Gaza

[Fechter1]

We Americans certainly are a simple and predictable lot, aren't we?

For anyone new here, this is classic PM rhetoric. It's the same old tune we hear from him every time events in the middle east predictably boil over and the people causing the trouble get whacked.

What I find disingenuous was your feeble attempt to dance around your original intent, which is once again merely to justify and defend the continued anti-social behavior of certain elements of the islamic faith.

You may return to waving your green flag now.

How about you actually address the points PM has made (most of which are supported by sources linked to earlier in the thread) instead of dismissing them out of hand as 'ravings of a lunatic' (which is nothing less than a personal attack, which I see as admission of a lost argumetn )?

[Gav]

We Americans certainly are a simple and predictable lot, aren't we?

For anyone new here, this is classic PM rhetoric. It's the same old tune we hear from him every time events in the middle east predictably boil over and the people causing the trouble get whacked.

What I find disingenuous was your feeble attempt to dance around your original intent, which is once again merely to justify and defend the continued anti-social behavior of certain elements of the islamic faith.

You may return to waving your green flag now.

We non-Americans certainly are a simple and predictable lot, aren't we?

For anyone new here, this is classic Slim rhetoric. It's the same old tune we hear from him every time events in the middle east predictably boil over and people take a different viewpoint from Slim.

What I find disingenuous was your feeble attempt to avoid discussing the topic , which is once again merely to justify and defend your continued anti-social behavior.

You may return to waving or draping the US flag around your soliders and oiling your semi-automatic.

----

Yawn...

[Fechter1]

Israel declareda cease fire....Hamas continued to lob missiles into Israel...Israel responds....at least Israel STOPPED for a bit.

Hamas doesn't understand the meaning of the words "cease fire"....they appear to be taking a page from the North Vietnam playbook...using cease fires to reorganize and rearm.

Israelmay be going over the top here (although there's only so many times you can poke the tiger in the eye before he retaliates big time), but Hamas is MORE in the wrong.

Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire, which is different from a negotiated cease-fire.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unilateral
Technically, Hamas (which had been asking for a cease-fire for a few weeks, which certainly did not stop Israel from conducting further military actions...) were under no obligations to stop fighting at that time.

As to your second point, Hamas has shown they have a better understanding of the term 'cease fire' than Israel did (I refer you back to my postings regarding the effectiveness of Hamas' efforts to maintain the cease-fire and the IDF operation on Nov 4, which effectively ended it).

Your last point. This has been my main point all along. Proportionality. I have never stated that Israel does not have the right to exist and defend her people. But you must also appreciate the Palestinian's right to exist. I have repeatedly criticised Israel not for reacting to rocket fire, but for carrying these reactions far out of proportion. 1400+ Palestinians dead, half of them women and children. Is there any justification for this, CAN the ever be any justification for this?

The most-often counter-arguments to civilian deaths are that a) they're not really civilians,m but Hamas operatives in disguise, and b) that it's Hamas' fault for hiding behind it's own populace. Also, I have been told many times that the IDF is trying to minimize civilian casualties. I'm sorry, but firing explosive shells into a crowd of hundreds of civilians, simply because someone claims that there was a terrorist somewhere in that crowd does NOT constitute 'minimizing civilian casualties', but rather maximizing the body count.

I've never claimed that the rocket attacks are right, I've never claimed that there was no bad blood in the area, I've never claimed that Israel should not defend her people. I do, however, claim that the actions of the IDF are completely out of proportion. If you want to argue numbers, go ahead. We can compare Israeli civilian dead to Palestinian civilian dead. Or amount of explosives lobbed over the border by Israel vs amount lobbed over by Hamas. Or incursions by Israel vs incursions by Hamas. Or Palestinians homes destroyed vs Israeli homes destroyed. Think about any of those before you argue proportionality of response.

As a final thought, I will leave you with a personnal assessment: Over the past 6 months, Hamas has demonstrated a higher commitment to peace than Israel has, and this can be (and has been) supported by the evidence at hand.

[Fechter1]

Haven't seen you answer this question yet - Are you really suggesting that random rocket attacks are "Ok" - because nobody had been killed in a while?


-B

Haven't seen an answer to our question yet either:

How many Palestinians does Israel have the right to kill in response to random rocket attacsk that have not killed anyone in several months?

If you want to go back further than that, to actual incidences of Israeli civilian casualties: What is the acceptable exchange rate for Israeli civilian deaths to Palestinian civilian deaths? Over the last 6 months, it stands around 1:150. Are you saying that is acceptable in human terms?

[Fechter1]

Attempting to stop firing rockets into civilian settlements was not part of the agreement.

Hamas does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel, and it is still the stated goal of Hamas to destroy the Israeli people; ignore it if you want. They are criminals and thugs who had no problem murdering their fellow Palestinians to illegally take control of the Gaza strip.

Until Hamas is willing to at least acknowledge the right of the Israeli people to even exist there is no point to further discussion. Given their positions, one could wonder whether Hamas has the right to exist.

So all Hamas has to do is disavow the original document and adopt a more Israel-friendly one, and instantly the borders are opened, and all is forgiven? Please tell me you're not really that naive...

How about we let actions speak louder than words? And the actions over the past 6 months have shown a far greater commitment to the peace process demonstrated by Hamas (attempts to completely cease rocket attacks) than by Israel (crippling siege of Gaza, frequent cross-border raids)...

As for the Palestinian's right to exist... I have not seen recognition of said right in any of Israel's actions.

[Wingate85]

Your nonsense and that of the initial poster is why so few American members have opted out of this discussion. As Hauptman has indicated there is a clear and present danger that Israel cannot ignore. All one has to do is to read the Hamas charter which clearly states that every inch of modern-day Israel is "Islamic-Waqf land given to all generations of muslims until the Day of Resurrection". Furthermore, the charter states : "In this respect, it is like any land that the Muslims have conquered by force, because the Muslims consecrated it at the time of the conquest as religious endowment for all generations of Muslims..."

Behind the territorial ultimatum, the charter demonizes the Jewish people (sound familiar?) by accusing them of starting WWI, WWII, and causing the French and Russian Revolutions. According to the Charter "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: "Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

There is no room for compromising with this kind of thinking which is being backed up by a massive indoctrination campaign. Furtheremore, debating this issue with those who feel disdain for America, a readiness to appease totalitarian dictators, and turn a blind eye to casual endemic anti-semitism is frankly a waste of time (yawn).

[Hauptman]

So all Hamas has to do is disavow the original document and adopt a more Israel-friendly one, and instantly the borders are opened, and all is forgiven? Please tell me you're not really that naive...

How about we let actions speak louder than words? And the actions over the past 6 months have shown a far greater commitment to the peace process demonstrated by Hamas (attempts to completely cease rocket attacks) than by Israel (crippling siege of Gaza, frequent cross-border raids)...

As for the Palestinian's right to exist... I have not seen recognition of said right in any of Israel's actions.

I'm disappointed. You really seem to be willing to make any argument to support your position.

Israel has been negotiating on the premise of a two-state solution for years now. Are you really going to make that claim to legitimize the radical position advocated by Hamas?

And when will you address the fact that Egypt and Jordan have closed borders with the Palestinians? And when will you acknowledge that Hamas horrifically murdered their fellow Palestinians to illegally take control of Gaza?

Hamas does not represent the interests of the Palestinian people. They are bent on their own grand design seeking the destruction of Israel and the Israeli people even if every last Palestinian has to die in the process.

This discussion has degenerated badly. I'm done.

[bpm]

Haven't seen an answer to our question yet either:

How many Palestinians does Israel have the right to kill in response to random rocket attacsk that have not killed anyone in several months?

If you want to go back further than that, to actual incidences of Israeli civilian casualties: What is the acceptable exchange rate for Israeli civilian deaths to Palestinian civilian deaths? Over the last 6 months, it stands around 1:150. Are you saying that is acceptable in human terms?

Say, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

-B

[jeff]

Seeing people parrot Hamas talking points angers me.

The OP was made as a query under the guise of neutrality: "why is Israel doing terrible things" yet not asking the same of Hamas. If two guys are in a brawl, and the cop pushes only one of them up a wall and says "why are you doing these terrible things?" you can tell that he has already made his judgement.

Pigeonmeister is passionate in his advocacy, as is his right, but let's drop the fiction that this thread started as an even-handed inquiry. The premise of this thread was Israel's guilt. This further shown by the assertion that Hamas attacks on Israel didn't count for much - which, if believed, force a conclusion that Israel is acting criminally by its response to them. Conviction first based on discounting attacks on Israeli citizens as meaningless, trial later.

I challenge the repeated notion that the UK and Europe have a more "balanced" or "fair" view of this conflict than we in the US, who tend to be much more supportive of Israel. Why? Because Europeans say so, and try to bully us into accepting it.

That's total BS. I've been reading and listening the news media here, and the suffering of Gaza gets headlines and multiple pages in the NYT. I flip on the radio and the top news story is labeled "the anguish in Gaza". Let's stop with the falsehood that the US ignores Palestinian suffering and only promotes Israeli interests. As if "balance" is the end goal. Perhaps we should have more balance from Germany in 1938 to counter the pro-British POV, eh?

IMO, the bias resides on the other side of the pond. In the past 20+ years I've been in the UK and Europe many times, and frequently would read news accounts that covered only the Palestinian POV. I recall heated, angry descriptions of Israeli reprisal raids, describing the suffering they caused, without mentioning the terrorist acts that provoked them. On multiple occasions I was astounded to hear descriptions of the pain caused by Israeli raids - without mentioning the suicide bombing that immediately preceded it. Incredible. When terrorists were much more successful at killing Israelis than they are at this moment, and going to a cafe or riding a bus often result in dozens of casualties, there was no expression of moral outrage such as is now expressed over Gaza, no massed demonstrations outside the Palestinian mission's offices expressing outrage over their targeting civilians (and especially women and children). The common sentiment was to make excuses for terrorists, stating how their military weakness led them to make such attacks necessary in order to defeat the colonialist, Zionist oppressor. The news media's moral compass is so broken (I'm referring now to the BBC) that they won't use the word "terrorist" (even, for example, in the case of the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks.)

I fully recognise that this recollection may be due to my selection bias in what I remember of Euro news media and popular opinion (and my bias in general) - but in return insist that the other side equally be willing to admit their bias, rather than insist on a spurious claim to neutrality or better wisdom.

So, I consider this thread biased from its outset. The very idea that in 2009 people are questioning the legitemacy of the state of Israel is an outrage and further proof of bias. That parrots the talking points of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, and rejects the two state solution that is the "roadmap for peace" accepted by most of the world - including Fatah.

As if any nation created by western colonial powers from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire is any more or less legitemate, and that Jewish people who have maintained a continuous presence in the area for 3500+ years, and were the majority population in Jerusalem since the 19th century somehow are illegitemate. Jordan (which occupied most of the pre-partition Palestinina Mandate, and by all rights should be the "Palestinian nation") and Syria, are 20th century countries created only shortly before Israel.

The same questions on motivation that bear on culpability should be directed towards Hamas: specifically, what were their goals and plans for their premeditated and unprovoked attacks on civilian locations. So, for symmetry and fairness let's ask the same question of Hamas: what are Hamas' goals for its continued attacks on civilians. In my opinion they are intended to:

- Reinforce their image as the primary fighter against Israel, which is essential to their organization's reputation for gathering recruits, finance, and popular support.
- Marginalize their bitter enemy, Fatah. (There was a report that Hamas murdered 70 Fatah supporters in Gaza under the cover of the war. Nobody is going to look at their bodies and do post-mortems to see if they were killed by close-range small arms fire. A good time to consolidate power, while letting the other enemy take the blame.)
- Ensure that the two-state solution is made less likely. If the conflict dies down and a two-state solution is accepted, Hamas entire existence goes away. They can't accept a situation where people peaceably go about normal life. They want to show that even if Israel unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank (as they did from Gaza) there isn't a guarantee of peace.
- Kill Israelis, and Jews in general: both are officially stated goals.
- Provoke attack from Israel to make sure Israel kills Palestinians, as a flow of martyrs is essential for generating worldwide indignation against Israel. This has been the standard procedure for terrorists operating and launching attacks (wearing civilian clothing) from within densely populated civilian populations.
- Destabilize secular Arab governments: especially in Egypt and Lebanon, both of which fear Islamist uprisings that could unseat them.

From official Hamas statements: "The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.” (Hamas cleric Muhsen Ab It’a, July 13, 2008) and "Rockets against Sderot will cause mass migration, greatly disrupt daily lives and government administration and can make a much huger impact on the government... We are succeeding with the rockets. We have no losses and the impact on the Israeli side is so much.” (Hamas minister Mahmoud A-Zahar, Aug., 2007)

When Lord Greenstock says that Hamas' position on Israel's existence is only rhetoric, it is clear that he is either a knave or a fool. pigeonmeister previously assured us that Iran's nuclear program wasn't a threat. I see a pattern here, and I'm not convince by either assurance.

Have a look at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/op...nted=2&_r=1&em where Hamas leaders speak their minds. You may find interesting the theological debate about whether Jews are pigs and apes, or merely share a common ancestor with Jews that were turned into pigs and apes. In any case, their position is that Jews are subhumans. Is this 2009 or 1939?

I suggest reading The Economist, January 17 editorial at http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=12932320 which includes many Jews around the world protest that Israel is being held to a higher standard than the one demanded of many other countries, and to some extent they are right. Some of the hypocrisy in the Arab world is unspeakable. Syria, for example, is one country to accuse Israel of “genocide”. But in 1982, when Syria’s own Muslim Brotherhood rebelled in the Syrian city of Hama, the regime responded by shelling the city indiscriminately for three weeks, killing about 20,000 or 30,000 civilians. In Gaza Israel has killed 1,000 people. It is not playing by Hama rules, let alone committing genocide. Russia’s onslaught on the Chechen city of Grozny in the mid-1990s is reckoned to have killed some 20,000 civilians. As for Hamas itself, it deliberately murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians in buses and restaurants in the intifada of 2001-03.... they are not entitled to hold Israel to a standard they do not observe themselves. The killing of civilians is a sadly common occurrence in war. American forces are accused of having killed hundreds of civilians when they recaptured the Iraqi city of Fallujah from Islamist insurgents in 2004. American and European air forces have killed thousands of civilians in air raids in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. So it has been immensely sad, and grotesquely unfair, to watch protesters in London and Paris accusing Israel of behaving as the Nazis did.

Coming back to Israel's motivations for this war, I suggest reading Thomas Friedman at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/op...4friedman.html Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said the morning after the morning after about his decision to start that war by abducting two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006: “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.” Israel's strategic aim here is to make Hamas also think before attacking.

The Arab nations (and the world in general) had an opportunity to make Gaza and the West Bank into a viable country for 20 years between 1948 and 1967, and didn't. The PA and Hamas have had since 2005 to build a country (they certainly have the funding for it) instead of maintaining their perpetual war. Coming back to Friedman's editorial: "If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?"

[Slim]

We non-Americans certainly are a simple and predictable lot, aren't we?

Perhaps one or two of you are, yes.

What I find disingenuous was your feeble attempt to avoid discussing the topic , which is once again merely to justify and defend your continued anti-social behavior.

Feeble attempt? No, it was quite obviously deliberate.

[Slim]

How about you actually address the points PM has made (most of which are supported by sources linked to earlier in the thread) instead of dismissing them out of hand as 'ravings of a lunatic' (which is nothing less than a personal attack, which I see as admission of a lost argumetn )?

Felcher1,

If you had been paying attention over the past 2 years or so, you would have seen PM try and make the same points over, and over and over again when it comes to the bad behavior of his brothers-in-islam. They have been addressed ad nauseum.

If you really care, RTFF.

[pigeonmeister]

Lots of points to respond to- on this very happy day for America.

I must say that a neutral obsever of this thread would see that the more extreme statements have come from those who firmly support Israel's action. - accusations of wife beating, of Europeans delighting in the death of jews, rubbish about my 'brothers in Islam' (bizzarre), accusations that I support terrorism, appease anti-semitism, and hate America. Statements that all Palestinians want to eradicate Israel, kill civilians and that dieing in their 1000s constitutes a 'victory' for them.

Can you, Jeff, identify any of my statements or sentiments which are equivalently extreme? In pact, I think I have been very cordial and measured-ok I got angry at one moronic post (that even those on the opposite side of the issue from me acknowleged as out of order). Actually, I have enjoyed reading many of the posts by yourself (not the last one), Hauptman and Inq.

As far as I can see, I have not defended Hamas' ideology- indeed I have explicitly criticised the rocket attacks (which Jeff seems to have ignored). I have not discounted attacks on Israel and early on showed my concern for Israelis. I merely suggested that Israel had contributed equally to a break in a ceasefire that increased these attacks. I then argued that Israel's response was disproportionate to the threat they pose and that their actions unlikely to make their citizens any safer. I then suggested some wider political motivation.

I also argued that Israeli policy is a major factor in

1. The political popularity of hamas
2. The ending of the ceasefire
3. The continued suffering of the Palestinians
4. the continued failure to reach a two state solution

Clearly Hamas is also responsible for these issues as well.

But my basic argument is that Israel is engaging in collective, disproportionate, and illogical punishment of the Palestinian people. I honestly believe that the longstanding siege conditions, incursions and assassinations imposed on Gaza show a disregard for the death of innocents and amount to a deliberate attempt to place the entire population under pschological, economic and political pressure. To me, this is essentially what hamas rockets are also doing.

For goodness sake, how can this criticism of this translate into a defence of terrorism or anti-semitism?

Bias... Why don't you check my first few posts and see how Epee Pox and Orod responded to them...!!! Why do they get a pass? In the face of this provocation, and other deeply nefarious allegations, the debate has moved on from the original 'rules of engagement'. At the same time, I acknowleged that these 'rules' were probably unrealistic and that people have strong views on the subject.

In fact, the notion of a biased thread is frankly ridiculous. In a debate people have different views- simple as.

Hamas' Speechs and constitution

Many are indefensible- which is why I am not defending them. Again, why do people divert the debate by claiming that criticism of this conflict amounts to a defense of the extreme elements of Hamas' ideology?

Quoting this rhetoric alone simply doesn't negate any criticism of Israel or allow it carte blanche in Gaza. Put simply, those quotes were on the internet on December 26 and nobody here was arguing that killing 1300 Palestinians was a valid response to them. Why do they become a key justification from Dec 27 onwards? Heinous as they are, they offer little specific context to the present conflict.

The real question is how does Israel respond to the physical and ideological threat of Hamas- I still await a post that coherently argues that an Israeli military solution exists. Whether anyone likes it or not, Hamas are a political entity in Gaza and you have to proceed on this basis. You cannot pretend otherwise.

The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible

I don't think Israel's relationship with Hamas can only proceed on the basis of the former's committment to destroying the latter. That is not, in my opinion, a realistic strategy for overcoming Hamas' percieved determination to destroy Israel. And with Hamas, I think they are much more pragmatic than some of their rhetoric applies. In the 1990s, for example, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. I don't believe they harbor a realistic strategy to destroy Israel, though reprehensibly believe that killing innocent Israelis can advance more limited goals and redress personal grievances.

Now please accept this as an analytical observation and not a defence of terrorism or antisemitism. It would be ridiculous if we simply cannot debate these issues..

[Fechter1]

How to write a response to all this...

I have now been called a Nazi, terrorist appeaser, anti-semite, even a wife-beater. I have been talked down to, dismissed as a loon, insulted, attacked. And for what? For daring to criticise the scope of the Israeli military action?

This thread has degenerated into nothing more than empty rhetoric at this point. My points, which I have tried my best to support with facts and citations, have been ignored almost entirely.

If you want to continue the argument on a factual basis, I'll be here. But please support your claims with facts, not mere empty rhetoric, and not these idiotic, childish insults.

To the silent masses, I say this: Wingate has claimed that you are silent because you support his point of view and are ignoring this thread so you will not have to read the "anti-semitic propaganda" that is desseminated here. If that is so, your continued silence is not inappropriate. If not, please speak out. Just please be carefule to note which parts of your posts are personal opinion, and which parts are supported by facts.

I leave you with this final link, which I found thanks to Gav, a speech to the British House of Commons, by MP Sir Gerald Kaufman, who illustrates some of my point much more eloquently and with more authority than I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwhrHoPv5Ok
It's an incredibly powerful speech, worth the <6 minutes of your time.
And the text of the speech:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510304

But hey, he's just an appeasing, anti-semitic, wife-beating Nazi, right, guys?

[pigeonmeister]

Also, If we are going to use selected racist and even genocidal statements to back up our analysis, I invite you to respond to the following quotes..

[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

“Deputy-Minister Boim and Knesset-Member Hazan declared: “All Muslims are murderers by birth. It is in their genes.”
Gush Shalom advert in “Haaretz,” 27 Feb 04.

"The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

"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, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979

“[Israel should implement a stringent policy of family planning in relation to its Muslim population] … the delivery rooms in Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva have turned into a factory for the production of a backward population.”
(Yitzhak Ravid, 18 December 2003)

[Slim]

How to write a response to all this...

I have now been called a Nazi, terrorist appeaser, anti-semite, even a wife-beater. I have been talked down to, dismissed as a loon, insulted, attacked. And for what? For daring to criticise the scope of the Israeli military action?

I guess you can add victimized to your list also.

This thread has degenerated into nothing more than empty rhetoric at this point. My points, which I have tried my best to support with facts and citations, have been ignored almost entirely.

Duh. Why do you think no one discussed it until PM went fishing? It's always ends up like this. Always.

To the silent masses, I say this: Wingate has claimed that you are silent because you support his point of view and are ignoring this thread so you will not have to read the "anti-semitic propaganda" that is desseminated here. If that is so, your continued silence is not inappropriate. If not, please speak out. Just please be carefule to note which parts of your posts are personal opinion, and which parts are supported by facts.

Cricket....cricket.

[erooMynohtnA]

How to write a response to all this...

I have now been called a Nazi, terrorist appeaser, anti-semite, even a wife-beater. I have been talked down to, dismissed as a loon, insulted, attacked. And for what? For daring to criticise the scope of the Israeli military action?

This thread has degenerated into nothing more than empty rhetoric at this point. My points, which I have tried my best to support with facts and citations, have been ignored almost entirely.

If you want to continue the argument on a factual basis, I'll be here. But please support your claims with facts, not mere empty rhetoric, and not these idiotic, childish insults.

To the silent masses, I say this: Wingate has claimed that you are silent because you support his point of view and are ignoring this thread so you will not have to read the "anti-semitic propaganda" that is desseminated here. If that is so, your continued silence is not inappropriate. If not, please speak out. Just please be carefule to note which parts of your posts are personal opinion, and which parts are supported by facts.

[PERSONAL OPINION]You are being a wiener right now. You need to calm down. You are seeing every minor disagreement as a personal attack against you. You should just ignore anything you see as an ad hom, because most of them really aren't, and there's no point in confronting people about ones that are real personal attacks.[/PERSONAL OPINION]

I don't see how anyone can really take sides on this issue. Some Israeli and Palestinian factions are deeply in the wrong, but it's also so easy to see that we would behave the exact same way if put into that situation.

You can point out whatever bull**** reason each side has claimed most recently, but I don't see how that excuses anything else. There is a difference between something that is a reason behind the action and something that excuses the action. There are lots of reasons being treated as excuses here.

[jeff]

Yes, this is a happy day for America. I just watched the swearing-in ceremony and Obama's speech.


pigeonmeister, it doesn't bother me that you didn't enjoy my last post. I didn't do it to make you feel comfortable. Frankly, I would have been happy to end with my jokey post about alien invaders (which was inspired by the "Independence Day", no movie spoiler involved) but I found the tone of this thread increasingly ugly. Look at your OP, and how you quickly deviated from what you initially expressed and your "suspension of judgement" to expressing it vividly shortly after. You're surprised this turned rancorous?

Regarding "accusations of wife beating" - you and Fechter1 apparently didn't recognize bpm's sarcastic use of the canonical expression ("when did you stop beating your wife?") of a loaded question constructed with the assumption of guilt. See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html and http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ded%20question
So, no accusations of wife beating from bpm - just pointing out a loaded question.

As far as the other "extreme statements": no, I don't agree that any neutral observer would say that they have come from those who support Israel's actions. Not when Hamas statements calling for genocide are written off as a minor item that doesn't matter. I also think that you are too quick to ignore anti-Semitism as part of the pathology of the situation. I am not accusing anyone on this board, but I think it is an underlying component of this conflict and European application of different standards to the parties involved - which includes a history of accepting successful terrorist attacks on Israelis as "no big deal". That's a matter of historical fact.

You've discounted attacks on Israel: Back on Jan 9 I said "I hope we can avoid statements like "I question the need to kill 800 odd (mostly civilian) Palestinians to get another, better one?" since that imputes guilt to Israel for deliberately setting out to kill 800 mostly civilians." Didn't you take that point, and the ones following after it? On Jan 10 your "This 'self defense' claim is very strained- no Israelis were killed by rockets in the half year leading up to the current attack." (I don't think that's quite accurate, BTW) consequently puts the moral burden on Israel - but only if you agree that repeated rocket attacks on Israel don't count. Your Jan 12 post 29 equated Israel's border closings with Hamas rockets, a moral equivalence that ignores Hamas attacks on the border crossings at Karni, Sufa, and Kerem Sholom that forced closings, and ignores the Egyption crossing. It surely ignores the bizarreness of the idea that Israel is expected to provide food, medicine, and fuel to a regime calling for its destruction (but Israel does so nonetheless, including during the war)

Your posts on Jan 12 with Epee_Pox were dismissive of a point of view opposing your own. Rather than respond to EP's comments, you brushed them away as invalid. By focusing on whether Hamas was a proxy of Iran or whether "ALL Palestinians" want to destroy Israel, you sidestepped the important part of EP's comments. By saying Hamas's calls for the destruction of Israel and Jews are merely rhetoric (as if that made it acceptable) you minimized the threat they represent. From post 33 "if you bomb the most densely populated region in the world, regardless of symbolic warnings, you are targetting civilians.". Well, if you deliberately provoke war while hiding among those civilians, you are provoking their destruction (the "laws of war" permits returning fire). Gazans hate Israel, which is understandable (and increasing their hatred surely one of Hamas's goals), but they know full well who brought destruction down on their heads. Perhaps you should have taken your Jan 12 advice to yourself and given up. You certainly never make any substantive response to the comments by OROD and twochko on Jan 13, nor have you shown any sign of recognizing Hamas culpability in causing Palestinian deaths. When Epee_Pox, Slim, Inq, OROD, Hauptmann, bpm and I are in agreement despite our widely varying politics, maybe it wouldn't hurt you to engage in a tiny bit bit of self-examination. But, you've already made your mind up: we're wrong, you're right, and that's all there is to it.

Your recent posts don't respond in any substantive way to mine. Everything you've said has been exculpatory towards Hamas. Bringing up racist remarks from the other side, some from long-dead Israelis, doesn't change the fact that the Israeli government (and Fatah, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others) have moved on to accept a two-state solution, while the party whose behavior you continue to make excuses for still calls for genocide and obliterating Israel. Just as you excuse Iran, who has similar ambitions and a nuclear initiative you also labeled benign. That they don't have the current means to achieve their goals, and can be tactically "practical" in the meantime is beside the point. Their avowed long term goal remains unchanged, and your focus of guilt overwhelmingly to the Israeli side is abhorrent.

So, I ask again: "So, for symmetry and fairness let's ask the same question of Hamas: what are Hamas' goals for its continued attacks on civilians?" What are its goals for the weapons it has smuggled through tunnels and hidden in food deliveries? What is the purpose of its rocket attacks on Israel?

Also, since you passionately defend on this board two of the parties opposing a two-state solution: do you favor or oppose the two-state solution, with a Palestine and an Israel next two one another?

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

pigeonmeister, it doesn't bother me that you didn't enjoy my last post. I didn't do it to make you feel comfortable.

I didn't think it would. It didn't make me feel uncomfortable, just didn't think it was a particularly good post.

Frankly, I would have been happy to end with my jokey post about alien invaders (which was inspired by the "Independence Day", no movie spoiler involved) but I found the tone of this thread increasingly ugly.

Your definition of ugly essentially amounts to any analysis of Israeli policy that is negative? My definition of ugly is being summed up in Wingnuts posts and an assertion that criticism of Israel equates to appeasment of terrorism. On today of all days I hope we can move away from the 'with us or against us' approach. I say again, I don't think I have been discourteous or malicious in presenting an intepretation that is simply different to your own.

Look at your OP, and how you quickly deviated from what you initially expressed and your "suspension of judgement" to expressing it vividly shortly after. You're surprised this turned rancorous?

Which, if true, makes me naive in my hopes that a sensible debate could emerge. Doesn't make me wrong or a bad person. Why on earth do you think I have time or the interest in just stirring up an unpleasant debate?

Looking back at the first page of this thread, I think if anything we were both trying to avoid the current situation but both equally deviating from the original terms of the OP. Note: "wars started by a war mongering government willing to sacrifice its own people". Well that implies that Hamas alone are responsible for the current misfortune in Gaza- that is something that has been rejected by the UN, Red Cross and serious commentators across the globe.

That is your suspension of any further analysis beyond: Hamas and Israel are morally unequivalent. It is an analysis that I do not agree with- again why do you equate that with 'writing off" the actions of Hamas- which I explicitly and consistently said I don't justify their actions

So, no accusations of wife beating from bpm - just pointing out a loaded question.

OK- I missed that one (sorry). I note that this is the one accusation you have chosen to respond to. Characterising all Europeans as Nazi terrorist appeasers who delight in the deaths of Jews obviously gets a pass- and is perhaps not even, to you, an extreme statement?

As far as the other "extreme statements": no, I don't agree that any neutral observer would say that they have come from those who support Israel's actions. Not when Hamas statements calling for genocide are written off as a minor item that doesn't matter.

See point above- I have said nothing approaching such extremism noted above. Where do you get this assumption that I write off Hamas statements calling for genocide. I wonder if you will respond to the selected quotes I listed- I doubt it.

I also think that you are too quick to ignore anti-Semitism as part of the pathology of the situation.

I don't ignore it- it is endemic in the Islamic world. My sense is that historical and political aggrievement is of more consequence than irrational racism in the pathology of the situation

I am not accusing anyone on this board, but I think it is an underlying component of this conflict and European application of different standards to the parties involved - which includes a history of accepting successful terrorist attacks on Israelis as "no big deal".

This is a pointless analysis. I might as well say that America has a history of accepting Israel contravening international law, nuclear arms treaties, and Palestinian suffering on a huge scale as 'no big deal'.

I'm amazed that you can't see that you are doing exactly the same as what you criticise me for doing. Maybe it wouldn't hurt you to engage in a tiny bit bit of self-examination. But, you've already made your mind up: we're wrong, you're right, and that's all there is to it.

That's a matter of historical fact.

You have a very strange notion of historical facts

You've discounted attacks on Israel: Back on Jan 9 I said "I hope we can avoid statements like "I question the need to kill 800 odd (mostly civilian) Palestinians to get another, better one?" since that imputes guilt to Israel for deliberately setting out to kill 800 mostly civilians."

How does this discount attacks on Israel? Seems to me it simply makes an observation that 800 mostly civilians is unjustified if you believe it will achieve nothing more than a restoration of a ceasefire that had previously made the situation tangibly better for Israel. I don't see how I said that Israel deliberately killed civilians. I do believe that Israel bares a large scale of responsibility- but that is an entirely proposition.

But then your habit of placing words in my mouth is a central tenet of your debating style.

consequently puts the moral burden on Israel - but only if you agree that repeated rocket attacks on Israel don't count.

No-placing the moral burden on Israel for the current suffering in Gaza and claiming rocket attacks on Israel don't count are not mutually exclusive. Especially when i have stated they are wrong- I note you have not uttered one word of criticism against Israel. Yet I am the dogmatic one- oh the hypocracy! Oh and once again you are putting words into my mouth.

Your Jan 12 post 29 equated Israel's border closings with Hamas rockets, a moral equivalence that ignores Hamas attacks on the border crossings at Karni, Sufa, and Kerem Sholom that forced closings, and ignores the Egyption crossing.

Israel appears reluctant to give up the ability to keep its foot on the throat of Gaza regardless of the actions of any Palestinian faction. They didn't ease the blockade during a period which saw no rocket attacks or very few- despite this being terms of the ceasefire. Essentially, Hamas seemed to have made more of an effort to rein in attacks (98-9%). Yet Israel didn't let anywhere near 98% of the aid through and continued incursions and assassination. I don't support the rocket attacks but it would be useful to know their dates in order to place them in context of this ceasefire.

Re- the Egyptian crossing. I would disagree with its blocking but the circumstances are entirely different. As the besieging force, Israel remains responsible for the well-being of Gaza’s civilians.

It surely ignores the bizarreness of the idea that Israel is expected to provide food, medicine, and fuel to a regime calling for its destruction (but Israel does so nonetheless, including during the war)

Three quarters of a million of the Gaza population are dependent on UN food aid, which is not always allowed across the border. Again, explicit in your analysis is a justification for collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza

By saying Hamas's calls for the destruction of Israel and Jews are merely rhetoric (as if that made it acceptable) you minimized the threat they represent.

There is a symbolic element to their rhetoric- which is still reprehensible. I was actually quoting a very distinguished British diplomat. Will you respond to the rhetoric coming out of Israel- which I have posted? In terms of the threat they represent to Israel- it is minimal- that is clearly demonstrable.

When Epee_Pox, Slim, Inq, OROD, Hauptmann, bpm and I are in agreement despite our widely varying politics, maybe it wouldn't hurt you to engage in a tiny bit bit of self-examination

Now this truly is a ridiculous argument. Because 7 Americans agree that Israel is entirely blameless- this is evidence of a unified truth?! Er..perhaps it's because this is a US forum and as such it is not unsurprising that 7 Americans are going to agree that Israel can do what it likes in Gaza.
But, you've already made your mind up: we're wrong, you're right, and that's all there is to it.

Bringing up racist remarks from the other side, some from long-dead Israelis, doesn't change the fact that the Israeli government (and Fatah, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others)

Nicely side-stepped. Care to comment further on anti-Arabic/Muslim racism as part of the pathology of the situation?

It is pointless claiming you accept a two state solution if you know that that solution is totally unacceptable to the other side- i.e. total control of Jerusalem, no right of return etc.

Just as you excuse Iran, who has similar ambitions and a nuclear initiative you also labeled benign.

Total mischaricterisation (what did I expect)

Their avowed long term goal remains unchanged, and your focus of guilt overwhelmingly to the Israeli side is abhorrent

I think the majority of the guilt for this current conflict lies with Israel. I believe the overall guilt of the wider and historical crisis is about even. I find your views equally unpleasant- but that is no indicator of who has a better grasp of the issues.

That's it- I'm finished over and out. If there is one thing we can all agree is that this thread was a mistake and should not be repeated (which is quite a sad indictment). Sorry for raising these issues, I wasn't trying to cause trouble.

I am overwhelmingly happy for all Americans today- perhaps it's best we forget this thread happened.

[keith]

That's it- I'm finished over and out. If there is one thing we can all agree is that this thread was a mistake and should not be repeated (which is quite a sad indictment). Sorry for raising these issues, I wasn't trying to cause trouble.

I would have thought that as a denizen of the internets you would have realized that discussion of those individuals in that region guarantees this result?

[pigeonmeister]

I would have thought that as a denizen of the internets you would have realized that discussion of those individuals in that region guarantees this result?

I'm a slow learner...

The problem is I retain an enormous interest in the region's politics and enjoy robust debate. I don't find that I have extreme beliefs - but how then to indulge my interests- they are all off-topic? Obviously this hasn't been an enjoyable experience for anyone.

I wish I knew more about less controversial issues- like medical ethics and contemporary interpretations of point in line....