Gaza rocket kills man in southern Israel

[oberliner]

A rocket fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Thursday killed a migrant worker in the northern Negev.

Paramedics brought the man to the infirmary at Moshav Nativ Ha'asara, but declared him dead shortly after. This was the third rocket fired from the Gaza Strip in less than 24 hours, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

One rocket hit an open area in the south Wednesday night. There were no casualties in the incident, but two women were treated for shock after hearing the Color Red rocket alert.

Two more rockets were fired on Tuesday at the western Negev, causing no casualties or damages. Residents of nearby communities said they did not hear the rocket alert before the explosion.

The rocket on Thursday was launched as European Union's foreign affairs chief was visiting the Hamas-controlled enclave.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157365.html

[proteus_lives]

1. And DU ignores this.

As usual.

[oberliner]

2. Here's something that won't be ignored

Israel vows to respond to Kassam hit

Israel warned of a harsh response on Thursday afternoon after a Thai greenhouse worker was killed when a Kassam rocket fired by Gaza terrorists exploded in the Netiv Ha’asara area.

The man, in his 30s, was evacuated to Ashkelon’s Barzilai Hospital, where doctors were forced to pronounce him dead.

A small Islamist faction calling itself Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility for the attack.

In a statement e-mailed to reporters in Gaza, the al-Qaida-inspired faction said the attack was a response to Israel's "Judaization" of Islamic holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank.

A second group, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, also later claimed responsibility.

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom warned that the attack would lead to a strong reaction, and said that Hamas was ultimately responsible.

“It is severe escalation,” said Shalom in remarks broadcast on Army Radio. “Israel will not return to the situation of before Operation Cast Lead. The response will be particularly fierce...I hope Hamas will learn a lesson.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171296

[proteus_lives]

3. You're right.

[cqo_000]

4. How is DU ignoring this?

[proteus_lives]

6. Take a gander through the I/P archives.

See the difference between the responses on when Israel's attacked and when Israel does the attacking.

[stranger81]

9. it mirrors the difference in scale & degree between when Israel is being attacked

and when it's doing the attacking. You can bet your last dollar Israel won't be satisfied with a proportionate response.

[proteus_lives]

10. What's a "proportionate response"

Launch one rocket back? Shouldn't a country defend it's people to the best of it's ability?

[LeftishBrit]

11. 'Shouldn't a country defend its people to the best of its ability?'

The problem here is what is 'to the best of its ability'? The wrong sort of response can kill lots of civilians abroad *and* get your own country into a quagmire of war. As both the UK and USA have discovered. By contrast, sometimes (not always, but certainly sometimes) peaceful negotiations can succeed when long conflict has failed - as the UK and Ireland discovered.

More Israelis get killed by dangerous drivers than by terrorists. One could probably save a lot more Israeli lives by a harsh crackdown on drivers who break rules, and e.g. an automatic ten-year prison sentence for anyone caught speeding, than by bombing Gaza. The Israelis wouldn't do this, because they would think, probably rightly, that it would be too much of an encroachment on civil liberties. Thus, countries *do* take into account other considerations besides defending their citizens from specific risks.

[stranger81]

21. +1 [n/t]

[howaboutme]

27. 15 years ago

I once had a lot of sympathy for Israel because their civilians were being targeted by terrorists. I used to argue with those people who were critical of Israel. "How can you say that?" I used to say when they were critical.

Just to show how times and opinions change, I now wonder if all those "terrorist" actions were actually from Palestinians or were they from the Mossad. I've gone from seeing Israel as the victim to Israel as the manipulator and aggressor who regularly gives the people of the USA the middle finger in response to our billions in "aid". I'm for giving those billions that now go to Israel to Americans who need it. No more aid.

Today I have sympathy but most of it goes to the Lebanese and the Palestinians. I see them as being the victims.

[stranger81]

20. Let's use US criminal law as an easy analogy for you.

When charged with homicide, one can only be said to be acting in self defense in most jurisdictions if he or she is not using more violence than is necessary to protect oneself. Certainly collective punishment of an entire population, or killing a hundred people to avenge the death of one, would not fit under that rubric.

At a minimum, a proportionate response is one that does not rely on wanton violence that is unnecessary for self-protection. I understand you'll probably argue that there is no such thing as a level of violence that's unnecessary for Israel's self-protection, but I'm also quite certain you reject the whole concept of proportionate response as not giving Israel sufficient latitude to kill whomever it likes.

[elias49]

60. Are you saying Israel should nuke 'em? n/t

[Mosby]

13. scale?

How's this for scale, the DU IP forum ranks 5th in total posts (299,961) behind LBN, GD, Editorials and Videos. All this for a conflict half way around the world involving a tiny fraction of the world population. (About 19.5 mil)

[oberliner]

14. Why do you think that is the case?

Seriously, what do you think is the reason for those numbers?

[shaayecanaan]

15. Its because we all hate Thai greenhouse workers...

I, for one, can't stand the little bastards. I'm so glad I finally got the chance to get that off my chest, I've been bottling it up all this time.

Alternatively, you might want to consider the fact that the other two fora that consistently get high ratings here are September 11 and Guns. I would guess that is because those boards attract spirited debate, whereas the Poverty board attracts hardly any attention because everyone agrees that poverty is bad.

The irony is that you and maybe 5 other people are the only people keeping this board alive in that regard. My general MO on this board is to wait for some statement from a right-wing poster that is clearly hypocritical or inconsistent, and then I try and to the biggest slam-dunk witty putdown that I can. It keeps me amused.

[oberliner]

18. You are an amusing poster

Good to have your biting sarcasm on board!

As to your analogy, while everyone agrees that poverty is bad, does everyone agree that Hamas is bad?

If so, what do people think ought to be done to prevent them from continuing to do bad things?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. The only way to undercut Hamas is to bolster Fatah.

The situation is not as bad as saying "Fatah runs the West Bank, Hamas runs Gaza" makes it sound, because 90% of the Palestinian population is in the West Bank.

As far as I can see, the Palestinians have, for a long while, been presented with a choice: Fatah says that they should negotiate with Israel; Hamas says that they should "fight" Israel (in practice, "fight" here is partly but not solely a euphemism for targetting civilians, but "fight" is certainly what Hamas presents it as).

The problem is that, until a fortnight or so ago, the Fatah method looked clearly doomed - it was totally clear that Israel was not going to agree to the foundation of a state that came even close to the Palestinians minimum demands through negotiation. That meant that Fatah didn't have anything to sell, and while violence had no chance of achieving anything either, it at least held out the illusion of hope. That left Hamas in a strong position.

In the past couple of weeks, that may have changed - it's finally looking as though Obama may be willing to put enough pressure on Israel to make negotiations a viable strategy. If Abbas and Fayyad succeed in establishing a viable state in the West Bank through negotiation, I suspect that Hamas's grasp on Gaza will collapse.

I'm still not optimistic - I think that Obama will blink before Netanyahu does - but if he doesn't, I think it may be the end of Hamas as a political force, and the beginning of the end for them as a terrorist/militant group.

[oberliner]

25. I don't think your population statistics are accurate

You make some very interesting points and predictions here; however, I think you are off-base on your population information.

You claim that 90 percent of the Palestinian population is in the West Bank, but the statistics I've seen indicate that there are around 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and around 2.5 million in the West Bank.

That would make it closer to a 60/40 split.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Good catch - I got confused between land area and population, sorry.

In which case things look even less hopeful than I thought.

[Mosby]

19. The superficial answer is that it's a divisive issue at DU

But the key question is why the IP conflict is so divisive among DUers when it's not among Democrats generally. I think there are a couple of factors at work here. The first is the division at DU between those who consider themselves Liberals and those who label themselves Progressives(1). Clearly Progressives don't support Israel continued existence in it's current iteration, consider Zionism a racist ideology and believe that the creation of Israel was a colonialist enterprise that should not have occurred. Mainstream Liberals and/or Democrats don't hold these opinions, and may in fact hold diametrically opposed views. I think this dynamic explains a good deal of the disproportionate attention the IP conflict receives at this site.

The second factor is a little trickier. While all pro-Israel posters here are not Jewish, many of the regular posters in IP related threads are Jewish. Moreover I think it's fair to say that just as Jews are over-represented in leadership positions within the Democratic party(2), I would suggest that we are also over-represented at DU. Add to this the fact that most Jews don't shy away from a vigorous debate and may take attacks on Israel personally due to our own connections to Israel. This leads many Jewish DUers to the IP forum to defend what they consider unwarranted attacks. I for one was posting on DU for several months before I found the IP forum, and while overall I enjoy posting at DU I don't enjoy posting in the IP forum, I see it as more of an obligation.

IMO these two factors I've outlined above mostly account for the enormous post count of the IP forum, there are certainly other factors involved, for example my informal observation that most DUers are stubborn as hell, but I think that it's primarily due to a philosophical split on the left combined with in-group effects.


1. Or if one prefers the left and the far left.

2. I believe the over-representation of Jews in the Democratic party leadership results from Judaism's focus on education and a commitment to social justice.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I think your first point is a good one, although I disagree with your terminology.

I would describe the group you call "progressive" or "far left" as "left" or "liberal", and the group you call "liberal" or "left" as "progressive" and/or "centre/right" and/or "mainstream Democrats".

Israel is in many ways a highly progressive country - it has good health care, progressive taxation, and used to have excellent education (my understanding is that many Israelis believe this has changed, but I'm not in a position to comment informedly). On the other hand, in a variety of ways - institutional racism, absence of religious freedom, increasing efforts by the current government to restrict freedom of speech, habeus corpus/taking of political prisioners, extra-judicial assassinations, freedom of movement, etc plus of course most of all its treatment of the Palestinians - it's relatively illiberal by Western standards (although still more so than much of the world).

Support for Israel in the I/P conflict is undoubtedly a central plank of the American Democratic party ethos. But, by the standards of most Western nations, it's not compatible with left-wing/liberal values (and the Democratic party is barely, if at all, a left-wing/liberal party).

[Douglas Carpenter]

45. actually polls do consistently show Democrats significantly more critical of Israel than Republicans

This is from the most recent poll produced by Rasmussen Reports. Although it is consistent with almost all other polls over the past several years:

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats and a plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either party favor an end to the Israeli settlements as part of a deal. Republicans are almost evenly divided on the question.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of GOP voters and 61% of unaffiliated view Israel as a U.S. ally, a view shared by just 46% of Democrats. Forty-three percent (43%) of Democratic voters see Israel as somewhere between an ally and an enemy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/49_say_israel_should_stop_building_settlements_as_part_of_peace_deal

This is from a Gallop Poll released on February 24, 2010:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/support-israel-near-record-high.aspx

.

[Mosby]

67. The complete results of that gallup poll

show that Dems sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians by an almost a 2 to 1 margin. The results are not much different from this one from '06:

"Republicans supported Israel over the Palestinians at a rate of 72% to 11%, compared to Democrats at 47% to 20%."

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=17460

The main difference being an increase of support from republicans.

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. that's true, but what it does show is that it is a myth to say that most Democrats are pro-Israel

Clearly a significant number are neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Considering the degree to which Arab people in general and Muslim people in general and Palestinian people in particular are utterly dehumanized and demonized in mainstream American media - it is actually amazing that in spite of that, 15% of Americans and 20% of Democrats are essentially pro-Palestinian.

[shaayecanaan]

59. Why do you think that right-wing Republicans are so supportive of Israel? -nt-

[shira]

61. Why do you think most liberal democrats in Congress and the US Senate are so supportive of Israel?

[shaayecanaan]

72. I'll answer your question...

1) Arab Muslim voters count for about 0.5% of the electorate in the US. US Jews count for about 2.5%, and turn out at elections at a much higher rate than the average, so their actual significance is more like 4%. The only place where Arab Muslims *might* have an impact is in Detroit, and surprise surprise, the representative for Michigan's first district is John Conyers, probably the US representative most sympathetic to the Palestinians.

2) Moreover, Jews are over-represented amongst company directors, the professions, the financial services industry and other industry sectors where the majority of political donations are likely to originate.

3) As other posters have pointed out, the left within the Democratic party is far less bullish in its support of Israel than the centrist/conservative element within the party.

This cuts both ways, of course. The reason that French conservative leader Nicholas Sarkozy is rather cool on Israel is because it would not be in his electoral interests to support them more bullishly, given the significant Arab population in France.

US Jews of course are very assertive about their rights to lobby their politicians as they see fit. But on the other hand, when the hub-bub about terrorism dies down (which hopefully it will eventually) and European politicians become more comfortable with appealing to Arab voters, you will probably see Palestinian interest groups become just as successful in courting the attentions of their own politicians.

As I have said before, I don't see the Americans having the stomach to force Israel's hand, ultimately. But the Europeans might, in time. It is probably the best prospect for peace that exists at the moment.

[shaayecanaan]

63. On second thoughts, scratch that response....

The fact is that Jewish support for the US Democratic party is very much an anomaly confined to the United States. In Australia, for example, Jewish voters support conservative parties by nearly a three-to-one ratio:-

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819935260.html

Evidence suggests that most Australian Jews follow their socioeconomic interests and vote conservative. A 1991 survey of the Melbourne Jewish community conducted by John Goldlust found that 24.5 per cent favoured the ALP and 63.5 per cent the Coalition. Equally, a 1995 survey of Jewish leaders in Australia, conducted by Professor Bernard Rechter for the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs, found that 26 per cent would vote ALP and 64 per cent Liberal(Conservative).

There is a similar tendency in Britain.

The main difference between the conservative party in Australia and Britain and the conservative party in the United States is that the Republican Party is a Christian populist party. Christian populism has always made Jews nervous. Indeed, the Jewish vote for John McCain in the last presidential election looked relatively substantial until he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, which caused that support to quickly evaporate.

To say that Jews vote Democratic because they are interested in social justice is self-aggrandizing tosh. There is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that they are more interested than any other ethnicity. Indeed, Jewish politicians and supporters within the Democratic party are far more closely associated with the very centrist/conservative element within that party than with the left.

