# How much blame do the citizens of Gaza deserve? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192 "2009-01-27T06:02:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/141 "2009-01-30T02:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **FinnAgain** > By these same standards, the US was definitively wrong to get involved in WWII as there were virtually no US civilian deaths and many, many Axis casualties. My principle is based on whether one is doing more good than harm. Although American civilians didn’t necessarily benefit by our involvement in WWII, many other people did. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Perhaps they should give free medical care to Gazan children. > > You mean like a clinic at Erez? Cool! Even though for the time being people are afraid to take advantage of it, this is the sort of thing that helps over the long run. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **xtisme** > It’s kind of hard to convince your citizens to turn the other cheek so Hamas can get a good whack at the one they missed True enough. The Israeli people were understandably angry and would be upset if they didn’t get retaliation. The government knows what it has to do to be popular. But retaliation doesn’t make anybody better off. It’s a sad situation. > [@](#): > > We are also going to give them TV’s, power and World of Warcraft accounts. World of Warcraft! Awesome! It’s the best idea I’ve seen yet 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/142 "2009-01-30T03:21:38Z")
By the way, for those reading along, I’d like to cite Israel’s Supreme Court on the complete failure of the ICJ to perform due diligence and consider military necessity. For the mods, I’d like to point out that the source of the document [lists it as being in the public domain](http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm), so I am going to quote the entire relevant passage. "This introduction [which I have not quoted at all -Finn] is copyright © 2005 by Ami Isseroff and Zionism-Israel Information Center. The source document below is in the public domain. " The whole text is too long to post, so I’m going to cut some. > [@](#): > > 1. > > ``` > The Difference in the Factual Basis > > ``` > > 2. > > ``` > The main difference between the two judgments stems primarily from the difference in the factual basis upon which each court made its decision. Once again, the simple truth is proven: the facts lie at the foundation of the law, and the law arises from the facts (ex facto jus oritur). The ICJ drew the factual basis for its opinion from the Secretary-General's report, his written statement, the Dugard report, and the Zeigler report. The Supreme Court drew the facts from the data brought before it by the Palestinian petitioners on the one hand, and the State on the other. In addition, The Supreme Court received an expert opinion by military experts who requested the opportunity to present their position as amici curie. Despite the fact that the data which each court received regarded the same wall/fence, the difference between each set of data is deep and great. This difference is what ultimately led to the contrary legal conclusions. In what is this difference manifested? > > ``` > > 3. > > ``` > The first difference, and the most important one, regards the security-military necessity to erect the fence. This necessity was presented expansively before the court in The Beit Sourik Case. The State laid out before the Court the full data regarding the terrorism which has plagued Israel since September 2000; regarding the character of this terrorism, which spares no means, including "human bombs" which explode in buses, in shopping centers, and in markets; regarding the thousands killed and injured; regarding the various military action taken in order to defeat the terrorism ("Defensive Wall" in March 2002; "Determined Path" in June 2002), which did not provide a sufficient solution to it; regarding the additional plans which were suggested, yet rejected due to legal reasons (see, e.g., The Ajuri Case) or were of no avail. Against this background came the decision to construct of the fence. From the evidence presented before the Court, the conclusion arose that the decision to erect the fence was not the fruit of a political decision to annex occupied territory to Israel. The decision to erect the fence arose out of security-military considerations, and out of security-military necessity, as a necessary means to defend the state, its citizens, and its army against terrorist activity. Against this background, we wrote, in The Beit Sourik Case: > > ``` > > “We examined petitioners’ arguments. We have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the reason the fence is being erected is a security reason. As we have seen in the government decisions concerning the construction of the fence, the government has emphasized, numerous times, that ‘the fence, like the additional obstacles, is a security measure. Its construction does not reflect a political border, or any other border’ (decision of June 23, 2002). 'The obstacle that will be erected pursuant to this decision, like other segments of the obstacle in the ‘Seamline Area,’ is a security measure for the prevention of terrorist attacks and does not mark a political border or any other border” (decision of October 1, 2003)” (p. 830). > Later in our judgment, we dealt with the affidavit submitted to us by the military commander: > “In his affidavit he stated that ‘the objective of the security fence is to allow effective confrontation of the array of threats stemming from Palestinian terrorism. Specifically, the fence is intended to prevent the unchecked passage of residents of the area into Israel and their infiltration into certain Israeli communities located in the area. The choice of the topographic route was derived from the security consideration’ (affidavit of April 15 2004, sections 22-23). The commander of the area detailed his considerations behind the choice of the route. He noted the necessity that the fence pass through territory that topographically controls its surroundings; that it pass through a route as flat as possible, which will allow surveillance of it; and that a ‘security zone’ be established which will delay infiltration into Israel. These are security considerations par excellence. In an additional affidavit which was submitted to us, Major General Kaplinsky testified that ‘it is not a permanent fence, but rather a fence erected temporarily, for security needs’ (affidavit of April 19 2004, section 4). We have no reason to give this testimony less than its full weight, and we have no basis for not believing in the sincerity of the military commander’s testimony” (p. 830). > > We concluded our discussion on this question, stating: > > “We devoted seven sessions to the hearing of the petition. We intently listened to the explanations of officers and workers who handled the details of the fence. During our hearing of the petition, the route of the fence was altered in a number of locations. Respondents showed openness to various suggestions which were made. Thus, for example, adjacent to the town of Har Adar, they agreed to move the fence passing north of the town to the security zone closer to the town, and distance it from the lands of the adjacent village of El Kabiba. We have no reason to assume that the objective is political rather than security-based. Indeed, petitioners did not carry the burden and did not persuade us that the considerations behind the construction of the separation fence are political rather than security-based. Similarly, petitioners did not carry their burden, and did not persuade us that the considerations of the Commander of the IDF Forces in the area, in determining the route of the separation fence, are not military considerations, and that he has not acted to fulfill them in good faith, according to his best military understanding” (p. 831). > > 1. > > ``` > The security-military necessity is mentioned only most minimally in the sources upon which the ICJ based its opinion. Only one line is devoted to it in the Secretary-General's report, stating that the decision to erect the fence was made due to a new rise in Palestinian terrorism in the Spring of 2002. In his written statement, the security-military consideration is not mentioned at all. In the Dugard report and the Zeigler report there are no data on this issue at all. In Israel's written statement to the ICJ regarding jurisdiction and discretion, data regarding the terrorism and its repercussions were presented, but these did not find their way to the opinion itself. This minimal factual basis is manifest, of course, in the opinion itself. It contains no real mention of the security-military aspect. In one of the paragraphs, the opinion notes that Israel argues that the objective of the wall is to allow an effective struggle against the terrorist attacks emanating from the West Bank (paragraph 116). That's it. In another paragraph, the ICJ discusses the force of §53 of The Fourth Geneva Convention, according to which it is prohibited for an occupier state to harm local property, "except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations". Regarding that, the ICJ stated: > > ``` > > “[O]n the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions carried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” (paragraph 135). > > […] > 64. This minimal factual basis regarding Israel’s security-military necessity to erect the fence did not go unnoticed by the judges of the ICJ. The dissenting judge, Judge Buergenthal, noted in his opinion: > > “I am compelled to vote against the Court’s finding on the merits because the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings” (paragraph 1). > > Judge Buergenthal mentioned the possibility that, on the basis of all the facts, the conclusion would be that the building of the wall violates international law; however, in his opinion, > > “[To] reach that conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without having before it or seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel’s legitimate right of self defence, military necessity and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel proper coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territory to which Israel has been and continues to be subject, cannot be justified as a matter of law. The nature of these cross-Green Line attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the Court, and the dossier provided the Court by the United Nations on which the Court to a large extent bases its findings basely touches on that subject” (paragraph 3). > > In his separate opinion, Judge Kooijmans stated his opinion that: > > “[T]he present Opinion could have reflected in a more satisfactory way the interests at stake for all those living in the region. The rather oblique reference to terrorist acts which can be found at several places in the Opinion, are in my view not sufficient for this purpose” (paragraph 13). > > A similar attitude can be found in the separate opinion of Judge Owada. He notes that the ICJ had ample material before it regarding the humanitarian and socioeconomic effect of the building of the wall. In contrast, > > “What seems to be wanting, however, is the material explaining the Israeli side of the picture, especially in the context of why and how the construction of the wall as it is actually planned and implemented is necessary and appropriate” (paragraph 22). > […] > > 1. > > ``` > The ICJ based its factual findings regarding impingement upon the local residents' rights, upon the Secretary-General's report and his supplemental documents, and upon the Dugard report and the Zeigler report (see paragraph 133 of the opinion). In their arguments before us, State's counsel noted that the information relayed to the ICJ in these reports is far from precise. > > ``` > > […] > > 1. > > ``` > The difference between the factual bases upon which the courts relied is of decisive significance. According to international law, the legality of the wall/fence route depends upon an appropriate balancing between security needs on the one hand and the impingement upon the rights of the local residents on the other. We have a scale before us: on one side rests the impingement upon the rights of the local residents, and on the other side rest the security and military considerations. Delicate and sensitive balancing between the two sides of the scale, taking into account the need to ensure the proportionality of the security measures' impingement upon the local residents' rights, and taking into account the margin of appreciation given the state, brings about the appropriate solution. In The Beit Sourik Case, data were laid before the Court on both sides of the scale. In certain parts of the route discussed before the court, the considerations regarding the impingement upon human rights prevailed. At other parts of the route, the security-military needs prevailed. Not so was the opinion of the ICJ. As a result of the factual basis presented to the ICJ, full weight was placed on the rights-infringement side; no weight was given to the security-military needs, and therefore the questions of the proportionality of the impingement or of the margin of appreciation were not discussed at all. The result was the ICJ's conclusion that Israel is violating international law. The different factual bases led to different legal conclusions. This stands out especially in the case of those parts of the ICJ's opinion dealing with Qalqiliya. On one side of the scale, the ICJ placed the severe impingement of the rights of Palestinians in Qalqiliya. Even if we remove the imprecision of these figures, the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of their rights. On the other side of the scale, the ICJ did not place – due to the factual basis laid before it – any data regarding the security and military considerations. It was not mentioned that Qalqiliya lies two kilometers from the Israeli city of Kfar Saba; that Qalqiliya served as a passage point to Israel for suicide bomber terrorists, primarily in the years 2002-2003, for the purpose of committing terrorist attacks inside of Israel; that the Trans-Israel highway (highway 6), whose users must be protected, passes right by the city; that the majority of the fence route on the western side of the city runs on the Green Line, and part of it even within Israel; that since the fence around Qalqiliya was built – including the wall on the western side which borders upon highway 6 – terrorist infiltrations in that area have ceased. > > ``` > > 2. > > ``` > The difference in the factual bases was affected by the difference between the proceedings which took place in the ICJ and the proceedings in The Beit Sourik Case (see Weston, at p. 24). In the proceedings before the ICJ, the injured parties did not participate. Israel was not party to the proceedings. There was no adversarial process, whose purpose is to establish the factual basis through a choice between contradictory factual figures. The ICJ accepted the figures in the Secretary-General's report, and in the reports of the special rapporteurs, as objective factual figures. The burden was not cast upon the parties to the proceedings, nor was it examined. In contrast, the parties to the proceedings in The Beit Sourik Case stood before the Court. An adversarial process took place. The burden of establishing the factual basis before the court was cast upon the parties. The parties' factual figures were examined and made to confront each other, as the factual basis which would determine the decision was established. The proceedings themselves lacked strict formalities, and allowed the parties to make suggestions for alternative routes, which were examined by the other party, and the fence route was altered during the hearings themselves. All these aspects had an effect on the legal conclusions reached by the ICJ and the Supreme Court of Israel in The Beit Sourik Case (see Y. Shany "Capacities and Inadequacies: a Look at the Two Separation Barrier Cases" 38 Isr. L. Rev. 230 (2005)). > > ``` > > 3. > > ``` > We would especially like to point out an important difference in the scope of examination. Before the ICJ, the entire route of the fence was up for examination. The factual basis which was laid before the ICJ (the Secretary-General's report and written statement, the reports of the special rapporteurs) did not analyze the different segments of the fence in a detailed fashion, except for a few examples, such as the fence around Qalqiliya. The material submitted to the ICJ contains no specific mention of the injury to local population at each segment of the route. We have already seen that this material contains no discussion of the security and military considerations behind the selection of the route, or of the process of rejecting various alternatives to it. > > ``` > > […] > > 1. > > ``` > Of course, prima facie, the ICJ could have determined, that on the basis of the examination of the totality of the fence, it had reached the conclusion that the motivation behind its construction is political and not security-based, and that the intention of the government of Israel in erecting the fence was its desire to annex parts of the West Bank which lay on the "Israeli" side of the fences. The ICJ did not, however, do so; nor was a factual basis placed before it, which would have enabled it to do so. > > ``` I kinda like how lawyers can make their point without using the word “kangaroo” even once. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/143 "2009-01-30T07:23:16Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > . **Sev** I am really trying to understand what your latest point is and what it has to do with my post but I cannot. My post was very straightforward. “Extraordinary” evidence of Hamas’s long term ambitions and goals has been provided but I fail to see why you find the concept of one group having genocidal ambitions upon another is so “extraordinary”. No such evidence has been provided. Genocide was the proposition in question. Detailed reasons in the preceding post. (The short-hand way to the conclusion I usually use is to inquire as to the Hamas response should the Jewish population of Israel simply up and leave for another continent.) Genocide is the most serious accusation. Of course it is an extraordinary claim. Not that it needs overwhelming evidence or proof, merely evidence commensurate with the claim. > [@DSeid](#): > > .Look around the world. Genocidal ambitions are not an extraordinary item. To suggest to a people who have been the target of a fairly recent and large scale genocidal attempt that it is an extraordinary claim that any group would have such ambitions is to me quite extraordinary… I realize that to address the question as normal, by reference to available evidence does put you in difficult position: Either; - As a person of integrity, you conclude the claim is not made out. Thereby bringing into question the integrity of all voiced support for Israel; or - Guided by loyalty, you defend a claim which is not borne out by the evidence. In general the latter choice is made. The reasoning is ‘the holocaust’, as yours is here. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/144 "2009-01-30T07:34:16Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > No such evidence has been provided. Genocide was the proposition in question. Detailed reasons in the preceding post. (The short-hand way to the conclusion I usually use is to inquire as to the Hamas response should the Jewish population of Israel simply up and leave for another continent.) The evidence is that like in every other genocide in recent history Hamas is: 1. Saying it wants to kill all the Jews. 2. Has supporters willing to kill Jews because they are Jewish. 3. Dehumanizes Jews. 4. Spreads lies about Jews using propaganda. Why is this not enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/145 "2009-01-30T07:40:28Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > The evidence is that like in every other genocide in recent history Hamas is: > > 1. Saying it wants to kill all the Jews. > 2. Has supporters willing to kill Jews because they are Jewish. > 3. Dehumanizes Jews. > 4. Spreads lies about Jews using propaganda. > > Why is this not enough for you? This is enough for me. The problem is that the evidence is imaginary. Show me: Hamas: ‘We want to kill all the Jews.’ Doesn’t sound like too much to ask, does it? Simple, straightforward declarative sentence is all I ask for. Not 4 points, but one. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/146 "2009-01-30T10:52:13Z")
> **[The Jerusalem Post - All News from the Middle East, Israel, and the Jewish World](http://www.jpost.com/)** > > The Jerusalem Post is Israel's most-read English news website and best-selling English newspaper bringing breaking news, world news & middle east news. > [@Sheik Ahmad Bahr](#): > > “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet, defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/147 "2009-01-30T11:24:02Z")
While I’m loathe to support \*\*Sev \*\*in this, this is not “We’re going to kill all the Jews”. It’s emphatic appeal to God - Fred Phelps does the same. Arabic speach and culture are very fond of elaborate, exagerated forms as well, so there’s that too - remember that intrinsic context and meaning is lost in translation when one’s not familiar with the original culture. I’m not claiming it’s the case here mind you, but I wouldn’t rule it out either, unless you’re really familiar with the language & culture. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/148 "2009-01-30T11:24:33Z")
Oh, I should point out that I found that by googling hamas kill all the jews. It’s not like I was trying hard. I threw out the Danish Hamas supporters yelling, specifically, “We want to kill all the jews” because, well, Copenhagen isn’t Palestine. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/149 "2009-01-30T11:40:10Z")
(missed the edit window) Point in case : when Patton said “we’re going to murder the Hun by the fucking bushel, and not just shoot them but rip out their living guts and use those to grease the treads of our tanks !” he didn’t, y’know, actually \*plan \*on doing so. I’m quite certain there were no gut-greasing incidents during Patton’s campaigns 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/150 "2009-01-30T15:21:40Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] Point in case : when Patton said “we’re going to murder the Hun by the fucking bushel, and not just shoot them but rip out their living guts and use those to grease the treads of our tanks !” he didn’t, y’know, actually plan on doing so. I’m quite certain there were no gut-greasing incidents during Patton’s campaigns [/QUOTE] When Hitler said he wanted a final solution to the Jewish problem, do you equally think he didn’t mean it? You can do your own research if you like, but [this](http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/hamas_charter.htm) gives excerpts from the Hamas Charter: > [@](#): > > "Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him… > [@](#): > > "The so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad…Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? ‘And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed….’ There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad… > [@](#): > > "In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness… We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma… introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries…. ‘I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill’…. Etc etc. You are free to slog through the whole charter of course and to see if these selected excerpts are accurate or have been taken out of context. I haven’t read the charter myself in a while, but afaik Hamas has never taken out the ‘kill the Jews!’ parts from it’s original charter, though they have toned it down a bit and attempted to obscure their meaning (somewhat). YMMV, but I don’t think this is the same kind of thing as Paton talking about greasing the treads of his tanks with the guts of the Germans. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/151 "2009-01-30T15:54:31Z")
Guys, you don’t understand **Sev**. His claim isn’t that Hamas doesn’t want to kill or exile all the Jews in Israel. He’ll clearly agree that they do. His claim, such as it is, is that Hamas and their ilk have no designs toward Jews living \*outside \*of Israel, and therefore, according to his logic, have nothing against Jews _in general_. Furthermore, he believes that killing or exiling all the Israeli Jews would not count as genocide (unlike killing or exiling all the Palestinians, for some reason), because such an action would leave Jews alive elsewhere in the world. That’ because to him, we Israelis are not a nation _per se_, but merely a colony of International Jewry. Am I right, \*\*Sev \*\*old buddy? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/152 "2009-01-30T16:10:09Z")
Oh, I think I understand Sev perfectly, Alessan. I’ve seen him in more than a few of these threads in the past after all. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/153 "2009-01-30T16:17:37Z")
Yes, yes, I know - but here I see fighting words, war words. Not necessarily genocide words, know what I mean ? “The Jews are our enemy and we will fight them until we win” isn’t equivalent to “Jews are an inferior race that should be purged off this Earth, and we’ll do it, and here’s how”. Jihad doesn’t entail nor mean genocide - just war. They’re not talking about solving the Jewish problem, but taking back what they think is theirs by force. Victory seems to be defined by “we rule over the whole country”, not “every last Jew is dead” Point in case : > [@](#): > > Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam… members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region Of course, it’s silly of them to say coexistence is only possible through their religion’s principles, but that’s fundies for you. I admit the “Zionist conspiracy” bits of that link scare me much more, though. That’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Someone really ought to tell them the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are and were bogus from day one. Don’t they have a Dope equivalent ? Jews profiteering from WW2 ? Nazi Jews ? Come on now. That’s ignorance begging to be fought, right there 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/154 "2009-01-30T17:13:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Oh, I think I understand Sev perfectly, Alessan. I’ve seen him in more than a few of these threads in the past after all. Ah yes, but this new twist is awesome. Now we have a demand that if people can read Hamas’ public statements and the charter in context, then it must only be out of ‘loyalty’ to Israel. But if they’re willing to ignore Hamas’ direct calls to genocide and conclude that charge is false, why by gum, then they have to challenge each and every single other thing Israel says. Neat deal. And of course, I wonder how the argument would be received if someone said that the Israeli hard liners don’t have anything against the Palestinians, because they’d be happy if the Palestinians just left and moved to another continent. > [@Kobal2](#): > > While I’m loathe to support \*\*Sev \*\*in this, this is not “We’re going to kill all the Jews”. It’s emphatic appeal to God - Fred Phelps does the same. And when Phelps starts launching rockets and sending suicide bombers into San Fransisco while trying to raise a military force sufficient to overthrow the state and take control himself, it’d be legitimate to think that he’d passed the stage ‘just words’. Likewise, Patton really did intend to kill as many Nazis as he could as long as they were fighting, he was just exaggerating what would be done with their bodies. Every time this debate come up (since its the Dope of course) someone will disagree. But here’s the question that needs to be asked, then: what would it take to get you to accept that when Hamas differentiates between Jews, Judaism and Israel and says it wants to kill all the Jews, that it’s serious? In short, is there any way that you’d take Hamas at its word? > [@Kobal2](#): > > remember that intrinsic context and meaning is lost in translation Yes, like the quote about killing every last Jew on the planet is not, as sev distorted the issue, about God’s support for anti-Zionism, but rather Islamic eschatology and the belief that the Day of Resurrection will not come about until Muslims kill all the Jews on the planet. And by endorsing that religious view, especially as a theocratic movement, Hamas was making clear what their perfect Islamic world would entail. And as pointed out, while they talk about how everybody can live just fine under their theocratic brand of Islam as long as they aren’t enemies of Islam, they also make quite clear that Judaism, Jews and Israel all are enemies of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/155 "2009-01-30T17:27:25Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] Yes, yes, I know - but here I see fighting words, war words. Not necessarily genocide words, know what I mean ? [/QUOTE] Not really, no. Especially when put in the context of their actual actions and public statements they have made in the past I think it’s fairly clear exactly what they meant in their charter. > [@](#): > > “The Jews are our enemy and we will fight them until we win” isn’t equivalent to “Jews are an inferior race that should be purged off this Earth, and we’ll do it, and here’s how”. The problem is that they didn’t say either of the things you put in quotes. What they DID say was pretty clear and really didn’t need embellishment or analogies that don’t really illustrate what was said. > [@](#): > > Jihad doesn’t entail nor mean genocide - just war. Actually, jihad means struggle. > [@](#): > > They’re not talking about solving the Jewish problem, but taking back what they think is theirs by force. They are talking about taking back by force what was never theirs and going through the Jews in the region to do so. You are kidding yourself here IMHO. While I concede that it’s possible that once they have destroyed the Israeli defense and basically wiped out most or all of the Jews in the region (in their dreams anyway), they will probably be content to stop at that point and not, say, pursue the Jews in the US or Europe at that point. Will be cold comfort to all the dead Jews in Israel and the region though, ehe? And this was EXACTLY the intention of the original Arab armies and the Palestinian’s during the initial war of independence and the later clashes as well. What proofs do you put forth that this has changed? Obviously it hasn’t in their charter. Or their public speeches. So…what are you basing your opinion on here that Hamas doesn’t REALLY mean what they seem to quite plainly say they mean? > [@](#): > > Victory seems to be defined by “we rule over the whole country”, not “every last Jew is dead” And you base this assertion on what exactly? Where does Hamas go into details about what exactly they would do to the Jews if they DID manage to rule over the whole of the country (that is different than what they say in their charter)? Or are you channeling them or something? I’m genuinely curious where you are getting this all from. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/156 "2009-01-30T19:42:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And when Phelps starts launching rockets and sending suicide bombers into San Fransisco while trying to raise a military force sufficient to overthrow the state and take control himself, it’d be legitimate to think that he’d passed the stage ‘just words’. I’m not saying Hamas doesn’t want to overthrow the state of Israel and take control by force, I never said so. In fact I said the exact opposite. I may be candid, but not \*that \*candid :). But in and of itself, that’s not genocide. > [@](#): > > Likewise, Patton really did intend to kill as many Nazis as he could as long as they were fighting, he was just exaggerating what would be done with their bodies. Key word being “as long as they were fighting”. > [@](#): > > Every time this debate come up (since its the Dope of course) someone will disagree. But here’s the question that needs to be asked, then: what would it take to get you to accept that when Hamas differentiates between Jews, Judaism and Israel and says it wants to kill all the Jews, that it’s serious? In short, is there any way that you’d take Hamas at its word? I’m not sure what you’re asking here. What’s that about differentiating between Jews, Judaism and Israel ? In any case, I fully acknowledge that Hamas intends or wishes to kill anyone (not just Jews) standing between them and power over the entire country - but again, that’s the definition of war, or armed insurrection if you prefer, not genocide. If they did say “We will never let any Jew live here, ever”, then I’d agree with you. But what I read in the quotes provided and their Wiki page is “We will never let the Jews or anyone else \*rule \*here”. Different kinds of crazy. [QUOTE=xtisme] And you base this assertion on what exactly? (that is different than what they say in their charter)? [/QUOTE] On the very quotes and link you provided. “we won’t renounce an inch of the land of Palestine”, “we have to fight against the invasion” and so on. They go on at length about the evils of Zionism, but Zionism isn’t Judaism, it’s not even Judaism in the Levant. > [@](#): > > Where does Hamas go into details about what exactly they would do to the Jews if they DID manage to rule over the whole of the country They don’t - that’s the point. They’re focused on gaining power at all cost, not on the aftermath. That’s their entire raison d’être : abolish Israel and create an Islamic state there in its stead. But an Islamic Sunni state isn’t inherently a kill-Jews-on-sight state either - witness Iran. Hamas are violent and dangerous extremists, they’re fundamentalists as well, and they have the same visceral hatred of the state of Israel as every other Muslim fundie out there - but genocidal antisemites they possibly aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/157 "2009-01-30T19:50:44Z")
Not that it really matters anyway, when all is said and done. They don’t have the numbers or means to concretize their vision, and never will, even if all the neighbouring Arab states shared it and helped them (which isn’t the case). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/158 "2009-01-30T19:59:23Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] On the very quotes and link you provided. “we won’t renounce an inch of the land of Palestine”, “we have to fight against the invasion” and so on. They go on at length about the evils of Zionism, but Zionism isn’t Judaism, it’s not even Judaism in the Levant. [/QUOTE] Well, leaving aside that there is and never was a Palestine, wouldn’t that mean they will fight until they control everything? Which sort of means that they will continue to fight as long as the Jews are there, no? Whether they couch that in terms of ‘Zionism’ or not, the reality is that they are going to keep fighting until they control everything. I’m not very sanguine about the survival of many (or any) Jews in the region if they were ever able to gain the upper hand to the extent that they retook all of the fictional land of Palestine. > [@](#): > > They don’t - that’s the point. They’re focused on gaining power at all cost, not on the aftermath. That’s their entire raison d’être : abolish Israel and create an Islamic state there in its stead. But an Islamic Sunni state isn’t inherently a kill-Jews-on-sight state either - witness Iran. You are making several assumptions in all this that are simply based on projection. You say Hamas hasn’t thought about the aftermath but offer no proof of this. You state that they don’t plan on wiping out the Jews in the region and offer as proof of this assertion the fact that Iran hasn’t killed all of it’s Jews. The reality here is that no one knows what Hamas would do if they ever got their way…but I doubt it would be pretty, even if they didn’t decide to give ethnic cleansing a try. And the other reality is that Hamas is going to keep fighting, to keep trying to subvert and destroy Israel until they gain control of that entire region…which means in realistic terms pretty much indefinitely. They won’t stop until they have control of ever scrap of what they think Palestine was, no matter what Israel does. > [@](#): > > Hamas are violent and dangerous extremists, they’re fundamentalists as well, and they have the same visceral hatred of the state of Israel as every other Muslim fundie out there - but genocidal antisemites they possibly aren’t. They are possibly not really human either, but instead some kind of alien/mule hybrid. But I’d say the odds are that they are exactly what their actions and words say they are. YMMV of course but I think you really need to stretch to make a lot of the assumptions you are using in your assertions. And the thing is…why should anyone, especially Israel, take the chance on ‘possibly aren’t’… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/159 "2009-01-30T20:47:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, leaving aside that there is and never was a Palestine Not getting over this _again_. The point is that this region of the world is very important in the Muslim faith, and they feel (rightly or wrongly) that Muslims should control it. Christians did too, and Jews do as well. Each religious group has fought the others based on that claim at some point or other. It’s not rational, but that’s religion for you. > [@](#): > > You are making several assumptions in all this that are simply based on projection. You say Hamas hasn’t thought about the aftermath but offer no proof of this. It’s not in their charter, or on the Wiki page. If you have details on the exact nature of the state they wish to establish, what it’s policies would be and so on, I’m eager to see them. But as it is, I really don’t think they’ve thought it through. > [@](#): > > You state that they don’t plan on wiping out the Jews in the region and offer as proof of this assertion the fact that Iran hasn’t killed all of it’s Jews. I’m not stating anything. I’m saying I don’t see the unequivocal call for genocide you see in their texts. Nor was I putting Iran forward as proof of Hamas good ultimate intentions, it was merely a point showing Islam’s, even fundamentalist Islam’s, even fundamentalist Sunni Islam’s (which is their denomination) lack of inherent antisemitism. Iran doesn’t just not kill all of it’s Jews - they’re equal wrt. the law, can worship freely, don’t face violence and don’t seem to want to leave in a hurry either. > [@](#): > > The reality here is that no one knows what Hamas would do if they ever got their way…but I doubt it would be pretty, even if they didn’t decide to give ethnic cleansing a try. And the other reality is that Hamas is going to keep fighting, to keep trying to subvert and destroy Israel until they gain control of that entire region…which means in realistic terms pretty much indefinitely. They won’t stop until they have control of ever scrap of what they think Palestine was, no matter what Israel does. On this we can certainly agree. > [@](#): > > And the thing is…why should anyone, especially Israel, take the chance on ‘possibly aren’t’… Well, the thing is, if neither group takes the chance to trust the other (and here I’m not thinking of Hamas in particular, but Palestinians as a whole), there’s going to be fighting for a long long time. Which, quite frankly and cynically, is what I expect will happen. The situation is utterly fucked for both people, and I won’t live to see the time when it is even marginally unfucked. Signs definitely point to linear increase in fuckage. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192/160 "2009-01-30T21:44:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, specific and historical. > If you would argue otherwise, please do as I asked and suggest other methods that would be more effective than what was tried. I don’t know what methods were tried. In order to support your assertion that Israel tried **every** other method and failed, leaving it with no choice but the building of the separation wall in its current position as an indisputable military necessity, you’d have to list **all** possible methods of protecting Israeli civilians, show that no other methods of protection were possible, and show that Israel had done **everything** possible by **every** other method. These are all highly debatable issues. Which is why when you categorically assert that Israel is **indisputably** justified in its actions and no rational diifference of opinion is possible, you come across as dogmatic, biased, and unconvincing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-blame-do-the-citizens-of-gaza-deserve/483192.md?page=9)