Speak now, or forever hold your peace

[shira]

....Here’s a summary of what has happened in Israel tonight. Between 8pm and 9pm, Hamas fired one rocket a minute at Israel, aiming to murder as many civilians as possible. Residents of the south have had fifteen seconds to flee for cover. Sirens have been heard as far as Jerusalem. Hamas is threatening to strike Tel Aviv. Hospitals are moving babies into bomb shelters. This comes in the wake of an escalation in recent days, which you probably didn’t hear about, in which a nursery sustained a direct hit. Israel has given Hamas a 48-hour ultimatum, but it expired 48 hours ago. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

So here’s why I ask you, kindly, to speak now or forever hold your silence. Because if you fail to condemn Palestinian terrorism, and are saving your outrage for Israel’s response, you will have no moral right to complain. When you say you care about innocent civilians, no one in Israel will believe you. When you say you want peace, Israelis will laugh in your face. When you say that violence is not the solution, many in Israel will agree with you, but everyone will want to know where you were yesterday, and why you only just remembered you care about crying children when it’s Palestinian children shedding the tears.

And here’s why this matters: because if you don’t speak now, if you don’t complain and protest with all your might now, you will have zero credibility with the very people whose behaviour you are trying to influence. You won’t be able to convince Israel to hold its fire when it’s clear that you don’t care about its people. Why should they listen to you? Who do you think you are? You will never be able to convince people that your solution is the best if they perceive you as a pathetic rent-a-gob at best or an apologist for global jihad at worst.

Your words of indignation will assuage your conscience and give you the glow of moral smugness, but they will be completely ineffectual. So take your ‘Stop the War’ signs and march straight to Trafalgar Square, or I can tell you where you can shove them. Speak now, and speak loudly, or forever hold your silence. Because right now, over the wailing of the sirens and shouts of “everyone to the bomb shelters!”, it is the echo of your own moral vacuousness and insincerity that reverberates most loudly.


http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your peace/

[geek tragedy]

1. I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that this author

and just about everyone who agrees with it has had jack shit to say about Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians since, well, forever.

Well, that's not true. A lot of them heartily approve of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians. The rockets coming out of Gaza are war crimes on any number of levels and to be condemned, but they do not happen in a vacuum. And, no, portraying the Palestinians as feral beasts who are brainwashed as children into hating Jews is not an adequate explanation as to why such attacks happen.

[shira]

4. Jews worldwide are universally horrified at the recent murder.....

...of a Palestinian child at the hands of Jewish extremists. Only the most degenerate Kahanists "heartily approve" of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

The rockets coming out of Gaza are war crimes on any number of levels and to be condemned, but they do not happen in a vacuum.

That's moral equivalence and it's pathetic. Your statement, whether you realize it or not, creates cover for war crimes vs. Israelis. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are committed not only to Israel's destruction, but genocide vs. Jews. There's nothing Israel can do to appease them.

[geek tragedy]

6. do you really think this atrocity was the first time Jews had

mistreated Palestinians?

Pointing out that Israel's own behavior tends to make things worse for itself is far less pathetic than those who would commit Israel to perpetual war with its neighbors.

[shira]

8. Israel doesn't intentionally seek to harm Palestinians....

Jews would universally condemn such actions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. What a complete fabrication you just made.

[Shaktimaan]

78. But is that even true?

Pointing out that Israel's own behavior tends to make things worse for itself is far less pathetic than those who would commit Israel to perpetual war with its neighbors.

History says otherwise. The most violent and severe reprisals against Israel have awl always followed times when Israel enacted concessions granting Palestinians greater autonomy, sovereignty and control. Directly following the signing of Oslo, redeployment of Israeli troops in the WB, the total disengagement and settlement evacuation from Gaza, etc.

Peaceful times have followed policies that restricted the ability of palestinian terrorists to operate. The security fence, cast lead, the blockade of Gaza.

Unfortunate as it is the facts don't support your belief that easements would be repaid with peace.

[geek tragedy]

84. Israel's thuggish tactics in dealing with the first intifada did not quell it.

They only made it persist.

It was Oslo that ended it.

And you gloss over the continued occupation and humiliation of the Palestinians, as well as the expansion of the settlements.

[Shaktimaan]

86. The first intifada isn't a good example.

I'm talking about terrorism, not grassroots activism and protesting. The first intifada was characterized by a comparable lack of violence which is a key reason it gained legitimacy in the Israeli public's minds and led to summit negotiations.

The actual bus bombings and violent terror response came AFTER Oslo which was opposed by Hamas and IJ. Oslo gave both motivation and opportunity for these acts of serious terrorism.

And you gloss over the continued occupation and humiliation of the Palestinians, as well as the expansion of the settlements

I don't. I just reject the idea that there's a simple cause and effect relationship occurring here. If this was all about oppression and settlements and self-determination then concessions by Israel would be met with a decrease in terrorism, not a marked increase. Which sadly has been the result every time.

What motivation does Israel have to pull out of the WB unilaterally after what they saw occur following the Gaza pullout?

[geek tragedy]

87. same motivation that an alcoholic has to stop drinking, even though he knows

he'll feel worse during the first days of sobriety that he ever did while drunk

the long-term solution is ending the occupation. the problem, and the violence, will persist in eternity until the occupation is ended. sure, Israel can induce temporary lulls by turning the Palestinian areas into prison camps, but that only kicks the can down the road.

And, also, in case it matters to Israelis, at some point Israel will have to decide if it's comfortable being more like the people who imprisoned Nelson than being like Mandela, like being more like the British in India than like Gandhi, more like Bull Connor than MLK Jr.

Jewish Americans were on the front lines of activism against those oppressive regimes. They will not embrace apartheid just because it is practiced by other Jews.

[Shaktimaan]

95. In a sense I don't disagree.

Here's the difference. Ending the occupation only has a chance of leading to real, lasting peace if it's undertaken as a part of a comprehensive, permanent peace agreement.

Look at Lebanon. We were told the exact same thing then as you're saying now. So Israel unilaterally pulled out entirely, to a line sanctioned by the UN as fulfilling Israel's requirements. Did it lead to peace between the two countries? No. Just the opposite in fact.

You see the pointlessness in demanding that Israel end the occupation despite realizing that the result will likely be an increase in violence and less security.

Look at what this resulted in for Gaza? Have things improved for the vast majority of the people living there?

[geek tragedy]

97. So, you think israel would be better served invading Lebanon and occupying it

again?

[Shaktimaan]

98. That's obviously not what I'm saying.

The conflict w the Palestinians is a lot more complex and entrenched. I'm saying that any unilateral withdrawal from the WB is unlikely to lead to peace and makes little sense for Israel without assurances. This conflict isn't as one sides as you assume. Nor are the occupation or settlements the main cause, nor the key to solving it.

[geek tragedy]

99. the problem is that Israel is incapable of negotiating with

the Palestinians.

Because Israel is not willing to offer anything.

Forget that crap about a majority of Israelis saying they favor a two-state solution.

Two additional reservations also arise from the latest Haaretz survey. The first is that the Israeli public is seemingly unfamiliar with the geopolitical situation. When the implications of partition and the specifics of an agreement were presented to the respondents – “The establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries with border modifications, most of the settlements to be annexed to Israel, Jerusalem to be divided and no return of refugees” – support for the two-state solution plummeted to 35 percent, with 58 percent replying in the negative. This time, the term “prime minister” was omitted as the individual who backs the agreement. The implication of this is that great responsibility falls on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as large segments of the public view his acceptance of an agreement involving partition as a precondition for their support.

The second, equally important, reservation is that the same public that says it will support a partition agreement if it’s supported by the prime minister doesn’t actually believe the prime minister’s stated intention to arrive at any such agreement. Thus, 54 percent replied in the negative and only 37 percent in the affirmative to the question, “Do you believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he says he wants to promote a peace agreement with two states for two nations?”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601996

So, if Israel is not willing or even able to put a two-state solution on the negotiating table, there really is no point to negotiations in terms of an end-game for the conflict.

The Palestinians recognize this. Netanyahu recognizes this. The Israeli public recognizes it, when they're being honest with themselves.

The long game isn't a negotiated settlement. It's what happens when Palestinians demand to be accorded rights equal to Israelis and be allowed to vote on their own government.

Israel at most will get 2 out of the following 3:

A) continued occupation
B) Jewish state
C) Democratic state.

All signs point to (C) being the eventual loser.

[Shaktimaan]

103. They already do.

Palestinians have had the right to elect their own government since the 90s.

[geek tragedy]

104. Can that 'government' enter into binding legal treaties

with other nations?

Can it control its own air space?

Does it control its own borders?

Does it have the right to arrest Israeli citizens within its borders?

[Shaktimaan]

105. Depends.

1. No. The PLO, not the PA is the Palestinians' official international representative. But the PLO can.

2. No. But that's as per its agreement with Israel at the moment.

3. It's own official borders with other states? Sure, where said border isn't part of any disputed land and is agreed to designate, sovereign palestinian territory. Re: the Gaza/Egyptian border.

4. Of course. As it has in the past.

[geek tragedy]

106. 'Disputed land' which is convenient since

virtually every square inch of the WB is 'disputed' to use the Israeli code word for 'under military occupation'

[Shaktimaan]

108. It's both actually.

The WB being disputed territory doesn't indicate a policy to annex all of it. The land that's literally being disputed is less than 10% in total.

But being under occupation is not something anyone denies. It wouldn't have been occupied in the first place had Jordan refrained from attacking incidentally.

[geek tragedy]

109. Israel will never admit it annexed the WB.

But, that's exactly what is happening. Israel is the sovereign power in the WB, not the PA or the PLO.

Anyhow, the path forward is pretty clear for Israel-as an apartheid, pariah state that will eventually lose the US as its protector and benefactor. That's Abbas's game plan--letting Israel delegitimize itself and alienate everyone.

Maybe Bibi sees that too, hence his blossoming alliance with Putin.

[Shaktimaan]

110. Huh?

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:14 AM - Edit history (2)

Israel has shared control in the WB. You know about the three defined areas, right? Shared water rights. All the intricacies of the standing agreement. I can't imagine what you think is going on.

The system of shared power between the PA and Israel is outlined in the Oslo agreements. Israel hasn't instituted some secret annexation that no one knows about but them. Don't be ridiculous.

How would it even be possible to secretly annex a place btw? Israel is a democracy w a free press. For example, remember when Israel annexed EJ? It wasn't widely accepted internationally but it certainly wasn't much of a secret either.

[geek tragedy]

111. 'Shared power?'

Too funny.

The PA has the power of a mayor in the Bantustans located in areas A and B, doing all the shit tasks Israel wanted no part of.

The Palestinians have no power. Abbas can't even travel between WB communities, or travel abroad, without the IDF's permission.


Israel is a democracy by Middle Eastern standards, not by European and Western Hemisphere standards.

[Shaktimaan]

118. The PA has the power they agreed to.

The PA has the power of a mayor in the Bantustans located in areas A and B, doing all the shit tasks Israel wanted no part of.

Ooooh, I see.... like what exactly?

Abbas can't even travel between WB communities, or travel abroad, without the IDF's permission.

You sure about that? Your track record with facts here has been pretty pitiful so far. You've actually yet to state a single accurate facxt during your entire time on this forum. I think that's a record of some sort.

Israel is a democracy by Middle Eastern standards, not by European and Western Hemisphere standards.

Ummm, no. It's a democracy by international standards. Unless you have some logical reason beyond the fact that you don't like them which would suggest otherwise. Is there some aspect of Israel's government that makes it less democratic than any western government?

[geek tragedy]

119. let's take these in reverse order:

Ooooh, I see.... like what exactly?

Daily governance, enforcing local regulations and rules, investigating crime, maintaining courts--the stuff that actually requires doing stuff to maintain the quality of life.

Ummm, no. It's a democracy by international standards. Unless you have some logical reason beyond the fact that you don't like them which would suggest otherwise. Is there some aspect of Israel's government that makes it less democratic than any western government?

Other than the relegation of non-Jews to second-class citizen status and its 58 year and running deninal of the right of self-determination to the Palestinians living in the occupied territory? And its failure to institute civil marriage and placing the orthodox wingnuts in charge of marriage?

You sure about that (the fact that Abbas needs Israeli permission to travel)?

Ground transportation is impossible without going through multiple IDF checkpoints:



The Israelis destroyed the only working airport in the Palestinian territories (because obviously that tarmac was a threat to Israeli children)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat_International_Airport

If Abbas wants to travel abroad, he needs to fly out of an Israeli airport. And, yes of course Israel does abuse this situation by preventing people from getting to the West Bank by not letting them use Israeli airports.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/15/us-israel-palestinians-idUSBRE83D0FR20120415

(Reuters) - A pro-Palestinian "fly-in" to Tel Aviv got off to a slow start on Sunday after Israel scrambled to block activists from boarding flights in Europe.

"Four activists have been detained after arriving on an El Al flight from Paris and are being questioned at (Tel Aviv) airport," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

An Interior Ministry spokeswoman said the Immigration Authority had on Wednesday given airlines the names of some 1,200 activists whose entrance to Israel would be barred. Israel made clear the airlines would have to shoulder the costs of sending any deported activists back to their port of origin.

Leehee Rothschild, a "Welcome to Palestine" activist, said that dozens of campaigners had since been informed by airlines that their tickets to Tel Aviv have been cancelled.

Organizers said some 1,200 Palestinian supporters throughout Europe had bought plane tickets to Israel and had planned to travel on to the occupied West Bank, an hour's drive from Tel Aviv, as part of a campaign called "Welcome to Palestine".

When it comes to its treatment of the Palestinians, Israel is a two-bit fascist regime with all the subtlety of Vladimir Putin.

Abbas, like every other Palestinian, is a prisoner of the Israeli people.

Israel can plead necessity all it wants, but it's already irrevocably on the path to becoming South Africa on the Med. Of course, Israel was a big fan of apartheid in South Africa, and was the strongest ally the apartheid regime had on the entire planet. Because the two states were not at their core much different.

No wonder Bibi skipped Mandela's funeral. That would have been ... awkward.

[Shaktimaan]

136. I'll take these one at a time

Of course, Israel was a big fan of apartheid in South Africa, and was the strongest ally the apartheid regime had on the entire planet. Because the two states were not at their core much different.

Israel was actually one of the first states to publicly condemn apartheid at the UN. Your assumptions about Israel's motivation for its alliance w SA is simply incorrect. If you bothered to so much as even google these issues before posting this sort of hateful propaganda your thoughts might seem less prejudicial.

Israeli leaders publicly condemned apartheid throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, although it maintained contact with South Africa through a low-level diplomatic mission in Pretoria and through France, a mutual ally.[11] The South African Jewish Board of Deputies feared an anti-Semitic backlash if Israel did not maintain good terms with the present government.[11] However, Israel continued to criticize apartheid and seek closer relations with black African nations, but an anti-Semitic backlash never occurred.[11]

---
After 1967, Israel's attempted alliances with post-colonial African states had, in most assessments, failed. As a final expression of this strategy, in 1971, Israel offered $2,850 in aid to the Organization of African Unity, which was rejected, but not before reportedly irking South Africa.[12] The impetus for the blossoming relationship between Israel and South Africa was the 1967 Six Day War. Israel's victory in the war, and subsequent occupation of the Sinai and West Bank, alienated it diplomatically from much of the Third World, and African states. As well as this many left-wing movements around the world, including the Black nationalist movements, now began to see it as a colonial state.[11] At the same time, in South Africa, Israel became the object of widespread admiration, particularly among the country's political and military leadership. The editorial of Die Burger, then the mouthpiece of the South African Nationalist Party declared: "Israel and South Africa are engaged in a struggle for existence... The anti-Western powers have driven Israel and South Africa into a community of interests which had better be utilized than denied."[11] Israel continued to denounce apartheid, but it privately began to cultivate relations in secret. This approach was similar to many Western nations at the time.[13][14] Israel's condemnation of apartheid was based on opposition to the racist nature of the practice, and its maintenance of mutually beneficial commercial and military ties was rooted in a concern for South African Jews and a realpolitik attitude that Israel was too isolated to be selective about partners in trade and arms deals.[13][11] Within less than a decade, South Africa would be one of Israel's closest military and economic allies, whilst Israel would occupy the position of South Africa's closest military ally, and Israel had become the most important foreign arms supplier to the South African Defence Force.[3]:117–19 In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, to put additional diplomatic and military pressure on Israel, Arab oil-producing countries threatened to impose an oil embargo on countries with international relations with Israel. As a result, many African countries broke ties with Israel. [15]

Most African states had fully broken ties after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and Israel increased its cultivation of ties with the similarly isolated government in Pretoria.[16] Israeli ties and trade with South Africa became more extensive. According to Ethan A. Nadelmann, the relationship developed due to the fact that many African countries broke diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1970s following Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza during the Arab–Israeli wars, causing Israel to deepen relations with other isolated countries.[17] Israel remained officially opposed to the apartheid system, but it also opposed international embargoes. Israeli officials sought to coordinate ties with South Africa within a tripartite framework between Israel, the United States, and South Africa.[18]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–South_Africa_relations

[azurnoir]

137. Here is the actual page on Israel South African relations - note the edit date

Israeli relations with apartheid South Africa

South Africa was among the 33 states that voted in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution,[1] recommending the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, and was one of only four Commonwealth nations to do so. On 24 May 1948,[2] nine days after Israel's declaration of independence, the South African government of Jan Smuts, a long-time supporter of Zionism, granted de facto recognition to the State of Israel, just two days before his United Party was voted out of office and replaced by the pro-apartheid National Party. South Africa was the seventh nation to recognise the new Jewish state. On 14 May 1949, South Africa granted de jure recognition to the State of Israel.[3]:109–111[4]

After 1967, Israel's attempted alliances with post-colonial African states had, in most assessments, failed. As a final expression of this strategy, in 1971, Israel offered $2,850 in aid to the Organization of African Unity, which was rejected, but not before reportedly irking South Africa.[12] The impetus for the blossoming relationship between Israel and South Africa was the 1967 Six Day War. Israel's victory in the war, and subsequent occupation of the Sinai and West Bank, alienated it diplomatically from much of the Third World, and African states. As well as this many left-wing movements around the world, including the Black nationalist movements, now began to see it as a colonial state.[11] At the same time, in South Africa, Israel became the object of widespread admiration, particularly among the country's political and military leadership. The editorial of Die Burger, then the mouthpiece of the South African Nationalist Party declared: "Israel and South Africa are engaged in a struggle for existence... The anti-Western powers have driven Israel and South Africa into a community of interests which had better be utilized than denied."[11] Israel continued to denounce apartheid, but it privately began to cultivate relations in secret. This approach was similar to many Western nations at the time.[13][14] Israel's condemnation of apartheid was based on opposition to the racist nature of the practice, and its maintenance of mutually beneficial commercial and military ties was rooted in a concern for South African Jews and a realpolitik attitude that Israel was too isolated to be selective about partners in trade and arms deals.[13][11] Within less than a decade, South Africa would be one of Israel's closest military and economic allies, whilst Israel would occupy the position of South Africa's closest military ally, and Israel had become the most important foreign arms supplier to the South African Defence Force.[3]:117–19 In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, to put additional diplomatic and military pressure on Israel, Arab oil-producing countries threatened to impose an oil embargo on countries with international relations with Israel. As a result, many African countries broke ties with Israel. [15]

Most African states had fully broken ties after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and Israel increased its cultivation of ties with the similarly isolated government in Pretoria.[16] Israeli ties and trade with South Africa became more extensive. According to Ethan A. Nadelmann, the relationship developed due to the fact that many African countries broke diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1970s following Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza during the Arab–Israeli wars, causing Israel to deepen relations with other isolated countries.[17] Israel remained officially opposed to the apartheid system, but it also opposed international embargoes. Israeli officials sought to coordinate ties with South Africa within a tripartite framework between Israel, the United States, and South Africa.[18]

By 1987 Israel found itself the only developed nation in the world that still maintained strong, even strategic relations with apartheid South Africa, which was now entering its final throes. (Among African nations, only Malawi maintained diplomatic relations with South Africa throughout the Apartheid era.)[31] Based on intelligence assessments that the present South African government was no longer sustainable, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, in a speech before parliament the same year, announced that Israel would sign no more new military contracts with the South African government and would "gradually" allow those already in effect to expire. Peres accompanied his announcement with the statement: "There is no room for discrimination, whether it's called apartheid or any other name", Peres said. "We repeat that we express our denunciation of the system of apartheid. The Jewish outlook is that every man was born in the image of God and created equal."[32] Israel also reduced cultural and tourism ties, appointed a committee to study sanctions proposals, and established educational programs in Israel for black South Africans. Several secret military treaties remained in force, continuing joint research in missile development and nuclear technology.[18]

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi wrote in 1988 that the alliance between South Africa and Israel was one of the most underreported news stories of the past four decades and that Israel played a crucial role in the survival of the apartheid regime.[3]:108–109 Israel's collaboration with Apartheid South Africa was mentioned and condemned by various international organizations such as the UN General assembly (several times since 1974)

This page was last modified on 9 June 2014 at 12:24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations

[Shaktimaan]

138. And?

I missed the part where they described Israel as being a tremendous ideological supporter of apartheid as was alleged.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[geek tragedy]

141. Israel was objectively a supporter and enabler

of apartheid. Actions trump words.

And, of course Likud was more than objectively supportive--Begin et al were sympathetic to the Afrikaaners' situation and counseled SA to phase in rights for black people over a period of several decades-just like Israel was unwilling to grant Arabs equal rights in the near term.

Figures like Ariel Sharon, IDF Chief of Staff Raful Eitan, and former Altalena commander Eliahu Lankin were the key figures in promoting ties with South Africa and publicly defending the apartheid regime. In the late 1980s, while Peres spouted righteous platitudes (“A Jew and racism do not go together”), Eitan was telling Tel Aviv University students that blacks “want to gain control over the white minority just like the Arabs here want to gain control over us. And we, too, like the white minority in South Africa, must act to prevent them from taking us over.” Meanwhile, Lankin was writing journal articles on the perils of enfranchising black people in South Africa. “If there is to be any prospect of avoiding the much-prophesied carnage,” he wrote, “the first step must be to discard the doctrinaire conceptions of theoretical democracy—one man one vote.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/israel-and-south-africa/


Even while pretending in public that Israel had a big moral problem with apartheid.

The ideology that the state must serve one ethnic, racial or religious group above all others--whose government does that describe?

[Shaktimaan]

155. You're right. Actions do trump words.

So we'll look at the actions of SA versus Israel to see if your assertions carry any validity. The crux of this argument is that you believe Israel allied with SA not merely for logistical reasons but because apartheid and Zionism shared racist and supremacist ideologies. This argument rests entirely on the idea that both governments treated their arab/black populations similarly. That Israel denied granting its non Jewish citizens equal rights in similar ways and for similar reasons as apartheid.

Fortunately we know this is untrue. Arabs have equal rights under the law in Israel. To compare the two systems though:

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&

Academic Susie Jacobs states that the apartheid analogy is "inadequate", and that it is a rhetoric which skims over substantive differences. She points out that Apartheid was a great deal more than segregation, instead it was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria.

StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, argues that apartheid in the Republic of South Africa was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence, based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. They point out that in contrast, Israel is a majority-rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely. Israel contends with prejudice in its population as all societies do, but such prejudices are opposed by law. They also point out that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not governed by Israel but by the Palestinian Authority.

Benjamin Pogrund, author and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, has argued that the petty apartheid which characterized apartheid-era South Africa does not exist within Israel:

"The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasized at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not."

In response to increasing inequality between the Jewish and Arab populations, the Israeli government established a committee to consider, among other issues, policies of affirmative action for housing Arab citizens. According to Israel advocacy group, Stand With Us, the city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the housing permit process and structural regulations, advice which is not available to Jewish residents on the same terms.

"The equivalence simply isn't true. Israel is not an apartheid state. Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories, its settlement policy, and its firm responses to terror may sometimes warrant criticism. And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself recently warned that Israel could face an apartheid-style struggle if it did not reach a deal with the Palestinians and end the occupation in the West Bank. But racism and discrimination do not form the rationale for Israel's policies and actions. Arab citizens of Israel can vote and serve in the Knesset; black South Africans could not vote until 1994. There are no laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab citizens or separate them from Jews. Unlike the United Kingdom, Greece, and Norway, Israel has no state religion, and it recognizes Arabic as one of its official languages."

—Kadalie, Rhoda and Julia Bertelsmann, black South Africans whose families fought against apartheid

http://blog.wojtowicz.com/2010/07/israel-apartheid.html?m=1

The accusation that Zionism and apartheid were ideologically consistent falls apart when we compare actual policy differences between these states. Israel simply never disenfranchised and oppressed non-Jews in any way that could be compared to apartheid policies.

