Author
|
Topic: Speak to Hamas?
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 28 February 2008 09:50 AM
The events in the past few days are worrisome, seemingly dragging both sides into a more dangerous paradigm that is all too familiar. What it means is another round of fighting, escalation, and casualties for both sides.This is nothing new, although the situation nonetheless begs for a breakthrough and that means firstly an end to the violence. This is a challenging dilemma, because past cease fires between Israel and Hamas have proven to be as ambivalent and volatile as the Bush Administrations peace overtures. Israeli military experts, journalists, ministers, all generally agree that there is no utility in occupying Gaza again. Qassam rockets were launched before and after the disengagement. The past major operation after the Shalit kidnapping did not halt the rocket salvos. Still, after the Hamas took over the Gaza strip, the launching of rockets and mortars per month jumped by 150%, which is indicative that the rocket threat.. Assuming that an IDF operation will draw certain achievements against terrorist infrastructure but will most likely not stop the rocket fire, as past experience has indicated, what's the point? The logic of refraining from talking to Hamas is clear and persuasive. But is it the best answer? I would consider, seeing as both sides are not willing to cross their respective red-lines, that a diplomatic backchannel might be an appropriate process to achieve a cease-fire. Hamas may not be a viable peace partner, but in order to sideline them, strengthen moderate Palestinians constituencies (Abu Mazen and Fayad) and sincerely discuss coexistence, Hamas must be quelled, whether it's done diplomatically or militarily is to be determined. However, unless the IDF can create serious deterrence against Hamas, I'm not sure how another operation is convincing enough.
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 28 February 2008 06:41 PM
quote: Even as I write this, however, there is news that in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military, in separate attacks, has killed a 6 month old baby and three Palestinian children age 10, 12 and 14. No names yet. In the case of the three children, the Israeli army claims that it was aiming at militants, and a spokesperson said it was “strange” that there should be children around the alleged vicinity of rocket launchers.But it is not the first ‘strange’ occurrence recently in Gaza. On Saturday, three Palestinians in their early 20s, Mohammad Talal al-Za’anin, Ibrahim Ahmad Abu Jarad, and Mohammad Hasan Hussein, were killed as they prepared a picnic in a field near Beit Hanoun. The Israeli missile hit their hut, 1.2km from the border fence, killing and dismembering them instantly. ‘Strangely’, the Israeli army claimed it had targeted militants firing rockets. Then on Tuesday, Palestinian farmer Hassan Abu Sabatt was tilling his land near Qarara village, when Israeli soldiers shot him dead. Once again, the IDF said it had killed an armed militant – a spokeswoman said he’d been spotted planting a bomb. These drastically contrasting versions of what happened become less mysterious when we remember that the IDF has a long track record of lying, backtracking and deceiving when it comes to the killing of Palestinian civilians. Of course, Western media outlets either unquestioningly reprint official IDF press releases, or ‘balance’ the two contradictory accounts.
Some lives are worth more than other
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:04 AM
Well, I guess Israel could engage in peace talks with another belligerent somewhere else on the globe? Perhaps, they could enter into talks with the FARC in Colombia, and the Colombian government could talk to Hamas?Why Not Talk to Hamas? quote: The official answer: "Hamas denies Israel's right to exist." A ridiculous argument, which comes down to "we don't talk to our enemy because he is our enemy," or "we'd rather make peace with friends than with foes." Moreover, Hamas offers a long-term cease-fire, lasting years or even decades. Israel says "no" to that too. Why? The idiotic Israeli answer is that Hamas would use the time to rearm. As if Israel would use the time to make love. A pseudo-democracy run by the military is totally blind to the rational logic of creating a "temporary" peaceful atmosphere, boosting the parties' vested interest in a peaceful life, raising a new generation in prosperity and free of old hatreds, and so on. Better a war right now than decades of peace and a war – perhaps – afterwards. It surely is better – for the weapons industry, and for the graveyards.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:11 AM
quote: It's a shame that a topic which usually draws constructive debate, criticism, and dialogue in intelligent circles, is torpedoed by personal and emotional impartiality on this site. Instead, inappropriate accusations and frivolous arguments are tossed about freely like children in a sand box. I refuse to engage in such nonsense. - Snowy Plover
You already torpedoed any constructive debate with your own impartiality in your opening salvo with your edict on Who is terrorist and who is not. quote: Assuming that an IDF operation will draw certain achievements against terrorist infrastructure but will most likely not stop the rocket fire... Snowy Plover
From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:29 AM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover: Red Herring Zeebub. You want to debate, speak up.
You're back! That's gotta be a record for the shortest flounce ever on Babble. I think you need a "Fallacy Primer", by the way. The phrase you're looking for is ad hominem. As in, my sarcastic remark was an ad hominem attack - of course only in response to yours.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:03 AM
quote: The official answer: "Hamas denies Israel's right to exist." A ridiculous argument, which comes down to "we don't talk to our enemy because he is our enemy," or "we'd rather make peace with friends than with foes." Moreover, Hamas offers a long-term cease-fire, lasting years or even decades. Israel says "no" to that too. Why? The idiotic Israeli answer is that Hamas would use the time to rearm. As if Israel would use the time to make love. A pseudo-democracy run by the military is totally blind to the rational logic of creating a "temporary" peaceful atmosphere, boosting the parties' vested interest in a peaceful life, raising a new generation in prosperity and free of old hatreds, and so on. Better a war right now than decades of peace and a war – perhaps – afterwards. It surely is better – for the weapons industry, and for the graveyards.
This is an interesting point of view. The notion of creating a temporary peaceful atmosphere is ill-considered in the Israeli government and defense circles, and possibly to its demise. However, previous cease-fires have only proven to usher more lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, how is possible to harvest coexistence when Hamas is sounding the drum of annihiliation and war? I believe in constructing a confidence building setting, irrespective of raison d'etre. Yet since Israel disengaged from Gaza, Hamas has run on the ticket of destroying Israel. Thus the issue is not Hamas overtures, but rather their actions that speak louder than words. Actually, a cease fire isn't enough, and I think that's the word around the streat in the Middle East. Hamas knows that it cannot commit to recognizing Israel and acting on it, yet Israel knows it cannot accept another round of militarization without any progress on Shalit and an almost inevitable forecast of rocket fire. There is no leader ballsy enough, neither Israeli nor Palestinians, capable of making a Sadat or a Rabin manuever. Should history be a guide, double track the diplomacy like Oslo and go through a mediator? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? The US? I think what matters is making progress on Shalit and Hamas prisoners to start.
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:18 AM
quote: You already torpedoed any constructive debate with your own impartiality in your opening salvo with your edict on Who is terrorist and who is not.
If you'd like to discuss the definition of terrorism I am willing to do so. I just think this is a run-down topic and less significant than the contemporary dilemma posted above. For the sake of clarification, I define a terrorist as a person who deliberately targets civilians in order to achieve political goals. This definition is predicated on the means used rather than the ends sought. Anyone can seek legitimate political goals such as self-determination or a global caliphate, yet the means employed in order to get there ultimately determine whether the struggle is humane and legitimate. This issue brings up a number of dilemmas with regards to people who target civilians AND soldiers. Seeing as soldiers are functions of the states use of force, they are considered a legitimate target. Many academics have suggested though that once a militant targets a civilians, he/she becomes a terrorist, as there is no justification for using force against civilians in order to achieve political goals.
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover: Thanks for the English lesson, useless as it may be. What I meant was that you are diverting the issue. If you want to debate, please post something useful and constructive regarding my original inquiry, and try to refrain from racist and boorish comments as mentioned by your counterparts above. If you're not interested, don't bother responding. I have no qualms with you, however I don't have time for petty arguments.
There have been several constructive responses to your post. The suggestion that the problem is the racism in the Israeli establishment is on point. As is the suggestion by kropotkin that as the democratically elected government of Palestinians, Hamas should be respected and negotiated with. Adam Stratton's point that your condescending insults about emotive partiality etc. are put to paid by your own opening post - which itself shows none of the "impartiality" you may believe it does - are similarly on point. Just because you refuse to engage these responses and haughtily pretend they are beneath you, doesn't mean they aren't legitimate responses. Last I checked "academics" (and you like to think of yourself as one, don't you?) spend a lot of time deconstructing the implicit assumptions in their opponents' positions. The invidious comparison of Babble to your imagined "intelligent circles" says more about your desire for a verbal sparring match than your claims to the contrary. You're primed and ready for a fight, and you're looking for a dance partner. Don't lie. You've been boning up on this one for awhile, hoping to come in here and "show them Babblers what-for". [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:31 AM
quote: This issue brings up a number of dilemmas with regards to people who target civilians AND soldiers. Seeing as soldiers are functions of the states use of force, they are considered a legitimate target. Many academics have suggested though that once a militant targets a civilians, he/she becomes a terrorist, as there is no justification for using force against civilians in order to achieve political goals.
IR student? I thought so. Oh how I remember being an IR student with an axe to grind... Anyway, wouldn't this definition bring the Israeli state under the definition of terrorism? I mean, you can buy the "we do it, but we do it with guilty consciences" argument their charming media faces make in their defense, but the stories told by Palestinians and the statistics on Palestinian fatalities and injuries contradict the claim. If there is one thing that modern militaries like the IDF do well, it's calculus and hyper-rational cost-benefit analysis. That's what all those "quantitative analysis" and "statistics" geeks in the IR programs do when they get out of their library borstals, you know. The IDF know that when they toss a missile into a civilian area, that there are going to be certain effects - including an expected amount of casualties. Don't kid yourself; it's not slipshod. There is no doubt that they have looked at the difficulties of fighting in crowded areas like Gaza and decided to pursue their goals whilst allowing for an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties. They have developed a large-scale media operation to deal with the perceptive fallout from this policy. Do you think it's very "academic" of you to take the claims of their well-heeled propaganda outfit at face value in spite of the damning evidence to the contrary? The IDF kill more civilians "by accident" (and with terribly guilty consciences, we're told) than all the rockets fired at Sderot do "on purpose". You might think this is over-trodden ground, but it's not. It goes right to the heart of the assumptions built into your first query - i.e. that Israel is the superior moral agent compared to the Palestinians' elected government. This was the point Frustrated Mess rightly made to your assertion, but that you chose to pretend was irrelevant. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:56 AM
I’m primed and ready for a debate, as mentioned. Former interpretations of my words seem like a way to vent anger and emotion rather than dialogue constructively. I'm interested in a discussion. The fact that babble is known for provocative debates often goes over the top, but I believe there are some people who are interested in a genuine discussion. Stop probing and let's talk. I welcome challenges to my assumptions, indeed it is a necessary academic function. quote: Anyway, wouldn't this definition bring the Israeli state under the definition of terrorism? I mean, you can buy the "we do it, but we do it with guilty consciences" argument they're charming media faces make in their defense, but the stories told by Palestinians and the statistics on Palestinian fatalities and injuries put paid to the claim. If there is one thing that modern militaries like the IDF do well, it's calculus. They know that when they toss a missile into a civilian area, that there are going to be certain effects - including an expected amount of casualties. Don't kid yourself; it's not slipshod. There is no doubt that they have looked at the difficulties of fighting in crowded areas like Gaza and decided to pursue their goals whilst allowing for an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties. They have developed a large-scale media operation to deal with the perceptive fallout from this policy.
Terrorist organizations are to be held acountable for firing rockets and building infrastructure within civilian areas instead of using conventional means to fight against armies. Instead, they use Palestinian men, women and children as a tactical advantage in the most cowardly and inhumane manner. Please, don't play global governance with me and pretend that democracy has no moral standard nor a moral dilemma. Calculus is no indication, as the IDF's ability to stymie terrorist attacks is what prevents the equation from lining up. Maybe if Hamas did a better job and differentiaing between militants/terrorists then they might be able to protect the people who they allegedly stand to defend. What you don't read in the news is when the IDF diverts a missile because a civilian is spotted near a rocket launching site. quote: You might think this is over-trodden ground, but it's not. It goes right to the heart of the assumptions built into your first query - i.e. that Israel is the superior moral agent compared to the Palestinians' elected government. This was the point Frustrated Mess rightly made to your assertion, but that you chose to pretend was irrelevant.
That elections are free and fair does not necessarily indicate that governance is legitimate and accountable, especially in the case of Hamas. A funcitioning democracy is not so simple as you may know, my former colleague. Hamas was elected, yet to suggest that the organizations political wing at all represents the will of the Palestinian people would be dubious. Just look at the polls. If Hamas held frequent elections, then it might fair better, yet it's still doubtful how accountable it would be seeing their horrible track record to date. Other than cracking down on corruption, they've failed in nearly every other facet of governance. Possibly because, Islamist terror organizations havent proven the capacity to deliver basic governance, which is pertinent in this case, Hamas didnt win on the party line of destroying Israel. Had Palestinians voted for this reason then maybe Hamas might have a conventional military. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Snowy Plover ]
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 03:16 AM
These were some options that came to mind:- Confidence build through peace talks and progress in the West Bank - Initiate new elections - Negotiate through a mediator, or via a secret track to release Shalit and Hamas prisoners
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 03:23 AM
quote: Terrorist organizations are to be held acountable for firing rockets and building infrastructure within civilian areas instead of using conventional means to fight against armies.
Again, then, the IDF falls under this catagory. The IDF has blazed new ground in the creation of urban counterinsurgency techniques. They have done more to break out of the "conventional" mode of two armies standing in a field firing at each other than any other military on the planet. They have devised and used various forms of subterfuge, "agents provocateurs", and what by all accounts is "unconventional" warfare to administer the Occupied Territories. Moreover, they DO use civilians as political tools. They DO kill countless Palestinians in order to achieve their goals: A) Placate the Israeli public that they are doing something. B) Scare Palestinians half to death so they will give in and elect a government that Israel likes better. C) To assert the basic authority of a military occupier which - almost by definition - must be crass, brutal and intimidating. That's just how it works. There is a near certainty (backed up by centuries of history) that the kind of occupation the Israelis are engaged in will eventually require collective punishments and brutal intimidation. It's just too hard to keep a "people" (not a military) in check without it. All of these are political goals that Israel uses Palestinian civilians (and Israeli ones for that matter) to achieve. Their reluctance, for instance, to relocate Israelis in the towns that receive rocket fire demonstrates a willingness to allow Israelis to be in danger as long as it gives them a convenient scapegoat to blame all their troubles on. They have managed, with a great amount of success, to turn the "threat of death" to a few civilians into a trump card against the actual death of hundreds of Palestinian civilians. You say the calculus doesn't add up, but it does. For every Israeli child frightened in Sderot, the IDF can actually kill 3 or 4 Palestinians, say they're "oh so very sorry about this unfortunate and tragic incident", and be done with it. When the pressure builds, they have their own military investigate itself until the pressure subsides and the expected verdict is released: NOT GUILTY by reason of Hamas being really bad people. Go back and read your Machiavelli and be reminded that statecraft is as much theatre as reality. We live in an age of constant "theatre". The technology of image and opinion management is as advanced as the military means to kill people. You've apparently bought the story of the terribly guilty and oh-so-civilised Romans against those vicious child-eating Barbarians hook, line and sinker.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 03:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover: Last I checked Hamas wasn't interested in peace. The only reason to negotiate with Hamas would be to reach a cease-fire. What then?
It's a start. Then you start working for more. As the conditions of peace become the status-quo, populations on either side will be come less and less tolerant of violent interruptions to that status-quo. First, stop the shooting, the harassment, the politicide, then you can make some of the claims against the Hamas government's supposed inability to deliver basic governance. Demonstrating that a government put under seige, with the intention of destroying their ability to govern, can't govern isn't just circular reasoning, it's the greatest threat to peace imaginable. Continuing to ensure that conditions within the Occupied Territories deteriorate with the hopes that Palestinians can be house-broken is what lead to Hamas election in the first place. Left alone, as in Lebanon, Islamic militants have shown that they CAN deliver social infrastructure. You (or I) might not like their politics, but they have managed to create a set of institutions more stable than many of the Lebanese government. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 04:22 AM
quote: Again, then, the IDF falls under this catagory. The IDF has blazed new ground in the creation of urban counterinsurgency techniques. They have done more to break out of the "conventional" mode of two armies standing in a field firing at each other than any other military on the planet. They have devised and used various forms of subterfuge, "agents provocateurs", and what by all accounts is "unconventional" warfare to administer the Occupied Territories.
This is an important point regarding the occupied territories, which relates mainly to the occupied territories. However, operations in Gaza entail IDF soldiers clad in military uniform. Seeing as Gaza is NOT OCCUPIED anymore, the IDF is not compelled to engage in warfare that demands counterinsurgency techniques. On the contrary, conventional military response should indicate to Gazans that the use of force represents the state of Israel. Your assertions, A and B, are moot though partially true. A) As a government charged with the responsibility of protecting its people, Israel must not only show its people that it is doing “something” but actually act on that responsibility, and in doing so, demonstrate to the Palestinian terrorists and to the people who vote for them, that firing rockets at civilian areas will usher a response. I’m troubled by the common diatribe claiming that Israel is trying to pressure Palestinians into government that it “likes better.” There is a government that Israel likes better, and for good reason, and it’s called the moderates in the PLO. This is no secret. The Palestinians have managed to form a political mechanism and liberation constituency that is stronger than Israeli political manipulations. Anyone blaming Israel for this clearly views this realm from one side. C) The military has a certain responsibility as an occupying power, which by its nature and not necessarily by definition, is harsh indeed. Israel should not consider any long term interest in continuing the occupation, and should not ultimately succumb to the brutal nature, although the Israeli track record as an occupier is precarious at best. Still, halting suicide bombers that emanate from civilian infrastructure, even if it requires unconventional means, is necessary to prevent Israeli casualties. Rather a line up of Palestinians at a road block than a line up of dead Israelis at a night club. We’ve glided to the West Bank and I would like to turn our attention back to Gaza as realities post disengagement are quite different than the West Bank. Residents of communities surrounding Gaza refuse to leave and say so themselves. They recognize that if they do it will be a victory for Hamas, who undoubtedly has that exact objective and also says so itself. That would is a dangerous precedent to set, even for the citizens safe at home in Canada. Besides, the government is required to protect and not retreat from responsibility. If the Canadian government evacuated residents after Al Qaeda began launching rockets at border town, I’m not sure what kind of message that would sends to the global jihad, or to the troops in Afghanistan. [/QUOTE]
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 04:44 AM
quote: It's a start. Then you start working for more. As the conditions of peace become the status-quo, populations on either side will be come less and less tolerant of violent interruptions to that status-quo. First, stop the shooting, the harassment, the politicide, then you can make some of the claims against the Hamas government's supposed inability to deliver basic governance. Demonstrating that a government put under seige with the intention of destroying their ability to govern can't govern isn't just circular reasoning, it's the greatest threat to peace imaginable.
I agree, yet the key to this approach relies on the commitment to stop the violence, on both sides. Israel disengaged from Gaza, leaving ample room for a non-violent setting, but instead of suicide attacks came Qassam rockets. Unfortunately, this was forecasted by right wingers in the Knesset. Gaza is inevitably tied to the West Bank, true, but Hamas got elected on a non-corruption ticket. The resistence in Gaza is fomented by Hamas, as is not necessarily popular. Besides, the PA has always offered the same campaign of resistence, the evidence being that PLO sanctioned terrorist groups (Al Aqsa, etc.) still execute attacks. Israel is no innocent bystander, but it seems the strategy of disengagement, which was based on an initial step to make way for a more viable setting for negotiation, simply failed, and not because Israel instigated the fight. The disengagement proved that Hamas has no interest in peace or coexistence. Their actions speak for themselves. Do you achieve a cease fire long enough to build confidence and strength with moderates? Lift the siege so long as Hamas stops the terror, is that fair? Negotiate via Egypt for Shalit and prisoner release. Then work to negotiate with moderates in the West, as they are the only viable partner at this point. Then again, how will Abu Mazen fair with Hamas?
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 February 2008 05:03 AM
I find the argument that Israel should be negotiating with Hamas simply because they were democratically elected disturbing. Hitler was also democratically elected. That said, I agree that their current policies aren't working, are oppressing to Palestinians and that peace talks need to occur. I am disturbed by how little regard there is in this thread for those Israelis being attacked, wounded and killed. This conflict has two sides, both of which are currently motivated be fear. The town of Sderot, Israel, has been barraged by rocket attacks for the past seven years and the United Nations is calling for an end to the attacks (although I am confident Hamas and members of Islamic Jihad will ignore their request):> quote: “The people of Sderot and the surrounding area have had to live with these unacceptable and indiscriminate rocket attacks for seven years now. There is no doubt about the physical and psychological suffering these attacks are causing,” said John Holmes, who is on a five-day trip to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, his first as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. “I condemn them utterly and call on those responsible to stop them now without conditions,” added Mr. Holmes, who is also UN Emergency Relief Coordinator.
“There are no military targets in this city. These victims here are innocent civilians. There is no time to lose in putting an end to this vicious circle of violence. More violence will not bring peace to the people of Sderot,” Mr. Holmes said.
Let's have a look at the Hamas Charter quote: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised. "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know." Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers? "But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120). .There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
That language doesn't exactly sound like they are dedicated to simply living in peace with Isreal either with a two (or one state) solution. How would you begin negotiations with Hamas?Pretend you are a progressive-minded Israeli who grew up in an area barraged by rockets for the past 7 years [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 07:09 AM
quote: I am disturbed by how little regard there is in this thread for those Israelis being attacked, wounded and killed. This conflict has two sides, both of which are currently motivated be fear.
If you're looking for a fair fight, you've come to the wrong place. quote: How would you begin negotiations with Hamas? Pretend you are a progressive-minded Israeli who grew up in an area barraged by rockets for the past 7 years.
Well actually, there are several progressively minded Israelis willing to step up, including the mayor of Sderot, Eli Moyal, and former Shin Bet chief, Ya'akov Peri.
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 07:38 AM
quote: I am disturbed by how little regard there is in this thread for those Israelis being attacked, wounded and killed. This conflict has two sides, both of which are currently motivated be fear. .....If you're looking for a fair fight, you've come to the wrong place.
I don't like it when people are killed. ANY people. Is that enough? Have I passed your moral indignation test, yet? Speaking of fair fights, I'm not one to get into macabre arithmetic but, beyond showing solidarity for all victims of war, what more can be said when the number of Palestinians killed by Israel since 2000 is around 4500, while the total number of Israelis (civilians AND soldiers) killed by Palestinians in the same period is less than 500? If we only count civilians not involved in hostilities it's at least 2082 Palestinians vs. 234 Israelis. (All numbers drawn from B'Tselem) So any way you want to spin the numbers, you've got a ratio of roughly 10:1 Palestinian fatalities to Israeli fatalities. "One life is too many" as the old saying goes, but when a conflict is so obviously one-sided, how long do we go on trying to apply blame equally without it being a farce? Of course that doesn't even begin to address the brutality visited on living, breathing Palestinians as a function of the occupation. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 February 2008 07:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
I don't like it when people are killed. ANY people. Is that enough? Have I passed your moral indignation test, yet? Speaking of fair fights, I'm not one to get into macabre arithmetic but, beyond showing solidarity for all victims of war what more can be said when the number of Palestinians killed by Israel since 2000 is around 4500, while the total number of Israelis (civilians AND soldiers) killed by Palestinians in the same period is less than 500? If we only count civilians, it's 239. At least 2082 of those Palestinian deaths were people who were not involved in hostilities (all numbers drawn from B'Tselem). So any way you want to spin the numbers, you've got a ratio of roughly 10:1 Palestinian fatalities to Israeli fatalities. "One life is too many" as the old saying goes, but when a conflict is so obviously one-sided, how long do we go on trying to apply blame equally without it being a farce? Of course that doesn't even begin to address the brutality visited on Palestinians as a function of the occupation.
Do you have a reply to me question? If you were Israeli, how would you advocate dealing with Hamas - given their stated objectives in their Charter (which I linked to above).
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:15 AM
quote: Your assertions, A and B, are moot though partially true. A) As a government charged with the responsibility of protecting its people, Israel must not only show its people that it is doing “something” but actually act on that responsibility, and in doing so, demonstrate to the Palestinian terrorists and to the people who vote for them, that firing rockets at civilian areas will usher a response.
Sorry, "colleague", this won't pass muster. Whether or not Israel has a responsibility to act to protect its citizens or not does not go to the question of what means they choose for doing so. The subtext here is exactly as I described: Israel using Palestinian lives as means to their political ends. Just because they're satisfying the desires of their "target audience" doesn't improve the moral quality of their actions. They use Palestinian lives as pawns and worse. quote: C) The military has a certain responsibility as an occupying power, which by its nature and not necessarily by definition, is harsh indeed. Israel should not consider any long term interest in continuing the occupation, and should not ultimately succumb to the brutal nature, although the Israeli track record as an occupier is precarious at best.
Not only does this barely make sense, but you seem to be suggesting that Israel hasn't crossed over into the "brutal" stage of the Occupation. Have you been paying attention? You believe that Israel hasn't been engaged in collective punishment and/or the inhumane treatment of the subject population inevitably found in military occupations of this kind? See the statistics cited above if numbers are more your thing. Do some reading on Israel's record regarding torture, extrajudicial killings, house demolitions, land expropriation, not to mention countless censures for human rights abuses by international legal bodies, NGO's and other state governments. quote: Still, halting suicide bombers that emanate from civilian infrastructure, even if it requires unconventional means, is necessary to prevent Israeli casualties. Rather a line up of Palestinians at a road block than a line up of dead Israelis at a night club.
Another instance of Palestinian lives being valued less than Israelis. Moreover, it doesn't explain why the brutalities of the occupation (including checkpoints) began long before suicide bombings. You expect me to take you seriously when you seem oblivious to the history of this conflict? The worst features of the occupation are not derived primarily from fear, the need for security or the like. They are derived from the desire for pure, unadulterated control of an unwanted alien population. They are only possible because Israel has already committed a kind of "ideological violence" against the Palestinians and designated them as homo sacer - i.e. outside and beneath the law. This act of violence took place long before the Intifada or suicide bombings, and is deeply woven into the political and legal conception of the "Jewish State". [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:35 AM
quote: Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD: I would say, "okay Hamas, you want a ceasefire, let's do a ceasefire." See, that wasn't hard, was it?
Hamas' stated objectives in its Charter do not include a ceasefire... until the entire area is controlled by Islamists. They do not see room for either a Jewish state or a non-denominational one-state solution (which would be my preference).
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:35 AM
quote: Another instance of Palestinian lives being valued less than Israelis. Moreover, it doesn't explain why the brutalities of the occupation (including checkpoints) began long before suicide bombings. You expect me to take you seriously when you seem oblivious to the history of this conflict?
Oh great, its the chicken or the egg argument again. Suicide bombings may be a recent manifestation, however terrorism is not. Palestinians have been targeting Israeli civilians since before 67, so let's not go there. It's fine to cite history, but not to twist it in your favor. Oblivious? I sense you might be, or better yet, presumptuous. I challenge the leaders of Hamas, or for that matter any terrorist organization claiming leadership, to value the lives of the Palestinians first, before they set out and claim that Israel, the US and the West are inhumane devils destined for destruction. Human rights abuses, collective punishment? Talk to the Hamas, who fires rockets and mortars from populated Palestinian regions, creating a de facto war zone. Well, I guess they are a terrorists, so they can be exempt from devaluing the lives of their people. quote: The worst features of the occupation are not derived primarily from fear, the need for security or the like. They are derived from the desire for pure, unadulterated control of an unwanted alien population. They are only possible because Israel has already committed a kind of "ideological violence" against the Palestinians and designated them as homo sacer - i.e. outside and beneath the law. This act of violence took place long before the Intifada or suicide bombings, and is deeply woven into the political and legal conception of the "Jewish State".
That's an interesting theory professor. I suppose that the Arab citizens of Israel would agree with you. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Snowy Plover ]
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Hamas' stated objectives in its Charter do not include a ceasefire... until the entire area is controlled by Islamists. They do not see room for either a Jewish state or a non-denominational one-state solution (which would be my preference).
Hamas have repeatedly offered a ceasefire.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:50 AM
quote: I challenge the leaders of Hamas, or for that matter any terrorist organization claiming leadership, to value the lives of the Palestinians first,
"Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us." -- Golda Meir It was ugly racist nonsense when she said it, and it doesn't look much better when you dress it up either. As for the rest, it sure didn't take long for your haughty edumacated veneer to be peeled back to reveal a true blue, pamphleteering, zealot. Of course, some called you on your "impartial" facade soon after your first post.
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 February 2008 08:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
"Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us." -- Golda Meir It was ugly racist nonsense when she said it, and it doesn't look much better when you dress it up either. As for the rest, it sure didn't take long for your haughty edumacated veneer to be peeled back to reveal a true blue, pamphleteering, zealot. Of course, some called you on your "impartial" facade soon after your first post.
Have you seen transcripts of any Palestinian children's shows lately? It is astonishing the amount of murderous propaganda being fed to them.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 09:07 AM
quote: As for the rest, it sure didn't take long for your haughty edumacated veneer to be peeled back to reveal a true blue, pamphleteering, zealot. Of course, some called you on your "impartial" facade soon after your first post.
Well, this is just another grand spot for a red herring is it not? Turning away the moment the HR allegations are turned on terrorists, the fruit of Palestinians resistance. It is fair and just to demand the same standard from Palestinians as Israelis (and the West) demand from themselves. It's easy to charge me with zealotry and bias as a diversion to your paradoxical rhetoric. A macabre you are Zeebub, a coward in the face of morality.
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 29 February 2008 09:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover:
Well, this is just another grand spot for a red herring is it not? Turning away the moment the HR allegations are turned on terrorists, the fruit of Palestinians resistance. It is fair and just to demand the same standard from Palestinians as Israelis (and the West) demand from themselves.
Of course it is. I never said otherwise. If you'd like to quote me in some of this alleged (and ironic) "paradoxical rhetoric" doing so, please do. I'm all eyes. quote: It's easy to charge me with zealotry and bias as a diversion to your paradoxical rhetoric. A macabre you are Zeebub, a coward in the face of morality.[/qb]
No, it's easy because you haven't addressed a single one of the charges made against your assumption that Israel is a superior moral agent in this conflict. Even now, you're cherry picking from the responses to you and focusing on side issues, avoiding the real substance. Now, you've flipped the script and gone after Hamas. Hamas can be real pricks, there is no doubt about it. But your question from your original post is based on the assumption that Israel would have to deign to speak with Hamas - that Israel is clean and justified and should only under great tactical duress lower themselves to speak to those gosh-awful non-guilt-bearing terrorists. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 29 February 2008 09:48 AM
quote: Talk to the Hamas, who fires rockets and mortars from populated Palestinian regions, creating a de facto war zone. Well, I guess they are a terrorists, so they can be exempt from devaluing the lives of their people.
I love this logic. Lock a citizen population up for three generations in a open air prison and then when they fight back you say the fighters are endangering their own people and those people deserve what they get because there are people who are resisting. I guess they just don't buy the Israeli line that resistance is futile. Resistance is the right of all occupied peoples. As for history and suicide bombings try the Jewish terrorists as the originators of the tactic in that region. But of course they don't use that tactic anymore they use the billions of dollars in munitions supplied by their imperial backer and bomb and bulldoze. But before they were being supplied with sophisticated weapons and they felt they were the underdogs they felt justified in the same types of acts. Now don't mistake me for someone who condones violence against civilians. I condemn people who fire rockets at non-military targets however that applies to both sides not just the people who have been in prison for three generations.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Istvan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14988
|
posted 29 February 2008 10:45 AM
I think a more logical question would be "what is there to talk about?"Since Hamas keeps firing rockets into Israel, and since Hamas explicitly hates jews, and since Hamas is still committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, there would have to be some sort of signal of willingness to move from the above positions before talking would even be productive.
From: NDP4LIFE | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:05 AM
The only reason Hamas would agree to a cease fire would be so they had time to regroup and plan more attacks. quote: The meeting turned into an opportunity to express solidarity with Gaza and reaffirm ]what Hamas and its allies describe as the fixed or unalterable principles: Palestine is from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, Israel is an illegitimate colonial entity and resistance is the only means of regaining Palestinian rights.
Palestinian National Conference Until every jew living between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River are either dead or moved elsewhere , Hamas will never stop fighting.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone: The only reason Hamas would agree to a cease fire would be so they had time to regroup and plan more attacks. Palestinian National Conference Until every jew living between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River are either dead or moved elsewhere , Hamas will never stop fighting.
Propaganda from the empire. This is blatant bullshit and you should know that.In fact with the kill ratio of the IDF and Hamas being some where around 20 to 1 it is obvious which ethnic group will be cleansed first.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Istvan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14988
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Peace will come when both sides stop fighting.
This is self evident. Hard to do that, though when you get 80 rockets a week fired at you. With regtard to anti-arab slogans at soccer matches, I don't think this in itself would justify the actions of the Palestinians, and if it does, based on that logic they would probably also be attacking Scotland
From: NDP4LIFE | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:43 AM
yes my statement was crude - but tell me how many jews live in the palestians territoy now and if they did get what they wanted -Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River - jews would be welcomed with open arms?My point is why not a serious analysis of Hamas - many threads detail the problems with Israel - which I appreciate and agree with mostly but why the blinders when it comes to Hamas?
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:57 AM
Understood.But you do agree that they want no country named Israel to exist at the end of their fight.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 11:59 AM
What is more important?1) The name of a country? 2) The internal organization of the country and its commitment to equal human rights for all of its inhabitants? [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:07 PM
now we're getting to it - this wonderful new country yr referring to - I agree the name is not important but is Hama really interested in human rights for all?I just don't see them as caring about creating an open tolerant country with respect for all peoples be they homosexuals,feminists, jews, cristians, muslims who no longer want to be muslims, ect. They are religous fundamentalist - who would create a theocracy if they could.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:12 PM
Well for one thing if you created a country as a composite of the all of the population of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, Hamas would probably end up with about 15% of the vote. About the same as the rump right wing consevative Israeli parties. Furthermore this calculation does not take into account the fact that a large percentage of the Hamas vote was indeed a protest vote against Fatah, which was seen as corrupt and also unable to deliver on a just settlement because their power is increasingly wedded to their "arrangements" with Israel, which is seen as the source of the corruption of what was once a respected Palestinian political organization. When Palestinians talk about the corruption of Fatah, they do not merely mean "graft", they mean that it is sold out to Israeli interests. Hamas is quiet clearly not in league with the occupiers. Palestinians as a population, are no more or less progressive, than Israelis. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:20 PM
It's about the organization called Hamas - and what they are fighting for and what they stand for - and the whitewashing of their extreme views in many areas by some.Many liberation/revolution militias (big suprise) don't want to give up power when they get control over the territory they are fighting for. Their size or support from the population matters little when it gets to that point.(force?) Anyways I'll leave it to you "experts". Ciao
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:24 PM
Old Goat, I refer to two previous inappropriate comments that went uncontested. Please be advised that cheep remarks are common and often go unchallenged.Zeebub: quote: As for the rest, it sure didn't take long for your haughty edumacated veneer to be peeled back to reveal a true blue, pamphleteering, zealot.
Frustrated Mess: quote: You also engage in the racist dialogue...
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:25 PM
thanks now I know what the sound of a broken record in an echo chamber sounds like.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone: It's about the organization called Hamas - and what they are fighting for and what they stand for - and the whitewashing of their extreme views in many areas by some.Many liberation/revolution militias (big suprise) don't want to give up power when they get control over the territory they are fighting for. Their size or support from the population matters little when it gets to that point.(force?) Anyways I'll leave it to you "experts". Ciao
You haven't qquoted a single fact or source. Don't talk to me about expertise.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:32 PM
yeah I only quoted what Hamas call an unalterable principle - Palestine is from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, Israel is an illegitimate colonial entity and resistance is the only means of regaining Palestinian rights. And the thread is about negotiations - ? on what exactly?
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone: yeah I only quoted what Hamas call an unalterable principle - Palestine is from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, Israel is an illegitimate colonial entity and resistance is the only means of regaining Palestinian rights. And the thread is about negotiations - ? on what exactly?
Bargaining positions invariably begin at the polar extremes and work their way toward some middle ground.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:44 PM
krpokinti - get a life? Did you know some whites in Florida don't like african americans?Read the f*cking thread title? Impossible to have a decent debate.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:59 PM
Krop - I was talking about life under a new country called Palestine governed by HamasJust because I don't critize Israel in a debate about Hamas doesn't mean I agree with Israeli policy or Zionists. and I didn't say Hamas was evil, I said what to negotiate when one sides unalterable principle will never be agreed to by the other side. you obviously can't look at this from an unbiased viewpoint so this is all useless.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 12:59 PM
I think its time for some substance. Lets see what gay Palestinians Gay people are saying.Whatdoyahknow, if it aint: Drag against the occupation quote: An Arab gay man or lesbian in Israel is doubly excluded: In Arab society they suffer from oppression and discrimination because of their sexual orientation, while in Jewish society they suffer from discrimination for nationalist reasons. Maikey says the Arab gay or lesbian in Israel "remains a stranger even in an accepting environment." Usually their relationships are conducted in Hebrew in an environment different from their original cultural milieu. "So even if it's an accepting environment, you remain a stranger, a kind of 'guest of the culture,' and you have to behave according to rules determined by the other," she says. According to Maikey, "At the parties many people say that it's important to them that there is finally a framework where you can speak Arabic without fear." At the parties there is a sense of freedom and liberation, one reason being the variety that is celebrated. "There's everything here, and everything is accepted," says one of the female participants. "Arabs, Jews, men, women, lesbians, gays, trans, straights." Another reason for the feeling of liberation is that the parties are a meeting place for many identities, mainly gender and national identities.
No indication that the IDF is their to liberate them, at all. Next question.... [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ghislaine: I am disturbed by how little regard there is in this thread for those Israelis being attacked, wounded and killed. This conflict has two sides, both of which are currently motivated be fear.
It's behind the subscription wall, but a commentary in the Globe and Mail today by Dow Marmur, Rabbi emeritus of Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple and past executive director of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, lists, by name and age, the eleven (11) Israelis who have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza into the Israeli town of Sderot, between June 28, 2004 and February 27, 2008.That's 11 people in 3½ years. Meanwhile, in the past two days alone, Israeli air strikes in Gaza have killed at least 31 Palestinians, including 9 children. Nobody is listing their names. They are a faceless mass of Palestinians whose individual lives are of no concern to the media. If there has been any lack of concern for casualties, it's the Palestinians who have the most to complain about.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone: yes you've convinced me how wonderful Hamas is by talking about nothing but Israel.
Who an what are you talking about? The fact is that most Palestinian gay people oppose the occupation, regardless of how they feel about Hamas, no one has said that Hamas is wonderful. Niether Hamas nor Likud, or even the ILP are "wonderful." We are considering the options of a negotiated settlement between political factions. How nice they are simply does not enter into it. The fact remains that you can not make peace with your friends, since you are already at peace. There is absolutely no reason, not to engage in constant political dialogue with Hamas. How does not negotiating with Hamas serve the cause of peace? In fact, taking a position of non-neogtiation is to willfully obstruct peace at a fundamental level. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:18 PM
yr rightI was focusing on Hamas because the title says Speak to Hamas? and I always see people denying Hamas stated goals, while everone on here focuses on Israel. I do see yr point and agree, do you see mine?
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:21 PM
Stated goals are irrelevant. The stated goals of much of the Zionist movement is complete annexation of the entire region up to the Jordan River, and south to Sinai. Many call for complete Arab depopulation of this zone, because of the "demographic problem." This is also irrelevant. In point fact Theodore Herzl's original proposal was that Israel should contain everything up to the Tigris, and south to the Suez Canal. This is not a joke, but a fact. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the political reality. Hamas has consistently signalled its willingness to negotiate, and set up truces, some offers included a 20 year truce. Obviously, if Hamas is willing to negotiate, they are willing to negotiate away from its fundamental charter, otherwise they would say we can not negotiate at all. But they do not. They say they will negotiate, Israel says no. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:34 PM
Just yesterday, and the Israeli deputy Minster of Defence directly invoked the Holocaust as an example of what would happen to the Gazan Palestinians: quote: Matan Vilnai said Palestinians risked a "shoah", the Hebrew word for a big disaster - and for the Nazi Holocaust.
Israel warns of invasion of Gaza What kind of stated intentions are these? [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 29 February 2008 01:59 PM
quote: FOUR Palestinian children playing in a field were killed in the latest Israeli air strike on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, where eight gunmen were also killed in raids, medics said. The children, aged eight, nine, 11 and 12, were killed while they played in a field in the town of Jabaliya in the north of the territory, they said.
Terrorists quote: The innocent laughter of six-month-old baby Mohammed al-Bor'i stopped forever on Wednesday night when shrapnel from an Israeli missile and rubble struck the infant in the head, minutes after he enjoyed his last meal.
