Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hamas has no desire to negotiate "peace"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, January 05, 2009

Rabbi Michael Lerner claims, in the TimesOnLine, that Israel's response to the Hamas provocations is something which is within its rights, but stupid:
Israel's attempt to wipe out Hamas is understandable, but stupid. No country in the world is going to ignore the provocation of rockets being launched from neighbouring territory day after day. If Mexico had a group of anti-imperialists bombing Texas, imagine how long it would take for America to mobilise a counterattack. Israel has every right to respond.

But the kind of response matters. Killing 500 Palestinians and wounding 2,000 others (at the time of writing) is disproportionate. Hamas can harass, but it cannot pose any threat to the existence of Israel. And just as Hamas's indiscriminate bombing of population centres is a crime against humanity, so is Israel's killing of civilians (at least 130 so far in Gaza, not to mention the thousands in the years of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza).
Let's be clear about something - while Hamas may not pose a serious threat to the existence of Israel at the moment that doesn't mean, given the Hamas charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, that it won't pose a very real future threat.

As Bryan Pick pointed out recently, with WMD becoming a commodity and much easier to obtain, a death cult such as Hamas wouldn't think twice about using such a weapon if it came into their hands.

That is the threat which Rabbi Lerner and many of the apologists for Hamas seem to want to ignore. Hamas would have no problem whatsoever using a chemical, biological or, God forbid, a nuclear weapon if it could get ahold of one.

So the threat isn't Hama's rockets, it is Hamas.

But speaking of those rockets, Melanie Phillips covers that point quite well:
Then there’s the belief that the Hamas rockets are some kind of homemade, harmless Dad’s Army effort which could and should be ignored.

But the only reason more Israelis haven’t been killed by them is that in the south, the population has been all but living in bomb shelters. And there is nothing ‘homemade’ about the Russian-designed Katyushas and Iranian Grad rockets now putting around one-tenth of Israel’s population within their range.
Lerner also seems not to understand what proportionality really means, falling back on the numbers game as an indicator of what is or isn't proportionate in response to the 6,000 rockets fired from Gaza which have rained down on Israel in the last 7 years.

At some point, you have to say "enough" and stop the attempts on your citizen's lives. The fact is, as I pointed out in a post about proportionality, Israel's response had been quite proportional. Phillips amplifies the point:
The UN has confirmed that the vast majority (75 per cent) of the dead in Gaza have been Hamas terrorists. Given the huge number of bombing sorties that have been conducted, this proves that the Israelis are specifically targeting the Hamas infrastructure.
Obviously the sorties have been very carefully managed to avoid, as much as possible, civilian casualties. In fact, Israel calls the people in the buildings to be bombed and warns them ahead of time to evacuate. And they also drop flyers. But as Phillips astutely points out, dead Palestinians are more valuable in the propaganda war than dead Israelis.
Alas, the civilian death toll will unavoidably mount, which is deeply regrettable.

But what must be understood is that Hamas have deliberately situated their weapons under apartment blocks, in mosques and in hospitals.

The Israelis build bomb shelters for their civilians; Hamas stores bombs underneath its civilians in order to create as many civilian casualties as possible to manipulate world opinion.

What people find so hard to grasp is that Hamas actually wants to maximise the number of Palestinians who are killed because, as they boast: ‘We desire death as you desire life.’
Lastly, it seems to be forgotten that Hamas constitutes the government in Gaza. This isn't just some uncontrollable terrorist organization which is fighting a war against Israel despite the best efforts of its government to stop it. It is the government. And after it came into control of Gaza, it has purposely increased its bombardment of Israel. As Phillips points out, since Israel withdrew from Gaza, rocket attacks have increased by 500%.

People like Lerner want to give a nod to the right of self-defense, but then want to decide what constitutes "proper" or "proportional" action. They do it without seeming to care who the enemy is, what the enemy believes or what he does. Instead they try to boil it down to a sterile numbers game and pretend that the larger the number killed on one side represents a "disproportionate" response on the other.

Well, if that's the case, then each time we wrap up an operation in Iraq or Afghanistan where we kill 150 to 200 while losing none we should be condemned as war criminals. Obviously, we must strive to lose as many as they lose to insure "proportionality" in our war against terror - and that's especially true if the 'civilians' aid and abet the combatants. Silly? Yes. But certainly no sillier than the "proportionality" argument now being used by Hama's supporters.

No one likes to see civilians killed. And while there are indeed "innocent" civilians being killed in this Israeli incursion, there are also some not-so-innocent ones meeting their fate as well. And you have to wonder if the "civilian" count includes the 75 Fatah members that Hamas has knee-capped during the past few days?

Israel seems to have come to the conclusion that it can no longer tolerate a government run by a death-cult that continues to attack it. It also seems to understand that it poses a future threat it cannot risk. I can certainly understand their thinking. I'm just amazed at those who can't seem to grasp the stakes or understand the threat.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"Rabbi Michael Lerner claims, in the TimesOnLine, that Israel’s response to the Hamas provocations is something which is within its rights, but stupid"
Lerner is what we Jews call "a Jew-hating Jew." They were apologists for the Nazis, apologists for the PLO, and apologists for everything that hates Israel or fellow Jews. In short, they sell their own kind out everyday because they are self-loathing pieces of excrement.

Lerner is just one such piece of crap. He is as much as rabbi as I am a priest - not. His magazine is a leftist grabbag of lunacy, intimidation, and paranoia. No one should listen to him. And any Jew who does does so at the expense of fellow Jews.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Israel didn’t leave Gaza. Israel kept tight control over borders, sky and sea. Imposed a blockade only because Palestinians believed that Democracy is real. Gaza children are paying the price for Bush’s push for Democracy. Israel doesn’t want peace. Hamas gave them a truce for several months during which Israel didn’t remove its blockade and kept 1.5 million people hostage in addition to daily provocations both in Gaza and the West Bank. And if any one doesn’t remember any more, most of the people of Gaza where driven by Israel into refugee camps from their homes and land from what is considered Israeli cities today the likes of Ashdood, Ashkelon and Beer Shebaa. Abbas accepted all security terms from Israel and negotiated for years to achieve nothing. It is high time Israel recognize that it can’t have peace if Palestinians don’t have peace and justice. During the same time Israel negotiate with Abbas endlessly it expands its grab of Palestinian lands expanding its settlements endlessly (300% since Annapolis)
 
Written By: Adam
URL: http://
OMG! Did Hamas just get compared to anti-imperialists?

I’m still laughing.
 
Written By: tkc
URL: http://
Israel is attacked by Hamas.
If Israel doesnt respond they encourage further attacks. (After all if someone doesnt like you and gives you a bloody nose and you dont respond why should they stop giving you bloody noses).

So Israel responds
And
Most of the world (including the loony left) condemns Israel.

So what else is new?

Why should Israel stop trying to kill every last memeber of Hamas this time when the world has shown that they will condemn Israel.

I would tell the world

Kiss my ass.

If you want us to stop then you put troops on the ground in GAZA that will SHOOT anyone with a weapon. And if you do that and Hamas breaks the ceasefire then we will move in again and not stop this time (We wont play the rocket launchers next to UN outposts again like we did a few years ago). If not then STFU and let us take care of ourselves.


 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Israel didn’t leave Gaza. Israel kept tight control over borders, sky and sea. Imposed a blockade only because Palestinians believed that Democracy is real. Gaza children are paying the price for Bush’s push for Democracy. Israel doesn’t want peace. Hamas gave them a truce for several months during which Israel didn’t remove its blockade and kept 1.5 million people hostage in addition to daily provocations both in Gaza and the West Bank. And if any one doesn’t remember any more, most of the people of Gaza where driven by Israel into refugee camps from their homes and land from what is considered Israeli cities today the likes of Ashdood, Ashkelon and Beer Shebaa. Abbas accepted all security terms from Israel and negotiated for years to achieve nothing. It is high time Israel recognize that it can’t have peace if Palestinians don’t have peace and justice. During the same time Israel negotiate with Abbas endlessly it expands its grab of Palestinian lands expanding its settlements endlessly (300% since Annapolis)
Hey idiot. Who walked away from the Gaza + 98% of the West Bank land for peace deal at Camp David? Here’s a hint. His name begins with "Y" and ends with "asser Arafat".

Israel supports a two state solution. Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, supports one.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Lerner is what we Jews call "a Jew-hating Jew." They were apologists for the Nazis, apologists for the PLO, and apologists for everything that hates Israel or fellow Jews. In short, they sell their own kind out everyday because they are self-loathing pieces of excrement.

Lerner is just one such piece of crap. He is as much as rabbi as I am a priest - not. His magazine is a leftist grabbag of lunacy, intimidation, and paranoia. No one should listen to him. And any Jew who does does so at the expense of fellow Jews.
Lerner received his ordination from a private beth din. A good analogy is getting a degree from a diploma mill. He is not a rabbi.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Hey, Adam. Hamas called. Seems your Hamas/Nazi card needs renewal. Give them a call at 1-800-545-5539 (1-800-KillJew).
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
My favorite part of Adam’s ignorant, little rant?
And if any one doesn’t remember any more, most of the people of Gaza where driven by Israel into refugee camps from their homes and land from what is considered Israeli

Yup, the damn Jews ran them out.
Oh wait, the invading Arabs told them to get out of Dodge for a few days so there would be only Jews around to be killed and then, the displaced Jordanians and Egyptians could return home after all the Jews were dead.

Talking about the "Truce" (while ignoring that it was laced with rockets from Hamas) was sort of funny, but nope, I always laugh when people talk about grandchildren of "refugees" still being "refugees".
 
Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://
I agree with your analysis, but — when you make the point that Hamas IS the government in Gaza — one must also remember that Hamas was democratically elected to that position by a majority of the residents, and Hamas made no secret when it campaigned for the role that it would follow an unrelenting program to destroy Israel....a campaign promise it is endeavoring to keep. Under such circumstances, I wonder as to the validity of the concept..."innocent civilians"....
 