[The Magistrate]

2. The Problem With That Line Is This, Ma'am

The thing has been going on for so long, and been so tit-for-tat throughout, that trying to draw a line under any particular instance and saying it proves something immutably about one side, and that reaction to it demonstrates something immutable about the respondent, just cannot work. Everyone can point to some previous incident and response, which justifies or excuses or mitigates or turns on its head or whatever the one someone else draws a line under. It just does not work. By now neither side has any particular claim to moral high ground, and appeals from either side based on pretending it does have such a claim ring tinny at best. I am wearily familiar with the history, and would agree that, if one goes back eighty, ninety, a hundred years, the Arab Nationalists threw the first lethal punch, but it really does not matter much any more. I think Hamas has no business engaging in violence, since they cannot prevail by violence, and engage in it for show, and to provoke their enemy into bad behavior. I think Israel has no business settling its people on the portion of the Jordan valley over-run in '67, and electing right-wing governments determined to annex in all but name those territories.

[shira]

7. It looks like this message is intended....

...for the so-called human rights community. They're silent when Israelis are being attacked but conveniently come to life when Israel is required to defend itself against terror attacks.

IMO, the hypocrites are apologists for global Jihad; Hamas in this instance. Silent when they're are at their worst, but lively when a determined response is called for.

[The Magistrate]

9. That Some, Ma'am, Who Posture As Neutral Are Partisan, I Would Not Deny

It is a poor imposture, in many cases.

But Israel at this point posturing as a victim is an imposture every bit as shabby and unconvincing.

[shira]

10. Israel's not a victim, I agree. Its citizens sometimes are, however. n/t

[Scootaloo]

3. How many people were killed or injured? n/t

[shira]

5. How many have to be killed or injured....

...for you to agree with the OP? Those rockets are war crimes and the intent is to kill innocents.

[Scootaloo]

12. I don't believe in killing people over insult and property damage

The OP's position - your position - is that pipe bombs blowing up clods of dirt in empty fields, needs to be answered by blowing up people. That feeble insult against a nation with a very effective air defense, needs to be responded to by firing high-powered missiles and artillery into an undefended, overpopulated slum.

[shira]

14. Excusing Hamas war crimes, attempted murder, collective punishment....

...is pretty damned bad. I can assure you the targets of those rockets do not see them as harmless firecrackers.

Study: Most Sderot kids exhibit post-traumatic stress symptoms
http://www.haaretz.com/news/study-most-sderot-kids-exhibit-post-traumatic-stress-symptoms-1.237438

And no one but the worst Kahanists support "blowing up people". It's called self-defense, and apparently you don't believe Israel has any right to it.

Once again, how many Israelis need to die or get injured from rocket attacks?

[Scootaloo]

47. Call it what you want. Either way, people get blown up.

Most of those people will have nothing at all to do with rockets. Doesn't matter if you call it "self defense" while you are incinerating them alive, the result is the same. You are asking for people to die. You are asking for their bodies to be left a bloody, twisted ruin in the rubble. Why? because someone in the same territory blew up some dirt.

Of course I believe Israel has a right to self-defense. it's just that in order for something to be self-defense, it has to be a defensive action. Such as this:

This has worked very well. It's the major reason why there aren't any deaths or injuries for you sing and dance over, Shira. Iron Dome takes out the rockets that pose a danger, and the remainder smack into dirt harmlessly. I call that a successful exercise of self-defense, don't you?

Pounding Gaza with missiles and mortars has proven far less effective at protecting Israelis, at a much higher cost to the lives of Gazans - the majority of whom I really must remind you, have nothing to do with attacks against Israel. it's ineffective. It's not defensive. It kills and destroys needlessly. It's a futile gesture of rage and hate, and you damn well know it.

Do you worry for the PTSD of the children of Gaza City?

Do you think the PA should exercise its right to "self-defense" against the settlements, in the manner you advocate for Israel to exercise agaisnt Gaza?

[shira]

56. IOW, Israel should wait for their technology to fail & just "take it" until then.

And what other nation on the planet would do this?

[Scootaloo]

62. You're emphasizing the point i'm making

That your position is not about "defense" so much as it is about rage and bloodlust.

"Take it"? Take what, pockmarks in empty fields, the occasional loud noise? If the only response is launching missiles at unprotected, densely-populated areas? Then yes. Take it. Human life is infinitely more valuable than dirt, gravel, and grass, I believe. You make it pretty clear that the only thing wounded here is pride - and even dirt is worth more than pride, because useful things come from dirt.

As for possible failure of technology, I invite you to think with me for a moment. Currently, the Iron Dome system is working excellently to protect Israelis from harm. That's great, and I hope the Israelis put more work in it to keep it as good at that as possible. I'm sure you agree, yes?

However, you are advocating a big assault on Gaza. What happens, every time israel assaults Gaza? The number of rockets fired quadruples. it's a concept known as "returning fire" and regardless of whether you feel it's justified or not, it's what's going to happen. The more rockets fired at Israel, the more chances for the Iron Dome system to fail. That's simple math, probability. The more times you roll a die, the more likely you are to eventually get a 1.

What this means is that an assault on Gaza will make Israelis in border towns like Sderot and Ashkelon more likely to be killed or injured by rocket fire, stemming from a failure of the defense system, simply because the assault has spurred more rocket fire.

On edit: get your pom-poms on, Shira. You're getting your assault. I expect the rocket fire will immediately cease, yes?

[shira]

64. Israelis have been in bomb shelters all day. I know that means nothing to you....

...but they're not waiting for Iron Dome to fail. No nation would do that.

And I'm not in favor of another IDF attack like in 2009 or 2012. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane.

[Scootaloo]

65. See my edit to the above post

[Fozzledick]

67. Could you clarify something for me Scooty?

Are you in favor of allowing terrorists to shoot anti-personnel fragmentation weapons at all babies everywhere, or just at Jewish babies in Israel? Where exactly would you draw the line and why? Not that you would actually stand for this shit for two seconds if they were shooting at YOU, but as long as it's just other people it's all good, right?

[Scootaloo]

71. That's what you're gonna go with huh?

You're presenting a false dilemma fallacy.

Assaulting Gaza does not stop the rockets from being fired at Israel. As I just pointed it actually tends to make the problem worse by an order of magnitude. Thus it is not a binary equation where you are either assaulting Gaza or allowing terrorists to shoot at babies.

They're going to fire the rockets with or without an assault - and previous (and early presumption, larger) assaults have completely failed to put a halt to the problem.

[Fozzledick]

80. Yeah, destroying the rockets before they're fired does prevent them from being fired.

It's agreeing to a temporary cease-fire with terrorists that allows them to rearm that doesn't work.

And failing to respond to the rocket fire only encourages more of the same. Why would you want that?

[Scootaloo]

81. Can you name for me the make of missile that only destroys rockets?

I'm curious about it.

[Fozzledick]

85. Hey. come back here with those goal posts!

Why defend a terrorist aggressor that deliberately places offensive weapons in populated areas, a genuine war crime unlike the absurd garbage that Israel gets falsely accused of.

[Scootaloo]

89. You're the one saying that these missiles only kill other, lesser missiles

So I want to know what kind of missiles these are, with such amazing, specific technology.

[Fozzledick]

90. I never said that.

When you start making shit up and arguing with your own straw men I know you've got nothing more to say.

[Scootaloo]

91. I tell you I oppose killing people. You retort that it's rockets beign targeted.

Now, there's two ways i can interpret that. Either you believe that Israeli missiles can only hurt rockets, or you're simply brushing aside the numerous human beings who will be killed in the process as if they don't count for anything.

I figure the former is more generous to you, so let's go with that.

Tell me about these magic missiles Fozzie. Do they do 1d6+1 damage? That's what magic missiles do in the fantasy world you're living in, right?

[Fozzledick]

94. When you can only try put your words in my mouth you've given up answering.

I won't pretend you're not just fogging.

[King_David]

113. That's a typical Scootaloo's fabricated argument

Fozzie never said such thing .

You do that often when your frequently losing an argument .

[Fozzledick]

63. Congratulations! You've just solved the gun control problem is the U.S.!!

No need to prevent criminals and lunatics from shooting at people, just have everyone wear bullet-proof vests and helmets all the time, and let them shoot all they want!

[Scootaloo]

66. We didn't blow up Elliot Rodger's neighborhood and call it "self-defense" n/t

[Fozzledick]

68. He wasn't a terrorist group with an arsenal of thousands of rockets.

Ever hear of Afghanistan? Much less of a threat to us than the jihadis are to Israel.

[Scootaloo]

73. Yeah, and invading Afghanistan was a hideously stupid move and wasteful of thousands of lives

Are you drawing this comparison to argue for or against blowing up lots of people via assaulting Gaza? Because it kinda looks like you're aiming to join the anti camp.

[Fozzledick]

76. You seemed to be suggesting that we wouldn't respond to terrorism with force.

The obvious truth is that our response is nowhere near as restrained as Israel's.

[Scootaloo]

79. Does responding to terrorism with force stop it?

Seems to me there's still plenty of terrorism in Afghanistan - hell, more than before. Plenty in Iraq, too - again, more than before. Has the use of force against Palestine brought peace to Israel?

[Fozzledick]

83. Ah, the old all-or-nothing false dichotomy.

Al-Qaeda is a shadow of it's former self, Iraq was never a threat to us (you just threw that in as a diversion), and while Israel has refrained from the use of unrestrained force to totally eliminate the aggressors against them, their defensive actions have minimized the ability of terrorists to murder them. Why would you want to return to the days of suicide bombers at bus stops and pizzerias and snipers in Jerusalem apartments?

[Scootaloo]

88. The what now?

Al-Qaeda's dissolved... Which just means that all the people who would be under an umbrella now aren't. They're still doing what they were going to do anyway, aren't they? And with the rise of so many other groups claiming the Al Qaeda franchise name (whether truly affiliated or not) I'm not even sure the claim of them being dissolved is that accurate.Regardless of the real reasons for Iraq, we applied military force, and terrorism appeared. We applied more force, and the result was more terrorism. And now look at Iraq. Good going, right?

nd while Israel has refrained from the use of unrestrained force to totally eliminate the aggressors against them,

do you have any idea how fucking depraved it makes you look when you applaud Israel for not unleashing absolute annihilation against a population? That's setting a really fucking low bar for the definition of "restraint." I'm sorry, nobody deserves praise for not engaging in democidal rampages. And when you consider that Israel is the occupying force, with the balance of power overwhelmingly tilted in its favor, well, this line of thought you display just gets even more perverted and sickening.

their defensive actions have minimized the ability of terrorists to murder them.

And I've been applauding their defensive actions in several posts in this thread. But launchign assaults against the Palestinian people is not "defense."

Why would you want to return to the days of suicide bombers at bus stops and pizzerias and snipers in Jerusalem apartments?

Bombing the living fuck out of Gaza stopped this? do you even know what's going on, Fozzie?

[Fozzledick]

92. Now you're just ranting incoherently.

If you had a reasonable rebuttal you would have made it by now, but you're just going all to pieces.

[Scootaloo]

93. If you say so, Fozzie

You may go now.

[shira]

116. How would you respond to someone shooting bullets at you & your family?

Would you recommend putting helmets and bullet proof vests on everyone (don't forget babies and toddlers too) & telling them all to just go on with their day, ignoring the so-called "threat"?

[Scootaloo]

124. I would respond by getting my family the fuck out of there as fast as I could

Time I spend indulging some delusion that I am John Wayne is time spent letting my family get blasted.

Know what I wouldn't do?

I wouldn't wait a week, kidnap the shooter's kid, torture him, pour gasoline down his throat, and then set him on fire.

[shira]

125. All Israelis are now within rocket range. You can't escape the bullets either...

So there's nowhere for you to run. You have bulletproof vests and helmets. Maybe you can all hide in shelters like Israelis are doing, maybe forever and ever….

Pop Quiz hotshot:

Whaddayadooo?

[Scootaloo]

127. I persist in not kidnapping their kids and setting them on fire

I also maintain my insistence on not doing that to their neighbors, as well.

[shira]

128. Enough diversions. Do you hide in a shelter forever like Israelis….

…or dare to go out with your loved ones while having to constantly wear bulletproof vests and helmets to prevent getting killed by maniacs shooting their guns at you?

[Scootaloo]

129. It's not a diversion, it' a distinction

I can't rightly say what I would do in such a situation, having only been shot at twice in my life (and family involved neither time.) I can tell you that the only weapon I ever carry is a knife, at most, and you know the saying about bringing knives to a gunfight.

But I can tell you what I would not do.

I would not engage in the sort of bloodthirsty retribution against an entire swath of people, in retaliation against the person shooting at me, that you advocate. Slaughtering his family, burning his children alive, crushing his grandmother under her own home, These things are not likely to make him stop shooting at me. in fact it's likely to get more of his friends involved, with fresh ammo.

[shira]

130. We both agree that deliberately targeting innocents is horrifically wrong...

But at least it appears you better understand what Israelis are now going through. THEY are the ones having to hide in bomb shelters, demanding that their elected officials do something to stop Hamas from attacking them (as any citizen in any other country would do).

[Scootaloo]

133. No, I'm not sure WE agree with that statement at all

You seem to believe that it's perfectly okay to deliberately target innocent civilians, so long as you say you're targeting something else (that just happens to kill them all as "collateral.&quot

of course, you see this argument for the fucking farce it is when Hamas or their like attempts it "We do not target innocents! We condemn the killing of innocents! We only fire upon the soldiers of the occupation!"

[shira]

134. Israel's record WRT preventing civilian casualties during war is better….

…than that of any other western democracy.

Of course they should try to be even better, but to accuse them as though they're worse than every other nation (including all western democracies) only exposes your utter hate and contempt for the Jewish state.

Why do you think Israel's civilian to combatant ratio is better than that of any other nation on the planet? Riddle me that one rather than diverting with some straw man.

Also, do you believe Israel's citizens have a right to expect their country to defend them from terror attacks?

[Scootaloo]

135. This is what i'm talking about

You can't bring yourself to admit that blowing up innocent people is bad, no matter who's doing it. it's only bad to you, when Palestinians do it. When Israel does it? There's always an excuse. There's always a justification. It's never bad, it's always good. So what if Israel killed dozens of people when it blows up an apartment building? let's congratulate them for killing some number less than an arbitrarily-determined baseline! Besides, those people don't count, since Israel wasn't targeting them, just the building they were all living in!

You just can't help yourself.

[shira]

142. Your opposition to Israeli self-defense is immoral

It's immoral for any nation to refuse to defend its civilians from terror attacks.

International Law (Geneva, etc) allow for nations to defend themselves as Israel is doing, so long as each nation does its best to protect civilians while going after Hamas. Israel does it better than anyone else and they deserve credit for it, given the threats their citizens face.

It appears your problem is with International Law and the Geneva Conventions.

And as much as you bitch about innocent Palestinians being killed in war, you demonstrate you have absolutely zero concern for the welfare of Israel's citizens under attack. Not to mention an utter lack of concern for Palestinians who are at risk due to Hamas' vile strategy to use them as human shields for propaganda purposes.

That's immoral too.

[Scootaloo]

143. You're still doing it.

Are you familiar with the Milgram experiment, conducted at Yale in 1961? if noit, allow me to explain.

In this experiment, there are three people - The person running the experiment, a confederate in the next room (the "learner&quot and the volunteer subject (the "teacher&quot . The "learner" and "teacher" drew slips to determine their roles (both were labeled 'teacher'). At this point they were taken into separate rooms where they could communicate but not see one another.

The "teacher" was given access to an electroshock panel, and a list of word pairs. he was instructed by the conductor to say a word, and if the "learner" did not reply with the correct counterpart, administer a shock to the "learner." These shocks grew in voltage, starting at 15 volts, ending at 450v. The "teacher" was also informed that hte "learner" had a heart condition.

of course, no actual shocks were delivered to the "learner" - rather he was an actor, who played prerecorded sounds as each "shock" was delivered, banged on the wall at moderate voltages, and eventually stopped responding altogether at 300v.

If the learner refused or hesitated, they received encouragement to continue by the conductor, in the form of four escalating statements;

Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.

If all of these failed, the experiment was ended. The conductor also had assurances for their questions; the "teacher" would not be held responsible, the shocks would not deal permanent damage, the man behind the wall was a petty criminal of some sort, etc.

