Israel has opened the gates of Hell

[xoxoxoBruce]

Keep your strawman, it's not even close.
This is far from one sided, the shit Israel has done to the Pals that brought Hamas to power was appalling, as is the shit they've done since. Not only the official government actions, but the attitude and actions of individual Israeli citizens against the Pals. So the Pals, getting beat up, turn to Hamas for protection and revenge. Is that a surprise?

You see the newsreels of Arabs/Persians/Palestinians throwing rocks and shouting death to the Jews. Yeah, they're real and they mean it, but how many are there? What about the majority of Pals that want Israel to stop taking their land, cutting down orchards and olive groves their families have tended for hundreds of years. Wanting to take their kids to school or the doctors without having to go through several checkpoints where they may or may not pass on the whim of some Israeli private.

This is far from one sided, so don't quote this or that ideology and assign it to people you know nothing about. As much as you'd like to boil the whole problem down to a few sentences, you'd just be fooling yourself... or playing to your preconceived prejudices.

Mother Jones take on it.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Hamas calls for genocide. I thought most of us were opposed to ethnic cleansing.

then what do you call what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza? what do you call what Israel does with African refugees and immigrants? what do you call literally threatening Gaza with a holocaust?

As much as I abhor terrorism, sometimes there are few options for the oppressed beyond violence. Gaza is prettymuch starving. Gaza has little medicine at the best of times, and less when israel refuses to let them. The blockade and containment tactics Israel is using to oust a legally elected neighboring government is destroying the people of Gaza, already poor, overcrowded, and ill before having their children, siblings, parents, loved ones blown apart by Israeli airstrikes.

If this were a court of law, and israel and gaza individuals, israel would go to jail for assault or attempted murder. Gaza tossed pebbles; Israel drew a blackjack and a pistol and went at Gaza with everything they got. COMPLETELY disproportionate use of force.

Israel has no moral high ground here.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

then what do you call what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza? what do you call what Israel does with African refugees and immigrants? what do you call literally threatening Gaza with a holocaust?

An extremist that does not represent Israel as an entirety....

As much as I abhor terrorism, sometimes there are few options for the oppressed beyond violence.

It is not that one-sided either. There are more effective means than terrorism.

[Spexxvet]

Why isn't the Arab League helping the Israelis? I endorse their containment - they shouldn't let in people who want to annihilate them

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

I know it isn't. Hamas calls for genocide. <snip>
I don't understand why you would endorse a group whose mission is to destroy others based upon religion or race.

Sarge, I think you need to take a fresh look at your views.
Maybe things are not exactly the way you are posting.

Again from Wikipedia:

In an April 2008 meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and former US President Jimmy Carter,
an understanding was reached in which Hamas agreed it would respect the creation of a Palestinian state
in the territory seized by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, provided this were ratified
by the Palestinian people in a referendum.

Hamas later publicly offered a long-term truce with Israel if Israel agreed
to return to its 1967 borders and grant the "right of return" to all Palestinian refugees.[58]

In November 2008, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh re-stated that Hamas
was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders,
and offered Israel a long-term truce
"if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights."[59]

In 2009, in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Haniyeh repeated his group's support
for a two-state settlement based on 1967 borders: "We would never thwart efforts
to create an independent Palestinian state with borders [from] June 4, 1967,
with Jerusalem as its capital."[60]

On 1 December 2010, Ismail Haniyeh again repeated that,
"We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital,
the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees", and that
"Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of
whether it differs with its ideology and principles".[61]

In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence.
Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad
in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader,
during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel.[62]

"Israel
—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there —almost seems to understand,"
wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel,
"and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations."[63]

Ummm... that last paragraph needs to be updated with "...until November, 2012"

I'm not saying Hamas is as white as snow, either.
It's just not as sharply defined as you seem to present.

[Spexxvet]

interesting read

http://www.ucg.org/booklet/middle-ea...n-middle-east/

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

An extremist that does not represent Israel as an entirety...

he may not represent all israelis, but he represents the government to some extent, seeing as how he's the deputy defense minister...

[piercehawkeye45]

From your own link:

The Israeli government quickly dismissed Vilani's use of the word, putting out a statement later which said, "Mr. Vilani was meaning 'disaster.' He did not mean to many any allusion to the genocide."Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai used the Hebrew phrase that included the term 'shoah' in the sense of a disaster or a catastrophe, and not in the sense of a holocaust," said Arye Mekel, Israel's foreign ministry spokesman.

Israel does a lot of fucked up shit to Palestine, but it doesn't qualify as genocide.

[Ibby]

You probably say the same about Native Americans?
What's the difference?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

You probably say the same about Native Americans?
What's the difference?

I responded to your posts because you seem to be taking a one-sided perspective on this issue. Especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, anyone can give a never-ending list of arguments that support their particular side. However, none of those arguments really mean anything until the rationality and motives of both sides are looked into.

To even begin to look at this conflict from a half-way unbiased perspective is to realize that both sides legitimately believe they are acting defensively, and justify their killings based on past actions by the other side. The similarities split from there since both sides have completely different strategies when attacking the other. Israel unquestionably has the military advantage, so both sides are going to play their role. Hamas can not go toe to toe with Israel or they would be quickly eliminated, so they are going to blend in with their surroundings and more or less perform guerrilla warfare. Israel has no ability to separate Hamas militants from civilians (that is the point of Hamas' strategy) and can not just let their selves be attacked so they will try their best to prevent "collateral damage" and respond with their superior weaponry but will end up killing many more civilians than militants.

Now that is the overall strategy. That doesn't mean that rogue warriors on either side will stray from it, which many on both sides do. Anyways, due to this split in strategy it is easy for anyone supporting a particular side to say the other side is unethical while the actions by the side they support are justified. In reality, neither side has ethical grounds for their actions but, as humans should know by now, war is rarely ever carried out on ethical grounds. It is carried out by people who are going to inflict as much pain to the other team while receiving the least amount as possible. That is reality.

As a side note, I have disagreements with both sides from a realist perspective. I see the issue as much deeper and violent reactions are just band-aid solutions to real problem of ideologues and power disparities.



On to genocide. This is another aspect where it is easy to take something out of context and claim the opposing side is trying to commit genocide on the side you support. First of all, even if a single person within a group admits they want to wipe the other side off the map, it doesn't necessarily mean anything since that group may not be representative of that single statement. Every organization has people with their own motives and perspectives trying to exert power over the organization. Israel has it batshit crazy Zionists who want all of Palestine for Israel and are willing to kill all the Palestinians to get it while Palestine has its radical terrorists would won't stop until every Jew has been removed from Israeli lands. However, I would not consider either of these views representative of the larger organizations.

Second, all of these quotes are translations and the original word may have a completely different meaning or context (that is my argument against "The Bible says it" for anti-gay marriage people). Also, it is unclear from your quote whether the Defense Minister meant Palestine, Hamas, or the military wing of Hamas. The implications are vastly different depending on what he meant. One is legitimate genocide and other is typical warfare. I'm guessing it is the later. This is why I attacked your quote.



As a final thought, whether I consider what happened to the American Indians a genocide or not is completely semantic. In general, the United States had a policy of expansion where it gave natives the choice of unwanted lands or death (if they fought back). Since (in general), the policy wasn't to deliberately eliminate the natives way of living, the actions can be considered genocide in some senses and not in others.

I personally don't have stance because I see it as purely semantics. However, I do acknowledge that the American way of living fully benefited from the displacement and death of the native people. Take that how you want because I take it in more than one way.

[Big Sarge]

I admit I am biased toward Israel based upon my religious and cultural beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the formation of a caliphate with Jersusalem as a capitol. They call for the destruction of Israel and plan to place everyone under Sharia law.

I know what the Muslim Brotherhood would do to me and my family. How many of you would survive under Sharia law?

[Undertoad]

My opinion is that nobody should offer an opinion on the matter without reading every side and studying the entire history for at least three years.

[Big Sarge]

Sage advise. Why don't we just close this thread and agree to disagree?

[tw]

Conclusion here are chock full of myths and intentional lies generated by propaganda. Worse, many fail to ask what Kennedy so routinely asked his advisers to therefore avert a worldwide nuclear war. What is he thinking? What does he see? What are his objectives? What are his people telling him?

First is Likud's obvious tactics. Likud (the extremist Israeli political party) has done everything possible to make the Palestinians divided. By routinely subverting Fatah, Israeli extremists empowered extremist Palestinians eventually resulting in outright warfare between Fatah and Hamas.

To maintain conflict, Israel (and others) even invented Hamas as a proxy for Iraq. Oh. Iraq is gone. So Hamas is now a proxy for Iran. If true, then Hamas is also a proxy for the UN. These myths and lies are easy to create when extremist rhetoric invents mythical claims. Soundbyte lies are easy. Exposing those hard lies with facts requires pages of paragraphs. Paragraphs are too hard for a majority. Most people only hear soundbytes (ie Saddam’s WMDs). Sounbytes make this conflict easier to promote and maintain.

These tactics are important for Likud's strategic objective. Likud strongly remembers what they regards as a disaster. A peace treaty with Egypt that gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Likud never forgot. And bluntly said never again.

Key to achieving Likud's poltical objectives is to make peace impossible. That means stirring and encouraging dissent and dissatisfaction among Palestinians. That also means moderate Arabs or Israelis cannot easily exist.

Virtually every potential peace process has be subverted by Likud. Likud even needed, called for, and got the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin, from a more moderate party, could make peace. So Likud needed him dead. And got it.

A peace settlement with Palestinians is virtually impossible as long as nobody can properly represent Palestinians. Constant harrassment by all sides only further enhances Likud's position, power, and objectives. Including a constant Fatah / Hamas conflict.

One of the world’s greatest negotiators was Sen George Mitchell. He even ended a virtually insolvable conflict in Northern Ireland. But he walked away from this Israeli Palestinian conflict. Because it is completely unsolvable. As most world leaders complain (some accidentally in public), Netanyahu is impossible to work with. Because any solution to this conflict means Israel will not conquer the West Bank. And that (after lessons from the Sinai) is a Likud topmost objective. If it takes constant warfare, well, extremist love war to achieve objectives. War empowers extremists at the expense of moderates.

Israelis will not become moderate until enough die. Maybe three Israelis die for hundreds of Palestinians. That only further empowers Likud. When numbers are 100 dead on both sides, only then will Israelis reject their wacko extremists and become moderate. But we all know that will not happen.

Everyone is worried about this current conflict only in that being concerned maintains relationships with all 'good' people on both sides. Everyone knows that any peace settlement will be undermined by Likud (and probably by wacko extremist Palestinians) by constantly failing to honor promises. And then firing up the propaganda machines to claim it was the other side who reneged. Currently, all concerned parties are maintaining relationships with moderates who may, in future generations, inspire peace when Likud is removed from power.

Never forget the entire purpose of this conflict. To conquer the West Bank. To drive Palestinians from the land. Even embargos and making life miserable for moderates is critical to keeping this conflict going. Extremists pretending to be concerned even for civilian life is spin necessary to mask their real purpose: not let a peace settlement occur.

Likud has a long history of undermining every potential settlement with shrewd, many, and tiny actions that successfully undermined every possible settlement. Including Sharon and his closest hundreds friend tromping on Temple Mount with their shoes on - as if that was a gesture of peace to Palestinians.

There is no peace as long as Likud and their strategic objective exists. Any peace process is a disaster to Likud.

A Saudi foreign minister properly defined how to start a settlement. Of Hamas, he said, “Ignore them.” Without attention, then Hamas loses power. But that is contrary to Likud's objectives.

As far as I am concerned, not enough people are dying equally on both sides. Until then, moderates will not rise up and demand peace.

BTW, Israel will probably invade Gaza soon. Its not clear what they intend to accomplish militarily. But we know what the ultimate prize is - conquering the West Bank.

[Big Sarge]

Sigh......