Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[padraig (u.s.)]

padraig, this is surely true, but as well as the failure of modern armed forces to live up to their stated ideals, there is also a fairly clear attempt to do so.

meh. I mean, alright - I just don't know where to draw the line between "clear attempt" & "better at the propaganda side of war" - which is surely an imporant side of war, & ever increasingly so. anyway it's most likely a mix of the two & of course I & anyone sane prefers a token effort to no effort at all.

the thing is, I have conflicted feelings about even blaming the militaries in the first place, at least solely. it's a bit like blaming the hunting dogs (not to make an unfair analogy between soldiers & hunting dogs) for being let loose by their masters - I mean, terrible shit happens in war, that is war & it seems rather absurd to place the responsibility for protecting civilians on, of all people, the men with the guns.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

My only small point is that little is gained by not understanding Israel's motives (and the complex of forces producing these motives) which are driving this aim. It strikes me that the racism and brutality of segments of the IDF (and to a still greater extent, the Settler movement) are not the main causes here - these are rather symptoms.

Edit: I further note that this exact same point holds with respect to the other side as well. The claim of the Zionist right - that the main problem is that the Palestinians hate Jews, wish to drive them into the sea, and so on - is the mirror image of the above.

this is a fanastic point I reckon Josef. I think one thing is that on both sides there is an element of leaders playing to their ppl for political points - & then having it get out of control. clearly that's not the whole story - just that Arab leaders certainly have a long history of whipping up public opinion & then being impaled on it. & of course the recent Gaza excursion (rockets aside for the moment), largely an attempt to keep Natanyahu out of office.

I just mean that when push comes to shove even the dudes who voice the most extreme platitudes are sometimes most willing to be pragmatic, Begin making peace with Egypt being the prime example. An element of "only Nixon could do China" maybe - which I think someone mentioned upthread.

anyway of course understanding your opponent's motives is best but I reckon in this case frequently the pressures on ppl making decisions, both external & internal, are simply too great?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The IDF as a whole, and I don't know if this is representative of Israeli society more generally, is becoming more religious-nationalist and less secular Kibbutznik.

yeh I think it is true - tho perhaps the shift is slower cos it's demographic - I mean the ultrareligious just have a lot more kids. My dad for example, an ultra-religious rightwing hawk (he lived in a militant Gaza settlement, can't remember the name, for many years), who has seven kids. not counting me, as I'm neither religious nor Israeli.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The human terrain supersedes the physical terrain in terms of determining the nature of conflicts.

isn't this always true? tho I guess also the physical terrain shapes the human terrain.

The reason Israel does not simply wipe out the Palestinians is that they require the support of the US in order to survive. Even the formidable Israeli PR machine would have trouble glossing over genocide.

I again don't want to get involved in your personal dispute - but - I think you're really off the mark here man. That is certainly one reason that Israel doesn't "wipe out the Palestinians" but there are numerous others. The resistance of many Israelis to such an action for one - supporting the use of military force & supporting genocide are galaxies apart. There is also a difference between being racist & desiring to wipe out an entire people. I reckon even some of the IDF troopers wearing those infamous T-shirts would balk at the suggestion of wiping out the Palestinians. & again, b/c it's not even in Israel's interests to do so.

I mean, really I think you're oversimplifying Israel, which as others have pointed out actually weakens your arguments. I have to agree with Vimothy actually;

My goal is not to defend Israel, but to question the wholly one dimensional picture of them that droid is pushing.

 

[crackerjack]

yeh I think it is true - tho perhaps the shift is slower cos it's demographic - I mean the ultrareligious just have a lot more kids.

Not to mention the massive influx from Russia, who've (generalisation ahoy!) tended to be rightwing and more overtly racist.

My dad for example, an ultra-religious rightwing hawk (he lived in a militant Gaza settlement, can't remember the name, for many years), who has seven kids. not counting me, as I'm neither religious nor Israeli.

So what's with the Irish name, if yoou don't mind me nosing?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I note in passing that I'd be interested in learning more about South Africa - the idea that international boycott was ultimately the key factor in ending apartheid strikes me, as perhaps, over simplistic.

oh it certainly wasn't. surely the main factor in ending apartheid was the resistance, armed & otherwise, of black South Africans (& a few white allies) to the apartheid regime? I'm reckon the boycotts & protests helped tho I'm not really sure how much.

 

[crackerjack]

oh it certainly wasn't. surely the main factor in ending apartheid was the resistance, armed & otherwise, of black South Africans (& a few white allies) to the apartheid regime?

Consensus is that it was foreign disengagement that did for apartheid. Armed resistance in SA was minimal, perhaps completely insignificant, though more general social resistance and protest was massive.

edit: It's no coincidence that apartheid came down a few years after The Berlin Wall.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Not to mention the massive influx from Russia, who've (generalisation ahoy!) tended to be rightwing and more overtly racist.

yeah this too (Avigdor Lieberman for one) with the caveat about generalizations. I I've read a few stories about Neo-Nazis in Israel - Russian kids who somehow qualified for Aliyah via Jewish relatives & emigrated for economic reasons but who weren't actually raised Jewish. one of those absurd contradictions you get when you base immigration policy on religion I guess...

So what's with the Irish name, if yoou don't mind me nosing?

my mom's side of the family are all Irish Catholics from Boston, tho she converted to Judaism to marry my dad. anyway they got divorced when I was real little & my Dad emigrated to Israel shortly thereafter - the other kids are all my step or half-brothers & sisters via his second wife, coincidentally another American expat - they both have the fanatical zeal of the convert (in this case from secular to Orthodox Judaism). anyway my real first name is Old Testament but my middle name is after a famous figure from Irish history.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Consensus is that it was foreign disengagement that did for apartheid. Armed resistance in SA was minimal, perhaps completely insignificant, though more general social resistance and protest was massive.

edit: It's no coincidence that apartheid came down a few years after The Berlin Wall.

by armed resistance I was including those endless wars the apartheid regime was always fighting in Namibia or Angola or Mozambique, which obviously wouldn't fit in your definition. & as I said armed & otherwise.

my main point is that I reckon the South Africans themselves had more to do with it than any external pressures - I'm skeptical of that narrative. I mean, apartheid failed cos it was unsustainable. I'm sure foreign disengagement & such sped up it's end but it was inevitable.

 

[droid]

OK, a lot to address here. I'll take them in reverse order as time permits.

You've overlooked at least one crucial difference - that non-recogntion of Israel has been the policy of either some or all surrounding states ever since its birth, including the principal Palestinian leadership for all but 12 of its 61-year history. That leadership is now in the hands of an organisation whose charter pledges to wipe out all Jews.

I don't agree with that assessment, and as I said, it's far from a perfect analogy. I don't think that other African states did recognise successive Apartheid regimes as legitimate.You could also make a credible case that SA existed in a sea of hostile neighbours, but that does not ameliorate the treatment of black south Africans.

As has been shown on this thread, and as even Vim has acknowledged, Hamas (for example) has offered implicit recognition of Israel through their public pronouncements of willingness to negotiate. The PLO and Arafat did the same thing in '76, but Israel refused to negotiate until '88 when the PLO charter was amended.

It's also the case, that despite implicit and explicit recognition of Israel by Palestinains, Israel has never recognised the right to Palestinian national self determination. This stance has been exemplified by the documents like the Likud charter, and infamously, the '3 no's': no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

I think the recognition issue is a bit of a red herring anyway. Take NI. Unionists claimed that Ireland's' constitutional claim to the North was an obstacle to peace. Progress was made nonetheless, and as part of the Good Friday agreement I, and a majority of Irish men and women voted to amend the constitution. Id argue that 'official' recognition of Israel will only come about as a concluding part of a genuine peace deal.

And to say that Israel (uniquely?) has never engaged in genuine peace talks is subjective. Its supporters would say the exact same about the Palestinians.

Well not uniquely, and I don't believe its subjective, or not entirely so. As mentioned above, the '3 no's' stance has been official and public Israeli policy for decades. Israel repeatedly claims that it will not negotiate as it has 'no partner for peace'.

As mentioned in another thread, I believe that Israel's unwillingness to negotiate partly stems from their overwhelming advantage in the area of force. If the only tool you have is a huge hammer, then then every problem looks like a nail. Look at the Yom Kippur war. Egypt offered a peace deal in Feburary '71 Israel rejected it out of hand and escalated tensions. Egypt attacked, and, shaken by near defeat, Israel accepted a far inferior deal 5 years later... Lebanon in '82: Israel ignored UN brokered border agreements and attacked on the basis of the flimsiest of pretexts.... Oslo and the famous 'offer of a state' that turned out to be nothing more than non-contiguous Bantustans. Shlomo Ben Ami, Israeli dove and foreign minister at the time:

Well, the Oslo peace process was an agreement—it started as an agreement between two unequal partners. Arafat conceived Oslo as a way, not necessarily to reach a settlement, but more importantly to him at that particular moment, in order to come back to the territories and control the politics of the Palestinian family. Don’t forget that the Intifada, to which Oslo brought an end, started independently of the P.L.O. leadership, and he saw how he was losing control of the destiny of the Palestinians. His only way to get back to the territories was through an agreement with Israel. So in Oslo, he made enormous concessions.

In fact, when he was negotiating in Oslo with us, an official Palestinian delegation was negotiating with an official Israeli delegation in Washington, and the official Palestinian delegation was asking the right things from the viewpoint of the Palestinians—self-determination, right of return, end of occupation, all the necessary arguments—whereas Arafat in Oslo reached an agreement that didn’t even mention the right of self-determination for the Palestinians, doesn’t even mention the need of the Israelis to put an end to settlements. If the Israelis, after Oslo, continued expansion of settlements, they were violating the spirit of Oslo, not the letter of Oslo. There is nothing in the Oslo agreement that says that Israelis cannot build settlements. So this was the cheap agreement that Arafat sold, precisely because he wanted to come back to the territories and control the politics of Palestine.

There is also the litany of ceasefire violations, such as the one that led to the recent conflict in Gaza.

I'm not claiming that the Palestinian leadership does not share the blame here. Arafat in particular was willing to sell his people down the river to maintain his power, but despite the dominant narrative of Palestinian rejectionism, I believe that the evidence (convoluted and labyrinthine as it is to asses), shows a pattern of a Palestinian willingness (for whatever reasons) to make concessions for peace and national rights in contrast Israeli and US rejection of negotiation in favour of the use of force .

All that said, (and it is all up for further debate) - do you appreciate the basic point I am making about south Africa?

Why South Africa when there was a Cambodia, an Indonesia, a Tibet, an El Salvador, an Afghanistan?

 

[droid]

are you serious??

whatever you think about Israel it's impossible to present them as skilled media manipulators. even those who are 'on their side' in the western media are not being given much help. i've found it interesting how even newspapers like, for instance, The Daily Telegraph, have moved towards a much more anti-Israeli stance in their coverage over the last decade or so. This article from Ha'aretz makes the point well:

Welcome Guilhém

Lets look at this closely.

Israel may not be 'skillful' in their manipulation of the media (and I did not claim they were), what they do have is a sophisticated distribution machine that allows them to widely disseminate their point of view. During the last attack on gaza for example, the Israeli foreign ministry distributed Hasbara packs with 'key talking points' to be focused on specific media targets which are critical of Israel. From the Israeli foreign ministry :

Hi all,

I had a meeting in the ministry of foreign affairs today, and was very happy to hear that their metrics show that Israel's position in the internet is getting better every day. It means that you're doing a good job! MFA are concerned with the biased public opinion in Europe. So please focus your efforts on European media.

What can you do to help?

- Identify internet battle-grounds in different languages, and let me know
- Comment/post/vote in the listed links and others; you can use the material attached below
- Write letters to authors and editors. Identify yourself as a local resident
- Have your friends join this activity

World governments are still patient with Israel's justified operation in Gaza. The [sic] public opinion, on the other hand, is impatient, to say the least. This gap will soon close – it always does.

It is our goal to shift the public opinion, as conveyed in the internet; avoiding, or at least minimising, sanctions by world leaders. We need to buy the IDF enough time to achieve its goals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media

Add to this the legions of commentators and intellectuals who write books and articles defending Israel, aggressive lobby and media groups such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, The anti-defamation league, the Zionist Organization of America, and many more, and its hard not to conclude that Israel does indeed have a formidable PR machine at work which rivals and exceeds those of states such as the US and Britain.

That said - Israel's distribution network may be sophisticated, but the message tends not to be, based as it is on simple repetition of key talking points, the branding of conflicts, articulate and clear spokesmen with good English... despite their simplicity, the effectiveness of these methods can be seen in media portrayal of the conflict, as demonstrated by the University of Galsgow 2004 study: Bad news from Israel:

1. There is a preponderance of official ‘Israeli perspectives’, particularly on BBC 1, where Israelis were interviewed or reported over twice as much as Palestinians. On top of this, US politicians who support Israel were very strongly featured. They appeared more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.

2. TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict. The great majority of viewers depended on this news as their main source of information. The gaps in their knowledge closely paralleled the ‘gaps’ in the news. Most did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. In 1967 Israel occupied by force the territories to which the Palestinian refugees had moved. Most viewers did not know that the Palestinians subsequently lived under Israeli military rule or that the Israelis took control of key resources such as water, and the damage this did to the Palestinian economy. Without explanations being given on the news, there was great confusion amongst viewers even about who was ‘occupying’ the occupied territories. Some understood ‘occupied’ to mean that someone was on the land (as in a bathroom being occupied) so they thought that the Palestinians were the occupiers. Many saw the conflict as a sort of border dispute between two countries fighting over land between them. As one viewer put it:

The impression I got (from news) was that the Palestinians had lived around about that area and now they were trying to come back and get some more land for themselves - I didn’t realise they had been driven out of places in wars previously.

3. Journalists gave different views on why there was so little explanation on the news. George Alagiah from the BBC stressed the problem of time:

In depth it takes a long time, but we’re constantly being told that the attention span of our average viewer is about twenty seconds and if we don’t grab people - and we’ve looked at the figures - the number of people who shift channels around in my programme now six o’clock, there’s a movement of about three million people in that first minute, coming in and out.

Lindsey Hilsum from Channel 4 News also commented on how difficult it was to report in a controversial area:

With a conflict like this, nearly every single fact is disputed, I think ‘Oh God, the Palestinians say this and the Israelis say that…’ I know it’s a question of interpretation so I have to say what both sides think and I think sometimes that stops us from giving the background we should be giving.

The book also examines other factors in production such as lobbying and public relations by both sides.

Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as “starting ” with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised - they were often shown as merely “responding ” to what had been done to them by Palestinians (in the 2001 samples they were six times as likely to be presented as “retaliating ” or in some way responding than were the Palestinians). This apparently influenced many viewers to blame Palestinians for the conflict, as in these comments from two 20 year olds:

You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news… I always think the Israelis are fighting back against the bombings that have been done to them.

I wasn’t under the impression that Israeli borders had changed or that they had taken land from other people - I thought it was more a Palestinian aggression than it was Israeli aggression.

Some people disputed such views but they tended to cite alternative sources of information other than the television news.

5. In news reporting there was a tendency to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than as having a role in imposing the occupation. But as the Israeli historian Avi Shlaim has written, they have a key military and strategic function. They have been built on hilltops to give a commanding position and their occupants are often heavily armed. The Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, has pointed to its role in attacking Palestinians in attempts to seize land. Most viewers knew very little of this - one describes his surprise at learning that the settlements controlled over 40% of the West Bank:

I had absolutely no idea it was that percentage… I saw them as small embattled and surrounded by hostile Palestinians - that’s entirely thanks to watching the television news.

6. There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis). In one week in March 02 which the BBC reported as having the most Palestinian casualties since the start of the intifada, there was actually more coverage on the news of Israeli deaths. There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians - words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’ (BBC 1 lunch time news and ITV main news 5/03/02). TV News coverage influenced some viewers to believe most deaths had been Israeli as in these comments about the reporting of suicide bombs:

I remembered it was the suicide bombers - they are the one who go in and take maybe a whole busload and I thought it would be more Israelis.

And this is from a viewer who believed the Israelis had five times as many casualties as Palestinians:

I would imagine it’s going to be more casualties on the Israeli side, but it’s purely from television - that’s where I get my info from.

Peace and Propaganda in the promised land offers a similar story in relation to US media.

Now - there are of course institutional pressures on the media which distorts the perspective of the conflict and contributes to pro-israel bias, but I think its clear that Israel does have a successful and effective PR machine, despite the fact that coverage may not be as unquestioningly sympathetic today as it once was.