If you look at it in those terms, the reason for the difference becomes quite clear.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. in America - Jewish people have for some time and still do make up a significant portion

of the left and also of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Granted in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, there are some figures like Rep. Alan Grayson and Rep. Anthony Weiner who are progressive on everything - except Palestine. But there are some prominent Jewish-American figures in Congress like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Dianne Feinstein who have some of the most progressive voting records on issues dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict.

In the academic/intellectual wing of the left, one finds quite a range among prominent Jewish-American figures. On the one hand, many of the most infamous neoconservative writers are Jewish-Americans. David Brooks of the New York Times went so far as to charge that the terms neocon or neoconservative is an anti-Semitic code word for "the Jews." There is no denying that most neoconservatives do embrace a particularly extremist and violent form of ultra-Zionism which is incorporated into their radical views about total American global dominance and hegemony. On the other hand, there is a long, long tradition of iconoclastic leftist figures like Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn and many, many more going back over a hundred years who are of Jewish heritage. Many of the most prominent and articulate critics of Israel and Zionism are also Jewish Americans. Even when one hears the term, "Anti-Zionist," it is almost always said in regards to someone who is Jewish. In fact one rarely hears that term directed toward anyone who is not Jewish. Which leads me to wonder if the term anti-Zionist is not itself frequently intended as a kind of anti-Semitic slur.

[shaayecanaan]

70. I think that that shows...

that Jewish people are more likely to be intellectuals (whatever their stripe) than they are to be leftist intellectuals.

[LeftishBrit]

66. British Jews are pretty evenly split between the parties

Used to be overwhelmingly Labour; now not, but not predominantly Tory either. Pretty similar political spectrum for British Jews as for British people generally.

On the whole, immigrants and their children, and those in disadvantaged minority groups tend to vote Labour, or the equivalent in other countries. Once you've got to the third and fourth generations, and relative prosperity, this tendency tends to diminish. The next group to cease to be overwhelmingly Labour will probably be the British Asians. (Personally, I wish that everyone, whatever their ethnicity or religion, rejected the Tories!)

'Christian populism has always made Jews nervous'

And naturally so - and indeed religious-right populism (basically 'Power to the People, but only those of religion X count as the People; the rest are aliens and animals') should make everyone nervous. Whether from Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims.

'Indeed, Jewish politicians and supporters within the Democratic party are far more closely associated with the very centrist/conservative element within that party than with the left.'

Not my impression that this is any more true of Jews than any other Democrats; few Dems are very left wing by the standards of other countries. Sanders, the one senator to the left of the Dems, is, I believe, Jewish.

[shaayecanaan]

69. You're right...

although I recall when I was in Britain when Thatcher was in her pomp there was quite a lot of Jewish support for her, I thought it was about 60%. It certainly seems to be a 50-50 split now.

Nevertheless, I would maintain that the reason for the variation between the 50-50 split in Britain and the 80-20 split in the US has more to do with the difference between the conservative parties in those two countries rather than any difference between British and US Jews.

My impression of the Democratic party is that the economic left - the FDR-style strain within the party - finds most of its support in the old manufacturing centres that are now saddled with post-industrial blight. Bourgeois supporters of the US Democratic party (including most Jews) tend to be politically liberal but are not economically leftist.

[Mosby]

68. The Australian jewish community is not a representative sample

compared to the US or worldwide distribution of jewish denominations, if fact you probably could not have picked a country with a more skewed distribution than Australia. The Reform and Conservative movements, which account for somewhere around 75-85% of religious jews worldwide, never developed in any major way in Australia. Australia has a very small jewish population (120K or so) and the Orthodox are by far the largest denomination, maybe as high as 90%. The Orthodox tend to vote conservative for some reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I have, and the difference is there's always posters going 'this will get ignored! crickets!' etc...

And when that stuff starts appearing in a thread, that's when I tend to start avoiding a thread.

Any attack on civilians are inexcusable and unjustifiable, no matter who carries them out...

[Tripmann]

8. Its fairly disengenuous of you to paint DU with the brush of indifference...

...merely because a topic in a specific section of the board doesn't get what you consider to be the necessary response

[azurnoir]

28. well where are you posting about it? n/t

[Ken Burch]

53. It doesn't vindicate the siege.

It might not have happened if the siege had been lifted by now.

At some point, you've got to accept that "peace through victory" isn't possible or desirable.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Killing random civilians is just wrong.

[shaayecanaan]

16. Poor lad, he died a long way from home (nt)

[bemildred]

74. Yep, cheap labor, a long way from home, and in somebody else's war.

"Rest in peace" and "Better luck next time kid."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Inexcusable.

