Gaza

[myrrh]

I am surprised that this hasn't come up yet, but I guess the time of year has something to do with it. Anyway...

There is no love or even a small liking for the Israeli government. Neither do I have any positive feelings for Abbas and his illegal, US backed Fatah government. It sickens me how he just sits back and allows such actions to continue.

That being said, it is sad that a country - that country being Israeli - can just continue to pull all the stunts that it does and get away with them. I don't know what it is going to take for the Arab countries to finally grow a sack and ally up against Israel.

I am sure that the coward puppet regimes in the region fear the US stepping into things. However, if they had any ounce of smarts in their collective heads, and perhaps a bit of courage, then they would see that if they were ever going to do something then perhaps now would be the time because the US has it's troops spread across the world and the opinion of the US people entering another fight might not be positive.

This is a perfect example of how US politics work, and why I say "US Democracy" as if it is it's own ideology:

"The rocket barrage by Hamas that preceded Israel's air strikes began with the unraveling of a cease-fire, brokered by Egypt, that had been in place since June. Although Hamas said the truce expired on Dec. 19, it began firing rockets earlier, in response to an Israeli raid on Nov. 5 aimed at stopping Palestinians from tunneling under the boundary fence. Hamas needed a truce, but one on more favorable terms than what had applied in the preceding six months. During that time, Israel had largely stopped military attacks in Gaza but kept in place a crippling economic siege as part of a Bush Administration–backed campaign to pressure the Palestinian civilian population to overthrow the Hamas government it had elected in 2006."

That is from Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868864,00.html).

[Strangelet]

This is a perfect example of how US politics work, and why I say "US Democracy" as if it is it's own ideology:

"The rocket barrage by Hamas that preceded Israel's air strikes began with the unraveling of a cease-fire, brokered by Egypt, that had been in place since June. Although Hamas said the truce expired on Dec. 19, it began firing rockets earlier, in response to an Israeli raid on Nov. 5 aimed at stopping Palestinians from tunneling under the boundary fence. Hamas needed a truce, but one on more favorable terms than what had applied in the preceding six months. During that time, Israel had largely stopped military attacks in Gaza but kept in place a crippling economic siege as part of a Bush Administration–backed campaign to pressure the Palestinian civilian population to overthrow the Hamas government it had elected in 2006."

That is from Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868864,00.html).


The problem I have is that, from past conversations, you want to argue for a theocracy. Its not valid to say democracy and economic sanctions go hand in hand. Nor is it valid to say that sharia law is the only answer simply because the world's current super power is internally democratic and externally imperialistic.

In the age of torture and gitmo, pinochet, the shah, millions dead by crippling sanctions, I don't think a lot of americans can still hold the pretense that their government treats their own the same as they treat the outside world (Although lately its been converging to a general practice of despotism at home *and* abroad)

So if even your garden variety average joe the plumber american can understand that the exported product of US DEMOCRACY (trademark, copywrite halliburtan, all rights resesrved) is not recognizable to the democracy they were taught in civics class, then you shouldn't be able to say, See? democracy sucks. lets all go see what the imam has to say about monetary policy and civil liberties.

[Strangelet]

anyhoo....

don't mean to derail the thread into a debate about styles of government....

Maybe not even this time, but it will come to pass where Israel sends its army stocked with U.S. weapons and religious gumption and find that it walked into the jaws of a particularly hungry, vengeful monster, partially of its own creation.

I don't say that with any glee. I hope it doesn't happen. But too often it finds itself on the opposite end of general world opinion about something bloody its doing. And the response is that "israel has a right defend itself"
Repeated often enough, this is the mantra response that works pretty well shaming away anyone who criticizes its tactics.

Recently echoed by Obama, who wondered what it would feel like if his daughters were living in an area where hamas rockets were falling. He would defend himself, like Israel. I just wonder if he will the the first president to also wonder how it would feel if his daughters were also some of the kids pulled dead out of the rubble of some bombed building in gaza, after 4 days of canvasing air raids over populated cities. Because of some rockets that has a less chance of killing any particular person than a car crash.

[BeautifulBurnout]

The main problem with Israel/Palestine is the extreme polarisation of the question. On the one hand you have the Israelis saying "yes, but Hamas wants to destroy Israel and keeps firing rockets at our civilians". On the other side you have the Palestinians that say "Yes, but Israel want to drive us out and have been keeping us enmured in this ghetto while our children starve to death".

One side has to take the higher ground on this. And in my opinion that side has to be Israel, largely because it has the lion's share of the international support and funding.

We saw something similar here in the UK with the Irish Troubles, albeit that the British government never went so far as to launch air-raids on the Falls Road. But it took some very brave moves from the British government finally to agree to negotiate with the IRA. It was an unpopular move to begin with nd some thought it was political suicide, that we were "giving in to terrorists" (sound familiar?), but eventually it worked. That is not to say that the effect was immediate, mind you. The Omagh bombing could have been a very serious set-back indeed to the whole peace process if we hadn't had nerves of steel and stuck to the plan. 15 years later and there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, something that would have been inconceivable 20 or 25 years ago.

Also, I want to know where our Special Middle East Envoy Blair is? Is his job supposed to be stopping these things from happening? :rolleyes:

[Deckard]

"There is no military solution in Gaza."

[IsiliRunite]

"There is no military solution."
Fixed.

The arab nations can't unite and take a stand, because in terms of advancement that leads to superiority in various areas, Israel has it down. Its like new money verses old money, only old money resorts to violence too frequently and new money is too unethical (namely in greed, support of terrorism) or uorganized in certain factions to lead to any peace. Its gotta start with Israel improving living conditions of palestinians and unconditionsal peace is more probable.

[myrrh]

Yeah, I agree that Israel has the more advanced weapons etc, when compared to the Arab nations around it. And I would normally not be one to say go out and fight, but this is getting to the point where the only solution is to be team up against Israel, or Israel will continue to do what it is doing.

Or perhaps if the US, would actually do something other than say Israel has the right to defend itself. Obama and everyone else who utters such babble needs to be bitch-slapped back into reality.

There is a major difference between defending yourself and going out on an offensive. And yes the best defense is a good offensive, but the similarity in this situation is that if I punched you in the face, you in turn pull out the shotgun and blast a hole in my stomach.

[BeautifulBurnout]

"the only solution is to be team up against Israel, or Israel will continue to do what it is doing."
"the only solution is for Israel to keep attacking Gaza until they stop sending rockets over."
"the only solution is to be team up against Israel, or Israel will continue to do what it is doing."
"the only solution is for Israel to keep attacking Gaza until they stop sending rockets over."
"the only solution is to be team up against Israel, or Israel will continue to do what it is doing."
"the only solution is for Israel to keep attacking Gaza until they stop sending rockets over."
"the only solution is to be team up against Israel, or Israel will continue to do what it is doing."
"the only solution is for Israel to keep attacking Gaza until they stop sending rockets over."
BANG!
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/28/76528-004-22682C6D.jpg

[Strangelet]

oh look

a picture of tel aviv in five years from now.

[Sean]

One side has to take the higher ground on this. And in my opinion that side has to be Israel, largely because it has the lion's share of the international support and funding.I agree with this in theory, but I have little hope that such a move would be rewarded with peace from those who wish to see Israel destroyed. But at the very least, if Israel would be bold enough to try taking the higher ground, it could possibly serve to illustrate who out there is and isn't interested in living as peaceful neighbors.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Protests in the UK today. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809216.stm)


Former model Bianca Jagger and singer Annie Lennox have supported the action, and have also called on American president-elect Barack Obama to speak up against the bombardment.

Ms Lennox told the BBC that both sides were "wrong" and a total ceasefire was the only sensible solution.

She said the intervention of President George W Bush, who has described Hamas's rocket attacks as an "act of terror", was not helping the situation.
She said: "The problem is, from my perspective, they are pouring petrol onto the fire.

"They have to sit down. This is a small window of opportunity just before things kick off.

"For every one person killed in Gaza, they are creating 100 suicide bombers. It's not just about Gaza, it's about all of us.
It is fair to say that Bush is a complete twat calling the Palestinian rocket fire which has killed 4 people an "act of terrorism" and seemingly-ignoring the daily bombardments which have killed 400 and injured an estimated 1000 people.

[Deckard]

And still I'm hearing: "Israel has a right to defend itself"

Like any country, of course it does. The trouble is, no-one instigating this campaign from Israel (or handing it their implicit or explicit backing from Washington or London (as always :rolleyes: )) can possibly believe that mantra unless they are spectacularly gullible, or utterly blinded by their national/tribal allegiance.

The suggestion that this will make everyday Israelis safer is actually offensive to me. The Israeli government may as well be wilfully killing their own innocent civilians right now, for all the 'recruitment' they're going to be doing. I just cannot believe that intelligent senior decision-makers can think that this serves as an act of self defence. My sense is that this is about vengeance, about being seen by the electorate but also the wider world to be doing something, an act that serves a psychological rather than a practical need. The problem with that is that it puts bravado and pride before lives.

If it's not that, then what the hell is the thinking behind it? Do Israel and the US actually want to prolong conflict in this region or trigger some kind of wider Islamic war? That sounds like a bizarre prospect, but one that appears to make more sense from these actions than the naive reason of self defence.

Yes I'm more concerned with Israel's motives here than Hamas', since we're constantly reminded how Hamas is, unlike Israel, not a legitimate government but rather a terrorist organisation, and one that receives so much less backing and support than Israel that it's almost comedic. If my country and the US is determined to always show their backing to Israel whatever they do, and if Israel is meant to be "like one of us", then you bet I'll hold it to a higher standard, as I would my own country or any other which possesses the most power and wealth and prides itself on its democracy and so-called civilised behaviour.

[BeautifulBurnout]

The suggestion that this will make everyday Israelis safer is actually offensive to me. The Israeli government may as well be wilfully killing their own innocent civilians right now, for all the 'recruitment' they're going to be doing. I just cannot believe that intelligent senior decision-makers can think that this serves as an act of self defence. My sense is that this is about vengeance, about being seen by the electorate but also the wider world to be doing something, an act that serves a psychological rather than a practical need. The problem with that is that it puts bravado and pride before lives.

If it's not that, then what the hell is the thinking behind it? Do Israel and the US actually want to prolong conflict in this region or trigger some kind of wider Islamic war? That sounds like a bizarre prospect, but one that appears to make more sense from these actions than the naive reason of self defence.



Or could it all be about energy security? (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4909.shtml)

An unexpected energy windfall on Israel's doorstep promises to resolve Israel's energy security concerns for years to come. Unfortunately for Israek, it is the Palestinian Authority that controls the licensing of these reserves. So, as Operation Summer Rains washes away the administrative and political structures in the occupied territories, has Israel decided to use Hamas as an excuse to dismantle the PA and seize its energy assets? This article dates from 2006 - I don't know why I had never heard of this before. If it is true that the PA hold all the cards with regard to the licencing of this gas supply, then it is pretty obvious why Israel would want them out of the way. I shall do some more research and see if there is anything else I can come up with on this.

Edit: This from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459207651&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) in July 07:

"Both Israel and BG intend that until the PA is able to remove Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip, the money will be held in an international bank account (javascript:void(0))," the source said. "Neither side wants the money to go to fund terror-related activities."
According to the plan, BG will drill for natural gas 36 kilometers off of the Gaza coast, in an area that was designated as PA territory following the Oslo Accords. The gas will then flow four km underwater in a pipeline 850 meters below the surface to an Ashkelon refinery. The field, which BG purchased in 2000 and to which Hamas now claims rightful ownership, contains 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas worth an estimated $4 billion, with Israel set to become the sole consumer of the resources.


And this from the Torygraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643848/Gaza-doesn%27t-need-aid-it-has-a-andpound2bn-gas-field.html)




At first sight, this appears a win-win situation. The Palestinians would have a guaranteed purchaser for their gas, one that would generate £50 million a year for 15 years in tax revenues, and provide the foundation for sustainable economic growth. And the Israelis would have a secure source of affordable gas to underwrite their economy's growth. It would also neatly show how two historic enemies could come to rely on each other for economic prosperity.
A negotiating team, led by Nigel Shaw from British Gas, the company that bought the rights to develop Gaza Marine, duly moved into an office block in a smart Israeli coastal town and prepared to draw up the various legal documents and guarantees that are standard in the international gas and oil industry.
But in spite of public statements from Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, that he supports the project, and even the intervention of Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who identified the deal as key to the development of the Palestinian economy, negotiations have not budged.


Hmmmmm....

[myrrh]

Now that ground troops have moved into Gaza, I really can't see anything good coming out of this. I just have an overwhelming bad feeling about this, as if it can be the spark that ignites a bigger fire.

U.S. President Bush laid the blame for recent fighting in Gaza squarely at the feet of Hamas, accusing militants of waging a campaign of violence against Israel with little regard for its people.

President Bush, pictured in December, says Hamas "has no intention of serving the Palestinian people."



http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


"Since Hamas' violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza," Bush says in prepared remarks released Friday by the White House. "By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people."

In a radio address to air Saturday, Bush says Hamas committed an act of terrorism when it renewed rocket attacks into Israel last month, provoking this week's airstrikes by Israel.

"In response to these attacks on their people, the leaders of Israel (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Israel) have launched military operations on Hamas positions in Gaza," Bush says. "As a part of their strategy, Hamas terrorists often hide within the civilian population, which puts innocent Palestinians at risk."


I like how Bush claims that Hamas tookover, even though they democractically won the fairest elections ever held in the Middle East! I see how he just glazes over the facts that he doesn't care to look at, as if they just never happened.



Maybe, just maybe, if the US had actually recognized that Hamas was the legit government and not labelled them as a terrorist group, then they would have been able to spend money on building more schools, instead of having to worry about buying rockets. Because we all know that if the US calls you a terrorist, then they have the right to roll into your country, kill your leader, dismantle your government, and prop up a government 'approved' by them.



Funny, when you look at it, Israel is actually doing what the US just did to Iraq!

[Deckard]

At least 40 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources have said.

A number of children were among those who died when the al-Fakhura school in the Jabaliya refugee camp took a direct hit, doctors at nearby hospitals said.

People inside had been taking refuge from the Israeli ground offensive.

Earlier, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned of a "full-blown humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.


Keep up with this "self-defence", Israel. Bound to work eventually... ok, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next month or next year, maybe not this century... or next.... but hey, those "Made in US" bombs are bound to make you safer eventually....

To speed things along, perhaps someone should call Middle East envoy Tony Blair? He'll sort it out - won't he?

[Rog]

[quote=myrrh;107447]
Maybe, just maybe, if the US had actually recognized that Hamas was the legit government and not labelled them as a terrorist group, then they would have been able to spend money on building more schools, instead of having to worry about buying rockets. Because we all know that if the US calls you a terrorist, then they have the right to roll into your country, kill your leader, dismantle your government, and prop up a government 'approved' by them. quote]


Spot on post!

[Sean]

While it certainly seems that everyone's more than willing to pig-pile on Israel here, let's not lose sight of some of the reality that led to this conflict.

First, let me clearly state that I personally feel the breadth of Israel's current military action is over the top and counter-productive. But in a three day span alone before the attack was begun, it was even reported on Al Jazeera that there were 30-some-odd rockets fired randomly into Israel (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008122172946123995.html)from Gaza. The 6 month truce ended, and the rocket attacks ramped up. I say "ramped up", because they never stopped to begin with.

And of course Hamas blames these rocket attacks on Israel because of the blockades Israel has imposed. And Israel puts the blame for the blockades on Hamas, and Hamas blames etc etc etc.

So while I definitely don't agree with the scope of Israel's current attacks, I simply can't jump on board with those of you who appear to be placing practically full responsibility on Israel for this conflict. If missiles were constantly dropping randomly in my neighborhood, I'd want to see some action taken to stop it too.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Sean

Of course you are right. But also the people condemning Israel are right too in their own way. The problem is, someone, somewhere, needs to find a way to end this cycle.

Bliar is getting his freedom medal next week. How about a little bit more effort in his overpaid, over-hyped but ultimately non-effective role as Peace Envoy. He needs to get away from the attitude that "we will not talk to Hamas" - Jesus, we would still be looking under dustbins for IRA bombs if that attitude had prevailed. I am stuck between :mad: and :( at the moment.

[Strangelet]

If missiles were constantly dropping randomly in my neighborhood, I'd want to see some action taken to stop it too.

what action? Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious what has been proposed as an alternative by those who don't focus on the injust asymmetry of the response?

Because the problem we're having as critics is the lack of any alternative proposed. It seems that justification to defend oneself == open season on palestinians. There's no line drawn. Whatever Israel does, including using depleted uranium shells and phosphorus, is justified carte blanche.

I think pretty much all of us, maybe not myrrh, on this pig pile have couched their dissent in a stand point of what is best for *israel* so I'm pretty much going to wave off any argument that being a critic of this barbarism is biased against israel.

Also, I understand that wars are justified, and I actually do believe that if any nation state is categorically denied action to defend itself because of possible civilian casualties on the other side, then those nation states are in real mortal danger.

So i'm pretty much going to wave off any argument that being a critic of this barbarism is misguided, hypocritical hippy daisy chaining.

here's where the problem is.


Dr. Mads Gilbert: "The statistics are clear. Among the 2,400-2,500 injured, 45 percent are women and children. And then there are also all the civilian men. So the large majority of the injured, the victims, are women, men and children civilian. Among the the killed, 25 percent of the killed are children and women, and among the children, today, it was—this morning, it was 801 children either killed or injured. 101 children had been killed.”


45% isn't a defense. its a slaughter.

[Deckard]

First, let me clearly state that I personally feel the breadth of Israel's current military action is over the top and counter-productive. But in a three day span alone before the attack was begun, it was even reported on Al Jazeera that there were 30-some-odd rockets fired randomly into Israel from Gaza. The 6 month truce ended, and the rocket attacks ramped up. I say "ramped up", because they never stopped to begin with.

And of course Hamas blames these rocket attacks on Israel because of the blockades Israel has imposed.
Not to mention the Israeli assassinations which didn't stop during the ceasefire. Also when it comes to selective rewinding, I've yet to see Israel's response as to why the crossing points never fully opened to allow essential supplies freely in and out of Gaza, despite the fact that Hamas kept its side of the bargain in suspending the rocket attacks. But I don't doubt there is an answer somewhere that only begs another question - and following that chain is not the route to peace.

So while I definitely don't agree with the scope of Israel's current attacks, I simply can't jump on board with those of you who appear to be placing practically full responsibility on Israel for this conflict.
Just to be clear: killing an innocent Israeli is just as bad as killing an innocent Palestinian. The point is that, by my reckoning, Israel only wields more responsibility by virtue of its astronomically more powerful position - with those advantages should come greater responsibility. It shouldn't bear "practicallly full responsibility" but certainly it should bear more responsibility than the UK or US are ever willing to attribute to it. I think that's where a sizeable chunk of the overseas anger originates.

If missiles were constantly dropping randomly in my neighborhood, I'd want to see some action taken to stop it too.
Completely understandable. I don't think anyone here doubts that, and I think we all take it as read that firing rockets into civilian areas is a crime against humanity. The key point though is in your phrase "action taken". Not only is this not the action that will stop it, this is action that will greatly exascerbate it - I think you accept this anyway, but here's the crux - the reason Israel comes in for more criticism in my eyes is because:

(a) I have a hard time believing that Israel is DUMB enough not to see that this is completely counterproductive as far as "action taken" goes, or to recognize the threat posed by 3 quarters of a million young people growing up in Gaza with an inexorable hatred of those who have starved and bombed them. For me, the "self defence" reason goes straight out the window. It's not even credible.

(b) I'm starting to question how realistic (/naive) it is to believe that military action of this order is ever executed by a state as advanced as Israel purely for an emotional reason like vengeance (bearing in mind the absence of "self defence") so I don't think it's unreasonable to start asking what might really lie behind this, even if there are no immediate satisfactory answers - just as the notion of Afghanistan and Iraq as "vengeance" for 9/11 never really sat well with me. It is possible that we don't know the full story behind the actions and timing here.

I think what angers me most is that, with 500 Palestinians killed and another 2,000 wounded (at the time of writing), the news ticker tonight is still reading "Gordon Brown: Gaza has reached its darkest hour..... Obama: Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me..." - like some passive commentary on a fictional soap opera. You can bet they wouldn't be so goddamned "Oh dear what a dreadful shame it all is"-passive if this was happening the other way round. We all know Hamas terrorists get condemned, and rightly so. But I feel like this murderous response by Israel is getting the greenlight from MY country - as it always does - and honestly that makes me livid.

Just what the hell is it with our three nations, the US, UK and Israel? What if we really are the world bullies?

