Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Israel has been sharply criticized for its disproportionate use of force in Gaza. But there are some Israeli fanatics who believe that Israel should use even greater force-widespread lethal force. The Jerusalem Post reports on that Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written a letter to Prime Minsiter Ehud Olmert informing him that "all civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot....Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings."
"No moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians"
Isn't this the definition of terrorism?
One Israeli settler leader recently argued during a conversation with a visiting American peace activist that 'if it was right to commit genocide during Biblical time, why can’t it be right to commit genocide now. Has God changed his mind,' the settler wondered sarcastically."
I'm at work and don't have time for endless circular arguments.
Whatever the solution to the Israel/Palestine problem might turn out to be, the one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that endless war won't get you there.
Israel seems to share with the US establishment the view that the way to achieve peace and put a stop to war is TO WIN ALL THE WARS.
This won't work.
Some, like the 'Dershbag M', were raised to think Jews should be quiet, polite and passive so they'd be left alone, so they'd survive. Maybe Dershbag and Kamiya et all can console the little Jewish girl who was so badly beaten last week in France by a crowd shouting, "Jews must die." Maybe she drew too much attention to herself.
Some never really learned the basics of Judiasm, and just view Judiasm as an antiquated cultural construct.
Some are leftwing self important intellectuals like Glen who live in a fantasy world constructed inside their heads. They hold to a selective kind of outrage at violence when the so called victims can spout slogans about colonialism. In this nutty world, Castro's brutal police state is ok because Castro sings from the left wing hymnal.
Living in Austin, Texas, a university town, I have over the years been bombarded in debates regarding this Sabra and Shatila massacre. However, when I mention the "War of the Camps," a horrendous and bloody battle of attrition between the Syrian-backed Shi'a Amal militia and Palestinian factions that took place in the same camps beginning in 1985, all I get are blank looks. The War of the Camps perhaps cost as many as 3,000 lives (the exact number will never been known because of the widespread destruction throughout the camps, the large displacement of the population, and blockades that barred even the Red Cross/Crescent from gaining access to the camps). The war was marked by atrocities committed by all sides, from claims of patients being dragged from hospital beds and executed to children dying of malnutrition and dehydration because fighters would not even allow the most basic relief supplies to pass through their lines. Yet, I never see anything about Syria being called to account for its role, or hear about any former Amal militia man making a movie to explore his particular guilt, for these Sabra and Shatila massacres.
Apart from the slaughter of 900 Palestinians and the vast destruction from 14 days of aerial bombardment, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives. The Palestinian resistance is still intact, the rocket-fire has continued, and Hamas is stronger than ever. So, what has been gained? Hamas has withstood the ferocious Israeli assault without knuckling under or making any concessions. They've proved that they are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and the standard bearers of the national liberation movement. Their place at the head of the government is now assured thanks to Israel's criminal blunder. In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas and the PA have ended up looking like cowards and quislings kowtowing to Tel Aviv.
For Israel, the military campaign has been a public relations disaster. Photos on the internet of bloodied and dismembered children rushed off to make-shift hospitals or wrapped in their funereal shrouds has generated unprecedented sympathy for the plight of Palestinians. Israel has come across as a bully. The establishment press has also suffered yet another blow to its credibility. This could be a tipping point for the corporate media. Arab news channels have come of age while more and more westerners are turning to independent media for their news.
More and more people of conscience, including many Jews, all over the world are with me. While US politicians are still scared shitless of the Israel Lobby, and many Americans are confused by the pro-Israel media, more and more American are starting to see Israel for the apartheid murderous state it is.
Desmund Tutu who talked at length about Israel's apartheid is one of them. The reservists who refused to serve so as not to take part in war crimes is another. Jews who refuse to be bystanders while the killing goes on in Gaza are among them too (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/13/letters-israel-rally-gaza).
You're on the wrong side of history. Like fascism and apartheid, Zionism - at least the brand of extreme violence you advocate - is destined for the dustbin of history.
Everybody is allowed to defend themselves. What we are not allowed to do is murder and injure thousands of civilians, including children, while claiming self-defense. I guess you don't get this because these people are not Jews which makes them non-persons to you.
You said, "We left Gaza with land borders under Egyptian and Palestinian Authority control."
That is not true. "Borders" plural is actually "border" singular, and that is the one with Egypt. When Israel "pulled out" it left the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier, a separation barrier built by Israel that completely encircles the Gaza Strip, and is constructed of wire fencing with posts, sensors and buffer zones on lands bordering Israel, and concrete and steel walls on lands bordering Egypt.
The opening in this barrier into Egypt is at Rafah and that opening was under the administration of the European Union because Israel did not want the Palestinians to control any part of it. However, Israel still had enough control over it to have it closed during its blockade of Gaza.
The Gazans mainly led by women broke through that barrier in January 2008 and Gazans streamed through into Egypt to buy food and supplies and weapons. However the Egyptians have reestablished control on their side. The European Union have withdrawn their guards from the Gazan side of the crossing so now there is defacto Palestinian control on the Gazan side. But it was not something that Israel "left" or wanted to leave to the Palestinians.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
