Qassam hits Sderot-area high school in new salvo

[oberliner]

As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz sparred over the issue of whether to evacuate the residents of Sderot, seven Qassam rockets struck the embattled area early on Thursday, one of them slamming into a high school, lightly wounding two people.

Another rocket hit the yard of a house, without causing injury. Palestinian gunners struck Sderot and its environs with more than 30 Qassam rockets on Wednesday alone.

Following a decision by Olmert on Wednesday, the military prepared to take 'harsh' measures in an effort to stem new attacks.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860522.html

[pelsar]

1. so i dont get it....

where are the "cries" on this forum for the "war crimes" of the palestenians. Israel flys over gaza and creates sonic booms and there were "endless" posts are horrible that was, israel shot artillary in open fields and the posts filled up with the horrible war crimes.

kassams in to israeli home and schools and its pretty quiet over here.....except for the glaring double standard, perhaps that should be the discussion?

the conclusion however is hard to ignore:
its acceptable for the palestenians to shoot missiles in to israeli cities....its morally reprehensible for israel to attempt to stop it using todays weapons..(if israel had phasers and could "beam up" the shooters, well now that might be acceptable)

which means, given the limitation of todays technologies, its preferable for israelis to be terrorized and killed as opposed to them defending themselves....if there is another conclusion I sure would be interested in hearing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

9. That's strange. I've said many times that I'm opposed to the firing of Qassams...

I wonder (like you do) why those same posters aren't denouncing these attacks on innocent Israelis at least as vociferously as they denounced the sonic booms.

Yet my experience in this forum with some posters (some of who have not surprisingly never once denounced anything done by Israel to Palestinian civilians) is that they totally ignore it and proceed to claim that no-one condemns attacks on Israeli civilians. Then there's the even more pathetic tactic when someone appears and claims that even though they might have said they oppose attacks on Israeli civilians, they don't do it loudly enough, which of course means that they think that unless the other posters cease criticising Israel and devote all their posting time to loudly complaining about attacks on Israeli civilians, they're not complaining loudly enough. Hey, let's all get into a huddle and loudly complain about something. You never know. Whoever we're complaining about might hear us and take time out to come and have a chuckle at the stupidity of complaining loudly on internet forums! ;)

btw, I don't post in each new thread that gets started each time a Qassam gets fired coz these threads come across like someone's keeping score at a football game and I haven't got anything new to add to what I said the first time I posted in one of these threads...

[pelsar]

10. interesting teminology...

I'm opposed to the firing of Qassams......i do believe (if i recall correctly) you've declared israeli bombing war crimes, sonic booms war crimes etc

and kassams?....you're just "opposed to"

i guess we just dont know whos firing those kassams do we?.....(hint: hamas has claimed that they're firing them)

[barb162]

11. So is it a war crime to fire rockets against Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Yes n/t

[pelsar]

26. if kassams are war crimes...

so any calls to send the hamas leadership to the international court?........

[High Plains]

91. Sure, right behind the Israeli leadership

[barb162]

37. Kassams are against international law and international humanitarian law

also as they don't discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Though the kassam firing is so blatantly toward a town where civilians live, I conclude they are specifically going after civilians, which is even worse. There are no excuses for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. As are many other things that you've voiced support for...

For example, the demolition of Palestinian homes. Anyone who complain about violations of international law shouldn't pick and choose selectively which violations they'll complain about based on which 'side' did it, but oppose all violations of international law no matter who commits them...

[barb162]

43. That's a complete misstatement of my position, Violet.

I am not for demolishing homes. I am for getting rid of terrorist tunnels under houses, militants shooting from rooftops or windows of houses or other buildings, etc. If you can offer a solution for stopping the menace of snipers using these buildings for killing people other than demolishing houses, I'd like to see it.
I disagree that demolishing houses and other buildings is a violation of law when these buildings are used for terrorist purposes. I think the self-defense aspect of those being attacked supercedes the property destruction.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. It's not at all...

You even confirm it in yr post. Not once and no matter what the circumstances of the home demolition, have you expressed opposition to it. You have given excuse after excuse why it is acceptable for Israel to do it. Other violations of international law by Israel that you have never voiced opposition to is Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon and the bombing of the power plant in Gaza. International law isn't something that applies to every other country but Israel. It applies to Israel just as much as the others...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

7. Fascinating, isn't it?

No screaming or ranting about the poor suffering innocents. No flailing of arms. No accusations of war crimes against Hamas or calls for someone's head. No demands involving the Hague.

One might think Israeli lives had no currency.

[barb162]

13. Lirit, you're so right. What about genocide against Israel?

That word gets thrown around here fairly often by some posters and I wonder how these constant rocket attacks aren't genocidal attacks against innocent people. I think the constant Hamas calls for destroying Israel add up to genocide against Israel.

[breakaleg]

14. You can't figure out why these rocket attacks aren't an example of genocide?

[barb162]

15. breakaleg, these are genocidal attacks against Israelis

Is that clear enough? Let me add that Hamas and other groups who plan and carry out suicide bombers attacks against Israel also commit genocide.

[pelsar]

16. ethnic cleansing....

dont forget that one...after all people are being forced to leave sederot because of the rockets... and why are all of those who cry out for human rights and worried about the children demanding that the guilty parties be tried at the hague?

[barb162]

19. This is ethnic cleansing against Israelis

You're absolutely right. I think Israel should go to the UN too because the Hamas run Palestinian government has done more than enough pronouncments and actions and their intentions and actions are very clear. The ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel must stop.

Thank you, Pelsar.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Neither ethnic cleansing nor genocide is happening currently in this conflict...

Though the irony of people who insist that Israel never carried out ethnic cleansing back when Israel was created turning round and using a whole different set of standards to try to claim that there's GeNoCiDe!!!! and ethnic cleansing being committed on Israel is pretty entertaining on a Look At The Complete Silliness Of This Nonsense sort of way...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

34. That's a very entertaining comment. It's clearly genocidal intent

The Israelis in that town have done nothing to provoke the Palestinian militants shooting the rockets daily for months. These rockets can and have killed and injured people and the intent of those shooting the rockets is to kill and injure innocent people. Genocidal intent and ethnic cleansing apply to these violent and aggressive acts against Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. It's not entertaining. It's fact. There is no genocide being committed against Israelis...

If yr going to call every attack against civilians in a conflict genocide, then yr going to be arguing that genocide is happening all over the world. Let's see, there's the Israeli settlers committing genocide on Palestinian civilians, there's the Tamil Tigers committing genocide on Sri Lankans, there's Russia committing genocide on the Chechens, and the list goes on and on and on. Clearly none of these, including Qassam attacks launched at Israel are genocide, because that is twisting the definition of the word into something that Raphael Lemkin never intended it to be. He'd be turning in his grave if he saw the way it gets abused in this forum.

Here is a list of 20th century genocides and genocides that happened after the Genocide Convention was ratified:

http://preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/

The problem with trying to argue that genocide is being committed against Israelis is that such a loose interpretation of the definition of genocide leads to the conclusion that genocide is also being committed against Palestinians...

[barb162]

41. The fact is there are those who claim there is genocide

against the Palestinians. With whatever definitions they are using or have used to make that claim, my response is that certain Palestinians are and have been practicing the same against Israelis. Whether violent acts are practiced by armies or pseudo armies (militant groups, etc), the effect is the same. Yes, the word is bandied about freely and often here over the last few years against Israel on numerous threads. However, what the Hamas government and other armed groups are aiming for against Israel meets the Lemkin definition.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. So what? They're just as wrong as you are...

The term genocide is also bandied around fast and loose when you use it to make the claim that genocide is being committed on Israelis. Did you look at the site I linked to in my post? Because if you took a look at that and other sites dealing with genocide, you'd notice that a list of genocides was supplied. Will you be needing any assistance in taking note of the difference between those and what you are claiming is genocide? Here's fact for you. It's not possible to use the definition of genocide to claim genocide is being committed against Israelis without also applying the same standards to argue that genocide has been and is being committed against Palestinians.

[msmcghee]

52. Sadly, it seems we are required to revisist this issue every few days.

So be it.

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

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

The key words here are - "with intent to destroy" . . and "in whole or in part" . .

Israel's intent is self defense.

The intent of the Palestinian militants who attack Israel and indiscriminately kill the Jews who live there . . is the mass killing of a group of people - as described in their words, deeds, their religious proclamations and their political statements taking credit for the attacks and the mission statements of their organizations.

The recent flare up in Gaza is a good example.

Israel held back for months as the rockets, sent by those swearing to not quit until Israel is destroyed, continued to fall in Sderot - injuring and killing its inhabitants. When Israel finally responded it was (and is) with restraint, hoping that the rockets could be quelled without more damage and death.

As usual you attempt to make your case around your own terribly twisted definition of a key term in the conflict - and turn it around so that it is opposite of its intended meaning. And to do what?

To make the rather absurd claim that Israel is committing genocide - a terribly ugly libel that has become the favorite of some who seem to enjoy the existential twist of turning the holocaust on its head.

When the exact opposite is the case. In fact, Israel is engaged in self defense.

And the Jews are again the recipient of clearly-stated genocidal intentions and acts - and have been repeatedly at the hands of Arab Palestinians since 1939.

[barb162]

55. It's the strangest thing that the elected and appointed leaders

of the Palestinian government (and many leaders of Palestinian factions) sit on their collective hands when it comes to daily violent rocket attacks on Israel and even worse, when they openly call for even more varied and more destructive attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. This isn't genocide? Certainly it is.

From The Times
May 22, 2007

Hamas threatens new wave of suicide attacks against Israel
snip
Hamas politicians called on Palestinians to retaliate “using any means necessary”. Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of parliament from Gaza, said: “It is every Palestinian’s duty to seek vengeance. Kill the occupiers. Murder them with suicide bombings or bullets. It does not matter how.”


snip

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1821206.ece
---
Hamas: We'll attack from W. Bank
May. 21, 2007 10:08
"Hamas has no red lines anymore," a group official said Monday afternoon, announcing that the organization would extend its attacks to the West Bank.
snip
Earlier Monday, voices from within Hamas called out loudly for Israel's destruction, following an IAF attack on a Hamas lawmaker's home Sunday night as part of ongoing IDF operations against Kassam rocket fire.

A senior Hamas leader in Gaza declared that it was signed and sealed within his party that Israel would be wiped off the map and replaced by a Palestinian State, Israel Radio reported. He added that rockets and missiles were the means of removing Israel from the picture.

snip
Meanwhile, a Hamas-affiliated group in the PA parliament called for suicide attacks and other violence against IDF troops in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for the strikes. The organization's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, threatened the same and warned Sderot residents that even fleeing to Ashkelon would not protect them from rocket attacks.
snip
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708651048&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Sadly, some folk who claim genocide where none exist make that happen...

Of course I'm aware that for those who insist that genocide is being committed against Israelis, or that genocide is being committed against Palestinians, objectivity and logic isn't something that is going to appeal to them, but it is entertaining to watch the flailing :)

You even point out yrself that genocide is mass killing, yet there are no mass killings being carried out by either side in the conflict. You do realise that actual genocides involve the mass killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions? And that those killings are systematic, and that the victims are not victims of attacks by combatants on civilians (that's a war crime, not genocide). An example would be the Blitz. The intentional bombing of a civilian population was carried out over a much shorter period of time (8 months) than since the second Intifada started (coming up to seven years in July) and around 43,000 people died in the Blitz as opposed to around 700 Israeli civilians and around 50 foreign civilians since the Intifada began. Was the Blitz a genocide committed against the British? Of course not, and the staggering death toll over a short period of time and Hitler's threats to destroy Britain would make that a more likely candidate to be labelled as genocide than the deaths of Israeli or Palestinian civilians during the I/P conflict....



As usual you attempt to make your case around your own terribly twisted definition of a key term in the conflict - and turn it around so that it is opposite of its intended meaning. And to do what?

To make the rather absurd claim that Israel is committing genocide - a terribly ugly libel that has become the favorite of some who seem to enjoy the existential twist of turning the holocaust on its head.

As usual, you don't appear to have read anything I've said. I've been pointing out that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are committing genocide, so what do you do? Make the patently absurd and clearly incorrect accusation that I am making a claim that Israel is committing genocide. I've repeatedly said that Israel is NOT committing genocide. Do I need to write it in a big flashing 72 point font, or will that get completely ignored as well?

As for having a twisted definition of a 'key term' in the conflict. The whole point is that genocide is not a factor in this conflict. No-one who's studied Genocide Studies would make the claim that it was part of the conflict, though all are well aware of the definition, which is why Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the killing fields of Cambodia are all agreed to be genocides. So if you want to accuse me of having a twisted definition of genocide, yr accusing the entire field of genocide studies of having a twisted definition, because you won't find them labelling the firing of Qassams as genocide. btw, intent matters and the intent of attacks on Israeli civilians appears to be to provoke a response from Israel, not to kill as many Jews as possible, which is what you claim...

[barb162]

53. You're wrong. Thanks for the offer of assistance

but your assistance isn't needed. Maybe you need some assistance on reading that definition of genocide again.
And here's fact for you.

May 22, 2007

Hamas threatens new wave of suicide attacks against Israel

Hamas declared open war on Israel yesterday, pledging to renew suicide bombings after Israeli leaders vowed to kill senior politicians from the militant movement, including Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian Prime Minister.
snip
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1821206.ece

Targeting non-combatants through suicide bombings, rocket attacks, etc., meets the definition of genocide.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. You need to look up the definition of genocide.

It's not "war crimes against civilians", it's "trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group".

If you can produce evidence that Hamas is actively trying to kill every single Israeli, you'll have evidence that they're trying to commit genocide. Anything short of that, and you won't.

Incidentally, I think it's probably true that there are a non-trivial number of Arab fanatics who really would *like* to commit genocide against the Israelis. But they are not, have never been, and never will be in a position to make a serious attempt to do so, and they're not currently trying to.

[msmcghee]

60. Do you realize what you are doing?

On a supposedly progressive forum you are making the argument that genocide isn't really genocide unless there is an intention to kill every last one of them. I wonder how well that defense would have worked at Nuremberg - or if any of the Nazi killers had the balls to even try it.

I would think that any good-faith attempt to kill people because of their religion or ethnicity - adjusted for the weaponry available and the perpetrators' ability to carry it out - would be a sufficiently rigorous definition to satisfy most liberals. The core of the definition of genocide is that intent, after all.

But apparently it's not good enough for some in this forum. Please tell us more about how genocide is such an unfair charge when, based on some privileged knowledge you must posses, the Palestinian militants aren't really trying to kill "all the Jews" in Israel.

Maybe you could tell us which ones they are not trying to kill - so we'll know that they really aren't committing genocide against those they do kill?

[mystikiel]

62. No

The definition states that there is an intention to wipe out a group "in whole or in part". So attempting to wipe out a certain ethnic group in a certain location would suffice; however, individual instances of killing people would not in itself meet the definition of genocide.

From what I can observe, generally even those posters sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (such as myself) would concede quite readily that the firing of Qassam missiles are war crimes, as well as criminal acts of murder for which the responsible individuals should quite rightly be held accountable. On the other hand, pro-Israel persons tend to simply insist that everything Israel does is legitimate self-defense, which is where I think accusations of hypocrisy come in.

So for example, according to a pro-Israel position using cluster munitions in a built-up civilian area is not a war crime, but using ball-bearings in Katyusha rockets (a crude kind of cluster bomb) does. I would think that both acts amount to war crimes, but any statement to that effect is usually met with shrill remarks about "moral equivalence" fron the pro Israeli camp.

Further:-

a) the pro-Israel camp states that rocket atacks from Sderot amount to genocide. However, they deny that massacres of Palestinians in Qibla or Deir Yassin during the 1948 war amount to genocide. Clearly if the former constitues genocide the latter must also do so.

b) the pro-Israel camp denies that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians resembles apartheid, as there is no racially defined criterion determining how people are to be segregated. However, it is quite clear that there is a system of segregation clearly dependent on ethnic or religious affiliation. Were someone living in the territories to discover that in fact they were Jewish, they would be entitled to reside in Israel proper. On the other hand, it is quite clear that even Arab citizens of Israel are effectively unable to take up residence in settlements in the occupied territories

c) the historical account shows that in the case of the 1956 invasion of Egypt, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and the attacks against Jordan in 1948, Israel was not motivated by concerns for its self-defence but rather was interested primarily in territorial expansion.

As far as the ICJ is concerned, there seems to be a fairly steady rate of turnover for Palestinian militant leaders, as they seem to get killed regularly. I suggest it is for that reason that not many people propose having such people indicted before the Hague.

[pelsar]

63. as one of the "pro israelis"....

(could be related to the fact that i am an israel....but we'll let that prejudice pass for now)....

I take a rather "softer" view of the definition of genocide. Whereas some Palestinians (numbers unknown due to polls and cultural bias) wouldnt mind wiping out the jews, i suspect the kassams are more of the ongoing war. They're intention is to terrorize and make some internal political points. My definition also refers to the 48 war...the israelis when it was strategically needed and the war permitted, arab villages were wiped out, not the residents per sea. Other areas the arabs stayed, and were not "touched"...hence the genocide intent was not present.

same to for the "apartheid acccusation"...the basis is obviously security, not skin color, not religion, not ethnicity.....but nationalism. Segregation by national identity is probably the most common form in the world today. (if you want to show me what the ethnic trait that we look for in the Palestinians i would love to know, since i was never told when in the army)

your "c" is rather dissapointing....as your "historical facts are so wrong that i dont even know why i should refute it, but since your accusing of israel of territorial expansion, perhaps explain why israel didnt add any settlements in lebanon or in the sinai in 56?...(48, israel took advantage of jordans foolish attempt at wiping them out, so here i would say yes)


As far as the ICJ is concerned, there seems to be a fairly steady rate of turnover for Palestinian militant leaders, as they seem to get killed regularly. I suggest it is for that reason that not many people propose having such people indicted before the Hague

Life expectancy does not give one a free pass to commit murder....thats a very very poor excuse for the lack of calls for bringing the Palestinian militant leaders to be indicted......though it is an interesting take on when someone should and should not be indicted.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. I don't see that as a "softer" view of the definition of genocide...

I take a rather "softer" view of the definition of genocide. Whereas some Palestinians (numbers unknown due to polls and cultural bias) wouldnt mind wiping out the jews, i suspect the kassams are more of the ongoing war. They're intention is to terrorize and make some internal political points. My definition also refers to the 48 war...the israelis when it was strategically needed and the war permitted, arab villages were wiped out, not the residents per sea. Other areas the arabs stayed, and were not "touched"...hence the genocide intent was not present.

There's nothing "soft" about that view. The only thing about that view is "correct". Neither current Palestinian rocket attacks nor the events of the war of 1948 are examples of genocide, and as you point out the intent behind the actions in both cases were not of genocide...


Life expectancy does not give one a free pass to commit murder....thats a very very poor excuse for the lack of calls for bringing the Palestinian militant leaders to be indicted......though it is an interesting take on when someone should and should not be indicted.

No, life expectancy doesn't give anyone a free pass to commit murder. I'm not sure if anyone in this forum will agree with me on this, but I don't think dragging any Palestinian or Israeli leaders before the Hague is going to achieve anything, especially if a time comes when the conflict ends and a settlement that leads to a Palestinian state happens.

[mystikiel]

77. again

Its rather hard to tell what you consider to be genocide. Are you saying that acts of war become genocide if there is merely the desire on the part of some to see the other side extirpated? No doubt some Israelis would like to see the end of the Palestinians. Was 1948 genocide on the part of the Arabs but merely legitimate self-defence on the part of the Jews?

<I> same to for the "apartheid acccusation"...the basis is obviously security, not skin color, not religion, not ethnicity.....but nationalism. Segregation by national identity is probably the most common form in the world today. (if you want to show me what the ethnic trait that we look for in the Palestinians i would love to know, since i was never told when in the army)</I>

Do you think that apartheid had nothing to do with security? Most whites (indeed, most South African Jews) would consider that their positions became a lot less secure when the apartheid system ended. Generally, the larger the disenfranchised minority (or majority, in the case of South Africa) is, the greater the amount of repression that is needed in order to maintain the system. Right now, the Arab minority is 18%. Maybe 20% if you consider the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the Syrian Druze. What would you think would be different if the Arab population was 30% or 50%?

Do you live next door to any Arabs? Does anyone else that you know? Do you wonder why it is that they all reside in villages that are exclusively Arab, apart from in Jerusalem, where the government spares no effort in trying to get them to leave? Do you know what racially prescriptive covenants are, and why they were banned by the Supreme Court in the US but not in Israel? Do you ever question why Arab representation in the Knesset seems to be quite low given that they constitute one-fifth of the population?

<I>your "c" is rather dissapointing....as your "historical facts are so wrong that i dont even know why i should refute it, but since your accusing of israel of territorial expansion, perhaps explain why israel didnt add any settlements in lebanon or in the sinai in 56?...(48, israel took advantage of jordans foolish attempt at wiping them out, so here i would say yes)</I>

Probably because both the Lebanon invasion and the 1956 invasion were unmitigated failures. In the case of 1956, Eisenhower warned the Israelis to withdraw, suggested that the Soviets would intervene directly if they did not, and that the US would probably not object in that eventuality. If you have some theory for why the '56 invasion was defensive, I'd like to hear it.

As for Lebanon, perhaps you'd like to hear it straight from the lion's mouth?-

<I>All that is required is to find an officer, even a captain would do, to win his heart or buy him with money to get him to declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territory, and create a Christian regime that will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will fall into place.</I>

[Shaktimaan]

79. In what way

was the 82 invasion of Lebanon a failure? You could talk about the problems brought about by the subsequent occupation of Lebanon (and the 2000 evacuation) but the 82 invasion achieved its goals, didn't it? To route out the PLO militants who were using Lebanon as a base for attacking Northern Israel.

I don't know who your quote is from but it isn't exactly proof that Israel's goal was the annexation of Lebanese land. If it was their goal then why did they never implement settlement building? You can't just lift single quotes out of any kind of context and ignore the entire related history with the expectation that it amounts to ironclad proof of anything. I mean, COME ON. Who studies history like this? You have to look at the events and political discourse as a WHOLE in order to get a narrative that reflects the truth. When you take a few unrelated quotes or facts, remove them from their context and then construct an alternate history around them to suit your purpose it is not considered history. It is called propaganda.

Sinai in '56 was supposed to be a joint operation with the British and the French. Egypt and all of the Arab states imposed an economic blockade against Israel cutting off shipping to Israel entirely bringing Israel's economy to the brink of collapse in violation of the armistice agreement they had, I don't see how you would think that it had anything to do with expansion or that no defensive motive existed. It's like you never read a normal history of any of this and just gathered explanations from insane partisan websites or something. Again, why do you think that this war was unsuccessful from Israel's perspective?

As far as wanting to annex the Sinai, Israel actually did so after the '67 war but had no problem dismantling the settlements in exchange for a peace agreement. So you could say that their goal was to have leverage to attain peace through a land-for-peace deal, a goal that was successful, but if their goal was annexation of the sinai then why would they dismantle settlements to give the land to Egypt once said goal was achieved?

And, no, Apartheid has nothing to do with security. South Africa's motive for Apartheid was NOT security. And Israeli Arabs are allowed to live wherever they want. A right upheld many times in Israel's supreme court. De-facto segregation is a far cry from Apartheid. The divisions you mention exist in every country with a substantial minority population. (Ever wonder why there is so little Hispanic representation in America's Senate even though there is a substantial Hispanic population there?)

[mystikiel]

81. this way

All that is required is to find an officer, even a captain would do, to win his heart or buy him with money to get him to declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territory, and create a Christian regime that will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will fall into place.

It was from Moshe Dayan, erstwhile Defence Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel.

I mean, COME ON. Who studies history like this?

Actually, none of what I'm saying is very controversial. Apart from Efraim Karsh and a few other denialist historians its pretty much standard fare in most universities in Israel. I can give you a reading list if you like.

If it was their goal then why did they never implement settlement building?

They were never able to. Israel's Maronite allies (the SLA) were never able to gain any advantage over the other militias, and by the mid 1990s Hezbollah had killed most of the SLA's core members. The old Israeli dream of a Christian buffer state evaporated when the SLA was beaten back to the Israeli side of the Litani river in 2000. Meanwhile, Hezbollah kept up a continuous guerilla campaign against Israeli ground forces. Clearly, any settlement would have been impossible. Israel has shown itself more than willing to appropriate Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian land for settlements, why do you think it would have made an exception for Lebanon?

You could talk about the problems brought about by the subsequent occupation of Lebanon

Yes, I suppose I could talk about that. I could for instace ask the question of why Israel chose to remain in Lebanon after the PLO agreed to leave, if indeed their only purpose in invading Lebanon was to remove the PLO?

Sinai in '56 was supposed to be a joint operation with the British and the French.

Not quite true. The secret arrangement made between the Israelis, French and British was that Israel would invade the Sinai, presumably drawing an Egyptian response. The British and French would then step forward in the guise of international arbitrators and demand that both sides withdraw from the Canal, and occupy the Canal zone themselves, thus effectively removing the Suez Canal from Egyptian control.

I don't see how you would think that it had anything to do with expansion or that no defensive motive existed.

On the afternoon of the invasion, Ben-Gurion announced that the Straits of Tiran were in Israeli hands after a 1400 year hiatus. The announcement made very clear that Ben-Gurion considered that Israel had a historical claim to the land.



Untrue. Begin (the prime minister at the time) was extremely disappointed at having to give up the settlements in the Sinai; in fact he had intended to spend his retirement in one of the settlements. Certainly the people who took up residence there thought that they would be there for the long term. It was never clear whether Israel would agree to withdraw from the entire Sinai until the deal was done.

And, no, Apartheid has nothing to do with security.

Really? Tell that to a white inhabitant of Johannesburg. I hear that "rape gates" (electronic security doors between each room in a residential house) are all the rage these days...

Your ancestors (I presume you are American) slaughtered 10-15 million native Americans so you could have the land to yourselves. Do you think things would still be quiet on the home front if they were still alive?

[pelsar]

82. standard fair in israeli universites...

Actually, none of what I'm saying is very controversial. Apart from Efraim Karsh and a few other denialist historians its pretty much standard fare in most universities in Israel. I can give you a reading list if you like.

since i've never heard of what your writing (settlements for lebanon...settlements for after the 56 war....)...i would say its relatively controversial...and hardly standard fare for most universities in israel.

i assume you mean Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ben Gurion in Beersheva......
_____


and your analogy to apartheid in S.Africa is false..it was based on race (and the many variations of that). Their crime problems of today has nothing to do with the system of Apartheid (you never did get back to me on physcial trait i should be looking for)

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

93. i shouldnt be surprised..should I?....

no real answers..just the accusations..... with nothing to back it up.

Berzeit and Al-Quds arent in israel....you wrote "in israel"

you also wrote segregation based on ethnicity and then replied with something about watches. I dont believe watches have anything to do with ethnicity.
_____

the obvious conclusion: seems some stuff is just made up.....the more interesting question is why?

[pelsar]

80. patience i keep telling myself...

and wonder why israel gets a different set of rules for governing itself than other countries....just a single point:

Do you ever question why Arab representation in the Knesset seems to be quite low given that they constitute one-fifth of the population?

not really, since the polls and after election analysis are clear:

many of the arabs actually vote labor and some likud (bedouin and druze as well). That tends to "dilute" the arab representation in the knesset.

so did you not know this?...and if not where did you get your false information from?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

67. And Israel is always innocent and those genocidal Arabs are pure evil...

It must be so easy to exist in that sort of world where everything is so one-dimensional, facts don't matter, and where painting an entire people as evil wanna-be genocidal bigots is par for the course. Why that sort of mindset has to manifest itself on a supposedly progressive forum, though, is a mystery...

These quotes from you were disgusting, msmghee. That anyone would hold such a negative view of an entire group of people is really sad and ugly...

"When a people and its leadership claim consistently over a 70 year time span that their intention is to kill you and have made thousands of attempts to do so" and "Whenever Arabs agree to stop killing Israelis, they will live in peace."

Do you not understand why it's wrong to accuse an entire people of being genocidal??

Also, there's a massive error in yr post. You claim that Qibya was carried out by vigilante groups. It wasn't. The order was given by Ben-Gurion and the raid was carried out by an IDF unit led by Ariel Sharon. As for yr argument that it wasn't genocide because only a small number of villagers were killed as a percentage of the populace? What percentage of the residents of Sderot have been killed again as a percentage of the populace? Or Israelis killed as a percentage of the populace? You can't argue that such an attack on Qibya wasn't genocidal while claiming that attacks on Israelis are. I'm sorry, but the double standards being employed in yr post is breath-taking....

[msmcghee]

71. I thought you'd pick up on that.

I'm sure breakaleg has a hand waving in the air as well.

VC: As for yr argument that it wasn't genocide because only a small number of villagers were killed as a percentage of the populace? What percentage of the residents of Sderot have been killed again as a percentage of the populace? Or Israelis killed as a percentage of the populace? You can't argue that such an attack on Qibya wasn't genocidal while claiming that attacks on Israelis are. I'm sorry, but the double standards being employed in yr post is breath-taking....

The difference between the two is based on exactly what I said in the previous post: The over-riding concept in these discussions is the idea of self defense. It is recognized by all international court systems as a legitimate use of deadly force - to stop further attacks and to prevent future attacks. Most of your examples ignore that concept and attempt - like most pro-Palestinians - to discuss actions without regard to motivation. You can't do that and make any sense. Killing someone to get something that you want is a crime. Killing them to stop them from killing your family is not a crime.

Here's how reality circumscribes the logical boundaries of this discussion. Read carefully.

If a belligerent group is only capable of killing a relatively small number of those they choose to target - because of their own ineffective weapons and their targets' superior defensive weapons and defenses - then that fact can't be used to dismiss their intentions as being not genocidal. Especially when they appear to be doing everything they are capable of doing to commit genocide and especially when their own statements and facts on the ground consistently support that interpretation and never suggest any other interpretation.

Likewise, if a group defending itself from aggression is capable of killing as many of their attackers as they choose in most cases - but they do not, and they go out of their way to defend themselves in ways that minimize the number of casualties of the aggressors, even exposing themselves to greater danger in many cases - then that generally shows just the opposite - in this case that the defenders do not have genocidal intentions.

i.e. It is the intentions that determine genocide not the acts alone.

Re: the Qibya affair. My error. I was thinking of another incident purported to be Israeli genocide against Palestinians. I just looked up info on Qibya on wiki which made for some interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

About 60 Palestinians were killed while about 2700 made it out of town having been warned to do so beforehand by the IDF. All the evidence, statements by IDF, officers and up the chain of command, pretty much show that the attack on Qibya was retaliatory and meant both as terrorism against the Palestinians and to provide an example to the Jordanian forces in the area of what will happen if they continue their ongoing raids into Israel. Those facts pretty much eliminates this incident as a useful example of genocide - or at least raises a serious doubt. Not one Israeli involved ever even hinted that their purpose was simply to kill Arabs because they hated them - because they were Arabs - which would be genocide. Although, as you go down the chain of command to the unit level - I am sure some of the officers involved probably harbored such intentions individually - at the psychological level - while the raid was ongoing.

But, despite all that - let's say that the incident could fairly be classified as genocide. Now, are you going to say that this one incident over 60 years ago proves that Israel's intentions against the Palestinians over the intervening years have been genocide?

We're talking sixty years of peace groups in Israel lobbying for peace - sixty years of Israelis electing leaders based on a hope for peace and accommodation whenever that was possible - sixty years of Israel hoping for a change in attitude and holding out the olive branch to its Palestinian neighbors who continue trying to kill them.

We're talking sixty years and thousands of attacks on Israelis - thousands of proclamations that the Jews will be pushed into the sea and the state of Israel will be destroyed, thousands of children raised to hate Jews and hope to kill them when they grow up, thousands of dead Israeli civilains whose deaths were jubilantly taken credit for by chanting mobs in Palestinian streets and by Palestinian leaders swearing to never quit until the last Jew is gone from greater Palestine.

And not one incident from all those thousands that could conceivably be characterized as legitimately defensive against Israeli initiated aggression against Palestinians.

I know it seems like reality sucks sometimes - but that's what happens to those who try to deny it.

[msmcghee]

72. Caveat

In the above post I said,

If a belligerent group is only capable of killing a relatively small number of those they choose to target - because of their own ineffective weapons and their targets' superior defensive weapons and defenses - then that fact can't be used to dismiss their intentions as being not genocidal. Especially when they appear to be doing everything they are capable of doing to commit genocide and especially when their own statements and facts on the ground consistently support that interpretation and never suggest any other interpretation.

This could use some further explanation. You used a term in a post above that is useful here to make a finer distinction - systematic.

Among the thousands of incidents over the last sixty years that I referenced in my discussion - certainly there were some events that had purposes other than purely genocidal. In fact every such event - like all events that are the result of human nature - was motivated by a complex set of forces, some proximate and emotional, others secondary and practical. If such motivations could be accurately determined, the desire on the part of PM leadership to acquire political power and control is probably high on that list of the complex set of motivations that underlie any such violent events.

But all these take place in an overall field of conflict where genocidal intentions are explicitly claimed by the Palestinians. Those intentions are glorified and used to enlist recruits from among younger Palestinians who then become militia fighters and perhaps suicide bombers.

It is difficult to pin down motivations in specific cases because we are dealing with human psychology and ethnic / cultural forces that must be accounted for in any complete explanation of those events.

Unfortunately, people are dieing as a result of these events and Israel does not have the luxury of addressing those motivations while trying to defend the lives of its citizens - and must make generalizations regarding Palestinian motivations. Even so, I'm sure their generalizations are far more complete and accurate than my own thoughts on the matter.

And, no matter how some of us on discussion boards thousands of miles away parse out the motivations of the various players - it makes no difference to Israel whether genocide is the over-arching intention or not. All Israel needs to know is that some significant number of Palestinians, generally supported by Palestinian leadership or at least not hindered by it, want to systematically kill Israelis - and that's all anyone can realistically expect them to respond to.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. More extremist bullshit from you n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

87. 'I know it seems like reality sucks sometimes - but that's what happens to those who try to deny it'

Then why keep on trying to deny it? Yr posts display a clear lack of interest in dealing with reality, and you have ignored any attempts in this thread to explain to you that no-one in this conflict is committing genocide. Instead you repeat the same claims over and over again as if someone apart from the peanut gallery will actually believe it just because you say so.

So let's dispense with the crap and cut straight to the chase. Just one of the ridiculously incorrect claims about the Palestinians in this post is yr claim that Palestinian leaders have consistantly over the past sixty years sworn to never quit until the last Jew is gone from greater Palestine. You think that's true, then start providing something to back up those claims. Explain how the PLO was doing that when it recognised Israel's existance and during the Oslo period. Explain how Abbas has been doing that. I don't think there's much thought put into the sort of posts that really have no purpose other than painting one side as evil incarnate and the other as never doing anything the slightest bit wrong, and that applies to anyone who does it for either side, not just you...

[msmcghee]

83. You ask,

msmcghee: "When a people and its leadership claim consistently over a 70 year time span that their intention is to kill you and have made thousands of attempts to do so" and "Whenever Arabs agree to stop killing Israelis, they will live in peace."

Do you not understand why it's wrong to accuse an entire people of being genocidal??

Do you not understand that a people who elect their leadership are responsible for the decisions of that leadership? Is that a difficult concept for you? Or will you now pull out the well-polished trope that Israel is responsible for the self-destructive decisions of the Palestinian leadership - as well as their spiritual, though so far largely ineffectual, advocacy of genocide?

BTW, what's with the double "??" - ? Is that a really questionable question?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Of course you'd think it's just fine to accuse an entire people of being genocidal...

As long as they're Arabs, and not Israelis, of course.

What appears to be an incredibly difficult concept for you is that yr incessant claims that the Palestinian people and their leadership advocate genocide is completely idiotic, and whenever it has been pointed out to you why, you just ignore the posts and carry on about those imaginary genocidal Arabs out to kill all those innocent and pure Israelis.

The problem with views that come from a place of hate and ignorance is those espousing them seem to be oblivious of the double standards they utilise. If one people is responsible for the decisions of that leadership, then every other group of people are too, including Israelis, who can be held responsible for electing warmongerers like Nutty and Sharon...

BTW, what's with the double "??" - ? Is that a really questionable question?

No, it means I can't believe anyone would post such poison as I read on a progressive forum...

[msmcghee]

89. As usual, you have passed well beyond the point of . .

. . reasonable discussion so don't consider this a reply as much as a reminder. I won't bother to point out in any detail that I really don't care if people call it genocide or something else nor that I was engaged in an academic discussion of the use of that word with another poster.

I'll just remind you of what I said to that poster that first engaged this sub-thread,

And, no matter how some of us on discussion boards thousands of miles away parse out the motivations of the various players - it makes no difference to Israel whether genocide is the over-arching intention or not. All Israel needs to know is that some significant number of Palestinians, generally supported by Palestinian leadership or at least not hindered by it, want to systematically kill Israelis - and that's all anyone can realistically expect them to respond to.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. It'd help if you knew what reasonable discussion was...

It's not doing what you've done in this thread, which is after me pointing out more than a few times that Israel hasn't committed genocide on the Palestinians, being accused by you of believing that Israel has committed genocide on the Palestinians. It's not stereotyping an entire people as genocidal maniacs out to kill Jews. And it's not making claims that the Palestinians are committing genocide on Israelis and steadfastly ignoring any request for you to try to back up yr claim...

Well, d'uh. It makes no difference to Israelis or Palestinians what label some armchair commandos in the US want to slap on the conflict. But if yr under the impression that either Israeli or Palestinian leadership read this little part of the internet, I think you might be the only person in this forum who thinks they have the time to waste :)

[Tom Joad]

78. wow.

[High Plains]

92. This whole discussion is Alice through the looking glass!

The poor pitiful Israelis are going to get genocided by the mighty Palestinians?!

Give me a fucking break.

[barb162]

85. I already have.. I think you need to look at some definitions of it

Elected and appointed Palestinian leaders are not just some powerless tiny little group off somewhere in a corner. And the definition doesn't have to include the word "actively " as you write it does. Take a look at the Geneva Conventions def.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. No, yr wrong and here's why...

Because I am using the definition of genocide to point out the obvious fact that the firing of Qassams and suicide attacks doesn't equal committing genocide on Israelis. And you are just as incorrect as when you tried to claim that Hamas and Fatah's fighting was them imposing collective punishment on each other when you make the ridiculous claim that targetting non-combatants meets the definition of genocide. Targetting non-combatants is a war-crime no matter who does it, but it is not genocide. The Sept 11 attacks weren't genocide being committed on Americans, the Bali bombings wasn't genocide being committed on Westerners, and the Blitz and the London bombings weren't genocide being committed on the British....

[breakaleg]

22. Doesn't genocide mean mass killing of a specific group? How many people

have actually died from these kassams? Mostly, they hit dirt and maybe some buildings but they hardly constitute genocide.

Now, there has been discussion here about whether what Israel has done to Gaza constitutes Genocide. In that case many people have actually died, they talk of starving them etc. If Gaza isn't genocide (which it isn't), then I hardly think those kassams are either.

[msmcghee]

54. No it does not.

Genocide is mass killing based on a specific intent. All wars involve mass killing or attempted mass killing. Not all wars are genocide.

Even though the allies killed millions of Germans and Japanese during WWII - both civilians and combatants - no-one has ever claimed that there was genocidal intent on the part of the Allies. Our intent was self defense - to make the Axis powers relent and surrender.

The situation in I/P conflict is very similar. You have one side pledged to the destruction of the other and repeatedly acting to carry out that intention - while the other side is defending itself against those acts and intentions.

You keep coming up with this spurious argument that bears no actual relation to the definition of genocide. Maybe you think that if you say it just a few more times - the internationally recognized definition of genocide will be changed for your benefit - to reflect your bogus claim that Israel is involved in genocide against the Palestinians.

It's not going to happen in this universe - but I know that won't stop you (and others here) from trying.

[breakaleg]

59. If you think Palestinians are engaging in genocide against Israel then perhaps

you can show me where the mass killing or intent to mass kill is? I sure can't find it. Perhaps it's you who needs to recheck that definition.

[Lurking Dem]

17. I wouldn't call either one "genocide", frankly.

Certainly, what Hamas has publicly stated they want to do is genocidal in nature. But genocide hasn't actually occurred.

The double standard is indeed interesting, though. In a pyscho/social kind of way.

[msmcghee]

18. Just to be technically accurate . .

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

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

. . in whole or in part . .

[barb162]

21. I interpret unending and numerous rocket attacks

on another people and many other kinds of attempts at killing another people as meeting this definition.

[barb162]

20. Yes it is certainly genocidal in nature.

But they have also already killed and injured many Israelis over the years in their genocidal ACTIONS, with their suicide bombings and other types of killings of Israelis. With Hamas now controlling the government, I think we have to look at this as one government looking to destroy another people, that is, genocide.

[Shaktimaan]

73. Agreed.

Regardless of the technical definition of genocide there is a standard assumption that genocide is not just the desire or attempt to kill an ethnic group but also that there has been some success. Meaning that vast numbers of people have been methodically killed already.

Genocide has a stigma only reserved for the most atrocious of crimes against innocents. Adhering to the technical definition of it to brand Palestinian attacks as genocide to take advantage of this stigma is counter-productive as they haven't met most people's idea of what genocide is.

Neither side has committed the generally held, "colloquial" definition of genocide. If anything, the palestinians may have attempted or desired genocide, but this standard of death has not really been even close to being achieved.

Arguing about this technical detail is dumb also. It reminds me of the apartheid argument in that a lot of energy has been spent to determine something tertiary to the real issues. There's a certain amount of perversion in debating the academic merits of this word or that word to describe a situation where people are dying horrible deaths.

[msmcghee]

74. I disagree, somewhat.

The purpose of having a legal (technical) definition of genocide is not to provide forum fodder for people like us. It is to make those engaged in the killing business on both the defensive and offensive sides understand that there are important lines and internationally respected rules regarding that business to which they will be held account. And the purpose of that is to prevent the avoidable deaths of innocents - which I consider an extremely worthwhile goal.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph - For us to be . . arguing about this technical detail is dumb also. It reminds me of the apartheid argument in that a lot of energy has been spent to determine something tertiary to the real issues. There's a certain amount of perversion (for us) in debating the academic merits of this word or that word to describe a situation where people are dying horrible deaths.

But still, the technical definition of genocide should be a highly potent reminder that war crimes tribunals are possibly waiting for those who disregard those rules. Even if the likelihood of prosecution under those statutes is low - cowardly people who purposely kill innocent civilians are often quite protective of their own skins.

[pelsar]

76. here i also agree....

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph - For us to be . . arguing about this technical detail is dumb also. It reminds me of the apartheid argument in that a lot of energy has been spent to determine something tertiary to the real issues. There's a certain amount of perversion (for us) in debating the academic merits of this word or that word to describe a situation where people are dying horrible deaths.

sometimes i find the arguments here so "intellectual" as they dive deep in to definitions that "in the field" are so irrelevant. Perhaps i have the "advantage" of living in both worlds...the cyber world of the DU where one wonders how much affect the discussions/arguments actually have vs the my other world which is made up of kassams, checkpoints, etc...the discussions there have a different nature to them, in that the definitions are far less important and the action/reaction/consequence are what make up the discussions.

[Englander]

27. "Lirit"? Who's "Lirit"?

[Lurking Dem]

28. I'm "Lirit".

Where the hell you been?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

30. Don't hold your breath.

Rather like having you around!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

32. it works one way here on the DU

There's plently of examples of that ugly mirror-image of what you describe over at a hate site that's not allowed to be linked to from here,

theres plenty of examples on lots of sites throughout the world..here on the DU its pretty much a one way street....I cant recall any posts here that write about bringing hamas leadership to the hague from those who claim the israeli crimes are violating human rights.....

where are all those posts from amnesty intl, human right groups, ism, etc listing the palestenian war crimes?....isnt human rights universal?
________

thats why its clear its one way here at the DU.....(i'd would be quite a shock to read from a "pro palestenian" poster that the kassams not only constitue war crimes but that the hamas leadership that has admitted that they're intention of shooting even more rockets into israeli cities (too kill and terrorize as many as possible, should be sent to the hague for prosecution.....

one example: Hamas/fatah has shot journalists......kind of quiet here about prosecuting the killers.....(in contrast to the noise when the british journalists were shot by israelis)

[barb162]

35. And there are many more examples along that line, Pelsar

The fact that Abbas and his thousands of police can never seem to find the kassam factories and launchers is pretty amazing when so many news groups interview the kassam rockets launchers and kassam makers. The Fatah leaders should be brought to the Hague also.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

45. Bigotry and hatred?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I most certainly can and will...

Read my reply to barb or just go to the entry for January 21 in my blog where I copied just a few of the bigoted statements that were available.

[Jim Sagle]

56. Yeah, like I've got nothing better to do than rummage through yer blog.

:boring:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. Yes, it takes a whole three mouseclicks to find it!

Clearly, it's perfectly reasonable to demand that she repost the whole thing, rather than going and reading it where it's already written.

Your time is so much more valuable than hers, after all.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I even posted one quote in this thread...

..though the other examples of bigotry and hatred I listed on my blog don't take any rummaging around to get to. I can understand why Jim wants to ignore it though :)

[Lurking Dem]

70. .

[barb162]

2. It's absolutely disgusting that these rockets are being allowed

to hit schools and everything else on Israel's land. They have killed and injured innocent people. It's an outrage. The Palestinian government can no longer hide behind thier usual line of crap about not being able to control its militant elements. Where's their thousands in the police force, the thousands on the public payroll. (Of course, where were they before when Abbas claimed he wanted to talk about peace with Israel as I had frequently asked). Now that Hamas has announced it is shooting the rockets it means the Palestinian government is openly claiming responsibility for the rocket shooting. Amazing.

[scrinmaster]

6. And yet when Israel bombs the locations the rockets are launched from,

Plenty of people here will be up in arms about it.

[barb162]

4. Oberliner, thanks for posting the article

kick for important thread

[oberliner]

5. Hamas threatens to execute anyone who interferes with rocket fire

That's from the Ha'aretz News Flashes.

About an hour later, there is this:

Number of Qassam rockets fired at western Negev on Fri. rises to 7

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/ShowTickers.jhtml

[barb162]

12. Hamas really wants to drag Israel in their self-created mess

[Bragi]

8. A modest proposal

A few months back, when it looked like some tiny bit of durable progress might be made in calming down the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I just knew in my heart that opponents of reconciliation on both sides would, as usual, for all the usual reasons, make sure that peace didn't break out.

I see from current events that the haters are once more ramping up their campaigns, and the region is now poised for the launch of a new and shiny Intifada, which when all is said and done, seems to be the preferred outcome for Israeli and Palestinian hardliners alike.

Personally, I blame the haters on all sides who have made this possible, and I blame all those enablers who have used their votes to empower haters on both sides. I expect the worst with Intifada III, and I'm sure I'll not be disappointed.

As for what to do about all this, it is tragic that this occurs despite the fact that the majority of people in both israel and Palestine likely do honestly want peace. However, since majorities in both countries have used their votes to empower hate-filled, idea-free ideologues, it is quite apparent that this problem is theirs to solve, not mine or anyone elses'.

So, I'm now thinking that maybe the Israelis great wall of division strategy didn't go far enough, and that there ought to be a great, well-guarded and impenetrable wall put around the whole of Israel and Palestine at this point so the people inside the wall can declare a winner, once and for all.

In a few months time, we can look in to see if things have been sorted out, and check to see if anyone is in charge.

Until then, both sides would be at liberty to blow each other up to their hearts content, until either a winner emerges, or some kind of common sense prevails, or until there is no-one left to kill. They could even try to seriously negotiate peace, should that unlikely option have any appeal.

At any rate, once the dust settles, I would hope that well-intended people everywhere would be pleased to generously support the rebuilding of the area to help out whoever emerges triumphant.

Until then, neither side of this long-standing dispute deserves support from anyone, and will certainly get no support from me.

A pox on all their houses...

- B

[barb162]

36. Why won't Palestinian leaders stop the kassams?

CNN ran a video this week "A Visit to a Workshop WHere the AL Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Builds Rockets." It can be viewed on the site. I have seen so many news people interview these militants over the last few years. So many times I have written that these militants can be shut down very quickly if the Palestinian leader really wanted them shut down.

[ohio2007]

61. Why are the Gaza Palestinians killing each other ?

the story behind the story is where your answer lurkes

[Shaktimaan]

75. Internal power struggle?

Of course they can't/won't stop the qassams. They can't possibly police themselves like that now, they don't have a single policy regarding them. Hamas wants them, IJ wants them, Fatah is schitzophrenic on them. Any one group's attempt to shut down another's operation results in fighting even regarding internal stuff.

The job of shutting down Qassam factories falls to Israel. And they should just do it as effectively as possible. There is no reason that Israel should try and protect Palestinian civilians at the expense of protecting their own.