Hamas encouraging its own citizens to get killed

July 20th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

William Saletan at Slate writes:

seized control of Gaza seven years ago. Its reign has been disastrous. Unemployment and poverty are around 40 percent. The government is bankrupt. s control of Gaza’s borders has played a huge role in that. But Hamas has done everything possible to tighten Israel’s grip and delegitimize Palestinian resistance.

And the latest:

The vast majority of the damage in Gaza has been inflicted by Israel. Yet Hamas has contrived to make the carnage worse. It has encouraged Gazans to stand in the way of Israeli missiles. When Israel advised 100,000 Gazans to evacuate an area targeted for invasion, Hamas instructed them to ignorethe warnings. It added: “To all of our people who have evacuated their homes—return to them immediately and do not leave the house.”

Unbelievable. They actually are encouraging their own citizens to try and get killed, so they get propaganda from it.

That’s what Hamas is doing. It’s trading Palestinian blood for political ambitions it foolishly expects to achieve through war. No amount of suffering in Gaza has persuaded it to stop. During the war’s first week, there was vague talk of a cease-fire, with each side reportedly holding out for further demands. Netanyahu declared that “no international pressure will prevent us from operating with full force.” Israel looked like a belligerent bully. On Monday, when Egypt announced acease-fire proposal based on ideas sketched by Abbas, all Hamas had to do was say yes. The proposal entailed no concessions. It was just a break in the bloodshed, followed by talks.

The gist was simple. As of 9 a.m. Tuesday, both sides would stop shooting. Then they’d start talking, through Egypt, about a truce. The discussions would include Hamas’ demands for easing Israeli control of Gaza’s borders. Egypt’s foreign ministry emphasized that the proposal was “aimed at stopping the killing of the Palestinians.”

The Arab League embraced the plan. Abbas issued a statement that “urged all parties to comply with this truce in order to stop the shedding of Palestinian blood.” Israel accepted it and announced that, as of 9 a.m., it had stopped shooting. For six hours, Israel held its fire.

But Hamas kept shooting. Rockets continued to fly from Gaza into Israel—nearly 50 in the next six hours—and Hamas took credit for them.

People need to understand how this makes the chance of there ever being peace minimal. When Israel agrees to a cease-fire, and Hamas fires 50 more rockets off, you’d have to be bonkers to think Israel will then do another ceasefire.

Hamas didn’t just reject the cease-fire. Its spokesmen mocked Israel for agreeing to the plan, calling this acquiescence “indicative of Israel’s weakness.” They “condemned international and regional support for the ceasefire initiative.” They derided Egypt, scoffing that “the Egyptian initiative is an attempt to defeat us” and that “those who ignore the Palestinian resistance should not be dealt with.”

Anyone who equates Hamas and Israel is basically an Israel hater.

Tags: , ,

198 Responses to “Hamas encouraging its own citizens to get killed”

  1. Grizz (611 comments) says:

    So explain to me the logic of Minto to go on hating Israel?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Captain Pugwash (98 comments) says:

    Some one once said this… “We wont stop killing them, until they have stopped killing us; and we have extracted revenge 10 fold for their atrocities they inflicted upon us…”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Gulag1917 (1,020 comments) says:

    Minto hating Israel, probably because a lot of Jews are capitalists. The Hamas strategy will backfire.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    “So explain to me the logic of Minto to go on hating Israel?”

    Minto does not hate Israel at all. Nor as it happens does he care for the kids of Gaza, just as all those years ago he did not care about the blacks in South Africa.

    What Minto has always hated is the USA, not because they are the USA but because the yanks represent capitalism.

    Minto works on the basis that anybody with close ties to the USA is evil and must be apposed. Minto’s lifelong drive is to see communism sweep the world, Indeed Minto is on record as saying that he was hugely disappointed that upon the release of Mandela South Africa did not embrace communism.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (14,070 comments) says:

    Nothing less could be expected from this barbarians, faithful followers of the religion of peace.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 44 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Ignore the raghead loving shit that is spun and get on with the job Israel. So far so good, and can hopefully get better.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    If that is what Hama are encouraging then I believe that Israel should oblige them.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Don the Kiwi (1,794 comments) says:

    Psycho proving that he is precisely that.

    This strategy of Hamas has been obvious for years.

    Its only the pathetically deluded, the Jew haters and the supporters of evil that condemn Israel and support Hamas.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Zebulon (124 comments) says:

    Many of the anti Israel protestors are not just anti Israel they hate Jews. Siding with Hamas is, in many cases, just a smoke screen for prejudice.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,970 comments) says:

    My sister loves hamas for some awful unfathomable reason . Shes always posting on facebook the death statistics which always favour israel of course.

    She is a bit of a conspiracy theory nut so maybe that has something to do with it?

    I don’t get people don’t get that israel must respond to the barrage of rockets being shot at them.

    even during the ceasefire, hamas sent rockets into israel.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Hamas as even started using suicide donkeys.

    And the left in this country have problems with pigs being kept in pens

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2006 that was a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the Fakestinians to prove to the world that they wanted peace.

    Fat chance. They fired more rockets than ever from there.

    They had their chance – a golden opportunity – and they completely blew it.
    They have only themselves to blame.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tvb (4,516 comments) says:

    Israel has a hated enemy on its boarder who seems determined to destroy Israel but they cannot. Israel is too strong. But Israel is an apartheid state which has made it a hated enemy for the Arabs. There is no solution to this conflict. They will go on hating each other and the killing will not stop. Not for a very long time. The US will not need Arab oil very soon and will walk away. It will probably do the same to Israel as well and say go for it. Just kill each other off.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    Hamas seized control of Gaza seven years ago

    I am immediately suspicious of the opinion of one who characterizes election such.

    The people of Gaza have been assaulted and punished for daring to elect the wrong government from the moment they did.

    Its reign has been disastrous. Unemployment and poverty are around 40 percent.

    In the face of a blockade that deny’s opportunity to trade or import assets and capital it isn’t surprising.

    Israel attempts to make life impossible in Gaza in the hope the people their will disperse to better opportunity elsewhere and diminish claims against it’s seizures of territory. The longer they get away with it and work to change the facts on the ground by occupying other Palestinian territory the more likely the policy is to succeed.

    Success however would not imbue it with morality.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tvb (4,516 comments) says:

    Israel may as well destroy Hamas. There will be a huge loss of life. Many will be children. But Hamas has no intention of coexisting alongside Israel. So Israel May as well kill the lot of them. When many thousands are dead there will be a kind of peace. But where there is such hatred total elimination of Hamas seems to be the only answer. Hamas cannot win. If it will not surrender then Israel just has to eliminate the lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    When Israel advised 100,000 Gazans to evacuate an area targeted for invasion,

    Where were 100,000 Gazans supposed to evacuate to, Israel, Egypt?.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    Israel must respond to the barrage of rockets

    In fourteen years rockets from Gaza killed about 28 Israelis. In the last couple of weeks Israelis have killed more than 200 Gazans. All of those assaults by each faction are arguably reactions to acts of war by others, both sides deliberately target civilians and routinely commit crimes against humanity by international norms.

    There is no especially good guy here. By measure of harm done Israel clearly uses it over-whelming force to inflict disproportionate harm as the ability to impose ‘right’ by might is wont to do, and does not resolve any issues, for as long as they have sufficient might they will not be compelled to submit to a workable political solution.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘Israel just has to eliminate the lot’
    Ah, an advocate for genocide.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Dealing with a group like Hamas is not about whether they are right or wrong.
    You can decide they are bad and try to punish them for shooting at your civilians, but in a way all your efforts only reward them.

    The best you can do is to try and be the only adult in the room and try to avoid the situation getting any worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    hey derided Egypt, scoffing that “the Egyptian initiative is an attempt to defeat us”

    As well it might be. Remember Egypt is a military dictatorship that fears the forces that support Hamas, with Hama’s history in common with the Muslim Brotherhood representing a foe.

    Promoting a cease fire on terms never discussed with Hamas (as Egypt did) there may easily be an intention to undermine Hamas.

    There’s a lot to consider about each players motivations and none of them need be good guys. They are different groups each with their own motivations. Hamas need not be evil to be an enemy of Egypts dictators, Egypts dictators do not need be wrong about the threat of political Islam to be wrong about disenfranchising people, Israel does not need be wrong about the threat of bigger more dangerous rockets in the hands of people sympathetic to ISIL to be foolhardy in killing children on beaches in front of international reporters and so on and so on.

    Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, have legitimate complaints, Egypt, even without dictatorial rule, has a legitimate fear of political Islam, Israel even while oppressing and thieving from Palestinians has legitimate security concerns.

    None of this boils down to them good, others bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    In fourteen years rockets from Gaza killed about 28 Israelis. In the last couple of weeks Israelis have killed more than 200 Gazans.

    Typical relativist clap trap.

    I am a lousy shot with a thrown rock. I would have trouble hitting a stationary elephant up against a barn. So, would you stand there on the other side of the road from me while I threw rocks big enough to stove your head in and kill you without doing anything to stop me? What if I were throwing them at your kids? No, you would stop me.

    The IDF are better shots is all.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    When Israel advised 100,000 Gazans to evacuate an area targeted for invasion, Hamas instructed them to ignore the warnings.

    LOL 100,000 people, most of whom live less per day than the writer of this simplistic phrase spends on Starbucks just up and move to where exactly?

    The garden of Eden?

    An alternate universe

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Come on Andrei, the Gaza Strip is enormous and the Israelis will only be laying waste to part of it. Surely these 100,000 could find somewhere in the remaining vast area to build some mud huts to live in?

    It’s an interesting thought, though – if the Wehrmacht had just assigned a few people to phone people on the Polish side of the border on 31 August 1939 and let them know the Wehrmacht would be invading in the morning but they might well be able to stay alive if they make a run for it now, maybe the UK government would have decided Jolly good, all in order then, carry on…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tvb (4,516 comments) says:

    Sadly I think genocide seems to be the only answer as Hamas is determined to continue its attacks and not co-exist in peace. Israel is too strong for Hamas to win so if they will not surrender then they will be eliminated. Many many civilians will die in the cross fire. Israel should facilitate the general evacuation of Gaza of non combatants and then proceed to eliminate Hamas.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    I am a lousy shot with a thrown rock. I would have trouble hitting a stationary elephant up against a barn. So, would you stand there on the other side of the road from me while I threw rocks big enough to stove your head in and kill you without doing anything to stop me?

    This position is predicated on assumptions that Israel was an innocent attacked and reacting purely in defence. I don’t think either of those points is true.

    On the first Palestinians in Gaza have perfectly valid Casus Belli to attack Israel. It isn’t necessarily smart or effective but Israels actions invite reaction.

    On the second Israel’s attacks on civilians are not credible attacks on those threatening them. They are acts of mass punishment and intimidation in the same vein as indiscriminate rockets launched at Israel are.

    The metaphor is shallow and fulls apart. In it a person could walk away, call police or if compelled to react shoot you personally. It doesn’t compare at all well to non-state actors firing jury rigged rockets at nation states and the deployment of air strikes, direct naval bombardment and soldiers firing mortars at children.

    It’s also childish to pretend that complex ongoing political disputes involving individual and group conflicts that are manipulated, promoted and funded by diverse interests leveraging internal and external populations fears and ambitions for gains and ambitions unconcerned with the lives of victims is so easily encapsulated and reduced to playground ethics.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Sadly I think genocide seems to be the only answer…

    You and Heinrich Himmler both, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    Anyone who equates Hamas and Israel is basically an Israel hater.