Written By: RAZ
URL: http://
I wonder which reporter is ready to die in the name of "proportionationality", aferall there is a ratio of ordinary civilians to ordinary reporters and the "death ratio" must be maintained.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I mostly agree with you RAZ, with one quibble.
That election was not democracy, it was ’democracy/Iranian style’ where only the right people can run.
What would have happened if a party had run with the platform of ’Peace with Israel’?
I’ll tell you, they would have been dragged through the streets on hooks and hung from poles as "collaborators".

When talking peace is grounds for death from your government (whether Fatah, Hamas or the PLO), you’re not talking about democracy.

The problem, of course, is that we can’t know what the Palestinian people really think. Any non-sanctioned view of Israel is cause for death.
 
Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://
RAZ, your fundamental point is wrong, there ARE "innocent civilians" in Gaza. Simply because you voted or didn’t vote for Hama, does not make you a legitimate target for attack, in Gaza. To think otherwise is to accept that all the victims of 9/11 "deserved it" because they were citizens of the US, whether or not they supported US policy(ies). Alternatively, there were "innocent" Germans 1939-45 even though the Germans had voted for the Nazi’s and not all attacks on Germans would be considered "just" simply because the Nazi’s had won an election....and the nature of the election has no bearing on the nature of their "guilt" or innocence". They are either guilty or innocent irrespective of the nature of the selection of the government, their "innocence" flows from the nature of non-combatant status, not upon the nature of governmental selection or governmental policy.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Simply because you voted or didn’t vote for Hama, does not make you a legitimate target for attack, in Gaza
Who put them in power, then, but the voters? You do understand there are consequences attached to voting?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
My in-laws didn’t vote for the Imperial Japanese government, but got bombed anyway in Hiroshima. They were all civilians, too. Unlike the Palestinians, they figured that’s what happens when you lose a war, and moved on.

The search for cosmic justice continues, without me. There’s consequences for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s called life. It’s unfair, and then you die.



 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
Ok bithead, do YOU understand that there consequences attached to voting? Going down THAT road means that all the US citizens killed on 9/11 had it coming, because they were citizens of the US, and those citizens had voted, or not, for policies that the conspirators objected...in short they WERE the "little Eichmann’s" that Churchill talked about. Can’t have it both ways, IF you voted or didn’t for Hamas you’re not innocent, but if you voted or not for Clinton/Bush you ARE innocent? Which is it, Bithead?

My theory says that you were an innocent civilian whether or no you voted for Bush/Clinton or Hamas...sadly ethical/legal holding need to be universal, not just applicable to those nations/persons we like...so it is either OK to hold the denizens of the WTC culpable for their nation’s acts or it isn’t...just like we can hold the denizens of the Gaza Strip culpable for their government’s policies.

This isn’t some “poor civilians” rant, it is simply to say, “Indeed there ARE innocent civilians in Gaza.” Just as there were innocents in the WTC or Hamburg or Dresden…and that their innocence comes NOT from how they voted, but from their status as noncombatants. There ARE consequences to voting, for the US one of those consequences may be higher taxes, and greater inflation because Obama won the election, but those consequences of voting do not have to do with innocence or guilt or dying simply because you’re a Palestinian living in Gaza. Sorry.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
They are either guilty or innocent irrespective of the nature of the selection of the government, their "innocence" flows from the nature of non-combatant status, not upon the nature of governmental selection or governmental policy.
Fah. If you voted for a govt. with a stated policy platform to destroy Israel, you are guilty.

Now your use of 9/11 as consequences simply doesn’t work. What is happening now in Gaza is a military operation launched against "military" targets (at least what passes for military in that toilet anyway). 9/11 is simply a terrorist attack and wasn’t launched against us for any "consequences" no matter what the terrorist loving left says.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What is happening now in Gaza is a military operation launched against "military" targets (at least what passes for military in that toilet anyway). 9/11 is simply a terrorist attack and wasn’t launched against us for any "consequences" no matter what the terrorist loving left says.

That’s not what the attackers say/said...see can’t have it both ways, on the 99th floor of WTC innocent, but on the 9th floor of an apartment, but voted for Hamas, guilty...both parties are innocent, or both are guilty.

That doesn’t make Gaza a War Crime or excuse 9/11 this is about the JUSTINCE IN THE WAR, not the Justness OF the war...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ok bithead, do YOU understand that there consequences attached to voting? Going down THAT road means that all the US citizens killed on 9/11 had it coming, because they were citizens of the US, and those citizens had voted, or not, for policies that the conspirators objected...in short they WERE the "little Eichmann’s" that Churchill talked about. Can’t have it both ways, IF you voted or didn’t for Hamas you’re not innocent, but if you voted or not for Clinton/Bush you ARE innocent? Which is it, Bithead?
You’ve just illustrated rather well, I think, the importance of making sure the right people get elected. People who will actually show some courage, as opposed to "negotiation" with people who have repetedly demonstrated themselvs unwilling to take negotation seriously, except as a weapon to use against their enemy.

Did they deserve it? Perhaps not,(there are, after all innocents in every war but the conseuqnces are there none the less. And indeed, if the stories about opinions on the west bank I’m now hearing are true, they understand this point better than you. Then again, they’re in the middle of it.

But are you really saying that what Israel is doing is tatamount to a terrorist attack? You’ve just lost any creds you might have had.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
No Bithead I didn’t equate Israel to a terrorist attack, I AID that there are innocent civilians in Gaza...you assert that their decision to vote Hamas, whether they actually did or not, eliminates their innocent civilian status...THAT I dispute,. using 9/11 as an example...again it is Justice IN War, not the Justice OF the War I am assessing.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No Bithead I didn’t equate Israel to a terrorist attack
,

Yes, you did, when you claimed the two situations were even remotely comparable. Now, pay attention:

Bruce:
Israel seems to have come to the conclusion that it can no longer tolerate a government run by a death-cult that continues to attack it. It also seems to understand that it poses a future threat it cannot risk. I can certainly understand their thinking. I’m just amazed at those who can’t seem to grasp the stakes or understand the threat.


Mmmmmppphhfff.
There’s another level of this, Bruce; the connection to the US election. I suggest their conclusion was that they couldn’t live with, as you say, a government run by a death-cult that continues to attack it.... and which would soon have US support, ala Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton. ... you’ll doubtless recall that Arifat all but had his own office in the White House, for example, while Clinton was busy pounding on Israel for consessions. The added weight of ’negotation’ as it’s been played out over the years... where the "Palatsinians" use "Negotation" as they would any other weapon.. against their enemy... As I said back in 2001:
“From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her agenda. Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office), has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the Palestinians’ peace talk really is, and how desperate Clinton was to be seen as a good President, his crimes against his oaths not withstanding.

Consider….

At Clinton’s insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the peace loving Palestinians respond? Yasser Arafat turned it all down, and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his armed forces, (You recall, they’re supposed to be policemen?) to fire at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation.

Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain that he didn’t give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are interested in is the destruction of Israel. It should have also been a signal that Clinton’s attempt at a legacy backfired, big time, and more, that it didn’t have a chance to start with…. something that Clinton should have known, did he have any understanding of the situation at all.
What I’m suggesting is that Israel saw all of that developing against them all over again, and reacted accordingly.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Yes, you did, when you claimed the two situations were even remotely comparable. Now, pay attention:
HELLO, treatment of civilians and proportionality apply in ANY situation, Nazi v. Allies, Al Qaeda v. US,...if you can’t grasp that I can’t help you. you can NOT say, "OK, the town’s full of Nazi’s so we can level it." Or the town is full of Germans who voted for the Nazi’s so we can level it...or the Gaza Strip is full of folks who voted for Hamas, so we can level it...or that the WTC is full of folks who voted for Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush so we can level it...It’s not who you voted for, dude. You might be justified in leveling the town, but you can’t dismiss the civilian cost on the basis of their politics.

If you do, then you ratify Usama Bin Laden’s decision to support the 9/11 attacks, because those victims weren’t "victims" they were US citizens who had supported, Maybe, objectionable US policy(ies).

Palestinians are people, too, so any right you’d grant a US citizen you grant them...in terms of the Law of War.

I have no kick with Israel attacking Gaza, I don’t think every civilian is prima facia evidence of a war crime, I just object to sloppy moral thinking.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No one likes to see civilians killed.
au contraire -

Hamas is fine with it, they plan for it, they pray for it.
As long as the civilians are Jews.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hamas is fine with it, they plan for it, they pray for it.
As long as the civilians are Jews.
Actually they’re Ok with it if they are adorable little Palestinian children or nice old Palestinian grannies, if it makes the Israelis look bad.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
or that the WTC is full of folks who voted for Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush so we can level it...It’s not who you voted for, dude. You might be justified in leveling the town, but you can’t dismiss the civilian cost on the basis of their politics.
You keep insisting that the actions of Bin Laden are equivalent to the actions and justifications of an elected government.
They are not.
I don’t expect Bin Laden, a self appointed representative of people who have no say in his operations, to play by rules easily recognized by most governments with regard to their military and civilian populations.

There is no comparison with the attack on the WTC and the Israeli targeting of Hamas military assets in civilian areas.

Hamas is an elected government, duly elected by the people of Gaza, which has instituted a policy of attack on the country of Israel. You totally discount the actions of Hamas in placing their operational/logistical/tactical military assets in and around civilian locations with the specific knowledge and intent that the Israelis will be forced to either ignore the assets or destroy the assets and risk causing collateral damage to the civilians they’ve jeopardized.
Was there a military asset Osama bin Laden was after that day New York?
A missile launcher? Machine gun nest? Mortar emplacement? Artillery battery? Air base? Command and Control facility?
Actually they’re Ok with it if they are adorable little Palestinian children or nice old Palestinian grannies, if it makes the Israelis look bad.
Exactly.

This is not the action of a government that is interested in protecting it’s civilian population. It’s the action of a government coldly calculating and counting on casualties to aid it and help preserve it.
All the while maintaining it’s right to eliminate the state of Israel.

Sure, there are innocents, there are always innocents. Odds are fewer of these ’innocents’ didn’t vote for Hamas than did. I don’t like it, I’m one of the "no ones" who doesn’t like to see civilians killed. But when you engage in a war, you’d either better put your military assets out of areas where civilians live to avoid them being harmed, or accept that you’re putting them in danger. You don’t get to have it both ways. The ’innocent’ Palestinians are nothing more than human shields for the government they elected.
And you know what, they’ll go right ahead and elect them again next time around.
What does THAT tell you?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
All Israel needs to do is send in Team StrikeForce.

Oh come on. This begs for parody.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Nazi v. Allies,
(cough, Drezden, Nagasaki,Hiroshima, cough)

You see, reality keeps rearing its head.

We waited for about half a decade before responding in that fashion. How long do you propose to hold Israel to your mythical "proportionality"? Do you really think that those seeking to destroy Israel, large chanting death to Israel, and who were seeking nuclear weapons for the specific purpose of a wiping Israel from the face of the map, give a tinkers cuss about your concept of proportionality, except as it benefits them?

It’s time you get out of the notion that this is going to come to some kind of a mutually agreeable end. That civilization is going to have any sway whatsoever over a band of people who insist on remaining in the fourteenth century, and who are, by their own words quite willing to kill 1000 of their own for the purpose of killing one Jew.




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.
Keep voting Democrat you American Jews!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
That’s not what the attackers say/said...see can’t have it both ways, on the 99th floor of WTC innocent, but on the 9th floor of an apartment, but voted for Hamas, guilty...both parties are innocent, or both are guilty.

That doesn’t make Gaza a War Crime or excuse 9/11 this is about the JUSTINCE IN THE WAR, not the Justness OF the war...
No, 99th floor is innocent, 9th floor is guilty. You’re drawing a moral equivilance that doesn’t quite make it. You can’t equate terror attacks launched over a pretext "grevience" with a war incited by a govt that openly wants to exterminate their neighbors
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Bithead and Shark, the easier and more correct approach is to say, 99th floor WTC and 9th floor Gaza Apartment are EQUALLY guilty or innocent. Can’t have it both ways, and it doesn’t matter if Usama has a country or not. An unjust act is unjust whether or no you have a seat at the UN or if you have a permanent seat at the UNSC. Please provide some justification for implying or stating that non-state actors are any more or less bound, ethically than state actors...or put another way explain to me how if the US does it’s OK, but if Usama did it would be bad?
Nazi v. Allies,
(cough, Drezden, Nagasaki,Hiroshima, cough)

You see, reality keeps rearing its head.
Uuuummmmmmmm no not seeing it...plese explain this statement. Walzer, in fact, might argue that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were, INDEED< war crimes, and unjust acts...I’m not sure I wold...any way Coventry, Rotterdam, Nanjing, see I can quote atrocities committed by the Axis, too and STILL can’t fathom the point you try to make....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
But what must be understood is that Hamas have deliberately situated their weapons under apartment blocks, in mosques and in hospitals.
McQ, any time you write a post which includes quotes like this, please label them as the Geneva Convention violations by Hamas they are. And those who violate the Conventions have no claim to protection under them.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Bithead and Shark, the easier and more correct approach is to say, 99th floor WTC and 9th floor Gaza Apartment are EQUALLY guilty or innocent.
Easy, but completely incorrect.
Did the U.S. bomb Afghanistan before 9/11? Did we lob rockets into Saudi Arabia?
No.
99th floor WTC innocent victims of murder, no matter who they voted for.
9th floor Gaza innocent victims of their own government, if they didn’t support or vote for it.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
Bithead and Shark, the easier and more correct approach is to say, 99th floor WTC and 9th floor Gaza Apartment are EQUALLY guilty or innocent. Can’t have it both ways, and it doesn’t matter if Usama has a country or not. An unjust act is unjust whether or no you have a seat at the UN or if you have a permanent seat at the UNSC. Please provide some justification for implying or stating that non-state actors are any more or less bound, ethically than state actors...or put another way explain to me how if the US does it’s OK, but if Usama did it would be bad?
Easier surely.....more correct? Disagree.

"An unjust act is an unjust act"......I’m pretty sure you and I can agree on just/unjust, but unfortunately the game is markedly different when you have a people who as a whole view the very existance of Israel itself as an "unjust" act. Which is why you can’t say 99th is guilty because their crime was basically to support US governments that didn’t convert us to Sharia law.

So yes it leads to your question regarding state/non-state actors: I’ll agree with you that if the US planned and carried out an operation to have covert operatives hijack Palestinian airliners and then crash them into Palestinian office towers in a deliberate attempt to destroy civilian targets and lives, yes that would be wrong.

Stateless actors are much less bound than state actors (though I’ll grant you that rougue states like NoKo and Iran aren’t very bound by anything either nowadays, but I believe you’re really making the point re: democracies)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And those who violate the Conventions have no claim to protection under them.
Untrue, they DO have a claim to them. It is not contingent upon you obeying the rules. The members of the 2nd SS Panzer Division would have been covered by the Conventions, even though they themselves did not obey...the protections they offer, such as they are, are not dependent upon MY conduct, they bind YOU irrespective of my conduct.

Come on People, we don’t have to like Hamas in order to argue that they have rights or that Israel does not have carte blanche to deal with them.
9th floor Gaza innocent victims of their own government, if they didn’t support or vote for it.

REALLY, and how are they conceptually different from the people on the 99th floor of the WTC? Can Usama not make the same claim? The victims on the 99th were merely victims of their own government...once you start operating on the basis that "we" like Group X and therefore they have certain rights as opposed to Group Y, whom we don’t like, we move from law or justice and simply into propaganda and political claims. Your "rights" flow from who "we" are and whether we like you or not...that’s not law or morality or ethics, that’s just school yard politics.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Which is why you can’t say 99th is guilty because their crime was basically to support US governments that didn’t convert us to Sharia law.
You see, that’s the very point, they, they being Palestinians or US citizens are not guilty because their governments behaved in a certain way...whether or not they support those decisions. PERIOD

It applies to Palestinians, Americans, or Israelis...arguably the Palestinians are lobbing rockets at members of "Peace Now", it makes for increased irony but it doesn’t make the act any more or less unjust.

Please move past your contempt and hatred for Hamas and move onto reasonable thinking...By your argument the Germans were NOT covered by the Laws of War because their government had violated them, not a tenable position. And just as it covers white European Nazis, Nazi supporters, or those luke warm about the Third Reich or its active opponents, so too it covers the Palestianians, in all their flavours of anti-semitism or politcal belief. That’s what distinguishes "law" or "justice" from simply "might makes right". That’s what makes law so galling it...it limits the good people when dealing witht he bad people, but oh well obedience tot he Lawof War or of Moses is what distinguishes the "good" people from the "bad."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
A civilian is defined by their unarmed status, not who they voted for.

We do not kill the Grandma who voted for Hitler.

Now, does that mean we cannot suggest that the people of Gaza should not vote for Hamas or feel a bit less sympathy at collateral damage?

No.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
What harun, said.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
(reality)
Uuuummmmmmmm no not seeing it..
Mmm. Clearly.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Which is why you can’t say 99th is guilty because their crime was basically to support US governments that didn’t convert us to Sharia law.
You see, that’s the very point, they, they being Palestinians or US citizens are not guilty because their governments behaved in a certain way...whether or not they support those decisions. PERIOD
Excuse me.....when the Palis elect a govt that said they want to eradicate Israel, they ARE responsible for when said govt precipitates the war they promised.

There’s an extreme difference between the behavior of the govts you showcase- one starts a war, the other refuses to adopt Sharia law. Example one is a state entity provoking warfare against another state entity. Example two is a state entity exercising their lawful discretion, harming nobody
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
9th floor Gaza innocent victims of their own government, if they didn’t support or vote for it.
REALLY, and how are they conceptually different from the people on the 99th floor of the WTC? Can Usama not make the same claim?
They have the same level of innoncence, but that does not make them conceptually alike. Both are victims of heinous acts. The difference is in who decided the victims’ location was part of a valid target. For the 9th floor Gazans, their own Government decided their street was to be a military base. Usama can not make the same claim. Pre 9-11 the US had not taken any military action against Afghanistan, we’ve never had a standing policy to wipe Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia off the map and Islam is allowed to be taught openly in the U.S. If you’ve got proof the US was using the WTC to lob missiles at one of Usama’s home countries, show it. Otherwise, there is a fundamental difference in who is responsible for innocent lives being lost. If Bush had a standing policy to wipe a country or a religion off the Earth, then Usama could claim Bush supporters inside the WTC were legitimate targets. That never happened either.

If Israel levels an apartment building in an area where they knew Hamas has not had a military presence, then those victims (that don’t support Hamas) would be conceptually equal to the WTC victims. That hasn’t happened.

For accuracy the comparison is that both the WTC casualties and Gazans that didn’t vote for Hamas were innocent vitims of heinous acts committed by radical Islamists.
 
Written By: Phil
URL: http://
The situation in the Middle East is complicated. Shades of gray, and all that. The dead-end Bush supporters who comment here are probably the least qualified to speak to the issues.

This is a particularly representative comment:
Hey, Adam. Hamas called. Seems your Hamas/Nazi card needs renewal. Give them a call at 1-800-545-5539 (1-800-KillJew).
See, if anyone expresses any kind of criticism of the Olmert’s government strategy, they are a Nazi.

The better question is this: How are American interests served by the Israeli government’s actions? And why is that question never addressed by those who hold the view that anyone who advocates in anyway for innocent Palestinian children is a Nazi?

Along those same lines, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives to install a new government in Baghdad. And those who post here - and most of the commenters - have supported the idea that Americans should die in the service of this government. McQ foremost among them. McQ believes Americans should die to preserve the current government in Baghdad.

This is a government that advocates for terrorists. A government allied with Iran.

Here is a recent comment from Maliki:
Iraq slams silence of Arabs on Gaza

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:12 GMT

Iraqi PM al-Maliki condemns the silence of Arab states.
Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki condemns the silence of Arab countries regarding Israeli crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza.

"Israel will not be able to commit such criminal acts in Gaza, if Arab countries spend their large military sums to fight against Israel," al-Maliki said in the Iranian city of Mashhad on Monday.


So not only is Maliki viruently anti-Israel, but he is making these remarks from within Iran.

Bottom line: If you support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, then you support the actions and the positions of the4 government that you had to know would take power. And if you did that, then you supported the actions of a government that wholly suppots Hamas. From Iran. And you believe Americans justifiably died for that government.

How do you sleep at night, McQ?
 
Written By: dude08
URL: http://
Shame on all of you who advocated for the invasion of Iraq. Shame on you.
 
Written By: dude08
URL: http://
The better question is this: How are American interests served by the Israeli government’s actions?
Coming back at you, dude. How is Hamas’ actions deserving of American support? How are American interests served by Hamas’ actions or even by Hamas itself? And yet from your comments I gather you support Hamas’ lobbing of unguided rockets into Israel aimed specifically as a terror weapon against civilians. How do you support that? But then from your comments, I can see you fully support it.
How do you sleep at night, McQ?
I can’t answer for McQ, but I sleep like a baby. And you?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
The situation in the Middle East is complicated. Shades of gray, and all that. The dead-end Bush supporters who comment here are probably the least qualified to speak to the issues
You’ve just labeled yourself as brain-dead, and disqualified yourself thereby.
Please leave the planet at once.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Along those same lines, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives to install a new government in Baghdad. And those who post here - and most of the commenters - have supported the idea that Americans should die in the service of this government. McQ foremost among them. McQ believes Americans should die to preserve the current government in Baghdad.
Is that right?

Huh.

So that’s what I believe? Thanks for the amateur psychologist’s report.

And your premise - well let’s just say that in a dictionary definition of "false premise" yours would be used as the prefect example. That goes for the shallow and rather predictable criticism which follows.

But hey, it’s your little world, enjoy it.
Shame on all of you who advocated for the invasion of Iraq. Shame on you.
Advocated for it? There’s quite a difference between advocating for something and understanding the necessity for something. Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to be able to understand such a distinction and you’ve certainly not disappointed me in that regard.
How do you sleep at night, McQ?
I usually lay my head down on the pillow and drift off. In fact, I sleep quite well - thanks for asking.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
can’t fathom the point you try to make....
Clue:

If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. That’s the only way to survive, and in reality, the only way to bring about the quick end to a war. The very reason that their problems have gone on for as long as they have, I suggest, is their ’proportional’ response, and the dogged insistance on "Negotiation".

Zbignew Brezinsky over the weekend issued a comment on one of the talking head shows to the effect that left on their own, Israel and their neighbors would never come to a peace. The thrust of his comment was intended to make the case that the west would have to get involved and broker a peace deal. The problem of course is that we’ve tried that, already, many times over, which is exactly why we are where we are... no closer to a real peace than we were four decades ago. Were we to leave Israel and it’s neighbors to work out their differences without getting involved... insisting on a ’measured’ response, for example, yes, even letting it go to war if it came to it... the issue would have been settled decades ago, and we’d be lving in peacetime right now... and this conversation wouldn’t be taking place.

I’ll say it again; Peace is not a product of negotiation Negotiation merely postpones or re-directs war.. Peace in reality is a happy side product of actually winning the war waged against you. Our insistance on negotiated settlements which Israel’s neighbors break before the ink is dry, has only served to prolong the war there, and increase the number of dead. It’s the best way I can think of to ensure that the Islamic nutjobs attain the power they seek, thus winning the war for them.

You really have to wonder if that’s not what the proponants of ’proportional response’ want.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. That’s the only way to survive, and in reality, the only way to bring about the quick end to a war. The very reason that their problems have gone on for as long as they have, I suggest, is their ’proportional’ response, and the dogged insistance on "Negotiation".
And that is a non-sequitur...unless, in your view, bringing a gun, means some form of unrestricted combat against ALL Palestinians...bringing a gun to a knife fight can just as easily mean over-matching Hamas with precision intell, precision weapons, and the fairly discrete use of force via the ground forces. it does NOT mean carpet bombing Gaza. Again your point is lost to me...maximum violence isn’t always the best course and even then, the very definition of maximum violence has a number of meanings.
I’ll say it again; Peace is not a product of negotiation Negotiation merely postpones or re-directs war.. Peace in reality is a happy side product of actually winning the war waged against you.


Soldiers buy time, they never solve anything, UNLESS you mean by "solving" what happened to Carthage, which doesn’t happen very often. It was not Patton and Eisenhower that made Europe and rescued it from the Nazi’s but rather Lucius Clay and John J. McCloy that remade Germany.

I don’t demean or diminish or deny the vital contributions that the combat soldiers made 1939-45, only that had we relied upon them alone, we’d have had another war with the Germans.

My point is War is only the START of the conclusion, the negotiations and aftermath are the conclusion. Most wars don’t end in Koln with an unconditional surrender or at Appomattox Court House with a conditional surrender and occupation of the loser...so don’t over-value military power and victory. Israel “wins” by demolishing Hamas militarily, but more importantly by destroying Hamas’ appeal to Palestinians and offering the believable prospect of a viable two-state solution.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Again... since you brought the examples up...
Desden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima.
Fighting the war in each case, using overwhelmingly brutal force, brought about peace.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
But it was the actions of the peaceful warriors like Clay and macArthur that made the peace last, by remaking, not destroying the Germans and Japanese.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You can’t have peace to make last without first destroying your enemies.

The Japanese and Germans needed to be sufficiently pacified into submission for long term changes to take effect.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Exactly, Shark, which is why it always amuses me when folks like Joe are forever amazed that their ’peace initiatives’ never seem to pan out, long term.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Uh Dude, "my peace initiatives" you must be confusing me with Annie Lennox. I’m a Zionist, who supports the Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. You guys keep talking about how violence is going to "solve things" and how the Palestinians, to be distinguished from Hamas, are not covered by Convention or are not innocent and the like. Dudes, I just diasgree with that...and here’s a tiny news flash, apparently the Israelis AGREE, because they have acted with restraint and precision...not collective bombardment. So take your complaints up with Ehud Barak I’m sure he’ll be glad to hear you as a distinguished combat veteran and Spec Op’s kinda guy.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
They’ve acted with ’restraint’ because they know how the UN will react if they don’t. But that doesn’t mean such restraint is helping them along the road to peace.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
They’ve acted with ’restraint’ because they know how the UN will react if they don’t. But that doesn’t mean such restraint is helping them along the road to peace.
They know that the US would not accept an "unrestrained" response either, thankfully...the WHY you’re legal is irrelevant, that’s for G*d to determine, suffice to say it’s the "what" you do, not the "why."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Well, they know it following the election, anyway.
And again, that restraint doesn’t lead us in the direction of epace.
That cost is one of those consequences we were speaking of earlier.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
And again, that restraint doesn’t lead us in the direction of epace.
Neither does unrestrained violence....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If that unrestrained violence is a consequence of waging war, on in this case, ISrael, it most certainly does.

Think of it this way, Joe; All these years, we’ve sought to intervene, in our misguided efforts to ’secure the peace’. What we have done, in effect is to remove the larger consequences from the actions of the Palastinians, thereby removing any incentive they had to changing their actions and attitudes, thereby prolonging the lower-level war.

We’ve been letting them off with a warning since 1948.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
in effect is to remove the larger consequences from the actions of the Palastinians, thereby removing any incentive they had to changing their actions and attitudes, thereby prolonging the lower-level war.
Yeah because everyone KNOWS how well the Palestinians have prospered since 1948...try to tell stories small enough that at least you’ll believe them...as my brick-layer foreman told me once.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
That, too, comes under the heading of our sheilding them from the conseqences of their actios.

Think, now... if they were committed to some other course aside from ’death to Israel’ don’t you suppose they’d be doing better than they are now? Don’t you suppose that if they caught hell for their actions as Germany and Japan did, as opposed to the ’prportional responses’ demanded by the diplomats, they’d be on a more productive course, now?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
You mean 61 years of living in camps, under someone else’s bottheels or under the control of the Israelis, and now governed by hamas, has been "shielding them?" Wow, I’d hate to see what the REAL consequences of their actions would have been!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Point is Joe - it’s a war that’s been going on for 61 years.
There’s isn’t peace, there’s only, occasional, unusually long lulls in the fighting.

Why is that?

take the latest news of the bombing of the UN school. Like the Israeli’s decided today would be a good day to bomb the UN school, rather than today is another day when Hamas decided a UN school full of refugess was a good place to set up military operations.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Point is Joe - it’s a war that’s been going on for 61 years.
There’s isn’t peace, there’s only, occasional, unusually long lulls in the fighting.

Why is that?
Because that’s the way long-term conflicts go, the conflict between the Romans and the Parthians, and then the Parthians and the Byzantines, stretched out over several HUNDRED years...

The first Hundred Years War (1337-1453) and then the SECOND Hundred Year War (1714-1814) settled who would dominate Europe, Britain or France...and then the three wars of European dominance fought by Germany, 1970, 1914, 1939...

More could be dredged up...those spring to mind right off the bat. You see, most wars aren’t settled in one go round, sure the US Civil War was, but generally neither side can destroy the other and so one side of the other gradually wears the other down, over a period of decades.

So, if you were looking for a quick victory in the Middle East, fuggeddaboutit...they happen in story books. History tells a different story.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, if you were looking for a quick victory in the Middle East, fuggeddaboutit...they happen in story books. History tells a different story.
Hell, the last 61 years tells the story, quite adequately.
And will continue to do so, because Israel doesn’t have the goal of genociding the Palestinians, and the Palestinians elected government has, at a minimum, the goal of the destruction of the state of Israel, if not a deeper goal.

61 years in the camps of their friendly Arab brethren who have graciously taken the refugees in eh?

/snark/ Half of Jordan is Palestinian, when will the Israelis start targeting schools in Jordan I wonder. /off snark/
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Because that’s the way long-term conflicts go,
Without our insistence on imposing a brokered peace deal that clearly the Palestinians don’t want, this mess with a been done with 40 years ago, with the attendant lower loss of life. Our attention and creating peace through legislation in essence, resulted in our lengthening the existing war by a period of decades.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider