'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest

[subsuelo]

Why would I post this here? Because of all the striking parallels, of course. The condemnations by human rights groups. The use of the term 'genocide' (is that an "anti-China lie" to say so?) ... The calls for UN mandated 'right of return' of refugees to their homeland. The urging of restraint by Condoleeza Rice and the U.S. ... The "security forces" shooting protesters dead. The calls for boycott of China (is that being 'anti-China' to suggest it?).

'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest

BBC News
At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says.

The Chinese crackdown followed rioting on Friday, that erupted after a week of mainly peaceful protests.

Dalai Lama Condemns 'Cultural Genocide'

Yahoo
The Dalai Lama has called for an international probe into the current unrest and violence in Tibet.

At a press conference in India, the exiled spiritual leader condemned what he described as China's 'cultural genocide'.

"The Tibet nation is facing serious danger. Whether China admits or not, there is a problem," he told reporters at his base in Dharamsala.

Dalai Lama slams China on Tibet abuse

The Australian
THE Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, yesterday attacked China's human rights record, accusing Beijing of "unimaginable and gross violations" in his Himalayan homeland.

"Repression continues to increase, with numerous unimaginable and gross violations of human rights, denial of religious freedom and politicisation of religious issues," he told hundreds of supporters on the 49th anniversary of his escape to India after an abortive anti-Beijing uprising.

Tibetan refugees protested around the world to mark the anniversary, with 150 people hurt in Nepal when police used batons to break up a march on the Chinese embassy, while in neighbouring India 101 refugees began a five-month march from Dharamsala to Tibet, accompanied by thousands of well-wishers.

"Everybody is pumped up," said Tibetan Youth Congress president Tsewang Rigzin.

"Many people were in tears asthey said goodbye to the marchers. As refugees we have a right to return to our homeland."

Rice Urges China to `Exercise Restraint' With Tibet

Bloomberg
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked China to "exercise restraint" in suppressing protests in Tibet that have sparked the territory's worst violence in almost two decades.

"We call on the Chinese government to exercise restraint in dealing with these protests, and we strongly urge all sides to refrain from violence," Rice said in a statement. "I am concerned by reports of a sharply increased police and military presence in and around Lhasa."

Calls for Olympic boycott after Tibet brutality

The Telegraph
China's crackdown on demonstrators in Tibet has prompted international condemnation and a call for a boycott of this summer's Beijing Olympics.

Rally Marks Anniversary of China's Occupation of Tibet

Epoch Times
China's crackdown on demonstrators in Tibet has prompted international condemnation and a call for a boycott of this summer's Beijing Olympics.

"The situation in Tibet has degraded over the last 50 years. We're talking about genocide—a slow killing of the culture. If we were to do the protest that we are doing today in China we would be put in jail and tortured, and our families would suffer the same consequences."

Kelhang stressed that the group's beef wasn't with the Chinese people but with their totalitarian regime.

"As Tibetans we are non-violent and we have no hatred towards the Chinese people. But we do oppose the occupation of Tibet, their attempts to destroy and annihilate the Tibetan culture, and all the human rights violations and killings that have taken place over the last 50 years. So this is an action towards the Chinese government and not the Chinese people."

Of course there are differences between this situation and I/P. For one, Tibetan leadership is not firing rockets into Chinese neighborhoods. Also, there is not a long history of ongoing eye-for-an-eye killings (or eye-for-10-eyes if you want to break down the gruesome numbers).

But the differences do not take away from the parallels. The differences don't suddenly take away the right of return for refugees. And it doesn't somehow lessen or justify the human rights abuses of the occupier. One can't help but read these articles and take away some lessons to be learned for the situation in Israel/Palestine. (For example, is it "anti-China" of pro-Tibet activists to call for an Olympic boycott, or to condemn the human rights abuses?)

I realize the post in a way breaks I/P discussion posting rules; I am hoping for a reprieve in this case, as I feel it could make for an interesting discussion.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Subsuelo, I would warrant that many Israelis would identify with the Tibetans

rather than the Chinese.

It's a stunning feat of cognitive dissonance, I know.

[LeftishBrit]

2. I think one issue that many people have here...

is that a lot of people who criticize Israel over the Occupation do NOT criticize China over Tibet, or Russia over Chechnya, etc. etc; and this comes across as biased.

If you are critical of ALL occupations, then this comes across as much more consistent. So I'm quite glad you posted this!

I want to see an end to the Israeli occupation, and an independent Palestinian state; and oppose the settlement expansions; but:

'Of course there are differences between this situation and I/P. For one, Tibetan leadership is not firing rockets into Chinese neighborhoods. Also, there is not a long history of ongoing eye-for-an-eye killings (or eye-for-10-eyes if you want to break down the gruesome numbers).'

Sadly, this is rather a crucial difference.


'For example, is it "anti-China" of pro-Tibet activists to call for an Olympic boycott, or to condemn the human rights abuses?)'

No. I condemn the human rights abuses very strongly! But to express the wish that China cease to exist, or to support forcible regime change, would be anti-China. In fact, in the past, both the USA (pre-Nixon!) and the Soviet Union *were* pretty anti-China - and in neither case mainly because of Tibet.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Yes, I have a problem with that hypocrisy

I can see being critical of all occupations, or of realgenocides worldwide. But this attention and condemnation of Israel, above and beyond all the other hideous human rights abusers in the world seems misguided.

I don't see anyone championing the causes of the Tibetans or Chechnyans. It seems that there should be a more even handed approach, unless the issue isn't really so much about caring about Palestinians, but more about hating Israelis.

[msmcghee]

4. I think another conceptual error is judging occupations . .

. . solely by the damage that is done to those being occupied. There are many reasons why a people's land might be occupied by a military other than their own. These can range from military domination / colonial occupation to extract resources by force - to defensive occupation to prevent militant groups in the occupied territory from attacking another people or state.

It would make no sense to judge the morality of the occupation only by the adverse effect on the occupied people. I'd say that occupation as a defensive measure is a moral act, especially if it is an alternative to more forceful means that are typically used by military powers under these circumstances - such as bombing the attacking people into submission.

In the case of Israel / Palestine, these facts seem obvious:

a) Israel occupied the territory during a defensive war to repel Arab armies that were trying to destroy Israel.

b) While the Jordanian and Egyptian armies retreated from the territories, many belligerents remained. Israel could not disengage without again becoming as vulnerable as before that defensive war.

c) Realizing this could be used to advantage terrorist organizations sprung up in the territories to make the occupation as expensive as possible for Israel. Israel immediately sought to disengage and withdraw to new borders to be negotiated with the Palestinain representatives as per R242. The Arab states refused to seek any normalization (The Three No's of Khartoum) preventing Israel from withdrawing while the militants were financed and encouraged by those Arab states to attack Israeli civilians across the green line.

d) Israel's occupation measures are scaled to prevent terrorist attacks. No reasonable case has been made that Israel engages in "cruelty" for the sake of cruelty. The wall, the checkpoints, etc. all have a practical defensive purpose and have proven to be defensively effective saving many Israeli lives. At the start of the occupation thousands of Palestinians crossed freely into Israel to work every day and return home again at night. There were few if any checkpoints. Only as terrorist attacks increased did the occupation become more difficult for average Palestinians.

e) All states have the right of self-defense. Israel is not the aggressor and the occupation is therefore lawful and moral.

It seems to me that occupations must first be judged on their morality. Only necessarily defensive occupations are just and moral. Moral and just occupations should then be judged on restraint. I'd say Israel acts in a very restrained manner only exerting enough pressure on the occupied population to defend Israeli citizens from attack. Israel also provides trade, food, medical help, electricity and other necessary infrastructure for the occupied Palestinians. They even do this for the unoccupied people of Gaza - when the unoccupied Palestinians there are not bombing the crossings or sending too many rockets into Sderot.

As occupations go I'd say the Palestinians fare pretty well on the worldwide scale of such things considering the large number of Israelis that have died from terrorist attacks, the ongoing attempts at infiltration from the WB, the hatred against Jews taught to Palestinian children and the length of time this has all been occurring. Israel exhibits both restraint and tremendous patience IMO. It is certainly not an illegal or unjustified occupation, morally. All nations have the right to defend their citizens from attack by whatever means necessary.

[subsuelo]

7. "Israel is not the aggressor"

Right. Go tell that to the families of those killed by Israeli occupation forces. Both sides are aggressors in this. That's a key problem with the whole I/P debate. Claiming that Israel is not the aggressor is in my view just as deluded as claiming that Hamas is not the aggressor.

[msmcghee]

8. aggressor

ag·gres·sor –noun ~ a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

I don't think you understand the basic difference between aggression and defense in the context of war. Rather than try to explain this to you perhaps you can show us one example since the inception of the state of Israel where Israel clearly attacked Palestine or any Palestinian faction without a defensive purpose.

[subsuelo]

17. Israel is occupying land taken from Palestinians

How do you think land gets stolen from people - 'defensive' measures?

No. Israel continues to steal. Therefore it plays role as the aggressor.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion

Ultimately, I don't see a need to get into that a game of who started it. I only post that because you asked for it. Instead, I see a need for both sides to acknowledge the wrongs committed towards the other, as a way of beginning reconciliation and ultimately, peace.

[Vegasaurus]

134. Unless you consider all of Israel "occupied land" like Tom and PM

you cannot possibly believe that the wars started by the Palestinians and other Arabs between 1948 and 1967 are about the occupation, or defensive. They were purely offensive wars, designed to drive the Jews out. Too bad. They lost.

[stranger81]

130. I think everyone here understands your point of view perfectly

Anything Israel does = defensive and justified

anything Palestinians do = offensive and without justification

[msmcghee]

132. Now that you understand . .

. . please make a reasonable and logical case for why I am wrong. Hint, your opinion, like subsuelo's, is not sufficient. You need to provide supporting facts. If you can.

[msmcghee]

11. You'd think that if this is a "key problem . .

. . with the whole I/P debate" and that I am "deluded" for "claiming that Israel is not the aggressor" . . you'd be able to come up with hundreds of commonly understood and verified examples that clearly show where Israel initiated violent attacks against Palestinians with no defensive purpose.

But it seems you can't find even one.

Do you think reality is whatever you want it to be - without objective references to actual events that can be verified? Doesn't that cause you any doubts about your position?

[subsuelo]

18. Israel just massacred 130 Gazans

That is aggression.

[msmcghee]

29. Let me just repeat my challenge . .

. . which you have completely avoided - again.

You'd think that if this is a "key problem with the whole I/P debate" and that I am "deluded" for "claiming that Israel is not the aggressor" . . you'd be able to come up with hundreds of commonly understood and verified examples that clearly show where Israel initiated violent attacks against Palestinians with no defensive purpose.

And still you can't come up with one.

[subsuelo]

30. Hello? There was an attack on 4 Palestinians recently initiated by the Israeli side

Even amidst a cease-fire negotiation.

You want examples, start paying attention.

[msmcghee]

33. The question is not "attacks". The question is . .

. . non-defensive attacks.

If you are serious you would need to show why Israel taking out four militant leaders who are actively engaged in targeting Israeli civilians is not a defensive measure.

Why would Israel go to all the trouble and expense to target these four particular Palestinians from among the several million who live there - almost any of which would make easier targets - if this was not an attack to destroy the militants' ability to attack Israeli citizens by taking out their leadership.

You make no sense. Like others here you pretend to not understand the difference between aggression and defense. Your comments are just to blow smoke and cloud the issue. But you know that.

[subsuelo]

34. Hamas makes the same claim

Hamas claims that all its attacks are "defensive" measures. And George W Bush claims that the U.S. is in Iraq to defend it's citizens from 'the terrorist threat'. Anybody can justify their violence, but saying something doesn't necessarily make it true.'

So, where does that leave us?

We are left having to decide for ourselves, which actions are defensive, and which are aggressive.

In this conflict it is ridiculous to believe that there is only one innocent side that never meant to harm anyone, and they are simply defending itself from the aggressive hostile other side.

What I argue is that both sides are hostile, both sides are aggressive, and neither is innocent. The only innocent are those caught in the crossfire being killed by both sides with their retaliatory actions.

There is no smoke and cloud to any of these statements. I am only stating the obvious.

[msmcghee]

37. Stop, just for a minute.

You say, " Hamas claims that all its attacks are "defensive" measures. And George W Bush claims that the U.S. is in Iraq to defend it's citizens from 'the terrorist threat'. Anybody can justify their violence, but saying something doesn't necessarily make it true.' So, where does that leave us? We are left having to decide for ourselves, which actions are defensive, and which are aggressive."

That is true. Of course all sides in a conflict claim to be defending - that's how the game is played.

So, here's what we've got.

a) One side claims that their mission is to rid the ME of Jews. They have been trying to do so for several decades and have established terrorist cells and organizations under various names. They have targeted and killed many innocent Israeli civilians which they admit is their intention - a terrorist intention. naked aggression to get an outcome without the need for peaceful negotiation where they'd have to compromise.

b) You have the other side never purposely targeting Palestinian civilians and instead going to great trouble with elaborate intelligence measures and high tech weapons to pinpoint as targets only militants actively involved in attacking Israeli civilians. These were the specific targets in this case that were successfully eliminated.

If you can't see which side is defending here and which side is the aggressor then you are only blowing smoke and simply trying to create a cloud of uncertainty where to any reasonable observer it would be obvious.

This is why these discussions border on the absurd. You take the most obvious cases of aggression/defense and it's all this "Gee, they both say they are defending, so what can we do?".

At some point it becomes necessary to stop playing rope-a-dope and call bullshit on this. That point has arrived in this case many times over. Thanks for the pretense. You have no desire to actually discuss these issues in a reasonable way as I'm sure anyone can see by now.

[subsuelo]

38. The Israeli side purposefully targets civilians all the time

There goes your case.

Next!

[msmcghee]

39. Then why have you never shown any . .

. . conclusive evidence of this? If they do it all the time it should be easy? Just saying they do doesn't prove a damned thing.

[subsuelo]

40. As I've written previously

Start paying attention. To the news, to reports from the ground, to human rights groups reports, etc.

The proof is all there. My suggestion, start with the human rights reports:

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/2.htm

The Israeli government claims it is taking all possible measures to minimize civilian harm, but the cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.

In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.

In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their ten children, and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.

On July 16, an Israeli airplane fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing eleven members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five, and seven.

the attacks killed and wounded civilians who were fleeing their homes

In addition to strikes from airplanes, helicopters, and traditional artillery, Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions against populated areas, causing civilian casualties. One such attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed a sixty-year-old woman and wounded at least twelve civilians, including seven children. The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law.

[msmcghee]

42. Not one of those examples . .

. . offers any clear compelling evidence that those civilians were targeted as a matter of Israeli policy and orders. Innocents are always killed in war. You can't claim they were targeted just because you suspect that or would want to believe that. The event itself proves nothing. You need to show evidence. You have not.

But, if you think you have, then pick the best example from your list and explain how that example provides clear and compelling evidence that they were targeted as civilians as a matter of policy by Israeli higher command. It should be easy. Right? Especially since there have been many thousands of such events to pick from.

Also, there is much evidence to the contrary including direct evidence by pelsar who has experience in the IDF and says that he and all other members of the IDF were specifically trained never to target civilians for non-defensive purposes - and that he was never told by any one above him to target civilians for non-defensive purposes.

[subsuelo]

46. Read the report I just posted (the one you just replied to)

"the absence of a military target ... suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians"

You ask me to further prove it - are you kidding?

Militants couldn't have been the targets, if they weren't there, now could they.

Since civilians were the only potential targets in the area, and they were killed by Israeli forces, one can very reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the civilians were targeted by Israeli forces.

This is just basic reasoning here. There are no logical jumps taking place. There is no spin or bias to it. How could you say its not enough? These is the very evidence you ask for.

[msmcghee]

55. A "suggestion" is hardly proof.

Stop playing around. Either you have some compelling evidence - like an IDF officer says he was ordered to target civilians - or you don't.

[subsuelo]

73. You come up with a better suggestion.

No militants in the area. Civilians killed by Israeli troops. Who else were they targeting? Terrorist ghosts risen from the grave?

Seems to me that the word "suggests" is used because that is the obvious conclusion.

Read the rest of the report..

"A systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians."

How about the home of the cleric bombed merely because it was thought he sympathized with Hezbollah?

How about the killing of the al-Akhrass family?

How about killing civilians as they were in the act of fleeing from their homes?

How about use of cluster bombs?

Got anything to say about any of those?

Nope, you don't.

[MaryCeleste]

78. I'll take a shot at it...

No militants in the area. Civilians killed by Israeli troops.
Where they there previously? How would HRW have known if there were? Were shots coming from that direction? Why did the IDF say they were attacking that area?

"A systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians."
Not proven. Hezbollah was not wearing uniforms. There is also the human shield assertion.

How about the home of the cleric bombed merely because it was thought he sympathized with Hezbollah?
Without an IDF response as to why it was targeted, its just an assumption. One would not normally waste bombs like that.

How about the killing of the al-Akhrass family?
No conclusion can be drawn without IDF input. Fog of war would be a good starting point provided there was no tactical situation with it. Were there militants nearby. Were they definitively shot by the IDF

How about killing civilians as they were in the act of fleeing from their homes?
Need to look at each incident separately. No conclusion can be drawn without IDF input. How to you tell a fleeing militant from a civilian while under fire. Classic fog of war. Were they all shot by te IDF?

How about use of cluster bombs?
Valid for certain kinds of targets. Less damaging overall in most situations. The PK with CBMs is higher than with regular bombs for soft targets in the open like troops, artillery (including rockets), and SAMs To reach the same PK would reguire more of them and more "tonnage" resulting in more overall destruction and loss of life.


All you have is one side of the story. You can't make a case for war crimes that way. Much of the evidence in Lebanon is gone. Its not clear how much the IDF maintains.

[subsuelo]

83. ...

No militants in the area. Civilians killed by Israeli troops.
Where they there previously? How would HRW have known if there were? Were shots coming from that direction? Why did the IDF say they were attacking that area?

Read the report. There are examples where witnesses say there were no militants previously either: "victims and witnesses interviewed independently and repeatedly said that neither Hezbollah fighters nor Hezbollah weapons were present in the area during or just before the Israeli attack took place"

"A systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians."
Not proven. Hezbollah was not wearing uniforms. There is also the human shield assertion.

Again, read the report. This is the conclusion based on their reviews of evidence and corroborations with several sources. If human rights groups making thorough independent investigations aren't good enough for you - then tell me, just what is good enough? The word of the IDF?

Furthermore, if you object so much to this particular HRW report, the fact is that plenty of other human rights groups corroborate the same findings. Amnesty's report also found 'indiscriminate' and 'reckless' firing on civilians. BTselem - same thing. Just after the slaughter in Gaza took place, a report in Haaretz told the same story: targeting of civilians. The truth is that the evidence abounds. So you can stubbornly deny and say "not proven" all you like, but that doesn't make it so just because you say it.

How about the home of the cleric bombed merely because it was thought he sympathized with Hezbollah?
Without an IDF response as to why it was targeted, its just an assumption. One would not normally waste bombs like that.

How about the killing of the al-Akhrass family?
No conclusion can be drawn without IDF input. Fog of war would be a good starting point provided there was no tactical situation with it. Were there militants nearby. Were they definitively shot by the IDF

How about killing civilians as they were in the act of fleeing from their homes?
Need to look at each incident separately. No conclusion can be drawn without IDF input. How to you tell a fleeing militant from a civilian while under fire. Classic fog of war. Were they all shot by te IDF?

As if the IDF is going to admit to any deliberate targeting civilians. We both can guess fairly easily as to what IDF excuses responses are. That is why independent reports such as these are important. In addition, you are aware that the IDF's failure to adequately explain a specific attack is what led to HRW investigations in the first place?


How about use of cluster bombs?
Valid for certain kinds of targets. Less damaging overall in most situations. The PK with CBMs is higher than with regular bombs for soft targets in the open like troops, artillery (including rockets), and SAMs To reach the same PK would reguire more of them and more "tonnage" resulting in more overall destruction and loss of life.

Again, going back to the report: "their use in or near civilian areas violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on indiscriminate attacks because they cannot be directed in a way that distinguishes between military targets and civilians. In addition, cluster bomblets have a high initial failure rate—the munitions used by Israel in Lebanon have an initial failure rate of up to 14 percent—which results in numerous unexploded but highly volatile “duds” scattered about the landscape. These pose similar risks to civilians as antipersonnel landmines."

[MaryCeleste]

86. It doesn't matter how many reports documented what one side says, if they do not get the other side

you do not have any semblance of balance. Quite literally there needs to be some understanding of why certain things were done at the time from the IDF viewpoint, either on the ground, at HQ, or both. Maybe an international tribunal could get the IDF side and produce some sort of balanced view, but there is clearly not going to be one. The IDF is not accountable to HRW so their "failure to adequately explain a specific attack" is irrelevant.

The claim that CBMs violate international law is not nearly as sound as HRW would have us believe. Moreover as I pointed out earlier that the use of unitary munitions would be more destructive. Both the IDF and the US have ROEs for their employment. I want to recall that some cases were found where they were not followed in Lebanon, but I have not looked at it since it happened. Given the wide disparities in reported number of CBMs used, any claim about total number of CBMs used or their failure rate is a WAG at best.

[subsuelo]

90. Information from the IDF was obtained and was included in the report

This wasn't a one-sided report in the least. It was an independent investigation that included information from the IDF. In the end it is the most balanced report of it's kind. Sorry that you didn't like the findings, which again, are corroborated by the reports from other human rights groups.

Are you claiming that IDF did not use cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians? Or is your claim that doing so did not violate any international law?

[MaryCeleste]

92. HRW complained they only got cursory information and no specifics from the IDF

without it, all it could be is one sided. No one can say what was on the other side of the door without being there and HRW and those it interviewed were not.

With regards to CBMs:
CBM use is not prima facie against international law, even in populated areas
The IDF used CBMs in Lebanon
CBMs are the preferred munition for certain targets
Unitary weapons would do more damage to achieve the same PK for those targets, including collateral damage
The US and the IDF have ROE for use of CBMs
I want to recall that there were some reports of a few ROE violations in Lebanon, but I don't recall the source or the details
Given the vast disparities in the reported number of CBMs used, any number is suspect, including failure rate. The IDF never provided any figures
There is no evidence that the IDF intentionally target Lebanese civilians with CBMs.

[subsuelo]

95. But innocent civilians were killed by CBMs

[MaryCeleste]

98. Innocent civilians were killed by all sorts of things by both sides

If CBMs were only used on correct targets and within the ROE (which is fairly carefully laid out), it should have been within accepted norms. More would have died if unitary munitions had been used.

You should also ask why Hezbollah was setting up rockets and other CBM targets in the midst of civilian populations.

[stranger81]

129. Right, the Israeli point of view never gets a fair hearing.

All you see in the news is pro-Palestinian propaganda. No one ever sides with Israel in the news.

[msmcghee]

133. The news is not a "hearing" for any side. n/t

[MaryCeleste]

65. I've read the entire report when it first came out and its not compelling

since it makes major guesses and assumptions as well. Withouts the other side to the story, and independent verification, all it can ever be is little more than agitprop, I don't care who wrote it.

Consider this: Bombs cost much more than bullets, mortar rounds, or RPGs. Since war is a very expensive business and for a while bombs were at a premium (they went through most of their stockpile), why did they not use cheaper and more effective means to kill those you claim were intentionally murdered? Occam's Razor is your friend.

The big thing HRW and you are forgetting is the fog of war. Unless you have been there its hard to explain. The IDF claims it checks fire when there are civilians in the line of fire if they can. I believe them, sometimes. Hamas says they never use human shields. I have less faith in them than the IDF, but sometimes that may be true. However, the fog of war (on both sides) is quite real.

There is no fog of war cover for the rockets being fired out of Gaza. None.

[subsuelo]

75. Without the other side of the story and independent verification?

Did you get past the page one summary?

This is from paragraph one of the second page:

"The team focused on interviewing witnesses and survivors of Israeli strikes inside Lebanon, gathering detailed testimony from these individuals, and carefully corroborating and cross-checking their accounts with international aid workers, international and local journalists, medical professionals, local officials, as well as information from the IDF."

This from paragraph two:

"A parallel team of Human Rights Watch researchers operated during this same period in northern Israel investigating and reporting on Hezbollah’s attacks on civilians in Israel. That team also contributed to Human Rights Watch’s understanding of IDF operations in Lebanon through on-site observations and conversations with IDF spokespersons."

When you claim that there is no "other side" to the story and that "fog of war" is being ignored, this exposes you as not having actually read the report.

Furthermore, it is not a "major guess" to say that if no militants were in an area in which civilians died, that civilians must have therefore been the target. That is just plain logic.

[MaryCeleste]

76. HRW did not have access to the IDF. They even complained about it

Without it, and access to the message traffic, fire missions, air tasking, etc, to claim that the IDF knowing targeted civilians is unsupportable. R/T observations were not possible and there were no embeds. HRW was simply not there to observe. They have admitted that their observations of both sides was less than perfect. You have read their critique of Hezbollah?

Now lets get to fog of war...You are under fire. You call for artillery or air strikes. As the solider getting shot at you are not going to waste that fire support on buildings you do not believe are a threat to you. You call it in.
- You could be right
- You could be right but the bad guys have left
- You could be wrong
No solider interested in his own survival, let alone accomplishing the mission, wantonly destroys buildings with ordinance that he may need later.

I read the entire HRW pub when it came out. Its the first few pages where they get attempt to defend their inadequate methods and data that their weakness starts to show. Its not that they wanted to do a bad job, its just that they could not do an effective one.

[subsuelo]

87. And why would the IDF make themselves so inaccessible to HRW for this report

Hmm, could it be so that people like you to go "See! There's the fallacy in the report!". Providing just enough of a flaw to call the whole thing into question. There's the reason why we can't trust HRW and it's reports in it's investigations! Because it is being terribly lopsided and we didn't get the full story. Isn't that right?

The fact is that HRW did everything possible to make this report as unbiased and as even-handed as possible. Only the IDF did not play nice. There is no wondering as to why.

[MaryCeleste]

89. Why should they? They had good reason not to

It would have inherently disclosed doctrine and tactics which are classified. No military will do that to an NGO, especially one with a perceived agenda. It is noteworthy that Hezbollah was criticized by HRW, but it was really the first time they were.

I believe that they were prevented from doing a credible job. Anyone who cites the report should realize its inherent weakness.

[subsuelo]

91. Again, it's not just this report, (which is the most balanced of its kind)

The findings are corroborated by the same findings by other human rights groups. And if you complain about lack of balance, please where is the report that is more balanced? What are its findings? Anyone can complain about lack of balance, but the evidence gets heavily stacked up when other human rights groups are reporting the same conclusions.

[MaryCeleste]

93. Its that pesky relative thing

- If all the "reporters" interview the same sources, that they have basically the same story is not surprising. I don't blame them for going with what they got, but a better disclaimer was called for.

