Global Voices' coverage of Gaza Strip Bombings (and how to keep the coverage alive)
Global Voices Executive Director Ivan Sigal says,
We've been covering the latest Gaza crisis from the perspective of bloggers and citizen journalists for the past few days. Blogger coverage has been highlighting both sides of the Israel/Gaza conflict. It's captured here on a Special Coverage page.Additionally, Global Voices has recently started a donations drive, including a tax exemption option for US citizens. Global Voices Managing Director Georgia Popplewell explains the donations logic here:We're' also focusing in on application use by Israeli and Arab bloggers, where we find it. This post for instance, is about ongoing discussion on twitter.
(Disclaimer: I am a member of the advisory board of Global Voices.)Donations will help sustain the efforts of our authors and translators who work around the clock to bring you updates from conflict areas, natural disasters, and from the frontline of battles for freedom of expression.
Even a small contribution will help pay for server expenses, monthly fees for editors, and a small team of staff.
Additional funding will help us keep actively translating our content into more than 15 languages, and add new languages to the mix, ensuring that individuals and media professionals around the world have access to the diverse voices coming from citizen media at a time when coverage of international news is under serious threat.
the latest
latest episodes
Thanks for showing what is happening on the ground to people in Gaza.
Please take a stand against killing of innocents on both sides.
People have been fighting over that real estate forever. Neither side is admirable. If that is god's neighborhood then god is a real douchebag.
What Tel Aviv is unleashing upon the people of Gaza is nothing short of a war crime. All honest, thinking people know this. However, the way things are, nothing will come of it. Sabra and Shatila anyone?
@Mojave:
It's not a war crime? Try telling that to the Palestinians, who have lost nearly 300 of their own, in a period of barely 2 days.
I really wish that Israel and Palestine would stop fighting and work out a 2 state treaty deal.
Xeni thanks for posting this...and #3 I think you may have missed my point. It IS a war crime.
Wow, what a pointless (and often repeated) discussion thread.
@Mojave: my bad, I read that wrong.
@ Mojave and Punkgurl
Try to not have such a one-sided view of the conflict.
Hooray religion!
@Akira:
it's not about religion and it should never be about religion. It's about politics and land. people who drag to try religion in this issue are idiots.
@OhhSnap: did I ever express any support for either side? Let's re-read what I said:
"I really wish that Israel and Palestine would stop fighting and work out a 2 state treaty deal."
Hamas needs to rent Casino.
"You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And if you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead."
Just a reminder - this conflict has not been going on "forever" - just from the start of the Zionist expansion in the 1920s. Before that, there have been several centuries of peace at different times.
@ 9
well if you put ppl in a cage they will retaliate, Palestine = a prison state being illegally occupied by Israel, supported by the USA with FREE weapons given as AID as it sounds like food and bandages but the USA does give free AID only food to the Palestinians (no weapons) so at least the Israelis have semi fast moving targets to shoot at eh!
America is supporting and arming terrorists for free, what was said about Saddam exactly?
NEVER forget Rachel Corrie murdered by an Israel bulldozer.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Rachel+Corrie&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
In the official American 9/11 report Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's main motivation behind the attack was Americas continued support for ISRAEL
http://www.9-11commission.gov
There was the public 9/11 commission on c-span stating that the main reason for the 9/11 attacks was the continued support for Israel in their quest to cleans the occupied state "Palestine" C-Span video can be found on youtube and here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=user
Israel Violates UN Security Council, Occupying Syria's Land with Noam Chomsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vj45865jpE
Analysis: New US-Israeli arms deal (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6949904.stm
FTA: Thursday, 16 August 2007, 16:02 GMT 17:02 UK
This new agreement sets increased levels of US military aid for Israel over the coming decade.
In broad terms, Israel will receive a total of some $30bn (ÂŁ14.8bn) in military aid, a significant increase over $24bn (ÂŁ12bn) it received over the past 10 years.
US ARMS AID TO ISRAEL
$30bn over 10 years
1st payment of $2.55bn in 2008
Annual payments rising to $3.1bn by 2011
26.3% can be spent in Israel
Rest must be spent on US arms
(AID = FREE weapons Paid for by the USA Tax payer, but it must be your way of life that muslims hate eh!)
BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html
30/10/2000 Iraq changes form $ to euro’s for oil sales
(axis of evil 1)
2001 Iran switch form $ to euro’s for oil sales (axis
of evil 2)
7/12/2002 North Korea switches all trading from the $ to
euro’s, not just oil. (axis of evil 3)
Hugo Chavez Venezuela held chairmanship of Opec &
puts on the table for all petroleum sales to be
Switched from $ to euro would collapse the $ so
America turns to anti propaganda towards Venezuela
to oust a democratically elected leader!
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/
#10 @ Punkgurl
"It's not a war crime? Try telling that to the Palestinians, who have lost nearly 300 of their own, in a period of barely 2 days."
Sounds like a side to me.
Also, the conflict shouldn't be about religion, but it is. Hizbollah, Iran, Hamas, and others, have all declared religious wars against Israel.
The land in question is only in question because of their different religious beliefs. But I don't expect you to know about the very long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I had to spend a couple years learning about it to get as far as I did.
Mark @6 - when people stop arguing they start bombing.
Lather, rinse, repeat is better than murder, scream, revenge.
Of course it is about religion Punkgirl. You think there are many Jews living in Gaza? Buddhists in the Israeli military? It's been about religion for millenia and wishing it weren't doesn't make it not so, (if that's not torturing grammar too much).
Yep, God is one hellava funny guy.
Whatever the problem, this isn't the solution. It just makes the problem worse. Such a stupid, horrible, deathly cycle.
One has equal sympathy for the victims of rocket attacks in Israeli towns, or bombings in Gaza. And very little sympathy for their political and military leaders.
If only one could have simultaneous peoples' revolutions in Israel and Palestine, throwing out both "governments".
#13 @ UK
Sounds like you need to learn about both sides instead of just one.
#17 hit the nail on the nose.
They've got to find a way to use the net to organize mass, crippling civil disobedience. Bring the Israeli state and Hamas to their knees.
If kids in Tel Aviv and Gaza got together, who knows what they could achieve?
Damn easy for me to say, of course.
The conflict has been simmering since Hamas took over the Gaza strip; But Hamas chose this month to bring things to a boil. Last month Hamas dug under the Israeli wall, then they increased the number of daily rockets.
The question is: "Why now?". The official cease-fire ended, but could have been renewed. The West Bank PA government is probably changing in a few weeks, and the Israeli government is changing in February. Also, Obama takes over in January. Are these the reasons?
Maybe Hamas thought that Israel would simply ignore a few hundred rockets a day; They'd been ignoring smaller numbers. But still, what's the advantage to any Palestinian from rocketing southern Israel?
People in other cultures really do think differently than in our culture, and it's going to be hard to understand them. But perhaps Hamas misunderstood the West?
It's also possible that Hamas, being a client of Iran, was used to distract attention from the nuclear weapons build-up in Iran. It's hard to tell.
The video, by the way, is from ISM, a Hamas advocacy group. The Arabs have been shown to sometimes stage fake battle scenes, so look at each one very carefully.
For example, in this video, you can't really tell if all the guys lying down are actually hurt or just pretending. In one case we can see a small head wound, though.
Also, there's no way to tell where those 2 fire trucks are going, if anywhere.
[Grabs popcorn and sits back to watch the civility unfold like a field of wildflowers within this glorious thread.]
Good luck with that whole "throwing out the governments" thing....not gonna happen. There are religious extremists on both sides and it is hard to compromise when you have G-d on your side....
@ #24
Not many people thought the Imperial British could be thrown out of India either.
Or that the Northern Ireland conflict could be brought to an end so cleanly.
Strange things happen, when political charisma and a peaceful cause that is attractive to the masses come together.
Where is the Palestinian Ghandi when we need him!
Fighting solves nothing. Fighting only makes it worse, and both sides get even more angry.
A lot of Israeli people want peace, and so do Palestinians.
I agree with #25, I wish there's a Palestinian Gandhi out there urging both sides to work out a 2 state treaty deal.
""One of the protesters said "Police took advantage of the lack of public support and attacked the protesters with clubs. Two other protesters and I were trying to calm the soldiers and were kicked at. Within minutes I found myself being dragged by my head and shoulders across the sidewalk and into the patrol car." The protester indicated that once the police understood she is Jewish she was released. "The two Arab protesters were of course forced into the vehicle," she added.""
Too bad this endless cycle of violence couldn't be ritualised into something more contained - like a footie/soccer match.
I'm pretty sure that if the Palestinians would leave Israel alone, all of the problems would go away.
A good friend who is a professor of Middle Eastern Studies says "The problem is money. If the synagogues and gas stations of the world did not constantly send vast sums of money into the region, those who live there would be forced to settle their differences, more or less bloodily, in order to support their population".
I myself have not visited Palestine, and do not plan to do so; my opinions on the matter are unlikely to be of great value.
It's all so horrible,and hasn't improved in what, 60 years or so? There are reams of UN resolutions on this conflict, but no strong action. If you could send in the blue helmets to keep the peace and shut off all aid and economic activity except for humanitarian aid; a full blockade until a two-state settlement was peacefully agreed to, would that do it?
One suspects that a majority on each side wants a fair division of territory and peaceful co-existence, but the leaders can't let go of the eye for an eye ethic of perpetual destruction. I would hope so, but can only imagine what it must be like to live in such a situation while I'm tucked safely away in America.
First, there's technically no such thing as "Palestinians". The people living there all came from other countries, mostly Syria. And who knows why their Arab/Muslim brother/neighbors aren't inviting the into their countries.
Second, EVERY DAY the last few weeks, Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel indiscriminantly, with a stated intention of killing civilians. Should Israel just take it? Hamas CHOSE to end the fragile truce that had lasted a few months. Israel didn't provoke them. And what kind if shithead culture plants rocket launchers in civilian backyards? Israel is not after women, children, or any innocent good people, only after the people who have explicitly stated and demonstrated (repeatedly) their desire to destroy Israel by any means? Yes, Israel has had to get in the mud and play dirty in recent years, but they haven't been given much choice.
Fnlly, lt's nt cll thm scd bmbrs. Scd cn nvk sympthy. Thy r hmcd bmbrs.
Israel IS a democracy, with plenty of non-violent, law abiding Arabs who have the power to influence policy deomcratically. Of course Arabs should have the same rights to land, happiness, success, etc. But not if those things come at the cost of other's lives and liberties. If every time I try to talk to you, you hit me back, eventually I'm going to hit you back, harder if I can.
The Palestinians have always been able to pass up good opportunities and I feel as soory for them as anyone else involved in this terrible cycle. But sometimes a problem without a solution isn't a problem, it's a fact.
http://www.warhw.com/2008/12/29/israeli-calculus-december-2008/
For the entire year of 2008, militants hiding in Gaza attacking Israel have killed 17 people. 8 soldiers. 9 civilians. This according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
In the last three days, the UN has verified that Israel has killed at least 50 civilians in Gaza.
#26:
"Fighting solves nothing."
The entire history of all life on this planet proves your theory incorrect.
gladeye@32:
Israel is not after women, children, or any innocent good people,
Does good intentions help the 50 civilians that the UN has already confirmed have been killed by Israeli military?
Finally, let's not call them suicide bombers. Suicide can invoke sympathy. They are homicide bombers.
OK sure.
GregLondon, the UN, for the most part are a bunch of liars. When I hear info from the UN, I usually immediately believe the opposite.
"OK sure?" What are you saying here? Hmcd bmbrs r gd?
the only questions are: will Israel use nukes, will they wait for Obama or continue using Bush and will Iran's retaliation amount to anything. The usual butchery of civilians in Gaza is a side show.
@Gladeye, I believe you are misinformed.
Palestine exists on Roman maps which are over a thousand years old, and continues to exist on maps being made today. The idea that the area has no natives seems rather contrived. Tax records for people listed as Palestinians exist from Roman times, through the Turkish occupation, to today.
Most of Palestine is currently a part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, but borders in the region are not particularly stable. Some portions of Palestine are currently inside the current borders of Syria and Lebanon, and Israel was established entirely inside Palestine by Jewish nationalists revolting against British rule. This is all well documented and is not disputed by Israel, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon.
You should wonder about the accuracy of the rest of your beliefs when one of them can be so easily and conclusively disproved at any University library.
i think this will only help raise the number of suicide bombers.
Israel could have, by now, it is fucking 2009, deployed a Navy Seal type undercover operations team to hunt down the individuals that keep on with the mortar fire..
But nope, Israel chose to bomb a mosque, a school, and other civilians...
Tom Hale, I am interested; on what basis do you believe the UN are "a bunch of liars"?
I have little or no data by which I can personally verify the value of the UN's reporting, since I avoid places where the UN is active.
Do you have some personal story you could relate that would show that the UN, at least from your own experience, is untrustworthy?
Bomb, kill, and steal as an individual, you're just a murderer and thief. Do it in the name of religion and state? You're a hero. Do it more and better then the other guy? You're in the right.
This is an eyewitness account from the BBC website...""It is a war situation, war conditions. We've been under attack for the last three days. It is very unsafe. There is nowhere you can sit without hearing explosions. I can tell you from my own experience that last night was terrifying; for me, for my wife and my baby.
I live close to the Islamic University where they bombed us heavily.
We're trying to hide in different corners of the apartment; trying to keep the windows open. That's what everybody is talking about; how not to get the windows broken.
This is what we are going through right now. It's war conditions and we just don't know when the airplanes are going to hit.
We're trying to hide in different corners of the apartment
On the streets the city is dead. People just move to get necessary items; food, water, stuff like that. Of course, electricity is not available for most of the houses in Gaza. I mean, really harsh conditions right now.
From our perspective, a Gazan perspective, it's the occupation [that is causing this situation]. We cannot fight a sophisticated army like Israel's so we really don't know what can end this. We have no way out.
The international community seems like it has already taken the Israeli side and unfortunately nobody wants to see what we go through.
Some people in the media have been depicting us as the aggressors but in three days we have had over 300 casualties; the Israelis have one or two.
No food, no drink, no medicine, no electricity, no gas. What else? It's just very inhumane what we are going through.""
Tzipi Livni, step right up you've just won an all expenses paid lifelong stay at the Hague!!
Protests in the home city of the Oslo accords:
http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostlandssendingen/1.6379254
http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4593&page=1#Item_1
#39
Face palm. Of course! Hunt down the perpetrators, kill them and end the problem. Why didn't Israel think of that? It's genius! But don't just tell us, Tel Aviv!
Tom Hale, I am interested; on what basis do you believe the UN are "a bunch of liars"?
bcs lthm s n lngr vlbl n crdt.
Israel military forces have killed children in Gaza and his delusions do not allow him to acknowledge it. So, he finds a way to distance himself from the narrative. If the UN is the source, discredit the UN. if it becomes the overwhelming narrative of the news media, the news media is "biased". And if all sources point to the fact that Israel did indeed just kill a whole bunch of civilians in Gaza?
I'll just point you to Tom's post at 29: if the Palestinians would leave Israel alone, all of the problems would go away.
When confronted with an undeniable accusation, the last defense is always something like "They started it!"
teller@44: Face palm. Of course! Hunt down the perpetrators, kill them and end the problem. Why didn't Israel think of that? It's genius! But don't just tell us, Tel Aviv!
teller, does sarcasm make dead civilians go away? Just curious.
[Getting out my foam hand with index finger extended and a sharpy to wtite "GREGLONDON" on it. Gonna make eating popcorn that much harder, but it's worth it...]
The land in question is only in question because of their different religious beliefs.
Actually, it's not about religion. It's about European settler colonialism. The ashkenazim oppress even the sabras.
More Arabs are being killed than Israelis. This means that the Israelis are better armed, better fighters, and have better aim. It doesn't tell us who "Started it". It doesn't tell us who the aggressors are. It tells us who is winning.
Hamas decided to not renew the cease-fire, decided to increase the number of rocket attacks, and decided to try to tunnel under the wall to Israel. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Some people thought Israel would wait until the rockets hit a kindergarten and there were a dozen dead Israeli kids. They thought wrong.
The Hamas leadership has not been very intelligent. After all, their plan is for Arabs to die.
#39
The IDF has dozens and dozens of undercover soldiers that have infiltrated the militant groups responsible for the rockets, mortars, and other explosives.
Hence they know where to bomb.
The problem is that the places where all the stuff is kept is in areas with a civilian population.
@ #45
There is no defense of killing civilians, let alone children. There is a lot of news, however, that we don't hear.
Ask any Israeli what their daily news looks like, you may be a little shocked. Every week, every day, there are rockets being launched in. This isn't a new thing. This has been going on for years, but we don't hear about it.
I'm just curious, what would you have Israel do, sit by and do nothing while they are attacked?
The situation is a sad one. The majority of both populations want peace and are tolerant of each other. It's the extremists on both sides causing this conflict.
Antinous, my good friend, both sides use religion-based arguments to stake claims to the land.
And whether or not someone is a sabra or ashkenazim has nothing to do with the differences and conflicts of Judaism and Islam.
maybe America should stop giving money and guns to Israel just to ensure a supply of cheap oil. After all, except for a dozen ultra-rich, all Americans are now broke and can't afford gas anyway. Israel won't be able to use nuclear blackmail anymore anyway, as they have painted themselves into a tactical corner and will be obligated to use at least a few nuclear bunkerbusters soon enough.
Besides, with an enormous military base in Iraq and an entire army in Afghanistan, why do they need Israel anymore?
What I'm curious about is who's been fiddling with the submarine cables again? Lot's of subs out there.
Also, if the standard cutting of communications on surface and subsea is covered, how will they handle the satellites?
More Arabs are being killed than Israelis. This means that the Israelis are better armed, better fighters, and have better aim.
Not if it's more Arab civilians being killed than Israelis.
Israel's foreign ministry itself said that in 2008, the total number of Israeli deaths from attacks launched from Gaza was 17. Only 6 of those were from rockets.
Israel attacks all of Gaza and in three days has at least 51 confirmed civilian Palestinians killed.
The only thing you can take from that is not that Israel has better aim, but that Israel places a far lower value on Palestinian life.
I'm just curious, what would you have Israel do, sit by and do nothing while they are attacked?
I'm just curious, how many palestinian children get to die in response to 17 Israelis killed over the course of a year and still be acceptable?
Give me a number.
So far, glancing through news reports, I'd say we've got at least 20 or so dead palestininan children. Is that below your threshold? Is 50 dead children OK? 100? 200? How many dead palestinian children are you willing to sacrifice just so that Isreal can do something?
Because, God knows, the only thing they could have done at this point was bomb the fuck out of a civilian population, right?
Do you hear the ticking bomb in your question, by the way? The tick-tick-tick that invokes the fear that justifies you turning of your morality? That allows you to insist that something must be done, and this is something, so this must be done?
tick-tick-tick....
Just curious.
#53 @ Greg
The Israeli mentality, and I'm not saying I agree with this, is that whenever one of them is killed, they should exact revenge ten-fold. At least, that is the mentality of all the Israelis I've met (I've met and sat down with dozens of them from all sides of the spectrum).
Israel doesn't place a lower value on Palestinian life any more than Hamas does.
No one wants civilians or children to die, yet Hamas houses all their weapons, explosives, and personnel with civilians. They do this to make them into "martyrs." Israel feels it has no choice but to take out targets that have tactical value. The collateral, unfortunately, is comprised of civilians.
Please note I'm not trying to take a side, but rather I'm saddened, angered, and disappointed with both.
the value of life
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
written four years ago
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/levy-children.html
ohhhsnap: The Israeli mentality, and I'm not saying I agree with this, is that whenever one of them is killed, they should exact revenge ten-fold.
Yeah, but I don't want "ten-fold revenge" as a theory. I want to hear people own up to it. If 17 innocent Isrealis were killed by attacks launched from Gaza in 2008, I want to hear the ten-fold revenge type person say that they would accept the deaths of 170 innocent Gazans as sufficient revenge.
Because there are a bunch of cowards who deep in their hearts believe in ten-fold revenge, but won't admit it. Instead, they argue round about to get ten fold revenge without saying it. If that's what someone here wants, then let them say it straight up, no bullshit, I want the heads of 170 innocent Gazans on pikes, and I'll call it even.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of those very cowards here on this thread. And while they're making various bullshit arguments, the truth of the matter is they won't be satisfied until they get the heads of 170 innocent Gazans on pikes. So, really, arguing about cease fire this, and treaty that, is all a bunch of shit, when what they really want is ten fold revenge.
I sense a couple people on this thread may have at least a three-fold revenge or maybe a five-fold revenge thing going on. I doubt any of them will admit it, though. The more powerful and emotional the lust, the more people try to dress it up in fancy clothes and say its something else.
Antinous, my good friend, both sides use religion-based arguments to stake claims to the land.
Bush used arguments about WMDs to get us into Iraq. It doesn't mean that the conflict has anything to do with it. It's bog standard racism. Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews didn't exactly get a rousing welcome when they took advantage of the Law of Return.
Greg,
I didn't say it was right, it was just an observation.
Revenge isn't the key, but that clearly isn't what they believe. Martyrdom, similarly, doesn't help anything, but they believe that, too.
If the conflict wasn't so complex, there wouldn't be people who devote their lives to the study of it.
What did you think about Hamas' strategy to turn their population into "martyrs" by putting their military personnel and equipment in civilian areas?
should they have stored them in distinct warehouses with "Hamas" painted on the roof?
@ Takuan
You're saying it's perfectly fine for them to use their own children and civilians as a "shield" of sorts?
Really?
I'm not saying what they should do, I'm saying what they shouldn't do.
"The Gaza Strip has one of the highest overall growth rates and population densities in the world. The 2008 population was 1,537,269, giving the region a population density of 4,270 persons per sq km (11,060 per sq mi)"
you think ordinary citizens in Gaza can tell Hamas to go away? Easy for Israel to ignore who they kill, after all if they can't take an interest in local affairs, why have any sympathy for them.
Israel does NOT have oil. Oil is NOT the reason Israel is an American client state. In fact, economically and security-wise, it makes NO sense for the U.S. to be politically aligned with Israel.
The creation of Israel was yet another European colonial intervention only disguised under the very racist, convoluted, and extremist political ideology of Zionism. Zionism co-opted mainstream Judaism-- which is a great tragedy. The immoral British Mandate, and thus partition of historic Palestine was ironically simply a Christian European implementation of Hilter's 'Final Solution' of removing most European Ashkenazi Jews from Europe via the fallacy that Palestine was their homeland 5,000 years ago. What happened 5,000 years ago is MYTHOLOGY, people.
In any case, European [Jewish] colonials stole the land of Palestine from it's native habitants, some of which were native Palestinian Jews! But Zionism, doesn't accept the notion of 'Arab Jew'. Only Arab OR Jew. Arab Jews are usually referred to by the more sanitized labels, i.e.; 'Mizrahi Jews' and/or 'Sephardic Jews'-- which both overall, can include ANY Jew of Middle Eastern descent, e.g.; Afghani Jews, Iranian Jews, Syrian Jews, Palestinian Jews, Iraqi Jews, etc. 'Mizrahi' Jews have been greatly discriminated against as second-class citizens for not being of European/Ashkenazim descent-- thus, only high-lighting the extreme racist and European colonial origin of Zionism.
Regardless, the occupation of Palestinian territories is ILLEGAL under international law. International law just so happens to fall on the side of the native Palestinians. And just because Israel has massively increased and expanded their settlements, thus stealing more Palestinian lands since the Oslo Accords, does NOT make these extremist settlements legal or moral.
The OCCUPATION must end. And a two-state solution will never be viable, thus why Israel wants it. The longer there is 'war', the more lands they can occupy and settle on. The same thing happened to the Native Americans. And the stealing of Native American lands was under another 'religious' political, and colonial ideology comparable to Zionism: Manifest Destiny.
There needs to be ONE SECULAR country. That is the ONLY just and moral way to solve the Palestine Question. A Jewish-supremacist state will continue to function via extreme apartheid measures. That is not acceptable in the 21st Century.
And American supplied F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopter gunships to it's client state of Israel only continue to enable war-crimes, which is perhaps one of the reasons, both countries have refused to be signators and ratify the International Criminal Courts.
The U.S. and Israel simply cannot continue to arrogantly and belligerently thumb their noses up at International Law.
It's time we the people of the Earth no longer sit back and allow corporate or racist interests to dominate the global or local stage.
Thank you.
ohhhsnap: What did you think about Hamas' strategy to turn their population into "martyrs" by putting their military personnel and equipment in civilian areas?
You're attempting to cast the spotlight on the sins of Hamas so as to allow the Israel to continue its sins in the dark.
Do two wrongs make a right? If not, then the sins of Hamas in no way affect whether what Israel did was immoral as well.
Please note I'm not trying to take a side
No? If not, you've got an extremely forgiving eye to Israel's actions. I.E.:
Israel feels it has no choice but to take out targets that have tactical value. The collateral, unfortunately, is comprised of civilians.
Israel has no choice?
Really? Israel elections are in several weeks. Or is Israel immune to the politization of war?
Meantime, Bush is a lame duck and Obama won't be sworn in for several weeks meaning Israel can operate for a while without any real pressure from the US to restrain itself?
And the initial military attacks by Israel were timed to happen simultaneously across all of gaza? Air force, army, and other units? All of which reflects massive planning and preparation?
Seems to me Israel knew exactly what and when it was doing and chose exactly what and when to do it.
Anyone who says they didn't have a choice isn't paying attention or is a shill.
I fail to understand the complexity of the issue. Israel is going to exist or die trying. Israel will fight to the death. The Palestinians have a higher birthrate than the Israelis, so the Israelis know there can never be a democracy in Israel. Israel will either exist as a Jewish state or cease to exist.
The Palestinians know the Israelis will never give up. The Palestinians can either live under Jewish control without a vote or fight to the death to stop Israel, and retake the land which was taken from them.
The Palestinian strategy has worked to a small degree, but Israel has only given up a few semi-autonomous regions to avoid the problem of Palestinian equality in the voting booth. The Israeli strategy of war as an extension of policy is all they have, because the extremists of Hamas and Hezbollah will never be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist. They must make even the slightest attack unthinkable.
Israel should not exist. However, Israel does exist and the US will never withdraw support. So, Hamas can only give up and take what they have or continue to fight in the hope of gaining more land, which they desperately need.
Israel may not have oil (yeah, I knew that, really), but it sure is in the neighborhood. Gotta have friends in the hood.
well, "used to" need friends.
Where is the Palestinian Ghandi when we need him!
May I offer you Hanan Ashrawi? She, BTW, is a Christian, which rather effectively messes with the notion that this is just one of those crazy muslim things.
i thought i heard the girl towards the beginning of the video say the word, "madrassa," but in the translation subtitles, it only mentioned that she was "with fellow students."
i don't know the language, so maybe "madrassa" can also mean "student," but if Global Voices is censoring its coverage, that would seem to be self-defeating.
how many Israelis say they don't believe in a god these days? The observed trend globally is the death of certain religions (christianity for sure), when enough Israeli citizens no longer believe in a god, will Israel go away?
You're saying it's perfectly fine for them to use their own children and civilians as a "shield" of sorts?
Really and seriously are you going to make that analogy?
Cause if you do, then tell me what do you think the SWAT team should do when there's a domestic disturbance at a home and one of the parents is holding their kids hostage?
Should SWAT roll in and shoot the fucking kids?
WOuld you defend them if that's what they did?
Would you try and tell me you're not taking sides at the same time that you're taking sides adn defending that they just shot the kids?
Cause Israel just rolled into Gaza and killed at least 20 children.
As well as the parents, and their uncles, and coworkers, and a bunch of other people.
You're telling me if a SWAT team in, say, chicago rolled into a house, mowed everyone down, including unarmed children, and then shot the gawdamn dogs just for good measure, you'd say, hey, those are the breaks, that's the way the cookie crumbles, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs?
Cause, you know, they have to do something. Do I just want them to sit around and do nothing?
It's the weirdest thing, if you ask me. Present people with a situation where their local police misuses firepower, and a lot of people would all be for an investigation, get some better training about how to use lethal force, put some policies and procedures in place, come up with soem rules of engagement.
But I swear to god, when you turn it into some foreign land, people lose their fkng heads. And suddenly its the wild wild west out there, and there's a new sherriff in town and anything goes, and we've got to do something, and yada yada yada.
Gladeye @32 and Tom Hale @36: The phrase "homicide bomber", and the nonsensical claim that "suicide bomber" is a term of sympathy, are pieces of pro-war propaganda cooked up at FoxNews. I have no tolerance for that kind of thing. (And I'm speaking with my moderator hat on.)
Ultimately, this and any conflict between the Jews and Muslims is about religion. In fact, it's about Jerusalem. Specifically, it's about the Dome of the Rock sitting on the Temple of Solomon. And due to the emotions involved, it is fundamentally insoluble in any rational way. At least to me.
Greglondon: My sarcasm wasn't intended to make dead civilians go away, only the argument at which I aimed it, namely #39, that given a choice between special ops neatly picking off each of the rocket firers or indiscriminately bombing mosques, schools and civilians, Israel, presumably because they have bloodlust, chose the latter. I find that assessment worthy of scorn.
And btw, ending your comments, which are really just statements of your position housed as questions, with "Just curious" is, itself, sarcastic. Not that I mind, I just find it ironic.
thebonobo@70: i thought i heard the girl towards the beginning of the video say the word, "madrassa," but in the translation subtitles, it only mentioned that she was "with fellow students." i don't know the language, so maybe "madrassa" can also mean "student," but if Global Voices is censoring its coverage, that would seem to be self-defeating.
the tiniest amount of googling found that Madrasah is the Arabic word for any type of school, college or university, whether secular or religious (of any religion).
in short, no, the little girl wasn't at terrorist camp and didn't deserve to get bombed.
Greg @45, that lithium crack was over the line.
Manooshi @ 64 said:
Yes, there should be one secular country in the area that is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. There should be citizenship, liberty, human rights and security for all of the people in this possible state. All of them.
Does anyone have a practical realistic and peaceful proposal for accomplishing this?
Greg,
I've been trying to tell you how they feel, because you are not considering it.
I wasn't trying to cast any focus anywhere else, I was simply curious as to what your input would be, simple as that.
I am no more forgiving to Israel's actions than I am to those of the Palestinians and Hamas. What I said was a statement, not an opinion. What they feel isn't what I feel. :)
And about my so-called "analogy," well, it wasn't one. That is what Hamas is doing. They store weapons in schools and homes. They store explosives in basements and tunnels below densely populated neighborhoods. They do that to try and deter attacks. When that doesn't work, they play the martyr card. How can you disagree with that?
@ Teller
You think the people firing rockets are just standing out in the middle of a field, alone? It takes months, sometimes years for the IDF special forces to infiltrate, and even then it's usually just one person, maybe a handful, gathering information for larger scale operations.
Moving ground forces into Gaza, the way I see it, would result in even more death and destruction than bombing.
I have no idea what the solution is, just that both sides are making it worse.
#64 @ Manooshi
Was the land occupied? All the historical texts I've read, as recent as the mid-1800s, state that the land was unoccupied and empty.
should I bring out my New Zion proposal? Partition Texas and try for a clean start?
All the historical texts I've read, as recent as the mid-1800s, state that the land was unoccupied and empty.
Remember the Philistines in the Bible? It's the same word as Palestinian. Palestine has been continuously occupied for almost ten millennia. In fact, Jericho is the world's oldest continuously occupied city. You must have some very odd historical texts.
teller@74: that given a choice between special ops neatly picking off each of the rocket firers or indiscriminately bombing mosques, schools and civilians, Israel, presumably because they have bloodlust, chose the latter. I find that assessment worthy of scorn.
Speaking of scorn worthy posts.
Hamas needs to rent Casino. "You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And if you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead."
This is nothing more than an unadulterated worship of Fox's "24" show and the mentality that it entails. Torture, ultra-violence, operating above the law, judge, jury, and executioner, wrapped up into one nice, neat little program.
Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done. Camp Xray. Waterboarding. Whatever it is, it's either that or do nothing at all, and what do you expect me to do, nothing???
The post which you so sarcastically scorned was saying nothing but that the best way to deal with terrorism in the long term is with good police work, intelligence, and so on.
Of course, those sorts of things don't make the news unless they go bad. Launching a war is oh so much more glamorous and kicks up the popularity polls.
Worked for George W. Bush, didn't it?
We were attacked on 9/11 and W's approval rating went in the stratosphere. No one could question Georgie porgie. And if he wants to invade Iraq because he says "trust me", then that should be good enough for us, right?
And now, his approval rating is in the toilet.
So here's a little puzzler for you. A little riddle, just because I'm curious:
Who screwed up: George W Bush or the idiots who gave him a 90% approval rating on 9/11 simply because we'd been attacked?
Was Bush worth of a 90% approval rating on 9/12 and then lost it since then? Or was he a clueless blundering idiot from the beginning and shouldn't have even been elected let alone given launch codes?
Well, today is sort of like September 12. Israel's got its war on, and all sorts of chest thumpers have rallied behind a nations right to bomb the hell out of someone else, because, well, dagggummit, to question that right would be to accuse people of having bloodlust, and I know W. didn't have bloodlust.
No sirree bob.
And guess what?
We've done this already and we've seen exactly where it got us. Israel invaded Lebonon just 2 years ago for exactly the same reasons, rocket attacks by militants hiding among the population, and that whole thing went over just great, didn't it? There's been peace in the middle east ever since then, eh?
Oh, I know, you're one of those "surge" types, aren't you. If we just show the will to win, then it doesn't matter that occupying a foreign population that hates our guts is an unwinnible situation, we'll just wish our way to victory like we wished Tinkerbell back to life.
You're one of those "six more months and this will really turn around" kind of guys, eh? Do you still defend the US occupation of Iraq? Is it simply a matter of willpower and six more months?
Is that Israel's problem too? They just need to watch Casino and roll into Gaza with enough firepower to finally settle this?
Is there any problem in the world that can't be solved by a sufficiently large application of firepower?
Cause I'm telling you this is one of those times.
Oh, and while we're at it. If militants hiding in Gaza launched attacks against Israel and killed a total of 17 Israelis in 2008, exactly how many innocent Gazans can be killed by Israel before we do get to question Israel's accuracy in executing this operation?
Would 200 innnocent Gazans pay for the blood of 17 Israelis?
Or are all Gazan's guilty by simply being in Gaza?
What's the number of dead Gazans where we finally get to scorn Israel's behaviour here, teller?
Cause if there is no number, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement.
Just give me a number.
Something specific.
Something objective.
How many innocent dead Gazans before I can legitimately criticize Israel.
What's the number, Teller?
That's all I want to know.
What's the number?
Ohhhsnap: Yes, I exactly don't think that. We're in agreement.
The only thing the Arab mind understands is power and dominance. Look at the leaders who last. Watch "Lawrence of Arabia." It's all true. How long should Israel put up with neighbors lobbing bombs into their country? This is war, boys and girls. The only thing that Hamas, Hezbollah and all the rest understand is power. Israel will continue to bomb until the innocent Palestinians say "enough!" to the terrorists in their neighborhoods - or when all those terrorists are dead - which ever comes first. I feel bad for the innocents who are dying (on both sides)- but they are ALL dying because of the terrorists in Gaza!
The only thing the Arab mind understands is power and dominance.
Well it's a damn good thing that you're here to shoulder the white man's burden. Seriously dude, how could you even type that without cringing?
#81, Antinous...
Think you're talking about the Late Natufians. In which case, they were nomadic mostly and just starting to create settlements.
Then after them was the Yarmukians, who adored pottery, then the Ghassulians. At this point, there was no occupation, at least not by anyone other than other Arabs.
If you want to start referring to canonical texts, you should look up the Jubilees, or, if you will, the lesser Genesis.
The BDSM School of Political Philosophy?
ohhhsnap: And about my so-called "analogy," well, it wasn't one. That is what Hamas is doing. They store weapons in schools and homes. They store explosives in basements and tunnels below densely populated neighborhoods. They do that to try and deter attacks. When that doesn't work, they play the martyr card. How can you disagree with that?
So, SWAT rolls in and kills the dad with the gun, teh kids, and the dog too.
Good, job, eh?
We should make the standard policy right?
Or do we get to criticize that decision and say, no, you dumb sumbitches just made things a whole lot worse.
That's what I"m asking, ohhhsnap. Do we ever get to criticize the decision or not?
How many times do we have to see this exact same thing repeat over and over again before we can say, you know what, that's about the absolute worst thing you could do in this situation.
So, Israel rolls into Gaza, ohhhsnap, and they kill at least 20 children in response to 17 Israelis being killed.
Do I get to criticize their response or not?
I've been trying to tell you how they feel, because you are not considering it.
I know exactly how they feel. They are fucking pissed and they won't be satisfied until they have blood. I've been down that road before. US, September 12. That went over reeeeeaallll great, didn't it?
The US was so blind with rage that we invaded the wrong country for make believe reasons. We were so blind with rage that Dixie Chicks couldn't even make a tangential comment about Bush without having their records burned in bonfires. We were so blind with rage that anyone who opposed that rage was accused of being sympathetic to the enemy, was accused of being unamerican.
The problem isn't how they feel. The problem is people confusing how they feel for what is moral. And this ain't moral.
I look at 20 dead Palestinian children (and 300 other civilians) killed by Israel in three days in response to 17 Israelis killed by Hamas militants over a year, and there is no morality to that anywhere that I can find.
How do you defend the morality of something based of a feeling, if the feeling is exactly the sort of shit that drove the US to invade a countyr that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Feelings make people do stupid, immoral things.
You're kind of raving here, greg.
1. The Casino reference, while seemingly flip, is valid. Every time Hamas or Hezbollah, both inferior forces in numbers and ordnance, screw with Israel, they get a Joe Pesci response: much bigger and much harder. They never learn. That's it. That's the sum total of my observation and it's accurate.
2. The post I scorned doesn't say what you just paraphrased. #39.
3. Never watched "24", but I've seen the ads for it.
ntns - N crngng, bcs lv n th rl wrld. hv trvlld nd dn bsnss n th Mddl st. Hv y? (r s yr nly cnnctn wth yr lbrl frnds wh njy lvng n mrc?) The current state of affairs is very unfortunate because in the middle ages, Islam brought about wonders and breakthroughs in science, mathematics, art, literature, etc. while Europeans were eating mud and hitting each other with pointy sticks. However, the beautiful religion of Islam has been corrupted by a small but vocal and very, very dangerous group of thugs who are hell-bent on destroying you, me, and themselves.
Ohhhsnap said:
Yes dear, the area was indeed populated on the eve of the war of 1948. One reasonably credible site that documents the the fate of the inhabitants of the area is http://www.palestineremembered.com. The notion that Palestine was "uninhabited" before 1948 has been thoroughly debunked by Israeli and Palestinian historians, alike.
Greg,
You're talking about two VERY different things. Very obvious logical fallacy :( War does not equate to a hostage situation. Sorry.
I want to try and break it down for you.
1) Israel knows where caches of ammo, guns, explosives, and soldiers are.
2) Israel learns that Hamas militants are tunneling under the walls to orchestrate attacks.
3) Israel is faced with a choice: Attack first or be attacked.
4) Israel attacks first.
5) The caches of ammo, guns, explosives, and soliders, are all in civilian territories, including homes, schools, and mosques.
Again, what would you have done?
MichaelRN,
It's ironic that you would use that website as "proof."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050673.html
"Michael Bar-Zohar (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) openly admitted that it was a myth that "Palestine was an empty land," and to a certain degree, he managed to explain the evolution of the myth, he wrote:
"Whatever became of the slogan: A people without a land returns to land without a people? The simple truth was that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population. In the days of the empire building, the Western powers had dismissed natives as an inconsequential factor in determining whether or not to settle a territory with immigrants. Even after the [1st] world war, the concept of self-determination . . . . was still reserved exclusively for the developed world." (Michael Bar-Zohar, p. 45-46)"
I did not say that the website constitutes "proof". I called it "reasonably credible", since it cites traceable sources, such as British Mandate-era maps and documents. Is it biased? Absolutely, but for the most part, the site's authors do a reasonably good job of presenting publicly available documentation. The oral history segments of the site are just that; an oral history. There will always be those who refuse to believe any of it.
Takuan:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081119211520AAjV76m
MichaelRN:
When I was learning about the conflict, I was instructed to explicitly stay away from that website because it's such garbage.
That is all.
#82 posted by GregLondon: great writing. Thankyou.
well, since no one can agree on the basic facts, I guess the killing will have to continue until one side or the other is exterminated. In view of the Israeli government enthusiasm for a final solution to the Palestinian problem I can only surmise they will be the ultimate winner. They don't need help.
Gaza is being bombed again.
Poor souls.
Religious wars are outer manifestations of the competing cultures' more basic goals of energy, protection, and security. Cultures are driven by needs, not wants.
Religious rationales are a sort of hysterical historical ignorance shouted in a lunatic language. They know not what they say because they know not what they mean.
Religion is History's whipping boy.
If Mexico was firing rockets into California, would anybody be defending them?
Greg London, Bush is not a clueless bungling idiot. He has goals with which we do not agree. He came into office with a very well outlined agenda. One item on that agenda was remove Saddam from power and build military bases in Iraq. I'm sure he would have it differently, but also, never forget U.S. foreign policy has always thrived on creating chaos, it's an easy and profitable goal.
We may believe Bush has bungled things in Iraq, but the truth is they felt building bases in the M.E. was so important that they decided to seize the opportunity regardless of costs.
Now, Israel is in a situation they have created with our support. However, the alternative was to give up on a Jewish state, which will never happen. Listen, we are all responsible for the Holocaust. The U.S. and most other countries all turned their backs on the Jews. A very important fact is that the whole world hates Jews. Obviously, this is not how you or I feel, but politically it is true. After WWII, the Jews were not wanted, anywhere, so the idea of a Jewish state was a no-brainer. Nobody lived there anyway, at least no one of any political consequence.
Hamas will never give up, Israel will never give up. The only solution is subsidized semi-autonomous regions where Palestinians will live in ever increasing densities, until the water wars.
Obviously, we are all untied against war, though some find self-defense acceptable, but what is your solution?
"until the water wars" precisely.
If Mexico was firing rockets into California, would anybody be defending them?
Hell yes.
"By the standards of the Middle East, Turkey, with 1,850 cubic meters of water per person, is not a water-poor country. In the region, only Iraq has more, with 2,150 cubic meters per person. By contrast, Israel has about 325 cubic meters per person, and the United States has about 9,000 cubic meters per person."
Y'israel, by Laibach, from the "Volk" album.
(Direct, probably quasi-legal rip of the mp3 here.)
The studio version is clearer, but the live one has the graphics backing it up.
Context: Two years back, Laibach released an album called "Volk" (German for "people"/Slovenian for "wolf"). The album is a collection of minimalist electro/industrial covers of national anthems, each of which features a native of the country singing the anthem. The whole is meant as a deeply ambiguous, ironical comment on the dangers of nationalism.
For the Israeli national anthem, they merged Hatikva (hope) with the Palestinian national anthem, Biladi (My Country). What is most deeply moving is that each anthem, translated into "neutral" English, could apply almost equally to Israeli Jews as to Palestinian Arabs. And they're singing about the same chunk of land.
לִהְיוֹת עַם חָפְשִ××™ בְּ×Ö·×¨Ö°×¦Öµ× ×•ÖĽ
×ֶרֶץ צִיּוֹן וִירוּשָ×לַיִם
"To be a free nation, in our own homeland.
The land of Zion, and Jerusalem"
/
بلادي يا أرضي يا أرض الجدŮŘŻ
"My country, my land, land of my ancestors"
(And I don't see a solution this generation. Things are only going to get worse.)
And IIRC the Colorado river no longer runs to the sea, gotta keep those greens green.
If Mexico was firing rockets into California, would anybody be defending them?
Would that be L.A. or the vineyards? Please not the vineyards.
Ohhhsnap @79 and 97: The land currently held by Israel wasn't empty in the 19th century. It was ungoverned, however. Egypt drove the Ottomans out in 1831, and then the British used a naval bombardment to force the Egyptians to withdraw in 1841. So there were still people living there, but it wasn't really part of any nation as westerners define the term. That's what that poster on Yahoo Answers meant when talking about "the Palestinian people" not existing. It's not that there was nobody living there, it's that they weren't organized as a people with a coherent national identity.
This was exaggerated into 19th-century slogans describing the region as "a land without people for a people without a land" by advocates of a restored jewish homeland on the site of former Israel. Is it possible that you're mistaking this slogan for objective reporting?
The Casino reference, while seemingly flip, is valid. Every time Hamas or Hezbollah, both inferior forces in numbers and ordnance, screw with Israel, they get a Joe Pesci response: much bigger and much harder. They never learn. That's it. That's the sum total of my observation and it's accurate.
Little story for you. Some civilians go up to these foreign troops who are occupying their town. They exchange words. Troops tell the civs to shove off. Civs don't like it much, so they follow the troops and start hounding them and heckling them. Troops fall back to a slightly larger troop. Verbal challenges escalate. Civs start goading the troops to fire on them. Suicidal nutjobs, you know? The crowd grows to a couple hundred civs to a couple dozen armed troops with firearms. Some in the crowd throws some rocks. More taunts from the civs to open fire. A civ near the troops throws a club or something and knocks one of the troops on his ass. The trooper yells "Fire!" as he hits the ground. The troops fire into the crowd. The crowd scatters in a panic. In the end, five civilians are killed.
Taught the bastards a real lessson, eh?
It was called the Boston Massacre and odds are if you're an American, you've at least heard of it even though it took place over two hundred years ago. Why? Because it was one of the polarizing events that caused a whole bunch of the colonists to turn against England.
If you seriously think that Joe Pesci's got absolutely anything relevant to do with military occupation of a foreign population, then you are wasting my time.
Five dead civilians. That's all it took. You think Hamas "never learns"??? You think "Joe Pesci" is "accurate"??? Do you know any history at all? Do you know anythign at all about insurgency? They call it fourth generation warfare now, but it's been around way before they had such fancy terms. Hamas is running the playbook note for note.
ah, there we go Avram: a definition of "human": one who pays taxes.
ohhhsnap@92: War does not equate to a hostage situation. Sorry.
Dude. Stop avoiding the question.
I want to try and break it down for you.
(snip) blah blah blah. (snip)
Again, what would you have done?
HOW MANY, SNAP?
How many can die before its a bad operation?
You don't get to say "attack" without a plan. You don't get to plan a war without a cost/benefit analysis.
Well, some do. They're irresponsible morons who shouldn't be allowed near power tools let alone military orders, but we're fixing the world as we can.
So, you're the president. You go to your generals and you tell them to make a plan to attack. They come back and tell you it'll take 150,000 troops to occupy, and it'll take at least a couple of years.
This is what the generals told Bush. Then bush fired them. And he kept firing generals until he got one who told him what he wanted to hear: 6 weeks, and 50,000 troops.
So, even for Bush, the lying sack of shit that he is, there is a limit. 150,000 troops for a couple of years wasn't worth the cost. So he hid the cost.
You're hiding the cost, cause you won't answer a simple, direct, objective question.
Attacks launched by Hamas from Gaze into Israel in the entire year of 2008 caused the deaths of 17 Israelis. 9 of those deaths were from rocket attacks. That was for an entire year.
Now, you go to your generals and you tell them you want a plan to attack, invade, and possibly occupy Gaza to stop Hamas.
They come back to you with a plan.
Before you open it, your Secretary of State equivalent asks you, point blank, how many dead Gazans are you willing to accept before you will turn down the mission?
That's all I want to know, snap. How many?
Not "what would you do?" But how many?
Because "what would you do?" is an imaginary quesiton for imaginary worlds. In the real world, you have the military force you have, the resources you have, the technology you have, the intelligence you have, and then you have the enemy you have.
And that gives you a predicted range of deaths. Some number of peopel on your side will die. Some number on the other side will die. And a bunch of innocent poeple caught in the middle will die.
And you keep wanting to play 20 questions to avoid my one and only real question. I'm telling you that you will get a plan, and a certain prediction of casualties, and I want to konw at what point you, as president or prime minister or whatever, at what point do you decide that the death toll of innocent Palestinians is not worth 17 dead Israelis?
How many?
No other question really matters. Any attempt to give a non-numeric answer or avoid the question altogehter means you're not dealing with the real world. The generals told you 2 years and 150,000 troops to occupy Iraq, and you didn't want to hear that, so you found another general.
"What would you do?" is nothing more than finding a general who will tell you what you want to hear. you want to hear. You want to hear the magic number that is below your threshold that will allow you to attack. but you're firing generals until you hear that number, so the only person you're kidding is yourself.
How many innocent Palestinians would you be willing to sacrifice?
You've got a number somewhere deep inside you.
The only question is whether you're willing to pony up to it.
Or do you want to keep dancing around it and pretending you don't. Because at that point, I know you're lying. Everyone has a number.
So, how many, snap? how many would you be willing to let die before you call off the mission?
HOW MANY INNOCENT PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS GET TO DIE FOR YOU TO STILL LAUNCH THE MISSION?
If Mexico was firing rockets into California, would anybody be defending them?
If LAPD clubbed and beat a man on the ground and his only crime appeared to be that he was black, would any...
oh, never mind, we had that question already.
See, it's always easy to play pretend games with pretend histories where one side is completely innocent.
But reality isn't innocent. History isn't innocent.
Anyone who thinks Israel hasn't committed acts of violence against innocent people whose only crime was "being palestinian", is a rube or a shill.
Listen, we are all responsible for the Holocaust.
If the US wants to make reparations to the native americans for past transgressions, that's fine. That doesn't mean Native Americans get to wage open war on the US and insane whackjobs get to say, hey, we're all responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans back when Europeans started coming to the new world.
we are all untied against war, though some find self-defense acceptable, but what is your solution?
Say I don't have a solution. Does that justify any number of palestinian civilians killed for your invasion?
This is what you guys keep coming back to: What would you do?
Well, what I would do is irrelevant to what is moral and whether or not Israel's response was in any way morally in line with the crime it was supposed to be in response to.
last figure I just heard sais about 360 Palestinians have been killed now. I've also heard some experts say we might see Israel launch a ground invasion/occupation in the next few hours. So, I'll take a shot in the dark and say that by the time this is all over, at least 50 palestinian children will be killed by Israeli miltary.
Is that moral? Is that in line with the crime it was alleged to be in response to? the deaths of 17 Israelis over the course of 12 months?
Is it acceptable?
Does the lack of any other alternative suddenly change the morality of that number?
I would say that the answer to that is no. If there is no moral alternative, that doesn't suddenly give you permission to take immoral action instead.
So, the question of morality is independent of whether there are any other alternative actions to take. Put another way, the argument that "something must be done, this is something, this must be done" is a logical fallacy, pure and simple.
So, is the death of 50 palestinian children (plus some number of civilians) in three days morally acceptable in response to 17 Isreali deaths over a year? Yes or no.
That's the only quesiton. "What would you do?" Is irrelevant to the morality of the math.
If yes, then at what point does it become immoral?
That actually is the first question, because if you say it is moral, if you say it is acceptable to kill that many palestinian children in response to that many Israeli civilians, then that's a moral action to take, so take it.
but if it isn't a moral action, then the next question is "what else can we do?" and if the answer is "nothing moral", then you either accept that you can't do anything moral, and do nothing, or you accept that you can't do anything moral, and do something immoral.
But you can't simply avoid the question of whether or not the death of 50 palestinian children is acceptable in response to 17 israeli civilians by asking "what else is there to do?"
Is it moral or not?
If it is moral, at what point does it become immmoral?
If you don't have direct answers for those questions, then you're avoiding the morality of your action, plain and simple.
here is the answer: Refuse to kill children. Refuse any order to kill children. Undertake no action if it might kill children. Be very sure before you do any act that it will not kill children.
GregLondon,
I'm not seeing your point. The rightness or wrongness does not come from how many deaths occur on one side versus another; that's just public relations. Of course PR is important when trying to maintain US support and not destroy relations with Egypt and Jordan.
For Israel, this is about long term survival and allowing Israelis to live safely. Nobody wants Palestinians to die. Most Israelis would be ecstatic with a peaceful Palestinian state next door. But when Hamas launches rockets at their homes, Palestinian suffering and deaths are sad consequences of self-defense.
If Israel truly wants to end the conflict, they should not stop until Hamas gives unconditional surrender. If the Palestinians want peace and a future, they should break the chains of their thirst for vengeance, and behave themselves.
If Israel truly wants to end the conflict, they should not stop until Hamas gives unconditional surrender.
When Israel stops bulldozing Palestinian homes, we'll talk. Until then, the intifada will continue.
Israel has gay pride parades.
Palestinians have debates on whether gays should be stoned, or thrown off the top of tall buildings.
When 21st century values and 13th century values fight, I have a tough time having much sympathy for the latter.
My commitment to gay rights is well known. I'm still not prepared to kill anybody to get them.
Greg:
"If you seriously think that Joe Pesci's got absolutely anything relevant to do with military occupation of a foreign population, then you are wasting my time."
The Pesci Formula has nothing to do with the military occupation of a foreign population.
It has to do with this: Hamas lobs rockets into Israel. Israel responds with a force much deadlier and greater. Every time, no matter who lobs. That's the relevancy of the Pesci Formula. That's all it is - for the third time.
BUT since Hamas is not stupid and knows by experience Israeli retaliation will be deadlier and greater, and that its own neighbors, its own people, are at grave risk, yet they continue lobbing, who is it exactly that doesn't give a fuck about civilian casualties?
How many of its own civilian deaths does Hamas deem acceptable before they lob, greg?
BUT since Hamas is not stupid and knows by experience Israeli retaliation will be deadlier and greater, and that its own neighbors, its own people, are at grave risk, yet they continue lobbing, who is it exactly that doesn't give a fuck about civilian casualties?
Yeah, kind of like when your wife forces you to hit her because she serves your dinner late. It's all her fault.
I remeber when Dana International won the song contest - the ultra orthodox rabbis called her "an abomination". I think they would have killed her if they could.
I'm not seeing your point. The rightness or wrongness does not come from how many deaths occur on one side versus another
OK, that's it, I declare that people are being deliberately obtuse rather than answer a direct question.
You go to your generals, you say "draw up a plan to take out Hamas in Gaza, minimize civilian casualties", they go back to their war rooms, pencil out the plan, and then come up with predictions for deaths.
Most people will obviously say "minimize casualties, make it as inexpensive as possible, as short as possible, with the greatest benefit possible".
And then they come back to you with actual numbers.
Your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to give their plan a thumbs up or down. We will assume that the plan they came up with is the plan we are seeing play out right now. 360 dead palestinians, 60 civilians, 20 children. But that's with no invasion, bombing from a distance only, and no guarantee that Hamas has actually been taken out in any numerically significant way.
For those curious, TV guy tonight estimated that Hamas probably has 10,000 to 15,000 dedicated fighters. Since Palestine doesn't have it's own government, it doesn't have its own military, so military people are really just civilians with guns and attitude, and hard numbers will be difficult to get, but I'll assume that an arial bombardment won't actually make a significant dent on the numbers of members in Hamas. You can't kill 10,000 men who sleep at home if you limit your attacks to arial bombardments of central buildings. as soon as the bombs start dropping, everyone will scurry, and you won't be able to take out many more. You'll have to invade. And if you invade, the number of dead civilians jump from 360 to, say, 720, for a quick incursion, push in, blow some shit up, and pull out.
So, the plan says 360 dead palestinians, 60 civilians, 20 children, for a bombardment. double the numbers for a ground invasion.
Do you tell them "go" or "no"?
Simple, really.
That is the only plan they gave you. That is your only military option. You can either say yes or no. You cannot wish for fairy tale battles or magical wars where only bad people die. That only happens in movies. THis is real life. This is teh war your generals planned. Your only choice is to give the green light or say "no".
So, then if you say "yes", the next question then is at what point does the casualties on the war plan get high enough that you finaly say "no"?
Again, pretty fricken simple.
Don't overcomplicates just so you can avoid the question.
The generals give you a plan. It has predicted casualty rates. You can say yes or no.
All of this in response to Hamase launching attacks from Gaza in 2008 that killed 17 Israelis.
Do you give the green light if 20 palestinian children are killed by your troops in response to 17 Israelis?
If yes, then at what point do you stop giving the green light? 40? 80? 120?
You can't simply say "I wish to attack and minimize casualties". If you say "I wish to attack", the general automatically tells you "It will cause XXX number of deaths". You cannot be ignorant of the casualty count when you amke the decision.
It's really, really, really, that simple.
You must choose, knowing the possible death toll. You can't handwave it away with good intentions and well wishes and high hopes.
For those of you familiar with engineering, you've got three items: quality, quantity, budget. You can pick any two. You can't magically wish for the best of all three. It doesn't work that way.
You get the plan, you know the projected deaths. You can only decide yes or no. The deaths are 20 palestinian children. Do you give the green light?
If yes, then at what number of palestinian civilian death toll do you finally, if ever, say "no"?
Two questions, yes/no and then an number.
That's all there is to it. Don't make it any more complicated than that.
Really, how is anyone still calling what Israel does 'self defence'? Of course there are two sides in this, but there is no way Israel can be seen to be 'just defending themselves'.
Israel deals in disproportionate response. What that means is, if they are responding to something one set of Palestinians have done, 30% of the response is justified in what they are trying to achieve (capture or kill said group of Palestinians. Morally or not), whereas 70% is creating new violent-responses amongst a new set of Palestinians who may not have been so inclined to be involved.
Pure self-defense does not involve using missiles to assassinate one specific person in urban/residential areas, where you are guaranteed to hit civilians.
Disproportionate response breeds new generations of problems. Through all the violent occupations in modern consciousness, have we not learnt that yet?
How many of its own civilian deaths does Hamas deem acceptable before they lob, greg?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Implicit in your question is that hamas is guilty for the deaths that Israel causes.
Hamas is evil, to be sure. But Hamas is evil because it murders Israelis. Hamas doesn't get the blame for the deaths caused by Israel.
But that's why you keep chickening out and refusing to answer my question, right? Because you can't assign Israel any blame for the deaths of palestinians it kills in its attacks on hamas.
right?
You can't blame them. So you keep asking the loaded question that blames Hamas for the deaths caused by Israel.
OK. Fine. Lets play your game.
Israel decides to launch a nuke at Gaza and take out Hamas. Why? Because realistically, there are probably at least 10,000 dedicated Hamas fighters in Gaza and no conventional arial bombardmant that Israel can launch that kills a couple hundred will ever make a serious dent in 10,000 to 15,000 dedicated Hamas fighters.
And Israel just announced that this is a war against Hamas to the bitter end. So they're going to fight until all the hamas fighters are dead. And in teh process, they're going to kill 50,000 uninvolved and completely innoncent palestinian civilians. Does Israel still get carte blanche on that operation? Dropping a tactical nuke on Gaza, killing all 15,000 hamas fighters, but also killing 50,000 civilians?
Yes or no?
Is it a moral action on Israel's part? Does Israel get to kill as many civilians as it wants and place any and all and every last shred of blame on Hamas?
What if Israel implements the "final solution" to the Palestinian problem? Is that acceptable as well? Does Israel get to export all the blame for that on Hamas too?
If not, then your original premise is broken. If Hamas is to blame for any deaths caused by Israel, then Israel can kill as many as it wants and Hamas is to blame.
You have made absolutely no conditions which place any morality on Israel other than hemming and hawing and vague feel good generalities.
Either Israel is responsible or Hamas is. And you can't have it both ways.
I say Israel is responsible for the deaths it causes and Hamas is responsible for the deaths it causes. Hamas is responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Israel is responsible for the deaths of 360 Palestinians including 20 children.
And at some point, the number of dead children becomes too high that you can no longer justify the dead children in exchange for the 17 dead Israelis.
But you can't talk about numbers because you're squeemish. right? You can't give Israel any blame for the deaths it causes, so you shift the blame to Hamas.
And yet, if I ratchet up Israel's response, there is a point, somewhere, where you would (hopefully) say that Israel has gone too far.
And yet rather than pony up to admitting where that point is, you keep asking me if I've stopped beating my wife and other loaded questions to place the blame away from Israel.
So, once again, I'll try asking the non-loaded version of the question. The version where Israel is actually responsible for its actions and Hamas is responsible for its actions. So, Hamas is responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Isreal in response draws up plans for an attack against Gaza which would end up killing 60 palestinian cvilians including 20 children.
YOu have the go/no-go decision.
Do you give the green light?
You make the decision. no one else. You accept the responsibility for that decision. No one else. What do you choose?
If you say "go", then at what point of casualties can the Israeli plan inflict before you'll finally say "nogo".
If a thousand palestinian children must die in order to kill 10,000 hamas fighters, would you green light it as a response to 17 Israeli deaths?
Yes or no?
YES OR NO?
You either answer a very simple, direct, and objective question, or you come out and say that Israel cannot get any blame for any deaths it causes no matter how large the death toll is.
Either there is a line beyond which Israel would cross that is too far to be morally acceptable, or you pony up and say that Israel can never be held responsible for any deaths it causes as long as it is in some way in response to Hamas somehow.
One or the other. Choose.
Posted by Takuan in the other Gaza thread:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Greg, please let me answer for anyone who is unwilling to admit the truth. My first political comment here was disemvoweled. This response is very similar to that one though better timed, in fact it is the same response edited slightly.
I know this will bring some excrement my way, but this battle is unavoidable and the longer Israel waits to confront these murderous bastards the worse it will be. I was against this illegal invasion from the beginning because I knew then what is now obvious to too few, that once this battle is begun there will be no end in sight. This does not mean it was ever avoidable, it's just we don't have the stomach for the huge amount of bloodshed this ideological fight will entail. The type of people Israel is facing will blow up hospitals, cemeteries, mosques, markets, police stations, trains, office buildings, etc. This should tell even the staunchest opponent something about the mindset we are facing not just in the Gaza strip or Iraq, but around the world. I am fundamentally opposed to anyone who would deny women their rights and commit the random murders of men, women, and children on such a large scale. I also know better than most the simple fact, there is no peaceful solution. So the sad fact, is the number is ALL OF THEM. Either that or Israel ceases to exist.
Now, personally, I would nuke the whole god damned place and anyone that got between the oil and me. I'm a peaceful person in an ugly world. There is no idealism, there will never be peace. There is only the ugly truth; we are ugly. We are selfish. We are murderers. I believe in peace. I hate war and stupidity and shortsighted fools. Countries come and go, the concept is foolish and shortsighted. Religions come and go, the concept is foolish and shortsighted. Now, bring your shortsighted, selfish shit round and fuck with me, and I will kill every last mother fucker.
Clausewitz is often misrepresented, his Total War concept is misrepresented. However, war as an extension of policy is not. I believe in a concept of annihilation, all or nothing. I prefer peace, I want nothing more then for everyone to shut the fuck up and leave each other alone. If everyone would shut up and sit under a tree for a few years this would all be revealed as mindless. Until then don't start anything, without killing everything. People who believe in violence as a solution cannot understand peace.
As I said before, Israel should not exist, but yet there it is. If I was P.M. I would not give up one inch of territory. I would round up everyone and deport them to their supporters in the Arab world. I would authorize the extermination of all that oppose my state. This is the true cost of the illegal state, which we support.
Antinous:
It's probably more analogous to getting my dinner served late and I throw the plate against the wall. Then all the other plates. She simply stops serving me dinner.
Hamas can't achieve its goals with bombs. It will be outbombed. Stop lobbing.
P.S. What is your solution?
Greg,
Life isn't as black and white as you seem to think. It isn't even close. You set up all your slippery slope, absolute based arguments like someone who took a couple junior college philosophy classes. Your choice is contrived and worthless.
Antinous,
Israel has pulled back again and again, trying to disengage from the Palestinians, but every pullback, ever instance of not fighting back, has been met with more violence. Palestine is run by lunatics. Let me say that again. Palestine is run by lunatics. Arafat was a horribly evil lunatic. Perhaps his lunacy comes from religion, but he was a bloody lunatic, like Hamas. They have turned their people into a bunch of pseudo-victims who perpetuate their own suffering. Israel and Israelis suffer far less than the Palestinians. The Palestinians are either stupid, insane, or evil to continue their violent resistance.
Hey, Palestinians, let me make it clear to you. If you give up violence, you will get a state and a load of support.
Now I'll say it simpler:
Palestinians - violence = nationhood and prosperity
The rabid Zionists only have power because the Palestinians continue their violence.
Foetus:
"The type of people Israel is facing will blow up.."
And the Israeli Military won't blow up the same list of things?
Your whole comment is a minefield of cross-purposes and confusion of intent (modelling the actual state-of-affairs, obviously) so I'm not really sure what you are truly suggesting, but: swapping the occurrences of Israel for Palestine in your spiel works out exactly the same.. was this effect also intended?
I can find&replace, and repost it if you need a visualisation aide.
You are wrong. Hamas, and the PLO before them, have only achieved what they have because of violence. The alternative for Palestinians is to live as second class citizens in a Jewish state. Does anyone honestly believe that will ever be acceptable.
If anyone wants to look at the disparity in deaths and think that equates with victory or defeat they have forgotten Vietnam. Anywhere from 1 to 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were killed. The U.S. lost less than 60,000. I don't have numbers on South Vietnamese killed or French, or our other allies, but it does not approach a million.
Hamas knows they can only be taken seriously if they continue fighting. Israel knows this as well. So the fighting will continue and Israel, under international pressure, will slowly give up territory until the fighting stops. Israel will never give up one one square centimeter more than they absolutely must to stop this fighting. Israel has no incentive to stop. Neither does Hamas.
"stupid, insane, or evil"
..or dispossessed, segregated, indiscriminately hit in mistargetted attacks.
Foetus@135, is that to me or middleroad?
And why do you call yourself THEMIDDLEROAD?
Palestine is run by people who refuse to live as second class citizens in a Jewish state. What you say is a complete lie. If the Palestinians had never fought back there would never have been your neat little equation. There would only be a state of Israel with non-voting Palestinians. Because they refuse to stop in the face of murderous retaliation, they will continue to make gains. They are no more crazy the Ho Chi Minh.
Israel is run by people without the stomach to face the cost of their occupation, so they allow this to drag on year after year, saying if only they would stop bombing us everything would be OK. OK for who?
"And why do you call yourself THEMIDDLEROAD?"
Ah.
135 to muddleroad
There is no difference in willingness to kill. Everyone who kills is wrong, even in self-defense. However, Israel will not attack if left alone, they have what they want for the most part. If the Palestinians had rolled over and played dead in 1948 like they were supposed to do, Israel would not be bombing anyone. The PLO and Hamas are the ones on the offensive; they have a goal of death to Israel, which really means give us back our land. The Arab world in general has the goal of death to Israel and everything non-Arab, read non-Muslim. The moderates on both sides support these goals and hide in their homes. Therefore there is no political solution without military pressure.
Life isn't as black and white as you seem to think. It isn't even close. You set up all your slippery slope, absolute based arguments like someone who took a couple junior college philosophy classes. Your choice is contrived and worthless.
Spoken as someone who is unwilling to answer a simple yes/no question. It's actually very simple, its just that you're unwilling to place blame where it belongs.
The generals say it will take 200,000 troops and a couple years of occupation to deal with Iraq.
Yes or no?
I know, I know. It's soooo contrived. No one would ever be presented with that simple of a situation. Ever. In a million years.
Oh, wait. That just happened recently, and somehow I specifically opposed the invasion.
Wow. Isn't that just weird? It just came at me black and white. Here's the predictions for death tolls, do I support it or oppose it? Wow. I oppose. Just strange how that happened. ALl black and white and everything.
Maybe it's that responsibility for our actions is actually very very simple, and people who don't want to be responsible have to come up with all sorts of convoluted and complicated manners of crappola to try and explain away their responsibility.
But, hey, it's all complicated, right? can't just go out and say "I oppose this war" or "I support this war" or anything crazy like that.
You just keep telling yourself that and maybe you'll convince yourself its true.
Let me offer the only solution.
The U.S. conducts a new round of negotiations. The U.S. finds out what will it really take to satisfy the Palestinians once and forever. Then the U.S. forces Israel to sign the agreement or the U.S. withdraws support, meaning we cut of funding for the state of Israel. Done deal.
Now does anyone have a solution that will work? Does anyone have a solution that Hamas and the Arab world will support that also insures the survival of Israel, meaning no nukes in the M.E. except for the ones in Israel.
There are only two solutions as far as Israel is concerned. Deport or kill everyone or give them what they want. They cannot kill or deport them and they will never give them what they want without a gun held to their heads. The solution requires Israel to make a decision, Hamas and the PLO made theirs a long time ago, anything less means they all died for nothing. No one ever swallows that well. Look at us in Iraq.
Greg, well said.
If they were smart, they'd be fighting over someplace nice.
If they were smarter, they'd be having margaritas in someplace nice.
Neither set of nuts on either side is smart.
Wanting it all and getting it all are two different things. I empathize with some from both sides, and if I could help the two push the absolutist goons ("It's all mine!" "No, it's all mine!" leads to a lack of options) into the sea (on a raft, of course. I'm not a monster), I would. Then the rational people (or least irrational people, at least) would have the opportunity to attempt to attain consensus. There's always hope. And doubt.
Foetus,
You say that everything the Palestinians have, they got through violence? What have they achieved? Ashes. A people waiting for something that will never come, living off welfare, and engaging in constant war. Those are not achievements, those are signs of sickness.
Even worse, if the Israeli public buys into what you're saying, you will see more and more violence against Palestinians. That's a horrible mindset you've got. People call the current Israeli violence an atrocity, but what's truly stunning is massive Israeli restraint.
There is certainly truth in saying that Arabs would be second class citizens in Israel. While Israeli Arabs have more freedom than any Arab in any other nation in the region, because it is a region of religious nations, anyone not of the national religion is second class. I think that's an ugly reality. In general, religion is ugly and makes people do ugly things.
And yet... go ahead and ask Israeli Arabs if they'd like to move to Egypt, or Iran, or Iraq, or Jordan, or the West Bank, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or anywhere else in the region. Their answer will be something along the lines of, "Hell no!" They know they've got it good in Israel.
The irony is that Jews were treated as much less than second class citizens in every country throughout the region. They were almost tolerated as long as they knew their place, under the shoes of Arabs. They had to tolerate the periodic rapes, beatings, massacres, and so on for a long time.
But then Zionism began to form. They came up with the idea that, instead of being under Arabs for eternity, Jews could have their own homeland. What an idea! Then there could be separation and everyone would be happy. And after WWII, after many Arabs worked with the Nazis to help exterminate Jews, the Zionists got their dream. They got their own land to form a state.
Of course the Arabs didn't like that at all. No, they wanted it all, including little Israel. All the land and all the power. So they started a way over it. And they booted pretty much every Jew from their own nations. And the Israelis did some booting of their own. Did the other Arab nations want the Palestinians? Hah! "Let them rot!" they said. And so they have. The Palestinians have sat in their camps, rotting away.
The Palestinians want the land, all of it. The Israelis have it and won't give it up. The Palestinians would be smart to give up on this losing battle and build their own society. Perhaps the saddest part is that most Palestinians want Israeli land more than they want good lives for their children.
At noon they sat down by the roadside, near a little brook, and Dorothy opened her basket and got out some bread. She offered a piece to the
Scarecrow, but he refused.
"I am never hungry," he said, "and it is a lucky thing I am not, for my mouth is only painted, and if I should cut a hole in it so I could eat, the straw I am stuffed with would come out, and that would spoil the shape of my head."
Dorothy saw at once that this was true, so she only nodded and went on eating her bread.
"Tell me something about yourself and the country you came from," said the Scarecrow, when she had finished her dinner. So she told him all about Kansas, and how gray everything was there, and how the cyclone had carried her to this queer Land of Oz.
The Scarecrow listened carefully, and said, "I cannot understand why you should wish to leave this beautiful country and go back to the dry,
gray place you call Kansas."
"That is because you have no brains" answered the girl. "No matter how dreary and gray our homes are, we people of flesh and blood would rather live there than in any other country, be it ever so beautiful. There is no place like home."
The Scarecrow sighed.
"Of course I cannot understand it," he said. "If your heads were stuffed with straw, like mine, you would probably all live in the beautiful places, and then Kansas would have no people at all. It is fortunate for Kansas that you have brains."
FoetusNail@132: P.S. What is your solution?
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Starting on page 39.
It's not a magic bullet, but it addresses a lot of the issues on the ground.
If Israel would pony up and deal with some of these issues that affect the palestinians and the countries around them, there'd be a lot less issues.
And Hamas only has traction in Gaza for two reasons, first of all, Hamas does social programs like building schools and hospitals, and second, Hamas has portrayed itself as defending Gaza against Israeli invasion. One of the reasons Hamas got elected in 2006 was that they campaigned on the idea that they were teh reason that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
If you remove the issues, if you get a palestinian state, if you have a palesetinian economy going, then palestinians don't need Hamas to buy them buildings. And if Israel stops making it obvious to the world that it values 17 israelis to be on par with 60 or more palestinians, and starts valuing palestinian civilians on par with israeli civilians, then Gaza doesn't need Hamas to protect it from Israel.
If you want a magic solution, I don't have one. Basically, it all comes down to both sides getting leaned on by someone like the US to come to teh negotiating table and deal with this shit.
They got their own land to form a state. Of course the Arabs didn't like that at all. No, they wanted it all, including little Israel. All the land and all the power.
That's a very interesting story. So, basically, you're telling me that no one at all lived in what we call teh modern state of israel? It was just this empty land, not a single occupant, and then jews moved in and started building up the place, and as soon as they had something nice, then the mean old nasty arabs came in and wanted to take it from them?
Really and for true? Scouts honor that's how it happened?
I just find it interesting how people can tell themselves what amounts to a complete and total fabrication, that if you were to think about it, would make absolutely no sense, and yet they believe it because it makes whoever they identify with into the good guy.
I'm pretty sure that part of the problem was that people were already living where the Jews wanted to live and for them to create Israel, tehy had to create it from someone else's land.
I don't know. I'm just guessing based on an assumption that the land didn't just rise out of the mediteranean see in 1948 or so.
I notice that most of the argument that has been going on here talks as if there have been two things going on here:
1: Rocket attacks, presumably by Hamas, launched from Gaza which have killed some people and caused alarm; presumably unprovoked
2: Retaliation by Israeli bombing attacks, killing hundreds
People have been wondering, why would Hamas do that? People have been saying well, maybe that's not nice but it doesn't merit such a disproportionate response. People have been talking as if Gaza were some independent country able to pursue its destiny as it would (e.g. comparisons to Mexico and California).
Could we get real? Israel has Gaza under siege. And that isn't a metaphor. They let hardly anybody in or out, they allow effectively zero trade, they let in hardly any supplies, they don't allow access to the ocean (Gazan fishermen have been out of business for years and years now). Lately they've even been keeping food out. This bombing, horrible though it is, has caused rather few casualties relative to the number of children dying of malnutrition or disease because of Israel blocking food, medicines and fuel (which runs the generators which supply the electricity which run the sewage systems such as they are which stop the outbreaks of various deadly diseases--or used to). It's gotten worse lately, but even during the so-called "cease fire" it was without parallel in the world. Gaza is often referred to as the largest open-air prison in the world. A million people slowly starving in a ghetto.
Oh, but why, oh why would anyone in Gaza be launching rockets? Just inherently violent, I guess. Not like anyone's done anything to them . . .
@Purple library guy:
"I notice that most of the argument that has been going on here talks as if there have been two things going on here:
1: Rocket attacks, presumably by Hamas, launched from Gaza which have killed some people and caused alarm; presumably unprovoked
2: Retaliation by Israeli bombing attacks, killing hundreds
People have been wondering, why would Hamas do that?"
I don't wonder. I know because I've read the Hamas charter.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Key excerpts:
"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
Hamas' slogan: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."
"I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill"
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
"Israel will not attack if left alone"
Dose incrementally settling more and more land count as 'attack'?
"..meaning no nukes in the M.E. except for the ones in Israel.
Why on earth would we want Israel to have nukes?
360 plus dead, (62 women and children), 4 Israelis.
Yes, a lot of the violence in Palestine can be blamed on the Palestinians and Israelis. It's very tempting to look at these two factions and say "Guess what, you're both wrong and you're doing terrible things. Just chill and stop fighting!" And perhaps they should.
But it's also important to remember that we in the US do not have the high ground to make such pronouncements from. Because the vast majority of weapons used to kill people in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been provided by the US government - usually for free. We are as much a party to this violence as the Israelis and Palestinians are - they provided the will and we provided the way.
If we truly want an end to the senseless tit-for-tat violence committed by both sides, there's a very simple and powerful way that we as Americans can help. Make our government stop sending bombs, guns, and planes to Israel (and the Middle East in general).
On the other side, I'd also encourage people to boycott middle-east petroleum as much as possible, since the profits from gas sold in the US often end up as the weapons budget for Islamist extremists.
Maybe these two cultures will continue to clash forever, but the least we can do is stop paying for it.
ZikZak, you presume we are all Americans.
the American government may give away all those weapons, but the makers still sell them to the government first.
"I'd also encourage people to boycott middle-east petroleum as much as possible, since the profits from gas sold in the US often end up as the weapons budget for Islamist extremists."
Should I boycott American products for similar reasons? Does less Coca-Cola sold = less bombs in Iraq?
@arkizzle: I don't presume, but it's true I was only speaking to folks in the US.
As to your Coca-Cola boycott, it's perhaps a less direct economic connection, but in general I'd say yes. Not because money spent on Coca-Cola goes directly towards buying bombs, but more as a political boycott, the same way that divestment from South Africa was used.
Don't support the US economy until the US government has gotten its soldiers and arms out of conflicts all over the globe.
Hamas had it coming, and as much as i feel for the Palestinians, they're the ones that let Hamas use them as human shield, they should have known better.
That aside, let me give you some numbers about Missiles Hamas has been shooting @ Israel from Gaza for quite a while, sorry for rough translation :
2008
Dec - 134 attacks, 291 missiles. 4 dead, 47 injured. (Up to December 30 )
Nov - 43 attacks, 105 missiles. 10 injured.
Oct - 3 attacks, 3 missilesы. no casualties.
Sep - 2 attacks, 2 missilesы. no casualties..
August - 7 attacks, 7 missiles. no casualties.
July - 3 attacks, 4 missilesы. no casualties.
June - 31 attacks, 73 missilesы. 1 dead, 14 injured.
May - 65 attacks, 121 missiles. 2 dead. 34 injured.
April - 72 attacks, 152 missilesы. 2 injured.
March - 84 attacks, 216 missiles. 18 injured.
Feb. - 93 attacks, 260 missiles. 1 dead, 28 injured.
January - 80 attacks, 208 missiles. 6 injured.
2007 . 437 attacks, about 760 missilesы – 2 dead, 125 injured.
2006 . 580 attacks, about 1.020 missiles – 2 dead, 36 injured.
2005 . 123 attacks, about 270 missiles – 3 dead, 26 injured.
2004 . 118 attacks, about 260 missiles – 5 dead, 46 injured.
2003 . 80 attacks, about 100 missiles – no casualties.
2002 . 17 attacks, about 20 missiles – no casualties.
2001 . 5 attacks, 5 missiles – no casualties.
To me it looks like quite a busy schedule.
Again, they should knew a response would come sooner or later..
(source : http://www.newsru.co.il/mideast/30dec2008/ask_asd8012.html)
so that's around 20 killed in seven years? Compared with more than 360 in three days? When you get cut off in traffic, do you follow them home and slaughter their families? Stab people who jostle you? Shoot movie-talkers?
Are Israelis used by their own government?
Gregori, look at the figures on the other side. It's incomparable.
i think you're missing the point guys. hamas were firing rockets at cities. there are people just like you and me living there, for for past years hamas had been firing rockets at those cities. have you ever been thru missile raid siren? do you know know what it's like when part of you and your family's daily reality is running to bomb shelter because someone tries to kill you by firing rockets at you ? have you ever heard a rocket exploding in your neighborhood? can you imagine living that for years ?
of course all that could be easily applied to what's currently happening @ palestine as well.
the only difference is that hamas has been firing rockets at civilians for Years, while hiding behind human shield of their own people WHICH SUPPORT THEM by ELECTING them in the first place.
and in current situation IDF is trying to eliminate everyone responsible for those rockets being fired.
imho there's nothing that can justify taking other human life, so in current situation both sides are responsible. i'm just sharing with you lil bit of my daily life.
some more numbers from wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Overall, from November 2000 to April 2004, 377 Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed and 2,076 wounded in 425 attacks by Hamas.
TAKUAN : is that an acceptable reality to live in ?
Arkizzle, The settlements in the occupied territories should not be increased, many would say should be abandoned. While they are to some illegal and to most provocative are they deserving of suicide bombers or mortar or missile attacks? I don't think so, and I completely disagree with Israeli policy. Israel would be better served if they used the welfare money they receive from the U.S. to buy Palestinian goodwill.
As far as nukes in the M.E., Israel already has the capability to strike all of their enemies. As much as I detest all religions and Israel, I trust Israel with nukes far more than I trust any Muslim state. Israel with nukes is a stabilizing factor.
There will never be peace until the U.S. makes a very tough decision to withhold aid to the Israeli state, until Israel settles with the Palestinians. If I were Israel, I would never relinquish the Golan Heights or the West Bank. Many years ago I would have moved all Palestinians to southern Israel and let them have their own country.
Bear in mind I do not think Israel should exist in the first place, but we are stuck with them now.
the Palestinian numbers (posted several times now) are much higher. Is that acceptable?
Every tribe has its little conceit. The vanity of imagination amplifies some trait that members secretly - or not - revel in and take pride from. Americans like to believe they are the "freest", Japanese fantasize about "purity", Canadians think they are "nice", Israelis imagine themselves "smart".
If they are so "smart", why after decades, is a constant state of war the best reality they can build? I can't count how many people I have met who left Israel because they were sick of the violent stupidity. Very smart people.
Blood for blood for blood for blood for blood.
Gregori, look at the figures on the other side. It's incomparable.
Ark,
I don't think that he keeps those stored on his computer for easy insertion into comment threads.
Global Voices: Funny how this coverage wasn't being promoted when the Israelis were undergoing rocket attacks from Gaza. This tit for tat has been going on for years and will go on for at least another century. Look how long it took things to wind down in Northern Ireland, which is basically the same situation: a land grab by one nation against another, with religious justifications to back it up.
Both sides in this conflict are justifiably paranoid and don't trust each other. Basically, the developed nations made the Palestinians pay the European and US debt/obligation to the Jews for letting the holocaust go on for so long before taking appropriate action. The Israelis want to keep what they were "given", and the Palestinians are feeling screwed over, because they were.
Antinous, I fear you are right. Do you suppose we could trick [him] into looking at the figures by providing a link to:
Cute bunny rabbits for Gregori
Overall, from November 2000 to April 2004, 377 Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed and 2,076 wounded in 425 attacks by Hamas.
Dude. You just changed the scope and pretended it was the same thing.
Why does Israel claim it is bombing the fuck out of Gaza right now? Because of the rocket attacks from gaza from Hamas militants.
If you want to go back several years to find grievances against Hamas for all those years, then if you're claiming it's a proportional response, then by all means, dig up all the dirt that Israel has done to Gaza for the same number of years.
Israel's Blockade of Gaza constitutes an act of war by any playbook.
Israel's blockade forced a financial crisis in Gaza.
http://www.newser.com/story/44588/blockade-forces-gaza-banking-crisis.html
Israel Blockade throws Gaza into a blackout.
Israel also barred 30 truckloads of relief supplies from entering the Gaza Strip, leaving a United Nations agency without food to distribute to needy families that make up half the Palestinian territory's 1.5 million people.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza14-2008nov14,0,5998371.story
Israel's response to Hamas has consistently to punish all of Gaza. Collective punishment doesn't work. When Hamas won a lot of seats in teh 2006 election, Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza as a collective punishment for all of Gaza. Then Hamas comes in with money and resources to fill in the stuff that Israel tried to take away. And people in Gaza start digging tunnels under the borders to try to smuggle food and otehr supplies into Gaza. And when civilians fail to run to Israel and embrace them and beg forgiveness for being palestinian, Israel bombs the fuck out of Gaza.
International law requires that civilians in a conflict zone must have access to the goods they need to survive
Israel's blockade starving out Gaza is a human rights violation. And Israel is responsible for that action as well.
Of course the defenders will try to blame Hamas for forcing Israel to blockade Gaza.
wow! lookit the ears on that one!
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
Oh, with it's cute little bunny nose.. Good find Tak :)
tak: Are Israelis used by their own government?
I've heard it said that the Israeli government is more heavily influencedy by the more extreme flavors of the Jewish belief than it is by the moderates.
It wouldn't be too unlike how the US electoral system gives extra influence to a bunch of small states more than one big state and so the South, and its extreme form of christianity, is required for most presidents to get in and stay in office.
So, in a sense, yeah, I think they are used. Just like we are.
A Brief Politically Incorrect But Truthful History
Which came first? Jerusalem's Grand Mufti in 1948 (al-Husayni) did. While he was in prison at the time for war crimes including his collusion with Hitler, he still had enough influence to have his followers start attacking Jewish settlements and begin the Arab Israeli War when partitioning took place in Palestine. He also was a main lobbyist and negotiator for organizing the Arab countries that declared war on the new state of Israel. He is the one responsible for ordering Palestinians to leave the area for refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank. That is even after the new Israelis recognized their rights to land and living in the area now known as Israel. The Palestinians living in the Israeli side of the partitions were guaranteed to keep all their lands and sources of income by the Israelis. The Arab leaders, including al-Husayni, started the fight and told the Palestinians to move aside while they kicked the Jews into the sea... which of course didn't happen. When they were unsuccessful, Jordan annexed the West Bank portion of the Palestinian homeland outlined in the partitioning treaty, and Egypt took the Gaza strip. And they refused to let the Palestinians stay anywhere outside the refugee camps for the longest time. In some places they were never allowed to live outside the refugee camps... never allowed to become citizens of the countries where the camps existed. Yes, Arab countries treated the Palestinians worse than the Israelis would have. The Israelis would not have done anything other than let the status quo of life as usual happen.
And by the way, there was NO country called Palestine before annexation, and the Palestinians didn't lose anything. They were living in areas claimed by other countries and never had the status (for a couple thousand years) of citizens of a Palestinian state in all that time. Partitioning carved a space out for both sides. But no-one had to move. The choice was their own. And now they have the Gaza strip and the West Bank back. But they still want to fight for something they never had before, simply because the others there are Jews. They should grow up, get control of their emotions like a civilized people, and stop with the bullshit rocket attacks. Then there will be peace. The Israelis, like anyone being beaten by a person who can't contain their own hysteria, can only take getting hit so many times before replying in kind.
So which came first? The Grand Mufti's thugs and prideful Arab countries were the cause of the Palestinian's grief.
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
@118 TAKUAN
I prefer a shortened version:
"Refuse any order to kill"
and
@169 GREGLONDON
"Israel's Blockade of Gaza constitutes an act of war"
Exactly. Removing people's access to food, electricity and water is a very efficient way of weakening and killing. Crucially, because it's indirect and slow compared with explosions, it doesn't get attention and criticism.
we could work up to that. "Thou shalt not kill a child" would be a start.
As to your latter point, sadly true. Ask anyone who voted for Cheney and Bush if they really wanted 500,000 Iraqi children to die from sickness and wont when they cast that ballot.
i just want to point out 2 things for everyone please:
1- "the thought of it being a religious conflict is not so accurate". just like everyother conflict throughout history religion is massivly used to load angry crowds.but as an unreligious middleeastren i'd like to say that most these people have turned to religion because of failure of all other causes.Jews co-existed in middle-eastren countries before (almost in the same time when they were being burt alive in Euroup!).
2- "the idea of portraying Hamas as the cowards who hide among civilians just to mingle and cause more damage".i just want to clarify that all forms of public resistance (against occupation)all over the world have been started by the
PEOPLE.hamas didnt really sprung out of nowhere.so the militiants ARE groups of the palestenian people,and thier leaders are palastenian people.thier homes are ofcourse between the homes of civilian palestenian people.
Now i tried just to give u my opinion, but ended up taking sides (eventhough i'm allowed to,i'm from the same region.but not palestenian though). i just hope desicion makers don't take sides.
@ #164to FoetusNail "As far as nukes in the M.E., Israel already has the capability to strike all of their enemies." " I trust Israel with nukes far more than I trust any Muslim state. Israel with nukes is a stabilizing factor".
so you honestly believe that the nukes lottery should go to the biggest power with the most equipped army & the largest full support of the west?!!
and that should help?and what are your garantees to the palastinians that Israel wont use it against the civilians in a clash just like this one? i doubt you have one.
how is anyone supposed to believe Israel would be responsible enough to hold her contemp to Hamas or the palastinians after all the civilian's death toll we see today??
So which came first?
There are several code phrases that keep getting thrown around. "Which came first?" "Who started it?" and similar variations.
All of which are double-speak for
"They made me do this."
and
"The blood I spill is on their hands."
Nothing but code words and double speak to cover up the fact that they are shifting blame away from themselves so they can enact whatever vengeance they want and point to someone else and say "This is all their fault!"
Keep that in mind whenever you hear anything about who started it and what was first.
“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election.” (Otto von Bismarck)
The lie during war, always, is to tell a partial history. To tell a list of grievances done by the other side without mention of anything done by the side belonging to the person telling the lie.
All these apologists and history revisionists of Israel will tell you of the hundreds of rockets launched by Hamas over the years, but consistently fail to mention the blockade Israel has imposed in Gaza since 2006, a blockage that has plunged the area into an economic depression (half the people there live in poverty), thrown them into blackouts, taken away their fuel, and starved them of their food.
They consistently fail to mention this has been going on since 2006 and is STILL going on this very day as part of the Israeli military attack.
And yet, they are willing to give you a complete list of grievences committed by various people of Gaza going back, literally, decades.
Just keep this in mind.
No one ever lies more than during a war.
And the biggest lie of all is always a lie to shift responsibility.
First of all lets lose this idea of civilians and combatants. If we ever expect people to think twice before starting a war, then we are goig to have to put their grandmothers and children on the table. And by the way, why is it acceptable to send our grown children to kill other grown children and not OK to kill a four year old? I know damn well there ain't a mommy, not just a mother, but a mom, out there who does not think of her baby every time she hugs her 50 year old crumudgeon.
Yes, I trust Israel more than I trust Hamas or any other brand of Islamic extremist organization with the bomb. WWHD (What Would Hamas Do) today or a few days ago if they had a bomb?
today? use it. But if they had been fat, comfortable and on top for few decades, maybe not.
And that should have been Israel's goal and legacy. Not a much compassion for a religious state. Not much thinking or long term planning for a state that is #2 in the whole world in college grads per capita.
"Israel ranks #1 globally in engineers per capita, #2 in college graduates per capita, #2 in invested international venture capital, #3 in registered patents per capita, and Israel uses the same accounting and financial systems as the United States,"
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelblueandwhitejewishnationalfund4892216.html