Gaza

[OROD]

Perhaps I phrased that statement incorrectly, and for that I apologize. You have not attacked me directly.

I did, however, take offense at the language of your posts (the wholly unnecessary comments of 'Could it be...' and 'You were saying what now'). That is what I meant by flippant language. As I said, I have tried to keep my posts free of this typoe of inflammatory language, as it serves no purpose other than to sow additional discord and poison the athmosphere. It is difficult not to take such language personally, especially when directed at a specific person.

Ok, fair enough.

On another note, IDF forces bombarded yet another UN compound (this time UN headquarters), a hospital, and media outlets...

Although the Israeli Defense Minister claims those were mistakes, in this day and age of GPS, precision munitions, and advance battlefield communications, it is difficult to believe that such events are truly accidents.

Unfortunately accidents and friendly fire happen. Logically, there's no reason why the IDF would attack the UN.

.

[Fechter1]

And Hamas HAS????

And this is what I meant by dishonesty.

Where, in any of my posts, have I said that I support or condone Hamas' practices in this conflict?

[Fechter1]

Unfortunately accidents and friendly fire happen. Logically, there's no reason why the IDF would attack the UN.

.

But that's the thing... These accidents happen a bit too frequently for my taste. UN headquarters shelled, conveniently destroying food and other supplies, a UN school attacked with 40+ Palestinians dead, a clearly marked UN/ICRC convoy attacked, a hospital shelled and set afire, media outlets shelled, a house where Palestinian civilians had been directed (by the IDF!) shelled...
These are not random shells gone astray. The UN HQ was shelled for 6 hours. The UN/ICRC convoy was hit by tank shells, a direct fire weapon, meaning someone decided what they saw in the viewfinder was a legitimate target...
To some (myself included), it seems that the IDF doesn't care what they hit, or how many civilian casualties are caused, as long as they hit Hamas.

So why is it that nearly everyone (myself and PM included) condemns Hamas' tactics, but only very few of us are willing to hold Israel accountable for their actions?

[Wingate85]

Funny that this thread started with the guy from the UK. I recall that when the Germans began their rocket assaults (i.e. the V1 and V2 rockets) on London the response from Churchill was rather fierce with no regard for civilian casualties. But, when it comes to the Jews defending themselves it is another matter. For some people, especially those from the EU, dead Jews tend to be much more popular then the living ones.

[Purple Fencer]

And this is what I meant by dishonesty.

Where, in any of my posts, have I said that I support or condone Hamas' practices in this conflict?

I never said you did....but if you're going to condemn one side for civilian casualties, you have to condemn the other as well...especially since Hamas has a HISTORY of attacking ANYONE in their way with no regard to any standards of civilized behavior....

Remember what I said a while back....BOTH sidea share the blame and the blood here...the tit for tat retaliation has been going on for centuries.

Hamas simply made the mistake of pushing Israel once to often...sure the locals are being hurt, but instead of blaming Israel all the time, they might want to look at their own "government" for bringing the heat on.

[OROD]

So why is it that nearly everyone (myself and PM included) condemns Hamas' tactics, but only very few of us are willing to hold Israel accountable for their actions?

I think it's fair to hold Israel accountable if it was them that first broke the ceasefire. I dont know that much about what actually happened or why Israeli forces killed those people before the rocketing started, so I wont comment that much about it. However, I think the reason why most people dont seem to care that much about it is because Hamas has a long history of not caring about peace and attacking Israel whenever possible. Also, as I already pointed out their charter pretty much says that they are not interested in peace and their goal is to destroy Israel. Given that, it's not surprising that regardless of who actually fired first, Hamas will be held responsible since they are clearly seen as the belligerent party.

.

[Gav]

Funny that this thread started with the guy from the UK. I recall that when the Germans began their rocket assaults (i.e. the V1 and V2 rockets) on London the response from Churchill was rather fierce with no regard for civilian casualties. But, when it comes to the Jews defending themselves it is another matter. For some people, especially those from the EU, dead Jews tend to be much more popular then the living ones.

You're wrong.

Churchill started bombing civillian areas when a luftwaffe bomber dropped it's payload on London (and there's evidence it was accidental). It had nothing to do with the rocket attacks. Churchill was enraged becaue he believed Hitler had violated a "gentleman's agreement". Chruchill's retaliation led to the blitz and the firebombing of Dresden. which would be regarded as war crimes now.

Incidentally I don't why you bothered with this comment. The UK Vs Germany was an exchange between two equally powerful forces (though the luftwaffe was technically better equipped at least at the start of the war).

And the unpopularity of Israel's actions has got nothing to do with the popularity of dead Jews. Don't be so idiotic again.

And you are also very close to invoking Godwins law.

[pigeonmeister]

Funny that this thread started with the guy from the UK. I recall that when the Germans began their rocket assaults (i.e. the V1 and V2 rockets) on London the response from Churchill was rather fierce with no regard for civilian casualties. But, when it comes to the Jews defending themselves it is another matter. For some people, especially those from the EU, dead Jews tend to be much more popular then the living ones.

This truly is a deeply unpleasant post. Such ignorance is not worthy of an further comment.

[rory]

I think, for some parties to this conversation, the identity of the protagonists is unduly influencing perceptions of right and wrong.

If it was Russia and the Chechens rather than Israel and the Palestinians we were talking about, I bet a whole load of you would suddenly be on a different side of this argument.

[Fechter1]

I never said you did....but if you're going to condemn one side for civilian casualties, you have to condemn the other as well...especially since Hamas has a HISTORY of attacking ANYONE in their way with no regard to any standards of civilized behavior....

Sources?

So you don't think people can change? I'll quote again from the article I linked earlier...
From From IPS news: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

Despite Israel's refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Centre (IICC), an NGO which is close to the Israeli intelligence community.

<snip>
The report recalls that Hamas "tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement" on other Palestinian groups, taking "a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement," including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the ceasefire.

Certainly sounds to me that even the Israeli government (or portions thereof) acknowledge Hamas' efforts to maintain the cease-fire in spite of:

Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza -- its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy -- even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.
The ceasefire agreement that went into effect Jun. 19, 2008 required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.

Which brings me to this:

Remember what I said a while back....BOTH sidea share the blame and the blood here...the tit for tat retaliation has been going on for centuries.

Hamas simply made the mistake of pushing Israel once to often...sure the locals are being hurt, but instead of blaming Israel all the time, they might want to look at their own "government" for bringing the heat on.

Once again, I'm going to have to ask for the incident that in your mind pushed Israel too far and justifies the killing of hundreds of women and children.

[Epee_Pox]

Do the palestinian militants bear any responsibility for the deaths of civilians behind and among whom they hide? They do so for the twin purposes of avoiding attack by the one actor that takes pains to minimize civilian deaths, and of maximizing the propaganda victory of any such deaths. How come it's just Israel's fault, or at best more at fault, when those civilians get hurt?

I'm no fan of Israel, but I don't understand the rabid anti-Israel positions of so many otherwise intelligent people, many of whom seem willfully blind to the vastly greater reprehensibility of the palestinian militants and terrorists.

[Wingate85]

This truly is a deeply unpleasant post. Such ignorance is not worthy of an further comment.

It's all relative. Your offensive propaganda posts in lieu of the clearly biased EU media assaults on Israel does require forceful responses.

I am not a religious person but this quote from Isaiah aptly describes you.

Woe unto them that call evil good,
And good evil;

That change darkness into light,
And light into darkness;

That change bitter into sweet,
And sweet into bitter.

You and others like you have and continue to engage in what can only be described as an inversion of truth and reality one of the most favored propaganda methods of Israel's adversaries. In a remarakble destortion of history and current reality, Israel has become a pariah state because of its determination to defend itself. No one, not now, or more then 60 years ago condemned Great Britain or the US for collateral demage it caused while trying to defeat those who attacked it during WWII. Moreover, Germany did not deny the right of Great Britain or the US to exist. The Hamas Charter not only denies Israel's right to exist, it calls for its complete destruction. Surely any sane person would agree that Israel has as much right to defend its citizens as did the US and GB. However, what we see in many parts of the world, especially Europe, is a grotesque double standard, where murderous Arab terrorists are hailed as "freedom fighters" yet Israeli security forces are treated as facistic thugs.

No nation on earth has been more demonized than Israel. In one recent Europian survey it was revealed that Israel is now regarded as the greatest threat to world peace, an utter absurdity given that it is actually the only democratic, progressive, and free society in the ME.

You and others like you reflect the the strength of the hysterical anti-Israel propaganda that fills the airwaves of Europe. No matter how much this anti-Israeli feeling is dressed up as support for the Palestinian Arabs, it is in fact profoundly anti-semitic.

[pigeonmeister]

The position in America is this: Israel is justified in doing anything it likes to Palestinians because Hamas and Israel are morally unequivalent.

What others suggest is that the political and moral dimensions of the conflict are actually a lot more complicated than this.

[pigeonmeister]

It's all relative. Your offensive propaganda posts in lieu of the clearly biased EU media assaults on Israel does require forceful responses.

I am not a religious person but this quote from Isaiah aptly describes you.

Woe unto them that call evil good,
And good evil;

That change darkness into light,
And light into darkness;

That change bitter into sweet,
And sweet into bitter.

You and others like you have and continue to engage in what can only be described as an inversion of truth and reality one of the most favored propaganda methods of Israel's adversaries. In a remarakble destortion of history and current reality, Israel has become a pariah state because of its determination to defend itself. No one, not now, or more then 60 years ago condemned Great Britain or the US for collateral demage it caused while trying to defeat those who attacked it during WWII. Moreover, Germany did not deny the right of Great Britain or the US to exist. The Hamas Charter not only denies Israel's right to exist, it calls for its complete destruction. Surely any sane person would agree that Israel has as much right to defend its citizens as did the US and GB. However, what we see in many parts of the world, especially Europe, is a grotesque double standard, where murderous Arab terrorists are hailed as "freedom fighters" yet Israeli security forces are treated as facistic thugs.

No nation on earth has been more demonized than Israel. In one recent Europian survey it was revealed that Israel is now regarded as the greatest threat to world peace, an utter absurdity given that it is actually the only democratic, progressive, and free society in the ME.

You and others like you reflect the the strength of the hysterical anti-Israel propaganda that fills the airwaves of Europe. No matter how much this anti-Israeli feeling is dressed up as support for the Palestinian Arabs, it is in fact profoundly anti-semitic.

You can quote as much Biblical crap as you like- doesn't change the fact that you said Europeans delight in the death of jews. If you can't see why that is a repelent manipulation of my analysis, then you are naive (or more likely cretinous).

As for the rest of your drivelling analysis and crude historical analogies, I'd rather place my genitals in the hands of a knife wielding lunatic than respond to them.

[Hauptman]

The position in America is this: Israel is justified in doing anything it likes to Palestinians because Hamas and Israel are morally unequivalent.

What others suggest is that the political and moral dimensions of the conflict are actually a lot more complicated than this.

I understand that this is the perception in parts of the world, but it is completely untrue. There are many actions that Israel could take that would receive harsh condemnation from the U.S.; it's just that they have never crossed those lines. The actions and policies of Israel, while open for debate, have all been arguably legitimate. The same cannot be said for the Palestinians.

The Russia/Chechyna comparison would be apt only if it was Chechnya calling for the destruction of Russia and the extermination of the Russian people.

If the Mid-East conflict is seen as unequal, a bear fighting a dog, I would suggest that the dog should stop attacking the bear.

[Hauptman]

You can quote as much Biblical crap as you like- doesn't change the fact that you said Europeans delight in the death of jews. If you can't see why that is a repelent manipulation of my analysis, then you are naive (or more likely cretinous).

As for the rest of your drivelling analysis and crude historical analogies, I'd rather place my genitals in the hands of a knife wielding lunatic than respond to them.

I support you in this; I believe Wingate is out of line.

But I also believe there is a tendency in Europe to see the Palestinians purely as victims, and the Israelis purely as aggressors. And while the Palestinian people clearly are victims, I would say that they are more victims of the policies of the Palestinian/Arab leadership than the policies of Israel. I believe this reflects the general attitude of most Americans as well.

[Fechter1]

I understand that this is the perception in parts of the world, but it is completely untrue. There are many actions that Israel could take that would receive harsh condemnation from the U.S.; it's just that they have never crossed those lines.

I would really like to know what those lines are, as I have not seen condemnation from US officials even for attacks on Palestinian civilians or even UN installations and personnel.

The actions and policies of Israel, while open for debate, have all been arguably legitimate. The same cannot be said for the Palestinians.

There I'm going to have to disagree. As for Israeli actions, that's what we're doing right now, arguing about their legitimacy.
And since there are bound to be people who find Hamas' current tactics acceptable, given the power balance in the region, that would then create an argument about legitimacy there as well.
But that's another argument altogether. For the record, I do not find the deliberate targetting of civilians acceptable in any conflict, no matter the circumstances. Whether it's Hamas fighters launching rockets at southern Israel, or RAF bombers hitting Dresden, or the LuftWaffe bombing London, or US bombers incinerating Tokyo, or Mujahadeen (SP?) reprisals against collaborators and families of the invaders, or the French Resistance doing the same, or US militia reprisals against royalists during the Revolution, or the IDF shelling hospitals, the list is long, and it's never acceptable.
As soon as you legitimize one such incident, you create the argument you claim does not exist.

The Russia/Chechyna comparison would be apt only if it was Chechnya calling for the destruction of Russia and the extermination of the Russian people.

If the Mid-East conflict is seen as unequal, a bear fighting a dog, I would suggest that the dog should stop attacking the bear.

At this point I invite you to reply to the sources I have quotes twice already, stating that Hamas DID try to eliminate rocket fire into Israel (but was thwarted by the fact that not all splinter factions are under Hamas control), even though Israel did not live up to their agreements under the cease-fire of June 2008. Those sources basically put the blame for the end of the cease-fire on Israel.

This goes directly to the question of legitimacy of the IDF's actions, and I invite anyone to present proof a) that Hamas (and not elements not under Hamas control) did break the cease-fire first, b) that Israel did in fact comply with their portion of the cease-fire agreement (which included opening Gaza borders and refraining from incursions into Gaza), c) that Hamas and not Israel refused to extend the cease-fire.
Without such proof, most of the argumetns regarding Israeli actions' legitimacy are moot.

I have quoted sources, none of which have been addressed yet. I am at this point beyond accepting mere rhetoric as valid contribution to the discussion. If you want to lower the standards of civil discussion, please feel free to ignore sources of proof and continue attacking other's character (this is mainly aimed at Wingate85). Just don't be surprised one day to find a rant coming the other way.

[Gav]

I've just watched Gerald Kaufman give an astonishing speech in the house of commons. He's a staunch believer in the right for Israel to exist - and he's a Jew. Even he is saying that the Israeli government is cynically trying to manipulate this crisis.

[Hauptman]

I've just watched Gerald Kaufman give an astonishing speech in the house of commons. He's a staunch believer in the right for Israel to exist - and he's a Jew. Even he is saying that the Israeli government is cynically trying to manipulate this crisis.

I curious about the arguments. What are the "cynical" motives for Israel in this action?

[Hauptman]

At this point I invite you to reply to the sources I have quotes twice already, stating that Hamas DID try to eliminate rocket fire into Israel (but was thwarted by the fact that not all splinter factions are under Hamas control), even though Israel did not live up to their agreements under the cease-fire of June 2008. Those sources basically put the blame for the end of the cease-fire on Israel.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with this. There are no reliable, unbiased sources that could possibly verify whether Hamas truly made an effort to rein in the so-called splinter factions.

Did they truly make an effort? Hamas had no problem using violence against fellow Palestinians to take control of Gaza from Fatah, the legitimate executive authority; the streets ran with blood. But all they could do was ask for the rockets to stop and then shrug and go home? Forgive me if I seem cynical.