News How Do Fuel Cuts Impact Gaza Amidst Ongoing Conflict with Israel?

[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...

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...

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"
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.

 

[Yonoz]

you may continue to play with "words" if you want...

Who's playing with words?
First,

power cuts

turns into

"power cut"

which is further expanded

"power cut" in quotes is a generic term...

and then it's

"power/fuel cut"

But wait, I've lost track - let's go back to the original mention:

hopefully full power is back on at the time of writing.

Is "full power is back on" another "generic term"? How can it be interpreted as anything other than an electricity outage? Do you go to a gas station to get the power back on in your car?

What past experiences are you drawing onto here when your border towns are still under random rocket attacks right now?

Syria repeatedly shells fishing boats in the Sea of Galilee -> Israel retaliates by destroying the Syrian posts that directed the fire and taking their occupants prisoner -> shelling stops.
Infiltrators from Jordan repeatedly attack Israeli civilians, Arab legion snipers attack Israeli civilians -> Israel retaliates by blowing up the Qalqilya police station -> infilitrations and attacks stop.
Hizballah abducts Israeli soldiers and attacks Israeli civilians with rocket fire -> Israel retaliates -> rockets fire stops, Hizballah border post system destroyed.
See the pattern?

And in what sense do you call your past actions as a "success" when you still have so many problems at hand?

Well, Egypt and Jordan are now at peace with Israel. Syria hasn't confronted Israel directly since the Peace in the Galilee campaign. Hizballah hides south of the Litani and its posts overlooking the Israeli border settlements are empty.

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?

Anyone who thinks a state should rather maintain an image than fulfill its duties to its citizens' safety is not a friend.
This is an assymetric conflict and world opinion is just another pawn on the board - keep that in mind when you see human suffering put to cynical use, a la Art's typically tasteful "Israeli atrocities" link. Israeli writer Ben Caspit put it best in a fictional speech by the PM during the 2nd Lebanon War:

The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya? What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly.

We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. What did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

 

[mjsd]

Who's playing with words?
First,

turns into

which is further expanded

and then it's

But wait, I've lost track - let's go back to the original mention:

Is "full power is back on" another "generic term"? How can it be interpreted as anything other than an electricity outage? Do you go to a gas station to get the power back on in your car?

this thread is about Israel's plan to implement an energy (whether it is fuel, oil, gas, electricity...) sanction on the Gaza region...now I don't understand why it is so difficult to get the message across... I would have thought that the meaning of those terms were very obvious and synonymous within the context of this thread. There is no need to distinguish about what type cuts we are talking about really, it is about the idea of collective punishment, NOT exactly what was cut. So a generic term like "power cut" or "energy cut" would suffice. Later I deliberately used "power/fuel cut" only in the wake of your comments to try making things clearer (however, interestingly you claim that you were lost...). But all those terms refer to the same thing, namely, the sanction. Should I need to be any clearer on this?

it appears that you are more concerned about my English (which I admit is not the best for an average student) than the actual issue.


Now, if you believe that fuel/gas cuts are totally different from electricity cuts and, as a result, it is no longer a type of collective punishment then that's a different matter.

 

[Yonoz]

There is no need to distinguish about what type cuts we are talking about really, it is about the idea of collective punishment, NOT exactly what was cut.

In that case you must also disagree with sanctions set on various countries for human rights violations, such as those set on Apartheid South Africa.

Should I need to be any clearer on this?

Yes - what did you mean by "hopefully full power is back on"?

Now, if you believe that fuel/gas cuts are totally different from electricity cuts and, as a result, it is no longer a type of collective punishment then that's a different matter.

I believe a reduction in fuel supply, that - according to the BBC article you presented - is "not being felt by Gazans" is totally different from electricity cuts.

 

[Art]

keep that in mind when you see human suffering put to cynical use, a la Art's typically tasteful "Israeli atrocities" link. Israeli writer Ben Caspit put it best in a fictional speech by the PM during the 2nd Lebanon War:

I was challenged to provide examples of Israeli atrocities and so complied. A picture tells a 1000 words much as you may dislike the story being told. It brings home the reality behind Israeli policies and the effect of such sanitised headings as 'security push', 'collateral damage' or innocuous sounding operations such as 'Summer Rain (197 civilians massacred including 48 children)' etc... on innocent Palestinian civilians.

Your attempt to defend the indefensible demonstrates far better than I ever could the total lack of morality shown by Israeli Zionists in relation to the Palestinian victims of Israeli land grabs, ethnic cleansing, and their follow up so called 'security campaigns' designed to consolidate their theft through the application of fear and intimidation.

 

[mjsd]

Yes - what did you mean by "hopefully full power is back on"?

hopefully, full power is back on (meaning: the sanction had ceased)

again I used "power" (perhaps loosely in your opinion) to represent anything that is related to fuel, electricity, gas etc...besides there is no denying that some of the fuel is used in generators that generate electricity, so there should be no real ambiguity.

from one of my additional link which I suspect you may not have actually read

The Australian
Israel cuts fuel shipments to Gaza
October 29, 2007

The Jewish state reduced the amount of fuel it provides for Gaza's main power plant from 360,000 litres a day to 273,000, according to an official from the EU, which is responsible for delivering fuel to the power station.

Israel also reduced the amount of petrol it provides, from 300,000 litres to 213,000 litres, a nearly 30 per cent reduction, according to Naharu al-Hismawy, the director of Gaza's main fuel distribution centre.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22664490-12377,00.html

actually, this could well equate to a partial electricity cut... but I didn't even pressed on this point before since I was more interested in the real issue which is "collective punishment" and not on what is actually cut, or the actual amount for that matter.

I believe a reduction in fuel supply, that - according to the BBC article you presented - is "not being felt by Gazans" is totally different from electricity cuts.

so you believe that the sanction was just symbolic and would not do anything to slow down/harm/pressure Hamas? Because usually in situation like this, it is the common ppl who will feel the pressure first before the officials/military. Now, if your suggestion is correct (which I cannot prove or disprove for I don't live in Gaza, and probably you cannot either unless you live there yourself), then the question is:

why would Israel implement it in the first place if it doesn't apply real pressure on Hamas (which you said was the intention)?
I mean if it is "not being felt by Gazans" (the average Gaza citizens, I take that as meaning), how do you expect that it would be felt by the militants??

 

[Hurkyl]

see if we can agree first that the Palestinian resistance forces are not a credible threat to Israel's existence

In a straight-up "my guns against your guns" fight -- the scenario you were considering in your post -- the answer is no.

In the opposite case where Palestianian militants are allowed to attack with impunity, I find it quite plausible that they could destroy Israeli civilization, and even Israel itself.

and that the Nazi response to the Warsaw uprising was not justified?

I am not sufficiently familiar with the event to answer.


So now, you'll answer my question... right?

I was challenged to provide examples of Israeli atrocities and so complied. A picture tells a 1000 words much as you may dislike the story being told.

You didn't comply. You showed images of casualties -- but no evidence of atrocity. It's a fallacious appeal to emotion whether it's a single word or a thousand of them.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

If you had read my posts, you would know that, for the purposes of the question I asked, I do not care about your opinion or evaluation of a particular kind of response. I did not ask if the current response is warranted; I asked if there is any kind of response that would be warranted.

 

[novaa77]

If you had read my posts, you would know that, for the purposes of the question I asked, I do not care about your opinion or evaluation of a particular kind of response.

If you don't wish to get an answer then don't post a question. I hope you know the meaning of the word "forum"

I did not ask if the current response is warranted

For some reason you keep harping about "Israeli response", apparently you have convinced your self that a response is necesary and are not willing to accept any other answer except those you are comfortable with.
The entire problem in this region exists due to the "current response". By ignoring the current situation no solution is possible

I asked if there is any kind of response that would be warrented

If you one word answers are simpler for you, the answer is :NO

 

[mjsd]

Originally Posted by Art
I was challenged to provide examples of Israeli atrocities and so complied. A picture tells a 1000 words much as you may dislike the story being told.

You didn't comply. You showed images of casualties -- but no evidence of atrocity. It's a fallacious appeal to emotion whether it's a single word or a thousand of them.

This is potentially a very very "dangerous" comment.

Not that you don't have the rights to suggest or believe that it is a mere "fallacious appeal to emotion" and hence it fails to prove the initial proposition, namely, atrocities by Israel, because the diagrams don't show you, say, a slide show of an Israeli soldier firing at a Palestinian kid who subsequently died 2 hours later due to loss of blood. But the problem is that even if it is a picture slide show or video clip on the entire process, it still cannot technically prove the proposition, if you carries that sort of attitude (which of course you have the right to). This is because you may then claim that there is no 2nd, 3rd or 4th party etc... verifying those materials; preventing someone from "photoshopping" them; and even if there are those 2nd or 3rd independent parties available, one still can't say for sure they are not just puppets working for some militants... the counter-arguments can go on forever.

But unfortunately, the argument also goes the other way. One may suggest that you can't really prove that those Kassam rockets firing into Israel's border towns are actually fired by the Palestinian militants because no one actually see that happening (first the militant showing his ID to the camera proving that he IS an militant, then loading the shells, pointing it at Israel, firing them into the sky...), one only sees the subsequent explosions and killings of innocent Israelis. And so perhaps there is no hard evidence against the militants in most instances.

This is why your comment is potentially "dangerous". Of course, you also have the right to assert that Art didn't comply to the request.

I stress again that you have the right to view them that way if you wish. But I hope you understand that by making that sort of comment, you give ppl the impression that you have a double-standard, if not, you would then lose the credibility on everything else that you claim (based on the same logic): eg.

Palestinian militants are certainly enough of a threat

based on what hard evidence, in your opinion?

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

how do you know where the militants are hiding?

 

[Yonoz]

hopefully, full power is back on (meaning: the sanction had ceased)

Do you not feel somewhat hypocritical, having accused me of "playing with words"?

but I didn't even pressed on this point before since I was more interested in the real issue which is "collective punishment" and not on what is actually cut, or the actual amount for that matter.

The OP is "Israel's Gaza fuel cuts", not "collective punishment". Remember:

...one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Again, do you not see the hypocrisy here?

so you believe that the sanction was just symbolic and would not do anything to slow down/harm/pressure Hamas? Because usually in situation like this, it is the common ppl who will feel the pressure first before the officials/military. Now, if your suggestion is correct (which I cannot prove or disprove for I don't live in Gaza, and probably you cannot either unless you live there yourself), then the question is:

why would Israel implement it in the first place if it doesn't apply real pressure on Hamas (which you said was the intention)?
I mean if it is "not being felt by Gazans" (the average Gaza citizens, I take that as meaning), how do you expect that it would be felt by the militants??

Perhaps it is done to buy time for the Annapolis conference. Hamas are trying to break the conference down by influencing Israeli public opinion to destabilize the current government. The government is constantly criticised for not doing enough to stop these daily attacks on its citizens, it cannot keep showing inaction.
I imagine we will see increasing attacks by Hamas, which will lead to a large scale military operation in Gaza around the time of the conference.

 

[Yonoz]

One may suggest that you can't really prove that those Kassam rockets firing into Israel's border towns are actually fired by the Palestinian militants because no one actually see that happening (first the militant showing his ID to the camera proving that he IS an militant, then loading the shells, pointing it at Israel, firing them into the sky...), one only sees the subsequent explosions and killings of innocent Israelis. And so perhaps there is no hard evidence against the militants in most instances.

Are you living under a rock, or just turning a blind http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/16/content_6105144.htm?

how do you know where the militants are hiding?

Once again: Video: Terrorists firing mortars from schoolyard

 

[mjsd]

Do you not feel somewhat hypocritical, having accused me of "playing with words"?

you have made it sounds like that there is only one way of saying the same thing...
if sanction has stopped, full power would be back on... saying one or the other is synonymous. If you don't like to interrupt it that way because you believe "electricity" was never directly cut (only partially cut due to the reduce in fuel supply to the power station) then that's your choice, but it takes nothing away from the fact that what I was saying is strictly correct. I later clarified it only because I discovered that you tend to use the term "power cut" exclusively for electrical power, to avoid further misinterpretations. And then you came back and say "I was playing with words instead" when that happened. Well, either you were more interested in my English skills than the issue itself, or you are blatantly trying to avoid addressing the issue in an honest way. Frankly, why should my or your personality got to do with the facts and the news report?

You can continue pursuing that minor point yourself if you wish. But it is a fact that no one can guarantee what one writes down cannot be misinterpreted. frankly, I don't sit down and proof read the post for few hours before sending just to make sure that it won't be misinterpreted, as long as it carries enough merit to drive the main issue in my opinion.

As far as this "playing with words" discussion is concerned, I believe it was triggered from our different use of of the term "power cut". You seemed to have used it for meaning: A DIRECT ELECTRICITY CUT FROM ISRAEL while I used it to representing this incident of "Israel's Gaza fuel cuts" (which without doubt led to electricity cut by the way, so interpreting it both as a generic term or specifically as the resultant electricity cut cannot be called wrong). It was unfortunate that you are so sensitive on such minor thing.

Originally Posted by mjsd
...one cannot make a convincing argument and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.

Again, do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I made no arguments about whether my use of the term "power cut" is to be universally interpreted as I intended it to be (whether or not I have glossed over anything on that front), I have always been interested in only about the news reports on "Israel's Gaza fuel cuts" and its potential consequences. And because that incident is a form of what I would call "collective punishment", hence, the discussion on that front started after post #4(?) I think (although I did not use that term until post #10).

As far as my own input on this collective punishment issue, the only real personal opinoin I made was

collective punishment usually does more harm than good

most subsequent posts (minus some totally off-topic ones) ended up being used as clarifications on various things. it has been very unfortunate.

 

[Yonoz]

If you don't like to interrupt it that way because you believe "electricity" was never directly cut (only partially cut due to the reduce in fuel supply to the power station) then that's your choice, but it takes nothing away from the fact that what I was saying is strictly correct.

No electricity was cut as a result of the reduction in the fuel supply. Not directly nor indirectly, though you will probably argue power was cut generically. I may not live in Gaza but we share the same climate. In this time of the year there is a drop in domestic consumption because air conditioning use drops. Since the Gaza Strip has no heavy industry, most of their consumption is domestic and thus seasonal changes are more acute. The top table in page 6 of this report shows monthly power production in Israel, bear in mind to read it from right to left, and that the annual domestic consumption in Israel is a little over a third of the total consumption.

You can continue pursuing that minor point yourself if you wish.

The minor point that is the OP?

As far as this "playing with words" discussion is concerned, I believe it was triggered from our different use of of the term "power cut". You seemed to have used it for meaning: A DIRECT ELECTRICITY CUT FROM ISRAEL while I used it to representing this incident of "Israel's Gaza fuel cuts" (which without doubt led to electricity cut by the way, so interpreting it both as a generic term or specifically as the resultant electricity cut cannot be called wrong).

Again - no electricity was cut as a result of the reduction in the fuel supply. You'd better start doubting - not only what you think you know about the power supply in the Gaza Strip. Sure, western media forms the impression there are power cuts in Gaza by displaying doctors working in the dark or children holding candles - but that is nothing more than false light.
For the last time (I hope) - no electricity was cut as a result of the reduction in the fuel supply.

It was unfortunate that you are so sensitive on such minor thing.

Not that you don't have the rights to suggest or believe that it is a mere "minor thing". But the difficult daily realities of the Palestinians in Gaza are no "minor thing" to me.
I stress again that you have the right to view them that way if you wish.

I made no arguments about whether my use of the term "power cut" is to be universally interpreted as I intended it to be (whether or not I have glossed over anything on that front), I have always been interested in only about the news reports on "Israel's Gaza fuel cuts" and its potential consequences.

So you really meant to say "I hope potential full power is back on"?

And because that incident is a form of what I would call "collective punishment", hence, the discussion on that front started after post #4(?) I think (although I did not use that term until post #10).

You have not established any collective punishment (quite the contrary, the first source you provide proves otherwise), you simply skipped to the accusation. One wonders as to the real purpose for this thread.

As far as my own input on this collective punishment issue, the only real personal opinoin I made was

collective punishment usually does more harm than good

Which, in the original context, implies Israel is employing collective punishment in the form of electricity cuts (be they direct or indirect). Any opinion on collective punishment is irrelevant.

most subsequent posts (minus some totally off-topic ones) ended up being used as clarifications on various things. it has been very unfortunate.

"Various things" being the subject of the OP and the very basis for the claims of collective punishment.

 

[Art]

Yonoz let's be clear are you saying Israel have not and will not be cutting off electricity supplies to Gaza?

Are you living under a rock, or just turning a blind eye?

There have been in total 2 Israeli civilians killed in rocket attacks this year. How many Palestinian civilians have been killed in the same time frame by Israelis? According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem the figure for innocent Palestinan casualties this year stands at 100 dead including 46 children and so what do you think would be an appropriate pro rata punishment for Israeli civilians who have far more control over the actions of their armed forces and therefore far greater responsibility than the Palestinan civilians do over militants operating in Gaza?

 

[Hurkyl]

This is potentially a very very "dangerous" comment.

Not that you don't have the rights to suggest or believe that it is a mere "fallacious appeal to emotion" and hence it fails to prove the initial proposition, namely, atrocities by Israel, because the diagrams don't show you, say, a slide show of an Israeli soldier firing at a Palestinian kid who subsequently died 2 hours later due to loss of blood.

You completely misunderstood me. Sample definition from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atrocity :

atrocity: the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane.​

There are milder meanings of the word, but this is the particular meaning that carries the negative connotation that people are using in this thread.

IIRC, one image in Art's link shows, for example, a gunshot wound inflicted on a child. It doesn't differentiate between any of the possible causes of the gunshot wound -- it could have been caused by a malicious Israeli seeking to murder a Palestinian or a heroic solder who shot at (and missed) a suicide bomber running for a big crowd of people, or anything in between these two extremes.

This is very basic propaganda -- you make some comment about Israeli cruelty, show a horrifying image, and hope that the viewer mentally connects the two, simply because they were both in the same context. You might even go so far as to assert that these images are examples of Israeli cruelty, and hope that the viewer is so shocked by the images that he doesn't think to consider your assertion in a critical manner.

(Incidentally, I was assuming on faith that, for example, the picture really does depict a gunshot wound inflicted by an Israeli. But as you point out, we cannot make that assumption, and such things have been faked before)