Can’t believe you print this one sided story. The UN has a long, sordid history of anti-Semitism so this is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that there’s no resolution condemning Hamas for using its own civilians as human shields and for launching thousands of rockets into civilian populations in Israel.
Shouting “anti-semitism” as a response to recognising that Israel is killing civilians indiscriminately (I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them) is a bad way to go about forming your argument (besides which “anti-semitism” is just a catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Israeli sentiment, just as “zionism” is the catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Palestinian sentiment). If I were to commit a crime, then use a child to protect my body from being shot, and the police shot the child and killed them in order to kill me, they’d be immediately brought up on charges of murder. This is no different.
The reason why the UN doesn’t directly pass resolutions on Hamas is that Hamas is an organisation, not a government of a recognised nation. If America would permit Palestine to be recognised by the UN, then the UN could pass resolutions regarding Palestine’s actions. Simply put, the UN is forced to be lop-sided in its resolutions because America and Israel refuse to allow the UN to officially recognise the Palestinian nation. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
Glen- With all due respect, please get your facts straight and don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism. The US would be forced to kill civilians too if rockets were being launched non stop into our territories from Canada or Mexico if that was the ONLY way to stop the terror and save lives. Look – it’s a horrible situation all around, especially for the young Palestinian people whose elders ELECTED Hamas to control their lives after Israel gave up control of Gaza, The IDF has tried harder than any military in the world would to minimize deaths. Does Hamas warn Israelis that rockets are on the way so they can evacuate? Would Hamas treat injured Israeli civilians? Not a chance. Yes, we all want a diplomatic solution and both peoples to live in peace. Sadly, it’s a long road. But it’s difficult to make peace with an organization whose stated mission is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel off the map.
Ah, I see – it’s the Palestinians’ faults for not leaving their homes, beaches and hospital beds when Israel thoughtfully gives them hours warning that they’re going to be bombing the area almost indiscriminately? Israel couldn’t possibly be committing war crimes, because they let the people know they’re going to be killed in advance, right? And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even respond to my point about Hamas being an organisation rather than the government of a recognised nation.
It is ludicrous to assert that Israel is making every effort to minimise deaths, when they bomb hospitals! And it’s even more ludicrous to then assert that it’s Israel that is helping to treat Palestinian civilians. I’m a vocal opponent of people who try to claim that Palestine’s hands are clean in this issue, but I get frustrated at people asserting that Israel’s hands are clean. Hypocrisy goes both ways. If you are happy to assert that Hamas is evil for their stated intent to wipe Israel off the map, then you have to also recognise that neither Israel nor America recognise Palestine’s right to exist. They demand something of Palestinians that they don’t themselves give to Palestine. Which might explain why Israel has no problems invading Palestine and establishing settlements, killing any Palestinian who tries to stop them from doing it (how would Americans react if Mexicans started building settlements in the south of America), blocking off basic supplies from Gaza, and bombing locations in both regions with their vastly superior military power.
Hamas very much deserves blame for the situation. But so does Israel. It is not anti-semitic to call out Israel for its blatant war crimes. Anti-Israel does not mean anti-semitic. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews in America are currently doing protests against Israel’s actions – they’re not self-hating, they are against the Israeli government’s actions. This is neither religious, nor racial.
You do realise that people can implicitly say things, right? Rich Klein asserted that Israel is doing everything they can to avoid collateral damage, that they’re treating Palestinians, etc, etc. He’s implicitly claiming that Israel’s hands are clean – that they have not committed war crimes at all because “they’re trying not to”. No distinction in the laws of war regarding killing of innocents occurs based on treatment of casualties or warning being given (especially when that warning is given to tell them to “evacuate”, when the entire region is under lockdown, and thus they are incapable of evacuating).
Yes sir, I do understand someone may imply something without stating it directly. Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands. They did this going back to the formation of the PLO when the Arabs had possession of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I do not see the implication you claim to see in Mr. Klein’s points you keep ignoring, and therefore concede.
Mr. Klein is correct about the UN being used by Jew-hating bigots for their own warped purposes. Mr. Klein is correct on the measures he gave that Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties. You speak of implication – pointing out that only Israel is taking these measures implies that Hamas is not – and they are not.
The Palestinians have never delivered on their half of land-for-peace deals and have shown themselves of being incompetent administrators of whatever land they were given. When the corruption or incompetence of their officials becomes a major issue, they tend to conduct terrorist attacks as a distraction.
In terms of the Geneva Conventions, is there anything in there about conducting warfare solely on civilian populations? Please take a second look, you seem to have missed that part on first reading.
Sure, Israel’s hands are not clean in the conflict that has been going since the founding of that nation.
In this conflict, one side – Israel – has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties. Stating this fact does not imply their efforts have been 100% successful. Also in this conflict, one side – the Palestinians – have done everything they can to maximize civilian casualties.
This distinction is lost on you.
Go ahead, call it “nonsense.” This allows you to again ignore, and thus concede, points being made.
Sorry, but you’re mixing things up that need to be kept separate. People are crying “antisemetism” because they refer to an irrational hatred of Jews.
For you to not care about Hamas using human shields pretty much eliminates from any serious consideration your other statements about civilian casualties.
You claim to care about civilian casualties but refuse to make any distinctions about the reasons those civilians get killed because your argument falls apart with analysis. When you have to keep it superficial, your argument is already on the rocks..
In your example, if the person holding the child had a gun to the kid’s head, there would be no such charges as you claim.
This is a question often asked the first day of philosophy 101 classes – ‘when is it permissable to take a life?’
The answer is when taking one life removes a mortal threat to someone else.
Actually, burqa, they’re crying “anti-semitism” because they’re trying to dismiss any criticism of Israel, as demonstrated by the fact that Rich Klein followed up providing a heap of justifications for Israel’s actions, and reasons why Israel isn’t the bad guy (that were all nonsense).
For you and Rich Klein not to care about Israel actually killing the civilians when it comes to assigning blame is demonstration that you are NOT being rational about this. I blame Hamas for using human shields. I blame Israel for then killing those human shields, when there are other methods of dealing with the situation. And for the record, Hamas isn’t holding a gun to the “child’s head”, Israel is.
And you clearly didn’t actually learn about philosophy if you think that’s how it works – the question “when is it permissible to take a life” does not have a single, defined answer. It is something that arises from a person’s overall philosophy, and must be answered in some way by any complete philosophy. That YOU believe that it’s OK to kill the hostage doesn’t mean that everyone does. And while accidentally shooting the hostage is regarded as acceptable if the accident wasn’t a negligence case (shooting at random hoping to hit the hostage taker), intentionally shooting the hostage is NOT considered acceptable.
Israel is bombing hospitals. I don’t care how many texts or tweets they send out, I don’t care how many warnings they give, they’re attacking hospitals in the hopes of killing a few militants or weapons, but knowing that it will kill innocents. And killing 1000 people to stave off what has worked out to be the deaths of 2 people (the deaths of the IDF agents are a result of the actions, and don’t count) is not an example of “taking one life” (to remove) “a mortal threat to someone else”.
In terms of those crying anti-semitism, I prefer to let them speak to their motivations, rather than accept the claim of a stranger who feels he knows better than they why they make the charge.
Mr. Kleins points were not all nonsense. He listed well-known facts that effectively counter your argument for which you have no rebuttal. So you resort to calling them “nonsense.”
In effect, you concede all those points made by Mr. Klein.
It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields. Some would try to cry hypocrisy or some such thing, but not I. In my opinion, people should be given space to evolve as they consider facts and as new facts emerge.
In your attempt to accuse Mr. Klein of being one-sided, you appear quite one-sided yourself.
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Klein and I do indeed care about civilian casualties. I can not speak for Mr. Klein, but my concern may be seen in my criticism of a group whose ideology has always been to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas has not taken the measures Israel has taken to reduce civilian casualties. You seem loathe to address this distinction.
I did not intend to imply the answer I gave to the philosophical question is the only answer someone may give. It is the one I think most accept. .
“It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields.”
And with that, we cease this debate. I’m not wasting my time with somebody who would represent my arguments in such a way. I explicitly said that Israel isn’t blameless because Hamas uses human shields, not that use of human shields were OK. I did not change my position, you have just chosen to construct a variety of strawmen to attack, rather than actually attacking my arguments. Note, by the way, that in my original argument, I equated Hamas to criminals using a child as a hostage… that pretty blatantly demonstrates my opinion of them, and of their use of human shields.
This is demonstrated similarly in your other response, where you say “Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands.”
I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions. The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly, but in trying to paint anybody who is remotely pro-Palestine (and I’m equally Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel) as a hypocrite, irrespective of what they actually say.
The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say – Hamas may be the more sinister side, but Israel is the one killing civilians en masse. And note that, despite your claim that nobody asserts that Israel’s hands are entirely clean, you have spent your entire time excusing Israel’s actions and demonising Hamas. I could list off a long list of grievances against Hamas, but there is nobody here asserting that Hamas is innocent in the slightest, so I’d just be preaching to the choir. I don’t spend my time invoking unrelated arguments in order to demean and demonise an entire people. Spend some time thinking about that – think about what it means to debate a topic with someone, and the difference between criticising one side and supporting the other. You might just have an epiphany and stop this absurd attempt to smear those who would argue against Israel’s actions as necessarily biased.
Finally, for the record – I spend quite a bit of time arguing with a muslim friend of mine, in which he asserts that Hamas is blameless. Every time, I put forward the argument to him that Hamas is intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Israel treats civilian casualties as undesirable collateral death. It is a legitimate argument for why Hamas is not an organisation whose actions are supportable. But this isn’t that debate. Hamas’s intent is irrelevant to the discussion, because we’re talking about Israel’s war crimes here. Personally, I want Palestine to be officially made a part of the UN… and then I want Hamas and other such organisations to be brought before the ICC. I also want Israel brought before the ICC. Both sides have much to answer for.
Glen: “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields”
Glen: ” I blame Hamas for using human shields.”
Looks like a change in position to me. There is nothing wrong with changing.
Glen: “I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions.”
Israel is reacting to a war started by Hamas. The only way to handle this conflict is by looking at the entire conflict and taking things in context and, if we are assessing blame, to addressing proportionality, otherwise we run the risk of equating sides that are vastly different in terms of culpability.
Glen: ” The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly,”
It does strengthen the point made – that every Palestinian organization I mentioned and plenty of others I could name, have all been dedicated to violence and rejected nonviolence. Hamas is just the latest in a long string of such organizations dedicated to committing war crimes and maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: “he fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation.”
It shows the Israelis are far better capable of defending themselves. They have the Iron Dome and Hamas does not. Without the Iron Dome, there would be far more Israeli casualties. Hamas brought a slingshot to a gun fight.
For plenty of ammo debating your Muslim friend, get a copy of Matthew Levitt’s HAMAS Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, by Matthew Levitt, (Yale University Press, 2006). It has extensive quotes from many sources, including Hamas’ leaders where they state all political and social activity by Hamas is dedicated to support the two aims of liquidating Israel and establishing an Islamist state with Hamas’ version of sharia law.
Burqa, you have just committed one of the gravest sins in debating – taking just part of a sentence and removing it from all context, and then using it as though it means something. The full sentence was “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them”. Do you see the end of the sentence? That’s the *context*. If it helps you to understand this concept better, I’ll word it another way: “The fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields doesn’t excuse Israel’s killing of the civilians”. The two sentences mean the same thing.
And that’s precisely why I’m not arguing with you any more. You don’t understand the fundamentals of debating, and you have no interest in actually understanding what I have to say.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Klein. I remember the resolution we vetoed that sought to equate zionism with racism. That was back in the mid-70s and there have been numerous such efforts.
Hamas is a group founded to commit war crimes and their dedication to achieving this goal has not wavered.
Can’t believe you print this one sided story. The UN has a long, sordid history of anti-Semitism so this is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that there’s no resolution condemning Hamas for using its own civilians as human shields and for launching thousands of rockets into civilian populations in Israel.
Shouting “anti-semitism” as a response to recognising that Israel is killing civilians indiscriminately (I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them) is a bad way to go about forming your argument (besides which “anti-semitism” is just a catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Israeli sentiment, just as “zionism” is the catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Palestinian sentiment). If I were to commit a crime, then use a child to protect my body from being shot, and the police shot the child and killed them in order to kill me, they’d be immediately brought up on charges of murder. This is no different.
The reason why the UN doesn’t directly pass resolutions on Hamas is that Hamas is an organisation, not a government of a recognised nation. If America would permit Palestine to be recognised by the UN, then the UN could pass resolutions regarding Palestine’s actions. Simply put, the UN is forced to be lop-sided in its resolutions because America and Israel refuse to allow the UN to officially recognise the Palestinian nation. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
Glen- With all due respect, please get your facts straight and don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism. The US would be forced to kill civilians too if rockets were being launched non stop into our territories from Canada or Mexico if that was the ONLY way to stop the terror and save lives. Look – it’s a horrible situation all around, especially for the young Palestinian people whose elders ELECTED Hamas to control their lives after Israel gave up control of Gaza, The IDF has tried harder than any military in the world would to minimize deaths. Does Hamas warn Israelis that rockets are on the way so they can evacuate? Would Hamas treat injured Israeli civilians? Not a chance. Yes, we all want a diplomatic solution and both peoples to live in peace. Sadly, it’s a long road. But it’s difficult to make peace with an organization whose stated mission is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel off the map.
Ah, I see – it’s the Palestinians’ faults for not leaving their homes, beaches and hospital beds when Israel thoughtfully gives them hours warning that they’re going to be bombing the area almost indiscriminately? Israel couldn’t possibly be committing war crimes, because they let the people know they’re going to be killed in advance, right? And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even respond to my point about Hamas being an organisation rather than the government of a recognised nation.
It is ludicrous to assert that Israel is making every effort to minimise deaths, when they bomb hospitals! And it’s even more ludicrous to then assert that it’s Israel that is helping to treat Palestinian civilians. I’m a vocal opponent of people who try to claim that Palestine’s hands are clean in this issue, but I get frustrated at people asserting that Israel’s hands are clean. Hypocrisy goes both ways. If you are happy to assert that Hamas is evil for their stated intent to wipe Israel off the map, then you have to also recognise that neither Israel nor America recognise Palestine’s right to exist. They demand something of Palestinians that they don’t themselves give to Palestine. Which might explain why Israel has no problems invading Palestine and establishing settlements, killing any Palestinian who tries to stop them from doing it (how would Americans react if Mexicans started building settlements in the south of America), blocking off basic supplies from Gaza, and bombing locations in both regions with their vastly superior military power.
Hamas very much deserves blame for the situation. But so does Israel. It is not anti-semitic to call out Israel for its blatant war crimes. Anti-Israel does not mean anti-semitic. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews in America are currently doing protests against Israel’s actions – they’re not self-hating, they are against the Israeli government’s actions. This is neither religious, nor racial.
You do realise that people can implicitly say things, right? Rich Klein asserted that Israel is doing everything they can to avoid collateral damage, that they’re treating Palestinians, etc, etc. He’s implicitly claiming that Israel’s hands are clean – that they have not committed war crimes at all because “they’re trying not to”. No distinction in the laws of war regarding killing of innocents occurs based on treatment of casualties or warning being given (especially when that warning is given to tell them to “evacuate”, when the entire region is under lockdown, and thus they are incapable of evacuating).
Yes sir, I do understand someone may imply something without stating it directly. Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands. They did this going back to the formation of the PLO when the Arabs had possession of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I do not see the implication you claim to see in Mr. Klein’s points you keep ignoring, and therefore concede, one after the other.
Sure, Israel’s hands are not clean in the conflict that has been going since the founding of that nation.
In this conflict, one side – Israel – has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties. Stating this fact does not imply their efforts have been 100% successful. Also in this conflict, one side – the Palestinians – have done everything they can to maximize civilian casualties.
This distinction is lost on you.
Go ahead, call it “nonsense.” This allows you to again ignore, and thus concede, points being made.
Mr. Klein is correct about the UN being used by Jew-hating bigots for their own warped purposes. Mr. Klein is correct on the measures he gave that Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties. You speak of implication – pointing out that only Israel is taking these measures implies that Hamas is not – and they are not.
In terms of the Geneva Conventions, is there anything in there about conducting warfare solely on civilian populations? Please take a second look, you seem to have missed that part on first reading.
There is criticism to be leveled at both sides, but far more against the Palestinian side because, as I have said before, they seek to maximize civilian casualties, a point you continue to concede, just as you concede that the Palestinians are not taking the same sort of measures the Israelis are to reduce civilian casualties.
Continuing to bring up different points when your initial ones are successfully rebutted does not constitute effective point-counterpoint debate. It is nothing more than a long series of concessions on your part.
Sorry, but you’re mixing things up that need to be kept separate. People are crying “antisemetism” because they refer to an irrational hatred of Jews.
For you to not care about Hamas using human shields pretty much eliminates from any serious consideration your other statements about civilian casualties.
You claim to care about civilian casualties but refuse to make any distinctions about the reasons those civilians get killed because your argument falls apart with analysis. When you have to keep it superficial, your argument is already on the rocks..
In your example, if the person holding the child had a gun to the kid’s head, there would be no such charges as you claim.
This is a question often asked the first day of philosophy 101 classes – ‘when is it permissable to take a life?’
The answer is when taking one life removes a mortal threat to someone else.
Actually, burqa, they’re crying “anti-semitism” because they’re trying to dismiss any criticism of Israel, as demonstrated by the fact that Rich Klein followed up providing a heap of justifications for Israel’s actions, and reasons why Israel isn’t the bad guy (that were all nonsense).
For you and Rich Klein not to care about Israel actually killing the civilians when it comes to assigning blame is demonstration that you are NOT being rational about this. I blame Hamas for using human shields. I blame Israel for then killing those human shields, when there are other methods of dealing with the situation. And for the record, Hamas isn’t holding a gun to the “child’s head”, Israel is.
And you clearly didn’t actually learn about philosophy if you think that’s how it works – the question “when is it permissible to take a life” does not have a single, defined answer. It is something that arises from a person’s overall philosophy, and must be answered in some way by any complete philosophy. That YOU believe that it’s OK to kill the hostage doesn’t mean that everyone does. And while accidentally shooting the hostage is regarded as acceptable if the accident wasn’t a negligence case (shooting at random hoping to hit the hostage taker), intentionally shooting the hostage is NOT considered acceptable.
Israel is bombing hospitals. I don’t care how many texts or tweets they send out, I don’t care how many warnings they give, they’re attacking hospitals in the hopes of killing a few militants or weapons, but knowing that it will kill innocents. And killing 1000 people to stave off what has worked out to be the deaths of 2 people (the deaths of the IDF agents are a result of the actions, and don’t count) is not an example of “taking one life” (to remove) “a mortal threat to someone else”.
In terms of those crying anti-semitism, I prefer to let them speak to their motivations, rather than accept the claim of a stranger who feels he knows better than they why they make the charge.
Mr. Kleins points were not all nonsense. He listed well-known facts that effectively counter your argument for which you have no rebuttal. So you resort to calling them “nonsense.”
In effect, you concede all those points made by Mr. Klein.
It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields. Some would try to cry hypocrisy or some such thing, but not I. In my opinion, people should be given space to evolve as they consider facts and as new facts emerge.
In your attempt to accuse Mr. Klein of being one-sided, you appear quite one-sided yourself.
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Klein and I do indeed care about civilian casualties. I can not speak for Mr. Klein, but my concern may be seen in my criticism of a group whose ideology has always been to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas has not taken the measures Israel has taken to reduce civilian casualties. You seem loathe to address this distinction.
I did not intend to imply the answer I gave to the philosophical question is the only answer someone may give. It is the one I think most accept. .
“It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields.”
And with that, we cease this debate. I’m not wasting my time with somebody who would represent my arguments in such a way. I explicitly said that Israel isn’t blameless because Hamas uses human shields, not that use of human shields were OK. I did not change my position, you have just chosen to construct a variety of strawmen to attack, rather than actually attacking my arguments. Note, by the way, that in my original argument, I equated Hamas to criminals using a child as a hostage… that pretty blatantly demonstrates my opinion of them, and of their use of human shields.
This is demonstrated similarly in your other response, where you say “Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands.”
I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions. The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly, but in trying to paint anybody who is remotely pro-Palestine (and I’m equally Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel) as a hypocrite, irrespective of what they actually say.
The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say – Hamas may be the more sinister side, but Israel is the one killing civilians en masse. And note that, despite your claim that nobody asserts that Israel’s hands are entirely clean, you have spent your entire time excusing Israel’s actions and demonising Hamas. I could list off a long list of grievances against Hamas, but there is nobody here asserting that Hamas is innocent in the slightest, so I’d just be preaching to the choir. I don’t spend my time invoking unrelated arguments in order to demean and demonise an entire people. Spend some time thinking about that – think about what it means to debate a topic with someone, and the difference between criticising one side and supporting the other. You might just have an epiphany and stop this absurd attempt to smear those who would argue against Israel’s actions as necessarily biased.
Finally, for the record – I spend quite a bit of time arguing with a muslim friend of mine, in which he asserts that Hamas is blameless. Every time, I put forward the argument to him that Hamas is intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Israel treats civilian casualties as undesirable collateral death. It is a legitimate argument for why Hamas is not an organisation whose actions are supportable. But this isn’t that debate. Hamas’s intent is irrelevant to the discussion, because we’re talking about Israel’s war crimes here. Personally, I want Palestine to be officially made a part of the UN… and then I want Hamas and other such organisations to be brought before the ICC. I also want Israel brought before the ICC. Both sides have much to answer for.
Glen: “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields”
Glen: ” I blame Hamas for using human shields.”
Looks like a change in position to me. There is nothing wrong with changing.
Glen: “I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions.”
Israel is reacting to a war started by Hamas. The only way to handle this conflict is by looking at the entire conflict and taking things in context and, if we are assessing blame, to addressing it proportionally, otherwise we run the risk of equating sides that are vastly different in terms of culpability. I did this when I pointed out that one side, while imperfect, has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties, while the other side is dedicated to maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: ” The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly,”
It does strengthen the point made – that every Palestinian organization I mentioned and plenty of others I could name, have all been dedicated to violence and rejected nonviolence. Hamas is just the latest in a long string of such organizations dedicated to committing war crimes and maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: “The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation.”
It shows the Israelis are far better capable of defending themselves. They have the Iron Dome and Hamas does not. Without the Iron Dome, there would be far more Israeli casualties. Hamas brought a slingshot to a gun fight.
I have not excused Israel’s actions, but understand them in the light of the fact that Hamas has sited arms caches and has conducted attacks and located other targets among civilians. They do so to spark outrage from those who ignore the fact that Hamas’ strategy is to incur as many Palestinian casualties as possible.
For plenty of ammo debating your Muslim friend, get a copy of Matthew Levitt’s “HAMAS Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad,” (Yale University Press, 2006). It has extensive quotes from many sources, including Hamas’ leaders where they state all political and social activity by Hamas is dedicated to support the two aims of liquidating Israel and establishing an Islamist state with Hamas’ version of sharia law.
Burqa, you have just committed one of the gravest sins in debating – taking just part of a sentence and removing it from all context, and then using it as though it means something. The full sentence was “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them”. Do you see the end of the sentence? That’s the *context*. If it helps you to understand this concept better, I’ll word it another way: “The fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields doesn’t excuse Israel’s killing of the civilians”. The two sentences mean the same thing.
And that’s precisely why I’m not arguing with you any more. You don’t understand the fundamentals of debating, and you have no interest in actually understanding what I have to say.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Klein. I remember the resolution we vetoed that sought to equate zionism with racism. That was back in the mid-70s and there have been numerous such efforts.
Hamas is a group founded to commit war crimes and their dedication to achieving this goal has not wavered.
Well there you have it. Killing bin Laden was justified because doing so prevented bin Laden from planning more terrorist attacks.
It’s kinda sad to see people who have such a soft spot for terrorists.
I knew people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who were first responders there and do not have such sympathy.
Have to agree with Rich here. NOTHING the UN says when it comes to the Israel-Palastinean conflict to i give any credence to. Maybe they should grow some balls and condemn HAMAS for all the crimes they commit. But I digress, just another chapter of “As the World Pukes” and nothing will be done.
Have to agree with Rich here. NOTHING the UN says when it comes to the Israel-Palastinean conflict to i give any credence to. Maybe they should grow some balls and condemn HAMAS for all the crimes they commit. But I digress, just another chapter of “As the World Pukes” and nothing will be done.
While I think both sides are at fault here, only one side is bombing ambulances and hospitals: Israel. I thought that was one of the Rules of Engagment, that you don’t target civilians, nor do you fire upon hospitals and medics.
Israel is not “targeting civilians” period. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the Rules of Engagement currently utilized by Hamas and you will have your answer.
So, the ambulance drivers who have been killed by snipers are shooting themselves? Look, I’m not on one side or the other here. I hate war and don’t think it ever brings peace. But targeting hospitals? Not cool
What is not cool is putting rocket launchers and caches of missiles IN HOSPITALS and then using the hospital as a firing position. As far as the “ambulance driver”, have you seen the video, as far as propaganda goes, it’s not even decent quality propaganda.
Indeed.
It would seem that by now people would realize that Hamas has deliberately tried to lure the Israelis into counterattacks that end up killing civilians.
Hamas is to be condemned for that sort of thing.
No, that’s not cool. Why am i not allowed to think both sides are in the wrong here, which I have repeatedly stated? Why must one reflexively support Israel? In fact, I think both sides are acting like spoiled brat children who can’t manage to share the backseat during a road trip. Only a lot more destructive.
You don’t seem to understand that I don’t care what the motivation. It’s wrong when both sides target civilians. It’s wrong and ideology doesn’t change that. Babies didn’t do anything to either side, yet they’re paying the price. Very sad.
You are correct when you say it’s wrong to target civilians. Only one side is doing that. For Hamas, civilians ARE the target, for Israel, they have been backed into a catch-22. Either allow their citizens to be killed, or attempt to eliminate the threat at it’s source. A source that is openly putting civilians into the path of destruction. Whether or not you care about motivation is not the point, Israel doing nothing is in essence sacrificing it’s own citizens and a society that fails to protect it’s own is no society at all.
Hamas would target hospitals and ambulances if it could. The difference is Israel isn’t hiding military assets there. Hamas is violating rules with great abandonment. Israel is the big bully beating up on the little punk with a very bad attitude. They are both cheating and fighting dirty, one is just fighting dirtier than other. Both sides need to grow-up and evolve. You can’t condemn one side without condemning the other.
And I do condemn both sides. I know Palestine would kill more if they could. But they can’t and I can’t condemn a ‘what if’. I can only condemn what is.
What “is” is a seemingly endless conflict fueled by extremists. The current round was clearly started and then exacerbated by Hamas. On both sides there have been wrongs done, but a distinctive difference is Hamas is dedicated to committing as many atrocities on as large a scale as possible. They are led by people who just can’t get enough of death and have no problem when they bring death to hundreds of the Palestinians.
From the moment the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded, they have never tried peaceful nonviolent protest as a strategy to achieve their aims. It has been one outfit after the other dedicated to achieving death rather than establishing a homeland that can live peaceably in the community of nations.
Still not a reason to target civilians. I am against that from either side. Let me repeat that. I am against the targeting of civilians by either side. Apparently that’s bad to say here but I’ll continue to say it. Targeting of civilians should not be tolerated by anyone. It makes me very sad that it seems to be tolerated for one side and condemned for the other when both should be condemned for it.
I agree with you about targeting civilians.
You seem to be equating the two sides.
You seem to be disregarding the reasons why Israel would hit a hospital.
Could you please address the measures Israel has taken to minimize civilian casualties and then address the point of difference I made that Hamas is dedicated to killing as many civilians as they can?
You say “They are both cheating and fighting dirty” What is dirty about warning innocent civilians to leave an area that is in imminent danger BEFORE firing surgical strikes? What is cheating about dropping leaflets into an area giving civilians specific directions to safe areas BEFORE firing missiles at known Hamas command and strike posts? What is dirty and cheating about defending your civilian population against an enemy that is not seeking to take back land but openly and unabashedly is calling for your total annihilation as a people and culture?
You noticed it, but don’t seem to think it possible that Israel has done wrong this time around. You may well be right. Israel doesn’t have a perfectly clean record.
You gave good reasons to support an argument that the policy of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Hamas’ policy has been to maximize them. This needs to be stressed.
But given the past, I would not be surprised if there were not some incident where Israel was culpable. If so, there would still be no cause for one to conclude both sides are equally to blame.
Like every nation, organization, group, or whatever you want to call a collection of people, there are looses cannons. Our military has had individuals commit ugly atrocities but it is not our nations M.O. Likewise to say that Israel has committed atrocities is to blanket the group with it’s least common denominator.
So in the case of war work on note set limitations on Israel while Hamas sends thousands of missiles targeting cities throughout Israel. If that wasn’t bad enough then you have the Hamas who uses the Palestinian people as shields to promote propaganda. It was and is not who started this war regardless how one-sided it may seem for whatever reason they created the situation. Given plenty of opportunities to put an end to this war they have chosen not to and they also have placed their civilians in front of their missiles what other country while engaged in war has ever called drop leaflets made just about every attempt to get civilians to leave the area and yet these individual civilians remain as shields they do so just like terrorists who walks into a restaurant and blows the place up with them inside trying to become martyrs. I’m not saying that is what’s taken place here but what is definitely taken place is that Israel is doing whatever he can to minimize Civilian casualties that aside we cannot say the same for the Hamas who continuously trying to send missiles into Israel. Israel said it best when they said Israel uses their missiles to defend the people of Israel where the Hamas uses their people to defend their missiles and I question whether or not the people chose to remain in their homes where missiles are being fired out of or schools whether his children and possibly taught that they will become martyrs but for the life of me I cannot understand why people deliberately remain in their homes in schools knowing very well that Thomas is using these locations to fire their missiles. No enough allow Israel to do what they have to in order to see some sort of security for their country and their people
You know what would stop all civilian casualties? If both sides would stop bombing the other! Seriously, they both act like children. What has war ever accomplished except more violence and hate?
While I think both sides are at fault here, only one side is bombing ambulances and hospitals: Israel. I thought that was one of the Rules of Engagment, that you don’t target civilians, nor do you fire upon hospitals and medics.
Israel is not “targeting civilians” period. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the Rules of Engagement currently utilized by Hamas and you will have your answer.
So, the ambulance drivers who have been killed by snipers are shooting themselves? Look, I’m not on one side or the other here. I hate war and don’t think it ever brings peace. But targeting hospitals? Not cool
What is not cool is putting rocket launchers and caches of missiles IN HOSPITALS and then using the hospital as a firing position. As far as the “ambulance driver”, have you seen the video, as far as propaganda goes, it’s not even decent quality propaganda.
Indeed.
It would seem that by now people would realize that Hamas has deliberately tried to lure the Israelis into counterattacks that end up killing civilians.
Hamas is to be condemned for that sort of thing.
No, that’s not cool. Why am i not allowed to think both sides are in the wrong here, which I have repeatedly stated? Why must one reflexively support Israel? In fact, I think both sides are acting like spoiled brat children who can’t manage to share the backseat during a road trip. Only a lot more destructive.
You don’t seem to understand that I don’t care what the motivation. It’s wrong when both sides target civilians. It’s wrong and ideology doesn’t change that. Babies didn’t do anything to either side, yet they’re paying the price. Very sad.
You are correct when you say it’s wrong to target civilians. Only one side is doing that. For Hamas, civilians ARE the target, for Israel, they have been backed into a catch-22. Either allow their citizens to be killed, or attempt to eliminate the threat at it’s source. A source that is openly putting civilians into the path of destruction. Whether or not you care about motivation is not the point, Israel doing nothing is in essence sacrificing it’s own citizens and a society that fails to protect it’s own is no society at all.
Hamas would target hospitals and ambulances if it could. The difference is Israel isn’t hiding military assets there. Hamas is violating rules with great abandonment. Israel is the big bully beating up on the little punk with a very bad attitude. They are both cheating and fighting dirty, one is just fighting dirtier than other. Both sides need to grow-up and evolve. You can’t condemn one side without condemning the other.
And I do condemn both sides. I know Palestine would kill more if they could. But they can’t and I can’t condemn a ‘what if’. I can only condemn what is.
What “is” is a seemingly endless conflict fueled by extremists. The current round was clearly started and then exacerbated by Hamas. On both sides there have been wrongs done, but a distinctive difference is Hamas is dedicated to committing as many atrocities on as large a scale as possible. They are led by people who just can’t get enough of death and have no problem when they bring death to hundreds of the Palestinians.
From the moment the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded, they have never tried peaceful nonviolent protest as a strategy to achieve their aims. It has been one outfit after the other dedicated to achieving death rather than establishing a homeland that can live peaceably in the community of nations.
As I said above,
One side seeks to maximize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
The other side seeks to minimize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
Still not a reason to target civilians. I am against that from either side. Let me repeat that. I am against the targeting of civilians by either side. Apparently that’s bad to say here but I’ll continue to say it. Targeting of civilians should not be tolerated by anyone. It makes me very sad that it seems to be tolerated for one side and condemned for the other when both should be condemned for it.
I agree with you about targeting civilians.
You seem to be equating the two sides.
You seem to be disregarding the reasons why Israel would hit a hospital.
Could you please address the measures Israel has taken to minimize civilian casualties and then address the point of difference I made that Hamas is dedicated to killing as many civilians as they can?
You say “They are both cheating and fighting dirty” What is dirty about warning innocent civilians to leave an area that is in imminent danger BEFORE firing surgical strikes? What is cheating about dropping leaflets into an area giving civilians specific directions to safe areas BEFORE firing missiles at known Hamas command and strike posts? What is dirty and cheating about defending your civilian population against an enemy that is not seeking to take back land but openly and unabashedly is calling for your total annihilation as a people and culture?
You noticed it, but don’t seem to think it possible that Israel has done wrong this time around. You may well be right. Still, Israel doesn’t have a perfectly clean record in other conflicts so history shows some atrocity or other is possible.
You gave good reasons to support an argument that the policy of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Hamas’ policy has been to maximize them. This needs to be stressed.
But given the past, I would not be surprised if there were not some incident where Israel was culpable. If so, there would still be no cause for one to conclude both sides are equally to blame.
Like every nation, organization, group, or whatever you want to call a collection of people, there are looses cannons. Our military has had individuals commit ugly atrocities but it is not our nations M.O. Likewise to say that Israel has committed atrocities is to blanket the group with it’s least common denominator.
I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing to people here who go along with the crowd of Christian-hating bigots.
It is irrational thinking.
With Israel, there have been the occasional atrocity in the midst of larger operations that seek to minimize civilian casualties.
On the Arab side there have been as many atrocities as they can manage to pull off.
One side seeks to maximize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
The other side seeks to minimize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
So in the case of war work on note set limitations on Israel while Hamas sends thousands of missiles targeting cities throughout Israel. If that wasn’t bad enough then you have the Hamas who uses the Palestinian people as shields to promote propaganda. It was and is not who started this war regardless how one-sided it may seem for whatever reason they created the situation. Given plenty of opportunities to put an end to this war they have chosen not to and they also have placed their civilians in front of their missiles what other country while engaged in war has ever called drop leaflets made just about every attempt to get civilians to leave the area and yet these individual civilians remain as shields they do so just like terrorists who walks into a restaurant and blows the place up with them inside trying to become martyrs. I’m not saying that is what’s taken place here but what is definitely taken place is that Israel is doing whatever he can to minimize Civilian casualties that aside we cannot say the same for the Hamas who continuously trying to send missiles into Israel. Israel said it best when they said Israel uses their missiles to defend the people of Israel where the Hamas uses their people to defend their missiles and I question whether or not the people chose to remain in their homes where missiles are being fired out of or schools whether his children and possibly taught that they will become martyrs but for the life of me I cannot understand why people deliberately remain in their homes in schools knowing very well that Thomas is using these locations to fire their missiles. No enough allow Israel to do what they have to in order to see some sort of security for their country and their people
You know what would stop all civilian casualties? If both sides would stop bombing the other! Seriously, they both act like children. What has war ever accomplished except more violence and hate?
With some exceptions on this site, the lack of strong support for Israel can generally be attributed to liberals (again, noted exceptions on this site). Watching MSNBC, CNN, and some of the network news outlets clearly show a skew against Israel. Our current administration has been detached and distant at best with Israel. My question(which largely goes unanswered) is this, which one of Israel’s enemies (or any country in that region) utilizes democracy and supports women’s rights and gay rights?
Like it or not, every set of folks (current occupying government) is there because they took possession of it by force or otherwise. I have yet to hear and American citizen who supports the Arabs right to occupy based on “being there first” offer to renounce their citizenship and leave because the Native Americans were here first. It would be the only way one could truly back that position up.
Arabs, Christians and Jews are all of the same House, worship the same God and share the same Commandments, like ‘Thou shall not kill,’ for example. They all have a legitimate historical claim to occupy, and of course exist. Most people agree with this basic premise. But then there is Hamas and as they say in that part of the world, this is the fighting season. And it has been a very busy season, or two, or three…Wars The trend is not encouraging.
I certainly think religion has been the starting point in this conflict and then both sides line up support for the “cause” making it more difficult to resolve. I have doubts if Hamas was removed it would get much better. This seems like a Middle East fetish. In a way the opinions expressed about this conflict mimics the situation .My remarks or anyone else’s are not going to bring this to an end. A war of words, I guess, is better than the horror in this conflict.
With some exceptions on this site, the lack of strong support for Israel can generally be attributed to liberals (again, noted exceptions on this site). Watching MSNBC, CNN, and some of the network news outlets clearly show a skew against Israel. Our current administration has been detached and distant at best with Israel. My question(which largely goes unanswered) is this, which one of Israel’s enemies (or any country in that region) utilizes democracy and supports women’s rights and gay rights?
Like it or not, every set of folks (current occupying government) is there because they took possession of it by force or otherwise. I have yet to hear and American citizen who supports the Arabs right to occupy based on “being there first” offer to renounce their citizenship and leave because the Native Americans were here first. It would be the only way one could truly back that position up.
Arabs, Christians and Jews are all of the same House, worship the same God and share the same Commandments, like ‘Thou shall not kill,’ for example. They all have a legitimate historical claim to occupy, and of course exist. Most people agree with this basic premise. But then there is Hamas and as they say in that part of the world, this is the fighting season. And it has been a very busy season, or two, or three…Wars The trend is not encouraging.
I certainly think religion has been the starting point in this conflict and then both sides line up support for the “cause” making it more difficult to resolve. I have doubts if Hamas was removed it would get much better. This seems like a Middle East fetish. In a way the opinions expressed about this conflict mimics the situation .My remarks or anyone else’s are not going to bring this to an end. A war of words, I guess, is better than the horror in this conflict.
It is indeed “possible” that Israelis have committed war crimes, but note that no investigation has been done.
Hamas, on the other hand, is an organization founded with the intention of committing war crimes and has refused to change their dedication to carrying this out.
It is indeed “possible” that Israelis have committed war crimes, but note that no investigation has been done.
Hamas, on the other hand, is an organization founded with the intention of committing war crimes and has refused to change their dedication to carrying this out.
What Americans need to think long and hard about is our involvement with both the Israelis and Palestinians. On the one hand we help build hospitals and schools for the Palestinians, and then on the other we give military aid to Israel who then destroys the hospitals and schools. This is an intolerable position to be in. We need hospitals and schools, roads and bridges here at home. I wish everyone well, and here’s hoping Sec. Kerry is able to accomplish a miracle and stop the fighting, at least for a little while. Nonetheless and from an American perspective, I think a complete re-think of these relationships is required.
What Americans need to think long and hard about is our involvement with both the Israelis and Palestinians. On the one hand we help build hospitals and schools for the Palestinians, and then on the other we give military aid to Israel who then destroys the hospitals and schools. This is an intolerable position to be in. We need hospitals and schools, roads and bridges here at home. I wish everyone well, and here’s hoping Sec. Kerry is able to accomplish a miracle and stop the fighting, at least for a little while. Nonetheless and from an American perspective, I think a complete re-think of these relationships is required.
Well there you have it. Killing bin Laden was justified because doing so prevented bin Laden from planning more terrorist attacks.
It’s kinda sad to see people who have such a soft spot for terrorists.
I knew people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who were first responders there and do not have such sympathy.
Rich Klein July 23rd, 2014 at 22:35
Can’t believe you print this one sided story. The UN has a long, sordid history of anti-Semitism so this is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that there’s no resolution condemning Hamas for using its own civilians as human shields and for launching thousands of rockets into civilian populations in Israel.
Glen July 24th, 2014 at 09:51
Shouting “anti-semitism” as a response to recognising that Israel is killing civilians indiscriminately (I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them) is a bad way to go about forming your argument (besides which “anti-semitism” is just a catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Israeli sentiment, just as “zionism” is the catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Palestinian sentiment). If I were to commit a crime, then use a child to protect my body from being shot, and the police shot the child and killed them in order to kill me, they’d be immediately brought up on charges of murder. This is no different.
The reason why the UN doesn’t directly pass resolutions on Hamas is that Hamas is an organisation, not a government of a recognised nation. If America would permit Palestine to be recognised by the UN, then the UN could pass resolutions regarding Palestine’s actions. Simply put, the UN is forced to be lop-sided in its resolutions because America and Israel refuse to allow the UN to officially recognise the Palestinian nation. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
Rich Klein July 24th, 2014 at 10:30
Glen- With all due respect, please get your facts straight and don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism. The US would be forced to kill civilians too if rockets were being launched non stop into our territories from Canada or Mexico if that was the ONLY way to stop the terror and save lives. Look – it’s a horrible situation all around, especially for the young Palestinian people whose elders ELECTED Hamas to control their lives after Israel gave up control of Gaza, The IDF has tried harder than any military in the world would to minimize deaths. Does Hamas warn Israelis that rockets are on the way so they can evacuate? Would Hamas treat injured Israeli civilians? Not a chance. Yes, we all want a diplomatic solution and both peoples to live in peace. Sadly, it’s a long road. But it’s difficult to make peace with an organization whose stated mission is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel off the map.
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 02:40
Ah, I see – it’s the Palestinians’ faults for not leaving their homes, beaches and hospital beds when Israel thoughtfully gives them hours warning that they’re going to be bombing the area almost indiscriminately? Israel couldn’t possibly be committing war crimes, because they let the people know they’re going to be killed in advance, right? And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even respond to my point about Hamas being an organisation rather than the government of a recognised nation.
It is ludicrous to assert that Israel is making every effort to minimise deaths, when they bomb hospitals! And it’s even more ludicrous to then assert that it’s Israel that is helping to treat Palestinian civilians. I’m a vocal opponent of people who try to claim that Palestine’s hands are clean in this issue, but I get frustrated at people asserting that Israel’s hands are clean. Hypocrisy goes both ways. If you are happy to assert that Hamas is evil for their stated intent to wipe Israel off the map, then you have to also recognise that neither Israel nor America recognise Palestine’s right to exist. They demand something of Palestinians that they don’t themselves give to Palestine. Which might explain why Israel has no problems invading Palestine and establishing settlements, killing any Palestinian who tries to stop them from doing it (how would Americans react if Mexicans started building settlements in the south of America), blocking off basic supplies from Gaza, and bombing locations in both regions with their vastly superior military power.
Hamas very much deserves blame for the situation. But so does Israel. It is not anti-semitic to call out Israel for its blatant war crimes. Anti-Israel does not mean anti-semitic. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews in America are currently doing protests against Israel’s actions – they’re not self-hating, they are against the Israeli government’s actions. This is neither religious, nor racial.
So please get YOUR facts straight.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 22:06
Who, Mr. facts straight guy, has claimed Israel’s hands are entirely clean?
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 22:43
You do realise that people can implicitly say things, right? Rich Klein asserted that Israel is doing everything they can to avoid collateral damage, that they’re treating Palestinians, etc, etc. He’s implicitly claiming that Israel’s hands are clean – that they have not committed war crimes at all because “they’re trying not to”. No distinction in the laws of war regarding killing of innocents occurs based on treatment of casualties or warning being given (especially when that warning is given to tell them to “evacuate”, when the entire region is under lockdown, and thus they are incapable of evacuating).
The Geneva Convention explicitly bans attacks on Hospitals. And international law also bans use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium… http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-drops-white-phosphorus-bombs-on-gazans/5393390
Something to think about.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 17:17
Yes sir, I do understand someone may imply something without stating it directly. Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands. They did this going back to the formation of the PLO when the Arabs had possession of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I do not see the implication you claim to see in Mr. Klein’s points you keep ignoring, and therefore concede.
Mr. Klein is correct about the UN being used by Jew-hating bigots for their own warped purposes. Mr. Klein is correct on the measures he gave that Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties. You speak of implication – pointing out that only Israel is taking these measures implies that Hamas is not – and they are not.
The Palestinians have never delivered on their half of land-for-peace deals and have shown themselves of being incompetent administrators of whatever land they were given. When the corruption or incompetence of their officials becomes a major issue, they tend to conduct terrorist attacks as a distraction.
In terms of the Geneva Conventions, is there anything in there about conducting warfare solely on civilian populations? Please take a second look, you seem to have missed that part on first reading.
Sure, Israel’s hands are not clean in the conflict that has been going since the founding of that nation.
In this conflict, one side – Israel – has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties. Stating this fact does not imply their efforts have been 100% successful. Also in this conflict, one side – the Palestinians – have done everything they can to maximize civilian casualties.
This distinction is lost on you.
Go ahead, call it “nonsense.” This allows you to again ignore, and thus concede, points being made.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 22:03
Sorry, but you’re mixing things up that need to be kept separate. People are crying “antisemetism” because they refer to an irrational hatred of Jews.
For you to not care about Hamas using human shields pretty much eliminates from any serious consideration your other statements about civilian casualties.
You claim to care about civilian casualties but refuse to make any distinctions about the reasons those civilians get killed because your argument falls apart with analysis. When you have to keep it superficial, your argument is already on the rocks..
In your example, if the person holding the child had a gun to the kid’s head, there would be no such charges as you claim.
This is a question often asked the first day of philosophy 101 classes – ‘when is it permissable to take a life?’
The answer is when taking one life removes a mortal threat to someone else.
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 22:34
Actually, burqa, they’re crying “anti-semitism” because they’re trying to dismiss any criticism of Israel, as demonstrated by the fact that Rich Klein followed up providing a heap of justifications for Israel’s actions, and reasons why Israel isn’t the bad guy (that were all nonsense).
For you and Rich Klein not to care about Israel actually killing the civilians when it comes to assigning blame is demonstration that you are NOT being rational about this. I blame Hamas for using human shields. I blame Israel for then killing those human shields, when there are other methods of dealing with the situation. And for the record, Hamas isn’t holding a gun to the “child’s head”, Israel is.
And you clearly didn’t actually learn about philosophy if you think that’s how it works – the question “when is it permissible to take a life” does not have a single, defined answer. It is something that arises from a person’s overall philosophy, and must be answered in some way by any complete philosophy. That YOU believe that it’s OK to kill the hostage doesn’t mean that everyone does. And while accidentally shooting the hostage is regarded as acceptable if the accident wasn’t a negligence case (shooting at random hoping to hit the hostage taker), intentionally shooting the hostage is NOT considered acceptable.
Israel is bombing hospitals. I don’t care how many texts or tweets they send out, I don’t care how many warnings they give, they’re attacking hospitals in the hopes of killing a few militants or weapons, but knowing that it will kill innocents. And killing 1000 people to stave off what has worked out to be the deaths of 2 people (the deaths of the IDF agents are a result of the actions, and don’t count) is not an example of “taking one life” (to remove) “a mortal threat to someone else”.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 16:56
In terms of those crying anti-semitism, I prefer to let them speak to their motivations, rather than accept the claim of a stranger who feels he knows better than they why they make the charge.
Mr. Kleins points were not all nonsense. He listed well-known facts that effectively counter your argument for which you have no rebuttal. So you resort to calling them “nonsense.”
In effect, you concede all those points made by Mr. Klein.
It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields. Some would try to cry hypocrisy or some such thing, but not I. In my opinion, people should be given space to evolve as they consider facts and as new facts emerge.
In your attempt to accuse Mr. Klein of being one-sided, you appear quite one-sided yourself.
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Klein and I do indeed care about civilian casualties. I can not speak for Mr. Klein, but my concern may be seen in my criticism of a group whose ideology has always been to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas has not taken the measures Israel has taken to reduce civilian casualties. You seem loathe to address this distinction.
I did not intend to imply the answer I gave to the philosophical question is the only answer someone may give. It is the one I think most accept. .
Glen July 29th, 2014 at 21:17
“It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields.”
And with that, we cease this debate. I’m not wasting my time with somebody who would represent my arguments in such a way. I explicitly said that Israel isn’t blameless because Hamas uses human shields, not that use of human shields were OK. I did not change my position, you have just chosen to construct a variety of strawmen to attack, rather than actually attacking my arguments. Note, by the way, that in my original argument, I equated Hamas to criminals using a child as a hostage… that pretty blatantly demonstrates my opinion of them, and of their use of human shields.
This is demonstrated similarly in your other response, where you say “Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands.”
I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions. The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly, but in trying to paint anybody who is remotely pro-Palestine (and I’m equally Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel) as a hypocrite, irrespective of what they actually say.
The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say – Hamas may be the more sinister side, but Israel is the one killing civilians en masse. And note that, despite your claim that nobody asserts that Israel’s hands are entirely clean, you have spent your entire time excusing Israel’s actions and demonising Hamas. I could list off a long list of grievances against Hamas, but there is nobody here asserting that Hamas is innocent in the slightest, so I’d just be preaching to the choir. I don’t spend my time invoking unrelated arguments in order to demean and demonise an entire people. Spend some time thinking about that – think about what it means to debate a topic with someone, and the difference between criticising one side and supporting the other. You might just have an epiphany and stop this absurd attempt to smear those who would argue against Israel’s actions as necessarily biased.
Finally, for the record – I spend quite a bit of time arguing with a muslim friend of mine, in which he asserts that Hamas is blameless. Every time, I put forward the argument to him that Hamas is intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Israel treats civilian casualties as undesirable collateral death. It is a legitimate argument for why Hamas is not an organisation whose actions are supportable. But this isn’t that debate. Hamas’s intent is irrelevant to the discussion, because we’re talking about Israel’s war crimes here. Personally, I want Palestine to be officially made a part of the UN… and then I want Hamas and other such organisations to be brought before the ICC. I also want Israel brought before the ICC. Both sides have much to answer for.
burqa August 1st, 2014 at 14:17
Glen: “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields”
Glen: ” I blame Hamas for using human shields.”
Looks like a change in position to me. There is nothing wrong with changing.
Glen: “I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions.”
Israel is reacting to a war started by Hamas. The only way to handle this conflict is by looking at the entire conflict and taking things in context and, if we are assessing blame, to addressing proportionality, otherwise we run the risk of equating sides that are vastly different in terms of culpability.
Glen: ” The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly,”
It does strengthen the point made – that every Palestinian organization I mentioned and plenty of others I could name, have all been dedicated to violence and rejected nonviolence. Hamas is just the latest in a long string of such organizations dedicated to committing war crimes and maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: “he fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation.”
It shows the Israelis are far better capable of defending themselves. They have the Iron Dome and Hamas does not. Without the Iron Dome, there would be far more Israeli casualties. Hamas brought a slingshot to a gun fight.
For plenty of ammo debating your Muslim friend, get a copy of Matthew Levitt’s HAMAS Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, by Matthew Levitt, (Yale University Press, 2006). It has extensive quotes from many sources, including Hamas’ leaders where they state all political and social activity by Hamas is dedicated to support the two aims of liquidating Israel and establishing an Islamist state with Hamas’ version of sharia law.
Glen August 2nd, 2014 at 00:06
Burqa, you have just committed one of the gravest sins in debating – taking just part of a sentence and removing it from all context, and then using it as though it means something. The full sentence was “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them”. Do you see the end of the sentence? That’s the *context*. If it helps you to understand this concept better, I’ll word it another way: “The fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields doesn’t excuse Israel’s killing of the civilians”. The two sentences mean the same thing.
And that’s precisely why I’m not arguing with you any more. You don’t understand the fundamentals of debating, and you have no interest in actually understanding what I have to say.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 11:00
Yes, indeed, Mr. Klein. I remember the resolution we vetoed that sought to equate zionism with racism. That was back in the mid-70s and there have been numerous such efforts.
Hamas is a group founded to commit war crimes and their dedication to achieving this goal has not wavered.
Rich Klein July 23rd, 2014 at 22:35
Can’t believe you print this one sided story. The UN has a long, sordid history of anti-Semitism so this is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that there’s no resolution condemning Hamas for using its own civilians as human shields and for launching thousands of rockets into civilian populations in Israel.
Glen July 24th, 2014 at 09:51
Shouting “anti-semitism” as a response to recognising that Israel is killing civilians indiscriminately (I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them) is a bad way to go about forming your argument (besides which “anti-semitism” is just a catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Israeli sentiment, just as “zionism” is the catch-call of people who would reject any anti-Palestinian sentiment). If I were to commit a crime, then use a child to protect my body from being shot, and the police shot the child and killed them in order to kill me, they’d be immediately brought up on charges of murder. This is no different.
The reason why the UN doesn’t directly pass resolutions on Hamas is that Hamas is an organisation, not a government of a recognised nation. If America would permit Palestine to be recognised by the UN, then the UN could pass resolutions regarding Palestine’s actions. Simply put, the UN is forced to be lop-sided in its resolutions because America and Israel refuse to allow the UN to officially recognise the Palestinian nation. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
Rich Klein July 24th, 2014 at 10:30
Glen- With all due respect, please get your facts straight and don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism. The US would be forced to kill civilians too if rockets were being launched non stop into our territories from Canada or Mexico if that was the ONLY way to stop the terror and save lives. Look – it’s a horrible situation all around, especially for the young Palestinian people whose elders ELECTED Hamas to control their lives after Israel gave up control of Gaza, The IDF has tried harder than any military in the world would to minimize deaths. Does Hamas warn Israelis that rockets are on the way so they can evacuate? Would Hamas treat injured Israeli civilians? Not a chance. Yes, we all want a diplomatic solution and both peoples to live in peace. Sadly, it’s a long road. But it’s difficult to make peace with an organization whose stated mission is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel off the map.
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 02:40
Ah, I see – it’s the Palestinians’ faults for not leaving their homes, beaches and hospital beds when Israel thoughtfully gives them hours warning that they’re going to be bombing the area almost indiscriminately? Israel couldn’t possibly be committing war crimes, because they let the people know they’re going to be killed in advance, right? And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even respond to my point about Hamas being an organisation rather than the government of a recognised nation.
It is ludicrous to assert that Israel is making every effort to minimise deaths, when they bomb hospitals! And it’s even more ludicrous to then assert that it’s Israel that is helping to treat Palestinian civilians. I’m a vocal opponent of people who try to claim that Palestine’s hands are clean in this issue, but I get frustrated at people asserting that Israel’s hands are clean. Hypocrisy goes both ways. If you are happy to assert that Hamas is evil for their stated intent to wipe Israel off the map, then you have to also recognise that neither Israel nor America recognise Palestine’s right to exist. They demand something of Palestinians that they don’t themselves give to Palestine. Which might explain why Israel has no problems invading Palestine and establishing settlements, killing any Palestinian who tries to stop them from doing it (how would Americans react if Mexicans started building settlements in the south of America), blocking off basic supplies from Gaza, and bombing locations in both regions with their vastly superior military power.
Hamas very much deserves blame for the situation. But so does Israel. It is not anti-semitic to call out Israel for its blatant war crimes. Anti-Israel does not mean anti-semitic. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews in America are currently doing protests against Israel’s actions – they’re not self-hating, they are against the Israeli government’s actions. This is neither religious, nor racial.
So please get YOUR facts straight.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 22:06
Who, Mr. facts straight guy, has claimed Israel’s hands are entirely clean?
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 22:43
You do realise that people can implicitly say things, right? Rich Klein asserted that Israel is doing everything they can to avoid collateral damage, that they’re treating Palestinians, etc, etc. He’s implicitly claiming that Israel’s hands are clean – that they have not committed war crimes at all because “they’re trying not to”. No distinction in the laws of war regarding killing of innocents occurs based on treatment of casualties or warning being given (especially when that warning is given to tell them to “evacuate”, when the entire region is under lockdown, and thus they are incapable of evacuating).
The Geneva Convention explicitly bans attacks on Hospitals. And international law also bans use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium… http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-drops-white-phosphorus-bombs-on-gazans/5393390
Something to think about.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 17:17
Yes sir, I do understand someone may imply something without stating it directly. Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands. They did this going back to the formation of the PLO when the Arabs had possession of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I do not see the implication you claim to see in Mr. Klein’s points you keep ignoring, and therefore concede, one after the other.
Sure, Israel’s hands are not clean in the conflict that has been going since the founding of that nation.
In this conflict, one side – Israel – has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties. Stating this fact does not imply their efforts have been 100% successful. Also in this conflict, one side – the Palestinians – have done everything they can to maximize civilian casualties.
This distinction is lost on you.
Go ahead, call it “nonsense.” This allows you to again ignore, and thus concede, points being made.
Mr. Klein is correct about the UN being used by Jew-hating bigots for their own warped purposes. Mr. Klein is correct on the measures he gave that Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties. You speak of implication – pointing out that only Israel is taking these measures implies that Hamas is not – and they are not.
In terms of the Geneva Conventions, is there anything in there about conducting warfare solely on civilian populations? Please take a second look, you seem to have missed that part on first reading.
There is criticism to be leveled at both sides, but far more against the Palestinian side because, as I have said before, they seek to maximize civilian casualties, a point you continue to concede, just as you concede that the Palestinians are not taking the same sort of measures the Israelis are to reduce civilian casualties.
Continuing to bring up different points when your initial ones are successfully rebutted does not constitute effective point-counterpoint debate. It is nothing more than a long series of concessions on your part.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 22:03
Sorry, but you’re mixing things up that need to be kept separate. People are crying “antisemetism” because they refer to an irrational hatred of Jews.
For you to not care about Hamas using human shields pretty much eliminates from any serious consideration your other statements about civilian casualties.
You claim to care about civilian casualties but refuse to make any distinctions about the reasons those civilians get killed because your argument falls apart with analysis. When you have to keep it superficial, your argument is already on the rocks..
In your example, if the person holding the child had a gun to the kid’s head, there would be no such charges as you claim.
This is a question often asked the first day of philosophy 101 classes – ‘when is it permissable to take a life?’
The answer is when taking one life removes a mortal threat to someone else.
Glen July 26th, 2014 at 22:34
Actually, burqa, they’re crying “anti-semitism” because they’re trying to dismiss any criticism of Israel, as demonstrated by the fact that Rich Klein followed up providing a heap of justifications for Israel’s actions, and reasons why Israel isn’t the bad guy (that were all nonsense).
For you and Rich Klein not to care about Israel actually killing the civilians when it comes to assigning blame is demonstration that you are NOT being rational about this. I blame Hamas for using human shields. I blame Israel for then killing those human shields, when there are other methods of dealing with the situation. And for the record, Hamas isn’t holding a gun to the “child’s head”, Israel is.
And you clearly didn’t actually learn about philosophy if you think that’s how it works – the question “when is it permissible to take a life” does not have a single, defined answer. It is something that arises from a person’s overall philosophy, and must be answered in some way by any complete philosophy. That YOU believe that it’s OK to kill the hostage doesn’t mean that everyone does. And while accidentally shooting the hostage is regarded as acceptable if the accident wasn’t a negligence case (shooting at random hoping to hit the hostage taker), intentionally shooting the hostage is NOT considered acceptable.
Israel is bombing hospitals. I don’t care how many texts or tweets they send out, I don’t care how many warnings they give, they’re attacking hospitals in the hopes of killing a few militants or weapons, but knowing that it will kill innocents. And killing 1000 people to stave off what has worked out to be the deaths of 2 people (the deaths of the IDF agents are a result of the actions, and don’t count) is not an example of “taking one life” (to remove) “a mortal threat to someone else”.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 16:56
In terms of those crying anti-semitism, I prefer to let them speak to their motivations, rather than accept the claim of a stranger who feels he knows better than they why they make the charge.
Mr. Kleins points were not all nonsense. He listed well-known facts that effectively counter your argument for which you have no rebuttal. So you resort to calling them “nonsense.”
In effect, you concede all those points made by Mr. Klein.
It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields. Some would try to cry hypocrisy or some such thing, but not I. In my opinion, people should be given space to evolve as they consider facts and as new facts emerge.
In your attempt to accuse Mr. Klein of being one-sided, you appear quite one-sided yourself.
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Klein and I do indeed care about civilian casualties. I can not speak for Mr. Klein, but my concern may be seen in my criticism of a group whose ideology has always been to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas has not taken the measures Israel has taken to reduce civilian casualties. You seem loathe to address this distinction.
I did not intend to imply the answer I gave to the philosophical question is the only answer someone may give. It is the one I think most accept. .
Glen July 29th, 2014 at 21:17
“It is nice, however, that you have changed your opinion on the use of human shields.”
And with that, we cease this debate. I’m not wasting my time with somebody who would represent my arguments in such a way. I explicitly said that Israel isn’t blameless because Hamas uses human shields, not that use of human shields were OK. I did not change my position, you have just chosen to construct a variety of strawmen to attack, rather than actually attacking my arguments. Note, by the way, that in my original argument, I equated Hamas to criminals using a child as a hostage… that pretty blatantly demonstrates my opinion of them, and of their use of human shields.
This is demonstrated similarly in your other response, where you say “Your reluctance to address the fact that Hamas – and if you want to go back – the PLO, Black September and other groups who have fought on the side of the Palestinians have consistently done all they could to maximize civilian casualties implies you think Hamas has clean hands.”
I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions. The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly, but in trying to paint anybody who is remotely pro-Palestine (and I’m equally Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel) as a hypocrite, irrespective of what they actually say.
The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say – Hamas may be the more sinister side, but Israel is the one killing civilians en masse. And note that, despite your claim that nobody asserts that Israel’s hands are entirely clean, you have spent your entire time excusing Israel’s actions and demonising Hamas. I could list off a long list of grievances against Hamas, but there is nobody here asserting that Hamas is innocent in the slightest, so I’d just be preaching to the choir. I don’t spend my time invoking unrelated arguments in order to demean and demonise an entire people. Spend some time thinking about that – think about what it means to debate a topic with someone, and the difference between criticising one side and supporting the other. You might just have an epiphany and stop this absurd attempt to smear those who would argue against Israel’s actions as necessarily biased.
Finally, for the record – I spend quite a bit of time arguing with a muslim friend of mine, in which he asserts that Hamas is blameless. Every time, I put forward the argument to him that Hamas is intentionally targetting civilians, whereas Israel treats civilian casualties as undesirable collateral death. It is a legitimate argument for why Hamas is not an organisation whose actions are supportable. But this isn’t that debate. Hamas’s intent is irrelevant to the discussion, because we’re talking about Israel’s war crimes here. Personally, I want Palestine to be officially made a part of the UN… and then I want Hamas and other such organisations to be brought before the ICC. I also want Israel brought before the ICC. Both sides have much to answer for.
burqa August 1st, 2014 at 14:17
Glen: “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields”
Glen: ” I blame Hamas for using human shields.”
Looks like a change in position to me. There is nothing wrong with changing.
Glen: “I explicitly said that neither side has clean hands. I did not address the actions of Hamas directly because they were not relevant to the discussion at hand – which was about Israel’s actions.”
Israel is reacting to a war started by Hamas. The only way to handle this conflict is by looking at the entire conflict and taking things in context and, if we are assessing blame, to addressing it proportionally, otherwise we run the risk of equating sides that are vastly different in terms of culpability. I did this when I pointed out that one side, while imperfect, has taken many measures to minimize civilian casualties, while the other side is dedicated to maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: ” The fact that you then raise the PLO (which is a rival organisation) as though this somehow strengthens your argument, reveals the truth – that you aren’t at all interested in debating things honestly,”
It does strengthen the point made – that every Palestinian organization I mentioned and plenty of others I could name, have all been dedicated to violence and rejected nonviolence. Hamas is just the latest in a long string of such organizations dedicated to committing war crimes and maximizing civilian casualties.
Glen: “The fact, by the way, that you claim to care about civilian casualties, while excusing Israel’s actions that have killed well over 800 civilians and exclusively blaming Hamas whose actions have killed three, demonstrates an unbalanced view of the situation.”
It shows the Israelis are far better capable of defending themselves. They have the Iron Dome and Hamas does not. Without the Iron Dome, there would be far more Israeli casualties. Hamas brought a slingshot to a gun fight.
I have not excused Israel’s actions, but understand them in the light of the fact that Hamas has sited arms caches and has conducted attacks and located other targets among civilians. They do so to spark outrage from those who ignore the fact that Hamas’ strategy is to incur as many Palestinian casualties as possible.
For plenty of ammo debating your Muslim friend, get a copy of Matthew Levitt’s “HAMAS Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad,” (Yale University Press, 2006). It has extensive quotes from many sources, including Hamas’ leaders where they state all political and social activity by Hamas is dedicated to support the two aims of liquidating Israel and establishing an Islamist state with Hamas’ version of sharia law.
Glen August 2nd, 2014 at 00:06
Burqa, you have just committed one of the gravest sins in debating – taking just part of a sentence and removing it from all context, and then using it as though it means something. The full sentence was “I don’t care if Hamas is using civilians as human shields, it’s still Israel’s job to not kill them”. Do you see the end of the sentence? That’s the *context*. If it helps you to understand this concept better, I’ll word it another way: “The fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields doesn’t excuse Israel’s killing of the civilians”. The two sentences mean the same thing.
And that’s precisely why I’m not arguing with you any more. You don’t understand the fundamentals of debating, and you have no interest in actually understanding what I have to say.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 11:00
Yes, indeed, Mr. Klein. I remember the resolution we vetoed that sought to equate zionism with racism. That was back in the mid-70s and there have been numerous such efforts.
Hamas is a group founded to commit war crimes and their dedication to achieving this goal has not wavered.
Jake July 23rd, 2014 at 22:42
FWIW Navi Pillay strongly condemned the killing of Osama Bin Laden so you have an idea how impartial her “independent investigation” will be.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 17:32
Well there you have it. Killing bin Laden was justified because doing so prevented bin Laden from planning more terrorist attacks.
It’s kinda sad to see people who have such a soft spot for terrorists.
I knew people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who were first responders there and do not have such sympathy.
fancypants July 23rd, 2014 at 22:47
if the UN had a pulse ? Dick cheney would be in jail with some of his friends
Pistol-Packing July 23rd, 2014 at 23:40
Have to agree with Rich here. NOTHING the UN says when it comes to the Israel-Palastinean conflict to i give any credence to. Maybe they should grow some balls and condemn HAMAS for all the crimes they commit. But I digress, just another chapter of “As the World Pukes” and nothing will be done.
Pistol-Packing July 23rd, 2014 at 23:40
Have to agree with Rich here. NOTHING the UN says when it comes to the Israel-Palastinean conflict to i give any credence to. Maybe they should grow some balls and condemn HAMAS for all the crimes they commit. But I digress, just another chapter of “As the World Pukes” and nothing will be done.
M A G July 24th, 2014 at 08:57
While I think both sides are at fault here, only one side is bombing ambulances and hospitals: Israel. I thought that was one of the Rules of Engagment, that you don’t target civilians, nor do you fire upon hospitals and medics.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 09:15
Israel is not “targeting civilians” period. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the Rules of Engagement currently utilized by Hamas and you will have your answer.
M A G July 24th, 2014 at 09:50
So, the ambulance drivers who have been killed by snipers are shooting themselves? Look, I’m not on one side or the other here. I hate war and don’t think it ever brings peace. But targeting hospitals? Not cool
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:27
What is not cool is putting rocket launchers and caches of missiles IN HOSPITALS and then using the hospital as a firing position. As far as the “ambulance driver”, have you seen the video, as far as propaganda goes, it’s not even decent quality propaganda.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:55
Indeed.
It would seem that by now people would realize that Hamas has deliberately tried to lure the Israelis into counterattacks that end up killing civilians.
Hamas is to be condemned for that sort of thing.
M A G July 24th, 2014 at 12:20
No, that’s not cool. Why am i not allowed to think both sides are in the wrong here, which I have repeatedly stated? Why must one reflexively support Israel? In fact, I think both sides are acting like spoiled brat children who can’t manage to share the backseat during a road trip. Only a lot more destructive.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:12
You most certainly are allowed, however there is no moral equivalence between protecting ones sovereignty and seeking the extermination of all Jews
M A G July 25th, 2014 at 06:50
You don’t seem to understand that I don’t care what the motivation. It’s wrong when both sides target civilians. It’s wrong and ideology doesn’t change that. Babies didn’t do anything to either side, yet they’re paying the price. Very sad.
Jeff Allen July 25th, 2014 at 08:58
You are correct when you say it’s wrong to target civilians. Only one side is doing that. For Hamas, civilians ARE the target, for Israel, they have been backed into a catch-22. Either allow their citizens to be killed, or attempt to eliminate the threat at it’s source. A source that is openly putting civilians into the path of destruction. Whether or not you care about motivation is not the point, Israel doing nothing is in essence sacrificing it’s own citizens and a society that fails to protect it’s own is no society at all.
mea_mark July 24th, 2014 at 09:25
Hamas would target hospitals and ambulances if it could. The difference is Israel isn’t hiding military assets there. Hamas is violating rules with great abandonment. Israel is the big bully beating up on the little punk with a very bad attitude. They are both cheating and fighting dirty, one is just fighting dirtier than other. Both sides need to grow-up and evolve. You can’t condemn one side without condemning the other.
M A G July 24th, 2014 at 09:48
And I do condemn both sides. I know Palestine would kill more if they could. But they can’t and I can’t condemn a ‘what if’. I can only condemn what is.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 22:27
What “is” is a seemingly endless conflict fueled by extremists. The current round was clearly started and then exacerbated by Hamas. On both sides there have been wrongs done, but a distinctive difference is Hamas is dedicated to committing as many atrocities on as large a scale as possible. They are led by people who just can’t get enough of death and have no problem when they bring death to hundreds of the Palestinians.
From the moment the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded, they have never tried peaceful nonviolent protest as a strategy to achieve their aims. It has been one outfit after the other dedicated to achieving death rather than establishing a homeland that can live peaceably in the community of nations.
M A G July 25th, 2014 at 06:49
Still not a reason to target civilians. I am against that from either side. Let me repeat that. I am against the targeting of civilians by either side. Apparently that’s bad to say here but I’ll continue to say it. Targeting of civilians should not be tolerated by anyone. It makes me very sad that it seems to be tolerated for one side and condemned for the other when both should be condemned for it.
Violence to obtain peace. Sheesh.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 21:52
I agree with you about targeting civilians.
You seem to be equating the two sides.
You seem to be disregarding the reasons why Israel would hit a hospital.
Could you please address the measures Israel has taken to minimize civilian casualties and then address the point of difference I made that Hamas is dedicated to killing as many civilians as they can?
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:35
You say “They are both cheating and fighting dirty” What is dirty about warning innocent civilians to leave an area that is in imminent danger BEFORE firing surgical strikes? What is cheating about dropping leaflets into an area giving civilians specific directions to safe areas BEFORE firing missiles at known Hamas command and strike posts? What is dirty and cheating about defending your civilian population against an enemy that is not seeking to take back land but openly and unabashedly is calling for your total annihilation as a people and culture?
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:53
Note he said one side was fighting dirtier than the other.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 11:07
Yes, I did note it, in fact, I quoted it. I just haven’t seen evidence to support Israel’s fighting dirty or cheating.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 12:10
You noticed it, but don’t seem to think it possible that Israel has done wrong this time around. You may well be right. Israel doesn’t have a perfectly clean record.
You gave good reasons to support an argument that the policy of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Hamas’ policy has been to maximize them. This needs to be stressed.
But given the past, I would not be surprised if there were not some incident where Israel was culpable. If so, there would still be no cause for one to conclude both sides are equally to blame.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:10
Like every nation, organization, group, or whatever you want to call a collection of people, there are looses cannons. Our military has had individuals commit ugly atrocities but it is not our nations M.O. Likewise to say that Israel has committed atrocities is to blanket the group with it’s least common denominator.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 22:20
I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing to people here who go along with the crowd of Christian-hating bigots.
It is irrational thinking.
Jeff Allen July 25th, 2014 at 01:16
Your last two sentences are spot on.
Clearwater1948 July 24th, 2014 at 13:37
So in the case of war work on note set limitations on Israel while Hamas sends thousands of missiles targeting cities throughout Israel. If that wasn’t bad enough then you have the Hamas who uses the Palestinian people as shields to promote propaganda. It was and is not who started this war regardless how one-sided it may seem for whatever reason they created the situation. Given plenty of opportunities to put an end to this war they have chosen not to and they also have placed their civilians in front of their missiles what other country while engaged in war has ever called drop leaflets made just about every attempt to get civilians to leave the area and yet these individual civilians remain as shields they do so just like terrorists who walks into a restaurant and blows the place up with them inside trying to become martyrs. I’m not saying that is what’s taken place here but what is definitely taken place is that Israel is doing whatever he can to minimize Civilian casualties that aside we cannot say the same for the Hamas who continuously trying to send missiles into Israel. Israel said it best when they said Israel uses their missiles to defend the people of Israel where the Hamas uses their people to defend their missiles and I question whether or not the people chose to remain in their homes where missiles are being fired out of or schools whether his children and possibly taught that they will become martyrs but for the life of me I cannot understand why people deliberately remain in their homes in schools knowing very well that Thomas is using these locations to fire their missiles. No enough allow Israel to do what they have to in order to see some sort of security for their country and their people
M A G July 24th, 2014 at 16:00
You know what would stop all civilian casualties? If both sides would stop bombing the other! Seriously, they both act like children. What has war ever accomplished except more violence and hate?
MIAtheistGal July 24th, 2014 at 08:57
While I think both sides are at fault here, only one side is bombing ambulances and hospitals: Israel. I thought that was one of the Rules of Engagment, that you don’t target civilians, nor do you fire upon hospitals and medics.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 09:15
Israel is not “targeting civilians” period. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the Rules of Engagement currently utilized by Hamas and you will have your answer.
MIAtheistGal July 24th, 2014 at 09:50
So, the ambulance drivers who have been killed by snipers are shooting themselves? Look, I’m not on one side or the other here. I hate war and don’t think it ever brings peace. But targeting hospitals? Not cool
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:27
What is not cool is putting rocket launchers and caches of missiles IN HOSPITALS and then using the hospital as a firing position. As far as the “ambulance driver”, have you seen the video, as far as propaganda goes, it’s not even decent quality propaganda.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:55
Indeed.
It would seem that by now people would realize that Hamas has deliberately tried to lure the Israelis into counterattacks that end up killing civilians.
Hamas is to be condemned for that sort of thing.
MIAtheistGal July 24th, 2014 at 12:20
No, that’s not cool. Why am i not allowed to think both sides are in the wrong here, which I have repeatedly stated? Why must one reflexively support Israel? In fact, I think both sides are acting like spoiled brat children who can’t manage to share the backseat during a road trip. Only a lot more destructive.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:12
You most certainly are allowed, however there is no moral equivalence between protecting ones sovereignty and seeking the extermination of all Jews
MIAtheistGal July 25th, 2014 at 06:50
You don’t seem to understand that I don’t care what the motivation. It’s wrong when both sides target civilians. It’s wrong and ideology doesn’t change that. Babies didn’t do anything to either side, yet they’re paying the price. Very sad.
Jeff Allen July 25th, 2014 at 08:58
You are correct when you say it’s wrong to target civilians. Only one side is doing that. For Hamas, civilians ARE the target, for Israel, they have been backed into a catch-22. Either allow their citizens to be killed, or attempt to eliminate the threat at it’s source. A source that is openly putting civilians into the path of destruction. Whether or not you care about motivation is not the point, Israel doing nothing is in essence sacrificing it’s own citizens and a society that fails to protect it’s own is no society at all.
mea_mark July 24th, 2014 at 09:25
Hamas would target hospitals and ambulances if it could. The difference is Israel isn’t hiding military assets there. Hamas is violating rules with great abandonment. Israel is the big bully beating up on the little punk with a very bad attitude. They are both cheating and fighting dirty, one is just fighting dirtier than other. Both sides need to grow-up and evolve. You can’t condemn one side without condemning the other.
MIAtheistGal July 24th, 2014 at 09:48
And I do condemn both sides. I know Palestine would kill more if they could. But they can’t and I can’t condemn a ‘what if’. I can only condemn what is.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 22:27
What “is” is a seemingly endless conflict fueled by extremists. The current round was clearly started and then exacerbated by Hamas. On both sides there have been wrongs done, but a distinctive difference is Hamas is dedicated to committing as many atrocities on as large a scale as possible. They are led by people who just can’t get enough of death and have no problem when they bring death to hundreds of the Palestinians.
From the moment the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded, they have never tried peaceful nonviolent protest as a strategy to achieve their aims. It has been one outfit after the other dedicated to achieving death rather than establishing a homeland that can live peaceably in the community of nations.
As I said above,
One side seeks to maximize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
The other side seeks to minimize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
MIAtheistGal July 25th, 2014 at 06:49
Still not a reason to target civilians. I am against that from either side. Let me repeat that. I am against the targeting of civilians by either side. Apparently that’s bad to say here but I’ll continue to say it. Targeting of civilians should not be tolerated by anyone. It makes me very sad that it seems to be tolerated for one side and condemned for the other when both should be condemned for it.
Violence to obtain peace. Sheesh.
burqa July 26th, 2014 at 21:52
I agree with you about targeting civilians.
You seem to be equating the two sides.
You seem to be disregarding the reasons why Israel would hit a hospital.
Could you please address the measures Israel has taken to minimize civilian casualties and then address the point of difference I made that Hamas is dedicated to killing as many civilians as they can?
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:35
You say “They are both cheating and fighting dirty” What is dirty about warning innocent civilians to leave an area that is in imminent danger BEFORE firing surgical strikes? What is cheating about dropping leaflets into an area giving civilians specific directions to safe areas BEFORE firing missiles at known Hamas command and strike posts? What is dirty and cheating about defending your civilian population against an enemy that is not seeking to take back land but openly and unabashedly is calling for your total annihilation as a people and culture?
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:53
Note he said one side was fighting dirtier than the other.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 11:07
Yes, I did note it, in fact, I quoted it. I just haven’t seen evidence to support Israel’s fighting dirty or cheating.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 12:10
You noticed it, but don’t seem to think it possible that Israel has done wrong this time around. You may well be right. Still, Israel doesn’t have a perfectly clean record in other conflicts so history shows some atrocity or other is possible.
You gave good reasons to support an argument that the policy of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Hamas’ policy has been to maximize them. This needs to be stressed.
But given the past, I would not be surprised if there were not some incident where Israel was culpable. If so, there would still be no cause for one to conclude both sides are equally to blame.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:10
Like every nation, organization, group, or whatever you want to call a collection of people, there are looses cannons. Our military has had individuals commit ugly atrocities but it is not our nations M.O. Likewise to say that Israel has committed atrocities is to blanket the group with it’s least common denominator.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 22:20
I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing to people here who go along with the crowd of Christian-hating bigots.
It is irrational thinking.
With Israel, there have been the occasional atrocity in the midst of larger operations that seek to minimize civilian casualties.
On the Arab side there have been as many atrocities as they can manage to pull off.
One side seeks to maximize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
The other side seeks to minimize civilian casualties and is sometimes not as successful as they would like.
Jeff Allen July 25th, 2014 at 01:16
Your last two sentences are spot on.
Clearwater1948 July 24th, 2014 at 13:37
So in the case of war work on note set limitations on Israel while Hamas sends thousands of missiles targeting cities throughout Israel. If that wasn’t bad enough then you have the Hamas who uses the Palestinian people as shields to promote propaganda. It was and is not who started this war regardless how one-sided it may seem for whatever reason they created the situation. Given plenty of opportunities to put an end to this war they have chosen not to and they also have placed their civilians in front of their missiles what other country while engaged in war has ever called drop leaflets made just about every attempt to get civilians to leave the area and yet these individual civilians remain as shields they do so just like terrorists who walks into a restaurant and blows the place up with them inside trying to become martyrs. I’m not saying that is what’s taken place here but what is definitely taken place is that Israel is doing whatever he can to minimize Civilian casualties that aside we cannot say the same for the Hamas who continuously trying to send missiles into Israel. Israel said it best when they said Israel uses their missiles to defend the people of Israel where the Hamas uses their people to defend their missiles and I question whether or not the people chose to remain in their homes where missiles are being fired out of or schools whether his children and possibly taught that they will become martyrs but for the life of me I cannot understand why people deliberately remain in their homes in schools knowing very well that Thomas is using these locations to fire their missiles. No enough allow Israel to do what they have to in order to see some sort of security for their country and their people
MIAtheistGal July 24th, 2014 at 16:00
You know what would stop all civilian casualties? If both sides would stop bombing the other! Seriously, they both act like children. What has war ever accomplished except more violence and hate?
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 09:02
With some exceptions on this site, the lack of strong support for Israel can generally be attributed to liberals (again, noted exceptions on this site). Watching MSNBC, CNN, and some of the network news outlets clearly show a skew against Israel. Our current administration has been detached and distant at best with Israel. My question(which largely goes unanswered) is this, which one of Israel’s enemies (or any country in that region) utilizes democracy and supports women’s rights and gay rights?
Hirightnow July 24th, 2014 at 09:59
Hitler was a vegetarian.
Now figure it out.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:46
Great bit of trivia, but complete false equivalent
Jake July 25th, 2014 at 09:12
..only because of a chronic stomach ailment. But what does your comment have to do with this thread.
Clearwater1948 July 24th, 2014 at 13:27
Quite eloquently put, and please this notion of the UN it should be dismantled it no longer serves the purpose that it was designed to do.
Klypto July 24th, 2014 at 16:49
Look at the history of this conflict. The Jewish people migrated to this area. The Arabs were long before the Jews came to that area.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:18
Like it or not, every set of folks (current occupying government) is there because they took possession of it by force or otherwise. I have yet to hear and American citizen who supports the Arabs right to occupy based on “being there first” offer to renounce their citizenship and leave because the Native Americans were here first. It would be the only way one could truly back that position up.
greenfloyd July 25th, 2014 at 04:05
Arabs, Christians and Jews are all of the same House, worship the same God and share the same Commandments, like ‘Thou shall not kill,’ for example. They all have a legitimate historical claim to occupy, and of course exist. Most people agree with this basic premise. But then there is Hamas and as they say in that part of the world, this is the fighting season. And it has been a very busy season, or two, or three…Wars The trend is not encouraging.
Klypto July 25th, 2014 at 10:21
I certainly think religion has been the starting point in this conflict and then both sides line up support for the “cause” making it more difficult to resolve. I have doubts if Hamas was removed it would get much better. This seems like a Middle East fetish. In a way the opinions expressed about this conflict mimics the situation .My remarks or anyone else’s are not going to bring this to an end. A war of words, I guess, is better than the horror in this conflict.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 09:02
With some exceptions on this site, the lack of strong support for Israel can generally be attributed to liberals (again, noted exceptions on this site). Watching MSNBC, CNN, and some of the network news outlets clearly show a skew against Israel. Our current administration has been detached and distant at best with Israel. My question(which largely goes unanswered) is this, which one of Israel’s enemies (or any country in that region) utilizes democracy and supports women’s rights and gay rights?
Hirightnow July 24th, 2014 at 09:59
Hitler was a vegetarian.
Now figure it out.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 10:46
Great bit of trivia, but complete false equivalent
Clearwater1948 July 24th, 2014 at 13:27
Quite eloquently put, and please this notion of the UN it should be dismantled it no longer serves the purpose that it was designed to do.
Klypto July 24th, 2014 at 16:49
Look at the history of this conflict. The Jewish people migrated to this area. The Arabs were long before the Jews came to that area.
Jeff Allen July 24th, 2014 at 17:18
Like it or not, every set of folks (current occupying government) is there because they took possession of it by force or otherwise. I have yet to hear and American citizen who supports the Arabs right to occupy based on “being there first” offer to renounce their citizenship and leave because the Native Americans were here first. It would be the only way one could truly back that position up.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org July 25th, 2014 at 04:05
Arabs, Christians and Jews are all of the same House, worship the same God and share the same Commandments, like ‘Thou shall not kill,’ for example. They all have a legitimate historical claim to occupy, and of course exist. Most people agree with this basic premise. But then there is Hamas and as they say in that part of the world, this is the fighting season. And it has been a very busy season, or two, or three…Wars The trend is not encouraging.
Klypto July 25th, 2014 at 10:21
I certainly think religion has been the starting point in this conflict and then both sides line up support for the “cause” making it more difficult to resolve. I have doubts if Hamas was removed it would get much better. This seems like a Middle East fetish. In a way the opinions expressed about this conflict mimics the situation .My remarks or anyone else’s are not going to bring this to an end. A war of words, I guess, is better than the horror in this conflict.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:49
It is indeed “possible” that Israelis have committed war crimes, but note that no investigation has been done.
Hamas, on the other hand, is an organization founded with the intention of committing war crimes and has refused to change their dedication to carrying this out.
burqa July 24th, 2014 at 10:49
It is indeed “possible” that Israelis have committed war crimes, but note that no investigation has been done.
Hamas, on the other hand, is an organization founded with the intention of committing war crimes and has refused to change their dedication to carrying this out.
greenfloyd July 26th, 2014 at 03:36
What Americans need to think long and hard about is our involvement with both the Israelis and Palestinians. On the one hand we help build hospitals and schools for the Palestinians, and then on the other we give military aid to Israel who then destroys the hospitals and schools. This is an intolerable position to be in. We need hospitals and schools, roads and bridges here at home. I wish everyone well, and here’s hoping Sec. Kerry is able to accomplish a miracle and stop the fighting, at least for a little while. Nonetheless and from an American perspective, I think a complete re-think of these relationships is required.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org July 26th, 2014 at 03:36
What Americans need to think long and hard about is our involvement with both the Israelis and Palestinians. On the one hand we help build hospitals and schools for the Palestinians, and then on the other we give military aid to Israel who then destroys the hospitals and schools. This is an intolerable position to be in. We need hospitals and schools, roads and bridges here at home. I wish everyone well, and here’s hoping Sec. Kerry is able to accomplish a miracle and stop the fighting, at least for a little while. Nonetheless and from an American perspective, I think a complete re-think of these relationships is required.
burqa July 29th, 2014 at 17:32
Well there you have it. Killing bin Laden was justified because doing so prevented bin Laden from planning more terrorist attacks.
It’s kinda sad to see people who have such a soft spot for terrorists.
I knew people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who were first responders there and do not have such sympathy.