Reacting to the incursion, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Saeb Erakat said: “What this will do is undermine the peace process.” The Palestinian Authority is the government of President Mahmoud Abbas.
Is that what they have over there? A peace process? Processed peace, which is just as much real peace as processed meat is real meat.
Or perhaps it’s a spelling error and he said “piece process” which consists of Hamas raining down missiles from Gaza and trying to blow Israel to pieces.
Idiots. The second the cease fire was over they started firing lobbing artillery at Israel. What did they THINK was going to happen?
PAD
• 
“This is not democracy, but theocracy. When the Iranians or Taliban do that kind of thing we think it stinks.”
Are you serious, Jeffrey? Are you comparing a state where women can’t even show their faces in public or meet males that aren’t family to a state where women can serve in the military?
Guys like you make me ashamed of being a leftist. I can’t understand why so many leftists like to play the moral equivalence game and give so much leeway to states that are the antithesis of every humanist value they’re suppose to admire.
The only thing Israel and Iran have in common is they start with the letter “I”.
1f Israel were a theocracy, then the Charedim (Ultra-Orthodox) would have had their way and there wouldn’t have been a Gay Pride parade.
In fact, a spokesman for the municipality of Jerusalem stated, in ’06, that there’s no legal way to block it, nor should there be.
At the time, the mayor of Jerusalem was the highest-ranking Sabbath observant Jew in the entire country.
Late to the party so I’ll just dive in from the top. I apologize in advance for the length.
UmberGryphon: “There have been 60 confirmed civilian deaths in Gaza as of Friday, 34 of them children. How many Israelis have died from unaimed rockets since Hamas ended the cease-fire? 5?
Even if you discount the deaths of Palestinian militants as “they got what they asked for”–and if I was an Israeli, I certainly would–Israel has killed 12 times as many innocents as Hamas has.”
I’m sorry, but that line of thought has been floating around in a lot of places and it’s full of šhìŧ. Hamas has “only” killed a handful of people with this go round of rocket launches? Really, Umbergryphon?
Hey, tell you what. You tell us what you think is the acceptable number of Israeli deaths for Israel to finally launch an attack. Is it 10? Is it 100? Is it 1000? Is it 10,000? Is it only acceptable if Israel limits the number of deaths caused by their counterstrikes to a 1 to 1 ratio? Or is the answer that you’ll never think that there’s an acceptable number of Israeli deaths
Sabir: “It doesn’t matter if they’re told that their house is going to be blown up. They have no where to go. Giving fair warning doesn’t mean that Israel has the right to blow šhìŧ up whenever they’re frustrated with rocket attacks.”
I’m sorry, but that is, to be blunt, retarded. They have no where to go? They live in an area that’s roughly twice the size of Washington DC. They have lots of places to go. If someone told me that my house was going to be bombed at in two hours by the military you could bet your ášš that I would have my wife, my son and the pets several miles away from there in a heartbeat. You can bet your ášš that I’d find someplace else to be.
And Israel is “frustrated” by rocket attacks at purely civilian targets and dead civilians? Really, they’re “frustrated” by this? Jeez…
El hombre Malo: “PAD, the Hamas leader that got blown off with his family was criminally insane. But when you knowingly pull the trigger on innocents it doesnt matter you’ve warned them, they are still innocent. Their parent/relative/neighbour criminal condition does not washes their blood from the hands of whoever killed them.”
So any time Hamas wants to attack Israel; all they have to do is put civilians in the line of a counterstrike and Israel just has to roll over and take it? Hamas can bomb the crap out of Israel if it wants to without differentiating between civilian and military targets and Israel would have to hold all response because Hamas wraps themselves up with a shield of “civilian” targets? No. Hamas launches attacks that are deliberately aimed at civilians. Israel is going after military targets and warning everyone, civilians and targets alike, that they’re going to attack in a few hours so that the civilians can get the hëll out of the way. If the civilians don’t leave then it’s not Israel’s fault and the blood isn’t on their hands.
Rob Brown: “It makes no difference, Michael. You don’t punish innocents for somebody else’s sins (in this case Hamas’ sins). If you do, then nothing separates you from any other mass murderer. Nothing. Not even if you have the best of intentions, because intentions don’t count for squat.”
They’re not punishing innocents. They’re doing whatever they can, and by doing so clueing in their specific targets that an attack is about to be launched at them, to minimize the deaths of innocent civilians. But you don’t stand by and do nothing while being attacked just because your enemy has civilian support and/or a civilian population that won’t get out of the line of fire when warned in advance that the fire is incoming.
Rob Brown: “How many innocents? Five, after god knows how many rockets?
Yeah, I’d say Israel can afford to sit there and take it.”
So I’ll ask you what I asked the other guy. You tell us what you think is the acceptable number of Israeli deaths for Israel to finally launch an attack. Is it 10? Is it 100? Is it 1000? Is it 10,000? Is it only acceptable if Israel limits the number of deaths caused by their counterstrikes to a 1 to 1 ratio? Or is the answer that you’ll never think that there’s an acceptable number of Israeli deaths?
Rob Brown: “I feel like I’m talking to a bunch of neo-cons here, when I thought most of the people who posted here were anti-war, were against war and believed it should be declared only when it was absolutely necessary, only when not declaring war would certainly result in the demise of your nation.
Instead I’m reading this crap about how punishing everybody in Gaza for the actions of a few that hardly did any damage is totally justified. Because apparently the loss of a handful of Israeli lives demands hundreds of Palestinians be killed, because apparently Israeli lives are worth a lot more.”
Really? You thought most the people here were anti-war? And what alternate universe blog were you reading when you got that idea in your head?
Most of the people here, myself included, who have spoken out against Bush and his Iraq folly did so because of various reasons that included the following.
1- Iraq, despite the Bush sales pitch, was not in any way, shape or form and “imminent threat” to us.
2- Iraq, despite the Bush campaign of confusion and fear insinuating otherwise, never attacked us or had anything to do with 9/11.
3- By attacking Iraq we took our eyes off of the ball and took resources away from the war we should have been fighting in Afghanistan.
A number of us had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan and had no problem with a war started for legitimate reasons. A number of us, myself not included, even stated that we should be going so far as to use military intervention in Africa. Very few people here are fully anti-war. We were just anti-dûmbášš war that was unnecessary and distracted us from what we were supposed to be doing.
And Afghanistan is an interesting comparison here. You had with Afghanistan a country where the government had members that were in fact a part of terrorist organizations. And some of them were in fact affiliated with the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
With the Palestinian government, you have the same situation. Members of Hamas were actually voted into the government by the people. Members of a terrorist organization were voted into the government by the people.
Now, does that mean that everyone in the government is a part of Hamas? No, it does not. But the difference may not mean a lot. Yesterday there were two representatives of the Palestinian government on the cable news nets. One was on CNN and the other was on Fox. An interesting thing happened on those two interviews.
Both interviewers asked their interviewees an interesting question. They pointed out that Hamas had been in the last few days threatening to start sending waves of suicide bombers into Israel and aimed at civilian targets. The interviewers both asked the officials if they and the Palestinian government disapproved of starting to send suicide bombers into Israel again. Neither one of them said that they disapproved of it. They both, after answering a number of questions clearly and directly, gave longwinded, evasive non-answers and completely avoided stating that they or their government disapproved of Hamas sending suicide bombers into Israel targeting civilians.
That’s one of the big problems with this situation. From the youngest civilians to the eldest statesmen there seems to be a large number of Palestinians that believe that “Death to Israel” is a primary goal in life and support those who act on that belief. If a number of the members of the government and the population as a whole support Hamas or at the very least will not condemn their actions no matter how extreme; how many are truly innocent? How many of the “innocents” that are being killed over there right now are being killed because, in an area as large as Gaza, they “can’t go anywhere else” to get away from the attacks they’ve been warned about and how many are being killed because their willing to stay to support/protect Hamas? I’m sure there’s a bit of both, but I’d love to know the exact ratios.
Peter David: “I have this funny feeling that if the election had been won by a party on a platform of, “We need to stop trying to destroy Israel and make a lasting peace,” Israel would not have felt the need to take up a defensive posture and adopt aggressive positions to protect itself.”
What, you mean that you think that if a group that didn’t advocate the destruction if Israel as a part of its official manifesto got in power that Israel wouldn’t be suspicious of that group and ready to launch a counterstrike when needed? Why throw logic around at this point? It only confuses the faithful.
Rob Brown: “Why is it that Israel is NEVER to blame?
If in 2003 Israel had gotten intelligence about WMDs in Iraq and decided to invade and bomb the country into the stone age just to be on the safe side, you would’ve been all for it I bet. Because it’s Israel, and Israel can never be wrong.”
Not true in the least. But why do I have the feeling that in your world view Israel can never be right and never do anything to defend itself without condemnation?
Rob Brown: “Gotcha. The children are monstrous killers too, all of ’em or close enough to all of them that it makes no difference, and if any children died in this strike then it’s cool because they would have grown up to attack Israel anyway. You can’t trust anybody, in all of Palestine. They’re all monsters.
I know it’s futile but I’m gonna say it anyway: LISTEN TO YOURSELF! You, and also Luigi, are rationalizing this slaughter by saying that there are virtually no true innocents in the line of fire.”
You know what? I’ve had issues with your POV before and I’ve agreed with your POV before, but I’ve never felt the need to be this rude and blunt with you before. You’re a fûçkìņg idiot.
That’s not what’s being said, but, please; don’t let that stop you from making šhìŧ up to attack people with or to hang your righteousness on.
Rob Brown: “As for banning me, don’t bother. I’ll show myself out, and I have no intention of coming back to post again.”
Well, don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
Jeffrey S. Frawley: “*****”
Moving on…
NickPheas: “The body count’s what? 5-700 in Israel’s favour or thereabouts? Looks like they lost that bet.”
Considering that Israel is warning targeted areas that they’re going to attack before they do, that they’re trying to focus their attacks to Hamas targets and that they could quite likely just carpet bomb the entire strip pretty much out of existence if they wanted to; I’d say that the bet wasn’t lost.
Sabir: “What does Hamas expect to happen? They expect the world to open their eyes and finally see Israel for what it is, a terrorist state.”
Wow… Just… Wow.
Israel has had its missteps and mistakes when dealing with the issues in that region, but for you to bend over backwards to excuse Hamas while labeling Israel as a terrorist state is a pretty impressive piece of twisted logic.
Wow.
Jonas: “Israel’s goal is to live in peace. Hamas’s goal is to destroy Israel.”
”I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. How can you buy propaganda like that when you can see through the lies of the Bush administration?”
No, I’m sorry to have to break it to you but that is true. Hamas has it written into their doctrine that the destruction of Israel is one of their fundamental goals. Do you want to know the difference between Hamas and Israel? If Hamas had the power to do it they would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Israel could stop tying one hand behind its back and it could turn most of Gaza into a lifeless wreckage zone but it won’t.
Jonas: “How is a genocidal bombing campaign and a ground invasion even remotely justified in response to that?”
A genocidal bombing campaign? And you’re dumb enough to accuse others of buying the propaganda that’s out there? Dude, learn what the hëll words mean before mindlessly regurgitating the mindless propaganda that you’re reading.
First non-violent solution submitted to the thread: casinos in Palestine. How much more unlikely has casinos on Indian reservations made an uprising in the US? Let me answer my own question: plenty.
All I am saying is give craps a chance.
Rob and Jeff are acting like total áššhølëš at best, or supposrting terrorists at worst.
The latter half of that sentence is one of the dumbest god dámņ things I’ve ever read on this site.
Nobody here is supporting terrorists. If you’re going throw that kind of bûllšhìŧ around, I’m going to have to seriously consider tracking you down and beating some common sense into you.
Well said, Jerry.
But I’m afraid that a part of the left will NEVER have any sympathy for any country of rich white people fighting poor colored people, no matter what are the reasons for the war.
And that is the crux of the question. I once read that all Israel has to do win the propaganda war was to use tanning beds to give their population darker skin, and perhaps adopt a religion that is considered more Eastern.
No, Rene, not all that well said. I’m tired and a bit under the weather and some of that came out far more grumpy (Angry?) than it was intended to be.
I’m just still sometimes amazed by the fact that, when faced with the proposition of Hamas VS Israel, so many people will pick the side that:
1- Intentionally targets civilians rather than military targets.
2- Use suicide bombers to kill large groups of civilians who are doing nothing more than trying to go about there daily routine.
3- Raise young children to be those suicide bombers and sometimes use them while they still are young children.
4- Is an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
5- Has the destruction of Israel written into their manifesto and never pass up the chance to try and bring that about.
Like I said before, Israel isn’t 100% squeaky clean in the total history of this mess, but they are by far the side that’s more able to claim being “right” in this mess. And even if someone thinks that they’re not in the right here, I have no idea how anyone can defend Hamas and their supporters the things that they do/stand for.
Craig J. Ries: Rob and Jeff are acting like total áššhølëš at best, or supposrting terrorists at worst.
The latter half of that sentence is one of the dumbest god dámņ things I’ve ever read on this site.
Yeah, even I left that one alone. Funny how people that whined and cried that “The Right” pulled out the “You Support the Terrorists” card (or whatever other card that various situations called for) whenever they couldn’t say something intelligent whip that thing out and play the same dumb games themselves at the very first opportunity that they get.
As long as Israel is committed to granting all Jews the right of return (which is not 100 percent true, but very close – consider the Ethiopian Jews who were initially refused entry) and very definitively opposed to granting any Muslims right of return (which is essentially true, despite international treaties requiring that it grant it), of course it is a theocracy: an armed enclave devoted to the promotion of Jewish interests (OK, not much theologically – just the personal interests of people who HAPPEN to be Jewish) at the expense of non-Jewish interests. Look to Jordan and elsewhere to see how many Palestinians have been denied return to their homeland. Look to the United States, Russia, Lithuania, Germany and Poland to see how many people whose ancestors haven’t been near the Levant in nearly two millennia, but who belong to a favored religion, have been warmly invited to live where Arabs used to make their homes. In its essence, Israel’s major activity is the continued dispossession of people from their homes. That’s been done before: It’s called “Lebensraum.” When it is practiced to favor Lutherans and Catholics, it’s a Class A War Crime. When someone else is the beneficiary, I guess it’s “domestic policy.”
Craig J. Ries: I’ll admit that there are a few terrorists I’ve supported: American revolutionaries, Partisans and Chetniks – Overthrowing legally constituted governments is just fine if two standards are met. The enemy government has to be unjust, and much more importantly, the revolutionaries have to win. Sometimes the second factor is sufficient. Living in this country, founded by violent revolutionary traitors as it was, I am very glad that I can say whatever the hëll I want without getting Craig J. Ries’s permission.
Jeffrey, learn to understand and comprehend what you’re reading. Bladestar made the comment about supporting terrorists, not Craig. And even if Craig didn’t stick Bladestar’s name in there at the begining of that line; it would be clear to any normal person that from the rest of Craig’s post that he was condemning that stupid “supporting terrorists” statement.
I wasn’t aware that George Washington made a point to purposefully attack civilians to drive out the British?
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your response. I must respectfully disagree. The fact is that the land of Palestine was occupied by other people when Israel was established. Simply wishing that those people would conveniently disappear into the amorphous mass of the “Arab nations” reduces these people to insignificant brown people who had the audacity to actually have a sense of history and belonging to the particular land they inhabited. Yes, the Palestinian issue has been stoked by Arab governments for their own purposes, but there would be a Palestinian refugee problem even if those governments were not using the situation.
The “original sin” of Israel is this stark reality: it was created on occupied land. In this sense, Israel is no different than any other colonial/imperial state: to create itself, it needed to displace the native population. It is not coincidence that so much of the rhetoric coming out of the West (mostly North America) on this particular issue so closely parallels the way that European settlers referred to native peoples in North America and Australia when they were slowly destroying them. The natives were “savages”, they were uncivilized, their lives did not matter, and they were rude enough to not simply disappear, giving way to their betters. Again, the parallels between places like Gaza and the original native reservations are striking.
The analogy in this case is not Israel being attacked by its neighbours; it is Israel being attacked by the people who owned the house that the Israelis threw them out of, making them live in the shed out back.
I want to be clear that I support Israel’s right to exist and live in peace. However, this cannot be at the expense of the Palestinians and it cannot be based on Israel’s refusal to accept its moral responsibility for creating the Palestinian tragedy in the first place. Israel has beaten these people down for decades and, along the way, radicalized them to ever greater degrees. Hamas is the logical outcome of that process.
Allow me to point out that Ehud Olmert, the present Israeli PM, recently gave an interview in which he admitted that he and every Israeli government for the past 35 years has simply been wrong. They have pursued the wrong policies – in particular, the settlement of Palestinian lands – because they believed, somehow, that the Palestinian problem would go away or the Palestinians could be broken and eventually forced out. That did not happen and, as a result, Israel faces the real choices today of continuing as a democracy – albeit, a very tattered one – or becoming an outright apartheid state. It is already well on its way to the latter, which is a deep tragedy. (Olmert’s interview was reprinted in English in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, if you want to check it out).
Re: those settlements: Israel has created many of the modern problems for itself by trying to settle the tiny bit of land left to the Palestinians after 1948. During the 1990s, in the context of the Oslo period, the number of Jewish setters in the OT actually doubled from about 200,000 to around 400,000. Imagine that. The Palestinians assumed that Oslo would eventually lead to their own state. Instead, they watched their land continue to be consumed and taken from them, often by force. Those settlements are not the only cause of the modern problem, but they are at the heart of much of the distrust and anger that has emerged over the past 35 years. Quite honestly, I think that Israel’s actions in this regard were and are utterly indefensible. It is not helped by the fact that many of the most radical, religious settlers are deeply hateful people and are often supported or protected in their abuse of Palestinians by the IDF and the Border Police. The fact of the settlements also clearly calls into doubt your statements that Israel wants peace. Of course Israel wants peace but, for the last several decades, it has wanted a peace that is entirely on its terms and that offers nothing to the other side. Israel has been powerful enough to act with this conceit. It is still enormously powerful, but it is also, slowly, coming to the realization that force has it limits (much as the US has discovered in Vietnam and, now, Iraq).
Let me make one more point (I apologize for the length of this post): some of your posters have commented on Hamas’ refusal to “recognize” Israel and even its calls for Israel’s destruction. Hamas is pitifully weak compared to Israel; it knows that it cannot accomplish these goals. But it also takes the view that to “recognize Israel’s right to exist” is tantamount to acknowledging or agreeing that Israel had a right to displace and dispossess the Palestinians. Arafat was willing to make this concession, and he got very little in return. Hamas is, clearly, not prepared to say that what was done to the Palestinians was, somehow, acceptable. I think this is easy to understand. Imagine if the US government went to the native people and demanded that they “recognize the US’s right to exist”, without making any concession or acknowledgement of the injustice done to the natives. I don’t think that it would go over very well.
The fact that Hamas has taken certain political positions does not mean that they are not open to negotiation or diplomatic dialogue. The USSR and China were dedicated to the destruction of the Western system; this did not stop dialogue and contact. Hamas can be talked to. Ultimately, Israel will have no choice but to talk to Hamas. Hamas has a political legitimacy among the Palestinians that is growing all the time, and is only being assisted by this current Israeli attack. Remember, Hamas won a democratic election. It was the decision of the West and Israel to ignore that fact – a colossal mistake if there ever was one – that pushed Hamas into the position it is now at. Rather than accepting Hamas as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians and allowing the discipline and responsibilities of power to force it to make necessary political concessions, the West and Israel ignored their own democratic rhetoric, exposed themselves as flagrant hypocrites, and further radicalized the Palestinians.
In the end, there must be a political solution. I fully expect this will happen in my lifetime. Who knows, maybe Obama will finally get tough with Israel and actually use that enormous American influence to do some good in the region (though I’m not holding my breath on Obama doing the right thing here). But I also think that the day will come when Israel will apologize to the Palestinians and accept that what may have been a good thing for the Jews (and the jury, I think, is still out on that) was a catastrophic event for another people.
In closing: a Palestinian friend told me a story of an event that happened to him when he was a child of 10 or 11. His mother asked him to get a carton of eggs from the store. He went and, on the way back, encountered Israeli soldiers who stopped him, looked at his package, then took it from him. They then proceeded to crack every egg over his head, covering him in the egg yolk. Of course, there was no point to this outside of abject cruelty and the assertion of the power to humiliate and belittle other people. This is a small event, if traumatic to a small child. But it is also the kind of thing that has played out in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians for decades. It is the inevitable coursening of the occupier, as well as the occupied.
Israel is the more powerful party in this conflict. It will need to, finally, accept that it is very possible for people who were victims to make victims of other people.
Sincerely,
Shaun
Craigy ignorantly spewed:
“If you’re going throw that kind of bûllšhìŧ around, I’m going to have to seriously consider tracking you down and beating some common sense into you.”
Anytime little girl, anytime.
Hamas are terrorists, the Palestinian people elected them, supporting Palestine terrorist attacks against Israel is supporting terrorism, fûçk you Craig’s-List.
Mordechai: “Name one other nation that lets non-citizens vote”
El Hombre Malo: Spain. France. Germany… every country withing the Maastrich Treaty free transit zone gives legal residents the right to vote on local elections. Now, since the palestinians in East Jerusalem have been forcibly incorporated to the Israeli territory, them beign able to vote is not surprising or particulary enlighted, but them not beign offered citizenship is actually very telling. Them not beign able to build any new home while new settlements are planned around the city is also quite funky, so their case is not that exemplary.
But I agree, Israel is not a theocracy. Yet a question still lingers; ¿Would Israel allow an arab demographic surge to hinder the jewish character of the state?
And to all that insist on blaming civilian casualties exclusively on Hamas or even on the own victims… The American School of Gaza (AISG), a learning institution devoted to education and the promotion of understanding, targeted by Islamic extremists in the past, is no more. It survived terrorism but now it has been flattened by Israeli bombs. No militants died, just the night watchman, so thats a military target for you. Today, a marketplace got bombed.
And, again, Israel has been using cluster bombs. For whoever may be unfamiliar with cluster bombs, these projectiles break into many smaller bombs with plastic “tails” to cover a large area (thats precision for you). Around 20% of the small bombs dont explode but remain on the ground, ready to do so. So byebye preccision strikes, hello to months of random (usually civilian) casualties. Small children are favored victims of tehse suckers, because the plastic tail is usually bright colored and they confuse them with toys. For these reasons, more than 90 countries explicitly forbid its use, and they fall into the “indiscriminate use of force against civilians” section of the International humanitarian law (the Geneva conventions if you want). That is, this use is considered a war crime.
A couple hours ago I saw a small piece on the spanish service of CNN about a hospital in Ashkelon, made ready for IDF injuries, ready with 400 beds and just a few miles from Gaza. They evaquated all patients to other hospitals and the personnel was idle. The mayor of New York or some other US politician visited the hospital today. Meanwhile, in Gaza, the hospitals are turning any casualty that doesnt require, at least, urgent amputation.
Correct me if I am wrong but… even if Israel considers every inhabitant of Gaza a suspect of terrorism… isnt there a moral obligation to provide medical atention to wounded enemies? I know not every country have ratified the Geneva conventions, but even Saddam army took that girl-soldier to a hospital. The same applies to the inclusion of medicines on the blockade Gaza has been suffering (whatever the reason for it).
And yes, I know Israel still mantains the moral ground against Hamas, but there is no reason why we shouldnt adress these issues.
fûçk you Craig’s-List.
How original.
You’re known to be over the top, but I’m not the one that “spewed” the notion that people posting here are terrorists because they dare to give a different point of view, that they dare to see things from a different angle than your oh-so-black-and-white view of things.
That’s the kind of crap that’s pìššëd øff so much of this country these last 8 years, but apparently you’ve chosen to remain blatantly ignorant of that. Frankly, I expected better of you.
Guess I’ll know better from now on. The question is, will you?
Now, since the palestinians in East Jerusalem have been forcibly incorporated to the Israeli territory, them beign able to vote is not surprising or particulary enlighted, but them not beign offered citizenship is actually very telling.
You should do the research. The Palestinians in East Jerusalem *do* have citizenship in Israel. This is in fact one of the bigger controversies right now as they become more and more involved in terror attacks (the bulldozer attacks and shooting attacks that took place earlier this year, for instance). But the fact is that they not only have citizenship but their ID cards are indistinguishable from that of any other person in the country.
Them not beign able to build any new home while new settlements are planned around the city is also quite funky, so their case is not that exemplary.
Illegal home building is illegal. It doesn’t matter who you are. My neighbor recently got the elevator he was building in the apartment building canceled in the middle of the project because he didn’t follow building codes. The only reason Palestinians in East Jerusalem have problems getting homes built is because they flout Israeli law (which includes housing codes) more than other citizens, mostly because they refuse to recognize Israeli sovereignty.
¿Would Israel allow an arab demographic surge to hinder the jewish character of the state?
Note the major difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians here. The Palestinians insist not just that they have a state, but that not one solitary Jew be allowed to live in that state. At the same time, they insist that as many Palestinians as they want be allowed to come and make their homes in Israel. Israel is fine with establishing a Palestinian state and letting as many Palestinians live there as they want. The problem with the Palestinian negotiating position is that when they talk about a two-state solution, they mean “one state for us, and another state also for us.”
The American School of Gaza (AISG), a learning institution devoted to education and the promotion of understanding, targeted by Islamic extremists in the past, is no more. It survived terrorism but now it has been flattened by Israeli bombs. No militants died, just the night watchman, so thats a military target for you.
The school was targeted because it was used as a launching ground for rockets. That’s a military target.
For these reasons, more than 90 countries explicitly forbid its use, and they fall into the “indiscriminate use of force against civilians” section of the International humanitarian law (the Geneva conventions if you want). That is, this use is considered a war crime.
While the use of cluster bombs may be controversial, it’s not a war crime, nor is it addressed by the Geneva convention. The international treaty banning cluster bombs was only opened for signature a month ago and only three or four countries have yet ratified it. It’s not even in force yet.
I’d also like to point out more generally that only one party in this conflict is a signatory to the Geneva convention, that being Israel. Hamas and Hizbullah certainly haven’t signed it, nor do they seem inclined to do so anytime in the near future. The Geneva convention only applies towards conflicts between two nations that are signatories; if you’re fighting someone that isn’t a signatory, it doesn’t apply. Israelis taken prisoner by Hamas or Hizbullah, for instance, *never* get Red Cross visits or international investigation as to their treatment.
Yet Israel goes above and beyond its obligations and acts as though the Geneva convention applies in this case anyway, granting all prisoners of war full Geneva protections even though they are undeserved, and doing their utmost to minimize civilian casualties — on both sides — where the other side does the most to maximize them — again, on both sides.
Correct me if I am wrong but… even if Israel considers every inhabitant of Gaza a suspect of terrorism… isnt there a moral obligation to provide medical atention to wounded enemies? I know not every country have ratified the Geneva conventions, but even Saddam army took that girl-soldier to a hospital. The same applies to the inclusion of medicines on the blockade Gaza has been suffering (whatever the reason for it).
The Jerusalem Post recently had an article profiling an Israeli hospital near Gaza that is currently treating Palestinian wounded. If they had a decent archive system on their site I could link you to it. They don’t. I hate their site.
“It is not coincidence that so much of the rhetoric coming out of the West (mostly North America) on this particular issue so closely parallels the way that European settlers referred to native peoples in North America and Australia when they were slowly destroying them.”
And I find it fascinating how a portion of the Left sees everything in terms of race, Shaun. You even frame the discussion explicitely like that. Israel is the evil white imperialist, the Palestinians are the poor, noble darkies. In the eyes of the racist Left, the darkies can do no wrong in any conflict, so the Palestinians are allowed to do *everything* in defense of their legimate home, up to and including purposefully targeting civilians.
It’s racist, because it implies that only whites are moral agents. Everything is Israel’s fault, and the Palestines are only reacting.
That is why I say the solution to the problem is tanning beds. If the Israelis had darker skin too, then the rest of the world would have shrugged at the conflict, just like it happens at Darfur. Thousands of people can be killed or raped in Darfur, but it’s okay to the racist Left, because as long as there are no evil whites involved, no one is to blame. Darfur is like some sort of natural tragedy (even though China supplies weapons and gives support to Sudan, the Chinese are non-whites, so it’s okay, they must have their reasons).