[Strangelet]

Not to mention the Israeli assassinations which didn't stop during the ceasefire. Also when it comes to selective rewinding, I've yet to see Israel's response as to why the crossing points never fully opened to allow essential supplies freely in and out of Gaza, despite the fact that Hamas kept its side of the bargain in suspending the rocket attacks. But I don't doubt there is an answer somewhere that only begs another question - and following that chain is not the route to peace.


Just to be clear: killing an innocent Israeli is just as bad as killing an innocent Palestinian. The point is that, by my reckoning, Israel only wields more responsibility by virtue of its astronomically more powerful position - with those advantages should come greater responsibility. It shouldn't bear "practicallly full responsibility" but certainly it should bear more responsibility than the UK or US are ever willing to attribute to it. I think that's where a sizeable chunk of the overseas anger originates.


Completely understandable. I don't think anyone here doubts that, and I think we all take it as read that firing rockets into civilian areas is a crime against humanity. The key point though is in your phrase "action taken". Not only is this not the action that will stop it, this is action that will greatly exascerbate it - I think you accept this anyway, but here's the crux - the reason Israel comes in for more criticism in my eyes is because:

(a) I have a hard time believing that Israel is DUMB enough not to see that this is completely counterproductive as far as "action taken" goes, or to recognize the threat posed by 3 quarters of a million young people growing up in Gaza with an inexorable hatred of those who have starved and bombed them. For me, the "self defence" reason goes straight out the window. It's not even credible.

(b) I'm starting to question how realistic (/naive) it is to believe that military action of this order is ever executed by a state as advanced as Israel purely for an emotional reason like vengeance (bearing in mind the absence of "self defence") so I don't think it's unreasonable to start asking what might really lie behind this, even if there are no immediate satisfactory answers - just as the notion of Afghanistan and Iraq as "vengeance" for 9/11 never really sat well with me. It is possible that we don't know the full story behind the actions and timing here.

I think what angers me most is that, with 500 Palestinians killed and another 2,000 wounded (at the time of writing), the news ticker tonight is still reading "Gordon Brown: Gaza has reached its darkest hour..... Obama: Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me..." - like some passive commentary on a fictional soap opera. You can bet they wouldn't be so goddamned "Oh dear what a dreadful shame it all is"-passive if this was happening the other way round. We all know Hamas terrorists get condemned, and rightly so. But I feel like this murderous response by Israel is getting the greenlight from MY country - as it always does - and honestly that makes me livid.

Just what the hell is it with our three nations, the US, UK and Israel? What if we really are the world bullies?

lol our concurrent responses are almost identical, except you said it better.

[Deckard]

Hey Strangelet, you weren't there a moment ago!

(Now I feel guilty like it's gang-up-on-Sean time. :o )

In all honesty I don't greatly disagree with you Sean; my anger is only directed at the green light Israel always seems to get from our politicians.

[Strangelet]

In all honesty I don't greatly disagree with you Sean; my anger is only directed at the green light Israel always seems to get from our politicians.

Same here, man

[myrrh]

Yeah, I agree as well. I don't deny that anyone has the right to defend themselves. However, this has crossed the line of 'defending oneself.'

Like I said in an earlier post, if you punch me in the face, and I in turn take out my shotgun and blow a hole in your stomach- would a judge take my side in saying it was self-defense? Somehow, I don't think so...

Also, we are talking about Israel here. I watched a program about their military technology and they have the ability to see through walls in three dimensions. They had all of the city mapped out and from a room could direct people on the streets. This was about two years ago, and I gotta say it was one of the most coolest/frightening things I have ever seen. So, to say that they can't just go into Gaza and take out Hamas leaders without killing civilians is, in my eyes, a flat out lie.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Also, we are talking about Israel here. I watched a program about their military technology and they have the ability to see through walls in three dimensions. They had all of the city mapped out and from a room could direct people on the streets. This was about two years ago, and I gotta say it was one of the most coolest/frightening things I have ever seen. So, to say that they can't just go into Gaza and take out Hamas leaders without killing civilians is, in my eyes, a flat out lie.

I think, frankly, what they are trying to do is to terrify the Gazan Palestinians into renouncing Hamas by "showing" them that Hamas only brings them hellfire and destruction. Thing is, it will work no better to sap the morale of the people than the Blitzkrieg did on Londoners. All they will do is galvanise hatred against themselves.

[Sean]

Hey Strangelet, you weren't there a moment ago!

(Now I feel guilty like it's gang-up-on-Sean time. :o )

In all honesty I don't greatly disagree with you Sean; my anger is only directed at the green light Israel always seems to get from our politicians.Ah, it's been a little while, but this is a pretty mild instance of "gang-up-on-Sean time" comparitively speaking. Doesn't bother me at all. :)

I do essentially agree with you on Israel's greater responsibility due to it's position of power. I'm basically just saying - as I've said here in previous conversations about the conflicts in the Middle East - I don't believe for a second that if Israel were to withdraw troops or even completely disarm, then there'd be peace in the region. I'm raising the point mainly in response to this comment from Myrrh and the subsequent agreement with it:

Maybe, just maybe, if the US had actually recognized that Hamas was the legit government and not labelled them as a terrorist group, then they would have been able to spend money on building more schools, instead of having to worry about buying rockets.I guess that for me, it's one thing to acknowledge that Israel's response is inappropriate and over the top, but completely another to look at the root causes of the overall regional problems and how they should be handled. Wish I knew what the answers are, but I feel pretty confident that Hamas wouldn't be a peaceful, happy group of school builders had we just been nicer to them.

[Sean]

I think, frankly, what they are trying to do is to terrify the Gazan Palestinians into renouncing Hamas by "showing" them that Hamas only brings them hellfire and destruction. Thing is, it will work no better to sap the morale of the people than the Blitzkrieg did on Londoners. All they will do is galvanise hatred against themselves.I fully agree.

[Strangelet]

I fully agree.

as do i, but are we willing to take it to the next step? To terrorize a population into changing their political/cultural ends defines terrorism. Which means Israel's policy is the policy of a terrorist state, which obliterates all this hoohaa about sidelining hamas as a singularly evil, nonconventional, rogue organization, not just the other side of the coin?

Or are their other differences? Again, just wondering what you think. not trying to pick an argument.

[Sean]

as do i, but are we willing to take it to the next step? To terrorize a population into changing their political/cultural ends defines terrorism. Which means Israel's policy is the policy of a terrorist state, which obliterates all this hoohaa about sidelining hamas as a singularly evil, nonconventional, rogue organization, not just the other side of the coin?

Or are their other differences? Again, just wondering what you think. not trying to pick an argument.No, I understand. Frankly, I've been wrestling with this question personally, and I can't give you a completely straight answer yet. What I can say is that it certainly does seem as if lines are being blurred at best....

[Deckard]

Anyone seen this yet?

Gaza attack timeline (http://mapmash.googlepages.com/gaza.html)

Figures will be challenged I imagine. And I hope the fact that it starts (for me at least) on Day 9 - the day before the number of injured Israelis jumps from 9 to 62 - isn't a deliberate attempt to shape the presentation. It shouldn't ever need shaping.

Still, thought I'd post it nonetheless.

[Deckard]

Hamas rocket hits (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdownload .php%3FNumber%3D1275659&om=1&ie=UTF8&z=9) also now on Google Maps.

And without wanting to turn this into a spectacle (probably unavoidable), some quite good photos of what's going on here:

Israel and Gaza (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html)

Scenes from the Gaza Strip (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html)

[Deckard]

as do i, but are we willing to take it to the next step? To terrorize a population into changing their political/cultural ends defines terrorism. Which means Israel's policy is the policy of a terrorist state, which obliterates all this hoohaa about sidelining hamas as a singularly evil, nonconventional, rogue organization, not just the other side of the coin?
It's really quite simple: terrorism is what our leaders declare it to be.

The US (and yes, us as well) make up the dominant powers of current world order, therefore - surprise surprise - terrorism is what's committed by the Palestinians rather than the Israelis, the East Timorese rather than the Indonesians, the Nicaraguans rather than the US, the Irish rather than the British, the Cubans.... etc etc

No need to get bogged down in defining aggression or resistance or nasty complicated things like that. ;)

[chuck]

Hamas rocket hits (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdownload .php%3FNumber%3D1275659&om=1&ie=UTF8&z=9) also now on Google Maps.

And without wanting to turn this into a spectacle (probably unavoidable), some quite good photos of what's going on here:

Israel and Gaza (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html)

Scenes from the Gaza Strip (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html)

The Big Picture website is superb, and I really enjoy what they do with images there. I do feel a little odd looking at these though - there's something quite different about the aspects.

That is to say - the photos of the Israeli victims are so very different from the Palestinian victims. There is a different feel almost. Both sides are cowering, but one side is more pitiful, more afraid, more downtrodden.

Perhaps that's my bias coming through.

And lets be honest, both sides are victims.

There is no them.

And this conflict will continue as long as someone on both sides thinks there is a them and an us.

[Deckard]

The Big Picture website is superb, and I really enjoy what they do with images there. I do feel a little odd looking at these though - there's something quite different about the aspects.

That is to say - the photos of the Israeli victims are so very different from the Palestinian victims. There is a different feel almost. Both sides are cowering, but one side is more pitiful, more afraid, more downtrodden.

Perhaps that's my bias coming through.

And lets be honest, both sides are victims.

There is no them.

And this conflict will continue as long as someone on both sides thinks there is a them and an us.
It is a good site, but I get very wary about turning the whole thing into a sideshow - but then I guess the news is not as far removed from that as we might like to think sometimes.

Anyway, some more images from the conflict here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/effarania/sets/72157611728688123/).


This one (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/3169823715_4b1c7a3415.jpg?v=0) is pretty graphical, be warned.

And this one caught my eye...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/3159767076_c97846afea.jpg?v=0

'Israelis look out towards the northern Gaza Strip from a hill near the southern town of Sderot during an air strike - January 1, 2009'

My revulsion is obviously hinged on the assumption that we can take this for how it looks (and boy are we quick enough to do just that when it's the darker-skinned less well-dressed lot looking gleeful).

[dubman]

At least 40 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources have said.

A number of children were among those who died when the al-Fakhura school in the Jabaliya refugee camp took a direct hit, doctors at nearby hospitals said.

People inside had been taking refuge from the Israeli ground offensive.

Earlier, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned of a "full-blown humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.


"you guys blew up a school!"

"YEAH WELL... someone was shooting at us from there see we have pictures"

"THOSE ARE FROM 2004"

"LOL"

[Strangelet]

very good dialog between lanny davis, you might remember him as one of hillary's campaigners, and prof. neve gordon. covers a lot of the points we've made here about proportionality and the definition of terrorism.

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/democracynow/dn2009-0112-1.mp3?nvb=20090113193945&nva=20090114194945&t=0856bf83f5d373aa134cc

[Strangelet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NybCWzgxFd8&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/


I wonder if you need to be painted bright yellow and sold bottom floor sears to even more resemble a tool.

JOE : Do you think Israel is bad?
Reporter : Well I'm Israeli, so...
JOE : Answer the question!

[IsiliRunite]

(and boy are we quick enough to do just that when it's the darker-skinned less well-dressed lot looking gleeful).
Because the majority of people classify the darker-skinned less well-dressed lot as terrorists, and the light-skinned more well-dressed lot as defending themselves from terrorism. Coincidentally, more people support "self-defense" than "terrorism".

I'm not endorsing either approach, personally.

On a side note...is Hamas as an organization willing to hold talks, and uphold agreements throughout its entire ranks, if those talks were to take place?

[Strangelet]

Because the majority of people classify the darker-skinned less well-dressed lot as terrorists, and the light-skinned more well-dressed lot as defending themselves from terrorism. Coincidentally, more people support "self-defense" than "terrorism".

I'm not endorsing either approach, personally.

On a side note...is Hamas as an organization willing to hold talks, and uphold agreements throughout its entire ranks, if those talks were to take place?

Will they talk? The propaganda has us buy into a story where the less well-dressed, darker skinned lot are a monolith of evil, devoid of any significant pragmatic wing. There are two kinds of extremists. Those that are pushed into that role from the lack of alternative means of survival, and those that have everything provided them, but still feel the need to whip themselves up into a frenzy of religious superiority. Which should you most fear? Which side of this conflict has more of the well fed/well dressed nut balls?


Will they commit? the propaganda has us buy into the story that agreements must be upheld through out Hamas' entire ranks before talks can be considered. There are criminals in every organization. Its a convenient ploy to continue pushing Israeli agenda at gun point because of how believable it is that some nob will still blow themselves up or launch a missle after a battery of negotiatons. Even though its just as believable that some nob will still blow themselves up or launch a rocket after a battery of bombings.

[myrrh]

Well, I don't know where to pick up on from here, since I have been out of it for the past week.

However, I would like to comment on some things that have happened while I was in London.

First off, the protesting. The groups that run the protests, like Hizb ut-Tahrir are some of the most politically minded groups around. They care nothing for what Islaam is about, only their own personal goals, which I don't even know are. I happen to be wandering through Hyde Park on Sunday, and there was something being set up by the arch. So, I went over and checked it out, and it was them setting up for their protest against the Arab governments.

I can't stand this type of garbage that they spit out. In my eyes, they are some of the biggest cowards in the world, because their leaders live in the UK and call for the overthrowing of Arab governments - which in itself is something that is absolutely not in any way, shape or form, from Islaam. They fled from the Middle East because they people don't want to hear their crap. So, no they can sit in the UK and have 'freedom of speach'. Whatever.

Two, and this is related to the above, is that the results of protesting by these misguided individuals is the destruction of property, they likes of which we saw when they marched to the Israeli Embassy on Saturday, then destroyed Starbucks and a bunch of other buildings around it.

Is this what Islaam represents? Does this do anything to promote the whole 'religion of peace' message? Does anyone think that the owner of Starbucks will be drawn closer to Islaam or further away from it due to what has happened to his shop?

Then these people wonder why they have it difficult in the West. Which brings me to an actual incident that happened to me yesterday. I went to watch the changing of the gaurd, and I was leaving I was stopped by the police for 'suspicious' activities! They said that it looked like I 'muttered' something into my iphone headset. Give me a break!!!! I can not help but to think it was that I am olive skinned and have a beard. This is because out of the thousands of people there, I was the one picked out. I am sure that others get 'randomly' searched but I didn't see it. And the reason they stopped me was under the 'terrorism' code. So it was clear that they profiled me to perhaps be a terrorist, because I was alone, with a bookbag, and talking into my phones headset. Okay, what makes me different than the thousand of other people there who were doing the same thing? Like I said, skin color and a beard. It is sad because I really enjoyed London, but this left a bad taste in my mouth.

So, onto Gaza. Now the ignorant masses of Muslims around the world are holding protests and complaining that no one is doing anything about Gaza. Where was all the outcry for the past six years over the Iraqi's being killed? Or the Afghani's? Or if we take it back a bit - Chechnia? You get the point.

These people are accusing the Arab governments for not doing anything, but really what can they do? They have no weapons, so they can't fight. Political support is not going to do anything. In fact, the scholars in Saudi don't even like Hamas because they are just another political group, that really is more in line with a terrorist organization than a political party. If they really had the people and 'Islaam' in mind, then when they won the election, why didn't they set up a Shar'iah government? Because they don't care about Islaam, they just care about political power.

While I think that it is wrong what Israel is doing, I am only a Hamas supporter because they are the legit government there. I don't care for them because look at the result of what their actions have causes worldwide. Their actions have caused terrorism to occur in various forms.

[Deckard]

Will they talk? The propaganda has us buy into a story where the less well-dressed, darker skinned lot are a monolith of evil, devoid of any significant pragmatic wing. There are two kinds of extremists. Those that are pushed into that role from the lack of alternative means of survival, and those that have everything provided them, but still feel the need to whip themselves up into a frenzy of religious superiority. Which should you most fear? Which side of this conflict has more of the well fed/well dressed nut balls?

Will they commit? the propaganda has us buy into the story that agreements must be upheld through out Hamas' entire ranks before talks can be considered. There are criminals in every organization. Its a convenient ploy to continue pushing Israeli agenda at gun point because of how believable it is that some nob will still blow themselves up or launch a missle after a battery of negotiatons. Even though its just as believable that some nob will still blow themselves up or launch a rocket after a battery of bombings.
You got it. This is the kind of thing I was pointing out at the very start of the ceasefire (and incidentally, have we resolved who actually broke it yet? (http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20090101212318310)) - if both sides are serious about peace, they have to expect that there will be militants looking to disrupt it, as there were in Northern Ireland.

There's a lot to question and criticize about Hamas, but it's laughable the way I've heard some people talk about them as if they're just Hollywood-style Bad EvilDoer Arabs, kind of like the Muslim Borg.

Don't take this as an endorsement of them as a political movement, but some links that counter this debate-shutting impression of them as nothing but terrorist maniacs who want to swallow up every last Jew...

Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html?1) (09/11/2008)

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

"Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation," Haniyeh said.

Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British prime minister Tony Blair, asked Haniyeh to repeat his offer. He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.

In response to a question about the international community's impression that there are two Palestinian states, Haniyeh said: "We don't have a state, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank. Gaza is under siege and the West Bank is occupied. What we have in the Gaza Strip is not a state, but rather a regime of an elected government. A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967."

A 2006 interview with a Hamas leader where he states clearly they would accept Israel within the 1967 borders (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rupp.php?articleid=10195).


RR: In the West, Hamas is generally depicted as being absolutely against talks with Israel and [it's believed] that Hamas only wants to drive the Israeli Jews into the sea.
KM: This is not correct. Killing Jews is not our aim. For centuries we have lived in Palestine peacefully with Jews and Christians of all kinds. We are fighting Israel because it occupies our land and oppresses our people. We are fighting Israel to finish this occupation. We want to live freely on our land just as other nations. We want to have our own country just like other people. But the Zionist movement came from all over the world to occupy our land. And the real owner of the land has been kicked out. This is the root of the problem.

Because of many factors, we now accept to build a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967. But that doesn't mean that we recognize Israel. But we are prepared to make a long-term truce with Israel. Accepting the status of Israel without recognizing it.

RR: But no recognition? Doesn't that mean continued tensions and war?
KM: No. There are plenty of examples where no recognition does not mean war. China and Taiwan, for example, have not recognized each other, but they trade and cooperate with each other. By withholding a formal recognition, we just don't want to give Israel the legitimacy for having taken our land in the first place.


Also writing a couple of days ago, the health minister in the Hamas government: We believe in resistance, not revenge (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/13/gaza-israelandthepalestinians)

(OMG, he's talking like one of us, I thought all they did was repeat, "Death to all infidels!!!!?")

As I say, Hamas unquestionably have blood on their hands too. But the idea that this wider conflict is between the civilized country whose a bit heavy-handed but essentially it's understandable because they've come under fire for so long..... versus the irrational terrorists who want to push them into the sea - well, it's clearly a perception that's benefitting one side, and it's no surprise to realise which country beyond the region it's most prevalent in.

Where are we now? Well over 1,000 dead Palestinians, nearly 5,000 injured. More than a third of the dead are children. 13 Israelis killed.

With the obvious statement that those 13 Israeli deaths are just as appalling.... what the hell, it's like some people I've heard are in a coma. Mainstream opinion in the UK is still on the side of Israel (assuming the bulk of posts and comment are not from well-organized propaganda outfits like GIYUS.org (http://giyus.org/))

Where was all the outcry for the past six years over the Iraqi's being killed? Or the Afghani's? Or if we take it back a bit - Chechnia? You get the point.
Plenty of protests against the Iraq war were organised by the Stop the War Coalition and people here continued to march and speak out, I don't know about abroad. Afghanistan? I think plenty still labour under the assumption (mistaken in my view) that it was somehow the 'just' war. Chechnya? I think the lack of coverage has a lot to do with it, plus the sense that the oppression and violence is not being committed by our side (US/UK) or done in our name. Gaza will always generate more anger around the world simply because it has so many international ramifications and represents the key long-running dispute/injustice - and in a region dominated by Muslims, the establishment of Israel has always stood out like a sore thumb, particularly with it being so widely regarded (by much of the rest of the world) as America's client state in the region. It's no surprise to me that Gaza will generate more outcry.

Btw, sorry to hear what happened to you at the Changing of the Guard. It happens a lot, especially if you're brown or olive-skinned and sport a beard. Hope it didn't ruin your time here - just add it to your list of accomplishments and experiences. ;)

[Strangelet]

(OMG, he's talking like one of us, I thought all they did was repeat, "Death to all infidels!!!!?")


durka durka mohammed jihad