search results matching tag: hamas

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (93)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (4)     Comments (517)   

Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN

newtboy says...

Actually I have seen the opposite, this 'fringe' as you call it being the norm, but being hidden from view as they understand it looks bad to cheer a hospital being bombed, but they can't help themselves.
As you noted, empathy is never a concern, forgotten in the good times, actively fought against in the bad.
Again, I disagree that this is a 'fringe' element of Israel, from everything I've seen, and those I have spoken to directly (including family members that work for the consulate) the eradication of Palestine and it's people are something they would love to see. The tiny minority dissenting are usually attacked, beaten, arrested, and often disappeared. We have seen this repeatedly in recent times.
Yeah, it's the oppression of Hamas that's the main controlling issue for the Palestinians, not the oppression of the occupying nation to the right....NOT. Many Palestinians are vocal about wanting peace...but not so in Israel, where a dissenting voice is quickly and violently silenced....like here.
http://videosift.com/video/Young-American-Jew-Stands-up-for-Palestine
As a people that suffered due to this tribalism, you might think they would understand it's foibles and avoid them, instead they have jumped head first into it themselves....making themselves akin to a fourth right.

EDIT: as an aside, it seems odd to me that all those claiming Israel has a 'right to defend itself' have already forgotten that Israel fired the first volley, so I hope after being reminded of that fact, they will admit that really Palestine has the 'right to defend itself', while Israel is the aggressor....right?

shveddy said:

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN

shveddy says...

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN

What is Israel to Do?(answer: get out of occupied territory)

shinyblurry says...

If Mexico shot 2000 rockets into the US, do you think we as a nation would overlook that or do you think we would attack? I'm not in favor of war but I think the idea that Israel should allow Hamas, a known terrorist organization, to shoot missles into its territory with impunity is simply a hypocritical double standard that we would never follow in the same situation.

Jon Snow confronts Israeli Spokesperson on killing of kids

aaronfr says...

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes, international law does protect the right of people the resist their occupiers. However, this is a bit more than a "ghetto uprising" because a political group (Hamas) has formed and claimed to have some control over a territory and the people of that territory. Actually let me back up, even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter for the point I want to make.

Armed combatants in a violent conflict, whether international or non-international, whether they are party to the conventions or not, are bound by international humanitarian law to uphold the Geneva conventions. “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.” This places a requirement on armed actors to take reasonable steps to separate their military activities from the civilian population.

However, if people knowingly and willingly stay in place in order to serve as a human shield to military activities, then they can no longer be considered "hors de combat" (outside of combat) and become legitimate targets. The problem here is that Hamas will always say they are innocent people being killed, that Hamas does not launch attacks from residential areas, and that no one is being forced to stay to act as a human shield. Israel will always say that rockets were launched from there and they had no choice but to attack in order to "degrade" military capabilities.

BUT, humanitarian law aside (sorry, it's one of my things) I think it is disgusting doublespeak that Israelis can actually convince themselves that Hamas is killing Palestinians by making Israel fire weapons into densely populated areas. That is disturbing and distressing rationalization that they explain away by saying that there are thousands of rockets being fired on their cities, never once acknowledging that not a single one of those rockets has landed and hurt someone.

gorillaman said:

There are no terrorist targets in Gaza. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Palestinian rocket fire isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble.

gorillaman (Member Profile)

Sabre says...

You actively admit supporting terrorist organisations? Why stop at Hamas then, you can’t have double standards now can you. Here I’ll help you:

"There are no terrorist targets in Iraq. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Al-Qaida rocket fire/suicide bombings isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble."

Do you think it’s noble to fire rockets out of hospitals hiding behind defenceless civilians?

The whole world expect Russia,Turkey and China sees Hamas as a terrorist organisation, maybe you should consider moving from the UK gorilla warfare man.

gorillaman said:

There are no terrorist targets in Gaza. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Palestinian rocket fire isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble.

Jon Snow confronts Israeli Spokesperson on killing of kids

bobknight33 says...

What BS There are 2 sides fighting and only 1 being put on the spot during this interview.

Hamas heard the Cease fire and chose to ignore it at their own peril.

And Israel is fighting terrorist. I say kill them all, women and children. If you just pick and choose then you end up like America wars since Vietnam, losing wars.

TYT - Is It Ever Okay To Criticize Israel?

newtboy says...

Hamas is already pretty well fucked, but I'm there with you on the 'fuck Israel' part.

ChaosEngine said:

As usual with TYT point could have been made much more succinctly.

However, it's a point that needed to be made.

Seriously, fuck Israel. Fuck Hamas too, for that matter.

TYT - Is It Ever Okay To Criticize Israel?

Jon Snow confronts Israeli Spokesperson on killing of kids

Sagemind says...

What a joke.
If he says, "Lets be clear, here" one more time, before spouting rhetoric....

I wonder if he notices the four fingers pointing back at him, as he points at Hamas

Israel attack on Syria again.

bcglorf says...

It ends as you say, when one side decides it not worth fighting anymore. Whether in time is deemed one of peace or war is political paperwork. The reality is any nation that sees advantage in fighting will, 9 times in 10, fight.

I disagree with what the expected results are if Israel simply stands aside militarily. Economically, I absolutely wish they'd pursue the framework for 'unilaterally' instituting a two state solution. Stopping the constant expansion of settlements into occupied territory being a big one.

