Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 116

Thread: This is an escalation without precedent in the terrorist war waged by...Hamas"

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    3323'S, 7047'W
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    a kidnapping isn't a capture, it's a kidnapping. i don't see what turns this totally reprehensible act into something good or neutral. people were killed in the process, by the way, what would you call that. neutralised?

    i too am disgusted at the cruelty of the israeli assault, but i don't understand how the tactics employed time and again by palestinians are supposed to graner them sympathy.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruno
    a kidnapping isn't a capture, it's a kidnapping. i don't see what turns this totally reprehensible act into something good or neutral. people were killed in the process, by the way, what would you call that. neutralised?

    i too am disgusted at the cruelty of the israeli assault, but i don't understand how the tactics employed time and again by palestinians are supposed to graner them sympathy.
    Unfortunately, sympathy is a dead letter for the Palestinian people. On the one hand, I'm sure that there's no end to it, everyone can be sympathetic with a situation as horrible as is going on; on the other hand, however, sympathy produces nothing outside of, and only sometimes, a bit of humanitarian aid. It is in fact, I think, the ability to consistently portray the plight of the palestinians as some sympathetic victimhood that has held back the ability to understand any sort of political causality or responsibility for the state of their occupation. Once they are completely sympathized, once we can all "feel their pain" we just walk with it as if it were just like how bad you felt when you broke your arm or lost your keys. Maybe you didn't mean sympathy in this sense, but I think that playing the sympathetic victim in any or all fashions has proven impossible for any sort of positive change in the region.

    We don't have to side with the particular ideological aims of some of the groups involved in Palestinian resistance, nor do we have to glorify the actions they undertake. Glorification is something that exists in a vacuum, and nobody I think would say that abduction of people to achieve political ends is glory-worthy in itself. However, within the context of this situation, that this man is a soldier in the army of an occupation force, that many many other means have failed, etc. etc. allows us to see an act of resistance not targeted at civilians that forced the hand of the Israelis. This is not to say, fatalistically, that the abductors longed to have the israelis demolish Gaza over this single soldier's life (by the way, we might be able to perform some moral calculus by the end of this "temporary incursion" and compare relative value of palestinian lives/property to one Israeli life)

    This was a political act targeted at the police apparatus of the Israeli government, and granted it involved violence, but I also think that in such situations of social domination resistance must carry force. Loss of life is regrettable, but I don't think we should be Kantians, sitting on our hands so as not to harm anyone while permitting violence all around us (as long as I don't directly do it, i'm not morally wrong)

    //rant

  3. #18
    droid Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruno
    a kidnapping isn't a capture, it's a kidnapping. i don't see what turns this totally reprehensible act into something good or neutral. people were killed in the process, by the way, what would you call that. neutralised?

    i too am disgusted at the cruelty of the israeli assault, but i don't understand how the tactics employed time and again by palestinians are supposed to graner them sympathy.
    Yes - kidnapping is kidnapping - the point Im making is that according to the international law, this action in no way constitues a kidnap, its a valid attack on a miltary target (not that I think that this necessarily makes it justifiable). This isnt something I just made up - its in the Geneva convention: Check out this quote from the article I linked to:

    It (kidnap) was a revealing choice of terminology. Soldiers who are seized by an enemy are usually considered to have been captured; along with being killed, it's an occupational hazard for a soldier. But Britain's liberal media preferred to use words that misleadingly suggested Cpl Shalit was a victim, an innocent whose status as a soldier was not relevant to his fate. The Palestinians, as kidnappers and hostage-takers, were clearly not behaving in a legitimate manner.

    That this was a deviation from normal usage, at least when applied to Palestinians, is suggested by the following report from the BBC in 2003, when Israel seized Hamas political leader Sheikh Mohammed Taha: "Israeli troops have captured a founder member of the Islamic militant group Hamas during an incursion into the Gaza Strip." This brief "incursion" included the deaths of eight Palestinians, including a pregnant woman and a child, according to the same report. ('Israel captures Hamas founder,' BBC online, 3 March 2003).

    But one does not need to look back three years to spot the double standard being applied by the British media. On the Thursday following Sunday's Palestinian attack on Kerem Shalom, the Israeli army invaded Gaza and the West Bank to grab dozens of Palestinian leaders, including cabinet ministers. Were they being kidnapped or taken hostage by the Israeli army?

    http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
    If this is a kidnap, then Israel routinely 'kidnaps' victims from the occupied territories - and yet, it is never reported as such by the media. If Israel can 'detain', 'arrest' and 'capture' (civilians as well as armed resistance), then how come when the Palestinians do exactly the same thing its a 'kidnap'?

    As to the validity of the attack:

    The Palestinians could justify attacking the military post because the Israeli army has been using it and other fortified positions to fire hundreds of shells into Gaza that have contributed to some 30 civilian deaths over the preceding weeks. Israel could justify launching its mission into Gaza because it blames the two men it seized for being behind some of the hundreds of home-made Qassam rockets that have been fired out of Gaza, mostly ineffectually, but occasionally harming Israeli civilians in the border town of Sderot.
    I might add that personally I dont see that Palestinian violence has any hope of ending the occupation, and I dont like to see people getting killed, regardless of which side they are on, but nonetheless, I still recognise the right of Palestinians (again according to the UN) to resist through the attack of legitimate military targets, no matter how pointless it may be, just as I recognise Israels right to defend itself against terrorist attacks on civilians.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    3323'S, 7047'W
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    right, the whole thing is a fucking mess. you won't convince israelis that palestinians have a right to land, you won't convince palestinians that israel has a right to exist. one sees human garbage on its promised land, the other sees an occupier. the tragedy is never going to end.

    if it were up to me i'd raze the whole place to the ground, turn it into the world's largest golf course, or parking lot, give the north pole to the israelis, the south pole to the palestinians and that's it, end of story. let's see who they bomb then.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    8

    Default

    My beef with the whole thing isn't really a moral one at all - its tactical. I agree with Shereif that pacifism when faced with armed attack is useless, and I'll join him in giving Kant a good kicking, but bruno's right to wonder about "palestinian" tactics here. I think it helps if you remember that there's loads of political parties in palestine, besides hamas, and part of the reason for hamas picking some of the tactics that it does (deliberately overstretching themselves, grandstanding with armed martyrs and hopeless causes) is directed not at Israel but at the competition for palestinian support that they're trying to maintain. I think unfortunately this suits a section of the most reactionary Israeli political elite, for whom the image of the suicide bomber's pretty useful. This 'retaliation' action of Israel's just happens to accomplish lots of other strategic objectives like weakening Palestinian infrastructure.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Any Palestinian activity is going to be pretense for the Israeli far right to attack the Palestinians, there's nothing particularly special about this sort of tactic- in fact, this is perhaps one of the most moderate moves I think could be taken without being completely inconsequential. The serious problem is not that both sides have their own set of problems and qualms that are somehow equal but we just don't realize that and all get along. That's empty rhetoric, and it fails to recognize that the problems in the region stem from determinate causes. The only problem I think with the recent events, and most of the insurgent activity in Palestine, is that their meaning has been too easily coopted--on one hand by the Israeli apparatus and on the other by the reactionary Arab right (whatever the hell it is). The palestinian resistance, because it is so heterogeneous and scattered, lacks the ability to produce the proper contexts and meanings necessary to them. I think that's one of the biggest problems as it stands now. This capture in itself, thinking of scale, is nothing, absolutely nothing- its importance lies in the posibility of creating a constellation of significance and meaning around the horrific reprisals and asymmetry that have ensued since.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Orstraylya, I love Orstraylyia, it's mai favourite place in the world besides California!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swears
    It's bizarre, each side just seems to be antagonising the other as much as possible.
    What did the Palestinians expect to achieve from this kidnapping?
    And what do the Isrealis hope to achieve by bombing the shit out of them?
    Good straight to the point comment.

    Simple answer:

    My god kills your god,
    My cock beats your cock,
    Oblivion is what you crave.
    What happens when the oil runs out, does that render them all impotent?
    All I do now is dick around Sparks, 2006

    Stuff to read on the toilet :linky

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Orstraylya, I love Orstraylyia, it's mai favourite place in the world besides California!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruno

    if it were up to me i'd raze the whole place to the ground, turn it into the world's largest golf course, or parking lot, give the north pole to the israelis, the south pole to the palestinians and that's it, end of story. let's see who they bomb then.
    They'll melt the polar caps and drown us all.
    All I do now is dick around Sparks, 2006

    Stuff to read on the toilet :linky

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buick6
    Good straight to the point comment.
    Well, I'm just saying it appears that way. There is some obsure, complex logic behind all this. Either side is locked into it and they can't back down or be seen to lose face.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    3323'S, 7047'W
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    the only logic behind all this is the thrill of escalation. there's nothing arab terrorist groups and israel love more than the rush of violence, confrontation, it's their lifeblood.

    hezbollah knew it would get only retaliation from israel, and in exchange now they have a renewed cause and sympathy. israel knows it will never see armed groups capitulate through force, humiliation, destruction, but what it gets in exchange is a sense of unity, of common purpose.

    without violence these people are nothing.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,295

    Default

    it's down to the new israeli pm wants to impress the hawks with a manageable escalation in the the hostilities, hostage taking has long been a standard tactic for both sides, invading lebanon's a set piece.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Orstraylya, I love Orstraylyia, it's mai favourite place in the world besides California!
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Taken from the Age via Reuters:
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...637871549.html

    "...The Israeli military said Hezbollah had fired more than 130 missiles into Israel in the past two days, killing two civilians and wounding more than 100.

    The fragile Beirut Government, too divided to disarm the Islamic group that effectively controls south Lebanon, has urged the UN Security Council to call on Israel to halt its onslaught.

    But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert opted to ramp up the punishment. "The decision was made to intensify Israel's operations in Lebanon," Israeli army radio reported.

    Mr Olmert is a new leader who has little to lose by gambling. Instead of seeking to contain the problems on Israel's borders, with Lebanon in the north and Gaza in the south, Mr Olmert has gone in hard after the Jewish state's enemies.

    Should his tactics push Hezbollah or Hamas whose militants captured an Israeli soldier in Gaza last month into freeing or killing their captives, Israel could be in a position to knock its most bitter enemies out of the game for good. ...."

    Tactically, it seems, the Islamic Militants have played their cards incorrectly in this war. I'll wager 100% they'll kill the Israeli soldiers, videotape the evidence and broadcast on Al-Jazeera. A mass retaliation will ensue as this will all perfectly feed into the 'war on terror' campaign. Not sure how they'll knock out their enemies for good though, but I guess that's up to their intelligence and covert ops that no-one on this board would know.
    All I do now is dick around Sparks, 2006

    Stuff to read on the toilet :linky

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buick
    I'll wager 100%...
    what is your stake?

  14. #29
    foret Guest

    Default

    who are more likely to kill their captives, hezbollah or hamas? two different situations

    did anyone see what happened to the two american soldiers in iraq, very nasty :x

  15. #30
    foret Guest

    Default

    the bbc has the 15 lebanese civilian deaths as their leadng story, american sites like fox news and nytimes have the israeli military casualties first

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •