A battle between Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris on Russian television, I wish we could see it here. "Dr. Morris, you're wearing many different hats," Finkelstein says and Morris comes off as a propagandist more than a scholar, damaging himself at the end by stating that Israel did not attack "any hospital" in Gaza. And as for the chicken farm that Israel destroyed with tanks, we don't know if there were "Hamas gunmen" inside the chicken coop, Morris says in a mocking tone. As if it's funny. The Goldstone Report demonstrates that Israel attacked two hospitals, al-Quds and al-Wafa Hospitals. And as for the Sawafeary chicken farm, Israel wantonly destroyed 31,000 chickens and many coops when its army controlled the farm, and doing so served no military purpose.
Finkelstein takes the appropriate tone about the Gaza horrors, describing white phosphorus that burns at 1500 degrees. And he stands up for the right of return at minute 15:00 or so, says that all the world is for it except for the US, Australia, Israel and some banana republics.
Morris conveniently refers to all the countries in Africa and the Muslim world as “Banana Republics.”
When Finklestein brings up the topic of Banana Republics again, Morris quickly blurts out “I meant the Muslim countries!”
Morris is supposedly the most esteemed historian in Israel right? Are they all this racist?
While some people have a change of heart at a later stage in life as they go from being racist ideologues to being progressive, thoughtful individuals, Benny Morris did the opposite.
He used to be a voice of reason – relatively – but in recent years he has adopted Zionism as his guiding principle. Mind you, these days, he doesn’t deny the Nakba occurred, for example, instead he bluntly states that Israel should have “finished the job” and done it right the first time. His work up until the late 1990s is sound scholarly research, his recent publications, however, have been shameful.
I actually remember those days when I would read Benny Morris and be shocked at how honest he was about the Nakba.
However, his latest works seem to be as you describe them “justifications for what Israel had to do.”
When I read that he didn’t think Ben Gurion went far enough with the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the logic he used to justify his moral judgment I was baffled.
How could anyone throw away their humanity to justify a narrow nationalist cause?
“How could anyone throw away their humanity to justify a narrow nationalist cause?”
Good question. If Witty could be honest for sufficient time to answer that question, we’d all know.
I’m sure Morris regards his current perspective as more humane than the simplistic anti.
Righteous Victims was misused by the left. The thesis as a whole was a reconciliation one.
The use of his observations were propagandistic, rather than for reconciliation, or even for lawful assertion.
“I’m sure Morris regards his current perspective as more humane than the simplistic anti.”
Being a Zionist, I’m sure Morris doesn’t care about humane concerns.
“Righteous Victims was misused by the left. The thesis as a whole was a reconciliation one.”
How eoudl you know that, having never read it?
“The use of his observations were propagandistic, rather than for reconciliation, or even for lawful assertion. ”
Morris never expressed any interest in reconciliation.
Stop lying Witty.
“Having never read it”.
You’re amazing.
Not amazing. I just know that you’re a lazy propagandist who’sidea of reasearch is recycling shat other Israeli propagandists have written.
Remembering our exchanges concerning Norman’s anger, I still wish Norman could control it slightly more. It feels some of his points are lost on the uninformed, because he is so tight. … It’s not that I can’t understand. I understand him too well.
Aren’t you bothered by the fact that your respected political theologist, Morris, is highly racist. He assumes that he can counter Norman’s statement with: Yeah, the Arabs. Who will him follow him there e.g. in Europe with the exception of the far right. That don’t have a problem to change semites as the Jews to semites as the Arabs.
He is clearly on one of the higher steps of the ladder “the Arabs” that ultimately lead here:
You have set your foot on this ladder too. You aren’t a liberal anymore, Richard, don’t fool yourself.
>> … I just know that you’re a lazy propagandist …
I wonder how much time he spends crafting those verbose, intellectual-sounding non-answers.
Question: Mr. Pseudo-RW, does one plus one equal two?
Answer: To simply state or acknowledge the combined value of prime numerals without due attention to the broader narrative is to subjugate one’s freedom to decide to the will of the majority. For some, there is value in this; for others, there is, necessarily, a destabilizing brevity that allows no room for discussion or contemplation of “the other” possibilities.
Being a Zionist, I’m sure Morris doesn’t care about humane concerns.
he sure as hell cares about portraying the zionists as humane, as does witty. he quit being a historian when his theses stipulated conclusions of intent refuted by evidence he himself had previously brought to light.
Benni Morris has never been progressive; subtle, yes, progressive, no. There’s a debate in print between him and Finkelstein in Journal of Palestine Studies (Fall, 1991) where he calls Norman a “purveyor of Jewish malice.” Apparently his motive for writing Birth was to admit some level of Zionist wrong-doing so the two peoples could agree on a settlement, because he saw the old radio broadcast propaganda as counterproductive. He never intended to be anti-Israel, hence the ‘misuse’ of his work by the likes of Norman.
In comment 1, James Bradley writes:
This is a distortion of what Morris said. His earlier talking point is that non-Jewish Palestinians’ right of return is supported only by Muslim countries and a few “banana republics”. Notice that he mentions both. Then when Finkelstein says that Morris said earlier on the show that only banana republics support the right of return, Morris interjects to say that this is a mischaracterization of what he said, because he also mentioned the Muslim countries.
Dammit, would you like to face an army of 31,000 swarthy, unshaven, fanatical, Arab suicide chickens? All armed to the teeth with Iranian weapons?
Terrifying huh?
And in fact RoHa, it’s even scarier than you imagined – Goldstone reported closer to 100,000 chicken were killed by the IDF, a pre-emptive strike we must presume. From Goldstone report:
” [Paragraph] 954. Mr. Sawafeary told the Mission that he and his family together supplied approximately 35 per cent of the egg market in Gaza. His own farms supplied over 10 per cent. He noted that it was not only his farms that had been destroyed but also most of his family’s farms had been destroyed in the same way as his. He estimated that close to 100,000 chickens were killed in the process.”
There’s also reference later in the Goldstone report on 70,000 chickens being killed at another farm but it’s not clear if that number is part of, or additional to the 100,000 figure above.
They both came out of this looking rather bad. Morris was determined not to take Finkelstein seriously. You coul tell he considers him a lightweight.
His grinning-may be nervous tic?-was out of place and unbecoming of a scholar. Finkelstein was humourless, his demeanor was creepy. He is a bit unhinged emotionally. It was also stupid of him to be arguing with Morris about his own work! He sounded prosecutorial and hectoring and he was sticking to his “facts” doggedly which he always does. It is a deliberate strategy. It might work in court but it does not work on TV. It was not a debate, it was a debacle for both of them.
It was very appropriate of Finkelstein to be arguing against Morris’ own work; Dear ol Benny forgets what he said regarding Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign. But I do think Norman should’ve dropped it and went with the more pressing issue at hand.
Unfortunately, there was no KO here, but I think that’s because the format of the debate was problematic, not because Finkelstein did a poor job.
“It was also stupid of him to be arguing with Morris about his own work!”
Not really. Morris has said some really damning things about Zionism in his historical work, but when he’s a polemicist he’s a totally different person.
As for the debacle, Norman needs to improve, but I’d give him a passing grade as an advocate for his position. I don’t really know how to grade Morris, since he was snickering at human rights violations. Hard to know how effective he was at trying to defend Israel with that approach. It probably depends on what audience he was trying to impress.
“Finkelstein was humourless …”
This is classic. Distract from the content of what Finkelstein was saying, by attacking the messenger. Finkelstein does have what some people might call a personality flaw in that he despises falsity – especially widespread myths and crock which go to supporting mass injustice. Hence he is a stickler for facts. However, as a personality he falls entirely within the range of normal.
We have to note that as a judge rachel inevitably and arbitrarily assigns a huge handicap to anyone supporting Palestine, facts, logic or justice against Israel or zionism. We don’t expect fairness from her. Rachel says it was a debacle for both of them – it’s safe to conclude that Finkelstein won hands down.
Yes, how “humourless” of Norman Finkelstein was it to not find funny the death of 1400 Palestinian – including 300 children – after all that sort of thing is a laugh riot! How “humourless” was it of him to not find if funny widespread bombing Palestinian civilian infrastructure and the destruction of the Palestinians source of livelihoods (ie. their factories, their chicken farms etc). And how could he not find the bombing of hospitals funny! How creepy of him!
And how typically Zionist of Rachel to attack Finkelstein personally (“he is a bit unhinged”) rather than addressing his arguments. Finkelstein was correct to take Morris and the moderator to task for fillabusting. Throughout the majority of the debate, Finkelstein allowed Morris to speak without talking over him. Morris, however, repeatedly spoke over Finkelstein not allowing his points to be heard. So if anyone came off bad in this it was Morris not Finkelstein.
Finkelstein was correct to take Morris to task about his writings, particularly the issue of “transfer” (ie. ethnic cleansing) as this is the core of the conflict. Morris admits this happened but then tries to blame the Palestinians for opposing it and like a good Zionist claims “victimhood” for the Zionists and blames the Palestinians for resisting ethnic cleansing (how dare they!!)
In his interview in Haaretz with Ari Shavit in 2004, Morris is even more explict in doing this – throught the first half of the article he discuss in detail the issue of transfer and ethnic cleansing, going as far as saying, Ben Gurion did not go far enough. But then, without a blink of an eye or any sense of irony (or shame for that matter), goes onto ignore this as the reason why Palestinians might be upset with Zionists. Instead, Morris claims victimhood again for the Zionists and argues that the reason Palestinians are hostile to Israel is because they are culturally predisposed too it!
On the issue of right of return, Morris states he supports the Clinton Parameters but then conveniently ignores the fact the Paramaters do not rule out the right of return for Palestinian refugees and it does not rule out that Palestinian refugees could in fact return to live inside of Israel (even in a two state solution). It does recognise the issue is a difficult one and Israel’s opposition too it but it does not rule out right of return as Morris seems to be implying in this debate.
link to peacelobby.org
Outstanding post Red,
You just dissected Morris, and exposed how shallow, superficial and vacuuous Witty’s analysis is.
Except for Morris’ snicker, the substance of his argument is far more persuasive than Finkelstein’s. He actually connects history, current reality, into some conclusion.
Finkelstein only presents condemnations, and very thin gambling ones.
Its a wierd approach. Rather than seek improvement, seeking condemnation only.
That Betselem had a different conclusion from the same set of facts as Goldstone and HRW, is significant. They did not conclude that Israel was innocent. They just concluded that the maximalist interpretations of malicious intent applied to the operation as a whole, was exagerated.
Finkelstein would accurately have to say “some human rights organizations concluded that the IDF intentionally committed war crimes”.
But, that is the extent of his argument. That and the ambiguous presentation of the extent of “right of return”. It is ignorant on his part, literally, to not bother to clarify what extent of right of return he is speaking of. He might still differ with Morris’, but at least they would be agreeing to disagree rather than just the personally condemnatory and misrepresentative approach that Finkelstein does.
You’re being superficial. B’Tselem did not have a totally different set of conclusions. They mainly disputed the ‘intentional’ part of the destruction of civilian infrastructure. B’Tselem is trying to be mainstream in Israel. It needs funding. So I don’t find that surprising.
In any case, all the major NGOs, and not Zionist groups like CAMERA or NGO Monitor, all say roughly the same thing.
You’re a hack and a liar, Dick.
No one here was persuaded by Morris Witty, not even you. Your mind was already made up, so your position was defined no matter what Morris had said.
“Finkelstein only presents condemnations, and very thin gambling ones.”
Morris condemned and mocked Hamas, but that’s OK. because condemnations are allowed in your world, so long as they’re not directed at Israel.
“That Betselem had a different conclusion from the same set of facts as Goldstone and HRW, is significant”
No it’s not, because 2 against 1 suggests that Betselem got it wrong.
“They just concluded that the maximalist interpretations of malicious intent applied to the operation as a whole, was exagerated.”
Betselem said nothing about maximalist interpretations .
“Finkelstein would accurately have to say “some human rights organizations concluded that the IDF intentionally committed war crimes”.”
One minute you insist everythign is about interpretation, but when it suits you, then you are happy to resort to absolutes.
“That and the ambiguous presentation of the extent of “right of return”.”
There is nothing ambiguous about the “right of return”.’ Fink has always said the right of return is absolute under international law, but the victims would decide whether to return or receive compensation.
He mad that perfetly clear and always has.
You’re nothing but a racist Zionist crackpot Witty.
Thats what I said Cliff.
You are sincerely calling Betselem co-opted?
There is nothing clear about the right of return.
The extent of right of return is entirely interpretation driven, and in this case the extent of right of return can extend from:
1. Individuals that have evidence of title and forced dispossession of land and property within Israel and accompanying citizenship rights
2. Direct single-generation descendants or individuals that were born within geographic Israel, citizenship rights
3. Direct multi-generation descendants or individuals from those forcefully removed from geographic Israel
4. Indirect national/ethnic claim from anywhere within colonial Palestine to anywhere within Israel.
That seems clear to you? On what basis?
“No one here was persuaded by Morris ”
Noone here.
Ah. Concensus of the room. (Except for those that disagree.)
“Ah. Concensus of the room. (Except for those that disagree.) ”
I know you like to thik of yourself as a spoeksman for humanity Witty, but the sad fact is that you are the odd man out.
“There is nothing clear about the right of return.”
That’s your fallback position about BDS too. Anything that might harm your beloved Israel must be rejected becuase you;ve decided it’s too vague.
“The extent of right of return is entirely interpretation driven”
There goes that “interpretation” word, which you pull out fo your ass when it suits you. No, there is nothing to be interpreted about right fo return under international law.
Funny how right of return is entirely interpretation when it comes to Jews isn’t it?
You’re confused Shingo.
Which of the four possible definitions of right of return, do you regard as according to international law?
The reason that I refer to it frequently, is because it is substantive.
It affects whether liberals that would join more militant demonstrations are participants or merely manipulated for more opportunist solidarity objectives.
It affects whether the goal of BDS and other solidarity is the elimination of Israel or the reform of Israel.
In prospective Palestine, it is the Palestinians right to determine their own immigration and citizenship policies in the area of their jurisdiction.
Its funny that you don’t understand what concensus means. Its a difficult standard to reach. When you use the terms “nobody” or “all” you are using words of universal consent.
Mr. Witty, you can continue your obfuscations and you can continue regurgitating your propaganda and you can continue your baseless claims but all of this does not change the facts that the right of return is very clear and is based on principles of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as UN resolution 194.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that any person has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country. Refugees and their descendants are therefore entitled to return to the territory which they left voluntarily or forcebly. What is not clear about that?
Article 11 of UN resolution 194 states:
“… that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations ” What is not clear about that other than the fact that it does not fit your agenda?