I do not believe history shows that Israel simply ignoring Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks, and military build up will lead to a situation where those nations are less likely to escalate their attacks. I do not believe Syria or Iran will stop funding, training and arming those groups for any amount of good will shown by Israel. The truth is, those groups see inaction on Israel's behalf as signs of weakness, and weakness is an invitation to push the advantage and escalate further. Tell me I'm wrong in that, but the evidence is pretty widespread.

aaronfr said:

But where does it stop? As I asked before, is Syria now completely justified in attacking Israel? Is it justified to attack the United States since the US is transferring weapons to a state that constantly attacks Syria?

All of these scenarios and actions are and would be justifiable in a state of declared war. Perhaps your position is that Israel is in effect in a state of constant war with its neighbors, in which case all attacks against Israel are fair and any response is also justified (although even the just war doctrine doesn't allow for asymmetrical responses). However, that hawkish position definitely impedes any peaceful settlement.

A war ends when one side wins or one side decides it is not worth fighting anymore. Nobody is going to "win" this conflict. Instead, I would rather like to see Israel, the stronger side militarily and economically, be that harbinger of peace and accept the inherent security risks of its position by deciding it doesn't want this fight. It is because of that stance that I am always so deeply disappointed by acts like this and feel the need to push back against those who claim that Israel is justified in whatever it does (even if you are not exactly that person).

Israel attack on Syria again.

bcglorf says...

aaronfr and Kofi,

You both seem to have the notion that Israel is, has and always will be the aggressor in it's relationship with it's neighbours. If you want to talk about unjustified acts of aggression between Israel and neighboring arab states, you can't decide to only look at the time frame which supports your position.

What is your view on Israel's declaration of independence? Even Al Jazeera describes the events as the culmination of a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians, in which the Jewish Palestinians were the minority. The Jewish Palestinians were largely victorious, and declared independence within the the territory they held. Immediately, all neighboring Arab states declared war on them and proceeded to promise a cleansing that would drive the Jews into the sea. They even encouraged an extensive temporary mass exodus of all Arab Palestinians for the expected short duration of the conflict. After all, each individual Arab state vastly outnumbered Israel by itself. To their great consternation, Israel survived and has been in constant conflict ever since.

Don't come out pretending that nobody ever attacks Israel when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah launch attacks into Israeli territory every week. Don't claim you support Syria's or Iran's 'peaceful', position in this when they promise the destruction of Israel and continually provide funding, training and weapons to groups directly launching attacks on Israel.

You cry double standard, and that Israel's attacks are unjustified. Where are you similar cries against Syria and Iran when weapons made by them, and deployed by people they have trained hit Israel?

The point is that violence against and from Israel has been a two way street since before it's declaration of independence, and demanding Israel just take it's lumps and do nothing but file complaints at the UN in it's own defense is naive in the extreme.

Hamas takes military training to schools

chingalera says...

Well Hamas wouldn't be Hamas without training up youngsters in the path now, would it??


This report is no extreme example of propagandizing or slant any more than it can be construed as objective observer-and-report journalism-I don;t know why everyone makes such a big fuss about how wonderful Al Jazeera is, breath-of-fresh-air, blah-blah-blah (folks have in the past, anyhow), it's owned by the Al Thani family's (of Qatar, an "absolute and hereditary emirate) 7th richest member.

It's a private mouthpiece for someone's unilateral masturbatory romp, and they hire some real cute anchors!

oritteropo (Member Profile)

Jerykk says...

Except the reasons behind the bans are completely significant. Hamas wasn't banned because of ideological differences. It was banned because the organization has a history of violence against both military and civilian targets. Conversely, Falun Gong was banned because it went against the status quo and China was threatened by its growing popularity. There has never been a case of someone committing violence in the name of Falun Gong.

There's no reason to put quotes around "security" or "public order" when referring to the reasoning behind the Hamas ban because those reasons are historically justified.

oritteropo said:

Ah ha! Someone is awake

The organisations are very different, but both have been banned by at least one major power's government, for reasons of "security" or "public order".

I wasn't judging either organisation on its merits, only that it had been banned.

Oregon Woman Finds Letter from Notorious Chinese Labor Camp

Jerykk says...

Wait, wait, wait, did you just compare Falun Gong to Hamas? Hamas, a violent resistance movement with a history of deadly attacks against both military and civilian targets? Falun Gong is a spiritual discipline about bettering oneself and attaining spiritual enlightenment. Being a member of Hamas is in no way similar to practicing Falun Gong.

oritteropo said:

I would argue that even one is too many.

There are currently 166 remaining detainees at Guantanamo, although 6 of those do face charges you could count it as 160 detained without pending charges.

Membership of Falun Gong is illegal in China, just like being a member of Hamas is illegal in the U.S., and as far as I know it is membership of the organisation (or, more specifically, activism) that is likely to get you sent to a re-education through labour camp.

Both China and the U.S. have lists of prohibited organisations, and in both cases cite public order as the rationale.

In any case, is it really worse to discriminate on the basis of beliefs than to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, bank balance, proficiency in English, intelligence, or any of the other things typically discriminated against?

p.s. Just to make clear, I'm not endorsing either type of discrimination.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon