Posts

POST A COMMENT

• 
  By Shai 2/6/09 at 11:54 a.m. UTC

  Even if Israel’s responses were legal according to International Law, which I’m not sure they were, they were not in Israel’s own interest.

  Regarding the legality of things, your quotes from the Oslo accord etc… we might be able to agree that Gaza is a kind of legal black hole, not well fitting into any category. Though this may make it easier at times for Israel to justify its behavior, it doesn’t serve Israel’s own interests.

  In order for any party to ultimately be able to take responsibility for their actions that party needs to have power and control. Israel’s blockade, withholding of taxes, total control over air and sea and the borders, as well as its incursions at will to engage in targeted assassinations and other purposes – effectively removes any kind of meaningful sovereignty that the Palestinians might have had in their black hole status. Having some control over their borders is a normal kind of power one can be held accountable for. Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians this kind of power.

  But Hamas does indeed find power and control anyway… through methods that, I think we can agree, are obscene (firing rockets, taking human shields etc.). I’m saying that Israel is, in part, culpable for that. And to the extent that Israel may have done stuff like use phosphorous bombs and engaged in strikes in which it was obvious that civilians would killed, then Hamas has succeeded at training us to be act like them. What explains Israel’s behaving like that is an intense sense of vulnerability which is in a complete disconnect with its military power. The Palestinians are not responsible for the Holocaust yet we continually burden them with our collective psychic wounds, one of which is expressed is our inability to see our own power.

  I’ll finish with some words from Ari Elon. He taught me Talmud in the ’90s at the RRC. His father is the Israeli Supreme Court Justice Menachem Elon and his brother is the leader of the Settler Movement, Benny Elon. This paragraph is from his book, “Almi Di” translated as “From Jerusalem to the Edge of Heaven.” The writing is from roughly 1990. Ari lives in Israel.
  

  As long as we rule over another people, we will not be a liberated people. A liberated people is master of itself and only of itself. For this reason, as long as the Palestinian people does not achieve liberation, the Jewish people will not be liberated and the Zionist dream will not be realized. Since this is so, we have an obligation as Zionists to remove our yoke from the Palestinian people and release them from our shackles. And to stop keeping such a tight grip on them in making them sign all kinds of assurances and statements of obligation so that we can finally securely return to them what we have to return, so that they can settle down finally and finally concentrate on their internal culture war and leave us free to concentrate on our own culture wars, and thus the redeemer will come to Zion. Amen.
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 2/4/09 at 9:02 a.m. UTC

  I’ve enjoyed our discussion and agree with you that we’ll probably have to wait to see if Israel committed war crimes during their defensive action in Gaza. Much of our debate revolved around your insistence that Hamas has never used human shields, and when I provided you primary sources to support my contention that Hamas glorifies the deaths of innocent Palestinians as martyrs (and praises the deaths of innocent Israelis as part of their goal to "obliterate" Israel), you level ad hominen attacks against officials at MEMRI. This is the weakest form of argumentation. In order to discredit the sources I presented, you must be able to demonstrate a consistent pattern of misinterpretation. Merely questioning the politics of those who run the organization is not adequate.  
• 
  By Reality_Check 2/4/09 at 12:05 a.m. UTC

  And only selectively, when it suits you. 

  Come on Stuart. I know you can do better than that.

   

  Facts are stubborn things
• 
  By Stuart 2/3/09 at 11:51 p.m. UTC

  When they dont say what you want them to say?
• 
  By Reality_Check 2/3/09 at 8:43 p.m. UTC

  From a comment on the same article in Haaretz:

  "I have just read the article and what the Haaretz article fails to
  point out is testimony by other Palestinians including a Mr Masoda Al
  Samoun that Israeli special forces dressed as militants complete with
  headbands infiltrated the alleyways and houses of the refugee camps to
  spread chaos and confusion. Check it for yourselves."

  Another comment:

  "The same article also says

  "The Israeli `special squads`
  dressed up as Hamas guerillas, and slid the alleyways to cause chaos.
  We yelled at them to go away, fearing reprisals. Afterwards we
  understood they were Israelis."

  I don’t speak Italian so I can’t verify this.

  That’s generally the problem with hearsay though. It was also widely reported that civilians claimed IDF soldiers were shooting at them even though they were holding white flags and also executing fathers in front of their children. Is it true? Who knows. If Israel had allowed reporters to go in Gaza, as the supreme court had ordered, we would have had a clearer picture, including whether Hamas uses civilians as human shields as a matter of routine and doctrine, as Tzvi ben Rachmiel claims.

   

  Facts are stubborn things
• 
  By Reality_Check 2/3/09 at 7:55 p.m. UTC

  Yeah, Corriere della Sera. This was also the paper that published that jounalist’s story about a "doctor" who said:

  "The Gaza doctor was further quoted as saying:
  "Perhaps it is like Jenin in 2002. At the beginning they spoke about
  1,500 dead, and at the end it turned out to be only 54 – of whom 45
  were militants." 

  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057874.html

  That’s a little too specific if you know what I mean, but never mind. 

   

  Facts are stubborn things
• 
  By Stuart 2/3/09 at 6:53 p.m. UTC

  Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing
  them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during
  the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Thursday.

  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057874.html

   

  Facts ARE stubborn things.

  Unfortunately, most of what you post is opinion masquerading as fact.
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 2/3/09 at 2:13 a.m. UTC

  "It [Hamas terrorism] may not be justified, but it may be understandable.

  Although I’m surprised you admit Hamas’s use of human shields is illegal, I’m glad you concede the point.

  "What did Abbas get for being a moderate? Checkpoints, expansion of the settlements and the Wall. It is kind of difficult to convince anyone to be moderate when this is what moderation gets."

  The checkpoints are legal according to international law. No sovereign state is required to open its international borders, and in fact, the US has several checkpoints along it’s borders. Sadly, the checkpoints were created to insure Israel’s safety from terrorism. Similarly, the security fence–which you intentionally call a "Wall" though very little of it is a walled structure–was built in response to a vicious wave of terrorism that killed 1,000 Israelis (more than Israel lost during the 67 war), which is an amount equivalent to the US suffering 45,000 deaths at the hand of terrorists. Since the fence was built, terrorist attacks have been decreased by 90%.  

  First of all, you again are mistaking me with the people I quote.

  I assume you are offering these opinions because you endorse the views. Don’t clutter your comments with someone else’s words if they don’t reflect your opinion.

  However, for the evidence I asked you to provide you use excerpts from an Egyptian government daily (!)

  To confirm my statement that Hamas glorifies death and the illegal use human shields, I can’t think of more persuasive and authoritative sources than a member of the PA parliament and several of Israel’s sworn enemies, who, despite their antisemitism and anti zionism, blame Hamas.  

  "You would have known that there were great internal debates on the legality of several aspects of the operation with some serious arm-twisting in order for the IDF to get the legal opinions it wanted, while ignoring others…"

  Once again, the fact that there were legal debates is a testament to the IDF’s and Israel’s moral superiority. (Terror is easier to fight in non-democratic countries, like Syria, which killed 30,000 Islamic fundamentalists in 1982.) Maj. General Amos Yadin, who headed the IDF’s team that outlined the principles of war against terror, has written, "Under the international law of war, military necessity justifies almost everything. Yet Israel has limited its right to invoke military necessity by requiring additional conditions, including PURPOSE – that the action is really helping to defend our citizens. INTELLIGENCE AND PROOF – that what we are doing is really saving the lives of people in Israel. EFFECTIVENESS – that if there is going to be a lot of collateral damage, we have to look for another alternative."

  I assume the discussions you quote were centered around these worthy principles. When the decisions to bomb certain military targets were made, I feel confident that both legal and moral considerations were made. Indeed, that is the opinion of Colonel Richard Kemp from the British Army, who stated “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”

  Would that our enemy, Hamas, was as ethical.  

  With regard to casualties, not surprisingly, the sources you quote fail to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Instead, they use the terms Palestinians or Gazans — "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed. This is intentionally deceptive. Also, a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Lorenzo Cremonesi, quoted a doctor in Gaza’s Shifa hospital, who said the number of Palestinian civilian deaths "does not exceed 500 or 600". This particular doctor would not give his name because he feared for his life. Finally, you failed to answer my point that history has shown that Palestinians have regularly inflated the death toll, so it’s quite possible that they are doing so today.

  I agree that the destruction was severe and that innocent civilians died.  But the bottom line is that Israel’s action against Hamas was legal according to international law and according to Jewish law. They waged the war in an ethical manner, targeting only military installations and admitting and apologizing when shells went astray. They have honored the ceasefire and respond only in self-defense.  
• 
  By Reality_Check 2/2/09 at 11:29 p.m. UTC

  6) You say: "Indeed, if Israel were guilty of "massive
  bombardments," as you assert, they easily could have destroyed every building in every Gaza city."

  Again, you are confusing me with Gideon Levy. However, this doesn’t appear to be
  false.

  a) Here is Tony Karon with lots of links:

  "Yes, we now know the ever grimmer statistics: more than 1,400
  dead Gazans (and rising as bodies are dug out of the rubble); 5,500 wounded;
  hundreds of children killed; 4,000 to 5,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 damaged –
  14% of
  all buildings in Gaza; 50,000 or more homeless; 400,000 without water; 50 U.N.
  facilities, 21 medical facilities, 1,500 factories and workshops, and 20
  mosques reportedly damaged or destroyed; the smashed schools and university
  structures; the obliterated government buildings; the estimated almost two
  billion dollars in damage; all taking place on a blockaded strip of land 25
  miles long and 4 to 7.5 miles wide that is home to a staggering 1.4 million
  people."

  http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175024/tony_karon_obama_s_gaza_opportunity

  b) Here is the BBC:

  "More than 1,300 Palestinians killed.

  Thirteen Israelis killed (10 soldiers, most by friendly fire).

  More than 4,000 buildings destroyed in Gaza, more than 20,000 severely damaged.

  50,000 Gazans homeless and 400,000 without running water."

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7839863.stm

  c) The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voiced shock and anger at the
  "heartbreaking" devastation:

  "I have seen only a fraction of the destruction. This is shocking and
  alarming," Ban said, condemning an "excessive use" of force by
  Israel as well as Hamas’s rocket fire into Israel.

  "These are heartbreaking scenes I have seen and I am deeply grieved by
  what I have seen today," he told a news conference held against a
  backdrop of still smoldering food aid in a U.N. warehouse set ablaze by
  Israeli gunfire last Thursday."

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090120/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel

  d) According to the Independent, as of January 15, Israeli forces had
  carried out 2,360 (!!!) airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. The buildings destroyed
  are estimated at 15% of all Gaza buildings. We have to remember that Gaza is
  one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and it was pounded by
  artillery and navy fire and airstrikes for 3 weeks.

  If you don’t consider this a bombardment, fine. Everyone else (except
  Israel’s government of course) thinks it was a devastating, disproportionate
  attack. For all the world public opinion, the Red Cross, the UN, the EU, all
  major Human Rights Organizations etc you simply parrot every official position
  of the Israeli government.

  Fine. Just don’t waste my time because I can always read Mark Regev’s statements instead of reading you.

   

  Facts are stubborn things
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 2/2/09 at 4:53 p.m. UTC

  (1) Evidence that Hamas glorifies the use of human shields:

  Excerpts from a speech by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008:
  Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

   

  (2) Evidence that Hamas coerces Palestinians to be human shields: (Excerpted from an editorial in Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya, Muhammad ‘Ali Ibrahim, who is also an Egyptian MP)

  A. "What it [Hamas] has done to the Palestinians, not even Israel has done. [The Hamas government] is the first [Muslim] government in the world to prevent its citizens from making the Hajj, and it the third [Arab] regime to massacre its own people, after Saddam Hussein’s and Hafez Al-Assad’s. Must the Egyptian army defend it? Must we defend lunatics who have butchered their own people, held the wounded hostage…"

  B. Excerpted from the Arabic electronic newspaper ELAPH by Abd al-Fattah Shehadeh: "Hamas is hiding behind the civilian population instead of defending it, as it had promised. Hamas…dug bunkers and tunnels, instead of building shelters for the residents of Gaza. They brought catastrophe upon the Palestinians with the misguided calculation they had learned from Hizballah: They turned houses and mosques into battlegrounds so that the people would protect them and those who trusted them now regret it."

  C. Excerpted from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 27, 2009:

  The Abd Rabbo family members were helpless when Hamas terrorists seized their land and fired mortars and Kassasms into Israel. They emphasize that they are not [Hamas] activists and that they are still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they were unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night. One family member, Hadi (age 22) said: "You can’t say anything to the resistance [fighters], or they will accuse you of collaborating [with Israel] and shoot you in the legs."

   

   

  Later, I’ll be happy to address your opinion that Hamas is justified in using terrorism because it is a legitimate guerilla organization. 
• 
  By Reality_Check 2/2/09 at 4:18 p.m. UTC

  "Hamas’ on the other hand, glorifies the tactic and coerces it’s own civilians into the practice."

  Please provide the evidence for that.

  This whole "human shields" baloney is because Hamas fights, like almost every guerilla group before it, in cities and not out there on some field in parataxis. It’s called urban warfare. I don’t recall anyone before Israel, say the British when dealing with the IRA, using this accusation for people who fight in the cities they live in – but then again, I also don’t recall the British bombing Dublin with fighter jets and artillery for weeks to kill IRA militants.

  If you are going to consider urban warfare as using "human shields", then you are in muddy waters. Consider this:

  ******

  "… Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was
  committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a
  gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the
  town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German
  Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no
  alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total
  blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

  Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The
  Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the
  millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to
  send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They
  called it the Blitz.

  This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

  Absurd?
  No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being
  repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza
  as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”,
  they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in
  which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men
  are killed and injured."

  Uri Avnery.

  ****** 

  Or this:

  "One can say Hamas hides among the civilian population, as if the Defense Ministry
  in Tel Aviv is not located in the heart of a civilian population, as if there
  are places in Gaza that are not in the heart of a civilian population. One can
  also claim that Hamas uses children as human shields, as if in the past our own
  organizations fighting to establish a country did not recruit children.

  A significant majority of the children killed in Gaza did not
  die because they were used as human shields or because they worked for Hamas.
  They were killed because the IDF bombed, shelled or fired at them, their
  families or their apartment buildings. That is why the blood of Gaza’s children
  is on our hands, not on Hamas’ hands, and we will never be able to escape that
  responsibility."

  Gideon Levy

  ******

  As far as Israel’s use of the tactic goes, see here for some background info (click on the links on the right):

  http://btselem.org/English/human%5Fshields/

   

  Facts are stubborn things
• 
  By GabysPoppy 2/2/09 at 3:49 p.m. UTC

  "How many innocent Palestinians would have to die and under what circumstances for you to declare that human rights had been violated?" Place yourself in Gaza and try answering that question."

  I think the loss of any "innocent’ life is deplorable.  I’m sure we will also disagree on the definition of "innocent".  It’s been a very long time since I have been in Gaza (pre-Intefada 2) and I’m sure it has no relevance to Gaza today but I have been in Israel many times.  I also know personally many people that have buried "innocent" children.  How many do you know?  Talk to HAMAS?  OK, what do you say to HAMAS when they say from the Jordan to the Meditteranean Sea? Where do you go from there?

  I suggest a dose of reality before you sail on the ship of idealism a/k/a "Ship of Fools".

   
• 
  By Stuart 2/2/09 at 9:21 a.m. UTC

  You stated the number of Israeli deaths is 28 deaths in 8000 trys. I assume that is supposed to be relevant.

  In fact, when pressed on the number of Israeli deaths that you would consider enough to justify a ground invasion, you turned the question around and instead asked how many Palestinian civillian deaths and under what cicumstances that humanrights had been violated.

  In my opinion, that is beyond a cop out. It is the same as asking if America’s involvement in WWII was justified or not since we dropped atomic weaponry on Japan and killed millions of civillians. Those are tweo seperate and distint issues.

   So, since I wrote earlier to the rabbis who signed or wanted to sign, and since it seems you are one of those, let me ask you again to think and answer the question. Stating you would merely move out of Sederot and abandon Israeli cities to Hamas rockets is an inane response. What happens when those rockets regularly hit Ashkelon? Abandon that city too? Hertzaliyah next?

  All wars harm civillians. Israel, like all nations, places its military bases away from civillian centers. Hamas rockets could hit those bases as easily as they do with civillian cities, so they are obviously tryying to kill as many civillians as they can. That they have been unsuccesful is more because of Israeli defense than Hamas ineptitude. If you watch the news, you will often see rockets that explode in homes, in school playgrounds, etc. So a generation of Israeli childrern are growing up scared and scarred.

  Your opinion that the tactics of the Israeli military amount to collective punishment, like your other prounouncement of occupation seem more ‘pop culture’ than legal definitions. I would encourage you to think about Lashon Hora of an entire community (or nation) and not use such inflamatory language without care. Calling someone a ‘killer’ might be pop lingo, but would still be wrong.

  So now, I ask you to answer to answer Gaby’s question. If a Hamas rocket had hit a children’s schoolyard at recess killing 20+ Israeli children,would the Israeli action – aimed at Hamas, but inevitably killing an
  unknown number of civillians (again, don’t forget the Jenin massacre of
  500-700 dead that turned out to be 70). Would Operation Cast lead have
  been justified to you then? Or would some of the specific tactics the
  Israeli military used meant the entire operation should never have
  happened?

  What if a rocket had hit in asoccer game and killed several hundred Israelis? Wold the equal numbers of civillian deaths now make the operation ‘justifiable’, or is it that Israel is never allowed to act against Hamas unless it has doen all the items on your laundry list of ‘peace-making’.

  What about a school yard at recess, killing only 20 or so Israeli school children? Is the Israeli reponse unjustifiable unless they have made the peace actions you cited? If they have done all that you required and Hamas STILL continues, is Operation Cast Lead justified?

  What happens when Israeli grants the Palestinians full independednce in Gaza, the west Bank, Jerusalem and everywhere else they claim and the rockets still fall and kill innocents? Is Operation Cast Lead then allowed, or are the Israelis permanently straight jacketted into never responding to rocket-fire with military action because of the likelyhood of civillian casualties?

  I think you can see, my issue is that you worte ‘never’. Slippery slopes or straight line progressions, most people can see that there is a point at which Operation Cast Lead becomes not only justifiable, but neccessary. That you or someone else disagrees with where we are along that spectrum hardly makes such action ‘never’ right.

   
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 2/2/09 at 8:37 a.m. UTC

  I welcome your cordial tone and the opportunity to learn about your perspective. Thanks.

  First, let me answer your questions. You write:

  What kind of an entity is Gaza? All of the following government roles that pertain to sovereignty and self-determination are controlled by Israel:

  Israel has negotiated the status of Gaza and the West Bank with the PLO, and the answers to your questions can be found in the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo Accords (1993). This agreement was signed by both parties and provides the Palestinian Authority with responsibility for education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism.

  According to this interim-agreement, signed by both parties, Israel is responsible for defending against external threats, which gives them control of air, borders, and sea. Hence, I’m not sure why you believe that Israel is somehow violating Gaza’s sovereignty.

  Israel withheld taxes ONLY after Hamas seized power in an unlawful coup in 2007. Because Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s existence, and refuses to recognize previous agreements, why on earth should Israel turn over money that will only be used for weapons of destruction? 

  Finally, I originally embraced the two state solution but now have serious fears that the Palestinian people will NEVER BE willing to live side by side in peace. Everything they have done proves otherwise. They continue educating their children to hate Israel and Jews; and they never stopped importing offensive weapons (the Karine A); and the ultimate proof, they elected a terrorist regime that is dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

  I believe the Gaza war was not about territory. The war with Hamas is  a clash of civilizations. If Hamas can be eliminated, or marginalized, I will feel much more comfortable with a Palestinian state next to Israel, which I agree, is the only long term solution for Israel.  
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 2/1/09 at 11:45 a.m. UTC

  What Jewish source do you believe allows a state to defend itself? I’ve asked a few times and you haven’t answered. Most recently, you said that I entered the thread late and that you were only reacting to my assertion that killing a "rodef" justifies Israel’s attacks on Hamas. If you’ve given a religious source, I haven’t seen it.

  BTW – you say, "As a sovereign state within the community of nations, Israel needs to justify its behavior within international law." This is a simple matter of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits states to defend themselves against attack.
• 
  By Shai 2/1/09 at 9:31 a.m. UTC

  GabysPoppy,

  In addition to asking legitimate questions of me, you have also taken a jabs at me such as “While you are answering my questions… which I doubt you will.”

  When I wrote, “I don’t understand your question” — I was taking a jab at your grammar and/or proofreading when you crafted the sentence: “How many dead israelis would make make for an appropriate response?” Indeed, I “fixed” the grammar in your sentence and then went ahead and answered your question — which you had predicted that I wouldn’t.

  But I’ll grant you this, taking jabs in these kind of forum debates is thoroughly unproductive. I’m willing to engage in a unilateral ceasefire on taking jabs in this conversation.

  You wrote, “If you recall the kassams, missiles continued when Israel left Gaza.” The Israeli geographer, close confident of Arik Sharon and the architect of disengagement, predicted accurately that disengagement would do nothing to prevent rockets, that rockets would fly on the day after disengagement. Read a summary of an interview or the whole interview with Arnon Soffer from Jerusalem Post in 2004.

  You ask, “Do you think it might have been better if HAMAS at that point in 2005 turned their efforts to building their economy, infra-structure etc, rather than attack Israel?” How can they build their economy when Israel has a stranglehold on it?

  Since years and years of “we’ll punish them and then they’ll learn” has produced nothing but a proof of the failure of collective punishment as a strategy to move anything forward, I think it is time Israel tried something else. And for its own good… as I said, time is running out on a two-state solution which I believe israel desperately needs.

  You wrote, “place yourself in Sderot and try answering the question.”

  I feel horribly for the people of Sderot. To be honest, I can’t purport to understand the stress they live under. More honesty: if I lived in Sderot, I would move. And you are correct, I’m writing from thousands of miles away. No denying that.

  As for my ideas of what the Israel government should do in Sderot: I think Israel should invest, even more than she already has, in giving everyone in Sderot the best possible defensive protection, warning systems, etc. that they can. I also think, in the age of the Internet, full time production/television crews should be hired by the government to tell the ongoing story of Sderot and to document/interview each family who is injured or suffers a close-call. In addition, these producers should document the stress on the entire population of Sderot and the wider area. This ongoing documentary would be continually posted to YouTube with advertising dollars also going to promote these videos.

  As I said previously, I think Israel should try:
  a. talking to Hamas
  b. ending the blockade
  c. stopping all violent attacks on Gaza including targeted assignations.

  GabysPopy, You didn’t answer my question: “How many innocent Palestinians would have to die and under what circumstances for you to declare that human rights had been violated?” Place yourself in Gaza and try answering that question.
• 
  By GabysPoppy 2/1/09 at 4:55 a.m. UTC

  You say "I don’t understand your question." – If you recall the kassams, missiles continued when Israel left Gaza, how many dead Israelis would be necessary before you would allow Israel to defend its citizens.  Do you think it might have been better if HAMAS at that point in 2005 turned their efforts to building their economy, infra-structure etc, rather than attack Israel?  What would you do and want if you were a resident of Sderot?  You speak elequently sitting thousands of miles away, place yourself in Sderot and try answering the question.  If you don’t understand those questions and the ones asked and not answered previously, I overestermated your capacity of comprehension. 
• 
  By Shai 2/1/09 at 2:18 a.m. UTC

  GabysPoppy wrote, “How many dead israelis would make make for an appropriate response?” I don’t understand your question. Living is about responding appropriately at all times. People can disagree what is appropriate, but one must always try to do the right thing? Did you mean, “How many dead Israelis would it take to justify the kind of response that Israel just engaged in?” I think that collective punishment and engaging in military actions that are certain to kill innocents is never a good idea.

  Let me ask you the question. How many innocent Palestinians would have to die and under what circumstances for you to declare that human rights had been violated?

  What would be an appropriate response? As I said to Tzvi: Ending the blockade, ending assassinations, and talking to Hamas would all be good places to start. Calling this “response” a reward for bad behavior, which you would likely do, is to misunderstand what got us into the predicament in the first place. It is critical for us to understand the responsibility Israel holds as an occupying power. It is Israel that must take the lead in setting an example of talking as opposed to fighting.
• 
  By GabysPoppy 1/31/09 at 4:29 p.m. UTC

  How many dead israelis would make make for an appropriate response?

  Would you suggest that Israel once again use David’s slingshot as a weapon?

  While you’re answering my questions (which I doubt you will) what would have been an appropriate response?  Too many people use the word "appropriate" without an alternative, are you going to be another such person?

  My bet is you will be.  PROVE ME WRONG.
• 
  By Shira Danan 1/30/09 at 3:31 p.m. UTC

  Tzvi,

   First of all, there are voices of dissent even within Israel. Read, for example, David Grossman’s moving op/ed in Haaretz or the poster on Jewcy who described her experience protesting within Israel.

  Aside from that, I do believe that American Jews are embroiled in the conflict through proclaimed allegiances, tax dollars, Israeli citizenships and family members living in Israel. No, American Jews should not make decisions for Israel, but the opinions of American Jewish leadership are weighty nonetheless. They have enormous influence over American Jews who vote, travel, donate, and petition the government based on their views of Israel.

  I do not see where you found in my previous comment the implication that Israelis have expressed no remorse over the deaths of Palestinians in the last month. But to speak to that, I do think those statements are made, as you say, out of mourning but not out of guilt. The moral imperative is NOT, as Mr. Jager suggests, to prevail over an immoral Islamic philosophy. The moral imperative is to avoid killing hundreds of children if those deaths can be avoided. I do believe that those deaths could have been avoided. And I don’t want any part of a morality that places its priorities elsewhere. 
• 
  By Shai 1/30/09 at 2:40 p.m. UTC

  Tzvi suggests I have a double-standard. I’m happy to get into double anything when it comes to this discussion because the Jewish community, in broad strokes, has been so darn uni vocal, with nary a whisper as to the suffering of innocent victims. And when that unfortunate fact is mentioned, it’s usually done in the context of blaming Hamas for it.

  Back to the rodef. The double-standard goes both ways. If I use the rodef to justify abortion, I agree with you that I need to explain why I wouldn’t use it in another broadening of its scope such as applying to Gaza. Indeed, good call, Tzvi, thank you for the opportunity.

  But so too, anyone who rejects the use of rodef for abortion but is willing to apply it to defending against missiles from Gaza, must also account for that contradiction.

  Now my defense for using the rodef for abortion but not for Sderot. First, I’ll borrow from the folks advocating for using the principle in the Sderot situation by agreeing that death threats are real, even when they are remote. Secondly, I’ll also agree that it might be possible to use the rodef concept in cases where a rodef has a far likelier possibility of causing suffering but not death. The folks of southern Israel suffer under the threat of missiles even if they rarely die because of them. Agreed, and I also apply that to a mother seeking an abortion.

  The difference in the two cases is one of legal standing. There is no question about the relationship between the mother and the fetus. The extremely close relationship is what gives the mother the legal standing to apply the rodef principle against the fetus. (I would also claim the fact that the fetus is unborn is what gives the mother the right to use the rodef in the case of suffering as opposed to threat of death. But I acknowledge that is a bigger stretch.)

  One cannot make a claim to a similar kind of direct relationship between citizens of southern Israel and their Hamas pursuers. There is no ambiguity at all in the case of abortion regarding which fetus is threatening which particular mother as there is in the case of a particular Hamas pursuer and his Israeli intended victim.

  In regards to matters of choosing to inflict death upon another, any ambiguity about who the particular pursuer is and whom they are pursuing must lead to a rejection of the use of “rodef” to justify Israel’s conduct of the recent war.

  In this argument at least, I’m not ruling out other potential justifications for the war and particular tactics Israel used, but rather specifically against the use of rodef to justify them.

  Now to the hostage argument. Tzvi wrote
  

  But should the innocent hostage die while the police are attempting to free him/her there would NOT be any legal charges filed; and, moreover, no one would dare say that the hostages human rights had been violated.

  Israel, quite officially, declared that its intent was NOT to overthrow Hamas. In other words, in that case of hostage taking, the only reason Israel is engaged at all in that encounter is for the purpose of killing the Hamas militant, who happens also to be a hostage-taker. (Back to rodef for a moment: if Israel were engaged in the war to save Gazans from Hamas, then the rodef principle wouldn’t even be remotely relevant here.) The fact that Israel main purpose is not about saving the hostage gives Israel even less justification to tolerate civilian deaths as a result of its shooting at militants. The justification you speak of occurs when the first intent of the police force is to save the hostage. In Israel’s case it is an afterthought. In a hostage situation the police use violence as a last resort after they have determined that the kidnapper is about to kill the hostage.

  To conclude my refutation of the argument that police are not culpable when killing the hostage is a consequence of pursuing the kidnapper: the fact that Hamas’ use of human shields is evil has no force to mitigate Israel’s responsibility for shooting when it knows that innocents will die as a result.

  ‘lshem shamayim,

  Shai
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 1/30/09 at 1:26 p.m. UTC

  You quote the UN rep in Gaza: (Hamas — referring to them kidnapping Palestinians to use as human shields) takes a hostage, the police do not kill the hostage in order to kill the kidnapper.

  True, that would be senseless. But should the innocent hostage die while the police are attempting to free him/her, there would NOT be any legal charges file; and, moreover, no one would dare say that the hostages human rights had been violated.

  Shabbat shalom
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 1/30/09 at 1:21 p.m. UTC

  Shai writes, "The rodef principal is being obscenely abused by folks supporting Israel’s latest action."

  How ironic that a liberal rabbi (my assumption) chooses to adhere to a "strict" interpretation of this mishnah, and yet, he applies a far more liberal interpretation to the concept of rodef to  justify abortion under certain circumstances.

  If this interpretation of rodef is inappropriate, where do you find the notion of self-defense in our tradition?
• 
  By Shai 1/30/09 at 11:31 a.m. UTC

  Tzvi wrote, “Why do you merely ‘condemn’ Hamas’ relentless terrorism, but feel ‘devastated’ by Israel’s self-defense?” I can only speak for myself. “Devastation” points to a complex set of emotions that connect with my relationship to the State of Israel and my hopes for Israel and the Jewish People. As a lifelong Zionist and as a rabbi, I feel a combination of a profound sense of loss as well as anger over Israel’s choices. While we may disagree on how to make Israel safe, I hope you can understand that this sense of “devastation” comes from a person who loves Israel and therefore has emotional responses to her actions.

  Also, I do expect a lot more from Israel than I do from Hamas. Israel is a sovereign state with all the benefits and privileges that go with that. One of the downsides of this huge delay in getting Palestinians national sovereignty is that Israel and the world’s ability to hold the Palestinains accountable for their actions is also being delayed. Responsibility can only effectively be conferred on someone or some entity that has rights to go along with it.

  Disengagement meant that Israeli soldiers didn’t have to lose their lives defending Israeli settlers in Gaza anymore. That was a good thing for Israel. But disengagement gave the Gazans nothing except for the eventual takeover of Gaza by Hamas. They have no control over their boarders, no airport, no shipping, no autonomy whatsoever. Building tunnels is something that prisoners do. And Gaza is a huge prison. Without rights, it is basically impossible to hold someone responsible. This is the corner that Israel has painted itself into. Killing Gazans does nothing but violate their human rights.

  The rodef principal is being obscenely abused by folks supporting Israel’s latest action. The rodef princial talks about being able to slay the person who comes to slay you; it is as an act of self-defense. The rodef principal cannot be applied if a person is being pursued in a general way. It must be a very specific, immediate kind of pursuit. The fact that someone living in Sderot who has the catastrophic bad luck of having a Hamas missile land near/on him/her without any way to apply the principle of the “rodef” toward the Hamas person firing the rocket — doesn’t mean that you can then invent a new and dangerous, radically broadened, understanding of the rodef principle in order to justify actions that violate human rights.

  Here is the better principal to apply. I heard the UN head of Gaza operations interviewed. FYI in the 10-minute interview he directly condemned Hamas at least three times. He said the following. In civilized society, when a kidnapper (Hamas — referring to them kidnapping Palestinians to use as human shields) takes a hostage, the police do not kill the hostage in order to kill the kidnapper. Hamas was victorious in the latest war because they succeeded at goading Israel into behaving like them.

  That Italian newspaper story seems to have gone nowhere, by the way. And the burden is on Israel because they didn’t allow press in there. And even if it were 500 dead (which is what the story said might have been the number) vs. 1300, it doesn’t change the horrific consequences on the human beings who perished due to Israel’s overreaction.

  Shabbat shalom,

  Rabbi Shai Gluskin
• 
  By Shira Danan 1/30/09 at 11:27 a.m. UTC

  
  
  
  

  
  

  It is both heartening and frustrating to hear about this
  internal debate. Obviously, the same thing happens among us lay leaders and
  laypeople. Some sticking point prevents any kind of meaningful movement
  forward. It happens on this site constantly with the kinds of reflexive comments
  people write on thoughtful posts like yours.

   

  I was at a Jewish wedding a few weeks ago, and a brief
  prayer was said for those in danger in Israel, but no mention could be/was
  made of the millions of Gazans who were experiencing much greater danger and
  destruction. I found the absence of a space for that kind of statement to be
  made so demoralizing, dehumanizing, and yes, devastating.

   

  But it is hopeful to see the tide gradually turning among
  American Jews. I do see more and more leadership willing to speak up when they
  are not OK with the actions of the Israeli leadership. There is a long way to
  go, but your post and other public declarations of dissatisfaction and remorse
  are a good step in the right direction. As Jews, we need to know that it is OK
  to be Jewish and not be AIPAC.
• 
  By Tzvi ben Rachmiel 1/30/09 at 9:19 a.m. UTC

  Furthermore, I’m disturbed by specific rhetoric in the statement. Why do you merely "condmemn" Hamas’ relentless terrorism, but feel "devastated" by Israel’s self-defense? Why aren’t you "devastated" by Hamas’ brutality and utter lack of respect for human lives? Can there be anything more evil in war than to use children as human shields? Can there be anything more cynical than to use images of dead civilians as a war tactic?  
• 
  By Throbert McGee 1/30/09 at 9:10 a.m. UTC

  …permit me to buy the esteemed Rabbi Rosen a few pitchers of metaphoric beer with a chaser of metaphoric espresso.

  as long as there are people like you who suggest that preservation of Jewish life takes precedence over all else…

  (And what exactly are those "olden days" you refer to? The ones in
  which rabbis taught that all humanity was created in God’s image?)

  Golly, what on earth could he be insinuating?

  ?????

Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!