Worldwide protests of Israel's attacks in Gaza

[Elduardo]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Israeli attacks on suspected Hamas strongholds in Gaza have triggered protests in more than a dozen countries.


A girl in Caracas, Venezuela, holds a sign reading, "No more massacre in Gaza" at Israel's embassy Monday.

1 of 2 more photos » The attacks entered their third day Monday, with more than 300 people in Gaza reported killed and hundreds more wounded. Israel says the military assault is in response to ongoing rocket strikes on Israel, which have killed two Israelis.

In London, England, dozens of protesters gathered outside the Israeli Embassy, waving flags and trying to push their way closer to the building, as police tried to hold them back and erect a barricade.

Police in Germany said about 2,000 protesters marched peacefully down Berlin's Kurfuerstendamm Boulevard and dispersed after about three hours. Watch protesters push toward embassy »

Protesters also have taken to the streets in Denmark, France, Italy and Spain, according to news reports. There also were reports of demonstrations in Caracas, Venezuela.

Iranian media reported that thousands took part in anti-Israel demonstrations in Tehran on Monday, which the government declared a day of mourning for the Palestinians in Gaza.

Photographs of the rallies posted by Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency showed black-shrouded women and men holding shoes in the air -- widely considered an insult in the Middle East -- while others held Palestinian flags and signs that said "Down with U.S.A." in English and Farsi.

Greek riot police clashed with protesters in Athens during a demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy, according to police and images broadcast on state television.

In Iraq, hundreds of supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated in al-Mustansiriya Square in eastern Baghdad. The demonstrators carried Iraqi and Palestinian flags, banners and pictures of al-Sadr and his father.

The demonstrators threw an Israeli flag on the ground, put President Bush's picture on top of it and set both on fire.

In the Muslim world, demonstrations also were held in Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya and Bahrain, the BBC and other news outlets reported. See world leaders' reactions to offensive »


Also, thousands of Lebanese demonstrators packed the streets of Beirut as part of a rally called by the militant group Hezbollah. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah addressed the crowd via satellite from an undisclosed location.

Protests were also held in Israel, where students at universities in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem demonstrated against the Israeli military operation, ynetnews.com reported.


Interesting to note that you never see protests against Hamas for launching unprovoked attacks against Israel, for routinely violating cease fire agreements, etc.

Much at stake here with the potential for a larger ground invasion by Israel, potential expansion with the threat of Lebanon and Hezzbolah, and the overall issue of Iran's influence and strategy in the reason.

Futher uncertainty with the incoming Obama administration. Obama has said publicly that he supports Israel's right to defend itself but I don't think anyone really can say with certainty what the Obama administration's strategy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be.

I don't think there is any getting away from the fact that Israel has made concessions in recent years and Hamas has continued the cycle of violence in operation as a terrorist group.

[toxicangel19]

i think its bull crap that Isreal gets condemmed for retaliating against hamas even though hamas were attacking Isreal first. I guess all the arabs stick together even though one of them is wrong. Its not fair to the Isreali people. I think Isreal should get rid of hamas for good...they are the problem in my opinion...Hamas blinds the palestinian people into believing that isreal is the enemy when in fact they are. So whenever a Palestinian dies even though Isreal was provoked Isreal is made otu to be the bad guys...I wish the world would open up their eyes and see the truth behind Hamas

[lunatic]

Thanks for your support. As a Jew I can't be very objective when it comes to Israel. Knowledge and life experiences make me, hopefully, less emotional and more logical. My thoughts:

Irrational Jew-haters are very much present. They were, they are and they will be.

Many (even those who aren't anti-Semitic) prefer only one image of the Jew - a victim. Dependable on somebody else's mercy or will not to harm him. Israeli Jews don't fit to that stereotype. That's why you hear idiotic sayings like "How they can commit Holocaust against Palestinians after what Nazis & Co. did to them?" Not only it's offensively false - it's indulgency for the Arabs to commit crimes and atrocities against "occupiers". Hamas is only a part of it.

Speaking of the Arabs. You have to be brain dead or really dislike Rabinovitch to believe they want 2 states, peace, and reconciliation. Or "Change". It's that simple - in their minds "cousins" can't have any rights to live on their historical land, have a country and participate in human progress and development. It's not about religion - what about jealousy? Forget oil. Israeli successes in sciences, medicine, technologies, agriculture, democratic institutes and, yes, military make them uncomfortable. Plus, it reminds "Palestinians" that if they decide to have a sovereign country they have to rule it, build and govern. Why bother? It's easier to play a victim card to get welfare, sympathy from Jew-haters all over the world, and have a permanent excuse not to care about the future. Jihad is for those who are lazy and willing to die (they do, 72 virgins are hard to say no to). Arab women can always re-produce - why not to use children as a shield and propaganda toys in the dangerous circumstances?

Speaking of propaganda. Looks like it's working. But it's easy - they appeal to those who already dislike or despise Israel.

What the Jews should do? Stay calm, fight professionally, keep eye on Israeli Arabs and accept the bitter reality. No peace is possible with those who hate you and want to destroy. But you can sometimes enjoy no wars in between.

Happy New Year!

[Grendel]

Israel has every right to exist and to defend itself, however the scope of their methods has been highly questionable.

My biggest problem is that there really is no dialog allowed in the public discourse about the US position regarding Israeli actions/statements towards their neighbors. Much like during the first years of the Iraq War where dissenters were shouted down with charges of disloyalty/anti-Americanism, all too often, criticism of the actions of Israel's government or military is immediately met with veiled, if not explicit accusations of anti-Semitism.

[lunatic]

Israel has every right to exist and to defend itself, however the scope of their methods has been highly questionable.

My biggest problem is that there really is no dialog allowed in the public discourse about the US position regarding Israeli actions/statements towards their neighbors. Much like during the first years of the Iraq War where dissenters were shouted down with charges of disloyalty/anti-Americanism, all too often, criticism of the actions of Israel's government or military is immediately met with veiled, if not explicit accusations of anti-Semitism.


It's strange how liberal minds work. You don't ask why no one in Gaza protest Hamas actions and staying against Israel. Why it's so important for you to know that Israel should kill no more bad guys (who use civilians as a shield, you know that) than they killed people in Israel (that how I translate your "scope of their methods"). If 10000 people are killing only 10 your brothers and sisters you only want to kill 10 back and let 9990 to continue? If you do I don't want to be your relative. Oh well, I guess in your mind "Palestinians" are always the victims of super militaristic power ruled by the Jews who got the nerve to call everyone who get different opinion anti-Semite. I always thought it's opposite: the anti-Semites will always hate you whatever you do; so why risk your own security by doing less. And who knows what is a right scope? You? I doubt, you're all emotions.

The government, even (attention all Jew-haters) the government of the Jewish state, has responsibilities to defend its citizens. Otherwise, why in hell we need the government structures?

And if you have a machinery to keep your own soldiers save (planes, tanks, etc) will you risk their lives by giving them hammers instead? It's about "scope" too.

Palestinians don't care much about safety and scopes when they kill or being killed - more victims on both sides the better. The only thing Hamas and those WHO VOTED FOR HAMAS really care is another final solution. The job that Hitler didn't finish and Stalin died too soon to start. No wonder they were friends with both.

I wouldn't call you an anti-Semite but like many "Palestinian-caring" liberals you come close. But if you are open to discuss how to stop the Arabs in their crusade against their cousins...

[Grendel]

Emotion has nothing to do with my position on this issue, however you may continue to erroneously claim some sort of logic high ground if you wish; there's nothing I can say that will disabuse you of that notion.

Likewise, this is not a liberal/conservative issue.

The Israeli blockade and the resulting wretched conditions in Gaza goes a long way to explain why many Palestinians have little to say about rocketfire against Israel. Is said rocketfire justified? Absolutely not.

But neither are massive airstrikes in civilian areas.

Israel has one of the best militaries--not to mention special ops forces--in the world. The idea that they have no better option to avoid collateral damage is at the very least, a serious stretch.

Your grudging--and still offensive, I might add--concession that I only "come close" to being an anti-semite serves only to bolster my original point.

[Elduardo]

Israel has every right to exist and to defend itself, however the scope of their methods has been highly questionable.

My biggest problem is that there really is no dialog allowed in the public discourse about the US position regarding Israeli actions/statements towards their neighbors. Much like during the first years of the Iraq War where dissenters were shouted down with charges of disloyalty/anti-Americanism, all too often, criticism of the actions of Israel's government or military is immediately met with veiled, if not explicit accusations of anti-Semitism.

I don't think there is any problem with questioning US strategy towards Israel and to do so has nothing to do with being anti-semetic.

The problem that I have is that it's getting more and more difficult to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. First of all, they elected a terrorist group, they must bear some responsibility for that decision.

Hamas does not demonstrate any interest in peace at all. They do not honor agreements such as cease fires.

Bill Clinton was the first US President to engage in serious, hands-on activity in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and that was met with a 5 year terror campaign by Hamas.

President Bush has openly called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza. But the attacks continue.

At some point, enough is enough, and the whole notion of requiring Israel to take some sort of proportional response is ridiculous.

[Elduardo]

But neither are massive airstrikes in civilian areas.

Israel has one of the best militaries--not to mention special ops forces--in the world. The idea that they have no better option to avoid collateral damage is at the very least, a serious stretch.


Big problem I have with this line of thinking is that Hamas intentionally targets civillians and then hides in civillian areas to put more innocent lives at risk and to limit Israel's ability to respond.

Technology or not, as we have seen in the Iraq war it isn't easy to fight an urban battle against non-uniformed fighters who hide among civillians.

[toxicangel19]

I don't think there is any problem with questioning US strategy towards Israel and to do so has nothing to do with being anti-semetic.

The problem that I have is that it's getting more and more difficult to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. First of all, they elected a terrorist group, they must bear some responsibility for that decision.

Hamas does not demonstrate any interest in peace at all. They do not honor agreements such as cease fires.

Bill Clinton was the first US President to engage in serious, hands-on activity in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and that was met with a 5 year terror campaign by Hamas.

President Bush has openly called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza. But the attacks continue.

At some point, enough is enough, and the whole notion of requiring Israel to take some sort of proportional response is ridiculous.


Exactly my point!!! Hamas could give a rats ass about peace they are the ones who keep and have kept up their rocket attacks against Isreal even when Isreal agreed to a previous cease-fire. They just hate Isreal and don't want them to have it...I don't get why they scream that Isreal belongs to Palestine when the Palestinians gave Isreali land up to the Jewish people in the first place then got pissed off when "too many jewish people moved in" Then Britain declared that Isreal be a home for the Jewish people.....Palestine lost the war they campaigned against Isreal with the Jewish people its time to get over it and try to learn to live together...Look at all the other countries that have invaded other countries for land and they are still being rocket attacked...Then you hear about the Millions of arabs protesting against Isreal....This is total bull crap..there logic makes no sense to me. I think they are all really Isreal haters and don't want peace period...thats why you have Iran and Hezbollah backing Hamas...they all want the Jewish people dead....well i got news for them "according to my religion Isreal will never fall again" Maybe that doesn't matter to Muslims but it matters to me because I believe it......I found out that it was only one Isreal grunt that trained the US Navy Seals to be whom they are....just one of there grunts could whoop the holy shite outta our whole Navy seal force.....Im not worried I know Isreal will be okay. :thumbup: I just wish the Palestinians were not so blind to what Hamas really is....its mind boggling.

[Grendel]

I don't think there is any problem with questioning US strategy towards Israel and to do so has nothing to do with being anti-semetic.Unfortunately, too few seem to share that view.

While not lobbing anti-semite bombs--yet--The New Republic's execrable editor, Marty Peretz, sums up the view of the situation with all the customary pretenses towards decency stripped away:


So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message: do not fuck with the Jews.

...Israeli intelligence reported 225 people dead, mostly Hamas military leaders with some functionaries, besides, and perhaps 400 wounded. The Palestinians announced 300 dead, probably as a reflex in order to begin their whining about disproportionate Israeli acts of war. And 600 wounded.There is no legitimate debate, here; any critical discussion of tactics--that resulted in the deaths of hundreds, and, by now, casualties approaching 2,000--is "whining."


Big problem I have with this line of thinking is that Hamas intentionally targets civillians and then hides in civillian areas to put more innocent lives at risk and to limit Israel's ability to respond.

Technology or not, as we have seen in the Iraq war it isn't easy to fight an urban battle against non-uniformed fighters who hide among civillians.Armed conflict is never easy. The location regularly places limits on methods of response. If this were another country on the offensive, I have a very difficult time believing the U.S. government would make the same allowances for the sort of response we're seeing, here.

Hamas militants engage in undeniably reprehensible tactics. That does not give the Israeli government carte blanche to shrug its collective shoulders and say, "oh well, they voted for them," and scramble another F-16 sortie.

[Elduardo]

Armed conflict is never easy. The location regularly places limits on methods of response. If this were another country on the offensive, I have a very difficult time believing the U.S. government would make the same allowances for the sort of response we're seeing, here.

I guess I just don't understand this comment. What is Israel supposed to do? You say they are on the "offensive" but is that really true? Is there any doubt that if there was no attacks by Hamas there would be no attacks by Israel?



Hamas militants engage in undeniably reprehensible tactics. That does not give the Israeli government carte blanche to shrug its collective shoulders and say, "oh well, they voted for them," and scramble another F-16 sortie.

I'm not sure where there is any evidence that Israel has no regard for innocent life. How long have the rockets been hitting them with no response whatsoever? Again, what are they to do? Fire one attack at Hamas for every attack Hamas does? Don't they have a right to eliminate the threat at some point if they can?

What would you reccommend the US do if missiles were being lobbed at Detroit from neighborhoods in Canada?

[RIP]

Lost in the discussion is the Israeli occupation and their treatment of the Palestinian people. It's easy to blame Hamas, and they deserve the blame they get. But poor little Israel is anything but.

[toxicangel19]

Lost in the discussion is the Israeli occupation and their treatment of the Palestinian people. It's easy to blame Hamas, and they deserve the blame they get. But poor little Israel is anything but.

Israel occupation??? Come on...Palestine lost there land in a war fair and square..if they can't handle that then oh well. ..they were the ones in the first place whom didn't like the fact that lots of jewish people were moving in.....Then in 1920 the league on nations delcared that the land was to be divided amoung the Arabs and the Jews. When ISrael delcared its independence the arabs weren't havin it and they all went to war....Isreal won its independence and should be left alone...many other nations had to fight for their independence just like US the U.S and the Ukraine and currently Georgia is still battling to keep Russia out. Palestine can still be Palestine..but they lost just like when Great Britain lost the United States or back in the day called "the 13 colonies" to the American people. The fact is yes both nations deserve their land...but HAmas aint having it they want Israel completely destroyed and don't want any Jewish people there period. The Jewish people fought for their land and won end of story....if it were the opposite situation then Id be saying the same thing about Palestinians...But its not..

[Searcher]

As a Jew I can't be very objective when it comes to Israel. Knowledge and life experiences make me, hopefully, less emotional and more logical.

:lol2:

[Elduardo]

Lost in the discussion is the Israeli occupation and their treatment of the Palestinian people. It's easy to blame Hamas, and they deserve the blame they get. But poor little Israel is anything but.

What's with the "poor little Israel" comment? I haven't seen anyone say that here and I haven't seen Israel ask for any help from anyone either.

If you disagree with the UN decision to create Israel in the first place then that's a different arguement. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that Israel is a peaceful country whose offensive military actions are in the interest of reducing threats to it's existence.

[Grendel]

I guess I just don't understand this comment. What is Israel supposed to do? You say they are on the "offensive" but is that really true? Is there any doubt that if there was no attacks by Hamas there would be no attacks by Israel?Granted, the rocketry is not a new tactic on the part of Hamas, but all of the above is going on against the backdrop of the Israeli blockade which is very much in the vein of collective punishment of the region over the militants' (clearly out-of-bounds) methods. As to Israel's response, no one is suggesting they do nothing; it's a matter of what is to be done balanced with the anticipated civilian casualties.

Israel's choices in that area can hardly be called "surgical."


I'm not sure where there is any evidence that Israel has no regard for innocent life. How long have the rockets been hitting them with no response whatsoever? Again, what are they to do? Fire one attack at Hamas for every attack Hamas does? Don't they have a right to eliminate the threat at some point if they can?

What would you reccommend the US do if missiles were being lobbed at Detroit from neighborhoods in Canada?I don't recall anyone claiming the Israeli government has "no regard" for innocent life. That said, Between the net effects of the blockade and the massive retaliation over the past several days, it's an open question as to how much.

[Luris Blear]

I think the civilian casualties boils down to two choices:

Certainly allow lot of them now in a barrage of attacks, in hopes that these will be the last. Almost certainly a whole lot more in future decades of surgical attacks (successful and not) plus retaliations
There aren't a lot of choices when the cowards launching the bombs go to hide among civilians.

I really don't want to stand up for either side here. But I do feel compelled to point out that these cowards don't leave their opponents any other choice.

[Elduardo]

I don't recall anyone claiming the Israeli government has "no regard" for innocent life. That said, Between the net effects of the blockade and the massive retaliation over the past several days, it's an open question as to how much.

I don't think it's a question of retaliation, doesn't Israel have the right to eliminate the threat?

Notice the rocket attacks continue.

Retaliation against a nation state may be effective, retailiation against a terror group isn't.

[RIP]

...it's pretty clear that Israel is a peaceful country whose offensive military actions are in the interest of reducing threats to it's existence.

This goes to the heart of my "poor little israel" remark. The U.N. has routinely condemned Israel for its actions by passing resolutions against it. U.S. veto power has kept these resolutions from passing. People are free to look up these resolutions at their leisure. The list is long. (Much longer than the list against Iraq.)

That said, they do have a unique problem with Hamas. It is ongoing even in times of peace. I don't agree with Israel's policies or their military tactics, although I understand them to an extent. The fact that Hamas hides among the palestinian people does not give Israel the right to act with complete disregard for those same people who as an occupying force they should be obligated to protect.

Bottom line is, Gaza is a densely populated area and the majority of the people are being punished for the actions of a few. Israel knows that any airstrike in Gaza is an attack against civilians and they have sealed off the borders so that humanitarian aid cannot get through. If people find this disproportionate response satisfactory, then so be it. But let's not pretend.

[Gatsu18]

2012... Can't wait! Nostradamus better not let me down.......

[Elduardo]

This goes to the heart of my "poor little israel" remark. The U.N. has routinely condemned Israel for its actions by passing resolutions against it. U.S. veto power has kept these resolutions from passing. People are free to look up these resolutions at their leisure. The list is long. (Much longer than the list against Iraq.)


Okay so you won't get any arguement from me that the UN is incapable of solving any serious international problem and is borderline corrupt. US acts in self-interest with respect to Israel, France acted in self-interest with respect to Iraq, China and Russia act in self-interest with respect to Iran.

But let's not confuse the issue. The bottom line for me is which side seeks peace and which side doesn't. I believe that Israel would live in peace side-by-side with a Palestinian state. I do not believe that Hamas, Hezzbolah, Iran, Syria, etc are willing to live in peace side-by-side with Israel. The Hamas Charter calls for the killing of Jews, there is no such lanuage coming out of Israel.



The fact that Hamas hides among the palestinian people does not give Israel the right to act with complete disregard for those same people who as an occupying force they should be obligated to protect.

Bottom line is, Gaza is a densely populated area and the majority of the people are being punished for the actions of a few. Israel knows that any airstrike in Gaza is an attack against civilians and they have sealed off the borders so that humanitarian aid cannot get through. If people find this disproportionate response satisfactory, then so be it. But let's not pretend.

So how would you suggest that Israel respond to these unprovoked attacks against them? I don't think it's fair to say that they act in "complete disregard" for civillians. That is the whole reason for the occupation of Gaza in the first place, it's not imperialistic, it's defensive to create a buffer zone.

As for the notion that many are suffering for the actions of a few, I'm not sure I can accept that either. I don't know the size of Hamas but I do know they were democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people so that indicates support for their tactics and mission. This is not to say that they deserve what they get as Grendel implied but it is a valid point.

Given the severity of the worldwide terrorist threat against peace it is difficult to look at this issue any other way. Despite elections, Hamas has rejected any type of diplomatic avenues to resolving it's issues and has instead chosen terrorist tactics to target innocent civillians.

There is no moral equilavelency between Israel inadvertently killing civillians in the fight against Hamas and Hamas intentionally killing civillians in it's terror war against Israel.

[Grendel]

I really don't want to stand up for either side here. But I do feel compelled to point out that these cowards don't leave their opponents any other choice.But, with the resources available to the Israeli gov't, is there really no other choice than the current tactics?


There is no moral equilavelency between Israel inadvertently killing civillians in the fight against Hamas and Hamas intentionally killing civillians in it's terror war against Israel.While I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an equivalence, again, given the resources and capabilities open to them, the government seems to be ceding a good deal of moral high ground with the question of how inadvertant the level of casualties is....

[Luris Blear]

But, with the resources available to the Israeli gov't, is there really no other choice than the current tactics?.
The technology to move fast and cleanly determine the difference between civilian and terrorist does not exist.

The opponents of these terrorists can move slowly into risky encounters that still provide the enemy with time to plot more deaths, escape, and do more harm. Or they can move quickly into risky encounters.

I am purposely leaving US/Israel/Hamas/Al Qaeda and anyone else unnamed for the specific purpose of discussing these tactics. I also do not mean to say that I like any of this. When car bombers, missile lobbers, zealots and masterminds hide among civilians to plot or execute murders then civilians will die. This is the effect that comes from the cause: hiding among civilians. There is no escaping this.

The opposing party then has to take a calculated risk: wait for a clear shot and hope for few civilian deaths along the way, or act quickly to prevent those possible deaths and hope for few resulting civilian deaths in the process.

In short: if the body count is inevitable then you choose the path with the lowest body count.

[Elduardo]

But, with the resources available to the Israeli gov't, is there really no other choice than the current tactics?

