Absence of Concern

[bennydorano]

One of the few journalists worth reading on the matter had  this to say in todays indo. In my opinion Israel is one of the most powerful Tyrants in the world today.

Surely what you really mean is one who you agree with?  No doubt John Pilger would be another. Michael Portillo was excellent again yesterday in the Sunday Times on the subject and I look forward to reading what David Aaronovitch has to say on the matter in Tuesday's Times.

[Zapatista]

Good man Myles.

Like I said there are many typically Irish responses to my post. We claim ourselves great peacekeepers but many of us don't expect our politicians to do anything about Palestine.

While Pints thinks it would be stuff of fantasy to expect our Politicians to take a stand on this, Cicfada still wants them to stay on the fence. We should take the approach Myles is taking and get in their face about it. We should expect of them what we expect of ourselves.

A common mistake is that the Israelis are reacting to Hammas violence. Everytime there is an escalation in the attacks it is treated as the first time. There was a cease fire in which time there were no rockets fired but the Israelis continued to prevent medicine, fuel and food supplies getting to the suffering people being held captive in Palestine. While there was no violence Israel still have the power to kill off Palestinians and are doing so. the rocket attacks do not justify what Israel are doing. What Israel are doing does justify the rocket attacks. If there are no rocket attacks the Israelis will continue to cleanse Gaza of the Palestinians without the rest of the world knowing or caring about it.

[Hardy]

the rocket attacks do not justify what Israel are doing. What Israel are doing does justify the rocket attacks.

Well, at least I got an answer and fair play to you for stating clearly what you believe - killing of Israelis by Palestinians is "justified"; killing of Palestinians by Israelis is not. Interesting point of view. Can you broaden this out a bit and give me a fuller list of justifiable civilian killings around the world?

[Aerlik]

Lads, let's not make the mistake of blaming "the Jews" for this...that reeks of sectarianism.  However, the statelet of Israel is a sectarian state created and ruled by Zionists.  There is a difference.  I have had this discussion with Jews for many years and although they all back the existence of the state (which I argued strongly against and still do) to the hilt, they have admitted that the Zionists are a bit of a law unto themselves.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the Palestinians are Sunni or Shia Muslim?  That is a major factor in the reaction of other Arab nations in the region.

[his holiness nb]

"Hamas's homemade rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years".

Cogitate on that for a while. What is an unacceptable rate of kill? What do the numbers have to be before even one of the people around here who are outraged (and rightly so) at Israel's savagery is moved to condemn murders by Hamas? How can I take anyone's outrage seriously when they seem completely unmoved by (or even condone) another set of bloodthirsty killings. Can someone tell me who it's OK to kill and who it's not?

In fairness Hardy, dont pretend to be disgusted by this statement. Killing 20 Israelis in 8 years is wrong of course. Fisk isnt denying this. Of course any rate of kill is wrong. But its the reaction by Israel that is shocking on global terms.

Of course the death of one person by rocket attack is likely to draw less outrage than the death on hundreds in sustained bombardment. This is very obvious, and to have a go at Fisk for saying this is a bit unfair on him.

If one Palestinian was killed by the Israelis and they responded by bombing hundreds of Israelis to death, the outrage would be towards the Palestinians.

Perhaps your established dislike of Fisk has resulted in you overeacting to his comments a bit?

[Hardy]

In fairness Hardy, dont pretend to be disgusted by this statement.

Pretend?

[Zapatista]

the rocket attacks do not justify what Israel are doing. What Israel are doing does justify the rocket attacks.

Well, at least I got an answer and fair play to you for stating clearly what you believe - killing of Israelis by Palestinians is "justified"; killing of Palestinians by Israelis is not. Interesting point of view. Can you broaden this out a bit and give me a fuller list of justifiable civilian killings around the world?

I did not say the killings of innocents is justified. I said the rocket attacks are. Israel are killing off the Palestinians by denying them food, medicine and fuel. As these are silent killers there is nothing the world will do to stop it just as nothing was done to stop the Irish dieing during the potato blight. The Palestinian people are prisoners in their own land. They have suffered enough. I know innocents are dieing on both sides and it is sad but I honestly think that if these rockets were not fired many more innocent (particularly the young and old) will die as a result of Israel.

I do not condone the killing of inocent people but I do live in the real world and I not use the death of innocent people as an excuse to stay on the fence paint the two sides as the same when they are clearly not.

[his holiness nb]

Well you really shouldnt be disgusted.
Saying that responding to the death of 20 people over 8 years with the killing of hundreds is an overeaction is quite clearly not saying the 20 deaths dont matter.

Theres no-where there that Fisk suggested the 20 deaths dont matter, he was commenting on the proportions of the response. I think its unfair to say Fisk isnt moved, or even condones those killings when he never said anything of the sort.

So no you shouldnt be disgusted, as what you are disgusted at never actually happened.

[Hardy]

I did not say the killings of innocents is justified. I said the rocket attacks are.

Now that is complete horseshit. Feel free to elaborate - maybe I'm missing something.

[Hardy]

HHNB - I asked you what you meant by saying I was "pretending" to be disgusted.

[his holiness nb]

HHNB - I asked you what you meant by saying I was "pretending" to be disgusted.

Apologies Hardy, I had presumed you were not actually disgusted, as what you were claiming to be disgusted at, never actually took place. My presumption was that you knew this, being one of the more intelligent (in my opinion) posters on the board.
I stand corrected (on the prentending bit, not the intelligence bit  )

[Hardy]

Fine. Why is the killing of "just" 20 Israelis not condemned? How would people here react if I said "just" thirteen people were killed on Bloody Sunday? Why are Hamas murders of civilians sanitised as "rocket attacks"? I haven't seen them called murder anywhere here. Whay were there no protest marches outside embassies when Palestinian suicide bombers murdered (sorry, "attacked") innocent Israeli children?

[Zapatista]

I did not say the killings of innocents is justified. I said the rocket attacks are.

Now that is complete horseshit. Feel free to elaborate - maybe I'm missing something.

What do you want me to say? The rocket attacks are justified as they are the only defence for the Palestinian people. I know innocent people die, I believe it has become a necessary evil. Once Israel stop killing the Palestinian people I will see no justification for rocket attacks.

Can you tell me how the Palestinian people should protest peacefully against Israel?

[Hardy]

I don't want you to say anything other than what you believe. You've said the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are justified. You've now admitted that that implies the killing (no, let's be clear - murder) of innocent civilians.

I just don't understand the mentality that condones the murder of one set of innocent civilians while being outraged at another set. If I said it was OK to murder black people, but not white people you'd call me a racist and rightly. However you say it's "justifiable" for Palestinian soldiers to murder Israeli civilians, but not vice versa. Why? Is it that the side you perceive to be right is allowed to use murder but the other is not? Isn't that the oldest fallacy in human conflict - the "God on our side" argument?

[Donagh]

Balance is a wonderful thing. People are jumping over each other to condemn the imbalance of Israel's disproportionate response and it is indeed outrageous and indefensible slaughter and the perpetrators would be tried as war criminals in other circumstances. But if we're to concern ourselves with balanced responses, why has nobody even thought it worth mentioning that Hamas is killing innocent Israelis as well? In fact, some of the comments here seem to condone that particular form of killing.

So is it OK for one side to kill but not for the other? Certainly Fisk, one of the most odious t**sers ever to pretend to be a journalist when in fact he's nothing more than a propagandist, seems to think so? This is one of the most amazing lines I've ever seen printed in a reputable journal:

"Hamas's homemade rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years".

Cogitate on that for a while. What is an unacceptable rate of kill? What do the numbers have to be before even one of the people around here who are outraged (and rightly so) at Israel's savagery is moved to condemn murders by Hamas? How can I take anyone's outrage seriously when they seem completely unmoved by (or even condone) another set of bloodthirsty killings. Can someone tell me who it's OK to kill and who it's not?

Sorry I must have missed the bit were Fisk condones the Hamas killings. Care to point it out, preferably in the context of the original article?