BS: Hamas new tactic

Subject: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:48 AM

"We consider it a new kind of resistance, highly successful, one that will serve us well against the Israeli enemy," said Jamila Shanti, a Hamas lawmaker from Beit Hanoun and founder of the party's women's wing.

The fiery 50-year-old former philosophy professor is widely credited for coming up with the new strategy of using women as human shields to fend off Israeli attacks. She led the demonstration of women in Beit Hanoun on Nov. 3, which allowed dozens of Hamas militants to escape an Israeli siege on a mosque."

I am confused.
Everyone knows that Israelis do not care about hurting Arab civillians.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Ernest
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:09 AM

"Everybody knows" = "everybody is made to believe"?

And we have discussed that tactic of using civilians as shields in recent threads, so it isn`t exactly new.

"New" might be only the fact that Hamas admits it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:13 AM

Everyone knows that Israelis do not care about hurting Arab civillians.

Now there's a classic troll statement. Folks, don't feed this anti-Semitism.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:34 AM

You're confusing anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. A common & convenient tactic, but a mistake nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:53 AM

This was an incredibly brave action on the part of those involved, in the light of the number of occasions when civilians have been killed in the course of Israeli assassinations, and of the fact when a similar tactic had been tried a few days before some of those taking part had been killed.

Indeed a few hours later, on the very same day the human shield succeeded in deterring this bombing, an IAF assassination attack killed a 75 year old man, and wounded nine people, including four children aged five, 13, 14, and 16. Here is the Haaretz report on this.

Saying that Israelis "do not care about hurting Arab civilians" is a generalisation too far - clearly there are some Israelis who do care about that sort of thing, perhaps even most Israelis. But the killings take place, for all that, and the number killed have always been far far higher than the numbers killed in reprisal by Palestinians.

This "new tactic" is perhaps the most encouraging development in a long time, if it offers hope that the concept of martyrdom can be shifted from suicide bombing to a non-violent willingness to face death but without killing. And the fact that on this occasion it succeeded, and that the Israelis responded by refusing to kill the human shields, is a spark of hope in a situation that has appeared increasingly hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:54 AM

I think Keith was being ironic. I'd argue that some Zionists (but not all Israelis, and certainly not all Jews) DO value Palestinians' lives below the lives of Jewish people, and that this occasionally shows in government and army policies. And, of course, vice- versa. It's a sad fact that racism is not confined to any one culture.

The use of compulsion to create a human shield is a crime against humanity. Where the shield is voluntary, it is not. It will be argued by some that the participants thereby become combatants and legitimate targets, but even if the use of arms against them is legal, it would be a public relations disaster for those who did so. Israel is both wise and humane in respecting the human shield, and I hope that in the longer term this non- violent tactic can lead on to an active engagement between all parties over the issues at dispute.

I don't recall anyone criticising the lone protester who stood in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square, but this is another example of a voluntary human shield. I'm sure you can think of many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:45 AM

This is a very brave, and very sensible action from some Palastinians. A martyr is willing to die for their people, but a hero would much rather live for them. ( I forget where the quote is from)

I just hope that this is not taken advange of. If some group sees this working, and starts firing rockets from the roof of a building, whilst it is surrounded in this way, then this presents the Israeli millitary with the unenviable choice of letting the bombardment continue, or enduring the storm of outrage the media and international community will let loose if they strike at this millitary target.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:03 AM

Yes, Keith's statement, "Everyone knows that Israelis do not care about hurting Arab civillians." obviously fell int a sarchasm.


Sarchasm:

1) The span of time between the point when an ironic/sarcastic statement is uttered and the point when the listener/reader realizes what was actually meant.

2) The difference in degree of wit between a person who makes an ironic/sarcastic comment and a listener/reader who is incapable of recognizing irony/sarchasm.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:16 AM

Maybe he thinks we're mindreaders-- we're not.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: NH Dave
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:32 AM

Susan,

    Since both parties to this situation are Semitic, any comments we make are bound to be anti Semitic.

    Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Grab
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:38 AM

Excellent, people who've learned the lesson of Gandhi - non-violent resistance *does* work.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:39 AM

I am personally strongly biased against semis. I think they should stay off the road during daylight hours. And I am also anti-semiotic. I dislike excessive wranglings about meaning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:47 AM

I agree about the semis, Amos. Particularly on the stretch of Interstate 5 between Seattle, WA and Portland, OR.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:51 AM

. . . but does Hamas realize they have ham in their name?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 12:09 PM

Sarcasm 101

Lesson One

Any statement beginning with "Everyone knows" or any similar construction should be viewed as having a high potential for ironic or sarcastic intent. There's nothing which everyone knows, so any such statement should be viewed as, quite possibly, hyperbolic.

Needless to say, the above rule should be ignored if said statement is made by Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell or any of their ilk. For that matter, it should be ignored if said statement is made by the current president of the United States, which is a pretty scary realization.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 12:34 PM

Unfortunately the most likely outcome of this tactic is that the Israelis with no longer phone first before bombing, as they did in this instance.
Or perhaps the Palestinians and Hezbollah would like to reciprocate by phoning before they fire their Katushya rockets.
No of course they can't do that can they, because they don't know where they're going to land do they?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 12:36 PM

There's a sarcasm lesson from an American? I heard the world turned up-side-down alot in something about Yorktown today, but this just isn't right....

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 01:40 PM

The Israeli Air Force didn't phone before blowing up that car and killing an old man and wounding four children, as reported in that Haaretz story I linked to. Or, of course, before killing 18 civilians, including a whole family, last week in what was claimed to have been, and perhaps was, a targeting error.

But the precedent of Palestinians using non-violent means against state terrorism is now established, and offers a model of martyrdom with a lot more potential for achieving something than futile suicide bombings or overwhelmingly ineffectual rockets. Though since that makes it a lot more threatening for the irredentists on the other side, it could be a very rough ride ahead.

I have an uneasy feeling there will be those in Israel arguing in favour of going ahead regardless. "So what about the bleeding hearts? If we keep hitting the target these human shields will give it up once a few more have been killed... And who's going to remember them once they've gone back to something we can handle, like suicide bombs?"

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 01:46 PM

Pretty obvious Keith was trying out his wit for a change...
But nobody's perfect.

The Israelis would not hesitate to slaughter the palistinian women, if it could be done without their govt becoming pariahs in the eyes of good people everywhere.

At the moment Israel is engaged in destroying one by one, members of a democratically elected government....People power may stop this happening.
Perhaps we should try it in US/UK.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:20 PM

Israel could retaliate by putting its civillians in the path of Hamas' kazam rockets.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:23 PM

Let's hope that those who WOULD have been suicide bombers will be the first martyrs.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:43 PM

If it could move from a competition between who is best at killing into who is best at trying to stop the killing, at the risk of their lives, that would be a huge step forward.

Maybe someone was listening to Rachel Corrie after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: GUEST,asper
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:32 PM

The Jabaliya Refugee Camp in Gaza was the scene of Palestinian celebrations yesterday. No, a "martyr" from the camp hadn't managed to blow up a restaurant full of Israeli families, the usual reason for joyous gatherings among Arabs in this part of the world. Rather, the locals were celebrating the victory of their "human shields" in thwarting an air strike against the home of wanted terrorist Wail Barud.

But while the assembly of hundreds of Palestinians in anticipation of the planned Israeli bombing did succeed in protecting Barud's home, the tactic may have backfired from a propaganda perspective: It served to demonstrate that Israel does not seek to kill Palestinian civilians wholesale, as Arab propagandists constantly claim. Indeed, it is clear the Palestinians themselves do not believe their own propaganda about Israel's alleged thirst for blood. Otherwise, they never would have been able to recruit all those human shields.

If Israel really were as sadistic as its critics claim, it wouldn't have called off yesterday's bombing run. Just the opposite: It would have jumped at the chance to kill so many Palestinians at one go. Just imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and hundreds of Israeli "human shields" positioned themselves in an unguarded cafe in the West Bank. Palestinian suicide bombers would be stepping over each other in an effort to attack the target. "Human shields" work only when your enemy fights like a human.

A second irony is that it is men like Barud who are at the root of Palestinian misery -- for if they were not firing rockets at Israel from Gaza, and smuggling in weapons from Egypt, there would be no need for the Jewish state to stage counterterrorist operations in Gaza, every square inch of which it evacuated in August, 2005. If Palestinians were more rational about where their society's interests lie, they would go to Barud's house not to offer protection -- but to arrest him so that others in the area could live in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:13 PM

If the Germans in the 1930/40s were more rational about where their society's interests lay, they would have gone to Jew's houses not to offer protection -- but to arrest them so that others in the area could live in peace.

Oh - some did...

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:13 PM

And if it did demonstrate that, on this occasion at any rate, Israel refrained from killing, in order to avoid a massacre, isn't that a good thing? A non-violent action provoking the other side not to carry out a violent attack. In fact a win-win situation for everyone.

Contrast that with the horrible business a couple of hours later reported in that Haaretz story I linked to, where four children were among those injured and an old man killed, in an assassination attack by Israel. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the aim of this kind of thing is to provoke a Palestinian reprisal, which will justify further similar killings.

And that would also be the aim of the Palestinian reprisal. There's a kind of partnership involved between the killers on both sides. They need each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:34 PM

"the aim of the Palestinian reprisal. "


An eye for an eye - a life for a life.

Old idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:38 PM

If it really was "a ife for a life" the death toll would be far smaller. On both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:39 PM

If it really was "a life for a life" the death toll would be far smaller. On both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:45 PM

Sadly McGrath - one sides's "Weapons of Mass Retaliation" are just more effective at killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:37 AM

Asper has expressed what I was thinking.
Use of human shields implies that you trust the enemy not to harm them.
Israel has been justly criticised for diproportionate responses and use of cluster bombs, but the acccusation of wanton killing may have been overstated if only because it would not be in their interest.

The absurdity of my suggestion that Israel use human shields against Hamas rockets is, of course, that they are designed and intended to kill civillians anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:37 AM

Foolestroope wrote
"If the Germans in the 1930/40s were more rational about where their society's interests lay, they would have gone to Jew's houses not to offer protection -- but to arrest them so that others in the area could live in peace. "

You are making a comparison between Hamas activists and the Jews of Germany. In what way was their behaviour analagous? Were those Jews involved in violent or antisocial behaviour?How did they threaten "society's interests" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:55 AM

Foole was being ironic too. There is a bit of comparison between that era in Germany and the Middle East today- if only that when people are so hysterical about the issue they can no longer think. Those poor buggers who froze, starved, bled and burned outside Stalingrad did so because they, or enough people around them, had swallowed the Nazis propoganda about racism. Both Israelis and Palestinians are dying because neither will look for the glimmer of justice in the other side's case.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:00 AM

Thank you Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:08 AM

"neither will look for the glimmer of justice in the other side's case"

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:14 AM

Thank you.
I did recognise the irony.
Asper suggested Hamas activists should be arrested and Foolestroope said that would be wrong as arresting the German Jews was wrong.
My question was how do you justify the comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:33 AM

I didn't say 'arresting german jews was wrong'

but

"but to arrest them so that others in the area could live in peace.

Oh - some did... "

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:47 AM

Yes, I got the joke thank you.
With that in mind please re read my reply and question.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:23 AM

No Joke intended Mate! - people on 'both sides' then were just as scared of 'the other side'*** as now in the Middle East.

Just like the USA (and I can remember many loudmouth rednecks here on Mudcat ranting about 'sticking it to the Iraqis'!) is now tiring of 'the blood bath that is Iraq' - the Israelis will never have any REAL desire for peace (and want to live in peace with their neighbours) until they bleed as much as the people their armies kill.

Probably take a few nukes tossed around on both sides to do that, things have gone so far, and the racial hatred so deep now. Just like in Iraq, every one that is killed makes 10 more enemies - on both sides.

*** The (US) White House TV show has now shifted from Commercial TV (too serious, mate!) to the ABC - the last show made the strong point that BOTH sides in the Middle East have far more in common with each other culturally than they have differences. And also made the point that NEITHER SIDE wants to be seen as 'weak' by giving ANYTHING away, first to do it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:26 AM

"It's easy for fools to make war - only wise men can make peace."

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:00 PM

One or two posts have suggested that the Palestinian tactic of using voluntary human shields proves the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) are not interested in killing Palestinians wholesale. The logic is that if they were, the human shields would not present themselves as a target.

Even if the IDF was interested in some form of fast total genocide, the current political climate would not allow such an action, as it would be too blatant and the international community would be obliged to move to some form of strong sanction. Israel cannot afford that, despite its strong position of having virtually unconditional US backing. On the other hand, killing a few Palestinians here and there this day and that could eventually achieve the same effect over a much longer period.

One thing is sure, the IDF have (as has already been noted here) always managed to kill several Palestinians for every one Israeli civilians killed, and don't seem overly worried when 'they get it wrong'. It has been suggested that when the IDF kill innocent Palestinian civilians they get hauled before the courts and justice is served. If that were really true, they'd be much more circumspect about where their artillery and bullets were going.

The human shield volunteers are probably worried that they might get killed - the IDF have in the past killed foreign peace activists, journalists and even UN troops (in Lebanon) so a few dozen Palestinian women might not be so safe if the IDF lost patience. On the other hand, it would eb a rather obvious killing - when civilans are killed in artillery strikes etc., the IDF can claim it was an 'error' (though apparently only Hamas aren't supposed to know where theior rockets will go - sarcascm, btw). Much harder to do that when it's 50 women with a lot of media attention on them already.

Someone suggested the women should go in and arrest the militants so 'they can live in peace'..... I don't know what your definition of peace is, but I don't think that the living conditions in Gaza or the occupied West Bank could even be loosely be described as 'peaceful'. Being woken at whim by tank shells at 6am, turned back at checkpoints on whim despite having all the right papers, searched, hassled, beaten up, living under curfew etc., etc., No, that's not 'peace'.

That aside, I think another point is being missed here, and that is Palestinian desperation: first they got fed up with Arafat, nothing much happening, their lands still confiscated, their farms grabbed and bulldozed, their lives controlled in a thousand petty details by a foreign occupying army, being hemmed into a giant reservation (when Israeli Jewish settlers aren't taking the parts they want) fenced in by a wall. So, they decide to turn tro that much-vaunted democracy and vote for Hamas to represent them. Whether you agree with Hamas' policies etc., the Palestinians noentheless voted for them, to represent them (as Israelis voted for those in Knesset). The first thing the 'civilised world' does is tell them "ooh, you made the WRONG democratic choice, now go back and pick a bunch of leaders WE want to have represent you" And cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority (further impoverishing the people). Voluntray human shields are a sign of desperation, but also of support for their elected representatives and the party to which they belong. You might say these men were militant gunmen, and that's true. Members of Knesset don't actually go out and fire guns themsleves, but they do have the IDF and final say in what it does and when and where it uses its guns, so are they all that different?

Others have said Paelstinian problems are all down to their own fault. They are to blame for their own poverty etc., No doubt there's some truth in that, all polirtical parties fall temptation to corruption etc., and no society is perfect. But there is a kind of racism in that argument that ignores other factors. Can you imagine anyone arguing that all of Africa's problems are due to their own corruption and laziness, and that colonialism, divide and conquer and outside exploitation have nothing to do with it ? Yes, the Israelis have made areas of Palestine fertile etc., produced much technology etc., but they've had billions of dollars of US help also, not to mention a flow of technology from the US to Israel.

Someone said the Israeli Govt etc., will not attack the human shields for fear of being held up as a pariah. That may be true, but they are already regarded as a pariah in many places and among many people. The 'new Hamas tactic' at least is non-violent, but I hope it is fruitful and embarasses the Israelis into taking a different approach in Palestine. We have an old saying here "it is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most, who will prevail"

Hamas, and all the rest of it, wouldn't be, if Palestinians were getting a fair deal and real peace. But that's not up to Palestinians alone, it's also up to Israelis. The question is, what do they want more?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:20 PM

And what f**king ball clanking red necked alpha male type genius decided that destroying the pathetic 'temporary' homes of the parents of suicide bombers would bring peace?

The Nazis murdered 100 or so civilians at random for evey soldier killed by 'resistors' and that just resulted in a lot of murdered civilians (even whole towns shut up in the church and set fire to!) - and MORE killed soldiers.

First the parents are devastated that their loved ones do something absolutely stupid - guaranteed to bring retaliation - but before they have a chance to blame the loonies who brainwashed their child - some f**king ball clanking red necked alpha male type genius smashes their home to rubble - and them too if they don't run away fast enough!

Any wonder their friends and neighbours decide - well, (in the words of Tom Leher)"Then we'll all go together when we go!" and brainwash THEIR OWN children into becoming suicide bombers too...

Don't forget that some of the loonies (and strongly supported by the loony Xtians!) - actually WANT, nay SEEK the 'total destruction of everything in the Real World' as PART OF THEIR RELIGION! Some of them even claim THAT THEY SHOULD SPEED THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION UP - for the fulfilment of their warped beliefs! Why the hell would THEY 'want peace'?!!!

And lets just hope that their 'Dr Strangloves' will not be able to dig themselves out of their nice deep bunkers after having pushed the red button - I'll have too many other important things on MY mind to want to waste resources digging THEM out of the glowing rubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: number 6
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:56 PM

"the Jews of Germany"

In your analogy of Nazi Germany (which always arises in the discussion of Israel and the mideast, in case you have forgotten, there were more than just German Jews arrested, it was more like a roundup.

You failed to mention the ...

Jews of Latvia
Jews of Poland
Jews of the Ukraine
Jews of France
Jews of Italy
Jews of Hungary

... in fact every Jew who was unfortunate to live in the German occupied countries, which was of all of Europe.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 07:50 AM

"every Jew who was unfortunate to live in the German occupied countries, which was of all of Europe."

Did you knwo that the Japanese refused to give up some Jews who manages to reach there?

A clever rabbi pointed out that the Oriental Stereotype was at odds with the Aryian stereotype... :-)



"You failed to mention the ..."

I also failed to mention the truth that the Jews - although by far the greater number nowadays appear to have 'kidnapped' the Holocaust as if were ONLY them butchered - the Jews were not the first and only to be killed - he started on the physically and mentally deficient - the insane, the homosexuals... etc oh, and the Gypsies, etc - and any opponents like the Communists, those in his own Party...



" your analogy of Nazi Germany "

No 'analogy' should be taken too far - it's a 'simile' not a ' perfect rerun of history'...

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Peace
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 11:31 AM

True, but also bullshit when put in those terms. Genocide is not a nice thing. Doesn't matter who does it. As to Jews kidnapping the Holocaust--fuck, it happened. What's to kidnap?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:16 PM

Yes, it happened, no doubt about that. But Norman Finkelstein has written a rather intersesting book on how the historical fact of the holocaust (which as someone pointed out, included thousands upon thousands of gypsies, communists, gays, the mentally deficient etc., etc., plus large numbers of Slavic peoples: the SS burnt down some 600 villages in Byleorussia alone) has been 'hijacked' (I can't think of a better word) and re-cast as a solely Jewish tragedy and as a unique tragedy that surpasses all analysis etc., That's not to say all Jewish people have bought into this (Norman is Jewish himself) The book is called "The Holocaust Industry" and Norman accuses certain segments of America's Jewish elite (in particular) of appropriating the holocaust for their own ends, political and financial, but also to deflect any criticism of Israeli policy through charges of anti-semitism. He suggests that such people are doing the memory of the holocaust victims a major disfavour.

You're right about genocide - it's a horrible thing, and let's hope we can all do our bit in whatever way we can to stamp it out whoever's doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Peace
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:19 PM

People who feel that Jews 'hijacked' history have very little knowledge of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: number 6
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:59 PM

"hijacked"

Come on now ... this is absurd, ignorant.

Norman Finklestein ... got rave reviews on stormfront.org I see.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:02 PM

Number 6: 'Stormfront.org' ... I'd never heard of them until you mentioned them. Do you usually spend your time surfing white supremacist websites? Anyway I checked it out since you did mention it, and lo and behold, a white supremacist site. So there we go again. Anyone dares question 'official' history, and its hinted or implied they're a white supremacist / Nazi by association - a cheap shot. He has even anticipated this in his book, telling how he has been referred to as a 'self-hating Jew' by those who'd rather attack him than seriously consider his research. No doubt if he was not a Jew, he wouldn't even be tolerated that far, and people'd just go for the jugglar, calling him a fascist outright. Finklestein got rave reviews in 'the Times', too, I gather.

Peace: Finkelstein (and I) did not say 'Jews' appropriated history. He said that a section of the American Jewish elite (and how he defines that term you will see if you read his book) decided to use and adapt the history of the holocaust for their own ends. I don't intend to go through his book exhaustively, as I haven't the time, and if you're really interested you'll read it yourself. But by way of example he talks about how the holocaust memorial in Washington came to be an exclusively 'jewish' holocaust memorial, in that the other persecuted groups got barely a mention. This cast the holocaust as an exclusively jewish tragedy, which is not the case.

I remember when I was a child and it first began to filter through to me that something as awful as WW2 had happened. I was quite upset that humans could be so horrible to other humans. I was equally upset that it should have happened in living memory. I had taken it as axiomatic that such things could only have happened in ancient times when we were all barbarians. In later life I came to realise that many other horrible things had happened both before and after WW2. I felt very sorry for the Jews and their persecution during WW2. I couldn't help but empathise, given the history of my own country where we have experienced ethnic cleansing and racism and conquest etc., I thought, 'they're a lot like us'.

In later life again I got a bit annoyed though, when I realised that a large number of Jews who'd decided to settle in Israel were treating the Palestinians to their own chapter of persecution. I felt (and feel) that given their own history, Jews ought to have more been sympathetic to the humanity of their fellow man, but it seems that's not the case. Human nature never changes, whatever the lessons of history may be.

I also dislike what I call false consensus, where everyone agrees to believe a certain thing and won't allow it to be held up and examined in the light of day ( and implying someone's a fascist etc., is as good as trying to shut them up). For instance, growing up, I understood that the English and Americans were 'the good guys' who defeated the bad guys, and saved the Jews. But there were cracks in that theory from early days. It puzzled me how the English could be the good guys yet have behaved so awfully in my own country. Were we less deserving of 'being saved' than Jews? Then other fragments came in (and no, Number 6, not from surfing white supremacist sites or reading their literature, but from all kinds of sources, run-of-the-mill history books etc.,): the Americans fought WW2 to save the Jews and defeat the Nazis (this theme is thinly veiled in Band of Brothers 'Why We Fight' for example). But how can that be, I wondered, when I realised the US really dragged its heels about taking in even a few Jewish refugees, when Uncle Sam hired former Nazi scientists with very dubious backgrounds AFTER the war and Nuremberg and all that - quite happy to benefit from their expertise, however they came by it (as did the Soviets), how US banks also had numerous 'dormant' Jewish accounts that could be linked to holocaust survivors, yet only did the perfunctory search and compensation, whereas Swiss and German banks were turned upside down and shaken. Then there were the concentration camps.. only in Germany? No, it turned out the Brits basically invented them during the Boer War, though the Indian reservations were little better in many cases, not to mention the wholesale incarcertaion of US-Japanese citizens during WW2. Something was definitely 'rotten in the state of Denmark' to quote Shakespeare. So forgive me if I treat 'history' with some scepticism. More often than not what passes for history is social engineering. A typical line reagrding compensating victims of the holocaust is that there is no 'statute of limitations' on war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and illegal seizure of property. Fair enough. But where does that leave the American Indians and the Palestinians....? I look forward to their compensation in the near future by our principled civilisation....
but maybe we'd better start a new thread on this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: number 6
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:42 PM

No Nick ... I certainly don't make a habit of surfing white supremacist websites .... I admit I had never heard of Mr. Finklestein before your post ... so I did a google on him this afternoon ... 3 sites down was one review of his book by someone on stormfront ... googling him again this evening it appears on page 4 of the google .. having been replaced by an review/interview on Islamonline ... regardless there appears on the first 5 pages in the google positive interest in him by such radical antisemites as Earnst Zundel's Vanguard website, and David Duke's website.

I dunno Nick ... when these guys show an interest in such maverick writers as Norman Finklestein (whom I knew nothing about) I get an uneasy feeling on the author and his writings. Zundel and Duke I find repulsive, and if they endorse Finklestein for his denial of the holocaust then that says it all to me.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:53 AM

Nickhere - 21 Nov 06 - 05:00 PM

"I think another point is being missed here, and that is Palestinian desperation: first they got fed up with Arafat, nothing much happening, their lands still confiscated, their farms grabbed and bulldozed, their lives controlled in a thousand petty details by a foreign occupying army, being hemmed into a giant reservation (when Israeli Jewish settlers aren't taking the parts they want) fenced in by a wall. So, they decide to turn tro that much-vaunted democracy and vote for Hamas to represent them. Whether you agree with Hamas' policies etc., the Palestinians noentheless voted for them, to represent them (as Israelis voted for those in Knesset). The first thing the 'civilised world' does is tell them "ooh, you made the WRONG democratic choice, now go back and pick a bunch of leaders WE want to have represent you" And cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority (further impoverishing the people)."

I think that Nickhere is ignoring an extremely important point and attempting to completely misrepresent what actually happened:

"Whether you agree with Hamas' policies etc., the Palestinians noentheless voted for them, to represent them (as Israelis voted for those in Knesset). The first thing the 'civilised world' does is tell them "ooh, you made the WRONG democratic choice, now go back and pick a bunch of leaders WE want to have represent you"

That is not what happened at all. Nickhere for some reason best known to himself does not seem to believe mentioning that the cornerstone of Hamas policy is important. Just to refresh his memory and introduce it into the debate, the declared aim of Hamas is the total destruction of the State of Israel and annihilation of the Jewish/Israeli population.

It was that policy statement that the "civilised world" quite rightly took exception to Nickhere.

At no time whatsoever did the "civilised world" tell the Palestinian electorate to go and pick another bunch of leaders Nickhere.

What the "civilised world" did do was tell the PA and Hamas that unless Hamas recanted and withdrew that stated policy and officially stated that they recognised Israel's right to exist in peace as a sovereign state there would be no further funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 05:11 AM

I've seen all of the original "Why We Fight" movies designed after Pearl Harbour caused a massive Political Turnaround to brainwash convince the US sheep public that "it would be 'A Good Thing'" to fight WWII against the Germans AND the Japanese.

Not a great deal of mention of "The Jewish Question" in those many hours, but a great deal of real history presented surprisingly (for 'propaganda') straight - back to 1930 for Japan, and WWW I for Germany.

I can't seem to find them easily on DVD - not part of any 'conspiracy', I suppose?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 01:18 PM

"if they endorse Finklestein for his denial of the holocaust"

I haven't read the book - but from what has been written about it here it does not sound as if it involves "denial of the holocaust".

If, as I understand it, his point is that the historical fact of the holocaust has been exploited for political purposes, and that the genocide and mass killing carried out by the Nazis against groups in addition to Jews has not been given adequate attention, that is very different from "holocaust denial".

I just googled for reviews of the book and the one that came up top was from The Economist, with a quote from "Raul Hilberg, most distinguished historian on the Nazi holocaust and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences":

"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry , at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track....I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy."

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 02:47 PM

Seems like opinions on the Holocaust are 'hijacking' this thread - just as well.

To paraphrase a line from The Capitol Steps: "We believe that Jews suffered under the Nazis- We just don't believe they suffered enough."

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:55 PM

Nickhere,

I did not bring up the term 'hijack'.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:09 PM

Number 6: sure, I know you don't surf white supremacist websites, I was being ironic. But then neither do I. I came across Finklestein's book quite by chance in a general bookstore and as I am interested in all matters geopolitical, thought I'd buy it to read on the commute to work. You say that white surpemacists take an interest in his work, you are worried. I am worried by white supremacists too, or any group claiming some kind of superiority (all shades of Social Darwinism).

But let's be honest: by mentioning Finklestein's work in that context, what you are trying to suggest is that those who take an interest in his writings, or believe he may have a valid point, are equally as suspect as those white supremacists. This is a completely unfair and unwarranted suggestion. Obviously you can't accuse Finklestein himself of being a white supremacist (though he is white) given that he's Jewish, it would sound just too absurd. If he wasn't Jewish, he would probably be labeled as such by those who'd prefer to shoot the messenger. Another post here has noted how Raul Hillberg (another noted holocaust scholar, and a Jew) backs Finkelstein's work. Hillberg is no white supremacist to the best of my knowledge.

I would also like to once again draw your attention to the fact that Finklestein does not deny the holocaust happened, but he claims the historic event has been appropriated (maybe hijacked is too strong, but the sense is similar - a kind of aggressive takeover of a vehicle / situation to redirect it in a way that benefits only the hijackers, but for heaven's sake, why is it necessary to have to define words you can easily look up in the dictionary if you want) by a segment of Jews, principally an American Jewish elite (who represent only a fraction of the worldwide Jewish population) for their own ends. Maybe it'd be easier if you just read his book and judge for yourself. He does make a compelling argument and anyone with an open mind can see traces of what he talks about in public discourse. Consider for example the very fact that Finklestein and Hillberg probably only narrowly avoid being labeled anti-semitic by virture of being Jews themselves. Why should this be the case? It's as absurd as suggesting only white people can be racist or conversely that black people cannot be racist!

re.Hamas - yes, I am aware of Hamas' declaration re state of Israel. I don't like it very much myself, I think Israel is a fact, and an ancestral / emotional homeland for many Jews so some kind of accomodation is necessary between both. But you have missed MY point. Hamas, being democratically elected, IS now the voice of the Palestinians - apparently this is how many of them feel on the topic. Though they had supported more moderate leaders, this support has dried up in the face of one failed initiative after another. Whether or not you like their policies, you must respect the decision of the voters or your championing of democracy rings hollow. Likewise, Israeli cabinets have been hostile to Palestinians over many years, have grabbed Palestinian lands, driven the people out, bulldozed the houses and orchards, destroyed livelihoods etc etc., If I were a Palestinian living under these conditions I might support Hamas too. Easy to condemn them from the comfort of our armchairs. I haven't yet heard the White House suggesting a freeze on aid to Israel (quite the contrary) due to policies on Palestine, so there's a big measure of hypocrisy here.

I would like to see all the bad guys locked up, but to be fair, that would include a large chunk of Knesset and the IDF as well as chunks of Hamas.

Peace: you didn't bring up the term 'hijack', but I am not sure why you are telling me this. What you did say was "People who feel that Jews 'hijacked' history have very little knowledge of history" I don't remember anyone actually saying the Jews (as an entire people) hijacked anything, but that a section of them have used the memory of the holocaust for their own ends. This is altogether a different thing. I understand this is quite an emotive issue for some so I'll try and clarify by way of analogy:

in the 70s and 80s the IRA put a number of bombs around Britian. Whenever this happened, the tabloids showed their racism by presenting this as the work of the Irish - as if the whole race of Irish were involved, or thought with one monolitihic mind. Anyone with a more open mind and a discerning eye, would realise that not all Irish were involved or supported such acts. So they narrowed their definition to 'republicans' But this is still too broad a term so another possibility was to say the IRA planted it, as close as possible to an accurate picture.

So it should be understood that while they may share a religion or ethnicity, Jews, no more than the Irish, are not one monolithic hegemonic-minded block. Even within Israel, there is much dissent about the form that society should take (note this week's protests over the gay pride march in Jerusalem, for example). Eastern European and American Jews also do not always share the same world view (though of course this is something of a generalisation too, I say it to show the diversity and variety of the Jewish world)

Right, I'd better sign off here and give someone else a chance to talk!!

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 09:45 PM

You are right about hijacked not having been used. Foolestroupe used the term 'kidnapped'. Same same, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:14 AM

I don't deny that Peace - that was my own personal opinion, reached long before that gentleman published his research.

When I was a kid, there was this movie with a wonderful piano theme - I loved it so much I persuaded my parents to buy the sheet music - Played it to death.

Then as I matured, I discovered that this story of a despised people fighting gallantly with the gun to murder or drive out the people who were living there in their 'Promised Land' sounded remarkably like a replay of several thousand years before that I had heard in Sunday School.

Further, as I matured and studied wider, and also from sources that did not always follow any particular party line, I began to believe that I had been conned by that movie.

Further as the "Lest We Forget The Holocaust" 'Industry' gathered momentum, I noticed that most public mentions of that horror seemed to skim over just how many others outside of a very narrow ethnic/religious group were NOT remembered as sincerely, or indeed as often.


I still like that piece of music. I notice that commercial Australian Radio never seems to play it as much as other hits of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:18 AM

Oh, and I went thru a similar process of maturity about how BOTH England AND Uncle Sam were ' your friend', always wore the white hats and were out only to do positive altruistic things for the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:03 AM

"Lest We Forget The Holocaust" Remembering the Holocaust means remembering the whole range of those whose lives were destroyed by the Nazis.

And in a real sense the victims of the Holocaust now include the Palestinians, as well as their Jewish cousins.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:24 AM

And in an even more real sense it also includes all subsequent similar atrocities - including thinsg such as "The Killing Fields".

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:39 AM

I'd disagree there, Foolestroupe - I'd distinguish between subsequent events thare are closely linked to what happened in the Nazi holocaust, such as the Palestinian tragedy, and events which are much more remotely connected, such as the genocides in Cambodia and Ruanda.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 12:59 PM

Dave, we have had this discussion at Mudcat Several times in the past. Anti-Semitism refers specifically to anti-Jewish prejudice and behavior. You are not allowed to change this long agreed upon definition to suit your argument.
Anti-Palestinean and anti-Arab prejudice is wrong, but it is not, repeat not, anti Semitic. If you persist in such equation, your motivation becomes suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 01:45 PM

It's a fairly artificial and arbitrary distinction. There's a lot to be said for seeing it as a matter of two varieties of the same sickness.

The two prejudices have historically tended to go together, and they still do frequently, for example among the followers of Le Penn.

In fact back at the beginning of the last century it was common to find Jews and Arabs being bracketted together in anti-semitic writings, and seen as two aspects of the same enemy.

The same was true in Spain earlier, where Jews and Arabs were treated the same way when it came to persecution and expulsion.

Or consider Othello:

And say besides, that in Aleppo once,                     
Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk
Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,                     
I took by the throat, the circumcised dog,
And smote him, thus.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:02 PM

C'mon, McGrath, you know better as [I believe] you have taken part in past discussions. I googled anti-Semite and found that this word does refer specifically to Jews. This has been the accepted definition for 150years. If one does not use the accept definition, there is a presumption of either ignorance or of a special agenda. In either case the subject cannot be properly discussed. I recommend, for a quick overview, the Wikpedea discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:35 PM

The defensive claim made by some that Arabs cannot be "anti-Semitic" because they are "Semites" is equally erroneous and facile.

"Anti-Semitism is alive and well today worldwide and its major victims are Arabs and Muslims and no longer Jews. The fight should indeed be against all anti-Semitism no matter who the object of its oppression is, Arab or Jew."

Both quotes taken from a thought-provoking essay by Joseph Massad who teches at Coluimbia University, New York, in which he explores this whole tangle.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:42 PM

I stand by my previous statements. Let Massad find a term for anti-Arab if he doesn't like anti-Arab. But let him not define anti-Semitism in his own term!

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 05:39 PM

2.35 - 2.42. Fast reader I see.

The issue (and the article) is not really about words. It's about the attitudes underlying words and the use made of words to structure attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 05:57 PM

You got me! I did not read Massad's article. Why would I? Based on your quotes of him, we are not using the same terms in the same way.   Ergo, no basis for argumentation or agreement.
The reason people want to change the definition of anti-Semitic, so they can say that by broadening the term they are really not necessarily anti-Jewish. Sorry, it just doesn't whitewash.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:19 PM

" I'd distinguish between subsequent events that are closely linked to what happened in the Nazi holocaust, such as the Palestinian tragedy, and events which are much more remotely connected, such as the genocides in Cambodia and Ruanda. "

You can if you want, but I won't - I'm basically a 'humanitarian' in my views. It doesn't matter WHO was murdered ot WHERE, PEOPLE were, and that's that. So our Memorial to them is to ensure that it won't happen again, to anybody, anywhere - not give a very narrowly defined group a perputual free 'pity-me' ticket.

To cleverly define "The Holocaust" in a very restricted way as JUST a 'Jew/Nazi' thing allows other would be mass murders to wriggle away and claim "I didn't that was wrong - I'm not a Nazi! And I didn't kill any Jews!" - viz, "The Killing Fields of Asia"!!?

The "Aussie Anzac Day" is dedicated to 'all those who died in all wars everywhere' - irrespective of what side they were on. We have Italians, Germans, Russians, Turks***, etc who fought etc participate. There have been some heated debates about Vietnamese though...

*** Turks - yeah - the two countries are very close, largely as a RESULT of the conflict - Note though, that the leader of the "invaded country"### - Ataturk - made a brillant Statesman Speech - which you really should read - in which he said basically that the mothers of those slain should have peace, becuase your sons are our sons, your sons have been absorbed into the hearts of the Turkish people, like their blood had been absorbed by the Turkish Soil. You'd have to be a thorough bastard to still hate the Turks after that... and note that the same sort of statement is still being sought from Japan by some...


###In the Middle East, BOTH SIDES are claiming the 'invaded country' status...

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:26 PM

I'm afraid I don't quite get that second sentence. I take it as axiomatic that anti-semitism is a bad thing. (So does Joseph Masser evidently - it's worth reading that article, and not just the quotes I picked out).

It's clearly impossible to be against anti-semitism and at the same time anti-Jewish. The broader definition just means that it similarly impossible to claim to be against anti-semitism and to be anti-Arab.

Words change (eg "What is folk?"), and there is no reason to accept the definitions imposed by the 19th century racists who invented this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:54 PM

Paragraph 2--You might as well say that it is impossible to against anti-Semitism and be anti-vegan or anti-anything you chose.

Paragraph 3--If we do not speak in terms of the commonly accepted definitions, the we are participating in an exercise of mental masturbation. Maybe in a generation the term anti-Semitic will mean something else...hopefully it will become archaic. Meanwhile, I reject allowing someone who is Arab, as I suppose Massad is from looking him up on the internet, co-opt the term anti-Semitic to include his group, so that that well-defined term is turned against Jews. For me the is the quintessence of anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 07:14 PM

"so that that well-defined term is turned against Jews" - but anti-semitism is an anti-Jewish term in the first place, taken up for that very purpose, by pseudo-scientists in the 19th century using an irrelevant linguistic categorisation.

"Wilhelm Marr coined the related German word Antisemitismus in his book 'The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism' in 1879. Marr used the phrase to mean Jew-hatred or Judenhass, and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge."

I cannot see how using the term in a broader sense is "the quintessence of anti-Semitism." Whether used in a narrow sense or a broad sense it is a vile thing which should always be resisted.

Would anyone claim that opposition to anti-black racism was somehow diluted or challenged if the term "black" was interpreted to include people who are brown?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 07:37 PM

Foolestroupe - it's not a question of which atrocities are more terrible than others.

The Nazi Holocaust, the Atlantic Slave Trade, the genocide of the Armenians, the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the mass slaughter in Ruanda - they are all different events, with some common causes and some special causes. There is a term which can be applied to all of them - Genocide.

But it is also sensible to have terms which separate them out.

The Nazi Holocaust, in which millions of people were excluded from humanity and systematically slaughtered, in a parody of the industrial process, was an event which was unique in a number of ways. It deserves to be treated separately - in its entirety, not restricting attention to some of its victims, and ignoring others.

And its consequences in later years can also in a sense form part of that event, rather in the way that a motorway pile up results in secondary collisions, and they are all part of the same accident. That's what I mean by saying that the tragedy of Palestine needs to be seen in the context of the earlier events. Similarly the Killing Fields needs to be seen in the context of the Vietnam War.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:06 PM

McGrath, you miss the whole point of my argument, and I try to write what I mean.
Anti-Semitic is a term to describe anti-Jewish action by outsiders since the mid-19th century, as you point out. It was not meant to describe the actions of people against other groups of Semites, it was meant to soften rhetoric and actions against Jews, only. That has been the accepted definition [he says again] for about 150 years + or -.
In the last 20 years, or so, some anti-Semites (and some well-meaning but wrong people) have sought to broaden the definition to include others, primarily Palestinians . They do this so that they can say--as has been said by some at Mudcat--that they're not anti-Semitic because they have nothing against Palestinians who are Semites. That is disingenuous to say the least, and an out-and -out perversion of the term at worst.
And you bring up this Professor Massad who now wants to include Arabs in his self-serving definition of anti-Semitism so that Jews can now be considered anti-Semites. Well he can call a duck a cow, but unless the duck chews its cud, has four teats, and gives milk, it is not a cow. He can call a Jew who hates Arabs an anti-Semite, but unless Arabs are also Jews (and I suppose there are some), then he is guilty of being only of being anti-Arab. If Massad wants a fancy term, I suggest 'anti-Esauite'.
Prejudice, McGrath, no matter against whatever group is a vile thing to be resisted...agreed.
Your last paragraph is nonsequitur. Anti-black racism is not a special term, it is a descriptor. But to answer, if the brown people were the ones doing the including to be able to term blacks as anti-black racists, I would so object.
McGrath, I don't much think others are interested in our discussion here. Can we continue, if needs be, through pms?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:30 PM

I get the point of your argument, john. I just disagree with it. And you get my point and disagree with it.

But I'm in full agreement that this thread isn't the best place to explore our disagreements. (Which is what discussions are for - clarifying differences, and perhaps identifying some common ground.) Maybe another thread sometime - I don't like carrying on discussion in PMs, a bit claustrophobic, shutting out the possibility of other people's points of view.
.............................

Meanwhile the carnage carries on, and the latest horror is a grandmother, whose grandchild had been killed, who blew herself up as a suicide bomber. For me it reinforces the feeling that the only way out of this is going to be if the kind of non-violent alternative discussed earlier in this thread can start to divert people like that from this kind of futile and self-defeating action.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 10:20 PM

"But it is also sensible to have terms which separate them out."

That's great, if you are for some reason discussing something that is irrelevant to the mood of my comments.

But I'm not, and I still hold firm: it is really irrelevant to split hairs (and only gives straws for the 'nasties' to clutch at) when one is discussing considering the life of any human "cheap and of a lesser value than one's own", whether they die with any particular narrowly defined group of humans or separately, in mass butchery or in lesser numbers, by the action of any other narrowly defined (and not necessarily mutually exclusive) group of humans.

Murder is Murder, by any other word, still the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 10:45 PM

Humpty Dumpty (Through the Looking Glass) gets the last word, McGrath, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." That way leads to chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:30 AM

But it's how language actually works, though not in quite such an arbitrary way as Lewis Carroll mocks here. The way words are used changes, getting broader or narrower, and dictionary definitions trail along behind keeping up.
.........................
Murderers generally consider the lives of their victims as "of a lesser value than their own". And yes, Murder is Murder.

But equally "War is War" - but that does not mean that when we should avoid talking terms like the Great War, and World War II and the Korean War, but should always say "the Great War". Distinguishing between different wars makes it possible to discuss them, and to explore their causes and effects. It doesn't imply that we are diminishing the importance or horror of the different wars or placing them in some kind of ranking order.

The same is true of the episodes of genocide that have punctuated our history, and continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:41 AM

War is only Sanctioned Murder - but Criminal acts of Murder can still occur during War - as a few US soldiers stationed in Iraq have just recently found out.

"Distinguishing between different wars makes it possible to discuss them, and to explore their causes and effects"

Despite what I said I do agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 08:14 PM

At last something that sounds like good news - Ceasefire agreed for Gaza Strip - :

Both Israel and the Palestinians have agreed on a halt to hostilities in the Gaza Strip, senior officials say.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has won a commitment from all militant groups to halt rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, his office said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has in return agreed to halt hostilities, his spokeswoman said. The ceasefire will begin at 0600 (0400GMT) on Sunday.

That's after 400 Palestinian deaths since June, roughly half civilians, and three Israeli soldiers killed, plus at least two Israeli civilians killed by rockets fired from Gaza.

A sad waste. But perhaps something positive can start to happen now. Looking back, I suspect, two crucial episodes may be identified as crucial in helping bring this hopeful shift - the killing of 19 innocent civilians by what appears to have been a botched Israeli shelling a few weeks back, and the non-violent action which sparked of this thread.

If there really could be a recognition by Hamas that rockets and bombs are not an effective way of struggle, and by Israel that killing civilians is counter-productive...

What is desperately important will be that, if some maverick terrorist attack takes place, in the way that happened in Ireland after the ceasefire, it will not be taken by Israel as a signal to set the whole cycle of atrocity-reprisal-atrocity-reprisal in motion once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 04:22 AM

Ceasefire broken already - not a world record, I suppose....

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 10:40 AM

Well, you'd expect that - as in Ireland. There are always going to be people in any resistance movement who will want to carry on, in this kind of situation. The important question is whether Israel will accept that this is the case, and wait it out before setting the tit-for-tat going again.

If Israel does manage to do this you can be sure there'll be some irredentists on their side who will try to start things up, in which case the question will be whether the Palestinians can refuse to respond.

It's nail biting time. But a breach isn't the same thing as a breakdown.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:15 AM

It seems the Gaza ceasefire is still holding. Next thing would be to extend it to the West Bank - but apparently the Israeli military are against that - IDF warns against W. Bank cease-fire - and as if to underpin that there was a shoot-out in which a young Palestinian militant and a middle-aged woman who apparently went tom help him when he had been shot were killed.

Still the headlines look more hopeful than they have for a longtime - Olmert offers 'serious' plan for new state

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:27 AM

I'd guess that the USA - pissed off because - like they were conned about Iraq - is putting pressure in Israel cause the 'quick and easy victory' that the US was promised also vanished into thin air. Clinton stopped all arms shipments to Israel when open hostilities broke out under his watch - that one didn't last long.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:04 PM

Yes, great news about the ceasefire - at least it's a step in the right direction. Nothing much has changed in the West Bank though.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Adrianel
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:50 PM

When the Jewish reigion CELEBRATES at least 2 historical occasions when they slaughtered all the local Arabs, things are unlikely to change in Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:16 PM

Berlin, May 17th, 1943                           

Note for Dr. Koeppen with the request to show it to the Reichsleiter (Alfred Rosenberg) for further action


During the visit of the Grandmufti (of Jerusalem; Mohammed Amin el Hussein; uncle of Arafat) with Reichsleiter Rosenberg he (R.) has promised to give a hint to the press that in future the use of the term "Antisemitism" has to stop. By the use of this word invariably the Arab world will be hit as well. The Arab world according to the Grandmufti is predominantly pro-German.The enemy foreign countries use the point that we work with the word "Antisemitism" and that this way we want to express that we want to lump together the Arabs with the Jews.

(my translation)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:54 PM

Foolestroupe - 26 Nov 06 - 04:22 AM

"Ceasefire broken already - not a world record, I suppose...."

Plus:

McGrath of Harlow - 26 Nov 06 - 10:40 AM

"Well, you'd expect that - as in Ireland. There are always going to be people in any resistance movement who will want to carry on, in this kind of situation."

Oh do come along you apologist hypocrits. Ceasefire declared, do actually name the bunch of murdering bastards who broke that ceasefire, their targets were after all Israeli civilians. Please the pair of you, at least have the honesty to actually state that.

Don't think that either of you will, because it just does not suit your purpose. How about this, what has been the Israeli response? Can you answer that - honestly?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:33 PM

Yer BACK ya word twisting bastard!

"How about this, what has been the Israeli response? Can you answer that - honestly? "

Yep - so far - the RESPONSE REPORTED VIA THE BIASED MEDIA has been one of 'reasonable tolerance' and about BLOODY TIME! - Tolerance on BOTH SIDES is needed to back away from the current confrontationalist stance on BOTH SIDES!

It is well documented that there are SERIOUS DESTRUCTIVE NUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES - who killed a previous Israeli PM, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:12 PM

Some Palestinians with access to home made rockets used them, presumably with the intention of breaking the ceasefire, targetting them in the direction of a Israeli civilians in a town across the border.

This action has been denounced by the Palestinian authorities, including Hamas. In every irregular war analogous things happen after ceasefires. In fact in ordinary wars at such times they happen often enough.

And a few miles away on the West Bank some Israeli soldiers, in what appears to have been a targeted assassination of a Palestinian gunman, killed him, and also (in what has been stated was a misunderstanding) killed an unarmed women aged 50 who went to his aid when he had been shot.

This action has not been denounced or repudiated by the Israeli authorities, who have so far given no indication that the ceasefire should be extended by them to the West Bank.

I suppose it is fair enough to call people who target civilians murderous bastards, if it makes us feel better. It doesn't stop it happening. It doesn't mean they are necessarily that different from anyone else, whichever side they are on, whichever uniform they are wearing, or not wearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:00 PM

In Gaza, the area that the ceasefire applies to, the Israelis have not responded to the rocket attacks launched against it's civilian population by dissident Palestinians within the Gaza Strip - Fact.

Now for those on the Palestinian side, who negotiated and agreed to this ceasefire, just to can stand aside and wash their hands of responsibility for these attacks is unacceptable. They entered into this agreement, it is up to them to keep ALL FACTIONS of their side in order, that is what they are responsible for doing otherwise the whole process is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:36 AM

"it is up to them to keep ALL FACTIONS of their side in order,"

... is like expecting Max to be able to control all posters here at Mudcat...

Grow Up!

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:55 AM

I'm beginning to think you're "nae fool" Mr F....

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:35 AM

Totally disagree Foolstroupe, those Palestinians who attempted to provoke an Israeli response by firing those rockets into Israel in order to destroy this latest opportunity, were I presume among those who Palestinians who voted Hamas into power. You are saying that irrespective of agreements reached between elected representatives (Israeli/Palestinian) that the Palestinian side cannot keep their side of the deal? Who then does Israel peacefully negotiate with? What peace can be reached if any Palestinian Faction is allowed to attack just because it decides not to honour what has been agreed?

Another question for you regarding the Palestinians who fired those rockets after the agreed ceasefire had been put into place.

Their targets were Israeli civilians (No condemnation of this from either Ake or Foolstroupe) now had the Israelis been foolish enough to respond and that response had resulted in Palestinian deaths in Gaza, taking into account that a ceasefire had been brokered, who would you consider to be responsible for the deaths of the Palestinians, the Israeli's or those who deliberatly provoked the Israeli response - the answer of course is both, one side directly the other indirectly. But it does tend to demonstrate the regard held for the general Palestinian population by the Palestinian militants and their puppet masters - they are regarded purely as cannon fodder, a general population who only serve the cause if they can be kept in a perpetual state of misery and poverty, because given any chance of living a normal peaceful and prosperous life the militants know that their days would then be numbered.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:58 PM

No government or organisation can be held responsible for the behaviour of dissident individuals or groups, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they are turning a blind eye to it or failing to do what it can to restrain them.

There has been no shortage of incidents where Israelis have done things which the Israeli authorities would wish they had not done, and for which they would say they were not responsible.

Fortunately it appears that at present the Israeli Government is ready to accept that the Palestinian authorities are doing what they can in the present circumstances, and the ceasefire is still holding in despite of this provocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:27 PM

"were I presume among those who Palestinians who voted Hamas into power"

...a handful among thousands...

So your logic tells me that you blame George Bush for all the bank-robbers and drug runners in the USA?


"Their targets were Israeli civilians (No condemnation of this from either Ake or Foolstroupe) "

Teribus - you are either densely psychotic or a deliberately bloody word twisting manipulating liar - just because I did not immediately and evey five minutes as you demand condemn ONLY ONE SIDE (the only side you biasedly support!), does not mean from my character that I APPROVE OF EITHER SIDE MURDERING ANYBODY! I have said so in the past!


I'm tired of all this world madness where one group of people torture and kill others to prove that their imaginary friend of Goodness and Light is better than the others' imaginary friend of Goodness and Light and that their own is the ONLY ONE TRUE Supreme imaginary friend of Goodness and Light!



Damn you akenaton - now it seems I'll have to kill you....
{:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Hamas new tactic
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 07:42 PM

Foolstroupe: "I'm tired of all this world madness where one group of people torture and kill others to prove that their imaginary friend of Goodness and Light is better than the others' imaginary friend of Goodness and Light and that their own is the ONLY ONE TRUE Supreme imaginary friend of Goodness and Light!"

Hmm. Though you're generally on the ball, I'd have to take issue over this one, in the kindest possible way! I think the religious motive explanation has been way overstated too often in the past. It's used to explain away for example, all kinds of extremist Isalmic acts (e.g Jihad) and so on. I've heard it used also to explain that the Israeli Jews have a kind of 'chosen people' complex, a Divine right to trample who they wish. Like I've said, I think it's been way overstated.

While I accept that there are those on both sides who harness their religion into a political ideology for murder and mayhem, they are very much in the minority. I am more socialist in outlook, and would like to quote Pink Floyd ('The Great Gig in the Sky') for what it's worth for a nice summary:

"With, without
And who'll deny, it's what the fighting's all about?"

The root of the trouble everywhere tends to be have and have not, powerful and weak. religion provides the icing on the cake, provides soem with a kind of ready-made vocabulary (though often with a lot of semantic abuse) with which to articulate their aims and outlook. In the same way 19th century colonialsts found their justification in Social Darwinism (and still do, under the guise of 'modernisation theory' and 'spreading democracy'). People talk of how young muslims are being radicalised by extremist Islamic clerics. Perhaps so, but it is the ground layer of social injustice, disenfranchisement, poverty, etc., etc., that makes them so vulnerable to being moulded in this way in the first place. As I've said before, provide people with a voice, justice and a satisfying life and you'll find far fewer extremists. This simplest-of-solutions is of course that world leaders insist on ignoring: it just couldn't be that simple, could it? As the YES MEN would say, they 'have a much firmer grasp on theory', great economists and so on.

Even in Crusader times, the crusaders had their eye on the riches of the east as much as the liberation of the Holy Land.