Hamas announces 6-month truce with Israel

[Jason Roth]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

i'd like to know Jason's reaction.

Why?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

Why?

because, for whatever level of clarity this online forum provides us, you seem to have a contrasting perspective and I'd like to understand it better.

[Sean]

Well I for one find some fundamental flaws in the author's assertions.

One, he writes that:

Trade and Labour Minister Eli Yishai's on-the-scene response was to demand an immediate freeze on freedom of movement for Arab residents of East Jerusalem, as well as the predictable call for the terrorist's home to be demolished. Not for him the option of treating every criminal as an individual; instead, the attack was reason enough to tar all Arabs with the same brush.

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action. I'm not saying that what they're doing is right...I'm only saying that it's more an indication that they have no idea who will perpetrate the next attack than it is that they assume "all arabs must therefore be terrorists". In fact, the author himself even acknowledges this by saying: "branding an entire section of society as potential terrorists, and curtailing their freedoms, plays right into the hands of the extremists among them." So I think a more accurate wording would have been "all Palestinians in the area may potentially be terrorists". It's a possibility, not a certainty.

Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.

I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."

I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action.

No argument with you here. This was a weak point in his arguments, admittedly. But I don't find it a fundamental drawback to his main assertion that pursuit of responsibility for actions taken on both sides must cut through all the layers of politics, religion, and excuses if the betterment of people's lives is ever going to be achieved.

Originally Posted by Sean

Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.

I'm not sure I understand. Israel has not been an instant and perpetual offender but its been an instant and perpetual defender of itself by offensive tactics? On a practical level I'm not sure there's much of a difference, moreover whatever difference in perspective it makes, I think its categorically relative. Baruch Goldstein, the new york born jew who offed 30 moslems worshipping in a mosque virginia tech style made the argument that he was just killing people who would one day kill jews. Which is the rational behind all the heavy handed military action that has not only targeted terrorists but have consistently taken large civilian casualties. This may all exist in a framework of defensive responses to previous palestinian agreession, but they all stand on their own as brutal actions against a civilian populace. And it begs to perspective how offensive/defensive one is to perceive them.

Add on top of this the fact that if you do see the chronology of bloodshed as israel being lopsidedly on the defensive, you're playing into the useful enemy model. Both sides of the fence have used the existence of the enemy to shoulder up support for corrupt politicians on their respective sides, causing as much internal damage for which the other side could only dream. It is because Israel is so terribly oppressive that hamas gets the power it does. And it is because palestinian terrorists are so awful that likud party takes control and ass hats like netanyahu, olmert, and sharon are allowed to ride rough shod over paletinian people while yitzhak rabin gets murdered by a fellow jew.

This is why if you're Jason Roth and you care about the Israeli people first and fore most, your first task ought to be to figure out why the rest of the arab world feels about Israel the way americans feel about palestinians. The Israeli people don't benefit from the model where Israel is perpetually justified. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and the starry eyed believers they manage to con.

Originally Posted by Sean

I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."

Which is why I trust that we can both see we're not saying anything that different from each other.

Originally Posted by Sean

I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

Again, when you have every evangelical douche bag like Hagee on this side of the world referencing bible passages that condemns any manouever of compromise, because every speck of palestinian soil is to be Israel by divine decree and jesus won't come until it happens, then you can believe that both sides act on a self driven mandate to obliterate the other side.

[Jason Roth]

Yes, it's because Israel is so oppressive that things are the way they are. It's Israel who should be taking care of the Palestinians. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any of the other arab countries awash in oil money that should be helping out.

Have they built one hospital in the Palestinain territories? One school? One road? No. Trust me, I was just there. Other arab countries are using the Palestinian people as their sword against the Jews and have been for ages. They want them poor, and hungry, and angry and armed to the teeth. They fire missiles into Israel from residential neighborhoods so that when Israel retaliates and kills Palestinain citizens, the world sees Israel as the devil. And you buy into it every time. Grow up.

PS - John Hagee is an end of days cult leader, nothing more. Grouping him in with Israelis who want to live in peace shows complete ignorance.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

Have they built one hospital in the Palestinain territories? One school? One road? No. Trust me, I was just there. Other arab countries are using the Palestinian people as their sword against the Jews and have been for ages. They want them poor, and hungry, and angry and armed to the teeth. They fire missiles into Israel from residential neighborhoods so that when Israel retaliates and kills Palestinain citizens, the world sees Israel as the devil. And you buy into it every time. Grow up.

see this what you still haven't figured out, which means you're not really thinking about what I've been saying. I'm not interested in a which-side-is-more-bat-shit-crazy-than-the-other argument. I'm arguing against the mentality of either whole sale approval or whole sale view that I see Israel as the devil. The fact that you would even assume that's my perspective means I'm wasting my time.

incidentally, you're right. hagee has absolutely nothing to do with peace loving jews. But he has everything to do with AIPAC.

edit.....

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

Yes, it's because Israel is so oppressive that things are the way they are. It's Israel who should be taking care of the Palestinians. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any of the other arab countries awash in oil money that should be helping out.

Again, useful enemies. Hard line iranians pray in gratitude to Allah five times a day that Israel exists. Otherwise they'd have no enemy against which to fashion themselves as the defender of Islam, so that their own oppressed people look over the abuses and love them. Want out of this cycle? Be more of the friend to Palestinians than muslims are. Which wouldn't be that difficult if they really are being intentionally starved and oppressed by sharia governments.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

No argument with you here. This was a weak point in his arguments, admittedly. But I don't find it a fundamental drawback to his main assertion that pursuit of responsibility for actions taken on both sides must cut through all the layers of politics, religion, and excuses if the betterment of people's lives is ever going to be achieved.

The reason I pointed this and the other quote out is that they reveal a clear bias on the part of the author that makes me wary of his conclusions. In this particular article, I agree with his ultimate conclusions, but I don't feel he's an author I could trust to deliver objective thoughts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict overall. So anyway, yeah....we agree on this.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I'm not sure I understand. Israel has not been an instant and perpetual offender but its been an instant and perpetual defender of itself by offensive tactics? On a practical level I'm not sure there's much of a difference, moreover whatever difference in perspective it makes, I think its categorically relative. Baruch Goldstein, the new york born jew who offed 30 moslems worshipping in a mosque virginia tech style made the argument that he was just killing people who would one day kill jews. Which is the rational behind all the heavy handed military action that has not only targeted terrorists but have consistently taken large civilian casualties. This may all exist in a framework of defensive responses to previous palestinian agreession, but they all stand on their own as brutal actions against a civilian populace. And it begs to perspective how offensive/defensive one is to perceive them.

Add on top of this the fact that if you do see the chronology of bloodshed as israel being lopsidedly on the defensive, you're playing into the useful enemy model. Both sides of the fence have used the existence of the enemy to shoulder up support for corrupt politicians on their respective sides, causing as much internal damage for which the other side could only dream. It is because Israel is so terribly oppressive that hamas gets the power it does. And it is because palestinian terrorists are so awful that likud party takes control and ass hats like netanyahu, olmert, and sharon are allowed to ride rough shod over paletinian people while yitzhak rabin gets murdered by a fellow jew.

As you mentioned, I think we're roughly on the same page regarding the counter-productiveness of the tit-for-tat back and forth killing and finger-pointing, but I also personally feel it's important to always remember the foundation of the conflict in order to fully understand it. My recognition of the fact that Israel has been surrounded by countries that wish to see it wiped off the map since day one does not excuse it's actions. I agree with you that the situation has been used by many power-hungry people on both sides of the conflict over the decades, and has been exacerbated as a direct result. But where I think it's necessary to recognize the defensive nature of Israel's position is in discussions about how the violence could be ended. My final assertion that "if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated" is not meant to say that if the terrorists laid down their arms, then there'd be nothing but butterflies and rainbows....it's meant to say that I do think the overall mindset of the Israelis would, in that hypothetical situation, create a wave of reform towards a relatively peaceful co-existence with their neighbors. But in the reverse situation, I don't feel that there's an underlying, fundamental desire to live peacefully alongside Israel.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

This is why if you're Jason Roth and you care about the Israeli people first and fore most, your first task ought to be to figure out why the rest of the arab world feels about Israel the way americans feel about palestinians. The Israeli people don't benefit from the model where Israel is perpetually justified. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and the starry eyed believers they manage to con.

While I certainly don't agree with Jason's delivery, I'm not sure this is an accurate way to frame what he's saying. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so speaking for myself, I know that none of my comments are meant to imply that we should "care about the Israeli people first and fore most". Clearly, we should care about all involved parties, while still being able to constructively recognize the root causes of the mess that everyone's stuck in. Nor do I feel that the actions of the Israelis are "perpetually justified". But I do feel that the actions in question never would have even happened had there not been such a concerted effort by Israel's neighbors to destroy it, and if the cultures of the societies surrounding Israel didn't indoctrinate it's subsequent generations with deep, lie-based hatred of Jews. Or, to sum it up another way, the fundamental driving force behind attacks on Israel by it's neighbors is primarily the result of ingrained, societal hatred and anger coupled with the desires of opportunistic politicians/powerful people, while the fundamental driving force behind attacks on Palestinians by Israel is a combination of defensive necessity and opportunistic politicians/powerful people. So Israel's society, as far as I can see, would be far more able and likely to make a fundamental shift towards peace than surrounding societies that have been raised since childhood hearing stories about, for example, Jews drinking the blood of children to celebrate their religious holidays.

[BeautifulBurnout]

A French-brokered peace deal?

This is even more encouraging than the 6 month truce, imo. And the French are the right people to facilitate this too, imo. They don't have too much "baggage" with them to retain impartiality as moderators.

[chuck]

As long as the cheese from the surrender monkeys is both halal and kosher, I think we can do a deal.

We now return you to your regular programming.

chuck.

Who would dive in and get involved in this thread properly - but better people than me have said what needs to be said.

[Sarcasmo]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

A French-brokered peace deal?

This is even more encouraging than the 6 month truce, imo. And the French are the right people to facilitate this too, imo. They don't have too much "baggage" with them to retain impartiality as moderators.

I really hope you're right, Janie. The cynic in me sees this as nothing more than posturing and lip service. My gut tells me that France is going to run into the same problems that everyone else has: the hardliners aren't at any tables. They're cleaning their rifles while the moderates talk.