[pelsar]

17. Oberliner....its a matter of standards..

hamas is "expected" to try to kill innocent people. They have made it clearly their policy in both word and deed. So there is not much more to say about it. Much like the russians or Chinese, when they go and kill thousands, it is more or less expected. This has been their past, present and they have made no bones about changing their ways-so there is not much to argue about.

and you can add the settlers too, to that aspect. We expect them to act immorally, they too have made it clear how they see western moral values....in act and deed

israel, with the "most moral army in the world" shtick has set it self up for intl criticism. Whereas the US is presently killing many civilians with its missile assassinations, at least the US isn't claiming any moral superiority.

Personally I think israel should claim its military will formally follow the russian model, and let the israeli values system with its own HRG and internal public pressure be the actual moral guide for the IDF.

this way the intl expectations will be much lower......
-----

a further thought:
the problem with using multiple standards is that if and when the Palestinians get their state, whomever is governing, and if the real standard of expectations is that of hamas (from enough of their "friends"), they are not suddenly going to accept a different standard...they will at best for a period continue with the standard of which they are accustomed to, to what their citizens are familiar with-and THAT is the real problem.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. So Pelsar, Israel is now shipping in people from Thailand to do its dirty work?

I've been meaning to ask you about this: are there any laws that govern how these workers are treated yet?

Back in the day, when my husband had to work in Israel, the workers would all be locked in a room after sundown... not let out until the morning. I guess he was lucky the buildings in which he was locked never caught fire...

[pelsar]

29. temporary workers are all over israel....

When the Palestinians started with the suicide bombers, blowing up busses and restaurants, israel had to close down their access to israel, in order to protect its citizens from getting killed...the roadblocks (a good example of consequences as a result of certain actions). That left israel with a major lack of workers, and temporary workers then started coming in: Thais, romanians, phillipinos etc..and with no govt control or oversight...conditions were very bad for those workers in the beginning. HR groups took up their causes and conditions changed with harsh punishments for those owners who attempt to circumvent the law.

The Thais in general find support in israel, stay for about a year, doing agricultural work, return and recommend the work to others. Phillipinos come on the same status as care givers with the same conditions.....

jewish israelis in general have a hard time doing agricultural or construction work-its a real shame since the outdoor, physical labor should be not just be a part of growing up, but it should be far more respected as a way to make a living than it is in israel for those that do (as it used to be).

you just reminded me of a sad example. i was passing by some construction workers one morning (arabs) and simply said good morning. One of them who was looking at me, said i was the only one who walked by who said anything. I figured it was because i had actually worked in construction, knew how hard it was, and tended to respect those that work in it-or it could be racism (i'm sure that is your preference) or elitism (my preference), in that the "workers" are not seen by the jews.
-----

sorry to disappoint, working, dynamic democracies with respected HR groups have a solid habit of changing to meet new conditions as they develop, and israel in general is very flexible. Proof again that its not the Palestinians as a ethnic, cultural group that is the problem, its the damn violence.

and the law of unintended consequences showed its cards with the suicide bombers, resulting in Thais coming to israel and the Palestinians losing out not just the economics but both groups losing out, by no longer working with each other.....there were many stories of jewish employers helping their Palestinian employees over the years, visits to and from gaza etc-it may not have been the best in your eyes but at least there was a relationship where people worked together, new each other....now there is not even that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. I think it's a mixture of elitism and racism...

As a person from a working class family, whose dad was a union electrician (as are many of the men in my family), I find both pretty disgusting.

But I'm glad to know that there are at least some laws in place to protect those who do the work that is beneath Israelis.

Several extended family members of mine lost work in Israel after Oslo. I know it hit their families hard. None had the kind of relationships with their Israeli employers you describe however; i think in fact that is pretty extraordinary.

My own relatives are educated, with a few exceptions to make a few bucks as young men, never had to make that terrible trip across Erez, which basically required you to leave your dignity at the checkpoint.

As you know, there are many things I do not respect about the nation of Israel (and a few things I respect very much). Its unwillingness to pick up its own trash is high on the list.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. One problem with your bullshit. Hamas didn't fire the rocket.

[pelsar]

30. hama owns gaza...they are responsible

they've claimed it, they tax the residents, have their own roadblocks, they make policy, and when they wanted it...there were no kassams.

that old arafat trick has long been exposed, though it still gets bought by the naive and those who want to believe that the Palestinians are a bunch of helpless victims, who cant do anything (as they try to kill others)

--------
hey wasnt it hamas that killed about 16 in a mosque in s.gaza about a few months ago of some splinter group that didnt want to "listen to them".....hamas has a way of enforcing their policies, dont they?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/14/Hamas-forces-attack-mosque16-killed/UPI-84681250284993/

---

this reminds me of the egyptian border...takes people about a year here to actually accept the new realities...so too with hamas owning gaza, give it a year and people will accept that hamas is the governing body responsible for the internal happenings

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. The NYT notes "Ansar al-Sunna, a small, fiercely anti-Western jihadist group that challenges Hamas

claimed responsibility for the attack.

....

Hamas has made some efforts to prevent rocket fire by smaller militant groups. Both Israel and Hamas declared unilateral cease-fires to end the Gaza war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/middleeast/19gaza.html?scp=2&sq=hamas&st=cse


Israel "owns" the land from the river to the sea; it certainly doesn't prevent every act of violence.

[oberliner]

33. Where did they get their rockets from?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. The NYT does not really do investigative reporting in Israel. It's a problem. nt

[oberliner]

36. Gaza is part of Israel?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. You think the NYT bases reporters in GAZA? LOL their reporters' kids serve in the IDF

for fuck's sake.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. I do hope DUers know that NYT Israel-based Ethan Bronner's son serves in the IDF.

No worries though. It doesn't affect Bronner's objectivity.
No sir, not one bit.

[oberliner]

47. An investigation ought to be done by a Palestinian reporter living in Gaza

...and they should report their findings in a Palestinian news source.

Is there a problem with that?

[shira]

48. That would be great but the authorities in Gaza aren't for freedom of press or dissent

The only reporting out of Gaza (and the W.Bank for that matter) comes from Palestinian stringers loyal to the local government.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. I think Israel gets a mixed grade on that. While there is certainly published opinion in Israel

which criticizes the gov't, foreign press is dealt with differently:

You might find this interesting:


How the Western press distorts the Mideast (Part 2); Israel’s news management

by James North on March 16, 2010 · 22 comments

The superb young Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk was in for some big surprises when he left Egypt after several years and started covering Israel during the second intifada. His reports from the Arab world had not prompted much of a response from readers and viewers. But his new assignment was different. “If I made a factual error about Israel, five letters would arrive saying, ‘Your correspondent is anti-Semitic.’”

The second half of his valuable new book, People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East, is an inside look at how the Israeli government and the Israel lobby try and manipulate news coverage overseas. He is astonished at his first visit to a plush Israeli government press center, set up in a 5-star hotel in Jerusalem: “Young Israeli men and women walked around in olive-green army uniforms handing out sheets of great quotes. In efficient, friendly, and fluent English, they told us about the forthcoming press conference and the briefing later that day to be given by a defense specialist.”
Everything was ready to help the pack of harried international journalists who show up in a crisis. “The world’s media were given everything they needed with practiced skill, and more,” he explains. “Rights-free archive material of Israeli soldiers giving first aid to Palestinians; the phone numbers of spokesmen who could explain the government’s perspective in any major language and in the required number of words. . .”

Luyendijk cannot hide his amazement: “A complete alphabet of ‘optimistic stories’ had been cooked up for the correspondents: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic children together in one school; olive branches from Israelis and Palestinians; joint musical performances. You had only to telephone the Palestinian or Israeli organizers of these hopeful projects. . . and the great quotes, checkable information, and striking visual details would be served to you on a plate.”
He exposes another Israeli news management tactic. “After enduring an attack that caused a high civilian death toll, the Israeli government would wait a standard twenty-four hours before retaliating. The world’s press was given time to pause and reflect on Israeli suffering because, as soon as Israel took revenge, that would dominate the headlines.”

He also watches the international Israel lobby in action. A Jewish-American businessman boasts in the Israeli media that “he’d managed to get rid of the critical correspondent of the Miami Herald by threatening to withdraw advertisements from it.” He goes on: “Israeli ambassadors and lobbyists also visited leading editors and producers at television networks, cable news television, and the main daily and weekly newspapers in many Western countries. Pro-Israeli Jewish and Christian fundamentalist clubs in America invited ‘good’ correspondents and commentators to give lectures, for attractively high fees.”


The Israeli government collects damaging facts for use at the right time: Palestinian television sermons in which Jews are compared to “monkeys and pigs,” for instance, or anti-Israel passages in Palestinian textbooks. But, he says, “the inverse didn’t happen.”

The world does not learn, for example, that: “Quite a few Israeli schoolbooks avoid mentioning the fact that Palestinians were living there before the foundation of Israel. Some rabbis want to burn down the Aqsa mosque; Israeli generals have called Palestine ‘a cancerous growth’; and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish party has pleaded for the ‘extermination of Arabs.’”

Luyendijk dissects the twisted language that has become so much a part of Mideast discourse that we all too often take it for granted. “Hamas is ‘anti-Israeli’; Jewish settlers are not ‘anti-Palestinian,’” he explains. “Palestinians who use violence against Israeli citizens are ‘terrorists’; Israelis who use violence against Palestinian citizens are ‘hawks’ or ‘hard-liners.’ Israeli politicians who seek a peaceful resolution are ‘doves’; their Palestinian equivalents are ‘moderates’ – implying that deep down all Palestinians are fanatics.”

