Israel/Gaza

[fangz1956]

On 1/10/09, Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:

For supporters of the Israeli war in Gaza: is there some number of Palestinian civilian deaths that, once exceeded, renders this war unjustifiable? 1,000? 10,000? 25,000? Or is the idea that because Israel is justified in the mission itself, then the number of Palestinian civilian deaths is irrelevant -- i.e., Israel should do what it thinks it needs to do and, provided it exercises some form of "restraint," then it is justified regardless of how many innocent human beings (Palestinians) die as a result?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... newsletter

I have never supported the American government's support of Israel and all of its "holy" blood-letting. The recent events in Gaza turn my stomach and make me ashamed of America's complicity by silence. I am so very tired of hearing that we cannot oppose Israel because they are "God's chosen people". Spare me the religiosity of that position and mind-set. Killing is killing.......murder of innocents is murder of innocents. The Israelis are shooting fish in a barrel and America is supplying the ammo. It's hard to tell who the terrorists are anymore......it's all become an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth no matter how many innocents get caught in the crossfire. The U.S and Israel are no better than the Hamas which they both loudly decry as terroists. Anything to grease the wheels of war and the military/industrial complex, I guess.

[coondog]

I'm not ethnically related, as far as I know, to anybody in that horrible place, so what happens there is more of a curosity than a concern - much like watching the Redskins vs Cowboys. If a big sink hole opened up and swallowed them all I might enjoy the replay ....but it wouldn't ruin my weekend.

But, as far back as I can remember (about the year EXODUS came out on film) the Isralis have taken a very hard line stance against intrusion by way of exploding devises hurled into their domain. If nothing else, they are consistant. Knowing this, disgruntled parties continue doing so at the forewarned peril of averyone involved.

Hamas fired rockets, for whatever reason, knowing the response in advance. Clearly, the response was a desired one and of benefit to Hamas (at least from their viewpoint). In the true spirit of democracy, the Palistinians voted Hamas into power knowing their proclivities. A mistake? Maybe! They probably don't see it that way. Maybe their voters are no better informed than ours.

It does seem, though, that when you've kicked a Grizzley Bear in the butt and experienced the joy of being mauled, to do it again must exemplify some sort of masochistic tendency or other. Even if the brute IS sleeping on your favorite sweater.



Coondog

Civilian casualties? Isn't that the whole idea?

[Juggler]

[fangz1956]

On 1/12/09, Medialens wrote:

A key deception promoted by the National Information Directorate involves the claim that the latest cycle of violence began when Hamas broke a four-month ceasefire agreed last June. In fact, Israel broke the ceasefire when it launched a raid into Gaza on November 4, killing six people. On November 5, the Guardian reported:

"A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

"Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm." (Rory McCarthy, 'Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen,' The Guardian, November 5, 2008 )

A most informative and interesting read can be found here: An Eye For An Eyelash: The Gaza Massacre-Part 1

[coondog]

One must understand the fine print in what has become fondly known as the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Warfare. There are many ways to determine whether an action is a first strike or a retaliation.... and if it is a first strike, is it justifiable under that doctrine (see chapter 8 Threats to National Security).

While politics, ethnicity, geography, language, religion and favorite futbol team may be determining factors, GNP (Gross National Product) has a lot to do with justifiability. Larger, richer, more technologically advanced countries (especially if they have an A-Bomb) are more entitled, under this doctrine, to define, identify and react to potential, suspected or imaginary threats. (see chapter 13 - A for Anthrax through Z for Zebras with Lasers on their Heads).

Those of lesser affluence, whether individuals with personality issues or soverign countries (see chapter 2 - Rogue Nations), are justifiably defined as terrorists. The current situation in Gaza, according to said doctrine, clearly favors Israel's current position (chapter 1 - Paranoia, Suspicion and Innuendo) regarding first strikes.

