Holocaust survivors condemn Israel for 'Gaza massacre,' call for boycott

[Israeli]

In response to Elie Wiesel advertisement comparing Hamas to Nazis, 327 Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants publish New York Times ad accusing Israel of 'ongoing massacre of the Palestinian people.'

By Haaretz | Aug. 23

According to the letter, the condemnation was prompted by an advertisement written by Elie Wiesel and published in major news outlets worldwide, accusing Hamas of "child sacrifice" and comparing the group to the Nazis.

The letter, signed by 327 Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors and sponsored by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, accuses Wiesel of "abuse of history" in order to justify Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip:

"…we are disgusted and outraged by Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our history in these pages to justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many hundreds of children. Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water."

The letter also blames the United States of aiding Israel in its Gaza operation, and the West in general of protecting Israel from condemnation.

Continue reading @

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.612072

[Israeli]

1. Nope, it’s not The Onion......

Israelis on Facebook wish death for Holocaust survivors against 'Protective Edge'

By Ami Kaufman|Published August 25, 2014

Nope, it’s not The Onion.

A few days ago some 300 Holocaust survivors placed an ad in the New York Times condemning the massacre in Gaza. My colleague from Local Call, John Brown, has selected a few of the responses on Facebook that Israelis posted in response to the ad.

I’ve translated a few from John’s selection:

David Cohen: Those aren’t Holocaust survivors those are probably collaborators with the Nazis.

Shmulik Halphon: He’s invited to go back to Auschwitz.

Itzik Levy: These are survivors who were Kapos. Leftist traitors. That’s why they live abroad and not in the Jewish State.

Vitali Guttman: Enough, they should die already. They survived the Holocaust only to do another Holocaust to Israel in global public opinion?

Meir Dahan: Now wonder that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because of people like you you’re not even Jews you’re disgusting people a disgrace to humanity and so are your offspring you are trash.

Asher Solomon: It’s a shame Hitler didn’t finish the job.

Katy Morali:Holocaust survivors who think like this are invited to go die in the gas chambers.

Yafa Ashraf: Shitty Ashkenazis you are the Nazis.



Israelis lash out against holocaust survivors who oppose ‘Protective Edge’

Source:
http://972mag.com/nstt_feeditem/israelis-on-facebook-wish-death-for-holocaust-survivors-against-protective-edge/

[4now]

3. There are a lot of sick people in this world

But I also know that somebody will come along and try to justify their actions.

[4now]

2. A very powerful letter

They have taken a very courageous stand.
I wish we could post it all.

"Genocide begins with the silence of the world," the letter reads.
The letter ends with a call to bring the blockade of Gaza to an immediate end, and for a full boycott of Israel. "Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!," the letter concludes. "

[oberliner]

4. "sponsored by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network..."

So these folks would be anti-Zionists, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

5. The article said they're Holocaust survivors...

I don't care if they're Zionists, anti-Zionists, or anything else. Israel deserves to be condemned for what it's doing to Gaza...

[oberliner]

6. No it didn't

They are primarily children, grandchildren and other relatives of holocaust survivors.

My question is related to using the term anti-Zionist to describe folks who signed this statement sponsored by an explicit anti-Zionist organization.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Yes it did...

'In response to Elie Wiesel advertisement comparing Hamas to Nazis, 327 Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants publish New York Times ad accusing Israel of 'ongoing massacre of the Palestinian people.'

And I'm pretty sure the answer to yr question was I don't give a shit what they are. Other answers may vary..

[King_David]

9. Is there a breakdown ?

Most of us are descendants .

[oberliner]

10. The breakdown can be found on the "International Jewish anti-Zionist Network"

According to that site, 43 of the signatories are survivors and 315 are relatives/descendants.

[Jefferson23]

11. Could be. Does that negate their condemnation of the Gaza massacre?

[DanTex]

12. What does anti-Zionist mean exactly? Is it bad? Is it like accusing someone of racism?

This kinda seems like an attempt to slap a label on these people in order to disregard their views. Like "oh, well, it's just those anti-Zionists, we all know about them..."

[aranthus]

13. Most Jews think it's a form of antisemitism.

At it's broadest it is the denial of the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel. This can be for several reasons.

1. The rejection of the legitimacy of all states and nations. This is the radical Left belief.
2. The belief that the Jews are not a people entitled to a state. This is the mainstream anti-Zionist position. It is one held by much of the Arab/Muslim world.
3. The belief that the Jews may be entitled to a state, but not if it is going to result in violence. That is that they have a right to a state, unless someone objects.
4. The belief that a Jewish state at the present time is a violation of scripture. This is the position of a small group of Orthodox Jews.

All these positions, except for the last one, are based on the denial of Jewish peoplehood, or on the denial of the rights of the Jewish people to their own state. That's why most believing Jews think it is antisemitic.

Also, some anti-Zionists accept that there is a Jewish state (they just feel really bad about it), and some actually work to destroy the Jewish state. The Arab/Muslim world is in the latter category. In fact, it is pretty near impossible to make the arguments that the Palestinians make in the way that they make them, without assuming that a Jewish state is illegitimate.

[DanTex]

14. Thanks. Do self-professed anti-Zionists describe themselves in the same way?

For example, apparently these holocaust survivors and their descendants are self-professed anti-Zionists. If you asked them "do you think the Jewish state of Israel is legitimate" or "do you think that Jews are a people entitled to a state" they would say "no"?

What about people who believe that the way that the state of Israel came into being was not legitimate, but it is a historical fait accompli, and at this point it has right to exist. Does that fall under "anti-Zionism"?

[aranthus]

15. Some do, and some don't.

It depends on their levels of honesty and self awareness. Most anti-Zionists will go to great pains to tell you that they aren't antisemitic, but then they have to go through some crazy circumlocutions to show that isn't true. So they try to hide the true reasons for their beliefs. Are there anti-Zionists who say that they are merely against the Occupation or the settlements? Yes, but those beliefs don't make them anti-Zionist. Is the Jewish state of Israel legitimate? Yes or no? That's what the war is about, and that's the dividing line between pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist. I have had discussions with Palestinians who have told me that Jews are only a religion and therefore not entitled to a state. There are some who say that the Israelis had no right to create their state on land stolen from another people, but that ultimately reduces to they didn't have the right to a state if someone disagrees. Others are not as forthright, and there are some who don't really understand why they think what they think. I also left some reasons for anti-Zionism off the list, and I will mention them here. First, there is good old fashioned antisemitism. Second, is the peculiar assumptions and beliefs of Leftism. Part of that is a sense of feeling for the underdog, and part of it is that Israel is a stand in for the West.

As to those who see Israel as a fait accompli, I think it depends on other factors. First, the scenario you describe covers most, if not all of the states on the planet. There's no such thing as an immaculate conception for states. So do they believe that about everyone or almost everyone, or just Israel? Second, what is it that they think was illegitimate about Israel's creation? Third, to what policies and conclusions does that belief lead them? For example, some people claim that they support Israel's right to exist, but also demand Palestinian Right of Return, which would transform Israel from a Jewish state (the whole point of there being an Israel) to an Arab state. Since the two positions are mutually exclusive, they are either very confused, or lying.

[DanTex]

17. I'm in the "fait accompli" category.

I'm not sure whether I'm a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, or neither. I'm sure I'm not an anti-semite, though.

In my view, the original Zionist migration was essentially colonial, and in that respect I view it as illegitimate. But, as you point out, it is hardly the only nation that started out with one group of people moving to an area where other people already lived and declaring it home. If I could go back and prevent the Native American population from being virtually wiped out an having their land stolen, I would. But I can't, and I live in the country that came out of that, and it is what it is. Israel is there now, and anyone who thinks that Jews should pack up and leave is crazy.

Whether this makes me an anti-Zionist, I don't know. Honestly, I don't see the anti-semitism in many of the opinions you describe. Obviously, anyone anti-semitic is not going to be a big supporter of Israel, but the converse isn't true. The Palestinians you speak of probably just think of Israelis as the people who came and stole their land, and would see it the same way even if it were a different religion or ethnicity.

As far as the refugees, it's a thorny issue for sure, but it's only natural that they would want the right to return to the land where they previously lived, not as a covert means of dismantling the Jewish state, but simply because they feel that it is still theirs.

[oberliner]

29. "the original Zionist migration was essentially colonial..."

This is definitely not true. I am curious as to why you think this.

You can read first-hand accounts of the experiences of the early Zionists - and, if you read Arabic, you can get first hand narratives from those who lived there as well.

There was no reason why things needed to turn out the way they did.

[DanTex]

31. I think this because one group of people moved to lands where other people already lived

with the intention of claiming the land as their own and establishing their own state there.

I agree, it wasn't exploitative colonization, like the British Empire. But it was still settling on land that already had people there. The terms seems to be "settler colonialism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

I'm curious as to why you think it's "definitely not true." Like most I/P questions, this one is also subject to debate, the main counterarguments being that (1) Zionists were fleeing persecution and (2) they were just returning to their ancient homeland. (1) is obviously true, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't a colonial endeavor. As for (2), millenia-old claims, claims that are mainly religious in nature, are not justification for taking land where another people is currently living.

I agree that there things didn't need to turn out the way they did. On the other hand, colonial endeavors don't generally turn out very neatly. Even in modern Western Democracies, immigration cause all kinds of social tensions, and these are immigrants who don't intend to carve out a piece of land and establish their own state on it, but rather just have a place to live with a decent standard of living. So it's not surprising that things didn't go very smoothly with the founding of Israel.

[oberliner]

33. This is not true

At least not at first. The original Zionists purchased land and settled in places that were not inhabited. They established small communities that did not impinge on the neighboring pre-existing communities.

You will note that there was no independent Palestinian state at the time of the early Zionist movement - the inhabitants there were living under Ottoman rule.

Initially, there was real hope that the ambitions of the Zionist movement and the growing Palestinian nationalist movement could have co-existed, and indeed helped one another to achieve their goals.

I would argue that were it not for a confluence of factors, this dream was not all that far fetched.

[DanTex]

35. The intention was to establish a new Jewish state in a land with an existing native population.

And that is in fact what happened. The fact that there was no modern nation-state established in the lands being settled does not excuse colonialism. If it did, then virtually all historical colonialism would be justified.

If the Arabs hadn't attacked in 1948, things could have turned out much better. But from the point of view of the Arabs, here we are living under Ottoman Rule, and that's how it's been for hundreds of years. Now a bunch of Europeans are moving here and declaring that they want to create their own state. Then, yay, we're getting our independence, but some other Europeans cut up the land and say this part is for Arabs and this other part is for Jews. It's not surprising that some of them were like WTF.

Again, I'd point to problems with immigrants all over the world, in Europe, in the US. And these aren't immigrants whose stated intent is to establish a new state, it is immigrants that intend to live under the current. Look at how the rise of Islamophobia in Europe. Switzerland banned building minarets! People don't react well to having a different ethnoreligious group move into their land. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

Having said all that, I can also see where the Zionists were coming from. Jews were persecuted for centuries, and they were a people with no homeland. How about we create a Jewish state where we can be safe and proud as a people without dealing with all this anti-semitic BS that is all over the world. Where? Well, our historic homeland sounds good. There aren't that many people there now, there's no real nation, it's not like we're moving to Paris and saying this is ours now. We'll go there and settle and purchase land, peacefully, we're not going to go in with guns blazing.

[oberliner]

38. Again, this is not true

The new Jewish state did not need to be established in a land with an existing native population. While they were portions of Palestine that had such a population, there were areas that did not and the early Zionists purchased land in those areas.

The Arabs who were living under Ottoman rule could have, for the first time in their history, had an independent Arab state established in Palestine adjacent to another independent Jewish state established alongside of it.

Everyone could have stayed exactly where they were. No one needed to have been displaced. And the Arabs living in Palestine would finally no longer be under foreign rule.

In theory these two states could have not only co-existed peacefully but could have collaborated in a myriad of different ways, utilizing the expertise of both communities to their mutual betterment.

Some of the factors that made this unlikely, and perhaps impossible, had to do with the emergency situation that was created for the Jews of Europe by the Holocaust and the establishment of the British mandate adding an additional colonial power into the mix whose priority did not overlap with any of the other players involved.

I would encourage you to read some of the diaries of those early Zionists (First or Second Aliyah) along with any first-hand accounts from the native population that you can get your hands on. Some can be found on Google Books.

Of course if you want to find quotes that counter this narrative, you could find those as well. However, I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the argument that I am presenting here. Especially if one focuses on the forty or fifty years prior to the start of the Second World War.

[DanTex]

40. Of course they did.

There was a native population on the land when the European Jews moved in. The fact that the population density was sparse in certain areas doesn't undermine their native claim to territorial inheritance. The fact that they were subsistence farmers with little in the way of modern technology or education doesn't changes thing either.

I'll admit outright that I haven't read as much as you have about the history, and obviously every little detail is a matter of controversy, but nothing I've seen contradicts the claim that native Arab/Muslim population were basically using most of the land there, at least most of the arable land. Zionists in fact recognized this:

Dr Arthur Ruppin, foremost land expert of the Jewish Agency, who declared: "Land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlement to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants."

(I can't vouch for the book as a whole except that the quote is legit and Ruppin was a Zionist leader)
http://books.google.com/books?id=bL9dfjYK2eMC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is not the only instance of Zionist leaders saying things that sound a whole lot like colonialism with a dash of ethnic cleansing. I'm sure there are early Zionists who write about finding some plot of beautiful land with nobody on it, but the larger picture is a colonial one, a foreign people moving to land where there is already a native population, and claiming it as their own.

Something also needs to be said about the "purchasing" of land. The native population was mostly peasant formers without a formal system of property rights. The system of property that existed was imposed by the Ottomans, another foreign power. As such, some of the land purchases can be viewed as arrangements between two foreign peoples -- the Ottomans and the Europeans -- regarding who has the right to land where native peasant farmers have been living and farming for centuries. In North America, the colonists didn't take all of the land by force, some of it was purchased and traded for, and yet in the aggregate these purchases are part of a general process which included settling, purchasing, stealing, and war.

Another thing that doesn't matter is that there wasn't a Palestinian nationalist movement until rather late. Or whether this movement was partly in response to the fact that European Jews were moving to the area in large numbers intent on claiming it as their own state. Not having a nationalist movement doesn't mean that a people renounces their historical claim to territory.

I agree that if the Arabs hadn't attacked, they could have had a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one. The attack was a mistake. They should have recognized that, look, these people are here, they want a state, we can all get along. There's not always a Nelson Mandela when you need one.

But if there hadn't been a Zionist movement at all, then the Palestinians would likely have had their own state in what is now greater Palestine. And at the time, it's entirely understandable that they were upset that they didn't get that, instead they got one group of Europeans telling them that they had to split their land up with another group of Europeans along boundaries that were determined by Europeans.

[DanTex]

42. An brief account of the early Zionist migrations from a book I read a while ago.

The First Aliyah (1882– 1903), as we covered in Chapter 4, saw the immigration of 25,000 Jews into Palestine. But this group was mostly made up of people who were far more interested in parting company with Russia than anything ideological. As much as half would leave Palestine upon arriving, observing the lack of developed land and opportunity. 7 Many of the immigrants were surprised to find little cultivable land available, on the one hand, and the presence of another culture on the other. After a three-month stay in Palestine in 1891, Ahad Ha’am (pen name of Asher Ginzberg), a prominent Eastern European Jewish essayist and Zionist leader, wrote the following in a piece entitled “Truth from the Land of Palestine”:

We abroad are used to believing that Eretz Israel is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and that anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth this is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees – and this is only after hard labor and great expense of clearing and reclamation – only these are not cultivated. 8

The Second Aliyah (1904– 14) consisted of 30,000 Jews and resulted in an equal, and maybe greater, return rate than that of the first, 9 but the immigrants in this wave arrived with a larger sense of political purpose. The Jews of the second wave of immigration were steely in their resolve and fired with socialist zeal. The majority was secular and gave little thought to what some saw as the religiosity of their situation. As Mandel clarifies:

Back home they had denied or denounced both Jewish tradition and czarist government as well as God. They were no more subdued before Ottoman writ and Arab custom. They brought with them an air and swagger of rebelliousness. They were revolutionaries, come to create a new heaven and a new earth.... 10

With focused intent the immigrants of the Second Aliyah continued what the earlier immigrants had inaugurated, though somewhat feebly. They acquired as much land as possible so as to begin to “create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine.” 11 Through the “conquest of labor,” Zionists at the turn of the century applied a philosophy slightly divergent from many of the earlier immigrants, namely, an emphasis on establishing settlements that would operate exclusively on Jewish labor. In other words, the fellahin who had just been reduced to tenant farmers as a result of the Ottoman land laws and Zionist land purchases would now be unwelcome on the land altogether.

Harms, Gregory; Ferry, Todd M. (2012-06-14). The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction (Kindle Locations 1158-1182). Pluto Press. Kindle Edition.

I found this book to be pretty reasonable, not taking "one side" or the other. It also directly contradicts the argument you are making.

There were already people there, useful land was hard to come by, and the only way the Zionist project could become a success was by acquiring some of that land and moving the people who lived on it somewhere else.

I'm not a historian, I haven't ready any primary sources, so I have to trust in others who did. But what I've seen does not support the idea that Zionists mainly moved into empty land.

[Cha]

8. Mahalo, Israeli

[leftynyc]

16. Condemnation from an organziation

that doesn't believe Israel should exist. Whatever.

[King_David]

18. Yea the chutzpah to think anyone should care

What the "International Jewish anti-Zionist Network" thinks of Israel or Jews .

The 30 holocaust survivors should be taken seriously and respected .

What the descendants say doesn't carry any extra weight , we are all descendants . Finkelstein for example milks that for maximum "cred".

[leftynyc]

19. You gotta love

that people here seem to think this is indicative of how Jews, holocaust survivors, their families feel about any issue. I'm guessing anti-Zionist Jews represent 5% of Jews. What do you think?

[DanTex]

20. The progressive Jews I know are just as disgusted by the Gaza massacre as progressive non-Jews.

I think Jews, like any other group of people, have a variety of opinions. What happened to all the "big tent" talk? I guess that was a one-way thing.

[leftynyc]

23. I didn't like the

heavy handedness either but don't feel I'm in a position to make a judgement as I don't have missiles raining down on me every day. I was specifically talking about Jews being anti-Zionist. Sorry if that wasn't clear but I'm guessing it represents a very small percentage of Jews. Just look at the antisemitism bouncing around Europe - here's a link to one just today

http://www.timesofisrael.com/spanish-imam-allah-destroy-every-single-jew/

On a continent where they did a bang up job of trying to do just that less 60 years ago - so recent survivors of the camps can still tell their stories. I shudder to think about when they've all died how the holocaust denial industry will crank up. While we have our home countries that we love, it's comforting to know there's a place for us to go if things turn - as they've done in our history far too many times to ignore. I will support Israel to my dying day.

[DanTex]

26. But you will happily judge the actions of Hamas, even though you haven't lived under

the brutality imposed by the Israelis.

Don't get me wrong, I will too. Terrorism is terrorism, launching rockets at civilians has no justification.

A war crime is a war crime. Both sides are committing them. So even though I can see where the extremism and hatred comes from that's not justification, for the missiles or for the occupation and military aggression, or anything else.

Yes, anti-semitism is on the rise, and that is horrible. So is Islamophobia, which is even more pronounced. Unlike anti-semitism, much of which comes from crazy Muslim fundamentalists like the guy in that article, Islamophobia is out in the open. People get elected by playing to it. Conservatives openly call Obama a "Muslim", and everyone understands that this is an insult. Discriminatory Laws are being passed, for example, trying to ban headscarves. Switzerland actually banned the construction of new minarets in order try to stop mosques from being built.

Both sides of the conflict are victims. It doesn't justify the violence.


As to the original point, I agree, very few Jews will self-describe as "anti-Zionist". Doing so surely will result in being looked down upon by most of the Jewish community, being labeled "self-hating" and so on. I'm still not exactly clear what "anti-Zionist" exactly means -- my opinion is that Zionism is a historical reality and being "against" it is at this point is pretty useless. Nevertheless, I don't think that the fact that someone is "anti-Zionist" means their opinions should be discarded or that they are any less Jewish than anyone else.

[leftynyc]

28. Anti-Zionism has a very

specific meaning - it means Israel should not exist and it has nothing to do with self hatred or anything like that. The very small Orthodox community has religious reasons - Israel should not exist until the Messiah comes. Other reasons vary but it all comes down to Israel disappearing as a Jewish state.

You're right I have no problem calling hamas the terrorists they are. Let's remember that after Israel pulled out of Gaza, there was no blockade. The blockade is in place because of hamas - they are the elected leaders - and they couldn't stop themselves from raining missiles on Israel. I blame each and every death in the recent incursion on hamas so those who claim I don't care about Palestinian lives are fooling themselves. I mourn each and every one but I blame hamas. They not only KNEW bibi would come down hard, they were counting on it to try and gin up sympathy - they don't give a shit about their own people which is obvious in how they spent all the aid sent - instead of helping the people, they bought weapons and built tunnels. They kill their own if they even suspect they don't support hamas. It does seem this ceasefire counts on the Palestinian Authority to take control and I hope that is the case.

[DanTex]

30. That doesn't seem to be the case -- for example, wikipedia says anti-Zionism is "broadly defined".

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, Anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State.

The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. Several commentators have claimed that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day anti-Semitism.[2][3][4][5][6] Other commentators, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that Israeli supporters often try to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, to silence opposition to Israeli policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

I'm having another discussion upthread about what anti-Zionism actually means, and it's not precisely defined at all. One thing that does seem accurate is that people try to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, as Chomsky said in that excerpt, in order to dismiss views critical of Israeli policy.

As far as blaming Hamas for the people that Israel killed, that's a simple act of willful ignorance and moral cowardice. The people in Gaza were killed by Israel, under any plausible definition of the world "killed". Israel isn't a physical device, it is a nation, its government makes choices. They need to own those choices. They decided to kill all those people, either to accomplish some other military objective, or as a form of collective punishment, or most likely a bit of both.

Blaming Hamas for people Israel killed is just another form of the man who beats his wife and says "look what you made me do." It's just a vain attempt to avoid responsibility for something very wrong.

[leftynyc]

32. I don't care what wikipedia has to say on the issue

I already know what it means and I also know how people twist it to suit their needs. In your example of the wife beater - did the wife kick the shit out him first? Stop pretending hamas are innocent little puppies who did nothing to deserve Israel fighting back - they got exactly what they were looking for. And noam chomsky is an asshole.

[DanTex]

34. I think that, following your lead on the word "liberal," we should let self-described

anti-Zionists decide what the term means for themselves. Given that there is a broad range of views are covered under that term, it is incorrect to pick one definition.

The wife beater analogy, like any, is imperfect. It would me more like if the wife slapped the husband and he responded by beating her senseless with a crowbar. But that is also imperfect. The thing is, only a small fraction of the people Israel killed were Hamas militants. Most of them were innocent people who had nothing to do with launching rockets.



At the end of the day, all parties are responsible for their own actions. This is a very fundamental principle. Hamas owns their terrorism. Israel owns their military aggression.

[leftynyc]

36. In a perfect world

hamas would not be among the civilians, they wouldn't store rockets in schools and hospitals and would wear bright colors completely different than anyone else but we don't live in a perfect world. This "you can't kill civilians or you're wrong" is nothing but bullshit. We killed plenty of civilians in WWI and WWII - that's what wars are all about. Again, I blame hamas for each and every death. THEY started with the rockets, THEY put themselves in the middle of civilians (who they couldn't care less about).

I would never say anyone here supports hamas - but the reality is you're reacting exactly as they were hoping you would.

[DanTex]

37. Hamas agrees with you that "you can't kill civilians" is bullshit.

Maybe there is hope for some common ground after all.

I happen to think that not killing civilians is a pretty good principle.

There are exceptions, but when you look at the fact that Israel killed 1000+ civilians in response to rocket attacks that killed, I believe 4 Israelis, to claim that this is one of the exceptions is truly preposterous. And again, even this assumes that we have 100% confidence in IDF and the Israeli government when they tell us that the civilians killed are not the result of collective punishment, but rather a careful weighing of civilian casualties versus military objectives. This is a serious stretch, given the scale of the carnage, as well as the fact that this is the same government who claims that the settlements are legitimate and necessary for national defense. And even if there is such a formula being used, if the value of a Palestinian civilian life is set very close to zero, as it would appear to be, then it becomes meaningless.

For the record, I don't believe that war crimes in WW2 were excusable. The firebombing and nuking of Japan, for example. I also don't think that it was excusable for Russian soldiers to go around raping women in Berlin. The fact that it happened doesn't make it OK.

A dangerous thing is that most Israelis feel the way you do, that it's just Hamas to blame, and we don't have to have this on our consciences. This is the kind of thinking that leads to atrocities -- it is the failure to even engage in moral calculus, to skip the ethical considerations in favor of a simple excuse.

[leftynyc]

39. You want Israel to either take

the rockets falling without consequences or fight back with one hand tied behind their backs. Neither is acceptable.

[DanTex]

41. I want them not to murder Palestinians by the hundreds or thousands.

I could just as easily accuse you of wanting the Palestinians to accept the occupation and settlements, and insist that their only other option is terrorism. But this is, of course, absurd.

As shown upthread, the rocket attacks increased as a response to Israeli aggression, first the mass arrests in West Bank and then the invasion and bombing of Gaza. So, again, I could actually accuse Israel of being responsible for the rocket attacks and the four Israeli civilians that were killed, but again this would be absurd.

There are miles of space between "fighting with one hand tied behind their backs" and killing hundreds of civilians, destroying entire apartment blocks, schools, hospitals, etc. As I've said, even if we believe IDF that they are trying to avoid civilian casualties and there is no collective punishment aspect to it, the formula they are using to value Palestinian casualties versus military objectives seems pretty inhumane.

Here's the thing. Over a thousand Gaza civilians killed, homes wrecked many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people displaced, and the response is "civilian casualties are part of war". On the other hand, four Israeli civilians are killed, and suddenly anything Israel wants to do is justified. You even made a WW2 analogy! WW2 versus 4 casualties.

[King_David]

21. Much less than 5%

I know quite a few hundred Jews probably and I never met one.

They very vocal though.

[leftynyc]

24. Yeah - that's what I think also

I've known many many hundreds (I do live in New York) and I've never met one either. I know that crazy ultra Orthodox sect (don't care enough to look up their name) doesn't but that's about it. I suspect the ones who signed this letter are from that crew. By the way, a friend emailed me about this story and told me it was all over the white supremecist websites. Lovely.

[sabbat hunter]

22. probably much less than that

most anti-zionist jews are restricted to a very tiny ultra-orthodox sect, called Neturei Karta,which believe that there should be no Israel until the messiah comes. There is about 5000 in this tiny sect world wide.

This of course does not prevent those that live in Israel from benefiting from the state of Israel, by accepting welfare benefits, the protection of praying in Jerusalem, including at the wailing wall.

[leftynyc]

25. They don't serve in the military either

They're suck off the generous social benefits plenty and offer nothing back. I have no use for them but know in the last election that bibi distanced himself away from them and there is talk of changing those laws - I hope they follow through. My family and friends all served, they should also.

[King_David]

27. International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

Where this comes from, has 780 twitter followers.

[azurnoir]

43. The law was changed last March:Israel passes law to conscript ultra-Orthodox Jews into military

I'm surprised you apparently haven't kept up

Israeli lawmakers passed a contentious law on Wednesday meant to draft ultra-Orthodox Jews into the military – the culmination of a drive for reforms that has resulted in mass protests by the religious community in Israel and beyond.

The issue of conscription of the ultra-Orthodox is at the heart of a cultural war in Israel. The matter featured prominently in elections last year that led to the establishment of the centre-right government, which has pushed for the legislation.

Wednesday's vote passed 67-1 in the 120-member Knesset. Opposition lawmakers – all 52 of them – were absent, boycotting the vote to protest what they said were strong-arm tactics by the ruling coalition.

"The change begins tomorrow morning and it is expected to transform the face of Israeli society unrecognisably," said Yaakov Peri, from the Yesh Atid party, which has led the drive for draft reforms

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/israel-passes-law-conscript-ultra-orthodox-jews