|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [3111212919] Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 20:35
No end in sight as bombings continue in Gaza
What a mess. But when the stated goal of Israel is to militarily topple the democratically elected party controlling the PNA, this is really going to be ugly.
Before you all go "tree" on me, let me state that Hamas, while not as corrupt as Fatah, is a belligerant organization who has passed up several chances at peace, IMO. But the nature of a messy Middle East is that no one has clean hands.
I was somewhat heartened last February when Hamas seemed interested in a "10 year truce" with Israel, but the sticking points there were the state of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian "right of return." |
| | | 1 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 00:33
|
It's messy. Very messy.
That said, when that democratically elected party is doing precisely nothing to stop its citizens from launching hundreds of rockets at Israel's civilian population, and said rocket launchers are fairly carefully hidden among otherwise civilian targets, I don't see what other choice there is but to retaliate in a very messy fashion.
|
|
| | | 2 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 09:22
|
One of the strangest incidents related to the conflict was a suicide attack against anti-Israeli protesters in the Iraqi city of Mosul on Sunday.
Further south in Iraq:
The Iraqi government condemned the airstrikes on Gaza, which began Saturday.
The top Shiite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said condemnation did not go far enough.
"Expressing condemnation and denunciation for what is going on against our brothers in Gaza and expressing solidarity with them by words only doesn't mean anything in the face of the big tragedy they are facing," he said in a statement released by his office in Najaf.
"Now more than at any other time, both Arab and Islamic nations are required to take a practical stance for the sake of stopping this repeated aggression and to break the unfair besieging of these brave people," the statement said, without giving details of the proposed stance.
link
Having a hard time finding any protests from Arab and Islamic governments to the Hamas rocket attacks against Israel prior to Israel's incursion last Saturday.
|
|
| | | 3 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 18:53
|
Iran Students Ready to Martyr Themselves for Palestinian Cause
Hardline student groups in Iran have asked the government for authorization to send suicide brigades to Israel, in response to that country's strikes on Hamas strongholds in the Gaza strip.
The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not yet responded to the calls, but said of Israel Wednesday that "this hated regime is on the slope of a crash and with the grace of God soon will fall and nothing can save it."
If this happens there will be nothing we can do or should do to stop Israel from bombing Iran.
|
|
| | | 4 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 07:55
|
Another What If that will cause a World War.
Hamas Rockets Put Israel's Nuclear Facility in Battle Zone
Rocket attacks from Gaza have forced Israelis to flee in ever greater numbers, escalating the belief among Israel's military chiefs that Hamas missiles could threaten the nation's top secret nuclear facility at Dimona.
Israeli officials say that Hamas has acquired dozens of Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles and with it, an even longer range than previously seen. Many fear that as the group acquires ever more sophisticated weaponry it is only a matter of time before the nuclear installation at Dimona, 20 miles east of Beersheba, falls within its sights.
|
|
| | | 5 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 09:41
|
I've been getting a different perspective in the press then what I read in the American press a la New York Times etc.
The American press seems to report it this way:
There was a cease fire, when the cease fire ended Hamas fired missiles at Israel, Isreal was simply defending itself against this unwarranted attack.
The different perspective I've heard has actually not been in the local press here, I don't really read it that much. It comes from the BBC which is the main news radio we get here.
The counter argument goes something like this:
Even while there has been a cease fire in place, Israel, the occupying army, has placed a 100% blockade on Gaza. People are literally starving, there is a shortage of medical supplies, the Israelis have turned Gaza into a hell on earth with their blockade.
Israel is doing this because even though Hamas was democratically elected, Hamas cannot be allowed to stay in power due to past transgressions and their militant perspective.
Therefore Israel used this blockade to make life so unbearable the Hamas would be forced to take some action against this inhumane blockcade by the occupying forces.
The cease fire was ostensibly agreed to, as a step toward peace, but that isn't possible while the occupying army is blockading even the most basic items needed like food and medicine.
This argument concludes Israel as an occupying Army, starving the occupied, has no grievance concerning missiles fired at Israel under these circumstances.
So from this perspective, the primitive missiles Hamas launched were a lashing out at the treatment by an inhumane occupying army, perhaps to raise international awareness on their plight which was being ignored.
In addition to this they have been interviewing UN representatives who are outraged at what amounts to a massacre by an advanced army against a helpless population, yes even though we hear over and over that Hamas puts weapons in civilian areas.
I post this not to take either side, but because I don't see this perspective articulated in the American MSM the way I continue to hear it on the BBC. BBC does an excellent job of giving both sides a chance to air their point of view. They have more then covered the Israeli perspective also but you already know all those arguments.
Perhaps PBS has it covered I don't know.
|
|
| | | 6 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 10:19
|
The Palestinian side is hardly if ever represented equally by the MSM here. There's the token 3 seconds of some poor Palestinian child in the hospital with a shrapnel wound. That is quickly countered with 3 minutes of Israeli coverage.
I have a Palestinian Christian friend. Before he was born his parents were forced out of their homes at gunpoint by Israel. While he is not an anti-Semite, he is staunchly anti-Israel. They caused his family, who had lived in the Middle East for their entire heritage, to leave their homeland and flee here to the US. These weren't terrorists or even criminals.
It really is an eye opener in contrast to the MSM coverage and political-speak here that basically demands we support Israel no matter what.
You here the counterpoint all the time that Israel is surrounded by enemies and therefore has to take aggressive stances. Is it any wonder why they are continually attacked if that is how they treat families and children? I'm sorry but I just refuse to believe Israel is 100% blameless in this.
The worst part of it all gratefully hasn't happened yet. Just wait for when they bomb Iran. Iran will strike back and then because of our alliance what will we do? Invade? With what forces? Are we really going to have a potential draft in this country simply for Israel?
|
|
| | | 7 | Building 7
ID: 3111252013 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 15:20
|
The jews control Big Media in America. link You're not likely to hear bad stuff about Israel.
|
|
| | | 8 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 16:58
|
That's funny, here in the UAE that site is blocked B-7, must be a doozy. Not that many sites are blocked here.
I didn't post to play the "Jews control the media" card. There are definitely two sides to the story though and America mostly hears only one side.
|
|
| | | 9 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 17:09
|
You're not missing anyhthing, nerv. Here's a taste:
Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.
By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government, we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.
The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; there there is nothing at all wrong with white women dating or marrying black men, or with white men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability an character -- except that the character of the white race is suspect because of a history of suppressing other races; and that any effort by whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.
We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. but to permit the Jews, with their 3,000 year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many white Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.
Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power which has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.
Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.
It's straight from some Neo-Nazi playbook. B7, that's pretty sick.
|
|
| | | 10 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 18:37
|
Don't go there, B7. It's a minefield.
There is no question that there is a cabal level concentration of power in Hollywood.
However society obviously doesn't suffer from too much influence from the God of Abraham, exactly the opposite in fact. It does suffer from an excess of mystery religion influence and therein lies the explanation.
|
|
| | | 11 | Building 7
ID: 3111252013 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 21:22
|
I was linking that for the information on the jews who own/control media companies. Not for the anti-jewish commentary. Probably could have found a better link.
|
|
| | | 12 | C.SuperFreak
ID: 211131722 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 21:44
|
Nerve, if you can reach the CBC website (www.cbc.ca) you should get another perspective. A bit cumbersome to navigate but if you use the search you should get to the older articles.
|
|
| | |
| | | 14 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 05:26
|
Don't go there, B7. It's a minefield.
I was thinking more like a field of manure.
|
|
| | | 15 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 06:36
|
B7
You always have to think 3 moves ahead and that you would forever aquire an antisemetic taint linking to that was inevitable.
Out of curiosity what explanation does Nerve have for the wildly monolithic Jewish control of Hollywood? Any comments about it? That it could be a statistical accident is laughable.
I think the most innocuous explanation was that they had justifiable reason to influence the zeitgeist away from antisemetism.
Zionism has had a monumentally counterproductive effect on world antisemetism. I wonder how much better Hollywood has done?
|
|
| | | 16 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 08:09
|
My take on B7s link is that you're not going to find information like that (usually, Boldwin's link being an anomally) prominently displayed in the work of the MSM. That leaves getting lucky and finding a fluke article or going to a conspiracy site. It's not like the CEOs of corporation can be manufactured in articles anyway, they either are or are not, no real gray area there.
Like that article said, some people are more content hurling labels to the accuser than actually discussing the plain realization that in fact Jews are in a significant amount of power positions in Hollywood. It's a cheap cop out.
|
|
| | | 17 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 11:06
|
you're not going to find information like that prominently displayed in the work of the MSM
Why is it the "MSM's" responsibility to report on (much less "prominently display" the religious and cultural backgrounds of media executives and chairmen? Should the sign on Leslie Moonves' door have a byline that reads "Jew"?
And honestly, the notion that it's some big secret that most of the leaders of America's major media corporations are Jewish or that this is something that the companies in any way try to hide from the general public is absurd. Is there anyone here who really claims to not already know this? Is it not vividly and often satirically if not dirisively protrayed often enough? Anyone happen to see the movie Tropic Thunder this year, or more specifically, the movie studio exec character played by Tom Cruise?
|
|
| | | 18 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 11:27
|
actually discussing the plain realization that in fact Jews are in a significant amount of power positions in Hollywood.
What's to discuss?
More appropriate would be a discussion of the amount of power AIPAC wields in the halls of Congress.
|
|
| | | 19 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 11:44
|
Do you think the amount of Jews creates a pro-Israel bias in the media?
|
|
| | | 20 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 12:21
|
#19
No.
I'd like to see Baldwin to respond to the same question.
|
|
| | | 21 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:13
|
So you don't believe there is a pro-Israel bias in the media? Do you think the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is fairly represented to what actually occurs on the ground? If not, what do you attribute that to?
|
|
| | | 22 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:22
|
MITH #20
Yes, not that I have a problem with that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people up against the wall, unpopular and being bullied.
FYI I do not feel Isreal figures in God's plans or prophecy for the last 1.9k years. My feelings are purely for them as an unfairly persecuted people, not due to any zionist sympathies.
|
|
| | | 23 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:33
|
A more interesting question is why are the nominally Jewish heads of Hollywood so opposed to 'judeo-christian' traditional ethics?
To which I direct you to the last sentence of #10.
|
|
| | | 24 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:34
|
Out of curiosity what explanation does Nerve have for the wildly monolithic Jewish control of Hollywood? Any comments about it? That it could be a statistical accident is laughable.
I don't think it's strange Baldwin. Why are there so many black basketball players? Conspiracy?
Why are the Japaneese know for sushi?
Why are most golfers white?
Do you think the amount of Jews creates a pro-Israel bias in the media?
There's definitely a "Pro Israel bias" in my opinion. Both sides of the conflict are not fairly reported. There are likely lots of reasons for it beyond the fact that there is a lot of Jewish presence in the media.
Other reasons include:
The Judeo Christian background of our nation, creating a bias toward Israel over Arab States.
The need for a Jewish State to bring about the book of Revelations. (Don't discount this aspect.)
A natural alliance against the harder core aspects of the fundamentalist Islamists.
To simply chalk it up to nothing more then the number of Jews in the MSM seems like a over simplified explanation.
|
|
| | | 25 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:36
|
Boxman Do you think the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is fairly represented to what actually occurs on the ground?
In the US, I don't believe that minor and major Palestinian/Israeli dustups are covered with a necessarily greater bias than we generally see with other foreign armed conflicts.
If you disagree, perhaps you could provide some examples of "MSM" coverage of this conflict that favors the Israeli side of the story.
Baldwin That's very strange. I'm about 95% certain that I could dig up many posts authored by you complaining harshly about anti-Israeli coverage in the American press. I'm sure beyond doubt that if I dig up our discussions on the Jenin incident from a few years back I'll find you taking the exact opposite stance.
|
|
| | | 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:42
|
To which I direct you to the last sentence of #10.
I don't disagree. The notion that these execs do not take excessive preferential control over the content of the material they produce is the position I take on both the news and the entertainment sides of the major media corporations.
|
|
| | | 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 13:45
|
That was a terrible post. What I mean is that the last sentence in #10 is in line with my opinion that media execs don't seem to excessive preferential control over the content of the material they produce on either the news or the entertainment sides.
|
|
| | | 28 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sat, Jan 03, 2009, 15:15
|
I think they have tremendous preferential control leaning towards mystery religion goals.
|
|
| | | 29 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 00:15
|
Clear thinking vs media narative.
Outstanding and well worth reading every word.
|
|
| | | 30 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 06:17
|
If you disagree, perhaps you could provide some examples of "MSM" coverage of this conflict that favors the Israeli side of the story.
Yeah I'll get right on that. Nothing beats spending time on Google, finding articles to prove my point, only to have them ignored by saying "there is no bias".
I'll be right back. Just keep hitting F5 to refresh your screen. The new post should be up right quick.
|
|
| | | 31 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 07:31
|
The reason it is so hard to pin down the media's bias regarding Isreal is because it contains two intuitively contradictory impulses.
A second reason is because individual members of the press are also of two minds with many truly sympathetic and just as many exhibiting the liberal tendency to always always always always 'see the evil in the good' ie always side with the evil and vilify the less evil. These always side with the despots and the dictators and those running the death camps and those attempting genocide. Who made the world safe for Pol Pot and Saddam and Stalin and Kim Il and Mao and Che and Fidel and Yassar?
But those are not the two intuitively contradictory impulses of which I speak. Mystery religion has been the deadly enemy of the God of Abel and Noah and Abraham before Abraham was born and selected. Mystery religion was created [or should I say recreated] in the days of Noah, in Babylon, by Nimrod, a mighty hunter [slayer of men], in opposition to God.
Mystery religion has an interest in both seeing the state of Zion created and existing there in place as a focus point of world hatred of the Jews, [formerly God's people] and by extention, hatred of the God of Abraham.
Now I am not saying every member of the press is a member of a mystery religion but the overwhelming control of the media can be attributed to mystery religion.
|
|
| | | 32 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 07:51
|
To further illuminate the curiously counterintuitive nature of the Jewish controlled media, the pharisees had a saying that those of the 'vulgar [Jewish] crowd' [those not initiated into the esoteric teachings of the pharisees] could be blamelessly 'torn like a fish'. Yes, in their view the life of an ordinary Jew was no more valuable than a fish.
Not the stance towards the Jewish people that you would intuitively expect from 'Jewish religious leaders'.
Don't be so sure that the Jewish control of the media is entirely benevolent towards the Jews.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 08:58
|
Yeah I'll get right on that.
So much for Christmas Day appeals to "be nice to each other" and enjoy "a substantive debate or two", huh?
|
|
| | | 34 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 09:09
|
Debate is fine Mith, but we've been going around in circles on media bias for years.
|
|
| | | 35 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 09:41
|
Actually, the topic of bias in American media coverage of the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not something that has been covered in this forum in quite some time and to my knowledge not at all since you arrived here, Boxman.
Making the topic more interesting is that ou have two avowed liberal media detractors and Israel supporters (based on your and B's prior contributions on the topic) stating a belief that the liberal media coverage of the conflict actually favors the Israelis.
Adding still further intrigue to this discussion was an entirely new bend for you in post 6 expressing some distatse for the way Israel conducts herself in the ongoing conflict. This is intriguing because for years at this forum, the times you and tree could ever make nice was when you stood in agreement with his unyielding support for any and every Israeli military endeavor.
I was interested in finding more about what had caused this change in your opinion and in whether Baldwin possessed the testicular fortitude respond to you in anything resembling the tone that I'm used to receiving from him whenever I offered similar opinions.
From my perspective, post 30 is typical of what happens to my attempts at respectful discourse with you. "Substantial debate" requires that people support their contentions. And when the very first cordial request that you do so is met with dirisive sarcasm (I'll be right back. Just keep hitting F5) I really don't know how to react.
|
|
| | | 36 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 11:51
|
Try swearing a lot. It worked for me!
|
|
| | | 37 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 12:08
|
MITH I already articulated some of the bias in the American press concerning the latest phase of the conflict.
Most of the articles I've read in the American press lays the blame for the current conflict on Hamas for firing missiles into Israel.
The articles don't mention that Hamas is firing the missles because since they won a free and fair, internationally monitered election in 2006, Israel has had a blockade of land and sea limiting food and medicine into the Gaza area.
Hamas is arguing they are simply defending themselves against this act of aggression by an occupying army. The articles also don't mention that during the cease fire Israel continued to assassinate Hamas members, including 6 men on November 5th 2008 they claimed were building a tunnel.
Instead the articles seem to simply sum up that Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel unprovoked and Israel is defending itself.
I know there are likely some American press reporting deeper, but this seems to be the gist of the main articles that I have read anyway.
For example a major story in todays NY Times seems to sum it all up in this paragraph...
An Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas, which took effect last June, began to break down in November, and Hamas declared it over on Dec. 19. Since then, rocket fire out of Gaza has intensified.
It doesn't go on to mention "why" Hamas is firing the rockets as articulated earlier in my post.
Bush in a radio address today concluded...
Hamas had instigated the violence last week with rocket barrages “that deliberately targeted innocent Israelis.”
All these points of view fail to mention the instigation's coming from the Israeli side.
|
|
| | | 38 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 12:08
|
Boxman
It really is an interesting aberation in the usual media bias. If they were truly as slavishly liberal as they usually are you would expect Palestinians lobbing bombs deliberately at random civilians to be universally depicted as the good guys and the Isrealis as pure evil. That's pretty much the european media's take and it's scary. But that isn't universal here. It's more complicated here.
|
|
| | | 39 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 12:14
|
Boldwin: I attribute the liberal media's support of Israel to the Frankenstein's Monster of PC-ness they themselves created.
Say something remotely questionable about blacks = bigot
Say something remotely questionable about jews = anti-Semite
Also, it's hard for liberals to be outspoken against Israel when the Hollywood left is run by jews (would Zionists be a more appropriate term?) that support them every election for other issues.
|
|
| | | 40 | Baldwin
ID: 711143122 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 12:23
|
Nerve
Why doesn't Egypt take a hit for fencing Gaza away from aid and commerce? There is a country which dearly loves to see the Palestians desperate and ready to explode in violence. They use the Palestinians to live vicarious lives of violence against Jews.
|
|
| | | 41 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 12:32
|
If they were truly as slavishly liberal as they usually are you would expect Palestinians lobbing bombs deliberately at random civilians to be universally depicted as the good guys and the Isrealis as pure evil.
This is the other sort of distortion about the missile situation. How do you even know what Hamas is aiming at, they can't even seem to hit anything. Before Israels latest offensive I don't think they killed a single Israeli with a missile.
Hamas has been using it's crudest missiles, they didn't use the longer range ones until after Israel began bombing. Wouldn't that lead one to conclude they were not hell bent on real damage since they were using the least effective bombs?
We now know they had much better weapons then they were using.
For all the talk of Hamas targeting civilians, it's the Palestinian civilians who have been slaughtered by Israel.
Who is Israel targeting by cutting off food and medicine? Is that not a blatant disregard for civilians?
I'm not posting all this to come down on the side of Hamas, am just trying to show the absurdity of some of the pro Israel rhetoric as though there are no counter points.
Israel is like a man with his boot pushing down against the back of a dogs neck who is surprised when the dog tries to snap at him, so he digs the boot in harder.
|
|
| | | 42 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 14:01
|
Nerveclinic
The American press seems to report it this way:
There was a cease fire, when the cease fire ended Hamas fired missiles at Israel, Isreal was simply defending itself against this unwarranted attack.
The counter argument goes something like this:
Even while there has been a cease fire in place, Israel, the occupying army, has placed a 100% blockade on Gaza. People are literally starving, there is a shortage of medical supplies, the Israelis have turned Gaza into a hell on earth with their blockade.
Israel is doing this because even though Hamas was democratically elected, Hamas cannot be allowed to stay in power due to past transgressions and their militant perspective.
Therefore Israel used this blockade to make life so unbearable the Hamas would be forced to take some action against this inhumane blockcade by the occupying forces.
The cease fire was ostensibly agreed to, as a step toward peace, but that isn't possible while the occupying army is blockading even the most basic items needed like food and medicine.
This argument concludes Israel as an occupying Army, starving the occupied, has no grievance concerning missiles fired at Israel under these circumstances.
...In addition to this they have been interviewing UN representatives who are outraged at what amounts to a massacre by an advanced army against a helpless population, yes even though we hear over and over that Hamas puts weapons in civilian areas.
I post this not to take either side, but because I don't see this perspective articulated in the American MSM
Here are some excerpts I came across poking around the NY Times first few days of coverege of the situation, beginning on 12/24:
Gaza Rocket Fire Intensifies (12/25)The military wing of Hamas said in a statement that the rocket fire was ''a response to Zionist aggression in Gaza and West Bank'' and to the economic embargo that Israel had imposed on Gaza.
An Israeli force killed three Hamas gunmen on Tuesday in a clash close to the border barrier in northern Gaza. The military said they were spotted laying explosives. Hamas said two more members of its military wing were killed after carrying out a ''jihadi'' mission on Wednesday near Khan Yunis in southern Gaza. The Israeli military denied that there had been any army activity at that time, and it seemed that the two were killed by their own explosives.
A six-month Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas in Gaza expired last Friday. On Tuesday, Hamas said that Egypt and other mediators had been in touch to discuss another period of calm. Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas official, suggested that Hamas would consider renewing the truce if border crossings were opened to allow the regular transfer of goods into Gaza.
Most of the rockets fired out of Gaza are locally made, short-range projectiles that fall within a few miles of the border. At least two of those fired Wednesday were imported Katyusha-type rockets with a longer range. Ashkelon, which lies about 10 miles north of Gaza, has been hit occasionally in the past. Attacks on Netivot, about six miles east of the Gaza border, have been rare.
The goods crossings on the Gaza border have been almost completely sealed since the truce began to break down in early November. Israel had said it would allow about 40 trucks of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza on Wednesday, but it canceled those plans as a result of the heavy rocket and mortar fire. Israel Issues an Appeal to Palestinians in Gaza 12/26:Adding to the saber-rattling, Israel's army chief, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel would have to act with ''all our force to hurt the terrorist infrastructure and change the security reality.'' Israelis Say Strikes Against Hamas Will Continue 12/27: number of governments and international officials, including leaders of Russia, Egypt, the European Union and the United Nations, condemned Israel’s use of force and also called on Hamas to end the rocket fire. But in strong terms, the Bush administration blamed Hamas for the violence and demanded that it stop firing rockets.
A military operation had been forecast and demanded by Israeli officials for weeks, ever since a rocky cease-fire between Israel and Hamas fully collapsed a week ago, leading again to rocket attacks in large numbers against Israel and isolated Israeli operations here.
Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturday’s attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school.
The center of Gaza City was a scene of chaotic horror, with rubble everywhere, sirens wailing, and women shrieking as dozens of mutilated bodies were laid out on the pavement and in the lobby of Shifa Hospital so that family members could identify them. The dead included civilians, including several construction workers and at least two children in school uniforms.
By afternoon, shops were shuttered, funerals began and mourning tents were visible on nearly every major street of this densely populated city.
The leader of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said in a statement that “Palestine has never witnessed an uglier massacre.” Later, in a televised speech, he vowed to fight Israel. “We say in all confidence that even if we are hung on the gallows or they make our blood flow in the streets or they tear our bodies apart, we will bow only before God and we will not abandon Palestine,” he said.
Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed.
Governments that dislike Hamas, like Egypt’s, Jordan’s and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, are in a delicate position. They blame Hamas for having taken over Gaza by force 18 months ago in the aftermath of its election victory in the Palestinian Parliament, and they oppose its rocket fire on Israeli towns and communities.
But the sight of scores of Palestinians killed by Israeli warplanes outraged their citizens, and anti-Israel demonstrations broke out across the region.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority angrily condemned the Israeli airstrikes. Egypt, worried about possible efforts by Palestinians to enter the country, has set up machine guns along the Gaza border. But on Saturday it temporarily opened the Rafah border crossing in order to allow the wounded to be brought to Egyptian hospitals. Israeli Troops Mass Along Border; Arab Anger Rises 12/28:In Gaza, officials said medical services, stretched to the breaking point after 18 months of Israeli sanctions, were on the verge of collapse as they struggled to care for the more than 600 people wounded in two days.
At Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, women wailed as they searched for relatives among bodies that lay strewn on the hospital floor. One doctor said that given the dearth of facilities, not much could be done for the seriously wounded, and that it was “better to be brought in dead.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross appealed on Sunday for urgent humanitarian assistance, including medical supplies, to be allowed to enter Gaza. Israeli officials said that some aid had been allowed in through one of the crossings. Egypt temporarily opened the Rafah crossing on Saturday to allow some of the wounded to be taken to Egyptian hospitals.
Israel made a strong push to justify the attacks, saying it was forced into military action to defend its citizens. At the same time, the supreme religious leader of Iran and the leader of Hezbollah expressed strong support for Hamas.
Across Gaza, families huddled indoors as Israeli jets streaked overhead. Residents said that there were long blackouts and that they had no cooking gas. Some ventured out to receive bread rations at bakeries or to brave the streets to claim their dead at the hospitals. There were few mass funerals; rather, families buried the victims in small ceremonies.
At dusk on Sunday, Israeli fighter jets bombed over 40 tunnels along Gaza’s border with Egypt. The Israeli military said that the tunnels, on the Gaza side of the border, were used for smuggling weapons, explosives and fugitives. Gazans also use many of them to import consumer goods and fuel in order to get around the Israeli-imposed economic blockade. Of course the Times is just one outlet but the coverage seems pretty balanced to me. I don't believe they've omitted any of the elements you've said are glossed over in the American media. I don't have the time to spend the day perusing media outlets but I spent most of the past two weeks at my in-laws on Long Island and will attest hat the coverage in Newsday (which I believe ranks in the top 15 circulations in the country) has also been well-balanced.
|
|
| | | 43 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 14:29
|
Also, it's hard for liberals to be outspoken against Israel when the Hollywood left is run by jews
It's hard for you and Baldwin(as slavishly liberal as they usually are) to approach any subject without injecting a left/right dichotomy that is condescending, insulting and delivered with a bombastic sense of moral superiority.
Using real life examples, instead of generic slams, is it hard for liberal Jimmy Carter to be outspoken against Israel when the Hollywood left is run by Jews(I capitalized it for you, as you would likely do if I were to write christians).
Is it hard for these liberal pro-Israel groups to be outspoken against Israel when the Hollywood left is run by Jews?
In the first sign of a post-election struggle to set the American Jewish community's Middle East agenda, a quartet of liberal pro-Israel advocacy groups is criticizing Jerusalem's decision to launch retaliatory attacks against Gaza.
J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Israel Policy Forum all issued statements defending Israel's right to strike Hamas installations in Gaza but saying, with varying degrees of forcefulness, that such actions will be counterproductive and damage Israel's security in the long run. In their statements, they called for intervention by the United States and the international community to restore a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
In addition to issuing a statement, J Street organized a petition that calls for "immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a meaningful ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza." The organization's online director, Isaac Luria, sent out a message Tuesday saying that J Street was already citing the 14,000 signatures collected as of Tuesday in conversations with President-elect Obama's transition team and Congress.
Two days earlier Luria sent an e-mail message under the heading "Gaza: Stop the Violence," in which he started out by declaring that the "Israeli Defense Forces struck the Gaza Strip, leaving hundreds dead and wounded -- pushing the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict further down a path of never-ending violence." In the message, which did not mention that the bulk of Palestinian fatalities were Hamas militants, Luria stated that "neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong," before calling on the incoming Obama administration to "lead an early and serious effort to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts."
You could ask a hundred liberals their opinion of the Israel/Palestine issue and get numerous conflicting opinions. I highly doubt that
"I can't be outspoken against Israel because the Hollywood left is run by Jews"
would be among them.
|
|
| | | 44 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Jan 04, 2009, 16:43
|
MITH there's some good stuff there. I could go through line by line and pull out some "codes" (it's late here though) but you make a point there was some good, counter point reporting there.
Is the excerpts you posted what you would consider the "main vibe" of the press you read/see on this story or the exception to the rule?
I'm obviously not in the states so I'm not getting as much exposure.
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 10558 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 10:53
|
the Hollywood left is run by Jews
Holy crap, what a statement!
|
|
| | | 46 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 11:25
|
Nerve Is the excerpts you posted what you would consider the "main vibe" of the press you read/see on this story or the exception to the rule?
Neither. I think the overall coverage I've seen has been pretty well balanced. But really that amounts to a week's worth of Newsday and NYT articles. I didn't watch much TV so perhaps the cable and/or broadcast TV news networks have shown the pro-Israel bias that you, Boxman and Baldwin say you've seen. I did catch one report from Isreal on FNC this morning that was pretty one sided in favor of Israel but as you know FNC is among the most biased American mainstream media outlets anyway.
|
|
| | | 47 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:08
|
MITH
I certainly have not claimed the media is monolithically pro-Isreal.
If anything they talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Something like this: "Isreal, the only democracy and ally the USA has in the middle east should be supported by the USA while we, the media, portray absolutely everything Isreal does as wrong and the cause of the problem, no wonder the world hates Jews, and the USA too."
|
|
| | | 48 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:18
|
When asked if you think the amount of Jews (sic) creates a pro-Israel bias in the media, your answer was, "Yes, not that I have a problem with that."
A position of supporting Israel as America's only ally in the Middle East and indiscriminatley portraying her actions as evil and the root of her own problems hardly sounds like a pro-Israel bias. And for the record I don't believe a hard look at the current coverage of the conflict fits either of the sides you present.
I think your delusions are in conflict with each other and post 47 is the best you can do to try to twist them together.
|
|
| | | 49 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:32
|
personally i'm finding this thread kind of disgusting, as there is a lot of anti-semitic rhetoric going on here. this whole jewish hollywood/jewish media drivel is, well, pretty vile...
...not to mention off topic.
anyway, back to being on topic.
i missed much of the war coverage while i was on vacation, save for a headline here or there. i've been caught up a bit by reading more articles, and talking to family and such. fortunately, my brother's reserve unit has not been called up yet, and i'm hoping that doesn't change.
hamas was democratically elected. for better or worse, they were chosen by the people, for the people, and deserve their rightful place as leaders of the Palestinian people.
THAT BEING SAID, if they cannot control their citizens from repeated attacks of any kind on another sovereign nation - regardless of whether those attacks are government sponsored or otherwise - then there comes a point when that other sovereign nation must take some sort of control, and that's what's being done here.
Israel learned a lot from the bombing war with hezbollah in lebanon a couple years back, which in a lot of ways was a disaster for israel. so, now, this time, israel sends in ground troops.
overall, i think a lot is being said when Egypt is pressuring Hamas to make peace.
|
|
| | | 50 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:38
|
What do you think of the blocade that was in place for 18 months, Tree?
|
|
| | | 51 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:45
|
With the sole exception of the link in one B7 post there was not one antisemetic sentiment expressed.
|
|
| | | 52 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 14:49
|
I take that back, there was one more. In information taken from the Jewish encyclopedia, some Jewish pharisees in history were quoted making unexpected and counterintuitive antisemetic remarks.
|
|
| | | 53 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 15:07
|
Tree
It's not fair to play the anti-Semitic card when people are making comments they sincerely believe to be factual.
If I say that for a long time white men have had a lock on CEO positions in America and it's been hard for Women and minorities to break that glass ceiling, does that mean I am "anti white men"?
Do you not acknowledge there is a strong Jewish media presence in this country, including ownership? Disproportionate to many other sub groups in size? If there is, why is it anti-semitic to suggest that could have some influence on how Israeli issues are reported?
Isn't it natural that certain groups of people, Christians, whites, blacks, Russians, Brits, Americans and yes Jews have a natural inclination to support their own "group".
Maybe it's not true, maybe that charge is way off base, but why can't it be discussed without someone accusing people of being "anti-Semitic" for making the observation.
I understand there is plenty of genuine anti-semitism in the country and world, but to paint people with that brush simply for discussing whether or not there is an "influence" in the media seems a bit overly sensitive.
For the record, regardless of what I've posted above, I have absolutely no concern for nor respect for the organization of Hamas, I'm just concerned about the hell the average Palestinian has been going through.
|
|
| | | 54 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 15:38
|
Why can no one answer why Egypt gets no grief for walling off Gaza from aid and commerce while Isreal does get vilified for it?
So why does the media get a pass for upholding that double standard.
I came up with an explanation but I don't hear anyone else coming up with their own.
|
|
| | | 55 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 17:37
|
What do you think of the blocade that was in place for 18 months, Tree?
i think it's very difficult to have an open border with a region that refuses to not only recognize your right to exist, but also espouses violence toward you and your destruction by any means necessary.
if Mexico or Canada because making violent threats against the United States, and began launching rocket attacks into our populaces, i'd put a blockade in place there too.
It's not fair to play the anti-Semitic card when people are making comments they sincerely believe to be factual.
the nazis felt they were doing the right thing. the people who followed them, believe the statements that the Jews were the problem, to be factual. that should excuse them?
i'm sorry. ignorance is no excuse. the ZOG myth, and all those related to it, have been refuted time and time again, that only a fool or a bigot would believe it to be true, and if you're a fool, then you need to be educated on the matter.
Isn't it natural that certain groups of people, Christians, whites, blacks, Russians, Brits, Americans and yes Jews have a natural inclination to support their own "group".
sure is. nonetheless, i think you'll find a heck of a lot of jews who believe israel is in the wrong. go hand out in BC - i met a ton of jews who think Israel shouldn't exist.
statements like "the jews control the media" are, anti-semitic. statements like "the blacks are the best athletes" are racist. it might be a simple parse of words, but altering the statement slightly to "jews control a lot of the media" or "some blacks are among the best athletes" changes things mightily.
I'm just concerned about the hell the average Palestinian has been going through.
i dont disagree with you. these are a people who have been victimized by poor leadership for half-a-century. they have been maltreated by their own leaders in significant fashion. not to say israel is completely innocent in any of this, but the palestinian leadership has used its own people as pawns, be it for personal wealth or political power.
Why can no one answer why Egypt gets no grief for walling off Gaza from aid and commerce while Isreal does get vilified for it?
The Jews run the media. they have no reason to report something that would be of benefit to israel.
|
|
| | | 56 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 17:45
|
statements like "the jews control the media" are, anti-semitic. statements like "the blacks are the best athletes" are racist. it might be a simple parse of words, but altering the statement slightly to "jews control a lot of the media" or "some blacks are among the best athletes" changes things mightily.
Tree precisely epitomizes exactly where much of the PC left gets it all wrong.
|
|
| | | 57 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 18:00
|
italics - Mith
Bold - My fisking
A position of supporting Israel as America's only ally in the Middle East and indiscriminatley portraying her actions as evil and the root of her own problems hardly sounds like a pro-Israel bias.
