quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

It's a bit sad really that the concept of anti-Semitism has been devalued almost to the point of meaninglessness. It's a bit sad that it gets used as a weapon to end debate rather than as it once was, as a descriptor for a particular set of attitudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL Tweakabelle
Here’s another “simple option” instead of aerial bombing:
Send in a column of tanks, surround the mosque, evacuate it, search it, video any munitions found and then destroy the mosque. Israel deployed these exact tactics in the West Bank during the offensive that ended up surrounding Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. So there’s no doubt it can be done, that it is a viable option and the Israelis can do it and have experience of doing it. This option would have achieved any legitimate military objectives while minimising risks and dangers to Gaza residents or civilians.

No doubt, any experienced military person could devise many other “simple options" that would have achieved the same results.

Instead, the Israelis chose to use aerial bombing, a strategy that maximised dangers to civilians. Instead of doing it at night, when the mosque would have been empty, they chose to bomb the mosque at the very time when it was guaranteed to be packed with worshippers. Indeed the timing, and the choice of an fragmentation bomb suggests that it was deliberately chosen in order to maximise civilian casualties.

One could speculate that if the mosque had in fact been used to store munitions, and the missile attack ignited those munitions, the carnage would have all too easily been much worse - which begs the question: Was that the outcome the Israelis were hoping for?

Even in the unlikely event of there being some truth in the Israeli claim
that ‘all the dead’ were 'Hamas operatives’ (how could they possibly know this?), is it appropriate to risk 200-300 civilian lives to kill 15 or so ‘Hamas operatives’ ? Of course not.

Result: 15 dead and 40 wounded civilians.
Military advantage obtained: none/minimal.

I thought the Yasser Arafat 2002 Ramallah incident did involve some level of bombing AFAIK. I am not a military strategist so don’t know definitively why some situations should involve aerial bombing and others do not. I will hazard a guess and say though that it seems probable that Hamas had heavier armaments than the PA did at the time which would probably have made a ground invasion harder in Gaza than it was with the PA who were not as heavily armed. Thirdly, and yes I am sick of saying it to you but you just refuse to acknowledge it - Israel has the lowest civilian to combatant death toll in the whole wide world by a huge margin so regardless of whether they use air strikes or not, they achieve that standard.

It is wrong to say in the “unlikely event” what the Israeli’s were saying was true when you know for a fact that much of what Hamas says is fabricated. Not only do you discount Israel’s version of events but you accept Hamas’ events which were pretty much replicated in the report. It shows on your part a need to think the worst in Israel. Even if you hate the place surely you can see such bias is bad in itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
No, I do not, but I wish to see the word used with it's correct meaning, which is the hatred of Jews, not anything other, which it is being used effectively for and that being the condemnation of Israel's actions towards others.

At one time I did think otherwise, for some reason I did not particularly like Jews, but when I sought to question why I did not like Jews, as dislike without good reason is illogical, I discovered it wasn't Jews that I disliked, but a thing called Zionism and it was Zionism that I was seeing at work, not necessarily Jews, although Zionism is an ideal of some Jews, it is not I have discovered universal, so again, my thought was illogical, for it makes no good sense to dislike all for the actions of the few.

So here, I will say, to all those Jews who have been offended by me for my once held beliefs, you have my apology, but you will understand I will continue to despise Zionism, as that to me goes against any sense of human decency towards others.

But I ask for something in return ; Please don't assume people are anti semite, because they criticise Israel's actions towards others, Israel is not the entirety of the Jews, but, it is in it's observed actions, staining the Jewish character.What is at work in that far away land if left unchecked or not disassociated with, will undoubtedly cloud more and more people's judgement towards you as a culture. If you disagree with what is happening there show your disagreement so people may be able to differentiate between decent people and the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz
It's a bit sad really that the concept of anti-Semitism has been devalued almost to the point of meaninglessness. It's a bit sad that it gets used as a weapon to end debate rather than as it once was, as a descriptor for a particular set of attitudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It is sad that the concept gets devalued as hatred, on racial and religious grounds, is a very real force that the Jewish people have endured historically, and continue to suffer currently. Racism against Jews or Jewish people is abhorrent and indefensible.

The concept of anti-Semitism gets devalued by people asserting that any criticism of Israel is, and can only be anti-Semitic. It takes only a few seconds of analysis to realise that this claim can only be sustained by a double standard, a standard that sets Israel apart from any other country in the world.

Double standards are the very oxygen that racism needs to breathe, to exist, to survive. Without double standards, racism cannot exist. Therefore the claim that any criticism of Israel is, and can only be anti-Semitic is itself inherently racist.

Therefore, one could, if one so chose, argue that this claim is itself anti-Semitic.

It is perfectly appropriate to criticise Israel, Israeli policies, Israeli behaviour, and/or the Israeli Defence Forces where such criticism is warranted. It is not racist or anti-Semitic in the slightest degree. If the pro-Israel camp would prefer such criticism to cease, then the course of action open to them is obvious. When Israel stops committing and atones for its war crimes, I will stop denouncing Israel for its war crimes and praise Israel for adopting a better policy.

To denounce war crimes seems to me to be an obligation for anyone with a conscience or a commitment to human rights and justice. That any given war crime is committed by an Israeli or the IDF is no defence whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If that is your best reponse, then all I can say is it's pathetic.

PS Your third point re 'kill ratios' is (a) at best, irrelevant and (b) factually wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

It is factually self evident.

If you support Hamas, you are an ANTI SEMITE.


Period.

You support a mono cultural Theocratic Group, that has its origins in an alliance with Hitler, and specifically endorses the Protocolls of the Elders of Zion. A group that is dedicated to the destruction of the Jews. and rules its own peiople with brute force and extra judicial violence. You are an ANTI SEMITE. Of the worst sort.

Not a single one of you anti Semites has been willing to even acknowledge my assertions on Hamas using extra judicial violence on ITS OWN PEOPLE. You don't refute it. You whine to the Mods to have me removed.

You 3 (4 including RML, who I am franky surprised to see) support the use of Human shields. IN an OFFENSIVE manner. It is disgusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

It is factually self evident.

If you support Hamas, you are an ANTI SEMITE.


Period.

You support a mono cultural Theocratic Group, that has its origins in an alliance with Hitler, and specifically endorses the Protocolls of the Elders of Zion. A group that is dedicated to the destruction of the Jews. and rules its own peiople with brute force and extra judicial violence. You are an ANTI SEMITE. Of the worst sort.

Not a single one of you anti Semites has been willing to even acknowledge my assertions on Hamas using extra judicial violence on ITS OWN PEOPLE. You don't refute it. You whine to the Mods to have me removed.

You 3 (4 including RML, who I am franky surprised to see) support the use of Human shields. IN an OFFENSIVE manner. It is disgusting.

Let's back up here.

I stated very clearly that I don't support the use of human shields on either side, and I am far from anti-Semitic.

Do you just have a problem with comprehension?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

This is another example of such a deceitful lie by a supposed "guardian" of the term "anti-Semitism", that all criticism of Israel is labelled "anti-Semitic" in order to silence debate. Whenever any incident occurs in or around Israel the entire world media goes into overdrive condemning Israel. Nothing has silenced that one jot. No one says it is wrong to criticise Israel. It is the obsessive extreme condemnation of Israel where untruths or severe distortions are advanced, where the issue arises. No pro-Israeli as far as I know uses the "anti-Semitism" tag to silence debate - it is only used at times in response to very extreme pro-Palestinianism where the State of Israel is demonised often to a very shocking extent. (my emphasis)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
It is a very distinctive pro-Palestinian tactic, where they even have a pre-emptive form of the argument by making out that any criticisim of Israel is made out to be anti-Semitism, and then if the accusation ever arises, it is made out to be below the belt no matter how legitimate the accusation is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If that is your best reponse, then all I can say is it's pathetic.

PS Your third point re 'kill ratios' is (a) at best, irrelevant and (b) factually wrong.

Here is another good example of Tweakabelle's mode of argument which is not uncommonly found with pro-Paletinian advocates. I write a detailed refutation and she ignores 99% of it. She bleates on about civilians being targeted but then denies the issue of kill ratios being relevant, and even though it was largely confirmed by her friends Hamas, she makes it out to be a lie. I guess should thank her for helping me prove a point that it is impossible to discuss this issue with her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


Let's back up here.

I stated very clearly that I don't support the use of human shields on either side, and I am far from anti-Semitic.

Do you just have a problem with comprehension?

BUt your posts say otherwise. Why else would you create a false equivilancy. Hamas (and the PLO before them) use civilians as offensive shields. as a basic Stratgey. Israel clearly does not.


Hamas and Isreal are not equivilant. Unless you support ANTI Semites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
This is another example of such a deceitful lie by a supposed "guardian" of the term "anti-Semitism", that all criticism of Israel is labelled "anti-Semitic" in order to silence debate. Whenever any incident occurs in or around Israel the entire world media goes into overdrive condemning Israel. Nothing has silenced that one jot. No one says it is wrong to criticise Israel. It is the obsessive extreme condemnation of Israel where untruths or severe distortions are advanced, where the issue arises. No pro-Israeli as far as I know uses the "anti-Semitism" tag to silence debate - it is only used at times in response to very extreme pro-Palestinianism where the State of Israel is demonised often to a very shocking extent. (my emphasis)

No need to look beyond this page to check this claim out is there? Just take a quick peep at any one or all of luckydawg's erudite contributions. If still in doubt try checking out hippiekinkster's oh-so-hippieish effort on post #117.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I must say, I find this thread becoming refreshing of late as it speaks of understanding rather than the usual shit fest of; I'm right, your'e wrong, jew hater, anti semite bullshit that usually infests a conversation anytime anyone tries to arrive at some sort of sense in the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
I already included the reason.

You think the Goldstone report and the UNHRC is relevant to this discussion.

and One of the memebers of the commsion and the UNHRC "fact finded" in Darfur also.

and came up with a ridiculous conclusion, clearly driven by Politics. That being no Genocide has occured.

So it is very relevant to the "evidence" you cite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Congratulations Luckydawg!

You have been reported for your abusive and obnoxious suggestion that I am a racist and a liar. I find your behaviour totally unacceptable.

You are the first (and I hope the last) person to force me to adopt this course of action. I will not tolerate any suggestion from anyone that I am a racist of any sort. I find it repugnant. It is defamatory.

Lies, abuse and intimidation are no substitute for argument. Not your lucky day it seems .......

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
It is a very distinctive pro-Palestinian tactic, where they even have a pre-emptive form of the argument by making out that any criticisim of Israel is made out to be anti-Semitism, and then if the accusation ever arises, it is made out to be below the belt no matter how legitimate the accusation is.

So it's all a Palestinian conspiracy is it? ohhhh puh-leassseee! Best you tell luckydawg and hippiekinkster, they might be a bit surprised to learn that they are pro-Palestinian extremists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
You wrote a "detailed refutation"? Where? When? Did you forget to post it? Because I haven't seen it.

Are you suggesting that the gumph in your post #139 is a serious refutation of my post #115? I invite anyone interested to read both and make up their own minds.

Missing are any attempt to explain;
- why Israel chooses aerial bombing when many other far less lethal options are available;
- why the simple and far less lethal alternative I proposed is unsuitable;
- why Israel might choose to use fragmentation (anti-personnel) bombs to attack an alleged munitions store
- Why Israel chose to bomb the mosque during evening prayers when there 200-300 civilians worshipping inside;
- why Israel couldn't wait a few hours until nightfall and bomb the mosque when there were no civilians inside; and many other points.

You omitted to challenge my central point completely. You did speculate a bit, "hazard[ed] a guess" and dissembled a lot - but refute? Not a smidgin of it by any reasonable standards.

In post #147, I note that you have introduced the notion of self defence to explain Israel's excesses. You surely aren't suggesting that bombing a mosque in a foreign land during evening prayers with an anti-personnel bomb is an act of self defence are you?

quote:


"Main article: 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike
The report stated that the strike on the al-Maqadmah mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah occurred when between 200 and 300 men and women attended for their evening prayer, with 15 people being killed and 40 wounded as a result of the attack. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The Mission found that the mosque was damaged and lodged in its interior walls with "small metal cubes", several of which were retrieved by the Mission when it inspected the site. The Mission concluded that the mosque had been hit by an air-to-ground missile fitted with a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve, fired from an aircraft. The Mission based its findings on investigation of the site, photographs and interviewing witnesses. The Mission found no indications that the mosque was used to launch rockets, store munitions or shelter combatants. The Mission also found that no other damage was done in the area at the time, making the attack an isolated incident. The Mission concluded that the Israelis intentionally bombed the mosque.[4][79] Judge Goldstone said: "Assuming that weapons were stored in the mosque, it would not be a war crime to bomb it at night... It would be a war crime to bomb it during the day when 350 people are praying". He further added that there is no other possible interpretation for what could have occurred other than a deliberate targeting of civilians.[71] The report also reproduces a statement from the Israeli government concerning the attack, where the Israeli government both denies that the mosque was attacked and states that the casualties of the attack were Hamas operatives. The report says that the position of the Israeli government contains "apparent contradictions" and is "unsatisfactory" and "demonstrably false".[4]" *

quote:


For an analysis of how the Goldstone team conducted itself check out a very detailed article which refers in detail to how they treated the testimony over the attack on the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=45797 – not only did Goldstone ask a lot of incidental questions that were irrelevant but never once were witnesses challenged in any way. This was the same conduct for the other testimony too. Basically everything was taken at face value and all evidence sourced by the small number giving testimonials on the opposite side was pretty much discounted. The piece then goes on to note a number of those killed were involved in combat or were members of terror groups based on Palestinian sources. The assertions are referenced. Thus it seems not all was innocent at the mosque.

quote:


Here we have a case of a fragmentation (anti-personnel)^ bomb fired from air (ie aerial bombing) targetting a mosque during Friday prayers ie. the mosque's peak usage time when it was full with 200-300 worshippers.

I mean, no sane person could possibly be that seriously deluded ...... could they?

I am still waiting to see a single note of regret over this outrageous war crime.

quote:


Your defence of Israel's aerial bombing tactics doesn't include any consideration of civilian casualties . Indeed civilian casualties don't even get a mention. let a alone consideration. Which is, to large extent, confirmation of my point. And, I suspect, and an accurate reflection of Israeli military planning re the Palestinians - Palestinian civilian lives and/or casualties just don't matter to the Israelis.

quote:


Tweakabelle your criticism of my failure to mention civilian casualties is not fair so it can’t confirm your point whatever it may be. If you read post 74 you would see that I mentioned that civilians should also be protected. In the sentences immediately following the last I said: “It also has a responsibility to minimise the probable death of civilians especially in high population areas where there is a lot of conflict. Thus if it can get the civilians out of an area first before resorting to the use of heavy weaponry to seriously weaken Hamas then I think that sounds like a sensible compromise.” I also mentioned the need for the IDF repeatedly in other posts to be concerned about this issue. Again I say how can it be that civilian casualties do not matter to the Israeli’s when they have the lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in the world by a very large margin. You are on your demonisation buzz again.

quote:


Here’s another “simple option” instead of aerial bombing:
Send in a column of tanks, surround the mosque, evacuate it, search it, video any munitions found and then destroy the mosque. Israel deployed these exact tactics in the West Bank during the offensive that ended up surrounding Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. So there’s no doubt it can be done, that it is a viable option and the Israelis can do it and have experience of doing it. This option would have achieved any legitimate military objectives while minimising risks and dangers to Gaza residents or civilians.

No doubt, any experienced military person could devise many other “simple options" that would have achieved the same results.

Instead, the Israelis chose to use aerial bombing, a strategy that maximised dangers to civilians. Instead of doing it at night, when the mosque would have been empty, they chose to bomb the mosque at the very time when it was guaranteed to be packed with worshippers. Indeed the timing, and the choice of an fragmentation bomb suggests that it was deliberately chosen in order to maximise civilian casualties.

One could speculate that if the mosque had in fact been used to store munitions, and the missile attack ignited those munitions, the carnage would have all too easily been much worse - which begs the question: Was that the outcome the Israelis were hoping for?

Even in the unlikely event of there being some truth in the Israeli claim
that ‘all the dead’ were 'Hamas operatives’ (how could they possibly know this?), is it appropriate to risk 200-300 civilian lives to kill 15 or so ‘Hamas operatives’ ? Of course not.

Result: 15 dead and 40 wounded civilians.
Military advantage obtained: none/minimal.

quote:


I thought the Yasser Arafat 2002 Ramallah incident did involve some level of bombing AFAIK. I am not a military strategist so don’t know definitively why some situations should involve aerial bombing and others do not. I will hazard a guess and say though that it seems probable that Hamas had heavier armaments than the PA did at the time which would probably have made a ground invasion harder in Gaza than it was with the PA who were not as heavily armed. Thirdly, and yes I am sick of saying it to you but you just refuse to acknowledge it - Israel has the lowest civilian to combatant death toll in the whole wide world by a huge margin so regardless of whether they use air strikes or not, they achieve that standard.

It is wrong to say in the “unlikely event” what the Israeli’s were saying was true when you know for a fact that much of what Hamas says is fabricated. Not only do you discount Israel’s version of events but you accept Hamas’ events which were pretty much replicated in the report. It shows on your part a need to think the worst in Israel. Even if you hate the place surely you can see such bias is bad in itself.

quote:


I repeat - pathetic, utterly pathetic.

quote:

He made no accusation of anti-Semitism in the above post or previous posts to you either and yet you infer it. How strange.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I can clarify that
Luckydawg was reported for calling me "vermin" on another thread - the "3 month sentence for war crime thread"
I advised him on this thread.
He was in fact reported for that and similar abuse 3 times in 3 days
He remains the only person I have reported.
I note the tenor of his comments remains the same ...see his exchanges with rulemylife for example
I hope I don't have to report any one ever again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras




Tweakabelle:
Here we have a case of a fragmentation (anti-personnel)^ bomb fired from air (ie aerial bombing) targetting a mosque during Friday prayers ie. the mosque's peak usage time when it was full with 200-300 worshippers.

Anaxagoras:
I think you are the one who is deluded because you cited the Goldstone report in detail and I responded by citing an article which demonstrates the abysmal effort at even interviewing the witnesses. Accuse the article of bias but the very same article relies on Palestinian sources to prove a good number of those killed were indeed militants. Thus the Goldstone report cannot be trusted over this issue. This was reflected in the general conduct of the team - three of the four members of the Goldstone group had expressed strong condemnation of Israel over the Gaza war before setting foot on the territory and here they were investigating it. If the mosques housed a significant number of combatants at the time of the strike then it is a legitimate target. That is what the response asserts based on Palestinian sources. If Israel did knowingly fire in the Mosque when there were a lot of civilians inside then that would be very wrong but anything further asserted by Goldstone regarding the number of people in the mosque that were civilian simply cannot be trusted. They accepted every utterance as fact when there was contrary info available. Just imagine where any police investigation would get if that was the approach.
(my emphasis)