This morning I woke up to news of the deadly assault on a bus in southern Israel. The BBC quotes Israel officials saying Gaza militants entering from Egypt. Hamas denies the assertion.
Coincidentally, last night before I went to bed, I had teed up this analysis of "political violence" in England, from the Guardian, because it made me think about Gaza. Just compare the austerity percentage that the scholars by Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Vothsay produces unrest, 3 percent, with the choke collar that is on Gaza. As I wrote last night, it's amazing there isn't even more violence in Gaza...
To construct our measure of unrest, we looked at five indicators: riots, anti-government demonstrations, general strikes, political assassinations, and attempted revolutions. In a typical year and country, there are about 1.5 incidents of this type. The more you cut, the more incidents you get. By the time austerity measures hit 3% or more, the number of incidents has doubled. Interestingly, for the UK, the pattern is even stronger: for every percentage point of cut-backs, instability surges by more than it does on average in the rest of the countries. Importantly, these effects are in addition to the well-known relationship between lower growth (associated with more unemployment) and higher instability.
Oh to be clear: we're against violence here; that's why we are generally so supportive of the boycott campaign, it's nonviolent.
Strange analysis; those riots had little to do with politics, as far as I could tell from the various media. They looked more like a jolly good opportunity to pick up some natty trainers, flat screen TVs, and so on. Austerity had nothing to do with it; criminality, everything.
Sure Gellian–it can’t be complicated, it’s either all criminality or all austerity.
For myself, I never understood the mindset on either the left or the right that says you can’t be nuanced. The rioters were wrong and should be punished, but that sort of upheaval didn’t just spring out of nowhere. And of course the looters on the top of the economic ladder generally get away with far worse crimes.
What nuance do you want? That these rioters are poor and/or do not have the items that they wanted to steal? This isn’t a left or right political issue; it wasn’t a political protest, though it did start out as one (viz. the mobster’s nephew who got shot when firing back at police). Do you really think austerity restrictions on welfare caused these individuals to steal expensive shoes, electronics, clothes, and to burn down a carpet factory? It doesn’t follow.
Folding this kind of riot into the legitimate political protests does a disservice to everyone. It’s a stupid narrative to construct.
You don’t get it.
Long simmering discontent over inequality and lack of opportunity or perceived injustices or discrimination can explode to the surface.
The shooting of the boy was just the spark.
I agree with Gellian. These rooters destroyed their own community stores and also stole from each other individually. Three Muslim Brits were run over by rioters. Working class ppl killing working class ppl.
I see no political msg. These ppl are clowns.
ugh, my Ipad’s autocomplete feature is annoying.
rioters* not….rooters
It’s not a political message, cliff. It’s senseless violence that springs out of communities that are being ignored or crushed. A lot of Palestinian violence is insane too, in my opinion, but it springs out of oppression.
And one of the side effects of austerity programs is that groups turn against each other while the people on the top sit there in their comfortable houses and condemn the immoral poor. During the Rodney King riots or probably almost any riot one can name it is usually innocent people who get hurt.
GELLIAN- “Strange analysis….”
Strange indeed. Why would social scientists be concerned about the correlation between changes in economic conditions and crime, drug use or riots/protests? Haven’t they got better things to do than evaluate the dynamics of political economy?
Keith,
I didn’t mean ‘it was strange of these guys to do the analysis,’; I meant ‘what a bizarre way to analyze the situation’.
I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not.
nonsense.
facts:
1. mark duggan did not fire at police as was initially reported by the police. the only forensic proof of any shots being fired is the evidence of police discharge of an automatic weapon (police reports of the decedent being armed have to be viewed with suspicion given that carrying throw away pieces is SOP);
2. the round lodged in police gear attributed to duggan was fired by police as confirmed by police forensics;
3. eyewitness accounts of the shooting evidence that duggan was shot while lying prone on the ground;
4. in the wake of the shooting, police charged and assaulted peaceful protestors, including a teenaged girl;
5. police failed to take reasonable steps to protect local businesses being ‘looted’. (they argued alternately that they were ‘hamstrung’ because any force used to prevent looting would be perceived as an abuse of force, and also, that they had deployed forces which were able to prevent an alleged attack on the olympic village. the idea that the police were concerned about the appearance of their use of force is preposterous as they had just executed someone in broad day light, and subsequently assaulted peaceful protesters. it’s always good to let a few shops burn, as the saying goes.)
6. UK police and intelligence agencies have a history of using agent provocateurs to foment violence thus justifying a response. (most recently a UK court overturned the conviction of environmental activists after it found that an undercover police agent had illegally spied on persons engaged in legal political activities and had acted as an agent provocateur, including leading an attack on Irish police at an EU summit in Dublin. that a British police officer would be operating ‘undercover’ in Ireland to provoke an attack on irish police is beyond outrageous.)
7. the ‘riots’ take place in the context of the ongoing investigation of the ‘hacking scandal’ which has lead to the resignation of senior police officials, the arrest of Cameron’s former spokeperson, the closure of the news of the world and resignation of senior executives employed by murdoch, and the sinking of Murdoch’s planned takeover of pay-for TV company, BSkyB. but of course, the possible threat to the cameron government and further exposure of police complicity in a criminal enterprise would never affect the govt. response to the current crisis.
my comment was directed at gellian et al who superficially reduced the UK crisis to a case of adolescent rage.
Marc,
You are one hell of a conspiracy theorist! The police planted a gun on the mobster — this is “SOP” for British police, you say — and they “executed” him “in broad daylight”. Not killed accidentally, but executed. Oh, and this was all done — as it “historically” is by the British police to direct attention away from the hacking scandal.
There’s a riot here, Marc, but it’s you.
The Palestinians are being politically oppressed and occasionally lash out in violence both at their occupiers and one another. The poor who rioted weren’t protesting occupiers; they’re already receiving extraordinary entitlements from their government. They didn’t issue any political protests of any kind; they didn’t steal food, either. They stole luxury items.
Phil, do me a favorite and make this a real post, not just a comment. Let’s see what others think.
yes, i’m a “conspiracy theorist”. that’s a brilliant response. because the police just accidently shot a young man to death with a submachine gun. and accidently lied that he shot at them first. and accidently lied that they only fired their weapon in self-defense. and accidently lied that they been ‘hit’ by one of the bullets he had fired. and accidently lied that one of the bullets he had fired lodged in their radio. those poor accident prone british bobbies. what a string of unfortunate events. and, of course, dear, he was a ‘gangster’, so he had it coming because that’s how the legal process works in britain, shoot first, and then trial by tabloid and police disinformation.
Good to know you’re against violence. Me too.
Hamas, on the other hand, welcomes it.
“A Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, told the German DPA press agency the group welcomed the attacks but he did not believe it was behind them.”
link to guardian.co.uk
>> GF: Hamas, on the other hand, welcomes it.
>> From GF’s linked-to article: Israel’s military spokesman, Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai, said soldiers had been targeted by heavy weapons and explosive devices. He said civilians and soldiers were among the casualties.
>> From this article on Haaretz.com: “I don’t think Hamas is behind these attacks, but we praise them since they were against soldiers [emphasis added],” said Ahmed Yousef …
So…what’s the problem here? The attack was carried out against military targets, and there was some collateral damage. Zio-supremacists consistently defend Israel when it carries out this type of attack.
I’d hate to think there’s some sort of hypocrisy involved that says it’s OK when Israel does it, but not OK when someone else does it to Israel.
Eljay, you’re a reasonable guy. I have never suggested that acts of violence perpetrated by Israelis whether on civilian or military targets are “welcome”.
This is a representative of the freely elected government of Gaza praising ambushes, roadside attacks and the firing of anti-tank weaponry at civilian cars and public transport.
I would never say it’s OK when Israel commits acts of violence. Are you suggesting that it’s OK when someone else does?
Even if every target was a military one (and I fail to see how a public bus, even one with some soldiers on it, can be considered a military target), do you think it’s right for a representative of the Gazan people to “welcome the attacks” and praise whoever carried them out?
>> Eljay, you’re a reasonable guy.
Aw, c’mon, you’re just saying that… ;-)
>> I have never suggested that acts of violence perpetrated by Israelis whether on civilian or military targets are “welcome”.
My comment wasn’t actually directed at you. My apologies for not being clear about that.
>> I would never say it’s OK when Israel commits acts of violence. Are you suggesting that it’s OK when someone else does?
I condemn unprovoked acts of violence on both sides. This attack – as far as I know – was unprovoked and should be condemned. I condemn it.
>> Even if every target was a military one … do you think it’s right for a representative of the Gazan people to “welcome the attacks” and praise whoever carried them out?
Nope, and I think the Palestinians looks like idiots every time they praise unprovoked violence or blabber on about martyrs / marytrdom.
See, I knew you were a reasonable guy.
It’s nice to see such an unequivocal response. I aim to emulate your clarity in condemning violent acts perpetrated by my country. I will start with the rocket attacks on Gaza that followed this attack.
I believe a tit-for-tat response is absurd, unsophisticated and counter-productive. Given the claim by Hamas that this attack was not carried out by them and the condemnation from the leadership in Egypt, Israel should have used this tragic opportunity to build an alliance to work with Egypt and Hamas to root out the source of this terror. In return for Hamas’s cooperation, Israel should have made concessions, not begun crackdowns.
I look forward to similarly unequivocal responses to violence on both sides from other contributors.
GF you seem to have wilfully missed the substantial bolded point in eljay’s quote from Haaretz.
The Guardian piece apparently misrepresented Yousef’s statement by leaving out the qualifier that he welcomed the attacks because they were made on military targets, not because they consisted of “ambushes, roadside attacks and the firing of anti-tank weaponry at civilian cars and public transport.”
Well, it was unprovoked, except for thr provocation of the ongoing, generations-long military occupation…
“I fail to see how a public bus,even one with some soldiers on it,can be considered a military target),”
Shrug. Do what the Israelis do and just say that the soldiers were placed callously among the civilians and they used them as human shields, then blame the civilian deaths on those soldiers. Then blame the leaders for letting civilians in this “war zone” and state that their society loves death. Simple.
The bus is not the target. The soldiers are. Are you suggesting that military forces should be shielded from attack by using civilian vehicles?
Anybody know how many of the Israeli casualties in this attack were off-duty soldiers?
(Do not assume, by the way, that I am not keenly aware of the fact that it is no consolation to a grieving parent, sibling, spouse or child that their loved ones died in uniform. I know very well that this does not make it less devastating and I feel for all who suffer such a terrible blow. The same goes, of course, for the families of civilians who become “collateral damage”.)
Never? Really? So even firing back at the attackers in this case was not OK? Total, Gandhi* type pacifism is what you advocate?
I don’t subscribe to this notion. There are circumstances under which violence, by Israelis or anybody else, is justified. It’s just that in practice, the Israeli military’s violent actions are almost always either grossly disproportional or not justified by anything remotely resembling self-defense. Case in point: Barak randomly killing a few Gazan “extremists” (plus “collateral damage” including a nine-year-old boy) with no proven connection to the preceding attacks on Israelis.
* Well, “popular image” Gandhi…
>> It’s nice to see such an unequivocal response.
I do try. :-)
>> Given the claim by Hamas that this attack was not carried out by them and the condemnation from the leadership in Egypt, Israel should have used this tragic opportunity to build an alliance to work with Egypt and Hamas to root out the source of this terror. In return for Hamas’s cooperation, Israel should have made concessions, not begun crackdowns.
Nicely put.
Now if only RW could be so unequivocal and forthright when it comes to Israel’s criminality…
In return for Hamas’s cooperation, Israel should have made concessions, not begun crackdowns.
I thought you were against the blockade of Gaza. Why then are you only advocating “concessions” on the part of Israel in return for cooperation with Israel in this matter? Isn’t that simply another way to justify and excuse the blockade? Collective punishment can be eased when the government of Gaza cooperates with Israel? Isn’t collective punishment wrong?
I believe a tit-for-tat response is absurd, unsophisticated and counter-productive.
A “tit-for-tat response” would have to, by definition, be carried out against those who perpetrated the attack. Since Hamas was not responsible, any collective punishment fired at Gaza was plain and simple a violent attack. Funny how you can easily call the Eilat attack violence but only manage to call the airstrikes in Gaza a “tit for tat response”. You’ve got a long way to go, GF. Keep working on it. And while your at it, consider the possibility that the violence on both sides is a symptom and not the root cause; the root cause is injustice. Deal with that, and the violence that results from it will subside. Fail to address it and the violence, from both sides, will not stop.
P.S. And the words “absurd, unsophisticated and counterproductive” don’t seem to constitute a particularly strong condemnation of violence. If the airstrikes in Gaza were in fact productive to the aims of Israel , would you find the Israeli violence acceptable? Not a war crime?
great reply, woody.
“I thought you were against the blockade of Gaza. Why then are you only advocating “concessions” on the part of Israel in return for cooperation with Israel in this matter?”
I meant only as an immediate response to the homicidal crimes carried out against Israeli civilians today by parties unknown. I agree with you that the siege of Gaza is a collective punishment and must end immediately.
“A “tit-for-tat response” would have to, by definition, be carried out against those who perpetrated the attack. Since Hamas was not responsible, any collective punishment fired at Gaza was plain and simple a violent attack. ”
Agreed. I have been trying to write carefully, but you are right. Using expressions like “tit-for-tat” and “retaliatory strike” imply that the people of Gaza were responsible for the attacks today. This remains unproven and explicitly denied by a representative of Hamas. I withdraw both these expressions and apologize.
“And the words “absurd, unsophisticated and counterproductive” don’t seem to constitute a particularly strong condemnation of violence.”
Fair enough. What words would you have me use to describe Israel’s strike on Gaza today. I am willing to stipulate to almost anything up to but not including calling it a war crime as I don’t believe that today’s actions by Israel can be legally defined as such (bear in mind that I have stipulated in the past that Israelis have unequivocally committed war crimes and must be held accountable for them).
Once you have told me the words you would like to hear from me condemning in the strongest possible terms Israel’s strike against Gaza today, perhaps you would enlighten us on your opinion of Dr. Yousef and his comments to the German press on hearing about the attack.
Should he not be condemned for his praise of attacks on civilians? Should Medea Benjamin not be questioned for acting as Dr. Yousef’s emissary as to whether CODEPINK also welcomes attacks on Israeli civilians?
I look forward to your “particularly strong condemnation of violence” and those that “welcome” it.
“I look forward to similarly unequivocal responses to violence on both sides from other contributors”
Well GF, here’s mine.
I don’t ‘like’ violence either.
But I’ve been around enough, long enough to know that there are some people who do not understand anything but violence.
And anyone who has observed Israel for any length of time knows they only believe in violence.
Once you have told me the words you would like to hear from me condemning in the strongest possible terms Israel’s strike against Gaza today, perhaps you would enlighten us on your opinion of Dr. Yousef and his comments to the German press on hearing about the attack.
Should he not be condemned for his praise of attacks on civilians? Should Medea Benjamin not be questioned for acting as Dr. Yousef’s emissary as to whether CODEPINK also welcomes attacks on Israeli civilians?
I look forward to your “particularly strong condemnation of violence” and those that “welcome” it.
I don’t have any particular words that I require you to say “in condemnation”. I find it all a silly and pointless diversion made to obscure the fact that this is not just the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s “cycle of violence” but an Israeli system of injustice and oppression that produces, as an integral symptom, violence from both Israelis and Palestinians. It seems to me to be a crutch used, mostly by the Israeli government, Israelis and Israeli supporters, to both pretend an equivalence that does not exist, and to pretend to some greater moral claim– an ‘our violence is more moral than your violence’ inanity.
I don’t find “condemnation” of one of the symptoms of the underlying injustice productive or meaningful, so I don’t “condemn” every act of violence by either side. What I do condemn is the unwarranted propositions that Palestinian violence is the primary problem, or that it is somehow morally worse than Israeli violence when the same justifications that are used to excuse and “explain” Israeli violence can easily be used to excuse or explain Palestinian violence.
What I find telling is that every time there is a publicized episode of violence against Israelis, some knee-jerk Zionist insists that everyone should “condemn” Palestinian violence, and yet they themselves remain silent when continuing acts of violence are committed by Israelis against Palestinians. If you want to be taken seriously in your “condemnation” circle jerk, then I suggest that you start posting on threads detailing the continuing violence against Palestinians and condemn the violence there without waiting for some violence against Israelis to remind you how much you really deplore violence, and what a pacifist you are. So far you haven’t done that, so your profound ‘moral’ objection to violence seems hypocritical to me.
As for Dr.Yousef’s statement, I find it no different than what most other government officials, all over the world would say, since he was specific in praising it as an attack on a military target. I suppose I could consider a blanket condemnation of every nation’s government officials but what is the point of that? So I can pat myself on the back and pretend to be more moral than every one else when my “condemnation” means nothing in the scheme of things and costs nothing to me?
I also find it hypocritical of you to question Benjamin relaying a message to the US government from the government of Gaza, as you seem to be appalled that Benjamin would talk to some government that has possibly committed war crimes, but fail to notice that the US government has surely been responsible for the killings of many more civilians than Hamas has ever been. So why not object to Benjamin relaying a message to the war criminal US government? Or is it not verboten to talk to Western war criminals? Separate rules for Palestinians again?
GuiltyFeat ~ again: you’re misrepresenting what Yousef said. He specifically said “I don’t think Hamas is behind these attacks, but we praise them since they were against soldiers,”.
Eljay quoted the Haaretz article and highlighted the section mentioning soldiers, and I did the same.
Why are you requesting people condemn him for something he did not say? What are you hoping to achieve? You being disingenuous reflects more on your own character than Yousef’s.
“Nope, and I think the Palestinians looks like idiots every time they praise unprovoked violence or blabber on about martyrs / marytrdom.”
YOU may think that. NOBODY else does.
Why waste your time? This is not a equal opportunity conflict. This is about oppressor and oppressed.
There is only condemnation of the occupiers of Palestine, America, Canada, Britain, France, etc.
The war is coming.
Arguing for an attack on a civilian bus as an attack on a military, is a gross lie.
It serves no one.
“Arguing for an attack on a civilian bus as an attack on a military, is a gross lie.”
There were soldiers on the bus. They’re legitmate targets. If Israelis don’t want civilians to be in the line of fire, then don’t let soldiers get on civilian buses.
That’s not the point.
GF is asking people to condemn a statement by Yousef, which he never actually made.
You’ve demonstrated amply Richard that you have no problem with people fabricating statements, since you’ve fabricated your own. Still waiting for you to explain the text you quoted, claiming the BDS Movement have “revised” their 2005 BDS call in the last year to include “militant warring language”.
What say you?
As to Yousef’s statement, which was praising an attack on soldiers – not civilians – it’s interesting to observe people get all worked up about this attack, and remain completely silent or when Israel uses exactly the same MO. How many Palestinians have been killed in the last decade as “collateral damage”? Literally thousands. Far more Palestinians than Israeli civilians.
they weren’t against soldiers, care to retract that?
they weren’t against soldiers, care to retract that?
According to Haaretz:
link to haaretz.com
The IDF thinks the attacks were directed at soldiers, but I guess DBG knows better.
And this is from the driver of the first bus, also from Haaretz:
link to haaretz.com
Other details of the incident are sketchy, in one article the 4 people killed in the car were killed by an anti-tank missile and in another they were killed by gunfire. The second bus and two cars were in the same immediate vicinity, and it is also sketchy as to when exactly the IDF showed up, before or after the second assault, thus it is hard to tell if this was an attack on IDF soldiers that resulted in collateral damage to civilians or something else. I also noticed that Egypt claims that 3 border guards were killed by an Israeli gunship, but Israel insists they were killed by a suicide bomber, which is a strange contradiction between the two. The mix of guns and suicide belts and anti-tank weapons and mortars seems a bit bizarre. I don’t think we know all the facts yet. Perhaps we never will.
DBG, following tree’s quotations from Haaretz, care to retract your request for retraction?
Curious that Israeli attack on Egyptian border guards. or was it a “suicide” attack?
It all looks very suspicious to me.
BTW, where were the DBGs earlier on Kate’s thread where israelis deliberately murdered palestinian civilians plus 10 goats? That was no
collateral” damage there either. That was outright attacks by israeli mobs, hooligans and the military thugs guarding them on real bona fide civilians. But to the likes of DBG, even goats are a legitimate military target, but not a bunch of troops happily traveling from a base, some of whom may even be guilty of atrocities – by association if not outright deeds.
As an aside, DBG, what do you think is a legitimate action against Cossacks attacking a village full of human beings 9and perhaps even goats)?
But I forget – those were not jewish goats and we all know what the biblical commands are with respect to the livestock of non-jews.
To me the operation by the “militants” seemed to be a brave one, if perhaps a tad disorganized. That is, if I forget for a second the many ways just the whole operation was encouraged by Israeli intelligence. What’s a few dead israelis to them given the desired change in discourse? That’s what I call the real “collateral damage”>
Good to know you’re against violence. Me too.
Then why do you only jump in to the comments to decry violence against Israelis, including against soldiers, and remain silent in the many other threads that talk about violence against Palestinians? Why so selective in your condemnation?
Hamas, on the other hand, welcomes it.
As does Israel, when it is violence against Palestinians. So what you are actually saying is that the Hamas official’s response is similar to Israel’s response.
However, checking your comment history, the only violence that you seem to highlight in your comments is violence against Israelis. Yes, you throw in a condemnation of Israeli violence while doing so, but you’d be much more believeable if you occasionally condemned Israeli violence when it occurs, rather than waiting for some Palestinian, or other, violence to occur, ragging on that, and then throwing in a caveat about how much you deplre Israeli violence too.
“As does Israel, when it is violence against Palestinians. So what you are actually saying is that the Hamas official’s response is similar to Israel’s response.”
Nonsense.
Dr. Yousef denies the involvement of Hamas and yet welcomes the attack on Israeli civilians. Please provide a link to a single representative of the Israeli government welcoming an act of violence committed by a third party on any Palestinian anywhere in the world.
You hate Israel, I get that, but there is no need for you to tell lies. No Israeli official has ever issued a statement praising an attack on civilians. You are entitled to believe what you want about us, but if your’re going to make outlandish and false accusations, you need to back them up with evidence.
I provided a link to Dr. Yousef using words like “welcome” and “praise” for these crimes. Please provide similar to back up your claim or withdraw it. Thank you.
I condemn all violence committed by Israelis or indeed anyone of any nationality against anyone anywhere in the world. I’m sorry if you think I don’t do it enough. I’m not sure how exactly you measure that or how you even came to be the arbiter of such things, but I believe that whatever rules you used, I would fall below the standard required. You don’t like me, you don’t trust me, you don’t believe me. Fortunately for me that’s more your problem than mine.
The question remains, do you unequivocally condemn today’s attack on a public bus and civilian vehicles as I unequivocally condemn Israel’s murderous response?
I’m betting a steak dinner that you won’t.
I’m betting a month’s worth of steak dinners that you won’t condemn Dr. Yousef for his praise of the people who committed this crime.
“No Israeli official has ever issued a statement praising an attack on civilians.”
No they build monuments to their murders instead–like Goldstein who machine gunned a mosque full of unarmed Muslims and celebrate it every year.
They officially brag about their assassinations of their enemies, even when to kill that enemy they blew up innocent civilians, including women and children.
When you condemn the Israeli society for worshipping their killers like Goldstein and condemn the Israeli government for killing innocents to killl one enemy then I might agree with you….until then you and Israel both get what you give.
Please provide a link to a single representative of the Israeli government welcoming an act of violence committed by a third party on any Palestinian anywhere in the world.
Oh come on. The Israeli government has done that repeatedly during its long history, although most of its praise has been for its own government actions, and usually couched as “retaliation” agains “terrorists” even when there was no real “retaliation”, and the victims were all civilians. And occasionally it also claims “regrettable error” or “tragic mistake” when it clearly made no error or “mistake”.
One of the earliest examples that I can give you is the official Israeli reaction to the near universal international condemnation of the IDF attack on Qibya in 1953. Of course it was an attack on a Jordanian village, killing 69, two thirds of them women and children, blown up in their own houses. It was fully sanctioned by the Israeli government, and carried out by troops led by Ariel Sharon, and yet, when international public opinion was appalled by the extreme violence against civilians Ben Gurion not only boldly lied that the IDF had nothing to do with the attack, he sought to wrongly place the blame for it on Israeli civilians who after “great restraint” against “murderous attacks”, had “lost patience” after the murder of a woman and her two children and attacked Qibya, “one of the main centers of the murderers’ gangs”.
Of course, all of his speech was unabashed lies. It was an IDF operation, no Israeli civilians were involved, no one in Qibya was connected to the murder of the Israeli woman, and Jordan had offered to cooperate with Israel in tracking down her killers, as it had cooperated in attempting to curb ‘infiltration” into Israel by its ethnically cleansed Palestinian residents.
link to en.wikipedia.org
(see Ben-Gurion’s radio address)
Of course the real feelings of Ben-Gurion and the rest of the government are available here in Moshe Sharrett’s diary from that time period.
link to palestine-studies.org
Few government officials, with the exception of Sharret, seemed at all perturbed by the loss of civilian lives. And even Sharrett, despite his apparent sincere but private disgust at the operation, spend much of his time as the head of the Foriegn Ministry seeking to publicly justify the Israeli violence, and blame it on Jordan.
As a final note on the Israeli government’s condoning and even praising the violence against the Qibya civilians, here is the final sentence from the Wikipedia entry:
Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon’s words to the GS -’Guys, you have to understand [that] there can be the greatest and most successful military operation, and it will turn into a political failure, meaning eventually a military failure as well. I’ll give a simple example, Qibya’[29]
Lavon was the Defense Minister who approved the raid, and he clearly considered it a “great and successful” military operation, except of course for the international political fallout.
I could probably go on for days detailing Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians that Israel either justified as retaliation against “terrorists”, or falsely claimed that the circumstances surrounding the killing were other than they truly were. Lying about the circumstances of the killing of civilians is not a more moral position, and to my mind is a lesser moral position instead, as purposely lying about the situation proves that one is aware that the true circumstances are not morally defensible, and thus instead of admitting an acknowledged moral lapse, one compounds the lapse by lying.
Here’s another rather famous example of that IDF tendency to lie, and to pretend a “regret” it does not feel. Qana:
more at link: link to wrmea.com
Of course, despite the fact that Israel absolved itself of anything other than a “tragic mistake” at Qana, the UN investigation found otherwise.
One additional example would be the dropping of a one ton bomb on a crowded residential area of Gaza City in 2002, killing the “targeted” Saleh Shehade and 14 civilians. PM Ariel Sharon called it “superb” and a “great success”, despite the civilian casualties, before later claiming that no one could have known that dropping a one ton bomb in one of the more densely populated places on earth could cause “colateral damage”. Pure shameless ass covering on his part. Dan Halutz defended the operation, as did other Israeli officials. Dan Halutz, by the way, also defended the Dahiya Doctrine, and ordered its enforcement.
Please give up this pretense to morality, or any concern for Arab civilians, on the part of Israeli officials. Its a ridiculous position.
If you want more examples I could give them to you, but I think you get my point. In comparison, Yousef’s statement does not seem at all beyond the Israeli pale.
You hate Israel, I get that, but there is no need for you to tell lies. No Israeli official has ever issued a statement praising an attack on civilians.
No, you don’t get it. I hate what Israel is doing, and has been doing for decades. If it would stop treating non Jews, particulaly Arabs, but others also, like dirt, and treat everyone equally regardless of their tribal affiliations, I would have no objections to it. I also don’t believe in offering up excuses for its behavior that one wouldn’t likewise apply to Palestinians. The fact that you are seriously trying to insist that no Israeli official has ever “praised an attack on civilians” when the record is clearly there that numerous high ranking Israeli officials have done such through out its history, and that Dr. Yousef didn’t praise the attack because it was on civilians but because it was on “military targets” according to his own words, indicates to me that you are holding Israel to a different and much more lax standard than you hold Palestinians to, even though the Israelis are the ones who are the oppressors and have been for decades. That is your blindness and your problem.
I condemn all violence committed by Israelis or indeed anyone of any nationality against anyone anywhere in the world. I’m sorry if you think I don’t do it enough. I’m not sure how exactly you measure that or how you even came to be the arbiter of such things, but I believe that whatever rules you used, I would fall below the standard required. You don’t like me, you don’t trust me, you don’t believe me. Fortunately for me that’s more your problem than mine.
Its not that I think you “don’t do it enough”, its that I think it is meaningless and hypocritical on your part, and does nothing to end the oppression and racism that is at the root of the violence. I’d be more interested in seeing some concern for you about justice and equality in Israel and knowing what you are doing, or willing to do, if anything, to bring that about. I find that to be a much more effective, and moral, way to end violence that making rote “condemnations” on websites. That and $5 will get you a latte, but no peace or justice.
You don’t like me, you don’t trust me, you don’t believe me.
I don’t know you. If we met I might find you a wonderful fellow, except for your willful blindness on this subject. You take things way too personally, and probably overidentify with your government. Its not healthy.
The question remains, do you unequivocally condemn today’s attack on a public bus and civilian vehicles as I unequivocally condemn Israel’s murderous response?
I don’t unequivocally “condemn” either one, as I noted before. I condemn the underlying injustice that creates the violence from both sides, and try to work to end it. As I said, the violence is a symptom, and you don’t cure a disease by “condemning” the symptoms. Trust me on this, you don’t miraculously become morally superior by selectively timed “condemnations”.
P.S. Just to be clear here, I am not asking for you to condemn Ben-Gurion, or the IDF at Qana, or Ariel Sharon and Dan Halutz. I’m just asking you to take off your blinders and see that Israeli officials are no better than Dr. Yousef, and in some cases are much worse.
Oops, missed a few links for GF:
On Qana, and the UN report, see
link to fromoccupiedpalestine.org
link to almashriq.hiof.no
on Saleh Shehade see
link to en.wikipedia.org
on Dan Halutz and the Dahiya Doctrine see
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
GF, I hope you read tree’s 5:42 post carefully. I think you’re a well-meaning person, and this website needs people like you to keep it from being an echo chamber, but I also think you do have some blindspots. Curable ones, no doubt.
BTW, tree, that was great. It belongs on the front page. It’s exactly the combination of facts and reasoning that very badly needs to be made in the mainstream of American politics, and yet it never is. At best we get condescending speeches graciously conceding that Palestinians do need a state coupled with blistering condemnations of Palestinian terrorism. The underlying message is that the Israelis are civilized, while the Palestinians are animals, but we need to throw the animals a bone to keep them from acting up.
GF: “The question remains, do you unequivocally condemn today’s attack on a public bus and civilian vehicles as I unequivocally condemn Israel’s murderous response?”
The attack was apparently on soldiers – not civilians. It should therefore be described as an “insurgent operation” rather than a terror act. That some actual civilians died is “collateral damage” – to use israeli military speak. Just like the babies killed by Israel’s typically indiscriminate “retaliation” against targets that may have had absolutely nothing to do with the insurgent attack. Therefore it is israel’s bombing that is an act of terror, since it was not aimed at any actual military asset but at civilian dwellings. Typical action of a mafia state. Personally I see little reason to condemn the attack on israeli military personnel – though I do see reason to question its military value.
And more GF: “I’m betting a month’s worth of steak dinners that you won’t condemn Dr. Yousef for his praise of the people who committed this crime.”
For one thing, steaks are flesh of living cows and you shouldn’t be eating such icky fare. For another, there’s nothing wrong with Yousef’s statement; it was brave operation though foolhardy. I assume we’re going to see the standard denounciations of “cowardly’ acts even as there seems to have been quite a bit of bravery involved, even if the operation was not particularly well planned. The intelligence available to the attackers has probably been inadequate, or else there’d have been less collateral damage.
Besides, GF, the operation by the insurgents is as much of a crime as the drone operations by the US in Adganistan and far less of a crime than the murderous acts and atrocities perpetrated by Israeli thugs (including so-called “IDF soldiers”) on palestinians in the west bank – every day. After all, at least the palestinians do not seem to be deliberately torturing little children which the israeli wermacht does – every day. Neither do the palestinians hold 1.5 israelis in detention camps, determined to eliminate them by hook or crook.
has israel paid yet any price for the gaza atrocities, BTW? have the 90% who supported and condoned the crimes against humanity been brought to justice? have you paid a price yet for supporting the horrors visited upon defenseless populations in Lebanon, gaza or the west bank? since you seem to take the liberty of making morality-infested comments, I can only assume that you have now repented and have been denouncing day and night the genocidal criminality of the state of israel.
Glad to know that you are against violence. Most Israelis, however, are in favor of it. (see, poll results re: Cast Lead) Will you take the same tone against the Israeli people as you have on this thread against Yousef?? Or is it only Arab violence that is a problem?
read the poll again. you ppl are bottom of the barrel man.
“read the poll again”
Done. Up to 90% approved of Cast Lead.
I condemn my government for its lightning response and the speed with which it is willing to commit murder after such a terrible crime.
No one in the Israeli government is using words like “welcome the attacks” to describe their retaliatory strikes.
Of course it is not only “Arab violence” (a rather racist assumption on your part until the identities of the criminals have been confirmed) that is the problem. When have I suggested something so naive?
“I condemn my government for its lightning response and the speed with which it is willing to commit murder after such a terrible crime.”
How about condemning your government (and your neigbors, who are, in fact, your government) for 60 years of occupation, oppression, land theft and blockades, which have had the singular goal of the destruction of the Palestinian people as a cohesive society. Do you “condemn” that?
“No one in the Israeli government is using words like ‘welcome the attacks’ to describe their retaliatory strikes.”
No, they use much worse.
“Of course it is not only ‘Arab violence’ (a rather racist assumption on your part until the identities of the criminals have been confirmed)”
Are you claiming that you are NOT of the belief that these were Arabs?? You’ve already said on another post that the idea that the Israelis were behind this as a false flag op. was nonsense, and you’ve also suggested that Hamas shoudl have cooperated with their oppressors and captors. Why would you do that if you didn’t think they were Arabs?
“… that is the problem. When have I suggested something so naive?”
Every day or so, there are lists and lists of stories about all of the horrific violence which the Jews of Israel inflict on the native Palestinians, detailing how they steal the Palestinians land, torture them, use violence of every kind against them. I don’t remember you ever — NOT ONCE — ranting about these terrible crimes. You seem more upset that Yousef welcomed the attack on soldiers that you have ever seemed about the attacks on Palestinians which, on the aggregate, make this incident in Eliat seem meaningless. So, yes, by being quiet when the Jews torture, kill, occupy and oppress the Arabs, you are suggesting that it’s not worth the bother to worry about.
GUILTYFEAT- “Hamas, on the other hand, welcomes it.”
Unlike their Zionist counterparts, such as yourself, who wish them the very best?
Keith I don’t know understand your comment. I’m an Israeli and a Zionist. I wish no harm on anyone of any nation.
Dr Yousef today said that he welcomed these attacks which he believes were perpetrated by people unaffiliated with his party, Hamas. I think his applauding acts of violence against civilians is disgusting. I think applauding acts of violence by anyone is disgusting. A member of Hamas did something disgusting today. How do you feel about his actions?
welcomed and applauded? could you link to that please. why are you so concerned with what he said. he wasn’t even involved in the attacks? are you trying to somehow construe hamas is responsible to justify the collective punishment going on in gaza right now? will that bring back the 75 yr old woman israel killed the other day? this thread has nothing to do w/hamas.
Oh Annie, the thread is never about the things you don’t want to talk about.
As usual I’m being selectively moderated so who knows if this response will ever show up.
There was a terrible attack today aimed at civilian targets which resulted in the deaths of civilians. The first response of a representative of Hamas was to say that he welcomed the attack and that he praised the perpetrators for selecting military targets (they didn’t).
Every bloody post here, from riots in London to baseball to mushrooms is about Israel’s intransigence, but you have nothing to say about Dr. Yousef’s “welcoming” attacks on Israeli civilians?
Shame on you, Annie for missing an opportunity to condemn a bloodthirsty leader of Hamas who takes delight in violence committed against civilians. If one of Israel’s representatives had said the same thing you would be all over it. I think you are being grossly hypocritical, Annie.
Furthermore, this same representative who welcomes violence against Israeli civilians happens to be on extremely good terms with your friend Medea Benjamin. She acted as his emissary helping his “peace letter” reach an American official.
Dodge the question all you want, but it still remains. How do you feel about Dr. Yousef’s statement welcoming violence against civilians?
What should CODEPINK do to distance itself from this praiser of murderers?
Annie, I doubt this will get posted and I know you won’t answer.
Have a good day.
could you link to that please.
i guess that would be a ‘no’. sheesh. sorry i asked.
you’ve got over 10 comments on this thread already. are you complaining you can’t post endlessly?
lol, i just read your whole comment. did you really say ‘shame on you’. and bloodthirsty? lol, you crack me up. no wonder all your comments don’t get thru! you’ve got gumption tho. i’ll give you that.
i just googled what he said:
“I don’t think Hamas is behind these attacks, but we praise them since they were against soldiers”
little babies have already died because of israel’s most recent collective punishment on the people of gaza. this is the forth night of air raids.
but, we all know israel’s been planning on making more war w/gaza so you should be relieved gt, now the set up phase for excusing israel’s terrorist actions is over, it can now be framed as ‘retaliation’ or response even tho they’ve been bombing gaza for days. funny how that worked out huh?
whenever terrorists actions align w/israel’s war plans i always get doubly suspicious.
GUILTYFEAT- “A member of Hamas did something disgusting today. How do you feel about his actions?”
I am considerably less concerned about Hamas response to Israeli crimes against humanity than I am about those very same crimes, including the siege of Gaza, a despicable, unwarranted, unjustified action in response to the election of Hamas as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians. Furthermore, as someone who daily benefits from the Nakba and ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian natives, you are in no position to judge others. Your comments on this thread are, as usual, nothing more than typical Zionist Hasbara. I leave you with the following apropos quote:
“There is, evidently, much satisfaction to be gained by careful inspection of those writhing under our boot, to see if they are behaving properly; when they are not, as is often the case, indignation is unconstrained.” (Noam Chomsky, “Year 501”)
So nothing on Medea’s relationship with someone who enjoys violent acts aimed at civilians?
Shame on you again, Annie. This is the most cowardly you’ve ever been.
You’re usually so quick to defend CODEPINK, but you can’t defend the indefensible.
Don’t worry, this is my last comment on this thread. It’s pretty clear who here agrees with Dr. Yousef and welcomes violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians.
I don’t believe you are one of them, Annie, but you and Phil are perfectly happy to lie down with some really nasty pieces of work.
cowardly? i do not have to follow you down every stupid road you want to divert the thread. are you crazy? we have an israeli source on a quote where anyone can understand this meaning wrt a military (personel) target. even your interpretation“enjoy” is a strawman. you’ve humped this statement til kingdom kome on this thread and now you’re going after medea? grow some f’ing balls. where’s your integrity? hamas is not responsible for this crime and you know it. iof are bombing civilian areas and killing babies as we speak and all you want to talk about is clubbing medea? get.a.life.grow.balls.ciao.
There isnt more violence in Gaza because their scared shtless of being bombed out of existence. Its one thing to riot when your worry is about being clubbed by a police officer or pepper sprayed etc. Its another when your riot could be ended by a F-16 overhead.
Along with Hamas evacuating their headquarters in fear of an Israeli strike, the UN has also evacuated their offices in Gaza. They know Israel would deliberately target them (as they’ve done in the past) so seems they figured its best not to sit around.
I’m wondering if that’s the same Ahmed Yousef whose “peace letter” Medea Benjamin delivered to the US Ambassador in Cairo. Surely not?
link to huffingtonpost.com
Sounds like a charming fellow. Annie, when you’re at the CODEPINK fundraiser, ask Medea whether she “welcomed the attacks” like Dr. Yousef.
And then ask the rebels in Libya if they are so cruel as to “welcome” the NATO attacks against the rebels’ oppressors.
Non sequitur much? What on earth does this have to do with the attacks today and Dr. Yousef’s revolting response?
You’re clueless on this aren’t you, GF? Its not a non-sequitur. Its a comparison. That you can’t see this is simply further proof of your huge blind spot.
Yes, BDS might (to the degree it is successful) cause a downturn to Israel’s economy (hopefully especially to the high-flying, high-tech, weapons side) and cause social unrest aimed at ending the occupation. Or, of course, increased oppression of Palestinians!
BDS is peaceful, but the possibility exists that the Israeli public might react with violence. Stay tuned-in.
Initial reports about the attacks were conflicting and confused.
hmm, yeah i found this bbc report confusing too.
phil, i don’t think you can call the assault deadly unless people die from it. my understanding from this report is the only people who died were those who carried out the assault.
I was just thinking the same thing annie. I read the BBC report which says six people were killed, but also that the attack on the bus results in injuries but not fatalities, and that several IDF were injured but not killed.
So who exactly died? “Officials” (presumably Israeli) said “several gunmen died”, which is different to six.
Any why don’t the BBC report on the scored of Palestinian civilians that have been killed in Gaza since the end of the IDF’s Massacre in January 2009?
Interesting comment by Paul Danahar in the inset of the BBC article:
For Israel to come out so quickly after the attack and say they know it came from Gaza is surprising.
I smell a rat.
I smell a rat.
yeah, me too. and look at what seafoid just linked to in another thread:
but the haaretz article was not specific and did not mention who dies or that they were the assailants.
one of my hunches is that the gov wants these protests broken up way before sept. they don’t want people to have to make a choice between ending their protest or ‘defending’ israel against the palestinian UN move.
i’m just saying they could be ‘using’ this moment for their own benefit. but it’s hard to hide dead civilians. either they are dead or they are not. i hope their are no dead civilians. tourists it said. tourists from where?
Interesting annie.
I’ve been wondering what will happen to the protests in Tel Aviv when Israel starts the inevitable killing of Palestinians after the UN vote in September.
It will definitely force the issue onto the [tent protestor's] agenda, and demonstrate to the world once and for all that Israel – “the only democracy in the Middle East” – is no different to Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt, Gadaffi’s Libya, the Al Khalifa’s Bahrain and Assad’s Syria. Best thing that could possibly happen for Israel’s leaders is if all those tent protestors just went home, shivering in their underclothes about those nasty ol’ Palestinians.
using the moment or creating it?
here’s something definitive from reuters
terrible
More conflicting information annie – this time the death toll is reported as 8, five on the bus and three gunmen:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/eight-dead-in-israel-terrorist-wave-20110818-1j0j3.html
Also [my emphasis]:
Initial reports indicated that the attacks began when three gunmen travelling in a car along Highway 12, which follows the Israel-Egypt border, fired at the bus carrying soldiers and civilians from Beersheva to Eilat.
…
Al-Jazeera reported that most of the passengers on the first bus were Israeli soldiers and residents of Eilat and were on their way from their bases to go home for the weekend.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought terrorists attacked civilians, not soldiers.
you guys are basically condoning all civilian deaths during caste lead w/ these ridiculous arguments.
The bus is a standard inter-city public bus on which some soldiers were traveling home for the weekend. The driver is a civilian bus driver. He picks up civilian passengers at every stop. It is a regular route used several times a day by civilians. You could certainly try to argue that by allowing soldiers to use public transport the IDF is using civilians as human shields (not sure it would stand up in international court, but you could try), but you could not argue that a public bus is anything other than a civilian target. Hence the use of the word “terrorist”.
Having said that, I agree that “terrorist” is too loaded. I prefer “homicidal criminals” which is a more accurate description without political weight attached.
you could not argue that a public bus is anything other than a civilian target. Hence the use of the word “terrorist”.
iow, if combatants are in a civilian home or school or place of worship (or even a public playground for that matter) it is a terrorist action to attack them there and ‘collateral damage’ doesn’t apply it simply confirms the terrorist angle of the attack. good to know gf, thanks for clearing that up. glad we got that out of the way.
Don’t be obtuse, Annie. I explicitly stated my preference for not using the word “terrorist” while attempting to explain the use of the word in some of the reporting.
The distinction is between a military target and a non-military target where an attack on a non-military (i.e., civilian) target can be considered a war crime.
A public bus on a regular route with civilians and soldiers on board is a non-military target. An army bus taking soldiers to a base is a military target.
A school in which some combatants are hiding among civilians is a non-miliary target. A school which has been taken over by a military force and used as a base of operation with students acting as a human shield is, tragically, a military target. In my opinion this kind of military target should still not be a target of any kind and any strikes on places which can reasonably considered to have civilians inside should be condemned. I find the concept of collateral damage repulsive and self-defeating.
This is of course all my opinion. What’s yours Annie? Was the Egged bus a military target or not?
I explicitly stated my preference for not using the word “terrorist” while attempting to explain the use of the word in some of the reporting.
gf, anything you write past your first or second sentence just assume i’ve skipped over. unless it’s made directly to me, then maybe i’ve read the whole thing. sorry, i just don’t find you that interesting. especially when you’re spamming a thread and repeating ‘hamas hamas hamas’ over and over.
cheerio!
Another false flag?
American, I don’t say this lightly or often, but this is an idiotic (if entirely predictable statement).
There are dead bodies of the people who committed these crimes. Do you honestly believe these people will turn out to be either Israelis or paid by Israel to kill Israeli civilians and then die in a firefight.
And idiotic suggestion for sure. Sometimes there is really interesting debate on Mondoweiss that has refined and changed my relationship to Israel… and sometimes there is a reminder that some of the people here are just dumb.
This was your finest “just dumb” moment.
Feel free to write a lucid rant about Israel’s false flag operations of the past, I shan’t be reading it. Morons get filtered out very easily.
Ah, …… You didn’t notice my question mark at the end of the sentence?
Are you an ignorant, monomaniacal, narrow-minded, conspiracy theorist with nothing intelligent to say about the murder of a family of four, two sisters and their husbands, on their way to the seaside for a holiday in a private civilian vehicle except that the murder might have been a carefully planned operation by their own government that you, in your wisdom, have identified based on no evidence whatsoever or any intelligent glance at the facts of the incident? Question mark.
(See I can do question marks too. Aren’t they fun? They make it look like you’re trying to be reasonable, don’t they? Do you still pickle babies for kicks?)
are you familiar w/elliot abrams nick name? mr peace thru civil war? do you know who al baghdadi is? he’s died at least 5 times so one might think so. do i think the unsavory sources in saudi arabia, the US, israel, jordan perhaps or whoever fund islamic groups to create havoc and discord via terroist attacks to facilitate geopolitical goals? of course. is it likely israel would fund extremist groups to challenge hamas the same way israel funded hamas to challenge the plo? of course. did the US/IS fund fatah to challenge hamas? of course. oh look, that group Tawhid Wal-Jihad? according to jpost: Palestinian political armed faction in Gaza and with roots in the Fatah-held West Bank.
fatah, you mean the same fatah connected to the pa? hasn’t the US/IS funded fatah to plumment hamas before? ok, i don’t think fatah or the pa are in the mood to plumment hamas today but it only takes..a few. all it takes is a few fanatics to create a pretext for israel to plummet gaza and we all know that’s what they wanna do. so do i think it could have been funded by some rightwingers. damn yes. all these extremists are in the same ballpark. they deserve eachother. i wish i could put them on a desert island with eachother. indyk, elliot, the bibi, sharansky the tawhid wal-walawalalwawa-jihad… they are all of the same ilk. do they give a damn for civilians? heck no. what’s a few dead people when you can get greater israel in return?
this is small potatoes to them. they are in for the long haul and death is their business. i put nothing past any of these people, nothing. follow the money, that’s what i do. you’re hyperbolic scheeches about conspiracy theories don’t phase me in the least. these are ethnic cleansers playing a massive charade on the global population and i put NOTHING past them. NOTHING.
Interesting that you would jump in to defend American, Annie. Hmmm. Colour me surprised.
Putting NOTHING past Israel is not a sophisticated world view. It’s the view of a small child. I also put NOTHING past Israel. Woooo. Scary. Every other country in the world = Good. Would put NOTHING past them = Israel. Gottit. Thanks mum.
Let’s just stipulate that all attacks anywhere in the world whether against Israel or anyone else, “might” be perpetrated by Israel. The Titanic? Possible false flag. J.R. Ewing? Potential Mossad victim. We “might” have done everything.
When you’re ready to discuss the facts pertaining to any given thread, let us know. Flights of fancy make you look as dumb as American.
Annie, I thought you were better than that. I know I am.
ad hominem crutch noted GF. strawman noted GF. not sure where you’re coming up w/this singling out israel meme from that particular comment after i repeatedly included the US in the post as violators and also included saudi arabia and jordan. whatever gets you off GF.
972 is saying 7 israelis and 7 others by several attacks. And this weeks tent protests cancelled.
I’m not completely against all violence and I don’t think many people are. I’m against unjustified violence and think that the justification needs to be extremely strong, that everyone should be slow to anger, that the supposed rewards of violence, especially hopes of quick success, should always be looked at with great scepticism – etc., etc.. But none of that and none among the usual etcs. amounts to being against all violence. People often say they’re against violence when they mean violence against us, not by us.
That may be what you mean, but I think it’s very wrong of you to assume that’s what everyone else means.
I am against all violence no matter who perpetrates it. I think people like Phil and Annie are too.
This just sounds like you’re trying to justify an attack on public transport? You’re not, are you? Do you believe this attack was justified? Do you “welcome” it like Dr. Yousef?
I am against all violence no matter who perpetrates it.
That’s incredibly naive. Violence rarely occurs in a vacuum, GuiltyFeat.
The Irish in Northern Ireland, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and the Palestinians are not inherently violent people, I’d suspect few people and/or cultures are violent by nature. Violence stems from one’s environment. While it’s easy to sit in the comfort of your posh apartment and question the prudence or righteousness of violence, knowing nothing of you, I can still say with near certainty that you would ultimately resort to violent resistance if you lived under occupation as the Palestinians do, and the Tamils do, as the Irish did. When the world stands idly by offering nothing more than words, when you have no standing defense force, when you, your family, your friends, your community are subjected to the will of an oppressive military machine, and when your attempts at nonviolent resistance are thwarted (such as Israel using violence against nonviolent protesters, or prohibiting even a call for boycott), you will resort to mild violence, such as throwing rocks. But when you throw a rock in retaliation for the killing of you sister, and you are still perceived as the radical one, you will upgrade to more coercive forms of violence. When everything you do is twisted to portray you, the victim, as the aggressor, it wares on your psyche. I for one would be not hesitate to use violence against Israelis under those conditions. In a vacuum, yes, it is worth condemning. But, Palestine is not a vacuum, sir.
“if you lived under occupation as the Palestinians do, and the Tamils do,”
Hold on there. The two cases are not quite analogous.
The Palestinians are under occupation by foreign immigrants and their descendants.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka are the foreign immigrants and their descendants. They were the ones trying to slice off a chunk of Sri Lanka for a separatist state. This doesn’t justify the war crimes of the Sri Lankan Army, but the term “occupation” isn’t really appropriate.
“as the Irish did”
All of Ireland was under British occupation before the Republic gained independence. As far as I can tell, the majority in Northern Ireland still want to remain connected with the UK and do not want to become part of the Republic.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka are the foreign immigrants and their descendants.
Not true. There are indigenous Sri Lankan Tamils and there are “India Origin” Tamils, the latter were brought to Sri Lanka by the British during colonialism, but the former have always lived in those regions of Sri Lanka. After independence from the British in 1947, the Tamils wished to seek their own independence, rather than the island becoming a Sinhalese dominated binational state. These Tamils, centralized in the northern and eastern provinces, had lived in these regions since ancient times. While the Sinhalese were not “foreign occupiers,” the Sinhalese military did occupy ethnic Tamil lands that had been somewhat autonomous under British rule. The analogy isn’t perfect to Israel, obviously, but the fact remains, that military rule over the Tamil populace has caused the sort of violent reprisals we saw for decades from the Tamil Tigers. Again, violence is not borne from a vacuum.
As for the Irish, only Protestant Irish wish to remain under British rule. The Irish Catholics of the north, I assure you, have no connection to those pasty WASPs across the channel.
“Not true. There are indigenous Sri Lankan Tamils”
This is news to me. I stand corrected.
“only Protestant Irish wish to remain under British rule.”
But the Protestants are the majority. Since the partition of Ireland, they have become less of a majority because of Catholic migration from the Republic.
The Protestants are, of course, to blame for actual discrimination against the Catholics as well as their ridiculous Orange marches. I don’t know why they want to keep that nonsense up. But then, I don’t know why the Tamils in Sri Lanka want to remain separate instead of assimilating with the Sinhalese.
“The Irish Catholics of the north, I assure you, have no connection to those pasty WASPs across the channel.”
Actually, I have met plenty of Northern Irish Catholics who are quite happy to not merely have a connection, but also to cross the channel and live among the pasty WASPS.
(Even more from the Republic.)
I think he’s saying that he’s not a pacifist, Guilty Feat. Are you a pacifist? I’m not.
I condemn this attack, but precisely how I’d condemn it depends on what the details are. If it is an attack on civilians then it is murder and there’s no justification for it. If it was an attack on IDF soldiers in which civilians were killed I’d still condemn it, but it’s the sort of thing Israel does all the time (I think they also attack civilians but deny it) and people excuse it. I’d condemn an attack on Israeli soldiers not because Palestinians don’t have the right to use violence to obtain their rights (something we grant Westerners), but because it’s stupid and won’t accomplish anything.
Now if you want to argue with someone, there’s VR just below.
Hi Donald.
I think I actually am kind of a pacifist.
I don’t know how I will reconcile that when my children are called up for their national service, but we’re going to find out. Interesting times ahead in the GuiltyFeat household and not the fun kind of interesting either.
Well, good luck with your family, GF. I respect pacifists, but can’t quite go there myself. In the case of both Israel and America, I think one can make a strong case for refusing military service without being a pacifist, because the military in both countries is used so often for illegitimate purposes.
Come to think of it, that’s probably true of the military in a great many countries. Self defense often takes a back seat to the more pressing duties of invading other countries for no good reason or oppressing populations, sometimes including one’s own.
“I am against all violence no matter who perpetrates it.”
So if you had been alive in the 1940s, you would have opposed violence against the Axis powers?
Certainly I abhor the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki as much as the bombing of Coventry.
I believe the dismantling of the Third Reich was a necessary evil. Necessary but evil. I take no pleasure or pride in the deaths of anyone who fought for the Axis powers.
I do not believe “the old lie ‘dulce et decorum est…’”
Do you condemn the attacks today and Dr. Yousef for praising the perpetrators?
I think GF has been reasonable for the most part in this thread.
“Certainly I abhor the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki as much as the bombing of Coventry.”
How about Hiroshima, Tokyo, Hamburg,?
“I believe the dismantling of the Third Reich was a necessary evil. Necessary but evil. I take no pleasure or pride in the deaths of anyone who fought for the Axis powers.”
But that’s not the question. The question isn’t whether you would take pleasure or pride in it; it is would you have opposed violence to acheive it?
“Do you condemn the attacks today and Dr. Yousef for praising the perpetrators?”
Here is my position: I do not believe that any attack on Israeli military personnel, military targets, equipment, etc., is inappropriate. They are all legitimate targets. The Israelis have declared a war on the Palestinian people; the theft of Palestinian land and the occupation are evil; the fight for Palestinians freedom and self-determination is a just cause and thus the Israelis cannot complain when the fight is taken to them.
Further, I decry attacks on civilians on both sides. But since the Israelis continue to indiscriminately blockade and oppress Palestinian civilians in the occupation, they are hypocrits for complaining when they get a taste of their own medicine.
So if this bus contained soldiers, it would be a legitimate target, and the Israeli people will have to be content to label their civilians deaths the same way that they label Palestinian civilian deaths — as collateral damage.
This just sounds like you’re trying to justify an attack on public transport? You’re not, are you?
And while you’re at it, MHughes, why don’t you tell us if you’ve stopped beating your wife?
GF, I thought this was an attack against soldiers on a bus. Are you saying that the soldiers used public transport? Isn’t that equivalent to “cowardly hiding behind civilians”, as Israeli apologists like to claim about Palestinian militants?
“I thought this was an attack against soldiers on a bus. Are you saying that the soldiers used public transport? Isn’t that equivalent to “cowardly hiding behind civilians”, as Israeli apologists like to claim about Palestinian militants?”
I’ve said above that this is at least an honest argument. But I’m still confused. Are you saying it’s OK for both Israel and others to do this or it’s not OK for Israel and other to do this?
My impression is that you think it’s evil for Israel to do this, but not so terrible when someone else does it to Israel. Am I wrong?
Do you condemn today’s attack and Dr. Yousef for his welcoming it?
I’ve said above that this is at least an honest argument. But I’m still confused. Are you saying it’s OK for both Israel and others to do this or it’s not OK for Israel and other to do this?
My impression is that you think it’s evil for Israel to do this, but not so terrible when someone else does it to Israel. Am I wrong?
See above for fuller explanation. Its not “OK’ for either side, but the violence is a symptom, and a “condemnation” will not end it. Only addressing the underlying problem will end it, with respect to both sides.
“Do you “welcome” it like Dr. Yousef?”
Depends on who was killed.
If for instance it was the officer who shot the 13 year old Palestine girl 20 times, or the IDF who shot Triston Anderson in the head, or any of the IDF who have shot unarmed civilians or protesters or stone throwing children, or the settler who broke the neck of Palestine boy’s donkey in front of him — than hell yes I would welcome it.
It was seven civilians and a soldier according to the latest reports.
You sound like one of those “Iceberg, Goldberg, it’s all the same to me” types.
any links?
link to haaretz.com
Well, this is a difficult problem for all human beings.
My personal feeling on the specific topic of the bus attack and any likely ‘reprisals’ is pacifist – that I’m against them all – but that’s only an emotional attitude. I can’t rationalise that attitude by saying ‘This is an act of violence, so without more ado it’s wrong’ – that would be universal pacifism, which I can’t say I believe in.
I don’t think that anyone in this discussion takes that position, or is saying that the pacifist minority was clearly right in respect of WW2.
Pacifist views of a conflict where both sides use violence quite a lot seem somehow very admirable, somehow rather paradoxical. Can you really either sympathise with, or else reject and despise, both sides equally and completely? Or else mix both these contrary attitudes?
You could say many things, such as ‘Violence is wrong unless authorised by a legitimate authority’, but then you would always get into further arguments.
I think it’s impossible for any of us to judge entirely in the same way about violence in a good cause and violence against a good cause. (That doesn’t mean, of course, that anything whatever is good if it’s on ‘our’ side. It could be shocking if ‘our’ side is taken over by people who resort to extremes and excesses.) Only rarely did (do) British and Irish people come fully to the same judgement about IRA actions.
Just to add that from the point of view of ‘Just War theory’ it’s not clear to me that an off-duty soldier, on a bus or elsewhere, is a combatant.
“Oh to be clear: we’re against violence here; that’s why we are generally so supportive of the boycott campaign, it’s nonviolent.”
What this amounts to is that you are just for state violence, because these entities will always opt for this type of activity. As is wearing a uniform or getting your orders from any one of these pariahs is legitimate (US or Israel). It is easy to be “non-violent” in personal peace and comfort, the only hope for positions like this is that you are one day attacked severely in your own comfortable armchair. So, self-defense is wrong, and all structural and overt violence from the state is acceptable – I see where you are coming from.
The violence makes it more difficult for the Palestinian state to be ratified in September.
It is counter-productive to any good, anywhere.
I’ve not read of anyone taking credit for the terror on public buses within Israel. Usually, Hamas or Palestinian factions claim credit quickly.
I don’t know what that says. Israel is attacking Gaza though in response.
Wow. How perfect for the Israelis that, just in time, a mysterious attack just happens to occur, which no one takes credit for, and where the supposed attackers are all dead. Wouldn’t have been more convenient for the Israelis if they planned it and carried it out themselves…
And they get to slaughter more Gazan children!
It was wrong and it was stupid. Whoever did it.
There are several more “radical” (God, I hate these subjective terms) groups operating within the Gaza Strip that Hamas has been attempting to rein in, such as the Salafists responsible for the kidnapping and murder of ISM activist Vittorio Arrigoni in April.
Hamas is in a difficult position, on the one hand, trying to maintain law and order and prevent an unnecessary provocation of Israel while governing over a crippled, dysfunctional society, thanks in no small part to Israel’s blockade and devastating military incursions, such as Operation Cast Lead. On the other hand, Hamas owes the people of a Gaza the right to live free of Israeli encroachment, and to that end, Hamas cannot allow the blockade to continue, nor the airstrikes to continue, nor the blackouts to continue.
To put is shortly: Israel blockades, strangles, and smashes Gaza and its people because Hamas was elected. Israel then expects a fully complacent, docile Gazan populace. Any resistance to Israel’s clearly illegal and immoral policies will be Hamas’ fault, at the least Hamas’ failure to control, warranting further blockading, strangling, and smashing. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
How’s that for productive, Richard Witty?
Israel was attacking Gaza all throughout the 2008 truce. You still blamed Hamas for the massacre that followed. You never blame Israel when it kills civilians, in which case the numbers don’t lie – Israel murders fr more, without reproach and with diplomatic immunity.
You are a racist though Dick, so I wouldn’t expect any less from you.
austerity also generates fascism
“The Growing Opposition in Germany (1935″ from the archives of peter petroff –
“Wages have gone down and down….For some time workers in the armament industry were still in a somewhat privileged position. Now there is a general tendency to level wages….The depletion of all social services and the severe cuts in unemployment benefits (by one third or more) further lowered the standard of life. The nazi government is appropriating hundreds of millions of marks from the insurance funds of the workers (1933, 200 million from unemployment insurance alone) for the exchecquer to spend on armaments.”
& this,
“The opposition of the various sections of the opposition is not yet coordinated and lacks organizastion. It finds queer expression in many ways – religious, particular, cultural, social.”
sound familar to what’s happening right here in america? If so, on the calendar of pre-war nazi germany, what time is it now in the u.s.a.?
Some people think all fascism has to be goosestepping and swastikas, they may be in for a rude wake up call when the clock goes off
Many have no idea of what is transpiring
You’re right….most people have no idea.
Most are looking at events singularly and not connecting them to the larger picture.
corr. “The opposition of the various sections of the population…..
I just put this little comment on +972, importing here for the benefit of other dot connectors::
It is interesting that Barak et al were so quick to pin the attack on hamas. This could well be the work of salafi cells that Israei intelligence services are known to be cultivating (surreptiously under the radar of course, just as they did in the lebanon refugee camp). Where I draw the salafi connection is the mysterious call that originated in Jordan a short time before the attack. Remembering that it was Jordainian salafist who entered Gaza that was responsible for the murder of Vittorio Arrigone. That Jordanian infiltrator was, conveniently killed, of course, leaving behind a stooge, for hamas to interrogate in vein.
It makes absolutely no sense for Hamas to originate this kind of an attack at this time. But if you look at the Qui Bono traces, the timing makes perfect sense for one particular party. The proof is in the pudding. Weren’t the tent rallies called off?
And hasn’t the direction of discourse taken a sudden turn? isn’t Witty back in full mourning garb decrying the loss of life (on all sides of course, even-handed be he…)?
Walid, as our resident expert on matters salafist – what is your take?
“Walid, as our resident expert on matters salafist – what is your take?”
I already said it elsewhere here that it was my first reaction, Danaa. These days half the region’s ills point to TA while the other half point to SA. The attack yesterday had to be a godsend for Israel and I wouldn’t put it past Israel to have had a hand in this somehow. Once again, Jordan forewarned Israel that it was about to be attacked and as in 1973, Israel was too slow to react, or in the least pretended to having been too slow. Israel’s track record of being honest with the truth is not very good.
The attack yesterday had to be a godsend for Israel and I wouldn’t put it past Israel to have had a hand in this somehow.
i’d wager most, if not all, people on this site agree w/you unless they’re of the zio variety.
“The attack yesterday had to be a godsend for Israel and I wouldn’t put it past Israel to have had a hand in this somehow.
i’d wager most, if not all, people on this site agree w/you unless they’re of the zio variety.”
And that’s why this site is irrelevant. I’ll admit I used to be addicted to commenting here and rushing back to see the responses. But ultimately you’re a collection of kooks. I have no time for Israel-firsters and you are just another kind of the same. If something bad happens you cry “it was Israel” first.
Some of you have great arguments and a real sense of justice, but your claim that everyone this site would probably agree that Israel was behind these attacks just makes me laugh. You’re clueless. And irrelevant. It makes it easier for me to ignore most of the stuff on the site and it undermines the real good smart people here could do.
The idea that any Israeli would consider the murder of its citizens a “godsend” proves that you have no understanding of any Israeli anywhere, left, right, zionist or anti-zionist. Annie, you’re simply without a clue.
>> GF: The idea that any Israeli would consider the murder of its citizens a “godsend” proves that you have no understanding of any Israeli anywhere, left, right, zionist or anti-zionist.
No US citizen would consider 9/11 a “godsend”…except that the neo-cons did, and to this day they continue to milk it for all it’s worth. In that sense, I understand what Walid is saying.
Do I think Israel planned or co-ordinated this attack? I honestly have no idea. Regardless of who planned or co-ordinated it, however, the fact remains that the people responsible for it must be held accountable for their actions.
GF, I did not come out and state that Israel did it but that I wouldn’t be surprised if it had a hand in it. You shouldn’t feel indignant about my feelings or those of Annie about this because Israel does have a track record of having pulled similar stunts, whether they are false flag operations or simply gimmicks to reach some objective or other. You are probably familiar with Dov Weisglas or that other blabbermouth former ambassador Gillerman that love to go on and on about Israel’s dirty tricks. So please, drop the indignation BS; Israel is a pure and virtuous virgin only in your mind.
a) They didn’t say it was an Israeli false flag operation. They say they wouldn’t put it past Israel. I happen to agree (insofar as “Israel”=the Israeli government): I wouldn’t put it past them either. I still think it’s tremendously unlikely in this case.
I do have to admit it’s rather fishy that Israeli intelligence supposedly could not predict and prevent this attack, but mere hours after it occurred said they knew exactly where the attackers came from and the names and locations of who planned the attack.
But my money is on the other possible explanation: They did not and do not have a clue and just killed someone they randomly picked from the “disliked by us = deserves to die” list to kill (along with his small son, and several other bystanders who are in the “may live unless it’s inconvenient” category.)
b) You live in a country where not only did a political fanatic murder his own head of government to sabotage negotiations with “the enemy”, and not only he received enthusiastic encouragement and support by radical right-wing groups for doing so, but was also prodded into assassinating the Prime Minister of Israel by a Shin Bet agent.
Suffice to say, the case for “Israelis would never do this” is a little weak.
Then again, to make it clear: Not saying this was a false flag operation. It was most certainly not one in the sense that Israelis, or people in their direct employ, were the attackers – that is indeed an absurd idea. It is possible that it was a case of “let it happen” that could involve someone at about any level of the intelligence service food chain, but that, too, I consider exceedingly unlikely.
gf . sorry if my response to walid was not clear. my comment referenced the part of the comment i placed in bold (it was not bolded in walid original statement). when you copy paste it without that distinction it reads differently.
second, the part i placed in bold didn’t correlate with your response to it. you are arguing a strawman here:
If something bad happens you cry “it was Israel” first.
you should familiarize yourself with aesop’s fable the boy who cried wolf
“Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”
when i liar speaks it is only common sense to question everything they say, especially when your life is in danger. therefore it is not a matter of always thinking ‘it was israel first”, it is a matter of always considering everything a liar tells you as potentially a lie. iow, weigh every possibility.
“No US citizen would consider 9/11 a “godsend”…except that the neo-cons did, and to this day they continue to milk it for all it’s worth. In that sense, I understand what Walid is saying.”
That’s exactly what I meant, eljay. Speaking of 9/11, keep in mind that there was the need of “another Pearl Harbor” at the time to set the wheels in motion. Also considering “A Clean Break”, you know that Israel is not averse to this kind of hanky-panky. I also have no idea who was behind this but from what we know of Israel’s dirty tricks, we can’t totally discount any Israeli involvement.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
link to iasps.org
GF – I thought you went away forever? are your hurt feeling o quick to heal?
BTW, being a sensitive soul I assume you mourn the death of the small child killed by the crazy nuts in Israel – who were obviously leashing out at some Arab target of convenience. That’s much worse than suicide bombing. deliberately murdering children is a war crime for a reason. It’s beneath despicable. But somehow i doubt your sensitivity will extend to babies born with the wrong ethnicity. maybe they just cry in the wrong language?
“But somehow i doubt your sensitivity will extend to babies born with the wrong ethnicity. maybe they just cry in the wrong language?”
What a revolting thing to say to me or anyone, Danaa, nice to be welcomed back with the usual venom.
Anyone of any country, ethnicity or belief who murders a child is beyond contempt.
Your assumption that I would not care about children with an “ethnicity” different to my own is an unwarranted insult. In the great scale of things, I am a father way before I am a Jew. I can’t imagine anything more unnatural and awful than the death of a child.
I condemn every attack perpetrated by the military (and by civilian settlers) that endangers children let alone results in their hurt or death. Those responsible for any pain or damage, let alone the murder of a child, must be held accountable – on all sides, in every country including Afgahnistan, Iraq, Libya, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and beyond.
The speed with which you are willing to label me as an uncaring racist says more about you than me.
>> I condemn every attack perpetrated by the military (and by civilian settlers) that endangers children let alone results in their hurt or death. Those responsible for any pain or damage, let alone the murder of a child, must be held accountable – on all sides, in every country including Afgahnistan, Iraq, Libya, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and beyond.
Well said. :-)
GF, i’m curious what brings you back. didn’t you recently say this site was unimportant (paraphrasing) or irrelevant?
anyway i was just wondering because you showed up right around the time of the attack, an important time for hasbarists who are out in force defending israels right to plummet gaza. hmm. maybe it was jon who said the site was irrelevant. anyway, just curious what brought you back here of all places, given what a non entity unimportant this place it.
also, did you note upthread i addressed your ‘godsend’ complaint because you didn’t acknowledge it. you do know don’t you when someone bolds a section of text and then follows it w/commentary they are addressing the bolded section don’t you?
what brings you here during this inflammatory time. no better place to advocate for israel on the net?
That’s exactly why GF is back.
EVERY SINGLE DAY there are new articles here.
Does GF comment on the STEADY STREAM of Israeli criminality?
NO.
He, like other intellectually dishonest Zionists (and pathological liars and racists like Richard Witty) – only comment on select articles to push their ideology (self-talk).
annie – regarding GF – this poster pops in at regular intervals especially whenever any Gaza related matter shows up on the radar. He fought against the Goldstone report tooth and nail – not so much for what atrocities were brought up by the israeli side, but to chime in about the “Crimes of Hamas”. That seems to be the GF MO – draw false equivalence between the IOF – one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and Hamas – at best the rulers of a tiny strip of land cordoned off from the world by barbed wire and watch towers, constantly patrolled by drones in the sky and gun boats in the sea, with no legitimate means of defense of the population and/or establishing even a sliver of diplomatic relationship with other state entities. But to the likes of israel’s staunch defenders, Hamas must be held up to the same high standards that s full blown state like israel is. Countless people have responded that hamas rules over a prison yard and has the unenviable task of keeping order over inmates reduced to subsitance level. But to no avail. GF is one of the operatives whose job it is (self-selected, no doubt) to keep bring up the lack gay rights – or women rights – in Gaza, in the hope of diverting the conversation away from israel’s atrocities.
To make things short, GF’s role seems to be weighted on the “They suck too” part of the hasbara. As such he does the ‘good cop’ routine, professing heartbreak over crimes committed on ALL sides, sidling up to those he identifies as moderato “voices of reason” – like Donald, or eljay, thereby isolate the harsher critiques (among which yours truly is proud to stand). Notice the blanket condemnation of ALL war acts above, and the mildly-critical-of-Israel tenor. Just enough to show up as the ‘good guy”, the softer zionist.
In the past, Avi I remember jumped in to tear GF to shreds (where’s Avi, BTW? haven’t seen him in ages). In lieu of Avi with his first rate bull barometer, someone has to be the hound. I just don’t believe GF – that’s all. Not saying he is a brute himself, but I somehow doubt he really cares as much as he claims about injuries to all sides. Not passing the smell test. Indeed, going back to your question – why jump straight back in just when something is heating up for gaza, unless that is the siren call (or activation button)?
PS the individual with the GF avatar may well be a person of empathy in real life. It’s just that the empathy is directed disproportionately to his own side, the rest being wishful thinking (there, that’s the best I can do for the profile).
GF can’t leave now, there’s propaganda to be peddled! And children to be set alight!
Yawn.
We’re not going down this route again are we, Annie.
I didn’t post on the site for about six weeks as I felt it was getting out of hand and interfering with my work and because there was a crazy lady cyber-stalking me. She seems to have passed on.
I have never told a lie about myself here. I represent myself and not the Israeli government. I have never been trained by the Israeli government. I did not serve in the army. I was never even called up after I arrived here in 1996 aged 26 with a nine-month old baby. No one in the Israeli government or any other agency related to Israel in any capacity has ever asked me to comment here.
I don’t believe I am here advocating for Israel. I believe that there are some people here who have not heard a voice like mine. I am a private individual. An Israeli. A Zionist. I am not a murderer. I am not a colonialist. I am not a settler. I am not a criminal. I am a human being. There are those here that believe my nationality automatically makes me all those things and more. I disagree. I want the same things for my family as every Palestinian (and Iraqi and American and New Zealander) wants for theirs, but I do not want it to come at anyone’s expense. I believe this is an achievable goal. Achievable through honest negotiation.
If you don’t believe me, I can’t help you.
I’m too lazy to link, but I just read a news story where Hillary Clinton denounced the “cowardly” attacks in Israel. That’s fine–the term “cowardly” is used in weird ways by Americans, but setting that aside, the attack killed civilians and was wrong. (If intended to kill civilians, then it was terrorism).
But of course hell will freeze over before Clinton will condemn any of the violence Seham reported in the earlier thread. The victims there were only Palestinians killed by Israelis, not real people killed by “cowardly” assailants.
Most Israelis, myself included supported Cast Lead. Many of us even thought it did not go far enough. Today I say the same thing. The terrorists in Gaza must be terrified that any second they can be eliminated. The PRC honchos found out very quickly that there is a price to pay. I know that this upsets all you peace lovers terribly. I could give a flying fuck
If you supported operation “heart of lead”, LLI, then you are a criminally minded person and a supporter of terrorism. Anyone who participated in that operation, at whatever capacity is, I believe, a war criminal and a would be baby killer who should not be engaged with in civilized society. there’s absolutely no excuse for anyone to have committed such hideous crimes, and their supporters – like you – should be prosecuted to the highest extent of the law, and perhaps some day they will be…..
the fact that you don’t care makes you even worse. Apparently the joy of killing transcends many boundaries. there’s a name for such, I think.
In the interest of full disclosure, I severed all contact with one member of my extended family who was a reservist in Gaza. Family or not, murder is murder, and though I have no idea what exactly his duties were at the time, the fact that he participated – and I know he justified the operation in all its gory evils – makes it impossible for me to exchange even innocuous pleasantries with such an individual.
And I’m sure your support for your state has created others in the world whose basic belief is that Jews in Israel and their supportors around the world must be made to fear their and their families’ lives can be extinguished at any moment. And I’m sure they don’t give a flying fuck what you think, either. And the cycle of violence continues.
Little newsflash for you, hate-boy. The IDF basically admitted that they had no clue if the PRC had anything to do with it. They just randomly murdered someone they didn’t like.
link to warincontext.org
Extra laughs produced by the IDF’s line that they knew the attackers came from Gaza because they carried AKs… which are only the most common firearm on the planet and used by just about every militant group in existence.
The Israeli message is that the relaxation of Egyptian security is what is allowing jihadist groups to operate through the Sinai (with a long and largely unprotected border with the Israeli Negev).
The Egyptian Arab Spring’s sole significant actual change to date.
“The Egyptian Arab Spring’s sole significant actual change to date.”
This almost has to be trolling. Not even Richard could really think that displaying his racism and contempt for people struggling for their freedom is some sort of contribution to the cause of peace. Though maybe I overestimate him.
So far the only objective change in Egypt is that security is relaxed in the Sinai. Do you know any other?
Its a sad irony.
Hopefully, some other objective changes will occur that are less negligent, less destructive.
Other changes… hmmm… I dunno, let me just phone President Mubarak and ask him.
That’s odd. They tell me he’s no longer in office. So who was installed as a successor by the NDP… it has been dissolved? How could the SSI let this… what? Also dissolved, you say?
Clown.
Notwithstanding Richard’s shameless racism, trolling and everything else unpleasant about his Zio-disposition, he inadvertently touched on something when he spoke about the Egyptian hollow spring. It was obvious the demonstrators in Tahrir had freedom on their minds but other than having helped depose the bad guy, the “spring” did not really change much. The military that has been in power since over 50 years is still in power minus Mubarak, which suited the military; the brothers and Salafists that had been kept in the doghouse by Mubarak have now found favour with the US and put by them on the good side of the Egyptian military. The demonstrators are back to where they started off from, only now they have the brothers and the Salafists on their backs in addition to the military. But no Mubarak.
Sure, the Egyptian revolution is incomplete and I don’t know if it will succeed in overcoming the military , but I also think it’s shown the Egyptian people that they aren’t powerless. It has put a huge dent in the Western narrative pushed by some people that the Arab world needs the US to come in and liberate them, because they are either too apathetic or too cowed to try and do it themselves.
Richard’s comment showed that he cares first of all about whether or not Egypt is a partner in helping crush the Palestinians.
anyone else smell a false flage operation here
“Oh but the zionist entity wouldn’t commit such despicable acts”"
and what about the 1954 Lavon Affair*?
*the foiled plot whereby mossad connected jewish egyptians were going to bomb u.s. & british facilities, for which the moslem brotherhood was to be blamed
“anyone else smell a false flage operation here”
Yep…and I’ve smelled more than one over the past 10 years.
the goi lies with impunity. who knows what is going on. the timing stinks.
ctuttle‘s video says (@1:13) the jordanian’s claim to have informed israel intellegence a ‘cell’ was operating in the ‘south of the country’ and were planning such an attack. whoever it was planning this could not have been unaware of the timing wrt the palestinians going to the UN. it’s just a coincidence that the attack ends up working in favor of those who do not want a vote to go thru, no doubt. it’s anyone’s guess how much that vote is worth tho but i’d say a substantial amount.
american, here’s more info
Thanks for link, read it.
I tend to be suspicious of anything the Israeli military reports until there’s enough time for other information to appear because they lie so often. It makes more sense that this came from Jordon than Hamas. And it appears the Israelis knew it was coming from Jordon–and as always they use any provocation from anyone to attack Gaza —they want desperately to push Hamas into actually mounting some attack on them.
But I doubt this….”whoever it was planning this could not have been unaware of the timing wrt the palestinians going to the UN”
I’d say it’s impossible anyone interested in attacking Israel wasn’t aware of Palestine September bid at the UN. It would only make sense if the attackers wanted to keep conflict going and that could be a wildcard group like the salafi or Israel could have ‘inspired’ a group to do it.
If Israel knew it was coming and they were that interested in preventing it they probably could/would have.
The ‘let it happen’ tactic is one that can rarely be proved.
american , perhaps you misread my meaning whoever it was planning this could not have been unaware of the timing wrt the palestinians going to the UN”
could not have been unaware, mean they must have been aware..
Yea I did..dumb me, half asleep. My bad.
no worries
smooch
Other sources.
link to pbs.org
Interviewing one who says it was Palestine Resistence Org and that Isr holds Hamas responsible even thought Hamas has nothing to do with them.
And Time Mag.
“Israeli security officials had been tracking the militants from the Gaza Strip, where plans were laid for the attack, into the lawless Sinai desert that since the fall of Hosni Mubarak has offered a more and more accessible back door to Israel. But somehow, the militants found a way to strike first, killing seven Israelis on a lonely desert highway.
“It wasn’t supposed to end this way,” a senior Israeli intelligence officer tells TIME. “And now we have to find out why it didn’t end the way it should have.”
So…how was it suppose to end? What doesn’t make sense in that version is that Israel has never hesitated to immediately kill anyone even suspected of planning an attack. So how come they tracked and lost the attackers before they attacked? They constantly round up and or kill suspects and even non suspects all the time. What was Israel waiting on?
How did they ‘lose’ them if they were tracking them?
It does not serve anyone to spin the desirability of terror on civilians.
I don’t know what information, if any, Israel has. It is entirely a gamble to say “they attacked Gaza without cause”, as it is a gamble to say “they attacked Gaza with specific knowledge of perpetrators”.
In all cases, the only theme that is served is violent chaos, not a progressive agenda in which some violence may be justified in defense or in some valid military objective, even resistance.
There is a difference between violence that is intentional terror and violence that is the action of a state defense. That is that following a terror attack, the result is chaos with no intended return to a state of order, while with the legitimate defense of a recognized state, the result is a return to a state of order (even if suppressive, as in this case).
The perpetrators are happy that chaos has ensued, that reprisals have ensued, that counter-reprisals have ensued (now by resumption of shelling Israeli civilian towns), all rationalized by seeking “justice” (as in “justice for our people only”).
The blessing of the terror incident by Hamas officials is another horrible outcome, as occurred when Hamas blessed and then later discovered “oh yes, it was one of ours” and then claimed credit for the attack on a school bus, carrying schoolchildren a few months ago.
When terror emerges, there is NO ARAB SPRING in Palestine. There is NO SOVEREIGN PALESTINIAN PETITION.
Stop rationalizing it entirely. Let the advocacy for violence against civilians be the dividing question, not the rationalization for some violence against civilians.
Nothing should be put past Israel, especially yesterday’s attack. Israel, the land of gimmicks and dirty tricks, as reported in 2005 Haaretz article on various Israeli gimmicks in 1982:
Dangerous gimmicks
Sharon’s recent directive to build the West Bank District Police headquarters coming on the heels of disengagement declares his intent to expand the Israeli presence in the West Bank.
By Uzi Benziman
On June 5, 1982, five weeks after Israel completed its withdrawal from Sinai in accordance with the peace treaty with Egypt, the Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon in what was known as Operation Peace for the Galilee. Was the timing coincidental? Not necessarily. The large-scale Oranim plan for the invasion of Lebanon had been ready six months before, but was not implemented until after the complete evacuation of Sinai.
One day after the uprooting of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank, the IDF triggered an incident in Tul Karm that ended in the killing of five Palestinians, including two teens. Was the timing coincidental? Not necessarily. The goal of capturing the Islamic Jihad members who were responsible for the terror attack at the Stage night club in Tel Aviv in February had been on the table for the past six months. The effort to hit the Islamic Jihad infrastructure had been the long-standing intent of the security forces. Nevertheless, they avoided doing so during the past weeks in order not to create an excuse to disrupt the disengagement plan. As soon as its decisive moment passed, the finger was back on the trigger.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin did not give the green light to invade Lebanon in order to distract attention from his willingness to give up all of Sinai. He made his decision because the circumstances justified it in his mind (the assassination attempt on Shlomo Argov, Israel’s ambassador to London, and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s incessant provocations of Israel). Still, the proximity of the events cannot be ignored. On the one hand, the complete withdrawal from Egyptian soil; on the other, a comprehensive military action in Lebanon.
Full article:
link to haaretz.com
Thanks for this good link, Walid. It deserves to be saved in posterity.
People outside israel and newcomer olim, especially of the English speaking variety with their deeply rose-tined glasses – just cannot process what israelis are willing to do and how profoundly selfish the denizens of the country are. I honestly believe that most of the ziobots here are desperate for affirmation of something they once believed. they wouldn’t be here if they didn’t need that daily affirmation that they have not thrown their lot with monsters for whom the human life of a non-jew is hardly worth a mention, and who are willing to sacrifice their own if they think it’d help some misbegotten policy.
Alas, the tent protests did not convince me that there’s a more beautiful inner israeli soul waiting to be exposed. It did confirm the need of all israelis to get a bigger piece of what pie there’s to be had. In that last one they are human enough. The rest is debatable.
Retaliation is not defense.
In the above quote, you just did that.
Now, you’ll go about how Israel doesn’t intend to kill civilians. It’s debatable, but irrelevant.
Fact 1: Israel “state defense” attacks on Gazan targets almost always wound or kill non-combatants, including children. Most certainly every such attack risks such harm to non-combatants.
Fact 2: Israel still conducts these attacks even though they inevitably kill non-combatants including children.
Ergo: For Israel, killing Hamas “operatives” is more important than not killing children.
Ergo: Defending Israeli “state defense” means rationalizing violence against civilians.
eljay, you might want to bookmark this passage from Witty as well. Its a perfect example of his hypocrisy and contradictory statements.
It does not serve anyone to spin the desirability of terror on civilians.
I don’t know what information, if any, Israel has. It is entirely a gamble to say “they attacked Gaza without cause”, as it is a gamble to say “they attacked Gaza with specific knowledge of perpetrators”.
In all cases, the only theme that is served is violent chaos, not a progressive agenda in which some violence may be justified in defense or in some valid military objective, even resistance.
There is a difference between violence that is intentional terror and violence that is the action of a state defense. That is that following a terror attack, the result is chaos with no intended return to a state of order, while with the legitimate defense of a recognized state, the result is a return to a state of order (even if suppressive, as in this case).
First paragraph, ‘don’t spin violence’ followed immediately by Witty’s spin that he can’t judge Israel’s violent actions in this case because he doesn’t know what they know. Third paragraph, a caveat that all violence is chaos and can not be justified by defense or a “valid” military objective, immediately followed by Witty’s justification of Israeli state violence as defense and restoration of order, which he apparently sees as a good thing even if the order is repressive. ( Don’t look now, but he just excused the Nazi violence at Lidice, intended to restore repressive order.)
And then of course, just to show his complete hypocrisy there is the following paragraph:
The perpetrators are happy that chaos has ensued, that reprisals have ensued, that counter-reprisals have ensued (now by resumption of shelling Israeli civilian towns), all rationalized by seeking “justice” (as in “justice for our people only”).
See, Richard can not be asked to judge Israel’s actions because he doesn’t know what they know. But he can easily judge the perpetrators without knowing what they know, and in fact can even figure out their state of mind. They are “happy”. He knows this for a fact without hearing from them. He finds it impossible to determine what other Jews, in the Israeli government, are thinking or feeling, even when they state their thoughts or feelings openly. And yet he insists he is of one” nation” with them. But he has been blessed with telepathic knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of Arabs he has never met. Perhaps he has his “nation” mixed up. Switched at birth?
>> eljay, you might want to bookmark this passage from Witty as well. Its a perfect example of his hypocrisy and contradictory statements. … First paragraph, ‘don’t spin violence’ followed immediately by Witty’s spin …
Another great clunker from ol’ RW, bookmarked for future reference. Thanks. :-)
Ya gotta admire his ability to distort all logic in order to remain consistent with his apologetics.
I mean, it’s damned near miraculous that while Palestinians only ever engage in “terror on civilians”, Israel – even if it “starts it” and even though it remains engaged in an ON-GOING and OFFENSIVE (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder – only ever acts in self-defence.
And nothing it ever does is remotely terrorizing to the Palestinians it oppresses, both within its ’48 borders and within the lebensraum of “Greater Israel”.