war in Gaza

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your comparison is completely inaccurate.

It's more like if somebody robbed a bank, and then ran home to his neighborhood in Anacostia, and holed up with some hostages - armed with a handgun, and the national guard went in and blew the whole place up for harboring him in their midst. Anybody killed should have known better than to have a criminal in their midst.

700 Palestinians killed. Their lives are worth something. Where is the outrage?

Actually, Hamas suicide bombers kill people - not just steal money as your analogy would imply. 480 in ten years. In restaurants, markets, going about their every day lives.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but the "Israel is the villain and Palestinians are victims" trope gets tiresome.

Israel is not going to stop Hamas, no matter how far they go into Gaza. The Palestinians are going to have to stop Hamas. What kind of righteous warrior runs and hides in the middle of women and children?

[Anonymous]

I don't know what relgion tells Israel to do these things. We as a country might end up paying for this, along with Israel.

[Anonymous]

480 in ten years

and 750 in 13 days

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, Hamas suicide bombers kill people - not just steal money as your analogy would imply. 480 in ten years. In restaurants, markets, going about their every day lives.

Well, congratulations to Israel. It only needed a few days to double what it took HAMAS 10 years to do.

[Anonymous]

The first time that I started to look at Israel in a skeptical way was in the 80's. Israel had this cozy relationship with Apartheid South Africa. I had a lot of trouble understanding that when you consider the history of the Jews in Europe. Then, to put it bluntly, I did notice some rather racist comments (about every ethnic group) from many Zionists. From then on, I looked closely at all of Israel's policies, and they seem to mirror the old South Africa.

I don't see why, if a group has a historical attachment to a piece of land, that it should mean that no one else can live there too.
Let's all pretend for one minute that we are Palestinian. That is tricky since most White Americans have not ever been oppressed. But let's say that you are asked to pick up and leave your home, because the Cherokee nation is coming back. How would we feel? Not to mention that the Palestinians that are there have ALWAYS been there. They did not enter that area in the last 400 years. Genetics and anthropology puts them there forever.

I can't believe that we support this mess.
I sometimes think that we support Israel to pacify our guilt, rather than for any ethical reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

480 in ten years

and 750 in 13 days

You didn't know? A Jewish life is worth more. There is an order. White Europe lives at the top. You kill one of them, it is like killing say 1000 Africans.
Jews and Arabs are in between, but Jewish lives are still worth a lot more than Arabs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So long as the Palestinian people allow Hamas fighters in their midst (in schools, markets, heavily populated areas) to launch rockets from those areas, the retaliatory bombs are going to hit civilians.

The Palestinian people need to rise against Hamas and say "no mas!" Until they do that, there will be innocent blood shed on both sides.

I just hope a foreign power doesn't bomb US military installations and leaders in the District. How many of us live near people and places that would be targeted for destruction? Guess I'd better start mobilizing to make every military installation in the District move out to the boonies and to require the President, VP, Cabinet and Congressional leadership to move to rural West Virginia. It's not safe for civilians like me as long as they are established in heavily populated areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Mexico, or those belligerent Canadians, were randomly firing rockets into Texas, or Minnesota, do you think the US response would be "proportionate"? Hell no.

One day (hopefully) the Palestinians will wake up, read some history books and realize---as did Gandhi in India or MLK in the southern US---that the only truly effective way to overcome an overwhelmingly physically superior oppressor is by non-violent protest.

If the US public were viewing nightly news telecasts of massive groups of unarmed PEACEFULLY protesting Palestinians (perhaps standing in front of settlement construction equipment) being set upon with firehoses and dogs---public perception of the Palestinian question would change. As it is, public sympathy for the Palestinians' justifiable outrage over continuing settlement encroachment (among other grievances) is undermined by suicide bombers and random rocket fire meant to terrorize.

Actually something like this occurred in the first intifada which started in late 1987. It had a powerful impact both on the Palestinians under occupation and on world opinion. As angry as I am with the Israelis, it was a sad day when this approach was abandoned. The reasons are too complex to go into here but the first intifada with its massive (mostly nonviolent resistance) was by far more effective than the second intifada with its handful of suicide bombers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:34, the NYT published this today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/middleeast/09redcross.html

I wish it were a hoax. But since the Times can hardly be accused of being a Palestinian propaganda machine, I shudder to think of what else is happening in Gaza that we're not hearing about.

What is interesting is that the Telegraph article mentioned that "100 people were rounded up, 70 people died".
NYT doesn't mention any "round ups", reports about "12 dead".

As of 4:38pm, Al Jazeera has not mentioned this story at all. (They are very pro-palestinian)

Conflicting information comes from all directions. Whom I am supposed to believe?

There is no question that both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are suffering. I believe that international organizations need to pressure both sides to accept a lasting agreement, not just a cease fire that will break down in a month or a year from now.

In order for a quiet to last, both sides' interests need to be addressed in an upcoming ceasefire agreement.

[Anonymous]

If the US public were viewing nightly news telecasts of massive groups of unarmed PEACEFULLY protesting Palestinians (perhaps standing in front of settlement construction equipment) being set upon with firehoses and dogs---public perception of the Palestinian question would change. As it is, public sympathy for the Palestinians' justifiable outrage over continuing settlement encroachment (among other grievances) is undermined by suicide bombers and random rocket fire meant to terrorize.

OP here. I understand this point - this is in part what I was referring to when I said that Hamas isn't blameless. I know that (much smaller numbers of) innocent Israelis get killed unjustly and I think that is awful too. However, I do think that some allowance needs to be made for the appalling conditions that Palestinians are kept in. In 2008, the BBC reported that conditions inside Gaza were nothing short of a total humanitarian disaster - literally the worst since Israeli occupation began in 1967. Just today, a top Vatican official commented that the conditions in Gaza were like a concentration camp for the Palestinians. How long can people be expected to be imprisoned in absolute squalor without fighting back?

[Anonymous]

I don't justify rocket fire against Israeli civilians. Hamas should not be bombing civilians but what many people don't realize is that the Gazans were already suffering under the Israeli blockade before this all happened. Israel might have prevented this by easing up on the blockade, a position which the WaPo editorial board took at the beginning of the war. And believe me, the WaPo is no pro-Palestinian voice. The fact that they were calling for this is significant.

Ultimately it's hard to see how this won't hurt Israel badly like its invasion of Lebanon in an effort to cripple Hezbollah. It just raised Hezbollah in world opinion and helped Hezbollah gain greater footing in the Lebanese government.

[Anonymous]

I was in Gaza around 15 years ago, and believe me, living conditions were abominable then. I can't imagine what it was like one year ago, much less what it must be like now. It's the most densely populated place on earth (and it has been for some time) - I really have no idea where those who say "well the IDF warns them before an attack, they should evacuate" think Gazans can reasonably go to get out of harm's way.

I've been following a blog by a Canadian who is currently in Gaza. She points out in a recent post that you can't really bury people properly when there are so many dead, and so little room even for those who are alive.

ingaza.wordpress.com

[Anonymous]

I really have no idea where those who say "well the IDF warns them before an attack, they should evacuate" think Gazans can reasonably go to get out of harm's way.

A panelist on NPR yesterday likened it to shelling Manhattan (a walled-in version of it...). Where are the people supposed to go?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
What is interesting is that the Telegraph article mentioned that "100 people were rounded up, 70 people died".
NYT doesn't mention any "round ups", reports about "12 dead".

As of 4:38pm, Al Jazeera has not mentioned this story at all. (They are very pro-palestinian)

Conflicting information comes from all directions. Whom I am supposed to believe?

There is no question that both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are suffering. I believe that international organizations need to pressure both sides to accept a lasting agreement, not just a cease fire that will break down in a month or a year from now.

In order for a quiet to last, both sides' interests need to be addressed in an upcoming ceasefire agreement.

There is actually more consistency between the article than you make it appear. The Telegraph article sources the rounding up of 100 people to survivors. The Times doesn't quote survivors, so that part of the story is basically a separate issue. Both articles quote ICRC medical personnel (the Times relies on an official statement while the Telegraph on a volunteer). The Telegraph's source says "Inside the Samouni house I saw about ten bodies and outside another sixty". The Times says "In all, there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses." Given that a pile of bodies in a house can be easily mistaken for either "about ten" or "at least 12", that seems perfectly consistent. The remaining issue is the sixty outside. The Telegraph's source says he couldn't count accurately because he was looking for wounded. The Times' article describes Israeli troops ordering the ICRC personnel to leave before they were ready. So, one could reasonably assume the ICRC has no official count, or even a relatively solid number, that could be included in an official statement. Or, one could also reasonably wonder whether a Palestinian volunteer would lie or exaggerate. But, at least 15 dead (the Times also mentions three others) are mentioned in the official statement, including the mothers of two babies who were found next to the bodies.

We also know that the international media is barred from Gaza and that Israel censors any reports from that country. So, at this time, its really impossible to know much for sure what happened. The fact that al-Jazeera is not willing to get kicked out of Israel for violating the censorship laws does not mean this incident didn't happen (and of course, doesn't mean that it did). But something very tragic did for sure happen.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What is interesting is that the Telegraph article mentioned that "100 people were rounded up, 70 people died".
NYT doesn't mention any "round ups", reports about "12 dead".

As of 4:38pm, Al Jazeera has not mentioned this story at all. (They are very pro-palestinian)

Conflicting information comes from all directions. Whom I am supposed to believe?

There is no question that both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are suffering. I believe that international organizations need to pressure both sides to accept a lasting agreement, not just a cease fire that will break down in a month or a year from now.

In order for a quiet to last, both sides' interests need to be addressed in an upcoming ceasefire agreement.

There is actually more consistency between the article than you make it appear. The Telegraph article sources the rounding up of 100 people to survivors. The Times doesn't quote survivors, so that part of the story is basically a separate issue. Both articles quote ICRC medical personnel (the Times relies on an official statement while the Telegraph on a volunteer). The Telegraph's source says "Inside the Samouni house I saw about ten bodies and outside another sixty". The Times says "In all, there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses." Given that a pile of bodies in a house can be easily mistaken for either "about ten" or "at least 12", that seems perfectly consistent. The remaining issue is the sixty outside. The Telegraph's source says he couldn't count accurately because he was looking for wounded. The Times' article describes Israeli troops ordering the ICRC personnel to leave before they were ready. So, one could reasonably assume the ICRC has no official count, or even a relatively solid number, that could be included in an official statement. Or, one could also reasonably wonder whether a Palestinian volunteer would lie or exaggerate. But, at least 15 dead (the Times also mentions three others) are mentioned in the official statement, including the mothers of two babies who were found next to the bodies.

We also know that the international media is barred from Gaza and that Israel censors any reports from that country. So, at this time, its really impossible to know much for sure what happened. The fact that al-Jazeera is not willing to get kicked out of Israel for violating the censorship laws does not mean this incident didn't happen (and of course, doesn't mean that it did). But something very tragic did for sure happen.

I can see how someone can get confused between 10 and 12 bodies, but do not understand how a medical worker can get confused between 12 and 70 bodies. There is a difference.
I mentioned Al Jazeera because they are usually not shy about criticizing Israel and reporting information that can support a Palestinian position.
My point is that there are inconsistencies in this story so we should not make any assumptions until the dust settles and an independent investigation can be made.