-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/jewish-left-divided-over-israels-attack.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
what do you call dropping crap-loads of cluster bombs in civilian areas (including farms) in the waning hours before a cease fire kicks in? what kind of an effect does un-exploded cluster munitions leave on a farming community?
Terrorism is occuring on both sides. Small on one side - huge on the other. 9-11 was terrorism with a small 't' compared to what the neo cons did to the us, iraq and the world. I hope you realize this and then I wonder if you will feel like puking..
You are right. White phosphorus and cluster bombs are a dead giveaway that the IDF is not merely looking to hurt Hamas, but rather to terrorize the captive population in hopes of driving them away from Hamas thru fear of death from above. There are dozens of smoke alternatives that don't burn everyone it touches.
Of course, history has shown again and again that every time the Israelis kill Palestinians, another generation of Israeli children is sentenced to a life of fear at the hands of the Palestinian orphans. Israel will not survive unless they learn to drop the religious persecution and allow the Palestinians full citizenship. But I doubt the zealots who preach war, but hide behind the lines, will understand that until it is too late.
btw: the occasional amped-up bottle rockets is no excuse for torture, illegal imprisonment, murder and did I mention genocide?
And look at the number of posts in response to this article.
OK, next subject.
Collective Responsibility versus Collective Punishment
David J. Forman COUNTERPOINT
(Jan. 2) – I am an unrepentant liberal. Liberalism flows through my veins. As a progressive individual, part of that liberalism embraces a sense of fair-play. To be liberal means to apportion equal standards of behavior for everyone. Understandably, when passing judgment on someone else, one must take into consideration many factors; however, objective principles of judgment must be applied to qualify one as an even-handed liberal.
Not long ago, I spoke before a liberal Protestant group of clergy, hoping that they would express a balanced understanding of what is happening in Gaza. That was not to be the case. They were anything but liberal. To be kind, they were terribly naïve. To be unkind – but blatantly honest – they were simply a bunch of anti-Semites.
To prove this point, one minister asked me: "Why should there be an Israel? Who needs a Jewish state? Stunned, I responded: "Who asks such a question? Who needs America? Some Spaniard comes to a new continent, puts a stake down; and, lo and behold discovers a new world – America. Years later, England occupies this new country, and, over time, immigrants from Europe start arriving at America's shores. Calling themselves Americans, they wage a successful revolution against the British, after which they confine the natives (Indians or native-Americans) to reservations (refugee camps), expropriate their lands and occupy their territory. Then they import slaves from Africa, holding them hostage from the time of their arrival in the 1700s until 1964-1965 when respectively a civil rights and voting rights bill were passed. So, who needs America – with its aggressive war in Vietnam and trumped-up one in Iraq?"
I continued: "Would you ask the same question about every new "Kakistan" that is proclaimed almost daily since the fall of the Soviet Empire? What about Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq – all established by international fiat when the British and the French arbitrarily divided up the Middle East at the close of the WW I.? At least Israel was created by an act of an international body, the UN?"
Feeling myself on a role, I went on: "And, you are a Christian, who subscribes to the Judeo-Christian tradition that speaks about God's promise of the land to the Jews. So, who asks such a question? I'll tell you who – an anti-Semite."
I could have spoken otherwise, showing the Jewish historical link to the land of Israel from virtually time immemorial; but, I was tired of assuming a defensive posture, which unfortunately we Jews often find ourselves doing when trying to justify our legitimacy as a state. But, there are times when one has to just speak forthrightly, putting the other guy on the defensive. After all, the best defense is a better offense. After my onslaught, my nemesis became a shrinking violet. Apparently, my decision to be blunt had some redeeming effect, as I was beseeched after my presentation with a slew of apologies from almost everyone in the audience. Yet, I doubt I will receive a return invitation to speak.
But, let's get back to the subject at hand – the protests of Israel's actions in Gaza. The criticism is that Israel is employing collective punishment to combat the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas. What should Israel have done? We evacuated the settlements and pulled the army out of Gaza; and still, between quasi cease-fires, a steady stream of kassams rained down on Israel's southern kibbutizim, moshavim, towns and cities.
Israel had no choice but to react. Are we engaged in collective punishment? Absolutely. But, let's examine the notion of collectivity a little further. There is a direct link between collective punishment and collective responsibility? In Israel there are dozens of human rights groups that protest Israel's actions in the territories, claiming that the many are forced to suffer for the behavior of a few. It would be morally irresponsible not to speak out. By not protesting, we become complicit partners in Israel's actions.
Similarly, we must ask: Where are the Palestinian human rights organization that should be protesting Hamas' indiscriminate bombing of Israeli schools, factories and homes – a blatant form of collective punishment?
How should Israel have responded to this intolerable situation? Before launching operation "Oferet Yitzuka," it should have offered to talk to Hamas directly; called the United Nations into session to condemn the rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza; had government ministers meet with world leaders to pressure them to denounce Hamas' actions; urged our allies to influence moderate Arab nations to call Hamas on the carpet?
Let's suppose these efforts failed to stop Hamas' bombardments, Israel should have then flown jets a few meters above the houses In Gaza – day and night – constantly breaking the sound barrier with deafening noise; dropped stun bombs, stink bombs and tear-gas canisters; and, intermittently cut off electricity – every few hours – all the while allowing water, food, medicine and all basic services and goods to get through so as to avoid any humanitarian crisis and to prevent any loss of life, to both sides?
For certain, Israel should be conducting a public relations campaign that places the onus for its actions on Hamas, simultaneously distributing the Hamas charter, which makes Hitler's Mein Kamf look moderate. Israel should also show its disengagement from Gaza; Palestinians tearing down the left-behind greenhouses and public buildings, which could have served respectively as a life-line to Palestinian economic well-being and social improvement; Fatah and Hamas engaged in internecine battles that claimed 1,000 Palestinian lives; the arrests, kidnappings and assassinations by Hamas of anyone who opposes its mini-reign of terror in Gaza.
Most important, a publicity blitz should include Israeli families on TV, the Internet, You Tube – all in their bombed out homes, showing hysterical parents and crying babies, so the world sees that Palestinians do not have a monopoly on suffering. Perhaps then the international community might begin to understand the complexities of the situation – that nothing is one-sided. And, if the international community still persists on judging Israel by double standards – rarely mentioning the provocation for Israel's reactions (like the International Court of the Hague concluding that Israel must dismantle the security wall without mentioning one word about terror, as if the barrier was created in a vacuum); then we should take our case directly to them, putting our detractors on the defensive.
Had Israel tried the abovementioned, maybe Hamas would have gotten the message that it is not worth it to pursue its attacks on Israel; and, if not, only then, would Israel's present actions be justified.
Had we employed some "out-of-the-box" thinking before executing "Oferet Yitzuka," we would have been able to assume the moral high ground, demonstrating to the world that the real enemy is indeed Hamas, which spews forth hatred, so cynically and brutally confirmed when they dressed up a Palestinian as captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, pleading for his life before two-hundred thousand jeering Gazans. When such cruelty and inhumanity are put on public display, without a word of condemnation by any Arab leader (or from those ministers I addressed), then it is the Palestinians who become collectively responsible for collective punishment. If my liberal friends cannot understand this, then they are no longer liberal (if they ever were); and certainly, they are no longer my friends.
Why should Hamas negotiate with terrorists?
Collective guilt? What theological crap masqauerading as liberalism. Who the hell would want to be your friend?
I am scared and mad about the news blackout, the propaganda (from both sides), the mendacity...but I have to say, I read this...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/eyel...
and though I have known all along it is not black and white, the writer better expresses this being pulled in both directions feeling.
SImple answers don't begin to touch on the problems. I do know, if you had to live in a place (either of these) that made you lose your humanity (both sides) and claim "God wants me to be here" (both sides) then I think something is very wrong with the religions of this world. Inhumanity, in your name, will NEVER make you happy, content, safe, or be a base you can live well on.
I have no answers, and I know less than when I dug in to find out what all this was about years ago. Best solution I could come up with, because I hurt seeing those children, OR israeli children (Israel has a propaganda disadvantage (thought they make up for it in other ways) in that their homes are nicer, the rockets that get through do less dramatic (image wise) damage, you don't se block apartments with floors and walls missing, etc. but their children are most likely very scared, and this is doing its damage to them too.) or their mothers, or their civilian fathers hurt, maimed, killed, the best solution I could think of, get volunteers from Israel and Gaza (must match to the lowest number) who want to fight it out, the world pays for passage on some ships, get them to an island, with spears as weapons, or something, and let them war there...outcome determines who decides on a number of issues.
OR even better, each side picks ONE guy as their warrior,same thing, meet and all adhere to the results. Childish, yes, but is there REALLY no way in this day and age to settle major differences that do not do MOST damage to the non-combatants?