The UN fact finding mission into the Israeli attack on Gaza led by South African Justice Richard Goldstone has finally released its long awaited report. From the UN press release:
NEW YORK / GENEVA – The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.
The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel. . .
The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip. During the Israeli military operation, code-named "Operation Cast Lead," houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed. Families are still living amid the rubble of their former homes long after the attacks ended, as reconstruction has been impossible due to the continuing blockade. More than 1,400 people were killed during the military operation.
Significant trauma, both immediate and long-term, has been suffered by the population of Gaza. The Report notes signs of profound depression, insomnia and effects such as bed-wetting among children. The effects on children who witnessed killings and violence, who had thought they were facing death, and who lost family members would be long lasting, the Mission found, noting in its Report that some 30 per cent of children screened at UNRWA schools suffered mental health problems.
The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.
In addition to looking at the fighting in Gaza, the report also comments on Israeli crack down on dissent in the West Bank:
The Report also covers violations arising from Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators, sometimes resulting in deaths, increased closures, restriction of movement and house demolitions. The detention of Palestinian Legislative Council members, the Report says, effectively paralyzed political life in the OPT.
The Mission found that through activities such as the interrogation of political activists and repression of criticism of its military actions, the Israeli Government contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent was not tolerated.
More later, read the entire report here.
Here’s how the NYTimes titles its coverage of the report:
“U.N. Finds Signs of War Crimes on Both Sides in Gaza”
I just read the NYT story and actually it didn’t seem bad. It’s light years ahead of the kind of talk you’d likely find from American pundits, who are still afraid to talk about Israeli war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
I was interested by these words from the Hamas advisor–
“Regarding the panel’s findings on the rocket fire into southern Israel, he said: “Hamas only has primitive rockets, and we used these primitive rockets to try to defend ourselves. We wish we had smart bombs to ensure that we could target precise military targets. We did not intentionally target civilians. We were targeting military bases but the primitive weapons make mistakes.” ”
These Hamas guys have learned to talk like Westerners and rationalize their indiscriminate fire in exactly the terms used by Israeli apologists (or Western apologists in general.) I almost expected him to say something like “The rocket fire was justified , but the rules of engagement were violated, in part because the Israelis used their civilians as human shields.” They have the rhetoric down pat. They’re already more plausible-sounding than Richard.
You’ll appreciate the NYT story much more if you watch the grossly incompetent Gwenn Ifill covering the story on the Lehrer Newshour. First she interviews Richard Goldstone and asks (seriously), how the report could be fair since the Israeli government did not participate. (Nevermind that they chose not to participate.) She then interviews Ambassador Michael Oren who trashes the UN up and down, without one demurral from Ifill, and gives his version of the history (Israel withdrew and all we got were rockets–no indication of any Israeli violence and no mention of the blockade). Plus we heard about the great care that Israel always takes to avoid civilian casualties. Again, no challenge from Ifill. So the Israeli ambassador has the last word–they don’t even think of putting on an Arab or even an Israeli human rights worker to challenge what Oren said and obviously Ifill is either too ignorant or too cowardly to do anything about his dishonesty.
I’m sure, though, a certain commenter here would think it was balanced. The irony is that Richard Goldstone himself seemed very diffident, very low key, if anything willing to lean over backwards to allow that Israel had the right to challenge the accuracy of his own report. He already provided the balance. It’s not clear what journalistic balance is supposed to mean anyway–apparently to the Newshour it’s the balance of an honest man trying to do his job vs. a professional liar.
Coverage in the US press is getting better, but you still see crap like this.
I hope people are smart enough to see through the charade at PBS. It and NPR are Zionist-occupied territory. Thank goodness for the internet.
No new information in the assessment, and the New York Times reported it right per the content in the article, and Adam reported it more selectively (biased).
Read the release, then read the report itself before critiquing.
The tag paragraph in the UN release says:
The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action, the Report says. The Mission found the Government of Israel had not carried out any credible investigations into alleged violations. It recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel to report to it, within six months, on investigations and prosecutions it should carry out with regard to the violations identified in its Report. The Mission further recommends that the Security Council set up a body of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli investigations and prosecutions. If the experts’ reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the ICC Prosecutor. The Mission recommends that the same independent expert body also report to the Security Council on proceedings undertaken by the relevant Gaza authorities with regard to crimes committed by the Palestinian side. As in the case of Israel, if within six months there are no good faith independent proceedings conforming to international standards in place, the Council should refer the situation to the ICC Prosecutor.
Do you know what this “balanced” demand will probably produce? The ICC going after the Palestinians while the Israelis dance away from the scene of the crime. Have you ever noticed how the ICC seems to always get its man? I mean it always goes after the oppressed and weak countries, especially those fingered by the ever “vigilant” Euro-American alliance. It has yet to touch one hair on the head of any “developed” country.
Just the opposite. The Times article contains the usual methods of attempting to smooth over Israeli atrocities although, on the whole, it’s not as bad as the norm, likely because the report itself is so heavy in its documentation of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity, that there is really no way to gloss over these facts.
What the Times will now do, if history is any guide, is spend the next few days publishing a bunch of rebuttals of the report by Israeli advocates, with the intent that in a couple weeks, the report itself will be forgotten, and the focus will be again on all the evil Israel is surrounded by, through no fault of its own.
Adam’s piece mirrored the report, while the Times did not. The Times said, “The report, the bulk of which focused on the Israeli violations…”
The bulk of the report focused on the Israeli violations because the bulk of the violations were committed by Israel.
“Violations” is a nice word. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Times article also placed the Palestinian violations (I’ll use their word) at the beginning of the article, along with the Israeli response denying any culpability. This despite the fact that the bulk of the crimes are by Israel. Par for the course.
The Times: “…during which some 1,200 Palestinians were killed, including at least several hundred civilians, and 13 Israelis died, 10 soldiers and 3 civilians.”
At least several hunbred civilians? A majority of civilians, as was the intent as announced by Israel, and hundreds of children and babies.
Israel didn’t cooperate with the investigation, but opened many of its own.
Is there any better definition of a rogue state?
Will there be any accountability? Or will the government of Israel spin these findings too?
wondering how the campaign to rebrand Israel’s policies will spin this one.
Thanks for Mondoweiss
“wondering how the campaign to rebrand Israel’s policies will spin this one.”
See Witty’s post above.
LOL. Bull’s eye. Witty reminds me of some abused hillbilly gal singing “Stand By Your Man.” No matter how many times Phil and Adam tell him to get out of the relationship he stays in it, always thinking he’s actually The Man.
“The Palestinians committed war crimes (too).”
always flipping the script
Who has the power?
“Or will the government of Israel spin these findings too?
When you consider that the NYTimes article reports Tel Aviv’s denial in paragraph four, even BEFORE getting to the accusations, I think we can assume maximum spin control.
The Israeli response is the product of selective reading. As in, ignoring a credible investigation.
Israeli response: The statement said the mission’s mandate “was clearly one-sided and ignored the thousands of Hamas missile attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza operation necessary.”
The report: found the Palestinians at fault for rocket fire into southern Israel, which “caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel as well as loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property.”
If you did not hear Naomi Klein on Democracy Now yersterday. Worth It
No Celebration of Occupation: 1,500 Artists and Writers Sign Letter Protesting Toronto Film Festival Decision to Spotlight Tel Aviv
Tiff-web
A protest at the Toronto International Film Festival has taken center stage after a group of artists and writers signed a letter of protest against the festival’s decision to spotlight the city of Tel Aviv. Activists say the TIFF spotlight plays into Israel’s attempt to improve its global image in the wake of the assault on the Gaza Strip and the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land. Over 1,500 people have signed the letter, called “The Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation,” including Jane Fonda, Viggo Mortensen, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. We speak with journalist and author Naomi Klein, who helped draft the letter. [includes rush transcript]
link to democracynow.org
naomi as well as Medea Benjaman of Code Pink have jumped on the truth bus in regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict the last few years. they would be wise to give credit for the actions of the past and focus on this issue to Former President Jimmy Carter, Edward Said, Archbishop Tutu, Norman Finkelstein, Art and Peggy Gish and so many more who have been focused on this issue for a very long time.
I have often noticed that when folks jump on a justice bus some individuals have the tendency to act like this is a new movement or issue that they have inspired (Naomi has not done this) but folks would be wise to honor all of those who have come before them working for justice in the middle east
Well, look on the bright side, opposition to the occupation is entering–tentatively–into the mainstream.
And while certainly the pioneers should be honored for wandering in the wilderness for so long, perhaps new blood equals new energy and exposure.
And if some hollywood types get all egoed-up about their newfound awareness, so what?
Even if you are not a humble and honest person and mention all of the folks who have been working on this critical issue for years.
Too often people take credit for movements that have preceded their involvement and it is rather pathetic and shallow. Give the credit where the credit is due…much bigger person for it
It would help if Naomi and Amy Goodman et al would begin to openly discuss Zionism and concentrated media and financial power, as Phil and Adam do.
I can just imagine the canned hasbara I will get (at taxpayer expense) when I inform my congress people about this
UN fact finding report and ask them, is this what we taxpayers so disproportionately fund Israel to achieve?
You’re such an antisemite for even asking such questions, Citizen. And you’re just way too involved in the governmental process. Please go back to watching American Idol. There is nothing to see here. Thank you.
Both the NYT and the press release itself support the “biased” view that Israeli forces committed far more and far greater crimes against humanity than Hamas / the Palestinians could muster.
As long as ZOG countries like the US, France and Britain has veto powers in the UN – the world body cannot take action against Israel. Israel has already thrown more than 39 UN resolution against it in dustbin.
Early this year – Turkish prosecutors are investigating Israel for War Crimes during its recent Zionazi invasion of Gazzah – on complaint from Turkish Human Right organization MAZLUMDER. The organization has demanded that Zionist leaders should be arrested and tried under Turkish law if they enter Turkey.
In Paris, French lawyer Gilles Dovers is handling 500 complaints submitted by Arabs, Europeans, and Latin American officials – calling for the “open investigation into war crimes“ committed by Israeli forces during the three weeks invasion of Gazzah.
International War Crimes probe against Israel
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
TODAY’S HA’ARETZ:
“Israeli envoy to UN: Report even harsher than imagined
Israel’s envoy to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, on Tuesday called the commission’s findings even “harsher” than Israel could have imagined.
“We did not want to cooperate with the commission from the beginning, because its mandate has always been one-sided,” said Shalev. “The Human Rights Council is known as a body constantly critical of Israel.”
I like the last part where is says the HRC is constantly critical of Israel. Gee, how did that come to be. Israel has been a human rights violator for a very very very long time. So many came to question the information given during the Gaza offensive, but the truth is that it is the same Isreal that invaded Lebanon twice and reigned terror in the west bank and Gaza since 1967. cluster bombs, shatila and sabra refuge camps….. nothing has changed except our point of view. Israel is gone beyond image repair at last…..
Here’s the money quote:
I>”This is going to be a long legal and diplomatic operation,” said a senior Israel official familiar with the report. “We’ll get our friends across the world active, especially the United States, to prevent the isolation of Israel.”
We should begin to see this activity here already.
link to haaretz.com
Israel responds to UN war probe: On which planet was the Gaza they visited?
By Haaretz Service
Tags: Gaza war crimes, Hamas, IDF
The Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that Israel was “appalled and disappointed” by a damning United Nations report following an investigation of the Israel Defense Forces’ offensive on the Gaza Strip earlier this year.
United Nations investigator Judge Richard Goldstone said that his commission had found that both Israel and the Palestinians actions amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, during the December 27-January 18 in the Hamas-ruled territory.
“The UN body has dealt a huge blow to governments seeking to defend their citizens from terror,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.
If Israel would like to know how the U.N. conducts their investigations, perhaps they should agree to join them sometime, as opposed to refusing to take part and then conducting “many of their own,” the classic behavior of a rogue state.
“The UN body has dealt a huge blow to governments seeking to defend their citizens from terror,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.
Defend?
————————–
The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip. During the Israeli military operation, code-named “Operation Cast Lead,” houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed.
. . .
More than 1,400 people were killed during the military operation.
. . .
The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
. . .
The report states that “Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.”
For example, Chapter XI of the report describes a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched “direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome.” . . . The incidents described include:
Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
Seven incidents concerning “the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so;”
The targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people.
A number of other incidents the Report concludes may constitute war crimes include a direct and intentional attack on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City.
————————–
We need to remember the lead up to the attack. There was truce of sorts where Israel violated the terms of agreement to let goods and services into Gaza. They kept Gaza bottled up. Hamas stopped the rockets for a very long time until Israel had a commando raid or such and killed some Palestinians inside Gaza. The resumption of rockets was a response to Israeli belligerence.
If memory serves that commando raid happened in November. Some Pals for some odd reason simply don’t like being in an open air prison 24/7. Perhaps by spiritual osmosis they communicated with dead Jews from the old Warsaw Ghetto?
11/4 border skirmish – Israel fired first, unclear if justified or not
11/4-18 regular border skirmishes
11/18-12/17 Hamas/IDF quiet, some clashes between IDF and other factions, Hamas stopped enforcing cease-fire on other factions, but maintained it themselves
12/17-12/27 Factions then Hamas shelling Sderot, then Ashkelon, then Beersheba. Repeated incremental warnings by IDF that they would have to respond militarily if shelling continued
12/28 Major strategically targeted military operation, that gradually lost its focus and exceeded its rules of engagement. Hamas militia went underground to the extent they could, leaving Gazan civilians exposed. (Reported to be prepared for operation by IDF, specifically to expose Hamas militia-men and kill them.)
Way to minimize Israeli aggression, Witty.
Richard Witty,
Your timeline conveniently omits that Israel continued with a blockade of goods and supplies into Gaza during the entire time of the cease-fire [a reduction of more than 80% from pre-blockade flows]. It was Hamas’ understanding that the flow into Gaza was to be substantially increased as part of that cease-fire. As you should recall, a military blockade is a casus belli. The Israelis claimed as much in justifying the 1956 and 1967 wars.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to globalexchange.org
link to csmonitor.com
“11/4 border skirmish – Israel fired first, unclear if justified or not”
Isrel fired period and killed 7. No evidence that it was justified and the story given by the Israelis doesn’t hgold water.
“12/17-12/27 Factions then Hamas shelling Sderot, then Ashkelon, then Beersheba. Repeated incremental warnings by IDF that they would have to respond militarily if shelling continued”
The definition of response is when the other guy starts the fight. Israel had already started the conflict on the 4th of November.
“Hamas militia went underground to the extent they could, leaving Gazan civilians exposed.”
Rubbish. Israel atacked civlians from day 1, choosing the hour of their attack to correspond to the hour that Palestinian children return from school.
Bruce,
Of course Richard’s timeline will omit the failure on Israel’s part to lift the blockade and that according to Israel in 1967, a blockade is an act of war.
The fact that Hamas stuck to the ceasefire in spite of Israel’s ongoing act of war demonstrates Hamas’ discipline and determination to maintain peace and stick to the ceasfire, yet the only comment you will hear from Ricahrd is that it is up to the Palestinians to maintain discipline and not upset the Israelis, who are of course, blameless by definition.
The blockade was established during the most gruesome period of Hamas terror which then morphed to regular rocket-fire directed at civilians in Sderot.
I’m not sure what I would have done. What would you have done, as an Israeli government official?
I consider the story a great tragedy, Shakepearean scale of miscommunication and mutual deception.
It is true that the Gazans have nowhere to go, and that even with the Egyptian tunnels accepted (ironically, as with a border the crossing is controlled, while smuggling is by definition not controlled).
Its also necessary to note multiple occassions of Hamas terror incidents directed at border guards.
The tragedy is constructed of the failure to accept Israel as Israel and the preceding history of terror as chosen means creating an enormous obstacle of trust.
“By any means necessary”, especially if those means create near permanent alienation, is NOT the most effective or most humane approach.
I give Hamas a greater degree of credit, of power in the situation than you do. You imply that Hamas is powerless, that its decisions, its choices affect nothing.
I disagree. I think Hamas creates its world, creates the world for Gazans now, in its sole governship of Gaza.
Again, the path forward is unification with the PA, surrender to the authority of democracy unconditionally, if they win or if they lose, then move forward and negotiate a peace with Israel.
Less than that is just delay.
Witty: “The tragedy is constructed of the failure to accept Israel as Israel and the preceding history of terror as chosen means creating an enormous obstacle of trust.”
What does accepting “Israel as Israel” mean to a Palestinian?
Who’s “preceding history of terror as chosen means” do you mean? Palestine
existed on world maps in 1947. Israel did not.
Start with why Hamas has ever shot off rockets. It is in response to the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the expansion of illegal settlements.
To use one of your favorite expressions, Richard, l a m e, really lame.
Haaretz Service …hasen/spages/…
Notice in Richard’s summary there is nothing about Israel’s blockade of Gaza. That matters a great deal to Gazans, but Witty the compassionate peacemaker says Israel’s actions here are all the fault of Hamas. OTOH, poor Richard gets all upset over lefty support for a (much milder) boycott of Israel–apparently that boycott would not be Israel’s fault, but the fault of lefties who don’t hold Witty’s double standards on human rights.
The timeline should go back to 1948, when the first Palestinian refugees were driven into Gaza. More ended up there in following years, and then in 1967 after its conquest by Israel many Palestinians there were ‘internally displaced’ by Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization within Gaza. Gaza is the unsqueezed end of the toothpaste tube, and the whole sordid multi-decadal process of Israeli squeezing is most certainly relevant to any assessment of motivation for violence inflicted by either side, and appropriate accountability for it.
It is also critical to note that it was no coincidence that the ceasefire-violating Israeli raid on 4 November took place when American news organizations were utterly focused on our Presidential election. The chances are infinitesimal that a ceasefire-violating Israeli raid potentially ruining any chance of a new truce just happened to occur on probably the best day in 4-6 years for it to avoid being noticed by the (crucial to Israeli support) American public, and yet provoke Palestinians to respond when the press would once again be looking for stories with which to regale said public, making Palestinians look like the aggressors. It was a deft piece of work.
It might have been a deft piece of work, hoever, Israel seriously overplayed their hand in the subsequent attack on Gaza, and the whole thing has backfired on them.
Israel has passes the point of reason and is now a derranged entity.
Its easy to convince oneself.
I don’t disregard the blockade as a concern.
The reality of the agreement though is that it is unclear whether Israel agreed to life the blockade, or if Hamas merely hoped that it would, having demanded it.
They were never in the same room together. The only individuals that were in the room for both parties consent, are Egyptians, and some of the individuals in the room for both parties’ consent, condemned the Hamas resumption of shelling, and escalation of shelling.
That says to me, that the presumption of the agreement as interpreted by the left and by Hamas, is questionable.
Apply skepticism rather than gullibility, please.
After skepticism, your conclusion may bear out. But, without questioning at all, only repitetition of fairly naked propaganda, it is not convincing to someone that sincerely paid close attention as the issue was unfolding.
The path to removing the blockade, really the only path, is for Hamas to agree to become a permanently consenting party of the PA, even if they disagree fundamentally with decisions of the current PA.
And then, for the PA to negotiate with Israel assertively but respectfully for viable borders.
Otherwise, the Gaza coast will be understood internationally as a zone of piracy, not governed by international law of the seas or ports. Its only path to viability is through the conventional, as much as they have to hold their nose to do it.
Richard,
It’s easy to convince oneself. Is this your theme song?
The reality is that under international and humanitarian law the blockade should have been halted no matter what was agreed between Hamas and Israel. What party would willingly agree to a 80% blockade of itself? The blockade was illegal and an an act of war.
If you had bothered to read the references I posted before providing your enlightenment on the subject you would have noticed that even the Israeli government acknowledged it had a commitment to ease the blockade.
The Israeli government says it has every intention of carrying out its commitments under the ceasefire agreement, and easing restrictions on Gaza.
Who is the gullible one here and who is the skeptic? I research matters before offering commentary. I am highly offended that you would write, “But, without questioning at all, only repetition of fairly naked propaganda, it is not convincing to someone that sincerely paid close attention as the issue was unfolding.” To what exactly were you paying close attention? The hasbara coming out of Israel as your critics on this site often claim?
You further write, “The path to removing the blockade, really the only path, is for Hamas to agree to become a permanently consenting party of the PA, even if they disagree fundamentally with decisions of the current PA.” without giving any reasons for this declaration. Are you acknowledging that unless the Palestinians, either Hamas or the PA, agree to Israeli dictates, they will be kept on a “minimum diet,” subject to occupation, or even worse locked up in internment camps? Kind of blows away your frequent claims of even-handed humanistic concern.
Ok, Witty–
I condemn the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians as war crimes.
See? Every so often, it’s not terribly difficult to make an ethical judgment without appeals to “nuance”.
With that off the table, are you able to condemn the report’s cited instances of Israeli war crimes without equivocation?
The point of “its easy to convince oneself” is in the denial of the valid or even potentially valid points of the “other”.
Solidarity with resistance commonly states, “we defer to the authority of the victims”. Even when they undertake a suicidal approach, silence or justification on the part of “solidarity”.
For example, the repetition of the mantra “Israel broke the cease fire on November 4″ was a chosen starting point to justify the resumption of shelling, even as the cease-fire was restored later. (I tried to gather my citations from Haaretz during the period, but couldn’t figure out how to retrieve prior articles).
Chosen starting points, rather than acknowledgement of the other’s experience and reasoning, and working with that, even if to call their bluff.
Richard,
For you and me, the “other” is the Palestinians. So did you write “its easy to convince oneself” as an admonishment to yourself or to me? I read your comments to this posting as validating the Israeli point-of-view and fail to see your understanding of the “other”.
Nor does the rest of your reasoning fit with the discussion or the facts. You were the one who raised November 4th as the starting point for justifying the Gaza action. The cease-fire ended not because of the events around November 4th, but because Israel refused to ameliorate the blockade, which I repeat was and is a cause for war.
Hamas was not against renewing the cease-fire per se, it was against a continuation of the status quo with respect to the blockade. The sequence of events around November 4th are only relevant because the Israelis in their hasbara insisted that Hamas broke the cease-fire. Ha’aretz reported that the Israelis had been planning the operation in Gaza for many months before the cease-fire broke down.
You also wrote, “The blockade was established during the most gruesome period of Hamas terror which then morphed to regular rocket-fire directed at civilians in Sderot.” The severe blockade (80% reduction of supplies) was imposed after economic sanctions were placed on the PNA, which followed from Hamas winning control of the Palestinian government. The implementation of the blockade was not directly related to the severity of Hamas terror. It was the result of a US-Israeli decision not to accept the results of the election. Moreover, the Hamas military takeover of Gaza was a countercoup against the attempt by Mohammad Dahlen to stage his own coup in Gaza. This coup was backed by Secretary of State Rice, and most likely the CIA since Dahlen has always been their man within the Palestinian leadership.
I’m not hewing water here for Hamas, but you always leave out relevant facts that don’t support your contorted conclusions.
Bruce,
Here, I am the “other”. For anti-Zionists, Zionists are the “other”, the “oriental”.
The sequence of events constructs a CONFLICT, fundamentally a tit for tat interaction.
And, as such, the conflict is solved by mediation, with a prerequisite of enough trust and mutual validation to get to some mediative process, even if by proxy. That is further than a temporary hudna.
Israel is still waiting for the acknowledgement by solidarity clearly, that it is accepted, that its existence is accepted.
The significance for example of the one-state proposals, is that that is not the case, that the intent is to not only oppose Zionism philosophically (as one must oppose any nationalism, or even federalism as containing contradictions with something fundamental), but also to seek its demise as Israel.
Israel feels justified in responding militarily, and I agree.
If the two questions were separated, “should Israel have responded militarily?”, from “should Israel have responded so severely?”, you might find more respect for the dissenting perspective, and more clarity as to argument.
The invocation, “look what Israel did to Gaza”, conflates the two questions.
On a slightly unrelated topic, Israel is now resorting to paid adverts describing the ‘facts’ of its recent attack on Gaza. I saw a link to this site in an ad on the HuffPo website.
The ad itself just said:
Gaza. Hamas. Conflict.
Facts!
Click here
Israel is going to have serious difficulty in convincing the world that it was right to kill 1300 Gazans, the majority of them unarmed civilians, in order to send George Bush off in style. The hasbara doesn’t work as it used to in the good old days and operation Cast Lead was worth another few nails in the coffin.
Isee from Haaretz that the usual hysteria -the world is against us- has started. Israel’s response is to send Lieberman to the world to argue the justness of Israel’s cause. It would be more honest to leave him at home and save on the carbon emissions.
The second paragraph of the press release has the ‘symmetrical accusations’. I can live with that and one learns to compensate, but sometimes it’s good to compare. Imagine you want your subordinates to report their best judgement to you (possibly also imagine you have subordinates). Is this such a report?
A report that just would try to present good judgement would prioritize, there would be a hierarchy of crimes and it could well end up only listing the crimes of one side, which is of course impossible to get accepted. Well it depends on who the one side is I suppose.
I wonder if there is something of a mechanism we could call “staircase of balanced reporting”, where dangerous statements can at best end up as symmetrical accusations. You start with a report that usually is already heavily compromised because it has to be able to withstand accusations of bias.
It will only report things it has hard evidence for , which is very different from a best guess. If you have hard proof that x iraqis died in battles , x will not be the best estimate, just a lower limit. The report has to include all the accusations from the other side, even if the extent of the crime is on a completely different scale.
So the report already will give a distorted impression of symmetry. Then somebody makes a report on that , like this press release. This one again tries to give a balanced listing of the points of interest. Any statement that is could be suspected of being more radical than the source should be avoided and after all, people can go to the source so let’s play it safe. Then this is reported again. In the NYTimes. You could suspect them of bias but actually a lot of it is plain ‘playing safe’. Then other newspapers take there queue from the NYTimes and again if they want to be able to defend themselves against accusations they shouldn’t be more radical than the reference.
The online report in my newspaper is playing it safe. You know the UN report exists. There is a good statement about the collective punishment. There are 7 paragraphs, the actual accusations bland enough to cover a wide range of scenarios. The paragraph on the palestinian crimes is repeated in the insert. One paragraph is about the official Israeli reaction. One paragraph mentions the people killed. As usual there are civilians and ‘others’.
Imagine working with such people. ” I want a briefing of your best judgement and what do I get? CYA reporting!”
This is a stunning indictment. There’s no credible way to spin the Goldstone report with hasbara.
“There’s no credible way to spin the Goldstone report with hasbara. ”
That won’t stop Ricahrd from trying.
Incidentally I just responded – at another website – to an attempt to do just that. They seem to be going for character assassination. Since Goldstone himself is teflon, seeing how he’s Jewish and has a spotless record all around, they try to dig up dirt on his assistance, for example Christine Chinkin who had the gall to dispute Israels ius ad bellum before the fact finding mission – which basically is about ius in bello was finished.
Of course, “credible” depends on who’s counting.
“The comparison between those who pursue terror and terror victims is inconceivable,” a source close to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday, after the release of the Goldstone Report – the UN inquest into the Israeli offensive in Gaza in early 2009.
The report, added the source, “Not only rewards terror it also encourages it… The defense establishment is gearing to give legal counsel to IDF officers and the proper legal and diplomatic steps are already underway in order to render this report invalid.”
The rational way to present it is that Israel committed what are recommended to be considered war crimes in some methods that they employed in their military effort.
AND, that Hamas committed what recommended to be considered war crimes in its initiation of the state of war by shelling civilian towns prior to military engagement.
In all of 2008 there were 8 Israelis killed by rockets or mortar fire from Gaza and 4 of those were in december after the incursion by Israel. There were a lot of rockets and I assume that there were plenty of traumatized Israelis but I think Israel played the situation the way they wanted, they just didn’t expect anyone to mind.
Israel initiated the war on November 4th. You can avoid addressing that reality all you like Ricahrd, but as you can clearly see, no one is buying your cherry picked revisionism.
Excuse me the International World Court has determined as well as the UN that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and has been for years. That the wall built at some points on Palestinian lands is illegal. And that the settlements are illegal.
What is Hamas supposed to do offer them an olive branch. Israel has wiped out most of the Palestinians olive trees
That would be the false way to present it. The claim that Hamas initiated the war is simply a lie.
Every time you post, Witty, you say something even more despicable. This is the problem with Israel – it corrupts, it breeds liars and defenders of the indefensible.
You are committed to the ideology of Israel as inhumane.
I’m committed to the proposition of Israel as human. (not necessarily humane).
Hamas certainly insisted on war, otherwise why would they adopt the strategy of escalate shelling on civilians?
What logic, what objective do you think that served? If they wanted to indicate a deterrence, they would have shelled a few times then stopped. Ten days of more frequent, larger, and longer range rockets.
Hamas adopted the strategy of a response. Clearly peace was achieving nothing in ter of the blockade over the 4 months, so Israel’s descisioon to attack for no reason carried the message that the Palestinians had a choice to suffer in silence or put up a fight, which they did.
Ricahrd calls this an escalation.
What logic did the Warsaw Ghetto uprising serve? Surely the Jews knew the consequences, but had they not resisted, we would not be hailing their courage.
If they escalated, they escalated.
Why the distortion of that?
Hamas didn’t escalate, they responded.
And how is escaltion any more abhorrent that starting the war?
So shelling Sderot after the desert is not escalation?
Or shelling Ashkelon after Sderot is not escalation?
Or shelling Beersheba with larger and more accurate missiles is not escalation?
The reality is as I described, that they insisted that Israel respond militarily, that that initiated a state of war as distinct from a disagreement.
Israel is committed to inhumane practices. That is not ideology, it is fact.
It is correct that Hamas escalated the conflict after Israel initiated it. Your lie is to say that Hamas initiated the conflict by escalating it. “Initiate” means “start.” Israel started the war by breaking the ceasefire on 11/4, that is a fact and anything else is false.
If responding is escalation, then yes, Hamas escalated the conflict by responding. Israel therefore escalated it further by attacking.
Your blinded by myopia Richard. Your logic is based on the fact that Isrle is infinitely more poewerful that Hamas militarily, and thus, you assume the staus quo that their might makes them right. If the tables were turned and Hamas were equally or more poweful militarily, a Hamas “response” would be as descicise as an Israeli one.
At the endof the day, all you are arguing is that the weak guy shouldn’t just take his medicine and never fight back.
Responses to escalation, as a response to escalation as a response to escalation, is the description of a cycle of violence that can only be addressed by mediation, attempting to stop the cycle.
There is no confident starting point, factually. There is for feelings, but each person’s feelings are different. Each have a DIFFERENT stimulating event.
To say “my stimulating event is the only important concern” is a ticket to continued war. I don’t see that benefiting anyone, maybe Hamas a bit in that they can spin “we are heroes” (even though they hid for the civilians to bear the brunt).
In this case, the November 4 skirmishes continued for two weeks (resulting from Israel’s assertion that it detected a prospective abduction tunneling operation, maybe true, maybe false. Maybe a violation of the cease-fire itself, maybe not. If true, it sounds like a violation, no?). After that two week period, BOTH parties publicly stated to their own constituencies “this isn’t working for us”, and restrained from aggression after that point. (Other factions besides Hamas declared, “the cease-fire is no longer binding to us”, but Hamas continued to restrain themselves if not the other factions.)
But, when December 17th came around and Hamas began shelling civilians in Sderot, then Ashkelon, then Beersheba before any Israeli military response, they defined themselves as initiating a state of war.
Things need to change. But, raging and historical revision to fit an ideology, is not the way that they will change.
So you admit that blaming Hams for exacalation is a weak argument at best, if not outright propaganda Ricahrd?
Israel’s assertion about an abduction tunneling operation, is false, plane and simple. Such a plot would be known through intelligence, and knowing about it would have removed the thread. If Israel wanted to make an exampole of Hamas, they could have planted a trap on their side of the border and waited, or simple made sure no IDF troops were stationed near the entrance, buit nrithe rof these options woudl have given Isrle what they wanted – a chance to resume hostilities with Hamas.
Instead, Israel bombed the tunnel, knowing there would be no way to prove or disprove their claim, just like their false claims that Hamas were using human shields.
There was no cesatino of hostilities from that point. You have made this claim a number of times and I have repetaely challenged you to produce a link to this report, but you have fialed to do so.
Indeed, raging and historical revision to fit an ideology is not the way to go, so why do you insist on it?
How in the hell do they get Israel out of the occupied territories and to stop expanding and building illegal settlements? UN resolutions sure have not done the job
By persuading, and proposing alternatives, and supporting the application of alternatives that have a prospect of success at realizing mutual benefit.
It takes efforts and some pressure on all parties.
The most militant on both sides are the largest obstacles and their even tentative but real change, can make what is difficult possible. Others outside can also help.
Say, like Saudi Arabia making even token elements of acceptance, rather than remaining entirely aloof.
Iran, who knows about. They are constantly instigating.
Very interesting piece by Aluf Benn in Ha’aretz: link to haaretz.com
Last, and perhaps most important, the Goldstone report reinforces the most serious strategic threat Israel brought upon itself with the Gaza offensive, in that it saps international legitimacy for a similar operation in the future.
A country considering attacking the nuclear reactor in Iran, and then endangering itself to rocket fire from Lebanon and Gaza in response, will have to take into account whether the world will give Israel another opportunity for a severe, crushing response.
Conspiracy theory . . . the U.S. all of a sudden joins the UN Council of Human Rights. The next day, Israel receives the Goldstone Report, which will be submitted to the Council of Human Rights in Geneva soon. Hey, tell me this is not a Zionist plot to block the Goldstone Report from being referred to the International Court of Justice in The Hague . . .
link to voanews.com
Sounds about right Oscar. Let’s see what happens…
NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THIS ON MSNBC TONIGHT (unless I missed it) Those damn liberals Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Too damn chicken to report about this UN report. Do their producers have their hands tied. Or do Rachel and Keith just go along.
So far looks like they just go along. So much for their brave and courageous reporting on critical issues
It’s the great divide. People, such as my parents, who only get their news from such sources (and the newspaper) know nothing of this, while much of the internet generation does, although many of the younger generation still stick to mainstream sites like Yahoo or whatever, which also don’t report this stuff. But it’s starting to seep out.
Interesting: I recall chatting with a teenager and his 40ish mom during the ground offensive. The mom was clearly not really aware other than in a vague ‘Oh those awful Arabs are bothering Israel again’ kind of way. What was interesting was the son’s reaction to my statements condemning Israeli actions (and foretelling it would all be over by the inaguaration) – he was stunned to see an adult feeling anguish over it – there was a quick look and flash of recognition that he too knew this was really bad. But even then he didn’t want to deal with him mom’s likely intransigence on the issue and kept quiet.
It was in the New York Times. That is the topic that Phil presented, a New York Times report.
If people don’t know about it, they’re not reading anything.
” It was in the New York Times. That is the topic that Phil presented, a New York Times report. If people don’t know about it, they’re not reading anything. ”
Most people are busy raising children and working (you know keeping your A/C working, fixing your car – that kind of stuff) – so they mostly don’t read the New York Times. The point is that the internet is allowing alternative media outlets to pop up and generally younger folks are hooking into this. Don’t be a snob and please stick to the topic if possible.
My father reads The Star Ledger, which is New Jersey’s number one newspaper, and is incredibly Israeli-centric, perhaps the most of any paper in the country outside of The Times and The Post. This is due in large part, no doubt, to the huge number of wealthy Jewish folks living in New Jersey.
Interestingly, we also read the Philadelphia Inquirer, and although it does offer Trudy Rubin and other Israel apologists, it’s not as nearly Israel-centric on the whole as The Ledger is.
The Ledger prints many Times articles, so my father gets a dose of the NYT, hopefully enough to pass Richard’s literacy test.
Interesting: I recall chatting with a teenager and his 40ish mom during the ground offensive. The mom was clearly not really aware other than in a vague ‘Oh those awful Arabs are bothering Israel again’ kind of way. What was interesting was the son’s reaction to my statements condemning Israeli actions (and foretelling it would all be over by the inaguaration) – he was stunned to see an adult feeling anguish over it – there was a quick look and flash of recognition that he too knew this was really bad. But even then he didn’t want to deal with him mom’s likely intransigence on the issue and kept quiet.
Thank you for relating this. I love the personal anecdotes on this site.
Hamas certainly was responding to something that it objected to, the blockade, and in that sense by their logic they didn’t start the war.
On the other hand, the method that they employed, escalation UNTIL response conflicted with the assertion that they were undertaking something akin to civil disobedience or focused and skillful resistance.
Hamas experienced a great deal of internal dissent over the decision to resume shelling, with the more mature social service oriented wing objecting to the anger of the younger and more politically oriented militants.
Hamas was responding to the overt act of war on the part of Israel on 11/4. They were not responding directly to the blockade, over which they had excerized almost total forebearance, but to Israel’s armed incursion, which killed Gazans.
But those of course were only Arab lives, which mean nothing to you. To Israel, retaliation is a right, but retaliation by Arabs is “terrorism.”
According to IPSNEWS, dateline Washington Jan. 9 a report by Gareth Porter in a story headlined: Mideast: Israel rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December: Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire at a meeting with Egyptian Omar Suleiman in Cairo on Dec. 14, if Israel would be willing to lift the siege on Gaza.
This would indicate that the lack of a cease fire and thus the continued mortar fire from Gaza and thus the Israeli response of a war against Gaza was based on Hamas’s desire to lift the siege, rather than the killing of the Gazans on November 4th.
wj – the siege is also an act of war, but the incursion was an escalation, an additional provocation, and a clear signal that Israel had no intention of lifting the blockade or ceasing to make war.
Certainly Israel has responded with allout war to lesser provocations.
Richard – I was calling my local congressman every day from when Israel first shelled the graduation ceremony of the Gazan cops. I got no real response until several days into the ground operation when the staffer stated flatly: “They are getting their licks in while Bush is still in office”. The timing is just unbelievably convenient – and then it stopped 2 days before the inaguration. I mean – come on.
Of all people I would expect Jewish people to be sensitive to bullying. Many of us ‘lurkers’ are people actually concerned for Israel and our Jewish friends as well as the Palestinian people. But most of all we are concerned about our children’s futures. I have come a long way since 9/11 on my understanding of IP issues, but this Gaza thing really relieved me of any doubt that Israel is largely in the wrong.
There are dinner parties all over this country where guys like me are now willing to bend ears and possible cool friendships and even sacrifice some business relationships if needed to make sure this issues gets aired/thought about. We are doing our homework and we have clean conciences. I am secure in the belief that in the end the truth will be revealed and we will do the right thing and get Israel back within the ’67 borders, etc.
If the US economy gets much worse, and history can attest to this – it could get very bad for Jews. Wake up and smell the coffee friend. Search your soul and pursue what is right, not what is ‘good for the Jews’. In the long run what is good for the Jews, it seems, usually causes a lot of problems for the Jews. Its your call but now you can’t say you weren’t warned by a nice Catholic boy to straighten up and fly right. Take Care.
There is a great deal of people not seeing what the other is experiencing.
You don’t perceive what Israelis feel. You don’t walk in their shoes. And, you accuse the norm of not walking in Palestinians’ shoes, different ones. That doesn’t apply to me. I empathize, meaning that I consider, “what would I do? what would I feel?”
Its just that when one walks in both shoes, rather than one or the other, you still have to evaluate the data that you receive skeptically, questioningly, not gullibly from any official source of information, but still weigh the information that you receive, and not on the basis of volume.
And, in weighing information, there are foundations that won’t change. My assessment of those include:
1. Israelis are not disappearing, and for the extended term they think of themselves as Zionist Israelis predominately, and the most that can change of that perspective is how they are Zionist Israelis. Definitely, who gets elected can change, but only responding to actual conditions, not wished ones.
2. Palestinians are not disappearing.
From those two foundations, I regard the single state proposal as at best a distraction, at worst an attempt to disturb actual peace process (including pressures on Netanyahu) or to strategize to eliminate Israel.
Similarly for BDS, I regard it as an effort to isolate Israel and to force Israel to its knees, to grovel, for some long-standing anger, NOT for the purpose of real peace in the family.
But, from walking in both shoes, acting out long-standing anger is the oppossite of progress, and the oppossite of progressivism.
Where do you get off!!! How dare you claim to know what I do and don’t percieve.
“You don’t perceive what Israelis feel. You don’t walk in their shoes. And, you accuse the norm of not walking in Palestinians’ shoes, different ones. That doesn’t apply to me. I empathize, meaning that I consider, “what would I do? what would I feel?”
Classic: ‘That doesn’t apply to me’ – how telling is that comment.
And you sound like your having some kind of existential crisis in the rest of the post. Buddy, the jig is up. IT IS CLEAR ISREAL KILLED PEOPLE FOR NO GOOD REASON IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY.
Cut the mamby pamby. Defenseless children were killed by the hundreds for no discernable reason other than ‘it could be done’ or ‘let’s teach them a lesson’. I know about the election night raid, etc. I follow this crap every day. I could barely work for 3 weeks while it went on. How dare you think my only angst is due to Palestinian suffering – I also felt concern for Israel.
The Arab Peace Proposal is still on the table…recognition by 20+ Arab nations is easily attained. Just go back to the ’67 borders and normalize relations. What is so hard about that? Do you not have any sense that not taking the deal is becoming increasingly risky for Israel? Do you think all the goyim are idiots?
John wrote: “If the US economy gets much worse, and history can attest to this – it could get very bad for Jews. Wake up and smell the coffee friend. Search your soul and pursue what is right, not what is ‘good for the Jews’. In the long run what is good for the Jews, it seems, usually causes a lot of problems for the Jews. Its your call but now you can’t say you weren’t warned by a nice Catholic boy to straighten up and fly right.”
If anti-Semitism becomes fashionable again in the U.S. it won’t be because of Israel or despite Israel. All the progressive Jews in the world can’t stop the anti-Semites, nice Catholics or otherwise. History amply attests to that.
Elliot: “If anti-Semitism becomes fashionable again in the U.S. it won’t be because of Israel or despite Israel.”
What would it be from then?
Also Elliot – Am I being labeled an anti-semite?
Richard,
You write that neither the Israelis or Palestinians are disappearing. I agree.
But the Zionism of Israelis is subject to change.
Two cases in point:
-15 years ago the 2-state option was taboo in mainstream, Jewish Israeli circles. Now, it’s officially embraced in Israeli politics all the way to the extreme Right.
-Who would have predicted that Ariel Sharon would remove the Gaza settlers?
Why shouldn’t Jewish Israelis decide to live in a democratic state? If the S. African whites could do it, why can’t the Jews in Israel.
John,
What makes you think I was responding to you?
“Two cases in point:
-15 years ago the 2-state option was taboo in mainstream, Jewish Israeli circles. Now, it’s officially embraced in Israeli politics all the way to the extreme Right.
-Who would have predicted that Ariel Sharon would remove the Gaza settlers?
Why shouldn’t Jewish Israelis decide to live in a democratic state? If the S. African whites could do it, why can’t the Jews in Israel. ”
I’m not sure if you are suggesting reforms within Israel, or a single-state democracy.
My own druthers is full and complete reform to a level that the original social idealist Zionist founders incorporated into the primary law, of simultaneously Jewish (and only applied as far as the state is concerned in the form of expedited and encouraged Jewish immigration) and fully democratic.
If you wish are advocating for a single-state, then I would suggest that the standard for advocacy is persuasion. If you can convince Israeli Jews that they don’t need Zionism as protective haven for Jews, that the two groups can CONFIDENTLY and PERMANENTLY co-exist with no danger of persecution, terror or significant civil conflict, and that that is more desirable, please work for that.
But, please note that advocating for a single-state will actively distract from efforts for a peace settlement on the two-state formula. Maybe its a warning, and not an actual advocacy, as Erekat stated last year.
Witty: “1. Israelis are not disappearing, and for the extended term they think of themselves as Zionist Israelis predominately, and the most that can change of that perspective is how they are Zionist Israelis. Definitely, who gets elected can change, but only responding to actual conditions, not wished ones.
2. Palestinians are not disappearing.”
Maybe there’s an extended term the Palestinians also think of themselves as
dispossessed and discriminated against by a far superior military force aided and abetted at every term by the sole superpower in the world? And, yes too, definitely, who gets elected can change, but only responding to actual conditions, such as the seige/occupation, the long-standing blockade against them living even a tad of
normal of life every Jewish Israeli and US citizen enjoys? Seems Witty, although
you walk in both shoes, one of them is way more impervious to sensitivity than
than the other–you’re not really walking, you’re treading along on one foot much more than other, putting out one leg strong, than dragging the other along, over and over again–a grunt in the USA Army use to call that “the stockade shuffle.”
Witty: “From those two foundations, I regard the single state proposal as at best a distraction, at worst an attempt to disturb actual peace process (including pressures on Netanyahu) or to strategize to eliminate Israel.”
From these two unequal shoes, foundations, you don’t ever stand tall as you think.
Nobody here even knows you personally as far as I know, except Phil and he rarely commments on his blog’s posts. At best a distraction is a single state stance? Distraction from what and whom? An attempt to disturb a real peace process?
How so? Do you really think Netanyahu’s proposal of a sovereign rump state
that is not contiguous nor sovereign is a solution the Palestinias would accept?
Would Israeli’s accept such a state? I’m sure you will avoid answering that question. We’re supposed to buy Jews as victims, justifying the state of Israel as Israel defines itself, but not do so for the Palestinians when even you recognize
they have been victims?
Witty: “Similarly for BDS, I regard it as an effort to isolate Israel and to force Israel to its knees, to grovel, for some long-standing anger, NOT for the purpose of real peace in the family.”
Yet you do not regard the BDS against apartheid S Africa as an effort to isolate
that state and to force it to its knees, to grovel, for some long-standing anger. Real peace in what “family” Richared Witty?
Witty: “But, from walking in both shoes, acting out long-standing anger is the oppossite of progress, and the oppossite of progressivism.” You mean like
the jewish seminary students, egged on by the embedded rabbis, who equate
the Palestines with Phillistines?
You’re not walking in both shoes equally Witty, you are a mechanized shuffle telling everyone here with a differing POV they are the ones that are lame.
Buber you are not, not even faintly close.
If you are not aware that I oppose the Netanyahu subordinated Palestine, then you don’t read.
The only comments that I call lame are hateful ones either directed to me personally, or below the belt comments directed at individuals that have a lot of merit, whose ideas are certainly open to criticism.
“If you are not aware that I oppose the Netanyahu subordinated Palestine, then you don’t read.”
The problem is that you claim to oppose Netanyahu’s policies, but then spend the rest of your time raionliazing and justifying what Netanyahu is doing.
If the news people were being honest, they would have noted that during the period when under 20 people were killed by rockets or anything emanating from Gaza, 3000 Gazans, mostly “civilians”, were killed by rockets and other forms of weaponry directed by Israel at Gaza. That excludes the 1400 killed in the December/January invasion. Plus there’s the seige, and continued expansion and conquest of territory by war and refusal to negotiate in good faith. So when Israel says it “has to protect itself,” I really find it mind-boggling.
Indeed,
Richard refers to the rocket attacks on Sderot etc as an outrage, but only half a dozen or so Israelis have been killed in all the year sof rocket attacks. Meanwhile, Isreal’s unprovoked attack on Gaza on the 4th of November killed that many in a matter of minutes and he calls that a skirmish.
It was still an act of war (hence the term “war crimes”, rather than “dialog crimes”.) They just failed to kill. (Thankfully).
“unprovoked attack” (Please at least refer to the event as “unsubstantiated” or “severely doubtful” even.
It was a reposne to an act of war.
This is how Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar desribed Israel’s withdrawl from Gaza and the event sthat have taken place since.
“After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”
So you see Richard, Israel have declared war with Gaza from the minute they withdrew. Israel fired more shells into Gaza over the 12 months that followed their withdrawl than all the rockets that have been fired from Gaza.
Is that an act fo war, or just a skirmish?
Witty, there was nothing whatsoever doubtful about Israel’s unprovoked 11/4 attack on Gaza, nothing unsubstantiated, nothing but naked aggression. An act of war in which they did not fail to kill.
In fact, given Israel’s vice like grip on Gaza from the day they “withdrew”, the reality is that Israel has been escalting the conflict every day ever since.
This parallels the Gaza seige after the capture of Shalit. We’re supposed to believe that evertying started with that one incident, when in fact, the prevoious day, the IDF went into Gaza city and kidnapped two Palestinian brothers (which have never been heard of since).
Richard will tell you howver that it was the Palestinians who escalated the conflict by capturing Shalit. His advice to the Palestinians is that they should take anything Isrle does on the chin, because that is what Isreal does – no need to question it.
Elliot: “If anti-Semitism becomes fashionable again in the U.S. it won’t be because of Israel or despite Israel.”
What would it be from then?
Pick any example out of the bag of history from antiquity until May 15, 1948. Not that I think any such change is imminent or even likely.
And, no, I don’t think it’s anti-semitic of you to suggest that American Jews are in potential jeopardy for supporting Israel.
According to Phil’s and Ethan Bronner’s reports from Gaza, they each described that the Gazan economy was surprisingly more vibrant than they had expected.
That is a tribute to their natural inventiveness, but also the basis of a question of whether the attributions of “vice-like grip” are as representative of what is going as you think?
I don’t know to what extent Israel maintains a “vice-like” grip. To my mind, as Hamas does have the opportunity to reconcile with the PA, which is a path to Palestinian viability and the subsequent opening of international ports, that that logic is questionable.
The reality of Hamas posturing for dominance within the “small sea” (big fish in a small sea) of Palestinian politics, seems to me to be more important historically politically almost than the conflict with Israel.
The practice and ideology of suicide bombing as accepted means, encourages the attitude of subservience of one’s personal life (literally) to the cause. That one’s individual life is secondary. Its a military oath. If the mission is the rise of Hamas, moreso than the rise of Palestine, or moreso than the rise of humanism, that is NOT a progressive approach, but only a petty sectarian one.
Solidarity with a particular faction, IS getting involved in the local political squabble.
Is a blockade not a vice like grip Richard? It’s not like there are ships and trucks arrving and leaving with supplies is there?
Hamas tried to reconcile with the PA, but were denied the opportunity by the Washington and Israeli sponsored coup that attempted to overthrow them.
The practice of of suicide bombing is not ideological, but pragmatic. It was not born or conceived in Palestine. The Japanese used it to some effect in WWII.
As for one’s individual life being secondary, you coudl argue that Isrel deliberately places the lives of it’s citizens by it’s extrmist policies, which they know will provoke a response. Whn Tzipi Livni told the world that a long ceasfire was not in Israel’s stratetic interests, was she not admitting that human life is secondary to the stratetic intersts of the state also?
Please look at your tone and comments Shingo.
I don’t know what criteria you use to assess, “I am doing this right and appropriately”, vs “oh shit, I made a mistake”.
I hope the criteria is compassionate reason, ethics, expressed both politically and personally.
If that is your criteria, then we have a basis to communicate, speaking a common language. If not, then my comments will fall on deaf ears.
It seems to me that you have bought (been sold) the solidarity approach to how you think of Hamas, its decisions and actions.
That would be a great renunciation on your part, a renunciation of your personal integrity on a gamble, to support a political cadre.
Many people do that, and some even morph into productive political roles after, only if they subsequently develop tangible skills to bring to the service of the community they support.
If they remain political only, then they offer less than nothing to the society. They inflame, rather than mentor, rather than implement.
Who’s more compassionate and objective, Phil or Witty? Let’s take a poll. I am especially interested in those here who have read Witty’s comments over the last two years–one difference I see is that Phil implies his compassion, while Witty overtly constantly speaks in terms of abstract compassion, of balance, of “the other,” yet simultaneously Witty constantly ignores the most blatent facts, while positing fractional facts
without the larger context. Witty hates solidarity, as he puts it, as in his POV solidarity always plays the victim card, as if Israel was not born and bred playing the victim card down to this day, using it as club to silence critics. Phil returns t0 things he has said, with a more complex view–it’s a regular pattern of Phil’s–in contrast, Witty has never overtly done this even once in over two years commenting on this blog.
Richard,
Don’t bother lecturing to me about tone and who’s comments are falling on deaf ears. You might have noticed that your “tone” is getting you nowhere because your content is hypocritical and extreme.
Hamas have based its decisions and actions on solidarity or otherwise is irrelvant to the debate. Hamas are the elected leadership of Gaza and thus acted on behalf on the population. The Israeli ledership apprently does the same. The only difference is that once side has a higher probability of wining a military confrontation. Much as you believe it, that doesn’t make them right.
I’m sure my tone is perceived as irritatingly condescending.
I personally think the solidarity approach is flawed, and the compassionate reason, the dual narrative approach is superior ethically and more practical.
The term pragmatism is a critical term.
Many dissenters form what they consider a consistent, idealistic definition of what should and should not be, and their dissent revolves around contrasts between reality and that politically defined “should”.
An alternative way to approach the question is to ask what is possible, and to commit to making that happen.
I believe that persuasion is possible. That the result of a healthy Palestinian community (even if it is in less territory than what should be), as good neighbor to a good neighbor Israeli community, is the best outcome.
I see the social relations of the two communities as more important than the political definitions, that the political definitions (states) at best serve the social needs. In this case, as there remains animosity, violent animosity, that partition is more just and more kind than a single-state.
Accordingly, I see BDS as counter-productive to the effort to improve social relations, as it is by definition isolating, and by definition solely a political approach, rather than a more comprehensive social approach.
Acceptance of the other is the most important message. Assertion of viable needs is a close second. Assertion of historical rights is third (and remediable by compensation).
The definition of relative priorities for the goals of activism is critical, and is a very valid topic of discussion, at length.
“I believe that persuasion is possible. ”
How so Richard? What historical precendent are you drawing upon to arrive at that conclusion?
And if BDS is counter-productive to the effort to improve social relations, as it is by definition isolating, and by definition solely a political approach, rather than a more comprehensive social approach, then how can you justify the far more severe blockade on Gaza?
The justification of the blockade is history of gruesome terror on Israeli (and international) civilians by Hamas, followed by consistent rocket-fire over a period of a decade, also on civilians.
Did you hear my point about shifting your tone to using positive language for the same “goals”, meaning on the blockade. “We urge that international institutions establish border management on Gazan coastal borders.” (The borders with Israel and the borders with Egypt, are up to them how they wish to conduct.)
Wrong again Ricahrd,
The justification of the blockade stems from the fact that:
“After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”
See that Richard? Israel never took theri foot off the throat of Gaza and your so called terrorism was resitance to occupation and the far more gruesome terror Israeli inflicted for decades.
Israel fired more shells into Gaz in 12 months than the total rocket fire that over that decade. Think about that Richard when you talk about gruesome terror.
Yes I did hear your point about “tone” and the only response is that you are a shill who expects the world to believe that Israel, who have flouted 100 UN Resolutions, and given Obama the bird, will do a 180 degree turn around based on “tone”.
And you call me gullible?
Even on the blockade.
IF activists and Hamas made the focus of their communication, “Lets find a way that international bodies can manage Gazan ports, so that there is open flow of civilian goods and services”, then that would be undeniable.
That the objection is stated in only negative and violently negative terms, indicates that there is a significant likelihood that the agitation, at least from Hamas perspective, IS to open the ports primarily to military materiel, and very secondarily for civilian.
Try a change of approach on that, and see. Unless you really do want the ports to be open for Hamas Gazan military purposes.
Absolute rubbish.
Israel declared teh 1967 bloakade an act or war, yet when Hamas delcares it an act of war, you suggest that this is evidence that Hamas are motivated purely by the desire for military equipment.
Hypocrisy and doubel standards are flowing from you like a river.
And, incompetence and unwillingness to advocate FOR Palestinians flow from you like a river, instead preferring anger and agitation.
Pingback: When life gives the Israel lobby lemons . . .