Isabel Kershner’s recent piece in the NYT, "Tough Military Stance Stirs Little Debate in Israel," reports Israel’s current war doctrine, whereby "as long as the targets are legitimate ones, the whole point is to try to overwhelm the enemy with maximum force." But what about civilian casualties? "Israel says that while mistakes were made, it chose its targets on purely military merits and went to extraordinary lengths to warn civilians in Gaza to leave areas under attack." In op-eds and in their blogs, the Hasbara troupe dutifully agrees. If the civilians were warned and didn’t leave, then they’re responsible for their own deaths. But the Zionist line was very different a few years ago.
I was reminded of this by a recent review of Yaacov Lozowick’s Right to Exist, a 2003 book devoted to justify Israel’s warmongering. Here’s an excerpt (emphasis is always mine throughout the post):
The massacres of civilians at Deir Yasin in 1948, Kibiya in 1953 and Kfar Kassem in 1956, for instance, really were just that, massacres. But such events were atypical and were met with horror in the wider community, while great efforts were subsequently made to prevent their recurrence. Indeed, the IDF has shown a consistent commitment to fight its battles justly, as dramatically demonstrated by Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin in 2002. Instead of bombing from the safety of the air, Israel lost 23 soldiers in hand-to-hand combat ‘so that the Palestinian terrorists would be defeated with as few [Palestinian civilian] deaths as possible’ (p. 255).
Israel’s behavior during its assault on Jenin has often been hailed as a model of morality. Here are other examples:
I am proud that we were there, that we fought, and I also am proud of the morality of the battle. The camp was not bombed from the air in order to prevent innocent civilian casualties, and artillery was not used even though we knew about specific areas in the [refugee] camp where terrorists were holing up. –Dr. David Zangen, Seven Lies About Jenin, Ma’ariv, 8.11.2002 In Jenin, Israel’s government decided to pursue a course that placed much greater risks on Israel’s soldiers but that greatly reduced the dangers to Palestinian civilians. We announced over loudspeakers our intention to clear out the terrorist infrastructure in the camp and warned everyone to leave. Then, instead of bombing from the air or using tanks or heavy artillery, our soldiers were sent on a harrowing mis sion. They painstakingly went from house to house, moving through a hornet’s nest of booby traps, bombs, and armed terrorists. After thirteen Israeli soldiers were killed during one mission, we still refused to use our air force or heavy artillery. –Natan Sharansky, Jenin: Anniversary of a Battle Not only was Jenin not a massacre or an unparalleled catastrophe but it is regarded by many as a model of how to conduct urban warfare against terrorists hiding among civilians. (…) Instead of bombing the terrorists’ camp from the air, as the United States did in Afghanistan and as Russia did in Chechnya, with little risk to their own soldiers but much to civilians, Israeli infantrymen entered the camp, going house to house in search of terrorists and bomb-making equipment, which they found. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers and fifty-two Palestinians, many of whom were combatants, were killed. –Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, 2003, p. 144 In Jenin there was a battle – a battle in which many of our soldiers fell. The army fought from house to house, not by bombing from the air, in order to prevent, to the extent possible, civilian casualties. –High Court of Justice of Israel
All of these pieces, as well as the hundreds of similar ones you will find on the Internet, argue that the Jenin operation was particularly moral because Israel did not bomb from the air but did house-to-house searches, thus minimizing civilian casualties. But in December 2008-January 2009, Israel behaved quite differently during operation Cast Lead. In this war, Israel didn’t risk a single soldier in hand-to-hand combat, but instead bombed all houses where terrorists were holed up, in addition to a large number of buildings that contained none. Jenin had been called not a massacre because the 500 casualties initially reported were later found to be just 52; but in Gaza, 1300 people died, including, by Israel’s most ardent apologists’ own estimate, at least 300 civilians. You would think that would lead Zionists to lament the IDF’s deteriorated moral standards. After all, in Jenin they declared that the IDF’s virtue had been not to bomb from the air, and the Gaza op was completely carried out from the air. They should have observed that, while the IDF is and will always be the most moral army in the world, unfortunately it’s not as moral as it used to be. But somehow they haven’t made that observation. Considerations about the number of civilian casualties have mysteriously disappeared from their musings, and the wholesale destruction of urban zones has suddenly became acceptable. The discourse has changed, and now an operation is moral not if the attacking country refrains from leveling buildings with its air force; it’s moral if, in addition to the bombs, the warplanes drop leaflets calling on civilians to evacuate the area.
A version of this post originally appeared at http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com.
Could just be Israel is learning from Palestinians about the true meaning of a no-win situation. In the future I’d stick to airstrikes, if I were the IDF.
Yes, they should stick to airstrikes when targeting civilian infrastructure and civilian homes, I agree OJ =P
That’s because you’re a traitor to American principles of honor and justice, of course, OJ.
OJ – I agree. If you’re sincere about that comment, you’re anti-American. You don’t have the values of an American, plain and simple.
One thing Israel has learned, (or should learn) is that bombing from the air is not wholly effective against the resistance factions.
In particular the operation “cast lead” was to have three fazes.
1) The air campain
2) Limited ground incursion
3) Full scale ground incursion into population centers.
1 and 2 were carried out but the war was halted before the third and most complicated operation.
I read a previous story about the statement “Next time it will hurt more” that is prevails in Israel about the next conflict in Gaza and elsewhere.
I’d be curious to hear what is the view of the readers of this blog if the next assault by Israel will be more “all-out” or use for firepower?
I think it’s pretty obvious, when somebody bombs civilian infrastructure, and mortars civilian infrastructure, and sprays white phosphorous and bullets at civilians… it’s a safe bet to conclude that the targets were, in fact, the civilians.
It should also be noted that huge swaths of the Jenin refugee camp where merely bulldozed instead of struck from the air.
But I suppose apologists for Israel sleep well at night knowing that they didn’t destroy those neighborhoods from the air…
I suppose you believed they were bulldozed w/ civilians still in the homes too huh James?
Yonira,
This eyewitness account from an IDF bulldozer driver in Jenin was published in Yediot Aharonoth on May 31, 2002:
“What is ‘opening a track’? You erase buildings. On both sides. There is no other choice, because the bulldozer was much wider than their alleys. But I am not looking for excuses or anything. You must ‘shave’ them. I didn’t give a damn about demolishing their houses, because it saved the lives of our soldiers. I worked where our soldiers were slaughtered. They didn’t tell all the truth about what happened. they drilled holes in the walls, holes for gun barrels. Anyone who escaped the charges, was shot through these holes.
“I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, just so that our soldiers won’t expose themselves to danger. That’s what I told them. I was afraid for our soldiers. You could see them sleeping together, 40 soldiers in a house, all crowded. My heart went out for them. This is why I didn’t give a damn about demolishing all the houses I’ve demolished – and I have demolished plenty. By the end, I built the ‘Teddy’ football stadium there.
“Difficult? No way. You must be kidding. I wanted to destroy everything. I begged the officers, over the radio, to let me knock it all down; from top to bottom. To level everything. It’s not as if I wanted to kill. Just the houses. We didn’t harm those who came out of the houses we had started to demolish, waving white flags. We screwed just those who wanted to fight.
