[wat0n]

Intent is everything. What indicts Israeli's massacres of Palestinian children and civilians is that they intentionally disregard the welfare of innocent people.

I don't really think so. For instance, overall, the civilian casualty ratio of Israeli operations has actually decreased since the year 2000 - at least judging from BT'selem's data.

But more importantly, it is in Israel's interest to prevent civilian casualties as much as it can. They certainly don't do it just because it is nice, but because they have incentives that push for that.

Collateral damage isnt a surprise, Israel knows that every bombing may kill children but they will do it anyway. You dont get to wiggle out of moral responsibility for doing something you know will kill children by saying you werent aiming for the children specifically.

Have you ever thought it could be because those bombings are the means that make accomplishing the tactical goals of the operation with the lowest amount of civilian casualties possible? Ground operations usually lead to a higher civilian body count as, instead of hitting a specific target, they have to take control of a complete area (like a neighborhood), in what is usually a house-by-house fighting. Even worse, usually the weapons used in ground warfare are less precise than aerial bombings.

But like i said that doesnt matter. It matters even less to the palisrinians. I doubt they care what your justifications are when they see their childrwn killex by Israeli bombs.

Indeed, and Israelis don't give a shit about the occupation or other stuff when their children are stabbed by Palestinians.

But, their feelings do not change the ethical assessment here.

I disagree that just because you could kill more you are absolved of killing some.

Indeed, but it does suggest that those who were killed weren't targeted to be killed, and intent makes a big difference here. A purely consequentialist view is not enough, I think.

Israel damages our ability to get stuff done in the middle east, especially its current government. The Israel palastine issue inflames tensions between us and every middle eastern state. The issue has grown, and threatens our relations with those countries. Israels benefit to NATO doesnt exceed the cost of the conflict to our geopolitics.

Of course it does, blocking Russian access to the Mediterranean is way more important for American interests than pissing Middle Easterners off.

Furthermore, the Palestine issue hasn't stopped Saudi Arabia or Egypt from being alligned with American interests - simply put, they also have other bigger priorities than Israel.

[mikema63]

Have you ever thought it could be because those bombings are the means that make accomplishing the tactical goals of the operation with the lowest amount of civilian casualties possible? Ground operations usually lead to a higher civilian body count as, instead of hitting a specific target, they have to take control of a complete area (like a neighborhood), in what is usually a house-by-house fighting. Even worse, usually the weapons used in ground warfare are less precise than aerial bombings.

That doesn't matter, war will never be a particularly moral exercise by any current western standard. It's pragmatic, even justifiable, but it will never be anything but killing people for a goal. It can only really be considered moral if it's commanded by a god, or you admit that morals are simply feelings we have about the world and not anything more than that.

The long and short of it is that you will certainly always kill innocents in fighting in one degree or another, and Israel doesn't have the moral high ground on Palestine just because it has the technological high ground.

Indeed, and Israelis don't give a shit about the occupation or other stuff when their children are stabbed by Palestinians.

Indeed not, which just perpetuates the war.

But, their feelings do not change the ethical assessment here.

I'm an emotivist, I believe that our ethical beliefs are dictated by our feelings, which means their feelings is certainly very important to their ethical assessment. I'm merely pointing out that Israel cannot claim the moral high ground without refusing to continue fighting and bombing Palestine. The attempt to moralize war has always seemed ridiculous to me, there is nothing clean, civilized, or moral about war.

Indeed, but it does suggest that those who were killed weren't targeted to be killed, and intent makes a big difference here. A purely consequentialist view is not enough, I think.

Intent doesn't matter at all, what actually happens is what matters. If you hit a kid with a car accidentally, I doubt you will be considered non-culpable for the kids death just because it wasn't your intent. A child is dead in any case.

Of course it does, blocking Russian access to the Mediterranean is way more important for American interests than pissing Middle Easterners off.

I'd rather let the Russians have the Mediterranean than I would like to have a shit hole middle east spewing out random terror attacks periodically.

But that presumes that the only way to stop the Palestine conflict is to destroy Israel. The US could force the Israelis to accept a two state solution if we had a mind too, and I certainly think we could do it and still have Israel doing it's job blocking the Russians.

Furthermore, the Palestine issue hasn't stopped Saudi Arabia or Egypt from being aligned with American interests - simply put, they also have other bigger priorities than Israel.

Saudi Arabia is as bad as or worse of a liability to the US than Israel is, Egypt is being run by a military dictatorship and I doubt it would have such a rosy position on Israel if democracy was thriving. What we should be doing if we had any sense is start getting cozy with Iran to balance our weird relationship with the Saudi's, and for the love of god stop shooting every secular government in the middle east dictator or no.

