Hope Turns to Despair for Palestinian Family in Gaza

[idontwantaname]

listen to the 5min NPR story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5354919

Morning Edition, April 21, 2006 · The Hasoona family returned to Gaza from Libya in the mid-1990s with hope for their eight children. But today, the family is jobless and dependent on U.N. handouts. Israeli artillery fire that shakes their tiny cinderblock house daily has only added to their woes.

[Tom Joad]

1. Why doen't Israel give up its terror attack against Gaza?!

[pelsar]

2. reverse the question...

but its somethng you've never ever answered....have you?.......

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

6. Wow, a red herring, strawman, *&* an ad hominem!

Great job!! ;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

7. No surprises there, hey?

Why do you hate Israel, Englander??? ;)

Violet...

[cali]

16. Pretty clear

I never said or insinuated anything like that in the post Englander responded to. Sad to see you're putting words in my mouth.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Obviously not clear enough...

I wasn't making out that you'd said or insinuated anything like that to Englander. But you've said this on a regular basis to quite a few other posters, so it's not putting words in yr mouth...

Violet...

[cali]

31. Sidle away from what you said, Miss Crumble

sidle, away. Of course it's putting words in my mouth. And no, I don't regularly insinuate or say that posters hate Israel. I made that argument to one poster and I was quite clear about why his words led me to that conclusion.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. You've just made my ignore list...

It's a very small and elite group, and till now only one other DUer is on it. I haven't got time for this sort of stupidity. I can count at least four posters who you've followed around telling them that they hate Israel, and I'm sure other folk are very aware of that...

Violet...

[cali]

13. Please explain how

my question was a red herring or an ad hominem attack. It was germane to the issue under discussion. Hypotheticals are commonly used in these threads. That's all it was.

[Englander]

19. I can if you want to, but are yer sure that I need to?

I'd hope that I wouldn't have to explain how an obvious red herring, strawman & ad hominem
are what they clearly are, I cannot believe that needs to be explained. I mean, I can if you
like, but I thought it was self-explanatory, really...

[cali]

21. Ooh, let me do it for you

Let's see, my post was an ad hominem attack on Palestinians because I posited that the rocket attacks would continue even if the Israelis stopped shelling in response. ( In today's NYT Jamal Samhadana is quoted as saying "The new Palestinian government has never asked us to stop firing rockets..." , but no matter.) It's a red herring because I'm posing a hypothetical unconnected to the subject matter. Never mind that people pose hypotheticals regularly on these threads, and that my hypothetical was directly aligned to the subject under discussion, the Israeli shelling of Gaza, and was a response to the two posts above mine. And last but not least, the straw man:accusation: Sorry, my imagination fails me at this point. Please feel free to enlighten me if you so wish, but I assure you that I'm not a front for anyone or anything. As people are wont to say, my opinions are my own. If you meant to imply the second meaning*, you have failed to demonstrate how my hypothetical is even an argument, and if it is one you haven't refuted it. Final

* please see the handy definitions posted below:

Straw Man:
1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow

Red Herring:
1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue

Ad Hominem:
appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel.·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" Washington Post. This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" Simon Karlinsky. Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" Donna M. Riley.

[Englander]

22. Well, if you insist....

The Straw man, also the red herring;

--Let's move into an imaginary future: It's 6 months from now. Israel has stopped shelling Gaza. 20 odd Israeli civilians have died in rocket attacks out of Gaza. Another suicide attack has killed more. The Hamas led government continues to endorse these attacks.--

It's a red herring, because the attempt to change the subject, to draw the discussion away from
the central issue, was the purpose of the comments. It's also a straw man, since the constructed
hypothetical was intended to be easily defeated, the premise was so constructed as to be woefully
easy to counter or refute.

The ad hominem;

--Is that a scenario that meets your approval?--

[cali]

23. That didn't address

my point that I responded directly to the two posts above mine. One asked "Why doesn't Israel give up its terror attack on Israel?" The other suggested reversing the question. I attempted to demonstrate one of the reasons that Israel doesn't stop shelling Israel. A direct response to a question is not a red herring or a straw man. And you sure haven't argued convincingly that it was.

I will concede that the question "Is that a scenario that meets your approval?" was snarky, though hardly rising to the level of an attack on the poster.

Now here's a where's waldo question for you. On the thread I'm providing a link for, real straw men and ad hominems are clearly present. Can you identify them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=123159&mesg_id=123203

[pelsar]

36. actually given that the original post was addressed to me....

i saw no problem with it whatsoever...and in fact, "snarky remark included" I was more than happy to address the issue.

[Englander]

39. No, it wasn't. It was addressed to post #1, not post #2.

Clearly, the post was addressed to the post it was sent to, which was #1.

[Englander]

50. I'm putting you on ignore, permanently.

I'd hoped that after 18 months, or whatever it is, we'd be at a level of expressed knowledge
greater than the talking points/insults/fantastical fantasies/platitudes that have been produced in
this thread & others, but, sadly, that is not the case.

[Englander]

51. ~~

[Englander]

38. There wasn't a point that needed to be addressed.

The post didn't respond directly to post #1 & #2. Post #1 was relevant, & actually related
to the subject of the thread. Post #2 was just a knee-jerk, reactionary response to those
comments in #1.

There's no need to 'argue convincingly' that the post, which has, incidently, been removed,
was what it was, because it was clearly a red herring/strawman/ad hominem.

If I play, do I get to win a prize?

[pelsar]

9. ok we're there...

thats probably a very very real scenario:

some techno background:

defenses against low flying small objects (mortors and kassams) dont exist with todays technologies. The sole way to stop them is at the launch site. Snipers dont have range beyond 500m, night vision is limited to about the same, hence moving around, getting into posistion to launch a missle that has a distance of 10-20km is no problem. Arial recon day and night can be used to watch the launch areas, but as we've seen they also launch from built up areas.

Btw a launch area was changed away from the NE (beit hanun). as the palestenain family there, with strong military ties, "told the launchers" to stay away.

If gaza further extends into chaos..or hamas keeps with the program then the launches will continue.
_______

options:
UN troops?...would they be willing to get into a firefight with the locals?..probably not. (the lebanon experience has made that clear)

talk with Hamas, ask them to stop it?...what would their motivation be?, (pulling out didnt stop hizballa from continueing the attacks, nor jihad from gaza, as we are seeing etc). Even the PA under Abbas made it clear they werent going to even try...and he had a relationship with israel of sorts.


Egyptian troops? (they have no love of the palestenains, and wouldnt have a problem enforcing the no launch rule, problem is, why would Egypt get involved in a no win situation?

israel do nothing, and evacuate the 100,000 people in range, and then evacuate the next area, (100,000?) as the missles increase their range and the shooters move in to the now evacuated areas within the 67 borders to launch....and let the israelis in the area be terrorized and killed.

by the way, the above scenarios would put an immediate halt to any and all withdrawls from the westbank...it would be clear to all israelis that, the continuation of such would be suicidal at best.

the other option is israeli reprisal, laying waste to the launch areas, whether they are fields or not....and its not even a very good one, since after any shelling its not hard to drive a car from gaza city to the ruins of a destroyed house and launch another missle

israel could reinvade N. Gaza...relive the lebanon experience, which one might argue that did actually reduce (temporarily?) the katushas on N.Israel (though the lebanese civil war probably had something to do with it....)

other options?....i'm afraid they're arent. It really depends upon the governing power in gaza to act or not to act. Israel doesnt really have much to offer gaza in terms of negotiating. If they dont shoot, they can live in peace, continue to build their port, and expand their economy, trade with israel, use israeli electricity. If they shoot (why are they shooting anyway?), i dont see how they expect israel not to react....or perhaps that too is their goal.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Uh, that's a very different response than my 'I don't know' answer...

I remember that I was told that saying I don't know what the solution is was a cop-out and wasn't good enough and I had to come up with solutions....

Violet...

[pelsar]

11. i'm showing the options...

which are limited at best...some include yours. some mine....

fact is....i actually dont even know if there is one.....

i actually dont have a problem with the "I dont know"...since its quite valid, my objection was the criticism of the various attempts by israel to stop the firing....without any kind of acknowledgement that the options are limited and the attemtps (sonice booms) may hardly be ideal, but they are attempts at non violent methods...which didnt work very well.

and of course i'm always amazed at the fact that those who are actually shooting the missles, those who are actually trying to kill any israelis are never mentioned... they are the core of the problem are they not? (gaza)

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I know...

..but I just sort of noticed that you did call it a cop-out when I told you a fair while ago that I had no answer. Of course I know and have always known that Israel's options are limited, and all I know is that I wish there is a solution found that does work and manages to do it without any more civilian casualties on either side...

I've mentioned those who fire the rockets from Gaza, and it's clear to me that they are the core of the problem coz without them we wouldn't even be sitting here going through options we're pretty sure wouldn't work or saying we don't know what the solution is...


Violet...

[pelsar]

17. perhaps i felt "neglected"...

as much as its clear to you that rocket shooters are the core, i've realized its not always clear....i was just "pushing you" that in light of the situation its still important to acknowledge the limitiations of each of the sides involved, be it the palestenains and their internal poltical mess or the IDFs limited options...it keeps the discussions from going to the extremes

as well as where each is failing within its own realm

[TomClash]

20. Talk about what? nt

[pelsar]

24. why do the palestenains in gaza...

insist on trying to kill israelis?..

they have a continuos land mass in gaza, without a single israeli, they have a border with egypt, and yet the day the israelis left, they shot 30 missles in to israel and ever since then have continually attempted to kill and terrorize lsraelis who live within the 67 borders....via missles, mortors and infiltration attempts....

it was israel that left gaza, it was israel that took the first step to break the cycle of violence...and the palestenian reaction? freedom to kill israelis....on the very night israel left

i believe you think these attempts at killing civilians is "ok"....or should they stop?....or should israel just do nothing and let it citizens be terrorized and killed?

can you answer the questions or shall you ignore them as you have consistently.....

[TomClash]

25. You have to ask this question?

They live poorly - in a ghetto - cut off from the West Bank. And they are still under de facto Israeli military occupation - whenever Israel wants to strike it does so with impunity.

Do you think "collateral damage" in the West Bank and Gaza is ok?

Should Israel immediately comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the West Bank or is there still some real estate left to gobble up?

Here's your answer: the Palestinians fight the only way they can - they don't have soldiers and tanks and nuclear weapons and a mighty air force. If you don't understand asymmetrical warfare - we have nothing to talk about.

I suspect the only reason you raise the issue of Israeli civilian casualties is to try to force the Palestinians to fight conventionally. But did the Irgun or the Stern Gang fight the British this way? Of course not.

[pelsar]

27. so killing and targeting civilians is just fine....

here's your answer: the Palestinians fight the only way they can

ok, just wanted to clarify it: a suicide bomber in tel aviv has choices of many targets.....the felfal stand, with women and children, the bunches of young soliders on leave talking. The fact that they choose those civilians, and that your obviously backing up those choices is quite telling of your opinion of israelis.

living poorly is hardly an excuse for looking to kill civilians...at least not me.

and what is "de facto israeli miltary occupation? is that because israel is the stronger army and can invade anytime?....i 'm making an assumption here, which would mean that Canada is also under de facto military occupation.


and just for the record: i dont excuse the stern or irgun gang...never did, never will.....but there are people (like you it appears) that do.

[TomClash]

30. See my other post

I understand that terror is a military tactic and not a military opponent. You apparently don't.

You engage in as hominem attacks ("your obviously backing up those choices is quite telling of your opinion of israelis") then you wonder why I do not engege in a discussion with you.

In fact, I have quite a high opinion of Israelis in general. But I don't think they should be occupying the West Bank (including the suburbs ringing East Jerusalem) or Gaza.

Canada is not at war with the US. The US is not occupying Canadian lands.
Last time I looked Israel was still occupying the West Bank. That might be a small difference.

Here's a flash: the leaders of the Stern Gang and the Irgun became Prime Ministers and national heroes of your country. It's hard to believe there would be an Israel without them.

[pelsar]

33. fantasies? ...

Here's a flash: the leaders of the Stern Gang and the Irgun became Prime Ministers and national heroes of your country. It's hard to believe there would be an Israel without them.

really?...hard to believe there would be an israel without them?...where does that come from? you somehow understand the space-time continuum and how it relates to events that never happened and how they will affect the outcome of related events?...wow! i am impressed (hey whats the next winning lottery ticket number?)

but i think i understand why you wrote it...correct me if i'm wrong:

if the jewish terrorism gave rise to israel, then it excuses palestenian terrorism, which will give rise to a palestenain state...did i get that right? .....bet i did.

[TomClash]

35. Pretty weak response

Space-time continuims and lottery tickets? :shrug:

My point was obvious and I will state it one last time: terror is a military tactic and you only treat it as a moral question for political reasons. I say nations or movements use whatever tactics are necessary to win. I happen to think "terror" has not worked well in this case because it has not achieved any discernible political objective. But at least I understand why it is being used.

[pelsar]

40. i understand very well why its being used....

what i believe you dont get, is how its backfired...as the writer, who lives in gaza has stated very clearly, and which us israelis have known for a long time as well. (the palestenains knew it as well, but were reluctant to admit it)


but this explains a lot:
I say nations or movements use whatever tactics are necessary to win...because its not true. i get the impression that you have very little knowledge of armies, how they operate and what tactics they chose to use or not use. Perhaps this would be a time for you to do some reading or asking?

Perhaps it is because you have very little experience within the realm of the military, but a major aspect is the soldiers well being, not just his physical but his mental as well. Some tactics backfire, reduce the moral (which is deadly), incapacitate a soldier, etc. Those tactics, which include targeting civilians are not used.

what i think, and you may correct me, is that you seem to think that govts and their armies are immoral and will do all they can to get what they want.....not in israel, our armie faces moral questions and dilemmas as exactly what they are moral problems, not just tactical or strategic ones...but then what would i know....i just serve.

[TomClash]

45. Thanks for the advice

I've done my fair share of serving thank you very much. Let me know when soemone fires at you from close range, then you can criticze me all you want.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[pelsar]

34. no...you dont seem to have a "high opinion of israelis...

In fact, I have quite a high opinion of Israelis in general. But I don't think they should be occupying the West Bank (including the suburbs ringing East Jerusalem) or Gaza.

because if you did you would also take into account their fears of kassams and mortors coming out of Nabulus, Bethlehem, etc....never once have you ever addressed such an issue

[pelsar]

28. seems some palestenians dont agree with you......

The writer is a commentator on Israel affairs on Arab television stations and in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat.


It is a philosophy of death, which prefers death to life. A mendacious philosophy, which is fulfilled as if in the name of God and Islam. A racist philosophy that is based on the cruel principle of killing Jews because they are Jews,

.....And it is a philosophy of cowardice. If someone wants to fight occupation, let them go and attack the occupying army, not innocent people in the street.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/708066.html
-----


but then what does he know...he only lives there.

[TomClash]

29. They learned well from their occupiers

First, if you have to live there to comment then why are you posting here - a site with few posters who live in Israel or Palestine? I take it you don't live in Gaza either. So you have no credibility either.

Oh and don't bother commenting on 9/11 at any time then - you weren't there but I was. I know just as much about terrorist attacks against civilians as either you or the writer does - I've felt it and seen it up close and personal.

Second, that's one writer's opinion - and I suspect he's writing out of frustration. But you know that trying to hit Israeli military targets is like a gnat landing on a tiger - it is nothing more than an annoyance. And even when they hit targets that are predominantly military it is called "terrorism."

Third, all war is horrible. But how much of a difference is there between collateral damage in an air attack that kills civilians recklessly and a terrorist attack that kills civilians intentionally? Dead is dead. Governments argue there is a big difference because it challenges their most basic duty - to protect their citizenry - and that makes them nervous. That said, the tactic has not worked well in Palestine.

[pelsar]

32. the credability of those who live in gaza...

and their knowldge would be greater than mine...and mine is probably greater than yours. It doesnt mean you shouldnt comment, but it does mean you should perhaps listen to those who have more experience and understand the language and culture. To assume you understand the palestenians and the repucussions of the suicide bomber more than the palestenian writer above is sheer folly. His understanding and knowldege of the situation is far greater than yours....

you suspect hes writing "out of frustation".....perhaps you can explain which paragaraph or sentence gives you that feeling? Maybe hes writing because he sees the result on his own society that that the suicide bomber has brought?...Hes not the first who has mentioned it.

third, all war is horrible. But how much of a difference is there between collateral damage in an air attack that kills civilians recklessly and a terrorist attack that kills civilians intentionally? Dead is dead

There is more to being dead than just dead....its how it affects those that are still alive. And the writer is very clear about that, suicide bombings are also destroying palestenain society.

more so more than one palestenian in gaza has commented that the chaos now is far greater than when the IDF was the occupier, the random killings and gunfights have taken their toll on the living.

and i also know every suicide bomber has a choice of israelis to kill, those in uniform or civilians.....they choose for the most part the civilians...and jews at that (as the writer makes it clear). That is the result of a very very very sick brainwashing that they receive.

and something is wrong when people find excuses for that.

[TomClash]

37. Fine I'll listen to my betters

That's what you want right? Everyone who disagrees with you to shut up because they don't know as much as you. This is why arguing with you is a useless exercise.

Assuming I know nothing about Palestinian culture, which is a curious assumption, that doesn't mean the writer is correct. I'll bet I could find many more who disagree. And what is the alternative? The Star of David on ever building west of the Jordan? Is that what you seek?

Of course there is chaos in Gaza. Israel has left a mess and the Palestinians are supposed to clean it up without money? In a few months? Be serious.

Why do you think they choose to hit civilians? Is it because they're a sick, demented people? Inferior dogs? Not chosen by God? And what over the course of decades has driven them to such a state?

Something is wrong when people value some civilian lives more than others.

[cali]

41. "The star of david on every building

west of the Jordan?" Asking pelsar if that's what he wants, is truly an ad hominem attack on him. That "question" is an accusation that he has imperialist designs over all of Palestine. Asserting that he wants everyone who doesn't agree with him to shut up is false. He never said it. He never insinuated it. Neither did he say you knew nothing about Palestinian culture, or that Palestinians are a sick demented people, or inferior dogs, or not chosen by God or that some civilian lives are of more value than others. In fact, your entire post is a litany of accusations with no truth behind them. What does that say?

[TomClash]

46. Read his response

It basically amounts to "the Palestinians should shut up and learn to farm." Does that sound like someone who wants a political solution? It sounds like a call to slavery to me.

[pelsar]

42. sometimes yes....

it does pay to listen to those who have more experience....what is the alternative?.....there are always alternatives, its the one who claims that they're arent any are the ones that will inevitably lose.

but its interesting, on a previous post you seem to admit that the suicide bombings dont work I happen to think "terror" has not worked well in this case because it has not achieved any discernible political objective....and here you say: what is the alternative?

so its seems that you are for the continuation of suicide bombings even though they dont work...did i get that right?

why have they chosen to target civilians? (jews as the writer put it so bluntly)...because its not just the easier target, but it "hurts more. Seeing your children targeted, it was felt would weaken the israeli moral....dumb idea, the opposite happened.

and of course the chaos in gaza is israels fault?....how is that? Seems to me Hamas and the fatah infighting is purly an internal affair (or are your going to blame israel for that as well). As far as their economy goes....they're mainly agri based and have the whole world open to them via egypt. Israel leaving gave them additional lands to farm, not the opposite (perhaps they should farm them as opposed to shooting missles that terrorize israelis...or is that ok too. i mean its not that the achieve any political goals, but "what alternative do they have"...

I'll help, the alternative is to plant, farm, increase their agri output, sell the produce to europe or the arab countries, etc and start living a better life, without trying to kill israelis. Funny how that alternative has yet to be tried.

[TomClash]

44. Funny how your alternative allows Israel to keep the land

Of course I think suicide bombing has failed. So has everything else. I never said I supported it; I said I understod why the Palestinians did it. It is a MILITARY TACTIC, just like aerial bombing, which kills civilians no matter how "precise" it is. I notice you do not denounce aerial bombing, no matter how man civilians it kills - is that because Israel has an undisputed military advantage there?

Israel occupied Gaza for almost 40 years - are you actaully arguing that Israel has no responsibility for the deploable conditions there? And you don't ahve to believe an uniformed American like me - go to Gaza City and see for yourself.

You say "the alternative is to plant, farm, increase their agri output, sell the produce to europe or the arab countries, etc and start living a better life, without trying to kill israelis." This is quite revealing - you don't propose a political solution. Instead, you apparently lust to keep the West Bank land you have - and let the sharecroppers farm what remains. What a surprise.

[pelsar]

47. it can be seen as a military tactic....

so too is napalming Gaza city....doesnt mean its acceptable.... But its not like aerial bombing, not at all, beyond the fact that both kill people. but then i've already explained that there are major repucussions as to the how..as did the writer and so many others.

i havent denounced israels ariel bombing, (they're have been exactly two bombs dropped so far over the context of the intifada). The first destroyed an apt bulding complex, which i think was wrong, the second was a lighter bomb in a foolish PC attempt to "kill less' which also was wrong.

The assinations from helicopters, for lack of other options i am not against.

as far as the deplorable conditions in gaza...., they were far worse before israel took it over and went bad after intifada II (no empolyment etc)...the infrastructure is israeli and in good condition.....but i have been to gaza city, chan unis, jebalyia, rafah etc...so i am quite familiar with area, including the stench of jebaliya, the garbage in the streets and the wide squares, clean avenues of gaza city.

as far as my alternative goes....its very revealing because its a step in the right direction. The biggest problem the palestenains have with us israelis is we dont "trust them" (nor them us). We made the first step, left gaza..its now their turn to make a step in return. By turning their energies to improving their own economy and taking a break from trying to kill us, that would be precisly that very step. and it does show how little you understand israelis or even "respect us.....our worries dont even register with you, let alone respect them.

by taking advantage of our "breaking the cycle of violence" and using it as a stepping stone to kill additional israelis from a better vantage point...well thats a step backward, which is precisly what they are doing....and I understand that you support them.

and the farming?...its a good first step toward fixing up ones economy and getting it going, doesnt need much investment, the land is good, exports are easy, can employ many who have little education....its called a first logical economic step, taking advantage of the resources at hand. And actually i have a incredible amount of respect for agri workers, but perhaps thats because i've worked as one (but you obviously think farmers are some kind of slaves....you should get out more, get a job on a farm, learn to respect the argi workers...)

i guess its that experience thing again...

[pelsar]

49. someone doesnt think much of farmers

the Palestinians should shut up and learn to farm....It sounds like a call to slavery to me


Instead, you apparently lust to keep the West Bank land you have - and let the sharecroppers farm what remains. What a surprise


.....correlating farming to slavery?

perhaps that person should get out a bit and work on a farm....they might be less insulting to those people, in fact for those of use who have worked "on the farm" such thoughts wouldnt even cross our mind, knowing full well not just the physical labor but the constant tension famers face....tsk tsk tsk

in fact, us israelis have the upmost respect for farming given our history which is well embedded within the agri business.....such poor knowledge and disrespect for those of us who live here.....

[cali]

43. I'm both surprised and disappointed that

my post was removed. I proposed that we envision a scenario where the IDF has halted responding to rocket attacks from Gaza, and 6 months down the road, rocket attacks had increased and killed Israeli civilians and that a suicide attack had taken place killing more civilians. I then posed the question: What then? I further added that I hoped the IDF attacks on Gaza would stop. I did add a snarky remark, and I regret that because it diverted attention away from the issue I was trying to address. and I assume, was the reason the post was deleted.

It's not a red herring. It's a perfectly reasonable question with a plausible basis in fact. It bears directly on the OP and the comments below the OP. I got an informative response from another poster as well as the accusation that my post was a red herring and a strawman.

[tatertop]

4. The IDF/settlers are stepping up their criminal aggression

They don't even try to hide it from the world anymore.

[cali]

5. Sloganeering

never helped in any dispute.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What the hell do you think the settlers are if not criminals?

You've seen the articles about their attacks on Palestinian children, amongst other things. Criminal aggression is what they're doing and it suits them well...

Violet...

[cali]

12. Some of the settlers are

without a doubt criminals- and their actions towards the Palestinians are vile. Can all of the settlers simply be lumped together as simply criminals?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Most folk do comprehend which settlers are being referred to...

n/t

[Tom Joad]

18. Some of them are criminals, and the worse crime is the Israeli

government does nothing to stop it.

We does Israel allow such lawlessness to continue?

Is it because the actions of the settlers is working, and is part of the Israeli policy? that is, forcing Palestinians to move into ever tighter and smaller bantustans. As far as the Israeli govt is concerned, maybe the settlers are doing their dirty work for them.

I cannot understand it any other way. Israel could deal with a few wayward settlers if it wanted to. I see no sign of that. The very reasonable conclusion is that it does not want to do any such thing.