Prisoners Revolt In Gaza. - Page 3

When official Government military actions, presumed against military targets, have a 2 out of 3 civilian death rate and a 10, 20, 50x civilian death rate compared to the enemy, it takes a real lack of morals for someone not to see that that is not an ethical thing to do.

 

Whether it's called "terrorism" or not, people die. This can be stopped. This should be stopped.

 

If Israel really wants to gain favour enough to end this conflict, Israel must take the moral high ground. The moral high ground is not their birthright. And it disappears when they start killing children playing soccer. NO MATTER WHAT THE PALESTINIANS DO.

 

An eye for an eye? Soon the world is blind. Ten Palestinians for each Israeli? Genocide. Sharon and Nethanyahu should be held responsible.

There are members of the administration that sanctioned and indeed took part in acts of terrorism that in one incident alone killed up to 90 civilians. do you really believe that the fact that they are now "legitamate" has shifted their moral compass? Let's not forget that the British weren't even their "enemy" they were there in an administrative role but were seen as an obstacle to the Zionists goal.

Terrorism is a sub-element of a guerillia-tactic, that is being usually used by groups that are weaker and much less ressourced/equipped than the opponent. Israel's army is well-equipped and ressourced and has therefore no need to resort to terrorism or other guerillia-tactics.

Terrorism is a tactic to use fear to try to achieve a political goal, for which the group/people doesn't have the military power to achieve in a conventional manner. Israel on the other hand as a state with a full equipped army/secret service has the means to achieve its political and economical goals without terrorism, it simply uses its military force and occupational system to do what its leaders decide, like for example the huge dispossession of palestinian land and ressources it did in the last few decades to create israeli settlements in the Westbank.

Terrorism is ugly and against human morale and ethic codes, but even uglier and more immoral is a state using its political and military power to dispossess and oppress people and it's hard to condemn people for choosing immorale means to fight against a much bigger oppressor.

You can't just ask of these people to give up their means of fighting. In order to really get away from terrorism the people need hope, protection and a longterm political perspective. A powerful actor needs to back the palestinians and help them to restore their political and national rights. The US could do that, as an ally of Israel and having huge political and economical power, it could declare the occupation by Israel as illegal and force Israel to retreat (including dismantling israeli setllements in the Westbank) from the occupied areas and help to create a palestinian state within internationally recognized borders with East-Jerusalem as capital.

A sort of Marshall-plan would need to follow to help the palestinian state to become an economically viable state. Then the palestinians would naturally reduce their support for terrorism and militant groups, as the palestinians would build up a normal regulated and trained army, and work within the new economy, and any remaining militant groups would become just as fringe as the current jewish militant groups.

But instead of doing the right thing, US-leaders are always thinking about winning or not losing elections and so they play it safe which means the status-quo is being untouched.

 

The general consensus among many, but not all, of the US members here is that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they resort to violence to pursue their goals. Fair enough...

 

How then do they feel about the Tibetans? They have engaged in violent uprisings against the Chinese over the years. Indeed the CIA even funded and trained Tibetan insurgents. The Tibetans are terrorists, the Chinese sovereign government says so, so it must be true. But hang on... the CIA funded a terrorist organisation... does it then follow that the USA is a state sponsor of terrorism? If so they should put themselves on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency list (ICE), where they can join Israel as a "specially designated country" that "have shown a tendency to promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations or their members."  The inclusion of Israel is at least consistent with claims that they have been sponsoring the Islamic terrorist group MEK.

 

Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is currently on the official US list of terrorist organisations yet there are many politicians, that have previously be prone to spouting anti-islamic rhetoric and shown to favour Israel, that want MEK removed from the list. This baffled many people until NBC covered the story. The suggestion is that MEK is being funded by Israel, acting as agents in the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists, a policy that seems to curry favour in the USA.

 

As a Brit should I be allowed to demand that the drunken mock-Irish dickheads that funded the IRA through NORAID should be sent to Guantanamo Bay?

 

Ultimately labeling someone that, lacks a structured army yet, resorts to organised violence as being a terrorist state is one hell of an oversimplification. Pot/kettle?

 

I have morals, and I think it is indeed ethical.  It's necessary.  

 

 

 

OK.  

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is.  If you want to discuss other terrorist groups, then let's do so.  We're focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now.  Trying to broaden the debate by labeling the US as hypocritical just cheapens the discourse.  

It doesn't cheapen the discourse.  It hurts your argument.  It's no wonder you don't want to discuss Tibet.  You care more about winning than collaborating to find a better solution.

 

Winning what?  I simply think that trying to label the US as inconsistent or hypocritical doesn't add to the discussion of this topic.  It may be a valid topic, but it's a different one.   

 

The problem here is that we can't even discuss the issue honestly.  You, tonton, Nightcrawler, hungover and others won't admit that your true position is that you think Palestinian terror is completely justified, and that you view Israel as an evil oppressor.   Until you do, there isn't much point in going further.  

 

In fact, intellectual dishonesty is the problem we see right now in the U.S. with regard to the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.  Democrats won't admit that they know raising taxes on the wealthy won't fix our problems, and will likely slow the economy.  They won't admit the real reason they want to raise taxes is that they simply think upper income people should be taxed more for reasons of "fairness" and "fixing" wealth inequality.   If we would just start with what people actually believe, we might be able to get something accomplished.  

 

Oh really, SDW200?. Well, take that up with the United States Government.

 

Typical bullshit and ignorance from SDW2001: Here's some statistics from 1948-1989: 

 

 

Event or Class	Date	Numbers Killed	Fraction or Multiple of PLO Killings (Row 1)
PLO Killings
1. Total Israelis killed by PLO	1968-81	282	1
Israeli Killings
2. Deir Yassin	April 10, 1948	254 (100+ women/children)	0.9
3. Doueimah	Oct. 28, 1948	350-1,000	1.2-3.5
4. Qibya	Oct. 14-15, 1953	66-70 (¾ women/children)	0.2
5. El-Bureig	Aug. 31, 1953	50	0.2
6. Kafr Kassim	Oct. 29, 1956	49 (29 women/children)	0.2
7. Khan Yunis	Nov. 3-4, 1956	275	1.0
8. Rafah	Nov. 12, 1956	111	0.4
9. Abu Zaabal	Feb. 12, 1970	70-80	0.2-0.3
10. Bahr al-Baqr	April 8, 1970	40-47 (all children)	0.1-0.2
11. Syria (9 air raids)	Sept. 9, 1972	200-500	0.7-1.8
12. Refugee Camp	May 1974	200+	0.7+
13. Refugee Camps	Dec. 2, 1975	57	0.2
14. Lebanon	Nov. 9, 1977	70-100	0.2-0.4
15. Beirut	July 17-18, 1981	300+	1.1+
16. Refugee Camps	June 3-4, 1982	190+	0.8+
17. Sabra-Shatila	Sept. 16-18, 1982	1,800-3,500 (large % women/children)	6.4-12.4
18. Beqaa Valley	Jan. 1984	100 (many children)	0.4
19. Majdal Anjar	Aug. 28, 1984	100	0.4
20. Tunis	Oct. 1, 1985	75	0.3
21. 1987-89 uprising	May 1989	438	1.6
22. Aggregate of rows 2-21		4,795-7,496	17.0-26.6

 

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

LInk

Link

 

 

Israel is not only guilty of international terrorism since its creation in 1948, but also they are guilt of war crimes. In this BBC report (conservative mainsteam Government run UK broadcast network), the vast majority of Israel's targets in Lebanon during the 2009 war were civilian infrastructure - NOT military facilities. Targeting the civilian infrastructure of a nation is deemed a war crime under international law. But as we all know, there is one law for Israel and the US, and another law for the rest of the world's nations.

 

 

KEY INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGED IN ISRAELI BOMBING Airports Beirut International Qaleiat domestic Rayak military Ports Beirut Tripoli Jounieh Other transport Lighthouse, Beirut Bridges: 62 Fuel stations: 22 Overpasses: 72 Dams: 3 Roads: 600km Military Radar installations: 4 Army barracks: 1 Civilian Private homes: 5,000 Commercial Tissue paper factory, Bekaa Bottle factory, Bekaa Other businesses: 150 Communications Hezbollah's al-Manar TV station, Haret Hreik, Beirut MTC mobile phone antenna, Dahr al-Baidar Utilities Jiyeh power plant Sibline power station Sewage plant, Dair al-Zahrani

 

 

And considering that the huge majority of the US population gets its news out of the Middle East via the corporate weasel-media as filtered by MEMRI, designed to sanitize Israel, and demonize its enemies....you will not hear of reality.

Talk about caricatures.

 

Not at all...simply what I think your position really is.  If I'm wrong, please say so.  And please be specific as to what your position is.  

 

You can post all the statistics you want.  The fact is that the Israelis do not deliberately target innocent civilians.  There is no way around that for you, no matter how much of a problem you have with Israeli military and political actions.  

 

Really, I'd love to hear what some of you folks (you know who you are) think Israel should do.   You're excellent at ripping them for military actions in response to terrorism.  But rarely do I hear (read) and what you'd like them to do.   What you fail to acknowledge is that the Palestinian cause is not about establishing a state.  It's not about better living conditions or opposing an "occupation."  It's about retaking the land they believe is theirs by God's own will.  They view Israel as an illegitimate state, regardless of the actions it pursues.      

 

So, in your mind, all the facts, statistics and hard evidence of terrorism, the deliberate targeting of civilians, and committing war crimes on the part of the Israeli military, are not relevant - and only your opinion counts?

Palestinian insurgents and the Israeli government are both acting like complete dicks hurting their respective nations.  I think that Israel's response has been vastly disproportionate--the statistics absolutely support that notion.  A disproportionate response does not, however, give license to the Palestinians to fire rockets at civilians.  Having rockets fired at civilians doesn't give license to Israel to kill ten or a hundredfold more Palestinian civilians.  

 

Israel has the missile defense system to protect them, but it won't solve their terrible PR problem--they just flat out look like bullies with the kill ratio so drastically in their favor.  They should stop the encroaching settlements, stop killing civilians, and stop giving the Palestinian extremists excuses to recruit and retaliate.  

OK then, Definitions of terrorism:

 

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

 

 

No mention of civilians there at all.. What you do have is the use of violence to create fear in order to achieve an ideological goal. So, bombing Gaza in the knowledge that civilians WOULD definitely be killed is unlawful and intended to coerce and therefore fits the bill so far as the US DoD definition of terrorism.

 

So! What should Israel do? Remove the blockade on Gaza, stop illegal settlements, negotiate on the creation of the Palestinian state, engage in dialogue with Iran and stop acting like the bully of the Middle East. For a start.

Was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act?

I don't know enough about it to definitively answer, but in my opinion, I would call it more civil disobedience - more like Occupy, Greenpeace, or Sea Shepherd....

Good example. Yes, it was. If i recall my history correctly, the rebels stormed the ships, killed the men on board and destroyed the cargo. The act was meant as a threat to the British that if they did not stop the oppression of the settlers (taxation without representation), then more violence would follow.

Sounds like a terrorist act to me.

Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party?

If not, then why?

Is it because you find such oppression unbearable?

Now... Does anyone thing the Palestinians are not being oppressed?

Well, I have reviewed the history, and by all firsthand accounts, there were no deaths in Boston harbor on that night. In that case, I do not consider this particular rebellion an act of terrorism.

I'd like to ask anyone here whether they consider a Muslim rebel force blowing up an unmanned American oil well an act of terrorism.

I'm curious, MJ, as to whether you think any of the Tea Partiers' collectively agreed upon actions (to distinguish them from individual actions or mistakes) were unjust or unjustified.

In what way does it cheapen my argument? You denied that Israel engages in terrorist activities I showed you evidence to suggest otherwise. You choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your arguement. Even the largest supporter of Israel, the USA, accepts that Israel engages in terrorist activities.

 

Let us assume that the UN does grant Palestine recognition as a state later today. Does this mean that you will drop the terrorist label whenever the Palestinians fire their crude motars? 

One of Israel's ace cards is the sympathy card. Criticize Israel, and you're automatically a "Jew Hater" or an "Anti-Semite" or even  "Holocaust Denier". They play this card at every opportunity, and for many people (especially in politics), the notion of being lumped alongside Hitler and the Nazis is not only unwelcome, but a political suicide/career ender.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/meast/palestinian-united-nations/?hpt=hp_t1

 

Palestine is now an observer state at the UN.  Same status as the Vatican.

 

 

 

The US and Israel of course objected.

 

The "leader of the free world" and its puppy don't want freedom for all people, just select ones.

Unfortunately the first Israeli response is likely to result in power cuts in the Occupied Terratories. Perhaps the Palestinians could pay some Iranian nuclear scientists to build a nuclear power station for them... opps, I forgot... the Israeli government paid terrorists to murder them all....

 

That would be the MEK and Jundallah terrorist groups, the latter funded and abetted by both US and UK governments. Jundullah has been responsible for an ongoing spate of terrorist attacks - bombings and shootings in Iran, resulting in hundreds of murders and injuries since 2003. 

For the benefit of those outside of the USA I suspect that this question is in response to the recent news reports of children in Texan schools being asked to consider if the Tea Party was an act of terrorism http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239169/The-Boston-Tea-Party-act-terrorism-Fury-mock-news-report-taught-schools.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlquestion

 

The children were presented with a mock news account of the story which reported it as an act of terrorism. The intention being to teach the children to question what they read and to understand that through propagander you can spin pretty much anything. The irony here however is that the mainstream press in the USA have largely ommited to mention the mock element and have portrayed the education authority as being anti-patriotic.

The Boston Tea party act is imho definitely not terrorism, it was imho an act of rebellion.

 

That the rebels masquaraded as indians is though psychologically interesting. Maybe they saw indians as a symbol for uncompromised freedom or being disobedient and rebellious made them psychologically uneasy and the masquerading helped them overcome these inhibitions.

Or perhaps they though that if things went pear shaped they could blame it on the "indians" ;)

 

It's important to be precise. The murder of iranian scientists is not terrorism, it's ordinary assassination.

 

The difference is that terrorism isn't specific regarding its victims, the sole purpose is to cause an effect of fear for the purpose of achieving a political change.

 

Killing the iranian scientists is a very specific assassination-campaign with the purpose of slowing down the development of the iranian nuclear program.

 

Like already said, Israel as a government doesn't need to resort terrorism, a tool used by militarily weak groups, it can use normal warfare or assassinations to achieve its goals.

 

Even the massacres in Lebanon were not terrorism, they were normal massacres for the purpose of killing as much of the civilian supportbase of the PLO in Lebanon as possible... and Israel's army didn't commit the massacre itself, it let a christian militia commit it.

 

The breaking bones-policy in the occupied terrorities during the first intifada or the arbitrary emprisonments without court-decisions (for the purpose of creating a net of collaborateurs through pressure) or the destruction of homes of the families of family-members of suicide-bombers or the blockade of Gaza or the stealing of land and ressources, ... all that and more don't qualify for being terrorism, they are occupational policy, oppression, maybe warcrimes but certainly not terrorism.

 

The use of disproportionate force in residential areas with the calculated acceptance of huge collateral damage could qualify as terrorism if the goal is to force the palestinian population to develop fear and reduce their support for the palestinian militant groups, but to prove that that is the main-motivation is difficult and maybe it's only a sidemotivation.

Edited by Nightcrawler - 11/30/12 at 5:43am

 

Go ahead.  Show me evidence that Israeli military deliberately targets innocent civilians.  Show me the evidence of "war crimes."   Can't wait.  

 

 

So?  The entire idea of proportionate military responses is stupid.  

 

 

 

 

Agreed.  

 

 

 

You're drawing a false equivalence there.  Israel does not deliberately target known innocent civilians.  They are going after military targets and terrorist leaders.  Unlike the Palestinians, they are not launching strikes on busses and pizza shops.  

.  

 

 

I actually agree with that.  My complaint with Israel has always been that they sometimes seem ready to poke the bear.  Right or wrong, they should stop the expansion of settlements in areas that they know will be provocative.  

 

 

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of how the left twists itself into a pretzel trying to justify Palestinian actions while condemning Israeli actions.  Every intellectually honest person knows that Israel does not engage in terrorism.  Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal, no matter what your little dictionary says.  

 

 

 

 

Why, so more weapons can flow?  

 

 

Tell me how they are "illegal" in their own country.  

 

 

They've tried that for at least 20 years.  In 1995, Arafat was offered 95% of what he wanted, and rejected it.  The Palestinians, on the whole, do not want a peaceful two state solution.  

 

 

To what end?  Iran is incredibly hostile and has called for Israel's destruction time and time again.  They are led by religious zealots who are exceptionally anti-semitic.  Please.  

 

 

Ummm...does Israel launch rockets over borders for no reason?  Does Israel blow up busses and movie theaters and outdoor markets?  

.

 

 

Yes, Berg...because our objection means we don't want people to be free.  <slaps forehead>

 

 

 

 

1.  Israel does not engage in terrorism.  Period.  

 

2.  The United States does not "accept" that Israel engages in terrorist activities.  

 

3.  Of course I won't, not if they are deliberately targeted at civilians.  

 

You have already said the following:

 

 

 

 

You have admitted that your mind is made up and your opinion set in stone, regardless of facts, statistics, evidence etc. I could post more

 

 

 

 

 

 

but according to your track record, the only media worth reading is material that has been sanitized (by the hardline Likudist leaning Middle East Media Research Institute MEMRI), which has a track record of bias and propaganda-mongering, and is the translation/ filter organ through which most of the US public receives its "news" from the Middle East.

 

You are not understanding my point.  I am saying that you have shown no evidence that the Israelis deliberately target innocent civilians.  No amount of statistics, data points or other "evidence" is going to change the fact that Palestinians target innocent men, women and children, and the Israelis don't.  

 

Edit:  By the way, aren't you the one who claimed the U.S. had killed 100-200,000 civilians in Iraq?  Yeah, I think you were.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Effects_on_the_Iraqi_people_during_sanctions

 

Oh boy.  

 

Is that to say the claims and estimates are untrue?

 

Or is this just argumentum de incredulity?

If Israel wanted to target innocent civilians they could use all their weaponry and kill all palestinians, it's technically possible for Israel to commit a genocide. They don't do it because doing so would destroy Israel from within as the israelis themselves couldn't live with doing such a heinous crime.

 

Like already said using terrorism is not necessary for Israel, using normal warfare and occupational oppression they have enough means to achieve their military and political goals.

 

But what is historically interesting is that Israel supported Hamas to grow roots inside Gaza as a mean to split the palestinian political will. During the 80's of last century the secular PLO made steps to recognize Israel and enter a 2-state-solution-compromise. This was the most dangerous development for Israel as it meant having to retreat from the Westbank and to dismantle the settlements there.

 

So in order to disrupt that development Israel supported the muslim brotherhood in establishing itself in Gaza so that the palestinian people would lose their unity and the PLO lose its legitimacy of representing the palestinian people, and additionally adding a religious slant to the conflict so that the palestinians wouldn't be able to enter a secular compromise (divide and conquer).

 

The prospect of peace and therefore having to fulfill the UN-resolutions that declare the occupation of Gaza, Westbank, East-Jerusalem.. as illegal is what Israel's governments have feared the most (I'm not sure if there is a difference between Likud and Kadima on that question), not the predictable and manageable terrorism of militant palestinians.

 

It's an expression of disbelief...that someone actually thinks the United States is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of sanctions placed upon Iraq.  It's not a question of estimated casualties.  It's a question of assigning blame, and making statements like sammi has in the past ("The Iraq war caused the deaths of 100,000 civilians.")  

 

What's even more unbelievable is that you seem to see no connection between the US-drive sanctions and the civilian deaths and suffering.

 

Who is to blame for the deaths resulting from the U.S.-led sanctions, then?

 

Who is to blame for the deaths resulting from the U.S.-led invasion, then?

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Throughout this thread we have witnessed the ease with which words can be manipulated to either condemn or justify unlawful killings.

IMO both sides are (ultimately) as bad as each other. Neither has the right to kill innocent civilians for personal or political gain. That said, I do take umbrage with what seems to be a rehashing of the US media's take on the situation, namely the de-legitimisation of one side through terms such as terrorism. The implied intention being to portray one side as innocents that need to defend themselves from these "crazy idealists". Your insistence on using the term "political assassination" being one such euphemism- it just sounds much "nicer" than "state sponsored murder by terrorist organisations" (which is what it was). I appreciate that might not have been your aim but it is a sad fact that the Nintendofication of violence has filtered down through to the press and in turn the public.

In the last 2 years a number of Iranian "nuclear scientists" have been killed (with up to at least 24 other people) . Given that the pool of scientists is very small their murders will have the effect of acting as a disincentive to joining any such Iranian state jobs. In other words, potential scientists have been "terrorised". You might counter that the primary aim of the killings is to thwart the Iranians, whilst I agree, don't you concede that the killings were conducted in a dramatic manner. More often than not the paymasters want the killings to be as inconspicuous as possible, not in this case, terror is an intended aim.

Both the USA and Israel have laws that prohibit the premeditated killing of civilians without due process. None of the "scientists" had committed any crimes, none were tried. At worst they were guilty of taking a wage from a government that the US/Israeli governments do not like. Additionally they were unfortunate to have been born in region of the world that certain governments would rather remain in a state of political infighting

As soon as wealthy states revel in such duplicity and hypocrisy it undermines their authority (and by association most of the other "western states") it feeds the propaganda machines of those that want to manipulate people into committing acts of violence against those wealthy states. Statements by republican politians such as "On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear programme in Iran turn up dead, I think that's a wonderful thing" (Rick Santorum in October) do little to calm a volatile region. But hey, why should he care? X hundreds of tanned people on the other side of the world kill each other, proves that they are crazy, we need to protect ourselves from them... and so on.

In the main I appreciate your definition of terrorism but perhaps if the Palestinians were on an equal "armoury" footing with the Israelis then they would not resort to such crude and atrocious measures as bombing buses. With proper funding an true UN recognition they could fire the very same missiles that the Israelis currently use, at such as stage would this be acceptable? They would after all be a country legitimately trying to reclaim land stolen by a neighbouring state. And no I am not advocating such as situation. IMO both sides have proved that they should not be allowed to have arms.