Is this conflict really about race or religion? Or is it about control of the natural resources Israel needs to supply its expansionist empire? Just as the failed objective of Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon was to achieve the longstanding Zionist aim of pushing its northern border to the Litani River, it is likely that the current assault on Gaza is really about control of the huge natural gas reserves that lie off of Gaza's coast. See: Why It Rains: Hamas holding "Israeli" gas reserves hostage.http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4909.shtml
Gaza, Israel, Hamas, etc
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:16
#52
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:22
#53
... Jack Layton supports Israel's right to defend itself in this particular conflict.
Got a link? The NDP's official statement on the current conflict is [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrat-statement-on-situation-in-middle-ea... and makes no mention of "Israel's right to defend itself." It's a pretty obvious attempt to remain "even-handed" and simply calls on both sides to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table. So what did Layton say and where did he say it?
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:32
#54
... Jack Layton supports Israel's right to defend itself in this particular conflict.Got a link? The NDP's official statement on the current conflict is [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrat-statement-on-situation-in-middle-ea... and makes no mention of "Israel's right to defend itself." It's a pretty obvious attempt to remain "even-handed" and simply calls on both sides to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table. So what did Layton say and where did he say it?
Jack Layton speaks:
"Whether Hamas rocket attacks on Israel or Israeli military campaigns in Gaza, violence against innocent civilians must stop. Notwithstanding every nation’s right to self-defence the Israeli government's response is disproportionate, and the use of rockets against Israeli civilians must be rejected. New Democrats condemn the massive loss of civilian life that is resulting from this escalation."
He adds that Israel's response is disproportionate, as if Israel should just launch unguided rockets indescriminately into Gaza.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:38
#55
Jack Layton speaks:
Last March, which has nothing to do with the current action which began a few days ago. Liar.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:42
#56
Jack Layton speaks:
Last March, which has nothing to do with the current action which began a few days ago. Liar.
This is the same conflict. It's been going on since at least Mar 2008. Understand? There was a ceasefire for 6 months, then things started up again. Same conflict.
So, in March 2008 Jack layton said that Israel has the right to defend itself, just don't be disproportionate in response. Whatever that means.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:43
#57
Pogge, I'm with you in spirit, but why would anyone engage this character who just tells bald-faced lies in an effort to bait?
Here's a random sample, plucked from his opening grenade:
Why is Israel blockading the Gaza Strip? Because Hamas was bringing in weapons and material to build rockets to hit Israel.
The Israeli blockade began (and later escalated) in 2006 with the election of Hamas to head the Palestinian Authority - at the same time countries like Canada halted aid. It had nothing to do with rockets.
When did this start? After Israel ended its occupation of Gaza about 5 years ago.
Israel pulled out in September 2005. Not "about 5 years ago". Facts are malleable in the hands of this individual.
Why did they end their occupation? As part of the "peace Agreement" with the PA.
Bullshit. There was no "peace agreement" with the PA, before, during, or since. Israeli disengagement from Gaza, known as תוכנית ההתנתקות, was a [b][i]completely unilateral operation[/i][/b] never negotiated with or agreed upon by anyone in the PA.
As Cueball points out, anyone who cares knows or can find all these facts and many more. The rest of the OP, to the extent that it purports various facts, is equally false - and it's not ignorance, it's deliberate. No honest person can make a series of innocent mistakes like this out of ignorance. Honest ignorant people (that's most of us) ask questions or look up the answers.
It is vile and horrible to reduce the level of discussion and revert to haggling with Israeli propagandists at a time when Gaza is dying.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:47
#58
This is the same conflict.
Sophistry. Your obvious intent was to claim that Layton regarded Israel's current action as self-defence and the official NDP statement obviously avoids doing exactly that. We're done here because I don't waste my time with liars.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:51
#59
This is the same conflict.
Sophistry. Your obvious intent was to claim that Layton regarded Israel's current action as self-defence and the official NDP statement obviously avoids doing exactly that. We're done here because I don't waste my time with liars.
No, I'm done with you because I don't debate with people who call honest folks liars. This is the same conflict as the one going on in Mar 2008. It's like saying WW2 ended when France fell, then another war started with the Normandy invasion.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:53
#60
A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:
"Nuke the Knesset"
I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...
Are you here to shadow-moderate or are you here to participate?...we have enough moderators and you haven't been appointed as one of them. If the latter, then let the moderators do their job and stop derailing threads with arguments about whether other people are breaking the rules.
As far as I can tell, he didn't seem to be shadow moderating in the way that it is normally done. Lots of people point things out in an admonishing tone from time to time, or consistently in some cases, and it usually slides by as a normal part of the discussion. Concerning the OP, I take the view that while 101’s are simultaneously useful and tiresome, they do not apply in the context of the latest mass murder by a racist, outlaw, aggressor nation. For my two cents, I believe Unionist called it correctly.
Thu, 2009-01-01 18:59
#61
Here's a good, well-sourced post with useful (i.e. sickening) information, quotes, etc.:
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:02
#62
Is this conflict really about race or religion?
It's completely about religion, although it has morphed into a false racism, where each side demonizes the others characteristics, even though both antagonists are Semitic.
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:03
#63
remind
That was not about this incident it was way back in march of last year FFS.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:04
#64
Frustrated Mess
Is this conflict really about race or religion? Or is it about control of the natural resources Israel needs to supply its expansionist empire?
Just as the failed objective of Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon was to achieve the longstanding Zionist aim of pushing its northern border to the Litani River, it is likely that the current assault on Gaza is really about control of the huge natural gas reserves that lie off of Gaza's coast.
See: Why It Rains: Hamas holding "Israeli" gas reserves hostage.
I agree with you. Of course it is about water and gas. But access to water and mineral resources is often dependent, not always, on control of the land. Even in our modern, materialist society going to war against a people for water and minerals is still viewed as simple banditry. Which it is.
So there becomes a need for "the narrative", the myth building, the noble-izing of the ancient art of sacking and plundering. Onto the stage rolls God, Country, Tribe, and Father. In the current case, it is like rolling sevens. We've got God, country. tribe and father all rolled in together.
As well, in any case of colonialism through race, we have the foreigners who can claim some ancient untested right to the land, and who are often much more rabid than the natives, to lead the charge into the"unsettled lands'. Think "settling the West" and the impact on First Nations in North America and we get the idea.
As unfortunate as it is, we must demolish the mythology to get to the reality.
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:06
#65
Pogge, I'm with you in spirit, but why would anyone engage this character who just tells bald-faced lies in an effort to bait?
I just wanted the opportunity to drop a link to the NDP statement alongside his quote to show up the obvious difference between his story and reality. As it happens, I had occasion yesterday to check on the official statements from both the Libs and the NDP since this began and I knew what he'd said didn't ring true. Had he substituted Michael Ignatieff for Jack Layton he would have been exactly right. I think the NDP position is a pretty bland affair but it's obviously not what this character described.
Edited to add:
Israeli disengagement from Gaza, known as תוכנית ההתנתקות, was a completely unilateral operation never negotiated with or agreed upon by anyone in the PA.
Nor can it be called an end to occupation when the occupying power retains control over all borders, coastline and air space and reserves the right to send in its armed forces at will. As far as Gaza is concerned, Israel simply turned a colonization project into an open air prison.
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:10
#66
Cueball
This is the same conflict.
Sophistry. Your obvious intent was to claim that Layton regarded Israel's current action as self-defence and the official NDP statement obviously avoids doing exactly that. We're done here because I don't waste my time with liars.
No, I'm done with you because I don't debate with people who call honest folks liars. This is the same conflict as the one going on in Mar 2008. It's like saying WW2 ended when France fell, then another war started with the Normandy invasion.
There hasn't really been much that is intellectually honest about the debate as conducted from your end so far. A number of substantive points were brought forward to confront your false claim that Israel is not a "racially based state", your only response was to any of that was to argue the semantic point about whether or not it is relevant that Israel calls itself the "Jewish State."
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:23
#67
Cueball
Is this conflict really about race or religion?
It's completely about religion, although it has morphed into a false racism, where each side demonizes the others characteristics, even though both antagonists are Semitic.
It is not at all about religion. It is about land and resources, pure and simple. The religious trappings of the various factions involved are secondary, and their cause expressed often in a religious form. The "religious" motif, is one almost wholely introduced by the Zionists, when in fact, the Arabs were calling for a secular state long before the 1948 Zionist attack, and the expulsion of the Arabs. The PLO explicitly rejected the religious construction of issues in its 1964 founding charter. They maintained this view throughout the Arafat period.
The Arabs only picked up on the religious construction of the issue with the founding of Hamas in 1988.
Furthermore, the idea that this is "all about religion" only obscures the real issues, and contributes to the ideological grid lock.
Thu, 2009-01-01 19:42
#68
It is not at all about religion. It is about land and resources, pure and simple. The religious trappings of the various factions involved are secondary, and their cause expressed often in a religious form. The "religious" motif, is one almost wholely introduced by the Zionists, when in fact, the Arabs were calling for a secular state long before the 1948 Zionist attack, and the expulsion of the Arabs. The PLO explicitly rejected the religious construction of issues in its 1964 founding charter. They maintained this view throughout the Arafat period.
The Arabs only picked up on the religious construction of the issue with the founding of Hamas in 1988.
Furthermore, the idea that this is "all about religion" only obscures the real issues, and contributes to the ideological grid lock.
I fully agree, but will go one step further - even the mainstream Zionist leadership post 1948 were mainly secular, even agnostic - still are for the most part. Didn't observe Sabbath, didn't wear head covering, were regularly denounced by the religious parties for being impious, only preserved religious-type laws for marriage & divorce... The influence of the religious parties escalated with the 1967 Occupation and the settlements.
On the Palestinian side, no one ever noticed any religious trends before the 1980s, when various organizations arose to fill the vacuum left by secular and leftists who either proved inadequate or were crushed by the Israelis. I challenge anyone to find a hint of "Muslim" character to any part of the struggle before that decade. Of course people were religious, but it was never Judaism vs. Islam (& Christianity) - it was Jews in the ethnic-national sense vs. Palestinians, and the struggle was a colonial one - over land, resources, water, and later labour.
Thu, 2009-01-01 20:51
#69
New blog: [url=http://gazaeng.blogspot.com/][b][i]Harm to civilians during the fighting in Gaza and Southern Israel[/i][/b][/url] - it's being used to provide information by a number of Israeli human rights groups.
H/t to [url=http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2758][b][i]Oxdown Gazette[/i][/b][/url] which is a division of the growing Firedoglake empire.
Thu, 2009-01-01 21:24
#70
Great resources, pogge - thanks.
Thu, 2009-01-01 22:28
#71
On the Palestinian side, no one ever noticed any religious trends before the 1980s, when various organizations arose to fill the vacuum left by secular and leftists who either proved inadequate or were crushed by the Israelis. I challenge anyone to find a hint of "Muslim" character to any part of the struggle before that decade. Of course people were religious, but it was never Judaism vs. Islam (& Christianity) - it was Jews in the ethnic-national sense vs. Palestinians, and the struggle was a colonial one - over land, resources, water, and later labour.
The significance to Muslims of the Dome of the Rock, sitting on the temple mount since the year 691, might be a hint. Invaders with the intention of desecrating the things that are sacred to Muslims have traditionally rallied the ire of the faithful. Hence the crusades. Bulldozing it all under to make way for a new temple would be seen as a desecration.
Thu, 2009-01-01 22:40
#72
It's completely about religionIt is not at all about religion. It is about land and resources, pure and simple.....Furthermore, the idea that this is "all about religion" only obscures the real issues, and contributes to the ideological grid lock.
It's a good thing then that it isn't based on religion. Things could be so much worst than they are now if it were. Of course land and resources are included, the promised land, the promised resources.
If the religious fanatics from both sides were removed from the equation, how quickly do you thing the ideological gridlock would disappear along with them? People on both sides who are religious but might be persuaded towards a secularist resolution of the conflict would be justified in being more frightened of their own respective extremists than those of the enemy.
Thu, 2009-01-01 22:44
#73
Jews, Muslims, and Christians (of various denominations) lived together in peace in the Middle East and Palestine specifically for centuries - until British imperialism, hungering to displace the Ottoman Empire, struck an alliance with largely non-religious Zionists to create a colonial beachhead in the region. Herzl at one time was favourable to having Uganda as the Jewish "homeland". The religious Jews, both those in Palestine and in the "Diaspora", were overwhelmingly non- or anti-Zionist.
Thu, 2009-01-01 23:04
#74
Jews, Muslims, and Christians (of various denominations) lived together in peace in the Middle East and Palestine specifically for centuries - until British imperialism, hungering to displace the Ottoman Empire, struck an alliance with largely non-religious Zionists to create a colonial beachhead in the region. Herzl at one time was favourable to having Uganda as the Jewish "homeland". The religious Jews, both those in Palestine and in the "Diaspora", were overwhelmingly non- or anti-Zionist.
"Simultaneously, a wave of Jews immigrated to Palestine from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey. These Jews were unaware of Theodor Herzl's political Zionism or of European pogroms. They were motivated by the centuriesold dream of the "Return to Zion" and a fear of intolerance. Upon hearing that the gates of Palestine were open, they braved the hardships of travel and went to the "Land of Israel."
From the info above at my earlier link, it's no wonder they can be considered non Zionist if they never heard of it's father. Still though, the land and resources, coveted within their dreams for many centuries, must truly be among the most unique assets in the world.
Thu, 2009-01-01 23:34
#75
Slumberjack, your linked source is unreliable. It's a modern U.S. Zionist revisionist rewriting of history. For example:
The Zionist ideal of a return to Israel has profound religious roots. Many Jewish prayers speak of Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel. The injunction not to forget Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, is a major tenet of Judaism. The Hebrew language, the Torah, laws in the Talmud, the Jewish calendar and Jewish holidays and festivals such as Shavuot all originated in Israel and revolve around its seasons and conditions. Jews pray toward Jerusalem and recite the words "next year in Jerusalem" every Passover. Jewish religion, culture and history make clear that [b]it is only in the land of Israel that the Jewish commonwealth can be built[/b].
There was no movement among Jewry - and far less so among religious Jewry - to "return" to "Israel", let alone build a "Jewish commonwealth", during the hundreds of years that Jews recited those prayers prior to the turn of the 20th century. The "return" was to take place in the days of the Messiah. A very few European Jews that did "return" did so after their deaths, by sending their remains to Palestine (if they had the resources to do so), or more commonly by being buried at home with a handful of real or symbolic earth from Zion.
Even the Jews who lived in Palestine all along were lukewarm or hostile to the imported notion of a Jewish state. Some, like the Jerusalem-based Neturei Karta (ultra-orthodox "guardians of the wall", referring to the Wailing Wall of the temple), are anti-Zionist and refuse to recognize the State of Israel to this day.
In my parents' family in Europe, right until the 1930s and 40s, there were three wings: (1) the religious, who scorned at the secular irreligious Chalutz (pioneer) movement; (2) the leftists of various stripes (Bundists, communists, etc.) who strongly opposed Zionism of any kind, holding that the place for Jews was among the nations; (3) various stripes of Zionists, from mildly religious to outright atheist secular labour and socialist. The latter were the minority - and even among these "Zionist" groups, those who actively promoted emigration and settlement were but a handful - and they rivalled the communists in being the most hostile to religion.
Jewish prayers talking about Israel are like Catholic prayers talking about heaven. It's not about going there in one's lifetime.
ETA: I cross-posted with Cueball, but I agree with his post 100%.
Thu, 2009-01-01 23:37
#76
Cueball
It wasn't coveted in their dreams for centuries. That is modern mythology. Zionism was a tiny movement among Jews until after Hitlers pogrom. Sephardic Jews were promised land, jobs and proseprity if they chose to immigrate to Israel.
The process of assimilation of the Sephardic Jews of the Arab lands was one encouraged by direct invitation by the Zionists, and propelled by increasingly negative attitudes towards Jews (and indeed some tit for tat expulsions by some Arab countries) in response to the expulsion of the Arabs of Palestine within some Arab countries.
To say that there was no bias against Jews in the predominantly Arab Muslim lands prior to the creation of Israel would be false, but in the main the two populations lived fairly peacefully side by side for centuries. In fact, it was the Arabs and Turks who most readily accepted Jewish refugees into their lands during the European pogroms, until the policy of accepting Jewish immigrants was forced on them by the European powers.
The fact that Arabs find specific interest in long standing cultural icons such as the Temple Mount, is not at all suprising, nor is it unusual for liberation movements to find such monuments that speak to a joint heritage important in their symbolic iconography. There is nothing particualarly religious about it.
The religious view of the conflict, established by the Zionists when they decided to impose there religious state in the midst of the Arab populations served very directly to assert and unassailable "religious" claim that superceded the secular rights of individuals, based in faith, who occupied the land which they desired.
As usual, the religiously founded ideology served the purposes of power and wealth, and was not the primary motivator of the Zionist cause, but merely a tool that asserted an ideological justification to support the claim manifested as the right of conquest.
Thu, 2009-01-01 23:51
#77
Slumberjack, your linked source is unreliable. It's a modern U.S. Zionist revisionist rewriting of history...........Jewish prayers talking about Israel are like Catholic prayers talking about heaven. It's not about going there in one's lifetime.
I was aware of it's US Zionist origins. Jewish and Catholic prayers are one thing. For the fanatic sects of each mythology, prayers only take them so far. For them, a more proactive approach is useful in helping things along towards a first or second coming. I thought this Q and A was interesting.
Thu, 2009-01-01 23:52
#78
Cueball
Insisting that the conflict is religious is to mystify what is all too real. And mystifying the claim on Palestine, so that the claim could not be challenged by secular human morality was the latent intent behind asserting the religious construct upon the issue, as was done by the Zionist.
To assert that the issue is about religion is to fall into their trap, and make it appear as if the conflict is unresolvable because it is theologic in nature. First and foremost it must be understood that the conflict is about land and resources, and its resolution lies in the assertion of "human rights" over "liturgical right".
The Zionists are fine with the conflict being defined in theological terms. It served their purposes and reduces everything to the irresolvable theological dispute, in which might is the only real mode of discourse, since human rights are of negligible weight in the realm of theology.
This advantages their cause, since they are the powerful, and the Arabs are weak.
Fri, 2009-01-02 00:12
#79
Insisting that the conflict is religious is to mystify what is all too real. And mystifying the claim on Palestine, so that the claim could not be challenged by secular human morality was the latent intent behind asserting the religious construct upon the issue, as was done by the Zionist. To assert that the issue is about religion is to fall into their trap, and make it appear as if the conflict is unresolvable because it is theologic in nature. First and foremost it must be understood that the conflict is about land and resources, and its resolution lies in the assertion of "human rights" over "liturgical right". The Zionists are fine with the conflict being defined in theological terms. It served their purposes and reduces everything to the irresolvable theological dispute, in which might is the only real mode of discourse, since human rights are of negligible weight in the realm of theology. This advantages their cause, since they are the powerful, and the Arabs are weak.
I have no argument with this. I believe, as I've alluded to more than a few times, that religion was manufactured for many purposes. It is humanities greatest all-purpose invention, and its wonders are still being put to good use, for those that gain from it, and it is being used as it was intended, to provide cover for inhumanity. As for history, it too is often misused to represent various causes. False Memory: Misusing History in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Fri, 2009-01-02 00:32
#80
If the religious fanatics from both sides were removed from the equation, how quickly do you thing the ideological gridlock would disappear along with them? People on both sides who are religious but might be persuaded towards a secularist resolution of the conflict would be justified in being more frightened of their own respective extremists than those of the enemy.
Cueball and Unionist already pointed out how religious fanaticism was a product of, rather than a motivator of the conflicts.
I thought I would just make it explicit that the dissapearance from the scene now of religious fanatics could not be expected to have a compelling effect on the conflict.
The conflict is after decades terribly ethnic and full of hatreds that even if they can be overcome do have a frighfully dangerous volition of their own now. [Surprise, surprise.] But religious fanatics and fanaticism plays little role at all in that on the Israeli side, and still only a secondary and derivative role on the Palestinian side.... even with the vital contemporary importance of Hamas.
Fri, 2009-01-02 00:39
#81
But religious fanatics and fanaticism plays little role at all in that on the Israeli side, and still only a secondary and derivative role on the Palestinian side.... even with the vital contemporary importance of Hamas.
What motivates the people who occupy those quaint hilltop communities throughout "Judea" and "Samaria?"
Fri, 2009-01-02 03:30
#82
Cueball
Zionism: Power expressed as a religious ideology.
Fri, 2009-01-02 08:31
#83
But religious fanatics and fanaticism plays little role at all in that on the Israeli side, and still only a secondary and derivative role on the Palestinian side.... even with the vital contemporary importance of Hamas.What motivates the people who occupy those quaint hilltop communities throughout "Judea" and "Samaria?"
Cueballs response above is the most relevant. But to answer your question of what motivates those folks:
Ethnic fanaticism. You can do the pinhead argument of whther that is racism, or contains racism.
Some of those racists on the hilltops are completely secular. And if the explicitly religious zealots were to leave, there are plenty of secular racists to replace them. I had a friend who would be counted among the latter. Not surprisingly, a very complex individual. But that doesn't change who has was/is and what he did.
Fri, 2009-01-02 08:51
#84
In reviewing your posts and especially what you have linked to Slumberjack, I don't understand what is at stake in you defending your point that:
"If the religious fanatics from both sides were removed from the equation, how quickly do you thing the ideological gridlock would disappear along with them?"
You have argued that religion is a justification for the seizure of lands. You have not argued that without the religious justification it would all go away.
Fri, 2009-01-02 09:52
#85
In reviewing your posts and especially what you have linked to Slumberjack, I don't understand what is at stake in you defending your point.....You have argued that religion is a justification for the seizure of lands. You have not argued that without the religious justification it would all go away.
Nothing is at stake really. I'm not an authority by any stretch on this topic, which should be clear by now. In my response to the question posed earlier regarding if it is religion, racism or something else that is fueling this conflict, I stated that it was all about religion, to which others have replied that it has nothing at all to do with religion. Perhaps there's a measure of overstatement or understatement, because it seems we can all agree that religion has been used as one of the main propellants. I haven’t argued towards the absence of religion in the mixture being the key link towards peace, I wonder about that too, which is why I asked that question. As you’ve said, the hatreds have moved far beyond reason.
Fri, 2009-01-02 10:01
#86
The British Palestine Solidarity Campaign site is well worth a read: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/
Fri, 2009-01-02 10:05
#87
Both Cueball and Ken have answered the "motivation" question quite accurately.
There is no doubt that many of the settlers are led by religious wingnuts. What is instructive is to see the Israeli regime sweep these characters aside as one does a housefly, when they stand in the way of Israel's geopolitical and colonial needs. The best example is how Sharon set a deadline for the settlers to leave Gaza, then went and chased the stragglers out, with a few nutbar rabbis condemning him to hell as a traitor to God etc. etc.
A good analogy would be the Conservative Party and some of its evangelical Christian base. Some of the followers may be motivated by foolishness (though in both Canada and Israel, we're talking about a minority). But the underlying interests of the Conservative Party have everything to do with oil and gas tycoons and capitalism generally. God doesn't enter into that equation.
Fri, 2009-01-02 10:12
#88
Perhaps there's a measure of overstatement or understatement,
because it seems we can all agree that religion has been used as one of
the main propellants.
This is totally totally wrong. There is no signficant religious fanaticism on either side, in terms of the "propellants". This is not India. To describe religion as being of any signficance in the Israel-Palestine situation would be like saying that religion was "one of the main propellants" in the South African anti-apartheid struggle - because the regime had its racist Dutch Reformed Church. It is total mystification and diversion from the reality of the conflict.
Fri, 2009-01-02 11:48
#89
If it can be agreed that this conflict is really about giving Israel an excuse to attempt to seize lands and resources for Israel, then it certainly is to Israel's advantage to have Hamas fire rockets at them. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, it was widely reported in foreign media that the Israeli soldiers who were supposedly kidnapped by Hezbollah in a "daring, cross border raid" were actually in Lebanon when they were confronted by Lebanese police. Coupled with the information that a few days ago Lebanese police discovered and dismantled seven timer-controlled rockets aimed at Israel one can only assume that if Hamas were not firing rockets at Israel, then the Israelis would have to do it for them.
Remember that Mossad, by its own motto, makes war with deception.
Fri, 2009-01-02 12:33
#90
By the same token, why should you care if Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", if they actually do (officially anyway).
That is racism. It is the same ideology common among white supramcists demanding a "christian state" or a "white state".
And in fact, some white supremacists, like Zionist supremacists, say anyone is welcome to live in a separate white state so long as they accept the values of the state which is the inherent superiority of the founders.
The comparision of the Jewish state of Israel to White Supremacy is so vile as to be unworthy on this board. Is it not possible to have a conversation here without resorting to "Israelis are like White Supremacists"? By making such comparisions you dilute the evil of neo-Nazism and white supremacy.
Fri, 2009-01-02 12:35
#91
Is it not possible to have a conversation here without resorting to "Israelis are like White Supremacists"?
Ok, ohara. Tell us what you think about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, and I promise to answer you without any reference or comparison to White Supremacists.
Fri, 2009-01-02 12:40
#92
I was saddened that Hamas chose to disregard warnings that continued bombings into Israel from Gaza would result in a swift and strong reaction. That so many are being killed, dispossesed and wounded troubles me deeply. What do you suggest Israel should do (short of self-destruction) to ameliorate this situation?
Fri, 2009-01-02 12:50
#93
1. Stop all incursions whatsoever into Gaza (with the sole exception of hot pursuit, if and when that should be applicable), and declare a unilateral ceasefire.
2. Unilaterally and publicly recognize Hamas authority over Gaza, pending further peace talks.
3. If rocket attacks continue, formally ask Hamas to stop them.
4. If they do not stop immediately, ask the Security Council to intervene - offer to end the blockade as soon as the Security Council acts.
5. If the Security Council refuses to act in a situation where rocket attacks continue while Israel observes a unilateral ceasefire, get back to me. Not before.
NOTE: The above does not represent "my position". It's just a sample answer to your question, a series of steps which even supporters of Israel might give some consideration to implementing. The above does not amount to "self-destruction", just to forestall any dismissive comments.
Fri, 2009-01-02 13:33
#94
Contrary to what has been repeated in editorials and in the TV interviews of various experts, it was not Hamas who broke the truce, but Israel. On November 4, 2008, a truce that had lasted for four months was broken by Israel in a bombardment that killed six Palestinians. Only after these killings did Hamas resume its rocket-launching against Israeli localities. On November 17, Israeli planes bombed once again, killing four more Palestinians, bringing the total number of Palestinian casualties since November 4, to 15. These facts are well documented. (See, for instance, the report of former Jerusalem Post correspondent, Joel Greenberg, in the Chicago Tribune of November 17, 2008, among many others.) Immediately after the first bombing of November 4, Israel started its full blockade of Gaza, preventing the entry of food and medication. Between November 5 and November 30, only 23 trucks of food and supplies were allowed into Gaza, whereas the average in the preceding period was about 3000 trucks monthly for a population numbering 1.5 million. The humanitarian situation, already a disaster, and described as such by the United Nations’ envoy, became even more catastrophic as a result of the blockade. Yet neither the bombings nor the blockade are considered to be aggressions.
From "Gaza : Colonial Violence and Flawed Justifications", Rachad Antonius, published in French in Le Devoir
[edited to correct name of author]
Fri, 2009-01-02 13:35
#95
And I am saddened to see that "ohara" is STILL allowed to justify on Babble Israel's genocide of Palestinians as some "swift and strong reaction", making the notion that we are a progressive forum a pitiful joke.
Fri, 2009-01-02 13:38
#96
see below
Fri, 2009-01-02 13:39
#97
I was saddened that Hamas chose to disregard warnings that continued bombings into Israel from Gaza would result in a swift and strong reaction. That so many are being killed, dispossesed and wounded troubles me deeply. What do you suggest Israel should do (short of self-destruction) to ameliorate this situation?
ohara, if an air and sea blockade were imposed on Israel and if during a 'ceasefire' the equivalent of only 50 to 75 truckloads of supplies were allowed to enter the country and no goods were allowed to leave would Israel consider that an act of war?
Fri, 2009-01-02 14:38
#98
Thanks, aka Mycroft.
I've known Rachad for more years than I care to count. It's vital to have a clarion voice like his in academia. He is a widely respected activist.
Fri, 2009-01-02 14:47
#99
Cueball
I was saddened that Hamas chose to disregard warnings that continued bombings into Israel from Gaza would result in a swift and strong reaction. That so many are being killed, dispossesed and wounded troubles me deeply. What do you suggest Israel should do (short of self-destruction) to ameliorate this situation?
Spoken like a true fascist. Congrats. You finally made the grade.
On the bright side, I am personally delighted that it seems that (from the usual cohort of 5 or 6 appologists that visit this board) it is only you whose attachement to intellectual honesty and basic human morality has been so corroded by years of lying to yourself that you are able to shamelessly offer up this shit for the world to see, without apparent embarassment.
Fri, 2009-01-02 14:47
#100
"The comparision of the Jewish state of Israel to White Supremacy is so vile as to be unworthy on this board. Is it not possible to have a conversation here without resorting to "Israelis are like White Supremacists"? By making such comparisions you dilute the evil of neo-Nazism and white supremacy."
I agree with you ohara. There is no comparison between Israel and Nazis. Nazis believed that the untermenschen were human beings, unter but human beings nonetheless. On the other hand, Israelis believe that [u][url=http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=q36LIaxXYP0]Palestinians are Animals.[/url][/u]
Fri, 2009-01-02 14:48
#101
Perhaps there's a measure of overstatement or understatement, because it seems we can all agree that religion has been used as one of the main propellants.This is totally totally wrong. There is no signficant religious fanaticism on either side, in terms of the "propellants"....To describe religion as being of any signficance in the Israel-Palestine situation would be like saying that religion was "one of the main propellants" in the South African anti-apartheid struggle - because the regime had its racist Dutch Reformed Church. It is total mystification and diversion from the reality of the conflict.
I think I get it now. In Klondike fashion, the 20th Century saw a rush of squatters and settlers onto the land solely for the boundless wealth of its resources. And as for all the archeological activity, it has nothing to do whatsoever with attempting to link ancient mythology to the present, and thereby providing false fodder for a claim to the land spanning 1000s of years. It is merely a search for buried treasure.