Not Anonymous

I don't do enough.
But if there's one thing I know how to do well is talk and speak loudly.
So I do that.

From:

constintina.livejournal.com

Oh my god.

Thank you for posting.

From:

Yeah well.

I'm not doing much more than talk. I should at least do that well.

From:

tinyrevolution.livejournal.com

Seconded.

From:

wijsgeer.livejournal.com

take care

From:

Thank you.

From:

sabotabby

I just was telling someone (at our massive demo) that I didn't think there'd be a ground invasion. Fuck. Well.

From:

Very succinct.

From:

lilacsigil.livejournal.com

I'm so sad and distressed to see Israel deliberately create another generation of poverty, murder and hate.

People like you seem to be the only hope.

From:

Aren't we all.

Seriously, I'm not doing much or enough, I'm just talking about it. All the time.

From:

Well done.

From:

Thank you.
Very much.
(Sorry I haven't been commenting :-()

From:

I keep thinking about those three Palastinian sisters who were killed by the Israeli shell. I know its just one tiny example picked from thousands on either side. But, have the Palestinians ever killed any Israeli children? (Not being difficult with that question, genuinely don't know.)

And you're welcome. I'm very impressed that you got out there and tried to do something.

(And no worries. *hugs*)

From:

Yes, Israeli children have been killed by rockets falling and from other forms of attack (suicide bombing) by Palestinians.

From:

So there are unforgiveable acts on both sides. :(

From:

(Regarding "other forms of attack) I just wanted to add that one of the most (in)famous Israeli children killed by Palestinian attack is 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass (sp?), who was killed by sniper fire.

From:

Palestinians broke into a school and killed over 20 kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre

Samir Kuntar murdered a policeman and his 4 year old daughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

Please note that these murders were committed (1) unprovoked and (2) at point blank range. i.e. the murderer was looking at the victims as they died. These people purposely looked for children to kill.

Also, "A Grad rocket fired by the militants struck directly into an empty schoolhouse in Be'er Sheva on Wednesday morning" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051235.html.
Had that schoolroom been filled with 40 pupils and a teacher, what would your comment above have looked like?

While I do regret the loss of life on both sides, Israel does not purposely target children.

From:

You see, this is why I specifically said I wasn't being at all difficult with my question, and that I was genuinely curious because I didn't know. I didn't intend my comment above to have looked like anything, other than a request for more information.

I have learnt many times to my regret that expressing any sort of opinion in public that either sounds critical of either Israel or Palestine, almost inevitably leads to an argument, or at least the exchange of strong words.

Personally I consider both sides, Israeli and Palestine, to be murderers. And from what you say, both sides are child murderers too. Very sad. Very tragic.

I don't say this from a position of moral superiority either. I'm well aware my country has murdered countless Iraqi children, and that I carry a burden of responsibility for that.

From:

My answer was meant to be informative, nothing more.

However, since you've opened the conversation, you can't use strong words like "murderer" without expecting to get a strong response.

I don't know what words to use, but I do differentiate between soldiers who attack a target and people who get "bonus points" for killing children. I also don't see how you can consider the mindset of someone who is (in his mind at least) defending his family with that of someone like Samir Kuntar whose proudest act in his entire life was killing a child of four. (quoting from memory, no link, sorry)

Both sides of any battle are killers, yes. But please don't think that both sides specifically target children.

From:

Oh for sure, it's a big emotive challenging word, 'murderer'. But... I tend to think when children are killed, we should be using the big emotive words. And doing away with stuff like 'collateral damage' and 'unavoidable casualties', and words that try to make it sound as if it is acceptable. Because I don't think it matters what the circumstances are, if children, women, innocents are being killed, it's wrong. End of story.

Both sides are specifically targetting children though aren't they? I mean I know Hamas hide their militants in amongst civilian targets, but Israel knowingly bomb those targets knowing that there are civilians there? I mean, I appreciate there is a motivational difference, one side doesn't want to specifically kill children, the other just wants to kill as many Jewish people as they can, irrespective. But at the end of the day, guns are pointed at places where children are known to be potential casualties?

From:

I realize you're coming from a position where you lack information, but Israel's intelligence services are warning Palestinian civilians in Gaza living close to Hamas facilities that they may be hurt unless they distance themselves from those targets.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html

Have you ever seen the pictures of Israeli soldiers aiming at children? Usually those pictures are carefully edited not to show the grownups behind the children firing/throwing grenades at the soldiers.

From:

Mmm, there was a report on the news yesterday about a family who had received one of those phonecalls from the Israeli Intelligence services, and their response was 'We have no guns here. We are not moving. If you bomb us we will become martyrs.'

Those phonecalls are an interesting example though, like with that use of language I mentioned, 'collateral damage' 'acceptable casualties', all ways in which tricks are played on our minds to make the utterly unnecceptable inch closer towards being something that we can entertain.

Like the myth during the Gulf Wars of all of those super-accurate guided weapons, that looked like a video game, which guarenteed dthat every bomb dropped would hit the 'bad guys'. Whereas the truth was quite quite different. But it was sold to audiences here and in America as a clean and bloodless way of waging war, and thus, more acceptable.

And yes, I've seen the pictures, and the ones with the wider angles. Hamas have become very good at using the media. And the children. But then, they are in a hopeless situation, and people backed into hopeless positions commmit atrocities without really thinking about it. :(

From:

beckyzoole.livejournal.com

I think they would not be in a hopeless situation if they would make peace with Israel, as Fatah is doing on the West Bank.

Frankly, I don't understand what Hamas wants, other than martyrdom. Israel no longer occupies Gaza, it withdrew all its troops and settlers. Sure, Israel has mostly closed its own border with Gaza -- this is because during the decades when the border was open, Gaza consistently exported suicide bombers. But Gaza has a border with Egypt. Gaza can easily import all it needs from its fellow Arab country.

The hopelessness of the Gazans is caused by the government of Gaza. Unfortunately, a Gazan Gandhi has not come forward to make peace. Until then, they are stuck with Hamas. :-(

From:

Yeah, hamas don't seem to have... any policy at all. Other than 'We really really hate Israel'. They'd probably self destruct as an organisation in record time if they didn't have a great unifying enemy to keep all their guns pointing in the same direction.

I just couldn't believe it when they got elected. Utterly depressing.

From:

Hamas actually did have significant infrastructure, if not policy, because they'd been running a lot of social services for a long time. That also gave them credibility for actually helping rather than taking aid money for themselves (ala Fatah). That being said, I agree that they would probably self-destruct as an organisation without a great unifying enemy and am on the record as saying that Israel and the world should have recognized the unity government back in 2006 (and waited for Hamas to shoot themselves in the foot).

From:

Or, contrariwise, not have allowed them to run in the elections (and deal with the fallout of that back in 2006).

In any case, I agree that the attempt to eat our cake (pseudo-democratic elections among the Palestinians) and keep it whole (outlaw parties Israel doesn't agree with) is probably at the root of the (current) situation.

From:

Why didn't Israel recognise the government?

From:

Because Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

From:

Right, so it was one of those 'we'll recognise you if you recognise us?' sorts of things?

From:

Egypt is under international agreement not to open its border with Gaza without approval of the elected Palestinian government, which Israel and the western world refused to recognize, paving the way for Hamas' militant take-over of Gaza. After that happened, Israel became obligated to only open the border with Israel's approval. Gaza never had the option of importing its needs through Egypt.

As for the Gazan Gandhi, I think that people were more concerned with whether the government would be corrupt (how many billions did Arafat and Fatah take for themselves that was intended for the Palestinian people?) than how peaceful they are.

From:

Uh, that should be EGYPT became obligated to only open the borders [with Gaza] with Israel's approval. Sorry if that was unclear!

From:

The billions of aid Fatah took. This is something that really needs to be looked at. I was reading something the other day about how much Western aid that goes into Africa winds up in the pockets of dictators and the military, and indeed how much of the food aid is taken by the armies to essentially allow them to keep fighting instead of having to tend their fields.

And there seemed to be a serious question that Western aid in a lot of cases might be causing almost more harm than good. They were bandying around figures like if 20% of the aid got to the actual people who needed it, then the aid agencies were happy.

Mind you. I suppose with the oncoming global financial crisis, the amount of money available for aid from the west is going to evaporate as we struggle to feed our own populations.

From:

corvus.livejournal.com

The whole "Where is their MLK/Gandhi/etc." argument has been pushed around by the right/center/center left for years. It's so annoying and obnoxious.

From:

Why?

what's wrong with it?

From:

I think you meant to reply to the comment to which I was responding?

From:

Oh, and thank you kindly for the links. Very informative.

From:

corvus.livejournal.com

Wait, you're bringing up things from 30 years ago? Why? The two example you bring up have little to do with what is currently going on. Hell, both of these horrific attacks occurred well before Hamas came into existence in 1987. You don't think that the Palestinian people, and indeed the Palestinian struggle, is monolithic, do you?

From:

Excuse me, I was not aware of a statute of limitations on "horrific attacks". These are "classic" examples of Palestinians targeting children and the perpetrators are Palestinian "heroes" to this day. Furthermore, I think that an attack dated "last Wednesday" might be current enough for you?

Are you implying that the Palestinians, who object to Israel's existence are brining up things from over 60 years ago and are therefore irrelevant?

The "Nakba"(Israel's war of Independence) was in 1948, well before any of these horrific attacks. Why are they bringing it up? You don't think the Jewish people, and indeed the Jewish struggle, is monolithic, do you?

From:

corvus.livejournal.com

Oh lord. Are we really going to do this? I guess so.

First off, let's get our definitions right. The Nakba is not "Israel's war of Independence" as you claim. It's the term used by Palestinians and their supporters to refer to the "disaster" of the creation of the Palestinian refugee crisis, the Palestinian diaspora if you will. I'm not sure as to who the "they" are in your statement and I feel awkward using just as many quotation marks as you, so I'll move on.

The Palestinians and their supporters still bring this up because the Israeli people, as represented by the Israeli government, are quite monolithic. Last I checked, there haven't been any coups or vast changes in power since 48. The same group, give or take a couple generations, is still in charge. The government still runs the IDF. And the IDF still attacks the Palestinians. Sixty years is not a very long time.

The same can't be said for the Palestinian people. Right now, there are two different governments claiming representation. And...

Hell. No need for a history lesson. It comes down to the idea of representation. Israel is a democracy, at least for the most part. Its leaders are and have always been chosen by the people from a pretty large pool. Can't argue with that, right?

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been completely screwed over by their so-called leaders for at least 40 years, if not more. Arafat was a dick and extremely corrupt. He had the support of some but definitely not all the Palestinians. He also made sure there wasn't an alternative, at least while he was still alive. So a few years ago when Hamas came around offering just that, people were excited for new leadership, as the same vanguardist and corrupt political party had been lording over them for decades.

I said no history lesson so I won't get into the details of the Fatah/Hamas conflict. My point is that the Palestinians didn't have a government until 1994. All they had were a bunch of organizations doing things in their name. That doesn't sound like very fair representation. From 1994 to 2006, they had the PLO/Fatah, which was absolutely corrupt and wouldn't allow for any manner of opposition to arise. Again, not fair representation for the people. And now? Now there's two different bodies that claim to represent the ideals and goals of the Palestinian people. Also, the only reason that many voted for Hamas is because they were an alternative to Fatah. Two parties, one of which is ridiculously corrupt. How's that fair?

When democracy finally makes it to Palestine, when Palestinians are no longer being born in refugee camps and living in hopeless squalor, give me a ring and we'll talk this over again. Until then, I refuse to believe in this idea that the actions of any group - be it Hamas, Fatah, Hizzbollah, Islamic Jihad, so on and so forth - represent anyone but the members of that group and its specific supporters.

And regarding the attack last Wednesday: The rockets the Hamas militants are using can't be aimed. You point them in a direction, light the fuse, and run. I'm not saying that because I want to excuse the actions of Hamas. Given the chance, I'm sure many in Hamas, and indeed many of their supporters, would be totally down with blowing up a school full of Israeli Jews. That being said, it's not the same as a guided 2,000 kg missile that's fired purposely into a residential neighborhood. Hell, it's not even the same as cutting off electricity and water and humanitarian aid. When you do things like that, you're not just targeting militants and accepting whatever civilian casualties occur, you're methodically and precisely trying to decimate an entire people, both physically and emotionally.

From:

You must have a different definition of a monolithic society than I have.

Thirty years is too long ago for me to use for examples of Palestinian terrorist activity, but sixty is short enough for your diagnosis of Israel?
Thank you for not giving me a history lesson.

gonzo21 asked, in innocence, Have Palestinians ever killed Israeli children. I answered. My answer is factually correct - I don't think you dispute that. I don't know why you're being so aggressive.

From:

I'd certainly agree about the "classic" examples, but I do have to say that given how all over the map (literally) the rockets have been, I don't think it's fair to use last Wednesday (or even this morning) as an example of Hamas targeting children because they just don't have the capability to target more specifically than a particular city. That being said, civilians in a time of war don't tend to self-segregate by age, so you could certainly argue that targeting civilians *is* targeting children.

From:

stateofwonder.livejournal.com

Thank you for keeping us updated on this... if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have any idea of what was going on aside from the pathetic articles in the international section of the newspapers. Talking (and shouting and screaming) is important too, if only to raise awareness.

From:

True.
I just hope the awareness actually does some good.

From:

madwriter.livejournal.com

Would you mind if I linked to this and your previous couple of entries?

(Found you by way of

qilora, by the way.)

From: