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

[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)

 

[Art]

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)

LOL Ah a change of tactic, if you can't defend the indefensible then simply deny it.

Tell you what Hurkyl if you don't like the pictures then I suggest you count the bodies. 1 or 2 innocent casualties this year alone could be unfortunate mischance but a 100 ! or perhaps that's all faked too by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. After all nobody actually sees the artillery shells that blow people to pieces so maybe they aren't blown up at all and it's just a weird form of spontaneous combustion. Maybe the whole ME is a figment of a manipulative media and there are no such entities as Palestinians or Israelis after all most of us have only ever seen pictures or read reports about these people and places

Then again Occam's Razor would suggest maybe you just need to get a firmer grip on reality

btw When you have completed your research and decided whether or not the Nazi's treatment of the Warsaw Jews was over the top and answered my question I'll answer the questions you posed earlier. Until you have gleaned sufficient knowledge to make such a judgement on what is a basic issue further discussion with you of upstream issues arising from my initial posts are pointless as the analogy I was drawing and the historical references I draw on will simply go over your head.

I must say I am a little perplexed that you should respond to my post and then later profess you know little of the subject matter contained therein.

 

[Hurkyl]

LOL Ah a change of tactic, if you can't defend the indefensible then simply deny it.

I'm not trying to defend anything here except the notion of rational debate.

btw When you have completed your research and decided whether or not the Nazi's treatment of the Warsaw Jews was over the top and answered my question I'll answer the questions you posed earlier.

(1) If you refuse to say what you mean, then why do you bother posting?
(2) Why would I bother doing such research?

I must say I am a little perplexed that you should respond to my post and then later profess you know little of the subject matter contained therein.

If you review the thread, you'll notice that I didn't responsd to the part of your post where you discussed Nazi's.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

Thank you for finally giving a straight answer.

It really helps the discussion move along when you come right out and say that Israelis should not respond at all -- your meaning is very much diluted when you argue as if you're merely saying that Israelis have gone too far in their current reaction to the Palestinian attacks.


Furthermore, if some people think Israelis should not respond at all, but others think we're having a discussion about what (nonzero) level of response is appropriate, I don't think it's feasible to have a meaningful discussion unless we actually address this difference! (That's why I insist on getting people to answer my question)


Your previous posts, you have been arguing that past and current Israeli actions have been oppressive. Since your point is actually that Israelis shouldn't even react to the Palestinian militants, can you argue for that point?

 

[novaa77]

Thank you for finally giving a straight answer.

It really helps the discussion move along when you come right out and say that Israelis should not respond at all -- your meaning is very much diluted when you argue as if you're merely saying that Israelis have gone too far in their current reaction to the Palestinian attacks.


Furthermore, if some people think Israelis should not respond at all, but others think we're having a discussion about what (nonzero) level of response is appropriate, I don't think it's feasible to have a meaningful discussion unless we actually address this difference! (That's why I insist on getting people to answer my question)


Your previous posts, you have been arguing that past and current Israeli actions have been oppressive. Since your point is actually that Israelis shouldn't even react to the Palestinian militants, can you argue for that point?

As I have mentioned earlier, what you call Israel response, reaction etc, is nothing but the continuous oppression of the Palestinian people.The question of "Israeli Reaction" does not even arise.

Should Isreal continue with this oppression : NO. Here are some facts to back up what I am saying

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y6501e/y6501e00.htm

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-report-211106

http://www.jmcc.org/research/special/hrass.html

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/MKOC-75PH2S?OpenDocument

http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?id=52

Now my question to you and other people on this post who justify "Israeli reaction" is do you expect the Palestinian people to submit to this kind of torture

 

[Yonoz]

The question of "Israeli Reaction" does not even arise.

Why?
Even in light of the oppression, why do you support attacks against Israeli civilians?

 

[Art]

Why?
Even in light of the oppression, why do you support attacks against Israeli civilians?

It's not a question of supporting attacks on Israeli civilians. Using an ABC Pareto analysis one takes care of the biggest problems first so why not sort out the much bigger problem (>50X greater) of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians first?

Who knows, if a way can be found to stop Israel murdering innocent Palestinians the much smaller problem (2% vs 98%) of Palestinian attacks on Israelis might just go away. Afterall Hamas did have a ceasefire in place before for the best part of 2 years but finally ended it following Israel's continuation of targeted assassinations and in the light of an Israeli gunboat shelling a beach killing 7 Palestinian picnickers and wounding dozens more.

It also is perhaps worth mentioning that the collective punishment this thread is about was initiated because of a rocket attack on a military target not a civilian one.

Israel through it's friends in the US gov't and media has created an Orwellian world where they, whilst brutal oppressors, are painted as the good guys and their victims are labelled as the bad guys who are constantly remonstrated with for not behaving like good little victims and dying quietly without fuss.

btw I'm still waiting for your response to this

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

 

[mjsd]

No electricity was cut as a result of the reduction in the fuel supply.
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.

So, are you suggesting that the entire western media is some kind of a conspiracy aiming to taint Israel by producing misleading images/footages from the Palestinian territories? And to deceive ppl like me who is passionate enough to care about the humanitarian problems? And for what anyway?

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.

No needs to wonder what the real purpose was, because I am going to tell you now.

When I came across the news story, I was shocked by the use of this kind of tactic. While at that time the Gazans hadn't feel any pressure yet, for it has only just begun, however, anyone in the right mind would understand what that sort of action, namely, the fuel/electricity cut will entail. let me quote Ban Ki-moon

Israeli energy sanctions against the Hamas-run Gaza Strip punish an entire population and are unacceptable, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said.
extract from the BBC news

I believe Ban Ki-Moon is an honorable person and he would not condemn the situation unless it is warranted.

Given the harsh reality facing each average Palestinian living in Gaza, it would be insensitive (if not outright wrong) to even contemplate such "fuel/power cut" tactic, not to say actually implemented part of the plan. For we know very well that it is the average Gazans who shall suffer first and not the militants or people on the higher echelon.

In the light of that, I was sadden by the situation and in my very first post I wrote:

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

and then later

collective punishment usually does more harm than good.
i'm not sure about this latest case, will have to wait and see...

As one can see, I have not openly criticized Israel despite my personal beliefs about the latest tactic, I gave Israel the benefit of the doubt and tried to stay in a moderate tone. However, I do fear that if awareness is not rised about such incident, it may go unnotice and set a wrong precedent as to what is acceptable. I mean if fuel cut is seen as being OK, then there is no telling what other actions are also warranted.

To all of you who are reading this: like it or not, the above explains my initial motivation behind this thread.

 

[fargoth]

uhm... why can't Egypt sell fuel to gaza? they're bordering gaza just like Israel is, and they aren't being shot at...
why is Israel the only country responsible for the welfare of it's enemies?
why does Israel *have to* commerce with gaza?
Israel gives water, gas, fuel, electricity, pass humanitarian aid, and medical care for the Palestinians.
while Egypt's borders are closed.

gaza is no longer a part of Israel, and Israel should not have any more commitment to the Palestinian population there then Egypt has.

and just for your information Art, during your so called ceasefire, quassam rockets were hitting Israel's settlements, sometime 20 a day, oh, and they also abducted a soldier during that time... it was because Israel still arrested terrorists in the west bank. (the "ceasefire" was just with gaza, and it was just Israel not firing at gaza, and not vice versa, there was never a real ceasefire - when they weren't shooting they smuggled ammo so that they can shoot again).before the Oslo accords, it was much calmer then it is now.

edit: hmm... i found you some news from al jazeera, the EU held back fuel in august... maybe you should talk to -your- government then, Art...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FDC1F40-29C1-4069-AA6F-FC97B22EF3C8.htm
(why is it OK for the EU to stop fuel shipment, and not OK for Israel?)

 

[Art]

uhm... why can't Egypt sell fuel to gaza? they're bordering gaza just like Israel is, and they aren't being shot at...
why is Israel the only country responsible for the welfare of it's enemies?
why does Israel *have to* commerce with gaza?
Israel gives water, gas, fuel, electricity, pass humanitarian aid, and medical care for the Palestinians.
while Egypt's borders are closed.

gaza is no longer a part of Israel, and Israel should not have any more commitment to the Palestinian population there then Egypt has.

and just for your information Art, during your so called ceasefire, quassam rockets were hitting Israel's settlements, sometime 20 a day, oh, and they also abducted a soldier during that time... it was because Israel still arrested terrorists in the west bank. (the "ceasefire" was just with gaza, and it was just Israel not firing at gaza, and not vice versa, there was never a real ceasefire - when they weren't shooting they smuggled ammo so that they can shoot again).


before the Oslo accords, it was much calmer then it is now.

I was tempted to simply ignore your post but it's probably important not to let lies go unchallenged.

I suggest you refer to the UN and international law to see why Israel has responsibilty for the Gaza strip

The rest of your post is either deliberately untrue and unsubstantiated nonsense or demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Example - The Hamas ceasefire was ended on the ~10th June 2006 following the beach massacre and the Israeli soldier was captured on the 25th June 2006.

Perhaps you'd like to show me where I condoned any country's sanctions against the Palestinians??

 

[Yonoz]

So, are you suggesting that the entire western media is some kind of a conspiracy aiming to taint Israel by producing misleading images/footages from the Palestinian territories? And to deceive ppl like me who is passionate enough to care about the humanitarian problems? And for what anyway?

I am certain that:
1) the cultural environment in which western media operates is generally one of sound-bits, lack of depth, self-absorption and lack of responsibility;
2) the media is comprised of ordinary individuals - be they journalists, photographers, editors etc. - that like the rest of us, seek personal benefit, such advancing their careers and/or promoting an agenda out of a personal sense of justice;
3) western media as a whole is more focused on marketing its products to consumers (I am using these bold terms reluctantly), employing techniques such as invoking emotional responses (e.g. your self-professed passion), than on depth and proportion;
4) interested parties that have figured out the above manipulate the media to influence public opinion to further their agendas.

No needs to wonder what the real purpose was, because I am going to tell you now.

When I came across the news story, I was shocked by the use of this kind of tactic.

This typifies what I have claimed above. You "came across the news story"... you were "shocked"...
...by a 444 words long article. Complete with photograph of the sun setting over a powerplant - how symbolic. The caption below it reads "Israel insists supplies to Gaza's power station will continue" - "insists" - as if that is in doubt.
No mention of internal Israeli politics.
No mention of internal Palestinian politics.
No mention of the upcoming conference.
No mention of Iranian backing of Hamas.
No depth.

While at that time the Gazans hadn't feel any pressure yet, for it has only just begun, however, anyone in the right mind would understand what that sort of action, namely, the fuel/electricity cut will entail.

It should be obvious to you by now that there is no room for these assumptions. What do you "understand" that sort of action will entail?

let me quote Ban Ki-moon

Israeli energy sanctions against the Hamas-run Gaza Strip punish an entire population and are unacceptable, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said.
extract from the BBC news

I believe Ban Ki-Moon is an honorable person and he would not condemn the situation unless it is warranted.

Ban Ki-Moon is a diplomat, and he is in a post that has little to do with honour and a whole lot to do with politics and lip-service. Is the situation in Chechnya acceptable? What about Tibet? These two are merely ignored. Is capital punishment a violation of human rights? Ban Ki-Moon refuses to condemn it.

Given the harsh reality facing each average Palestinian living in Gaza, it would be insensitive (if not outright wrong) to even contemplate such "fuel/power cut" tactic, not to say actually implemented part of the plan. For we know very well that it is the average Gazans who shall suffer first and not the militants or people on the higher echelon.

It is also "wrong" for the Israeli government to do nothing.

I do fear that if awareness is not rised about such incident, it may go unnotice and set a wrong precedent as to what is acceptable. I mean if fuel cut is seen as being OK, then there is no telling what other actions are also warranted.

What about awareness of daily attacks against Israeli civilians? Should that go unnoticed? It certainly seems it is seen as being OK!

To all of you who are reading this: like it or not, the above explains my initial motivation behind this thread.

How many threads have you opened in response to human rights violations so far?
How many were about Israel?