Is Gaza getting the message?

[Violet_Crumble]

by leslie susser
jta

Despite international protests, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has indicated that Israel will keep up military and civilian pressure on the Gaza Strip in an effort to force Hamas and other Palestinian militia groups to stop their cross-border rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Israel relaxed its blockade somewhat Jan. 22 after masses of Palestinians tried to cross the Gaza-Egypt border. On Jan. 23, the crowds succeeded in knocking down the border fence, and thousands of Palestinians streamed into Egypt to stock up on supplies before returning to Gaza.

Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip could have some major positive policy ramifications. It aims to make a decisive impact on the seven-year-long cross-border war of attrition, it could weaken Hamas’ hold on Gaza and it could influence the Annapolis peace process.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/34435/format/html/displaystory.html

Here's a letter that was published in response to the article. See if you can spot what's wrong with it...

Expel Arabs in Gaza

Here we go again. Israel defends herself and Leslie Susser says Israel will worry about “international opinion” (“Is Gaza getting the message?,” Jan. 25). Some may wonder: If Hamas, the new Amalek of our times, was targeting Cabinet ministers and their families on a regular basis, would the Israeli government really worry about “international opinion?” We all know the answer to that.

There is a fourth option: Expel the Arabs from Gaza. Those who refuse to leave should be annihilated. Start the carpet bombings (Dresden revisited). Then send in the army to mop up. One day and it is all over. This is how Israel should deal with an entity that acts like Amalek.

We are living in a post-9/11 era. Arabs and Muslims are not very “popular” nowadays. Except for those who look at the “bottom line” and alike, no one really cares. Most will applaud Israel’s actions secretly especially after the fact.

Neal Wohlmuth | San Francisco

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/34505/format/html/displaystory.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

2. Didn't learn quite the right lesson from WWII, did he? nt

[Tom Joad]

4. and the lesson from that should be, Never Again! for everyone

Wohlmuth is clearly a self-hating human. But the worst offender here is not Wohlmuth, but the paper that allowed him to propagate what in most nations would be a clear crime, incitement to commit mass murder. Certainly as a matter of ethics, if not legally, this newspaper has really crossed the line.

[azurnoir]

5. I disagree about the paper

that allowed Wohlmuth to be heard, because it is in silence that a plan like the one he outlined could be carried out, yes it will attract some who are like minded, but out in the open, on the other hand it will horrify most and hopefully die of it's own venom.

BTW OT but we interpret "never again" differently too; to me the unspoken words "will we go like lambs to the slaughter" have always followed

[Tom Joad]

6. I think the important lesson is we must not be silent when others are oppressed.

edited for clarity.

[pelsar]

7. never again...

which came out of the Holocaust means what you wrote: " will we go like lambs to the slaughter"

Tom simply took it "hijacked" the original meaning and obviously likes to "turn it around" to be used against the israelis who have a "colonial racist country" that has been the occupier for the last 60 years... (ask him...i believe thats a summary of his views written at various times here)
----


and the letter isnt even worth commenting on....they're are zillions of those be they at LGF or KOS or Stormfront, IE etc.

[Tom Joad]

13. Ending the nightmare...

I did not hijack anything. you are perfectly in your rights to think of the lessons of WWII anyway you want, as is Neal, or anyone else.

It doesn't belong to anyone, nor does that phrase.
Some will think the lesson is to get as many F-16's as possible, and annihilate your "enemy" (or at least starve them). Live by military might. Oppress the enemy because, in that view, the alternative is that they might oppress you.

Others see this in a more humanistic way, that in order to avoid another such future nightmare, we must stand together against all oppression.

and yes, the sentiments of Neal the letter writer can be seen at some of the websites you mentioned, like stormfront or LGF or PSU (victims may change, however). but this was not a mere anonymous post at a website. It was a written letter to a Weekly paper that is mainstream...the editor choose to print that letter among all the other alternatives he had, and that is not comforting.

[azurnoir]

34. One would think over 60 years that

"Never Again" would have come to mean both it's original meaning and that never again would this be allowed to happen and I believe that for most it has.

[Tom Joad]

3. Mr. Wohlmuth doesn't seem to be no more than a bit more radical than Israel's current policy.

I think it is a slippery slope. When you get to the point where it is okay that a siege will lead to 20-30% child nutrition (and rising!), then is it really much of a stretch to go to what Wohlmuth is proposing?

Yes, it is clear that what he is proposing is nothing less than a genocidal holocaust, but it is not really a that much of an escalation. If Israel did do such a thing, i think instead of the one dozen in Congress who clearly oppose such a policy it would double, and Israel would be faced with maybe 25 or 30 angry congresspeople. Out of 535 members.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I disagree.....

Yes, it is clear that what he is proposing is nothing less than a genocidal holocaust, but it is not really a that much of an escalation.

Tom, that nasty little letter writer was talking of annihilation and carpet bombing to drive people out. It really is pushing it to suggest that it wouldn't be all that much of an escalation from the collective punishment that has been carried out by Israel. Even if the Olmert govt had it in it to do something so horrific, there's several reasons why it wouldn't, and one of them is that the Israeli public wouldn't tolerate a govt carrying out genocide on their behalf....

[LeftishBrit]

10. I fully agree with you on all points!!!

[Vegasaurus]

11. I agree with you too Violet nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I don't know how much of it was motivated by religion, but I found it horrifying....

Right off the bat I want to make it clear that despite the fact that in the US Presidential candidates like Tom Tancredo can openly advocate the destruction of cities like Mecca and Medina, and that I did post at a place called Political Hotwire where one person (an American, of course) said she thought Muslims should be killed if they didn't pass her *Are You A Good Muslim* test, I still found that LTTE horrifying. But I didn't post the article and the LTTE for this to become a platform for arguments that the Israeli govt is not so far from committing genocide, etc, and their actions aren't all that different than the views expressed in that LTTE, or that *horrifying* is something where only one thing can be horrifying at a time...

Thanks for pointing out to me that I've joined apologists who deny the criminality of what Israel has done to the population of Gaza. I wouldn't have noticed that myself, what with my stance that Israel has violated international law with it's blockade of Gaza, and my strong opposition to what Israel has been doing. But me pointing out that the Olmert govt (I had moments when I thought otherwise of Sharon) isn't capable of genocide and that the Israeli public wouldn't tolerate such a genocide being carried out in their name doesn't make me an apologist for anything...

There were two words in yr post that I found irritating, and they were *slippery slope*. Anti-choice folk used to use those words every second sentence back when I debated abortion at Yahoo, and I learnt quickly that a working definition of that term was 'connecting two things that aren't connected at all'. And it's the same in this case. Yes, the blockade of Gaza is wrong on so many levels and causes so much suffering for civilians, but for it to be a short step to genocide, the Israeli govt would be doing it for no other reason than they're Arab/Muslims etc, and the intent would be their destruction. From what I've read, the Israeli govt has stated that it's motive is to punish the population in order to exert pressure so that rocket fire into Israel will stop. While it's clearly collective punishment, it's not an indicator of genocide or genocidal in it's nature. I don't think the Israel govt (and this is a criticism I have of Hamas as well) cares all that much if Palestinian civilians end up dying due to it's actions, but there's a difference between the sort of craven indifference I see and an intent to destroy a group or part of a group of people...

When it comes to getting out there and 'organising against Israel's crimes against humanity', I can't say I do a whole lot. I'm a member of Amnesty International because they focus on all crimes against humanity, not just one country's. I sponsor a girl in Battir in the West Bank through World Vision, though I suspect from her drawings she's sent to me that she's a Christian and I'm on a quest to subtly convert her to atheism. But I don't actually get out there and *do* anything. And my intertia isn't confined to the I/P conflict, but to everything. The only times in the last decade I've *done* anything is to attend a massive anti-war rally before the invasion of Iraq, and to go to a rally against the industrial relations policies of the now defunct Howard government. I've had the opportunity to march on the Israeli and US embassies, but usually my distaste for walking long distances wins out in the end....

