He gave an interview, discussing Hezbollah, in which he said:
"I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."
Leaving aside the fact that I think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong, I don't see any way that this statement can be morally justified.
It only took you 24 hours to think of a response to my question. Good job.
So, you think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong? That's Interesting...
David Fickling
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 August 2006
Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, according to an Amnesty International report.
The report said strikes on civilian buildings and structures went beyond "collateral damage" and amounted to indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks under the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.
Kate Gilmore, the Amnesty executive deputy secretary general, said the bombardment of power and water plants and transport links was "deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy".
"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong," she said.
"Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes. The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was collateral damage simply not credible."
Amnesty called for an official UN inquiry into human rights violations on both sides of the conflict.
The report's authors described the destruction of up to 90% of some towns and villages in southern Lebanon, releasing aerial photographs that showed Beirut's southern Dahiya district had been transformed from a bustling suburb into a grey wasteland.
"In village after village the pattern was similar - the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length," the report said.
"In some cases, cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result.
"Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents."
Israel launched more than 7,000 air strikes against Lebanon during the 34-day war, and naval vessels launched 2,500 shells, the report said.
Around one third of the 1,183 people killed in Lebanon were children, while 4,054 people were injured and 970,000 displaced.
Lebanese estimates suggest that 30,000 houses, along with up to 120 bridges, 94 roads, 25 fuel stations and 900 businesses, were destroyed.
Two hospitals were destroyed and three others severely damaged, while 31 "vital points" - such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, and electrical facilities - were also completely or partially destroyed.
...The Amnesty report said Israeli military policy seemed directed at destroying Lebanese popular support for Hizbullah, a tactic prohibited by the Geneva conventions.
"The widespread destruction ... in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah," it said.
...The report's allegation of disproportionate action echoes comments made during the conflict by international observers including French, Russian and EU officials and the UN humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_w ... ebanon_War
There have been numerous reports of attacks on fleeing civilians. The BBC reported that families evacuating the village of Marwahin in Southern Lebanon were struck on an open road by an Israeli missile attack; killing 17, many of them women and children.[79][80][81] Human Rights Watch called for an investigation into this incident.[82] On 23 July 2006 three families fleeing Tyre at the command of the IDF were attacked by rockets fired from Israeli helicopters; they claimed to be prominently waving a white flag from their automobiles,[83] however the Israelis had repeatedly warned civilians not to use vans due to their ability to carry Hezbollah rockets.
Attacks on ambulances and convoys
On 13 July three Red Cross volunteers were wounded when an ambulance was hit.[117]
On 18 July the IDF attacked a convoy of ambulances and trucks operated by the United Arab Emirates Red Crescent (UAERC) on the road between Damascus and Beirut. One truck was destroyed, two were damaged and four passenger vehicles were damaged, causing injuries.[118]
According to CNN's Paula Zahn on 24 July, the Red Cross said that "an Israeli missile hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances that were parked inside the Lebanese town of Qana evacuating civilians—the wounded included a 60-year-old woman and 12-year-old boy who's now in a coma."[91] The ambulances were hit around 11:15 pm while wounded patients were being transferred from one ambulance to another. The ICRC recorded nine people including six Red Cross volunteers wounded in the attack.[119] Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made the allegation that these attacks were staged one month later, but was rebuked by the Red Cross for relying on an unverified internet blog in making his accusation.[120] Israel has since said it "cannot tell for sure" if it hit the ambulances.[121]
It was reported on 26 July that "at least 10 Lebanese ambulances bearing the emblem of the international red cross have [...] become targets in Israeli air strikes",[21] resulting in the injury of six emergency workers.[122] Additionally, an ambulance marked as belonging to the Shiite Amal militia was struck by Israeli aircraft fire near Tyre.[123]
On 11 August it was reported that the IDF had wounded several aid workers during an airstrike that hit a Lebanese Red Cross ambulance in Tibnin, southeast of Tyre.[124] It was also reported by Associated Press that an ambulance dispatched to deal with the casualties from the airstrikes against a civilian convoy originating in Marjayoun was also attacked.[125] The Red Cross also confirmed that a Red Cross worker had been killed in the attack on the convoy.
"I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."
Leaving aside the fact that I think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong, I don't see any way that this statement can be morally justified.
So you are opposed to the bombing of Germany's cities during WWII then?
Is that supposed to be a difficult question? Yes, to the extent that German cities were bombed only to kill civilians I don't think the bombing was justified.
Are you trying to defend Finkelstein's assertion that terrorism is morally justified?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Is that supposed to be a difficult question? Yes, to the extent that German cities were bombed only to kill civilians I don't think the bombing was justified.
Do you think that that the aim of the bombing of German cities was simply to kill civilians? Do you not think that maybe the bombing campaign had a wider purpose, such as ending the war, and ultimately saving lives, including putting an end to the slaughter in the concentration camps?
Are you trying to defend Finkelstein's assertion that terrorism is morally justified?
Slf-defence is justified. The Israeli's killed approx 1000 civilians. If killing a handful of Israeli civilians would have the result of putting an end to their far greater slaughter, then yes, it's justified.
Ok, so you think that the ends justify the means. I think that is a morally bankrupt position to take. That means that no actions are off limits. And you seem to have a very poor grasp of what self-defense means. It is not carte blanche to kill whomever you like. If someone attacks you you are entitled to defend yourself against the attacker. You aren't entitled to walk down the street and start shooting up the cafe where some guys your attacker may know are sitting. That is called murder.
Your logic also happens to undermine your entire argument. If ends justify means then Israel, in seeking to achieve security, is justified in doing all the stuff that you are always posting about. After all, they've been fighting the Palestinians for almost 100 years now. Israel certainly has a legitimate interest in ensuring its security, and to that end, using your own logic, all the stuff that goes on is just means to an end.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Also, by the way, the Allies did not bomb German cities to save the lives of those in the camps. The Allies were interested in winning the war; saving people in the camps was just not a primary strategic concern during the war. As for ending the war sooner, I don't think that is a justifiable moral position to take. Are you saying that fire-bombing Dresden was morally ok? No joke, what you are arguing for is really a grossly immoral position.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I think that is a morally bankrupt position to take.
I don't give a flying f*ck.
What's your opinion of the fact that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in the 2006 Lebanon war? You've been strangely silent on that point up to now.
That means that no actions are off limits. And you seem to have a very poor grasp of what self-defense means. It is not carte blanche to kill whomever you like.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, approx 1,200 Lebanese civilians were killed, compared with 46 Israeli's. There is ample evidence, some of which I've listed above, that the Israeli military deliberately targeted civilians.
Yet according to your logic, Norman Finkelstein, and myself, are morally bankrupt for claiming that those being attacked have a right to retaliate?
Also, you've not answered my previous questions. Here, I'll post them again for you:
Do you think that that the aim of the bombing of German cities was simply to kill civilians? Do you not think that maybe the bombing campaign had a wider purpose, such as ending the war, and ultimately saving lives, including putting an end to the slaughter in the concentration camps?
If someone attacks you you are entitled to defend yourself against the attacker. You aren't entitled to walk down the street and start shooting up the cafe where some guys your attacker may know are sitting. That is called murder.
Your logic also happens to undermine your entire argument. If ends justify means then Israel, in seeking to achieve security, is justified in doing all the stuff that you are always posting about
'...But what of Israel’s right of self-defense? It exists, but it doesn’t apply.
Israel, when it conquered the occupied territories in 1967, could have established a sovereign Palestinian state. This would have made the Palestinians, not a subject people at the mercy of their conqueror, but an independent people, responsible for their own acts and for keeping the peace with other sovereign states. Had the Palestinians then attacked Israel, Israel would have had the right to respond in self-defense.
But Israel didn’t do that. Instead, it kept the Palestinians at its mercy, and its mercy didn’t materialize. Israel embarked on a settlement policy that amounted to a declaration of war on a helpless population. The settlements were part of a project to take the Palestinians’ land, all of it, for the use and enjoyment of the Jewish people. Of course Israel did not explicitly say it was going to take from the Palestinians the very ground on which they stood. But the settlements kept spreading, mopping up an increasing share of vital resources, and behind them was a settler movement, hugely powerful not only in the occupied territories but in Israel itself. This bunch of coddled fanatics, many of them American, quite openly proclaimed their determination to secure the whole of Biblical Israel for exclusively Jewish use. The Israeli government backed these racial warriors with unlimited military protection and extensive financial support...
This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
Self-defense gives you the right to resist attacks by any means necessary, and therefore, certainly, by the only means available. The Palestinians don't have the option of using violence which hits only military targets - apparently even the Israelis, with all their intelligence data and all their technological might, don't have that option! But suppose a bunch of thugs install themselves, with their families, all around your farm. They have taken most of your land and resources; they're out for more. If this keeps up, you will starve, perhaps die. They are armed to the teeth and abundantly willing to use those arms. The only way you can defend yourself is to make them pay as heavy a price as possible for their siege and their constant encroachment on your living space. You're critically low on food and medical supplies, and the thugs cut off those supplies whenever they please. What's more, the only weapons available to you are indiscriminate, and will harm their families as well as the thugs themselves. You can use those weapons, even knowing they will kill innocents. You don't have to let the thugs destroy you, thereby sacrificing your innocents (including yourself) to spare theirs. Since innocents are under mortal threat in either case, you needn't prefer the attackers' to your own.
This may not be the most high-minded conclusion. However it’s a conclusion we are forced to accept – we who very clearly countenance the killing and maiming of civilians in situations not nearly so precarious as what it is to be a Palestinian in the conquered, shrinking occupied territories. The thugs should keep their families from harm by ceasing their onslaught and withdrawing from the scene. Israel’s obligation is similar. It must defend itself at the least cost to others. It should keep its families from harm by giving the Palestinians complete control of their external borders and allowing the creation of a Palestinian state. After this, if Israel is attacked, it can respond. Before, its response is not legitimate self-defense but continued aggression.
Also, by the way, the Allies did not bomb German cities to save the lives of those in the camps. The Allies were interested in winning the war; saving people in the camps was just not a primary strategic concern during the war. As for ending the war sooner, I don't think that is a justifiable moral position to take. Are you saying that fire-bombing Dresden was morally ok? No joke, what you are arguing for is really a grossly immoral position.
I do find it ironic that I'm being preached to about morality by an apologist of Israel.
Anyway, the Allies knew what was happening in the camps, and it was one factor in them wanting to end the war as quickly as possible. That, along with the knowledge of Hitlers pursuit of nuclear weapons.
It is not carte blanche to kill whomever you like.
I refer you again to my post above detailing Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians during the 2006 war on Lebanon.
I'll also remind you of the 2008-2009 war on Gaza that left over 1000 Palestinian civilians dead, and in which Israel was accused by every single major Human rights organization of war crimes.
But those people firing rockets into Israel in retaliation are the terrorists, right?
Re. StandWithUs: I'm not a supporter. I don't like their organization. I posted the link simply because it provided a useful roundup of information from other newssources. I'll note that guilt by association is a neat rhetorical tool to use in an argument, but it doesn't actually carry any logical weight.
How does that make any sense? I am sure you have a legitimate reason that you don't like them or support them but you can put full trust in their shit flyer which isn't below you for you to use in an argument. Why not just use a source that hasn't been proven to be dissillusioned liars. A little vetting and a reliable source for your justification of collective punishment maybe too much to ask. I have read where you called out others on being lazy...
As I said to B, I'm not trying to categorically justify anything. Unlike you, it would seem, I don't view this conflict as an entirely one-sided affair. Lives have been lost on both sides, and neither side's hands are clean. I'm just pointing out that that as is often the case the situation is not as simple as your one-sided presentation would make it seem. I'm sure that very often actions taken against medical personnel are not justified; sometimes they are though, and the reason for that is the manner in which Palestinians have themselves violated the neutrality of medical personnel.
Sometimes and but and although...you continue to justify collective punishment. Your argument does not hold up because the idf was targeting ambulances before any of these dicoveries or misuses of ambulances were reported by the the occupying army. I gave you the links to human rights watch and B'tselem (diclaimer: I like them both, and refer to them because I know they haven't been made out to be fanatical liars) has documents listing the targeting of ambulances before any of your claimed misuses of ambulances. I am not going to list them, because like a good zionist you have ignored them and will ignore them and go back to its the Palestinians' fault...Your excuse is not unlike the "neat rhetorical tool" used by an abuser who claims to his victim, "you made me do it."
The fact that Norman Finkelstein says something doesn't make it ok. I, and as far as I can tell most other Jews who are informed about his views, think he's a terrible person who has traded on the suffering of his parents to make his career. I mean, how much of a hypocrite do you have to be to base your career on a sensationalist book that argues that Jews exploit the holocaust for their own gain?! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE FUCKING DOING WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOK!!!!! (Sorry for the ouburst, this shit just really makes me angry).
Although Byrnzie seriously took care of this, I would like to add that your anger is seriously misguided. He didn't not make a dollar off the Holocaust, if he made any money off the publication of his book, it was off the lying thieves he exposed as exploitating people like his parents. Where's the anger directed at the hucksters who once again made victims of the survivors of the Holocaust? He felt that the memory of the Holocaust should not be corrupted by these Jewish organizations that swindled (literally, no exaggeration) billions of dollars from survivors. It is not sensationalist and he lost a lot more than he gained. If he wanted to make a buck, don't you think he would have a better chance at that by being on the other side? I am sure he would have received full endorsement from every publication and kept his career as a professor and sold a lot more books lauding these crooks and towing the line. You seem to get all up in arms if you think someone is "disrespecting" the Holocaust. Finkelstein honors the survivors and the victims of the Holocaust in a way that you never will, he put out all on the line to bring awareness to their use and abuse by these fraudelent monsters.
Finally, I love how you manage in a single paragraph to attack me for supporting transfer (WHICH I HAVE MADE CLEAR I DON'T SUPPORT, but whatever) and then go on to basically imply that 6 million Israelis, most of whom, at this point, have probably been born in Israel, should go back to Germany, Russia, etc.
A two state solution and a jewish homeland can not work without a transfer of the Palestinian population within israel, the Palestinians will eventually outnumber the jews or the racism will in no doubt increase and apartheid laws constricting Palestinians citizens of israel, (such as not allowing them to marry any one outside israel or else they will lose their right to live in the land of their birthplace and ancestry) will create the conditions for a forced transer. Tzipi Livni, who is a "moderate" israeli politician stated, "Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them "you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere,'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saree-mak ... 27785.html I was implying transfer? My comment on anti-semitism had nothing to do with transfer. Its clear what it meant, I won't go on repeating myself as you ignore what's inconvenient for you to address and twist and turn and dance around trying to flip things around on me...since we are on a moving train, read Howard Zinn on what he believes on anti-semitism and israel.
I feel the same, there is so much out there, your posts help inform me. I always look forward to what you have to write.
there is too much out there. but such a complicated issue is going to have a lot written about it. some of it is contradictory so one has to be aware of what they are reading and from where. it all depends on who writes it and what their agenda is. you seem like you have been studying this for a long time. i have moments where i try really hard to read and get engrossed in it, and i come to realize that the longer i spend on it the more sad or angry i become, and anger is not what is called for in this situation. i do not have the cool head it requires to have things be worked out diplomatically. when i reach that point i take some time away from reading about it, and then i come back and read the new news it is still all the same shit on a different day. personally this topic makes me lose a good deal of faith in humanity. i mean, they are all human beings, and to know that the cruelty between people not only exists, but is unabated a lot of the time. it wears me out emotionally, knowing that no matter what the international community says nothing is going to change right now, today. it may in the future, but i mean for fucks sakes, israel will not even halt construction of the settlements long enough to come to the negotiating table and then it blames the palestinians for wanting to have that single precondition before agreeing to negotiations.... jeez.... everyone involved, especially the hardline israeli government, needs to remember that when you point your finger and blame other people you have 3 fingers pointing right back at you.
your posts have been very informative, and it is good to see someone else joining in the discussion aside from the 5-10 of us that are regulars in all of these israel/palestine threads. i don't contribute a lot to further the discussion because i don't know or don't remember exact particulars on some of the history, but i see how things are now and hope that by talking about it something good comes out of it.
I think you have so perfectly described the frustration that you maybe Palestinian I am glad to be here and join the discussion.
I think you have so perfectly described the frustration that you maybe Palestinian I am glad to be here and join the discussion.
nope, midwestern american....
one does not have to be palestinian to feel that frustration. you just have to have empathy and a conscience...
you know this reminds me of last week when i was watching the annual ANZAC day parade and remembering back to my childhood how always thered be banners from the various WW1 battalions stating where theyd fought. and there was always banners that announced one of those places was PALESTINE. so even before i knew the palestinians had major issues, palestine was a part of my consciousness. heck not just mine, but anyone who had family or knew anyone who fought there.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think you have so perfectly described the frustration that you maybe Palestinian I am glad to be here and join the discussion.
nope, midwestern american....
one does not have to be palestinian to feel that frustration. you just have to have empathy and a conscience...
And a bit of courage, people are afraid to speak out, I understand that its not easy. But if your not Palestinian, it just takes a special kind of person...
you know this reminds me of last week when i was watching the annual ANZAC day parade and remembering back to my childhood how always thered be banners from the various WW1 battalions stating where theyd fought. and there was always banners that announced one of those places was PALESTINE. so even before i knew the palestinians had major issues, palestine was a part of my consciousness. heck not just mine, but anyone who had family or knew anyone who fought there.
I'm afraid I had to look ANZAC day up...there really isn't a lot about it out there, it would be cool to find out more.
I think you have so perfectly described the frustration that you maybe Palestinian I am glad to be here and join the discussion.
nope, midwestern american....
one does not have to be palestinian to feel that frustration. you just have to have empathy and a conscience...
And a bit of courage, people are afraid to speak out, I understand that its not easy. But if your not Palestinian, it just takes a special kind of person...
im not sure it does take a special person viva. i think what it takes is a person with just a shred of decency and the ability to empathise with a dispossessed and oppressed people. and that goes for the jews as well. we all know their history so we should all be able to see where theyre coming from and know how important it is for any peoples regardless of who they are, to have some sort of homeland where ever that may be. i understand that and i know im not the only one here. but by the same token i can acknowledge that the way the israeli govt is going about it is wrong. and theyre doing it with impunity cause no one is taking them to task.
you know this reminds me of last week when i was watching the annual ANZAC day parade and remembering back to my childhood how always thered be banners from the various WW1 battalions stating where theyd fought. and there was always banners that announced one of those places was PALESTINE. so even before i knew the palestinians had major issues, palestine was a part of my consciousness. heck not just mine, but anyone who had family or knew anyone who fought there.
I'm afraid I had to look ANZAC day up...there really isn't a lot about it out there, it would be cool to find out more.
18000000 hits on googles should do it. might be best to disregard the ones about anzac cookies though.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
How does that make any sense? I am sure you have a legitimate reason that you don't like them or support them but you can put full trust in their shit flyer which isn't below you for you to use in an argument. Why not just use a source that hasn't been proven to be dissillusioned liars. A little vetting and a reliable source for your justification of collective punishment maybe too much to ask. I have read where you called out others on being lazy...
The flyer I linked to provided the sources for its information. If you have a problem with what's reported, take it up with the New York Times. The information isn't any less accurate just because it was relayed through a particular organization.
Sometimes and but and although...you continue to justify collective punishment. Your argument does not hold up because the idf was targeting ambulances before any of these dicoveries or misuses of ambulances were reported by the the occupying army. I gave you the links to human rights watch and B'tselem (diclaimer: I like them both, and refer to them because I know they haven't been made out to be fanatical liars) has documents listing the targeting of ambulances before any of your claimed misuses of ambulances. I am not going to list them, because like a good zionist you have ignored them and will ignore them and go back to its the Palestinians' fault...Your excuse is not unlike the "neat rhetorical tool" used by an abuser who claims to his victim, "you made me do it."
Your argument is logically flawed. The fact that there were attacks on medical personnel before the incidents I've brought up does not change the fact that those incidents did occur, and attacks on medical personnel subsequent to those events must be judged in light of them. Again, I'm not trying to categorically justify attacking medical personnel as a whole. I'm just pointing out that the situation today is much complicated by the fact that the neutrality of Palestinian medical personnel is, to some extent at least, in doubt.
A two state solution and a jewish homeland can not work without a transfer of the Palestinian population within israel, the Palestinians will eventually outnumber the jews or the racism will in no doubt increase and apartheid laws constricting Palestinians citizens of israel, (such as not allowing them to marry any one outside israel or else they will lose their right to live in the land of their birthplace and ancestry) will create the conditions for a forced transer. Tzipi Livni, who is a "moderate" israeli politician stated, "Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them "you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere,'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saree-mak ... 27785.html I was implying transfer? My comment on anti-semitism had nothing to do with transfer. Its clear what it meant, I won't go on repeating myself as you ignore what's inconvenient for you to address and twist and turn and dance around trying to flip things around on me...since we are on a moving train, read Howard Zinn on what he believes on anti-semitism and israel.
Transfer, to repeat myself once again, is not Israel's policy. Even the Livni quote you gave recognizes that (she is clearly not talking about transfer if she's explicitly reaffirming that Israeli Arabs would remain citizens of Israel with equal rights). As for anti-semitism, I always find it a little funny (and more than a little infuriating) when people blame Jews for anti-semitism. It's like blaming blacks for racism. Anti-semitism is a form of irrational bigotry. Jews are not responsible for it. And I think that after what the Jewish people have been through in our history, Zionism was (and is) a perfectly rational and legitimate response to anti-semitism (i.e., to grossly simplify, crazy bigots want to kill us, we tried to just mind our own business and assimilate, it didn't work and instead of ending anti-semitism we got the holocaust, so now we're going to take responsibility for our own defense so that such things will not ever happen to us again).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
for those interested ... it's about the judicial system put in place by israel in the occupied territories as told through archive footage and interviews with the former judges ... it's subjective obviously ... but i do think it highlights what ultimately is preventing a solution to this problem ... israelis ... only israel can fix this ... as long as they continue to be run by the hard right and cater to these extremists settlers ... there can be no peace ...
for those interested ... it's about the judicial system put in place by israel in the occupied territories as told through archive footage and interviews with the former judges ... it's subjective obviously ... but i do think it highlights what ultimately is preventing a solution to this problem ... israelis ... only israel can fix this ... as long as they continue to be run by the hard right and cater to these extremists settlers ... there can be no peace ...
i have not seen that movie. i will check it out this weekend though, so in advance, thanks for sharing.
and i agree with the underlined section. i wonder how representative of the actual israeli population that government really is...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
and i agree with the underlined section. i wonder how representative of the actual israeli population that government really is...
i would say that it's somewhat representative ... these are sponsors of the film ...
Noga Channel 8, Israel
Rabinowitz Cinema Fund, Israel
Sundance Documentary Fund
World Fund for Cinema
Lynn and Jules Kroll Fund for Documentary Film / Foundation for Jewish Culture
Radio Canada TV
Centre National du Cinema (CNC)
i thought i heard prior to the screening last night that a local Israeli Council helped sponsor the film at the festival ...
I haven't seen it yet, but I've read a little bit of the coverage it's gotten. I also agree with you that ultimately it's up to Israel to solve the conflict, and I also don't have faith in the current government. That said, there's a reason that a right wing government is in power. To simplify, the right has won by exploiting security concerns. If you go back to the '90s and look at the governments Israel has had there's a pattern. When Israelis thought there was a chance at peace they voted in left-wing governments that promised to negotiate a peace accord. When terrorism dashed those hopes they voted in right-wing governments promising security. So you went from right in the late '80s with Shamir to left with Rabin and the Oslo accords in the early '90s, then back to the right with Bibi the first time after a wave of Hamas suicide bombings in the mid-'90s and then back to the left with Barack at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00s, then back to the right with Sharon once the second Intifada started. The pattern may not still hold though. I think, unfortunately, that many Israelis have been through so much violence that they've just given up hoping for peace and are content with security. Obviously that's untenable, not least because it leaves the Palestinians totally fucked. My point, though, is that if responsibility for a solution ultimately lies with Israel, there's a lot the Palestinians can do to help convince the Israeli public to put their security on the line again for peace. Cause at the end of the day I think most Israelis have reached the point where security comes first. The people I talk to hate the occupation, but they won't support actions to end it if they think it'll put their (or their kid's) lives at risk. In short, it takes two to tango.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
When Israelis thought there was a chance at peace they voted in left-wing governments that promised to negotiate a peace accord. When terrorism dashed those hopes they voted in right-wing governments promising security. So you went from right in the late '80s with Shamir to left with Rabin and the Oslo accords in the early '90s, then back to the right with Bibi the first time after a wave of Hamas suicide bombings in the mid-'90s and then back to the left with Barack at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00s, then back to the right with Sharon once the second Intifada started....The people I talk to hate the occupation, but they won't support actions to end it if they think it'll put their (or their kid's) lives at risk. In short, it takes two to tango.
That's an incredibly dishonest assessment of the history of the conflict.
Let's just take Oslo as an example. You say that the so-called 'peace process' as it transpired at Oslo was undermined by Hamas suicide bombings?
How about we instead take a look at the reality of what occurred?:
"The U.S. has imposed its wishes so fully that it [Oslo] is universally described as a great achievement for diplomacy," said Chomsky. He described this as both a "very successful power play of U.S. policy" and an "achievement of propaganda that has to be admired."
"The rational way to evaluate whether a compromise was made is to look at the positions of the two sides that allegedly have made the compromises," Chomsky said. "The PLO side has had various ambiguities and internal contradictions, but there's one feature that's been pretty clear for about 20 years, and that's been a broad consensus on some kind of two-state settlement."
The Israeli position since 1968 has been very consistent, according to Chomsky, and is that Israel "should keep parts of the occupied territories, namely, the parts it wants, and it should relinquish the Palestinian population centers because Israel plainly doesn't want the burden of administering them." This vision, clearly spelled out in various Israeli proposals, was later "supplemented with fertile ideas of cantonization—small locally run [Palestinian] sectors separated from one another and surrounded and controlled by Israeli power."
Chomsky pointed out that since the Oslo accords were signed, "settlements have gone up about 10 percent, the land integrated under Israeli control has risen from 65 percent to 75 percent, and the structures of the settlements and the cantons have been instituted." He compared the post-Oslo situation to the apartheid system in South Africa during the 1950s, saying that for the Palestinians "it's not like the end of apartheid, it's like the beginning of it." According to Chomsky, the Oslo accords not only actualized long-standing Israeli goals, but in some ways went further, since they are "more or less the Sharon plan, the extremist position which went well beyond the early [Israeli] proposals."
Origins of the 2nd Intifada:
'The underlying reason is the continuous 30-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) signed in 1993 had raised hope. Palestinians anticipated a state and the end of occupation, but it was constantly delayed while the situation on the ground worsened. Israel expanded settlements and by-pass roads and confiscated more Palestinian property. Israelis continued to demolish homes and to uproot or burn olive and fruit trees, leaving people without sources of income. Checkpoints, closures and other signs of a tighter occupation were imposed; Israeli soldiers detained or turned ambulances back from checkpoints and Israel constantly reduced the number of permits to enter Israel to work. Israeli soldiers humiliated Palestinians at the checkpoints. Frustration, rage and despair mounted as Palestinians' human rights were infringed and their dignity ignored. Many Palestinians became disillusioned with the Oslo Accords and felt betrayed by them.
When Mr. Sharon with about 1000 armed soldiers and police visited the Noble Sanctuary (Haram ash-Sharif), a site sacred to Muslims, on September 28, 2000, it was like throwing a match into a pile of dry tinder. The following day, Palestinians protested and seven were killed by the IDF. This was the immediate reason for the intifada. The underlying conditions that caused the uprising still exist and have been made worse by a siege imposed in early March 2001 isolating cities, towns and villages and by the building of the "Security Fence."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e14120.htm "On September 29th, Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Al Aqsa Mosque, very provocative, when people came out of the Mosque, young people started throwing stones, the Israeli army started shooting, half a dozen people were killed, and it escalated.
The next couple of days -- there was no Palestinian fire at this time -- Israel used U.S. helicopters (Israel produces no helicopters) to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen.
Clinton reacted to that on October 3, 2000 by making the biggest deal in a decade -- to send Israel new military helicopters which had just been used for the purpose I described and of course would continue to be.
The U.S. press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact.
It continued when Bush came in. One of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of one of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments. You take a look at the reports, from say Jenin, by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont for the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity was the Apache helicopters buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything.
Now, this is enhancing terror, and we may easily continue. On December 14th, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution calling for what everyone recognized to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror.
This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. The U.S. vetoed it. 10 days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high-contracting parties of the 4th-Geneva convention, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities -- willful destruction of property, murder, trials, torture.
What happened in that meeting? I'll tell you what happened in that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it. Therefore, the media refused to publish it.
Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror by refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions which make virtually everything the United States and Israel are doing there a grave breech of the Geneva convention, which is a war crime.
These conventions were established in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high-contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years. They won't do it unless the population forces them to. And the population won't force them to as long as they don't know it's a fact. And they won't know it's a fact as long as the media and loyal intellectuals keep it secret."
Yosi, can you please explain how uprooting the settlers, fortifying the internationally recognized 1967 borders, with MINOR adjustments, and then fortifying those borders, will put Israeli civilian lives at risk?
I haven't seen it yet, but I've read a little bit of the coverage it's gotten. I also agree with you that ultimately it's up to Israel to solve the conflict, and I also don't have faith in the current government. That said, there's a reason that a right wing government is in power. To simplify, the right has won by exploiting security concerns. If you go back to the '90s and look at the governments Israel has had there's a pattern. When Israelis thought there was a chance at peace they voted in left-wing governments that promised to negotiate a peace accord. When terrorism dashed those hopes they voted in right-wing governments promising security. So you went from right in the late '80s with Shamir to left with Rabin and the Oslo accords in the early '90s, then back to the right with Bibi the first time after a wave of Hamas suicide bombings in the mid-'90s and then back to the left with Barack at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00s, then back to the right with Sharon once the second Intifada started. The pattern may not still hold though. I think, unfortunately, that many Israelis have been through so much violence that they've just given up hoping for peace and are content with security. Obviously that's untenable, not least because it leaves the Palestinians totally fucked. My point, though, is that if responsibility for a solution ultimately lies with Israel, there's a lot the Palestinians can do to help convince the Israeli public to put their security on the line again for peace. Cause at the end of the day I think most Israelis have reached the point where security comes first. The people I talk to hate the occupation, but they won't support actions to end it if they think it'll put their (or their kid's) lives at risk. In short, it takes two to tango.
well ... i've stated all along that i do not think this current gov't is interested in peace ... as they are catering to the right wing hardliners and the extremist settlers ... i also think that if peace was within reach - it would be sabotaged ... it may come across as a conspiracy theory but i wouldn't be surprised that there are factions within the powerful in israel that can ensure that there will always be a security threat to israel ... the best situation for those people is to continue to create conflict with the palestinians ..
Polaris, I'm not sure I'd phrase it as you have, but there are certainly powerful elements in Israel that for a variety of reasons don't want the conflict with the Palestinians to end (or, perhaps more precisely, are prepared to allow it to continue indefinitely rather than make certain necessary concessions for peace). I don't believe, though, that such people are in an inassailable position of power that would allow them to sabotage a peace process no matter what. The key is to convince the Israeli public to demand a meaningful peace process, and to then support it through the inevitable bumps in the road.
B, I'm not going to engage in this debate with you again. Suffice it to say that I'm describing the perspective of the average Israeli voter as I understand it to be. The Israelis majority supported Rabin because they believed that the Oslo process would bring peace. That majority crumbled after a wave of suicide bombings in '96, a pair of them on back to back days in March, including the first two bus bombings in Jerusalem and a bombing right outside the Dizengoff Center in central Tel Aviv, probably the busiest commercial district in the country.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Polaris, I'm not sure I'd phrase it as you have, but there are certainly powerful elements in Israel that for a variety of reasons don't want the conflict with the Palestinians to end (or, perhaps more precisely, are prepared to allow it to continue indefinitely rather than make certain necessary concessions for peace). I don't believe, though, that such people are in an inassailable position of power that would allow them to sabotage a peace process no matter what. The key is to convince the Israeli public to demand a meaningful peace process, and to then support it through the inevitable bumps in the road.
the thing is ... if the peace process can be derailed so easily ... and this by no means that i am lessening the impact of suicide bombings and the like ... but, considering all the shit the palestinians have gone through, i would hope israelis would have more resolve in pushing for a peace settlement ...
the thing is ... if the peace process can be derailed so easily ... and this by no means that i am lessening the impact of suicide bombings and the like ... but, considering all the shit the palestinians have gone through, i would hope israelis would have more resolve in pushing for a peace settlement ...
I'd hope the same. The problem, as I see it, is that resolve requires trust in the result. Most Israelis have simply lost all trust in the Palestinians. They worry that the Palestinians don't really want a permanent peace, or that those that do aren't powerful/resolved enough to control those that don't. Israelis look at what happened in Gaza and Southern Lebanon (both taken over by groups implacably hostile to Israel that have launched cross border attacks) after they withdrew from those areas, and they worry that the same will occur with the West Bank (only worse, given that the West Bank almost literally sits on top of Israel's major commercial/population centers). That's why I think that a lot rests with the Palestinians. I understand the emotional need to "resist" and accept its legitimacy (though not the immoral tactics often justified as "resistance"), but as I see it what is required is less violent resistance (which destroys trust) and more cooperation to build trust. I'm interested in practical results, and I think (hope) that if Palestinians could regain (and keep) Israeli trust that the Israeli majority will vote in a government willing to make peace. Maybe that's wishful thinking, I don't know.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
B, I'm not going to engage in this debate with you again. Suffice it to say that I'm describing the perspective of the average Israeli voter as I understand it to be. The Israelis majority supported Rabin because they believed that the Oslo process would bring peace. That majority crumbled after a wave of suicide bombings in '96, a pair of them on back to back days in March, including the first two bus bombings in Jerusalem and a bombing right outside the Dizengoff Center in central Tel Aviv, probably the busiest commercial district in the country.
Except that Oslo was never intended to bring peace, but was designed to ensure that Israel could carve up more of the West bank and force the Palestinians to live in isolated enclaves like the cantons in Apartheid South Africa. In the meantime, both during and after the Oslo 'peace process', illegal settlement building skyrocketed. But then I understand it would be convenient for you to ignore that, and place the blame for the Israeli occupation on suicide bombings instead. As if attacks on Israel justify building illegal Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians and placing Israeli citizens in harms way?
I'd hope the same. The problem, as I see it, is that resolve requires trust in the result. Most Israelis have simply lost all trust in the Palestinians. They worry that the Palestinians don't really want a permanent peace, or that those that do aren't powerful/resolved enough to control those that don't. Israelis look at what happened in Gaza and Southern Lebanon (both taken over by groups implacably hostile to Israel that have launched cross border attacks) after they withdrew from those areas
Except they didn't withdraw from Gaza. They turned Gaza into a virtual prison after the 2006 elections in which the Palestinians 'voted the wrong way', and the subsequent failed U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt.
But once again it's clearly convenient for you to place the blame for the illegal Israeli occupation on the heads of those people being occupied.
B, I'm choosing not to engage with your arguments because I've found that engaging with you is almost always pointless. You present extremely one-sided interpretations of events and then insist that they are "the facts" and then you are utterly unwilling to actually discuss the issues. I don't think that I can ever remember you showing even the slightest flexibility in any of the arguments we've had. To me that says that you aren't interested in a discussion and you aren't open to hearing anything that doesn't confirm your preconcieved notions. There's nothing I can do about that, but I can choose not to engage with you any longer.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Thought this was a really good op-ed in the NY Times last week:
FOR three years, attempts at negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership have failed because of a lack of trust. It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations — but that does not mean the status quo must be frozen in place.
Israel doesn’t need to wait for a final-status deal with the Palestinians. What it needs is a radically new unilateral approach: It should set the conditions for a territorial compromise based on the principle of two states for two peoples, which is essential for Israel’s future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.
Israel can and must take constructive steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps — regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it. Through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground.
Israel should first declare that it is willing to return to negotiations anytime and that it has no claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should then end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. And it should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders.
That plan would not take full effect before a peace agreement was in place. But it would allow settlers to prepare for the move and minimize economic disruption. Israel should also enact a voluntary evacuation, compensation and absorption law for settlers east of the fence, so that those who wish can begin relocating before there is an agreement with the Palestinians. According to a survey conducted by the Israeli pollster Rafi Smith, nearly 30 percent of these 100,000 settlers would prefer to accept compensation and quickly relocate within the Green Line, the pre-1967 boundary dividing Israel from the West Bank, or to adjacent settlement blocs that would likely become part of Israel in any land-swap agreement.
Our organization, Blue White Future, holds regular meetings with settlers. We have found that many would move voluntarily if the government renounced its sovereign claims to the West Bank, because they would see no future for themselves there.
Critics will argue that unilateral moves by Israel have been failures — notably the hasty withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which left settlers homeless and allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel.
But we can learn lessons from those mistakes. Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached, even though preparations would begin well before such an accord.
We don’t expect the most ideologically motivated settlers to support this plan, since their visions for Israel’s future differ radically from ours. But as a result of our discussions and seminars with settlers of all stripes, we believe that many of them recognize that people with different visions are no less Zionist than they are. We have learned that we must be candid about our proposed plan, discuss the settlers’ concerns and above all not demonize them. They are the ones who would pay the price of being uprooted from their homes and also from their deeply felt mission of settling the land.
The Palestinian Authority has already taken constructive unilateral steps by seeking United Nations recognition as a state and building the institutions of statehood in the West Bank. Neither action contradicted the two-state vision. Although many Israelis and the Obama administration objected to the bid for statehood, it could have moved us closer to that outcome had Israel welcomed it rather than fought it.
After all, Israel could negotiate more easily with a state than with a nonstate entity like the Palestinian Authority. And statehood would undermine the Palestinians’ argument for implementing a right of return for Palestinian refugees, since the refugees would have a state of their own to return to.
Constructive unilateralism would also be in the interest of the United States. If President Obama supported this strategy, he would simply be encouraging actions aimed at facilitating an eventual negotiated agreement based on the parameters proposed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.
We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now. We should strive, instead, to establish facts on the ground by beginning to create a two-state reality in the absence of an accord. Imperfect as it is, this plan would reduce tensions and build hope among both Israelis and Palestinians, so that they in turn would press their leaders to obtain a two-state solution.
Most important, as Israel celebrates 64 years of independence later this week, it would let us take our destiny into our own hands and act in our long-term national interest, without blaming the Palestinians for what they do or don’t do.
- Ami Ayalon is a former commander of the Israeli Navy and head of the Israeli domestic security agency. Orni Petruschka is an entrepreneur. Gilead Sher was a peace negotiator and chief of staff to the Israeli prime minister from 1999 to 2001
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
B, I'm choosing not to engage with your arguments because I've found that engaging with you is almost always pointless. You present extremely one-sided interpretations of events and then insist that they are "the facts" and then you are utterly unwilling to actually discuss the issues. I don't think that I can ever remember you showing even the slightest flexibility in any of the arguments we've had. To me that says that you aren't interested in a discussion and you aren't open to hearing anything that doesn't confirm your preconcieved notions. There's nothing I can do about that, but I can choose not to engage with you any longer.
I don't particularly care if you don't respond to me anymore. But I will continue responding to your comments, whether you like it or not. And people can make up their own minds about who to believe.
Comments
It only took you 24 hours to think of a response to my question. Good job.
So, you think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong? That's Interesting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/au ... ians.syria
Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes
David Fickling
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 August 2006
Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, according to an Amnesty International report.
The report said strikes on civilian buildings and structures went beyond "collateral damage" and amounted to indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks under the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.
Kate Gilmore, the Amnesty executive deputy secretary general, said the bombardment of power and water plants and transport links was "deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy".
"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong," she said.
"Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes. The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was collateral damage simply not credible."
Amnesty called for an official UN inquiry into human rights violations on both sides of the conflict.
The report's authors described the destruction of up to 90% of some towns and villages in southern Lebanon, releasing aerial photographs that showed Beirut's southern Dahiya district had been transformed from a bustling suburb into a grey wasteland.
"In village after village the pattern was similar - the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length," the report said.
"In some cases, cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result.
"Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents."
Israel launched more than 7,000 air strikes against Lebanon during the 34-day war, and naval vessels launched 2,500 shells, the report said.
Around one third of the 1,183 people killed in Lebanon were children, while 4,054 people were injured and 970,000 displaced.
Lebanese estimates suggest that 30,000 houses, along with up to 120 bridges, 94 roads, 25 fuel stations and 900 businesses, were destroyed.
Two hospitals were destroyed and three others severely damaged, while 31 "vital points" - such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, and electrical facilities - were also completely or partially destroyed.
...The Amnesty report said Israeli military policy seemed directed at destroying Lebanese popular support for Hizbullah, a tactic prohibited by the Geneva conventions.
"The widespread destruction ... in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah," it said.
...The report's allegation of disproportionate action echoes comments made during the conflict by international observers including French, Russian and EU officials and the UN humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_w ... ebanon_War
There have been numerous reports of attacks on fleeing civilians. The BBC reported that families evacuating the village of Marwahin in Southern Lebanon were struck on an open road by an Israeli missile attack; killing 17, many of them women and children.[79][80][81] Human Rights Watch called for an investigation into this incident.[82] On 23 July 2006 three families fleeing Tyre at the command of the IDF were attacked by rockets fired from Israeli helicopters; they claimed to be prominently waving a white flag from their automobiles,[83] however the Israelis had repeatedly warned civilians not to use vans due to their ability to carry Hezbollah rockets.
Attacks on ambulances and convoys
On 13 July three Red Cross volunteers were wounded when an ambulance was hit.[117]
On 18 July the IDF attacked a convoy of ambulances and trucks operated by the United Arab Emirates Red Crescent (UAERC) on the road between Damascus and Beirut. One truck was destroyed, two were damaged and four passenger vehicles were damaged, causing injuries.[118]
According to CNN's Paula Zahn on 24 July, the Red Cross said that "an Israeli missile hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances that were parked inside the Lebanese town of Qana evacuating civilians—the wounded included a 60-year-old woman and 12-year-old boy who's now in a coma."[91] The ambulances were hit around 11:15 pm while wounded patients were being transferred from one ambulance to another. The ICRC recorded nine people including six Red Cross volunteers wounded in the attack.[119] Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made the allegation that these attacks were staged one month later, but was rebuked by the Red Cross for relying on an unverified internet blog in making his accusation.[120] Israel has since said it "cannot tell for sure" if it hit the ambulances.[121]
It was reported on 26 July that "at least 10 Lebanese ambulances bearing the emblem of the international red cross have [...] become targets in Israeli air strikes",[21] resulting in the injury of six emergency workers.[122] Additionally, an ambulance marked as belonging to the Shiite Amal militia was struck by Israeli aircraft fire near Tyre.[123]
On 11 August it was reported that the IDF had wounded several aid workers during an airstrike that hit a Lebanese Red Cross ambulance in Tibnin, southeast of Tyre.[124] It was also reported by Associated Press that an ambulance dispatched to deal with the casualties from the airstrikes against a civilian convoy originating in Marjayoun was also attacked.[125] The Red Cross also confirmed that a Red Cross worker had been killed in the attack on the convoy.
So you are opposed to the bombing of Germany's cities during WWII then?
Are you trying to defend Finkelstein's assertion that terrorism is morally justified?
Do you think that that the aim of the bombing of German cities was simply to kill civilians? Do you not think that maybe the bombing campaign had a wider purpose, such as ending the war, and ultimately saving lives, including putting an end to the slaughter in the concentration camps?
Slf-defence is justified. The Israeli's killed approx 1000 civilians. If killing a handful of Israeli civilians would have the result of putting an end to their far greater slaughter, then yes, it's justified.
Your logic also happens to undermine your entire argument. If ends justify means then Israel, in seeking to achieve security, is justified in doing all the stuff that you are always posting about. After all, they've been fighting the Palestinians for almost 100 years now. Israel certainly has a legitimate interest in ensuring its security, and to that end, using your own logic, all the stuff that goes on is just means to an end.
If the result is ending the far greater slaughter, then yes.
I don't give a flying f*ck.
What's your opinion of the fact that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in the 2006 Lebanon war? You've been strangely silent on that point up to now.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, approx 1,200 Lebanese civilians were killed, compared with 46 Israeli's. There is ample evidence, some of which I've listed above, that the Israeli military deliberately targeted civilians.
Yet according to your logic, Norman Finkelstein, and myself, are morally bankrupt for claiming that those being attacked have a right to retaliate?
Also, you've not answered my previous questions. Here, I'll post them again for you:
Do you think that that the aim of the bombing of German cities was simply to kill civilians? Do you not think that maybe the bombing campaign had a wider purpose, such as ending the war, and ultimately saving lives, including putting an end to the slaughter in the concentration camps?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/01/13/hamas-and-gaza/
'...But what of Israel’s right of self-defense? It exists, but it doesn’t apply.
Israel, when it conquered the occupied territories in 1967, could have established a sovereign Palestinian state. This would have made the Palestinians, not a subject people at the mercy of their conqueror, but an independent people, responsible for their own acts and for keeping the peace with other sovereign states. Had the Palestinians then attacked Israel, Israel would have had the right to respond in self-defense.
But Israel didn’t do that. Instead, it kept the Palestinians at its mercy, and its mercy didn’t materialize. Israel embarked on a settlement policy that amounted to a declaration of war on a helpless population. The settlements were part of a project to take the Palestinians’ land, all of it, for the use and enjoyment of the Jewish people. Of course Israel did not explicitly say it was going to take from the Palestinians the very ground on which they stood. But the settlements kept spreading, mopping up an increasing share of vital resources, and behind them was a settler movement, hugely powerful not only in the occupied territories but in Israel itself. This bunch of coddled fanatics, many of them American, quite openly proclaimed their determination to secure the whole of Biblical Israel for exclusively Jewish use. The Israeli government backed these racial warriors with unlimited military protection and extensive financial support...
This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
Self-defense gives you the right to resist attacks by any means necessary, and therefore, certainly, by the only means available. The Palestinians don't have the option of using violence which hits only military targets - apparently even the Israelis, with all their intelligence data and all their technological might, don't have that option! But suppose a bunch of thugs install themselves, with their families, all around your farm. They have taken most of your land and resources; they're out for more. If this keeps up, you will starve, perhaps die. They are armed to the teeth and abundantly willing to use those arms. The only way you can defend yourself is to make them pay as heavy a price as possible for their siege and their constant encroachment on your living space. You're critically low on food and medical supplies, and the thugs cut off those supplies whenever they please. What's more, the only weapons available to you are indiscriminate, and will harm their families as well as the thugs themselves. You can use those weapons, even knowing they will kill innocents. You don't have to let the thugs destroy you, thereby sacrificing your innocents (including yourself) to spare theirs. Since innocents are under mortal threat in either case, you needn't prefer the attackers' to your own.
This may not be the most high-minded conclusion. However it’s a conclusion we are forced to accept – we who very clearly countenance the killing and maiming of civilians in situations not nearly so precarious as what it is to be a Palestinian in the conquered, shrinking occupied territories. The thugs should keep their families from harm by ceasing their onslaught and withdrawing from the scene. Israel’s obligation is similar. It must defend itself at the least cost to others. It should keep its families from harm by giving the Palestinians complete control of their external borders and allowing the creation of a Palestinian state. After this, if Israel is attacked, it can respond. Before, its response is not legitimate self-defense but continued aggression.
I do find it ironic that I'm being preached to about morality by an apologist of Israel.
Anyway, the Allies knew what was happening in the camps, and it was one factor in them wanting to end the war as quickly as possible. That, along with the knowledge of Hitlers pursuit of nuclear weapons.
I refer you again to my post above detailing Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians during the 2006 war on Lebanon.
I'll also remind you of the 2008-2009 war on Gaza that left over 1000 Palestinian civilians dead, and in which Israel was accused by every single major Human rights organization of war crimes.
But those people firing rockets into Israel in retaliation are the terrorists, right?
The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.
How does that make any sense? I am sure you have a legitimate reason that you don't like them or support them but you can put full trust in their shit flyer which isn't below you for you to use in an argument. Why not just use a source that hasn't been proven to be dissillusioned liars. A little vetting and a reliable source for your justification of collective punishment maybe too much to ask. I have read where you called out others on being lazy...
Sometimes and but and although...you continue to justify collective punishment. Your argument does not hold up because the idf was targeting ambulances before any of these dicoveries or misuses of ambulances were reported by the the occupying army. I gave you the links to human rights watch and B'tselem (diclaimer: I like them both, and refer to them because I know they haven't been made out to be fanatical liars) has documents listing the targeting of ambulances before any of your claimed misuses of ambulances. I am not going to list them, because like a good zionist you have ignored them and will ignore them and go back to its the Palestinians' fault...Your excuse is not unlike the "neat rhetorical tool" used by an abuser who claims to his victim, "you made me do it."
And the belief in a Jewish homeland comes from...National Geographic?
Although Byrnzie seriously took care of this, I would like to add that your anger is seriously misguided. He didn't not make a dollar off the Holocaust, if he made any money off the publication of his book, it was off the lying thieves he exposed as exploitating people like his parents. Where's the anger directed at the hucksters who once again made victims of the survivors of the Holocaust? He felt that the memory of the Holocaust should not be corrupted by these Jewish organizations that swindled (literally, no exaggeration) billions of dollars from survivors. It is not sensationalist and he lost a lot more than he gained. If he wanted to make a buck, don't you think he would have a better chance at that by being on the other side? I am sure he would have received full endorsement from every publication and kept his career as a professor and sold a lot more books lauding these crooks and towing the line. You seem to get all up in arms if you think someone is "disrespecting" the Holocaust. Finkelstein honors the survivors and the victims of the Holocaust in a way that you never will, he put out all on the line to bring awareness to their use and abuse by these fraudelent monsters.
A two state solution and a jewish homeland can not work without a transfer of the Palestinian population within israel, the Palestinians will eventually outnumber the jews or the racism will in no doubt increase and apartheid laws constricting Palestinians citizens of israel, (such as not allowing them to marry any one outside israel or else they will lose their right to live in the land of their birthplace and ancestry) will create the conditions for a forced transer. Tzipi Livni, who is a "moderate" israeli politician stated, "Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them "you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere,'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saree-mak ... 27785.html I was implying transfer? My comment on anti-semitism had nothing to do with transfer. Its clear what it meant, I won't go on repeating myself as you ignore what's inconvenient for you to address and twist and turn and dance around trying to flip things around on me...since we are on a moving train, read Howard Zinn on what he believes on anti-semitism and israel.
I think you have so perfectly described the frustration that you maybe Palestinian
one does not have to be palestinian to feel that frustration. you just have to have empathy and a conscience...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you know this reminds me of last week when i was watching the annual ANZAC day parade and remembering back to my childhood how always thered be banners from the various WW1 battalions stating where theyd fought. and there was always banners that announced one of those places was PALESTINE. so even before i knew the palestinians had major issues, palestine was a part of my consciousness. heck not just mine, but anyone who had family or knew anyone who fought there.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And a bit of courage, people are afraid to speak out, I understand that its not easy. But if your not Palestinian, it just takes a special kind of person...
I'm afraid I had to look ANZAC day up...there really isn't a lot about it out there, it would be cool to find out more.
im not sure it does take a special person viva. i think what it takes is a person with just a shred of decency and the ability to empathise with a dispossessed and oppressed people. and that goes for the jews as well. we all know their history so we should all be able to see where theyre coming from and know how important it is for any peoples regardless of who they are, to have some sort of homeland where ever that may be. i understand that and i know im not the only one here. but by the same token i can acknowledge that the way the israeli govt is going about it is wrong. and theyre doing it with impunity cause no one is taking them to task.
18000000 hits on googles should do it. might be best to disregard the ones about anzac cookies though.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The flyer I linked to provided the sources for its information. If you have a problem with what's reported, take it up with the New York Times. The information isn't any less accurate just because it was relayed through a particular organization.
Your argument is logically flawed. The fact that there were attacks on medical personnel before the incidents I've brought up does not change the fact that those incidents did occur, and attacks on medical personnel subsequent to those events must be judged in light of them. Again, I'm not trying to categorically justify attacking medical personnel as a whole. I'm just pointing out that the situation today is much complicated by the fact that the neutrality of Palestinian medical personnel is, to some extent at least, in doubt.
No. It's based on history.
Transfer, to repeat myself once again, is not Israel's policy. Even the Livni quote you gave recognizes that (she is clearly not talking about transfer if she's explicitly reaffirming that Israeli Arabs would remain citizens of Israel with equal rights). As for anti-semitism, I always find it a little funny (and more than a little infuriating) when people blame Jews for anti-semitism. It's like blaming blacks for racism. Anti-semitism is a form of irrational bigotry. Jews are not responsible for it. And I think that after what the Jewish people have been through in our history, Zionism was (and is) a perfectly rational and legitimate response to anti-semitism (i.e., to grossly simplify, crazy bigots want to kill us, we tried to just mind our own business and assimilate, it didn't work and instead of ending anti-semitism we got the holocaust, so now we're going to take responsibility for our own defense so that such things will not ever happen to us again).
http://www.hotdocs.ca/film/title/law_in_these_parts
for those interested ... it's about the judicial system put in place by israel in the occupied territories as told through archive footage and interviews with the former judges ... it's subjective obviously ... but i do think it highlights what ultimately is preventing a solution to this problem ... israelis ... only israel can fix this ... as long as they continue to be run by the hard right and cater to these extremists settlers ... there can be no peace ...
and i agree with the underlined section. i wonder how representative of the actual israeli population that government really is...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i would say that it's somewhat representative ... these are sponsors of the film ...
Noga Channel 8, Israel
Rabinowitz Cinema Fund, Israel
Sundance Documentary Fund
World Fund for Cinema
Lynn and Jules Kroll Fund for Documentary Film / Foundation for Jewish Culture
Radio Canada TV
Centre National du Cinema (CNC)
i thought i heard prior to the screening last night that a local Israeli Council helped sponsor the film at the festival ...
That's an incredibly dishonest assessment of the history of the conflict.
Let's just take Oslo as an example. You say that the so-called 'peace process' as it transpired at Oslo was undermined by Hamas suicide bombings?
How about we instead take a look at the reality of what occurred?:
http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/ ... ystem.html
"The U.S. has imposed its wishes so fully that it [Oslo] is universally described as a great achievement for diplomacy," said Chomsky. He described this as both a "very successful power play of U.S. policy" and an "achievement of propaganda that has to be admired."
"The rational way to evaluate whether a compromise was made is to look at the positions of the two sides that allegedly have made the compromises," Chomsky said. "The PLO side has had various ambiguities and internal contradictions, but there's one feature that's been pretty clear for about 20 years, and that's been a broad consensus on some kind of two-state settlement."
The Israeli position since 1968 has been very consistent, according to Chomsky, and is that Israel "should keep parts of the occupied territories, namely, the parts it wants, and it should relinquish the Palestinian population centers because Israel plainly doesn't want the burden of administering them." This vision, clearly spelled out in various Israeli proposals, was later "supplemented with fertile ideas of cantonization—small locally run [Palestinian] sectors separated from one another and surrounded and controlled by Israeli power."
Chomsky pointed out that since the Oslo accords were signed, "settlements have gone up about 10 percent, the land integrated under Israeli control has risen from 65 percent to 75 percent, and the structures of the settlements and the cantons have been instituted." He compared the post-Oslo situation to the apartheid system in South Africa during the 1950s, saying that for the Palestinians "it's not like the end of apartheid, it's like the beginning of it." According to Chomsky, the Oslo accords not only actualized long-standing Israeli goals, but in some ways went further, since they are "more or less the Sharon plan, the extremist position which went well beyond the early [Israeli] proposals."
Origins of the 2nd Intifada:
'The underlying reason is the continuous 30-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) signed in 1993 had raised hope. Palestinians anticipated a state and the end of occupation, but it was constantly delayed while the situation on the ground worsened. Israel expanded settlements and by-pass roads and confiscated more Palestinian property. Israelis continued to demolish homes and to uproot or burn olive and fruit trees, leaving people without sources of income. Checkpoints, closures and other signs of a tighter occupation were imposed; Israeli soldiers detained or turned ambulances back from checkpoints and Israel constantly reduced the number of permits to enter Israel to work. Israeli soldiers humiliated Palestinians at the checkpoints. Frustration, rage and despair mounted as Palestinians' human rights were infringed and their dignity ignored. Many Palestinians became disillusioned with the Oslo Accords and felt betrayed by them.
When Mr. Sharon with about 1000 armed soldiers and police visited the Noble Sanctuary (Haram ash-Sharif), a site sacred to Muslims, on September 28, 2000, it was like throwing a match into a pile of dry tinder. The following day, Palestinians protested and seven were killed by the IDF. This was the immediate reason for the intifada. The underlying conditions that caused the uprising still exist and have been made worse by a siege imposed in early March 2001 isolating cities, towns and villages and by the building of the "Security Fence."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e14120.htm
"On September 29th, Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Al Aqsa Mosque, very provocative, when people came out of the Mosque, young people started throwing stones, the Israeli army started shooting, half a dozen people were killed, and it escalated.
The next couple of days -- there was no Palestinian fire at this time -- Israel used U.S. helicopters (Israel produces no helicopters) to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen.
Clinton reacted to that on October 3, 2000 by making the biggest deal in a decade -- to send Israel new military helicopters which had just been used for the purpose I described and of course would continue to be.
The U.S. press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact.
It continued when Bush came in. One of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of one of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments. You take a look at the reports, from say Jenin, by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont for the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity was the Apache helicopters buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything.
Now, this is enhancing terror, and we may easily continue. On December 14th, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution calling for what everyone recognized to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror.
This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. The U.S. vetoed it. 10 days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high-contracting parties of the 4th-Geneva convention, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities -- willful destruction of property, murder, trials, torture.
What happened in that meeting? I'll tell you what happened in that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it. Therefore, the media refused to publish it.
Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror by refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions which make virtually everything the United States and Israel are doing there a grave breech of the Geneva convention, which is a war crime.
These conventions were established in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high-contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years. They won't do it unless the population forces them to. And the population won't force them to as long as they don't know it's a fact. And they won't know it's a fact as long as the media and loyal intellectuals keep it secret."
Yosi, can you please explain how uprooting the settlers, fortifying the internationally recognized 1967 borders, with MINOR adjustments, and then fortifying those borders, will put Israeli civilian lives at risk?
well ... i've stated all along that i do not think this current gov't is interested in peace ... as they are catering to the right wing hardliners and the extremist settlers ... i also think that if peace was within reach - it would be sabotaged ... it may come across as a conspiracy theory but i wouldn't be surprised that there are factions within the powerful in israel that can ensure that there will always be a security threat to israel ... the best situation for those people is to continue to create conflict with the palestinians ..
B, I'm not going to engage in this debate with you again. Suffice it to say that I'm describing the perspective of the average Israeli voter as I understand it to be. The Israelis majority supported Rabin because they believed that the Oslo process would bring peace. That majority crumbled after a wave of suicide bombings in '96, a pair of them on back to back days in March, including the first two bus bombings in Jerusalem and a bombing right outside the Dizengoff Center in central Tel Aviv, probably the busiest commercial district in the country.
the thing is ... if the peace process can be derailed so easily ... and this by no means that i am lessening the impact of suicide bombings and the like ... but, considering all the shit the palestinians have gone through, i would hope israelis would have more resolve in pushing for a peace settlement ...
I'd hope the same. The problem, as I see it, is that resolve requires trust in the result. Most Israelis have simply lost all trust in the Palestinians. They worry that the Palestinians don't really want a permanent peace, or that those that do aren't powerful/resolved enough to control those that don't. Israelis look at what happened in Gaza and Southern Lebanon (both taken over by groups implacably hostile to Israel that have launched cross border attacks) after they withdrew from those areas, and they worry that the same will occur with the West Bank (only worse, given that the West Bank almost literally sits on top of Israel's major commercial/population centers). That's why I think that a lot rests with the Palestinians. I understand the emotional need to "resist" and accept its legitimacy (though not the immoral tactics often justified as "resistance"), but as I see it what is required is less violent resistance (which destroys trust) and more cooperation to build trust. I'm interested in practical results, and I think (hope) that if Palestinians could regain (and keep) Israeli trust that the Israeli majority will vote in a government willing to make peace. Maybe that's wishful thinking, I don't know.
Except that Oslo was never intended to bring peace, but was designed to ensure that Israel could carve up more of the West bank and force the Palestinians to live in isolated enclaves like the cantons in Apartheid South Africa. In the meantime, both during and after the Oslo 'peace process', illegal settlement building skyrocketed. But then I understand it would be convenient for you to ignore that, and place the blame for the Israeli occupation on suicide bombings instead. As if attacks on Israel justify building illegal Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians and placing Israeli citizens in harms way?
Except they didn't withdraw from Gaza. They turned Gaza into a virtual prison after the 2006 elections in which the Palestinians 'voted the wrong way', and the subsequent failed U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt.
But once again it's clearly convenient for you to place the blame for the illegal Israeli occupation on the heads of those people being occupied.
FOR three years, attempts at negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership have failed because of a lack of trust. It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations — but that does not mean the status quo must be frozen in place.
Israel doesn’t need to wait for a final-status deal with the Palestinians. What it needs is a radically new unilateral approach: It should set the conditions for a territorial compromise based on the principle of two states for two peoples, which is essential for Israel’s future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.
Israel can and must take constructive steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps — regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it. Through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground.
Israel should first declare that it is willing to return to negotiations anytime and that it has no claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should then end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. And it should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders.
That plan would not take full effect before a peace agreement was in place. But it would allow settlers to prepare for the move and minimize economic disruption. Israel should also enact a voluntary evacuation, compensation and absorption law for settlers east of the fence, so that those who wish can begin relocating before there is an agreement with the Palestinians. According to a survey conducted by the Israeli pollster Rafi Smith, nearly 30 percent of these 100,000 settlers would prefer to accept compensation and quickly relocate within the Green Line, the pre-1967 boundary dividing Israel from the West Bank, or to adjacent settlement blocs that would likely become part of Israel in any land-swap agreement.
Our organization, Blue White Future, holds regular meetings with settlers. We have found that many would move voluntarily if the government renounced its sovereign claims to the West Bank, because they would see no future for themselves there.
Critics will argue that unilateral moves by Israel have been failures — notably the hasty withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which left settlers homeless and allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel.
But we can learn lessons from those mistakes. Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached, even though preparations would begin well before such an accord.
We don’t expect the most ideologically motivated settlers to support this plan, since their visions for Israel’s future differ radically from ours. But as a result of our discussions and seminars with settlers of all stripes, we believe that many of them recognize that people with different visions are no less Zionist than they are. We have learned that we must be candid about our proposed plan, discuss the settlers’ concerns and above all not demonize them. They are the ones who would pay the price of being uprooted from their homes and also from their deeply felt mission of settling the land.
The Palestinian Authority has already taken constructive unilateral steps by seeking United Nations recognition as a state and building the institutions of statehood in the West Bank. Neither action contradicted the two-state vision. Although many Israelis and the Obama administration objected to the bid for statehood, it could have moved us closer to that outcome had Israel welcomed it rather than fought it.
After all, Israel could negotiate more easily with a state than with a nonstate entity like the Palestinian Authority. And statehood would undermine the Palestinians’ argument for implementing a right of return for Palestinian refugees, since the refugees would have a state of their own to return to.
Constructive unilateralism would also be in the interest of the United States. If President Obama supported this strategy, he would simply be encouraging actions aimed at facilitating an eventual negotiated agreement based on the parameters proposed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.
We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now. We should strive, instead, to establish facts on the ground by beginning to create a two-state reality in the absence of an accord. Imperfect as it is, this plan would reduce tensions and build hope among both Israelis and Palestinians, so that they in turn would press their leaders to obtain a two-state solution.
Most important, as Israel celebrates 64 years of independence later this week, it would let us take our destiny into our own hands and act in our long-term national interest, without blaming the Palestinians for what they do or don’t do.
- Ami Ayalon is a former commander of the Israeli Navy and head of the Israeli domestic security agency. Orni Petruschka is an entrepreneur. Gilead Sher was a peace negotiator and chief of staff to the Israeli prime minister from 1999 to 2001
I don't particularly care if you don't respond to me anymore. But I will continue responding to your comments, whether you like it or not. And people can make up their own minds about who to believe.