Of course not. I explicitly said the media talks out of both sides of their mouth on this. I said they want Isreal and the USA isolated and hated over the issue of zionism. But they historically also supported zionism as a way to set up this catch-22.
And for the record I don't believe a hard look at the current coverage of the conflict fits either of the sides you present.
Count the number of times you both hear the phrase 'America's only ally in the middle east' or the related 'the only modern democracy in the middle east'.
Then count the number of times you hear the phrase 'cycle of violence' which translates into 'Isreal is to blame because they defend themselves'. That media formula does not allow Isreal any justifiable action and it justifies and minimizes deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinians.
I think your delusions are in conflict with each other and post 47 is the best you can do to try to twist them together.
Take out your dollar bill and read the phrase, 'Order out of chaos'. The moral incoherence is the media's doing, not mine.
|
|
| | | 58 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 22:23
|
I explicitly said the media talks out of both sides of their mouth on this. I said they want Isreal and the USA isolated and hated over the issue of zionism.
It cracks me up how Baldwin portrays the media as this nefarious conspiracy, organized so efficiently evil as to rival the regimes of Stalin and Mao.
I get these hilarious scenarios invading my imagination when I read these offerings.
Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs are sitting around the CNN break room:
Blitzer: OK, we all agree that we want Israel and the United States isolated and hated, but how can we spin it so it's not completely obvious?
Cooper: Where's the intern tasked with monitoring Katie Couric? Maybe we should just repeat whatever she says verbatim. Or maybe we should just read whatever the New York Times says.
Dobbs: Well, I wish Glenn Beck hadn't jumped to Fox. Nobody hates the United States and Israel more than Glenn.
Blitzer: Except Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly.
Cooper: That's a good plan O'Reilly has - deny you're spinning while you're spinning. Those Fox guys are clever
Dobbs: Let's just repeat 'cycle of violence' over and over and be done with it.
Everyone in the room: Agreed!!!
The moral incoherence is the media's doing, not mine.
No, it's yours. But thanks for the chuckle.
|
|
| | | 59 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 23:25
|
They do in fact spend time reminding us that:
Isreal as the only democracy and ally in the region deserves America's support...
And then blather on about the cycle of violence and how Isreal shoulda put up with indiscriminate rocket attacks for another five months without doing anything about it but asking Hamas pretty please stop.
|
|
| | | 60 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 23:52
|
They do in fact spend time reminding us that Who is they? And please don't cop out by saying the MSM, especially since neither of your links supports that claim.
Of the websites in the first link, only the Boston Globe could be considered MSM on page 1. And the 'cycle of violence' is a legitimate description of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in any case. And not one MSM website you could find states:
Isreal shoulda put up with indiscriminate rocket attacks for another five months without doing anything about it but asking Hamas pretty please stop.
And nothing you posted in #59 supports the claim they[the media] want Isreal and the USA isolated and hated over the issue of zionism.
Of course the statement is unsupportable because it's ludicrous. You're making things up.
|
|
| | | 61 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 01:29
|
Why can no one answer why Egypt gets no grief for walling off Gaza from aid and commerce while Isreal does get vilified for it?
They are getting a LOT of grief for it over here in the Middle east...a LOT. It's been all over the press, there have been protests etc.
My guess it's not on the radar in the US because it goes deeper into the situation then most of our attention spans follow.
Also Middle East countries (except for Iran) generally don't like Hamas, they are pro Abbas and wish Hamas would go away.
|
|
| | | 62 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 01:35
|
They are getting a LOT of grief for it over here in the Middle east...a LOT
That is the first time I have heard of it. I'd love to be directed to some examples. What is Egypt's response?
|
|
| | | 63 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 01:39
|
the nazis felt they were doing the right thing. the people who followed them, believe the statements that the Jews were the problem, to be factual. that should excuse them?
That's such a absurd comparison. This is the problem with discussing any issue like this with you is you just go back to the holocaust and then anyone who says anything about Jews as a group you equate with Hitler.
It's fine with you we criticize Christians all day on this forum put criticize Jews in the same way and anyone who makes any comments is equated with Hitler.
It's no different then someone black playing the race card for any perceived criticism.
There's no point in even debating this with you if you are just going to play the Hitler card.
|
|
| | | 64 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 01:42
|
And not one MSM website you could find states:
Isreal shoulda put up with
They ALL do. Anyone who describes the situation as a 'cycle of violence' is trying to vilify self-defense and minimize the evil of deliberately targeting civilians.
If self-defense is bad then Isreal shoulda put up with...
Really this isn't rocket science and you could figure that out before reflexively denying everything I say.
|
|
| | | 65 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 08:31
|
Cycle of Violence is a wholly aplicable term, the outright rejection of which is a denial that Israel bears any responsibility for the conflicts she finds herself in.
But rather than debate the presence of "code" in that particular phrase, lets simply take an honest look at just how often that term is actually applied in the news. Now, in case any lazy-minded lurkers who B targets in #59 are fooled by his substuitute for honest research, let's establish that a search at Google News (as opposed to Google) using the terms israel+gaza yields over 185,000 results. Obviously it has been a very heavily covered topic over the past 30 days. And the number of hits at Google News for israel+gaza+"cycle of violence"?
315.
|
|
| | | 66 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 09:01
|
315 by itself means nothing.
If the 315 consists of large media outlets with good circulation then it's certainly more effective than 315 counts of it being on some backwater MySpace page.
|
|
| | | 67 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 09:17
|
To my knowledge, Google News does not return results from backwater MySpace pages. Of the 10 results on the 1st page, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Boston Globe are top 10 circulation papers. Not sure about the Detroit Free Press.
If you want a clear indicator that "cycle of violence" is not "code" for "Isreal is to blame because they defend themselves", take a look at the #5 and #6 results: Israeli papers, The Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz.
|
|
| | | 68 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 09:26
|
Actually in 2007 The Free Press was #12 and teh Globe was #15.
|
|
| | | 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 5303668 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 10:10
|
Why does this argument always go to "the media is biased?" Given the range of what the media is, this seems less and less true anymore.
Just a few years ago, conservatives were decrying the fact that the "MSM" (whatever that is) was hopelessly pro-Palestinian in their coverage. Nowadays, without real evidence, we're supposed to believe that the "MSM" is now pro-Isreal and always has been (remind anyone of a book? There was many popular terms coined out of it, including one that began "Big...."
|
|
| | | 70 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 10:10
|
Baldwin They are getting a LOT of grief for it over here in the Middle east...a LOT
That is the first time I have heard of it. I'd love to be directed to some examples. What is Egypt's response?
Dec. 29 Gulf News... Demonstrations have been held across the Middle East against the Israeli air raids, with many protestors also railing against Egypt for not opening its border with the Gaza Strip. link
Dec 31 Gulf News Cairo: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday hit back at Egypt's critics over the Israeli attacks on Gaza, and said that his country would not allow "anyone to serve his interests and extend his influence at the expense of Egypt".
Mubarak's comment was apparently in reaction to vociferous protests and criticisms made in several Arab countries against Egypt for refusing to fully open its border with Gaza, which has been under deadly Israeli attacks since Saturday.
link
A Second Gulf News article on Dec 29th Mayssaa Chaltaf, a Palestinian refugee who was born and raised in Lebanon and who has lived in Abu Dhabi for the past 26 years, feels the Egyptian government should play a larger role in assisting the injured Palestinians in Gaza by accommodating more numbers through the Rafah crossing.
"Palestine needs more assistance from its neighbouring country Egypt. Sending medical equipment and aid isn't enough, we need to hospitalise the injured, and cannot do that with the borders closed," said Chaltaf.
link
I went to a party new years eve and when the subject of the Israeli bombings came up, the first thing someone (a Syrian) at the party bitterly mentioned was that Egypt was sealing their border.
By the way there wasn't much of a discussion, people don't like to talk about politics here, it's sort of "not the thing to do".
|
|
| | | 71 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 11:56
|
Many thanks. Very interesting. I'll take all of that sort of intel you come up with.
|
|
| | | 72 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:01
|
NC - It's fine with you we criticize Christians all day on this forum put criticize Jews in the same way and anyone who makes any comments is equated with Hitler.
It's no different then someone black playing the race card for any perceived criticism.
again, ignorance, to me, is no excuse. in this day and age, any subscribing to the ZOG theory isn't being intellectually honest, or, they have an anti-Jew bias. it's that simple.
and my criticism of Christians is very specific. if you think i'm going to hell because i'm not christian, you're an idiot. if you think i'm less of a person for not being a christian, you're an idiot. if you want to try and force your beliefs on me via violence - be you christian, jew, muslim, or anything else - you're an idiot.
at risk of sounding cliche, my closest friends are christians. church going, bible lesson teaching christians. my best female friend used to work for a church, and went on missionary missions to places like morocco. my best male friend was a jew who converted to christianity.
i don't have an anti-christian bias. i have an anti-idiot bias.
back to the larger issue, this is one of those rare moments Baldwin and i agree. i'm equally as dumbfounded that the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Palestinians is seemingly casually overlooked by many people in a "well, that's no reason to go to war against them" kind of way, when, in reality, it's one of the few reasons i believe TO GO TO WAR.
the US went to war against Al-queda (granted, we were sadly sidetracked), because they targeted our citizens. the US went to war against Japan for the same reason nearly 70 years ago.
and so on.
|
|
| | | 73 | bibA
ID: 12036515 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:19
|
Tree - Do you have any knowledge as to the number of innocent civilian deaths (Israeli) that have been due to the rocket attacks from Gaza since the truce ended?
|
|
| | | 74 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:19
|
Tree, care to defend using artillery rounds to attack a target in a civilian area? No more smart bombs left in the bombers?
U.N. official: 30 dead after Israeli strike near school
Three Israeli artillery shells struck near the perimeter of a U.N. school in northern Gaza on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people and wounding 55, a United Nations official said.
"It's a very built-up area, so of course it was entirely inevitable that if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said at a U.N. briefing from Gaza City.
|
|
| | | 75 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:24
|
What is the ZOG theory?
|
|
| | | 76 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:29
|
Zionist Occupational Gvt. Anti-Semitic propaganda-myth which tree confuses with innocuously questioning whether Jewish media execs exert pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli treatment in media outlets.
|
|
| | | 77 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 14:00
|
tree confuses with innocuously questioning whether Jewish media execs exert pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli treatment in media outlets.
um, no.
there is zero confusion there. read up on various ZOG theories. read the forgery that is the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.
Control of the media (and financial markets) are two of the main components in any of these types of theories.
care to defend using artillery rounds to attack a target in a civilian area?
yep.
same thing that israel's attackers have been doing for years - hiding in civilian areas. for decades they've launched attacks near schools, hospitals, etc etc. it's a similar thing to what i was referring to earlier when i said the Palestinians have been constantly let down and destroyed by their own people.
|
|
| | | 78 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 14:15
|
same thing that israel's attackers have been doing for years
So Israel is no different than Hamas in that regard?
|
|
| | | 79 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 14:16
|
Tree...He's Backkkkk
and my criticism of Christians is very specific. if you think i'm going to hell because i'm not christian, you're an idiot.
Umm I'm not Christian and I don't believe in hell so is it possible you are the idiot?
at risk of sounding cliche, my closest friends are Christians.
Um I think it's fine to make specific criticisms about Christians, I do it all the time, just as I think it's fine to make criticisms about Jews (although I do that less) No different.
back to the larger issue, this is one of those rare moments Baldwin and i agree. i'm equally as dumbfounded that the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Palestinians is seemingly casually overlooked by many people in a "well, that's no reason to go to war against them" kind of way, when, in reality, it's one of the few reasons i believe TO GO TO WAR.
Well it's not surprising you are dumbfounded since there is a lot you aren't understanding about the various arguments. I made all my points above and I'm not going to repeat them for someone who is a "victim" and plays race cards and calls people idiots who don't agree with his points. I'll just go back to ignoring your posts like I normally do.
You are too emotionally involved in the issue as a victim to have an intelligent debate.
(ignore) Tree's posts (/ignore)
|
|
| | | 80 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 14:24
|
By the way along with my belief that Jews have a certain amount of Influence (Influence not complete control) over the media, I would say the same is true to varying degrees about...
The rich conservatives liberals christians
I could probably come up with a few more.
Jews are just one group on the list but since neither Palestinians nor Arabs nor Muslims are on the list, I am simply saying it gives Israel better coverage then the Palestinians...
...but then what do I know, I'm just an ignorant idiot.
|
|
| | | 81 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 15:24
|
So Israel is no different than Hamas in that regard?
Hamas is targeting civilians. period.
Israel is targeting military positions, who are choosing to base themselves in the midst of their population.
if you think i'm going to hell because i'm not christian, you're an idiot.
Umm I'm not Christian and I don't believe in hell so is it possible you are the idiot?
i think you mis-understood me. when i said "you", it was the generic you, not YOU, specifically. there was no personal attack in your direction in my statement.
|
|
| | | 82 | Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 15:55
|
innocuously questioning whether Jewish media execs exert pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli treatment in media outlets.
Or, you can subscribe to the Baldwin theory of the media on this issue.
I explicitly said the media talks out of both sides of their mouth on this. I said they want Isreal and the USA isolated and hated over the issue of zionism.
Unfortunately, you run the risk of having your intelligence insulted if you happen to disagree.
Really this isn't rocket science and you could figure that out before reflexively denying everything I say.
So which is it? Is the media pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or are there a myriad of positions? If there are a myriad of positions, is this the media talking out of both sides of their mouths, or could it be that there is no media that reports in concert and collusion with a unified agenda?
More than 'cycle of violence', the term currently getting the most play is 'response', with any number of adjectives preceding it, pro and con.
While conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer of the MSM Washington Post is an aggressive defender of Israel's actions, liberal David Young, writing for the non-MSM Huffington Post, feels that Israel's response is curious in its timing.
Examples like these make it impossible to take sweeping statements like,
They[MSM websites] ALL do. Anyone who describes the situation as a 'cycle of violence' is trying to vilify self-defense and minimize the evil of deliberately targeting civilians.
in a context other than an offering of gibberish.
Baldwin is correct when he states this isn't rocket science. If it were, I'd have nothing to say, because I'd be completely out of my element.
However, we're talking about the media, and I've worked in the media enough to understand that even using the term the media in the context Baldwin does is an exercise in pretzel logic. I assure you there is no reflex action involved.
|
|
| | | 83 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 15:57
|
Tree as the strongest supporter of Israel here, I was wondering what you would do if you were Palestinian leader? what would be your plan to make your people the best off. Clearly they are not very well off they are shunned by other Arabs unless it makes them look good, they are distrusted and i am guessing seen as inferior by most everyone but especially Israel. I think it is clear they are not helping themselves now with the leaders they are choosing, but i guess desperate times call for desperate measures.
|
|
| | | 84 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 15:57
|
I singled tree out, but anyone can answer.
|
|
| | | 85 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 16:13
|
81- Hamas is targeting civilians. period.
Do you have any knowledge as to the number of innocent civilian deaths (Israeli) that have been due to the rocket attacks from Gaza since the truce ended?
|
|
| | | 86 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 16:18
|
Tree as the strongest supporter of Israel here, I was wondering what you would do if you were Palestinian leader? what would be your plan to make your people the best off. Clearly they are not very well off they are shunned by other Arabs unless it makes them look good, they are distrusted and i am guessing seen as inferior by most everyone but especially Israel. I think it is clear they are not helping themselves now with the leaders they are choosing, but i guess desperate times call for desperate measures.
i don't know that there is any good answer here. a former friend of mine once described Palestinians as the "n*ggers of the Arab people", and by that he meant they were people no one wanted to claim as their own. more than once, other Arab nations have refused to absorb the Palestinian populace into their own.
that being said, i don't think you can just up and move the Palestinians at this point. they *live* there. plain and simple. for better or worse, those are their homes.
and while the issue is very complex, it's also somewhat simple.
i think it has to start with the Palestinian leadership recognizing Israel's right to exist. As long as that doesnt happen, Israel's citizens don't exist, and thusly, there are no qualms with murdering them in the streets.
once that happens, you sit down at a table, and you talk. you negotiate. you remove the Palestinian element that wants to wage war, even though they were the ones who were democratically elected.
i believe, that if israel wanted to go in with unrelenting force, they could wipe Hamas off the map - but, as a result, face a long-term PR disaster.
Hamas is bad for the Palestinians if they want peace. Fatah is bad for the Palestinians if they want a government that is corruption-free, or at least a semblence of it.
anyway, i got off topic, because, well, i dont think this wraps up in a nice neat bow.
i think palestinian leadership needs to educate its children better - not teach IN THE SCHOOLS that Israel is bad and it's ok to kill Israelis.
this is a multi-generational change that needs to happens, and i dont think there is any short term or easy answer.
but it needs to start with Palestinian recognition of Israel.
|
|
| | | 87 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 16:38
|
Clearly they are not very well off they are shunned by other Arabs unless it makes them look good, they are distrusted and i am guessing seen as inferior by most everyone but especially Israel.
There is a split in Palestine right now between Hamas which is the group you are describing above who controls Gaza and the group Fatah (leader Mahmoud Abbas) who control the west bank.
The west and moderate Arab states like the Gulf States and Egypt support Abbas while anti West Arab states, primarily Iran supports Hamas.
The moderates Arabs would be happy to see the more extremist Hamas lose power, they are betting on Fatah as the key to possible future peace. So when you say Palestine is "shunned" by the Arabs you really mean specifically Hamas.
|
|
| | | 88 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 16:49
|
(unignore) tree post (/unignore)
i believe, that if israel wanted to go in with unrelenting force, they could wipe Hamas off the map - but, as a result, face a long-term PR disaster.
Yeah same problem Hitler had.
i think palestinian leadership needs to educate its children better - not teach IN THE SCHOOLS that Israel is bad and it's ok to kill Israelis.
What are the odds of that with the current massacre taking place?
(ignore again) tree's posts (/ignore again)
|
|
| | | 89 | Perm Dude
ID: 3048613 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 17:02
|
So when you say Palestine is "shunned" by the Arabs you really mean specifically Hamas
I think this is true to a very large degree. But what isn't said is that Hamas is the democratically-elected government. We aren't just picking sides in a tribal dispute. We have to deal with Hamas as a legitimate government, despite the fact that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as well as their dedication to the "death to America." (not sure how they'll pull off the second one. They can't even aim).
|
|
| | | 90 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 17:12
|
nerv - Lets go back to 1948. It all starts there. The UN votes a 2 state solution. Israel celebrates. The Arabs do not accept this solution and attack Israel. Should Israel have sat back then ? Time after time Israel has been backed into a corner. Sometimes you have to respond. If the situation was swapped - Hamas had the army, Israel had Gaza strip do you think Israel would exist ? The only reason Israel exists is because Hamas is not capable of destroying it. If they were capable Israel would not exist.
If the Palestinians came out they are ready for peace and will not smuggle weapons, stop brainwashing their children do you think Israel would still fight them ?
|
|
| | | 91 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 18:24
|
I think the consensus position of the moderates in this debate (which I believe is everyone who has contributed with the exception of Tree, Baldwin and possibly WiddleAvi) is that while Hamas is clearly the violent agressor, the scope of Israel's reactions are often not in its own best long-term interests. And in the long run, they contribute to the perpetuation of the violence.
Baldwin will tell you I've just uttered code for "it's all Israel's fault" but he's the last person anyone should trust for an understanding of bias. The situation is most certainly not Israel's fault. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't do a much better job on the propaganda side of the war.
Personally, I believe recruiting and nurturing Palestinian moderates is the only way to bring a peaceful end. And it will probably take more than a generation of work and restraint to accomplish. That might be too much to ask but I don't see a more likely way to an eventual peaceful end. In my opiniion it beats contributing to the cycle.
|
|
| | | 92 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 18:25
|
WiddleAvi:If the Palestinians came out they are ready for peace and will not smuggle weapons, stop brainwashing their children do you think Israel would still fight them ?
It doesn't take brainwashing to make terrorists. I wonder how many terrorists Israel created today when they shelled that refugee camp while aiming for a school. Then in turn, how many of her future citizens did she condemn to an early death as a result of creating those terrorists? Why they couldn't have used smart bombs or a special forces team is beyond me.
Tree: Bottom line, Israel shelling a refugee camp (accidental or otherwise) is unacceptable. There are more accurate alternatives in a civilian zone than artillery shells. By doing things like that, Israel creates more problems than she solves.
|
|
| | | 93 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 18:26
|
NC - i believe, that if israel wanted to go in with unrelenting force, they could wipe Hamas off the map - but, as a result, face a long-term PR disaster.
Yeah same problem Hitler had.
nice one there.
comparing Israel defending herself against missile attacks to a guy who murdered 11 million people in concentration camps in an effort to control the world.
i'm kind of stunned if you're making that comparison seriously. in fact, it's truly a mind-boggling statement, and perhaps the worst thing ever uttered on this board, and that's saying a lot.
you can't possibly be serious.
i think palestinian leadership needs to educate its children better - not teach IN THE SCHOOLS that Israel is bad and it's ok to kill Israelis.
What are the odds of that with the current massacre taking place?
not great - which is actually why Hamas attacks Israel repeatedly in the first place. Hamas doesn't want peace. they want the destruction of israel one way or another.
PD - We have to deal with Hamas as a legitimate government
absolutely. and if one legitmate government anywhere in the world shot rockets into another country, we'd be hard-pressed to think the government fighting back was anything but in the right and acting in self-defense.
unless, of course, the country being attacked is Israel.
WA - amen, in so many ways.
|
|
| | | 94 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 18:47
|
Boxman - I keep hearing that the response should be in proportion to the attack. That whole idea sounds crazy to me. So in war you only fight back in proportion to what they are doing to you ? How do you win the war ? Was dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan proportionat ?
You are right killing civilians is not good for Israel. The goal of any war should be 0 civilians killed. So what do you suggest ? Should Israel just let Hamas do what it wants ? How do you propose Israel stop Terrorism ? Please don't tell me that if they didn't blockade the Gaza Strip then Hamas would not have the need to bomb Israel. Did Israel have a blockade in 1948 ? What about 1967 ? The Palestinians say that they are bombing Israel in retaliation for this or that. What was 1948 in retaliation for ? Existing ?
|
|
| | | 95 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:00
|
WiddleAvi: I don't care if Israel kills every member of Hamas.
What you don't do is use artillery, in modern warfare, to attack a school (which in this case was apparently a legit target) that is next to a refugee camp. Israel buys an s-load of weapons from us. I refuse to believe there weren't more intelligent alternatives.
|
|
| | | 96 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:09
|
Boxman - No question Israel has made mistakes. US has made mistakes in Afghanistan which most will agree we were right to go in. Does making a mistake mean we need to leave Afghanistan ?
So the next thing is how do you fight Hamas who shoot from right in middle of the civilian population ? It is impossible to fight Hamas and not have civilian casualties. So does that mean you don't fight Hamas ? Let me hear your idea on how fight Hamas ? Remember, the school that Israel shot artillery at today was being used by Hamas (Obviously with civilians nearby) to fight.
|
|
| | | 97 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:09
|
if Hamas is firing rockets from a school, how should israel respond? tell me some of those more "intelligent alternatives"....
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 3048613 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:13
|
Are they firing rockets from a school?
|
|
| | | 99 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:20
|
PD - Firing rockets from Gaza City. I don't know if they fired rockets from the school but they definitly were fighting from there. But as the link above shows they are shooting rockets from Gaza City which in very densely populated. Oh and by the way from the same article above “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.” <---These are the people Israel is fighting.
|
|
| | | 100 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:21
|
No question Israel has made mistakes. US has made mistakes in Afghanistan which most will agree we were right to go in. Does making a mistake mean we need to leave Afghanistan ?
Did I say Israel needs to stop attacking Hamas?
|
|
| | | 101 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 19:22
|
PD - They were firing mortal shells from the school
From the above article
Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there.
The army noted that Tuesday was not the first time Hamas had attacked Israel from within a school. The IDF released a video taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle in late 2007 showing terrorists firing mortars from right outside a school.
|
|
| | | 102 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 23:51
|
Tree i'm kind of stunned if you're making that comparison seriously. in fact, it's truly a mind-boggling statement, and perhaps the worst thing ever uttered on this board, and that's saying a lot.
Oh thanks, that's a huge compliment coming from you. I'll make sure I keep working that angle for you.
|
|
| | | 103 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 00:11
|
Widdle nerv - Lets go back to 1948. It all starts there.
Yeah Widdle I'd rather not go back that far, we've all been through it and it's just like chasing your tail down a hole. I've been trying to focus on recent history. If I try to expand it out much farther I fall into the abyss.
My whole point above was that yes Hamas has been firing missiles at Israel, but Israel shares some of the blame for these acts of war because they have sealed off the border, even from food and medicine, during the cease fire, which is in itself an act of war.
Palestineians are hungry, badly in need of medicine, badly in need of fuel and electricity.
The hospitals are running on generators because there is not enough electricity. They are having to make choices right now on who to treat and who to let die because the ability to care for the injured has been so degraded by Israel because of this blockade.
I say all this, as I mentioned above, not to take sides. I do not say it to imply that Hamas should target civilians. I say it not because I "like" or "support" Hamas, I don't. I brought all this up to show that the missiles being fired at Israel are not happening in a vacuum.
The Palestinians were being put through hell, by Israel and this is a direct reason for the missiles being fired at Israel.
Tree and George Bush would have us believe the only reason, the ONLY reason the missiles are being fired at Israel, is because Hamas wants to destroy Israel. That view points leaves out all the nuances mentioned above that are fueling the situation.
We can't keep going back 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years. At some point we have to get down to the reality of now if there will ever be an end to this.
|
|
| | | 104 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 00:44
|
Another point on "Hamas targeting Civilians".
I am not justifying it. I am not excusing it. There just has to be some context put on what they are doing.
Israel supporters love to say, Israel is only going after military targets, Hamas targets civilians. It's stated as though there is a choice.
Hamas is doing the only thing they are capable of. The only thing they have are missiles that can be fired into Israel, and they obviously can't even be aimed well because they weren't even hitting anything.
They didn't use the more accurate and longer range missiles until Israel attacked.
Israel is one of the most sophisticated armies in the world. They've been given advanced weapons by the United States. They have weapons that can target with pin point precision.
Hamas does not. Hamas has a sling shot against Goliath.
Is everyone assuming Hamas would not prefer to have the weapons to go after the military instead?
Even though Israel tells us they are not targeting civilians they've already blown up 5 mosques, schools etc because they are "near" military targets.
They are using the heaviest artillery in densely populated areas.
They have over the course of the conflicts going back decades killed more then 10X the number of civilians that Hamas has always with the excuse that it's because they were near military targets.
Again I am just trying to point out there are more nuances then saying simply "Hamas is targeting civilians."
|
|
| | | 105 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 01:25
|
Oh thanks, that's a huge compliment coming from you. I'll make sure I keep working that angle for you.
you're the one who compared Israel defending herself against rocket attacks to Adolf Hitler murdering 11 million. that's quite a statement.
The Palestinians were being put through hell, by Israel and this is a direct reason for the missiles being fired at Israel.
they've been firing missiles at israel for long before the blockade. i realize you said you don't want to go back and look at the past, but in even the recent past, Hamas as acted to terrorize Israel.
We can't keep going back 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years. At some point we have to get down to the reality of now if there will ever be an end to this.
fine. let's go back a couple weeks - did Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist? no, it did not.
IT ALL STARTS THERE.
I am not justifying it. I am not excusing it. There just has to be some context put on what they are doing.
Israel supporters love to say, Israel is only going after military targets, Hamas targets civilians. It's stated as though there is a choice.
Hamas is doing the only thing they are capable of.
sure as heck sounds to me like you're justifying it.
all Al Queda could do was hijack a couple of plans and crash them into buildings - is that ok by you, since, after all, it's all they could do in THEIR war?
Hamas has a sling shot against Goliath.
so, lay down your arms and come to the table and talk. but we all know that won't happen, because peace does not benefit Hamas.
They have over the course of the conflicts going back decades killed more then 10X the number of civilians that Hamas has always with the excuse that it's because they were near military targets.
israel has sophisticated weapons, Hamas does not. Hamas fires a missle from a school house, then scatters. Israel can't get those individuals, because by the time the missile is in israel, they're long gone - because the missiles are so unsophisticated.
for israel to get the terrorists who hide in schools, mosques, hospitals, etc, unfortunately, Israel must target near those areas.
or, the alternative, of course, is for Hamas to NOT fire weapons near those areas - or, again, are they doing the only thing they are capable of?
Again I am just trying to point out there are more nuances then saying simply "Hamas is targeting civilians."
but that's the bottom line, isn't it? that Hamas is targeting civilians, right? we should excuse it, because it's all their capable of?
they're terrorists, plain and simple, who want nothing other than the complete destruction of Israel - and Israel should play nice with them?
f*ck that, Israel already went that route. Hamas wants a war. they're getting it. and when peace finally comes - and hopefully soon - they'll be not much more than a bad memory.
|
|
| | | 106 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 02:05
|
Expecting this to be solved is naive. The only way this could be solved is if soneone got in a time machine, went back and erased the parts in the koran where it explicitly incites moslems to kill every Jew during the 'endtimes'.
Every moderate who rises up [and moderate palestinian leader is as big of an oxymoron as you'll ever find] is going to bump his head against the koran and literalist religious leaders who will read it to them.
This will not be satisfactorily solved. It just won't short of armageddon and God solving it.
Before that happens you may see Isreal destroyed, nuked finally by some moslem country like Iran, you will at some point see all religion quashed by world government [tho I know you won't believe that till it happens]. You could conceivably see palestinians out-birth their way into democratic control of Isreal. [Nazi Germany was democratically elected so don't cheer at that 'solution']
What you will not see is Palestinian governments genuinely making longterm peace with Isreal. You will see lots of hudna's however. Pay no attention.
|
|
| | | 107 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 04:29
|
Nerv - Hamas is not just doing what it could. Hamas has sent suicide bombers into Israel and TARGETED civilians. Israel was left with no choice but to blockade. Thats the only reason they are shooting rockets. If they could get into Israel to attack civilians they would. The blockade is in place in Gaza because Hamas leaves Israel no other choice. Give me your honest opinion. Do you think if Hamas laid down their weapons and there was no more threat that Israel would still blockade Gaza ?
Any by the way you cannot ignore histroy. This whole conflict is based on history. Hamas is fighting Israel because in 1948 Israel was given the right to exist.
|
|
| | | 108 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 05:54
|
Widdle your right, we can't ignore history, but at some point don't you have to put it behind you and move on?
Hamas has sent suicide bombers into Israel and TARGETED civilians. Israel was left with no choice but to blockade.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We aren't talking about "letting Hamas into Israel" we are talking about letting goods, that Israel is free to inspect, INTO Gaza. That's all.
How does letting a supply of food and medicine into Gaza allow them to blow up civilians in Israel?
Your point has nothing to do with what I've been discussing in terms of Israel sealing the border.
Baldwin is right, a time will come when the other middle eastern countries are going to catch up to Israel militarily and then everyone will wonder how it got this far.
I'm sure I am seeing a lot more over here then you are in the USA. We see the photos in the paper of the dead children, the blown off limbs, the carnage in all it's glory.
The front cover of my newspaper today has a photo of a Palestinian boy, maybe 6 years old, being carried, and holding a blood soaked rag to the side of his head. There is another photo of a boy with half his arm blown off. These are common photos.
Tree has tunnel vision and one sided logic and you are too emotionally involved on the issue to have a clear debate and I haven't got the mental energy to spend on that frame of mind. It wouldn't make a difference, you'll only see one side and you are a perfect example of why the peace process goes nowhere.
You put words in my mouth and completely distort my position. My counterpoints to your rantings are explained well enough above.
You play the bleeding heart liberal on most days but when Israel is involved you turn into a war mongering hawk. It's actually entertaining in some ways.
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 08:04
|
Widdle your right, we can't ignore history, but at some point don't you have to put it behind you and move on? - Nerve
Tell it to a wahabbi sunni relgious leader, a Komeini/hamas/shiite religious leader, etc. seriously imagine how that conversation would go. And not in wishful thinking mode. And btw those gory pictures are exactly what those moslem leaders want to see. They emphatically do not love their children more than they hate Isreal, in Golda Meir's words.
Until they are ready to do so, what use is suggesting amnesia to those under attack? Other than suicide?
|
|
| | | 110 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 08:12
|
Nerv - Just a link to show that Israel is allowing supplies through the border.
link
Please note the last sentence that Israel says it has been allowing supplies through the last 11 days.
|
|
| | | 111 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 08:18
|
and in this article about Israel allowing supplies and aid in, this line really stands out to me:
The number of armed fighters killed remains unclear. Gaza residents say Hamas fighters are known to have begun wearing civilian clothes and the organization is keeping its casualties secret and housing its wounded and dead in undisclosed locations.
Hamas is sacrificing the residents of Gaza with a tactic like that.
|
|
| | | 112 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 09:10
|
Hamas is sacrificing the residents of Gaza with a tactic like that.
No more so than artillery shelling a refugee camp.
|
|
| | | 113 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 09:28
|
If, say, American street gangs in San Diego were lobbing rockets into Baja and the Mexican response was to destroy the schools, hospitals and civilian homes in densely populated San Diego where the gangs operated out of, killing scores of times over the number of casualties suffered by Mexico, The United States would rightfully not have it, even if they were complacent in allowing the gangs to operate there in the first place.
|
|
| | | 114 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 09:30
|
You have to go way way back to Sharon in Lebanon [which if reports are accurate, was a war crime] to find any targeting of civilians by Isreal. Indiscriminate artillary fire on refuge camps has not credibly been charged against Isreal to my knowlege.
|
|
| | | 115 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 09:39
|
Indiscriminate artillary fire on refuge camps has not credibly been charged against Isreal to my knowlege.
They aimed for a school and hit a refugee camp instead with artillery fire. If Hamas is launching rockets from a school it becomes a legitimate target. My problem comes in that Israel has better capabilities and should be smarter than to use artillery fire near a refugee camp.
|
|
| | | 116 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 09:53
|
way way back to Sharon in Lebanon
I assume you meant way way back to Olmert in Lebanon, two and a half years ago.
Fleeing Lebanese civilians targeted by Israeli aircraft.
Details from Human Rights Watch:In an official statement on the incident, the Israeli military said that “Israel Air Force targeted an area near the city of Tyre, in southern Lebanon, used as launching grounds for missiles fired by Hezbollah terror organization at Israel. The IDF regrets civilian casualties while targeting the missile launching area.”
A photographer for an international news agency who arrived at the scene two hours after the attack told Human Rights Watch that he saw a white pick-up and a passenger car completely destroyed. He counted 16 dead bodies. This account was confirmed to Human Rights Watch by UNIFIL (the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon), which had dispatched a vehicle to the scene to recover the bodies and transport them to the city of Tyre. Subsequent news reports placed the number of dead at 20, including 9 children.
The photojournalist indicated that he saw two craters where the Israeli rockets had hit, one very close to the pick-up and another approximately 100 meters away. He was not able to identify the type of rocket used in the attack. UNIFIL did not provide any details about the rockets, as a spokesman for the mission indicated that they do not have an observation post in the vicinity. Journalists posted in southern Lebanon later reported that the attack appeared to be the result of rockets fired from helicopters.
Eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that some of the bodies were completely burned and others cut-up, which was corroborated by photos of the scene. Most of the bodies were clustered around the pick-up. The photojournalist interviewed by Human Rights Watch said he saw the body of one girl 20 meters away from the pick-up and the bodies of one man and a child 100 meters away, close to where the second crater fell. He indicated that he did not see any armed person among the bodies.
At 9 a.m. on Saturday, approximately 100 residents from the village sought refuge and humanitarian assistance at a U.N. peacekeepers position situated 1.5 kilometers from the village. The residents informed the U.N. peacekeepers that the IDF had ordered them to leave the village and that they had no means to escape besides fleeing on foot. According to a UNIFIL spokesperson, peacekeeping officers contacted their liaison officers at the IDF and the Lebanese army and did not receive confirmation of the evacuation order. Accordingly, the peacekeepers told the villagers to return to their village with the belief that this might be safer for them.
At 11 a.m., a group from the village of Marwahin left the town in the convoy that was subsequently hit. UNIFIL told Human Rights Watch that the individuals in the convoy were not part of the group of 100 villagers who had sought refuge at UNIFIL’s post because that group did not have vehicles to leave the village. Israel's position, if you recall, was that any and all vans, minivans, motorcycles and trucks would be considered Hezbollah targets.
|
|
| | | 117 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 11:01
|
Widdle I am referring to the blockade that has been going on for the better part of a year. Note further in the last paragraph of you article the criticism by the UN...
Israel insisted that it has allowed enough supplies into the territory during the past 11 days of conflict, but the UN countered that there was already a humanitarian crisis there because of shortages of food, fuel and medicine.
|
|
| | | 118 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 11:08
|
And btw those gory pictures are exactly what those moslem leaders want to see. They emphatically do not love their children more than they hate Isreal
Dude you have some crazy ideas sometimes. Do you sit around and make all this up?
I can only judge by what I see here. Lots of Muslims families together. The children smileand play just like American Children, the parents dote on them and smile at them and hug them just like American parents.
I don't see a difference.
Perhaps a bit Christian zealotry prejudicing your viewpoint?
|
|
| | | 119 | weykool
ID: 2842717 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 11:16
|
MITH:If, say, American street gangs in San Diego were lobbing rockets into Baja and the Mexican response was to destroy the schools, hospitals and civilian homes in densely populated San Diego where the gangs operated out of, killing scores of times over the number of casualties suffered by Mexico, The United States would rightfully not have it, even if they were complacent in allowing the gangs to operate there in the first place.
This has to be one of the worst analogies ever. Hamas is not gangs.....THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. To answer your silly hypothetical...If our government was not doing anything to stop the gangs then yes....the US would deserve what they get.
|
|
| | | 120 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 11:19
|
I agree the analogy made more sense when I used it during the July War in 2006.
|
|
| | | 121 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 11:47
|
This has to be one of the worst analogies ever. Hamas is not gangs.....THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. To answer your silly hypothetical...If our government was not doing anything to stop the gangs then yes....the US would deserve what they get.
by that logic it would be ok for city police forces to lob mortars into most gang infested areas because well the deserve it.
|
|
| | | 122 | weykool
ID: 2842717 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 12:21
|
Boikin please....You cant be that dense. I will give you some time to rethink your flawed logic before I give you the obvious answer.
|
|
| | | 123 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 12:26
|
Ill restate it this way then:
by that logic it would be ok for city police forces to lob mortars into most gang infested areas because that is an effective way to fight crime.
|
|
| | | 124 | weykool
ID: 2842717 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 12:40
|
Sigh....very disappointing. This is a problem with flawed analogies that lead to flawed logic.
The gangs are not the governmemt. The police in this case is the government and have hundreds of ways to effectively deal with gang members that dont include mortars. It is amazing something so easy to grasp can be over looked.
I am done with any more comparisons to gang members and Hamas for the obvious reasons that the original subject is far to serious to degrade it with silly and flawed logic.
|
|
| | | 125 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 13:48
|
Weycool, but don't you see you made said it all right there The police in this case is the government and have hundreds of ways to effectively deal with gang members that dont include mortars. And that was what i was trying to get at. Attacking Hamas with mortars makes about as much sense as fighting gangs with mortars. Maybe gangs and elected governments are not the same, but i bet you would find that many of the same tactics gangs use to control there turf are employed by Hamas to get elected.
|
|
| | | 126 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 14:17
|
Attacking Hamas with mortars makes about as much sense as fighting gangs with mortars. Maybe gangs and elected governments are not the same, but i bet you would find that many of the same tactics gangs use to control there turf are employed by Hamas to get elected.
maybe so. maybe not.
but totally unrelated. one, as you said, are gangs. the other, is A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT SPONSORING TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ANOTHER NATION.
|
|
| | | 127 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 16:50
|
Nerveclinic #118
1) I did not imagine child homicide bombers
2) or their parents celebrating after the fact
3) or their community celebrating after the fact
4) nor did I imagine the deliberate use of small children as combatants in organized infantadas
If Dubai is less inclined to see their small children as suicide bombers and target practice at the front, good for them.
|
|
| | | 128 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 17:42
|
If Dubai is less inclined to see their small children as suicide bombers and target practice at the front, good for them.
YA know it's really weird Baldwin, it's almost, (I don't want to get carried away but) almost like they are human, I swear.
I know that's hard to believe but I watch them walk around and I think, jeez, they are almost human.
I'm sure you'd be shocked.
|
|
| | | 129 | Boldwin
ID: 5704850 Wed, Jan 07, 2009, 22:23
|
But palestinians celebrating successfully turning their kids [and a dozen innocent bystanders] into hamburger in some sub shop in Jerusalem doesn't shock you.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 132 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 11:09
|
mmmhmmmm....
Elaborate?
|
|
| | | 133 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 12:09
|
as in "suuuuuuuuuuuure, Hezbollah knows nothing about it..."
|
|
| | | 134 | Perm Dude
ID: 59022923 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 00:48
|
The 1937 plan (accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Palestinians).
Take a look at what must now look like a mythic land for Palestinians. Palestinians have been getting let down by their leaders for many decades.
|
|
| | | 135 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 07:48
|
Let down? For what reason would the Arabs in Palestine have wanted to just hand over 1/5 of their territory in 1937, in the middle of the Arab revolt?
It is worth noting however that the story began well before 1948. Everyone seems to like to pick a different starting point to explain the origin of the conflict.
|
|
| | | 136 | Perm Dude
ID: 59022923 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 08:46
|
What are you talking about? "Just hand over" (wtf?). I think you are substituting someone else's argument for mine. And before you go and look it up, do you even known what the Peel Plan was, and how it come about?
This is a long and convoluted plan. And since 1937 (not 1948--I never mentioned 1948) the area Palestinians have been able to claim (as a result of negotiations directly, on their behalf, or through other means) have gotten smaller and smaller.
|
|
| | | 137 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 09:20
|
link
Meanwhile, Syria-based Palestinian militant groups including Hamas on Saturday rejected deploying international observers or troops in Gaza.
A statement issued by the groups after a meeting attended by Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal also rejected any security arrangement that "infringes on the right of resistance against Israeli occupation."
|
|
| | | 138 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 16:21
|
Hamas chief says no chance of deal with Israel
A top Hamas leader says the Gaza war has killed the last chance for settlement and negotiations with Israel.
Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal condemned Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip as a "holocaust" in a fiery speech broadcast on the Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera...
...Mashaal also called for an end to Israeli attacks, the removal of its forces from Gaza, and a lifting of the Gaza blockade.
BUT WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE!!!
i like that. Hamas wants to make demands, but not work on a deal. cute.
|
|
| | | 139 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 17:34
|
i like that. Hamas wants to make demands, but not work on a deal. cute.
Isn't that exactly what Israel is doing? They have said there aren't interested in any ceasefire and will not let up until their objectives are met: crushing Hamas' ability to launch rockets.
That's not moral relativism mind you, just pointing out that Israel is guilty of precisely the same thing you take exception to on Hamas' part.
|
|
| | | 140 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 17:42
|
MITH - Is Hamas willing to give up rocket attacks in exchange for Israel leaving gaza ? Does not seem like it. Israel has said their goal is to end rocket attacks. Meaning if Hamas says they will cease launching rockets Israel will leave.
|
|
| | | 141 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 00:23
|
Mith
If someone is outside my house throwing a steady stream of molotov cocktails at my house, I reserve the right to attack him and take every last bottle and anyone who isn't planning to assist with that can just butt out.
Isreal may have a non-negotiable demand, 'stop all rocket firing at us' and the palestinians have a non-negotiable demand, 'we won't stop killing jews until they are all driven into the sea'.
Those are both non-negotiable, but they are not morally equivalent as you are in fact claiming.
|
|
| | | 142 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 01:35
|
Widdle MITH - Is Hamas willing to give up rocket attacks in exchange for Israel leaving gaza ? Does not seem like it. Israel has said their goal is to end rocket attacks. Meaning if Hamas says they will cease launching rockets Israel will leave.
Is Israel willing to end the nearly year long blockade of food, medicine and energy into Gaza? If they had never started this during the cease fire Hamas may not have launched the rockets after the cease fire ended.
Everyone who supports Israel only wants to mention one side of the equation. I am not supporting Hamas but you can't discuss rockets or Baldwins Molotov cocktails in a vacuum.
|
|
| | | 143 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 01:41
|
Baldwin If someone is outside my house throwing a steady stream of molotov cocktails at my house, I reserve the right to attack him and take every last bottle and anyone who isn't planning to assist with that can just butt out.
If you surrounded someones house, didn't allow any food in, shut off their energy 12 hours a day, when they got sick refused to allow a doctor and medicine in...would they have a right to take action to feed and care for their family?
You must only have one eye because you seem to be able to only see one side of the story.
|
|
| | | 144 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 09:26
|
Post 136
And before you go and look it up, do you even known what the Peel Plan was, and how it come about?
I did have to refresh myself but after reading through the Peel Mandate I fail to see what point that makes in response to my post. That the Palestinians were all just fcuked anyway and might as well have just ceded a big hunk of their ancestral territory which had been promised to them as a reward for siding with the Allies in WW1? And that they should have done this because they should have known that the Jews, who were immigrating to Palestine in droves, would receive statehood and the authority to offer citizenship to every last Jewish man and woman on the planet anyway after the next world war? And that massive amounts of military aid from one of the world's emerging superpowers would ensure that reality?
Sure, the big letdown for the Palestinians lies with the 1937 leadership for not accepting the land cessation deal offered to them at that time.
I never mentioned 1948
When I wrote that it is worth noting that the story began well before 1948, my intent was actually to compliment your reference to events prior to 1948. Or perhaps it was more of a subtle jab at others, such as WiddleAvi, who are fond of citing that year as the starting point for discussing the conflict.
Posts 140 and 141
My point had nothing to do with any moral equivalence of Israel's and Hamas' actions or any ethical comparison of those two sides. It was simply that the specific thing that tree chose to whine about - non-negotiable demands, as Baldwin put it - are committed by both sides. The only issue I took is with Tree's generalities. For all his fervor, at times he seems like the least informed person in this discussion.
And what a laugh that I can't make any comparisons between the two sides at all without being accused of moral equivalence! It's like committing the sin of making any favorable besides-the-point comparisons regarding Don Mattingly in a thread that happens to be about the Hall of Fame.
|
|
| | | 145 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 09:32
|
Post 136
And before you go and look it up, do you even known what the Peel Plan was, and how it come about?
I did have to refresh myself but after reading through the Peel Mandate I fail to see what point that makes in response to my post. Is it that the Palestinians were all just fcuked anyway and might as well have just ceded a big hunk of their ancestral territory which had been promised to them as a reward for siding with the Allies in WW1? And that they should have done this because they should have known that the Jews, who were immigrating to Palestine in droves, would receive statehood and the authority to offer citizenship to every last Jewish man and woman on the planet anyway after the next world war? And that massive amounts of military aid from one of the world's emerging superpowers would ensure that reality?
Sorry, but I can't agree that the big letdown for the Palestinians was with the 1937 leadership for not accepting the land cessation deal offered to them at that time.
I never mentioned 1948
When I wrote that it is worth noting that the story began well before 1948, my intent was actually to compliment your reference to events prior to 1948. Or perhaps it was more of a subtle jab at others, such as WiddleAvi, who are fond of citing that year as the starting point for discussing the conflict.
Posts 140 and 141
My point had nothing to do with any moral equivalence of Israel's and Hamas' actions or any ethical comparison of those two sides. It was simply that the specific thing that tree chose to whine about - non-negotiable demands, as Baldwin put it - are committed by both sides. The only issue I took is with Tree's generalities. For all his fervor, at times he seems like the least informed person in this discussion.
And what a laugh that I can't make any comparisons between the two sides at all without being accused of moral equivalence! It's like committing the sin of making any favorable besides-the-point comparisons regarding Don Mattingly in a thread that happens to be about the Hall of Fame.
|
|
| | | 146 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 09:34
|
Meant to delete post 144 but I cant.
|
|
| | | 147 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 09:44
|
The only issue I took is with Tree's generalities. For all his fervor, at times he seems like the least informed person in this discussion.
far from it. but the issue is a simple one. Israel is well within her right - in every possible sense of the word - to protect herself - from the rocket attacks that another government launches at her.
if that includes closing a border, so be it. If Mexico started launching missiles into El Paso from Cuidad Juarez, then would you have a problem with a strict blockage from the US side?
we're talking about one government attacking another here - this isn't some rogue group. this is a democratically elected by the Palestinian people government attacking Israel, for no reason other than their desire to see Israel cease to exist.
blame the blockade, or anything else, but you're fooling yourself if you think it has anything to do with Hamas' stated desire to see Israel wiped off the map.
|
|
| | | 148 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 09:50
|
...in every possible sense of the word
What does that mean?
this is a democratically elected by the Palestinian people government attacking Israel, for no reason other than their desire to see Israel cease to exist.
Well that's certainly not true. Not that Hamas doesn't want to see Israel "cease to exist", but to say that was their objective in launching rockets - much less their only objective, is another one of those nonsensical things that leads me to believe that you are the least informed person in this discussion.
|
|
| | | 149 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 10:17
|
Israel's blockade was in response to the long-running attacks Hamas as perpetuated against her.
this blockade - nor these attacks by Hamas - do not exist in a vacuum.
|
|
| | | 150 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 02:17
|
Baldwin I learned some new insights to the Egyptian closing of the border with Gaza. This is from BBC today.
There is an outlawed group in Egypt called the "Islamic Brotherhood" which they consider a threat to their government.
Egypt considers Hamas an offshoot of this group therefore Egypt doesn't recognize Hamas and will only have relations with the Palestinian Authority.
|
|
| | | 151 | Boldwin
ID: 34044918 Mon, Jan 12, 2009, 07:49
|
I was well aware of the IB but was not aware of the connection Egypt makes. Very interesting. Unfortunately Egypts method of countering the IB seems to be to become more like them. Christians in Egypt are being so persecuted by the official authorities that the average person could scarcely believe the details if I gave them. Christian women are at serious risk of rape, forced conversion, [they just say she has converted whether she has or not], and forced marriage to her rapist. Many many other forms of persecution. Getting sealed up in the coptic church and burned alive would be a ho-hum day in an Egyptian news day. No point in calling the police. They are in on it.
|
|
| | | 152 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 10:07
|
Because every word, every picture, every video that comes from Hamas or out of Gaza or any other islamofascist area is a fake. Until irrefutably proven otherwise. - Barking Moonbat Early Warning System
|
|
| | | 153 | Razor
ID: 181051618 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 01:12
|
So in reading up on this a little, I came across this article from the LA Times which puts the civilian casualty toll for Israelis at 4 since the conflict began in late December. And on the other side, this article says that the IDF itself estimates that it has killed between 150 and 250 innocent Palestinian civilians in the past three weeks.
That's startling and the very definition of disproportionate response, in my opinion.
|
|
| | | 154 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361157177 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 08:40
|
Rzaor - How many civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor ? How many were killed when we dropped the bombs ?
|
|
| | | 155 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 09:56
|
I think, Razor, one of the issues is whether the allegation by Israel, that Hamas embeds its weapons, military and military leaders within a civilian infrastructure (mosques, hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, etc.), is true. Israel says it has proof that Hamas military leadership exists under a hospital, that weapons are stored in mosques, and more. So, if this is true, the question is then: Does Israel do nothing or attack these areas holding Hamas accountable for separating their military cache and personnel to safeguard their own civilians? Israel gave ample warning to the civilians, but they had no where to go. Did Hamas have options? These are not easy questions to answer, but I think one could argue that a responsibility falls on both sides to safeguard civilians. There are many issues here:
Israel is the lone, but powerful player on one side the region.
Israel is constantly attacked by various other "states" or terrorist groups, but not in the same level of magnitude as when Israel responds (due Israel's superior military might and refusal to engage in individual acts of terrorism such as suicide bombing)
Israel has blockaded the Gaza strip and made it difficult for Gaza to receive imports potentially making it difficult for Gaza's civilians to live properly, and giving Hamas more reason to attack.
I am sure there are many other issues. I don't know the answer, but know that Israel's responsehas to be considered at least within this context.
|
|
| | | 156 | Perm Dude
ID: 590291514 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 10:34
|
As well as the context of refusing any journalists into the area.
|
|
| | | 157 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 13:05
|
Rzaor - How many civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor ? 2,345 military and 57 civilians killed, 1,247 military and 35 civilians wounded
and they did not have nearly as technologically advanced as Israel.
How many were killed when we dropped the bombs ?
A total of 140,00 died within the next five years.
probably saved lives over and invasion on both sides and nearly everyone involved in the project question the actual use of the bombs, I wonder if the Israel soldiers question there orders to bomb a mosque or hospital?
|
|
| | | 158 | WiddleAvi
ID: 346482111 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 14:53
|
Walk- Well said.
I am not saying Israel is perfect. But Israel has the right to protect itself. You can say all you want that Israel has blockaded Gaza but you need to look at the reason they did so. 2nd, Hamas deseves as much is not more blame for the amount of civilians that are being killed. It's not hard to find online many stories of how Hamas uses civilians. Hamas themselves have a video online showing how they have a little kid leading the way for them as a lookout.
|
|
| | | 159 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 17:00
|
Bob Simon: History has passed by the opportunity for a two state solution.
|
|
| | | 160 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 390211315 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 03:28
|
Bob Simon and Pollywood:
|
|
| | | 161 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 390211315 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 03:33
|
*Pallywood
|
|
| | | 162 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 06:31
|
Making sure I've got the correct handle on Wilmer's post 160, in which he prefaced an expose on fake Palestinian news stringers with, "Bob Simon and Pollywood":
That - 9 years ago - 60 Minutes purchased some apparently bogus stringer footage and had Bob Simon file a report on what it depicted, renders anything Simon says on the Israeli conflict untrustworthy?
One interesting thing (aside from the standard Wilmer apparently holds the media to - I guess he never watches FOX News Channel) is that the producer of the "Pallywood" expose' ultimately comes to the same basic conclusion as Simon; as he/she puts it, "the end is not in sight".
Another interesting thing is that Wilmer (assuming he actually bothered to watch the clip before rushing to shoot the messenger) promptly did exactly what Simon said people do when the issue of the West Bank settlements is raised. He changed the subject.
|
|
| | | 163 | Baldwin
ID: 490541618 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 10:28
|
Someone saying 'the end is not in sight', makes them reliable? Just how much error is that brilliant insight supposed to cover over?
|
|
| | | 164 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 10:55
|
saying 'the end is not in sight', makes them reliable?
Uh, no.
|
|
| | | 165 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Jan 17, 2009, 11:32
|
i have to agree with MITH on this. one bad source, one bad piece of information, one item fed to a news reporter does not make everything else that reporter does disreputable.
yes, it puts that reporter under a finer microscope, but it doesn't discredit them.
The palestinians have shown themselves to be masterful at PR and dis-information. that a reporter was fooled is no surprise.
|
|
| | |
| | | 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 54131123 Mon, Feb 02, 2009, 15:01
|
Israel PM now crowing about disproportionate response.
He can do this, I think, because not one of his "friends" (be they other goverments, or pro-Jewish organizations anywhere) will dare criticize the Israeli government about pretty much anything they do. U.S. Jewish groups, in particular, will hollar about all sorts of things the Palestinians do but can't muster up the least bit of constructive criticism against the Israeli government. They're all enablers.
|
|
| | | 168 | Jag
ID: 580233023 Mon, Feb 02, 2009, 17:56
|
The only way of dealing with these terrorists is a disproportonate response. Those that constantly criticize Israel without calling out HAMAS, (Avi's post is a good example) are terrorist enablers.
|
|
| | | 169 | Perm Dude
ID: 54131123 Mon, Feb 02, 2009, 18:11
|
If they were "dealing with these terrorists" I'd agree. But what is actually happening is that two groups of people are firing at each other's homes, and one of them is happily proclaiming their willingness to do so disproportionally.
|
|
| | | 170 | bibA
ID: 50131215 Mon, Feb 02, 2009, 18:38
|
Jag - You seem to say that disproportonate response works. Did it in Gaza? What evidence that Israel has achieved its goal?
|
|
| | | 171 | Jag
ID: 580233023 Mon, Feb 02, 2009, 22:38
|
Nothing will work totally, unless Israel wants to completely move out of the Middle East.
|
|
| | | 172 | bibA
ID: 50131215 Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 12:03
|
OK, I guess I misinterpreted your statement: The only way of dealing with these terrorists is a disproportonate response.
|
|
| | | 173 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 12:05
|
Perhaps he mean that it's the only thing that he finds personally satisfying.
|
|
| | | 174 | Baldwin
ID: 9123198 Sat, Feb 28, 2009, 14:32
|
There's not a great current thread to drop this so here it goes...
Everyone likes to quote the meme that once the subject 'nazi' is brought up, the discussion is over. Somehow that's irrelevant and makes further discussion irrelevant.
To demonstrate just how utterly wrong that is, note the fact that nazi thugs currently occupy parts of Lebanon.The police are not utterly supine. Some SSNP members have been arrested. Weapons and explosives have been confiscated. Clearly, however, the state is more supine than it should be. A police officer who wandered upon the scene of our assault didn’t do anything. Not even the army stopped the SSNP when its black masked fighters conquered the western half of the capital with Hezbollah and Amal in 2008.

Flags of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party flying in Damascus' main streets.
I'm not an ally of Chrostopher Hitchens by any means but I'm glad he made it out of that situation and I'm glad some people won't tolerate nazi revival.
So many other reasons that that meme in my introduction is pernicous and misleading but this is a perfect example.
|
|
|
|