8

1/21/2009 9:40:48 AM

Quote :

"Of course other possibilities for action exist, and probably the Palestinians would do better as a whole if they all adopted a Gandhian strategy to this whole mess. But then again, as with any group of people, they're not a hive-mind controlled blob. There are some who have an interest in keeping the conflict violent. There are others who can't control their frustrations and hate, and they get played upon by those in the first category."

They don't have to be a hive mind to change their strategy. India managed to follow a reasonable course to independence without having being a "blob."

Peace is a precondition to improved social and economic conditions for the Palestinians. Israel wants security, perhaps to a paranoid and negative extent, but once it is satisfied that it has that security it will become far more amenable to concessions and cooperation.

Quote :

"Nevermind the fact that Jewish settlers were moving in droves to the region. It wasn't their land to take."

So what? I mean, it's time somebody asked it. Let's say the Israelis straight-up stole Palestine. Why should that influence our actions now?

Only about 12% of Israelis were alive at the time of the mandate. Since then, generations have been born on that land. Removing them or stripping them of their statehood would not be fundamentally different from the mandate -- forcing generations of native-born people to leave to make way for generations of people whose claim to their land is largely through their dead ancestors. Only about 5% of Palestinians are old enough to have even been alive when the mandate happened. More than a third were born after the end of the first intifada.

OK, then, so unless you're going to tell me that we should all bow down to our Cherokee warlords, I wish I could say I feel confident that you don't suggest just giving Palestine back to the Palestinians. But let's say you don't suggest that. We're left with these facts on the ground:

1) Israel exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
2) Israel is remarkably more powerful than Palestine.
3) Situations in Palestine are unbelievably shitty, primarily because of Israel.
4) Palestinian organizations attack Israel a lot.
5) Israel overreacts a lot.

#4 causes #5, which in turn causes #3. You know what the remarkable thing about cause-and-effect is? If you get rid of the cause you also get rid of the effect.

Quote :

"Israel would gladly grab the entire region if they thought they could get away with it"

What reason do you have for thinking this shit? I'm very curious.

Quote :

"God damn religion."

The insistence of people to try to boil this thing down to religion is incredibly frustrating. Palestinians don't want to kills Jews because they're Jewish, they want to kill them because they're Israeli. And Israel doesn't want to be its own country so everyone can all go to temple together. They want their own country because they can't be an oppressed minority in their own country. Religion gets used to agitate the peons some, but if everyone in the region were an atheist then the Palestinians would use something else to get their people in a froth -- Pan-Arab fascism or something.

1/21/2009 12:35:55 PM

Quote :

"I feel confident that you don't suggest just giving Palestine back to the Palestinians."

Gaza and West Bank are the political Palestine, and they belong to the Palestinians. The rest of what used to be the British territory of Palestine is Israel, as mandated by the British who had the right to give it.

1/21/2009 2:04:48 PM

Quote :

"1) Israel exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. 2) Israel is remarkably more powerful than Palestine. 3) Situations in Palestine are unbelievably shitty, primarily because of Israel. 4) Palestinian organizations attack Israel a lot. 5) Israel overreacts a lot."

It's true. Nobody's suggesting Israel cease to exist at this point in time -- clearly, it would be messy and bloody to remove the country. However, Israel could pursue other options with Gaza/WB/GH that would address the causes of anti-Israeli violence. But, they don't; they have no incentive to. They can be cruel to Palestinians without any consequences -- no matter how far reaching and brutal their actions against Arabs, the unconditional cheque from the US comes without fail.

Quote :

"as mandated by the British who had the right to give it."

rofl

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2009 2:05:06 PM

If the US said to Cuba "Hey, we don't want Puerto Rico anymore, you can have it," who would stop them?

1/21/2009 2:24:24 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "as mandated by the British who had the right to give it." rofl "

Aren't you the one who just said a page ago possession is 9/10 of the law?

1/21/2009 2:57:47 PM

Quote :

" 1) Israel exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. 2) Israel is remarkably more powerful than Palestine. 3) Situations in Palestine are unbelievably shitty, primarily because of Israel. 4) Palestinian organizations attack Israel a lot. 5) Israel overreacts a lot. #4 causes #5, which in turn causes #3. You know what the remarkable thing about cause-and-effect is? If you get rid of the cause you also get rid of the effect. "

hard to argue this. pretty fair analysis. I dont want to speak for anyone else but I would wager that most people who see these conflicts as Israel defending itself see it like this.

people who dont see Israel as defending itself see it like;

1. Israel stole Palestine
2. Palestine wants it back
3. Palestine attacks Israel
4. Israel overreacts a lot
5. Situations in Palestine are unbelievably shitty, primarily because of Israel

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2009 3:38:12 PM

Quote :

"#4 causes #5, which in turn causes #3. You know what the remarkable thing about cause-and-effect is? If you get rid of the cause you also get rid of the effect."

#5 also causes #4, it is what is known to engineers and other math-y people as a feedback loop.

We are stick in a 4-5 feedback loop, which is what's so complicated about this issue.

1/21/2009 3:41:28 PM

I'm not so confident that 5 causes 4. As I've asked before, if Israel stood down unilaterally and never entered Gaza again, do you think Hamas would stop launching rockets into Israeli territory?

Hamas, et al., have a much greater capacity to stop the violence.

Quote :

"Nobody's suggesting Israel cease to exist at this point in time -- clearly, it would be messy and bloody to remove the country."

I'm very curious about "at this point in time," and the emphasis placed on it. Seems to imply that you can envision suggesting this in the future, which of course wouldn't give the Israelis a lot of motivation to cooperate.

There are other things could be doing about the situation. Of course, they've tried some of those things. They left Gaza. It didn't work. There's some promising signs of cooperation with the government in the West Bank, even if only because they have a common enemy in Hamas. As for Golan...well, fuck Syria. Annexation was an unnecessarily bold move, but I could care less about Syrian complaints.

I'm still curious as to what's behind your belief that Israel would take over the region if only it could get away with it.

1/21/2009 3:53:15 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7841999.stm

Israel to probe phosphorus claims

Quote :

"The Israeli army is to investigate claims it used white phosphorus illegally during its three-week offensive in Gaza. The move follows numerous allegations by rights groups and in media reports that the army fired phosphorus shells where they could harm civilians. The UN said its headquarters were hit by three such shells causing a fire destroying much of its aid supplies. White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield. The Israeli army says all its weapons in the Gaza offensive were entirely legal, but until now has refused to specify which weapons it used. White phosphorus sticks to human skin and will burn right through to the bone, causing death or leaving survivors with painful wounds which are slow to heal. Its ingestion or inhalation can also be fatal. . . . . According to the international convention on the use of incendiary weapons, the substance should not be used where civilians are concentrated. . . . ."

P.S.

Quote :

"CONFLICT IN FIGURES More than 1,300 Palestinians killed Thirteen Israelis killed More than 4,000 buildings destroyed in Gaza, more than 20,000 severely damaged 50,000 Gazans homeless and 400,000 without running water"

Hamas has/had 4,000 buildings?!


[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 5:45:34 PM

all directly related to Hamas firing rockets over the border. THEY are to blame. direct your anger to them first, then Israel second for any action you believe to be heavy-handed.

1/21/2009 7:42:57 PM

Noam Chomsky comments on the violence in Gaza.

I typically wouldn't quote-bomb a Chomsky commentary; however, he is a very outspoken critic of Israeli policies, and this is, as far as I'm aware, his first published commentary on the current conflict.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20316

Quote :

"on December 31... Washington hired a German merchant ship to transport from Greece to Israel a huge shipment, 3000 tons, of unidentified "ammunition." The new shipment "follows the hiring of a commercial ship to carry a much larger consignment of ordnance in December from the United States to Israel ahead of air strikes in the Gaza Strip," Reuters reported. All of this is separate from the more than $21 billion in U.S. military aid provided by the Bush administration to Israel, almost all grants. "Israel's intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," said a briefing by the New America Foundation, which monitors the arms trade."

