Ahmed Sawafiri, 19, of Gaza City, studies with a friend's help for the college entrance exams, Tawjihi, earlier this week. Ahmed lost both legs, an arm, and two fingers when an Israeli missile exploded in a crowed as he walked to class in April. (Al-Jazeera)
Chaim Sugerman learned that he actually is not studying for exams, rather, reading manuals on installing tools and gadgets to his limbs in his quest to become Gaza's first Inspector Gadget, and he is very grateful to the Israeli occupation forces for the opportunity.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Today's Pic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"Chaim Sugerman learned that he actually is not studying for exams, rather, reading manuals on installing tools and gadgets to his limbs in his quest to become Gaza's first Inspector Gadget, and he is very grateful to the Israeli occupation forces for the opportunity."
Ouch, Fayaad.
Questions:
1) Are they still the Israeli Occupation Forces when we're talking about Gaza, considering that they pulled out of Gaza? Which part of Gaza are they occupying, exactly?
2) Does it speak poorly of Hamas that despite pulling out and handing the area over to them, Gaza continues to be a headache to Israel?
3) To what extent is Egypt to blame for the current situation in Gaza?
4) If you were in charge of Israeli policy, what feasible policy response would you choose to rocket attacks from Gaza on the Israeli south?
5) Which are more likely to hit civilians -- Israeli rockets that are primarily aimed at Hamas but also kill civilians, or Hamas rockets that are just targeted at whoever the hell is around?
If he wants to boycott Israel he needs to take that phone off his arm.
To Joe:
I am no fan of Hamas or violence aimed at any human being. But i will try to answer your questions (as a Palestinian from the West Bank).
#1: The settlers might not be there, but nobody can claim that Gaza is not under occupation. The borders are sealed shut. Israeli controls who goes out, and what little goes in. .. the Israeli army is still present in all parts of the Gaza strip (not just the northern part were the "rockets" are launched form).
#2: Maybe, but there are other things that speak poorly of Hamas as well. However, let's not forget that the "pull-out" happened a while ago (2005), and the "rocket" attacks are semi-recent. The Israeli army did continue to adjitate people by carrying out assassination and bombing operations even after the pull out .. and ofcourse by forcing a blockade right after the pull-out.
#3: Well, yes, the southern Gaza border (with Egypt) is also closed. Maybe Egypt is complying to international pressure to keep things as they are. However, i do not know much honestly about why is Egypt behaving the way it is. They try to mediate talks .. but there is alot more they could do in order to ease the life of ordinary civilians in the strip.
#4: Obviously the mass punishment of everyone in Gaza is cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary. The rockets are mostly launched from the northern part of the Gaza strip. So, they could monitor the northern part alone (without going deep into Gaza). Additionally, surprisingly enough, most people in Gaza (just like anywhere in the world) would like to just live their normal lives. So, just allow food, medicine, and other stuff in so they can try to live .. Oppression only leads to resentment. Israel is only adding fuel to the fire with its policy.
Also, please know that the "rockets" that are being fired from Gaza are not "real rockets" .. most of them actually fall in the strip, or on barren lands. Yes there have been 4 Israeli casualties of these rockets in total .. but it is nothing in comparison to the 300+ civilian Gazans that have been killed by Israeli force in just this year!!!
#5: The numbers and stats show that Israeli attacks are more likely to cause human casualties. Again, only four Israeli civilians have been killed by all rocket attacks from Gaza .. while more than 300 Gazans have died from Israeli attacks just this year. In the first few days of March .. more than 100 people were killed in Gaza in just 3 days!!!
Also, if you look at the footage of those rockets .. you will see that there is no actual aim in them ... most of them even leave evident squiggly trails behind them. ... again .. i am not excusing them. .. i am just stating how things are.
I hope this helps.
Good try, Za'atar,
However, remember that Joe and fellow apologists for Zionist atrocity continue to believe that civilians ripped apart by sophisticated missiles understand that, because they weren't the actual target, their impending death is morally acceptable.
Sorry, Joe, but can we please end this absurdity that missiles can in packed urban areas can be "aimed"....? Or that war even has a moral high ground?
When you launch a rocket, a missile, a shell or fire a bullet, you do so with the clear understanding that you might not – in fact, probably won't – destroy solely your intended target. No modern war has been enacted without a disproportionate percentage of "collateral damage"... and no general has ever shied away from that fact.
The ethics of the guy whose finger is on the trigger really doesn't mean a whole lot to the house full of children he's just about to slaughter.
Joe, your apologia for colonisation and murder does your attempt at positive dialogue few favours.
Responding to Lowfields first, and then Za'atar:
""However, remember that Joe and fellow apologists for Zionist atrocity continue to believe that civilians ripped apart by sophisticated missiles understand that, because they weren't the actual target, their impending death is morally acceptable.""
I'm not implying that from *their* perspective, it sucks any less. Of course it still sucks. But from an overall perspective, there's the reality of choosing between least-worst options. Israel often doesn't live up to that standard of choosing the least-worst option, but even if they did there would be human suffering aplenty to go around.
""
Sorry, Joe, but can we please end this absurdity that missiles can in packed urban areas can be "aimed"....? Or that war even has a moral high ground?""
'Aim' is relative. Some missiles are more aimed than others, even if we don't have 'perfectly' aimed weapons and probably never will (since even a perfectly aimed weapon would rely on human intelligence to some degree for targeting).
As for war having a moral high ground, again, it's relative, but if you think there's no such thing as different degrees of morality in war, Hitler, Pol Pot, and a few others would like to have a word with you.
""No modern war has been enacted without a disproportionate percentage of "collateral damage"...""
'Disproportionate' according to what standard?
""
The ethics of the guy whose finger is on the trigger really doesn't mean a whole lot to the house full of children he's just about to slaughter.""
There's no reason it should, to them. But to us, the international gatekeepers, it should matter.
""
Joe, your apologia for colonisation and murder does your attempt at positive dialogue few favours.""
Name any attempt at colonization I've ever apologized for. I've called for the complete dismantling of all settlements in the occupied territories, and a two-state solution with sustainable boundaries. The existence of Israel itself is not colonization in any way -- the Jews who came to Palestine were not colonizers or occupiers, but rather merely immigrants, and as human capital goes, about the best immigrants you could possibly hope for.
And now, to Za'atar:
On point 1): The presence of the Israeli army may be an issue, but the sealing of the border is *not* a sign of occupation. If anything, it's a sign that Israel is treating Gaza as sovereign; sovereign countries have the right to seal their border with one another, just as America has the sovereign right to seal its border with Mexico or Canada if we chose to (though I hope we don't).
An exception can be made for the few rare cases in the world where one state completely surrounds another (I think there are a couple mini-states in Southern Africa like this?). But in this case, Gaza has a border with two countries - Israel and Egypt.
If Israel wants no dealings with Gaza, the Gazans should turn to Egypt. Since no rocket attacks have been launched against Egypt from Gaza that I'm aware of, they have a much stronger moral case for the opening of the border with Egypt. Indeed, when they blew open the border earlier this year and streamed across into Egypt, the international community was generally on the side of the Palestinians.
If a country has two borders, and neither country on either border wants to let the Gazans through, can we agree that the country that hasn't been suffering rocket attacks and isn't directly at war with the Gazan government is the one with the greater moral imperative to open the border?
2) I agree that the Hamas assassinations have been counterproductive. Not so sure about the blockade - time will tell, but I think it's well within Israel's rights, since (as I discussed above) they're not Gaza's only neighbor.
3) We basically agree on this, though again, I view Egypt as more morally culpable for the suffering caused by the blockade than Israel.
4) I agree with most of this... the problem is, from Israel's perspective, how do you get any guarantee that the attacks will stop, and stay stopped? They see Hamas as fundamentally unable and unwilling to provide that guarantee, and so they hope that a blockade will eventually drive Hamas from power (if history is any indication, that strategy will fail). There is much Hamas could do to pressure Israel into serious negotiations, such as acknowledging Israel's right to exist, a policy shift that costs them nothing... but then again, the welfare of the Gazan people isn't Hamas' main driver. And the people of Gaza are, yes, stuck in the middle of all this with no real power to affect either side.
5) I know that the rockets launched from Gaza cause few casualties... but frankly, I think casualties are a poor way to measure their effect.
First, the moral level: The casualty difference is not a moral difference between the Israeli side and Hamas, but a difference in the effectiveness of their weapons. If Hamas had more effective weapons in as ample supply as the inaccurate rockets, they'd surely use them (such as when they got rockets with upgraded range and accuracy during the breach in the border with Egypt). Having more effective weapons doesn't make an action morally better or worse.
As to the effect on Israel, casualties are a poor measure; the effect it has on the psyche of the people living in the effected areas, as well as on the economic life of southern Israel, is immense. The rockets are inaccurate, but they fall frequently enough that it's a constant psychological drain. You can't conduct daily business in such an atmosphere -- it brings Israeli modernity to a halt.
To make an analogy to America -- as massive an event as September 11th was, terrorists probably could have achieved an even greater effect on the American psyche and economy with three or four suicide bombings in middle-American shopping malls at the start of the Christmas shopping season. Actions which sow fear and doubt into the normal rhythms of everyday life have an especially high impact.
Do the Gazans suffer similarly through Israeli incursions? Yes. But at the same time, if Israel had a hypothetical perfect guarantee from Hamas that both sides could simply stop fighting and live in peace, they'd surely take it. It's doubtful that Hamas would do the same. When Israel tries to figure out how to respond to rocket attacks, they're trying to figure out how to defend their way of life (that's the goal, even if the policies they choose to try and achieve that goal are often stupid and counterproductive); when Hamas launches those rockets, its goal is not self-defense, but rather destruction.
Joe dude I'm sorry but so much of what you're saying is pure ignorance. Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, according to international law. Or should we adhere to Joe's Law from now on? In other words everything you spewed after that about ISrael's right to blockade blah blah blah is incorrect.
And Israel would jump at a chance for an end to attacks if only it could get that guarantee from Hamas? How about the three unilateral ceasefires Hamas gave Israel over the last three years, during which time neither the colonization of Palestinian land, the denial of Palestinian rights nor the unabated killing of Palestinians ever stopped.
I'm glad you're interested enough in this subject to give the West Bank a visit this summer, but please do some basic research on recent history. It'll help your arguments immensely.
How does Gaza work exactly. The people there can't get out because Israel is in control of who leaves Gaza? Or are all exit points through Israel and Israel is refusing to allow Gazans to fly out of Israel?
Lowfields: Thanks for your concern. I don't know much about this Joe person, but so far his discussion has been presented in civil manner, and it only seems fair to argue :-)
Joe: Thanks, here is my reply:
#1: We are at odds here. The situation between Israel and Gaza and the West Bank is a bit different. Israeli settlements and infrastructure do exist deep in the heart of the West Bank (and previously Gaza). And in fact, before September of 2000, most people in Gaza used to work in Israel! Not only that, but in both the West Bank and Gaza Israel controls all the import/export ports on land and on sea. Israel also controls the air space and air waves in both these lands. Additionally, Israel controls Gaza's territorial water space, and it does not allow Gazan fishermen to fish too deep. Add to that that Israel also holds much of the Palestinian tax money. So there is no sense of sovereignty what so ever. In fact, this is one of the main things the Palestinians are asking for. This draws sharp contrast to your analogy with the US Canadian, or Mexican, borders/relationships.
Although Gaza also borders Egypt, it went out of the Egypt's rule after Israel occupied it in the 1967 war. The Gazan/Egyptian border is not as "free" as one would think. As a matter of fact, the Gazan/Egyptian border was under Israeli control until recently. Additionally, one of the main passages between Gaza and Egypt goes through Israel and Israeli inspection still. So the Gazan/Egyptian borders are not as one would think.
Conceptually yes, if Israel wants no dealings with Gaza, the Gazans should be able to turn to Egypt. But in that case Israel should also not be an obstacle for Gazans to use their own territorial water, and control their airwaves. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Additionally, the discovery of that small natural gas pocket in Gaza's water does not signal a near end to this issue .. because Israel seems to want its peace of that gas as well.
#2: Well, Gaza was under blockade the minute Israel pulled out. The blockade just got worse in time, and worse yet after the rocket attacks. However, again, if Israel wants to use its right to seal its border, then it should complete treating Gaza as a sovereign land and address the issues i mentioned above.
#3: Yeah, i do not know much about the Egyptian/Israeli relations .. or the Egyptian/Gazan relations. All i know is that Egypt does not want to upset either side .. especially Israel (in part because of the monetary aid Egypt receives from the US).
#4: Israel can in fact deal with the "rocket" attacks without this full blown incursions, attacks, hard blows, and major operations. Your question was as to what policy could Israel change to enhance this .. and i still believe renouncing mass punishment will be most beneficial to Israel and the Palestinians. Look, Hamas and the opposition parties run on the basis of mistrust of the peace process and the sincerity of the Israelis in negotiations. They argue that Israel talks, and signs agreements, but nothing is seen on the ground. Israel is the big powerful side here, if they want to implement, they can. So, to ordinary people in Gaza, this continuous Israeli attacks, and the paralization of life, and huge civilian death only strengthens Hamas's position. I agree, Hamas can force serious negotiations if they acknowledge Israel. However, in reality, unless changes are visible on the ground, people will still be doubtful and that probably won't happen.
#5: I disagree. First of all, human life is human life. If Hamas had heavier weaponry that won't be an excuse for more Israeli casualties, as it should not be an excuse for Israel now for causing these huge death tolls. The whole world now operates on the principal that "only the good guys can have WMDs" .. that is based on the assumption that these "good guys" can show restraint. Yes Israel has not used its atomic weapons yet... but they sure did cause alot of havoc with tank shells, bombs, f-16 fighter jets, missiles, mines, and the works. So, they should also show restraint in using their non-WMDs. .. it is not a matter of "I kill more because i have better weapons" .. it is a matter of "We should stop this killing regardless".
Now, in terms of the damages done. In no way are the damages incurred by Israel due to the "rocket" attacks *even remotely comparable* to that forced on Gaza and the Gazans. Israelis might have some psychological problems due to this .. but please understand that these psychological traumas are also felt in the Palestinian Gazan side as well, and in higher numbers. You have people who got deformed, who lost their entire family, who lost their businesses, who lost their lives .. the amount of loss and damage done to Gaza is countless.
Please understand that life in Gaza has been brought to a stand-still. If you are a kid growing up in Gaza, you statistically have very little prospects in life ahead of you. Everything in Gaza has been affected, and i do mean everything. Teaching, medicine, moving, ..everything. .. at least if you get hurt in Israel due to an attacked, you can and will be treated. This is not true in Gaza, and mostly because the Israeli offenses have crippled Gaza's infrastructure.
Joe,
This is simple... despite what Zionist nuts have been saying since 1948, there is no such thing as purity of arms.
When you kill, you kill... and you do so knowing that you're also killing non-combatants.
There is no ethics in murder. There is no good way to kill an innocent civilian... when you launch a war, or a military strike, whether you wear khaki or a bomb belt, your actions are the same.
"No moral equivalence" is little more than a pathetic excuse for atrocity... was Hiroshima okay because the guy dropping the 100,000-death bomb wearing a uniform...?
look at lowfields try and argue.. so cute!
I think you mean "try to argue"...
So, is there an ethically correct way to kill a civilian, anon...?
And try to use English.... (see what I did there?)
Responding to lowfields first:
""
This is simple... despite what Zionist nuts have been saying since 1948, there is no such thing as purity of arms.""
Logical fallacy - strawman. I never once said there is 'purity of arms', merely noted that there are degrees of difference. I don't really give a shit what Zionists have claimed or not claimed, as I'm not a zionist.
""There is no ethics in murder. There is no good way to kill an innocent civilian... when you launch a war, or a military strike, whether you wear khaki or a bomb belt, your actions are the same.""
You conflate 'murder' and 'killing' here. 'Murder' means 'to kill without just cause'. The whole question we're debating is whether or not the broader causes involved warrant killing. A military strike with a legitimate objective that kills some civilians as well is on a different level than a guy with a bomb belt whose entire goal is to kill civilians -- an illegitimate means of trying to achieve what we believe is a legitimate end (a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli one).
""
"No moral equivalence" is little more than a pathetic excuse for atrocity... was Hiroshima okay because the guy dropping the 100,000-death bomb wearing a uniform...?""
Hiroshima was perfectly justified, though not for the straw-man reason you give (the guy dropping the bomb was wearing a uniform).
""Joe dude I'm sorry but so much of what you're saying is pure ignorance. Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, according to international law. Or should we adhere to Joe's Law from now on? In other words everything you spewed after that about ISrael's right to blockade blah blah blah is incorrect.""
'According to international law' isn't much of an argument. International law has never been, and will never be, the primary issue in resolving international disputes. Israel's footprint in Gaza is minimal compared to the West Bank, and not enough to make them an occupying power -- they're not the ones who are actually attempting to govern the place.
""And Israel would jump at a chance for an end to attacks if only it could get that guarantee from Hamas? How about the three unilateral ceasefires Hamas gave Israel over the last three years, during which time neither the colonization of Palestinian land, the denial of Palestinian rights nor the unabated killing of Palestinians ever stopped.""
Last I checked, Hamas never acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Without that, not much of a guarantee. Furthermore, you're conflating a number of events in the West Bank with events in Gaza, and generally papering over (with words like 'unabated' and 'ever stopped') the reality that there was a slowdown in hostilities by both sides (and a true 'cease-fire' by neither).
Why are you guys bother to show Joe that every single word that comes out of his keyboard is complete and utter rubbish? He's just trying to be fair and balanced.
Joe kind of almost makes me laugh. Like, in what world does his mind live, that he can sit back and try to give Israel some sort of moral authority and then say the murderous atrocities they commit "suck" and are "stupid."
It almost makes me giggle as much as the desperate tactics of the Republicans this election cycle. Except that people are dying because of ignorance like his. More than a little sucky, more than a little stupid. Just tragic, and sorrowful. Sigh...
"Hiroshima was perfectly justified..."
And there endeth the lesson.
Sorry, Joe, you have just rendered any further dialogue pointless.
You are historically ignorant and morally bankrupt.
Bye.
"" "Hiroshima was perfectly justified..."
And there endeth the lesson.
Sorry, Joe, you have just rendered any further dialogue pointless.
You are historically ignorant and morally bankrupt.
Bye.""
Please explain how you consider Hiroshima to be unjustified.
Post a Comment