"Truly, the height of academic, objective language there!"

An irrelevant comment. The information clearly presented in image is what's important.

You might as well attempt to say an academic's argument is invalid because you don't like the typeface his article was written in. Come on.

"No, the point, which is the point Chairman was making if you'd been listening"

^This bothers me in, frankly, most of our Forum discussions, and really media at large, so I'm going to address this--

"Not agreeing" is NOT the same as "not listening."

I have listened to Chairman.
For the better part of a couple weeks now.
I have read his links.
I have responded to a good deal of his posts, at length.
I have read his lengthy responses.

And at the end of the day...we *still* disagree.

My not changing my position or my still thinking that what he says is bunk (and I'm sure he thinks the same about what I say) is NOT evidence of our not listening to one another, but simply that we disagree.

I see this in our other Forum chats, and really in society at large, the fallacy that just because you're not changing your views or otherwise acquiescing you're somehow not listening.

You can listen to someone and still, at the end of the day, disagree with them 100%.

I listened at length to why folks here thought Vergil superior to Shakespeare...and I still disagree 100%, but I DID listen, and ghug still being Team Vergil and my still being Team Shakespeare isn't evidence that we didn't listen to one another. Granted, that was a lot better argued and, frankly, a more fruitful and engaging conversation than this conversation, but still--

Just because Democrats and Republicans disagree, or Labour and Tories disagree, or X and Y disagree, doesn't mean they didn't first at least listen to one another.

I listened, I read his points, I still think he's spouting nonsense, he thinks the same--

And that's fine. You're ALLOWED to disagree in civilized society without the other party saying either "Wake the Fuck Up," "You're Just Not Listening" or, if you're disagreeing over a work of art, "You Just Don't Get It."

I'm awake, I listened, I do get it, I disagree--move on from this line of "argument."

"An irrelevant comment. The information clearly presented in image is what's important."

...Because a graphic can't be manipulated to serve the ends of one side of the argument or another? Yes, the academic/objective nature of the commentary matters, as that frames the chart...

If the language is inflammatory or indicative of a bias, it alerts me to the fact, "Hey, this may be biased."

Rather like if I were to read text before a pro or anti-gun control chart, I might just think "Hm...has this chart been constructed to show a biased viewpoint, or is it academic and objective?"

"The point is that you claimed, in your first post, "Israel has abided by the ceasefires, Hamas has not." This is simply wrong."

For the ceasefires in this conflict? Yes, Israel has abided by them.

If you want to go back years, yeah, both sides have probably done wrong (in the Israel/Palestine conflict? No way!) But I was talking about right now, and that's what I'm still talking about...

What's more, beyond the "broke their word" aspect of this, I do again want to ask--

How can you claim these people have the interests of Gaza in mind, when Gazans wanted this ceasefire, badly, and every commentator on the Gazan side has said they badly needed such a ceasefire...

And then Hamas decides, "Nope, no ceasefire today!" and restarts the conflict 90 minutes in?

That isn't serving the wishes of the people, Jamiet, when they people say "We want a ceasefire" and you say "Well, too bad, we want to blow up a Jew."

@obiwanobiwan: ""Not agreeing" is NOT the same as "not listening.""

Correct. However, on this occasion, you demonstrated that you had not been listening, because you claimed Chairman had not posted any evidence regarding Israel breaking more ceasefires than Hamas - when in fact he had posted it on two seperate occasions, in this thread - and on each of those posts he specifically attempted to draw your attention to it. I had to post it a third time before you would even address it at all.


"Because a graphic can't be manipulated to serve the ends of one side of the argument or another?"

Have you looked at the data which underpins the graphic? I gave you the link.


"For the ceasefires in this conflict? Yes, Israel has abided by them. If you want to go back years, yeah, both sides have probably done wrong."

And here you answer the above question by demonstrating that you did not look at the data. The data covers the period 22nd November 2012 to 7th July 2014. It's not a case of "going back years". You would know this if you had looked at it.


I think this is actually quite important.

I'll explain why it's quite important:

The whole basis of your opening argument in this thread was that, in violating this ceasefire, Hamas had crossed the final line, the point of no return - the final straw, and now, as a result, deserves only to be obliterated "at any cost" (which can only, practically, mean further loss of innocent life on an horrific scale).

You underpinned this argument by attempting to take the moral high ground for Israel with the claim that "Israel has abided by the ceasefires, Hamas has not."

This claim has now been demonstrated to be false. Evidence has been provided, here in this thread, that Israel has broken ceasefires, not years ago, but within the past month, and indeed in EVERY month from Nov 2012 to July 2014 (inclusive).

One of the key planks on which your argument of "Israel good, Hamas bad" in relation to ceasefires has been demolished. You would acknowledge this if you had any integrity.

"However, on this occasion, you demonstrated that you had not been listening, because you claimed Chairman had not posted any evidence regarding Israel breaking more ceasefires than Hamas - when in fact he had posted it on two seperate occasions, in this thread - and on each of those posts he specifically attempted to draw your attention to it. I had to post it a third time before you would even address it at all."

Already 10 pages to this, and he's posted plenty...if I miss something he says now and again...well, that's going to happen...

"Have you looked at the data which underpins the graphic? I gave you the link."

Firefox still doesn't like it for whatever reason... *shrugs*

(I actually really miss Google Chrome, I far preferred that, but anyway.)

"And here you answer the above question by demonstrating that you did not look at the data. The data covers the period 22nd November 2012 to 7th July 2014. It's not a case of "going back years". You would know this if you had looked at it."

See the above.

"The whole basis of your opening argument in this thread was that, in violating this ceasefire, Hamas had crossed the final line, the point of no return - the final straw, and now, as a result, deserves only to be obliterated "at any cost" (which can only, practically, mean further loss of innocent life on an horrific scale).

You underpinned this argument by attempting to take the moral high ground for Israel with the claim that "Israel has abided by the ceasefires, Hamas has not."

This claim has now been demonstrated to be false. Evidence has been provided, here in this thread, that Israel has broken ceasefires, not years ago, but within the past month, and indeed in EVERY month from Nov 2012 to July 2014 (inclusive)."

1. And yet I have now repeatedly said that Israel has abided by the ceasefires IN THIS WAR, and this SPECIFIC war, and THAT is what I'm referring to, and

2. I can't access that document because of Firefox (as I already said, my fault there) but I would like to know how they're counting this...

Because when I talk about "ceasefires," I'm talking about them in the context of a single, continuous war, ie, what we've had going on now for three weeks and a day or so.

I can't investigate the 200+ incidents in that graphic, but as that seems to span the stretch of time *between* these last wars--ie, between the end of the 2012 war and the beginning of this one--I'm curious as to how they count "ceasefires."

You have ceasefires in a war...and they weren't "at war" then so much as, well, just in a state of being Israel and Gaza.

If we wanted to call the whole thing "a war," from 1947 onward, then frankly, the blame game protracting into the past can last us a lifetime.

But pertaining to this specific conflict, they have not broken a ceasefire, and if we can break them up into specific conflicts--which is what we've been doing thus far, when we've said this war, the 2012 war, the 2008 war, etc.--then I'd ask how that in-between area is counted, exactly.

I'd also say that I'm willing to bet that the Israelis would call some of those alleged incidents police actions, and Hamas would defend theirs as being part of their "just war" against Jews...

So if you want to copy/paste the data from the document I can't access, and want us to go through them case by case, and see what we really think of each of the 200+ incidents, OK...

But in this war, Israel's kept its word on ceasefires, and Hamas has not.

What's more, Hamas has broken its word on other matters as well...as much scorn as the UN is giving Israel right now, Hamas has now thrice used their locations as havens for their weaponry...

In this specific war, Hamas is the one breaking its word, both to Israel and the international community.

"One of the key planks on which your argument of "Israel good, Hamas bad" in relation to ceasefires has been demolished. You would acknowledge this if you had any integrity."

Hamas bad, Israel better is the way I'd characterize it, frankly--

If you had any integrity, you'd acknowledge that I haven't painted Israel saintly as I've now said what must be close to two dozen times I condemn their actions in the West Bank...

That I think Hamas is wholly reprehensible and irredeemable doesn't mean I think Israel is saintly-good, that's a fallacious conclusion to draw from my remarks.

Israel is--to quote dear Sherlock Holmes--"the pick of a bad lot."

You want to say they have inequities in their own borders?
OK.
You want to say they're wrong to build in the West Bank?
Absolutely?

But in this specific, specific case, Israel vs. Hamas...

When Hamas is so reprehensible that not only do Western nations classify it as a terrorist organization, but even other Arab states shun it as well, then really, Hamas' "score," as it were, is so low that it isn't hard for Israel's to be "better."

There are a lot of distinctions to draw between Palestinians, Gazans, and Hamas specifically...

Israel is better than Hamas *specifically.* Hamas is so bad, you don't have to be "good" to be "better" than Hamas, if you get my drift.

Is there really any true Scotsman?

Also, blaming Firefox is weak tea. Install one of the half dozen or so other browsers in he time it takes to read a half page of comments, or go to a public library and use a computer there. Nobody has asked you to get information from a Vietnamese translation of the Necronomicon.

I'm using Firefox. Both versions of the link work fine for me.

"I'm using Firefox. Both versions of the link work fine for me."

...Then I really don't know why I can't access it...it keeps telling me to do something with my cookies setting on Google, but any fiddling with that still gets me nowhere...

"Install one of the half dozen or so other browsers in he time it takes to read a half page of comments, or go to a public library and use a computer there. Nobody has asked you to get information from a Vietnamese translation of the Necronomicon."

What browser are you downloading that takes that short a time, they take a while with me...

And again:

1. Those would be actions between wars, so I'd ask how you can break a ceasefire when ceasefires are a part of war, at least in the context of this conversation...it seems analogous to arguing that someone's stolen more bases than anyone else, but all those stats come from dates in which that person's team didn't play. Maybe he still ran really quickly around the bases, and maybe--scratch that, definitely--there has been an exchange of fire on both sides...

But in terms of a form, war-time ceasefire...well, how do you have a formal war-time ceasefire being broken in the absence of a war?

2. And again, even if I conceded 100% on those points, I'm speaking specifically to THIS WAR...I am making a specific claim about the past three-going-on-four weeks.

And quite frankly, I don't think your chart helps at all, because even if you're going to argue that 190+ (I believe) alleged ceasefires broken is too high...is 75, the Hamas number, suddenly not too high?

Are we arguing that 75 ceasefires broken is acceptable and trustworthy, but 195 not so?

The BEST argument you can divine from that chart would be to say BOTH sides have broken too many ceasefires to trust one another...

In which case, again, if neither side is trustworthy in those pat 2 years, its a wash, we come to the present war, and we now have Hamas breaking the ceasefires...so...

It's a wash from November 2012-July 2014 (unless someone really wants to make the argument that an alleged 195 alleged ceasefires is untrustworthy but 75 broken ceasefires is still perfectly trustworthy?) and now Hamas has broken ceasefire after ceasefire in this war AND has done so after both it and its people asked for those ceasefires AND has lied to the UN by thrice storing weapons in UN schools.

That's not trustworthy by any means, period.

Which is, by the way, another reason I say charts like these are manipulative...

Because while the implication is that 195 is so much worse than 75, because one's a bigger number...

Well, if I murder 75 people, am I any more trustworthy than a man that's murdered 195?

Are they not equally untrustworthy?

And if both are equally untrustworthy, and from that base of zero trust, one murderer then upholds an agreement and the other does not...what conclusion would you draw then?

You're probably the first person I've heard describe this as some sort of fresh, new conflict, a "new war" that's somehow distinct and separate from the rest of the decades-old conflict.

We have the 1947 War for Independence...
Distinct wars in 1967 and 1973...
The 2008-09 War...
The 2012 War...

How are the wars of Israel vs. Arab States broadly and Palestinian factions in most of those instances not distinct wars?

We write about them as such...

We've been talking about the 2008 and 2012 wars, as if they were separate wars...

I'd argue that there's one ongoing conflict, yes, but distinct wars within that prolonged conflict.

You forgot about the 1956, 1982, and 2006 wars, obi. Not to mention the first and second Intifadahs. If you're going to be a good Hasbarist, you need to remember them all and be able to explain why it's not Israel's fault when she has to invade her neighbors and kill a bunch of people.

to be fair, obi probably doesn't know about those wars.

oooh, I wonder if that mildly chippy remark constitutes a warning. Whats the ruling Damian?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

"I have listened to Chairman.
For the better part of a couple weeks now.
I have read his links.
I have responded to a good deal of his posts, at length.
I have read his lengthy responses."

"Already 10 pages to this, and he's posted plenty...if I miss something he says now and again...well, that's going to happen..."

and this is hilarious. He's making a claim that is clearly debunked by evidence, and his response is 1) I can't access that evidence 2) Well clearly the evidence doesn't say what it does 3) We should go through all 200 cases and quibble about what is and isn't a breaking of the ceasefire.

I don't think there is any greater monument to obi's total disregard for evidence and complete admittance to arguing in bad faith than the previous and this current page.

Sorry for raising this little quibble, but according to Israel's own spokespeople the 'violation of the ceasefire' occurred when they were admittedly attacking a tunnel near Rafah and were ambushed. How is attacking a tunnel abiding by a ceasefire? Furthermore what reason do we have to believe a soldier was actually captured? We already know Israel lied before about the kidnapped teens in order to break the 2012 truce and initiate this war. Furthermore what reason do we have to believe Israel's claim that the attack occurred after 8am? Other sources say the attack occurred at 700 am and was part of Israeli operations to penetrate deeper into Rafah.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/1/as_gaza_ceasefire_collapses_israel_kills
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.608331

"Hamas official Ismail Radwan: Our political leadership has no information about a captured Israeli soldier. Even if it was true, the military leadership are the only ones authorized to report such an event.

At 7:00 A.M. Al-Qassam Brigades were fighting Israeli forces entering Rafah. These forces planned to remain in place, violating the cease-fire, so we acted against the forces and harmed soldiers."

"to be fair, obi probably doesn't know about those wars."

1. I didn't feel the need to mention every last war or conflict, and

2. Santa...again, we seemed to be on the same page earlier, or at least in the ballpark...seriously, why do you feel the need to keep sniping at me?

Can you just drop the damn feud already?

"How is attacking a tunnel abiding by a ceasefire?"

They were working to demolish the tunnel, which they WERE allowed to do under the terms of the ceasefire, Putin.

"Furthermore what reason do we have to believe Israel's claim that the attack occurred after 8am? Other sources say the attack occurred at 700 am and was part of Israeli operations to penetrate deeper into Rafah."

Because the United States and other Western democracies believe that it was 930am...which counts for fuck all in your book, granted, as unless Russia or the North Korean News Network report it so it must be wrong, but as those governments (and Egypt, if I'm not mistaken) call it 930am, and Hamas has no evidence to support their claim of 7am...

Let them try and prove it was 7am.

Otherwise, whatever evidence Israel had, it was good enough to convince whole governments to side with them.

Go ahead. Try and prove it was 7am.

Otherwise you're conjecturing against what is now the accepted story.

""Hamas official Ismail Radwan: Our political leadership has no information about a captured Israeli soldier. Even if it was true, the military leadership are the only ones authorized to report such an event."

Aaaaaaand more than a day later, they STILL can't confirm or deny if they've captured a soldier? Do they not know, or not want to know, or are they just dysfunctional?

If it's not true, they don't need to deny it.

"A veteran negotiator, Shaath has become the de facto liaison between the PLO and Hamas. He confirmed to AlterNet that PA President Mahmoud Abbas received a briefing from Hamas this morning on the incident near Rafah. Shaath’s account reflects details provided directly by Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip.

According to Shaath, at after 6 AM, Hamas fighters engaged Israeli forces in Rafah. He maintained that it was then — almost two hours before the ceasefire went into effect — that the two Israeli soldiers were killed and the other went missing.

Shaath’s account was supported by dispatches published before the ceasefire went into effect by the official Twitter account of Hamas’s Qassam Brigades military wing. In a tweet published at 7:34 AM on August 1, the Qassam Brigades stated, “At 7 AM a group [of Hamas fighters] clashed with [Israeli] forces east of Rafah and caused many injuries and death to them.”

So unless Hamas can time travel and make tweets about events before they happened, something clearly occurred around 7am.

Even Haaretz is reporting the soldier was more likely killed by Israeli artillery than captured by Hamas

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.608331?v=120 7162E09A853E9C414347202DA0E7

Israel certainly didnt waste any time though. Within two hours they killed another 25 civilians. Can't let a good broken ceasefire go to waste!

But they haven't confirmed or denied it...

Last I heard their answer was they "weren't sure."

That's hardly a competent answer after nearly a day, wouldn't you say?

They don't even know?

And I'd think that, given the negative press they're getting from it and the condemnation it's invited, if they didn't do it, they'd leap up and say "That's not true!" and produce proof.

That sounds like a hesitant denial to me. More likely if they lost contact with the fighters who would have him, and don't want to be caught in a lie later.

What's clear is that if they did have them, they wouldn't be mincing words over it.

And your quoted text isn't coming up in that link, Chairman...

I search for "A veteran negotiator..." Nothing.