| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it pretty twisted thinking that Israel should let its citizens be killed for your vague belief of "doing good."
Its some pretty twisted thinking that puts 3 of your citizens above a thousand of theirs.
Palestinians are people too. How much more specific would you like me to get?
And killing them is NOT going to result in less Israeli deaths unless you kill all of them. You now have the family's of 1,000 people who are seriously pissed off at israel and will be more than willing to fire the rockets next time around.
Israels actions don't achieve any moral or practical end in the long run. It makes the isrealis feel better because they're scared by the rockets, but killing thousands of people for something as ephemeral as feelings is pretty atrocious
Not the same one, but I liked this one that combines some of my interests:
Crime & Punishment in the Gaza Strip
Huh. When I watched it over my comrade's house it started with one of those Vice News montages and it was all Hamas cops busting dudes for pills and hash. But that doesn't appear to be on this one. Bummer.
He plays "Dryden" in Lawrence of Arabia who is an amalgam of a bunch of Britishiznoid imperialist-types, including, according to wikipedia, Colonel Sykes.
Mostly, though, he just retreads the amoral Captain Renault cynicism.
|
He plays "Dryden" in Lawrence of Arabia who is an amalgam of a bunch of Britishiznoid imperialist-types, including, according to wikipedia, Colonel Sykes.
Mostly, though, he just retreads the amoral Captain Renault cynicism.
Wow! Capitain Renault got old. Probably from having to deal with "a savage people... A silly people!"
|
Only now ran across this - reporters start relating more true accounts of events in Gaza after leaving it and getting beyond the threatening reach of Hamas..
I know the source is kinda iffy, but it's the best non Hebrew source I found (which, considering the relevancy of the news, is perhaps an indicator of a certain disposition of world media in general about the conflict). I promise y'all that the news appeared in respectable newspapers in Israel, including the strongly leftist one I read, Ha'aretz.
Lord Snow - I don't doubt there is some truth to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the source is kinda iffy, but it's the best non Hebrew source I found (which, considering the relevancy of the news, is perhaps an indicator of a certain disposition of world media in general about the conflict).
Google results for "Gabriele Barbati Shati": 342,000 hits
Google results for "Jon Donnison Micky Rosenfeld:" 5,210 hits
It could be an indication of a certain disposition of world media; I am wagering it is more of an indication of a certain disposition of world media not to write articles based on lone tweets.
Wow! Capitain Renault got old. Probably from having to deal with "a savage people... A silly people!"He plays "Dryden" in Lawrence of Arabia who is an amalgam of a bunch of Britishiznoid imperialist-types, including, according to wikipedia, Colonel Sykes.
Mostly, though, he just retreads the amoral Captain Renault cynicism.
Yeah, I hear those Britishiznoids can be a rough bunch.
|
|
I know the source is kinda iffy, but it's the best non Hebrew source I found (which, considering the relevancy of the news, is perhaps an indicator of a certain disposition of world media in general about the conflict).Google results for "Gabriele Barbati Shati": 342,000 hits
Google results for "Jon Donnison Micky Rosenfeld:" 5,210 hits
It could be an indication of a certain disposition of world media; I am wagering it is more of an indication of a certain disposition of world media not to write articles based on lone tweets.
I was not referring only to the Gabriele Barbati tweet, but the whole slew of new reports that started coming out once the news reporters left Gaza and no longer feared a retaliation from Hamas.
|
|
And, if it's counting google hits that you make you business of, let's try some of it:
1) Hits for "Israel was Crimes" - 41.7 million. Hits for "Hamas war crimes" - 17.9 million.
2) Hits for "Hamas terrorism" - 27 million. for "Israel terrorism" - of which many top results are pages about Jewish terrorists and declarations that Israel is a terrorist state - 44.5 million.
3) Hits for "Hamas attacks" - 30.5 million. For "Israel attacks" - 117 million.
4) Hits for "Hamas lies" - 9 million. Hits for "Israel lies" - 117 million.
5) Hits for "Israeli strike kills 4 teenagers" - 34 million. For "three Israelis murdered" - 25 million.
It goes on and on. Of course this is not a very good way to measure anything, really. The phrase that most people used might not have occurred to me, and number of hits is maybe not the best indicative of the popularity of an opinion.
But, the consistency of these results is somewhat overwhelming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It goes on and on. Of course this is not a very good way to measure anything, really. The phrase that most people used might not have occurred to me, and number of hits is maybe not the best indicative of the popularity of an opinion.
But, the consistency of these results is somewhat overwhelming.
Yes, that's why I tried to narrow it down to a similar thing--one tweet by a reporter and how it was carried worldwide--rather than something all-encompassing like "Israeli terrorism."
Scanning through the Barbati thing, though, I noticed that the article you posted and, indeed, many of the conservative American websites that picked up the story, claim that it was a Hamas rocket that misfired, but when I click through to the [EDIT: 28 July*] Ha'aretz story, it has the IDF claiming that Islamic Jihad fired the rocket. Any changes on the official IDF word, or is this just more "all Palestinians are the same"?
*When I first clicked on it, all I got was the headline and the first paragraph. I somehow got around the paywall and now I can see the whole thing: 30 Palestinians dead as holiday quiet shattered
EDIT #2: Paywall caught up with me again; got to read three paragraphs before computer freezed. :(
|
|
Anklebiter, it appears the misfire was indeed of the Islamic Jihad and not of Hamas.
As for the google hits - yes, I see what you did with the tweets, I still think that neither they nor any of the stats I found mean more than the fact that news of reporters from around the world showing a consistent image - that of having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war - was mostly reported by conservative Americans. I would think such news would be important for anyone who cares about the conflict, wouldn't it?
As for the google hits - yes, I see what you did with the tweets, I still think that neither they nor any of the stats I found mean more than the fact that news of reporters from around the world showing a consistent image - that of having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war - was mostly reported by conservative Americans. I would think such news would be important for anyone who cares about the conflict, wouldn't it?
The conservative American websites all popped up after a specific search for an Italian journalist and a specific refugee camp, a story that doesn't appear, as near as I can tell anyway, to have been elaborated upon yet by the journalist mentioned.
It would take a longer search to establish that only conservative American websites have reported on "having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war." I imagine that Citizen Workshop will be up for the task.
|
|
As for the google hits - yes, I see what you did with the tweets, I still think that neither they nor any of the stats I found mean more than the fact that news of reporters from around the world showing a consistent image - that of having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war - was mostly reported by conservative Americans. I would think such news would be important for anyone who cares about the conflict, wouldn't it?The conservative American websites all popped up after a specific search for an Italian journalist and a specific refugee camp, a story that doesn't appear, as near as I can tell anyway, to have been elaborated upon yet by the journalist mentioned.
It would take a longer search to establish that only conservative American websites have reported on "having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war." I imagine that Citizen Workshop will be up for the task.
Note that I didn't say "only", just "mostly". The fact that it's hard to find a respectable international source citing the fact does mean something. In Israel it was cited by the most respectable sources, and self declared leftist sources as well, so I feel confidant to put stock in the news. However, internationally there does not seem to be much interest - unlike, for example, that time that Israel killed those four children on the beach. Why the difference?
|
|
Note that I didn't say "only", just "mostly". The fact that it's hard to find a respectable international source citing the fact does mean something. In Israel it was cited by the most respectable sources, and self declared leftist sources as well, so I feel confidant to put stock in the news. However, internationally there does not seem to be much interest - unlike, for example, that time that Israel killed those four children on the beach. Why the difference?As for the google hits - yes, I see what you did with the tweets, I still think that neither they nor any of the stats I found mean more than the fact that news of reporters from around the world showing a consistent image - that of having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war - was mostly reported by conservative Americans. I would think such news would be important for anyone who cares about the conflict, wouldn't it?The conservative American websites all popped up after a specific search for an Italian journalist and a specific refugee camp, a story that doesn't appear, as near as I can tell anyway, to have been elaborated upon yet by the journalist mentioned.
It would take a longer search to establish that only conservative American websites have reported on "having to conceal some of the truth while in Gaza because of fearing Hamas, and that Hamas actually is responsible for a lot of the things it was blamed for by Israel but not by world media during the war." I imagine that Citizen Workshop will be up for the task.
Because it doesn't fit the narrative?
Because they don't want to look like idiots by retracting?Because they're not sure of the soucre?
Because Hamas kills people is as much news as dog bites man, but we hold Israel to a higher standard as it claims to have one?
Antisemitism?
And a link to a der Spiegal articvle by an Israeli leftist Link. Your thoughts, Lord Snow? is that an accurateish assessment of Israel today?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trawling through the right-wing sites, I see the same stories over and over: Gabriele Barbati, the Indian television reporter, the Wall Street Journal deleted pictures of the Hamas military command set up under a hospital, the New York Times says they don't have any pictures of rockets being shot off. Any more to add to the slew?
Most of them also include something like:
"Every single report on TV from Gaza should have this disclaimer:
'Our reporters have been threatened, implicitly and perhaps explicitly, by Hamas to only report one side of the story. Viewers must not trust anything they are saying.'"
It made me wonder how many of the Israeli media sources included disclaimers about court-ordered gags during Operation Brother's Keeper.
Media Bias and Israel:
One from the left: American media's new pro-Israel bias: the same party line at the wrong time
And one from the right: Pictures Don’t Justify Anti-Israel Media Bias
Poor MSNBC, can't catch a break.
|
|
1)Because Hamas kills people is as much news as dog bites man,
2)but we hold Israel to a higher standard as it claims to have one?
1) It was the Islamic Jihad who killed those kids, not Hamas.
2) Maybe Israel should raise it standards even higher... say, up to NATO standards? That sounds fair.
Speaking of which, it will come as no surprise to anybody that I am against Obama's bombing of ISIS.
Iraq in Flames--Legacy of American Occupation
U.S. Imperialism--World's Biggest Terrorists!
I'm sure y'all will be shocked to learn that the not-bad-guys-just-resistence-fighters-we-hand-out-candy-and-teddy-bears-at- orphanages-on-the-weekends people started trying to kill civilians again.
Translation: "It's your fault we keep trying to kill your people. This could all be resolved if you'd just open the borders so that we can import more weapons to kill you guys faster."
|
|
1)Because Hamas kills people is as much news as dog bites man,
2)but we hold Israel to a higher standard as it claims to have one?1) It was the Islamic Jihad who killed those kids, not Hamas.
2) Maybe Israel should raise it standards even higher... say, up to NATO standards? That sounds fair.
In a 13 years; 18 - 20 thousand civilian deaths.
In a month of Israeli war, 1 thousand civilian deaths. And we haven't even got to the point where the civilian casualties will end.
What are you attempting to apply about America again?
Wanna count how many Palestinian citizens were killed by Israel over the last 13 years of violent occupation? much, much less than 20 thousand, I assure you. I'm pretty sure that's a more accurate comparison, seeing as how the war in Afghanistan is not always as full throttle as the past month was in Israel. Also, do the dead Afghans care if it took the Americans 13 years to kill them or a month? every bit as dead.
Also, compare to my second link - 2000 civilian casualties in a three month's war in Serbia.
I have no idea what Israeli soldiers have sworn.
"I hereby swear and commit to keep loyal to the state of Israel and it's laws and elected authorities, to accept without hesitance or reservation the burden of protecting Israel, to obey every command or instruction given by authorized commanders, and to devote all my strength and even my life to defend the motherland and it's freedom."
Bunch of nonsense, really. I doubt you'll find any soldier who remembers what exactly they said during their oath. It would have certainly meant more had service not been compulsory, I think.
Notice the "Islamic Jihad" bit there? That's one of those nastier than Hamas groups we keep talking about. I don't think anyone here has defended Islamic Jihad or any of the other more extreme factions.
Again, the basic argument is that if Israel wants peace, they'll get it faster by encouraging the more moderate Palestinians, even Hamas when it shows itself willing to deal, than by trying to stomp out all the extreme ones.
If Gazans want peace, they'll kick Hamas out of power and turn towards more moderate Palestinians.
Notice the "Islamic Jihad" bit there? That's one of those nastier than Hamas groups we keep talking about. I don't think anyone here has defended Islamic Jihad or any of the other more extreme factions.
Again, the basic argument is that if Israel wants peace, they'll get it faster by encouraging the more moderate Palestinians, even Hamas when it shows itself willing to deal, than by trying to stomp out all the extreme ones.
If Gazans want peace, they'll kick Hamas out of power and turn towards more moderate Palestinians.
if they keep killing palastinians at this rate, they won't have to worry about that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doug,
Why? What benefit does that give them? Has having more moderate people in charge of the West Bank got anything out of Israel? Are there still settlements? Are they still expanding and taking up more land? Are thery still prevented from crossing the border? Are their property still destroyed or confiscated? are they still arrested and imporisoned without trial by the Israeli army? Do they have control of their borders?
What exactly has being moderate gained the people of the West Bank?
|
Notice the "Islamic Jihad" bit there? That's one of those nastier than Hamas groups we keep talking about. I don't think anyone here has defended Islamic Jihad or any of the other more extreme factions.
Again, the basic argument is that if Israel wants peace, they'll get it faster by encouraging the more moderate Palestinians, even Hamas when it shows itself willing to deal, than by trying to stomp out all the extreme ones.
If Gazans want peace, they'll kick Hamas out of power and turn towards more moderate Palestinians.
Yeah, the West Bank is currently a model state for the Palestinians. Nothing problematic there.
Like Islamic Jihad and the Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades, right?
Hamas is the moderate faction. Deal with them or don't. You'll only get worse. Nice peaceful moderates don't tend to win civil wars.
Mind you, I said deal with them, not trust them or surrender to them. Encourage them when they make overtures towards peace, rather than try to provoke more conflict.
In fact, the proposed unity government was doing basically what you want. Not removing Hamas entirely, but subordinating them to the more moderate Fatah. Israel's reaction appears designed to sink the deal.
Hamas' reason for existing is to destroy Israel. It's in their charter. They are not moderate. They aren't as radical as Islamic Jihad, but that doesn't make them moderate.
West Bank and Fatah?
Pfft.
From what I can tell, the Negev Bedouin have been loyal Israeli citizens since the early sixites or so and they still get shat upon.
And while I'm at it, some leftie liberal propaganda: The Hateful Likud Charter Calls for Destruction of Any Palestinian State
Personally, I'm all for the destruction of the State of Israel--along with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Lebanese Republic--and the formation of a Socialist Federation of the Middle East.
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)Because Hamas kills people is as much news as dog bites man,
2)but we hold Israel to a higher standard as it claims to have one?1) It was the Islamic Jihad who killed those kids, not Hamas.
2) Maybe Israel should raise it standards even higher... say, up to NATO standards?
Right, you kill 10,000 OF THEM to save 100,000 OF THEM. That math and motive both work out.
Its not Israels aim we have a problem with, its their motive and the overkill. They're shooting at you because you're violently enforcing apartheid on them. You're shooting at them to maintain that apartheid. You're killing a thousand of them because of THREE deaths.
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
I wonder what I missed.
Anyway, More Uri.
Uri Avnery on Gaza Crisis, His Time in a Zionist "Terrorist" Group & Becoming a Peace Activist
He looks pretty good for 90.
They're what you've got to work with. And I still say, focus on their actions, not their charter. Encourage them when they take steps towards moderation, which they have done again and again, only to be slapped down every time. Are they nice people? Of course not. They're anti-Semitic terrorists. But they've shown they're rational enough to deal with.
If it was possible to destroy Hamas without a complete slaughter of the Palestinian population, I'd be for it. But it's not. So they're there and they have to be dealt with. Cutting the grass every few years seems to be Israel's current strategy, but that's inhumane and it isn't working either. Not if the goal is peace.
As for the Charter, as Comrade Anklebiter linked, the Likud charter seems to deny any possibility of a real solution. It's not as vile as Hamas's, but if we're just going by charter's there's no point in even negotiating with a Likud government about a 2 state solution, is there?
Okay, I'll look at their actions.
The jihadis (not Hamas) decided to start launching rockets again today, once again trying to kill civilians. What's Hamas' action (or reaction)? I don't recall hearing their spokespeople condemn those actions. Not even a token "we would prefer that not happen." Nothing. Strange actions for a group that's interested in peace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're what you've got to work with. And I still say, focus on their actions, not their charter. Encourage them when they take steps towards moderation, which they have done again and again, only to be slapped down every time. Are they nice people? Of course not. They're anti-Semitic terrorists. But they've shown they're rational enough to deal with.
If it was possible to destroy Hamas without a complete slaughter of the Palestinian population, I'd be for it. But it's not. So they're there and they have to be dealt with. Cutting the grass every few years seems to be Israel's current strategy, but that's inhumane and it isn't working either. Not if the goal is peace.
As for the Charter, as Comrade Anklebiter linked, the Likud charter seems to deny any possibility of a real solution. It's not as vile as Hamas's, but if we're just going by charter's there's no point in even negotiating with a Likud government about a 2 state solution, is there?Okay, I'll look at their actions.
The jihadis (not Hamas) decided to start launching rockets again today, once again trying to kill civilians. What's Hamas' action (or reaction)? I don't recall hearing their spokespeople condemn those actions. Not even a token "we would prefer that not happen." Nothing. Strange actions for a group that's interested in peace.
Of course they aren't going to say that. They are actively being beaten up by the angry kids next door for something their older brother did. If the violence had been proportional there might be a conversation to be had but as things stand, they are locked in a self defense mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really interested in making the argument that Hamas is a group that is interested in peace (nor did Comrade Jeff's post make that claim) but it is interesting to note that, even if Hamas did condemn the actions of Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, that would be words, not actions.
Near as I can tell from this Times of Israel timeline, despite the headline, Hamas's actions have been to refrain from firing rockets (but I could have missed something in the timeline) and to keep their negotiating team in Cairo.
The jihadis (not Hamas) decided to start launching rockets again today, once again trying to kill civilians. What's Hamas' action (or reaction)? I don't recall hearing their spokespeople condemn those actions. Not even a token "we would prefer that not happen." Nothing. Strange actions for a group that's interested in peace.
Never give an order you know is going to be disobeyed.
especially when most of your power is illusory
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serious new providers world wide start doubting accuracy of civilian casualties toll in Gaza.
The parts about this all that astonish me are these:
Spokesman Capt Eytan Buchman told BBC News that "the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation".
Followed by:
"It's important to bear in mind that in Operation Cast Lead [the last Israeli ground offensive in December 2008-January 2009], Hamas and Gaza-based organisations claimed that only 50 combatants were killed, admitting years later the number was between 600-700, a figure nearly identical to the figure claimed by the IDF."
Meaning that it has been proven before that
1) Reporters in Gaza feel threatened by Hamas and do not always reveal the full truth until they get back to their countries
2) Hamas is the one feeding the mortality rates
3) In the past Israeli mortality rates have been what, 10 times more accurate?
And still during all the conflict the only numbers cited by the international media were *still* those coming out of Gaza. I know it's nice to accuse Israel of lying or being manipulative, and like all countries I'm sure it sometimes is, but that Hamas is lying shouldn't catch anyone off guard. Yet, it seems that it does.
By the way, in other cites I encountered even more problematic aspects of the death count - for example, that Hamas was counting people who died from natural causes during the conflict as civilian casualties (not to mention a known case here they executed their own operative because he spied for Egypt, and counted him as a casualty to).
I remember the same argument about statistics and women and children being cited by far lefties in the wake of the overthrow of Qaddafi. Of course, he ended up dead with a knife up his ass while Israel keeps getting its aresenal restocked by the U.S.
New York Times article on the same subject
As for the charges of "indiscriminate": I remember at the beginning of this thread, or at least the beginning of my posting to this thread, making the point that Operation Protective Edge wasn't exactly up to Shock-and-Awe proportions.
And that was before I learned about the Dahiya Doctine, which IIRC, was about using overwhelming force in assymetric warfare. Critics made the argument that it disappeared the distinction between civilian and military targets, but, as near as I can tell (no military thinker, obviously) it would still result in more "military" deaths than "civilian." Skimming through the two articles, it looks like Israel is claiming that "only" half of the Palestinian deaths were of civilians?
Sounds in keeping to the Dahiya Doctrine to me. I'll leave it up to more sophisticated military and/or legal minds whether that constiutes "indiscriminate" or not.
Never give an order you know is going to be disobeyed.especially when most of your power is illusory
You've said this, but then insist that Israel negotiate with Hamas.
Hamas cannot provide any guarantees. If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest? "But democratically elected!" doesn't cut it. A faithful negotiating partner can and will act on promises made. "But good!" doesn't cut it, because civilians will be the expressed targets of those weapons, and Israel would have to repeat its actions again, leading to even more death.
So please explain why Israel should allow the groups that want to destroy it access to the weapons that will allow even more death to occur.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never give an order you know is going to be disobeyed.especially when most of your power is illusory
You've said this, but then insist that Israel negotiate with Hamas.
Hamas cannot provide any guarantees.
What would hamas need to be in a position to guarantee an end to the rocket fire? (or at least to keep it to a dull roar)
They would need a heavily armed police force (because attacking someone with a rocket launcher when you have a stick isn't a good idea)
They would need a loyal, well trained group that would be willing to follow orders, including attacking their own people.
They would need free movement throughout the west bank (and probably a separate office in the gaza strip)
They would need to maintain enough good will in the Palestinian areas so that the locals would work with them rather than hinder them.
Israel (not without some justification) won't let them have the police force, training, or movement necessary to do that. I keep telling you its not possible. I keep telling you WHY its not possible and you keep going back to nike's "Just do it". Reality doesn't work like that.
Look how much trouble we've had training troops to actually fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention that debacle in Georgia.
If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest?
Is that the ONLY factor in a decision? Whats good for Israel? What about people?
"But democratically elected!" doesn't cut it. A faithful negotiating partner can and will act on promises made.
A faithful negotiating parter doesn't stop you from meeting your obligations. Its like saying "I want this package delivered to Toldedo by tommorow" and then stealing the guys car and telling them to walk.
"But good!" doesn't cut it, because civilians will be the expressed targets of those weapons, and Israel would have to repeat its actions again, leading to even more death.
Israel doesn't have to do anything. Nothing is going to pose a serious threat to its existance.
So please explain why Israel should allow the groups that want to destroy it access to the weapons that will allow even more death to occur.
Scroll up. You're also allowing people access to food, housing, construction, and an economy so that they might not WANT to fire rockets at Israel as badly.