Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on July 29, 2014, 07:29:45 pm
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgwr2Nj_GQ
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I saw the film yesterday as well. Jon Snow is a brilliant journalist and brings home the realities of the situation in Gaza. Heartbreaking - but I do not know there is any easy solution. All I know is that what is happening is wrong......
Jim
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
And you sure as hell won't hear anything along those lines from Jon Snow. For some balance, see here (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100281431/channel-4s-jon-snow-is-deluded-about-hamas/).
Jeremy
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
And if Israel allowed the Palestinian people to live in decent circumstances, stopped the illegal settlement of Palestinian land & all the rest of it, maybe fewer Palestinians would feel like firing loads of largely ineffectual rockets into Israel. Like you said, there is an easy solution, but when it's a complex question, the simple answer is usually the wrong one.
Part of me is inclined to say 'a plague on both your houses', but another part simply wants people to stop killing one another. Thing is, there's no easy answer to this mess.
-
People have been killing one another since Cain and Abel, Bill. It's not going to stop as long as there continue to be sixth-century religious fanatics and revanchist Russians in the world. I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was an "illegal settlement of Palestinian land." If that's true then there were a flock of "illegal settlements" following WW I and WW II. Only one of those settlements seems to get the label "illegal" from the world's talking heads. It was the Kurds who took the brunt of "illegal" land distributions, not the Palestinians.
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
Anyway you look at it Israel is the historical agressor in Gaza.
Today they are the ones deciding hour after hour to kill Palestinian children. On purpose.
Is Hamas innocent? No, they are not, but sticking a terrorist naming to them doesn't reduce the least bit the atrocious nature of what Israel, and the people supporting their positions, are doing/letting them do.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IMHO, the Palestinians should stop lobbing those useless rockets and engage a good PR firm.
They will never win in combat with Israel, but the battle for hearts & minds would be a cake walk.
The next thing they need is stable, unified government - that's the tough one. ;)
-
Anyway you look at it Israel is the historical agressor in Gaza.
You're living in Japan. If the South Koreans kept lobbing rockets into the area where you live, trying, by the way, to kill as many civilians as possible, and Japan finally started shooting back, would you consider Japan to be the "historical agressor?"
-
All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel.
and then what ? Israel is not going to accept a two state solution, etc... stopping rockets does not stimulate occupying power
-
And if Israel allowed the Palestinian people to live in decent circumstances, stopped the illegal settlement of Palestinian land & all the rest of it, maybe fewer Palestinians would feel like firing loads of largely ineffectual rockets into Israel. Like you said, there is an easy solution, but when it's a complex question, the simple answer is usually the wrong one.
Part of me is inclined to say 'a plague on both your houses', but another part simply wants people to stop killing one another. Thing is, there's no easy answer to this mess.
at least Israel could strike a separate deal with West Bank part (agree to two state, remove settlements there, etc) and and let Gaza watch West Bank - how well it could be w/o Hamas, but no... too greedy.
-
You're living in Japan. If the South Koreans kept lobbing rockets into the area where you live, trying, by the way, to kill as many civilians as possible, and Japan finally started shooting back, would you consider Japan to be the "historical agressor?"
it is a typical israeli-lobby-invented false anology... because you know Japan now does not (in a current state) prevent South Korea from obtaining a statehood, does not settle their land with new Japanese settlements, etc, etc... but when Japan was an occupying power (for Korea among some other countries) if you remember US nuked couple of their cities and that (among other actions) facilitated Koreans to obtain their statehood, regardless of Japanese wishes.
-
IMHO, the Palestinians should stop lobbing those useless rockets and engage a good PR firm.
They will never win in combat with Israel, but the battle for hearts & minds would be a cake walk.
the point is not to win a combat, but to corner the occupants into a no win situation for themselves.
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
Well, it really isn't so easy...unless you understand the history of the middle east and the struggles between Sunni & Shiite Muslims and how that impacts Jews and Christian in the middle east, you really can't arrive at an easy solution.
Hamas is a radical terrorist organization funded by Saudi Arabia which is in long standing bitter fight with Shiite Muslims (since Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) wrote the Quran). The Shia–Sunni problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations) go back to battles caused after Mohammed's death. The Palestinians have been used by both sides of the Shia–Sunni conflict...
Israel is not an innocent bystander in the conflict but it is also a victim. So is the USA...
Most people don't know the history of the US vs. radical Islamists...the US has been at war with radical Islamists since Thomas Jefferson was President. He was the first President to field a navy to fight Islamist pirates off the coast of what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Outposts of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire).
Back in Jeffersons presidency, radical Islamists following the mandate of killing infidels used piracy in the Mediterranean Sea to steal goods being shipped to Europe. At the behest of shipping companies, Jefferson armed the first US navy to go over to the Mediterranean Sea to protect US ships and fight radical Islamists. That started the Barbary Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War).
The first armed ships carried "Marines" that carried out attacks on pirate bases. In the Marine hymn, the term "to the shores or Tripoli" is mentioned...that would be Tripoli in Libya. The term "leather necks" came into play because the Marines were outfitted with leather collars to make it harder for the Islamists to behead the Marines with scimitars...
The "West" has been at war with Islamists since the early 1800's.
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).
There will be no peace until radical Islamists quit trying to kill infidels (any non-Muslim religion including Jews & Christian). Heck, even trying to get Shia–Sunni Muslims to talk is impossible let alone Jews and Christians.
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.
Muslims (non-Islamists) must seize control of their religion and stop the radical Islamists from taking control...I had hopes during the Arab Spring....but sadly, many Muslims were too terrified to stand up and reject the radicals. Can't say I blame them...the middle east is a really tough place where the value of human life is vastly under valued.
Just really grateful I live in the USA...
-
You're living in Japan. If the South Koreans kept lobbing rockets into the area where you live, trying, by the way, to kill as many civilians as possible, and Japan finally started shooting back, would you consider Japan to be the "historical agressor?"
Although the global situation in the middle East if very complex, what we have in front of us is extremely simple and no amount of wicked rhetoric will change that.
Every hours that passes by, the Israeli gov has the option to stop bombing or to continue bombing. Every time they decide to continue bombing, they are de facto deciding to kill innocent children on top of the hundreds they have already murdered these past 2 weeks.
Those who have an influence on the Isreali government and are not succeeding in making them stop have blood on their hands too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
the US has been at war with radical Islamists since Thomas Jefferson was President
how typical - instead of emancipating his own negro slaves @ home, he fights to free white slaves 5000 miles away in European backyard :D ... well, the real reason of course is not some white slaves, but rather United Fruit merchant's interests
-
how typical - instead of emancipating his own negro slaves @ home, he fights to free white slaves 5000 miles away in European backyard :D ... well, the real reason of course is not some white slaves, but rather United Fruit merchant's interests
And your point is?
Do you dispute the radical Islamist view? Are you with them or against them>
Yes, Jefferson had slaves....he also said that war with radical Islamists was a serious problem facing the US from there foreword?
So, are you in favor of death to infidels?
-
Well, it really isn't so easy...unless you understand the history of the middle east and the struggles between Sunni & Shiite Muslims and how that impacts Jews and Christian in the middle east, you really can't arrive at an easy solution.
Hamas is a radical terrorist organization funded by Saudi Arabia which is in long standing bitter fight with Shiite Muslims (since Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) wrote the Quran). The Shia–Sunni problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations) go back to battles caused after Mohammed's death. The Palestinians have been used by both sides of the Shia–Sunni conflict...
Israel is not an innocent bystander in the conflict but it is also a victim. So is the USA...
Most people don't know the history of the US vs. radical Islamists...the US has been at war with radical Islamists since Thomas Jefferson was President. He was the first President to field a navy to fight Islamist pirates off the coast of what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Outposts of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire).
Back in Jeffersons presidency, radical Islamists following the mandate of killing infidels used piracy in the Mediterranean Sea to steal goods being shipped to Europe. At the behest of shipping companies, Jefferson armed the first US navy to go over to the Mediterranean Sea to protect US ships and fight radical Islamists. That started the Barbary Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War).
The first armed ships carried "Marines" that carried out attacks on pirate bases. In the Marine hymn, the term "to the shores or Tripoli" is mentioned...that would be Tripoli in Libya. The term "leather necks" came into play because the Marines were outfitted with leather collars to make it harder for the Islamists to behead the Marines with scimitars...
The "West" has been at war with Islamists since the early 1800's.
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).
There will be no peace until radical Islamists quit trying to kill infidels (any non-Muslim religion including Jews & Christian). Heck, even trying to get Shia–Sunni Muslims to talk is impossible let alone Jews and Christians.
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.
Muslims (non-Islamists) must seize control of their religion and stop the radical Islamists from taking control...I had hopes during the Arab Spring....but sadly, many Muslims were too terrified to stand up and reject the radicals. Can't say I blame them...the middle east is a really tough place where the value of human life is vastly under valued.
Just really grateful I live in the USA...
Good post, Jeff. I'm also grateful I live in Australia. The conflict that's been going on in the Middle East for centuries is truly mind-boggling. I literally can't get my mind around it. I can't find an explanation, and I'm generally pretty good at finding explanations.
What has happened in the current conflict, with over a thousand Palestinians killed so far, many of them civilians and children, is of course absolutely awful. However, it was even worse in the past, for the Jews.
Most of us have heard of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans. What is not so widely known is that for about 4 years prior to that Roman invasion which resulted in the destruction of the temple, the Jews had successfully rebelled against the Romans, and kicked them out. For about 4 years, from 66-70 A.D.the Jews were in charge of their own country.
However, the Romans came back with a vengeance. They not only burned the temple to the ground, but the fire spread throughout the whole city of Jerusalem and razed it to the ground. The Romans plundered and pillaged the entire country. According to the Roman/Jewish historian, Josephus, about 1.1 million Jews were slaughtered, and 97,000 captured for slavery. That would have represented nearly half of the population of Judea at the time.
However tragic and unacceptable the current conflict appears to be, it was even worse in the past. :(
-
Israel is not an innocent bystander in the conflict but it is also a victim. So is the USA...
Master of the understatement, Jeff.
--
From The Times, today:
ISRAEL IS ACCUSED OF WAR CRIME AFTER SCHOOL SHELLING KILLS 20 REFUGEES
The United Nations has accused Israel of committing a war crime after 20 Gazan refugees sheltering in a UN-run school were killed in Israeli tank fire. More than 3,000 civilians were in the school, one of almost 100 UN buildings designated as internationally protected safe zones for those fleeing under evacuation orders from the Israeli army. Many were still asleep or at dawn prayers ...
--
No justification. None.
-
Israeli spokesman states they aren't targeting civilians. If so then they must have the worst gunners in the world? :o
-
There was a spokesman from the Palestinians on the radio the other night and when pressed about militants hiding amongst the civilians
his response was where else can they go ?
Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth and it's citizens are not free to come & go and there's no where for anyone to hide.
-
<
The Israeli military said it had targeted more than 4,100 sites in Gaza since the start of the conflict on 8 July. The death toll in Gaza rose above 1,300 on Wednesday. Three soldiers were killed in fighting around Khan Younis, bringing the total IDF death toll to 56. Three civilians have died in rocket attacks on Israel.
Support for the military operation among the Israeli public remained solid. A poll published by Tel Aviv university this week found 95% of Israeli Jews felt the offensive was justified. Only 4% believed too much force had been used.
>
The US condemned the school shelling but did not specifically blame Israel. [/read with a note of incredulity]
-
The US has given Israel over 100 billion dollars since it's inception so it isn't neutral.
-
Master of the understatement, Jeff.
Well...what about this: Arab Leaders Silent, Viewing Israel as Better Than Hamas (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/fighting-political-islam-arab-states-find-themselves-allied-with-israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news). (requires a NYT's log-in)
It ain't cut and dried...I regret the loss of human lives for any reason...(including Malaysian flight 17) but nothing is easy...but I don't think LuLa is the best place for solving the world's problems.
-
The US has given Israel over 100 billion dollars since it's inception so it isn't neutral.
Anything but.
Put the latest carnage into perspective - 1300+ dead (large percentage women and children).
Almost 1/2 the death toll (2977) from 9/11.
And the best they can do, so far, is just 'condemn' the shelling ..
Well...what about this: Arab Leaders Silent, Viewing Israel as Better Than Hamas (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/fighting-political-islam-arab-states-find-themselves-allied-with-israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news). (requires a NYT's log-in)
It ain't cut and dried...I regret the loss of human lives for any reason...(including Malaysian flight 17) but nothing is easy...
Nothing I've posted supports any form of terrorism or Hamas. That's not the issue here, 'war crimes' is.
but I don't think LuLa is the best place for solving the world's problems.
Agreed.
-
I suppose if Israel didn't have the Iron Dome defense, things would be more 'proportional'. Would that be preferable to some posting here?
Only one faith calls for the eradication of all others, and only one party to this calamity vows the annihilation of the other. Capabilities aside, it seems pretty easy to see the deep animus that underlies all this carnage.
-
Although the global situation in the middle East if very complex, what we have in front of us is extremely simple and no amount of wicked rhetoric will change that.
Every hours that passes by, the Israeli gov has the option to stop bombing or to continue bombing. Every time they decide to continue bombing, they are de facto deciding to kill innocent children on top of the hundreds they have already murdered these past 2 weeks.
Those who have an influence on the Isreali government and are not succeeding in making them stop have blood on their hands too.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's quite a rant, Bernard, but you didn't answer the question.
-
Anyway you look at it Israel is the historical agressor in Gaza.
Today they are the ones deciding hour after hour to kill Palestinian children. On purpose.
Is Hamas innocent? No, they are not, but sticking a terrorist naming to them doesn't reduce the least bit the atrocious nature of what Israel, and the people supporting their positions, are doing/letting them do.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1
-
There was a spokesman from the Palestinians on the radio the other night and when pressed about militants hiding amongst the civilians
his response was where else can they go ?
Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth and it's citizens are not free to come & go and there's no where for anyone to hide.
Yes, it's very crowded there. Thus Hamas has no choice but to put tunnel entrances under people's homes, and no good place to store rockets except the mosques and UN schools.
-
The Israelis have been at this off and on since about the thirteenth century BC, when their ancestors invaded Canaan and, according to their propaganda, "God" told them to kill everything that moves. "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them" Deuteronomy 7;1,2
-
Well, it really isn't so easy...unless you understand the history of the middle east and the struggles between Sunni & Shiite Muslims and how that impacts Jews and Christian in the middle east, you really can't arrive at an easy solution.
Hamas is a radical terrorist organization funded by Saudi Arabia which is in long standing bitter fight with Shiite Muslims (since Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) wrote the Quran). The Shia–Sunni problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations) go back to battles caused after Mohammed's death. The Palestinians have been used by both sides of the Shia–Sunni conflict...
Israel is not an innocent bystander in the conflict but it is also a victim. So is the USA...
Most people don't know the history of the US vs. radical Islamists...the US has been at war with radical Islamists since Thomas Jefferson was President. He was the first President to field a navy to fight Islamist pirates off the coast of what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Outposts of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire).
Back in Jeffersons presidency, radical Islamists following the mandate of killing infidels used piracy in the Mediterranean Sea to steal goods being shipped to Europe. At the behest of shipping companies, Jefferson armed the first US navy to go over to the Mediterranean Sea to protect US ships and fight radical Islamists. That started the Barbary Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War).
The first armed ships carried "Marines" that carried out attacks on pirate bases. In the Marine hymn, the term "to the shores or Tripoli" is mentioned...that would be Tripoli in Libya. The term "leather necks" came into play because the Marines were outfitted with leather collars to make it harder for the Islamists to behead the Marines with scimitars...
The "West" has been at war with Islamists since the early 1800's.
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).
There will be no peace until radical Islamists quit trying to kill infidels (any non-Muslim religion including Jews & Christian). Heck, even trying to get Shia–Sunni Muslims to talk is impossible let alone Jews and Christians.
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.
Muslims (non-Islamists) must seize control of their religion and stop the radical Islamists from taking control...I had hopes during the Arab Spring....but sadly, many Muslims were too terrified to stand up and reject the radicals. Can't say I blame them...the middle east is a really tough place where the value of human life is vastly under valued.
Just really grateful I live in the USA...
Hi Jeff,
Yes, Israel always has been surrounded by enemies, and your history is correct: western "powers" have screwed up consistently when they've interfered in the middle east. But if we're talking about stopping the war in Gaza I stand by what I said. If Hamas stops shooting rockets and if there's a way to make sure the rockets remain stopped, Israel will stop attacking in Gaza.
But of course that doesn't end the war against Israel. They'll still be surrounded by people who want to wipe them off the map. And let's assume those people eventually are successful. If that happens, the Sunnis and Shiites will go back to killing each other as they have for centuries and the United States will be in greater danger than it has been since before our intervention in Afghanistan.
Yes, ultimately Muslims must seize control of their religion. But it's not going to happen. Have you ever read the Quran? If not, take a shot. You might see why it's unlikely that what we call "radicalism" isn't going to stop. It's not just a matter of being scared.
Yes, as you said, it's a far more complicated situation than this discussion has indicated, but the way to stop the Israeli incursion into Gaza is pretty simple and straightforward.
Yeah, I've spent several years in Asia and I too am forever grateful I live in the USA.
-
... The conflict that's been going on in the Middle East for centuries is truly mind-boggling. I literally can't get my mind around it. I can't find an explanation, and I'm generally pretty good at finding explanations...
Hey Ray, judging by how successful you were in explaining lens perspective, I can't wait to hear your Middle East explanation. Or your perspective on Middle East ;)
-
[/quote]
I am a Zionist because the story of my forebears convinces me that Jews needed the homeland voted into existence by United Nations Resolution 181 of 1947, calling for the establishment of two states — one Jewish, one Arab — in Mandate Palestine.
[..]
What I cannot accept, however, is the perversion of Zionism that has seen the inexorable growth of a Messianic Israeli nationalism claiming all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River; that has, for almost a half-century now, produced the systematic oppression of another people in the West Bank; that has led to the steady expansion of Israeli settlements on the very West Bank land of any Palestinian state; that isolates moderate Palestinians like Salam Fayyad in the name of divide-and-rule; that pursues policies that will make it impossible to remain a Jewish and democratic state; that seeks tactical advantage rather than the strategic breakthrough of a two-state peace; that blockades Gaza with 1.8 million people locked in its prison and is then surprised by the periodic eruptions of the inmates; and that responds disproportionately to attack in a way that kills hundreds of children.
This, as a Zionist, I cannot accept. Jews, above all people, know what oppression is. Children over millennia were the transmission belt of Jewish survival, ... No argument, no Palestinian outrage or subterfuge, can gloss over what Jewish failure the killing of children in such numbers represents.
The Israeli case for the bombardment of Gaza could be foolproof. If Benjamin Netanyahu had made a good-faith effort to find common cause with Palestinian moderates for peace and been rebuffed, it would be. He has not. Hamas is vile. I would happily see it destroyed. But Hamas is also the product of a situation that Israel has reinforced rather than sought to resolve.
This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe.
[/unquote]
Roger Cohen - Int NYT [30-July-2014]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/roger-cohen-zionism-and-israels-war-with-hamas-in-gaza.html?_r=0
-
According to the Roman/Jewish historian, Josephus, about 1.1 million Jews were slaughtered
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...
-
And your point is?
my point is that USA should stop hiding the advancing of their business' (United Fruit's of the time) interests behind "radical islamists" label
-
Hi Jim, Actually there IS an easy solution. All Hamas has to do is stop sending rockets into Israel. That'll stop the whole thing. But history tells us that that's not likely to happen.
But, Hamas WANTS Israel to attack. Their rockets do no real harm, but Israel's predictable response is, well, predictable. Tap your knee, your leg jerks up. Hamas, not popular in Gaza, strengthens its position because of the Israeli slaughter of innocents and destruction of infrastructure. Any Palestinian moderates are shouted down and Hamas remains in power. Hamas is to be sure a vile bunch, and I don't think they really care about the Palestinian people, but why does Israel keep playing into their hand? Israel certainly has a right to exist and defend itself, but please tell me how the 200+ Palestinian kids Israel has killed were a threat. Just because your enemy is horrid is not an excuse to be more horrid in return. Any claim that Israel had to the moral high ground is long gone.
-
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.
-
Their rockets do no real harm
come one... 2 people killed 34 injured... that certainly calls to kill 1400 and what is the ratio of killed:injured ? 1:5 ? ~7000 injured... I 'd say it's time for parties in Ukraine to start nuking each other, as USA clearly thinks that 2:1400 is a good, allowable ratio for one side to retaliate ;D
-
Hi Peter, Let me ask you this: If you lived in a small country
may be you shall ask the little country to stop occupation in the first place ?
-
come one... 2 people killed 34 injured... that certainly calls to kill 1400 and what is the ratio of killed:injured ? 1:5 ? ~7000 injured... I 'd say it's time for parties in Ukraine to start nuking each other, as USA clearly thinks that 2:1400 is a good, allowable ratio for one side to retaliate ;D
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
-
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.
-
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.
(http://thenewsdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1946-2013-Map-of-Palestine-and-Israel.jpg)
-
Here's an interesting article (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html)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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
... 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.
-
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
-
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
-
Israelis Watch Bombs Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats, cheered on their military from plastic chairs while eating popcorn. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html?_r=0)
-
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?
-
"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
-
As long as religion exists to corrupt the mind of man, slaughter will follow.
-
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
-
What world opinion really needs in order to accept Israel's right to defend itself
for starters stop being an occupant :D
-
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...
-
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
-
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? :-\
-
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.
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg/1260px-British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg.png)
-
As i see it:
As long as the US keeps supporting Israel with weapons and money, whatever it does, the situation will remain as it is. There are a lot Jewish influencial people in the US who will make sure it will stay that way.
Israel is also stratigically too important for the US in the Middle East, being their only ally they can depend upon.
Both Hamas and Israel do not want peace for their own political reasons.
This latest war seems meant to put an end to the peace talks that both do not seems to want anyway...
If i look at Israels policy throughout the years their intention seems to be to make life for Palestinians as miserable as possible in order to make them go away. They seem to want all their land.
They feed the support for Hamas with their needless wars as they need these ’bad’ Palestinians as an enemy to jusitify further wars and settlements in Palestinian territory.
At the same time this Palestinian enemy makes it for the Israelian politicians easier to stay in charge as all the attention is drawn from the bad economical situation of the state Israel.
If you start counting bodies the ratio will be about 1000 Palestinians to 1 Isreali..
As a consumer i never buy goods from Israel nor will i ever go there. Maybe a consumer boycot on a world scale could change Israels policy...
Alternative Jewish organizations in my country- Holland- say they are afraid, but find it understandable, that anti-semitism in the world may grow because of current Israeli war crimes…
-
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? :-\
Sadly nothing unique to those two countries as it's simply typical human behaviour.
Israel is simply an ingress point to to the Middle East for the West. That along with close ties with the Jewish community that fled Europe and ended up in the US, some of whom have strong political influence. The US has the highest percentage of Jewish population outside of Israel, so it's not surprising they help Israel out more than any other country
-
British service men tried their best to protect the Palestinians from the Jews in the 1930's. Hundreds of them died at the hands of the Zionists culminating in the blowing up of the Hotel David in Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
When partitioning happened in 1947 the Jews were given over 50% of the land - Palestinian land - despite having only 6% of the population. They have massively expanded their share of the land. :o
-
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?
All very interesting, Peter, but you didn't answer the question.
-
If i look at Israels policy throughout the years their intention seems to be to make life for Palestinians as miserable as possible in order to make them go away. They seem to want all their land.
As I posted earlier...
(http://thenewsdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1946-2013-Map-of-Palestine-and-Israel.jpg)
If you start counting bodies the ratio will be about 1000 Palestinians to 1 Isreali..
Actually it's now over 1400 vs 59.
-
The carve up of land after the end of WW1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_Mandate#Sui_Generis_mandate) by the League of Nations seems to be the root cause of the current problems in Plastine/Israel.
-
All very interesting, Peter, but you didn't answer the question.
I think he did. He explained the situation pretty well and why there is no actual simplistic answer.
-
The carve up of land after the end of WW1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_Mandate#Sui_Generis_mandate) by the League of Nations seems to be the root cause of the current problems in Plastine/Israel.
The sectarian violence amongst Islamic factions (sponsored by several stake holders) plays a major role. Israel is caught in the middle, but it's not the cause (nor does it help to defuse the situation).
Cheers,
Bart
-
All very interesting, Peter, but you didn't answer the question.
That's because I don't have an answer, and I sometimes doubt there is one. I think a reasonable fair 2-state solution is probably the only way to go, but I fear that the hardliners on both sides have probably poisoned that possibility. But, just because there doesn't seem to be a "good" response to Hamas is no reason for Israel to make the immoral and self-destructive response it has chosen (for at least the 3rd time).
-
The sectarian violence amongst Islamic factions (sponsored by several stake holders) plays a major role. Israel is caught in the middle, but it's not the cause (nor does it help to defuse the situation).
That's a separate issue. What is currently happening is about the carve up of land that used to belong to one group and the second group who now control nearly all of it want rid of the remaining original residents.
-
Israel is caught in the middle
Israel had (still has) a chance to deal with West Bank, leaving Gaza on sidelines... but they didn't -> it was pure greed because Israel still hopes to keep all the land that otherwise they have to give up.
-
Israel had (still has) a chance to deal with West Bank, leaving Gaza on sidelines... but they didn't -> it was pure greed because Israel still hopes to keep all the land that otherwise they have to give up.
I suppose it was their insatiable, imperialist, American-style land-grabbing urges that caused them to abandon all settlements in Gaza in 2005.
-
I suppose it was their insatiable, imperialist, American-style land-grabbing urges that caused them to abandon all settlements in Gaza in 2005.
No, it was actually Israel's realization that maintaining the security of the Gaza settlements was an impossible task.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgwr2Nj_GQ
Cheers,
Bernard
Next, what say you open a new thread here entitled 'Naked Anti-Semitism in Europe, circa 2014".
Cheers,
Mezzoduomo
-
I think he did. He explained the situation pretty well and why there is no actual simplistic answer.
Actually, as I said earlier, there's a very simple answer to how to stop the war between Hamas and Israel. Hamas stops shooting rockets at Israel and Israel stops clobbering Gaza. But the ball's in Hamas's court.
-
Actually, as I said earlier, there's a very simple answer to how to stop the war between Hamas and Israel. Hamas stops shooting rockets at Israel and Israel stops clobbering Gaza. But the ball's in Hamas's court.
the ball actually always is with the occupant, that's Israel...
-
I suppose it was their insatiable, imperialist, American-style land-grabbing urges that caused them to abandon all settlements in Gaza in 2005.
we talk about West Bank areas, part of Jerusalem :) ...
-
Hamas Detonates Suicide Bomb, Kidnaps IDF Soldier Just 90 Mins Into Ceasefire (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/terrortunnels-hamas-detonates-suicide-bomb-kidnaps-idf-soldier-just-90-mins-into-ceasefire/)
Expect more finger-pointing.
-
Despite all statements, my impression is, that the current motives are mainly not to achieve peace,
I am not sure I agree with this. Israel wants peace, but it wants land and security more. The Palestinians want peace (most of them, anyway), but they want past injustices by Israel to be redressed first. These 2 sets of goals are incompatible. It's a case of right against right - or, all too often, wrong against wrong.
-
Israel wasn't shooting random rockets into Gaza.
-
the ball actually always is with the occupant, that's Israel...
Vlad,
Your analysis seems to suggest that if only all the grievances of the Palestinians were assuaged by the Israelis and the rest of the world community, then there would be peace. What about the clearly and frequently stated objective of the hardliners, namely the annihilation of the Jews? What’s required to get that faction to abandon that objective? Until they do (or until they succeed?)….no peace. Seems to me that one of Israel’s (legitimate) objectives is to insure that they never have the capability to realize that objective.
-
I know better. It's 20th Century Great Britain that is to blame for the re-mapping of the middle east...
"It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments…" (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp)
-
About 150 years ago - or more - white settlers in America began colonising the west…
You think the eastern seaboard was unpopulated (http://historyisfun.org/pocahontas-and-the-powhatans-of-virginia.htm)?
-
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.
National Socialism, not Nationalism.
World War II was largely the result of Hitler -- "No Hitler: no Second World War." (http://books.google.com/books?id=oYiGAAAAQBAJ&lpg=RA2-PT19&dq=%22No%20Hitler%3A%20no%20Second%20World%20War.%22&pg=RA2-PT19#v=onepage&q=%22No%20Hitler%3A%20no%20Second%20World%20War.%22&f=false)
-
for starters stop being an occupant
I have to admire you, Vlad. Yet again you have put your finger precisely on the answer. All Israel has to do to stop Hamas firing rockets at it is to cease to exist. Then Hamas's raison d'être will have been met and it can turn its attention to, well, firing rockets at someone else.
Your insight has allowed you to reach, what's the phrase? a Final Solution. Well done.
Jeremy
-
... World War II was largely the result of Hitler.
And Hitler was largely the result of...? His dad loved his mom?
-
Next, what say you open a new thread here entitled 'Naked Anti-Semitism in Europe, circa 2014".
There's nothing in the least bit anti-semetic about that news programme clip. Though there certainly is the problem that criticising Israel as some people have rightly done on this thread leads to [inaccurate] charges of anti semitism. And sadly a few dodgy posts.
-
All Israel has to do to stop Hamas firing rockets at it is to cease to exist.
Hamas rockets do not threaten Israel existence... 2 killed ? tragic for their families, indeed... that does not change the fact that Israel is the occupant and refusing to deal with West Bank part on fair terms... you are trying to steer the issue to Hamas, Hamas is a nuisance that Israel is using to justify the occupation and its refusing to engage the West Bank by giving back the grabbed land (which will set the example for people in Gaza part).
-
Economic hardship such as that after wars allows nationalistic far right parties to gain power as stoking up hatred against whatever bogeyman is convenient is an easy way to get votes from the stupid/bigoted part of the population. But without a leader as 'charismatic' as Hitler the national Socialists may not have even gained power led alone started WWII.
So without either Hitler or WWI, WWII would not have happened.
-
Israel wasn't shooting random rockets into Gaza.
Israel is occupying their land, imposing blockade, refusing them their own state, etc, etc... so attacking Israel is justified.
-
I am not sure I agree with this. Israel wants peace, but it wants land and security more.
they put land over lives... greed as usual
-
Hamas Detonates Suicide Bomb, Kidnaps IDF Soldier Just 90 Mins Into Ceasefire (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/terrortunnels-hamas-detonates-suicide-bomb-kidnaps-idf-soldier-just-90-mins-into-ceasefire/)
Expect more finger-pointing.
IDF decided to use a ceasefire to 1) continue their operation (namely the destruction of some tonnel, built before ceasefire) and 2) do it on Palestinian land (instead of doing this on Israeli side - if that was indeed a tonnel from Gaza to Israel), so in turn Hamas justly attacked them (note - not on Israeli land - they attacked IDF soldiers who were violating the ceasefire by operating inside Gaza)... it was totally IDF's fault
-
... "They've just got there, it's their country..."
So, they "just got there" and yet "it's their country"!? As opposed to those who lived there for millennia, which, according to the above logic, doesn't make it their country.
-
Selective quotation, out of context, as usual.
Feel free to put it back into the context and then show me how that changes the absurdity I pointed out.
-
... They have no interest in what was true before they got there.
Yes, Isaac, I read the context the first time. Still does not change the absurdity I was pointing out. Having no interest (in what was true) does not make it false, nor gives them the right to claim it as "theirs." It boils down to "It's mine because I want it." Like toddlers. Or bullies.
-
I've seen some silly threads on LuLa, but this one takes the cake!
-
The context was the other words surrounding it. The words you removed
-
The context was the other words surrounding it. The words you removed
Well, thanks, Captain Obvious. And has the removal of the context changed the meaning in any way?
The complaint that something is "taken out of context" is valid only when the context could have explained the meaning differently.
-
Well, thanks, Captain Obvious. And has the removal of the context changed the meaning in any way?
The complaint that something is "taken out of context" is valid only when the context could have explained the meaning differently.
Looks like Andrew's being giving you lessons in how to post and misinterpret other's posts.
-
Which Andrew?
-
Digital Dog.
-
There's nothing in the least bit anti-semetic about that news programme clip. Though there certainly is the problem that criticising Israel as some people have rightly done on this thread leads to [inaccurate] charges of anti semitism. And sadly a few dodgy posts.
Exactly right. It is quite astounding that some people still think that being critical of some policies of a country (Israel) has any relation to hatred for people because they are Jews. It's a close parallel to what happens sometimes here in the US, when criticism of a black politician's actions brings out charges of racism. Of course, anti-Semitism and racism still exist, but they are different from legitimate criticism.
-
Exactly right. It is quite astounding that some people still think that being critical of some policies of a country (Israel) has any relation to hatred for people because they are Jews. It's a close parallel to what happens sometimes here in the US, when criticism of a black politician's actions brings out charges of racism. Of course, anti-Semitism and racism still exist, but they are different from legitimate criticism.
I really didn’t intend to link my comment to the video posted here by ‘Cheers, Bernard’. Nothing anti-Semitic or improper about that video or post. I was really referring more to the ‘dodgy posts’, and the rise of actual public anti-Semitism that has been reported in some European cities…quite recently.
-
Hamas Detonates Suicide Bomb, Kidnaps IDF Soldier Just 90 Mins Into Ceasefire (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/terrortunnels-hamas-detonates-suicide-bomb-kidnaps-idf-soldier-just-90-mins-into-ceasefire/)
Expect more finger-pointing.
Why is this a "kidnapping" and not just the capture of a prisoner of war? If Hamas sends fighters thru a tunnel into Israel and the IDF nabs them, is this also a kidnapping?
-
If the oppression of Gaza's Palestinians is the core grievance that propels Hamas, shall we discuss the Egyptian blockade of Gaza? Or is it ok for Arabs to take action to restrict things in Gaza, just not ok for Jews to do so?
-
According to Clinton
According to Clinton there was no sex, according to Bush there were WMD... to trust what American president (any, and for that matter politicians in other countries) is saying means have no selfrespect
-
the Russian immigrant population in Israel is the group least interested in striking a peace deal with the Palestinians
And when was the last time any genuine Soviet born & bred jew was in Israeli gov't on any ministerial position ?... I don't count "pre WWII cadres" who were born in Russian Empire (Golda Meir) or did a brief stint in xUSSR escaping from Poland in 1939 (Begin).
-
If the oppression of Gaza's Palestinians is the core grievance that propels Hamas, shall we discuss the Egyptian blockade of Gaza? Or is it ok for Arabs to take action to restrict things in Gaza, just not ok for Jews to do so?
Egypt is a lesser evil for them @ the moment... Egypt does not blockade air & sea... they just close their own border... it is OK for Israel to close their own border - but not OK to usurp air & sea.
-
right away US President Barack Obama "unequivocally" condemned Hamas for capturing the soldier "minutes after a ceasefire had been announced" (Hamas itself probably has no idea whether they scored a catch)... yet he was tight lipped about 1400+ for days... AIPAC has a good grip on his balls ;D ...
-
Exactly right. It is quite astounding that some people still think that being critical of some policies of a country (Israel) has any relation to hatred for people because they are Jews. It's a close parallel to what happens sometimes here in the US, when criticism of a black politician's actions brings out charges of racism. Of course, anti-Semitism and racism still exist, but they are different from legitimate criticism.
There's nothing in the least bit anti-semetic about that news programme clip. Though there certainly is the problem that criticising Israel as some people have rightly done on this thread leads to [inaccurate] charges of anti semitism. And sadly a few dodgy posts.
That's an obviously correct point made by both of you. It is possible to criticise Israel's actions without being anti-semitic. It's possible to be anti-semitic without being critical of Israel. And it's possible, as Vladimirovich has demonstrated, to criticise Israel and be anti-semitic.
IDF decided to use a ceasefire to 1) continue their operation (namely the destruction of some tonnel, built before ceasefire) and 2) do it on Palestinian land (instead of doing this on Israeli side - if that was indeed a tonnel from Gaza to Israel), so in turn Hamas justly attacked them (note - not on Israeli land - they attacked IDF soldiers who were violating the ceasefire by operating inside Gaza)... it was totally IDF's fault
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. As was once said of Macaulay, "I wish I were as certain of anything as that man is of everything". How serene must be your existence, unwracked by doubt of any kind. As long as your certainty involves Jews behaving badly, of course.
they put land over lives... greed as usual
That's it, Vlad - greedy Jews. Does this descent into anti-semitic stereotyping serve some purpose other than your own gratification?
Jeremy
-
Egypt is a lesser evil for them @ the moment...
Maybe not so "lesser" after all.
From yesterday’s Guardian:
“But other Egyptian actions – both over the past year, and in recent days – have led to accusations that Egypt is indifferent to Gazan suffering – and that its interests are aligned with Israel’s. Since last July Egypt has bolstered Israel’s blockade on Gaza by destroying over 1,600 tunnels that smugglers once used to bring crucial goods (and weapons) into the territory. The end of the tunnel trade, which Egypt had tolerated for years, crippled Gaza economically, since the simultaneous closure of Egypt’s formal border at Rafah meant Gazans had no other way of importing many supplies.
Hamas’s decision to carry on fighting in recent weeks despite catastrophic civilian losses owed as much to Egypt’s refusal to lift this blockade as it does to Israel’s. Egypt wanted Hamas to accept an immediate ceasefire without preconditions. But Hamas wanted Egypt to spell out how it might ease the siege before it did so.”
-
If we make take a moment for a deep breath, I would like to offer two quotes that relate to a lot of this thread (and to a lot of life in general):
"I am not young enough to know everything" - Oscar Wilde
"Often wrong, but never in doubt" - Unknown
-
... There's nothing absurd about new immigrants feeling strong commitment to the country they've chosen.
Your selective quotation changed that feeling of commitment to mean ownership.
Ah, Isaac, you hairsplitopath!
So, I mistook patriotic commitment for ownership? So your quotes were meant just to extol the virtues of new immigrants' patriotism? The warm, fuzzy feeling they have about their new country? The romance behind their visit to the “Sderot cinema” (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html?_r=1)?
Yes, it is possible to have commitment without a sense of ownership, as in: I am committed to my new country, whatever shape and form it might have after a negotiated settlement. But that is hardly what is going on there. And we could have continued arguing between commitment and ownership indefinitely, had it not been for your beloved context that said:
"They can't imagine any historical or other claims that would justify dividing it."
Refusal to divide something does not constitute a claim of ownership? Again, like toddlers: "It's mine and I do not want to share it" or "I found it first, it's mine."
-
Why is this a "kidnapping" and not just the capture of a prisoner of war? If Hamas sends fighters thru a tunnel into Israel and the IDF nabs them, is this also a kidnapping?
So during a cease-fire Hamas detonates a suicide bomb and grabs an IDF soldier and we're not supposed to call it a kidnapping? How about a "war crime?" In my 26 years of military service I always understood that a cease-fire means you stop fighting until the cease-fire is over. You don't detonate bombs, you don't fire rockets, and you don't grab your opponents. If you do, it's a violation of your oath. I'd say that "kidnapping" is too weak a word to describe what happened.
-
Why is this a "kidnapping" and not just the capture of a prisoner of war? If Hamas sends fighters thru a tunnel into Israel and the IDF nabs them, is this also a kidnapping?
Maybe my earlier post will explain this.
Here's an interesting article (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html)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!
-
So during a cease-fire Hamas detonates a suicide bomb and grabs an IDF soldier and we're not supposed to call it a kidnapping? How about a "war crime?" In my 26 years of military service I always understood that a cease-fire means you stop fighting until the cease-fire is over. You don't detonate bombs, you don't fire rockets, and you don't grab your opponents. If you do, it's a violation of your oath. I'd say that "kidnapping" is too weak a word to describe what happened.
Cease fire means pause in shooting at each other. They are still at war with each other, so grabbing another soldier is not a kidnapping but a capture of an enemy soldier, which may well be a breach in the cease fire.
Kidnapping sounds like the language the Israelis have been media trained to use, as talked about in my link in prior post.
-
So during a cease-fire Hamas detonates a suicide bomb and grabs an IDF soldier and we're not supposed to call it a kidnapping? How about a "war crime?" In my 26 years of military service I always understood that a cease-fire means you stop fighting until the cease-fire is over. You don't detonate bombs, you don't fire rockets, and you don't grab your opponents. If you do, it's a violation of your oath. I'd say that "kidnapping" is too weak a word to describe what happened.
Yes, Hamas breaking the ceasefire is a terrible thing, I agree with you completely on this. And making an enemy soldier prisoner in that context is even worse. I agree that it is difficult to find words to describe the horror of this action.
Now, how do you call the continuous and purposeful murder of hundreds of civilian Palestinian children by the Israeli army? Children the same age as your grand children Russ.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In my 26 years of military service I always understood that a cease-fire means you stop fighting until the cease-fire is over. You don't detonate bombs, you don't fire rockets, and you don't grab your opponents. If you do, it's a violation of your oath. I'd say that "kidnapping" is too weak a word to describe what happened.
That's 26 years more military service than I and I supsect others here have so I'll take your word about what cease-fire means. And in that context, kidnapping or capture is a no-no. There is no excuse for this. And thank you for your service!
-
hat's it, Vlad - greedy Jews. Does this descent into anti-semitic stereotyping serve some purpose other than your own gratification?
Jeremy
I think you need to back off, Kikashi. You seem to be so blinded by your own vitriol that you cannot see what V has actually written.
-
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00744/2af5491e-19a6-11e4-_744121c.jpg)
The wounds of Gaza’s children speak their own language. The flayed, burnt skin of the incendiary airstrike. The deep cuts of artillery shrapnel. Some wounds Dr Nabil Hadad has never seen before. One eight-year-old boy was laid out in front of him without a scratch, an apparent victim of shock waves from massive airstrikes. “It was as if he was asleep,” the paediatric surgeon said. “Except he was dead.”
-
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00744/2af5491e-19a6-11e4-_744121c.jpg)
The wounds of Gaza’s children speak their own language. The flayed, burnt skin of the incendiary airstrike. The deep cuts of artillery shrapnel. Some wounds Dr Nabil Hadad has never seen before. One eight-year-old boy was laid out in front of him without a scratch, an apparent victim of shock waves from massive airstrikes. “It was as if he was asleep,” the paediatric surgeon said. “Except he was dead.”
Sadly everything inside would be mush - and, sadly, I have seen that before.
Tony Jay
-
Obama slates Putin for supposedly supplying missiles to the Ukranian rebels which supposedly brought down the Malaysian airline at the same time the USA is supplying armaments to Israel to kill innocent civilians in Gaza. Breath taking hypocrisy The dome defence system paid by the USA is supplied to Israel but no such system is supplied to Gaza which means the Palestinians are sitting ducks who can't escape because they are totally surrounded. This is genocide on a big scale. At least in Syria most of the population managed to flee and live but no such chance for the Palestinians. :o
-
Obama slates Putin for supposedly supplying missiles to the Ukranian rebels which supposedly brought down the Malaysian airline at the same time the USA is supplying armaments to Israel to kill innocent civilians in Gaza. Breath taking hypocrisy The dome defence system paid by the USA is supplied to Israel but no such system is supplied to Gaza which means the Palestinians are sitting ducks who can't escape because they are totally surrounded. This is genocide on a big scale. At least in Syria most of the population managed to flee and live but no such chance for the Palestinians. :o
Does this surprise you, this level of American hypocrisy? If there is such a thing as "American Exceptionalism", it is in that we are truly exceptional in our lies and hypocrisy.
-
One minute before typing this Obama was on Uk television admitting that America tortured prisoners after 9/11. He was apologising for that. I suppose it was "easy" for him because he wasn't in power at the time. Please no more lectures from the USA about atrocities in the world. :o
-
Hi,
This is very sad. As I see it, nothing in this conflict resolves any issues, it is just politicians/terrorists playing power games with a great humanitarian cost for the civil population.
The conflict leaves each side more aligned with Hamas and the Israeli government respectively and makes it even more difficult to achieve a solution acceptable to all parties.
Part of this is probably that there are folks on both sides that thrive on conflict, peace would eliminate their base of power.
Best regards
Erik
-
Cease fire means pause in shooting at each other. They are still at war with each other, so grabbing another soldier is not a kidnapping but a capture of an enemy soldier, which may well be a breach in the cease fire.
Kidnapping sounds like the language the Israelis have been media trained to use, as talked about in my link in prior post.
What service were you in, Jeremy, and what war? A cease fire also is called a "truce." During a truce, grabbing an opponent's soldier is an act of war that violates the agreement and terminates the truce. "Kidnapping" is too gentle a term for the gravity of an act like that.
-
This is genocide on a big scale.
Genocide on a big scale -- "In the weeks after April 6, 1994, 800,000 men, women, and children perished in the Rwandan genocide, perhaps as many as three quarters (http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm) of the Tutsi population."
Gaza Strip: "Home to 1.8 million people (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415675)" - "More than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28586190)"
…America tortured prisoners after 9/11… Please no more lectures from the USA about atrocities in the world.
Evidently you think the world will be a better place if the US does not object to atrocities. How exactly will that silence act to reduce atrocities?
-
I look forward to a time when we are all coffee coloured atheists.
Some of the most attractive women in my eyes are the ones that nobody can pigeonhole as to race....you just can't tell, because its such a lovely mix. I'm all for coffee-colored (or coloured) women (and men).
But surely you can think of more than a few atrocities/genocides/carnage/war crimes perpetrated with no religious motivation or animus.
-
... "Kidnapping" is too gentle a term for the gravity of an act like that.
Can we please stop this silliness of portraying disappearance of a single Israeli soldier as the worst war atrocity the world has seen since the dawn of the mankind? What "kidnapping"? I can not see that word used in media (at least not anymore). They refer to it as "missing," "disappearance," "capturing" etc. Hamas is actually denying it. If you do kidnap somebody, wouldn't you brag about it, ask for ransom., post it on social media, etc.? Why do it and then deny it? Only one side seems to benefit from the story so far.
-
Sorry, Slobodan, it's not a convincing argument. There's probably a good reason Hamas isn't bragging about grabbing the guy. Also, it's a bit over the top to suggest anyone's "portraying disappearance of a single Israeli soldier as the worst war atrocity the world has seen since the dawn of the mankind." If somebody in the thread said that or said something like that, would you please give me a link to it. I'd also suggest that neither side is "benefiting from the story" so far. Both Hamas and Israel have lost because of Hamas's unilateral abrogation of the truce. I'd suggest Hamas probably is going to lose the most, though Israel certainly won't "benefit" from Hamas's loss.
Best, if possible, for posters on the thread to avoid becoming hysterical about all this. I realize that for some of the posters hysteria is a normal condition, but that's not you -- at least most of the time.
-
Well, Russ, you called it a "war crime." I just used a hyperbole to point it out.
-
Excerpted from Jonathan Freedland
They, like everyone else, condemned the brutal June kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers on the West Bank, an act immediately blamed on the Hamas leadership (falsely so, it later turned out: the kidnapping was, in fact, the work of a local “lone cell,” acting without authorization). But some felt queasy during the subsequent two-week Israeli operation to root out Hamas militants there, referred to as “mowing the lawn,” not least because several Palestinian civilians were killed in the process.
Few of these campaigners knew that the Israeli authorities had, in fact, established from the start that the boys were dead and apparently withheld that information from the public.
Liberal Zionists condemned the Hamas response to the West Bank lawn mowing—the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel—but they hoped Benjamin Netanyahu’s government would react with restraint. And of course the eventual discovery of the teenagers’ corpses had liberal Zionists standing in solidarity with Israel during its hour of national grief. But when that led to the revenge kidnapping and murder by Jewish extremists of a Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem, forced by his abductors to drink gasoline and then set alight, they were appalled at what furies had been unleashed.
But liberal Zionists felt conflicted. A death rate that saw civilians account for four out of every five Palestinians killed—and that by July 25, according to the UN, included nearly 200 children—was hard to defend. Earlier this week, David Landau, wrote that it was no longer good enough to rely on the traditional hasbara sound bite that, while Hamas deliberately targets civilians, Israel only ever kills civilians by accident. Citing halacha, Landau argued that when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended becomes meaningless and is “nullified.” (Landau added that a ground operation was more morally defensible, because it allowed for greater precision.)
Reports that Israelis were sitting on garden chairs on a hilltop by the Gaza border, munching popcorn as they watched the shelling of Gaza, as if witnessing a fireworks display, wrongfooted many usually reliable defenders of Israel. I have heard one rabbi, an avowed Zionist, describe these developments as nothing less than “a failure of Judaism.”
Privately, people admit to growing tired of defending Israeli military action when it comes at such a heavy cost in civilian life, its futility confirmed by the frequency with which it has to be repeated.
-
What service were you in, Jeremy, and what war? A cease fire also is called a "truce." During a truce, grabbing an opponent's soldier is an act of war that violates the agreement and terminates the truce. "Kidnapping" is too gentle a term for the gravity of an act like that.
Uh, I said it wasn't a kidnapping and also said it breached the cease fire. ???
-
Just to point out a few things - a ceasefire should mean the cessation of military activities, which should include Israeli military attempting to infiltrate Gaza and taking action against Hamas' tunnels. Who broke the ceasefire? I think the question is moot.
I remember three US troops being snatched in Youssufiyah, south Baghdad back in 2007. There was a house-to-house search, and heaven help anyone who got in the way, but what there wasn't was indiscriminate shelling of innocent civilians. The Israeli military could learn a trick or two.
Gaza is subject to blockade. Israel is subject to a number of UN rulings that it has singularly failed to obey. The Palestinian people in Gaza are effectively being held in an open air prison & subject to collective punishment for the actions of Hamas. Here we are, 71 years after the Warsaw ghetto uprising, with Israel suffering from a chronic lack of memory & a terminal failure of irony. As the former 'protectorate' of Britain, the UK has a responsibility towards Palestine, as does the international community that chose to take the place away from the Palestinians. The least we could do is send the Royal Navy to break the sea blockade, and the rest of the world establish a UN buffer zone twixt Israel & Gaza & enforce UN rulings on the middle east. I think a metaphorical banging of Israeli & Hamas heads is in order.
-
Sorry, Slobodan, it's not a convincing argument. There's probably a good reason Hamas isn't bragging about grabbing the guy.
Quite possibly because the 'facts' you were so quick to cite may well prove to be inaccurate. The latest, uncorroborated, is that Hamas lost all contact with the group - missing, presumed dead, including the Israeli lieutenant - Hannibal's directive!
-
The least we could do is send the Royal Navy.....
Aren't all 5 ships busy somewhere else at the moment? ::)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-
Aren't all 5 ships busy somewhere else at the moment? ::)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
It's a fair comment, but as Palestine was a former UK protectorate, I thought the British should do something noteworthy in this instance
-
It's a fair comment, but as Palestine was a former UK protectorate, I thought the British should do something noteworthy in this instance
I think that's a very fine idea.
-
It's a fair comment, but as Palestine was a former UK protectorate, I thought the British should do something noteworthy in this instance
Like our government even know what mea culpa means.
-
Of course, but most are perpetrated as a result of religious or racial differences.
Many conflicts are resources/power/land grabs. Religion is however often used as a smokescreen as well as an actual 'reason'.
-
Like our government even know what mea culpa means.
To be fair, it wasn't the British who thought it a good idea to hand over another people's country to a third party, that was the United Nations. In addition, the terrorist group known as the Stern Gang, murdered British troops, murdered a British government minister and even asked for assistance from the Nazis (there's irony for you), and then Stalin, whilst the Irgun engaged in a number of tit-for-tat killings against Arabs, a number of bombings against Arab targets (markets were a favourite), & bombed the King David Hotel, killing 91 people. On top of that, they also targeted British service personnel. So I don't think you can blame the British for Israel's actions right now. It does however make their complaints of Palestinian terrorism just a bit hypocritical.
-
Well, Russ, you called it a "war crime." I just used a hyperbole to point it out.
It's literally a crime to violate a truce, and since it happened during a war it's a war crime.
-
- Immediate unilateral truce by Israel for 48 hours NO MATTER WHAT HAMAS DOES
- American, British and Egyptian joint humanitarian relief operations in Gaza to commence after 48 hours of quiet is maintained in Gaza and the rockets into Israel cease
- Israel commits big bucks to reconstruction and reparations, which will commence after 30 days of quiet
-
So, the US is asking Israel to respond "proportionally." Hmm, what does this mean? Instead of killing 1000+ Palestinian noncombatants, kill only 500? How about 250, and only 50 kids? Oh wait, there have been 3 Israelis killed by Hamas rockets, so maybe "proportional" means ... well, I think you see where I am going.
And then the US is, according to today's paper, replenishing Israel's supply of ammunition. So, "respond proportionally" but in case you are not in the mood to do that, here are some more bombs and bullets to kill civilians and kids with.
What a mess. Depressing.
-
It's literally a crime to violate a truce, and since it happened during a war it's a war crime.
You still haven't provided any answer to the main point of this thread, which the factual dead of hundreds of Palestinian children Russ. Does their death not matter to you? Is it hysterical to point out those deaths?
Now that your point about the violation of the ceasefire is made, how about positioning yourself clearly on the point we have been discussing?
Failure to do so may result in you coming across as a person who will support Israel whatever atrocity they do. Is that the case?
By the way, in case you didn't know, Israel has a pretty significant backlog of international laws violations.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's literally a crime to violate a truce, and since it happened during a war it's a war crime.
So on that basis - it's also a crime to commit theft, therefore the thieves and pickpockets who operated and committed crimes in the USA during WWII are all guilty of war crimes ?
-
Best, if possible, for posters on the thread to avoid becoming hysterical about all this.
Rather patronising - I suggest that you take a cue from Chairman Bill’s posts. Some of your overly simplistic, bigoted suggestions are a poor substitute for well reasoned and erudite argument, particularly on a matter with such profound and far-reaching consequences. If you don’t want to enrage the natives, best not to fan the flames.
Notwithstanding your posts, the wilful and deliberate murder of civilians, women & children does not constitute 'jus in bello', no matter what spin you and the Israelis try to put on it.
-
There is no genocide. They are Arabs. There has never been a country or race of Palestine any more than a country or race of Judea.
When Hamas took over to rule , Hamas could have built hotels and hospitals and schools and infrastructure, brought in billions of dollars and Gaza could have been a paradise on the ocean that all the world came to. Hamas chose to invest in bombs and tunnels. The parents in Gaza know who they elected to lead them, and still they have children. They fire rockets into Israel and still they have children. They send spies in to blow up and still they have children. The people of Gaza overwhelmingly still support Hamas and their mission of terror and incursions into Israel and still they have children.
I have no sympathy for, and in fact serious derision towards folks who whimper on and on about the deaths of children in Gaza. It's the only positive press Hamas is generating and they know it. Who has children in a war zone that they themselves prolong year after year? I would not have a dog, let alone children under the circumstances in Gaza. Children are a choice. Just as storing bombs in homes and tunnel entrances in schools are choices. Using children to generate sympathy is disgusting. Putting the children in the position in the first place is an abomination.
The citizens of Gaza, those innocent non combatants, could throw out Hamas. Ban weapons. Hang the terrorists. Forget about Israel and create a life for themselves. Show that they actually want a better life for their children. They could be Huntington Beach. It'll never happen.
-
....the wilful and deliberate murder of civilians, women & children does not constitute 'jus in bello', no matter what spin you and the Israelis try to put on it.
Is there any evidence of Israelis seeking out children and killing them in cold blood, or targeting them overtly, or does all the evidence point to the 'human shields' doctrine perpetrated by the Hamas maniacs?
-
I have no sympathy for, and in fact serious derision towards folks who whimper on and on about the deaths of children in Gaza. .
Do you report your salary from AIPAC to the IRS?
-
Is there any evidence of Israelis seeking out children and killing them in cold blood, or targeting them overtly, or does all the evidence point to the 'human shields' doctrine perpetrated by the Hamas maniacs?
There is at least one very well documented case where 4 children playing on a beach in front of a crowd of international reporters were killed on purpose, shot at twice from an Israeli boat.
There is no way they can have been mistaken for terrorists and there were no targets nearby.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/innocent-gone-israeli-strike-gaza-kills-four-children-n157301
How many others are undocumented we will never know.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is there any evidence of Israelis seeking out children and killing them in cold blood, or targeting them overtly, or does all the evidence point to the 'human shields' doctrine perpetrated by the Hamas maniacs?
Plenty of evidence: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/may/20/cctv-footage-palestinian-teenagers-shot-dead-video (http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/may/20/cctv-footage-palestinian-teenagers-shot-dead-video)
Of course schoolboys are also being murdered by Palestinians, so both sides are to blame. The value of life also has quite a different meaning in other cultures than most of ours, and when in a situation of life threatening hostilities.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of course schoolboys are also being murdered by Palestinians,
A link please. Only three civilians from Israeli occupied Palestine have been reported dead and were they schoolboys?
-
Is there any evidence of Israelis seeking out children and killing them in cold blood, or targeting them overtly ...
I suggest you read posts #35 and #142
" ... when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended becomes meaningless and is “nullified” ... "
The latest incident is but another.
" After the tunnel clash, Israel struck with heavy artillery fire and an aerial bombardment of Rafah. 65 Palestinians were killed, many of them children, and more than 350 were wounded. The bombardment of Rafah appeared to reflect what the IDF called the 'Hannibal directive', in which it responds to any capture of a soldier ... with heavy fire aimed at stopping the captors leaving the scene ".
-
So Hamas broke the ceasefire by capturing an Israeli soldier, which thus justified Israel in bombing & shelling Gaza again, killing more civilians. Only now the Israelis are saying that Lt. Hadar Goldin was actually killed in combat before the ceasefire. Which of course means that Hamas didn't breach the ceasefire, Israel did, and so Israel is guilty of a warcrime. Presumably. Unless these things only apply to one party. I think we should be told.
-
Also, why is it that Hamas 'seize' or 'kidnap' Israeli troops, when usually enemy soldiers taken into custody are referred to as 'captured' and are thus POWs? Are Hamas fighters ever 'kidnapped' by the IDF? The language in news reports & that used by politicians, seems to cloud the issue. The first casualty of war it truth.
-
Israeli jails are full of Palestinians. Were they kidnapped? The biggest worry at the moment is the deliberate demolishing of the power supply in Gaza. The power station would be known to the Israelis so it was a deliberate attempt to punish all of the Palestinians long term. A buffer zone is being set up near the border by the Israelis and they are "inviting" Palestinians to go there. The cynic in me thinks it will be easier for the Israelis to target them. :o
-
An image taken in Glasgow, Scotland by myself early July just after the troubles began. Scotland has been very vocal in their support of Palestine. One Jewish person told the crowd that not every Jew supported Zionism and a lot of his fellow Jews supported Palestine and a two state solution.
-
Rather patronising - I suggest that you take a cue from Chairman Bill’s posts. Some of your overly simplistic, bigoted suggestions are a poor substitute for well reasoned and erudite argument, particularly on a matter with such profound and far-reaching consequences. If you don’t want to enrage the natives, best not to fan the flames.
Notwithstanding your posts, the wilful and deliberate murder of civilians, women & children does not constitute 'jus in bello', no matter what spin you and the Israelis try to put on it.
Thanks for illustrating my point. I was pretty sure one or another hysterical poster would do that.
-
One more from a demonstration.
-
To be fair, it wasn't the British who thought it a good idea to hand over another people's country to a third party, that was the United Nations. In addition, the terrorist group known as the Stern Gang, murdered British troops, murdered a British government minister and even asked for assistance from the Nazis (there's irony for you), and then Stalin, whilst the Irgun engaged in a number of tit-for-tat killings against Arabs, a number of bombings against Arab targets (markets were a favourite), & bombed the King David Hotel, killing 91 people. On top of that, they also targeted British service personnel. So I don't think you can blame the British for Israel's actions right now. It does however make their complaints of Palestinian terrorism just a bit hypocritical.
Terrorists are freedom fighters who haven't yet won their battle or whose political agenda doesn't suit western policies. - That's how it tends to work.
There was an interesting Channel 4 drama The Promise (http://www.channel4store.co.uk/drama/the-promise/16897), set in both present day Israel and during the transition period which illustrated how nothing is simply black and white.
-
It's literally a crime to violate a truce, and since it happened during a war it's a war crime.
War Crimes as you well know means something quite different from what you suggest. War crimes are atrocities that go way beyond what is needed to fight your position.
By your odd definition, shooting anyone during a war is a crime as killing people is illegal and therefore a war crime too.
-
Also, why is it that Hamas 'seize' or 'kidnap' Israeli troops, when usually enemy soldiers taken into custody are referred to as 'captured' and are thus POWs? Are Hamas fighters ever 'kidnapped' by the IDF? The language in news reports & that used by politicians, seems to cloud the issue. The first casualty of war it truth.
See this article for how Israel learnt from a US Republican spin doctor (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html) on how to win the media war.
-
There is no genocide. They are Arabs. There has never been a country or race of Palestine any more than a country or race of Judea.
(http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1387513406380610198.jpg)
I guess you aren't ever troubled by pesky things like facts.
I have no sympathy for, and in fact serious derision towards folks who whimper on and on about the deaths of children in Gaza. It's the only positive press Hamas is generating and they know it. Who has children in a war zone that they themselves prolong year after year? I would not have a dog, let alone children under the circumstances in Gaza. Children are a choice. Just as storing bombs in homes and tunnel entrances in schools are choices. Using children to generate sympathy is disgusting. Putting the children in the position in the first place is an abomination.
Can't work out if you are very naive or simply a deeply unpleasant human being.
-
So Hamas broke the ceasefire by capturing an Israeli soldier, which thus justified Israel in bombing & shelling Gaza again, killing more civilians. Only now the Israelis are saying that Lt. Hadar Goldin was actually killed in combat before the ceasefire. Which of course means that Hamas didn't breach the ceasefire, Israel did, and so Israel is guilty of a warcrime. Presumably. Unless these things only apply to one party. I think we should be told.
The ceasefire was broken by a suicide bomb that killed 2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-hamas-agree-to-72-hour-humanitarian-cease-fire/2014/08/01/059f1ff8-194e-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html
-
The people of Gaza overwhelmingly still support Hamas and their mission of terror ...
Utter nonsense. You do know about Google, don't you? Just as one example, here's a quote from a July 15 policy paper by The Washington Institute:
"A recent, credible poll shows that most Gazans oppose Hamas policies and leaders alike, and favor a ceasefire with Israel."
Just because you want something to be true to help you blame the victims does not make it true.
-
I heard a news report from Israeli sources saying that remains found suggested Goldin never was captured but died in combat. Seems they were moving into Palestinian lines at the time. Now, troop movement into enemy territory would be a breach of a ceasefire, so either Israel broke it, or it happened prior to the ceasefire.
-
(http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1387513406380610198.jpg)
I guess you aren't ever troubled by pesky things like facts.
Can't work out if you are very naive or simply a deeply unpleasant human being.
I think the latter, clearly.
-
Thanks for illustrating my point. I was pretty sure one or another hysterical poster would do that.
Russ,
For what it is worth, repeatedly calling hysterical pretty much everybody else in this thread stressing obvious facts won't help convince them that you are right on this topic.
Btw, it seems pretty certain by now that Hamas didn't "kidnap" any Israeli soldier during the ceasefire.
Since you have apparently chosen to look at this situation as a regular armed conflict between 2 parties, and to only judge their morality by their adherence to the rules of war, would you mind sharing your views on the civilian casualties that have occurred so far?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
. . . obvious facts. . ?
Which obvious facts? I don't see many "facts" in this thread, and the ones I do see are a long way from "obvious."
Since you have apparently chosen to look at this situation as a regular armed conflict between 2 parties, and to only judge their morality by their adherence to the rules of war, would you mind sharing your views on the civilian casualties that have occurred so far?
My views: The civilian casualties are almost entirely the responsibility of Hamas. How the hell do you think you can destroy rocket launchers, munitions storage sites, etc., without damaging and killing civilians if the people you're fighting deliberately locate those facilities in the middle of populated areas, schools, hospitals, etc.?
When somebody attacks you you have two choices: fight or surrender. Surrender for Israel in this situation isn't the same thing as surrender was for the French in WW II. An Israeli surrender would mean the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. If I were in Israel's situation I'd fight, and civilians be damned. The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians and Hamas has done everything in their power to insure their civilians will be killed. There's an obvious fact for you.
-
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/08/Gaza-v-Israel-copy.jpg)
-
My views: The civilian casualties are almost entirely the responsibility of Hamas. How the hell do you think you can destroy rocket launchers, munitions storage sites, etc., without damaging and killing civilians if the people you're fighting deliberately locate those facilities in the middle of populated areas, schools, hospitals, etc.?
You move ground troops in to clear those areas. I know it's generally accepted that the IDF is a hugely professional force, but the reality is that it's fourth-rate at best. US, Aussie, French, British and other forces faced similar issues in Iraq, and managed to deal with the problem with far less loss of civilian life. Frankly the Israelis simply don't give a shit.
The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians and Hamas has done everything in their power to insure their civilians will be killed. There's an obvious fact for you.
Except it's not actually an obvious fact, but let's not let that fact get in the way of your assertion of facts.
-
You move ground troops in to clear those areas. I know it's generally accepted that the IDF is a hugely professional force, but the reality is that it's fourth-rate at best. US, Aussie, French, British and other forces faced similar issues in Iraq, and managed to deal with the problem with far less loss of civilian life. Frankly the Israelis simply don't give a shit.
Bullshit, Bill. I was commander of our remaining radar sites and other command and control facilities in Southeast Asia during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Our politicized heads were doing a crappy job of the war in Cambodia, and I remember posters stuck on walls with a picture of Moshe Dyan with his eye-patch and the phrase "Hire the handicapped" under his picture. Dyan was winning the Israelis' war and we were screwing around. I guess the hysterics in this thread have forgotten, or more probably never knew, the number of times Israel's been attacked without warning by their "neighbors." The Israeli military leaders still are some of the best in the world.
Except it's not actually an obvious fact, but let's not let that fact get in the way of your assertion of facts.
As Casey said, you could look it up.
-
1973. Forty years ago. Last time the IDF invaded Lebanon they had their collective arse handed to them.They are no longer up to the job.
-
Lebanon was a mistake, but don't jump to any unwarranted conclusions.
-
Thanks for illustrating my point.
On the contrary, 'tis I who should thank YOU for so succinctly making mine:
If I were in Israel's situation I'd fight, and civilians be damned.
-
The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians and Hamas has done everything in their power to insure their civilians will be killed. There's an obvious fact for you.
I think you need to understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. There is a difference, look it up in the dictionary.
-
The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians and Hamas has done everything in their power to insure their civilians will be killed. There's an obvious fact for you.
No that's simply your opinion and one that bears no relation to reality.
A fact would be something like as of a few days back - 3 civilians and 56 soldiers had been killed by Hamas, whilst 1400+ people killed by Israel. Mostly civilians and including an awful lot of children.
My views: The civilian casualties are almost entirely the responsibility of Hamas. How the hell do you think you can destroy rocket launchers, munitions storage sites, etc., without damaging and killing civilians if the people you're fighting deliberately locate those facilities in the middle of populated areas, schools, hospitals, etc.?
Uh, The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. So any firing anything into that region is extremely likely to hit civilians regardless of where things are stored.
Some years back I met a member of the IRA terrorist group, who for several decades bombed and murdered British civilians and your arguments sound awfully like his. The IRA murderers were also unsurprisingly supported by the US. By sheer coincidence, the very same week I then spent time with a UK soldier who served there during the most contentious period. He admitted that they did bad things unlike the mendacious IRA hunger striker.
-
When somebody attacks you you have two choices: fight or surrender. Surrender for Israel in this situation isn't the same thing as surrender was for the French in WW II. An Israeli surrender would mean the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. If I were in Israel's situation I'd fight, and civilians be damned.
Interesting way to look at things really.
Going back to the analogy you have proposed, should Hamas not be compared to the French resistants opposing the German invader? Sure enough, the French resistants were called terrorists by the Germans back then (I am not French by the way).
Resistants during WWII, however heroic their actions were, hardly made a dent in the German occupation forces. It took an external attack by the US to change the balance power, an attack similar to the one Irak may have considered conducting before their were preemptively taken out by the US.
Similarly, Hamas is in no way a serious threat to the state of Israel, they are only a vague threat to continued expansion of theft of Palestinian soil. As a military expert with extended field experience, would you not agree with my assessment regarding the scale of the threat?
You appear to think that defending oneself when under attack is a natural right, do you not? Would you not agree then that the actions of Israel in Gaza these past 10 years can objectively been seen as attacks on Palestinian soil and properties? At least the UN, whose legality is hopefully not questioned, seems to think so.
The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians and Hamas has done everything in their power to insure their civilians will be killed. There's an obvious fact for you.
Your theory doesn't seem to resist for long when you look at the examples several posters have proposed for your review earlier in this thread. There are clearly some cases having resulted in the death of many civilians where no effort whatsoever seems to have been done. The example of the 4 kids on the beach is pretty telling, is it not?
Do you at least agree that those happened or have they been invented/highlighted by hysterical enemies of Israel attempting to tarnish the image of the country and its army?
If you agree that those incidents did happen, how do you fit those in your views of the situation? Are those just individuals accidents resulting from some Tsahal guys having the finger a bit too reactive in a state of tension? Should those be seen as easily forgivable in the present context?
I'll tell you my views on this. I have no particular feelings for or against Israel, if anything I have a huge amount of sympathy for what Israel underwent in the past. But, looking objectively at this, it seems difficult to dispute that they have been acting as the bad guys for many years towards Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere. They have transformed into the invader and some of their actions feel awfully similar to what themselves went through in the past.
So I don't believe that it helps the historical cause of Israel not to condemn what has to be condemned. I don't believe that your apparent total denial of any wrong doing on their side helps them. On the contrary. It is a mistake to think that strength and power have been enough to make Israel into what it is today. A lot results from the sympathy the world has had for them. This sympathy is being eaten away quickly and people defending Israel against reasonable accusations are in fact contributing to this, whether you realize it or not. In my book, the views you are defending here contribute to generating hatred against Israel more than anything else.
This will be my final contribution to this thread.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have your sources for these stories also explained that the moon is made of green cheese? The attempts by the Israelis to avoid civilian casualties are well documented.
-
Well documented by the Israelis. So the shelling/drone strikes of UN schools, despite Israel being well-informed of their locations, is the Israelis doing everything to avoid civilian casualties? Or is it gross military incompetence? Do tell.
-
The Israelis have done everything in their power to avoid killing civilians
This is not true. They have not done the one thing that is guaranteed to prevent civilian casualties: don't bomb, don't shell.
-
Have your sources for these stories also explained that the moon is made of green cheese? The attempts by the Israelis to avoid civilian casualties are well documented.
Aren't your knee-jerks endangering your chin?
-
So the shelling/drone strikes of UN schools, despite Israel being well-informed of their locations, is the Israelis doing everything to avoid civilian casualties? Or is it gross military incompetence? Do tell.
It's neither, but thanks for positing the false choice. It's the Israelis doing what they think is necessary to kill Hamas fighters who are often nearby, something they are doing very effectively. They do 'everything' they can to avoid civilian casualties...but only insofar as it's consistent with accomplishing their mission. Its a balancing act, it will never be easy, and the world is quite obviously divided about this situation. But as many Arab nations line up behind Israel, the culpability and the utter depravity of Hamas should be pretty obvious.
Personally, I'd like to see massive, intense humanitarian relief efforts, provided jointly by the US and Egypt. But can that happen while Hamas is busy breaking every ceasefire? Israel should declare a 48 hour unilateral ceasefire and maintain it irrespective of what Hamas does in those intervening 48 hours. Let the world watch what happens, and we'll have a better idea who actually wants peace.
-
It's neither, but thanks for positing the false choice. It's the Israelis doing what they think is necessary to kill Hamas fighters who are often nearby, something they are doing very effectively. They do 'everything' they can to avoid civilian casualties...but only insofar as it's consistent with accomplishing their mission. Its a balancing act, it will never be easy, and the world is quite obviously divided about this situation. But as many Arab nations line up behind Israel, the culpability and the utter depravity of Hamas should be pretty obvious.
Personally, I'd like to see massive, intense humanitarian relief efforts, provided jointly by the US and Egypt. But can that happen while Hamas is busy breaking every ceasefire? Israel should declare a 48 hour unilateral ceasefire and maintain it irrespective of what Hamas does in those intervening 48 hours. Let the world watch what happens, and we'll have a better idea who actually wants peace.
Quite clearly, Israel doesn't care a fig about civilian casualties so long as they're Palestinian.
-
... How the hell do you think you can destroy rocket launchers, munitions storage sites, etc., without damaging and killing civilians if the people you're fighting deliberately locate those facilities in the middle of populated areas, schools, hospitals, etc.?...
Russ, since you are such a stickler for war crimes, how about this then:
Protocol 1, Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits the bombardment of cities where civilian population might be concentrated regardless of any method.
-
Hmmm. . . I don't recall the Germans paying much attention to that protocol when they bombed and rocketed London, and I don't recall the Allies paying much attention to that protocol when they bombed, say, Dresden.
But the worst part of your argument, Slobodan is that you obviously failed to read the protocol before you posted. What the protocol actually says is this:
-----------------------------------------------
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
----------------------------------------------------
Looks as if there are few problems with your understanding of how Israeli actions intersect with the protocol.
1. Clearly the Israelis aren't trying to spread terror. They're busting their butts and hazarding their troops to get civilians away from Hamas's military facilities -- without much success I might add.
2. Israeli attacks are directed at specific military objectives.
3. The Israeli attacks are under strict control, unlike Hamas's rockets which are aimed generally and randomly at civilian concentrations.
On the other hand, reading the protocol instead of guessing what it says it becomes quite clear that war crimes are being committed by Hamas. Their rocket launches violate every one of the prohibitions in the protocol.
-
Interesting way to look at things really.
I don't want to insult you, Bernard, but I won't be responding to your misinformation from here on out. It's pretty clear you've had the Hamas propaganda pipe surgically implanted. To quote Wellington: "If you believe that you will believe anything."
-
And Russ, you seem to swallow all the Israeli propaganda. The simple fact is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation & the world would be better off if it was eliminated. At the same time, the Israeli actions over the years have amounted to terrorism of the Palestinian people. Both the Israeli government & Hamas shoulder the blame, but it's the innocent civilians that are shouldering the brunt of the violent fall-out.
-
And Russ, you seem to swallow all the Israeli propaganda. The simple fact is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation & the world would be better off if it was eliminated. At the same time, the Israeli actions over the years have amounted to terrorism of the Palestinian people. Both the Israeli government & Hamas shoulder the blame, but it's the innocent civilians that are shouldering the brunt of the violent fall-out.
I'm sorry, Russ is obviously incapable of understanding this. To him, if Israel does it, it's just fine; if Hamas does it, it's obviously terrorism and should be stamped out to the last Palestinian. Talk about something being implanted in the brain!
-
Hmmm. . . I don't recall the Germans paying much attention to that protocol when they bombed and rocketed London, and I don't recall the Allies paying much attention to that protocol when they bombed, say, Dresden...
That's because the "protocol" did not exist then.
-
I have no particular feelings for or against Israel…
Bernard, when you posted the Jul 26th 2014 Jon Snow news report, you chose to characterize it as a report of "genocide".
Nowhere in that news report does Jon Snow suggest this should be described as "genocide".
Hamas is in no way a serious threat to the state of Israel, they are only a vague threat to continued expansion of theft of Palestinian soil.
"…the kind of attacks that are being made in civilian areas in Israel by Palestinian armed groups clearly violate the laws of war … these Israeli strikes … appear to have violated the laws of war (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf5vFfhQNNs) …" David Mepham, UK director at Human Rights Watch
The Washington bureau chief of Al-Hayat, Joyce Karam, was one of the few people to notice the weekend death toll in Syria. She tweeted, in reference to anti-Israel protests in Pakistan, “Syria is essentially Gaza x320 death toll, x30 number of refugees, but no protest in Pakistan…”
I asked her why she thought this is so. Her answer: “Only reason I can think of is Muslim killing Muslim or Arab killing Arab seems more acceptable than Israel killing Arabs (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/obsessing-about-gaza-ignoring-syria-and-most-everything-else/374898/).”
-
... Nowhere in that news report does Jon Snow suggest this should be described as "genocide".
Ah, Isaac, you hairsplitopath!
-
That's because the "protocol" did not exist then.
Quite right, and atrocities like London and Dresden are what led to the protocol. Since then the only people I can think of who've violated the protocol are Hamas and other jihadist fanatics who've randomly attacked Israel's civilian population.
And on this page it appears we have a couple more folks who've been surgically connected to Hamas's propaganda pipeline.
-
And so Israel, responding to Hamas's ongoing random attacks against their civilian population, is "genocide," but Hamas's attacks on Israel with the avowed intention of removing Israel from the face of the earth and killing all Jews is NOT genocide? You guys need to look up the word "genocide"* and learn what it means before you try to use it.
* Genocide: The systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, etc.
-
Ok, folks, let's imagine the following scenario: IRA detonates a bomb in London (no, that is not the part to imagine). Then, U.K. government sends bombers and artillery to fight IRA and to restore "piece and calm" in London, and in the process "accidentally" kills thousands of civilians and hundreds of children. How would the world see that? As a legitimate self-defense?
-
And Russ, you seem to swallow all the Israeli propaganda. The simple fact is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation & the world would be better off if it was eliminated. At the same time, the Israeli actions over the years have amounted to terrorism of the Palestinian people. Both the Israeli government & Hamas shoulder the blame, but it's the innocent civilians that are shouldering the brunt of the violent fall-out.
so true
-
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/08/Gaza-v-Israel-copy.jpg)
that's a good solution... granting a citizenship to arab population of gaza and west bank shall actually solve the problem pronto :-).
-
My views: The civilian casualties are almost entirely the responsibility of Hamas.
indeed... and Nazi reprisals for actions of the/whatever resistance were solely responsibity of the said resistance ;D
-
I heard a news report from Israeli sources saying that remains found suggested Goldin never was captured but died in combat.
he didn't... Israel has a policy to kill captured IDF personnel to prevent a hostage situation... so as soon as IDF heard about capture they bombed the area to kill that Lt.... no Lt no problem
-
that's a good solution... granting a citizenship to arab population of gaza and west bank shall actually solve the problem pronto :-).
That's the One State solution. The One State solution effectively existed under the British mandate prior to WW2, but there were Zionists involved in killing Arabs & British troops & police, in an attempt to establish a totalitarian Jewish state. There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work, but the Israeli take on it is for a Jewish state in which Arabs can live. There are of course many problematic issues for Israeli Arabs, including in issues of education, employment, cultural rights, community funding, and so on. Whilst Jews have a 'right of return', even where they have never lived in Israel, Palestinian refugees have no such right. Even Palestinian spouse of Israelis are barred from entry into the country.
A Two-State solution would properly require the Israelis to give back the Occupied Territories, which would require the removal of illegal Jewish settlements there. There seems to be little interest in doing so, with the Palestinians corralled into two zones - the West Bank & Gaza. And we know how well that's going.
-
... There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work, but the Israeli take on it is for a Jewish state in which Arabs can live...
One State solution can never work for Israel, for the same reason it can never be a democratic state: it would be soon overrun by Arabs. Not militarily, mind you, but by the sheer difference in natality.
-
I don't want to insult you, Bernard ...
Nor should you.
... but I won't be responding to your misinformation ...
Just for the record:
- You have difficulty in distinguishing the difference between an opinion and a fact.
- You cite as facts, versions of events that are blatantly incorrect (as in the case of Lt Goldin) and pepper your version of events with hyperbole.
- You cite the WWII bombing of Dresden and the bombing of London as examples of the Allies and Germans ignoring the Geneva convention – ignorant of the fact that (a) the Convention didn't exist at the time and (b) as a justification for ignoring the 'rules' – to suit.
- You ignore any reference to what is referred to as 'jus in bello' (limits to acceptable wartime conduct) , stating unequivocally " If I were in Israel's situation I'd fight, and civilians be damned. "
- You claim that ' Israeli attacks are directed at specific military objectives' blithely ignorant of the fact that yesterday was the seventh direct attack on a UN protected refuge – and that today's second Gaza ceasefire collapsed in just six minutes this morning after an Israeli F16 jet destroyed a house in a beach-side refugee camp, killing an 8-year-old girl and wounding dozens more.
- You ignore the fact that so far in excess of 1,800 palestinians and 60 Israelis are dead and of the 1,800 – the UN estimates that over 80% are civilians and of that 80 % , 3-in-5 are women and children.
- And last but not least, you pepper your arguments with ad hominem attacks, in a futile attempt to disguise your own foot-in-mouth moments.
You're missing the point :
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/print-cover-full/print-covers/20140802_cna400.jpg)
-
Since then the only people I can think of who've violated the protocol are Hamas and other jihadist fanatics who've randomly attacked Israel's civilian population.
You're conveniently forgetting a few not-so-minor incidents, such as 'Abu Ghraib' and 'My Lai', to name but two.
-
That's the One State solution. The One State solution effectively existed under the British mandate prior to WW2
I am sorry - were those people citizens of UK ? no, they were not... One State solution only existed in Russian Empire... unlike UK or France or Germany or USA (Filippines for example) - those bloody Czars really were giving citizenship to acquired colonies :-)...
-
One State solution can never work for Israel, for the same reason it can never be a democratic state: it would be soon overrun by Arabs. Not militarily, mind you, but by the sheer difference in natality.
and that's where the catch 22 lies - too greedy to give up the land, too scared to give the citizenship... so West had to invent a special form of democracy just for one state in the world, with a "jewish" nature of that... I mean, Serbia tried "serbian" nature and oops... was bombed into giving up Kosovo ;D ...
-
There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work
in terms of suppression an armed insurgency - look @ xUSSR... that is how One State solution worked, now the economic model was not sustainable but national insurgencies were eliminated till the state itself existed... once the state collapsed, they reappeared naturally - but Israel has the right economic model, hasn't it ? so it is not going to collapse... so they can use the same model - which says grant citizenship to all and then kill your own citizens if they dare to continue an armed struggle.
-
Here's a small quiz. Put these questions in a worksheet, with columns for "Israelis" and "Palestinians." Fill it out. Of course, no one can know precise numbers, but you can get some idea with only modest attention to legitimate news sources. Look at the results, and then I dare you to tell me, with anything resembling a straight face, that Israel has the high moral ground in the current conflict.
Number of people forced off their ancestral lands by violence or threat of violence.
Number of people denied water, land, economic, and travel rights.
Number of acres of other peoples’ land that has been illegally taken over for settlement.
Number of children killed.
Number of other civilians killed.
Number of hospitals, schools, libraries, markets, and homes destroyed.
Number of years a blockade or other restrictions has inhibited economic development.
Number of times the United Nations has been ignored.
-
I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.
-
I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.
Unlike you, of course.
-
I am sorry - were those people citizens of UK ? no, they were not... One State solution only existed in Russian Empire... unlike UK or France or Germany or USA (Filippines for example) - those bloody Czars really were giving citizenship to acquired colonies :-)...
After clearing the Turks from the region in WW1, Palestine became a British protectorate - i.e. the British took responsibility for the area's security. It wasn't part of the Empire
-
I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.
Pot, meet kettle
-
After clearing the Turks from the region in WW1, Palestine became a British protectorate - i.e. the British took responsibility for the area's security. It wasn't part of the Empire
yes, and that's the point - they were not citizens of any state... that's different from first making them citizens and then dealing with their own citizens.
-
I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.
going to demonstration calling to free mr Pollard ;) ?
-
Bernard, when you posted the Jul 26th 2014 Jon Snow news report, you chose to characterize it as a report of "genocide".
Nowhere in that news report does Jon Snow suggest this should be described as "genocide".
Isaac,
You leave me no choice but to come out of my self imposed silence.
Looking at the various definitions proposed here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
I agree with you that the word genocide is probably too strong relative to the spirit of the majority of the proposed definitions, although it does in fact fit the 1948 UN definition in a minimal way: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy... in part... a religious group... [by] killing members of the group... [and]... deliberately inflicting on the group condition of life, calculated to bring down its physical destruction... in part".
"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)"
So I present my apologies and withdraw this word. I propose to replace genocide by "killing of Palestinian civilians". I have modified the name of the thread accordingly.
But please understand that criticizing the current actions of Israel does not pre-requisite any pre-existing negative feeling against Jews or Israel. I would hate to be accused of that because it is absolutely not how I feel.
Please also avoid to over simplify my points. I am fully aware that Hamas is guilty of various wrong doings too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's look at the words you didn't quote, from your source (my emphasis) -- "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."
I hope it's normal to react with confusion and horror to the realization that people could be possessed by such intentions, but we have seen genocide in our lifetimes so I don't understand how you could be confused about what genocide is
I guess you didn't understand my acknowledgment of the correction I did just above (I added the part about intent since my intention was not to do a partial quotation)? Or is it plain unthinkable that someone may be critical of the actions of Israel while attempting to have an objective view of the situation? Anybody critical of these actions must be an enemy of Israel?
As far as the word genocide having been misused, could it have to do with how close what is currently happening is to the definition quoted above to the extend that judgement on "intent" becomes the key part?
Hamas is guilty as well, nobody is denying that. At least I don't think I ever did. But the death toll speaks for itdelf. Both parties are very clearly not equally guilty on this one. This is nowhere near a draw.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... I have no sympathy for, and in fact serious derision towards folks who whimper on and on about the deaths of children in Gaza. It's the only positive press Hamas is generating and they know it. Who has children in a war zone that they themselves prolong year after year? I would not have a dog, let alone children under the circumstances in Gaza. Children are a choice....
Speaking about genocide... If there isn't one now, there will be if they listen to our friend Dennis' advice: stop having children. In due time, that would guarantee disappearance of whatever you want to call Palestinians, race, nation, people, tribe.
I think Sun Tzu (of the Art of War fame) would be so impressed as to ask for a revised edition, adding a chapter on children. You first scare your opponent shitless, either by just displaying an overwhelming power or actually using it initially. That freezes the blood in the opponents veins, and apparently sperm as well. Then you just have to wait it out.
-
So don't - replace it.
I had already done that before you ordered me to Isaac.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've been reluctant to get involved in this discussion because of the inevitable distortion of the meaning of key words used, that tends to occur when people argue from a purely emotional perspective.
The sad fact is that all wars result in a significant number of casualties of innocent civilians, including women and children. That's what makes war so terribly tragic. Circumstances are such that armies are not able to limit their activities to fighting only each other, as in some sort of blood sport.
Now, I notice that Bernard has backed down to some extent when Isaac pointed out that his use of the word 'genocide' to describe the Israeli actions, was not appropriate.
But what about the term, 'targeting civilians', which crops up frequently in this thread? Does anyone really believe that Israel is targeting Palestinian civilians when it retaliates against the Hamas aggression?
The population of the Gaza strip is around 1.6 million. After 4 weeks of fighting and literally thousands of rockets fired and/or air strikes from both sides, the Palestinian death toll is around 1800, most of whom are probably civilians.
The exact percentage of civilians killed is not known. Some claims are 80%, which would make the civilian death toll currently 1440. However, if Israel was really targeting civilians in its airstrikes, then to achieve a death toll of only 1440 in such a densely populated area without bomb shelters, and after about 4,200 airstrikes, would make it the most incompetent army in the history of mankind. Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.
Furthermore, after seeing on TV the huge areas of devasted houses and buildings in Gaza, and areas turned into complete rubble, the Israeli claims that they try to warn the civilian population to leave, before they bomb an area, seem credible to me. One would expect the death toll to be much higher without such warnings.
The following report seems to provide a reasonably balanced view of the current situation.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/5904691/hamas-israel-gaza-11-things
-
The exact percentage of civilians killed is not known. Some claims are 80%, which would make the civilian death toll currently 1440. However, if Israel was really targeting civilians in its airstrikes, then to achieve a death toll of only 1440 in such a densely populated area without bomb shelters, and after about 4,200 airstrikes, would make it the most incompetent army in the history of mankind. Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.
The sad aspect to all this is that the civilians in the Gaza are at the mercy of both the Israeli strikes as well as Hamas. The Palestinian civilians are not heavily armed...which leaves them exposed to the better armed Hamas. Who's gonna keep a bunch of armed thugs from coming into their house and set up mortars and rocket launchers? The Israeli military are tracking attacks from Gaza as they are launched...and the retaliatory strikes are expected by Hamas who slithers away leaving the civilians at risk.
And Hamas is "surprised" by these strikes? No, they are counting on them. The Palestinian political structure in Gaza has completely broken down. Hamas is fighting both the Israelis as well as other rival factions in Gaza...this why the whole thing sucks...Israel enforced the blockade to keep weapons from the Gaza...but that hasn't been very successful. The weapons still get in. Who's sending those weapons? Egypt? Wealthy Saudis? Syrians? I doubt it's Iran-Irainians don't much care for Hamas.
The whole thing is a disaster...centuries in the making. I just hope the ceasefire holds up long enough to get aid to the civilians. Now that Israel's stated goal on eradicating the tunnels system, hopefully they can back off...if more rockets don't fly.
-
Ray, your perspective on this issue makes as much sense as your perspective on lens perspective.
-
Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.
There have been several rebuttals of this fallacy, even by prominent voices of the Jewish community. In short, " ... when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended is mute ..."
The point is that if the action had been restricted to a ground offensive, then that would have allowed for greater precision and would have been more morally defensible. Of course, it's most probable that the Israeli casualties would have then been higher.
According to the UN, a third of all hospitals in Gaza have been damaged, medical facilities are 'on the verge of collapse' as almost half of medics are unable to get to work, 460,000 or a quarter of all Gazans have been displaced, 270,000 people are crammed into 90 UN shelters - 7 of which have taken direct hits with heavy mortalities.
Not exactly " ... unavoidable consequence of collateral damage ... "
-
Israel enforced the blockade to keep weapons from the Gaza...but that hasn't been very successful. The weapons still get in. Who's sending those weapons? Egypt? Wealthy Saudis? Syrians? I doubt it's Iran-Irainians don't much care for Hamas.
Nevertheless, it seems that it is indeed the Iranians who are funding and supplying arms and rockets. Stand to be enlightened on this one, but all the info I've seen point to the Ayatollahs.
Sup with the Devil ...
-
You're conveniently forgetting a few not-so-minor incidents, such as 'Abu Ghraib' and 'My Lai', to name but two.
These attacks on civilians and POW's were not sanctioned, planned or executed by the American government. They were illegal acts perpetrated by individual soldiers who were tried in US Military courts and sent to jail for their actions. A closer example of civilian deaths during war would be American drone attacks on terrorists where there are civilian deaths that occur when the terrorists are bombed or when civilians were killed during Afghanistan and Iraq attacks against enemy military forces. According to the Geneva Protocol, attackers must take reasonable precautions to protect civilians, but the death of civilians during these kind of attacks appear to be within the Protocol. Interesting, America is not a signatory to this Protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties
-
Ray, your perspective on this issue makes as much sense as your perspective on lens perspective.
Surely not, Slobodan. My writings on the observed change in perspective in the print on the wall, resulting from the use of lenses of different focal lengths, was scientifically sound and logically irrefutable. ;)
The situation in the Middle East is much more complicated.
-
There have been several rebuttals of this fallacy, even by prominent voices of the Jewish community. In short, " ... when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended is mute ..."
The point is that if the action had been restricted to a ground offensive, then that would have allowed for greater precision and would have been more morally defensible. Of course, it's most probable that the Israeli casualties would have then been higher.
Are these prominent voices military experts? I'm not a military expert but I can imagine that the number of casualties that might result from a battalion of tanks trundling through the streets of a densely populated city infiltrated with Hamas terrorists throwing bombs from every building as the tanks pass by, could be very great.
Were these prominent voices of the Jewish community you refer to also recommending that the entire Palestinian population be evacuated from the Gaza strip before the IDF sent in its ground forces? That would certainly reduce civilian casualties, but where would the population go?
I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.
-
I think it's legitimately within Geneva protocol when Israel causes coincidental civilian casualties when attacking enemy forces. They appear to have taken certain precautions. The problem is more of optics. There is a large difference in civilian causalities between the sides. So one naturally feels for the side taking the brunt of the damage and death. Maybe if the Gazans had more accurate rockets that could penetrate Israel's Iron Dome and kill more Israeli civilians, the optics would appear better and there would be less accusations against Israel.
-
... I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.
Right... Israel critics must be either emotional, hysterical or irrational. There is no way that a sane, rational, and educated person could think, let alone say, something critical of Israel, God forbid.
The State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza, saying it was “appalled” by this “disgraceful” act. UN called it "criminal." Were they also emotional, hysterical or irrational?
-
These attacks on civilians and POW's were not sanctioned, planned or executed by the American government.
I didn't say they were. The reply was to the RSL post #205: " Since then the only people I can think of who've violated the protocol are Hamas and other jihadist fanatics who've randomly attacked Israel's civilian population. ..."
The kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, forced to drink gasoline and then set alight wasn't sanctioned, planned or executed by the Israeli government either. These incidents tragically, occur on all sides.
-
... The problem is more of optics...
If by 'optics' you mean 'perspective' as opposed to the quality of the Israeli gunsights, I would agree with you.
-
I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.
I've heard him described in many ways. Irrational wasn't one of them. Roger Cohen - NYT, to name but one of many.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/roger-cohen-zionism-and-israels-war-with-hamas-in-gaza.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/roger-cohen-start-with-gaza.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/opinion/sunday/roger-cohen-why-americans-see-israel-the-way-they-do.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
--
ps can someone please explain how I can post abbreviated links such as : here ?
-
... ps can someone please explain how I can post abbreviated links such as : here ?
Highlight the word, e.g., HERE and click on the little globe icon above (see illustration).
-
Thanks, Slobodan.
-
Nevertheless, it seems that it is indeed the Iranians who are funding and supplying arms and rockets. Stand to be enlightened on this one, but all the info I've seen point to the Ayatollahs.
According to this report, Iran no longer gets along with Hamas. HAMAS Funding (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm) It's private Saudis and Qatar that provides most of the money.
-
According to this report, Iran no longer gets along with Hamas. HAMAS Funding (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm) It's private Saudis and Qatar that provides most of the money.
Thanks for that link, Jeff. Interesting site, horrific report.
-
Ok, folks, let's imaging the following scenario: IRA detonates a bomb in London (no, that is not the part to imagine). Them, U.K. government sends bombers and artillery to fight IRA and to restore "piece and calm" in London, and in the process "accidentally" kills thousands of civilians and hundreds of children. How would the world see that? As a legitimate self-defense?
As an aside to your good point, it kind of happened the other way around in reality, Britain, well England treated Ireland really, really badly over the centuries, which is fundamentally why London and other places in England were bombed during 'The Troubles'. It was the result of hundreds of years of grief, not just the few beforehand.
-
Thanks for that link, Jeff. Interesting site, horrific report.
Ironically, the USA, Europe, the UN and even Israel has funded the Palestinian Authority in attempts to help the Palestinians (according to this Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/16/gaza-hamas-funding-oped-cx_re_0116ehrenfeld.html)). So, it seems even Israel has provided funds that prolly ended up in the hands of Hamas.
Which is why I've said so strongly that this is a really, REALLY complicated situation with all sorts of political ramifications at play. The Middle East is a complicated and scary place...and has been since Thomas Jefferson was president.
There are no easy quick fixes...now ISIS raises it's ugly head in Syria and Iraq which is scaring the heck out of Iran and all of the moderate gulf states...then there's Yemen, Libya and all of the former USSR Muslim states.
A 2 star US general was assassinated today in Afghanistan believed to be by Taliban inside Afghani trained forces...also, don't forget the recent terrorist attacks into Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks), India.
Don't also forget India, Pakistan and Israel all have nuclear weapons and Iran is hellbent on getting them.
I feel for the people in the Gaza strip...but there are much larger forces at play.
-
In an iron side note, it seems weapons and missiles aren't the only thing being smuggled into the Gaza strip. This Guardian report profiles The KFC smugglers of Gaza (http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/may/19/kfc-smugglers-of-gaza).
It seems that anything can be had in Gaza if you have enough money...
-
…, Britain, well England treated Ireland really, really badly over the centuries, which is fundamentally why London and other places in England were bombed during 'The Troubles'. It was the result of hundreds of years of grief, not just the few beforehand.
In 1166, the King of Leinster, Diarmait MacMurchada was forced to flee from Dublin and from his kingdom by an alliance of Irish enemies, including the new High King, Ruaidri Ua Conchobair. …
And awful were its consequences. For Diarmait landed in Bristol and asked for help from King Henry II to get his throne back. … This is when the trouble became big trouble. For Diarmait promptly went shopping for mercenaries among the nastiest and greediest possible bunch of knights. … Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin.
…
So in the winter of 1171, Henry crossed the Irish Sea himself… The Irish kings did homage to Henry as they would to any High King, building the ritual hall through which they entered as his men, promising him one of every ten of their cattle hides in tribute. And they saw him not as imperial conqueror at all, but as their protector against … the Anglo-Norman barons.
…
The land taken - and taken is the word - by the Anglo-Normans, was divided up in the usual way and given to their knights, as reward for military service. But somehow … they weren't quite English either. Almost from the beginning they knew this, since one of the Anglo-Normans, Maurice fitzGerald, rather pathetically complained that no one would help his kind:
'for just as we are English as far as the Irish are concerned, likewise to the English we are Irish (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/ireland_invasion_01.shtml) and the inhabitants of this island and of the other assail us with an equal degree of hatred'.
-
You still haven't provided any answer to the main point of this thread, which the factual dead of hundreds of Palestinian children Russ. Does their death not matter to you? Is it hysterical to point out those deaths?
Bernard,
Have I missed your anguished posts here bemoaning the loss of life in Syria (enormously greater than in Gaza) over the last two years? Or do you only become upset when Israel is involved?
Just curious.
Jeremy
-
Bernard,
Have I missed your anguished posts here bemoaning the loss of life in Syria (enormously greater than in Gaza) over the last two years? Or do you only become upset when Israel is involved?
Just curious.
Jeremy
Jeremy this thread is about Gaza....did you miss that?
-
Right... Israel critics must be either emotional, hysterical or irrational. There is no way that a sane, rational, and educated person could think, let alone say, something critical of Israel, God forbid.
The State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza, saying it was “appalled” by this “disgraceful” act. UN called it "criminal." Were they also emotional, hysterical or irrational?
An excellent example of an irrational response to my comment, Slobodan. Well done! ;)
-
Have I missed your anguished posts here bemoaning the loss of life in Syria (enormously greater than in Gaza) over the last two years? Or do you only become upset when Israel is involved?
Just curious.
Jeremy,
That simply isn't very smart. For the record, I am offended to be called a racist by you.
Yes, I am upset by the current situation in Gaza but a pre-existing dislike of Israel is not a pre-requisite condition to be upset. As mentioned several times in this thread, I have a huge amount of respect for the historical cause of Jews and am not objecting the existence of the state of Israel. What about you Jeremy? I sure hope that you are upset as well by the many civilian causalities in Gaza, are you not?
To answer your "question". I am also upset about what happens in other parts of the world where innocents are being killed, such as Syria? Yes, of course, and I surely hope you are as well.
So why did I decide to write about Gaza and not about Syria. Well, I will answer you.
0. The visibility of the situation in Gaza in the world press is a lot higher which increased my awareness of the on-going disaster in Gaza,
1. Israel is a democratic state connected to the world and I believe that change in Israel can only come from inside. Further raising awareness about the way objective by-standers see the killing of children in Gaza must, somehow, trigger some questioning that may, some day, lead to a more humanitarian approach to problem resolution compared to the current F-16 based tactics,
2. Although there is certainly a religious dimension to the Syrian civil war, it is a very different situation compared to Gaza where a strongly dominated minority group is being bombed by a high tech army. It may not be very rationale, but there is a natural tendency to vote for the weak, even if some of them are guilty of wrong going too.
Why did you not start a thread about Syria Jeremy?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Surely not, Slobodan. My writings on the observed change in perspective in the print on the wall, resulting from the use of lenses of different focal lengths, was scientifically sound and logically irrefutable. ;)
Irrefutably bonkers you mean. ;D
-
Photo 1: A weary young Palestinian boy sits on some dirty concrete steps in Gaza City. Photo taken on September 20, 2005. Assuming the boy is still alive today, he will have experienced three wars.
Photo 2: A CD called "Biblical Revenge" by Jewish extremist Dov Shurin sits on a rack in a music store in West Jerusalem, Israel. The album cover photo features Shurin with an Uzi automatic weapon slung over his right shoulder and a Hebrew Bible in his left hand. Songs on the album include "The Goyim Surround Me" and "He will rebuild The Temple". Shurin is a well known ultra-nationalist. He was born in the U.S. in 1949, emigrating to Israel in 1984, the same year Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounded another 125 in Hebron. Photo taken on September 08, 2005.
Photo 3: Hajj Ibrahim dances with Rabbi Froman at a wedding. Ibrahim Abu el-Hawa is a religious peacemaker. He is a Muslim living in East Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. He embodies the principle of "love thy neighbour". Rabbi Menachem Froman (died March 4, 2013) was a remarkable religious peacemaker who defies all conventional descriptions and stereotypes. He lived on the settlement of Tekoa in the West Bank, yet Yasser Arafat called him his "brother" and he had extensive relations with religious Muslims, including those from Hamas. Indeed Sheikh Ahmad Yasin of Hamas famously said to Froman "with you we could make peace in 5 minutes". Ibrahim and Froman had been friends for many years, and at this time Ibrahim was a guest at the wedding of one of Rabbi Froman's daughters. Photo taken on November 14, 2005 in Tekoa, the West Bank, Palestine.
Photo 4: A small group of Palestinians walk by the Israel Security Wall in Bethlehem. At this point the wall is about 8 meters high. On the other side of this section the wall are Palestinian olive fields. Photo taken on September 30, 2005.
-
Have I missed your anguished posts here bemoaning the loss of life in Syria (enormously greater than in Gaza) over the last two years?
so true... shame on USA which, as usual, supports terrorists when that suits them :D
-
It seems that anything can be had in Gaza if you have enough money...
that's universal
-
Here is a heretic thought: would ISIS have so much success if Saddam were still in power?
-
Here is a heretic thought: would ISIS have so much success if Saddam were still in power?
and Assad not being undermined...
-
Here is a heretic thought: would ISIS have so much success if Saddam were still in power?
Interesting thought - and one of many reminders of the dismal failure that the US invasion of Iraq has ended up being. Get rid of the bad and you might end up with the worse. The US cannot control the world.
-
That simply isn't very smart. For the record, I am offended to be called a racist by you.
Not my word. I asked a question. You've given an answer, of sorts.
0. The visibility of the situation in Gaza in the world press is a lot higher which increased my awareness of the on-going disaster in Gaza,
The press you read must be jolly different from that in the rest of the world. Syria has had huge press coverage for long periods of time, most notably when there were allegations about Assad's use of chemical weapons and when the UK and US governments were deciding (despite Obama's "red line" speech) not to intervene in any way.
Why did you not start a thread about Syria Jeremy?
Because this is not an appropriate site for such a thread, and because online posturing accomplishes nothing: as an example of that, see the "bring back our girls" fiasco.
Jeremy
-
Not my word. I asked a question.
No, not your words. Nevertheless, a charge that could quite easily be understood to be inferred from both the tone and manner in which the question was phrased.
So to allay any doubts, are you accusing Bernard of racism - to be even more specific, anti-semitism ?
A simple, one word answer - yes or no ?
-
No, not your words. Nevertheless, a charge that could quite easily be understood to be inferred from both the tone and manner in which the question was phrased.
So to allay any doubts, are you accusing Bernard of racism - to be even more specific, anti-semitism ?
A simple, one word answer - yes or no ?
No; and I don't accept that it would be possible to infer the accusation from my post.
As I've happily conceded in an earlier post on this thread, it's perfectly possible to harbour anti-Israel sentiments without being anti-semitic or racist. I was impliedly accusing Bernard of the former, as was blindingly obvious.
Jeremy
-
It's no use, Jeremy. Some minds have been infused with a virulent brand of propaganda that seems to be widespread in Europe and almost as widespread in the U.S. If you take history into account it's not hard to see from whence it comes nor to what it leads.
-
No; and I don't accept that it would be possible to infer the accusation from my post.
As I've happily conceded in an earlier post on this thread, it's perfectly possible to harbour anti-Israel sentiments without being anti-semitic or racist. I was impliedly accusing Bernard of the former, as was blindingly obvious.
Not good enough Jeremy.
As you have just acknowledged, you are accusing me of having anti-Israel sentiments and that is obviously racist. So you are accusing me of racism.
Allow me to be extremely clear once more. I don't have anti-Israel sentiment.
Opposing the actions of Israel in Gaza does not require anti-Israel sentiments nor racism. The same way that opposing the unjustified Irak invasion by the US gov did not require anti-American sentiment. All it takes is an objective look at the situation.
You accusations are just shocking and utterly unacceptable Jeremy and only weaken your position as they paint you in very unfavorable light.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As you have just acknowledged, you are accusing me of having anti-Israel sentiments and that is obviously racist. So you are accusing me of racism.
Drivel.
Allow to be extremely clear once more. I don't have anti-Israel sentiment.
Opposing the actions of Israel in Gaza does not require anti-Israel sentiments nor racism.
Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation. You have offered an explanation. It will satisfy some.
Jeremy
-
Time to shift gears: Who will be first to characterize the urgent US efforts to bring humanitarian relief to northern Iraq as nefarious or some sort of double game?
-
... Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation.
No, it doesn't.
Try arguing the same logic when stopped for speeding: "But, but... officer, while you are ticketing me, there are hundreds flying by even faster"
-
It's no use, Jeremy. Some minds have been infused with a virulent brand of propaganda that seems to be widespread in Europe and almost as widespread in the U.S. If you take history into account it's not hard to see from whence it comes nor to what it leads.
There we go again.
At some point of time Russ, most smart people do a bit of introspection when Europe and a significant part of the US look at things in a certain way that differs from yours. In my attempts to be objective, I have acknowledges a terrible mistake I did in assessing the situation, which was to call it a genocide. I have amended that view because it didn't match reality. I don't see you make the slightest effort to be objective and that scares the hell out of me.
Let me ask you a very simple question, and I really would like you to answer for a change. Are there certain actions that the Israeli government could carry out that you would condemn as being unacceptable? If yes, what would these be? If no, I hope you realise it means that you are granting them a wildcard for any possible attrocity.
Finally, implying that disagreeing with the current actions of the Israel gov has a connection with historical facts to which Jews have been involved and may contribute to similar things happening again in the future is, again, utterly outrageous and irresponsible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Time to shift gears: Who will be first to characterize the urgent US efforts to bring humanitarian relief to northern Iraq as nefarious or some sort of double game?
Ok, Mezzo, I'll bite: not surprised.
Every power, and especially a superpower, needs a bogeyman, a constant reminder of an evil enemy that justifies the constant state of war and actions that need no further explanation. For the US, it was communism for a number of lucky years. With its demise, there was an urgent need for replacement, and it was quickly found (or manufactured?) in terrorism. Then again, with Bin Laden dead, once again there is a bogeyman vacuum (btw, ever wondered why it took a newbie president to do so? - the other two were simply too smart to do that).
With withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, military budget cuts, here and among allies... not good. Enter ISIS. All these years of bringing flowering democracy to Iraq, that was supposed to spread like a forest fire across the Middle East (or is "weed" a better metaphor? - I mean, it spreads faster and is more resilient), billions of dollars accounted and unaccounted for, hundreds of thousands dead, the towering "democracy" crumbled within days like a house of cards (one can argue it was built on one - remember the deck of cards distributed to every invading soldier with photos of 52 wanted Iraqis?).
One does not have to be too cynical to conclude that only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen. Unless one wanted that to happen.
Then again, humanitarian aid is not going to stop ISIS. Thus two birds killed with one stone: you appear to be the good guy, while at the same time nurturing your future bogeyman.
Enough conspiracy-esque to please you? ;)
-
Ok, Mezzo, I'll bite: not surprised.
Every power, and especially a superpower, needs a bogeyman, a constant reminder of an evil enemy that justifies the constant state of war and actions that need no further explanation. For the US, it was communism for a number of lucky years. With its demise, there was an urgent need for replacement, and it was quickly found (or manufactured?) in terrorism. Then again, with Bin Laden dead, once again there is a bogeyman vacuum (btw, ever wondered why it took a newbie president to do so? - the other two were simply too smart to do that).
With withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, military budget cuts, here and among allies... not good. Enter ISIS. All these years of bringing flowering democracy to Iraq, that was supposed to spread like a forest fire across the Middle East (or is "weed" a better metaphor? - I mean, it spreads faster and is more resilient), billions of dollars accounted and unaccounted for, hundreds of thousands dead, the towering "democracy" crumbled within days like a house of cards (one can argue it was built on one - remember the deck of cards distributed to every invading soldier with photos of 52 wanted Iraqis?).
One does not have to be too cynical to conclude that only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen. Unless one wanted that to happen.
Then again, humanitarian aid is not going to stop ISIS. Thus two birds killed with one stone: you appear to be the good guy, while at the same time nurturing your future bogeyman.
Enough conspiracy-esque to please you? ;)
Well-done! We are indeed selective about exactly which 'atrocities' and 'unacceptable' events are 'horrible' enough to motivate us to actually act. But I'm not willing to ignore every event that clearly meets all common notions of evil, (e.g., starving 40,000 on a mountain top, or beheading Christian and Shia alike) AND can clearly, logically lead to increasingly legitimate threats to the US.
If you can't see the link between an increasingly powerful and emboldened ISIS and future direct threats to Americans on US soil, then perhaps the desire to see conspiracy is getting in the way of rational self-preservation.
-
In the July 26th 2014 news report you initially posted, Jon Snow stated succinctly -- "Now, of course, Hamas, for it's part, was throwing rockets into Israel designed ideally to kill Israelis…"
In your opinion, was Israel's throwing bombs into Gaza designed ideally to kill women and children?
I guess that you mean "Israeli army" or "Israeli government"? It is of course your prerogative to associate all the things happening to Israel as a country encompassing its whole population, but that may result in some confusion. This is at least not my view.
I sure hope that your point isn't that, since some parties connected to Hamas tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to kill some Israeli civilians by launching rockets, it is OK for the Israeli army to succeed in killing Palestinian civilians?
My view, in short, is that I don't think that killing civilians is the objective of the strikes of the Israeli army, but I think that those ordering the strikes do it with the full and unmistakable awareness that they are going to kill civilians.
Allow me to elaborate. Form the reports that have been published, including the ones you quotes, there are probably 2 categories of incidents:
1. There have been several incidents where Palestinian civilians were killed although they were no obvious military targets in the close vicinity (4 kids on the beach, several hits on UN hospitals,...). I don't know whether this is the result of intent or of mistakes, but it is 100% certain that these deaths would not have occurred had the bombing not been ordered in the first place. Would you not agree?
2. Even when there were military targets nearby, when you hit densely populated areas where a rocket launcher is hiding, whether you send an early warning shot or not, you are nearly certain that:
1. You are going to kill civilians,
2. You are warning the rocket launcher just as much as civilians and giving them time to move to another location, which they will probably succeed in doing much better than families with kids.
So at the end of the day, the avoidable deaths of 1,400 Palestinian civilians remains the responsibility of the Israeli army. The verified fact that attempts are being made in many cases to limit civilians deaths doesn't change anything for those who died, and there is no possible way their death cannot have been anticipated with near certainty.
More generally speaking, there is a strong suspicion that the Israeli army isn't just trying to prevent Hamas associates from continuing rocket strikes, but is also leveraging this situation to continue the colonization of Gaza by making Palestinians relocate to other places.
Is the Hamas nebulous guilty too? Yes, they are. Don't misunderstand my position, I am in no way a supporter of their actions. Who it its right mind would be? I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals. Their actions result from the Israeli government moves in Gaza but are also the trigger of the Israeli army actions. Now, they are not responsible for Palestinians causalities. The person pushing on the button triggering the bomb is.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but could please pinpoint the part of my statements you find inaccurate?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... If you can't see...
I wonder why you think I do not see the threat ISIS poses? Or that I think we do not have the duty to intervene, and not just humanitarely. I clearly said:
"only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen" i.e., for ISIS to become such a threat.
The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.
-
I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals.
and what will be the right means ?
-
It's no use, Jeremy. Some minds have been infused with a virulent brand of propaganda that seems to be widespread in Europe and almost as widespread in the U.S. If you take history into account it's not hard to see from whence it comes nor to what it leads.
you are back, promises short lived ;D
-
The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.
Allow it? You really think the US could have prevented it and still pulled the troops out? The ISIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant) phenomenon is, I think a complete shock to both the West and the Iraqi government and military. It happened in large part from rebels from Syria leaving Syria and getting initial wins in battles that left the Iraqi in shambles and the government in a total panic. Heck, even al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group in Feb 2014, reportedly for its brutality and "notorious intractability". None of the moderate Arab states nor Turkey are happy and even Iran is worried.
Not unlike the Gaza/Hamas problem, there are a bunch of at least lightly train fighters that are too well armed. I sure hope we don't do anything other than humanitarian aid, but somebody has to fight these way-over-the-top Islamic radicals...
The Middle East is a scary place (and has been for a long time). And the problems keep evolving in totally unexpected ways.
-
and what will be the right means ?
That's not an easy question to answer, but rockets isn't the right approach for sure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...I am in no way a supporter of Hamas. I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals.
"a resistance organization"? Are you kidding? Are we talking about the same Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) we've been reading about in the media? The same Hamas whose political wing has no control over the military wing nor the other splinter groups that are linked to Hamas? The same Hamas that has shot and killed Palestinians who supported the Palestinian Authority. The conflict between the two main Palestinian political factions, Fatah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah) and Hamas has essentially eliminated the Palestinian Authority and any moderate political parties in Palestine.
"Know your enemy"
Sun Tzu's The Art of War
-
"a resistance organization"? Are you kidding? Are we talking about the same Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) we've been reading about in the media? The same Hamas whose political wing has no control over the military wing nor the other splinter groups that are linked to Hamas?
You are correct, I wasn't accurate enough. I was referring to the military wing of Hamas and related groups.
cheers,
Bernard
-
No, it doesn't.
Try arguing the same logic when stopped for speeding: "But, but... officer, while you are ticketing me, there are hundreds flying by even faster"
Something happened like that once when I was driving from NYC to Washington DC. We were passing through Delaware, a stretch of about twenty miles between New Jersey and Maryland. Truly a blip on Interstate I95 when I was pulled over by Delaware's most brave State Trooper for speeding. As he handed the ticket to me I complained rather politely that although I was above the speed limit, I was only keeping up with traffic. Everyone was going that fast. So the trooper gave me one of those looks and asked me when I was a kid did I plead to my father when I did "bad" that I was only doing what the other boys were doing? He had me! I quietly took the ticket and subsequently paid the fine.
-
Israel has committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Hamas has committed war crimes. Ideally individuals from both will be held accountable in the International Criminal Court, which is possible but not probable.
No Israeli would tolerate living in conditions like those found in Gaza. Anyone who has been to Gaza understands this. Moreover, none of us here, given a choice, would accept living under 47 years of military occupation.
There is no military solution. The solution will inevitably be a formed out of a mix of political, economic cultural, and religious forces. Real, secure peace will take a long time -- at least as long as it took to get to this point, which is more than a century.
The urgent need now is to pragmatically work through viable, nonviolent solutions.
-
I wonder why you think I do not see the threat ISIS poses? Or that I think we do not have the duty to intervene, and not just humanitarely. I clearly said:
"only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen" i.e., for ISIS to become such a threat.
The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.
Sorry, Slobo..I was careless. Here's what I meant to say:
"If you one can't see the link between an increasingly powerful and emboldened ISIS and future direct threats to Americans on US soil, then perhaps the one's desire to see conspiracy is might be getting in the way of one's rational self-preservation.
-
Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation.
Jeremy
I don't agree. By your logic, one would have to comment about every case of civilians being killed or else keep quiet about them all. Does that make any sense to you? And, your approach is ad hominem, which is a pretty sure indication that your arguments have little merit, forcing you to attack the character of your opponent.
-
Not your finest hour Jeremy. I think it looked like a personal attack. In football parlance you played the man instead of the ball. :(
-
Jeremy was simply playing American football ;-)
-
"The Times analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html?_r=0), looking at 1,431 names, shows that the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll: They are 9 percent of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents, but 34 percent of those killed whose ages were provided. At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71 percent of the population and 33 percent of the known-age casualties."
And....? The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Israel's bombs and shells were not targeted completely randomly, just mostly randomly.
-
There are other photos ...
Damon makes a good post, notable for it's diversity.
You choose Photo 4. Wrong, the only way forward is Photo 3.
" a Muslim living in East Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. He embodies the principle of "love thy neighbour". Rabbi Menachem Froman (died March 4, 2013) was a remarkable religious peacemaker who defies all conventional descriptions and stereotypes. He lived on the settlement of Tekoa in the West Bank, yet Yasser Arafat called him his "brother" and he had extensive relations with religious Muslims, including those from Hamas. Indeed Sheikh Ahmad Yasin of Hamas famously said to Froman "with you we could make peace in 5 minutes". "
-
Allow it? You really think the US could have prevented it and still pulled the troops out?...
Coitus interruptus , while safe, is neither the best, nor most pleasurable solution for either side ;) So, no, if you couldn't prevent it, then you shouldn't pull out the troops.
As for the "complete shock"... really!? All the gazillions spent on NSA and CIA, being actually on the ground there for a decade, and still surprised? Pleading ignorance and incompetence? If so, it is then a far more impeachable offense than the occasional BJ in the Oval Office. Besides, ISIS is the offspring of the Syrian opposition that you supported and financed, just like Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. That is known as "playing with fire," so no wonder you get burned occasionally.
-
Isaac,
Apologies, you are not answering my perfectly reasonnable questions, I will not waste time answering your... stuff.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation. You have offered an explanation. It will satisfy some.
Not your finest hour Jeremy. I think it looked like a personal attack. In football parlance you played the man instead of the ball. :(
Oh, I've had lots of hours below the standard, such as it might be, of my finest. And there's a reason for my approach, which I set out below.
I don't agree. By your logic, one would have to comment about every case of civilians being killed or else keep quiet about them all. Does that make any sense to you?
Yes, insofar as it affects this site, it makes sense to me. To adopt stamper's terminology, there is simply no ball to be played.
Discussions about Gaza on a bulletin board dedicated to photography are pointless. They're not contrary to any rule, as this is the Coffee Corner; but they contribute nothing to the understanding of the problem or to its solution. That feature they would share with discussions here, were there any, on the bloodshed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine; on Iran's ambitions, if any, to acquire nuclear weaponry; on terrorism in Pakistan or on the status of women in India or Saudi Arabia; or on any of the world's great ills. The people who can affect what is happening, who can influence the course of events, aren't reading.
The only purpose served by any such discussions is the venting of spleen. Bernard felt angry about what he perceived, bizarrely, as "genocide" (a term he has since abandoned), so he started the thread. It appears that he had, perhaps gullibly, accepted an item on the topic prepared by Jon Snow as unarguably true, which is perhaps not something those of us more familiar with Snow's oeuvre, or that of Channel 4 News generally, would have done. But he hadn't felt angry about slaughter anywhere else, at least not angry enough to publicise his irritation. That made me sufficiently suspicious of his motives to ask a question, related to the main feature which separates Gaza from Syria and Iraq, namely the involvement of Israel. He has denied that that was his motivating factor; I find his explanation unconvincing; but there the matter rests, since it's incapable of resolution.
I accused him of nothing other than, impliedly, anti-Israeli sentiment: there's a lot of that about. To suggest that I thus accused him of antisemitism or racism is to fall into the same fallacy that afflicts some defenders of Israel: you are against Israel, therefore you are antisemitic. I've said before that that's not a view I hold or a view I believe can rationally be held. If I consider it appropriate to level an accusation of antisemitism, I'll do it openly.
Jeremy
Actually, perhaps these discussions aren't entirely useless: their posts to this thread have led me substantially to alter my previously-held opinions of several contributors.
-
I accused him of nothing other than, impliedly, anti-Israeli sentiment: there's a lot of that about. To suggest that I thus accused him of antisemitism or racism is to fall into the same fallacy that afflicts some defenders of Israel: you are against Israel, therefore you are antisemitic. I've said before that that's not a view I hold or a view I believe can rationally be held. If I consider it appropriate to level an accusation of antisemitism, I'll do it openly.
OK, let's see...
Being "against Israel" can have several meaning, but there are probably 2 main ones impacting this discussion:
- being critical of the actions of the Israeli government/army,
- being against Israel as a country.
The whole point of this threat being that I am critical of the actions of the Israeli government/army, what you implied is the existence of a pre-existing feeling against Israel, independently of their current actions.
You implied that I am against Israel as a country, regardless of what they are currently doing, correct? According to you, I would dislike them however good their actions, correct? And this inherent dislike was proposed by you as the explanation of the reason why I am critical of their actions. These actions, being according to you, beyond reproach. Still correct?
I we agree this far, I would like to understand better what you meant when you implied this pre-existing negative feeling against Israel.
Since a country is defined by its people more than by its geography or by its wines, and since the majority of people living in Israel are Jews, how is this supposed negative feeling against Israel different from a negative feeling against Jews, also known as antisemitism?
Thank you in advance for this clarification.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I accused him of nothing other than, impliedly, anti-Israeli sentiment: there's a lot of that about.
Does it not occur to you that anti-Isaeli sentiment might be the result of Israel's actions over the past 60 years? In other words, a person can have some anti-Israeli sentiments without being biased against the country in any general way. One can also harbor anti- and pro-Israeli sentiments at the same time, as I have said before, it's foolish to get into the all-good or all-bad frame of mind, the world is almost always more complex.
As for being particularly interested in this conflict because Israel is involved, yes indeed and so what? That's the case with me. I have had an interest in Israel for decades and have always supported the existence and security of the country. OF COURSE I am going to take a greater interest than in a conflict where I have no emotional connection to the people involved. But, supporting Israel does not mean automatically supporting everything they do, and the fact that Israel is supposed to be the "good guys" makes it extra painful to me and many others when they engage in immoral, illegal, and vile actions. If you cannot understand that, there's nothing more I can say to you.
-
Hi,
My take on this:
- I do acknowledge Israel's right to self defence
- But, I also regret loss of human life and all the suffering
- I have an understanding for Israel's need to act
- I may seen Israel's response as unproportional, but I realise they have certain priorities, like protecting the lives of their citizens.
- On the other hand, I don't feel that Israeli government is constructive i negotiations. In negotiations all sides need to be winners. You take some and you give some…
So, I would say that my short term sympathy is with Israel, but there is an underlying conflict that is in bad need of solving and the acting parties seem to have little interest in solving that (or any of those) conflict.
Best regards
Erik
Does it not occur to you that anti-Isaeli sentiment might be the result of Israel's actions over the past 60 years? In other words, a person can have some anti-Israeli sentiments without being biased against the country in any general way. One can also harbor anti- and pro-Israeli sentiments at the same time, as I have said before, it's foolish to get into the all-good or all-bad frame of mind, the world is almost always more complex.
As for being particularly interested in this conflict because Israel is involved, yes indeed and so what? That's the case with me. I have had an interest in Israel for decades and have always supported the existence and security of the country. OF COURSE I am going to take a greater interest than in a conflict where I have no emotional connection to the people involved. But, supporting Israel does not mean automatically supporting everything they do, and the fact that Israel is supposed to be the "good guys" makes it extra painful to me and many others when they engage in immoral, illegal, and vile actions. If you cannot understand that, there's nothing more I can say to you.
-
... Discussions about Gaza on a bulletin board dedicated to photography are pointless. They're not contrary to any rule, as this is the Coffee Corner; but they contribute nothing to the understanding of the problem or to its solution....The people who can affect what is happening, who can influence the course of events, aren't reading.
...
Actually, perhaps these discussions aren't entirely useless: their posts to this thread have led me substantially to alter my previously-held opinions of several contributors.
Seems like you figured it out yourself, Jeremy. Forum debates might be utterly pointless from the standpoint of solving the problem, but are quite useful for getting to know each other a little bit better. That is why we come here, to talk to each other, not to solve world problems.
Granted, there might be a few "usual suspects" who will peddle their "same old, same old," but every now and then comes a fact, link, quote, opinion, logic, etc. that I was unaware of, which then might expand my horizon.
As someone already pointed out, rarely, if ever, are things in life black and white. For instance, saying "Israel is wrong" is just as wrong as saying "Israel is right." The level of abstraction and generalization is just too high. The devil is, as usual, in the details. When forum debates bring out those details, they might expand horizons for some of us. And that would be a reason sufficient enough to justify the debate.
-
Since a country is defined by its people more than by its geography or by its wines, and since the majority of people living in Israel are Jews, how is this supposed negative feeling against Israel different from a negative feeling against Jews, also known as antisemitism?
Easy, many Jews live in other countries. So you can loathe what Israel is up to whilst loving Jewish people who live elsewhere. One of my oldest friends is Jewish and lives in Wales, if he disapproves of Israel, does that make him an anti-semite too?
Thinking that disliking Israel's behaviour is automatically anti-semitic is like thinking someone is anti-white because they do not like what France is up to.
-
... anti-Israeli sentiment: there's a lot of that about...
Jeremy,
May I respectfully suggest that we avoid using the term 'anti-Israeli' as a synonym for opposition to the policies of the current Israeli government. It is quite wrong to confuse the views expressed by many, now referred to as 'liberal Zionists' , with the uncompromising policies actively pursued by the Netanyahu administration.
There are (and I stand to be corrected on the figures ) - 1,250 million muslims worldwide, the Jewish worldwide population is close to 14 million, of which the current Israeli population is about 8m – (6m are Jewish and 2m are Arab). The right to vote is restricted to resident Israelis. Since the mid 90's this 8m includes more than 1.2m migrants from the former Soviet Union, who, in the words of The Economist, '... have scant democratic tradition; many seek salvation in a strongman, a Jewish Putin, to rescue Israel from its enemies.'
Where popular trends persist, democratically elected politicians follow. An increase of almost 20% in the popular vote most certainly helped undermine the more reasoned voices in the centre in favour of the hard right, particularly as Israel refuses the vote to the remaining (worldwide) 6m.
I've quoted Roger Cohen before (#35), I'll quote him again – simply because his words so accurately reflect the views of my many non-Israeli, Jewish friends and acquaintances.
“ The Israeli case for the bombardment of Gaza could be foolproof. If Benjamin Netanyahu had made a good-faith effort to find common cause with Palestinian moderates for peace and been rebuffed, it would be. He has not. Hamas is vile. I would happily see it destroyed. But Hamas is also the product of a situation that Israel has reinforced rather than sought to resolve.
This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe. ”
I'm a Christian, many of my friends are Jewish. I abhor this religious distinction as much as I abhor anti-semitism, indeed any racism - just as they do. But the hard reality is that today, the uncompromising, hard-line attitude of an administration voted in by 6m is fuelling the current rise in anti-semitism and breeding contagion (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis) throughout the West.
Rehashing and apportioning blame is not going to further the quest for peace. A different stance by both America and the West will.
-
Discussions about Gaza on a bulletin board dedicated to photography are pointless ...The people who can affect what is happening, who can influence the course of events, aren't reading.
Well, yes and no ...
" In the recent Gaza campaign, the government has co-opted universities to its war effort. Several have established “war rooms” with banks of computers where student volunteers use army talking-points to rebut social-media attacks. "
-
Easy, many Jews live in other countries. So you can loathe what Israel is up to whilst loving Jewish people who live elsewhere. One of my oldest friends is Jewish and lives in Wales, if he disapproves of Israel, does that make him an anti-semite too?
Thinking that disliking Israel's behaviour is automatically anti-semitic is like thinking someone is anti-white because they do not like what France is up to.
In that case your friend is not anti-Israel, he is critical of the actions of the Israeli government, right?
My guess would be that he isn't critical because these actions are carried out by Israel, but because of the nature of these actions.
My point isn't that criticizing Israel's actions makes you an antisemit, but that criticizing Israeli gov actions because they are Israeli, regardless of what these actions are, probably does. It is the latter I was accused of.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In that case your friend is not anti-Israel, he is critical of the actions of the Israeli government, right?
My guess would be that he isn't critical because these actions are carried out by Israel, but because of the nature of these actions.
Do you think that because he's Jewish?
My point isn't that criticizing Israel's actions makes you an antisemit, but that criticizing Israeli gov actions because they are Israeli, regardless of what these actions are, probably does. It is the latter I was accused of.
When criticising Israel this sort of thing is an issue because people are way over sensitive due to Israel being mostly Jewish and heaven fordid we say or do anything that is critical of those who are Jewish. I think Israel and supporters are well aware of that and possibly take advantage of this tiptoeing around at times.
I am not an anti semite but am very critical of Israel's actions in some areas. These are not conflicting viewpoints at all. I critique Israel for it's specific behaviour not it's Jewishness, the former is fine, the latter anti-semitic.
I would however criticize Judaism itself for being bigoted though, my friend for example dared to marry outside of his family's faith and because he married 'beneath' him, members of his family never spoke to him again. He was treated as if he were dead/non-existant. If this was turned around there would be all hell to pay for what would be accurately regarded as anti-semitic behaviour. This attitude is certainly not unique to Judaism with honour killings being a far more extreme form of this behaviour.
-
I would however criticize Judaism itself for being bigoted though, my friend for example dared to marry outside of his family's faith and because he married 'beneath' him, members of his family never spoke to him again.
And how do you real about radical Islam proclaiming Muslims are duty bound to kill all infidels? That's a bit more radical that turning their backs on somebody who marries outside of their religion, don't ya think? Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
-
Do you think that because he's Jewish?
No, I don't.
This isn't about who is expressing an opinion. This is about the nature of the opinion being expressed and about how this nature is characterized.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would however criticize Judaism itself for being bigoted though, my friend for example dared to marry outside of his family's faith and because he married 'beneath' him, members of his family never spoke to him again. He was treated as if he were dead/non-existant....
Are you seriously going to cite the experience of one friend, and draw conclusions about Judaism? I suppose I could similarly conclude that blacks are bigoted because 'my friend' who is black caught hell from his family for marrying a white woman.
-
Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
Yes, they should.
So were the IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army), a terrorist group. Yet now they sit in the British parliament and Stormont (or rather the political wing, Sinn Fein, do). You may well recall that the IRA were largely funded by the USA (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/8895981/diary-608/).
As The Times, (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1444832.ece) today reports :
‘We were dying anyway. What else could we do but fight?’
Despite the devastation in Gaza, Hamas fighters are being hailed as heroes by Palestinians who were already living in poverty and squalor : during a month of vicious combat with Israel’s vastly superior forces, more than 1,900 Palestinians — many of them civilians — have been killed and 10,000 wounded. Entire neighbourhoods lie in ruin; at least 65,000 people are without homes.
Win the hearts and minds of the moderates and the radicals will fail.
-
Manoli, well said. :)
-
And how do you real about radical Islam proclaiming Muslims are duty bound to kill all infidels? That's a bit more radical that turning their backs on somebody who marries outside of their religion, don't ya think? Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
Try reading all the post and not selectively quoting out of context - I mentioned other religions even more intolerant behaviour.
Besides just because someone else behaves in an even worse way, this does not affect the point I was making that Judaism itself can be bigoted.
-
Edinburgh, Scotland, 09 August, on a windy but warm sunny day. A demonstration in support of Palestine. Nearly 1,000 take to the streets. The message is loud and clear that the Uk should stop supplying armaments to Israel to kill innocent men, women and children.
-
And how do you real about radical Islam proclaiming Muslims are duty bound to kill all infidels? That's a bit more radical that turning their backs on somebody who marries outside of their religion, don't ya think? Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
Religious extremism is found in each of the three major monotheistic traditions. In each of them we can obscene views about those outside the faith. Anyone who has spent time on the ground doing inter-religious work in the region knows this. Likewise it's easy to find within these religions a call to recognize the common humanity of all, the golden rule, the divine root of human existence, etc., which is why I'm not at all shy to say I'm religious myself. As for any argument that Islam is somehow more violent than Judaism or Christianity, such an argument must account for the reality that the world's most well organized nonviolent fighting force (http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=17&sobi2Id=15) was deeply Islamic.
People whose job it is to provide actual security to their people, and not sell newspapers or win elections, know that Hamas is not a one-dimensional organization. The former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy stated to the Israeli cabinet in 2008 "The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game. They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."
The Harvard scholar Sara Roy is an expert on Gaza and Hamas (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9423.html). She argues against analysis of Hamas that it is "an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel’s destruction." She writes "While there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, it is also a broad-based movement that has evolved into an increasingly complex, varied, and sophisticated organization engaged in a variety of societal activities vital to Palestinian life. Hamas’s evolution has been most dramatic with regard to its ideology, organizational structure, role in Palestinian society, and perceived goals--its limitations notwithstanding."
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
My Israeli friend Gershon Baskin has negotiated at length with Hamas. Gershon is on the right in the photo below (his Palestinian friend Hanna Siniora is on the left), which I took in Jerusalem in 2005. He writes "Hamas has never agreed to a 2 state solution. Mashal has spoken about a Palestinian state in 1967 borders with no peace with Israel or recognition of Israel and continuing to maintain that all of Palestine from the river to the sea will become Palestine. For Hamas and for Mashal the occupation did not begin in 1967 it began in 1948 and that is what everyone in Hamas calls Sderot and Kiryat Gat and Tel Aviv settlements. When they talk about ending the occupation, they mean ending Israel." He adds "For the purpose of accuracy and integrity it must be noted that no Gov of Israel has ever agreed to a 2 states solution, not yet at least." He also notes "The Camp David proposal was never voted on by a Government of Israel, it was in a process of negotiations and it consisted of a very partially sovereign Palestinian state on 89% of the West Bank with 2 East West Israeli controlled corridors and Israeli control of all of the external borders -- a kind of sovereign cage, almost nothing in Jerusalem, and there were only 6 hours of discussions on refugees with no proposals at all. A largely unfinished process that both sides agreed to continue negotiating on. From the end of Camp David in July 2000 until Taba in January 2001 the parties held another 52 negotiating meetings. without reaching an agreement."
We must also note, Likud "has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State (http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html)". Likud's platform puts it in black and white: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.
Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."
I agree with Gershon, but I think the role of religion and culture (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-froman-and-talking-with-the-enemy/) is also critical. The gap between the religious and those of a more secular bent on both sides can be vast.
-
Are you seriously going to cite the experience of one friend, and draw conclusions about Judaism? I suppose I could similarly conclude that blacks are bigoted because 'my friend' who is black caught hell from his family for marrying a white woman.
Don't be so stupidly literal, do you not know anything about Judaism? It is a specific example of a 'normal' type of behaviour that I happen to have first hand experience of. I wasn't at all surprised when he was ostracised as that is what usually happens if you marry a non-Jew. Even in this case with his family being very non-orthodox. Other friends have converted to Judaism to be able to get married without getting their betrothed kicked out by their family.
-
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
The founding fathers of the US were probably viewed as terrorists by the British as were many, many 'freedom fighters' who eventually ended up in charge.
'Terrorist' is a label normally used to vilify the other side, 'Freedom Fighter' is the label for those you support.
I would restrict the term 'terrorist' to those who had the option of settling things by means other than that killing non-combatants and who choose not to do so.
-
Don't be so stupidly literal, do you not know anything about Judaism? It is a specific example of a 'normal' type of behaviour that I happen to have first hand experience of. I wasn't at all surprised when he was ostracised as that is what usually happens if you marry a non-Jew. Even in this case with his family being very non-orthodox. Other friends have converted to Judaism to be able to get married without getting their betrothed kicked out by their family.
Actually, I know a great deal about Judaism. I grew up in a neighborhood in a little town in New Jersey that was about 1/3 Jewish, so....I remain in informed disagreement with your assertion (Judaism is bigoted). Individuals certainly are or are not bigoted, and I stand by my assertion that you went too far in generalizing from specifics.
P.S.: Personal attacks are not appreciated, Sir.
-
Actually, I know a great deal about Judaism. I grew up in a neighborhood in a little town in New Jersey that was about 1/3 Jewish, so....I remain in informed disagreement with your assertion (Judaism is bigoted). Individuals certainly are or are not bigoted, and I stand by my assertion that you went too far in generalizing from specifics.
I was not. I was using a specific example of a general behaviour, the direct opposite of what you assert. Judaism disapproves of upon marrying outside of the religion and people who do so tend to be cut off/treated as dead. I have had a lot of Jewish friends, but dislike that aspect of their culture.
So how were those who married outside the Jewish faith in your neighbourhood treated? Did it even happen?
P.S.: Personal attacks are not appreciated, Sir.
If you do not like being called stupidly literal, there's an easy solution, don't be stupidly literal then. ;)
-
I was not. I was using a specific example of a general behaviour, the direct opposite of what you assert. Judaism disapproves of upon marrying outside of the religion and people who do so tend to be cut off/treated as dead. I have had a lot of Jewish friends, but dislike that aspect of their culture.
So how were those who married outside the Jewish faith in your neighbourhood treated? Did it even happen?
If you do not like being called stupidly literal, there's an easy solution, don't be stupidly literal then. ;)
You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum. I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.
-
You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum. I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.
Well that one way of avoiding answering the awkward question.
-
You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm so stupidly literal, that I'm not fit for this Forum. I'm also a slow learner, because I'm only just now realizing what an utter waste of time it is. Have a nice day.
C'mon, people, take a breath! This generally interesting thread is degenerating into name calling and personal attacks. It has been my experience over many years that when one person calls another stupid or bigoted or ignorant it is a sure sign that the first person's arguments are weak. If you disagree with someone's opinions, then argue against those opinions. The other person may in fact be a knuckle-dragging moron, but then it should be easy for you to demolish their arguments. Attacking them personally (ad hominem, for those who were not subjected to Latin in high school) just makes you look dumb. Which you may well be <g> but no need to advertise it!
-
C'mon, people, take a breath! This generally interesting thread is degenerating into name calling and personal attacks. It has been my experience over many years that when one person calls another stupid or bigoted or ignorant it is a sure sign that the first person's arguments are weak. If you disagree with someone's opinions, then argue against those opinions. The other person may in fact be a knuckle-dragging moron, but then it should be easy for you to demolish their arguments. Attacking them personally (ad hominem, for those who were not subjected to Latin in high school) just makes you look dumb. Which you may well be <g> but no need to advertise it!
There is a big difference between an ad hominen attack and calling out someone for their bad behaviour or attitude. People who behave badly love to hide behind the 'ad hominen' defence as it excuses their faults, so please don't encourage that Peter. My view is that if you do not want to be called stupid/racist or what ever do not behave stupidly or in a racist manner and so on.
A personal attack would be something that was nothing to do with the argument, e.g. calling someone fat and ugly. However calling out someone whose views were say racist/sectarian is entirely germane to the argument in this particular thread or above where someone completely failed to read a post correctly and inaccurately accused me of being a racist bigot, I called them 'stupidly literal' as that described exactly their behaviour and thus their subsequent fallacious argument. Attitude and argument are not separate entities.
I have no problem whatsoever with people who hold different views from me, but I'm getting extremely fed up with people being too darn lazy to read posts correctly, jump to asine conclusions or misquote/quote out of context. I've just hidden the posts of one serial misreader as he's such a waste of space. I may need to add others to the list or not bother with LuLa anymore if the cruft continues to outweigh any intelligent debate.
-
Is it OK for the UK to supply armaments to Israel to kill "guilty" men and women?
What about 'guilty' children?
-
Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.
Religious extremism is found in each of the three major monotheistic traditions. In each of them we can obscene views about those outside the faith. Anyone who has spent time on the ground doing inter-religious work in the region knows this. Likewise it's easy to find within these religions a call to recognize the common humanity of all, the golden rule, the divine root of human existence, etc., which is why I'm not at all shy to say I'm religious myself. As for any argument that Islam is somehow more violent than Judaism or Christianity, such an argument must account for the reality that the world's most well organized nonviolent fighting force (http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=17&sobi2Id=15) was deeply Islamic.
People whose job it is to provide actual security to their people, and not sell newspapers or win elections, know that Hamas is not a one-dimensional organization. The former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy stated to the Israeli cabinet in 2008 "The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game. They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."
The Harvard scholar Sara Roy is an expert on Gaza and Hamas (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9423.html). She argues against analysis of Hamas that it is "an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel’s destruction." She writes "While there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, it is also a broad-based movement that has evolved into an increasingly complex, varied, and sophisticated organization engaged in a variety of societal activities vital to Palestinian life. Hamas’s evolution has been most dramatic with regard to its ideology, organizational structure, role in Palestinian society, and perceived goals--its limitations notwithstanding."
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
My Israeli friend Gershon Baskin has negotiated at length with Hamas. Gershon is on the right in the photo below (his Palestinian friend Hanna Siniora is on the left), which I took in Jerusalem in 2005. He writes "Hamas has never agreed to a 2 state solution. Mashal has spoken about a Palestinian state in 1967 borders with no peace with Israel or recognition of Israel and continuing to maintain that all of Palestine from the river to the sea will become Palestine. For Hamas and for Mashal the occupation did not begin in 1967 it began in 1948 and that is what everyone in Hamas calls Sderot and Kiryat Gat and Tel Aviv settlements. When they talk about ending the occupation, they mean ending Israel." He adds "For the purpose of accuracy and integrity it must be noted that no Gov of Israel has ever agreed to a 2 states solution, not yet at least." He also notes "The Camp David proposal was never voted on by a Government of Israel, it was in a process of negotiations and it consisted of a very partially sovereign Palestinian state on 89% of the West Bank with 2 East West Israeli controlled corridors and Israeli control of all of the external borders -- a kind of sovereign cage, almost nothing in Jerusalem, and there were only 6 hours of discussions on refugees with no proposals at all. A largely unfinished process that both sides agreed to continue negotiating on. From the end of Camp David in July 2000 until Taba in January 2001 the parties held another 52 negotiating meetings. without reaching an agreement."
We must also note, Likud "has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State (http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html)". Likud's platform puts it in black and white: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.
Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."
I agree with Gershon, but I think the role of religion and culture (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-froman-and-talking-with-the-enemy/) is also critical. The gap between the religious and those of a more secular bent on both sides can be vast.
-
Besides just because someone else behaves in an even worse way, this does not affect the point I was making that Judaism itself can be bigoted.
All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.
-
Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.
+1
and thanks to Damon for such an exceptional exposé.
-
All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.
Christianity has probably killed far more people - mainly as it had a head start. Though that's not relevant to the point I was making made either.
-
Quoted because this deserves more than to be lost at the bottom of a previous page in the middle of personal squabbling.
Already replied to that thoughtful post. Thought it a shame no-one else had.
-
There is a big difference between an ad hominen attack and calling out someone for their bad behaviour or attitude.... My view is that if you do not want to be called stupid/racist or what ever do not behave stupidly or in a racist manner and so on...
Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior. ;)
-
...
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
...
In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.
...
Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."
Very interesting post Damon, thanks for sharing your knowledge of the situation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.
I tend to agree Jeff. I'm so appalled at the reaction of certain radical Muslims to any criticism of Mohammad that I'm completely put off visiting Islamic countries where such radicalism exists, such as Pakistan, not only in case I say something I shouldn't, and end up losing my life, but because I'm so opposed in principle to such draconian censorship of thought and expression.
There's no doubt that Christianity was just as radical in the past as certain sects of Islam are today, but fortunately the Christian churches, as a result of the separation of church and state, no longer have the political power they used to have in the past.
Buddhism is like a breath of fresh air.
-
Image there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions.
-
Image there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions.
Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. ;)
-
Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior. ;)
LOL!
-
Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. ;)
Typo. What I intended to say is that "Imagine there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions. "
-
Typo. What I intended to say is that "Imagine there was no oil in the Middle East. That would answer all the questions. "
Of course. I understood it was a typo, but it so happened I had recently re-scanned a rather degraded image I had taken in Iran over 50 years ago, depicting the subsistence life-style of many ordinary folks at that time. This image sprang to mind as a result of your typo. The message in the image is: This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil.
-
The message in the image is: This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil.
You chose the picture of an Iranian family with a camel in a desert to argue your point. Really? What else do you believe -- that a camel taught Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna) how to be a polymath? That Al-Khorezmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB), after whose name the term algorithm is derived, flew into the Middle East on a rocket ship? That the Cyrus Cylinder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpmsftF2We4) is made of jelly? That the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat), in which the U.S. and U.K. overthrew Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was because Eisenhower and Churchill liked the taste of pistachios?
-
All religions I'm aware of–except for Buddhism-are bigoted and exclusionary...radical Islam takes that to the degree that Muslims are "required" to kill infidels.
Jeff you make two claims. The first is implicit and claims that there is a "Muslim world" in which there is some kind of common Islamic consciousness that directs the thoughts of Muslims. Second, that "radical Muslims" are required to kill infidels.
By all means explain how the Indonesian soldiers securing transnational capital’s access to the Grasberg mine in Papua share a common Islamic outlook with a Shia Iranian naval captain who has under his command Persian Jews and Iranian Armenian Christians.
I mentioned earlier the Islamic group the Khudai Khidmatgars (http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements-and-campaigns/movements-and-campaigns-summaries?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=17&sobi2Id=15), or "Servants of God" in English. By any standard, they practiced a radical form of nonviolence with something roughly akin to a "nonviolent army" that was close to perhaps 100,000 strong at its peak. These radical Muslims never killed anybody, despite being cut down in significant numbers themselves. In fact in March 1949 10-20,000 Khudai Khidmatgars entered Peshawar (http://www.asianreflection.com/npsskk.shtml) to protect non-Muslims from being slaughtered.
So when you use the term "radical Muslim", what you really mean is "member of a violent extremist group that identifies as Islamic". By definition then, a member of this group is required to kill group outsiders when the group demands it. Which is what happens with pretty much any group that uses violence as its primary means to exert its will. I see nothing unique among Muslim groups in this sense.
-
Okay! Attached is an image of no oil in the Middle East, or more precisely in an Iranian desert somewhere between Tehran and the Pakistan border, taken in 1962. ;)
Ray, that is a phenomenal photograph! I do not want to derail this thread, but if you post it in User Critiques forum...
-
+1. That's a very fine shot. Let's get it over where it belongs and out of this head-rattling contest.
-
You chose the picture of an Iranian family with a camel in a desert to argue your point. Really? What else do you believe -- that a camel taught Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna) how to be a polymath? That Al-Khorezmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB), after whose name the term algorithm is derived, flew into the Middle East on a rocket ship? That the Cyrus Cylinder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpmsftF2We4) is made of jelly? That the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat), in which the U.S. and U.K. overthrew Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was because Eisenhower and Churchill liked the taste of pistachios?
Sorry! I can't make any sense of your post. It seems completely devoid of any logic or rationality.
Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I'll repeat it. "This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil". Did you think I meant that this is what it would be like for everyone without exception?
-
Ray, that is a phenomenal photograph! I do not want to derail this thread, but if you post it in User Critiques forum...
+1. That's a very find shot. Let's get it over where it belongs and out of this head-rattling contest.
Thanks to both of you. It's really just an archival record of my travels. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by placing the image in the Critique section. I don't have any questions regarding cropping or tonality. I just regret that I didn't take more photos in those days. I was travelling on a budget and probably took no more than one shot every few days.
-
... I'm not sure what purpose would be served by placing the image in the Critique section. I don't have any questions regarding cropping or tonality...
I was going to extol its virtues, rather than nitpick. Surprise, surprise, critique can sometimes be used to sing praises too :)
-
I was going to extol its virtues, rather than nitpick. Surprise, surprise, critique can sometimes be used to sing praises too :)
Okay! You've persuaded me, Slobodan. I'll expose myself to criticism. ;D
-
"This is what it would be like for large numbers of people in the Middle East, without the economic benefits flowing from oil". Did you think I meant that this is what it would be like for everyone without exception?
Let's focus on Iran, since your picture is from there. Did you know that Iran has some of the oldest continuously populated cities in the world? That for centuries it's been famous for its literature, philosophy, and scientific knowledge? That cities like Isfahan became famous for their splendid architecture long before oil was discovered?
In 1900, before oil was discovered in Iran, its population was about 10 million. Guess what? Few of them owned camels. Why would they, if they didn't live in Baluchistan or along the border with Iraq? Did you ever see any camels among the nomadic Bakhtiari in the classic 1925 film Grass? Nope. Didn't think so. In any case, most Iranians who didn't live in cities were villagers or small towns folk.
They irony of your hypothesis is that if Iran had had no easily exploitable resource like oil, the U.S. and U.K. would not have installed a dictator like the Shah. Iran would have been more likely to have had the independence to pursue a development policy more beneficial to its own people.
-
Let's focus on Iran, since your picture is from there. Did you know that Iran has some of the oldest continuously populated cities in the world? That for centuries it's been famous for its literature, philosophy, and scientific knowledge? That cities like Isfahan became famous for their splendid architecture long before oil was discovered?
In 1900, before oil was discovered in Iran, its population was about 10 million. Guess what? Few of them owned camels. Why would they, if they didn't live in Baluchistan or along the border with Iraq? Did you ever see any camels among the nomadic Bakhtiari in the classic 1925 film Grass? Nope. Didn't think so. In any case, most Iranians who didn't live in cities were villagers or small towns folk.
They irony of your hypothesis is that if Iran had had no easily exploitable resource like oil, the U.S. and U.K. would not have installed a dictator like the Shah. Iran would have been more likely to have had the independence to pursue a development policy more beneficial to its own people.
I still get the impression you are misreading my post? Whilst my picture is from Iran, the message I was trying to convey in showing that image, refers to the Middle East in general. I was merely pointing out that without the revenue from oil there would likely be a greater number of people living at the subsistence level and travelling by camel instead of by 4WD (for example) and living in tents or shacks instead of living in houses.
The fact that Iran's oil resources have been mismanaged in the past and have been the subject of conflict and competing interests, is another issue.
From what I gather, from the internet, the current capital of Iran, Tehran, was once a small village back in the 13th century. This is what ShahAb-od-din Abu AbdollAh had to say about that small village.
"Tehran is one of the villages of Rey with rebellious inhabitants. They not only disregard their governors, but are in constant clashes amongst themselves, to the extent that the inhabitants of its twelve quarters cannot visit one another." http://www.farsinet.com/tehran/history.html
In the 1920's, around the time of the first oil production in Iran, Tehran was a city of about 210,000. It is now a huge metropolis with a population of around 10 million, about 1/2 the population of Australia.
Would you say that rapid development during the 20th and 21st centuries has nothing to do with oil?
-
Okay! You've persuaded me, Slobodan. I'll expose myself to criticism. ;D
I wouldn't go that far - the thread will get locked with explicit pictures....... ;D
-
I was talking with my neighbor about the Gaza issue - she is a Jew and very interested in the whole situation. She told me about how many people feel that Israel is just "mowing the lawn" in Gaza. They have no interest in a real peace with freedom and justice for the Palestinians. Rather, their true intent is to keep the people in Gaza bottled up in their open-air prison, with the blockade and other restrictions, and they just go in and kill people and destroy facilities and weapons once in a while - in other words, mow the lawn. I have no idea if this is true, but is a sad thought. Google "mow the lawn israel" if you are interested.
Related is a story I read yesterday about the Gaza fishermen. Given the long Mediterranean coast, fishing has long been a source of income and food for many Gazans. Now, the Israelis limit the fishing boats to 3 miles offshore, where there are precious few fish remaining. In one town, the warehouse where the fishermen stored their supplies, nets, motors, and the like was destroyed by Israel. And they wonder why so many Palestinians hate Israel?
-
For a brief moment I was under the mistaken impression that Russ had written the last post (your avatar icons are a bit similar). It gave me incredible hope that objectivity had regained some of its old moral value... only to find out that it was you Peter. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rather, their true intent is to keep the people in Gaza bottled up in their open-air prison, with the blockade and other restrictions, and they just go in and kill people and destroy facilities and weapons once in a while - in other words, mow the lawn. I have no idea if this is true, but is a sad thought.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Israelis go in with the intention of destroying weapons once in a while with the unavoidable consequence of causing some civilian deaths?
Since Hamas is considered by many nations to be a terrorist organisation, and an organisation that refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist, is it not reasonable to expect that without a blockade and other restrictions, Hamas would gradually build up a formidable force of weaponry which, at some unexpected moment, it would unleash upon the Israeli population, causing far greater loss of life than has resulted from the current conflict?
The sticking point in the current negotiations appears to be the unwillingness of Hamas to disarm. As I understand the situation, if Hamas were to agree to disarm, Israel would agree to lift the blockade.
-
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Israelis go in with the intention of destroying weapons once in a while with the unavoidable consequence of causing some civilian deaths?
Since Hamas is considered by many nations to be a terrorist organisation, and an organisation that refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist, is it not reasonable to expect that without a blockade and other restrictions, Hamas would gradually build up a formidable force of weaponry which, at some unexpected moment, it would unleash upon the Israeli population, causing far greater loss of life than has resulted from the current conflict?
The sticking point in the current negotiations appears to be the unwillingness of Hamas to disarm. As I understand the situation, if Hamas were to agree to disarm, Israel would agree to lift the blockade.
Yes. Gaza should get rid of their rockets, AK47's and tunnels. OK, they can keep their slingshots. What country in the world would disarm? Would Israel disarm? The answer is treaties not disarmament.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28814555
-
... some civilian deaths?
"Some?" Per a BBC report as of August 6th, 10 days ago, non-combatant Palestinian deaths were 671 men, 219 women, and 414 children.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28666562
This includes children killed while playing on a beach, the shelling of at least one UN school, and the destruction of university buildings. Total Israeli civilian deaths: 3.
-
What country in the world would disarm? Would Israel disarm? The answer is treaties not disarmament.
Countries that are governed by a terrorist organisation and who deny the right of their neighbour to exist should be forced to disarm through pressure from the world community. Treaties mean nothing to criminals. I place terrorists in the category of criminals. Don't you?
-
Phew! What a relief! All this time I was afraid to call you a pompous jerk because it would be ad hominem attack. Turns out it is just an astute observation of your behavior. ;)
Missing the point as usual to plough your own unpleasant agenda. Seeing you are even more of an insulting and nasty piece of work than Desperate Dog is, you can join him on the ignore list so I no longer have to see your unpleasant rantings either. Really should have done that after your offensive rape apologist posts, when you showed your true colours.
-
The Arabs in Gaza hired Hamas to do their wet work. Spilled back on them. Too bad. If all that cement and all the money had been used for a university, a harbor , hotels, a world class library... on and on - instead of lining tunnels and munitions every one of those children would be alive. Every man and woman as well.
At any time the Arabs in Gaza can denounce Hamas, deport them, disarm, certify Israel's right to exist and create an oasis on the sea. The investors will fall over themselves with cash in hand.
In America if you hire someone you are equally guilty of every crime they commit. No one labeled the Germans who elected Hitler and died during WWII as innocent non-combatants. The Arabs in Gaza just have better press secretaries. Nothing that has happened to the Gasan people is their responsibility. Not their choice for a government, not their poverty and not their dead children.
If killing Jews is really so damn important, owe up to it and stop whining about the inconvenient consequences.
-
One can only think that religion sure is a good crutch to use to excuse killing your foes. Seems to be no different in the middle east or any other part of this planet. Add to that any time period. Where have we gone wrong? It seems to me most wars/disputes are based on religion or money. come to think of it there is little difference. all comes down to power. :o
-
Some people simply enjoy hurting others. Religion, race or whatever is simply the excuse they use to have their 'fun'.
Others are after power, assets, money. Religion, race or whatever is simply the excuse they use to get their way.
-
Countries that are governed by a terrorist organisation and who deny the right of their neighbour to exist should be forced to disarm through pressure from the world community. Treaties mean nothing to criminals. I place terrorists in the category of criminals. Don't you?
One man's terrorist is another's patriot. It depends what side of the line you're standing on. All this is about are two groups of people fighting over the same plot of land. It's a turf battle. Gaza and Hamas with their AK47's, tunnels, and unguided rockets, and slingshots, are not an existential threat to Israel with their modern, first-class military including A bombs, laser guided bombs, naval vessels, fighter jets and helicopters, tanks, etc. You're just being hyperbolic. Both sides have to give a little if there's to be peace. Having lost a niece on 911, you don't have to ask me straw-man rhetorical questions about terrorism. My family has been personally touched by it.
-
I find it interesting how Monaco is one of the richest, smallest, and most densely populated countries in the world and yet they don't fight their neighbors for more land. If you fight, be prepared to lose.
-
Terrorists don't come from the Land of Mordor. They come from civilian populations.
-
Gaza and Hamas with their AK47's, tunnels, and unguided rockets, and slingshots, are not an existential threat to Israel with their modern, first-class military including A bombs, laser guided bombs, naval vessels, fighter jets and helicopters, tanks, etc.
Do you not think that the reason for this is largely due to the blockade imposed by Israel?
-
Blockade or not, there still would be no existential threat to Israel. In any case, a blockade is legally an act of war. That on its face will prevent peace. The Israelis know this that's why they just offered to extend the range for the Gazans fishing boats beyond the 3 mile blockade that's been enforced for a long time. You can't make peace if you're constantly at war. Whether the Gazans will reciprocate, I don't know. But it has to start somewhere.
-
The 1967 war when Israel was attacked simultaneously by the armies and air forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordon was an existential threat to the survival of Israel. Iran and maybe IS at some point might become one. But Gaza?
-
Isaac, do you always attack people's intelligence when you disagree with their views? Is that the best you can do?
-
"But Gaza?" succinctly expresses your disbelief, and it doesn't provide anything more than that expression of disbelief -- you don't believe it because you don't believe it.
If you read all my posts above, you will see I indicated that Gaza only had AK47's, unguided rockets, tunnels, and slingshots. Even if their military was improved, do you really think they could take on Israel's modern armed forces, destroy it and "capture" Isreal? So you tell me how Gaza is an existential threat?
-
Dutch news today :
Israel again does not allow Amnesty and HRW to enter Gaza
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) can not inquire into possible violations of human rights in the Gaza Strip.
For many years Israel prevents that employees of both organizations can travel to the Gaza Strip. They would not have the right papers. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry gave no response to the question of why the employees of the two organisations can not enter the Palestinian area the from egyptian territory.
Israel disputes that it has committed human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. It also opposes an investigation by the United Nations, because that would be biased.
- typical israeli world ignorance
-
The 1967 war when Israel was attacked simultaneously by the armies and air forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordon was an existential threat to the survival of Israel.
Curious history. Even if it could be described as a pre-emptive attack, it was Israel who attacked them simultaneously.
-
Israel news today (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.611015) -- "Israel has been refusing to allow employees of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to enter the Gaza Strip in order to conduct their own independent investigations into the fighting, using various bureaucratic excuses."
Yes, there is obviously an increasing awareness inside Israel about various questionable sides of the official hard core story defended by the government.
Thousands of people gathered yesterday to protest against the approach too.
It gives me hope that those voices may end up changing the direction to favor peace and negotiation instead of re-inforcing the position of Hamas by generating more hatred as the result of thousands of innocent civilians killing.
You reporting this side of the story also gives me hope that you have perhaps chosen to be more objective about the on going events?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm still waiting for your condemnation of the killing of children by rockets launched from Gaza (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92107.msg751498#msg751498).
Go back and re-read what I wrote several times Isaac.
I have already clearly condemned several times Palestinian actions. If you are referring to that one incident where a rocket shot by Hamas would have killed one Palestinian children, yes I condemn that too, although the relevance of this tragic incident to the discussion at hand I find questionable.
You have been a lot less clear about your condemnation of the actions of the Israeli army to the extent that you come across as an inconditional supporter of their actions.
Your quotation had given me hope, but I guess from the follow up post that the Israel gov remains, in your mind and/or under your keyboard, free of any wrong doing or, at least, not any more guilty than Hamas?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you read all my posts above, you will see I indicated that Gaza only had AK47's, unguided rockets, tunnels, and slingshots. Even if their military was improved, do you really think they could take on Israel's modern armed forces, destroy it and "capture" Isreal? So you tell me how Gaza is an existential threat?
I can't believe your naivety, Alan. Do you really think that an organisation like Hamas with its terrorist associations would not have the potential to be a very serious threat to Israel if it were allowed unrestricted access to sophisticated weaponry which it could combine with its terrorist, subterfuge tactics?
Have you forgotten how successful a mere handful of terrorists were during the 9/11 attack on the US? Underestimating one's enemy has often been a fatal mistake in the past.
-
…after hearing all kinds of news about the conflict in the middle east since decades I'm quite fed up with it…
'Huge hypocrites' was how someone in the United Nations described the Arab world's dealings with the Palestinians to me… The Arab states used the descendents of the 1948 refugees as a political stick to publicly beat Israel on the world stage. They used oil in 1973 when it was the Arab armies getting a pounding, but they didn't use it to pressure America to get a better deal for the Palestinians. … All were encouraged to keep their Palestinian identity by refusing them anything else, even though many refugees have never set foot in the land from which that identity derives. [Only] In Jordan they were given citizenship.
…
'The Israel-Palestinian conflict is quite easy to understand,' a diplomat once told me… 'It's a competition in victimhood (http://books.google.com/books?id=2V_gAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20new%20middle%20east%3A%20the%20world%20after%20the%20arab%20spring&pg=PP1#v=snippet&q=%22a%20competition%20in%20victimhood%22&f=false),' spat the diplomat. He was referring to the perpetual struggle between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to win international opinion.
Just imagine that the multitudes who were displaced by the partition of India had not been resettled but were kept as stateless refugees.
There is no real political will for peace in the near east… generations who never have experienced peace.
The Second Intifada… reduced parts of the occupied Palestinian territories to war zones. … Many people on both sides lost all sympathy for the suffering of the other (http://books.google.com/books?id=2V_gAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20new%20middle%20east%3A%20the%20world%20after%20the%20arab%20spring&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q=%22Many%20people%20on%20both%20sides%22&f=false).
…
Most Israelis now never set foot inside the West Bank… Their children grew up amid the suicide bombings of that period and are generally more right-wing than their parents. Many Palestinians living on the West Bank or Gaza grew up mixing with ordinary Israelis on beaches or restaurants in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Their children have not had these experiences. They've rarely seen an Israeli who isn't carrying a gun.
-
Please show where.
Sorry no time, it's there for your eyes to read.
How could the killing of an innocent child not be relevant to this discussion?
I am getting tired of your systematic partial quotation tactics. I condemn this action but it is about Palestinians killing other Palestinians. If your point is that the armed arm of Hamas is hurting Palestinians, yes I agree that they are.
It is not directly relevant because the discussion between you and me is not about whether the armed arm of Hamas is doing horrible things, they are as I and others have acknowledged numerous times. The discussion between you and me is about whether the Israeli army is doing things that are an order of magnitude more horrible than what Hamas has been doing.
I've told you (twice) that the UN condemnation of 2012 actions by both Israeli and Palestinian groups applies to current actions by Israeli and Palestinian groups.
OK, thanks for the clarification. How about the many other UN resolutions that the Israeli government has violated? May I derive from your willingness to adhere to the word and spirit of international rulings that you also condemn the successive Israel govs for having not adhered to these other UN resolutions?
Which is it? Is your accusation that I think the Israeli government "free of any wrong doing" -- or -- is your accusation that I think the Israeli government is "not any more guilty than Hamas"?
Since I was asking you a question (you may not have noticed the question mark at the end of my sentence), would you mind answering which it is if any of these 2 it is?
If time constraints forces you to pick one of these 2, please answer the second one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Curious history. Even if it could be described as a pre-emptive attack, it was Israel who attacked them simultaneously.
That's true. Israel attacked first in response to Egypt, Syria and Jordon mobilizing its forces for what seemed like an imminent attack on Israel. But my point was that these three countries represented an existential threat to Israel's very existence. Gaza isn't that kind of threat. Just to clarify, that doesn't mean Israel or any country that is attacked, does not have the right to defend itself and attack back, regardless of the size of the country doing the original attacks. Certainly, my country America, isn't bashful about these things.
-
Aug. 19, 2014 11:16 a.m. ET:
Israel suspended talks with Palestinian factions in Cairo after three rockets from the Gaza Strip landed in southern Israel, breaking a cease-fire aimed at allowing negotiators to broker a long-term truce for the conflict-ridden territory.
The Israel Defense Forces said the rockets struck open areas around the city of Beersheva, with no immediate reports of damage. Within minutes, the military said it retaliated against militant targets in Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled the Israeli delegation from Cairo.
What does Hamas expect to gain from this kind of provocation? They've violated every cease-fire put in place during this "outbreak". If they want war, they should understand that the "Gaza Strip" could very well become a parking lot.
-
The land belongs to Egypt, by right of Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (1209 BCE). Everyone now living there are squatters. Time to move out.
-
Isaac,
I have repeatedly chosen to answer your questions diligently, point by point, trying to understand your position.
All I see in return are endless partial quotations attempting to transform my views into those of an enemy of Israel taking unfair sides and lacking objectivity.
I also see you repeatedly avoiding to answer many of my questions.
You may think you are winning something here, but objective readers will probably agree with me that the only measurable effect of your conversational tactics are a confirmation that you are the one lacking objectivity here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Isaac,
I have repeatedly chosen to answer your questions diligently, point by point, trying to understand your position.
All I see in return are endless partial quotations attempting to transform my views into those of an enemy of Israel taking unfair sides and lacking objectivity.
I also see you repeatedly avoiding to answer many of my questions.
You may think you are winning something here, but objective readers will probably agree with me that the only measurable effect of your conversational tactics are a confirmation that you are the one lacking objectivity here.
Cheers,
Bernard
Everyone should know better by now: Don't engage Isaac.
-
+1 and another+1.
-
Bernard, time to change the title of the thread once again?
For instance: "Isaac's On-going Civility Killing"? ;) ;D
-
Bernard, time to change the title of the thread once again?
For instance: "Isaac's On-going Civility Killing"? ;) ;D
I love the "ignore" button!
-
I love the kinder garden feel of your last post Isaac, that's pretty cute.
I would have bolded the first "You" for additional emphasis, but still, it remains 6 years old enough for the comic effect to work wonderfully. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I love the "ignore" button!
Sadly, the increasingly abusive behaviour of some regulars on here has made me use that feature more than I would like to.
-
... the increasingly abusive behaviour of some regulars...
Admission is the first step to recovery... well done, jjj, there is still hope for you!
-
I am not sure he will admit to anything? ;) :)
-
I should point out Slobodan was added to the ignore list for his increasingly abusive posts and also his offensive rape apologist posting. So whatever nasty crap he comes out with now, I do not have to read.
-
I should point out Slobodan was added to the ignore list for his increasingly abusive posts and also his offensive rape apologist posting. So whatever nasty crap he comes out with now, I do not have to read.
And why exactly would anyone care who is on your ignore list?
C'mon, kids, take it out to the playground. This thread had some interesting discussions and I was glad to get some insight into why some people I disagree with think the way they do. But the thread has degenerated into personal attacks and infantile "Oooh you are on my ignore list" crap. Sheesh, go take a photo!
-
And why exactly would anyone care who is on your ignore list?
C'mon, kids, take it out to the playground. This thread had some interesting discussions and I was glad to get some insight into why some people I disagree with think the way they do. But the thread has degenerated into personal attacks and infantile "Oooh you are on my ignore list" crap. Sheesh, go take a photo!
Not infantile, just pointing out to stamper that I cannot see Slobodan's latest insults, so won't be able to respond. BTW do you not see the irony of your rude and patronising post?
Not sure I can really be bothered with LuLa anyway, barely worth the effort anymore.
-
Israel will give land when the Palestinians stop fighting.
The Palestinians will stop fighting when Israel gives land.
-
I should point out Slobodan was added to the ignore list for his increasingly abusive posts and also his offensive rape apologist posting. So whatever nasty crap he comes out with now, I do not have to read.
jjj if Slobodan is on your ignore list then how is it you are able to reply to the content of his remarks? ;)
-
Not sure I can really be bothered with LuLa anyway, barely worth the effort anymore.
Well, you know the solution to that.
-
jjj if Slobodan is on your ignore list then how is it you are able to reply to the content of his remarks? ;)
Those replies are rather obviously from before he was added to ignore list.
-
Those replies are rather obviously from before he was added to ignore list.
Why mention them again?
-
Well, you know the solution to that.
You seem to be trending towards Slobodan's delightful behaviour. Petty and personal attacks.
The intelligent solution would be getting rid of the people who are nasty and unpleasant actually.
-
Why mention them again?
Mention what? You asked a question, I simply explained.
-
It wasn't a remark. It was a question. Not the ? at the end. :)
-
You assume incorrectly. I saw that is was a question so I explained why I responded and also queried what you were on about as you are morphing towards Isaac style crypticness and now it seems pedantry.
-
... Petty and personal attacks. The intelligent solution would be getting rid of the people who are nasty and unpleasant actually.
Amen, brother!
You mean people who call other forum members "literally stupid... apologist for rapists... very deeply and very unpleasantly misogynistic,” to quote just a few latest examples? You mean people who say that, but then claim it isn't a personal attack, just an accurate description of those other members' behavior? You mean people that usurp the role of the judge, jury and executioner for themselves in determining what constitutes such a behavior and thus justifies the name calling?
-
Isaac,
Refrain from selectively quoting when your sole intention is to put a 'spin' on what I said. My quote has no bearing on your post, which could easily have been made in and of itself.
For reference the full quote was:
Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
Yes, they should.
So were the IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army), a terrorist group. Yet now they sit in the British parliament and Stormont (or rather the political wing, Sinn Fein, do). You may well recall that the IRA were largely funded by the USA (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/8895981/diary-608/).
As The Times, (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1444832.ece) today reports :
‘We were dying anyway. What else could we do but fight?’
Despite the devastation in Gaza, Hamas fighters are being hailed as heroes by Palestinians who were already living in poverty and squalor : during a month of vicious combat with Israel’s vastly superior forces, more than 1,900 Palestinians — many of them civilians — have been killed and 10,000 wounded. Entire neighbourhoods lie in ruin; at least 65,000 people are without homes.
--
Win the hearts and minds of the moderates and the radicals will fail.
-
Win the hearts and minds of the moderates and the radicals will fail.
I happened to come across Fareed Zakaria's recent commentary on CNN about the above concept:
"The trouble is, there aren't that many moderates left"
(quoted as I remember it).
-
"Hamas sources in Gaza say 18 people suspected (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28896346) of collaborating with Israel have been executed."
I'm not sure why this surprises you, Isaac. The article you link to ends with
After the first 11 executions, Hamas warned that "the same punishment will be imposed soon on others". It added that "the current circumstances forced us to take such decisions", suggesting a link between the executions and the killing of the three senior Hamas leaders.
From the Hamas point of view, at war with Israel, such action - collaborating with the enemy - was presumably perceived as treason. Treason, in many Middle Eastern and Muslim countries is punishable by death. As it is in the USA (Article III, Section 3 - of the Constitution). In Europe the death penalty has been abolished.
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)
In the areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, it is treason to give assistance to Israeli troops without the authorization of the Palestinian Authority or to sell land to Jews (irrespective of nationality) and also non-Jewish Israeli citizens under the Palestinian Land Laws, as part of the PA's general policy of discouraging the expansion of Israeli settlements. Both crimes are capital offences subject to the death penalty [...] Likewise, in the Gaza Strip under the Hamas led government, any sort of cooperation or assistance to Israeli forces during military actions is also punishable by death.
-
I'm not sure why this surprises you, Isaac.
I'm not sure why you wish to suppose that it surprises me.
I've twice quoted the summary findings of the UN report, for 14 to 21 November 2012 (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A.HRC.22.35.Add.1_AV.pdf), which among other things says --
"48. Palestinian armed groups … seven alleged collaborators held in [De Facto Authorities] detention facilities were summarily executed, constituting a violation of their right to life and of international humanitarian law."
-
My baby is more innocent than your baby.
-
My baby is more innocent than your baby.
About hundred times more.
-
About hundred times more.
Not a problem for Isaac.
He has chosen a simple line of defense "both parties are equally guilty" and has not moved an inch since then. He reminds me of the right wing Israeli falcons he seems to be representing.
I don't expect him to show any public display of understanding that their very attitude is the root cause of the problem at hand.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
He has chosen a simple line of defense "both parties are equally guilty" and has not moved an inch since them. He reminds me of the righted wing Israeli falcons he seems to be representing.
"Opposing the actions of [Hamas] in Gaza does not require [pro]-Israel sentiments nor racism. … All it takes is an objective look (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92107.msg751230#msg751230) at the situation.
You accusations are just shocking and utterly unacceptable [Bernard] and only weaken your position as they paint you in very unfavorable light."
"Regardless of who started this latest round, attacks targeting civilians violate basic humanitarian norms. All attacks, including reprisal attacks, that target or indiscriminately harm civilians are prohibited under the laws of war, period."
Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director, Human Rights Watch
-
Running out of steam Isaac? Even your partial quotation out of context are loosing relevance here.
How about just giving up on your bias and joining us on the bright side of the force? ;)
You can do it!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Isaac vs. Bernard... hmmm, seems like we, the children of LuLa, are the victims of that war ;D
-
Isaac vs. Bernard... hmmm, seems like we, the children of LuLa, are the victims of that war ;D
Won't somebody please close this sucker down?
-
[Isaac] has chosen a simple line of defense "both parties are equally guilty"…
No, I have not said "both parties are equally guilty"; nor have I said one is more guilty or less guilty than the other.
Again (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92107.msg754247#msg754247) - Israeli and Palestinian groups are both guilty.
-
This thread has degenerated into petty bickering and posts that seemingly serve only only to nit-pick and engender an adverse reaction.
The conflict has created heated debate, highlighted a deepening division between Europe and America, and poses a dilemma for many diaspora Jews, well articulated by Antony Lerman in the NYT - 'The End of Liberal Zionism' (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/opinion/sunday/israels-move-to-the-right-challenges-diaspora-jews.html?_r=1)
Bernard,
You're the OP - time to lock the thread before the posts that actually contributed to this discussion get drowned in a sea of irrelevance and a 'tit-for-tat' retrospective ?
-
Bernard,
You're the OP - time to lock the thread before the posts that actually contributed to this discussion get drowned in a sea of irrelevance and a 'tit-for-tat' retrospective ?
Yep, done.
Cheers,
Bernard