Sam Harris on the Israel-Palestine Conflict

jank

kylith wrote: »

It seems to me the difference between death all at once and death by inches.




The Israelis have also been shown to deliberately target civilians, children, and hospitals. Neither side is blameless in this, so why do you seem to whitewash what the Israelis have done?

I will have to ask for proof of the latter claim I am afraid.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It's debatable whether or nor it is. Its possible to rebuild after an attack - land lost to a colony is almost certainly gone forever.

So you think its debatable to say that an urban area that is a war zone is comparable to an area that is not a war zone? Really?

Nodin wrote: »

Please don't lecture me as to what I do or do not admit.

Its there in black and white, you admit that the primary methods used by Hamas, Fatah and the PLO are wrong, yet strangely wont admit to Hamas being a terrorist organisation. How does it feel to have an even more extreme view on the situation than George Galloway?

kylith

jank wrote: »

I will have to ask for proof of the latter claim I am afraid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10972390/Israel-strike-kills-four-boys-on-Gaza-beach-as-humanitarian-ceasefire-announced.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28399292

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I will have to ask for proof of the latter claim I am afraid.

As ye like it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91525813&postcount=1142

I've explained the terrorist thing before. If you want to ask questions about that explanation, feel free, but I'm not going over the same ground because you've developed a selective memory.

The west bank is under a brutal occupation in which Palestinians are killed and ethnically cleansed on a weekly basis. That its less 'spectacular' than Gaza doesn't make it less evil.

jank

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians. One should ask what does Israel gain and benefit from this? Nothing, civilian deaths bring unwanted attention to the state so they are minimised when they can. There has been no deliberate strategy by the Israeli government to target civilians. Dead civilians is a classic causation does not equal correlation.

kylith

jank wrote: »

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians. One should ask what does Israel gain and benefit from this? Nothing, civilian deaths bring unwanted attention to the state so they are minimised when they can. There has been no deliberate strategy by the Israeli government to target civilians. Dead civilians is a classic causation does not equal correlation.

I'm sorry, is the fact that mortars are falling directly on civilians and hospitals not enough for you? Do you require that we produce a manifesto stating that civilians are being targeted? They are bombing residential areas, places where men, women, and children are trying to live their lives - how is that not a deliberate policy of targeting civilians?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians. ..............

No, there just happened to be a lot of civilian casualties caused by directed rifle fire. And no prosecutions.

SeaBreezes

jank wrote: »

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians. One should ask what does Israel gain and benefit from this? Nothing, civilian deaths bring unwanted attention to the state so they are minimised when they can. There has been no deliberate strategy by the Israeli government to target civilians. Dead civilians is a classic causation does not equal correlation.

Israel wants Gazas gas field and 2 million Palestinians stand in the way.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gaza-s-offshore-gas-fields/11680

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/09/israel-war-gaza-palestine-natural-gas-energy-crisis

Looks like they're prepared to kill/starve them or wait for them to die of dehydration or disease.

Targeting the water plant, power plant, hospitals, UN schools and shelters. Destroying tunnels on the Egyptian border built to smuggle in food. Looks like a pretty deliberate strategy to me.

tayto lover

[QUOTE=jank;91670071]I will have to ask for proof of the latter claim I am afraid.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Funniest thing I have read in years ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Nodin

jank wrote: »

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians. One should ask what does Israel gain and benefit from this? . ............

Here ye go
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91492276&postcount=32

recedite

jank wrote: »

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to target civilians.

Al Qaeda did not deliberately target civilians in the 9/11 attacks either, they targeted landmark buildings such as the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Iconic buildings and infastructure of the USA.
Of course, any right thinking person would notice the "incidental" loss of life and brand them as terrorists.

Turtwig

recedite wrote: »

Al Qaeda did not deliberately target civilians in the 9/11 attacks either, they targeted landmark buildings such as the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Iconic buildings and infastructure of the USA.
Of course, any right thinking person would notice the "incidental" loss of life and brand them as terrorists.

Sorry but that's a terrible line of riposte. Absolutely. Terrible!

jank

kylith wrote: »

I'm sorry, is the fact that mortars are falling directly on civilians and hospitals not enough for you?

No its not, as again, mortars falling on civilians or hospitals does not mean that there is such a strategy at place at the highest levels of the IDF or the government to deliberately target said civilians or hospitals which is what is implied but is not proved here or anywhere for that matter.

I have asked numerous times, what does Israel have to gain from these actions? Why would they deliberately target civilians and hospitals? Apart from deranged hysterical shouts of genocide there have been no logical explanation put forward that holds any water.

kylith wrote: »

Do you require that we produce a manifesto stating that civilians are being targeted? They are bombing residential areas, places where men, women, and children are trying to live their lives - how is that not a deliberate policy of targeting civilians?

Em, because perhaps Hamas are the principal target of these exchanges....

I require evidence like any other rational being that Israel are conducting a deliberate war against civilian targets regardless if Hamas fighters were present or not. The very fact the Israel sent in ground troops is proof that the strategy undertaken by the IDF was against terrorist organisations, the neutralising of their rockets and destruction of their tunnels. If the strategy of the IDF was to target civilians and cause as much death as possible it would and could destroy Gaza in a matter of days through air strikes and artillery fire with little or no death for the IDF

Again, causation does not equal correlation unless proven otherwise.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

No, there just happened to be a lot of civilian casualties caused by directed rifle fire. And no prosecutions.

Yes, fighting a conflict in an urban setting is like playing a game on the PlayStation. All the bad guys die and no civilians get it in the neck.

ManicMoran who has fought in actual wars, who is well respected on boards and the mod of the military forums summed it up well when he said that people have unrealistic expectations to what war in such a setting actually implies and that we should put the casualty figures in perspective. I would listen to his judgment on the situation much more readily than some columnist in the Guardian with a drum to beat

recedite

Turtwig wrote: »

Sorry but that's a terrible line of riposte. Absolutely. Terrible!

Well its just an analogy to show how stupid it is to try to differentiate between "deliberately targeting civilians", and just not caring how many civilians die when targeting a place where civilians are concentrated.

SeaBreezes

jank wrote: »

No its not, as again, mortars falling on civilians or hospitals does not mean that there is such a strategy at place at the highest levels of the IDF or the government to deliberately target said civilians or hospitals which is what is implied but is not proved here or anywhere for that matter.

I have asked numerous times, what does Israel have to gain from these actions? Why would they deliberately target civilians and hospitals? Apart from deranged hysterical shouts of genocide there have been no logical explanation put forward that holds any water.



Em, because perhaps Hamas are the principal target of these exchanges....

I require evidence like any other rational being that Israel are conducting a deliberate war against civilian targets regardless if Hamas fighters were present or not. The very fact the Israel sent in ground troops is proof that the strategy undertaken by the IDF was against terrorist organisations, the neutralising of their rockets and destruction of their tunnels. If the strategy of the IDF was to target civilians and cause as much death as possible it would and could destroy Gaza in a matter of days through air strikes and artillery fire with little or no death for the IDF

Again, causation does not equal correlation unless proven otherwise.

Jank, Im really beginning to worry about you. You really should get checked for Alzheimers. This is the THIRD time I have posted in response to your query and yet you immediately forget/cannot see the post.

Here you go: Proof that is IS genoicide and exactly what Israel has to gain:

Israel wants Gazas gas field and 2 million Palestinians stand in the way.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gaza-s-offshore-gas-fields/11680

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/09/israel-war-gaza-palestine-natural-gas-energy-crisis

Looks like they're prepared to kill/starve all of Gaza, or wait for them to die of dehydration or disease.

Targeting the water plant, power plant, hospitals, UN schools and shelters. Destroying tunnels on the Egyptian border built to smuggle in food. Looks like a pretty deliberate strategy to me.

robindch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

You really should get checked for Alzheimers.

No personal comments, plz.

jank

recedite wrote: »

Well its just an analogy to show how stupid it is to try to differentiate between "deliberately targeting civilians", and just not caring how many civilians die when targeting a place where civilians are concentrated.

Motive is a pretty strong argument against that one and blows your argument out of the water.

Otacon

There are two possibilities:

1. The IDF are intentionally targeting civilians and Hamas.
2. The IDF do not care if they kill civilians while targeting Hamas.

While one option is far worse than the other in terms of motives, both are equally morally reprehensible.

jank

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Jank, Im really beginning to worry about you. You really should get checked for Alzheimers. This is the THIRD time I have posted in response to your query and yet you immediately forget/cannot see the post.

Here you go: Proof that is IS genoicide and exactly what Israel has to gain:

Israel wants Gazas gas field and 2 million Palestinians stand in the way.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gaza-s-offshore-gas-fields/11680

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/09/israel-war-gaza-palestine-natural-gas-energy-crisis

Looks like they're prepared to kill/starve all of Gaza, or wait for them to die of dehydration or disease.

Targeting the water plant, power plant, hospitals, UN schools and shelters. Destroying tunnels on the Egyptian border built to smuggle in food. Looks like a pretty deliberate strategy to me.

The fact that one has to question wether or not I have a neurological disease is a poor indictment of your own reasoning and argument.