“No one refused an order to knock down a house. No such thing. When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses; not because I wanted to – but because when you are asked to demolish a house, some other houses usually obscure it, so there is no other way. I would have to do it even if I didn’t want to. They just stood in the way. If I had to erase a house, come hell or high water – I would do it. And believe me, we demolished too little. The whole camp was littered with detonation charges. What actually saved the lives of the Palestinians themselves, because if they had returned to their homes, they would blow up.
“For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. Any house that they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some more. They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn’t wait. I didn’t give one blow, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible. Others may have restrained themselves, or so they say. Who are they kidding? Anyone who was there, and saw our soldiers in the houses, would understand they were in a death trap. I thought about saving them. I didn’t give a damn about the Palestinians, but I didn’t just ruin with no reason. It was all under orders.
“Many people where inside houses we demolish. They would come out of the houses we where working on. I didn’t see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn’t see house falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn’t care at all. I am sure people died inside these houses, but it was difficult to see, there was lots of dust everywhere, and we worked a lot at night. I found joy with every house that came down, because I knew they didn’t mind dying, but they cared for their homes. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people for generations. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down.
Satisfaction
“I didn’t stop for a moment. Even when we had a two-hour break, I insisted on going on. I prepared a ramp, to destroy a four-story building. Once I steered sharply to the right, and a whole wall came down. Suddenly I heard shouting on the radio: ‘Kurdi, watch it! It is us!’ Turns out there where our guys inside, and they forgot to tell me.
“I had plenty of satisfaction. I really enjoyed it. I remember pulling down a wall of a four-story building. It came crashing down on my D-9. My partner screamed at me to reverse, but I let the wall come down on us. We would go for the sides of the buildings, and then ram them. If the job was to hard, we would ask for a tank shell.
“I couldn’t stop. I wanted to work and work. There was this Golani officer who gave us orders by radio – I drove him mad. I kept begging for more and more missions. On Sunday, after the fighting was over, we got orders to pull our D-9′s out of the area, and stop working on our ‘football stadium’, because the army didn’t want the cameras and press to see us working. I was really upset, because I had plans to knock down the big sign at the entrance of Jenin – three poles with a picture of Arafat. But on Sunday, they pulled us away before I had time to do it.
link to gush-shalom.org
Israeli source, yonira. Are you going to claim that Yediot Aharonoth, the largest Israeli daily, is lying to you?
And only 52 Palestinian deaths, that is pretty hard to believe.
The story of hundreds of Palestinian deaths in Jenin was only around for a week or two and it was an Israeli general who initially helped to fuel that rumor. It was natural in the heat of the moment for people to believe it, but it was discredited fairly quickly. It turns out “only” 52 Palestinians died, about half of them civilian, some of them killed in what were clearly war crimes.
Oh? What Israeli General said that?
Palestinians have had decades of experience with leaving their houses quickly when they are being bulldozed. Its an old IDF practice that replaced blowing Palestinian houses up with explosives while Palestinians were still in them. See Qibya .
Ok Yonira, I’m going to bulldoze your home and your entire neighborhood, I will also have the intention of killing you while doing so.
But only 12 people will die in your entire neighborhood, but your house will be destroyed.
Is that okay?
I mean since when is damage to property not considered a crime, much less the destruction of an entire home.
I love the mentality of Israeli apologists.
We destroyed their houses but most of them lived!
As if destroying their homes isin’t some sort of crime. As if they should be given a cookie for destroying the home.
I love racism.
Too lazy to look it up, troll? Brigadier General Ron Kitri initially said 200 had died and then retracted it. Under the circumstances it’s not surprising people thought he might be engaged in a coverup. Shimon Peres also said that the battle might be described as a massacre before retracting that.
The following link doesn’t mention Kitri by name, but if you had more than the slightest interest then or now in what really happened at Jenin, then you’d be able to do your own research.
link
Wikipedia has Kitri mentioned by name.
Reporting of casualty numbers during the invasion varied widely and fluctuated day to day. On April 10, the BBC reported that Israel estimated 150 Palestinians had died in Jenin, and Palestinians were saying the number was far higher.[59] That same day, Saeb Erekat, on a phone interview to CNN from Jericho, estimated that there were a total of 500 Palestinians killed during Operation Defensive Shield, this figure also including fatalities outside of the Jenin camp, in other areas of the West Bank.[60] On April 11, Ben Wedeman of CNN reported that Palestinians were reporting 500 dead, while international relief agencies were saying possibly as many as 200; he noted that his efforts to independently verify the claims had so far come to naught since people were being prevented from entering the camp by Israeli soldiers.[61]
On April 12, Brigadier-General Ron Kitri said on Israeli Army Radio that there are apparently hundreds of Palestinians killed in Jenin. He later retracted this statement.[62] Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, said that thousands of Palestinians had been killed and buried in mass graves, or lay under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus.[63] On April 13, Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp.[64] On April 14, Ha’aretz reported that the exact number of Palestinian dead was still unknown, but that the IDF placed the toll between 100 and 200.[31] On the same day, Israel Insider reported that the IDF gave a final figure of 45 casualties.[65] On April 18, Zalman Shoval, adviser to Sharon, said that only about 65 bodies had been recovered, five of them civilians.[36] On April 30, Qadoura Mousa, director of the Fatah for the northern West Bank, said the number of dead was fifty-six.[66]
Based on figures provided by the Jenin hospital and the IDF, the UN report placed the death toll at 23 Israeli soldiers, noting that only 52 Palestinian deaths could be confirmed, half of whom were thought to be civilians.[67] In 2004, Haaretz journalists Amos Harel and Avi Isacharoff wrote that 23 Israelis had died and 52 had been wounded; Palestinian casualties included 53 dead, hundreds wounded and about 200 captured.[1] According to retired IDF General Shlomo Gazit, the death toll was 55 Palestinians and 33 Israels.[68] Israeli officials estimated that of the 52 dead, 38 had been armed men, while 14 were civilians.[69]
Human Rights Watch documented 22 civilian killings during the IDF incursion, and said that “Many of them were killed willfully or unlawfully, and in some cases constituted war crimes.” Examples highlighted in the report include the case of 57-year old Kamal Zugheir who was shot and then run over by IDF tanks while in his wheelchair, and that of 37-year old Jamal Fayid, a quadraplegic crushed to death in the rubble of his home after an IDF bulldozer advanced upon it, refusing to allow his family to intervene to remove him.[70]
link to en.wikipedia.org
Shimon Peres also said that the battle might be described as a massacre before retracting that.
True. For OJ, who might need some Google help, here’s the Haaretz report from April 9, 2002, where Shimon Peres, then Israel’s Foreign Minister, became the first person to use the word “massacre” to describe what happened in Jenin.
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres Peres is very worried about the expected international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100 Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In private, Peres is referring to the battle as a “massacre.”
Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a ‘massacre’
Oh Jesus, I just thought about that, the “only” of the hasbaristas as in “only 52″ died. But I guess the prefix “only” can be added to any figure under “6 million”. And of course, any figure over that, can be safely ignored. So Israel’s got an easy 5 million to go, looking at it from the other angle.
What a crew, what a fuckin’ crew they are.
No, its simpler than that. “Only’ is an adjective that can ONLY be applied to non-Israeli, or non-Jewish, deaths. Thirty dead is a “massacre” if its Israeli Jews (see the Wikipedia entry “Passover Massacre”).
But if its Palestinians, its ONLY 52 dead, and certainly NOT a massacre.
See, very simple. Only dead Jews are massacred. Dead Palestinians are merely an indication of the great restraint on the part of the IDF. Orwell understood it.
Jewish Communists Who Murdered Millions Genrikh Yagoda.
Mooser, you are smarter than that. Read the context of my reply. It was in reference to Israel demolishing entire neighborhoods without any warning. Its hard to believe that there were only 52 deaths when this type of action was taking place.
Why does there have to be zero honesty on this blog, you guys are always trying to put words in other’s mouths, or contort what the truth is or what people are trying to say.
Its really a disgusting tactic.
Maybe you should go elsewhere, yonira. As I have expressed before, it also distresses me when everyone here is so impolite, scandalously profane, to a flower of Israeli womanhood.
I get such an ache, right here, when they talk like that to you, yoni.
Funny, huh, yonira, the very idea of Israelis bulldozing houses with civilians in them?–
oh look, an HRW report about Israelis bulldozing houses with civilians in them
Starttling find in the history page of the Wikipedia entry misleadingly called “Battle of Jenin” have a look at what was there until a few days ago.
The death toll was in the 100s and everyone involved knows it: “Bodies decay under rubble”
According to ex-MK and campaigner Uri Avnery in a commentary piece on 20th Apr “There is full agreement … on only one thing. … foreign journalists and IDF soldiers … all report that a terrible stench of decomposing bodies lingers everywhere.”[42]
From the New York Times (16th Apr) “the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble”,[43] the Telegraph (21st) “stench of decaying bodies hung over the Jenin refugee camp”,[44], the BBC (17th) “the smell of death pervades the Jenin refugee camp”,[45] the Guardian (16th) “permeated with the stench of rotting corpses”[46] an Amnesty delegate (17th) quoted in the UN report “there is a smell of death under the rubble.”[47] and the UN Coordinator, Roed-Larsen on CNN (18th) “decaying corpses below the rubble.”[48] and on BBC (18th) “the stench of death is horrible”,[49]
I remember sitting in my little hotel in Ankara listening to reports on CNN Turk of “thousands upon thousands of dead” in Jenin. I was gullible enough to think that they were just exaggerating, not outright fantasizing.
What Pals exaggerate? never.
Name times the Palestinians have exaggerated their loss?
I mean they had their entire country stolen from them, is that an exaggeration?
Of course it was an exaggeration. All the Arabs had to do was go along with the UN mandate. Instead they responded by attempting to ethnically cleanse all the Jews from Palestine.
The Nakba was already in progress and Israel was already invading Palestinian land beyond the mandate — not only is this documented very well after the fact, but we know this was always the intention beforehand because we have the documentation itself of Israel’s plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.
The ethnic cleansing was of Palestinians — Jewish, Muslim and Christian. And it was started by European colonial Zionist militants.
“All the Arabs had to do was go along with the UN mandate.”
Actually that wouldn’t have helped either, because as Ben Gurion wrote, Israel had no plans to stick to it anyway.
Isn’t it about time you updated your washed up and debunked talking points Julian?
Gee, wonderful, the Zionazis are having a little Palestinian-bashing hatefest on Mondoweiss. What a valuable contribution to the blog you guys are.
I remember sitting in my little hotel in Ankara listening to reports on CNN Turk of “thousands upon thousands of dead” in Jenin. I was gullible enough to think that they were just exaggerating, not outright fantasizing.
And when you heard “More than one thousand dead in Gaza,” what did you think?
In any event, I’m not judging either operation; I’m judging how Zionists change their discourse. In Jenin, they stressed that the operation was moral because instead of bombing from the air the soldiers conducted house-to-house searches. In Gaza, however, the IAF bombed from the air, but the operation is moral all the same! What gives?
That’s actually a decent question. In principle, the difference is the enemy. In Gaza the enemy spent years preparing for and provoking this fight–whereas in Jenin it was more or less a surprise. In both cases they are deeply hidden among civilians, but in Fatah Jenin they are far easier to isolate. In Hamas Gaza civilians cannot be separated from militants–every house is a trap. I wouldn’t want to be a soldier there.
What a pretty rationalization for the outright murder of civilians. Yeah, George Washington would be proud that you are an example of what the US military has produced.
Asshat. Seriously. Can you even spell “Geneva Conventions,” OJ? I gave you a hint.
“that you are an example of what the US military has produced.”
As I remember, OhioJoe’s military bona fides were pretty well exploded at Greenwald’s in Salon. That’s why he scuttled over here.
Give no credence whatsoever to his self-proclaimed military experience, it extends no further than toy soldiers, computer games, and possibly working for a contractor.
“. In Hamas Gaza civilians cannot be separated from militants–every house is a trap. I wouldn’t want to be a soldier there. ”
The Nazi’s used the same rationale to target civilians.
And seeing as military service is mandatory in Israel, this could also be used as justification for firing rockets into civilian areas.
I don’t quite understand Israel’s “warnings” claim. If Israel’s goal is to kill the terrorists but spare the civilians, how can they warn civilians to flee without tipping off the terrorists? Assuming the truth of Israel’s claim that there were warnings, at best Israel was planning to destroy buildings while minimizing casualties. But whose buildings were they? They must have been civilian residences, because civilians were warned to flee their buildings. So Israel targeted civilian buildings after all, with absolutely no effort to actually kill the terrorists. Of course, this analysis presupposes that the warned civilians had some place to go and could do so in safety, neither of which was true in most instances. Also, many of the warnings were bogus, in that the Israeli military did not strike after all, discrediting their own warnings and sowing confusion.
Two other things. I believe that this “warning” excuse was used as early as April 1948 at Deir Yassin. Didn’t the Irgun claim that they had sent a jeep with loudspeakers out ahead to warn the residents to flee, but it ran into a ditch, or some such nonsense? The same excuses get recycled every now and then, like the claim that “we didn’t know the residential buildings had people in them when we bombed them in the middle of the night” — the excuse used in Qibya in 1953 and Qana in 2006.
The other thing is that if it is moral to bomb civilians who fail to obey warnings and leave their homes upon lethal threats issued by foreign powers, isn’t that what Nasrallah of Hezbollah did in 2006? He continually warned Israelis that his rockets could reach farther and farther into Israeli territory, and even identified the villages and cities that were under threat. Still, those stubborn Israelis refused to evacuate the north and flee southward in terror. Does anyone who proudly boasts of Israel’s humanitarian warnings think that Nasrallah should also be credited for his warnings? The biggest difference is that Nasrallah never made such a ridiculous “I warned you” argument.
It seems to me that the warnings are issued to provide cover for killing civilians. Israel wants to be able to blame the civilians for getting killed, so they issue these warnings, and then claim that those who fail to heed them have committed a capital crime. It’s a complement to the theory that civilians who “allow” terrorists to fire rockets from their neighborhoods are culpable themselves, and deserve what they get. When Israel prepares for these offensives, the planning is at least as much for propaganda purposes as for military purposes. In some circles, such as the US Congress, these PR efforts are quite successful, enjoying a willing suspension of any critical analysis or scrutiny of Israel’s excuses for its murderous rampages.
Thank you for this excellent analysis David Samel.
David, great piece — magnificent observation.
Good point, David, which brings to mind another hasbara classic – they “hide behind civilians” – as opposed to staying within “designated” target zones, wearing orange jumpsuits and painting bull’s-eyes on their backs. It goes without saying that civilian areas in Israel are filled with military installations and, of course, soldiers.
You are absolutely right, Shmuel, except that I’m not certain that “hide behind civilians” is a “classic” excuse. I do not recall seeing it before its highly successful use during the 2006 Lebanon war, though I would not be surprised to discover earlier examples. But as you point out, the excuse is transparently absurd.
It’s been used for years in Lebanon and Gaza, and to a somewhat lesser extent in the WB, although I meant “classic” in the sense of a regular part of the current repertoire.
It was even used way back when to excuse Deir Yassin.
The reason that there is little debate in Israel about the war currently, is that there is concensus that the war was started by Hamas’ angers that Israel didn’t meet its demands to immediately relax or remove border controls and blockade.
But, Israel sought confident objective change confirmed by indications of acceptance of Israel by Hamas.
Hamas confirmed its political positions by escalating the shelling of Israeli civilian centers.
Israelis consented that “something must be done”. The range of response was “somewhat too much” to “not enough to be effective”.
The reason that this is argued at all by those that actually test for themselves whether they are humanists (rather than puppets or opportunists), is the blinders applied to the behavior of Hamas.
They have a right to be angry and to negotiate assertively. They don’t have a right to target civilians.
Israel has an obligation to defend its civilians. While the extent of the attack can rationally be debated, the requirement TO defend cannot rationally.
November freakin’ 4th! Witty, your memory is as dodgy as John McCain’s. And that’s putting aside the fact that you cannot target a Qassam rocket. It has no guidance, remote or avionics whatsoever. It is, quite literally, twenty-odd pounds of dynamite stuck on a pipe full of rocket fuel.
Very much unlike the sophisticated weapons used by Israel, for which there can be no mistake that the murder of civilians was the deliberate intent — and result.
Unless and until you confront facts, Witty, documented facts, your attempts to construct arguments from storybook fantasy will go nowhere useful.
December 17th – 27th.
Your and others interpretations of the November 4th incident and its significance is not convincing Chaos.
The angry (those that compelled return to shelling in December, after a resumption of the cease-fire after November 4) interepreted the November 4 incident as “all bets are off”. The MAJORITY of Hamas elders, regarded the incident as an aberration, an exception to what was intended to continue.
You rationalize Chaos. You and many of your colleagues. You have the audacity to accuse others of “ziocane”. Take an hour to actually cool your head.
It’s an interpretation. Jesus fucking Christ, you would have been a Nazi, wouldn’t you? If you were in Germany during that time, you would have been one of those Jews to join “the winning side,” wouldn’t you?
Isreal broke the cease fire. You’re a liar, a racist and a prevaricator because you always absolve Jews (Israeli Jews specifically) of and always blame the Palestinians. You are a racist, plain and simple. You use bigger words and can maybe command respect in the short term from others (before they get to know what you’re really like, as I’m sure some of your coworkers at Hampshire College could attest) but ultimately, there’s nothing that separates you from trailer trash OJ or bitch queen Yonira.
You’re just some white guy who hates brown people because they’re not white.
“You have the audacity to accuse others of “ziocane”.”
No Richard, I’m the “ziocaine” guy, and I’m glad to see you adopting the term, and feel sure you understand it personally.
“December 17th – 27th.”
Yes, let’s talk about that Witty, but let’s open that time framr to iclude Decemeber 14th.
Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
link to ipsnews.net
“Contrary to Israel’s argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposa”
From Commondreams:
“From June 19, 2008, to November 4, 2008, calm prevailed between Israel and Gaza, as Hamas adhered strictly — as even Israel has acknowledged — to a negotiated ceasefire.
That ceasefire collapsed when Israel launched a surprise attack on Gaza killing six people, after which Hamas and other resistance factions retaliated.
Even so, Palestinian factions were still willing to renew the ceasefire, but it was Israel that refused, choosing instead to launch a premeditated, systematic attack on the foundations of civilised life in the Gaza Strip.”
They’re actually “sugar” fueled rockets for the most part Chaos.
Well, rocket fuel is a deliberately vague term.
And that’s putting aside the fact that you cannot target a Qassam rocket. It has no guidance, remote or avionics whatsoever
You know thats a war crime right? Crime against humanity, against the Geneva Conventions, etc. etc. etc. You are such a bozo, w/ out having a clue you are arguing on behalf of the great Zionist conspiracy.
You’re right Yonira, it is. But by the same definition, the Gaza War was a a war crime because you couldn’t target military areas as they weren’t any, hence the large numbers of civilian casualties.
“It is, quite literally, twenty-odd pounds of dynamite
I don’t know what the most ever biggest payload on a Qassam is, but you might want to check on that “twenty pounds of dynamite”. I think that may be a very, very estimate of their destructive power, and payload. I also wonder if “rocket fuel” is an accurate description of the propellant.
As far as I knew, they were pretty much homemade, even the “warhead” and the propellant.
Israel has an obligation to defend its civilians. While the extent of the attack can rationally be debated, the requirement TO defend cannot rationally.
The same could and should be said about Hamas. However, you only mention it in respect to Israel. You give Israel rights and responsibilities that you fail to assert for Hamas. And you seem to think that you can mind-read Hamas and determine that they acted in anger, when there is no indication that they did so. Israel was not adhering to all the conditions of the ceasefire, and in fact did break the ceasefire in November, and it never eased the blockade, which was one of the agreed upon aspects of the sixth month ceasefire. Israel refused to renegotiate the ceasefire, so Hamas decided that it was best not to extend the ceasefire unilaterally. Hamas had very few options, Israel had many. Hamas chose one of the only options it felt might be useful in getting Israel to end the blockade against it, thereby protecting its civilians.
So provoking a regional superpower with bottlerockets is an attempt to defend its populous? Hamas has an obligation, as the elected body, to protect its citizens, not provoke its enemies into a war which there is no chance of winning.
This November 4th think has been de-bunked hundreds of times, but just for your pleasure:
link to boston.com
Hamas promised to rein in dissident rocket firers and they did. The number of rockets fired every month were almost zero by August. That’s different to an Israeli army deliberately attacking Gaza on a night when they knew the world media was not paying attention.
What choice do you have if your population is deliberately being denied enough food and then attacked during a period when there’s meant to be a truce? I suppose the American Revolutionaries should have just put up and shut up instead of attacking the British Army?
That is actually one of the great confirmations of the Hamas intent to go to war.
That they had succeeded in controlling their own and other cadre was an undeniable statement of their self-discipline and the clarity of their intent.
