Admission that the aim is to inflict violence on civilians as a way to expel them from the North would be “good enough” evidence that the operation is clearly terroristic. Absent that, the ubiquitous presence of Hamas fighters embedded in the population, and Israel’s official insistence that they are trying to avoid harm to civilians while conducting their war, makes the terrorism charge relatively less clear. I understand skepticism over that insistence. Also, note that an operation can be a war crime while not being an act of terrorism. Further, in theory (though very rarely in practice) an act of terrorism could be morally justified. Let’s not get to a point where “terrorism” is simply a word we throw around to refer to an act of violence we disagree with. That doesn’t help advance understanding of what’s actually going on.
Terrorism seems to be a notion that is based on previous state of apparent safety being substituted by a state of widespread fear. This usually involves a minority force acting upon majority force, that previously felt safe. Best way for minority force to inflict biggest change on the widespread mental state of safety of a majority force is to attack a soft target (eg a festival of young people high on drugs or a farming community or a party or a bus) and do something horrific (rape, behead, dismember, use a shrapnel grenade on a crowd). Majority force (ie Israel) is always threatening (causing fear upon) minority force - ie Israel is always a "terrorist" state in a way to Palestine, because there is always a threat of war/violence and defeat. From that perspective, Hamas is perpetrator of terrorism, while Israel, while it (for lack of clear facts and independent reporting) may be breaking international laws, is waging an urban war. These definitions are not very important in the face of immense suffering and hate that is happening in that part of the world; and it is happening on a mind boggling scale. We can't "cancel" the hate that exists there by shaming either side. In the long term as long Israel and us remain democratic, we'll be supporting each other.
They didnt attack settlers, they attack Israelis civilians living in Israeli territory. There is no international law that allows what Hamas did. There's no way to rationalize it as just.
Gotta clear land for more settlements… no Zionist is going to want to live next to a monument to Arafat.
They (and by they I mean both Hamas and @maypk ) consider all of Israel to be a settlement on Palestinian land and thus all the people therein to be illegal settlers.
On the subject of semantic games, Kibbutz Be'eri isn't a "settlement." It's inside the Green Line, as in within the pre-1967, internationally recognized border. What can fairly be called settlements would be in the Golan, East Jerusalem, and West Bank. Ariel Sharon forced the evacuation of the settlements in Gaza that were frequently attacked by Hamas and he took a lot of abuse from the right-wing nationalist camp for it at the time, and many claimed his stroke not long after was an act of retribution from God. The semantic game is played by by both pro-Palestinian activists, and the apologists for the right-wing nationalist movement, when they refer to any Jewish-built community since the late Ottoman era as a "settlement." in the former case to imply that any Jewish presence is occupation to be resisted by any means, and in the latter, that actual settlements are no different than Tel Aviv and to imply that they should be defended no differently. It's understandable -- doing so serves their respective causes -- but I think Americans and Europeans who are casually opnionated on the subject repeat these things without awareness of the nuances of political geography that are purposely being obfuscated. WIth regard to Kibbutz Be'eri, it's weird hearing the word "kibbutz" said so much lately in English by people that also don't seem to know what that means. I think there's some missing context for English speakers, especially for those that like to call everything they don't like communism. They are socialist collectives, as in blue uniforms with red scarfs, and kids learning to sing the International in kindergarten. There's a spectrum of ideology within the movement, and Be'eri would be more moderate in their anti-capitalistic rhetoric or willingness to hang portraits of Stalin on their wall compared to some others, but they are ideologically associated with the Meretz party, which from an American perspective, is probably well left of Dr. Jill Stein. I think all of this is being purposely under-reported by Western media in the same way Hamas' islamist ideology isn't. I never had an issue with them -- it's free association, and since the late 70s at least, aren't taxpayer funded. They are the oldest enemies of the Likud Party, generally very traditionally Left in politics, very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and recognize the Nakba as historical fact. They are highly critical of US foreign policy (in some cases Americans generally -- ask me how I know). They are some of the strongest voices in the peace camp, and the last segment within Israeli society to advocate a two-state solution. It's worth noting one of the people Hamas killed in the attack on Kibbutz Be'eri was Vivian Silver, who was a pretty well known peace activist. Some will say they are naive commie peaceniks, others that their ancestors should have never immigrated there in the first place (Silver herself was notably from Canada) and are occupiers just the same, but my point is, no one should confuse them with the people who continue to build settlements in the post-67 military occupied West Bank, burn down Palestinian olive orchards, bully the Palestinians that live nearby, and then demand the army protect them.
@maypk is clearly a brainwashed hardcore Jew hater and terrorist supporter, just like @Exiled. @glynch and @Homey the Clown are left wing extremists and Jew haters who align with Islamists ideologically. It is what it is. It's actually interesting to listen to extremists like them try to justify their hate.
Isn't this just you agreeing with my post? Or are you going by a 1947 partition plan that was rejected by all the Arabs and kicked off the Israeli War of Independance, for some reason ignoring that even the international community recognizes the 1967 borders (which are also BS, because there is no Palestinian state, but that is neither here nor there).
It does not even matter if they are settlers or not. Violence against unarmed civilians is never justified. Not against Israelis. And not against Palestinians. Once Israel clears out Hamas leadership from the hospital complex, it's time for a ceasefire. And the bombing of southern Gaza does not appear justified given Israel announced that would be the "safe" zone.
Hamas was much smarter than I gave them credit for. First, they have like 1-2 days of bad headlines and outrage around the world for their heinous acts. But clearly they new they could benefit from sympathetic headlines for many more headlines and ongoing headlines, to say nothing of some of these protestors. Sigh. So, I know I can't talk sense to the protestors, but does anyone really want to reward a terrorist assault on civilians that killed 1400 or so people in a day? Where were these US protestors when we knocked the **** out of two countries and killed far greater numbers of innocent people after 9/11? I always wondered about that.