While I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an equivalence, again, given the resources and capabilities open to them, the government seems to be ceding a good deal of moral high ground with the question of how inadvertant the level of casualties is....

Is it really a matter of resources and technology? I think we learned in the urban battles in Iraq and in the war against Al Queda, the US has certainly had difficulties fighting an enemy that blends with civillians intentionally.

Again, I have not heard any alternative reccomendations at to what Israel should do differently.

[WarBeast]

I think the saddest fact of all this is that no matter how many people are killed on either side, each death becomes nothing more than a reason to keep killing.

When an innocent is killed, be they Jewish or Palastinian, the loved-ones of that innocent become enraged and want justice... it's a natural and justifiable state of emotion for the circumstance... BUT I think it is used by those in control of both sides for their own selfish agendas.

I wonder how many average people become terrorist supporters only after their wife or child or husband or parent is blown to shit in retaliation for an attack initially carried out by the people they now pledge to follow?

It's a viscous stupid cycle of ignorance, anger, violence and death... and I don't see it ending any time soon.

[Gatsu18]

I think the saddest fact of all this is that no matter how many people are killed on either side, each death becomes nothing more than a reason to keep killing.

When an innocent is killed, be they Jewish or Palastinian, the loved-ones of that innocent become enraged and want justice... it's a natural and justifiable state of emotion for the circumstance... BUT I think it is used by those in control of both sides for their own selfish agendas.

I wonder how many average people become terrorist supporters only after their wife or child or husband or parent is blown to shit in retaliation for an attack initially carried out by the people they now pledge to follow?

It's a viscous stupid cycle of ignorance, anger, violence and death... and I don't see it ending any time soon.


Which is exactly why the end of the world can't come soon enough. Humans are nothing more than a blight on this planet. Some are worse than others and some are just plain innocent but as a whole we are disgusting creatures that consume everything we can get our greedy hands on. We fight for causes and dieties that don't exsist to any other creature on this planet. I look at we humans as little more than glorified animals. Granted we are more intelligent but the general gist of things remain the same only magnified to a horrifying degree. If they wanna blow the hell out of each other, let em is what I say. Let them weed each other out till there is nothing left. I'd like to say, I wish we humans could start over. But it'd only end the same.

[Luris Blear]

Which is exactly why the end of the world can't come soon enough. Humans are nothing more than a blight on this planet. Some are worse than others and some are just plain innocent but as a whole we are disgusting creatures that consume everything we can get our greedy hands on. We fight for causes and dieties that don't exsist to any other creature on this planet. I look at we humans as little more than glorified animals. Granted we are more intelligent but the general gist of things remain the same only magnified to a horrifying degree. If they wanna blow the hell out of each other, let em is what I say. Let them weed each other out till there is nothing left. I'd like to say, I wish we humans could start over. But it'd only end the same.

Gatsu, if you believed your own fatalistic whining then someone would have found you dead in your closet by your own hand years ago.

Let's really look at the logic. Logic is crucial.

"People are killing each other, and that is wrong. This is why everyone needs to be killed."

This is self defeating. Either needless death is moral and just, or it is immoral. Choose a side and stay there. You can not choose both at the same time. You should not even try.

I'll go more in-depth.

"People in Israel and Palestine are killing each other. The volunteers at a homeless shelter in Des Moines, Iowa need to die for this."

The volunteers at the homeless shelter are at both doing something they believe in and preserving life. Do they die just because they don't get equal news time with Bin Laden?

"Everyone needs to die" is the domain of wicked people. It is the rightful property of religious warmongers who are so tied up in their slanted views of already questionable texts written to promote peace. It belongs to people who have absolutely nothing to offer the rest of humanity. These are people decide it will be easier to have no humanity than to build something worth offering.

Do not be one of them.

You do not deserve to die because Israel and Palestine can not make peace, either.

[Gatsu18]

I had a nice retort written but I realized I'm in little mood for an arguement in which niether side will cave. So let's just accept the fact that you will not understand my point of view nor would you accept it. Which is fine. I believe everyone has their opinion and I will not force mine upon you.

[lunatic]

Lost in the discussion is the Israeli occupation and their treatment of the Palestinian people. It's easy to blame Hamas, and they deserve the blame they get. But poor little Israel is anything but.

So Grendel, got my point about not being objective towards the Jews (and I don't even ask coocoo RIP why he likes Al Jazeera channel so much)?

[lunatic]

:lol2:

Exactly. It's like talking to a person with no experience and no knowledge whatsoever.

Except the great knowledge of :lol2:

[Grendel]

Is it really a matter of resources and technology? I think we learned in the urban battles in Iraq and in the war against Al Queda, the US has certainly had difficulties fighting an enemy that blends with civillians intentionally.

Again, I have not heard any alternative reccomendations at to what Israel should do differently.Israel has one of the most advanced intelligence and special forces apparatus in the world combined with US funding and arms. If they know which building to hit--which they allegedly do--they can do so with a more focused operation than firing missiles into residential areas. Strike teams, snipers, etc. can neutralize an embedded presence without tossing high explosives around in close urban quarters.

[Grendel]

So Grendel, got my point about not being objective towards the Jews (and I don't even ask coocoo RIP why he likes Al Jazeera channel so much)?In light of that comment?

No, not at all.

RIP is specifically saying Hamas receives well-deserved culpability for the disaster that is Gaza.

You're trying to say that, because he resists the notion that the Israeli is blameless, his isn't objective. And that is not only nonsense, but a fairly clear indicator of the very same lack of objectivity you feel so free to point out in others.

[Elduardo]

Israel has one of the most advanced intelligence and special forces apparatus in the world combined with US funding and arms. If they know which building to hit--which they allegedly do--they can do so with a more focused operation than firing missiles into residential areas. Strike teams, snipers, etc. can neutralize an embedded presence without tossing high explosives around in close urban quarters.

I don't think it's that easy, if it was, countries like the US and Israel would have completely eradicated the terrorist threat years ago, I suspect.

The reality is that even with the current tactics, the rocket attacks continue and are getting more sophisticated. There is intelligence that indicates that Hamas may soon have missile capability to reach deep into Israel, into cities like Tel Aviv.

This isn't just a minor situation, whole portions of Israel have been evacuated. The country is under significant, unprovoked attack.

Unfortunately it seems much of the discussion centers around criticizing the Israel response to this aggression and very little time discussing the illegal terrorist actions of Hamas, and the threat of Hezzbolah and others joining the fight.

[thesenator]

Israeli dissident analytic writes that IDF op in Gaza is already stuck, Israelis are bogged down, and basically that's the end of the war: samsonblinded.org/news/israeli-attack-on-gaza-loses-momentum-5424

[RIP]

Okay so you won't get any arguement from me that the UN is incapable of solving any serious international problem and is borderline corrupt. US acts in self-interest with respect to Israel, France acted in self-interest with respect to Iraq, China and Russia act in self-interest with respect to Iran.

Agreed, but I would submit to you that The United States props up the U.N. when it chooses. Iraq breaks a resolution...invade them. Iran...invade them. Israel breaks hundreds of resolutions...well...they are just trying to defend themselves, and we have to support that. The fact is, Israel is an extremely powerful aggressive nation. Your point about self-interest is well taken, and that is precisely why I do not support Israel's actions in Gaza...or their recent actions in Lebanon. I believe the US should remain neutral and condemn attacks from both sides. I believe this helps our standing in the middle-east. I believe this puts us in a position to mediate the tension.


But let's not confuse the issue. The bottom line for me is which side seeks peace and which side doesn't. I believe that Israel would live in peace side-by-side with a Palestinian state. I do not believe that Hamas, Hezzbolah, Iran, Syria, etc are willing to live in peace side-by-side with Israel. The Hamas Charter calls for the killing of Jews, there is no such lanuage coming out of Israel.

I don't think the issue is confusing at all. Neither side seems to understand that violence is not the answer to the problem. It's been done for decades, and we're still at square one. I believe that a good many Israeli's want peace. I believe that a good many of them are disgusted by the actions of their military. But don't think for a second that the Palestinians don't want to live in peace either. I believe that the two sides can come together in some way to coexist. Hamas has support because peoples houses are being bulldozed, tanks are rolling through their cities, and loved ones are being needlessly slaughtered. When people are pressed into a corner, real or perceived, they will turn to drastic measures. (like say...throwing rocks at a tank.) Basically, Israel is turning civilians into radicals. It happens everywhere in the world. If people were allowed to live in peace and to thrive, the need and desire to support groups like Hamas would eventually wane. I believe the US can help achieve this, but not without detaching itself from Israel.



So how would you suggest that Israel respond to these unprovoked attacks against them? I don't think it's fair to say that they act in "complete disregard" for civillians. That is the whole reason for the occupation of Gaza in the first place, it's not imperialistic, it's defensive to create a buffer zone.

My suggestion for starters? The US begins to withdraw public support for Israel as it relates to military action in Gaza. It condemns both sides for their actions, and works to place itself in a position to gain broad support and force a truce/ceasefire to work toward a peaceful two-state solution. Israel should ease the economic blockade in Gaza so that basic necessities and medicine can be had. Israel should re-evaluate its position in the West Bank. The two sides got close to a permanent deal before Sharon was elected and Bush refused to meet with them. Obama should re-engage.



Despite elections, Hamas has rejected any type of diplomatic avenues to resolving it's issues and has instead chosen terrorist tactics to target innocent civillians.

Not true. The two sides simply could not come to terms on the truce. Hamas hasn't carried out a suicide bombing since 2005, and from what I'm reading, this action has more to do with desperate right-wing politicians than rocket attacks. The popular line in the US is that Israel has a right to defend itself. No one denies that, but I don't believe that is what Israel is doing. I think that line has become routine and commonplace. It is propaganda/PR picked up by US news outlets and does nothing to help either side. Only Israel is in a position to do something here. From a military standpoint, there is no threat from Hamas, and even if Israel wipes them all out this time, the anger they will and are fomenting in the process will do nothing but serve to regroup Hamas in the future.

[RIP]

Ran across this today. Worth a read.


Israelis Get Truth About Gaza Attack
by Ira Chernus

If you get your news from the American mass media, you know that there's a nice simple explanation for the massive Israeli attack on Gaza. That explanation comes straight from the Israeli government, via the White House: Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, is responsible for all the violence. "These people are nothing but thugs," a White House spokesman said. "Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas." End of story. As usual, Israel is depicted as the innocent victim of an evil it did nothing to provoke.
But if you read Israel's most respected newspaper, Ha'aretz, you find out that things are rather more complicated. (All the quotes below come from Jewish journalists writing in recent editions of Ha'aretz.)

You know the reality of Gaza today: "The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations." "There are many corpses and wounded, every moment another casualty is added to the list of the dead, and there is no more room in the morgue. . A mother whose three school-age children were killed, and are piled one on top of top of the other in the morgue, screams and then cries, screams again and then is silent."

And you know that some Israelis are outraged: "Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom."

The justification Israel offers is the increased firing of rockets from Gaza. But Israelis can read that Hamas is responding to Israeli provocation. "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it." "On November 4, an Israeli operation sparked a new round of dangerous, if controlled, violence," "when it unnecessarily bombed a tunnel."

About the same time, Israel cut off transport of food, medical supplies, and electricity to Gaza. "Food insecurity in Gaza currently runs at 56 percent and is deteriorating rapidly, 42 percent of the Strip's population is unemployed and 76 percent is receiving humanitarian assistance (all UN figures)." "A million and a half human beings . live in the conditions of a giant jail." "Why should Gazan citizens tolerate such a long and severe siege for so long?"

General Shmuel Zakai, former commander of Israel's troops in Gaza, says: "We could have eased the siege over the Gaza Strip, in such a way that the Palestinians, Hamas, would understand that holding their fire served their interests. But when you create a tahadiyeh [cease-fire], and the economic pressure on the Strip continues, it's obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahadiyeh, and that their way to achieve this, is resumed Qassam [rocket] fire. . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they're in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing."

Nevertheless, just a few days before the attack, "Palestinian sources said they do not believe Hamas plans to launch a massive rocket strike on Israel unless the IDF begins offensive operations in the Strip." Israel claims it wants peace, yet it "did not exhaust the diplomatic processes before embarking on another dreadful campaign of killing and ruin." And "no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians."

In fact military force is self-defeating, because "no Palestinian will consent to having his people and his homeland destroyed in this way." "Hamas will not be weakened due to the Gaza war; to the contrary." If predictions of a strengthened Hamas prove wrong, the other possibility is obvious: "A siege designed to depose Hamas rule . risks triggering a social collapse that would have devastating consequences for all concerned. . An Israeli military escalation would likely accelerate the splintering of Hamas' leadership and the emergence of more radical alternatives."

One way or another, more rockets are sure to fall on Israel. Of course that might be one goal of the attack. Israeli leaders may be trying to avoid dialogue. More intense fighting would let them claim they have no one to negotiate with, especially if Gaza breaks down in chaos. Israeli leaders may also have an eye on Palestinian elections coming up soon. They want to persuade the Palestinians to support the more conciliatory Fatah party by destroying Hamas, or at least showing what happens to its supporters.

But "working toward long-term goals that would completely change the landscape in the region, like toppling Hamas from power in Gaza, is liable to turn out to be a wild fantasy." "Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm. . We can't impose regimes on the Palestinians." The idea "that a military operation would suffice in toppling an entrenched regime and thus replace it with another one friendlier to us is no more than lunacy."

Why would Israeli leaders pursue such a dangerous fantasy? When Ha'aretz journalists want to explain it, they (like all other Israeli journalists) focus most on politics -- not Palestinian, but Israeli. Israel, too, will hold elections in just a few weeks. "Israelis are being treated to a predictable dose of political posturing and chest-thumping."

The polls show the hawkish Likud party ahead, partly because "Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to topple the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip if elected prime minister. . Under his leadership, Israel would move from a policy of absorbing blows to a policy of being on the offensive."

Perhaps that's why the current (soon to retire) prime minister, Ehud Olmert, launched this week's offensive, cheered on by his party's candidate to replace him, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She's now talking tough, too. "'The state of Israel, and a government under me, will make it a strategic objective to topple the Hamas regime in Gaza,' Livni told members of her centrist Kadima party." "We cannot allow Gaza to remain under Hamas control." "Vice Premier Haim Ramon also said . that Hamas must be removed from power."

"Ramon, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and others harshly criticized Defense Minister Ehud Barak's handling of the situation" -- because Barak, a former prime minister, is also running to regain that post, trying to resurrect his once-powerful Labor party. "The beginning of the raid in Gaza bears the wily and deceptive fingerprint of Barak. . It may deliver him and his party from the humiliating defeat the polls are predicting." "If Hamas is beaten and Israel receives some peace under favorable terms, Labor and Barak may gain force."

Politicians of every party want to prove that they are "not a bunch of wimps." So they've staked their future on the same goal: one way or another, topple the democratically-elected government of Gaza.

But Israel is also a democracy. The politicians are catering to public opinion: "This war was preceded by a frighteningly uniform public dialogue in which only one voice was heard -- that which called for striking, destroying, starving and killing." "The hysterical reaction by the public as a whole and politicians in particular stems mainly from the fact that the country is in an election period. And when elections are in the offing people speak from the gut rather than the brain. . They're suddenly strutting their macho stuff."

"Politicians and the public at large have been enthralled by a new prospect: that of a wide-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip. Such a prospect answers all their heart's secret wishes. . The public's imaginations are let loose as they chant a battle-cry." "Speeches have a tendency to identify goals that are by nature unreachable: phrases like 'destroying the Hamas government' (which is actually likely to be strengthened)."

With so many Israelis pointing out how self-defeating this attack on Gaza is, why would a majority of Israeli voters still push their leaders to more military action?

One theory looks to an inflated self-image: "Israel is striking at the Palestinians to 'teach them a lesson.' That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom -- via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey."

But there's an opposite theory: The failed war in Lebanon two years ago deflated Israelis' self-image, and now they are out to inflate it again. "The pictures of blood and fire are designed to show Israelis, Arabs and the entire world that the neighborhood bully's strength has yet to wane. When the bully is on a rampage, nobody can stop him." "Israel goaded its enemies to provoke it because [the enemies] ceased believing that Israel would agree to pay the price of using force."

Eventually, though, "after the politicians flex their muscles, the analysts blow smoke and the citizens of Israel have their 'honor restored,' a new exit from Gaza must be sought." "Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas."

"Hamas would have -- and still would -- accept a bargain . [to] halt the fire in exchange for easing of the many ways in which Israeli policies have kept a choke hold on the economy of the Strip." "Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, has said that his Palestinian militant group is willing to renew the recently ended truce in Gaza with Israel."

"Hamas has clear conditions for its extension: The opening of the border crossings for goods and cessation of IDF attacks in Gaza, as outlined in the original agreement. Later, Hamas wants the cease-fire to be extended to the West Bank. Israel, for its part, is justifiably demanding a real calm in Gaza; that no Qassam or mortar shell be fired by either Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other group. Essentially, Israel is telling Hamas it is willing to recognize its control of Gaza on the condition that it assumes responsibility for the security of the territory, like Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon. It is likely that this will be the outcome of a wide-scale operation in the Gaza Strip."

"In a short time, after the parade of corpses and wounded ends, we will arrive at a fresh cease-fire, as occurred after Lebanon, exactly like the one that could have been forged without this superfluous war." "Why, then, not forgo the war and agree to these conditions now?"

Ira Chernus, a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is the author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Having written extensively on Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush, he is now writing a book tentatively titled "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Origins of the National Insecurity State." He can be contacted at chernus@colorado.edu.

[Elduardo]

I understand your point of view and do appreciate the respectful tone of the discussion.


Agreed, but I would submit to you that The United States props up the U.N. when it chooses. Iraq breaks a resolution...invade them. Iran...invade them. Israel breaks hundreds of resolutions...well...they are just trying to defend themselves, and we have to support that. The fact is, Israel is an extremely powerful aggressive nation. Your point about self-interest is well taken, and that is precisely why I do not support Israel's actions in Gaza...or their recent actions in Lebanon. I believe the US should remain neutral and condemn attacks from both sides. I believe this helps our standing in the middle-east. I believe this puts us in a position to mediate the tension.

To be fair, the US government has not invaded Iran and there were reports recently that the US denied an Israeli request for weapons and air space access to do so. I understand that the US supports Israel in the UN and that Israel is in violation of UN resolutions, including those with respect to nuclear arms.

For me it comes down to motive. I think that Israel is aggressive in it's defense, not in an imperialstic way. I have seen no evidence in recent history that any of Israel's acts of concession have been met with anything other than continued violence. As for the US staying neutral, don't see that as being reasonable. Israel is an ally in a tough part of the world for us and Hamas is a terrorist organization.




I don't think the issue is confusing at all. Neither side seems to understand that violence is not the answer to the problem. It's been done for decades, and we're still at square one. I believe that a good many Israeli's want peace. I believe that a good many of them are disgusted by the actions of their military. But don't think for a second that the Palestinians don't want to live in peace either. I believe that the two sides can come together in some way to coexist. Hamas has support because peoples houses are being bulldozed, tanks are rolling through their cities, and loved ones are being needlessly slaughtered. When people are pressed into a corner, real or perceived, they will turn to drastic measures. (like say...throwing rocks at a tank.) Basically, Israel is turning civilians into radicals. It happens everywhere in the world. If people were allowed to live in peace and to thrive, the need and desire to support groups like Hamas would eventually wane. I believe the US can help achieve this, but not without detaching itself from Israel.


Man, that sounds an awful lot like the reasoning that some of us hypothesize for reasoning the invasion of Iraq. Peace and freedom reduces the desire for extremism and violence.

Again though, I must take issue with the comparison of the Israeli government to the Hamas terror organization. There is no equivalence there just as there is none between the US and Al Queda.



My suggestion for starters? The US begins to withdraw public support for Israel as it relates to military action in Gaza. It condemns both sides for their actions, and works to place itself in a position to gain broad support and force a truce/ceasefire to work toward a peaceful two-state solution. Israel should ease the economic blockade in Gaza so that basic necessities and medicine can be had. Israel should re-evaluate its position in the West Bank. The two sides got close to a permanent deal before Sharon was elected and Bush refused to meet with them. Obama should re-engage.


The US has called for a cease fire and has called for humanitarian aid access. Beyond that, I don't see it as reasonable to expect the US to criticize both sides evenly when the US clearly views Hamas as the aggressor and as a terrorist organization.

President Bush was the first US President in history to call for the creation of a Palestinian state. As for Obama, he has already publicly stated that he supports Israel's right to respond to attacks.

There is a perfectly valid view that Hamas is not interested in peace with Israel. Their charter states this, as do nations like Iran and terrorist groups like Hezzbolah. Why do you disregard what they say with respect to seeking the destruction of Israel when their actions support it? Going back to Bill Clinton's efforts, every concession made by Israel is met by continued violence. Doesn't Hamas owe the world a little proof of good faith?



Not true. The two sides simply could not come to terms on the truce. Hamas hasn't carried out a suicide bombing since 2005, and from what I'm reading, this action has more to do with desperate right-wing politicians than rocket attacks. The popular line in the US is that Israel has a right to defend itself. No one denies that, but I don't believe that is what Israel is doing. I think that line has become routine and commonplace. It is propaganda/PR picked up by US news outlets and does nothing to help either side. Only Israel is in a position to do something here. From a military standpoint, there is no threat from Hamas, and even if Israel wipes them all out this time, the anger they will and are fomenting in the process will do nothing but serve to regroup Hamas in the future.

So, I read your follow-up post and am aware of the potential political motivation for this military action. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that rockets are flying into Israel and killing civillians and causing chaos, fear, and unrest.

Maybe the current regime is trying to take action for political reasons or to regain faith from the failed 2006 effort, doesn't mean it still isn't the correct course of action.

You seem to diminish the threat that Hamas poses. You seem to say that Israel's only right is to remain defensive against the attacks. Many feel that defense may be okay against nation-state aggression but not against terrorist attacks. The US has been successful against Al Queda due to an offensive strategy, not by just sitting back and playing defense. It is not reasonable to expect any nation to just sit back defensively while it is under attack.

Hamas is a powerful group and is getting more powerful. There are reports of growing missile distance capability. That would be a game changer for Israel, as would further involvement from Iran or Hezzbolah. Just the fact that a Shia/Persian nation like Iran is able to partner with a Sunni/Arab group like Hamas shows how high the stakes really are. To say that Hamas poses no threat simply is not true.

It's like the old Sadaam tactic. Push the envelope just far enough to stay in power and avoid attack. Hamas attacks, Israel responds, Hamas reloads, gets stronger. Iran gets closer to getting a nuclear weapon, etc.

My stance is not pro-Israel, it's anti-terror, and anti-mid east chaos.

[ReD]

This whole thing boils down to musical chairs really.

Its only a question of who will pull the key chair out first and when that happens the shit will hit the fan more so than it ever has before IMO.

[RIP]

To be fair, the US government has not invaded Iran...

I'm referring more to the escalation in tone. Although we have conducted operations in Iran as of late.


For me it comes down to motive. I think that Israel is aggressive in it's defense, not in an imperialstic way.

Israel continues to settle in the west bank despite its commitments not to do so.

UN Security Council resolution 446 states [the] practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and it calls on Israel as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.[83]

Israel is an occupying force using a powerful military to dictate the existence of the Palestinian people.. If that isn't imperialistic, I don't know what is.


I have seen no evidence in recent history that any of Israel's acts of concession have been met with anything other than continued violence.

The Oslo accords in '93 went a long way toward a peaceful solution. There was relative calm for many years. Eventually this broke apart in 2000.


Man, that sounds an awful lot like the reasoning that some of us hypothesize for reasoning the invasion of Iraq. Peace and freedom reduces the desire for extremism and violence.

Nice try, but no. This was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq except to cover when wmd's were nowhere to be found, nor did you use that as the reason for your support back then. No need to rehash. Peace and economic stability just makes sense. It doesn't need to be said unless it's not being aloud to occur.


Again though, I must take issue with the comparison of the Israeli government to the Hamas terror organization. There is no equivalence there just as there is none between the US and Al Queda.

It's easy for us to feel this way. We didn't just have our families and our homes run over by bulldozers only to be denied medical care. We play fast and loose with the word terrorism, but it comes in more shapes and sizes than suicide bombers and shitty rocket attacks.


President Bush was the first US President in history to call for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Sure. Good that he did. But this was after the fact. He made a big mistake when he took office and turned his back on the conflict.


As for Obama, he has already publicly stated that he supports Israel's right to respond to attacks.

Sure. He has to. And I agree. But I'd also like to see us take a stand against the Israeli occupation and it's actions toward the palestinian people. You don't hear a word from our government in this regard, and the facts on the ground support it.


There is a perfectly valid view that Hamas is not interested in peace with Israel. Their charter states this, as do nations like Iran and terrorist groups like Hezzbolah. Why do you disregard what they say with respect to seeking the destruction of Israel when their actions support it? Going back to Bill Clinton's efforts, every concession made by Israel is met by continued violence. Doesn't Hamas owe the world a little proof of good faith?

You're right. The view is valid, and accurate. What I'm saying is that I believe that even THEY would make concessions IF Israel holds up its end of the bargain which it routinely does not. I mean either Israel complete takes over gaza and the west bank and kicks the palestinian people out, or something has to give.


So, I read your follow-up post and am aware of the potential political motivation for this military action. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that rockets are flying into Israel and killing civillians and causing chaos, fear, and unrest.

The rockets are flying. Out of thousands of rockets fired over the years, only a handful of Israeli's have been killed. This isn't to diminish the fact, but the "rocket" line of defense is consistently overstated. Even the Israeli people know this.


You seem to diminish the threat that Hamas poses. You seem to say that Israel's only right is to remain defensive against the attacks. Many feel that defense may be okay against nation-state aggression but not against terrorist attacks. The US has been successful against Al Queda due to an offensive strategy, not by just sitting back and playing defense. It is not reasonable to expect any nation to just sit back defensively while it is under attack.

No way. Hamas is a threat. A serious one. That said, they are part of the process in this conflict, and have to be dealt with. The one thing we know for sure is that they will not go away.

[reaperofthegrim]

It's a viscous stupid cycle of ignorance, anger, violence and death... and I don't see it ending any time soon.

Don't forget religion. Sorry... but I had to go there lol.

Anyway... I'd like to know when the hell killing 200 civilians with an airstrike when targeting 5 people is considered "collateral damage"...

that's all.. carry on. ;)

[Elduardo]

I'm referring more to the escalation in tone. Although we have conducted operations in Iran as of late.

Big difference between Iran and Israel, no matter how you look at the Palestinian situation. Too great a risk that Iran will either use nukes or offload them to a terrorist. Iran getting nukes may also lead to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey getting them also. This would increase the liklihood that somewhere/somehow a nuke would be used. Not something anyone wants. Would be best if no country had nukes but we're a long way from that.



Israel continues to settle in the west bank despite its commitments not to do so.

UN Security Council resolution 446 states [the] practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and it calls on Israel as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.[83]

Israel is an occupying force using a powerful military to dictate the existence of the Palestinian people.. If that isn't imperialistic, I don't know what is.

Again, not looking to justify every action taken by Israel and say they are at zero fault in the conflict. Overall my view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that Israel has occupied territory in the past to avoid terror attacks coming out of that area. Imperialstic motives would be to occupy the area to expand it's borders. If that is the case, I don't support it. For me though, recent history has shown that when Israel has withdrawn it has not impacted the attacks against them.



Nice try, but no. This was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq except to cover when wmd's were nowhere to be found, nor did you use that as the reason for your support back then. No need to rehash. Peace and economic stability just makes sense. It doesn't need to be said unless it's not being aloud to occur.

I believe that President Bush believed that removing Sadaam would help to stabalize the Middle East and would thus reduce the terrorism threat against the US. That is what I was referring to here.



It's easy for us to feel this way. We didn't just have our families and our homes run over by bulldozers only to be denied medical care. We play fast and loose with the word terrorism, but it comes in more shapes and sizes than suicide bombers and shitty rocket attacks.

It's also easy to call them "shitty rocket attacks" when they're not hitting your neighborhood or your city. In addition, as I have stated, recent reports have indicated that the attacks are growing more sophisticated and there is concern over increases in missile range based on assistance from Iran.



Sure. Good that he did. But this was after the fact. He made a big mistake when he took office and turned his back on the conflict.

I think 9/11 had a little to do with a change in focus. Also a bit inconsistent to me for those who call on the US to stay out of Middle East stuff except to restrain Israel.



Sure. He has to. And I agree. But I'd also like to see us take a stand against the Israeli occupation and it's actions toward the palestinian people. You don't hear a word from our government in this regard, and the facts on the ground support it.

I have seen the US call for restraint by Israel, call for a cease fire, call for humanitarian aid, etc. The thing that seems to bother people is that the US also calls Hamas what it is, a terror organization that is launching unprovoked attacks on Israel.




You're right. The view is valid, and accurate. What I'm saying is that I believe that even THEY would make concessions IF Israel holds up its end of the bargain which it routinely does not. I mean either Israel complete takes over gaza and the west bank and kicks the palestinian people out, or something has to give.


So far I have seen Israel withdraw and withstand aggression from Hezzbolah, Hamas, and dire threats from Iran. The path to a Palestinian state has been put on the table by the US. So far I have not seen any evidence that Hamas is genuinely interested in that.



The rockets are flying. Out of thousands of rockets fired over the years, only a handful of Israeli's have been killed. This isn't to diminish the fact, but the "rocket" line of defense is consistently overstated. Even the Israeli people know this.

See above.



No way. Hamas is a threat. A serious one. That said, they are part of the process in this conflict, and have to be dealt with. The one thing we know for sure is that they will not go away.

Okay.

Good discussion though.

[lunatic]

Ran across this today. Worth a read.


Israelis Get Truth About Gaza Attack
by Ira Chernus

If you get your news from the American mass media, you know that there's a nice simple explanation for the massive Israeli attack on Gaza. That explanation comes straight from the Israeli government, via the White House: Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, is responsible for all the violence. "These people are nothing but thugs," a White House spokesman said. "Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas." End of story. As usual, Israel is depicted as the innocent victim of an evil it did nothing to provoke.
But if you read Israel's most respected newspaper, Ha'aretz, you find out that things are rather more complicated. (All the quotes below come from Jewish journalists writing in recent editions of Ha'aretz.)

You know the reality of Gaza today: "The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations." "There are many corpses and wounded, every moment another casualty is added to the list of the dead, and there is no more room in the morgue. . A mother whose three school-age children were killed, and are piled one on top of top of the other in the morgue, screams and then cries, screams again and then is silent."

And you know that some Israelis are outraged: "Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom."

The justification Israel offers is the increased firing of rockets from Gaza. But Israelis can read that Hamas is responding to Israeli provocation. "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it." "On November 4, an Israeli operation sparked a new round of dangerous, if controlled, violence," "when it unnecessarily bombed a tunnel."

About the same time, Israel cut off transport of food, medical supplies, and electricity to Gaza. "Food insecurity in Gaza currently runs at 56 percent and is deteriorating rapidly, 42 percent of the Strip's population is unemployed and 76 percent is receiving humanitarian assistance (all UN figures)." "A million and a half human beings . live in the conditions of a giant jail." "Why should Gazan citizens tolerate such a long and severe siege for so long?"

General Shmuel Zakai, former commander of Israel's troops in Gaza, says: "We could have eased the siege over the Gaza Strip, in such a way that the Palestinians, Hamas, would understand that holding their fire served their interests. But when you create a tahadiyeh [cease-fire], and the economic pressure on the Strip continues, it's obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahadiyeh, and that their way to achieve this, is resumed Qassam [rocket] fire. . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they're in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing."

Nevertheless, just a few days before the attack, "Palestinian sources said they do not believe Hamas plans to launch a massive rocket strike on Israel unless the IDF begins offensive operations in the Strip." Israel claims it wants peace, yet it "did not exhaust the diplomatic processes before embarking on another dreadful campaign of killing and ruin." And "no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians."

In fact military force is self-defeating, because "no Palestinian will consent to having his people and his homeland destroyed in this way." "Hamas will not be weakened due to the Gaza war; to the contrary." If predictions of a strengthened Hamas prove wrong, the other possibility is obvious: "A siege designed to depose Hamas rule . risks triggering a social collapse that would have devastating consequences for all concerned. . An Israeli military escalation would likely accelerate the splintering of Hamas' leadership and the emergence of more radical alternatives."

One way or another, more rockets are sure to fall on Israel. Of course that might be one goal of the attack. Israeli leaders may be trying to avoid dialogue. More intense fighting would let them claim they have no one to negotiate with, especially if Gaza breaks down in chaos. Israeli leaders may also have an eye on Palestinian elections coming up soon. They want to persuade the Palestinians to support the more conciliatory Fatah party by destroying Hamas, or at least showing what happens to its supporters.

But "working toward long-term goals that would completely change the landscape in the region, like toppling Hamas from power in Gaza, is liable to turn out to be a wild fantasy." "Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm. . We can't impose regimes on the Palestinians." The idea "that a military operation would suffice in toppling an entrenched regime and thus replace it with another one friendlier to us is no more than lunacy."

Why would Israeli leaders pursue such a dangerous fantasy? When Ha'aretz journalists want to explain it, they (like all other Israeli journalists) focus most on politics -- not Palestinian, but Israeli. Israel, too, will hold elections in just a few weeks. "Israelis are being treated to a predictable dose of political posturing and chest-thumping."

The polls show the hawkish Likud party ahead, partly because "Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to topple the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip if elected prime minister. . Under his leadership, Israel would move from a policy of absorbing blows to a policy of being on the offensive."

Perhaps that's why the current (soon to retire) prime minister, Ehud Olmert, launched this week's offensive, cheered on by his party's candidate to replace him, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. She's now talking tough, too. "'The state of Israel, and a government under me, will make it a strategic objective to topple the Hamas regime in Gaza,' Livni told members of her centrist Kadima party." "We cannot allow Gaza to remain under Hamas control." "Vice Premier Haim Ramon also said . that Hamas must be removed from power."

"Ramon, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and others harshly criticized Defense Minister Ehud Barak's handling of the situation" -- because Barak, a former prime minister, is also running to regain that post, trying to resurrect his once-powerful Labor party. "The beginning of the raid in Gaza bears the wily and deceptive fingerprint of Barak. . It may deliver him and his party from the humiliating defeat the polls are predicting." "If Hamas is beaten and Israel receives some peace under favorable terms, Labor and Barak may gain force."

Politicians of every party want to prove that they are "not a bunch of wimps." So they've staked their future on the same goal: one way or another, topple the democratically-elected government of Gaza.

But Israel is also a democracy. The politicians are catering to public opinion: "This war was preceded by a frighteningly uniform public dialogue in which only one voice was heard -- that which called for striking, destroying, starving and killing." "The hysterical reaction by the public as a whole and politicians in particular stems mainly from the fact that the country is in an election period. And when elections are in the offing people speak from the gut rather than the brain. . They're suddenly strutting their macho stuff."

"Politicians and the public at large have been enthralled by a new prospect: that of a wide-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip. Such a prospect answers all their heart's secret wishes. . The public's imaginations are let loose as they chant a battle-cry." "Speeches have a tendency to identify goals that are by nature unreachable: phrases like 'destroying the Hamas government' (which is actually likely to be strengthened)."

With so many Israelis pointing out how self-defeating this attack on Gaza is, why would a majority of Israeli voters still push their leaders to more military action?

One theory looks to an inflated self-image: "Israel is striking at the Palestinians to 'teach them a lesson.' That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom -- via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey."

But there's an opposite theory: The failed war in Lebanon two years ago deflated Israelis' self-image, and now they are out to inflate it again. "The pictures of blood and fire are designed to show Israelis, Arabs and the entire world that the neighborhood bully's strength has yet to wane. When the bully is on a rampage, nobody can stop him." "Israel goaded its enemies to provoke it because [the enemies] ceased believing that Israel would agree to pay the price of using force."

Eventually, though, "after the politicians flex their muscles, the analysts blow smoke and the citizens of Israel have their 'honor restored,' a new exit from Gaza must be sought." "Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas."

"Hamas would have -- and still would -- accept a bargain . [to] halt the fire in exchange for easing of the many ways in which Israeli policies have kept a choke hold on the economy of the Strip." "Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, has said that his Palestinian militant group is willing to renew the recently ended truce in Gaza with Israel."

"Hamas has clear conditions for its extension: The opening of the border crossings for goods and cessation of IDF attacks in Gaza, as outlined in the original agreement. Later, Hamas wants the cease-fire to be extended to the West Bank. Israel, for its part, is justifiably demanding a real calm in Gaza; that no Qassam or mortar shell be fired by either Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other group. Essentially, Israel is telling Hamas it is willing to recognize its control of Gaza on the condition that it assumes responsibility for the security of the territory, like Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon. It is likely that this will be the outcome of a wide-scale operation in the Gaza Strip."

"In a short time, after the parade of corpses and wounded ends, we will arrive at a fresh cease-fire, as occurred after Lebanon, exactly like the one that could have been forged without this superfluous war." "Why, then, not forgo the war and agree to these conditions now?"

Ira Chernus, a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is the author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Having written extensively on Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush, he is now writing a book tentatively titled "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Origins of the National Insecurity State." He can be contacted at chernus@colorado.edu.


How many more anti-Israeli articles written by liberals do we have to read?

Don't we all know that Israel has Leftist Jews and all type of doves who always blame their own country? They also blame non-Leftists for the lack of security to win an election.
At least, brutal, cruel, human-hating Arabs don't suffer from that complex.

[lunatic]

First thing first:

You can hate Jews as much as you want. I hope you know we hate you back. Well, some of us do. Me.

There is no reason to discuss anti-Jewish stuff with Jew-haters, liars, uneducated morons, etc. They made their minds - they never change them. They look at the world through their deranged POWs. They look for the causes, reasons and explanations for their hatred when nobody really needs them. They never forget to mention that it's because of politics not ethnicity - do you really believe all politics could be so one-sided? Another side never gives any reasons to hate them for their politics? Oh, I forgot, another side is always poor and oppressed (and self-destructive and unproductive).
In the Western world the majority of them happen to be uber-liberals/leftists, not "right wingers" as liberal press want you to believe. Including self-hating Jews.

As for the situation in Gaza:

Anyone who distorts the history of Middle East is a human scum. Anyone who believes those who re-writes the history is a human scum.

Anyone who thinks that's o.k. to kill Israelis as a part of resistance against "militaristic Jewish imperialism" is a human scum. Anyone who thinks the Jews do not deserve one country because of the Arabs' opposition to it is a human scum.

Anyone who considers the Arabs to be the victims of their own creation - the 60 years old war against the Jewish state - must be an idiot and human scum. For Arabs it's about their "pride" and prejudices. They're fine with the sacrifices (and video images for the sake of "international support" and more welfare never hurt), why don't we?

Anyone who's never protested against the idea of eliminating Israel from the map and committing such acts but protesting now against "the bloody Jewish murderers" of Palestinian kids (also known as a great shield, pardon my cynicism) is a human scum. Double faced double standard human scum.

[Grendel]

At least, brutal, cruel, human-hating Arabs don't suffer from that complex.Nakedly racist comments such as that really add nothing to the discussion of the issues at hand, nor does systematically labeling everyone who might disagree with you, "human scum."

There are brutal and cruel individuals and organizations of every possible configuration; while they are to be held to account for their actions, they most certainly do not represent an entire ethnic, racial, or religious group.

[RIP]

First thing first:
You can hate Jews as much as you want. I hope you know we hate you back. Well, some of us do. Me.

Don't know if this is directed at me specifically, or if it's a broad sweeping statement, but either way...get over yourself. The context of the discussion here has not been of the jew-hating variety. Clearly you don't want to be a part of this discussion. No big loss.



There is no reason to discuss anti-Jewish stuff with Jew-haters, liars, uneducated morons, etc. They made their minds - they never change them. They look at the world through their deranged POWs.

This is rich. YOU calling someone close-minded. Neat.



They look for the causes, reasons and explanations for their hatred when nobody really needs them. They never forget to mention that it's because of politics not ethnicity - do you really believe all politics could be so one-sided? Another side never gives any reasons to hate them for their politics? Oh, I forgot, another side is always poor and oppressed (and self-destructive and unproductive).

Seriously...what the hell are you talking about? It's obvious from your words that you hate the Arab world, but even if we indulge the rest of your statement...are you suggesting that politics does not play a part in this conflict? If so, then you don't know much about the conflict. That said...is the conflict purely political? Certainly not. But then no one said it was.



As for the situation in Gaza:

Anyone who distorts the history of Middle East is a human scum. Anyone who believes those who re-writes the history is a human scum.

Okay, great. Let's throw up a timeline and see who does the distorting.



Anyone who thinks that's o.k. to kill Israelis as a part of resistance against "militaristic Jewish imperialism" is a human scum. Anyone who thinks the Jews do not deserve one country because of the Arabs' opposition to it is a human scum.

Likewise, anyone who condones (or makes light of) the slaughter of innocent palestinian civilians dubbed "human shields"...is human scum. "Double faced double standard human scum."



Anyone who's never protested against the idea of eliminating Israel from the map and committing such acts but protesting now against "the bloody Jewish murderers" of Palestinian kids (also known as a great shield, pardon my cynicism) is a human scum. Double faced double standard human scum.

Neither side is right, and neither side seems to realize that violence will not solve the problem they have in front of them. Your cynicism is not pardoned. It's repugnant.

[Tragicallyhip]

A couple of years ago, during the invasion of Lebanon, I did wonder whether all that military power was intended to force the international community to step in- to create a buffer zone between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah, manned by international peacekeeping troops. I've been wondering whether the same thing is happening here- an attempt to force the UN to step in and administer the Gaza strip, putting a barrier between Israel and Hamas, and leaving someone else to control the border.

The main factor in favour of such a plan is more a point of history- massive displays of military power have little or no effect on guerrilla armies. I found it hard to believe back in 2006 that the Israeli military honestly thought that sheer firepower could stop an underground (not in the literal sense) guerrilla army- it hasn't worked for any other major world powers- and I find it hard to believe they think that now.

[lunatic]

Nakedly racist comments such as that really add nothing to the discussion of the issues at hand, nor does systematically labeling everyone who might disagree with you, "human scum."

There are brutal and cruel individuals and organizations of every possible configuration; while they are to be held to account for their actions, they most certainly do not represent an entire ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Lotsa PC bullcrap, Mr. Grendel. Well, liberals like to label honest and fair statements with words "racism, fascism, right-winger, etc.". That's the only defense you got? And the disease of brutality (including wishful thinking) and cruelty can be widely spread among big groups of people (Germany in 1930/1940s, USSR, China) while the rest is way too sympathetic to the same causes or afraid to change the whole picture. It's not generalizing - it's emphasizing.

Even so I obviously referred to Hamas members like Arabs (and since when they are not brutal, cruel and human hating? Maybe you're one of those who believe that destroying Israel and killing Jews while exploiting their own cowardly people make them "Resistance fighters, revolutionaries" not murderous thugs?), I am not against you calling me a racist. If being called a racist means to have disrespect for the people who have 24 oppressive/non-democratic countries, those who're dedicated to the nationalism, Great Khalifat and extremities of their religion. Those who accept usage of terrorism and provocations while using civilians as human shield, those who slaughtered people of different race and ethnicities in Africa and all over the world, those who brain-wash their children and propagate hatred, those who find their friends in third reichs, evil empires and anti-Western groups and organizations. Yes, I feel the enormous disrespect towards them. But I am not saying, unlike them, let's erase them from the face of the planet or convert them against their own will. Plus, technically you're wrong. The Arabs are Semites, as am I. You better call me a different name.

Btw, the liberal American or Israeli Jews got a different from mine point of view. Next time I'll write about them I will mention that it's not all the Jews are self-hating and socialists...

[levil666]

liberals like to label honest and fair statements with words "racism, fascism, right-winger, etc"...

That's some labeling right there man. Every issue is in shades of gray, but the Israeli government is engaging in genocide. It is unfortunate that the people of both countries are in so much fear of one another that they continue to elect fascist regimes. What Hammas is doing is wrong, but Israel is coming down like Thor's Hammer. They even bombed the UN school yesterday. WTF? Not to mention the humanitarian activists they (Israel) have detained, boats they have rammed that were on humanitarian missions, and the very fact that they even kicked out an UN ambassador. The actions of both countries are unforgivable, but the people of both have livred in fear of one another for too long. The governments that represent them need to do just that, and stop spreading the bloodshed that has run like a river for way too long. It is their governments to blame, not Jews, not Muslims, but fucked up, prideful, politicians.

[lunatic]

Don't know if this is directed at me specifically, or if it's a broad sweeping statement, but either way...get over yourself. The context of the discussion here has not been of the jew-hating variety. Clearly you don't want to be a part of this discussion. No big loss.




This is rich. YOU calling someone close-minded. Neat.




Seriously...what the hell are you talking about? It's obvious from your words that you hate the Arab world, but even if we indulge the rest of your statement...are you suggesting that politics does not play a part in this conflict? If so, then you don't know much about the conflict. That said...is the conflict purely political? Certainly not. But then no one said it was.




Okay, great. Let's throw up a timeline and see who does the distorting.




Likewise, anyone who condones (or makes light of) the slaughter of innocent palestinian civilians dubbed "human shields"...is human scum. "Double faced double standard human scum."




Neither side is right, and neither side seems to realize that violence will not solve the problem they have in front of them. Your cynicism is not pardoned. It's repugnant.


Listen, double faced human whatever. When you post zillions posts and 99.99% of them are about horrible Jews and innocent Palestinians without even once stating clearly that Hamas and those who wanted it in power are dedicated to the destroying the Jewish state (you don't care much if it happens or not, right?) and responsible for nowadays chaos and sufferings, it doesn't smell "fair and balanced." You know they can't let Israel to have a regular life because it means two state solutions and they're against it. It's a dead end. Ask an Israeli Arab in Israeli Parliament or a Jew in any Arab State Parlame... Wait a minute, there's no Jews in any Arab parliaments.
As for timelines - it's kind of an indication that in your History there are no place for Jews in the Middle East. It's all lies, right, like lies about Holocaust?

And to say that world wide Jew-hating got nothing to do with the Middle East situation is not just naive - it's distorting and dangerous. As much as saying that Palestinians are not the part of Jihad against West.

[Grendel]

Lotsa PC bullcrap, Mr. Grendel. Well, liberals like to label honest and fair statements with words "racism, fascism, right-winger, etc.". That's the only defense you got? And the disease of brutality (including wishful thinking) and cruelty can be widely spread among big groups of people (Germany in 1930/1940s, USSR, China) while the rest is way too sympathetic to the same causes or afraid to change the whole picture. It's not generalizing - it's emphasizing.

Even so I obviously referred to Hamas members like Arabs (and since when they are not brutal, cruel and human hating? Maybe you're one of those who believe that destroying Israel and killing Jews while exploiting their own cowardly people make them "Resistance fighters, revolutionaries" not murderous thugs?), I am not against you calling me a racist. If being called a racist means to have disrespect for the people who have 24 oppressive/non-democratic countries, those who're dedicated to the nationalism, Great Khalifat and extremities of their religion. Those who accept usage of terrorism and provocations while using civilians as human shield, those who slaughtered people of different race and ethnicities in Africa and all over the world, those who brain-wash their children and propagate hatred, those who find their friends in third reichs, evil empires and anti-Western groups and organizations. Yes, I feel the enormous disrespect towards them. But I am not saying, unlike them, let's erase them from the face of the planet or convert them against their own will. Plus, technically you're wrong. The Arabs are Semites, as am I. You better call me a different name.

Btw, the liberal American or Israeli Jews got a different from mine point of view. Next time I'll write about them I will mention that it's not all the Jews are self-hating and socialists...If you wish to criticize extremists and those who perpetrate terror and human abuses, by all means do so. Speaking in terms that indict over a billion people, most of whom have nothing to do with the issue at hand only further undermines whatever point you're trying to make.

And, "technically," for the record, I never called you a thing. I--honestly and fairly--labeled your comments for what they were, regardless of the source.

[RIP]

Listen, double faced human whatever.

I have been respectful to you and everyone else in this thread. If you are going to call me names, you can go fuck yourself. If you want to have a reasonable discussion and share your point of view, then I'm all ears.


When you post zillions posts and 99.99% of them are about horrible Jews and innocent Palestinians without even once stating clearly that Hamas and those who wanted it in power are dedicated to the destroying the Jewish state (you don't care much if it happens or not, right?)

If you took the time to read my posts you would realize that I did just that. And as a matter of fact smart ass...I do care. I just don't see things the same way you do.


It's all lies, right, like lies about Holocaust?

Seriously...if this is going to be your tone then back the fuck out of this forum. Bottom line is, the Israeli's are complicit in this conflict. It is undeniable. Do some reading. To deny it is to be guilty of the same thing you are railing against.

[Grendel]

I have been respectful to you and everyone else in this thread. If you are going to call me names, you can go fuck yourself. If you want to have a reasonable discussion and share your point of view, then I'm all ears.C'mon RIP, we went through this a thread or two ago; let's not commence with any f-bombing.

[RIP]

Sure thing.

[Grendel]

:coolbeer:

[RIP]

An interesting proposal:

Published on Friday, January 9, 2009 by The Nation

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction
by Naomi Klein

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa.

In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era." The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions--BDS for short--was born.
Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause, and talk of cease-fires is doing little to slow the momentum. Support is even emerging among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors stationed in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the antiapartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves.... This international backing must stop."

Yet many still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. And they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tools in the nonviolent arsenal. Surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counterarguments.

1. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement." It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures--quite the opposite. The weapons and $3 billion in annual aid that the US sends to Israel is only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first non-Latin American country to sign a free-trade deal with Mercosur. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45 percent. A new trade deal with the European Union is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And on December 8, European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7 percent. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

2. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves that BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, back-room lobbying) have failed. And there are indeed deeply distressing echoes: the color-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said that the architecture of segregation that he saw in the West Bank and Gaza in 2007 was "infinitely worse than apartheid."

3. Why single out Israel when the United States, Britain and other Western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

4. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. In other words, I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

Coming up with this plan required dozens of phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, stretching from Tel Aviv to Ramallah to Paris to Toronto to Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start implementing a boycott strategy, dialogue increases dramatically. And why wouldn't it? Building a movement requires endless communicating, as many in the antiapartheid struggle well recall. The argument that supporting boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at one another across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of those very high-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, the managing director of a British telecom company, sent an e-mail to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax. "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

When contacted by The Nation, Ramsey said his decision wasn't political. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients, so it was purely commercially defensive."

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.

**********************************************

Personally I believe something like this might have an effect, but it's hard to imagine it working as it did in S. Africa. For one, too many people in the United States see Israel's actions (regardless of how far they go) as justified.

[Tragicallyhip]

It's an interesting idea, and one that certainly has some merit. The only flaw I can see concerns groups like Hamas; if they're not willing to stand down their side of conflict, there's not much chance of the Israelis doing so. Boycotts can be useful and powerful tactics, but their impact would be considerably weakened if the question of Israeli self-defence is not resolved. That also goes for any measures taken against Hamas.

Don't get me wrong, I think both sides are way out of line here, but they're both getting a hell of a lot of mileage out of the fact that the other side won't quit. Side A engages in attacks on the other. Side B responds. Side A is now under attack, and uses that as justification for attacking Side B. Side A responds. Repeat.

After you've done this for a few decades, it really doesn't matter who was Side A or Side B originally, if anybody still remembers. Both the Israelis and Hamas use the other side's attacks as justification for their own, which is also why both sides routinely break any ceasefires or treaties between the two. Since both of them place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the other side, any approaches or actions taken against one side are unlikely to have any measureable success, unfortunately.

[lunatic]

I have been respectful to you and everyone else in this thread. If you are going to call me names, you can go fuck yourself. If you want to have a reasonable discussion and share your point of view, then I'm all ears.



If you took the time to read my posts you would realize that I did just that. And as a matter of fact smart ass...I do care. I just don't see things the same way you do.



Seriously...if this is going to be your tone then back the fuck out of this forum. Bottom line is, the Israeli's are complicit in this conflict. It is undeniable. Do some reading. To deny it is to be guilty of the same thing you are railing against.

Can't take a punch? I do read your posts and all liberal anti-Israeli articles you posted. You are double faced for ME and I did not call you scum, did I? Emotional over reactions against me could be the same over reactions towards Israel every time you read propaganda pieces (or still could be a little secret you don't share with us - your dislike of Moses' people, you never know...)

[lunatic]

It's an interesting idea, and one that certainly has some merit. The only flaw I can see concerns groups like Hamas; if they're not willing to stand down their side of conflict, there's not much chance of the Israelis doing so. Boycotts can be useful and powerful tactics, but their impact would be considerably weakened if the question of Israeli self-defence is not resolved. That also goes for any measures taken against Hamas.

Don't get me wrong, I think both sides are way out of line here, but they're both getting a hell of a lot of mileage out of the fact that the other side won't quit. Side A engages in attacks on the other. Side B responds. Side A is now under attack, and uses that as justification for attacking Side B. Side A responds. Repeat.

After you've done this for a few decades, it really doesn't matter who was Side A or Side B originally, if anybody still remembers. Both the Israelis and Hamas use the other side's attacks as justification for their own, which is also why both sides routinely break any ceasefires or treaties between the two. Since both of them place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the other side, any approaches or actions taken against one side are unlikely to have any measureable success, unfortunately.

You don't do any good to anyone when you equalize everything and everyone. Look at and compare intensions, achievements, states of mind, goals and everyday values - why they are both equally "Off"?

[lunatic]

If you wish to criticize extremists and those who perpetrate terror and human abuses, by all means do so. Speaking in terms that indict over a billion people, most of whom have nothing to do with the issue at hand only further undermines whatever point you're trying to make.

And, "technically," for the record, I never called you a thing. I--honestly and fairly--labeled your comments for what they were, regardless of the source.

You missed my point again. It can't be a few bad guys running a show and doing all the damage. Third Reich wasn't about Hitler and USSR about Lenin and Stalin - it was about those who shared their views, sympathized with their ideas, agendas, actively helped, covered for them or were to afraid or indifferent to do anything. Hamas or any other extremists got (besides votes) deep approval and big resources among ordinary folks who share their "final solution for Jews" ideas. Otherwise Soviet Union wouldn't survive for 75 years and Nazi Germany wouldn't be so successful in the beginning phase of WWII. Same goes for China and Cuba.
There's no reason to remind me about 1 billion Muslims - I know. I lived for 28 years in the Muslim part of the Soviet Union. But it would be dangerously naive to say that among Arabs, who are the strongest force of Islamic extremists nowadays, number of bad guys and gals is so limited that I have no reason to talk about cancers of the majority of their society. I call it realism - you call it racism.

[RIP]

Obama Camp "Prepared to Talk to Hamas"
Thursday 08 January 2009

by: Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian UK

Incoming administration will abandon Bush's isolation of Islamist group to initiate low-level diplomacy, say transition sources.

Washington - The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon President Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas - which could be initiated through the US intelligence services - would represent a definitive break with the Bush presidency's ostracising of the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp.

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on in his administration, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

A tested course would be to start contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services - similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

Richard Haass, a diplomat under both presidents Bush who was named by a number of news organisations this week as Obama's choice for Middle East envoy, supports low level contacts with Hamas provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges.

Another potential contender for a foreign policy role in the Obama administration suggested the president-elect would not be bound by the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas. "This is going to be an administration that is committed to negotiating with critical parties on critical issues," they said.

There are a number of options that would avoid a politically toxic scenario for Obama of seeming to give legitimacy to Hamas.

"Secret envoys, multilateral six-party talk-like approaches. The total isolation of Hamas that we promulgated under Bush is going to end," said Steve Clemons, the director of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation.

"You could do something through the Europeans. You could invent a structure that is multilateral. It is going to be hard for the Neocons to swallow," he said. "I think it is going to happen.

However, one Middle East expert close to the transition team warned: "It is highly unlikely that they will be public about it."

The two weeks since Israel launched its military campaign against Gaza have heightened anticipation about how Obama intends to deal with the Middle East. He adopted a strongly pro-Israel position during the election campaign, as did his erstwhile opponent and choice for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. However, it is widely thought Obama will adopt a more even-handed approach once he is president.

Obama's main priority now, in the remaining days before his inauguration, is to ensure the crisis does not rob him of the chance to set his own foreign policy agenda, rather than merely react to events.

"We will be perceived to be weak and feckless if we are perceived to be on the margins, unable to persuade the Israelis, unable to work with the international community to end this," said Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on the Middle East.

"Unless he is prepared to adopt a policy that is tougher, fairer and smarter than both of his predecessors you might as well hang a closed-for-the-season sign on any chance of America playing an effective role in defusing the current crisis or the broader crisis," he said.

Obama has defined himself in part by his willingness to talk to America's enemies. But the president-elect would be wary of being seen to give legitimacy to Hamas as a consequence of the war in Gaza.

Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at the Georgetown school of foreign service, said it was unlikely Obama would move to initiate contacts with Hamas unless the radical faction in Damascus was crippled by the conflict in Gaza. "This would really be dependent on Hamas's military wing having suffered a real, almost decisive, drubbing."

Even with such caveats, there is growing agreement, among Republicans as well as Democrats, on the need to engage Hamas to achieve a sustainable peace in the Middle East - even among Obama's close advisers.

In an article published on Wednesday on the website of Foreign Affairs, but apparently written before the fighting in Gaza, Haass, who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations writes: "If the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold and a Hamas-PA reconciliation emerges, the Obama administration should deal with the joint Palestinian leadership and authorise low-level contact between US officials and Hamas in Gaza."

The article was written with Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel and an adviser to the incoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

"The change of perceptions is underway," said Alistair Crooke, director of the Conflicts Forum who was a former security adviser to the EU's Middle East envoy. "However, it hasn't translated yet into something substantive."

Last month, General Anthony Zinni, who was Bush's envoy to the Middle East, called on Obama to enage Hamas and move quickly to reach a peace deal.

The willingness for conditional engagement with Hamas marks a sharp break with the world view of the Bush administration.

Obama has said repeatedly that restoring America's image in the world would rank among the top priorities of his administration, and there has been widespread praise for his choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and Jim Jones, the former Marine Corps commandant, as his national security adviser.

He is expected to demonstrate that commitment to charting a new foreign policy within days when the president-elect is expected to name a roster of envoys who will take charge of key foreign policy areas: Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistan, and North Korea.

Both Obama and Clinton adopted solidly pro-Israel positions during the election campaign. Last May, Obama sacked an adviser, Rob Malley, after it emerged he had met Hamas officials while working for the International Crisis Group.

In June, Obama told the Israeli lobbying group Aipac he supported Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. That runs contrary to longstanding policy that the future of Jerusalem be decided through negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

In a visit to Israel one month later, Obama said he identified with efforts to protect Israeli cities from Hamas rockets.

Obama has further frustrated and confused those who had been looking to the incoming administration for a more even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by his refusal to make any substantive comment on Israel's military campaign on Gaza, nearly two weeks on.

He told a press conference on Wednesday: "We cannot be sending a message to the world that there are two different administrations conducting foreign policy. Until I take office, it would be imprudent of me to start sending out signals that somehow we are running foreign policy when I am not legally authorised to do so."

He added: "This silence is not as a consequence of a lack of concern."

[Elduardo]

I'm for whatever works but I think Obama is a bit naive in this area.

[Tragicallyhip]

Well, to be honest, 'we might talk to Hamas' could mean pretty much anything, so we'll have to wait and see how it develops. My guess is that Hamas will be encouraged to move towards becoming a legitimate political party. It's a tactic that's worked before (with the IRA and ETA, to name two examples), so I wouldn't be surprised to see efforts made with Hamas.

[Elduardo]

Not sure those are valid comparisons given the stated mission of Hamas.

[Grendel]

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on in his administration, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

A tested course would be to start contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services - similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

Richard Haass, a diplomat under both presidents Bush who was named by a number of news organisations this week as Obama's choice for Middle East envoy, supports low level contacts with Hamas provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges.

...Obama's main priority now, in the remaining days before his inauguration, is to ensure the crisis does not rob him of the chance to set his own foreign policy agenda, rather than merely react to events.

"We will be perceived to be weak and feckless if we are perceived to be on the margins, unable to persuade the Israelis, unable to work with the international community to end this," said Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on the Middle East.

"Unless he is prepared to adopt a policy that is tougher, fairer and smarter than both of his predecessors you might as well hang a closed-for-the-season sign on any chance of America playing an effective role in defusing the current crisis or the broader crisis," he said.

...Last month, General Anthony Zinni, who was Bush's envoy to the Middle East, called on Obama to enage Hamas and move quickly to reach a peace deal.Sounds like the makings of a rather measured, thorough approach.

[Tragicallyhip]

Not sure those are valid comparisons given the stated mission of Hamas.

I wasn't actually comparing them, beyond the fact that they're all terrorist groups. Every situation requires its own solution, of course- but given the failure to deal with Hamas using force I'd say it's definitely worth looking at.

[RIP]

Rights group: Israel uses incendiary bombs in Gaza

By JASON KEYSER, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jan 11, 9:10 pm ET

JERUSALEM – Human Rights Watch said Sunday that Israel's military has fired artillery shells with the incendiary agent white phosphorus into Gaza and a doctor there said the chemical was suspected in the case of 10 burn victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies.

Researchers in Israel from the rights group witnessed hours of artillery bombardments that sent trails of burning smoke indicating white phosphorus over the Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza. But they could not confirm injuries on the ground because they have been barred from entering the territory.

The chief doctor at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza said he treated several victims there with serious burns that might have been caused by phosphorus. He said, however, that he did not have the resources or expertise to say with certainty what caused the injuries.

The substance can cause serious burns if it touches the skin and can spark fires on the ground, the rights group said in a written statement calling on Israel not to use it in crowded areas of Gaza.

Military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich refused to comment directly on whether Israel was using phosphorus, but said the army was "using its munitions in accordance with international law."

Israel used white phosphorus in its 34-day war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. The U.S. military in Iraq used the incendiary during a November 2004 operation against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.

An AP photographer and a TV crew based in Gaza visited Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis on Sunday and recorded images of several burn patients.
One of them, Haitham Tahseen, recalled sitting outside his home with his family in the morning when something exploded above them.

"Suddenly, I saw bombs coming with white smoke," said the man, whose burned face was covered with medical cream. "It looked very red and it had white smoke. That's the first time I've seen such a thing."

His cousin, in another hospital bed, was more severely burned, with patches of skin peeling off his face and body, and had to be wrapped with thick white bandages.

The hospital's chief doctor, Youssef Abu Rish, said the burns were not from contact with fire, but he couldn't say what sort of substance caused them. He said information he collected on the Internet indicated it could have been white phosphorus.

White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, and militaries are permitted under laws of warfare to use it in artillery shells, bombs and rockets to create smoke screens to hide troop movements as well as bright bursts in the air to illuminate battlefields at night.

Israel is not party to a convention regulating its use. Under customary laws of war, however, Israel would be expected to take all feasible precautions to minimize the impact of white phosphorus on civilians, Human Rights Watch said.
"What we're saying is the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas like a refugee camp is showing that the Israelis are not taking all feasible precautions," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst for the rights group. "It's just an unnecessary risk to the civilian population, not only in the potential for wounds but also for burning homes and infrastructure."

Garlasco was among researchers on a ridge about a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the Gaza border who observed the shelling from a 155mm artillery unit on Friday and Saturday.

Some of the burning trails of smoke caused fires on the ground that appeared to go out after a few minutes, said Garlasco, who formerly worked at the Pentagon where he was in charge of recommending high-value targets for airstrikes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Each 155mm shell contains 116 of what Garlasco described as wafers doused in phosphorus that can be spread over an area as large as a sports field, depending on the height at which it detonates. The phosphorus ignites when it comes in contact with oxygen.

Human Rights Watch has not been able to confirm whether there have been any civilian casualties from phosphorus. The group has a consultant working for it inside Gaza but he has been unable to move around due to the danger. Foreign journalists have also been barred from entering Gaza.

Garlasco said photos published Thursday in British newspaper The Times showed Israeli units handling American-manufactured white phosphorus shells with fuses on them.


Is there any more question as to whether or not Israel is being excessive? Innocent people with chemical burns. Is this what they get for electing Hamas?

[Elduardo]

This brings me all the way back to my original premise that you never see any worldwide protests or human rights concerns about terrorist acts.

[Searcher]

Of course, that depends on your definition of worldwide.

[Tragicallyhip]

This brings me all the way back to my original premise that you never see any worldwide protests or human rights concerns about terrorist acts.

9/11 provoked a fairly substantial number of worldwide protests, as did the Madrid train bombings, the July 7 London bombings and the Bali nightclub attacks. There have been a number of mass anti-terrorism marches in Basque territory and Spain. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have held over the years a great many anti-IRA protests.

Human rights organisations rarely report acts that occur in terrorist incidents because mass murder is already a criminal act. There's no need to draw further attention to the fact that people have been killed during fatal terrorist attacks; it's something everybody already knows. Besides, groups like Amnesty International routinely condemn actions taken by both Palestinians and Israelis in their annual reports. Their statements about the recent conflict, for example, have highlighted the fact that both sides have been contravening human rights guidelines and military conduct guidelines.

[Elduardo]

Human rights organisations rarely report acts that occur in terrorist incidents because mass murder is already a criminal act. There's no need to draw further attention to the fact that people have been killed during fatal terrorist attacks; it's something everybody already knows.

Yeah I guess I disagree with that but I get your point.