FUCK ISRAEL!!!!

[BengalsRZ]

 

It's good work if you're paid by the word.

 

 

 

 

Gosh no. I'm not looking for reasons that attempt to justify deliberately provoking a war guaranteed to have massive civilian casualties.

 

 

 

 

You can say whatever you want.

 

All I know for certain is supporting a multi-year rocket campaign often results in open warfare guaranteed to produce massive civilian casulaties.

 

Hamas knew that and seems more than willing to pay the price in blood.

 

You too, it would seem.

 

Hair, you are so silly. What is the better option? People living in Gaza agree on one thing- if they aren't killed by drones, bombs, or air strikes, they'll just as well die off from the inhumane conditions. Time after time, ceasefires have been struck during these conflicts, and time after time- Israel has violated said ceasefires. For starters, take a look at this almost absurdly long list of Israeli violations of our most recent, 2012 ceasefire: http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2012/12/israeli-ceasefire-violations-in-gaza.html 

 

When we look a bit more recently, Israel illegally imprisoned 240 Palestinians following the kidnapping of 3 Israelis- as a response to Hamas- who we now know weren't behind the kidnapping in the first place (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661116/Israeli-police-arrest-51-Palestinian-prisoners-released-2011-furious-search-three-kidnapped-Jewish-teenagers.html). What also came out is that the Israeli government withheld information from the public about the death of those three boys as a means of riling up its people while the "desperate search" continued: http://electronicintifada.net/content/netanyahu-government-knew-teens-were-dead-it-whipped-racist-frenzy/13533

 

You seem to have this impression that Israel is a peaceful nation that is being provoked. We're talking about the nation that has far and away violated more UN resolutions than any other. 

 

But whats funny is that even if we ignore all of that, Gaza has been under siege for nearly a decade. The West Bank has been under military occupation for even longer. You shrugged off the question about the illegal settlements with "Illegal settlements are bad, n'kay." How can you possibly devalue the importance of that aspect of this conflict? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land that you acknowledge are illegal yourself! We are talking about millions of innocents being displaced from their homes that their families have held for generations. We are talking about Palestine, already a tiny fraction of its size pre-Israeli conflict, having its borders continually smudged due to the existence of these settlements. We are talking about the most densely populated region on earth being backed even further into a corner. When you pair those with a siege that completely halts any sort of economy, stops food and medicine from getting in, and literally rations food BY THE CALORIE. Is this not oppression? Do the oppressed not  have a right to fight back against their oppressors? 

 

Or would you rather the Palestinian people and militias simply lie down and accept their fate? Russel Brand actually put it quite elegantly- desperate people must use desperate measures (paraphrasing). Rather than blaming Hamas for firing rockets, and the Palestinian people for standing behind the group that is defending their right to exist- shouldn't we take a look at what brought them into a desperate frenzy in the first place? 

[Rumble In the Jungle]

Here is hairs reaction. "What about Hamas firing rockets though!"

[T-Dub]

[HairOnFire]

What's with the silly, transparent attempts to paint people with the Hamas brush?

 

Why not paint you with the brush when the support for the rocket attacks is so strong on this board?

 

Rocket attacks led directly to open warfare.

 

Hamas wanted this war and did everything it could to make it happen. It's their war.

 

If you support Hamas it's your war too.

 

Also, I have to ask when did so many of you begin to support Hamas?

 

Did the support begin when Hamas switched it's strategy to rockets from it's earlier campaign of suicide bombings?

 

Or did you support the suicide bombings as well?

 

Or how about the recent strategy of using the tunnel system Hamas built to sneak fighters into Israel wearing Israeli uniforms, as documented in yesterdays LA TImes article writen by Laura King.

 

Are you guys going to support that tactic as well?

[HairOnFire]

 Is this not oppression? Do the oppressed not  have a right to fight back against their oppressors? 

 

If Palestinians want war who am I to stand in their way?

 

But if they want war then they should take ownership of the war.

 

In short, they should take responsibility for the deaths that resulted from their need to keep fighting.

 

 

 

 Or would you rather the Palestinian people and militias simply lie down and accept their fate?

 

If there is to be peace someone has to put down their weapons first.

[T-Dub]

 

If there is to be peace someone has to put down their weapons first.

 

 

So long as it's not the "someone" with the overwhelming military advantage that's being used to commit genocide, that is.

[Homer_Rice]

RZ, that was an excellent post. Upvote and a seal of approval:

 

[Rumble In the Jungle]

RZ, that was an excellent post. Upvote and a seal of approval:
 

:lol:

[HairOnFire]

So long as it's not the "someone" with the overwhelming military advantage that's being used to commit genocide, that is.

 

Awkward, but yeah.

 

As for genocide, on July 8th Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on local television and called on Gazans to serve as human shields.

 

Further, there are numerous reports of Hamas commanders warning and then firing upon Palestinian citizens attempting to shirk their duty as human shields. 

 

Also, my morning paper documents how..."Hamas booby-trapped whole rows of homes, hoping to collapse them on Israeli soldiers." 

 

All things considered I wonder where you support for Hamas ends? 

[T-Dub]

 

All things considered I wonder where you support for Hamas ends? 

 

 

All things considered, I wonder where your support for Israel ends & how you came to the conclusion that Palestine = Hamas

[Homer_Rice]

 

 

All things considered, I wonder where your support for Israel ends & how you came to the conclusion that Palestine = Hamas

Dub (and others who may be interested):

 

I'm going to walk the cat back a little here to try to give these recent exchanges a bit of context. In doing so, I hope to address two issues--the first being an exploration of why Hair is not an honest interlocutor, as I said earlier; and the second issue is that I hope this post provides a rough blueprint for others of how one can investigate the underlying premises of this kind of behavior. It's important because this kind of behavior often baffles people who have genuine hearts and a commitment to honest discussion. It can be perplexing when a person who has no interest in being anything other than intransigent beyond all reason. So, here we go.

 

Why would a person refuse to openly discuss relevant questions regarding a topic and simultaneously engage in purposely distorting the remarks of others--in essence, trying to pin folks in a box that is clearly not representative of their views? And, when confronted with proper qualifiers that more or less declare-"Hey, that's not my box"--why would a person refuse to acknowledge those disclaimers and instead double-down on the intransigence?

 

Ideally, politics is all about the exchange of views and the search for solutions to problems. But while that is an abstraction which is honest and occasionally put into practice in serious public debates, the sad truth is that quite often people are willing to lie, obfuscate, distort, and deceive in order to achieve their political goals. That's the real world. So the trick as I see it is to be loyal to the abstraction which is worthy of fighting to put into practice while also remaining enough of a realist to understand that one must encounter folks who have a lesser loyalty to truthfulness and honest debate. In other words, one has to preserve what is best about one's soul while also being willing to get down in the dirt from time to time. Keep baby, deal with bathwater.

 

So, what's going on here in this specific context? It's one thing for Hair to be a vigorous supporter of Israel, if that is what he believes--that's not necessarily a bad thing--but it's another to use tactics which are designed to dictate the semantics of a debate as well as to deliberately exasperate other debaters. The latter type of behavior is not a slur on the others engaged in the debate unless one allows oneself to be browbeaten; rather, it is an indicator of the moral ambivalence of the person using those tactics. And my conclusion might be charitable.

 

Brass tacks time. Hair mentions that "my morning paper documents how 'Hamas booby-trapped whole rows of homes, hoping to collapse them on Israeli soldiers.' " Note the manner in which he characterizes this. While the fact of booby-trapping may well be true, after all this is the sort of thing which happens in warfare, that is not where Hair is being deceptive. It's the "my morning paper documents..." part of his comment that deserves attention. Well, if you track this back to the source, one discovers that the piece is not in fact an article documenting anything, it is instead an op-ed piece which by its very nature has a more relaxed reportorial standard than normal journalism. So, why would he deliberately mischaracterize this crucial fact? It's because he is not interested in an honest discussion. Instead, he is, much like his "Hamas-shaming" tactic, trying to dictate the parameters of the debate.

 

Here's the piece. Read it and draw your own conclusions. But let's investigate a little further. Who is Dore Gold? What is his background and more importantly, what are his politics? Turns out he isn't a neutral commentator. And that's okay, so long as it is out in the open. That is, it's okay so long as the abstract commitment to honest discussion is the underlying dynamic. But, if one's goal is to stifle the interplay of differing views among genuinely concerned people who deplore this situation in most, if not all of it's parameters, then one might try to subtly pass off an opinion piece as a bit of "documentation."

 

Dig a little deeper. Gold is an advisor to Netanyahu, he is the head of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Now, the JCPA founded the now independent NGO Monitor. The philosophical underpinnings and content which these organizations promote is worth a peek. Whether one agree or disagrees with the variety of positions put forth by these groups is left for the individual to decide. The point I wish to make here is that these are part of a complex of organizations which serve some pretty specific political aims. It's worth knowing what those aims are and in an open and honest discussion those political goals would, in turn, be part of the discussion, should an honest person wish it so. As would the remarks and aims of equally partisan critics of the NGO Monitor, such as The Electronic Intifada and Right Web.

 

People who know my track record here know what I think about neo-conservatism and its discontents. But that isn't important here. What is important is that Hair is either wittingly or unwittingly pushing a pretty specific narrative which serves a set of political goals. The promotion of those goals is part of the propaganda war presently taking place around this specific Gaza conflict and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, too. That propaganda war is highly organized by both sides and is particularly relevant for research and contemplation for any person who seriously wants to have an informed opinion about the matter.

 

Hair may or may not be an enlisted soldier in this propaganda war. He may just be, like us, an amateur who has developed a set of views which appeal to him. He can clarify that if he wishes. In either case, his tactics are pretty deplorable. And while this is simply a Bengals board on the internet, we don't know if he is saying similar things and employing similar semantic tactics elsewhere. He can clarify that, too, if he wishes. What is certainly true is this: whether Hair is an intimate or a freelancer in this propaganda war, there are thousands of folks who are actively engaged in trying to dictate the boundaries of discussion respecting Israel and Palestine. It's up to each and every person who has interest in this to investigate and decide which tactics, which facts, and which perspective to adopt towards the conflict. And in doing so, we reveal our character and at least a portion of our soul.

[Jamie_B]

Lol. Haven't you guys figured out that Hair has no intention of being an honest interlocutor on this topic?

Yep

[HairOnFire]

All things considered, I wonder where your support for Israel ends & how you came to the conclusion that Palestine = Hamas

 

You've spent weeks defending the rocket attacks.

 

Those rocket attacks eventually led to open warfare.

 

But you don't see the connection?

 

Please.

[BengalsRZ]

Dub (and others who may be interested):

 

I'm going to walk the cat back a little here to try to give these recent exchanges a bit of context. In doing so, I hope to address two issues--the first being an exploration of why Hair is not an honest interlocutor, as I said earlier; and the second issue is that I hope this post provides a rough blueprint for others of how one can investigate the underlying premises of this kind of behavior. It's important because this kind of behavior often baffles people who have genuine hearts and a commitment to honest discussion. It can be perplexing when a person who has no interest in being anything other than intransigent beyond all reason. So, here we go.

 

Why would a person refuse to openly discuss relevant questions regarding a topic and simultaneously engage in purposely distorting the remarks of others--in essence, trying to pin folks in a box that is clearly not representative of their views? And, when confronted with proper qualifiers that more or less declare-"Hey, that's not my box"--why would a person refuse to acknowledge those disclaimers and instead double-down on the intransigence?

 

Ideally, politics is all about the exchange of views and the search for solutions to problems. But while that is an abstraction which is honest and occasionally put into practice in serious public debates, the sad truth is that quite often people are willing to lie, obfuscate, distort, and deceive in order to achieve their political goals. That's the real world. So the trick as I see it is to be loyal to the abstraction which is worthy of fighting to put into practice while also remaining enough of a realist to understand that one must encounter folks who have a lesser loyalty to truthfulness and honest debate. In other words, one has to preserve what is best about one's soul while also being willing to get down in the dirt from time to time. Keep baby, deal with bathwater.

 

So, what's going on here in this specific context? It's one thing for Hair to be a vigorous supporter of Israel, if that is what he believes--that's not necessarily a bad thing--but it's another to use tactics which are designed to dictate the semantics of a debate as well as to deliberately exasperate other debaters. The latter type of behavior is not a slur on the others engaged in the debate unless one allows oneself to be browbeaten; rather, it is an indicator of the moral ambivalence of the person using those tactics. And my conclusion might be charitable.

 

Brass tacks time. Hair mentions that "my morning paper documents how 'Hamas booby-trapped whole rows of homes, hoping to collapse them on Israeli soldiers.' " Note the manner in which he characterizes this. While the fact of booby-trapping may well be true, after all this is the sort of thing which happens in warfare, that is not where Hair is being deceptive. It's the "my morning paper documents..." part of his comment that deserves attention. Well, if you track this back to the source, one discovers that the piece is not in fact an article documenting anything, it is instead an op-ed piece which by its very nature has a more relaxed reportorial standard than normal journalism. So, why would he deliberately mischaracterize this crucial fact? It's because he is not interested in an honest discussion. Instead, he is, much like his "Hamas-shaming" tactic, trying to dictate the parameters of the debate.

 

Here's the piece. Read it and draw your own conclusions. But let's investigate a little further. Who is Dore Gold? What is his background and more importantly, what are his politics? Turns out he isn't a neutral commentator. And that's okay, so long as it is out in the open. That is, it's okay so long as the abstract commitment to honest discussion is the underlying dynamic. But, if one's goal is to stifle the interplay of differing views among genuinely concerned people who deplore this situation in most, if not all of it's parameters, then one might try to subtly pass off an opinion piece as a bit of "documentation."

 

Dig a little deeper. Gold is an advisor to Netanyahu, he is the head of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Now, the JCPA founded the now independent NGO Monitor. The philosophical underpinnings and content which these organizations promote is worth a peek. Whether one agree or disagrees with the variety of positions put forth by these groups is left for the individual to decide. The point I wish to make here is that these are part of a complex of organizations which serve some pretty specific political aims. It's worth knowing what those aims are and in an open and honest discussion those political goals would, in turn, be part of the discussion, should an honest person wish it so. As would the remarks and aims of equally partisan critics of the NGO Monitor, such as The Electronic Intifada and Right Web.

 

People who know my track record here know what I think about neo-conservatism and its discontents. But that isn't important here. What is important is that Hair is either wittingly or unwittingly pushing a pretty specific narrative which serves a set of political goals. The promotion of those goals is part of the propaganda war presently taking place around this specific Gaza conflict and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, too. That propaganda war is highly organized by both sides and is particularly relevant for research and contemplation for any person who seriously wants to have an informed opinion about the matter.

 

Hair may or may not be an enlisted soldier in this propaganda war. He may just be, like us, an amateur who has developed a set of views which appeal to him. He can clarify that if he wishes. In either case, his tactics are pretty deplorable. And while this is simply a Bengals board on the internet, we don't know if he is saying similar things and employing similar semantic tactics elsewhere. He can clarify that, too, if he wishes. What is certainly true is this: whether Hair is an intimate or a freelancer in this propaganda war, there are thousands of folks who are actively engaged in trying to dictate the boundaries of discussion respecting Israel and Palestine. It's up to each and every person who has interest in this to investigate and decide which tactics, which facts, and which perspective to adopt towards the conflict. And in doing so, we reveal our character and at least a portion of our soul.

[HairOnFire]

Brass tacks time. Hair mentions that "my morning paper documents how 'Hamas booby-trapped whole rows of homes, hoping to collapse them on Israeli soldiers.' " Note the manner in which he characterizes this. While the fact of booby-trapping may well be true, after all this is the sort of thing which happens in warfare, that is not where Hair is being deceptive. It's the "my morning paper documents..." part of his comment that deserves attention. Well, if you track this back to the source, one discovers that the piece is not in fact an article documenting anything, it is instead an op-ed piece which by its very nature has a more relaxed reportorial standard than normal journalism.

 

Thanks for confirming what I had read in my morning paper.

 

As for my so-called great deception, Dore Gold is indeed an advisor to Netanyahu, which means he has access to more information than you and I could ever dream of. Further, as a current member of the Netanyahu government and as a past representative to the UN he's in a perfect position to address the issue of how propotionate Israel's response has been. Yet despite Gold's direct involvement in the events in question, and his direct reply to many of the questions and accusations made on this very board, you never once comment on the things Gold actually says. Rather, you offer vague excuses about why he shouldn't be listened to, and why I shouldn't be listened to. And then you write a bunch of other stuff that I assume you thought of while staring at your own reflection in a mirror.

 

 

 

 What is important is that Hair is either wittingly or unwittingly pushing a pretty specific narrative which serves a set of political goals.

 

The pretty specific narrative you speak of asks who is responsible for starting a war.

 

And to that end we all know who started the war and their reasons for doing so. Even Palestinians admit Hamas started the war.

 

And there's the rub because all other attempts to divert the conversation away from that simple fact only serves those who would pretend that someone else is responsible for the deaths that resulted.

 

 

 It's up to each and every person who has interest in this to investigate and decide which tactics, which facts, and which perspective to adopt towards the conflict. And in doing so, we reveal our character and at least a portion of our soul.

 

Your soul is currently busy defending Hamas for starting a war that has killed over a thousand people.

 

Rest well, brave interlocutor.

[Rumble In the Jungle]

Hamas didn't kill those people, Israel did. You're right about us done talking cause you're a lost cause.

[|Numbers|]

Obama: I unequivocally condemn Hamas. Unquote

Just saw it on tv so it must be true.

