Israel, Gaza and the propaganda war

[hipipol]

Up to a point I agree with you. They either need to be given financial and other support to become normal Arab Israeli citizens or live elsewhere if there cannot be a peaceful resolution to the Gaza problem after the destruction of Hamas. I quite acknowledge that there were unfortunate incidents of violence at the recreation of the state of Israel but I believe a lot of the drive for this of this was caused by a genuine fear of attack from Arabs.

However, where I disagree with you is the use of force to make them move that would be ethnic cleansing.

The Palestinians could be so much better but they have been the victims of war and conflict, manipulation by venal demagogic leaders, facistic Islamism, etc etc. This has meant that some (the Palestinians I've met basically want a peaceful two state solution or recogniton of their situation) have spiraled down into a nhilistic cult of suicide bombing, victimhood, Jew hating and despair.

A "normal Arab Israeli" bring someone who knows their place and doesn't interupt when the clever Jewish Israeli is speaking, yes?

What would constitute "ethnic cleansing" then?

 

[Demosthenes]

Some interesting historical claims there ...

hmm, maybe I got this wrong and it was only the residents of israel who were offered citizenship.

 

[hipipol]

The Scots are clearly not going to get it back now. England is there, and will continue to exist. They may as well be helped to better lives elsewhere rather than continuing an endless victim-and-despair cult of losing games in overcrowded Wembley.

When you look at the area of the English state compared with the Celtic lands of the surrounding area it puts things into perspective.

Giles..

Dinnae ye wurry yer we heed aboot it ya wee Sassie bampot ye!!!!

Two Hunderd years, but we're getting closer
It may take the Palestinians another 150 years but I doubt they'll give up

 

[Bernie Gunther]

hmm, maybe I got this wrong and it was only the residents of israel who were offered citizenship.

It may well be your informants who were wrong, or presenting a heavily mythologised and distorted picture. I mean, put yourself in their position ...

Everybody likes to feel justified. If you lived in a state founded on ethnic cleansing and terrorism, and that state was still brutally victimising those unfortunate dispossessed who weren't rich enough to make new lives for themselves elsewhere or were simply too stubborn to acquiesce, don't you think that there'd be some attraction in a comforting coccoon of mythology?

The article I linked on the previous page describes this pretty well I think.

 

[Zachor]

Apart from what you say about the denial of the right of palestinians who are israeli citizens to live as equal citizens, (which I think you're mainly wrong about though not entirely,) I think what you're saying there is basically right.

But you're looking at this from a moral point of view, and I'm not, I'm looking at it from a utilitarian point of view because in this version of reality, right and wrong seem to be increasingly meaningless concepts, because there is no plan that's going to enable things to turn out right that's actually happening any more. And if it's impossible for what's right to happen, then I suppose we should look for the least worst outcome possible. I actually really sympathise with what you say, and feel rather ashamed to have become so cynical that I advocate a utilitarian strategy rather than pushing the issue of right and wrong.

But what good is punishing people.? Don't you see something ironic in condemning the israeli government for collectively punishing palestinians and then demanding that the israeli people be collectively punished with sanctions.

I have to admit I am biased in favour of the jewish people in this issue, - but I try to be objective about it, - and tbh I think that some people who love to get fired up on one side or other, ignore the history, ignore the experience of the two peoples, and don't see the complexity and apparent irresolvability of the situation.

When I talked to israeli friends after this incident with the zionist farmer, their view was that he deserved it because he was a zionist, and was well known for having antagonised his arab neighbours since he became their neighbour. Their view was that this was why the police wouldn't investigate his complaint, even though it was perfectly true that the neighboring arabs were stealing his cattle and burning his fields, so that he had to employ a full time watcher. They reckoned the police reckoned he'd brought it on himself. Hardly the actions of an institutionally discriminatory and corrupt police force, - I'd give a lot to have an english police force with such discernment.

I suppose I mainly met left-wing israelis, who were all generally uncomfortable about the actions of their government, - but all the same, many of them felt that although what the government and armed forces was doing was wrong, they didn't really have any alternative given the tremendous hatred that the palestinians had for jewish people. I remember asking why Israel couldn't make all palestinians citizens and have a one state solution, and being told by some that it would be a disaster since the palestinians would vote in a government that would persecute the jews, and on the other, quite reasonable jewish israelis telling me that this was exactly what most jewish israelis had once wanted, and offered to the palestinians, when they offered citizenship to all palestinians, only to have it rejected by most palestinians, who at the time were more interested in destroying Israel altogether rather than being citizens. If that's true, and I think it is, as various believable people told me it was, it seems to be something that's quite ignored by some people who can only see the palestinian point of view.

Most interesting of all was the comment of at least one guy I met who said he'd come to Israel as a zionist, and that's where his sympathies were, but, that these days, he thought the israeli government was in the pay of the rich elite and were cynically keeping the conflict going in order to distract political attention from their main policy of shafting the poor, both israeli and palestinian for the benefit of the rich.

But I wanted to come back to you on that post when I reread it because I don't think I gave it a proper response before, and besides which I wanted to make it clear again, that although I may have given an impression to the contrary, I do regard what the israeli government is doing in gaza as criminal. I know I said that already, but there you go, - really one-sided views about the whole thing these days do get my goat a bit.

Tbh I guess the israeli government want to get this done before Obama starts his presidency, in case he changes policy.

Interesting post there. Sensible relatively balanced and informed.

However I would take issue with you on the use of the word criminal to describe Israel's Gaza actions. Its not criminal for a nation to defend itself from attack from fascists who want to destroy them and their people. I'd call it criminal if the Israelis ignored attacks from Hamas. Its a shame that this matter couldn't despite all efforts to the contrary be resolved peacefully. Israel is not in the unenviable position where it now has to totally destroy Hamas to stop them which is not the course of action I'd have chosen.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The word 'criminal' ...

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.

Those violations include:

• Collective punishment: The entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.

• Targeting civilians: The airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.

• Disproportionate military response: The airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

Richard Falk: United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories

 

[hipipol]

Its not criminal for a nation to defend itself from attack from fascists who want to destroy them and their people. QUOTE]

I agree
The actions of the Palestinain Resistance is the morally correct action

 

[Zachor]

Dinnae ye wurry yer we heed aboot it ya wee Sassie bampot ye!!!!

Two Hunderd years, but we're getting closer
It may take the Palestinians another 150 years but I doubt they'll give up

The Palestinians do have one advantage of the Scots they are not hampered by the effects of 100 years of deep fried chocolate and pizza.

 

[Demosthenes]

Implicit in your rather deluded notion Demos is that might is right - you call it utilitarian - well certain the "utility", ie usefulness of your position devolves entirely on Israel - though I suspect you actually concieve what you mean more in terms of pragmatism - that the Israelis are not moving so the palestinians had netter learn to live with it.
I assume that is the postion you would take if a gang of crack dealers moved into your front room and started to do their business form there as you do not see any ethical basis for contesting the usurpation of your home - based on your own analysis
You quote the case of one farmer and extrapolate that to mean that the Israeli police are the embodiments of justice and fair play in all situations - I have been treated fairly by the Police in the UK at times, while also having my front teeth punched out at others - are the Israelis such angels in your view that this does not hold true for them also?
Also implicit in your view is that those Israeli frineds of yours are actually in possesion of all the facts and are somehow entirely objective in their opinions - a curious assumption
What is explicit are Israels actions having turffed out the indegenous peoples they now hold the power of life and death over them in the tiny little Bantustans/Reservations they have allowed them - can you really be surprised if these people ATTEMPT to fight back?
Though you may wish to remove yourself from ethical conciderations I think also implicit in your thought:
"I have to admit I am biased in favour of the jewish people in this issue, - but I try to be objective about it, - and tbh I think that some people who love to get fired up on one side or other, ignore the history, ignore the experience of the two peoples, and don't see the complexity and apparent irresolvability of the situation."
Why are you biased?
Do you feel some sort of guilt or sympathy for Israel because of the historical persucution of the Jews? This persecution was primarily at the hands of Europeans so guilt has a justifiable ehtical root, but when then is it OK to take it out on the Palestinians
As for the historical experiences of "the two peoples" what did the Palestinians ever do to deserve having their country stolen?
A quick read thru the Bible shows that Israel took the land by force in the first place - my personal feeling is that they were the persecuted followers of Aknahtens' monothesist faith, where god is light - something that in Kabbalah is still see as a prime tenet.
Explicitly you ablsove yourself from any moral or ethical judgemenst, but in fact the implied meaning and the assumptions on which you conclusions are based is riddled with them
You need to think harder
By the way a corollary of your conclusion is that it would be perfectly fair for the Arab countries to band together and drive Israel into the sea.
I doubt you want that but it ought to show you just how muddled your logic is

