Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

How about this...

Israels killing of civilians in Palestine is bad, but the Palestinian killing of Israeli civilians is worse?

but...but, McG! How can you say such a thing?! Obviously killing is bad no matter who does it!

Israel targets terrorists and terrorist leaders who hide amongst civilians. Some civilians die sometimes when Israeli forces strike. Palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians and kill them directly. No effort is made except to kill as many as possible.

That's why it's worse.

Many argue that Israel is morally superior because Palestinian militants commit acts of terror, deliberately target Israeli civilian and bomb civilian areas. The Israelis supposedly have the moral high ground despite the fact they have killed far more civilians with their indiscriminate attacks. The focus on Palestinian terrorism allows partisans to ignore that Israel has made life in the occupied territories a living hell, that the IDF and Israeli settlers regularly commit war crimes, including torture, against Palestinian civilians, that Israel is in flagrant breach of international law by grabbing Palestinian land and that the Palestinians, as victims of ethnic cleansing, have a legitimate historical grievance.

Regardless, recent events in the Gaza strip have made even this flimsy defence of Israel irrelevant. In response to the capture of an Israeli soldier, a legitimate military target if ever there was one, Israel has resorted to attacking civilian infrastructure in the Gaza strip, including Gaza's only power station and bridges. The UN special envoy to the Middle East, Alvaro de Soto "rebuked Israel for destroying civilian buildings in Gaza and urged it to abide by international law"1. If there was any doubt, the Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert made his plans for collective punishment clear by declaring that "No one will go unpunished". This moral turnabout leaves Israel's defenders in an awkward position. They'll probably claim it was a terrorist power plant used to generate terrorist electricity.

Or perhaps they'll argue that the Palestinians deserve to be punished because they voted for the wrong party in their democratic elections - HAMAS.

It was a close election and HAMAS is generally considered to have won due to Fatah's corruption and incompetition. Actual surveys of current Palestinian opinions show that most do not support HAMAS or terrorism. 2

83% support that (resistance) be restricted in the Occupied Territories.
74% support the view that the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
Only 33% support HAMAS; 37% would vote for it

So, in other words, Israel is openly attacking Palestinian civilians for the actions of a government (HAMAS) that doesn't even enjoy much popular support. This is precisely the moral equivalent of what Palestinan terrorists do when they attack Israeli civilians for the human rights abuse committed by the popularly elected Israeli government. No matter how clear this moral equivalence becomes, Israel's staunch defenders refuse to admit that the Palestinian resistance is founded upon legitimate grievances.

Perhaps the underlying moral principle is that no matter what Israel does, Israelis cannot commit terror, only Arabs. A case in point is the massacre committed by the IDF soldier, Eden Natan Zada 3:
The killing of four Palestian citzens of Israel by the 19-year-old soldier Eden Natan Zada on 4 August last year, shortly before the disengagement from Gaza, has been quietly forgotten by the world. After the Arab victims were buried, the only question that concerned Israelis was who killed Zada.

Yesterday they appeared to get their answer: seven men from Shafa'amr were rounded up by Israeli police to stand trial for his "cold-blooded" murder.

No one was interested in the official neglect of the families of Shafa'amr's dead, all of whom were denied the large compensation payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian terror. A ministerial committee ruled that, because Zada was a serving soldier, his attack could not be considered a terrorist incident. Apparently only Arabs can be terrorists. To this day the state has not given the families a penny of the compensation automatically awarded to Jewish families.
As Israel is a self-declared ethnic state founded upon racial exclusivism, it is no surprise that even the definition of basic concepts such as "terrorism" depend upon which race you are talking about.

More : http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/7/3/64311/65909

How then do you account for the much higher mortality among Palestinians, compared to Israelis in this struggle? The supposed restraint and careful selectivity of the Israelis appears to be far deadlier than the corresponding activities of the 'terrorists'.

Very often the terrorists leaders who "hide amongst civilians" are merely going about their daily lives and doing things like driving their children to school when they (and sometimes their children and passersby) are killed by Israeli airstrikes or assassins.

The obvious purpose of the actions of both the Israelis and the so-called terrorists is to demoralize the opposition and ventillate rage over this miserable situation.

You are merely recycling well-worn and tiresome Israeli propaganda.

Nonsense. "so-called terrorists"? What would you call them?

The purpose of the Palestinian terrorists may be to demoralize the opposition, but Israeli actions are to stop the destruction of Israel. Terrorist leaders must realize they have targets on their back. It comes with the job choice they have chosen as terrorists. I often see the numbers of Palestinians killed used as an example of how much deadlier the Israelis are. I don't see that that has any bearing on the struggle. Israel is more effective, has better firepower and uses bombs and missiles to kill their opponents as opposed to human bombs. Israeli's have bomb shelters built into their homes, they have gas masks, they live every day knowing that a suicide bomber could choose that day to blow themselves up next to them. What need for them to have these things unless the threat was very real from the people that surround their small country?

Until the Palestinian terror groups put down their weapons and pick up shovels to start rebuilding their homeland, they leave Israel no choice but to target those that would kill them.

Propaganda? Maybe. Truth? Yes.

I would call them people who have been accused of terrorism by Israel but who can now never be tried for it because they are dead.



Israel isn't being destroyed. It is, in fact, expanding. When Israel destroys the homes of "terrorists" who do you think rebuilds in their place?



I read something interesting today about the assassination policy of Israel and its effects. http://www.jmcc.org/research/reports/assassin.htm



So their moral superiority in this conflict is derived from their fire power?



Where exactly is this homeland that you speak of?

The fact remains that the carefully targeted and planned Israeli "retaliation" measures, taken, as you claim, with such exquisite care to avoid unnecessary injury and executed with such moder, precision weapons, still kill far more human beings than do the random, murderous acts of Palestinian terrorists, bent on only random death and destruction.

It seems to me that this very simple and verifiable fact should cause you to reconsider the rationalizations I believe you have too credulously absorbed.

georgeob, You're trying to talk to people who continually ignore all the facts presented about Israel to people who doesn't care for facts and evidence. The number of dead Palestinians vs dead Jews do not matter, because Jews do their best to minimize collateral damage. Whether its 1 million innocent dead Palestinians vs 10 innocent dead Jews has little meaning to people who argue with twisted logic and ignorance. Nobody will be able to penetrate their hatred for the Palestinians - people they have never met or understood the apartheid in which they live and suffer daily.

cicerone,

I try to steer clear of making or expressing personal judgements about people here. Overall I know McGentrix as a reasonable guy - one with whom I agree on many issues, and one who rarely indulges in name-calling himself. Why should I assume that his opinions on this issue make him any less than you or me?

I disagree with him on the topic in this thread. However, I see no need or merit in making personal judgements about him or, what is worse, using personal attacks as a substitute for reasoned discourse.

Gee Geo. You haven't noticed that Mc G dose'nt feel the same way you do about personal attacks.

georgeob, For me, at least, there's a difference of disagreements and those who support apartheid, racial and/or religious bigotry. As a minority, born and bred in the US, I have no tolerance for racial bigotry.

I don't always agree with you on a2k, but admire your intelligence and knowledge about most things you post on a2k. I don't agree with my own siblings about religion and politics, but there are limits to what I will accept as just a discussion on race or cultural relations.

From the Guardian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslims are now getting the same treatment Jews had a century ago


Today's anti-Muslim racism uncannily echoes earlier anti-semitism - both minorities abused as an alien security threat

Maleiha Malik
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian


Migrants fleeing persecution and poverty settled with their children in the East End of London. As believers in one God they were devoted to their holy book, which contained strict religious laws, harsh penalties and gender inequality. Some of them established separate religious courts. The men wore dark clothes and had long beards; some women covered their hair. A royal commission warned of the grave dangers of self-segregation. Politicians said different religious dress was a sign of separation. Some migrants were members of extremist political groups. Others actively organised to overthrow the established western political order. Campaigners against the migrants carefully framed their arguments as objections to "alien extremists" and not to a race or religion. A British cabinet minister said we were facing a clash about civilisation: this was about values; a battle between progress and "arrested development".

I give what I get Rabel. You'll not see me make any personal attacks against George, we disagree on this topic is all. Grown ups can do that without making personal attacks.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF OCCUPATION



I'm beginning to understand why Palestinians blow themselves up. They've nothing to lose.

Zippo, That's what we've been saying all along, but the Zionists want 100 percent of Israel for themselves, and we all know the justification they use for that goal. For some folks, a picture says nothing, because they just can't translate reality into words.

I'm sorry, but you will have to do better then use thepeoplesvoice.org as a reference. Try finding an actual map from a qualified news source.

McG doesn't like the messenger, and ignores the fact that it's provided by the UN; nobody can be trusted when it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs

CI said: "Today's anti-Muslim racism uncannily echoes earlier anti-semitism - both minorities abused as an alien security threat "

This is nonsense -- the Jews were never a security threat. The Muslims in the UK are a very real threat.

Zip, your geography is poor. Israel doesn't occupy Gaza or the vast, vast, majority of the WB.

Now, that all depends on who you asked, doesn't it?

I'm sure many of those who were anti-semitic back in the day could give you very good, yet false, reasons why they felt that way about Jews.

CI is right; the language parallels.

Cycloptichorn

There is little, if anything, false about the charges leveled against the Muslims. It is way beyond rumor.

What the Jews are doing to Palestinians isn't "rumor," but fact. They're stealing Palestinian land - illegally.