There’s no confusion Witty.
a) Under international law all the refugees and their families are allowed to return. Israel’s argument has never chellnged this premise, only arguing that such a settlement would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish majority.
b) You are no liberal and have not been appointed to speak on behalf of liberals, so stop insutling the memebers fo this foreum by telling us what liberals think.
c) No one in teh BDS movement has suggested that the goal is to eliminate Israel. You persist with the star man because you are not prepared to consider any measures that would punish Israel.
d) The refugees issue and the state fo Palestine are 2 differnt issues. One is a territorial dispute, the other is about private porperty rights.
e) You have no grasp of what concensus means. In your mind, concensus is what you believe everyone should agree on.
Witty, if you’re too stupid to understand basic legal definitions, don’t put your shame on display by prancing around like the emperor with no clothes on. We aren’t the ones who are confused about basic semantics — you are.
We’ve read you go so far as to undermine the very concept of justice, putting it in air quotes and taking up a position that’s one part moral relativism (unless we’re talking about Palestinians) and one part social Darwinism (Israeli might makes right).
“They just concluded that the maximalist interpretations of malicious intent applied to the operation as a whole, was exagerated.”
Neither B’Tselem nor you have ever explained why there were several Israeli officials talked explicitly about how brutal they planned to be in the Gaza War. The Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure was consistent with the aims of the blockade–hurt the civilian population, teach them a lesson. It’s absurd to pretend otherwise. Which won’t stop an apologist like yourself, of course.
“Except for Morris’ snicker, the substance of his argument is far more persuasive than Finkelstein’s. ”
Yeah, who is going to let Morris’s snickering about Israeli brutality put into doubt his sincerity? As for Finkelstein, he repeatedly tried to make a long detailed response with multiple points (once about the right of return) and Morris wouldn’t let him. You know that, because you saw the video, but you pretend that what we all saw didn’t happen. You’re amazing.
Again, Shingo. You didn’t clarify which meaning of right of return you assert is relevant.
“There is nothing clear about the right of return.
The extent of right of return is entirely interpretation driven, and in this case the extent of right of return can extend from:
1. Individuals that have evidence of title and forced dispossession of land and property within Israel and accompanying citizenship rights
2. Direct single-generation descendants or individuals that were born within geographic Israel, citizenship rights
3. Direct multi-generation descendants or individuals from those forcefully removed from geographic Israel
4. Indirect national/ethnic claim from anywhere within colonial Palestine to anywhere within Israel.
That seems clear to you? On what basis? “
There’s only one meaning Witty, discounting the imaginary ones in your Zionist imagination.
There is no mention of limiting right of return to single generations in international law. After all, had Israel not driven the original refugees from their land, they and they offspring would all be living in Palestine.
Furthermore, land titles can be passed on to newer generations are valid, as is the case in any modern society.
Israel doesn’t get to set the rules just becaue it wants maintain an ethnocentric state.
And, which of the four meanings do you regard as descriptive of the legal right of return, in practice.
Or, if the four did not represent your understanding, what specifically do you understand is the right of return.
Is it the maximalist, “any descendant of any Palestinian has the right to return to anywhere in prior jurisdiction of Palestine?” (Hard as the jurisdiction of Palestine changed frequently over time. Which colonial definition of Palestine do you suggest? Turkish (which), British?)
Or, some other more concise definition?
The only thing that’s maximalist is your bullshit Witty.
A land title belongs to the owner until he or she decides to pass it on to their progeny. That’s how the law has worked for centuries.
Those refugees, along with their children and grand children, would all be lising in Palestine had the enthic cleansing not taken place.
“Which colonial definition of Palestine do you suggest?”
I woudl begin with all recent immigrants to Israel returning to where they came from before demanding that Palestinians be sent to those destinations.
You’re increasingly showing up what a maggot you really are Witty. That humanist facade is getting very worn out and transparent.
Morris was determined not to take Finkelstein seriously. You coul tell he considers him a lightweight. His grinning-may be nervous tic?
I consider this a trick. He is clearly more aware than Norman that we communicate with our mimes and body language too.
Personally I think with his fake amusement he tried to hide his deeper knowledge that Norman has the better set of cards in his hands. He knows in a debate like this, it must not show. So his grins are an attempt to trick the audience, hide his insecurity.
The IDF also attacked medical clinics as well as ambulances when there was no fighting taking place in the immediate vicinity.
They also attack UN buildings and killed UN personnel.
see the video below of the UN vehicle being used by Hamas militants Chaos.
maybe that is why they were attacked?
or how about these mortars being fired from a UN school?
link to youtube.com
Or a booby trapped Zoo?
link to youtube.com
Yonira, you could explain an occasional accidental killing this way, but Israel killed about 1000 civilians in Gaza. Israel reflexively uses this “human shield” argument every time they kill civilians–if they could show they had good excuses for what they did there would have been a detailed, meticulous line-by-line rebuttal of Goldstone and the other human rights reports about Gaza, and also about their Lebanon war in 2006. (In 1982 people barely bother to deny the brutality–I read some mainstream Israeli writers whose names I’m blanking on who admitted Sharon went on a bombing spree just before that war ended.)
I am not defending the excessive amount of civilian deaths. If Hamas or Hezbollah are going to use UN compounds, facilities, and vehicles as means to wage war against Israel, then they should expect for Israel to retaliate when these methods are discovered.
Actually its been pointed out that several of Israels video purporting to claim that their targets were “terrorists” have proven to be false.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Furthermore, isolated incidents of the IDF actually firing on areas where there was actual fighting going on do not vindicate the Israelis from the reality of the situation – namely that the majority of the destruction in Gaza was inflicted upon civilian infrastructure mainly upon homes, schools, hospitals, places of worship, agricultural lands, water treatment facilities, sewage treatment facilities, power stations, etc.
Way to go Yonira! ..linking to a video from 2007 and using that as the excuse for the IDF to make multiple attacks on UN facilities and personnel in 2008/2009.
“If Hamas or Hezbollah are going to use UN compounds, facilities, and vehicles as means to wage war against Israel,”
Except there’s no proof Hamas did that in Gaza, the UN deny any of their facilities were used – and Israel still attacked.
“Actually its been pointed out that several of Israels video purporting to claim that their targets were “terrorists” have proven to be false.”
Indeed very impressive, James. To prove your thesis that Israel’s claim is false you produce an article of the BBC (very balanced on the ME-conflict as we know) that rely on the website of the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem (always equidistant in its positions as we know) which refer to the statements of “a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur ” (absolutely reliable source, of course).
Way to go, James. This is what we call a well-founded research on the ground, with all the trap-pings of science. ;-)
Sorry for the grammatic typos, even this isn’t “scientific” …
Um, there is problem with this video of the UN being used as a base by Palestinian resistance fighters to attack the IDF. During the Gaza war this video was widely distributed to the foreign media as a justification for the IDF’s attack on UN facilities.
However, when it was pointed out to the IDF by journalists that John Ging from the UN had identified the UN facility as one that had already been evacuated by the UN when it was taken over by fighters and that the video was taken several years before the Gaza war there was deafening silence from the IDF in response.
Furthermore, they ceased to distribute that video to visiting correspondents.
It is also a blatant lie to say the UN school was used as a base to fire at the IDF. That was also thoroughly investigated by the UN and several other human rights organisations and found to be patently false. There were some reports that some fire had come from NEARBY the school not from within it. And the IDF was given the precise GPS coordinates of all UN facilities shortly prior to its bombing campaign over Gaza.
All of these false allegations were widely disputed and the follow-up investigations reported by the foreign media and some Israeli media during the war.
It appears some ziotrolls haven’t played the Hasbara tape to the end.
aha yeah yonira and why the Zionist terrorists army killed the 31 000 chicken btw?
jonah I don’t really think you’re in a position to criticise anybody for questionable sources after your posts on this article:
link to mondoweiss.net
You link to content by:
- Israelis Ministry of Foreign Affairs: hasbara central
- Palestinian Media Watch: founder/director Itamar Marcus is an Israeli settler living in Efrat
- CN Publications: who? Not so much info around but the Managing Editro, Israel Zwick also writes for the religious zionist (settler) site Arutz Sheva. Coincidentally the CN article you link to is authored by Palestinian Media Watches only three staff they list on their about page: Itamar Marcus, Nan Jacques Zilberdik and Barbara Crook.
So in your mind Israeli government and settler propaganda are credible sources, and the BBC and B’Tselem aren’t.
Good find, Sumud. You could tell the guy was a hack anyway. Zios are way too transparent.
Ideological (Jews are always victims/God is a realty agent) nuttery prevades over rational discourse.
Lets also not forget that MEMRI and PMW are not taken seriously by serious journalists:
link to guardian.co.uk
Furthermore, calling the BBC biased in favor of the Palestinians is quite laughable.
We’re talking about the same BBC that fought tooth and nail to prevent Britain’s Channel 4 from broadcasting an appeal for aid for the victims of the Gaza massacre.
which refer to the statements of “a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur ” (absolutely reliable source, of course).
THIS is what we call racism – the testimony of Arabs is of course unreliable, since everyone knows Arabs lie.
So you believe that this hate speech is a fake, Sumud?
PA TV Sermon:
“Jews are the enemies of Allah and humanity”
“The Prophet says: ‘Kill the Jews’”
“Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark,
wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite,
the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims.”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 29, 2010]
link to palwatch.org
People like you are even able to deny the Shoah to keep the right, as dirty it is.
How is that any more hateful that this lovely speech from an Israeli prime minister Jonah?
“Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982)
Why are you diverting from the issue, Shingo?
Your friend Sumud argued that PMW and MEMRI are unreliable source. So answer my question: Is this hate sermon, as well as many others hate speeches in PA and Hamas TV, a fake? Is it an hoax set up by the Israeli government and the settler propaganda or is it real? Do you have the guts to confront my question?
(As for your quotation: where is your reliable source, man?)
You want to see something real, jonah? Confront this.
link to normanfinkelstein.com
So what, Jonah? How is this relevant? Just because some Hamasnik gives a sermon, does this justify burning Palestinians alive with WP and attempting to destroy their ability to feed their population?
Every time that loon Ovadia Josef gives a sermon calling Arabs snakes and cockroaches , do we get to bomb Jerusalem?
“It is forbidden to be merciful to them, you must give them missiles, – annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.”
People can sling quotations around from sunrise to sundown and beyond. So what?
Omitting the evidence, potsherd?
Not “Hamasnik”, but hate speech broadcast on the Palestinian Authority-TV.
Can Rabbi Ovadia Josef make a hate speech (he would not, he isn’t that primitive) on the national Israeli TV?
Are you disingenuous or simply a dupe, potsherd?
The old manufactured absurd comparison. This disqualifies you as serious interlocutor, chaos.
Chaos the Haredi
link to ynetnews.com
Again, so what? The Knesset is full of hate speech that would have its members expelled from any civilized nation’s government, and so what? Do we get to bomb the Knesset?
See, I’m letting you have your point, because it’s worthless. Let’s agree that politicians engage in hate speech. SO FUCKING WHAT? What does it prove? What does it mean? What does it justify?
You stand on your hate speech, waving your flag, screaming Look! Hate speech! As if it meant something. As if a speech on Hamas TV justifies running a bulldozer over 30 thousand chickens, which is something a lot worse than hate speech, it’s war crime.
At least you don’t state anymore that my sources have not enough evidence to draw some helpful conclusions. It’s video evidence, not rumour picked up somewhere by an human rights defender or journalist eager to bash on Israel.
By the way: do you have any (reliable) source that the Knessed is full of hate speech? Can you provide or you prefer to keep quiet like Shingo?
“People like you are even able to deny the Shoah to keep the right, as dirty it is.”
You’re PATHETIC jonah for resorting to such a stupid unsupported accusation.
FYI it’s Number 3. “You suck”
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
I never said hate-speech doesn’t exist. You linked to some fairly partisan content then criticised the BBC who are a helluva lot more impartial than Palestinian Media Watch will ever be.
For the record i think incitement – which is just about all Israel has left to criticise the Palestinians for since the end of the 2nd intifada – is a red herring in comparison to 43 years of *brutal* military occupation. It (incitement) is a major unacknowledged problem in Israel – how else do you get to the point where Nazi-style graffiti is sprayed all over Hebron and “death to arabs” is supported by 21% of Israeli school children?
‘Poll: 46% of high-schoolers don’t want equality for Arabs’
link to ynetnews.com
I didn’t mention MEMRI jonah, must be your guilty conscience. They’ve had their own problems with extremely inaccurate translations, right? Link to follow.
MEMRI’s fabrication of Palestinian incitement:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Yes, PMW and MEMRI have been exposed as being ureliable sources.
“As for your quotation: where is your reliable source, man?”
If you read the quote, you would know.
“This disqualifies you as serious interlocutor, chaos. ”
Yes, becasue you’re so highly regarded as a serious interlocutor, Jonah.
“Can you provide or you prefer to keep quiet like Shingo? ”
I have provided it Jonah. You’re just ahsamed of the extremism of what came out of the mouth of an Israeli Prime Mimnister (and former terrroitst leader), so you’re desperately tryign to divert attentino from it.
“I didn’t mention MEMRI jonah, must be your guilty conscience. They’ve had their own problems with extremely inaccurate translations, right? Link to follow. ”
Nice observatino Sumud. Jonah stepped into his own trap.
Too funny,
“You’re just ahsamed of the extremism of what came out of the mouth of an Israeli Prime Mimnister”
Debunked as false invented quote attributed to Begin and tacked on Amnon Kapeliouk as the source, to give it credibility . About Kapeliouk: link to en.wikipedia.org
Begin never said this garbage. And you believe this anti-Semitic forgery, Shingo?!!
From the wikipedia article–
“He was accused by CAMERA of misrepresenting a quote by Menachem Begin to suggest that the Israeli Prime Minister had described all Palestinians in a speech to the Knesset as being “beasts walking on two legs” when he was only referring to terrorists.[4]‘
That’s funny. Begin was a terrorist and I wouldn’t describe him as a beast walking on two legs. It’s dehumanizing even about murderers. Of course it’s also ludicrous coming from a thug like Begin.
Jonah ~ aren’t you going to make nice and apologise for calling me a holocaust denier because i questioned your use of settler-centric sources?
“Debunked as false invented quote attributed to Begin and tacked on Amnon Kapeliouk as the source, to give it credibility . About Kapeliouk: link to en.wikipedia.org
Nice try Jonah, but the quote I cited said nothing about Palestinians being beasts on 2 legs. The quote I produced was about the master race where Begin refers to all goya as human excrement.
Another fail Jonah.
Good point Donald. Unless Begin includes himself among the 2 legged beasts, then he can only have been referring to Palestinians.
Are you folks real?
You deny clear evidence of terrorism and incitement to violence in Palestinian society, but at the same time you propagate and defend false quotes in order to denigrate Israel and the Jewish people, by pretending it’s only propaganda set up by settlers, . By the way, can you finally provide us with the source you did copy&past the quote of the asserted Begin’s speech at the Knesset from, as I always did with mines?).
I only wonder when you will bring a few “instructive quotes” from the “Talmud”.
This rises some serious questions about your intentions.
You deny clear evidence of terrorism and incitement to violence in Palestinian society”
And how would you describe the bombing of the King David Hotel?
“at the same time you propagate and defend false quotes in order to denigrate Israel and the Jewish people”
False on l counts.
1. The quote I produced is not the one addressed by CAMERA.
2.
The quote is real, even CAMERA admitt the statement was made and furthermore, they only alleged that Begin was misquoted. CAMERA, a well known Israeli propahanda site, didn’t bother demonstrating how Begin’s statement was taken out of context.
3. No one has said a thing about Jewish people.
“ By the way, can you finally provide us with the source”
I included it in the quote. The New Stateaman 1982.
“I only wonder when you will bring a few “instructive quotes” from the “Talmud”.”
That would be too easy, but I don’t cite religious texts unless the Koran is brought up.
“This rises some serious questions about your intentions.”
Which are a) to inform b) to debunk Zionist propaganda and c) to expose Zionist hypocrisy.
That’s a problem for you I know.
STFU Jonah!
How many times and in how many ways do you have to be told that Palestinian violence is ALWAYS DEFENSIVE as they ARE the OCCUPIED!!
ALL occupied people have the inalienable right to defend themselves by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!!
Geddit jonah – when you steal land and kill children wholesale, you deserve violence – merciless violence!
Doing your cutesie song and dance about how ‘civilized’ the fucking israeli Knesset is makes me wanna vomit right on your disgusting words and excuses.
Your stupid, turgid points have already been rebutted several times over so just STFU and move on will ya!
Actually taxi,
ALL occupied people have the inalienable right to not only defend themselves , but to resist occupation.
BTW Jonah, what’s so civilized about threatening to bomb the Aswan Damn oir drowning busloads of Palestinians in the Dead Sea?
Ask Ahmed Tibi about the hate speech in the Knesset.
Now, back to the point: So What? What is the purpose of this exercise in futility, he-said she-said-he-said, ad nauseam.
The point is, potsherd, that there are some people out here who deny that there is a problem in the Palestinian and Arab mind-set, attitude, propaganda, education of the youth and deeds, branding all kind of evidence as pure “Zionist propaganda”. They deny that this makes the solution of the ME-conflict more difficult or even impossible. On the other hand, these people are the first to use fake quotes as propaganda tool in support of their daily bashing homework against Israel (and in some cases, against the Jewish people as a whole). It’s not about silencing critical voices towards Israel’s policies (the ferventest critics of these policies are Israelis, read Haaretz) , it’s about the tendency to demonize Israel while turning a or both blind eyes on the other side’s problem, justifying strenuously and beyond all reasonable limit all their mistakes and wrongdoings – inclusive indiscriminate terror against civilians – as expression of an alleged legitimate so-called “resistance” (as if there wasn’t terror before 1967).
It’s about fairness. A balanced criticism is a far more useful to serve the cause of reconciliation and peace. The question is again if peace stays at the top of your priorities.
The point is, potsherd, that there are some people out here who deny that there is a problem in the Zionist mind-set, attitude, propaganda, education of the youth and deeds, branding all kind of evidence as pure anti Israeli propaganda”. They deny that the 43 year brutal occupation makes the solution of the ME-conflict more difficult or even impossible. On the other hand, these people are the first to use fake quotes, racist slurs, ethnic supremacy, even the Bible, as propaganda tool in support of their daily bashing homework against Palestinians (and in most cases, against the Muslim people as a whole). It’s not about silencing critical voices towards Palestinian policies, it’s about the tendency to demonize Palestinians while turning a or both blind eyes on the other side’s problem, justifying strenuously and beyond all reasonable limit all their mistakes and wrongdoings – inclusive indiscriminate terror and collective punishment against civilians – as expression of an alleged legitimate so-called “chosenes” (as if there wasn’t mass murder and ethnic cleansing before 1948).
Fairness and balance are Orwelllian terms invented by right wing cable television, which tries to pretend that the truth lies in the middle of 2 opinions, while only presenting the extreme right wing version
Copy&paste and parroting. This is funny. Hopefully the Palestinians do it better.
link to haaretz.com
But in one point I can meet you half way: as the Palestinians and the Arab world, also Israel made and still makes – in the name of reasons of state – reprehensible mistakes which can compromise a just solution of the conflict. It’s a vicious circle that finally needs to be broken.
The joke is on YOU asshole!
Now get the fuck out of Palestine smartass!
Vulgar idiots like you deserve nothing but a well-aimed kick in their ass of anti-Semite.
That’s a dismal response jonah.
First you criticise me for holocaust denial without a shred of evidence (I’m still waiting for that apology) now you accuse someone else of anti-semitism, rather than present a coherent argument.
To backtrack slightly, nobody denies that Palestinian violence against civilians (terrorism) exists, and peaked during the second intifada. However, Israeli violence against civilians (terrorism) well and truly eclipses any Palestinian efforts. It is undertaken in the name of ethnic cleansing and military occupation, it is long term. It occurs daily in the Occupied Territories.
jonah you little fucking fuhrer – i have two solid brass boots for your nazi retentive orifice.
You falsely raise the anti-semite flag around here and you’re gonna get all your chicken-shit feathers plucked out in public.
Geddit asshole: we don’t tolerate anti-semites around here and we CERTAINLY don’t tolerate false-flag wavers either m’effer!
Taxi is one of those, no doubt about it. I don’t need to present any coherent argument for such lunatics.
Palestinian terrorism is continuous over time and reaches cyclically peaks of great violence. In recent years, the second Intifada that you mentioned and then the thousands of rockets fired by Hamas & Co. on communities in southern Israel. Israel reacted like any democratic state would react if in the same situation. Regarding the Israeli presence in the disputed territories, or if you want the occupied territories, it must be said that without the presence of IDF Hamas would have easily taken over and soon would be present a situation similar to that in the Gaza Strip before Cast Lead. I’m not saying there are no abuses and no violence (but are there none in any kind of conflict – I repeat conflict? Perhaps in Iraq and Afghanistan?). And I’d be the first to advocate a large retreat from the territories inclusive land swaps. But first the conditions must balance, and fit well. On the Israeli side are essential and priority four requirements: 1) recognize Israel as a Jewish democratic state 2) an end to all hostilities against Israel and its inhabitants 3) waiver of the return of the million refugees (and their descendants) in the land of Israel 4) Jerusalem as undivided capital of Israel but also seat of an effective and strong political-administrative representation of the future state of Palestine. That’s why I insist that all forms of incitement to violence from both sides must be fought sternly. That’s why consistent steps must be done by both sides (not only the Israelis) to create a confidence about the good intentions of the other.
By the way: Have you ever seen an “ethnic cleansing” in which the affected population continues to grow in number?
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Palestinian terrorism is continuous over time and reaches cyclically peaks of great violence.”
Unlike Israeli occupation, terrorism, ethnic cleansing and expasion, which has been continuios for a lot longer.
“Israel reacted like any democratic state would react if in the same situation.”
Which democratic state is occuying land and building on it? Which democratic state defines itself around one ethnicity? Which democratic state is is carrying out ethnic cleansing? Which democratic state is is blockading a territory (and act of war) that it claims it no longer occupies, yet cliams it is defending itself when that territory fights back?
Which democratic state is dropping white phosphorous on populations, destroying infrastructure.
Which democratic state is apartheid like Israel?
‘Regarding the Israeli presence in the disputed territories
Correction: Occupied territories. If they were disputed, there would be UN presence there to mediate.
” …it must be said that without the presence of IDF Hamas would have easily taken over and soon would be present a situation similar to that in the Gaza Strip before Cast Lead.”
Hamas are in their situation in Gaza becasue they won a democratic electino, but as a supporter fo Israel, it is udnerstandable that you are opposed to democracy.
1) There is no articel in internationa l awl that requires any country to recognize another.
2) Israel has no right to demand an end to all hostilities against Israel and its inhabitants while Israel continues hostilities against Palestinian
3) The rioght of return is universal and Palestinians have that right under the Geneva Conventions
4) Jerusalem is to be divided becasue east Jerusalem is occupied territory.
“By the way: Have you ever seen an “ethnic cleansing” in which the affected population continues to grow in number?”
Did you hear that the Jewish population is higher today than in wat in 1948? Does that mean there was no Holocaust?
STFU again Jonah!
You think I’m gonna waste my constructive breath debating with a hasbarado 101 like your stupid self?!
You think myself and most people posting here haven’t already debunked your flaccid racist arguments that support the Apartheid concentration camp called Israel oooh I’d say some 5 thousand times at least?!
How is it that ALL you hasbarados out there are glib, glum or gormless?! Bunch of racist brainwashed wacho-jackasses!
Give the Palestinians back ALL their land and fuck off back to euroland where you hail from. How’s that for a fucking equitable solution?!
Ha, Israel causes terrorism w/ the occupation. The theft of land, the violence and persecution and subjugation of an indigenous people.
You have no moral high-ground, Jonah – which you clearly seek the establish. You characterize the rockets/terrorism as hate for hate’s sake.
Yes, it is terrorism but when you remove the context and history it would seem like these Palestinians came out of nowhere and are upset for no reason.
You’re a lying sack of crap. Do you really think you’re bullshit is new? We’ve dealt w/ scumbag Zios like you countless times in the past.
Sorry for not replying in a timely manner, but the crippleware used by this site makes it impossible to know when someone has replied to a given comment.
I certainly do deny that there is a serious “problem in the Arab mindset” that makes it impossible for Israel to form agreements with them. There is no continual campaign of terrorism.
There are people who have been subjected to a level of oppression that would make a saint crack, and if they have resorted to violence in response, this is due far less to indoctrination or “incitement” – that fond child of Israeli apologists – but simple human frustration.
Fact: the occupation is the cause of terrorism, terrorism is a response to the oppression of the occupation.
“Fairness and balance” – those buzzwords of Fox News – only apply when the situations are comparable. If I report on Israeli oppression of Palestinians, I omit the balancing report on Palestinian oppression of Israelis. Why? Because there is none. The injustice in entirely one-sided. And the resulting violence is also largely one-sided – on the side of Israel.
Go count up the bodies.
Go put on a keffieh and move into Gaza, then come back and tell us all how the real problem is “the Arab mindset.”
Sperbly put Postherd.
Jonah is typical of the mental block imposed by the ideology of Zionism. It’s born of a sense of superiority and entitlement. These people are simply unable to accept that what they stole does not beling to them and remain convinced that havingbthe bigger guns makes them right.
Noticehow JonH even tried to sneak in the carnard about the occupied territories being disputed?
“Did you hear that the Jewish population is higher today than in wat in 1948? Does that mean there was no Holocaust?”
Twisted logic. The Holocaust occurred before 1948. This means that the world Jewish population has been able to
recover from the catastrophe only decades after the Nazi genocide and has grown from 11 million in 1945 to 13 million and a half in 2007.
link to simpletoremember.com
But the Palestinian population in the territories has increased from half a million in 1967 to at least a million and a half in 2000, just during your alleged “ethnic cleansing”.
link to palestineremembered.com
And she has today a constant growth rate of 2,225 % link to en.wikipedia.org
Your slogans are refuted by factual and proved data.
“Did you hear that the Jewish population is higher today than in wat in 1948? Does that mean there was no Holocaust?”
Twisted logic. The Holocaust occurred before 1948. This means that the world Jewish population has been able to
recover from the catastrophe only decades after the Nazi genocide and has grown from 11 million in 1945 to 13 million and a half in 2007.
link to simpletoremember.com
But the Palestinian population in the territories has increased from half a million in 1967 to at least a million and a half in 2000, just during your alleged “ethnic cleansing”.
link to palestineremembered.com
And she has today a constant growth rate of 2,225 %.
Your slogans are refuted by factual and proved data.
Cliff,
your arguments provide the best justification for the Palestinian terrorism, since you idealize it as pure “resistance”. It isn’t. In the meanwhile even Abbas admits that the Second Intifada was one of the worst mistakes made by the Palestinians.
link to haaretz.com
Only through this kind of necessary self-criticism the Palestinians will be able to open theirself to the prospects of peace with Israel. But surely not tanks your bigoted condescension to violence.
Jonah, being the lying snake that you are, you intentionally misrepresent my post and leave out key segments such as:
I was responding to your inanely idiotic hasbara:
These territories are not disputed, and as I previously stated – you seek the rewrite history and present the rockets/etc. as a random act of hatred for Israelis or Jews for the sake of hatred.
Keep trying though you Zionist scumbag, you’re pathetic.
“Your slogans are refuted by factual and proved data.”
You’re confusing enthic cleansing with genocide.
Ethnic cleansing is the forced removal of an ethnic population from one territory. That is absolutely happening in Palestine. The fact that the population as a whole is icreasing is irrelevant.
You just failed logic 101.
“In the meanwhile even Abbas admits that the Second Intifada was one of the worst mistakes made by the Palestinians.”
And Yitzak Rabin admitted to Arafat that supporting Hamas was one of the worst mistakes made by the Israelis.
Robert Pape produced a DOD funded stufy that concluded that 90-95% of suicide attacks was directly related to territorial disputes and military occupation. Teh original suicide bombers weren’t even Arab you moron.
On the Israeli side are essential and priority four requirements: 1) recognize Israel as a Jewish democratic state 2) an end to all hostilities against Israel and its inhabitants 3) waiver of the return of the million refugees (and their descendants) in the land of Israel 4) Jerusalem as undivided capital of Israel but also seat of an effective and strong political-administrative representation of the future state of Palestine.
Thanks for posting the hostage conditions jonah.
As if you could explain in any clearer terms that the Zionists are vile, demented people willing to imprison entire populations and impose violence and cruelty on them to make them give up their fundamental human rights and accept Zionists political plans.
“Fact: the occupation is the cause of terrorism, terrorism is a response to the oppression of the occupation.”
So how do explain this figures?
link to johnstonsarchive.net
“As if you could explain in any clearer terms that the Zionists are vile, demented people willing to imprison entire populations and impose violence and cruelty on them to make them give up their fundamental human rights and accept Zionists political plans.”
Other loaths of slogans.
typo: read loads.
“Ethnic cleansing is the forced removal of an ethnic population from one territory. That is absolutely happening in Palestine”
How is this happening now, Shingo? Can you provide some consistent data?
(what you up till now failed to do – still waiting your link to Begin’s false quote)
Besides: if there would b ethnic cleansing, there would also forcibly population declines. But this is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the population growth rates in the Palestinian territories, let alone in Israel itself.
Besides: if there would b ethnic cleansing, there would also forcibly population declines. But this is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the population growth rates in the Palestinian territories, let alone in Israel itself.
jonah, this issue has been dealt with by Shingo.
Ethnic cleansing, or ethnic transfer or expulsion, involves the forced removal of an ethnicity from a given territory. Violence may be used to achieve that end, as was used by Israel in the form of massacres and mass murders, but that does not mean it is genocide.
So your strawman of population growth rates has nothing to do with with the commission of ethnic cleansing.
“How is this happening now, Shingo? Can you provide some consistent data?
I’ll do you one better, I’ll show you.
link to whatreallyhappened.com
“what you up till now failed to do – still waiting your link to Begin’s false quote”
Stil waiting for you to prove it was false, esepcially seeing as your effort to prove it was false a) refererrd to a differnte quotes and b) didn’t prove that one was false either.
“Besides: if there would b ethnic cleansing, there would also forcibly population declines.”
False. Let me repeat for the slow learners amond you Zionists.
Ethnic cleansing is the forced removal of an ethnic population from one territory. That is absolutely happening in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
“But this is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the population growth rates in the Palestinian territories, let alone in Israel itself.”
False again.
As you can see from the map, what remains of the Palestinian territories is shrinking rapidly. In fact, given that the population is increasing, the thnic cleansing taking place is actualyl accelerating.
Your map is a well-known fraud, pretty out of toutch with reality. (Again and again).
Look at this and compare with your (obviously) inaccurate drafts:
peacenow.org/images/APN_West_Bank_Settlement_Map_2_Flyer.pdf
“Look at this and compare with your (obviously) inaccurate drafts:”
You’re splitting hairs. There are minor variations between the maps. I’ve drawn maps professionally and stylisation is more often than not about clear communication rather than deception. The fact is the West Bank has been deeply fragmented by the Wall and apartheid roads & checkpoints into .
Your johnston archive link seems to be missing some data jonah. I don’t see any reckoning of jewish terrorism , which well proceeded any such acts by Palestinians. Here’s a short list (middle of the page) of the terrorist campaign waged by zionists against solely civilian targets in the first months of 1948.
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Hey now, I’m still waiting for that apology for calling me a holocaust denier jonah.
correction: ” & checkpoints into .”
& checkpoints.
“I don’t see any reckoning of jewish terrorism , which well proceeded any such acts by Palestinians. ”
And before 1948 there were many acts of xenophobia and violence against the Jews by the Arab Palestinians, which – even according to the proportions indicated in your (Shingo’s) maps – had no real reason to be: the Jews represented in 1920 a minority of not more than 80 thousand people concentrated in few enclaves compared with a number Arab Palestinians six times larger.
- the 1920 Palestine riots link to en.wikipedia.org
- the 1929 (Hebron and Safed massacres)link to en.wikipedia.org
- the 1936-1939 Arab revolt link to en.wikipedia.org
As for the settlements, there have been a couple of missed opportunities to find a compromise in this issue. Abbas should maybe complete his self-criticism by spelling the obvious : Arafat’s intrasigence was a important reason for the failure of Camp David 2000, a failure which paved shortly after the way for the wave of terror – also called Second Intifada.
P.S. I never accused you to be an Holocaust denier, I simply brought ad absurdum the attitude of denying any evidence (such as incitement to violence and terror) just to be right.
Euro convert jews back to europe!
How many times have we heard Zionists here outright denying evidence of atrocities against Palestinians? “The photo is fake, al-Jazeera is propaganda, Haaretz is the Fox News of Israel, dirty lying Arabs, etc. etc.”
The fact is, Zionist terrorists have killed FAR more people than any Palestinian organization. Especially if you include Zionist attacks on other Jews!
“And before 1948 there were many acts of xenophobia and violence against the Jews by the Arab Palestinians, which – even according to the proportions indicated in your (Shingo’s) maps – had no real reason to be: ”
Another Hasbara talking point that has Bern debunked.
Zionists like to pretend that Israel magically appeared out of nowhere in 1948, when in fact, Zionist immigration had been escalating rapidly done the late 1800′s and those Zionists had Bern declaring their intention of stealing the land.
“Arafat’s intrasigence was a important reason for the failure of Camp David 2000, a failure which paved shortly after the way for the wave of terror – also called Second Intifada.”
Another old Zionist talking point that has been debunked, but you have to admire the degree of racism in Jonah’s contempt for the Palestinians for not accepting what the Israelis were prepared to give them ( having stolen it) as opposed to what the Palesrinians were entitled to.
The fact I’d that the offer at Camp David was pathetic and both Barak and Clinton knew it, which is why they convinced talks at Taba with the Clinton parameters, which noth leaders accepted. It was Barak that called off the talks early on that occasion, even though both sides stated they were on the verge of an agreement.
The Israeli foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben Ami, who wasinvolved at Camp David, stated that if he were a Palestinian, he too woildhave rejected the the pathetic offer made at Camp David.
You need to update your talking points Jonah.
“And before 1948 there were many acts of xenophobia and violence against the Jews by the Arab Palestinians, which – even according to the proportions indicated in your (Shingo’s) maps – had no real reason to be”
Jonah,
it’s obvious you have resorted to spamming this blog with your propaganda, Yuo posted this very same entry last week, verbatim. it was already debunked then, so there is no point repeating those arguments.
Ambulance have historically been a favored mode of transportation for Hamas and Fatah militants, and hospitals have been uses repeatedly for staging bases and military headquarters.
link to liveleak.com
(notice the UN logo on this ambulance, pretty damning material)
link to terrorism-info.org.il
More irrelevant lies and propaganda from the failures of human beings.
Dot Org dot IL. Now that’s a reliable website. lol you’re pathetic.
LOL. yeah the video is faked too?
i love how some of the most left week conspiracy sites are linked up on here on a daily basis and you lap it up. but someone links something to a site which is Israeli and you are whining about it not being a reliable source. give me a fucking break Avi, you fucking hypocrite.
Israel hater handbook #1
when in doubt whine about the legitimacy of the source
you didn’t use # 2 avi
claim the image/video is doctored.
you are slipping…….
why did you really leave Israel Avi, your hatred for everything Israel is pretty suspect….. pretty rough childhood?
Similar to many of your compatriots in the Anti-Israel camp, your hatred for Israel trumps your concern for the well-being of the Palestinians, it’s quite sad.
Please don’t try to give anyone a lesson on “their concern for the well-being of the Palestinians.”
Its quite humorous considering your mockery and white washing of the crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Palestinian people in Gaza.
There was a video released by the IDF allegedly showing Palestinian gunmen in Gaza transporting “missiles” into an ambulance. Again John Ging from UNRWA investigated the incident and upon examination of the video the alleged “missile” turned out to be an folded up stretcher which from the distance of the IDF satellite picture looked quite similar. Once again when the IDF was challenged on this, the silence was deafening.
I, too, recall the IDF several years ago accusing the Red Cross of using one of their ambulances to transport a “suicide belt”. The Red Cross challenged the IDF to back up that claim with some evidence and promised if there was any veracity to this claim they would take the necessary action. When I spoke to the head of the Red Cross last year, – several years following the incident – they were still waiting for a response from the IDF.
“trumps your concern for the well-being of the Palestinians, it’s quite sad. ” And you certainly are very much concerned for the Palestinians? Right Yonira?
You have zero credibility here Yonira because you simply regurgitate official propaganda without ever questioning anything. Yonira you are a pathetic specimen of brainwashed vessel full of nothing but garbage and poisonous venom. Open your mind.
“a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur ” (absolutely reliable source, of course).
Ah, they always lie these Arabs. Don’t you know?
your hatred for Israel trumps your concern for the well-being of the Palestinians, it’s quite sad.
Yonira, to use this kind of argument against Avi, you have to proof that you care that you are concerned about it. I haven’t seen any evidence for that so far. As in Richard’s case it seems mainly a polemical point in your argument.
For an uneducated brute you sure know how to cry crocodile tears while pretending to be rational and reasonable. When you can’t face reality, you have to weasel your way through, eh? Lie, lie and then lie some more and hope that no one will notice. That’s your track record.
As for my love or lack thereof for Israel, it’s really irrelevant. The obvious and harsh reality is there for all to see. Some choose to stick their head in the sand, others choose to call out from the highest mountain top for an end to the ethnic cleansing.
It must have really stuck in your craw that I mentioned the other day that two of my best friends are Palestinian. You’re behaving like the border guard goons who shoot laptops and strip search foreign visitors when they find out that they are slightly sympathetic or curious about Arab/Palestinian culture or suffering. It’s like a reflex reaction with neanderthals like you.
These are all bullshit stories made up by Israeli hasbara sites. They’ve been debunked. And news sources on YouTube debunk this as well.
In fact, “The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on Sunday demanded an apology from Israel over accusations that Gaza militants used a UN vehicle to transport a homemade rocket.
The world body refuted the charges at a news conference in Gaza on Sunday. It showed what it said was the ambulance seen in footage released by the Israel Defense Forces and presented its driver and rescue workers to reporters.
Rescue worker Wahel Ghabayen, 38, said he had run with a stretcher to a school in Jabalya on Friday after he heard that someone there may have been wounded. The wounded boy had already been moved by the time he arrived, he said.
“I came back to the car with the stretcher, and I folded it and threw it inside the car,” he said. “If it was a missile, I would not throw it into the car but would put it in carefully.”
The director of operations for UNRWA, Lionel Brisson, said UN workers do not carry weapons or armed militants in UN vehicles. “We want an apology from the Israelis, because we didn’t commit any wrongdoing,” he said. “
LOL, I love it, when in doubt claim the photos AND videos were doctored.
you guys are so fucking pathetic, its comical. another conspiracy, this time by reuters, LOL.
thanks for the laugh you’re a joke!
the same UNRWA who hires Hamas militants? Funny how you don’t think there could be an connection at all. UNRWA admits they hire members of Hamas, but God forbid Hamas would take advantage of that and use UN facilities.
link to timesonline.co.uk
AP claims otherwise MRW
link to yourish.com
Again, your links have been debunked Yonira.
However, even if there was a single incident of Hamas using an Ambulance to do whatever it does, that does not mean that Israel has a right to fire upon Ambulances, particularly those run by the United Nations, Red Cross, or the Palestinian Red Crescent.
Seriously, according to your logic, Palestinians would have a right to bomb Israeli buses merely because its a well known fact that Israeli soldiers sometimes ride them.
of course they have been debunked James, do you guys get sick of that argument at all?
Seriously, according to your logic, Palestinians would have a right to bomb Israeli buses merely because its a well known fact that Israeli soldiers sometimes ride them.
LOL, are you joking JB? do these soldiers jump from a warzone directly into these buses?
nobody outside of the anti-israel establishment takes you guys seriously, and this is why. Basically Hamas and Hezbollah can do zero wrong in your eyes, when there is any proof to the contrary, even videos and photos, you go straight to # 1 or 2 in the hand book, the source is bunk, or the photo and/or image was doctored.
you guys are a fucking laughing stock.
Actually Yonira, your the one that attempts to conflate Hamas and Hezbollah with “our views.”
If that’s your strategy go for it.
However, trying to lay the blame for what happened in Gaza on Hamas when it was the Israelis dropping the 2000lb bombs on Gaza is quite ridiculous.
Hamas is guilty of a number of things as is Hezbollah, but both of these groups are a response to Israeli crimes against humanity. This also excludes the fact that both of these groups cannot compete with Israel when it comes to crimes against humanity, nor are they even close to being an obstacle to peace in the conflict.
Remember Yonira, Israel is the one occupying the Palestinians, murdering them in large numbers, imprisoning thousands of them, subjecting them to apartheid, denying their UN right to return, and giving the Palestinians no reason to believe that this treatment will ever end.
Trying to conflate Hamas’s actions on any kind of equivalency with Israels is like blaming the rape victim for scratching the rapist.
Did you seriously just link that hateful racist bitch Meryl Yourish? Really, Yonira? She literally rejoiced at Israel bombing hospitals, schools and mosques in Gaza.
You really are in with the sick fuck crowd, aren’t you?
Your own link debunks the ambulance story Yonira. You Zionsts need to learn to read your own sources.
“LOL, are you joking JB? do these soldiers jump from a warzone directly into these buses?”
Except that this is the same argument used time and again by Israel to justify targetti g civilians and infrastructure. remember how in Lebanon all roads and bridges were bombed because Hezbollah were suspected of using them, as well as all vehicles on them, so why not busses?
You’re just trapped in your own hypocricy.
“nobody outside of the anti-israel establishment takes you guys seriously, and this is why.”
Evidently you do Yonira, you are here frequently enough to suggest you’re concerned Mondoweiss is being effective.
yonira, should just drop all the foreplay and embrace the settler mentality. He’s on more than one occasion sucked up to BSD/UNIX.
That’s exactly what you do. We have pictures of children’s corpses and you scream “PALLYWOOD PALLYWOOD THOSE ARE FAKES!!!!11″
Like I keep saying. You’re the Jewish David Duke.
Did you seriously just link that hateful racist bitch Meryl Yourish?
What do you expect from someone who links Jewlicious, a blogger who distorts what Finkelstein wrote about ‘The Holocaust Industry’.
And ‘bitch’ is a sexist epiteph.
Yeah, true. I apologize, sorry. I know I get carried away sometimes, and that was inappropriate language. Also, my use of the word is grossly insulting to female canines in that context. :)
The title of the timesonline article doesn’t match the content. The UNRWA did not admit to hiring Hamas militants, it said they probably have hired Hamas members. Not all Hamas members are militants. And as an organization, Hamas is far less militant than the state of Israel.
Good point Lyn,
After all, during the Iraq “surge” (aka bribign Suni militants) it was reported that some members of Al Qaeda were effectively on the US payroll.
and let’s not forget that it was Israel that created Hamas.
Your stubborn ignorance is not serving you well, yonira. I’m sure you missed this, relying as you do on disreputable propaganda sites, but ISRAEL backtracked on its insistence that the UN vehicle was carrying a Qassam. From Haaretz, October 2004,
The IDF yesterday publicly admitted for the first time that intelligence experts are divided over the identity of the object that was filmed being loaded into a UN ambulance in Jabalya last week. Some think that it was a Qassam rocket, others say it was just a stretcher as the UN Relief and Works Agency said all along.
When the film was released last Friday, Israeli spokesmen insisted it showed a Qassam being loaded into the ambulance. But last night, Major General Israel Ziv, head of the IDF Operations Directorate, called a news conference and admitted that IDF analysts who reexamined the picture had their doubts.
“The reexamination revealed there are doubts among the analysts as to what it is,” he said. “The argument continues to this minute. Some say it’s a weapon and some say the high is it’s an innocent object.”
link to haaretz.com
For all here, I would recommend this article from the incomparable Lawrence of Cyberia:
When is an Ambulance Not an Ambulance?
