Howard Berman, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has responded to Judge Goldstone’s vigorous defense of his report–preparatory to the vote in the House tomorrow on Berman’s bill to denounce Goldstone. (Assiduous Spencer Ackerman picks it up.) As we reported a year or so back, Berman got onto Foreign Affairs, as he told a Sherman Oaks audience, because of his love of Israel, and it shows in this dashed-off response to Goldstone. In it Berman does not dispute any of Goldstone’s findings. He does not bring back from the dead any of the Palestinian children killed in the Israeli assault, nor rehabilitate the smashed poultry factory and flour mill that Goldstone saw as evidence of "persecution." No: lacking facts, Berman merely questions Goldstone’s method.
Some key excerpts:
The Report does not take into account that Israeli soldiers were operating under fire, in an extremely volatile and dangerous environment, in which the enemy was hiding amongst a civilian population.
Nor does the Report generally take into account that testimony from Gazans was given under the watchful eye of Hamas officials. …
the Report does not explore why Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist aggression perpetrated by a non-state actor. Justice Goldstone says that “the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate.” Yet, he went beyond his mandate in several other areas of the Report, including discussion of Israel’s policies throughout the occupied territories (including the West Bank) …
Actually, if Goldstone had taken into consideration the right to use military force, he would have had to explore the issue of Palestinian resistance to occupation; and he may well have landeed where the International Association of Democratic Lawyers’ report on Gaza did: that Israel was taking "prohibited reprisals" against Palestinians who have sought the right of self-determination and an end to a blockade.
More bias:
Hamas is in full control of Gaza, and this “fear of reprisals” significantly helped Hamas shape the findings. See, for example, an Amnesty International publication that reports on how Hamas murdered its rivals while operation Cast Lead was ongoing: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/hamas-waged-deadly-campaign-war-devastated-gaza-20090212.
Yes, Hamas murdered rivals. Taghreed El-Khodary reported this. But Israel still massacred 1400 Palestinians.
Furthermore, the commission conducted some of its proceedings through holding televised open hearings in Gaza. Given its total control of Gaza and its ability to intimidate, Hamas almost certainly would have been able to control the access and message of each witness attending a televised open hearing.
Justice Richard Goldstone though agreed with the findings of his three co-investigators; professor Christine Chinkin (London School of Economics), Hina Jilani, a Human Right advocate from Pakistan and Colonel Desmond Travers (Irish Armed Force) – but, as Zionist Jew, he told Moyers that he supports the Israelis (foreign Jew settlers) to defend themselves against the rocket attacks from the Natives on whose land State of Israel is established. In this regard, the Jewish historian, John Kaminski, is more honest. He wrote: “When you read the history of Israel from objective sources, you discover that it is an outlaw state, created by the powers that be by stealing the land from its original inhabitants, and systematically exterminating them ever since.”
An interview with Goldstone
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Not to mention the ceasefire, honoured by Hamas, ignored by Goldstone and flouted by Israel:
link to mwcnews.net
As Nelson Mandela’s said to Ted Koppel: “Your enemies are not my enemies.”
Berman sez the Israelis are the victims and the Palestinians the perpetrators.
Don’t you know, Brewer, that all the Israeli attacks on Gaza were necessary for Israel’s security? The increase in Hamas attacks following each of these security operations just goes to show how essential the ongoing siege and occasional military strikes are in guaranteeing the safety of Israelis. In fact, the Israeli operations were pre-emptive strikes in light of the inevitable Palestinian terror that always follows.
These graphs prove this conclusively.
Thank you for explaining the war on Gaza so effectively.
HasbaraCom
How convenient! To be a state, with “rights”. Palestine, of course, is not a state; therefore, it has no rights.
I get that you are angry Phil, but you are adopting the careless language of partisanship.
Israel massacred 1400. Last week it was 300 children.
“Tell it like it is”, means it, not just anger.
Also, you do remember how this started? Hamas escalating shelling civilians for 10 days, BEFORE military response.
Absolute fucking horseshit, Witty. Plain. Fucking. Lies. Israel broke the peace on Election night, Nov 4th or 2nd or whatever it was. Killed six Palestinians. There were no — let me repeat that: no — rockets from Gaza for four months. The truce had been holding. Israel broke it. Do yourself a favor and use google before you prevaricate. You’re not dealing with idiots here.
People have told Witty this a thousand times, they have shown him the sources, but he keeps repeating the lie, which is glued into his brain with epoxy, unremovable.
Wow, so not only do you callously dismiss the deaths of 1400 people — 300 children! — oh hey, they’re only Palestinians, huh, Witty — but you pepper it with an outright lie.
You’ve officially joined WJ and carnas in the club of Jewish “Holocaust” deniers. I’d give you a coat check ticket for your integrity but, hey, it’s not as if you’re ever going to reclaim it, Witty.
“Also, you do remember how this started?”
Yes we remember Ricahrd, and we also remember how you lie about this subject, in spite of the fact that your lies are repeatedly debunked. Hamas held to a ceasfire even though Israel violated in from day 1, byt reusing to lift the blockade.
Israel broke the ceasefire on the 4th of Novemeber 2008. Before then, they were blockading Gaza, which is an act of war, thus that makes the actions on the 4th of November, an escalation. Hamas retaliated.
ikn fact, Isrlea had brokent eh ceasfire on numrous occasions.
link to irish4palestine.blogspot.com
In December, Hamas tried to restore the ceasfire and Israel rejected the offer.
link to ipsnews.net
Let’s hope that you stop lying in the near future.
So Shingo,
You are saying that the shelling was a just and responsible action?
Richard,
I am saying that the shelling was a response to an unjust and uinreasonable action by Israel.
An action that you support, an action that you accept, or an action that you oppose?
You’re such an asshole, Witty. First you lie about who aggravated the conflict, and then when we set you straight you act as if our presentation of the facts is somehow a show of support for Hamas actions against civilians. Are you suggesting that reality itself has a Palestinian bias? I’m hard pressed to disagree with that, actually.
Here’s the full range of statistics on the conflict, succinctly put forth before Huff Po was fully compromised:
Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?
“An action that you support, an action that you accept, or an action that you oppose?”
When a woman is raped, and she tries to defend herself by sticking a car key into her assailants eye, it’s not an action I would support in any other context. You’re insisting that the only aceptable course of action she shoudl take is to aquiesse to her assailant’s demands and empathise with him.
No, actually I’m asking about how you actually think about it.
No actually, you’re denying outright facts, you Jewish holocaust denier.
“I get that you are angry Phil…”
Those that don’t get angry at lies tend to be those who are telling them.
It was 1400 massacred, including almost 300 children. Both statements you quote of Phil’s are correct.
I just went to a talk by Amira Hass. Out of those 1400, a small minority (about 100 if I remember right) were killed at close enough range to have effectively fired back. The rest were killed by bombing, long range shells, robots and the like. The 100 of course include a number of unarmed civilians waving white flags. In fact there was very little danger to the Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
As I recall, a significant number of the Israeli soldiers that died, did so at the hands of their overzealous comrades rather than Palestinians (who even while defending themselves on their own land against a full-out Israeli blitzkrieg are somehow characterized by the MSM as terrorists)
‘Nuff said.
“Hamas murdered its rivals while operation Cast Lead was ongoing”
There were reports of PA agents collaborating with Israel. Were they giving over Hamas positions? The PA has a foul stench to it at this juncture.
I read an article in Haaretz that Shin Bet was very displeased that the IDF had not adequately protected their “assets” during Gaza.
“Among those killed were Fatah members who were spotted in the vicinity of Hamas installations bombed by the air force, and who were carrying cell phones, and could not satisfactorily explain what they were doing in that particular location at that time. ”
…
“Sources at Southern Command and in MI claim that intelligence-gathering personnel both at the Shin Bet and MI were frustrated that in a number of instances, operations officers failed to adequately protect a source of information – namely Palestinian agents.
According to one source, a number of agents were “intercepted” by Hamas during the operation because the intelligence they provided was used carelessly.”"
link to haaretz.com
I just read back to Phil’s posts in November and December.
In his editorial judgement, the resumption of Hamas shelling of southern Israel merited 0 stories on that, no inquiry, no even wondering if it was wise strategy, nothing.
A SAD example of journalistic negligence, of partisonship, of self-censorship in conformity with political correctness.
Certainly, a questioning man like Phil, would have posted some QUESTIONS about the shelling. He knew it was happening.
Immediately upon the Israeli military response, 100′s of condemning posts, but somehow the initiation of hostilities by Hamas doesn’t merit as single fucking post?
Because of that negligence, that gross editorial negligence, Phil’s now defensive/offensive posting style, is nearly solely partisan, nearly solely propaganda for a manufactured ignorance.
And, that manufactured consent adopts similarly propagandistic methods of combinations of shaming, pressure, character assassination, intentional insertion of propaganda, unwillingness to listen earnestly to those with different but rational perspectives.
An abandonment of humanism as a permanent means, in favor of humanism as solely an end.
An abandonment of the early green commitment of “the means are the ends”. How you live, how you speak, how you self-review, is the goal itself. Propaganda only has place in more opaque political efforts.
After thirty years of partisanship, what does one die with? “I abandoned my commitment to “all my relations” for what I gambled was a greater good”.
After thirty years of commercial humanism, what does one die with? “I abandoned my commitment to oppose injustice everywhere I saw it, to not offend, to be nice”.
After thirty years of creative proposing humanism, what does one die with? “I committed to making some good happen in the world, to the thickening of social ecological interactions, to the bridging of what had been isolated. I succeeded at some.”
What is your success Phil? What are your colleagues’? Where is your individual free thinking these days, in fact?
Again, have you EVER read a comprehensive history of Israel, or history of Zionism, or history of Jewish people, from a reliably non-biased source.
How can you comment on these issues with anything resembling a conscience, or intellectual integrity, if you haven’t? If you have, I apologize. If you haven’t, please fix your foundation quickly.
Richard,
Israel violated not only the ceasfire, but also the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court to allow foreign journalists into Gaza. Thus, there was very reliable news comming from Gaza during November and December, other than reports from Al Jazeera, which Israeli propagandists liek yourself would have dismissed.
Journalistic negligence and partisonship, would have been to repeat the propaganda emanating from the Western Media, and you are condeming Phil for not jumpoing on that bandwagon and daring to check his facts.
How pathetic are you anyway?
Phil’s “editorial judgement” told him to wait for sound evidence. You’re trying the lamest of angels here. That everyone thougth Hams were to blame at the time.
Israels military didn’t respond, they attacked, carrying out a sirge they had planned at least 6 months prior. As history has revealed, the initiation of hostilities was by Israel. You’re simply a shamelss liar and a shill.
So now, you;re attacking Phil for not paroting the pffical Isreali versino of events, Well boo fucking hoo. Golstone’s report and the tetoimony of IDF soldiers have exposed Israel as a deranghed terrorist entitity.
It beggars blief that you can accuse someone else of abandonment of humanism, while jsutifyin the slaughter of 300-400 chidlren and 1400 Palestinians.
Evidently, you have decideed that offense is the best form of defense, but we all see right trhough you Richard. Your true face and the exremism of your ideology is laid bare for all to see, and it is indeed an ugly spectacle.
Perhaps you believe that massacring non Jewish civilians, is an expression of creative humanism, but we see it as the expressino of a sick mind that has lost any contact with reality.
Phil’s success is that he can look at his heart and know that he doesn’t have to lie, and spin and conflate and resort fo doubel standards, denial and nyprocrsy to make his argument.
His colleagues and the overwhelming number fo posters here who celebrate his courage and honesty. It is him who is the individual free thinker and you who are a peseur pretending to be a humanist, when in fact, you are the embodiment of Israeli’s collective psychosis.
We don’t need to read the comprehensive history of Israel, or history of Zionism, or history of Jewish people to understand what we witrness each and every day from Israel. It is a sick, diseased society that is strangling itself.
I recall from biology courses in my high school days, that anytime the host to a parasite weakened, the parasite’s metabolism increased, hastening the demise of its host and destroying itself in the process. We are now witnessing this phenomenon with Israel and US and you are an enabler.
Richard, Phil is partisan, you are partisan, and I am partisan. But Phil and I are partisan in support of Palestinian rights and dignity. The abuse of those two, systematic and constant, is the ROOT of the conflict.
You are part of the problem if the redemption of the oppressed is not your first concern.
Robin,
That’s exactly it. The oft-praised “mainstream” is as partisan as can be, and THEY started! The question is: whose partisan are you.
Oh, by the way, Israel violated the ceasefire with Hamas which allowed it later to bomb the hell out of Gaza.
Robin, I disagree with your use of ‘partisan’. But BTW, is there a word in hebrew with the same meaning as “partisan”? Without that terrible sense to it of trying at all cost to be fair and honest of course.
Witty, do you condemn the November 4th unprovoked Israeli attack on Gaza? Do you condemn this Israeli escalation of their war on Gaza, which lead to the breaking of the ceasefire?
Well? Do you? Do you?
Finklestein laid out the facts; they are as Shingo says. Witty parrots AIPAC;J-ST;Indyk–straight Israeli hasbara.
Thanks Citizen,
I’m at a huge advantage over Witty. I can provide a dozen links to back up what took place. Richard only has his interpretation.
But Phil does have to lie to himself in his abandonment of his role, his former identity, as someone that thoroughly questions, rather than someone that merely skillfully parrots.
And, that is very real.
I was negligent in not contesting the degree of the Israeli military actions sooner. I should have taken the Goldstone attitude of “Israel has a right to defend itself, but not to collectively punish”. I distrusted the comments that I heard here, and instead of working through the idiotic noise on the left to actually find out what was accurate, I reacted.
Phil did similarly. I am merely a respondent to editorial choices. Phil was the MAKER of those editorial choices (or negligence to choose).
It is the death knell for a journalist be known as partison. But the knowing (in a transparent world) is the choosing itself. Substance over form.
Witty, you’re a failed unemployed former cog in the fraud-ridden financial sector, racist Zionist Jew inquisitionist, fake liberal false flag provocateur.
This notion that you’re going to keep frothing at the mouth on your personal one-man crusade against Phil Weiss because he won’t parrot the same hasbara talking points as you do and isn’t willing to compromise on human rights and international jurisprudence has crossed from infuriating, to pathetic and laughable, and into moral and mental depravity.
Chaos,
Lay off your imagining about my personal status, or making any comments about my employment at all.
Touched a nerve, did I? Well, that’s what you get for exploiting your personal relationship to Weiss’ family as a platform for attacking Phil.
It’s relevant, Richard, in that a CPA’s foreign policy views are no more authoritative than his opinion of zone defenses or lite jazz. That’s why you’re harmless. The problem is ethnocentric Jews in the media, like you emotionally invested in the Jewish state, who operate under objective cover of SAIS and Brookings credentials.
If he’s reading, to quote a story that he told of his relationship with my aunt, who encouraged him consistently to not edit his querying to conform to any standard of political correctness, I think in that CRITICAL period, and his subsequent conformity to the far left, he’s failed.
Again, it is possible to dissent without seeking to silence others.
The way to do that is to make a better argument, and if selection of others’ voices are the means that you express your own, that you present better arguments.
Phil’s headlines are give-aways. They are how he is framing his story.
Flash, rather than thoughtful.
I’m sorry, to describe someone’s life work as “failure” is too far.
My criticisms and recommendations for effectiveness and integrity remain though.
Yeah, I can see why you’re backing off from that. Dare I say, you’re afraid of that word flashing up when you look in a mirror.
Chaos, I really think its better if we desisted from the ad hominoms. I’m a Palestinian, so you can imagine Witty and I have had an argument or two. But after observing him for the past few months, I realized that there are some people just not worth debating. If you argue with them, they will change the subject and/or ignore your points. If you insult them, they will try to paint themselves as martyers and victims of anti-Semitism. Insulting them will also cause their egos to balk and will cause their hearts to harden.
“My criticisms and recommendations for effectiveness and integrity remain though. ”
Comming from you, such recommendations suggest that Phil’s effectiveness and integrity are in a healthy state.
You see Witty, an effective journalist would have considered the following:
1. That Israel were in violation of the 2008 ceasefire and Hamas continued to observe it in spite of Israel’s violations
2. That Israel chose the day of the US Presidential elections to conduct the raid on Gaza, consituting a violation of the ceasfire and an escalation to the act of war (ie. the blockade). By choosing this date, Israel were trying to hide their actions/
3. That Israel vilated the ruling of it’s won Supreme Court, and refused to allow foreign journalists into Gaza, proving yet again, that Israel had something to hide.
So an effective journalist,with integrity, would have considered these and other factors and scruitinized the Israeli controlled reports comming fromthe region.
As it turns out, Phil was vindicated. Very effective indeed.
“I distrusted the comments that I heard here, and instead of working through the idiotic noise on the left to actually find out what was accurate, I reacted.”
Closest we ever get to an admission of wrongdoing by the great moral leader who walks among us. Anyway, those noisy idiotic leftists have often been right (see Iraq War, for instance) when sensible centrists have been wrong. I think it was the blogger Atrios who coined the term “dirty fucking hippy” in response to self-deluded centrists who refused to listen to antiwar types because they didn’t want to be contaminated by association with DFH’s. And the dfh brigade (and others) were right about the Gaza War. They were also right about the blockade, something you know in your heart since you react so viscerally to any hint of sanctions against Israel.
Also, what sort of idiot allows his personal feelings about commenters at a blog prevent him from reading the work of reputable journalists and human rights organizations (including Israeli ones)? And how pathetic it is that you blame your own decisions on what Phil chooses to write about. Take some responsibility for your own stupidity. There was no serious doubt about what Israel was doing in Gaza–just a lot of shrieking criticism without substance by the hasbara brigade. No different from the denials you get from partisans of other brutal governments when they commit war crimes. Someday, Witty, you might face up to the fact that your own self-regard and your own ideological commitments blind you to what is happening sometimes. And don’t make a fetish of “the center”, as I see you doing at Dan Flescher’s blog. I did that once, when I was young, but it’s illogical. Sometimes the far left is wrong, sometimes the far right is wrong, sometimes the center is wrong. You should judge things by the evidence, not by what is “centrist” or who takes what position. Self-proclaimed centrists have the illusion that just being in the center makes them correct, yet they feel that they are rational as opposed to the “extremists” to their left and right. What was the (white) centrist position on human rights for blacks in 1850?
And I’m thinking of adopting your rhetorical style when responding to you. It could be fun to imitate, and anyway, why should you always be the one coming down from Mt. Sinai with tablets covered with commandments (though in your case, etched there by your own hand)?
Its heard Donald, Robin, others.
You are at war. “Which side are you on” is the sole relevant question for you in this process.
That is your expression of morality, fighting hard and viciously, in the limited definition and strategy of what it means to defend the Palestinian people.
And, looking at population, of those that are at all attentive to the issue, maybe 5% hold radical views (I think that is an exageration), maybe 40% hold live and let live views that include criticism of Israeli policies, maybe another 30% don’t know, and the remainder 25% hold unequivocally pro-Israeli positions.
So, you 5%, consider it a reasonable, an effective strategy to entirely disempower the 40%, to call them (us) names, attack us personally.
Oh, we are at war? The Zionist capacity to construct flimsy rhetoric where by they viciously lash out at others, then sit back and cry “victim!” is nigh pathological.
You even have the gall to knife Phil Weiss in the back and turn around like you’re the victimized one? You really are a joke, Witty.
I am consistently arguing for moderation in tone, content, SO that the urging for mutual humanization can be heard.
I believe that Phil has betrayed a lifelong agreement between us (and larger us, our families) to retain an constantly ethical orientation in goal, word, and means.
Richard, how have I betrayed a lifelong commitment to you? I disagree that I am not maintaining an ethical orientation. But when did I make such a compact with you? We were family friends. We went swimming together and hung out. Where was the deal? And if that constitutes a deal, what about my deal with the Vietnamese, or the South africans, or the Palestinians, or the Southern blacks? Do you come first? Phil
You don’t have a lifelong commitment to me personally if you don’t think of it those terms.
My feeling of betrayal relates to your statements of anti-Zionism, rather than of policies, which I interpret as an adoption of a partisan approach that is willing to harm if necessary to accomplish a political end.
I feel that you have betrayed and now condemned liberalism. I think of our familys’ connection and invitation (to me), as based on assertive but non-partisan liberalism.
I don’t imagine that my aunt or your mother countenanced the equivalent of calling American GI’s that returned from the war “baby killers”. I don’t imagine you saying that yourself. But, I do imagine/observe you posting headlines that suggest that others do the equivalent.
We were 9 and 10 when Johnson was signing the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights legislation, accomplishing more than loved idealist Kennedy. We remembered Johnson for Vietnam. I don’t know if my aunt or your mother spoke about Johnson as a baby killer or as a courageously conscientious advocate for civil rights.
I’m certain that they felt a tension about him personally, that he was a human being, not a demon, capable of reforming hopefully with a path to. And, that in their dissent, that they made sure that they applied a tone that left a path for him to.
Maybe they didn’t see as much as you did. They didn’t go to Cambodia, or North Vietnam. They did go to Israel, and saw some things that you didn’t see, that don’t contradict your observations (they are yours), but might add some confusion to your interpretations.
So basically, you feel betrayed because Phil Weiss has the backbone to stand up for other human beings, whereas you you think Zionists should forever have a stranglehold on the debate.
You’re a real class act, Witty. This is why it is so hard for Jewish people to stand up to assholes like you — because you use every dirty trick in the book. Your friendship, your family connections, his mother… it’s all just leverage to you.
And that is why I’m particularly aggressive toward you, Witty. You’re corrupt, you’re self-centered, you’re manipulative, you’re petty, you’re shameless and, worst of all, you give the rest of the Jewish tradition a bad name. You are to Judaism what Archbishop Williamson is to me and my fellow Catholics. In short, Witty… you’re a bad person.
I’m glad, more than glad, that he stands up FOR Palestinians. I feel betrayed that he feels that he needs to carelessly condemn Israelis and Jews in the form that stands up.
It is leverage to me. My commitment is to universal respect, peace, which includes Israelis.
It is also leverage to criticize an approach that I believe is a failing one, in preference for one that to my understanding has some prospect of succeeding.
Again, Chaos, please stop the character attacks. They are not necessary, and reduce the value of your arguments except to a mob of “converted”. People get to dissent, and express their dissent (and more creative actual peace-making), through different sequences than just your litmus test.
If you sincerely desire a mass movement for Palestinians, why not be open to different approaches, different political religions, that still get to similar if not idential goals, actually realizing them.
Its apparent to me that one reason that Israel/Palestinian issues aren’t talked about commonly, is that so much of the world’s discussion is really apolitical, more isolated, and filling their isolation with trivia.
I see your condemnatory approach as a contributor to the isolation. Civility makes political discussion a joy. Aggression makes it a pain.
Witty? That’s because it’s the ISRAELIS WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE PALESTINIANS. Seriously? Tell me how one stands up in defense of a victim without putting yourself against the criminal. Tell me how one despairs over the Holocaust, for example, and give the Nazis a free pass?
There is no political discussion with you, Witty. Maybe I’m more visceral than you, but when it comes to courtesy we’re reflections of one another. Everyone can see how you’re exploiting your friendship with Phil to score cheap political capital in this discussion. We’ve seen you go after Seham’s identity. We put up documented facts; you give them the David Duke treatment — at least I don’t compromise on that, Witty, I’d like to think above everything else that’s the one thing where I have integrity and you don’t.
While you are making distractions and wringing your hands and going on about negotiations and the like PEOPLE ARE DYING. Actually — they’re getting killed. By Israelis. In your name. With the money you send to Israel.
Chaos, read what dana wrote over in Realistic Dove’s latest thread. So spot-on that Richard didn’t even try to respond.
I presume you mean this one?
link to realisticdove.org
I wish I still had that sort of patience to write like that. I think possibly I’m officially “old” now that I don’t.
Witty not answering isn’t shocking. I’ve noted he loses his nerve pretty quickly. I don’t expect this current tussle to last all that long, considering.
Chaos,
Try something different than anger.
Again, experiences similar to mine are WIDELY held by liberals that share the same hope of upliftment of Palestinians and hope that that will result in peace, relative to the taunting of radicals.
Different things stimulate different people in different ways. If you respect differences, you can reconcile. If you can’t you end up warring.
Even if you just think of it as a means to an end. The end that you are pursuing will not get the light of day if you condemn, ridicule, browbeat.
There are other ways even to express anger.
Look, Witty, I don’t care about your delusion that somehow you’re the Grand Poobah of American Liberals. And I’m not going to calm down when I’m up against somebody who rationalizes the war crimes that they don’t merely simply deny ever happened. Your apologies and lies about the massacre in Gaza are disgusting, Witty. They are thoroughly disgusting, and there is no dealing with sociopaths on friendly terms. If you’re going to write off the deaths of Palestinian children so easily, without batting an eyes, then I can’t afford to let you get behind me with that dagger of yours, the way Phil has. (And I’ve been in Phil’s situation before, in fact, or rather one very similar)
I’m not the “grand poobah”, but the majority of my sentiments and goals represent the liberal Jewish community in America.
They include irritations at Israeli idiocies and persecutions, and at the SAME time, irritations at Palestinian militant idiocies and violence, and at solidarity condemnation and harrassment. (Your “following” me around, baiting me to “flee”, is an example. You don’t need to be so fixated.)
Witty? LIBERAL JEWISH. At best, you represent the majority liberal Jewish community. When’s the last time you set foot on a college campus? The 1970′s?
Don’t get stupid, Chaos. I live in a college town for God’s sake. I worked at famous Hampshire College for two years.
You didn’t believe me when I said that MY community is the left in the very liberal town that I live? You didn’t believe me when I stated that I spent and blew an inheritance to run a progressive lending library of progressive spoken audio in the 90′s?
Listen to my comments. I get that you are angry. That is so clear. But, there is content in my posts, which you could choose to engage. Much of the content is similar to what you rage about, but stated in very different tone.
Witty, the content of your message is littered with lies. Lies about how many civilians are killed, lies about crimes against international law, lies about Israel, lies about liberalism and progressivism. Like I keep saying, your throwing around your supposed credentials on a blog doesn’t mean jack shit — your message is crap, Witty. If you’re going to lie about Gaza there’s no reason we should buy your ego masturbation.
Your imagining a great deal of what you call “lies”.
I know that I never authoritatively stated any numbers on Gazans killed, or the breakup. I consistently stated it as unknown, subject to interpretation, and then respectfully considered the implications of each interpretation.
I am not aware of lies about international law. What specifically are you referring to? There are many lies presented here about the authority of UN court systems, etc.
And, again, I consistently state my understanding of liberalism, my understanding of the reasoning that I consider important to discern progressive proposal.
You can differ with those interpretations, without the presumption of authority that you invest in others.
They are accurately interpretations, as any serious academic, jurist, policy maker will acknowledge.
The best assess conscientiously, to propose a better argument, a more coherent message or proposal to adopt. Its properly a process of persuasion not of condemnation or conformity.
“Subject to interpretation?” Seriously? Subject to interpretation? Counting the dead is subject to interpretation?
Is the Holocaust “subject to interpretation,” Witty?
What specific criteria do you use to define whether an individual killed is an active combatant, versus a former combatant, versus a logistical supporter of a combatant, versus a family of a combatant, versus an ininvolved civilian genuinely unintended “collateral damage” (a human being), versus an intentional collective punishment.
To say that you have clear criteria for that distinction is a lie. I don’t. So, I have to accept that there are multiple equally valid (and equally manipulated) criteria of the counts.
There is a commonality with the holocaust, which is that the number is too large.
People have said to me, “revised research has discovered that only 3, 597,000 Jews died as a result of death camps, 2,000,000 died of disease and starvation in slave labor camps, and 200,000 died in resistance. That totals only 5,797,000. You are therefore a liar.”
Huh?
So why do you take the same mealy-mouthed denial tactics and apply them to the massacre in Gaza, Witty?
I don’t. I consider the implications of both assessments of the statistics.
What specific interpretation are you objecting to?
Bullshit, Witty. You’ve gone out of your way to undermine Goldstone, Amnesty International and HRW reports — the last one in particular, you worked yourself up into a tizzy over Bernstein coming out of retirement to undermine his own organization when it turned its eye on Israel.
I just needed to drag that example of Holocaust deniers confronting you out in the open so people could compare that to your earlier statements about Gaza. In point of fact, I suppose I need supply no further commentary.
I described them as not authoritative.
I described audit standards as a higher standard of evidence than what Goldstone admitted, and elaborated on what those standards were constructed of and why Goldstone’s methodology did NOT lead to the level of authoritative conclusion on his general comments.
I described that the specific incidents that he identified SHOULD be investigated, and as he recommended, by an independant Israeli investigation.
You aren’t reading my comments concisely.
The issues are too complex to justly be judged simplistically. The consequences of oversimplification are abuse in the pendulum swings.
Witty, there will be no such thing as an independent Israeli investigation. The Israelis themselves made that quite clear — rather bluntly, and after shutting out independent journalists, human rights investigators, and even official UN representatives (Goldstone got no cooperation from Israel). This fantasy of yours of an Israel that has even a modicum of integrity or morality has no demonstrable factual basis. It simply no longer exists.
People here who know you – do not respect you. We know you so well we can predict your commentary.
You’re a hack. And you have always made long-winded posts with little to no substance.
You’re like a lawyer defending a guilty person (let’s say Charles Manson, who could be a mascot of Israel).
You haven’t read the report, Nazi.
And before you did you – a Nazi – denounced the report and cited favorably the commentary of your fellow Zionists.
You’re steeped in ideology and your self-loving religion. If you’re any kind of representation for ‘Liberal Jews’ then God help the Palestinians. Go to hell Witty.
And Chaos, you weren’t even here yet when Witty started relating his “dream” (remembered in incredibly vivid detail) about Phil in a top-hat walking with his mistress into the theater and ignoring Richard and his Holocaust victim grandparents-in-law who were sitting on the steps calling out to him! Talk about a black-balling whiner! That was one for the books.
I was moved to satirize Witty not by his boilerplate affirmations of Zionist goodness but by how viciously he used guilt, shame, and scorn to try to get Phil’s goat. He may be a great guy when the topic isn’t Israel; but when it is, he’s a cretinous clod. (Zionism is a good!)
I don’t remember that dream. Are you sure you repeated it, or something else?
Awamori, I asked if visiting this forum – specifically the Goldstone related topics of this forum – was a part of your job, say, since begin october. There are good arguments for the people here to argue “it doesn’t really matter” but I’ll still stick my neck out and ask. I am not asking “would you also do this if you weren’t being paid for it”, I trust you would. It’s also a compliment of course, it means you’re good enough to be paid for it.
Thanks for the compliment. Actually, I’m a volunteer. If this forum is called: “The War of Ideas in the Middle East”, it is supposed to be at least somebody, who represents another side. Otherwise, it will be as “objective”, as Goldstone report is.
A technical question:
Why when I’m replying to a certain post, my reply is not always appearing below it?
Get over yourself, Witty. You aren’t the center of the friggin’ universe.
Moderation in tone is a weasel term for sugar coating extremist ideas.
You are not remotely interested in mutual humanization, Witty, though you like to pretend.
Believe what you may. The overwhelming opinion on this blog is that Phil’s ethics are uncomprimised, while your credibility and agenda lies in tatters.
What?! Richard, you are the one personally attacking me, and completely misrepresenting my position. Please don’t do that.
I stated that I am focused on ending the root problem. Where do you get viciousness and war from that? Aren’t you focused on ending the root problem, though your interpretation of that may be different? I am arguing a subjective position, as are you, as is Phil, and that’s what I meant when I said we’re all partisan. It does not mean we lie, or throw out all ethics in service of ends.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Richard, but there are a number of liberal Zionists, people who defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, that I respect and sympathize with and though I’m not sure I agree with their views, I’d never react as angrily to their ideas as I do to yours. These are people who can empathize with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, who can see the tragedies on both sides, who don’t downplay the killing of innocent people on either side because of their Zionism. Richard Goldstone is one such. Lawrence Wright, who just wrote a very good piece for the New Yorker,might be another–I don’t know that he’s a Zionist, but he seems like a fairly mainstream liberal and he probably is. But he writes as someone who obviously empathizes both with the Israelis and with the Gazan people and unlike you, he doesn’t whitewash Israeli crimes.
I don’t support Palestinian violence in any form–yes, they have a right to strike at Israeli military targets, never at civilian targets, but even the strikes at Israeli military targets aren’t going to bring peace and will only cause further suffering. But unlike you, I don’t excuse Israeli violence either. If Israeli snipers can take out Palestinians in the act of firing rockets, I won’t complain. I also won’t complain if Palestinians shoot Israeli snipers. I bet you’d object to the latter, but not the former. But none of this is the path to peace.
Neither is an extraordinarily arrogant racist blockade on Gaza excusable, something that you say Israel has the right to impose.
But it’s a waste of time typing all this–you will shut your eyes and ears and continue to tell yourself that if someone points out your hypocrisy, it’s because they are pro-violence.
I really want to see Donald go all Moses on Witty.
Is that wrong?
While I kind of would appreciate the back-up now and then, things are probably better off as they are. Trust me, I’m used to being a pariah in real life, that’s why I have no reservations about taking on that role here if it means I can speak my mind openly. I like to think many of my replies are entertaining, but I fully concede that commentors like Donald have a much better value to the debate than my posts do, on average.
Donald,
I expect that if you dialogued with your liberal Zionist friends in similar tone to that you’ve spoken to me, you’d pretty quickly finding yourself offending them, and them offending you.
Seriously.
Or, if you bothered to find out what I believe and independantly react to even.
Lighten up.
Robin,
How am I personally attacking you?
I elaborated on what I meant by “you are at war”. Did that not seem true to you, at least in some respect?
Do you ever speak in terms of “Zionists are racists”? Ever? If you do, please don’t describe yourself as some innocent not attacking others personally.
Richard, you’re attacking me by mischaracterizing my views and actions as being amoral and consisting of personal attacks. I have always focused on content in my comments here, and never endorsed immorality in the service of any cause.
The fact that I argue for positions in these comments (and elsewhere) does not mean I am at war. I desire and work for justice. Have I been rude to you, beyond possibly the earnest labeling of views that I find racist or paternalistic?
“Zionists are racists”: I am usually more precise and careful than this, because of course there are many different forms of Zionism etc. But the dominant form today, in which it means primarily support for a Jewish State in Palestine, is clearly racist.
“I distrusted the comments that I heard here, and instead of working through the idiotic noise on the left to actually find out what was accurate, I reacted.”
So, now you cover your own self- exposed assholeness by farting? LOL. Now that’s some idiotic noise–smell your breath.
Witty,
But it’s you who are the one who lies to himself and the rest of us. We know, bevcasue we keep catching you. You see, Phil’s departure from what you refer to as his “former identity”, demonstrates a shift of awareness and enlightenment. Your argument is that because he does not skillfully parrot the Zionist Hasbra line, he is not being honest.
Even your mea culpa is dissigenuous and hypocritical. You are excusing yourself to reacting to the overwheling sentiment on this blog and, but ignoring the fact that outside this blog, the reporting was almost entirely pro Israeli. AS it turns out, those you disagree with on this blog, Phil included, were right. The attackon Gaza began with an unprovoked siege by Israel who vilated the ceasfire.
Phil’s choicew of editorial content has been vindicated. Phil went against the grain of mainstream reporting and of anything, demonstarted that he is not partison.
Phil demonstrated both substance and form. He was and is right and you resent him for it.
Letter from Gaza
Captives
What really happened during the Israeli attacks?
by Lawrence Wright
link to newyorker.com
Once again, can we please have a little civility here? Respond as harshly as you want to ideas, but can we avoid the personal? (No matter how politely stated, Mr. Witty.) It makes the whole blog look trashy, and maybe just hastens the day when nobody will be able to make any comments.
I know there are constant provocations, but for God’s sake we aren’t children here unable to resist same are we? Just count to ten and let it pass for before typing. Make your point with a needle rather than the ever-present sledgehammer; whatever. This is just not pleasant to read and we can do better.
I disagree with virtually everything you say here.
First, civility is highly overrated and I’m not joking. It has its place–I don’t think people should attack RW’s personal life. That should be out of bounds. It has nothing at all to do with his ideas. But much of what he types about his ideas are directly linked to his view of himself and people who disagree with him. One can step back from RW and treat him like an anthropological subject, or one can take his pronouncements seriously, in which case I think you should get angry.
Second, civility is often a way of making obscene ideas respectable. We have people here who come and make sweeping negative statements about Jews in general. Frankly, I think Phil should ban their asses after a warning. There are also people who make racist statements about Arabs. They should get the same treatment. It’s Phil’s blog and he chooses not to do this except in rare cases, but I feel no moral obligation to be civil to such people. Quite the reverse.
Third, if it hastens the day when nobody will make any comments, I’m cool with that. Some of the comments are worth reading, but it’s much more important that Phil and his front page posters have an impact in the real world, and if he could have a better chance breaking into the mainstream by dumping the comment section, I say he should go for it.
As for what is pleasant to read–I’m having some real difficulty here. There’s nothing pleasant about this subject and in a way, there’s also very little that’s intellectually stimulating about it either. Human rights issues are mostly on the level that a child could understand and that’s only a little bit of an exaggeration. Don’t employ suicide bombers. Don’t drop white phosphorus on civilians. Please don’t treat over one million people like animals in a cage. One of Chomsky’s more insightful contributions was when he said that much of what passes for public policy debate is really mystification. Yeah, there are technical aspects to some issues (like the best tax policy), but when it comes to human rights, it’s usually very simple–stop waterboarding that man, stop blowing up children, etc…. If I want intellectual stimulation I’ll try reading a book on quantum mechanics. If I want to find out what new set of lies is being told in the MSM about the I/P conflict, I’ll come here. And if there’s a comment section and someone is saying something despicable, I may point that out. And not necessarily with great politeness.
My comments reflect the majority view of liberals, and deserve the light of day.
If your only response to commonly held sentiment is anger, then you are angry at the majority of your neighbors, and in a democracy you then get outvoted.
The most effective organizing effort is to find commonality of assumptions and concerns, and to rally action that people can consent to, that’s if you are sincere in desiring any response to the issues that resemble a mass movement.
The anarchist/dissenting/BDS version of it will NOT take root in the US. The propaganda of 1948 that it was solely of Palestinian victimhood and permanent Israeli aggression, is fundamentally incomplete and known to be.
The presumption that Hamas had nothing to do with the resumption of military hostilities occurring in Gaza, or that it had no choice, or that it did not functionally elect likud, is fundamentally incomplete and known to be.
Those assertions will only lead a mass movement by misrepresentation.
I’ve exagerated in the past to accomplish political ends, and regretted it profoundly after.
Again, I point to the poverty of anger as political motive (more than initial information), in the degree that it alienates far more than it inspires. There is much to be angry about concerning Gaza, the West Bank, settlements.
But, to the extent that you or others express hatred of those held (even in past tense) views that you are raging about, you will scare them away from acquiring information that touches them to action. (It need not be the same as what stimulates you, or even of the same emotions.)
To say, “how dare you not be enraged by x”, is an imposition and exclusion, NOT a method of organizing.
Better that you be polite, if you actually desire social change, as banal and potentially deceptive as it seems.
I was astounded to have a correspondence with Norman Finkelstein a year ago, in which we finally got to “what is your political goal?” in some respect. He stated (I don’t think it was in our correspondence, but in a published interview at the same time period.) “A just and consented partition based on the green line, with full and equal civil rights for all in each state with equal due process”.
My feeling was, “that is exactly I advocate for (and publicly)”. How could he have called me the equivalent of “nazi” to get there? And, if he could alienate me so, that literally agrees with his stated goal, how many others has he alienated (compared to those that he has inspired to trust his conclusions so much as to not investigate for themselves)?
No, Witty, all your comments reflect is the opinion of a lone, out of work, egotistical, forked-tongue solipsistic Zionist shill who can spout a handful of liberal buzz words when squeezed hard enough. You come around here and act like you’re someone important and credible? Like you’re some sort of leader or spokesperson? You can count the number of regulars on this forum that side with you on one hand.
Keep impaling yourself on the your own thorns, Witty. It’s good entertainment at this point, and make a fool out of yourself does better to defuse and debase your own poisonous subversion of the discussion than any reply I could craft.
“I’ve exagerated in the past to accomplish political ends, and regretted it profoundly after.”
Richard, I’ve explained why I get angry at you just a few minutes ago–it may or may not be an accident, but I find it interesting that you respond here, which enables you to dodge what I said elsewhere. I don’t get mad at people who hold liberal Zionist views if they don’t deny Zionist crimes. I get mad at lefties who rationalize suicide bombing and I get mad at Zionists who defend Israel’s blockade or other atrocities. I don’t think Israel is solely responsible for the conflict–that’s just your own strawman. It comforts you to imagine your critics here conform to some set of stereotyped far lefty attitudes.
As for why Finkelstein gets angry at you, I understand that perfectly. I wouldn’t call you a Nazi–that’s Finkelstein’s flaw, this tendency to fling the term “Nazi” around. But I’m sure an extended discussion would reveal your tendencies to soft-pedal Israeli crimes and to the extent that you do condemn some of them, your tendency to use the Israeli right as a scapegoat, along with Hamas on the Palestinian side. You claim to want nuance and yet you do your own type of demonizing.
As for what most liberals believe, I think most people in the US are badly informed on this issue as well as most others, so I don’t get mad at ordinary people on this. I’m badly informed on many or most issues myself. I think that if people read some of the Israeli revisionist historians along with the reports of human rights groups and also reporters like Robert Fisk or Jonathan Randal (both of whom saw with their own eyes what Israel did in Lebanon during the 80′s), they’d have a very different viewpoint. Not one that put all the blame on Israel, but one that saw the story was very far from the heroic epic depicted in movies like “Exodus” or novels like Michener’s “The Source”.
The story by Lawrence Wright in the current New Yorker might be a big step forward, or anyway, I can dream. If that piece became the media standard for treatment of this issue, it would revolutionize how people in the US see the conflict.
“compared to those that he has inspired to trust his conclusions so much as to not investigate for themselves)?”
Oh, and I think I’d lay off that line for awhile–you, the well-informed guy who has been commenting about the Gaza War all this time, only to reveal that you thought EVERYONE agreed that only a minority of the Palestinian deaths were civilians. Even the average hasbarist knew that the IDF numbers were very different from what the human rights groups claimed.
“Chaos4700 November 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Wow, so not only do you callously dismiss the deaths of 1400 people — 300 children! — oh hey, they’re only Palestinians, huh, Witty — but you pepper it with an outright lie.”
Why not 3,000 or 30,000? After “Jenin Massacre ” there is no limit.
Israeli figures are more reliable:
“1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 709 were positively identified as combatants and 295 were identified as civilians.According to IDF, out of 295 Palestinian non-combatants, there were 89 under the age of 16 and 49 women”
And ceasefire doesn’t mean peace. There is nothing about opening the borders in this agreement. Israel and Hamas are in the state of war with each other all the time. If Hamas uses the ceasefire to smuggle more rockets from Iran, why Israel should allow that to happen? After all, Gaza has a crossing to Egypt as well, so there is no “blockade”.
Lie Number One:
That Israeli official reports are more reliable than those of the Palestinians, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’tselem, various UN agencies, etc. This is like trusting the Nazis who defended themselves at Nuremburg.
Lie Number Two:
“There is nothing about opening borders in the agreement.” Actually, yes there was. Israel promised to relinquish the blockade of the rocket attacks from Hamas stopped. The rocket attacks stopped. Israel replied to the “peace offensive” very loudly on November 4th.
Lie Number Three:
Israel actually has veto power over the Rafah crossing as per the 2005 border agreements. So, yes, in fact, Israel is solely responsible for the blockade.
1) Yes, Israeli numbers are more reliable, than the Palestinian ones. Remember “Jenin massacre”? And stop comparing with the Nazis.
2)Rocket attacks never stopped, even during the ceasefire.
link to en.wikipedia.org
3)Believe me, if Egypt would like to have it opened, it was opened.
The thing is, many big guys both in Gaza and in Egypt make a fortune on tunnel business.
1) Yes, Israeli numbers are more reliable, than the Palestinian ones. Remember “Jenin massacre”? And stop comparing with the Nazis.
Yes we rememeb teh Jenin massacre. It was a massacre.
If Israel’s numbers are reliable then so are Madoff’s, which is why the IDF banned journalists from entering.
Oh, and no deal with eh Nazi comparison. It if looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…well, you know….
2)Rocket attacks never stopped, even during the ceasefire.
The Israeli MFA Report concluded that Hamas were very careful to observe the ceasefire and to supresse rocket fire from militants who refused to observe the ceasfire.
They did from Hamas, it was Hamas who Israel were blaming.
Listen to Mark Regev admit that “No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire”
link to youtube.com
3)Believe me, if Egypt would like to have it opened, it was opened.
No we don’t believe you. Egypt take their order from Washington and Tel Aviv.
“The thing is, many big guys both in Gaza and in Egypt make a fortune on tunnel business. ”
Good for them.
Lie Number Four:
Israel is allowed to defend itself, and import state of the art weapons from the US (provided at taxpayer expense) while Palestinians are smuggling “rockets from Iran”.
Lie Number 5:
The Israeli government had called the “blockade” a “blockade” so to deny it is a “blockade” is futile.
4)Explain me please, how exactly rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are “defending” the Palestinian population?
5)O.K, let’s see:
2001 – Rocket attacks had begun and never stopped since then.
2005 Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza
2007 – Hamas took over the Gaza strip, rocket attacks increased both in numbers and range.
What do you suggest to Israel to do?
“4)Explain me please, how exactly rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are “defending” the Palestinian population?”
The same way that dropping bombs, white phosphrorous and cluster bombs on civlians is.
“5)O.K, let’s see:
2001 – Rocket attacks had begun and never stopped since then.”
OK let’s see. Israel fired more shells into Gaz beteween 2005 and 2006 than all the rockets fired by Hamas. Care to comment?
“2005 Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza”
Withdrawn the settlers, but not their strangehold on Gaza. As Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar have escribed in their schlarly thesis on the occuaption, called “Lords of the Land”,
“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.”
“2007 – Hamas took over the Gaza strip, rocket attacks increased both in numbers and range.”
You left out:
a) the fact that the blockade was already in place – an act of war
b) the 2006 attack o GAza, that killed 400 Palestinians
c) the US/Israeli backed coup where Fatah were ordered to overthrow
“What do you suggest to Israel to do?”
Easy.
1. Lift the blockade, which is an act of war
2. Stay out of Gaza
3. Stop vilating ceasefire agreements
Any more questions?
“MRW November 2, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Absolute fucking horseshit, Witty. Plain. Fucking. Lies. Israel broke the peace on Election night, Nov 4th or 2nd or whatever it was. Killed six Palestinians. There were no — let me repeat that: no — rockets from Gaza for four months. The truce had been holding. Israel broke it. Do yourself a favor and use google before you prevaricate. You’re not dealing with idiots here.”
Yes, he is!
November 4th, 2008:
“The Israeli army said the clashes erupted late Tuesday after its forces uncovered a tunnel in central Gaza that militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers. It said a special army unit headed to the area to destroy the tunnel. One Palestinian was killed in fierce gunbattles that ensued.
Hamas then fired mortars across the Gaza border into southern Israel and Israel answered with the airstrike in the early hours of Wednesday, killing five suspected Palestinian militants, Israeli and Palestinian officials said. The army said the airstrike aimed at the mortar launchers and hit them”
It was an attempt to kidnap an Israeli soldier, and Israel has prevented it.
…that’s like endorsing a Nuremberg defense whereby the Nazis claim that they “prevented” a takeover of German society by Jews.
Even if you accept the ridiculous premise that the IDF is to be believed… that tunnel was in Gaza. It didn’t extend into Israel. There was no attack on Israel by Hamas before November 4th, and that means the onus is on the IDF for breaking the cease fire.
For breaking a lot of cease fires actually.
Reigniting Violence: How do Ceasefires End?
So the IDF claims.
Yes, the same IDF that vilated their own Superme Court and barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza to report themselves.
November 4th, 2008:
“The Israeli army said the clashes erupted late Tuesday after its forces uncovered a tunnel in central Gaza that militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers. It said a special army unit headed to the area to destroy the tunnel. One Palestinian was killed in fierce gunbattles that ensued.
It was actually 6 Palestiniasn that were killed.
Furthermore, this story is pure horseshit. Of all the tunnels in Gaza, how did Israel know this one in particular was intended to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers? And if indeed this was true, why did a) Israel not wait on the Israeli side and set a trap or b) ensure that no soldiers would be there to abduct?
Jimmy Carter refuted this story as rediculous, becasue it is.
Of course you and Jimmy Carter know better, what happened there!
Why? I don’t know all the facts, because it is classified information.
But what I certainly know, that Israel is very sensitive to the soldiers abduction issue.
Last thing we want, is one more Gilad Shalit. So every attempt of such an abduction should be prevented by all possible matters.
You Zionist propagandists are so predictable You come out swinging, claiming to set the record straight, and the minute you are corrected, you run back into your little hole and make some trite little comeback.
No it’s not classified information, because Israel already told us a story, that has been shown to be full of holes.
As for Israel’s sensitivities, they only apply to Israeli Jews of course, but even Shalit’s parents have said that the Israeli government has done NOTHING to secure the release of their son. Of courrse, the 2 Palestinian brothers that Israel abducted from Gaza city the day before Shalit was catpured are never mentioned. They never been seen or heard of since, so have likely dies in captivity, unlike Shalit, who is being treated humanely.
If you want IDF soldeirs to stop being czaptured, stay out of Gaza. With you Hasbrats, it’s only ever a crime when it’s done to Israel.
“Shingo November 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm
You Zionist propagandists are so predictable You come out swinging, claiming to set the record straight, and the minute you are corrected, you run back into your little hole and make some trite little comeback.
No it’s not classified information, because Israel already told us a story, that has been shown to be full of holes.
As for Israel’s sensitivities, they only apply to Israeli Jews of course, but even Shalit’s parents have said that the Israeli government has done NOTHING to secure the release of their son. Of courrse, the 2 Palestinian brothers that Israel abducted from Gaza city the day before Shalit was catpured are never mentioned. They never been seen or heard of since, so have likely dies in captivity, unlike Shalit, who is being treated humanely.
If you want IDF soldeirs to stop being czaptured, stay out of Gaza. With you Hasbrats, it’s only ever a crime when it’s done to Israel.”
—————————————————————————————————
You pro-palestinian lefties are so boring! Every day dozens are killed as a result of suicide bombers attacks in Iraq and Pakistan. All this is happening, after US has interfered there. 300,000 were murdered in Sudan by your fellow arabs. But how cares, when we have “poor” Palestinians and “evil” Zionists?
How you know, that Gilad Shalit is being treated humanely? Did you or your friend Jimmy Carter ever visit him? Did anybody at all visit him? His parents didn’t know if he is alive for 3 year.
And, yes, if you want your Gazan friends would to stop being killed blockaded and arrested, tell them to refrain of launching rockets on Israeli civilians. That’s the only way they can solve their problems.
Sorry to bore you, but facts and reality are usually much more boring that your desperate propaganda and Hasbra spin.
Every week, Isrlae kills dozens of Palestinians, usually using the childrne in the West Bank as target practice. While 300.000 are kileld in Sudna, that is but a fraction of the carnage the US has inflicted in Iraq.
Shalit is alive and we have see footage of him holding up a resent newspaper, which is more than we can say of the 10,000 prisoners Israel has locked up, not to mention Israel’s lovely topture chambers.
Israel were masscaring Palstinians, blockading Gaza, arresting and kidnapping Palestinians ling before the rockets started, so no, it is not the problem. the occupaiton is the problem.
Try again.
First rule of Zionist supporters: They lead with an insult, and follow that up with a lie. The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that Avigdor Lieberman was, in fact, the ideal choice as the veritable face of Israel.
Guys, this Awamori could be one of those guys that do this for a living. Hey kid, what does it earn? Are you thinking already of moving to a better job or do you think you’ll keep doing this? What’s Elon Gilad like in real life? Are there many people in your office? How’s the coffee? Can I apply for a job there?
Let’s keep him and convert him to a Jehova’s Witness.
Actually, I didn’t vote for Lieberman. I am not sharing his ideas. But of course I simply can’t be objective about this topic, since my home town is under rocket attacks from Gaza.
But what happened to all of your here? Why can’t you be objective? Why can’t you see, that the conflict is complicated, has a long history and many aspects? Why can’t you understand, that in conflicts of this type it is not possible, that one side is totally guilty and one side is totally innocent?
The conflict is not complicated. Israel’s defenders liek to pretend that it’s compolicated so that they have en excuse not to solve it.
It’s like the government of China when they are exposed for the human rights abuses. They too say it’s the situation is complicated. It’s what tyranical regimes and human rights abusing states do. They lie, they stonewall.
Is your hometown Sderot? Do you remember when it was called Najd, Awamori? Of course you don’t, huh.
My home town is Gedera. It was founded in 1884 by members of the Bilu group, near the ruins of a biblical Israelite city. Those ruins were thought to have been the ruins of a biblical city called HaGdera
Shingo November 9, 2009 at 7:55 am
Sorry to bore you, but facts and reality are usually much more boring that your desperate propaganda and Hasbra spin.
Every week, Isrlae kills dozens of Palestinians, usually using the childrne in the West Bank as target practice. While 300.000 are kileld in Sudna, that is but a fraction of the carnage the US has inflicted in Iraq.
Shalit is alive and we have see footage of him holding up a resent newspaper, which is more than we can say of the 10,000 prisoners Israel has locked up, not to mention Israel’s lovely topture chambers.
Israel were masscaring Palstinians, blockading Gaza, arresting and kidnapping Palestinians ling before the rockets started, so no, it is not the problem. the occupaiton is the problem.
Try again.
—————————————————————————————————–
No, not dozens every week! Hundreds of Palestinian kids are killed every day! Yes it is truth! We also eat them for breakfast. Actually, for every ten posts here, I’m rewarded with a permission to shoot one or two Palestinians and sell them for organs. I’ve maid my self a fortune.
And it was not a genocide in Sudan at all!
Awamori,
Was there a point to your post, or are you simply taking a break from your marathon masturbation?
Regarding the Palestinians – none of them were killed during Black September in Jordan.
You might want to stay away from discussions about refugee camps in Lebanon unless you never heard about Sabra andShatilla or Qana.
Yes the Palestinisnj have been in Palestine for as long as any Judeans have. And even then, the Hebrews were not the first to be there, (towns like Jericho date back 405 millennia) so the debate about who was there first is pointless.
The Zionist didn’t steal their land while the Palestinians were sleeping, the Palestinians were very much awake and being killed or threatened.
As for Gilad Shalit, isn’t it revealing how the world knows his name, where are the 1000 prisoners that Israel keeps locked up without having been charged with any crime, remain nameless?
And for Shalit’s father, he said in an interview that the Israeli government had made no effort to secure his son’s release, which reveals the regard the Israeli government really has for the lives of Israeli citizens.
Any other mindless comments you would like to add?
“A Muslim cannot commit genocide”. It’s obvious!
link to en.timeturk.com
Regarding the Palestinians – none of them were killed during Black September in Jordan. And nothing happened in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon in 2007.
And what I’m talking at all! There are no refugee camps in Arab countries. Palestinians have same civil rights, as other citizens.
And the OCCUPATION, of course! Everybody knows, that ancient Palestinians have lived in Palestine since the creation of the world. But one dark night, the evil Zionist arrived, and stoled their land while the Palestinians were sleeping. Zionists had stolen every grain of sand, every rock and every piece of mud. Zionists expelled all the Palestinians to other countries. None of them left.
So that’s why the peaceful Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist the evil Zionist occupation by firing while hiding behind own women and children. Because that’s how they protect themselves. And it is really unfair, that Zionists are dare to respond from time to time. Firing back, when you under fire from, it is a worse war crime ever!
As for Gilad Shalit, he is staying in 5-stars hotel with a full pension, it’s clear. He has a free phone calls as well. Actually his father was lying, when he said to everyone that there is no single sign from his son for three years.
Who owned the land you live on in 1946? Do you know where they are now? Very likely behind the walls of Gaza, penned up so they can’t come back and take what is rightly theirs.
Unless they were murdered under Israel’s “shoot to kill” policy, trying to come back and reclaim their homes.
Israelis – the self-righteousness of thieves.
Everybody knows about Sabra and Shatila, of course. But do you know about Damour?
Wrong, Arab concurred Syria (including Palestine) in 7th century A.C.. Jews were living in Palestine since ancient times.
As for modern times, from ~1,3 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine by 1948 at least 50% immigrated from other Arab countries during British Mandate period, attracted by better economical and social conditions. As for the land owning:
“An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. No official census figures were available, as no census had been conducted in Palestine in 1940, so all their surmises and figures are based on extrapolations and surmises. According to the report, at the end of 1946, About 1,220,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned. The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons.”
To leave somewhere doesn’t mean to legally own ALL the lands around.
The UN partition plan was a fair solution (BTW Arabs were supposed to receive at least 2/3 of the territory), but Arabs didn’t want to accept it. They did have a choice, and they still have a choice today.
The Palestinian prisoners – there is no death sentence in Israel. So people, who were arrested with shahid belt on, currently are receiving Israeli academic degrees for free.
link to ynetnews.com
They are also enjoining TV and visits from their relatives. And they being released from time to time as “goodwill gesture” or as a part of peace negotiations.
Gilad Shalit’s father is absolutely right, when he is blaming an Israeli government.
But it is because the government is responsible for the live and safety of every citizen, and he expects more to be done to release his son. This doesn’t cancel the fact, that Hamas was torturing Gilad’s family for 3 years, by not confirming if their son is alive.
Similar thing happen with 2 soldiers, kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006. Their families
didn’t know if they are alive for 2 years, the bodies were returned. And there are still several Israeli soldiers, whose destiny is unknown, like Ron Arad.
“Jews were living in Palestine since ancient times. ”
And before them, there were the Canaanites and the Philistine and the Hitites. So how far back in far enough?
And as for the acient times, most of those Jews converted to Islam and became the Palestinians.
Yes there were cencus figure in 1948 and those figures showed that Jews only owned 7% of the land. In fact, the Jewish movement in Britain were anxious about the fact that without purchasing ir stealing the land, there was no chance of a Jwish majority in Israel.
The UN partition plan was a not a fair solutio because Jews only owned 7% of th eland, but were being given 50% of it. And not only did the Arabs not accept it, neother did Israel. Yes, Isrle pretended to accept it but Ben Gurion made it abbudadntly clear that once Israel was legitimized, it would take whatever it wanted.
In a meeting of the Jewish leadership in 1938, Ben Gurion shared his assumption that “‘after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state – we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.’”
Another quote from Ben Gurion.
“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.
By: Ben-Gurion
Source: P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987″ Simha Flapan
So much for the Arabs rejecting the partition hey Awamori? They never had a choice, because even if they had accepted it, Israel would have destoyed it.
There might be no death sentence in Israel? Are you for real?
1. Israel just massacred 1,400 people in Gaza. Are you suggesting hey are not really dead?
2. Israel openly boastas about it’s extra judicial assatination program. In case you don’t know what they means, it means killing whoever they like anywhere and any time.
3. Israel also has those lovely torture chambers, in which victims have been killed.
4. There are hundreds, if not thousands that have been arrested and never seen or heard from since.
Shalit’s father is blaming the Isralei governemnt for doing nothing to get Shalit back. In fact, he believes the government prefers to keep Shalit in Hamas cutody as he presents more propaganda value as a prisoner than he does back in Israel.
As for the 2 soldiers, kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006. Yes it’s a pitty that their families didn’t know if they are alive for 2 years, but Israel has unleashed the same pain hundreds of times over on Palestinians. We don’t hear much about it because Palestinian lives don’t count.
Your talking points are truly pathetic Awamori, as one would expct from a Zionist hack.
Look at the map of the UN partition plan more carefully. Jews got a narrow strip of land by the sea from Tel-Aviv to Haifa. The bottom part is the Negev desert. Nobody owned these lands and they are not populated until today.
You can bring different cites from Ben-Gurion or Begin. I can bring similar cites from Arab leaders. Check for this cite for example:
“The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force.
The prestige of the United Nations would be better served by abandoning this plan and by not imposing such an injustice.
The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition. The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.” Arab Higher Committee.
We can’t know, what would have happened. But we know what did happened – there weren’t a Jews, who started this war.
As for “hundreds if not thousands” Palestinian Prisoners, who were arrested and their destiny is unknown, you are lying – there is no such a thing. As for torture – it is a nasty thing, but you are exaggerating here like always. And there is a public struggle against the torture in Israel which succeeded to cease it almost completely. BTW, talking about torture, have you ever seen the video, where Hamas members are executing the Palestinians suspected for collaboration with Israel?
As for “1400 massacred in Gaza” – actually 1100, from whom 700 are militants. And they weren’t massacred. They died as a result of intense fighting.
Looking at the UN partition plan isn’t gong to changethat:
1. Jews only owned 7% of the land before the Nakba, and the partition was giving the 50%
2. Ben Gurion and Israel’s founders have no intnetino of respecting the partition plan once Israel was legitimized by the UN.
Yes, the Palestinians had every reason to consider attempt by Jewish people to establish a Jewish state as an act of aggression, esepcialyl when you had the Irugun and Stern gang setting off bombs and carrying out dryive by shootings.
Wedo know what would have happened because Ben Gurion told us, just as the Ziinist founders told us more than 50 years earlier that the plan was to remove teh Palestinians and take their land by force. Israeli Jews did start the war. The war did not start in 1948 out of nowhere, but was a retaliaiton by the Arab states to to enthic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Israel has ten thousand prisoners, most of whom are Palestinian. The day before Shalit was captured, the IDF kid 2 brothers in Gaza city. OF coure, we don;t hear about them, and we have never seen or heard from them since, but the capture of Shalit was retribution for that crime, yet the ony one we hear about is Shalit.
One coudl argue that there is a public struggle against the torture in the US, but the US government will continue ot do it regardless, even when they proclaim they won’t.
No I have not seen the video of Hamas members executing the Palestinians suspected for collaboration with Israel and nor would it prove anything anyway. I could show you videos fo IDF coldeirs shooting a prisoner while he was on the ground handcuffed, or provide you stories of hoa an IDF soldiers empties 2 cips fo bullets into a unarmed, 13 year old Palestinian girl, to “confirm the kill”, and was euqitted of any wrongdoing becasue he was “following standard practice”.
Get your facts straight. It WAS 1400 massacred in Gaza and only Israel are suggesting that 700 were militants. Then again, Israel vilated the ruling of the superme court and prevented journalists from entering Gaza, so we have no reason to attribute what Israel says with any truth.
Yes they weren’t massacred. They died as a intense bombing of a densly packed urban area and no there wasn’t any “fighting”. Fighting implies that the other side had a chance to fight back. It was Israel doing what it does best – shooting fish in a barrel.
1)50% with the Negev desert. Did palestinans own Negev desert? No they didn’t. So the partition plan was fare. But as we see, it doesn’t matter at all. Because even if the state of Israel was even established on those 7%, that jews legally owned, the Arabs would never accept it anyway. So the main conclusion here (and you’ve also agreed on that), that the conflict is not about the borders, not about the prisoners, not about the apartheid wall, not about the refuges and not about the Gaza blockade. The root cause of the conflict is the right of state of Israel to exist. And until your arab friends will not accept it, all the sad attributes of the conflict, mentioned above will make their life miserable. Jews will not go anywhere simply because they don’t have where to go.
2) I don’t believe, that the arabs started this war in 1948 just because what Ben Gurion had said (if these cites are real) . I even don’t believe, they knew, he said that.
And the rhetorics of arab leaders was not much more peaceful as well.
As for Irgun – they were extremists, and the extremists were on both sides.
Besides, Irgun was founded as a response to 1929 Palestine riots, when Jews were massacred in Jerusalem and Hebron.
3)10 Israeli soldiers were killed and several dozens wounded during the ground
operation in Gaza. Can you explain, how did it happen, if it was “no fighting”, like you are saying?
You Zionist Hasbrats are so clichéd.
You pretend to have a debate by pretending to know what the Arabs would have or would not have agreed to.
1) In your case, you’re trying (very badly) to argue that because the Arabs didn’t agree to a 50/50 split, then that proves they wouldn’t have accepted a 93/7 split in their favor. Yeah sure Awamori , whatever you say.
So, having failed that, but imagining that you have convinced us of this pathetic and juvenile perspective, you then build on it by making the even more baseless assertion that the Palestinians aren’t really upset about the borders, prisoners, apartheid walls, refuges, or the Gaza blockade. Their real beef is that they don’t want Israel to exist. That’s right isn’t it Awamori? The Palestinians would be fine with being massacred and having their land stolen and their houses demolished, so long as it was someone else doing it.
Brilliant summation. I hope you’re not a lawyer.
2) As we saw with Arafat, recognizing Israel gets you nothing, so stop pretending that the Arabs will only get what they want once they sign on the dotted line.
3) As for what stared the 1948 war, I don’t care what you believe. What you believe is clearly what you cannot prove. They didn’t have to hear Ben Gurion spell out his plans, though there were others who were openly calling for such plans since the time of Hertzl. The Irgun and Stenr gangs were spelling it out in no uncertain terms.
The Irgun were not extremists by Zionist standards. If they were the extreme, then Menachem Begin would never have been elected to the highest office in the land. Can you imagine the leader of the KKK or the Black Panther movement being in the White House?
The Irgun was founded to create Israel and had nothing to do with the Palestine riots. And if there was no massacre in Jenin, as Israel exists, then there was no massacre in Hebron in 1929.
3) The 10 Israeli soldiers that were killed during Cast Lead died from friendly fire. That’s what happens when people handle guns and explosives. Are you going to pin that on Hamas? I’m sure they’d love to take credit for it.
1) Are you kidding me!? You’ve said it by yourself :
“Yes, the Palestinians had every reason to consider attempt by Jewish people to establish a Jewish state as an act of aggression, esepcialyl when you had the Irugun and Stern gang setting off bombs and carrying out dryive by shootings.”
And your Arab friends never tried to hide it:”“The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force.”(c)
Thats the ROOT CAUSE of the conflict, rest are consequences. Arafat promised many things for the media, but he also said totally opposite things for internal use. And he started a Second Intifada
2) Haganah represented the Zionist mainstream. Have you heard about “Alhalena”? Irgun were extremists and terrorists, same like Hamas. Will you deny, that Hamas won the Palestinian elections? BTW, Irgun’s policy was “eye for eye”, so they responded to Arab terror with the same methods.
Hebron Massacre is a historical fact, same as US Civil War.
“Jenin massacre” is a myth:
“Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was NO MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS, with estimated death tolls of 46-55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56 as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement for the northern West Bank.”
3)You are lying! Only 4 out of 10 died from friendly fire. And it was a fighting. Hamas themselves acknowledged that.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Militants booby-trapped houses and buildings and built an extensive system of tunnels in preparation for combat. A Hamas fighter reported that the group had prepared a tunnel network in Gaza city that would allow Hamas to engage the IDF in urban warfare. IDF commanders said that many Hamas members have dug tunnels for themselves under their homes and hid weapon caches in them.[170] Some houses were booby-trapped with manneqins, explosives and adjacent tunnels: Israeli officers said that houses were set up this way so that “Israeli soldiers would shoot the mannequin, mistaking it for a man; an explosion would occur; and the soldiers would be driven or pulled into the hole, where they could be taken prisoner”. A colonel estimated that one-third of all houses encountered were booby-trapped. IDF Brigadier-General Eyal Eisenberg said that roadside bombs were planted in TV satellite dishes, adding that Hamas booby-trapping of homes and schools was “monstrous” and “inhumane”.Ron Ben-Yishai, an Israeli military correspondent embedded with invading ground forces, stated that entire blocks of houses were booby-trapped and wired in preparation for urban confrontation with the IDF. Israel claims to have found a map showing “the deployment of explosives and Hamas forces in the al-Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza.” This map allegedly shows that Hamas placed many explosives and firing positions in residential areas, several mosques, and next to a gas station.Israel deployed the elite Sayeret Yahalom combat engineering unit throughout the brigades with new equipment including miniature robots and improved wall-breaching munitions to counter the booby-traps.
Several witnesses told an Italian reporter that on many roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs, including UN building, there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs.On January 27, the Shin Bet released details given by Hamas captives, including the militants’ use of mosques for weapon caches and military training. Militants admitted to the location of Hamas weapon storage sites, in tunnels, in the homes of activists, and in citrus groves and mosques, and told of theory instruction given in mosques as well.”
1) What I said was that the Palestinians had every reason to see the actions by the Irgun and Stern as an attempt to create a state at their expense by stealing their land. They were absolutely right to assume this. Palestine was supposed to be a Jewish homeland, but shared between the two sides, but the Zionists wanted a Jewish majority and to drive the Palestinians off their land. In your mind, the Palestinians were being unreasonable for not accepting their fate to be driven from their land.
That was the root causes of the conflict. The desire of the Zionists to take the land from them. No one would accept this. Would the people is Texas accept it if the Mexicans tried to create their own state in Texas by partitioning land that was already owned by Texans? No, and neither did the Palestinians.
The Baflour Declarfation stipulated that the Palestinians were not to be discriminated against or inconvenienced in any way. Even Ben Gurion said this, but as we know, he was lying.
2) As I already said, if the Irgun were considered extremists and terrorists (which they were) then Begin would never have been elected leader of the country. And no, the Irgun’s policies were not an “eye for eye”, because they went after the British with the same ferocity as they went after Palestinians.
3) If Hebron was a massacre, then so was Jenin. 70 people died in Hebron, but they weren’t massacred. Are you accepting that Jenin was a massacre, or did 50 Palestinians just die for no reason?
4) All 10 died from friendly fire. That is what was reported by Israel. Your Wikipedia link has not credibility because Israel banned reporters from entering Gaza and refused top participate in a subsequent investigation. Of course, I realize that for you, 10 IDF deaths justifies the massacring of 1,400 civlians.
And the so called version of events about UN building being used as sites for rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs were debunked. Again, Israel violated their own Superme Court and refused to allow foreign journalists into Gaza. There were no militants admitting anything, because all that is based on the heresay of those who were covering up the operation.
Shingo – the Zionist is right, it was only4 killed by their own side. Which only goes further to show how there was no real fighting, as the Gazans could only manage to kill so few of the invaders. It also demonstrates the reckless regard for human life of the IDF, that they didn’t bother to identify their targets.
Fair enough Post,
Though I am not sure what the point is the Zionist was making. That because Hamas managed to kil 4 IDF soldiers who were in Gaza trying to kill Palestinians, that it means this was a war between 2 equal sides?
Apparently so. Or at least not a massacre. Israel good, Arabs bad. The usual.