Israel's Gaza fuel cuts

  • News
  • Thread starter mjsd
  • Start date
  • #1
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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... :frown:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
32
1
IT is unfortunate, makes me wonder how long Hamas will continue launching rockets into random residential zones
 
  • #3
slugcountry
Yes honestly - I think its time to stop painting Israelis as criminals for trying to live in the midst of constant rocket attacks =\
 
  • #4
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?
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
32
1
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.
 
  • #7
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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
 
  • #8
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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.
 
  • #9
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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.
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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')
 
  • #14
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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...
 
  • #15
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #16
14
0
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 continous oppression
 
  • #17
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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.
 
  • #18
23
0
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.
 
  • #19
23
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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 possess ???
 
  • #21
23
0
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 possess ???
There was never any power cut.
Anyway, the alternative is a large scale military operation. Which would you prefer?
 
  • #22
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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 [Broken]

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

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


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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46
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.
 
  • #24
23
0
"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 [Broken]

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

more links if you want
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/31/content_6976745.htm
http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/oct/31/palestinian_israeli_rights_groups_call_end_gaza_fuel_cut.html [Broken]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22664490-12377,00.html [Broken]
"generic term" :rofl:
How amusing, in light of your recent lecture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
23
0
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).
 

Related Threads on Israel's Gaza fuel cuts

  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
11K
Replies
210
Views
19K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Last Post
22
Replies
531
Views
58K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
12
Replies
287
Views
19K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
79
Views
9K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
126
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top