The two links posted goes on about gas and oil resources in the wider palestine region. However, there is nothing there to indicate that the Israeli government has decided to pursue a genocidal policy against the Palestinians in order to claim these resources, when in fact these resources are in control of Israel anyway.

Trying to loosely tie in the scramble for resources and civilian casualties in a conflict between Israel and Hamas as some 'proof' or smoking gun that Israel are drawing up or pursing for genocide is both poor and illogical.

The population of the Palestinians has increase 5 fold since 1947 and 2 fold in the past 15 years. If the Israelis really are pursuing this policy then they are doing a terrible job at it.

Causation does not equal correlation.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I have asked numerous times, what does Israel have to gain from these actions? .

This has been explained to you via post 461

Turtwig

Otacon wrote: »

There are two possibilities:

1. The IDF are intentionally targeting civilians and Hamas.
2. The IDF do not care if they kill civilians while targeting Hamas.

While one option is far worse than the other in terms of motives, both are equally morally reprehensible.

This is a military conflict nothing is ever going to be black or white. The proportion of various demographics killed can give you better insights into the state of mind of the 'killers'. For example, if the IDF are targeting civilians you'd expect an almost equal demographic breakdown of women, men and children being killed. Several sources have claimed that the majority casualties are disproportionately male men in the 20s and early 30s. I have no way of verifying this and in military conflict we'll never know for certain. Propoganda from both sides means truth is always going to be first casualty. But if it is true it does put a major dent in the indiscriminate killing of civilians. It would look like they're targeting militants - or at least the profile of militants are likely to be.

In a conflict involving humans nothing can be taken as a de facto standard. For example if a suicide bomber for Al Qaeda get's cold feet or attacks the wrong population or the wrong geographic target etc etc is it fair to say Al WHatever are deliberately targetting whatever that bomber struck when he did it of his own autonomy? The same goes for IDF you can't control every individual soldier. Some may commit heinous crimes of genocide, rape, indiscriminate killing but that doesn't mean the entire IDF, or the authorities of Israel endorse such a policy. Just because individuals of Hamas or IDF do something doesn't necessarily mean it something they were 'meant' to do. Obviously both sides will claim each individual was following the exact intentions of their organisations to the letter. It's not always going to be the case though. Determining whether 'war crimes' are systemic or individualistic is usually impossible and mostly decided by the victors.

Then there is collateral damage. Isreal fcked up militarily, their arrogance underestimated the extent of the tunnel networks and the resistance within. Which means a messier conflict with more unpredictably. With unpredictably comes more everything. Spontaneous idiocy, bad decision making, bad target ID, rushes of blood, emotional outbursts. Ultimately ending in more collateral damage, more sick propaganda and more retaliatory acts from both sides. This being a conflict such things will never be in proportion. After all, has there even been a conflict in history where one group didn't respond disproportionately to the actions of the another?

So please do not ever think that day to day events in a conflict, especially one so intricately complicated as this, can be divided into distinct possibilities. Things can only ever be in shades of grey. We will never know for certain the true intentions of any party. All we know is that civilians are being killed and that is a deplorable. Deciding who to blame requires to access to accurate unbiased information. Information we're never going to get. :mad:

To be clear, I'm not referring to the justification for instigating the conflict in the first place. I'm referring to the events that occur within the conflict. The day to day killings and such.

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

This is a military conflict nothing is ever going to be black or white. The proportion of various demographics killed can give you better insights into the state of mind of the 'killers'. For example, if the IDF are targeting civilians you'd expect an almost equal demographic breakdown of women, men and children being killed. Several sources have claimed that the majority casualties are disproportionately male men in the 20s and early 30s. I have no way of verifying this and in military conflict we'll never know for certain. Propoganda from both sides means truth is always going to be first casualty. But if it is true it does put a major dent in the indiscriminate killing of civilians. It would look like they're targeting militants - or at least the profile of militants are likely to be.

.

Post 461.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

This has been explained to you via post 461

I know you like to get your oar but I do not take that explanation if you call it that seriously. It is a comic book narrative you are portraying not worthy of further comment.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I know you like to get your oar but I do not take that explanation if you call it that seriously. It is a comic book narrative you are portraying not worthy of further comment.

A rebuttal that on examination is not a rebuttal at all. Well done Sir, well done.

robindch

Boys and girls, umbrellas back into the stands please.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

I know you like to get your oar but I do not take that explanation if you call it that seriously. It is a comic book narrative you are portraying not worthy of further comment.

The Israeli term for what I describe is "mowing the lawn"/"mowing the grass"

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/25/mideast-conflict-israel-gaza-jim-walsh

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august042014/israel-mowing-grass-jr.php

jank

Interestingly this is also available..

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/25/mideast-conflict-israel-gaza-barry-shrage

Warper

His mother was a secular Jew so absolutely no bias on his part

jank

Warper wrote: »

His mother was a secular Jew so absolutely no bias on his part

Yes, all Jews are part of a hive mind....

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Interestingly this is also available..

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/25/mideast-conflict-israel-gaza-barry-shrage

Sorry, but what has that to do with the line of conversation?

You stated

None of those links show that there was a deliberate strategy by Israel to
target civilians. One should ask what does Israel gain and benefit from this?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91676575&postcount=456

My reply to that, from another thread

"They're doing what any colonial power in the 19th/20th century would do except they aren't using rifles, maxims and a field gun. The natives have been uppity, and they need to be shown who is boss. The village will be largely destroyed, leaders and men of arms bearing age targeted and killed. Anyone who happens to be in the way at the time gets much the same. Once they've decided the fear of jesus has been sufficiently instilled, its back to the officers club for G&T. "
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91492276&postcount=32

You ignored this entirely, so I provided the actual Israeli term for the doctrine, and some background information

"The Israeli term for what I describe is "mowing the lawn"/"mowing the grass"

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/...gaza-jim-walsh

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/a...g-grass-jr.php

Now, do you have any comment to make on the above, in light of the information provided?

Nodin

Warper wrote: »

His mother was a secular Jew so absolutely no bias on his part

Irrelevant.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

This is a military conflict nothing is ever going to be black or white.

It is not, it is the targeting of the civilians of a state with no military installations or personnel by another state, which is also illegally occupying and colonizing the land of the victim state. The actions by Israel in this latest "conflict" are tantamount to the firing squads sent around Poland in 1939 and the occupied USSR in 1941 after the Nazi invasions to shoot "partisans" in reprisal for imaginary "terrorist acts", which were in reality a bout of ethnic cleansing by Nazi idealogues.

This action will be followed up by others on a periodic basis until the rest of the world does the moral, and pragmatically right, thing and charges the main actors of the Israeli state and its armed forces for the crimes against humanity that state is committing and that they are responsible for.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not, it is the targeting of the civilians of a state with no military installations or personnel by another state, which is also illegally occupying and colonizing the land of the victim state. The actions by Israel in this latest "conflict" are tantamount to the firing squads sent around Poland in 1939 and the occupied USSR in 1941 after the Nazi invasions to shoot "partisans" in reprisal for imaginary "terrorist acts", which were in reality a bout of ethnic cleansing by Nazi idealogues.

This action will be followed up by others on a periodic basis until the rest of the world does the moral, and pragmatically right, thing and charges the main actors of the Israeli state and its armed forces for the crimes against humanity that state is committing and that they are responsible for.

If Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, why are they so bad at it? I am not particularly pro-Israel but I do have some trouble with the idea that they are intentionally trying to kill civilians. They have an extremely sophisticated military the the Civilians in Gaze have little in the way of defence. It seems that, to be blunt, if they want to kill civilians they could do it with much greater efficiency and effective than they are currently demonstrating.

I am not trying to justify their current 'war', but to me it seems like they are making some effort to reduce civilian casualties, and I think this is evident from the fact they if they wanted to kill civilians the number of dead would be greater.

MrP

SeaBreezes

MrPudding wrote: »

If Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, why are they so bad at it? I am not particularly pro-Israel but I do have some trouble with the idea that they are intentionally trying to kill civilians. They have an extremely sophisticated military the the Civilians in Gaze have little in the way of defence. It seems that, to be blunt, if they want to kill civilians they could do it with much greater efficiency and effective than they are currently demonstrating.

I am not trying to justify their current 'war', but to me it seems like they are making some effort to reduce civilian casualties, and I think this is evident from the fact they if they wanted to kill civilians the number of dead would be greater.

MrP

2,000 women and children killed in one month not efficient?

2 million people with no water, no food, no power, no hospitals and no shelter. UN bases bombed and supplies destroyed, and no humanitarian aid allowed thro. In 3 weeks? Looks frightfully efficient to me....

All in the name of self defence?

Oh, and gazas gas fields that Israel needs, and has been chatting to BG about....

jank

Nodin wrote: »

"They're doing what any colonial power in the 19th/20th century would do except they aren't using rifles, maxims and a field gun. The natives have been uppity, and they need to be shown who is boss. The village will be largely destroyed, leaders and men of arms bearing age targeted and killed. Anyone who happens to be in the way at the time gets much the same. Once they've decided the fear of jesus has been sufficiently instilled, its back to the officers club for G&T. "

This narrative first of all draws from false but powerful imaginary first used by the Soviet Union in a weak attempt to discredit so-called 'imperialist' and 'capitalist' motives and is purely there to paint this as a black and white argument that ignores the largely complex and nuanced variables of this conflict. I very much doubt that the leaders of the IDF took time out to conduct a war based on some Monty python sketch or a Dad's Army skit where by fun was had in a little skirmish with the natives and everyone was home in time for tea and crumpets or in your case a G&T

Of course it also ignores the fact that the 'poor downtrodden natives' have for decades not recognised the state of Israel even when a UN resolution was passed in 1947 proclaiming the state of Israel. What did the natives do then? Well along with the backing of 5 other Arab countries they invaded but lost... again and again.... This is not a playstation game where one can press the restart button.

It ignores of course the fact that many of them would if they could destroy the state and kill every Jew in Israel. It ignores the fact they put into power a terrorist group who denies the holocaust and who's charter calls for the destruction of the state and killing of the Jews in a V2.0 holocaust. It also ignores the 3000 rockets that have been fired into Israeli urban centers that is against the Geneva convention and constitutes a war crime. It ignores their use of human shields, its mantra of martyrdom through the use of religion and their stockpiling of weapons in schools run by the UN. It ignores the extrajudicial killings they carry out on anti war protesters and it ignores the tunnels they have built into Israel for the express purpose of murdering civilians in their bed...

This is not Star Wars Nodin, this is real life.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not, it is the targeting of the civilians of a state with no military installations or personnel by another state, which is also illegally occupying and colonizing the land of the victim state. The actions by Israel in this latest "conflict" are tantamount to the firing squads sent around Poland in 1939 and the occupied USSR in 1941 after the Nazi invasions to shoot "partisans" in reprisal for imaginary "terrorist acts", which were in reality a bout of ethnic cleansing by Nazi idealogues.
.

Even IF true, exaggerate much?

jank

SeaBreezes wrote: »

2,000 women and children killed in one month not efficient?

2 million people with no water, no food, no power, no hospitals and no shelter. UN bases bombed and supplies destroyed, and no humanitarian aid allowed thro. In 3 weeks? Looks frightfully efficient to me....

All in the name of self defence?

Oh, and gazas gas fields that Israel needs, and has been chatting to BG about....

First of all the vast majority of casualties in Gaza have been Male, in the 20-30 age grouping.
Secondly, one should look for independent confirmation of the death toll and not trust Hamas figures blindly.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/08/12/hamas-lies-about-the-gaza-civilian-death-toll-and-the-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html?_r=2media-bought-it

Nodin

jank wrote: »

This narrative first of all draws from false but powerful imaginary first used by the Soviet Union in a weak attempt to discredit so-called 'imperialist' and 'capitalist' motives and is purely there to paint this as a black and white argument that ignores the largely complex and nuanced variables of this conflict. I very much doubt that the leaders of the IDF took time out to conduct a war based on some Monty python sketch or a Dad's Army skit where by fun was had in a little skirmish with the natives and everyone was home in time for tea and crumpets or in your case a G&T..

Not really, its based on my knowledge of other colonial conflicts in the 19th and 20th centuries. While its written with a satirical element, the core of it is a fair summation of what happened then and what is happening now.

And of course, there's the fact they do think of it in those terms, as shown here
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/...gaza-jim-walsh

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/a...g-grass-jr.php

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/israeli-academics-call-for-massive-attack-on-gaza-to-mow-the-lawn-before-november-election-ends-the-opportunity.html

If this is all a soviet notion, why do the Israelis have a name for the policy?

Jank wrote:

First of all the vast majority of casualties in Gaza have been Male, in the 20-30 age grouping.

"The village will be largely destroyed, leaders and men of arms bearing age targeted and killed. Anyone who happens to be in the way at the time gets much the same."

Barks like a dog, wag its tail like a dog.....

jank wrote:

Of course it also ignores the fact that the 'poor downtrodden natives' have
for decades not recognised the state of Israel even when a UN resolution was passed in 1947 proclaiming the state of Israel. What did the natives do then? Well along with the backing of 5 other Arab countries they invaded but lost... again and again.... This is not a playstation game where one can press the restart button.

So dodge the issue by going back before the settlements started, and implying that collective punishment is deserved. However you didn't go back to the Mufti, so for that much at least we can be thankful.

jank wrote: »

t ignores of course the fact that many of them would if they could destroy the state and kill every Jew in Israel. It ignores the fact they put into power a terrorist group who denies the holocaust and who's charter calls for the destruction of the state and killing of the Jews in a V2.0 holocaust. It also ignores the 3000 rockets that have been fired into Israeli urban centers that is against the Geneva convention and constitutes a war crime.

You mean Hamas in Gaza, who appear rather less Nazi like in reality than in the Hyperbole. Yes, they fire rockets, which are about as effective as the spears and muskets of old.

If firing rockets into Israeli urban centers is a war crime, isn't it also one to fire mortars, rockets, artillery and drop bombs on Palestinian urban centres?

jank wrote: »

. It ignores their use of human shields, .

Alleged. In the meantime
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91520657&postcount=78

jank wrote: »

its mantra of martyrdom through the use of religion .

Hardly unique. The secular PFLP have also undertaken 'suicide' missions.

jank wrote: »

and their stockpiling of weapons in schools run by the UN..

Two empty schools, which is wrong, of course, but not as bad as you less nuanced description implies.

jank wrote: »

It ignores the extrajudicial killings they carry out on anti war protesters ..

Alledged, from one source, of which there has been no subsequent confirmation. When CNN or the BBC, or HRW or Amnesty have it, get back to me.

jank wrote: »

and it ignores the tunnels they have built into Israel for the express purpose of murdering civilians in their bed...
..

Really? The last time they were using those tunnels it was to attack the IDF.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Not really, its based on my knowledge of other colonial conflicts in the 19th and 20th centuries. While its written with a satirical element, the core of it is a fair summation of what happened then and what is happening now.

A fiar summation, that just happens to ignore that fact that Israel have been invaded 3 times in the past 60 odd years and are surrounded on three sides by terrorist groups that want to wipe the state of the face of the map. You do know that children in the West Bank and Gaza are shown maps of Palestine that does not include Israel? You do know that Holocaust denial is thought in schools, something the UN has commented on numerous times? A fair summation alright...:rolleyes:


"The village will be largely destroyed, leaders and men of arms bearing age targeted and killed. Anyone who happens to be in the way at the time gets much the same."

Nodin wrote: »

Barks like a dog, wag its tail like a dog.....

Are you inferring that Israel are perpetuating Genocide?

Nodin wrote: »

You mean Hamas in Gaza, who appear rather less Nazi like in reality than in the Hyperbole. Yes, they fire rockets, which are about as effective as the spears and muskets of old.

They are ineffective because of the huge resources that Israel have invested into their defence. Tell me how many bomb shelters have been built by Hamas for its citizens. Do you think that a political party or a terrorist organisation who loves blood letting and war with its Jewish neighbour that doesn't build bomb shelters for its people are responsible? Instead they used that concrete to build tunnels. Great guys Hamas are...

If firing rockets into Israeli urban centers is a war crime, isn't it also one to fire mortars, rockets, artillery and drop bombs on Palestinian urban centres?[/QUOTE]

The difference Nodin as you know is that Hamas just fires them indiscriminately into urban centres not knowing where they land. The IDF target their fire against Hamas fighters, yes mistakes have been made but there is a difference here. The appropriate anoolgy for sameness would be carpet bombing ala WWII Only a fool cannot see it.

Nodin wrote: »

Alleged. In the meantime

No, Fact.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields/18534

http://www.moi.gov.ps/en/Details.aspx?NID=67875

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html?_r=1

http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/

Nodin wrote: »

Two empty schools, which is wrong, of course, but not as bad as you less nuanced description implies.

Stockpilling of weapons in a UN schools is irresponsible in the extreme. Its a bit rich of Hamas to complain then about its people getting killed when they conduct warfare in such wasteful, reckless and brutal manner.

Nodin wrote: »

Alledged, from one source, of which there has been no subsequent confirmation. When CNN or the BBC, or HRW or Amnesty have it, get back to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/10/gaza.reprisal.killings/index.html?iref=24hours
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0QD6TC20140807
http://www.ibtimes.com/mystery-surrounds-death-ayman-taha-former-hamas-spokesperson-1652866

Nodin wrote: »

Really? The last time they were using those tunnels it was to attack the IDF.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

Nodin

jank wrote: »

A fiar summation, that just happens to ignore that fact that Israel have been invaded 3 times in the past 60 odd years and are surrounded on three sides by terrorist groups that want to wipe the state of the face of the map. You do know that children in the West Bank and Gaza are shown maps of Palestine that does not include Israel? You do know that Holocaust denial is thought in schools, something the UN has commented on numerous times? A fair summation alright...

None of that relates to what I was stating and you quoted.

The school book nonsense was dealt with years ago, but I see it has currency still in some circles
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/misc/70923.pdf

jank wrote: »

Are you inferring that Israel are perpetuating Genocide?

No, I'm stating they're acting in the classic manner of a colonial power.

jank wrote: »

They are ineffective because of the huge resources that Israel have invested into their defence. ...

They're ineffective because they're homemade. Hamas shelter = "terror tunnel".

jank wrote: »

The difference Nodin as you know is that Hamas just fires them indiscriminately into urban centres not knowing where they land. The IDF target their fire against Hamas fighters,...

But as they've targeted sweet factories, concrete factories, the power station, the zoo (again), that's not really believable now, is it?

jank wrote: »

No, Fact.,...

People scared to leave their homes, refusing to leave their homes, and a document helpfully supplied by the IDF.

jank wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/10/gaza.reprisal.killings/index.html?iref=24hours
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0QD6TC20140807
http://www.ibtimes.com/mystery-surrounds-death-ayman-taha-former-hamas-spokesperson-1652866
.,...

One of those links is from 2009. None referred to the specific incident you mentioned.

jank wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

I stated "The last time they were using those tunnels it was to attack the IDF." You've supplied a link about Hamas using the tunnels to attack the IDF....thanks.

Now, in my last post, I highlighted a statement you made and asked a question on it, which you seem to have ignored

"This narrative first of all draws from false but powerful imaginary first used by the Soviet Union in a weak attempt to discredit so-called 'imperialist' and 'capitalist' motives and is purely there to paint this as a black and white argument that ignores the largely complex and nuanced variables of this conflict. I very much doubt that the leaders of the IDF took time out to conduct a war based on some Monty python sketch or a Dad's Army skit where by fun was had in a little skirmish with the natives and everyone was home in time for tea and crumpets or in your case a G&T.."

Not really, its based on my knowledge of other colonial conflicts in the 19th and 20th centuries. While its written with a satirical element, the core of it is a fair summation of what happened then and what is happening now.

And of course, there's the fact they do think of it in those terms, as shown here
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/07/...gaza-jim-walsh

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/a...g-grass-jr.php

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/israel...portunity.html

If this is all a soviet notion, why do the Israelis have a name for the policy?

Fairly straightforward, I'd imagine

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Not really, its based on my knowledge of other colonial conflicts in the 19th and 20th centuries. While its written with a satirical element, the core of it is a fair summation of what happened then and what is happening now.

Care to retract your theory about Israel 'cutting the grass' seeing as Hamas has now admitted that they were indeed behind the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli civilians which started off the latest bout of violence. Your 'natives' theory also appears just that, a theory.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigades

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hamas-admits-kidnapping-israeli-teens/2014/08/21/6e70b51e-2957-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html

A veteran Hamas official has said that the Islamist group was behind the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank – an incident that was a major trigger for the current brutal war in Gaza.

Saleh al-Arouri, one of the founders of Hamas's military wing, made his comments at a conference in Istanbul, where he lives in exile. A tape of his comments was posted online by conference organisers.

Dave!

FYI Sam Harris and Jeremy Scahill are seemingly going to have some sort of debate about this topic

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/501906053391732737

Dunno if this was posted already, too lazy to scroll up

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Care to retract your theory about Israel 'cutting the grass' seeing as Hamas has now admitted that they were indeed behind the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli civilians which started off the latest bout of violence. Your 'natives' theory also appears just that, a theory.

It's not "my" theory. It's an Israeli term for what Israel does.

How would Hamas being responsible undermine the facts of what clearly happened? They used the three lads as an excuse. If Hamas in Gaza weren't to blame, they'd still use them as an excuse. They've gone into Gaza in a similar fashion on three occasions in the last 10 or so years.

From your first article -

"Hugh Lovatt, Israel and Palestine coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while al-Arouri was a significant Hamas figure – serving as the group's most prominent representative in Turkey – the former militant could have an ulterior motive for making his claim.
"Given the timing I would be very suspicious about his claim. I still don't believe Hamas as an organisation and its upper echelons sanctioned the kidnappings – something that Israeli intelligence also believes," he said.
Lovatt said that al-Arouri may be trying to claim credit for the actions of others in an attempt to demonstrate his own continued sway in the West Bank and Hamas's ability to hit Israel after failing to secure significant concessions after six weeks of violence in Gaza."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigades

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I They used the three lads as an excuse. If Hamas in Gaza weren't to blame, they'd still use them as an excuse. They've gone into Gaza in a similar fashion on three occasions in the last 10 or so years.

So the goal post shift yet again.

You are on record numerous times stating that Hamas had NO involvement in these kidnappings and used the murder of 3 Israelis by some other Palestinians as 'an excuse' to go into Gaza. Now when it transpires they were actually involved and vindicates Israel's position in relation to Hamas you come out with the tired old justification of terrorism. 'Sure they would have done it anyway'.

The only way there can be peace in that region is the destruction of terrorism where the use of average Arabs being hurled into the meat grinder by religious fanaticism and dogma stops. One just has to look at ISIS to see what is on Israel's door step. If or when these lunatics try something close to home the same 'Israel are bad crowd' will be quick changing their tune and asking.. sorry demanding their governments defend themselves from these savages.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

So the goal post shift yet again.

You are on record numerous times stating that Hamas had NO involvement in these kidnappings and used the murder of 3 Israelis by some other Palestinians as 'an excuse' to go into Gaza. Now when it transpires they were actually involved and vindicates Israel's position in relation to Hamas you come out with the tired old justification of terrorism. 'Sure they would have done it anyway'.

The only way there can be peace in that region is the destruction of terrorism where the use of average Arabs being hurled into the meat grinder by religious fanaticism and dogma stops. One just has to look at ISIS to see what is on Israel's door step. If or when these lunatics try something close to home the same 'Israel are bad crowd' will be quick changing their tune and asking.. sorry demanding their governments defend themselves from these savages.

We need to do both .

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So the goal post shift yet again.

You are on record numerous times stating that Hamas had NO involvement in these kidnappings and used the murder of 3 Israelis by some other Palestinians as 'an excuse' to go into Gaza.
.

No, I stated that these three were killed but not on orders from Hamas, which is what the Israeli government believes. That's what is stated in the first article you provided. And yes, it was an excuse to go into Gaza, as are the rockets. Doesn't it strike you as odd the number of civilian casualties, if the exercise was to punish just Hamas? Why was the zoo targeted (again), why was the power plant targeted (again) why was the largest factory in Gaza targeted (again)?

The methodology used by Israel - 'teaching the natives a lession'/"mowing the Grass"/the 'dahiya doctrine' is self evident in the events that unfolded in Gaza. It was manifestly not a "police action", but one with a far broader scope and agenda. And, if all this was a figment of my imagination, why are there Israeli terms for what they do?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

...........
The only way there can be peace in that region is the destruction of terrorism ....................

Really? And Israeli colonialism outside its borders, what about that?

icecold1066

Hamas have demonstrated their hard cruel brutal and totally inflexible worldview.
Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of all the Jews.
This is undeniable unless one is in denial or delusional about the true nature of what Hamas are and what they stand for.

So if you really do care about the welfare of the people of Gaza you would presumably wish them to live in a free democratic society on par with the Western world?

You would prefer that Israel was not blockading them or bombing them and that Hamas was not ruling them.
Clearly the continuation of Hamas' disastrous rule is giving Netanyahu his excuse to launch the full force of his military power on Gaza.

The obvious course for an ending to the immediate suffering of Gazans is to stop firing rockets at Israel which is provoking the devastating Israeli response. The solution to the long term suffering of the Gazans is the end of Hamas and for them to be ruled by a government who actually have a positive vision for a better life for the people rather than nihilistic destruction.

If there is no option available (and I see none) to rid Gaza of Hamas than Israeli military power and the deaths of a few thousand Palestinian civilians is the price that must be paid then I am 100% behind Israel to crush Hamas if the rest of population can be saved a future of Islamic tyranny.

When Hamas is gone then the raison d'etre for hardliners like Netanyahu is also gone.
If moderate peaceful Palestinian leaders emerge they will have global sympathy if they use peaceful political channels just as Mandela and Ghandi did.
When violent members of the ANC used terrorism the likes of Botha responded accordingly.
When Indian nationalists obtusely threatened British rule openly they were met by the likes of Dyer and the crash of his rifles.
When both the ANC and Indians used peaceful resistance they won their freedom.
When the stuck with peaceful resistance despite the efforts to provoke them they won the moral argument.

Hamas know they will be pulverized but use violence anyway out of pseudo-religious conviction despite the consequences for their own people who the consciously place in harm's way.

They must be destroyed.

Nodin

icecold1066 wrote: »

When Hamas is gone then the raison d'etre for hardliners like Netanyahu is also gone.
If moderate peaceful Palestinian leaders emerge they will have global sympathy if they use peaceful political channels just as Mandela and Ghandi did.
When violent members of the ANC used terrorism the likes of Botha responded accordingly.
When Indian nationalists obtusely threatened British rule openly they were met by the likes of Dyer and the crash of his rifles.
When both the ANC and Indians used peaceful resistance they won their freedom.
When the stuck with peaceful resistance despite the efforts to provoke them they won the moral argument.

Hamas know they will be pulverized but use violence anyway out of pseudo-religious conviction despite the consequences for their own people who the consciously place in harm's way.

They must be destroyed.

The ANC never renounced violence.

You do realise that there are more factions than Hamas, and that they have been on ceasefire many years, with nothing but more settlements to show for it?