Stanley Milgram's original hypothesis was that by 300v, only 3% of "teachers" would continue after the 300v shock when the "learner" stops responding. Instead, 65% of participants continued all the way to the 450v shock. 0% of participants - including those who refused to continue - demanded the experiment itself be stopped, or sought to help the "learner" without first asking permission of the conductor. Also 0% of the subjects refused to participate altogether - they all delivered some degree of shocks.

Torturing another human being, over something as trivial as not giving the correct answer to a word problem, was acceptable to every single subject, so long as they were told to do so by someone in a position of authority and were assured of a lack of personal responsibility.

In his 1995 book, "Triumph of the Market" Edward S. Herman wrote this, drawing on Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem."

Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on "normalization." This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as "the way things are done." There is usually a division of labor in doing and rationalizing the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals; others keeping the machinery of death (sanitation, food supply) in order; still others producing the implements of killing, or working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of defense intellectuals and other experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public. The late Herman Kahn spent a lifetime making nuclear war palatable (On Thermonuclear War, Thinking About the Unthinkable), and this strangelovian phoney got very good press.

In an excellent article entitled "Normalizing the unthinkable," in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists of March 1984, Lisa Peattie described how in the Nazi death camps work was "normalized" for the long-term prisoners as well as regular personnel: "Prison plumbers laid the water pipe in the crematorium and prison electricians wired the fences. The camp managers maintained standards and orderly process. The cobblestones which paved the crematorium yard at Auschwitz had to be perfectly scrubbed." Peattie focused on the parallel between routinization in the death camps and the preparations for nuclear war, where the "unthinkable" is organized and prepared for in a division of labor participated in by people at many levels. Distance from execution helps render responsibility hazy. "Adolph Eichmann was a thoroughly responsible person, according to his understanding of responsibility. For him, it was clear that the heads of state set policy. His role was to implement, and fortunately, he felt, it was never part of his job actually to have to kill anyone."

Peattie noted that the head of MlT's main military research lab in the 1960s argued that "their concern was development, not use, of technology." Just as in the death camps, in weapons labs and production facilities, resources are allocated on the basis of effective participation in the larger system, workers derive support from interactions with others in the mutual effort, and complicity is obscured by the routineness of the work, interdependence, and distance from the results.

Peattie also pointed out how, given the unparalleled disaster that would follow nuclear war, "resort is made to rendering the system playfully, via models and games." There is also a vocabulary developed to help render the unthinkable palatable: "incidents," "vulnerability indexes," "weapons impacts," and "resource availability." She doesn't mention it, but our old friend "collateral damage," used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, came out of the nukespeak tradition.

don't talk to me about morals while you spend every effort to normalize and excuse the deaths of innocents, Shira. Nobody "deserves credit" for killing fewer people than were killed in someone else's mass murder - that's like praising Saddam for killing fewer people than Stalin.

[shira]

144. Taking your view to the extreme, it would've been immoral to defend vs. the Nazis….

The Allied Powers could have done everything imaginable to protect innocent German or Japanese lives, but that wouldn't be good enough for you. If any died, you'd have bashed the Allies rather than the Fascists.

How utterly depraved and immoral.

[Scootaloo]

145. "To the extreme" indeed

Do you believe that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral act? How about the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, or Kyoto?

[shira]

146. I just wrote that the Allies could have done everything possible to protect civilians….

…in Germany and Japan, and that wouldn't be good enough for you.

Was I correct?

[Scootaloo]

147. And I asked you something so I could get a clearer focus before answering

Do you regard the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and nagasaki, and the torching of Dresden, Kyoto, and Tokyo to have been moral acts, Shira?

[shira]

148. You're deflecting & I won't play along. Please answer me first.

You've been arguing the same shit about Israel not having a right to defend itself militarily for years now in this forum. If there was a possibility that Israel would do a Hiroshima or Dresden against the Palestinians, I'd answer you.

As it is, I'll answer you once you answer me first.

[Scootaloo]

149. No, i'm not.

To answer your question, I have to know whether or not you believe targeting civilians is considered protecting civilians. As phrased in the Vietnam War, "destroying the village to save it."

I'm looking for clarification to your very broad question, given how prone you are to "gotcha" bullshit.

[shira]

150. No, that was not moral. Your turn now. n/t

[Scootaloo]

151. Interesting. Are you sure that these were not moral?

Because the targets of the Hiroshima bombing weren't the civilians killed; it was the factories producing war materiel.
Because the targets of the Nagasaki bombing were not the civilians killed; it was the naval shipyard.
Because the targets of the Dresden bombing were not the civilians killed; it was the communications centers and rail yards.
Because the targets of the Tokyo bombing were not the civilians killed; it was the Imperial government offices in the city.

No praise to the US and RAF for their restraint? After all they didn't completely flatten every city they bombed. And death tolls in Nagasaki actually ended up being twenty thousand less than the initial estimate, a measly eighty thousand! surely that deserves some hearty praise. let's not forget that leaflets were dropped on Dresden and Berlin both before the bombing campaigns. And after all, all the civilians killed in these bombings were just "human shields" being used by the Japanese and the Nazis to protect their shipyards and factories, right? You know leaflets were dropped on Dresden urging people to flee, right?

Our hands are clean then, right? We bear no responsibility whatsoever.

It's Japan's fault that we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had no choice. Were we supposed to just roll over and "take it"? No other nation in the world would allow it. We stopped them as fast as we could, with what we had. We deserve praise for not engaging in a ground invasion of Japan! All two hundred thousand people killed are solely on Japan's head, along with the thousands more sickened and killed by the radiation.

Right?

I ask if you are sure about the morality, because these are the exact arguments your position regarding Gaza hinges on.

- So long as the stated targets of missile strikes are something other than civilians, killing a bunch of civilians in the blast is okay.
- Every civilian who dies can be dismissed as a "human shield," anyway.
- Israel dropped leaflets, so israel has no responsibility for those killed in its missile strike five minutes later.
- Hamas made Israel do it. Israel had no choice.
- Israel deserves praise for its restraint for not engaging in total annihilation of the population.

Now, I believe you when you say the acts I mentioned were immoral. I just think that your brain, your sense of ethics, goes completely haywire where Israel is involved. Look upthread, where you say you think killing civilians is immoral. So far, so good. But htne I point out that, well.. Israel kills civilians. You go into justification mode - Israel is absolutely right to kill as many people as it wishes, whenever, hwoever it wants, and deserves heaps of praise for not simply slaughtering all the multitudes that it theoretically could.

Now, finally, to answer your question;

I do not care if that factory is making bullets for the other army - burning down the city to get it is not moral. I don't care if there was a sniper on that roof ten minutes ago; bombing the apartment complex is not moral. I regard "we are making every effort to protect civilians" while launching high explosives into civilian areas, to be the absolute depth of perfidy.

[shira]

152. I asked you about the Allies doing all they could to avoid civilian casualties….

Obviously, dropping atomic bombs on major population centers is NOT doing all they could….

You'd have been against the Allies defending militarily against Nazi Germany, correct?

[Scootaloo]

153. But that IS exactly what they did - they dropped that bomb, and many more besides

And every single one was excused, justified, explained. The allies bore no moral responsibility for their own actions, and so convinced, happily commemorated these events as "victories."

[shira]

154. Once again, if the Allies REALLY and truly did all they could to prevent….

….civilian casualties (as much as humanly possible, and that means no nukes, no carpet bombing, no mass killings, no collective punishment, nor every other nasty cruel thing imaginable) you'd have still been against an Allied invasion of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

Correct?

[shira]

75. +1 n/t

[bemildred]

11. Ah good, more sanctimonious twaddle. That is sure to help. nt

[shira]

16. Let's remember this when Israel is forced to respond big time. n/t

[bemildred]

17. Israel is not forced to do squat. nt

[shira]

19. Right. Its citizens should just lie back & take the rockets. n/t

[bemildred]

20. If you like the way things are going, keep doing what you are doing. nt

[shira]

22. What do u suggest Israel does? Total surrender to Hamas/Islamic Jihad demands?

What's your solution?

[bemildred]

23. That is not for me to decide.

I doubt there is a solution at this point. Nothing simple or quick, that's for sure.

[shira]

25. IOW, u have no good suggestions other than condemning everything.....

...Israel does.



How helpful, enlightened, and progressive.

[bemildred]

59. You prefer happy talk? A shining city on the hill? That kind of thing? nt

[shira]

60. I expect a reasonable solution rather than childish No's to everything. n/t

[bemildred]

69. Good luck. nt

[bemildred]

24. Israel has the power, they have the jets and nukes, and the money, they made this mess. nt

[shira]

26. Power to do what? Force Jihadis into making peace? n/t

[bemildred]

58. Well what the hell are they good for then? nt

[shira]

61. Huh? You mean more powerful weapons, money...? n/t

[bemildred]

72. Are they doing a good job of protecting Israel?

Everybody feel safe?

Like I said, if you like how things are going, keep doing what you are doing. If not, the first thing you have to do is stop.

But it is not my job to solve it, far from it. I'm just some nerd in LA. That is Israel's job, and the Palestinians, you need to work it out with them, not me.

[shira]

77. If Israel had inferior weapons than its enemies, u think it'd still exist? n/t

[bemildred]

82. Back then Israel had nothing. No guns, no money, no jets. Nothing like now. Right?

Now they have everything and are living in Hell anyway. What do you think? What does the evidence say about all that military superiority? That it won't protect you if you don't make peace. Give those Palestinian kids something better to do and they will soon get tired of shooting at you.

If you want peace, you have to make peace. War does not bring peace.

You can't expel them all, and you can't kill them alll, so you are going to have to deal with them. Better get started.

[Jefferson23]

13. Israel's problem, every respected human rights group has documented war crimes for both sides

for years and years. There is no even score card because Israel is the state, a state that
has the political and military might. The other side does not even have a fucking army of their
own. They also have to deal with a dishonest broker who always has Israel's back no matter
the crime.

The objective here is to proclaim a reason to not cede one inch of land, no matter what.

[azurnoir]

15. it read more like a demand for absolution from whatever might happen

during Israel's current campaign in Gaza officially called Operation Protective Edge

[shira]

21. I think the pro-Pal. anti-Israel contingent is rooting for another OCL....

It explains the silence re: the rocket attacks (resistance they support) & allows for them to get their hate on when Israel inevitably defends itself.

It's getting old.

[azurnoir]

100. well some may be but you may be confused about some aspects of just who that is n/t

[Jefferson23]

29. And what is the main objective in the end? Same as it has been, do not cede any land.

Palestinians are too dangerous...it's not us, it's them. Same old schtick.

[shira]

33. You have no answer for what will follow full IDF withdrawal...

You want a withdrawal WITHOUT peace.

How do u think that'll work out for Israeli civilians with extreme Jihadis (Hamas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda) camping out on their doorstep?

What western nation would be crazy enough to allow for such a scenario?

[Jefferson23]

35. I have no answer? You're hilarious, in a sad way.

What are going to claim next as evidence, Gaza?

You crack me up.

[shira]

39. What's your answer to Hamas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. within short walking distance....

....of Israeli civilians once the IDF gets out of the W.Bank w/o a peace deal being made?

You have religious faith they'll all become pacifists overnight?

[Jefferson23]

49. You're losing it if you think any rational person is going to accept a hair on fire,

the big bad Arabs and or Muslims are coming for Israel.

What do you suggest, they wall themselves in...on more Palestinian land?

[shira]

52. It's not called the Arab/Israel conflict for nothing.

But sure, you believe all Israel's nutbag Jihadi enemies will make nice overnight. This is why it's been suggested that a peace-keeping force replace the IDF upon withdrawal in any peace deal. Because the nice Jihadis can be trusted.

And you wonder why your extreme views aren't embraced by any Democrats...

[Jefferson23]

53. I feel sorry for you, truly. We're done here. n/t

[azurnoir]

101. how do you go about attaining peace in the middle of a military occupation and colonization project?

[azurnoir]

102. true enough in an over all sense of the situation

[Jefferson23]

112. That's all I ever see.

Alarming Developments on the Ground
7/7/14

In the last few days, following the killing of the three Israeli teens, we witness alarming developments on the ground in settlements: Three new (serious) outposts were established and a new road to Givat Eitam outpost was paved, in addition to other several protest tents and other developments that the settlers put up in different places in the West Bank.
The settlers are taking advantage of the killing of the three teens in order to set facts on the ground that they wouldn't dare to do before. We don't know if they got a green light from the government (although such a green light could not have made the acts legal, short of planning procedures), however, those developments will be judged by the government's reaction.

If the government doesn’t evict them in the coming days, it will be much harder to remove them and they will stay and develop as settlements. The settlers might continue to seize the opportunity of the current political and security situation in order create more facts on the ground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113466433

[shira]

18. Making excuses for Hamas war crimes? "They don't have an army so...."

...the rockets and suicide bombers are all the poor things are capable of doing."



Also, Hamas and friends have to deal with the USA?

Aww, poor terrorists.

[Fozzledick]

27. Israel's enemies have many armies

but every time they've attacked in force they've been soundly defeated.

That's why they choose to back terrorists who hide among civilians rather than risk their regular forces in open combat.

[Jefferson23]

31. Background on Human Shields

During the second intifada, the Palestinian popular uprising, the Israeli military used Palestinian civilians as human shields. Soldiers would order Palestinians to perform tasks such as entering homes to check for booby traps or the removal of suspicious objects from roads. This use of civilians was not a local initiative by soldiers, but rather implementation of a decision made by senior military authorities. In 2005, Israel’s High Court of Justice declared it unlawful to use Palestinian civilians in military operations. Nonetheless, B’Tselem has documented instances of this practice taking place subsequent to the court's decision.

http://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields

[Fozzledick]

34. Meanwhile Hamas continues to place offensive weapons in highly populated areas

and to deliberately draw fire onto civilians for propaganda purposes.

That's their basic strategy and they depend on sympathy from useful idiots in other countries to make it work.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3623/hamas-killed-baby

[Jefferson23]

37. And? How does that obsolve Israel's government and I suggest you rely on a right wing

group for a reason. Human rights groups do not focus on one side.

[shira]

41. Do we at least agree Hamas uses civilians as shields when attacking Israelis?

Or will you deny that and therefore condone Hamas' war crimes?

[Jefferson23]

43. I go by the reports, they are responsible for what amounts to war crimes, they are responsible

for their actions...same as Israel.

[shira]

45. So is that a Yes or No? Is Hamas guilty of human shielding war crimes? n/t

[Jefferson23]

51. Try and figure it out...read the reports, there are about 300 just on OCL. n/t

[shira]

54. I asked you & it seems you're in denial of these war crimes. How nice & progressive. n/t

[Jefferson23]

55. Your dishonesty on the reports are foolish. n/t

[shira]

57. What do the reports say about these Hamas war crimes? Where R your links now? n/t

[Jefferson23]

28. You're very foolish to imagine anyone is excusing war crimes, other than those who support

Israel without question.

Human rights groups have documented both sides for years...unfortunately those
reports do not help you.

[shira]

40. Find me an unequivocal full-throated condemnation of the recent rocket barrage....

....by any Human Rights Group or leader within the last week.

I'll wait.

[azurnoir]

107. the past week Human Rights groups have condemning the deaths of 3 Israelis, remember them?

the rockets from Gaza were not being put out as a major issue until this weekend

[Shaktimaan]

70. Not to nearly the same extent.

Read this nyt oped for example.

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

Need I even mention the biases inherent in groups such as the UNHRC, which are truly undeniable in their scope and obviousness?

[Jefferson23]

74. You perceive them that way. We have had this same conversation before, with your same gentleman

as the highlight for your assertions.

B'Tselem has no ulterior motives,their documentation is solid as well as hundreds of other reports by respected
human rights groups. As for Colonel Kemp, he has a credibility problem..he is watching out for his own ass:

snip*It is a prospect that angers and upsets those who issued battle orders and those who did the fighting. Colonel Richard Kemp, the former Commander of British forces in Afghanistan, denounced the move as “politically motivated” and called for David Cameron to publicly support British troops in the face of what he called “baseless” accusations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10830895/War-crimes-Why-is-Britain-in-the-dock-again.html

[shira]

30. Not true. Look at the twitter feed for Ken Roth (HRW) for example...

Harsh condemnation for any and everything Israel does. Minimized the kidnapping and murder of the 3 teens by dehumanizing them as "settlers".

https://twitter.com/KenRoth/with_replies

Has not once slammed Hamas recently for their war crime rocket attacks.

Roth is a perfect example of the type of hypocrite mentioned in the OP.

[Jefferson23]

32. Nonsense, they're documents after documents condemning Hamas.

They are settlers, btw. Odd you think that demeans them.

[shira]

38. Where are recent condemnations? Over 100 rockets into Israel in past 2 days....

Where are all the Human Rights organizations, including the UN?

I'll tell you where. They're waiting for Israel to respond, and that way they won't have to make a full-throated unequivocal, stand-alone condemnation of Hamas, as they do vs. Israel for sneezing the wrong way....

And no, they weren't settlers. 2 of the 3 lived within Israel proper. And kids are not "settlers". If they are, when does that happen? When they're infants, toddlers, teens? They don't call the shots as to where they live.

[Jefferson23]

42. Oh you want recent, up to the minute blow by blow...then I suggest you read their websites.

You like score sheets and contests so much, I suggest you rethink that idea as a means
to measure the brutality of the occupation.

The score sheet is never going to be 50 50, because the balance of power goes
to Israel..always has.

[shira]

44. They're recent on any & every thing Israel does. Why not the rockets?

When you find something, lemme know.

[Jefferson23]

46. You are free to read their reports, and press releases. But do keep trying to move those

goal posts.

[shira]

48. Like I wrote, you've got nothing. Thanks. n/t

[Jefferson23]

50. You're afraid to look...it's ok. I get that. n/t

[azurnoir]

122. Roth barely mentions Israel at all in any context including the present one

instead he is condemning China. Boku Haram, Saudi Arabia, lack of LGBT rights in certain African countries, Bahrain, ISIS ya know lot's of stuff that we see very commonly used as a diversion from what Israel does, but yet you complain, interesting

[democrank]

36. I`m going to re-read reply #2 at least ten more times.

~PEACE~

[Kurska]

114. Israel is the only nation on earth expected to view a rocket a minute fired at civilians

As harmless acting out and not a declaration of war.

[Harmony Blue]

117. I am inclined to agree

and it saddens me greatly to see the Palestinians throwing away all the work they did. Political change as traumacrats hasn't and will not work but political change as diplomats has made far more gains.

But the concept of democracy is a foreign concep for most of the Arab world and it is going to take time for them to fully embrace moving forward.

[shira]

115. Where is the outrage over the bombardment of civilians in Israel?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10954124/Where-is-the-outrage-over-the-bombardment-of-civilians-in-Israel.html

...Why is it that a majority of the international community only notices when Israel undertakes its sovereign right, and obligation, to defend its citizens? Can you imagine if even one rocket was fired on London, Washington, Paris or Moscow? This is simply intolerable and no country can, or should, tolerate such attacks on its people.

Where is the outrage from the United Nations, which does not hesitate for a moment to call a "special emergency session" on the "Question of Palestine" or pass the umpteenth resolution blindly condemning Israel? But 24 hours after the rocket attacks on Israel started, I am still waiting for even one syllable of condemnation from the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly or the Human Rights Council. Where is the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who repeatedly slams Israel over settlement building, but is yet to say a word about the Palestinians firing over 120 rockets on Israeli civilians in one day? Even 10 Downing and the Foreign Office are yet to comment.

Where are all those so-called enlightened liberals, who continue to call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the Jewish State, but are silent in the face of Palestinian terror against Jews? Where are all the human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Oxfam, who do not waste a single opportunity to condemn Israel for human rights violations against the Palestinians? Are the human rights of Israelis not equally important? Or is Jewish blood really that cheap? Where is the outrage from the mainstream media? Instead, news organisation like the BBC, lead their stories about the rocket attacks headlines like ‘Israel launches new air strikes on Gaza Strip’ and not ‘Palestinian Terrorists in Gaza Rain Down Over 120 Rockets Against 1 million Israelis in 24 hours.’

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

120. Well, shira, you have enough fake

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

outrage on a quiet day not to mention a lot of excuses, denials and diversions when Palestinians get capped so perhaps people see you and others as the collective boy that cried wolf.

BDS.

[shira]

121. This isn't about me personally. It's about the so-called pro-Palestinian....

....anti-Israel hypocrites and haters who are unwilling to unequivocally condemn Hamas war crimes. They condemn one side in the conflict and do not at all care for the human rights of the other.

You have nothing substantive in response, as usual.

--------------------------

BDS = Bigoted Double Standards or Bigoted Deceitful & Shameless

Cheering on BDS given what they're all about is no better than leading the cheers on Euro- fascist boycotts from 75 years ago. They gained popularity too, for all the wrong reasons. Talk about being on the wrong side of history, but that's BDS.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

123. But it is, my dear, especially when your fake outrage machine gins up hatred against

the Palestinians and assumes that they are inherently evil.


Besides, nobody here condones what Hamas does. Now do they?


BDS is growing and Israel fears that.

[Ken Burch]

126. "speak now, or forever hold your piece"?

I thought that's what the officiant says right after he asks if anybody knows of any reason these two people should not be wed?



Hamas shouldn't be firing rockets at Israel. But launching widespread attacks on Gaza will hurt a lot of people who aren't firing the rockets and don't think they should've been fired, but have no way of stopping Hamas from doing anything.

[sabbat hunter]

131. Hamas

started this latest round with the unprovoked kidnapping and murder of the three teenagers.

Israel sent soldiers in to try and find the people behind the murders, which as an occupying force is their right and in fact are required to do (keep the peace in an occupied land).

Then stupid illegal settlers had to try and gain revenge, instead of allowing law and order to prevail.

Those that committed the crime of murdering the Palestinian youth by horrendous means have been arrested and charged with murder (And if reports are to be believed they have already confessed to the murder)

But this is not enough for Hamas, instead it decided to launch hundreds of rockets in revenge for that youth's murder.

Israel now must do what it must to stop the rockets from falling on its citizens. And it is their right under international law to defend themselves. Since Hamas are cowards, they launch the rockets from civilian areas in to civilian areas in order to maximize civilian damage (injuries, properties, deaths, etc), as they feel it will benefit them to terror the Israelis and claim that Israel is terrorizing the Palestinians of Gaza.

But Israel will do what it must to defend its citizens from these rockets. They will warn the civilians to get out of the way (which they have done in the past).

Abbas should immediately tell Hamas he will end the unity government if they do not stop launching rockets in to Israel. If they do not stop, he should commit his forces to root out Hamas from the WB areas under PA control.

The ball is in Hamas's court. Immediately end teh rocket attacks and turn over those responsible for the attacks.

[shira]

132. The rocket barrage started last month...

Who knows Hamas' motivation? Here's some analysis showing Hamas is at an all-time low and they're going for broke now….

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-decides-to-go-for-broke/

[Anarcho-Socialist]

139. Hamas firing rockets

Doesn't make the illegal occupation ok.

Doesn't make the land grab from Palestinians ok.

Doesn't make the impoverishment of Palestinians ok.

Doesn't make the denial of Palestinian sovereignty ok.

In the 1970s and 1980s when the Provisional IRA were bombing UK military and business targets. Britain didn't plead self-defence as a pretext to go in and bomb the whole of Ireland to smithereens, occupy the lot and eject the Irish from their homes for British settlers.

The world would have seen it as a cynical land-grab reminiscent of the British Empire of old. Indeed it was something Britain did for hundreds of years.

[sabbat hunter]

140. the occupation is perfectly legal

under international law. It is the settlements that are not legal.

[Shaktimaan]

156. The occupation is illegal?

What gives you that idea?

Britain didn't plead self-defence as a pretext to go in and bomb the whole of Ireland to smithereens, occupy the lot and eject the Irish from their homes for British settlers.

Well, since Israel hasn't done that either I'm not sure how you think it applies.

[shira]

157. This OP was written in the hours PRECEEDING Israel's military response.

The world was silent.

Perhaps if the world REALLY cared about Palestinians, they would have condemned Hamas in the strongest imaginable terms and this all could've been avoided.

[shira]

158. There was no condemnation of Hamas, just silence, until Israel fired back....

And this is one reason Israelis do not take their most hostile critics seriously about anything.

It'll happen again in the future and the silence will be deafening once again, until Israel has the audacity to fire back in defense. Fake human rights advocates will cry their crocodile tears once more, accusing Israel of genocide, crimes against humanity, etc...

While tacitly supporting Hamas terror against Israel's populace.

Rinse. Repeat....