[wat0n]

That doesn't matter, war will never be a particularly moral exercise by any current western standard. It's pragmatic, even justifiable, but it will never be anything but killing people for a goal. It can only really be considered moral if it's commanded by a god, or you admit that morals are simply feelings we have about the world and not anything more than that.

The long and short of it is that you will certainly always kill innocents in fighting in one degree or another, and Israel doesn't have the moral high ground on Palestine just because it has the technological high ground.

It has the moral high ground on that one because it doesn't kill civilians deliberately.

And war can be perfectly just, for instance it is just to fight ISIL given its most recent attacks against Western civilians. But of course, that doesn't really mean NATO can just kill everyone in the regions under its control as it pleases.

Indeed not, which just perpetuates the war.

Correct...

I'm an emotivist, I believe that our ethical beliefs are dictated by our feelings, which means their feelings is certainly very important to their ethical assessment.

...which is why emotivism is not really a sound criterion. You can justify anything based on feelings.

I'm merely pointing out that Israel cannot claim the moral high ground without refusing to continue fighting and bombing Palestine. The attempt to moralize war has always seemed ridiculous to me, there is nothing clean, civilized, or moral about war.

Indeed, war is an ugly business but there are degrees of ugliness in it.

And of course, there are also different degrees of appropriate punishment as well. For instance, while killing children as collateral damage is not criminal, that doesn't mean that their relatives aren't entitled to some kind of compensation.

Intent doesn't matter at all, what actually happens is what matters. If you hit a kid with a car accidentally, I doubt you will be considered non-culpable for the kids death just because it wasn't your intent. A child is dead in any case.

Actually if I did so accidentally, I'd get a more lenient sentence than if I had done so intentionally. There's a different between manslaughter and murder.

I'd rather let the Russians have the Mediterranean than I would like to have a shit hole middle east spewing out random terror attacks periodically.

But if they had access to the Mediterranean, there is a higher probability they end up fighting some of your NATO allies simply due to geographical reasons. That is much, much worse than an odd terror attack that in any event are carried out for many reasons, most which don't have anything to do with Israel.

But that presumes that the only way to stop the Palestine conflict is to destroy Israel. The US could force the Israelis to accept a two state solution if we had a mind too, and I certainly think we could do it and still have Israel doing it's job blocking the Russians.

If the Israelis regard it as worse than ending their alliance with the US, they won't even if you pressure them - they will just switch their patron.

Saudi Arabia is as bad as or worse of a liability to the US than Israel is,

And yet it is one of the top power brokers in the Arab world, along with Egypt.

Egypt is being run by a military dictatorship and I doubt it would have such a rosy position on Israel if democracy was thriving.

I doubt it'd fight Israel even in that case. In any event, its experiment with democracy lasted a rather short time and was, well, a failure.

What we should be doing if we had any sense is start getting cozy with Iran to balance our weird relationship with the Saudi's, and for the love of god stop shooting every secular government in the middle east dictator or no.

That's what the US is currently trying to do, hence the nuclear deal.

Yet the Iranians don't seem to get the message and don't want to be buddies with America.

[mikema63]

It has the moral high ground on that one because it doesn't kill civilians deliberately.

I disagree.

And war can be perfectly just, for instance it is just to fight ISIL given its most recent attacks against Western civilians. But of course, that doesn't really mean NATO can just kill everyone in the regions under its control as it pleases.

The notion of a just war is patent nonsense.

...which is why emotivism is not really a sound criterion. You can justify anything based on feelings.

Which makes justifications entirely irrelevant. An action has an effect, Israeli bombings have the effect of sometimes killing children. Israel knows this and does it anyway.

Repeating over and over again that, well, you could kill more children, does nothing to change that fact.

And of course, there are also different degrees of appropriate punishment as well. For instance, while killing children as collateral damage is not criminal, that doesn't mean that their relatives aren't entitled to some kind of compensation.

Actually if I did so accidentally, I'd get a more lenient sentence than if I had done so intentionally. There's a different between manslaughter and murder.

Do you feel the appropriate punishment for manslaughter is a fine?

But if they had access to the Mediterranean, there is a higher probability they end up fighting some of your NATO allies simply due to geographical reasons. That is much, much worse than an odd terror attack that in any event are carried out for many reasons, most which don't have anything to do with Israel.

That is an extremely unlikely scenario, Russia is going to start a war with another nuclear power over geography? Get real.

f the Israelis regard it as worse than ending their alliance with the US, they won't even if you pressure them - they will just switch their patron.

I doubt that would occur, greatly.

And yet it is one of the top power brokers in the Arab world, along with Egypt.

We put it there, it's a rather unfortunate position.

That's what the US is currently trying to do, hence the nuclear deal.

Yet the Iranians don't seem to get the message and don't want to be buddies with America.

You seem to be entirely focused on trying to convince me that we need Israel, we simply don't, your an expensive mess with a PM who does nothing but annoy and inflame.

[wat0n]

I disagree.

Why?

The notion of a just war is patent nonsense.

Why? A defensive war, i.e. one done to defend your territory, doesn't strike me as inherently unjust.

Which makes justifications entirely irrelevant. An action has an effect, Israeli bombings have the effect of sometimes killing children. Israel knows this and does it anyway.

So? Driving sometimes results in running people over. Do you think driving is inherently immoral, then?

There is a difference between whether the aims of the war are just and whether the conduct in it is correct as well.

Repeating over and over again that, well, you could kill more children, does nothing to change that fact.

Oh but it does affect the analysis of its merits, I'd say. Societies seem to believe so as well, given the fact that intent is one factor to consider in penal law.

Do you feel the appropriate punishment for manslaughter is a fine?

No, but it does show that in practice intent is taken into account in criminal law.

In the case of collateral damage, which is different from simple manslaughter given the fact that it is about regulating conduct in warfare, compensation is appropriate under certain circumstances (that it was the minimum damage one could reasonably expect to fulfill the tactical goals given the available information, and that such damage is proportional to the advantage gained by carrying such attack out. Furthermore, when the defender considers embedding itself among civilians as part of its strategy, the standard should in fact be more lenient, to remove incentives leading to that behavior).

That is an extremely unlikely scenario, Russia is going to start a war with another nuclear power over geography? Get real.

Who said nuclear? Even a conventional war could start with an incident taking place in the Mediterranean Sea between a Russian vessel and a NATO one. Prevent, or regulate, Russia's Navy access to the Mediterranean and the very prospect of this happening becomes less likely.

That's one reason of why Syria is so important for the Russians, anyway. Their only port in the Mediterranean is there.

I doubt that would occur, greatly.

Why? Israel has changed patrons in the past (like after the Six Day War when France dumped Israel and the US took it in its fold instead).

We put it there, it's a rather unfortunate position.

Controlling major oil fields and holy places can cause that, you know. Likewise, Egypt is in such a position due to sheer size and geographical location.

What's so funny? Am I wrong? Have you even bothered to listen to the Iranians themselves? They don't want an alliance with the US.

You seem to be entirely focused on trying to convince me that we need Israel, we simply don't, your an expensive mess with a PM who does nothing but annoy and inflame.

You seem to be entirely focused on denying the usefulness of Israel to the US, with no basis whatsoever either given the actual positions taken by the strongest governments in the region.

Netanyahu is far from likable, but governments come and go, states on the other hand are permanent and some of their interests are permanent as well, regardless of the ideology of the government in place.

[skinster]

Intent is everything. What indicts Israeli's massacres of Palestinian children and civilians is that they intentionally disregard the welfare of innocent people.

Which is why they bombed everything in sight in Gaza last year, including schools, 10,000 homes, hospitals, apartment buildings and UN schools (that were attempting to provide sanctuary to the people of Gaza while they were under Israeli bombardment) and the only power plant in Gaza.

Trying to make this appear as two equals fighting in a "war" is indulging in hasbara bullshit. The occupied Palestinians are fighting for their freedom whereas Israel is fighting to maintain it's military occupation of the Palestinians in order to continually steal more land.

[wat0n]

Is that why fighting age males are overrepresented in the death toll? Had Israel just killed civilians randomly, this would certainly not be the case. Neither would children make up 25% of all deaths, considering that around half of the Gazan population is under 14 years old one would have expected children to represent around half of all deaths.

The use of civilian infrastructure by Palestinian militias is pretty well known, even the UN denounced the use of some of its schools to store munitions. Maybe, and just maybe, that's one reason of why civilians died during the war.

Not that you care about civilians dying, anyway. Well, depending on their ethnorreligious origin that is.

[Heinie]

Not that you care about civilians dying, anyway. Well, depending on their ethnorreligious origin that is.

This is a mean-spirited slur to make against skinster. It tells us more about you than what academics think of their Israeli counterparts.

[wat0n]

Sorry but she's the one who labels attacking civilians as legitimate resistance, not me.

[skinster]

waton is posting amusing accusations yet again, despite being called out about this stuff by me and others. Along with that, it's the typical hasbara disputing or denying reality in an attempt to blame the victims for Israeli actions. waton can keep going though, it only displays his own weaknesses, which there are plenty of.

If the ‘product’ is wrong, a rebrand won’t help Israel

The Israeli government believes it is locked in an epic struggle to save Israel from the growing movement calling for an international boycott. Benjamin Netanyahu warns that Israel must “rebrand” itself to avoid pariah status. Ordinary Israelis are therefore being conscripted into an army of spin doctors in a campaign termed “hasbara” – Hebrew for “public diplomacy” or, most literally, propaganda.

In the latest offensive, the education ministry has launched a compulsory hasbara course for students travelling abroad. All youth delegations are now required to learn how to justify Israel’s policies in the occupied territories to outsiders. According to officials, the students must challenge those who “seek to delegitimise Israel”.

It is yet more evidence that hasbara has become a national obsession in Israel – and that the line between support for one’s country and support for the subjugation of another people has been erased.

Some 85 per cent of Israelis say they are keen to become hasbara ambassadors.[/b] A hasbara ministry already targets the international media with good news, while cultural events abroad, from food fairs to Israeli entries at film festivals, are designed to prove that Israel has another side.

For years the Israeli government has relied on paid workers – and thousands of volunteers – to surf the net posting pro-Israel comments. At Israel’s international airport, Israeli holidaymakers are offered brochures explaining the importance of persuading those they meet that Israel is misunderstood.

And yet the latest hasbara drive is unlikely to reverse Israel’s slow slide into ignominy.

The hasbara industry’s chief flaw, as Israeli political scientist Neve Gordon observes, is its assumption that “the merchandise is fine, and only the packaging needs to be replaced”.

But rapid developments in information technology mean Israel has less control over manipulating its image than ever before. First it was 24-hour news, then the internet. Now, smartphones make every Palestinian a potential documentary-maker, ensuring that moments of cruelty and oppression are captured and available for anyone who cares to look.

Palestinians post online videos of their everyday abuse: from demolition of homes to stone-throwers being shot with live ammunition.

Last week, Zaki Sabah, 56, a cake vendor in Jerusalem’s Old City, starred in one such video. Bystanders filmed him being savagely beaten by Israeli police on a busy road. Denied a permit for years by the occupation authorities, Sabah has been repeatedly fined and jailed.

Meanwhile, another video exposed Israel’s deceitful account of its supposedly peaceful interception of a boat trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. As more than a dozen passengers were held captive over the weekend, footage was smuggled out showing that Israeli commandos had electrocuted some of them with tasers.

Troubling imagery is not restricted to the occupied territories. Film of the charred interior of a historic church next to the Sea of Galilee highlighted last month the latest hate crime by Jewish extremists against Israel’s large Palestinian minority.

The futility of trying to stem the tide of evidence damning Israel on media old and new was exemplified last week by Moshe Yaalon, the defence minister.

“There is no humanitarian distress in Gaza,” he averred, while the media illustrated reports of his speech with pictures of mountains of rubble and children still homeless a year after Israel’s assault on the enclave.

Mr Yaalon’s sophistry may placate Israel’s supporters but the rest of us are more often incensed by such insults to our intelligence.

The hasbara offensive is doomed for another reason. With the Palestinians’ case substantiated by evidence, rather than Israel’s, the evangelists of hasbara have only one recourse: to blame the messenger. Critics of Israel, it is implied, are either inveterate dupes or unabashed anti-semites. Either they have been deceived by the Israel-haters, or they are haters themselves.

As the hasbara industry moves into overdrive, such slurs are becoming common – including against those Israel needs to cultivate as allies.

Judith Nir Mozes, the wife of interior minister Silvan Shalom, himself a Netanyahu confidant, possibly reflected high-level thinking in Israel when she tweeted last month a racist “joke” about President Barack Obama. “Do u know what Obama Coffee is? Black and weak,” she wrote, ridiculing the leader of Israel’s most important ally.

Similarly, the Israeli foreign ministry mocked foreign journalists, even though they are hasbara’s target audience.

In a short animated video, a naive reporter is shown claiming that the people of Gaza simply want peace as militants fire rockets just behind him. Next the reporter misidentified Hamas’s tunnelling as the “first Palestinian subway system”. The video ends with a warning: “Open your eyes, terror rules Gaza.” The video has since been removed.

Michael Oren, Israel’s recently departed ambassador to the US, has joined the fray too, castigating American Jewish journalists as “self-haters”.

Hasbara’s cartoon version of reality is not only unconvincing but, in alienating friends as much as foes, self-defeating. Mr Netanyahu may hope to repackage Israel, but his product – continuing oppression of Palestinians – is one few can be persuaded to buy.
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2015-07-06 ... lp-israel/

[wat0n]

waton is posting amusing accusations yet again, despite being called out about this stuff by me and others.

That is the natural inference one can get from your arguments, based on your posting history.

It is you, not me, who has tried to legitimize deliberate attacks against civilians as righteous resistance guaranteed by international law, as shown above. And yes, there is most definitely a double-standard here as you most certainly don't hold everyone to this standard.

Along with that, it's the typical hasbara disputing or denying reality in an attempt to blame the victims for Israeli actions. waton can keep going though, it only displays his own weaknesses, which there are plenty of.

And yet, Hamas didn't really stop attacking Israelis even while both Israel and the PLO were negotiating back in the '90s.

Like it or not, there are Palestinians who will attack Israel regardless of its actions. No, not all Palestinians do this but there are some who most certainly do so.

Posting crap by third rate bloggers like Jonathan Cook doesn't really change this fact

[kobe]

There is a difference between targeting and collateral damage.

That's like saying that there was a difference between the Romans or the Khan Dynasty completely wiping out and summarily destroying those that opposed them versus what the Nazis did, because the Romans and Khan Dynasty had no concept of genocide, ethnicity, or ethnic cleansing. You have a distinction of intention but not of action. You are able to compartmentalize the death that is necessary to keep Israel going versus the death that is necessary to oppose Israel by distinguishing the intent of the action.

The accusations may be similar, but the proposed measures to change Israeli policy are quite particular.

In any event, none of what I said above is false.

I don't understand your meaning. You are wrong that acknowledging civilian casualties can happen in a resistance to a violent regime is not the same thing as condoning those actions. Ghandi, for instance, had to have understood that freedom would begin tumultuously, and with much violence. He knew that people would be killed in this readjustment of Indian society. Innocent people who have done nothing wrong. He resisted non-violently, of course, but that was in conjunction with the civil institutions that he helped set up as the basis for the Indian monopoly of power that would follow the post-colonial era of India. Non-violent resistance is a lie. It only works with slack-jawed soldiers willing to die for the cause behind the people using non-violent forms of resistance. Sometimes those useful killers kill the wrong people. The Israelis created the military apartheid that led to the material conditions being as they are now.

Well, European Jews who were occupied by the Nazis did not engage in random stabbings on German civilians in Berlin. In fact, they didn't really target civilians in general.

So I suppose in this metaphor the Israelis are the Nazis?

In any case, I don't think the Palestinians should take their cues from the Jews during the holocaust. The resistance was not exactly a successful one. Instead they should take the model of Israeli Jews themselves: organize and ethnically cleanse as many civilians as necessary until they have carved out their own homeland. Right, wat0n?

You didn't read anything, right? Maybe Israel should let Palestinians kill more Israeli children to satisfy your concerns. As an equalizer, you know

I did read it. Your argument was that the Israelis did not intend it, and that they kill a lower portion of Israeli citizens. This to cleverly dodge the actual question, which was who kills more civilians by count?

Of course, I'm not surprised that you would resort to trying to accuse me of anti-Semitism, which is hilariously false; to the Zionist, however, all who do not subscribe to their racist notions are themselves racist.

I'm not sure of how I benefit from Israel's occupation, what about you explain that to me? I don't live in Israel so I assume you have at least bothered to look at my profile before saying this stuff.

My mistake, I assumed that since you are such an apologist you must be an Israeli.

Certainly an occupation will lead people to fight the occupier and this applies to the Palestinians as well, but targeting Israeli civilians will only convince Israelis that leaving the West Bank is a security risk - especially since ending occupations doesn't necessarily end conflicts, as Israel learnt with regards to Lebanon and Hezbollah. I don't see why only one side's concerns should be taken into account, no matter how much certain people may hate it

Israel has a right to exist in its present state so long as it is willing to violently impose its will on people who are willing to violently fight back.

I don't hate Israel for this, in fact I am very sympathetic to the cause of a Jewish homeland. A quarter of my family was killed in the holocaust. The problem is that Israel is a colonial state at present, and I cannot condemn the actions of supporters of a Palestine free of colonialism.

Sorry but she's the one who labels attacking civilians as legitimate resistance, not me.

Right, Heinie; it's only a legitimate tactic in occupation according to wat0n.

Like it or not, there are Palestinians who will attack Israel regardless of its actions. No, not all Palestinians do this but there are some who most certainly do so.

Israel is a colonial state that by definition prevents all Palestinians from living in their ancestral homeland. It is no wonder that there will always be those that oppose it on principle.

Again, none of this has to do with idealism, we are simply explaining what happens during a resistance, why people resist, and that they have a right to self-determination on the basis of international law.

[skinster]

That is the natural inference one can get from your arguments, based on your posting history.

Natural if you're an apologist of Israeli occupation as you are.

It is you, not me, who has tried to legitimize deliberate attacks against civilians as righteous resistance guaranteed by international law, as shown above. And yes, there is most definitely a double-standard here as you most certainly don't hold everyone to this standard.

International law legitimizes resistance. I won't bother to address your "they suck" hasbara tactic.

And yet, Hamas didn't really stop attacking Israelis even while both Israel and the PLO were negotiating back in the '90s.

Hamas at that point was being funded by Israel to counter the PLO.

Like it or not, there are Palestinians who will attack Israel regardless of its actions.

Like it or not, there'll always be Palestinians who will resist the Israeli military occupation that you regularly apologize for.

Posting crap by third rate bloggers like Jonathan Cook doesn't really change this fact

The Cook article perfectly sums up hasbarists. You're offended because he's talking about people like you.

[wat0n]

That's like saying that there was a difference between the Romans or the Khan Dynasty completely wiping out and summarily destroying those that opposed them versus what the Nazis did, because the Romans and Khan Dynasty had no concept of genocide, ethnicity, or ethnic cleansing. You have a distinction of intention but not of action. You are able to compartmentalize the death that is necessary to keep Israel going versus the death that is necessary to oppose Israel by distinguishing the intent of the action.

Oh but you are wrong, the distinction of intention is itself a distinction of action: It is the difference between murder and manslaughter in criminal law, and in war it involves quite active action on its own as it has to be determined that the attack will minimize civilian casualties, which in practice entails collecting intel on the matter of whether there are civilians and how many, and even renouncing valuable tactical advantage such as surprise by warning civilians the area itself will be subject to an attack.

I don't understand your meaning.

I meant that, in those cases, there are no demands to boycott those states like it is argued it should be done to Israel.

You are wrong that acknowledging civilian casualties can happen in a resistance to a violent regime is not the same thing as condoning those actions.

Indeed, but saying that those actions are part of a legal and ethical right to resist is as close as condoning them as it gets.

You can perfectly say, for instance, that while they are resistance they are an illegitimate form of it, and so they should be condemned, not condoned.

Ghandi, for instance, had to have understood that freedom would begin tumultuously, and with much violence. He knew that people would be killed in this readjustment of Indian society. Innocent people who have done nothing wrong. He resisted non-violently, of course, but that was in conjunction with the civil institutions that he helped set up as the basis for the Indian monopoly of power that would follow the post-colonial era of India. Non-violent resistance is a lie. It only works with slack-jawed soldiers willing to die for the cause behind the people using non-violent forms of resistance. Sometimes those useful killers kill the wrong people. The Israelis created the military apartheid that led to the material conditions being as they are now.

I'm sure posters like Rei or fuser would disagree with this assessment, and say that British rule of India was already doomed by the time Gandhi opted for the non-violent resistance tactic (pretty smart BTW).

So I suppose in this metaphor the Israelis are the Nazis?

Nice try, but no

In any case, I don't think the Palestinians should take their cues from the Jews during the holocaust. The resistance was not exactly a successful one.

And the Palestinian one is?

Instead they should take the model of Israeli Jews themselves: organize and ethnically cleanse as many civilians as necessary until they have carved out their own homeland. Right, wat0n?

I thought that's what the extremists among them have been trying to do since the Hebron massacre in 1929?

I did read it. Your argument was that the Israelis did not intend it, and that they kill a lower portion of Israeli citizens. This to cleverly dodge the actual question, which was who kills more civilians by count?

I'm not dodging it, I'm saying that looking at raw count is a flawed criterion. And I think I stated why quite clearly, but it is even clearer below.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you would resort to trying to accuse me of anti-Semitism, which is hilariously false; to the Zionist, however, all who do not subscribe to their racist notions are themselves racist.

Actually, I was just mocking how illogical your reasoning is: If the Israelis are worse because more Palestinian children have been killed than Israeli ones, surely they would suddenly be better if the Palestinian armed groups killed more Israeli children, enough so they outnumber Palestinian ones, am I right?

Do you realize how silly that sounds? And yet, it would fulfill the criterion you have set, which why it is a poor one.

My mistake, I assumed that since you are such an apologist you must be an Israeli.

Just because I don't think Israel is the devil incarnate, it doesn't make me such a big apologist of its policies.

Israel has a right to exist in its present state so long as it is willing to violently impose its will on people who are willing to violently fight back.

I don't hate Israel for this, in fact I am very sympathetic to the cause of a Jewish homeland. A quarter of my family was killed in the holocaust. The problem is that Israel is a colonial state at present, and I cannot condemn the actions of supporters of a Palestine free of colonialism.

Oh but when the actions are immoral I don't see why one shouldn't. This applies to both sides, I also think that building settlements is a crime, for instance. So it would be if Israel started to round fighting age males up and start shooting them for, say, engaging on terrorism without setting up a proper trial (as it in fact did during the brief occupation of Gaza in the wake of the Suez crisis in 1956-1957 in Rafah and Khan Younis - thankfully it doesn't engage in these actions today).

Right, Heinie; it's only a legitimate tactic in occupation according to wat0n.

I don't think I said that, did I?

God, I find it amazing how some people can't understand the importance of intent.

Israel is a colonial state that by definition prevents all Palestinians from living in their ancestral homeland. It is no wonder that there will always be those that oppose it on principle.

And hence as long as they don't accept Israel's existence it doesn't really matter what it does short of self-destruction (if so, were Israel to be defeated I doubt they'd be nice to former Israelis living under their rule - assuming they would even let them stay), and so they need to either accept the fact that Israel is here to stay or be thoroughly repressed. The same applies to Israeli fanatics who don't accept a Palestinian state if and when a peace treaty between both sides is signed.

Again, none of this has to do with idealism, we are simply explaining what happens during a resistance, why people resist, and that they have a right to self-determination on the basis of international law.

Sure, and I'm not really being an idealist when I say that, as long as that resistance includes attacking Israeli civilians, Israelis will not be all too keen on taking risks with regards to a Palestinian state.

But, when you start moralizing like skinster does then calling on her bullshit applies 100%, and that must be appealing to ethical criteria.

Natural if you're an apologist of Israeli occupation as you are.

No, just natural. You even did so in the very same post you wrote this, like below!

International law legitimizes resistance.

Sure, when it consists in attacking the occupying forces and military targets, not civilians like in the case of stabbings of Israeli children.

Deliberate attacks against unarmed civilians are forbidden under international law regardless of the reason.

I won't bother to address your "they suck" hasbara tactic.

You are the first one to jump when Muslim civilians get killed.

Hamas at that point was being funded by Israel to counter the PLO.

Wrong. Hamas ceased to be a legal organization in the moment it took arms against the Israelis.

Like it or not, there'll always be Palestinians who will resist the Israeli military occupation that you regularly apologize for.

And the occupation will not end as long as the Palestinians who will fight Israel no matter what are strong.

The Cook article perfectly sums up hasbarists. You're offended because he's talking about people like you.

No, I said it's shit because it is, well, shit.

[mikema63]

Well this has certifiably carried on while I've been away.

I don't feel like dealing with this tonight, so bye, play nice!

[skinster]

And hence as long as they don't accept Israel's existence it doesn't really matter what it does short of self-destruction (if so, were Israel to be defeated I doubt they'd be nice to former Israelis living under their rule - assuming they would even let them stay), and so they need to either accept the fact that Israel is here to stay or be thoroughly repressed. The same applies to Israeli fanatics who don't accept a Palestinian state if and when a peace treaty between both sides is signed.

How can Palestinians not accept Israel's existence when the Israeli boot is right on top of them?

Palestinians want to live in their own state, they want rights like what you and I and Israelis take for granted and they don't want to live under foreign military rule which imprisons them or restricts their movement and a long list of other stuff I've probably already mentioned in this thread. Israel has been preventing Palestinian freedom for decades because it is busy stealing Palestinian land and placing hundreds of thousands of settlers there, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Why expect Palestinians to recognize Israel when Israel denies them a state of their own and has gone so far as to say (Nethanyahu) that there will never be a Palestinian state?

In reality, this whole "recognize me, I'm so insecure and need validation from those I brutally occupy" schtick is just a distraction from Israeli oppression.

And the occupation will not end as long as the Palestinians who will fight Israel no matter what are strong.

No, I said it's shit because it is, well, shit.

No, it's not shit. Jonathan Cook is a great journalist, he happens to be Jewish too, so I guess according to you he can't be an anti-semite, so "self-hater" it is!

The article describes what hasbarists attempt to do and fail with, something you should be familiar with. It must be difficult to sell the case for Israel given what we now see thanks to alternative media (not the MSM, even though some of that is catching on now). And you know, with all the boycotting of Israel that keeps on happening, but according to you, that's all hypocrisy or antisemitism right? Enjoy sticking that head of yours in the sand.


In more recent Israel news:

How Islamic State oil flows to Israel

Israel buys most oil smuggled from ISIS territory - report

[wat0n]

How can Palestinians not accept Israel's existence when the Israeli boot is right on top of them?

Oh but quite a few don't, which is why they regard any sort of compromise with Israel as treason.

Palestinians want to live in their own state, they want rights like what you and I and Israelis take for granted and they don't want to live under foreign military rule which imprisons them or restricts their movement and a long list of other stuff I've probably already mentioned in this thread. Israel has been preventing Palestinian freedom for decades because it is busy stealing Palestinian land and placing hundreds of thousands of settlers there, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Oh but some do want more than that, which is why they oppose any kind of normalization with Israel, even if it signed a peace treaty with the PA. They are minority, but a fairly big one - around 40-45% of Palestinians reject a two state solution.

Why expect Palestinians to recognize Israel when Israel denies them a state of their own and has gone so far as to say (Nethanyahu) that there will never be a Palestinian state?

In reality, this whole "recognize me, I'm so insecure and need validation from those I brutally occupy" schtick is just a distraction from Israeli oppression.

I'm quite certain Israel will recognize the Palestinian state as part of a peace deal. For now, if they don't want to recognize it formally that's okay but they should at least negotiate with it, you know.

And of course, with a peace treaty there is no reason for both States to refuse mutual recognition and exchange ambassadors.

No, it's not shit. Jonathan Cook is a great journalist, he happens to be Jewish too, so I guess according to you he can't be an anti-semite, so "self-hater" it is!

No, he's a shit journalist because he makes ridiculous claims in his article, like the claim that people leaving Israel from the Ben Gurion airport get brochures detailing the importance of hasbara. I saw nothing like that when I went back home from Israel a few years ago (and Netanyahu was already PM).

The article describes what hasbarists attempt to do and fail with, something you should be familiar with. It must be difficult to sell the case for Israel given what we now see thanks to alternative media (not the MSM, even though some of that is catching on now). And you know, with all the boycotting of Israel that keeps on happening, but according to you, that's all hypocrisy or antisemitism right? Enjoy sticking that head of yours in the sand.

Actually it's not all too hard now, when social media shows Palestinians stabbing minors or old people.

If anything, had social media existed in, say, 1972 during the Munich massacre then stuff like the fact that the PLO operatives tortured and, in one case, castrated Israeli athletes would have become widely known rather quickly and would have caused even more disgust over the behavior of certain extremist individuals and also over those who try to justify it by labeling it as legitimate resistance.

[skinster]

I'm quite certain Israel will recognize the Palestinian state as part of a peace deal.

Nethanyahu stated during the last elections, that if he is elected, there will be no Palestinian state. There still isn't a Palestinian state. Israel fakes a peace process in order to eat up more Palestinian land. The facts on the ground - vis-a-vis no Palestinian state to date and nothing but Israeli expansion into occupied-Palestinian territory - prove my point.

No, he's a shit journalist because he makes ridiculous claims in his article, like the claim that people leaving Israel from the Ben Gurion airport get brochures detailing the importance of hasbara. I saw nothing like that when I went back home from Israel a few years ago (and Netanyahu was already PM).

He's a great journalist who's won awards for his work, whereas you're just pissed because he reports on things that counter hasbara. Cook is based in Israel and considering his article came out a few months ago and you went to Israel "a few years ago", your timing is off.

Do I need to post links to the hasbara war room, or the organization Hasbara Fellowships, or about how kids can get scholarships based on working as hasbara trolls where millions have been invested, to make Israel look pretty to the outside world?

[wat0n]

Nethanyahu stated during the last elections, that if he is elected, there will be no Palestinian state. There still isn't a Palestinian state. Israel fakes a peace process in order to eat up more Palestinian land. The facts on the ground - vis-a-vis no Palestinian state to date and nothing but Israeli expansion into occupied-Palestinian territory - prove my point.

He later softened his statement, somewhat, and said he doesn't think a deal acceptable to both sides will be signed in his term. Certainly any realistic agreement will include mutual diplomatic recognition and relations and this is not the sticking point between Israel and the PA (as opposed to Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, where this is a key issue), so we're right where we began.

Now, as for Netanyahu's actual intentions, I think the only thing he really wants is to remain in power for the perks he's gotten as a PM (as the latest expansion of his own house using public funds shows), the rest is just an addendum as far as he's concerned - it seems to me that his time as PM has just made him more cynical and less ideological. And well, when everyone knows Hamas will not abide by an agreement negotiated by the PA even if the latter gets everything it wanted, an agreement that is not expected to bring an effective end of violence is a sure political loser.

He's a great journalist who's won awards for his work, whereas you're just pissed because he reports on things that counter hasbara.

The only awards he's won, AFAIK, is the Martha Gellhorn Award for alternative journalism. Yeah, quite prestigious and totally non political.

Cook is based in Israel and considering his article came out a few months ago and you went to Israel "a few years ago", your timing is off.

Oh come on, for every Jonathan Cook you can find easily 5 pundits based in Israel who take a pro-Israel line. It is quite obvious you don't think living in Israel makes a pundit more credible.

Since you mentioned timing, I just asked a relative of mine who went to Israel a few months ago (this year) who also didn't see any hasbara brochures being handed off at the Ben Gurion airport.

Do I need to post links to the hasbara war room, or the organization Hasbara Fellowships, or about how kids can get scholarships based on working as hasbara trolls where millions have been invested, to make Israel look pretty to the outside world?

No, you don't, the Israeli government is quite open about its propaganda efforts. You don't need Cook to tell you that when they do so quite openly.

And yet, I have yet to see one of those brochures with hasbara Cook talks about. Just like I didn't get one a few years ago, relatives who went there this year didn't get one either. So, what are those brochures Cook talks about?

Of course, it's not like the Palestinians don't fund their own propaganda as well. The PR arena is just another front in the conflict, that's just a fact of life.

[Heinie]

Nethanyahu stated during the last elections, that if he is elected, there will be no Palestinian state.

He later softened his statement, somewhat ...

Oh! Please. Give it a rest. Credit us with enough intelligence to know that Netanyahu and the Israelis have no intention of ever leaving Occupied Palestine unless impelled to do so by force of arms.