Palestinian media incites hatred through Holocaust

[hifalutin]

A new exhibit in Gaza portrays the Jewish state burning Palestinian children in ovens.

A group called the National Committee for Defense of Children from the Holocaust unveiled its premier exhibit last week, entitled "Gaza: An exhibit describing the suffering of the children of the Holocaust."

Rather than teach about the Nazi genocide of European Jewry, the exhibit portrays Israel as the perpetrators of the holocaust; Palestinian children are "burned" in a model crematorium by "Israelis."

According to the Ramallah-based Al-Ayyam daily, "The exhibit includes a large oven and inside it small children are being burned. The picture speaks for itself."

The Zionist Organization of America condemned the exhibit, saying in a statement that "there seems to be no limit to the depravity of Palestinian hate education and incitement."

"We have seen over the years every sort of perversity, including educating children to become suicide bombers and honoring mass murderers. Here, the Palestinians, both Hamas and Fatah, depict Israelis as exterminating-Nazis, while teaching nothing about the actual Holocaust in which the wartime Palestinian leadership of Haj Amin el-Husseini was in fact very active. Husseini not only orchestrated campaigns of murder against Jews in the British Mandate, but also became an ally of the Nazis and worked hard to speed up the work of deportation and murder," said ZOA President Morton Klein.
more....
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206446102177&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Can you believe this?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Unfortunately yes ... and I'm sure it will be defended as protected speech n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

6. It should be protected free speech

I dont care how much I disagree or hate what someone says, they have a right to say it and I will defend that right.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. You know, of course, inflammatory speech has given rise to genocide

in several African coflicts? And in this country, no, fighting words are not protected.

[Dick Dastardly]

8. You are talking about The fighting words doctrine

This would not be covered under that. I will post more info later. I dont have time now

[Dick Dastardly]

17. Here is some info

Unless there is an imminent or potential violence against particular persons by violating the fighting words doctrine(see info below)and "the advocacy of action, not ideas". Offensiveness does not equal fighting words and there are differing concepts of offensiveness.

There should be no restriction on any speech except under a few specific circumstances that pass strict scrutiny as in imminent lawless action such as yelling fire in a theatre, slander and libel, fighting words doctrine and a few other very narrow tests. Those same things that would quell racist or hate speech could be used against something you agree with and against you. For example a law that bans cross burnings could also be used on someone burning a US flag. Specifically, prohibiting "hate speech" would effectively invest government prosecutors with wide discretion to persecute and silence expressions of certain opinions as "hate speech" based on political convenience while ignoring equally "hateful" expressions which have the support of vocal or violent groups.

Laws that restrict speech you dont like can cut both ways and have unintended consequences.


some information


Fighting words
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


Chaplinsky decision
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Post-Chaplinsky

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969)<1>, the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words



What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

some basics
Freedom of speech in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States


Anything that restricts constitutional rights must pass

Strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the penultimate standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law (the most exacting standard, "super strict scrutiny," is used to review prior restraints outside of the Near v. Minnesota exception). Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

[Shaktimaan]

10. I agree with you 100%

Freedom of speech is its own reward.

This exhibit is not a cause of the hate present in Gaza today, it is a result of it. The hate has been brought on by generations of fighting, occupation and corruption. It taking the form of a tragically perverse exhibit like this speaks to the Palestinians sense of media savvy and their past success in framing the debate for how this conflict is often described in western media, particularly in Europe. The Palestinians read western media and the comparison often made between the nazis and Israelis hasn't been lost on them. I would argue that this exhibit was intended more for western eyes than Palestinian. After hearing parallels drawn between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto, and seeing the effect it has on their gaining european support and making the Israelis totally nuts with rage, it seems natural that we'll be seeing this more and more often.

But I think it may well have the opposite effect than what they'd like.

I personally believe that the main reason European media is so eager to draw nazi/Israeli comparisons is because of their own guilt. If Israel is no better than nazi-Germany then Europe's failure to help the Jews weighs less heavily. The Jew as eternal victim marks them as eternal monsters. So they have a vested interest in wanting to see the Jew as Nazi. But you'll notice that the one country that almost never draws this comparison is Germany. If you're going to call someone a Nazi, especially Jews, then it helps if your past isn't full of Nazis itself. In fact, the best way to get away with a charge like that is to be an objective observer. Which is where this exhibit messes up.

By not just alluding to fascism but by actually accusing Israel of burning Palestinians in ovens, they beg the world to ask, "Wait, is Israel actually doing that?" It simultaneously reminds the world just how horrific the Holocaust really was by calling attention to exactly what was done to the Jews, and how it is not being done to the Palestinians, critically highlighting the chasm between the two. "Hey Nancy, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto even had art exhibits! Starving people don't have art shows, do they?" Tragically, it makes the Palestinians out to be liars, grossly exaggerating their own oppression to a grotesque degree.

Which brings us back to Europe. While Europeans (and lefties all over) may be eager to draw parallels between Nazi and Israeli they are none too eager to agree with wild accusations that make them appear to be anti-semitic, or make light of horrors like the gas chambers. The Warsaw Ghetto is one thing. Gas chambers and Auschwitz photos are quite another. Rather than being seen as a clever metaphor for their suffering this exhibit serves to do the opposite, illustrating the relative freedom that Gazans actually have compared to the Jews of Holocaust Europe. Can you imagine Hitler retaliating to an exhibit that similarly insulted him with nothing more than a barrage of op-eds and editorials?

The longer this exhibit stands the more the world will see Israel's commitment to free speech, and the longer they will discuss it themselves. Face it, having a dialog that actually directly compares Israel to Nazi Germany is a dream come true for Israel's PR guys. Especially when it's been launched by the Palestinians. If there's a better way to make themselves look like the scrappy little nation that could while painting the Palestinians out to be cretins, I'd like to hear it.

The answer to freedom of speech is more speech. Israel could only do one thing to mess this PR gift up and that would be closing down the exhibit, aka: making themselves look like Nazis.

[Vegasaurus]

12. And Israel shouldn't and won't close down the exhibit

because as a democracy, it is committed to freedom of speech, no matter how vile and hateful.

I am, however, sick of the comparisons of the treatment of Palesitnians to the treatment of Holocaust Jews. Those who make such comparisons, even if only in hate speech, cartoons or exhibits, are delusional. Concentration camp Jews would have liked 1/100th of the life of the beleaguered Palestinians. Those skeletons who survived the concentration camps, those who really lived without getting put in ovens, would have much preferred life in Gaza to life in Auschwitz.

[Vegasaurus]

2. What is wrong with these Holocaust denying nutters?

This is just sick, sick, sick. There really does seem to be no limit to the depravity of Palestinian hate education and incitement."

[msmcghee]

3. Be careful now. You'll be accused of "racism" . .

. . if you don't specifically say that you don't mean "all" Palestinians. Around here, "racism" is the default interpretation for any comments critical of Palestinians - posted without sufficient caveats.

[breakaleg]

4. Bull Shit. But you knew that.

[subsuelo]

5. show me where someone said that

[Violet_Crumble]

40. From the horses mouth...

I'd be humiliated if I constantly made claims publicly that I couldn't support. I'd think maybe people were correct in assuming I was full of crap. I find the lack of shame on their part - stunning.

[hifalutin]

15. Tell me about it,

been there, done that!

[LeftishBrit]

9. I can believe it..

it's pretty obvious that there is a strong propaganda-machine spinning out vile accusations. If 84% of Palestinians in a poll think that the seminary murders were justifiable - that means not that Palestinians are intrinsically violent or racist, but that their media are doing quite a propaganda spin.

On the freedom of speech issue - I think that an individual's freedom of speech, however nasty, is one thing; but that the presentation of falsehoods in what is supposed to be news reporting or, as here, educational material is another matter. Whatever one thinks of the I/P situation, the Israelis are not putting Palestinian children into ovens - so that's a dangerous lie. (I am assuming here that the exhibit is officially sanctioned; if it's been created by an individual or a fringe-group, then the freedom of speech issue becomes more valid.)

Hate-propaganda, together with the issue of how much it should be protected as free speech, is a problem everywhere; but it does seem to be quite a serious one in Gaza.

[Vegasaurus]

11. If 84% of Palestinians believe the seminary murders were justifiable

where is the propaganda in that? Either this is an overriding sentiment, or it isn't, and actions (including celebrating deaths of Israelis) seem to indicate that it is a prevalent sentiment.

The hate-propaganda in Gaza, in the form of cartoons and exhibits such as this, which incite hate, are somewhat different. The hate-propaganda feeds into the general consensus which seems to already exist, however, no matter how much people want to spin it otherwise.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. This shouldn't be all that surprising.

They never miss an opportunity to compare themselves to the genocide of Jews. The 'funny' thing is they routinely deny the Holocaust and, at the same time, also blame the Holocaust for the problems they now face. The sad thing is certain people lap this up.

[hifalutin]

14. The thing that

really, really bothers me, and no-one has mentioned it, is what it does to the minds of the children, the future generation.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Honestly.

I am verklempt that you are concerned about "the minds of children."

If you are worried about the minds of Palestinian children, RUN, don't walk to the nearest chapter of Gush Shalom, or Jewish Voice for Peace, or any other group that works to stop the occupation.

I am dumbstruck by posters who profess "concern" for Palestinian kids all the while supporting the violent carnage, murder, land expropriation, mass jailings, administrative detention, daily humiliation, stoppage of education, restriction of movement... that they witness EVERY GODDAM DAY, courtesy of the IDF.

[bemildred]

18. You forgot starvation. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Yes, newly added to the list of daily atrocities. If only those Pals didn't "teach hate" huh?

[Dick Dastardly]

20. There are plenty of atrocities by the criminal Israeli regime but

there is no starvation or attempt to starve people. I really hate that people embellish stuff like this as it takes away a lot of credibility. The facts and truth are enough and its this type of embellishment and spin that helps continue this conflict longer.

[Vegasaurus]

21. Oh, starvation, genocide, putting Palestinians into ovens

the propaganda machines are very busy.

There is no starvation in Gaza. There is no genocide of the Palestinans (in fact, their population has grown 30% in ten years) and the only people who went into ovens were Jews.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Hey Dick. Are you suggesting that people in Gaza Strip have adequate nutrition?

It's my understanding that malnutrition is rampant. Are you saying Israel's intent isn't to bring that society to the brink with their policies? They haven't them *almost* starving, that's for sure.

I agree with the notion that overexaggering the horrors serves no purpose. I almost hate the posts that single out one atrocity. The problem isn't one person dying at a checkpoint -- the problem is the strangulation of a society. The problem isn't one deadly settler; it's the ongoing settlement drive supported by Israel's state bureaucracy.

Bottom line is that the occupation was just as bad 20 years ago, before the wall, the closures, the checkpoints and the siege. Tyranny then, tyranny today. It's just a lot bloodier now.

[pelsar]

23. as long as there are kassams....

any accusations have "nothing to stand on"........once the attacks stop, if they stop, only then will your accusations hold any water...which in fact i dont believe they do....but we'll never know as hamas extends the range of their rockets and keeps preferring "guns to butter"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. There was tyranny LONG before there was resistance.... nt

[msmcghee]

25. Yeah, the vicious tyranny of peaceful immigration and . .

. . purchasing land to develop the economy and raise the standard of living of all. :sarcasm:

[pelsar]

26. i believe you've made it clear...

your preference for resistance as opposed to progress toward self determination.

(its been noticed that you tend to ignore the riots of the 1920s against the jews and other anti jew violence in the past....)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. I prefer liberation for those under tyranny. I've made it clear I believe that is best achieved

by the world community isolating Israel and treating it like the pariah state it is.

I favor international boycott, sanctions and divestment.

Your gov't has made it abundantly clear it has no intention of ever allowing a viable, democratic state for the people of Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

28. How so?

Your gov't has made it abundantly clear it has no intention of ever allowing a viable, democratic state for the people of Palestine.

Taba and camp david were two examples of Israel offering what you described. It was Palestine that rejected them. Now you might not think that those offers were good enough, but there's no question that they met the standard you just set.

For that matter, there is no reason that Gaza could not set an example as a successful independent Palestinian state. There was a window of opportunity before there were any trade restrictions or sanctions. Had they taken advantage of this window perhaps Israel would be less afraid of lifting restrictions and further evacuating the west bank. Resistance of the sort you keep insisting is a right is sure to make your accusation into a reality.

If the Palestinians want their own state it will require cooperation with Israel. I can show you plenty of examples when Israel displayed such willingness. Can you point to one time that Palestine was willing to do the same? One time that they fulfilled an agreement they made with Israel?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. Cam you actually tell me with a straight face that the actions of the Israeli gov't

bespeak a desire for peace?

C'mon Shakti, you're no mindless cheerleaders like your colleagues here.

As for Gaza's abilityt to succeed, you actually made me laugh. Get real Shakti. Gaza was doomed the second Hamas won that election. It's an insult to the intelligence of posters here to pretend otherwise. This is an absurd exercise in playacting.

[Shaktimaan]

52. I would argue that

it was not Hamas winning the election that doomed Gaza but Hamas' policies and actions, as the elected representatives of the Palestinians, that did so. It's absurd to expect that Israel would not respond to endless rockets and bombing. Gazans elected a group committed to attacking Israel, regardless of whether Israel made efforts towards helping Palestinian autonomy or the peace process. Even before their electoral win they made their policy relevant by immediately using Israel's withdrawal as an opportunity to step up attacks.

Rather than use Israel's reaction to Hamas' attacks as an example of how they never had any intention of allowing Gaza to succeed I would ask what you think would have happened had the withdrawal not been immediately followed by increased terrorism. Would Israel have reacted to a cease-fire and attempts at increasing productivity and trade the same way they did to rockets and repeated bombings of the crossings?

Sure Gaza was doomed once the Palestinians voted in a group dedicated to Israel's destruction and committed to the derailment of any realistic peace process with them. But that hardly disproves my point. I'm not suggesting that Israel pursues peace at all costs, despite Palestinian actions. If anything I'm saying the opposite. That Israel has made many singular overtures in the past, some of them quite profound. Each overture being nothing more than an opportunity for the cycle to be broken should Palestinians respond in kind. My criticism is that not only have the Palestinians never made any similar overtures towards Israel, they have never even taken advantage of the ones made by Israel. Never have they responded with anything that might give Israelis reason to believe that they have something other than increased violence to look forward to, should they be foolish enough to make future concessions.

As I said before, any peace will require cooperation between Israel and Palestine. Israel left Gaza and the Palestinians... where was the Palestinian attempt?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. Shakti, I would argue that Israel's actions have shown its intentions

long, long before the situation in Gaza.

Occupation and land seizure isn't a Re-action. It's the initial ACTION.

I know there are plenty of Israelis, probably the majority, who favor a 2-state solution, allowing for a viable Palestinian state, and a just solution to the refugee problem. I don't doubt that for a minute.

But the government doesn't respond to that. The occupation bureaucacy seems to have a life of its own. The civilian gov't seems hogtied by the military.

I know people WANT peace, but the government does not pursue it in any serious way.

The people of Palestine aren't interested in behaving pretty so that a few blockades can be lifted. The days of playing nice to try to get the Israelis to like them enough to think about maybe giving back a few dunams here and there are over.

The conflict churns on, not because Palestinians are bad, but because the people of Israel don't have the desire, or the ability, to shut it down the occupation machine.

[Shaktimaan]

54. In your opinion,

what exactly is "the occupation?"

Are you merely talking about the OPT? Or do you include all of Israel in that definition?

The people of Palestine aren't interested in behaving pretty so that a few blockades can be lifted. The days of playing nice to try to get the Israelis to like them enough to think about maybe giving back a few dunams here and there are over.

Did those days ever exist? When did the Palestinians behave pretty even when Israel made fairly large steps towards granting them autonomy? Hamas has made it pretty clear that their interest is not in ending the occupation of land outside the green line but in having autonomy over all of Mandate Palestine. They were, after all, the ones who opposed Oslo on the grounds that its aim was a two state solution.

The conflict churns on, not because Palestinians are bad, but because the people of Israel don't have the desire, or the ability, to shut it down the occupation machine.

What does this mean, exactly. In your opinion, what would it take for the conflict to end? Is there a solution that's equitable for both sides? My own personal view of this conflict shifted during the initial Oslo years. I did not, and still do not, see what Israel could have done to express their commitment to ending the conflict more earnestly than those first six months following the initial Oslo Accord's validation. Those first few months comprise a laundry list of positive actions on the part of Israel, and virtually nothing negative. Yet it was still met with an immediate refusal and a drastic increase in terrorism.

So, I am asking you, what could Israel do that would appease the Islamic Jihad and Hamas enough so that peace would actually have a chance to develop?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. I'm talking about the OPT.

I've written a bunch of times my view of Oslo, or at least the view I've developed over time.

I don't know what anyone's motivations were in the late 80s/early 90s, but the result was that local leadership, which was clear about its goals and objectives, was supplanted with the PLO, which was all too eager ot give away the house for the chance to administer what quickly became a corrupt bureacracy.

What exactly did Israel "give up?" It moved out of the cities. It cut a bunch of lucrative business deals.

By the end of the decade, settlements had expanded greatly.

All in all, Oslo was a disaster for the people of Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

58. It's not a question of Israel giving anything up.

Israel didn't have to give up anything, neither did the Palestinians at the beginning of Oslo. I won't bore you by listing off the benefits to both sides or the hopeful plan that Oslo brought. I'm sure you're well aware of them. Sure, the Israelis preferred to deal with Arafat for obvious reasons. But the Palestinians still had to elect him. And the PLO was, and still is, the only body with the right to speak for the Palestinian people on the world stage. Look, Israel didn't create Arafat, or turn him into the icon he became. And they didn't make him corrupt either. They just threw the man a lifeline when it mutually benefited both of them to keep him from becoming totally irrelevant. (He hardly gave away the house anyway, all of the critical issues holding up a peace deal were agreed to be dealt with later.)

So, back to Oslo. What was it about Oslo that was so reprehensible to the Palestinian refusniks? If not its ultimate goal, the two state solution, then what else could be seen as a negative for the Palestinians in Oslo? Or in Israel's behavior right after it was signed? All settlement construction was frozen for months following the signing... why did terrorism against Israel spike immediately?

It seems like you're criticizing the way Oslo worked out in the end. But you haven't made many arguments against the Accord itself yet. If you're for a two state solution, and the Palestinian leadership is willing to accept it, (and enforce its acceptance among other factions), then won't the way look an awful lot like the Oslo Accords?

I would argue that it wasn't Oslo that left the Palestinians worse off. Oslo could have gone either way, it was an opportunity for the Palestinians, not a guarantee. It gave the Palestinians a large degree of autonomy, more than they had had, perhaps ever. And all of the things that are really damaging Palestine now, the wall, checkpoints, the siege of Gaza, the rift between Gaza and the WB, between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas and Fatah themselves... all that stuff was the result of how the Palestinians used their autonomy. The new settlements have nothing to do with that obviously, but the new settlements aren't really the thing that's killing Palestine, they just exist for the most part. It's everything else that's really killing Palestine.

You know, I really believe that if you guys had gotten a Ben Gurion or a Nelson Mandella instead of an Arafat, things might have ended up very differently. You really deserve to get a Mandella by now. Hell, we all deserve you guys getting a Mandella by now.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

59. I totally agree about Ben Gurion or Mandela.

I console myself by realizing in fact that very few countries have had leaders who truly put the needs of the country first and foremost during their foundation years. The USA was surely lucky in this regard, as was Israel.

Part of the reason why Oslo was so disastrous is that the leadership gave away the house on a promise of future concessions, which never came. That was a mistake that should not be repeated.

We all know what has to happen. Let's cut the shit and get to it.

[Vegasaurus]

55. No Occupation isn't the action

as we try to patiently point out again and again.

There was plenty of violence towards Jews before any occupation at all.

So, let's throw out that little pretend reason that there is so much militancy, violence, terrorism, towards Jews in the middle east, which has lasted for almost 100 years, not the 40 years of occupation.

I am waiting for a little honesty, for once.

[pelsar]

29. as i understand it...

you preference is for the non violent liberation/resistance....but you support the violent versions even if they dont work (or for that matter makes things worse...). Thats putting the ideal of resistance as being more important than compromise and progress

.....its a failed philosophy in case you didnt notice and it continues to fail, more so, "getting in bed with hamas/IJ" has produced suicide bombers which have been incredibly destructive toward the Palestinians own society (celebration of death, armed gangs, turf wars, etc), not to mention producing as an end result hamas governing gaza and i would bet you 100:1 that they take the westbank within a few years as well.

you might want to take a few pages out of the "hagana" playbook"...turn in the guys to the occupying power who are destroying your own society, no matter how much it hurts.......(though it may be way too late for that). But that means placing "resistance" as secondary to a more goal oriented policy that works with israel.....no matter how "evil" israel is-something that my be tough to swallow, but no one promised that state building is an easy task.

___

i think at this point, the only real solution is a revolt in gaza by the population themselves against hamas and the rockets..but thats a tough one, since hamas has shown shooting down protestors (no hyperbole here) is not a singular event with investigations etc afterward, but simply policy.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. I'm sure Isael would love a quisling in Gaza City too.

Imagine the revolution if all those shafted by the gov't of Israel refused to play along, and just quit.

"Two States" is dead, thanks to your gov't settlement policy, and refusal to acknowledge free and fair elections.

Someday you'll be the minority in your own country, and you'll have only yourself to thank.

[Vegasaurus]

32. Sad to think that violent resistance is so acceptable

to so called progressives, when the results of that resistance have made lives for innocent people so miserable.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. I have not supported violent resistance. nt

[Vegasaurus]

34. You've quoted from articles

that state that killing children is morally acceptable in resistance.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. I posted a particular POV during a discussion. That doesn't mean I support the use

of violence as a means of resistance.

I've stated, more times than I can count, that I think it's ineffective and counter-productive.

If you wish to paint me as a supporter of violence, you're free to do so, though it would be inaccurate.

[msmcghee]

36. Just to be fair . .

. . you have made many statements in this forum that are easily interpreted as justifying violent attacks against Israeli civilians. They are too numerous to list here. But, let's look at the full context of this particular statement that you are defending.

I am not trying to badger you on this but the theme of many threads in this forum started by pro-Palestinain members are that Israel purposely targets Palestinian civilians and that we pro-Israel members support those attacks which are - if your accusations are true - war crimes and crimes against humanity. We defend against those accusations by pointing out the lack of evidence that Israel targets civilians - and therefore we can not be accused of supporting such things.

There is no question that Palestinians attack Israeli civilians - every day - they purposely target them with the intent to kill them. And pro-Palestinian members like you often attempt to justify those attacks in various ways. It gets a bit much when you then deny that you do so - when your words are right there for anyone to see.

Please explain how this particular exchange - taken in full context - is anything but outright support for attacking innocent Israeli civilians. You justify it, you say it is OK and that the situation warrants it. It is evident from many of your other posts that this is your position. Why don't you defend it? Instead you deny what you obviously said.

Starts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=183898#183988

Shaktimaan response to Reply #16
19. Please explain. How do you see Qassam attacks or suicide bombs directed at civilians as being defensive? They seem retalitory to me. Not defensive though.


ProgressiveMuslim Response to Reply #19
22. I think those are the actions of basically unarmed civilians who are resisting the occupation and attempted destruction of the culture and livelihoods, as well as the outright stealing of their land. I know your camp tries to soft-peddle what Israel does. It's a bunch of bullshit. Those kassams are a drop in the bucket compared to what Israel has wrought on the people in the WB, East Jerusalem and Gaza. I wish to heck they'd knock it off, because it's ineffective, and it (insanely) gives Israel the high moral ground on some level. You always try to paint this conflict as though it's 2 euqally matched warring nations, one of which has an unwarranted hatred toward Israel.

I like to reflect on what the US would do if after 1800 more years, a small band of folks from another nation decided this was their homeland, got support from a powerful nation or two, and set about trying to drive us off. Would we allow ourselves to be driven off without a fight? I highly doubt it. I sure hope not.

Shakti, your "aw shucks Israel?" thing holds no water with me. Been there. Done that. Seen with my own 2 eyes.

I would inject here that your first response in this sub-thread is totally directed at justifying the attacks on civilians. You make no attempt to deny that they occurred. Your only problem with them is that they "aren't effective enough" and they "(insanely) gives Israel the high moral ground on some level". Is that what you call being opposed to attacks on civilians based on moral principles?

Shaktimaan Response to Reply #22
29. Wow.So you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad are essentially unarmed civilians? Really? For real?

It seems that you are saying that Palestine's lack of military resources and ability to effectively engage Israel on equal terms entitles them to commit really egregious war crimes, targeting civilians, etc., and should be judged by different standards than Israel. Basically, because you agree with their cause and see Israel as the oppressor, the rules of war, geneva conventions and so on should not be applied to their actions, right?

Whether they have cause to hate Israel or not is irrelevant. Israel does not engage in the kinds of policies or tactics that Hamas does. Do you feel that the Israeli government and the Palestinian government should be judged by different standards because they are unequally matched militarily? The way I learned it, war crimes are war crimes. One is not excused from them merely because their army is too weak to attack anyone other than unarmed civilians.

I still fail to see how attacking Israeli children is in any way a defensive strategy. What is being defended? What strategic objective is being met? For instance, when Israel singles out a Hamas leader for execution and rockets their car, it is a defensive strike because they eliminated someone who was a direct and immediate threat. Without that leader, Hamas will have a harder time organizing attacks against Israel, thus crippling their capabilities. How is singling out young children in a playground similarly a defensive action for Hamas?
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Shaktimaan Response to Reply #22
31. OK.

"I like to reflect on what the US would do if after 1800 more years, a small band of folks from another nation decided this was their homeland, got support from a powerful nation or two, and set about trying to drive us off."

But that is not what happened in Israel, is it?

Look, if the Palestinians are unable to win a conventional war, then why why why did they begin attacking Jewish people in Palestine at the very start of this conflict? Why did they instigate the Arab uprising? Why did they consistently refuse to accept the idea of a substantial Jewish population living in Palestine?

No one was being driven off their lands when this conflict started. Reflect on what you would do as a recent refugee to an as-yet-unformed-nation where your community purchased undeveloped land and you found yourself facing an angry indigenous population who wanted you either out of their claimed land or dead. Would you be driven off without a fight?

All of the problems faced by the Palestinians can be traced back to their refusal to engage their problems on any level other than violence. The partition plan resulted from a need to seperate the two ethnicities because of unyeilding Palestinian attacks. The nakba resulted from the Palestinian's refusal to accept the UN's Plan and disputing it by way of waging war on the Jews, yet again.

You say that Israel came in and pushed the Palestinians off of their land causing this animosity. When did that happen exactly? This fight started in the 1920's and the 1930's. The war begun by the Palestinians and later engaged by other Arab nations was in the 40's. Please show me where and when the Zionists or native Jews sparked the conflict in that time period. When did they try and destroy Palestinian culture and livelihood, causing this violent reaction?

At this point Shakti has refuted your description of the events that you say justify the attacks against Israeli civilians. He has not even questioned your support for those attacks as you have been very clear about that. Did you take this opportunity to deny that Palestinians attack Israelis civilians as a matter of course - or that you support those attacks? Obviously, not. In the following post you quote another author who obviously justifies the purposeful murder of Israeli civilians - including children in Day Care Centers, if necessary. You preface the quote with your assertion that here is someone who agrees with you.

ProgressiveMuslim Response to Reply #31
41. Many agree with my position. Read this by Michael Neumann:

The comparisons with the situation of the Palestinians are beyond obvious. To start, what I have written sneaks in some misconceptions. There were no people called "the Indians". They were diverse, as cultures and as individuals, some peaceful, some warlike, some responsible for the massacres, some not. It was, of course, the whites who lumped them together and demonized them (just as this sentence does to the whites). The Israelis kind of do that when they destroy the houses of old women and blockade cities to the point of starvation and medical catastrophe. And when anyone supports the Israelis, they are responsible for this sort of collective 'punishment', even if they don't - as they often do - indulge in the same coarse generalizations.

As for the other points of resemblance, not only Israeli, but much non-Israeli Jewish propaganda does its best to conceal them. But concealment is impossible. Guess what? The Palestinians didn't travel thousands of miles to dispossess the Jews. It was the other way around. Often the Jews had very pressing reasons to leave Europe. So did the whites who settled in North America. And both groups of settlers couldn't quite take in what they saw: that gee, there were other people already there, and the land was theirs. When possible, both engaged in sleazy land deals to get their foothold; when not, force was used. But always there was no question: the whole land would be theirs, and the state to be constructed would be their state.

Both groups of settlers somehow contrived, despite these goals, to believe that they wanted nothing but to live in peace with their 'neighbors'- neighbors, of course, because they had already taken some of their land. And sure, they did want peace, just as Hitler wanted peace: on his terms. The most casual survey of Israeli politics indicates that mainstream, official, respectable Jewish opinion asserts an absolute right to Israel's present boundaries, and at the very least would never abandon the continually expanding settlements. What is considered extreme Jewish opinion, which asserts rights over the entire area occupied by Palestine, is not the Israeli extreme. The far right in Israel claims a territory that stretches as far as Kuwait and southern Turkey. This matters, because, given Israel's fragmented politics, the extreme right wields a power out of proportion to its numbers. The conclusion must be that Israel, as a collective entity, wants peace with all the sincerity of, say, General Custer.

Like the Indians, the Palestinians have nowhere to go. All the Arab states either hate them, or hate having them there. And, like Indians, Arabs and Palestinians are not all alike: do we scratch our heads and wonder why, when the Cherokee were kicked off their land, they didn't just join the Apache or Navaho? Like the Indians, the Palestinians have not the slightest chance of injuring, let alone defeating Israel through conventional military tactics. Like the whites, every single Israeli Jew, down to and including the children, are instruments wielded against the Palestinian people.

Of course the two situations aren't quite analogous. Things are clearer in the case of Israel, where virtually every able-bodied adult civilian is at least an army reservist, and every Jewish child will grow up to be one. And the American settlers never spent years proclaiming how happy they would be with the land they had before embarking on a campaign to take the rest of it. One might add that the current situation of the Palestinians is more like that of the Indians in 1880-1890 than earlier, because the Palestinians have lost much more than half of their original land.

The Palestinians don't set out to massacre children, that is, they don't target daycare centers. (Nor do they scalp children, but according to the BBC, that's what Israel's clients did in Sabra and Shatila.) They merely hit soft targets, and this sometimes involves the death of children. But, like anyone, they will kill children to prevent the destruction of their society. If peoples have any right of self-preservation, this is justified. Just as Americans love to do, the Palestinians are "sending a message": you really don't want to keep screwing with us. We will do anything to stop you. And if the only effective way of stopping their mortal enemies involved targeting daycare centers, that would be justified too. No people would do anything less to see they did not vanish from the face of the earth.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumannisrael1.html

If he agrees with you, just what is it that you think he agrees with you about if it is not the justified killing of Israeli civilians (including children) as a form of necessary resistance against the injustices he and you perceive were carried out by Israel against the Palestinians. That was the whole thrust of all the comments both you and he made in this exchange.

I'm not sure what rule this post might violate but whenever I challenge you on your oft-stated beliefs on this topic my posts tend to get deleted. I've copied this in case you want to PM me with an explanation telling me why my interpretation of your pretty clear words on this is wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

41. I obviously can't speak for ProgressiveMuslim, but what I'd guess here...

is that she quoted the passage, not because she agreed with every word, but because she agreed with the first few paragraphs. Because the last paragraph represents values that you (and many) are particularly dedicated to opposing, it 'jumped out' at you. It would have jumped out at me too, if I'd read that particular thread at the time. The idea that (for any group) 'if the only effective way of stopping their mortal enemies involved targeting daycare centers, that would be justified too' is evil - and far, far RW. But it came at the end of an article that was not really on that subject, but more on Israeli oppression of Palestinians and how this might parallel white American oppression of Native Americans, and arguing that the Israelis got Palestinian land by illegitimate means. (Note: I don't agree with most of *this* part either - and I don't care for Michael Neumann in general, or for Counterpunch in general; but it is not about targeting civilians.)

But this in my view happens quite often: people quote something that includes sentences that justify their beliefs, without necessarily agreeing with everything in the passage, or by the writer - and then others notice and object to a part that is opposed to some of their key beliefs. I hope you won't mind my saying that I think this featured strongly in the debates that you and I had about Dan Pipes' writings a couple of months ago. You quoted him because he expressed some of the serious concerns that you have about Islamism. His writings also included criticisms of Europe's liberalism; implied endorsement of Enoch Powell (equivalent for Americans = implied endorsement of Strom Thurmond or George Wallace); and direct endorsement of Mark Steyn, who attacked the Europaean welfare state as 'infantilizing' and as weakening people by 'removing them from their basic instincts including the survival instinct'. These parts instantly jumped out at me, as a liberal/left Europaean, for whom preservation of my society's welfare state and other liberal principles is a key issue - and as someone with a particular fear of any resurgence of Europaean-style fascism, of which Steyn's views seemed eerily reminiscent. You made it clear that you did NOT endorse all these other views, and were quoting Pipes' work because of your specific concern about Islamism. But I couldn't get around the other views - they are too crucial and central to me. I think that all Pipes' views must be seen as suspect because they occur in the context of opposition to crucial liberal values and even endorsement of someone who supports a form of social Darwinism. We both think that all Neumann's views must be seen as suspect because they occur in the context of justification of total war against one's 'mortal enemy' making it acceptable to target children if 'necessary'. But that doesn't mean that anyone who quotes either of these people (or any one of many others) shares all their views.

If ProgressiveMuslim thinks I'm misrepresenting her views, I am sure she will say so!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. I think the whole discussion is pretty interesting.

But at the end of the day, I find the tactics counter-productive.

I am far more interested in having as a moral litmus test one's support of Israel's insidious, life-crushing occupation.

[msmcghee]

37. If you want to clear this up once and for all . .

. . just choose one of the following:

a) Attacking the civilians of any state with no clear and compelling defensive purpose is a war crime and a crime against humanity and any state or group that does so should be fully condemned and sanctioned by all civilized societies.

b) Attacking the civilians of any state with no clear and compelling defensive purpose is OK morally if you hate them enough but could be a bad tactical decision if it does not achieve the intended purpose or if it makes the attackers look bad in the eyes of the world. Or,

c) Fill in any other clearly stated justification or condemnation you wish.

Why do I think you won't take me up on this?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. She's already cleared it up. She's said she doesn't support violent resistance...

I can assure you PM won't 'take you up on this' coz PM has you on ignore...

Apart from that, when it comes to PM's views on the conflict, it's wiser to take her word for what she believes rather than that of two posters who regularly attempt to derail threads with their attempts to parse another posters words to fit into what they'd like to believe the poster believes....

Why I'm saying something here is that in the past, and even very recently, you have accused me of holding views that I don't have. When I've corrected you on yr incorrect claims, rather than admitting that you did get it wrong, you vanish and then reappear in other threads making the same sorts of accusations. Didn't Lithos post a thread last year about what you and Vegasaurus are doing to PM in thread after thread? I'll dig it up and kick it, coz it applies to you two every bit as much as anyone else in this forum. Instead of trying to tell other people what their views are, why not believe what they say? Would you find it acceptable if someone were to post in thread after thread claims that you support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians based on what you said in a few threads? And you return to find them demanding you to tell them whether or not you support ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, even though you'd posted and said that's not what you support?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. VC, don't trouble yourself!

The ignore button does wonders to make life on this forum more palatable.

I have always been up front and unapologetic about what I think. When have I ever been less than direct about my bliefs, even when they are unpopular?

Perhaps the insistence that the rights of Palestinians are not superseded by the perceived needs of the Israeli gov't is hard for some here to swallow. Truthfully, I think my insistence on the radical equality of human worth -- that Palestinian children are as valuable and important and sacred and Israeli children -- that Palestinians should not be consigned to the dust bin of history for refusing to passively accept the half-life Israel has chosen for them -- is the real source of irritation.

Here is a people that the world fundamentally does not give a shit about. They are a civilian population facing a military power armed with nuclear weapons. How can they possibly, effectively, end the tyranny?

In times of assymetric conflict, the rules of engagement are shifting. It's a discussion I am very much interested in.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. She has answered the fucking question..

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but she's already said that she doesn't support violent resistance. Try reading the thread instead of deliberately reposting posts from someone PM has on ignore. What the fuck is the point of the ignore feature?

[Dick Dastardly]

46. No she hasnt

She danced around the question stating she prefers this or that.

Why not let her respond instead of trying to run interference and expressing phony outrage. She is a big girl and can defend herself.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Read post 35. She's said she doesnt' support violent resistance...

I'll bold it so you can't miss it again...

'I posted a particular POV during a discussion. That doesn't mean I support the use
of violence as a means of resistance.

I've stated, more times than I can count, that I think it's ineffective and counter-productive.

If you wish to paint me as a supporter of violence, you're free to do so, though it would be inaccurate.'

What's with you deliberately reposting the posts of someone you know she's got on ignore? You do realise the ignore function is used here at DU for a reason, so why are you trying to circumvent it when you read my post telling msmcghee that PM had her on ignore?

[Dick Dastardly]

49. That is a dance around not a clearly stated rejection

as you try to paint



Those are now my words and questions as your heated display has made me now very interested in this

[Violet_Crumble]

50. More like a complete unwillingness to read a simple sentence on yr part...

Are you really as stupid as yr making yrself out to be? You copied and pasted the post of someone you knew PM had on ignore, so knock off the mindless crap about it being yr words.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. It's probably worth yr while to read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171386

Mind you, it was posted back when I thought those words did apply to everyone in the forum.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. I look at the occupation like slavery in the American continent.

Slavery was an evil institution. Nothing the slaves could have done changed that. If they fought back violently, it would not lessen the evil of the institution that subjugated them. That's how I view the occupation. The evil institution is the core problem, not the wrong response to it.

For me, it's all about what works.

I believe the best way to bring about liberty, to cast off the evil institution of Israel's violent, murderous military occupation is through large scale nonviolent protest, in conjunction with worldwide boycott, sanctions and divestment.

Do I support violence agaginst civilians? No. I think it's counterproductive and ineffective and robs Palestinians of the world-wide moral support they deserve.

Do I understand why it's employed in this asymmetric conflict? Yes. And I think it's the wrong thing to do.

I have said that here time and time again. What's not to understand?

However, I reject the question as framed in your post. That's not the way I see the issues at at.

The way the questions are put reveals the bias of the poster, and his or her goal in portraying the actions as not defensive in nature. Therefore if Palestinians weren't blowing up civilians to defend themselves then why are they doing it? They must be Jew-hating senseless animals, clearly, since there's no rational reason for their violence.

I totally reject that.

When Palestinian factions have perpetrated acts of violence aimed at civilians, they DO believe those are acts of self defense. I have talked about this until I'm blue in the face here.

Frankly, I'm not going to put myself on the inquisitor's block so that what I write can be pasted into word documents, to be trotted back out in my face 2 years from now, or parsed on McGee's other regular forum, where she commmiserates with right-wing sourpusses who were banned from the DU.

I believe Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves against occupation. Much like Marwan Barghouti, who sits in jail as the possible Mandela, I believe they have the right to engage in armed struggle if need be. I don't think that any moral consideration is greater than the Palestinians' right to liberty.

I reject the notion that only Israeli civilians are sacrosanct, that they have more inherent value than palestinian civilians. I don't like to see ANYONE get killed in all this. But I fundamentally reject McGee's questions as a litmus test of my morality. Period.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. So please, don't say I never answer. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

60. Thank you for your response

The Questions

a) Attacking the civilians of any state with no clear and compelling defensive purpose is a war crime and a crime against humanity and any state or group that does so should be fully condemned and sanctioned by all civilized societies.

b) Attacking the civilians of any state with no clear and compelling defensive purpose is OK morally if you hate them enough but could be a bad tactical decision if it does not achieve the intended purpose or if it makes the attackers look bad in the eyes of the world. Or,

c) Fill in any other clearly stated justification or condemnation you wish.

PM

For me, it's all about what works.

I believe the best way to bring about liberty, to cast off the evil institution of Israel's violent, murderous military occupation is through large scale nonviolent protest, in conjunction with worldwide boycott, sanctions and divestment.

Do I support violence agaginst civilians? No. I think it's counterproductive and ineffective and robs Palestinians of the world-wide moral support they deserve.

Do I understand why it's employed in this asymmetric conflict? Yes. And I think it's the wrong thing to do.

I have said that here time and time again. What's not to understand?

So its all about what works. If it worked then it would be OK is what I read especially when you state this also

PM

I don't think that any moral consideration is greater than the Palestinians' right to liberty.

So it seems would be ok and morally justified if it worked. You are not against it as a crime against humanity but as you say "I think it's counterproductive and ineffective and robs Palestinians of the world-wide moral support they deserve."


PM

However, I reject the question as framed in your post. That's not the way I see the issues at at.

The way the questions are put reveals the bias of the poster, and his or her goal in portraying the actions as not defensive in nature. Therefore if Palestinians weren't blowing up civilians to defend themselves then why are they doing it? They must be Jew-hating senseless animals, clearly, since there's no rational reason for their violence.

I totally reject that.

When Palestinian factions have perpetrated acts of violence aimed at civilians, they DO believe those are acts of self defense. I have talked about this until I'm blue in the face here.

The questions did not mention the Palestinians but left it generic. Admittedly question B put it in a limited frame but it also left you the 3rd option to frame it yourself. I do think the questions could have been framed better. I myself don't need b or c because specifically and knowingly attacking civilians to kill them for no defensive purposes is wrong in any way shape or form. I also think that for someone to walk into a restaurant and blow themselves up along with women children elderly and any other person for that matter takes strong hatred on at least some level.How anyone could consider blowing up a pizza parlor an act of self defense is beyond me, there has to be hate involved


I would make the questions more simple myself only needing 2 choices. But thats just me.

A)Knowingly attacking the civilians of any state with no defensive purpose is a crime and never justified

B)Knowingly Attacking the civilians of any state with no defensive purpose is not always a crime and sometimes justified. Please explain

The fact is suicide bombings are not defensive and whether the Palestinians think they are has no bearing on the morality or ethical issues of it. If someone thinks its just like making a normal withdrawal when you rob a bank, it doesn't make it so. There are countless crimes that the perpetrators thought were valid and in self defense such as the Serbs ethnic cleansing Kosovo but that does not make it any less a crime or immoral.

One can also use your arguments for anything the Israelis do is justified if they think its in self defense and to ensure their liberty. Sliding scale morality is a slippery slope


PM

I believe Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves against occupation. Much like Marwan Barghouti, who sits in jail as the possible Mandela, I believe they have the right to engage in armed struggle if need be. I don't think that any moral consideration is greater than the Palestinians' right to liberty.

All people have a right to defend themselves and to liberty but that does not mean anything one does to that end is moral and or ok to do. When one takes or supports certain actions and makes certain choices there are always consequences to those choices as in the occupation which did not take place in a vacuum. Even if the Palestinians were 110% blame free in the right they would have moral high ground to do anything they want for liberty, no one does.

PM

I reject the notion that only Israeli civilians are sacrosanct, that they have more inherent value than palestinian civilians. I don't like to see ANYONE get killed in all this. But I fundamentally reject McGee's questions as a litmus test of my morality. Period.

No one has stated only Israeli civilians are sacrosanct only that specifically and knowingly attacking civilians for no defensive purpose is wrong and criminal

I don't see the question as a litmus test of your morality but of anyones morality. You either think that its OK to specifically and knowingly attack civilians for no defensive purpose or you don't think its OK.


Again I thank you for your response instead of ignoring it as you could have done or go into a tirade like VC

[pelsar]

61. I would like to interject here..

because i have found PMs responses and mindset always very interesting...something in the very least educational.

I believe there are two points that best explain her viewpoint (PM please correct if i am wrong)

1) what works

2) Palestinian liberty takes precedent over any other moral consideration.
_____________

PM had a post awhile back that stated even the wrong resistance (that what doesnt work) is still justified.

together we get a picture that anything goes, western morality/values takes a backseat to liberty and getting the land back. While PM may personally disagree with some methods, especially those that dont work, it has nothing to do with the overall morality of the resistance..the resistance in itself has a morality that is above and beyond any mere "mortal western created value. i.e. if blowing up hospital nurserys worked and caused israel to withdraw, then such actions would be justified.

the ends justifies the means

[msmcghee]

62. Proportional self defense is always moral. Aggression, never.

My objections to PM's views are not an objection to blowing up hospital nurseries for a cause that she believes in as much as they are an objection to her justification for it. To be honest, there were hospital nurseries in Dresden and in many other cities that the Allies bombed in WWII and there were hospital nurseries I assume in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. I have also stated that I believe the Allies acted honorably in those campaigns.

I base these moral judgments on the inherent morality of self defense. I believe the allies were facing huge and accumulating losses and also the real possibility of either the loss of the war to the Axis powers or the prospect of the destruction of their economies if they did not deal some significant large scale demoralizing blows to their enemies when they did.

I don't even believe it was necessary for those decisions to have been made with the complete confidence that there was absolutely no other option at the time. This was a defensive war and I give the defender great latitude in making those decisions. I believe our governments made those decisions acting with good intentions regarding proportionality - no matter if history shows they miscalculated or not. But it would be hypocritical of me to condemn PM for seeing armed resistance - even against children - as immoral per se - because I effectively condone it in the case above.

My problem with her view is that I, first of all, do not see the occupation as illegal or immoral because it was a defensive occupation to protect Israel from attack, first from Jordan and/or Egypt and other Arab powers and ultimately, from Palestinians - who now fight the Arab's war (and Iran's now) as their proxies. The occupation itself was the direct result of an aggressive war against Israel and the reason it was not called off was the Khartoum Resolution - the three no's - leaving Israel apparently seeing no other practical options. Indeed, the occupation is recognized legally in Res 242 which also provides reasonable means for ending it - which the Palestinians, not Israel, have managed to avoid quite effectively. PM may argue that Israel actually has other options - but again, the defending party is the one whose hand is forced and therefore gets to decide what defensive options it will pursue IMO - within proportion, of course.

Finally, an occupation can be completely non-violent and beneficial to the occupied party - as was the US occupation of both Germany and Japan after WWII. Such benevolence only requires that the occupied party recognize their defeat and express some contrition and an honest desire to improve their conditions - and of course, that the defeat is at the hands of an army that is driven by Western values, as Israel's was and is. This occupation started off with thousands of Palestinians passing into Israel every day for work and back home at night with no problems and minimum civilian restrictions. The Palestinians' standard of living, per capita income, population, infant mortality, etc. - all improved greatly in the first years of the occupation. The problems only came as Arafat was able to organize increasingly effective terrorist operations against Israel.

Palestinain suicide attacks and rockets against Israeli civilians have no defensive purpose. They are simply highly immoral acts of aggression to achieve political goals. They are therefore unjustified no matter which Israelis they target - including members of the IDF as well as adults and children in nurseries.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. I am saying that the immoralty of a 40 year murderous occupation conducted against civilians

far outweights the immorality of singular acts of resistance.

Do you disagree with that?

I'm saying that those acts aren't good for the cause and they are ineffective. I don't support them.

What's the point of further philosophical moralizing about it?

I find it ludicrious that those who support 40 years of murdering Palestinians civilians have the temerity to call those who resist it immoral.

I do not support targeting civilians as a means of reisting occupation. But I never lose sight that in the scale of "evil," Israel's never-ending tyranny takes the cake.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. Dick, the point on which we disagree would be

whether or not those attacks would be deemed defensive.

I know that you don't see them as defensive. I think the people who undertake them do see them as a form of self-defense in an asymmetric conflict.

I think that those actions aren't proper or effective self-defense and I don't support it.

You know they old saying, give them real weapons and let them meet on the battlefield!

[Dick Dastardly]

65. It doesnt matter whether they deem them defensive

or not, that has no bearing on whether it is moral or not and illegal or not. The fact is suicide bombing civilians is immoral and illegal regardless of if they think it is defensive or not. As I said the Serbs thought their genicidal acts were self defense but that is immaterial to its immoral and criminal nature. History is filled with atrocities against civilians claimed as defensive. Using your logic Israel could start killing all the Palestinians and claim it as defense just as easily. Sliding scale morality is a slippery slope.

The other point is that as you said you are against them because they are inneffective not because they are immoral and that " I don't think that any moral consideration is greater than the Palestinians' right to liberty.". I myself do think they are wrong and immoral actions regardless of effectiveness and there are greater moral considerations than Palestinian Liberty.

You know they old saying, give them real weapons and let them meet on the battlefield!

They did have real weapons and lost every time.
Now I dont want to get into who started what where and when and who is to blame because that is immaterial to the current facts and realities on the ground today.
The reality, whether fair or not, is Israel is overwhelmingly the much stronger power and cant be realisticaly defeated. The Palestinians must either deal with this reality and make a imperfect deal and or even an unfair deal, or they can continue in the misery they are in now with no hope of defeating Israel. Life is unfair, justice is not always served but reality does not care. As unfair as it may seem to you they better take what they can get or continue to suffer getting even a worse deal later if they decide enough is enough. Sometimes its better to compromise your principles for pragmatism in the face of harsh reality.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. I guess they take the longer view of it. Time will tell. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

67. I guess so. but if you look back at the decisions made, time has made for a worse reality

If they would have accepted the partition in 48 they would have had much more land. If they tried to make a state pre 67 they would have had much more land. If they had accepted Camp David/Taba they would most likely end up better than they will now. I dont want to argue fault in any of this but just wanted to state their reality is getting worse and sometimes there is no good choice like capitulation and getting screwed with an unfair deal or continue to get screwed worse and getting a more unfair deal by holding out. The original 48 partition borders look pretty good right now but that will never happen.

[Vegasaurus]

68. This has been my view as well

and it isn't just loss of land, although the longer the Palestinians "resist", the worse that situation looks, as you have outlinedm Dick D.

But it is also loss of quality of life. There was a time when Palestinans traveled freely, had more work (in Israel), etc., and this wasn't even just before the Israeli occupation, but between 1967 and the first uprising.

As every year passes, with violent resistance and taking back all of Israel as the major Palestinian goals, their lives continue to get increasingly miserable, and they lose more and more land and quality of life.

They can continue this path, as they have, but there is always more for them to lose.

At some point, I am with Dick completely, they should realize that if they ever, ever want to have an improved life, they will have to give some of their aspirations up, and these include all of their many demands.

The demands and resistance have gotten them much less, not more, and it seems that at some point, someone in a position of leadership, would take the long view which also involves thinking about the citizens.

One can't turn back the clock, which makes many of the other turning points in Palestinan history since the early 1900's appear much rosier. They could have had a prosperous state so many times now. But instead, they live with walls and checkpoints, because violent resistance is the preferred way of life.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. Continuous settlement throughout the 90s indicates to this seasonsed

observer that there was never any intent to allow 2-states in the near-67 borders.

8 years of peace process results in more Israeli settlers?

<thunk>

[Dick Dastardly]

38. They are not starving

to call it starvation is an insult to those in the world who suffer from the horror of starvation. Those who have ever seen a person suffer such a horror would not use the term so casualy