He sums up, “You could see the double standards more clearly if you turned things around: ‘Moderate Jew Shimon Peres’s anti-Islamic speech has caused great unrest amongst Palestinian doves.’”
If the Israel propaganda effort could be reduced to a single line, Luyendijk says it would be, “They are killing innocent Jews.” He explains: “‘They’ means ‘All Palestinians are guilty’; ‘innocent’ means ‘The motive is hatred’; and ‘Jews’ means ‘It’s not about Israelis or Zionism; this is just one more slaughter of the Jews.’”

(Why were the Palestinian spokesmen who should have been responding so dull and inept? Luyendijk partly blames Yasser Arafat – for picking loyal cronies instead of the smart, articulate Palestinians who might have used their new prominence to challenge his own power.)

In Luyendijk’s final year, he went to live in East Jerusalem, where he came to understand the Israeli occupation for the first time. He emphasizes that “the occupation itself was never news, but each new attack was.” The occupation was particularly hard to show on television: “it didn’t get any further than shots of tanks, soldiers checking papers, and long queues of civilians. How could correspondents portray the misery, repression, and injustice behind such scenes?”
He reminds us: “The Palestinian Authority had to continually explain whether it was ‘doing enough against terrorism.’ Israeli politicians never had to explain if they were ‘doing enough against the occupation.’”

Luyendijk’s tour of duty in the Mideast ended right after he covered the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, and was thoroughly disgusted by most of the other reports. “If the Western mass media had done their job during the war,” he writes, “viewers would have sat in front of their television sets crying and vomiting.” He channeled his anger into this book, which to his great surprise became a bestseller in Holland. He has added a useful afterword for the American translation, which includes some specific suggestions, (including an endorsement of independent websites).

As he summarizes, “Much of the glamour and posturing that war correspondents revel in suddenly become pretty ridiculous when you enlarge the frame and reveal how they really operate.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/how-the-western-press-distorts-the-mideast-part-2-israels-news-management.html

[shira]

58. What are you talking about? The foreign press, based in Israel, can publish anything they wish..

...about Israel, from fact to outright fiction and demonisation, and no harm will come to them.

Foreign press within the Palestinian territories are not allowed to report simple facts that embarass the local government.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. Read what I posted. nt

[shira]

64. I did. You think what Israel is accused of doing in that article is against journalistic ethics?

Or that it restricts freedom of the press?

And if so, how?

[pelsar]

41. but israel is responsible for every act coming out of israel

the settlers may run wild (do run wild), but its israel that remains responsible....kassams that fly remain hamas responsibility,..and though they really can't control every one...they still remain responsible

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. I suppose they are in that sense. But I don't think they are actively encouraging it. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Was Rabin responsible for Baruch Goldstein?

It would not amaze me if Hamas were complicit in this killing. But, so far as I am aware, there is as yet no evidence that there are, and the idea that no Palestinian group would try to kill Israelis without Hamas's involvement strikes me as foolish.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. Or for the 30 olives trees destroyed this week?

[pelsar]

43. of course israel is responsible for Goldstein killings....

he was an israeli citizen went to pray at a place where both arabs and jews pray, where the IDF was responsible for the security..and he went and killed 29 people. Govts are responsible for the actions of its citizens and those within its society. The govt will not be able to control every action, but they are never the less responsible.

Hamas rules with an iron fist, its pretty hard to imagine anybody doing something they 'don't like" and living to tell about it.......but that point is mute: they own gaza and all the happenings within, just as israel is responsible for its own.

and the olive trees...thats why the IDF sometimes even trys to stop them..

but the accusations are actually rather funny. Are you actually arguing that the state of israel is NOT responsible for the settlers and their doings?, somehow i find that rather difficult to believe. But then again if hamas isn't responsible for the kassams i guess its consistent to claim that the israeli govt isnt responsible for the settlers....

is that your claim?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. The settlements yes; Goldstein no.

I think that the Israeli government is directly responsible for most of the crimes of the settlers, because it tacitly endorses them, and there are a great many steps it could reasonably be expected to take to prevent them, or punish those responsible to deter others, that it doesn't take. I don't think the same is true of Goldstein - I don't know (although I'm not an expert) of anything the Israeli government of the time could reasonably have been expected to do that would have stopped Goldstein, and since he was killed the question of punishment is not relevant. So far as I know, the most one could accuse the Israeli government of doing in the Goldstein case is creating an atmosphere in which acts like that flourish.

I think that Hamas is responsible for the kassams it fires, and those it tacitly endorses or turns a blind eye to. It would not surprise me one bit if this missile were in one of those categories, but as of now I haven't seen any substantive evidence that it did; I don't find your "Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist, nothing happens there that they don't want" argument convincing, especially because it hinges on the "living to tell about it" clause that you mention, which I don't think is a foregone conclusion.

So I'm not arguing that Hamas *isn't* responsible for this killing, either directly or indirectly, but I am arguing that your degree of confidence that they *are* is misplaced.




N.B. I intentionally write "The Israeli Government" and "Hamas", not "Israel" and "Gaza" or "The Israeli people" and "The Gazans"

[oberliner]

51. Hamas as the de facto authority in Gaza has the responsibility to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks

Do you disagree?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Only partially.

I would say "Hamas, to the extent to which they are the de facto authority in Gaza, have a responsibility to take all reasonable precautions to stop rocket attacks" - it is not clear to me how complete their control over Gaza is. Someone in this thread (Pelsar?) was drawing attention to the recent incident where they killed some members of a rival faction in a shootout as an indication that their control is near-total, whereas I would be inclined to think that it's a sign that it isn't.

But, basically, I would agree with that. While it's possible that Hamas did all they could reasonably have been expected to do to prevent this attack, I sure as hell wouldn't place money on it.

Plus, of course, there's the fact that whatever their involvement in this missile, Hamas certainly have fired a great many themselves.

[pelsar]

57. that "loophole" of yours...in terms of responsibility is THE major disagreement

Thats what arafat did and many simply "ate it up"...he could talk peace, feed the extremists on the side and when israelis were killed in a terrorists attack he could play the "Mad Magazine" cover:

"What Me?"............

------

and thats the plan for any further withdrawl....israel withdrawals, attacks continue and the Palestinians govt and their western backers claim...."but its not us", we can't control those rogues groups....as your wrote: there is no "proof"

thereby eliminating the legal response for israel to defend itself with the imperfect weapons of today, and at the sametime the Palestenians govt gets to claim they're doing their "best."

and israel?....gets to do nothing "legally", realistically, practically to protect it citizens......as the terror continues. (see gaza for the multitude of different attempts at stopping the kassams-all condemned as war crimes), with the PA then hamas claim: 'but its not us"

Its not a matter of perfect control, its a matter of total responsibility, if you cant be that responsible, then you have no business agreeing to anything
______
as far as the descriptions you used: gaza, israeli people, PA govt, etc...i dont worry about that, its clear we're talking using generalizations and i don't believe we have to worry about those differences unless they are the actual subject.

[oberliner]

50. Hamas as the de facto authority in Gaza has the responsibility to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks

[ProgressiveMuslim]

54. Just not the authority to receive aid or build an economy. Interesting.

[oberliner]

55. Human Rights Watch: Rocket responsibility is Hamas's

JERUSALEM, March 19 (UPI) -- Hamas should bring to justice those responsible for a rocket attack fired from Gaza into Israel that killed a civilian, a human rights group says.

Ansar al-Sunna, a previously unknown Palestinian armed group in Gaza, claimed responsibility for the March 18 attack which killed Manee Singmueangphon, a 33-year-old migrant Thai who worked in a commercial greenhouse in Netiv Ha'asara, 437 yards north of the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch reported Friday.

"Hamas as the de facto authority in Gaza has the responsibility to stop indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

"The failure to bring justice for laws of war violations by both sides is fueling the suffering of civilians in Israel and Gaza."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/03/19/Group-Rocket-responsibility-is-Hamass/UPI-17591269016702/

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. UNHRC chief: Both sides failed to investigate selves as per Goldstone report.

In the text, submitted in writing on Thursday, she noted the Palestinian Authority’s creation of a five-member independent committee as well as the two committees formed by the “de facto authorities in Gaza.”

But, she said, “the late launching of these initiatives brings into question the commitment of responsible Palestinian authorities to satisfying the criterion that a remedy be prompt.”

With respect to Israel’s efforts, she said that neither the army’s “criminal or command investigations are adequate.”

She added, “All of the command investigations, special and ordinary, appear to rely predominantly if not exclusively on information provided by those potentially implicated in the violations. They do not appear to meet the standards required for practical independence.”

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171422

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. Times watch by James North

There’s a disappointing story in the New York Times today about that fatal rocket attack on Israel yesterday. It plays pretty big, on page three.

In the first paragraph we are informed that the rocket was fired from "Hamas-controlled" territory.

It isn’t till we reach the fifth or sixth paragraph that we are told that "Ansar al-Sunna, a small, fiercely anti-Western jihadist group that challenges Hamas" takes responsibility for the attack. And then, much lower down, it says that Hamas "has made some efforts to prevent rocket fire by smaller militant groups."

So, basically, Israel went in, destroyed the Gaza police force, smashed everything to pieces, and now is holding the Hamas government responsible for everything that happens in every square inch of its territory.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/times-watch.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mondoweiss+%28Mondoweiss+%28Posts%29%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail&safe=on&safe=on&safe=on

[shira]

73. Rocket launched at Ashkelon; none injured

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3871071,00.html

QUESTION:

Why aren't all the "peace and human rights" groups begging, pleading, or pressuring Hamas to stop rocket fire so that a future OCL can be avoided?

:sarcasm: