A number of Israeli airstrikes against the Gaza Strip may be just the beginning of a new round of escalation, as the nation has confirmed adding ground troops and tanks to the border area.
Israel had simultaneously couched the airstrikes as retaliation for a handful of rocket strikes from Gaza, and retaliation for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in the West Bank.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played up the escalation of vital for the “security of our citizens,” even though there were no reports of the Gaza rockets causing any injuries, and said the military was prepared to “act with power.”
At the same time, Netanyahu cautioned Israelis against taking retaliatory violence on their own against the Palestinians, saying such moves have no place in a democracy.
Whenever things don't go Netanyahu's way, he takes it out on the people imprisoned in Gaza.
Even when things are going his way he relishes kicking the Palestinians…shows he's tough…and concerned about the "security of our citizens."
Big news stories provide Israel with cover for sneaking in a few more rounds of ethnic cleansing without facing media scrutiny.
That is not the true map of Gaza, anti-war should publish the map of Gaza at the time of partition.
When and if we finish our time machine and go back to the time before partition, I'm sure we WILL print maps from that time. Since it's 2014, we're probably going to stick with maps that reflect the situation circa 2014. We'll also probably continue publishing on the web and not go back to painting on cave walls.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "When and if we finish our time machine and go back to the time before …"
Me: … elementary morality and justice got lost? Like, we could search for the stone tablets that included:
6. Thou shalt not murder
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10. Thou shalt not covet (thy neighbour's house, or anything else)
Also, agreed "painting on cave walls" is a bit passé, and agree further that maps should reflect reality – like the fact that the current illegal occupiers (descended from aggressively invading-by-stealth aliens) of what was Mandate Palestine, only managed to legally acquire ~6% of that area, so the remainder should be marked as "improperly alienated = stolen from the rightful erstwhile legal owner/occupiers = mainly native Palestinian ELO/Os?"
"Also, agreed 'painting on cave walls' is a bit passé, and agree further that maps should propagandistically reflect my position on issues rather than the actual current situation"
There, fixed that for ya.
The facts of "the actual current situation" are that the Zionists did *not* purchase anything except the ~6%. Since a fair exchange is no robbery, AND no fair exchange occurred BUT only murdering violence à la Jabotinsky's colonising by force, confirmed by Ben-Gurion's "We are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, …" – leading to ethnic-cleansing by genocidal methods AND since acquiring Lebensraum by war was definitively outlawed (latest via the Nuremberg trials), the current erstwhile alien illegal occupiers have improperly alienated whatever they occupy outside of that ~6%.
Outlining facts is usually the opposite of propaganda, and facts are independent of POV = point of view; as some wit says, anyone can have an opinion, but there is only one set of facts, and they belong to the reality-universe. I will suggest a lemma, namely that of *inalienable* rights (here land possession), which, summarised, means that the owners of land retain that ownership unless traded in free and fair voluntary sale, which has a direct corollary; inalienable rights may neither be taken nor surrendered, least of all under coercion. All together, it means that the original ELO/Os (heirs & successors) still own what was not sold; the invading aliens remain unwanted interlopers and should vacate forthwith, paying adequate reparations on the way out.
Sooo, anyone is welcome to try contradicting the above-mentioned facts.
Your arguments are all very nice, but it's not the job of the map used in this article to support those arguments.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "… but it's not the job of the map used in this article to support those arguments."
Me: Bah! Ducking the question, much? This site is called antiwar, at least a rhetorical gesture in the 'correct' direction. Along with antiwar (usually), comes truth + justice = peace – say, and IF any remaining dissension, THEN oh, sorry! – Only in my humble opinion!
The "map used in this article" is "just a goddamned piece of paper," thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush – who is *reputed* to have said it, now sporadically contested by his (propagandistic) 'friends' – but even if he didn't say any such thing, it sounds about par for such a villain's course.
So, to the article, which says that the Zs are planning to attack/maim/kill a few more Ps, in the cause of “retaliation for a handful of rocket strikes from Gaza, and retaliation for the kidnapping and murder” and/or “security of our citizens.” Sounds 'good,' as propaganda (= hasbara) should (irrespective of whether it's total lies or not.)
BUT it comes down, as ever, to truth + justice = peace. The alien interlopers have no right to be there at all (except on the ~6%), and certainly no right to attack/maim/kill the legitimate owners of the land Israel illegitimately squats on – nor to attack/maim/kill anyone else, for that matter. Hence my mention of the Decalogue above. What the Zs do is *multiply* wrong, by a) the word of their own mythological deity, b) international & civil law and c) normal common sense. They even teach it in kindergarten, d): "Don’t touch things not yours!"
Israel may well have some 'right to exist' – also as a 'Jewish nation' – just not on stolen land. Ditto some 'right to defend' – but only what's actually theirs = the ~6%.
"This site is called antiwar"
Precisely. Its mission is something other than propagandizing for your specific views on Palestine (although some of our writers do plenty of that).
And yes, the article quotes Netanyahu, who is by definition engaging in "hasbara."
Say, specifically, what's propaganda – or if you like, what I wrote that's not 100% true.
The term "propaganda" doesn't relate to the truth or falsehood of content. It reflects its purpose. You're propagandizing for your viewpoint. That's fine — we do plenty of propagandizing in our commentaries. That doesn't mean that every map we use has to conform to skrik's propaganda line. Get over yourself.
Oh, no! It's not me, me, etc.; I refer you to my label: "an activist 'gand' (from Gandhi), pursing truth + justice = peace"- here, for the hapless victims of Zionist criminals. What do you strive for?
I strive for lots of things. Mostly for the hapless victims of states — including, but not limited to, Israel.
But I don't throw a little hissy every time some author at Antiwar.com doesn't use its news coverage to propagandize for my agenda.
"Throw a little hissy" is a) unfair, b) bad manners and c) incorrect; you started this with your "stick with maps that reflect the situation circa 2014." All *I* tried to do is, in case anyone forgot, point out that the current situation should reflect the actual ownership of the land – and, as in my explanation, that that ownership is not subject to negotiation, which is the hasbara/propaganda primarily of, amongst others, the murdering to steal perpetrators themselves. Correction to previous; for "criminals" kindly substitute "criminality," since the Zionists have only convicted themselves by their own words (not to mention ghastly actions – 66+ years if not 117 from Herzl's initial coveting to the current moment), but not before formal justice – only in the real world. You're welcome to re-phrase any of that – but not change its meaning.
"All *I* tried to do is, in case anyone forgot, propagandize for my position on the subject of land ownership in Palestine."
There, fixed that for ya.
propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. [POD = Pocket Oxford dictionary]
Note: "usu. derog."
Now, quite literally using a magnifying glass, I transcribed the text in the right hand bottom corner of the map:
"Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement – permanent status to be determined through further negotiation."
Next, I've done 'inalienable rights' above, perhaps but not as formally as possible (but I can and will if pressed), however the intentions of "status to be determined" etc. is for the Palestinians to surrender.
This intention is – IMHO – wrong, in all ways, but that is – again – the hasbara/propaganda of the perpetrators. By including that text, antiwar *appears* to 'go along' with those perpetrators' wicked intentions.
This error ('status to be determined') is *not* trivial.
Again, I challenge you to point out any error in my writing.
Why would I want to point out any error in your writing?
Your error is not in your writing, you error is in your assumption that Antiwar.com's job is to carry your water for you.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "Why would I want to point out any error in your writing?"
Me: Because that's how debates work. IF you do not contest a point, THEN that point is assumed acquiesced to = taken as valid. Sooo, anything that I write that you do not contest is taken as proven = here, a) that the Ps own all but ~6%, b) ownership is inalienable, so c) there's nothing to be negotiated = surrendered, and d) even IF surrendered (by some corrupt representative(s), say) THEN e) that surrender must be, perforce, invalid. As to "Antiwar.com's job is to carry your water for you;" risible. Antiwar presents articles, the comments are there for – among whatever reasons I may not be aware of – to debate the articles, what else?
PS I assume nothing, outside that fairness and honesty are prerequisites to civilised human relationships; transgressors make themselves antisocial if not outright outlaws.
Ah, there's your mistake:
This is not a debate.
Tee hee.
[moderator’s note: Apart from damaging your own credibility, the penalty for referring to me as a “hasbara troll” is (the first time) that you are going to have to re-write your comment if you want it published – TLK]
[moderator’s note: Some people just can’t take a hint. Oh, well – TLK]
He is waiting for the go ahead from his handlers in washington