The Middle East Conflict Thread

Glock26

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
1,427
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html
Footage shows terror cell preparing to launch mortar shells near elementary school in Gaza, fleeing site after launches. IDF says terror organizations 'aware of our sensitivity to these areas and they take advantage of that, this is as cynical as their use of the civilian population gets'
A cell of three terrorists launching mortar shells towards Israel from a Gaza schoolyard was captured carrying out the attack by Israeli intelligence on Monday.
After the attacks are carried out the cell quickly flees the launch site, a courtyard outside an elementary school in the town of Beit Hanun in northern Gaza. IDF forces, who identified the cell as it was carrying out the attacks, struck the terrorists after they had cleared the public buildings.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/

Deliberate use of civilians as human shields against anticipated air-strikes

In order to avoid civilian casualties, Israel sends warning messages before attacking terrorist targets advising civilians to leave. Israel prefers to attack empty buildings used to manufacture rockets, even taking into consideration that the terrorists too will be warned and their lives spared.

Hamas, on the other hand, calls on civilians to come and to protect with their bodies the precise locations they expect Israel to attack. Since they know that Israel will usually strike from the air, they send the children to the roofs to prevent the air force from targeting that building.

During the course of the Israeli operation against terrorists in the Gaza Strip (March 2008), Hamas repeatedly called upon Palestinian civilians to gather near buildings where they feared that the IDF was about to launch air-strikes against Hamas targets hidden within. The purpose of the civilian presence was to have them serve as human shields, exploiting the fact that the IDF avoids harming Palestinian civilians, even if it means aborting attacks on crucial terrorist infrastructure targets.

The following are but a few of the documented examples of calls in the Hamas controlled Gaza media for Palestinians civilians to serve as human shields:

1) Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV called upon children to form a human shield at the home of Abu al-Hatal of the a-Shouqaf quarter of Sajaiyeh in order to protect the building from an anticipated IDF airstrike (March 1).
View clipView clip

2) Al-Aqsa TV News broadcast a story about how a crowd of civilians gathered on the roof of Abu Bilal al-Ja’abeer in the Northern Gaza strip, in order cause the IDF to abort a threatened airstrike against the structure.
View clipView clip

3) Al-Aqsa TV called upon the Palestinians in the northern Gaza Strip to go to the house of Othman al-Ruziana in order to protect it against an anticipated IDF strike (February 29).

4) Al-Aqsa TV called upon the residents of Khan Yunis to gather at the house of Ma’amoun Abu ‘Amer due to an anticipated airstrike. (February 28). An hour later dozens of Palestinians from Khan Yunis were reported to have gathered on the roof of Abu ‘Amer’s house to serve as human shields to prevent the house from being hit (Pal-today Website, February 28).

5) Excerpts from a speech by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008:
Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm
March 15, 2008 - To enlighten those who may have harbored any doubts, Fathi Ahmad Hammad, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said it loud and said it proud: Palestinians deliberately use women and children as human shields.

This is the transcript of his remarks (but it is worth watching the clip just to hear the hatred in his voice):
[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."
He might have read the following from the Hamas Charter:

Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it.

Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave.

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

So what does all of this add up to?

The Palestinians have successfully sold the idea that they are resisting an occupation. Israel is the occupier, the Palestinians are resisting, so the problem can be solved by pressuring Israel politically, economically, and militarily. This is the big lie of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

For when we examine both Palestinian words and actions, we see that this is really something much different from what it seems. The rhetoric of hatred, the indoctrination of children, the Palestinians' willingness to use their own people as martyrs for the sake of blackening Israel's image, the constant threats to destroy Israel and to liberate "all" of Palestine, are all signs that this is no revolutionary movement in the Western mold. This is a jihad in the most traditional and most extreme sense of the word. This is a war for Israel's extermination.

The Palestinians say they want Israel to withdraw, but they punish Israel when it does. The most extreme factions have taken over Gaza and are threatening the same in the West Bank. And the influence of outside parties, particularly Iran, is growing.

When Fathi Hammad ran for the Palestinian Parliament in 2006, his campaign promise was that Hamas “will continue to develop its armed wings by recruiting more members and making more rockets and bombs.” And the people voted for him and elected him. His TV station is now helping to prepare the next generation of holy warriors. Samir Abu Mohsen, who directs one of the station's hate shows for kids, says that the character Nahoul Bee exists to remind Palestinian children that they are in exile and must commit themselves to getting back their land. What land? These children live in Gaza, and Israelis are gone from there. The land these children are being trained to reclaim by force is clearly Israel.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is deeply ingrained in Muslim tradition, and it comes from projecting forward through history Muhammad's conflicts with the Jews of his own time. Muhammad did speak in generalities about "Jews," and since his words are considered timeless, many Muslims apply them to the Jews of today. One can still hear Muhammad's words applied this way in countless Friday sermons from mosques around the world.

Therefore a historical consciousness is necessary in order to fathom what Hamas is doing. The symbols that Hamas uses, from the Qur'an, from the Hadith, and from later Christian anti-Jewish literature, all point towards a continuation of the original jihad. This is hard for Westerners to understand, but this is what the fight means to Hamas. They are completing the work that Muhammad started. It is not something about which they can compromise. And international condemnation of Israel only gives it more power.

For this cause Hamas is willing to sacrifice its own children as martyrs. And if Israel gets the blame for it, so much the better. If we do not understand the present Palestinian violence for what it is - not an effort to end an occupation of some territories but a continuation of the real, original jihad and a fight to the death - then attempts to force an end to the conflict will only help make inevitable the catastrophic conclusion that all but the religious fanatics are dreading.

We must at least respect the religious mind of Hamas enough to understand it on its own terms. It may seem too strange to us to believe, so like Solana we impose our own reality on it. That is foolish and perilous. We must not ever forget that in the Middle East the word "occupation" has a double meaning. To the West, it means Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza. That is not what it means to Hamas. To Hamas, "occupation" means the existence of an entity that defies Islam. And when Hamas fights to end the "occupation," obliterating that entity is precisely what it aims to achieve.

You poor suckers that believe this is about occupation and not a planned extermination of the entire state of Israel need to wake up and smell the coffee. Or just admit that you really don't want to believe anything that isn't fed to you by the liberal media. Bunch of sheep!

G26
 

Glock26

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
1,427
Man, Israel has no regard for journalists, a few were killed in the past few weeks but this is nothing new...

James Miller killed by IDF

IDF Shoots and Kills Associated Press Cameraman in the West Bank

Israel's IDF Has Killed Nine Journalists and Wounded 170 Since 2000

Maybe this is why journalists are banned...
:rolleyes:
Journalists are banned for their own safety. You have any idea of how many are killed by Hamas or other terrorist groups? Yet they choose to sneak in, and hang around areas where there is turmoil.
Funny..I haven't seen Israel beheading or torturing any journalists, unlike "certain" other groups (and NOT just in Iraq or Afghanistan.)
Get a clue.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
You poor suckers that believe this is about occupation and not a planned extermination of the entire state of Israel need to wake up and smell the coffee. Or just admit that you really don't want to believe anything that isn't fed to you by the liberal media. Bunch of sheep!

G26

The only suckers are the ones who quote sites with a Pro-Israel bias(your links) I prefer info that is researched without bias.

OH btw... Israel chose to empower Hamas against the PLO in the 90's(the 'liberal' media likes to ignore this little fact btw) being fully aware of their charter, so maybe you should question who the irrational ones are(I posted proof earlier).
 
Last edited:

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
47,671
Wow... pops out from nowhere, calls us suckers and sheep, quotes from the unbiased mfa.gov.il - I'm quite underwhelmed.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
For months - years even - the historical twinning that some campaigners have chosen for the situation in Gaza has been with the Warsaw ghetto. There'll probably be a sign up soon, because in the past week Ken Livingstone, the activist-musician Brian Eno and George Galloway have all made the comparison.

“Gaza is a ghetto,” said Mr Livingstone, "in exactly the same way that the Warsaw Ghetto was, and people are trapped in it”; while Eno predicted: “They [the Israelis] will continue to create a Warsaw Ghetto in the Middle East.” The less-restrained Mr Galloway pronounced: “Those murdering them [the occupants of Gaza] are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1942.”

Busy people sometimes hurry their reading. Mr Galloway, for example, may only have skimmed the day-by-day reports made by SS Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop on the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. On the third day of the operation Stroop tells how “large numbers of Jews - entire families - already on fire, jumped from the windows. We made sure that these, as well as the other Jews, were liquidated immediately.”

Stroop's operation was made necessary because the inhabitants of the ghetto took up what few arms they had, having already seen more than half their number transported to extermination camps - a figure which, if translated into Gaza terms, would mean the deliberate killing of 500,000 Palestinians.

A year earlier in this place that was, pace Livingstone, “exactly” a ghetto in the same way as Gaza, the death rate from starvation and disease was more than 4,000 a month - the equivalent of 12,000 in the Gazan “ghetto”. On these grounds alone, never mind any others (rockets, Hamas, etc), we may conclude that Gaza 2009 and Warsaw 1943 have very little in common.

So why the philistine insistence on this particular match? Partly, I imagine, so that the matcher can mention the “irony” of Jews supposedly doing to others what the Nazis “did to them” - as if there weren't a thousand other closer, but far less narratively satisfying, comparisons.

But this ahistorical hyperbole is also the product of a kind of binary thinking, the belief that there can only be two kinds of anything, and two possible responses: there's the good and the bad; there's the victim and the murderer. The only way Jews can shed their unique victim status is if they take on the mantle of the worst kind of murderer, the mantle of Stroop. The only way we can think about the Holocaust (or subsequent little holocausts) is that those who carried it out are so unlike us that they are beyond comprehension.

Strangely this thought did not begin for me with events in Gaza, but in the reactions to a piece of cinema released here last week. Ten years ago I read a book by a German author, Bernhard Schlink, called The Reader, which told the story of a young German boy who, in 1958, falls for an older woman. She becomes his first lover, but then disappears from his life. A few years later, as a law student he sees the same woman - Hanna - on trial for crimes committed as a guard at a concentration camp during the war. Gradually he realises that the key to much of her behaviour, exciting and appalling, lies in something as banal as her shame at her own illiteracy.

The film version, starring Kate Winslet, directed by Stephen Daldry and with a screenplay by David Hare, has met with a surprisingly vigorous dusting-up from some of the Anglophone world's finest film critics. The objections to style or cinematography vary, but those to moral purpose are very similar. “Outrageously,” said the New York Times reviewer, “Hanna is a victim too, because she took the guard job only to hide her illiteracy, as if illiteracy were an excuse for barbarism.”

Anthony Lane, of The New Yorker, more languidly complained that the audience is “encouraged to muse upon the cultural shortcomings, or improvements, in the life of an ageing member of the SS. This is not an issue that most of us feel the need to worry about.”

As an assertion, it seems to me, this is more or less completely wrong. But I'll come to that in a minute, after having said that I think neither the book nor the film deserve such castigation. On the contrary. Neither invite you to think that Hanna is a good person or a victim, indeed she is rather animalistic, manipulative and lacking in imagination. And neither excuses barbarism in any way. But the story suggests that, if you didn't know your lover was once a concentration camp guard, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell.

Wilfully, almost, the critics have missed the point. One of the most important exchanges takes place in the courtroom. Hanna, who joined the SS as a guard in 1943, is being interrogated by the judge about how selections were made in her work camp for those who would be sent to the gas chambers. She answers matter-of-factly that each of the six guards selected ten women every month. The judge is horrified. “So what would you have done?” she asks, genuinely bemused.

In an interview Daldry talked about how the real trials were reported in the German press in the 1960s. Those in the dock had been depicted as “obviously monsters, sadists, mad people, criminally insane. They must be because only the criminally insane could have been involved in this.” He was talking about the binary, evading thought. Schlink, Daldry and Hare are about challenging this evasion.

So when Hanna asks “What would you have done?” the answer is, how far back shall we go? When 13.75 million German voters put their cross against the overtly Jew-hating National Socialist list in July 1932, didn't they make themselves complicit in the events that ended up with Hanna's choice? Or, to put it another way, couldn't people that you might fall in love with, be capable - depending on the circumstances, created by millions of others - of doing terrible things? That's the question the New Yorker critic so disdains.

It has always seemed to me that the most awful question raised by the Holocaust is not about victimhood, but about being the perpetrator, and how that declension can take place. And in that context I want to ask Brian Eno, whether he has ever - in a recording break - watched Hamas TV and thought to compare it to the propaganda, much earlier, of those who later gave the Hannas their jobs?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5454670.ece
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
This is probably one of the most profound and precise articles I've read, on the genocide now taking place in Gaza.

It includes the following truth:

"...what happens in Gaza is the defining moment of our time, which either grants the impunity of war criminals the immunity of our silence, while we contort our own intellect and morality, or gives us the power to speak out. "

Holocaust Denied
by John Pilger
http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14015

"When the truth is replaced by silence," the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, "the silence is a lie." It may appear the silence is broken on Gaza. The cocoons of murdered children, wrapped in green, together with boxes containing their dismembered parents and the cries of grief and rage of everyone in that death camp by the sea, can be viewed on al-Jazeera and YouTube, even glimpsed on the BBC. But Russia's incorrigible poet was not referring to the ephemeral we call news; he was asking why those who knew the why never spoke it and so denied it. Among the Anglo-American intelligentsia, this is especially striking. It is they who hold the keys to the great storehouses of knowledge: the historiographies and archives that lead us to the why.

They know that the horror now raining on Gaza has little to do with Hamas or, absurdly, "Israel's right to exist." They know the opposite to be true: that Palestine's right to exist was canceled 61 years ago and the expulsion and, if necessary, extinction of the indigenous people was planned and executed by the founders of Israel. They know, for example, that the infamous "Plan D" resulted in the murderous depopulation of 369 Palestinian towns and villages by the Haganah (Jewish army) and that massacre upon massacre of Palestinian civilians in such places as Deir Yassin, al-Dawayima, Eilaboun, Jish, Ramle and Lydda are referred to in official records as "ethnic cleansing." Arriving at a scene of this carnage, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, was asked by a general, Yigal Allon, "What shall we do with the Arabs?" Ben-Gurion, reported the Israeli historian Benny Morris, "made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said, ‘Expel them'. The order to expel an entire population "without attention to age" was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, a future prime minister promoted by the world's most efficient propaganda as a peacemaker. The terrible irony of this was addressed only in passing, such as when the Mapan Party co-leader Meir Ya'ari noted "how easily" Israel's leaders spoke of how it was "possible and permissible to take women, children and old men and to fill the roads with them because such is the imperative of strategy … who remembers who used this means against our people during the [Second World] war … we are appalled."

Every subsequent "war" Israel has waged has had the same objective: the expulsion of the native people and the theft of more and more land. The lie of David and Goliath, of perennial victim, reached its apogee in 1967 when the propaganda became a righteous fury that claimed the Arab states had struck first. Since then, mostly Jewish truth-tellers such as Avi Schlaim, Noam Chomsky, the late Tanya Reinhart, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, Yuri Avnery, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finklestein have dispatched this and other myths and revealed a state shorn of the humane traditions of Judaism, whose unrelenting militarism is the sum of an expansionist, lawless and racist ideology called zionism. "It seems," wrote the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe on 2 January, "that even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide in Gaza, are treated as desperate events, unconnected to anything that happened in the past and not associated with any ideology or system … Very much as the apartheid ideology explained the oppressive policies of the South African government, this ideology – in its most consensual and simplistic variety – has allowed all the Israeli governments in the past and the present to dehumanize the Palestinians wherever they are and strive to destroy them. The means altered from period to period, from location to location, as did the narrative covering up these atrocities. But there is a clear pattern [of genocide]."

In Gaza, the enforced starvation and denial of humanitarian aid, the piracy of life-giving resources such as fuel and water, the denial of medicines and treatment, the systematic destruction of infrastructure and the killing and maiming of the civilian population, 50 per cent of whom are children, meet the international standard of the Genocide Convention. "Is it an irresponsible overstatement," asked Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and international law authority at Princeton University, "to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not."

In describing a "holocaust-in-the making," Falk was alluding to the Nazis' establishment of Jewish ghettos in Poland. For one month in 1943, the captive Polish Jews led by Mordechaj Anielewiz fought off the German army and the SS, but their resistance was finally crushed and the Nazis exacted their final revenge. Falk is also a Jew. Today's holocaust-in-the-making, which began with Ben-Gurion's Plan D, is in its final stages. The difference today is that it is a joint US-Israeli project. The F-16 jet fighters, the 250-pound "smart" GBU-39 bombs supplied on the eve of the attack on Gaza, having been approved by a Congress dominated by the Democratic Party, plus the annual $2.4 billion in war-making "aid," give Washington de facto control. It beggars belief that President-elect Obama was not informed. Outspoken on Russia's war in Georgia and the terrorism in Mumbai, Obama's silence on Palestine marks his approval, which is to be expected, given his obsequiousness to the Tel Aviv regime and its lobbyists during the presidential campaign and his appointment of Zionists as his secretary of state, chief of staff and principal Middle East advisers. When Aretha Franklin sings "Think," her wonderful 1960s anthem to freedom, at Obama's inauguration on 21 January, I trust someone with the brave heart of Muntadar al-Zaidi, the shoe-thrower, will shout: "Gaza!"

The asymmetry of conquest and terror is clear. Plan D is now "Operation Cast Lead," which is the unfinished "Operation Justified Vengeance." The latter was launched by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 when, with Bush's approval, he used F-16s against Palestinian towns and villages for the first time. In the same year, the authoritative Jane's Foreign Report disclosed that the Blair government had given Israel the "green light" to attack the West Bank after it was shown Israel's secret designs for a bloodbath. It was typical of New Labor Party's enduring, cringing complicity in Palestine's agony. However, the 2001 Israeli plan, reported Jane's, needed the "trigger" of a suicide bombing which would cause "numerous deaths and injuries [because] the 'revenge' factor is crucial." This would "motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians." What alarmed Sharon and the author of the plan, General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was a secret agreement between Yasser Arafat and Hamas to ban suicide attacks. On 23 November, 2001, Israeli agents assassinated the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud, and got their "trigger"; the suicide attacks resumed in response to his killing.

Something uncannily similar happened on 5 November last, when Israeli special forces attacked Gaza, killing six people. Once again, they got their propaganda "trigger." A ceasefire initiated and sustained by the Hamas government – which had imprisoned its violators – was shattered by the Israeli attack and homemade rockets were fired into what used to be Palestine before its Arab occupants were "cleansed." The On 23 December, Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire, but Israel's charade was such that its all-out assault on Gaza had been planned six months earlier, according to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

Behind this sordid game is the "Dagan Plan," named after General Meir Dagan, who served with Sharon in his bloody invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Now head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organization, Dagan is the author of a "solution" that has seen the imprisonment of Palestinians behind a ghetto wall snaking across the West Bank and in Gaza, effectively a concentration camp. The establishment of a quisling government in Ramallah under Mohammed Abbas is Dagan's achievement, together with a hasbara (propaganda) campaign relayed through a mostly supine, if intimidated western media, notably in America, that says Hamas is a terrorist organization devoted to Israel's destruction and to "blame" for the massacres and siege of its own people over two generations, long before its creation. "We have never had it so good," said the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir in 2006. "The hasbara effort is a well-oiled machine." In fact, Hamas's real threat is its example as the Arab world's only democratically elected government, drawing its popularity from its resistance to the Palestinians' oppressor and tormentor. This was demonstrated when Hamas foiled a CIA coup in 2007, an event ordained in the western media as "Hamas's seizure of power." Likewise, Hamas is never described as a government, let alone democratic. Neither is its proposal of a ten-year truce as a historic recognition of the "reality" of Israel and support for a two-state solution with just one condition: that the Israelis obey international law and end their illegal occupation beyond the 1967 borders. As every annual vote in the UN General Assembly demonstrates, 99 per cent of humanity concurs. On 4 January, the president of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto, described the Israeli attack on Gaza as a "monstrosity."
(CONT - NEXT)
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
(CONTINUED HOLOCAUST DENIED:


When the monstrosity is done and the people of Gaza are even more stricken, the Dagan Plan foresees what Sharon called a "1948-style solution" – the destruction of all Palestinian leadership and authority followed by mass expulsions into smaller and smaller "cantonments" and perhaps finally into Jordan. This demolition of institutional and educational life in Gaza is designed to produce, wrote Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian exile in Britain, "a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed … Look to the Iraq of today: that is what [Sharon] had in store for us, and he has nearly achieved it."

Dr. Dahlia Wasfi is an American writer on Palestine. She has a Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic," she wrote on 31 December. "But I'm not talking about World War Two, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (the president of Iran) or Ashkenazi Jews. What I'm referring to is the holocaust we are all witnessing and responsible for in Gaza today and in Palestine over the past 60 years … Since Arabs are Semites, US-Israeli policy doesn't get more anti-Semitic than this." She quoted Rachel Corrie, the young American who went to Palestine to defend Palestinians and was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer. "I am in the midst of a genocide," wrote Corrie, "which I am also indirectly supporting and for which my government is largely responsible."

Reading the words of both, I am struck by the use of "responsibility." Breaking the lie of silence is not an esoteric abstraction but an urgent responsibility that falls to those with the privilege of a platform. With the BBC cowed, so too is much of journalism, merely allowing vigorous debate within unmovable invisible boundaries, ever fearful of the smear of anti-Semitism. The unreported news, meanwhile, is that the death toll in Gaza is the equivalent of 18,000 dead in Britain. Imagine, if you can.

Then there are the academics, the deans and teachers and researchers. Why are they silent as they watch a university bombed and hear the Association of University Teachers in Gaza plea for help? Are British universities now, as Terry Eagleton believes, no more than "intellectual Tescos, churning out a commodity known as graduates rather than greengroceries"?

Then there are the writers. In the dark year of 1939, the Third Writers' Congress was held at Carnegie Hall in New York and the likes of Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein sent messages and spoke up to ensure the lie of silence was broken. By one account, 3,500 jammed the auditorium and a thousand were turned away. Today, this mighty voice of realism and morality is said to be obsolete; the literary review pages affect an ironic hauteur of irrelevance; false symbolism is all. As for the readers, their moral and political imagination is to be pacified, not primed. The anti-Muslim Martin Amis expressed this well in Visiting Mrs. Nabokov: "The dominance of the self is not a flaw, it is an evolutionary characteristic; it is just how things are."

If that is how things are, we are diminished as a civilized society. For what happens in Gaza is the defining moment of our time, which either grants the impunity of war criminals the immunity of our silence, while we contort our own intellect and morality, or gives us the power to speak out. For the moment I prefer my own memory of Gaza: of the people's courage and resistance and their "luminous humanity," as Karma Nabulsi put it. On my last trip there, I was rewarded with a spectacle of Palestinian flags fluttering in unlikely places. It was dusk and children had done this. No one told them to do it. They made flagpoles out of sticks tied together, and a few of them climbed on to a wall and held the flag between them, some silently, others crying out. They do this every day when they know foreigners are leaving, believing the world will not forget them.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
Where are the pictures of Jews shouting "Death to Gaza"? Oh - wait. There are none.

Actually there are Israeli citizens camping at the Gaza border cheering every explosion.. very mature. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
It says it was written by URI AVNERY and this guy does not like israel.
Uri Avnery was part of the Irgun when he was young and he fought the arabs in 1948 in the first war Israel fought as a nation. He's served in the Iraeli Knesset for more than one term. I don't think you can really claim he "doesn't like Israel". One of his most famous quotes is, "You can't talk to me about terrorism. I was a terrorist." You see, he was actually part of a militant Israeli organisation which carried out attacks against British and Palestinian civilian targets.

But that's besides the point; I was actually referring to this :
Xarog said:
Quite wrong :

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/
(and yes, that IS *the* council on foreign relations, the think tank that pretty much contains a who's-who of influentual Americans... the same CFR to which SEVERAL US presidents (including Clinton) have been members of in the past... in terms of sources giving credence to Hamas claims, it really does not get any better than this)

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.


Point being?
Point being I am unlikely to stereotype people from a white ethnic background. I have members of my family which are openly racist, and I have members of my family who ran afoul of BOSS. I've seen both sides of the spectrum and I'm not about to make sweeping statements about the behaviour of white people during the existence of Apartheid.


The circumstances were different in SA as I have already said. The black population here was many times bigger than the white population so is was not feasible to carry on in that way forever. The situation in gaza is different because israel doesnt need them to in their economy so couldnt care less if they live seperately.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with how people react to having their basic human rights denied.

Not very many south africans refused to serve in the army. I think the highest % was in the 80's when they had to do township duty and that figure was only about 13%.
So you claim the Israeli objection rate is higher than 13%?

A state for the palestinians is only viable if hamas recognises israel.
By that standard, a state for the Israelis is only viable if the Israeli leadership recognises Palestine. But they don't, which is why Israeli politicians talk of "Judea and Samaria" instead of the "West Bank". There can be no Palestinian state without the Palestinians having control over their own borders, their natural resource (including water), their coastline, and without people being freely able to travel within their state freely (i.e. being able to move from gaza and the west bank respectively). While mainstream media likes to lie and say that Hamas refused to recognise Israel after it came to power, what actually happened was that Hamas said that it would be willing to recognise a State of Israel that occupied the 1967 borders (along with all the other requirements that must be met in order for there to be a viable Palestinian state). Israel of course snubbed its nose at this and thus the lie was perpetuated that Hamas had no interest in reaching a settlement with Israel.

Then tell me what the reason for digging a tunnel near the border is, if not to go under it.
I don't have to. Just because Mexican troops are near the U.S. border does not give the U.S. the excuse to bomb those troops. Niether can Mexico do the same to the US.

Its called a recession. Many countries have a lot of debt, it doesnt last forever.
So then I presume that you mean to say that if it wasn't a recession that the deficits would not be so large? In that case, can you explain why the deficit has been growing consistently for the last 25 years, despite several periods of economic growth? (And btw, as it happens, the largest INCREASE in the trade defecit occured during the last period of growth.)

As I said before, we are just going around in circles.
Quite the contrary.
 

BBSA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
21,905
The only suckers are the ones who quote sites with a Pro-Israel bias(your links) I prefer info that is researched without bias.

.... and support you point of view, right?

OH btw... Israel chose to empower Hamas against the PLO in the 90's(the 'liberal' media likes to ignore this little fact btw) being fully aware of their charter, so maybe you should question who the irrational ones are(I posted proof earlier).

... and the Palistinians go and vote for them:eek:
 

BBSA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
21,905
Actually there are Israeli citizens camping at the Gaza border cheering every explosion.. very mature. :rolleyes:

is this from your unbiased research?

BTW, whose explosion is taking out the terrorist which is threatening to exterminate them.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
Israel was funding the Palestinian Authority when Fatah was in power; Jewish Settlements were closed and they were relocated; troops were pulling out of Palestinian areas; the borders were open; some degree of autonomy was granted to Palestine. Given several more years we may have seen quite a few more changes for the better of the people of Palestine, of course that's all just speculation now.
So why is Israel increasing its expansion of settlements into the West Bank where Fatah still retains control?

Correct, Israel withdrew from Gaza and dismantle settlements at a create political cost to them. The deal was land for peace. Did they get any good will back from the Palestinians? No, only thousands of rockets.
Yes, there was a bit of a local backlash from the Israeli right-wing hardliners. However, the decision was one of calculated self-preservation. If the settlements didn't stop, Israel would risk having to annex the entire Gazan strip and give everyone living there Israeli citizenship, along with the right to vote for whomever they pleased. The Gazan strip has an extremely high birthrate and an extremely high number of children vs. adults. In terms of total popualation, it is a ticking timebomb, and it was this timebomb which so scared Sharon and other Zionists. Because those arabs, if they had citizenship, would within a relatively short number of years, threaten the Jewish hegemony within Israel.

And just to prove the point, here's a nice link to an Israeli mainstream newspaper which refers to the whole strategy behind the pullout. This isn't some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory; it was openly discussed by Israel's political elite.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761007.html
Everyone in the Sharon government talked about the "demographic problem" to convince people of the justness of the pullout. Now the Palestinians have been forgotten and demographics have been forgotten - all because the data can't be used for political ends. But the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation, and in the future they will turn the Jews into a minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

So in other words, it was hardly a decision at "create[sic] political cost to them".

Well Fatah at least. Hamas rejected it outright and refused to recognise the State of Israel.
Wrong.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498851330&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Note the date.

Impatience, it is a process (give and take) and the Pallies did not understand that.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what has the state of Israel offered to give up?

As I said, it took 60 years of fighting, loses on both sides, and policy all round to get to where we are now. That was never going to change over night, it couldn't. But Palestine didn't see change quick enough and let Hamas take over, which resulted in the country advancing in the reverse direction.
Palestine? There is no Palestine, which is precisely the problem. And Israel has done everythin within its power to ensure that things stay that way. There has been no serious offer for peace from Israel, there has been no offer from Israel which, if accepted, would lead to a viable palestinian state with geniune autonomy. So far, the best offer from Israel's side is to create a vassal state where Palestine is subserviant to Israel. The Americans did not accept being ruled by the British in the 1770s, so why should the Palestinians do what the Americans did not?

"neutral" parties have proven in the past they cant provide accurate information anyway so really what difference does it make

its a fact that during the war with hezbollah in 2006, they only reported on what hezbollah wanted them to report ill find u a link to back that up

you can be sure that pretty much anyone dying in Gaza at the moment is being added to the civilian casualty tally, even if its from aids or spider bite

just like the hamas leader said on cnn the other day 'the israelis had no problem killing yasser arafat'
And yet Israel still purposely fired cluster bombs in such a way that the rate of "duds" was as high as possible, ensuring over a million effective landmines were left behind for the Lebanese civilian population to "find". A maneuvre so blatantly heinous that at least one artilliary commander refused to follow orders and told the press he was going home and that he wouldn't participate in such a warcrime. An act for which the UN demanded that Israel provide information about their firing patterns, and furthermore told Israel to help with the clean-up.

But does anyone here who has their tongue up Israel's backside ever mention this little fact? Hell no. And goodness forbid that the palestinians send over a palrty few thousand rockets over a period of 5 years which kills less than a score of people. :rolleyes:

to back up my post on the previous page:




http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=63&x_article=1205

Israel learnt from its mistakes in 2006
There's nothing there that Israel doesn't do on a routine basis as well.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/


http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm



You poor suckers that believe this is about occupation and not a planned extermination of the entire state of Israel need to wake up and smell the coffee. Or just admit that you really don't want to believe anything that isn't fed to you by the liberal media. Bunch of sheep!

G26
On the other hand, Israel places its military structures within densely populated towns/cities. And to make matters even worse, it actually places them in predominantly arab regions to serve as a deterrant for anyone attacking them. This is especially heinous because Israel skimps on funding when it comes to bomb shelters and so forth in non-jewish areas.

One of the most ridiculous things to come out of the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006 was that Hezbollah was actually aiming rockets at Israel's military infrastructure, but because the rockets weren't entirely accurate and did not quite manage to hit the target, Israel claimed that Hezbollah was targetting Israeli civilians. And the journalists in Israel couldn't contradict the IDF's claims because it is against the law to reveal "sensitive" information during the time of conflict (i.e. information such as the location of arnament factories). And Hezbollah knew about the location because they had managed to send a spy drone into the region a year before the conflict broke out.

To put that into a palestinian context, that would be like permanently strapping people to whatever Israel threatens to blow up.

:rolleyes:
Journalists are banned for their own safety. You have any idea of how many are killed by Hamas or other terrorist groups? Yet they choose to sneak in, and hang around areas where there is turmoil.
Funny..I haven't seen Israel beheading or torturing any journalists, unlike "certain" other groups (and NOT just in Iraq or Afghanistan.)
Get a clue.
Oh yes, I'm sure that's the only reason noble and valiant Israel would ever want to bar people from reporting on what goes inside the areas it attacks. :rolleyes:
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
Well, would you not be happy if your government is taking out people who is trying to kill you?

I would rather have a government that knows how to make friends rather than influence enemies.
 
Top