Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”
Great. Endless murder in order to survive.
In my darker moments, I think the ultimate solution is just to bulldoze the Dome of the Rock, the Temple Mount and all the Christian shrines into the Mediterranean and fill old Palestine with nuclear waste to make the whole question of who deserves what land a pointless exercise. “Ok, now you can’t fight about it because it’s GONE.”
What a biased article where to begin. It really does not show reality at all. First good grief looking at this you would think that Hamas was akin to the League of Women voters. Besides the talk of free elections there is curious little talk how well they were killing their poltical opponents
I also think Sharon’s final vision is a tad well lets say they are playing with the truth here.
The fact that is ignores a huge Peace movement and huge Israeli Left that whose members has sent word to the leadership that they are not taking the streets is the biggest story that has been missing. HAMAS is killing the Peace movement. A movement that will be needed if we have another moment that we had in the CLinton Administration when a golden opportunity was offered an Affarat said no.
The fact that Arafat at the time KNEW he had no poltical backing for the tow state solution is telling.
What if Hamas annocued they could live with a two state solution. Would that not change the dynamaic. Why is Israel being the bad guy here?
When the Israeli Peace movement can’t get significant numbers ont he street I start listening
“The article was a specific topic and made no attempt to absolve Hamas. The only bias, it appears, is your own.”
Quite frankly not. THe bias and agenda and crazed theories of this well known is well known. Needless to say his last book that is cited at the bottom of the page was lambasted by several netural sources for cherrry picking. His wild Jewish conspircsys and also as seeing the primary part of American foreign policy as being JUDO Centric is well known
There are quite frankly much more rational forces than his own that can make a much more compelling argument than him and to recognize the conflict is fart more conflicted
The problem is and it onse I see for too often is too to try to potray this conflict in far too simpl;e terms. There also seems to be a ammter of not understanding Israeli Politics..
The fact is that no one cared that Hamas has used Cease fires to rearm. No one has cared that these rockets are getting closer and closer to the major Cities of Israel. No one has noticed or cared for the lat few years
I am very fearful that if Hamas is allow to continue it wil very well destroy any chance of long lasting peace. It is like asking the US and Israel to negoiate with Bin Laden.
I am fear the day that Israel will see no choice but to do again another long term occupation of Gaza. Unless Hamas is defeated or at least is persuaded to have a huge change in mindset this is well we are going.
Lastly there is a reason why Israelis are having a 75 percent success rate on targeting and that is not because of great easdropping. It is because elements of the Palestine are giving them the info
THe bias and agenda and crazed theories of this well known is well known.
So you lump in his article with a bunch of theories which you deem “crazed” and then proceed to call the author “biased.” And yet you do not challenge his facts or argument directly. The bias is yours.
Needless to say his last book that is cited at the bottom of the page was lambasted by several netural sources for cherrry picking.
“Neutral” sources lambasting a book? Then they are not neutral. Besides, who are the sources and what are their qualifications AND personal experience with Israeli officials? The author of the article has both.
From the civilian deaths in Gaza will spring more hatred and terrorism. Yet no people are so prone as Americans and Israelis to think admiringly of our own good intentions.–Dadid Bromwich
I’ll agree with jh that the article seems to be biased. It doesn’t say anything outright absolving Hamas, but the tone is poor Palestinian v. bully Israeli. The part about the freely-elected part giving Hamas credibility is difficult to swallow as well. The conflict is more complicated then the authors seems to acknowledge.
That said, I thought the article was mostly right in its criticism of Israel. Israel isn’t accomplishing anything and neither is Hamas in this war. This is ultimately a waste of human life on both sides. Israel’s continued settlements show that Israel is continuing to look towards expansion/control and not towards peace.
And God help me, but I agree with Iafrate. 75% when civilians are involved is not impressive.
And God help me, but I agree with Iafrate. 75% when civilians are involved is not impressive.
Reminds me of a little debate I am having over at another blog filled with nationalistic, racist Catholics in which they continue to make the astonishing claim that the united states military never intends to kill civilians. With, what, anywhere from 100,000 – 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians, the claim 1) is a complete lie, or 2) reveals the utter incompetence of “our” boys in uniform.
Denton, I’m happy to see you taking the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians seriously.
You Americans! You fight your way around the globe imposing democracy on other people (to put it kindly) – then when Palestinians participate in free and fair elections, you refuse to recognise who they voted for, and block their way at every opportunity. What hypocrisy!
I guess that “never intended” thing is like a get out of jail card. I “never intend” to slack off at work, or tick off my wife, or anything else. “Never intending” is a far cry from “actively avoiding.”
In assessing the culpability of Israel, I had mentioned the following questions should be asked:
– Did Israel adopt all other means at its disposal to prevent the attacks before resorting to armed force?
– In resorting to armed force, did Israel deliberately target Palestinian civilians, or target a site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
– Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
One might also apply the same questions to Hamas.
Incidentally, Hamas bears direct responsibility for a number of civilian deaths — namely, the members of Fatah or those they are suspecting of ‘collaboration with the Zionists’ in Palestinian vs. Palestinian violence.
Michael Iafrate, I realize you got your statistic on civilian casualties from Al Jazeera.
I didn’t get my statistic from Al Jazeera, although I recognize them as a legitimate news source. I realize you don’t recognize the legitimacy of news sources whose reporters’ skin is brown, but not all of us agree with your criteria. The stats I cited are reported in white, European and even some americanist news sources too, so what say you?
-In resorting to armed force, did Israel deliberately target Palestinian civilians, or target a site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
– Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
Your assumption, as it was with regard to the americans’ war on Iraq, is that the “good guys” would never ever intentionally kill civilians. At the same time, you brag about the accuracy of american (and Israeli, since their weapons come from america) weapons. Either they are targeting civilians, or their soldiers are morons who can’t aim for shit. Which is it?
Incidentally, Hamas bears direct responsibility for a number of civilian deaths…
As does the the f–king united states of america, and as does Israel. Claiming that “ooohhh, I didn’t really mean to kill thousands of human beings” does not automatically make you not responsible.
I wish you jerks would embrace Christianity and start defending human persons regardless of their nationality. Stop defending americans and Israelis just because they are americans and Israelis. The Body of Christ is ONE.
I didn’t get my statistic from Al Jazeera, although I recognize them as a legitimate news source.
Michael, you get those statistics from a Facebook application, the source of which freely states that they derive their source from http://aljazeera.net/
The stats I cited are reported in white, European and even some americanist news sources too, so what say you?
That they derived their statistics from that source as well. So returning to my original question, do you have an idea of how aljazeera.net arrives at those statistics?
Your assumption, as it was with regard to the americans’ war on Iraq, is that the “good guys” would never ever intentionally kill civilians. At the same time, you brag about the accuracy of american (and Israeli, since their weapons come from america) weapons. Either they are targeting civilians, or their soldiers are morons who can’t aim for shit. Which is it?
I think you will find the IDF and Americans do attempt to abide by a moral code of war that seeks to discriminate between civilians and armed militants. However, in the case of dealing with non-state actors who don’t abide by the Geneva conventions and show little regard to any notion of military ethics, such attempts is frustrated.
“Surviving family members spoke to local Arab media and said that in the days before his death, Rayyan had repeatedly asked his children, “Who wants to die with me as a martyr?” The children would respond, “Yes, daddy, we all want to be with you alive or dead.”
Rayyan’s adult daughter, Wala, said even the younger children wished to die with their father. “If In the days before his death, Rayyan has repeatedly asked his children, “Who wants to die with me as a martyr?” you had asked my four-year-old sister Aisha, who died in the attack, she would have told you that she preferred to die as a martyr,” Wala told Ma’an news.
One of Rayyan’s daughter-in-laws said she was offered the chance to die with the family. She stopped by the family’s large home in Jabaliya and was asked by Rayyan if she wished to die with him, his wives and their children. She agreed to die, but later left the building, shortly before the IAF strike.
As it turned out, when Rayyan offered his daughter-in-law the “opportunity” to die he had already received a phone call from the IDF warning him to evacuate his house due to an impending airstrike.”
Q: In resorting to armed force against Hamas’ leader, did Israel deliberately target his family, or target the site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
Q: Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
Q; Does Nizar Rayyan bear any responsibility for the deaths of his family in the attack?
That they derived their statistics from that source as well.
Who are “they”? What evidence do you have?
So returning to my original question, do you have an idea of how aljazeera.net arrives at those statistics?
Even if ALL European and/or american news sources go their casualty statistics from Al Jazeera, who gives a shit? Why disqualify them as a source?
I think you will find the IDF and Americans do attempt to abide by a moral code of war that seeks to discriminate between civilians and armed militants.
And I will “find” this how?
Your citation of the case of Nizar Rayyan does not impress me. I see no difference between the logic of martyrdom here and the americanist logic of martyrdom that you get off on. Americans glorify children who wish to follow in their fathers’ footsteps in dying for the u.s.a. as well. Your americanist group blog engages in the same kind of ancestor worship and glorification of death.
Q: In resorting to armed force against Hamas’ leader, did Israel deliberately target his family, or target the site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
Yes. Israel has openly declared its desire for revenge. Catholic moral thought does NOT ALLOW for revenge.
Q: Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
No.
Q; Does Nizar Rayyan bear any responsibility for the deaths of his family in the attack?
Any? Yes, certainly. He is directly involved in warmaking. Does Israel bear “any” respobsibly? Most certainly. Yet you want to absolve them. That’s sick.
I’ll excuse the profanity.
Oh, you want to absolve me too, eh? How gracious of you.
As someone who consistently defends the killing of non-american human lives, you deserve much more than a few profanities.
Even if ALL European and/or american news sources go their casualty statistics from Al Jazeera, who gives a shit? Why disqualify them as a source?
I’m not ready to disqualify them immediately, but given the variance in numbers and the demonstrable unreliability of Palestinian sources (see Jenin) I’m inclined to wait for further verification from other parties.
And I will “find” this how?
Well, you could start by removing the knee-jerk assumption that all members of the United States Armed Forces (or Israel, for that matter) are bloodthirsty killers, and that “revenge” might not be the only motive for responding to Hamas.
Many Jews living in Israel know full well that their country is guilty of war crimes and that NOTHING has been accomplished by their murderous campaign in the Gaza.
Many Jews all over the world know that Zionism has devolved into a neo-fascist and racist ideology they can no longer support. Einstein was reaching that conclusion before he died, as I suggested here:
The only country in the world whose people still support the racist and fascist Zionist politicians who govern in Israel by playing American Jews off against the 45% of their own people who want to stop the continuous land grabs is America. Here in Europe even the Jews are appalled by what Israel is doing and murmer their incredulous horror at what Israel has become: the United States of America continues to blacken her reputation, world-wide, on account of her material and moral support for this genocide of the Palestinian people.
With, what, anywhere from 100,000 – 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians,
I didn’t realize that anyone was so uneducated that they actually thought all of those civilians were killed directly by American soldiers. Those estimates of civilian deaths include any putative increase in the death rate for any reason — which means they’re including people who die of natural causes, people who allegedly die from various diseases or interruptions in electricity, and most importantly, people who die because they were killed by Iraqi terrorists who hate anyone of a different religious view.
Now you could make the case that all of these deaths are ultimately due to the American invasion, because if we hadn’t invaded, Saddam Hussein would have been able to use much more brutal and harsh methods in keeping Iraqi terrorists from killing other Iraqis. That’s quite a different argument, however, from the quite uneducated view that it’s all because of American bombs targeted at civilians.
Well, you could start by removing the knee-jerk assumption that all members of the United States Armed Forces (or Israel, for that matter) are bloodthirsty killers, and that “revenge” might not be the only motive for responding to Hamas.
1) You still have not given any evidence.
2) Revenge is precisely how the response has been described by many Israeli leaders and academics.
And for those of you who believe that Obama means no change for American foreign policy on the Middle East, I can only give you what I figure are Andrew Sullivan’s extremely prescient prognostications regarding the changes we are about to see in it:
On Israel, perhaps, we will see the biggest shift. Obama has so far been preternaturally silent on the Gaza bombardment, in deference to the “one president at a time” mantra and because he knows full well that if he were not about to become president, the Israelis would not have launched their attack.
Obama does not want to get into a war of words with Israel before he even takes office, but he shows every sign of tackling the Middle East the way he has defused America’s culture wars. He will try to prick the passion and lay out a rational solution.
We all know the contours of the deal that the Israelis and the Palestinians are too politically divided and weak to agree to: a two-state compromise, a roll-back of settlements, an international force on the border with the West Bank, a cessation of terrorism, and financial compensation for displaced Palestinians seeking a right of return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
My sense is that Clinton, the secretary of state, shares Obama’s views and that her reflexively neoconservative approach to Israel will moderate once she is no longer a senator from New York. My sense is also that Obama intends to use Clinton in ways not seen in a secretary of state for a very long time. And my guess is that she would not have taken the job if she were not convinced that she has a chance to go down in history as an architect of a breakthrough Middle East peace agreement.
Still, if any fight could remain totally immune to Obama’s moderation, it is surely the Israeli-Palestinian death match. Does this product of Hawaiian hippiedom really think he can get through to Hamas? Or Benjamin Netanyahu?
I don’t think Obama has many illusions on this score, but he will almost certainly try to change the game with a very public and early appeal to the world’s Muslims. He will take the oath of office using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, and will likely give a big speech soon that may give his domestic advisers heartburn. His face remains one of America’s most potent weapons in the war of ideas that is integral to winning the fight against jihadist terrorism. What he is looking for is a grand bargain in the Middle East just as surely as he is seeking a grand bargain in domestic fiscal matters. Both bargains would be made possible by grave and growing crises that help to scramble the recent past, by an overarching rhetorical appeal to the masses behind the political leaders and by a bit of good luck and planning.
Be assured that Obama is more of a strategist than a tactician. He knows that all the regional conflicts are interlocked and is often a few steps ahead of his enemies (just ask Clinton or McCain). To move Israel forward, he needs to engage Syria. To deal with Gaza, he has to test the waters with Iran. To achieve minimalist goals in Afghanistan, he needs Pakistan.
When you listen to him rattle off all the dimensions of the broader conflict, you are aware that this is a president who does not see the world in black and white or in with-us-or-against-us terms. He sees it as a series of interconnected conflicts that can be managed by pragmatic solutions, combined with a little rhetorical fairy dust and willingness to offer respect where Bush provided merely contempt. This is not a panacea. But it is not nothing either.
Obama almost certainly believes, for example, that no one is enjoying the Gaza disaster more than Iran’s government, and that Tehran’s more radical mullahs fear nothing more than fighting an election at home while Obama appeals to the Iranian people over their heads. It is perfectly reasonable to be confident that Obama threatens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in ways that Bush never managed.
I am fully confident that the Middle East is going to be one of those problem areas about which Obama’s tactics and solutions are going to cause the “conservatives” and the cynics to eat their words regarding him.
I’m slightly confused about this argument over the 75% number. That came not from Iafrate but from jh, who said it was an indication of Israeli efforts to protect civilians.
Christopher is questioning the # of civilian killings by Israel that I quoted, not the 75% “success rate.” I don’t know where jh got the latter number.
Obama has so far been preternaturally silent on the Gaza bombardment, in deference to the “one president at a time” mantra and because he knows full well that if he were not about to become president, the Israelis would not have launched their attack.
That’s one possibility. On the other hand, Israel itself is scheduled to have elections in a couple of weeks, and at least prior to the latest round of fighting it looked as if the current government was going to be ousted.
Feel free to censor it if this linking is too audacious. But, this thread brings to mind much of what frustrates me about this situation and others in general. It is entitled: “Counting Dead People”
SB, you know you spoeak nonsense as usual. Of course the US military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis, but they set in motion the process that did so, and thus are guilty of formal cooperation. And every single American who supported this invasion (if they have not repented and asked God’s forgiveness) bear their share of blame.
I see the usual Americanist nonsense against Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is an extremely serious media outfit that does great reporting and is actually far more unbiased than the standard American media when it comes to Palestine. Take off the Americanist blinkers for God’s sake.
Of course the US military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis, but they set in motion the process that did so,
Can you even read English? You’re specifically agreeing with what I said in quite plain language — that the military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis (which is what Michael I. has been trying to suggest), but that it arguably created a situation in which Iraqi terrorists were able to kill lots of people. Now some of us might think that the Iraqi terrorists bear just a wee bit more responsibility for their own actions than we do, but that’s a secondary issue that arises only after you have rejected Michael’s risible position (as indeed, you seem to do).
It ought to be interesting if Michael I. could ever be persuaded to take a position on MM’s seeming position. Since Michael is so keen on crying “racism” even where none exists, he certainly ought to divine racism where the position apparently is that when Iraqi terrorists kill people, they are not really morally responsible (not in any way that is worthy of moral condemnation); instead, as brown people, they’re just unthinking puppets who have no moral agency and can do nothing but react to whatever situation is created by white Americans. (That’s not my own analysis, but the way that Michael I. would analyze MM’s position if he had any intellectual consistency.)
S.B. – As usual, you’re making no sense. Just a guess, too, but I don’t think MM is suggesting that the one million dead Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi terrorists.
I don’t quite buy Al-Jazeera as a totally legitimate news source. Perhaps they’re better on the extent of Palestinian civilian casualties then Fox News but I think the BBC, the New York Times, etc. would have to outrank Al-Jazeera in authority. I think the claim that Al-Jazeera is unbiased towards Palestine is a tad absurd as well. They’re pretty firmly on the Palestinian side, which is something that must be considered with every report they make. That doesn’t mean they’re ignored, but outside confirmation is necessary (as it is with other biased news reporting, such as Fox or sometimes the NYT).
Unless you move towards a widespread pro-Israeli conspiracy theory in the American media, I don’t think you can uphold Al-Jazeera as the top news source, or even a dependable one.
Sorry, Michael Denton, but al-Jazeera is NECESSARY, because of the sanitized, self-censoring way that the Western media insists on covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not quite a “conspiracy,” but close). This one sentence from a review of al-Jazeera’s behaviour in this conflict says it all:
If what you are worried about is individuals, then to look away from violence is not a neutral position.
And these words help us to understand how deeply the entire Muslim world resents the way that Americans talk about this conflict:
If objectivity is your yardstick, the entire way the network’s newscasters discuss the war disqualifies them as journalists. But this is also how my Syrian neighbors see American journalism, which lumps any number of Arabs and Islamists and political rebels together as “terrorists.”
Neither is Mr. Denton insulting you when he says that you don’t conduct yourself like a Christian (hint: deliberately misrepresenting other people’s words, as you so often do even after being corrected, is a sin).
Are you trying to say that you do NOT misrepresent people’s views in a way that always magnifies your own attitude of self-righteousness? Pretty much everyone thinks that you do exactly that; you don’t have even a single ally who is willing to defend you when someone like Darwin is forced to waste time telling you that he already expressly disavowed the exact position that you condemn him for.
And you didn’t have a single ally when you flat out misrepresented me as “racist” just because I pointed out the obvious fact that many Third World villages don’t currently have the capital or training to set up worker-owned factories (any more than I do myself). That was a vicious untruth, and you know it. (In short, Mr. Denton may not be aware of your history of inventing accusations to hurl at people just to satisfy your deeply unChristian urges.)
Glad to see you admit to your habitual dishonesty. Now if you could try to do better, or even stop pretending to be a better Christian than everyone else, what a miracle that would be.
From the article:
Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”
Great. Endless murder in order to survive.
In my darker moments, I think the ultimate solution is just to bulldoze the Dome of the Rock, the Temple Mount and all the Christian shrines into the Mediterranean and fill old Palestine with nuclear waste to make the whole question of who deserves what land a pointless exercise. “Ok, now you can’t fight about it because it’s GONE.”
What a biased article where to begin. It really does not show reality at all. First good grief looking at this you would think that Hamas was akin to the League of Women voters. Besides the talk of free elections there is curious little talk how well they were killing their poltical opponents
I also think Sharon’s final vision is a tad well lets say they are playing with the truth here.
The fact that is ignores a huge Peace movement and huge Israeli Left that whose members has sent word to the leadership that they are not taking the streets is the biggest story that has been missing. HAMAS is killing the Peace movement. A movement that will be needed if we have another moment that we had in the CLinton Administration when a golden opportunity was offered an Affarat said no.
The fact that Arafat at the time KNEW he had no poltical backing for the tow state solution is telling.
What if Hamas annocued they could live with a two state solution. Would that not change the dynamaic. Why is Israel being the bad guy here?
When the Israeli Peace movement can’t get significant numbers ont he street I start listening
What a biased article where to begin.
The article was a specific topic and made no attempt to absolve Hamas. The only bias, it appears, is your own.
“The article was a specific topic and made no attempt to absolve Hamas. The only bias, it appears, is your own.”
Quite frankly not. THe bias and agenda and crazed theories of this well known is well known. Needless to say his last book that is cited at the bottom of the page was lambasted by several netural sources for cherrry picking. His wild Jewish conspircsys and also as seeing the primary part of American foreign policy as being JUDO Centric is well known
There are quite frankly much more rational forces than his own that can make a much more compelling argument than him and to recognize the conflict is fart more conflicted
The problem is and it onse I see for too often is too to try to potray this conflict in far too simpl;e terms. There also seems to be a ammter of not understanding Israeli Politics..
The fact is that no one cared that Hamas has used Cease fires to rearm. No one has cared that these rockets are getting closer and closer to the major Cities of Israel. No one has noticed or cared for the lat few years
I am very fearful that if Hamas is allow to continue it wil very well destroy any chance of long lasting peace. It is like asking the US and Israel to negoiate with Bin Laden.
I am fear the day that Israel will see no choice but to do again another long term occupation of Gaza. Unless Hamas is defeated or at least is persuaded to have a huge change in mindset this is well we are going.
Lastly there is a reason why Israelis are having a 75 percent success rate on targeting and that is not because of great easdropping. It is because elements of the Palestine are giving them the info
75% targeting success rate? Is that considered “good”?
1203 Palestinians killed by Israel including 410 children. What is it, half of those killed have been civilians?
THe bias and agenda and crazed theories of this well known is well known.
So you lump in his article with a bunch of theories which you deem “crazed” and then proceed to call the author “biased.” And yet you do not challenge his facts or argument directly. The bias is yours.
Needless to say his last book that is cited at the bottom of the page was lambasted by several netural sources for cherrry picking.
“Neutral” sources lambasting a book? Then they are not neutral. Besides, who are the sources and what are their qualifications AND personal experience with Israeli officials? The author of the article has both.
From the civilian deaths in Gaza will spring more hatred and terrorism. Yet no people are so prone as Americans and Israelis to think admiringly of our own good intentions.–Dadid Bromwich
I’ll agree with jh that the article seems to be biased. It doesn’t say anything outright absolving Hamas, but the tone is poor Palestinian v. bully Israeli. The part about the freely-elected part giving Hamas credibility is difficult to swallow as well. The conflict is more complicated then the authors seems to acknowledge.
That said, I thought the article was mostly right in its criticism of Israel. Israel isn’t accomplishing anything and neither is Hamas in this war. This is ultimately a waste of human life on both sides. Israel’s continued settlements show that Israel is continuing to look towards expansion/control and not towards peace.
And God help me, but I agree with Iafrate. 75% when civilians are involved is not impressive.
And God help me, but I agree with Iafrate. 75% when civilians are involved is not impressive.
Reminds me of a little debate I am having over at another blog filled with nationalistic, racist Catholics in which they continue to make the astonishing claim that the united states military never intends to kill civilians. With, what, anywhere from 100,000 – 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians, the claim 1) is a complete lie, or 2) reveals the utter incompetence of “our” boys in uniform.
Denton, I’m happy to see you taking the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians seriously.
You Americans! You fight your way around the globe imposing democracy on other people (to put it kindly) – then when Palestinians participate in free and fair elections, you refuse to recognise who they voted for, and block their way at every opportunity. What hypocrisy!
I guess that “never intended” thing is like a get out of jail card. I “never intend” to slack off at work, or tick off my wife, or anything else. “Never intending” is a far cry from “actively avoiding.”
Michael Iafrate, I realize you got your statistic on civilian casualties from Al Jazeera. Any idea of how they are acquiring those numbers? — I expect you’ll discount it, but the IDF’s Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) compiled a list with the names of 900 of the Palestinians killed during the fighting, according to which 150 were of women, children and elderly and the maximum number of civilians killed so far was 250.
If you recall the outcry over the Jenin “massacre” of 2002, Palestinian sources in the past have been known to inflate the numbers.
In assessing the culpability of Israel, I had mentioned the following questions should be asked:
– Did Israel adopt all other means at its disposal to prevent the attacks before resorting to armed force?
– In resorting to armed force, did Israel deliberately target Palestinian civilians, or target a site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
– Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
One might also apply the same questions to Hamas.
Incidentally, Hamas bears direct responsibility for a number of civilian deaths — namely, the members of Fatah or those they are suspecting of ‘collaboration with the Zionists’ in Palestinian vs. Palestinian violence.
Michael Iafrate, I realize you got your statistic on civilian casualties from Al Jazeera.
I didn’t get my statistic from Al Jazeera, although I recognize them as a legitimate news source. I realize you don’t recognize the legitimacy of news sources whose reporters’ skin is brown, but not all of us agree with your criteria. The stats I cited are reported in white, European and even some americanist news sources too, so what say you?
-In resorting to armed force, did Israel deliberately target Palestinian civilians, or target a site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
– Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
Your assumption, as it was with regard to the americans’ war on Iraq, is that the “good guys” would never ever intentionally kill civilians. At the same time, you brag about the accuracy of american (and Israeli, since their weapons come from america) weapons. Either they are targeting civilians, or their soldiers are morons who can’t aim for shit. Which is it?
Incidentally, Hamas bears direct responsibility for a number of civilian deaths…
As does the the f–king united states of america, and as does Israel. Claiming that “ooohhh, I didn’t really mean to kill thousands of human beings” does not automatically make you not responsible.
I wish you jerks would embrace Christianity and start defending human persons regardless of their nationality. Stop defending americans and Israelis just because they are americans and Israelis. The Body of Christ is ONE.
I didn’t get my statistic from Al Jazeera, although I recognize them as a legitimate news source.
Michael, you get those statistics from a Facebook application, the source of which freely states that they derive their source from http://aljazeera.net/
The stats I cited are reported in white, European and even some americanist news sources too, so what say you?
That they derived their statistics from that source as well. So returning to my original question, do you have an idea of how aljazeera.net arrives at those statistics?
Your assumption, as it was with regard to the americans’ war on Iraq, is that the “good guys” would never ever intentionally kill civilians. At the same time, you brag about the accuracy of american (and Israeli, since their weapons come from america) weapons. Either they are targeting civilians, or their soldiers are morons who can’t aim for shit. Which is it?
I think you will find the IDF and Americans do attempt to abide by a moral code of war that seeks to discriminate between civilians and armed militants. However, in the case of dealing with non-state actors who don’t abide by the Geneva conventions and show little regard to any notion of military ethics, such attempts is frustrated.
Consider for instance, the case of the attack on Nizar Rayyan:
“Surviving family members spoke to local Arab media and said that in the days before his death, Rayyan had repeatedly asked his children, “Who wants to die with me as a martyr?” The children would respond, “Yes, daddy, we all want to be with you alive or dead.”
Rayyan’s adult daughter, Wala, said even the younger children wished to die with their father. “If In the days before his death, Rayyan has repeatedly asked his children, “Who wants to die with me as a martyr?” you had asked my four-year-old sister Aisha, who died in the attack, she would have told you that she preferred to die as a martyr,” Wala told Ma’an news.
One of Rayyan’s daughter-in-laws said she was offered the chance to die with the family. She stopped by the family’s large home in Jabaliya and was asked by Rayyan if she wished to die with him, his wives and their children. She agreed to die, but later left the building, shortly before the IAF strike.
As it turned out, when Rayyan offered his daughter-in-law the “opportunity” to die he had already received a phone call from the IDF warning him to evacuate his house due to an impending airstrike.”
Q: In resorting to armed force against Hamas’ leader, did Israel deliberately target his family, or target the site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
Q: Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
Q; Does Nizar Rayyan bear any responsibility for the deaths of his family in the attack?
I’ll excuse the profanity.
That they derived their statistics from that source as well.
Who are “they”? What evidence do you have?
So returning to my original question, do you have an idea of how aljazeera.net arrives at those statistics?
Even if ALL European and/or american news sources go their casualty statistics from Al Jazeera, who gives a shit? Why disqualify them as a source?
I think you will find the IDF and Americans do attempt to abide by a moral code of war that seeks to discriminate between civilians and armed militants.
And I will “find” this how?
Your citation of the case of Nizar Rayyan does not impress me. I see no difference between the logic of martyrdom here and the americanist logic of martyrdom that you get off on. Americans glorify children who wish to follow in their fathers’ footsteps in dying for the u.s.a. as well. Your americanist group blog engages in the same kind of ancestor worship and glorification of death.
Q: In resorting to armed force against Hamas’ leader, did Israel deliberately target his family, or target the site with the specific intention of killing civilians?
Yes. Israel has openly declared its desire for revenge. Catholic moral thought does NOT ALLOW for revenge.
Q: Did Israel take necessary precautions to prevent harm to civilians?
No.
Q; Does Nizar Rayyan bear any responsibility for the deaths of his family in the attack?
Any? Yes, certainly. He is directly involved in warmaking. Does Israel bear “any” respobsibly? Most certainly. Yet you want to absolve them. That’s sick.
I’ll excuse the profanity.
Oh, you want to absolve me too, eh? How gracious of you.
As someone who consistently defends the killing of non-american human lives, you deserve much more than a few profanities.
Even if ALL European and/or american news sources go their casualty statistics from Al Jazeera, who gives a shit? Why disqualify them as a source?
I’m not ready to disqualify them immediately, but given the variance in numbers and the demonstrable unreliability of Palestinian sources (see Jenin) I’m inclined to wait for further verification from other parties.
And I will “find” this how?
Well, you could start by removing the knee-jerk assumption that all members of the United States Armed Forces (or Israel, for that matter) are bloodthirsty killers, and that “revenge” might not be the only motive for responding to Hamas.
Many Jews living in Israel know full well that their country is guilty of war crimes and that NOTHING has been accomplished by their murderous campaign in the Gaza.
Many Jews all over the world know that Zionism has devolved into a neo-fascist and racist ideology they can no longer support. Einstein was reaching that conclusion before he died, as I suggested here:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/01/08/interesting-thought-experiment/
The only country in the world whose people still support the racist and fascist Zionist politicians who govern in Israel by playing American Jews off against the 45% of their own people who want to stop the continuous land grabs is America. Here in Europe even the Jews are appalled by what Israel is doing and murmer their incredulous horror at what Israel has become: the United States of America continues to blacken her reputation, world-wide, on account of her material and moral support for this genocide of the Palestinian people.
With, what, anywhere from 100,000 – 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians,
I didn’t realize that anyone was so uneducated that they actually thought all of those civilians were killed directly by American soldiers. Those estimates of civilian deaths include any putative increase in the death rate for any reason — which means they’re including people who die of natural causes, people who allegedly die from various diseases or interruptions in electricity, and most importantly, people who die because they were killed by Iraqi terrorists who hate anyone of a different religious view.
Now you could make the case that all of these deaths are ultimately due to the American invasion, because if we hadn’t invaded, Saddam Hussein would have been able to use much more brutal and harsh methods in keeping Iraqi terrorists from killing other Iraqis. That’s quite a different argument, however, from the quite uneducated view that it’s all because of American bombs targeted at civilians.
And I will “find” this how?
Well, you could start by removing the knee-jerk assumption that all members of the United States Armed Forces (or Israel, for that matter) are bloodthirsty killers, and that “revenge” might not be the only motive for responding to Hamas.
1) You still have not given any evidence.
2) Revenge is precisely how the response has been described by many Israeli leaders and academics.
And for those of you who believe that Obama means no change for American foreign policy on the Middle East, I can only give you what I figure are Andrew Sullivan’s extremely prescient prognostications regarding the changes we are about to see in it:
On Israel, perhaps, we will see the biggest shift. Obama has so far been preternaturally silent on the Gaza bombardment, in deference to the “one president at a time” mantra and because he knows full well that if he were not about to become president, the Israelis would not have launched their attack.
Obama does not want to get into a war of words with Israel before he even takes office, but he shows every sign of tackling the Middle East the way he has defused America’s culture wars. He will try to prick the passion and lay out a rational solution.
We all know the contours of the deal that the Israelis and the Palestinians are too politically divided and weak to agree to: a two-state compromise, a roll-back of settlements, an international force on the border with the West Bank, a cessation of terrorism, and financial compensation for displaced Palestinians seeking a right of return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
My sense is that Clinton, the secretary of state, shares Obama’s views and that her reflexively neoconservative approach to Israel will moderate once she is no longer a senator from New York. My sense is also that Obama intends to use Clinton in ways not seen in a secretary of state for a very long time. And my guess is that she would not have taken the job if she were not convinced that she has a chance to go down in history as an architect of a breakthrough Middle East peace agreement.
Still, if any fight could remain totally immune to Obama’s moderation, it is surely the Israeli-Palestinian death match. Does this product of Hawaiian hippiedom really think he can get through to Hamas? Or Benjamin Netanyahu?
I don’t think Obama has many illusions on this score, but he will almost certainly try to change the game with a very public and early appeal to the world’s Muslims. He will take the oath of office using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, and will likely give a big speech soon that may give his domestic advisers heartburn. His face remains one of America’s most potent weapons in the war of ideas that is integral to winning the fight against jihadist terrorism. What he is looking for is a grand bargain in the Middle East just as surely as he is seeking a grand bargain in domestic fiscal matters. Both bargains would be made possible by grave and growing crises that help to scramble the recent past, by an overarching rhetorical appeal to the masses behind the political leaders and by a bit of good luck and planning.
Be assured that Obama is more of a strategist than a tactician. He knows that all the regional conflicts are interlocked and is often a few steps ahead of his enemies (just ask Clinton or McCain). To move Israel forward, he needs to engage Syria. To deal with Gaza, he has to test the waters with Iran. To achieve minimalist goals in Afghanistan, he needs Pakistan.
When you listen to him rattle off all the dimensions of the broader conflict, you are aware that this is a president who does not see the world in black and white or in with-us-or-against-us terms. He sees it as a series of interconnected conflicts that can be managed by pragmatic solutions, combined with a little rhetorical fairy dust and willingness to offer respect where Bush provided merely contempt. This is not a panacea. But it is not nothing either.
Obama almost certainly believes, for example, that no one is enjoying the Gaza disaster more than Iran’s government, and that Tehran’s more radical mullahs fear nothing more than fighting an election at home while Obama appeals to the Iranian people over their heads. It is perfectly reasonable to be confident that Obama threatens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in ways that Bush never managed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5536734.ece
I am fully confident that the Middle East is going to be one of those problem areas about which Obama’s tactics and solutions are going to cause the “conservatives” and the cynics to eat their words regarding him.
I’m slightly confused about this argument over the 75% number. That came not from Iafrate but from jh, who said it was an indication of Israeli efforts to protect civilians.
Christopher is questioning the # of civilian killings by Israel that I quoted, not the 75% “success rate.” I don’t know where jh got the latter number.
Obama has so far been preternaturally silent on the Gaza bombardment, in deference to the “one president at a time” mantra and because he knows full well that if he were not about to become president, the Israelis would not have launched their attack.
That’s one possibility. On the other hand, Israel itself is scheduled to have elections in a couple of weeks, and at least prior to the latest round of fighting it looked as if the current government was going to be ousted.
Feel free to censor it if this linking is too audacious. But, this thread brings to mind much of what frustrates me about this situation and others in general. It is entitled: “Counting Dead People”
You can read it here:
(http://rimatara.blogspot.com/2009/01/counting-dead-people.html)
Sam – Excellent post. Thanks for linking. I agree with it.
Sam,
Thank you for that post, I agree with it as well.
SB, you know you spoeak nonsense as usual. Of course the US military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis, but they set in motion the process that did so, and thus are guilty of formal cooperation. And every single American who supported this invasion (if they have not repented and asked God’s forgiveness) bear their share of blame.
I see the usual Americanist nonsense against Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is an extremely serious media outfit that does great reporting and is actually far more unbiased than the standard American media when it comes to Palestine. Take off the Americanist blinkers for God’s sake.
Of course the US military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis, but they set in motion the process that did so,
Can you even read English? You’re specifically agreeing with what I said in quite plain language — that the military occupation did not kill a million Iraqis (which is what Michael I. has been trying to suggest), but that it arguably created a situation in which Iraqi terrorists were able to kill lots of people. Now some of us might think that the Iraqi terrorists bear just a wee bit more responsibility for their own actions than we do, but that’s a secondary issue that arises only after you have rejected Michael’s risible position (as indeed, you seem to do).
It ought to be interesting if Michael I. could ever be persuaded to take a position on MM’s seeming position. Since Michael is so keen on crying “racism” even where none exists, he certainly ought to divine racism where the position apparently is that when Iraqi terrorists kill people, they are not really morally responsible (not in any way that is worthy of moral condemnation); instead, as brown people, they’re just unthinking puppets who have no moral agency and can do nothing but react to whatever situation is created by white Americans. (That’s not my own analysis, but the way that Michael I. would analyze MM’s position if he had any intellectual consistency.)
S.B. – As usual, you’re making no sense. Just a guess, too, but I don’t think MM is suggesting that the one million dead Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi terrorists.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
How about “Seek help”?
MM:
I don’t quite buy Al-Jazeera as a totally legitimate news source. Perhaps they’re better on the extent of Palestinian civilian casualties then Fox News but I think the BBC, the New York Times, etc. would have to outrank Al-Jazeera in authority. I think the claim that Al-Jazeera is unbiased towards Palestine is a tad absurd as well. They’re pretty firmly on the Palestinian side, which is something that must be considered with every report they make. That doesn’t mean they’re ignored, but outside confirmation is necessary (as it is with other biased news reporting, such as Fox or sometimes the NYT).
Unless you move towards a widespread pro-Israeli conspiracy theory in the American media, I don’t think you can uphold Al-Jazeera as the top news source, or even a dependable one.
Sb & Iafrate:
Stop it. Neither one of you is arguing like a Christian. Stop insulting each other.
Sorry, Michael Denton, but al-Jazeera is NECESSARY, because of the sanitized, self-censoring way that the Western media insists on covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not quite a “conspiracy,” but close). This one sentence from a review of al-Jazeera’s behaviour in this conflict says it all:
If what you are worried about is individuals, then to look away from violence is not a neutral position.
And these words help us to understand how deeply the entire Muslim world resents the way that Americans talk about this conflict:
If objectivity is your yardstick, the entire way the network’s newscasters discuss the war disqualifies them as journalists. But this is also how my Syrian neighbors see American journalism, which lumps any number of Arabs and Islamists and political rebels together as “terrorists.”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/18/the_violence_network/?page=full
Michael Denton – I was not insulting SB.
Neither is Mr. Denton insulting you when he says that you don’t conduct yourself like a Christian (hint: deliberately misrepresenting other people’s words, as you so often do even after being corrected, is a sin).
It’s just an ontological description.
S.B. – He was talking to you too, baby.
Yeah, but he’s new around here (I think), and isn’t as familiar with your habitual misrepresentation in service of unbelievable self-righteousness.
Yeah, but he’s new around here (I think)
As usual, you are incorrect. Michael Denton is not new around here.
isn’t as familiar with your habitual misrepresentation in service of unbelievable self-righteousness.
Wow, then it’s puzzling why he would tell me I’m bring un-Christian.
You continue to make absolutely no sense.
You think that your habitual misrepresentation and self-righteousness are Christian virtues? This could explain a lot . . . .
Absolutely no sense.
Are you trying to say that you do NOT misrepresent people’s views in a way that always magnifies your own attitude of self-righteousness? Pretty much everyone thinks that you do exactly that; you don’t have even a single ally who is willing to defend you when someone like Darwin is forced to waste time telling you that he already expressly disavowed the exact position that you condemn him for.
And you didn’t have a single ally when you flat out misrepresented me as “racist” just because I pointed out the obvious fact that many Third World villages don’t currently have the capital or training to set up worker-owned factories (any more than I do myself). That was a vicious untruth, and you know it. (In short, Mr. Denton may not be aware of your history of inventing accusations to hurl at people just to satisfy your deeply unChristian urges.)
Allies? Are you so perverted that you are constantly in war mode?
Nothing else deserves a response.
Glad to see you admit to your habitual dishonesty. Now if you could try to do better, or even stop pretending to be a better Christian than everyone else, what a miracle that would be.