When they resumed shelling Israeli towns themselves in earnest in late December, they confirmed their INTENT to be in a state of war.
For Israelis, that experienced a great hope that the cycle of violence and hatred was passing, the resumption of shelling confirmed that they were in fact still under military assault, and that rather than compromise, their only option was to oppose.
Its the same status as has been for a very long time. I think it unfairly gives cover to expansionism in the West Bank, which is a great tragedy.
Its a tragedy for Israel and for Palestine.
It deters reconciliation, and reduces the accountability for settlement expansion, as ironic as that sounds. “We are yelling louder and meaner, how can that enhance expansion.”
By the dismissal of overwise rational points about Palestinian experience.
Oh, so this was all Hamas’ fault? Nov 4th was just an unfortunate accident, was it?
How about you see it the way the rest of us do – Hamas, although cynical, thought it’d give non-violence a try. It did, and made sure it kept to its side of the bargain, only for Israel to give nothing in return. It was Israel who had the intent of luring Hamas into war.
Your talk about Israel ‘hoping that the cycle of violence would end’ is proven to be bullshit by their actions. Nothing they did even remotely suggested that they wanted peace. When they realised the Hamas was actually giving non-violence a try, they deliberately attacked them on a night when they knew no-one else would notice, in the hope of getting Hamas to resume shelling. It worked like a charm, and yet it’s ALL the Palestinians’ fault?
Your a joke, Witty. You keep on repeating the same broken mantra – this is all Hamas’ fault, the Israelis are just unfortunate bystanders, the Palestinians need to get their act together etc. etc
Actually, you should inquire as to Israeli’s ups and downs during the period.
There were some that just regarded Hamas’ quiet as an opportunity to harm. The majority though sincerely seeks peace that includes acceptance.
That Hamas has never accepted Israel, Israeli civilians, is confirmed by the Hamas resumption of shelling of civilians, indicated by the sequence as intentional.
To ignore Hamas’ actions as of any consequence is to spoil them.
Again, rather than oppose violence on civilians in general, your position is partisan, and that is a joke to anyone that looks.
“That Hamas has never accepted Israel, Israeli civilians, is confirmed by the Hamas resumption of shelling of civilians, indicated by the sequence as intentional.”
Israel’s entire history reveals that it never intended to accept Palestinian civilians as human beings with equal rights. Neither does Witty.
That Hamas stopped rocket fire is a clear indication that they wanted a resolution. Only you could misconstrue their actions into something darker. Part one of the Witty doctrine: always blame the Palestinians, even when they do something commendable.
My position is not partisan. It goes without saying that I oppose all deaths (not only civilian), but I resent your attempts to falsely appropriate blame to the Palestinians and wash away all responsibility from the Israelis.
Really, yonira? A report of 3 rockets launched by Islamic Jihad in late June 2008 in retaliation for the killing of 2 Palestinians in the WB “debunks” Israel’s attack inside Gaza in November?
From mid June to early November, Hamas stopped its rockets and did its best
to contain other groups, as Israel has acknowledged; but Israel did not adhere to its own promise to lift the seige
“This November 4th think has been de-bunked hundreds of times, but just for your pleasure:”
Don’t confuse debunking with inconvenient facts. How was it debunked Yonira?
Are you suggesting the raid didn’t happen?
Are you suggesting that the raid was not the first act of violence since the ceasefire began or that 6 Palestinians were not killed?
Are you suggesting that the raid was not a breach of the ceasefire?
As for your Boston Globe link, the article doesn’t accuse Hamas of foreign the rockets in June 2009, but you evidently believe that conflation passes for legitimate argument.
“So provoking a regional superpower with bottlerockets is an attempt to defend its populous?”
So yonira, I take it you believed the Jews who rose up against their Nazi oppressors in the Warsaw Ghetto deserved their fete, seeing as they provoked a regional superpower?
As the occupying power in Gaza, Israel also has a responsibility to defend the civilians it occupies – first and foremost from itself.
Yes, and its a responsibility Israel honors in the breach.
The reason that there is little debate in Israel about the war currently, is that there is concensus that the war was started by Hamas’ angers that Israel didn’t meet its demands to immediately relax or remove border controls and blockade.
Israel has an obligation to defend its civilians. While the extent of the attack can rationally be debated, the requirement TO defend cannot rationally.
No?
UN Charta, Article 51 supports a right to self defense, but not an obligation. There is no legal reason to force a military response to an aggression.
In any case: There are two legal possibilities to handle this. Either we treat Gaza as a state, or equivalent entity, or as a territory still occupied by Israel.
If it is the former, Israel of course has no right to self defense, since it is the aggressor – the blockade, which started on day 1 after “disengagement”, is an act of war, after all.* Clear-cut illegal war of aggression by Israel.
If it is the latter – as everybody except Israel asserts – then Israel of course holds the full responsibility of the occupying power as outlined in the Hague and Geneva conventions. Which, of course, Israel violates on an hourly basis.
* And don’t give me any nonsense on how it is Israel’s business what they do with their border. Gaza has a coast.
“UN Charta, Article 51 supports a right to self defense, but not an obligation. There is no legal reason to force a military response to an aggression.
If it is the former, Israel of course has no right to self defense, since it is the aggressor – the blockade, which started on day 1 after “disengagement”, is an act of war, after all.* Clear-cut illegal war of aggression by Israel.”
“Day 1″? Not after Hamas took over?
“UN Charta, Article 51 supports a right to self defense, but not an obligation.”
I love when the Israel haters start with their pseudo legal arguments. “A right but not an obligation.” That’s such a typically dumb progressive argument.
It was a dumb response.
He is trying to paint anyone with any sympathies to Israeli civilians, that supports self-defense to any extent as an aggressor, and by choice.
“Day 1″? Not after Hamas took over?
No, not after Hamas took over. Immediately. Israel has never relinquished control over Gazan airspace or territorial waters. And to blockade another state’s airspace or territorial waters is a clear-cut casus belli.
I love when the Israel haters start with their pseudo legal arguments.
Laws are such a hassle, aren’t they? Shame they don’t support a position of “We could put up with this for months, but at the moment there was an election to be won and some alibi negotiations to be torpedoed, we just had to do something“.
It was a dumb response.
There you go condemning again, Richard.
He is trying to paint anyone with any sympathies to Israeli civilians, that supports self-defense to any extent as an aggressor, and by choice.
No, we aren’t talking about “sympathies to Israeli civilians”, we are talking about apologetics for Israeli violent actions against Palestinian civilians, which, BTW, do nothing to defend Israeli civilians.
And I thought Koshiro already identified herself as a “she”. Correct me if I’m wrong.
And I thought Koshiro already identified herself as a “she”. Correct me if I’m wrong.
o_O
No, I’m male… Koshiro (小四郎) is most decidedly a male name. (It’s a nom de plume, but my real name is clear-cut male too.)
“clear-cut male too.”
So you got clipped by that drunken mohel too? Are there no standards in that profession? How many men’s lives will he be able to impair before he’s stopped?
No, where I come from the custom of slicing off parts of infants fortunately never really took hold.
The coast is the only area that could be said to be sovereign, but again Hamas’ continued stated of declared war makes the coast a war zone.
You want to change the status, urge that Hamas change the status.
Witty speak for: Israel declared war on Hamas, but Hamas is to blame for that because there’s no way I can blame my beloved Israel.
You never face up to two facts.
1. Reducing an entire population to poverty and misery is a form of collective punishment and is a war crime. You understand this perfectly well when it comes to BDS–any hint that something one tenth as draconian might be used against Israel causes your blood to boil. Israel doesn’t just prevent weapons material from entering Gaza–they behave cruelly and with careful sadism, as mentioned, for example, in the Lawrence Wright article in the New Yorker some weeks back. Your willingness to defend this sadism and your vehement opposition to BDS is easily explained by your racism.
2. Israel was doing this BEFORE the Gaza War, DURING the truce. (I capitalize in this message because it seems to be a form of communication you understand, childish though it seems to me.)
You dance around those points continually. You can only reason this way because Palestinian lives are secondary–in fact, you are only willing to see the blockade ended on terms which would save your face and that of Israel. The blockade was imposed to divide the population from Hamas–it might or might not have that effect.
There is nothing in your moral code (except racism) which would argue against imposing an equally harsh blockade on Israel or alternatively, bombarding them with rockets that hit most of the country, bringing the society to the point of collapse. This won’t happen, and it’s typical of the arrogance of your type of racist liberal that you can smugly advocate war crimes against people outside your tribe, knowing that you won’t have to face anything being done of a similar nature against people who you regard as having REAL human rights, as opposed to the rights of second class human beings like the Palestinians. You’re compassionate towards Palestinians in exactly the same sense as a person who loves dogs, but isn’t an extremist who think dogs have the same rights as humans. You’re not one of those extremists who thinks all people have the same fundamental human rights. Congratulations.
BTW, I think Israel has the right to strike at Palestinians who fire rockets. But the blockade is a crime against humanity and the Gaza “War” was a war crime from start to finish.
Let’s be precise: Israel declared war on Gaza. (If we are to treat Gaza, or the Palestinian territories at large, as a sovereign entity.) Long before Hamas took over.
Either that or it’s still occupied, in which case Israel is in violation of just about every obligation it has as an occupying power.
It’s typical of Israeli hurrah patriots to arbitrarily jump from one legal viewpoint to another as it suits them.
When it comes to Israel’s rights, it’s an occupying power, so it can control, blockade, and regulate away without being guilty of aggression.
When it comes to Israel’s responsibilites, it’s waging war against another sovereign entity, so it can bomb away and not give a damn about the obligations it would otherwise have towards Palestinian civilians.
Donald,
I agree that the state of siege is a collective punishment, but I don’t regard your suggestion of intentional sadistic harm as accurate.
I believe that Israel desires acceptance, and until there is a path proposed by Hamas and solidarity that indicates acceptance, that Israel will choose fortress, as it observes that it is under attack, directed at civilians.
Again, as frustrating as it is for options, the control of both the borders with Israel and with Egypt are the responsibility and right of each sovereign state to manage, and nothing will abrogate that right and responsibility. Egypt will never allow the breaking of the border again, as occurred last year.
The only credible issue is the issue of the coast. And, so long as Hamas remains at declared war with Israel, and confirmed in any way, Israel is then rationally (and legally) in control of the ins and outs from Gaza.
The alternative is to proceed towards sovereignty and if third party management of the coast is possible, that is a way forward.
There are obstacles to that, so to think that an idea magically floated is all that is needed to accomplish a change in international and Israeli policy is naive.
Real persuasion is needed. Maybe you have it in you, maybe you don’t.
Witty, you still haven’t addressed the central issues of Donald’s post.
Why do you attempt to justify the siege by saying Israel has no choice (it does) and then slap down the BDS movement, as collective punishment, and therefore immoral? Isn’t the siege a more pronounced version of collective punishment?
The alternative is for Israel to end the siege and the war. Third party management of the coast is only a temporary solution and doesn’t address the central problem – Israel is still at war with the Palestinians and still occupies their territory.
Undisciplined BDS is immoral. Academic and cultural boycott is counter-productive.
The means to address the siege are in a limited pallette. So, options should be taken from what is possible even if it looks like a maze and does not sell well to angers.
Thats if you want to accomplish a change.
And, it is necessary to empower (rather than condemn) efforts that actually are proceeding. So, for example, the condemnation of Fatah that is accomplishing undeniable institution-building, is likely internally partisan. The criticisms of corruption, even if accurate, are more likely to be propagated in origination for the purpose of Palestinian power grabs, rather than Palestinian progress.
Rather then functionally seek to distort Palestinian institution-building, a progressive movement would encourage it. So, any comment that includes “Fatah is quisling”, I regard as partisan.
Grandiose “accountability” accomplishes nothing in dissent. Dissent currently should be limited to opposing settlement expansion, and by entirely non-violent imaginative actions and mostly by Israelis (oriented to change Israeli opinion).
I suggest daily painting in green, the entire green line, even if it cuts through an apartment building. (That arrest would be non-violent and principled). It would press the specific question of border, rather than the rhetorical and vague of right of return.
And the siege of Gaza is moral? The prevention of Gazan students in taking up their scholarships is moral? How about the bombing of the only university in Gaza? Or the deportation of Gazans from West Bank universities? Compared the these, the BDS movement is like a stone in the sea.
The condemnation of Fatah is not their attempts to build institutions, but their rampant corruption and failure to protect Palestinian civilians. When Palestinian money is limited, don’t you think people have a right to criticise if half of it is going into Swiss bank accounts?
What about Hamas’ attempts to build institutions? When they were elected, that’s the platform on which they were elected. I’m pretty sure you didn’t criticise the US and Israel’s out of hand rejection of the outcome of the election.
I suggest daily painting in green, the entire green line, even if it cuts through an apartment building. (That arrest would be non-violent and principled). It would press the specific question of border, rather than the rhetorical and vague of right of return.
How is that any different from the weekly protests in Bi’lin? Were those arrests non-violent? And why don’t you criticise Israel for making arrests in the first place?
Yes, Shafiq, the siege is moral by Wittesque logic. This is because Israel feels threatened and is at war and can therefore violate the laws of war and impose collective punishment on 1.5 million people during truces, wars, and after wars.
The real logic here is that Israel is strong and has US support and the Palestinians are weak and don’t have US support and Witty is a self-identified member of the strong tribe. So it’s okay for the strong to hurt Palestinian civilians in order to obtain what Witty wants. It’s not okay to hurt Israeli civilians to a much lesser degree for any reason whatsoever, good or bad, because Israeli Jews have rights which are absolute and anything can be done to protect them and nothing can be done to harm them, unless you are evil. Palestinian civilians have no such rights–one can feel sorry for them even while imposing a harsh blockade on them until the war is over, because they are weak and they aren’t Israeli Jews and have no absolute rights of the sort that Israeli Jews have. No harm comes from the blockade, no harm to anyone that really matters (though of course one can feel sorry for the inferior sorts that dwell there), and so it can and must be maintained until the goal of peace on Witty’s terms is achieved. This is called realism, and humanism, and humanist Zionism, and all sorts of other things too, though I prefer the term “bullshit”.
Donald: This is called realism, and humanism, and humanist Zionism, and all sorts of other things too, though I prefer the term “bullshit”.
LOL. You’ve fallen off the wagon big time, Donald, but it’s produced some excellent posts (including the above gem). Muse in a bottle?
Thanks. I have fallen off the wagon–my rationalization for this is in another thread, I think–RW, like it or not, represents a good chunk of mainstream political thinking on this issue, at least in the US. It’s like having our very own Tom Friedman who has made a spectacularly successful career out of being wrong in the mainstream politically correct ways on the economy and on the Mideast. I’d rather be ranting against Friedman, but until he decides to pay us a visit, Witty will have to do.
“moral code”
Didn’t Richard give us and explication of his moral code just the other day? Wasn’t it completely centered on the needs of the state? Why, yes it was.
Donald, I love you when you’re angry. Don’t ever change! ;-)
Seriously, though, I think your rationalization was a good one.
“You want to change the status, urge that Hamas change the status. ”
They have and Isrel has ignored it. Of course, it would never occur to you to urge ISrel to change it’s status would it Witty?
Real persuasion is needed. Maybe you have it in you, maybe you don’t.
Well, you certainly don’t. YOU don’t even follow your own advice.
“Undisciplined BDS is immoral.”
What about undisciplined blockading of Gaza?
I agree that the state of siege is a collective punishment, but I don’t regard your suggestion of intentional sadistic harm as accurate.
That’s entirely irrelevant. Collective punishment of civilian populations is illegal, no matter if the perpetrators are misunderstood little angels at heart or not.
The only credible issue is the issue of the coast. And, so long as Hamas remains at declared war with Israel, and confirmed in any way, Israel is then rationally (and legally) in control of the ins and outs from Gaza.
I told you before: If you are talking about war, then Israel quite obviously started it by blockading Gaza (which, as you damn well know, happened long before Hamas took over, much less “declared” anything on Israel.)
Also, if we are talking about war, we are also talking not treating captured enemy personnel as POWs (illegal), prevention of refugees leaving the war zone (likewise illegal), and about keeping neutral vessels from trading in non-contraband goods (also illegal.) We won’t even bother with Israel’s non-existent respect for protected persons.
So, in summary, if it’s war you wanna talk about, it’s an illegal Israeli war of aggression fought in an illegal manner.
If you say it’s not war, but an occupation, then I will gladly explain to you what international laws Israel violates in that scenario. But decide on one. I know your game is to cherry-pick from whatever legal situation suits you at any given moment, but I’m not falling for it.
And most of all, spare me your nonsense about how morally superior the Israeli lawbreakers are at heart. The tiger has it right:
link to media.canada.com
It was observed in some conflicts or battles, soldiers on both sides fought with somewhat same regards to their soldier enemies. It is perhaps because they were similarly trained, carry similar code of honor, etc. Cruelty and barbarism are only unleashed when respective civilians were unjustly targeted or hurt. An usually the fighters who lacked professional discipline are the ones who initiate abuses. The Isralis may deny this but their manner of reactions revealed they were enraged when their civilians at southern Israel were hit indiscriminately by rockets. That is why they unleashed an excessive force… The Hamas were enraged too when the Israelis targeted their faciltities that sheltered the ‘fighters’ without regards to collateral damage among civilians. With the exchanges, I believed Hamas would also unleash same savage cruelty and tenacity if they have the capacity. They can even afford to kill innocents including children and women withtheir rockets.
Now I am wondering why are the civil societies are marching for justice for Palestinians only, when Israel have also similar victims? Is it because the Israeli victims were taken cared of well by their established government and Palestinians were not? Whose fault was this now if there was inequality in capacity and effectiveness among governments in helping the victims? The Israelis ?
I think what is much better now is for the civil societies not to condemn Israel, but rather demand to temporarily take over the Gaza government to facilitate rapid redevelopment of Gaza area.
No, Hamas was enraged by Israel’s refusal to end the siege even when they stopped firing rockets. Israel does not have 1,300 dead with 250 odd being children. No-one is laying siege to Israel.
How can one not condemn Israel when it continues to act with such barbarity? You want Israel to re-occupy Gaza? Are you crazy?
This is how some outsiders would look into the picture (This actually have happened in our school). A bully on top of a low fence pushed his classmates setting beside him towards another student hanging on a branch nearby trying to reach something. The hanging student seeing they would both fall from the tree fend off strongly the friend to protect himself from impending doom. With such a strong thrust, the friend hit the concrete wall and have his forehead bleeding. What followed next, the teachers and the mother of the friend seeing blood, barged in with nose fuming in anger, berating the student for his ‘brutality’. Then there was heated ‘arguments’ before the school principal as the parent of the student came and defended his act. The student was finally vindicated because other students who saw the incident took witness and testified in his defense.
In this case as Israel, appears to be like the student, shall we berate him also? The civil societies are just like the teachers who after seeing blood, reacted angrily without taking into reason and fair justice at all. In this incident, who acted like fools? Can intellectual people losing rationality not act like morons (sorry for the term) at all?
To me, Israel sounds like the bully who instigated this in the first place.
Yeah you posted this absurd contrivance elsewhere on the blog. It wasn’t convincing there and its not convincing here.
Yeah; it appears Israel is the bully, Fatah is the student he pushed, and Hamas is who the student was pushed into…
Chaos4700, this student is my eldest son! If you maliciously tell me I was contriving; whose eating, breathing, talking malice?… If you can do that to me you must be doing this all the days, in this place for so long….If you are really advocating for peace, then what are you?
The scornful, and contemptous attitude (and ungodly at that!) that demands for peace, while spreading the venom of hatred…will end up at nothing…except destruction to all who ‘walk with them’ (Psalms 1:1-6). This are the kinds of attitudes that make an emotionally ‘numb’ and insensitive Israelis soldier pull the triggers easier without remorse! If the LORD is with you, why are the Palestinians suffering under their own leadership for 60 years?
I ask you this type of question because you might a man of perfect faith…
Chaos4700 actually I am expecting you would be surprise with that question, and would wonder; ‘what the the ‘heck’ is the connection of religion to this war (of opinion)? It is because we might have missed the point that Israel might not only fighting for racial prejudice, land, control, power, etc. alone. I am not really a well-read person, not even religious books, bust somehow some short historical essays , war documentaries, and the Bible (except of course techncial references. The Bible is a process documentation of rise and fall of great nations and empires in roughly for the past 4000 years). But basing on his historical background I somehow sensed Israel, if fighting that bitterly and furiously, has some reasons deeper than those mentioned. Unless we behave like this, with utmost bitterness, hatred, contempt, impulsiveness, and sheer disregard to basic pragmatism, the Palestine refugees will never have chance to sleep comfortably in their own homes even in the next generation…Are we really for genuine peace? Then show it to the world, we are watching…
Well, I’ve already aptly demonstrated that I’m not above wasting my time, so…
Your example may have really happened but its relevance is contrived. For starters.
Second, the Bible is in no way any sort of reliable historical document. I’m Catholic, and I had the virtue of going to an upstanding private school. They tap dance around it, but ultimately, truth in academic integrity wasn’t put aside — the Bible contains exactly what the fathers of the Church several generations after Jesus Christ wanted it to contain. Not that it doesn’t retain some value, but the Bible has been shaped throughout its entire history by the hierarchy of the Church to fit specific social and political agendas.
The Palestinians will not have peace if we simply cave to Israel. The Polish didn’t… and neither did the French, or the Russians, or the British even, as Neville Chamberlain so aptly taught the world.
And then there’s my own personal life lesson — you always always ALWAYS stand up to the bully. Even if that gets you in trouble with the teachers. Because you know what? Stopping one person from harming another person is always the right thing to do.
This is NOT about religion, it never was. Neither are we trying to make it about religion. It’s about humanity and compassion for people other than your race/religion, which is something unfortunately, you lack.
This are the kinds of attitudes that make an emotionally ‘numb’ and insensitive Israelis soldier pull the triggers easier without remorse!
Re-read that sentence and then tell me why I shouldn’t think you’re an Arab hating bigot.
You imply that anyone who supports the Palestinians, is somehow prejudiced against Israelis. We’re not – we just believe Palestinians should be treated with the same dignity that Palestinians do, and thus given the same rights (the same right to a homeland, the same right to Jerusalem, to self-defence, etc.) – but you knew that already didn’t you?
What have happened in Gaza was an new formula tested using a civilian population as a used as a political bait – ‘burned’ to instigate the world’s angry response against one’s enemy….If Hamas succesfully gains support from this civil societes…many cities will be used to follow…Gaza community indeed is a perfect specimen…
Zamaaz,
You’ve admitted that you are ignorant about the situation and we have given you suggestions to help you gain some knowledge but you seem to want to continue to speak out of both ignorance and bigotry. Please stop making bigoted comments on things about which you are admittedly ignorant. It simply wastes space and time. Read. Learn. Open up your head and your heart and embrace the best of your Christianity.
Well, well, well! Gosh, I don’t feel so bad now! Don’t worry Israel, if you lose the support of American Jews, there’s always a good supply of mal-informed Christian Zionists, who win a two-fer with their support for Israel! They get to trumpet their bona-fides as anti-anti-Semites, and castigate American Jews for mushy pacifist liberals. Who could resist?
You know what, Zionists, I bet you never really needed us in the first place! You’ve got a customer base with them that will never let you down!
Right because we can’t hold the people who actually dropped bombs on, or shot execution style, or mortared and bombarded with tank fire, or sprayed with white phosphorous. No! It was the Polish who invited and instigated the Nazi attack — oh wait, sorry. You’ll have to forgive me, the historical resonances are simply overwhelming at times.
Yes, actually I understand what you’re driving at – dignity for every Palestinian. I too respect and agree on that desire…I am just passing by this blog, I am not a wealthy person and have a family to prioritize too, Nor could contribute to this war and peace business effectively because I am not a Jew nor an Arab. All I can do most is to pray that your people could find peace at hand! I was just made curious by the way you discuss in this debate…
I was amused at the way you people are reacting in almost all the blogs in this website. I raised up many issues, diverse arguments and stretched up imaginations, to see where are how would you stand, yet there is a profound commonality in your reactions; you wanted Israelis to respect your dignity, but you do not ‘give a damn’ on the dignity of Israelis…How can you realistically achieve peace and dignity for every Palestinians if you act and think that way? Perhaps one observer could say, “In all your troubles, you are really worth it!’
Personally, in this war, with this kind of stakeholders who do not value honor and dignity of their enemies, I do not see peace in Palestine in the near future…unless the actors (as subjects) and their leaders (as beneficiaries) being the core subject of these contentions, would really decide to end this war.
Thanks everybody, it was such a pleasant experience to debate with you…
So long, and pick up the pieces of shell on the carpet before you go.
Don’t worry, they’ll be a whole new can of mixed nuts along soon.
Wow, maybe we just oughta give up. If Zionism can depend on the nutty Gentile market for Christian Zionism, I don’t see how American Jews can make any difference.
…Dude. I’m not Arab, or Jewish either. I dare say crimes against humanity transcend the normal attention of national borders. That’s rather why we assembled the United Nations in the first place.
The UN is a shill. I’m not Arab or Jew either, but I’ve seen enough Dalits to know what exceptionalism smells like.
Mostly like racism.
The UN as a whole isn’t a shill I would say, but it has been corrupted generally by the agendas of the various members of the Security Council, and actively subverted by outright hostility by the US to the very idea that we might have to deal with other countries on equal terms.
I might be wrong, but I dare say the UN would actually be a saner, more functional body were it not for the Security Council.
But that itself is a lie, isn’t it? I mean, they didn’t exclusively bomb from the air, sure, but they certainly did aerially bomb the camp. At least rocketed it with gunships. And civilians did die as a result. Unless my memory is betraying me. I would have read it in the Human Rights Watch report on Jenin.
NO, your memory is not betraying you. It is correct.
Indiscriminate Helicopter Fire
Although missiles had been used from the beginning of the incursion, their use became particularly intense in the early morning hours of April 6. Testimony collected by Human Rights Watch indicates that many areas of the refugee camp were fired upon at that time, catching many sleeping civilians unaware. Many of the rockets used were U.S.-made wire-guided TOW missiles. The evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch suggests that many of the TOW missiles indiscriminately hit civilian homes and in at least one case a civilian was killed when she was struck by a helicopter missile.The number of solely civilian objects hit in the helicopter attacks the early morning of April 6 suggests that insufficient care was taken by Israeli forces to target only military objects. Due to the dense urban setting of the refugee camp, fighters and civilians were never at great distances. Nevertheless, such proximity does not provide a valid excuse by Israeli forces’ action in firing upon the entire area as if it were a single military target.
link to hrw.org
Jenin was a precursor of Gaza. It was there that the IDF first used such wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure on a portion of a Palestinian city, in essence flattening it all to rubble. The IDF has always utilized home demolitions as a means of attack and control but I think that “Defensive Shield” in general, and the attack on Jenin in particular, was the first instance of such destruction on such a wide scale. (Outside of Quneitra, which was apparently destroyed as a test case after its capture and ethnic cleansing in 1967.)
Thank you for looking it up, tree.
Thanks to all that researched the origins of the Jenin casualty claims. When hasbara Shalem think tank journalist Yossi Klein Halevi spoke on my campus in 2005, his claim of pro-Palestinian distortion of the number of dead was the foundation for his whole self-pity party. Israeli hasbara has to be sure to never let anything like that happen again–his way of avoiding the facts themselves and their implications. The problem with Zionists is they’re just not good enough ‘splainers.
Zionists has always, up til now, possibly, been able to count on similiar racist and imperialist sympathies in their audience. When that is missing, all their arguments crumble.
Although I still maintain most of their kvetching could be replaced with the numbers 1-4. See:
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
The internet has been instrumental in its own way in fighting hasbara when it is so easy to link to the actual news of the period instead of just having a “he said, she said” situation.
Hasbara depends on a one-sided POV; Goebbels and Bernays knew that score.