    Based on the evidence supplied, that is a Fair call, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Have to agree with Fentex’s earlier post that neither side escapes massive criticism but one would be forgiven for thinking Israelis started the day with Hamas baby with haloumi on toast for breakfast based on the media coverage.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    UNRWA school used to host rockets:

    http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school#.U8fST63KOH8.twitter

    Shocking. The official Hamas statement made me laugh though.
    Although one of those sick black comedy laughs:

    ‘(Breaking) Hamas says rockets found at UN school in Gaza were “contribution to class science project”‘

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    If Gaza is so poor, can someone tell me how Hamas are so rich?

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4543634,00.html

    Where did all that concrete come from to build the vast netowrk of underground tunnels and bunkers, but leave the people so poor.

    Those Hamas dudes are flying round in private jets organising these Iranian rockets. Pretty fly, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Those Hamas dudes are flying round in private jets organising these Iranian rockets. Pretty fly, huh?

    Gosh, well that certainly makes it alright for Israel to launch artillery barrages against a civilian population, doesn’t it? I mean, these guys are flying round in private fucking jets – of course you have to murder a shitload of people in their own homes if motherfuckers are pulling that kind of shit, right?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. IC5000 (125 comments) says:

    Sadly I think genocide seems to be the only answer as the Juden is determined to continue its attacks and not co-exist in peace. Deutschland is too strong for the Juden to win so if they will not surrender then they will be eliminated. Many many civilians will die in the cross fire. Deutschland should facilitate the general evacuation of Gaza of non combatant Juden to temporary holding camps for delousing and then proceed to eliminate the Juden.

    Different context but same mentality underneath.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    Gosh, well that certainly makes it alright for Israel to launch artillery barrages against a civilian population, doesn’t it?

    Good attempt at a strawman dude. My argument counters your “Oh but Gaza are so poor they have no choice but to launch a military strike and let their people starve” argument.

    Of course Israel is on an operation to reduce the threat to its civilians from tunnels and rockets. Of course you will assert this is only to target civilians (with zero evidence to prove so)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Good attempt at a strawman dude. My argument counters your “Oh but Gaza are so poor they have no choice but to launch a military strike and let their people starve” argument.

    That certainly would be a pretty silly argument if I’d made it. A more appropriate argument is that, as pointed out above, Hamas has a legitimate casus belli against Israel as long as it’s occupying and settling Palestinian territory, and the Israelis are free to remove that casus belli at any time. Hell, the siege alone would be casus belli. Again, Israel is free to remove it at any time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. kiwi in america (2,511 comments) says:

    Israel uses missiles to protect it’s citizens (Iron Dome) while Hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles.

    Check out this admission by Ibrahim Kreisheh the Palestian Envoy to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in an interview he gave on MEMRI TV on July 9th. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjzS27ylCZ8&feature=youtu.be
    Here’s a partial transcript:
    “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel – each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity WHETHER IT HITS OR MISSES because it is directed at civilian targets. With regards to crimes of war under the 4th Geneva Convention, there is a Palestinian weakness. The targeting of civilians, be it one civilian or a thousand, is considered a crime against humanity This is why Israel resorted to an attack against Gaza. Please note that many of our people in Gaza appeared on TV and said that the Israeli army warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment. In such case if someone is killed, the law considers it a mistake rather than an intentional killing. As for the missiles launched from our side, we never warn anyone about where these missiles are about to fall or about the operations we carry out.”

    Pretty much sums it up.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Pasty white Europeans telling Jews that they’re not really under any threat, that if they are it’s probably their fault anyway, and that if they fight back they’ll just make it worse for themselves.

    What was it that Henry Ford said – history is bunk?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    That certainly would be a pretty silly argument if I’d made it.

    That seemed to be the gist of your 5:23pm

    A more appropriate argument is that, as pointed out above, Hamas has a legitimate casus belli against Israel as long as it’s occupying and settling Palestinian territory, and the Israelis are free to remove that casus belli at any time.

    Uh huh. So removing the occupation of Gaza in 2006 actually meant they got attacked less by Hamas? Fact: No – they got attacked more
    So Occupation of West Bank is related to Gaza somehow? Would Hamas participate in the recent negotiations to create a Palestinian state? Fact: No.

    Fact: Hamas state that the entire nation of Israel is in fact an “Occupation”. Question for Psycho Milt: How does Israel remove itself from Occupying the entire state that it lives in?

    Hell, the siege alone would be casus belli. Again, Israel is free to remove it at any time.

    Yes, and they did. Remember there were two ceasefires. Both ignored by Hamas. The whole exercise was initiated by Hamas Rockets. So your argument is false, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the Jews can look East to see what’s happening in Iraq:

    In the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, where ISIS fighters have been in control for weeks, members of a local Christian community have been told they have until Sunday to either consent to pay a tax in order to remain there, convert to Islam, or be killed.

    Would the Jews in Israel get even that much of a choice?

    According to a statement released by ISIS and obtained by AFP, for those Christians who do not abandon that tradition his weekend, “there will be nothing for them but the sword.”

    If only the Iraqi Christians had artillery pieces like the Jews in Israel. Still, ISIS and Hamas probably have little in common so no worries.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t Israel get out of Gaza and the West Bank? Build their concrete curtain on its 1967 borders and leave the Palestinians alone in their own land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Rockets go over concrete fences

    Only way that would work jackinabox is to put a roof over it so whenever Hamas launched a rocket it would bounce back at them

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Not much of an analogy there, tom. You really think the Israelis are at all similar to the oppressed christians in Iraq?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    That seemed to be the gist of your 5:23pm

    The gist of my 5:23pm was, like Andrei’s, the surely uncontroversial point that if you evict under threat of death 100,000 people in a small, densely-populated area with closed borders, they don’t get to just move into the thousands of empty, unused houses littering the area. Also, I’m fairly confident that if someone rang you and told you they’ll be destroying your house in 15 minutes but you can live if you get out right now, you won’t hang up thinking “Well, they seemed nice…”

    So removing the occupation of Gaza in 2006…

    Gaza is not a country.

    So Occupation of West Bank is related to Gaza somehow?

    In exactly the same sense that occupation of the South Island by a foreign power would be considered relevant to those of us living in the North Island, or vice versa, yes.

    Question for Psycho Milt: How does Israel remove itself from Occupying the entire state that it lives in?

    The fact that Hamas is as unreasonable as the government of Israel is an issue, yes. This entitles the government of Israel to murder Palestinians in their homes how, exactly? Should Israel remove Hamas’ multiple legitimate justifications for attacks on Israel and was still attacked, that certainly would make the Palestinians the bad guys. As it stands, legitimate justifications for attacks mean the attacks are justified.

    Yes, and they did. Remember there were two ceasefires.

    A ceasefire is not the lifting a siege. In other words, no they didn’t, and aren’t likely to anytime soon. Which means, Hamas welcome to fire rockets, Israel not welcome to launch anything back.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. marleybob (13 comments) says:

    Why should they, It was never Palestinian land. Israel has been existence for over 3000 yrs. Palestine was only invented 100 yrs ago.
    Go Israel, defend your right to exist. some pinkos here wish that Himmler had done a better job. You people are friggen nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Not much of an analogy there, tom.

    It wasn’t an analogy. In terms of the ability to defend themselves the Iraqi Christians are in no way comparable to the Jews in Israel. In terms of how their enemies see them they’re very similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Except the threat to the Iraqi christians is very real and immediate. No one thinks Israelis face any such existential threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    You’re being sweetly obtuse again mm. The israelis don’t face “any such existential threat”, because unlike the Iraqi Christians they can fight back.

    Note also that in addition to lacking military capability, the Iraqi Christians don’t have a state of their own, have not built any concrete walls that surround the ISIS folks, are not in any way able to oppress them or occupy “their” land.

    Yet they still face the whole tax, convert or die threat – with the emphasis on die.

    But Hamas is different of course?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    Israel may as well destroy Hamas

    This is a fantasy. This is not a group of people who exist in isolation – they are the political representatives of Palestinians, selected over Fatah because of their more effective work in and for the palestinian people. They cannot be excised and efforts to do so would only become wholesale assaults on Palestinians achieving nothing but confirming the assailants are barbarians.

    Juan Cole explains how this sort of misapprehension about people and the causes of violence achieves little.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I still don’t know how you compare the unarmed Iraqi christians with the most powerful military state in the region. Being invulnerable to attack changes the perspective, surely,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    … because of their more effective work in and for the palestinian people.

    They’ve been less corrupt. But aside from that how have they been more effective than Fatah? Prosperity? Safety? What?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I expected a bit more of a NZ board than apparent support for the suggestion that genocide is a good option (even compared to this slow burning war) and a kneejerk rejection of an appeal to reason as opposed to revenge and punishment.

    I don’t necessarily oppose the Israelis taking action to stop tunnels being built into Israel, I can understand the argument that Israel might find it was essential to its security it periodically strike at Hamas in order to keep it weak enough to not be a serious threat. Maybe that could be the best option (depending on the detailed facts).

    But if even the people here with no skin in the game are pro-genocide as a solution, one has to despair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    if you evict under threat of death 100,000 people in a small, densely-populated area with closed borders, they don’t get to just move into the thousands of empty, unused houses littering the area.

    But they are leaving (Despite the threats from Hamas), it is only 5% of the population of Gaza, so there is 95% others they will need to share temporarily. Sad as it is, it is better than being caught in a war zone.

    Also, I’m fairly confident that if someone rang you and told you they’ll be destroying your house in 15 minutes but you can live if you get out right now, you won’t hang up thinking “Well, they seemed nice…”

    You are confusing the evacuation letters (where the houses are not being destroyed), with the notice where your house is actually in use by terrorists. I’m sure neither win popularity contests, but its more than the Israelis get from Hamas.

    Gaza is not a country.
    No, it’s part of occupied Egypt. What is your point? It is disconnected from the West Bank

    The fact that Hamas is as unreasonable as the government of Israel is an issue, yes.
    So you are trying to equate them, when DPF has done an outstanding job of proving that it is unequivicable. Hamas charter is pretty clear that they are more unreasonable than Israel. Israel will live with Palestine and Arabs. Hamas will not live with Jews and Israel.

    Which means, Hamas welcome to fire rockets, Israel not welcome to launch anything back.
    So you suggest Israel stops defending themselves and waits for the rockets to stop. Despite what Hamas are stating, despite what Hamas history shows. You, my friend, have some serious delusion, or powerful drugs. I’m not sure which ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Yes Scott1, even though this is Kiwiblog, I have still been surprised at the lack of reaction to tvb’s call for mass murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    You, my friend, have some serious delusion, or powerful drugs. I’m not sure which

    International law’s pretty straightforward on this – occupy and settle someone else’s country, they’re entitled to fight you. You’re entitled mainly to stop occupying and settling their country. The fact that we may have some particular affection for the people doing the occupying and settling, or some particular animosity towards the people getting squashed into an ever-smaller reservation, is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I expected a bit more of a NZ board than apparent support for the suggestion that genocide is a good option …

    If anything, I expect commenters at this site to state their support for genocide more bluntly than tvb did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    And I am yet to see you post anything that decries Hamas for wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:
    … because of their more effective work in and for the palestinian people.

    They’ve been less corrupt. But aside from that how have they been more effective than Fatah? Prosperity? Safety? What?

    Hamas, when competing with Fatah, went into the community and worked to improve Palestinians lot. Because of that, and a perceived lack of corruption and greater concern for Palestinian interests (rather than political careers) they won at election.

    Ever since then Israel and have punished Palestinians for voting against the established order, for daring to choose what displeases them. The following illegal, by all international norms, blockade of Gaza prevents economic advances along with any healthy life.

    This is not Hamas fault, it is part of Israel’s continuing policy of disenfranchisement of Palestinians.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Having piqued my interest I had a look at the comments of “tvb” and it looks like a descent into nihilism in expecting that both sides should, “.Just kill each other off.” So mutual genocide then? And he did call Israel an apartheid state. That should warm the cockles of your hearts.

    Of course it could be that people just ignored it as cheap trolling – like these gems:

    Perhaps the base didn’t like having the only Jewish Republican in congress.

    Mind you, there’ll be a shitload of kids no school will want to touch with a bargepole, but if we set up an appropriate gas chamber/crematoria system that would be easily taken care of.

    And those were from threads that had nothing to do with genocide – or Jews.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I think it was more the part where he said genocide was the only answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    Hamas hides in tunnels beneath homes of Palestinians who live in fear that their home will be destroyed and they will be killed, and also they live in fear that if they betray Hamas their family will be executed. Gaza is almost a lost cause, no longer a war of liberation, instead a war of attrition, a battle for survival.
    The IDF have lost patience, frustrated, angry, they lash out, and again nothing is gained.
    There will eventually be a truce, a peace accord, the US will broker a solution though it’s allies but of course those words will fall on deaf ears. Hamas will continue to be a thorn in Israel’s side,shooting rockets randomly, targeting civilians with suicide bombers and Israel will respond as they always do.
    Only time can heal the wounds, soften the hatred. There are no quick solutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Rightandleft (670 comments) says:

    I always find these debates difficult to weigh into because people want you to choose sides. For whatever reasons the political left in this country tends to support Palestine and the right favours Israel. In the US support for Israel crosses party lines, with both the Republicans and Democrats having support for Israel as part of their party platforms. The reasons for that support go back to the Cold War.

    I’ve studied the history of the conflict at university and taught it for years now at high school level. From what I’ve studied I can’t say there are any real good guys or bad guys here. Both sides have good arguments for why they have a right to the land and why they’re justified in their actions. Both sides have also committed terrible atrocities over the years and turned down chances of compromise. The Arabs launched the first attacks on Jews in a series of pogroms in the 1920s, but only after it became clear uncontrolled Jewish migration was going to swamp them. The Jews fought back and by the 1930s there was a de facto civil war in British Palestine. The Arabs allied with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem even going to Berlin. The British closed of Jewish migration right at the start of the Holocaust and the Jews turned to terrorism themselves. Terror groups like Lehi and Irgun attacked the British and Arabs. That’s what eventually led to the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

    On the day Israel was created in 1948 the Arabs refused to accept its existence, turned their back on the 2-state solution, and went to war to annihilate the Jews. When Israel won that war they ignored a chance for peace and compromise by driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of the country and refusing them re-entry. The Arabs made it worse by then expelling the entire Jewish population of the Arab states, forcing Israel to take the impoverished people on as refugees.

    Since then the cycle of violence has repeated itself countless times. The left here ignores that Hamas is a violent extremist group which would seek to annihilate the whole Jewish population if given the chance. They put their own people in harms way. They intentionally target civilians. But the right ignores that Israel treats Palestinians as second-class citizens, allows its own religious extremists to illegally expand onto Arab territory and really just pays lip-service to the idea of the 2-state solution. At least the Israelis try to avoid civilian casualties in their attacks, but in other ways they act very similarly to the South African Apartheid government, which incidentally they were very close allies with back in the day. Israel was the only country to give diplomatic recognition to South Africa’s fake “Bantustans” or tribal homelands.

    Given the history I really don’t see much of a solution. They hate each other too much to co-exist in one state. But there are too many Palestinians who will never recognise Israel’s right to any of the land to allow for a peaceful two-state solution either.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    International law’s pretty straightforward on this – occupy and settle someone else’s country, they’re entitled to fight you. You’re entitled mainly to stop occupying and settling their country.

    Interesting – especially seeing as Hamas themselves say that Gaza is Not Occupied:
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Hamas-says-Gaza-not-occupied-UN-disagrees

    The question is then, who, is being occupied, because in 1967, it was Jordan and Egypt, and there was not a territory called Palestine.

    So if Jordan and Egypt are not laying claim, the territory is actually disputed, not occupied.
    Palestinians were quite happy with Israeli rule until 1987 .. their quality of life had been raised dramatically.

    So then, it becomes a question of self determination (not occupation). How many attempts has Israel been through to agree on this? At this stage, the blocker is again that Palestinians are refusing to accept just the Disputed lands, but the entire space of Israel. And Hamas has taken that to another level in the form of violence.

    The fact that we may have some particular affection for the people doing the occupying and settling, or some particular animosity towards the people getting squashed into an ever-smaller reservation, is irrelevant.

    Well, again, you can argue all you like, but maybe the Palestinians should keep walking out of peace talks!! I guess the last thing they want is a peaceful settlement

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. lolitasbrother (751 comments) says:

    yes, your basic premise is correct Farrar. Hamas generals die their chilfdren for weakling intellectuals West.
    The underground cave is mainly discovered by our friend Egypt. Death to islam militant death

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    mikenmild. Clearly tvb’s comments are not my position, and I think he’s a dick for saying them. Happy?

    I think you’re a dick too. But that’s another story.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Ross Miller (1,706 comments) says:

    Of all the posts the one from Rightandleft (626 comments) July 20th, 2014 at 8:41 pm is probably right on the button.

    There can be no solution until one side or the other calls it quits and that simply ain’t going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    The following illegal, by all international norms, blockade of Gaza …

    I recall similar arguments being made about Kennedy’s blockade of Cuba, which resulted it being defined by them as a “quarantine” – not that the legalism fooled anybody. The Cubans and the USSR wanted to ship in weapons that could specifically threaten the USA, the USA wanted them kept out. Neither could afford a total war. Same here on a smaller and less apocalyptic scale.

    … blockade of Gaza prevents economic advances along with any healthy life.

    Smashing up all the greenhouses and other business infrastructure that the Israelis left behind when they dragged their settlers out in 2006 (forcibly in many cases, you may have missed the TV coverage) did not help economic growth either. I wonder how many millions of dollars of export revenue that cost. Still, when stuff has been built by the Jews what else can you do. Apparently you also missed the bit about weapons imports – especially rockets – that naturally lead to things like blockades. Obviously in this, as in everything else, the Jews should just stand aside and let it happen – even if it kills them. Anything for “peace”.

    This is not Hamas fault, it is part of Israel’s continuing policy of disenfranchisement of Palestinians.

    Rumour has it that decades ago there were a lot of Germans annoyed that they’d been disenfranchised from their choice of political leadership too.

    International law’s pretty straightforward ….

    …. in stating that deliberately placing your military units where civilians will be hit is a war crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dexter (308 comments) says:

    Wonder how the Palestinians learnt to hate the ‘occupier’ in that fashion and resort to terrorism…oh wait,

    “Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.[2] On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis.[2] During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon “nationalist and totalitarian principles”.[2] After Stern’s death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism.[6] It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right[2] – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.[16]

    Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.[17] On May 29, 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activists members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,[18] an act condemned by Bernadotte’s replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[19] Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in “award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel,” the Lehi ribbon.[20] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.”

    Maybe when Israel throw off their terrorist past, and condemn the terrorists who were part of it’s foundation, they might not look so hypocritical when they condemn groups like Hama’s for adopting the exact same tactics that Lehi did.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Rockets go over concrete fences

    Only way that would work jackinabox is to put a roof over it so whenever Hamas launched a rocket it would bounce back at them”

    If Hamas sent a rocket over a concrete fence that was on the 1967 borders I wouldn’t object to Israel sending two rockets back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    If Hamas sent a rocket over a concrete fence that was on the 1967 borders I wouldn’t object to Israel sending two rockets back.

    Really? Because the Gaza fence is on the border pre-1967. You must be some kind of Zionist extremist!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. swan (665 comments) says:

    I guess the residents of the Gaza Strip can be forgiven for being a little reluctant to leave their homes in these circumstances. Israel does not have the greatest record of allowing refugees to return once the fighting is over.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. cha (4,081 comments) says:


    When Israel advised 100,000 Gazans to evacuate an area targeted for invasion,

    Where were 100,000 Gazans supposed to evacuate to, Israel, Egypt?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14

    A PB!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Maybe when Israel throw off their terrorist past, and condemn the terrorists who were part of it’s foundation, they might not look so hypocritical when they condemn groups like Hama’s for adopting the exact same tactics that Lehi did.

    At last, the answer we’ve all been looking for. If only the Israelis will admit they’re hypocrites things will get better.

    Actually I would have thought the fact that their hospitals have been tending to wounded Syrians for the last three years would have counted as throwing off their terrorist past. But while it’s convinced the wounded Syrians (and their friends and families, judging from interviews) that the Jews aren’t quite the hobgoblins of popular Arab myth, it’s clearly not been enough for the really hardline Jew haters.

    In any case Hamas are actually quite proud of their terrorist past and present and they seem to be getting the support they need in the West. Perhaps it’s due to their lack of hypocrisy?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Really? Because the Gaza fence is on the border pre-1967. You must be some kind of Zionist extremist!!”

    And the West Bank fence? Where is that fence Tim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. TimG_Oz (865 comments) says:

    Lets read that again

    If Hamas sent a rocket over a concrete fence that was on the 1967 borders I wouldn’t object to Israel sending two rockets back.

    Which fence are Hamas lobbing the rockets over dude? They ain’t coming from the West Bank….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. rightofleftcentre (77 comments) says:

    Hamas will never call it quits – that much is obvious.
    Any solution must come from the Palestinian people themselves.
    They are the only ones (short of genocide and only idiots would advocate that), who can stop Hamas. And I can’t see that happening anytime soon…………

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Rightandleft

    Your earlier more fulsome post was the most accurate post on this subject I’ve seen to date – the point about taking sides seems to be inbuilt to most as if it’s some sort of zero sum game where there are betters/worse, winners/losers.

    All sides in this sordid mess are culpable. I could easily see a similar position to this in 30 years. Sad but it’s their bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Maybe one day the leadership of Israel WILL be equivalent to that of Hamas.

    The conflict would then last approximately 2 weeks.

    Perhaps that is the equivalence that Milt is gagging for?

    Is there any doubt, what Hamas would do if they the resources of Israel? If there is, then how? You would have to have ignored everything that Hamas has ever said or ever done.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Hamas is all about killing jews

    They have said it enough times for it to be a fact.

    Israel is all about not being killed by Hamas.

    If everyone in Palestine left to live somewhere else, would Israel follow them to continue their “oppression”?

    If everyone in Israel left to live somewhere else, would Hamas follow them to continue their “duty”?

    Hard to see the first thing happening.

    Hard to see the second thing not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/09/jews-palestinians-have-close-genetic-ties-say-researchers.php

    As many as 90 percent of Palestinians in some areas have close genetic ties to Jews, according to researchers.

    Ariella Oppenheim Ph.D., a researcher at Hebrew University and the Hadassah Medical School labs, has published the result of DNA studies which show that both the Palestinians and Jews are descended from the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey.

    That should astonish no one since both the Bible and the Koran say the Jews and Arabs are descended from a common ancestor, an ancient Caldean who the Koran calls Ibrahim. The Bible says he was named Abraham.

    Perhaps more surprising, Oppenheim found the Ashkenazi Jews from Europe are genetically closer to the Palestinians than Middle East Jews.

    Oppenheim also isolated and traced the chromosome for the “priestly” Cohen line.

    “We find that Arabs also carry this chromosome,” she noted in a documentary film, which claims that some Palestinians are also Cohens, genetically.

    Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/09/jews-palestinians-have-close-genetic-ties-say-researchers.php

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    The question is then, who, is being occupied, because in 1967, it was Jordan and Egypt, and there was not a territory called Palestine.

    Sure, for you there is no country called Palestine. And in 1940, good socialists had to endorse Stalin’s view that there was no country called Poland. It doesn’t matter – what counts is what the people living there think, and what they think is there most definitely is a country called Palestine, that its existence is mandated by the UN and that they have the right to fight whoever’s occupying and settling it. The fact that you personally have bought into one side’s propaganda on the issue is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    Unlike ourselves, looking on as spectators from a position of safety, the Israeli leaders are in the position where they have to decide whose safety they value more, the safety of their own civilians or the safety of the Palestinians. I can’t really blame them for choosing their own people!

    War is big boys’ stuff. Play to win, there might not be any second chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    And have the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, and now a few Israelis, enhanced the safety of Israel one whit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Israel is all about not being killed by Hamas.”

    If the world wasn’t watching there would be a sign over the Gaza/Israel gate proclaiming arbeit macht frei.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    I think the position of the aptly named Psycho milt and his fellow travellers is that Israel should just not exist. Because they are “occupying” Palestinian land they should do the decent thing and pack up and go home to Europe, may be Poland or somewhere like that. Basically his view is that the Jews have no right to the land or any land and should just not exist. They have no right to a homeland.

    Now somebody correct me if I am wrong. But that appears to be the position of John Minto and others as well. Everybody else has a right to self-determination but not the Jews.

    In one sense their position is crazy. In another sense it is perfectly understandable when thought about spiritually. The opposition to the Jews appears to be a deep spiritual hatred that is widely shared amongst the left and the chattering classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I think the position of the aptly named Psycho milt and his fellow travellers is that Israel should just not exist.

    You shouldn’t use the verb “think” to refer to whatever process resulted in that sentence.

    In one sense their position is crazy. In another sense it is perfectly understandable when thought about spiritually.

    I’m absolutely willing to accept that your malicious fantasy about my opinion is crazy, especially if you’ve been applying some delusional superstition to the subject and kidding yourself you’re ‘thinking,’ but doing it ‘spiritually.’ Craziness tends to ensue when people abandon rationalism in favour of superstition.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    So again Psycho Milt- does Israel have a right to exist or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “does Israel have a right to exist or not?”

    Behind the 1967 borders it does. The Palestinians that were dispossessed in 1949 will have to “move on” I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    And have the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, and now a few Israelis, enhanced the safety of Israel one whit?

    Yes. It has pushed the front back and has swapped out civilian risk for armed forces risk. For a time at least.

    And then there will be the rebuilding stage when Palestinian warriors re-equip themselves and will be unable to target Israeli civilians.

    But we are never talking about lasting peace in this war. Merely a redirection of the risk for a time.

    Mike, your complaint would only make sense if you thought that not attacking their enemies somehow made Israel safer. They did that for 6 hours, while their enemy laughed in their face for such weakness and lobbed more rockets at them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Attacking or not attacking the Gaza strip makes no difference to the security situation within Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    So again Psycho Milt- does Israel have a right to exist or not?

    Yes. Now, Scott: does Palestine have a right to exist or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    As Kimble points out this cycle will repeat. At some point the IDF will withdraw and Hamas will start rebuilding tunnels and rocket stocks. It will likely take half a decade or so and during that time they will launch sporadic rocket attacks. Israel will probably ignore those until they reach a certain threshold of numbers and destruction.

    Prior to 2005 the idea pushed on Israel by the outside world was that withdrawing from the “occupied” territories would break this cycle. Gaza was regarded as a test case ahead of the West Bank. You can even see these arguments being put forward on old blog threads, along with the certainty that a psychopathic murderer like Ariel Sharon would never do such a thing, especially if it meant forcibly evicting Israeli occupiers/settlers in Gaza (9000 of them in the end). Of course when it did happen there was a general sense of disbelief, but I saw some comments made to the effect that the Israelis only did it so that Gaza could become a clear field of fire for the IDF: there’s no pleasing some people.

    And the result? A steady escalation of attacks from Gaza, first in the form of suicide bombers and now rockets. As a result the whole land-for-peace argument has collapsed in Israel, along with the political parties and politicians who supported it. It would be fair to say that most Israeli supporters, primarily of the Israeli left, no longer believe it:

    Naftali Bennett of the Bayit Yehudi party explicitly states that “land for peace” is dead and advocates annexing the portion of the West Bank known as Area C. Yair Shamir of Yisrael Beytenu says that regardless of Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech, the Likud never endorsed a Palestinian state. Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party’s website makes no mention of going back to the negotiating table.

    Neither does the Labor Party platform.

    Even Meretz recently acknowledged that Oslo is dead.

    In other words the shift on the Israeli left wing on this issue has been bigger than any change on the Netanyahu right wing, and it has not been sudden and dynamic but simply a reaction to the slow accumulation of events driven by Hamas and Fatah. It’s hardly a surprise that Netanyahu was re-elected. As one commentator noted “four prime ministers from three different parties (representing the left, center, and right) tried, and each met the same response.”

    Yet there is still a cohort in the West who continue to chant the magical words, “occupation”, “agreements”, “legal” and so forth, although I can’t help thinking that the unrelenting tide of Islamic extremism around the world has begun to have the same effect in the West that it has in Israel. Certainly the anti-Israeli protests and comments in the West don’t have the size, bite and venom of ten, let alone twenty years ago. Perhaps it’s a sense that the Israeli left wing are not listening anymore, simply shrugging their shoulders and saying that nothing Israel does gets any reward. Fiery arguments are one thing, apathy is altogether harder to fight.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    This is interesting . Mahmoud Abbas PLO leader now regrets the Arabs not accepting the 1947 partition plan.

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-Arabs-erred-in-rejecting-1947-partition-plan

    History might of been very different but have my doubts. It seems the only way out is for the Palestinians Arabs give up their futile struggle and join the other 800,000 who enjoy the numerous benefits of israeli citizenship .!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Yet there is still a cohort in the West who continue to chant the magical words, “occupation”…

    Perhaps because the occupation is still happening and the settlement of the occupied territories is still happening?

    …nothing Israel does gets any reward.

    Nothing it does? Was there some point at which it pulled out its settlers and withdrew to its 1967 borders? Surely that would have made the news? Seriously, if Israel were to stop occupying and settling someone else’s country, and that someone else attacked them, I’d wish Israel all the best in turning the attackers into small, burned pieces. As it stands, occupying and settling someone else’s country necessarily involves the someone elses trying to kill you – suck it up or go back home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    Psychomilt, its worthwhile to give a little background to the 1967. i recall , even a teenager at the time, the constant border violations and incursions by Arabs and Arab Palestinians leading up to the war. The Syrians for example were fond of shelling Israeli settlements enjoying its strategic advantage and a good reason why they lost it.
    Since their rejection of the UN based partition plan in 1947 Israel had to deal with the real problem of secure borders that their neighbours had no intention of honoring or recognizing.
    By 1967 for israel it became a matter of survival.The rest is history and I can understand ,with this background ,why Israel is reluctant to surrender the West bank.
    The actions of its neigbours and the Palestinians prior to 1967 was very, very discouraging. as it continues to be to this day .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Was there some point at which it pulled out its settlers and withdrew to its 1967 borders?

    There was a point where they at least pulled out of Gaza. Negotiations, especially ones where violence is present, require small, reciprocal gestures of good faith like that. Had the Israeli evacuation of Gaza produced a situation where attacks were not constantly being made from that territory it would have been evidence that Israel could proceed with further withdrawals, perhaps even to their 1967 borders.

    As it stands the Gaza withdrawal has simply convinced most Israelis, whether left wing or right wing, that pulling back to those old borders will simply expose them to the same shit on a larger scale, and with even less defensible borders.

    But perhaps with millions of Westerners like yourself pledging that you’ll have their back they’ll do it. After all, Jews have been able to trust the assurances of the West in the past, no?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Negotiations, especially ones where violence is present, require small, reciprocal gestures of good faith like that.

    Not when they involve occupying and settling someone else’s country they don’t. The someone elses are fully entitled to attack you until you leave. Until Israel’s back in its own territory, its bleating about Palestinians attacking it can be filed under “So what?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Psychomilt, its worthwhile to give a little background to the 1967.

    It’s really not. We get that these guys don’t like each other and are always at each others’ throats and won’t deal honestly with each other. What matters is that Israel currently maintains a standing, fully legitimate justification for Palestinians to attack it, and while it’s doing that it can hardly complain about being attacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    Psychomilt, Iv’e explained the real context and background to the 1967 war that has a highly relevant bearing on today’s events.
    Read it please

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Not when they involve occupying and settling someone else’s country they don’t. The someone elses are fully entitled to attack you until you leave.

    I recall that was the argument as to why the Israelis were being attacked in Gaza over the decades. But they left that area and are still being attacked, so the Gazans are attacking on behalf of the West Bank?

    It took three decades of mutual murder but even the IRA concluded that that was rather an unproductive, wooden-headed approach, but I can believe that Hamas are more fanatical. Negotiations? Pfft! It’s all or nothing? Utopia vs. reality. No wonder the Israelis have filed such claims under “So what?”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Islam is a death cult.The west needs to wake up to that fact.From its founding it has always sought to overthrow those around it and that includes ‘Rome”.Rome is not just the Church ,it is the whole of the west.

    If the west wishes to remain civilised it must now stop Muslim immigration before we’re bred into slavery and then extinction.

    Don’t believe me? Look at Turkey as well as what’s happening in Syria now.

    Religion of peace and tolerance? Bulshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    I argued fiercely with Zionists that they should disengage (first Lebanon) – from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. It was the only way to get over the past and build a future. I did say that it would test the Palestinians intentions.

    It retrospect they should have done more of it in the West Bank.

    The canny hard-liners chose Gaza as their test case and Hamas “rose” to the occasion and shafted their “allies” on the West Bank – leaving them with continuing occupation because with Hamas there is no peace partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I recall that was the argument as to why the Israelis were being attacked in Gaza over the decades. But they left that area and are still being attacked, so the Gazans are attacking on behalf of the West Bank?

    The Palestinians are attacking, because Palestine is still being occupied and settled. Talking about “the Gazans” is like talking about “the South Islanders” – yes there are people living in the South Island and you can refer to them as South Islanders, but they aren’t some kind of separate country or people from “the North Islanders.”

    Re Ireland, if the UK was still occupying the country of Eire and building settlements there, do you think the locals would be determined to reach a negotiated, peaceful settlement that involved being gifted whatever reservations the UK government felt were surplus to requirements? Or would they perhaps be killing any Brit they could get their hands on? My money’s on option 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    … if the UK was still occupying the country of Eire

    According to the IRA they still are in Northern Ireland. But they at least seem to have given up on the killing and the terrorist tactic of using their own kin as cannon fodder for propaganda purposes.

    Talking about “the Gazans” is like talking about “the South Islanders”

    I should have used the term Hamas since it’s really all about their motivations rather than anything to do with land. In that respect it’s notable that the very people who supposedly would like to drive the Israelis out – the folks in the West Bank – are not the ones firing rockets and conducting suicide missions against Israel. It’s also notable that the West Bank is prospering a lot better nowadays, certainly better than Gaza. Perhaps Fatah should ask their co-rulers to knock it off? Not likely when Hamas are actively killing Fatah people but worth a try.

    But as I said earlier, if the all-or-nothing, you’re-right-and-I’m-wrong approach is the one you think should be taken in negotiations (oops, I forgot that this is all non-negotiable) then it’s going to fail – as it has been failing for years now but even more so. Irrespective of the legal arguments it would appear that the overwhelming belief of the Israelis is that they’re going to be targeted, killed and exiled if they withdraw to the 1967 borders.

    Oh yeah – and they’re going to be called Mass Murderers, Occupiers, Racists, yada, yada, yada. Looks like that’s not working either.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Israel gave up some land, just a little bit to see if it was worthwhile. Turns out (SPOILERS!) it definitely wasn’t.

    The people saying it wasn’t worth it and that the offer was doomed to fail were proven correct. That’s a historical fact.

    But Milt thinks that Israel wont ever get peace (read: deserve peace) until they give all the rest to Hamas. See what I did there?

    Hamas is the inconvenient truth for Milt and those like him.

    There is no giving land back to Palestinians. There is only giving formerly Israeli territory up to Hamas.

    I have little doubt that Milt considers Hamas to be a problem of Israel’s making. And thats fine and dandy, but thinking that is just point-scoring and doesn’t in any way provide a solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I should have used the term Hamas since it’s really all about their motivations rather than anything to do with land.

    That is exactly arse-about-face. Hamas’ motives are irrelevant as long as there’s an excellent reason and justification for them to be killing Israelis (ie, Israel’s occupation and settlement of their country). Remove the excellent reason and justification for them to be killing Israelis and their motivations become relevant – until then, their motivations count for shit.

    It’s also notable that the West Bank is prospering a lot better nowadays, certainly better than Gaza.

    A subject people does of course enjoy a better standard of living through cooperating with their colonial masters rather than fighting them, but that only works if you don’t mind being a subject people.

    Hamas is the inconvenient truth for Milt and those like him.

    Hamas aren’t anything of significance to me – what matters is what the colonial power is doing. But here’s the inconvenient truth for Kimble and those like him: if you’ve got to the point where you’re coming up with reasons why it was OK to murder all those civilians, you really, really should be rethinking the integrity of your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. swan (665 comments) says:

    “Israel gave up some land, just a little bit to see if it was worthwhile. Turns out (SPOILERS!) it definitely wasn’t.

    Kimble – your framing is: what’s best for Israel? Nothing wrong with that, but it has little relevance when the discussion is about moral justification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, and if Hamas was intent on a war with a pre 67 border state of Israel – what exactly is occupation of Palestinian land in the eyes of Hamas and is peace between them and Israel possible?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Hamas aren’t anything of significance to me – what matters is what the colonial power is doing.

    So what matters is what the colonial power is doing, but not why they are doing it?

    Israel should give up land and damn the consequences!

    That’s one hell of a nuanced position. Not a useful position, however.

    Its uselessness is exemplified by the ridiculous notion that if Israel gives back a certain amount of land, that Hamas will change their minds about killing every Jew.

    I believe that you know that Hamas wont stop, no matter what Israel does. Your demand that Israel give the land back regardless of the result has nothing to do with ending the conflict or bringing peace to the region.

    It is merely a condition that Israel must meet before you are willing to feel sorry about the Jews who Hamas will inevitably continue murder.

    I can now see how Hamas isn’t significant to you. The deaths Hamas are responsible for don’t count for anything. Nothing Hamas does counts for anything. All that matter is what Israel does.

    if you’ve got to the point where you’re coming up with reasons why it was OK to murder all those civilians, you really, really should be rethinking the integrity of your position.

    Right back at you. Your entire effort has been to justify the aggression of Hamas.

    If Israel had their way, everyone in Hamas would be dead. If Hamas had their way, everyone in Israel would be dead.

    Where in that equation are the Palestinians?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Kimble – your framing is: what’s best for Israel? Nothing wrong with that, but it has little relevance when the discussion is about moral justification.

    I was not talking about moral justification. I don’t think that means anything in this conflict.

    I was talking about the practical reality. And the practical reality is that Israel will not give up more land, because their previous effort didn’t accomplish anything positive. Not a single thing.

    One side’s condition of peace is that the other slit their own throat.

    The other side’s condition is that the first side stop trying to slit their throat.

    Which side is it more productive to support?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Right back at you. Your entire effort has been to justify the aggression of Hamas.

    To labour the point (because it apparently needs labouring), Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory justifies the aggression of Hamas, no effort on my part is required. From my own personal perspective alone, it would be nice if Israel removed that justification, because ordinarily I don’t like to have to side with violent authoritarian religious nutcases.

    If Israel had their way, everyone in Hamas would be dead. If Hamas had their way, everyone in Israel would be dead.

    Where in that equation are the Palestinians?

    In the bit you left out: “If Israel had its way, everyone in Hamas would be dead and the Palestinians would be resigned to life as a subject people.”

    Psycho Milt, and if Hamas was intent on a war with a pre 67 border state of Israel – what exactly is occupation of Palestinian land in the eyes of Hamas and is peace between them and Israel possible?

    Hamas strike me as the kind of ignorant, bigoted, murderous Islamists who are ten a penny in the Middle East. I expect the existence of a single Jewish landowner in Israel constitutes occupation of Palestinian land in their eyes and no peace between them and Israel is possible. None of which is relevant – as long as Israel is occupying and settling Palestinian territories not merely in the delusional propaganda sense Hamas favours but in the very real sense of international law, Hamas is entitled to chuck everything it’s got at Israel and Israel’s rights consist of ceasing the occupation and settlement and withdrawing to its 1967 borders. Once that’s sorted, Hamas can be dealt with appropriately – until it’s sorted, they’re justified in firing rockets all day every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. swan (665 comments) says:

    “Which side is it more productive to support?”

    Well that is another question entirely. As far as New Zealand goes, the only calculation in that respect is the effect on our relationship with the US and other countries important to us.

    But that is not the subject of DPFs post, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    To labour the point (because it apparently needs labouring), Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory justifies the aggression of Hamas, no effort on my part is required.

    So you care less about murdered Jewish babies than Palestinian babies.

    The murder of Israeli children is justified in your eyes.

    For my part, I dont think the murder of Palestinian children is justified. Which is why I applaud efforts on the part of Israeli’s to avoid such heart breaking deaths.

    Good thing Israeli children dont count (as people?) to you. Otherwise you might have to feel guilt over your association with people who deliberately murder them.

    Would you prefer that the death toll was much higher on the Israeli side? Do you think that would make the conflict more fair?

    In the bit you left out: “If Israel had its way, everyone in Hamas would be dead and the Palestinians would be resigned to life as a subject people.”

    If that was the case, then they would have never given back Gaza, or indeed any land at all. They would have taken the lot.

    Israeli actions give lie to your edit.

    Still, at least you aren’t trying to argue that Hamas doesn’t want everyone in Israel dead. Including the children and babies, the elderly and mentally impaired.

    But I wonder if you can bring yourself to admit it in writing here.

    If Hamas declared that they were no longer going to target children and other non-combatants, would you applaud the change in tactic?

    Or would you try and tell them that how they were behaving now was just fine? After all, they are justified in anything they do to any from Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Excellent points made there Kimble!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Why thank you, thor.

    And congrats on the gender reassignment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    ( Not sure what Kimble meant by the gender reassignment but anyway…… :) )

    @Psycho Milt – “The Palestinians are attacking, because Palestine is still being occupied and settled.”

    Palestine – “occupied”? Really?
    *Disputed* would be a much more accurate term.

    How can “Palestine” be “occupied” when it has never been a country in the first place?

    You *do* know that “Palestine” has never even been a country, don’t you? It is a region (much as Siberia is).
    And, just as Siberia is populated by Russians, so-called “Palestine” (the West Bank and Gaza) is populated by *Arabs*.
    Not Palestinians (there is no such people as even the PLO themselves have admitted) but Arabs.

    I’m sure you also know that the West Bank was annexed by *Jordan* (IIRC in 1950) who then gave up all claims to it around 1988 (again IIRC).

    As for Gaza, Israel pulled out of there in 2006.

    Allow me to supply a history of the area for you –

    “How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?” –
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    http://marvel.com/news/comics/2014/7/16/22883/a_new_god_of_thunder_debuts_in_thor_this_october

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    So you care less about murdered Jewish babies than Palestinian babies.

    Not so much me as international law, and ‘care’ isnt the right word.

    How can “Palestine” be “occupied” when it has never been a country in the first place?

    I’m aware that obnoxious racists on both sides have propaganda showing that actually the objects of their hatred have no right to live in the territory they’re calling home. However, the views of obnoxious racists on the subject are irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt,

    You say that Hamas has a right to resist occupation.

    However as Hamas has refused to recognise the Israeli state within its 67 borders and is attacking Israel within those borders, Israel is equally entitled to regard Hamas as an enemy combatant and use military force against them until they surrender or both sides agree to a cease-fire.

    If Gaza Palestine hosts this group, it is in the same league as Afghanistan was while it hosted al Qaeda.

    While Hamas has control of the gun in Gaza, a Palestinian state including Gaza is impossible.

    The purpose of Hamas is to obstruct the formation of a Palestinian state until Israel is defeated. Israel knows this and thus will never seek to totally defeat Hamas, but use them to obstruct a Palestinian state so continued occupation of the West Bank can continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    If Gaza Palestine hosts this group, it is in the same league as Afghanistan was while it hosted al Qaeda.

    Actually, it’s not. Palestine currently isn’t a country and doesn’t have a government, it’s a group of stateless people in some occupied territories. It can’t be held to account for not running its affairs as a country because the occupying power prevents it existing as a country. In short, once Israel pulls out its settlers, ends the occupation and permits the creation of Palestine, it, the Palestinian government and the international community can sort Hamas out. Until then, Hamas is just a bunch of guys fully entitled to attack Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. OneTrack (3,233 comments) says:

    Kimble – “And the practical reality is that Israel will not give up more land, because their previous effort didn’t accomplish anything positive.”

    No, they won’t make that mistake again. Gaza was a big chance for the Palestinians to prove they could make a go of it. They failed spectacularly. Who would trust them again.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘Hamas is just a bunch of guys fully entitled to attack Israel’
    Not sure that Hamas would have any kind of case in international law for its attacks on Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, 67 border Palestine is a recognised territory and the PA does seek formal recognition as a state – are you saying West bank occupation by the IDF means it should not be seeking this and should be denied recognition until Israel withdraws its “occupation veto”?

    And regardless Israel has the right to attack Hamas if it is engaged in attacks on Israel.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    …until it’s sorted, they’re justified in firing rockets all day every day.… and… Until then, Hamas is just a bunch of guys fully entitled to attack Israel.

    Justified???? Entitled??? What total bollocks.

    Israel has been very, very patient. I cannot think of any other country that would have ‘tolerated’ terrorists firing ordnance over the border into their sovereign state – even Israel had been reluctant to fully retaliate. But finally they had a gutsful and sent the troops in to blow up the tunnels / clean out the stockpiles of weapons (hidden in schools etc) and if possible, rid the area of the terrorist element. Good on them… only when Hamas has been sorted, can peace be restored to the area.

    FWIW… long after we are all dead and buried (or scattered to the winds), the Star of David will still fly over Israel. And no gutless acts of terrorism by the likes of Hamas, will ever push Israelis off their sovereign land.

    It just takes longer for some folk to get the message…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    That is exactly arse-about-face. Hamas’ motives are irrelevant as long as there’s an excellent reason and justification for them to be killing Israelis (ie, Israel’s occupation and settlement of their country).

    To labour the point (because it apparently needs labouring), Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory justifies the aggression of Hamas

    As others have pointed out to you many, many times, the use of the term “occupied country” is – as a matter of international law – not true. The term itself is exactly the propaganda you claim to be resistant to. The boundaries of these areas have been in dispute since 1948 and are as much a subject for negotiation as any dispute. No doubt there’s a lot of racism involved but that’s irrelevant to a dispute under law.

    So actually it’s not even a reason, let alone an “excellent” reason for Hamas attacking Israel. Moreover, even if was, the international law you’re so fond of does not allow people to wage war via war crimes, which is seemingly the only way Hamas know how to. You don’t get to commit a war crime by placing rocket sites in civilian places and then claiming that the counter-attacks are war crimes. The architects of the Geneva convention recognised that trap from day one.

    As far as having things arse-about-face with regard to Hamas that’s simply another example of how obtuse you’re being. Their religious and ethnically inspired hatred of the Jews has to be front and centre of this dispute. Armies have attacked Israel from areas like the West Bank repeatedly over the decades and now you simply expect them to walk out of such lands and leave them to people who are going to attack them from those areas again, just as in Gaza. That demand is just nuts: an almost insane refusal to face reality.

    … because ordinarily I don’t like to have to side with violent authoritarian religious nutcases.

    Are there any other such groups you side with in the world? I’m sure the folks rebelling against Assad can make some legitimate claims under International Law, ISIS in Iraq perhaps, there are probably other examples.

    I’d suggest that if you do find yourself siding with such groups and the reason is a general devotion to the rather murky, often ill-defined world of “international law” rather than the specifics of each claim then it’s time for you to start questioning if you’re actually as much in the right as you think you are.

    Meantime I’m going to side with the social-democracy that enables liberal freedoms for their citizens – even if they wind up doing shitty things during a war with violent authoritarian religious nut cases – just as I would have sided with the British and US in WWII despite the presence of people like “Bomber” Harris.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘You don’t get to commit a war crime by placing rocket sites in civilian places and then claiming that the counter-attacks are war crimes.’
    You’ve peddled this line before, but I’m not sure that I buy it. While using human shields may be a war crime, that does not give the other side carte blanche to fire at those same human shields, does it? Or shelling a hospital because rockets were seen ‘near by’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    While using human shields may be a war crime, that does not give the other side carte blanche to fire at those same human shields, does it?

    There is a reason human shields are used for those targets. They are useful in perpetuating the attack on Israel and Hamas wants to keep using them.

    If the human shield tactic worked for them, then they would strap babies to the front of armored cars. (Which is effectively what they are doing now, but that wouldnt look as good on TV and would strip the Israel-haters from their fig leaf of deniability.)

    If someone is shooting at your family, using their own family as a human shield, where would that leave you?

    What would you do?

    Of course, the deaths of these human shields may shorten the conflict and reduce the total number of civilian casualties.

    Its a shitty decision, but one Israel has to make.

    And children overseas reckon the death of human shields is 100% Israels fault because… you know… international law and jews and stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    The term “human shield” is actually a propaganda term to transfer blame for civilian casualties.

    The fact is this is a heavily populated area and any military action will result in civilian death. This is not by design of either party. It is a consequence of the Israeli-Hamas resort to violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘the deaths of these human shields may shorten the conflict and reduce the total number of civilian casualties’
    Sorry, how? You seem to imply therefore that there is some kind of utilitarian benefit from the civilian casualties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    ‘the deaths of these human shields may shorten the conflict and reduce the total number of civilian casualties’
    Sorry, how? You seem to imply therefore that there is some kind of utilitarian benefit from the civilian casualties.

    I am open to the idea that destroying the weapons and soldiers of Hamas will make it more difficult for them to maintain their attack on Israel, and that when the strike capability of their enemy is destroyed Israel will cease their assault. Are the lives of the human shields of more worth to you than those of other innocent bystanders?

    As much as a decision like that seems distasteful to you, and as much as you would like to think that that sort of decision-making is not needed in this world, the fact is that these are the decisions that armed forces face.

    There is no “utilitarian benefit” from decisions like this. There are only differing magnitudes of cost.

    Was that an attempt to trap someone into saying that the deaths of civilians was a good thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘Are the lives of the human shields of more worth to you than those of other innocent bystanders?’
    I think the lives of all humans are of intrinsic worth. Don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I think the lives of all humans are of intrinsic worth.

    As a starting point and all else equal. However, morality changes the each persons perception of anothers worth. And dont think I didnt notice that you failed to say that all human lives are of equal intrinsic worth.

    While the level of worth is not knowable, comparisons can be made to relative worth. Is the life of a pedophile priest worth the same as a surgeon who works for free in the impoverished slums of India? I reckon, nope, not even close. Do you disagree?

    Should God demand you kill one of these two men lest he kill both, you would be just as likely to kill the surgeon as the pedo? Or would you through inaction cause the death of both?

    You can also see this type of reckoning in Milt’s anti-Israel effluvia; his twisted morality means he places far less worth on the lives of Israeli babies than on the lives of Palestinian babies.

    His moral code, guided by the infallibility and unquestionable moral authority of “international law”, has placed him in the position of arguing that Hamas deliberately targeting civilian non-combatants is morally superior to Israel doing the same but incidentally.

    But you didn’t answer the question. All you did was say that all humans have some intrinsic value.

    Are the lives of the human shields of more worth to you than those of other innocent bystanders?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Those lives are of equal worth to me; was that not implied by my earlier statement?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    As others have pointed out to you many, many times, the use of the term “occupied country” is – as a matter of international law – not true.

    Sure – Israel’s patron has a veto in the Security Council, so Palestine doesn’t officially get to be a country until Israel says so, which it won’t. Of course, if Palestine is not a country but a ‘disputed territory’ up for ‘negotiation,’ so is Israel.

    So actually it’s not even a reason, let alone an “excellent” reason for Hamas attacking Israel.

    Thing is, the people having their country occupied and settled don’t get to indulge themselves in the luxury of sophistry.

    Moreover, even if was, the international law you’re so fond of does not allow people to wage war via war crimes, which is seemingly the only way Hamas know how to.

    Both sides are committing war crimes and should stop them. Of course, people having their country occupied and settled traditionally have little sympathy for preserving the rights of their oppressors, it’s a bad thing but my advice is to not occupy and settle other people’s countries.

    Their religious and ethnically inspired hatred of the Jews has to be front and centre of this dispute.

    Does the Jews’ religious and ethnically inspired hatred of the Arabs have to be front and centre of this dispute? Because, if it doesn’t, you kind of just argued yourself into a corner.

    … if you do find yourself siding with such groups and the reason is a general devotion to the rather murky, often ill-defined world of “international law” rather than the specifics of each claim then it’s time for you to start questioning if you’re actually as much in the right as you think you are.

    The Israeli government is such a group. Does siding with it cause you to question whether you’re right?

    Psycho Milt, 67 border Palestine is a recognised territory and the PA does seek formal recognition as a state – are you saying West bank occupation by the IDF means it should not be seeking this and should be denied recognition until Israel withdraws its “occupation veto”?

    Nope – I’m saying the first step in any ceasefire has to be withdrawal from the occupied territories, or there is no reason to have a ceasefire. If foreigners have invaded your country and are now busy colonising it, killing them is within your rights until they cease and desist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, “if Palestine is not a country but a ‘disputed territory’ up for ‘negotiation,’ so is Israel.”

    Not in international law. The UN does not recognise territorial acquisition and recognises the state of Israel, albeit within the 67 borders only.

    Does it require UNSC sanction for the UN to recognise a new nation state member of the UN? Why not the General Assembly? It was the General Assembly not the UNSC that voted on partition back in 1947.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Does the Jews’ religious and ethnically inspired hatred of the Arabs …

    I just knew that would be your response since you’ve got nothing else beyond “them too, they’re the same“.

    The trouble for your argument is that for a group that supposedly has a religious and ethnically inspired hatred of the Arabs – and I’ve certainly run into Israelis with those traits – their society has funny habits like treating wounded Syrians and Palestinians in Israeli hospitals. When you can show me video of Israeli soldiers and civilians being treated similarly by Hamas in the hospitals they control you might have a point.

    The Israeli government is such a group. Does siding with it cause you to question whether you’re right?

    And again. You really just don’t have anything decent left in defence of Hamas beyond the legal sophistry you otherwise claim to despise. I’ll leave you to argue precisely how the state of Israel matches your original description of being the bunch of violent authoritarian religious nut cases that you claimed Hamas is. At the level of snarky one-liners I’m sure that argument can be made and I’m sure you can rise to that level.

    Both sides are committing war crimes and should stop them.

    How blandly Solomonic. That’s the Orwellian cleverness of the tactic. If “one side” (meaning the Israelis of course) stop committing the war crime of shooting at military targets in areas containing civilians that will simply mean Hamas will absolutely not stop continuing the war crime of placing military targets in civilian areas. In short, your supposed concern about war crimes being committed means will you will be enabling ongoing war crimes. It’s a paradox.

    By contrast, if Hamas moved their rocket sites into the many empty spaces that exist in Gaza – perhaps the sites of all those formerly Jewish greenhouses – they could stop committing at least that war crime. They won’t do that because of course in a straight-up military engagement those sites would be lost in a heartbeat. That’s precisely why they commit the war crime. Why you would enable such a thing is probably not a paradox.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    At least you are now acknowledging that the Israelis are committing war crimes too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    “Shrugs shoulders”
    You’ve demonstrated that you’re not convinced by my argument that the Israelis hitting military sites surrounded by civilians should not be the ones held responsible for a war crime – that it’s actually the people who placed those targets there in the first place that should be held up as the war criminals and that the Geneva Conventions cannot actually be made to work unless this is the case.

    Since you’re utterly convinced of that anyway I figure I’m not losing anything by compromising a little. My proposal enables the elimination of both war crimes. The solution of you and Milt enables an ongoing war crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    For Hamas the problem is wanting to be close to the border to fire its missiles (maximise range) and to have the storage of missiles beyond the reach of the IDF.

    If the policy was not to fire them from places close to civilians, they could reduce the legitimacy/risk of IDF strikes into civilian areas (that said strikes against Hamas personnel always involve risk to those with them or nearby and these occur).

    That would require of them tunnels from the storage areas to the missile firing areas. Do these already exist and if so do the tunnels the IDF is looking for include them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    It seems to me you are going back to your earlier position by now saying that ‘the Israelis hitting military sites surrounded by civilians should not be the ones held responsible for a war crime’. In an ideal world, all war criminals would be held to account for their actions, but I very much doubt that will be the case in this conflict.

    Also, I wasn’t aware that I had posited a solution. I’m not even sure that there is a solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Those lives are of equal worth to me; was that not implied by my earlier statement?

    No. You avoided stating it explicitly, likely for a reason. Maybe deliberate dishonesty or simply to keep lying to yourself.

    The fact you sneered “utilitarian benefit” revealed that you thought the possibility that more lives could be saved was not wrong as much as completely irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    get your hotdogs, popcorn …

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html?_r=0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    You never have any solutions mm, mainly because you’re not prepared to accept anything less than that ideal world where some Global Policeforce swoops in for the arrests, followed by a Global Court to adjudicate, backed by a Global government where we all got to contribute to the making of the laws.

    In the real world Hamas will never stop committing this war crime because its military advantages, and more to the point it’s political advantages, are significant – as long as they are allowed to get away with it.

    My preferred solution would be for the Israelis to hold televised military trails on the battlefield itself where Hamas officers are captured having hidden amidst civilians while they fired their weapons. If the trials found them guilty they’d be shot at dawn on the same battlefield, with the charges clearly laid out for all to see – meaning their fellow Hamas soldiers. The message about rules of warfare might sink in. But then I’m a romantic.

    I would not even object if Hamas tried the same, although their efforts would more likely resemble witchcraft trials from the Middle Ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    So you would like to see Israeli combatants held to account in a similar manner, with your preferred death penalty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    nah tom, you’re no romantic, a romantic would like to see a fair fight. Lets give the Hamas sophisticated weaponry and training, clear out all the civilians, and let them and the Israelis go for it!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    The Left excuses Hamas for their war crimes, citing international law and jews and stuff, and claims Hamas has justification for anything they do.

    Hamas puts innocents in harms way for military advantage and the PR. The Left, by buying in to that PR, condones and enables that behaviour.

    Imagine a world where Hamas was criticised as vociferously as Israel is (for just about anything Israel does).

    You lefties imagine that your scolding will help change Israels behaviour, but it is really just permitting the crimes of Hamas.

    Hamas is putting on a show for you guys. And you are lapping it up.

    *BOOM!*

    Yes! Bad Israel! Look at the civilians that they kill! My biases are once again confirmed and I can feel morally superior for the rest of the day! But I need more! More, Hamas! MOAARRRR!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Lets give the Hamas sophisticated weaponry …

    Snort! One label: MH17

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I just knew that would be your response…

    Well, yes. It’s an appropriate and reasonable response, which highlights how pointless it is to argue Arab racism justifies Israelis murdering them in their homes.

    And again. You really just don’t have anything decent left in defence of Hamas beyond the legal sophistry you otherwise claim to despise.

    Nor would I wish to defend Hamas. It is, as previously mentioned, a bunch of violent, religious authoritarian nutcases. That doesn’t alter the fact that Israel’s rights in this conflict currently amount to having the right to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and remove its settlers. Any other rights it might have, to be free of being attacked for instance, start after that point.

    My preferred solution would be for the Israelis to hold televised military trails on the battlefield itself where Hamas officers are captured having hidden amidst civilians while they fired their weapons.

    Sure – as long as the Palestinians get to hold televised trials in the destroyed suburbs, in which Israelis who issued orders to use heavy weapons on the people living there are tried. If found guilty, they could be shot at dawn in the same suburb, with the charges laid out for all to see. The message about the rules of warfare might then sink in, as you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Sure – as long as the Palestinians get to hold televised trials in the destroyed suburbs,

    So you would like to see Israeli combatants held to account in a similar manner, with your preferred death penalty?

    It’s almost as if you two did not read the last paragraph. But yes, reciprocity is the only way the rules of war/Geneva Conventions can be made to work.

    Of course reciprocity could also be enabled by Hamas shifting their military sites to the various bits of farmland that exist in Gaza and wearing uniforms that clearly mark them as different from civilians – all those traditional, antiquated rules. But we all know that’s even less likely to happen given the utility to them of what they’re doing now.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    … and training.

    Did you miss that I added that, tom?

    Obviously it wouldn’t be any old training, and especially not training from those useless russkies, that would be inviting disaster for sure. It would be American training, from the best USA military academies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    You’re asking Hamas to come out and fight fair, tom? Not likely to happen. Nor is it likely that Israel will hold its own war criminals to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Training would just ensure they didnt miss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    You’re asking Hamas to come out and fight fair, tom? Not likely to happen.

    Indeed. Not as long as they know that Hamas’s cause will be championed by lefties everywhere. That is, as long as they are kept satisfied and well-fed on a diet of “Look! Israel is evil”.

    Hamas ~ Look! Israel shot the mentally handicapped child we wrapped in dynamite and pushed towards their troops! How evil!

    Gullible western lefties ~ *rabble rabble rabble* Yes how evil! *rabble rabble rabble* MOAAR!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Kimble, get a grip, mate. You’re becoming hysterical!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    You are confusing criticism of Israel with support for Hamas, Kimble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    You are confusing criticism of Israel with support for Hamas, Kimble.

    No, I am identifying support for Hamas as support for Hamas.

    When all you do is complain about Israel’s treatment of their enemies, and never about Hamas’s treatment of their enemies (or their own people), then you are supporting Hamas.

    This is even more true when you excuse the atrocities committed by Hamas by claiming that anything they do is justified.

    Milt says that Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians is just.
    Milt says that Hamas’s use of their own people as human shields is just.

    Let that sink in.

    That’s what justified means.

    Do you agree with Milt that targeting civilians and using people as human shields is just?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    No, I don’t agree with that. But I don’t give Israel a pass for its crimes because some others’ crimes are worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Do you agree with Milt that targeting civilians and using people as human shields is just?

    Some do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    But I don’t give Israel a pass for its crimes because some others’ crimes are worse.

    Except, saying “Hamas is shit” is not the same as giving Israel a pass.

    Look at all these threads. They follow the same pattern.

    DPF will point out how barbaric and awful Hamas is, the fastest typing lefty will say, “yeah, but Israel is just as bad”, and then the thread becomes about how Hamas deliberately targets civilians (which Milt says is fine) while Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties, but doesnt stop their operations entirely because of them (which Milt says is way worse than what Hamas does because of international law and jews and stuff).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties’
    It’s not doing a very good job, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Some do.

    Obviously. But do you?

    That ex-soldier (I am assuming) said they used a person that the guy they were after probably wouldn’t want to kill. More importantly, they are using a person that they themselves don’t care about. They wouldn’t use their own neighbor, or their own civilians.

    Hamas does the same thing.

    That says a lot about Hamas and the non-combatants in Gaza, doesn’t it.

    It says that Hamas thinks Israel cares the non-combatants in Gaza.
    It also says that Hamas does not.

    Maybe you should read the OP again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    It’s not doing a very good job, is it?

    Nope. Of course they’d do better if their military targets weren’t mixed in with civilians.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Hamas does the same thing.

    So you’ve got a magical balance fairy too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    It’s not doing a very good job, is it?

    And here we go again. Is that all you have? Perhaps you should read the OP again as well.

    If Hamas had the firepower of the IDF, not a single non-combatant would be left alive in Israel.

    Best you consider Israels relative restraint in the light of that undeniable fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    So you’ve got a magical balance fairy too.

    It was a statement of fact, not a justification or argument.

    If you stopped reading there, then you missed the entire point. Go read the comment again so you can formulate a more intelligent response.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘If Hamas had the firepower of the IDF, not a single non-combatant would be left alive in Israel’
    Luckily it doesn’t and has no hope of ever attaining such firepower, so we don’t need to include that thought in our consideration of this conflict, do we? We are left with examining what is actually happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Of course reciprocity could also be enabled by Hamas shifting their military sites to the various bits of farmland that exist in Gaza and wearing uniforms that clearly mark them as different from civilians – all those traditional, antiquated rules.

    Which they won’t do for the same reason that no partisan anywhere, anywhen fights that way. And international law gives regular forces a lot of leeway when it comes to fighting partisans, for that reason. That leeway doesn’t of course extend to “there are partisans somewhere in this neighbourhood, so flatten it.”

    Milt says that Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians is just.
    Milt says that Hamas’s use of their own people as human shields is just.

    I’m tossing up between ascribing the above to idiocy or malice, but can’t decide. It’s definitely one or the other, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. RightNow (7,012 comments) says:

    Jeez Milt, why don’t you go and bomb a synagogue and get it out of your system. You and your other Jew hating buddies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Well, that’s a bit uncalled for. Want to reconsider that, RN?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Luckily it doesn’t and has no hope of ever attaining such firepower, so we don’t need to include that thought in our consideration of this conflict, do we?

    Except that you do need to include the thought in your consideration when you declare that Israel is not doing a very good job of avoiding civilian casualties.

    If you hold the opinion that a single civilian death is too many you are arguing that Israel should not attack Hamas. Because doing so will always risk at least one civilian casualty given Hamas’s tactics of trapping children in their weapons caches.

    Is that your position? If so, please explicitly state that you think Israel should not attack Hamas if it risks a single civilian life.

    If not, then you appreciate that the number of non-combatant casualties determines the severity of the failure. Israel could be said to be doing a “good job” (to use your term) of avoiding civilian casualties if civilian casualties were below a certain number.

    The question then becomes, what is that number? The minimum is obviously 2, as one has been eliminated already. And the maximum is the number that would die if Israel behaved exactly like Hamas minus 1.

    The specific number is different for each person. But it is fairly obvious that you haven’t given any consideration to what it is, except that it must be lower than whatever is currently being observed.

    These thoughts are betrayed by your refusal to accept that the number could possibly be affected by the actions of Hamas (wrapping their strike capability in a non-combatant shield.

    You have presupposed your conclusion. Israel is bad. The number is whatever value makes Israel bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    As it stands, legitimate justifications for attacks mean the attacks are justified.

    Once that’s sorted, Hamas can be dealt with appropriately – until it’s sorted, they’re justified in firing rockets all day every day.

    It is just that your own words can so quickly come back to damn you, Milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I don’t think Israel should attack Hamas, but not for the reason you might imagine. Israel’s assault on Gaza will be ineffective and counter-productive. It will only strengthen the position of Hamas politically and tarnishes Israel’s image with the senseless casualties. Not to mention losing vastly more Israeli lives in combat than were ever threatened by Hamas’s rocket fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    All together now – ‘hip hip’ “hooray”!.
    //

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    It will only strengthen the position of Hamas politically and tarnishes Israel’s image with the senseless casualties.

    Due to the propaganda eagerly consumed by lefty anti-Israel fanatics like Milt (and cha).

    The reality is that there is no “political” solution for Israel. Their enemies will never adhere to a political solution.

    Not to mention losing vastly more Israeli lives in combat than were ever threatened by Hamas’s rocket fire.

    Different lives. That matters.

    The death of a soldier is not unexpected or tragic (despite the contrived keening that contemporary news services have engaged in since the Afghanistan). The death of a non-combatant is very much different.

    And you seem to be assuming that absent a response from Israel, the number of casualties would remain static. Why?

    When Hamas has made their intentions very clear, how is it possible to still think that they wouldn’t increase their efforts with success after success?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    cha, are you dense?

    Have you actually read a single comment here?

    Or are you just spamming any thread about the middle east with anti-Israel propaganda?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. RightNow (7,012 comments) says:

    “All together now – ‘hip hip’ “hooray”!.”

    I don’t his acting performance merits applause. Perhaps he’ll do better in the next propaganda video.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘When Hamas has made their intentions very clear, how is it possible to still think that they wouldn’t increase their efforts with success after success?’
    What successes have they had in their attacks? Other than to provoke the disproportionate Israeli response that was probably their aim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. cha (4,081 comments) says:

    Before I go back to cutting fucking windbreaks – both groups are human with families and loved ones, both have a right to the freedom, self-determination, dignity, security, health and education that the 21st century offers and both could and should be prospering.

    But no, they fight so fuck em all, fuck Hamas, fuck Likud and fuck their backers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Jeez Milt, why don’t you go and bomb a synagogue and get it out of your system. You and your other Jew hating buddies.

    It’s kind of telling that you can’t think about this in any terms other than really ugly racist ones.

    It is just that your own words can so quickly come back to damn you, Milt.

    Well, maybe. Do you have any in which I say “Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians is just?” I can’t imagine saying that, if for no other reason than that Hamas’ rocket attacks are completely untargeted and are a danger to civilians mainly through that lack of targeting. I expect Hamas would cheerfully target civilians if they had the means, but they don’t, and it wouldn’t be just. Right now the body count on the Israeli side seems to consist of soldiers, which certainly is just.

    Likewise with “Hamas’s use of their own people as human shields is just.” Can’t imagine saying that either – for one thing, it’s a propaganda accusation by the Israelis, not a known fact, and for another, it wouldn’t be just.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    That leeway doesn’t of course extend to “there are partisans somewhere in this neighbourhood, so flatten it.”

    True, which is why they’re sending in soldiers on the ground rather than sending in their air force to carpet bomb the place. I note that given your opinion on Hamas’s right to attack Israel, this withholding of military power gains the Israelis nothing in your regard, which leads to …

    … and tarnishes Israel’s image …

    Following Operation Cast Lead and dozens of others like it over the years we’re way beyond that point. Israel’s image can never be redeemed unless they do something truly suicidal – like trying to hide behind their 1967 borders.

    The thing is that the Israelis themselves finally seem to get that: it’s not just a matter of dumping on a Sharron or Likhud in general anymore. They appear to have concluded that they just have to get on with it.

    The cries of War Criminal, Baby Killer, Mass Murderer, Racist, Your Just Like Them, etc, – they’re just not cutting it anymore. The Israelis no longer care.

    Meanwhile in the West there’s not even a shred of belief remaining that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of the ME problems. It’s one of the reasons the latest “peace process” effort by Obama and Kerry dwindled away to nothing. After a couple of decades of Islamic atrocities around the world, often against other Muslims within the ME as they tear their own societies apart so that Sharia Law can be imposed, but increasingly in places like Europe, it would seem that large numbers of Westerners don’t care either.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I thought this was a useful, basic overview, that reaffirms my view that no realistic peace will ever be found.
    http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-questions-about-the-israel-palestine-conflict-you-were-too

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Milt, here are two. You might recognise them as they were positioned directly above the text you quoted:

    As it stands, legitimate justifications for attacks mean the attacks are justified.

    Once that’s sorted, Hamas can be dealt with appropriately – until it’s sorted, they’re justified in firing rockets all day every day.

    Unless you are trying to tell us that Hamas is firing rockets simultaneously HOPING not to accidentally hit any non-combatants, because that is the LAST thing they would want to do, and HOPING it might hit a military target.

    You are saying the actions of a mad man blindly shooting into a daycare centre would be justified for whatever grievance he had because he doesn’t KNOW he is going to hit a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Do you have any in which I say “Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians is just?” I can’t imagine saying that, if for no other reason than that Hamas’ rocket attacks are completely untargeted and are a danger to civilians mainly through that lack of targeting.

    That’s very cute. In fact I’ve seen that argument before:

    “All the people living around that Hattori factory where they make shell fuses. That’s the way they disperse their industry: little kids helping out at home, working all day, little bits of kids.”

    Good old Curtis eh? Of course when I’ve seen those debates, people in them – usually left-wingers – were claiming that because civilians naturally became targeted by the indiscriminate use of the weapons it was – a war crime.

    It’s also an inverse of the oft-heard ME argument that because the Jews use smart weapons, when they do hit civilians it’s because they want to, which is, of course – a war crime.

    You don’t get to fire unguided weapons into civilian areas and then claim that that does not count as targeting civilians. And since you’ve informed us that Hamas has no other means of fighting we can link that with the following statements …

    If foreigners have invaded your country and are now busy colonising it, killing them is within your rights until they cease and desist.

    Hamas’ motives are irrelevant as long as there’s an excellent reason and justification for them to be killing Israelis (ie, Israel’s occupation and settlement of their country).

    To labour the point (because it apparently needs labouring), Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory justifies the aggression of Hamas

    … and conclude that, yeah, you actually are saying Hamas’s targeting of civilians is just – but in a really cool, nuanced way that enables plausible deniability. Well done sir!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Their attacks certainly involve a reckless disregard for the possibility of civilian casualties. If they eventually build up to actually being able to target civilians and actually doing it (like, say, carrying out air strikes on a hospital or heavy artillery bombardment of a residential area), I’ll be sure to denounce it. Even then, the onus is on the occupying power to cease its occupation – if your problem is that these guys are trying to kill you because you’re occupying and colonising their country, the solution to your problem is in your own hands.

    It’s kind of funny that we have here a couple of commenters hell-bent on defending a force that genuinely is targeting civilians, with heavy weapons to boot, in a conflict that so far seems to involve mostly dead soldiers on one side and mostly dead civilians on the other, yet find it shameful for someone to fail to share their outrage that Hamas’ attacks on said occupying power put civilians at some risk. Actually, it’s not funny, it’s kind of gross.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    True, which is why they’re sending in soldiers on the ground rather than sending in their air force to carpet bomb the place. I note that given your opinion on Hamas’s right to attack Israel, this withholding of military power gains the Israelis nothing in your regard…

    Indeed not. I’m afraid that “not as bad as the Nazis or the Red Army” isn’t the kind of praise that gains a military anything in my regard. You and Kimble apparently rate this as reflecting some kind of nobility on the IDF and its political masters, but it really, really doesn’t. Also, if you’ve seen those self-propelled howitzers the Israelis are using, the shells are enormous – the difference between a barrage of those things and carpet bombing isn’t obvious to the people on the receiving end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, its all about trying to find out the truth and has nothing to do wit the alleged “nobility of the IDF” . Israel as a genuine democracy one has the opportunity to see both sides of conflict denied by Israel’s neighbours and militant Islamic Jihadism. Having had the opportunity to see both sides then one is in a better position to draw certain conclusions.

    One thing is for sure there is absolutely no evidence that the IDF deliberately and maliciously targeted that hospital. But it has naturally enormous propaganda value for Hamas to milk the teat to the max to play on Western Liberal and left Guilt.

    Was it somewhere where it was said that in War the first casualty is Truth ( unless you have naturally the ability to see and evaluate both sides of the conflict without fear or favour ).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    stephieboy (2,123 comments) says:
    July 22nd, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    One thing is for sure there is absolutely no evidence that the IDF deliberately and maliciously targeted that hospital.

    They shelled the hospital repeatedly. Last I heard the latest IDF PR blurb was Hamas was to blame as they were hiding rockets in the hospital – on the fifth floor in an operating room apparently.

    Face it stephieboy, you are making excuses for mass-murdering maniacs who have an utter contempt for human life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Yoza there is lots of evidence that Hamas has been caught hiding rockets and other weapons in public building including hospitals.

    Even your UN mates admit their schools have been used to store explosives by Hamas.

    If they have been caught using schools by the hell do you think using a hospital is so unthinkable?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    When are you all going to admit Hamas is the sole cause of all these peoples problems.

    One terror tunnel that has been discovered is estimated to have used $10 million of concrete and is just one of dozens. Yet the local population lives on small wages.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    Yoza , again typically full of unreason and hysteria of the Western far left with the simply silly and trite polemic ..”mass-murdering maniacs who have an utter contempt for human life”

    It might have propaganda value of the Joseph Goebbels variety but not evidential , factual nor honest.!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    One thing is for sure there is absolutely no evidence that the IDF deliberately and maliciously targeted that hospital. But it has naturally enormous propaganda value for Hamas to milk the teat to the max to play on Western Liberal and left Guilt.

    As Yoza points out, they admit to targeting the hospital. And how much ‘milking of the propaganda teat’ is required to make an army that bombards hospitals look bad?

    When are you all going to admit Hamas is the sole cause of all these peoples problems.

    Because having a colonial power occupying and settling their country while penning them into a large open-air prison couldn’t possibly be causing them any problems, right? Amiright?

    One terror tunnel that has been discovered…

    “Terror tunnel?” Speaking of “propaganda of the Joseph Goebells variety…” Also – do the guys coming up with this propaganda have some Freudian issues going on? “Terror tunnel” – I ask you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. stephieboy (3,406 comments) says:

    Pscho Milt ,one of my main points is that there is no evidence the IDF deliberately and maliciously targeting that hospital.

    As I also said your kind of unreasoned bombastic polemic is no substitute for focussing on the facts

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Milt

    Terror tunnels is what they have been labelled because they aren’t designed to smuggling but for murder. Hamas itself has stated they are designed to surprise an Israeli civilian area and create a massacre.

    One group of militants was found in one with handcuffs and syringes with the goal of kidnapping soldiers and taking them back across the border.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    (like, say, carrying out air strikes on a hospital or heavy artillery bombardment of a residential area),

    … or targeting a nuclear reactor, as Hamas so proudly boasted a few days ago. Thankfully Iron Dome got in the way as the Hamas rockets headed towards Dimona. So now they’re also guilty of nuclear terrorism, as one commentator noted:

    an attack against a nuclear reactor is straightforwardly defined as nuclear terrorism by the UN’s 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This isn’t a close, debatable interpretation. It’s part of the black-letter definition at the very top of the convention

    Since you’re gung ho for International Law I expect you’ll fully support the IDF in going after these nuclear terrorists, since no one else is apparently willing to.

    … and mostly dead civilians on the other,

    Which, again as has been pointed out many many times to you, is even more the responsibility of the people who deliberately put those civilians in the firing line. A war crime which you and many like you in the West, have actually supported by doing exactly what Hamas wanted – buying into their Orwellian propaganda that it’s the Israelis fault.

    In addition, given that Hamas does not wear identifying uniforms that would denote a soldier from a civilian, and given their efforts to classify every dead Gazan as a civilian, you actually have no idea how accurate or inaccurate the Israelis have been. Again, for all your accusations of swallowing propaganda, you are effortlessly accept Hamas propaganda without any serious questions or doubts. For you, as for Hamas, it’s all grist to the mill.

    I’m afraid that “not as bad as the Nazis or the Red Army” isn’t the kind of praise that gains a military anything in my regard. You and Kimble apparently rate this as reflecting some kind of nobility on the IDF and its political masters, but it really, really doesn’t.

    Actually it really, really does, otherwise we’d hold Western Allied troops in the same low esteem as the Nazis and the Red Army – though I know there are those who do. Your inability or refusal to see that such things do mark the difference at least between the Israelis and Hamas is a large part of your moral blindness.

    Actually, it’s not funny, it’s kind of gross.

    Yawn. We get it, supporters of Israel bad, evil, yada, yada, yada. But I don’t think that strained tone of lofty disapproval, the faint Catholic whiff of guilt inducement, works anymore.

    It does not work in the face of the fact that one side is committing a war crime by deliberately placing military hardware right beside civilians, committing another war crime by deliberately having their soldiers dress like civilians, committing a third war crime by firing recklessly at civilians to get the whole thing started in the first place, and then committing the war crime of nuclear terrorism on top of that (surely the craziest of all when one considers the numbers of Muslims who could die in the fallout across surrounding countries) – and yet it’s the other side you claim has to stop the shooting.

    I’ve already said that that’s nuts, but actually it’s worse. It’s the same cold-blooded thinking that Hamas apply in the service of killing Jews. That you use it to supposedly uphold International Law does not shine a better light upon it. Gross is inadequate to describe that approach. Grotesque perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    …and then committing the war crime of nuclear terrorism on top of that (surely the craziest of all when one considers the numbers of Muslims who could die in the fallout across surrounding countries)…

    Wow! That’s pretty crazy, even by your standards Tomithy. Dimona is 70km from Gaza, you are completely insane if you expect anyone to believe the rockets coming out of Gaza are accurate enough to pinpoint a nuclear reactor from that distance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    ‘committing another war crime by deliberately having their soldiers dress like civilians’
    I’m not sure that is actually a war crime, otherwise all partisan movements would be defined as war criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. tom hunter (5,091 comments) says:

    Well I’m sure in your eyes it’s just another Jewish propaganda organ, but The Jerusalem Post reported that:

    Hamas claimed responsibility for the rockets, stating that it had been attempting to hit the nuclear reactor.

    Militants from Hamas’s Qassam Brigades said they had launched long-range M-75 rockets towards Dimona.

    Hamas are lying? The Jews are lying (seems risky)?

    And this:

    Hamas said it also fired a rocket at the major northern city of Haifa, 140 km (88 miles) away, and though this was not confirmed, Israel said a rocket had landed in Hadera, 100 km (60 miles) from Gaza, further than had previously been reached.

    Dimona is well within range, accuracy will improve with practice and development, and in any case the crime lies in the attempt, not the lack of success. And yes, it is insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    you are completely insane if you expect anyone to believe the rockets coming out of Gaza are accurate enough to pinpoint a nuclear reactor from that distance.

    To paraphrase, “Sure they WANT to murder millions of people. But they probably can’t so they shouldn’t be damned for trying. Come on! Yawn! Wake me up when they actually hit the thing!”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote