From Hollywood Jew column in Jewish Journal:
the Jewish Federation of Toronto is scheduled to take out an ad in The Global Mail, Canada’s national newspaper showcasing Hollywood support for Israel, using the tagline “We don’t need another blacklist.” So far, rumored signatories include actress Natalie Portman, producer Howard Gordon, manager/producer Guy Oseary and Gail Berman, former president of entertainment at FOX…
Minnie Driver said in a statement, “Empowered groups of people, deciding whose stories can, and cannot be told, does nothing but remind us of oppression that has no place in filmmaking.”
I have problems with your noun verb agreement, Minnie.
String of double negatives too. She was better-spoken as the Radcliffe love interest in Good Will Hunting.
Boycotts are offensive. (Even when they’re in denial about whether or not they are attempting to boycott.)
Yes, well, I’m sure Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela would agree with you. Right.
The boycotts themselves were offensive and prejudicial. Sometimes you adopt difficult means to achieve important ends.
The original Zionist enterprise fit that character.
The crime is when you are aware that you are engaging in a punitive form of dissent, and do not consider hard if there are other means to achieve the same ends without willingly harming.
In the case of the BDS movement relative to Israel, its been constant. Israel still has to buy oil through additional third party intermediaries, and Iran in selling oil that they know is destined for Israel, have to rationalize that they are only selling to the collaborationist intermediaries.
The effort for a cultural boycott of Israel is to the heart, as punitive as an “non-violent” activist can get, to the isolation from communication, to censorship (in the name of opposing censorship of dissent).
So when are you going to start speaking out about how immoral the Israeli blockade of Gaza is? Or the restricted conditions of the West Bank? You think the BDS movement is unethical but you don’t seem to spend very much time talking about actual crimes against humanity, do you?
Brilliant reply, Chaos4700: “You think the BDS movement is unethical but you don’t seem to spend very much time talking about actual crimes against humanity, do you?”
Like the great screamers who yell about the ills that befall humanity, but fuck the humans. Hearts of stone.
My angle on the blockade is different than the short route, which is just good complaint, but not possible.
The problem is Hamas. Hamas still actively seeks to import offensive arms (more offensive than a boycott). And, Hamas has boycotted the restoration of Palestinian unity government (it may be a good and principled decision, I don’t think so), that is a necessity for Palestine to become state, which is necessary for Palestine to have the prospect of normalized border controls and port controls.
Good rhetoric for the left, but simple-minded.
That is not to say that Israel could have handled it better, particularly after even the 4 months of consistent cease-fire adherence, or the period of voluntary adherence now.
Situation: Hamas wants to import military weapons.
Reaction: Total blockade of almost everything going into the Gaza strip, including many bare necessities for civilized living.
Assessment: “Maybe a little harsh, but OK in principle.”
Situation: Israel wants to import military weapons – a hundred times more deadly than anything Hamas could think of in their wildest dreams.
Reaction: Carefully worded suggestion that maybe we should give them a little less than the usual $3 billion for that purpose. Maybe only $2 billion?
Assessment: “Scandal! Offensive! Ruins any chance of peace!”
That’s how it works and that’s why people who display these almost grotesque double standards are not being taken seriously – I’m looking at you, Mr. Witty.
“The boycotts themselves were offensive and prejudicial. ”
If boycotts themselves were offensive and prejudicial, then blockades are disgusting and shameful.
If the problem is Hamas, because Hamas still actively seeks to import offensive arms, then surely the arms Israel imports are infitely more offensiev yet again?
No, Hamas did not boycotted the restoration of Palestinian unity government. That was Fatah when it took it’s orders from Tel Aviv and agreed to undertake the coup to overthrow Hamas instead of undertake unity talks.
“Good rhetoric for the left, but simple-minded.”
Good rhetoric that also happens to be factual.
Boycotts are offensive? witty your not. Are not all people created equal?
The only denial is on the part of the supporters of these crimes against humanity.
They are not “warcrimes” that would mean two militaries are fighting..
In this case it is only aparthied genocidal nuts that could not think for themselves that have supported such actions …even if the lies have been repeated so much that generations would pass before anyone noticed they have been lied to.
Take religon for an example, there has never been any real proof of such things which are always contradicted by facts that fly in the face of the lies put forth either by governments rogue and those that tow a line blindly in every era. Deal with it there is no god ..you have all been fooled for so long to believe a politician from long ago is a son of god, then make stories up and pass them down for all to be hoodwinked by. 1% use to hold out hope for such a thing (god) but I know better from the mouths of the horses whom placed the stories as facts and beliefs.
Such as a city of gold which is just the reflection from the setting sun glaring of the villages.
Portman is an ueber-Zionist. No kidding. A contact/friend of mine used to be well placed in an office in Congress and would tell me that she would go to meet with senators about their ‘supporting’ Israel. (Not sure which senators or how many or how she got them to agree to meet her; the friend wouldn’t say.) But it’s certainly not a political attitude that Portman was ever especially forthcoming about with her wider public.
In other words, Portman is Israel Lobby all the way.
Yes, this has become apparent with Portman. I became aware of it when she spoke about being so pleased to support the IDF and their activities, I will spare you the context, but it shocked me.
I wont watch any of her movies anymore. She was great as a kid in that pic with the French guy, but she’s lost me as a viewer. Gellian is absolutely correct.
She’s an Israeli citizen.
More boycotts? How do you distinguish your approach from fascism?
Ah, another example of your great powers of understanding and persuasion. What makes you think that calling boycotts “fascist” is an attempt at “mutual understanding”? You can’t even practice what you preach to others. Self-reflect, Richard. Eventually even you will learn something.
Why is it that you have attacked BDS at nearly every opportunity but have had very little if anything to say about Israel’s continuing and life-threatening sanctions against Gaza? Double standard? Sounds like it to me. I’d love to see you tie yourself up in knots justifying your actions here.
Would you have supported a boycott against Facist Italy? Against Nazi Germany?
You lack perspective, and you’re starting to sound like those rabbis who call the Israeli government Nazis when they cut their subsidies.
The not running people off their land after “nationalizing” it is a pretty big glaring indication that the anti-Zionist crowd aren’t the fascist. Which side does that, again?
How does Israel distinguish itself from fascism Richard? We distinguish ourselves from fascism by not supporting the fascist activity rife in Israel, how do you distinguish yourself Witty? Israel has constantly cried for BDS in numerous activities which it is involved in – see what has gone beyond this in the medieval siege Gaza. In fact, that is a new record in modern history – to sanction an occupied people which is a direct affront to all responsibilities to the occupied, however telling you this Richard, or Israel is like spitting in the wind.
“How do you distinguish your approach from fascism?”
How do you distinguish Israel’s approach from fascism?
fascism and fascist get tossed around here regularly. it is a word that has many levels of meaning. mussolini meant something different than franco or hitler. it has become almost a non meaningful word when used in a casual manner. it is the stuff of essays and encyclopedias. if one means totalitarian, there are many forms of that which are not fascistic and so on. it usually seems to be used as an insult. bush and obama are both called nazis. we have surf nazis and etc etc…… I think it has become useless in coherent conversation.
Great point, jimby. I agree., it’s a meaningless term at this point.
Great point, jimby. I agree, the word is essentially meaningless at this point.
Exactly right. Portman is Israeli. And she uses her special status as a movie star to gain access to the halls of power that you and I can’t have. Altogether now: Israel-first! Israel-first!
First, I think Naomi Klein has not articulated her position well in this matter. She is saying that no, the Toronto Declaration is not asking to boycott Israeli films. But then as an advocate of BDS, she must be for boycotting Israeli films in such international events. She should come clean and say that she would go that far, to the boycott, in addition to protesting the Tel Aviv Spotlight aspect of the festival (bearing in mind that some Israeli films would be admissible by BDS criteria). Go all the way.
Second, what is wrong with Susan Sarandon and her hubbie? Given the dearth of conscientious American celebrities (Kanye West causes a storm—protesting an MTV music video award pick!), their lack of support here is surprising. A case of PEP-ititis, indeed.
It’s not that Naomi Klein has not articulated her position well, it’s that Zionist interests are out and out lying about the her and the position she supports. Today’s episode of Democracy Now! had her as a guest and she not only articulated her position well but she also demonstrated what sort of lies are being used to poison the discussion, and then also discussed how this factors into the bigger picture of how worldwide progressivism itself is being undermined by the Zionist lobby to boot.
link to democracynow.org
link to democracynow.org
Yes, Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman were excellent on today’s Democracy Now!
I found Naomi Klein to be as misrepresentative in advocacy of her arguments as she accuses Israel and supporters in advocacy of theirs.
Specifically, the nature of the issue is that it is relentless. There has not been a day where there has not been a boycott of Israel in place since its existence, and that characteristic then amounts to a shunning.
She describes the “shifting” of the issue to a censorship issue to be a distraction, when the statement does exist in the context of a proposed boycott, that she personally is leading.
Its audacious to say that the two are not associated, not the same, because of “careful” language in the specific petition.
There is no way to distinguish. When I as an auditor must consider that even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even when there is none substantives) is a violation of my relation of independence to the client, she should consider the same professional role.
She sounds good, but is careless to the point of negligence. I’m sorry that Amy Goodman is often such a softball interviewer with positions that she advocates.
She could have pointed out the carelessness and hypocrisy within Naomi Klein’s message.
My own position is that normalization IS the progressive approach on Israel/Palestine, and that continual and unspecific boycott is the regressive one.
She is articulate and intelligent. Why has she not funded and assisted the production of media that is capable of persuasion?
Did she go to Sderot when she visited Gaza? Just like Phil went on an activist tour of Hebron, but didn’t freely meet and interview Israelis at length and depth, and didn’t visit Sderot.
And, why not comment on Hamas in description of Gaza, as if the military response to Gaza was solely unilateral?
What car was she sold?
You know funny thing about Sderot? It used to be called Najd.
Part of it was. And, before that it was something else, and before that something else, and before that something else.
Now it is Sderot, and civilians live there.
Funny how only Israelis seem to qualify as civilians to you.
Richard, not only “civilians” live in Sderot, but kibbutz which are primarily a military enclave are also there. It is also true that many assaults upon Gaza found their way through Sderot. Unfortunately, this is what you get when you have not been there (not to mention other bases and military factories, which curiously reside in civilian areas which are mostly a mix of the poor and the Israeli Palestinians, the two being synonymous most of the time).
Kibbutzim are collective residences. The inference that Israelis are all military personnel, is about as progressive as describing Gazans as all collaborators and therefore valid targets (children and old people as well).
Both arguments are bullshit, and in this case paint the left as advocating for murderous fanaticism.
And of course, Richard, you’ve managed to complete dodge the whole point that Sderot was built by ethnically cleansing and razing the Palestinian village of Najd. You accuse Hamas of indulging in a “human shield” tactic by virtue of the fact that 1.5 million Palestinian citizens and refugees have all been compressed into the tiny strip of land that is Gaza, but then you don’t apply the same exact rationale when Israel puts its civilians right on the Gazan border? Or how about in Palestinian territory itself, as is the case in the West Bank?
And then of course there’s the fact that the IDF quite literally does use human shields, in a fashion totally unequivocal to how Palestinians behave even at their worst.
I’m sorry but you’re not convincing anyone that you have a rational argument when you employ such a horrendously blatant double standard.
Today’s episode of Democracy Now! had her as a guest and she not only articulated her position well but she also demonstrated what sort of lies are being used to poison the discussion, and then also discussed how this factors into the bigger picture of how worldwide progressivism itself is being undermined by the Zionist lobby to boot.
Except Naomi Klein never used the term “Zionist lobby” and never even mentioned Zionism in the entire interview. Both she and Amy Goodman rarely, if ever, use the word.
In fact, the only time Naomi did reference Zionism was in another part of yesterday’s show, when she was talking about Durban:
“You know, in the lead-up to Durban II, you couldn’t find an article about this conference—Durban II is what the follow-up conference in Geneva was called, was described as. You couldn’t find a reference to it without the pairing of the word “hate-fest.” It was just universally described as a “hate-fest.” People believed that this conference was equating Zionism with racism. It absolutely was not. The conference in 2001 did not. And it was an enormously important forum. This was the only UN gathering of its kind, which looked frontally at racism.”
The only time she used the word “Zionism” was to assure people that the conference didn’t equate it with racism.
In fact, many people were equating Zionism with racism (or supremacism), and it’s a discussion we need to have.
Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman and many others seem unable or unwilling to go there for whatever reason.
Phil Weiss and Adam Horowitz are already there.
Richard I do have to object in regard to your ignorance about Sderot, because you do not know what you are talking about in regard to who is there and who or what is in proximity to it. My recommendation is that you study the area a bit more before you insert your foot in your mouth and start kicking.
Second, I know what kibbutzim are, there is no confusion about what they are – I am saying there are some thematic kibbutzim that hold a good portion of military intent. Peppered throughout Sderot are military forces and equipment which is fired into Gaza.
Third, it should be apparent to most “thinking” people at this point that Israel has become an armed forces with a state, rather than a state with an armed forces. Residence requires military service, and it does so not because there is a massive threat, but because it is a colonial settler nation which is intent on wiping the Palestinians out by throwing them out of their homeland or exterminating them (Operation Cast Lead should have given you a hint that this is the overall “plan”). It also considers itself an agent of the West, but also has a bad habit of attacking its neighbors with “wars” of choice.
It’s interesting to compare this response to three years ago. In 2006, when Israel was “setting Lebanon’s clock back twenty years,” Summner Redstone (head of Viacom/CBS/MTV/Paramount/etc.) marshalled 84 of his celebrities to sign a letter to the LA Times supporting Israel. “If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.”
I imagine most Hollywood celebs still recognize which side of their bread is buttered, but the tide is noticeably turning.
Innocent people who died: link to uruknet.info
First, lets get something straight, Israel started the political ball rolling with its “brand Israel” blitz. So this was already turned political by those (Israel and its supporters) who wish to put lipstick on a pig, that does not change the nature of the pig.
““As a filmmaker and member of the Academy, I can tell you that this is nothing less than a call for the complete destruction of the Jewish State,” Hier said.”
No, it is that Israel must stop its current course or destroy itself and the Palestinian people.
““Film is essentially about telling global stories, of exploring the complexities and contradictions of the human condition. Any attempt to silence that conversation, to hijack the festival for any political agenda in the end, only serves to silence artistic voices,” Reitman told THR. Jewison told the trade the protest “smacks of anti-Semitic bigotry.””
No, it really amounts to telling the truth, or telling bold faced lies. A lies does not necessarily mean twisting what is displayed, but not displaying or saying anything at all – it is the absence thereof (sound familiar?).
“The entire world was formed through military victories and defeats,” Barad explained by phone from St. Louis. “Every state since the beginning of nations has been formed this way, but only Israel is continually disclaimed from its legitimate right to exist.”
This is the 21st century, not the 17th, 18th, 19th or even the 20th. Other nations have distanced themselves from the old colonial process, not perpetuated it (at least not in the old form, this does not address neocolonialism). International law is in place, Conventions have been adopted (notably by Israel in this context). Every year almost the UN meets and confirms its original rhetorical vote which says back to the 67′ borders and the right of return in light of the current global commitment to not continue in the same murderous process. Indeed, some of the very conventions were adopted because of the Holocaust – they were not written as an excuse for a Holocaust hegemony excusing even the initial target group saying “but for you it is OK.” Genocidal process will always be resisted, this is what you are witnessing, and by Israel’s actions it seems to think it can do anything it wants with impunity.
“Israel, like every other democracy, is not perfect. ”
Israel is not a democracy for everyone, only for the few. The rest are either ethnically cleansed, a slow genocide (accelerating at an alarming rate), or last class citizens – it is an apartheid state, in fact, as numerous witnesses from South Africa have testified – it is worse than Apartheid. Gets your facts straight.
“But their interests lie in making their nation a better place, not making it disappear [Israeli filmmakers].”
“Interests” are not enough, it is in fact becoming worse, and is heading toward a fascist abyss. You can see this by the electoral activity, the promotion of draconian bills against the minority Palestinian population in Israel and their neglect and persecution, the siege of an entire people (Gaza) to the point of starvation, the recent indiscriminate bombing and murder of over 1400 civilians – most of them children, the acceleration of land theft, the list is almost endless. However, it is becoming better, for the ethnic Jewish population – that’s it.
The rest of the letter by Barad is just more of the same hasbara bullshit, it is like listening to Dershowitz or Daniel Pipes – complete nonsense, total skewing of history or what must derive from examining other countries. Things like the Palestinians have to pay for what other Arab nations did, in contradistinction to all known law international or domestic – as an example. He would not stand for five minutes in a debate, nor would his mentors.
Good points, v. And for the record, colonialism is illegal in Canada. It is against the law to support, believe it, any colonial regime. That’s why all this is bullshit.
Underneath this ‘Brand Israel’ PR push – like their taking over of Maxim Magazine to show off IDF babes two years ago, and the ridiculous Tel Aviv beach in Central Park last year puleeze – is the need and desire to get Canada on board with bombing Iran: they’ve got to get Canadians to become Pro-Israel/Zionist like the Americans. Dont lose sight of that. Israel could give a shit about culchah if it doesn’t serve Eratz Yisrael and their Spartan goals. By getting everyone to argue the details they get everyone to concede the larger issue.
The larger issue being that Israel is OK.
“…the recent indiscriminate bombing and murder of over 1400 civilians – most of them children.” SHOULD HAVE READ – a good portion, over 300 being children.
And, at some point progressives will conclude that acceptance of the other, and rational persuasion is a more progressive stance than non-violent warring., with a punitive intent, rather than a reconciling intent.
That’s all well and good but in the meantime, atrocities like Operation Cast Lead happened under “moderate” Israeli influence, remember? Nonviolent protest only matters when people actually care that nonviolent protestors are being slaughtered. You can ask the families of Rachel Corrie and Tristan Anderson about that, let alone who knows how many Palestinians.
And atrocities like the incremental Hamas shelling of Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheba occurred with the acquiescence of the left BEFORE Israel responded militarily.
…but happened after Israel had already invaded Gaza, during the cease fire, on at least two occasions. Funny, that.
And after the cease-fire was restored by mutual agreement for the last month.
Hamas militants won the argument between them and the more mature social service wing of Hamas, and decided to inform Israel that they would “deter” aggression against them, that they still had teeth.
When Israelis and Americans refer to Hamas using civilians as human sheilds, they are not referring directly to holding a body in front of you as a shield, but the social significance of a “vanguard” group aggressing militarily, then hiding away to let the civilians take the brunt of instigated military conflict.
The Hamas militants INSISTED that Israel respond militarily. Israel responded careless and excessively. Their military is young, scared (rationally).
Conflict is the accurate description.
You know, not to trample all over Godwin’s Law but this sounds an awful lot like the justifications that Germans told themselves while they were doing what they were doing in Warsaw.
Nice to know that the only country in the world to have total sanction-free carte blanche to pursue nuclear weapons is characterized as “careless,” “excessive,” “young” and “scared” even by its own supporters.
I always like this nonsense about Gaza firing “missiles” which are not much more than large firecrackers, and have damaged little and killed even less. What about before any “missiles” were fired, what were the excuses for the atrocities on Gaza? These are a relatively new phenomena that Israel has been keen to capitalize on. I remember the reports from journalists that covered the massacre from afar (that is whole other issue, which speaks loudly for the underhanded methods and genocidal fervor of the attack), when they entered the prefabricated news registering rooms these little laughable large firecrackers were piled up for them to see – apparently Israel thought they had a propaganda bonanza with them, but in reality it caused most reporters to chuckle under their breath about how ridiculous the display was.
In EVERY ceasefire it has been Israel that has broken it, and provoked a response. Which is just a testimony to how much Israel is “pursuing peace.”
Richard,
You are making no sense at all, and your responses indicate one of two things: either you’re an idiot who can’t understand the English language when you peruse the net, and you’re not an idiot; or you categorically refuse to investigate anything that might upset your worldview.
“And atrocities like the incremental Hamas shelling of Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheba occurred with the acquiescence of the left BEFORE Israel responded militarily.”
This is hogwash. Absolutely tales out of Mother Goose.
You know what? It all started when the racist Zionist thugs invaded Palestine. They shouldn’t have invaded. They shouldn’t be there now. Just as France gave up Algeria, so should the (mostly) European and American Jewish Fascists leave Palestine.
You want to play this “who started first” blame game? Zionism loses every time. No matter how much the hasbara crowd whines and wails, their narrative won’t come true.
Zionism is the Jewish version of the KKK. As the massacres continue, the comparison will inevitably devolve downward to Nazism.
And on and on and on and on.
It started with Zionists sought to reside in Palestine, and were harrassed for the prospect that they would “take over”, interacting with the Zionists fears of harrassment and over-protection (probably more rational than excessive), which were then interpreted as them “taking over and changing the land”.
In the run up to Gaza, Hamas “insisted” that Israel respond militarily. Israel did not really have the option of not addressing escalating shelling of civilian towns.
Only revisionists exclude that sequence from their math.
Hamas committed the Gazans to a suicide (others’, civilians’ suicides, but not their’s).
The only valid criticism of Israel is that it responded excessively, but not that it responded. And, Hamas and its anti-Zionist supporters LOVED that Israel responded excessively, so that they would have the momentum for the current BDS effort.
Phil was silent about it in December. He could have added his voice to “please stop Hamas, please lie low, you made your point by firing into the desert”, but the backbone of dissent insisted that solidarity SELF-CENSOR and never criticize Hamas. (At least Gideon Levy described Hamas decison-making as suicidal.)
Maybe his voice would have been the weight to convey that solidarity was not willing to self-censor on the shelling and escalation.
In practice, the strategy of Hamas closely resembled what Zionists are misrepresentatiely accused of re: WW2, of willingly sacrificing many for a political PR end.
Also, if you know of Indian satyagraha, MANY died and suffered before the Western press picked it up. The difference between satyagraha and the Hamas idiocies, is that the individuals that the individuals that suffered the consequences of civil disobedience in India, did so entirely willingly. They were not chattle that a political party imposed punishment on.
Not the case with Hamas. Even if they were surprised at the reaction of Israelis, they had no right to, as they participated actively in gruesome and intimate terror on civilians, and that Israel held them as ENEMY, which they have never made any effort to change.
” And atrocities like the incremental Hamas shelling of Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheba occurred with the acquiescence of the left BEFORE Israel responded militarily. ”
Absolute rubbish.
Israel sent 7,700 shells into Gaza over the 12 months after they withdrew.
“And after the cease-fire was restored by mutual agreement for the last month.”
I hjave chellenged you repeatedly to produce one iota of ewvidence suporting this lie. The funny thing was that I did a Google search to see if this was true and lo and bholsd, it turned up a post by a guy name Ricahrd Witty on another forum.
Conclusion: There was no restoration o cease-fire by mutual agreement for the last month.
…..and on and on and on.
It started with Zionists sought to reside in Palestine, and harrassed the local population that would not move away or refused to sell their land, so they took over by enthiclaly cleasing Palestine as per the plans they’ve designed half a century earlier.
No Ricahrs, in the run up to Gaza, Hamas were holding to the ceasefire, even though Isreal had vilated it from day 1. Israel them broke the ceasefire on November 4th. It was Israel that “insisted” that Israel respond militarily. Israel did have an option. Observe the ceasfire, but the ceasfire had already lasted 4 months and as Tzipi Livni told us, a long cease-fire was never in Isrel’s stretegic interests.
All fo this has been left out of your own cherry picked sequence.
After the 2006 humiliation, Israel had to prove to themselves that they could win a war, albeit against a poorly armed 3rd world militia.
Only an extremist coudl say that Isreal “responded”. This was not a reponse, but a policy that was carried out.
Arguing that the Palestinians are suicidal is akin to arguing that a rape victim deserved what she got for dressing innapropriately.
The reality is that Hamas were demonstrating that they could be moderate adn represented a threat to Isrel’s leaders who feared having to negotiate with Hamas. Israel’s leaders had prepared and poliched Fatah as their new partner for peace, but Hamas, who were always going to drive a much harder baragain at the negotiating table, were spoiling the party.
The usual: Israel “responded” to Hamas terrorism. Gone is the talk of “reconciliation” and “rational persuasion”. It’s always the Palestinians’ duty to break the cycle of violence-counterviolence-countercounterviolence – never ever Israel’s. If the sides were even remotely equal, that would still be unjust. But expecting the immeasurably weaker side to restrain itself, while the much stronger side may continue at their leisure until they tire of violence, is either outright sadistic, monumentally naive or fundamentally dishonest. Which one is it in this case?
Excellently put as always Koshiro, so thanks for exposing the repugnant dishonesty of Richard. I wonder if he relaly believes the propaganda or just takes a good stiff drink before rolling out garbage that he knows no one is going to buy.
I have the same question for you.
I can very much understand compassion for the civilians of Gaza. I cannot understand solidarity with Hamas, arguing ad nauseum of their innocence and good judgement.
Well, nobody can understand that argument Richard, because it’s a strawman that you’ve fabricated to distract people.
Only if you choose to ignore Hamas’ decisions and regard them as of no cause or influence.
Their actions do influence the chain of events.
The present is an example. There has not been Israeli military involvement in Gaza, since Hamas stopped shelling.
Simple.
When they unify with the PA, then to continue the blockade, the Israeli argument will have to be that the PA is terrorist, which if the PA stays disciplined and focused on institution-building, Israel won’t be able to make.
Which one if Hamas’ decisions are we ignoring Riahrd? The one that chose to observe the ceasfire for 4 months, even though Israel vilated the agreement from day 1 or the descision to respond to the killing of 7 Palestinians on November the 4th, when Israel broke the ceasfire for no valid reason?
Their actions do influence the chain of events but so do Israel’s/
The period between July and November denubks your theses. Hams were not shelling and yet, the Israeli military chose to attack Gaza regardless.
Simple.
So while you isist that the PA” stays disciplined”, you fulyl suport Israel’s lack of discipline.
Your double standars are nauseating.
You are ignoring the CRITICAL one of the decision to resume active shelling of civilians. They attempted to apply the Gandhi formula of “the purpose of civil disobedience is to evoke a response”. His dictum was in the context of committed non-violence (which included the recognition that the opponent was a human being, a respectable human being).
Hamas applied the tactic as a dare. “I dare you to respond militarily”.
The consequence of Hamas escalation was the Israeli onslaught.
They knew it, they insisted on it.
I name Israel’s lack of discipline, lack of actual application of law.
I’ve NEVER heard a word of criticism from you few posting above of Hamas, of their decision at the end the of the cease fire.
I don’t know why. The feature of “we will not dictate from outside what Hamas should do” is in all of it, but then in solidarity you adopt their logic. And, if it is cruel, or just plain idiotic judgement, then that is then YOUR responsibility.
You are willing to contemptuously judge, worse, to demonize your opponent, and from a great distance, and with only very selective research into the reality of the conflict, but you are unwilling even to utter a single word of criticism of Hamas.
Its odd.
The Gandhi formula Richard? Would you describe the Jewish uprising in the4 Warsaw Ghetto as the Gandhi formula also?
Is that your latest propaganada angle?
The fact is that Israel were anxsious that the ceasfire was going too well and making Hamas look modertae, meaning, they would be forced to negotiate with Hamas. It was Israel that employed the tactic of daring Hams to respond.
“We’ve just attacked you even though you’ve been obsrveing teh ceasefire for 4 months. What are you going to do about it?”
The consequence of Israel’s atatck was a Hamas reaction, which is what Israel wanted and needed to carry out the plans thaey had in place for 6 months prior.
They knew it, they insisted on it.
Okay, Richard, I’ll do it. I’ve done it before, here and at other blogs, repeatedly and I’ve been called names by some lefties for doing it. I think Hamas is guilty of war crimes–I don’t buy their Witty-like reasoning that they were trying to hit military targets with their imprecise weapons as a Hamas advisor claimed in the NYT story. I think that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is an act of war far worse than Hamas’s rockets, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Now you, on the other hand, think you’ve done your moral duty as a peacemaker if you criticize some (not all, but some) of the most extreme Israeli crimes and if you criticize the most extreme Israeli citizens, but you justify other crimes and you blame Hamas for Israel’s actions while holding Hamas and even American leftists fully responsible for theirs. Calling this a double standard just isn’t critical enough. It’s mindnumbingly stupid. You don’t even begin to come close to the kind of moral consistency that would give you the right to posture and preen as a peacemaker the way you do here. I happen to agree with some of the things you say–for instance, responsible Palestinians should commit to nonviolence and some lefties are guilty of romanticizing violence. I think it’s disgusting. But coming from you– a person who excuses the violence of the Israelis half the time, who totally ignores the violence of Fatah (the “good” Palestinian group in your eyes), who hates the very idea of a boycott against Israel but blames Hamas for the Israeli blockade on Gaza–your criticisms of others here are simply farcical. You are the worst possible advocate for Palestinian nonviolence because of your own hypocrisy.
Its descriptive of their effort.
The parallel to Gandhi (the first South African resistance effort) is for contrast, irony, and instruction.
Donald,
I don’t carry the litany of wrongs in my pocket, and I contest many issues that you would consider wrongs.
For example, I considered A military response to Hamas escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians to be appropriate. I changed my views late, in noting the duration and some tactics employed.
A state has the OBLIGATION to protect its civilians from even “firecracker” assaults, and that is uncontestable.
The blockade is rational, though it prospectively be organized differently. If the United Nations for example were reliable, and actually applied their ratified resolutions (like the prohibition from Hezbollah arming near the border with Israel), then the UN might be convinced to manage the Gaza ports.
Otherwise an outside occupying force has to manage the supply chain of weapons of those that it is at war with, if it can.
If Hamas changed its intent and behavior, and joined the PA, then the Gaza ports could open as international ports. It would take some time to get there, but a couple years, not multiple decades as the resistance path implies with much and unncessary suffering.
As the saying goes, a rapist gives up their claim of self defense shoudl the victim fight back.
The world demanded that democratic elections be held in Gaza. They were and the wrong side wong, as far as Israel as the West were concerned, so the Palestinias were punished for it. Israel are not cponcerned with whther there is democracy in Gaza, just as they are not concerned with who does or does not recognize them. They are all excuses to massacre Palestinians.
Who in their right mind woudl suggest that Gaza be declared an independent state? Is that what you want Richard, so that Israel can help itself to the West Bank?
The last time Hamas tried to hodl unity talks with Fatah and the PA, Fatah were ordered to abandon the talks and undetake a coup to overthrow Hamas, or did you believe we’d forgotten that?
In fact, a second round of talks was due to be held shortly after Israel attacked Gaza. The last thing Israel wants is a unity government which includes Hamas. Be it a militia ort otherewise, Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza and as such does have the legal rights and access to international legal process of a state.
Richard, that’s the point. You ask for nonviolence by Palestinians, but you allow for violence by the occupiers. It just has to be properly calibrated. And you think a blockade on Gaza is justified and is all the fault of Hamas. Yes, the civilians suffer, but that’s life, I guess. Israel has a duty to protect its civilians, you say, and the hell with the suffering they impose on 1.5 million people, because you blame Hamas. Palestinians, on the other hand, have to accept Israel’s violence and occupation as just the background facts of life, something they can eventually change if they are saintlike enough, and if they aren’t all Gandhian saints then their suffering is the fault of their militants and of the American left, not of Israel, because Israel is forced to inflict even more violence on them than they do normally. That’s just what I said you think. Yet you think a much less severe boycott imposed on Israel is a moral outrage, a threat to peace and it’s not Israel’s fault at all for their policies, but the fault of the people advocating the boycott.
I don’t know how you manage to believe this. I suppose it’s human nature. Orwell had a lot to say about ideology and its ability to blind people to the most obvious facts and to make them take crazed contradictory positions with no sense of anything being wrong and you appear to be a fine example of what he meant. And I’ve gone through this with you before–for the present, you appear to be a hopeless case.
A state has the responsibility to protect its civilians from attempted murder.
If Hamas wants to be a state, and gain that role relative to Gazan civilians, it would have to either declare Gaza as an independent state, and hopefully adopt a democratic constitution and hold OPEN elections.
Or, it could join with the PA and become part of a Palestinian government, and as soon as the institution-building period initiated by Fayyad reaches critical confidence, seek ratification for statehood.
A militia is only a militia. Internationally, it is an extra-legal entity, and there is really no category for its civil rights as a militia. Civilians are entitled to civil rights, but as a militia, Hamas becomes a military, not civilian. But, it also does not have the legal rights and access to international legal process of a state.
Its a big dilemma, a cultural dilemma if it regards its militia status as a norm, a cultural conflict between the monopoly of force theory of modern states, and the factional definition of right to “self-defend” of resistance cultures.
I have wondered why people do not investigate before they open their mouths, or maybe it is they know and just take the low road to be a supporter of crimes against humanity and genocide. I have seen first hand people I knew when I was younger in high school turn into the genocidal maniacs over a lie that had been repeated over and over till it becomes the “truth” only because no one bothered to check out the facts before hand. Recently a participant that I once knew as a stand up person was found to have been brainwashed by the aparthied zionist place they now call israel. It made me wonder what changed him was it the illegal settlement house they said he was intitled to or could somewhere on the inside of his being have hidden a dark genocidal intuition.
The hollywood line which was not FYI jewish run from the begining just as everything else was not and is not my point, the point is those like Viggo M and Ted Kennnedy and yes the genocidal nut sharon all end up with cancer or other deadly thing from some brainwashed idiological nut sent by the aparthied place called israel. Aparthied is mild wording. I can only hope people start to educated themselves and investigate these phoney claims of religous backers which are found to have no truth just a blind belief to be controlled with. It is too bad these now are found to coinside with what myans claim to be 2013 end. If and when the end does start I wonder how long it will take. Is there a spaceship ready to take them all to another place where the brainwashed minions can do more harm. The fact that hitler had brainwashed so many
and the real beginings of the zionist had began earlier in russia to do exactly what it has accomplished today (full control). It reminded me of a movie called matrix only this is one really bad film that the world is living out. I cannot pity the believers and supporters but wonder after 600+ malitias come home from the zionist colonizations that some from what I see, do realize and then commit suicide or kill their families or both or worse still others whom have nothing to do with it. And still the lies are going strong and supporters going to suit up to become murderers for a lie….what they hope to accomplish afterwards is anyones guess. I can hope an arab exile out of Palestine and a martyr to detenate the place where the illegal nukes are stored for the aparthied regime then maybe the three branches of government here in the USA will be cleaned up and the lobbyist arrested. These are unstable days with no clear minded people in charge on anyside.
All the questions of tactics come down to what is proposed, and how does it get politically constructed.
1. Palestinian modern shariah single state (Hamas)
2. Palestinian nationalist single state
3. Civil single state
4. Zionist nationalist single state
5. Zionist neo-orthodox halachic state
6. Consented two-state
7. Suppressed Bantustan state
The consented two-state or the civil single state, should be the only two solutions that a humanist would consider.
There are dangers of dominance and rigged deck in both.
Currently, the only option is the two state. The homework (15 years likely) has not been done to create a viable civil single state, and there is MUCH danger of civil war currently if the single state concept is pushed forward, particularly by BDS.
So long as there is ambiguity as to the goal of BDS, it will be inneffective, and much more harmful to all concerned than good.
All the questions of tactics come down to what is proposed, and how does it get politically constructed.
8. Get the hell out of Gaza and the West Bank.
Only “lite Zionists” and their sycophants think the “only option” is the so-called two state solution. Let’s get real here. The U.N. (illegitimately) imposed a “two state solution” over 50 years ago. The expansionist Gun Zionist state has resisted this solution by force ever since, and will never consent to it.
In the end, this intransigence will doom Zionism. I feel sorry for Brooklyn; it will be a much nastier place when all the Jewish thugs return from Palestine.
I have problems with your noun verb agreement, Minnie. Jeezuss, you’re polite. She’s incoherent.
The bottom line in all of this – manifestly clear in all of the statements we’ve seen so far attacking the Toronto Declaration (Hier, Barad, Jacobovici, and sadly, even J-Street) – is that it is not about boycotting, censorship or blacklisting. That’s all smoke and mirrors. The real point all of these people are making (like most of the opponents of BDS) is that Israel does not deserve to be boycotted. The problem is with the target , not the methods. They may add that “Israel is not perfect” or that “criticism of is legitimate”, but the bottom line is that Israel’s actions are not really that bad. The underlying attitude that allows them to take such a blatantly false stance (apart from ignorance and, in some, a misguided sense of tribalism) is classic racist colonialism: actions perpetrated against “uncivilised natives” don’t count. In Israel, this obcene fiction is called “Jewish and democratic”, and the Tel-Aviv showcase lies at its very core .
Shmuel, a well-reasoned post. This whole Brand Israel thing is blowing up in the face of the hasbara brigade that dreamed it up in the first place. It opens up the dialogue, amps up the volume. It seems that everytime someone like Rabbi Hier screams, “this is anti-Semetic!” all the listener has to do is substitute the phrase “you’ve got a great point that I can’t respond to intelligently!” Then all makes sense.
The other humorless joke is The Israel Project. Ever since Newsweek leaked the Frank Luntz guide on manipulating the media and manipulating public opinion, the antenna is way up on how our daily newsfeed is larded with hasbara.
Of course it is about boycotting. Naomi Klein is leading an effort to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. How can you separate her words and actions 48 hours apart?
Is she of multiple personalities, and we should know that?
So the point is Richard? This rogue nation cannot even handle a precursor to the BDS, which has not even been invoked yet. It is just a demonstration that Israel plans on full speed ahead with the genocidal process, that there is no alternate plan, so BDS might as well just commence now.
I wish Howard Zinn would remember his two chapters on the New York Irish around the Civil War.
On the one hand they were heroes for objecting to the draft. On the other hand, they were villains for lynching free blacks in racist invocations of “they are the reason we are in the war”.
The same applies to Zionism, and to Tel Aviv historically and presently.
No simplistic story. He and others that are thoughtful enough, should know better to be concise in their commentary.
As I said before, Howard was a hero of mine, so much so that I invested $10,000 to produce an audiobook of “A People’s History”, and lost $9,000. (It was a lot of money to me, a serious commitment on my part.)
I was very upset when he signed the solidarity with resistance statement around Lebanon in 2006. (Meaning solidarity with Hezbollah.) He is smarter than that, or was.
He can speak up, but to endorse that form of solidarity is beyond me.
“I was very upset when he signed the solidarity with resistance statement around Lebanon in 2006. (Meaning solidarity with Hezbollah.) He is smarter than that, or was.”
That is commendable Richard, what you did for Howard. He is just as smart as he ever was Richard, and what does that make you? You are a shill for anything Israel does Richard, that has a way of deteriorating the mind after a period of time. As Israel sinks further into the abyss so will you, you have turned you’re brain off and have lost you’re moral bearing. As I have said before regarding the indiscriminate supporters of Israel, no matter what atrocity – your mind has sunk into the abyss of the deep South, and soon you will be doing this –
HAVING A GOOD OL’ PARTY
There is no way that I am a “shill”. You are frustrated that I am not anti-Zionist as you think any right-thinking progressive should be.
The only sense that I am a “shill” is in that I believe that Israel deserves acceptance and equal rights from the international community, including the international community of dissenters.
Not “special” rights, not specially pro, not specially anti.
Only a shill would pretend that Israel has somehow been denied acceptance and equal rights from the international community. If anything, Israel has been enjoyed preferential and exclusive treatment.
Howard is wonderful man, who is also fallible and cornered.
I saw him speak about five years ago at my alma mater, Marlboro College in Vermont. He spoke about his wish, his guilt, at bombing Germans and Hungarian installations towards the end of WW2 as a bombardier. A noble sentiment to acknowledge that his actions during war resulted in suffering and death, even if for a general important cause. He spoke of the preference for finding non-violent means to have dealt with naziism. Certainly a very contreversial perspective to take.
I saw him in Northampton, MA about ten years earlier, argue the same point to which artist Leonard Baskin questioned him if that were truly an ethical perspective to take. It was a moving exchange between two strongly ethical souls.
Leonard very much appreciated the sentiment that Howard was attempting to explore.
The Howard that signed the solidarity letter referring to Hezbollah, was not the same Howard as committed to the sentiment of assertive non-violence to the extent of non-violence relative to the naziis.
After the lecture at Marlboro College, my wife went up to Howard, hugged him, and thanked him for bombing the German and Hungarian installations, as she might not have been alive if he didn’t, that his actions might have been the tipping ones.
My wife and I produced an audiobook of A People’s History of the United States in 1992, and I had met Howard a couple times prior (he hadn’t met her).
The invasion and bombing of Lebanon was a repeated display, it did not just happen once Richard but several times. When people are the victims of an invasion they have a right to self-defense, it is the same self-defense that Israel claims for itself (and I might add it is now the premium excuse falsely made for the wars and massacres of choice that Israel has made, both foreign and domestic). Those who claim other means can be used to address overt and indiscriminate aggression launched by Israel against both the Palestinians and the Lebanese is the luxury of people who have not been victims, or it is a totally disingenuous excuse for condemnation.
Israel’s use of military force is totally indiscriminate between civilians and any opposing force. As an example, in the 2006 invasion Israel started by selective bombing, but soon reverted to indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population. Why? Because this is all they know, from repeatedly doing it to the Palestinians – their expertise is in killing women, children, and old people – bombing domestic residences and vital services. It is not in bombing installations and valid targets.
It is a total disregard for innocent human life, and is done because they have convinced themselves of the inhumanity of who they bomb – calling them “animals and cockroaches. ” If you go to the Spielberg archive and listen to the charges against Der Sturmer and its chief contributor Julius Streicher –
“The Jewish people ought to be exterminated root and branch. Then the plague of pests would have disappeared in Poland also at one stroke.”
“The Jew is a devil in human form. It is fitting that he be exterminated root and branch.”
“The Jewish rabble will be exterminated like the weeds and vermin…”
Now compare these statements that have been made with those against the Palestinians – animals on two legs, cockroaches (vermin), devils walking the streets, a plague, etc. These are statements about a people (similar statements made about the surrounding Arab countries), not about an element of the people, and there is an exercise not only against the Palestinians in the OT but even the Israeli citizenry.
Hence the right of the Lebanese to self-defense, as expressed by Zinn is not merely solidarity with an isolated Hezbollah, they are over a third of the population in Lebanon. All the people of Southern Lebanon were attacked, not just some official force – however, this is par for the course, as reflected in the recent attack against the Palestinians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. It is actually old news, it is escalating and it needs to cease.
Perhaps Minnie Driver is compensating for being too cozy with Arabs, like Nicole Kidman:
NICOLE KIDMAN – KIDMAN DINES WITH GADDAFI’S SON
link to contactmusic.com
NICOLE KIDMAN SIGNS ANTI-HEZBOLLAH PETITION, SUPPORTS ISRAEL 2006 BOMBARDMENT OF LEBANON
NICOLE Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism. The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today’s Los Angeles Times newspaper. It specifically targets “terrorist organisations” such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. “We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas,” the ad reads. “If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die. “We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs.” A who’s who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad. The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt. Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names. Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.
link to chronwatch-america.com
The Day Nicole Kidman Shamed Our Nation
(by signing a petition supporting Israel 2006 bombing of Lebanon)
link to newsblaze.com
Pingback: counterattack! Minnie Driver, Natalie Portman | JewPI