Building an army of irregular, oftentimes ununiformed guerrillas to snipe at uniformed soldiers following legally-issued orders to protect sovereign territory of the state is exactly the sort of thing we call terrorism – when it isn’t us doing it:
Sandinistas: terrorists
Green Mountain Boys: “patriots”
Bolsheviks: terrorists
Stern Gang: “patriots”
Hamas: terrorists
Defenders of the Alamo: “patriots”
So now I understand: If armed revolutionaries are our buddies, they’re nice guys. If they aren’t, they don’t deserve to live, and it is of no consequence if we kill any number of unaffiliated dark skinned people, so long as our intention is to kill the unpopular variety of terrorists. Actually, there is quite a precedent for such forward thinking: Operation Phoenix, by MACV-SOG in Vietnam, or the disappearance of suspected Marxists in Argentina or Chile. Or, for another example, how does everyone feel about the Rape of Lidice? I mean, come on! SOMEBODY, probably some pesky fellow who didn’t support the government in place in the military district, KILLED a country-loving uniformed soldier who was “just following orders,” so OF COURSE it was necessary to kill those nationalist rotters! Who cares whether the people who were killed were the actual terrorists? That’s just what happens when they let terrorists operate in their midst, I guess. You may even remember that Germany had instituted a government in Poland some time before those malcontents in the Warsaw ghetto who just didn’t feel like being shipped off to death camps – they, they, oh my God! They FOUGHT, with guns, and bombs, and their fists too – those unsophisticated peasants – against soldiers, officials and the civil order!! My God! We don’t like THEM at all, do we!?
Building an army of irregular, oftentimes ununiformed guerrillas to snipe at uniformed soldiers following legally-issued orders to protect sovereign territory of the state is exactly the sort of thing we call terrorism.
You have an interestingly broad definition of terrorism there. Most definitions of terrorism refer in some fashion to attacks intended to create a state of terror in the minds of the general public.
My definition of terrorists is “people who deliberately attack civilians”. Guerilla members who only attack soldiers are not terrorists; they are armed combatants, uniformed or not. Hamas is a terrorist organization because they do not LIMIT their attacks to the Israeli military. Their uniform or lack of same does not enter into it.
Go over the list of groups you posted with this definition instead, see if it clarifies things for you.
“An Israeli bombardment of Gaza overnight targeted 40 sites and resulted in more than 20 deaths and many more injuries. Palestinian medics reported that just 3 of the 23 Palestinians killed were Hamas fighters and the rest civilians. Earlier on Saturday, at least 13 people were killed when a missile struck a crowded mosque in Beit Lahiya. Israeli forces also attacked the American school in Gaza, killing a guard. An Israeli spokeswoman declared blithely, “The school…was a site for launching rockets.”
A tank shell fired in northern Gaza Sunday reportedly killed 12 people, mostly civilians. And a school in Beit Lahiya and a shopping centre in Gaza City were shelled, killing 5 people and seriously injuring dozens more.
Among those killed in the Israeli ground assault Sunday was a mother and her four children, whose home in the At-Toufah neighborhood of Gaza City was targeted by tank fire, Palestinian medical personnel in Gaza reported. One of the children was only a year old, while another was two.
Also killed in the Israeli attack were three ambulance workers who were struck by a missile as they were aiding wounded civilians.”
How is this justified? How? Or do you really believe every single word the Israeli government tells you? Because, come on, there is no other country in the world where you’d do that. Where anyone would do that, frankly.
And how can you believe that the problem is that the other Arab states won’t let the Palestinians in? Why should they? And more importantly, why do you believe that the Palestinians do not have the right to live in their own country? It’s not like they are the occupying force. They are the natives! Is the problem with the Native Americans that Mexico just wouldn’t take them all?
Just listen to your own arguments. You don’t know what a civilian is anymore? They are putting military targets amongst civilians? That’s practically the same argument used by the Bush administration to kill civilians in Iraq. It’s the “faceless enemy” that has no children, no families, that is just evil and must be killed.
Seriously – listen to yourself justifying the killing of children.
El Hombre:
Thank you for that info.
“but them not beign offered citizenship”
Non-Citizen residents of East Jerusalem can become Israeli citizens whenever they like. They just have to apply for it. Just like anyone else.
The main thesis of the original, pre-67 issue (because it gets more complicated after that), is that they shouldn’t *have* to.
Shaun,
“The “original sin” of Israel is this stark reality: it was created on occupied land. In this sense, Israel is no different than any other colonial/imperial state: to create itself, it needed to displace the native population.”
You ignored when I pointed this out on CBR, so I’ll point it out again – Israel had no deliberate policy of Displacement. There are Israeli Arabs who have lived there since the founding of the State.
I’m not going to say it *didn’t* happen in any cases, but to imply Israel marched out all the Arabs in some Trail of Tears like scenario is just wrong.
The Palestinian people have real problems, many of which can be blamed on Israel, However, a portion of the blame must be assigned to:
1) Leaders of surrounding nations in the 40’s who told them to leave and they could then come back after the Yishuv was crushed.
2) The USSR, which used them as a stalking horse for years.
3) Their own leaders, who have enriched themselves by the blood of their own people for years. Arafat only said “Okay, now I want peace” when money from Russia ran out. The man embezzled so much from aid money, and it was so institutionalized, that Hamas seemed like a legitimate alternative to the people of Gaza. That’s messed up.
This isn’t a team sport and it’s not a binary issue. There’s no simple cause of the problems and there’s no simple solution.
The first thing we need, though, would be leaders on both sides committed to peace through actions, not just words.
———-
Jeffrey S. Frawley:
I can see why Mr. David has you “shrouded” 🙂
“As long as Israel is committed to granting all Jews the right of return (which is not 100 percent true, but very close – consider the Ethiopian Jews who were initially refused entry)”
That had more to do with “Are they actually Jewish?” than anything else. And to shoot your “theocracy” comment further in the foot, it was mostly the Religious Jews championing their cause, while the majority of Secular Jews in power wanted to keep them out.
” and very definitively opposed to granting any Muslims right of return (which is essentially true, despite international treaties requiring that it grant it),”
Name a treaty of which Israel is a signatory that requires this, please.
No people are barred from Israeli citizenship. There are thousands of Israeli Arabs. Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bedouin… all types. No-one is actively blocked.
Not having right of return doesn’t mean you can’t get in.
” of course it is a theocracy: an armed enclave devoted to the promotion of Jewish interests (OK, not much theologically – just the personal interests of people who HAPPEN to be Jewish)”
I think “armed enclave” is such deliberately inflammatory language that makes me wonder if you actually have any interest in debate, or just want to stand on a soapbox and orate about the great evils of Israel.
How can it “of course” be a theocracy when the basis of the nation is not theology?
Once again, you’re mistaking Judaism the religion for Judaism the ethnicity. Israel is a Tribal nation in an area of Tribal societies. It was founded by Socialists and Atheists, who maintain a shaky status quo with religious people of any stripe, including fellow Jews.
Israel has Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press.
The highest ranking Sabbath observant Jew in the history of Israeli politics (mind, as far as I know) was the former mayor of Jerusalem, who’s just come out of office.
You want to call Israel something? Want to say it’s undemocratic? That’s your choice.
However, to call it a theocracy is false.
“at the expense of non-Jewish interests.”
This is another fallacy. If Israel were only concerned with Jewish interests, they would not recognize Sharia courts, and would certainly not pay Sharia judges. If Israel were solely concerned with Jewish interests, they wouldn’t send aid and assistance anywhere in the world. If Israel were only about Jewish interests, they would not allow non-Jews to serve in government.
Israel is a multi-cultural nation where one tribe has right of return. That’s all. It’s not this massive stockade, where armed IDF drones check to make sure you’re circumcised.
” Look to Jordan and elsewhere to see how many Palestinians have been denied return to their homeland. “
This doesn’t make sense. One of the reasons Palestinians *are* refugees was the refusal of Jordan to repatriate any of them, which is what the British assumed would happen (remember Trans-Jordan?). That would because of a very simple reason – It’s not right of return when you’re being shoved somewhere else.
Palestinians are treated like crap by Jordanians and Egyptians, by and large.
“Look to the United States, Russia, Lithuania, Germany and Poland to see how many people whose ancestors haven’t been near the Levant in nearly two millennia, but who belong to a favored religion, have been warmly invited to live where Arabs used to make their homes. In its essence, Israel’s major activity is the continued dispossession of people from their homes.”
This is nonsense, of course. Again, you confuse Racial Judaism of Religious Judaism.
There are no formal actions on the nation’s part at this time to disposes anyone. Illegal settlements are, by their nature, illegal, and are not supported by the government.
If you’ll read my other comments here, you’ll see I’m hardly a cheerleader for Israel’s chosen actions. However, your views have little to no reflection on reality.
The area of Israel/Gaza is large enough for all parties, be it as Two States or as One. Israel’s tactics stink, but are still a thousand times better than the policies of most of that area towards the Palestinian people and how their own leadership treats them.
Israel is not a theocracy, or even a racist entity. It is a tribal nation, in an area rich with tribal traditions. It is not an exclusive nation, and does not have official policies that oppress other tribes within the nation.
It does indeed have huge issues with how they treat Palestinians, but those issues have to do with how the Palestinians treat them.
If we play a giant game of “They started it,” we accomplish nothing. Until we can get past that, there cannot be peace.
How is this justified? How? Or do you really believe every single word the Israeli government tells you? Because, come on, there is no other country in the world where you’d do that. Where anyone would do that, frankly.
Did you read the article you just quoted? Because you just answered your own question. You seem to believe every single word Palestinian medics tell you. These are the same people that made 10-or-20-fold overestimates of the casualties in Jenin. During the Second Lebanon War there was an incident in which the Lebanese government decried an airstrike that killed something like 60 civilians, and the next day it was found that it killed a grand total of 0. Almost every Arab estimate of casualty figures gets revised downward by at least 50% once somebody bothers to investigate. This happens all the time. Not to mention, of course, the mock funerals they parade in front of the cameras with people pretending to be dead.
As for the deaths of civilians during wartime — If Hamas took the money it spends on rockets to attack Israel and put it into, say, building bomb shelters for its citizens, there wouldn’t be a *single* Palestinian casualty. And not because they’d be in the bomb shelters — because Israel would have no reason to attack.
Israel, in the meantime, suffered two direct hits on KINDERGARTENS by Kassam rockets over the last week. Luckily for the kids, they were all in bomb shelters at the time. And why? Because they have a government that feels it’s more important to defend its citizens than attack another country’s — which is why it’s taken so many years for the Israeli government to finally respond to the Kassams, which have been fired essentially non-stop since 2000.
The Palestinians have the perfect right to live in their own country. They just don’t have the right to use it to attack ours.
There’s very little doubt that Hamas is run by ignorant, bloodthirsty terrorists.
There’s also very little doubt that Israel is, too. But for some reason, many Americans seem determined to “choose sides” and pretend one faction is the Good Guys and the others are Bad Guys.
This, of course, is nonsense. Religious fanatics who enjoy slaughtering infidels and innocents alike (or, more specifically, deny that there ARE such things as “innocents” on the opposing side) are solidly ensconced on both sides of this little mess.
My question is: Why do we persist in claiming that Israel is somehow blameless, even to the point of defending their every atrocity? We don’t give the same consideration to the Palestinians, so why single out the Israelis as though they were on the side of righteousness?
Is it the American tendency to oversimplify? the need to fit white and black hats on every situation? the shallow analysis that leads to choosing a side to root for, like this was some sort of Bowl game?
Hamas is run by violent, ignorant, áššhølëš. So is Israel. My only suggestion is that we withdraw from the region and focus on our own concerns.
Calybos:
“There’s very little doubt that Hamas is run by ignorant, bloodthirsty terrorists.
There’s also very little doubt that Israel is, too. But for some reason, many Americans seem determined to “choose sides” and pretend one faction is the Good Guys and the others are Bad Guys.”
We all do it. It’s stupid, yes.
“This, of course, is nonsense. Religious fanatics who enjoy slaughtering infidels and innocents alike (or, more specifically, deny that there ARE such things as “innocents” on the opposing side) are solidly ensconced on both sides of this little mess.”
Now this I have to disagree with. For one thing, neither Hamas nor the State are about religion. They’re about tribalism.
Secondly, Israel doesn’t deny that they’re hitting innocents.
“My question is: Why do we persist in claiming that Israel is somehow blameless, even to the point of defending their every atrocity? We don’t give the same consideration to the Palestinians, so why single out the Israelis as though they were on the side of righteousness?”
We don’t. Have you read these comments, or are you just giving a general “we”?
Even those who support Israel aren’t giving it a total free pass.
“Hamas is run by violent, ignorant, áššhølëš. So is Israel. My only suggestion is that we withdraw from the region and focus on our own concerns.”
Actually, I don’t think that’s the worst idea. One of the biggest problems in the ME has been outside influence.
Jerry Chandler: You’re right about my mistaken attribution of the offensive statement. Whether you’re right about anything else I will defer for now.
In general, I’d just insist that any country claiming the moral high ground should set its standards MUCH higher than those of the Gestapo. “Well, we’re certainly not as bad as THEM, so we’re just fine” is no way to take the high road.
No, Rene, the only implication aborigines are without morals is yours.
And I assume that the UN World Food Program and the Human Rights Watch are also all lying? I suppose everyone in Gaza actually lives in luxury hotels.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UN_warns_of_humanitarian_crisis_in_Gaza
Rene, it would have helped me if you also had quoted Shaun referring to the implication aborigines were without morals. However, your solution, tanning beds, would require the side Shaun and maybe you are attributing a racist agenda to to adopt proaction counter to that racism. It’s a non-starter.
I still think casinos in Palestine will be the least change that goes the furthest to stop the fighting. If a casino pays for your upkeep, how much more land do you need?
Mike, what the hëll?
I use “moral agent” in the sense of a being responsible for their own actions. It’s my belief that every Homo Sapiens is a moral agent and accountable, no matter the color of their skin. You pull the trigger, it’s your own dámņ fault. No matter the color of your hand, no matter the history of oppression you’ve been born into.
If Hamas purposefully targets innocents, then they’re responsible for innocents dying. That is in direct opposition to the view of some from the Left (not all, but some) that believe Hamas should not be hold accountable for their own actions, because everything they do is in response to some Western atrocity.
So, to them, only the West is responsible and accountable.
Israel’s sent in over 400 truckloads of humanitarian aid since the beginning of the operation, including 10,000 tons over the last week alone. There’s a limit to what can be done in the middle of a war. Interestingly, the World Food Program recently informed Israel that it will cease shipment of food to Gaza because warehouses are at full capacity, with enough food to last two weeks.
You’re complaining that there’s a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? There’s a humanitarian crisis in Southern Israel too. That’s what happens during a war! I’d like you to name one war in the history of mankind that DIDN’T create a humanitarian crisis.
But since you seem to believe that there is no justification for these actions, I’ll put the question directly to you: What would you have Israel do to defend itself? What is the acceptable reaction to the rocket attacks?
When Israel tells Palestinians they have no right of return, they are very definitely restricting citizenship, and much more. As long as any Jew, by convincing the state he is a Jew, can claim citizenship, but Muslims who (inconveniently, perhaps) were born in the territory but were chased out are adamantly denied right of return, Israel is nothing more than and nothing except a private club built on somebody else’s lot with a “No Non-Jews Allowed, except for Domestics” sign at the front gate.
Of course Israel is a theocracy! How does one qualify for emigration? Well, it’s as simple as this:
A. Hey! I want to be an Israeli citizen!
B. Yeah….Let’s see if you’re qualified. Are you Jewish?
A. Yeah.
B. Cool. See that guy over there? He ain’t Jewish. That towel-head can go back where he came from! Wait…no, he can’t go there. He’s from Jerusalem, but he’s a filthy Arab, so screw him. He can go somewhere else.
A. Say, is this joint restricted? I was a member of the ACLU chapter in New Jersey for 18 years, and we fought against that sort of thing…
B. Don’t worry about that. They don’t WANT to come back to their villages. Who the hëll cares whether they see their parents’ graves? We built a recreation center on that dung heap a long time ago! Screw them.
A. Well, OK, if it’s not hurting anybody….
Israel’s right of return law is not an exclusionary policy, it’s an affirmative action policy. The Jews have been discriminated against for thousands of years and deserve a place to go. What happened to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries (a number, by the way, larger than the number of exiled Palestinians)? Iraq, Iran, the UAE, Jordan, Syria — are they happy to let the Jews come back and resettle? My own grandfather was born in Iraq and had to flee with no possessions in the 1930s, long before he had a place to go. Can I go back to Baghdad and claim his house? Of course not, I’d probably just be shot at the border (well, not anymore thanks to the Bush administration; now I’d just be lynched in the neighborhood instead).
If the Palestinians want their own right of return, let them set it up in a state next to Israel, the way it’s been offered to them in increasingly generous terms for decades. Unlike the Jews, they left voluntarily. If they want monetary compensation as well, Israel’s offered it many times (nobody ever bothered to offer it to the exiled Jews, because if both sides paid out the same amount of money per refugee, Israel would come out ahead). And the distance between Jenin and their former villages is a LOT closer than the distance from where my grandfather lived in Queens to his former home in Baghdad.
So let me ask you this, Frawley: Is there any country in the world that allows anybody that wants to to immigrate? Is there any country in the world that doesn’t guard its borders and restrict citizenship?
“What would you have Israel do to defend itself? What is the acceptable reaction to the rocket attacks?”
(I will ignore the question of whether rocket attacks justify an invasion.)
How about ending the blockade that has turned the entire area into a living hëll? How about letting people in Gaza have electricity? How about letting them live like human beings? How about ending the long history of unprovoked violence and even murder that the Israeli forces have against Palestinian civilians? How about ending the racist treatment of Palestinians as third-class citizens?
These are not matters of propaganda. I don’t particularly like Hamas, or think they can help the Palestinians. (In fact, their whole nationalist approach and tactics are useless.) But the fact is that it is Israel that is the occupying force, and it is Israel that has the superior strength in ALL matters, that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians has been *systematically* racist and inhuman; and so it is in Israel’s hands to end this peacefully.
The crimes in Israel/Palestine go back a long way, and I do not think the creation of a Ghetto-like Palestinian State is a solution; but neither can the state of Israel as it now exists be dissolved, even though its creation was a criminal act. (And do not call me an anti-Semite for saying so; not only are there many Jewish people who agree with this, but my argument has nothing to do with the idiotic concept of “race” and everything to do with history and international law.)
So the solution lies with an Israel that acknowledges its history, including its crimes, and works towards social and economic equality with the population it has oppressed. Yes, that means a major change in Israeli policy. But it’s far from impossible. It also means that organizations like Hamas will have to be replaced by more forward-thinking ones. But you cannot do that by killing people. You can do that by allowing them to live like human beings, and by treating them as equals.
And if you think that’s just “let’s all be nice to each other and hug” talk, you’re delusional. I am talking about practical, day-to-day matters, that the state of Israel CAN change.
(Here, BTW, is blog by an Englishman who lived in Israel for quite some time: http://adhock.blogspot.com/ – do read more than one entry, though, if you’re going to say something about it.)
Being on the receiving end of race-extermination was simply a matter of the US government holding Native Americans responsible for trying to enforce the same territorial privileges as the colonists?
US soldiers who exterminated Indians were never rounded-up and killed and quarantined to reservations. I don’t know what holding-of-responsibility you are referring to for which your definition of moral-agency applies. Help me try to reconcile the facts with what you’re saying.
How about ending the blockade that has turned the entire area into a living hëll?
My previous comments have already addressed the blockades. The blockades were only put up in response to the rocket attacks. Border crossings between Israel and Gaza could have been identical to any other border crossing between neighboring (albeit hostile) states in the world, if only they’d stop firing across it. (Not to mention that the border crossings, whenever they were reopened, were a favorite target for suicide bombings.)
I’ve also already mentioned the fact that Egypt has a border with Gaza as well, and that border is CONSIDERABLY more blockaded than the Israeli one.
How about letting people in Gaza have electricity?
Does any other country in the world supply electricity to a neighboring, hostile country? But you’re factually incorrect here regardless; Israel has never stopped the electric supply to Gaza. Even during the famous so-called “blackout” a year or two ago, it was HAMAS that cut off the power in order to increase international pressure on Israel.
I would also like to point out as well that the power station that supplies electricity to Gaza is located in Ashkelon, which is currently under attack by rockets.
How about letting them live like human beings? How about ending the long history of unprovoked violence and even murder that the Israeli forces have against Palestinian civilians?
I might say the same in reverse. How about ending the suicide bombings, the infiltration and kidnapping attempts?
How about ending the racist treatment of Palestinians as third-class citizens?
We did. We left Gaza entirely. If they’re still being treated as third-class citizens, it’s Hamas doing it, not Israel.
Rene –
And I find it fascinating how a portion of the Left sees everything in terms of race, Shaun.
I think we can safely move away from the terms “right” and “left” on this subject. I’ve seen plenty on the “Right” get their jollies lately by pointing out (sarcasm) all the wonderful things done by the ‘religion of peace’, Islam. (/sarcasm).
I’ve also seen plenty on the Right ignore Darfur and so on, so I think this entire argument that one half is supposedly more racist than the other as completely bunk.
Calybos –
There’s also very little doubt that Israel is, too. But for some reason, many Americans seem determined to “choose sides” and pretend one faction is the Good Guys and the others are Bad Guys.
I don’t know where you are from, but my first thought was that, well, this is an oversimplification, the same thing you accuse of us Americans of doing.
In case you’ve failed to notice, there have been those who try to view things from many angles.
And what happens when we do? We get called “supporting terrorists at worst”.
We did. We left Gaza entirely.
And this brings up another problem.
Gaza is currently part of Israel, right? Yet, it seems to be part of Israel in name only; Israel at times seems to want to wash its hands of the area, yet, like with other regions such as Chechnya, they refuse to allow the area to break away.
If Gaza is part of Israel, then Israel has a responsibility to Gaza, regardless. But, at least to me, it’s a responsibility they do not take very seriously, or one they take on very grudgingly. Either way, it’s not helping the situation.
So, where to the Gazans run? Here’s an article that asks the question:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28503695/
For an area twice the size of DC, it must be comforting to leave one’s home, try to go to a relatives, only to find yourself right in the middle of it anyways.
Wikipedia says DC is 68 square miles. So you figure Gaze is about 140 square miles? Ok.
I live in Denver, which is about 150 square miles. If that’s the size of area I had to try and hide in from an attacking army, I’m pretty comfortable saying I wouldn’t feel safe anywhere, that there’s truly nowhere to run.
“Gaza is currently part of Israel, right?”
Wrong
Wrong
Ok? Please elaborate then, rather than throwing out one word answers that give us nothing.
The area is not recognized internationally as independent of Israel, but they govern themselves.
To me, a close comparison would truly be Chechnya, which has more or less has its own government, but remains part of Russia.
“I’ve also seen plenty on the Right ignore Darfur and so on, so I think this entire argument that one half is supposedly more racist than the other as completely bunk.”
Certainly, Craig.
But that was never my argument. That elements of the Right are racist is a given. We all know that, to this day, there are people in the US that are uneasy about Barack Obama because of his looks. To say that there are racist people in the Right is like saying the sky is blue. It’s obvious.
I’m more disillusioned by many people in the Left, though, that automatically consider the White Man the “villain” in any conflict between a white faction and a non-white faction. I sincerely believe that some of the Left in the Western world that sides unequivocaly with the Palestinians do so out of misplaced white man’s guilt.
Is it a coincidence that they compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the plight of Native Americans or Apartheid or the Nazis? All instances when White people perpetrated atrocities against non-White populations. They frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in such terms (just read the posts of Jeffrey and Rob).
My reference to tanning beds was just a sarcastic way to say that Jeffrey and Rob probably would not care so much if the Israelis had darker skin, because when darkies kill other darkies, like in Darfur, there is no white guilt involved, and so the conflict is usually ignored by many “engaged” Leftists.
It’s more that the international community won’t *let* Israel wash its hands of the area.
For the past three years, ever since Israel vacated Gaza, there has been exactly *one* Israeli governmental presence in Gaza. His name is Gilad Schalit, and Hamas kidnapped him from within Israel and brought him there.
Until yesterday’s invasion, Israel had no troops, no taxes, no administration, nothing whatsoever to do with the area. They could have build up a country. They could have decided that, hooray, the occupation is over, let’s celebrate, hold an Independence Day, draw up a Constitution, sign peace treaties and trading agreements with our neighbors….
Instead they took all the international aid money that was pouring in, used it to buy weapons, and voted Hamas into power.
Actually, I’m wrong; Israel was still responsible for supply electricity and water to Gaza. So what would you have Israel do in order to actually let them be? If we cut off the electricity and water that we were supplying and let them supply themselves, we’d just get condemned for abandoning them to their fate (as we’ve already been accused of doing even though we DIDN’T cut it off).
So what would you say constitutes Israel washing its hands of Gaza?
Apologies for the ambiguity in my post: The “They” in “They could have build up a country etc.” is referring to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Craig, Gaza is a seperate country, complete with border patrols, between Israel and Egypt. It is not a part of Israel.
Daniel, A good post, but the one thing I would note is that technically, Hamas didn’t kidnap Gilad Schalit… militants did, who Hamas claims they weren’t affiliated with.
True. It’s Hamas who’s been holding him hostage ever since, though. My point was in the irony: the only Israeli military presence in Gaza since the disengagement has actually been Hamas’s fault — and far more directly than the way the current one is.
I’ve avoided this thread and should have kept doing so. I’ll answer this.
The analogy to Chechnya is false.
1921-1948 Gaza part of the British Mandate
1949-1967 Gaza is occupied by Egypt but is not part of Egypt.
1967-1993 Gaza is occupied by Israel (militarily) but is not annexed to Israel or recognized by the international community as belonging to Israel. Israel builds settlements in Gaza in violation of international laws governing the militarey occupation of lands.
1993-2000 Israel withdraws from the Palestinian residential ares of Gaza but retains the settlements. A Palestinian authority is established there which is supposed to be the precursor of a Palestinian state.
2000-2005 the peace process collapses and violence errupts between Palestinian organizations, some backed by the Palestinian authority and some not (including Hamas), and Israel.
2005 Israel forcibly removes all settlements and withdraws completely from Gaza. The border of Gaza with Egypt is controlled by Palestinians with oversight by international inspectors. The Palestinian authority nominally controls all of Gaza
2006 Hamas wins Palestinian elections for parliament of the Palestinian authority (although it doesn’t actually recognize the validity of the agreement that established the authority, or Israel for that matter). The president is still of the Fatah.
Hamas kicks out international inspectors on border with Egypt.
2007- The armed forces of the Hamas defeat the armed forces of Fatah and take over Gaza. Two seperate governments are formed by the Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah in the west bank.
2009- Israel starts current operation but says that it does not aim to reconquer Gaza.
So, Gaza, not part of Israel, not viewed by anybody except expelled settlers as part of Israel, not wanted by Israel, or by Egypt. Controlled completely by Hamas.
Not Chechnya.
I’m done.
Seriously – listen to yourself justifying the killing of children.
When Israeli children are killed month after month, year after year, it’s reported with statistics.
When Palestinian children are killed after a few days, it’s reported with indignation.
PAD
I sincerely believe that some of the Left in the Western world that sides unequivocaly with the Palestinians do so out of misplaced white man’s guilt.
Well, I think you’re overestimating the numbers, but your original comment leans toward a blanket definition of those on the left as well.
At any rate, there are racists on both sides, and not for the reason you state regarding the right. Racism IS inherent on both sides. I don’t know if it’s white guilt or not, but when people in some parts of this country outright stated that they were voting for “the n*gger”, then the problem is obviously beyond the definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right’.
Daniel –
So what would you say constitutes Israel washing its hands of Gaza?
Honestly, I don’t know, but the fact that Gaza isn’t already recognized as an independent country goes beyond just the international community not giving them the recognition. I would guess that there’s pressure to not give them such recognition from all quarters: Israel, other ME nations, the US, and others like Russia (see: Chechnya).
But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, what continues to happen, where Israel rolls into the Gaza Strip whenever they want to put up a huge show of force, hasn’t changing a thing. It just continues the cycle.
Unfortunately at this point it seems most are resigned to continuing the cycle.
Well, that’s the problem, Micha. Israel’s in a catch-22 situation. The world doesn’t want it to own Gaza — but any time it does anything to disconnect itself from Gaza, the world cries foul, asking, “How can you abandon these people?”.
Thank you for the history lesson Micha, seriously.
“When Israeli children are killed month after month, year after year, it’s reported with statistics.
When Palestinian children are killed after a few days, it’s reported with indignation.”
Even if that were true – which it is not – it wouldn’t justify more killing. It wouldn’t justify making excuses for a nation using its highly advanced and powerful military to pound poor and practically unarmed civilians into the ground.