Gaza's 'bigger holocaust'

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Fida Qishta, IMEU, Mar 9, 2008


Israeli officials said today that they finished their military operation in the Gaza Strip, but the Israeli attacks continue, and we fear that Israel is still planning a major invasion. On February 29th, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai warned of "a bigger holocaust" for Palestinians.

From February 27th - March 2nd, the Israeli army killed around 110 Palestinians in Gaza, about half of them civilians, and nearly a quarter children, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza. Hundreds were injured. Palestinians killed two Israeli soldiers and one Israeli civilian.

What is happening in Gaza hurts all Palestinians, not just Hamas. Before this assault, the Gaza Strip, with 1.5 million residents, was already like a prison under siege, with dwindling supplies of food, medicine, fuel, clean water and electricity, and growing poverty. Many families eat just one meal a day. We have no electricity for 6-12 hours daily.

On March 1st, I was home with my family in the city of Rafah at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, watching TV to see what was happening in northern Gaza. Around 10 PM we suddenly heard Israeli F16 fighter planes overhead. I said to my mom, something is going to happen. The sound of the F16s grew louder. Then we heard very loud rocket explosions.

My sister ran crying, saying, it's close. My mom was cut in the hand trying to prevent glass from hitting her head. Many of our windows were broken. We ran outside because the electricity went off. My father said it's safer in the street. At least we can see where the rockets are going and where to go.

Four Israeli rockets hit the mosque 150 meters away, killing six civilians and injuring 30. One of those killed was my 30 year old cousin Samer. Samer, a policeman with Fateh's Palestinian Authority, was married with a young daughter.

more, more, more...

http://imeu.net/news/article008105.shtml

[Looking4Light]

1. According to Reuters...

those killed in the mosque were all militants. Also on March 1st, 48 missiles were fired at Israel from Gaza.

Yep, sure looks "worse than the Holocaust" to me.

[pelsar]

2. just some notes.....

What is happening in Gaza hurts all Palestinians, not just Hamas. Before this assault, the Gaza Strip, with 1.5 million residents, was already like a prison under siege, with dwindling supplies of food, medicine, fuel, clean water and electricity, and growing poverty. Many families eat just one meal a day. We have no electricity for 6-12 hours daily

the kassams have targeted the electrical plant that supplies gaza

hamas has attacked convoys of supplies entering gaza (or at least the border entry point as the trucks entered)

Hamas shelled the Sufa crossing at a time when 60 trucks with food were entering Gaza.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961726.html
_____

if anything hamas is trying very hard to make things worse....

[Vegasaurus]

3. No need to let a few facts interfere with the ongoing propaganda nt

[azurnoir]

4. About that shelling

Israel also failed to exploit the fact that Hamas shelled the Sufa crossing at a time when 60 trucks with food were entering Gaza.

I googled sufa crossing shelled, the most recent was from 02/26

Palestinian Authority terrorists attacked the Sufa Crossing with Gaza Tuesday night.

The attackers fired a mortar shell at the southern Gaza crossing, through which 60 trucks delivered flour, sugar and other supplies from Israel to Gaza residents on Monday, despite bad weather and numerous rocket attacks fired at the Jewish State from the northern part of the region.

No one was injured and no damage was reported.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/142264

Is this it? Or is it a different 60 trucks of food

[pelsar]

9. dont know...

just picked up the info from that article on haaretez this last friday.....there was no actual date for the shelling.

[Scurrilous]

5. Suddenly home offers children no protection

<snip>

"SAFA ABU SEIF, 12, was fatally wounded as she stood in an upstairs room of her home in the Gaza City district of Jabaliya 10 days ago.

She was one of 27 children identified by United Nations staff among the 107 Palestinians who were killed in five days last week. Another 25 dead, including five women, were identified as unarmed non-combatants. The status of 13 more dead victims could not be determined. At least three of the children were reportedly shot in their homes by Israeli small arms or sniper fire."

<snip>

"Asked by the Herald to comment on allegations that its troops had killed children in the area, the Israeli Defence Force blamed the violence on terrorist groups who exploited Palestinian civilians as human shields while firing rockets intended to harm Israeli civilians.

"IDF operations in the Gaza Strip are aimed solely at the Hamas terror infrastructure, armed terrorists and rocket launchers," its statement said.

A security source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Civil Administration - Israel's military government for the occupied territories - had received no complaints about shootings of civilians, and no investigation was underway.

Yet the family of the Palestinian television journalist Mahmoud Al Adjrami said that when Safa was struck Israeli troops were occupying their house, 90 metres across a stretch of open space from the window she was struck through."

more

[msmcghee]

6. This is a good example. An interesting story.

Here, the IDF had two Palestinian families - over twenty Palestinian civilians - unarmed and under their complete control for two days.