arab israeli citizens don't live on bantustans or reservations.
No I don't think that might is right, I don't think that it's helpful to speak of right here.

I think what would be right would be to have a single state, in which all were citizens. For various reasons, none of them good ones, that doesn't seem to be possible. And if the right course of action isn't possible, what else is there to fall back on but pragmatism. yep and like you say it's pragmatism that's justifying what I say, not morality, but I still think that that pragmatic view might still be a better outcome for all than continuing what's going on at the moment.

The corollary of my conclusion isn't that it would be perfectly fair for the arab countries to band together and drive israel into the sea. Because the idea i've suggested might be the best possible solution doesn't seem to me to be fair or right either. However given that it's quite widely acknowledged that the arab countries did band together and try to drive israel into the sea, the general israeli concern and paranoia is understandable even if not entirely justified these days. It's not like the jewish people have anywhere else to go.

When the british can get it together to remove their own corrupt and criminal government, then maybe they'd have more of a case to go after the israeli people for not stopping theirs, till then, maybe they should focus on their own problems, rather than pontificating about a situation that doesn't have a lot to do with them.

In general, you people just seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't want to march in unison and shout I hate Israel. Well I don't. I've already said I think what the israeli government does in gaza and in the occupied territories is criminal. But apparently there's still far too much dissension from the party line not to outrage most people here, because I have a balanced view, because I have a slight bias in favour of the jews, because as it happens, I believe, without evidence that probably the jews have been kinder to those they've defeated than those they've defeated would have been to them if history had been different.

 

[hipipol]

The Palestinians do have one advantage of the Scots they are not hampered by the effects of 100 years of deep fried chocolate and pizza.

Ah yes, due to the blockade they are now fashionbly thin
These Israelis, they even offer Fashion Assistance - whatever next?

 

[Zachor]

Its not criminal for a nation to defend itself from attack from fascists who want to destroy them and their people. QUOTE]

I agree
The actions of the Palestinain Reistance is the morally correct action

What you call the Palestinian 'resistance' are basically fascist Islamist criminal thugs to be honest. At the re creation of the state of Israel, the Palestinians and the Arabs were given the majority of the land of the former Mandate lands with Israel occupying a tiny amount in comparison. The Arabs wouldn't even let the Jews have that small part of the ancestral homeland that was thieved off them by the Romans and so attacked them in order to destroy Israel could get going.

Its not the Israelis who are prolonging this conflict it is the Palestinians and the Arab nations.

So please take your sixth form violent revolution fantasies and fuck off.

I want Pals and Israelis to live in peace but it helps to remember that its not just the Israelis who are at fault here.

 

[Spion]

I quite acknowledge that there were unfortunate incidents of violence at the recreation of the state of Israel but I believe a lot of the drive for this of this was caused by a genuine fear of attack from Arabs.

You 'believe' this despite being repeatedly shown the written evidence of Zionist plans at the highest level to expel Arabs from Palestin.

I'd hate to be the empty moral shell you are.

The seeds of the idea of 'transfer of the Arabs' - Theodor Herzl, 19th century

“We must expropriate gently . . . We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country . . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” (p41, The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl, I, 88)

The idea takes shape - Ben Gurion in 1937

“If we do not succeed in removing the Arabs from our midst. . . and transferring them to the Arab area – it will not be achievable easily (and perhaps at all) after the [Jewish] state is established . . . This thing must be done now – and the first step – perhaps the crucial [step] – is conditioning ourselves for its implementation.’ (Ben Gurion – Diary 12 July 1937)

The head of the Jewish Agency - 1940

“If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The only solution is a land of Israel, at least a western land of Israel, without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises . . . There is no way but to transfer all the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer them all, save perhaps for Bethlehem, Nazareth and old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one tribe.” 20 Dec 1940. Weitz (leading member of the JA’s Transfer Committee 1937-38), My diary, II, 181

The long-held idea of expelling the Arabs is put into operation with the Zionist' militias' 'Plan Dalet' in March 1948

“You will move to State Dalet, for an operative implementation of Plan Dalet . . . the villages which you will capture, cleanse or destroy will be decided according to consultation with your advisors on Arab affairs and the intelligence officers.” Orders to Carmeli Brigade in Zvi Sinai (ed), The Carmeli Brigade in the War of Independence, p29

 

[Zachor]

Ah yes, due to the blockade they are now fashionbly thin
These Israelis, they even offer Fashion Assistance - whatever next?

Aha a new Israeli secret weapon. Drop thousands of cases of deep fried mars bars on them. That shoudl fuck Hamas.

 

[Spion]

At the re creation of the state of Israel, the Palestinians and the Arabs were given the majority of the land of the former Mandate lands with Israel occupying a tiny amount in comparison.

Utter bullshit

Jews owned 5.8% of the land by the end of the mandate period and were given 56% of it by the UN. They later conquered 78% of it.

 

[hipipol]

arab israeli citizens don't live on bantustans or reservations.
No I don't think that might is right, I don't think that it's helpful to speak of right here.

I think what would be right would be to have a single state, in which all were citizens. For various reasons, none of them good ones, that doesn't seem to be possible. And if the right course of action isn't possible, what else is there to fall back on but pragmatism. yep and like you say it's pragmatism that's justifying what I say, not morality, but I still think that that pragmatic view might still be a better outcome for all than continuing what's going on at the moment.

The corollary of my conclusion isn't that it would be perfectly fair for the arab countries to band together and drive israel into the sea. Because the idea i've suggested might be the best possible solution doesn't seem to me to be fair or right either. However given that it's quite widely acknowledged that the arab countries did band together and try to drive israel into the sea, the general israeli concern and paranoia is understandable even if not entirely justified these days. It's not like the jewish people have anywhere else to go.

When the british can get it together to remove their own corrupt and criminal government, then maybe they'd have more of a case to go after the israeli people for not stopping theirs, till then, maybe they should focus on their own problems, rather than pontificating about a situation that doesn't have a lot to do with them.

In general, you people just seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't want to march in unison and shout I hate Israel. Well I don't. I've already said I think what the israeli government does in gaza and in the occupied territories is criminal. But apparently there's still far too much dissension from the party line not to outrage most people here, because I have a balanced view, because I have a slight bias in favour of the jews, because as it happens, I believe, without evidence that probably the jews have been kinder to those they've defeated than those they've defeated would have been to them if history had been different.

I doubt well ever agree, or even find one or two minor points of convergance
From what do you derive this belief that Jewish invaders would be kinder than Arab ones?
The Biritsh Govt is corrupt and criminal (actually there may be a couple fo things we DO get a bit closer on!) - form whance that conviction? And what does that have to do with keeping 1.5 million people in one vaste open air prison? (the Bantustans to which I referred)
Isreal in its modern incarnation is a Eurpean concept which was achieved via irregular militias and terrorist organisations as well as obve ground but linked political groupings. These displaced Eurpeans landed in someones elses country and took it by force using the justification that they used to run the place nearly 2000 years before and now wanted it back. Of course the local Arabs were inscenced and fought them
The comparison with the Celtic peoples of the UK aint that wide of the mark -2000 years ago there was no England, it all belonged to the Celts - in would be insane to try to claim that back.
I'm not sure where you live but nowhere is not now affected by what happens in Palestine - it was the radicalisation of the Palestinians that proved just how effective small groups of terrorists could be in hurting the West, the actions of Israel with US and, to my great shame, this country backing it are closely tied to my safety travelling in London. Though I dont agree with the actions of crazies blowing themselves up on public transport I cant help but see that they may have, albeit distorted, a point. So no ones pontificating about something that doesn't have an effect on them.
Everything else aside, wherever it is, million dollar aircraft being used to kill at random doesn't sit well with anyone who has a spark of humanity

 

[hipipol]

"thieved off them by the Romans" so why not take a bit of Italy then?

It was taken by conquest in the first palce
Jushua, good old fashoined militarist kills all the peeps in Canaan (The Israelites then slaughtered "every living thing" inside Jericho ), the Promised land -Land promised by God to Moses, who was apparently somewhere near 800 years old at the time and got the message from a small brushfire
Wicked
Cant see it standing up in court can you?

 

[tangentlama]

Claim: Hamas changed the penal code to whipping and dismembering, two weeks ago. (Ron Proser, Israeli Ambassador, BBC News Channel interview)

Status ?

True? Or False?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you ever been to Israel?

Yes, I even considered emigrating there permanently, but then Sabra and Shatila happened.
I also have family there.

 

[Spion]

Claim: Hamas changed the penal code to whipping and dismembering, two weeks ago. (Ron Proser, Israeli Ambassador, BBC News Channel interview)

Status ?

True? Or False?

Don't forget crucifixion.

A search for which under the terms "gaza crucifixion" reveals only a load of dodgy looking blogs. I suspect it was a specially formulated Christmas propaganda present. No newspaper has dared pick that one up and people like our interpid Treelover have been repeating it on here

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not that I'm any kind of expert on the place on the basis of two short trips which as it happened were completely free of any bombs in Israel.

But I went there all prepared to see a racist imperialist israeli people oppressing the palestinians, and didn't find anything of the sort, what I found mainly was a lot of jewish people who were extremely kind and treated me like family, which certainly made a change after being in England.

Of course, I didn't go to the occupied territories, where I've no doubt the palestinians are being oppressed on the basis of accounts from other foreigners who had visited. But, that's the army that does that, and the lunatic settler fringe. And to hold the israeli people as a whole responsible doesn't seem right to me.

The army are an arm of the state, the state receives it's mandate (especially so in a state that utilises proportional representation) from the people. The guilt isn't direct, but we are, as individuals, indirectly responsible for what a state does in our name (responsibility and guilt being two different things).

 

[winjer]

Claim: Hamas changed the penal code to whipping and dismembering, two weeks ago. (Ron Proser, Israeli Ambassador, BBC News Channel interview)

Status ?

True? Or False?

False, according to:

So why was it reported as approved by the parliament? Here is one place new and old media got a little sloppy. The Jerusalem Post story was based on a story in al-Hayat. The al-Hayat story was clearly based on a mistake. And it’s not hard to figure out the error. One of their reporters got a copy of the draft that was being prepared and mistakenly assumed that it had already been passed. This was clear from a clarification the paper issued the next day. Noting that the speaker’s office denied the parliament had passed the draft, al-Hayat claimed that the copy it had obtained was gussied up as if it had been passed by the parliament. But drafts produced by the Diwan al-Fatwa wa-l-Tashri‘ (the Bureau of Legal Consultation and Legislation, the PA body attached to the Ministry of Justice that is responsible for drafting legislation) routinely appear this way.

The Post, to its credit, did include the statement that “The Jerusalem Post could not verify the veracity of the Al Hayat report.” There were two reasons they could not verify it. First, they have no correspondent on the ground in Gaza. Second, it wasn’t true. But none of the bloggers quoting the Post quoted the hedge; they do not seem to have noticed it.

So Hamas did not lie when it said the law had not been approved. The law is indeed being prepared (something nobody denied), but it is still at the drafting and discussion stage, and it still seems to be under discussion at the Diwan. In their article, Marcus and Crook produce a series of quotations they had translated from Palestinian press that they claim prove Hamas is lying. But instead the quotations support the interpretation I have just offered -- that the matter is still under discussion and has received no final approval by parliament. Marcus also throws in a gratuitous but curious mistranslation: he calls the Diwan the “Bureau of Islamic Law.” It is nothing of the kind. The mistake is natural—if you have a bad dictionary, a good imagination, or little knowledge of Palestinian politics. Marcus’s translators were probably misled by the word “fatwa” in the Diwan’s title—hence the translation as the “Bureau of Islamic Law.” But “fatwa” does not mean “Islamic law.” A fatwa is a nonbinding legal opinion—most often used in a shari‘a context, but in this case referring to positive rather than Islamic law. The Diwan is no more Islamic than the Ministry of Transportation.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abua...hamas-in-gaza-the-islamic-law-that-wasnt.html

 

[Spion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/israel-gaza-hamas-hidden-agenda

'A new [Israeli] information directorate was established to influence the media, with some success. And when the attack began just over a week ago, a tide of diplomats, lobby groups, bloggers and other supporters of Israel were unleashed to hammer home a handful of carefully crafted core messages intended to ensure that Israel was seen as the victim, even as its bombardment killed more than 430 Palestinians over the past week, at least a third of them civilians or policemen.

<snip>

Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN until a few months ago, was brought in by the Foreign Ministry to help lead the diplomatic and PR campaign. He said that the diplomatic and political groundwork has been under way for months.

"This was something that was planned long ahead," he said. "I was recruited by the foreign minister to coordinate Israel's efforts and I have never seen all parts of a very complex machinery - whether it is the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the prime minister's office, the police or the army - work in such co-ordination, being effective in sending out the message." '

 

[ViolentPanda]

Err, I mentioned them in the post you quoted.

Which they quite literally did. 750,000 Palestinians were driven from 550-ish villages and 100s of millions of dollars worth of businesses stolen in 1948-49 with further rounds taking place in the 50s and in 1967.

Sorry, when was this? 1948 perhaps? Arab armies responded to the Zionist militias/IDF ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians. 1956 perhaps? Ah, but this time it was Israel, the UK and France attacking Egypt unilaterrally. Maybe you mean 1967? Here again Israel attacked three Arab states simultaneously.

So, when did these Arab states attempt to destroy Israel exactly?

Unfortunately many people believe (contrary to the historical record) the discourse that places the state of Israel as eternal victim rather than aggressor. Bear in mind that people like Dravinian "know" the "truth", even though they're entirely ignorant of the actual history.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He goes to Wikipedia on this issue. Jeez

Well, wikipedia is authoritative, isn't it?

It's not like anyone can come along and edit the entry to put partisan spin on it.

 

[tangentlama]

Civilian or military ?
Claim 1: "Diskin also noted that large numbers of Hamas operatives are hiding in hospitals and that some are posing as medical staff. (Shin Bet Chief, Yuval Diskin)

Hospital Issues:
defining the scope of what is meant by 'operative'
i) does this mean employed by Hamas govt. in Gaza in the same way as NHS staff here are?
ii) does this mean a member in the same way as brit citizens can join the Labour party?
iii) can you be killed by Israel if you voted for the Hamas in the Palestinian general election?
iv) what if you're a civil servant? are you a 'Hamas operative' thus not counted as a civilian anymore? what about other public servants? police, teachers, medics, etc?
where is this defninition of 'operative' applying to ?


Claim 2: "Some are also hiding in mosques and some of those have been turned into headquarters, since they assumed Israel won't attack them there. (Diskin)

Mosque Issues: What evidence that mosques have bee turned into militarial headquarters?


Status: True? False?

 

[audiotech]

Interview with Norman G. Finkelstein:

The First Goal of Israel Is to Restore the Fear of Israel in the Arab World:

According to the Israeli papers, Barak was planning the attack already before the last ceasefire, and they were just waiting for a provocation from the Palestinians. On November 4th, the Israelis broke the ceasefire with Hamas, knowing full well -- and if you read the Israeli papers, they say so -- that if they killed six militants in Gaza, the Palestinians would retaliate, and then Israel would have the pretext to invade. So the first goal was to restore the fear of Israel in the Arab world by inflicting a bloodbath.

According to Finkelstein, the purpose was to inflict massive casualties immediately. After the attack on Lebanon in 2006, Israel concluded that their main error was they didn't unleash the full fury of their air force on the first few days.

Finkelstein also notes that:

The Hamas leadership has in recent years signaled its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border and the resolution of the refugee question. That means Hamas has signaled its willingness to do what the entire world community has called for the past 30 years.

So Israel rejects any negotiations with anyone on a two-state settlement because it wants to continue its control of the West Bank and thereby ignoring the world community.

Finkelstein: We have to be clear that Israel's war is not with Hamas. Israel's war is with the international community, including Iran. In the last United Nations General Assembly vote on resolving the conflict, the vote was164 to 7: the whole world on one side saying the two-state settlement and the resolution of the refugee question -- the whole world including Iran -- and the other side is the United States, Israel, and a few islands in the South Pacific. Israel is defying the entire international community and trying to force its will on the Palestinians by denying them their elementary right to self-determination and statehood.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/finkelstein030109.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, we have to be clear about what Israel means by "moderate" Palestinians. The Hamas leadership has in recent years signaled its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border and the resolution of the refugee question. That means Hamas has signaled its willingness to do what the entire world community has called for the past 30 years.

Israel, however, rejects such a two-state settlement because it wants to continue its control of the West Bank. So, for Israel, a moderate Palestinian means the Palestinian who rejects all the terms proposed by the international community, a Palestinian who rejects the moderation of Hamas. For Israel, a moderate Palestinian is a Palestinian willing to do whatever Israel wants; it's a Palestinian who is willing follow Israeli orders. That's what the Israelis mean by "moderate" Palestinians.

source above ...

 

[tangentlama]

source above ...

the phrase 'moderate palestinians' was used repetitively in Israeli Ambassador Ron Proser's interview that is currently being aired on BBC News Channel

I have wondered to myself what it means, since before the Hamas were democratically elected, Israel used to say it had no partner in the Fatah and could not and would not negotiate with the Fatah. Now the Hamas are in power, the US/Israel favoured the Fatah. It is very confusing. Now both hold separate powers, the Israeli line is to favour moderates (which I assumed were neither Fatah nor Hamas but this third party which emerged called 'The Third Way (Ashrawi and Fayyad)

 

[Demosthenes]

The army are an arm of the state, the state receives it's mandate (especially so in a state that utilises proportional representation) from the people. The guilt isn't direct, but we are, as individuals, indirectly responsible for what a state does in our name (responsibility and guilt being two different things).

Right so why not devote yourself to pressing for sanctions against the UK.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right so why not devote yourself to pressing for sanctions against the UK.

Is this another example of what you believe to be "critical thinking" on your part?
Whatever.

I don't believe that sanctions are an effective tool, so I don't "press for them" for anyone. What I do attempt to do is whatever I can in terms of engaging with issues and taking them up with the relevant people, while acknowledging that even though it does so without my explicit consent, the state does act in my name, and shouldering my share of responsibility while also attempting to give what redress I can.