I’m hugely entertained by the faux media storm that the BBC is bravely resisting efforts by Government and others to broadcast a charity appeal for schools in Hamastan! International Development Secretary Wee Dougie Alexander has moaned that it was not too late for a reversal to recognise the “immense human suffering”. (Forget about that suffering including that of Israelis, they don’t even count as humans in wee Dougie’s world-view) A protest is to be held outside Broadcasting House in London after the BBC declined to broadcast appeals by the Disasters Emergency Committee. (aka Save Hamas Now) Now then, given that the BBC has spent three weeks faithfully propagating every blood libel possible against Israel, the notion that it is somehow defiantly holding out to maintain it’s impartiality is a joke. The BBC has no right to be carrying any ads for Hamastan and this is making a virtue out of not doing something it should not be doing anyway! That said, I wonder will it be able to resist the cries of all the Jew-haters out there?
BBC IMPARTIALITY UNDER THREAT?
Bookmark the permalink.
Missing from BBC reports?:
‘Jihadwatch’-
‘Hamas “shocked” as top E.U. official says group is fully responsible for Gaza war.’
[Extract]:
“The fact that it is so daring and noteworthy simply to state the obvious says a great deal about the present situation.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024588.php
Whose responsibility? Whose charity?
A pause for thought for infidel British BBC licencepayers.
A comment by Hugh Fitzgerald at ‘Jihadwatch’ (at 5:30 pm approx GMT):
“The E.U. representatives might publicly note that the rich Arab oil states have taken in more than twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone. It is they, and not the economically suffering Infidels of Europe or North America, who should now be paying, who should all along have been paying, for whatever fellow Muslim Arabs they choose to support, at whatever level. Think as Muslims think, in terms of Us and Them. Let the richer members of ‘Them’ pay, or at least be expected to pay, for the poorer members of ‘Them’ and as for ‘Us,’ oh, we in the advanced non-Muslim world will help each other, and also try to lessen the colossal expense of supporting, ‘integrating’ hopelessly, and monitoring Muslim populations in Western Europe, who spread violence and promote antisemitism, on their way to conducting their Jihad not just against Israel (though most obviously and noisily against Israel), but also against the entire non-Muslim world. How to lessen it? By speaking the truth about Islam, and disseminating that truth widely.” (Hugh Fitzgerald).
(Comments at:-)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024588.php
Martin (riverScrap.com),
It’s more likely that what really disturbs you is having what you write challenged.
Here’s another gem from your treasury:
‘you come back by saying that an absence of equivalence leads to “moral voids”‘
Oh did I? In fact I was replying to when you wrote this:
“They are not mutually exclusive – it is not pre-ordained that, in the absence of equivalence, one sided must secure the moral high ground”
It was YOUR confusion of cause and effect that I was addressing. YOUR inference that “absence of equivalence” is some kind of altered reality state (I referred to as a moral void) in which people secure moral positions. I fundamentally disagreed with your notions of causality, since the judgement is not the cause, and you chose to characterize this as me ‘saying that an absence of equivalence leads to “moral voids”‘. Exactly the opposite! In fact I have always agreed there was no moral equivalence – I have always believed Israel to be morally superior to Hamas. Why on earth you think I keep claiming otherwise is beyond my meagre debating skills.
At least now I have a clear picture of your outlook generally, with your “wanton” killing of hundreds of civilians by Israel and qualified concern “for Palestinian civilians” instead of civilians more generally.
Killing 100 Arabs for every dead Jew is not proportionate – it’s apocalytpic.
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 4:44 pm
I can’t let that one pass. Even if you accept the Hamas/BBC casualty figures as accurate and there is no reason you should.
By the standards of modern warfare the casualties are amazingly low not apocalyptic. Compare the First Gulf War where an estimated 3,664 Iraqi civilians and between 20,000 and 26,000 Iraqi military personnel were killed in the conflict. 75,000 Iraqi soldiers were wounded in the fighting. Only 358 coalition personnel died.
I won’t burden B-BBC with figures from Georgia or Chechnya – look them up. Nor will I accept that those wars were different because that is precisely my point. Every conflict is different.
A numbers of factors contributed to the unequal numbers. Unfortunately for the Gazan their effect was cumulative.
1) Hamas started a war against a vastly superior force and continued fighting long after it was clear it had no chance of either winning or even inflicting a serious blow against the IDF. At a rough estimate 9 out 10 Israeli attacks hit exactly their target. 9 out of 10 Hamas attacks hit nothing.
In itself that would have been enough to account for a lack of balance.
2) Israel invested large sums to protect her civilians. Hamas protected itself and ignored the civilians.
3) Hamas as a deliberate strategy fought the war in crowded civilian areas using the inhabitants as shields. It turned schools, mosques, hospitals etc. into clear military targets.
4)Israel followed a policy of protecting their troops. If the commander saw a potential booby trap or a sniper he didn’t, as in Jenin, risk his own troops but bombed the building.
5)Hamas instilled martyrdom/shaheeda as the highest virtue from babyhood. Small wonder some people died when they refused instructions to leave. Hamas hoped that suicidal attacks would dislodge the IDF. They were wrong but definitely increased the casualties.
6) Gazans hid in tunnels thinking Israel could not reach them. Wrong again especially if the tunnels were hiding explosives.
7) This is war and shit happens. Israel didn’t mean to fire on its own troops but accidents happen. They will never admit it but accidents came from the Hamas side as well.
I think Israel has the right to respond, but it’s response must be proportionate
And once again, this brainless non-argument.
What do you suggest Israel does: every time a Hamas rocket hits a residential area in Israel, Israel should fire a rocket randomly into a residential area in Gaza?
You are totally ignorant about military matters, totally ignorant about the ME – and clearly you don’t like Joos, since you trawl the Bible to find out about Jewish religious beliefs 3000 years ago so you’d have something to hate them for.
And don’t you just hate middle-class white people adopting the terrorist chic of the keffiyeh? Someone really should tell them what a bunch of tossers they look
There are too many of these tossers in Oxford. Usually they are undergrads. It’s bad enough in an 18-year old. In anyone over that age, I just want to kick their teeth in. They might as well sport swastikas on their sleeves and be done with it.
On another matter … yes, that total asshole Sentamu. He fasted when Israel hit back at Hezbollah in Lebanon. I don’t recall him fasting when Hezbollah was murdering Israelis. Of course, they are only Joos.
Fish: thanks for the additional obfuscation. Sadly you seem a lot more intent on twisting my words and talking about my alleged “confusion” & “inference” than the actual issue at hand.
I cannot understand why you’re now blathering about causality. I keep leaning away from drawing direct comparisons between the two sides, and yet you keep returning to the themes of equivalence and inter-related causality. Again, this is blatant obfuscation.
Why don’t you talk about the facts of reality on the ground in the MidEast? Instead of abstract intellectualisms.
At least now I have a clear picture of your outlook generally, with your … qualified concern “for Palestinian civilians” instead of civilians more generally.
If you had read any of what I wrote above, you would not be accusing me of caring solely about Palestinian and not Israeli lives. My issue, as I’ve been constantly repeating, is with the numbers:
1,300 dead Palestinians (min 250 civilians)
13 dead Israelis (three civilians)
I mourn for the dead three Israeli civilians as well as the 250 dead Palestinian civilians. You, apparently, couldn’t give a damn about the dead 250+ Palestinian civilians. And yet I’m the one without humanity?
[The BBC] defend Hamas by telling the public that the bit in the Hamas Charter about destroying Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea is just a bit of rhetorical fun from the past, and they don’t really mean it.
I never heard the BBC say that. Got a reference?
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 4:44 pm |
Attitude to Israel: Hamas’s charter uncompromisingly seeks Israel’s destruction. However, Hamas’s Ismail Haniya, the prime minister of the unity government until it was dissolved in June 2007, has spoken of a long-term truce with Israel if Israel withdraws from territory occupied in 1967.
Critics point to Hamas’ charter pledge to “strive to raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine” (Article VI) and its assertion of every Muslim’s duty to “liberate Palestine” and “nullify Israel”.
But more sympathetic voices say Hamas’ participation in the election signifies a de facto acceptance of the two-state formula.
The BBC doesn’t have to say the Charter is history. Every time they talk about Israel negotiating with Hamas and don’t mention the Charter they imply it.
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 4:44 pm |
You have utterly and spectacularly missed my point. You seem to think I am a pacifist? If I were, I would not have said the following: “You are right that Hamas uses human shields, and as a consequence it is inevitable that some civilians will get killed by Israeli fire.” IOW, I think Israel has the right to respond, but it’s response must be proportionate, and collateral damage must be kept to a bare minimum. Killing 100 Arabs for every dead Jew is not proportionate – it’s apocalytpic.
I’m certainly not saying you’re a pacifist. I have no idea where you got that. I’m saying that you seem to want the Israelis to be pacifists, but not Hamas. You are also not being real when you go with the “proportional” gag.
I’ll say the same thing I’ve told everyone else who comes in here with that argument: It is physically impossible for Israel to engage in any kind of one-to-one, “proportional” tactics. As long as you grant Hamas the defensive tactic of strapping babies to their backs, no action by Israel can ever be taken. Right now, you’re saying that, while you think it’s an unfortunate tactic, the Israelis still shouldn’t do anything if there are innocent civilians nearby. This pretty much ends the possibility of any acceptable (to you) actions by Israel.
Your “proportional” argument is not realistic, and you are in denial of what happens when your argument is taken to its logical conclusion.
As for the BBC gently whitewashing the Hamas Charter, I’ll start with Jeremy Paxman and Jimmy Carter doing just that. The article itself is reporting a Hamas response to Carter’s statements, but offers a truce of 10 years. No mention of how quiet Hamas isn’t during previous “truces”. The interview itself begins with Paxman as Devil’s Advocate, mentioning the Charter, but then watch the video clip to see what happens.
Here’s a gross misrepresentation of Hamas:
Who are Hamas?
It also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine – most of which has been contained within Israel’s borders since its creation in 1948.
For years the organisation was divided into two main spheres of operation:
* social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions
* militant operations carried out by Hamas’ underground Iss al-Din Qassam Brigades.
Hamas is only partially naughty, I guess.
And then there’s Paul Reynolds.
He admits Hamas leaders view Israel as a “foreign body”, and their true stated goals, but then has to soften the blow.
Of course, there are those who say that you must not listen to the rhetoric, which in the Middle East can mask a reality that the speaker wishes to hide.
They also point out that the PLO once talked in similar terms and that it is now in negotiation with Israel about a final settlement. But equally, until the rhetoric changes, it is fair to look at what it means.
It’s fair to look at it, but overall, they only want peace, to hear from the BBC.
For example, Robin Lustig tries to get us to understand the Palestinian point of view, but presents only the victim angle. The only mention of Palestinians not accepting Israel’s existence is presented as an Israeli opinion. HaloScan won’t let me put in more than three links, so here’s the URL to copy and paste after “http://”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2009/01/gaza_points_of_view.html
The problem is much larger than the Hamas Charter. It’s also about how they’ve run Gaza, and created the hellhole for their own people. Where are the BBC reports about Hamas rounding up and killing suspected Fatah supporters? Where are the BBC reports about Hamas confiscating aid shipments for themselves? Where are the BBC reports about the Hamas textbooks and TV shows which instruct children in hatred and death? Robin Lustig couldn’t find time for any of that, nor do his colleagues.
Finally, I would ask you why you think the Palestinians in Gaza should not suffer the consequences of voting for Hamas in the first place, knowing full well that this is what they would get up to? Israeli deaths seem to be justified as reaping what they sow, but not Palestinians?
Rhetorical question – neither you nor me have the answer, but it is worth considering. Is a policeman the same as a soldier?
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 4:44 pm | #
A better question is a Hamas policeman the same as a Hamas soldier?
Yup. Mohammed Yehiye Mihna
The police were armed and would have been combatants had they survived. Israel could not take the chance that they would have stayed out. In battle a uniform is a uniform.
Nearly Oxfordian | 26.01.09 – 7:10 pm
And once again, this brainless non-argument [that Israel’s response should be proportionate] … You are totally ignorant about military matters, totally ignorant about the ME – and clearly you don’t like Joos.
Wow. So much to reply to there. You clearly like taking comments out of context and bandying around personal insults more than you like engaging in a sensible debate – so I’m not really sure why I’m replying – but anyway…
You suggest that I’m ignorant of military matters because I call for a proportionate response? I will let the Economist answer for me:
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12867302
deegee:
I appreciate you taking the time to find those quotes. They clearly don’t uphold your earlier claim that the BBC has gone on record as saying Hamas’ charter is “a bit of rhetorical fun from the past” – but they do raise legitimate questions about its bias. Cheers.
David
Right now, you’re saying that, while you think it’s an unfortunate tactic, the Israelis still shouldn’t do anything if there are innocent civilians nearby.
No, no, no. I have said multiple times that some think a military response from Israel is justified – even if *some* civilians are killed (civilians die during war, I’m not so stupid that I don’t understand that). Stop putting words into my mouth.
My issue is that 1,300 deaths for a war that achieved nothing is way over the top. I’m never going to get tired of repeating my point, so you should respond to what I’m actually saying rather than responding to the arguments of the stereotype that you mistakenly think I fit into.
A better question is a Hamas policeman the same as a Hamas soldier?
They are when they’re fighting the Jihad by killing a Christian Bridegroom for the heinous crime of playing music at his wedding.
This exchange between Martin (riverScrap.com) and the others is getting utterly tedious. This blog is supposed to be about the BBC’s bias, the charities and Martin has skillfully diverted the debate to Israel’s morality or not. For what it’s worth, Martin, you ain’t objective.
Battersea: I repeatedly tried to re-align the debate to issues of objectivity and impartiality, but each time I was rebuked under the pretext that if I’m not pro-Israel, I must be anti-objectivity.
I’m a damn sight more objective than most of the regulars here. And I’m also a lot less childish.
Martin (riverScrap.com)@8:08pm: ‘I’m a damn sight more objective than most of the regulars here. And I’m also a lot less childish.’
Prove it.
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 7:40 pm |
No, no, no. I have said multiple times that some think a military response from Israel is justified – even if *some* civilians are killed (civilians die during war, I’m not so stupid that I don’t understand that). Stop putting words into my mouth.
Okay, I accept that I seem to have conflated your argument with the usual ones we get here about this. Sorry about that. But then this leads to the definition of “some”, no? And then…
My issue is that 1,300 deaths for a war that achieved nothing is way over the top. I’m never going to get tired of repeating my point, so you should respond to what I’m actually saying rather than responding to the arguments of the stereotype that you mistakenly think I fit into.
The problem with what you’re actually saying is that Israel actually has achieved at least two things:
1. The rockets and mortars stopped. That was the main goal.
2. EU official: Hamas responsible for Gaza. That’s a major achievement all on its own.
But let’s discuss that definition of “some”, and where you draw the line. If Israel makes one military strike against a Hamas target, with the result of “some” civilians getting killed, but the rockets don’t stop. May Israel continue to defend itself, or must they stop at that point and allow the Hamas attacks to continue? If we’re going to use body counts as a metric, where do you set your parameters, and would they allow Israel to effectively defend itself?
And there’s still the issue of believing whether or not Hamas will stop all attacks if Israel opens the borders completely, which is supposedly the only justification for the attacks on Israel.
Yes, this is getting tedious, and the reason I think Martin (riverScrap.com) is really Alex is that this exact same discussion has been going on here for some time now:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4287951551910561788/#442402 (and ad nauseum)
Thankfully that post will soon be off the page…
Battersea | 26.01.09 – 7:54 pm |
This blog is supposed to be about the BBC’s bias, the charities and Martin has skillfully diverted the debate to Israel’s morality or not. For what it’s worth, Martin, you ain’t objective.
Technically, isn’t this debate about the BBC’s position, which is making them biased? What I mean is that the BBC has clearly been going with the “proportional” narrative, which makes them sympathetic to Palestinian casualties but not Israelis.
The driving force behind the whole charity thing is the idea that Israel is unnecessarily causing a humanitarian crisis, with hints of war crimes and baby killing.
The BBC gives air time to the notion that Israeli civilian deaths are the chickens coming home to roost, yet Palestinian civilian deaths are all innocents who did not elect Hamas to do what they’ve been doing, and that Hamas is only defending themselves and are not instigators. That’s wrong, and the debate we’re having with Martin(riverScrap.com) is directly related.
Actually, now that I understand it better, I would say that Martin(riverScrap.com)’s position is more objective than the usual ones.
Hi Martin (riverScrap.com),
I just found it difficult to follow your style of logic, and I sought to pin down what you were saying to something I found consistent. There are certainly no hard feelings from my perspective.
Thanks Fish and David for hearing my perspective, and apologies if I was overly defensive at times. The final thing I’d respond to is David’s point about how I would “use body counts as a metric”. That’s a really good question and I don’t have a convincing answer.
What I’d ask is do you have an approach either? IOW, you believe I’m mistaken in arbitrarily saying “1,300 deaths is too many,” but where would you set the measure of tolerable collateral damage? My concern (and the concern of lots of other people, who aren’t Jew Haters) is that Israel feels no number is too high. At the moment 1,300 deaths is deemed acceptable, but why not 13,000? Why not 130,000?
If you have an insight into where you draw the line as regards casualties, I’d definitely listen to you. This is the fundamental issue of contention for most critics of Israel.
Also to return to the original theme of this thread, I just wrote an article on my blog entitled BBC accused of hypocrisy over Gaza appeal boycott. I won’t post the link as I’ve already plugged my site, but if any of you want to read it I hope you’ll agree with my conclusions!
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 27.01.09 – 1:55 am |
My concern (and the concern of lots of other people, who aren’t Jew Haters) is that Israel feels no number is too high. At the moment 1,300 deaths is deemed acceptable, but why not 13,000? Why not 130,000?
That’s nearly a strawman argument. First, that 1300 figure is invalid. Most of those casualties aren’t civilians, yet everyone chooses to quote that figure as if it they were. Second, many of the “children” aren’t really children at all. 16 and 17 year-olds firing rockets, throwing grenades, and shooting at Israeli soldiers shouldn’t be counted as “children”. Yet, the BBC and UNRWA, et al., do appear to count anyone under 21 as “children”, even if they were engaged in armed combat.
And finally, you know perfectly well that the Israelis aren’t going to kill 130,000 people to defend their border towns. That’s never going to happen, so there’s no point in even saying such a thing, except to suggest the inhuman evil potential of the Israelis. Let’s face it: if “no number is too high”, the Israelis would have wiped them out years ago. It’s a demonstrably false premise.
Basically, you’re asking the wrong question entirely.
If you have an insight into where you draw the line as regards casualties, I’d definitely listen to you. This is the fundamental issue of contention for most critics of Israel.
And the casualty figures are false. It’s not possible to create an algorithm which can produce a useful result if the variables are rigged.
If we look at it from the other side, it’s equally impossible to set a minimum body count before Israel may act in defense. No other warring faction in human history has been placed in such a straight-jacket.
In actual fact, the body count question should be posed to Hamas, their supporters, and those genuinely concerned about innocent Palestinian lives. How many Palestinians should be sacrificed (for that’s what’s really going on here, no?) before Hamas must stop because they’ve accomplished nothing?
If we’re going to accept that “some” civilian casualties are inevitable in urban warfare – especially the kind with big exploding things – but we want to keep them as limited as humanly possible, then we must begin to address how those civilians got in harm’s way in the first place.
Now, certainly we keep hearing how densely populated Gaza is, but even so there will inevitably be civilian casualties in urban combat. So we can’t really blame Hamas for that. However, as far as I can tell, that accounts only for a minority of civilian casualties. Another problem with this is that the BBC, among others, likes to create the impression that the IDF just goes around shooting children in the head, outside of legitimate combat. Nobody wants us to know just how many of them were killed by Hamas and “militants”, either accidentally during a gunfight, or on purpose for being family members of Fatah traitors, or for taking supplies from them.
The bulk of the civilian deaths seem to be because Hamas turns civilian locations into military targets. It’s not acceptable to say that Israel may not take out a rocket launcher if it’s on top of an apartment building, because then we’d be back to demanding that the Israelis just shut up and die. I know you’re not saying that, but I’m bringing it up for a reason.
Worse, we know that Hamas puts IEDs all over the place, and puts munitions in people’s homes. If we accept that Israel should at a bare minimum be allowed to fire back at, for example, a rocket launcher, who is to blame when not only is the military target taken out, but the resulting explosion from when all those Hamas munitions go off kills many nearby civilians? Israel is supposed to go through superhuman lengths to avoid civilian casualties, but how can they possibly know where every single booby trap is?
This can be extrapolated to any number of situations in this conflict. In the end, the reality of Hamas using its own people as, I suppose, rhetorical weapons must be addressed, openly and honestly.
Once that becomes clear, then body counts take on an entirely different meaning. Nobody wants these civilian deaths, but it’s time to get real about the figures, and how the deaths occur.
After that the real question is: Why is Hamas fighting a futile war in which they can never accomplish their goal, at the expense of hundreds or thousands of their own people? Where is the Palestinian Ghandi or Martin Luther King? Certainly they’re not going to come from the UN-sponsored schools which have textbooks indoctrinating children into a death cult. How many Palestinians must die before this stops? 1300? 130,000? See what I mean?
And then we’ll have to start talking about Egypt.
I mourn for the dead three Israeli civilians as well as the 250 dead Palestinian civilians. You, apparently, couldn’t give a damn about the dead 250+ Palestinian civilians
The usual dumb assertion, without a shred of evidence, from the deranged anti-Israel crowd.
Kindly state the exact number of murdered Israelis that Israel must accept – according to your demented position – before taking military action against the Arabs, you sad specimen.
David Preiser (USA) | 27.01.09
you know perfectly well that the Israelis aren’t going to kill 130,000 people to defend their border towns
Naturally 130,000 is hyperbole, but bear in mind that just a year ago many Israelis would have said “Of course we’re not going to kill 1,300 people in reponse to a few amateurish rocket attacks”. Between 2005 and 2007 Israel killed ‘1,290 Palestinians – a figure that it has now matched in just three weeks. Statistically speaking that is a massive escalation (and one that is not mirrored by Israeli casualty counts). So I genuinely don’t “know perfectly well” what it may do next.
Historical casualty figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
As far as Hamas is concerned, I still agree with you unconditionally. They know they’re responsible for many, many of the civilian Palestinian deaths and they couldn’t give a damn (in fact, they probably seek to maximise them for propaganda). So we agree absolutely about them being a major problem.
Where we disagree, I think, is that you believe the Palestinians should be able to rise up against Hamas, whereas I believe they’re incapable of doing so (just like the Iraqis were unable to overthrow Saddam). As a consequence they’re being killed by Hamas on the one hand and Israel on the other – and let me point out that Israel’s bombs certainly will not empower Palestinian civilians (quite the opposite in fact).
Whatever your political persuasion, everyone should have sympathy for Palestinian civilians, especially the children. They are in a wretched state.
Nearly Oxfordian: I’m not replying to you because all you’re doing is deflecting the issue with ad hominem attacks (“deranged”, “sad specimin”).
Yes, I knew you’d be running away like the snivelling coward you are. You can’t answer my argument, so you run away whining.
bear in mind that just a year ago many Israelis would have said “Of course we’re not going to kill 1,300 people in reponse to a few amateurish rocket attacks”.
And you know the first thing about what ‘many Israelis would have said’ because … ?
Have you even been to Israel?
Been to Sderot recently?
Ever been under fire?
“a few amateurish rocket attacks” – just the idiotic phrase I expected from an ignorant idiot. There have been thousands of rocket attacks. If you regard these as ‘a few’, you need to sue your reception class teacher because you never learned to count beyond 1, 2, 3, a lot.
The children of Sderot have been traumatised for years. A total prat like you will never understand this. Or perhaps your view is “Ah well, what does it matter, they are only Joos”.
I’m a damn sight more objective than most of the regulars here. And I’m also a lot less childish
So was Goebbels.
.
Nearly Oxfordian’s best effort at holding a serious, mature discussion:
“snivelling coward”, “idiotic”, “ignorant”, “prat” + accusation of racism
*thumbs up*
You haven’t quite managed to read all my posts on the various threads, have you? You ran away from my post above. But then, we know that antisemites have reading comprehension problems – and that they are snivelling cowards, running away from answering difficult arguments. That’s what you did.
And like the cowardly, ignorant antisemite that you are, you are trying to cover up by levelling the accusation at others that is far more apposite for you.
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 28.01.09 – 12:18 am |
Where we disagree, I think, is that you believe the Palestinians should be able to rise up against Hamas, whereas I believe they’re incapable of doing so (just like the Iraqis were unable to overthrow Saddam). As a consequence they’re being killed by Hamas on the one hand and Israel on the other – and let me point out that Israel’s bombs certainly will not empower Palestinian civilians (quite the opposite in fact).
Whatever your political persuasion, everyone should have sympathy for Palestinian civilians, especially the children. They are in a wretched state.
Actually, I don’t disagree with you even here. Mostly, anyway. Probably the only thing I wouldn’t agree with is having quite so much sympathy for the Palestinians. They did vote for Hamas to share power with Fatah, precisely because they thought Hamas would stick it to Israel. If they wanted a better place to live, Fatah was a better choice. So I have less sympathy.
I realize they didn’t ask Hamas to start killing everybody and kick Fatah out entirely, and that the current state of affairs wasn’t what they had hoped for. But I really don’t accept this deluge of sympathy for agni innocenti by the very same people who thought that 30 firemen, cops, busboys, and building maintenance men from my street deserved to die on 9/11 because of the evils of US foreign policy. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, of course. But I am referring to the vast majority of the people currently protesting and screaming and wringing their hands, including Beeboids.
So my sympathy for the Palestinian civilian victims is not the same as theirs, and to be perfectly honest I have no respect for their sympathy at all. I realize that tends to make me appear more callous towards the Palestinian civilian deaths.
Having said all that, of course I feel sorry for any children raised in a death cult. I don’t blame the children, but I do blame the mothers who wish for their sons to become martyrs in the same proportion that Irish-American mothers used to wish their sons would become priests, and look at it as the same kind of grace cast upon the family. I have less sympathy for people who think that way, who choose to remove themselves from the human equation by debasing human life, and I’m not ashamed to say it.
Back to Hamas, though. I’m aware it’s not possible for the Palestinians to rise up now and stop Hamas. When I say that they’re the only ones who can stop Hamas, I mean that they’re the ones who can get those textbooks out of the UN-condoned schools, who can teach their children the ways of peaceful resistance against Israel, and can make a bit of an effort to get the real story of Hamas known to the press. Goodness knows there are enough international press channels willing to hang on their every word. Yet we only ever seem to hear about what Israel did today. The Palestinians themselves are as much to blame for that as the press and the UN. In many ways, their fate really is in their own hands.
If the UN, the BBC, and all the non-Muslim anti-Israel protesters on the street, and all the complaining websites, and all the Oxford professors calling for a boycott of Israel really, honestly cared about the Palestinians, they’d do something about getting the Palestinians some real help for peaceful resistance instead of punishing Israel and donating money that just ends up in the pockets of Hamas. If the BBC runs the appeal, they will only serve to demonize Israel, encourage violence against British citizens of Jewish extraction, and ultimately contribute absolutely nothing to the well-being of the people whom they supposedly care about. Nobody wants to admit that, though.
My contempt is for the people who willfully abet the continued misery, and their self-styled recipes for peace, not for the Palestinian civilians. That gets lost sometimes, I know. I blame Hamas for that, too.
Well said David P.
Whether or not Palestinians are able or indeed willing to rise up against Hamas, if the impossibility of avoiding civilian casualties were to deter Israel from reacting to Hamas aggression, as many people think it should, that gives Hamas carte blanche to do as it will. Or as David P said, as long as they strap a baby to themselves when they attack they’re immune from the consequences.
What if you applied that principle, overwhelming fear of civilian casualties, to Nazi Germany when the population were either willing or unwilling but intimidated into following Hitler?
Whatever your political persuasion, everyone should have sympathy for Palestinian civilians, especially the children. They are in a wretched state.
Having sympathy for them is a given. Whether donating funds on top of what they already receive will do much good is debatable for many reasons, but the BBC screening the appeal is not the answer, and nor would it redress the imbalance of their reporting.
Can’t say I disagree with anything either of you have said there David & Sue 🙂 Nicely put, both of you.
If the two sides of the equation would articulate their views as reasonably and dispassionately as you two did just then, I reckon this mess would be an awful lot easier to solve.