Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.
Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza
- Thread starter dylans
- Start date
I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.
smmudge
i know the smudge is true
If the Palestinian resistance had the means to attack just Israeli forces with any kind of impact, I'm sure they would be much happier doing just that.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Ive just sent this image to my mate who's a freelance journalist for the BBC this was his response:
"Probably a verification issue. May know that the people died but unable to confirm they were killed by the airstrike rather than by something else during it. Could be error, rushed reporter using words from official release without scrutinizing properly"
"Probably a verification issue. May know that the people died but unable to confirm they were killed by the airstrike rather than by something else during it. Could be error, rushed reporter using words from official release without scrutinizing properly"
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
... In the meantime they don't have the means so they'll just keep launching missiles into civilian areas.
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
You find it unhelpful that those involved in this conflict insist on making an argument for their use of violence. I think it would be worse if they didn't at least try to justify violence, we can make what we will of those arguments. Or are you talking about people talking about this recent flare up or the issue in general?
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
Yes, but it's very hard to be completely even-handed when one looks at the balance of power between the protagonists. I'm sure we'll get reasonably accurate figures of Israeli civilian casualties, but I'm treating the figures of Palestinian dead as open to all sorts of manipulation.
I wonder what the dead of the Warsaw Ghetto would say? Where will this end? FUCK this depresses me.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
The issue in general I guess.
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
Well, at least that's clear. What a prime grade cunt.
catinthehat
Failed VK = Replicant
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Saw that tweet earlier - & the latest tweet is talks of a truce behind the scenes.
Who knows
elbows
Well-Known Member
Saw that tweet earlier - & the latest tweet is talks of a truce behind the scenes.
Who knows
Well rhetoric is rhetoric, it shouldnt be read as a genuine statement of intent, but it does say something about the mindset.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Rockets are the only weapon the resistance have to exercise any form of leverage or retaliation in this conflict. When people wish to argue that they shouldn't use those weapons because of their inaccuracy/risk of civilian casualties etc then they are essentially arguing that the resistance lay down their only weapon and only tool of retaliation.
Now, of course people are entitled to hold that view,if they have a moral objection in principle to the use of any weapon that may lead to civilian deaths in all wars in all contexts ever. But I think if they do, and if they claim to support the resistance in principle but only object to this particular weapon, then they have an obligation to explain what it is the resistance is supposed to do instead?
Because "lay down your only weapons" and get bombed is not an acceptable request of a people facing a second mass slaughter in 4 years and a people living under occupation and siege.
Of course it would be better if the resistance had access to weapons that were guaranteed only to hit IDF troops or other "legitimate targets, and no one celebrates civilian deaths, but in this war, in this context, they fight with the only tools they have and that is rockets.
I am not going to attempt to justify rocket attacks on the basis that they don't kill many people. I have heard some on the pro Palestine side make this argument and I'm not comfortable with it. I don't think it is honest and I don't believe it is a moral argument. I am uncomfortable with any argument that starts from the premise that only a few civilians die. Whether resistance rockets kill one or 100 people doesn't change the argument for their use or none use. The number of casualties caused is not the basis for a moral argument and if I am to defend the use of a weapon that has killed 26 people in the past 10 years then I need to be consistent and defend its use even if the result was a 1000.
However it is pretty clear that the primary purpose of rocket attacks is not to slaughter civilians. If that were their purpose then they are an abysmal failure. The purpose of rocket attacks are essentially symbolic. They are statements of defiance by a massively outgunned force in the face of truly massive and horrific attack by their enemy. And they work, regardless of the number of casualties they cause, they succeed in striking just a little, just a small fucking taste of the fear and misery that Israel rains down on their innocents every day. Given the hugely disproportionate and asymmetrical nature of this war, I don't and won't begrudge them that or deny the satisfaction I take from seeing the citizens of Tel Aviv diving into bomb shelters when the sirens wail.
Now, of course people are entitled to hold that view,if they have a moral objection in principle to the use of any weapon that may lead to civilian deaths in all wars in all contexts ever. But I think if they do, and if they claim to support the resistance in principle but only object to this particular weapon, then they have an obligation to explain what it is the resistance is supposed to do instead?
Because "lay down your only weapons" and get bombed is not an acceptable request of a people facing a second mass slaughter in 4 years and a people living under occupation and siege.
Of course it would be better if the resistance had access to weapons that were guaranteed only to hit IDF troops or other "legitimate targets, and no one celebrates civilian deaths, but in this war, in this context, they fight with the only tools they have and that is rockets.
I am not going to attempt to justify rocket attacks on the basis that they don't kill many people. I have heard some on the pro Palestine side make this argument and I'm not comfortable with it. I don't think it is honest and I don't believe it is a moral argument. I am uncomfortable with any argument that starts from the premise that only a few civilians die. Whether resistance rockets kill one or 100 people doesn't change the argument for their use or none use. The number of casualties caused is not the basis for a moral argument and if I am to defend the use of a weapon that has killed 26 people in the past 10 years then I need to be consistent and defend its use even if the result was a 1000.
However it is pretty clear that the primary purpose of rocket attacks is not to slaughter civilians. If that were their purpose then they are an abysmal failure. The purpose of rocket attacks are essentially symbolic. They are statements of defiance by a massively outgunned force in the face of truly massive and horrific attack by their enemy. And they work, regardless of the number of casualties they cause, they succeed in striking just a little, just a small fucking taste of the fear and misery that Israel rains down on their innocents every day. Given the hugely disproportionate and asymmetrical nature of this war, I don't and won't begrudge them that or deny the satisfaction I take from seeing the citizens of Tel Aviv diving into bomb shelters when the sirens wail.
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
There are dark times when I wonder if the IDF are annoyed because the 'rocket attacks' are so monumentally abysmal at killing people. I mean, it makes the IDF look like a murderous killing machine. Given the 500 chances the palestinian groups have had this year to attack Gaza, the IDF would have left the place a silent graveyard.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yeah I watched that Finkelstein interview. I'm not convinced he is right on this. I think he gives far too much weight to the power of public opinion. Netanyahu is riding a wave on this and the US have given him the green light to do what the fuck he likes. I don't think Turkey or Egypts protests are going to swing Washington's position.
In fact I will put my opinion on the line and say I think they are going in and I think they are going in tonight
Yeah, maybe, maybe not. I think the main thing is, illegal settlements, and humanitarian and human rights abuses by Israel. The Palestinians are a bit limited as to how they can react to this without violence. I have a lot of sympathy with them.
I mean, the whole thing's a mess, and again I don't know a lot about it. But I think Palestine has a right to be a functioning state just as much as Israel does, and I think Israel are maybe standing in the way of that.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I agree that Israel is hardly the best candidate for showing restraint in the face of public opinion. There is a limit somewhere, but its so far beyond what some may expect that I find it rather hard to predict how far they will go on a particular occasion.
Any particular reason why you think they will go in tonight? I have no desire to piss you off to the point that you take a holiday from the forums, as happened once before, so I'm not sure how far I can reasonably go in questioning your opinions without winding you up too much. But I will say that perhaps it is too easy to be seduced by a sense of immediacy that tends to pop up at times of intense and bloody crisis. It happened a number of times during the Tahrir square protests in Egypt, a sense of imminent doom, the feeling that the security apparatus were about to step in and totally crush the occupants of the square. What I learnt from that experience is to hold back somewhat, although this of course leaves me open to making the opposite mistake.
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
I disagree but not because of public opinion, they're pragmatic in brinkmanship, build up troops and continue the sophisticated and accurate bombing they're so proud of.
teqniq
DisMembered
A follow up article on Jonathan Sacerdoti and his largely futile efforts to erase his Zionist leanings from the net
http://www.newleftproject.org/index...former_zionist_federation_official_on_the_run
http://www.newleftproject.org/index...former_zionist_federation_official_on_the_run
Treacle Toes
Time
Interesting points made by Sue Mason at the London Demo, saying that these attacks on Gaza are quite literally a 'smoke screen' to hide the Israeli administration's new austerity measures behind and minimise focus on dissent....Distraction, nationalising focus and fear mongering being their tactic on Israeli people.
Treacle Toes
Time
Independent tomorrow:
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Couple of things - If Israel is going to invade it would have been planned weeks ago. It is in no way a decision taken in response to circumstances - it was entirely predicatable that taking out a hamas leader would provoke a retaliation.
On previous occasions what happens is that the US gives Israel a week or so to kick the fuck out the palastinians - saying that Israel has a right of self defence etc, then -as the body count mounts - it starts making noises about 'restraint' and helps arrange a ceasation. The UK government will simply echo exactly whatever the US says. Its all a fucking sick cynical murderous game.
On previous occasions what happens is that the US gives Israel a week or so to kick the fuck out the palastinians - saying that Israel has a right of self defence etc, then -as the body count mounts - it starts making noises about 'restraint' and helps arrange a ceasation. The UK government will simply echo exactly whatever the US says. Its all a fucking sick cynical murderous game.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I dunno.They are ready. They have called up 75000 troops. They have done 4 days of round the clock bombing. Tanks and armoured units are gathered at the border of Gaza. They launched a major air assault today against the political infrastructure which is a sign of wanting to create disarray and confusion. The Israeli public seem to be clamouring for another massacre and Netanyahu is not the guy to disappoint them. If not tonight, and if its not all a huge bluff, then the next few days at most. Cast Lead launched a ground assault after 6 days.
On the other hand there seems to be a growing head of steam building up around opposition to a ground assault. The Arab League rep is meant to visit Gaza tomorrow. Egypt is calling for a ceasefire so is Turkey. Israel may be thinking if they are to go in then do it before opposition gains traction.
The reason I don't think its a bluff is that I think that besides the poltical reasons for an attack, they really believe a military attack is the best way to degrade rockets, especially the Fajr 5s which seem to frighten them most and for that they need a ground invasion.
Similar threads