She recalls two instances of the IDF, or IDF personnel, admitting to using ambulances for strictly military operations. One, the use of an IDF ambulance for military purposes during Defensive Shield in 2002, was described by Zohar Shapira of the IDF, who became a refusenik. And the other was described by IDF spokespersons when the ID captured Marwan Barghouti, using an IDF ambulance to deliver troops rapidly to the location.
There was yet another incident where the IDF commandeered and used a PRCS ambulance in Hebron.
Yonira, again with the years old footage!?
The second link you provide states the ambulance footage is from 2004. So, in this thread so far you’ve posted, first footage from 2007, to justify the IDF’s behaviour in 08/09. And now, you’ve posted footage from 2004, to justify the IDF behaviour.
That’s pretty flimsy stuff you got there Yonira.
Yonira confuses his childish insults and opinions with a) being relevant b) with anybody caring and c) with being substantiated fact.
Tell someone who cares what you think Yonira. And when you can rationalise the IDF’s a) lack of response when challenged and b) the deafening silence which followed the challenges, then maybe somebody will consider you something other than a verbose and vacuous zionist cock monkey.
ahahahahaha
inb4 rachel starts crying her mascara off, leeaaaave israel aloooone
Great. I saw what appears to be a wounded militant being helped into an ambulance. To be sure a bunch of his buddies piled in too, but FYI wounded militants have every right to use an ambulance for medical evacuation. The video proves nothing else.
They do indeed. Can one imagine the outcry if Hamas deliberately targeted and blew up an IDF ambulance with wounded soldiers inside? Does anyone think IDF medical evacuation vehicles aren’t staffed by (unwounded) IDF personnel? All of a sudden the Israeli political establishment would remember that Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.
Morris’ position has changed radically over the years. He used to be fairly critical of Israeli government policies but he has turned into an Israeli apologist of late.
A moment for the history books:
Finkelstein: Do you think those chicken farms part of the Hamas infastructure?
Morris: It depends if they were Hamas chickens.
The zionist mind set in a nutshell.
And the Nazi one, too, really. Not to beat that cliche into the ground but let’s call it where it falls, right?
Yonira, rachel and co. Israel worship (or is it whorship?) uber alles!
I know, I almost choked on that.
Morris snickers his way through this, making idiotic remarks like the Hamas chickens thing, and the absurd claim no hospital in Gaza was attacked.
He comes across as a hollow cowardly man, unwilling to address the facts right in front of his face.
He’s a sniveling coward. A fat disgusting rat of a man. And it really shows when he’s laughing at the destruction of Gazan civilian infrastructure.
That’s how sadistic these freaks are. Imagine if it were ‘the Jewish State’ which lost comparable (proportionally, like for Gaza a chicken farm is a big deal) civilian infrastructure. I mean when a Jew breaks a fingernail, Zionists cry Holocaust/Nazi/Hitler/etc.
Just think of the time spent on antisemitic Hamas cartoons or antisemitism in general, when there is a fucking occupation going on 40+ years. When the Zio-Cult movement was a settler/colonial movement in the first place.
You mean: “Khamas chickens” – like that Benny ‘tickle-me-with-a-feather’ Morris kept lisping over and over again.
Why can’t the effing israelis work on their collective speech impediment if nothing else huh?!
It’s HAMAS for crumb’s sakes, HAMAS not KHamas!!! HHHH NOT KHKHKH OKAY?!!!
And while you’re at it, its HIZBOLLAH not KHIZBOLLAH!
Urgggh!!! You morons you expect to win everything at the end of the day when you can’t even PRONOUNCE your enemy’s name right?!
Fucking arrogant breath wasters!
That’s what you get when you have a dilettante Anglo-Saxon pretending to be from the Middle East. I sometimes wonder how silly my accent is when I try to speak Arabic. ;)
I’m pretty sure you don’t say Khkhkhkhkhamas for Hamas, chaos :-)
The 2 resident idiots are also expert on linguistics. These encyclopedic minds never cease to amaze.
STFU to rachel the resident illiterate whino-wino!
I bet One Million Monopoly Dollars you say ‘Khkhkhmas’!
KHAAAAAARA to you too!
Eat Khaaaaaaara yourself you fickle racist twit!
Rachel, “Hamas” in Arabic is spelled with the Arabic letter (ح) which is pronounced as a pharyngeal consonant. Morris is pronouncing it as a uvular fricative.
Which I suppose isn’t actually surprising, since when Modern Hebrew was synthesized, Het and Khaf were merged — ostensibly to make it easier for European migrants to adopt, since both pharyngeal and uvular consonants are fairly rare in European languages (German, for instance, has one uvular fricative as I recall, whereas English has no such consonants whatsoever).
But what do I know? I’m just an idiot, apparently.
Juan Cole says that “…there is no short ‘e’ or long ‘o’ sound in Arabic,” so its ‘Hizbullah’. He ends the following article with some description of proper transliteration.
Palestinians Observe Nakbah or Catastrophe Day, raise Hopes of Unity
“Morris: It depends if they were Hamas chickens”
I didn’t catch that–did he actually say that?
Try video @ 21:55.
Yeah, there it was. Morris was openly laughing at that point–the subject of Israeli attacks on Palestinian infrastructure is clearly a real knee-slapper to him. I agree with Richard Witty–this guy did a great job representing the Israeli viewpoint.
Its now amazinging obvious to me that Phil and I think in terms that are worlds apart.
I thought Norman Finkelstein did an appalling job in the discussion. The issues of human rights are a portion of the discussion, real, important, and nowhere near the scope of a balanced and complete inquiry into the questions that the interviewer raised.
Norman was asked to achieve a higher status of commentary, a higher scope of commentary and chose to stay in his cul-de-sac.
Rather than agree on Morris’ support for a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, Finkelstein chose to be petulant, demeaning. His whining (literally) of “he is monopolizing the conversation” was petty (as he acted to also take all of the airtime). In that sense, Morris was far superior, early clearly allowing Finkelstein to finish his thoughts, until Finkelstein returned to his dismissive and interrupting form.
Morris’ points were far more substantial. Finkelstein’s “all of the major human rights organizations” repetition is thin.
Phil,
Are you defending Norman in this way because you are his friend, or because you honestly believe that the accusation of the human rights issues (selective) are the sum total of the issues of conflict there?
There’s nothing amazing about it Witty.
You’ve been programmed to filter out and reject any criticism of Israel, while seeing Israel and it’s aplogists (you being one of them) as flawed but never wrong.
As otehrs have observed, the format of the intervewi prevented both men from providing adequate responses to many of the issues raised.
“Norman was asked to achieve a higher status of commentary, a higher scope of commentary and chose to stay in his cul-de-sac.”
By whom Witty? As we all agree (except you of course) Norman maintained a much higher level of dicsourse than Morris.
Morris did not allow Finkelstein to finish his thoughts, an spoke over thetop of him – so much so that he was reprimanded by the interviewer.
Morris sisn’t even try to make substantial points. They were shallow and lazy, a fact obvious to everyone but you.
“Finkelstein’s “all of the major human rights organizations” repetition is thin.”
Given your contempt for human rights and human rights organizations, that’s a predictable response, but also predictably, doesn’t address the charge.
Witty, are you defending Morris this way because you are a Zionist propagandist, or because you honestly believe that the accusation of the human rights issues (your only concern being for Israeli Jews) are of no concern to you?
Morris did not allow Finkelstein to finish his thoughts, an spoke over thetop of him – so much so that he was reprimanded by the interviewer.
Morris caught early on to the fact that his constant interjections and attempts to speak over Finkelstein were causing the interviewer to entirely skip to another point. This greatly tilted the debate to his favour, for Finkelstein was very patient in listening to Morris’ elaborations, while whenever Finkelstein raised serious objections, Morris’ interruptions forced Finkelstein to either wrap up his points or to skip over them as the interviewer moved on to another topic.
The debate was very much a failure of the interviewer’s lack of moderation. Nevertheless, Morris managed to make a fool of himself and proved himself obnoxious to several facts presented by Finkelstein.
Your assessment of my attitudes is 180 degrees off.
In my above comment on Finkelstein, I described the human rights issues as important, but horribly incomplete.
That Norman himself deferred when invited to comment on larger issues says that he himself does not consider his voice to be of merit on larger, real political questions.
It was an artless presentation on his part, putting his eggs into the basket of the HRW only. As Peter Beinart wrote in a dialog with Jeffrey Goldberg link to theatlantic.com
Not true. HRW celebrated the Goldstone Report, but as the New York Times reported in January: “[V]irtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. ‘I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,’ said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem.”
And, more to the point on Finkelstein’s direct investment in the literal Goldstone and HRW assertions (nowhere near a court of law)
“I recognize that Human Rights Watch may make mistakes. ”
Is this one of them, or a more accurate question in an imperfect world is “to what extent”?
“To what extent?” is always the relevant question to ask rather than perfectionist, that noone can stand the light of, not Morris, not Finkelstein, not Witty, not Shingo, not Weiss.
Your attitude is too obvious and too well docuememted for my observation to be mistaken.
“In my above comment on Finkelstein, I described the human rights issues as important, but horribly incomplete.”
No, you described them as insisequential because Finkelstein doesn’t focus entirely on Israeli human rights, which is all you are concerned with.
“That Norman himself deferred when invited to comment on larger issues says that he himself does not consider his voice to be of merit on larger, real political questions”
He deferred on thing. He was interrrupted and Morris spoke over the top of him. That you ignore this obious fact demonstrates yet again what a liar you are.
“[V]irtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct.”
I doubt that the Nazi’s at Nuremberg thought the convictions were correct either.
“‘I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,’ said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem.”
HRW, the UN and Amnesty disagree with B’Tselem.
“And, more to the point on Finkelstein’s direct investment in the literal Goldstone and HRW assertions (nowhere near a court of law)”
Whether that are a court fo law or otherwise has no bearing on the accuracy of the report. Lazy and desperate argument.
“I recognize that Human Rights Watch may make mistakes. ”
What about B’Tselem?
“Is this one of them, or a more accurate question in an imperfect world is “to what extent”?”‘
You’re rambling Witty. You have yet to make a congerentargument here, mot that you’ve ever been able to.
It’s not an argument when someone, no matter who it is, says that they don’t find the evidence “convincing”. The evidence is that there was tremendous damage inflicted by Israel to infrastructure that had nothing to do with terrorism, and that Israel has been imposing a blockade intended to cause civilian suffering (so targeting infrastructure is just a logical extension) and there were several Israeli officials who, before the war, said that Israel would behave with great brutality in the next war. Finally, the war went on for weeks and afterwards Israel denied almost all wrongdoing–no sane person could look at this and claim “oh, it was just excesses by individual commanders.” It’s ludicrous.
To say that Israel didn’t mean to target civilian infrastructure is as insane as to say that when Hamas hits a bus it only intends to kill Israeli soldiers who might be riding in it.
Something I’ve noticed in political arguments– liars often have a weird sort of advantage. I’m not going to sit here and deny that Hamas has targeted civilians and of course Richard states this as a fact and it is a fact. But when it comes to Israel Richard and his cohort of “liberal Zionists” will deny equally cogent evidence about Israel’s brutality forever. And so the discussion ends up being slanted in Israel’s favor. I sometimes sincerely think the only way you could balance this would be to have people arguing vehemently that there is no convincing evidence that Hamas intended to kill Israeli civilians. Then at least those of us who are honest could just sit back and let the liars go after each other.
“before the war, said that Israel would behave with great brutality in the next war”
Well you are right Donald. I remember many Israeli politicians warning Hamas of severe consequences if they did not stop firing rockets. I think Olmert warned on Quatar TV, “leave us alone, we are stronger than you” and another one saying ” Hamas is forcing us to visit a shoah on Gaza” Can’t remember the exact quotes. I think Israel intended to severely punish Hamas as a deterrent. And let’s face it, they got the message.
Israel did not punish Hamas. For years now Israel has been punishing the 1.5 million people who live in Gaza and who may or may not have anything to do with Hamas. This is a criminal act. More than half of those killed in Gaza were civilians. This is a war crime and you condone those war crimes which makes you nothing more than an apologist and complicit in murder.
Thank you, Rachel, for admitting that. I mean that sincerely–what drives me nuts about RW is that he just sidesteps the obvious if he doesn’t want to admit it.
And it might be right that Hamas “got the message”, though they also did a good job suppressing most rocket fire before November 2008. But you see the moral problem here, don’t you? If it’s morally okay for Israel to do this, then the only argument against Palestinian terrorism is that it might not be effective. So far it isn’t effective, though there are people who say that Palestinian hijackings back in the 70′s are what brought their cause the attention it started receiving in the West. So would that mean it was okay?
“” Hamas is forcing us to visit a shoah on Gaza” Can’t remember the exact quotes.”
Israel were threatened a “little shoah” on Gaza 2 years ealier.
“Rather than agree on Morris’ support for a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, Finkelstein chose to be petulant, demeaning. ”
Finkelstein said he agreed with Morris’s solution and the Clinton Parameter notion of a two state solution on the 67 borders and mentioned the right of return. Morris pounced on this, saying that no one except for a few banana republics agreed with the right of return. Finkelstein said his response would have three parts. He only got through the first part, which was about how most countries voted in the UN on that subject (most supported the ROR). He barely got through that point because Morris kept interrupting and we never did get to hear the remaining two points, because Morris’s filibustering was successful. The interviewer then moved on. So I don’t know what Finkelstein would have said about the implementation of the ROR. Morris wouldn’t let him speak.
And of course you come along and lie about what happened in an interview we can all watch. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Obviously, then, you should depart from Phil’s site.
Its now amazinging (sic) obvious to me that Phil and I think in terms that are worlds apart.
He’s trying to kill me, isn’t he? Witty, I have never laughed so hard in my life!
But of course, Witty, you and your heir and issue are right in the mainstream of modern human thought!
Yes, that would have been the appropriate response.
But I think Richard is of the opinion that due to his intimate knowledge of Phil and his family–remember he knows better what Phil’s father really thinks, than his own son– that he has an enormous influence on Phil and can, and occasionally managed, to stir him away from the evil path …
What makes this note really pessimistic, Mooser, is that he doesn’t even address Phil directly. He has given up hope, Phil listens. Something he firmly believed so far.
But better don’t put your money on the fact that this pessimism will last. Stay tuned, coming soon: Phil, good you listened to me. I knew you aren’t a completely bad guy. Remember, we were close friends after all. Do you remember how we …
And now I have to switch this laptop off.
“Its now amazinging obvious to me that Phil and I think in terms that are worlds apart.”
Well duh!
Richard – you just watched a clip where Morris mocks the attack on Gaza, then resorts to blatant lying (the Israel never attacked a hospital during the Massacre), and it’s Finkelstein you have a problem with? What a disgrace.
That Morris has replaced his Historian hat is very obvious. He asserts that the “Hamas Leadership” hid in the Hospital. This is a total buy-in to the Hamas = terrorist meme, standard Israeli propaganda.
As an Historian, he must be aware that Hamas, whatever its origins, has evolved into a legitimate political entity and is the democratically elected and popular representatives of the Palestinian people. This opinion is held by some very credentialed people such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British Ambassador to the U.N. and Hamas had demonstrated both their responsibility and mandate by enforcing a six month cease-fire prior to Cast Lead.
Israel’s primary goal is to destroy Hamas as a political force for one very important reason – Hamas have brought the right of return or compensation back into the debate, spoiling decades of effort and investment in the corrupt PLO and Fatah.
Note Morris’ scornful dismissal of the right of return. No ethical Historian could make such a dismissal of a measure that is demanded by the Geneva Accords, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, as Norman tried to point out, has been confirmed by the General Assembly every year since 1949.
Morris’ whole attitude to this question betrays the size, shape and color of his new hat.
“Morris’ whole attitude to this question betrays the size, shape and color of his new hat.”
The same one that Witty wears with pride.
Norman Finklestein is just not telegenic; he has a very severe immobile facial expression and speaks in a high falsetto with several verbal tics that become extremely irritating after a very short time.
‘Uncle Benny’ Morris, though, obviously decided that mockery was the better form of valour, and in the end, it won out, together with a liberal peppering of curse words, like ‘Hamas’. He reminded me of Uncle Adolf playing with his dog.
Richard, I disagree. Norman is very telegenic. Norman’s problem lies elsewhere. He is a fighter. And his awareness of his fight as much as of his debating partner makes him tight. Ready for the fight so to speak. If he was more relaxed in these encounters it would help him enormously.
I watched it again. Now I realized that the setting adds quite a bit. Imagine Norman was filmed sitting in his favorite coffee bar in his neighborhood, or somewhere in NY with the sea in his back.
Who decided on the place were Morris was filmed? This is making-the-desert-bloom-imagery.
But yes. Not only is Morris chosen as the first to respond, he also starts the interruption game. And at precisely that point it would have helped Norman had remained calm and simply said: Sir, may I finish, and simply kept repeating if he started it again, and not allow Morris to pull him into a fight. I think it is a mistake to address the interviewer to not allow him to filibuster. That’s something his opponents here can refer to as whining.
Is Morris trained for these encounters and given the weak points of his opponents in advance? Does he simply study his opponents debating style before?
***********************
Reminds me, that when I am back south this year, I have to take a day to analyze the video of a political talk show here in Germany. The only copy I can find in the library system is in Freiburg university.
It felt like it was “choreographed” much more concerning the shots, cuts and angles than any other of these talk shows I had seen before. All I remember was the very distinct impression of Norman Finkelstein it left in me. And I don’t think this happened by accident. But my suspicion is it was created, by shots, cuts, camera angles and editing.
sorry, preview would help. Good, i cannot create any italic, bold or as in the above case link comment sites anymore with Phil’s new software.
I think it’s a question of taste. In a rational setting where people can talk for a few minutes without interruption I like Finkelstein’s factual approach where he would try to set out his argument point by point. What he didn’t seem to realize is on most TV shows this won’t work. You have to speak very fast and not let someone like Morris distract you. Morris was contemptible to anyone who cares about human rights, but for television debates he did what they often do on most American TV (this wasn’t American, but the format was similar)–he jumped in, wouldn’t let Norman finish his points, and managed to get him angry and then the interviewer shut down that topic and moved on to the next. Morris needs to work on his own presentation–he needs to learn how to feign concern over Palestinian casualties without the smirking which gave away the pretense.
Donald, on TV you are entirely at the mercy of the director. Talk as fast as you want, if they turn your mike down, or cut away from you visually, you’re done. You can be screwed as soon as that pretty make-up girl approaches you and says: “Let’s get you fixed up for the camera”
Why, sometimes I even suspect that all the reality shows are not quite, well, verite, you know?
There’s also camera angle, sound equalisation, color and hue, all of which can be used to slant what looks to be a debate between two people. Just sayin…
“He reminded me of Uncle Adolf playing with his dog.”
Typical joke in bad taste that kills the conversation.
Its why I sometimes think that some of the posters here are really plants, to diminish the importance of dissent.
But then when Phil joins (or leads) the trashing rather than analyzing, it really disheartens me.
You hate dissent Witty.
What are you babbing about?
>> Its why I sometimes think that some of the posters here are really plants, to diminish the importance of dissent.
Hey, that sounds just like you – you’re constantly diminishing the importance of the dissent being expressed on this site! :-)
Hmmm…unless you’re only concerned when it’s your dissent that’s being diminished…
How come the “liberal Zionist” always agrees with yonira, rachel, eee, etc. and the parade of Zionist racists we get through here fairly regularly now?
Because as we all know, liberal Zionist” is an oxymoron.
RW, contradicting is NOT dissent. And analyzing is usually more credible when you don’t move the goalposts where you would prefer them before you do your analyzing. You take the micro view when the macro view is clearly more relevant. And vice verca, on and on. Anybody can do this!!
Richard,
the irrational obsession against Israel you allude to comes from a substantial lack of critical attitude towards the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. The latter is implicitly identified by the self-proclaimed human rights defenders with the old-fashioned but still fascinating archetype of the “noble savage”, as a result of a non-declared latent sense of guilt of past and current crimes committed in the world by their own countries. (We have also not to forget the indiscriminate capitalistic exploitation of the Thirth World ressources by the West). So Israel becomes the convenient acceptable surface of projection – the scapegoat – for own removed and therefore continuously interferring neurosis. These obsessed people need the Palestinians as ideal and victim in the same extent they need Israel as the incarnation of the evil, in order to keep alive their Black&White ideology and thus abreact the neurotic disconfort they suffer from.
In truth, they are simply blind to reality and – by costantly attacking Israel, but categorically refusing to analyze in a rational and critical way the opposite side, – they simply persist in claiming their right to vent a personal distress, a problem which – seen in a wider global perspective – indicate the riving contradiction inherent in the Western current left wing ideologies.
Last but not least we should not forget old pattern of anti-Semitic resurgences which shine through – albeit camouflaged – in the anti-Israeli discourse.
“The latter is implicitly identified by the self-proclaimed human rights defenders with the old-fashioned but still fascinating archetype of the “noble savage”, as a result of a non-declared latent sense of guilt of past and current crimes committed in the world by their own countries.”
You’re painting with a broad and inaccurate brush and I think you do so because it is convenient to lump every harsh critic of Israel into the same easily dismissed category. There are usually lefties in these situations who do have that “noble savage” viewpoint you mention, but that’s not true of everyone by any means. Most here would agree that Hamas and other Palestinian groups have committed war crimes, but you’ll also find a few who might take the line that Palestinians have the right to resist “by any means necessary”, a line I’ve seen elsewhere.
” a result of a non-declared latent sense of guilt of past and current crimes committed in the world by their own countries.”
This is getting really interesting to me.
Twenty years ago if you read Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle” US support for Israel was seen as just another example of US support for human rights violations by an ally. I think there’s a lot of truth to this and to me, the details about whether it really is in our “national interest” to support Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians have no moral significance at all. Maybe the Lobby has the American establishment doing things it wouldn’t normally be doing in its support of Israel, but the American establishment in general needs no prodding to support human rights violators. Chomsky would commonly compare Israel’s behavior to America’s behavior in the past and present, notably to our displacement of the Native Americans. Finkelstein would do the same.
Nowadays it’s often the Israel supporters who bring this up, and sometimes the Israel critics fall into the trap of defending the US. But again, that’s only true of some. I’d say most leftwing critics of Israel are fully aware and equally disgusted or more disgusted by the crimes of the US elsewhere. The Israel supporters don’t seem genuinely concerned about all the other atrocities committed by the US and in fact you don’t seem too concerned either, as you refer to “neurosis” in a way that suggests you think all this human rights talk is just psychological mal-adjustment. I suppose it’s only a psychological malady if we are talking about the crimes of Israel or the West–if we talk about the crimes of Arab states it’s normal and healthy. That is, it’s normal and healthy to focus one’s human rights outrage against the crimes of our enemies, because self-interest and hypocrisy are normal and healthy.
Anyway, two can play this psychoanalysis game.
One more thing. Jonah’s argument here is decades old–it’s basically an updated version of Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “Blame America first” accusation against anyone who criticized American support for mass murderers overseas. It’s an old neocon argument I’d commonly see in both “Commentary” and “The New Republic” back in the 80′s. As an argument it’s a half-truth. There really would be some lefties who were blind to the crimes of communist or “liberation” movements and so the trick was to lump them in with people who tried to be morally consistent, like the folks at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which was several different “Watches” then. So you couldn’t criticize the death squad murders in El Salvador or the genocidal killings in Guatemala (also supported by Israel, btw) without being accused of belief in the “noble savage”.
The argument was also applied to the Israel/Palestine conflict even back then. The main twist now is that, amazingly, the Israel-defenders will also mention America’s past and present crimes, which is not something they’d have done in the 80′s.
>> The latter is implicitly identified by the self-proclaimed human rights defenders with the old-fashioned but still fascinating archetype of the “noble savage” … These obsessed people need the Palestinians as ideal and victim in the same extent they need Israel as the incarnation of the evil, in order to keep alive their Black&White ideology and thus abreact the neurotic disconfort they suffer from.
Interesting. So, in your world, there is no Black&White, yes? Israel is both good AND bad, just as the Palestinians are both good AND bad, correct? Or are Israelis your “noble savages”, the archetypes you use to justify all negative Israeli behaviour?
Donald, I was not expecially referring to America, since colonialist and imperialist crimes in the past and in the present were and are committed by other countries and powers in all parts of the world. Besides, it is a fact that Western countries and non-Western countries such as China, Russia a.o. are plundering the Third World of its natural resources in order to increase or to mantain a high GDP. But this has very less or nothing to do with Israel.
However, interesting is not this point but your own interpretation and position on the topic. Let’s see some of your arguments:
“Most here would agree that Hamas and other Palestinian groups have committed war crimes”
Oh yes? But strange enough they do never bother to mention them, and as the diatribe above eloquentely proves, they even deny clear video evidence of Hamas crimes in order to keep all the blame on Israel. Is this ok. for you?
“few who might take the line that Palestinians have the right to resist “by any means necessary”
“Chomsky would commonly compare Israel’s behavior to America’s behavior in the past and present, notably to our displacement of the Native Americans. Finkelstein would do the same.”
This is a good example of projection on Israel of a US home-made problem which America never really has solved nor has come to term with it, with the aggravating circumstance that the colonists of America had no historical nor religious nor cultural link with the new world, but to colonize and plunder, to the detriment of its original indigenous people, the Native Americans. Of course Israel must be held now as much more accountable by the some American left wingers for the fact that America didn’t and doesn’t make its homework.
“I suppose it’s only a psychological malady if we are talking about the crimes of Israel or the West–if we talk about the crimes of Arab states it’s normal and healthy. ”
Fact is that the worse Arab regimes together with the corrupt PA and the Western Left are increasingly united in a unusual and grotesque alliance against Israel, playing a theater of the absurdity in the name of defending human rights in “Palestine”. The Goldstone report is only the tip of the iceberg in this common global cause agaist the “Zionist crimes”.
In any case, I would be positively surprised if just one of the so-called human rights defenders here on this website would have the moral courage to condemn clearly and unreservedly the terror wars waged by the Palestinian extremists against Israeli civilians in cyclical waves. But as we know, justice and morality seem to be blind in one eye while double standarts appear to be convenient, not only in the psychoanalist game.
Sorry for the typos and some hasty passages… written a bit in a hurry.
>> In any case, I would be positively surprised if just one of the so-called human rights defenders here on this website would have the moral courage to condemn clearly and unreservedly the terror wars waged by the Palestinian extremists against Israeli civilians in cyclical waves.
One word: Blowback. Until Israel halts its aggression and expansionism (Israel’s “terror wars”) against the Palestinians, why would you expect the Palestinians to renounce violence? Why don’t you and Mr. Witty start making those “better arguments” and laying down green yarn of peace?
Let Israel halt its “terror war”, declare its borders at the ’67 lines, recognize a fully-autonomous Palestinian state, lift its blockades, and begin good-faith bargaining on ALL issues (with realistic restrictions on things such as the Palestinian right of return) and THEN you can expect condemnation of Palestinian actions.
How can you expect that Israel does all these things if the Palestinians still openly call for “total liberation of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally” (article 12 of the basic bjectives of the Fatah movement) in their official website?
link to translate.google.ch
And these basic principles are confirmed by the continuous threats to wage the next round of terror war against Israel if the proximity talks should fail.
link to jpost.com
It’s crazy. But you of course will justify this attitude as “resistance against the occupation”, isn’it?
Yes, it is resistance against the occupation. But this is a call for resistance IF peace talks should fail.
What is unreasonable about this? Violent Israeli aggression against the Palestinian population continues every moment, every day, yet Israelis are outraged if their victims even speak of resistance.
What Israel really wants from the Palestinians is for them to lie down and die.
So explain me why the Fatah Charter still contains this and similar passages:
“total liberation of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally”
How does this fit with the displayed pure idea of “resistance against the occupation” that you swallow so “innocently”?
The Fatah Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel, the “Zionist entity”. And you pretend that they are well-disposed towards a peaceful arrangement with Israel?
Can you prove it, potsherd?
“n any case, I would be positively surprised if just one of the so-called human rights defenders here on this website would have the moral courage to condemn clearly and unreservedly the terror wars waged by the Palestinian extremists against Israeli civilians in cyclical waves. ”
I’ve done that and so have others. Hamas and other Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are unreservedly wrong. The problem in the US is that virtually everyone agrees on this, while only us crazed human rights types go on to condemn Israel for its attacks on civilians. As I said somewhere else on this blog today, I sometimes think the solution is to have some Hamas supporters claim Hamas is innocent of deliberate killing and Israel supporters say the same thing and then those of us who take a consistent moral stand on such matters can just sit back and watch the two sets of lies cancel each other out.
“The Goldstone report is only the tip of the iceberg in this common global cause agaist the “Zionist crimes”.”
The US gives billions each year to Israel and most of our politicians compete to see who can make the biggest excuses for Israel’s human rights violations and condemn Goldstone. That bothers me a little more.
As for the rest of the world, yeah, there are other countries with worse records on mass murder than Israel. But Israel is unique in the US in the level of support it receives for its behavior.
jonah, your information is stale. If you simply have taken a little time to do some research instead of relying on your old propaganda manuals, you would have found this: link to jta.org
language
“The US gives billions each year to Israel”
The US is interested in making good deals with Israel, 3 billions a years for the defence of the Jewish state are really peanuts compared to total expenditure on armaments in the U.S.
