|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: Examining the rationale behind Israel's slaughter in Gaza |
 |
|
Blair: Gaza's great betrayer (by Avi Shlaim)
| Quote: |
The savage attack Israel �unleashed against Gaza on 27 December 2008 was both immoral and unjustified. Immoral in the use of force against civilians for political purposes. Unjustified because Israel had a political alternative to the use of force. The home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the �excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead. In June 2008, Egypt had �brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. �Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas �retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the �excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to �observe the ceasefire..
While the war failed in its primary aim of regime change in Gaza, it left �behind a trail of death, devastation, �destruction and indescribable human suffering. Israel lost 13 people, three in so-called friendly fire. The Palestinian death toll was 1,387, including 773 civilians (115 women and 300 children), and more than 5,300 people were injured. The �entire population of 1.5 million was left traumatised. Across the Gaza Strip, 3,530 homes were completely �destroyed, 2,850 severely damaged and 11,000 suffered structural damage.
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, tending to the needs of four million Palestinian �refugees, stated that Gaza had been "bombed back, not to the Stone Age, but to the mud age"; its inhabitants �reduced to building homes from mud after the fierce 22-day offensive.
War crimes were committed and possibly even crimes against humanity, documented in horrific detail in Judge Richard Goldstone's report for the UN human rights council. The report �condemned both Israel and Hamas, but reserved its strongest criticism for Israel, accusing it of deliberately targeting and terrorising civilians in Gaza. The British government did not take part in the vote on the report, sending a signal to the hawks in Israel that they can continue to disregard the laws of war. Gordon Brown's 2007 appointment as a patron of the Jewish National Fund UK presumably played a part in the adoption of this �pusillanimous position.
|
As Shlaim reminds us, the excuse given for the whole affair was that it was to stop Palestinians firing rockets. The part I highlighted in blue (above) shows how this excuse was pretty lame.
According to many commentators, it was done in an attempt to dislodge Hamas. This was a direct attack on democracy, something the West is supposed to cherish fiercely. The Palestinians were allowed to taste democracy, but they voted for the party they wanted, instead of the party Israel and the US wanted.
| Quote: |
The wall of shame, as Egyptians call it, will complete the transformation of Gaza into an open-air prison. It is the cruellest example of the concerted �Israeli-Egyptian-US policy to isolate and prevent Hamas from leading the Palestinian struggle for self-determi�nation. Hamas is habitually dismissed by its enemies as a purely terrorist �organisation. Yet no one can deny that it won a fair and free election in the West Bank as well as Gaza in January 2006. Moreover, once Hamas gained power through the ballot box, its �leaders adopted a more pragmatic stand �towards Israel than that enshrined in its charter, repeatedly expressing its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire. But there was no one to talk to on the Israeli side.
Israel adamantly refused to recognise the Hamas-led government. The US and the European Union �followed, �resorting to economic �sanctions in a vain attempt to turn the people against their elected leaders. This cannot �possibly bring �security or stability �because it is based on the denial of the most �elementary human rights of the people of Gaza and the collective political rights of the �Palestinian people. Through its special relationship with the US and its staunch support for �Israel, the �British government is implicated in this shameful policy.
|
We are forever being reminded that Hamas are terrorists, but so were many of the original founders of Israel. Israeli terrorists (such as Begin) were allowed to make the transition from terrorist to statesman, but our double standard does not allow for Arabs to make the same transistion. Once Hamas were in, they eschewed violent methods, and began doing things the way we supposedly wanted them to do things - through diplomacy and peaceful negotiation. They wanted to negotiate a longterm truce. However they found they had (as the Israelis so often whine) 'no partner for peace.'
I'm sure there are many posters here who will still trip over themselves to try and demonstrate that the horrific bloodbath and war crimes perpetrated on so many defenseless civillians was 'right and proper.' Well, here's a thread for you to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Examining the rationale behind Israel's slaughter in Gaz |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I'm sure there are many posters here who will still trip over themselves to try and demonstrate that the horrific bloodbath and war crimes perpetrated on so many defenseless civillians was 'right and proper.' Well, here's a thread for you to do so. |
Yes, but why yet another thread? Couldn't you put this in one of the other Israel/Gaza threads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Avi Shlaim advanced the notion:
| Quote: |
| once Hamas gained power through the ballot box, its �leaders adopted a more pragmatic stand �towards Israel |
Yes, but they also called for genocide:
So, accept evidence when it flatters our worldview ("Hamas leaders adopted a more pragmatic stance towards Israel"), but reject it (God wants us to commit Judeocide, essentially) when it does not?
Hamas are Jihadist, theocratic lunatics. They represent a tiny minority of Arabs who not only claim to speak on behalf of all Muslims - when nothing could be further from the truth - but actually also seek to cleanse the Muslim World of heretical secularizing forces. But, once again, the Guardian is trying to sell to us that Hamas is a progressive quest for social justice, and not a totally reactionary entity that wants a world where there are no Jews. Two or three decades ago, it was genocidal communists who were misunderstood saints. Now it's genocidal Islamists.
It gets funnier, though.
| Quote: |
| In June 2008, Egypt had �brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. �Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. |
Call me old-fashioned, but I was under the impression that "ceasefire" did not mean "just 3" rocket attacks per day. I would have thought that ceasefire meant zero rocket attacks per day.
Somebody give the Guardian's editors a dictionary.
Avi Shlaim also argued:
| Quote: |
| Yet no one can deny that it won a fair and free election in the West Bank as well as Gaza in January 2006 |
So did Hitler in 1933. So did the Young Turks. So did some Latin American countries democratically elect mass-murdering maniacs. Clearly, there is little, if any, relationship between democratically-electing a government and our obligation to tolerate them. Indeed, the most notorious dictatorship of all time, the Nazis, were democratically-elected.
It's a hopeless, shallow argument.
America and Israel run the whole show. They are, although they could be better, a relatively benign ruler - certainly in contrast to the anti-capitalist, immiserating systems the Left romanticizes. If they want to remove a democratically-elected government because they don't like them, they jolly well will. If only we'd bombed Germany in 1934.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: Re: Examining the rationale behind Israel's slaughter in Gaz |
|
|
Agreed. What's with the ideological sprawl?
| bacasper wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I'm sure there are many posters here who will still trip over themselves to try and demonstrate that the horrific bloodbath and war crimes perpetrated on so many defenseless civillians was 'right and proper.' Well, here's a thread for you to do so. |
Yes, but why yet another thread? Couldn't you put this in one of the other Israel/Gaza threads? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Avi Shlaim advanced the notion:
| Quote: |
| once Hamas gained power through the ballot box, its �leaders adopted a more pragmatic stand �towards Israel |
Yes, but they also called for genocide:
So, accept evidence when it flatters our worldview ("Hamas leaders adopted a more pragmatic stance towards Israel"), but reject it (God wants us to commit Judeocide, essentially) when it does not?
Hamas are Jihadist, theocratic lunatics. They represent a tiny minority of Arabs who not only claim to speak on behalf of all Muslims - when nothing could be further from the truth - but actually also seek to cleanse the Muslim World of heretical secularizing forces. But, once again, the Guardian is trying to sell to us that Hamas is a progressive quest for social justice, and not a totally reactionary entity that wants a world where there are no Jews. Two or three decades ago, it was genocidal communists who were misunderstood saints. Now it's genocidal Islamists.
It gets funnier, though.
| Quote: |
| In June 2008, Egypt had �brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. �Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. |
Call me old-fashioned, but I was under the impression that "ceasefire" did not mean "just 3" rocket attacks per day. I would have thought that ceasefire meant zero rocket attacks per day.
Somebody give the Guardian's editors a dictionary.
|
I've only read this half of your post that I'm commenting on, because it's quite late and I'm about to retire to bed.
Your argument is flawed because you imagine that one Hamas cleric (and there are bloody thousands of them) or Fathi Hamad makes Hamas policy. In the British Labour party there were probably quite a few gents still in love with Marxism, right up to the fall of the Berlin wall. But Britain never became a Marxist state, did it now? There are still many idealists in the Labour party, but there was no way there dreams would ever triumph over reality and pragmatism. And what about all the Labour polititians who opposed the invasion of Iraq? The party was saturated with them, but we still went into Iraq. Therefore, I think it's pretty useless to try and guess how a whole organisation will act depending on the fanciful talk of some of its members. The Israeli Knesset is also full of religious loons who talk smack (including genocidal claptrap) about the Arabs, but they never figure in your 'world view' when you are assessing Israeli governance. That's a clear double standard right there.
Secondly, I doubt that few 'at the Guardian' imagine Hamas to be some perfect angelic troup of choir boys, as you claim. But you can not choose the leaders of your enemy, nor can you find a leading party ANYWHERE in the world that is absolutely perfect. You have to work with the chosen representitives of a people, not quizlings that you choose on behalf of them. Hamas won the vote square and fair, not because they were the representitives of a tiny minority of Arabs, but because they had risen in popularity and seemed a better choice over the utterly dreadful Fatah, who had proved themselves to be nothing but corrupt quizlings and traitors.
While Bush's initial victory in the polls was contentious, at least Hamas had a clear victory. Yet Bush and his cohorts have brought more slaughter and misery to our world than Hamas could ever hope to do in their wildest dreams. Bush was an absolute nutter, a religious loon to rival any Al Quada operative. Yet you probably admire him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
More pragmatic Hamas quotes:
| Quote: |
"Israel is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to recognize its right to exist."
-Dr. Mahmud Al-Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, Washington Times, February 4, 2006 |
| Quote: |
"Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day."
-Dr. Mahmud Al-Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, Washington Times, February 4, 2006 |
| Quote: |
"Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don't recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims."
-Dr. Mahmud al-Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, The Jerusalem Post, August 18, 2005 |
| Quote: |
"She [Hamas suicide bomber Re'em Al-Riyashi] is not going to be the last because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."
-Dr. Mahmud Al-Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, Associated Press, January 15, 2004 |
| Quote: |
"To hell with you all."
-Khalid al-Mish'al, leader of Hamas, speaking about German Chancellor Merkel's call for Hamas to recognize Israel, Al-Jazeera TV, February 3, 2006 |
http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2009/01/shocking-quotes-by-hamas-regarding.html
For the sake of balance, here are some more encouraging quotes. But it isn't scholarly to argue that Hamas are pragmatic. Clearly, they say "we have accepted the 1967 borders" (pragmatic) one minute and "Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day" (not pragmatic) the next. They're probably uneducated and incapable of coherence.
Equally clearly, one should avoid that appalling newspaper at all costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stefanuto wrote:
| Quote: |
| They're probably uneducated and incapable of coherence |
Your homework assignment tonight:
Think about this, hard. I mean real hard. Then sleep on it. We'll talk later in the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A digression of this kind isn't desirable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trevor wrote: |
It is an embarassment to free society everywhere. It is also an embarassment to you, for suggesting it is a digression.
|
Embarrassment, actually. It has two r's and two s's, for future reference.
If I disliked Arabs, I wouldn't have accepted a position teaching Arab university students in Saudi Arabia. Actually, on a personal level, I find I get along with Arabs much better than I do Jews. My criticisms lie exclusively with Arab leaderships. The fact that you would make such an obscene suggestion, and spell 'embarrassment' incorrectly, and advance an accusation which could very easily be applied to yourself (disliking Israelis) means there's nothing to be gained by continuing our conversation here, Trevor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
S.S.'s Counter argument:
A: I misspelled a word.
B: He worked in Saudi Arabia and thinks Arabs are swell, despite everything he has said previously.
Scrap it? Sounds okay to me.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Trevor wrote: |
It is an embarassment to free society everywhere. It is also an embarassment to you, for suggesting it is a digression.
|
Embarrassment, actually. It has two r's and two s's, for future reference.
If I disliked Arabs, I wouldn't have accepted a position teaching Arab university students in Saudi Arabia. Actually, on a personal level, I find I get along with Arabs much better than I do Jews. My criticisms lie exclusively with Arab leaderships. The fact that you would make such an obscene suggestion, and spell 'embarrassment' incorrectly, and advance an accusation which could very easily be applied to yourself (disliking Israelis) means there's nothing to be gained by continuing our conversation here, Trevor. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
