ethnic Cleansing.
Israel just had an election and the votes appear to have shifted significantly to the right. The moderate Kadima party of Tzipi Livni won 28 seats, the right wing party of Benyamin Netanyahu won 27 seats, and the far right Yisrael Beiteinu party of Avigdor Lieberman won 15 seats. And the Labor party won 13 seats. The most moderate of the top parties, Kadima is headed by Livni who launched the three week bombardment of Gaza in December that killed hundreds of innocent Gazan children and civilians in retaliation for Hamas killing 17 Israelis in an entire year. Netanyahu says that the bombardment stopped too early and that he would attack Hamas and topple them. Lieberman is the most extreme rigth wing candidate, calling Arabs living in Israel “collaborators” against Israel, suggesting that Arabs should be forced to take “loyalty oaths” and those who refuse would be stripped of their citizenship. His opponents call him a fascist and a racist. Netanyahu said he will turn to his natural partners in the nationalist camp to form a coalition government consisting of at least 61 of the 120 total seats.
He has 4 weeks to form a coalition. My guess is prepare for Israel to launch a war after that happens.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7913313.stm
Straight out of the mouth of the Israeli soldiers:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
Now that is courage. I bet that they'll soon be under fire.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003463.html?referrer=digg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-war-crimes-medics