Israel Screwed Itself Over with Its Gaza Assault; the World Sees It as a 'Blood-Stained Monster'

[Ken Burch]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/121848

(That really WAS the actual headline)

Uri Avnery on the Gaza War

Excerpt:

"Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called "the Red Army" held the millions of the town's inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands."

"Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz."

"This is the description that would now appear in the history books -- if the Germans had won the war."

"Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as "hostages" and exploit the women and children as "human shields", they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Not exactly. Plus what about the constant missiles aimed at Israel by the Palestinians?

Those don't count?

[DogPoundPup]

2. Here's something about the 'missles' aimed at Israel

After Gaza offensive, Israelis in rocket-scarred town see no victory, only quiet

>Sderot is less than a mile from Gaza, a frequent target for the homemade rockets from militants there over the past eight years. Thousands have exploded in this town of 20,000, traumatizing residents and damaging many houses and businesses. Six people have been killed and a few dozen wounded.<

>In Nahal Oz, a communal farm a few hundred yards from the Gaza border fence and within eyesight of Gaza City suburbs, residents say the years of rocket fire are slowly killing their community. They are not confident the offensive will effect real change.

Two Israeli-made Merkava tanks stand between Nahal Oz and Gaza, pointing their cannons into the Palestinian territory. Several dozen tanks remain in rows in a staging ground nearby in case the week-old cease-fire falls apart.

"We very much wanted this operation, not because we are warmongers but because we have lived with this reality for years," said Yemima Barnea, who is in charge of bringing new families to the community. Her job has become virtually impossible.<

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-israel-unfinished-war,0,3882093.story

This article IMO certainly does give a pretty clear picture of what's really happening in the "Israel bombarded by *rockets*."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I read it. Sorry but I'm not getting what your point is. I'm not being facetious nt

[Ken Burch]

14. I think his point was that the bombing didn't actually help the people in Sderot and Ashkelon

The ones who were invoked to justify the bombing. Once this particular engagement is over, it's likely the Israeli government will forget those people ever lived.

[pelsar]

19. actually its "likly" that your not very well informed....

Once this particular engagement is over, it's likely the Israeli government will forget those people ever lived

one of the dumber statements that i've read her...and btw the people of sederot and the environs for the first time in 8 years area actually sleeping at night without wondering when the siren is going to go off.....(and this includes the 6 month lull of limited bombs).

all one has to do is ask some of those who live in the area.

[Ken Burch]

20. The article was QUOTING people in the area.

n/t.

[pelsar]

21. didnt read any quotes.......didnt find any....

but i did talk to quite few friends down there....

[Chulanowa]

15. Should they?

Honest question. While I understand the rockets are a problem, do they justify what was done to Gaza, Sarah?

If you believe so, I have a followup. Do you apply that logic to any other conflict in the world?
Is it okay for Saddam to have gassed the Kurds after they helped Iranian forces in the 80's?
Is it okay for the Chinese to engage in mass reprisal against Tibetans when the Nomads shoot at Chinese soldiers?
Is it okay for West Bank Palestinians to blow up settlement homes after being the targets of violence from those settlers?

[razors edge]

18. No, they don't.

Not when they kill less people than the settlers with rifles. It's a civilian thing at that level, no army involvement to speak of.

Armies have tanks.

Armies have howitzers.

Armies have planes.

Armies have rail and truck support.

Armies have the big shit you cant fit in one of those little tunnels Israel is screaming about.

Armies are supported by Navies.

Navies have destroyers that lob big shells.

Navies have subs that sink enemy support ships.

Navies blockade outside support of medical supplies

Navies have Air Forces to provide overhead protection.

Air Forces shoot down enemy planes in your airspace.

Air Forces drop big assed bombs on other people property killing lots of innocent civilians.

Hamas has been quite the fuck ups in their refusal to deploy all the modern techniques available to them in the current era of modern warfare. If they would only step up to the plate with a carrier or two, and a good PR outfit, this whole situation would would change in a New York minute.

[rockymountaindem]

3. That's silly

The Red Army was the official, uniformed army of an internationally recognized state. The Churchill cabinet was the government of an internationally recognized state. Hamas is neither of those things. Furthermore, nobody doubts that London contained many important military and civil targets and that Leningrad was a valid target of attack. The author is comparing apples and oranges.

[Ken Burch]

4. Hamas is an elected government. It's forces could, arguably be seen as the legitimate military

of that government(I'm not saying I'd say that, but a legitimate case could be made). Uri Avnery's point is that it's all in how you say it.

Plus, we can assume that the Nazis would dismiss anyone who opposed them, even those who did so nonviolently, as "terrorists". Hitler did not consider the Communists to be the legitimate leaders of the Russian government(except for a short period in 1939-1941 when it served his interests to pretend to do so).

As to your last line...did you actually MEAN to give your approval to the London Blitz and the Siege of Leningrad?

Your phraseology can easily be taken to mean that.

[rockymountaindem]

6. The Blitz was questionable due to the strategy of area bombing

which was not generally accepted at the time of the Blitz. By the end of the war, as you know, it had become commonplace. However, the siege of Leningrad was not out of the ordinary in those times. It was a key population and production center, as well as (along with the island of Kronstadt) a major naval base and port. The Germans had every reason to want it for themselves, or for the very least to deny its use to the Soviets.

And Hamas, for its democratic pretensions, is not an international recognized state. That makes a huge difference.

[Ken Burch]

7. You've fallen back on Jeane Kirkpatrick's old "It's not terrorism if the state does it" meme

Are you sure you'd want to go there?

You aren't really arguing that a state is allowed to fight with greater viciousness against a "non-state" force than against the force of a "legitimate" state, are you? In a historical example, that would have meant arguing that the early RAF had the right to carpet bomb Dublin in order to put-down the Easter Rising of 1916, or that the Redcoats would have actually had the right to herd people in to a church and set it ablaze like Mel Gibson falsely accused them of doing in "The Patriot".

[rockymountaindem]

10. Then by your definition all war is terrorism

Was the infamous Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid terrorism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt-Regensburg_mission

Apparently, 203 German civilians were killed. They died during an attempt by the Allies to destroy a critical component of German war industry. Were the American and British air forces wrong to kill them in an attempt to heavily curtail German production of ME-109 fighters and ball-bearings? If an attack such as this is "terrorism", then so are all modern wars. On the one hand, such an interpretation of modern, so-called "total war" may not be inaccurate. If this is so, however, directing such international condemnation at Israel while similar actions by the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan go without nearly as much attention seems hypocritical on the part of foreign media and governments.

I cannot claim any real knowledge of the Easter Rising and as for Mel Gibson, well, I just avoid him in general :)

[Ken Burch]

13. Wise choice with Mel.

I'm not necessarily saying that ALL war is terrorism, simply that it's very convenient for one side in a conflict to try to claim a false moral advantage by using that label for everything the other side does.

And, in Argentina, in the time of the 1970's military coup and the "dirty war" against leftists and pro-democracy people, the Argentine junta labeled ALL of its opponents as "terrorists", and used this label to justify inflicting unspeakable torture upon them or just "disappearing" them.

[shaayecanaan]

23. Its recognised by over one hundred countries...

how much more recognition would you like before you would consider admitting Gazans to the rank of normal human beings?

Is an atrocity not an atrocity if it is inflicted on a state that is not internationally recognised?

Were the crimes against native Americans or the Spaniards' destruction of 90% of the population of central America justified because neither of the recipients were occupants of a modern nation state?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Actually Hamas is not a recognized government, the PA is

Hamas won the majority of seats in the assembly in an election. Later it lead an armed coup in Gaza.

The case you are making is the the Repukes would have been considered the Government when they controlled both houses while Clinton was Pres.

[razors edge]

17. The case you are making is

that Clinton would still be president, if we held no more elections since 1999.

See how that works?

[anonymous171]

8. They lost their "moral authority"

[sam sarrha]

9. wasn't it actually what they've been doing all along a little at a time, instead of all at once.?

:shrug:

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Norman Finkelstein sums it up in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIr4lEIqTkM

[Ken Burch]

16. While Finkelstein was eloquent in the video, I could have done without some of the captions

the "Russia Today" producers put on the screen during it.

They kind of sabotaged Finkelstein with those, IMHO.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Yes, you're right.

I honestly hadn't noticed those captions. Thanks for drawing it to my attention.