Medea Benjamin to talk about her 3 visits to Gaza, in NY tom’w night

by Philip Weiss on July 13, 2009 · 237 comments

This is a video of Medea Benjamin at the border in Gaza last month, talking about Hamas and about women's rights in Palestine. I showed my wife and her friend this video and asked them their impression. "Sincere," was the first word out of both of their mouths. Benjamin grew up on Long Island in a family that supported Israel, and at 18 she changed her first name to Medea and began a life of travel and activism, culminating in her co-founding the antiwar group Code Pink. I hung out with Benjamin in Gaza and found her warm, funny, lowkey, effective. And like Greta Garbo in Ninotchka, she carries her own bags. It was her third trip to the territory since the slaughter of Dec-Jan. Benjamin doesn't do things halfway. She will be talking about her Gaza experience tomorrow night in New York at the Brecht Forum– along with Norman Finkelstein, Felice Gelman, Sammer Aboelela, and myself– at 6 p.m. 435 West Street, between Bank and Bethune. 

Related Posts

  1. Benjamin, Finkelstein and Aboelela to speak about trip to Gaza
  2. ‘Code Pink’ announces its fourth trip to Gaza, in September
  3. What does a blockade feel like? Video depicts last night of ‘Spirit of Humanity’’s attempted passage to Gaza
  4. ‘Code Pink’ organizes end-of-year march in Gaza
  5. ‘Times’ Visits Gaza. Has a Wonderful Time, Wishes You Were Here

{ 237 comments }

1 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Thom, you don't know about the cabbie murderers so why are you arguing? They SAID that they set out to murder a Jewish cabbie. Pakistani courts ordering the rape of the sister of the accused as punishment for him. One case was with a woman named Mukhtar Mai. I think there was another case I heard of, as well. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1835 http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1835 http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1835 http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1835 Even HuffPo has something to say about this… Another case – http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1835 There are many other such outrageous cases in the Islamic world. Don't wait to hear about it on MondoLies, though…

2 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:23 pm

I have told you MULTIPLE times about my discussions with Jim Ennes and Joe Meadors. They are both well-known in the Liberty community. Ennes wrote a very profitable book about it. You still pretend that you have never heard of this and that I haven't told you. You are willfully stupid, Shingo.

3 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:28 pm

You have failed to bring any supporting facts to your arguments. QED.

4 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Pilger is a journalist like Shingo has a brain. Ha!

5 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:33 pm

That quote from the famous journal about goats and sailors… I think it explains a few things about Shingo… It all becomes clear now… :-)

6 Jake in Jerusalem July 16, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Palestinean terrorists using ambulances to ferry fighters and ammunition were caught on several occasions. So was a Greek cleric (Hilarion Capucci? from memory, a long time ago.) who did the same in his "diplomatic" limousine. Palestinean terrorists have also stolen UN vbehicles for the same purpose. The UN somehow didn't complain… else their staff in Pal neighborhoods would be at risk of reprisal.

7 Thom July 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm

No, the accusation is based on Israeli eyewitnesses. What did I say about using legal terms you don't understand? Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In more general terms, it means you are repeating something you heard someone say, rather than your own first-hand observations. If I see you rob a store, and I say I saw you rob the store, that isn't hearsay. If Fred says that I told him that I saw you rob the store, that is hearsay. Get it now? As for the news coverage, as you may know (and be lying about) or may not know (and simply be ignorant) he said "Their cameras and tapes picked up discussions between commanders. People talked on live television. It helped the enemy and confused and destabilized the home front. Today, Israel is trying to control the information much more closely.” Yes, I think having your plans and positions transmitted to the enemy would help them quite a bit. The only association between journalists being banned from Gaza and the other quote was that they are happening at the same time. “We are trying to coordinate everything that has to do with the image and content of what we are doing and to make sure that whoever goes on the air, whether a minister or professor or ex-ambassador, knows what he is saying,” said Aviv Shir-On, deputy director general for media in the Foreign Ministry. “We have talking points and we try to disseminate our ideas and message.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/middleeas... So the Israelis want to make sure someone who doesn't know what he is talking about goes on the air. Seems reasonable to me. Once again, you are proven to be a liar. It banned the journalists because in Lebanon they had spilled military secrets to the enemy and made operations more dangerous by getting in the way.

8 Thom July 16, 2009 at 11:31 pm

I notice that you didn't bother to deny that the Palestinian "police" are terrorists. This wasn't Hitler's pool boy or Osama bin Ladin's driver we are talking about. These are armed Hamas terrorists. These are armed men working for a terrorist organization that has been firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Sounds like terrorists to me. 60th anniversary of what terrorist attack? As to 9/11 and Olmert. I see you've given up on fake quotes now and are just making shit up without taking the effort. If I were a Palestinian or a supporter of Palestinians, I would not be talking about reactions to 9/11. Their leaders were smart enough to pretend they didn't approve, but the Palestinian people celebrated the attacks. They danced in the streets and passed out candy. The Arafat's cabinet secretary, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, threatened the life of a cameraman who filmed the footage if the footage aired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Sep... 89 children, not 400. Pretty pathetic tally even if it had been 400 though. I mean, they go to all the trouble of sending a modern mechanized army with planes, bombs, artillery, and 10,000 soldiers into the area and even at the inflated figures of the Palestinians, only one soldier in 25 manages to bad a kid in 27 days of fighting? I mean, if you have that low a body count, you just aren't trying.

9 Thom July 17, 2009 at 1:52 am

I know they _said_ that. If I didn't know they said that, then why would I be saying that they had motive to lie when they said it? As for the Mukhtar Mai case. As it happens, the High Court acquitted the men and the Sharia court ordered that they be retried. I'll give you the last one though.

10 Thom July 17, 2009 at 2:09 am

Hey, the quote about you admitting that your mother is a whore is exactly the same as your quote about Begin. "I provided it, along with the time and place it was made. No one has been able to debunk it." So until you debunk it, people should believe that you admit that your mother is a whore for exactly the same reason that they should believe that Begin said what your false quote says. It's called "reductio ad absurdum". One of the finer devices of logical argument. I simply took your argument "any quote or information, no matter how absurd, with an alleged identification of its source should be believed, despite all evidence to the contrary, until the source is produced by someone other than the person claiming the quote is real". I provided a quote, gave the source. So by your own standards, until you produce the original and show that the quote isn't in it, you are hoist in your own petard, Shingo, you self-confessed goatblowing son of a whore.

11 Thom July 17, 2009 at 2:18 am

Or to put it another way. You made the positive assertion, the burden is on you to prove it, not on anyone else to disprove it, Shingo, you self-confessed goatblowing son of a whore. Understand that you remain a self confessed goatblowing son of a whore, by your own rules, until you prove that it wasn't printed in the 1982 magazine or admit that the Begin quote is bullshit. Oh, and to answer your question. about how the blogs and groups prove that the quote was made up later. That is an outrageous quote, if it had existed in 1982, someone would have cited it in a newsgroup sometime in the next 20 years. If it was made up in 2003 and not attributed to Begin until 2005, then it might not show up in a newsgroup or blog until 2005. It is a common way of determining that a citation is fake when the original supposed source isn't handy. You look for the first time it was cited. For a quote like that, it would be cited widely and prominently from the day it was published, if it were real. Anti-Semites like you would have posted it all over the place back then, just like they do now, once someone made it up.

12 Thom July 17, 2009 at 2:26 am

Heh, "doesn't go on the air".

13 Thom July 17, 2009 at 2:40 am

ROFLMAO. I see blowing all those goats has damaged your brain Shingo. The first link you posted was an article about a report demonstrating that Amnesty International and HRW are full of shit when they say that there were no human shields used by Hezbollah. Thanks for the information that proves they can't be trusted.

14 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:03 am

Poor Jake goes ahuntin for a topic completely unrelated to the thread, desperately hoping that this will change the subject. He finds 2 cases and concludes from that there are "many other such outrageous cases in the Islamic world". Talk about extrapolating your heart out!!

15 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:05 am

Jake, Didn't you ever learn that to prove something is false or otherwise requires you to prove it, not just say so. Fail. Didn't you ever learn that to prove something is boring and non-factual requires you to prove it, not just say so. Fail. Didn't you ever learn that to prove something is irrelevant requires you to prove it, not just say so. Fail. That's 3 strikes Jake. Better luck next time.

16 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:07 am

"Shingo, ignoring you. " Transnational: i still haven't received my updates talking points from the Zionist mother ship and need to stall until they come through. A word of advice Jake, you don't ignore someone by repeatedly telling them you're ignoring them

17 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:11 am

That Clatter You Heard . . .. . . . was the sound of Thom's dentures hitting his monitor as he screams impotently at his computer. Thom angrily shakes his cane at the heavens and wipes the spittle off his scree while he thinks of something to say. You're problem is Thom is that you base your basic beliefs on what the lying IDF say and assume anything that does not confirm that belief is a lie. Please provide a link to a UN or Amnesty or any other no Israeli report that proves Hezbollah used human shields. Can't wait for that one, but take your time.

18 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:13 am

You're so funny Jake. if you were ignoring me, you woudln't be constantly telling me you are ignoring me would you? Duh. I'm really getting you aren't I Jakey?

19 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:13 am

I can't be a knee-jerk antisemite given that I am Jewish.

20 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:15 am

I thought you weer ignoring me Jake. Evidently you aren't. Too funny.

21 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:17 am

Yes the cracks are appearing among the Zionist fraternity. Unable to address the topic at hand, Thom is now tuning to goats and oral sex. Nothing could be more satisfying than watching a Zionist fanatic self destruct.

22 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:53 am

“No, the accusation is based on Israeli eyewitnesses.” In other words, they are lies. Hearsay mean nothing without corroborating account, The only time Israel showed footage of what they said were ambulances being used to transport rocket, it was debunked. “If I see you rob a store, and I say I saw you rob the store, that isn't hearsay.” If I'm a white supremacist and the person happens to be black, then my testimony is worthless. Read the paragraph again. What the Israeli spin doctor was saying is that Israel is trying to control what information gets to the public so that they can shape the narrative. These is another quote that goes with the one I provided that debunks your spin. Aviv Shir-On, deputy director general for media in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told the Times during the winter bombardment, "We are trying to coordinate everything that has to do with the image and content of what we are doing…We have talking points and we try to disseminate our ideas and message." Hear that Thom? Israel want to control the content of what is being seen and heard. They are disseminating their ideas and the “message”. Goebells would be green with envy. You claimed to be a liberal, but your fanatical refusal to face up to reality is mind blowing. Israelis want to make sure that any formation that ciontradicts it's opwn official version is suppressed. Seems reasonable if you are want to control what people are being told. It's called fascism Thom, so I am glad you admit to your support for such an ideology. Once again, you are proven to be a liar and proud of it. “It banned the journalists because in Lebanon they had spilled military secrets to the enemy and made operations more dangerous by getting in the way.” As the Israeli Supreme Court Ruled, that is illegal. Israel is such an outlaw state, it even breaks it;s own laws.

23 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 3:55 am

“No, the accusation is based on Israeli eyewitnesses.” In other words, they are lies. Hearsay mean nothing without corroborating account, The only time Israel showed footage of what they said were ambulances being used to transport rocket, it was debunked. “If I see you rob a store, and I say I saw you rob the store, that isn't hearsay.” If I'm a white supremacist and the person happens to be black, then my testimony is worthless. Read the paragraph again. What the Israeli spin doctor was saying is that Israel is trying to control what information gets to the public so that they can shape the narrative. These is another quote that goes with the one I provided that debunks your spin. Aviv Shir-On, deputy director general for media in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told the Times during the winter bombardment, "We are trying to coordinate everything that has to do with the image and content of what we are doing…We have talking points and we try to disseminate our ideas and message." Hear that Thom? Israel want to control the content of what is being seen and heard. They are disseminating their ideas and the “message”. Goebells would be green with envy. You claimed to be a liberal, but your fanatical refusal to face up to reality is mind blowing. Israelis want to make sure that any formation that ciontradicts it's opwn official version is suppressed. Seems reasonable if you are want to control what people are being told. It's called fascism Thom, so I am glad you admit to your support for such an ideology. Once again, you are proven to be a liar and proud of it. “It banned the journalists because in Lebanon they had spilled military secrets to the enemy and made operations more dangerous by getting in the way.” As the Israeli Supreme Court Ruled, that is illegal. Israel is such an outlaw state, it even breaks it;s own laws.

24 Thom July 17, 2009 at 8:34 pm

How do you get such long posts? When I try a post that long the system just hangs. #1 That isn't a definition, just a fact. #2 When Palestinians target Israeli civilians, that is terrorism. When Palestinians target Israeli military targets that is an act of war. When Palestinians target Israeli military targets while wearing civilian clothing or waving a white flag, that is a war crime, but still not terrorism. #3 Israeli soldiers have a right to kill Palestinians that are reasonably perceived to be a threat. As to white flags, the Palestinians have a choice, they can choose (A) to have immunity from attack when waving a white flag, or (B) to be able to attack while waving a white flag. The Palestinians chose (B) and thus lost their immunity when waving a white flag but otherwise acting in a way similar to the way the Palestinian war-criminals do when they attack under a white flag. Same for civilian clothes. Same for storing weapons in civilian homes, same for storing weapons in mosques. The Palestinians choose to abuse every form of immunity from attack to use it to attack Israelis. Therefore, they lose that immunity.

25 Thom July 17, 2009 at 8:46 pm

#4 Israel has never killed more Palestinians than the number that the Palestinian terrorists (e.g. Hamas) make inevitable. #5 Palestinians have the right to commit acts of war, including capturing Israeli soldiers, but the way they go about them (no uniforms, no Red Cross contact, no GC rights as a POW) are war crimes. The Palestinians don't have the right to capture Israeli soldiers without consequences however. The blockade is a consequence, the invasion of Gaza is a consequence. #6 Yet another lie from the SABGSOAW. There are a few hundred being held without trial, the rest are have either been convicted or are in the middle of legal proceedings. "By March 2008, more than 8,400 Palestinians were held by Israeli civilian and military authorities, of which 5,148 were serving sentences, 2,167 were facing legal proceedings and 790 were under administrative detention, often without charge or knowledge of the suspicions against them." – Wikipedia #7 I have never said that. It's true, but irrelevant. Hamas is a terrorist organization in their own right, who backs them doesn't make them any more vile. #8 Saying all that is a waste of time, people know that Israel is supported by the U.S. #9 Feel free to mention them, just don't assume that they are "magic words" when they are specific legal terms that don't necessarily mean what the Palestinians and their supporters say they mean. FEX, if the Palestinians aren't a State, then the West Bank and Gaza aren't territories of anybody but Israel.

26 Thom July 17, 2009 at 8:54 pm

#10: The Palestinian war criminals are not necessarily "cowards". They know that they can get killed too. They are scum because they deliberately put Israel in a position where they have to either (A) let the war criminals and terrorists freely kill Israelis or (B) fight back and sometimes kill the civilians that the Palestinian war criminals hide behind. The Palestinian war criminals want Palestinian civilians to die, they would rather have a PR victory and a dead child than a live child and no PR victory. In Gaza, Israel bombed Nazir Rayan's house/armory only after warning him to evacuate. He chose to stay with his family in the hope that Israel would care more about their lives than he did. #11 Quit bitching and learn English. It actually works out better for the Palestinians, since the main conduit for information about the Palestinian mindset is through their leaders who lie to the West. #12, blah blah blah.

27 Thom July 17, 2009 at 9:00 pm

You are partly right about that. The question is whether the military objective to be gained outweighs the danger to the civilians. I don't think you can make a blanket statement that bans people with inaccurate weapons (though the best available to them) from attacking at all if the other side chooses to put its military targets within the margin of error of the weapons. The WWII bombings weren't that accurate either. Of course, the fact that the Palestinian mortar and rocket attacks are dangerous to individuals, but would do little to harm Israel's military capability, even if they landed on a military base weighs in the other direction, toward their use being disproportionate.

28 Thom July 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield "In November 2006, Palestinian women volunteered as human shields to allow the escape of Hamas gunmen from Israeli forces in Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip. The armed Palestinians had barricaded themselves in a mosque, which was surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks. According to a Hamas spokeman, a crowd of women gathered outside the mosque in response to an appeal on the local radio station for women to protect the Hamas fighters. The Palestinian gunmen escaped by dressing in women's clothes and hiding in the large group." There have also been instances of Israelis calling off an attack on a weapon storage house when they Palestinians were warned to evacuate and instead packed it with civilian women and children. "Also in the same month, the Israeli Air Force warned Mohammed Weil Baroud, a Palestinian leader said to be responsible for firing Qassam rockets at Israel, to evacuate his home in Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip in advance of an airstrike. Instead, hundreds of Palestinians, including many women and children, gathered outside Baroud's house. Israel suspended the airstrike out of fear that the human shields would be killed or injured. In response to Israel's reaction, another Palestinian leader said: 'We have won. From now on we will form human chains around every house that is threatened with demolition.'[8] The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims Hamas now regularly uses human shields to protect the homes of Hamas officials.[9]" As to all Israelis are in the IDF. It doesn't work that way. The homes of ordinary civilians are not legitimate targets just because they happen to be in the reserves. The reason the Palestinian terrorists homes are military targets is because they use them to store arsenals.

29 Thom July 17, 2009 at 9:35 pm

You should at least try to get that Ze'ev Schiff quote you keep harping about right. Go look it up before you misquote him again. Also, I thought the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon was a major reason why the Lebanese were pissing and moaning. They are anti-personel weapons, but they don't kill indiscriminately. They are supposed to create a large area of relatively small explosions at a particular place. They sometimes don't all go off when dropped, which leads to danger later if that place ceases to be a battleground and civilians come back. White phosphorus was used to produce smoke screens, a few civilians may have been hit by accident. 10,000 is the estimated number of ground troops I have read. I can't find a source with a definitive answer on how many it was though. Still Israel has more than enough firepower to wipe out Gaza without sending any ground troops in. ROFL. Sorry, that is just too funny. "Israel has time on its hands". Israel killed fewer Palestinians in Gaza than were born in Gaza during the operation. Even by Palestinian inflated numbers, Israel killed under 1400. Meanwhile about 5,000 were born. You are like the guy who said "we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume". If Israel killed 1400 Palestinians every single month, the Palestinian population would still be one of the fastest growing in the world. Are you just bad at math or are you simply lying again?

30 Thom July 17, 2009 at 9:42 pm

LOL. Dentures. I like that. Sorry, I have all my teeth and walk just fine. Still, I would expect such a hallucination from a SCGBSOAW like you. You provided a link to a report that shows that Hezbollah used human shields. A report from people who were there, not a report from people who came in months later and parroted whatever lies Hezbollah said. The report you cited mentions video. Go do your own research.

31 Thom July 17, 2009 at 10:00 pm

The quote is from some random blogger, not from anyone with authority over Hamas. What exactly is your obsession with posting quotes from random people to prove things in the quotes that the people have no valid basis for saying? So some random blogger thinks that the leader of Hamas is saying that the Charter has no practical relevance. The leader of Hamas never said that. The blogger is just putting words into his mouth. Of course, you think that any quote must be valid to prove whatever the quote says, because for you written=true. Which is why we know you are a SCGBSOAW, from your valid quote in the New Statesman in which you confessed to it.

32 Thom July 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Hey, you're the one who said you do it. The "quote" I posted proves it. Frankly, I am shocked at both your perverted behavior and your willingness to admit it in a valid source in 1982. BTW, this is exactly the topic at hand since the topic at hand is your fake quotes and who has the responsibility to prove it, the person making the positive claim, or the person who says "bullshit".

33 Thom July 17, 2009 at 10:15 pm

As I said, you should quit using legal terms you don't understand. Hearsay is repeating what someone else said, not saying what you saw. Not even lying about what you saw. If I said I saw you (Shingo) kill someone, that would be a lie, but not hearsay. If I had video tape of someone killing someone, but didn't see the killing, and I heard Jim say that he saw Fred kill the guy, then if I say "Jim said he saw Fred do it" that would be hearsay from me because I was repeating what someone else said. Credibility of a witness is a separate issue. The white supremacist's credibility may be attacked, but that statement isn't hearsay. Here is an easy test, if the person says "I saw this happen" that is not hearsay. As for disseminating the message. All governments do that. They want their spokespeople to give a consistent message, not be talking at cross purposes. They want to avoid embarrassing incidents such as when one person thinks a particular type of weapon isn't being used when it actually is, then the anti-Semites turn the statement that corrects the mistake into a big conspiracy. Israel has a free press, which is more than you can say for any other country in the Middle East. The Israeli Supreme Court didn't say that keeping journalist out of active combat zones was illegal, just that keeping them out when the crossings are otherwise open is illegal. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

34 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 10:38 pm

“As for disseminating the message. All governments do that.” Exactly, which is why only independent reporting and independent investigations can be trusted. No one is ever going to believe the what the Israeli government tells us because the one thing we know about war is that truth is the first casualty. Israel have nothing to gain but allowing the truth to be known. They want their spokespeople to give a consistent message, in spite of the facts. They want to avoid embarrassing incidents, or if that fails, they will deny them and cover them up, such as arguing that Hamas broke the ceasefire, while admitting that they did, or claim the attack on Gaza was to stop the rocket attacks, while admitting that there were no rocket attacks until they broke the ceasefire. The saddest example was Mark Regev trying to convince reporters that Israel wanted to work with the Red Cross, while they were blocking the Red Cross from getting to victims. Many Zionists blame anti-Semites fro inconvenient truths coming out. You and Jake for example, attack any Jew or Israeli that dares to speak out against Israel. If they’ve spoken ill of Israel, there is something wrong with them. They are self hating Jews or anti Semites. Israel used to have a free press. It now routinely arrests reporters when it’s not killing them. “The Israeli Supreme Court didn't say that keeping journalist out of active combat zones was illegal, just that keeping them out when the crossings are otherwise open is illegal. “ That’s called a discintion without a difference. Foreign journalists were blocked from entering Gaza by Isreal. The Foreign Press Association condemned the closure, saying: "We regard this as an unconscionable breach of the Israeli Government's responsibility to allow journalists to do their jobs in this region," further explaining that "the international media serve as the world's window into Gaza providing vital coverage of all aspects of Gazan life to news consumers around the world." I’m not lying Thom. I’m just raising inconvenient truth, which I know are anti Semitic by definition.

35 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Shocked are you Thom, or have you just run out of tactics to derail the topic at hand. Look, Begin was a putz. No one is suggesting that he speaks for Israel. My point was that taking incendiary comments and attributing them to an antire population is futile.

36 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm

The quote was from someone who interviewed Meeshal. The important point si that this interview is consistent with intrerviews that other reporters have had with Meeshal, like Carter and Sy Hersh. Carter told us that: "They said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by Palestinians, and that they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace, provided the agreements negotiated by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians for their overall approval." Hersh, who interviewed .. for a story for the New Yorker recently that: "What we may—and Meshaal has said to me, in that visit and previous visits, “The Israelis keep on wanting me to talk about Israel publicly and say I recognize Israel. For a man of the resistance, that would be suicidal. But what I do say is—and I’ve said this, too, publicly”—and he said it to Carter—“I understand there’s a state called Israel.” And he’s not—he just won’t say what the Israelis want him to say." So here's the thing Thom. You can choose to obsess about the Hamas Charter and lock yourself into your belief that Hamas will never change and is commited to destoying Israel, or you can entertain the possibility that Hamas are becomming more moderate and more pragmatic. It's up to you.

37 Shingo July 17, 2009 at 10:48 pm

And when I have brought facts to my argument, you've arbitrarily dimissed them as not cedible, withouth giving a reason. You lost the debate. QED.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: dirty couches, dogs without water, synagogue seats, and teenage boys with light mustaches (Loewenstein visits an outpost)

Next post: Department of No Comment