Guilty for being Palestinian. quote: A senior Israeli politician provoked controversy today when he warned that Palestinians firing rockets from Gaza would be punished with a "bigger holocaust" from Israeli armed forces.The use of the Hebrew word for holocaust, "shoah", tends to be used exclusively in Israel to describe the Nazi persecution of Jews.
Good thing no one here invoked the holocaust.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:00 PM
And then the issue is this: These toy rockets that Arab militants are deploying, and their killing of civilians in one specific settlement.I ask, why is this settlement simply not moved? I just don't get it. Israel spends billions annually settling people all over the occupied territories, and building fences and security systems all over Israel and the occupied territories, and engages in expensive military operations using the most sophisticated military technology in the world armed with hugely expensive ordinance to "retaliate" against these attacks, yet for some reason they show no interest in moving their civilian population out of the line of fire. Such irresponsibility by a government, in regards to the lives of their civilian population is truly astounding in the light of how much money Israel spends yearly supposedly safeguarding the lives of same. It certainly makes one wonder whether or not the powers that be really have an interest in preserving the lives of these people, and are not using their lives as political capital as part of a propaganda exercise designed to maintain a plausible excuse for continuing supression of Arab nationalist interests in the West Bank and Gaza. [ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 29 February 2008 02:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover: Old Goat, I refer to two previous inappropriate comments that went uncontested. Please be advised that cheep remarks are common and often go unchallenged.
Snowy Plover, no where in my remark was an invitation to debete. However, the comments to which you refer take you on on the level of your behaviour. Your post is an egregious attack on the person. Up to you if you want to keep posting here.
[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 01 March 2008 04:36 AM
quote: So because Israel has managed to barely accomodate a small remnant of the former native population of Israel -- all the while subjecting it to land seizures, forced relocations, and various other ongoing administrative discriminations -- we're to forget the conditions in the Occupied Territories where Israel has utterly failed to live up to it's obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention? We're to forget that under the occupation close to a million Palestinians live with all the consequences of Israeli actions without any legal recourse against their captors and without any juridical or political standing in the state which is the de jure and de facto power.
Palestinians in the occupied territories can directly petition the Israeli Supreme Court(try googling Bil'in village) In addition, Israel is one of the only country's where the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try the military. In addition, the Military Advocate General regularly tries cases regarding IDF soldiers and officers. If we are on the topic of the Supreme Court, it is also the only body in the world that has honestly faced the issue of torture and ruled that it is prohibited. If you read the decision, it says explicitly that Israel has to balance the needs of defense with the needs of human rights and democratic principles. Israel record on the issue of torture is far better than that of any other Middle Eastern country or terrorist organization for that matter, and even better than most democracies, including the US, France and Germany. Oh and a side note, it's known that Arab citizens in Israel would much prefer to live in a democratic society (like Israel) rather than in any other Middle Eastern country. One might understand why. "Ideological violence", what does that even mean? Let's look at the facts before positing lofty academic theories. Homo sacer? Beneath the law? I think former Supreme Court President would highly disagree. Israel is not perfect and there are several Israeli policies that I disagree with. Still, when put to the test of morality, Israel fairs much better than other terrorist organizations, Middle Eastern countries and even democracies for that matter (consider other 20th century military occupations, France in Algeria, Germany in Europe, etc.) Had the Jews lost in 1948, would they have been given the same treatment by the 'Palestinians'? Had the Jews lost in 1967, would they have been given the same treatment?
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 01 March 2008 08:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by Snowy Plover: If we are on the topic of the Supreme Court, it is also the only body in the world that has honestly faced the issue of torture and ruled that it is prohibited. If you read the decision, it says explicitly that Israel has to balance the needs of defense with the needs of human rights and democratic principles. Israel record on the issue of torture is far better than that of any other Middle Eastern country or terrorist organization for that matter, and even better than most democracies, including the US, France and Germany.
You know of course the only IDF soldier convicted for manslaughter for killing a civilian was an Arab, of course Taysir shot a British subject. quote: The court found that Wahid Taysir, an Israeli Bedouin Arab, shot Tom Hurndall in the head in April 2003. The 22-year-old British man was helping Palestinian children get out of the way of Israeli tanks in the Rafah refugee camp.
So far no Israeli soldier, Arab or otherwise, has ever been convicted for a capital crime against a Palestinian. Israeli soldier convicted of killing foreign activist [ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snowy Plover
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14984
|
posted 01 March 2008 11:14 AM
quote: Do some reading on Israel's record regarding torture, extrajudicial killings, house demolitions, land expropriation, not to mention countless censures for human rights abuses by international legal bodies, NGO's and other state governments.
Collective Punishment - Terrorism against civilians is the ultimate form of collective punishment. But you don't hear babblers condemning terrorists. We wont go there, Israel is on the hot seat, so lets stick to agenda (:eek The concept of collective accountability for terrorism that is supported by Palestinians and their leadership is consistent with law and morality. The onus of saving the lives of civilians from an imminent attack should, but not always, takes precedent over terrorist attacks in the making. This doesn’t mean collective punishment is an effective tactic. Although it is prohibited by IL, it is widely practiced even in the most well known liberal-democratic countries. It can be argued, that random searches of houses due to a terrorist threat emanating from a village is collective, but it's still done, even by the coalition troops in Afghanistan. Though, this degree is not comparable to house demolitions true? However, collective punishment is a matter of degree and cannot be fairly judged just by pointing the finger. Economic sanctions, such as the blockade on Gaza or the sanctions on Iran, may or may not be UN approved, but that does not determine whether they are kosher by international standards. The Western world knew it all too well when supporting Kennedy in economically blockading Cuba after it installed nuclear weapons and directly threatened American citizens, or when sanctioning Iraq and Libya for that matter. House Demolitions, although a horrific site on television, is proportionate to the moral and operational complicity of the terrorists that used the location to plan out and execute the attacks. That Israel has ceased house demolitions indicates that it wasn’t an effective tactic, but not that it is entirely immoral. It’s not necessarily right, but it’s not necessarily wrong either. Ask Hamas in Gaza what they think about collective punishment, I’m sure they’re all for it. Condemning Israel for collective punishment on this site seems like a matter of newspeak and editorializing rather than delivering proportional answers to issues that are not so black and white. Human Rights - I turn back to the Supreme Court because it offers an excellent example. Not only has Israel spearheaded jurisprudence against torture, it has protected the rights of Palestinians, noncombatants, prisoners of war, even at considerable risk to Israeli civilians. Take the Asida case in 2002 (ISC Decision on Deportation of Family Memebers of Terrorists), when the Court reversed an IDF decision to expel a family from their home because of their involvement in a major terrorist attack. (www.court.gov.il) The verdict was delivered based on the responsibility of balancing security and liberty. "In this balance, human rights cannot receive complete protection as if there were not terror and security cannot receive complete protection as if there were not human rights." Israel's track record on law enforcement and human rights is comparable if not better that any other country faced with comparable dilemmas. Asserting that Israel acts "beneath the law" and worse, claiming it is racist, is tantamount to deliberate ignorance. It is merely a shot in the dark, in a very very very dark and elusive dialogue. Okay that’s enough for today. [ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: Snowy Plover ]
From: international | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 01 March 2008 11:26 AM
I'd say your moral compass should be moved from the proximity of magnets.In fact, the Israeli justice system has speaheaded the effort to excuse IDF excesses, and is exceedingly biased, and prjudiced against Arabs. As I pointed out, the only IDF soldier made accountable for his criminal acts, by a prosecution on a capital charge, and his conviction thereof, was an Arab. And that tells you everything you need to know about how justice is practiced in Israel, regarding Arabs. Furthermore, it is you who is engaging in flagrant editorializing, I see not a single linked quote, or source mentioned in any one of your posts to establish your case. Your interest in justice is suprising, since most people who have an interest in that area also produce evidence to support their claims. [ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 01 March 2008 12:16 PM
Lets talk about an "elusive dialogue", shall we. You don't seem to be so good with sourcing any evidence for you editorial assertions so I will provide some.Your mentioning of the Asida case is, at best, cherry picking, possibly distortion, but in my view most likely willful self-delusion, since of course the Asida case was heard concurrently with other cases, some where the IDF decisions were upheld. In fact the Supreme Court ruled that military authorities had the right to "orders for assigned residence," based on Article 78 of the Geneva convention: quote: If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.
Israeli Supreme Court Decision On Deportation quote: In a landmark decision, the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously approved the expulsions of Intissar and Kifah Ajouri, sister and brother of Ali Ajouri, accused of ordering several suicide bombings. This was the first time the court upheld the planned expulsions of relatives of terror suspects rather than perpetrators.
However, Article 49 of the same convention states: quote: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
So my friend the case to which you are reffering is one where the acts where the ISC actually affirms the right of military authorities to deport suspects, in contravention of article 49 of the Geneva convention. No where does article 78 suggest that suspects may be "assigned residence". Rather than being an example of humanitarian justice being applied in the Israel judicial system, it is exactly the opposite, it is the affirmation of guilt by association as a reasonable grounds for punishment of individuals who can not otherwise be proven guilty, by means of an adminstrative, not legal procedure. Relenting on the Asida issue was simply throwing the appealant lawyers a bone for the purposes of good public relations, when in fact the decision is highly regressive. Furthermore, your assertion that "the Court reversed an IDF decision to expel a family from their home because of their involvement in a major terrorist attack," is not in accord with the decision of the court at all, this is a clear distorition. The Asida decision was based on the fact that Asida (an individual, not a family) was NOT involved in a "major terrorist attack." quote: The reason for this was that even though it was proved that this petitioner knew of the deeds of his terrorist brother, his involvement amounted merely to lending his brother a car and giving him clean clothes and food at his home, and no connection had been established between the petitioner's acts and the terrorist activity of the brother.
You must be thinking of the Ajuri family who were indeed deported, because the younger sister alledgedly helped the older brother by helping him sew a suicide belt, and his brother, who alledgedly did look out duty for his older brother. "Alledgedly?" Simply put, if the IDF, or other authorities have evidence against people to warrant punishment for criminal acts, they should arrest and try them for those acts. Suspicion of such activity, is not grounds for punishment. Why indeed if the the IDF has sufficient evidence to take measures against the Ajuri family for their participation in criminal activities, were they not charged as accessories and detained on that basis? Consistently the case has been made that punishment for individuals deemed to be engaged in criminal activities, should be based on an evidenced hearing where charges are brought.Do you have a problem with that? Adminstrative measures, do not suffice as a legal process. It is in fact an illegal process, strictly speaking. The practice of deportation still continues today:Israel Orders Deportation of 4 Arabs in Gaza Strip quote: A State Department spokesman said the United States deplored Israel's decision, The Associated Press reported from Washington. The spokesman, Alan Shub, said the order was in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention "as it pertains to the treatment of inhabitants of occupied territories."
[Would it be too much to emphasize the point that Article 49 Pertaining to Civilians Living in an Occupied Zone, was penned as a direct response to the various deportations of civilian populations in World War Two, and the consquent treatement of them and the abbrogation of their fundamental human rights?] Anyway, that is enough windmill jousting for one day. Hmmm? If only they were giants! [ 01 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 01 March 2008 04:16 PM
quote: Condemning Israel for collective punishment on this site seems like a matter of newspeak and editorializing rather than delivering proportional answers to issues that are not so black and white.
But they are black and white. Israel is a racist state engaged in an illegal occupation that is characterized by its brutality.That is fairly black and white to me. Israel demands that its "right" as an aggressor with territorial ambitions and changing "facts on the ground" be given higher precedence that the people who are being attacked, dispossessed, and killed. Not even Attila the Hun had such chutzpah. It is indeed black and white. Israel is the aggressor and is engaged in war crimes and I would even argue genocidal activities in Gaza.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 02 March 2008 12:33 PM
quote: "Ideological violence", what does that even mean? Let's look at the facts before positing lofty academic theories. Homo sacer? Beneath the law? I think former Supreme Court President would highly disagree.
In Roman Law homo sacer could be killed with impunity. You want to talk the difference between "theory" and "facts"? Good, then we'll completely dismantle your foolish insistence that Palestinians are protected equally by the law. Imagine what would happen if someone showed up in a residential neighbourhood in - oh, I dunno - Ashdod, and gave the residents less than two hours notice to vacate their homes before they were bulldozed. Compare that to what happens when the same takes place in Rafah. Now, imagine a killing spree of 2082 Israeli civilians killed by an Israeli gang in a 7 year period. What would happen? Now compare that to what happens when 2082 Palestinian civilians are killed by the biggest of all the Israeli gangs; the IDF. The difference -- that of "theory" and "facts" -- is instructive. As for "ideological violence", why don't you just put that big brain of yours into motion and think about what it might mean? Surely it's not that difficult to grasp for someone used to mixing in "intelligent circles"; a self-styled academic who sailed into this thread on gale force winds of haughty rhetoric. Surely not. [ 02 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 03 March 2008 10:45 AM
Just one more inaccuracy I'd like to deal with before this one gets locked:Snowy Plover claims: quote: This is an important point regarding the occupied territories, which relates mainly to the occupied territories. However, operations in Gaza entail IDF soldiers clad in military uniform. Seeing as Gaza is NOT OCCUPIED anymore,
This is erroneous. Gaza remains Occupied Territory. The borders, airspace, sea access, population registry, many forms of taxation, utilities, and all entrance and exit (just for starters) are still under the control of Israel. The Disengagement Plan, penned by Israel, reserved Israel's right to re-enter Gaza at any point. Furthermore, the PA, lead by Hamas, is not a sovereign authority, and as such cannot be considered to be the pinnacle of de jure power in Gaza. In international law, the benchmark phrase used is "effective control" and it is clear Israel still has such control. As such, Israel maintains it's obligations and responsibilities for the inhabitants of the Gaza strip set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention. [ 03 March 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|