- Best available is relative and has nothing to do with adequate

[subsuelo]

96. Fine, show me better.

[MaryCeleste]

99. Better is again relative, what we all would like is adequate

and which will never exist for Lebanon or for that matter the most recent Gaza incursion.

Consider this...If my best rope is not adequate to hold me I would be a fool to use it rappelling. The HRW may be the best out there, but its still inadequate since it is by its own admission incomplete.

[subsuelo]

111. We have better than adequate with this HRW report

Again, IDF information was included and given consideration. If sources were considered too biased or compromised they were thrown out. As many points of view as possible were obtained in every situation scrutinized by the report, including IDF information. The variety of accounts considered is by no means limited, either.

So we're not talking about a rope that doesn't hold. The rope in fact holds quite well.

Not only that, but the findings of this particular report are further strengthened by similar findings from the independent studies and reports from other human rights groups, as well as from reports from the ground.

All these things taken into consideration ultimately reveal the truth that you may find difficult to hear. Targeting of civilians by Israeli forces occurs, it occurs at an alarmingly high rate of frequency, and most disturbing of all, it occurs with complete immunity.

[MaryCeleste]

116. Not even close

Your claims it is more than adequate are disputed by HRW itself who said at the time it was their best effort but lacked critical input. If there was, there would have been a war crimes tribunal.

Lets walk through the process again:
- Specific incidents would need to be identified
- IDF documentation would have to found and individual testimony about why the IDF did what they did
- Hezbollah and civilians would have to be located. Documentation and testimony collected
- Independent assessment of the circumstances including forensic evidence taken

Then you have the basis for a tribunal
- Based on the above, individuals could be charged for their direct actions
- Leaders could be charged for allowing it to go on under their command

The HRW and others talked to people on one side while they were lead around by Hezbollah who controlled access to the area and their people. HRW did not do forensics and was stonewalled by the IDF. At best they could do is report their findings as incomplete, and they did.

I am not saying either side was perfect, but the HRW report on either side is far from authoritative.

[subsuelo]

117. On that we will have to simply disagree.

First of all, one has to ask the question: why the stonewalling by the IDF, particularly if there is nothing to hide. Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall and decided their best option would be to avoid any and all cooperation with HRW, thereby providing something amounting to an escape hatch, however small it may be.

That being said, the fact is that the documentation of evidence and the reasonable conclusions remain, with or without individual testimonies from the IDF. Furthermore, given the available evidence, we should be demanding some kind of tribunal anyway, where we could then be assured we have all the specific testimonies and accounts possible.

--
Your argument is like saying: Knife killed Person A. Knife that killed Person A is discovered with fingerprints of Person B all over it. Further investigation finds Person B's shoe prints tracking mud throughout the crime scene. Several independent witnesses also say they saw Person B committing the crime. First of all, who in their right mind would not demand that Person B be held for questioning? Second, if Person B stonewalls and avoids having to answer anything to do with the crime, does that strengthen or weaken the case against Person B? I submit that it strengthens the case.

Now, ladies and gentleman of the jury, decision time. You've seen the knife and you've seen the fingerprints. You've seen the muddy footprints and you've heard the witnesses testimonies. The defendant refuses to speak. What's your verdict?

Not exactly a stretch to say: Person B did it. Is it?
--

Regarding the HRW report, I am comfortable with the findings. Particularly given that other human rights reports also corroborate the same conclusions.

[pelsar]

118. your missing the one critical point..

this is where in the briefing before the soldiers go out...the commander explains that today were targeting civilians....kill as many as you can where ever you see them

isnt that what your claiming?

[subsuelo]

119. No, I have never claimed that. In fact I've specifically stated otherwise

[pelsar]

120. you wrote.....

Targeting of civilians by Israeli forces occurs, it occurs at an alarmingly high rate of frequency, and most disturbing of all, it occurs with complete immunity.

targeting is a very specific action: it means someone looks for a very specific object/person to destroy and then plans out the best way to do so.....Since you saying the IDF does such a thing, and it is a hierarchal organization...... targeting means a senior officer explains the target (civilians) to the soldiers in the field and then sends them off to destroy those civilians.

thats what targeting means in the military....

[subsuelo]

122. Actually I'm just going by the findings of the human rights groups

The reports and independent investigations by human rights groups, the news accounts, and various reports on the ground.

Again, targeting of civilians obviously occurs. You're the one claiming that a senior official must have explained spelled it out to the soldiers what are targets for attack and what aren't. If that's the case, go and do some further investigation about it. Tell you what, send the IDF an email, letting them know you are following up to the 2006 HRW report on targeting of civilians. I would love to know the response.

[pelsar]

125. then how does it work?

if you say or believe that the IDF targets civilians...how does it work?.....does a senior IDF officer explain to the troops that today were going after children under 12?.....or is it just some low sergeant that likes to snipe old ladies? and does the targeting on his own?

Perhaps the helicopter pilot waits for the kids to leave school and then lets his missles fly (is that under orders or just a rogue pilot?...which do you believe?)

your making a claim that there is a deliberate methodology to the killing of civilians...i'm just asking you to explain how it might work?

[subsuelo]

136. I've explained in clear terms several times now what my claim is

I've also explained several times that I am merely basing my charges on various human rights reports and from news reporting on the ground. There is nothing fancy or contrived about it.

You're the one injecting the rest. As I said, you're free to write a letter to the IDF, let them know you're following up on the human rights reports that conclude they've been targeting civilians. No one is stopping you from finding out. See what kind of answer you get.

[Dick Dastardly]

138. What about post #67

[pelsar]

139. your confusing....

when someone believes that someone does something...they also have some idea, be it true or not true as to how it works. You believe..as you've stated more than a few times that the IDF looks to kill civilian Palestenians...

so lets clarify in a single yes or no question:
do you, personally believe the IDF as a institution has a policy of targeting civilians (i.e. looking for and intentionally killing civilians)?


As far as writing the IDF, i dont believe i really have to since i am a reservist in the IDF and have been to more than a few briefings......and i cant recall a single one where any one promoted the idea of killing civilians, in fact its the opposite, how to avoid them.....

[subsuelo]

154. Since you are a reservist, you can start asking around then

Go ahead and ask to speak to some senior officials. Tell them you are following up on the HRW report that concludes that the civilians have been targets for attack by Israeli forces. Just see how far you get with that.

As for my personal beliefs, it's not a yes or a no answer. It's an I don't know. The waters are murkier here, which is why I just go by the findings of various human rights groups and the reports from various news sources.

[pelsar]

155. the question is sooo simple....

you say you "dont know"..and then you say you go by the findings of the various human rights groups which all state their findings are infact incomplete....

either you believe their conclusions based on incomplete findings or you dont.....so far you have made it clear that you do....

as far as what the IDF does.....it comes down to the soldier in the field....if they are looking to kill civilians are not....i'm just wondering how you imagine the scenario.....you've already mentioned that the iDF has massacred 130 gazans.....did the soldiers line them up against the wall?

shoot them one at a time while they were putting up the laundry?......if you dont know the circumstances why use the word massacre?

[subsuelo]

156. That isn't what you asked in the previous post

What you asked was: (which I responded "I don't know" to)

"do you, personally believe the IDF as a institution has a policy of targeting civilians"

That is a different question from "have civilians been targeted?".

So, to spell it all out -- Yes, civilians have been targeted, as several human rights findings demonstrate, corroborated by various news reports. However, your question about an official IDF policy is a different issue, which I answer I don't know to. Obviously, since it occurs, one has to wonder and is forced to make a guess as to what the official policy is. However, on the other hand, of course the IDF can't just come out and declare it to be an open policy of theirs. So which is it? That is the guessing game. What is not a guessing game for me, is whether or not targeting of civilians actually occurs.

We straight now on what my claims are? Thanks

[msmcghee]

157. You have changed the claims as the discussion continues . .

. . and you get pinned down and forced to explain your actual meaning. Your claim at the start was that Israel (the state) has a policy of purposely targeting civilians where no defensive purpose is served. i.e. a war crime and a crime against humanity if carried out in an organized way over a significant period of time by Israel's military.

But now it's just that for whatever reason, some Palestinians are killed during Israeli operations - and you are removing all reference to intent or purpose. Basically you are saying that civilians were killed in war. You still want to place an onus of immorality on Israel for their deaths - but now you're backtracking - and you're now unwilling to connect their deaths with some clear immoral intention or purpose.

As I said, all smoke and mirrors. If you had a clear compelling case you'd make it. Instead, we get the sturm and drang.

[subsuelo]

159. Wrong.

Where was my "claim at the start" that the state of Israel has "a policy of purposefully targeting civilians"?

[msmcghee]

160. Your actual words are quoted below . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x205137#205475

These come from several posts in several threads. The last one is post 38 from this thread.

I know you don't like to get pinned down on specifics. But if you're going to make accusations then you have to be specific - or else the discussion chases an ever-changing array of ephemeral charges that never are clearly stated. To clear this up, why not just state right now exactly what your claim is - in terms that can not be misconstrued?

Just for the record - when you say that Israel "targets" civilians, technically that means that IDF soldiers look through the sights of their weapons at Palestinian civilians. The word conveys nothing about pulling the trigger. That's why you need to be specific about the actions and the intent that you believe Israel is "guilty" of - and what about it is illegal or immoral.

That's if you want to be taken seriously, of course. If you just want to spread the "evil Israel" meme - continue as you are.

[subsuelo]

161. Again, please pay attention to the discussion

I spelled out my position in no unclear terms, in post 156. By post 160, you have either forgotten or haven't been reading the thread. I can understand not reading every post in a large thread such as this one, but post 156 you even responded to.

I won't waste my time stating the same thing over and over, sorry.

Finally, in the link you provide, I nowhere state that Israel has an official policy of targeting civilians.

Please pay attention, thanks.

[msmcghee]

162. You made several statements that Israel's military . .

. . "intentionally targets civilians". Normally, that would imply that it is state policy.

If that is not Israel's policy, are you claiming that the IDF does this on their own, without approval of their government?

[subsuelo]

163. post 156

post 79 too

[pelsar]

158. now i got it...

israelis are looking kill Palestinians civilians....whats not clear is if its the individual soldiers that are sniping the the older women who are putting up laundry (and the squad would be involved as well)...or if its the initiative of a helicopter pilot waiting for the children to gather before launching his missile (the film will be viewed by his commanders so i guess its includes the commanders as well... or the tank commander looking for the bedroom of a house with lots of kids before sending off his shell... (and his crew of 4 that are involved)

or perhaps its some officer passing out the order to the artillery corps to wait until the spotters find the most densely populated area before sending in their shells.

____

you would think after so many years of warfare...at least one of those soldiers would come out and say ....we (I) went out and looked to kill civilians.....or we received orders to...

i guess the israeli society is made up of some of the most sadistic people around who have no consciences since no one seems to have any pangs of conscience (except for the photographic museum exhibits or the various ex soldiers who want to stop the violence....yet no one mentions their looking to kill Palestinian civilians......strange bunch those soldiers...

[msmcghee]

121. This is stating "otherwise"?

6. Why should anyone be held accountable? It was just another 'rare and severe failure in the artillery fire system' - the Israeli military would never target civilians intentionally. :sarcasm:

1. Now we await the excuse makers. Who will it be first. What excuse will be thought up? It's their own fault for being Gazans? It was a mistake, after all, Israel just would never target civilians, no way, not in a million years.Maybe it's Hamas' fault? It can't be the fault of the killers, of course. Not ever is it the fault of the killers.

1. "The Israeli army had in fact targeted civilians" Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 08:22 PM by subsuelo Under the guise of defensive operations. They're even ignoring the rocket launchers and just shooting down anything that moves. Someone please explain to me why the U.S. supports this so strongly?

8. hypocrisy of Israel's UN Ambassador <snip> Of course, Levanon is also ignoring the essential fact that Israel's military intentionally targets civilians. Talk about inability to assess objectively! I understand that Israel's ambassador can't just come out and say such a thing. But I couldn't help but note the hypocrisy. Problem is that hardly anybody involved in this conflict talks honestly.

31. I asked the same question this past week over and over When Gazans were being slaughtered. As a Haaretz reporter gave an eyewitness report from Gaza, that Israeli forces were targeting civilians. I asked the same question: How can anyone excuse this? Yet, that is what we have seen this past week. Oh, but NOW it's a problem. When it's Israelis dying, NOW the excuses are a problem. Oh, ok. No hypocrisy there.

29. Israel has also attacked obvious civilian targets There have been numerous situations where no sort of defense excuse can be at all acceptable, yet that is what we hear constantly. Ultimately, my point is to say this: No more excuses. I don't excuse these horrible crimes today, but I also don't excuse the horrible crimes we saw over the past week, committed by Israel. How many people are standing with me on saying that? It's a small number, LeftishBrit. I appreciate your comments.

13. Haaretz reporter in Gaza just this past week reported on Israeli forces targeting civilians What more do you want? :shrug: No serious observer of the region can any longer deny it - Israeli forces target civilians, and they murder them with the same bitter hatred harbored by the Hamas terrorist. The only difference between the Hamas terrorist and Israeli forces is the means with which they have to kill one another. That's it. Both are as low as the other. If there ever was a moral high ground held by either side - that high ground was lost. Years ago.

