Tonight was such an important night in American journalism that I want to add a little to what Adam says above. Bob Simon's report was great old 60 Minutes journalism. It was good guys and bad guys. It was rage and distance. It was a strong storyline and point of view. It collapsed geographical complexity into easy understanding. It made Tzipi Livni look like a horse's ass and an Arab doctor look like the face of humanity. It was beautiful journalism.
And the TRAGEDY is that 60 Minutes could have done this report 10 years ago, or 20, and it never did. It could have done it when Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush were campaigning for the settlements in '92. It could have done it when this would have made a difference.
The report was really about Zionism. And the question anyone must ask is, Wasn't this clear all along? Wasn't expansionism and disrespect for Arabs part of the original political operating system, from '47 at least on? Many years ago George Antonius, a leading Arab nationalist, said, If I only tell the story of Zionism in the court of world opinion, the world will take our side. Well it didn't happen.
And tonight it did. The hero of this piece was Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, the Arab doctor. At last an Arab hero in American journalism. A thoughtful humane Arab having his rights crushed by Israel. And Arab children being oppressed. You would fire rockets if they treated you that way.
Bob Simon must be congratulated on one of the finest pieces of journalism ever done on Israel/Palestine. It is a game-changer. Open the floodgates. America open your eyes. (Phil Weiss)
"You would fire rockets if they treated you that way."
No civilized person would fire rockets into civilian population areas just because they were humiliated. What you actually did was tell the Israelis that they were justified in their actions during the Gaza War of 2009.
Your history only goes to 1947? Exactly what should have been the Jewish thought after the Arab riots of the 20's and 30's?
Chris,
The Palestinians fire their homemade rockets into civilian areas because they don't have modern weaponry that can pin-point and reach military installations. But you knew that didn't you…are you recommending that we give them comparable weapons to what we give Israel so they can fight fairly?
I agree with you about going back a bit further in the history…1900 is a nice even number and in that year indigenous Jews comprised 5% of the population compared to 95% for the Palestinians. Do you think that European Jews who were encouraged to immigrate to Palestine by England to solve Europe's "Jewish problem" should be allowed to keep 80 to 90% of the land without the consent of the original inhabitants? If the Jews wanted or needed a country of their own, wouldn't it have made more sense to purchase (as opposed to stealing) a piece of land, or as reparations for the Holocaust, to build the state on German land? Isn't it obvious, after so many years and so much bloodshed, that there will not be peace until the initial injustice that was done to Palestinians is adressed? Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about sharing a state with other people who are not members of your religion….here in the United States, we do it everyday!
Hamas fires missles into civilian areas because it can, and because it wants to. But you knew that, didn't you…are you recommending that we allow Israel to fire the same type weapons into Gaza? Will you allow the resulting deaths of so many Arab babies with no peep in protest and say that Gaza is reaping its just desert?
I believe in 1900, Jews comprised the majority in Jerusalem. Yet the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jerusalem in 1948-49.
You seem to forget the many years of history regarding the Jewish attempt at purchasing the land.
There will be no peace until the Palestinians stop teaching hatred in the homes, street, schools, and mosques.
Why would any Jew consent to live in Germany so soon after the holocaust? Are you forgetting the secondary pogroms that occured when the Jews tried to go back to their homes?
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about sharing a state with other people who are not members of your religion….here in the United States, we do it everyday!
It's a supremacist ideal, Ana. Richard Witty has commented on this many times. Something to the effect of "Jews should have a place where they can self-govern", or something like that. This doesn't seem wholly unreasonable, until one realizes that the same Zionists who are so supportive of a Jewish-only state are the first ones who want to bring "democracy" to everyone else. They'll rail against Muslim countries, and will preach multiculturalism to everyone else, except for Israel.
I don't see why, if a significant number of Jewish people are indeed interested in "self-government", why it can't be done within the confines of a multicultural nation. It all comes back to supremacism, plain and simple.
Chris,
We are living in the information age and there is really no excuse for not getting facts straight, with the internet available, public libraries, even Barnes and Nobles. Please try to read a little so we can have an intelligent discussion.
No, the Palestinians did not ethnically cleanse the Jews, it was the other way around. That's why there's millions of Palestinian refugees: in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, the entire world. Have you heard of any Jewish refugee camps?Even a fellow zionist like you, Benny Morris, admits it. He does have more courage than you because he does not try to cover up the ethnic cleansing, he just says that it was a good thing but too bad it did not go far enough. We can discuss the morality of his interpretation, but not the facts of what happened. I would recommend that you read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine." I got my copy off the shelf at Barnes and Noble; it's amazing how easy it is to find out the facts and not have to rely on "beliefs." In my opinion, the hour is getting late and there is real danger of these wars in the Middle East erupting into World War III. A lot of people would die then, including a lot of Jews. So please, let's not waste each others' time. Let's roll up our sleeves and have an honest discussion.
are you recommending that we allow Israel to fire the same type weapons into Gaza?
Get real. Why would Israel fire bottle rockets into Gaza when it can (and does) fire the most sophisticated weaponry on the face of the earth, not to mention using tanks and bulldozers to destroy innocent, indigenous peoples' homes.
I believe in 1900, Jews comprised the majority in Jerusalem. Yet the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jerusalem in 1948-49.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Lies, all of it.
You seem to forget the many years of history regarding the Jewish attempt at purchasing the land
The land was not for sale, then or now. You can't just buy whatever the hell you feel like, despite what you may have been taught otherwise.
There will be no peace until the Palestinians stop teaching hatred in the homes, street, schools, and mosques.
Again, the truth reversed. The hatred is taught in Jewish schools and homes and places of worhsip, in the form of "chosenness". The only hatred that comes from the Palestinians is a result of their treatment at the hands of the supremacists. The hate starts with the supremacist idea of "chosen ones", and is taught to others through the actions of racists who believe that stuff. In fact, through all the torture that the indigenous people of Palestine have been through at the hands of the Zionists, it's amazing that they aren't MORE hateful. They are a peaceful people who've reacted to hate that has come their way from a people who believe in a doctrine that says that they are better than everyone else.
Why would any Jew consent to live in Germany so soon after the holocaust?
Actually, many Jews wanted to stay in Europe – they didn't want any part of the Zionist idea of "Eretz Israel".
I can not believe that you continue to deny that the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jerusalem in 1948-49.
And the fact that you have never heard of the camps set up for Jewish refugees in Israel before they could be resettled?
Talk about wasting someones time. It is clear you've become hopelessly biased. There is no such thing as an honest discussion as long as you continue to deny historical facts.
No civilized person would fire rockets into civilian population areas just because they were humiliated.
is there something wrong with this guy's grain, or is this the way street level zionist hacks always talk?
uh, this guy's brain, not his grain, sorry.
but his further comments confirm my first snap impression, of organic brain disorder rather than just the effects of jewish nazi education. Look at this:
You seem to forget the many years of history regarding the Jewish attempt at purchasing the land.
I mean, that's right, the king wanted the poor man's ewe lamb, didn't he, and the stupid poor man couldn't see that he was obliged to sell it to him. You recall?
he expended all his mental energy coming up with a goyish-sounding nick.
Your attempt to rewrite history is noted with amusement. Laws were writen forbidding selling land to Jews, just as laws were written forbidding Jews to settle in Transjordan.
Did you deliberately forget or are you admitting ignorance?
Let's talk about rockets…and Israeli motives:
Contrary to the template language peddled by Regev and repeated ad nauseam by the media, this has never been about Israel's 'security' or 'deterrence'. It was, and is, about the deliberate annihilation of Gaza. As Ben White – going against the Guardian's editorial supplications – bravely wrote, "Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis."
Never, notes White, did the rocket factor seriously figure in Israel's calculations:
"First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict."
Why has this most basic truth been shunned by the media? Why have the BBC and others consistently repeated Israeli objectives as being 'defensive'? Why this compliant service to power when the true aims are all too manifest. As White insists:
"There is, however, no shortage of evidence available that points to rather different Israeli aims. Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson."
For White, Israel's killing has been driven by three main aims: firstly, "to humiliate and weaken Hamas" – breaking them as a political force; secondly, "to teach a lesson to the Palestinians in Gaza, and elsewhere, that the only way to avoid the wrath of the Israeli military is to accept Israel's idea of a two-state solution, a generous concession to be gratefully received by Abbas and fellow moderates": and, thirdly, "to further "catastrophise" the territory, reducing the capacity for continued existence to the barest of minimums – perhaps to bring about "an end to the persistence of Gaza's ordinary people in wanting the chance of a peaceful and dignified life"."
Israel's real cumulative objectives, thus, look very different from its claims of security, stability and, perversely, its supposed desire to help Gaza reconstruct. As White concludes:
"Israel seeks to turn the Gaza Strip into a depoliticised humanitarian crisis, always on the brink of catastrophe, always dependent; its population reduced to ration-receiving clients of international aid."
Ben White's analysis is a welcome respite from the standard 'rocket threat' and 'two sides' narrative that pervades the 'moderate' liberal media. It would be useful to see him direct his comments about shy-away journalists to the Guardian itself. But let's not expect too much.
Israel's atrocities: making the link
I can not believe that you continue to deny that the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jerusalem in 1948-49.
You are a victim of (or willing participant in?) Zionist rewriting of history, which thankfully has been corrected by such historians as Ilan Pappe, who went through all the old Israeli archives when they became available. The Zionists waged their "War of Independence" in 1948, in which they ethnically-cleansed about 800,000 Palestinians from their land (they destroyed over 500 villages and urban centers in places like Jerusalem and Haifa and Tel-Aviv. All of this history is now available, including the words of beloved Israeli leaders such as Ben Gurion, who said "borders would be determined by force and not by partition resolution," and "We are told the army had the ability of destroying a whole village and taking out all its inhabitants, let's do it," and "Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion."
@Dan Kelly
Hey Dan, how about you give me an estimate, ballpark figure, of how many people an army of several thousand men with tanks, fighter jets, artillery, M16s and grenades can kill in an hour if they are trying to kill as many people as possible in a city.
I'm seriously interested. Would you say it is closer to 3 or closer to 3000?
No thanks Thom. I'm not interested in playing your games. If you want to learn the truth about Palestine, you know where to find the information.
Israel's recurring use of terror on civilians
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians
"The stated aim was, as always, to stop the launching of the rockets. The means: killing a maximum of Palestinians, in order to teach them a lesson. The decision was based on the traditional Israeli concept: hit the civilian population again and again, until it overthrows its leaders. This has been tried hundreds of times and has failed hundreds of times." (Uri Avnery "Kill a Hundred Turks and Rest": The Five-Day War in Gaza March 2008).
Operation Grapes of Wrath ~ Lebanon, in 1996
"Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel's history as the one who introduced the abuse of innocent civilians as political cards. Barak was probably not the first Israeli warrior to abuse civilians on a tactical level, but he was the one who turned it into a central Israeli strategy. Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, in 1996, with Barak as an influential cabinet member, openly targeted civilians, turning them into refugees to make them put pressure on Beirut's government. The recent siege on Gaza follows a similar logic: put pressure on civilians to achieve political goals. (A clear war crime, it goes without saying.)" (Ran HaCohen ‘Israel Says 'No'’ Feb. 2008).
Israelis fire 1,300,000 bullets during first few days of Intifada
"Malka, in an interview with the Israeli paper Ha'aretz on 14 June, revealed that during the first few days of the intifada, Israeli occupation soldiers fired 1,300,000 bullets on Palestinian population centres and other targets. This massive firepower, which had no operational justification given the Palestinians' inherently inferior firepower (they possessed only light firearms and in limited numbers), showed that the Israeli army was interested more in decimating and harming the Palestinians and less in ending the violence. According to Israeli sources, then-Chief of Staff and now Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz didn't plan to bring about the end of the conflict. Instead, he thought he had finally seized the opportunity to "beat and vanquish" the Palestinians in order to "burn into their consciousness" and make them "internalise their weakness and inferiority vis-a-vis Israel's strength". Mofaz's ultimate aim, of which he later convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was to hector Palestinians into negotiations in a weakened and exhausted state whereby they would have no choice but to accept Israel's dictates and demands. The new revelations, Palestinian officials argue, prove that the escalation of violence during the first few months of the intifada was, first and foremost, Israel's responsibility. "This is what we have been saying all along that this is not about Israeli security but rather about Israel's terrorising the Palestinian people for the purpose of arrogating their land and rights. Israel is now admitting that," said Michael Tarazi, adviser to Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat." (Khalid Amayreh ‘The second intifada, an Israeli strategy’ July 2004).
Lebanon 2006
"This intentional and coldly calculated Israeli policy of targeting innocent Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure stems from a time-honoured, but hardly ever successful, Israeli doctrine of applying intense "pressure" against a civilian population in order to compel them, in-turn, to pressure the resistance into submitting to Israeli dictates, thereby doing Israel's bidding by proxy. It has been consistently used against the Palestinians ever since the Nakba of 1948, and is still applied now in the ongoing barbaric offensive and hermetic siege against Gaza. Israel may have plagiarized this doctrine from the legacies of previous oppressors, but it has refined it to a degree that it no longer raises any moral qualms in most of Israeli society, where it is widely accepted by the public as a right, even a duty in the fight for Israel's "security." (Omar Barghouti ‘The Massacre at Qana’ August 01 2006); "As Limor and Shelah reveal, in spite of the fact that the conflict on the ground took place on a very narrow strip of land (the Israeli border on the south and Litani River on the north), the Israeli artillery had managed to shoot over 170,000 shells. In comparison, in the 1973 war while fighting against two strong state armies over two very large fronts, the Israelis had launched only 53,000 shells. The figures relating to the Air Force are even more striking. Though less than a few concrete targets were available for the IDF intelligence, the IAF (Israeli Air Force) had launched as many as 17,550 combat missions, this translates into 520 missions a day, almost as many as in the 1973 war (605 a day). Yet, in 1973 the IAF was fighting two well-equipped air forces, it was engaged in a fair amount of air-to-air combat and a relentless struggle against the latest Soviet ground-to-air missiles. None of that happened in the Second Lebanon War. The IAF was engaged solely in hammering the Lebanese soil. It literally threw and launched everything it had in its disposal, presenting a merciless method that in places (southern Beirut for instance), had a similar effect to the infamous 1940s Anglo-American carpet bombardment." (Gilad Atzmon ‘Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath’ August 13, 2007); "That was on Aug. 30, by which time U.N. teams had identified 359 separate cluster-bomb sites. Since then, the true dimensions of the problem have become even clearer: 770 cluster-bomb sites have now been identified. And the current U.N. estimate is that Israel dropped between 2 million and 3 million bomblets on Lebanon, of which up to a million have yet to explode." (Saree Makdisi ‘Israel's Cluster Bomb War’ Oct. 2006).
Israel's recurring use of terror on civilians
Bob Simon must be congratulated on one of the finest pieces of journalism ever done on Israel/Palestine.
Phil, I agree.
chris berel
I believe in 1900, Jews comprised the majority in Jerusalem. Yet the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Jerusalem in 1948-49.
Kelly,
"Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians"
You are proposing that Israel be required to use a sane proportionate amount of violence againat unarmed civilians?
You are proposing that Israel be required to use a sane proportionate amount of violence againat unarmed civilians?
no joking matter, as you will know.
"No civilized person would fire rockets into civilian population areas just because they were humiliated."
!!!
Applied to every party to the conflict, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel.
Jews were ethnically cleansed from Hebron in 1929 (completely). And, were attempted to be ethnically cleansed from Safed at approximately the same time.
Jews have remained as either a large minority or majority in Jerusalem for a very long time, especially centered in the Jewish quarter of old Jerusalem.
Following the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948, the Jewish population of the old city declined considerably.
It was illegal for a Jew to buy land in the West Bank, and I believe still is.
The description of satan vs angel, is an INNACCURATE description.
The reality includes mutual abuses, mutual thefts, mutual VALID claims.
Readers, there have been a lot of half-truths strewn about in this post. Alas I have no time to systematically shred them, but I strongly encourage anyone interested in the ugly truth to read The Gun and the Olive Branch. It is staggeringly well-documented, and will point you into the right direction to explore specific issues or questions in more detail. Your local library system may have it, and Amazon Prime has copies for under $10. When you are done, pass your copy along to the next person to awaken.
Israel targets schools and universities because their ruling extremists fear the acquisition of knowledge by their adversaries. Do your part to ensure that fear is not unfounded.
Dan Kelly equals ultra biased mega moron.
Here are the facts. The Palestinian region was not sovereign territory until 1948. Gaza and the West Bank still are not.
By 1947, Jews made up a majority in what was supposed to be the Jewish governed part of the partition.
Jews owned 8% of the land. Muslims 20% (mostly by absentee owners). The rest of the land was state owned.
Jews accepted the partition. Arab Muslims did not (mainly it was the surrounding Arab nations, if they minded their own business, no Arab would have moved from Israel).
In 1900, the population of the region was only 500,000. There are now over 9 million people there now. In other words, there was plenty of room for migration and growth.
Even in 1948, the total population was under 2 million.
In 1900, only 20% of the land was lived on or farmed. It was mainly desert and swamp. Tel Aviv was built by Jews in 1909 on sand dunes.
Jews migration there, cause Arabs to migrate there as well, thanks to growth and job opportunities brought on by the new Jewish population.
Yes, some early Zionists wanted to ethnically cleanse the Arab population. But that would never have happened in any way shape or form if not for Arab hypocrisy, intolerance and double standard.
You see, it is perfectly fine for Arabs to now make up 50% of Dearborn's population today, but 300,000 European Jews migrating to the Palestine region which wasn't even a sovereign territory was totally unacceptable to the Arabs, Muslims, and Moonbats (aka Kelly) of today and yesterday.
greyed out buttons on my Typepad ID here, presumably that means the old chickenshit has banned me and kept the jewish nazis.
p.s. as I have said before, "The Gun and the Olive Branch" seemed to me after I had read it to be a singularly useless book. Finkelstein's "Image and Reality of the Israel/Palestine conflict" is a lot more useful, factually.
The more the better! :) I've only read his "Beyond Chutzpah", which I found very interesting.
I am probably being unfair to 'the old chickenshit', as usual: the explanation for the greyed-out buttons this time is probably that the incessant upgrades of the NoScript add-on to the Firefox browser keep detecting new pieces of illicit code in TypePad's log-in procedure.
Another and more intriguing possibility which might explain all this rogue XSS script (it really is called that, too), is that there is a second, secret or esoteric Mondoweiss blog concealed behind this one, in which our comments form the posts, and are themselves discussed by the expert focus group and trend analysts who, as we all know, abound in liberal american jewish circles.
chris berel said: "Laws were written forbidding selling land to Jews…."
Was this before or after the Jewish National Fund was setup? One of the JNF's bylaws is that no land in its possession can be sold to a non-Jew.
The Jewish population of the Old City of Jerusalem declined to ZERO. They were EXPELLED.
"… in which our comments form the posts, and are themselves discussed by the expert focus group and trend analysts …"
hehe.
But, seriously, I spend a lot of time worrying about how the powers that be are planning to respond to all this. There's been an undeniable, but still slight, awakening of public awareness of Zionism and Zionist power in American society. But there's going to be an active response, and we don't know what form that response will take.
I expect MUCH more media reporting of "antisemitic" incidents (real and imagined). And of course there's always the possibility of full-fledged false flag operations. These seem to be very dangerous times.
For a survivalist, nothing is out of the question.
Arab hypocrisy, intolerance and double standard.
With intolerance, hypocrisy and double standards being 100% an Arab feature, and never ever a human feature that Jews in the diaspora or Israel could ever exhibit?
Arab hypocrisy, intolerance and double standard.
With intolerance, hypocrisy and double standards being 100% an Arab feature, and never ever a human feature that Jews in the diaspora or Israel could ever exhibit?
I think the doubt about Phil's blog shows that both sides are in utter fear of what may come. A single guy, an American Jew, proclaims himself as such, and starts his own blog because he feels constricted by his former employer, the Observer, jewish run. For his childhood friend he keeps access, although he disagrees, to show he is open.
I think that one thing is obvious about Phil's blog and who has been drawn to it: None like to have the wool pulled over their eyes. In that sense, that are like Phil.
I just wish all comments on Phil's blog would respect the sensitivity and intelligence of his readers-comments. Yes, there a few exceptions, for example Bill Pearlman who posts under other people's real names. And there are some recent people who have
commenced hasbara, in accord with the new Israel state initiative
to muffle objective discourse, but , so far, I do see that this blog is one of the very few were the USA's free speech is alive, and responsible. No small feat.
I just wish all comments on Phil's blog would respect the sensitivity and intelligence of his readers-comments. Yes, there a few exceptions, for example Bill Pearlman who posts under other people's real names. And there are some recent people who have
commenced hasbara, in accord with the new Israel state initiative
to muffle objective discourse, but , so far, I do see that this blog is one of the very few were the USA's free speech is alive, and responsible. No small feat.
I agree wholeheartedly.
But, seriously, I spend a lot of time worrying about how the powers that be are planning to respond to all this. There's been an undeniable, but still slight, awakening of public awareness of Zionism and Zionist power in American society. But there's going to be an active response, and we don't know what form that response will take.
I expect MUCH more media reporting of "antisemitic" incidents (real and imagined). And of course there's always the possibility of full-fledged false flag operations. These seem to be very dangerous times.
Yes. And be on the lookout for attacks on Net Neutrality and attempts to criminalize anti-Zionist speech as hate speech" (the ADL is pushing for this.)
@ Danny Boy
Yeah, I thought you would wimp out from answring that.
Maximum killing huh? What a joke. You would have to be an incredible moron to think that 1400 dead in a city is the most an army is able to kill in three weeks.
Hell, the Crips could kill people faster than that if they wanted to, and they don't have tanks.
I think we're doing well. We'll continue to post factual information backed up with references when necessary, and the trolls will continue to meekly dispute us with what by now has become obvious Zionist propaganda and talking points and, when even that doesn't work, they'll turn to ad hominem attacks. Beautiful.