While I believe that as an Australian, what I think about the I/P conflict has zero effect on anything, I think when it comes to Americans it's a whole different ball-game. They're the people who elect what is currently the most powerful govt in the world, and the US govt's stance on Israel and Palestine is so skewed and one-sided it's not funny. Americans need to be educated that Palestinians aren't a bunch of terrorists, or some wacky and inferior culture of suicide bombers etc, but people just like you and me* who deserve to be able to live with some shred of dignity. And educating them shouldn't involve what I consider to be OTT claims about Israel, like it's committing or on a slope to committing genocide, coz that's sure to turn people off....

* I've been reading a book by an Egyptian woman who lives in the UK called 'Mezzaterra'. In it she talks about her visit to the Occupied Territories and meeting with Marwan Barghouti in 2000, and she describes his sense of helplessness when it comes to him hearing that his teenage son is out there throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. He clearly didn't want his son down at the barricades but was at a complete loss how to keep him safe. That's what Americans need to see - that Palestinians do love their families (in fact while I've been reading I've come to the conclusion that there's a much stronger sense of family in Palestinian society than in the West), and they feel all the pain and agony that anyone else feels when they see their families being killed or hurt...

[Tom Joad]

15. Let today's war crimes be sufficient enough to concern you for today

I don't think it the slightest bit of exaggeration to describe current policy as genocide
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;....

(there is nothing in the legal definition about intent)

I think the US was involved in a genocidal war in Southeast Asia, it supported Indonesia's genocidal occupation in East Timor, and the US supported genocide in wars in Central America. It's nothing less than that.

I don't think they will likely go as extreme as Neal's nightmare vision suggests, but why would they need to?

Israel faces little consequences for what it is doing today and they are able to cut off nearly all life support for 1.5 million people, keeping them just barely on the edge of survival. many children will grow up (or not grow up) permanently scarred by this brutal attack on the people of Gaza. Sure its goals are political, but that has nothing to do with the definition of genocide.

[Vegasaurus]

16. Egypt has made it clear that it is cutting off its life support for Gaza too

Where's your outrage, Tom? You surely have enough for Israel.

Egypt stopped delivering food and fuel to the Rafah border towns, and is sealing their border. Are you blaming them for genocide?

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Intent....

there is nothing in the legal definition about intent

Yes there is, and you bolded it in yr post:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Such a broad interpretation of genocide as yrs leaves a lot of other things open to being labelled genocide. Do you think The Blitz was an example of genocide? And to bring it back to the I/P conflict, do you think that things like suicide bombings are examples of genocide? If not, why not?

[Shaktimaan]

28. Based on this definition

wouldn't it mean that the Palestinians are guilty of committing genocide against the Jews? Actually, a definition this broad would mean that virtually every war, hate crime, murder or even pretty much every mugging or fistfight where the victim belonged to a "group" could be considered genocide. It would mean that Nelson Mandella would be guilty of genocide. Or the Native Americans who fought for their land and lives. Freed slaves fighting in the american civil war. That hispanic guy from my high school who beat up a black kid. All of them guilty of genocide?

Dontcha think this definition might be a tad... broad?

(there is nothing in the legal definition about intent)

This definition? Yes, there absolutely is Tom. Have you read it?

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;....

That word, "deliberately" mean that there must be the INTENT to accomplish said goal. (Oh, I see violet already caught this. props v.)

[pelsar]

19. violet you've been exposed .....

I'm on a quest to subtly convert her to atheism. your evilness knows no bounds! (i assume i dont have to put one of those idiotic icons here....)

---

his sense of helplessness when it comes to him hearing that his teenage son is out there throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. He clearly didn't want his son down at the barricades but was at a complete loss how to keep him safe.

btw i've heard that before by someone in the ISM...how can kids stay in school while their older friends are outside "playing with the tanks"....and no parent or teacher could keep them in.

[Tom Joad]

23. You have friends in ISM?

[pelsar]

26. people i've talked to....

got a friend whos a refusnik.......got a couple on the far right..messianic jews.

you'd be surprised how well the IDF integrates the society.....

___

tom you've got to "get out more".....theres whole complex world out here

[pelsar]

29. Tom your are SO SO SO WRONG!

your post to Violet
I think it would be best to spend your time organizing against Israel's crimes against humanity, rather than joining the apologists
_____

ignoring the diffferent values and opinions that i may have with Violet, she is far more closer to your views then mine....yet here you again (as in the concerts) pushing away a natural ally. An ally i might point out far more valuable than any "hamasnic/islamic jihadnik" that you might join up with. (who the second they get what they want..they then turn on the nice liberals-example being iran)

Once again you have show your incredible lack of tolerance for those who even differ just the slightest from your viewpoint......you so remind me of my acquaintances in hebron...and such intolerant viewpoints always prolong conflict.....

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Whoo hoo! I'm more valuable than a jihadnik!

I'm not taking a dig at you, pelsar, coz I know what yr saying, especially when you used the example of the Iranian Left in Iran finding out that the enemy of their enemy was their worst nightmare in the end....

If Tom thinks that me saying that what Israel has been doing in Gaza isn't genocide makes me an apologist for what Israel has been doing, then he can keep on thinking that. He can say the same thing about AI, B'Tselem, and HRW, coz as far as I'm aware not one of them have said it's genocide either...

When it comes to genocide and defining it, if Israel was committing genocide, I'd not be backwards in coming forward to say it was, but the legal definition is one specifically created to cover wiping out religious, ethnic or national groups, either entirely or partly, and the intent is to destroy the group. Genocide has never been intended to cover any conflict with loss of life on the planet, nor violations of other international law by states where the intent is not to wipe out part of all of another group. It's meant to cover one of the darkest crimes that can be committed by a state or militia groups etc...

A book about genocide that I think everyone should try and read is Samantha Powers 'A Problem From Hell'. There's a lot in there about Raphael Lemkin and why he created the term genocide and later the wording of the Convention. It was clear what crimes he wanted it applied to, which is why it's specifically worded so that the Holocaust isn't used as a yardstick when defining genocide, but neither is it so broad that anything but the mass-killing of groups of people in order to destroy them comes into it...

[pelsar]

31. ok..that was funny

Whoo hoo! I'm more valuable than a jihadnik!

[bemildred]

32. Yeah. I find all this arguing about nomenclature tedious.

It is magical thinking, as though what word you changes what it is or is not. They are all various ways of calling someone a name. The question ought to be is it right or wrong, in one of the several ways things can be right or wrong: is it moral, effective, ethical, legal, consistent, humane, intelligent?

And the answer, in every case, is no.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

9. What ISN'T wrong with it?

It is a violent, racist, stupid and generally disgusting statement - and would be highly dangerous if the person had any influence.

And if I never hear the phrase 'post-9/11 era' again it will be too soon. 9/11 was a heinous crime and a tragedy, but it's not a reason for us to abandon all common sense and morality.

[Tom Joad]

18. What would happen if such a letter were printed in GB?

I think in many countries, it is a crime to advocate for war crimes. And while the letter writer has no particular influence, it could be argued the newspaper does. It is not those kind of papers distributed anonymously at night. You can buy this one out of news racks in town. it has hundreds of local advertisers.

While it is not a crime here... there is a question of ethics and morality and common sense, and i wonder what the consequences for J will be, if any.

I think they owe the community an apology.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Nothing would happen...

you should see the sort of letters to the editor that do get printed, especially but not exclusively in the more right-wing tabloids.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. I'll bet a sizable portion of the population would agree with this. nt

[Tom Joad]

22. well, let's not forget Avigdor. He certainly is an advocate of

ethnic cleansing, if not threatening a population with mass bombing.

[rateyes]

25. Yes, Mr. Lieberman is one piece of *cough* work. nt

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rateyes]

24. What a disgusting position to take....

So, now, advocating the commission of war crimes is a good thing? :puke: