Great news in the ongoing thaw of the ice age of permanent war: Norman Finkelstein will be talking about Gaza at Harvard Law School in two weeks, and critical legal theorist Duncan Kennedy will be moderating the talk. Wow. Beautiful. This is not just a sign that pro-Goldstone speech is ebbing into elite precincts, it is a sign that a gifted scholar, Norman Finkelstein, who has been harshly treated by the American academy, is getting some overdue props. The event:
HLS Justice for Palestine and the Middle East Law Students Association Present "This Time We Went Too Far" Truth and consequences of the Gaza invasion a talk by Norman Finkelstein
Moderated by Duncan Kennedy, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence
Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:15pm in Langdell South, Harvard Law School Co-Sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild-HLS Chapter, the Alliance for Justice in the Middle East at Harvard University, and the Palestine Caucus at HKS
YESSSSSSSSSS! GREAT news!
he might get wrecked by cruel Israeli lobbyists! Please guys go to support him!
It’s not just David Project style gatecrashers to worry about. I’m half expecting one or more of the Harvard academics (if not the moderator himself, although I’m not all that familiar with Duncan Kennedy one way or the other) to poison the well before Finkelstein gets a chance to speak a word.
But, maybe I’m too cynical. One can hope this ends up being a fair discussion on the issues.
I think Finklestein is a great speaker he knows how to deal with wreckers and Harvard pro Zio elites, i wish i can attend!!!!! I wish someone will film this.
I don’t think Duncan Kennedy will poison that well–he has called for Harvard divestment–he’s got an objective handle on the truth and I’m guessing will give Finklestein full opportunity to speak:
link to thecrimson.com
Harvard guys cannot argue worth a damn (not all, because there are some exceptions, like (Dr. Said, etc.). Lets hope they do not ask Mr. Finkelstein to use the Harvard pronunciation when he addresses them….lol (Haaaavvvarrrdd…).
Unless Dershowitz gets him pulled off the podium again.
Or Abe Foxman, for that matter.
Foxman!
(I always say his name like “Newman!” on Seinfeld. I ghost wrote a pro-justice op-ed for the International Herald Tribune just before the Gaza Disengagement, and his letter to the editor in response was SO WEAK — it was like he hadn’t even read the article but just copied and pasted some random hasbara — but it was still the first one published. Foxman! *shakes fist*)
link to
I can never tell which side of his moth Foxman is talking from, could be due to his 100 chins…;)
Still waiting for some criticism of Finkelstein from Philip. I find much to criticize, including in his scholarship. I’m surprised that Phil doesn’t as well.
Witty i m still waiting your respond to my comment.
What comment was that?
Here you go Dick Wittiooooooooo
link to mondoweiss.net
Forget it, asparisian. You aren’t getting it.
Well, we’re still waiting for you to make any sort of showing on any article on this blog that talks about Palestinians being illegal detained, deported, murdered or expelled from their homes. Go figure.
“Still waiting for some criticism of Finkelstein from Philip. I find much to criticize, including in his scholarship. I’m surprised that Phil doesn’t as well.”
Yeah, I bet he’s sweating his kishkas out formulating an answer to your questions. Cause if there is one thing Phil has made it quite evident he worries about, it’s what you think, Richard. I’m sure it’s spoiling his meals.
But you keep pretending to some oleaginous intimacy with him. I think he’s left you far behind.
Has Phil ever directly answered Lord Witty? I think not, not for a long time.
I forget. Does Witty usually address Weiss as Philip or Phil? In fact in this case he switches in mid-comment. What would Freud say? A sign that Witty is struggling with the reality that Weiss thinks him a crank and not an old friend? And his comment here is symptomatic of his ridigity. It’s not enought that Witty doesn’t approve of Finkelstein, Weiss must also disapprove, publicly and on command. If you want unconditional, slobbering obedience, Witty, get a dog.
Marc b, Witty is just trying to stave off the inevitable moment when he will have to inform Phil’s dad about his son’s activities, so his dad will ground him and take the computer away.
It’ll be sad, but Witty will be forced to tell Mr. Weiss his son has been brainwashed by the Gazans, and that just by using a couple of falefel sandwiches as bait, too. I knew he was finished if he ate anything on that trip! Now they own him!
Lol.
That’s what I need too, a dog. Unconditional, slobbering obedience sounds soooooooo goooooood. I really, really crave that, especially at this point in my life.
Hey Witty, why wait for Phil? Tell us what you find objectionable about any specifics Finkelstein has discussed. That way, you can get around your romance with Phil. As it is, I can only think of Ode To A Grecian Urn. That is, to the extent we can believe you since Phil, unlike you, has never discussed you or your POV with us.
“Still waiting for some criticism of Finkelstein from Philip. I find much to criticize, including in his scholarship. I’m surprised that Phil doesn’t as well. ”
hehe – I have nothing to say, I am sure Mr. Weiss does not appreciate you using him as a wrap…lol
“Still waiting for some criticism of Finkelstein from Philip.”
Why Witty. Is it because Phillip is a fellow Jew and owes it to you.
“I find much to criticize, including in his scholarship. I’m surprised that Phil doesn’t as well.”
For someone who’s notorious for making the flimsiest arguments (or entirely bogus) and who repeatedly fails to citeevidence ro support those arguments, your take on Fink’s scholarship doesn ‘t carry a lot of weight.
REPORT ABUSE
REPLY
I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein! I love Finkelestein!
Heh. I actually have some criticisms of him myself — I’m not happy about the circumstances and reasons with which he pulled support of the Gaza Freedom March — but he is a man of honor, integrity and intelligence.
me either, the same way i criticize chomsky for pulling support of BDS
Finkelstein is a lone wolf. Basically he is not political in the sense of working in organizations where one must continually compromise on small issues to attain consensus. He is a great polemicist and should be accepted for what he does best.
So nice of them to throw him a bone, he should own the place
I am in the area and would love the opportunity to witness this blessed event. Does anyone know if mere mortals can enter? Or is this only open to Harvard alum?
I just spoke with a couple of people at HLS, and the event is not yet formally scheduled. The nice young lady who manages the events calendar (I was disappointed I wasn’t given an opportunity to work up a good head of indignation.) said that she would check around. Apparently some events are open to the general public, and others are not, and it is usually up to the event organizers to decide who can attend.
Support Finkelstein. Buy his new book! I did, and I’m waiting for it to ship on March 15.
i did as well :-)
Even though it would be “in the house,” I would hate to sit counter to him in a debate. We do not agree on everything, but I would say that would be a minuscule percentage –
I HEAR THE SOUND OF ACADEMIC THUNDER
I agree with a lot of what Finkelstein says. But not all.
When I met him in the street in about 2006, I questioned his solidarity with Hezbollah. I asked him why he was supporting an organisation that clearly committed war-crimes in the war of that year (i.e. indiscriminate rocketing of Israeli towns).
I can’t remember his exact answer, but it didn’t satisfy me.
I feel like he swings too far over to support of unreasonable and violent enemies of Israel, which in fact contradicts his own, usual, focus on legality.
Not only is he wrong on this account, IMO, but he also leaves himself open to justified criticism.
So the victims use the same tactics as their oppressors do, and you denounce them for “committing war crimes”. Get serious Emma, the US, Israel, GreatBritain, France and whoever have been indiscrimantly bombing civilian targets for the last 90 years and you get bent out of shape because one of recipients of this terror shoots back. At best this is just an excuse to remain silent in the face of oppression , but probably more likely hasbara dissembling.
@syvanen
“more likely hasbara dissembling”
If this remark is directed at my comment, then I find it rather insulting and narrow-minded. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.
Anyway, your own comment seems to imply that victims are entitled to commit war crimes, or that these should be glossed over. I cannot agree. No one is so entitled. Period.
This is the kind of opinion that gives critics of Israel a bad name (i.e. “supporters of terrorism”), makes it easier for real hasbara types to make Israel’s case, and blurs the Palestinians’ moral standing.
Supporters of the Pals must stand on justice, not support fanatical war criminals like Hezbollah.
On the other hand (and while it’s perhaps strange for me, of all this people to say the first part of this clause) while syvanen is coming on a bit too strong toward you, he raises a good point. In my mind, “indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets” doesn’t mean you’re firing a rocket that you can’t guarantee won’t hit civilians — it’s firing off high-grade military hardware that you are guaranteed to kill civilians.
Realistically, only Israel’s hardware falls in that category. They have the best hardware American taxpayer money can buy. They could have done the massacres in Lebanon in 2006, and those in Gaza in 2008 with virtually no civilian deaths, if they chose to.
They chose not to.
Hezbollah and Hamas do not have that luxury. Israel puts human shields — commonly known as “settlers” — right on the border, and the United States conspires to make sure neither can arm with the sophisticated weapons necessary to defend themselves from Israeli expansionism without the activities you condemn.
I’m not disapproving of your condemnation of Hezbollah’s tactics, mind you, but bear in mind that making a false moral equivocation between Israeli war mongers and ragtag resistance fighters does nobody any favors. One group clearly is slaughtering civilians in their hundreds, if not thousands, whereas the others are not.
@Chaos 4700
Indiscriminate does not mean guaranteed to hit civilians, it means with reckless indifference to whether it does or not. Hezbollah’s rockets hit homes, I believe on occasion both deliberately and collaterally. I’ve seen a bombed-out house in Haifa myself.
Clearly Israel is serially guilty of this too.
Hezbollah is not in fact “rag-tag” but is a serious organisation with quality training, strategy, technology and support from regional states.
But this isn’t really relevant, since being a weak military force does not in any case release you from international and humanitarian law.
Either you hold everybody to this law and try to enforce it, or you allow an extra-legal free-for-all. I think I know which one the Palestinians need to bet on.
I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that no movement engaged in war crimes will ever gain justice for the Palestinians. The only possibility is to stand on the justice of their cause, fight legitimately when they have to, make their case, and show their just cause by their actions.
They cannot win a war against Israel by any means fair or foul anyway, so building a movement for justice is the only game in town. Rocketing Israeli civilians is about the most counter-productive strategy possible: Hamas is in some ways the greatest weapon in the Zionist locker.
So what qualifies as an attack on civilians? Does bulldozing someone’s house qualify? How about the blockade of Gaza?
How about US military drone attacks against Pakistani civilians? How about Americans torturing Muslims, to death in many cases?
You better be willing to take this all the way, Emma. Because I certainly am.
Yes those are all attacks on civilians, or illegitimate blockade in the case of Gaza’s economic and humanitarian needs.
Why do you ask? I never questioned these things.
I completely agree with you Emma.
I don’t think rocketing Israeli civilians is productive, and the Zionist gang use it to demonize their victims. But I still can’t disqualify the merit of Hezbollah. Hezbollah committed errors but i think they are not terrorists because they don’t attack Israel for the sake of terrorising Israeli civilians, they retaliated everytime Israel attacked lebanon in a proportional way.
@aparisian
“Proportional” means inflicting a level of damage justified by the military objective.
Since the great majority of Hezbollah’s rockets were directed at civilian and not military targets, I don’t see how those rocket attacks can be called proportional.
Hezbollah decided to fight that war by terrorising Israeli civilians. Actually in a similar way to how Israel has attacked the moral of Gazans and Lebanese, and also to the Blitz. However, this method of war is illegal.
If you’re not attacking a military objective, how can the attack be called proportional?
@Emma
if you go to their website you can hear their point of view on this subject URL: http://hezbollah-resistance.over-blog.com/categorie-1186661.html
According to them they decided to rocket Israel ONLY after Israel bombed the civilian Lebanese infrastructure including houses, airport, hospitals etc..
According to their website, nothing was to be done when your enemy has no respect for civilians than rocketing it.
@aparisian
Quoting from that Hezbollah website:
“Trés vite face à la barbarie des bombardements Israéliens sur les civils Libanais…”
La barbarie.
If the Israeli bombardments were “barbarism” then so were Hezbollah’s.
In other words, Hezbollah were barbaric in their methods, meaning illegal and uncivilised.
“obligeant un million d’Israelien à se refugier”
They actually celebrate the fact that they terrorised civilians.
Again, barbaric.
From the horse’s mouth.
Hence why I don’t support their methods.
ok so in other words you call Israel a terrorist state? Because Israel used their contested methods to kill 1300 civilians and destroyed important part of the lebanese infrastructure.
“I believe that when pro-Palestinians support war-criminals, it weakens the Palestinian position.”
This is a vacuous argument, because it assumes that Israel alone (who’s leaders are themselves accused of war crimes) are arbiters of who and what constitutes a war criminal.
“Pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with such movements, both because they are criminal and because to do so is counter-productive.”
What makes hem criminal? The fact that they oppose the state of Israel? What about Israel, who unanimously supported the war in Gaza, which Israel started and which included war crimes?
“I remember watching this war unfold from the beginning. It was initiated by Hezbollah attacking and taking prisoner Israeli soldiers.”
Also false. The cross border incursion is the kind of activity that Israel does routinely and with impunity. It became a war because Israel decided that they wanted a war. In fact, Israel’s response was not even to go after Hezbollah, but to attack all of Southern Lebanon. This confirms what Olmert later admitted, was the realization of they plans to go to war with Hezbollah, pending an inciting incident.
Once Israel decided to make this war about Southern Lebanon, it was indeed a matter of of defnse.
Hezbollah’s rocket attacks were of no consequence and would not have prevented the escalation by Israel. We know this because a) Israel were not actually bombing the sites from which rockets were being fired and b) as I mentioned above, Israel had made the decision to go to war at least a year earlier.
“I don’t see that Hezbollah had any serious cause for going to war”
That’s due to blatant hypocrisy on your part.
You don’t see it because Israel violates territory and air space routinely and with impunity, and people like you have become accustomed to that being the norm. The 2006 incident was the first time Hezbollah had ventured into Israeli territory, and Israel decided it was an act of war.
All in all, I don’t really think what they did can be called “defense” of Lebanon”
As a matter of fact it was. Israel made it abundantly clear they were going to invade Southern Lebanon and take the territory south of the Litani River. Hezbollah prevented that happening.
“This does not mean I am or was pro-Israel about that war or anything else”
Who are you trying to fool
Yes, Israel has resorted to terrorism: in the sense of using violence against civilian targets in order to indirectly affect the opposition’s willingness to fight.
I don’t understand why people are asking me such questions, as they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.
Namely, should people like Finkelstein who are pro-Palestinian supporters show support for organizations like Hezbollah? I say no. Do you say yes?
@Emma you seem to ignore this important sentence
Le Hezbollah a tiré à peu près 4000 roquettes en Israël en 4 semaines de conflit démontrant une puissance de feu qu’Israel craignait de plus en plus. Mais ces tirs sur des villes israéliennes n’ont débuté qu’après l’attaque des installations civiles libanaises dont les pistes de l’aéroport le 12 juillet</
Nope Emma the question was:
Is israel a terrorist state? Yes or no?
don’t see how those rocket attacks can be called proportional.”
Absolute rubbish.
Hezbollah’s rockets were directed at what they could reach. Most landed in the desert.
“Hezbollah decided to fight that war by terrorising Israeli civilians.”
No Israel did. Nasrallah admitted that he was surprised by Israel’s over reaction to the cross border skirmish, based on Israel’s responses to previous such incidents.
“Actually in a similar way to how Israel has attacked the moral of Gazans and Lebanese, and also to the Blitz. However, this method of war is illegal.”
False. Israel started both wars, particularly the Gaza war and attacked civilian infrastructure and civilian targets.
There is nothing legal about any of those tactics.
“If you’re not attacking a military objective, how can the attack be called proportional?”
You don’t attack military objectives, you carry them out.
“I don’t understand why people are asking me such questions, as they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.”
Why is that Emma? Because Israel’s terrorism is acceptable, but not Helzbollah’s
“Namely, should people like Finkelstein who are pro-Palestinian supporters show support for organizations like Hezbollah? I say no. Do you say yes?”
Absolutely. Helzbollah was created as a resistance movement to Israel’s 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon. They succeeded in driving Israel out of Southern Lebanon on 2 occasions, even when faces with a much more powerful military force.
How can you possibly object to that?
@Shingo
“Who are you trying to fool”
You are the second commenter to impute some kind of suspiciousness to my motives. The implication is not only false but also ignorant and impolite. You have no idea what my positions are on Israel, and in fact they are the opposite of what you seem to assume.
One of my points is that my commitment to the Palestinian cause does not require any particular viewpoints on such issues as the war in 2006. If anything, I seek to consistently apply my commitments to justice and international law, and not to leave them aside when they are violated by a pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist organisation.
Just because we may differ does not license you to attack my motives, and you only show your own narrow-mindedness when you do. The world is not black and white.
“This is a vacuous argument, because it assumes that Israel alone (who’s leaders are themselves accused of war crimes) are arbiters of who and what constitutes a war criminal.”
If you read my posts, you will see that I apply the same standards to all.
“What makes hem criminal? The fact that they oppose the state of Israel?”
No, the fact that they use criminal and terrorist methods.
As to who started the war, Hezbollah did by attacking Israeli soldiers. At the same time they launched rockets on an Israeli town. This was the 12th July; check the Wikipedia article. Israel only started to attack Lebanese infrastructure the next day: the airport, for which it gave a military justification concerning Hezbollah weapons supply. Hezbollah continued launching rockets on Israeli towns on the 13th.
Both Israel and Hezbollah were prepared for a war, so you can’t use that to pin it on one or the other.
Whatever the situation regarding incursions of airspace and whatever, there was no serious case for starting a huge war, for escalating it, for attacking civilians, etc., of which both sides were guilty.
Anyway, my main point is that Hezbollah committed war crimes and pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with them. Do you disagree with any of that?
Emma, I don’t support Hezbollah’s tactics, however I do support the right of Lebanon to defend itself from repeated attacks by Israel. Israeli conduct in the 2006 war is the primary issue in that conflict from my perspective. The intentional targeting and destruction of civilian infrastructure from S. Lebanon to Beirut was hardly a discrete response to the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers. If the two Koreas reacted as rashly as Israel did to what amounted to a cross-border skirmish, the penisula would have gone up in a mushroom cloud decades ago. (I’ll admit that the militant triumphalism of the Hezbollah website AParisien linked to is disturbing. And yet Israel’s treatment of Lebanon is as much a reason for Hezbollah’s development as a military organization as anything.)
Actually the first rocket attack was at the same time as the raid to take the soldiers prisoner.
The Israelis only later attacked the airport.
Anyway, what difference does it make? The rockets were war crimes. Period.
Would Israel be justified in rocketing Lebanese towns in response to Hezbollah rockets? No. And vice versa.
“Is israel a terrorist state? Yes or no?”
Some of its actions are terrorist, some are not.
The education department is not terrorist, many of its military actions have been.
@Shingo
“Hezbollah’s rockets were directed at what they could reach. Most landed in the desert.”
They attacked towns. No question. They celebrate this on their website.
Your next two points I’m not getting.
“You don’t attack military objectives, you carry them out. ”
In the laws of war, you may only attack military objectives. If you attack anything else, you are guilty of a war crime.
@Shingo
“Why is that Emma? Because Israel’s terrorism is acceptable, but not Helzbollah’s”
If you make one more such baseless comment, I will cease responding to you.
“Absolutely. Helzbollah was created as a resistance movement to Israel’s 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon. They succeeded in driving Israel out of Southern Lebanon on 2 occasions, even when faces with a much more powerful military force.
How can you possibly object to that?”
I never did object to it. I objected to their war crimes in 2006.
No dispute there.
I am not the least bot concerned with whether you respond to me Emma. So long as your lies and propaganda are exposed, that will suffice.
“You have no idea what my positions are on Israel, and in fact they are the opposite of what you seem to assume.”
Your positions are glaringly obvious by the facts you selectively choose to ignore and the spin you chose to adopt.
“One of my points is that my commitment to the Palestinian cause does not require any particular viewpoints on such issues as the war in 2006.”
In other words, you are prepared to ignore the elephant in the room and focus on the wallpaper. It requires a feat of mental acrobatics to ignore the 2006 and not see a direct correlation with the 2008 attack on Gaza.
“If anything, I seek to consistently apply my commitments to justice and international law, and not to leave them aside when they are violated by a pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist organisation.”
If hat’s what you’re seeking, then you are failing miserably.
“Just because we may differ does not license you to attack my motives, and you only show your own narrow-mindedness when you do. The world is not black and white.”
Your motives are fundamental to your credibility and stated aims. In your case, your motives are very apparent and betray those aims, and I have every right to attack them, because you are a fraud.
“If you read my posts, you will see that I apply the same standards to all.”
I have read your posts and no, you do not.
“No, the fact that they use criminal and terrorist methods.”
Then why have you not labelled any Israeli leaders as war criminals?
“As to who started the war, Hezbollah did by attacking Israeli soldiers.”
There have been recorded incidents between 2000 and 2006 of at least half a dozen cases of Israeli soldiers firing on civilians in Southern Lebanon, killing at least 2. Were these acts of, even though Hezbollah chose not to respond to them?
“Israel only started to attack Lebanese infrastructure the next day: the airport, for which it gave a military justification concerning Hezbollah weapons supply.”
Hezbollah continued launching rockets on Israeli towns on the 13th.
Both Israel and Hezbollah were prepared for a war, so you can’t use that to pin it on one or the other.”
Except that Israel were shopping their war in Washington via power point in January of that year and had already informed Blair and Bus that a war was about to take place. In recent new reports, Israel are again stating that another war with Hezbollah is inevitable.
“Whatever the situation regarding incursions of airspace and whatever, there was no serious case for starting a huge war, for escalating it, for attacking civilians, etc., of which both sides were guilty.”
Rubbish. The only reason it hasn’t happened yet is because no one has violated Israel’s air space or territory since….2006. Your myopia is mind numbing.
“Anyway, my main point is that Hezbollah committed war crimes and pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with them. Do you disagree with any of that?”
Only if that means that anyone who commits war crimes should be held to the same standard, including every American president since Kenndy.
Do you disagree with any of that, or is this yard stick to be applied to Israel’s enemies only?
Emma,
Since the great majority of Hezbollah’s rockets were directed at civilian and not military targets, I don’t see how those rocket attacks can be called proportional.
You might want to read Jonathan Cook’s article on Hezbollah rockets during the 2006 War. He is an independent journalist, living in Nazareth, and his point is that it appeared to him that Hezbollah was in fact directing its rockets at military targets, and that Israeli censorship laws prevented anyone from reporting on the military targets that Hezbollah was targeting. It is well-known that Israel had military targets positioned quite close to Nazareth, where one or two Israeli Arabs were killed during the War. And Israel has other military targets positioned next to Arab towns in the Galilee. (Nearly half of the Israeli civilian victims of the war were Israeli Arabs.)
Civilian casualties from the rockets were centered around northern Israeli towns in which IDF tanks and other military forces were stationed, in the center of the country, where Israel had several military targets in close proximity to Israel Arab towns, and at the port of Haifa, where Israel had several military targets.
Please read Cook’s article. His logic is compelling.
Hypocrisy and the Clamor Against Hizbullah
Here’s a snippet:
What I have argued instead is twofold. First, we cannot easily know what Hizbullah is trying to hit because Israel has located most of its army camps, weapons factories and military installations near or inside civilian communities. If a Hizbullah rocket slams into an Israeli town with a weapons factory, should we count that as an attack on civilians or on a military site?
The claim being made against Hizbullah in Lebanon — that it is “cowardly blending” with civilians, according to the UN’s Jan Egeland — can, in truth, be made far more convincingly of the Israeli army. While there has been little convincing evidence that Hizbullah is firing its rocket from towns and villages in south Lebanon, or that its fighters are hiding there among civilians, it can be known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israeli army camps and military installations are based in northern Israeli communities.
An obvious point that no one seems to be making — and given a news blackout that lasted several hours, Israel clearly hoped no one would make — is that the 12 soldiers who were killed on Sunday in Kfar Giladi by a Hizbullah rocket were, under Egeland’s definition, “cowardly blending” with the civilian population of that community. We know there are still civilians in Giladi because their response to the rocket barrage was quoted in the Israeli media.
My second claim was that Israel’s military censor is preventing foreign journalists based in Israel, myself included, from discussing where Hizbullah rockets are landing, and what they may be aimed at. Under the censorship rules, It is impossible to mention any issue that touches on Israeli security or defense matters: the location of military installations, for example, cannot be divulged. It is arguable whether it would actually be possible to report a Hizbullah strike that hit a military site inside Israel.
more at link….
aparisian, remember how the war in 2006 started? Do you believe everything you read?
Oh great, now TrashMouth decided to slink back out of his whole to cover the blog with his usual slime. Can’t you work off your desperate need to bully people (and snipe at “Muslim-looking” people) by playing Call of Duty or Modern Warfare or something, yonira? Or do you suck at that too?
@ EmmaZunz “Yes, Israel has resorted to terrorism: in the sense of using violence against civilian targets in order to indirectly affect the opposition’s willingness to fight”
what do you mean “in a sense?” He asked you a simple question, is it a terrorist state according to you, or not? Why beat around the bush?
You know Emma you should read further about Hezbollah.
Hezbollah health care and education services for Lebanese is not terrorist so what do you think now?
Is Israel a terrorist state?
I have yet to get COD MW2 is it any good?
Get Bad Company 2, much more fun. It’s kind of a parody of MW2.
“Anyway, your own comment seems to imply that victims are entitled to commit war crimes, or that these should be glossed over. I cannot agree. No one is so entitled. Period.”
You’re being belligerent and blinkered. War crimes commuted by the oppressed are often the consequnce of desperation and lack of options. Most of Hezbollah’s war crimes stemmed from the fact that they do not have state of the art weaponry. If your going to obsess about the fact that thru haven’t got missiles that cam strike at IDF bases, lobby Congress to send them some Tonohawk cruise missiles. Then you can stop worrying about Hezbollah’s war crimes.
How does that sound?
@Shingo
This is actually an interesting point, amid the blather you are producing.
I think you’ll find that, if you cannot attack within the laws of war, you may not attack at all.
The question is, do you want to restrain war within the bounds of law (an outcome that would be good for Palestinians and Lebanese on the whole) or turn it into an anarchic free-for-all (as pro-Israel types like Dershowitz apparently want)?
Your view is a recipe for civilian massacres. For example, the IDF could say, following your logic, “we can’t find the fighters so we’ll just turn the whole place to rubble”. Or should you lobby your Congressman to send them some kind of x-ray missile or something?
“Your view is a recipe for civilian massacres. For example, the IDF could say, following your logic, “we can’t find the fighters so we’ll just turn the whole place to rubble”. Or should you lobby your Congressman to send them some kind of x-ray missile or something?”
I have no idea what plent you’ve been resising on Emma, but thsi is precisely what Isrlae has been doing for decades. Israelis have admitted as much.
“The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz. )
“There was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities, satisfying Israel’s goals.”
Abba Eben (Israeli diplomat and politician)
Perhaps you are ignorant fo this stratergy?
No, I am not ignorant of it.
You are missing my point.
Which is, that your way of thinking provides cover for it.
Your thinking seems to me to be that, if you can’t discriminatingly attack military objectives, you may attack indiscriminatingly. This was your justification of Hezbollah’s rocket attacks.
I’m sure the IDF would be very interested in developing your argument.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t become too popular.
“Your thinking seems to me to be that, if you can’t discriminatingly attack military objectives, you may attack indiscriminatingly. This was your justification of Hezbollah’s rocket attacks.”
It’s the way all warring parties justify “collateral damage”, which is why the US and Israel have come up with such a vague and ambiguious term.
” I’m sure the IDF would be very interested in developing your argument.”
Why would they, when they invented the very concept of attacking civilian populations to exert pressure on their enemies?
” Let’s just hope it doesn’t become too popular.”
Too late for that I’m afraid.
My trouble is, you seem to accept this logic too.
I don’t. I think the laws of war are very valuable and must be enforced. Including on Hezbollah.
In a just world, that would be great. That stuff is great in law books.
If Israel and Hezbollah went to court in a just world and the people of the world were the judges, I think we know who would win the moral argument. It’s that simple.
Developing it? The IDF has been doing it for a long time.
EmmaZunz: “Your view is a recipe for civilian massacres. For example, the IDF could say, following your logic, “we can’t find the fighters so we’ll just turn the whole place to rubble”.
The IDF did just that. Several times over. In Jenin, in lebanon, and, especially, in Gaza.
Please direct your ire to where it belongs – state-sponsored terrorism is far worse than the acts of a militia resisting invaders any way it can.
Not that you will, because the purpose of your visit here is to create diversion and deflect criticism onto the oppressed. Following the recipe book of “blaming the victim”. Though again, as I mentioned before, your ‘visit” generated some excellent comments in response, and for that, you are welcome. Just let’s not make a habit, please.
“Supporters of the Pals…”
Well, if that don’t tell you all about Emma, nothing will.
Yea, she does seem like the kind of Zio who tries to drive a wedge between anti-Zionists with lame arguments about Fink’s rhetoric. Aw, poor Emma. Those PALS and their pals, are just too harsh for her delicate sensibilities.
Supporters of the Pals must stand on justice, not support fanatical war criminals like Hezbollah.
I am a bit confused by your commentary. Why tie Hezbollah to Palestine so closely in the first instance? And what is your opinion of Hezbollah’s role in the defense of Lebanon in 2006?
@marc b
“Why tie Hezbollah to Palestine so closely in the first instance?”
Because Hezbollah states that it fights Israel, in part, for the Palestinian cause, and because some supporters of the Palestinian cause also support Hezbollah. I believe that when pro-Palestinians support war-criminals, it weakens the Palestinian position. Pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with such movements, both because they are criminal and because to do so is counter-productive.
“what is your opinion of Hezbollah’s role in the defense of Lebanon in 2006? ”
I remember watching this war unfold from the beginning. It was initiated by Hezbollah attacking and taking prisoner Israeli soldiers. So “defense” is a bit of a leading term there. I believe Hezbollah could also have prevented escalation by ceasing their rocket attacks. I don’t see that Hezbollah had any serious cause for going to war, and they presented Israel with a just cause for invading Lebanon, i.e. to stop the rockets.
All in all, I don’t really think what they did can be called “defense” of Lebanon, even if they subsequently defended against the invasion on the ground and used rockets to try to discourage Israel from going on.
This does not mean I am or was pro-Israel about that war or anything else: I demonstrated outside my government for an immediate ceasefire, and was disgusted by the UK/USA refusal to propose it early. I believe Israel also committed serious war crimes and could have acted to prevent escalation.
I don’t think my commitment to justice for the Palestinians implies or requires any particular views about the 2006 war.
Emma, Shabaa Farms are still occupied by Israel. Everyday Israeli jets enter lebanon and break the soverignty of the country, but also thousands of lebanese are help in Israeli prisonners.
And going to war helps that how?
Anyway, my main point is that Hezbollah committed war crimes and we shouldn’t therefore support them. Do you object to that?
The United States committed war crimes and we shouldn’t therefore support them. Do you object to that, Emma?
I believe that when pro-Palestinians support war-criminals, it weakens the Palestinian position.”
This is a vacuous argument, because it assumes that Israel alone (who’s leaders are themselves accused of war crimes) are arbiters of who and what constitutes a war criminal.
“Pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with such movements, both because they are criminal and because to do so is counter-productive.”
What makes hem criminal? The fact that they oppose the state of Israel? What about Israel, who unanimously supported the war in Gaza, which Israel started and which included war crimes?
“I remember watching this war unfold from the beginning. It was initiated by Hezbollah attacking and taking prisoner Israeli soldiers.”
Also false. The cross border incursion is the kind of activity that Israel does routinely and with impunity. It became a war because Israel decided that they wanted a war. In fact, Israel’s response was not even to go after Hezbollah, but to attack all of Southern Lebanon. This confirms what Olmert later admitted, was the realization of they plans to go to war with Hezbollah, pending an inciting incident.
Once Israel decided to make this war about Southern Lebanon, it was indeed a matter of of defnse.
Hezbollah’s rocket attacks were of no consequence and would not have prevented the escalation by Israel. We know this because a) Israel were not actually bombing the sites from which rockets were being fired and b) as I mentioned above, Israel had made the decision to go to war at least a year earlier.
“I don’t see that Hezbollah had any serious cause for going to war”
That’s due to blatant hypocrisy on your part.
You don’t see it because Israel violates territory and air space routinely and with impunity, and people like you have become accustomed to that being the norm. The 2006 incident was the first time Hezbollah had ventured into Israeli territory, and Israel decided it was an act of war.
All in all, I don’t really think what they did can be called “defense” of Lebanon”
As a matter of fact it was. Israel made it abundantly clear they were going to invade Southern Lebanon and take the territory south of the Litani River. Hezbollah prevented that happening.
“This does not mean I am or was pro-Israel about that war or anything else”
Who are you trying to fool?
Actually the first rocket attack was at the same time as the raid to take the soldiers prisoner.”
Has it occurred to you that at the time this was happening, Israel had invaded and attacked Gaza and were kidnapping Hamas law lawmakers by the hundreds?
“Anyway, what difference does it make? The rockets were war crimes. Period.”
Fine,lobby your Congressman to send guided missiles to Hezbollah and I’m sure you’ll find that they will stop hitting civilians and hit military targets.
“Would Israel be justified in rocketing Lebanese towns in response to Hezbollah rockets? No. And vice versa.”
But they did and that doesn’t seem to worry you in the slightest.
Nice try “Emma,” however there are several facts that are not brought into the light during the discussion. You can read that and than think about whether you want to argue with me or not, because my goal is not to embarrass you but merely to get to the plain facts.
First, Hezbollah did not come onto the scene out of nowhere, but out of invasions into its territories by Israel. So, Hezbollah arose from a need of defense – unless of course, you want me to display all of Israel’s murderous activity out in all its glory, I can do that if you want me to.
Secondly, Hezbollah is not merely a military force, it is the representative of over one third of the population in Lebanon. They have representatives in government office, and they launch programs and care for the people in South Lebanon, and tyhe military arm is just one side of the equation brought about by what? Numerous merciless by Israel, if you like I can elaborate.
Third, if Israel does not want its civilians killed than it should stop placing its military weapons and cadre, firing from the North in poor Arab Israeli neighborhoods – where they are not afforded the courtesy of public funds for bomb shelters. Whereupon 660 rockets by Hezbollah were fired into the neighborhoods, where the military enclaves were situated and firing from, in 20 Arab Israeli communities where the majority of deaths by direct fire were sustained.
“On the basis of the investigation undertaken by the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), it emerges that temporary military installations from which missiles were fired into Lebanon during the war were indeed positioned in very close proximity to the Arab locales that suffered the gravest attacks during the war. This is in addition to permanent military installations in existence prior to the war. In some cases, the military installations were established inside the Arab locales. It is reasonable to assume that these installations were targets for Hizbullah rocket attacks; that their placement in the locale exposed Arab civilians to a grave risk that rockets would strike their locales; and that this risk indeed materialized in practice. Equally, the investigation found that Arab locales that were not surrounded by military installations were not damaged during the war, or were damaged to a lesser extent, despite their proximity to the Israeli-Lebanese border.”
“The investigation found that the Arab towns and villages that suffered the most intensive attacks during the war were ones that were surrounded by military installations, either on a permanent basis or temporarily during the course of the war. These installations are located at a distance of just 0.5 – 2 kilometers by air from the civilian community; in some cases, the installations are located inside the town or village. Such short distances are within the margin of error of the rockets fired by Hizbullah. During the war, artillery fire was launched at Lebanon from many of these installations, and particularly from the temporary installations.”
Read the rest for yourself –
CIVILIANS IN DANGER – THE LOCATION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS CLOSE TO ARAB COMMUNITIES DURING THE SECOND LEBANON WAR
So, we can come away with one of two points in regard to this exchange Emma – either you are ignorant (which may be the case), or you are hitting the Hasbara bottle. If you want to hear more I can and will elaborate.
@VR
“First, Hezbollah did not come onto the scene out of nowhere…”
Fine with this point.
“Secondly, Hezbollah is not merely a military force…”
Fine with this point.
“Third, if Israel does not want its civilians killed than it should stop placing its military weapons and cadre, firing from the North in poor Arab Israeli neighborhoods…”
Agree. But Hezbollah was, at the very least, recklessly indiscriminate in its attacks. You can see from its website that it also celebrates terrorising civilians, forcing them into shelters, etc..
“So, we can come away with one of two points in regard to this exchange Emma – either you are ignorant (which may be the case), or you are hitting the Hasbara bottle. If you want to hear more I can and will elaborate. ”
How many advocates of hasbara go on record saying that Israel committed war crimes? I am getting peeved at people (you are the third) imputing dubious motives to me.
Calling someone ignorant, or possibly ignorant, is usually considered bad manners. I am well aware of the things you said, however they are not the whole story. If you believe Hezbollah was legitimate in rocketing towns containing military installations, then you would presumably also be happy for Israel to do the same to Lebanese towns? Personally I would oppose both.
I would urge you to consider the morality of an organization that celebrates terrorising civilians. It’s not inadvertent collateral damage that they’re paying homage to on their website.
“But Hezbollah was, at the very least, recklessly indiscriminate in its attacks. You can see from its website that it also celebrates terrorising civilians, forcing them into shelters, etc..”
Get over yourself Emma. This is all military propaganda and one one-upmanship for domestic politics. The only reason they are making a big deal of this is because they were unable to hit most of Israel’s military targets.
When Hezbollah hit an Israeli ship off the coast of Lebanon and sent it limping back to Israel, that was celebrated too was it not?
“If you believe Hezbollah was legitimate in rocketing towns containing military installations, then you would presumably also be happy for Israel to do the same to Lebanese towns? Personally I would oppose both.”
Israel did do that, but you’re only obsessing about what Hezbollah did. Wake up from your sleep induced comma and consider this. Israel killed 1,300 civilians Emma. Is that a war crime, or are you going to obsess about a few wayward rockets?
@Shingo
“Israel did do that, but you’re only obsessing about what Hezbollah did. Wake up from your sleep induced comma and consider this. Israel killed 1,300 civilians Emma. Is that a war crime, or are you going to obsess about a few wayward rockets?”
I agree with you here, and already have agreed with this point before.
However, today I want to talk about Hezbollah and its relation to the Palestinian cause. What’s wrong with that? We all agree about Israel already.
Let’s assume that we do agree Emma.
Do you accept that Hezbollah’s actions in 2006 were actually inspired by the attacks Israel were launching on Gaza prior to that incident? In January of that year, Hamas won the elections and Isral chose to punich the Palestinians for making the wrong choice. Israel had invaded Gaza, killed 520 Palestinian and arrested (read kidnapped) hundreds of Hamas lawmakers.
It is no secret that this carnage miotivated Hezbollah’s atatck. Now why should the Palestiniasn not show some kinship to Hebollah?
Yes, allying with the Palestinians of Gaza was a potentially legitimate cause for war, I would say.
But it can’t excuse the manner in which Hezbollah conducted the war.
” But it can’t excuse the manner in which Hezbollah conducted the war.”
Israel’s death toll was overwhelmingly military. I believe that 10% were civilian.
On the other hand, Lebanon’s death toll was 1,300 and 90% were civilians.
So based on these statistics, remind us who conducted the war with the least discrimination Emma?
No disagreement here.
Unfortunately or fortunately, whatever your motives might be, you ran into someone who knows what they are talking about (and some of the others also brought out some pretty important points). As an example, a while back I had someone trying to argue in here that the Israelis were doing absolutely nothing to the Bedouin in the Negev – I kid you not. So we are all on a learning curve (if we want to be).
As an aside this report was ingested and made an addendum to a number of international human rights groups, that is how accurate the information is contained in the report (above). My own findings, especially in the permanent and temporary military firing installations located in the Arab Israeli north is that it was purposefully done – and ostensibly the Israelis used their Arab populations as a shield to attract fire to them, and away from their more lily white privileged population.
I thought I said “Agree”.
Do you mean human rights groups like HRW?
See this, titled “Hezbollah rockets targeted civilians”.
link to hrw.org
“you ran into someone who knows what they are talking about”
Arrogance is neither becoming nor, usually, well placed.
Thanks for all the considered and reasonable responses to the discussion.
I want to make a few things clear here.
I am not a Zionist, am in fact very committed to the Palestinian cause, and do not have any ulterior motives. I find it disturbing that I am receiving abuse on this score from so many people.
My opposition to Hezbollah’s actions has no bearing on whether I am pro or anti Israeli or the Palestinians. It’s founded on international law and the facts.
Secondly, I am well aware of the various things people are quoting and linking to me. For instance, I was reading Jonathan Cook’s articles during the war itself.
You might like to compare HRW’s condemnation of Hezbollah war crimes:
link to hrw.org
emma – the mere mention of hezbollah “war crimes” casts doubt on your assertion of what your views may be. That’s kind of a code name, you know – most people here believe that hezbollah was and is a defensive force against incursions and invasions by Israel. Which is pretty much what most lebanese believe, whether they belong to their religious affiliation or not.
You go on to some mention of “international law and facts”. what might those be, in your opinion? I have it on good authority that hezbollah tried to target military installations, but – those are located at or near towns and kibbutzes, and their rockets were – alas, not so accurate. But maybe israel can help them improve the accuracy of targeting? so it’s at least as accurate and causes as little collateral damage as the gaza massacre?
Like it or not, hezbollah are more like the partisan fighters of france and eastern europe, who resisted the german advances. They too were called terrorists by the germans. Oh well, israelis learnt well.
“code name, you know”
I’m not using any codes or shibboleths, since my views are independently formed. As I’ve been saying, I judge each issue on its merits. My overall position on Israel/Palestinian does not predetermine my view of Hezbollah.
“I have it on good authority that hezbollah tried to target military installations”
Yes, partially but not totally. They also on occasions deliberately attacked civilians, and they persistently attacked indiscriminately.
“Like it or not, hezbollah are more like the partisan fighters of france and eastern europe, who resisted the german advances”
My definition of terrorism does not depend on anybody’s aims or motivations. I call terrorism the deliberate attacking of civilians in order to affect politics. Or something like that.
Yes, partially but not totally. They also on occasions deliberately attacked civilians, and they persistently attacked indiscriminately.
Where did they deliberately attack civilians? And if the argument is that the rockets are unguided, how could they be “deliberately” targeted at civilians. I would use the word “imprecisely” rather than” indiscriminately”. Its a more accurate description of the rocket fire which was aimed at military targets. Indiscriminate implies haphazard and the rocket attacks were not haphazard.
“Where did they deliberately attack civilians?”
I can’t prove this right now. It’s my impression from their words and actions.
” The most important grey is the conduct of Palestinian resistance.”
Does this sound like Witty you you guys?
” No one has a monopoly on truth.”
Yup, that sounds like Witty to.
“I can’t prove this right now. It’s my impression from their words and actions.”
Yup, we have a winner. A Hasbarah troll it is!
This could be love at first sight.
Shingo,
I think what might happen is that she starts off as distrusting of Israeli assertions, but ends up distrusting yours equally, or more.
Its a path to alienation of sympathizers for Palestinian civilians.
You really are incapable of appreciating any sort of nuance aren’t you?
I can’t prove this right now. It’s my impression from their words and actions.
OK, so why are you so insistent that everyone who is disagreeing with you is wrong? And that Finkelstein, who has a differing impression, should not be a prominent speaker on the Israel-Palestine conflict?
I have no real doubt they committed war crimes.
Among other various bad things, such as their support for suicide bombing.
I think Finkelstein is wrong to praise HZB and that his praise weakens support for and the moral standing of the movement.
I thought you said you were going to bed? It’s like people like you and Witty have a veritable reflex to be hypocritical. You can’t even say “good night” without contradicting yourself.
“I have no real doubt they committed war crimes.”
But you admit you have no evidence. So what you are admitting to is a gut feeling right?
“Among other various bad things, such as their support for suicide bombing.”
Would you prefer the bombing without the suicide bit?
I take it you are aware that most of the suicide bombings carried out in Lebanon during the war and occupation by Israel were carried out against military targets, i.e. soldiers? Is a suicide bombing against a military target a war crime in your view?
Emma – Support for suicide bombing does not comprise a terrorist position any more than support for bombings by drone or by plane. The only difference in terms of outcome to the perpetrators is that in the first case, the bomber dies along with his victims, while in the second case, the perpetrators go home to enjoy a good dinner with nary a worry. the rest of the argument is merely about strategic success and extent of collateral damage. If the suicide bomber successfully damaged more military targets – personnel or machinery – than bystanders, the mission must constitute a tactical success – exactly the same criterion used for drone attacks. It is therefore a viable tactic for those who are out-gunned and out-numbered. The japanese had their kanikaze, which you must admit was a legitimate form of last ditch attack, whether you like the outcome or not.
One example for you emma is the bomber of the CIA personnel in afganistan. That attack must be considered a major tactical success since it liquidated (using the preferred military jargon here for the sake of comparison) strictly enemy combatants (CIA) who had a proven record of causing the death of numerous innocent people. With no collateral damage, whatsoever. By all accounts – a ‘clean” well-targeted strike.
Slinging the word ‘terrorist” about because one feels like it is silly. By your criteria – if hezbollah tactics are to be questioned, then so were the americans’ during the revolutionary wars. And the Indians who fought back in south america against the conquistadors. I take it you consider George washington to have been terrorist too, right? how about simon bolivar/ or che guevara? or the french partisans (who bombed lots of trains carrying civilians and were labeled “terrorists” by the germans)?
If you want to talk military tactics and strategy then we can discuss that in an impartial way. Comparing IDF and hezbollah – casualty for casualty, collateral vs collateral, targeted vs accidental. you know, apples to apples, oranges to oranges….
Cook’s article is in response, to a degree, to the HRW report. Again, I think his article is worth reading. Even HRW admits that Israeli placed military targets in close proximity to civilians.
HRW’s primary point seems to be that the Katyushas are imprecisely guided missiles, and therefore, ANY firing of those rockets is a war crime. Personally, I would argue that if using Katyushas, a WWII era weapon, is a war crime, then most of the major combatants on both sides of WWII were guilty of war crimes. If Katyushas are the most precise weapons that the poorer or weaker side has, then calling their use a “war crime” and prohibiting their use gives the stronger side an additional advantage and if there must be war, I don’t see where hobbling the weaker side helps to do anything but further encourage the stronger side to behave more recklessly and violently, knowing that the weaker side can do nothing in response. Obviously, this is not a position shared by HRW, which needs the support of the militarily stronger nations in order to do its work.
I don’t think of you as a Zionist, and even if you were your viewpoint would be an addition to the website here. There are just some of us who get a bit excited with a newbie, and jump to conclusions, or get passionate in our responses.
@tree
Re: Cook, I read his article at the time; it struck me as important too. However, my feeling, admittedly not documented and forensically supported, is that the main point of Hezbollah’s rockets was not military as such but to (i) make a point, i.e. that the resistance is alive and undaunted; and (ii) to cause panic in the Israeli public, thereby making the war unpopular and indirectly cause retreat. By their very unguidedness, they couldn’t take them seriously as a long-range military weapon.
Re: the relevance of laws of war to weak sides and insurgent-type wars, this is a big question for the world today. I suppose I start from the sanctity of the civilian, as this is just too valuable a protection to lose.
“I don’t think of you as a Zionist, and even if you were your viewpoint would be an addition to the website here. There are just some of us who get a bit excited with a newbie, and jump to conclusions, or get passionate in our responses.”
Appreciated, as is your whole comment. I’ve actually been reading the website for many years, since years before it was this big and popular. It developed slowly into a really great site. I’m just not a great one for online chats.
My impression of the point of the rocket fire, again, as your impression, not documented, is a different one. I think that Hezbollah made a strategic point TO fire rockets at military targets, not only under the hope that it might succeed, but also intended as a warning to Israel that Hezbollah knew where many of the Israeli military installations were. This I believe was intended as a warning that, should Israel seek to attack Iran (one of Hezbollah’s benefactors), much more accurate Iranian rockets could and would be aimed at them. I base part of this on the facts stated above about Israeli military targets in close proximity to towns that suffered damage. I also base this belief on what happened to Azmi Bishara, the Israeli Arab Knesset member who resigned his position and left the country in 2007, after facing an investigation for “treason and espionage”, in connection with the Lebanon War. I think that the Israeli government blamed him, rightly or wrongly, for the fact that Hezbollah knew where the Israel military targets were. Israel was shaken, not by the attacks on civilians, but by the fact that Hezbollah knew what to target militarily and was somewhat successful at that, even with very primitive and imprecisely guided rockets.
That sounds plausible.
There was probably a mix of motives.
During the campaign Hezbollah fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at an unprecedented rate of more than 100 per day.[citation needed] About 95% of these were 122 mm (4.8 in) Katyusha artillery rockets, which carried warheads up to 30 kg (66 lb) and had a range of up to 30 km (19 mi).[76][77] An estimated 23% of these rockets hit cities and built-up areas across northern Israel, while the remainder hit open areas.[76][78][79] Cities hit included Haifa, Hadera, Nazareth, Tiberias, Nahariya, Safed, Shaghur, Afula, Kiryat Shmona, Beit She’an, Karmiel, and Maalot, and dozens of Kibbutzim, Moshavim, and Druze and Arab villages, as well as the northern West Bank.[76][78][79][80][81][82] [83]
“During the campaign Hezbollah fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at an unprecedented rate of more than 100 per day.”
What unprecedented about 100 rockets per day? Israel carried out at least that many sorties per day and dropped 1 million cluster bombs in days
“An estimated 23% of these rockets hit cities and built-up areas across northern Israel, while the remainder hit open areas.”
And esrimate 99% of Israeli missiles and bombs hit cities and built-up areas across Lebanon. What’s your point?
LOL! That’s your idea of a “reply,” Witty? Cutting and pasting from Wiki? Which would be fine if you linked your source.
What percentage of Israeli bombs do not land on civilians, Witty? Or did you not care to look that up?
The point was about Hezbollah. You two are apologizing for their aggressions as inconsequential.
Emma is saying that they are consequential, and that there are/were likely other alternatives for each community to take than initiating war.
You’ve adopted the partisan approach, that Norman has/had as well. I saw the famous Memri film of Norman praising Hezbollah courage and integrity on his own site, apparently proudly.
In correspondence with Norman, I claimed that Nasrallah lied about material facts in the course of the conflict, and that that compelled at least a skeptical, rather than trusting, attitude towards Hezbollah’s actions. He didn’t disagree that Nasrallah had lied, but still referred to Hezbollah as having integrity.
I have a different definition of integrity. Its not either/or as Emma is saying. Its a commitment to mutual decency that makes both peace and justice.
“Which side are you on” in actively promoting war, is the wrong one.
Hi Richard.
Cor this place is a tough gig.
They refuse to believe I actually agree with the vast majority of what they believe, just because I entertain a different view of Hezbollah.
Didn’t realise before how conformist and knee-jerk this community was.
Such a shame.
Not sure why you hang around, given how different your views are! Don’t think it’s worth your trouble.
I’m addicted. Its an opportunity to speak my mind.
Its an opportunity to appeal to potentially liberal Zionists that are Zionists in the sense that they do identify as Jews and with a body, but seek to be good people in their individual and collective relations with others that are willing to have good relations with them.
I am most concerned about the goal of actual reconciliation, and in a form that allows Israel to remain as Israel, which I consider a jewel.
Phil and I are family friends, and spent parts of three summers together as idealistic teenagers.
Zionism as a jewel of an idea, a potential jewel in reality.
Pick up chicks on your own time, Witty. Nobody here’s interested in reading you and Emma get all hot and steamy over dreams of judenreich.
“Zionism as a jewel of an idea, a potential jewel in reality.”
An interesting euphmism for describing a turd Witty.
“I am most concerned about the goal of actual reconciliation, and in a form that allows Israel to remain as Israel, which I consider a jewel”
As for Palestine, that doesn’t matter, so long as the jewel doesn’t have to become accountable in any way.
BTW Witty, if Israel is such a jewel, why do you refuse to live there ?
“I’m addicted.”
Yes, they say that about Ziocaine.
RE: ““Zionism as a jewel of an idea, a potential jewel in reality.”
You mean like Communism? As we all know, between the ideal and the real fell the shadow of Marx’s jewel of an idea. And we all know how the American
red diaper kids kept polishing that jewel, while its ideal potential evaporated
in the hands of real humans. Finally the USSR collapsed of its own real weight.
The Communist purges were real. All done in the name of a future heaven on earth. While Richard Witty polishes his jewel, he remains in the USA,
far from the mining despoiling operation, the rouugh extraction, the grinding, etc. Too bad the Palestinian people are not so lucky; who would want to their lives, happening right now? And their misery is paid for by
US taxpayers, who themselves are headed for the second dip of their Great
Recession even as their government is setting itself for a third major war area in the Middle East, that government assured the Pentagon budget will not be cut back or audited, but rather expanded when it already costs more
than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined.
“Phil and I are family friends, and spent parts of three summers together as idealistic teenagers.”
You never stop, do you Witty? You are going to somehow inveigle some of the glory?
Emma, I have been reading Mondoweiss for a year, during that time, Witty addresses Phil Weiss as a buddy and demands explanations and answers from him. I don’t think I have ever seen Phil respond.
So Witty, Phil has lost his idealism? You figure he’s all for pragmatism now?
“Zionism as a jewel of an idea, a potential jewel in reality”
I’ll translate:
‘Where is my wonderful ghetto? Of course, I would be one of the elite Jews who interceded with the Gentiles in behalf of the poor suffering Jews. How could you not want to join me?’
What on earth is a “potential jewel” about an ethno-theocracy? It’s been tried. over and over, and it always ends up with the leaders marrying 14 year olds and having all the money. Oh, I forgot, Jews are superior, and not prey to the ordinary temptations of non-democratic systems and religious chicanery.
Emma,
From VR’s quoted source:
…it emerges that temporary military installations from which missiles were fired into Lebanon during the war were indeed positioned in very close proximity to the Arab locales that suffered the gravest attacks during the war. This is in addition to permanent military installations in existence prior to the war. In some cases, the military installations were established inside the Arab locales. It is reasonable to assume that these installations were targets for Hizbullah rocket attacks; that their placement in the locale exposed Arab civilians to a grave risk that rockets would strike their locales; and that this risk indeed materialized in practice. Equally, the investigation found that Arab locales that were not surrounded by military installations were not damaged during the war, or were damaged to a lesser extent, despite their proximity to the Israeli-Lebanese border.”
This contradicts your assertion that “Hezbollah was, at the very least, recklessly indiscriminate in its attacks.”
If it was recklessly indiscrimate there would be no correlation between damage and casualties to an Arab town, and the proximity of military targets (including missile firing sites) to those towns. Instead there is a strong correlation between the two, which points to Hezbollah targeting military targets with the imprecise weapons it has.
Why would Hezbollah target Israeli Arab towns, when the Israeli government has consistently showed little concern for the well-being of its Arab citizens? Unless they weren’t targeting the towns themselves, but the military targets next to or within them.
@VR
Pardon me, but you don’t seem to understand the meaning of “indiscriminate”.
In war, you may not use a weapon that may just as well hit a civilian as military object. If you fire an unguided missile vaguely towards a military target positioned amid civilian objects, then you are attacking indiscriminately.
Anyway, if you read my HRW link, you will find that what you cite is only part of the story. They say, “numerous rockets were fired in which there was no apparent legitimate military target in the vicinity at the time of the attack, indicating that civilians were deliberately attacked”
“In war, you may not use a weapon that may just as well hit a civilian as military object. If you fire an unguided missile vaguely towards a military target positioned amid civilian objects, then you are attacking indiscriminately.”
If you have no other option, then no, it is not indiscriminate. Even precision guided bombs have a probability of missing their target, or the target itself may be incorrectly identified (ie. like so many wedding parties in Afghanistan). Does that mean no firing is to be allowed ever?
“Anyway, if you read my HRW link, you will find that what you cite is only part of the story. They say, “numerous rockets were fired in which there was no apparent legitimate military target in the vicinity at the time of the attack, indicating that civilians were deliberately attacked”"
The HRW link does not state that civilians were targeted but they may have been hit.
“Does that mean no firing is to be allowed ever?”
You’re right, there’s a balance to be struck, a judgement to be made. Raining rockets onto towns is on the wrong side of that judgement.
Words contradicting what you say next is right there in the passage you requoted yourself: “deliberately attacked”.
“Calling someone ignorant, or possibly ignorant, is usually considered bad manners. I am well aware of the things you said, however they are not the whole story. If you believe Hezbollah was legitimate in rocketing towns containing military installations, then you would presumably also be happy for Israel to do the same to Lebanese towns? Personally I would oppose both.”
On the contrary, it could not do that, or use that as an excuse for bombing Lebanese towns, that is because Hezbollah was no where near the towns. They were in the mountains, they had even created an underground tunneling system. They fired from fields, not back yards – unlike their Israeli counterparts (so that maximum damage could be accrued to the population they hate and by all signs want to ethnically cleanse like the do in the OT and Gaza, and to divert damage away from their real interests). There is no report from human rights organizations that any fire took place from populated cities by Hezbollah, not even any evidence from the Israelis (which they swore they would produce).
From your report –
“Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately and at times deliberately at civilian areas in northern Israel, killing at least 39 civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today…extensive field research in northern Israel into rocket attacks that killed or injured civilians in Jewish, Arab and mixed villages, towns and cities…” And where did my report say they were struck? NORTHERN ISRAEL.
“For example, hundreds of rockets struck inside Karmiel, Nahariya, and Kiryat Shmona, cities containing no significant military assets….” Where are these towns? NORTHERN ISRAEL. It is also well worth noting that these towns of “no military significance” where the ones where temporary Israeli forces were set up.
“Hezbollah stated that it targeted and hit Israeli military objectives more than is known, and blamed Israeli censorship for covering up the extent of such attacks. However, Hezbollah attacks on legitimate military objectives, whatever their extent, do not justify the attacks that were indiscriminate or deliberately targeted civilians.”
On the contrary, what do you do when Israel deliberately sets them up in civilian neighborhoods and fires from school grounds, and hospital parking lots (the exact thing they accuse Palestinians of doing)? However, I will agree that unguided rockets are indiscriminate, and should not be used around innocent civilian population. However, what does this say about the highly accurate weaponry that directly targets civilians used by Israel?
“Human Rights Watch urges the government of Israel to take all feasible steps to locate military objectives away from densely populated areas and to ensure adequate measures to protect all civilians, on an equal basis, who may be at increased risk of enemy fire due to their proximity to Israeli military assets.” Exactly.
“On the contrary, it could not do that, or use that as an excuse for bombing Lebanese towns, that is because Hezbollah was no where near the towns.”
What about its HQ’s in Dahiya?
Again, your argument is partial. You yourself quote this: “Hezbollah attacks on legitimate military objectives, whatever their extent, do not justify the attacks that were indiscriminate or deliberately targeted civilians.”
And you say you “agree that unguided rockets are indiscriminate, and should not be used around innocent civilian population”.
So you seem to agree that Hezbollah fought the war using (some) illegal methods (among others). That’s enough for me; I won’t support them. I won’t support any organisation that attacks civilians whether through intention or recklessness.
What about its HQ’s in Dahiya?
I believe that was a political headquarters, not a military headquarters.
The Katyusha are NOT unguided, they are just not very precise in their guidance, and certainly not precise by today’s standard for the militarily stronger nations. But for poorer nations they are often the best they can afford.
Let me address the real issue here, which brought the contention. When you entered here you started with a partial barb toward Finkelstein, saying that he supported the acts of Hezbollah. Than you began to elaborate about the “atrocities” of Hezbollah, but in none of your previous argument was there any indication of the overall context of this tragedy. It was only after I brought up these points that you said you knew of them.
The argument you gave seems to imply there is this battle between equals and that also gives way to the impression that there is a tip for tap situation going on – that Hezbollah started everything (no background as I mentioned earlier), and all Israel was doing was defending itself from missile attacks. You imply that this is a battle out of the blue, and that anything that Hezbollah did (by your own argument) reeked of animus – especially since “it started” the whole altercation. Well, that is just not the case – there is nothing equally taking place here, you have the fourth most powerful military in the world attacking practically defenseless people (Lebanon, the Palestinians), from the beginning till the present time.
Where does your condemnation lie, what is the onus of your argument? Do you take the stand of defending the Palestinians and the Lebanese that have been furiously assaulted by this insatiable war mongering, colonial settler state monstrosity? Let me tell you, you do not imply that by writing in a form that implies that we have some war of equals going on here and that both are at equal fault – that is just not what is taking place. It is that stance that caused people to address you like they did, so we might be quick triggers – but you communicated that you were a target by the content of your posts.
@VR
Maybe I can explain better.
This is partly a personal and partly a political thing.
On a personal level, I can’t stand movements and trends where thinking is black-and-white; where ideological conformity is a badge of membership; where every enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend; where friendly criticism is interpreted as allegiance to the enemy. I have my own views and impressions on the different aspects of the conflict, and they don’t necessarily slot into one black-and-white picture.
So when I raise a criticism of Finkelstein, it is in hopes of forwarding the argument about how best to support the Palestinian cause. Because, while I agree with many of his views, I also find he swings too far towards supporting enemies of Israel who are themselves far from attractive.
My opinion of Hezbollah was widely interpreted here as belonging to someone who is pro-Israel. I’m not. But that seems to me exactly the kind of reaction that I am trying to argue against. These things are very grey, not black and white.
You seem very concerned that Israel has enemies. “enemies of Israel…” you have stated that several times and it’s sticking out like a sore.
The question is who wants to be friends with that monster called Israel?
“The question is who wants to be friends with that monster called Israel?”
Especially when we’ve seen how Israel treats it’s friends (ie. USS Liberty).
Well, yes, it’s also true that Finklestein overlooks those viscious pebbles and small stones thrown by teen-age Palestinians at Merkavah tanks and heavily armed IDF soldiers with hair-trigger fingers. My, my, why are those kids so mean and lethal?
Compared to Israel (alone, armed with nukes and the IDF, 4th most powerful military force in the world) and multiplied by the lone superpower’s full military aid support and UN Sec Counsel veto), HAMAS and Hizbullah are hardly more threatening than those Palestinian kids. You felt the need to point out that
little David, after all, has a sling shot. So why is Finklestein not mentioning it, and just going on and on about how big and well-equipped Goliath is? And, you next argued that little David started the subject fight. Or at least, little David was as guilty of starting the fight as Goliath was. And you wonder why you drew so much criticism here? True, things are never completely black or white. The Weimar Germans had some very reasonable gripes, yes? Versailles? Did that
justify their solution? The I-P, the Arab-Israeli, conflict history is less gray than you suggest by your comments, Lebanon included. The Arabs are not responsible for the Shoah. The former Brit Mandate land has always contained
the natives.
I’m sorry, Emma, did you just construct a justification for Israel bombing a whole neigborhood of Beirut.
Yeah, real even handed you are. Truth will out.
Nope.
If you look at the conversation, you’ll see that was a reductio argument against such a claim.
Pingback: HAPPYSKATEBOARDING.COM ONLINE SKATESHOP #1 | Happy Skateboard News | Skateboarding Leisure Knowledge
VR and all – the poster EmmaZunz reminds me of another commenter I just encountered on a leftist blog. Same MO – calls themselves “liberal’ – the name “left’ may even in the user name. The commenter – after some baiting and switching – goes on to identify Iran with terrorism, american casualties in Iraq, and eventually iran with Hamas. All while urging in not so many words – the “righteousness’ of a ‘strong” response, meaning preferably, a military attack – by israel , no doubt.
In the past week, a strange ad – or a ‘skin” as it’s known showed up on the front page of most left-leaning/liberal blogs. Including DailyKos, OpenLeft and FDL. The ad is egregiously subversive, conflating Iran with oil and american casualties, leading to the obvious – not so subliminal- conclusion that progressive support of clean energy means “bombing Iran”. The ad was sponsored by VoteVets.org, a veterans anti-war group, which came on to defend it in a diary but refused to disclose the funding source. FDL dug a bit into it and found some interesting leads (I’ll return later with the link).
This smells funny to me. I think there may be a co-ordinated campaign going on, the purpose of which is to soften the opposition to a bombing raid against Iran. Knowing the left is not behind such nonsense and that most in the progressive community support the right of the Iranian people to determine their own government, the attempt is made – rather crudely – to connect “progressive’ with “bomb Iran”. The message goes something like this: Iran = oil, oil = bad, therefore Iran = bad. On diaries on DK and FDL some commenters popped up professing to be “liberal” just like the one described above.
The poster Emma is zeroing in on hezbollah, but the road she is on, I suspect leads to Iran. She drops names we know, like jonathan Cook, claims to “agree”, cites from HRW. Seems armed with material specifically to wrestle with “leftists’ and/or pro-palestinian rights people. Note that it’s OT, but persistent. Just like the other commenter i engaged. He/she kept coming back too, though as the posts got longer, it got obviously more difficult for the individual to hide their true agenda. Eventually, one or more points easily identified as hasbara lines crept in. At which point I slithered off, as I considered the commenter unmasked.
I bring this up because I fully expect an all out attack on “left leaning” articles. opinion pieces and blogs from our Israel and friends. Now why would they think that an incongruous ad may sway any minds is beyond me. But the ad campaign must have cost a fortune. Check it out – it’s still there at the top of OpenLeft.
I remember parts of the 2006 war. I am a Zionist, in that I believe that the Jewish people that reside in Israel have the right to self-govern.
The war was initiated as Emma referred, by shelling of a civilian town as a distraction from long-planned abduction in an area in Israel that Hezbollah had previously identified as vulnerable. At the time, Israel held three prisoners that Hezbollah sought release for, including Kuntar, who was held for a brutal terror operation on Israeli children.
Nasrallah announced originally that the abduction had occurred in Lebanon, a known lie (unless he considered all of northern Israel to be really Lebanon). A number of prominent dissenting journalists, on the basis of their trust for Nasrallah’s “integrity” (including Juan Cole) reported for a week that the abduction had occurred in Lebanon, and not in Israel.
The initial Israeli incursions into southern Lebanon were for the express purposes of reclaiming the abducted soldiers, and definitively military in scope. Shortly, after they realized that they could not easily retrieve the soldiers, Israel adopted a punitive approach primarily directed at its adversary, Hezbollah, based on the fear that Hezbollah would return to unilaterally shelling Israeli civilian towns as it had for five or six years.
Hezbollah’s response was similar model to Hamas’ in Gaza last year, of shelling Israeli civilian towns in “deterrence”, culminating in the shelling of Haifa, a very large city, in which close to as many Palestinians were killed in the shelling as Israelis.
It was offensive, not defensive, a war crime.
Shingo,
You illustrate the opportunism that Israel and most of the civilized world hates about militias. That is that when it serves their purposes, they claim to be responsible parts of the government, reputable, credible. But, when the consequences of a “responsible member of the government” are that the government has then initiated aggression on a foreign country, they hide behind the rationalization of “no, we are only a resistance movement”.
You might be sold on their courage and integrity, but most of the world sees through it, to the extent that they have memory.
If the whole world adopted the universal application of international law, as Emma suggested, there would be paths for peace and for justice. If the standard of international law is applied selectively only, then there is really no prospect of peace and/or justice.
Shingo,
You’ve stated overtly and clearly that you don’t consider Israeli peace a goal of yours, that instead you favor Israel feeling and being on the run. You’ve apparently made your decision that agitation for warring is justified, that Israel deserves to be removed, not a defensive position protecting the people of sourthern Lebanon or the West Bank or Gaza, but an offensive position endangering all in the region.
Its a question of goal. There are Zionists with whom peace and justice is possible. And, there are likely Palestinians and Lebanese with whom peace and justice is possible.
I don’t see it with Hezbollah or Iran or Hamas (though now that they are fighting more radical jihadis that might change).
“The war was initiated as Emma referred, by shelling of a civilian town as a distraction from long-planned abduction in an area in Israel that Hezbollah had previously identified as vulnerable.”
bingo
I actually agree more with Witty’s account of the start of the war than with any of the others we’ve seen.
There was very little righteous about this war from any side.
I demonstrated not for Hezbollah but for a ceasefire.
Sure Emma, this is why Israel had the war in panning for close to two years – because it was a knee jerk reaction. I know people who sat through presentations by Israeli military, it was all part of the “new Middle East.” Really Emma, if you truly do not know these things you should refrain from posting about them – and if this is not the case, and there are other unknown reasons for posting like this, I trust some light has been shed on the issue. The rest of RW post as usual is complete bullshit, and if you agree with it I know where your sentiments lie by a lack of knowledge fueled by propaganda, or for whatever other purpose.
(Planning, not panning)
Now either you Emma, or RW will go to the only place you can go to, about how in a hostile environment Israel must plan for war – all the time. That is was all a war game contingency plan. Let me clue you in on something, if it was just a contingency plan and or a war game, you do not go around to all your allies and sell it as a done deal, just waiting for the spark.
Israel was planning for war because it has an ongoing conflict with Hezbollah, a heavily armed militia over the border, supported by an enemy state. What country wouldn’t plan?
I too remember the “New Middle East”. Condoleeza Rice called the war “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.
It was that that sickened me more than anything: the callousness towards the suffering.
As for the rest of the post, it indicates a rather sad refusal to engage with differing views. I am neither ignorant nor malicious, and it is unfair and rude of you to say so. I expect our views on most issues to do with Israel are similarly. I am simply wary of getting stuck in a fixed mind-set. As I keep saying, there are many grey areas in this conflict.
One of the internal Israeli criticisms of the relative failure to achieve the war’s objectives, and criticism of the humanity of the conduct of the war, was that the war was NOT planned, that it was a desparate improvisation.
You can’t really have it both ways VR. Either it was planned, or it wasn’t.
No argument here. Suggests Hezbollah were pretty stupid to set it off.
“I actually agree more with Witty’s account of the start of the war than with any of the others we’ve seen.”
Why are we not surprised? Witty is a Zionist propagandist and pathological liar.
Christ.
Is this what I can expect from the Mondoweiss community? Absolute conformity of black-and-white ideas?
No one has a monopoly on truth.
Yeah, but one side has the market cornered on hypocrisy, Little Miss Dahiya Doctrine.
Again, if you weren’t an idiot, you’d appreciate that the Dahiya point was a reductio argument against such a positon.
“Israel was planning for war because it has an ongoing conflict with Hezbollah, a heavily armed militia over the border, supported by an enemy state. What country wouldn’t plan?”
What’s truly astounding, is that you go to such lengths to ignore the fact that Israel had a history of occupying Southern Lebanon for 18 years and killing close to 20,000 Lebanese in the process.
You’re also using the familiar Zionist lien of arguing that all country’s plan for war and that this somehow debunk the notion that Israel had planned not for war, but to carry this war out.
yep, including you.
“No one has a monopoly on truth” Emma
“If you will it, it is no legend!” Wondering Jew
Yup, as a Jew, I can see how Zionism has such a great appeal. It could replace ipecac.
“The war was initiated as Emma referred, by shelling of a civilian town as a distraction from long-planned abduction in an area in Israel that Hezbollah had previously identified as vulnerable. At the time, Israel held three prisoners that Hezbollah sought release for, including Kuntar, who was held for a brutal terror operation on Israeli children.”
The abduction took place in Lebanon, not Israel. This explains why Israel were never able to recover the destroyed tank.
“Nasrallah announced originally that the abduction had occurred in Lebanon, a known lie”
Not a lie. It took place in Lebanon.
“The initial Israeli incursions into southern Lebanon were for the express purposes of reclaiming the abducted soldiers, and definitively military in scope.”
False, Israel made no effort to recover the abducted soldiers.
“Israel adopted a punitive approach primarily directed at its adversary, Hezbollah, based on the fear that Hezbollah would return to unilaterally shelling Israeli civilian towns as it had for five or six years.”
False,. Israel responded by bombing Southern Lebanon and not attacking Hezbollah positions. Tom Friedman actually applauded this tactic for the deterrence effect it would have on the Lebanese population.
“Hezbollah’s response was similar model to Hamas’ in Gaza last year, of shelling Israeli civilian towns in “deterrence”
Exactly. Like Hebollah, Hamas responded to an atatck by Israel. Israel the 2008 war too by breaking a 4 months ceasfire.
“in which close to as many Palestinians were killed in the shelling as Israelis.”
That’s becasue Israel deliberately placed those Palestinains in harms way
Israel chose to invade Lebanon and attempted to re-occupy it. It was offensive, not defensive, a war crime by Israel.
“You illustrate the opportunism that Israel and most of the civilized world hates about militias. That is that when it serves their purposes, they claim to be responsible parts of the government, reputable, credible.”
You’re juggling semantics. As Israeli pooiticians have said, Hebolah is part fo Lebaon’s military.
Shingo, since this has turned into a full discussion on Hizbullah, I ‘ll jump in with a couple of pointers that no one here appears to have covered. Yes, the abduction took place in Israel, not in Lebanon. Yes, we had all been told that it had happened in Lebanon but this was not true.
There were reasons behind the abductions:
Israel had a proven track record of not releasing Lebanese prisoners unless in a swap for Israeli ones. The art of abductions and subsequent swapping was mastered by Israel during the occupation of Lebanon from 1982 until 2000. Everytime Lebanon wanted its people held in Israel, it had to first abduct Israelis for a swap. The same with the ghoulish practice of swapping body parts that was started and perfected by Israel. Every time there was a swap, it was intended to be the final one with all remaining prisoners exchanged but every time Israel held some prisoners back which continued the cycle.
In the swap that had taken place prior to the 2006 abductions, Israel had negotiated to get back its spy Tannenbaum and the corpses of 3 prisoners for the release of of its star-prisoner Kuntar as well as a few others, the3 cleric Cheikh Obeid that had been abducted from his home in Lebanon 10 years before to be used as a pawn for information on Arad and for the corpses and body parts of 40 Hizbullah fighters including Nasrallah’s son. The swap went on as planned except that Israel changed its mind about Kuntar and a few others and wanted to hold them in exchange for some fresh information on Arad. Hizbullah agreed to investigate about Arad and provide the results to the Israelis for the final trade of all remaining Lebanese prisoners including Kuntar.
Nasrallah was so confident that he was about to get Kuntar and the others back that he publicly gave his word that they would be home shortly. Hizbullah’s investigation into the Arad mystery did not yield any major result and it was concluded that he must have died in captivity. This information was passed on to the Israelis and a demand for Israel to give up Kuntar. By that time, Nasrallah had promised that Kuntar and the others would be home before the end of the year (2006). Israel replied that it was not satisfied with the Arad investigation and that the prior Kuntar agreement was off. Nasrallah up to that point had a reputation of having always kept his word and since Israel reneged on the Kuntar swap, there remained only the old optionof getting new prisoners for the Kuntar swap and this is what happened when the 2 Israeli soldiers were abducted.
A couple months ago, Phil posted an article by a Lebanese advocate for Hezbollah, that you posted on numerous times, that described VIEWING the site the of the abduction in Israel.
Nasrallah admitted that the abduction had been in Israel, and had been planned for six months.
It is only ODD that you continue to assert that the abduction had been in Lebanon proper. I guess you want to believe what you believe.
Witty i invite you to follow the real Jewish tradition and listen to Rabbis for human rights available at link to rhr.org.il
Witty keep ignoring my questions, you full of shit.
This is the way that you talk to human beings, in the name of “progressive” values?
I know some “rabbis for human rights”. They are also rabbis for Israelis human rights. They are willing to speak out for Lebanese, for Palestinians, and for Israelis.
Time to emulate their model, rather than opportunistically parrot a portion of their message.
“Nasrallah admitted that the abduction had been in Israel, and had been planned for six months.”
Fine Witty, priovide the link if you woudl, to that statement.
“‘It is only ODD that you continue to assert that the abduction had been in Lebanon proper. I guess you want to believe what you believe. ”
Not nearly as odd as isnsiting that Hezbollah started the war when Judge Winograd who ran the Israeli commission of inquiry after the war stated quiote clearly that:
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,”
Did you see that Witty? ISRAEL EMBARKED ON A PROLONGED WAS THAT IT INITIATED.
Shall I repeat it one more time?
”Time to emulate their model, rather than opportunistically parrot a portion of their message. ”
You mean, do as we say, not as we do?
link to rhr-na.org
The North American rabbis for human rights site. A wonderful vision, seeking peace and mutual acceptance. Trusting that peace comes from goodness (which thankfully many still believe wholeheartedly).
Shingo,
Read the Winograd report, not just lines from it. The thesis of it was that war was a reaction led by individuals that did not have disciplined military experience and was conducted in an unplanned and undisciplined strategic manner that resulted in poor selection of targets, inneffective realization of viable and justifiable strategic goals, carelessness in treatment of civilians.
And, recommended reforms and remedies that were not punitive as in proving Israel’s legitimacy, but actual reforms.
That the primary line of thinking relative to warring against a militia remained inneffective is a tragedy for both Israel and for Palestine.
The raging that you promote ADDS to the pendulum swinging, loudly and wildly. You are just one of many. Phil adds to the pendulum swinging, in the name of opposing injustice of course, not in identifying injustices but in denial of the other (in this case denial of the reasonings of Zionists – reasonings as distinct from rationalizations).
The public commitment to be anti-Zionist, rather than pro-reconciliation, is a very big shift, a shift that I’m sure he thought about, but not enough to come up with a wise committed position.
The progressive position relative to Zionism is to urge reform, to appeal to the sentiments of compassion and outrage less so that engenders an intention to reform, to support reform, to inform reform.
There is a difference between reformative oriented justice and retributive oriented justice. An extremely important one. The distinction can be conveyed in commentary, or the loyal warrior can be what is conveyed only.
Shingo,
I’ve linked to the UNIFIL account of the conflict, newspaper reports from multiple press sources, quotes from eyewitnesses posted here.
There is an approach to being a warrior that is not about winning a battle, but about paying attention, keeping one’s eyes wide open.
You seem to regard me as enemy, worthy only of suspicion, which gives you cover to dismiss my comments.
I am not a leader of American Jewish community, and certainly have no influence at all in Israeli community. So, I guess your distrust in considering my thinking is dismissable as inneffective, unrepresentative.
In practice though, the movement for compassionate moderation and consideration of the other expressed in political design and relationship-building is the movement that will yeild peace and justice in the region. Solidarity and BDS isolation will not accomplish either.
They are chosen as skillful tactics, not as life principles in this case. As skillful tactics, if they are adhered to, they improve life for those that are willing to coexist. If posed as the only form of harm that dissenters can realize against Israel and Israelis, then they are not non-violent, but violent using a non-violent tactic.
“I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience that civilians in the host land will experience as a result of our boycotts” is not expressed. Glee instead. “I hope you suffer” is instead expressed.
Best. Irony. Ever. From the same man who flat-out refuses to touch the Goldstone Report, or Sands’ book.
Witty,
You’re squirming and doing backflips again, and simply put, youre fuill of ít.
The line I quoted was from the conclusion of the Winograd report, so whatever you believe the thesis is, there is nothing in the report that contradicts this conclusion.
I dare you to provide one statement from Winograd that contradicts that “Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated “ and the statement “Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively”
Nor does the thesis you cite, contradict that the war had been planned well in advance. The fact that it did not go according to plan does not disprove this in any way. Indeed, prior planning would not alleviate poor discipline or lack of experience.
Nor does poor selection of targets disprove the war was planned in advance, only that Israel’s intelligence was weak.
‘’That the primary line of thinking relative to warring against a militia remained ineffective is a tragedy for both Israel and for Palestine.’’
Appalling English Witty. You ‘re bamboozled again aren’t you?
‘’The raging that you promote ADDS to the pendulum swinging, loudly and wildly. You are just one of many.’’
Is ‘’pendulum swing’’ your phrase for the day? I was starting to enjoy,’’ self medicating”.
Rage is what happens when Israel massacres over 1000 civilians Witty. It’s Israel’s fault, not mine.
‘’ Phil adds to the pendulum swinging, in the name of opposing injustice of course, not in identifying injustices but in denial of the other (in this case denial of the reasonings of Zionists – reasonings as distinct from rationalizations).’’
What language is that Witty? Swahilli?
‘’The progressive position relative to Zionism is to urge reform’’
You can talk about reform al you like, but every time reform is suggested, you and your ilk squeal like banshees that it amounts to the denial of Israel’s right to exist, or self governance or whatever your phrase of the day happens to be.
Reform would start with the end of right of return for Jews, acceptance of a Palestinian state along 1967 borders, the right or return of refugees and the unconditional lifting of the siege on Gaza. Of course, none of those ‘’reforms’’’appeal to you.
‘’ to appeal to the sentiments of compassion and outrage less so that engenders an intention to reform, to support reform, to inform reform.’’
As you a big marijuana smoke Witty? Only someone who is permanently stones could come up with such incoherent diatribes.
Witty must be a robot! can’t believe such a human being can exist!
‘’I’ve linked to the UNIFIL account of the conflict, newspaper reports from multiple press sources, quotes from eyewitnesses posted here.’’
No you haven’t and I can say that with all confidence because you never produce links.
‘’There is an approach to being a warrior that is not about winning a battle, but about paying attention, keeping one’s eyes wide open.’’
This is the approach to being a warrior that you advocate for Hamas and Hezbollah no doubt. Stand in an open paddock with a bi bullseye o your chest and don’t move.
‘’You seem to regard me as enemy, worthy only of suspicion, which gives you cover to dismiss my comments.’’
No I simply regard you as an idiot and entirely irrelevant.
‘’ So, I guess your distrust in considering my thinking is dismissable as inneffective, unrepresentative.’’
No I distrust you based on that fact that you are full of BS and are incapable of posting anything remotely incoherent, let alone factual. In fact, your delivery has atrophied rapidly in the last few months.
“In practice though, the movement for compassionate moderation and consideration of the other expressed in political design and relationship-building is the movement that will yeild peace and justice in the region.’’
No it won’t, because it hasn’t.
‘’ Solidarity and BDS isolation will not accomplish either.’’
That’s what you believe Witty, because like a little boy who’s afraid of the vaccine for small pox, you’re afraid of it.
Thanks Shingo, you are my hero!
Oh and speaking of UNIFIL, they have reported that since the 2006 ceasefire, Israel has vilated the terms of the ceasefire on 2,500 occasions, and Hezbollah none.
But that won’t matter to Witty, who is preparing, even now, to blame the next round of violence on Hezbollah.
“your ilk”.
No, “your ilk”.
I asked you a sincere question about whether your views are conditional acceptance of Israel, or unconditional rejection.
Please be bold enough to comment. There really are only two choices to that question.
It’s a false dichotomy, Witty. You’re going to condemn as a “rejection” any “conditional acceptance” of Israel that requires Israel to actually withdraw its citizens to the ’67 border — even as you insist that Hezbollah must respect borders that Israel herself — and you — reject outright.
You accept Israel, war crimes and all, unconditionally. You have no business trying to call the kettle black.
Shooting and crying is an Israeli specialty, Witty, so I guess that makes Israel’s
actions OK. Nobody here takes glee in the notion that Israeli civilians will suffer from an effective BDS movement. There are jewish regulars on this blog who favor BDS–are you including them too in your charge of shadenfraud (sic)? Do you think that those who pushed BDS against the apartheid S African regime were all motivated by schadenfraud (sic)? “I am really sorry that some
innocent Germans will experience some suffering from our attempt to rebel against being here, confined in the Warsaw Ghetto.”
“We, World Jewry, proclaim a boycott against Germany, and urge all to join us.”
This happened in banner headlines in the full Western press (if memory serves, followed by the night of broken glass in Germany, which BTW was a Nazi-allowed, even instigated, then Nazi-contained spontaneous reaction by the German grass roots–as PG said some days back here and for which he was condemned as advocating anti-semitism).
What did NOT happen:
A headline anywhere in the Western press of those times, saying:
“We, World Jewry, proclaim a boycott against Germany, and urge all to join us. World Jewry is really sorry that some
innocent Germans will experience some suffering in this necessary boycott.”
Again the question,
Do you conditionally accept Israel, or do you unconditionally reject it?
You state that you are courageous, sincere, candid.
This is an important question.
Its for Shingo primarily.
Nobody’s going to bother answer your question, Witty. You flee like a fucking coward whenever your arguments fall apart. You always do. Nobody cares what a doddering, addled, unemployed Jewish supremacist demands.
I hope you send your kids to Israel, Witty, and I hope they join the IDF. And I really really hope you live long enough to either attend their funerals, or their war crimes trials.
Witty, Shingo has replied to this question yesterday and he answered “a”. Why do you repeat yourself like a parrot?
At least Shingo replied to you, can you reply please reply my question about the Israeli born children who got expelled because they are not jews, including the refugees children?
Witty always self-identifies as a jew first, then a human being; or at the very least those two characterizations of himself are treated as of equal base importance. To elaborate more precisely, Witty always identifies as a liberal Zionist Jew, either as his prime characterization of himself, or in equal conjunction with his characterization of himself as a humanistic human being.
Make of it what you will from his comments, both as to his abstract rhetoric and as to what he chooses to stress or ignore when he (once in a while) offers details on specific activity.
yes Citizen the “universal humanist” whats a joke!
aparisian, why don’t you take your Jewish traditions and shove ‘em where the shabbos candles don’t shine! Let me tell you two things the Zionists told me:
“No one has a monopoly on truth!” and “If you will it, it is no legend”
We don’t need no stinkin’ traditions, damnit! It was those stinkin traditions which got us into the concentration camps! All we need is will, a little piece of truth (who wants a monopoly?) and well, another couple of hundred million Jews, all fit and fanatical would help. But we’ve got the US, and almost everybody is circumcised there. So they might as well be Jews, and they will fight for us to the death, if they don’t start loading us into boxcars. Oy, I’m so confused!
I call this the Jewish self-destruction
Witty always says ‘go read [whatever]‘ when he cannot substantiate what he is saying – which is pretty much all the time.
If Phil and he did not know each other off-line, then he’d be banned/limited to 2 posts a day like he is on Richard Silverstein’s blog who has the sense to moderate a troll when he sees one.
For the love of God, Witty – make one single substantiated argument. Are you mentally ill?
Both of Witty’s statements pegging the cause as Arab agression against Israelis are
false; it’s exactly the contrary, that is, Israel using pretext to teach the Arabs a collective lesson. This subject has been discussed on this blog in great detail before; all the authorities were referenced. Israel acts, the Arabs react. Applies to Lebanon and Gaza. Hasbara always changes the actual sequence of events.
Please.
It is very worrying that slight divergences of opinion between people who agree on the big issues are interpreted as some sort of counter-insurgency or something.
I came in because I have met and disagreed with Finkelstein on one particular issue, which I think is emblematic of larger problems in the pro-Palestinian movement of which I am a supporter.
I appreciate that, this being the internet, there are trolls and what-not, but you really are getting a false alarm over me.
It’s rather alarming, if this is what diversity of viewpoint creates.
This is part of the reason why I don’t usually join movements or communities. I can’t stand the conformity and black-and-white thinking.
Emma,
you are not the first person here who swayed just a tad from the ‘norm’ of Mondoweiss and have been accosted for it. If you don’t believe in a one-state solution where Israel is on the only aggressor you will be attacked from all angles.
Many people have a black/white view of the conflict, but there is a lot of grey in there.
The most important grey is the conduct of Palestinian resistance.
” The most important grey is the conduct of Palestinian resistance.”
I think you’re onto someting VR.
Emma sounds like a female version of Witty. Israel’s conduct is not the issue, it’s the Palestinians who have to behave themselves.
Yeah, cos whether or not there are suicide bombers has no bearing on the conflict.
If you don’t think suicide bombing is at the very least a grey area, then maybe we really are further apart than I thought.
You always jump to conclusions: I have a problem with some aspects of resistance… therefore I put all the onus on Palestinians.
Can you see what your mind is doing? Black/white. Trigger-happy. Looking for the worst in any different point of view.
Is there any hasbara talking points Emma hasn’t dredge up yet? She’s covered “The Arabs started all the wars” and went through “suicide bombers mean Israel is self defense,” and “unguided rockets that land in open land more than half the time is just as bad as an F-16 dropping a precision guided bomb on a hospital.”
So I lost count. Somebody have that Four Talking Points of Hasbara link handy? I should have bookmarked it ages ago.
I didn’t say either of those things.
EmmaZunz,
The masque has fallen, my question was clear and your answer was also very clear.
Chaos hehe you are an excellent Hasbara detector :-)
If the Pal suicide bombers are in the gray area, what are the F-16s and white phosporous? The demolishing of Arab homes, hospitals, schools, etc?
The Imperial Japanese zeros engaged in suicide bombing. They were launched
when Imperial Japan no longer had anything else to stop the end of their
activities. Nothing gray about that. As that German American Rummy said, “You fight with what you got.” The French resistence did just that, for example, as did the denizens of the Warsaw Ghetto.
Anything gray about that?
Before 1948, the jews in the Brit mandate engaged in outright terrorism, as everybody on this blog knows; that was simply because they had little
power, either military or otherwise. Is that not black and white history?
So, what’s so gray about suicide bombing? It’s the act of desperation–whether to save a predator nation (Imperial Japan), or to save the Palestinians from a slow and miserable dispossession.
“Before 1948, the jews in the Brit mandate engaged in outright terrorism,”
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Scroll down to the typescript reproduction of the reports from the British Colonial Office on Zionist activities.
The only “gray matter” that people need be concerned with here, is that which you should have between your ears, or the lack thereof. I see yonira joins the crowd, it is a party…LOL
You are a saucy one, aren’t you?
What you are really doing, although you don’t realise, is policing conformity to a rigid system of thought.
I believe in conformity to the facts Emma, thoughts follow empirical evidence. They should not follow finely tailored lines of propaganda void of facts. And yes, I have my own secret sauce hehe (I just have a hard time following Abbie’s Bube’s gefilte fish recipe, I am not a rocket scientist :)
“If you don’t believe in a one-state solution where Israel is on the only aggressor you will be attacked from all angles.”
Yonira, baby, international politics mit war is a dangerous and no-rules kinda game. I would suggest not embarking on it with just a few million people, and with potential hostages all over the globe.
God’s blessing on a new Israeli Empire would trump all that, of course, but I’m still waiting for the announcements. Unfortunately, His last assesment of the Jews ability to govern themselves as a sovereign nation was not too positive. Of course, I’m sure AIPAC and AJC will send a couple of lobbyists up there to straighten Him out.
I don’t think you realize this, but you yourself are engaging in black-and -white thinking. Your point seems to be that because Hezbollah rockets killed civilians then they MUST have been deliberately targeting civilians. You have make this a black-and -white issue yourself. Most of the argumentation against your point, mine included, is that Hezbollah did not deliberately target civilians, and that targeting with less precise weaponry, when it is the only weaponry you have access to, is not necessarily a war crime.
And your second point, although perhaps this was really your first point, is that people like Finkelstein, who have spoken in defense of Hezbollah, should not be included as a part of the greater pro-Palestinian movement. But this viewpoint of yours is just as much an argument for conformity and black-and-white thinking as what you are rebelling against and complaining about. I think its pointless to demand a uniformity of thought on the subject. I do, however, think that there is nothing wrong with internal arguments within the diversity of thought within the movement. But I don’t like the idea of shunning ideas that fall outside the mainstream, whatever that is, just to put on an “acceptable” face. I think that you are asking for the very thing that you fault the movement for: conformity, on your own terms.
Sorry, but in case it isn’t clear I am addressing Emma in the above post.
It’s cool, I realised.
Either they targeted civilians, or they were recklessly negligent towards them. Either way. Nothing black and white, just my interpretation of what I’ve seen.
Who said I’m trying to exclude Finkelstein? I agree with you: very important voice, with whom I have a disagreement which I think is important.
People are on such a hair-trigger here! You lot just want to start tilting at shadows everywhere! Zionist infiltrators! Excluders!
Geeze, this is exactly what I can’t stand about political movements.
Either they targeted civilians, or they were recklessly negligent towards them. Either way. Nothing black and white, just my interpretation of what I’ve seen.
Either/or is black-and-white thinking. Just sayin’
Who said I’m trying to exclude Finkelstein? I agree with you: very important voice, with whom I have a disagreement which I think is important.
This is what you said earlier:
I believe that when pro-Palestinians support war-criminals, it weakens the Palestinian position.
AND
Pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with such movements, both because they are criminal and because to do so is counter-productive.
I interpreted that to mean that you either think Finkelstein should not be a part of the “pro-palestinian” movement, or he should shut up about Hezbollah if he wants to be a part of it. You are seeking conformity with your own viewpoint, in my my estimation. Rather than being upset with conformity, you are really asking for more conformity along the lines that you agree with.
You didn’t try to exclude Finklestein’s POV; you just have striven to impeach his credibility, his fairness, his objectivity. Nobody said you were trying to exclude Finklestein. Before you argued that Finklestein doesn’t address
the evil means (suicide attacks and rocketing with ancient weapons Israeli towns inhabitanted by Arab Israelis because that’s where the IDF mostly hid) used by the Arabs to show Israel it can’t do what it wants without suffering some consequences, you should have shown some insight as to the larger picture, the context within which those suicide bombings and crappy rocket
attacks bloomed. You didn’t, Emma; instead people here had to pry such concessions out of you.
Emma claims: I came in because I have met and disagreed with Finkelstein on one particular issue, which I think is emblematic of larger problems in the pro-Palestinian movement of which I am a supporter.
Hell I disagree with a number of Norm’s positions. But I accept that he is an important voice in this debate and my disagreements are minor in comparison. You on the other hand feel so strongly about those disagreements that it becomes the only issue worth discussing. The invasion of Lebanon in 1982, their war in 2006, the massacre of Palestinians in 2009 by the Israelis are insignificant issues compared to Norm’s respect for those who resisted. No according to Emma, the only issue worthy of discussion is the tactics used by the victims of IDF assault. She has one goal: the only discourse worthy of discussion in the evilness of the Arabs, Israeli crimes are secondary.
I have read most of Emma’s responses and I still am unable to figure out where she comes from. There are two options: 1) either a useful idiot for Israel or 2) a conscious operative of hasbara. If someone has a third option please offer it.
“Hell I disagree with a number of Norm’s positions. But I accept that he is an important voice in this debate and my disagreements are minor in comparison.”
Agree.
As for the rest of it, put another record on. Can’t I discuss one issue at a time? What do you want, a signed affidavit of all my beliefs and commitments before discussing any one issue?
Can’t I discuss one issue at a time? Sure you can. You just told us what your priorities are.
EmmaZunz I believe is part of a cadre sent especially to engage the “leftist” blogs. See my post above. She knows enough about the left/liberal/pro-palestinian to engage in a pretend argument. But, as you noticed, syvanen, it gets kind of slippery after a while.
What Emma’s purpose is I’m not sure. In the case of the poster I had a brief discussion with a left leaning blog, it was clearer – all the roads led – in the end – to Iran and to getting Israel off the hook over Iraq. Here it’s something about Finkelstein and his support for the resistance.
In any case, EmmaZunz left plenty of evidence to be suspicious about. Something just doesn’t add up – which is what happens when there’s an agenda just barely below the surface.
“In any case, EmmaZunz left plenty of evidence to be suspicious about. Something just doesn’t add up – which is what happens when there’s an agenda just barely below the surface.”
As with all things, time will tell. I suspect we will not see Emma return or make any appearance beyond this thread. If she does return, it will be interesting to see the trend in her comments. On this occasion, she argued that she wanted to focus on the topic of Hezbollah and not Israel, but she won’t get away with that excuse again without exposing herself.
next time – probably under a different name – it’ll be something about focusing on Sharia law, or the ‘support” by palestinianns of nazi Germany, or the “expulsion” of Jews from ME countries. The one thing we can be sure of is that it’ll be OT.
But there’s a silver lining – people here engaged the EmmaZunz poseur with really good, well thought out comments,often with excellent links I didn’t have before or forgot. So it’s all for the better, especially seeing that Witty has long ago lost the inspiring touch and those like yonira never had any to begin with.
Also, I for one, am pleased to see that mondoweiss is being “rewarded” with a better class of hasbaranick. At least Emma is one grade above the cut and paste crowd (remember the Nomi troll?). So that’s a good sign.
Good point Danaa,
I too benefitted from Brewer’s link. As for Witty, I don’t recall him ever having an inspiring touch.
I am curious to find out what Emma was hoping to achieve, seeing as she failed to persuade anyone of her line of argument, though I’m sure Witty got a rush of exhiliration from the episode.
Emma is a hidden Hasbara girl, i bet she got a training course at the Hasbara council frequented by yonira and witty. I think personally Witty is the head of it. Yonira is a young attendee but full of shit and hypocrisy. Emmas mission was to back the repeated attacks of the Hasbara council against Finkelestein and most of us.
Interesting exchange. I find myself agreeing with Emma’s basic point – that there is sometimes undue glorification of Hizbollah and Hamas among left-wing supporters of Palestine and Lebanon. Yet there are things about the way she gets there – particularly her overall analysis of 2006, and a few stray phrases and approaches – that don’t add up, when compared to similar positions taken by people I know in the real world. She may be on the level, but the precise combination of positions she presents seems somehow incomplete or not completely honest. If she is indeed a “plant” (official or independent), she is of a calibre we have never seen here before.
When I was at university, I was approached by the spooks (GSS, I presume), who tried to recruit me, specifically as a leftist with radical tendencies. They wanted me to infiltrate certain groups on campus, with whom they were aware that I basically agreed (perfect cover). A key phrase that they used repeatedly was “enemies of Israel” – e.g. “These groups engage in perfectly legitimate democratic protest and espouse admirable values, but some of their members are enemies of Israel, who support terrorism”. Could it be that the hasbarah generals are walking the same path? Or are we simply being watched? Or are we just a bunch of paranoid nuts who should be working right now instead of talking about spooks? Speaking of which …
“If she is a plant”.
Very odd and suspicious approach.
“Or are we just a bunch of paranoid nuts who should be working right now instead of talking about spooks? ”
Good insight. I recommend that you keep your ideals, don’t give up and “get a life”, but that you do so much much more soberly.
Because you’ve never slung that accusation around, Witty? God, your hypocrisy reaches sheer depths of idiocy at times.
” If she is indeed a “plant” (official or independent), she is of a calibre we have never seen here before. ”
You give her way to much credit. Emma was given a wide berth to present her arguments based on her insistence that she was talking about Hezbollah and only about Hebollah. She framed the argument by insisting that she agreed with our criticisms of Israel, but that now was not the time to talk about Israel.
So let’s see what she comes up with on another thread, if indeed she shows up again. We’ll know right away if she is a plant, because she won’t get away with not discussing Israel a second time.
You give her way to much credit.
Maybe my expectations are low, but when someone comes along, argues intelligently, is morally and logically consistent, doesn’t cut and paste, answers questions, and gives less than she gets in the insult department – yes, I think that’s pretty high calibre. The basic point that Emma makes is a valid one (which I happen to share, on the whole), although her analysis shows some pretty mainstream skew (somewhat surprising in one who respects the very un-mainstream Finkelstein), especially in the overall framing of things.
No single issue exists in a vacuum. When you attack Finklestein by saying he ignores Arab suicide bombers and militia crappy rockets, you tease out a tiny hanging thread
to avoid Finklestein’s whole dress. You don’t deserve to be appraising what’s going on and walking down the catwalk.
And let’s not forget the likes of Chris Berel. Remember? Worse than
Julius Streicher he was. Really infantile, and a porno star.
Shingo “As for Witty, I don’t recall him ever having an inspiring touch.”.
You sell yourself short. If I recall, Witty has elecitied some pretty good commentary from you [too] in the past. All while being exasperatingly witless. Maybe because even the most egregiously disingenuous can still be useful as a foil. It just gets old after a while, in a throwing pearls to the swine kind of thing.
I believe that goal is important.
Those that agitate for the reform of Israeli policies have justice on their side.
Those that agitate for the elimination of Israel have something less than justice on their side.
I thought you didn’t believe in “justice.” I think that’s a record-breaking level of Wittypocrisy right there, when one factors speed and quantity together.
Witty i thought justice is racism?
Those that agitate for the elimination of Israel have something less than justice on their side.
Thats fucking excessive? Where did you read that we want to eliminate the Israeli apartheid terrorist regime?
Aw come on, Chaos, Wittuy merely suggested that justice is not imporant by his
use of the word “if.”
“I believe that goal is important.
Those that agitate for the reform of Israeli policies have justice on their side.
Those that agitate for the elimination of Israel have something less than justice on their side.”
nam myo ho renge kyo…LOLOLOL
Actually I think Finkelstein will have a great time at Harvard, especially if he faces the same arguments I have faced here…hehe
Such a shame to see the movement for justice for the Palestinians dissolve into support for a fundamentalist terrorist militia that praises suicide bombing.
That’s what I have against Finkelstein, for all his great work.
Again, Emma, you are seeking conformity and black-and-white thinking on your own terms. If you so hate conformity, why are you demanding it of Finkelstein?
It’s not the having an opinion that’s conformist, it’s the knee-jerk assumptions and trigger-fingers that show this place up as black/white and conformist.
You only want to hear what you’re comfortable with and can’t stand anything else.
Its a reason that I believe that some of the leftists that post here are really plants.
Don’t let your ideals be deterred. Keep your value of mutual humanization. It will serve you well.
Isn’t anyone finding the concordance and absolute conformity Emma has managed to strike, in record time, with yonira and Witty just boggling? Now all we need is for her to give a nod to WJ and Julian and we’ll have the whole trifecta.
The truth of the matter Emma is that we have already heard what you are selling, and found it to be a non-desirable product (in other words, I had these arguments years ago). This is why sales people see “no solicitation” on some doors hehe
“Don’t let your ideals be deterred. Keep your value of mutual humanization. It will serve you well.”
Yes Witty’s concept ofmutual humanization means laying the blame exclusivelyat the feet of the Pslestinians.
“It will serve you well.”
Yes, it has made Witty into the village idiot of this forum.
You didn’t reply to my question. Why are you insistent on Finkelstein conforming to your viewpoint if you are so concerned about the dangers of conformity of opinion? You seem at cross purposes. Conformity with your viewpoint:good and necessary. Conformity with a viewpoint you disagree with: not good.
People here aren’t refusing to listen to you. They are arguing with you because they disagree. I will grant you that some have made personal remarks or assumptions about motive that aren’t helpful to the dialog, but no one is saying you can’t say what you do, they just vehemently disagree with your argument.
Finkelstein does not believe that Hezbollah committed war crimes, or that it targeted civilians. You do, but acknowledge that you don’t have proof for your assertion. If in fact you were convinced that Hezbollah did not target civilians (as Finkelstein is convinced) then I take it you would have no disagreement with Finkelstein? So this would then be a disagreement over facts, and not a real ideological disagreement with Finkelstein?
However, do not get me wrong, at least I welcome you here, and wait with bated breath for your next argument :)
Ain’t that the strange part, VR? Each one of them comes in acting like they’re bringing something new to the table and then the parrot the same talking points as the last one. Right down to classic Wittyisms like, “You’re all closed minded ignorant agitators for not blinding yourself to factual data.”
Emma and Witty double-teaming to drag the conversation totally off topic as an excuse to slander and belittle the rest of us is making out to be a deadly combination, though, sadly.
“You didn’t reply to my question. Why are you insistent on Finkelstein conforming to your viewpoint if you are so concerned about the dangers of conformity of opinion? You seem at cross purposes. Conformity with your viewpoint:good and necessary. Conformity with a viewpoint you disagree with: not good”
The contradictions are starting to pile up aren’t they Tree?
A few posts back, Emma was claiming that she does not believe in participating in movements or group activities, but she insists on giving advice to the Palestinians abotu who they should associate with. VR must have a crystal ball.
Yes, I suppose if I knew that Hezbollah were a movement that believed in and actioned justice, democracy, tolerance, etc. then there would be no problem. That’s not the reality though.
It’s late. I’m going to bed. Good night.
“Yes, I suppose if I knew that Hezbollah were a movement that believed in and actioned justice, democracy, tolerance, etc. then there would be no problem. That’s not the reality though.”
Compared to whom Emma? The Israeli government? The US government?
Who is your water mark for actioned justice, democracy, and tolerance?
Yes, I suppose if I knew that Hezbollah were a movement that believed in and actioned justice, democracy, tolerance, etc. then there would be no problem. That’s not the reality though.
In other words, if they were all WHITE (as in “black-and-white”, not racially) then it would be OK. What happened to the “shades of grey” argument?
Well, I’m mostly on EmmaZunz’s side in this argument. I wasn’t on last night, but she’s right. I don’t mean she’s necessarily right on every single point, but you can certainly regard Israeli actions as war crimes (a point she has made repeatedly) and also regard some of Hezbollah’s actions as criminal, just as HRW said in their reports. She didn’t say we should shun Finkelstein–she said that pro-peace pro-Palestinian advocates should avoid linking the movement with support for Hezbollah.
Which makes sense to me. One shouldn’t demonize Hamas or Hezbollah, but they are both guilty of war crimes.
What’s happened in this thread is probably a mixture of two things–first, some of you seem close to adopting that “by any means necessary” thinking that has always plagued the left when anti-imperialist struggles are involved. After a century of violent liberation struggles that often end with the liberators oppressing the people they ostensibly liberated, people should know better. People across the political spectrum seem inclined to worship the guys with guns if they have the right cause. There’s nothing noble or excusable about terrorism even in a good cause and once you open that door and say there is, then you just have endless arguments over who the good terrorists are and who the bad ones are.
The other thing that happened in this thread is good old fashioned internet tribal thinking. Someone comes along who is only in 90 percent agreement and she gets ripped up. The fact that she agreed with virtually everything people said about Israeli war crimes didn’t seem to matter at all. Maybe she is a secret hasbarist, but I’m going to wait to see if evidence shows up–hell, maybe I’m a secret hasbarist and don’t know it. And it’s not like I don’t believe there are hasbarist types out there–I saw a pretty sophisticated example of lying for the sake of Israel at a center left blog during the Gaza War.
The fact that Witty got to agree with Emma is, I think, the result of the internet tribalism thing. You guys shouldn’t have let Witty get away with it. She said things Witty would never say in a million years, admissions of Israeli war crimes, concessions that Israel is guilty of terrorism, and yet Witty gets to prance into the thread, cherrypick the fact that she also criticizes Hezbollah, and parade as a paragon of openmindedness. She welcomes Witty’s support because he’s just about the only person here supporting her.
Emma, if you are reading this and are new to the blog, Witty is someone who will talk forever of peace and compassion, but he’s also the sort who will condemn Hamas terrorism as deliberate mass murder (which is true) and then hem and haw and euphemize to death almost any Israeli atrocity you care to name. He’s opposed to the Israeli right and the settler movement, but like many liberal Zionists, he can’t bear to see Israeli crimes denounced with the same moral fervor he thinks should be reserved for Arab terrorism.
“I wasn’t on last night”
I meant I wasn’t online last night, not that I was against her last night. I missed this whole fracas until this morning.
It seems to me the only person linking anti-occupation to pro-Hezbollah, are people like Witty and Emma. That wasn’t even part of the conversation until she brought it up.
Didn’t anybody else even notice that?
Donald,
I also missed the fracas in “real time”. I agree with your basic assessment, but Emma’s welcoming Witty’s support would seem to indicate that she is very new to the blog, yet she writes that she has been following it for years. That’s kind of fishy. If the criticism she has of Israel is really honest, Witty is the last person she would want on her side; it would discredit everything she writes. Were I in her shoes, I would have said something like “Thanks for the help Richard, but I’d rather not be associated with your dishonesty and fuzzy thinking. Any similarity between us is purely coincidental”. So what gives?
Finkelstein has said complimentary things about Hezbollah, and Finkelstein is the subject of this post. I like Finkelstein, btw, and wish he were in the American mainstream, but don’t agree with everything he says. And there’s nothing wrong with bringing up things that someone disagrees with.
If someone consistently takes a position critical of the anti-occupation movement, then yeah, there’s reason for suspicion. But I think people in this thread wildly overreacted to Emma. Hell, if she is a plant (now I’m doing it), then her “mission” was a great success. She managed to bring out sectarian tendencies.
Sorry Donald,
While I always admire and appreciate your posts, I beg to differ.
The fact that Emma claimed to agree about Israel’s war crimes, she insisted on not discussing them and focusiong entirely on Hezbollah, Hamas and suicide bombings.
As for dissenting views, I’m inclined to respect those who are honest about their views, such as Wondering Jew. Emma’s avoidance of certain topics, along with her propensity to throw in the collective attacks on Hezbollah/Hamas suggested that she was determined to frame the disussion to her agenda.
Having said that, I will agree tribalism is innevitable on blog which deals with such a hot topic. I myself have been on the receivign end of suchtreatment.
And while one cannot argue with the platitude that there’s nothing noble or excusable about terrorism, that in itself has become an entirely vacuuous phrase. In this day and age, violence is somehow legitimzed if you happen to be using state fo the art weaponry, while terrorism is associated with more primitive measures, irrespective of the cause being served.
I respect your open mindedness, but I suspect that she’s just another mercenary conducting a drive by trolling.
”Didn’t anybody else even notice that? ”
Good point Chaos. Much like the Hasbarats are the only ones who associate a peacful settlement with delegitimizing denying Israel’s right to exist.
Emma didn’t just attack terrorist activities by Hezbollah. Her argument was that, because Hezbollah engaged in terrorism and war crimes, we must reject the entire premise of Hezbollah.
She was attempting to delegitimize the very notion of armed resistance to Israeli military aggression, piecemeal. Mark my words, next on the list would have been Hamas, then Fatah. And she will be “not discussing” what Israel is doing into perpetuity — or the United States, for that matter, as I pointed out. Like Witty, in Emma’s eyes it must be demonstrated that you are at least this Arab for your activities to qualify as terrorism.
Shingo–
When I logged on this morning I saw the latest attacks on her and was prepared to find someone just like Richard Witty. So I scrolled up and read the whole thread and she didn’t strike me like that at all.
I think most likely she is just someone like me, who is critical of Israel, but also bothered by the romanticizing of the opposition, something that happens over and over again. It’s a human trait–trying to see one side in a conflict as mostly good and then making excuses for their crimes. If she’s a plant or insincere we might find out if she sticks around, but right now most of what she says I agree with. (She may also decide not to stick around if she thinks she’s just going to get mobbed unfairly.)
I agree that “terror” as used in the mainstream is a propaganda word, but it can be used honestly to describe attacks on civilians no matter whether carried out by a state or non-state actors. The word should be reclaimed and used honestly, IMO.
I’m waiting for your interest in a peaceful settlement. I’ve only heard warring so far.
“I agree with your basic assessment, but Emma’s welcoming Witty’s support would seem to indicate that she is very new to the blog, yet she writes that she has been following it for years. That’s kind of fishy. If the criticism she has of Israel is really honest, Witty is the last person she would want on her side; it would discredit everything she writes. Were I in her shoes, I would have said something like “Thanks for the help Richard, but I’d rather not be associated with your dishonesty and fuzzy thinking. Any similarity between us is purely coincidental”. So what gives?”
I don’t know–maybe just being mobbed makes people welcome what support they can get, or maybe she just takes a person’s statements one at a time and agreed with whatever specific thing Richard wrote. Even I’ve (very rarely) voiced agreement with him on occasion. It’s not humanly possible to have BS coming off your fingertips every time you type, not even for RW–most students of anatomy would agree with me on this.
Or she might be a fraud, but I think the evidence for that is thin.
Gotta go for now.
You’re not interested in peace, Witty. You support the apartheid wall. You support the punitive blockade of Gaza. You even support military action against civilians living under punitive blockade in Gaza! You also support the shovelling of billions of American dollars into the Israeli war machine.
You are the war monger, Witty. Not us.
Or, maybe my “dishonesty and fuzzy thinking” is the most humane and most principled approach to realize goodness in the world.
When I speak of mutual humanization, I’m serious.
Both communities threaten each other, and the solidarity for each community ADD to that threat.
That is the oppossite of what is needed for civilians to live well. The points of criticism of Israeli policy are well-taken, but to ignore that they occur within an environment of mutual hostility is a gross negligence.
One theme here is that Israel is so powerful that it cannot take seriously any threat as existential. And, at the same time, there is glee expressed when a country like Turkey sends signals that it is considering a flotilla that could spin out to general warfare, in which Israel is regarded as enemy by Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Hamas, and possibly Egypt again.
My criticism of the Netanyahu government includes that it is “successfully” destroying any trust that could have emerged from the two decades since Sadat reached out to Israel and was martyred in the cause for reconciliation, as was Rabin.
There has to be an intersection possible, that results in justice and well-being for Palestinians and security and well-being for Israel.
Thats what I hope and work for (when I work at this).
The “pebble in my shoe” approach of the single state, that does not seek reconciliation of people as primary and political reconciliation as an inevitable consequence, hinders all reasonable goals.
Determination is wonderful. Better that determination not be in the form of a car hurtling downhill, but of a slow attentive hiker.
Holy fuck. Witty really completely off his rocker, isn’t he? Like, totally? I’m pretty brash but at no point have I ever tried to canonize myself.
Oh, indeed, Mr. “Zionism is a polished gem?”
I think I’ve had as much of the bullshit for now as I can stand. Plus, I’ve got class.
Donald,
I think most likely she is just someone like me, who is critical of Israel, but also bothered by the romanticizing of the opposition
I find this excessive, no one is romanticizing the opposition, the idea was to explain to Emmna, when a country is attacked by a foreign enemy, its normal and legitimate that they face resistance, and discrediting the resistance by labelling it with terrorism is simplistic and very known tactic. Criticizing Hezbollah when they commit war crimes yes but calling them a terrorist group i don’t agree. I also tried earlier to tell her that Hezbollah started rocketing because they were desperate, as Israeli with no moral conduct has attacked many civilian infrastructure. I m not seeing one side in this conflict here, when the war machine in front of you is destroying everything, you become crazy and you start rocketing everywhere.
Its a very common phenomena among those that are politically motivated to reject, rather than creatively approach real problems.
One thing that Emma and I share is irritation with both the Israeli right, the Hamas and Hezbollah right, and the dogmatic left.
I think we are kindred in seeking mutual humanization, and through moderate means. Maybe I’m wrong.
It would be fundamental abdication of my moral values to reject moderation. I’ve never been asked to adopt a warring attitude, and I pray that there will always be options for me to avoid it.
The unwillingness on this “representative” population of radicals, to distinguish between the need for reform and the urge for rebellion, make that stance less possible.
Which side are you on? Both, is not an answer to you? Or, you think that I’ve chosen Israel over both?
The odd consequence of forcing that question, “WHICH side are you on?” is that the relative compassion gets turned off, rather than enhanced. And, as the very very very vast majority of rational individuals bear relative compassion and political commitments, that is a very big light to turn off.
The rational criticism that Donald makes that I hear is the question to Netanyahu, Olmert, Livni, every Israeli administration is “You are willing to do THAT?”
In other settings, I ask myself and other Jews and other friends that same question, “You are willing to do or to advocate for THAT? Do you understand what happens to people, friends and foes, when that is adopted?”
It is a consequence of BOTH the Israeli right definition of their options, and the Palestinian cadre and solidarity’s definitions.
BOTH neglecting to explore options, proposals.
Nearly certainly, if Avraham Burg, or Gershom Gorenburg, or Akiva Eldar, or other liberals came to this space, they would likely be treated like Emma was, suspected and then harrassed on the basis of violent suspicion.
Ideology, litmus tests, rather than humanization and persuasion (that requires understanding the other as a part of the process).
Witty? You turned around and condemned partisanship after indulging in it excessively yourself. And you think you can just keep throwing enough words at us that we’ll forget? Witty, it’s right here, your “jewel of an idea” speech. Not all that hard for us to link right to, those of us who know the mere basics of HTML (and I know a fair bit more than just that.)
I have come to the conclusion that you are a sociopath. I don’t mean that as an ad hominem — I mean you literally do not care what other people think and feel, and there is no social norm or limit of reason you aren’t willing to trespass to further your warped vision of Jewish privilege. You will literally turn say, “The sky is purple,” and then in the next minute claim “The sky is orange” if you somehow came to the conclusion that doing so would exonerate Israel of land theft, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
I have also come to the conclusion that I should not be sneaking peeks at the blog during class. Unlike Witty, I do have something better to with my time than take a pitchfork to vast piles of bull excrement.
” I’m pretty brash but at no point have I ever tried to canonize myself.”
Exactly, Chaos, exactly. The way Witty sees himself has a lot to do with it. He can’t Israel and Jewish supremacy doing himself anything but good, and he can’t understand why any other Jews would think differently.
But he won’t go live there.
Unfortunately, it has also allowed Israel to continue to be a predator nation with US enabling; this is headed for US enmeshment in a third major war (with Iran) when it can not afford it. Witty, after all, is essentially in favor of the status quo regarding how the USA has been handling the I-P situation–his
POV is that of the USA MSM, the agency that gives selected information to Joe and Jane Doe, citizens who, even if they try to act responsibly, don’t have the needed information to do so–never cease to lose the opportunity to take advantage of manipulated ignorance. Take full advantage of the fact foreign policy is accorded much less attention than, say getting a job, and hopefully some day, a flat screen tv and a decent car.
Witty: “Both communities threaten each other, and the solidarity for each community ADD to that threat.” Yes. The 4th most powerful military in the world, supported by the world’s only superpower, threatens the most vulnerable and lonely people in the world, the Palestinians. True enough.
Except that what the Palestinians are going through every day is not remotely a mere threat–it’s real, and happening daily. It’s not like they live comfortably in Westchester County and type out on their laptop “a pox on both your houses.”
I agree with Donald, and his interpretation of this long thread.
I most certainly did, but I thought it must have been, in some way an issue. But you are right, what the hell does “support” (whatever that means in our context. An half-approving comment?) of Hezbollah have to do with this thread.
She seemed determined to conflate support for Hezbollah, and specifically Hezbollah’s alleged criminal actions, with condemnation of Israel’s intransigence. Now why would that be?
“Nearly certainly, if Avraham Burg, or Gershom Gorenburg, or Akiva Eldar, or other liberals came to this space, they would likely be treated like Emma was, suspected and then harrassed on the basis of violent suspicion.”
You have an incredibly grandiose view of yourself Witty, if you think you;re on the same page as Akiva Eldar, who has contradicted almost every position you have taken.
No Witty, if Eldar were to come to this space, his arguments woudl be water tight and endlessly supported by sources, references and sound scholarship, none of which are to be found in yours or Emma posts.
There is no dispute about the origins of the 2006 war. Anyone who believes that an attack of such magnitude can be launched without months of planning knows nothing about military affairs.
Israeli reserves were called up three months before the “kidnapping” of Israeli soldiers. Here is what the Christian Science Monitor reported:
link to csmonitor.com
Judge Winograd who ran the Israeli commission of inquiry after the war stated:
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,”
Here are the stats:
link to dissidentvoice.org
This is my favorite argument. Brewer, did Israel cross over the border, fire katyushas from Lebanon, kidnap and kill their soldiers in cold blood, and the chase ghosts into Lebanon?
Oh, nothing to say about the fact that Israel slaughter fifty civilians for every Israeli civilian that died? Fancy that.
And nothing to say about this, either:
Judge Winograd who ran the Israeli commission of inquiry after the war stated:
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,”
Yonira probably knows that former Israeli Supreme Court judge Eliyahu Winograd is just another anti-Semite. Besides, what would the judge that headed the Israeli inquiry into the failures of the Israeli Lebanon offensive really know about the War? After all, he only talked to high ranking Israeli officials. Yonira, on the other hand, knows it all, ‘cuz he reads and swallows whole anything that CAMERA says.
Tree,
so you don’t believe Hezbollah kidnapped any troops? Or fired Katyusha rockets? I mean what exactly is your argument here? Did these things never happen? or did Israel cross in to Lebanon and kidnapped their own soldiers and fire the rockets as a diversion?
You and Brewer are such hacks, he was talking about initiating the ground war, your taking what he said out of context, imagine that.
You guys have no credibility. Read the fucking report, don’t just take what you want from it to make it sound like Hezbollah had zero responsibility for its start.
“so you don’t believe Hezbollah kidnapped any troops?”‘
Why not say captured Yonira, or is that reserved esxclusively for when IDF troops grap little boys from their bed?
link to electronicintifada.net
“Or fired Katyusha rockets?”
Israle fired more missiles and rockets in one day of the war then Hebollah fired in the whole war.
What’s your point?
”You and Brewer are such hacks, he was talking about initiating the ground war, your taking what he said out of context, imagine that.”
No, he was talking abotu initiating the war, both air and ground, unless you have a quote from the report that states otherwise?
”You guys have no credibility. Read the fucking report, don’t just take what you want from it to make it sound like Hezbollah had zero responsibility for its start. ”
Have you read the report Yonira? And if so, what part of the report contrdcist the fundmental conclusion that Israel initiated the war?
Come on Mr Expert. Show us what you got.
What part of Israeli Supreme Court Judge Winograd’s statement is difficult to understand Yonira?
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory
BTW. I have always wondered why Israeli Soldiers get “kidnapped” and “murdered” while Pals and Lebanese get “captured” and “eliminated”.
What more evidence do we need that Witty resides in a parallel universe?
“The Israeli Armed Forces (IDF) launched 5,000 missiles, five-ton bunker-buster bombs and cluster bombs as well as anti-personnel phosphorus bombs each day into Lebanon for 27 days — totaling over 135,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells. During the last seven days of the war Israel launched 6,000 bombs and shells per day — over 42,000, for a grand total of 177,000 over a heavily populated territory the size of the smallest state in the US. In contrast, the Lebanese national resistance launched 4,000 rockets during the entire 34-day period, an average of 118 per day. The ratio was 44 to 1 — without mentioning the size differentials, the long-term killing effects of the thousands of un-exploded cluster bombs (nearly 50 killed or maimed since the end of hostilities) and Israel�s scorched earth military incursion.”
This just goes to show how deranged and deluded the likes of Witty are. he claimed that that Hezbollah firing 100 missiles per day was unprecedented, while Israel were firing 5000 per day on average and up to 6000 per day in the last 7 days.
That’s right. Israel fired more ordinance in one day that Hezbollah launched throughout the entire war.
Israel was idiotic at the scale that it attacked. (As I and the Winograd investigation concluded, it was an example of unplanned and strategically undisciplined wishful thinking.)
Hezbollah was idiotic at the scale and lying about it that it conducted.
I love it! Now Witty’s desperate to paint an all out invasion with full scale logistics coordination, air strike campaigns, troop incursions, etc. as “unplanned” and “undisciplined.” (Wishful thinking I will give you — it’s painfully obvious that Lebanon occupation part II was an abject failure.)
Who attacked UN facilities during 2006, Witty? Which side deliberately targeted UN observational outposts?
Indeed, Isrel must have also unplanned the tour of the US to sell the atatck on Lebanon by Power Point, arguing that the guy runing th epresentation wasn’t sufficiently trained in Power Point.
The fact that Blair and Bush were advised well in advace of the war was no doubt, another element of the poor planning.
It’s quite galling, isn’t it, Shingo? This is like as if Witty were arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen, because obviously the Jews weren’t rendered extinct and so therefore no genocide took place.
Or worse still, the suggestion that the fact that the Jews weren’t rendered extinct proves that the Holocaust wasn’t pre planned.
Seriously, one only has to look at the FUBAR in Iraq to show that planning is no gurantee against incompetence.
“As I and the Winograd investigation concluded…”
ROTFL! As Winograd investigation concluded, and you were sort of half-assed forced to admit, would be more like it.
It’s just another Ziocaine blackout, and as he says, he’s addicted. They never remember what they said, sometimes not even in the same thread.
Witty: “As I and the Winograd investigation concluded, it was an example of unplanned and strategically undisciplined wishful thinking.”
What part of Israeli Supreme Court Judge Winograd’s statement is difficult to understand Witty?
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory.”
Pingback: Deck the halls: Finkelstein to speak on Goldstone at Harvard Law … · Legal News – Your Source for Legal News and Advice
“Brewer, did Israel cross over the border, fire katyushas from Lebanon, kidnap and kill their soldiers in cold blood, and the chase ghosts into Lebanon?”
Israel crossed the border countless times. Since 2006 alone, they have violated the ceasefire agreement 2,500 times according to UNIFIL.
Shingo, you don’t listen to you because Israel is god for them.
they don’t listen to you, they are blind when its Israel.
One final comment.
The fact that every official Israeli source insists that the 2006 Lebanese War was initiated by Hezbollah’s capture of Israeli soldiers proves that they are not telling you the truth. It proves that they rely on the gullibility of the average Joe.
No-one with a modicum of how the military functions could swallow the “kidnapped soldiers” scenario.
Israel has it’s covetous eye on the Litani and they don’t give a bugger if people here on Mondoweiss know it. There are plenty of folks out there who are content to believe in fairy tales like the soldiers who went out into the woods and got taken by the wicked Goblins.
Witty is like Israel, all non violent movements are considered as violence towards Israel and can be considered ant-semitism. Exactly like what the police is doing with Sheikh Jarrah Protesters. Witty you are hypocrite coward!
Israel gets free US fuel for its jets and the munitions are either free or part of the military aid package. If it had to pay for any of this, it would surely cut down on all this excess flying over Lebanon.
The shift that would change the whole context is if Hezbollah declared, “we will accept the state of Israel at the 67 borders”.
Conditional acceptance, rather than unconditional rejection precipitating a permanent state of war.
“The shift that would change the whole context is if Hezbollah declared, “we will accept the state of Israel at the 67 borders”.
No it wouldn’t because:
a) Israel doesnt give a shit abotu what Hezbollah thinks,
b) Israel has rejecdted the arab peace inititiative withi accepts the state of Israel at the 67 borders and
c) Israel rejectes a 2 state settlement, which would result from Israel returnign to 1967 borders.
“‘Conditional acceptance, rather than unconditional rejection precipitating a permanent state of war.”‘
Don’t worry Witty, as Moshe Dayan’s window told us, Israel will always find an excuse for war.
Excuses me Hypocrite witty When Israel accepted Hezbollah? Keep lying!
Oh, and how has that helped the Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Witty? How many settlements outside of the ’67 borders has Israel removed permanently? At what rate is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians being reversed?
And on top of all that, Mr. Wittypocrisy, YOU don’t even accept the ’67 borders! On multiple occasions, Witty, you have insisted that the Palestinians must negotiate land swaps — and trade arable land in the West Bank now occupied by Jews-only settlements for tracts of land in the Negev desert.
So you don’t even believe in the ’67 borders.
”So you don’t even believe in the ‘67 borders. ”
That’s the trouble with lyhing. You have to remember what you said last time.
I m sure he thinks that Palestine is Jordan. Huh Wittypocrisy dare playing the reconciliation play! how fake universal humanist you are!
hey guys i just read this story link to electronicintifada.net
10 years old boy abducted by Israeli soldiers from his bed. Witty tell me is this the reconciliation you ask for ?
The key distinction is between conditional acceptance and unconditional rejection.
If you or Hezbollah adopt a conditional approach, then there is the possibility that Israeli policies and public opinion will change, as it has to the wide support for the prospect of reconciliation that Oslo suggested.
If Hezbollah’s or your approach is unconditional rejection, then Israel’s only option for survival (long-term) is to defend, hopefully artfully rather than incompetently.
The significance of the Winograd report was not primarily of ethical or political lapses, certainly not any advocacy for willing dissolution of Israel, but of critical strategic incompetence that led to poor judgment of targets, among other things.
The Winograd report’s goal was a competent and confident military, not a dissolved Israel.
Similarly, the information in the Goldstone report can contribute to the IDF restoring its confidence and competence in all respects.
That Netanyahu doesn’t see that reform first takes seeing, is a tragedy. But, its equally sad that you take the same position relative to Hezbollah and to Hamas.
You can’t “conditionally accept” a border, Witty. Either a person (or nation) is respecting a border, or they are violating it.
Good avoidance of the question.
Stop patting yourself on the back, Witty, it’s gratuitous.
Witty means that the Pals simply have to accept the Nakba, and then the 1967 land grab, plus the ever on-going Israeli settlements, the increasing “facts on the ground.” or else Witty holds you as an unconditonal rejectionist, a
road block to peace. That comprises the conditional acceptance he advocates.
If you object, you are an unconditonal rejectionist. He lives in nice comfortable life style, protected by the people and country he does not feel he owes any allegiance to–because he feels he’s a universal man cone–heaped up in the flavor of liberal Zionism.
“The key distinction is between conditional acceptance and unconditional rejection.”
I can’t help but wonder Sitty suffers from a bloggeing version of tourez. He frequently gets stuck on one phrase and repeats it over and
over again, like a CD that keeps skipping, and doesn’t let go even when he gets an answer.
The fact is Witty, that Hams, Hezbollah and Iran have endorsed conditional acceptance of Israel as per the 1967 borders, while Israel itself rejects it, yet you continue to maintain the pretense that it’s Israel’s adversaries that are standing in the way of a peaceful settlement.
It is a ridiculous assertion to say that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have endorsed conditional acceptance of Israel at 67 borders.
Hamas has stated twice that it would consider a 10-year truce, but then repeatedly confirmed that there long-term goal was to remove Israel from existence, that they would “never” recognize Israel as Israel, as Hezbollah and Iran have repeated and repeated and repeated.
In any case, the question was addressed to you, which you know well, but cowardly avoided.
You have the backbone in you to speak the truth of your attitude if you really dig deep.
” It is a ridiculous assertion to say that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have endorsed conditional acceptance of Israel at 67 borders.”
That’s the second time you’ve stated that, but failed to provide any argument to support why it is ridiculous other than because you say so. It’s not ridiculous Witty, it’s just very inconvenient and hugely embarrassing for you to have to concede that the so called “radicals” are the ones with teh moderate position while the shining light unto the world is the one adopting the extremist position.
Hamas have said they would accept a 2 state settlement along 1967 borders.
Support for a 2 state settlement is a defacto recognition that one of them happens to be Israel.
Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran have given support to the 2003 arab Peace Initiative, which offers to recognize Isrlae as per the 1967 borders.
Hamas have removed the calls for Israel’s destruction from their manifesto.
” In any case, the question was addressed to you, which you know well, but cowardly avoided.”
No I answered it you idiot.
You’re just stuck on pause, because you’re positrion is so bereft of logic or justice.
Why don’t provide the citation, if you are so confident?
I’ve posted links from Haaretz on numerous occassions of Hamas officials clarifying that they don’t mean that they accept Israel.
If they meant it, they would stick to it. Similarly for Hezbollah and Iran, who have repeatedly clarified that they don’t ever mean to accept Israel, and will never.
You lying propagandist.
You still didn’t answer the very simple question posed to you now a dozen times.
The question is to YOU.
Hamas accepts 2 state solution
link to guardian.co.uk
Iran accepts 2 state solution
link to telegraph.co.uk
“I’ve posted links from Haaretz on numerous occassions of Hamas officials clarifying that they don’t mean that they accept Israel.”
No you haven’t. Your links are fictitious.
“If they meant it, they would stick to it.”
Stick to it even after Israel massacres 1,400 people in Gaza?
You mean stick to it as in claiming that construction of that settlements in the West Bank have ended on been frozen, while they continue to expand? You mean like claiming you want peace, but not accepting a 2 state solution or claiming that no civilians are being killed in Gaza?
” Similarly for Hezbollah and Iran, who have repeatedly clarified that they don’t ever mean to accept Israel, and will never.”
Rubbish. They both have stated categorically that they accept the Arab Peace initiative, which not only recognizes Israel, but offers to normalize relations.
Your turn, Witty. Pony up.
If some things are absolutely forbidden but actually done then all these deeds should attract condemnation. An absolute prohibition is one that is not withdrawn on any condition, such as equally bad deeds by the other side. If we see two sides both doing absolutely forbidden things two rules apply, I think: a) if one side is doing the greater proportion of the forbidden things, that is the side that we should especially confront, since the greater mass of forbidden actions must call for the greater effort of condemnation; b) if we identify with one side we should make a point of calling on that side to desist and to take only permitted actions. Anyone calling on another to comply with b) as well as with a) must show that (s)he too complies with b) and is not trying to disrupt and distract.
Mhughes – That is the kind of “framing” I was referring to, that was missing from Emma’s numerous and lengthy comments, making the views she espoused somewhat incongruous.
Shmuel-
No.4- The Whole World Sucks.
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
In our domestic Hebrew idiolect we call this particular case of no. 4 kitzonim mikan umikan – extremists on all sides (lit. extremists here and there). It is the motto of the self-styled “moderate” who believes that all wisdom and truth lies at the precise point between two “extremes”, e.g. between justice and injustice.
“making the views she espoused somewhat incongruous”
I take her at her word. I don’t know her background, but in many blogs and other places the stance she took in this thread would be considered pretty far left. Perhaps not far enough left–one could argue with whether she’s too condemning of Hezbollah, but most folks (including many pro-Palestinian lefties) would agree with many or most of her criticisms of them. It could be that Emma is just slightly to the mainstream of most people here. People were citing Cook’s claim that Hezbollah didn’t target civilians–I read his article back when it came out and HRW’s report and response (I think) and thought that while Cook had raised an interesting issue, in the end HRW’s stance was more plausible. (I also remember how RW came to the defense of that idiot Bernstein when he attacked HRW on the grounds that they only criticize Israel). Emma sounds pretty much like a HRW staffer replying to Cook. I’d like to have more people like that in the comments section.
The one thing I didn’t like was the alliance with RW–in particular this–
“They refuse to believe I actually agree with the vast majority of what they believe, just because I entertain a different view of Hezbollah.
Didn’t realise before how conformist and knee-jerk this community was.
Such a shame.
Not sure why you hang around, given how different your views are! Don’t think it’s worth your trouble. ”
The first two sentences are fair comment on the attacks she got–the last two to RW are just embarrassing. But most likely it was because RW was her only defender.
I may be talking through my hat, Donald, and Emma could be totally on the level. Like you, I am not convinced by the military-target defence of Hizbollah. The incongruity I was referring to is some ostensibly far left positions combined with far more mainstream (and even pro-Israel) rhetoric – despite her protests to the contrary. Wondering Jew, for example, is certainly to the right of some of the views presented by Emma, but I find his views far more credible and consistent, and he is far from the predictable monolithic stereotype he is sometimes pegged as around here.
She seemed awful sure that criticism or condemnation of Israel equalled approval and support for Hezbollah’s crimes. And she seemed intent on getting us to agree that that was so, that our criticism or condemnation of Israel included support, or was even contingent on approval for Hezbollah.
Which, as somebody finally pointed out, had nothing to do with the post. But she sure wanted that point, support of Hezbollah, to be accepted as a fact.
Give that man a cigar and a medal.
Assaf Kfoury: Whither Hezbollah
link to israeli-occupation.org
If the Martians were knocking 50 kinds of hell out of the Venusians and the Venusians were landing a few rockets on Mars, blocking some economically vital canals for a few days and indirectly causing deaths, we would of course send Goldstone and Finkelstein to report. Goldstone would devote 50 pages of magisterial prose to the Venusian breaches of interplanetary law and 450 to the Martian ones. Finkelstein, being rather more emotional, might spin round the solar system in a fast flying saucer denouncing Martian cruelty and injustice and proclaiming Venusian sympathies. Both might be doing a service, in some respects the better service might be Finkelstein’s.
Sometimes the overriding moral duty is to call for concentration on the greater evil, particularly in the face of counter-rhetoric one of whose major methods is to deflect attention and at all costs turn the discussion to something else. If you refuse to be deflected the subject is changed so that it becomes your state of mind, whose faults (of which refusal to be deflected will be certainly counted as one) suddenly become more interesting than blood and tears in the actual world.
I too see no reason to defend Hizb and Ham at every turn and the last thing they are is romantic. Still, complaining that Finkelstein should be talking about H and H when he is engaged on pointing out certain things about Israel, whose truth and importance is not explicitly denied, seems to me like a classic example of the rhetoric of deflection.
“Still, complaining that Finkelstein should be talking about H and H when he is engaged on pointing out certain things about Israel, whose truth and importance is not explicitly denied, seems to me like a classic example of the rhetoric of deflection.”
Possibly so, but when the person freely concedes the greater scope of Israeli criminality (as I think Emma did in this thread), I’m inclined to take her position at face value unless there is further evidence. It’s not like we all haven’t seen deflection rhetoric before. It’s generally low quality rhetoric that we get here, but at other blogs I’ve seen occasional examples of what looked like real pros at work–well, one in particular at that center left blog I mentioned somewhere in this absurdly long thread. A very smooth operator. Emma didn’t strike me this way–way too many concessions of Israeli brutality, something I just haven’t seen from Israel defenders in general. Half my time here has been wasted trying to get Witty to concede to one fourth as much.
What I think Emma is is someone who genuinely thinks its a mistake for pro-Palestinian activists to be seen as too supportive of groups like Hamas. It’s like in the Vietnam era, with some antiwar protestors supporting the NLF as opposed to just opposing our involvement, seemingly unaware (or worse, supportive of) the actual terrorism that the NLF practiced. (I say that as a Chomsky fan, quite aware that US killing was on a much greater scale). She might be overreacting, but to assume the worst about her motives is also to overreact. She’s expressing views that are not that uncommon to those on the left who think past lefties made mistakes getting too supportive of freedom fighters with guns. (A problem that is universal–centrists and rightwingers have it much worse, though they never admit to it.)
No. Emma said something akin to, “Well, I never denied it. We aren’t even talking about that.”
In other words, she dodged, Witty-style.
” Half my time here has been wasted trying to get Witty to concede to one fourth as much. ”
Sorry but I didn’t find this as convincing as you Donald. In fact, the more I read over Emma’s comments, the more I’m convinced she’s a plant.
While she was conceding Israeli criminality , she was anxious to redirect the discussion back to Hezbollah’s crimes at every turn, which suggests that her acceptance was more of a pragmatic token gesture to prevent the debate lingering around Israel’s crimes. This was a shrewd tactic on her part. Israeli critics of the Goldstone Report have attacked it for not dedicating enough space to Hamas’s war crimes, even though Goldstone explicitly accuses Hams of commiting them. The term “war crime” has become as bereft of significance as “terrorism”, and the public will accept that war crimes are an innvitabel consequence fo war in general Accusing one side of war crimes is not nearly a graphic as accusing them of targetting civilians.
The fact that she raised the bar from the standard set by Witty is hardly evidence that she is any more genuine than he. If she has been observing this blog, she has probably realised that Witty’s blanket denials are proving woefully ineffective. The Hasbara for dummys manual advised the faithful to aknoewlegde that Israel had made mistakes, but to redirect the discussion back to Israel’s enemies as soon as possible, which Emma did with to great effect. She could well be simply taking this to stratergy new level.
Which brings me to the second Hasbara tactic that encourages it’s agents to make a clear disctinction between the palestinians and theuir cause and Hamas/Hezbollah. Clearly, Emma was employing this line of reasoning in spades.
You are one gullible person. That is the only window that you can perceive commentary through, that someone is taking orders from Israel.
The majority of individuals that sincerely study what is going on conclude tragedy constructed of maizes of political opportunism and factionalism in both Israel and Palestine.
The situation can shift, but it won’t shift by more pressure. Currently, that will sadly exagerate the conflicts.
The work for removing the occupation of the West Bank, for establishing equal rights in earnest for Palestinian Israelis, and for granting all displaced Palestinians from green line Israel their day in court, is good work.
That is NOT what you are doing. Its fraudulent to hide your objectives, literally.
Come clean. Be honest.
“You are one gullible person.”
Says the clown who insists that hugs and kisses from the Palestinians will make everything better.
That is the only window that you can perceive commentary through, that someone is taking orders from Israel.
“The majority of individuals that sincerely study what is going on conclude tragedy constructed of maizes of political opportunism and factionalism in both Israel and Palestine.”
Who are those individuals Witty and what is the tragedy constructed of maizes of political opportunism and factionalism?
“The situation can shift, but it won’t shift by more pressure.”
Who’s gullible now?
“The work for removing the occupation of the West Bank, for establishing equal rights in earnest for Palestinian Israelis, and for granting all displaced Palestinians from green line Israel their day in court, is good work.”
So is curing cancer, now what practicla steps do you believe will achieve it?
Witty’s a racist, plain and simple.
He holds Arabs to different standards than he does his fellow Jews. And those Jews he considers heretical, like Phil Weiss and Norman Finkelstein and Medea Benjamin, he attacks viciously — how many times have we heard him accuse Mr. Weiss of not “acting Jewish enough?”
Israel can lie, rape, steal and pillage and Witty gives them a free pass. Not a word about the new settlments from him. Not a WORD.
now what practicla steps do you believe will achieve it?
Respectful persuasion of the American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish electorate.
There still is the open question to you that to this point you’ve been too cowardly or something to answer, which is again:
1. Do YOU conditionally accept Israel
or
2. Unconditionally reject Israel
On your posts on Hamas and Iran. First, I noticed that you didn’t include a statement by Hezbollah, an important “ommission”.
On Hamas, your post was not a statement by a Hamas but a quote of a reputed conversation between Hamas and Jimmy Carter, that he has subsequently clarified that Hamas did not offer to accept Israel, but that they stated that they would accept a long-term truce, which then might be renewed.
They later clarified that they would never accept Israel as Israel. That the most that they would do would be to temporarily truce.
I’m not sure why you insist on these innacuracies, as they are material and do indicate intent.
I agree with you that the occupation can end, and that Israel can reform its legal performance to the standard of equal rights and equal due process under the law.
So, do you choose to emphasize the areas of agreement, or the areas of contempt.
It is a distinction between the intention to actually succeed at realizing change, and the vanity of political correctness (but that isn’t).
“Israel can lie, rape, steal and pillage and Witty gives them a free pass. Not a word about the new settlments from him. Not a WORD.”
Yes, it speaks volumes when a Zionist puppet like Biden can speak out against the settlements in East Jerusalem, and all Witty can do is ignore the elephant it he room, while insisting it would all go away if only the Palestinians got on their hands and knees and kissed the boots of their oppressors.
Go away, Witty, you dumb ass bully. You’re the coward, you’re the liar and you’re the propagandist. Don’t think we haven’t noticed that you’ve FLED from the earlier conversations. You know, the one where you challenged Shingo to post links. And he did.
The only Israel YOU accept is one which has been made “arab-rein” by Zionist thugs.
” Respectful persuasion of the American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish electorate.”
That doesn’t answer the question Witty. What will persuade the American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish electorate?
There still is the open question to you that to this point you’ve been too cowardly or something to answer, which is again:
“1. Do YOU conditionally accept Israel”
For the 3rd time, the answer is yes Witty, I do. Thos conditons are
a) return to 1967 briders.
b) removal of all illegal settlements
c) withdrawl from East Jerusalem
d) lifting of the sirge of Gaza
e) Likud to revoke their charter
“On your posts on Hamas and Iran. First, I noticed that you didn’t include a statement by Hezbollah, an important “ommission”.”
Not if you accept that Hezbollah take their policy position from Tehran. Funny how Hasbarats like you will always insist that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, yet suggest they are ona different page in terms of policy when it suits you.
“On Hamas, your post was not a statement by a Hamas but a quote of a reputed conversation between Hamas and Jimmy Carter, that he has subsequently clarified that Hamas did not offer to accept Israel, but that they stated that they would accept a long-term truce, which then might be renewed.”
Rubbish. Meshal has stated top the NYT that Hamas is prepared to accept Israel, but as part of the 2 state agreement, not as a pre-condition for it. Meshal went on to observe that Arafat recognized Israle and that it achieved nothing. What you want, and what Likud want, is for the palestinians to make all their concessions as a precondition to negotiation.
It doesn’t work that way and you know it.
“They later clarified that they would never accept Israel as Israel.”
Rubbish. The only spokesman for Isrla is tel elected leader, Meshal.
“I agree with you that the occupation can end, and that Israel can reform its legal performance to the standard of equal rights and equal due process under the law.”
I didn’t say it could end, I said it must end. teh problem is that there is no cost for Isral to maintain it.
” Respectful persuasion of the American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish electorate.”
That doesn’t answer the question Witty. What will persuade the American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish electorate?
There still is the open question to you that to this point you’ve been too cowardly or something to answer, which is again:
“1. Do YOU conditionally accept Israel”
For the 3rd time, the answer is yes Witty, I do. Thos conditons are
a) return to 1967 briders.
b) removal of all illegal settlements
c) withdrawl from East Jerusalem
d) lifting of the sirge of Gaza
e) Likud to revoke their charter
“On your posts on Hamas and Iran. First, I noticed that you didn’t include a statement by Hezbollah, an important “ommission”.”
Not if you accept that Hezbollah take their policy position from Tehran. Funny how Hasbarats like you will always insist that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, yet suggest they are ona different page in terms of policy when it suits you.
“On Hamas, your post was not a statement by a Hamas but a quote of a reputed conversation between Hamas and Jimmy Carter, that he has subsequently clarified that Hamas did not offer to accept Israel, but that they stated that they would accept a long-term truce, which then might be renewed.”
Rubbish. Meshal has stated top the NYT that Hamas is prepared to accept Israel, but as part of the 2 state agreement, not as a pre-condition for it. Meshal went on to observe that Arafat recognized Israle and that it achieved nothing. What you want, and what Likud want, is for the palestinians to make all their concessions as a precondition to negotiation.
It doesn’t work that way and you know it.
“They later clarified that they would never accept Israel as Israel.”
Rubbish. The only spokesman for Isrla is tel elected leader, Meshal.
“I agree with you that the occupation can end, and that Israel can reform its legal performance to the standard of equal rights and equal due process under the law.”
I didn’t say it could end, I said it must end. teh problem is that there is no cost for Israel to maintain it.
See? Witty’s a coward. He’s gone. Again.