Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Israel's 'self-defense' argument against Hamas holds no water
Israel's ceasefire with Hamas is holding, but unless Israel completely lifts its blockade and includes Hamas in two-state negotiations, renewed rocket attacks from Gaza are likely. Should that happen, Israel would not be justified in arguing self-defense.<snip>
"As part of a November ceasefire agreement with Hamas, Israel has partially lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip, at least allowing construction materials into the region pummeled by Israeli airstrikes. It’s a single, forward step that ends a five-year ban on such materials. But without progress in settling the overall conflict, Palestinian rocket or suicide attacks and heavy Israeli responses will almost surely resume.
If the past is any guide, even those who would criticize such Israeli attacks as “disproportionate” would hasten to add: “Of course, Israel has the right to defend itself.”
Israel, however, is not defending its homeland against unprovoked attack. Rather it is “defending” a nonexistent right to continue its occupation (direct or indirect) and repression of the Palestinians – and that is what provokes Palestinian attacks from Gaza.
The eight days of Israeli bombing and air strikes on Gaza last November were essentially a continuation – though on a much smaller scale – of “Operation Cast Lead,” the three-week Israeli attacks that began in late December 2008. Then as now, Israel and its supporters justified Cast Lead as a legitimate use of force in self-defense to end Hamas’s terrorist attacks on Israel’s civilian population."
More
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The major assumption is that Hamas is only trying to end the Occupation and get Palestinians a state of their own. Of course that assumption is only true if you ignore everything that Hamas has said and done since it was formed. It may be true in some far Left bizarro world, but it's completely false in the real one. Hamas wants Israel gone. giving them a state doesn't bring peace, which is why the two sides are at war. So Israel does have the right to defend itself. In fact, it's Hamas that is the aggressor, because it is making war on Israel to end Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)...is in response to the oppression, see? It's the means to a Just end.
When Hamas strikes, they're resisting & Israel has no right to "defend" against (actually what they do is arbitrarily attack) defenseless Palestinians. Genocidal maniacs that they are. Organ stealers, apartheidists. Grrrr!
Israel must be held to a higher standard.
Palestinian leadership, lower standards. Two different races, two different expectations and standards.
It's justice so all is fair.
And yeah, yeah....Israel has a right to defend themselves. I don't know how, haven't figured that one out yet, but all they do to defend is wrong and racist. They have to figure out a better way.
Response to shira (Reply #3)
Post removed
Solindsey
(115 posts)Hamas' very existence is made legitimate in the eyes of Palestinians every time Israel misses and accidentally flattens a town with bombs in the middle of the night. Or conduct baseless night raids into villages where some Palestinians often end up dead collateral. Or continues to build on disputed land, bulldoze Palestinian homes, and treat Palestinians like sub-humans occupying the Zionist's holy land. Israel's right wing who run the government WANT the reaction their provocations create. It's necessary to hold off peace talks when they can point the finger at Hamas. Conduct night raids and maybe kill some civilians, and then point the finger at Hamas. Or continue the inhumane siege and again point the finger at Hamas as the reason. Super handy, those Hamas folks.
Give the Palestinians another option besides the desperate suicidal monsters they have to turn to for "protection". A better option would move things closer to peace and Israel will have to stop building on all that land in their Zionist wetdream. They will have to bring down that wall and compromise their inane Zionism and give the Palestinians a right to exist independently and free of oppression. Progress away from conflict goes against the interests of the extremists who hold power in Israel.
Your mistake is always keeping Hamas in the equation. But maybe it's not a mistake? Blaming Hamas for everything is such a weak move, but it serves your purpose, just like it does the Israeli wingnut government. Stops you from having to admit you have no defence for Israel's continued behaviour. Blaming Hamas is the sideshow that helps you hide your inadequacies in this debate.
What Hamas does is disgusting. The fact that Israel's right wing powers want/need them is even more repulsive.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Sit down, have a cool glass of water, and pay attention.