We should be greatful to Mr. Bush for providing such a cohesive protocoland rational philosophy for what once was chaos. And....... kudos, according to the legend polishers, for preventing an attack in this area of the world which, based on prior schedules and time frames, will likely not take place for another 2 to 3 years, anyway.

Coondog (see chapter 25 - Left Wing Liberal Elitists)

[fangz1956]

Veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery concurs, arguing that the Gaza blockade is “a scientific experiment designed to find out how much one can starve a population and turn its life into hell before they break.” Avnery adds: “The present war is a continuation of the experiment by other means.” (Uri Avnery, ‘Molten Lead in Gaza,’ Counterpunch, January 2-4, 2009; )

WOW!! Shades of Hitler's Nazis live and in person.

[resigned]

At the risk of posting a differing opinion I have to say that I understand why Israel fights so hard against all those who oppose them. When Hitler came after them, they went as sheep to the slaughter. Since the Holocaust I believe they have decided that no longer will they be led quietly down the path to death.

The Jews have been persecuted since before Christ. (BC). Today Iran wants them wiped off the face of the earth; Arab states have waged war against them since they have become a country.

It’s interesting to note that Israel is the only country that bears the same name as the people, have worshiped the same God since the beginning, and speak the same language.

While we may mourn the killings of those who are not considered militants during the latest war, we need to remember all those non-militants killed by Hitler and placed in ovens. He tried to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth.

While I abhor the killing of women and children, I also understand that the militants keep bombs etc in their homes and keep their women and children with them during attacks etc.

Israel has gotten tired of all the bombs and missals that have been fired into their country, which has also killed Jews. Israel is surrounded on all sides by Arab countries that would like to see them gone.

[fangz1956]

Beck....

I think you read and swallow too much of the pro-Israel propaganda circulated by the corporate media giants. And if memory serves, wasn't it the Jewish elite that persecuted and crucified Christ? They just skillfully manipulated the Romans into becoming their scapegoats.

NOTHING on the face of the earth justifies Israel's continued bullying and tactics of ethnic cleansing. The current powers that be in Israel are dangerous and heartlessly cruel to the nth degree. If they succeed in getting their way, then the acts of Hitler's Nazis will pale in comparison.

[resigned]

Frangz

I am not sure what is meant about the pro-Israeli propaganda - I read normal articles in newspapers, magazines and watch TV. I also have some understanding of history. My understanding is that the major media giants are owned by or belong to folks who are liberal and belong to the democrat party.

Yes the Jews turned on Jesus I understand that.

I have to say that I respectfully disagree with you on the whole issue of Israeli going into Gaza or for that matter defending their country. And in no way do I see their actions as compared to what Hitler did. Except for the ethnic cleansing that has occurred or occurring in Africa or Iraq do I see any comparison to Hitler.

I have a Jewish friend whose parents were both products of the concentration camps and what she has told me is unbelievable. I also visited Auswitch while I lived in France years ago and I can never get those images out of my mind.

I firmly believe that Israel needs to defend its self. Please don’t think you know what I read because you don’t know. I think for myself and don’t swallow anything except water, medications and food. Oh I might swallow a good glass of wine or diet soda.

[Uji]

I agree you with you about Gaza, Beckonwood. It is horrible what's happening there, but unless someone can offer a workable alternative to the military -- given that Hamas denies Israel's right to exist and launches rockets hourly -- what is Israel to do? It's alright to say "talk," or "anything but what they are doing" but it is not very helpful.

If Mexico, say, insisted that California has no right to exist independent of Mexico and hourly launched rockets into San Diego, what do you think the US should/would do?

And what the heck does "Jesus" have to do with any of this?

As to the media, Beckonwood, you are seriously deluded. Mr. Murdock, who owns several of the New York papers is hardly liberal, nor is he Dem -- nor a Rep, for that matter. Guy's Australian. Does that make the WSJ biased to Australia?... If not, than the fact that the lady who owns the Washington Post is a Dem doesn't mean that the Washington post is biased. The guy who owns/builds all the electronic voting machines is a conservative Republican; does that mean that we shouldn't trust the results from his machine?

This is what the school-teachers call "ad hominum" fallacy. I guy may beat his wife, but that doesn't mean that his argument on, say, health care is faulty. Just mean he's a jerk -- with a possibly good idea about health care. If you think he's a jerk, that's one thing; but his character (or lack there of) does not invalidate his arguments about health care. We need to take arguments on their own terms. A paper may be biased, but you don't demonstrate that by proving that the owner is a nazi.

[resigned]

I honestly don’t know what the solution is regarding Israel and Gaza. I do know that as you pointed out talking has not been working. Does war help? That could be debated adnauseam. I do believe that when you have had enough you need to go after that country that is sending rockets into your country. In reference to your example on Mexico and California, yes I believe the US would and should use military force to take it back.

As for the news media I have to say you lost me on some of what your were writing. I do believe that the mainstream media is biased. As for Murdock, you are right on that point, I looked him up. Interesting character. He is very involved in politics or trying to influence politics but what I read can’t find where he stands in regards to the right or left.

As for Jesus, I believe Franze brought that one into the discussion.

I humbly try to understand all that goes on in our country and try to read what I can. If I read the right or wrong articles depends on whom I am talking to. I usually take things at face value. I don’t look for any hidden meanings etc. Don’t know where that puts me; I am sure there are those on this forum who would like to point out where I belong. I stayed off for a while, but then decided not to let those who call names to keep me from posting my beliefs and opinions whether they are right or wrong.

I am and will continue to be a conservative, that was the way I was raised and the way I still believe.

[Uji]

I, for one, am glad you are back, Beckonwood.

All I was trying to say about the media is this: If someone is biased, it is not because they are Dem or Rep or whatever, it is because their argument is biased.

You call yourself "conservative": Does that mean that everything you say is biased -- that is to say, ignores certain facts in favor of those that support your position? No, it doesn't. You're views might BE biased (just as mine might), but that's not because you call yourself a "conservative" and I call myself a progressive; it is because the views we expressed do not take into account facts that might support the opposing view.

[resigned]

I try, given my background, to look at both sides. I have two grown children who are both liberal. One is a school teacher the other is a professor. We sit and talk about our differences and sometimes I can see their viewpoint although I can't always accept it. I really don't think they try and see mine because after all I am only their mother. I mean what could I know, even though I have two Masters. But I remind them, when appropriate that I changed their diapers - What our common background is though is that we are family.

As for what I write and say may be biased. I am positive it is as are others. I live with certain rules, that govern how I live. I may be conservative in certain places and middle of the road in others. In some very conserative circles I am considered fairly liberal. So go figure. It depends on who I am around.

My rules and beliefs are what hold me together and make me the person I am. I like to think I am a caring and giving person. I don't try to bang others over the head with my beliefs but at the same time I don't let them push me in a corner either.

I believe we need both the liberals and conservatives to make this country work. Both hopefully will bring us to a middle ground and again I hope. Right now I don't see that happening in our political field.

Ah did we get off the topic. I do appreciate your approach in replying to my postings.

[Uji]

In a way, what you just said is right to the point: The Israeli/Palestinian problem is really the same as most: How can competing ideas "talk" to each other without trying to blow each other up?

If, in a small way, we can do it here, maybe this is the best way we can help with the situation in the middle east.

And, I guess that's the issue in Gaza: The Israelis are busy "blowing up" the Gazans. That aint a good thing, for sure. But I'm not sure what else they can do at the moment, given that the Gazans having been "blowing up" Israelis hourly.

But at least we can not "blow each other up" here. Doesn't mean we might not throw (or take) a punch every now and again...

[coondog]

All very good points of view.........however, I don't think anyone should jump to conclusions until we've had a chance to review the feedback from PJTV's correspondant on the scene.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/joe-plumber-gaza-reporter

Coondog

[resigned]

But at least we can not "blow each other up" here. Doesn't mean we might not throw (or take) a punch every now and again...

Welllllll, let me say I see a “punch” as a form of aggression or hostility. I believe that “we” meaning all on the forum can disagree in a civil manner without taking or throwing a “punch” I feel that now days civility has gown down the drain in so many ways. I agree that we should not “blow” each other up, but it sure doesn’t hurt to use civility when disagreeing. Addressing someone with statements that are demeaning or cruel or trying to define someone or their ideology, or by what they supposedly read etc all. Or by trying to define someone by standards that may not fit that person are not justified. Just my thoughts.

[Uji]

I agree, Beckonwood.

However, what to you might seem a harmless statement of the truth, another might take as an insulting accusation. So, in the end, I think we need to be willing to take a few for the team without getting our feelings too hurt.

Sure, some folks are hurtful on purpose; but some are only hurtful out of thoughtlessness; and some are hurtful only through misinterpretation.

We can only control our own feelings. I can't control how another reads my words.

[resigned]

Hummmm, do you realize we are discorsing on how to discourse. How's that for a statement. Yes I agree that there are times when we may read more into what someone wrote. And I also must say that at times I can be sensitive. Ah but I would rather be sensitive rather than insensitive.

I must say that you and Coondog respond in the best manner that I have seen and I appreciate that. I don't always know all the answers to everything, but I do know how I feel and what I believe. And when I am wrong am ready to accept it. Now that we have discussed this issue to heck.

I see where rockets from Lebanon have hit Israel on a second front. Also that the leader of Iran says its not feasaible for Israel to live. I also read that Israel hit the UN building in Gaza in response to anti tank fire from within. I know this war is horrific for those women, children and older people living in that area. But from my viewpoint, the way they live with the militants within their midsts its almost impossible to fight a war without civilians being caught in its midsts.

[fangz1956]

How did this thing digress into a dialogue on thoughtlessness and throwing punches? Just because someone disagrees with my opinion or viewpoint is not to be confused with throwing a punch. If someone disagrees with the sources that back my opinion, that is not throwing a punch. Show me what your opinion is based on. To date, I've not seen any articles or sources supporting your view, Beck. And with all due respect, I've been watching the BBC news reports about this event and they are patently pro-Israel just as the rest of the major corporate media outlets are.

Do not expect me to sit on my hands when the opposing point of view on this issue patently embraces Israel's on-going persecution complex. That is my view based on everything I've read to date. How does the Holocaust justify the "vendetta" mindset of Israel? How does the Holocaust justify anything about this atrocity against humanity? How does the Holocaust, of all things, justify ethnic cleansing? If that is the justification on which opposing arguments are made, then I would think that intelligent Jewish people would be the last ones to want to engage in re-creation of that little piece of history.

Israel is not the innocent victim here. I think a little unbiased historical reading bears out that fact.....that fact that America chooses to conveniently ignore.

[resigned]

Jimmy crickets, you missed the whole thing that Uji and I were discussing which was mainly between the two of us. I for one didn't even have you in mind or the Israel post. We really got off the topic. Please re-read our postings, I believe you took it all out of context. As for your beliefs on Israel you are certainly entiled to them just as I am to mine. Why is it just me you are directing your posting to, Uji and I both were partners in crime so to speak. He was the one who came up with the word punch at first anyway. I am being singled out. gosh, gee whiz,

I respect your beliefs, don't always agree with them, but find you to be a very intelligent and soul searching person. You are extremely up todate on issues and I applaud you for that.

As for me showing you sources for my opinion, I glean the ideas from outer space. I don't know. I read the news on the Drudge Report, I read MSN, I watch TV, I read some magazines. Am I not allowed an opinion without backing everything up with quotes, articles written by others. I do have a mind of my own and do think. Well sometimes. Oh well sure didn't mean to offend you, but golly Miss Molly, I am entitled to my beliefs and my opinions without having to back up everything I post with data etc. After all I am not doing a term paper.