Trending Topics:

A Palestinian defends violent resistance to occupation

Israel/Palestine
on 56 Comments

One of the most interesting moments during Amer Shurrab’s appearance in New York Thursday night was the exchange above, when an audience member who gave his name as Bob Herbst asked Shurrab if he could respond to charges against Hamas: that it should be engaging in nonviolent resistance rather than shooting rockets and that, per Israel, it is firing from civilian areas.

Shurrab responded in part by defending violent resistance. Here is an excerpt [beginning at 2:10]:

Let’s be clear: It’s not only Hamas, it’s the Palestinian resistance. All Palestinian factions have been involved in this, and they are fighting against Israeli occupation. The right to resist an occupation is guaranteed by international laws and conventions. [Audience members say, That’s right]. If the Mexicans or the Canadians or the Chinese or the Russians invaded the U.S., we’re not going to sit here and watch them kill our kids. We are going to do whatever is necessary to fight back.

And, as for the nonviolent resistance, it’s also– it’s there, but, how can in Gaza– you are locked in the ghetto, you are totally locked out with people shooting at you at will whenever they feel like it. From the sea, from the land, from the air. Almost every day. And you cannot even see them or touch them. How are you going to resist nonviolently against them? Are you going to protest against them? They are not even going to see you. Are you going to go on strike? They don’t care. Especially in Gaza, it’s really hard.

As for the rockets, Shurrab says, they have had chiefly military targets, and Israel responds by “shelling neighborhoods randomly.” Shurrab states that of the three civilian Israeli deaths, one foreign worker was killed, a Bedouin was killed surely in some part because no bomb shelters or warning sirens were provided to his community, and the third civilian was someone bringing food to an Israeli base in solidarity.

The moment was interesting because while the talk’s sponsor, Jewish Voice for Peace, had expressly stated at the start that it supports nonviolent resistance to occupation, Shurrab’s defense of violent resistance plainly struck a chord in the crowd of 100 (most of whom, or of the ones I knew, were Jewish). The exchange demonstrates one of the outcomes of the massacres in the American discourse: Palestinians are in many cases grieving their own relatives’ killings (as Shurrab is), they are frightened and enraged, and so anyone engaged in Palestinian solidarity has to honor those feelings.

Shurrab’s questioner would seem to want to occupy a middle ground, of nonviolence, but the middle ground is disappearing by the second. The staggering violence has produced a which-side-are-you-on moment; it is a crisis in an intractable struggle, like John Brown’s raid in 1859 or the violent Algerian resistance in Algiers 100 years later. Those actors gained support from activists in Boston and Paris respectively.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

56 Responses

  1. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    August 9, 2014, 12:57 pm

    What comes to mind is this poignant quote from The Great Debaters spoken by James Farmer, Jr. – St Augustine said, “An unjust law in no law at all.’ Which means I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.

    The world should pray that the path to our freedom remains nonviolent.

    1S1P1V through BDS, ICC, ICJ, and UN. But other means may become necessary as it’s been over a century. Enough already. We want, need, crave, deserve peace and dignity even if the path to it may be forced upon us to be “not clean”. After all, birth is painful and messy but does have a happy ending.

    • just
      just
      August 9, 2014, 1:01 pm

      {{{Ramzi}}}

      1S1P1V.

      BDS!

    • amigo
      amigo
      August 9, 2014, 2:39 pm

      Ramzi, 10,000 people showed up in Dublin to day (aug 6th) to protest the Israeli occupation and siege.That was double last weeks turn out.

      BDS and accountability were the main subjects under discussion.

      Expect these protest to grow.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        August 9, 2014, 5:10 pm

        thanks amigo for sharing, i did not know. keep hope alive, we shall overcome!

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 9, 2014, 7:59 pm

        Ramzi, the date should say aug 9th not 6th.

        One of our speakers today (a former rugby player on our National team) made a wonderful statement!!.

        ” As long as there is one Palestinian still breathing, Zionism does not get a mission accomplished.”.

        We had a live link to al shifa hospital and a doctor there spoke to the crowd.He was given a very loud and long “Free Gaza” from the crowd.

        You are not alone.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 9, 2014, 11:30 pm

      The moment was interesting because while the talk’s sponsor, Jewish Voice for Peace, had expressly stated at the start that it supports nonviolent resistance to occupation, Shurrab’s defense of violent resistance plainly struck a chord in the crowd of 100 (most of whom, or of the ones I knew, were Jewish).

      It should go without saying that the JVP Mission Statement embraces all of the rights prescribed by international law, including armed struggle:

      Jewish Voice for Peace members are inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, equality, human rights, respect for international law, and a U.S. foreign policy based on these ideals.

      http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/jvp-mission-statement

      For example, General Assembly resolution 33/24, 29 November 1978 and others including 37/43, 3 December 1982 recognized the legitimacy of that right:

      … 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

      3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

      http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

    • ezra greenberg
      ezra greenberg
      August 9, 2014, 11:50 pm

      life is not black and white. He is engaging in sound bites and propoganda, which wilts under critical analysis. Yes, the territories are occupied to some extent, but for the sake of argument let’s pretend they are Occupied in the same way that say France was during World War II. Just for the sake of argument. What was the genesis of this Occupation? I think that is something one has to consider to see things in their true context.
      Well, the fact is, the territories that Israel Occupies (for the sake of argument!) were acquired in a defensive war, the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel was fighting off naked genocidal aggression from these territories. I suppose Israel could have decided to go back to square one, but they decided, correctly in my opinion. to hold onto these territories and trade them for peace after negotiations. This was UN Resolution 242. And, for the time being, there has not been a completely successful negotiation as to the proper dispensation of these territories.
      In other words, the situation is a little more complicated and a little more nuanced than the speaker would have you believe. But with Progressive Lefties, all one has to do is mention the words “Occupation” “Open Air Prison” and, especially “racism” and Lefties will be automatically frothing at the mouth. But hey, why engage in nuanced analysis, when sound bites will do?

      • iResistDe4iAm
        iResistDe4iAm
        August 10, 2014, 9:48 pm

        Israel started the six day war when Israel launched surprise attacks against Egyptian air-fields on 5 June 1967. If you want to describe Israel’s invasion as naked genocidal aggression, go ahead. The facts about the six day war can easily be verified from multiple sources (Palestinian, Israeli and western).

        That’s right, “life is not black and white” and “the situation is a little more complicated”. During World War II, France was occupied, but its population wasn’t ethnically cleansed and it wasn’t wiped off the map. On the other hand, Palestine was ethnically cleansed (750,000 Palestinians) and 78% of its land conquered between 1947-1949, with the remaining 22% occupied in 1967 amidst further ethnic cleansing (another 320,000 Palestinians). Whereas France was occupied for 4 years, Palestine continues to be occupied to this day. Both occupations are barbaric and immoral, but for completely different reasons.

        Resistance to foreign invaders is instinctive, legal and universal. Occupied people don’t need the permission of their occupiers in order to resist.

      • ezra greenberg
        ezra greenberg
        August 10, 2014, 10:11 pm

        well, a little knowledge can be dangerous, and your predictable response proves that. Yes, Israel did pre-empt and destroy the Arabs air forces on the ground. But what precipitated the pre-emption? Shortly before the pre-emptive strike, which was 100% justifiable in my opinion, the Egyptians had blocked the Straits of Tiran (a causa belli for war in itself), had kicked the peacekeepers out of Sinai and U Thant of the UN acquiesced in this, and had signed a military pact with other Arab leaders. All this was done with the accompanying drumbeat of Arab news, promising to “throw the Jews into the Sea.” Now, if you draw a gun on me, I don’t have to wait until the bullet is in the air before I shoot you. I can pre-empt and blow you away before the bullet is in the air. Israel did this, and it was the correct and justifiable thing to do.

      • iResistDe4iAm
        iResistDe4iAm
        August 10, 2014, 10:45 pm

        ezra greenberg says:
        “the Egyptians had blocked the Straits of Tiran (a causa belli for war in itself)”

        The Israelis have ethnically cleansed and wiped Palestine off the map (a casus belli for war in itself).
        The Israelis have occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem for 47 years (a casus belli for war in itself).
        The Israelis have besieged the Gaza Strip and forced the people on a Weisglas “diet” for 7 years (a casus belli for war in itself).
        The Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights for 47 years (a casus belli for war in itself).
        The Israelis continue to bomb Syria (a casus belli for war in itself).
        The Israelis continue to violate Lebanon’s sovereignty every week (a casus belli for war in itself).

      • tree
        tree
        August 10, 2014, 11:35 pm

        well, a little knowledge can be dangerous, and your predictable response proves that.

        Projection on your part, Ezra. Either you are being dishonest in failing to mention Israel’s attack on Jordan in November, 1966, and its provocation and attack on Syrian airspace in April 1967, or your knowledge is so limited that you aren’t even aware of these factors which led to the Egypt’s declaration closing the Straits of Tiran. You seem like the typical gullible hasbarist who simply regurgitates what you hear without question, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely ignorant rather than a deliberate liar.

        Ever heard of Es Samu? It was a village in the West Bank, then a part of Jordan, that was attacked by an Israeli force of 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers, backed up by tanks and aircraft, destroying houses, schools, clinics and a mosque, and killing 18, 15 of them Jordanian soldiers fighting on Jordanian soil. This happened in November 1966 and is considered by all an important step in the lead up to the 1967 war. Jordan did not retaliate, and the only punishment for Israel was UN condemnation. In April 1967, according to Moshe Dayan, the Israelis purposefully provoked a confrontation in the DMZ between it and Syria by advancing military bulldozers into the DMZ until Syria responded by firing on the Israelis who were at that moment in breach of the armistice agreement. Israel fired back then brought in fighter jets who engaged Syria jets over Syria airspace, and shot one Syria fighter jet down over Damascus, over 50 miles from the border with Israel. Syria did not retaliate, but tensions mounted and Syria legitimately feared an invasion, and was threatened with one by Israel.

        This is the background to Egypt’s closing of the Straits, which at the time it considered its own territorial waters ( the Straits are only 7 miles wide). It had agreed to adjudicating its right to close the Straits in the International Court and abiding by the Court decision, but Israel refused to do the same. The US and Egypt were engaged, in Washington, DC, in resolving the dispute diplomatically at the very time that Israel decided to attack Egypt. (Israel was aware of the negotiations.)

        So obviously, the country that chose the war, and that was threatening its neighbors, as well as attacking their sovereign space, was Israel, not the other way around. Israeli government officials have admitted as such since as early as the 1970s.

        Mattiyahu Peled, IDF General and member of the General Staff during the 1967, said “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military).”

        Menachem Begin, who was in the Knesset at the time, said, “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

        Yitzhak Rabin, also on the General Staff at the time, said:

        “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

        Here’s Miko Peled, talking a little bit about his father, Mattiyahu, and the 1967 war:

        And here’s an article in Foreign Policy Journal which makes clear that the intent to attack was strictly an Israeli one, and not an Egyptian intent, and also makes clear that Israeli and American intelligence knew that Egypt was NOT about to attack Israel in 1967.

        http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

        And of course, if Israel truly believed that it was instigating a “preemptive attack” then its UN Ambassador would not have immediately and brazenly lied that Israel had been attacked when it was the one who attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground in Egypt.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 11, 2014, 7:29 am

        >> ezra greenbergeee: Now, if you draw a gun on me, I don’t have to wait until the bullet is in the air before I shoot you. I can pre-empt and blow you away before the bullet is in the air.

        The right to strike pre-emptively is universal, yes? So, for example, the next time Israel threatens Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah, those groups have a right to “pre-empt and blow Israel away before the bullet is in the air”, yes?

  2. gamal
    gamal
    August 9, 2014, 2:06 pm

    As regards the duty to resist it is absolute, who now recalls the displaced in the camps, the only reason anyone is paying attention to Gaza is because of Hamas ability to inconvenience the annexors, nonviolence requires an audience.

  3. joer
    joer
    August 9, 2014, 3:15 pm

    The thing is, discussing Palestinian violent resistance is largely theoretical. Except with resistance fighters engaging in combat with invading murderous soldiers, we are usually talking about the threat of violence-which rarely hurts anyone, but tends to interfere with people’s daily routine and has the actual effect that most civil disobedience actions have-stopping traffic and slowing down commerce. When Hamas shoots rockets blindly into Israel, even if no one gets hit, everyone has to stop their car and lay down on the ground. A pain in the ass to be sure, but is it violent? Borderline, in my opinion. Even when kids throw stones at soldiers, the effect is to interfere with the routine of occupation. The soldiers aren’t going to get hurt unless they engage the protesting civilians-and even then, they are most likely only to get bruised.

    If we are going to discuss violence, we should be less generic-or else we fall into the trap of conflating suicide bombings with throwing rocks.

  4. amirflesher
    amirflesher
    August 9, 2014, 3:22 pm

    He is absolutely right. I just came from a Lion’s club meeting, in which, after we worked on organizing a fund drive for the local hospice, I directed the members to spy on the government in odder to destroy society. It was great fun.

  5. eGuard
    eGuard
    August 9, 2014, 5:27 pm

    What a wonderful simple and devastating logic:

    “If Hamas is hiding in the tunnels, why do you bomb hospitals?”

    “If you are afraid of the tunnels, why don’t you approach them from their end in Israel?”

    “How to protest non-violent against invisible bombing & shelling planes, ships and tanks?”

  6. Hakuna_Matata
    Hakuna_Matata
    August 9, 2014, 6:38 pm

    Resistance in which one targets civilians (or indiscriminately fires not knowing who is going to get killed) is morally wrong, and against international law. It is also counter-productive as it makes you lose the moral high ground. For the breaking of the siege, Palestinians could have requested non-violent means such as a flotilla and international demonstrations. I think that both Israeli commanders and leaders and Hamas commanders and leaders should be prosecuted by the ICC and be in the brig. I understand that Martin Luther King faced a simpler task because “all men are created equal” is enshrined in the constitution, while Israel has no such doctrine. However, killing civilians brings you to the same level as your oppressors. Non-violence is not easy (the Chinese condemn the Dalai Lama despite his non-violence) but I don’t see any other way.

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 9, 2014, 10:33 pm

      And what does Israel do to ships that attempt to break the siege? How did it work out for everyone on board the Mavi Marmara?

      Not even Gandhi thought that non violence was the only option, nor always the more desirable one.

      “Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women.”

      &

      “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 9, 2014, 11:42 pm

      Resistance in which one targets civilians (or indiscriminately fires not knowing who is going to get killed) is morally wrong, and against international law.

      The position taken by the Goldstone report was that mortars and rockets can’t be accurately aimed and are therefore a weapon of terror when employed by Hamas. The Prosecutor would nonetheless have to prove that on a case by case basis. For example, the very first thing Israel requested from US war reserves was 120mm mortar ammo and grenades that are not inherently safer or more accurate than similar weapons employed by Hamas.

    • tree
      tree
      August 11, 2014, 4:09 am

      It is also counter-productive as it makes you lose the moral high ground.

      Human rights are rights, not privileges, and do not depend on capturing “the moral high ground”. Otherwise, Israelis would not be entitled to human rights, which they are. They are not entitled, however, to deny those same rights to others, to engage in ethnic cleansing, or land theft, or discrimination and oppression, regardless of whether they think they have the “moral high ground” or not.

  7. Leopold Bloom
    Leopold Bloom
    August 9, 2014, 6:54 pm

    Fine, violent resistance is justifiable. And the escalated response it provokes is also justifiable. Look at how Assad is dealing with the violent resisters in Syria.

    When these people give up their dream of pushing the Jews into the sea, they might have a chance of gaining self-determination. After almost 70 years, clinging to the rhetoric of Israel’s complete destruction and the death of every Jew in the world should be seen as counter-productive.

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 9, 2014, 10:28 pm

      Fine, violent resistance is justifiable. And the escalated response it provokes is also justifiable.

      No, that’s not how the law, either international nor any state based legislation, works.

      Someone who is mugged has a right to resist, the mugger does not have a right to defend himself against that resistance.

      The OCCUPIED have a right to resist. The OCCUPIER does not have a right to defend itself against that resistance.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        August 9, 2014, 11:29 pm

        I’m not a lawyer, but in most states in the US that is not true of theft. If someone is stealing your car you can’t shoot them. You have an obligation to de-escalate the situation and walk away if you can. Property doesn’t triumph over life.
        The exception are the idiotic stand-your-ground laws.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 10, 2014, 10:08 am

        “I’m not a lawyer, but in most states in the US that is not true of theft. If someone is stealing your car you can’t shoot them. You have an obligation to de-escalate the situation and walk away if you can. jon66

        You presume the presence of a Court of Law to which the Victim can go to.

        “Property doesn’t triumph over life.” jon66

        Qualifies as the most idiotic comment coming from a zionist pro expansion, land theft, ethnic cleansing property destruction and all around criminal behaviour of the occupation nation.

        Are you people for real.

  8. Sumud
    Sumud
    August 9, 2014, 8:06 pm

    My suggestion for a minor headline edit:

    A Palestinian defends violent resistance to violent occupation

  9. hophmi
    hophmi
    August 9, 2014, 10:35 pm

    The rockets have chiefly military targets?

    I don’t think even the anti-Israel movement believes that one.

    Let’s be clear: Hamas rockets target civilians, and there is no internationally-recognized right to resist occupation by targeting civilians.

    That this fatuous statement found an audience only confirms that the anti-Israel movement has no respect for international law, just as Norman Finkelstein said, and that they support violence.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 10, 2014, 12:44 am

      The rockets have chiefly military targets?

      I don’t think even the anti-Israel movement believes that one.

      I’ve never seen any statistical evidence presented to the contrary. FYI, Hamas provided two written follow up reports to the Goldstone findings which claimed that it mainly targets the Israeli military: 1) titled “Status of the implementation of the recommendations of the International Fact-Finding Mission Report on the Israeli aggression on Gaza 12/2008-1/2009”, submitted on 2 February 2010, and 2) titled “Report on the implementation of the recommendations of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the situation in Gaza”, submitted on 28 July 2010.

      While they were largely panned by the UN HRC panel of experts, any dispute over a material fact has to be decided by the trier of fact, based upon the actual evidence.

      In any event Mohammed Faraj al-Ghul, the Justice Minister in the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip indicated that the regime was prepared to defend its leaders in Court and asked the UN to refer the matter to the ICC saying:

      “We ask the United Nations to transfer the matter [the Goldstone report findings] to the ICC so that the Zionist war criminals can be brought to justice”.

      –-See Al Arabiya News/GAZA CITY (Agencies): “Hamas want ICC to judge ‘Zionist war criminals”, Saturday, 06 February 2010 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/02/06/99552.html

  10. iResistDe4iAm
    iResistDe4iAm
    August 9, 2014, 10:38 pm

    In the fight against Apartheid, even Nelson Mandela refused to renounce armed resistance (including in exchange for his own freedom).

    In February 1985, South African President P.W. Botha offered Mandela a release from prison on condition that he “unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon”. Mandela spurned the offer, releasing a statement through his daughter Zindzi stating “What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people [ANC] remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Pollsmoor_Prison:_1982.E2.80.931988

  11. eljay
    eljay
    August 10, 2014, 12:14 am

    >> hophmeee: Let’s be clear: Hamas rockets target civilians, and there is no internationally-recognized right to resist occupation by targeting civilians.

    Let’s hold every person accountable who:
    – resists occupation by targeting civilians;
    – enforces occupation by targeting civilians; and
    – engages in occupation.

  12. Paldi5
    Paldi5
    August 10, 2014, 12:15 am

    As I understand it, except for the ultra-orthodox and the Arab citizens, all healthy and competent Israeli men and women must serve in the IDF, making everyone a soldier, a legitimate target if you will.

  13. Ian Matthews
    Ian Matthews
    August 10, 2014, 5:21 pm

    So we have some people here saying that being occupied gives Hamas a right to violently resist. What these people seemingly ignore is that Gaza hasn’t been occupied since 2005. The closing of border crossing and the blockade that was implemented in response to the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and rockets being launched is not an occupation. It is a military blockade, and is 100% legal to block the build up of weapons by a terrorist entity. Gaza was violently taken over by Hamas (an organization whose charter is clearly a violation of UN Resolution 242) in 2007 and despite the closure of crossing and the blockade they were able to purchase and build 10,000 rockets and spend ~$100 million just on the 32 tunnels that went in to Israel and were destroyed, and it’s estimated that Hamas used 1.6 billion pounds of concrete to build their military infrastructure of tunnels in Gaza. The government of Israel is far from perfect, but any government has an obligation to defend it’s citizens from infiltration by tunnels and rockets that could have killed thousands of people if it weren’t for the Iron Dome system.

    If you believe in UN Resolution 242 then you clearly have to denounce Hamas. If you don’t believe in it then you probably believe that Israel was illegitimate from 1948 and thus ignore that opposing Israel from that perspective is a justification for genocide against the Jews because that is what is expressed by the Hamas charter and that is what would have to happen through violent resistance to end Jewish sovereignty in the country currently known as Israel. Hamas still holds that view. IMO since Olso, and even more so since Abbas took over, the PA has changed their tactics and now supports a political solution which will slowly end Jewish sovereignty. You can support that all you want, but if that is what is truly going on it doesn’t bode well for any kind of two-state solution under Resolution 242.

    • James North
      James North
      August 10, 2014, 6:06 pm

      A new reinforcement shows up from Hasbara Central.

      • Leopold Bloom
        Leopold Bloom
        August 10, 2014, 6:25 pm

        “Hasbara” defined as “any argument which presents Hamas as anything less than saints, while failing to equate the IDF with the Wehrmacht.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2014, 2:20 am

        “Hasbara” defined as “any argument which presents Hamas as anything less than saints, while failing to equate the IDF with the Wehrmacht.”

        No, it means discredited material so old that it has been employed as a canned response for many years by the Zionist echo chamber in fellowship talking points, Megaphone desktop alerts, RSS feeds, and shit that Spam Assassin puts in everyone else’s junk folder.

      • Ian Matthews
        Ian Matthews
        August 10, 2014, 6:29 pm

        I was expecting better. I already made Ray Hanania and a few others look like a fool on his own Google+ page. I assumed the people who populate this site could actually hold a real debate instead of using a generic straw man tactic to insinuate I’m paid by the Zionists to be here. James would you like to dispute my facts about the “occupation” of Gaza or are you unable to? BTW, I use my real name on here, and while I’m sure you would consider me a Zionist, I really don’t consider myself one. While I’m definitely not Charedi, and would actually consider myself anti-Charedi in many respects, I am one of those Jews who won’t set foot on the temple mount. See, I’m throwing you a bone telling you a little bit about myself to make it a little easier for you to debate me. Now go find some talking points from Noam Chomsky and try again.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2014, 2:06 am

        I assumed the people who populate this site could actually hold a real debate instead of using a generic straw man tactic to insinuate I’m paid by the Zionists to be here.

        I really don’t care whether your motive for rehashing old international hasbara fellowship talking points is love, money, or both. Either way you’re just another obnoxious dimwit.

      • tree
        tree
        August 11, 2014, 2:45 am

        Ian,

        Feel free to peruse the archives here. Your hasbara has been refuted time and time again every time some newbie comes to the site and thinks that his tired old talking points are something new that we have never heard before. Besides the issue of moderation sometimes taking forever here, frankly a lot of us are tired of having to refute the same old lies over and over again. It would be great if we could just say “Hasbara bullshit #47” and link to old posts and links that refute the lies without having to start all over again just because some neophyte thinks he’s just invented the Zionist wheel. But so far that capability has not been built into the system.

        However, in short, from the Goldstone Report to explain why Gaza is still considered occupied by Israel according to International consensus:

        276. Israel has without doubt at all times relevant to the mandate of the Mission exercised effective control over the Gaza Strip. The Mission is of the view that the circumstances of this control establish that the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention therefore apply at all relevant times with regard to the obligations of Israel towards the population of the Gaza Strip.

        277. Despite Israel’s declared intention to relinquish its position as an occupying Power by evacuating troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip during its 2005 “disengagement”,162 the international community continues to regard it as the occupying Power.163

        278. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access164) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore, Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.

        279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.165 In fact, as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for itself the ultimate authority. Although Israel has transferred to the Palestinian Authority a series of functions within designated zones, it has done so by agreement, through the Oslo Accords and related understandings, keeping for itself “powers and responsibilities not so transferred”.166

        When Israel unilaterally evacuated troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip, it left in place a Palestinian local administration. There is no local governing body to which full authority has been transferred. In this regard, the Mission recalls that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, regards the transfer of powers and responsibilities by Israel under various agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as having “done nothing” to alter the character of Israel as an occupying Power.167

        http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

        Gisha, which is an Israeli NGO that reports on Gaza states the case for why Israel, which is in “effective control” of Gaza on many levels, is still, under international law, considered the occupying power in Gaza.

        Israel’s withdrawal of settlements and its permanent military ground installations from the Gaza Strip did not end Israeli control of Gaza but rather changed the way in which such control is effectuated. The forms of control have contributed to an unprecedented deterioration in the economic and social welfare of Gaza residents.

        Israel continues to control Gaza through:

        *Substantial control of Gaza’s land crossings;
        *Control on the ground through incursions and sporadic ground troop presence (“no -go-zone”)
        *Complete control of Gaza’s airspace
        *Complete control of Gaza’s territorial waters:
        *Control of the Palestinian population rregistry (including who is a “resident” of Gaza)
        *Control of tax policy and transfer of tax revenues;
        *Control of the ability of the Palestinian Authority to exercise governmental functions’
        *Control of the West Bank, which together with Gaza, constitute a single territorial unit.

        More details and explanations here:

        http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/Report%20for%20the%20website.pdf

        The excessive closure of border crossings into Israel occurred prior to the attempted coup by Fatah in Gaza which Hamas quelled, and prior to the capture of Shalit, so the closures can not be the result of actions that happened after the policy took place. See the current article entitled “The Greenhouse propaganda—How Gazan history is being rewritten to dehumanize Palestinians” for details on the closures that caused grievous economic harm to the Gaza economy.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/propaganda-dehumanize-palestinians.html

        As for this:

        The government of Israel is far from perfect, but any government has an obligation to defend it’s citizens from infiltration by tunnels and rockets that could have killed thousands of people if it weren’t for the Iron Dome system.

        Iron Dome is relatively new, and there is considerable controversy whether it actually provides any protection or not. The rockets from Gaza, sent in response to much larger firepower directed by Israel towards Gaza, only killed 22 people from 2004 until today, and the greatest number of casualties from rockets in the past happened during Israeli incursions into Gaza which were supposedly intended to stop rocket fire. See the report here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/rocket-deaths-israel.html

        So your insistence that the tunnels and rockets could have killed thousands is specious, but it does highlight the fact that while only 2 civilians have been killed by rockets, Hamas has managed to killed over 50 Israeli soldiers, which is part of its right to defend itself against military attack. Hamas has had tunnels since it captured Shalit in June of 2006. In the past 8 years it has attacked zero civilians in Israel and has only attacked legitimate military targets from the tunnels during the time that it has been under devastating bombardment and ground attack from “Protective Edge”. Israel, on the other hand has killed nearly 2000 Palestinians in Gaza, as well as a few dozen in the West Bank, 80% of them civilians.

      • tree
        tree
        August 11, 2014, 4:03 am

        And this just proves that you will believe anything you’re told without questioning it:

        …and spend ~$100 million just on the 32 tunnels that went in to Israel and were destroyed, and it’s estimated that Hamas used 1.6 billion pounds of concrete to build their military infrastructure of tunnels in Gaza.

        1.6 billion pounds of concrete, at an average of 140 pounds per cubic foot would equal 11,428,571 cubic feet of concrete. To line a shaft 6 feet high on two sides by 4 feet wide by 4 inches thick would equal less than 6 cubic feet of concrete per lineal foot. That would mean that, even if the tunnels were completely lined with concrete along their entire length , which they are not, in total they would be 1,904,761 feet long, or 360 miles long. That’s a length of over 10 miles for each of 32 tunnels. Gaza is only about 5 miles across from ocean to Israeli border, and about 25 miles long from north to south, and the IDF has claimed that the LONGEST tunnel was under 2 miles long. That would mean a minimum of 180 tunnels, if they were all full lined and all 2 miles long, which they clearly are not. If we make rational and limited assumptions, such as the tunnels only being lined over half of their length, and tunnels being an average of 1 mile long (both of which may still be overstatements), we get to the ridiculous number of 720 tunnels from your figure on pounds of concrete used. The concrete number you give is demonstrably overstated, as is the cost of building them. You’re simply a parrot.

    • Keith
      Keith
      August 10, 2014, 9:34 pm

      IAN MATTHEWS- “What these people seemingly ignore is that Gaza hasn’t been occupied since 2005.”

      Of course it remains occupied since it remains under complete Israeli control. This has been discussed before, however, for those unaware of the history, I am providing a long Noam Chomsky quote to indicate the actual situation.

      “What actually happened is that Israeli hawks, led by Sharon, realized that it made good sense to transfer the illegal settlers from their subsidized communities in devastated Gaza, where they were sustained at exorbitant cost, to subsidized settlements in the other occupied territories, which Israel intends to keep. But instead of simply transferring them, as would have been simple enough, it was clearly more useful to present the world with images of little children pleading with soldiers not to destroy their homes, amidst cries of “Never Again,” with the implication obvious. What made the farce even more transparent was that it was a replica of the staged trauma when Israel had to evacuate the Egyptian Sinai in 1982. But it played very well for the intended audience at home and abroad.

      Weissglass provided his own description of the transfer of settlers from Gaza to other occupied territories: “What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that [the major settlement blocs in the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns” – but a special kind of Finns, who would quietly accept rule by a foreign power. “The significance is the freezing of the political process,” Weissglass continued. “And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

      Weisglass explained further that Gazans would remain “on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger” – which would not help Israel’s fading reputation. With their vaunted technical efficiency, Israeli experts determined precisely how many calories a day Gazans needed for bare survival, while also depriving them of medicines and other means of decent life. Israeli military forces confined them by land, sea and air to what British Prime Minister David Cameron accurately described as a prison camp. The Israeli withdrawal left Israel in total control of Gaza, hence the occupying power under international law. And to close the prison walls even more tightly, Israel excluded Palestinians from a large region along the border, including a third or more of Gaza’s scarce arable land. The justification is security for Israelis, which could be just as well achieved by establishing the security zone on the Israeli side of the border, or more fully, by ending the savage siege and other punishments.

      The official story is that after Israel graciously handed Gaza over to the Palestinians, in the hope that they would construct a flourishing state, they revealed their true nature by subjecting Israel to unremitting rocket attack and forcing the captive population to become martyrs to so that Israel would be pictured in a bad light. Reality is rather different.

      A few weeks after Israeli troops withdrew, leaving the occupation intact, Palestinians committed a major crime. In January 2006, they voted the wrong way in a carefully monitored free election, handing control of the Parliament to Hamas. The media constantly intone that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In reality, its leaders have repeatedly made it clear and explicit that Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus that has been blocked by the US and Israel for 40 years. In contrast, Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, apart from some occasional meaningless words, and is implementing that commitment.

      True, Israel accepted the Road Map for reaching a two-state settlement initiated by President Bush and adopted by the Quartet that is to supervise it: the US, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia. But as he accepted the Road Map, Prime Minister Sharon at once added fourteen reservations that effectively nullify it. The facts were known to activists, but revealed to the general public for the first time in Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.” They remain under wraps in media reporting and commentary.

      The (unrevised) 1999 platform of Israel’s governing party, Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud, “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” And for those who like to obsess about meaningless charters, the core component of Likud, Menahem Begin’s Herut, has yet to abandon its founding doctrine that the territory on both sides of the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel.

      The crime of the Palestinians in January 2006 was punished at once. The US and Israel, with Europe shamefully trailing behind, imposed harsh sanctions on the errant population and Israel stepped up its violence. By June, when the attacks sharply escalated, Israel had already fired more than 7700 [155 mm] shells at northern Gaza.

      The US and Israel quickly initiated plans for a military coup to overthrow the elected government. When Hamas had the effrontery to foil the plans, the Israeli assaults and the siege became far more severe, justified by the claim that Hamas had taken over the Gaza Strip by force – which is not entirely false, though something rather crucial is omitted.

      There should be no need to review again the horrendous record since. The relentless siege and savage attacks are punctuated by episodes of “mowing the lawn,” to borrow Israel’s cheery expression for its periodic exercises of shooting fish in a pond in what it calls a “war of defense.” Once the lawn is mowed and the desperate population seeks to reconstruct somehow from the devastation and the murders, there is a cease-fire agreement. These have been regularly observed by Hamas, as Israel concedes, until Israel violates them with renewed violence.

      The most recent cease-fire was established after Israel’s October 2012 assault. Though Israel maintained its devastating siege, Hamas observed the cease-fire, as Israeli officials concede. Matters changed in June, when Fatah and Hamas forged a unity agreement, which established a new government of technocrats that had no Hamas participation and accepted all of the demands of the Quartet. Israel was naturally furious, even more so when even the US joined in signaling approval. The unity agreement not only undercuts Israel’s claim that it cannot negotiate with a divided Palestine, but also threatens the long term goal of dividing Gaza from the West Bank and pursuing its destructive policies in both of the regions.

      Something had to be done, and an occasion arose shortly after, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. The Netanyahu government knew at once that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas. Netanhayu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie, as recognized early on. There has been no pretense of presenting evidence. One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”

      The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.

      Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.
      There has been ample reporting of the exploits of the self-declared Most Moral Army in the World, which should receive the Nobel Peace Prize according to Israel’s Ambassador to the US. By the end of July, some 1500 Palestinians had been killed, exceeding the toll of the Cast Lead crimes of 2008-9, 70% of them civilians including hundreds of women and children. And 3 civilians in Israel. Large areas of Gaza had been turned into rubble. During brief bombing pauses, relatives desperately seek shattered bodies or household items in the ruins of homes. The main power plant was attacked – not for the first time; this is an Israeli specialty — sharply curtailing the already very limited electricity and worse yet, reducing still further the minimal availability of fresh water. Another war crime. Meanwhile rescue teams and ambulances are repeatedly attacked. As atrocities mount throughout Gaza, Israel claims that its goal is to destroy tunnels at the border.

      Four hospitals had been attacked, each yet another war crime. The first was the Al-Wafa Rehabilitation Hospital in Gaza City, attacked on the day the ground forces invaded the prison. A few lines in the New York Times, within a story about the ground invasion, reported that “most but not all of the 17 patients and 25 doctors and nurses were evacuated before the electricity was cut and heavy bombardments nearly destroyed the building, doctors said. `We evacuated them under fire,’ said Dr. Ali Abu Ryala, a hospital spokesman. `Nurses and doctors had to carry the patients on their backs, some of them falling off the stairway. There is an unprecedented state of panic in the hospital’.”

      Three working hospitals were then attacked, patients and staff left to their own devices to survive. One Israeli crime did receive wide condemnation: the attack on a UN school that was harboring 3300 terrified refugees who had fled the ruins of their neighborhoods on the orders of the Israeli army. The outraged UNWRA Commission-General Pierre Kraehenbuehl said “I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces…. Today the world stands disgraced.” There were at least three Israeli strikes at the refugee shelter, a site well known to the Israeli army. “The precise location of the Jabalia Elementary Girls School and the fact that it was housing thousands of internally displaced people was communicated to the Israeli army seventeen times, to ensure its protection,” Kraehenbuehl said, “the last being at ten to nine last night, just hours before the fatal shelling.”

      The attack was also condemned “in the strongest possible terms” by the normally reticent Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon. “Nothing is more shameful than attacking sleeping children,” he said.

      Israeli officials laud the humanity of the army, which even goes so far as to inform residents that their homes will be bombed. The practice is “sadism, sanctimoniously disguising itself as mercy,” in the words of Israeli journalist Amira Hass: “A recorded message demanding hundreds of thousands of people leave their already targeted homes, for another place, equally dangerous, 10 kilometers away.” In fact, no place in the prison is safe from Israeli sadism.

      The day before, on July 31, the Coastal Water Utility, the sole provider of water in the Gaza Strip, announced that it could no longer provide water or sanitation services because of lack of fuel and frequent attacks on personnel. Al Mezan reports that by then, “almost all primary health services have stopped in the Gaza Strip due to the lack of water, garbage collection and environment health services. UNRWA had also warned about the risk of imminent spreading of disease owing to the halt of water and sanitation services.” Meanwhile, on the eve of the cease-fire, Israeli missiles fired from aircraft continued to kill and wound victims throughout the region.

      When the current episode of sadism is finally called off, whenever that will be, Israel hopes to be free to pursue its criminal policies in the occupied territories without interference, and with the US support it has enjoyed in the past: military, economic, and diplomatic; and also ideological, by framing the issues in conformity to Israeli doctrines. Gazans will be free to return to the norm in their Israeli-run prison, while in the West Bank they can watch in peace as Israel dismantles what remains of their possessions.

      It is not that Israel’s security would be threatened by adherence to international law; it would very likely be enhanced. But as explained 40 years ago by Israeli general Ezer Weizman, later president, Israel could then not “exist according to the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.”
      http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/outrage/

      • Ian Matthews
        Ian Matthews
        August 10, 2014, 11:10 pm

        For a second I thought that was your thesis Keith. Oh how easy it is to cut and paste from your mentor, but first I’ll address what you actually said before I debate anything from Noam.

        Keith – “Of course it remains occupied since it remains under complete Israeli control.”

        If it’s under COMPLETE Israeli control then how was Hamas able to fire thousands of rockets and build hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tunnels. That’s some pretty bad control Israel has. Seriously dude, you might have had half a point when Israeli troops were actually there for a few weeks, but no troops on the ground = NO OCCUPATION. And I’m sure this has been discussed before on this site, but just because a bunch of Jews with high IQs who use philosophical arguments like Noam Chomsky say it is so does not make it so. Occupation means the supposed occupier is the de facto ruler of the territory. The de facto ruler of Gaza since they violently took over from Fatah in 2007 is Hamas.

        And since you’re a little hoop jumper for Noam Chomsky, in regard to what he wrote:

        “Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus” – I’m not sure what this “international consensus” is, but anyone who believes Hamas supports UN Resolution 242 after reading Article 13 of their charter is seriously lacking a logical thought process.

        As far as the “2006” economic “sanctions”, countries have a right to cut off donations for any reason they choose. And since Hamas didn’t accept the Olso accords, Israel had a right to withhold tax revenues.

        As far as the “7700 [155mm] shells” Israel fired at Gaza by June 2006, this most likely encompasses close to 40 years as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah had regularly been firing at Sderot since 2001, and I’d imagine there was no lack of violent resistance from Palestinian militant groups far before that (I’ve talked to plenty of Israeli soldiers who served in Gaza in the 1990s.) At least they could claim it was the occupation before the 2005 pullout though.

        As far as the West Bank kidnappers, there are opposing narratives on what their official connect was to Hamas. I serious doubt Noam has any more information than anyone outside of Hamas or the Israeli government does, and while I’m sure those who oppose Israel will take his word, I certainly don’t. And here’s why:

        As for the “dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7” those were rocket crews! THEY STARTED FIRING ROCKETS ON JULY 7th! Nice try Noam.

        “70% of them civilians” – This is narrative again. However this number is entirely from the authorities in Gaza. When Israel forces left Gaza a few days ago, they reported the death toll at ~1875. A simple look at the list will show that well over 5% of the names and ages are duplicates. Hamas also actually directly killed many of them as collaborators or from misfired missiles, others died of natural causes, and as Israel claims 900 of them were terrorists,so the math would say the majority of those killed in Gaza were terrorists. Even the BBC is now admitting that the Gaza civilian casualty statistics are not credible.

        “Al-Wafa Rehabilitation Hospital in Gaza City” – Hamas command and control center, thus Hamas turned a hospital into a legitimate military target, and “most but not all of the 17 patients and 25 doctors and nurses were evacuated” because the IDF told them explicitly when they were going to attack days before and cut the power before they attacked to let them know it was happening in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.

        “One Israeli crime did receive wide condemnation: the attack on a UN school that was harboring 3300 terrified refugees” – This one was unfortunately a big propaganda win for Hamas because Ban Ki-moon and Psaki believed the Hamas lies. Most of the deaths were from a rocket crew that was shelled OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL, then dragged inside the school with some other dead in an unfortunately successful attempt to make it appear that Israel had attacked the school. Even the UK Guardian stated: “a projectile struck a street OUTSIDE the school gates on Sunday morning.”

        Yeah I realize I asked for it when I mentioned Noam Chomsky talking points, but seriously do your research and come up with some of your own stuff people and quit being a sheep for these distortions and lies.

      • Ian Matthews
        Ian Matthews
        August 11, 2014, 12:00 am

        After further research I have to edit one of the things I said. According to HRW, the IDF did fire 7700 155mm shells at Gaza in a period of about 10 months. However they were responding to mortar and rocket attacks directed at Sderot and other civilian communities near the Gaza border. They would have never fired shells if the Palestinians hadn’t attacked first.

      • tree
        tree
        August 11, 2014, 9:41 am

        As far as the “2006″ economic “sanctions”, countries have a right to cut off donations for any reason they choose. And since Hamas didn’t accept the Olso accords, Israel had a right to withhold tax revenues.

        As I suspected you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The tax revenues that Israel has withheld on numerous occasions are not Israeli tax revenues, nor are they Israeli “donations”. They are the import fees and taxes levied on Palestinians that are collected by Israel since it continues to control entry and exit for all goods going into Gaza and the West Bank from the crossings. Under the Oslo agreement Israel is required to turn that money over to the Palestinian Authority. This is part of Israel’s effective control of the West Bank and Gaza, as I enumerated above- control over Palestinian tax revenues. Israel DOES NOT have a right to withhold money it collects from Palestinians that rightfully belongs to the PA, but it has done so repeatedly. Here’s one example from 2011;

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/30/israel-unfreezes-palestinian-taxes

        That you think the tax revenues are something paid by Israelis just shows how ignorant you are about the subject you are discussing. As does your big whopper about the 7700 155mm shells fired into Gaza, which you first assured us MUST have happened over 40 years time, and then, oops, you actually looked something up and found out it wasn’t 40 years, it was 10 months time in 2006. Of course, then you just as adamantly insist that Israel “would have never fired shells if the Palestinians hadn’t attacked first” which you know for a fact having personally pulled that information out of your *ss.

        Here’s is a report from the IDMC (International Displacement Monitoring Centre) ‘Under Fire: Israel’s enforcement of Access Restricted Areas in the Gaza Strip’ which shows that the IDF has created a “no-go” zone where it shoots any Palestinian who enters these areas within Gaza. It doesn’t wait for anyone to attack, simply walking in the area is sufficient for Israel to kill him or her, adult or child.

        http://www.internal-displacement.org/assets/publications/2014/201402-me-palestine-under-fire-report-en.pdf

        And here’s a chart that explains the “Context Behind Projectile Fire” from both Gaza and Israel in 2012. As often as not, Israeli fire is the precipitating ceasefire violation, and Gaza fire is the response, despite your unsupported assertion to the contrary.

        http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2012/10/israel-and-gaza-context-behind.html

        Come back when you have something other than regurgitated propaganda.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 11, 2014, 10:30 am

        @ Ian Matthews Shows us how to spread ziopoop all over ….

        “Occupation means the supposed occupier is the de facto ruler of the territory”

        Ever read the specific Law?

        Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        Israel exercises military control over ALL of Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters. It makes military incursions across the Armistice Demarcation Lines surrounding Gaza and has control over what, who and when anything or anyone passes across any crossing including, under the Egypt Israel Peace treaty and the 2005 agreement, Gaza’s crossings with Egypt.

        “The de facto ruler of Gaza since they violently took over from Fatah in 2007 is Hamas”

        Strange … Hamas was democratically elected! A democratic election insisted upon by Israel and the US.

        //“Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus” //
        “I’m not sure what this “international consensus” is, but anyone who believes Hamas supports UN Resolution 242 “
        You said you were not sure, then you cite UNSC 242, which doesn’t mention any two state solution. Man you really have lost the plot

        “As far as the “2006″ economic “sanctions”, countries have a right to cut off donations for any reason they choose.”

        A) Taxes are NOT donations. B) Israel AGREED to collect the taxes on behalf of the occupied in accordance with International Law.

        ” And since Hamas didn’t accept the Olso accords, Israel had a right to withhold tax revenues”

        Hamas were not present nor did they negotiate the Oslo Accords.

        You’re babbling incoherently like a true idiot for Israel. NOTHING you’ve said bears inspection.

      • Keith
        Keith
        August 11, 2014, 10:58 am

        IAN MATTHEWS- “If it’s under COMPLETE Israeli control then how was Hamas able to fire thousands of rockets and build hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tunnels.”

        The control is complete at the macro level, however, the prisoners do exercise some form of resistance at the micro level. The point is that Israel remains the occupying power and remains responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the occupied population that they are tormenting.

        The rockets are homemade affairs that do little damage and pale in comparison to the massive tonnage of high explosives that Israel has dumped on this more-or-less defenseless population which is unable to defend itself against Israel’s US supplied, high-tech war machine. A comparison of the respective causalities bears testament to the one-sided nature of the slaughter. As for the “millions of dollars worth of tunnels,” what is the basis of your estimate? Remember, prisoner labor is free and the tunnels are a defensive measure in view of Israel’s massive bombing and other aggression. Perhaps you feel that the Palestinians should just resign themselves to their plight, grateful that Israel doesn’t “mow the lawn” continuously?

        Ian Matthews: “And since you’re a little hoop jumper for Noam Chomsky….”

        Nice try at ad hominem bait and switch. The reality is that you have zero intellectual integrity and your grasp of the facts is on a par with Joan Rivers. The reality is that for over 60 years, Israel has consistently shunned peace to pursue slow-motion genocide.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 11, 2014, 1:56 am

      So we have some people here saying that being occupied gives Hamas a right to violently resist. What these people seemingly ignore is that Gaza hasn’t been occupied since 2005.

      Correction: I cited UN General Assembly resolutions which affirmed the use of armed struggle as a legitimate remedy for a number of illegal situations, including foreign occupation:

      Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle

      Gaza has been under a regime of naval blockade and closure of the land border crossings that has never been authorized or sanctioned by the UN Security Council. FYI, military occupation, blockade, and annexation of territory in violation of the UN Charter or UN resolutions are constituent acts of the Crime of Aggression under customary and conventional international law.

      I was expecting better. I already made Ray Hanania and a few others look like a fool on his own Google+ page.

      Some of us have busy schedules and don’t have time to respond to shopworn propaganda talking points.

      • Ian Matthews
        Ian Matthews
        August 11, 2014, 3:17 am

        I’m on a vacation so I actually have the time. In regard to what you said in your first paragraph, do you have a UN resolution number to support anything you say and do you actually have any idea why Resolution 242 means something where any UN Security Council moves have no binding power.

      • James North
        James North
        August 11, 2014, 7:49 am

        Your assertion that you are “on vacation” and so you “actually have the time” is hilarious. You arrive suddenly to Mondoweiss in the midst of a crisis, armed with the usual (feeble) “talking points,” and you expect us to believe that you weren’t sent over by Hasbara Central?

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 11, 2014, 2:43 am

      @ Ian Matthews ” What these people seemingly ignore is that Gaza hasn’t been occupied since 2005.”

      So how come Israel is allowed to control the airspace, territorial waters and movement of all people and all goods in and out of a non-Israeli territory, including to and from Egypt? How come Israel can make military incursions across the Armistice Demarcation Lines?

      ” Gaza was violently taken over by Hamas (an organization whose charter is clearly a violation of UN Resolution 242)”

      UNSC 242? Including Article 31 of the Hamas Charter?

      ” despite the closure of crossing and the blockade they were able to purchase and build 10,000 rockets and spend ~$100 million just on the 32 tunnels that went in to Israel”

      I’d love to see where you got your statistics… BTW None of the tunnels went to Israel. They may have crossed the Armistice Demarcation Line, but that isn’t Israel’s actual border. Israel’s border has never legally changed since the day it was PROCLAIMED BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT!

      “and it’s estimated that Hamas used 1.6 billion pounds of concrete to build their military infrastructure of tunnels in Gaza”

      How many of the alleged tunnels were actually concrete lined?

      “The government of Israel is far from perfect, but any government has an obligation to defend it’s citizens from infiltration by tunnels and rockets that could have killed thousands of people if it weren’t for the Iron Dome system”

      Any government has an obligation to withdraw from ALL territory not belonging to the state, taking its illegal settler citizens. Any government that doesn’t can expect rockets, tunnels, all manner of resistance

      “If you believe in UN Resolution 242 then you clearly have to denounce Hamas”

      UNSC res 242 was to end conflict between Egypt/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan and Israel. It doesn’t mention Hamas or Palestine.

      “you probably believe that Israel was illegitimate from 1948 and thus ignore that opposing Israel from that perspective is a justification for genocide against the Jews”

      Israel is not the Jews.

      “that is what is expressed by the Hamas charter”

      Article 31 says otherwise pal.

      ” to end Jewish sovereignty in the country currently known as Israel”

      No such thing as Jewish sovereignty buster. Sovereignty belongs to all the legitimate citizens within the territory of of a state

      “IMO since Olso, and even more so since Abbas took over, the PA has changed their tactics and now supports a political solution which will slowly end Jewish sovereignty.”

      Your opinion is sh*te. Abbas agreed to cede 78% of the Palestinians rightful territory to Israel for peace.

      ” it doesn’t bode well for any kind of two-state solution under Resolution 242″

      UNSC res 242 had NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO with at two-state solution or Palestinian statehood. It doesn’t mention Hamas, Palestine or negotiate borders. You’re squawkin’ out your rrrrrrrs buster

      • Ian Matthews
        Ian Matthews
        August 11, 2014, 3:35 am

        “BTW None of the tunnels went to Israel. They may have crossed the Armistice Demarcation Line, but that isn’t Israel’s actual border. Israel’s border has never legally changed since the day it was PROCLAIMED BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT!” – Wow, this is an easy one to respond to. You clearly have issues with what happened in 1948, we can debate on that point, but at least now I know you either purposely or ignorantly support Hamas terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians…don’t give me this Israeli crap…through tunnels because you don’t believe those Jewish people have a right to be there.

        “Any government has an obligation to withdraw from ALL territory not belonging to the state, taking its illegal settler citizens. Any government that doesn’t can expect rockets, tunnels, all manner of resistance” – Israel did that in 2005, read some of my other posts. You still support the rockets, tunnels, and all manner of resistance…which means Hamas killing Palestinian civilians, and the killing of their fellow Fatah militants…does that not bother you.

        “No such thing as Jewish sovereignty buster. Sovereignty belongs to all the legitimate citizens within the territory of of a state” – Somebody finally said something intelligent here. You are so right that’s why I think the answer is a multinational state. Not necessarily with Gaza though because there is no occupation there, but I think there should be one state with Israel and the West Bank. They can all have citizenship and any one who actually lived there between 1947-1949 can come back because they are a legitimate refugee. Then any one can vote for who they want for Knesset and the Muslims can attempt to legally change the laws in Israel. That is actually a real peace, not these Palestinians like Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, but rather the Palestinians that truly want peace.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 11, 2014, 8:22 am

        @ Ian Matthews ” Wow, this is an easy one to respond to. You clearly have issues with what happened in 1948″

        You’re the one in denial buster

        “we can debate on that point”

        But you don’t because you can’t deny the FACT that Israel was recognized as it pleaded to be recognized, ” within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ . Nor can you show when Israel legally acquired any further territories.

        “but at least now I know you either purposely or ignorantly support Hamas terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians…”

        Quote me, verbatim pal or please just STFU, because false accusations are against the basic tenets of Judaism. The fact that you resort to breaking the basic tenets of Judaism on behalf of the JEWISH state only shows readers what you and your ugly kind are about!

        “don’t give me this Israeli crap…through tunnels because you don’t believe those Jewish people have a right to be there”

        Israelis, be they Jewish or Arab have no right to settle in non-Israeli territory! It’s quite NORMAL and International Law, binding on ALL Nations, ALL Nationalities, ALL religions.

        //”Any government has an obligation to withdraw from ALL territory not belonging to the state, taking its illegal settler citizens. Any government that doesn’t can expect rockets, tunnels, all manner of resistance”//

        “Israel did that in 2005, read some of my other posts.”

        Israel has never withdrawn from ALL non-Israeli territory. You have a problem reading the word “ALL”?

        “You still support the rockets, tunnels, and all manner of resistance…which means Hamas killing Palestinian civilians”

        Problem ….. I’ve never supported the killing of any civilians. Making false, completely unsupportable accusations only shows honest folk how low scum are willing to go.

        //No such thing as Jewish sovereignty buster. Sovereignty belongs to all the legitimate citizens within the territory of of a state//

        ” You are so right that’s why I think the answer is a multinational state. “

        Hey dopey, I responded to what YOU wrote “Jewish sovereignty in the country currently known as Israel …. since Abbas took over, the PA has changed their tactics and now supports a political solution which will slowly end Jewish sovereignty.” Why are Hasbarristers so mind numbingly &*^&% STUPID?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 11, 2014, 9:04 am

        The Palestinians wanted a single democratic state from the start. The Zionists didn’t. They wanted a Jewish state. After a lot of wars and ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians said “OK, keep 78% of our land and let us build a state in the remaining 22%.” But the Zionists block that as well.

        The Palestinians want peace. The Zionists want the land without Palestinians.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 11, 2014, 10:46 am

        “The Palestinians wanted a single democratic state from the start. ”

        Based on what? That’s nonsense.

  14. Ian Matthews
    Ian Matthews
    August 11, 2014, 3:45 am

    In regard to your mention of 242, it’s the only potentially binding resolution that has anything to do with a two-state solution. You take that away, then all you have is Olso to support your two-state solution. But you obviously don’t support a two-state solution. It’s okay, as I explained in my last post I don’t either.

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 11, 2014, 9:02 am

      @ Ian Matthews “In regard to your mention of 242, it’s the only potentially binding resolution that has anything to do with a two-state solution”

      Go peddle your ziopoop elsewhere buddy. You’re spouting nonsense.

      A) The Laws (all law is by its nature binding), the UN Charter (binding on ALL UN members in its entirety) and the relevant binding conventions that are re-affirmed, emphasized and recalled in any UN/UNGA resolution or in any resolution adopted by any UN body, are by their very nature BINDING!

      B) There is no mention of Palestine in UNSC res 242. No mention of negotiating borders. The Egypt and Jordanian Peace treaties with Israel tell us what UNSC res 242 was specificaly about… peace between the warring states. At the time Palestine was not a self declared independent state.

      It is now a self declared and Internationally recognized state but it doesn’t have independence from Israeli control.

      UNSC resolution 252 and its EIGHT reminders are far closer to the two state mark than UNSC res 242

      “But you obviously don’t support a two-state solution”

      Strange … I advocate the State of Israel get out of ALL non-Israeli territories, including those belonging to the State of Palestine.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 11, 2014, 10:57 am

        UNSC 1515 enshrines the 2SS as the solution preferred by the international community, and cites 242 as a basis, and UNSC 1515 was itself cited by the ICJ decision in 2004, which recognized Israel’s right to exist, be recognized, and live in security.

  15. RoHa
    RoHa
    August 11, 2014, 4:03 am

    Well done, Hostage, tree, Keith, talknic. But I’m sure Ian will just shrug it all off, and carry on. It’s the Zionist way.

Leave a Reply