What did the IDF do to them? They used their house to fight from against militants. They could have shot them easily and killed them all in less than a minute. But they all survived with no injuries. Why weren't they killed - if Israel's policy is to target civilians? Perhaps because the claim is bullshit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=203048&mesg_id=203715

[breakaleg]

7. I guess this part doesn't interest you much....

"According to the testimonies of victims and from Israeli soldiers themselves, this process can frequently involve theft, vandalism and violence against unarmed civilians."

[msmcghee]

10. It does interest me.

But, the rudeness of IDF soldiers to enemy civilians - who are seen on TV to celebrate when Israeli civilians are targeted and killed - is not evidence that Israel targets Palestinian civilians to kill them. It's actually strong evidence that they don't - especially when Palestinian civilians almost always survive these encounters with no injuries at all. That was my point.

Can you imagine what would happen to 20 Israeli civilians trapped in a house in Israel with several Palestinian militants? I bet you can.

[breakaleg]

11. I can't imagine being woken up in the middle of the night at gunpoint by soldiers

commandeering my home so they can shoot at my neighbors. I've even read reports where they do this just to catch some sleep! Oh, and then they wake up the next day to read about how "moral" the IDF is.

But I guess it's ok because they are only Palestinians.

[msmcghee]

12. It's a war zone. Israel is defending itself from deadly attacks . .

. . directed at Israeli civilians coming from that war zone. That's what happens in war zones. As long as Israel is defending itself there is nothing immoral about it.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. So you're saying that, by definition, Israel can do no wrong? n/t

[Scurrilous]

15. LOL

You catch on quick. :thumbsup:

[msmcghee]

16. I'm saying Israel has broken no laws

It is completely legal and moral to defend your citizens from attack. If you think there's something wrong with that statement point it out.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. That's exactly what it's saying...

A total ignorance of international law, and a blind belief that the 'side' it chooses can do whatever it chooses to do as long as it calls it *self-defence*, is pretty much it's arsenal. It's clear to most that while Israel just like any country is allowed to defend itself, it must abide by international law when doing so. Unfortunately a small number of folk here seem to believe that there are no limits on what Israel can do in the name of self-defence, and in one or two cases, there's no reasoning with their rather warped views of *morality*...

[msmcghee]

19. One detail. Seems you forgot to show where Israel . .

. . has violated any international law.

"Warped views of morality"? OK, let's hear your enlightened views of morality that say Israel should not defend itself. Or, that purposely attacking Israeli civilians is somehow "moral". I mean, are you capable of laying out an actual logical argument on this topic or will we get the usual full Monte insult attack at this point?

I know the chances you will respond to this in the form of civil discussion are very low - so I propose the question rhetorically. But, just out of curiosity, what's your "reasoning" here?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. You've been shown specifically how Israel has violeted international law in the past...

...and each and every time you've ignored it and insisted that Israel never violates international law. Trying to prove a point to someone who ignores facts that don't suit yr one-sided agenda is a bit too much like hitting one's head against the wall...

"Warped views of morality"? OK, let's hear your enlightened views of morality that say Israel should not defend itself.

Considering I've never said that Israel can't defend itself, why don't you go and ask someone who actually believes Israel shouldn't defend itself. What I've always been very clear about is that Israel, just like any other country, has the right to self-defence and that self-defence must adhere to international law. As for the *morality* argument, unlike you, I don't think any one party to this conflict has exclusive dibs on being *moral* or *immoral*. And to be honest, I do think someone who holds views that paint the entire Palestinian population in a very negative light is about as *moral* as any antisemite...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. You know what I always wonder...

why so many people with such an obviously RW world view are such avid posters on a liberal Democratic message board.

I wonder if they think they're persuading undecided people towards their perspective. Their posting has had quite the opposite effect on me.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I've wondered the same thing at times...

In some cases it's because they hold RW views when it comes to Israel and don't apply the same standards to the conflict as they do when they criticise things like the Iraq war. In a few cases it's because they're most likely conservatives (there's another forum where conservatives have said they've posted here and seem shocked when they're banned). What I think is sad is that they tend to drown out those left-wing folk who post here who clearly hold a pro-Israeli view but are looking for common ground and do it without resorting to bigotry or RW positions like supporting the settlements, etc...

I don't know if they're (the first two groups I mentioned) the slightest bit interested in changing other people's perspectives. I think they're more interested in yelling simplistic sound-bytes at anyone who doesn't agree with them and slapping each other on the back agreeing with each other...

[bemildred]

24. I call it the "High School Football Game" theory of politics.

Root for your side no matter what. Also framed as "My country right or wrong". The problem with it is that it allows for no discrimination, no nuances, no reversal of failed policies, nothing, just stay the course and grit your teeth until you win or everything collapses around your head. There is a core of truth to it, in that nations need to pull together at times, and of course it is very popular with politicians that have screwed the pooch in one form or another, but as strategy and as policy it is feeble.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Looking4Light]

28. You know what I always wonder...

why so many people who consider themselves progressives find themselves going to bat for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and countries like Iran.

Do you know the first thing about these groups? About their attitudes towards women? Towards gays? Towards anyone who wants to practice a religion different from theirs? About their worship of armaments and violence, and culture of death?


==> I challenge you to name the progressive principles that you share with Hamas.


Then you can lecture Israel supporters about not being progressive.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Yeah, I wonder about that too.

I've got no time for people who support the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. I don't think I've seen too many of them posting on this board though.

Myself, I wouldn't mind seeing more supporters of groups like B'Tselem and Peace Now posting here.

BTW, you didn't happen to see what was in the deleted post did you? I missed it, but am always curious about it when a response to my post gets deleted. :)

[Vegasaurus]

32. Oh, there are Hamas and Hezbollah supporters on this board. definitely

They think all forms of "resistance" are just fine, because the evil they fight is worse than the evil they bring. I am not searching for posts, but someone said something just like that yesterday.

It is a very common occurance on this board for posters to align with groups which do not promote progressive values, including civil rights and human rights. It is both surprising and disturbing.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Sorry, but that's just utter bullshit...

It is a very common occurance on this board for posters to align with groups which do not promote progressive values, including civil rights and human rights. It is both surprising and disturbing.

For Crunchy's benefit, it is NOT a common occurance at all. More like some folk get a tad confused when other posters aren't joining in with them on their repetitious bouts of 'Hamas are STUPID!!!' etc and label anyone who dares to point out things like Hamas has expressed an interest in a cease-fire etc as Hamas supporters....

[Looking4Light]

35. No, what you wrote is bullshit

There are a few (vocal) people on this board who consistently urge the rest of us to "understand" vile acts of terror perpetrated by reactionary fundamentalist terror groups.

We are expected to forgive these groups their mysogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, and worship of death. Why?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Trying to understand why terrorism happens doesn't make someone a supporter of terrorism...

Call it bullshit if you like, but trying to understand why terrorism happens will do far more to having it happen less than frothing at the mouth on some internet forum and accusing DUers of being terrorist supporters will....

And if you think there's Hamas or Hezbollah supporters on this forum, or anyone who supports attacks against Israeli civilians, name them so we all know who they are.

[Looking4Light]

38. True,

trying to understand why terrorism happens is important.

Do you have any problems with the ideologies and goals of Hamas or Hezbollah?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. But you were just saying people who try to understand are supporters of terrorism...

Do you have any problems with the ideologies and goals of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Seeing as how you've been so busy reading this forum and yr seeing Hamas or Hezbollah supporters all over the place in this forum, I have to admit I had a bunch of the guys round to dinner the other night and we all had a good chuckle over how it's only the really smart folk like you and Vegasaurus that can spot us! ;)

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

57. You've been here about 5 mintues. How would you know? Perhaps you have another name you'd like to

share with us.

[Looking4Light]

64. I was lurking for a while before I started posting

I think it's a good idea to read and think before posting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. I'm unaware of one single Hamas or Hezbollah supporter on this board

at least I've certainly NEVER seen any.

If someone is trying to understand where someone is coming from that is hardly a supporter. Even a forensics investigator of a homicide always attempts to establish motive. That's just basic common sense.

If someone is trying to understand why a given group like Hamas or Hezbollah have a certain amount of popularity - again that's an attempt at an intelligent analysis. Even the CIA or any other intelligence services employs experts to analyze these exact same basic questions.

If one supports talks and possibly negotiations with groups who have a strong constituency of supporters and it is flat out impossible to military defeat such groups that simply means they are dealing with reality.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. 64% of Israelis support talks with Hamas - even 48% of Likud supporters

"New Poll Finds Majority of Israelis Support Talks with Hamas
By Jim Teeple
Jerusalem
27 February 2008

"A new poll in Israel says a majority of Israelis would support holding talks with Hamas Islamic militants who control the Gaza Strip. VOA's Jim Teeple reports an Israeli civilian was killed by a rocket fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza, and Israeli air strikes in Gaza killed at least eight Hamas militants. "

snip:"According to the poll, 55 percent of voters who identify with the center-right Kadima Party, and 72 percent of Labor Party voters, would support holding talks with Hamas if that led to an end to violence emanating from Gaza. Forty-eight percent of voters who support the right-wing Likud Party would also support such talks.

Camille Fuchs says a broad majority of Israelis have also come to believe that peace with the Palestinians will only come about if Israel disengages from settlements it has built in the occupied West Bank "

link: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-27-voa34.cfm

___________________________


In fact several prominent mainstream American, British and Israeli leaders support dialogue with Hamas and recently signed a letter which includes a paragraph very clearly stating so along with calling for real talks which covers substantial real issues.

Some of the signatories frankly surprised me:

"As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point."

Partial list of Signatories:


Zbigniew Brzezinski -Former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter

Lee H. Hamilton - Former Congressman (D-IN) and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group

Carla Hills - Former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush

Nancy Kassebaum-Baker - Former Senator (R-KS)

Thomas R. Pickering - Former Under Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton

Brent Scowcroft - Former National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush

Theodore C. Sorensen - Former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy

Paul Volcker - Former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System

Jodie Allen - Senior Editor, Pew Research Center; Former Editor of the Outlook Section, Washington Post

Harriet Babbitt - Former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States; Former Director of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs

Birch Bayh - Former U.S. Senator (D-IN)

Shlomo Ben-Ami - Former Foreign Minister of Israel

Lincoln Chafee - Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies; Former U.S. Senator (R-RI)

Harvey Cox - Hollis Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School

Michael Cox - Professor, London School of Economics and Director of the Cold War Studies Centre

James Dobbins - Former Assistant Secretary of State

Joseph Duffey - Director, U.S. Information Agency, 1993-1999; Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Culture, 1977

Peter Edelman - Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy; Former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Gareth Evans - President & CEO of International Crisis Group; Former Foreign Minister of Australia

Leon Fuerth -Former National Security Advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Gary Hart -Wirth Chair at the University of Colorado; Chair of the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Robert E. Hunter - Senior Advisor, RAND Corporation; Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO

Robert Hutchings - Diplomat in Residence, Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University; Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council

Daniel Levy - Director, Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation; Senior Fellow, Century Foundation; Lead Israeli Drafter, Geneva Initiative; Member of Israeli Delegation, Taba Negotiations

Anatol Lieven - Professor of War Studies, Kings College London; Senior Research Fellow, New America Foundation

John McLaughlin -Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Everett Mendelsohn -Professor Emeritus of the History of Science, Harvard University

Diana Villiers Negroponte - Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution

William E. Odom - Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Former Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-1988

Christopher Patten - Co-Chair of International Crisis Group; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; Former EU Commissioner for Foreign Relations; Former Commander in Chief and British Governor of Hong Kong

Edward L. Peck - Former U.S. Chief of Mission to Iraq; Former Ambassador to Mauritania

Larry Pressler - Former U.S. Senator (R-SD) & Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member, Council on Foreign Relations

Theodore Roosevelt IV - Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

J. J. Sheehan - General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

Eric Shinseki - General, US Army (Ret.)

Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Stephen J. Solarz - Former U.S. Congressman (D-NY)

Robert and Renee Belfer - Professor in International AffairsJohn F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Phil Wilcox - President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; Former U.S. Ambassador at Large; Former Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Management at the U.S. Department of State; Former Director for Regional Affairs, Bureau for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Lawrence B. Wilkerson - Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.); Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government, College of William Mary; Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University; Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State; Former Director, U.S. Marine Corps War College

Joseph Wilson - Ambassador in President George H. W. Bush’s Administration; Special Assistant to President Clinton; Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council

Timothy Wirth - President, U.N. Foundation; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Frank Wisner - Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines and India; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs; Vice Chairman of External Affairs at American International Group

link to full letter and all the signatories:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Annapolis%20Summit%20Statement.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

41. It seems to me Americans are in general more opposed to Israel talking to Hamas than Israelis are...

When it comes down to it, it's that more than 60% of Israelis wanting to talk that means something, not a bunch of anonymous Americans on the internet...

[azurnoir]

42. Noticed that too?

American "Israel supporters" tend to be more hawkish than Israeli"s themselves, but it's easy to support a war you are never going to have to fight or suffer in yourself.

[Vegasaurus]

44. Israelis are sick and tired of nonstop terrorism

of course many would like to pound Gaza militarily, but many are willing to make very painful concessions so that they could have a chance of living without the constant threat of terrorism, including talking with Hamas. I don't know that it would be more than 50%, but maybe Pelsar or Eyl would.

[azurnoir]

61. I was going by the polls I see here

but if you I was to the posters you mention, judging by a reply I just got I would say at least one of them is for continuing the status quo or bloodshed and the other to be honest I am not sure about, could go either way, however for on this board anyway "pro-Israel" seems synonymous with "right-wing" as was pointed out.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I've met a fair few Israelis online...

And apart from one or two exceptions, Israelis do tend to be more genuinelly interested in finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict than many Americans I've seen posting about it on various forums on the internet. And using DU as an example, most of the time it appears to me like all some of the American 'supporters' of Israel want to do is compete with each other to yell the loudest about not negotiating etc. This is my version of what the I/P forum has become lately...

American 'supporter' of Israel #1 - 'Hamas are MORONS! They're MORONS!'

American 'supporter' of Israel #2 - 'Hamas are STUPID! Why am I the only person posting 50 times a day that Hamas are STUPID???'

American 'supporter' of Israel #3 - 'Hamas as sooo dumb! We mustn't talk to those dumb, stupid morons!!!'

Unsuspecting DUer who replies to one of those posts: 'I don't like Hamas, but they have been talking about a ceasfire, which is good coz Israel and Hamas are going to have to talk'

American 'supporter' of Israel #3 then posts claiming that supporters of Hamas are all over the place at DU and #2 and #3 chime in with their agreement before rushing off to let off another burst of 'Hamas are idiots!!!' posts...

;)

[azurnoir]

73. LOL n/t

[LeftishBrit]

47. Yep. And according to another poll, over 50% of Gaza citizens oppose the rocket attacks

Leaders are often more hard-line than their citizens - FWIW, over 70% of British citizens opposed the Iraq war from the beginning; not that it stopped Tony from dragging us in.

[Vegasaurus]

43. With all due respect, Douglas

there are people on this board who do support resistance (in whatever form), because they claim the original "evil" of occupation, is worse than the resistance. I have also heard the rockets called a nuisance, pesky, etc., completely undermining the effect they have on the lives of Israelis, who are terrorized on a daily basis. That is tacit support for the rockets, no matter the harm they cause to ordinary civilians.

I don't consider those who would like to see talks with Hamas as supporters of their movement. But I do consider those who excuse suicide bombings (even if they have only analyzed the reason why someone has done such a thing, and deemed it ok) as supporters.

There are more than a couple Hamas supporters here, but I am not naming names, because I am not interested in getting banned.

[Douglas Carpenter]

45. I would not make that assumption

I do NOT know who you are talking about. But I will say that I have discussed the matter through E-mails and personal messages with people who you MIGHT be talking about - and they are definitely NOT Hamas or Hezbollah supporters or Islamist (supporters of political-Islam) of any sort or supporters of suicide bombing against or missile attacks on civilians.

I will say this that if one analyzes the history of national liberation movements from the American Revolution to the struggle for democracy in South Africa - it is impossible to not be struck with the historic fact that violence including violence than could very well meet the definition of terrorism has played a major role in almost all such movements. But recognizing this reality and supporting Hamas or Hezbollah or the kind of attacks on civilian that are being described are not the same thing. Recognizing the political roots of this violence is not the same thing.

[eyl]

54. I've seen at least one case

where a poster here openly supported - not tried to understand, but rather said the PAlestinians had a right to commit - terrorism against Israelis (the post was deleted, so I can't link to it). It may not be common, but it does occasionally happen.

[msmcghee]

56. How about justifying terrorism against children?

ProgressiveMuslim (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep-07-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #31

41. Many agree with my position. Read this by Michael Neumann:

<snip>

The Palestinians don't set out to massacre children, that is, they don't target daycare centers. (Nor do they scalp children, but according to the BBC, that's what Israel's clients did in Sabra and Shatila.)

They merely hit soft targets, and this sometimes involves the death of children. But, like anyone, they will kill children to prevent the destruction of their society. If peoples have any right of self-preservation, this is justified. Just as Americans love to do, the Palestinians are "sending a message": you really don't want to keep screwing with us. We will do anything to stop you. And if the only effective way of stopping their mortal enemies involved targeting daycare centers, that would be justified too. No people would do anything less to see they did not vanish from the face of the earth.

Read the full post and the previous thread for the full context:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=183898#184131

I find that whole post amazing.

[Vegasaurus]

63. I absolutely have seen this too

People openly support violence and bloodshed, because they claim that an occupied people has a right to "resist" their occupiers. The fact that they condone suicide bombings, rockets, blowing up border crossings, in order to promote a political ideology? Amazing,

I am disgusted when I read these posts, and fortunately, they don't occur all that often, but we do see them, and they are always written by a select few, who have never been banned.

[msmcghee]

66. One thing that is seldom mentioned . .

. . is that there is no such thing as a "right" to resist occupation. The rules of war regarding occupation were made for different conditions than exist in the I/P conflict. Aside from that - and aside from the question of the necessity of defensive occupation, the rules simply state that the occupying power has responsibilities to the occupied people including a prohibition against collective punishment of non-combatants.

However, those rules also state that if the occupied people resist a legal occupation - that is the same as continuation of the war that resulted in the occupation - and that the rules of war therefore apply against that resistance. Such as the rule that out-of-uniform combatants who have not surrendered can legally be shot on site as spies - and other nasty items.

The UN Charter is based on the first principle of the right of member nations of self-defense against aggression. The Geneva rules regarding occupation and resistance lie below those on the scale of things. i.e. states first have a right of self defense against aggression. If occupying a hostile territory is the only reasonable way to provide that defense then it is permitted. They are basically required not to target non-combatants and to disrupt the civilian society as little as possible - consistent with that self defense mission. Their right to self defense against aggression such as terrorism against their citizens is the most important principle that all states are expected to provide for.

The idea that Israel should be required to allow rockets to be fired at her citizens - because stopping them would endanger Palestinain civilians - is nonsense. Israel is required not to purposely target civilians - but is fully expected to do what is necessary to protect her citizens. Any state would do that - rules or no rules - or they wouldn't deserve to be recognized as a state.

There is no credible evidence that Israel has a policy of targeting civilians. Israel's occupation of the disputed/occupied territories is therefore legal - or at least a reasonable case can be made for that based on existing international law. Resisting a lawful defensive occupation is an act of war and is rightfully dealt with as such.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Well, I see more posts of the "everything is fine as long as you call it defense"

variety. Personally, I don't support either "resistance" or "defense" when they either target, or have as their primary victims, civilians, or when they violate international law. There seems to me to be alot of guilt on both sides, but the defense of what I consider to be undefensible seems to be fairly one-sided on this board.

[msmcghee]

62. Maybe that's because one side has yet to show any . .

. . reasonable evidence that Israel actually targets civilians. Maybe you've got some of that evidence to show us.

[Looking4Light]

34. No, I didn't see the deleted post n/t

[LeftishBrit]

46. I have seen posts on DU that defend Hamas and Hezbollah, yes.

Not so much on this forum as elsewhere on DU. And not so much saying "Oh, they're the greatest" as implying that Israel is so uniquely evil that anything these groups do is justified.

'I wouldn't mind seeing more supporters of groups like B'Tselem and Peace Now posting here.'

Nor would I! - I support such organizations myself! I am certainly not a supporter of the Israeli Right, to put it mildly..

But what I think sometimes gets ignored is that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are not remotely progressive. They are far-right-wing, not just in their violent 'resistance' to Israel, but in their attitudes to their own societies. Now, this doesn't mean that Palestinians are evil/ terrorists/ a bad culture/ deserve collective punishment/ deserve to be bombed/ etc. - any more than Americans are evil or deserve violence because they elected Bush as their president (or rather, failed to give Gore a fraud-proof margin). But I think one has to be honest about the fact that Hamas *are * a nasty and extremely RW group.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. they are certainly "right-wing" in the socially conservative sense

but they are also pro-poor people just as many authoritarian Marxist-Leninist parties were also pro-poor people. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have networks of schools and clinics and other social services. This certainly does not make them progressive. But it does have a lot to do with their base of support.

As Scott Ritter said of Hezbollah and I believe the same applies to Hamas, "you cannot militarily defeat an organization that has as its roots the legitimate concerns of an indigenous population. And I’m not here to condone Hezbollah or sing its virtues, but I will tell you this, Hezbollah is an organization of Southern Lebanese Shia. That belong in South Lebanon. They’re in South Lebanon. And Israel may have learned a hard lesson, that you just can’t bomb these people into submission."
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/21/target_iran_former_un_weapons_inspector

On a personal note, about one year ago I had dinner with a friend and a coworker of his named Amjad. Amjad was a Palestinian originally from Nablus and a strong Hamas supporter. One might say that he was full or all the rhetoric one might expect from a strong Hamas supporter. When I asked him if he would support a peace agreement with Israel in exchange for a genuinely sovereign and independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 border and with East Jerusalem as its capital? His first answer was, "Israel doesn't want peace." I then asked him but what if that were to change and and Israel would accept a peace settlement based on the 1967 border with a fully independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital? He paused about thirty seconds to think. And replied, "yes of course, why not?"

[Vegasaurus]

50. Why not acknowledge Israel then?

Why not get rid of the inflammatory rhetoric in the Hamas charter?

That undermines peace (that and rockets and terrorism) every bit as much as settlement activity.

It makes Israelis trust Hamas about as much as Hamas trusts Israel, only the difference is, Hamas has more to lose.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. they certainly should get rid of the inflammatory rhetoric

and their charter is absolutely awful. I'm NOT defending Hamas. But it is the position of Hamas that Israel refuses to commit itself to a genuinely independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its capital. And Israel's expansion which appears to make such a settlement infeasible and that this speaks louder than any declarations anyway. One could argue that they are not being pragmatic. They think they are looking at the on-the-ground reality.

But like I said, I'm certainly not in a position to speak for Hamas. Nor do I have any desire to be an apologist for Hamas. But in that it is flat-out impossible to defeat Hamas militarily - the only alternative is to accept that they must be included at the table. Just as right-wing Israeli elements must be included at the table. There will be no peace that does not include all the major elements.

[azurnoir]

53. Yes Hamas should get rid of the rhetoric and

"recognize" Israel, however the timing of this key, is it as some here seem to want, that it be the starting point or even a prerequisite of formal negotiations, or should it be part of the partial end point of an agreement, I would have to go with the latter as the former is problematic in that what has Israel done in return for this except agree to negotiations that are mutually beneficial, not to mention that this "recognition of right to exist" could conceivably be used to leverage greater land concessions from the Palestinians during a negotiation.

[eyl]

55. What's the point of even starting negotiation

if the right of one side to exist is to be determined in those negotiations? Or, if you want to claim that Hamas is entitled to an unreasonable "opening bid", would Israel likewise be justified in setting a starting positions where it claims the entire Territories?

[azurnoir]

58. How is this unresonable?

Or even better if Hamas is negotiating then how does Hamas not recognize Israel in at the very least defacto way, by te very act of negotiating?
Do you truly you equate these words to the claiming of all occupied territories? That you seem to require submission and that is what this would be, what else do the Palestinians have to bargain with, is telling, indeed the idea that the Palestinians have nothing so why should we "give" them anything is part of what keeps the bloodshed going.

[Looking4Light]

65. The question of Palestinian recognition of Israel

is not a question. It was settled already, the PA recognizes Israel, and the Quartet and the international community insist that Hamas recognize Israel (as well as a few other things) *before* they (Hamas) will be recognized.

No point going backwards.

[azurnoir]

67. Going backwards???

Then I have to say that any negotiations at this point would be according to you a step back, although the PA mentioned recognition of Israel, Fatah has not yet formally done so.

Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and assigned its legal committee the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter consistent with the Arafat letters in order to present it for approval.<17> A redrafted charter that does not call for the destruction of Israel has yet to be presented or approved and the official PNA website displays the original, unamended text of the PNC Charter. According to the US Department of State, "The Palestinian National Charter... amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9–10 September 1993."<18[/b>]

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

[Looking4Light]

68. You have a point

It's confusing. I don't think Fatah has much to do with the recognition/negotiations issue. They handle the terror side. I don't remember the last time I heard the PLO mentioned.

Yet back in 1993 the PLO were recognized as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people as part of the same Oslo accords your you cite. But they've obviously been very busy, because it's been almost 15 years and they still haven't gotten around to amending their charter, despite that being one of the pillars of the Oslo accords. Yet Israel has continued to negotiate with the PA. I think the hope is that some progress in negotiations would lead to a generating of emotional momentum that would be strong enough to overcome extremist opposition on both sides.

But unlike the PA, Hamas doesn't try to bs the international community. They simply want to destroy Israel using terror and military means. Their approach is a return to the pre-Oslo era, when a commitment to negotations to end the conflict was not yet reached. I ask you, why go back to that?

[azurnoir]

71. There is BS enough all around

The PA which replaced the PLO in 1994 as you point out has not changed it's charter, what is different is it is also not getting aide from Iran as is Hamas, and in keeping with the current good Muslim, bad Muslim theory of ME policy: that is Shiites everywhere except Iraq bad, Sunni everywhere except Iraq good or not so bad. Note that in today's media speak Shiite except as noted has become code for "terrorist or extremeist" and Sunni has become code for "secular" Negotiations are a step forward, no matter whom they are with, that is unless one wants to continue to support GWB's and the US's and Olmert's or Israels failing ME policies.

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

[ProgressiveMuslim]

70. And really, when one looks at Israel's actions, instead of listening to its rhetoric,

a reasonable person could include that Hamas' analysis of Israel's intentions is spot on.

[Vegasaurus]

72. And if one takes Hamas at its word

I think we can assume that Israel's analysis of Hamas's intentions are also spot on.

[Shaktimaan]

74. You asked somewhere else how anyone could think Israel wants peace...

I'd like to answer that, (the other thread was locked though and this seems related.) There's plenty of examples. You are aware of most of them, I'm sure. You just may not accept them.

I think you have an idea of "viable peace" that really means "ideal peace." By that I mean you seem to give a pass to rejections of any peace overtures, even violent rejections, on the basis that those overtures are less than perfect solutions for Palestine. If your view is that as long as settlements exist then Israel is not serious about peace, you are taking a one dimensional view of the situation.

Israel has shown itself to be far more amenable to limiting settlements when they feel that there is a potential for peace with the Palestinians. Vice versa is also true. Settlements themselves are not immutable creations, Israel has shown itself willing to remove them when it feels that doing so serves its best interests. It has done so in the Sinai to foment a peace with Egypt for instance. And it has offered to do the same with the Palestinians.

I have trouble believing that you are issuing this challenge seriously. If Israel were truly not interested in peace, then its actions over the past few decades truly make no sense. As an exercise, think about what Israel has NOT done (as opposed to the things they have done that you find detrimental to the peace process.)

For instance, Israel clearly feels that Jerusalem should belong to them. The land is disputed, both sides have arguments, we all know this. Why then did Israel merely occupy, then annex the area, leaving the civilians where they were? Why didn't it do what Jordan did to the Jews who lived there and expel them? Why didn't Israel just expel all of the Palestinians in the West Bank in 1967 and take the land for itself for that matter? All of those people were Jordanian then, they had a place to go. Why would Israel bother doing things like offering citizenship to east Jerusalem's Palestinian residents?

Don't confuse Israel trying to get the best possible arrangement for themselves as the equivalent of being uninterested in peace. The peace talks in Taba and at Camp David are excellent examples of an interest in peace. As were the Oslo accords themselves. Before you point to settlement expansion under the Oslo accords as an example of how Israel doesn't want peace, consider that Israel could have done that anyway. There was no reason for Israel to have invested all that it did into Oslo if its intention was merely to just try and build some more settlements. In fact, I'd say that Israel's commitment to Oslo, even through the most violent times and when they had Bibi at the helm, (who was responsible for most of the expansion), demonstrates their desire for peace. Remember it was Bibi who signed the Wye River Memorandum, and followed through on it.

The reason that this conflict is still such an issue is BECAUSE Israel ultimately desires peace, which prevents it from acting in a way that would permanently make that impossible. Look at how every other nation in that area (or any other area) deals with nationalist groups or foreign enemies. If Israel merely wanted to "win" they would just act like that. You think Gaza city is a pit? Look at Hama! They don't because they realize that their long term survival is tied to their ability to make peace with their enemies. It is not because they care about the Palestinians. Give me a break, they hate the Palestinians. Israel is merely acting in their best interests by pursuing peace.

My question to you is this... Why do you think Israel had agreed to the peel plan and un partition plan, why has it engaged in so many different peace initiatives since then, why have they made so many offers for peace following the wars they have fought, (offers that often included relinquishing land taken during the war), if they had no desire for peace?

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Deleted, dupe.

[pegleg]

59. That's the sad truth. Hamas is to blame for the suffering of their own people.

At the same time peace must somehow be sought out.

[Looking4Light]

27. And I'll bet

you can't imagine terrorists shooting missiles at someone else's neighborhood from your neighborhood either.

But I guess that would be OK because it's only an Israeli neighborhood and Israeli kids being targetted.

[Looking4Light]

13. So Gaza's 'bigger Holocaust'

means frequent theft, vandalism, and violence. Is that it? Theft, vandalism, and violence are worse than ghettoes, railroad cars, and crematoria.

The mind boggles.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Take it up with Matan Vilnai...

He's the one who threatened it...

Also, it's just a bit on the clumsy side to quote something and change what the quote was. The article title had the word *holocaust* lower cased, while you changed it to upper-case to denote the term that is used exclusively for the genocide of Jews carried out by Nazi Germany...

[Looking4Light]

26. Violet, I suggest you educate yourself on the Holocaust

The Holocaust was a bit more than a misinterpreted word or a dropped capital.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I'm already educated on it, which is why I pointed out the difference when the word is capitalised..

You tried to make out that there's no difference between holocaust with a lower case h (the use of which isn't used in connection with the Nazis genocide of the Jews) and the upper case one which is specifically used to describe the genocide of European Jews...

[bemildred]

8. Damn, over twenty human shields? nt