.....do you think you can trust our government to align itself with the moral majority and be an honest broker for peace?..... or to act in the best interests of the people who sign their cheques? You might want to factor the answer to that question into your evolving opinion on the occupation
to ask another silly question.......who is "signing our cheques", and for what? I still don't understand Canada's interest in keeping Israel in charge over there. Just to keep in line with what the US wants? Because we didn't join them when they wanted our help in Iraq.
My statement was pretty broad, I suppose....a figure of speech used to show Harper's subservience to interests other than the peoples' will.
No, I don't think this is solely to appease the US. Tho anytime Harper has a chance to please our biggest trade partner, he jumps at it, that's for sure...Still, Canada has a long tradition of backing Israel, often more fervently than the US does.
From one of the articles linked in my last post: "he blocked the planned recommendations on Mideast peace talks even though the terms are a key part of U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign to revive negotiations as pro-democracy movements sprout in the Arab world".....a Canadian undermining American attempts at peace negotiations? ouch....
Check out this article for more statements re: Harper's support for Israel:
The (Jerusalem) Post described Canada as "the gold standard" of support for Israel. "There is not a government on the planet today more supportive of Israel than Harper's Canada."
Baird repeats this phrase at every opportunity. "I think the US is a good friend, too. I like to think we are better - a stronger friend."
During the visit, Israel Hayom, Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, said: "When he discusses the Palestinian issue, Baird sounds like he could have voted in this week's Likud primaries."
Likudniks agree. At a reception for Baird before departing Israel, Likud Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz mocked in jest, "I think Canada's an even better friend of Israel than we are."
Netanyahu singled out the prime minister at the UN in September. "Same heart and same values," said Netanyahu of Harper.
After Thursday's vote, Saeb Erekat, the most conciliatory of Palestinian politicians in regard to Israel, said Canada was being "more settler than the [Israeli] settlers".
Canada's diplomatic support for Israel is not limited to the United Nations. In September, Canada recalled its diplomats and shuttered its Tehran embassy, declaring it unsafe. The move prompted former CBC and AJE chief, Tony Burman, to quip: "Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu."
But the implications of Canada's disposition are potentially deeper than diplomatic verbiage. Classified defence department documents obtained by the Canadian Press detailed a 2011 visit to Israel during which Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Israeli army chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, "a threat to Israel is a threat to Canada".
The defence minister's phrasing was a slightly toned down version of a provocative statement made earlier by former junior foreign affairs minister, Peter Kent, that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada". The minister described the statement as a paraphrasing of the prime minister's policy.
The consequences of the Harper government's unconditional fawning of Israel have begun to surface. Perhaps most prominently, this one-sided approach played a central role in Canada being denied an elected seat on the United Nations Security Council - for the first time ever.
Harper is an evangelical christian, a member of the christian and mission alliance....brought to the church thru his guru - preacher/reform leader Preston Manning. evangelicals traditionally have a way higher level of support for Israel than other demographics...primarily because many of these extreme sects believe that the jews return to the holy land is prerequisite to the second coming of Jesus. I can't say for sure if that's part of the christian mission alliance's dogma, but I can say for sure that they believe in the second coming....so it makes sense that they'd be a christian zionist organization, helping the world toward end times and their rapture. He is a dispensational premillenialist. How's that for a mouthful?
A probably not entirely insignificant factor is the resource connections to the middle east. Harper is an oil guy. Having strong allies in the resource rich middle east is not a bad thing. Israel keeps middle east nationalism in check, which is important to western imperialists. Neocons use force to impose their economic will....neo-libs use underhanded trade practices. Harper is pure neocon. He's a fideist, evangelical climate denier, drug warrior, military and prison industrial complex bitch....basically a total piece of shit corporate shill, masquerading as a man of god.
One more point to your quote above - it wasn't Harper's government that kept us out of Iraq. That was Chretien's big 'legacy' decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had Harper been at the helm back then.
Ask some rhetorical questions so as to imply that quoted points are baseless, but never seriously engage with substance or import of said points.
Quickly change the subject to how bad Israel is.
He did nothing of the sort. He thoroughly schooled you in his last responses and you have nothing to offer in return but personal attacks. If you'd like to talk predicatbility, how about the way you attempt detente to begin every post, agreeing to certain points to appear reasonable, then spending the rest of your post actually conceeding nothing, and defending your stance. Soon you'll tell us how its impossible to debate the topic here because we're all one-sided and unreasonable...then you'll disappear until the next bout of Israeli war crimes, at which point you'll reappear with the latest Hasbara talking points at the ready.
How'm I doin?
Fun, right?
Now shall we get back on topic?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israel’s closest allies when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible.
Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as “the doomsday settlement” and “not a routine” one...
You're entirely right. The statement/question "So let me get this right: Hamas were elected in a free and fair election, but they are, like the Nazis, dictators" is a reasoned and substantive response to a point about electoral success and immorality not being mutually exclusive. And "They provide vital social services, and are supported by the majority of Palestinians, but 'so what?'" is likewise a well thought out and convincing response to the point that the same group can do good things in some respects and do really bad things in others. My bad for thinking that these obviously convincing retorts actually failed to offer any sort of substantive response whatsoever.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You also do very well fostering an environment of respectful debate by implying that any agreement or moderation in view by your interlocutor is actually just a ruse, and by suggesting that he is simply parroting a bunch of centrally disseminated talking points.
Did the Hamas spokesman tell you to say that?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israel’s closest allies when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible.
Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as “the doomsday settlement” and “not a routine” one...
I agree with you that the current govt. isn't interested in peace, and that they def. need to start cracking down on the settlers. And I agree that if Hamas disappeared tomorrow that wouldn't all of a sudden mean that peace would instantly occur. My point is that Hamas isn't going anywhere, and that the reality is that it is also a key player whose actions affect the possibilities for peace, and it is therefore irresponsible and unrealistic to expect that peace can be made without addressing the obstacle posed by Hamas.
sooo
you agree that israel isn't interested in peace and you also agree that if hamas ceased to exist tomorrow - there is still no peace ... you also agree that israel's actions have historically and continue to be an obstacle to peace ... yet in all your words - you want hamas to disappear ...
again - only israelis can save the palestinians that or a full scale american revolution (not likely to happen) ... hamas has about as much influence on whether peace happens or not as sri lanka brokering a peace agreement ... hamas is israel's best friend right now ...
the agenda has nothing to do with peace ... you know that ... the agenda right now is justification for oppression ...
Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.
International humanitarian law (IHL) establishes rules for armed conflict and military occupation with the purpose of minimizing civilian suffering and casualties.
These rules apply to a country engaged in an occupation of territory not its own. They apply to states and non-states alike. Thus, the rules apply to both Israeli and Palestinian military forces in territory occupied by Israel, including the Gaza Strip. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israeli military forces retain control over the territory, including its airspace and its land and sea borders. The Israeli military conducts periodic military operations with drones and F-16s and conducts military incursions on a regular basis. Israeli naval forces regularly intercept and shoot at Palestinian fishermen. Israeli forces along the border regularly shoot at farmers attempting to work their land in Gaza along the border with Israel.
As occupying power, the rules provide Israel with an obligation to protect Palestinian civilians and Palestinian civilian property.
The Israeli Defense Force web site provides a day-by-day and hour-by-hour report of actions it undertook in Gaza from November 14 to 21. Our observation in Gaza confirms that the Israeli military attacked and completely destroyed the Ministry of Interior, the Prime Minister’s government building, and several police stations. We also observed severe damage to the Ministry of Health, located near the Ministry of Interior. The damage to the Ministry of Health was not mentioned by the IDF website.
The IDF website also mentions Israeli air force attacks that destroyed or damaged residential housing. On November 17 at 7:10pm it reports that GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Tal Russo addressed the media stating, “Most of the weaponry of the terror organizations is stored in residential houses, from which they launch the missiles and the rockets against Israel.”
Similarly, on November 19 at 7:10am the IDF website reports, “The IDF targeted buildings owned by senior terrorist operatives, used as command posts and weapon storage facilities.”
On November 20 at 6:40 am, the website reports, “We also struck the house of several senior officers within the terror organizations, of the rank of company commander and battalion commander.”
Delegation members visited with Wallid Al Nasassra, a neighbor of one of the 55 houses destroyed by IDF bombs during Operation Pillar of Cloud. An F-16 rocket targeted a home 200 yards away in which his brother, Teewfiq Mamduh Id Abid, Teewfiq’s wife, Amani Ibrm Qader, and 10 of Teewfiq’s children were living. Two of the children were killed in this attack and 7 children were injured. Only one of the children escaped uninjured. The witness’s brother and his wife were both severely injured. The Al Nasassra area is between Rafah and Khan Younis, on land evacuated by Israeli settlers in 2005. Wallid Al Nasassra denied that rockets were stored in the demolished home or that the owners were in any way associated with fighters. Nor, he said, were any of the neighboring homes used for storing rockets. He also said that neighbors would not permit fighters to be in the vicinity of their homes. Israeli forces have so far released no evidence supporting their assertion of rocket storage at this or other residences they destroyed.
Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.
this is what i've been saying ... if we think critically on the situation - there is no other conclusion to this ...
with corporate media outlets more or less favouring israeli propaganda - we don't hear about this stuff like we would a rocket attack or suicide bombing ...
this is israel ensuring they have (in their eyes) further justification to their oppression ...
Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.
this is what i've been saying ... if we think critically on the situation - there is no other conclusion to this ...
with corporate media outlets more or less favouring israeli propaganda - we don't hear about this stuff like we would a rocket attack or suicide bombing ...
this is israel ensuring they have (in their eyes) further justification to their oppression ...
do you see how easy it is to simply say "well their had rocket launchers there"? if there were military installations located at the bomb sites wouldnt you think it would be discovered in the aftermath?
do you see how easy it is to simply say "well their had rocket launchers there"? if there were military installations located at the bomb sites wouldnt you think it would be discovered in the aftermath?
it's too the point it wouldn't shock me if hamas was funded indirectly by israel/us ... i mean they do nothing for the palestinian people ... their ability to inflict "damage" to israelis is minimal yet they represent the puppet by which israel/us continue their oppression ...
I agree with you that the current govt. isn't interested in peace, and that they def. need to start cracking down on the settlers. And I agree that if Hamas disappeared tomorrow that wouldn't all of a sudden mean that peace would instantly occur. My point is that Hamas isn't going anywhere, and that the reality is that it is also a key player whose actions affect the possibilities for peace, and it is therefore irresponsible and unrealistic to expect that peace can be made without addressing the obstacle posed by Hamas.
sooo
you agree that israel isn't interested in peace and you also agree that if hamas ceased to exist tomorrow - there is still no peace ... you also agree that israel's actions have historically and continue to be an obstacle to peace ... yet in all your words - you want hamas to disappear ...
again - only israelis can save the palestinians that or a full scale american revolution (not likely to happen) ... hamas has about as much influence on whether peace happens or not as sri lanka brokering a peace agreement ... hamas is israel's best friend right now ...
the agenda has nothing to do with peace ... you know that ... the agenda right now is justification for oppression ...
Exactly. He says the obstacle to peace is Hamas, despite the historical record making it blatantly obvious what the obstacle to peace is.
Do any of you know how to read? (Excuse my frustration, but it's incredibly annoying to have people constantly misconstruing what you say) I didn't say that Hamas is THE obstacle to peace. I said they are ONE obstacle to peace. It's the difference between necessary and sufficient clauses...basic logic. You're saying that if Israel alone changes but Hamas stays the same there will be peace. I'm telling you that that is an incredibly ill-informed, or naive, or intentionally misleading argument. BOTH Israel and Hamas need to change for there to be a lasting peace. The alternative is that Israel changes, makes peace with whatever moderate Palestinian partner it can find, but is eventually forced to respond to continued Hamas violence.
You'll respond that there won't be continued Hamas violence, but therein lies our disagreement.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Do any of you know how to read? (Excuse my frustration, but it's incredibly annoying to have people constantly misconstruing what you say) I didn't say that Hamas is THE obstacle to peace. I said they are ONE obstacle to peace. It's the difference between necessary and sufficient clauses...basic logic. You're saying that if Israel alone changes but Hamas stays the same there will be peace. I'm telling you that that is an incredibly ill-informed, or naive, or intentionally misleading argument. BOTH Israel and Hamas need to change for there to be a lasting peace. The alternative is that Israel changes, makes peace with whatever moderate Palestinian partner it can find, but is eventually forced to respond to continued Hamas violence.
You'll respond that there won't be continued Hamas violence, but therein lies our disagreement.
if israel acts in accordance with international (not US) terms suitable for peace - they will not have to deal with hamas - you know why? because the palestinians and the international community will ...
here's a novel idea tho ... stop expanding and stop killing innocent civilians ... remove your embargo on gaza and see what happens ... if israel really wanted peace, which you agree they do not, then it wouldn't be an issue at all ...
hamas is just a small player in this ... it's about israel, the US and the people who continue to allow this oppressive regime to exist ...
when you come to the realization that israel does not want peace, as you claim you have, you should recognize that hamas is only serving israeli interests now ...
Do any of you know how to read? (Excuse my frustration, but it's incredibly annoying to have people constantly misconstruing what you say) I didn't say that Hamas is THE obstacle to peace. I said they are ONE obstacle to peace. It's the difference between necessary and sufficient clauses...basic logic. You're saying that if Israel alone changes but Hamas stays the same there will be peace. I'm telling you that that is an incredibly ill-informed, or naive, or intentionally misleading argument. BOTH Israel and Hamas need to change for there to be a lasting peace. The alternative is that Israel changes, makes peace with whatever moderate Palestinian partner it can find, but is eventually forced to respond to continued Hamas violence.
You'll respond that there won't be continued Hamas violence, but therein lies our disagreement.
hamas has stated numerous times that it will honor a ceasefire if israel does what the international community is asking of her. if that happens, hamas stands down, and then there is your peace.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
You're saying that if Israel alone changes but Hamas stays the same there will be peace. I'm telling you that that is an incredibly ill-informed, or naive, or intentionally misleading argument. BOTH Israel and Hamas need to change for there to be a lasting peace. The alternative is that Israel changes, makes peace with whatever moderate Palestinian partner it can find, but is eventually forced to respond to continued Hamas violence.
You'll respond that there won't be continued Hamas violence, but therein lies our disagreement.
This is just conjecture. Self-serving conjecture that makes a veiled excuse for the continuation of the occupation and settlement building, all in the name of 'security'.
I love how you've taken what I've said and made it mean the opposite of what I wrote. Just because I think Hamas is an obstacle to peace doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot Israel should be doing to create better conditions on the ground, e.g., freezing all settlement construction, significantly easing up on checkpoints and closures in the West Bank, significantly opening up imports/exports for Gaza, and changing the laws that incentivize living in the settlements so as to instead incentivize settlers to move back to Israel proper. The reason I harp on the obstacle posed by Hamas isn't because I want the occupation to continue, it's because I want it to end, and it will end that much faster, I believe, if Hamas is made to change its ways.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
I love how you've taken what I've said and made it mean the opposite of what I wrote. Just because I think Hamas is an obstacle to peace doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot Israel should be doing to create better conditions on the ground, e.g., freezing all settlement construction, significantly easing up on checkpoints and closures in the West Bank, significantly opening up imports/exports for Gaza, and changing the laws that incentivize living in the settlements so as to instead incentivize settlers to move back to Israel proper. The reason I harp on the obstacle posed by Hamas isn't because I want the occupation to continue, it's because I want it to end, and it will end that much faster, I believe, if Hamas is made to change its ways.
Well here we will have to disagree. Because I don't see how the continuance of the occupation has anything at all to do with the behaviour of Hamas.
It would be like the French in Algeria in the 60's saying that they refuse to leave Algeria and grant it it's independence because of the fact that the FLN keep attacking them.
The Israeli occupation isn't in place because of anything Hamas are doing. It's in place because the Israeli leadership wants the land that belongs to the Palestinians. It wanted the land before the formation of Hamas, and it still wants it today.
I love how you've taken what I've said and made it mean the opposite of what I wrote. Just because I think Hamas is an obstacle to peace doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot Israel should be doing to create better conditions on the ground, e.g., freezing all settlement construction, significantly easing up on checkpoints and closures in the West Bank, significantly opening up imports/exports for Gaza, and changing the laws that incentivize living in the settlements so as to instead incentivize settlers to move back to Israel proper. The reason I harp on the obstacle posed by Hamas isn't because I want the occupation to continue, it's because I want it to end, and it will end that much faster, I believe, if Hamas is made to change its ways.
Well here we will have to disagree. Because I don't see how the continuance of the occupation has anything at all to do with the behaviour of Hamas.
It would be like the French in Algeria in the 60's saying that they refuse to leave Algeria and grant it it's independence because of the fact that the FLN keep attacking them.
The Israeli occupation isn't in place because of anything Hamas are doing. It's in place because the Israeli leadership wants the land that belongs to the Palestinians. It wanted the land before the formation of Hamas, and it still wants it today.
Here, finally, is where we disagree!
The connection as I see it, is this: The Israeli government has to decide to end the occupation. The government answers to the electorate. The electorate completely distrusts the Palestinians. In particular, they look at the popularity of Hamas, deriving from its refusal to abandon violence, relative to the much more moderate PA, and they conclude that ending the occupation will result in Hamas coming to power in the West Bank just as they did in Gaza. They further look at Hamas' rhetoric and actions and conclude that Hamas will continue to be committed to violence even once the occupation ends, and that the sort of rocket fire emanating from Gaza today will be coming from the West Bank in the future as well. Such fire, in addition to of course not being peace, would be completely intolerable for Israel because, in contrast to the rockets from Gaza, which until this year didn't impact the major population centers of the country, rockets from the West Bank would easily be able to reach every corner of the country. In such a situation the government would very quickly be forced to respond, and if limited airstrikes and incursions (such as we've seen in Gaza) aren't sufficient to end the fire (which they likely wouldn't be, given the experience so far with Gaza) they would eventually feel forced to reoccupy the West Bank to ensure security for the populace...and then you're right back where you started.
The conclusion is that the Israeli electorate is only going to demand that the government end the occupation (or support a government that decides to try to do so) if they feel that doing so isn't going to lead to the above scenario. That means that to get the Israeli electorate to buy in you have to somehow deal with Hamas.
You will, of course, argue that the Israeli understanding of Hamas is wrong (I personally don't think it is), and that if the occupation was ended Hamas would all of a sudden become a bunch of peace-loving cuddly bunny rabbits. But whether the Israeli perception is correct or not is beside the point. The point is that you have to change the perception if you want to see progress, and the only way I can see of changing the perception is by getting Hamas to abandon the rhetoric and actions that fuel the perception in the first place.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I love how you've taken what I've said and made it mean the opposite of what I wrote. Just because I think Hamas is an obstacle to peace doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot Israel should be doing to create better conditions on the ground, e.g., freezing all settlement construction, significantly easing up on checkpoints and closures in the West Bank, significantly opening up imports/exports for Gaza, and changing the laws that incentivize living in the settlements so as to instead incentivize settlers to move back to Israel proper. The reason I harp on the obstacle posed by Hamas isn't because I want the occupation to continue, it's because I want it to end, and it will end that much faster, I believe, if Hamas is made to change its ways.
Well here we will have to disagree. Because I don't see how the continuance of the occupation has anything at all to do with the behaviour of Hamas.
It would be like the French in Algeria in the 60's saying that they refuse to leave Algeria and grant it it's independence because of the fact that the FLN keep attacking them.
The Israeli occupation isn't in place because of anything Hamas are doing. It's in place because the Israeli leadership wants the land that belongs to the Palestinians. It wanted the land before the formation of Hamas, and it still wants it today.
Here, finally, is where we disagree!
The connection as I see it, is this: The Israeli government has to decide to end the occupation. The government answers to the electorate. The electorate completely distrusts the Palestinians. In particular, they look at the popularity of Hamas, deriving from its refusal to abandon violence, relative to the much more moderate PA, and they conclude that ending the occupation will result in Hamas coming to power in the West Bank just as they did in Gaza. They further look at Hamas' rhetoric and actions and conclude that Hamas will continue to be committed to violence even once the occupation ends, and that the sort of rocket fire emanating from Gaza today will be coming from the West Bank in the future as well. Such fire, in addition to of course not being peace, would be completely intolerable for Israel because, in contrast to the rockets from Gaza, which until this year didn't impact the major population centers of the country, rockets from the West Bank would easily be able to reach every corner of the country. In such a situation the government would very quickly be forced to respond, and if limited airstrikes and incursions (such as we've seen in Gaza) aren't sufficient to end the fire (which they likely wouldn't be, given the experience so far with Gaza) they would eventually feel forced to reoccupy the West Bank to ensure security for the populace...and then you're right back where you started.
The conclusion is that the Israeli electorate is only going to demand that the government end the occupation (or support a government that decides to try to do so) if they feel that doing so isn't going to lead to the above scenario. That means that to get the Israeli electorate to buy in you have to somehow deal with Hamas.
You will, of course, argue that the Israeli understanding of Hamas is wrong (I personally don't think it is), and that if the occupation was ended Hamas would all of a sudden become a bunch of peace-loving cuddly bunny rabbits. But whether the Israeli perception is correct or not is beside the point. The point is that you have to change the perception if you want to see progress, and the only way I can see of changing the perception is by getting Hamas to abandon the rhetoric and actions that fuel the perception in the first place.
Funny, but I read numerous reports during the latest Israeli attack on Gaza that stated that the Israeli's living in areas where Hamas's crappy rockets were falling felt in no way frightened or intimidated by them.
And yet here you are claiming that Hamas rockets are what cause Israeli's to support the occupation. Sorry, but this is just utter crap.
Also, did you read the article posted by Drowned_Out earlier in this thread that makes it clear that the only time any Israeli's are killed by rocket attacks is when Israel launches another one of it's incursions?
'...For the entire duration of the 2008 Hamas–Israel cease-fire—even after Israel had broken the cease-fire on Nov. 4—not a single person was killed by rocket or mortar fire into Israel. Yet approximately two hours after Israel’s commencement of Operation Cast Lead, one person in Israel was struck and killed by shrapnel from a Qassam rocket. Two days later, three more people were killed in Israel from Gaza rocket and mortar attacks.
And for an entire year before Operation Pillar of Cloud, not a single Israeli was killed by rocket or mortar. Yet approximately sixteen hours after Pillar of Cloud commenced, a rocket from Gaza killed three Israelis.
It was during both military operations that Israel endured the highest number of fatalities from Gaza rockets and mortars in the shortest time spans.
...Rocket fatalities are more likely to happen during major Israel “anti-rocket” operations. Note that I say that fatalities are more likely to happen, rather than fatalities increase. Because fatalities are so rare, when they do happen in a burst, they appear more as instigations rather than incidental progressions.
...
A verrry slow genocide
If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.
If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.”
Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.
As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.
But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents.
It makes more sense, then, to suppose that there are political rationales for the firing of rockets and mortars.
"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit to Gaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."
Not quite sure what he's getting at here. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction. On one hand he says they won't give up the land from the river to the sea, and then he says they won't recognize Israel's legitimacy because of the occupation, implying that the occupation is preventing Israel's 'legitimacy'. (Or is he claiming that the occupation also encompasses greater Israel?).
I'd like to see the whole speech if anyone has a transcription of it.
I'd like to see these reports you refer to. From first hand experience being in Israel and talking to people who have been living under this "harmless" rocket fire, I can tell you that the million Israelis within range of these rockets don't take the threat they pose lightly at all.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
That's a very nice job of offering one extremely well cherry-picked quote. If I'm not mistaken a single rocket was fired at Tel Aviv and it was intercepted before impact. The fact that Tel Aviv residents, who have until now been beyond the range of Gaza's rockets, are going about their lives as usual has no bearing on the million Israelis living further to the south who are under constrant threat.
You're choosing to believe the depictions of reality that best suit your preconceived notions and one track narrative.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
That's a very nice job of offering one extremely well cherry-picked quote. If I'm not mistaken a single rocket was fired at Tel Aviv and it was intercepted before impact. The fact that Tel Aviv residents, who have until now been beyond the range of Gaza's rockets, are going about their lives as usual has no bearing on the million Israelis living further to the south who are under constrant threat.
You're choosing to believe the depictions of reality that best suit your preconceived notions and one track narrative.
And you simply choose to focus on what's convenient for you to focus on, and ignore the rest. You also love to indulge in self-serving conjecture, while trying to turn reality on it's head. Any honest person can see who poses the real threat to peace in this conflict. It's the same side that's been opposing a peaceful settlement in accordance with international law, and building more and more racist settlements in breach of the will of the whole of the international community - excluding the U.S, for the past 45 years.
Why don't you respond to the Mondoweiss piece I posted above?
The rockets aren't the cause of Israel's occupation. They are a symptom of it.
If there's a particular assertion you'd like to discuss then point it out. I'm not going to engage in an argument with whatever opinion pieces you can find to cut and paste into the thread. If you'd like to speak for yourself I'll respond to what you have to say.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
"Quote the other guy"
Ask some rhetorical questions so as to imply that quoted points are baseless, but never seriously engage with substance or import of said points.
Quickly change the subject to how bad Israel is.
No, I don't think this is solely to appease the US. Tho anytime Harper has a chance to please our biggest trade partner, he jumps at it, that's for sure...Still, Canada has a long tradition of backing Israel, often more fervently than the US does.
From one of the articles linked in my last post: "he blocked the planned recommendations on Mideast peace talks even though the terms are a key part of U.S. President Barack Obama's campaign to revive negotiations as pro-democracy movements sprout in the Arab world".....a Canadian undermining American attempts at peace negotiations? ouch....
Check out this article for more statements re: Harper's support for Israel:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 44315.html
The (Jerusalem) Post described Canada as "the gold standard" of support for Israel. "There is not a government on the planet today more supportive of Israel than Harper's Canada."
Baird repeats this phrase at every opportunity. "I think the US is a good friend, too. I like to think we are better - a stronger friend."
During the visit, Israel Hayom, Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, said: "When he discusses the Palestinian issue, Baird sounds like he could have voted in this week's Likud primaries."
Likudniks agree. At a reception for Baird before departing Israel, Likud Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz mocked in jest, "I think Canada's an even better friend of Israel than we are."
Netanyahu singled out the prime minister at the UN in September. "Same heart and same values," said Netanyahu of Harper.
After Thursday's vote, Saeb Erekat, the most conciliatory of Palestinian politicians in regard to Israel, said Canada was being "more settler than the [Israeli] settlers".
Canada's diplomatic support for Israel is not limited to the United Nations. In September, Canada recalled its diplomats and shuttered its Tehran embassy, declaring it unsafe. The move prompted former CBC and AJE chief, Tony Burman, to quip: "Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu."
But the implications of Canada's disposition are potentially deeper than diplomatic verbiage. Classified defence department documents obtained by the Canadian Press detailed a 2011 visit to Israel during which Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Israeli army chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, "a threat to Israel is a threat to Canada".
The defence minister's phrasing was a slightly toned down version of a provocative statement made earlier by former junior foreign affairs minister, Peter Kent, that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada". The minister described the statement as a paraphrasing of the prime minister's policy.
The consequences of the Harper government's unconditional fawning of Israel have begun to surface. Perhaps most prominently, this one-sided approach played a central role in Canada being denied an elected seat on the United Nations Security Council - for the first time ever.
Harper is an evangelical christian, a member of the christian and mission alliance....brought to the church thru his guru - preacher/reform leader Preston Manning. evangelicals traditionally have a way higher level of support for Israel than other demographics...primarily because many of these extreme sects believe that the jews return to the holy land is prerequisite to the second coming of Jesus. I can't say for sure if that's part of the christian mission alliance's dogma, but I can say for sure that they believe in the second coming....so it makes sense that they'd be a christian zionist organization, helping the world toward end times and their rapture. He is a dispensational premillenialist. How's that for a mouthful?
A probably not entirely insignificant factor is the resource connections to the middle east. Harper is an oil guy. Having strong allies in the resource rich middle east is not a bad thing. Israel keeps middle east nationalism in check, which is important to western imperialists. Neocons use force to impose their economic will....neo-libs use underhanded trade practices. Harper is pure neocon. He's a fideist, evangelical climate denier, drug warrior, military and prison industrial complex bitch....basically a total piece of shit corporate shill, masquerading as a man of god.
One more point to your quote above - it wasn't Harper's government that kept us out of Iraq. That was Chretien's big 'legacy' decision. I shudder to think what would have happened had Harper been at the helm back then.
He did nothing of the sort. He thoroughly schooled you in his last responses and you have nothing to offer in return but personal attacks. If you'd like to talk predicatbility, how about the way you attempt detente to begin every post, agreeing to certain points to appear reasonable, then spending the rest of your post actually conceeding nothing, and defending your stance. Soon you'll tell us how its impossible to debate the topic here because we're all one-sided and unreasonable...then you'll disappear until the next bout of Israeli war crimes, at which point you'll reappear with the latest Hasbara talking points at the ready.
How'm I doin?
Fun, right?
Now shall we get back on topic?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/06/ ... ettlement/
Did the Hamas spokesman tell you to say that?
I engaged with every one of your points, as anyone who reads this can see.
Cheers.
sooo
you agree that israel isn't interested in peace and you also agree that if hamas ceased to exist tomorrow - there is still no peace ... you also agree that israel's actions have historically and continue to be an obstacle to peace ... yet in all your words - you want hamas to disappear ...
again - only israelis can save the palestinians that or a full scale american revolution (not likely to happen) ... hamas has about as much influence on whether peace happens or not as sri lanka brokering a peace agreement ... hamas is israel's best friend right now ...
the agenda has nothing to do with peace ... you know that ... the agenda right now is justification for oppression ...
Writing in the Jerusalem Post last March, Yaakov Katz reported the IDF desire “to do some periodic ‘maintenance work’ in Gaza and to mow the lawn, so to speak, with regard to terrorism, with the main goal of boosting its deterrence.” Thus, the IDF graphically admitted the political goal that requires periodic attacks, destroying Palestinian civilian property, and killing Palestinian civilians.
International humanitarian law (IHL) establishes rules for armed conflict and military occupation with the purpose of minimizing civilian suffering and casualties.
These rules apply to a country engaged in an occupation of territory not its own. They apply to states and non-states alike. Thus, the rules apply to both Israeli and Palestinian military forces in territory occupied by Israel, including the Gaza Strip. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israeli military forces retain control over the territory, including its airspace and its land and sea borders. The Israeli military conducts periodic military operations with drones and F-16s and conducts military incursions on a regular basis. Israeli naval forces regularly intercept and shoot at Palestinian fishermen. Israeli forces along the border regularly shoot at farmers attempting to work their land in Gaza along the border with Israel.
As occupying power, the rules provide Israel with an obligation to protect Palestinian civilians and Palestinian civilian property.
The Israeli Defense Force web site provides a day-by-day and hour-by-hour report of actions it undertook in Gaza from November 14 to 21. Our observation in Gaza confirms that the Israeli military attacked and completely destroyed the Ministry of Interior, the Prime Minister’s government building, and several police stations. We also observed severe damage to the Ministry of Health, located near the Ministry of Interior. The damage to the Ministry of Health was not mentioned by the IDF website.
The IDF website also mentions Israeli air force attacks that destroyed or damaged residential housing. On November 17 at 7:10pm it reports that GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Tal Russo addressed the media stating, “Most of the weaponry of the terror organizations is stored in residential houses, from which they launch the missiles and the rockets against Israel.”
Similarly, on November 19 at 7:10am the IDF website reports, “The IDF targeted buildings owned by senior terrorist operatives, used as command posts and weapon storage facilities.”
On November 20 at 6:40 am, the website reports, “We also struck the house of several senior officers within the terror organizations, of the rank of company commander and battalion commander.”
Delegation members visited with Wallid Al Nasassra, a neighbor of one of the 55 houses destroyed by IDF bombs during Operation Pillar of Cloud. An F-16 rocket targeted a home 200 yards away in which his brother, Teewfiq Mamduh Id Abid, Teewfiq’s wife, Amani Ibrm Qader, and 10 of Teewfiq’s children were living. Two of the children were killed in this attack and 7 children were injured. Only one of the children escaped uninjured. The witness’s brother and his wife were both severely injured. The Al Nasassra area is between Rafah and Khan Younis, on land evacuated by Israeli settlers in 2005. Wallid Al Nasassra denied that rockets were stored in the demolished home or that the owners were in any way associated with fighters. Nor, he said, were any of the neighboring homes used for storing rockets. He also said that neighbors would not permit fighters to be in the vicinity of their homes. Israeli forces have so far released no evidence supporting their assertion of rocket storage at this or other residences they destroyed.
this is what i've been saying ... if we think critically on the situation - there is no other conclusion to this ...
with corporate media outlets more or less favouring israeli propaganda - we don't hear about this stuff like we would a rocket attack or suicide bombing ...
this is israel ensuring they have (in their eyes) further justification to their oppression ...
do you see how easy it is to simply say "well their had rocket launchers there"? if there were military installations located at the bomb sites wouldnt you think it would be discovered in the aftermath?
it's too the point it wouldn't shock me if hamas was funded indirectly by israel/us ... i mean they do nothing for the palestinian people ... their ability to inflict "damage" to israelis is minimal yet they represent the puppet by which israel/us continue their oppression ...
Exactly. He says the obstacle to peace is Hamas, despite the historical record making it blatantly obvious what the obstacle to peace is.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/harpers-suppor ... 19037.html
i do believe there is a bit of racism as well ...
You'll respond that there won't be continued Hamas violence, but therein lies our disagreement.
if israel acts in accordance with international (not US) terms suitable for peace - they will not have to deal with hamas - you know why? because the palestinians and the international community will ...
here's a novel idea tho ... stop expanding and stop killing innocent civilians ... remove your embargo on gaza and see what happens ... if israel really wanted peace, which you agree they do not, then it wouldn't be an issue at all ...
hamas is just a small player in this ... it's about israel, the US and the people who continue to allow this oppressive regime to exist ...
when you come to the realization that israel does not want peace, as you claim you have, you should recognize that hamas is only serving israeli interests now ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is just conjecture. Self-serving conjecture that makes a veiled excuse for the continuation of the occupation and settlement building, all in the name of 'security'.
Well here we will have to disagree. Because I don't see how the continuance of the occupation has anything at all to do with the behaviour of Hamas.
It would be like the French in Algeria in the 60's saying that they refuse to leave Algeria and grant it it's independence because of the fact that the FLN keep attacking them.
The Israeli occupation isn't in place because of anything Hamas are doing. It's in place because the Israeli leadership wants the land that belongs to the Palestinians. It wanted the land before the formation of Hamas, and it still wants it today.
rabid!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Here, finally, is where we disagree!
The connection as I see it, is this: The Israeli government has to decide to end the occupation. The government answers to the electorate. The electorate completely distrusts the Palestinians. In particular, they look at the popularity of Hamas, deriving from its refusal to abandon violence, relative to the much more moderate PA, and they conclude that ending the occupation will result in Hamas coming to power in the West Bank just as they did in Gaza. They further look at Hamas' rhetoric and actions and conclude that Hamas will continue to be committed to violence even once the occupation ends, and that the sort of rocket fire emanating from Gaza today will be coming from the West Bank in the future as well. Such fire, in addition to of course not being peace, would be completely intolerable for Israel because, in contrast to the rockets from Gaza, which until this year didn't impact the major population centers of the country, rockets from the West Bank would easily be able to reach every corner of the country. In such a situation the government would very quickly be forced to respond, and if limited airstrikes and incursions (such as we've seen in Gaza) aren't sufficient to end the fire (which they likely wouldn't be, given the experience so far with Gaza) they would eventually feel forced to reoccupy the West Bank to ensure security for the populace...and then you're right back where you started.
The conclusion is that the Israeli electorate is only going to demand that the government end the occupation (or support a government that decides to try to do so) if they feel that doing so isn't going to lead to the above scenario. That means that to get the Israeli electorate to buy in you have to somehow deal with Hamas.
You will, of course, argue that the Israeli understanding of Hamas is wrong (I personally don't think it is), and that if the occupation was ended Hamas would all of a sudden become a bunch of peace-loving cuddly bunny rabbits. But whether the Israeli perception is correct or not is beside the point. The point is that you have to change the perception if you want to see progress, and the only way I can see of changing the perception is by getting Hamas to abandon the rhetoric and actions that fuel the perception in the first place.
Funny, but I read numerous reports during the latest Israeli attack on Gaza that stated that the Israeli's living in areas where Hamas's crappy rockets were falling felt in no way frightened or intimidated by them.
And yet here you are claiming that Hamas rockets are what cause Israeli's to support the occupation. Sorry, but this is just utter crap.
Also, did you read the article posted by Drowned_Out earlier in this thread that makes it clear that the only time any Israeli's are killed by rocket attacks is when Israel launches another one of it's incursions?
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissectin ... tacks.html
'...For the entire duration of the 2008 Hamas–Israel cease-fire—even after Israel had broken the cease-fire on Nov. 4—not a single person was killed by rocket or mortar fire into Israel. Yet approximately two hours after Israel’s commencement of Operation Cast Lead, one person in Israel was struck and killed by shrapnel from a Qassam rocket. Two days later, three more people were killed in Israel from Gaza rocket and mortar attacks.
And for an entire year before Operation Pillar of Cloud, not a single Israeli was killed by rocket or mortar. Yet approximately sixteen hours after Pillar of Cloud commenced, a rocket from Gaza killed three Israelis.
It was during both military operations that Israel endured the highest number of fatalities from Gaza rockets and mortars in the shortest time spans.
...Rocket fatalities are more likely to happen during major Israel “anti-rocket” operations. Note that I say that fatalities are more likely to happen, rather than fatalities increase. Because fatalities are so rare, when they do happen in a burst, they appear more as instigations rather than incidental progressions.
...
A verrry slow genocide
If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.
If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.”
Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.
As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.
But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents.
It makes more sense, then, to suppose that there are political rationales for the firing of rockets and mortars.
"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit to Gaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."
Not quite sure what he's getting at here. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction. On one hand he says they won't give up the land from the river to the sea, and then he says they won't recognize Israel's legitimacy because of the occupation, implying that the occupation is preventing Israel's 'legitimacy'. (Or is he claiming that the occupation also encompasses greater Israel?).
I'd like to see the whole speech if anyone has a transcription of it.
As the first rockets in 20 years land and reservists are called up, one local says: 'It's scary – but not enough to change my day'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/no ... -residents
You're choosing to believe the depictions of reality that best suit your preconceived notions and one track narrative.
And you simply choose to focus on what's convenient for you to focus on, and ignore the rest. You also love to indulge in self-serving conjecture, while trying to turn reality on it's head. Any honest person can see who poses the real threat to peace in this conflict. It's the same side that's been opposing a peaceful settlement in accordance with international law, and building more and more racist settlements in breach of the will of the whole of the international community - excluding the U.S, for the past 45 years.
Why don't you respond to the Mondoweiss piece I posted above?
The rockets aren't the cause of Israel's occupation. They are a symptom of it.