The war in Gaza: ‘the first ever war crime broadcast live on TV with the whole world watching’

Israel/Palestine
on 47 Comments


The drumbeat accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza continues to grow louder. Above is an investigation of war crimes in Gaza that Al Jazeera English is using to launch it's new weekly show, Focus On Gaza. Yesterday Amnesty International's accused Israel of committing war crimes using US weapons. Today Raji Sourani, director of the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, talks to bitterlemons.org about the Center's legal strategy for holding Israel accountable:

bitterlemons: Are you hopeful that anyone will be brought to justice?

Sourani: Of course. We have to be optimistic. We are aware that the US provides full legal and political cover for Israel; we know Europe is part of a conspiracy of silence; we know Europe is even providing excuses for Israel's war, calling it a "defensive" war. But we also know that this was the first ever war crime broadcast live on TV with the whole world watching. And we know that what happened to our people was unjustified, unfair and illegal. We are not going to be good victims and stay quiet, and we are not going to give up.

We have no right to forget or forgive. One day, the situation will change. Do Jews have the right to prosecute Nazi war criminals? Of course. Do we have a right to prosecute Israeli war criminals? Of course.

I want Israeli military commanders to face justice. They seem proud of what they have done. If they can defend themselves, let them stand in a court of law and do just that.

Both Amnesty and Sourani make sure to point out the US's complicity in Gaza. It is being reported that the US will contribute $900 million to help rebuild Gaza. Will they contribute some political will as well? (Adam Horowitz)

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

47 Responses

  1. chris berel
    February 24, 2009, 12:26 pm

    I prefer the term "Islamist Fascism" as to avoid painting every single muslim as a fascist. But the religion, as practiced today, certainly shares many elements with Hitlerian ideology.

  2. American
    February 24, 2009, 1:08 pm

    Netanyhu is our best bet for finally ejecting Israel from the US.

    From Col Pat Lang.

    link to turcopolier.typepad.com

    Will Netanyahu kill the US/Israel romance?

    "Moreover, Netanyahu will in all likelihood swiftly return to his old habit of alienating Israel's friends. Even Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak once admitted the Israeli nationalist leader made him "very, very, very exasperated." Jordan's King Hussein, who at one point ceased all contact with the former premier, openly accused him of betrayal and trying "to destroy all that I have worked to build between our peoples."

    And who can forget how the Americans talked about him after his last stint as premier? Former White House staffer Aaron David Miller described in his book how President Bill Clinton reacted to Netanyahu's habit of lecturing foreign leaders: "Who the f*** does he think he is? Who's the f***ing superpower here?" Former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart described him as "one of the most obnoxious individuals you're going to come into – just a liar and a cheat." Surely President Barack Obama will have even less patience for Netanyahu's attempts to obstruct a peace settlement." Daily Star

    ———————————————————————

    Probably so.

    It is unlikely that Barack Obama will tolerate Netanyahu's normal arrogance and overbearing demeanor.

    It is, however, likely that Netanyahu will "try it on." Why? Because he is compulsive and will not be able to help himself. Like a lot of extreme nationalists in various parts of the world, Netanyahu deeply believes in the intellectual and moral superiority of what he thinks of as his people. For him, innate feelings of group superiority are the bedrock of his personality. The Oval Office encounter which I forecast some time ago is inevitably in the cards now. Ah, to be a fly on the wall in that one.

    To see such a confrontation approaching does not require "moral and intellectual superiority." Therefore one must ask why the Israeli electorate has created the preconditions for that meeting. I will leave the question open for debate. PL

  3. jim byers
    February 24, 2009, 1:12 pm

    re fascism: this word should be dropped from this argument. Mussolini called fascism "corporatism". it is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition. the word fascism is greatly abused as is the label anarchism. just go read about the spanish anarchists of the spanish republic. it is closer to libertarianism that what the modern sense has become.

  4. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 1:13 pm

    The wikipedia url I referenced discusses the pros and cons of the analogy inherent in the term "islamist fascism" or "islamofacism" etc. And gives a lot of further sources for anyone wanting to clarify in their own mind if the shoe fits, and how well, so to speak. USA & Israeli MSM and government spokesmen have constantly referred to always yet another Hitler. I simply want people to always ask, how valid is the claim? Chris Berel uses "islamo fascist" and similar phrases as if there is no question about such knee jerk word usage. Suzanne has added more insight. Good. I am sure readers here will see
    when someone throws out such terms, they are relying on pavlovian conditioning.

    And here's another contribution along the same order:

    some thoughts on "zionist fascism":
    link to thepeoplesvoice.org

    And "Zionfascism":
    link to thepeoplesvoice.org
    On Israel's "fascist shift":
    link to newmatilda.com

    link to globalresearch.ca

  5. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 1:24 pm

    @ jim byers

    Yes. By eliminating such terms perhaps we can exchange more factual information and share attendant ideas regarding whether extrapolations seem fairly warranted. Note again that the expert concluded, after review of subject vague asbstractions and their usage, that:

    "One of the world's leading authorities on Fascism, Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that "Islamic fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon."
    [Walter Laqueur, The Origins of Fascism: Islamic Fascism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, 2006

    I give more weight to his careful and scholarly review, and his conclusion than some comments on this blog give.

  6. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 1:31 pm

    From the WIkipedia article:

    Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens argue that there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofascism:[11][page number needed]
    rage against historical humiliation; [12]
    inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)[13][8];
    a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age — or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations"[12] — with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system;[7]
    belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamofascists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces; [8]
    exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.[8]
    offensive military, (or at least armed) campaign to reestablish the power and allegedly rightful international domination of the nation/community.[

    How many of these elements apply to the entity, state, or phenomena in question? For, example,
    the subordination of women applies less to Israel and its policies, and more to Arab lands, and peoples. However it can be reasonably argued that many of the elements apply to Israel and its people, no?

  7. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 1:35 pm

    The Wikipedia article on "islamist fascism" also points out:

    critics [of the term/phrase), such as former National Review columnist Joseph Sobran, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argue that it is predominantly a propaganda term used by proponents of the War on Terror.[22][23][24] Yet others, such as security expert Daniel Benjamin, political scientist Norman Finkelstein and The American Conservative columnist Daniel Larison, highlight the claim that despite its use as a piece of propaganda the term is inherently meaningless, since as Benjamin notes, "there is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term."[25][26][27] Conservative British historian Niall Ferguson points out that this political use of what he calls a "completely misleading concept," is "just a way of making us feel that we're the 'greatest generation' fighting another World War."[28] Commenting on the claimed incongruity between the "Muslim World" and "industrial state fascism," American journalist Eric Margolis claims that ironically the most totalitarian Islamic regimes, "in fact, are America's allies."[29]

  8. David F.
    February 24, 2009, 2:40 pm

    Thank you, citizen.

    "Islamofascism" is an empty signifier. It INTENTIONALLY has no clear definition. That is the point of using it.

    It can vaguely signify any hodgepodge of threatening Islamic bugaboos: Al-Qaida, Hamas, Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Sharia law, etc. All of them are "fascist," which means they are bad.

    I suggest "The Mohammadean Boogyman" as a substitute.

  9. LD
    February 24, 2009, 2:43 pm

    So wait, how is there Islamofascism? Is there a country that is warring with Israel or the US? NO.

    It's only militia groups. It's inanely stupid and obviously politically motivated to state that such a thing as ISLAMOfascism exists.

    Israel's crimes trounce any terror carried out by Hamas/Fatah/PLO/etc.

    Israel is the highly militarized State with conscription/ethnic preference towards Jews/persecution of Arab citizens and Palestinians/use of indiscriminate force/and possibly oaths of loyalty.

    Public discussions on expelling the 'Arab enemy' etc.

    The context is that Hamas or the rest of them do not have a navy/air force/substantial ground army/PR support/economic support/etc. that even comes close to Israel.

    Suzanne and Chris are STILL trolling. Chris just cleaned up his language. But he's still spewing gargbage.

  10. Suzanne
    February 24, 2009, 3:35 pm

    I think Islamofascism was coined to reflect the totalitarian mindset. In reality has as little to do with pure fascism as the incorrectly phrased Ziofascism (and by extension Nazi Israel).

    That's why I tend to avoid it…although I slip and use it on occasion. Where as, I think Islamic jihad–or even Islamist as a qualifier says everything you need to know.

  11. Suzanne's mentor
    February 24, 2009, 5:07 pm

    "the totalitarian mindset"? Some readers may wish to see a rather famous/infamous analysis of that mentality, rather than just some one
    saying the phrase. Here's a start:
    link to 74.125.47.132

    Nice to see Suzanne now recognizes "Islamofascism" in reality "has little to do with pure fascism." So what's left after Suzanne's (belated) severing of Islam from (pure, what is that?) fascism? And does such Suzanne-style recognition not entitle
    also the characterization of "Islamofacism" as "incorrectly phrased?"

    Logic would say so, but Suzanne decides a truth seeker (you, I hope) need only see the word "Islamist" to reveal "everything you need to know."

    So, drop the word word "fascist" or "fascism" and just use the word "Islamist"? Alternately the word
    "Islamic jihad" will do, according to Suzanne, to describe a stance acceptable to Suzanne regarding the
    usual topics Phil selects and his readers discuss amongst themselves in the form of their comments.

    Anyone who went to the Wikipedia url I referenced regarding the controversy over the term "Islamofacism" or its progeny may see that Suzanne's use of the term, and understanding of it, as shown in her comment next above is the model for going nowhere in understanding the issues presented by Phil's articles on this blog.

    But, perhaps somehow her logic escapes me. Consistent with Suzanne's logic, her explanation of her own mindset as revealed in her comments, one may equally argue that "everything you need to know"
    is incapsulated by the term "Zionism" or "Zionist." Zionist as a qualifer, just as Islamist is, in precisely the way suggested by Suzanne.

    The term "jihad" has many meanings to the arabs. Similarly, the term "pro-israel" has many meanings
    to jews, as does the term "self-defense" to both groups.

  12. Duscany
    February 24, 2009, 5:30 pm

    "I'm sorry, but this reeks of hypocrisy. How are Israel's war crimes worse then America's in Iraq – or Afghanistan for that matter; or than Russia's in Chechnya? How much hue and cry was there to pursue those crimes – in this blog, on Al Jazeera, elsewhere?"

    There's a reason we criticize Israel. Every time Israel commits another war crime it's the United States that gets blamed because we're the ones who gave Israel her F-16s. precision guided bombs, white phosphorous shells and exploding flechettes. We aid and abet Israel, fund her, shield her in the UN and defend her everywhere else. The whole world knows we enable Israel (and therefore share her shame).

  13. Alice
    February 24, 2009, 5:46 pm

    Bingo!

    Well said, Duscany. The hasbara crowd is simply trying to cloud this simple fact known to the world–except by average Americans. They think Shrub/AIPAC was right: the "terrorists" are motivated by simply envy and don't like our "freedom."

  14. chris berel
    February 24, 2009, 6:12 pm

    Except Israel is not commiting war crimes, and Hamas is. And everytime Hamas commit a war crime, we can blame Iran for supplying Hamas with weapons.

    We don't feel disgust with Iran because of its islamic Fascist government, but because it is supplying Gaza the means to commit genocide.

    Alice, you're mind is already clouded.

  15. rykart
    February 24, 2009, 7:53 pm

    The Israelis are filth from the sewer. No person of conscience can possibly support them and ALL the Jews of any worth have turned their backs on Israel in utter disgust.

    "The horrendous mortality and morbidity statistics revealed by the paper "The Wounds of Gaza", just published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet are truly shocking 1,350 killed (60% children) and 5,450 severely wounded (40% children) in reprisals for zero (0) Israeli deaths from Gaza rockets in the preceding year."

    link to rense.com

    Of course, The lancet are all seething anti-Semites.
    Amnesty Intl and Bt'selem are anti-Semitic hate groups.
    The Red Cross and UN are all Jew haters.
    Half the journalists for Ha'aretz reporting on Israel's stomach turning abominations—you guess it. They're anti-Semites.

  16. tommy
    February 24, 2009, 8:55 pm

    Islamic countries, although certainly filled with tyranny and capable of Medieval imperialism, are not sufficiently developed to produce advanced forms of inhumane social systems such as Fascism and totalitarianism. Socially and economically Islamic countries' civilization and culture are several hundred years behind the rest of the First World. This is not a criticism of Islam, after all it developed seven hundred years after Christianity, and has not yet experienced its reformation. Christianity's Reformation was quite bloody and disruptive, Islam's probably will be, but it is incapable, at this time, of doing any conquering of any Western nation. Islamic civilization and culture will develop and even possibly exceed Christian culture some day, and it will have conflict with the Christian/European civilization and culture as always. They have frontiers and conflict is inevitable.

    Observing the Islamic world now, it would appear the Christian/Europeans have used their 'Western' values and industrial might to justify militarily occupying many areas of it. Islam is incapable of imposing itself similarly. Fear induced by clever propagandists, another necessary skill for advanced inhumane development, was invented in the West. Propaganda's use to make enemies of people with tiny, ill equipped armies, navies and air forces that could be demolished in days is Fascist and totalitarian in style.

  17. chris berel
    February 24, 2009, 10:57 pm

    So you are saying that Arabs are stupid? Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

    As for Rykart, he's just an antiusemitic asshole in the mold of Eva and Citizen.

  18. Suzanne
    February 24, 2009, 11:39 pm

    "Observing the Islamic world now, it would appear the Christian/Europeans have used their 'Western' values and industrial might to justify militarily occupying many areas of it. Islam is incapable of imposing itself similarly. Fear induced by clever propagandists, another necessary skill for advanced inhumane development, was invented in the West. Propaganda's use to make enemies of people with tiny, ill equipped armies, navies and air forces that could be demolished in days is Fascist and totalitarian in style. "

    Omigawd…that sounds like it was lifted verbatim from an Iranian 11th grade textbook! (ok…possibly North Korean, or Chinese or Venezuelan too…)

  19. Ana Sanchez
    February 25, 2009, 12:35 am

    Tommy, just because Christianity had a Reformation doesn't mean that all religions get to have one. Judaism is even older than Christianity; have they had one?
    And although I agree that the Arab world is under the boot of the West at this time and does not pose a threat to us, but is instead reacting to our aggression, I disagree that a culture needs to be very advanced to be inhuman, fascistic, or totalitarian. Just the opposite; the more primitive a group of human beings is, the more likely they are to abuse other human beings.
    I think you are confusing regions with religions. So while I agree that Europeans/Americans have been among the most warlike in all of world history and can claim to have killed more people than anyone else, I would not attribute this to Christianity since this was a religion that was founded by a pacifist who rejected violence at all costs. All those who claim to kill in the name of the Cross have a profound ignorance of the religion and cannot claim to be actual followers.

  20. chris berel
    February 25, 2009, 8:19 am

    Yes, Ana, Judaism had a reformation. And it isn't 'get' to have one, it's 'need' to have one. Islam is in serious 'need' of reformation.

  21. Suzanne
    February 25, 2009, 10:04 am

    I probably agree with Ana to an extent about Christianity not being the main culprit (although as a political entity, it certainly has plenty of blood on its hands).

    I'm with Jared Diamond's theory about Guns, Steel & Germs being the components that gave the West an edge.

    Which is to say, that anybody with the same advantage would've been just as opportunistic and aggressive. It's in the human genetic code and other peoples and empires have been just as cutthroat. They simply weren't able to be as expansive.

    Human nature is what it is–the good, the bad, and the ugly. Until you get over your romantic idealism that the underdog is automatically the good guy–your logic will always be flawed.

  22. Citizen
    February 25, 2009, 11:10 am

    i see chris berel is determined to ignore the spirit of the recently noticed ban policy:

    "As for Rykart, he's just an antiusemitic asshole in the mold of Eva and Citizen."

    Atta boy–you light to the world.

  23. Citizen
    February 25, 2009, 11:25 am

    chris berel is correct: Reform Judaism's been around awhile, favoring more assimilation factors than Orthodox or Conservative Judaism.

    Suzanne is also correct: "Human nature is what it is–the good, the bad, and the ugly. Until you get over your romantic idealism that the underdog is automatically the good guy–your logic will always be flawed." After he got the money bags, and NY Jewish vote by his promise to recognize Israel, Truman said, in effect, in closed chamber, and wrote very directly in his private papers, that the Jews were the very model for
    the underdog being a great oppressor after they became the overdog. I don't know if he ever believed the zionists who flattered him romantically as "the new Cyrus." His statements can be read at the Truman Library Archive.

  24. Ana Sanchez
    February 25, 2009, 11:26 am

    Chris, please enlighten me about the Judaic Reformation. It seems to me you passed up an opportunity to inform a fellow blogger on a subject that you have more knowledge about than me … that is the purpose of the blog, isn't it, to enlighten each other?

  25. rykart
    February 25, 2009, 11:27 am

    I'm Jewish, by the way…so Chris should stick to his standard Israelo-Nazi nomenclature and at least have the decency to call me a "self-hating Jew"

    add Albert Einstein, Primo Levi, Philip Roth and Yeshayahu Leibowiotz to the list, while you're at it, Chris.

  26. tommy
    February 25, 2009, 11:29 am

    I think Judaism in America had a Reform movement, and that this movement has created conflict with the Orthodox section of the religion. I also think the reform of Islam is in its formative state now. I prefaced my point about Islamic culture's being developmentally behind the West (also represented by Christian and European) by saying it had the capacity for tyranny and Medieval imperialism. Tyranny and historical imperial abuse, although they appear to make similar outcomes as Fascism and totalitarianism, are ancient forms of societal control that lack the modern industrial and bureaucratic organization to achieve anything approaching what Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and the US have been able to do.

    Whether all religions have reformations is not known. Nevertheless, Islam is young compared to Christianity, and will not be able to remain as it was as its people and society develop. Unfortunately, change on such a large scale creates conflicts of equal proportion. Europe suffered hundred year wars because of it religious reformation, and similar conflicts within Islam are bound to spill over into the rest of the world, especially with global communications and trade.

  27. Citizen
    February 25, 2009, 1:57 pm

    rykart, chris berel knows nothing about the great Jewish names you mentioned. His mentor is Julius Streicher. They both start with certain passages in the old Talmud, unredacted for Gentile consumption.
    chris is a dinosaur, the Jewish guys you named are way more evolved. Perhaps that's because chris himself has led a sheltered life, protected by Americans. He's like a sheltered kid who dwells on
    old stories from the attic and pretends he's one of the sufferers therein, all the while living a comfortable life at others' expense. At least Julius Streicher was actually on a front line, paid his dues so to speak, to speak. No excuse, but chris has much less excuse. He's suffering from totally vicarious traumatic neurosis syndrome. He has no foot, but imagines he does, the better to pretend to walk.

  28. Thom
    February 25, 2009, 2:09 pm

    ROLFMAO.

    So I was right, the banning policy does not apply to anti-Israeli posters when they talk about Israelis in racist terms rykart's line about "Israelis are…" wouldn't that get someone banned if they said it as "Palestinians are…"?

  29. chris berel
    February 25, 2009, 5:27 pm

    I see the Citizen of shitland is talking out hios ass as usual.

    Ana is not seeking enlightenment, she is seeking an outlet for her antisemitism. Rykart is just an idiot, he doesn't know enough to figure out if he hates himself.

    Tommy, Judaism went through it's reformation period after the destruction of the Temple and the end of the sacrifice mentality it entailed.

  30. Thom
    February 26, 2009, 12:05 pm

    @Rykart

    BTW, the Lancet article was just quoting Hamas's figures for the dead. They are not an independent source. Of course quoted figures from Hamas are going to be the same as the original Hamas figures.

  31. LanceThruster
    February 26, 2009, 9:50 pm

    @Thom – Again, if Israel is worried about the accuracy of reporting in the region, they should allow some. Problem is, they are afraid of independently verified reporting, and therefore that is *exactly* what they don't want to have happen. It's easier to say that any Palestinian/Arab/Muslim source must be lying.

    Even photos are dismissed as unrepresentative, staged, or the fault of the victims themselves.

    Compare that with the chain of progression of Israeli lies about the use of white phosphorous munitions.

    1) We didn't use them (those who say we did are liars).
    2) We used them but not much (those who say we lied are anti-Semites).
    3) We used them but in a legal manner (those who say we committed war crimes are anti-Semites).
    4) We used them but the targets deserved it (those who say they didn't are anti-Semites).
    5) We used them but tough sh*t (those who say otherwise are anti-Semites).

    Any time Israelis are caught in a lie, they conveniently shift the goalpost and vehemently deny that one can make any blanket assessment of Israeli veracity merely because at times they seem to have none.

    The lapdog press then proceeds to play along…lather, rinse, repeat.

    Notice a pattern here?

  32. Elaina
    February 27, 2009, 3:40 am

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

    Elaina

    http://www.craigslistpostingtools.info

  33. philip
    March 4, 2009, 11:42 pm
  34. shoot and cry
    February 24, 2009, 9:21 am

    Sorry, OT, but watch Danny Ayalon, former ambassador to the US, squirm on the BBC's HARDtalk program as Stephen Sackur accuses Ayalon's party, Yisrael Beiteinu, of having a political platform that is racist.

    Priceless.

    link to news.bbc.co.uk

  35. Sydney
    February 24, 2009, 9:33 am

    I'm sorry, but this reeks of hypocrisy. How are Israel's war crimes worse then America's in Iraq – or Afghanistan for that matter; or than Russia's in Chechnya? How much hue and cry was there to pursue those crimes – in this blog, on Al Jazeera, elsewhere?

  36. Andrew
    February 24, 2009, 9:49 am

    Wondering why Baird's paradigm shift is only in Jpost of all places:

  37. purity of arms
    February 24, 2009, 9:53 am

    Not that they justify in any way Israel's war crimes (sorry, but the tu quoque argument is getting a bit threadbare), the war crimes committed by the US and Russia in recent years have been the subject of much hue and cry in the media and the blogosphere.

    In the case of the US you could do worse than starting here:

    "Justice after Bush: Prosecuting an outlaw administration"

    link to harpers.org

  38. Suzanne
    February 24, 2009, 9:57 am

    Now that Israelis have started youtubing how Palestinians act it's leveled the playing field quite a bit. They learned their lesson during Lebanon.

    Outside of fringe circles most people are fed up with Palestinian antics. The furor over Gaza won't last but another 2 weeks.

  39. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 10:18 am

    Right, Suzanne, as Hitler said, preliminary to his crack down on the jewish population, "Who remembers what happened to the Armenians?"

    And, in a similar vein, the POV of the neocons in ShrubCo, paraphrasing, "You scribble, and we move on,
    creating our own reality."

  40. Chris Berel
    February 24, 2009, 10:18 am

    It will last as long as blogs like this one take an immoral stance. Let me know when the supporters of islamist fascism are willing to have the Hamas leadership brought to the hague, tried for crimes against humanity and for genocide.

  41. Colin Murray
    February 24, 2009, 10:23 am

    Off-topic post:

    It looks like Secretary Clinton weaseled another neocon traitor into State. Clinton picks Ross for envoy to southwest Asia, Gulf

  42. tommy
    February 24, 2009, 10:40 am

    As a child I recall watching on TV US soldiers apply a type of water torture on a Vietnamese or Viet Cong combatant. They put a cloth over the man's head and poured water over him. I think the Vietnam War was the first to televise war crimes, but perhaps they were not live broadcasts.

  43. 5ds
    February 24, 2009, 10:46 am

    DIME isRAevil
    DIME amurderka
    DIME propagandists for both
    DIME liars for both

  44. 5ds
    February 24, 2009, 10:49 am

    "one cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe."

    back to a well known except to jews past:

    "In 1937 Chaim Weizmann, future President of Israel, before the Peel Commission in London coldly declared: "I want to save. the young [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They were dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world.Only the branch of the young shall survive.They have to accept it." And, remember, this is a Zionist speaking. Ben Gurion, speaking in '38 of children (children of Zionists and non-Zionists) said, "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England and only half of them by transporting them to Palestine I would choose the second." Ben Gurion knew that if the assimilationists and persons of good will would have wanted to choose between "saving Jews from Concentration Camps" and Zionism, "mercy" would have "had the upper hand and the whole energy of the people would be channelled into saving Jews from various countries;" then Zionism "will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and in the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion." For the Zionists this absolutely could not be allowed to happen and they did everything possible so that it did not happen. Just think that when someone said to Yitzhak Gruenbaum, leader of the Rescue Committee (!) of the Jewish Agency in Palestine, in 1943 when the killings started said, "Don't build new colonies (.) send money save Jews in the Diaspora," he responded: "Zionism is above everything." On another occasion, still in 1943, he stated, "one cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe." So, it was in this way that the Zionists, allying themselves with the Nazis, saved themselves, while the non-Zionists were eliminated as a direct result of that alliance. And today the Zionists dominate over all the Jews and they greatly influence the Western governments. They determine American foreign policy (see the book by Mearsheimer and Walt). And for this, reason, Israel is untouchable and can do anything it wants to and not only to the Palestinians."

  45. Jaffr
    February 24, 2009, 10:52 am

    @Sydney

    I'm sorry, but this reeks of hypocrisy. How are Israel's war crimes worse then America's in Iraq – or Afghanistan for that matter; or than Russia's in Chechnya? How much hue and cry was there to pursue those crimes – in this blog, on Al Jazeera, elsewhere?

    Yes, I agree. Israel should cut off all aid to the US.

    And of course, we here are against US all military aid to Hamas as well as Israel. . .

  46. Citizen
    February 24, 2009, 11:06 am

    @ Chris Berel

    "It will last as long as blogs like this one take an immoral stance. Let me know when the supporters of islamist fascism are willing to have the Hamas leadership brought to the hague, tried for crimes against humanity and for genocide."

    Islamic Fascism
    The New Hysteria
    link to counterpunch.org

    "One of the world's leading authorities on Fascism, Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that "Islamic fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon."
    [Walter Laqueur, The Origins of Fascism: Islamic Fascism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, 2006

    Criticism and controversy over the use of term "Islamofascism":
    link to en.wikipedia.org

  47. Suzanne
    February 24, 2009, 11:54 am

    Let's include Laqueur's full comment:

    Distinguished scholar of Fascism Walter Laqueur has also noted the commonalities between the two ideologies:

    How helpful is the “Islamofascism” label at the present time with regard to the radical Islamists? There are striking parallels—the populism, the anti Westernism, the antiliberalism, the antisemitism, its aggressive, expansive, anti humanist character, the interpretation of Islam as both a religion and a totalitarian political-social order which provides answers to all problems of the contemporary world. It could be argued that while it lacks a Fuehrer or a Duce, the supreme clerical leader (such as Khomeini) fulfills a similar role and while there is no political party which has a monopoly, the mosque fulfills a similar function as far as the mobilization of the masses and their indoctrination is concerned.

    Yet, while recognizing the similarities, Laqueur rejects the term "Islamofascism":

    But at the same time there are differences that should not be overlooked. Fascism was an European phenomenon, dictatorships outside Europe (such as for instance the Japanese regime in the thirties and forties) were bound to develop on different lines according to historical tradition and political conditions. The age of fascism came to an end in 1945. Since then there has been neo-fascism and neo-Nazism which also differ in certain respects from its historical predecessors and models. Radical Islamism could be interpreted as a post fascist movement. But such a label tends to exaggerate the role of its European predecessor and to downplay the specific homegrown, in other words, the Islamist elements. Hitler did not engage in Jihad and he did note want to impose anything like the sharia.

    In addition to Laqueur, noted historians such as Martin Kramer and Michael Burleigh also reject the term "Islamofascism" even while pointing out the same parallels Laqueur does.

    Putting statements into true context

Leave a Reply