Quote :

"The timing of the invasion was presumably influenced by the coming Israeli election. Ehud Barak, who was lagging badly in the polls, gained one parliamentary seat for every 40 Arabs killed in the early days of the slaughter, Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen calculated. That may change, however. As the crimes passed beyond what the carefully honed Israeli propaganda campaign was able to suppress, even confirmed Israeli hawks became concerned that the carnage is "Destroying [Israel's] soul and its image. Destroying it on world television screens, in the living rooms of the international community and most importantly, in Obama's America" (Ari Shavit). Shavit was particularly concerned about Israel's "shelling a United Nations facility...on the day when the UN secretary general is visiting Jerusalem," an act that is "beyond lunacy," he felt. Adding a few details, the "facility" was the UN compound in Gaza City, which contained the UNRWA warehouse. The shelling destroyed "hundreds of tons of emergency food and medicines set for distribution today to shelters, hospitals and feeding centres," according to UNRWA director John Ging. Military strikes at the same time destroyed two floors of the al-Quds hospital, setting it ablaze, and also a second warehouse run by the Palestinian Red Crescent society. The hospital in the densely-populated Tal-Hawa neighbourhood was destroyed by Israeli tanks "after hundreds of frightened Gazans had taken shelter inside as Israeli ground forces pushed into the neighbourhood," AP reported"

Quote :

"Aggression always has a pretext: in this case, that Israel's patience had "run out" in the face of Hamas rocket attacks, as Barak put it. The mantra that is endlessly repeated is that Israel has the right to use force to defend itself. The thesis is partially defensible. The rocketing is criminal, and it is true that a state has the right to defend itself against criminal attacks. But it does not follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. That goes far beyond any principle that we would or should accept. Nazi Germany had no right to use force to defend itself against the terrorism of the partisans. Kristallnacht is not justified by Herschel Grynszpan's assassination of a German Embassy official in Paris. The British were not justified in using force to defend themselves against the (very real) terror of the American colonists seeking independence, or to terrorize Irish Catholics in response to IRA terror - and when they finally turned to the sensible policy of addressing legitimate grievances, the terror ended. It is not a matter of "proportionality," but of choice of action in the first place: Is there an alternative to violence?"

Quote :

"It is commonly claimed that a two-state solution is now unattainable because if the IDF tried to remove settlers, it would lead to a civil war. That may be true, but much more argument is needed. Without resorting to force to expel illegal settlers, the IDF could simply withdraw to whatever boundaries are established by negotiations. The settlers beyond those boundaries would have the choice of leaving their subsidized homes to return to Israel, or to remain under Palestinian authority."

Quote :

"The steady drumbeat of accusations about the capture of Shalit is, again, blatant hypocrisy, even putting aside Israel's long history of kidnapping. In this case, the hypocrisy could not be more glaring. One day before Hamas captured Shalit, Israeli soldiers entered Gaza City and kidnapped two civilians, the Muammar brothers, bringing them to Israel to join the thousands of other prisoners held there, almost 1000 reportedly without charge. Kidnapping civilians is a far more serious crime than capturing a soldier of an attacking army, but it was barely reported in contrast to the furor over Shalit. And all that remains in memory, blocking peace, is the capture of Shalit"

Quote :

"Interference with Israel's passage through the Straits of Tiran was part of the pretext for Israel's invasion of Egypt (with France and England) in 1956, and for its launching of the June 1967 war. The siege of Gaza is total, not partial, apart from occasional willingness of the occupiers to relax it slightly. And it is vastly more harmful to Gazans than closing the Straits of Tiran was to Israel."

Quote :

"Israel not only maintained the siege after June 2008, but did so with extreme rigor. It even prevented UNRWA from replenishing its stores, "so when the ceasefire broke down, we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us," UNRWA director John Ging informed the BBC. Despite the Israeli siege, rocketing sharply reduced. The ceasefire broke down on November 4 with an Israeli raid into Gaza, leading to the death of 6 Palestinians, and a retaliatory barrage of rockets (with no injuries). The pretext for the raid was that Israel had detected a tunnel in Gaza that might have been intended for use to capture another Israeli soldier. The pretext is transparently absurd, as a number of commentators have noted. If such a tunnel existed, and reached the border, Israel could easily have barred it right there. But as usual, the ludicrous Israeli pretext was deemed credible. What was the reason for the Israeli raid? We have no internal evidence about Israeli planning, but we do know that the raid came shortly before scheduled Hamas-Fatah talks in Cairo aimed at "reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government," British correspondent Rory McCarthy reported. That was to be the first Fatah-Hamas meeting since the June 2007 civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza, and would have been a significant step towards advancing diplomatic efforts."

Quote :

"The civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza is commonly described as a Hamas military coup, demonstrating again their evil nature. The real world is a little different. The civil war was incited by the US and Israel, in a crude attempt at a military coup to overturn the free elections that brought Hamas to power. That has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose published in Vanity Fair a detailed and documented account of how Bush, Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams "backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever." The account was recently corroborated once again in the Christian Science Monitor (Jan. 12, 2009) by Norman Olsen, who served for 26 years in the Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and then moved on to become associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State. Olson and his son detail the State Department shenanigans intended to ensure that their candidate, Abbas, would win in the January 2006 elections - in which case it would have been hailed as a triumph of democracy. After the election-fixing failed, they turned to punishment of the Palestinians and arming of a militia run by Fatah strong-man Muhammad Dahlan, but "Dahlan's thugs moved too soon" and a Hamas pre-emptive strike undermined the coup attempt, leading to far harsher US-Israeli measures to punish the disobedient people of Gaza."

Quote :

"Today, Israel could have security, normalization of relations, and integration into the region. But it very clearly prefers illegal expansion, conflict, and repeated exercise of violence, actions that are not only criminal, murderous and destructive but are also eroding its own long-term security. US military and Middle East specialist Andrew Cordesman writes that while Israel military force can surely crush defenseless Gaza, "neither Israel nor the US can gain from a war that produces [a bitter] reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world, Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who said on January 6 that `The Bush administration has left [Obama] a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza...Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza'." One of the wisest voices in Israel, Uri Avnery, writes that after an Israeli military victory, "What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet. In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel.""

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 7:50 PM. Reason : Sorry for the length.]

1/21/2009 7:48:56 PM

thats nothing but one-sided propaganda. are you trying to pass that as a legitimate informational source?

1/21/2009 7:55:01 PM

Noam Chomsky is an expert.

However he is an expert in linguistics.

Linguistics has nothing to do with war, history, or politics.

In conclusion, Noam Chomsky should sit down and shut up.

1/21/2009 8:32:01 PM

^^
It should be no surprise that the opinion above is strongly biased. I posted it more as the viewpoint of a seasoned commentator on current and past relationships between Israel and its neighbors.

As with any news story containing conflicting information from various sources, take no more than what you will. You're not obligated to believe a word of it, but the commentary is from a fairly distinguished foreign policy critic, and should be taken at that face value if nothing else.

^
I agree that he is a scholar in linguistics, not in foreign policy. However, I would encourage, at least, a review of his claims. He does frequently cite direct governmental and intelligence sources, as well as obscure news sources.

Linguistics has something to do with war, history, and politics.


[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 8:33:39 PM

I didnt know he was an expert in linguistics, but now I see it. his word choice is so obviously pointed and suggestive it overshadows any good points he might have made.

1/21/2009 8:54:40 PM

You make an interesting point. However, that discussion will have to wait for another thread.

1/21/2009 9:06:50 PM

Quote :

"According to the international convention on the use of incendiary weapons, the substance should not be used where civilians are concentrated."

I hope the Israelis didn't do anything as stupid as this. If someone did, I hope the Israelis punish them. Both of those hopes will likely be unfulfilled.

Now, on to possibly my least favorite pretentious wankers who love to operate outside of their field, Noam Chomsky:

Quote :

"The rocketing is criminal, and it is true that a state has the right to defend itself against criminal attacks. But it does not follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. That goes far beyond any principle that we would or should accept. Nazi Germany had no right to use force to defend itself against the terrorism of the partisans."

Idiotic. Even the Nazi Germans had a clear legal right to use force against partisans, even if those partisans were created by their own criminal war and other actions. He goes on to ask about "alternatives to violence," but mentions few. Of those, virtually all require large unilateral concessions on the part of Israel with no guarantee that Hamas will then become peaceful.

I also found it a bit entertaining that in an article by a famed linguist there could be found such a glaring typographical error, especially one that so clearly demonstrates the depth of his bias:

Quote :

"Similar reasons underlie Israel's preference for expansion over security. Its violation of the ceasefire on November 4 2009 is one of many recent examples."

Apparently 10 months from now Israel is going to have broken another ceasefire. Mark your calendars.

1/21/2009 9:37:12 PM

Quote :

"He goes on to ask about "alternatives to violence," but mentions few. Of those, virtually all require large unilateral concessions on the part of Israel with no guarantee that Hamas will then become peaceful."

How is Israel to guarantee that Hamas will become peaceful? There are more humane ways to guarantee peace with the Palestinians than by annihalating them.

Wouldn't the Palestinian people feel extreme aggression toward Israel right now, moreso than they did before the invasion? Would the Israeli people not gain security by withdrawing to its 1967 borders?

By the way, kudos on 2009. I saw that, as well, and thought it was a rather glaring mistake. However, I'd attribute it more to a combination of the length of the article and the fact that he is 80 years old.

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 10:58:23 PM

Quote :

"Aren't you the one who just said a page ago possession is 9/10 of the law?"

I missed this gem while reading the thread earlier. How did you not detect the obvious sarcasm in my statement?

Quote :

"Noam Chomsky is an expert. However he is an expert in linguistics. Linguistics has nothing to do with war, history, or politics. In conclusion, Noam Chomsky should sit down and shut up."

By your standards nobody in this thread should have an opinion and we should all shut up and stop posting. Actually, that's a damn good idea. But you neglect to realize that Chomsky's profession is "reasoning about things" so maybe you're the one that needs to can it.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 1:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/22/2009 1:38:45 AM

Anybody can say whatever they want about anything, I just want Chomsky to stop acting like he's an expert on every subject he can think to complain about. And since when does linguistics = "reasoining?" Yes there is reasoning involved in linguistics but that's not what a linguist specifically does. It makes more sense to say a mathematician or philosopher's profession is "reasoning about things."

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 2:58 AM. Reason : -]

1/22/2009 2:57:26 AM

Quote :

"How is Israel to guarantee that Hamas will become peaceful?"

ceasefires, treaties...














oh wait.


they DID have that and Hamas broke them.

1/22/2009 8:19:17 AM

Uh, Chomsky is a published author on both linguistics and politics. In fact, his political writings are far more numerous than his linguistic writings to date.

He made important strides in linguistics and is firstly credited for those achievements, but to say 'you're a linguist and therefore your opinion on politics (despite your several published works) is invalid' would eliminate all of our opinions unless there of those of us that only study politics/world affairs.

so shut up and give the man some credit, he's smarter and way more qualified than you.

1/22/2009 8:49:14 AM

he is allowed to have an opinion but when that opinion is so obviously pointed and biased I am not going to regard it as a legitimate source of information.

most notably his word choice and omission of facts counter to his beliefs. I can read TSB posters for that

1/22/2009 8:53:16 AM

Quote :

"Wouldn't the Palestinian people feel extreme aggression toward Israel right now, moreso than they did before the invasion? Would the Israeli people not gain security by withdrawing to its 1967 borders?"

As to the first question, there's two ways to go. They can either feel even more hatred towards Israel, or they can start hating Hamas and other violent elements for constantly dragging them into this mess. As to the second...maybe, maybe not. There's the potential of internal violence amongst its own people as well as the fact that a number of its enemies seem very clear on the point that they want Israel to go away entirely.

Quote :

"to say 'you're a linguist and therefore your opinion on politics (despite your several published works) is invalid' would eliminate all of our opinions unless there of those of us that only study politics/world affairs. "

And finally, after all these months of unemployment, my Political Science degree (concentration in international affairs) becomes useful. Everybody, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go ahead and say I win this thread by default.

1/22/2009 10:18:02 AM

I think you don't count because you're not published in journals and have written no books.

You'll get there though.

1/22/2009 10:48:15 AM

No one here, not even Grumpy, is claiming to be an expert.

George Foreman talks about cooking all the time, doesn't mean he actually knows how to do it.

1/22/2009 10:49:12 AM

Quote :

"It makes more sense to say a mathematician or philosopher's profession is "reasoning about things.""

Chomsky is a philosopher.

Quote :

"they DID have that and Hamas broke them."

Boy I wonder why.

Quote :

"he is allowed to have an opinion but when that opinion is so obviously pointed and biased I am not going to regard it as a legitimate source of information. "

Sure let's take conservative Israelis as a source of information instead.

Quote :

"No one here, not even Grumpy, is claiming to be an expert. George Foreman talks about cooking all the time, doesn't mean he actually knows how to do it."

Then don't play the "he's not an expert so he should shut up" card. What does one have to do to be an "expert" on this situation other than know the history?

1/22/2009 10:58:36 AM

Chomsky for the win.

1/22/2009 11:03:11 AM

Quote :

" Sure let's take conservative Israelis as a source of information instead."

I am not quoting from or posting any analysis of conservative Israelis either.

1/22/2009 11:11:18 AM

Quote :

"Wouldn't the Palestinian people feel extreme aggression toward Israel right now, moreso than they did before the invasion?"

Maybe, but that's beside the point. There is no reasoning with Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. The point of the invasion was to weaken Hamas' ability to fire rockets over the border into Southern Israel. In that respect, they achieved their goals.

Quote :

"Would the Israeli people not gain security by withdrawing to its 1967 borders?"

No, I don't believe that they would. They withdrew from Gaza several years ago and it only led to more hostility from the Palestinians, in the form of indiscriminate rocket attacks across the border. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. they don't want Israel to withdraw to pre '67 borders. They want to kill or remove every Israeli from the region. The militants in the area would likely view a retreat to the '67 borders as a sign of weakness, and step up their attacks.

1/22/2009 1:46:02 PM

When will collective punishment stop being viewed as acceptable and permissible?

1/22/2009 4:58:03 PM

Probably when a viable alternative presents itself. Israel's capacity to go after specific perpetrators is low. When they do pull it off, they still catch hell. They arrest someone and it's called kidnapping. They take out a Hamas leader, everyone bemoans that he was an old man in a wheelchair.

1/22/2009 6:20:18 PM

So because some people complain (and since hearing complaining is sooooo tiresome), they should simply slaughter civilians?

1/22/2009 6:22:06 PM

^What? How could you possibly come to that conclusion from GrumpyGOP's post?

1/22/2009 6:52:45 PM

Quote :

"Israel's capacity to go after specific perpetrators is low. When they do pull it off, they still catch hell. They arrest someone and it's called kidnapping. They take out a Hamas leader, everyone bemoans that he was an old man in a wheelchair."

Since they catch hell, it's not worth it apparently. Human lives < not getting bitched at. Bonus points if they're subhuman Palestinians who are "complicit" with the terrorist whenever they don't fight them in the streets (and even when they do, apparently: see Fatah).

1/22/2009 7:32:55 PM

Talking about Israeli press, please read the following article; http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflicts/israel_palestine/reverse_time.jsp , The author is a former senior adviser to Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak.

It is so disappointing to see more radicals here than I see in this article, for a large part I think we don't recognize the suffering both Palestinians and Israelis going through, and the enormous opportunities both are missing. I am quoting him here, "Yet it is clear to most of us today that the damage of occupying the West Bank and Gaza far outweighs the heritage and security benefits.".

I like your analysis GrumpyGOP, but it is still skipping a lot of important factors.

First, it skips Israel occupying Gaza and West Bank as starting point, while this article do. This permanent occupation (more than 41 years now) have created a case where 9 millions Palestinians became without an identity, home or future.

Second, it doesn't recognize the resistance as legitimate right to Palestinian people to restore their identity back (I hope that we will all recognize killing civilians as terrorism, when it is done by any side and not only Hamas, at least I do). Same resistance has succeeded to withdraw Israeli military from South Lebanon, Egypt, and Gaza.

Fatah that was recognized by Israel before as terrorist organization is who led the peace negotiation, nevertheless Yasser Arafat (former terrorist and Nobel prize winner) was attacked in 2002 by Israeli forces, as another major attack against Gaza and West Bank by this time; I remember his phone interview with Egyptian TV while he was confined in his compound, and his words "We will resist" he repeated more than ten times.

Peaceful resistance (as Ghandy, and Nelson Mandela who is another former terrorist and Nobel prize winner!) is great, but it cannot not be effective unless in certain international atmosphere that does not exist in case of Israel and Palestine conflict.

This lead us to the third and final point, the international community, which is another important factor that succeeded to end Kuwait occupation and apartheid in South Africa. Last aggressive actions by Israel (separation wall, Gaza blockade and the last war against Gaza) was opposed by overwhelming majority in the U.N., nevertheless US veto any action to be taken against Israel. This will certainly affect any decision US and Israel take in the future. While this unlimited and unconditional support by US to Israel can keep the war going, it cannot bring peace to the region.


[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 7:30 AM. Reason : ]

1/23/2009 7:21:40 AM

Israeli occupation can only continue under the assumption that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian lives.

1/23/2009 8:31:01 AM

Quote :

"How is Israel to guarantee that Hamas will become peaceful?"

nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

1/23/2009 8:43:40 AM

Quote :

"Israeli occupation can only continue under the assumption that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian lives."

good God there really is no hope for this troll.

1/23/2009 8:53:51 AM

Quote :

"Since they catch hell, it's not worth it apparently. Human lives < not getting bitched at. "

You're managing to completely ignore the first part of that thought, which is that Israel's ability to go after specific individuals is very, very limited. It's not like Israelis can really blend in when they go strolling through Gaza. Every time they go in on the ground they invite the death of their agents and probably of bystanders. When they go in from the air there is an even higher probability of innocents dying, to say nothing of the same old complaint that they are being heavy-handed. Neither is very likely to succeed. Meanwhile, neither of them are liable to be effective in the long-term. Killing leaders specifically creates martyrs. It builds support for the organization, rather than disillusionment. The positions of the dead or captured will be filled almost instantly.

Quote :

"Bonus points if they're subhuman Palestinians who are "complicit" with the terrorist whenever they don't fight them in the streets"

Palestinians everywhere know the consequences of Hamas' actions and continue to permit them. A very large number provide active support, through money or other means. They are complicit. If they want to dramatically improve their situation they need only oust the assholes.

Now, onto tmhatem

Quote :

"First, it skips Israel occupying Gaza and West Bank as starting point, while this article do. "

I didn't realize that I had to describe the entire history of Israel and Palestine. Just because I didn't explicitly state it doesn't mean that I failed to take it into account. And perhaps Israel wouldn't have occupied Gaza and the West Bank if everybody and their brother hadn't invaded them 32 seconds after independence.

Quote :

"Second, it doesn't recognize the resistance as legitimate right to Palestinian people to restore their identity back (I hope that we will all recognize killing civilians as terrorism, when it is done by any side and not only Hamas, at least I do)."

Just because they have a right to resist doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do. And the word "terrorism" has a definition. You can't just apply it to everything that is violent and bad.

Quote :

"Peaceful resistance (as Ghandy, and Nelson Mandela who is another former terrorist and Nobel prize winner!) is great, but it cannot not be effective unless in certain international atmosphere that does not exist in case of Israel and Palestine conflict."

Elaborate on this. Explain to me why peaceful resistance can't work here. Do you have any idea how much more pressure would be put on Israel if they were being aggressive towards a completely nonviolent entity?

1/23/2009 2:12:54 PM

I remember when Arafat died the Arab students had a vigil for him on campus. All I remember thinking was "there are video recordings of this guy handing checks to families of suicide bombers...how can you actually hold a service honoring this guy?"

Now I'm sitting here wondering why Palestinian civilians are protecting Hamas leaders.

1/23/2009 4:16:36 PM

they honor him and Hamas because they give the Palestinians a voice...they make the Palestinians relevant. they have never had a moderate leader.

1/23/2009 4:22:39 PM

^Arafat gave the equivalent of $30,000 American to any family who's son was willing to strap a bomb to his chest.

That money could have gone to support infrastructure, education, medicine, transportation, etc.

Oh but instead let's blame Israel for how shitty the life of the average Palestinian is.

And Mahmoud Abbas would be a moderate leader if Hamas would let him lead like he was elected to do.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : -]

1/23/2009 5:12:59 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize that I had to describe the entire history of Israel and Palestine. Just because I didn't explicitly state it doesn't mean that I failed to take it into account. And perhaps Israel wouldn't have occupied Gaza and the West Bank if everybody and their brother hadn't invaded them 32 seconds after independence."

This happened in 1967, and not 1948, without any wrongdoing from Palestinian side. While the Palestinian people already were in a very bad situation since 1948 (5 millions refugee and the rest is living on humanitarian aids from Arab countries in Gaza and West Bank), in 1967 the identity of Palestinian people was lost.

So when you say, "Situations in Palestine are unbelievably shitty, primarily because of Israel." is completely true by this point, what is more than loosing your identity, past and future. Nevertheless Israel already existed by this point, and the cause was NOT that "Palestinian organizations attack Israel a lot.". The only cause is that Israel was trying to reach to its "biblical heritage” in Hebron, Shiloh and Elon Moreh, as the article I sent says, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflicts/israel_palestine/reverse_time.jsp

Quote :

"Explain to me why peaceful resistance can't work here. Do you have any idea how much more pressure would be put on Israel if they were being aggressive towards a completely nonviolent entity?"

What is the pressure placed on Israel today, since 5 years ago, or ever by the international community and US to give the Palestinian people their land and identity back? What is US pressure placed on Israel when it built an isolation walls, blockade Gaza and Palestinian authority in 2002 or committing war crimes in Jenin in 2002?

The answer is NONE. The full support of US will block any major decision against Israel in the UN. US give more than 3 billions to Israel regardless what Israel do, and Israel have a high access to US technologies regardless what it will be used for. Similar situation in Europe where Israel is presented as a "Victim" in the media, where any pressure on Israel to give Palestinian their land and identity back will be presented as a "new holocaust". If you want to know what is the new holocaust, read this article in Israeli press http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3515000,00.html.

On the same article I posted before, it discuss the Egyptian trials for peace negotiation in 1972, how Israel didn't respond to these trials, and how this could saved the life of thousands of Israeli soldiers in October 1973. By this time, Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat, was told by US officials that he must win a war first!

Quote :

"Just because they have a right to resist doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do."

I agree it is not the smart thing to do, but it is the only option they have!

Quote :

"the word "terrorism" has a definition. You can't just apply it to everything that is violent and bad."

Actually, this term have no global definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. If you take the common definition as placed in Wikipedia, I think most of us will agree on, is "those acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants". Using this definition both Hamas and Israel’s actions will be consider as terrorism. If you will go with US terrorist organization list, just know that U.N. and most of its members do not consider Hamas as a terrorist organization.

By the end, what I want to say is NOT that we cannot achieve peace in peaceful manner but that to achieve it in this way we must acknowledge the right of Palestinian people to exist and to have an identity, past, future and a place to call it home. Without this understanding by Israeli government and US, such peace cannot be reached, and the only option left to Palestinian people is to resist against an aggressive and terroristic army that consider nothing rather than its own safety.


[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2009 5:35:14 PM

Quote :

"If you want to know what is the new holocaust, read this article in Israeli press http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3515000,00.html. "

This website is anti-Semitic, it won't grant me access.

And again you try using wikipedia to back yourself up. Oy.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : -]

1/23/2009 5:41:51 PM

According the the United States Army manual, terrorism is:

Quote :

"the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature... through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

I can hardly think of a government that doesn't fit this definition.

1/23/2009 6:21:05 PM

Quote :

"I remember when Arafat died the Arab students had a vigil for him on campus. All I remember thinking was "there are video recordings of this guy handing checks to families of suicide bombers...how can you actually hold a service honoring this guy?" Now I'm sitting here wondering why Palestinian civilians are protecting Hamas leaders."

Umm, that was before he renounced terrorism and became the leader of the Palestinian people.

Anyway, more pertinently, please tell us what you are going to do, if Shamir, or Sharon die tomorrow, and what you did on the death of Ben-Gurion and Begin? You are going to:

1) Say a prayer for them (whether privately, or hold a public vigil)
2) Not give a shit either way
3) Revile them as thieves, usurpers, terrorists and war criminals

?

1/23/2009 8:36:08 PM

#2 is usually my reaction. If I had been old enough to understand the implications when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated I would have mourned then.

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason : -]

1/24/2009 12:20:57 PM

Quote :

"I remember when Arafat died the Arab students had a vigil for him on campus. All I remember thinking was "there are video recordings of this guy handing checks to families of suicide bombers...how can you actually hold a service honoring this guy?" Now I'm sitting here wondering why Palestinian civilians are protecting Hamas leaders."

Yet you lionize Israeli war criminals

1/24/2009 12:57:07 PM