[HairOnFire]

Oh well, Israel has jumped the shark this time. The disproportionate response here just exposes the current leadership of that country for the bloodthirsty assholes they are.

 

The Dore Gold op-ed piece directly addressed the issue of proportionality that you speak of, but while you refer to Gold's piece you never comment on anything that was written.

 

Perhaps you were too busy staring at your reflection in the mirror.

[HairOnFire]

Obama: I unequivocally condemn Hamas.

 

 

For reasons I don't completely understand I just imagined a harbor seal giving Obama a high five.

[T-Dub]

 

You've spent weeks defending the rocket attacks.

 

Those rocket attacks eventually led to open warfare.

 

But you don't see the connection?

 

Please.

 

The war has been ongoing since the Irgun used the same "terrorist" tactics to create the nation of Israel in the first place. Or centuries, depending on your definitions. You'd have us believe they were peacefully minding their own business when Hamas just got a wild hair up their collective asses and started to launch rockets for no apparent reason.  Which, in your mind, apparently justifies anything and everything the IDF does, up to and including a stated goal of eradicating all Muslims from their ever-expanding territory.

 

Though, as pointed out, you're refusing to have an honest conversation for whatever reason & keep acting like resistance to a genocidal occupying army justifies further genocide, so I really am wasting my time with this.

 

ZOMG HAMAS SHOT SOME ROCKETS KILL ALL THE PALESTINIANS!!

 

Please.

[|Numbers|]

 
 
For reasons I don't completely understand I just imagined a harbor seal giving Obama a high five.

I don't blame him all by himself. I blame every single politician or military member on all sides who have ever stuck their fingers in the pie. Montgomery, DeGaulle, Roosevelt, etc... The list is endless.

[Rumble In the Jungle]

Yea those Hamas rockets!

[HairOnFire]

 

The war has been ongoing since the Irgun used the same "terrorist" tactics to create the nation of Israel in the first place. Or centuries, depending on your definitions.

 

Centuries or decades, doesn't really matter which since the only thing a retelling of past grievances accomplishes is it gives both sides fresh incentive to keep fighting.

 

Somebody has to stop fighting first, yet all I hear from you and others is how Hamas has a right to provoke a war.

 

Well, if true, then own your war. Take responsibility for it.

 

Shout from the heavens your reason for supporting the war, but own it.

 

 

 

 

 

 You'd have us believe they were peacefully minding their own business when Hamas just got a wild hair up their collective asses and started to launch rockets for no apparent reason. 

 

 

I've said nothing of the sort. What I have said is no country in the world would sit back and do nothing when a neighbor has spent years firing rockets into their territory or building tunnels to be used for murders or kidnappings. Further, if you want to have a conversation about proportional responses you might try reading Dore Gold's remarks since they address that very subject.  

 

 

 

Though, as pointed out, you're refusing to have an honest conversation for whatever reason & keep acting like resistance to a genocidal occupying army justifies further genocide, so I really am wasting my time with this.

 

I'd say you're wasting your time because you've been defending how Hamas started a war for what you described as symbolic reasons.

 

And now that the war Hamas provoked has started you waste even more time arguing that Israel's response has been disproportionate, as if a country that has been provoked into open war doesn't have the right to conduct that war as it see fit, and for as long as it sees fit. 

 

Last, I'm not refusing to have an honest conversation about this. But what I refuse to do is engage in a debate with posters who attempt to justify Hamas starting a war that everyone knew would look exactly like the one we're seeing.

[T-Dub]

You're out of your mind if you think Hamas started a war, is what I'm saying. There's been war there for so long that I would describe the rest as interludes. Further, Palestine is hardly a "neighbor", unless you build walls around your neighbors and then regulate their supply of food, water, and everything else. Sounds like a pretty shitty neighborhood. Top members of the Israeli government have a stated goal of exterminating the Palestinian people, let alone what land they've managed to retain. Israel created this situation and are only feeding the flames based on kidnappings that, it turns out, probably weren't ordered by Hamas to begin with.

And yet again, the IDF has killed more innocent civilians in the last 24 hours than every rocket fired by Hamas, ever.

Yet, even if we agree that both sides are equally guilty, I sure as hell see no reason for my government to be supporting either of them.

[Homer_Rice]

Note how Hair still refuses to budge from his script. He could have responded differently yet chose not to do so.

 

And, yes, Dub, you hit on something very important. The sad and ironic historical parallel here is not so much Irgun, but the Warsaw Ghetto. The worm turns, does it not?