Hamas and its sort - not just in Palestine but around the world and through history - are reactions. They are the product of occupations and oppressions. You do not get the IRA or the Stern Gang or the Continental Army without British occupation and oppression, for instance. The ANC does not come about without South Africa's policy towards blacks. Without African slavery, there would have been nothing for the Hatians to rise up against. Without the presence of Rome, neither the Iceni nor the Maccabees would have risen in revolt. Without the brutality of the Colombian military regime, there would be no FARC. Take away the Baath party and the PKK might as well have never been there. So on and so forth.
I don't need you to agree with or condone militant actions undertaken by these groups, or support their causes, or whatever. But you do need to understand their origin and what makes them "go." What fuels them and makes them persistent. The fuel of these groups is, obviously, occupation and oppression. So long as those conditions persist, someone will take up militancy; It's inevitable.
If you want to destroy the militancy through force, you thus need to be prepared to eradicate the people doing the uprising - not just the rebels, but the entire populace, either through outright liquidation or through scattering the people to the four winds. This is what Rome did to the Iceni and Maccabees, and what the Japanese did to the Seediq of Taiwan. For obvious reasons, this makes a militant response to a militant uprising problematic; even if you have the gullet to perform the necessary eradication (and I'd like to imagine Israel does not, when push comes to shove) you still need to be able to pin the people down; easy enough when they're a tribe in the hundreds on an island, substantially more difficult when they're millions on a continent.
The other option is what the British did (finally) with the IRA and more recently what the Chinese did with the Uighur uprising - change the circumstances spawning the militancy. Of course the more Reaganite / Thatcherite among us might balk at the idea of "giving in to terrorists," but the fact is... it actually works pretty well to curb militancy. Here's how it works.
1) Admit the circumstances that spawn the militant movement. It's a blow to that national pride, and the no-doubt entrenched racism of how "they" only understand force and thus "deserve" the treatment you give them. But much as with a twelve-step program, admitting a problem is the first step to fixing it. It may be discouraging at this point because the militant organization will win accolades from their populace.
2) Set about rectifying the situation. Not just saying you'll do it, but actually carrying through. Reduce your occupation, liberalize your policies towards the people. Give them glasnost; look at the militant organization's demands, and give the ones that actually do better the conditions for the people they pledge to speak for. That is, lift embargoes but don't throw all your army's guns in a smelter, obviously
3) Those people will still see the militant movement as icons who are successfully liberating them, but here's the trick... while you're liberalizing and evacuating, respond to further militancy not with militancy of your own but police action. Full transparency, give trials, sentencing, all that. Do not cease your withdrawal as a response; that only reaffirms the militant's stance that you cannot be trusted and hardens the populace against you. Arrest those who attack, use law instead of force, and the people in question will start to see that not only are you sincere in your efforts but that their "heroes" are working against their interest if they persist.
4) At this point the militant organization has two roads;
A) it continues trying to be a militant group opposing you even as you are given them what they have been asking for all along; In this case it is the militant group that shows an inability to act in good faith and loses the support of its support group. A guerrilla movement without the support of the people is doomed to failure. They become isolated and easy to seek out and remove (Again, follow the legal process for this, don't fire missiles into apartment buildings or torture informants or whatever.) If at all possible, be very selective in this police action; go after the individual perpetrators rather than the group as a whole; this creates divisions in the militant organization that weaken it, while a strike against the whole organization mends their rifts and creates a unified front against you again. Eventually you will arrive at the situation of option B, after a few rounds of this
or
B) The militant organization stops being militant and joins "the system" as a political faction rather than an armed group. This is what happened with Sinn Fien, which like Hamas, had a paramilitary wing attached to the political party throughout The Troubles. When the United Kingdom began reforming the situation in Northern Ireland, that paramilitary wing became a liability to the party and was demilitarized. Ties were not cut, but the guns were set aside and the militant wing dissolved into the political apparatus. .
Either way is win-win for you. You've either isolated an insurgency from the support of its people, or you've successfully de-fanged the insurgency. If B, then count on there being continued militancy from splinter-factions, each claiming the title of "true successor" for the dissolved militant group; they will spend as much time (if not more) targeting each other as you, and you can deal with transgressions through police action easily enough.
In the case of Hamas, yes, give them some of what they say they want. Lift the blockade, enable transit between Gaza and the West Bank for Palestinians, and start the process of evacuating settlements; keep your missile defense and don't remove your people from the Green Lines, obviously, but lift the onerous measures of occupation from the Palestinians.
If Hamas then proves you right, Aranthus, and continues attacking despite all this, then that's what they do; do not punish the Palestinian people for the group's actions. If you can, try to not go after the entire organization; rather pursue and bring to law the perpetrators. Show that you mean peace, and have no tolerance for those who do not. Palestinians - despite some posters' believes to the contrary - are not cruel stupid animals. They probably still won't like Israel a whole lot (70 years is a long time for most people), but they'll be able to see Israel is working on their behalf and Hamas and others who keep shooting are not.
Israel has a right to defend itself, sure. I'm just not certain Israel comprehends how to do that They seem to be taking cues from the United States, and just a look at Iraq and Afghanistan should tell you why that's a fucking bad idea. Israel's response to Palestinian militancy is the same as its response to a military attack from another state would be; jets and bombs and troop movements and shit. The end result is that Israel fails to defend itself and just adds resolve to the people attacking it.
This is of course, assuming that Solindsey is wrong about Israel wanting to keep Hamas around... that's not a totally implausible idea, but for the moment, I'm going to go ahead and assume that Israel means what it says about wanting an end to militancy.
Was the water good?
shira
(30,109 posts)1. Israel agreed to Oslo, gave the PA autonomy, stopped building new settlements, and offered the Palestinians what they seemingly wanted (their own state, end of occupation, end of settlements, half of Jerusalem, compensation for refugees). This was at CD and Taba in 1999-2000. Arafat chose Intifada 2. Did Arafat or his PA lose support? No, he gained even more.
2. Israel finished pulling out of Lebanon in 2000 and according to the UN they did everything properly. Did Hezbollah stop with the attacks? No. Did they lose support? No. They became part of the government.
3. In 2005, Israel pulled every last Jew out of Gaza, destroyed the settlements, & destroyed a few more in the West Bank. Did Hamas lose support? No. In fact, they were elected into power just like Hezbollah.
=====================
If you were right, and these terror organizations were supposed to lose support, we'd see something. Anything. We've seen nothing. In fact, the PA, Hamas, and Hezbollah all gained more support for their goals. And what are their goals? Their own state? An end to oppression? An end to occupation? No. It's total victory and annihilation. These groups have even gained more support from the outside world. More support from those who share their goals (an end to Israel by any means).
The other stateless, oppressed, & occupied groups you mentioned in your post are not hell bent on destroying the opposition or total victory. None would be supported by the outside world if that were the case.
Of course, none of this is news. Before 1948, before oppression, settlements, and occupation, and before Israel, the goal was the same. That goal was to deny the Jews their own state. The goal then was total victory and annihilation. The goal remain the same today.
What's difficult about all this?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) The PLO / PA renounced violence with Oslo. Keep the fuck up. The Intifada was the result of the continued failure of talks, and was directed both at Israeli intransigence (you really want to talk about Camp David? You sure? Really sure?) and the PA's inability to meet the basic needs of Palestinians. Not a single Oslo promise has been kept. Not one. Oh, except for the PA cracking down on militants whenever it can in the interests of Israeli security, I guess. And allowing Israel to continue collecting taxes from Palestine, I guess. And allowing Israel to continue its control over most of the West Bank, I guess. Hmmm.
Re-read my #2 and #3 principles there
The two bolded parts are important; Israel never actually carried through on anything except recognition of the PLO as the new-minted Palestinian National Authority. Everything else was labeled "we'll talk later, if you are a good little Arab." The standards for "good behavior" from the inmates seemed to be pretty mobile as well; what amuses me is demanding more police action against militants.. .while demanding fewer police. No wonder Israel votes Republican! "Reduce your occupation" is also important - Israel opted to not do that at all.
As you kindly pointed out, the Israelis called backsies on the withdrawal process. The Second Intifada started out as anger over both Israel and the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian National Authority (granted, mostly Israel - Like I said, 70 years is a long time.) Israel could have started pulling its people out faster than Reagan yanked marines out of Beruit, and the Intifada would have hit the PA hard. Instead Israel renewed its vigor for occupation and oppression, which re-united the Palestinians against Israel!
Remember? Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins, all of us against the rest of you. That brings us to...
2) It's important to consider Hezbollah's position in Lebanon at this point, Shira. They'd never been a popular group in Lebanon, for several reasons - Lebanese culture has been really liberal (well, for the region, at least - comparable to Israel or Greece on their good days) for most of its history, and here's these bearded fanatic types... Who refused to play Lebanese politics during the civil war. During said civil war the Lebanese figured them as "useful idiot" sorts - they were crazy assholes, but they made trouble for the Israeli occupiers (usually with tactics that resulted in one or more fewer Hezbollah - win-win for the Lebanese!) After the civil war, though, suddenly here's these guys, religious bearded nutbars who insist on taking potshots over the Blue Line - sort of the Lebanese equivalent of snake-handling hillbillies who like to shoot at state patrol cars. As if that weren't bad enough, they were all tied up with the Syrian occupation. What I'm trying to convey is that the Lebanese did not generally regard Hezbollah as admirable characters, follow? It was like "thanks for fighting Israel, can you get the fuck out now? Please?"
So in 2000, Israel pulled out - eighteen years too late, but hey, every little bit. There are some technical flaws there, but y'know, they're beside the point. In 2006, Hezbollah launched a cross-border raid. This is pretty easily a criminal act, sure. So what does Israel do? Send in a special forces team to collect their men and ahem, deal with the cell that took them? Launch a strike against some Hezbollah position or something? Lolnope, Israel decides to set Lebanon on fire.
If striking against a whole organization brings unity to the organization, what do you think happens then you knock over an entire country? If you bring a bomb to a slapfight, the people you blow up aren't going to care that the other guy slapped you first. if Israel was hoping beating the ever-loving shit out of Lebanon over a Hezbollah border raid would get the Lebanese to hate on Hezbollah more... well... they were wrong. When someone's dropping missiles on you, that's the guy you're going to be pissed at. And you hear that the only people fighting back are the hillbilly assholes and you think, "maybe they're not so bad." ...And then those guys win (when hillside bandits armed with rockets and AK-47's fight the region's most powerful armed forces to a standstill, that's the same as winning - ask a Russian about that, they've been on both sides of it)
Israel's total war against Lebanon was simply the worst possible response to the offense perpetrated by Hezbollah... and it normalized Lebanese perceptions of Hezbollah. it gave Hezbollah credibility and sympathy. There was a big ol' chasm between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon on June 11, 2006, and by August 15th, Israel had pretty much done everything in its power to caulk the fuck out of that crack.
3) Gaza and the West Bank are not separate entities, no matter how much three-state bullshit you try to sneak in there. Israel removed its settlements, but retained every other aspect of occupation - a 1.5KM kill-zone within the Gaza Strip, airspace and water control, and continued conducting strikes against Gazans - while continuing its colonization process in the other part of Palestine ("destroyed a few more" must be remembered in the context of continued building and expansion - think of how oil companies love to greenwash while still disgorging petrochemicals into your groundwater.) As I pointed out, expect the militant group to gain support at first.
The funny thing about Hamas' election? The very first thing they did, was it scream "DEATH TO THE JEWS!!!"? Did they promise war unending? Maybe some foaming at the mouth? Kill a Jewish baby and use its blood to make their falafel? No, the first thing they did was offer talks to Israel. Israel refused. Feel free to prance around and defend that if you like, I can understand Israel's position at the time.. .but even then I regarded it as a missed opportunity for Israel - they had defanged the PLO after thirty years with Oslo, could have been they'd do the same to Hamas. Neither side would have gotten instant gratification, but it was an "in" to undermine Hamas' position that Israel turned its nose up at. Of nothing else, Israel would have been calling their bluff, which would have blown up in Hamas' faces (if you'll pardon the experession in this context...)
And then in response to that election, Israel launched the most pro-Hamas thing it could think of - it imposed that blockade. it doesn't seem to have stopped Hamas from getting rockets, but it sure does seem to make the Gazans more appreciative when Hamas uses them. See how Lebanese respond to people shooting missiles at them.
=====================================
Israel has not actually tried anything I outlined, Shira. Israel has responded like the French did in Algeria. It's made a few halfassed attempts at subverting the militants it faces (see Oslo - see also Israeli involvement in Hamas' early days) but mostly, it responds to militancy by squeezing harder. That is exactly the opposite of what it needs to do.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)sounds like you read some books and only the parts you like...plus you seem to have the progressive disease of believing you can either read the future or know what would happen if only israel did "what it was suppose to.' Plus you have the progressive problem of not comprehending what consequences of ones actions are when it comes to the Palestinians.....you seem to believe they are some kind of idiotes who can only 'react' like some kind of cornered animal (a rather racist view i might add).
first what you dont know (quite a bit)...this is just history. Clearly it wont change you point of view, since its not based on any event beyond the creation of israel, the original sin, but there are others who might want to know that though you wrote a lot, its mostly wrong.
Intifada I, an actual grass-roots rebellion by the Palestinians, with limited violence, outside the green line that won them recognition, partial self-govt and the start of the road to independence. The reason it worked was the Palestenian leadership, using their brains and strategy knew how much to push and what not to do, and they knew to get the israeli population behind them, something they did as well...(something progressives dont seem to understand.)
Intifada II, planned by arafat (admited by him and his wife), was violent within the green line and reversed all the many of the gains and potential gains of oslo.- economic ties, mutual projects together, minimized checkpoints, mutual patrols, etc etc etc. and the confidence of the israeli population..... Arfat kicked out all of the intifada I leaders and put in his own corrupt cronies from tunisia who knew as much as you know about the environment.
Lebanon: Clearly you need a history lesson: Hizballa for one thing, owns S.Lebanon and parts of Beruit, whether the Lebanese like it or not its irrelevant, a client of both iran and syria, Lebanon had little choice but to accept them, that was missing from your little description, put that in and your whole rant turns out to have no credibility. Hizballa never quit attacking israel, even after its withdrawal, sniper attacks, mortars, here and there, it never stopped and all the time israel did not react. The cross border raid, Like the kassams from gaza eventually get a reaction.....its not a surprise both hizballa and hamas know eventually their attacks will cause a reaction, only those, like you, prefer to pretend its hizballa and hamas dont know what they are doing (try respecting them, you obviously don't)
Gaza: Planned with the PA, the withdrawl and the processes after that was contingent upon a peaceful gaza, it was to be step by step process...something that neither the PA nor hamas gave it a chance. 30 kassams on the day after the withdrawal, and almost daily attacks, be it kassams, border raids on the border stations delivering food, on border patrols etc. The kill zone, for example, came AFTER the border attacks on israel....did hamas and the PA know Israel would react to their continuous attacks? of course. only morons could possibly believe that hamas nor the PA didn't know that israel would eventually retaliate....well if not morons than perhaps racists who must believe that hamas and the PA must be so dumb as to not know that eventually israel would react to those attempts to kill israelis.
and after hamas took over...first thing they did?..shoot more rockets, i.e. tried to kill israels (june 18, june 20)....Talk is cheap, and is used to fool the foolish. Actions such as trying to murder israelis, is a lot more definitive. If hamas wanted to "talk" as per your claim, they would have stopped the attacks....they're smart enough to know that by attacking it pretty much negates any verbal noise of "talks"
___
Hamas can turn around gaza anytime they want..there first step is to stop the almost daily attempts at killing israelis....its their call, israel made the first move by leaving....and it doesnt make a difference if it wasn't perfect, it doesn't have to be, it was done and now its up to hamas, clearly they have made the strategic decision not to...you should respect their intelligence and their actions, clearly you believe they're so dumb they dont understand that there are consequences or is there some other reason you believe they 'cant control themselves"....
---
now we shall see if this post stands..and if you have the ability to learn and adjust your opinion based on new information....or if you prefer not to know, and keep you viewpoint as its base on ideology and not events.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)rather crude in fact.....just wondering how much i can 'push" before my post is voted out
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)...i'll have to do some "reevaluation" about how i see my writing.... .i though this was borderline (and my borderline, is probably over the border for some)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just depends on how PO'd you are 
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I guess that's what happens when your primary way of gathering information is sniffing Netanyahu's trousers.
Here, let me show you something;
Hamas can turn around gaza anytime they want..there first step is to stop the almost daily attempts at killing israelis....its their call, israel made the first move by leaving....and it doesnt make a difference if it wasn't perfect, it doesn't have to be, it was done and now its up to hamas
See, here's you knowing shit. A big steaming pile of it. "Almost daily attempts" - I guess that depends on how much you stretch "almost." Maybe it's like that other A-word Zionists have kneaded and massaged into absolute meaninglessness.
At any rate, yes, it does matter. Israel cannot expect to get all of the peace for fractional concessions. It doesn't work that way. Logically there's no reason it should work that way. As I'm sure you understand, peace is all-or-nothing, right? I mean you can't really keep peace for Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and have Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday be free-fire days, can you? And as I explained to Three-State Shira there, Gaza and West Bank are not isolated from one another; they are both Palestine, just as Oregon and Florida are both the United States.
You take this into consideration and Israel's "imperfect" move (to say the least) leaves a fucking lot of valid pretexts (mind, not the same as "good reason"
for continued militancy. Israel simply cannot maintain a crippling blockade, classify a third of Gaza's land as a free-fire zone, and expand the occupation in the west bank, then lament about not having received all of the peace. No shit!
Now, you want to argue that Hamas will keep fighting even after all those concessions are actually given? Sure, it's very likely they will. I pointed out that there's a good chance militant groups will persist in militancy, didn't I? Thing is, they have no pretext and much-reduced popular support, and are thus easy targets for police action.
Maybe Solindsey is right - the three Zionists on this thread seem desperate to help Hamas out.shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Do a little more research into the Gaza withdrawal. I mentioned in my last post to you from earlier today that Israel also destroyed a few W.Bank settlements at the same time they were withdrawing from Gaza. Do you know why? It was part of a gradual plan to also pull out of the W.Bank. Hamas, however, couldn't wait that long and as Pelsar pointed out to you, they fired 30 kassams the very next day after the Gaza pullout was complete. Hamas was very careful not to fire any rockets during the withdrawal period, but as soon as it was complete the warmongers shot their wad.
This is all history.
Here's one news article from 2006 reporting on Olmert's plans to follow through by also withdrawing from the W.Bank....
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3251725,00.html
Do a little more research before you come back. It's better you do this and discover for yourself. I want you to see what Israel was planning to do at the time. And it wasn't just to withdraw from Gaza and leave it at that. Search using a timeline from around 2005-2006. It was called the convergence plan and Olmert from Kadima was leading the way...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I addressed the point about militants continuing their fight after their concessions are granted in my initial post. Point #4, actually.
Let's you and I agree on something. Israel does not owe Hamas a single fucking thing. I think you and I can agree there, right, Israel has no debts to Harakat al-Muqawamah al-ʾIslamiyyah? Go back to my initial post here on this thread;
Very quick, Shira; do you believe that hurting the Palestinians helps Israel in procuring peace? Do you believe that squeezing them harder will make them friendlier towards Israel?
I don't, and I think anyone who does think so is a sadist and needs to be locked away for the safety of others. My point here is not to try to hold hands with the militants and make bestest-best friends. Nor is it a vision that if you grant concessions then suddenly the militants will magically stop being militant and will take up running a petting zoo full of bunnies and pygmy goats instead.
It's an argument that if you make honest and thorough efforts to reduce your occupation and improve the lot of the people you were occupying, you reduce the appeal of militant action in that populace, and even among some in the militants themselves. I never said you will get instant gratification and militancy will magically stop - in fact I said the exact opposite, which you will notice if you hadn't been so busy bloviating.
"B-b-b-but Hamas kept firing rockets!" you simper, well yeah, of course they did. I guess you were expecting magical instant results? You seem to be awfully angry that that wasn't what you got, after all. Maybe you thought Haniyeh would toss away his guns and take up macrame and reading to Gaza's many (many, many) orphans?
It's a process, Shira. it takes time. If you hope to turn the people against the militants, then you are going to need to do something to make those people have more trust and faith in you than they do with the militants. You have to make the militants unpopular, at least in contrast to you.
Basic fucking counterinsurgency, do you speak it? Obviously not, you think group reprisal is a good answer to the problems Israel faces.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Apparently you have a base belief that you didnt address, so i shall ask directly and see if you have 'internet courage"
You seem to believe that the Palestinians have no responsibilities for any of their actions
_______________________
is this correct?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm puzzled as to where you draw this idea from.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)every attack from the Palestinians, every fantatical Palestenian group will stop and eventually disappear once Israel does the "right thing"....which translates into plain english, that they have no responsibility toward anything they do,
only when Israel fixs the situation according to some universal justice code that transcends all cultures, that all will agree and abide by, ONLY then, will they have any responsibilities toward israel.
if i'm not correct....what exactly are they responsible for?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)First off, you're conflating "Palestinians" with "militant groups." For the moment, I'll just ignore your rote dehumanization of Palestinians this way, and just read it as "militant groups."
Did you read my posts? I've said nothing of the sort that you suggest, Pelsar. Scroll up. Read my posts. See where I pointed out continued militancy is probable (4a)? See where I endorse the idea of police (as contrasted with military) action against such continued militancy (3)? I'm not sure how "capture them, put them on trial, handle them according to court verdict" is in any way saying they have no responsibility. In fact it strikes me as the exact opposite of saying they have no responsibility.
Maybe where we're having trouble is that I don't believe that Palestinians bear collective responsibility - and thus should take collective punishment - for the actions of militant groups. Is this where we differ in our positions, Pelsar?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)2nd...I'm a known racist and i constantly dehumanize the Palestinians because i believe they all have larger feet which needs additional blood and that takes away from their ability to think....which makes them all racists and all terrorists.
so now that that is settled...and feel free to call me "pelsar the right wing fanatical racist" if that makes you feel better.
____
i've read you posts..and you'll notice that you use Israel to represent israel policies...but when referring to the Palestinians, the "militants" are all individuals...and Israel should be using the "police" (I'll ignore your ignorance of the environment as to why its not practical nor realistic) to use police tactics.
i.e. according to your posts, there is no Hamas govt that imports miltary hardware, produces weapons, creates strategies and tactics to attack israelis and hence cannot be held responsible for those very actions.
___
I'll make this even simpler and more direct.
is the hamas govt of gaza responsible for the actions used by the Palestinians of gaza in attacking israel, and can they change tactics and strategy if they so desire?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Actually I refer to militants as groups, but suggest that they should be pursued as individuals in an effort to create and widen fissures within those organizations. Treating every punk as equally guilty just by membership just results in increased solidarity. The goal is to make carrying out operations less appealing. If it makes you feel better, I have no problem with Israel's use of informants (though the practice could be done better - concern for the informant doesn't seem to figure in, for example)
Hamas' position inside or outside the government is irrelevant to its militancy. It's a militant group, and I discuss it as such in these posts. The concepts apply the same.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)this is why i reject explanations that are based in "PC verbology" they are are never clear...
note the simplicity of the question:
does hamas have any responsibility/influence towards the various militant groups within gaza?
do they control them? influence them? give them arms, pay them?, give them info, maps?....your not clear
hamas has a military wing, is that part of the hamas political wing (i.e. the hamas leadership in gaza can tell the "militants" what and when or cant they?)
__
concentrate, this has nothing to do with israel, its a question that is only about hamas....and I'm sure the various posters and lurkers will excuse you if your write clear and forget about your PC training.
shira
(30,109 posts)...but you still persist without admitting you were wrong about anything.
What's the point continuing?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Scootaloo>Hamas and its sort - not just in Palestine but around the world and through history - are reactions. They are the product of occupations and oppressions.
This just isn't true. Hamas is the reaction to a Jewish sovereignty in the Holy land. The antecedents of Hamas--the Arab Army of Liberation and the Army of Salvation--made war on the Jews before any occupation; before any oppression; before there was even an Israel. For that matter Palestinian nationalism is a reaction to a Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land. That doesn't make it less real. It just means that Palestinian hostility to Israel's existence is not just a matter of a few or a small group.
