Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[ripgriffith]

Good point, in keeping with the tenor of your contributions thus far. What world opinion really needs in order to accept Israel's right to defend itself against an opponent implacably committed to its destruction is more dead Jews. Not six million, of course. Would a few thousand satisfy you?

Jeremy

How about a few hundred less dead Palestinians?  Right to defend itself?  They come into your house and say they're going to live there now, first in the back bedroom, then the living room, then throughout the house, forcing you and your family into the garage and say, if you come out, we'll kill you, and when you do try to come out, they do kill you, your kids and the family dog for good measure.  All in self-defense.

[jjj]

England is also not without fault in the Middle East...boundaries were drawn though out the Middle East that were "convenient" but totally screwed up tradition tribal/religious boundaries...

There's no question that the middle east is totally screwed up...look at Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and all the "countries" in the region. The countries are all artificial and that has lead to long standing conflict (thanks to England).

Gah!! Not England, but Britain. Confusing England with the UK/Britain is like thinking Texas is America. Although it has to be said that in the past England has treated Scotland, Ireland and Wales as shabbily as it did the rest of the world. Which is part of the reason Scotland is currently to trying to leave the UK.

Sorry, but this is a much deeper historic conflict than what sadly is going on in Gaza at the moment. I only caution people here on LuLa to to be very, very careful picking sides and it's a far more complicated discussion that what I've seen here so far.

This is such a key point, us Brits can take a huge amount of blame for this particular ongoing disaster, just as the Americans and ourselves can for other Middle East screw ups. Basically we gave Palestine to the Israelis who since then have systematically annexed the Palestinians and seem to be trying to remove them entirely from their own country, which is horribly ironic considering everything that led to the creation of the State of Israel.

[jjj]

Here's an interesting article on how to market genocide.

"Dr Luntz cites as an example of an "effective Israeli sound bite" one which reads: "I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child."
Well here's a thought - stop killing them!

[Chris_Brown]

Eric Hoffer, writing in May 1968, quoted in Tom Bethell's "Eric Hoffer: The Longshoreman Philosopher" (2012):

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey drove out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese—and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.

Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us.

[jjj]

reminds me the proverbial "6 million" figure that appeared just before 1948 (what a coincidence, you might ask yourself... by 1948) and nobody can explain how it was calculated when most of those who died or survived were in Eastern Europe which was naturally under Soviet control or in xUSSR itself... so how it was counted back then remains a mistery...

Hmmm, sounds dangerously like Holocaust denial.     Something that is a criminal offence in many countries.  
It was relatively easy to work out how many of each ethnic group were killed because the Germans kept meticulous records with the whole thing being extremely well documented.

 

[BernardLanguillier]

Good point, in keeping with the tenor of your contributions thus far. What world opinion really needs in order to accept Israel's right to defend itself against an opponent implacably committed to its destruction is more dead Jews. Not six million, of course. Would a few thousand satisfy you?

Jeremy,

The same argument all over again... flawed as it always was. What jews underwent in the past has simply nothing to do with the current situation. Zero.

This debate is not about Jews or non Jews, it is not even about Israel.

This debate is also not about the right to defend oneself, it is about the conscious decision taken by a country, and renewed day after day, to kill more innocent children. Call is a side effect if you like, that is an interpretation. The facts, on the other hand, are indisputable. Those missiles kill tens of children every day and there is no way the people firing them do not know children will be killed.

So this is not about Israel and jews... the old and tired persecution story must stop. The world opinion would be just as critical if it were country Zaboix killing children the same way.

This is what most objective people are objecting against.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MarkH2]

... to kill more innocent children....Those missiles kill tens of children every day and there is no way the people firing them do not know children will be killed...

Cheers,
Bernard

Kind of a pet peeve with me -- maybe I'm not used to your cultural idiom -- but ending messages about killing with "cheers" seems a bit informal at best, if not callous.  Surely not your intention.

[mezzoduomo]

Jeremy,

The same argument all over again... flawed as it always was. What jews underwent in the past has simply nothing to do with the current situation. Zero.

This debate is not about Jews or non Jews, it is not even about Israel.

This debate is also not about the right to defend oneself, it is about the conscious decision taken by a country, and renewed day after day, to kill more innocent children. Call is a side effect if you like, that is an interpretation. The facts, on the other hand, are indisputable. Those missiles kill tens of children every day and there is no way the people firing them do not know children will be killed.

So this is not about Israel and jews... the old and tired persecution story must stop. The world opinion would be just as critical if it were country Zaboix killing children the same way.

This is what most objective people are objecting against.

Cheers,
Bernard

Your mind seems as closed as anyone's here....even mine!

Cheers,
Mezzoduomo

[mezzoduomo]

Kind of a pet peeve with me -- maybe I'm not used to your cultural idiom -- but ending messages about killing with "cheers" seems a bit informal at best, if not callous.  Surely not your intention.

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Israelis Watch Bombs Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats, cheered on their military from plastic chairs while eating popcorn.

[PeterAit]

Hi Peter, Let me ask you this: If you lived in a small country next to a neighbor who's fired more than 2,600 rockets from facilities deliberately located in schools, hospitals and other civilian centers toward your populated areas in the past month and who's built tunnels into your country in order to kidnap and blow up your people, what would you do?  Would you take what you call "the moral high ground" or try to stop them? If your answer is "try to stop them," how would you avoid killing the civilians they're using as shields? I know, there's a world-wide sea of bullshit surrounding the whole situation, and any path is going to be painful, but that's what it boils down to: an existential threat that simply gives you no alternative. "You gotta do what you gotta do," as Bill Clinton once famously said.

You make the common mistake of thinking of the Palestinians as some sort of unitary group where every individual is responsible for the actions of all the others. Hamas is a foul group, but the active Hamas people are a small minority in Gaza and they don't give the rest of the people a whole lot of choice. If Israel could accurately target the terrorists and missile shooters and blow them to hell, I would be very happy. But, they cannot. Here's an analogy - your neighbor is building bombs to use in terrorist attacks, so the government comes in and blows up your house and kills your entire family. Is this OK with you? Because they did what they "gotta do?"

Then there's the likelihood that Israel's attacks actually help Hamas. Why do you think Hamas shoots the missiles? Most are intercepted and the few that aren't cause no real damage and very few casualties. They certainly don't weaken Israel - but they provoke the predictable bombings and invasion, which cause great suffering and anger among the people, which only strengthens Hamas's hand by increasing hatred of Israel and bringing them new recruits. So, Israel's attacks not only don't solve the problem, they help the enemy and kill hundreds of innocents while Israel's standing in the world sinks even lower. How exactly is this a good idea? How does it help Israel?

[mezzoduomo]

"Israel and Hamas agree to an unconditional 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire to begin on Friday morning…"

...and if/when broken by Hamas, I do wonder what sort of convoluted justification might be put forward. Personally, I can't think of any justification.

"We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”  - Golda Meir

[Ligament]

As long as religion exists to corrupt the mind of man, slaughter will follow.

[BernardLanguillier]

Your mind seems as closed as anyone's here....even mine!

I have no intention to open up to the proposition that it may ever be justified to murder children on purpose. Perhaps it is because I am a father.

If it results in being seen by you as close minded, then so be it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Vladimirovich]

What world opinion really needs in order to accept Israel's right to defend itself

for starters stop being an occupant 

[Schewe]

Gah!! Not England, but Britain. Confusing England with the UK/Britain is like thinking Texas is America.

Actually it's more like Great Britain ("Britain" is considered to be just England and Wales)...Sorry to have said "England"...I know better. It's 20th Century Great Britain that is to blame for the re-mapping of the middle east...

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Leaving lurk mode and popping right in here, since this conflict has been bothering me as an outstander for decades ....

In the meantime after hearing all kinds of news about the conflict in the middle east since decades
I'm quite fed up with it and have come to the following conclusion:

There is no real political will for peace in the near east, at least not in the moment.
There is some amongst some great people there, Palestinians and Israelis alike,
but these are exceptions and drowned in a perverted destructive relationship between the two peoples,
which has developed over generations of war, generations who never have experienced peace.

Israel has the upper hand, but I don't believe anything would be different if the situation
would be vice versa or balanced concerning military power.

Despite all statements, my impression is, that the current motives are mainly not to achieve peace,
but to torture each other and see each other suffer as much as possible.
In this kind of perversion both societies are in a sort of stable equilibrium of torment.
Its a perverted mutual interdependency which is very very hard to crack and
I am very pessimistic about the future of it.

Cheers
~Chris

[stamper]

About 150 years ago - or more - white settlers in America began colonising the west and in doing so displaced the Red Indian native from land they owned for thousands of years. When the Indians fought back they were murdered and placed into reservations where a close eye meant they they couldn't leave or they would be punished. Does anyone see a parallel between this and the Gaza crisis? Is this why the USA back the Israelis? Do the two countries have the same determination to conquer?

[Ray]

What jews underwent in the past has simply nothing to do with the current situation. Zero.

That doesn't sound right, Bernard. Surely the present is always conditioned by the past. It's called 'cause and effect'.

On a grand scale, as homo sapiens, we are a result of millions of years of conditioning and interaction with our environment, a process called evolution. On a smaller scale we are conditioned by the customs and culture we are exposed to from birth onward. There is even conditioning that takes place in the womb.

A Muslim is a Muslim, and a Jew a Jew, because he/she has been brought up as a Muslim or a Jew. That's conditioning of the past.
If in addition the child has had personal experiences of war and atrocities, or is exposed to family stories involving brothers, parents, uncles, grandparents, great grandparents and so on, who have been exposed to atrocities, then that's further conditioning which can result in attitudes of prejudice and hatred, which in turn can influence actions in the present.

Isn't it now accepted by historians that World War II was largely the result of the unresolved problems of World War I? There's a 'cause and effect' link. The political punishment from the Treaty of Versailles led to economic and social unrest, humiliation and anger in Germany, which in turn led to a rise in Nationalism, or Nazism.

[jjj]

Actually it's more like Great Britain ("Britain" is considered to be just England and Wales)...Sorry to have said "England"...I know better. It's 20th Century Great Britain that is to blame for the re-mapping of the middle east...

Britain/Great Britain - there's no difference. Here something to explain possibly the most confusingly named area on Earth. Great Britain despite what nationalist types like to think, simply means large Britain as it's a mistranslation of Grande Bretagne, as opposed to the smaller area Bretagne in France now known as Brittany.
So to be precise, the UK is to blame for some of the recent mess in the Middle East, as is the US albeit in different ways.