Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[Tailgater]

those that can get rockets have no problem geting food.

That needs repeating.

 

[DC]

The act of "holding civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" is a.k.a. "war".

Since Hamas is constantly and repeatedly attacking Israel, Israel is at war with the Hamas controlled Gaza strip, not just with the individuals who personally shoot the rockets -- for exactly the same reason that if Canada had its soldiers bombing USA territory daily, then the USA would be at war with Canada itself, not just with those particular soldiers who are doing the bombing.

To say that Israel "has no right to hold civilians responsible for the deeds of their government" sounds nice, but really simply means "Israel has no right to be at war with the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip, despite the fact that it bombs its cities daily", or, in other words, "Israel has no right to self-defense".

then Hams's actions against Israel, just holds Israelis responsible for the Israeli Government actions?

 

[Skeptic]

I guess you concede my point.

But, nope. Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof. If you'd read the Hamas charter, and the numerous declarations of its leaders, you'll know that its goal is simply to destroy Israel and butcher the Jews no matter what.

Oh, and if you'd listen to Hamas TV, you'll also know that the Jews invented the holocaust, that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are true, that the current economic crisis is due to the Jew-controlled economic system that strangles the world, and a few other interesting tidbits. (So far for the "just anti-Zionist, not antisemitic" nonsense.)

Such people are not bombing Jews because they are "holding them responsible for the Israeli Government's actions". They are bombing Jews because they see them as an evil bacillus who ought to be destroyed to the last baby, wherever they are on the globe, with no mercy -- and once more, I am quoting Hamas' leaders and preachers.

Sounds familiar?

So no, DC, no. Hamas bombs Israelies because its raison d'etre is to destroy Israel and to create another holocaust (oops -- I mean the first holocaust, the other one is a Zionist lie, just ask them.) This is their own words. The blockade, I repeat, has nothing to do with it.

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.

That being the case, you hardly have any right to tell people anything about what "morality" or "ethics" says about the situation, in much the same way that someone who believes the earth is flat is hardly in a position to give astronomical advice.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The corrections: When we intentionally kill civilians instead of miltary targets, you may have a point.

Hmmm? It's not tenable to claim that those imposing softening up sanctions on a country like Iraq would not kill people.

There's no difference in intentionally killing civilians and not being bothered about civilians deaths IMO.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.

Skeptic, as an outsider I find it droll to describe Hamas and its rockets, and a bomb now and again, to be an effective means to the end of running the Israelis out of the neighborhood. What they do is make the price for living there go up, considerably, in that the aggregate rent is paid in blood as well as treasure. The Sunni and Shia of Baghdad have been introduced to that joy for the past five years. I wonder how Israelis look at that: with empathy?

But I wonder at your position: Do Hamas want them all dead, or, do they want them the out of the neighborhoood? In other words, do Hamas attack the Jews of Mexico in an effort to stamp out Jews in general?

As the practical matter of lifting up and moving to "somewhere else" about six million people is not just non trivial, but bordering on the absurd, maybe it amounts to the same thing.

DR

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I

But the fact that you obviously see no moral difference between a group of terrorists hell-bent on genocide randomly bombing cities and the military action of trying to blockade said entity shows you have lost any sort of moral compass you might have had.

That being the case, you hardly have any right to tell people anything about what "morality" or "ethics" says about the situation, in much the same way that someone who believes the earth is flat is hardly in a position to give astronomical advice.

The fact that you seem to have this chip on your shoulder that the world has got it in for 'Jews' clouds your ability to understand or care for the plight of the ordinary Palestinians whose agenda is NOT to kill Jews, but is just to be treated like proper human beings and be able to liev in peace and be able to earn a decent living and have a decent life.

Don't forget that these people lived side by side with Jews for hundreds of years without all this crap until the Zionist movement started it's agenda.


I think the way Israel treats the Palestinians is highly immoral. They way they try to hide it is even worse.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Don't forget that these people lived side by side with Jews for hundreds of years without all this crap until the Zionist movement started it's agenda.

You can only say that about Palestinian Christians, Tim, now down to about 2% of the population. The various Arabs were living side by side unequally with the Jews and Christians for centuries. I say unequally due to the differences in how the Turkish overlords of the Caliphate treated Muslim and non Muslim in that area, as well as other caprices of the pre Turkish Caliphate for some centuries longer than that.

Toss in a century so of Crusader rule and you get yet another sort of overlord who sets differing standards.

"Yeah, we all underwent suckage together, why can't it suck like it used to, with you as a second class citizen getting extra suckage?"

While I don't blame a Pal for resenting second class status, it's gotta stink, you seem to be rose coloring what went down before that.

Yes, there is some nit picking in that observation, but the second class game isn't new to Israel's arrival as a nation state. (Even that old Zionist, Herzl, had dreams, unrealized, of a multicultural society of equals forging into the future together. That dog didn't hunt for plenty of reasons. )

DR

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, but they do! It's a big part of the reason they got popular in the first place.

Unfortunately this seems to mean that they win either way. Either they make money out of it, in which case they get to make money, or they don't, in which case they get to be heros on the "Arab street".

I have thought of a thoroughly practical solution to the entire problem of the Middle East.

I'm gonna get so ******* drunk.

I admit that this won't solve the problem, but nor will anything else, and at least I'll be happy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately this seems to mean that they win either way. Either they make money out of it, in which case they get to make money, or they don't, in which case they get to be heros on the "Arab street".

I have thought of a thoroughly practical solution to the entire problem of the Middle East.

I'm gonna get so ******* drunk.

I admit that this won't solve the problem, but nor will anything else, and at least I'll be happy.

Can't wait to see what poetry arrives when Dr A does a PWD.

*puts coffee on*

DR

 

[Dr Adequate]

But, nope. Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof. If you'd read the Hamas charter, and the numerous declarations of its leaders, you'll know that its goal is simply to destroy Israel and butcher the Jews no matter what.

[...]

Such people are not bombing Jews because they are "holding them responsible for the Israeli Government's actions". They are bombing Jews because they see them as an evil bacillus who ought to be destroyed to the last baby, wherever they are on the globe, with no mercy -- and once more, I am quoting Hamas' leaders and preachers.

Your rhetoric has swamped your argument.

If, as you say, "Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof", then the blockade is a pointless act of cruelty.

If the terrorists will commit atrocities whatever Israel does, then why not lift the blockade? If we accept your argument, we must concede that lifting the blockade will bring Israel no benefit, since the terrorists will do exactly the same thing whatever Israel does --- but it will mean that the Palestinians who aren't terrorists will be able to eat without picking through garbage dumps or crawling to the terrorists for food.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course there were other parties. That was my point, that no one did stop the Palestinians from forming, or voting for other parties. But more chose Hamas than anyone else. It was a democratic vote. The people spoke.

They came up against the same problem that South Park lampooned, the giant turd, or the (whatever it was). And someone did actively interfere with the Palestinian democratic process, and that person was Arafat. He deliberately ensured that for years only Fatah could win. When the time finally came for an alternative, people jumped at it, not so much because they wanted Hamas, but because they wanted to get rid of Fatah. It's a common event in democratic voting, Governments aren't voted in, they are voted out.

As it is, Hamas is now no more popular than Fatah was, and the Gazans are in despair, there is no-one to vote for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As it is, Hamas is now no more popular than Fatah was, and the Gazans are in despair, there is no-one to vote for.

So why aren't they voted out?

 

[BirdStrike]

Your quarrel is with Birdstrike, not me; it was not I who claimed that the moderates were "run out of town".

You didn't object to him saying it when he actually said it, but for some reason you do object to me saying it when I didn't say it, but merely quoted him saying it. Could this be because he and I drew different conclusions from his claim?

I shall not back down from this claim at all. It is common knowledge that Arafat ran all opposition parties out of town during his reign.

The Palestinian Human Rights Monitor

Opposition parties, organizations and activists encounter arbitrary arrests and other forms of harassment.. Some political detainees have reported being mistreated, although they rarely suffer the kind of mistreatment seen in the past, or accorded today to mostly non-political prisoners (see chapter on torture).

Why is the level of repression dropping? Many of our sources, from Dr. Ghassan Al-Khatib from the JMCC to known figures in the PFLP and Hamas agree that the level of political activity by the various organizations is low. This is a consequence of three factors: the continuing confusion and debate within the organizations as a result of their failure to change or derail the Oslo peace process, and the success of President Arafat in weakening the opposition through direct repression and political tactics

The tendency of the PA to arrest hundreds of political activists from the opposition following armed attacks on Israeli targets, together with the more selective imprisonment of political opposition activists in between , has created a climate of mistrust.

That is from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, hardly an Israeli apologist.

So I was not wrong Dr Adequate, and I did not create a strawman Dr Adequate. I spoke the truth and ironically it was you who was untruthful.

So who did the Palestinians have to vote for in 2006?

1) Hamas
2) Fatah
3) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
4) Palestinian National Initiative
5) Third Way
6) The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
7) Palestinian Arab Front
8) National Coalition for Justice and Democracy
9) Various Independents.

Who won? Not the "National Coalition for Justice and Democracy." That would have been a new way forward, instead a terrorist group won.. who's political position was well known, since the movement was founded over a decade ago.

 

[Skeptic]

Okay, folks, imagine the blockade is lifted tomorrow.

Will Hamas:

1). Import food and medicine and improve the lives of the Palestinians under its rule?

Or

2). Import as many bigger and better weapons as it can to kill Jews with, as repeatedly stated by its charter and goals and speeches and proclamations and TV shows and ... well, you get the point?

Anybody cares to take a guess?

...thought so.

When Israel was in Gaza, bombing Jewish towns with rockets was just fine according to the useful idiots because of "the occupation". Now that Israel is not in Gaza, bombing Jewish towns with rockets is just fine because of "the blockade". If the blockade is lifted tomorrow and rockets (bigger and better ones, naturally) continue to rain down on Israeli towns -- the only reasonable expected result -- that, too, will be just fine for some other reason.

Too early to guess now what it'll be -- the lack of a Palestinian state, or the State being too small, or Jews still living somewhere between the Jordan river and the sea, or something.

There'll always be an excuse why bombing Jewish towns is just fine, and that any Israeli reaction whatever is illegal, immoral, or fattening.

 

[ddt]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

Let's first review how the current situation came to be - yes, I haven't followed the news too closely of lately. In June, Hamas and Israel agreed to a 6-month ceasefire. In the begin, there were some infractions and/or alleged infractions of that on both sides, but both sides emphatically stated the ceasefire was still in place - and violence was markedly lower than before. Webfusion had created a thread about that - what happened with that thread? (and what happened with webfusion?)

The article in the OP states that the Israeli blockade was instated about a month ago, and that the ceasefire has been ended only about a week ago. Funny way to blockade someone you have a ceasefire with.

So, what happened in between? Did Hamas fire rockets at Israeli villages/towns? Did Islamic Jihad or other Palestinian factions do so? Did the IDF make incursions into Gaza? (Yes, I'm too lazy to hunt those facts down now - wiki's timeline ends in June).

As to what various people stated in this thread:

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

 

[gtc]

Hmmm? It's not tenable to claim that those imposing softening up sanctions on a country like Iraq would not kill people.
.

Softening up sanctions? Are you claiming that the sanctions were imposed in order to soften up the Iraqis prior to an invasion?

 

[WildCat]

Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, no matter if Hamas has de facto control on the ground. Various international organizations and human rights NGOs have that opinion. And there's a very simple reason: Israel is a state, and Hamas or Palestine is not. Someone here argued that Palestine was no signatory to the Geneva Convention, and the reason is simply because Palestine is no state. So, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Israel wants to absolve itself from the responsibility that the people in Gaza need to get food, they should encourage that the Palestinians declare statehood and only then instate a blockade.

Legal niceties don't stop the terrorism. Hamastan is a defacto state, whether or not some august body recognizes it as such.

As to the Hamas program: yes I know its charter, I know it's vile. I note, though, that in the parliamentary elections, they ran with an election program which didn't include these things and had a markedly different tone w.r.t. the existence of Israel. Note also the quotes Firegarden posted in this respect from leading Hamas members. How do you account for those remarks? I have no-one seen commenting on them.

It's a common tactic designed only to buy time to rearm. You say you know of the Hamas charter, yet dismiss what it says about peace agreements and the goals of Hamas.

I also remark that Hamas declared to cease with suicide bombings when they won the elections and, AFAIK, have abided by that. The suicide bombings carried out since then have predominantly been the work of Fatah or factions within Fatah.

Well, isn't that special!

And no, I'm not a fan of Hamas - I abhor any religious extremism. But it is a force in the playing field right now, so you can't just say "we don't talk with you". In fact, not talking with Hamas and at the same time talking with Abbas or Fatah on the pretext of Hamas' violence is hypocritical in light of the previous paragraph. In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

Not this tired old argument again! The IRA has virtually nothing in common with Islamic extremists. The IRA long ago ceased being a serious revolutionary group and devolved into a crime syndicate. The revolutionary thing was only distracting it from its main business of smuggling and extortion rackets. Oh, and they didn't think that getting killed fighting the British was a ticket to paradise. The IRA is alive and well in its incarnation as a crime syndicate, and is as vile as ever.

Now, you want to negotiate with a genocidal group which has as its goal the extermination of an entire race of people and the complete eradication of their country? What, exactly, is there to negotiate with? That they only kill half the Jews rather than all of them? The Jews be allowed to flee to another country instead of drowning in the sea?

Has any religious fanatic group been successfully negotiated with? These things have ended before, but not by peaceful negotiation. Usually it requires a bloodbath.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I shall not back down from this claim at all. It is common knowledge that Arafat ran all opposition parties out of town during his reign.

So, if you will not back down from your claim that Arafat (who died in 2004) ran the moderates out of town, on what grounds do you blame Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2006?

If this political opression lingered on in 2006, then you cannot blame the Palestinians for not voting for moderates in 2006. That would be the fault of the ghost of Arafat.

 

[BirdStrike]

Reading this thread thus far, I see again why I had decided months ago how pointless it is to engage in these I/P threads, as you're not really going to sway anyone. But it's some sort of addiction, so I can't refrain from putting in my 2 cents too.

It is addictive. I have found the heated debate to be really compelling for some reason.

In the end, Northern Ireland also achieved peace by talking with the IRA (well, with its political arm the Sinn Fein - what's the difference?)

But Hamas isn't the IRA. So many people draw that parallel but it is a false one.

The different importance attached to religious beliefs in Hamas's political platform is totally different than the IRAs political platform. The ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, which is not open to influence or change.

While the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms. You'll never "negotiate" the radical Islamic ideology out of Hamas. Never ever.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, folks, imagine the blockade is lifted tomorrow.

Will Hamas:

1). Import food and medicine and improve the lives of the Palestinians under its rule?

Or

2). Import as many bigger and better weapons as it can to kill Jews with, as repeatedly stated by its charter and goals and speeches and proclamations and TV shows and ... well, you get the point?

Anybody cares to take a guess?

Well, according to you it will make no difference whatsoever to Hamas, because, as you have explained to us, "Hamas' actions have absolutely no relation to the blockade or lack thereof".

On the plus side, the totally innocent Palestinians, the ones who have never murdered Jews, the Palestinians who oppose Hamas, the peacemakers, the children who have never voted for anyone --- they will no longer have to scrabble for food in garbage dumps.

That sounds good to me.

Of course, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that you are right. I will be the first to admit that you might be wrong.