38. The Israeli side purposefully targets civilians all the time - There goes your case. Next!

[subsuelo]

137. Please pay attention to the discussion

thanks

[msmcghee]

69. Just to be clear about this . .

. . the charge that is leveled against Israel every day in this forum is that Israel targets Palestinian civilians. The charge is not that occasionally a civilian is hit by a missed projectile or a bomb that went astray or that the IDF is not careful enough. The charge is that Israel has a policy of targeting civilians - that this is an ongoing policy that has been in effect for many years - that the intention is simply to kill Palestinians as some kind of "attrition" of innocents - sometimes described as "genocide" in many of the posts here.

Not one iota of compelling evidence has ever been offered for this charge. Yet, it is made continually. I find it reprehensible that such accusations are made on a liberal board where fairness and honesty should be more important than spreading propaganda.

[subsuelo]

79. How about allowing those making these charges to speak for themselves?

Or would that deprive you of the ability to set the debate on your own terms?

I can't speak for others, but I will say this. I do not make any charge about what Israeli policy is. Israel cannot have a policy of targeting civilians. The good citizens of both Israel and the United States would not be supportive of that.

My charge, is that targeting of civilians occurs. Despite the policy, despite any stated intentions, and despite claims being made for the media to report on. I've never claimed it is an ongoing policy either. Again, I can't speak for others. But I would submit that targeting civilians has being occurring for years, and there is in fact plenty of evidence to back that up.

So, no, you aren't going to get any document out of the IDF rulebook stating "target civilians and militants alike". You aren't going to get IDF spokespersons or of officials making claims about how they deliberately attacked civilians. But what you will find are cases of civilians being targeted, in revenge or retaliation attacks, under the cover of "fog of war", out of pure hatred of the enemy, or just because the killer knew they were going to get away with it. You will find stories on these things occurring from credible news sources. You will find human rights groups reporting their findings that civilians were targeted.

The evidence is there for the finding, for anyone that dares to look.

[MaryCeleste]

82. How about intent

Whether its from the high command or sergeants on the ground. That is what is lacking. There has not been any documented. There are enough anti war Israelis that if there was unwritten policies or winks and nods, there would have been some whistle blowing, not unlike Dimona.

This is urban combat in densely populated areas. That there are at times horrific civilian casualties is not the least bit surprising. Making that into intent is the leap of faith some of us are unwilling to make. I did find it interesting to see that Olmert purportedly asked Egypt about temporarily moving civilians out of Gaza to minimize casualties. It was not widely reported, so it may have been false. However, Hamas seems content to use civilians as cover and concealment.

However it is clear that Hamas does have a policy of targeting civilians first and foremost with the rocket attacks. I really don't see you coming down on them much at all.

[subsuelo]

85. How does one prove intent exactly

Prove I intended to do something. Prove that I intended to respond to your post. I did it but does that prove my intent was to do so? There is always room for doubt when asking to prove intent. So we are left looking at what occurs, we look for motive, we look for some consistency in repeated actions. We call on witnesses, we investigate independently - gee, much like what HRW did but you seemed to have such a problem with!

Regarding Hamas, I deplore their indiscriminate attacks on civilians just as much as I deplore Israel's attacks on civilians. The difference is, you don't have such large numbers of people here defending Hamas' aggression, whereas we do have people here defending Israel's aggression all the time. So, yes you see myself and others making a lot of comments calling on Israel's attacks on civilians to end, calling on the occupation and expansion to end, or mostly, it's just fighting off the endless stream of excuses and justifications for Israel's war crimes.

[MaryCeleste]

88. Well, by getting both sides of the story for a start

HRW did not or more properly could not get both sides. They complained about it at the time. However, no one is accountable to HRW and they were pretty much ignored. It was hard core urban conflict. There are going to be civilians harmed by both sides. Without direct evidence of intentional targeting of non-combatants, there is nothing to pursue.

I am sure that both sides broke the rules in Lebanon. Most likely at an operational field level, vice HQ level. Most likely they were crimes of putting their lives above those of others. Happens every time there are civilians in the middle of combat. My perception is Hezbollah used human shields a fair amount and otherwise endangered civilians, while the IDF lobbed grenades in a houses if they thought they are in danger without know for sure the bad guys were there and civilians were not.

Intent is the difference between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, depraved indifference...Its quite provable. However it has to be done on a case by case level. Not even close to possible in Lebanon.

[subsuelo]

94. So you now admit that "both sides broke the rules".

That is a greater admission than what I have read here previously.

As for proving intent, it's something as I stated above that is more difficult to prove. We will never get direct evidence of intent, other than outright confessions from the killers themselves.

[MaryCeleste]

97. Its more than obvious...it happens in every conflict, and is not specifc to Lebanon or Gaza

However I can not prove my position any more than HRW could theirs. Its opinion not findings of fact. The report could not help but be flawed.

My position is that if the rules were broken it was in the heat of battle, and mostly to keep themselves alive, not direct intent to harm civilians. I believe both sides did it to some extent. I do not believe it was directed from HQ, and I believe that if their side got out alive, the HQ did not look to closely at how. That is how it goes in urban combat. Not pretty but its reality.

Most of the upset in Gaza seems to be about the lopsided casualty count giving rise to specious claims of massacre. Once again, no one is getting detailed information about who and why and how. Granted IDF losses were amazingly low given the situation. They clearly learned some things from Lebanon. However, Hamas & Hezbollah will learn from Gaza and be more effective n the future. That too is a reality of this kind of conflict.

Consider this:
Basic combat load out is 200 rounds per solider. A solider in continuous combat will expend half that basic load in a day. Multiply number of ground troops by 100 rounds per day by days in Gaza to get rounds expended. Divide that by the 130. That gives the number of bullets per kill. That does not include casualties from air or artillery or grenades, which would make the bullet to kill ratio worse. The IDF must be horrible shots or maybe they really were not targeting civilians.

[pelsar]

104. just a side note...

The IDF must be horrible shots or maybe they really were not targeting civilians

i did that same computation with the arial bombing with the IDF in Lebanon....it came out to something like a couple tons per "targeted civilian"....the IAF has to take the prize for one of the worst precision bombers in the world

[pelsar]

103. of course rules are broken....

put kids in life and death situations, where theyre being shot at, or they friends are wounded...of which they have little experience, give them massive fire power.....and the quaint little rules of war written by nice people in air conditioned rules are not going to be followed very exactly.

if that is your whole definition of what defines targeting civilians, then you should get out more, or at least take some time and talk to some combat soldiers or go to some military sites and ask some questions......expand your knowledge to include the real world, before passing judgement.

the basic difference between hamas/hizballa and the IDF which is tough for you to grasp, is the hamas and hizballa do it as policy, preplanned and pretargeted, for the IDF its failures/decisions at the operational level, human stress, limited options, etc

the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter.....trouble is, as i see it for you, is that it means you cant blame israel equally with hamas and hizballa, etc..and that is problematic.

[Vegasaurus]

41. I would say that the threat the Israelis face is a bit more of a reality

than the terrorist threat cooked up by George W.

We don't have daily rockets and suicide bombers, but the Israelis do.

[MaryCeleste]

66. I was not a massacre

- Some were combatants
- It was not a single attack or event (it was over several days)
- Its not clear that all of the dead were killed by the IDF

The IDF will point out Hamas using human shields and hiding in hospitals and ambulances. And that they have checked fire due to the presence of civilians. Hamas will point to demolished homes, bomb craters and fresh graves. In the fog of war, neither side is perfect. The crux of the issue is intent, which is hard to reconstruct, especially when neither side has in interest in doing so. However, its clear that the Quassams and Grads are targeted at civilians.

Lots of people try to blame gun manufacturers for gun violence. Yet they don't say a thing about the nations who arm Gaza, knowing in the end the people of Gaza (fighters and civilians) will be bleeding in the streets due to those weapons being used.

[Dick Dastardly]

67. So you consider the militants who are the larger part of that 130 as being massacred

I take it you dont think the militants/terrorists should have been killed or targeted since you say they were massacred.


I have asked this a few times before such as here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x204675#204851

But you ignore it

[stranger81]

131. don't you get it yet? Palestinians aren't people.

Not human. Not worthy of life or respect. The entire point of their existence is to allow Israelis to get some target practice.

[Dick Dastardly]

135. Still waiting for a response to #67

As I am in all the other threads I have asked you about this accusation and some others

[Shaktimaan]

14. So Israel is an aggressor because

it killed people? No, that doesn't wash. This IS a key problem with the whole I/P debate, namely that people tend to gloss over crucial details in order to present a one-sided argument. Both sides do this.

In this case you managed to turn four simple sentences into blatant propaganda. For instance, who exactly are the "Israeli occupation forces?" Do you mean the Shabak or the IDF? Because there's not really any such thing as the IOF. Another would be conflating Hamas and Israel. That is like saying that America is as much the aggressor as al qaeda. It ignores some critical differences, namely that Israel is a country whose main goals are to provide for its citizenry, whatever that necessitates. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying Israel. That's its main goal. See the difference... Israel is building and protecting/defending. Its goals do not include destroying Palestine. Hamas is all about destruction. You can not equate a wall with a rocket, they are not the same. Nothing Hamas has done could be considered "defensive." Whereas everything Israel has done could be considered so. Otherwise you could point to instances when Israel attacked Palestine or someone else without needing to in order to defend itself.

Not only that, but Israel's defensive measures have resulted in comparatively far fewer civilian casualties than any other similar situation. Look up Black September if you would like to see how other nations deal with their Palestinian problems. Bear in mind that all of the casualties Jordan inflicted then were not just Palestinians but also Jordanian citizens. And I'm not criticizing them either, they had to do what they did. They didn't possess the capabilities that Israel does to keep the body count so low.

[subsuelo]

19. You obviously gloss over 130 dead Gazans

Talk about blatant propaganda. Indeed.

Israel is occupying Palestinian land, therefore it is obvious who Israeli occupation forces are.

You write that Israel's goals are "to provide for its citzenry" but you make no mention of stealing land from Palestinians, another obvious goal that continues to this day. So, one could reasonably conclude that its goals are, in fact, destruction of Palestine. You want the quotes from all the Israeli leaders stating their intent to take all the land from Palestinians?

By the way, Hamas also makes the claim of acting in self-defense. Just because you call it "self-defense" doesn't make it so. That goes for both sides.

[Shaktimaan]

20. what land

is being stolen from Palestinians?

Considering that Israel gave Palestinians sovereignty over quite a bit of the OPT thus far I think your claim that they seek the destruction of Palestine is far fetched.

You want the quotes from all the Israeli leaders stating their intent to take all the land from Palestinians?

A few would suffice.

[subsuelo]

23. This kind of response always amazes me

Supposed someone defending China asked "What land was stolen from Tibetans?"

It would be ridiculous to ask that. And so it is with this situation.


Here is a sampling of quotes of Israeli leaders defending the intent to take the land from Palestinians:


"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir


"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon

[pelsar]

31. thats the best you can do?

You want the quotes from all the Israeli leaders stating their intent to take all the land from Palestinians?

how far back did you have to go for that?.....even sharons contradicted himself by giving the Palestinians gaza...

perhaps try to get a bit closer to 2008

it might be more relevant to find the quotes from 2008..but i know why you dont want to....its pretty one sided isnt it..hamas, islamic jihad wanting to remove the jews and israel, while the israeli govt speaks of a Palestinian state

[subsuelo]

35. Answering someone's question isn't good enough?

I was asked to provide "a few" examples of Israeli leaders stating the intention to take all the land from the natives.

In my follow-up, the examples were provided.

Sorry you didn't like hearing the answer.


In recent years it is not considered wise to openly state the intention of stealing Palestinian land. The fact that the theft continues is the proof.

[azurnoir]

36. Relevant to 2008?

the continuation of building in East Jerusalem and the WB is that relevant enough?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/50192ED2-87AA-4A79-BA5B-FFE5F5E79073.html

Hamas talks and shoots rockets, Israel does with construction in the OPT and f-16's and helicopter gunships in Gaza, actions do speak of intent, why continue building if it is only temporary?

[pelsar]

52. gaza is simply proof.....

proof of one option when the Palestinian govt gets in power, that they prefer "guns over butter"...proof that israel has the ability to withdraw....proof that the gaza govt is doing their best to kill israelis..proof that israel has tried a large variety of actions and non actions to stop the attempts from hamas...but that the gaza govt simply prefers to terrorize....

its proof of lots of things

[azurnoir]

102. Israel has tried a large variety of actions

in Gaza save one talking to Hamas, you could argue that in Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel, but do does the PA's or Fatahs at least the one available to the public

Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and assigned its legal committee the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter consistent with the Arafat letters in order to present it for approval.<17> A redrafted charter that does not call for the destruction of Israel has yet to be presented or approved and the official PNA website displays the original, unamended text of the PNC Charter. According to the US Department of State, "The Palestinian National Charter... amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9–10 September 1993."<18>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah

While apparently there was some agreement at Oslo about renouncing terrorism and recognition the men who made that agreement, are both dead.

So why is Israel willing to talk with Abbas but not Haniyeh?

If polls are to be believed the Israeli public desires this too.

I get the impression that you are against peace or against peace if it involves Hamas, Hams is notb going away so what is the alternative?

[pelsar]

110. I'm for responsible peace...

long term peace...not stop gap measures that lead to further fighting later on.

acutally i'm not against talking to hamas, IJ or any other group whatever they're called. The responsible group simply has to stop firing missiles in to israel, and make a solid effort to stop the others from doing the same.

i actually want gaza to succeed, develop and provide the gazans with a good life.....they're not going to get that until they're govt stops trying to kill israelis..maybe then Egypt will also open up its borders.

[Vegasaurus]

112. It seems so obvious

I don't know why the Palestinians have so much trouble understanding that their resistance makes life worse not better.

Stop shooting missiles and trying to kill Israelis and they will have a better life. Israel can and does make peace, as it has with other countries. They don't want to live in perpetual violence. But the Palestinians seem unable to compromise, unable to stop violence, which is making their lives worse.

I

[msmcghee]

113. Part of the reason is that leftist groups in the West . .

. . that hate the liberal governments of the US and Israel encourage them to struggle on rather than seek peace through negotiation. If Israel makes peace with the Palestinians their claims that Israel is seeking military domination of the ME and theft of Arab land will be exposed as the hoax that it is. I guess if you can get somebody else to risk their lives and future for your political goals - that's just being smart. If it works so well for Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran . .

[azurnoir]

147. Hopefully it will happen

If what is being said about the Egyptians acting as negotiators, and new elections.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

106. Gaza never had a chance and you KNOW it!

Things are sure playing out right according to script, aren't they?

[pelsar]

109. who knows.....

hamas/IJ/fatah played right into the israeli rights hands...they did exactly as they predicted...maybe the israeli right was/is correct?

[MaryCeleste]

115. Their hopes and lives are being snuffed out by those who send the weapons

the so called "brothers in arms" of Arab and muslim nations. If they sent food and supplies instead things would be better. Those kind of things would be a big help

[Shaktimaan]

48. I thought you were going to show me

examples of Israeli leaders saying that they intended to take ALL of Palestine for themselves. You took a few quotes out of context but all they illustrated was that they intended on taking some of the land for themselves to build a state. In the case of Ben-Gurion for example, he certainly did not drive out all of the Palestinians and if you were familiar with the man's life and actions you would know that he never intended to.

The quote you did use is not accurate in any case. Benny Morris misquotes him in his book, this has been well documented. The actual quote is as follows...

And then we will have to use force and will use it without
hesitation though only when we have no other choice. We
do not wish and do no need to expel Arabs and take their
place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption—proven
throughout all our activity—that there is enough room for
ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine. But if the Arabs did not
accept that assumption, ‘and if we have to use force—not to
dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to
guarantee our own right to settle in those places—then we
have force at our disposal.’


http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:dh2ZsVuXmbwJ:michiganisraelobserver.com/core/spring-2006/pdf/1948-the-fog-of-war.pdf+%22We+must+expel+Arabs+and+take+their+places.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And Sharon's quote actually states the opposite of what you said... "Everything we don't grab will go to them." implies that Sharon recognizes that a Palestinian state is inevitable and while he may want the most amount of land for his own nation it seems clear that he is not intending to take all of the land and surely isn't intending to destroy Palestine or Palestinian culture.

So you've provided a misquote, some greatly out-of-context quotes and some statements that would seem to support my argument as opposed to your own. Not very good considering the extreme accusations you made earlier, that Israel seeks to destroy Palestine and steal all of their land. Can you do better? Maybe one piece of actual evidence that such a policy exists?

[subsuelo]

70. one piece of actual evidence that such a policy exists

look at a map of the region

[Shaktimaan]

84. OK, let's look at a map.

Here's what I see...

Since Israel entered into the Oslo agreement, which had the goal of forming a Palestinian state, they have redeployed troops from wide swaths of the west bank and Gaza. Since 2000 in the west bank, 17.2% is under full Palestinian civil and military control, 23.8% is under Palestinian civil control and Israel controls 59%. Gaza has seen a full redeployment of troops and evacuation of all the settlements, and 100% is now under full Palestinian control, including the border it shares with Egypt.

So let's see... Jordan officially abandoned their claim to the WB in 1987 and the Oslo negotiations began soon after. So that means that within 13 years of Jordan ceding their claim, Israel has given up full or partial autonomy over 41%. Five years later Gaza was given over completely. At that time several settlements in the northern west bank were also shut down.

None of this includes the non-map related aspects of Oslo that benefited the Palestinians, such as having elections and an interim government that Israel recognized. But is important to note as it serves to dispute your assertion that Israel's policy is to "destroy" Palestine. As do the offers made during Camp David and Taba for a permanent peace agreement and Palestinian state.

Here's the thing about maps. When you look at one to try and draw some kind of conclusion about policy from it you need to have a reference point to compare it to. When peace looked possible Israel was happy to trade land for an end to the violence. They've done so in the past too, to great effect, so we can assume that their offers were sincere. And right now Palestinians have total autonomy over far far more land than they did 20 years ago, when they had none. Politically, Israel has been discussing terms for peace with a future Palestinian state for several years, not about how to best evict the Palestinians from the land.

So my question to you is what about this supports your theory that Israel plans to steal all of Palestine for itself?

[Shaktimaan]

144. So, are we done here? np

[breakaleg]

27. Ever look at a map to see exactly what area Palestinians have control over?

[pelsar]

32. and look what they do with what they do control....

manufacture missiles at the expense of the population to try to kill israelis

[MaryCeleste]

68. What percentage of those were:

- combatants
- human shields
- accidental (either side)
- intentional (either side)

Its was not a massacre, see post #66 in this thread

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I do criticize China over Tibet.

It's just that when I do, I don't normally get vehement disagreement by anyone, or accused of bigotry and double standards. For that reason, I guess I have a tendency to move on after expressing an opinion, rather than continuing to rehash the issue. If I were running into significant numbers of people defending the actions of China, my guess is that I would be talking about it a whole lot more.

[Tom Joad]

9. Just out of curioisity, what do you base this on?

"a lot of people who criticize Israel over the Occupation do NOT criticize China over Tibet, or Russia over Chechnya???"

Been reading our FBI reports? Hint: They may not be accurate.

Israel, by the way, is a big supporter of China, including arms trade. I find that rather... consistent.

I have not seen you condemn many things here, Leftish. Are to presume that what you have not condemned you support? are you to be held accountable for your non-words. hah, you are probably out clubbing baby seals right now, since i never once saw you condemn the practice here!!! :sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

12. For example, there is a post in GD right now...

which has a similar title to the one here. It was posted yesterday, and has 7 replies from 4 people. Posts about any sort of abuses by Israel generally get far more replies, far more rapidly.

I am sure that many individuals (such as the OP) are concerned about both; but if you do post counts for Israel threads versus Tibet, Chechnya or even Darfur threads, you will *generally* see more reaction to the Israel ones.

I just have the impression that there are some 'bogeynations' that attract more emotion than others. For example, the Right are far more likely to condemn abuses in Iran than similar abuses in Saudi Arabia. And among opponents of Israel, the Israeli occupation generally arouses far more criticism than the Chinese, Russian or other ones.


'Israel, by the way, is a big supporter of China, including arms trade. I find that rather... consistent.'

Britain and America are also pretty friendly with China. So are lots of other places.

[Tom Joad]

25. More needs to be said about Israel, perhaps because politicians

are so afraid or unwilling to say anything.
I don't hear obama/hillary/mccain defending Sudan's actions in Darfur, Or China's actions in Tibet, but i hear them praising Olmert's actions quite often.

even a million cluster bombs in Lebanon it is not possible to get a whisper of criticism, except from maybe a handful of congresspeople. You think the abysmal silence of politicians might be a prompt for some people?

[LeftishBrit]

28. 'Abysmal silence of politicians'?

I haven't noticed most politicians saying a lot about Tibet either. Right now, there have been some comments from world leaders urging restraint by China; but I've hardly heard much before that. Indeed from what I know, even when the USA was strongly anti-China pre-1972, Tibet was rarely raised as an issue.

How many UN resolutions have been made against Israel; and by comparison how many have been made against China over Tibet? I would say there is more 'silence' on Tibet, quite frankly.

And LOTS of people spoke against the cluster bombs. Blair didn't, which was a shame.

I oppose the use of cluster bombs by ANY country, including their use by the UK and USA in Iraq in 2003.

www.clusterbombs.org

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. I asked you this before: Do you believe South Africa should have been censured as it was

in spite of the fact that other nations also denied various indigenous populations their human and civil rights?

[LeftishBrit]

47. Yes.

But there are a few differences:

(1) I may be wrong, as this is going back a while, but I don't remember the targeting of South Africa as being as selective as some of the targeting of Israel. At any rate, South Africa was not blamed for the actions of other countries - e.g. the Vietnam war, while some people do blame Israel for the Iraq war and other misdeeds of other nations.
(2) The targeting of South Africa was based on specific demands. While some of the targeting of Israel is too ('end the occupation'), a lot of it seems to be just based on an attitude that Israel are 'bad guys', and it's not made clear what Israel could do to end the targeting. A bit like attitudes to Iran on the Right.
(3) The South African resistance, even at its most violent, did not involve attacks on random civilians. (ETA: for the relevance of this, see my other post.)
(4) A lot of the opposition to Israel, though supposedly on the basis of its treatment of Palestinians, is led by Arab countries that also don't treat Palestinians well - which makes some of it appear hypocritical.

[azurnoir]

53. a few points

1) I may be wrong, as this is going back a while, but I don't remember the targeting of South Africa as being as selective as some of the targeting of Israel. At any rate, South Africa was not blamed for the actions of other countries - e.g. the Vietnam war, while some people do blame Israel for the Iraq war and other misdeeds of other nations.

True enough however SA does not have quite the strategic importance of Israel, and to my knowledge did not argue US reports concerning third party countries ie NIE report Iran, there is a perception among leftists that Israel would not mind the US partnering with them in a pre-emptive strike against Iran.


(2) The targeting of South Africa was based on specific demands. While some of the targeting of Israel is too ('end the occupation'), a lot of it seems to be just based on an attitude that Israel are 'bad guys', and it's not made clear what Israel could do to end the targeting. A bit like attitudes to Iran on the Right.

The "demands" here are also specific, get the illegal settlements out of the WB, end the seige of Gaza, are two of the most common and specific, "demands". Among regular posters here the occupation, continuing land acquisition, not to mention rather heavy handed attacks against Palestinians are the reasons that the Israeli government and right wingers are the "bad guys".

(3) The South African resistance, even at its most violent, did not involve attacks on random civilians.

not quite

The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The target was South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians, women and children. The bomb went off ten minutes earlier than planned, killing two ANC operatives in the vehicle, Freddie Shangwe and Ezekial Maseko. At least 20 ambulances took the dead and wounded to hospital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing

(4) A lot of the opposition to Israel, though supposedly on the basis of its treatment of Palestinians, is led by Arab countries that also don't treat Palestinians well - which makes some of it appear hypocritical.

The Congo, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia all of these conflicts involved Black on Black killing, does that make the protests against South Africa seem hypocritical? Further more most of the Arab countries have some degree of internal economic and developmental problems of their own and the influx of immigrants can exacerbate those problems.

And now a question I get the impression that you are in way saying that the opposition to Israel's policies are based in AntiSemitism, is that true? Quite possibly from a very broad spectrum on the web, but here I do not think so.

[LeftishBrit]

59. In answer to your question..

'And now a question I get the impression that you are in way saying that the opposition to Israel's policies are based in AntiSemitism, is that true?'

Not usually, no. I am opposed to lots of Israel's policies and I am not anti-semitic - just as I am opposed to lots of my own country's policies and I am not anti-British. I don't think that even the more 'exceptionalist' anti-Israel sentiment is mostly based on anti-semitism. I do think that SOME of it is anti-semitic in origin, especially when it takes the form of attributing extreme power to Israel and its supporters, or blaming Israel for other people's sins. But much of it, at least on the left, is based on mirror-image-ist suspicion of Israel as an ally of the USA. Just as some on the Right think that allies of the USA can do no wrong, and that countries opposed to the USA are an axis of evil, some opposed to the Right think that allies of the USA can do nothing *right*, and that all countries opposed to the USA are automatically good. As I stated in another post, this may be a natural reaction to pro-American propaganda, but it is just as naive and limited on the other side. (As with my Polish acquaintance who at first thought that everything that Soviet propaganda opposed must be good - including Thatcher, Reagan and McCarthyism.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. Here's my response...

(1) I may be wrong, as this is going back a while, but I don't remember the targeting of South Africa as being as selective as some of the targeting of Israel. At any rate, South Africa was not blamed for the actions of other countries - e.g. the Vietnam war, while some people do blame Israel for the Iraq war and other misdeeds of other nations.

Do you seriously dispute that in the US, pro-Israel forces have disproportionate influence in US foriegn policy?

Even if that is NOT the case: SO WHAT? Palestinians suffer because some people internationally "Falsely accuse" Israel?

(2) The targeting of South Africa was based on specific demands. While some of the targeting of Israel is too ('end the occupation'), a lot of it seems to be just based on an attitude that Israel are 'bad guys', and it's not made clear what Israel could do to end the targeting. A bit like attitudes to Iran on the Right.

Not clear what they can do? Are you kidding? How about ending the occupation and allowing the creation of a Palestinian country and economy?

(3) The South African resistance, even at its most violent, did not involve attacks on random civilians. (ETA: for the relevance of this, see my other post.)

Again, I don't see how those actions -- which came very late in the course of the overall occupation -- obviate the clear moral need for a just settlement.

(4) A lot of the opposition to Israel, though supposedly on the basis of its treatment of Palestinians, is led by Arab countries that also don't treat Palestinians well - which makes some of it appear hypocritical.

Who really cares about any other Arab countries?

It seems to me that your #1 concern in all this is "fairness" to Israel. Mine is "life" for the people of Palestine. I think it's unconscionable to allow the horror that is Israel's occupation to exist for another day, because the people who criticize Israel don't criticize China or Russia. I think that's unspeakably immoral.

[LeftishBrit]

60. No that's not what I said.

'I think it's unconscionable to allow the horror that is Israel's occupation to exist for another day, because the people who criticize Israel don't criticize China or Russia. I think that's unspeakably immoral.'

I have NEVER said that the occupation should continue 'because the people who criticize Israel don't criticize China or Russia' - or indeed that it should continue at all. I have simply said that there is some hypocrisy, or at least a failure to multi-task, in some people's attitudes.

'Again, I don't see how those actions -- which came very late in the course of the overall occupation -- obviate the clear moral need for a just settlement.'

I don't think so either, and did not say so. I think there IS a clear moral need for a just settlement.


'It seems to me that your #1 concern in all this is "fairness" to Israel.'

Actually no - my number 1 concern is achievement of peace and security - and survival -for both peoples. This will inevitably involve some 'unfairness' to both, as all agreements do.

'Mine is "life" for the people of Palestine.'

I want that too; but I also want it for the people of Israel. If the Jewish homeland is abolished/ destroyed they may not *survive*; so it's 'life', not just 'fairness', there too.

'How about ending the occupation and allowing the creation of a Palestinian country and economy?'

I support that! However, my point is: supposing that Israel does all these things, would the anti-Israel groups accept this, or would they continue to oppose Israel? I suppose the answer is: it depends on the group. (It's rather similar, I suppose to the question: was the opposition to Iraq based just on WMD, and is the opposition to Iran based just on possible nuclear development, or are there all sorts of other issues mixed in?)

'Who really cares about any other Arab countries?'

Well, you may not; but lots of people do.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. LB, have you not said that you oppose international sanctions against Israel

because other nations won't be similarly sanctioned?

What is left to try??
Quiet waiting hasn't worked (1967-1987)
Outside agitation hasn't worked (off and on from "outsiders" 1967=87)
Peaceful protest hasn't worked -- Intifadah I (1987-1995 or 2000, depending on your view)
Armed resistance from inside hasn't worked (1995 or 2000, depending on your view)



The settlement machine is ongoing and voracious. Soon there will be nothing left to give back.


What is left to pressure Israel if not BDS?

The status quo of "waiting" is death for Palestinians. I understand that life is fine for most Israelis, and perhaps you don't feel the squeeze, or your friends and relatives don't. But this is truly life or death. The Israeli middle seems unwilling or unable to exert the necessary pressure on the gov't of Israel.

What other options are there??

[rockymountaindem]

10. You're 100% right about the hypocrisy issue

You said it way better than I could.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Excuse me? I am critical of China and Russia for their human rights abuses!

Am I to assume that if I don't see you posting that yr opposed to something, you mustn't be opposed to it? Of course not. So why make that assumption about others?

I've been here in this forum for so long that I remember when it used to be the Foreign Affairs/Israel-Palestine forum, and back then I'd post a lot of articles about Aceh and East Timor. A pro-Palestinian friend of mine called Aidoneus used to post a lot of stuff about what Russia was doing in Chechnya. And it'd all get ignored for the most part, for the simple reason that a thread where people are disagreeing is going to get more posts than one where there's no-one trying to justify the human rights abuses of Indonesia or Russia etc..

And when it comes to human rights abuses, there is no crucial difference that makes one lot of human rights abuses understandable while others aren't...

And about Tibetan activists calling for a boycott of the Olympics. I have no problem with that as I do support boycotts, but people who've posted in this forum saying they're opposed to boycotts would have a very hard time explaining why they'd support a boycott of the Olympics. And when it comes to calls to boycott Israel, many of those I've seen do not express the wish that Israel cease to exist or support forcible regime-change (though it is interesting that quite a few folk do support forcible regime-change for the Palestinians). They state they want an end to the occupation, a goal that I support wholeheartedly...

[LeftishBrit]

21. I never said you didn't. This was about how much attention the topics attract in general...

not about any individual.

And there HAVE been posts alleging that Israel is 'one of the worst human rights abusers in the world'; etc. And someone (not a regular poster) even said that what Israel does is worse than what happens in Darfur. So I think there's sometimes a lack of perspective, and tendency to use Israel as a 'bogeynation'. That's really what I'm talking about.

'And when it comes to calls to boycott Israel, many of those I've seen do not express the wish that Israel cease to exist or support forcible regime-change'

No but some do.

('They state they want an end to the occupation, a goal that I support wholeheartedly...'

So do I.

'I've been here in this forum for so long that I remember when it used to be the Foreign Affairs/Israel-Palestine forum,'

I wasn't here then. I think it might be a good idea to go back to something like that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. So the validity of the "cause" of the victims is effected by how they respond to their subjugation?

I find that kind of moral reasoning very interesting.

[LeftishBrit]

49. No, the validity of their cause is *not* affected.

There seem to be two causes involved: ending the occupation and the settlements (which is valid) and ending Israel's very existence (which is not valid). The actions of Palestinian organizations do not directly affect the validity of either cause in the abstract. However, they do affect the practical logistics of the first, valid cause: assuming that Israel, like most countries, prefers not to endanger its own citizens, it is likely to be reluctant to unilaterally withdraw from the occupied territories until there is some sort of guarantee of its security.

Moreover, it is natural that a country or group or political party that targets civilians in support of any cause is likely to come under criticism in its own right, even from people who see the basic cause as justified.

A question for you: do you see the validity of a cause as justifying any form of action in support of the cause? I'm not just talking about Palestine here; but about any group or organization. For example, would you accept torture or pre-emptive war or the use of cluster bombs (as you know, I opposed Israel strongly on that last one) if it was in a cause that you approved of? I assume that the answer is No. If so, can you understand people's criticism of Hamas' and other organizations' violent actions toward civilians?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

54. Before I answer you,

do you understand Hamas rocketing of Sderot as an attempt to end Israel's existence?

[LeftishBrit]

61. Yes - or at least as based on an opposition to its existence.

I don't think that they seriously believe that they *can* put an end to Israel's existence by rocketing Sderot. But they do oppose its existence (as a group; that doesn't mean that *all* Hamas voters necessarily oppose the existence of Israel any more than all Republican voters necessarily support the war in Iraq; but it's one of the party tenets); and the rockets are based principally on this opposition.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. Can I ask you a question?

I would love to share my POV with you on this, but I'm only willing to do that if you will approach what I say with an open mind. If you are going to be stuck in "Hamas wants to throw the jews into the sea" than I'll save my breath (not to mention exposing myself to much misinterpretation here in I/P).

So is this something you're willing to listen to with an open mind?

[LeftishBrit]

74. Yes, I am willing to listen with an open mi nd- doesn't mean I'll agree - but have a go!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

80. Here's what I think:

First, I am not a scholar or an expert in Islamic fundamentalism. I only know what I read, what I see on TV, and what my husband translates for me.

I don't subscribe to the one-dimensional view of any Palestinian individual or group. I don't believe any Palestinian lives to kill Jews, or that the driving force of any Palestinian's life is to shed jewish blood.

I was a long supported Fatah and had great hopes for Oslo -- so much so that my family moved to Ramallah!

I have family in Gaza, and I assume that like most of Gaza, some of the "extendeds" are doubtless Hamas supporters. My interactions with Hamas members while there were never negative (dumb stuff like my being alone, in my car with NY license plates, on a back raod, leaving Gaza, and coming upon a Hamas rally.... they parted the way and gave me directions). My point is to say, that *my* starting point in this is that most of these people are not monsters. These are patriots who are following the course they think will bring them to their goals. (Most) are not mindless anti-semites.

I am not a big fan of Khalid Meshal, but I respect the humility of the home-grown leadership. As the last election indicates, I am not alone in that. When they won the last election and were immediately isolated by Israel, i will never forget my husband translating haniyeh's speech on TV basically saying, "We will eat bread and zatar with you, but we won't bow to anyone except God." My God what a change from Abbas and the corruption of Fatah. Regardless of what other here say, I don't doubt their humility or their belief that they have the interests of the nation first and foremost (even if I think their tactics are misguided).

Having said that, I was crushed and furious when Hamas exploded that first bus #18 back in the mid-90s. I really believed then that Israel intended to honor their part of the Oslo accords. Hamas never believed that and in retrospect, I am sad to say that I think they were correct in that analysis.

Their basic thinking is that the only way to make Israel feel the pain of occupation is to inflict pain. I think they are wrong, but frankly, I am really amazed that so many here would expect Palestinians to passively accept their subjugation without fighting with every ounce of energy they have.

Hamas believes that Israel will never willingly relinquish anything. More and more I believe they are right.

My disagreement with them comes in the realm of tactics.

So what role do the rockets play?

If there were no rockets on Sderot, Gaza would be sitting in a slightly less critical position. But there would still be isolation. Israel would still refuse to allow them to govern. There would have been a coup attempt. The status quo would reign. The role of the rockets is to prevent "status quo." The rockets force action. The goal of the rockets isnt' to hit children -- the goal is to move the conflict forward. The goal is to force Israel to realize that negotiation -- with Hamas included -- is the only answer. The rockets say "we are here and you can't ignore us."

Frankly, the discussion about "what tactics are forbidden in fighting multi-decade subjugation?" isn't a conversation I'm interested in. I'm far more interested in halting the subjugation, than chastising the oppressed for not fighting their enslavers in the most moral way. I think the whole discussion is insane. I have lived in Palestine under occupation; I am clear about the life-destroying nature of that evil institution. I know that no tactic employed to fight it is worse than the institution itself.

I'm interested in international Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment. I woudln't vote for Hamas. I personally wouldn't want to live in a fundamentalist society. But I believe the most effective way for Hamas to lose their grip on power is to take a shot a leadership and succeed, or fail and be voted out.

Hamas isn't Al-Qaeda. Hamas is a national liberation movement that is fighting a real enemy who is executiving real injustice, over a real issue: land. There are many books written on the subject for those who care to learn more.

So, I think it's time to lay aside the 9-11 scare tactic, "charter" rhetoric and look at the history, look at teh facts, and look who's offering what. Look at Meron Benvenisti's op-ed in today's Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964824.html

I can tell you this: Israel will never, ever break the people of Palestine. Israel can't starve them into submission. They can't isolate them into submission. They will never be passive in the face of Israel's attempt to erase them (via walls and fences) into nothingness. Israel can either negotiate with their chosen leaders or it will have to kill them all. Really, LB, those are the choices. Time only makes those choices more stark.

Bottome line from my POV is that Status quo = death. The rockets are about shaking up the status quo, not an attempt to annihilate Israel. Think about it.

As for me, I continue to favor BDS and hope that the people of Palestine will all join together for massive nonviolent resistance that will afford them the high moral ground they deserve, as they battle what I believe is an evil, murderous institution.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

81. PS

I have a couple of folks on ignore... I'm sure there will be posts left unanswered.

Oh well.

[MaryCeleste]

101. The problem with your position is that if the rockets continue, espcially the Grads

things will get worse not better.

The best choice is a Ghandi like one.
- Declare the attacks are over.
- Stop all forms of attack
- Publicly punish the hot heads who don't stop

That will quite literally force Israel to stop. Most Israelis do not want their children at risk. They know well the benefits of peace with Egypt brought. There will be some hot heads on the Israeli side too, but the overwhelming percentage of Israelis will accept peace.

Gazans also need to rebuke their "brothers in arms" who are supplying weapons. Those who supply them rejoice at the attacks on Israel and ignore the death and misery it brings to Gaza

[ProgressiveMuslim]

105. That will force the israrelis to stop what?

Retaliating?

For them to end the occupation?

For them to grant palestinians their rights to self-determination and basic human rights?

[pelsar]

107. yes its that simple...and history proves it...

Egypt for one...intifada I for the other.....(limited violence in the territories-brought israeli pullbacks and partial Palestinian self rule-until the busses started blowing up)

the other choice...using violence has simply proven to do the exact opposite of what the Palestinians want and need. You once mentioned that even if the resistance is choosing the wrong tools (violence against civilians) its still morally correct.

i've been trying to get my head around that one for a over a week now. If the Palestinians choose the "wrong" tools...they will not get what they want, that is why they are the "wrong tools'. Furthermore, the use of suicide bombers and their subsequence acceptance has further destroyed the Palestinians society from within.

I believe your goals are confused, your confusing the act of resistance and "breaking the Palestenains will" with the goal of Palestinians self determination.....they are not the same.

When the goal of Palestenian self determination takes precedent over the act of resistance, there will be a chance. Wrong methods by their definition dont work.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

108. Then why wasn't there a withdraw before 2000? Why continual settlement expansion

DURING THE PEACE PROCESS???

Right behavior got them NOTHING!

[pelsar]

123. nothing?

oslo brought in for the first time Palestinian self govt.....like gaza israel withdrew and the Palestenians got a chance at governing themselves....was it perfect? of course not....nor will it ever be....Thats what "right behavior" got them...or a better description: actions that concentrated on the end goal of self determination and not "resistance for resistance sake.

the fact that both israeli withdrawls turned out badly for the Palestinians was primarily due to Palestinians govt/groups forgetting the goal of self determination and the strategy for getting there and prefere(d) to start attacking israeli civilians within the green line......

[Vegasaurus]

124. (because the goal isn't "self determination at all" unless it within the green line too" nt

[Shaktimaan]

142. But there was.

Israel withdrew from whole areas of the WB, leaving them completely under Palestinian military and civilian rule. It also has partial rule over other areas, the sum of both equaling 41% of the WB.

It also brought them elections, an interim governmental system with the funds to run it, economic support and development on a scale never seen there before with widespread international investments in infrastructure and private ventures, newfound international political support from the West and, most importantly, official Israeli recognition of the validity of their national movement with a commitment to negotiating the terms for an independent state. They got autonomy on a scale that they had never had within Palestine before.

It also got them the Camp David talks and a real offer for statehood. Now we can argue about the viability of that offer, and I doubt either would change the other's mind, but the importance of the talks there and at Taba, and especially of the offers themselves can't be overlooked. Remember, peace really seemed at our doorstep then, despite nonproductive actions on both sides such as increased Palestinian terrorism and settlement construction. In fact, I would argue that those two things were evidence that peace looked imminent. If peace didn't appear close then Hamas would have no reason to try and disrupt it and settlers wouldn't have been trying to grab as much land as possible while they still could.

Everything positive that the Palestinians now have they achieved through right action or in spite of wrong action, (like the Gaza withdrawal.) Everything negative, such as the wall, the siege of Gaza, heavy casualties, the intra-territory political fighting... even withheld tax receipts and rampant WB checkpoints has come as a direct result from turning towards violence.

Look at what the relatively peaceful resistance of Intifada one brought compared with the bloodshed of intifada two. Israel can not give the Palestinians results. All they have to offer is opportunity and Israel did provide that. Do you honestly think that the second intifada advanced any of the Palestinians' goals better than continued negotiations would have? Or that it was necessary in any way?

You mentioned that the Palestinians are fighting for their lives. I disagree. I think that if they were truly fighting for their lives then we would have had peace some time ago. Did you notice that back in the 20'-40's how Israel never rejected any offer for a state, no matter how unfair they may have found them? If they did not truly fear for their nation's existence, and their culture's, they would not have agreed to treaties like the Peel Plan. They tried for everything because they truly were fighting for their lives. The price for failure would have been annihilation, an unacceptable risk if any other option was available. The mere fact of Hamas' continued use of rockets (!!) against a power like Israel demonstrates that they are NOT fighting for their lives. If that were the case they would be doing everything within their power to keep the issues from being decided on the battlefield, where the imbalance of power between them and Israel is at its greatest.

[MaryCeleste]

114. Pretty much

open the checkpoints, resume transit to the WB, fuel, food, medicine.

The key here is that Israel says it is doing it for its own survival. Take away the reasons (the attacks) and Israel loses the justification for its actions. Israel is a fairly liberal western european democracy, it won't take all that long

[LeftishBrit]

126. Well...

I think tactics are HUGELY important. At all levels. All countries and groups want to advance their own interests, and they may use diplomacy/ negotiations, or sanctions/ civil disobedience, or war/terrorism. It is better to use non-violent than violent tactics - and this is not 'just tactics' but a central issue. In the case of Gaza and Palestine more generally, I would say that non-violent tactics are not just better from a moral/ideological point of view, but more likely to advance their cause.

Further: I don't think that Hamas supports are just mindlessly advocating violence for no reason - but then I don't think that many people do. There is usually a reason. On a large-scale level, many people who originally supported the Iraq invasion (not so many in Britain in fact) did not for the most part think: "Oh what fun to kill some Iraqis!" They thought that Saddam had WMD, or that he was an evil dictator whose removal would bring freedom to his country, or that it would somehow make them safer from terrorism. This does not alter the fact that the war is immoral AND (from either the point of view of increased freedom for Iraqis, or increased world safety from terrorism) counterproductive; or that most of the *leaders* who advocated the war either had criminal motives or were foolishly fanatical. On a smaller-scale level, much everyday physical violence is not based on mindless desire for 'bovver' (though it can be, especially when alcohol enters the mix); but on conflicts of interests and resentments, sometimes justified, sometimes not. But even when the goal is justified, the violence generally isn't - and often takes away from the goal.

As regards Hamas' attitude to Jews: as I've said before, conflicts over land/resources and intergroup hatreds are not an either/or phenomenon but feed off each other.

As for Israel attempting to negotiate with the Palestinian leaders - I support that. I do not have the same attitude as some about 'never negotiate with terrorists/ bad guys' because we had to negotiate with some terrorist/ bad guy groups (on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict!) to achieve the Good Friday Agreement.

However, I'd like to get something clear from you. Do you really think that the Hamas leadership are pmly interested in ending the occupation and getting a viable Palestinian state, and that if Israel agreed to this, then Hamas would cease its attacks on Israel? The evidence seems to be that at least right now, Hamas want the whole of the land for Palestine and are not prepared to accept Israel's existence under any circumstances. I would be delighted to be proved wrong!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

127. One difference:

Palestine isn't trying to "advance its interests." They are fighting to stay alive! I think there is a huge difference there. These aren't mere power moves -- this is life and death.

I do think that the Hamas leadership has come to terms with 2 states, even if they call it long-term hudna.

At the end of the day, it's all words. Irael said all the peace words and signed the agreements, and then turned around and continued exponential settlement expansion. I'd say they have zero credibility. I think there's going to have to be a leap of trust all way around.

But do you see what I'm saying about the role of the rockets?

[msmcghee]

128. Fighting to stay alive?

So the premise is if the Palestinians stopped "fighting to stay alive" as in firing rockets into Israel or sending suicide bombers in from the WB - Israel would be free to do what exactly . . ?

What is it that the "resistance" is preventing Israel from doing that would cause the death of all Palestinians if the Palestinians stopped "resisting"?

Please explain this theory.

[LeftishBrit]

141. I do see what you're saying; but I still disagree with the action on all levels

I disagree with all violence, where there is any alternative that permits actual survival (and there are many alternatives here, some of which are much more likely to have a positive effect). On the most pragmatic level: will the rockets help them to stay alive; or to get a state?

Also, 'fighting to stay alive' is not unique here, but is a common reason for violence. Other countries and groups also often fear for their lives, and act violently for that reason. In some cases, violence really is the only way to stay alive; but in most, it is counterproductive.

Most 'hawkishness' in Israel is based on fear, justified or otherwise, of destruction - not merely on a desire to advance interests. The more violence on both sides, the more it escalates.

'The rockets force action. The goal of the rockets isnt' to hit children -- the goal is to move the conflict forward. The goal is to force Israel to realize that negotiation -- with Hamas included -- is the only answer. The rockets say "we are here and you can't ignore us." '

But doesn't political violence (including that of states, as well as militant groups) *generally* intend to 'force action' or one sort or another and say "we are here and you can't ignore us"? And one aspect of a liberal rather than a right-wing perspective is opposition to political violence (including war), and a preference for alternative ways of forcing action.

I am not implying that the rocket attacks and other violence are random or done for fun (certainly no one would become a suicide bomber lightly or for fun!) I am saying that they are *wrong*. And not only morally wrong but unlikely to achieve their goals. I am not sure that forcing Israel to negotiate with Hamas *is* one of the main goals here, but, if it is, are the rockets likely to achieve it?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

145. I am not asking you to agree with the tactic.

I don't.

But I do think it's important to see that those rocket attacks are not Hamas' attempt to wipe out the Jews, or as so many of you pro-Israeli colleagues seem to believe, evidence of mindless anti-semitism.

I have come to see that Israeli behavior and the expansion machine isn't based on Palestinian behavior at all. Expansion occurs when Palestinians are passive; when they're violently resisting; during ceasefire; during supposed times of implementing peace. For me, continued expansion is the central problem, not "violence." The expansion happens regardless; the violence is a response to that.

Believe me, I'd rather see every Palestinian march to their piece of the wall, and to Erez and sit, and refuse to move. I'd like to see every civilizied nation isolate Israel for this rogue behavior -- refuse to do business with it, refuse to allow it to participate in cultural and athletic events; and refuse to allow its academics to participate in world wide academic events.

I appreciate the reasoned dialog, though.

[subsuelo]

150. You know what interests me...

You sometimes hear these calls for non-violence on the part of Palestinians. Suggestions to start this Gandhi style movement or something along those lines. But you never hear calls for Israelis to go non-violent. Why is that? When the focus is on the Israeli side you hear endless justifications for violence and bombings and invasions, along with of course the comments that you can't expect Israel to sit back and not defend itself. Right? But when it comes to Palestinians, oh ok -- then we need to call for a non-violent movement. It's pure hypocrisy.

You can't call for non-violence for one side but not the other in this thing. If you're ready to suggest non-violence as a form of protest, then you need to be ready to suggest it for both sides.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

151. Especially since both sides consider their violence "self defense." nt

[Vegasaurus]

152. Israel left Gaza and the rockets started flying immediately

yet there was no response, no incursion. Perfectly non-violent, and in fact, they had just given up the whole territory, greenhouses, infrastructure.

The Palestinian response? More violence.

I'd say one side has tried non-violence again and again, and the other refuses to try it for even a single day (and forget Hamas's "hudna", as the IJ and the rest of the groups continued firing away.That's not non-violence)

I'd like to see the Palestinians stop their attempts to kill Israelis for even a week. All of them. And if there was a single response from Israel, I guarantee that I and the other Israel supporters would soundly condemn the actions.

History is on Israel's side. Countries that don't try to terrorize Israel are at relative peace. Israel doesn't invade Jordan or Egypt. They also aren't firing daily rockets. Think about it.

[MaryCeleste]

165. More than that, all sides are prospering, their children free from harm and terror

[MaryCeleste]

164. The Gandhi approach works for the weaker side of a disproportionately asymmetric situation

otherwise its laughable

[subsuelo]

166. In other words

It works for victims of a brutal occupying power.

Clever wording though, I will award an 'A' for effort

[Vegasaurus]

167. In an asymmetrical conflict

the losing side realizes that it has to make more compromises. That's how it is.

Hamas's goals are not compatible with Israel's dreams of self-preservation. Therefore, there is no way that Hamas will ever attain its goals, unless of course, Iran gets its nukes, supplies them to Hamas, and the whole ME goes up into a cloud.

That is a possibility, of course, but Hamas's intractability will never get its people anything more than the misery it has. If the lives of the Palestinians are to improve, ever, there will have to be some move on the part of the militants. At the moment, we see nothing but greater intractability, which means ongoing misery for the Palestininans. Very sad that Hamas cares so little about its people.

[stranger81]

168. Let's put this in another context, shall we? How about the antebellum American South?

In an assymetrical conflict, the losing side realizes that it has to make more compromises. That's how it is.

The goals of enslaved Africans are not compatible with white southerners' dreams of self-preservation. Therefore, there is no way that enslaved Africans will ever attain their goals, unless of course, they acquire nuclear weapons and the whole South goes up into a cloud.

There is a possibility of course, but the slaves' intractability will never get their people anything more than the misery they have. If the lives of slaves are to improve, ever, there will have to be some move on the part of slaves who resist. At the moment, we see nothing but greater intractability, which means ongoing misery for enslaved Africans. Very sad that they care so little about their own people.

[stranger81]

169. How about another? This time, South Africa . . . .

In an assymetrical conflict, the losing side realizes that it has to make more compromises. That's how it is.

Black South Africans' goals are not compatible with the Afrikaaners' dreams of self-preservation. Therefore, there is no way that black South Africans will ever attain their goals, unless of course, they acquire nuclear weapons and all of Southern Africa goes up into a cloud.

That is a possibility, of course, but black South Africans' intractability will never get their people anything more than the misery they have. If the lives of black South Africans are to improve, ever, there will have to be some move on the part of the ANC. At the moment, we see nothing but greater intractability, which means ongoing misery for black South Africans. Very sad that they care so little about their own people.

[stranger81]

170. This time, how about the American Indian example?

In an assymetrical conflict, the losing side realizes that it has to make more compromises. That's how it is.

Native American goals are not compatible with white Americans' dreams of self-preservation. Therefore, there is no way that Native Americans will ever attain their goals, unless of course, they acquire nuclear weapons and all of North America goes up into a cloud.

That is a possibility, of course, but Native Americans' intractability will never get their people anything more than the misery they have. If the lives of Native Americans are to improve, ever, there will have to be some move on their part. At the moment, we see nothing but greater intractability, which means ongoing misery for Native Americans. Very sad that Native Americans care so little about their own people.


Shorter Vegasaurus: It's their own fault for not giving up and dying when we wanted them to, so any misery they suffer as a result of fighting for the same rights that we take for granted every day is their own stupid fault.

[subsuelo]

171. How about the Iraq example

In an assymetrical conflict, the losing side realizes that it has to make more compromises. That's how it is.

Iraqi goals are not compatible with Americans' dreams of self-preservation. Therefore, there is no way that Iraqis will ever attain their goals, unless of course, they acquire nuclear weapons and all of North America goes up into a cloud.

That is a possibility, of course, but Iraqi's intractability will never get their people anything more than the misery they have. If the lives of Iraqis are to improve, ever, there will have to be some move on their part. At the moment, we see nothing but greater intractability, which means ongoing misery for Iraqis. Very sad that Iraq's leaders care so little about their own people.

[stranger81]

172. Precisely. All this argument boils down to is "might makes right." [n/t]

[Vegasaurus]

173. No, it is Hamas that cares so little that it chooses war and violence

over the welfare of its citizens.

The fact that you could support a government with an expressed wish to annihilate another, one that leaves its people in misery while it spends money on arms, weapons and destruction, speaks volumes about you, not me.

[stranger81]

175. right. I forgot. The IDF is all flowers and bunny rabbits,

with nothing but the best intentions towards the folks they shoved out of their own land.

Just because you repeat this over and over doesn't make it even close to being true.

[MaryCeleste]

176. Gadhi made it work in an even more unbalanced situation

It was the only real power he had. The Palestinians have the same power, but those who use them as tools will not allow them to use it. Instead their muslim and Arab brothers prefer that they bleed futilely as their proxies against Isreal, a fight that they can only lose

[Shaktimaan]

143. Good post.

Two comments...

I really believed then that Israel intended to honor their part of the Oslo accords. Hamas never believed that and in retrospect, I am sad to say that I think they were correct in that analysis.


I disagree. I think that Hamas began the bombings because the DID believe that Israel would honor Oslo. The result of a successful Oslo plan would have been a permanent two state solution, which Hamas totally opposed. This is not merely my own deduction, I am relying on Hamas' own warnings during the negotiation of Oslo and their statements following their attacks. They were extremely clear that they feared Oslo's goals, not Israel's lack of commitment towards achieving them. I don't know how you are able to overlook Hamas' official policy to attribute an ideology to them that they continuously, publicly denounce. They began their attacks before the ink on the Accords were dry, far before any new settlement construction began. Even if your reasons were correct, you are saying that because Hamas was suspicious that Israel wouldn't follow through they felt obliged to try and derail the entire peace process. How does that make any sense?

And by and large, Israel did fulfill their side of Oslo, always in letter if not in spirit.

Israel can either negotiate with their chosen leaders or it will have to kill them all. Really, LB, those are the choices. Time only makes those choices more stark.

What does it mean for the Palestinians then if Hamas roundly rejects negotiating with Israel?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

149. Shaktiman, is the settlement expansion a form of punishment?

What is the relation to the bombings of the 90s?

Pick up a newspaper. Hamas is begging to negotiate. Israel refuses. I can't for the life of my figure out why you're asking me about what it means for Palestinians if Hamas refuses.

[Vegasaurus]

77. Juistification for Hamas

I can hardly wait!

:crazy:

(I'm on PM's ignore, but I still look forward to this enlightening post-to-be).

[Crunchy Frog]

5. DU needs to have a seperate China/Tibet forum

so that all of the DUers who vehemently disagree with each other on the subject can battle it out without bothering the other posters.

The fact that there isn't such a forum indicates some kind of bigotry somewhere. I'm sure of it.

[Shaktimaan]

15. Pretty dissimilar situation.

Making broad comparisons between historical events is lazy. It's a cheap way to garner support amongst those who know little about the I/P conflict. ie: The occupation of Tibet is monsterous, we know that, so Israel's occupation must be just as pointless and greedy, right?

Look, in a few years the Chinese killed around 1 million Tibetans. And China does not, nor has it ever, faced the possibility of destruction at the hands of Tibet, as Israel has via the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states. Tibet is also a country, which existed beforehand and which has a complex and separate culture based on more than resisting China. Also China has not been negotiating to give Tibet its state back. Nor does Tibet insist that all of China belongs to Tibet. Lastly and most importantly, Tibet did not initiate any violence, ever, towards China. China is not defending itself, its reasons for occupation are historic not pragmatic. Tibet did not force China to take action to defend its civilians who were being slaughtered by Tibetan terrorists.

Do you really find much the same here?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I suspect Palestinian culture is separate to Israeli culture and is based on far more than resisting

Tibet is also a country, which existed beforehand and which has a complex and separate culture based on more than resisting China.

Just curious, but I didn't think Tibet ever has been a sovereign state. I thought it was similar to Palestine in that it's at various times fallen under the control of different powers...

As for culture, do you really think that Palestinian culture is not complex or separate from the culture of their occupier?

Personally, I think when it comes to human rights abuses, I don't get why people would be opposed to China's human rights abuses against Tibetans while on the other hand trying to justify Israel's human rights abuses against Palestinians...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. It's actually intersting to note Palestinian culture that has been appropriated

by Israel.

For example, do you know that Hummus is Israel's national snack?

LOL!!!

[eyl]

24. And was likely not "appropriated" from Palestinians

bought brought here by Mizrahi Jews.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. Are you kidding me? Are you now claiming that Arabic food really

isn't Arabic?

For crying out loud, you stole their land -- at least leave them their cuisine!

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Stick to the topic.

You originally said hummus was 'appropriated' from the Palestinians. No where did eyl say it wasn't Arabic, but gave an opinion about the origins. If you know the origins, hummus is not pinned down to any one area. One theory is it started in Persia, therefore, it is likely the origins are Persian or, as eyl suggested, an import to the region near the Mediterranean by the Mizrahi Jews, neither group being Arabs.

[LeftishBrit]

51. Didn't Jews eat Arabic food in the Arab countries?

It would be surprising if (say) Iraqi Jews did not bring Arabic cuisine to Israel. Just as e.g. Polish Jews brought East Europaean food.

By all means, the East Europaean and Arabic origins of the cuisine should be acknowledged; but I doubt that it's all stolen from the Palestinians; much of it originates in the Arab countries from which about half the Israeli Jews originate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. My simple point is the amount of "Israeli" culture/cuisine, etc

that is Arabic in origin.

Jus' sayin'.

[Vegasaurus]

58. Considering the number of Israelis who formerly lived in Arab countries

(before they were expelled)

it isn't really surprising that there is Arabic influence in food, etc.

[MaryCeleste]

62. It is. Tahini, Humus, and it goes from there. The local music also

has a strong ME influence, though its about as sophiticated as "I Want to Hold Your Hand". Western music predominates. Nothing like walking the Via Delarosa and hearing techno music to remind you of the contrasts.

However, I have also eaten wonderful pork ribs in Israel...lots of Israeli's are quite secular, especially those from eastern Europe.

[breakaleg]

63. Or, perhaps it was already there when the Jews arrived. Isn't that a more logical conclusion?

[Behind the Aegis]

100. So you think Hummus is over 5000 years old?

Interesting.

[MaryCeleste]

148. I had some in my frige that looked at least that old

It got pushed to the back and forgotten

[ProgressiveMuslim]

153. Thanks for the chuckle! nt

[Shaktimaan]

140. I thought it was falafel.

Your post reminded me of this article I read a few years back.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DF1430F933A25754C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[msmcghee]

26. I know you don't get it.

People have tried for years now to explain this to you and others here. IMO there is a basic difference in belief systems that prevents this understanding. That difference is that some of us recognize the crucial difference between aggression and defense - and those who prefer to see Israel as in the wrong just can't seem to make that connection. A bit of willful myopia I'd guess.

Need I say it again? Israel's occupation of the WB is justified by their need to defend the lives of their citizens. It was born in defense and still exists for the defense of Israeli citizens from attack.

States have the right and responsibility to defend their citizens' lives. There is no responsibility of a state to its citizens more crucial than that. It's why there are states and international law and the Geneva Conventions and the UN.

While some here seem to understand this crucial difference - others seem to think that the morality of violent conflict is judged by the number of casualties on either side, or the relative power of the weapons each side uses and other data irrelevant to morality. The morality of conflict is based on intention. If you are acting as an aggressor while you kill the enemy that is immoral and illegal under international law. If you are defending the lives of your citizens from aggression while you kill the enemy that is moral and legal under international law. End of story.

The other issues that are raised such as number of casualties and weapons used have no basis in international law regarding moral or legal liability in war. Such laws and rules do recognize the concept of proportionality in defense. But that's just an extension of the basic controlling difference between aggression and defense - the idea being that a disproportionate defense crosses over into the definition of aggression.

It's amazing that so many anti-Israel comments can be put forward here for so many years now by people who choose to remain completely oblivious to this single fundamental difference between the two sides - the one difference between them that actually makes a difference.

[shaayecanaan]

177. That's not the difference

the difference is those who see the situation as it is and those who see it through a biblical prism, or as the conclusion of some kind of 2000-year old historical romance.

Israel's occupation of the WB is justified by their need to defend the lives of their citizens. It was born in defense and still exists for the defense of Israeli citizens from attack.

Wrong. Let me help you.

Since 1948, Jordan had always been the most conciliatory of Israel's neighbours, far more willing to compromise than either Syria or Egypt. They were often referred to as being "the best of enemies". Jordan did its best to ensure that mujahadeen did not terrorise Israel from Jordanian territory. Accordingly, while many mujahadeen entered from Egypt, comparably few came from Jordan. Even though Israeli commandos frequently conducted raids into Jordanian territory, Jordan was generally restrained.
In particular, both the Israelis and Jordanians exercised restraint between east and West Jerusalem. The Jordanians severely curtailed activity by the PLO in the West Bank.

The occupation of the West Bank came about after a historic miscalculation by King Abdullah - he placed his armed forces under the command of Egypt who used them to shell Jerusalem during the six day war. The Israeli PM, Sharett, contacted the King and implored him to withdraw his forces. The King replied he had already allocated them to Egypt and could not take them back now.

Even after the war, Sharrett realised what a poisoned chalice the West bank would come to be. Negotiations ensued, at one point the Israelis offered everything back except for the old city. The King said that he felt unable to make any concessions on behalf of the Palestinians, and those negotiations failed.

The occupation continued for twenty years before the outbreak of the first intifada. It continued for nearly thirty years before the first suicide bombing. To imply that the occupation arose either in response to the intifada or to suicide bombings is completely ahistorical.

Israel did not perceive the West Bank Arabs as a security threat. Indeed, it annexed East Jerusalem and gave all of the Arabs living there the equivalent of permanent residency. It did the same for the Arabs living in the Golan Heights.

The reason why Israel could incorporate the Golan Height Arabs and the Jerusalem Arabs, but not the West Bank Arabs, was not because the West Bank Arabs were a security threat, but because they posed a demographic threat. They were a million strong and there were too many of them.

Unfortunately, while both Israelis and Arabs have had leaders with the commonsense to resolve the situation, there has never been an occasion when both the Israelis and Arabs have had such a leader at the same time.

[msmcghee]

178. There are some interesting ideas in your post.

Your comments about Abdullah's miscalculation ring true.

I have problems though with your main assertion that the occupation is the result of some biblical dream. I haven't encountered much support for that one. I don't even see any support for that in what you wrote. It's just an assertion hanging out there.

But, the real problem is that when you say, "Negotiations ensued, at one point the Israelis offered everything back except for the old city." - you forget to mention what it was that Israel wanted in return for that withdrawal - which would probably be a good indication of their motives. Israel wanted one thing - a peace treaty.

What would a peace treaty provide? Security for Israel's citizens from future attacks. Israel eventually made peace with both Egypt and Jordan - by treaties guaranteeing peace. There have been no attacks on Israel from those states since the treaties were signed.

Common sense and history, as it has played out, says that Israel's concern is peace and security for its citizens. Nothing more. (I admit that Israel has demanded to have control of Jerusalem. They deserve it IMO for several reasons and that is not a sticking point in any case.) If there's a fantasy here it's in your mind. It's the narrative that Israel is a colonialist power (following religious doctrine in this version) to expand its borders at the expense of Palestinian aspirations for self-determination. It's the narrative that provides cover for the stated mission of Hamas and Fatah to destroy the state of Israel and rid the Mideast of Jews. (I do give you credit for the biblical twist. Even the New Historians haven't played that card.)

You don't have to read 2000 year old books and then conjure those ambiguous words into motives for Israel's intentions. All you need to do is read the history and study the Hamas Charter and listen to the words of their leaders - the words they say to their own people. If that's not enough, your whole premise is destroyed by one word - Gaza. What 2000 year old romance was it that made Israel decide to pull up all the settlements and remove all of its troops from there?

(It's possible that I missed the essence of your argument. I'm open to clarification, but you need to do a better job of supporting your assertions if you want to convince me.)

[MaryCeleste]

64. Actually its being destroyed rather nicely

The dominant cultures in the ME are American and Western European as defined by clothes, shops, and music. Food tends to be a blend of just about everything out there. Arab/ME mixed with American and European. Internationalization is a fact in Israel, and many other parts of the middle east. Those nations stuck in the 14th century under the sharia are fighting a losing battle with their youth, and change is coming there as well though more slowly.

My snarky title aside, the ME is doing less well than France in maintaining its unique culture. Outside of foods, its being overrun.

[LeftishBrit]

146. BTW..

there is an organization supporting Tibet that people can sign up to:

www.avaaz.org

and it also includes a few other campaigns, including a petition to the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, urging a ceasefire.

[subsuelo]

174. China accuses Dalai Lama of taking Olympics "hostage"

BEIJING (Reuters) - China accused the Dalai Lama on Sunday of using unrest in Tibet to back demands for Tibetan independence ahead of the August Olympic Games in Beijing.

The verbal attack on the exiled Tibetan leader, accused on Saturday of colluding with Muslim Uighur separatists in China's western Xinjiang region, was part of an intense propaganda and security drive to stifle anti-Chinese unrest before the Games.

The ruling Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper, the People's Daily, said on Sunday that the Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, had never abandoned violence after fleeing China in 1959 following a failed revolt against Beijing.

"The so-called 'peaceful non-violence' of the Dalai clique is an outright lie from start to end," the paper said. "... The Dalai Lama is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage to force the Chinese government to make concessions to Tibet independence."

Reuters

Story posted to illustrate how the occupying power fails to take responsibility for its crimes, instead laying the blame on the victim and attempting to turn the focus elsewhere.

I wonder where we've seen that before. Hmm let's think a minute.

[subsuelo]

179. China to compensate victims of Tibet violence

China offered to pay compensation to the families of the civilians it says died in violence in the Tibetan capital this month, as Beijing kept up an intense propaganda campaign in the wake of the unrest.

Pressure grew from abroad for China to respect human rights in its response to continuing pockets of unrest over the past two weeks in Tibet and neighboring areas, with President George W. Bush calling on Chinese leaders to talk to representatives of Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

By the government's count, 18 civilians were killed during anti-Chinese violence in Lhasa on March 14, when demonstrators hurled rocks at police and burned and looted stores and homes.

Their families would each receive 200,000 yuan ($28,530), a notice from Tibet's regional government said.

Reuters