Owen Jones deconstructs the Gaza situation on BBC's QT

Owen Jones on BBC question time ( November 22nd 2012) commenting on the Gaza / Israel conflict. -- YT

Related: Gilad Sharon's JPost article
messengersays...

Now you're an expert on world affairs too? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

shinyblurrysaid:

Hamas is a terrorist organization which denies Israels right to exist and has pledged to annihilate Israel. To defend them is madness.

shinyblurrysays...

The video shows cold blooded murderers clamoring to see body bags and feeling joy over a bus load of innocent civilians murdered..you think that is a noble cause?

messengersaid:

They are imprisoned by Israel, and fighting against them for their freedom. Which of those words do you disagree with?

messengersays...

Yes and no. But I have to get rid of your loaded terms and misleading juxtapositions. First, nobody here is a murderer. They are at war with Israel, and they killed people on the other side, just as Israel does to Palestinians.

Second, the guy clamouring to see bodies is a broadcaster. This means he is not one of the killers himself. It also means he's a paid propagandist, maybe some loudmouth like Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck.

Third. That's not even "the cause". The cause is Palestinian freedom, and part of that includes killing Israelis because they are the enemy of Palestine. If the celebrate the deaths, that has nothing to do with the cause itself.

The only difference you're showing me between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians publicly celebrate the deaths of their enemies while Israel is more Western, so they don't. That's not enough of a distinction to claim that their cause of freedom isn't noble, so don't conflate the two.

That's the "No" part. The "Yes" part is, the cause, which is their own freedom, is a noble cause.

There. I've actually answered your questions. You've avoided answering mine by asking misleading questions.

Here are my questions (some repeated):

1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?

2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?

3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?

4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?

Answer my questions straight without dodging.

shinyblurrysaid:

The video shows cold blooded murderers clamoring to see body bags and feeling joy over a bus load of innocent civilians murdered..you think that is a noble cause?

shinyblurrysays...

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region, but the reason I haven't addressed your questions is because I reject the central premise, which is the notion of a distinct "Palestinian" people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There never has been any people in history going by that name, or demanding a country of their own. There is no Palestinian culture, artifacts..nothing The fact is, there is no actual difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Before I go into it, you can hear it straight from the horses mouth:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Zuheir Mohsen leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

They aren't struggling for "independence", they are waging all out war against the Jews. The "Palestinians" have been offered their own state many, many times, with the initial deal being something like 80 percent of the entire country. They rejected it and vowed to exterminate the Jews. They are not interested in negotiating because they want to wipe any Jewish presence in the region off of the map. They're also being funded and supplied by Arab nations all over the Middle East for this purpose. Why? Because Muslims are raised to hate Jews and this stems from the Qur'an. It probably goes back to when the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

Please research the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&feature=related

messengersaid:

Yes and no. But I have to get rid of your loaded terms and misleading juxtapositions. First, nobody here is a murderer. They are at war with Israel, and they killed people on the other side, just as Israel does to Palestinians.

BicycleRepairMansays...

I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

messengersays...

I took the time to form some questions. All you've done, again, is try and find the weakest link, attack it, and ignore everything else as if you've destroyed my point. Just answer the questions and stop making me ask again and again. You can answer with caveats, like I did. You can answer by rewording the question or changing the terms. But answer the questions. BicycleRepairMan did it and I appreciate his direct, non-condescending answer, even if I don't agree. Why can't you?

In question 1, it seems you disagree with the use of the word "Palestine". Fine. Call them whatever you want. They're people. Whatever. Do you disagree with anything else in 1.?

2 and 3 are very simple Yes/No questions that go to the mindset of whatever you want to call the Muslim people who live in Gaza.

The last two questions relate to your using that video as evidence of something. I'm saying you can infer nothing about the "nobility" of their cause. They might even be the completely horrible bloodthirsty people bent only on killing for no reason whatsoever that you're painting them as, but that video wouldn't be the evidence for it. Just answer the questions. If your answer isn't the same as mine, that's OK. We're adults. This isn't a schoolyard. I'm not going to kick your lunchbox over the fence.

shinyblurrysaid:

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region

...

Please research the history...

Kofisays...

ShinnyBlurry says "One Arab is just like any other".

Hell he is even denying them a geographic identity. Yet I bet he is all about 'states rights' in the USA. Just moronic.

Sepacoresays...

For the most part, I don't get worked up over (or involved in) this subject due to the below 2 paragraphs.

If an ethicist historian mediator came up with the most reasonable coexistence plan while gaining as much respectable balance between the opposing views, I doubt the fighting would stop. Another reason or another enemy would be identified immediately or shortly after by one or all parties.

Unfortunately there is a lack of coexistence, as turning to violence is accepted as the means to a solution too quickly for rational discourse to occur or even maintain stability for a long enough term to allow such reasonable positions focused towards permanent/fair resolutions to be taken.. and given that there are usually multiple factions on any side, it only takes one to kick it all off again.

@messenger Gorilla Warfare (in conversations) is a hard thing to prevent/combat when your opponent practices it so consistently. Good luck.

swedishfriendsays...

People are being killed on both sides of the border. More than 10:1 are not Israeli. Israel can democratically control their fighters. The other people are not so organized. People on both sides suffer while leaders try to score points. Mostly it is non-israeli people suffering though so it is hard to side with Israel on this one. The only solution as many experts have pointed out is a single state solution with people living as equals with equal rights. As long as you try to separate people we will have these outbursts of violence.

My_designsays...

@Kofi Did you find any yet?
Oh and I think Shineyblurry was more just trying to educate you Messenger, not just answer your questions. So here's my answers for you:

"1) Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"
All of it. Hamas is a globally recognized terrorist group. Hamas has done more to take away the freedom of it's people than it has good. By continuing to push an antisemitic world view and continually calling for the outright destruction of Israel they have done nothing for their people over the last 40 years. If Hamas would actually accept one of the many peace agreements that have been laid forth over that time, we would not be having this discussion. Instead they kill civilians and place launch pads next to playgrounds.
"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Absolutely. like Bicyclerepairman said, even if the borders went back to the 1946 borders the goal isn't borders it is the elimination of Israel entirely and the death of Jews worldwide.
"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"
Bicyclerepairman hit the nail on the head here. But I think that if all the Jews were dead and France ran Israel and kept Palestinians in Gaza they would have a much more difficult battle as it is a lot harder to identify "French" as a race and that diffuses their Nazi themed marketing machine of "BLAME THE JEWS". But I'm sure they would find a way, or slowly push Muslim and Islamic law to become the law of the land in France (Or other European countries for that matter). Something you can not do in Israel currently.
"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?
5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"
These were civilians. Not enemies. Where we can celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden in the United States, we morn when innocents die. Especially children. And if a US soldier kills civilians while in active duty he is prosecuted and sent to jail or possibly even executed. So killing is worse than celebrating, but celebrating the killing of an innocent makes you a terrorist and a blight on humankind. That's not to say that killing of innocents is off the table, lord knows plenty of it happened during World War 1 & 2 and as a measure of war, while I personally find it a disgusting tactic and something to be avoided you can reach a point where drastic actions must be taken.
For example, North Korea. If they should ever get aggressive, with the overwhelming amount of brainwashing that goes on in that country it is very likely that many of the civilians will wind up being killed in any conflict.
But Israel and Palestine should NOT be at that point.

Kofisaid:

If we can find similar footage of Israelis will you concede that they too are terrorists?

Sepacoresays...

Also, Messanger's statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." is a realistic an accurate analysis, as the only difference is the angle at which the judgement comes from. As these are subjective terms and easily misrepresent-able by alternative parties.

More specifically the term "freedom fighter", this is a term based on intention, not the methods of action deployed to achieve a goal. A freedom fighter is "someone who fights for their freedom".

What they consider freedom to be is subjective, and the methods utilized to achieve their goal are merely the result of how their state of mind processes the impacting values of the situation.

Simply put the 'reason to fight' and the 'method of fighting' are 2 separate subjects. Yes they are related, but lets not get them confused.

Albeit, the methods are by no means unquestionable, but these questions come from yet a separate subjective value system, and therefore given the potential magnitude of varying subjective views, if they are to be definitively analyzed it would be best left to those who study humanitarian ethics without bias towards existing governmental laws, personal guidelines or religious teachings.

messengersays...

Thanks for the analysis. I agree that my statement about terrorists and freedom fighters is superficially true, but that the dichotomy it implies between them is a false one. A freedom fighter is capable of using terrorist tactics.

Sepacoresaid:

Also, Messanger's statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." is a realistic an accurate analysis, as the only difference is the angle at which the judgement comes from. As these are subjective terms and easily misrepresent-able by alternative parties.

More specifically the term "freedom fighter", this is a term based on intention, not the methods of action deployed to achieve a goal. A freedom fighter is "someone who fights for their freedom".

What they consider freedom to be is subjective, and the methods utilized to achieve their goal are merely the result of how their state of mind processes the impacting values of the situation.

Simply put the 'reason to fight' and the 'method of fighting' are 2 separate subjects. Yes they are related, but lets not get them confused.

Albeit, the methods are by no means unquestionable, but these questions come from yet a separate subjective value system, and therefore given the potential magnitude of varying subjective views, if they are to be definitively analyzed it would be best left to those who study humanitarian ethics without bias towards existing governmental laws, personal guidelines or religious teachings.

messengersays...

I've interacted with sb a hell of a lot on VS, and he has a habit of avoiding questions. He's also one of maybe three people on the Sift mature enough to actually accept criticism, agree with it, and change. There's a significant chance that he'll agree and answer my questions.

As for your answers, thanks for them. I think you're mostly right in your answers, and where we differ is inconsequential (but I'm assuming you agree that Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza). There's all sorts of assumptions in my mind that clearly didn't make it to the screen, and I also conflated groups of people that should remain distinct. I think Hamas are probably, at their heart, a group of hateful war-like bigots who have found popular support against a clearly-defined enemy in a fight for freedom. So:

1b. Do you disagree with any of, "The core Hamas themselves are (generally speaking) just haters like WBC or the KKK and they get support now from the citizens because they're all collectively being severely oppressed by Israel." ?

2b. Do you think, if a free Palestinian state were created with the 1946 borders, that Hamas would retain enough support from the people to continue fighting with Israel, which would keep their lives constantly under threat, just as is the case in Israel now? Personally, if the citizens weren't being oppressed, I don't think they would favour killing anybody, and would choose a live-and-let-live policy so they could raise a family in peace and seek success in the world.

3. Point conceded to you and BRM.

4,5. Those were directed only at sb's justification for his position based on a video of a journalist celebrating dead bodies. I don't take great issue with anything you said there, except one place:

celebrating the killing of an innocent makes you a terrorist and a blight on humankind

Can you substantiate that? Celebration alone makes someone a terrorist? And "blight on humankind" doesn't even have meaning. They ARE humankind. They're not an affliction.

My_designsaid:

@Kofi Did you find any yet?
Oh and I think Shineyblurry was more just trying to educate you Messenger, not just answer your questions. So here's my answers for you:

"1) Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"
All of it. Hamas is a globally recognized terrorist group. Hamas
...

ChaosEnginesays...

Both sides have both long since breezed past the moral event horizon.

I feel sorry for the innocents involved, the kids, the moderates on both sides, but frankly, neither of them have any kind of moral credibility left.

My_designsays...

I agree with you that Israel has taken away the freedoms of the people in Palestine, however I feel that that freedom was lost by the people because of their continued backing of Hamas and Hamas's continued attacks against Israel.
I think that both parties are at fault to some degree, but I also believe the burden of the blame rests with Hamas and their continued requests for the destruction of Israel. To answer your questions directly:
1b. Do you disagree with any of, "The core Hamas themselves are (generally speaking) just haters like WBC or the KKK and they get support now from the citizens because they're all collectively being severely oppressed by Israel." ?
I agree that Hamas are just hater racists. I believe that they have integrated themselves into the Palestinian people with a hate and blame based marketing campaign that has the Palestinian children learning how to kill Jews in class. This campaign is reinforced by some of the policies of the Israeli government as an unintended consequence. I have consistently seen any positive developments towards peace wind up being corrupted by the outrageous demands of Hamas that they will not settle for anything but the complete elimination of Israel and the refusal to recognize the Israeli state.

"2b. Do you think, if a free Palestinian state were created with the 1946 borders, that Hamas would retain enough support from the people to continue fighting with Israel, which would keep their lives constantly under threat, just as is the case in Israel now? Personally, if the citizens weren't being oppressed, I don't think they would favour killing anybody, and would choose a live-and-let-live policy so they could raise a family in peace and seek success in the world."
Perhaps, but Hamas has stated many times that their goal is not just reverting back to the 1946 borders, but the elimination of Israel. They've ingrained that into the people of Palestine and as we are discussing this I fear that this may be a situation where peace can not be brokered because of the constantly reinforced hatred towards the Jewish people. I pray it doesn't revert to a situation like that of WW2 where entire cities were eliminated in order to get Germany to eventually collapse. (We didn't just do it to the Japanese, although the comparison may be more accurate) Besides reverting back to the 1946 borders isn't really feasible, or justified, but that is a WHOLE different discussion. (There weren't borders in 1946 as all of Palestine was under British control from WW1)

"Can you substantiate that? Celebration alone makes someone a terrorist? And "blight on humankind" doesn't even have meaning. They ARE humankind. They're not an affliction."

I can actually, celebration of an innocents death in my opinion shows a lack of a soul and a lack of sympathy towards other human beings. Celebrating the death of a child is about the most evil thing I can think of, yet Islamic extremists do it on a regular basis. It makes you a monster and puts you outside of humankind. So yes it makes you very much an affliction on humankind. Unfortunately it is very likely a symptom of humankind as well, but like an infection is a symptom of being alive, sometimes it must be abraded and removed completely.
As humans we have to value life and celebrate life, not death. I feel the same way about the KKK or any other organization that divides the human species into groups and has devalued one of those groups to the point where the death of one of them is something to be celebrated. That is hate and it is evil. Evil, real evil, exists in this world and it can be seen in the video above.

Celebrating the death of innocents isn't in and of itself something that makes a person a terrorist, it merely reinforces the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

All this yet I still like to play FPS. Huh...gonna have to dwell on that.

messengersaid:

I've interacted with sb a hell of a lot on VS, and he has a habit of avoiding questions. He's also one of maybe three people on the Sift mature enough to actually accept criticism, agree with it, and change. There's a significant chance that he'll agree and answer my questions.

As for your answers, thanks for them. I think you're mostly right in your answers, and where we differ is inconsequential (but I'm assuming you agree that Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza). There's all sorts of assumptions in my mind that clearly didn't make it to the screen, and I also conflated groups of people that should remain distinct. I think Hamas are probably, at their heart, a group of hateful war-like bigots who have found popular support against a clearly-defined enemy in a fight for freedom. So:

1b. Do you disagree with any of, "The core Hamas themselves are (generally speaking) just haters like WBC or the KKK and they get support now from the citizens because they're all collectively being severely oppressed by Israel." ?

2b. Do you think, if a free Palestinian state were created with the 1946 borders, that Hamas would retain enough support from the people to continue fighting with Israel, which would keep their lives constantly under threat, just as is the case in Israel now? Personally, if the citizens weren't being oppressed, I don't think they would favour killing anybody, and would choose a live-and-let-live policy so they could raise a family in peace and seek success in the world.

3. Point conceded to you and BRM.

4,5. Those were directed only at sb's justification for his position based on a video of a journalist celebrating dead bodies. I don't take great issue with anything you said there, except one place:

celebrating the killing of an innocent makes you a terrorist and a blight on humankind

Can you substantiate that? Celebration alone makes someone a terrorist? And "blight on humankind" doesn't even have meaning. They ARE humankind. They're not an affliction.

SDGundamXsays...

I love VS for these kinds of debates, but I see some straw-man arguments going on here.

First, not every Palestinian belongs to Hamas. In fact, the majority of the population does not belong to Hamas. Similarly, very few Germans were actually members of the Nazi party. German citizens backed the Nazis because they felt they were the best hope for getting Germany's economy out of the toilet, getting Germany out of what the citizens perceived as the unfair terms of the Versailles Treaty, and protecting Germany from (Nazi manufactured) external threats. Again, similarly, Palestinians back Hamas because they see Hamas as the best hope of dealing with Israeli oppression.

For 45 years the world (read: United States) has shown little interest in stopping the Israelis--who are supplied with arms and training by the United States-- from forcibly displacing people from their homes and relocating them to what Chomsky calls "the world's largest open-air prison."

How could the Palestinian people possibly expect to defend themselves against Israel in an open and conventional conflict? The Palestinian people back terrorism because it works--it forces Israel to the negotiating table. Consistently, these Israeli "flexing our big muscles" incursions and retaliations by the military have failed completely to stop rocket attacks, suicide bombs, etc. and at some point they must always go to the negotiating table. A side benefit is that the terrorist attacks and subsequent negotiations get the world's media eye focused on the region and what Israel is doing there.

So this talk about whether Hamas are terrorists or freedom fighters is besides the point. They're terrorists to Israelis and they're freedom fighters to the Palestinians. Israel and the U.S. are just as much terrorists as Hamas if not more so. You can watch Chomsky clearly explain why on this Sift: http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-is-america-a-leading-terrorist-state

Second, let's look at the casualties from this latest conflict:
Israel: 3 Israeli's dead, 60 injured from shrapnel (all adults according to latest reports)
Palestine: 100s dead, including 26 children

Yet, Israel tries to spin its military campaign as one of self-defense. The balance of power is so skewed here it's comical.

If there is any hope for peace in this region, it will only come after the U.S. not only stops actively supporting Israel but openly condemns them as well. But that can't possibly happen without the U.S. looking supremely hypocritical about the actions it takes globally (for instance in Afghanistan) in the name of the "War on Terror."

From there, as others have mentioned, you have to stop the occupation and bring both sides together on equal terms. Yes, there will still be fanatics who will fight to the end. But they won't be finding the sympathy and support of the majority of the populace if that populace is no longer oppressed and instead is living in free and safe conditions. Without that popular support, those fanatics will be much easier to deal with than they are now. It's not going to be an easy road to peace because hatred has been bred into both sides so deeply. But I do think it is possible if only the U.S. government will get its head out of its ass.

My 2 cents, anyways.

EDIT: Please don't take this post to mean that I support terrorism in any form or think that it is justified by the Israeli occupation. I am only pointing out the historical fact that terrorism gives the Palestinians pretty much their ONLY bargaining chip at the negotiating table--the Palestinian leadership (whoever is in charge at the time, though it is currently Hamas) agrees to reign in the terror attacks in exchange for humanitarian aid such as food, building supplies, etc. In other words, it "works" in achieving short-term goals but clearly doesn't help achieve lasting peace in the region--which as others have pointed out Hamas doesn't really want anyway.

bmacs27says...

Do people even still talk about the '46 borders? I thought it was all about 67 borders these days. I mean, I wouldn't give up the land I won when I got attacked either.

messengersays...

I chose the year 1946 to elicit opinions about when Hamas or Palestinians at large might stop fighting, not because it's a feasible item on the table.

bmacs27said:

Do people even still talk about the '46 borders? I thought it was all about 67 borders these days. I mean, I wouldn't give up the land I won when I got attacked either.

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




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More