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

[fargoth]

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??

funny, you seem to think an operation involving digging a tunnel under a military base, can be set to motion in 15 days... they were't going to do it if Israel wouldn't have accidentally hit civilians in response to the non-stop firing of rockets on it's civilians, right?

can you please post here this "international law"?
where does it say one country is responsible for people who ARENT in its territory?

 

[Art]

Here is an article referencing an ISRAELI report into human rights violations inflicted on Palestinians by members of the IDF.

Israel shaken by troops' tales of brutality against Palestinians


A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers' bad training, boredom and poor supervision

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday October 21, 2007
The Observer


A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer.

The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: 'At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.'

In the words of one soldier: 'The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That's when I enjoy it. It's like a drug. If I don't go into Rafah, and if there isn't some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.'

Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'

The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. 'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,' he said.

The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. 'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.

snip

Yishai-Karin, in an interview with Haaretz, described how her research came out of her own experience as a soldier at an army base in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. She interviewed 18 ordinary soldiers and three officers whom she had served with in Gaza. The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."

cont'd'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2196019,00.html

 

[fargoth]

what does that have to do with fuel?!
where is that international law you promised me?
gaza is no longer an occupied territory, and Israel has no responsibility over it.
this piece of journal you posted, which refer to things done in 1990's got nothing to do with the current discussion!

 

[Yonoz]

fargoth, don't feed the troll.

 

[Art]

fargoth, don't feed the troll.

Personal insults aren't allowed here Yonoz.

This isn't Palestine so please behave yourself.

 

[mjsd]

fargoth, don't feed the troll.

what does that suppose to mean?

 

[mjsd]

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.

Well, if that's your belief, then I hope that we won't be dragged into more wars (like one with Iran) by this cultural environment/shabby journalism that dragged us into invading Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist.


And overall, you have merely made a list of unsubstantiated assertions to support your claim that the western media is against you because such stories sell articles and magazines. It gives me the impression that you don't believe in what is on the news at all.

And if you however do believe in the news, then because like you said, interested parties that have figured out the above (points you've made) manipulate the media to influence public opinion to further their agendas, you should be careful because there is no telling whether you are being fed news reports that have been manipulated by your government to influence public opinion on Israel, its neighbours and the rest of the world.

I certainly hope that is not the case.

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.

I did followed up on the story and I certain didn't base my judgement on just a single article. I also looked at articles from different countries since media in different countries usually present an incident in slightly different perspective.

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?

I made my judgement based on years of experience of interacting with the world, its people and their feelings/actions; based on 20+ years of education spanned over two culturally different countries; based on a good heart and intention. I certainly do not think that those Israelis who are living under the cloud of random rocket attacks are any "better off" than those Palestinians who are suffering, or any African children in war-torn regions, rural China, India,... etc.

And definitely in saying this

Originally Posted by mjsd
i'm not sure about this latest case, will have to wait and see...

I had given Israel the benefit of the doubt whether you agree or not.

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.
...

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

Is it just me? but it sounds like you are no fans of the UN nor any diplomats nor any politicians except perhaps those who implement an agenda that's suit your taste.

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

I don't think so. The Hamas militants plus probably the entire Palestinian populations are well-advertised as either terrorists, religious extremists, sympathisers or supporters in many parts of the world outside the Middle East: from USA, UK, Australia, Canada, many parts of Europe, to smaller countries like Hong Kong, Singapore...
their actions are well-known.

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

So far I have only opened 9 threads in the entire forum. And only one (this one) is in the Political Affair sub-Forum. So there is hardly any statistics to be based for judging my intention. Mind you, I spent more time in the main forum reading/talking about physics and maths than talking politics with you!

 

[fargoth]

what does that suppose to mean?

it means,you shouldn't commented on the off-topic subject Art draggs in here for no apparent reason apart from bashing Israel.

I do think Troll would fit the description...

you all seem to have gone off-topic... wasn't this thread about Israel selling less fuel to gaza?

can you show me where it says Israel must sell fuel to it's enemies?
gaza is not an occupied territory, It belongs to Israel just as much as it is to Egypt, and Israel has no special responsibilities over the people there.
if the EU, Egypt and the US can step down their businesses with gaza, so can Israel.

 

[slugcountry]

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

LOL so you quote HAL TURNER?!? I might be wrong but I thought hate speech was against the rules here

 

[mjsd]

it means,you shouldn't commented on the off-topic subject Art draggs in here for no apparent reason apart from bashing Israel.
...
you all seem to have gone off-topic... wasn't this thread about Israel selling less fuel to gaza?

Apparently, many believe that merely talking about the fuel issue itself cannot be regarded as complete story at all. Take for example this comment regarding the BBC news story

Originially Posted by Yonoz (post #60)
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.

You don't have to agree with it, but apparently some do see this issue as very complicated, hence, it is perhaps not surprising that some posts seem slightly off-topic. And perhaps if you look at it that way, they may not be as off-topic as first thought.

 

[jostpuur]

What reason is there to assume, that cutting fuel like this will reduce violence from Hamas?

 

[Yonoz]

what does that suppose to mean?

It means Art is repeatedly taking the conversation off topic, making inflamatory posts of no argumentive value, obsessed with comparisons to Nazis - hallmark trolling symptoms.
It certainly seems Art is entirely motivated by hatred, though he poses as a humanitarian.

 

[Hurkyl]

what does that suppose to mean?

One common usage of the word "troll" is to refer to a person who does not intend to contribute to discussion, but instead simply wants to provoke people into responding.

"Don't feed the troll" is an idiom that advises you to simply ignore the troll. I don't think it's appropriate advice here, since we have good moderation: if you believe someone is trolling, you should click on the "report" button on the left to report the troll to our P&WA mentors.

(If you are using the Nexus skin, the "report" button appears as an exclamation point)

 

[Hurkyl]

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

I didn't ask you why you think Israel shouldn't be doing what it's doing. I asked you why you think Israel should be doing nothing.

 

[novaa77]

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

Let me make it very clear that I do not support attacks on any civilians, be it Israeli, Palestinian or citizens of any other country. On the other hand you seem to be OK with attacks on the Palestinian people.

Even in the light of oppression

You can't expect to put these people in a cage and expect them not to fight back. Since they do not have any army or airforce or any of the sophisticated arms possesed by the Israelis they resort to suicide bombings and launching rockets into Israel. Again, I do not state these facts in order to justify attacks against the Israeli civilians.

 

[novaa77]

I didn't ask you why you think Israel shouldn't be doing what it's doing. I asked you why you think Israel should be doing nothing.

I suggest you read through the links I mentioned in my post. How about answering my question, for a change?

 

[Yonoz]

Well, if that's your belief, then I hope that we won't be dragged into more wars (like one with Iran) by this cultural environment/shabby journalism that dragged us into invading Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist.

I hope so too, and I hope our cultural environments will focus less on images, rhetoric and public opinion shaping and more on genuine national interests.

And overall, you have merely made a list of unsubstantiated assertions to support your claim that the western media is against you because such stories sell articles and magazines. It gives me the impression that you don't believe in what is on the news at all.

Did I ever claim western media is against me? On the contrary, I have shown an alternative explanation for its bias. Which of the assertions I made are unsubstantiated? Your hint in the previous section suggests you share most of these assertions.
Your impression is false, I do believe much of what is on the news, but I try to remain aware that I am also being marketed.

And if you however do believe in the news, then because like you said, interested parties that have figured out the above (points you've made) manipulate the media to influence public opinion to further their agendas, you should be careful because there is no telling whether you are being fed news reports that have been manipulated by your government to influence public opinion on Israel, its neighbours and the rest of the world.

I agree one should be careful. I try to extract only the facts, and figure out who are the interested parties.
Also, one should be very aware of press freedoms. (Here too, one needs to sift through quite a bit to get the facts as these organisations are the embodiment of agenda journalism, for good and bad):
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/227/

I did followed up on the story and I certain didn't base my judgement on just a single article. I also looked at articles from different countries since media in different countries usually present an incident in slightly different perspective.

Yet you were certain the reduction in supply "without doubt led to electricity cut", while in reality no electricity cut occured.

I made my judgement based on years of experience of interacting with the world, its people and their feelings/actions; based on 20+ years of education spanned over two culturally different countries; based on a good heart and intention.

You know what they say about good intentions...
Keep in mind Israel has democratic institutions and that the government legal advisor makes his judgement based on 20+ years of legal work.

I certainly do not think that those Israelis who are living under the cloud of random rocket attacks are any "better off" than those Palestinians who are suffering, or any African children in war-torn regions, rural China, India,... etc.

Then let's get back to the original subject - what in your opinion should be done by the Israeli government to put a stop to the rocket fire on its citizens?

Is it just me? but it sounds like you are no fans of the UN nor any diplomats nor any politicians except perhaps those who implement an agenda that's suit your taste.

That's off-topic, we can start another thread if you like. I'll just say that I am a fan of diplomats as they are usually realists, the type of personality our time sorely lacks. I wish Bismarck and Disraeli were around.

I don't think so. The Hamas militants plus probably the entire Palestinian populations are well-advertised as either terrorists, religious extremists, sympathisers or supporters in many parts of the world outside the Middle East: from USA, UK, Australia, Canada, many parts of Europe, to smaller countries like Hong Kong, Singapore...
their actions are well-known.

You complained of a dangerous precedent being set - but inaction (in favour of which I assume you argue, you haven't made that very clear) would set the same precedent, plus an even more dangerous, unacceptable precedent - that an elected government neglect its duties and do nothing to stop or reduce attacks directed at its citizenry.

 

[Yonoz]

You can't expect to put these people in a cage and expect them not to fight back.

I don't.

Since they do not have any army or airforce or any of the sophisticated arms possesed by the Israelis they resort to suicide bombings and launching rockets into Israel. Again, I do not state these facts in order to justify attacks against the Israeli civilians.

You have just justified attacks against civilians.

 

[Art]

It means Art is repeatedly taking the conversation off topic, making inflamatory posts of no argumentive value, obsessed with comparisons to Nazis - hallmark trolling symptoms.
It certainly seems Art is entirely motivated by hatred, though he poses as a humanitarian.

Off topic? The topic is Israel's collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza. It is senseless to discuss this action without discussing Israel's stated reasons for adopting the policy. This then opens up the policy itself for debate and whether or not it is justified which in turn much as you may dislike what it reveals, invites a comparison of who is doing what to whom in this conflict. To avoid accusations of media bias I have quoted Israeli sources in most of my posts. So what precisely is your problem other than you don't like what is being revealed?

You accuse me of hatred. Hatred of whom? Highlighting and condemning Israeli atrocities perpetrated against Palestinian civilians does not ergo mean I condone Palestinian militants attacks on Israeli civilians. I abhor all such violence but I do believe Israel's gov't is the chief architect of the unrest and that it is only by changing their policies that the consequent problems can be resolved. I have no problem at all with the average Israeli citizen and was heartened to see that many were shocked and saddened when informed of the behaviour of their armed forces in the report I referenced

The reference to the Nazis and the Warsaw Jews was to draw a parallel to challenge the false dichotomy that by accepting Israel had the right to retaliate against attacks on her, the acceptable scale of her response should be unlimited but of course Hurkyl knew that which is why he feigned ignorance of the event to avoid being forced to concede that there is such a thing as a disproportionate response.

 

[Art]

One common usage of the word "troll" is to refer to a person who does not intend to contribute to discussion, but instead simply wants to provoke people into responding.

Very ironic.

 

[novaa77]

Quote:
Originally Posted by novaa77
You can't expect to put these people in a cage and expect them not to fight back.

I don't.

Well in that case don't complain about attacks against Israeli civilians.

 

[Yonoz]

To avoid accusations of media bias I have quoted Israeli sources in most of my posts.

No you haven't, though you have quoted sources like Hal Turner and Conal Urquhart.
The only Israeli source you have (repeatedly) quoted is B'tselem, without providing a link.

You accuse me of hatred. Hatred of whom? Highlighting and condemning Israeli atrocities perpetrated against Palestinian civilians does not ergo mean I condone Palestinian militants attacks on Israeli civilians. I abhor all such violence but I do believe Israel's gov't is the chief architect of the unrest and that it is only by changing their policies that the consequent problems can be resolved. I have no problem at all with the average Israeli citizen and was heartened to see that many were shocked and saddened when informed of the behaviour of their armed forces in the report I referenced

That report is a typical example of my previous claims of agenda journalism. Conal Urquhart selectively ommitted the parts of the original article that do not serve his agenda. It is clear that the focus of his report are the tales themselves - not the response, as one would assume from the headline. The bias is made clear in the opening sentence:

A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers...

"the violent behaviour" - not "violent behaviour" - asserting all Israeli soldiers behave violently.
The article then gives a brief introduction, and the bulk of it is composed of the soldiers' tales. Compare that to their relative size of the different sections of original article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909589.html. Only what can paint Israel in a bad light was quoted - the rest ommitted. Apparently, gruesome voyeuristic anecdotes are more important for this "journalist" than the actual core of the article - the reasons for this failure - which is the bulk of the original Ha'aretz article. Where are the "bitter controversy" and "awakened urgent questions"? If one wants to concentrate on the anecdotal evidence why not label the article accordingly? Why do so in pretense? And why not tell the whole story - about the conscientious soldiers who testified to the battalion commander? About the immediate removal of the abusive squad commander, Military Police investigation and subsequent trial and imprisonment? About the two soldiers then becoming officers and their return to reform the company? NOT A SINGLE MENTION of any of these.

The reference to the Nazis and the Warsaw Jews was to draw a parallel...

So much for your claims of lack of hatred, and "having no problem at all with the average Israeli citizen":

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.

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.

Looks like our "humanitarian" is quite the antisemite.

 

[Yonoz]

Well in that case don't complain about attacks against Israeli civilians.

There are plenty of military installations and forces around the Gaza Strip that can be attacked instead of civilians.

 

[Art]

No you haven't, though you have quoted sources like Hal Turner and Conal Urquhart.
The only Israeli source you have (repeatedly) quoted is B'tselem, without providing a link.

here you go though I'm amazed you couldn't find the link yourself http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Index.asp

That report is a typical example of my previous claims of agenda journalism. Conal Urquhart selectively ommitted the parts of the original article that do not serve his agenda. It is clear that the focus of his report are the tales themselves - not the response, as one would assume from the headline. The bias is made clear in the opening sentence:

"the violent behaviour" - not "violent behaviour" - asserting all Israeli soldiers behave violently.
The article then gives a brief introduction, and the bulk of it is composed of the soldiers' tales. Compare that to their relative size of the different sections of original article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909589.html. Only what can paint Israel in a bad light was quoted - the rest ommitted. Apparently, gruesome voyeuristic anecdotes are more important for this "journalist" than the actual core of the article - the reasons for this failure - which is the bulk of the original Ha'aretz article. Where are the "bitter controversy" and "awakened urgent questions"? If one wants to concentrate on the anecdotal evidence why not label the article accordingly? Why do so in pretense? And why not tell the whole story - about the conscientious soldiers who testified to the battalion commander? About the immediate removal of the abusive squad commander, Military Police investigation and subsequent trial and imprisonment? About the two soldiers then becoming officers and their return to reform the company? NOT A SINGLE MENTION of any of these.

I very much hope folk here do read the full report you referenced including the parts how the soldiers who reported the brutality feared for their lives from their comrades and were transferred for their own safety and how the brutal squad commander received only 3 months imprisonment about his subsequent emigration to the USA, the prisoner who was bound and gagged locked in a shower and 'forgotten' for 3 days, the sexual assaults on Arab women, the theft from Arab houses along with a long list of other atrocities omitted in the Guardian article.

The responses from Israeli writers are also worth reading such as

the writer David Grossman remarks that this is not a story of individuals but of hundreds and thousands "who carried out a kind of 'privatization' of a vast and general evil."

It will be interesting to see if this shock and horror exhibited by Israeli citizens translates into a change in policy and attitudes towards Arabs. At least no-one can now claim they were unaware of what the IDF were doing in their name and it gives lie to the worn out claim 'they hate us because they are evil'.

So much for your claims of lack of hatred, and "having no problem at all with the average Israeli citizen":

? I'm lost here. Explain by what leap of logic do you make this statement?

Looks like our "humanitarian" is quite the antisemite.

lol how utterly pathetic; it is you who are trying to justify horror attacks on Semites . You do know the Arabs are Semites don't you and that the majority of Semites are Arabs. It always amused me that if anyone stands up for the victims of Israeli oppression they are labelled anti-Semite when the victims are actually Semites.

I assume you actually read the Haaretz article? Do you not think the actions detailed in it constitute brutal oppression?

 

[Yonoz]

Don't you realize you are one and the same as these monsters you're portraying?
Take a look at your posts - a global Jewish conspiracy?!

Seek help.

 

[Art]

Don't you realize you are one and the same as these monsters you're portraying?
Take a look at your posts - a global Jewish conspiracy?!

Seek help.

Hint - Resorting to dissociative ranting coupled with personal attacks doesn't help your argument.

 

[Yonoz]

You're giving all the help my argument needs.

 

[mjsd]

Originally Posted by novaa77
Since they do not have any army or airforce or any of the sophisticated arms possesed by the Israelis they resort to suicide bombings and launching rockets into Israel. Again, I do not state these facts in order to justify attacks against the Israeli civilians.

You have just justified attacks against civilians.

I don't think so.
The act of analysing the mind of your enemies in an attempt to understand the motivations behind their actions should not be seen as a justification to their actions.

 

[Art]

You're wasting your time trying to reason mjsd. It's just banging your head against the classic 'If you're not with us you're against us' mindset.

Anyone who criticises Israel is automatically labeled either,

a) A Jew hater
b) Anti-Semitic (sic)
c) A terrorist sympathiser
d) A holocaust denier
or
e) Insane (sometimes even by PM )

As you may have noticed in this thread

 

[Hurkyl]

I suggest you read through the links I mentioned in my post. How about answering my question, for a change?

You have stated that you believe Israel should not make any sort of response. Given that belief, the logic is automatic: the Israelis have responded, and therefore they are acting wrongly.