In my haste to slam the Washington Post for giving short shrift to the Tristan Anderson shooting, I credited Ethan Bronner with a good job on his Times story re the Bay-Area activist, whose survival is in our thoughts tonight.
Bruce Wolman set me straight. "I believe you let Ethan Bronner off too easily today.
Here is an e-mail that I just sent him:"
Mr. Bronner,
In your article today, you wrote "Israel has been building a barrier made up of fencing and walls for about five years. It says it is aimed at stopping terrorists from entering Israel; Palestinians and other opponents say that it takes land away and makes daily life very difficult for the Palestinian villagers there."
While by itself this might seem like a balanced presentation of the Israeli and Palestininian views, I find it very curious that you would not mention a far, more authoritative ruling. According to the New York Times, "The International Court of Justice ruled … that the major portion of the barrier Israel is building violated international law because it was rising on Palestinian land on the West Bank….
In your article today, you wrote "Israel has been building a barrier made up of fencing and walls for about five years. It says it is aimed at stopping terrorists from entering Israel; Palestinians and other opponents say that it takes land away and makes daily life very difficult for the Palestinian villagers there."
While by itself this might seem like a balanced presentation of the Israeli and Palestininian views, I find it very curious that you would not mention a far, more authoritative ruling. According to the New York Times, "The International Court of Justice ruled … that the major portion of the barrier Israel is building violated international law because it was rising on Palestinian land on the West Bank….
The opinion, endorsed by all 15 justices with the exception of the sole American, Thomas Buergenthal, found that the barrier ''constitutes breaches by Israel of its obligations under the applicable humanitarian law'' and that it ''cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.
…. the court determined that the barrier violated international humanitarian and human rights laws, infringing on the Palestinians' right to self-determination and right to freedom of movement. The Palestinians don't take issue with the barrier as long as Israel confines it to its pre-1967 borders. But many sections of the barrier that cut into the West Bank separate Palestinians from their farms, schools and jobs. The Palestinians also argued that Israel was effectively confiscating land that the Palestinians are demanding for a future state. The court agreed.''
Even the American Judge did not rule the boundary of the barrier legal. His view was that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Anderson was injured protesting the wall in an area outside of Israel's boundaries.
I would hardly consider the International Court of Justice just "other opponents."
Among "other opponents" include the United Nations General Assembly, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Some list of just "other opponents".
Even a minimal amount of research in Israel would reveal that "security" was not the only determinant of the barrier's placement.
I know you don't like to hear this, but I am afraid your characterization of the barrier is another indication of the difficulties you have in providing unbiased reports with respect to Israel and its confrontation with the Palestinians.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce Wolman
Bethesda, MD
…. the court determined that the barrier violated international humanitarian and human rights laws, infringing on the Palestinians' right to self-determination and right to freedom of movement. The Palestinians don't take issue with the barrier as long as Israel confines it to its pre-1967 borders. But many sections of the barrier that cut into the West Bank separate Palestinians from their farms, schools and jobs. The Palestinians also argued that Israel was effectively confiscating land that the Palestinians are demanding for a future state. The court agreed.''
Even the American Judge did not rule the boundary of the barrier legal. His view was that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Anderson was injured protesting the wall in an area outside of Israel's boundaries.
I would hardly consider the International Court of Justice just "other opponents."
Among "other opponents" include the United Nations General Assembly, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Some list of just "other opponents".
Even a minimal amount of research in Israel would reveal that "security" was not the only determinant of the barrier's placement.
I know you don't like to hear this, but I am afraid your characterization of the barrier is another indication of the difficulties you have in providing unbiased reports with respect to Israel and its confrontation with the Palestinians.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce Wolman
Bethesda, MD
@ Rowan
OT + late, sorry
The most detailed files on John Demjanjuk are here.
This informative site was link to ukar.org
rel=”nofollow”>seized by, well,you know.
@ Rowan
Sorry, the urls above appear correctly during preview, but not in actual posting; here they are again:
-John Demjanjuk files:
“>link to web.archive.org
That UKAR guy really asks for problems; he goes after the kashrut rackets, the lot.
JOE DA PLUMAH SEZ: "You c'n take yer International Court of Justice, United Nations General Assembly, Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch an' stick 'um right up yer….."
The truth of the matter is, the UN and ICJ are chopped liver. The UN in particular, is considered politically biased and no one takes it seriously.
This is not new.
Rather than being a voice of mediation and moderation as it was intended to be, it is often perceived as one more self interest entity on the global stage. It often serves no purpose other than to add more noise.
People who do not want Israel exist will find criticism in anything it does. Putting up a protective wall that has prevented suicide bombings is one of those things they detest.
The reason why this story hasn't gained much ground–and won't–is because any logical person understands that the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Namely, hanging out with a crowd of angry strone throwers.
I guess you're on this and moved past Freeman because he is an embarrassment, eh? :-)
Also, I question how genuine all the expressed sympathy is for Tristan Anderson. While I'm sure some are sincere, a lot of it has this phony tone to it. As if his injury is merely serving a political purpose for opportunists.
Peter Beaumont reports in this morning's Observer that the tear-gas canister that was shot at Tristan Anderson is of a new model just introduced. It was apparently shot out of a high-velocity rifle. Israelis 'firing live rounds' at West Bank protesters:
This is the first time I recall anybody calling the ICJ a biased body. I don't even remember the Reagan administration doing that when it refused to recognize ICJ jurisdiction over a case on the way it was treating Nicaragua.
I don't know where your attached parasite hasbara crew were assigned from, Phil, but aren't they a disgusting lot?
Suzanne:
"The truth of the matter is, the UN and ICJ are chopped liver. The UN in particular, is considered politically biased and no one takes it seriously.
This is not new.
Rather than being a voice of mediation and moderation as it was intended to be, it is often perceived as one more self interest entity on the global stage. It often serves no purpose other than to add more noise.
People who do not want Israel exist [sic] will find criticism in anything it does. Putting up a protective wall that has prevented suicide bombings is one of those things they detest.
The reason why this story hasn't gained much ground–and won't–is because any logical person understands that the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Namely, hanging out with a crowd of angry strone throwers.
I guess you're on this and moved past Freeman because he is an embarrassment, eh? :-)
Posted by: Suzanne | March 15, 2009 at 08:48 AM
Also, I question how genuine all the expressed sympathy is for Tristan Anderson. While I'm sure some are sincere, a lot of it has this phony tone to it. As if his injury is merely serving a political purpose for opportunists.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 15, 2009 at 09:00 AM
An Israel politics e.g. from Slate's Political Gabfest, their weekly DC-centric podcast, where they talk about Chas Freeman from 11:40 onwards.
One of the presenters (Dickerson? Plotz?) says:
"He withdrew himself from consideration because of a firestorm over some of him comments about the Israel lobby, and then after he stepped down he blamed the whole firestorm on [pause for effect] the Israel lobby".
Other presenter:
"Yeah, you can't win if you're the Israel lobby. You really can't you know."
Utterly bizarre. The original presenter seems to think that there's some sort of inconsistency in Freeman's experience here. Like as if a public critic of Big Tobacco was blackballed for a public appointment by [pause for effect] Big Tobacco, that would somehow undermine the critic.
The talk is available on iTunes or here:
link to slate.com
@ Suzanne
"The UN in particular, is considered politically biased and no one takes it seriously.
This is not new."
No, it's not. Its predecessor League Of Nations adopted the Balfour declaration, including both a promise for Jews of a
home in Palestine & an equal promise such home would not be at the expense of the natives. The UN
agreed to a partition of the Mandate land later.
The history of those decisions very much involved political bias. However, if the UN is politically biased now, was it less so then? Common sense says no. If the UN & its predecessor, the LON afford any international legitimacy to the existence of the state of israel, the UN also affords today equal justification
regarding its take on Israel's actions and resulting UN resolutions concerning the very state it authorized.
Otherwise Israel's internationally recognized right to exist rests on nothing but crude military power
and unilateral action by a few states, such as the USA & (former) USSR.
Israel doesn't get to have its cake and eat it too. No rogue states allowed, same as any other terrorist organization.
Suzanne:
I question how genuine all the expressed sympathy has been for Anne Frank. While I'm sure some have been/are sincere, a lot of it has this phony tone to it. As if her plight has been/is merely serving a political purpose for opportunists.
Your comment has a phony tone to it. You must talk to yourself a lot.
One of the things I can't help notice is how the so-called peacnik "humanitarians" here are so full of seething venom. You can hear the violence & hatred in their words.
They pretend to want peace between Israel and the Palestinians…but that is the last thing they want. Many of them have aspirations way beyond the I/P conflict. The I/P conflict is simply one battleground for them.
Pay attention to their words, their future vision, their sympathy with Iran…and you start to get a real sense of what they want America to look like. Nothing that resembles modern America…that's for sure.
"People who do not want Israel exist [sic] will find criticism in anything it does. Putting up a protective wall that has prevented suicide bombings is one of those things they detest"
I don't know about 'venom' but I certainly look at you as a complete idiot, Suzanne.
Phil's essay clearly states that the opposition to the wall comes from the fact that it encroaches on Palestinian land cutting them off from vital necessities of life. And then you go and write something as mind-boggling stupid as that.
Another thing is that with your obvious lies, nasty comments and feigned snickering – it is you who demonstrate hate and delusion.
At least there is a very real reason for people to detest you and the pro-Israel crowd. With you it' simply because you are a fanatic.
Have a great day.
BTW I sincerely hope that Phil doesn't ban you, Suzanne(if he was ever seriously considering it, which I doubt).
IMHO, I think you are one of the most valuable pieces of work to the anti-zionist movement that there could possibly be.
Thanks again for your very inspiring contributions.
Steve, likewise you do a great service to Zionism when people realize that you are the best of the antisemites who are members of Phil's Phools.
I doubt anyone who is fence sitting or neutral about Israel finds me offensive.
That probably can't be said for the anti-semitic goobs here though.
Furthermore, I think the way I get goobs all sputtery & bent out of shape adds an element of levity and fun. :-)
Occasionally, Suzanne… occasionally…
Suzanne,
The vote in the United Nations General Assembly was 150-4 backing the ICJ ruling. That is a considerable amount of bias you need to explain
As for questioning my sincerity, sod off.
Kofi Annon later apologized for the overt antisemitism noted in such UN votes, Bruce. Perhaps you forgot? Perhaps you also forgot that most nations fear the islamic terrorism inspired by them NOT voting for such resolutions, which are absolutely meaningless as they are not enforcible?
Your sincerity lacks realism.
And I'll question your lame ass whenever I feel like it.
Don't like it? Then piss off.
what's this Kofi Annon apology you're talking about, Chris boy?
@ Susanne
"One of the things I can't help notice is how the so-called peacnik "humanitarians" here are so full of seething venom. You can hear the violence & hatred in their words.
They pretend to want peace between Israel and the Palestinians…but that is the last thing they want. Many of them have aspirations way beyond the I/P conflict. The I/P conflict is simply one battleground for them.
Pay attention to their words, their future vision, their sympathy with Iran…and you start to get a real sense of what they want America to look like. Nothing that resembles modern America…that's for sure."
Anyone can see SUZANNE did not have the brains to respond to my original response to her. She is all emotion sans thought.
To borrow Suzanne's useful phrase, Kofi Annan gradually got "bent out of shape" by all the pressure. So did Mohamed elBaradei at the IAEA. It happens.
By the way, 'kofi' means 'monkey' in hebrew, which leads to an unfortunate sub-text every time he is mentioned in hebrew discourse, which non-hebrew-speakers are not even aware is happening.
Chris,
Off your meds again?
One hundred and fifty nations, including all the European countries, voted for the resolution. And your response is that they did so out of a fear of Islamic terrorism. That's your realism?
Did you forget that the fear of Islamic Terrorism changed the outcome of the Spanish elections?
That's not true at all, Chris. What changed the outcome was the fraudulent attempt of the outgoing government to blame the attack on Basques.
goob
one who acts immature, stupid, or idiotic usually making a fool out of themself.
"suzanne is such a goob!!"
Appears Rowan's batting average is still .000. It is been well proven that the Spanish citizenry surrendered to Islamic terrorism.
The Spanish vote was self-proclaimed to be a vote to remove Spanish troops from Iraq. They were terrified of getting bombed again ( many were reticent about having Spanish troops there to begin with).
Even OBL and al qaeda interpreted that way, I believe
Any wonder why no one will put Rowan in the clean up spot?