“most of our politicians compete to see who can make the biggest excuses for Israel’s human rights violations and condemn Goldstone. That bothers me a little more.”
Because the Goldstone report is actually biased. How many pages, I mean how many lines do you find in that report about eight years of indiscriminate rocket attacks? What about the suicide bombings? Do you remember what a co-author of the report said a couple of months ago?
link to haaretz.com
“So explain me why the Fatah Charter still contains this and similar passages: ”
Have you heard of Arafat’s declaration “C’est caduc” referring to the charter , Jonah? You know what it means?
“After being pressed by the French President to clarify his position on the P.L.O.’s 25-year-old charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, Mr. Arafat told a French television interviewer tonight that the document was “caduc” (null and void) .” It was the strongest language he has used to date to distance himself from the charter.
link to nytimes.com
Another point: Netanyahu’s Likud’s charter formally denies the Palestinians the right for a state. So what are you harping about, vile propagandist?
“So explain me why the Fatah Charter still contains this and similar passages”
The Likud would have the same passage except that it is redundant.
“How does this fit with the displayed pure idea of “resistance against the occupation” that you swallow so “innocently”?”
Liek I said, it reads exactly like the Likud Charter, witout the need to mention the liquidation of the palestinian entity, because that was achieved decades ago.
“The Fatah Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel, the “Zionist entity””
Yes, it’s called regime change – you know the same thign Israel is demanding take place in Tehran.
“3 billions a years for the defence of the Jewish state are really peanuts compared to total expenditure on armaments in the U.S.”
3 billions a year is only a fraction of the money Israel actually receives from the US.
“How many pages, I mean how many lines do you find in that report about eight years of indiscriminate rocket attacks?”
How many pages, I mean how many lines do you find in that report about 3 years of siege, the more than 10,000 shells Isrlae has fired into Gaza since 2005, the destruction of Gaza?
“What about the suicide bombings?”
They ended in 2006.
What about the raids on Gaza, the abductions of hundfreds of lawmakers, the indiscriminate shootings of Palestinians, the destruction fo property and farms and the cuttign off of water supplies?
“Hamas fired ‘something like two’ rockets before Gaza war”
Goldstone is 100% right. Between July and November 4th, Hamas fired no rockets at Israel. The rockets started after Israle broke the ceasefire on November 4th, killing 6 Palestinians.
Now if Hamas hd vilated the ceasefire and conducted a raid into Tel Aviv, killing 6 Israeli Jews, what would Israel have done abot it?
Hallo Aref,
If you don’t believe me, please google “fateh” and open the website of the Fatah movement written in Arabic by clicking the function of the traslation. Choose traslation in English or whatever other language you prefer. The website is well and alive and contains very updated articles, for example you can find an article (date 22.5.2010) on the member of the Central Committee of Fatah, Abbas Zaki, who states that the armed struggle may resume if the negotiations with the Israeli government will fail. If you are interested in the rules of procedures of the movement click on “Fatah”. Then look under Part III of the Rules of Procedure of the Fatah movement (Principles, objectives and method of Fatah).
I only wonder why this warmongering Charter is still on the web.
If, as they claim, they really want to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, it should be in their best interest to remove as soon as possible this warmongering charter from the web. Don’t you think?
>> How can you expect that Israel does all these things if the Palestinians still openly call for “total liberation of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally” (article 12 of the basic bjectives of the Fatah movement) in their official website?
Israel uses “maximalist” language regarding the Palestinians, why should Palestinians not use “maximalist” language against Israel? That being said, it’s the deeds, not the words, that matter. And, right now, Israel continues to wage a war of occupation and oppression.
>> But you of course will justify this attitude as “resistance against the occupation”, isn’it?
Given that there’s an occupation taking place, and that people are resisting it, yes, I would call it “resistance against the occupation”. Seems quite appropriate.
End the occupation and aggression and the “narrative” (sorry to keep channelling Mr. Witty) changes considerably.
Firstly, keep your vile insults for yourself, fool.
Secondly, Arafat isn’t trustworthy at all. He is strongly suspected to have planned the Second Intifada in advance.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Thirdly, you don’t appear really informed. In his speech at the Bar Ilan university Netanyahu backs the creation of a Palestinian state:
link to ynetnews.com
Enough?
This was for the happy atheist, of course.
Listen here, jaundice.
Arafat “is not trustworthy” when he says that the charter is null and void. ONTH, Netanyahu can be trusted when he declares that he backs the creation of a Palestinian state ? Why? Double standard?
” Enough?”
Could you effort be any more pathetic?
“Secondly, Arafat isn’t trustworthy at all.”
Are you for real? Name one politician who you consider trustworthy.
Ben Gurion told the world hat if he were a Palestinian, he woldn’t trust any Israeli leader. Barak is a boyscout compared to Netentyahu, and yet he went to Camp David with teh agenda to derail the peace process.
When Sharon won the elections , he delcared that he would suspend the peace process in formaldehyde. Tzipi Livni told the world that a long ceasefire was not in Israel’s strategic interests.
Netenyahu is the only politician in the world who desribed the 9/11 attacks as a good thing.
“He is strongly suspected to have planned the Second Intifada in advance.”
Pure bunk. right up there with crap about Araft’s wife living in 5 star luxury in Paris.
“Netanyahu backs the creation of a Palestinian state:”
Yes, one that would be practically disfucntional, and be denied sovereignty and seld determination. Of course, it would not include any part of Jerusalem, give Israel territorial control of settlements, leave all troads that slice and dice the West Bank, and deny the Palestinians any right to self defense.
It’s a bit like saying, Israel can be a Jewish state so long as there are no Jews living there.
“Israel uses “maximalist” language regarding the Palestinians, …”
Tell me who where when Israel used the words like “total liberation of Israel and the liquidation of the Palestinian entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally”.
“Given that there’s an occupation taking place, and that people are resisting it, yes, I would call it “resistance against the occupation””
Interesting. So is “annihilation of Israel” tantamount with “resistance against the occupation”. Given this equation, why should Israel accept the claims of psychopaths who want to destroy her?
“Tell me who where when Israel used the words like “total liberation of Israel and the liquidation of the Palestinian entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally”.”
The liberation was achieved in 1948 when the Zionist terror gangs drove out the British and then the Palestinians. The Palestinian entity has already been economically, politically and militarily and culturally liquidated.
“Interesting. So is “annihilation of Israel” tantamount with “resistance against the occupation”.”
Where was the term “annihilation of Israel” tused?
“Given this equation, why should Israel accept the claims of psychopaths who want to destroy her?”
Isn’t that was Israel is demanding of the Palestinians? Recognize us, and you get to choose the size of your own prison. Don’t recognize us or we will destroy you.
No, he is not untrustworthy because he stated that the charter is null and void, he is untrustworthy because he planned the Second Intifada in the (wrong) belief he could by waging a tough round of terror war easily break the resistance of the spoon-feed, lazy and decadent Israelis.
There is nothing psychopathic about wanting to eliminate a repressive enemy. It is perfectly reasonable.
But making peace involves the renunciation of such claims, even if just.
Whenever Zionists drag out the Hamas charter and other moldy documents out of the dustbin of history, you know that they are only making lame excuses to avoid peace. As Akiva Eldar pointed out, Israelis cling to their conviction that they can never trust the Arabs and reject all reason and evidence to the contrary.
“The Palestinian entity has already been economically, politically and militarily and culturally liquidated.”
A Palestinian state was guaranteed in UN-Resolution 181. Who rejected the partition plan?
“Where was the term “annihilation of Israel” used?”
“Liquidation” is maybe better?
“Don’t recognize us or we will destroy you. ”
I repeat the question: Where exactly did you find this kind of statement, Shingo?!
“No, he is not untrustworthy because he stated that the charter is null and void,”
Any proof that it isn’t null and void, especially seeing as Israel has insisted on dealing with Fatah exclusively?
” he is untrustworthy because he planned the Second Intifada in the (wrong) ”
So you’ve gone from an unfounded conspieracy theory to stating it as fact.
“belief he could by waging a tough round of terror war easily break the resistance of the spoon-feed, lazy and decadent Israelis.”
Well, the Israelis have become spoon-feed, lazy and decadent, b ut like Is said, terror worked like a charm for Israel.
Nothing succeeds like success right Jonah?
Why would that make him untrustworthy?
Anyone who starts a war believes (or ought to believe) that he can win. Using your logic, there would never be peace anywhere in the world.
“A Palestinian state was guaranteed in UN-Resolution 181. Who rejected the partition plan?”
Both sides, otherwise, Israel would have already recognized a Palestinians state, with ir without Palestine’s acceptance.
” I repeat the question: Where exactly did you find this kind of statement, Shingo?!”
I repeat the question. Where exactly does the PLO Charter mention annihilating Israel?
“Israelis cling to their conviction that they can never trust the Arabs and reject all reason and evidence to the contrary. ”
Wrong and bad memory. The Israelis trusted the Arabs already twice: in 1979 and in 1984. Try at least to remember with whom.
Seriously what are you blathering about?
Your conflict is with the Palestinians.
Stop occupying them, let them return to their homes, and end the apartheid, then and only then will you have peace.
Did you honestly expect that you could found an ethnic supremacist state on a densely populated territory?
Just what I’m talking about. Because Israelis consider that “the Arabs,” who are all, of course, exactly alike in their sinister motives, betrayed a trust decades in the past, they refuse any possibility of peace.
If any nation displays psychopathic symptoms, it is paranoid Israel.
The phrase was “the eradication of the Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”
“…demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine”
translated, of course
Article 7 : “The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial, and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization, and method.”
This is spot-on, incidentally.
All from an Israeli website.
The question is, do you consider “the Zionist entity” synonymous with with the State of Israel, or not?
The Arafat “planning” of the Intifada is here, courtesy of the wonderful Khaled Toameh
link to mafhoum.com
jonah :
“…the Goldstone report is actually biased”
I think so too, but generously towards Israel.
As for the official Israeli policy, actions speak louder than words.
Shingo, I refer to “Part III of the Rules of Procedure of the Fatah movements” that you can find, as I’ve explained above, in the official fatah website:
“Article (12): total liberation of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally.”
The translation is by google language. If you can read Arabic, maybe you can traslate better:
الأهـــداف الأساسية لحركة فتح
This is the right passage in Arabic language:
المادة (12): تحرير فلسطين تحريراً كاملاً وتصفية الكيان الصهيوني اقتصادياً وسياسياً وعسكرياً وثقافياً
Yes Bradley, but potsherd states that Israelis aren’t able or willing to make peace with Arabs. Actually, they did already with Egypt and Jordan. And I believe they can with the Palestinians too, but indeed up till now there aren’t enough security guarantees.
“Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles… The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality. ” (Netanyahu, Bar Ilan speech)
From a Israeli perspective, I can understand it. The Palestinian should join in a government of national unity and stretch out their hand of peace to Israel. They would succeed incomparably better than through hatred and violence.
” Wrong and bad memory. The Israelis trusted the Arabs already twice: in 1979 and in 1984. Try at least to remember with whom.”
What did Israel do to demonstrate their trust on those occasions, apart from stealing more land?
” Actually, they did already with Egypt and Jordan. ‘
With Egypt they had no choice becasue unlike the Palestinians, Egypt has a large military and Egypt is important strategically to the US.
“And I believe they can with the Palestinians too, but indeed up till now there aren’t enough security guarantees.”
There will never be enough security guarantees becasue when it comes to the West Bank and Jerusalem, Israel is not willing to give up land for peace.
“From a Israeli perspective, I can understand it. The Palestinian should join in a government of national unity and stretch out their hand of peace to Israel. They would succeed incomparably better than through hatred and violence.”
They tried it and Israel rebuffed them every time.
IN 2005, Hamas entered into a unilateral ceasefire and Israel broke it.
In 2006, Hamas proposed an exhange of ambassadors with Israel and Israel rejected it.
In 2008, Hamas stuck to a ceasefire and Israel broke it again.
And the French foreign minister said, Israel is not capable of peace.
Peace with Jordan was of course 1994. Have a good night.
“…stretch out their hand of peace to Israel”
oh please
It’d be promptly chopped off.
Shingo, your examples of Hamas alleged willingness to peace aren’t convincing, you know it. And you know of course also what the meaning of “Hudna” is. Peace with Israel is for islamist militant a blasphemy.
Jordan had already given Israel the West Bank.
22 Arab States have signed a peace initiative offering Israel full recolonization and normalization of relations. Israel has rejected the offer becasue it means returning stolne land.
The Israel of today has no connection is far moer right wing and extreme than the Israel of 1994.
Get some sleep. Hopefully you’ll come to your sense in teh morning.
Jonah,
I have no illusion about convincing you because, like witty, you are programmed not to accept anything that contradicts the Zionist mind programming you have undergone. Facts are facts.
Israel continues to rejects the Arab Peace proposal that grants it every request it has ever demanded, because ti quires returnign land that it hjas stolen.
“Peace with Israel is for islamist militant a blasphemy.”
You Hasbrats have nmothign but hyperbole adn bumper sticker slogans to on which to base your aeguments. Not your fault I guess. You are after all, defeding the indefensible.
Palestinian terror and occupation/settlements are connected, however in a unbalanced manner. If you remove the terror, occupation will come to its end, but if you remove the occupation, the Palestinian terror is likely to increase. This is the dilemma of trust in the Israeli society. It’s up to the Palestinian to show that the Israelis are wrong.
This is the dilemma of trust in the Israeli society.
How typically Zionist of you to completely ignore the Arab Peace Initiative as detailed by Shingo, and go on talking about “Palestinian terror.”
If you remove the terror, occupation will come to its end, but if you remove the occupation, the Palestinian terror is likely to increase.
Right, so the occupation has nothing to do with the settlements. The settlement building is just something that the Israelis do on the side, when they’re bored, the IDF just goes around bulldozing Palestinian homes and farms to make Jew-only settlements while occupying the Palestinians for “terror.”
“Palestinian terror and occupation/settlements are connected, however in a unbalanced manner.”
Your right. Israel kills far more Palestinians than there are terrorists and launches many more attacks on Palestinians than the Palestinians launch on Israel.
“:If you remove the terror, occupation will come to its end, but if you remove the occupation, the Palestinian terror is likely to increase”
False. The occupation began decades before the terror tacks began.
“This is the dilemma of trust in the Israeli society. It’s up to the Palestinian to show that the Israelis are wrong.”
It’s not a dilemma, it’s a false premise that justifies the ongoing occupation and expansion of settlements.
We already know that the Israelis are wrong. So do the Israelis. They just don;t want topay the price for peace.
BTW. I thought you were going to bed.
Jonah,
You of all people should recognize that the Zionist terror groups went into retirement when Osrael declared independence. One could argue that they simply rebranswd themselves the IDF, but it goes to show that terrorismrequires a cause to maintain it.
Take that cause away, and terrorism evaporates.
It’s up to the Palestinian to show that the Israelis are wrong.
The Israelis are doing a fine job of that themselves.
Had the Israelis played this game with foresight, restrained their violence and expansionist motives, the Zionist state could easily have sustained itself, without much criticism to its “legitimacy” as they cry of today.
Yet, despite having secured the virtual and undying support of the American media, political and religious establishment, it finds itself defending its “right to exist” and “right to defend itself.”
You should read the latest report by the Hasbara Zionist think-thank Reut Institute on BDS. The icing on the cake is that it agrees that two of the three main initiatives of the BDS are legitimate and on solid moral and legal ground, yet it worries that BDS poses a grave threat to Israel’s “legitimacy” and must be heavily countered by Israeli propaganda.
If you remove the terror, occupation will come to its end
What bullshit! Haven’t you noticed that “the terror” has all but disappeared, while the occupation is only stepping up its pace?
The perversity of the Israeli mind is that the victim is somehow supposed to prove to the oppressor that the victim can be trusted, all while the oppressor keeps increasing its provocations.
Peace is the cessation of violence. This is what Hamas has offered, again and again, to have their offers rejected by Israel, which will not agree to renounce violence.
What Israel wants from the Palestinians is total and abject surrender of the capacity to resist, to render themselves entirely defenseless.
Ok I’ll go to bed now. But let me finish.
I’m not programmed, I don’t defend the indefensible, I’m not for the indiscriminate colonization of Judea and Samaria, I don’t support the oppression of the Palestinians. But I firmly support the right of Israel to exist as Jewish homeland. That makes me a Zionist nolens volens.
Therefore, I don’t consider the Arab initiative practicable in its current shape, it needs to be reviewed and changed in the light of Israel’ fear to be overwhelmed by millions of Palestinian refugees. The right of return must be declared estinguished. A just solution for the refugees must be found in the new countries, with Israeli and international help. Tiny Israel was able to accomodate one million of Jewish Arabs expelled from their land of origin. The same shall be possible for the Palestinian refugees in their host countries or in the future state of Palestine. The true question is: are the Arabs willing to accept a Jewish state on “their” Arab soil, as they believe?
“The perversity of the Israeli mind is that the victim is somehow supposed to prove to the oppressor that the victim can be trusted, all while the oppressor keeps increasing its provocations.”
It sounds exactly like Witty’s logic. Of the rape victim can convince the rapist that she won’t resist, then maybe, just maybe, he’ll stop raping her. Then again, that’s assuming he only chose to rape her in the first place because she was resisting.
Talk about reverse logic!
The problem with your position is that you accept Israeli paranoia as a rational position that needs to be accomodated by Israel’s victims. Did you read that Akiva Eldar piece? It really does sum up how this has become an intractable problem.
“What Israel wants from the Palestinians is total and abject surrender of the capacity to resist, to render themselves entirely defenseless. ”
Forget this broken record, potsherd. Good night. In Europe it’s quite late now.
>> Tell me who where when Israel used the words like “total liberation of Israel and the liquidation of the Palestinian entity economically, politically and militarily and culturally”.
Surely you’re not suggesting that only those precise words constitute “maximalist” language?
>> So is “annihilation of Israel” tantamount with “resistance against the occupation”.
Ummm, no. There is an occupation, and there are people resisting it. They are engaging in “resistance against the occupation”. End the occupation and aggression and whatever happens after that is not “resistance against the occupation”
It’s opne thing to suggest the Arab initiative needs refining, but Israel has rejected it completely.
The problem Israel faces is that it’s current policies are driving it directly into a destination where it will become overwhelmed by millions of Palestinians. As Barak said, Israel faces a future as a Jewish apartheid state or bi national democracy unless it agrees to a viable Palestinian state.
The right of return is a human right under international law. Israel have to deal with it, because it won’t be extinguished.
“The true question is: are the Arabs willing to accept a Jewish state on “their” Arab soil, as they believe?”
That’s exactly what is stated in the Arab Peace initiative.
You can sleep, but the problem will not go away by morning and the truth will not change overnight.
I think the right of return needs to be defined, not extinguished.
Israel would be served well by a limited right of return, that allows it to do the real things that right past wrongs, and in a way that leaves order and security.
The problem with the right of return is that it is horribly vague, and is played as a used-car dealer.
When it gets specific, it will be negotiable, and negotiated.
As the right of return is regarded as a critical component of reconciliation, it seems evident to me that those that insist on the right of return remaining vague (not defined), intend for conflict to continue.
They are not interested in the realization of justice or peace, but only the continuation of a state of injustice and conflict, in some odd opportunistic ploy.
There are political and even legal difficulties with defining the extent of the right of return, but most dissent (including the implied leadership like Norman Finkelstein) aren’t doing it yet.
It is a great failing, and failure, of the movement.
The right of return has been defined internationally. There’s nothign avague about it. In fact, it has been adopted wholesale by Israel.
If it’s good enough for Israel, why not for Palestinians? Unless of course, you are a biggot.
You only make things out to be vague Witty when you are opposed to them. You are too ashmed to come out of the closet with your rampant racism, so you try to bog the discussion down by prentending it’s il defined or conflating it with non existent goals.
So summarize it specifically already.
This has gone on for decades, the evasion of what “the right of return” entails.
Be specific. Or invite someone else to be specific, if you don’t have an angle on it.
Norman for example.
No Witty, I am not goingto waste my time engaging soeone who is utterly irrelavant and refuses accept any suggestions to solve the crisis.
If you want a definition, look it up. Don’t expect others to do your homework for you.
The whole world experiences the vagueness and bait-and-switch nature of the assertion of right of return.
You claiming that I alone somehow opportunistically don’t understand it specifically, is a distraction, a negligence on your part.
Maybe it is in process of clarification. Its not clear now though.
Golstone deliberately cut off the history on both sides leading up to the Gaza Turkey shoot. Thus there was no bias.
>> I think the right of return needs to be defined, not extinguished. … The problem with the right of return is that it is horribly vague, and is played as a used-car dealer. … When it gets specific, it will be negotiable, and negotiated.
—– Article 11 —–
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
———————–
Seems pretty clear:
1. Refugees who want to go home get to go home, and those who do not or cannot are paid (reasonable) compensation.
2. (Reasonable) compensation is paid for lost or damaged property.
Seems pretty clear. Modifications to this article could be obtained through…what’s the word…oh, right: negotiations.
“Golstone deliberately cut off the history on both sides leading up to the Gaza Turkey shoot. Thus there was no bias.”
Yeah, I didn’t even think it worth responding to that. Any time someone accuses country X of human rights violations, the apologists always scream bias, almost invariably for silly reasons. There was plenty of violence going in both directions between Israel and Gaza in the years leading up to the ceasefire of 2008, with the bulk of the deaths being Palestinian.
“Its why I sometimes think that some of the posters here are really plants,”
Ah-ha! So that’s why you are always barking up the wrong tree?
But you know Witty, I’ve often wondered if you were a plant, too. Or at least a fungus, like deadly nightshade.
Richard, you could do everyone a favor, make like a tree, and leave.
“Typical joke in bad taste that kills the conversation.”
Seems to be going along fine to me. Whatsamatter, pal, too rough for you? Why not go home and sooth your injured Zionist feeling with a nice, long hot-phosphorus bubble bath?
Morris symbolizes the new Israel: sniggering goons in their undershirts and funky smells sitting on brownstone stoops spewing low-class racist slurs. However, via an email I got – Norman said he wasn’t too thrilled with his performance. Look, there’s always room for improvement.
“Norman said he wasn’t too thrilled with his performance. Look, there’s always room for improvement. ”
At least you can tell the difference between critiquing a TV performance and siding with your best anti-zionist buddy regardless of how he did. It has nothing to do with one’s opinion on the conflict. I am on Morris side and he also sucked. They both sucked! TV is about convincing your audience, trying to charm , cajole, and get people on board. It is acting.
A few people people here mentionned that Finklstein does not come across very well on TV. He just does NOT! Admitting it does not take away anything from his arguments if you agree with them. He is almost Aspergers with his rigidity and lack of awareness of social and body cues.
At least Finkelstein wasn’t chortling about the deaths of anyone. You can say, “Well, Winston Churchill made mistakes, and Adolph Hitler made mistakes” but that hardly puts them on the same stratum.
He shouldn’t be. He should trust himself more and relax slightly.
The most important thing is, this is a different media. He wasn’t in a scholarly debate as writing a book. He confronted Morris the political theologian not Morris the historian. And he shouldn’t have completely mixed these two Morrises up. That’s the different hats.
“the new Israel: sniggering goons in their undershirts and funky smells sitting on brownstone stoops spewing low-class racist slurs”.
LMAO..that cracked me up. This site is disturbing my work. I’m meant to be working hard but the witty repartee and informed comment are interrupting me!
In general what I saw was that Benny cointinually interrupted Norman, and then used his body to laugh, all the while smirking when Norman took the bait (which always resulted in Norman not having enough time to answer the moderator’s successive questions). Benny’s reactions reminded me of Goering in the stand at Nuremberg when he was forced to listen to the accusations against himself and his former Nazi government and its other leaders. Benny’s reactions also reminded me of Newman’s body antics when confronted with an issue on the Jerry Seinfeld show.
The first question was what was the root of the I-P problem? Norman said
that the root was historical Zionism in that transfer (ethnic cleansing) was built into Zionism from the start. And this this programmed ideological dispossession produced Arab resistance.
Benny responded that the root cause was that the Arabs simply did not want Jews to come. Period. The Palestinians should have all the mandate land.
Norman responded that the root cause was not an issue of living with Jews, of coexistence, but rather it was an issue of expulsion–as Benny had written earlier in his career.
Benny next responded that Norman was fixated on expulsion, which was only part of the big picture.
Norman replied that Benny had written earlier in his career that transfer was the chief means the Zionists used for dealing with the Arabs.
Benny responded that Norman was distorting what he, Benny wrote earlier.
The moderator then had no time left and moved on to the next question:
Present times. Bennie said that the fair solution was the one presented by Carter in 2000, the two-state solution. The moderator asked him if that was realistic today? Would Israel ever ask 500,000 settlers to pack up and move? Norman agreed with this 2-state solution, which he said was endorsed by the international community–the Palestinians had a choice of return or compensation. Bennie protested that it was only a handful of states, mostly banana republics, that supported, support the right of Palestinian return.
After an advertisment, the moderator’s next question: Who do the Russians support? Turns out most don’t care, with approximately up to 10% favoring one or the other stance. Bennie jumps in asserting that most Israelis he knows oppose the right of return for the Palestinians, and that the West does not support it either. The moderator then asks Bennie, “Is that fair?” Considering the Jews have the right of return.
Finkle responds that every year the UN general assembly votes on this issue and overwhelmingly by the numbers includes a Palestinian right of return in any just resolution. Bennie then jumps in and accuses Norman of not answering the moderator’s question, of being irrelevant, since the focus at this point in the debate is on the present, not the past.
Next, the moderator turns to the Goldstone Report. Bennie says Israel’s use of disproportionate force was due to Hamas use of Human shields.
Normans responds, saying over a dozen human rights organizations, some of whom he names, studied this question and concluded that Hamas did not use human shields. At this point Bennie is constantly interrupting Norman, laughing with his body and smirking a la Goering or Newman.
Unfazed, Normand keeps talking, delineating examples of how Israel went way beyond merely destroying Hamas infrastructure, destroying 23 of 28 cement factories, a flower mill, an a 100,000 chickens, and by dropping white phosphorous on two hospitals. Bernie responds by saying maybe Hamas hid inside the chicken coops.
I don’t know what video clip Richard Witty watched.
Oops, typos:
cointinually= continually
Normand-Norman
Ilan Pappe on Benny Morris:
There were 3 points when I wish Norman had gone a little further in challenging Morris. The first was on Morris’ stereotyped simplification of Palestinian opinion pre-1948. “They just didn’t want to live with Jews” does not describe reality. This has to do with the (proven real) threat of ethnic cleansing, but Norman only addressed the Israeli side of the equation and did not argue for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of Palestinian politics pre-1948. Palestinians shouldn’t have had to be saints or even liberals to avoid a fate of ethnic cleansing, but still it hurts our cause to allow them to be caricatured so freely.
Second was Morris’ fallacy that the right of return entails the actual return of 5 million Palestinians to Israel. Certainly that is a potential result of granting the right, but it is a very unlikely one. And of course it should always be said that one people’s desire for political supremacy never comes before human rights.
And third, on Morris’ human shield accusation, Norman did a good job of explaining how serious investigations offered no support for the claim. But wouldn’t this be the time to also mention the ample evidence of the IDF using Palestinian human shields? As Norman said, Morris’ world truly is “topsy-turvy,” and this is another example.
I am also “surprised” that Phil did in the headline of this peace, what he and others have complained about in other media.
That is, to pick a single image, as if that were the sum total of the interchange.
Phil’s article title goes to the second question raised by the moderator, the present (having just ended the debate on the first question: the root cause(s) or history of the I-P conflict). The chicken massacre represents
how Israel went after more than Hamas infrastructure, one of many examples Norman made, one that really brought his point home. Witty would have the whole body of the exchange as the title. Big nit to pick.
I was referring to the picture.
Norman’s example of the chickens was petty, as was Bennie’s response.
Norman deserves constructive criticism, not mindless loyalty.
“Norman’s example of the chickens was petty, as was Bennie’s response.”
Fascinating. So the wanton destruction of Palestinian agriculture is “petty” to you, as it obviously was to Morris. You’re a real piece of work.
“Norman deserves constructive criticism, not mindless loyalty.”
He’s gotten constructive criticism from us. Yours is worthless and inaccurate.
“Fascinating. So the wanton destruction of Palestinian agriculture is “petty” to you, as it obviously was to Morris. You’re a real piece of work.”
Witty isn’t even trying to hide his racism and contempt for the lives fo non Jews. Had Israeli agriculture been wantonly destroyed, he’d be harping on about his trasumatized the Israelis were by it and how this explains their irrationality and violent response.
What I love about watching debates with Zionists and neocons is how often they adopt the standard issue Fox News debate tactics which consist of maintaining a smug, smarmy grin throughout the debate, cackling whenever the opponent utters an uncomfortable truth, and shouting down and interrupting the opposing speaker. Not to mention lying…gratuitously.
As soon as I saw the opening picture showing Morris with that smarmy look on his mug I knew exactly what to expect from the video. I wasn’t disappointed. One imagines Bill O’Reilly must give a teleconference course on these techniques. Here’s a debate with Irshad Manji demonstrating the same shtick:
link to youtube.com
too bad all these are so short…or that they are not in the same room (haha),
a microphone switch should be used to stop over talking to hide the truth from comming out