 

[droid]

Incidentally, it seems to me that everyone here agrees on the central point - namely that:

My only small point is that little is gained by not understanding Israel's motives (and the complex of forces producing these motives) which are driving this aim. It strikes me that the racism and brutality of segments of the IDF (and to a still greater extent, the Settler movement) are not the main causes here - these are rather symptoms.

Edit: I further note that this exact same point holds with respect to the other side as well. The claim of the Zionist right - that the main problem is that the Palestinians hate Jews, wish to drive them into the sea, and so on - is the mirror image of the above.

Josef, forgive me, for being cynical and possibly ascribing unintended motives to your post, but is this response to Vimothy's sarcasm intended to be equally sarcastic?

Assuming this is not the case. Yes, i agree that racism and brutality of the IDF and settlers are symptoms of the problem and not the proximate causes. I do however think that the racially exclusive nature of the foundation of the Israeli state is one of the major causes of conflict.

Regarding Israels motives. Ostensibly Israel wants security and peace with it's neighbours and the end of the conflict with the Palestinians. Fine. Israel has legitimate aims and motives and that's something I have never denied. the problem is, as I see it, how Israel attempts to achieve these aims:

• Continued annexation of the West bank and Jerusalem through increased settlements and house demolitions.
  
• Land grabbing and control of major resources through the security wall and continued military control of areas of the West bank
  
• Destruction and neutralisation of Palestinian national movements through the use of force and economic strangulation.
  
• Neutralisation of internal political threats such as the 'demographic problem' of the Arab minority in Israel - possibly through the use of transfer as endorsed by Lieberman and Livni.
  
• Neutralisation of regional threats such as Hezbollah and Iran through the use of or threat of the use of force.

My argument would be that these methods cannot and will not bring lasting peace, and will eventually lead to either a major, possibly nuclear, conflict in the region (ensuring incomparable agony for all the inhabitants of the region and massive global consequences), or destabilising internecine warfare and terror (with the attendant rise in radicalisation) for decades to come.

So in order to address Israel's legitimate aims, I believe Israel must address the legitimate needs of the Palestinians, something I believe that the have almost completely failed to do so throughout the conflict. Lasting peace can only come about through genuine commitment to peace and the messy and convoluted path of concessions (on both sides) that this entails. Israel hold most of the cards and, they have repeatedly shown that they will use force as a first resort.

For example, let's say you met someone on the Israeli left, who wished to instrument changes in their country's policies. They say to you: "You are my friend, we agree there is a problem, what is the next step?"

I think that trying to instrument an international boycott is not the next step. I think you need to try and figure out to how to create coalitions within Israel - and Palestine - who are committed to changing the political situation on the ground, rather then intensifying the binary divide. And I think that demonizing Israel is not productive towards that, because you alienate more people then you convince.

Perhaps a boycott is not the way forward. But this discussion would also have to involve a friend in the US, as it is American support which allows Israel to continue to dictate terms in the region. The work of the likes of Gush Shalom, Peace Now, Checkpoint Watch and others have shown that there is a sizable minority of courageous Israelis wiling to question the dominant mythos of the conflict, and perhaps this base can be expanded on, but up until now they have only been capable of monitoring the situation and curbing some of Israel's worst excesses. As a result I struggle to see how Israel can be diverted from it's (ultimately disastrous) course without significant external intervention.

BTW, I share your concerns about the 2 state solution, but its a solution I support as it is the only feasible option. I would also like to point out that it is not a radical position to suggest that the first step to long lasting peace in the region is for Israel to abide by UN resolutions and international law, negotiate for a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and discuss the formation of a genuinely independent Palestinian state. This is the international consensus which has been in place for decades, supported by Arab states, the Palestinian leadership (since the failed UN resolution in '76) and the UN, and rejected by Israel and the US.

The task for the Palestinians is akin to that of a man whose neck is held under another mans boot. they must give convincing assurances (through deeds and then words) that they will not leap up and attack their foe the moment the boot is lifted. The task for Israel is is to find the forbearance and moral courage to lift the boot.

As for the accusations of demonising Israel or approaching the conflict from a one dimensional or binary point of view. I started posting on this thread as a response to the postings of factually inaccurate conservative articles (which by their very nature view the conflict though institutional prism) regarding Gaza and Israel from a commentator who has made many extreme pro-israel statements on this board in the past. Even the article you posted, apparently from someone with 'leftist credentials' is marred by a basic lack of historical accuracy and responses to these points requires close examination of Israels actions and its historical role in the conflict..

I note in passing that I'd be interested in learning more about South Africa - the idea that international boycott was ultimately the key factor in ending apartheid strikes me, as perhaps, over simplistic.

Well, internal resistance was also decisive, unions played a key part, as did organised civil disobedience and use of force from the BCM, the ANC and various church groups, pressure from neighboring states, international support for the ANC and other resistance groups, economic and demographic factors etc...

It does seem to be the case however that the cultural and economic boycott, as well as galvanising resistance within SA, did in fact play a substantial role in ending Apartheid.

 

[droid]

My goal is not to defend Israel, but to question the wholly one dimensional picture of them that droid is pushing. For example, the claim that they do not try to minimise civilian casualties is clearly wrong, and if Israel really wasn't interested in minimising casualties, they would indiscriminately shell the Palestinians, and the rockets would likely stop.

Well, the irony here is of course obvious. As evidenced by your 'prior's (as you put it) you have engaged in a reflexive defence of Israel on this forum on many occasions, portraying a 'wholly one dimensional' picture of the conflict and the Palestinians, far more extreme than anything I have said.

If I made gross generalisations like this:

"We know that the Israelis have no reasonable or achievable goals (if I’m wrong, tell me what they are), but since they are admirably and consistently open about their hatred of Palestinians and desire for revenge and destruction..."

"The Israelis don't even care for the lives of their own children - it's all grist for the war against the Palestinians..."

i would be rightly lambasted for being an anti-semetic goon, yet you're happy to accuse me of being 'one dimensional' for responding to your comments?

It's beyond satire.

BTW, if Israel indiscriminately shelled Gaza on a massive scale, Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza would respond with suicide bombs and mass resistance.

Ireland was neutral in WWII. Now answer me this -- why must someone be fucked in the head to be wrong? Why this is even relevant is beyond me. EDIT: Nor am I sure why you would find the assertion that Ireland supported the Nazis offensive. Some countries did. It is no reflection on their descendants.

If you can't see how making a false assertion that Ireland supported one of the most evil regimes in history could be offensive to an Irishman then there's nothing more to say here.

Someone does not have to be fucked in the head to be wrong. You on the other hand, made this outrageous and slanderous statement in the full knowledge that it was false purely to score petty points in a discussion with another Irish poster, which indicates either a distinctly flexible attitude to historical fact, or just plain spitefulness. To make this comment in a conversation about Israel presents even more noxious implications.

As for abuse, come off it. Your temper is legendary, droid. You must realise this.

Legendary now is it? Im sure can dig out countless examples so - off you go.

I could be accused of being sarcastic, tetchy, pedantic, didactic, long winded, obnoxious, occasionally even just plain wrong... but I am not customarily abusive, especially without due cause, and I believe that anyone who bothers to look at my posts will see that.

If Israel didn't try to minimise civilian casualties, they wouldn't use precision weapons, but they do, and therefore Israel do try to minimise civilian casualties. This is a self-evident fact. You do not think that they minimise civilian casualties enough and you are entitled to your opinion.

If Israel wanted to bombard Gaza then they would do exactly that. They do not bombard Gaza because too many civilians would die. Yes, yes, America would be unhappy, so would lots of other people. But, regardless of motive, they do not.

The use of 'precisions weapons'... such as hellfire rockets which are fired into crowded streets during targeted assassinations? Maybe shells and munitions fired at the outset of the recent Gaza attacks which were timed to coincide with the end of the schoolday when children would be walking home?

'Precision' weapons provide no moral defense when fired directly against civilian targets, or at targets which the attacker is aware will result in civilian death.

In Lebanon, Israel killed over 20,000 (mostly civilians). They indiscriminately shelled Lebanese villages. A favored tactic during the bombardment of Beirut was to bomb buildings, wait 5 or 10 minutes for medical personnel and civilians to arrive to try and help the wounded and then bomb them again.

In Gaza and the occupied territories the IDF has been shown to have a systematic pattern of shooting at the vital organs of demonstrators, children included. Snipers have shot schoolchildren at their desks and their homes. Refugees sheltering in UN compounds (in Lebanon and Gaza) have been targeted by shelling and gunfire, white flag bearing civilians have been granted safe passage and shot moments later. Whole families have been herded into houses and then bombarded.

You ostensible point: Israel could have killed more but they have not => israel minimises civilian casualties is a morally bankrupt one. lets look at some logical corollaries:

• The US minimised civilian casualties in Vietnam as it could have used nukes instead of naplam.
  
• Russia minimised civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya because it could have used nukes instead of artillery and helicopter gunships.
  
• Hamas minimises civilian casualties as it uses ineffective rockets instead of vastly more destructive suicide bombs.

These are of course morally appllaing statements, yet you claim that Israel and the Palestinians have no 'moral equivalence' (whatever that means) because the IDF either minimises civilian casualties or because they do not target civilians directly.

All armies act under some constraints (not restraints). In Israels' case those constraints are the fear of genuine international intervention (through sanctions or boycotts), US pressure, resistance and terror from both within and outside the occupied territories, and internal protest from Israelis rightfully disturbed by Israels policies.

That does not make their appalling record of disregard for Palestinian life morally defensible.

BTW - You have claimed on this forum that 'Israel does not deliberately target civilians'.

Do you stand by this claim or have you now modified your position?

So, now that we've got that out of the way, what do you think about the issue of ethnic German forced migration after WWII? Why isn't their any ethnic German terrorism?

Ah, the open ended questions of which you are so beloved... this isn't jeopardy Vimothy. There are thousands of reasons. Why don't you just say what you want to say and then we can discuss it.

And I object to being characterised as useful!

 

[vimothy]

Actually, I think your answer to "why Israel?" is implicit recognition of the point I was making.

 

[droid]

I again don't want to get involved in your personal dispute - but - I think you're really off the mark here man. That is certainly one reason that Israel doesn't "wipe out the Palestinians" but there are numerous others. The resistance of many Israelis to such an action for one - supporting the use of military force & supporting genocide are galaxies apart. There is also a difference between being racist & desiring to wipe out an entire people. I reckon even some of the IDF troopers wearing those infamous T-shirts would balk at the suggestion of wiping out the Palestinians. & again, b/c it's not even in Israel's interests to do so.

Yes Padraig. Things got a bit heated and hurried yesterday. Ive had more time and expanded on this and other points above.

 

[crackerjack]

I don't agree with that assessment, and as I said, it's far from a perfect analogy. I don't think that other African states did recognise successive Apartheid regimes as legitimate.You could also make a credible case that SA existed in a sea of hostile neighbours, but that does not ameliorate the treatment of black south Africans.

They were hostile to the apartheid regime, not to the nation itself. Pal. leadership and surroudning states have repeatedly stated its aim as the annihilation of Israel, full stop.

As has been shown on this thread, and as even Vim has acknowledged, Hamas (for example) has offered implicit recognition of Israel through their public pronouncements of willingness to negotiate. The PLO and Arafat did the same thing in '78, but Israel refused to negotiate until '89 when the PLO charter was amended.

It's also the case, that despite implicit and explicit recognition of Israel by Palestinains, Israel has never recognised the right to Palestinian national self determination. This stance has been exemplified by the documents like the Likud charter, and infamously, the '3 no's': no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

I think the recognition issue is a bit of a red herring anyway. Take NI. Unionists claimed that Ireland's' constitutional claim to the North was an obstacle to peace. Progress was made nonetheless, and as part of the Good Friday agreement I, and a majority of Irish men and women voted to amend the constitution. Id argue that 'official' recognition of Israel will only come about as a concluding part of a genuine peace deal.

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that Israel shouldn't talk to Hamas. But if Hamas' willingness to negotiate is implicit recognition, why not make it explicit?? Why not start by amending the charter, removing that Hadith and accepting that the Protocols are a forgery, not historical fact. You must see that to the Jewish nation, this is not small detail.

There is also the litany of ceasefire violations, such as the one that led to the recent conflict in Gaza.

Clarify this, please, since I won't deny you pay more attention the fine detail of I/P than me. As I understand it, part of the ceasefire deal was that Hamas would ensure the rockets stopped. Whether or not it ws Hamas firing them, they kept coming, right?

All that said, (and it is all up for further debate) - do you appreciate the basic point I am making about south Africa?

Why South Africa when there was a Cambodia, an Indonesia, a Tibet, an El Salvador, an Afghanistan?

Some of these simply don't stack up - Khmer rouge, for instance, were overthrown not long after its terror became public knowledge. But the principal reason is that apartheid was the legitimisation of racism, an ideology that obviously the western left recognised as being part of their historical past and wanted to leave behind. call it liberal guitl if you must, but it was a noble cause.

I accept the argument about Israel being a western ally and arms recipient and therefore being more vulnerable to western pressure. But there's also an enormous double standard from many here (not you, I'm happy to accept, but wankers like him), who've consistently sought to downplay atrocities where they don't have an easy Blame The Yanks narrative.

Sorry if this is all a bit rushed, but i've goota flee.

 

[droid]

Clarify this, please, since I won't deny you pay more attention the fine detail of I/P than me. As I understand it, part of the ceasefire deal was that Hamas would ensure the rockets stopped. Whether or not it ws Hamas firing them, they kept coming, right?

Im out the door too, but this one point is covered in minute detail earlier in this thread if you want to check it out.

 

[scottdisco]

a bit of waffle..

so, in a nutshell, certain armed groups were attacking civilians and these groups were not apparently Hamasniks but were doing it from Hamas-controlled territory.

(p.5-6 have both Droid and Vim making some fair points on the precise questions of who is to be held ultimately responsible for non-Hamasniks attacking civilians, but i think they've exhausted that line of enquiry )

and yes, the policy of the Israeli blockade is a massive, indefensible injustice that should be a central part of the underpinning of our entire understanding of this Gaza situation.

the blog post that parses an IICC report (here) that i pointed out earlier - at this point i thank Droid for some valid points about the character of the IICC, i was just looking at the account there! - about the Nov 4 IDF incursion now has some thoughtful new comments from the blogger Alex Stein underneath, and a couple of very reasonable people coming back at him; i would commend it again.

as for the article Josef linked to about, among other things, a seeming minority of irrational leftists discussing I / P that Droid rightly took to task for certain inaccuracies, it's still a good article on the terms i engaged with it on, but - and i must admit at this point to being utterly parochial - i was just applauding someone pointing out the idiocies of the 'We are all Hizbollah now' brigade, parts of the SWP, and so on.
(i know from personal experience that on certain north American campuses the atmosphere can be pretty fetid.)

petty and insular to have a bee in one's bonnet about what some of your peers in your wealthy country (or a similar wealthy economy) are saying about a conflict elsewhere whose facts on the ground are monstrous?

perhaps yes, i admit to that, but it's just a blind-spot for me, a tic; i am not going to give it up anytime soon, TBH.

thanks for bringing out the GUMG, Droid.

does anybody know anything more recent about the Balen Report than this?
why would the BBC want to keep that covered up, i wonder? (i happily admit to being lost immediately in the legalese.)

there are reasons (a hugely imperfect media etc) why a superficial news broadcast can't be going on about the dispossession of the Palestinians all the time, but, by the same token, the BBC has generally always given various Palestinians leaders an eminently fair hearing; clearly whatever is in there must be a bit embarrassing for the BBC, no?

this section of the HRW report
Rain of Fire
Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza

MARCH 25, 2009

has stuff on the legal angle that's worth checking in full.

front page here

i just wanted to park something here, which is that Shalom Lappin has an interesting piece here about the Clinton Camp David summit.

just one more tragedy of course is that what could have been on the table then (or heck, Taba, which was very problematic with crossings rights and so on for Palestinians moving across what would be final status Israeli territory) is, probably by today's standards, some sort of impossible dream (and here i admit it almost sounds like i'm describing something under 100% - and with many caveats - of what was ideal as a heavenly idyll, anyway, but - in context - it was, i guess; the art of impossible and all that).

 

[scottdisco]

"Israel is nothing to do with the holocaust," they say, with straight faces. Factually speaking, perhaps so. But the ideological importance of the holocaust within Israel is absolutely incalculable.

very good point, Josef.

 

[scottdisco]

little uns

The Palestinian youths from the tough West Bank refugee camp stood facing the elderly Holocaust survivors Wednesday, appearing somewhat defiant in a teenage sort of way. Then they began to sing.