Israel's Gaza fuel cuts

[mjsd]

it is unfortunate that it has come down to this...

Monday, 29 October 2007, 21:41 GMT

The EU also voiced concern after Israel began reducing petrol and diesel supplies in response to militant rocket attacks on its territory.

Hamas seized control of the Strip in June from its Palestinian rivals Fatah. Israel's attorney-general is seeking a halt to electricity cuts pending an assessment of their likely impact. Gaza relies on Israel for almost all its fuel and petrol, and more than half of its electricity.

Israel says fuel cuts of up to 15% are a non-violent way of increasing pressure on Hamas.
It insists there will be enough power for hospitals and that supplies will continue to Gaza's sole power station.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7068239.stm

this conflict has no real winners...

 

[t-money]

IT is unfortunate, makes me wonder how long Hamas will continue launching rockets into random residential zones

 

[slugcountry]

Yes honestly - I think its time to stop painting Israelis as criminals for trying to live in the midst of constant rocket attacks =\

 

[Art]

Yes honestly - I think its time to stop painting Israelis as criminals for trying to live in the midst of constant rocket attacks =\

No-one is suggesting firing rockets into Israel is okay but is collective punishment justified? Israel is no stranger to committing atrocities herself so should all Israeli citizens also be collectively punished by the world community for the actions of it's criminals?

 

[slugcountry]

No-one is suggesting firing rockets into Israel is okay but is collective punishment justified? Israel is no stranger to committing atrocities herself so should all Israeli citizens also be collectively punished by the world community for the actions of it's criminals?

yeah this is really easy for you to say when you don't have rockets landing in your backyard every week, honestly... If my life was threatened like this on a daily basis I would certainly support measures to make life more difficult for hamas.

 

[t-money]

No-one is suggesting firing rockets into Israel is okay but is collective punishment justified? Israel is no stranger to committing atrocities herself so should all Israeli citizens also be collectively punished by the world community for the actions of it's criminals?

What atrocities has Israel committed? Other than defending their right to an existence.

 

[mjsd]

yeah this is really easy for you to say when you don't have rockets landing in your backyard every week, honestly... If my life was threatened like this on a daily basis I would certainly support measures to make life more difficult for hamas.

this is an interesting comment. Perhaps the Hamas/Palestine citizens have the same mentality too...their livelihood is now under threat so they may continue support measures to make life more difficult for the Israeli residents in the border towns ??

let's hope they don't take that view and stop those rockets once and for all and start negotiating

 

[mjsd]

What atrocities has Israel committed? Other than defending their right to an existence.

that really depends on how we define what qualify as an atrocity or how serious something is before it is called an atrocity. Some ppl may believe that any act of war/invasion/incursion is an atrocity; some may however disagree pending on the reasons for war. So, it is hard to have an universal agreement on this.

 

[Art]

What atrocities has Israel committed? Other than defending their right to an existence.

I suspect you might find it is the Palestinians who are struggling to survive both as individuals and as a people. The Israelis are under no such threat with one of the largest and nuclear armed forces in the world. This nonsense of 'our survival is under threat' is simply the standard piece of rhetoric churned out by Israel to justify the use of vastly disproportionate acts of violence perpetrated against a mainly civilian non-combatant population.

Some pictures of Israeli atrocities.

warning - graphic photos.

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

 

[mjsd]

collective punishment usually does more harm than good.

i'm not sure about this latest case, will have to wait and see... hopefully full power is back on at the time of writing.

 

[russ_watters]

I suspect you might find it is the Palestinians who are struggling to survive both as individuals and as a people. The Israelis are under no such threat with one of the largest and nuclear armed forces in the world. This nonsense of 'our survival is under threat' is simply the standard piece of rhetoric churned out by Israel to justify the use of vastly disproportionate acts of violence perpetrated against a mainly civilian non-combatant population.

It isn't rhetoric and it isn't Israel saying it, Art, and you know it. It is the explicitly stated goal of Israel's enemies. Israel may be (is) powerful enough to defend against that threat, but that doesn't mean the threat does not exist.

 

[Art]

It isn't rhetoric and it isn't Israel saying it, Art, and you know it. It is the explicitly stated goal of Israel's enemies. Israel may be (is) powerful enough to defend against that threat, but that doesn't mean the threat does not exist.

Are you seriously suggesting that the various ragtag elements which comprise the Palestinian resistance constitute a credible threat to the existence of Israel and so validate the overwhelming use of force, detention without trial and torture employed by the Israelis? You are kidding right?? Following your argument I suppose you must think the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who wanted the end of Nazism posed a credible threat to the third Reich and so the Nazis were justified in the level of force and the tactics they used in putting down their uprising? The situations are parallel.

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you seriously suggesting that the various ragtag elements which comprise the Palestinian resistance constitute a credible threat to the existence of Israel

Palestinian militants are certainly enough of a threat to warrant a response.

perpetrated against a mainly civilian non-combatant population.

Which, of course, is the fault of the Palestinian militants who use civilian non-combatants as human shields, and not the fault of Israelis.


Do we agree on these specific points?

(some examples: if you believe that "The current Israeli response is warranted", the answer for my first point would be 'yes'. If you believe "Israelis need to respond, but currently they are doing too much", the answer for my first point would still be 'yes'. If you believe "Israelis should ignore Palestinian militants completely", then the answer for my first point would be 'no')

 

[mjsd]

Which, of course, is the fault of the Palestinian militants who use civilian non-combatants as human shields, and not the fault of Israelis.

No human shields in this case I am afriad... power cuts would hurt the whole lot regardless. So if you don't agree with collective punishment (which you may not) then it is definitely the fault of the Israelis.

Palestinian militants are certainly enough of a threat to warrant a response.

there are many types of response other than missiles and power cuts. it is unfortunate that both sides opted to use bombs...

 

[Hurkyl]

No human shields in this case I am afriad... power cuts would hurt the whole lot regardless.

I was talking about "violence perpetrated against a mainly civilian non-combatant population."

there are many types of response other than missiles and power cuts. it is unfortunate that both sides opted to use bombs...

I asked a specific question in my post -- it was directed at Art, but I'll redirect it at you:
do you agree or disagree with the statement "Palestinian militants are certainly enough of a threat to warrant a response [from Isreal]."?

For the purposes of this question, I don't care one whit about what responses are possible, about any sort of advantages and disadvantages they might have, nor anyone's opinion on those responses.

Since it is not crystal clear to me, I am simply trying to establish whether or not everyone in this discussion agrees that an Israeli response is warranted.

 

[novaa77]

Since it is not crystal clear to me, I am simply trying to establish whether or not everyone in this discussion agrees that an Israeli response is warranted.

Lets not forget that there was no Israel before the '48 Arab-Israel war. As a result of this war the Israelis occupied nearly 70% of what was Palestine, leaving the Arab population as refuges in their own land.

Since then the Israelis have systematically and deliberately suppressed the Palestinains, slowly grabing more of their land. Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners languish in Israeli jails with no hope of fair trail, apart from various other hardships imposed on them.

What is happening is nothing short of a slow genocide of the Palestinian people.

"Israeli response" is only a twisted term for this continuous oppression

 

[mjsd]

I was talking about "violence perpetrated against a mainly civilian non-combatant population."

Even in that case, one must think twice before striking civilian areas.

In practice, I am very much interested to know on how many occasions those strikes by Israel on civilians area actually kills more militants than civilians. And on how many occasions that their intelligence is actually correct that they have striked the correct locations. I understand that collateral damage is unavoidable sometimes, but the only way to reduce collateral damage is to aim away from civilian areas! OR stop this kind of collective punsihment. It is probably counter-productivity in the longer run.

 

[Yonoz]

there are many types of response other than missiles and power cuts. it is unfortunate that both sides opted to use bombs...

Please enlighten us.

 

[Yonoz]

Even in that case, one must think twice before striking civilian areas.

It is thought over more than twice.

In practice, I am very much interested to know on how many occasions those strikes by Israel on civilians area actually kills more militants than civilians. And on how many occasions that their intelligence is actually correct that they have striked the correct locations. I understand that collateral damage is unavoidable sometimes, but the only way to reduce collateral damage is to aim away from civilian areas!

That is done when possible: Video: Terrorists firing mortars from schoolyard.

OR stop this kind of collective punsihment. It is probably counter-productivity in the longer run.

Striking militants firing weapons at Israeli civilians is not collective punishment, it is self defense.

 

[mjsd]

Striking at militants firing weapons at Israeli civilians is not collective punishment, it is self defense.

I was referring to the recent "power cut" when I say collective punishment which is the main topic of this thread by the way.

not so long ago there were ppl on this forum claimed that Israel has the capability to cut Palestine Powers/fuels, but Israel has been too nice to commit such acts... oh well... what happened to that kind of "generosity" Israel used to possesses ?

 

[Yonoz]

I was referring to the recent "power cut" when I say collective punishment which is the main topic of this thread by the way.

not so long ago there were ppl on this forum claimed that Israel has the capability to cut Palestine Powers/fuels, but Israel has been too nice to commit such acts... oh well... what happened to that kind of "generosity" Israel used to possesses ?

There was never any power cut.
Anyway, the alternative is a large scale military operation. Which would you prefer?

 

[mjsd]

There was never any power cut.
Anyway, the alternative is a large scale military operation. Which would you prefer?

"power cut" in quotes is a generic term to represent the act of cutting electricity/fuel/gas to the Gaza area, which according to this report by Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY on 28 Oct 2007

...Israel's Defense Ministry announced late Sunday that it was reducing fuel supplies to Gaza by between five and 11 percent as part of sanctions aimed at pressuring Hamas to stop rocket salvos from the territory...

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104946.html

together with the BBC news report I posted earlier indicated that it had happened. Perhaps Israel hasn't cut electricity yet... but there is no doubt that this plan of "power/fuel cut" has been implemented (btw, some of those fuels are meant to be used in power stations and so fuel cuts effectively means electricity reduction as well...). Unless all news sources in this world are lying... :uhh:

more links if you want
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/31/content_6976745.htm
http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/oct/31/palestinian_israeli_rights_groups_call_end_gaza_fuel_cut.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22664490-12377,00.html

Anyway, the alternative is a large scale military operation. Which would you prefer?

don't ask me, ask the Palestinians.
oh...or this is supposed to be a rhetorical question, isn't it?

 

[turbo]

There was never any power cut.
Anyway, the alternative is a large scale military operation. Which would you prefer?

Posing such questions as an "either-or" is a favorite tactic of despots, when there are many paths toward progress and the despot intends to take only one. For an example, look at the Bush administration which refuses to negotiate with Iran and claims the right to take military action if "diplomatic efforts" fail. Your phrasing of the options as a false dichotomy is telling.

 

[Yonoz]

"power cut" in quotes is a generic term to represent the act of cutting electricity/fuel/gas to the Gaza area, which according to this report by Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY on 28 Oct 2007

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104946.html

together with the BBC news report I posted earlier indicated that it had happened. Perhaps Israel hasn't cut electricity yet... but there is no doubt that this plan of "power/fuel cut" has been implemented (btw, some of those fuels are meant to be used in power stations and so fuel cuts effectively means electricity reduction as well...). Unless all news sources in this world are lying... :uhh:

more links if you want
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/31/content_6976745.htm
http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/oct/31/palestinian_israeli_rights_groups_call_end_gaza_fuel_cut.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22664490-12377,00.html

"generic term" :rofl:
How amusing, in light of your recent lecture.

 

[Yonoz]

Posing such questions as an "either-or" is a favorite tactic of despots, when there are many paths toward progress and the despot intends to take only one. For an example, look at the Bush administration which refuses to negotiate with Iran and claims the right to take military action if "diplomatic efforts" fail. Your phrasing of the options as a false dichotomy is telling.

But it is an "either-or" question. The current coalition is dependent on the right wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, without which they have only 57 seats out of the 120 in the Knesset, and whose support will be near impossible to maintain throughout the Annapolis conference; and on the religious Shas party. All polls show the right wing parties will gain a lot of seats if elections were held today. The religious Shas party has already announced it will not tolerate certain concessions at Annapolis, and they will very likely gain more votes if they place themselves as "the party that stopped the future division of Jerusalem". This makes it convenient for Avigdor Lieberman, Yisrael Beiteinu's chairman, to collapse the coalition. The next government will have either a Likkud-led coalition or another fragile center coalition that will depend on the then-stronger Yisrael Beiteinu, or (heaven forbid) a Likkud-YB government. Unless, of course, you want to sacrifice the Annapolis chance, but then we'd likely be facing a stronger Hamas.
So it is an "either-or" question, and it is that way because we do not have despots (a term on which I believe you should read up, it seems to be used very liberally around here - no pun intended).

 

[turbo]

So, Yonoz, you believe that there are only two ways to deal with Hamas:
1. Collective punishment of all residents of Gaza
2. Full-scale military assault

If you truly believe this, your brainwashing is complete.

 

[Yonoz]

So, Yonoz, you believe that there are only two ways to deal with Hamas:
1. Collective punishment of all residents of Gaza
2. Full-scale military assault

No, I believe the current government, if it wishes to stay in power, has to show it is doing something to stop the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The only two options I can see are:
1. Energy cuts
2. A large scale military operation
We can discuss other options if you'd like to bring some up.

If you truly believe this, your brainwashing is complete.

Having said that, do you feel you hold any sort of moral highground?

 

[turbo]

First off, Israel can recognize the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians and open diplomatic relations, perhaps with the help of a neutral third party. That would go a long way to tempering the popularity of the hawks on both sides, and perhaps lead to a permanent cease-fire while details of a settlement are worked out.

Moral high ground? Where is the morality in prolonging bloodshed and suffering? The hawks in your government and mine seem to have endless supplies of "justifications" for killing innocent people. If the hawks have their way, the US and Israel will attack Iran soon, and more people will die. A war on Iran will not make the world a better or safer place. If you think your country has security problems now, just wait until after the war on Iran has begun.

 

[Yonoz]

First off, Israel can recognize the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians and open diplomatic relations, perhaps with the help of a neutral third party. That would go a long way to tempering the popularity of the hawks on both sides, and perhaps lead to a permanent cease-fire while details of a settlement are worked out.

In the case of Hamas, the hawks are the government, and they are bent on "liberating" all of Israel. The best they can offer is a temporary cease-fire that would only allow them to grow stronger and resume the violence when they are more powerful.

Moral high ground? Where is the morality in prolonging bloodshed and suffering? The hawks in your government and mine seem to have endless supplies of "justifications" for killing innocent people. If the hawks have their way, the US and Israel will attack Iran soon, and more people will die. A war on Iran will not make the world a better or safer place. If you think your country has security problems now, just wait until after the war on Iran has begun.

Past experience proves otherwise.

 

[Hurkyl]

novaa77: Please read the entire post of mine which you quoted. (this one) You should also read my previous post. (this one)

 

[Hurkyl]

First off, Israel can recognize the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians and open diplomatic relations, perhaps with the help of a neutral third party.

Can diplomacy reasonably happen while the Palestinian government refuses to even consider dropping their stated intent to eliminate Israel? I haven't figured out how that would work, and diplomacy advocates always seem to avoid talking about that sticky point...

 

[russ_watters]

C'mon, Hurkyl, Israel should recognize the Palestinian government first - it doesn't matter that Israel has existed for 60 years and the brand-spakin-new Palestinian government refuses to recognize Israel!

 

[Art]

Palestinian militants are certainly enough of a threat to warrant a response.

Which, of course, is the fault of the Palestinian militants who use civilian non-combatants as human shields, and not the fault of Israelis.


Do we agree on these specific points?

(some examples: if you believe that "The current Israeli response is warranted", the answer for my first point would be 'yes'. If you believe "Israelis need to respond, but currently they are doing too much", the answer for my first point would still be 'yes'. If you believe "Israelis should ignore Palestinian militants completely", then the answer for my first point would be 'no')

For one so normally pedantic you are wandering here so before digressing to other areas let's take one step at a time and see if we can agree first that the Palestinian resistance forces are not a credible threat to Israel's existence and that the Nazi response to the Warsaw uprising was not justified?

(some examples: if you believe that "The very existence of Israel is seriously threatened by the Palestinians", the answer for my first point would be 'yes they are' if not then "no they are not". If you believe "Israel's existence is not under threat but Israelis need to respond" the answer for my first point would still be 'no'.

For my second point If you believe "the Nazis had no choice but to come down on the Warsaw jews as hard as they did" the answer is "yes the Nazis had no choice when faced with an insurrection in occupied territory where their attackers took cover in a civilian populace" however if you think the degree of ruthlessness employed by the Nazis was out of all proportion to the actions of the Warsaw jews then the answer is "no the Nazis were murdering scum"

 

[mjsd]

"generic term"
How amusing, in light of your recent lecture.

you may continue to play with "words" if you want and keep avoiding the main issue of this thread, but it also shows how naive you potentially are...

"There was never any power cut." (where did you get this from? do you watch the news at all? OR were you playing with words again and that power cut means something entirely different in your vocabulary??)

Moral high ground? Where is the morality in prolonging bloodshed and suffering? The hawks in your government and mine seem to have endless supplies of "justifications" for killing innocent people. If the hawks have their way, the US and Israel will attack Iran soon, and more people will die. A war on Iran will not make the world a better or safer place. If you think your country has security problems now, just wait until after the war on Iran has begun.

Past experience proves otherwise.

What past experiences are you drawing onto here when your border towns are still under random rocket attacks right now? And in what sense do you call your past actions as a "success" when you still have so many problems at hand?

You may have eliminated some of those you called terrorists, but you have also eliminated many friends along the way as well. Many people may now think that Israel is the problem and not Iran or Palestine for it has made itself look like it is the aggressor (with all these military strikes in civilian areas or fuel/power cut). Besides the other image problem is that you have WMDs already and other much more advanced military devices, hence, not many would see Israel as "weak". So although you may think that your unilateral actions are helping you in enhancing your security (in the immediate term), you may be alienating yourself in the meantime as well. Alienating yourself may in the long run causes you more problems, don't you think?

 

[novaa77]

novaa77: Please read the entire post of mine which you quoted. (this one) You should also read my previous post. (this one)

I did read your posts. As I mentioned earlier the notion an "Israeli response" is ridiculous.

Can you refute the facts I stated in my post? Do you truly expect the Palestinain people to submit to this kind of oppression?

Through out histroy there are cases where people have fought against their oppressors to regain their right to their home land. It has happened in South Africa, India and so many other instances.

The Palestinian people are fighting for their right to their own land. Its high time the Israelis realized this.