Here are the questions which should be asked about any military operation:
1) Is the strategic objective a good one?
2) Will the operation likely bring about the objective?
3) Does the objective justify the means used in the operation?
Israel has a good strategic objective -- to stop the arbitrary bombing of Israeli civilians by Hamas. More broadly, it aims to reduce the number of Israeli casualties as well as to reduce the terror caused by the rocket attacks. These are understandable and perfectly commendable goals.
But will the attacks on Gaza bring about that objective? I'm quite skeptical, and the recent failure in Lebanon only brings more skepticism. The truth is, it's just not that hard to fire missiles into Israel from right next door. Killing a bunch of Hamas policemen isn't going to stop it. Qassam rockets don't need uranium or centrifuges or radar or aircraft or special fuel or even a big launcher. Anybody can make one in his basement with a few common tools and components.
Not only will the attacks probably fail to bring about the objective, but there is a good chance that they will bring about the anti-objective. By killing so many Palestinians and terrorizing and inconveniencing and making the lives miserable of so many more, they mobilize anti-Israel and anti-semitic sentiments among the Palestinians. The inevitable reprisals will no doubt kill more Israelis than all the Qassam rockets in the history of the conflict. And that's not even counting Israeli soldiers who die during the operation.
The biggest problem with the operation, though, is the answer to the third question. Does the objective of stopping the rockets justify the means Israel is using, even if it did acheive that objective? I guess that depends on the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties you deem acceptable. Is it acceptable to kill a hundred Palestinian civilians and destroy the homes and livelihoods of thousands of them and the infrastructure that supports millions of them to save a dozen Israeli lives?
I'll leave you with two paragraphs from Matthew Yglesias:
One way to reply to [the idea that intentions are what matter] is à la Ezra Klein who observes that at some point you need to judge based on what’s actually happening. And what’s been happening is that whatever Hamas’ ambitions may or may not have been, they were scattering short-range inaccurate rocket fire on Israel that was causing little damage. Israel struck back with actions that have killed hundreds of Palestinians and pushed over a million more closer to the brink of starvation. And in general this is an important aspect of the conflict — irrespective of intentions, over the years you have many more dead Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians.
But another piece of the puzzle is that though American Jewish liberals tend to take a lot of comfort in the idea of Israel’s good intentions and good faith throughout this whole process, there’s a reason approximately no Arabs anywhere in the world see it that way. All throughout the “peace process” years — through the good ones and through the bad ones — Israel continued expanding both the geographical footprint of its settlements and the population living upon them. For most of this time, Israel has often appeared unwilling to enforce domestic Israeli law on the settler population, to say nothing of abiding by international law or agreements made. And while Israel has stated a desire to leave the Gaza Palestinians alone in their tiny, overcrowded, economically unviable enclave, the “disengagement” from Gaza has never entailed letting Palestinians control their borders or exercise meaningful sovereignty over the area. The proposal has basically been that if Palestinians cease violence against Israel, then the Gaza Strip will be treated like an Indian reservation. Israel’s policy objectives in the West Bank appear to be first seizing the choice bits of it, and then withdrawing behind a wall with the residual West Bank treating like post-”disengagement” Gaza.
You can argue until the cows come home about who has the moral high ground, but at the end of the day Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians than vice versa, not only in this military action, but throughout the history of the conflict. Israel has continued to build "settlements," often aimed specifically at expanding Israel's territory and strategic holdings and to make a self-contained Palestinian state impossible. In doing so, it's not only been morally wrong, but breaking its own laws.
There is no excuse for Hamas to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. But just because Hamas is a terrorist organization doesn't mean that anything Israel does in response is justified. Israel must make sure its military operations are both effective and moral. The framing of the argument away from those relevant questions to a place where Israel gets to play the wholly innocent victim ("We aren't allowed to defend ourselves??" "We're worse than Hamas??") and much of the western world gets painted as antisemitic is just disingenuous.
Please don't respond by asking for alternatives, or by saying Israel has to do something, as if the lack of alternatives makes any counterproductive and immoral operation a good choice. And don't whine about media bias or antisemitism or any other change of topic. You have to demonstrate that this specific military action is moral and likely to succeed in order to win this argument.
274 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 274 of 274LOL, this should be fun.
Our resident Jewish crazy against our (newly) resident anti-Israel crazy.
Shalmo:
The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews deliberately and systematically. They rounded them up in cattle cars and marched them into gas chambers. Israel has neither murdered nor expelled the Palestinians despite having the military capability to do so. They've done some things wrong, but to call them Nazis is just ridiculous.
The Palestians, meanwhile, have done a LOT of wrong as well. We should all be greatful that they're not the ones in possession of Israel's military might, because if they were we really could be looking at another Holocaust. Do you deny that?
Also, the idea that Israel is just going to pick up and leave is a complete non-starter. There's just zero possibility that it would ever happen. So why talk about an impossibility? There are only three remotely plausible options: continuing the status quo, moving to a two-state solution, or a single-state combined solution. And the single-state combined solution is pretty much impossible for the forseeable future.
(Good comments by Random.)
JA - Good point about the possibility of more effective attacks by Hamas in the future. Maybe that does make it worth it.
I don't see why you don't follow this logic to its clear conclusion, unless you are content with a status quo of some terrorist attacks.
"If history has taught us anything, it's that both Christians and Muslims are capable of extraordinary violence and persecution. Jews have mostly been a minority, and often a victimized minority (although it's true they were treated relatively well FOR THE TIMES under Islamic rule in the past) and I don't anything Jews have done comes even close to the evils done in the names of Jesus and Allah."
Muslims don't have an Inquisition, Crusades, or genocides in two continents on their list of bad things done.
It was Muslim Spain, the center of civilization at its time, run under islamic law no less, that gave you the best sage you have ever had; Maimonides. He took many sufi concepts, and other rationalist philosophies developed under the muslim, to reform judaism and give the legalistic religion a soul if you will. The sad part is you all desperately need to water down good treatment of Jews in the muslim world, because it strengthens your resolve to have Israel. Perhaps you should check out the condition of Jews in Iran and how well they are doing there. All slimy attempts by zionists to lure them to Israel have been resisted by them, due to their loyalty for the islamic republic.
The worst muslims have had to offer is when our countries have been invaded by colonial powers for oil and other resources, and when dictators are installed in our countries (Saddam, the Saudi royal family, pretty much all governments of the arabs, and so forth). Baathism, in ideology sponsored by Britain is what turned the arabs into a bloodthirsty lot, islam had nothing to do with it.
As for whether muslims have caused as much violence as Jews, well that is also extremely debatable. Sunni/Shia infighting has really only emerged in the last 200 years, and often has western sponsors such as in the case of saddam's installment by the US. The 12 tribes of Israel murdered each other, with Judah being the remaining tribe, hence the word Jew; meaning one who comes from Judah. A barbarism of that scale amongst adherants of the same faith has no comparison in muslim history. And frankly today Israel has caused more bloodshed that the totality of muslim terrorists
"There are crazies on both sides. Unfortunately for you, you've just become a crazy to people on the Israeli side by using an idiotic term like "Zionazi.""
Oh by I believe the word describes current Israeli actions to the letter. They wouldn't have earned the name, if they didn't ethnically cleanse a people who have been on that land longer than any jewish presence on it
"The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews deliberately and systematically. They rounded them up in cattle cars and marched them into gas chambers. Israel has neither murdered nor expelled the Palestinians despite having the military capability to do so. They've done some things wrong, but to call them Nazis is just ridiculous."
BULL!
I don't have to list 60 years of Hell brought upon the Palestinians by Israel to show just how out to lunch you are my friend. There was a Palestine before Israel, and the Jewish minority was well treated. But the tables have starkly turned when now Jews hold power.
But I am glad you mentioned the Holocaust. Now assuming one can believe that 6-million figure, may I ask why the repeated emphasis by Israeli advocates on the Holocaust. You see its convenient to use that card to garner pity of Jews, because you can use it to silence all criticism of Israel as anti-semtic. The Palestinians have no giult for the Holocaust, and in many cases protected their Jewish brethren from Nazis coming for them.
"The Palestians, meanwhile, have done a LOT of wrong as well. We should all be greatful that they're not the ones in possession of Israel's military might, because if they were we really could be looking at another Holocaust. Do you deny that?"
Of course I deny it. You fail to see that we already have a Holocaust happening today, and that is of the Palestinian people. When there was a Palestine, the Jews were thriving as a minority. Today as a majority (not all though) they have made life Hell for just about everyone else living there
"There are only three remotely plausible options: continuing the status quo, moving to a two-state solution, or a single-state combined solution. And the single-state combined solution is pretty much impossible for the forseeable future."
In my opinion the one-state solution of joint arab/hebrew nationality is the only real solution, because a) Israelis cannot be trusted to create a peace-plan because each one that they have created has been a ruse to the greater goal of acquiring all of Palestine and b) because no matter how you try to divide that land, one group on another will always cry foul at the geography handed to them. They tried the two-state solution, where Israel created a geography that would essentially seperate Palestinians from any source water, much less fertile land. And since the Palestinians are not stupid, it didn't work.
The one-state solution is the only rational solution.
A good book, by a fellow jew, that you might consider buying:
THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: REFLECTIONS ON THE EXPLOITATION OF JEWISH SUFFERING
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=3
A few point on it:
In 2007, Raul Hilberg, most distinguished historian on the Nazi holocaust and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, said:
"...Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost."
('World-Renowned Holocaust, Israel Scholars Defend DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein as He Fights for Tenure', Democracy NOW!, 05.09.2007 )
Hilberg comments on the first edition of The Holocaust Industry:
"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry , at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."
More of Hilberg's statements on The Holocaust Industry and Finkelstein here
Ezzie:
I don't see why you don't follow this logic to its clear conclusion, unless you are content with a status quo of some terrorist attacks.
Do you think I am content with a status quo of terrorist attacks?
My position's not that complicated: 15 Israeli deaths and dozens of Palestinian deaths are better than more than 15 Israeli deaths and hundreds of Palestinian deaths. Picking the least-bad option doesn't mean that you're "content," it means that you're rational.
If, as Random suggests, the operation will over the long term save hundreds or more of Israeli lives, than I think it will have been worth it.
Muslim Dude:
Muslims don't have an Inquisition, Crusades, or genocides in two continents on their list of bad things done.
Muslims are intentionally targeting civilians all over the globe.
The sad part is you all desperately need to water down good treatment of Jews in the muslim world, because it strengthens your resolve to have Israel.
I'm not watering down anything. I already agreed that Muslims treated Jews well for the times. I say "for the times" because it's not like they were America. They had taxes on non-Muslims, etc.
Perhaps you should check out the condition of Jews in Iran and how well they are doing there.
I know personally over a dozen Iranian Jews (and some Christians) who came to the United States. Iran openly discriminates against Jews.
he worst muslims have had to offer is when our countries have been invaded by colonial powers for oil and other resources, and when dictators are installed in our countries (Saddam, the Saudi royal family, pretty much all governments of the arabs, and so forth). Baathism, in ideology sponsored by Britain is what turned the arabs into a bloodthirsty lot, islam had nothing to do with it.
Just because people have been wronged, it doesn't excuse murder and terrorism.
Oh by I believe the word describes current Israeli actions to the letter. They wouldn't have earned the name, if they didn't ethnically cleanse a people who have been on that land longer than any jewish presence on it
If the Israelis are Nazis, why don't they just wipe out the Palestinians and be done with it? You think they don't have the ability?
Shalmo:
But I am glad you mentioned the Holocaust. Now assuming one can believe that 6-million figure, may I ask why the repeated emphasis by Israeli advocates on the Holocaust. You see its convenient to use that card to garner pity of Jews, because you can use it to silence all criticism of Israel as anti-semtic.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP. You're comparing Israel to the Nazis.
Of course I deny it. You fail to see that we already have a Holocaust happening today, and that is of the Palestinian people.
How many millions of innocent Palestinians have Israel killed?
In my opinion the one-state solution of joint arab/hebrew nationality is the only real solution
Maybe, but that can't happen for at least a few generations. No way those two peoples can peaceably coexist in the same country right now.
"Muslims are intentionally targeting civilians all over the globe."
Ah no. We like everybody else have a 1% who likes to behave naughty. The difference with us is that the western media lives pointing the camera 24/7 on that 1% in order to portray it as the majority. I'm assuming you as an atheist wouldn't appreciate me associating you with Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
The problem with you is that you aren't tailored for something that doesn't come from Fox, or CNN. How many eastern channels have you engaged? Ever heard of Al-Jazeera. Funny thing is the US has fought every attempt at having an outlet for that station in West, lest people hear what the opposite side has to say
"I'm not watering down anything. I already agreed that Muslims treated Jews well for the times. I say "for the times" because it's not like they were America."
They were well treated PERIOD. Compared to the growing anti-semtism in US for killing jesus and other nonsense, this was absent (for the most part) under muslim rule. Was it perfect, no. But it was better than what we have today
"They had taxes on non-Muslims, etc."
I have gotten really sick of refuting this point over the years. First can you tell me of any state in all of human history that does not tax its population. Its a fare deal, you pay the state taxes to enjoy the benefits those taxes provide. I lose 30% of my money to taxes annually, and rarely get to enjoy most of its perks
So how was the jizya tax different? Simple. In islamic law, non-muslims were treated as guests, hence they had to pay lower taxes than the muslim population. Muslims had to pay both khums and zakat, where as non-muslim paid only jizya which is substantially lower. On top of that they were exempt from military duty. If the state was attacked, muslim had a duty to defend it, but non-muslims had no such obligation (but were allowed to participate in the army if they wished). So having to pay both lower taxes, and not having to take part in defending the state; I'd say that was a sweet deal.
"I know personally over a dozen Iranian Jews (and some Christians) who came to the United States. Iran openly discriminates against Jews."
I believe you are being dishonest in order to win a point. Or perhaps your friends encountered hate from everyday joes. But the state itself is different
Iran while being an islamic state, has four state religions: islam, judaism, christianity and zorastrianism.
Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles. Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association".
Plus they are entitled to seats in the Parliament
"Just because people have been wronged, it doesn't excuse murder and terrorism."
I agree. But what does this have to do with my point.
If you are willing and ready to denounce terrorism, will you do so now against what Israel is doing in Gaza.
"If the Israelis are Nazis, why don't they just wipe out the Palestinians and be done with it? You think they don't have the ability?"
Well its true not all of the Nazis were bad. Many of them were coerced into it. Many fell prey to the disease of race nationalism. blah blah blah.
Oh wait. I suppose me sticking up for and providing a balancing view of Nazis must be shocking to you. Well now you know how ridiculous your defense of Israeli genocide appears to me.
"YOU'RE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP. You're comparing Israel to the Nazis."
I AM comparing the actions of Israelis to the Nazis, yes but I never used the Holocaust card.
YOU DID. And that is when I asked why Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe, considering many actually sheltered Jews from Nazis. Want some stories, I have plenty to offer
"How many millions of innocent Palestinians have Israel killed?"
Ah. You do know what Israel is doing today in Gaza right?
The death tole for Palestinians is adding up day by day
"Maybe, but that can't happen for at least a few generations. No way those two peoples can peaceably coexist in the same country right now."
The One-State Solution is impossible. I have already explained why any division of the land brought up by Israel cannot be trusted, because of the dubious history of always shoving Palestinians in areas lacking water resources. The fact is NO party will ever be satisfied with any division of land. They will ceaselessly feel they were looted from what should have been theirs, hence the one-state solution is key
But yes you are right. The population clearly have an animosity that would make reconciliation hard. But I like to believe the people who wish for peace, tolerance and co-existance are in the majority and when given the opportunity will strive for a better future. But only when Israelis quench their bloodthirst can such a utopia be reached
^^sorry I meant the two-state solution is the one that is impossible
The answer isn't to sink to their level, but to lawfully and morally root them out.
Would that this were a realistic possibility - unfortunately history has shown very clearly that it is not.
In my opinion this really only leaves one option, summarized very succinctly by Sean Connery:
You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they're not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Ness: How do you do it then?
You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Ness: Yes.
Good, 'cause you just took one
MD:
Ah no. We like everybody else have a 1% who likes to behave naughty. The difference with us is that the western media lives pointing the camera 24/7 on that 1% in order to portray it as the majority.
I certainly understand that a majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
They were well treated PERIOD. Compared to the growing anti-semtism in US for killing jesus and other nonsense, this was absent (for the most part) under muslim rule. Was it perfect, no. But it was better than what we have today
Jews had to pay higher taxes. During part of the time, they had to wear special yellow turbans so that noone could confuse them (Allah forbid) with Muslims. Jews were limited to the extent that they could practice their religion.
So how was the jizya tax different? Simple. In islamic law, non-muslims were treated as guests, hence they had to pay lower taxes than the muslim population. Muslims had to pay both khums and zakat, where as non-muslim paid only jizya which is substantially lower.
So why did non-Muslims have to be treated as guests instead of as equals? How many generations does this guest status go?
I believe you are being dishonest in order to win a point. Or perhaps your friends encountered hate from everyday joes. But the state itself is different
To take just one example, is it or is it not true that Jews are not allowed to hold certain government positions in Iran?
If you are willing and ready to denounce terrorism, will you do so now against what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends. I do not believe Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, but is instead doing everything it can to avoid civilian deaths, given the operation they're engaging in. Whether it's moral to engage in that operation knowing it will kill hundreds of civilians is exactly the reason for this post.
Well its true not all of the Nazis were bad. Many of them were coerced into it. Many fell prey to the disease of race nationalism. blah blah blah.
So you're just comparing Israel to the "good" Nazis? LOL.
Well now you know how ridiculous your defense of Israeli genocide appears to me.
Ridiculously over-the-top exaggeration does not help your cause. There's no genocide going on here.
Shalmo:
I AM comparing the actions of Israelis to the Nazis, yes but I never used the Holocaust card.
Well that's splitting hairs, isn't it?
YOU DID. And that is when I asked why Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe, considering many actually sheltered Jews from Nazis. Want some stories, I have plenty to offer
I never said Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe or anyone else.
Ah. You do know what Israel is doing today in Gaza right?
Yeah, they're (over?)reacting to rocket attacks on civilians with a campaign that is killing hundreds of Palestinians.
The death tole for Palestinians is adding up day by day
I know. At this rate, the Israelis will have reached Nazi-like levels in approximately 60,000 days.
But I like to believe the people who wish for peace, tolerance and co-existance are in the majority and when given the opportunity will strive for a better future. But only when Israelis quench their bloodthirst can such a utopia be reached
What about the Palestinian bloodthirst?
^^sorry I meant the two-state solution is the one that is impossible
How do you envision the one-state? Under Muslim rule? A secular democracy? What?
G:
This isn't a movie, and "the Chicago way" just leads to generations of feuding with ever-escalating violence.
"I certainly understand that a majority of Muslims are not terrorists."
Awesome!
"Jews had to pay higher taxes."
You know. Repeating a lie, no matter how many times does not make it true.
Jizya is LESS than Zakat+Khums
I am not going to repeat this again as I have a life outside this blog.
"During part of the time, they had to wear special yellow turbans so that noone could confuse them (Allah forbid) with Muslims."
LOL! Your are funny. Some evidence would be nice
"Jews were limited to the extent that they could practice their religion."
Jews were allowed to practise Judaism to its fullest. Repeating a lie no matter how many times, does not make it true.
You do know what the concept of Ahlul-Kitab is correct. It guarantee religious freedom for minorities under muslim rule.
Even during Mohammed's time, we held treaties with Jews, agreed on some basic terms of how we would live together, and the rest is history. This is exactly how it was done with Jews in other places where they lived under muslim rule. I won't pretend that there were examples of Jewish persecution in these states either, but over all they were fair. A simple google on treaties muslims signed with the Jews will prove this to you.
"So why did non-Muslims have to be treated as guests instead of as equals? How many generations does this guest status go?"
Hey you don't have to live in muslim lands if you don't want to. You wanna leave, go right ahead.
But if you wish to stay with us, then please respect our rules. This is no different than when immigrants come to US, they have to swear an allegiance to hold by the US constitution. We never made anyone swear to follow our laws, but we had a way of doing things, and we asked our guests respect that.
You do know that it was the generosity of muslims that gave you back Jerusalem, correct
"To take just one example, is it or is it not true that Jews are not allowed to hold certain government positions in Iran?"
I just told you. Jews have seats reserved for them in the Parliament. The number of seats is based on population estimates.
"Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends. I do not believe Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, but is instead doing everything it can to avoid civilian deaths, given the operation they're engaging in. Whether it's moral to engage in that operation knowing it will kill hundreds of civilians is exactly the reason for this post."
Well buddy that is exactly what Israel is doing. Using violence for political ends. Hamas and Hezbollah both came after the beginning Israeli atrocities, not before. They are a reaction. A legitimate reaction against state oppression by the oppressed people themselves.
"So you're just comparing Israel to the "good" Nazis? LOL."
NO> I am comparing Israeli actions aka ethnic genocide to Nazism. Period.
"Ridiculously over-the-top exaggeration does not help your cause. There's no genocide going on here."
The Palestinians would disagree with you on that, as does the rest of the world.
MD:
I'm going to stop arguing about Muslim Spain because I don't know that much about it. As far as I can tell, it's just mainstream historical knowledge that dhimmis (Jews, Christians, etc.) had to wear distinguishing clothing during at least parts of the Islamic rule.
The bigger point, though, is that America (for example) welcomes Jews as equals while the old Islamic world did not.
You say that Iran is great to Jews and that Jews don't want to leave, but there were around 150,000 Jews living in Iran in 1948 and now there are less than 40,000.
As for genocide, that's just propaganda. Israel could easily kill virtually everybody in Gaza in a couple of hours. But they don't. They make phone calls warning civilians to vacate areas that they will attack. Does Hamas ever warn Israeli civilians that rockets are coming?
Your completely one-sided view of the conflict is ridiculous. I can admit Israel has done some wrong; why can't you admit that they're not Nazis? And that the Palestinians have also done wrong?
"I'm going to stop arguing about Muslim Spain because I don't know that much about it."
Remember the last time you argued against a creationist. You must have thought how ludicrous it is for this fellow argue against something he clearly has no clue about. Indeed in the 21st century people who claim evolution is "just a theory" are nauseating. Well congratulations. You are the Kent Hovind in this discussion, and I the Richard Dawkins. Think about it.
And while you are at it, kindly retract your previous statements about yellow turbans and other nonsense. I consider those slander.
"As far as I can tell, it's just mainstream historical knowledge that dhimmis (Jews, Christians, etc.) had to wear distinguishing clothing during at least parts of the Islamic rule."
Yes. And its also mainstream knowledge that during shabbat Jews grow tails, and sacrifice innocent christian children to Baal.
You previously just admitted you don't have knowledge about Muslim Spain, so why still argue this point.
"The bigger point, though, is that America (for example) welcomes Jews as equals while the old Islamic world did not."
What is equal is EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE.
Per the rules of sharia law, we signed the treaties with Jews where they agreed to these terms. At least we gave them the option to sign treaties and agree to mutually beneficial goals; compared to say the babylonians, assyrians, christians, etc
"You say that Iran is great to Jews and that Jews don't want to leave, but there were around 150,000 Jews living in Iran in 1948 and now there are less than 40,000."
Actually Shiraz or Mashad (I forget which) had 20,000 Jews during Khomeini's time. Today that population has grown to 40,000.
"As for genocide, that's just propaganda. Israel could easily kill virtually everybody in Gaza in a couple of hours. But they don't. They make phone calls warning civilians to vacate areas that they will attack. Does Hamas ever warn Israeli civilians that rockets are coming?"
You are brainwashed. I challenge you to spend at least 10 minutes in a muslim forum, and you'd be surprised just how false you info on phone calls, and other such nonsense is
Let me get you started: http://www.aimislam.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8859
"Your completely one-sided view of the conflict is ridiculous. I can admit Israel has done some wrong; why can't you admit that they're not Nazis? And that the Palestinians have also done wrong?"
Because they are behaving like Nazis. Ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter what semantical debates you hold to try to weasel out of it.
Yes the Palestinians have done some wrong as well
But there is a difference between a man who is armed with sticks and stones to throw at tanks charging him.
The problem is that Judaism in its core permits such behavior. The Torah fills one with a nationalism with all things Jewish. Hence its ok to slaughter little boys, pregnant women and to take virgin girls as sex slaves to repopulate your ranks; so long as you do it to your enemies. Or to be told you can't lend interest to a fellow jew, yet you MUST do so with a gentile. Clearly I fear people who are taught this as a religion. The thing with the Palestinians is that as muslims, they have the Quran which contrary to the Torah, makes it quite clear that harming women, children and non-combatants of any race or religion is haram (forbidden). That's the difference between the two paradigms.
"Well that's splitting hairs, isn't it?
I never said Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe or anyone else."
I don't know what you are arguing here.
As for the Holocaust, my concern lies with how its used to silence criticism of Israel as anti-semitic
"Yeah, they're (over?)reacting to rocket attacks on civilians with a campaign that is killing hundreds of Palestinians."
I already rebuttled the bullshit on rocket attacks. Check out my list of top 5 lies about this conflict.
"I know. At this rate, the Israelis will have reached Nazi-like levels in approximately 60,000 days."
Which is why those people have a right to resist. Whether through rockets or whatever. Someone has to stop it. Israel must be nuked, or the threat of nuclear arms must be used to stop them. But something must be done.
"What about the Palestinian bloodthirst?"
When Palestinians still had Palestine, Jews were a prosperous minority. Now when Jews rule, Palestinians live in Hell.
The bloodthirst begins with the Israelis. The Palestinians have it as well, but once you end all Jewish hostilities, then they will have no more reason to hate you
"How do you envision the one-state? Under Muslim rule? A secular democracy? What?"
Democracies are kool! I am not in favor of a theocracy. But I don't favor total removal or religion, say similar to the EU, either.
Muslims must do it the way they have always done it through sharia. Following Mohammed's example, we must hold treaties with those who's views don't match our own, and agree to mutually beneficial goals. The Prophet of Islam let each religion set up their own courts in Medina, to decide affairs for whoever adhered to that particular religion. I think a similar model should be enacted for Palestine
But please STOP using the Torah. The Torah is filled with contradictions on what the geography of Judea is supposed to be as we see different maps in words of Numbers, Deutoronomy, and so forth. Archaeology has already shown that Jews never had access to all of Canaan. And that the Torah was tailored to match the political interests of Judea's kings. It does NOT constitute as some sort of proof of ownership of that land. Arabs have been living there for a longer period, hence they have as much right to it
The Mamluks in 1301 declared that Jews under their rule had to wear yellow turbans, were not permitted to ride on horses and were dismissed from all government positions.
http://tinyurl.com/yellowturbans
"At least we gave them the option to sign treaties and agree to mutually beneficial goals; compared to say the babylonians, assyrians, christians, etc"
LOL. Just like America made treaties with the Indians, eh?
"You are brainwashed. I challenge you to spend at least 10 minutes in a muslim forum, and you'd be surprised just how false you info on phone calls, and other such nonsense is"
So you need a special Muslim forum to NOT brainwash you when regular public news widely demonstrates Israel warning the Palestinians? Does that make sense to you?
"Hence its ok to slaughter little boys, pregnant women and to take virgin girls as sex slaves to repopulate your ranks; so long as you do it to your enemies. Or to be told you can't lend interest to a fellow jew, yet you MUST do so with a gentile. Clearly I fear people who are taught this as a religion. The thing with the Palestinians is that as muslims, they have the Quran which contrary to the Torah, makes it quite clear that harming women, children and non-combatants of any race or religion is haram (forbidden). That's the difference between the two paradigms."
Wow. Obviously there has been a general ethical advancement for the widest majority of Jews since the Iron Age - simply, Jews are NOT taught in religious schools what you are suggesting. But it's also quite clear that some Muslims interpret your "clear" holy book a little differently.
"The Mamluks in 1301 declared that Jews under their rule had to wear yellow turbans, were not permitted to ride on horses and were dismissed from all government positions."
The mamluks served the Abbasids, who had nothing to do with islam and everything to do with arab nationalists who wished to conquer. The word Abbasid itself says more than enough about their intentions. Was this is the best you could do? "chuckles"
Don't worry I am not saying muslims were perfect, but compared to current treatment of Palestinians by Israel, even the mamluks were saints
"LOL. Just like America made treaties with the Indians, eh?"
Hey your own rabbis agreed to it. You haven't read any of the treaties (copies of which we have with us today) so what are you barking at.
You do know that during Mohammed's time the greatest Jewish massacre was laid upon the Banu Qurayza. Muslims allowed all minorities, including Jews, to elect their own judges. Sadly it was the very judge that the Jews themselves elected who issued their destruction, and he was a Jew himself.
You should be grateful to muslims. One can be shocked at the magnitude of inter-jewish warfare taking place in Medina at this time. Good thing we were around to stop your lot from going on any further, lest you continue killing each other from now till forever. We also gave you rabbinical judaism, which for the most part ended jewish infighting.
"So you need a special Muslim forum to NOT brainwash you when regular public news widely demonstrates Israel warning the Palestinians? Does that make sense to you?"
I simply challenged him to go discuss with those whose viewpoints contradict his own, kinda like how I am doing now.
Actually I would like to rephrase that. He should go to a Palestinian forum to get their viewpoint on what Israel is doing.
As was discussed before, even if Israel gave warnings to the Gazans (which it didn't), exactly where are the Gazans supposed to run to. This have been trapped and isolated by your ilk in that tiny territory. Where do you expect them to go?
"Wow. Obviously there has been a general ethical advancement for the widest majority of Jews since the Iron Age - simply, Jews are NOT taught in religious schools what you are suggesting. But it's also quite clear that some Muslims interpret your "clear" holy book a little differently."
Not really. My holy book can't be used to sanction genocide because it never ordered it in the first place, unlike say the butchery of Joshua or the slaughter of the Ammalekites, Canaanites, etc etc
from a jewish blogger:
“I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Menechem Begin
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
— Rabbi Yaacov Perrin (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)
Sorry orthoprax. But the above doesn't sound like "advancement" to me. The Jewish people have a long way to go, which is why I have a feeling Yahweh will be issuing a third exile in our days.
Do you think I am content with a status quo of terrorist attacks?
My position's not that complicated: 15 Israeli deaths and dozens of Palestinian deaths are better than more than 15 Israeli deaths and hundreds of Palestinian deaths.
That sounds like being content with the status quo. Israel should be willing to accept a small number of deaths. That's immoral.
Picking the least-bad option doesn't mean that you're "content," it means that you're rational.
If, as Random suggests, the operation will over the long term save hundreds or more of Israeli lives, than I think it will have been worth it.
And if it only saves the 15 you said before? That's not "worth it?"
As I noted before (and in my piece), it is immoral for a government to allow ANY terror attacks against itself.
"The mamluks served the Abbasids, who had nothing to do with islam and everything to do with arab nationalists who wished to conquer. The word Abbasid itself says more than enough about their intentions."
Uh huh. Actually by the 13th century they acted independently of the Abbasids. And they made those edicts against the dhimmis under their rule in the name of Islam. Got that Kent?
"You do know that during Mohammed's time the greatest Jewish massacre was laid upon the Banu Qurayza."
Yes, as lead by Muhammed himself.
"Muslims allowed all minorities, including Jews, to elect their own judges. Sadly it was the very judge that the Jews themselves elected who issued their destruction, and he was a Jew himself."
Actually it was Muhammed who appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to be the arbitrator - and he was a convert to Islam.
"You should be grateful to muslims. One can be shocked at the magnitude of inter-jewish warfare taking place in Medina at this time. Good thing we were around to stop your lot from going on any further, lest you continue killing each other from now till forever."
Right. Because the activities of a few small independent tribes in seventh century Arabia is representative of Jews everywhere. Not to mention how this incident in the seventh century is of course representative for the next 1300 years of history, eh?
"We also gave you rabbinical judaism, which for the most part ended jewish infighting."
Eh, you're nuts.
"As was discussed before, even if Israel gave warnings to the Gazans (which it didn't)"
Wrongo. Israel drops thousands of leaflets warning the Gazans of impending operations in their neighborhoods. This is easily verifiable. Use Google news search.
"exactly where are the Gazans supposed to run to."
Um, away from those neighborhoods? Genius.
"Not really. My holy book can't be used to sanction genocide because it never ordered it in the first place"
Uh huh, but wars of aggression and conquest, not to mention terrorism are alright? Some of your people at least seem to understand Jihad in a very literal and scary way.
"“I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon"
Misquote: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=373
"“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet... Menechem Begin"
Again, shenanigans! I'm straight up right now calling you a liar for these "quotes" This one is a pure fabrication. But I guess you're the intellectually honest type, huh?
"“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
— Rabbi Yaacov Perrin"
And you're point? I don't agree with this quote anymore than I guess you would. Yaacov Perrin doesn't represent Jews or Israel.
"Sorry orthoprax. But the above doesn't sound like "advancement" to me."
You're right. It sounds like antisemitic propaganda. Well done.
Sometimes it is also to retaliate. When America bombed the crap out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, its sole purpose was to retaliate for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. America's attack was much stronger in force than Japan's, and although people did and still do condemn America for the bombings, most American's were happy with the retaliation, and Truman,the President at the time, finished his term with a good name, and is still talked about today, in high regard!
"Random:
Good point about the possibility of more effective attacks by Hamas in the future. Maybe that does make it worth it."
Dagnabbit JA, if you're going to do stupid thiungs like listen to what people who disagree with you are saying and take on board any points they make that seem valid, then how is anybody ever going to have a proper argument with you?:-)
"I don't see why you don't follow this logic to its clear conclusion, unless you are content with a status quo of some terrorist attacks."
Ezzie, to be fair to JA, he isn't "content" with any such thing. I'm sure it's more a realisation that it will be impossible to stop every single attack no matter how hard we try and so we need to consider the best way forward. (Which is almost certainly true, BTW.)
"Muslims don't have an Inquisition, Crusades, or genocides in two continents on their list of bad things done."
Muslim Dude, you really don't want to go down this road. But for the record:
Inquisition - the Al-Minha was slaughtering Muslims for being insuffuciently orthodox at least six centuries before the Spanish Inquisition, and similar bodies have existed in Muslim societies up to the present day, such as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia.
Crusades - Muslims *invented* Holy War. The Holy Land, Egypt, North Africa and Spain were Christian before they were Muslim, and they didn't change because of peaceful conversion. The only reason the whole of Europe isn't muslim is because in a war lasting over 80 years (634-717) the Roman Empire first fought the muslims to a standstill outside the gates of Constantinople and then pushed them back across Anatolia. As the Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam put it -
"Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. - And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam.""
Genocide - by some reckonings the biggest genocide in history may have been the result of the Muslim conquest of India, when something like 50-150 million people were killed for the crime of not being muslim, and Buddhism was wiped out as a religion in India as a direct result. (And another religion - Sikhism - came into being as a form of spiritual and physical resistance to muslim persecution). As recently as 1971, up to 2 million Hindus may have been killed in East Bengal when the Pakistani army went on the rampage, an action that led directly to the intervention of the Indian Army and the creation of Bangladesh. And before you say that's only one continent, we can talk about the East African Slave trade if you like, which devastated much of the continent, carrying off more people than the better known Atlantic trade and which was carried on openly well into the 20th century, and may still be continuing clandestinely today.
More Muslim Dude:
"Ah no. We like everybody else have a 1% who likes to behave naughty"
At least 7%, in Britain at least.
"One in six of all Muslims questioned thinks suicide bombings can sometimes be justified in Israel, though many fewer (7 per cent) say the same about Britain. This is broadly comparable to the number justifying suicide attacks in ICM and YouGov polls of British Muslims after the July 7 attacks."
And those are only the ones who were prepared to be honest when asked by a stranger, of course.
"The problem with you is that you aren't tailored for something that doesn't come from Fox, or CNN."
The regular readers here are probably goggling somewhat at the suggestion that JA is a dittohead for Fox News...
"Ever heard of Al-Jazeera. Funny thing is the US has fought every attempt at having an outlet for that station in West, lest people hear what the opposite side has to say"
WTF? My Satellite service has Al-Jazeera on it, Abu Dhabi TV and a hole bunch of Pakistani channels. And the provider is owned by Rupert Murdoch - you know, the same guy who owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. And it's been, ooh, weeks now since the CIA kicked down my door in the middle of the night. Seriously, where do you get this sort of stuff?
"Muslims had to pay both khums and zakat, where as non-muslim paid only jizya which is substantially lower"
Bull. Jizya was greater, in order to provide an incentive to non-Muslims to convert (ironically, such conversion was often resisted by Muslim governments, who did not want to lose the revenue represented by Jizya). The collection of it was also often deliberately carried out in a humiliating manner, for the same reason. This is one of the key reasons why places like Syria and Egypt went from wholly Christian to mostly Muslim in the 2 or 3 centuries following the islamic conquest. Khums BTW is a special tax levied on loot taken by muslims from non-muslims on the battlefield - obviously in any circumstance where khums is being paid, the non-muslim in question has lost a lot more than the 20% the muslim will pay in khums.
"you pay the state taxes to enjoy the benefits those taxes provide"
More bull. The only "benefit" jizya provided was the right to practice your religion without being killed, something which should be a basic human right. And even this right was only extended to Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, hence the Indian genocide.
"Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools."
Which are required to remain open on a Saturday in order to force Jews to break the Sabbath.
"Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina")"
Which was closed down by the government in September 2007.
Oh, and Iran also has a government which denies the Holocaust and which recently celebrated the centenary of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
"If you are willing and ready to denounce terrorism, will you do so now against what Israel is doing in Gaza."
Erm, that was pretty much the point of the post that this thread is in response to, and one of the reasons why it's now gone on to over 200 posts (although JA - quite rightly - refuses to describe Israel's actions as terrorism, he does believe they are unnecessarily violent and counter-productive).
Yet more Muslim Dude:
"And while you are at it, kindly retract your previous statements about yellow turbans and other nonsense. I consider those slander."
An eye-witness account from a visitor to mediaeval Cairo:
"So we dismounted from our donkeys outside the city, because no Jew or Christian is permitted to ride in any city even on donkeys. [Mamluks could ride horses.] The Jews wear yellow turbans on their heads in all the provinces of the Sultan’s domain."
I'm sure JA won't demand an apology for calling him a slanderer, but I have no doubt that as a decent guy you will want to offer him one anyway.
"Jews were allowed to practise Judaism to its fullest."
No, they weren't. As shown above in the reference to Iran for example obstacles have often been placed in their way to prevent them from properly observing the Sabbath, for example.
"
You do know what the concept of Ahlul-Kitab is correct. It guarantee religious freedom for minorities under muslim rule."
People of the Book. And no, it doesn't guarantee religious freedom - it guarantees a certain limited tolerance to practice those aspects of your faith that don't impinge on Muslims, so long as you recognise the absolute supremacy of Muslim rule in all respects. To take one obvious example, evangelism is a religious obligation - a fard, if you will - in most varieties of Christianity. Yet it has always been strictly forbidden for Christians to engage in it in any Islamic society and any muslim who does convert will face a death sentence for apostasy. And no, it doesn't protect "minorities" either - followers of religions that do not preach the God of Abraham can expect to be given only the choice of conversion or death.
"You do know that it was the generosity of muslims that gave you back Jerusalem, correct"
Whaaat? By deliberately not fighting hard enough in 1967 presumably...
"I just told you. Jews have seats reserved for them in the Parliament."
They have one seat reserved for them. And they are not allowed to stand as candidates in any non-reserved seats.
"Was this is the best you could do?"
Dunno about him, but:
"In 850 the caliph al‑Mutawakkil ordered Christians and Jews to wear both a sash called a zunnah and a distinctive kind of shawl or headscarf called a taylasin (the Christians had already been required to wear the sash). He also required them to wear small bells in public baths. In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim ordered Christians to put on half-meter wooden crosses and Jews to wear wooden calves around their necks. In the late 12th century, Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf ordered the Jews of the Maghreb to wear dark blue garments with long sleeves and saddle-like caps. His grandson Abdallah al-Adil made a concession after appeals from the Jews, relaxing the required clothing to yellow garments and turbans. In the 16th century, Jews of the Maghreb could only wear sandals made of rushes and black turbans or caps with an extra red piece of cloth.
Ottoman sultans continued to regulate the clothing of their non-Muslim subjects. In 1577, Murad III issued a firman forbidding Jews and Christians from wearing dresses, turbans, and sandals. In 1580, he changed his mind, restricting the previous prohibition to turbans and requiring dhimmis to wear black shoes; Jews and Christians also had to wear red and black hats, respectively. Observing in 1730 that some Muslims took to the habit of wearing caps similar to those of the Jews, Mahmud I ordered the hanging of the perpetrators. Mustafa III personally helped to enforce his decrees regarding clothes. In 1758, he was walking incognito in Istanbul and ordered the beheading of a Jew and an Armenian seen dressed in forbidden attire. The last Ottoman decree affirming the distinctive clothing for dhimmis was issued in 1837 by Mahmud II."
"The mamluks served the Abbasids, who had nothing to do with islam and everything to do with arab nationalists who wished to conquer. The word Abbasid itself says more than enough about their intentions."
Eh? "Abbasid" refers to the descendants of Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, Mohammed's uncle and successor as Caliph. It's difficult to get much more Muslim than that. Actually I'm going to take a wild guess here, and apologies if I'm wrong, but based on this surprising statement and your interst in matters Iranian, are you a Shi'a?
"We also gave you rabbinical judaism, which for the most part ended jewish infighting."
Which will come as a surprise to most jewish scholars, who IIRC seem to believe it grew up as a response to the destruction of the Second Temple in 71AD.
"“I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon"
This is a lie. It first appeared on a press release from the Islamic Association for Palestine (which, despite the name, is actually a Hamas front based in Illinois.) They claim to have heard it on the Kol Israel radio network (they must have very good antennas if they can get KI in Illinois...), but nobody has ever managed to trace a KI broadcast of this statement or find anybody from KI who has any recollection whatsoever of such a broadcast.
"“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Menechem Begin"
More bollocks. I can't believe I managed to track this down (my google fu is mighty, young Jedi...), but this is actually a quote from loopy conspiracy theorist Texe Marrs who believes that the world is being run by a secret conspiracy (aren't they all?) involving the Freemasons, Illuminati and the elders of Zion (I'm rather surprised there's no room in there for the British royal family and the Catholic Church myself, but maybe Marrs thought that was a bit implausible) and was picked up from there by a whole range of scummy white supremacist and anti-semitic websites who happily spread it all over the net. You'll note too that Marrs draws back from directly attributing the words to Begin, instead relying on you to infer the attribution from the following text - and to infer that he got it from Jimmy Carter, of all people!
At this point I think I'd like to ask you for a simple, one word answer to a question of mine. "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - true or fake? Cheers.
Congratulations on the Perrin quote though, pity he's only a sole bigot and not anybody who can speak for Jews as a whole. One out of three ain't bad, I suppose. Now, shall we trade quotes from the likes of the President of Iran denying the Holocaust?
Ezzie, to be fair to JA, he isn't "content" with any such thing. I'm sure it's more a realisation that it will be impossible to stop every single attack no matter how hard we try and so we need to consider the best way forward. (Which is almost certainly true, BTW.)
There's a difference between acceptance of a number of attacks from the outset (as he suggests) and recognizing that even the best counter-terrorism actions will still sometimes not be able to stop a small number of attacks. Certainly any government is required to attempt to reduce the number to zero, even if ultimately a couple might happen.
Plus, there's the possibility of destroying Hamas and/or getting the rest of Gaza sick of them to the point that they will no longer be able to carry out such attacks. (See Luttwack's piece in today's WSJ.)
Alright. Clearly since I am a lone wolf here, I can't provide refutations against an army of Jews having been Israeli propaganda. But just a quick reply to orthoprax
"Uh huh. Actually by the 13th century they acted independently of the Abbasids. And they made those edicts against the dhimmis under their rule in the name of Islam. Got that Kent?"
Perhaps you could show me where under sharia such an edict is even demanded.
Like I said, I'm not claiming there wasn't wrong done by muslims, but I do condemn when we are accused for more than our fair share
"Yes, as lead by Muhammed himself.
Actually it was Muhammed who appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh to be the arbitrator - and he was a convert to Islam."
WRONG.
Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was elected by the Banu Qurayza themselves. Jew means from Judah, and per your own creed one doesn't stop being Jewish even if they change religion. The man was a Jew.
I'll be posting a more detailed response to the Banu Qurayza thing in a moment
"Right. Because the activities of a few small independent tribes in seventh century Arabia is representative of Jews everywhere. Not to mention how this incident in the seventh century is of course representative for the next 1300 years of history, eh?"
The point is we put a stop to it.
As for it being just a few tribes in Arabia, sorry but that's bullshit to the max
Jewish history is filled with inter-jewish warfare, far beyond any of the squabbles of sunni/shia stuff. From the 12 tribes of Israel killing each other, till only Judah was left to the ceaseless in fighting of both first and second temple judaism.
"Eh, you're nuts."
Rabbinical Judaism grew out of the devastation of the first temple in the 1st century with yohanan ben zakkai and others and did not become the normative form of judaism until the period of the rise of Islam, with help from the Islamic world. It was a very complicated process that did not solidify completely until the period of the GEonim (7th-10 Century).
There is a tradition of Rabis (not Jews with Rabbis) arguing. Once it became normative it controlled Jewish life.
It was the caliphate which abolished the exilarch which finally allowed the rabbanim to be the supreme authorities of the Jewish community. Rabbinical Judaism overpowered all sects because it was the last standing. Not really, the exilarch remained until the abbassid period and they had problems with the heads of yeshivah's and the Abbasids played on this as well, even helping out one exilarch to start the karaite movement which was to combat the supremacy of the rabbinate. That is what I meant, in a political sense. I know the timeline of the Mishnah and Talmud. Also, Islam helped to unite Jews, not just by letting in back in Jerusalem, but since Jewry was located for the first time more or less in a comprehensive empire, it allowed the Geonim to issue responses easier. I will not get into Islamic contributions to Jewish thinkers from Saadya Ha GAon, poetry, philosophy to even the Chasidut in Europe because you probably would not appreciate it.
"Wrongo. Israel drops thousands of leaflets warning the Gazans of impending operations in their neighborhoods. This is easily verifiable. Use Google news search.
Um, away from those neighborhoods? Genius."
Once again. Where are they supposed to run to. Israel has isolated them into that tiny plot of land. Over 500 were killed in the first few days of the attack. Did they just stand iolly by while the attacks came upon them, no. They have no where to go to
When will you people realize that there is a limit to how much one can tolerate Israeli barbarism before the world says enough is enough.
"Uh huh, but wars of aggression and conquest, not to mention terrorism are alright? Some of your people at least seem to understand Jihad in a very literal and scary way."
Jihad means struggle (usually against one's nafs or internal self). But yes it is a duty of any people to fight foreign powers oppressing them. Jihad is fully justified against Israel. It would be outrageous if they didn't fight back actually
"And you're point? I don't agree with this quote anymore than I guess you would. Yaacov Perrin doesn't represent Jews or Israel."
I got those quotes from a Jewish blogger in Israel: http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/zionism-is-the-cause-of-rising-islamophobia/
You sure they are fake, when one of your own is advancing them
"You're right. It sounds like antisemitic propaganda. Well done."
LOL. Yeah everything against Israel, even if brought by other Jews, is anti-semtic. That card lost its weight decades ago.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
^^Next you're gonna give me the "they are self-hating jews" card.
"Genocide - by some reckonings the biggest genocide in history may have been the result of the Muslim conquest of India, when something like 50-150 million people were killed for the crime of not being muslim"
Nice numbers buddy. I have researched this one. You'd be lucky to get even a million. Islam came to India mostly through interactions between sufis and hindu thinkers. Same thing with Indonesia, the entire country became muslim through interactions with muslim traders, never by an army.
Ever heard of the great muslim King Akbar, who's rule was equally loved by both hindus and muslim in India.
"and Buddhism was wiped out as a religion in India as a direct result"
BULL. Buddhism declined due to high reconversion rates to hinduism
"And another religion - Sikhism - came into being as a form of spiritual and physical resistance to muslim persecution"
WOW> This is as outrageous as it gets.
Do you even know how Sikhism came into being. It was created by Guru Nanak, who himself was a sufi saint as a sort of spiritual union between hindus and muslims, when poverty levels were sky-rocketing in India. The latter gurus latter turned it into a religion known as sikhism
"Khums BTW is a special tax levied on loot taken by muslims..."
hehehehehe
ok I'm gonna stop responding to you now.
This is just ridiculous. And its obvious to me where you are getting this from.
I told JA that if he wants to hear the other side of the fence he should check out a muslim forum. I suggest the same to you, to come and post this dribble, assuming you can handle the refutations.
Orthoprax I dealt with rabbinic judaism thing, now here's the post about the Banu Qurayza I promised:
This post is a bit long, but will help you understand what is necessary when analyzing historical events, something called context
The Jews of Medina were waiting for their messiah/savior to come, who would give them total dominion on a land where many of them lost their lives due to coalition attacks from the Aws, Khazraj and Christians of al Sham who viewed them a Jesus' crucifiers. When Muhammad(sas) arrived at Medina after the Hijra, acclaimed by the people as the Messenger of God, they came to him to inquire about his motives. "I call men to bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Apostle of Allah, whom you find described in the Torah and of whom your own learned men have already informed you" he told them. After hearing what he had to say, they offered a truce with the Messenger on a written agreement that they would not support anyone against him or his Companions, be it with the tongue,hand,or arms, neither openly nor in secret. They agreed with him that in return "you (Muhammad) shall neither trouble us, nor anyone of our coreligionists until we see how it shall be with you and your people".
The Prophet and the whole Muslim community lived in peace with them but the bitterness towards him grew as it implied Prophethood had ceased to be in the progeny of Isaac and had instead been established in the line of Ishmael. A bitterness which would greatly increase with the conversion of their Rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam and his household. This would lead to a war of words between the 2 communities. The Jews would send some of their rabbis fainting conversion and engaging in debates with the Prophet in front of the Muslims in order to create doubts 25:33"And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in significance".
They would try causing dissensions among the former ennemies of Aws and Khazraj, now united under the banner of Islam, by arousing memories of the day of the Bu'ath war when al Aws vanquished al Khazraj. But Muhammad continued to talk to them, emphasizing their Islamic unity and brotherhood until their tears ran down in emotion and they embraced one another. The Quran reminds of this tension in 2:87-89.
In the particular environment in which the Quran was revealed, there were at least two groups who believed that they were the chosen ones of God. The Quraysh who did not understand why, if Muhammad's prophethood was true, didnt God send His message to the noblest among them and the Jews who maintained that if God had chosen them to be the leaders over others during the past many centuries, then how could anyone -- especially the poor and the homeless -- surpass them in this case. It is primarily as a reply to such idiosyncrasies of the two groups that the Quran has stressed that no one has a monopoly over Godï؟½s guidance.
The first victorious battles silenced the plotting in Medina of many hypocrites among the Muslims, the idolator spies, and the Jews. Especially after the success at Badr which made them feel that their position was degenerating into one of weakness and isolation. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to brake the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The ennemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry. Now the dispute was not over Muhammad's religious views but over his political power which grew tremendously after the victory of Badr.
Addidng to the constant plotting, street fights would errupt between the 2 communities, the worst one being caused by the public humiliation of a Muslim woman by a group of Jews from the Bani Qainuqa which resulted in deaths from both sides. The Prophet urged them to honor their initial agreement, to which they responded with arrogance. This led to the expulsion of the whole tribe from Medina.
After Badr, Abu Sufyan had vowed revenge against the Muslims he swore not to wash himself unless he killed the Prophet of God. He went by night to Medina to plot with the Jews of Banu Nadir and launched a small raid on the outskirts of Medina and managed to kill a few Muslims. Followed an incident which caused the accidental bloodshed of innocents, so the Prophet went to all notables of Medina, including Huyayy ibn Akhtab of Bani Nadir, asking for the payment of the diyat(blood money). He immediately sensed danger after entering the quarter of Bani Nadir, so he pretexted a call from nature and left, leaving his Companions knowing for sure they wouldnt be harmed as long as the Prophet was alive. On his way, he met a group of people called by Huyayy to help him in setting a trap to the Prophet in his quarters.
Huyayy heard of the encounter, as well as the Prophet's knowledge concerning his intentions so the Muslims got up and left quickly for their homes. Ibn Surya, the most learned man from the Banu Nadir knew that after such an incident Muhammad would only offer 2 options: convert, or leave at once as a result of their braking the agreement. They were given 10 days to decide, and they preferred leaving after attempting a useless resistance. The decision to allow them to emigrate and take most of their possessions with them without harm would have grave consequences later, against the Muslims.
At this point started one of the most bizarre twists in the history of monotheism vs polytheism.
Muslims felt they had to develop a system of control and security which would protect them from all sides as they weren’t even secure within the city. This prevented their engagement in agriculture or commerce which was balanced with the booty acquired through the military campaigns. Fearing enemy attacks at any moment, the Prophet organized a channel of communication throughout the Arabian Peninsula which was at the time composed of a complex net of autonomous little republics, each of which extended over the territory inhabited or used by its various clans, and depended for its security on an intricate system of intertribal customs, pacts, and traditions.
The Muslims had to keep steadfast from all these groups awaiting the opportunity to avenge itself on this man who had divided the Arabs in their religion, and, though emigrating from Mecca devoid of power or ally, had acquired, within the last five years by virtue of his great faith, such prestige and power as to make him a real threat to the strongest cities and tribes of Arabia.
The animosity against Muhammad was such that the Jews turned against their own religion and their own Semite brethren's pure call to monotheism and preffered allying with the paganism which Moses and other biblical prophets fought. Even the pagan Quraysh were hesitant to form an alliance with the Jews, who were so close to Islam. They answered their concerns by giving preference to the Meccan religions. It was to this that the Quran referred in 4:51-54
"Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They believe in idols and false deities and say of those who disbelieve: These are better guided in the path than those who believe. Those are they whom Allah has cursed, and whomever Allah curses you shall not find any helper for him. Or have they a share in the kingdom? But then they would not give to people even the speck in the date stone. Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them of His grace? But indeed We have given to Ibrahim's children the Book and the wisdom, and We have given them a grand kingdom.So of them is he who believes in him, and of them is he who turns away from him, and hell is sufficient to burn."
This attitude of the Jews toward Quraysh and their favoring of the latter's paganism over the monotheism of Muhammad was the subject of a severe rebuke by Dr. Israel Wolfenson in his "The Jews in Arabia" and is in sharp contrast with the attitude of the Christian Negus of Abyssinia who sheltered and protected the early days persecuted Muslims of Mecca.
This self-contradiction, this favoring of paganism over monotheism and the encouragement of pagan forces to rise against the monotheistic forces would reach its peak in the Month of Shawwal 5/626 when the Jewish leaders of Bani Nadir and Qainuqa joined men of the Quraysh (promising them a whole year's crop from their settlement of Khaybar in case of victory), Kinanah and Ghatafan tribes among others and went to Abu Sufyan and others of the chiefs of Quraysh to call them to wage war against the Muslims who were struck with panic when news of the huge coalition of almost all tribes of the Arabian Peninsula (enemies & allies alike) was preparing to attack Medina. The Prophet consulted with Salman the Persian, and decided to dig a trench in preparation. All Muslims were put at task, including the Prophet who worked with his hands alongside his companions lifting the dirt, encouraging the Muslim workers, and exhorting everyone to multiply his effort. The women and children were removed to the interior and placed within fortified walls.
The battle known as Battle of the Trench/Ditch/Confederates or al-Khandaq/Ahzab started.
When the Confederate armies showed up, the Muslims were troubled by their large number and retreated behind their trench for 20 days only exchanging stones and arrows with the enemy. The Muslims survived on their food reserves as well as the continuous supply of crops from the Jews of Banu Qurayzah who had stayed truthful to their covenant with Muhammad, within Medina. The difficulty of overcoming the innovative trench fighting was such that the enemy forces had no choice but to cut the Muslim food supply which was mainly coming from the Banu Qurayzah, for a general withdrawal would render such a future coalition almost impossible. Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the Jewish leader among the pagan forces decided to go find Ka'b, chief of the Banu Qurayzah and convince him of reversing against the Muslims. At first Ka'b would not receive him, knowing well that treason might bring some advantages in case of Muslim defeat but that it would provide the cause for extermination in case of Muslim victory. Huyayy appeased his fears by describing the extent of the pagan forces and their desire to exterminate the Muslims once and for all but Ka'b still hesitated, remembering Muhammad's loyalty to his covenant. After many talks, and a pledge from Huyayy that he would stand by his brothers of Banu Qurayzah in case of defeat followed by sanctions, Ka'b's Jewish feeling stirred, moving him to yield to Huyayy, to accept his demands, to repudiate his covenant with Muhammad and the Muslims, and to join the ranks of their pagan enemies. This betrayal shook the Prophet greatly as well as the rest of the Muslims, so he sent his companion Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, leader of the Aws and close ally to Banu Qurayzah to confirm the bad news, which he did.
With the last Jews joining the pagan ranks, cutting the food supply and threatening the Muslims from within, the pagan forces had their moral uplifted. They prepared an invasion from 3 fronts and it was with reference to this deployment of enemy forces that the Quran said:
33:10-13"When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when the eyes turned dull, and the hearts rose up to the throats, and you began to think diverse thoughts of Allah. There the believers were tried and they were shaken with severe shaking. And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease began to say: Allah and His Messenger did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive.And when a party of them said: O people of Yathrib! There is no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying. Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed; they only desired to fly away".
They managed to find a breach in the narrowest side of the trench and engulfed their men inside but all got slain by Imam Ali and his group. And victory came a little later, with the help of God Who turned the weather against the enemy, with strong winds carrying small rocks instinguishing all night fires, blowing away their tents and weapons, forced the polytheists to shield themselves and finally retreat.
33:9"O you who believe! call to mind the favor of Allah to you when there came down upon you hosts, so We sent against them a strong wind and hosts, that you saw not, and Allah is Seeing what you do".
The Muslims went back next morning to Medina, joyful of their victory against the rejecters of faith and immediately besieged the traitors of Bani Qurayza for 25 days without fighting until they surrendered and asked to be judged by the Awsite Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was their former protector. They thought that because of their former alliance with him, he would show leniency so they promised to willingly accept his decision. He judged them according to their law, which is death of all fighting men, enslavement of women and children and confiscation of their livestock (Deut20:10-15). He imposed this judgment just before the wound which he had suffered in his arm suddenly opened and the blood continued to gush out until he died. All fighting men were slain, the women and children taken as captives, their lands distributed to the Muslims immigrating to Medina and their wealth shared among all Muslims with one-fifth for public purposes.
Now if you want some info on how the Muslims treated the captives and prisoners of wars I can give you some explanations, but for a start it has nothing to do with Moses' alleged genocide of entire nations or Psalms' dashing of infants against rocks. Then again I'm not sure you want to hear what our side of the fence has to say.
One last comment before I'm off coz I have a flight to catch:
about the jizya vs zakat+khums thing
well what I'm reading is Arabic, so I don't know if that'd be helpful for you
for every ghani (a person of independence, wealth) 84 dirhams. For the middle ones, half of that. For the poor, a fourth of it.
Now the Jizya rate is determined by treaty where both parties reach an agreement that's fair.
On average it was lower that the totality of taxes levied on muslims via zakat+khums. But I know the critics love to say otherwise
And once again, the non-muslims are not responsible for defending the state. If the state is attacked only the muslims are forced to defend it (conscription). Though the non-muslims can volunteer to fight if they wish, but there is no conscription for them
Peace.
I really don't see the objection
What would have been better anyhow, that the Dhimmis would have paid no taxes, yet continue to enjoy the perks of the state? Or that they'd have paid the same taxes as Muslims, and be subjected to the same laws and responsibilities of Islam, which includes being forced into the military if the state is attacked?
Anyway really gotta go now.
Shalom/Salam
Oh jeez
I have been seeing the number of comments growing, but didn't see any new comments.
Now I see I had to push the button on the bottom to get to them.
arrgggh :P
>The Jewish people have a long way to go, which is why I have a feeling Yahweh will be issuing a third exile in our days.
I see Muslim Dude is simply Shalmo. Shalmo said the exact same thing before.
Maybe someone should once and for all look up the definition of "genocide."
"Nice numbers buddy. I have researched this one. You'd be lucky to get even a million."
The numbers are variable of course - Indian historians have only really been free to study the topic in detail since independence and much work remains to be done. K.S. Lal in the "Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India" (probably the first significant work to address this subject) estimated a figure of 60-80 million. You can check it yourself, if you like.
"Islam came to India mostly through interactions between sufis and hindu thinkers. Same thing with Indonesia, the entire country became muslim through interactions with muslim traders, never by an army."
Oh, good grief. Yes, the first muslims reached India in the 630's and came mostly peacefully. The first army didn't arrive until Muhammad bin-Qasim arrived in 712 AD and proceed to loot, burn and kill his way across Sind. Even he wasn't brutal enough for his superior however, who reminded him that:
"The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."
Qasim would sadly set the pattern for most future muslim operations in India.
"Do you even know how Sikhism came into being. It was created by Guru Nanak, who himself was a sufi saint as a sort of spiritual union between hindus and muslims, when poverty levels were sky-rocketing in India. The latter gurus latter turned it into a religion known as sikhism"
Not bad, as far as it goes. Nanak was indeed a mystic who gathered in ideas from everywhere. It does however ignore the fact that three of the ten living Sikh gurus were martyred by Muslims, and from the time of the sixth guru onwards persecution had reached such a scale that the guru raised and trained an army to fight back, which was the beginning of the famous Sikh military tradition.
"
"Khums BTW is a special tax levied on loot taken by muslims..."
hehehehehe
This is just ridiculous. And its obvious to me where you are getting this from."
The Koran, actually.
"Know that whatever of a thing you acquire, a fifth of it is for Allah, for the Messenger, for the near relative, and the orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer"(8:41)
The word translated as "acquire" had the traditional context of "spoils of war" about it, and this was the usual meaning in Sunni societies. Shia jurisprudence also recognised this, but added six other forms of khums, of which probably the most important was profits gained through trade." I'm not sure where "hehehehe" comes in.
"ok I'm gonna stop responding to you now."
Oh please don't, I really think you should. Bluntly though, if it's a question of credibility, I would point out that I'm not the one relying on neo-Nazi conspiracy theorists to provide me with juicy quotes to attack Israeli prime ministers.
Whoa!! I've never seen any thread on any blog go beyond 200 comments. I didn't know the Blogger software even supported multiple comment pages.
Nice post, sorry i can't read all the comments as it's a bit late.
Orthoprax said:
”I'm not changing positions. There are different reasons for different aspects of the blockade. The general goal of the blockade (which was initially supported by the US, the UN, the EU and Russia) was to not necessarily 'discredit' Hamas - but to not give credibility to Hamas in the first place by dealing with it as a legitimate government. It is a terrorist organization and must be understood as such by the entire world.”
The problem is that the blockade is in every sense collective punishment, punishing all of the people of Gaza, not just Hamas (it is punishing Gazans who quite possibly hate Hamas just as much as you or anyone else). The stated intentions of the blockade was to discredit Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinians, in the vein hope that the Gazans would throw out Hamas, which is the textbook definition of terrorism: punishing a civilian population for political ends.
The blockade is wrong no matter your endless variations of the alleged justifications.
”Hello, this is the point - they are NOT starving. They HAVE water. They HAVE medical supplies. Basic humanitarian needs have not been cut off and it is only your fabrications pretending that they are. Naturally it is during this latest period of active battle when these deliveries have been way reduced but for the last 18 months people in Gaza have NOT been dying from hunger or thirst or lack of medicine.”
Basic humanitarian needs have been cut off repeatedly, for you to deny this is disingenuous and deceitful. That people are so hungry in Gaza that there are children rummaging for food in dumpsters demonstrates the level of deprivation in Gaza, not to mention the severe lack of medical supplies that this latest conflagration has so clearly illustrated. That people must be dying by the dozen for there to be a situation that even moves you in the least says a lot about you and your distorted sense of ethics.
”Uh huh. So why is the onus on Israel to support its enemies when Gaza's theoretical brothers in Egypt refuse to not break the blockade? Double standard, hmm?”
What idiocy on your part. I’m the one who brought up and mentioned the complicity of the state of Egypt. That’s a double standard only in the mind of an apologist for human rights abuses who cares nothing at all about the facts.
”I think you must be seriously thick in the head. Israel is in a state of war with the Gazan "government." It is a typical and basic course of action to not supply your enemy with tools that it will use against you. Can you name one other conflict in history where one state at war with another was still obligated to maintain anything more than basic humanitarian needs to the civilians of that enemy state?”
The blockade has and for long stretches of time denied Gazans the basic necessities of life – electricity and fuel being paramount, the hospitals needing them to maintain patients on life support and so on – and acts as punishment for all of the people of Gaza, a war crime, in breech of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law, as I have repeatedly shown, but which you ignore, because not only are you “thick in the head,” but, even worse, you are an apologist for human rights abuses who denigrates the facts whenever they are inconvenient.
”I'm not ignoring it - you are misleading by EQUIVOCATING about the last 18 months of blockade and the most recent consequences with the start of active battle. The way things are NOW is not the way things have been for 18 months. Ata mayvin?”
There’s no equivocation, but the blockade is nothing new, see my blog post in March, nor is Israeli incursion into the OT. The latest conflagration is one of the most extreme, no doubt, but no one was comparing or equivocating; that’s simply your desperate attempt to divert attention away from your habitual – even now – ignoring of the evidence, shame on you.
”Oh, wow! Why should I leave it on the side? This is a clear indication that it's not I who is the extremist but ye. You are clearly and consistently supporting the idea that terrorists and terror-harboring states can act with impunity. You shamelessly support terrorism by denouncing any effort to stop it.”
Wrong. I am consistent in keeping safe civilian populations from the military machinery of death:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm
”Ha! You're a real master tactician! Maybe the IDF should use their time machine instead and break up that first Muslim brotherhood meeting in Cairo! Ok, maybe you're not a sympathizer, but you are obviously completely clueless about how wars are fought.”
If the IDF can use a time machine I think it would better be used to go back and allow the state of Israel to not finance and support Hamas in opposition to the PLO. Do recall that the Western world, Israel conspicuously, decided that religious fundamentalism was preferable to secular leftism. Hamas might not even exist now were it not for Israel’s early support. Not unlike how al-Qaida was organized, armed, trained and sent by the CIA into Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviets.
”What are you talking about? You confirmed the kind of bias I was talking about. AI states that Israel has obligations as an occupying power and frequently critiques Israel's actions in those terms.”
Well, that’s just bold-faced lie. I confirmed no such thing, rather, I exposed your reactionary sources as fraudulent. AI, as all of the other human rights organizations, HRW, B’Tselem and others, all state the same thing: that Israel is in effect the occupying power – seeing as Israel controls the land, air and water surrounding Gaza – and that even were Israel not in effect the occupying power, Israel still has humanitarian obligations to the civilian population due to the ongoing armed conflicts.
”And then the rest of your quote goes on to explain how they take a politically biased stance on a contested issue. It's incredible how you call me a liar and then confirm exactly what I said.”
Your dishonesty is blatant. You said that AI and other organizations simply “assumed” these things. As any passing glance at their reports show, there is no assumption made, rather a description of the situation on the ground and then the application of international human rights law.
”Perhaps they do, but it was an irrelevant argument because your point was that they lie about HRW. We were talking about AI.”
Your source, however, is a preposterous one. That it is so egregiously and willfully fraudulent on the specific issue of HRW disqualifies it as a legitimate source of information about these organizations.
JD,
"The stated intentions of the blockade was to discredit Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinians, in the vein hope that the Gazans would throw out Hamas, which is the textbook definition of terrorism: punishing a civilian population for political ends."
I don't know how many times I need to show why this is completely wrongheaded before you actually address my points instead of merely repeating your own.
"Basic humanitarian needs have been cut off repeatedly, for you to deny this is disingenuous and deceitful. That people are so hungry in Gaza that there are children rummaging for food in dumpsters demonstrates the level of deprivation in Gaza, not to mention the severe lack of medical supplies that this latest conflagration has so clearly illustrated."
Such utter BS. There were times when regular shipments were delayed but humanitarian deliveries were never cut off to the point where people were starving. Children in NYC have been seen rummaging in dumpsters! And few hospitals even in America would have the supplies to care for such a huge increase in injuries. Everything you say is such huge spin.
"What idiocy on your part. I’m the one who brought up and mentioned the complicity of the state of Egypt."
Bull. I brought it up first and you poo pooed it. You demonize Israel who is actually at war with Hamas while citing mere complicity by Egypt who should be the Gazan's friend.
"but no one was comparing or equivocating; that’s simply your desperate attempt to divert attention away from your habitual – even now – ignoring of the evidence, shame on you."
Your BS artistry is incredible! You're lying through your teeth! You plainly cited an article describing current conditions and equivocated as if that's how it's been for a year and a half. Who's ignoring evidence? Who should be ashamed? It is you, sir.
"Wrong. I am consistent in keeping safe civilian populations from the military machinery of death:
Uh huh. Funny how your goals so perfectly dovetail with the preferences of terrorists.
"all state the same thing: that Israel is in effect the occupying power"
Except really they go the next step and say that Israel is - not only 'in effect' but in fact the occupying power and therefore is under more stringent obligations. I can't speak for the others, but AI at least makes that political bias obvious.
"Your dishonesty is blatant. You said that AI and other organizations simply “assumed” these things. As any passing glance at their reports show, there is no assumption made, rather a description of the situation on the ground and then the application of international human rights law."
Ok fine. They didn't "assume;" they had an investigation of the facts, strained it through their political bent and applied biased conclusions of human rights law. Better?
"Your source, however, is a preposterous one."
Boo hoo. All you have to do is look at the facts - the facts which AI does not even contest.
"You demonize Israel who is actually at war with Hamas while citing mere complicity by Egypt who should be the Gazan's friend."
Probably only a point of detail, but it's probably worth mentioning that Egypt has reasons of it's own for it's attitude, and is not merely kowtowing to Israel. To put it simply, Hamas is basically a local franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a banned (although still influential) terrorist organisation/political party in Egypt proper, and several other parts of the Arab world too. Egypt will not disapprove of seeing Hamas get a pounding as it also weakens the Brotherhood as a whole - I rather doubt that if Egypt was still in Gaza they would (a) have been as tolerant as Israel was about the rise of Hamas in the first place; and (b) would be rather less scrupulous about civilian casualties (I can't see them bothering with phone banks) and rather more likely to adopt Hama Rules to deal with the situation. Oh, and if they did, none of the useful idiots on the left would bother with demonstrating and you'd never hear the word "genocide" used.
Orthoprax said:
”I don't know how many times I need to show why this is completely wrongheaded before you actually address my points instead of merely repeating your own.”
Unfortunately for you no amount of apologetics and propaganda can negate the fact that the blockade, collective punishment, is a war crime, in breech of international human rights law, clearly stated in the Geneva Conventions and cited here by me several times (you simply ignored the citations out of hand or attempted to falsify them).
”Such utter BS. There were times when regular shipments were delayed but humanitarian deliveries were never cut off to the point where people were starving. Children in NYC have been seen rummaging in dumpsters! And few hospitals even in America would have the supplies to care for such a huge increase in injuries. Everything you say is such huge spin.”
There were times where shipments were cut off completely. If you don’t already know this, you are ranting about things you know nothing about, if you already did know this, then you are a proven liar and an apologist for war crimes; you’re the one spinning here.
”Bull. I brought it up first and you poo pooed it. You demonize Israel who is actually at war with Hamas while citing mere complicity by Egypt who should be the Gazan's friend.”
I don’t demonize the entirety of Israel, that’s your spin, I criticize and expose the crimes of the state of Israel, which actually many Israelis are opposed to, you can see the refusniks on youtube, or go to Gush Shalom’s website, but of course you wont. Egypt is complicit in the war crime that is the blockade and it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population is opposed to the harsh dictatorship of Mubarak (the “99.9% dictator” as they say) and his ruthless treatment of the Palestinians.
”Uh huh. Funny how your goals so perfectly dovetail with the preferences of terrorists.”
Very intelligent.
”Except really they go the next step and say that Israel is - not only 'in effect' but in fact the occupying power and therefore is under more stringent obligations. I can't speak for the others, but AI at least makes that political bias obvious.”
When a state controls the land, water and air, that is control of the area. Nowhere does AI argue that Israel “is under more stringent obligations” because the obligations remain the same whether being the occupying power proper or being in an armed conflict. That’s what you continue to confuse. Your charges against AI are illusory, you haven’t cited a single corroborated instance. All you did was cited a laughably fraudulent organization that has been exposed as wildly biased in the extreme.
”Ok fine. They didn't "assume;" they had an investigation of the facts, strained it through their political bent and applied biased conclusions of human rights law. Better?”
Prove it. Show me the evidence that AI did any such thing.
War, by its very nature, is always going to have a component of a collective punishment. The physical parameters of the universe don't allow otherwise when one has to protect itself.
Remember, International law (whether you are interpreting it correctly) does not automatically equal moral.
>The blockade is wrong no matter your endless variations of the alleged justifications.
But this is just subjective opinion. I mean, no matter WHAT the reason for it, you will ex facto think its wrong. For Israelis, blockades are needed due to weapons smuggling. Is there reason to trust them that they won't?
Holy Hyrax:
You are a militant extremist. Your positions, if followed, would only ever continue to exacerbate the conflict. International law is founded upon ethical principles and human rights. If you want to argue that international law is immoral, please present the argument, otherwise your just shouting and hollering like some crazy person in the streets. The fact that collective punishment, the blockade, is illegal, unjust and immoral is not subjective, you clearly don't understand the concepts (subjective and objective). The deeming of collective punishment as illegal and immoral is not just some emotional opinion someone has, it is based upon the objective reality of the act and its consequences. War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.
>You are a militant extremist.
Yawn.
First I was a extremist, than you put me to militant, and now Im a militant extremist? Are you going to decide, or can YOU have a discussion without the typical extreme name calling that is oh so prevalent on the left?
>If you want to argue that international law is immoral, please present the argument, otherwise your just shouting and hollering like some crazy person in the streets.
We have been putting forth arguments. You can simply disagree, but have the decency not to whine that nobody is putting forth arguments.
>The fact that collective punishment, the blockade, is illegal, unjust and immoral is not subjective, you clearly don't understand the concepts (subjective and objective). The deeming of collective punishment as illegal and immoral is not just some emotional opinion someone has, it is based upon the objective reality of the act and its consequences. War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.
You use a lot of louded words and slogans and often repeat them ad nauseum. Fact: If there is a war it is by nature a collective punishment. One cannot just go into a village and decide to kill the innocents because you feel that will hinder the rulling dictator. That we both agree on and WOULD be called a collective punishment. But if in the process of waring with an opponent innocents die, due to the physical density of the area, there is nothing that can be done.
Mind you, is your problem the blockade, or the bombs? They are two seperate things. A blockade is needed for all sorts of reason. The high court of Israel has ruled that reducing the electricty output does not breach their humanitarian obligation, which is part of the blockade issue, as well as others.
If you are dealing with the bombinbs, well, then, your argument basically comes down to Israel having no right to ever defend itself.
I am sorry to tell you, but is all subjective. Laws, can easily go the other way around. There is nothing objective about saying you cannot put a blockade around a people wanting to destroy you. Its all based on a value scale. For Israel, their value states they first have to protect themselves. The international community says otherwise. Who here is right? The very fact that you bring up international law is about your values. You think international law by defintion is one of objective morality. It's not. And there is no way you can show that other than admitting its subjective.
>the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.
By your definition, any war where innocents will die is terrorism. Also, by your standards, no war will EVER be decided upon. There is no way WW2 would have ended had it went by your vision of how war unfolds.
>International law is founded upon ethical principles and human rights.
Also I never said otherwise, but each of these are by definition going to be subjective to how its defined and applied. So for example, you and lets say AI will strictly see a black and white view of this. If people are suffering, it must be stopped no matter what, WITHOUT seeing the entire picture and facts on the ground.
Here is a great statement that is greatly connected with the inability to view this so black and white as you put it:
It is under the cloud of this moral ambiguity that much of the criticism against Israel finds shelter. The justification of self defense dissipates when one compares Kassam rockets and mortar shells and their casualty toll with the might of the Israeli army and the consequences of its actions. Furthermore, it is also this reality which fuels the calls for proportionality in which the use of force on Israel's side, it is claimed, must match that of the enemy it attacks. A "disproportionate" response is classified as unjust, for it is no longer contained or justified under the rubric of self-defense.
The moral difficulty, if not corruption, entailed within the above argument lies in the fact that it essentially allows terrorist organizations to terrorize with impunity, and morally handcuffs a society's legitimate right to defend itself not merely when its existence is threatened, but when the lives of some of its citizens are in danger and many more are subjected to the effects of terror. The "weak" are allowed to engage in terror, for it is argued that it is the only means available to them, while the more powerful, and in this case Israel, are always morally reprehensible, for our power and strength voids any military response the legitimacy of the claim of self-defense. This "moral" argument, which grants immunity to terror perpetrated by the weaker, is a significant moral failing in much of the public discourse on morality of war.
http://www.hartman.org.il/Opinion_C_View_Eng.asp?Article_Id=267
Holy Hyrax said:
”You use a lot of louded words and slogans and often repeat them ad nauseum. Fact: If there is a war it is by nature a collective punishment.”
As I said, although you ignored it, War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.
”One cannot just go into a village and decide to kill the innocents because you feel that will hinder the rulling dictator. That we both agree on and WOULD be called a collective punishment. But if in the process of waring with an opponent innocents die, due to the physical density of the area, there is nothing that can be done.”
You don’t bomb the place, that is certainly avoidable, which is why even the bombing of Dresden has been criticized by rational people, A.C. Grayling and others. Furthermore, as I thought was eminently obvious, I was talking about the blockade. And you certainly don’t bomb UN shelters under false pretenses:
“The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.
An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.
Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army “revealed” that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.
Later the official liar claimed that “our soldiers were shot at from inside the school”. Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.
But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that “they shot from inside the school”, and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.
So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a “symbol of Hamas rule”. Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the “most moral army in the world”.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01122009.html
“What is particularly horrifying about the Zeitoun massacre—details of which continue to unfold—is the sadistic behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This is a mass killing that has unfolded over days.
It appears that the IDF tricked residents, promising that they would be safe gathered in large groups in particular buildings, only to bomb them later. Over the course of four days, the Israelis then left the sick and dying—all civilians, the majority small children—with no medical assistance, food or water, even though Israelis enjoyed total control over the area. At the same time, they refused repeated requests for access to the neighborhood by aid workers.
It is not clear how many have died in Zeitoun. At this point, it appears the number is somewhere between 70 and 85. But this figure may grow significantly as the unassisted wounded continue to die, and as aid workers uncover bodies of victims in bombed-out buildings.
Israel raided Zeitoun on Sunday, quickly establishing its control. The town occupies a strategic location south of Gaza City, and will be used should the IDF launch an attack on the city proper.
According to survivors, after invading the IDF compelled extended families to gather in centrally located buildings, marching families at gunpoint from one building to the next. The IDF told the residents of Zeitoun that they were being led to houses that would not be bombed.
But in at least once case, it has emerged that the IDF forced some 110 Palestinians into a house that was then bombed within 24 hours, killing perhaps 70 people, all civilians. Aid workers only discovered the corpses after being prevented for four days by the IDF from visiting the neighborhood in Zeitoun.
Those in the building, which has been described as a "warehouse" by one survivor, were left inside without food or water. After one day, three men attempted to venture out to find food. They were immediately hit by a barrage of IDF fire. At that point, a missile hit the rooftop of the warehouse.
Meysa Samouni, a 19-year-old who survived the attack with her two-year-old daughter, who was maimed, described the scene: "When the missile stuck, I lay down with my daughter under me. Everything filled up with smoke and dust, and I heard screams and crying. After the smoke and dust cleared a bit, I looked around and saw 20 to 30 people who were dead, and about 20 who were wounded.
"The persons killed around me were my husband, who was hit in the back, my father-in-law, who was hit in the head and whose brain was on the floor, my mother-in-law Rabab, my father-in-law's brother Talal, and his wife Rhama Muhammad a-Samouni, 45, Talal's son's wife, Maha Muhammad a-Samouni, 19, and her son, Muhammad Hamli a-Samouni, five months, whose whole brain was outside his body, Razqa Muhammad a-Samouni, 50, Hanan Khamis a-Samouni, 30, and Hamdi Majid a-Samouni, 22."
A Red Cross medic who visited Zeitoun described a horrific scene. "Inside the Samouni house I saw about 10 bodies and outside another 60,'' the medic told the Telegraph. "I was not able to count them accurately because there was not much time and we were looking for wounded people.... I could see an Israeli army bulldozer knocking down houses nearby but we ran out of time and the Israeli soldiers started shooting at us."
"We had to leave about eight injured people behind because we could not get to them and it was no longer safe for us to stay.'"
In another building in Zeitoun, the Israelis gathered 80 people together. Survivors report Israeli soldiers gunning people down in cold blood as they later attempted to flee. One man, Atiyeh Samouni, was shot by Israelis after he opened his door to receive them. Then his two-year old son was shot, a survivor said.
Most of the men of Zeitoun were rounded up, blindfolded, and marched away. Some were used as human shields, survivors say.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' statement on the bombing was based on the account of survivors, but it corroborated an AP story and testimony gathered by an Israeli human rights group.
This was the same neighborhood where a day earlier the Red Cross found four half-dead children near the corpses of their mothers. The Red Cross discovered the bodies of 15 other people in a bombed structure, who likely suffered slow and agonizing deaths for lack of medical care. Israeli soldiers were stationed within 100 yards of the dying family.
Aid agencies became aware of the massacre at Zeitoun when surviving members of the Samouni clan arrived in Gaza City early in the week. According to the Telegraph, "A handful of survivors, some wounded, others carrying dead or dying infants, made it on foot to Gaza's main north-south road before they were given lifts to hospital. Three small children were buried in Gaza City that afternoon."
But Israel refused to allow the Red Cross to visit the neighborhood until Wednesday.
One hundred other people in need of medical treatment have been evacuated from Zeitoun—not for injuries, but for dehydration and famine. The town has been without water and food since Israel overran it Sunday evening.
Speaking in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Israel claims that all of its actions are justified by Palestinians' ineffective rocket fire from Gaza. But Pillay said that this did not obviate Israel from observing international law. In an interview with BBC, Pillay said Israel's actions appear to have "all the elements of war crimes."
Because the IDF has persistently attacked relief organizations, the UN and the World Food Program have stopped delivery of relief supplies to Gaza. Since Wednesday, Israel has claimed to observe a three-hour cease-fire in order to allow humanitarian workers to reach areas the IDF controls. However, in several instances, the IDF has fired on aid workers during the supposed three-hour lapse.
According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.
There are indications that Zeitoun was specifically targeted for exemplary punishment by the IDF. The Telegraph reports that it was a place of known Hamas activity.
The Zeitoun massacre is a horrific war crime for which the IDF and the Israeli government bear responsibility. But the IDF's rampage would not be possible without the full backing of the US and the complicity of the UN, the European powers, and the Arab regimes of the Middle East.”
These are clearly not legitimate policies in war, they are war crimes and should be prosecuted as such. No doubt you will defend them, but that is only further evidence of your militant extremism (not merely slogans and loaded words, but substantive conclusions based upon objective facts and your reactions to them).
”Mind you, is your problem the blockade, or the bombs? They are two seperate things. A blockade is needed for all sorts of reason. The high court of Israel has ruled that reducing the electricty output does not breach their humanitarian obligation, which is part of the blockade issue, as well as others.”
Depending on the circumstances, both, but the blockade more so. There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/17/days_after_calling_israeli_blockade_of
”I am sorry to tell you, but is all subjective. Laws, can easily go the other way around. There is nothing objective about saying you cannot put a blockade around a people wanting to destroy you. Its all based on a value scale. For Israel, their value states they first have to protect themselves. The international community says otherwise. Who here is right? The very fact that you bring up international law is about your values. You think international law by defintion is one of objective morality. It's not. And there is no way you can show that other than admitting its subjective.”
You may be sorry, you should be, but you are still wrong. Laws can go the other way, laws that defended chattle slavery were wrong, but they were wrong for objective reasons, the same sort of objectivity which deems collective punishment wrong. Furthermore, your premise that the entire population of Gaza wants to destroy Israel is hysterical propaganda. The only statistics available on the view of Palestinians towards Israel is a majority acceptance of the two-state solution. So that is a bold-face lie on your part.
Israel of course has a right to protect itself, but it must do so without breaking international human rights law, it’s very simple, it’s not one or the other: either Israel protects itself by committing war crimes or it doesn’t protect itself at all (that’s your ignorant and illusory dichotomy).
Your argument that international law is subjective is just downright breathtaking in its idiocy.
For something to be subjective there must not be any factual arbiters, it is simply the emotional opinion of the person – preferences of taste and sound and so on – while something is objective when it is founded upon factual analysis and evidentiary reasoning. International law is not subjective in any sense, it is objective in that it is founded upon the factual analysis of specific acts and policies and their specific consequences. That you don’t understand the difference is staggering to the mind. That you argue that international law is subjective in order to render it meaningless and justify Israel’s war crimes and breaking of international law is yet further evidence of your militant extremism.
”By your definition, any war where innocents will die is terrorism.”
Erroneous.
”Also, by your standards, no war will EVER be decided upon. There is no way WW2 would have ended had it went by your vision of how war unfolds.”
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime as was the nuclear bombing of Japan, among others, but without these war crimes WWII would have still ended.
”Also I never said otherwise, but each of these are by definition going to be subjective to how its defined and applied. So for example, you and lets say AI will strictly see a black and white view of this. If people are suffering, it must be stopped no matter what, WITHOUT seeing the entire picture and facts on the ground.”
Ethics are not by definition subjective, you are simply dead wrong. Ethics are only subjective when they are founded upon nothing more than emotional opinion or baseless intuition and so on, they are objective when they are founded upon factual criteria and the consequences of specific acts and policies. Your last assertion is another bold-faced lie, which is very disturbing because I’ve refuted it several times over again. Amnesty International has people on the ground documenting the events, they review the entire picture and then apply international law.
It’s not a matter of ignoring the whole picture, neither AI nor I do any such thing, it’s that the whole picture doesn’t justify war crimes and the breaking of international law. The whole pictures doesn’t justify the use of torture and it doesn’t justify collective punishment.
Holy Hyrax quoting an unnamed source:
”It is under the cloud of this moral ambiguity that much of the criticism against Israel finds shelter. The justification of self defense dissipates when one compares Kassam rockets and mortar shells and their casualty toll with the might of the Israeli army and the consequences of its actions. Furthermore, it is also this reality which fuels the calls for proportionality in which the use of force on Israel's side, it is claimed, must match that of the enemy it attacks. A "disproportionate" response is classified as unjust, for it is no longer contained or justified under the rubric of self-defense.
The moral difficulty, if not corruption, entailed within the above argument lies in the fact that it essentially allows terrorist organizations to terrorize with impunity, and morally handcuffs a society's legitimate right to defend itself not merely when its existence is threatened, but when the lives of some of its citizens are in danger and many more are subjected to the effects of terror. The "weak" are allowed to engage in terror, for it is argued that it is the only means available to them, while the more powerful, and in this case Israel, are always morally reprehensible, for our power and strength voids any military response the legitimacy of the claim of self-defense. This "moral" argument, which grants immunity to terror perpetrated by the weaker, is a significant moral failing in much of the public discourse on morality of war.”
A straw man argument. Neither AI nor I argue that Hamas is “allowed to engage in terror,” in fact, both AI and myself have defined every qassam rocket fired as a war crime, check the record. You are posting apologists for war crimes who clearly distort and falsify the arguments in order to justify war crimes, it’s doubly heinous and immoral. As for proportionality, I will simply quote again that which you ignore over and over agian:
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”
>As I said, although you ignored it, War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.
I didn't ignore it. You are just once again shouting slogans. Apparently, you DO think that the terror launched by Hamas and those by Israel is both Terror.
>According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.
Israel does not control Gaza hence this whole thing falls apart. And leaving that fact aside for one second, Israel has had 3 hour blocks of time to allow humanitarian aid, both food and medical help.
>You may be sorry, you should be, but you are still wrong. Laws can go the other way, laws that defended chattle slavery were wrong, but they were wrong for objective reasons, the same sort of objectivity which deems collective punishment wrong.
Your fallacy, in this is exactly why I brought up you and AI being black and white. Its not that these are unethical laws the Geneva passed, but in light of ALL the facts on the ground and the situtation that has arisen, they can become unethical. Meaning, your standard is that Israel do nothing, because by definition anything it will do will cause innocent lost. This is not speculation, this is truth. There is no way Israel can defend itself without innocent arabs dying. Plane and simple. To follow int. law as you claim would be unethical and immoral.
>Furthermore, your premise that the entire population of Gaza wants to destroy Israel is hysterical propaganda. The only statistics available on the view of Palestinians towards Israel is a majority acceptance of the two-state solution. So that is a bold-face lie on your part.
This is foolish to imply propaganda on my part. They voted in a monster group that seeks to destroy Israel. Are you going to ignore this?
>Ethics are not by definition subjective, you are simply dead wrong. Ethics are only subjective when they are founded upon nothing more than emotional opinion or baseless intuition and so on, they are objective when they are founded upon factual criteria and the consequences of specific acts and policies.
I'm sorry, you are simply wrong. What is ethical in terms of western morality is not necessarily ethical in eastern morality. There are different value scales. Int. law ethics raise that blockades are ALWAYS wrong. Hamas ethics dictate that putting innocent lives at risk is ethical to serve a better function. Israeli ethics dictate that a blockade while being wrong at times, maybe be crucially needed at others.
>Your last assertion is another bold-faced lie, which is very disturbing because I’ve refuted it several times over again. Amnesty International has people on the ground documenting the events, they review the entire picture and then apply international law.
It’s not a matter of ignoring the whole picture, neither AI nor I do any such thing, it’s that the whole picture doesn’t justify war crimes and the breaking of international law. The whole pictures doesn’t justify the use of torture and it doesn’t justify collective punishment.
I have no reason to believe AI or you are objective in your anaylysis. You have already claimed to be a leftie which always mostly gears toward the underdog in a situation without thinking that maybe the underdog is taking advantage of its status and actually causing the harm. Your entire logic is circular. I get it, you follow int. law. But you have no way of showing int. law is THEE objective moral authority. Yes, there is collective punishment, but till you give me another way for Israel to defend itself instead of just criticising, then your comments are worthless.
>Holy Hyrax quoting an unnamed source:
why unamed. I gave you a link.
>A straw man argument. Neither AI nor I argue that Hamas is “allowed to engage in terror,” in fact, both AI and myself have defined every qassam rocket fired as a war crime, check the record. You are posting apologists for war crimes who clearly distort and falsify the arguments in order to justify war crimes, it’s doubly heinous and immoral. As for proportionality, I will simply quote again that which you ignore over and over agian:
Of course I am posting apologetics. If you brandish international law as you interpret it, then obviously anything I say will be apologetics to you. You have to show me another way of Israel to protect itself OTHER than simply saying Israel has the right to protect itself.
Regarding propotionality:
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).”
http://internationallawobserver.eu/2009/01/02/gaza-conflict-response-proportionality-and-limitations/
And at the very least, I would like to hear from you an alternative to how Israel is supposed to protect itself.
Its getting a bit crowded here, I will write my own post and maybe we can deal with isssues there.
>http://holyhyrax.blogspot.com/2009/01/ideology-legality-morality-in-regards.html
If you are interested JDHURF
good night.
Holy Hyrax:
You clearly have an incredible amount of free time on your hands and, as I predicted, dismissed the war crimes of Israel I cited, which, as I said, further proves your extremism.
It's a real shame that you don't have the honesty to even address, say, the Zeitoun massacre.
I will respond to your blog in time.
>You clearly have an incredible amount of free time on your hands and, as I predicted, dismissed the war crimes of Israel I cited, which, as I said, further proves your extremism.
1) You are being incredibly dishonest. The whole debate is whether there are war crimes. You can't just say I am ignoring it when that is the discussion at hand. Also, you seem to ignore some stuff I have wrote as well. So don't play this self righteous act with me.
2) Is there a reason you didn't put the fact that you copied and pasted your Zeitoun info from the World Socialist web site?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/gaza-j10.shtml
3) I would hope your tone on my site can be a bit respectful. You realize you will never convince people when you are being an asshole.
Holy Hyrax said:
”The thrust of JDHURF's comments imply that though Israel has a right to defend itself, the manner in which it is being done is basically a war crime. Specifically the issue of collective punishment, disproportionate attacks and blockades all of which he contends are against International Law (IL) and therefore, immoral. These are his opinions and are also share by humanitarian organizations, which all state they look at the entire situation "objectively." Question is, is there a priori ideology and does it affect how they look at the situation and how does it affect how they interpret IL. And what about morality, how does that play a role?”
You mean to ask: is there an a priori ideology? – and as I have made explicitly clear on JA’s blog: no. Setting aside for now all of the criticisms I would have of what you conceive of as ideology – the left critique of ideology as “false consciousness” and Zizek’s formulation that “the fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself” – you must be implying by ideology, political views. Again, as I made clear on JA’s blog, my political views don’t have anything directly to do with my positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am a libertarian-socialist which means that, in principle, I am opposed to the existence of state powers; in the long-term, states should be dissolved. However, when discussing solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dealing with the direct and immediate goals, I support the two-state solution – not necessarily in opposition to my objections to the existence of state apparatuses, but that is another discussion altogether – and this is in contrast to the very serious position being adopted all over Europe by even the moderate left: the one state solution. Very clearly then, ideology has nothing directly to do with the issue for me.
However, it is beyond clear that ideology has everything to do with your positions. The ideology motivating you to disregard the breaking of international human rights law by Israel, Israeli massacres and war crimes is an extreme form of militant nationalism, an ultra-Zionism.
”I think there is no doubt that underlying all of this (an anything0 is ideology. Questions like; does Israel have a right to exist? a right to the land it won? Do Arabs in general want Israel are all examples of ideological questions. Sure, the question of territories is also a legal one, but one cannot deny the ideological basis for each side in trying rationalize the law in their favor. I believe, people like JDHURF and organizations like Amnesty International, ideologically (and therefore also legally) are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories. This in effect will dictate how they look at the entire situation from now on. It will influence them in how things should be dealt with. This is an important point because now, the tilt will always be, by defintion, slanted towards the benefit of the Palestinians.”
You make a lot of unsupported assertions here – evidence not being required for the ideologically driven, such as yourself – and claim that AI and myself “are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories,” again, never mind supporting this assertion, that is apparently unnecessary. Are you discussing the OT proper, Gaza and the West Bank, or are you talking about the whole of Palestine? If you only mean the former, then it is not simply that Israel occupies these territories that disgusts fair-minded people who are not driven by nationalism and expansionism – many of whom support the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestine in favor of the state of Israel – it is the way in which Israel occupies the territories (breaking international law, denigrating human rights and committing atrocities).
Further evidence that you are ideologically driven is your disgraceful dismissal and unconcern for such atrocities. That you refuse to address the recent Zeitoun massacre is but one example:
“What is particularly horrifying about the Zeitoun massacre—details of which continue to unfold—is the sadistic behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This is a mass killing that has unfolded over days.
It appears that the IDF tricked residents, promising that they would be safe gathered in large groups in particular buildings, only to bomb them later. Over the course of four days, the Israelis then left the sick and dying—all civilians, the majority small children—with no medical assistance, food or water, even though Israelis enjoyed total control over the area. At the same time, they refused repeated requests for access to the neighborhood by aid workers.
It is not clear how many have died in Zeitoun. At this point, it appears the number is somewhere between 70 and 85. But this figure may grow significantly as the unassisted wounded continue to die, and as aid workers uncover bodies of victims in bombed-out buildings.
Israel raided Zeitoun on Sunday, quickly establishing its control. The town occupies a strategic location south of Gaza City, and will be used should the IDF launch an attack on the city proper.
According to survivors, after invading the IDF compelled extended families to gather in centrally located buildings, marching families at gunpoint from one building to the next. The IDF told the residents of Zeitoun that they were being led to houses that would not be bombed.
But in at least once case, it has emerged that the IDF forced some 110 Palestinians into a house that was then bombed within 24 hours, killing perhaps 70 people, all civilians. Aid workers only discovered the corpses after being prevented for four days by the IDF from visiting the neighborhood in Zeitoun.
Those in the building, which has been described as a "warehouse" by one survivor, were left inside without food or water. After one day, three men attempted to venture out to find food. They were immediately hit by a barrage of IDF fire. At that point, a missile hit the rooftop of the warehouse.
Meysa Samouni, a 19-year-old who survived the attack with her two-year-old daughter, who was maimed, described the scene: "When the missile stuck, I lay down with my daughter under me. Everything filled up with smoke and dust, and I heard screams and crying. After the smoke and dust cleared a bit, I looked around and saw 20 to 30 people who were dead, and about 20 who were wounded.
"The persons killed around me were my husband, who was hit in the back, my father-in-law, who was hit in the head and whose brain was on the floor, my mother-in-law Rabab, my father-in-law's brother Talal, and his wife Rhama Muhammad a-Samouni, 45, Talal's son's wife, Maha Muhammad a-Samouni, 19, and her son, Muhammad Hamli a-Samouni, five months, whose whole brain was outside his body, Razqa Muhammad a-Samouni, 50, Hanan Khamis a-Samouni, 30, and Hamdi Majid a-Samouni, 22."
A Red Cross medic who visited Zeitoun described a horrific scene. "Inside the Samouni house I saw about 10 bodies and outside another 60,'' the medic told the Telegraph. "I was not able to count them accurately because there was not much time and we were looking for wounded people.... I could see an Israeli army bulldozer knocking down houses nearby but we ran out of time and the Israeli soldiers started shooting at us."
"We had to leave about eight injured people behind because we could not get to them and it was no longer safe for us to stay.'"
In another building in Zeitoun, the Israelis gathered 80 people together. Survivors report Israeli soldiers gunning people down in cold blood as they later attempted to flee. One man, Atiyeh Samouni, was shot by Israelis after he opened his door to receive them. Then his two-year old son was shot, a survivor said.
Most of the men of Zeitoun were rounded up, blindfolded, and marched away. Some were used as human shields, survivors say.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' statement on the bombing was based on the account of survivors, but it corroborated an AP story and testimony gathered by an Israeli human rights group.
This was the same neighborhood where a day earlier the Red Cross found four half-dead children near the corpses of their mothers. The Red Cross discovered the bodies of 15 other people in a bombed structure, who likely suffered slow and agonizing deaths for lack of medical care. Israeli soldiers were stationed within 100 yards of the dying family.
Aid agencies became aware of the massacre at Zeitoun when surviving members of the Samouni clan arrived in Gaza City early in the week. According to the Telegraph, "A handful of survivors, some wounded, others carrying dead or dying infants, made it on foot to Gaza's main north-south road before they were given lifts to hospital. Three small children were buried in Gaza City that afternoon."
But Israel refused to allow the Red Cross to visit the neighborhood until Wednesday.
One hundred other people in need of medical treatment have been evacuated from Zeitoun—not for injuries, but for dehydration and famine. The town has been without water and food since Israel overran it Sunday evening.
Speaking in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Israel claims that all of its actions are justified by Palestinians' ineffective rocket fire from Gaza. But Pillay said that this did not obviate Israel from observing international law. In an interview with BBC, Pillay said Israel's actions appear to have "all the elements of war crimes."
Because the IDF has persistently attacked relief organizations, the UN and the World Food Program have stopped delivery of relief supplies to Gaza. Since Wednesday, Israel has claimed to observe a three-hour cease-fire in order to allow humanitarian workers to reach areas the IDF controls. However, in several instances, the IDF has fired on aid workers during the supposed three-hour lapse.
According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.
There are indications that Zeitoun was specifically targeted for exemplary punishment by the IDF. The Telegraph reports that it was a place of known Hamas activity.
The Zeitoun massacre is a horrific war crime for which the IDF and the Israeli government bear responsibility. But the IDF's rampage would not be possible without the full backing of the US and the complicity of the UN, the European powers, and the Arab regimes of the Middle East.”
That you have nothing to say about these atrocities is not only proof of your extremism, but a disgrace and an utter failing of objective ethics (a concept which defies you).
”For example: How many peole remember, at various times when different humanitarian organizations criticize the check-points that Israel was using? Humiliation! Degradation! they would cry. Of course, they are right. There is a feeling of degradation that the Palestinians would feel. But, is it immoral?”
Let’s take some clearer examples shall we? Examples that, for very straight forward reasons, you want to pretend don’t exist. How about the use of torture? “GSS [General Security Service] interrogators have tortured thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Palestinians.” – B’Tselem.
“Israel’s two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture – according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms – when trying to extract from Palestinian security suspects confessions or information about third parties. Nearly all Palestinians undergoing interrogation are put through some combination of the same basic methods…Thus, the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated while under interrogation during the intifada is in the tens of thousands – a number that becomes especially significant when it is remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is under three-quarters of one million.” – Human Rights Watch
The use of torture is made even more heinous when coupled with the kidnapping and indefinite detention of Palestinian civilians – as “administrative detainees – who are held without charge or trial and when charged are usually charged for having confessed under the duress of torture.
Does Holy Hyrax have anything to say about administrative detainees? The use of torture? Not yet, although I have already brought it up. How about house demolitions?
”Well, that depends who you ask. To the Israelis, who ideology for the most part does not come from a sociology class but from years of experience will say its a necessity. Do ALL arabs kill Jews? No. But there are enough that do and more than enough that believe its a legitimate way to fight occupiers by blowing themselves up. To the humanitarian worker, its not that Israelis are not important, but its just that more sympathy, almost by default has already been shifted to the Palestinians, hence their grievances are are now more of a priority. Any consequences that might arise, must be treated separately. The fact that bombers will come in becomes irrelevant to the greater cause and all check-points (though they work) are not to be permitted. Of course, someone might respond that sticking them in cattle cars can also work to keep bombers out. To this, there is simply no reply. Actually, there is, but to such extreme examples, there is no point but to simply turn around and sigh to oneself.”
This is actually all fabrication, another staple of the ideologically driven program. Every organization that I am aware of and I myself have no problem with checkpoints and even the separation wall that Israel is building so long as it builds these constructs on its own territory. The problem arises when Israel builds these constructs well into Palestinian land, annexing land, separating families from their farms, annexing valuable resources such as water and so on.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/Special%20focus%5CSeparation%20barrier!OpenView
http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/index.asp
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/F06BB484D900B227C1256E3E00324D96
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-02.htm
”Coincidentally, this is why people like XGH, Dovbear (perhaps to a lesser degree) and JDHURF SAY Israel has the right to defend itself, but can never figure out how. Their mind is simply torn by the obvious that check-points and walls and blockades work vs. their other ideology build squarely on the legal aspect (ie, Israel can defend itself, but must follow these simple rules). Hence, so far all I have heard from this is that this is just a sacrifice Israel must endure. A missile every once in a while is just the price you will have to pay for living in this region. Of course, this in of itself highly immoral. What government can allow such a thing? But they have no other response or solution. Oh ya, except to say they should talk. That always works. A good example of ideology getting in the way is this:
There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.
JDHURF thinks he is being objective here. The problem is he is not. Any reader will see a subjective stance. He believes torture is bad no matter what. He believes blockades are bad no matter what. These are clearly opinions based on his subjective values. Of course, its his right. But to cloak it in anything less than subjective and not objective as he keeps trying to say is plainly dishonest. I believe torture is permissible under certain circumstances. I can bring justification. He can believe otherwise and bring his own justification. This is pure subjectivity at its best based on two different value systems. This is not a judgmental call against him by the way.”
More fabrications. As I have just made explicitly clear, checkpoints and separation walls are fine, if that is what Israelis want, there’s no problem so long as they build these constructs on Israeli territory and not well into Palestinian territory (annexing valuable land and resources). That you here are willing to defend the use of torture is beyond the pale and absolutely evidence of your violent extremism. Why sail from the very shores of civilization you are proclaiming to defend in the first place? Torture is self-defeating. President-Elect Obama’s appointment for Attorney General, Eric Holder, has this to say about water boarding and torture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAt1GcIs6E&eurl=http://thinkprogress
”This brings us to the legal aspect. JDHURF has been copying and pasting legal text as proof of Israel committing war crimes. There is a problem wit this. First of all, JDHURF, nor I, are International legal experts. No legal text works in some vacuum on its own. There are any number of factors that play a role. JDHURF often quotes this.
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”
The problem is, experts can interpret this any which way. What does it mean "excesive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated?" Who decides this? Obviously, JDHURF is interpreting it for his advantage. Someone else will interpret it for their advantage.
This website takes another approach.
Side note: On this same site, the quoted law does not say "concrete" or "direct" in it:
or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
So there is always interpretation that plays a role. Do I have any reason to believe that JDHURF who admitted to being a leftists, is somehow looking at this objectively without ideology getting in the way? Absolutely not.”
You are being disingenuous to pretend that my being a leftist has anything at all to do with this conflict, as I made clear earlier in my response. That you cite a blog as an expert opinion is outright laughable. The blog itself goes quite a way in their disclaimer citing as much:
“The information contained on International Law Observer does not represent legal advice and no guaranty can be given for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information/facts presented here. The authors of International Law Observer strive to hold the contents on the newest status yet it can be that information becomes outdated, incomplete or false. In line with the befitting tradition of research conducted in the academic field, it is thus strongly advised to not rely upon facts expressed on this Blog without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true.
No assurance can be given by the authors of International Law Observer for the accuracy of information or assessments contained on other websites linked to on this Blog. Moreover, the authors of this Blog can not be held responsible for the contents of other pages (links to other sites - characterized by underlining), which link to International Law Observer or to which the present Blog links. It is to be guaranteed the user responsibility that each selected contents are free from viruses or the like.”
I don’t interpret the law, I cite it explicitly, while you cite blog opinions about the law.
Here is a very explicit case of Israel breaking international law, as reported by the Internatinoal Committee of the Red Cross, which I don’t doubt you will ignore:
“Relief workers found four starving children sitting next to their dead mothers and other corpses in a house in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday.
The ICRC accused Israel of delaying ambulance access to the hit area and demanded it grant safe access for Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances to return to evacuate more wounded.
"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, ICRC chief for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
"The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded," he said.
In unusually strong terms, the neutral agency said it believed Israel had breached international humanitarian law in the incident.
In a written response, the Israeli army said it works in coordination with international aid bodies assist civilians and that it "in no way intentionally targets civilians".
The Israeli offensive launched in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip on Dec. 27 to end rocket attacks by Islamic militants has drawn increasing international criticism over mounting civilian casualties.
Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances and ICRC officials managed to reach several houses in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City on Wednesday after seeking access from Israeli military forces since last weekend, the ICRC statement said.
The rescue team "found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses", the ICRC said.
"They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses," it said.
In another house, the team found 15 survivors of Israeli shelling including several wounded, it said. Israeli soldiers posted some 80 meters (yards) away ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do, it said.
The ICRC said it had been informed that there were more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in the area.
"The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable," it said.
In all, it evacuated 18 wounded and 12 others who were exhausted, including the children, by donkey cart. This was because large earth walls erected by the Israeli army had made it impossible to bring ambulances into the immediate area.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, warring parties are obliged to do everything possible to search for, collect and evacuate the wounded and sick without delay, it said.
Dominik Stillhart, ICRC deputy director of operations, declined to say explicitly whether the Israeli inaction constituted a war crime.
"Clearly, it is (for) the International Criminal Court -- not for the ICRC -- to say whether this is or is not a war crime," he said, referring to the Hague tribunal.
Ambulances must be given "round-the-clock" access to the wounded throughout Gaza, Stillhart told a news briefing. "We cannot wait for the next suspension of hostilities for the wounded to be evacuated and brought to hospital."
The Israeli army said any serious allegations would need to be investigated properly after a formal complaint was received, "within the constraints of the military operation taking place". (Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Jerusalem) (Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Jonathan Lynn)”
”According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.
The problem with him bringing this up should be obvious. Israel does not control Gaza. It's not being re-occupied. I don't think any other country though, would call for a 'time-out' and allow for humanitarian aid to come in. But, one thing is important, it's all about ideology that he brought this quote. It's first an emotional response to innocents dying, and then looking for something to aide to bolster that ideology in legal terms. Its nothing abnormal. We all do it. So I am not convinced by the legal jargon. There is no intelligence needed to go to a website and copy & paste legal text. I mean the U.S. has also killed thousands of Iraqis and other than the fringe left (which perhaps should say something there) I don't recall seeing anyone screaming that America should be prosecuted for war crimes.”
This is absolutely shameful. I have gone over this time and time again with you, which means you are simply willfully lying here. To begin with, Israel does control the land, water and air surrounding Gaza and has effective control, however, as I have pointed out time and time again, that is irrelevant because Israel has the same obligations under international law whether it is the occupying force or whether it is engaged in armed conflict. I will simply repeat myself yet again:
“One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.
Even if Israel 's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to "effective control" and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law. IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live. Given that Israel contends that an armed conflict exists between it and the Palestinian organizations fighting against it, which has continued even after the disengagement, such provisions apply. These provisions are found, for example, in the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to which Israel must protect the wounded, sick, children under age fifteen, and pregnant women, enable the free passage of medicines and essential foodstuffs, enable medical teams to provide assistance, and refrain from imposing collective punishment.”
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Israels_obligations.asp
Nice to see you red-baiting, which I knew you would immediately do, dishonestly, rather than addressing the atrocities, shameful, and ironic when you are at the same time calling me an asshole.
Interestingly enough, this lady says an investigation has to be made is not making any statements till the facts are out. Yet, what you copy and past, and the language it uses, already makes Israel totally guilty.
Again, ideology at play here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819937.stm
JDHURF
It is very annoying to have to read and comment to such long paragraphs on Blogger. Copy and paste to my blog.
I tried, but as you can see your site ruined my post.
The article was citing eye-witness accounts, such as Meysa Samouni, a 19-year-old who survived the attack and Red Cross medics.
I simplified matters.
I gave you a guest post.
Also, I NEVER said there were not eye witnesses right? I said, the woman said there must be an investigation first. Yet you site a socialist site that specifically uses language to incriminate Israel that it targeted that house.
Holy Hyrax:
I again attempted to post on your site with no luck and was unable to locate the guest post of mine you say you put up. So I will post the rest of what I wrote here.
It really is almost too much to take to have a wildly militant ultra-Zionist such as yourself charge me with addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with ideology.
Ideology runs through all of your posts, your blog post is absolutely seething with presupposed premises and ideology.
To begin with, your mistaken belief that Israel is a beacon of moral and legal just surrounded by savage terrorists who arise from within a socioeconomic and political vacuum, spinning on their own axis, independent from the world around them, is clearly only possible with a sufficient amount of ideological indoctrination. That you apparently believe that the only reason any Palestinian would ever have a problem with Israel is because Palestinians are innately anti-Semitic and have predilections towards terrorism is not only dangerous is in its ignorance, it’s absolutely racist.
One of the hallmarks of ideology is the blind dismissal or disregard of context. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, context (historical, economic, political, social and so on) are absolutely critical. This context begins in the thirties with the “transfer” plan. For example, “in 1937 Ben-Gurion told the Jewish Agency Executive, the organization charged with procuring land for Jewish settlements in Palestine, ‘I am for compulsory transfer; I don’t see anything immoral in it.’ Ten years later, Ben-Gurion maintained his opposition to sharing Palestine with the Arabs by rejecting the UN partition plan because he believed it didn’t allocate at least the majority of Palestine to the Jewish state…the partition plan was from the beginning unfair to the Palestinians because they still made up two-thirds of the population in 1947, while the UN allocated only 42 percent of the land to them. Meanwhile, the UN allocated 56 percent of Palestine to foreign Jewish colonizers who only made up a third of the population. Despite this injustice to the native population, the founding father of Israel actually insisted on getting more and more land. In a speech delivered to his own Mapai Party on December 3, 1947, Ben-Gurion made his aims clear: ‘There are 40 percent non-Jews in the areas allocated to the Jewish state. This composition is not a solid basis for a Jewish state…Only a state with 80 percent Jews is a viable state… Since the early 1930s, these founding fathers worked hard to prepare for a majority Jewish state with very few or no Arabs. First, they successfully strengthened Jewish economic, social, military, and political institutions that could become the basis of the new state. They also took advantage of British openness to Jewish immigration during the British colonial mandate period of 1917–48. In addition, they worked to weaken the Arab political leadership by fighting alongside British forces to crush most of the Palestinian political and military infrastructure during the Arab revolt of 1936–39. At the end of the Second World War, they launched a relentless campaign of terrorist attacks against British interests in Palestine to drive the British out.
They also authorized a committee of Jewish historians and Arabists (a term that refers to specialists in Arabic culture) to compile a detailed, secret map of every Arab town and village in Palestine. They recorded the location and topography of the villages, the degree of land fertility, and availability of water, the number of inhabitants and the names of all adult males, the number of guards and weapons, the names of individuals who took part in or sympathized with the 1936 revolt, and even recorded a description of the Mukhtar’s (mayor’s) living quarters.
Leaders such as Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Allon met for years on a biweekly basis in the “Red House” in Tel Aviv as a group called The Consultancy. They drew and revised a sophisticated plan to carry out the “transfer” of the Palestinians at an opportune time in order to secure a Jewish majority in Palestine. In the third updated version of that plan (compiled at the end of the 1930s and referred to as Plan C or gimel in Hebrew), these leaders agreed on the necessity of carrying out the following steps:
• Killing the Palestinian political leadership;
• Killing Palestinian inciters and financial supporters;
• Damaging Palestinian transportation;
• Damaging Palestinian water wells, mills, etc.;
• Attacking Palestinian clubs, coffee houses, meeting places, etc.
Within a few months, the same “founding fathers” drew up the final version of the plan, now named Plan D, or dalet in Hebrew. These leaders ordered their militias and gangs to start implementing Plan D only hours after the UN issued resolution 181 in November 1947. The long nightmare for the Palestinians would only get worse. Zionist militias began to attack and expel villagers with or without provocation inside lands allocated to either the Jewish or Arab state.
Qisarya was the first village to be expelled in its entirety, on 15 February 1948. The expulsion took only a few hours and was carried out so systematically that the Jewish troops were able to evacuate and destroy another four villages on the same day, all under the watchful eyes of British troops stationed in police stations nearby.
The people of the village of Sa’sa were among the early victims. On the night of February 15, 1948, troops from Palmach (which had the largest Zionist militias) “took the main street of the village and systematically blew up one house after another while families were still sleeping inside.” Moshe Kalman, the Jewish officer in charge of the operation later recalled, rather poetically, “In the end, the sky prised open. We left behind 35 demolished houses (a third of the village) and 60–80 dead bodies (quite a few of them were children).”
Declassified Israeli military archives confirm that the Zionist militias carried out at least thirty-seven large-scale massacres in that period. Some of the worst massacres and rape cases took place in villages such as Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, where one survivor, Fahim Zaydan, described what Jewish troops did:
They took us one after the other; shot an old man and when one of his daughters cried, she was shot too. Then they called my brother Muhammad, and shot him in front of us, and when my mother yelled, bending over him—carrying my little sister Hudra in her hands, still breastfeeding her, they shot her too.
The news about the fate of the villagers in Deir Yassin spread like wildfire across Palestine, with Jewish troops cruising through other villages promising the villagers the same fate if they didn’t leave. And though more recent accurate accounts of the number of those killed in Deir Yassin suggest a figure of 170 men, women, and children, Zionist propaganda broadcast over loudspeakers in the weeks that followed the massacre claimed that they actually killed over 300, in order to elevate the panic among Arabs.
On October 28, 1948, Palmach troops committed another massacre in the village of Dawaymah, described by Pappé as more brutal than the massacre in Deir Yassin. In just a few hours, all houses were blown up and 455 people were executed, including 170 women and children. The remaining 6,000 inhabitants—who included 4,000 refugees expelled earlier that year from other villages—were forcibly expelled. According to Israeli archives, “The Jewish troops who took part in the massacre also reported horrific scenes: babies whose skulls were cracked open, women raped or burned alive in houses, and men stabbed to death.”
In all those villages that were attacked, the map compiled earlier by the Arabists proved to be extremely useful. It gave the Jewish troops complete understanding of the best way to attack those villages. And with the help of paid informants, it allowed them to pick out and immediately execute all potential resisters.
By the end of the war, Zionist troops had destroyed more than 420 Palestinian villages and turned their inhabitants into refugees. The same ill fate that befell the Palestinian countryside also befell the Arab population in cities—both Arab or mixed. The campaign against the Palestinian cities was also as relentless and brutal as that against the villages.
On the first day of Passover, April 21, 1948, Jewish troops began Operation Scissors (later renamed Operation Cleansing the Leaven or Bi’ur Hametz in Hebrew) to cleanse the mixed sea-port city of Haifa in the north of its fifty thousand Arab inhabitants. The troops attacked by rolling barrel bombs from the hills onto Arab streets and using heavy artillery while loudspeakers threatened the Palestinians to leave or else. Thousands of Palestinians fled to the port, attempting to get on boats to leave, but even there, Jewish troops continued to shoot, leading to more panic with parents trampling their own children. Many drowned when overloaded fishing boats capsized. This all happened under the nose of the British forces who were still stationed in the city and didn’t fulfill an earlier promise to protect the city’s Palestinian inhabitants.
Another example of what Pappé calls the urbicide, (killing of cities) of Arab Palestine is the attacks on the two cities of Acre and Baysan. On May 6, 1948, Jewish troops laid siege with intensive bombardment. Loudspeakers shouted everywhere: “Surrender or commit suicide. We will destroy to the last man.”
According to British doctors in the city’s Lebanese Red Cross hospital, the troops also caused an outbreak of typhoid and dysentery among Arabs and even British soldiers by poisoning the water supply with germs. These germs were developed by the Biological Warfare Science Corps program, set up by Ben-Gurion himself in the 1940s and ironically known by its acronym HEMED, which means “sweetness” in Hebrew.
Exhausted, starved, and fearing more death and destruction, the Palestinian inhabitants of Acre and Baysan finally surrendered in a matter of days only to be loaded by Jewish soldiers at gunpoint onto trucks that drove them to their future refugee camps. By the end of the war most major Palestinian cities had become totally or almost totally empty of their Arab inhabitants.
By the spring of 1949, Israel had conquered up to 80 percent of historic Palestine. It expelled 800,000 Palestinians, or 75 percent of the native Arab population, from their homeland, turning them into refugees and preventing them from coming back at the end of the war. The founding fathers had finally succeeded in securing a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. Some 660,000 Jews imposed military rule on 150,000 Arabs who dug in and didn’t flee. The rest of the Palestinians were dispersed as refugees in the remaining 20 percent of their own country or in neighboring Arab states—made to live as refugees for the following sixty years. Today, they number over six million.”
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rev-pappe.shtml
That’s a viciously violent and ugly beginning, analogous to the creation the United States through the ethnic cleansing and murder of the indigenous population, through terrorism. That’s important history and context which the Palestinians cannot forget, but which ultra-Zionists living in America can easily disregard or, more likely, never become aware of in the first place and/or shamelessly falsify, spinning tales about Palestinians just deciding to pick up and leave their home land on their own.
Add to this fifty years of humiliation and mistreatment (indefinite detainments, torture, house demolitions, indiscriminate murder and so on) and all of the ingredients for reactionary terrorism are available. Which obviously doesn’t justify terrorism, nothing does, but illustrates how and why context is of the utmost value.
Israel was founded upon thuggish terrorism, but it has existed for decades and, just as the United States has a “right to exist” despite the horror under which it came into being, so too does Israel have a “right to exist.” What needs to be emphasized here is that Israel already does exist, Palestine does not. Holy Hyrax, due to his ideological obligations, has nothing to say about Palestinian self-determination and statehood, Palestine’s “right to exist” and this is by far the more serious, central problem.
While Israel no doubt is entitled to security – although Israel pursues expansion over and against security at every turn – Hamas does not pose an existential threat to the state of Israel. Furthermore, there are multiple ways by which to pursue security and reduce terrorism. I’ve discussed these subjects before on my blog and will put this discussion to the side for now. The most obvious way forward, the first step, is the peace process, which, since the election of Sharon, has been aborted.
Hamas, in fact, has called for a reengagement of the peace process[1], which Israel views as a threat, the “Palestinian peace offensive” as they call it. The state of Israel, it’s militant and illegal settlers and the ultra-Zionists in Israel and world over don’t want peace with the Palestinians, they don’t want the two-state settlement, they want all of Palestine and the eradication of the Palestinians, to “wipe them all out,” to quote a crazed ultra-Zionist at a recent pro-Israel demonstration in New York (note that no one presents these facts as justification for an invasion of Israel). They don’t want a viable Palestinian state, they want to reduce the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into unviable, disconnected ghettos that will be so unbearable that no one would want to stay, continuing a central Israeli policy explicitly made manifest by Moshe Dayan. As Noam Chomsky observes: “The plan for the Palestinians under military occupation was described frankly to his Cabinet colleagues by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labor leaders more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Israel should make it clear that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." Following that recommendation, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant and degrading humiliation, along with torture, terror, destruction of property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water.”
That you defend the use of torture isn’t even worthy of further argument, it speaks well enough for itself.
Your ideology is as unmistakable and clear as it is heinous and evil.
[1] “Hamas supports the united Palestinian position calling for the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam.
In a special interview with Wednesday's edition of the paper, Meshal said the Palestinian position had received a vote of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position is considered acceptable to the Arab world at large.
Meshal was asked about the claims by Israel and the United States that Hamas is seeking to destroy Israel. He said Hamas has committed itself to a political plan, which it follows, and called on the Americans, the Europeans and other international entities to conduct themselves in accordance with this political truth, and to judge Hamas based on its political plan, not based on what people may imagine.
Advertisement
Meshal was also asked about Israel's claims that he is no longer in charge of Hamas and that he lost control to Ahmed al-Ja'abari, the head of the group's military wing in the Gaza Strip. Meshal responded by saying Israel's views are like the stock market: sometimes Khaled Meshal is responsible for Hamas and sometimes he has lost control.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970807.html
Okay. From what I've read thus far, I don't mean this to be offensive in any way, but it seems kinda like what you say is cliche of very liberal athiest Jewish, now complaining why Israel does what it does. How about worrying about the brave soldiers in its military, risking their lives?
JD,
"Unfortunately for you no amount of apologetics and propaganda can negate the fact that the blockade, collective punishment, is a war crime, in breech of international human rights law, clearly stated in the Geneva Conventions and cited here by me several times"
Except that you simply declare that the blockade is a type of collective punishment. This was never proven - and indeed when put to the test in Israeli courts they decided it wasn't collective punishment or a war crime.
The fact is that by your definition, the proposed blanket boycott of Israel by British professors would be a form of collective punishment and therefore a war crime, eh?
"There were times where shipments were cut off completely."
Not to the point where Palestinians were starving or anything like that! You just want to demonize Israel but the facts are not on your side.
"When a state controls the land, water and air, that is control of the area."
No - it in actual fact is not "control" of the area. Not to the meaningful point of calling it an occupation and therefore not to the point of the "controller" being responsible for the civilians in that territory.
"Nowhere does AI argue that Israel “is under more stringent obligations” because the obligations remain the same whether being the occupying power proper or being in an armed conflict. That’s what you continue to confuse."
I'm not confusing that at all - you are intentionally conflating them. Israel is in armed conflict NOW and is therefore generally responsible for the Gazan civilians NOW. But Israel had not had control of the Gaza territory since the Disengagement and therefore legally was not responsible for the the civilians there.
Occupation isn't defined wishy-washily by 'effective control.' It is defined specifically as when the power "exercises the functions of government in such territory" (Article 6, 4th GC). Patently Israel has not had that kind of control there since 2005.
Every single paper put forth by AI makes the same assumption you have - that a undefined 'effective control' equals 'occupation' and therefore Israel is responsible for the Gazan population as an occupying power. I could easily cite a hundred examples of this but you could just as easily recognize it tomorrow when you read AI's bulletins before your morning coffee.
Orthoprax said:
”Except that you simply declare that the blockade is a type of collective punishment. This was never proven - and indeed when put to the test in Israeli courts they decided it wasn't collective punishment or a war crime.”
Israeli courts, that’s laughable. The same Israeli courts that refuse to investigate the murder of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, or the murder of international journalists. The same Israeli courts that rule against international law.
This explains why 37% of Israelis view the courts as corrupt:
“A survey published on Thursday revealed disturbing figures: 37 percent of Israelis believe that the Israeli court system is corrupt.”
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3403994,00.html
That’s just Israelis, the figures become astronomical elsewhere.
”The fact is that by your definition, the proposed blanket boycott of Israel by British professors would be a form of collective punishment and therefore a war crime, eh?”
Your posts are becoming more ridiculous by the day. British professors are not going to stop Israel receiving military weapons, let alone the necessities of life.
”Not to the point where Palestinians were starving or anything like that! You just want to demonize Israel but the facts are not on your side.”
You don’t know anything about the facts and habitually falsify them in order to present Israel as some morally just beacon of Holy statehood.
”No - it in actual fact is not "control" of the area. Not to the meaningful point of calling it an occupation and therefore not to the point of the "controller" being responsible for the civilians in that territory.”
Jesus Christ. I am going to explain this to you one last time and then I will simply ignore your trifling posts:
“One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.
Even if Israel 's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to "effective control" and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law. IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live. Given that Israel contends that an armed conflict exists between it and the Palestinian organizations fighting against it, which has continued even after the disengagement, such provisions apply. These provisions are found, for example, in the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to which Israel must protect the wounded, sick, children under age fifteen, and pregnant women, enable the free passage of medicines and essential foodstuffs, enable medical teams to provide assistance, and refrain from imposing collective punishment.”
”I'm not confusing that at all - you are intentionally conflating them. Israel is in armed conflict NOW and is therefore generally responsible for the Gazan civilians NOW. But Israel had not had control of the Gaza territory since the Disengagement and therefore legally was not responsible for the the civilians there.
Occupation isn't defined wishy-washily by 'effective control.' It is defined specifically as when the power "exercises the functions of government in such territory" (Article 6, 4th GC). Patently Israel has not had that kind of control there since 2005.”
“The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
“The Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva convention provide separate, but interrelated criteria to
determine whether a territory is occupied. According to the 1907 Hague Regulations (Hague IV, Art. 42),
“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The
occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert
itself.” This stipulation is considered by legal experts to be the test of “effective control.” 2 Thus, the
Hague Regulations would apply as long as the occupying power exercises effective control over the
territory. Effective control would thus be reflected by a progressive scale of military activity, considering
such factors like whether the occupier “controls all access to a territory, dictates events within that
territory, and reserves the right to intervene militarily.” 3
Thus, under the terms of the Hague Regulations, there is no question that Israel is still an occupying
power as it continues to exercise effective control: Israel controls the borders and access into and out of
Gaza, including the sea and air space; Israel has also reserved (and has exercised) the right to intervene
militarily in Gaza even after its disengagement; and Israel continues to control Gaza’s infrastructure
(water and electricity, fuel, imports/exports, radio and TV frequencies, etc.) 4 Israel is thus bound by the
responsibilities of an occupying power under the Hague Regulations.
For its part, the Fourth Geneva Convention offers two possible criteria by which to determine whether a
territory is considered militarily occupied. The first is related to the “close of military operations”: “In the
case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general
close of military operations;” 5 The second relates to the exercise of government in the territory in
question: “the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such
Power exercises the functions of government in such territory.”5
Thus, for the Fourth Geneva Convention, given Israel’s record from “disengagement” through 2008, there
is certainly no question that Israel continues military operations in Gaza. These military operations are
multi-faceted, and have included ground invasions, airstrikes by manned and unmanned craft, and
artillery strikes, among others. Some legal experts also maintain that Israel can reasonably be viewed as
exercising key functions of government too, given its control of borders, trade, water, fuel and electricity.6”
http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/41%20En%20Gaza%20still%20Occupied%20v.2.pdf
JD,
"Your posts are becoming more ridiculous by the day. British professors are not going to stop Israel receiving military weapons, let alone the necessities of life."
Yes, my suggestion was intentionally absurd. But how is their boycott not a "collective punishment" (and therefore an act of terror) on the Israeli people? By your definition it is.
"Jesus Christ. I am going to explain this to you one last time and then I will simply ignore your trifling posts:"
What you supplied is not an "explanation" - it is an argument. And I supplied a counterargument.
When your source says they have "a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to 'effective control'" that's just an assumption.
"Effective control would thus be reflected by a progressive scale of military activity, considering
such factors like whether the occupier “controls all access to a territory, dictates events within that territory, and reserves the right to intervene militarily.”
Israel does not control all access to the territory - Egypt shares a border as well. Israel patently does not dictate events within Gaza as that was firmly in Hamas' hand. And Obama has stated that he reserves the right to intervene militarily in Pakistan if Osama is there - does the US occupy Pakistan? Essentially, you've shown that there's as good a case saying that Egypt occupies Gaza. Go figure.
"IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live."
Correct - which is why during an actual operation in Gaza that is when Israel has obligations towards the civilians there. When not then they do not. Of course they don't want to induce an actual humanitarian disaster there in between times of armed conflict so they don't cut off essential supplies or medicines. Israel has in fact been superceding its obligations.
If Israel is dismantled and moved to America, and Palestine is dismantled and moved to America and then the Arab nations that surround Israel are dismantled too and are replaced with Americans - the world would be a much better place.
RECENT FACTS ON THE ISSUE.
As of January 26, 2009, 13 Israelis have been killed so far, 10 invading soldiers and 3 “Settler” civilians (combatants in my opinion)!
Please listen and learn. All I have to say about this guy is “YOU GO BOY”.
THOSE THAT HAVE AN EAR LET THIM HEAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8&feature=related
RON PAUL WAKE UP CALL!
While some people use media talking points for their defense of Israel, most don't have a clue about the conflict. Some say Fatah is doing good work in Palestine now, but what they don't know is that Israel created/support Hamas against Fatah initially. Fatah, before Hamas came into power, was labeled then the way Hamas is labeled now. Who's next. Me?
CSPAN VIA YOUTUBE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-rmsz_SHKU&feature=related
GEORGE “I’LL HAND YOU YOUR ASS” GALLOWAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIpvrOJQ0J0
DENNIS “YEAH I SAID IT” KUCINICH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CAdnSQeGgA
ISRAEL STARTED THIS CURRENT GENOCIDAL RAMPAGE
USNEWS:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/30/why-the-gaza-war-between-israel-and-hamas-broke-out-now.html
BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM&feature=related
CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPScbzS83vQ&feature=related
JIMMY CARTER VIA WASHINGTON POST:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html
HAMAZ “WILL” RECOGNIZE ISRAEL
But Fox Headline contradicts its content. This is the kind of news most are exposed to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351953,00.html
Now this is how it should’ve been headlined!
Note a "Hudna" implies a recognition of the other party's EXISTENCE.
MSN:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/
ISRAELIS MAY NOT WANT ARAB RECOGNIZATION ACCORDING TO RECENT (JAN. 09) SURVEY
Haaretz:
https://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=1047226&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title=%27Poll:%20Most%20Israelis%20oppose%20leaving%20West%20Bank%20for%20Arab%20world%27s%20recognition%27&dyn_server=172.20.5.5
AMERICAN ZIONIST (All Groups of People) ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TERROR AGAINST PALESTINIANS. NO WONDER WHY THEY HATE US.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/why_not_add_vio/
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/protesting-the-hebron-fundandrsquos-banqueton-november-17th2008/4138033981/?icid=VIDURVNWS02
BFBF
I imagine Canada dropping rockets onto Buffalo every day or two, or several times a day, and speculate on what actions the U.S. would take.
Would the U.S. wait years at a time before doing something, like Israel did?
It was wrong in the first place to go invade Palestine.
And then the mass murder, and then the settling, and then the blockade and then this little new year gift they gave to that already miserable people.
The sad thing is that I know a lot of people saying; "see? jews deserved it! Hitler was right!!"
And then I have to explain them that not all the jews are zionists, and that even zionists did their part during WW2 "A cow in israel worths more than a bunch of lifes in a concentration camp" huh?
This was wrong from the begining, but I do not think it will ever change, after all who's usa's little whore? and who owns the banks? and who pays good green money to the us congress?
zionists will never change the obtuse point of view they have enough to change things for Palestinians.
I hope that one day, g-d knows when, the Nakba will end.
"Please don't respond by asking for alternatives ....."
I just love those smart people who know exactly what is wrong, but neither know what is right, nor want to be asked about it. I wonder, what purpose could such sharply limited discussion have? I suppose none.
>Israel should be reducing the >number of people who want to >become terrorists.
I think you have an obligation to prove that Israel responding to agression is increasing the number of people who want to become terrorists. I believe this is strictly your opinion and you'll have hard time doing this.
Regarding whether or not Israel responding to rocket fire is immoral - morality is a relevant term. I believe every country has a moral obligation to protect its citizens first and foremost, so yes. I believe Israeli military response was moral
>Muslims don't have an >Inquisition, Crusades, or >genocides in two continents on >their list of bad things done.
Not true. Most of the territory where Islam is practiced today has been captured by force - through crusades and genocides. Muslims are also responsible for one of the biggest genocides in history, so let's avoid posting historical inacuracies.
Post a Comment