‘Terrorism’ is the primary bulwark through which Zionism defends itself from scrutiny

Israel/Palestine
on 213 Comments

On September 11, 2001, George Bush changed the way Americans look at the world and the success with which he accomplished this feat is evident in the fact that his perspective largely remains unchallenged — even among many of his most outspoken critics. Bush’s simplistic for-us-or-against-us formula was transparently emotive yet utterly effective.

For almost a decade, Americans have been told to look at the world through the lens of “terrorism” and while differences of opinion exist about whether the lens has too wide or narrow an angle or about the extent to which it brings things into focus, those of us who say the lens is so deeply flawed that it should be scrapped, remain in a minority.

The Obama administration may now refrain from using the term itself, preferring instead “violent extremists,” but the change is merely cosmetic (as are so many other “changes” in the seamless continuity between the Bush- and post-Bush eras).

A couple of days ago Philip Weiss drew attention to the fact that when former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni described her parents as “freedom fighters,” Deborah Solomon, her interviewer in the New York Times, echoed Livni’s sentiment by saying that the fight for Israel’s independence took place in “a more romantic era.”

As Weiss notes, Livni’s parents belonged to the Irgun, the Zionist group which blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, killing 91 and injuring 46.

The first public account of what had happened that day was accidentally released in advance of the bombing.

In By Blood and Fire, Thurston Clark writes:

“Jewish terrorists have just blown up the King David Hotel!” This short message was received by the London Bureau of United Press International (UPI) shortly after noon, Palestine time. It was signed by a UPI stringer in Palestine who was also a secret member of the Irgun. The stringer had learned about Operation Chick but did not know it had been postponed for an hour. Hoping to scoop his colleagues, he had filed a report minutes before 11.00. A British censor had routinely stamped his cable without reading it.

The UPI London Bureau chief thought the message too terse. There were not enough details. He decided against putting it on the agency’s wire for radio and press until receiving further confirmation that the hotel had been destroyed.

Despite the efforts of Irgun leaders to restrict knowledge of the target and timing of Operation Chick, there were numerous other leaks. Leaders in both the Haganah and Stern Gang knew about the operation. Friends warned friends. The King David had an extraordinary number of last-minute room cancellations. In the Secretariat [the King David’s south wing that housed the headquarters of the British government in Palestine], more than the usual number of Jewish typists and clerks called in sick.

The next day the British prime minister, Clement Attlee referred to the bombing as an “insane act of terrorism” while a few days later the US president, Harry Truman, wrote “the inhuman crime committed… calls for the strongest action against terrorism…”

That was 64 years ago. From the sheltered perch of the New York Times, that’s apparently far enough back in history that it can now be referred to as a “romantic era.”

It’s hardly surprising then that many observers with an interest in justice for Palestinians take offense at the New York Times’ complicity in papering over the reality of Jewish terrorism. Yet here’s the irony: the effort to promote an unbiased use of the term “terrorism” simply plays into the hands of the Israelis.

The word has only one purpose: to forestall consideration of the political motivation for acts of violence. Invoke the word with the utmost gravity and then you can use your moral indignation and outrage to smother intelligent analysis. Terrorists do what they do because they are in the terrorism business — it’s in their blood.

So, when Tzipi Livni calls her parents freedom fighters, I have no problem with that — she is alluding to what they believed they were fighting for rather than the methods they employed. Moreover, by calling people who planted bombs and blew up civilians in the pursuit of their political goals, “freedom fighters,” Livni makes it clear that she understands that “terrorism” is a subjective term employed for an effect.

When Ehud Barak a few years ago acknowledged that had he been raised a Palestinian he too would have joined one of the so-called terrorist organizations, he was not describing an extraordinary epiphany he had gone through in recognizing the plight of the Palestinians. He was merely being candid about parallels between groups such as the Irgun and Hamas — parallels that many Israelis see but less often voice.

The big issue is not whether the methods employed by Zionist groups such as the Irgun could be justified but whether the political goals these groups were fighting for were legitimate. Zionism would not have acquired more legitimacy if it had simply found non-violent means through which it could accomplish its goal of driving much of the non-Jewish population out of Palestine.

We live in an era in which “terrorism” — as a phenomenon to be opposed — has become the primary bulwark through which Zionism defends itself from scrutiny. Keep on playing the terrorist-naming game and the Zionists win.

213 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    June 28, 2010, 4:07 pm

    Terrorism is definable as both means and relationship to existing power.

    Revolutionary in intent, and directed at civilians.

    Not so tough. Still real. If you regard the power as oppressive power then you call your terrorism “resistance”. If you regard the power as legitimate, then the terrorism is called criminal or terrorism.

    It becomes circular reasoning. You haven’t made it less so.

    • Shingo
      June 28, 2010, 9:27 pm

      Terrorism is definable as both means and relationship to existing power.”

      Where did that definition come from Witty?  Isn’t this the  latest made up statement you pulled out of your ass?

      “Revolutionary in intent, and directed at civilians.”

      Yeah, a bit like a siege, a blockade or a raid right Witty?

      “If you regard the power as oppressive power then you call your terrorism “resistance”.”

      Witty would clearly have sided with the Nazi against the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII.  According to Witty’s logic here, the Jews clearly were terrorists.
      “It becomes circular reasoning.”

      As is always the case, Witty’s the one travelling in cicles while accusing every one else of not walking a straight line.

    • demize
      June 29, 2010, 1:18 am

      Thank you for you didacticism.

      • demize
        June 29, 2010, 1:20 am

        That was me furiously banging my head on the table.

  2. potsherd
    June 28, 2010, 4:28 pm

    iirc, the “war on terror” was officially declared by the Clinton administration, although there is no doubt Bush ran with it, following the neocon lead.

  3. radii
    June 28, 2010, 4:38 pm

    scrutiny of zionism and its motives is an act of terror – didn’t you know?

  4. Oscar
    June 28, 2010, 4:47 pm

    The War on Terror required a series of key soundbites to sell it to the American populace. “They hate us for our freedoms,” is probably the among the most despisable six-word phrase imaginable, an intellectually dishonest catchphrase that captured the sheeple in the flyover states.
    “Axis of evil.”
    “Nigerian yellowcake.”
    “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.”
    “Threat level orange.”
    “If you see something, say something.”
    “Shock and awe.”
    “Misson accomplished.”
    “Surge.”
    And . . . “there’s no daylight between the Israeli and American positions.”
    “We have an unbreakable bond.”
    “We have an unshakable bond.”
    “The only democracy in the region.”
    “Our only friend and strategic ally in the region.”
    And so it goes.

  5. ehrens
    June 28, 2010, 5:00 pm

    The Jacobins used terror to control real or imagined political intrigues after they became the state. Weber described the “Gewaltmonopol des Staates” (state monopoly on terror). Americans once used it to gain national sovereignty but now use it to thwart others’ national sovereignty. We have plenty of theoretical and practical examples of terror used as a tactic for some higher (assuming one is not a pacifist) purpose. Waving the word “terror” in front of our eyes is supposed to dazzle the senses and make us forget why it is used, often as a last resort. Which by the way is still in our own Declaration of Independence: “… whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

  6. Leper Colonialist
    June 28, 2010, 5:01 pm

    “Skepticism”

    “Critical Scrutiny”

    “Wariness”

    Why are those not the watchwords for concerned American citizens to evaluate the direction and worth of the American-Israeli relationship?

    Axis of Absurdity/Axis of Asininity – when the American-Israeli relationship is less than a positive for the USA side. Or simply defies any commensensical notions of balance, honesty, fair play, even-handedness, self-interest and other non-extinct notions on the USA side of the foreign policy ledger.

  7. Avi
    June 28, 2010, 5:02 pm

    According to Fox News and The History Channel — owned by News Corp. and the Hearst Corporation, respectively — Arabs and Muslims have the market cornered on terrorism, from the Munich Olympics to Times Square……Just be sure to forget the IRS plane crasher; that’s not terrorism.

    The gullible and racist western masses continue to believe, with great conviction, that there were WMD in Iraq and that there is a terrorist under every bed. Be sure to ask mommy or daddy to check the closet, too.

    • potsherd
      June 28, 2010, 6:19 pm

      In the terrorist heyday of the 1970s, Arab/Muslims were an anomaly.

      The IRA

      The Baader-Meinhoff gang.

      The ETA

      The Sendero Luminoso

      It was neocon propaganda that slapped the tag on the Palestinians.

      • RoHa
        June 29, 2010, 6:25 am

        I’m old enough to remember these terrorists:

        Mau Mau

        Eoka

        Croatian Ustasha terrorists in Australia

        Communist guerillas/terrorists in Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam

        OAS

        ANC

      • Richard Witty
        June 29, 2010, 7:01 am

        You don’t consider massacre of Olympic athletes as terrorism, hijacking and bombing commercial civilian airliners?

      • Avi
        June 29, 2010, 5:29 pm

        I guess I’ll go ahead and add “Reading Comprehension” to the growing list of things you need to work on. Stick to numbers and tables, that’s what you’re good at, allegedly.

  8. lareineblanche
    June 28, 2010, 5:29 pm

    “Terrorism” is the primary bulwark through which Zionism defends itself from scrutiny

    Bingo. And the United States. From the moment you define your enemies as “terrorists”, anything goes.

  9. lysias
    June 28, 2010, 6:03 pm

    For Vichy and Nazi propaganda, the Resistance was made up of terrorists.

    For Nazi propaganda, Allied airmen were Terrorflieger.

  10. JewishAnarchist
    June 28, 2010, 6:34 pm

    In the new (August 2010) issue of The American Conservative: Sinking Ship: The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself.

    • Mooser
      June 28, 2010, 11:51 pm

      Nice Jewish boys don’t become anarchists.

      • Saleema
        June 29, 2010, 3:37 am

        I met a very nice Jewish Israeli anarchist last year, a former IDF. Got shot in the legs a couple of times, now that he’s on the other side protesting with Palestinians.

        He was here to raise funds for his organization. They are set to tour the US again. Hopefully, they can make it out to Houston again.

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 29, 2010, 3:39 am

        AATW – Anarchists against the wall –
        link to awalls.org

      • Mooser
        June 29, 2010, 9:36 am

        “I met a very nice Jewish Israeli anarchist last year,”

        Another thing my mother told me (Nice Jewish boys don’t…) turns out to be false. If I had known anarchism wouldn’t conflict with Judaism, I would have joined them years ago!
        I wish Mom had been a little more straightforward.

  11. Psychopathic god
    June 28, 2010, 7:04 pm

    He was merely being candid about parallels between groups such as the Irgun and Hamas — parallels that many Israelis see but less often voice.

    As often as Israelis point to Hamas’ charter as dispositive of Hamas’ terrorist character, do Israelis acknowledge that Jabotinsky wrote the doctrine under which Irgun functioned in 1948, and under which Netanyahu functions today?

  12. hophmi
    June 28, 2010, 7:29 pm

    Hey, I agree. Call Hamas suicide bombers whatever you want to call them and pretend that it’s a great thing that people blow up pizza parlors and buses. Either way, I don’t care, as long as Israel kills or arrests the people responsible and puts them away.

    What reviles people about terror is not the linguistics. It’s the act.

    • Cliff
      June 28, 2010, 7:46 pm

      The point of the article is fear-mongering. The false claim of maintaining ‘security’ to mask the truth which is continuing the colonization of Palestine.

      Stop polluting this with your superficial nonsense. Do you think you’re the first Zio to ever straw man this kind of argument?

      […]

    • Shingo
      June 28, 2010, 9:36 pm

      “Hey, I agree. Call Hamas suicide bombers whatever you want to call them and pretend that it’s a great thing that people blow up pizza parlors and buses. Either way, I don’t care, as long as Israel kills or arrests the people responsible and puts them away.”

      Zionist logic: Blowing up pizza parlors and buses bad (even though Hamas stopped doing it 5 years ago) but blow up schools and hospitals is good.

      “What reviles people about terror is not the linguistics. It’s the act.”

      Unless the act is perpetrated by Israelis, in which case, it’s morally pure as the driven snow.

    • Sumud
      June 28, 2010, 11:16 pm

      “Call Hamas suicide bombers whatever you want to call them and pretend that it’s a great thing..”

      I’ll call them first and foremost history. hophmi the 2nd intifadah is over and Hamas abandoned suicide bombing as a tactic, fully 5 years ago. Exactly who (other than you) is calling suicide bombing “a great thing”?

  13. VR
    June 28, 2010, 8:11 pm

    Perhaps the best definition of what is taking place both now and in the past, repeatedly –

    “Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorizing them was the purpose.”

    NIR ROSEN – GAZA: THE LOGIC OF COLONIAL POWER

    Further, from the same article –

    “Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors.”

    My recommendation, if you have not already done so, is to read this article. Although I may not agree with every line, it comes as close as possible to my own position, and why I will NEVER come to the conclusions so sloppily embraced by a duped majority.

    • Sumud
      June 28, 2010, 11:20 pm

      VR ~ Rosen’s article really is a must read. One of the most concise looks at ‘terrorism’ I’ve read.

      • VR
        June 29, 2010, 2:02 am

        Yes Sumud, his article is like someone lifting a rock which hides vermin beneath causing it to be exposed to the light, so the real view or situation becomes plain to all who want to see what is taking place in reality. Those who veer from the view either do not know what to do, or they think there is something in the present systemic structure which will overcome the current course. The only remedy to overcoming the current course is to wipe the current dominant system off of the face of the earth.

  14. morris
    June 28, 2010, 8:26 pm

    Four telephone Interviews with Israel Shamir – from a few hours ago.

    Israel Shamir on Turkey Telephone interview 1:06
    link to youtube.com

    Shamir on Palestine after Israel by Telephone 4:03
    link to youtube.com

    Jews after Israel melts Shamir by telephone 1:47
    link to youtube.com

    Why Israel does not apologise for Mavi Massacre 1:41

  15. Donald
    June 28, 2010, 10:10 pm

    Greenwald has a good article on this today–

    link to salon.com

    His interview with Remi Brulin (linked at the article above) is also extremely interesting–Brulin has done his PhD thesis on how the word “terrorism” came to be such a central part of the American political lexicon. Briefly, it happened in Reagan’s time, but was used mainly about Central America (I’m not quite sure about that) and all the usual hypocrisy we see with the I/P conflict showed up there–the Sandinistas and the FMLN in El Salvador were “terrorists”, while the contras were “freedom fighters” and the death squads of El Salvador and the genocidal government of Guatemala were never described with the terrorist label.

    I think the word “terrorism” has a simple useful definition if used honestly–it’s the use of violence aimed at civilians to achieve a political goal. Period. In the Greenwald/Brulin interview, Brulin thinks that “state terror” and “state-sponsored terror” are unnecessary terms because deliberate acts of violence aimed at civilians by governments are already illegal under international law but called other things (presumably war crimes and crimes against humanity). But I don’t see the harm in the term, if people are morally consistent. And if they aren’t consistent, then it’s useful pointing that out.

    • VR
      June 28, 2010, 11:34 pm

      Is that so Donald? My suggestion is that the use of the word “terror” did not pop into the American lexicon but had been in use for many years. In fact, King George called the Revolutionary war of the colonies “terror.” The word itself arose in any resistance to the power of the status quo which pushed itself violently against any tyranny. Again, during the French Revolution the powers at the time named the rising up of the people against the tyranny of the crown formally terrorism and named the revolutionaries “terrorists.” Yet it was never used in the assassinations promulgated by the crown, or the tried intimidation against the oppressed people who posed a revolutionary answer. Any move presently against nation-states is now called terror, the only thing present nations did was to don the use of the phrase terrorism in the same manner that oppressive crown tyranny did previously. The canned phrase of terrorism is used to stop any movement dead in its tracks, and was by no mistake applied to the people in the late use of the Patriot Act and has been couched for years in the vow of protecting the nation from all threats both foreign and domestic.

      So why is that the case, why has the nation-state just rubber stamped the same placard against the people and broadened the definition of the word terrorism to the present form? It is because the nation-state, in most instances in nothing but a franchise of the elite, and men merely hide behind another phrase “the rule of law” as if the law(s) do not spring from men and protect dominant interest of those in power.

      There has been this confounding of the nation-state and the people, as if when the “national interest” is voiced that this means the people. However, the rise of the word terrorism has always been used by the powerful against the weak, and is meant to cripple the will of any people rising to protect themselves from the few.

      My recommendation is with all respect to Remi Brulin is too narrow and bifurcates the historic use of the accusation of terrorism from the past (by merely applying it to American discourse, which did not arise from a void) and its use by the powerful for centuries, even though he accentuates the “double standard” in current use. So quite frankly, those in power know exactly what they are doing, and it is the same that both kingdoms and feudalism used to protect its interest, no matter how destructive to the people both foreign and domestic. In other words “Latin America” is a nice guess for the ignorant and those with ulterior motives, if they place its use during the Reagan years or from Israel’s use of the word. In fact, the use of nation-states regarding the accusation of terrorism is the carbon copy of what has taken place for centuries, in times of war and colonialism, whenever a people either foreign or domestic are being deprived of their rights. While I say this, I do not deny what Mr. Brulin says in his area of concentration, it is quite truncated.

      Nations band together because they have the same elite interest, especially those of dominant power Donald, so to think that referring to “war crimes and crimes against humanity” does anything of consequence to “favored” (powerful and dominant nations) nations? The answer should be very simple for you – can you remember in recent history any favored nation of European extract or to use a broader identifier Western Nation (outside of Germany and its allies who were prosecuted, and that because they turned that power against the supposed privileged powerful in-group, and for no other reason were they prosecuted)? When has that law of war crimes and crimes against humanity been used against any but weaker nations which have been monopolized out of these favored nations? I think you know the answer, and the answer is in the one sided application, and the application is one sided because the “laws” are meant to do nothing but to protect the powerful few. So, an argument from laws which are nothing but moot points and no universal application, are no laws at all.

      • VR
        June 28, 2010, 11:39 pm

        Ergo, Mr. Rosen’s definitions in his article still stand, period.

      • Donald
        June 28, 2010, 11:54 pm

        Yeah, I know or have read that the words “terror” and “terrorist” go back to the French Revolution–I hadn’t heard that King George used the term. I don’t think it contradicts Brulin’s thesis to point out that the word has had many mostly cynical uses over the past couple hundred years. He was taking a narrower perspective, just examining how it has been used in American politics and where it took off and his thesis mostly matches my own memory–it started with the Reagan administration and of course they used it hypocritically.

        Agreed about who actually gets punished for war crimes–that doesn’t mean the concept itself is meaningless. We spent a fair amount of time here talking about the Goldstone report and Israeli war crimes in Gaza and other places, while understanding that Israeli officials are, as Westerners, highly unlikely to face charges. It would set a bad precedent as far as Western governments are concerned.

      • VR
        June 29, 2010, 12:09 am

        “It would set a bad precedent as far as Western governments are concerned.”

        A precedent it may be, but it is more than a precedent because this implies that other use may be made but has not been made. The very structure and application since its inception speaks quite plainly, and even the form of world government in the Security Council protects this application without question. In fact systemically it works quite well for which it was designed, and that is why there is no other precedent nor one on the near horizon.

        There was one egregious flaw in Mr. Goldstone’s Report, as good as it was – that is when the plea for Israel to examine itself was made. That plea was made because Mr. Goldstone is a realist, and he knows that the application of the legal apparatus against Israel is possible as much as it would be possible against the USA (and should have been invoked in the recent wars of aggression) – nil.

  16. hayate
    June 28, 2010, 11:24 pm

    “Despite the efforts of Irgun leaders to restrict knowledge of the target and timing of Operation Chick, there were numerous other leaks. Leaders in both the Haganah and Stern Gang knew about the operation. Friends warned friends. The King David had an extraordinary number of last-minute room cancellations. In the Secretariat [the King David’s south wing that housed the headquarters of the British government in Palestine], more than the usual number of Jewish typists and clerks called in sick.”

    Hmmmmm……Were not some people at the world trade center warned not to come to work the morning of that attack?

    • hophmi
      June 28, 2010, 11:43 pm

      No hayate, nobody in the WTC had advanced notice. Stop reading Egyptian newspapers.

    • Avi
      June 29, 2010, 3:03 am

      A few employees received text messages warning of the attacks two hours prior.

      link to haaretz.com

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 29, 2010, 3:37 am

        Bizarre!

      • hayate
        June 29, 2010, 9:21 pm

        Avi

        Besides the employees (apparently Jewish) of one or two firms in the wtc, there were 5 israeli employees of an israeli owned moving who set up in a parking lot across the river to film and record the attacks – before the attacks took place. They got busted after and were exposed as mossad/military intelligence personnel, and their “employer”, the owner of the moving company (which was discovered to be a mossad front company) absconded back to israel, before he could be rounded up.

        Then there was several million $ worth of put options on several of the air lines and companies hoiused in the wtc, companies that obviously would see their stock crash after the attack. An operation with a distinctive goldman-sacks like stink to it, though not necessarily one of their many crimes.

  17. Richard Witty
    June 29, 2010, 1:55 am

    The Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorist and were punished for it. Most of their members spent long times in prison, if not shot.

    They shifted when they RENOUNCED their militias and joined the electoral process only.

    In that light, Hezbollah is still terrorist (directed at Lebanon now, more than at Israel), Hamas is still terrorist, even Fatah is (if one considers Al Aqsa Martyrs as directly associated).

    They are still in “armed resistance” (even in Lebanon).

    The application of the definition is still a workable one.

    • Donald
      June 29, 2010, 12:47 pm

      “The Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorist and were punished for it. ”

      So was Haganah.

      “In that light, Hezbollah is still terrorist (directed at Lebanon now, more than at Israel), Hamas is still terrorist, even Fatah is ”

      So is the IDF.

    • potsherd
      June 29, 2010, 1:04 pm

      “Armed resistance” does NOT define “terrorism”. Armed resistance is a legal and protected activity.

      • Donald
        June 29, 2010, 1:10 pm

        That’s a good point–I should have caught that too.

      • Richard Witty
        June 29, 2010, 7:52 pm

        Its a fantasy that “armed resistance” as you are referring to here, is a legal and protected activity.

      • potsherd
        June 29, 2010, 8:08 pm

        It is a fantasy of yours in which the Geneva Conventions do not exist – as Israel surely would prefer.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 8:30 pm

        Under the Geneva Conventions and international law, resistance to occupation is legal.

        I know how you despise international law and human rights Witty, but facts are facts.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 8:32 pm

        So it turns out that Witty is not only a rascis fascist, but an advocate for tyrrany and totalitarianism.

        It just keeps getting better and better.

      • Chaos4700
        June 29, 2010, 8:45 pm

        That’s a good rule of thumb. Anything Witty accuses us of indulging in, he’s the actual proponent for. Hezbollah — a resistance movement that sprang from years of grueling Israeli occupation — is “fascist,” whereas the state of Israel which routinely confiscates land and doles it out via corporate interests, isn’t.

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 29, 2010, 8:51 pm

        Witty, stop it!

        “Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination. One can hardly argue that Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian land, the fully-fledged apartheid regime it instituted in the Occupied Territories, the flagrant violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the seizure of the land, the destruction of property, and most importantly, the refusal to honour nearly 70 United Nations Resolutions amid daily killings and assassinations of Palestinians (acts recognised by the Convention and by leading human rights groups as war crimes), qualifies Palestinians, as it always has, to fight back using armed struggle.
        This is not an attempt to promulgate the idea of violent resistance, but an attempt to reconstruct, even briefly, the argument that the Palestinian people’s struggle, including armed struggle, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are defended and protected under international law. In fact, “all states (are encouraged) to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories.”
        link to nthposition.com

      • hophmi
        June 29, 2010, 9:15 pm

        This is tiresome nonsense. The right to armed struggle does not include the right to target civilians. Armed struggle does not include bombing buses. It does not include blowing up pizza parlours, discotechs, and Passover Seders. No one denies a Palestinian right to armed struggle. The exercise of that right has consequences, and the right has limits.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 10:30 pm

        “The right to armed struggle does not include the right to target civilians.”

        True, but there is no right to occupation and to target civilians.

        “Armed struggle does not include bombing buses.”

        When was the last bus bombed?  The only buses being bombed are in Gaza and Lebanon.

        “It does not include blowing up pizza parlours, discotechs, and Passover Seders.”

        The only pizza parlours being bombed are in Gaza and Lebanon.

        “No one denies a Palestinian right to armed struggle.”

        Witty does.

        “The exercise of that right has consequences, and the right has limits.”

        You wouldn’t be advocating proportionality by any chance?

      • Sumud
        June 29, 2010, 11:09 pm

        ” No one denies a Palestinian right to armed struggle.”

        Uhh, hophmi, scroll up. Someone does – Mondoweiss’ very own Mark Regev.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 3:27 am

        Quite right! And the right to “self-defence” does not include the right to bomb hospitals, schools, medical centres, ambulances, civilian homes indiscriminately; or to attack civilian vessels in international waters and execute unarmed civilians; or to execute Palestinian civilians in cold blood for stone-throwing; or to deliberately hold up ambulances at checkpoints with pregnant women about to give birth; or to steal Palestinian land and water for Jewish supremicist settlers; or to beat-up and humiliate Palestinians and steal their belongings during home invasions; or to inflict an apartheid state on land that belongs to another people; etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. You tell them Mr Morality!

        PS: Hopmi don’t complain about somebody else’s body odour when you are up to your eyeballs in faeces and urine. The stench of your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 6:21 am

        The right to self-defense allows the targeting of military targets. When a school is used by Hamas gunmen, it’s a military target. When an ambulance is used to transport weapons, it’s a military target. When a civilian vessel attempts to run a blockade, it may be militarily confronted.

        The stench of the hypocrisy of the vast majority of people commenting here far outweighs my own.

      • demize
        June 30, 2010, 12:43 pm

        Even if that where true, which I’m not at all convinced it is, you’re conviently ommitting The Law of Proportionality. Example: Cop Killer runs into building, police don’t bomb the building to arrest him. I know the Philadelphia Police Dept. bombed an entire neighborhood to eliminate MOVE but this is what scumbags do. Its not a moral act.

      • Donald
        June 30, 2010, 12:58 pm

        “The stench of the hypocrisy of the vast majority of people commenting here far outweighs my own.”

        Contestants aren’t allowed to judge themselves. Anyway, in the smell Olympics you’d have more credibility if you’d forthrightly acknowledge that Israel does sometimes hit civilian targets with no Hezbollah or Hamas or (in the old days) PLO gunmen nearby and furthermore, Israel itself uses human shields. I recently looked at an Amnesty International report on the 2006 Lebanon War. It was, as they say, fair and balanced. Hezbollah sometimes fired from positions that were close to civilians or UNIFIL, but much or most of Israel’s killing of civilians could not be excused that way.

        link to amnesty.org

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:27 pm

        If those facilities are used as a base or a source of attacks, they are legitimate military targets.

        Would you consider a pizza parlor a legitimate military target?

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:28 pm

        “‘Would you consider a pizza parlor a legitimate military target?”‘

        Apparently some IDF soliders used to get their pizzas there.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:29 pm

        No, I’m not eliminating proportionality. That’s a different discussion. We’re discussing terrorism here.

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:29 pm

        You need a brush up on history, Hezbollah was created around the same time the Israeli occupation started, there were no grueling years of occupation allowing for the birth of Hezbollah.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:30 pm

        “The stench of the hypocrisy of the vast majority of people commenting here far outweighs my own.”

        Sure Homphi.

        So when Israel is on teh receiving end of a blockade it’s an act of war.

        When comeone tries to break a blockade that Israel imposes, it’s an act of war.

        So opposing Israeli will and policy is an act of war. No hypocrisy there.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:33 pm

        Wow, at least you’re consistent in your amorality. Nevertheless, a pizza parlor does not become a military target because a soldier might walk in and get a slice of pizza anymore than a mosque become a target because a militiaman may go in to pray. If Israel is involved in homeland defense, and soldiers run into the pizza parlor and start shooting out of its windows at enemy soldiers, then yes, I’d say you might have an argument. Similarly, if militiamen take over the mosque and start shooting from it, it would lose its protected status.

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:35 pm

        Shingo, the they suck worse argument is really getting old.

        You are arguing that something is acceptable because the other side did something similar or worse. That is what got us into this mess, it is called a cycle of violence which both sides are responsible for perpetuating.

        I found your excuses for blowing up pizzerias, discos, and Passover Seders absolutely disgusting. If you can’t accept these as acts of blatant terror, then what is terror in your eyes? Can terrorism be perpetrated by anyone other than the evil Zionist regime?

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:40 pm

        Actually it’s your history that is flawed.

        Hezbollah was created when the Lebanese military fell apart and failed to resist Israel’s occupation. Young soldiers from the Lebanese military formed their own militia to take matters into their own hands.

        Hezbollah didn’t happen overnight.

        Israel killed 15,000-20.000 people, so it was certainly gruelling enough.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:52 pm

        I’m not using the they suck worst argument, you are SM.

        “You are arguing that something is acceptable because the other side did something similar or worse.”

        Yeah, you’re right. So do you accept the blockade is wrong, because there’s no point getting worke up about the rockets comming into Israel?

        BTW. A cycle fo violence implies a struggle between two equally matched sides. It’s not a cycle fo violence when a gang terrorises the ehighborhood and some of the residents try to fight back.

        “I found your excuses for blowing up pizzerias, discos, and Passover Seders absolutely disgusting”

        Too bad. I find everything about Israel and it’s supporters to be disgusting.

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 5:54 pm

        If those facilities are used as a base or a source of attacks, they are legitimate military targets.

        according to israel anyway. the dahiya doctrine was developed in israel, named for the neighborhood in beirut israel massacred, for the purpose of labeling civilian neighborhoods ‘military bases’, bib approached the UN after the gaza massacre to retroactively have the international war crimes changed to accommodate the criminal doctrine. but as far as i know the source of an attack does not allow for the bombing of civilians neighborhoods. either way there was no finding hamas used human shields and i think it’s clear to all (by invading w/100 bulldozers) israel intended to take out those neighborhoods regardless of whether they were used for attacks or not.

        Would you consider a pizza parlor a legitimate military target?

        did someone say pizza parlor? what year was that, could you get more current in your hasbara please.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:54 pm

        It’s actually worse. You are not using any argument at all. You’re just justifying the intentional murder of civilians.

        But again, at least you’re honest about it.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:57 pm

        Who cares what year it was? We have people here going on and on about the King David hotel, and that was in 1946.

        Why don’t you just respond to my arguments, rather than using the word “hasbara” over and over again?

        Answer the question. Do you consider a pizza parlor a legit target? How about the entire town of Sderot? Hamas did and does. Do you?

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 7:02 pm

        ” Who cares what year it was?  We have people here going on and on about the King David hotel, and that was in 1946.”

        The difference being that Hamas declared an end to terrorist Ataturk stopped carrying then out whereas Israel has been carrying them out since 1948.

        “Answer the question.  Do you consider a pizza parlor a legit target?  How about the entire town of Sderot?  Hamas did and does.  Do you?”

        Do you consider hospitals,police stations, eater treatment facilities  an schools to be legit targets?  Hwo abotu the city fo Gaza city?  Isrel did and does. Do you?

        “The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
        Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz. )

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 7:07 pm

        “The difference being that Hamas declared an end to terrorist Ataturk stopped carrying then out whereas Israel has been carrying them out since 1948.”

        Oooh. Hamas declared an end. And the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.

        “Do you consider hospitals,police stations, eater treatment facilities an schools to be legit targets? Hwo abotu the city fo Gaza city? Isrel did and does. Do you?”

        Which hospitals were deliberately attacked in Gaza?

        Infrastructure facilities are often attacked during war; the US attacked them in Serbia and Iraq. Again, non-targets like schools and police stations can become targets if they are used for military purposes.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 7:30 pm

        “One thing we know for sure: when Hamas bombed the Sbarro’s, it was not done because it was a military target.”

        Can you guarantee there weer no military personnel there at the time, or former conscripted personnel who were not involved in the occupation or killing of Palestinians?

        If not, then you have to assume it was a military target.  That’s Israelis rules, so you can’t complain.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 7:38 pm

        “Can you guarantee there weer no military personnel there at the time, or former conscripted personnel who were not involved in the occupation or killing of Palestinians?

        If not, then you have to assume it was a military target. That’s Israelis rules, so you can’t complain.”

        As I explained above, the presence of military personnel in a pizza place does not make it a terrorist target. As I asked above, I have no idea why you would cover for Hamas, since Hamas made clear why Sbarro’s was blown up.

        Hamas claimed at the time it was in response to Israel’s assassination of Hamas MILITANTS, not civilians.

        A year after the attack, Palestinian students at Al-Najah University reconstructed the scene of the bombing, featuring furniture splattered with fake blood and body parts.

        link to www2.ljworld.com

        That was so sick that Arafat shut it down.

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:07 pm

        the KD was just in the news when the reporter got all nostalgic for the good old days of myth and freedom fighters.

        you guys have been humping that pizza parlor like it was as frequent as knocking off gazan farmers. how’d you like it if i asked you 5 times a day for a year what you thought of blowing up families having picnics on the beach of gaza? do you know how often i hear about that pizza parlor? you feel like comparing civilian casualty notes? shall we see what percentage of dead israelis that pizza parlor represents or are dead israeli pizza eaters worth more in terms of value than dead palestinians? are we supposed to cringe everytime you say pizza? what about the palestinians who get shot in the face at close range. what about the two brothers w/their rakes who witness said were alive until they weren’t, w/bullets in their brains or the father gunned down in bethlehem last week.

        we all got stories. maybe if you wouldn’t say pizza parlor so often i would forget you’re humping a 10 year old crime. try to update on your atrocities, if you can that is. i already answered that question 136 times in 2004, 72 times in 2005, 163 times in 06, 78 tmes in 07, 51 in 08, 29 times in…you catch my drift? i’m not your monkey any more. you say pizza and i say update.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 8:24 pm

        Not humping the pizza parlor. Just using it as one example. If you like, I’ll hump the discotech.

        Or the Passover Seder at the hotel in Netanya.
        Or Mike’s Place.
        Or Egged Line (you fill in the number).
        Or Machane Yehuda.

        Or any rocket lobbed at Sderot in past few years. Every single one of the thousands of rockets launched is a terrorist act because the targets were civilians. Same goes for Hizbullah rockets in the North. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if there were only a few casualties. They are terrorist acts nonetheless, and Israel has every right to respond to them.

        You hear about the pizza parlor because out of the 15 casualties, 7 were kids. And remember, a guy walked into the parlor, saw all these kids, and then blew himself up, using a bomb full of nails and other things meant to inflict maximum damage.

        And the next year, people at Al-Hajah U reconstructed it.

        As I said many times, the weaker side will always have higher civilian casualty rates. A civilian casualty rate means little to me. Had Hamas successfully pulled off the Pi Gligot bombing, or the Azraeli Towers bombing, the rates would be closer. It is not Hamas’s morality that has led to less Israeli casualties. It is because for every successful bombing, Israel stopped several. And after several generations of Hamas leadership were assassinated, Hamas began to think more carefully about its strategy. Thus, by 2003, 2004, suicide bombing was way down.

        I wouldn’t bring any of this up, of course, if people here acknowledged Israeli suffering and called for an equitable solution. But most of you are one-sided and callous, so I have to. I acknowledge Palestinian suffering and I acknowledge that it’s worse than Israeli suffering, even if I disagree with you on the reasons why. I don’t understand why you people can’t acknowledge that Israeli suffering exists.

      • demize
        June 30, 2010, 8:25 pm

        NICE!

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:29 pm

        thanks demize!

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:49 pm

        if people here acknowledged Israeli suffering

        could you give me an example of how israelis suffered this week or this month. i’d like to hone in on a current timeframe so we can appropriately deal w/the equitable factor you brought up. and btw, i do know and acknoledge there have been israelis who have suffered during this conflict (outside of the kind of mental anguish that goes along w/being a perpetual victim no matter what, this israeli affliction is also acknowledged but i’m referencing the less frequent REAL suffering as opposed to the other kinds, especially the kind that can be avoided like for example just moving your family out of harms way, something palestinians can’t do unless they leave their homeland unlike residents of serdot) so let’s review all the suffering that took place by israelis this week.

        shall we start w/ the burden of manning checkpoints?
        how about skipping the oppotunity of spending the night at your lovers because you have to go invade some palestinian home at 2 am to drag their teenage son’s off to administrative detention?

        did some settlers suffer smoke inhalation from burning palestinian land?

        enlighten us. we can call it a day in the life of suffering israelis.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 9:04 pm

        You can keep repeating that the world is flat or that these civilian targets were used by gunmen in Gaza until you’re blue in the face despite their being no evidence whatsoever to back you up. You are incorrectly assuming that a) your opinion is relevant and b) everybody is as thick as you are.

        However, factually speaking members of the IDF use public transport in Israel all the time and they visit pizzerias and other civilian outlets all the time. So by your logic it is quite ok then to bomb these targets and this will no longer be considered acts of “terrorism”. So glad that is finally sorted out. Of course this is assuming that you a) have a few cognitive neurons still functioning and b) are not a boring and vacuous hypocrite. “Gas mask alert” the stench of hypocrisy is threatening the oxygen supply.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 9:11 pm

        The IDF told foreign correspondents during Operation Cast Lead that if “they even assumed there was a gunman inside a civilian home they would target it. First with a missile then a couple of shells and then bulldoze it.” I’m very glad that hopmi and co sorted out the fact of why the gunman was actually in the home i.e. had he stepped in for a slice of pizza or perhaps a felafel sandwich then obviously the IDF would never have targeted the home. Do you really think everybody is as stupid as you are and that your bullshit persuades anybody?

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:19 pm

        “Oooh.  Hamas declared an end.  And the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.”

        Yes, Hamas declared and end and lo and behold, the stopped doing it. 

        “Which hospitals were deliberately attacked in Gaza?”
         
        “Infrastructure facilities are often attacked during war; the US attacked them in Serbia and Iraq.”

        It’s still a war crime.

        “Again, non-targets like schools and police stations can become targets if they are used for military purposes.”

        I’m sure pizza parlors are used for military purposes too.  No doubt the IDF order pizza, and according to Israel, pasta is a WMD, ergo pizza parlors are legitimate targets.

      • Donald
        June 30, 2010, 9:23 pm

        ” I acknowledge Palestinian suffering and I acknowledge that it’s worse than Israeli suffering, even if I disagree with you on the reasons why. I don’t understand why you people can’t acknowledge that Israeli suffering exists.”

        It’s that phrase “even if I disagree with you on the reasons why” that sounds like some apologetics are lurking somewhere in the vicinity, waiting to be trotted out.

        How about this–as in virtually every war involving ethnic cleansing and land theft that I’ve ever heard about, the weaker side employed terrorist tactics.
        Native Americans, for instance, were what we would now call terrorists. I don’t defend this as legitimate–it’s just a fact.

        And on the Western side, there’s a lot of apparently sincere outrage over the savagery of their primitive irrational opponents, even as they commit larger scale atrocities and continue to take land. It’s a pattern that is centuries old–if you read honest accounts of the history of 17th century Massachusetts you will feel right at home switching over to honest accounts of the I/P conflict. Try Francis Jenning’s book “The Invasion of America” or the more recent Nathaniel Philbrick book about the Mayflower or
        “Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building”. That last one is a history of American rationalization of Indian-killing and it all sounds very familiar once one starts reading the sort of Israel defenses one commonly sees in the US.

    • Shingo
      June 29, 2010, 4:43 pm

      “The Irgun and Stern Gang were terrorist and were punished for it. ”

      Yeah, the leaders were elected to the highest office in the land.

      Some punishment.

      • Richard Witty
        June 29, 2010, 4:51 pm

        They were in jail, some tortured, some killed.

        Don’t you read?

        WHEN they renounced their terror confidently, they were accepted as political, NOT terrorists.

        Has Hamas done so yet, or does it retain its militia?

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 6:36 pm

        It’s you that doesn’t read Witty.

        “WHEN they renounced their terror confidently, they were accepted as political, NOT terrorists.”

        False. You can’t even produce a link to substantiate they BS. 60 years after the bombing, Israel celebrated the anniversary of thr attack.

        Menachem Begin and Yotzak Shamir never renounced their terrorism. In fact, Tzipi Luvni just referred to then as feedom fighters.

        Don’t you read Witty?

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 29, 2010, 8:18 pm

        Witless Witty, you should listen to someone with wit:

        “Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich.”
        Peter Ustinov

      • Chaos4700
        June 29, 2010, 8:43 pm

        Has Hamas done so yet, or does it retain its militia?

        Before or after the ceasefire? Also, what happened to Haganah? Were they disbanded, Witty?

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 29, 2010, 8:55 pm

        “They were in jail, some tortured, some killed.”
        I doubt very much what you say. A link would be welcome thank you.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 9:08 pm

        “I doubt very much what you say. A link would be welcome thank you.”

        Don’t hold your breath.  Witty is renowned for making this shit up and the claiming that he read it somewhere but can’t find the source.

      • potsherd
        June 29, 2010, 9:11 pm

        Witty makes stuff up.

      • hophmi
        June 29, 2010, 9:25 pm

        Terrorists can be freedom fighters. I think we all know that, though of course, everything in the eye of the beholder. The leaders of Irgun and Lehi were not elected until 30 years after the founding of the state. Begin made peace with Egypt.

        I continue to be amused by the characterization of the King David hotel bombing as a terrorist attack. It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the British colonialist narrative.

        As far militias go: an essential characteristic of a successful state is a monopoly on the use of the force. Democracy has little to do with it, other than to say that democracy will not last very long with the existence of such a monopoly. Right now, the Palestinians are creating two separate states, one in Gaza, and one in the West Bank.

      • hayate
        June 29, 2010, 9:27 pm

        Stern and the rest of of those terrorists are regarded as heroes in israel. Nobody of those various zionist terrorist groups were ever punished by israel. At least not for their terrorism, being israelis, they naturally committed many other crimes…..

      • hophmi
        June 29, 2010, 9:29 pm

        And when Palestine becomes a state, who do you think the heroes will be?

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 10:27 pm

        “The leaders of Irgun and Lehi were not elected until 30 years after the founding of the state.”

        So there’s a statute of limitations on terrorism and mass murder>?

        “Begin made peace with Egypt.”

        Begin was dragged kicking and screaming.

        “I continue to be amused by the characterization of the King David hotel bombing as a terrorist attack.  It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the British colonialist narrative.”

        I continue to be amused by the characterization of the blowing up of busses, pizza palors, discos and cafes as terrorist attacks.  It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the Zionist colonialist narrative.

        “As far militias go: an essential characteristic of a successful state is a monopoly on the use of the force. ”

        “Right now, the Palestinians are creating two separate states, one in Gaza, and one in the West Bank.”

        Correction:  Right now, the Israelis are trying to drive a wedge between Gaza and the West Bank.

      • Chaos4700
        June 30, 2010, 3:08 am

        I continue to be amused by the characterization of the King David hotel bombing as a terrorist attack. It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the British colonialist narrative.

        As opposed to the European Jewish colonialist narrative? Gee, yeah, I can’t imagine how a squad of men rushing in disguised as hotel workers, planting bombs in a hotel and killing scores of civilians could possibly be characterized as terrorism. That’s like characterizing what happened in Mumbai last year as terrorism! How silly, eh?

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 6:29 am

        “So there’s a statute of limitations on terrorism and mass murder>?”

        When the Palestinians elect former terrorists like Marwan Barghouti to high office in the future, will you sing the same tune? And I guarantee it will be a lot less than 30 years.

        “Begin was dragged kicking and screaming.”

        Begin still signed the agreement and the peace has held ever since. And none of it would have happened had Israel not proved itself impossible for Egypt to overcome militarily.

        “I continue to be amused by the characterization of the blowing up of busses, pizza palors, discos and cafes as terrorist attacks. It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the Zionist colonialist narrative.”

        Well, Shingo, every definition of terrorism defines such attacks as terrorism, across the political spectrum. By contrast, the King David hotel attack was an attack on a military headquarters, and defining it as terrorism is rather silly in my opinion.

        If you can’t admit that killing small children in a pizza parlour is a terrorist attack, then you really should never talk about anyone else’s morality ever again.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 12:47 pm

        It was a military headquarters. If a country were at war with the US, would you consider the Pentagon a legal target?

        How is this comparable to Mumbai? Every target in Mumbai was a clearly civilian target; the targets were hotels, cafes, and a Chabad.

      • demize
        June 30, 2010, 3:26 pm

        The Pentegon is THE Military target. But, it isn’t also a Hotel.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 4:04 pm

        Neither is the King David, when it’s being used as a military HQ.

        Why do you think they blew up the Southern Wing? That’s where the British offices were.

        If you want to distinguish this bombing from Hamas’s own strategy, it’s easy. Hamas would have bombed the whole hotel, and they wouldn’t have warned anyone beforehand.

        I don’t dispute that the majority opinion is that it was an act of terrorism. This has mostly to do with the British; after all, there was still an Empire back then. I just don’t think it fits the definition; civilians were not the target. But many people were killed, and thus, people were shocked. That’s why I keep telling you that whether you define what Hamas does as an act of terror or not, it makes little difference, because people will focus on the casualties. Ultimately, most people care little for this academic, though dispositive, distinction between intentions and results.

        Israel suffers from the same problem; however they define what happened in Gaza, just or unjust, most observers around the world will look at the casualty count and based their conclusion on that. Similarly, though Israelis in Sderot are clearly terrorized, few around the world care because not enough people have died.

        Anyway, you can read the whole story of the King David Bombing on Wikipedia. link to en.wikipedia.org

        It’s a very interesting story. It does not seem to be disputed that everyone involved wanted minimal civilian casualties, including Begin.

      • azythos
        June 30, 2010, 4:14 pm

        “When the Palestinians elect former trrorists like Marwan Barghouti to high office in the future, will you sing the same tune?”

        But my dear boy, nobody outside of the Zionist and US Propaganda-Abteilung divides people into “terrorist / non-terrorist” along the exact same absurd lines as the Nazi occupation did. Obviously all resistance fighters are by definition “turrrrists” in the official accounts by the Reich and its pitbull. All post-war democratic governments in Europe were filled with such “terrorists”, and a good thing it was, too.

        Just as obviously, the real terrorists, i.e. those that fully fit the common man’s definition are those who commit planned mass murder on an industrial scale, like, again, the US, Israeli and late Nazi governments. Plus the goon squads whose very raison d’être is to terrorize civilian populations, steal their land, drive them from their stolen land, and cow into abject submission the ones who escape the ethnic cleansing.

        That was the only reason for the foundation of the Stern gang and the Haganah and Irgun and every other band of inhuman murderers, like of course the I”D”F, the organization that all of them nicely flowed into. So there is nothing abnormal in the fact that a state entity founded with the express purpose of committing terrorism should elect a terrorist to its head.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 4:32 pm

        “But my dear boy, nobody outside of the Zionist and US Propaganda-Abteilung divides people into “terrorist / non-terrorist” along the exact same absurd lines as the Nazi occupation did. Obviously all resistance fighters are by definition “turrrrists” in the official accounts by the Reich and its pitbull. All post-war democratic governments in Europe were filled with such “terrorists”, and a good thing it was, too.”

        What are you talking about, exactly? No one says all “resistance fighters” are terrorists. I’m applying a simple definition of a terrorist act. It’s a violent act that purposely targets civilians. I think most of the world accepts that Hamas’s acts inside Israel, ie bus bombings and the like, are terrorist acts, including the Palestinians, whether they see them as means to an end or not.

        Speak for yourself, rather than the common man. Unless the common man (and woman) voted for you and appointed you their representative, you haven’t got the mandate.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:03 pm

        “‘When the Palestinians elect former terrorists like Marwan Barghouti to high office in the future, will you sing the same tune? “‘

        What makes him a terrorist? Becasue he killed about 500 less peopel than Sharon? So Israel’s government are terrorists? I agree.

        ”And none of it would have happened had Israel not proved itself impossible for Egypt to overcome militarily.”‘

        On the contary, it happened becasue Israel nearly lost the Yon Kippur war. It would have lost were it not for the US rushing to it’s aid.

        “By contrast, the King David hotel attack was an attack on a military headquarters, and defining it as terrorism is rather silly in my opinion.”

        The King David hotel was a civlian building that houses some British military, but many civlians, By your standard, all of Israel is a mitary target, so you’ve just justified Hamas’ attacks.

        “If you can’t admit that killing small children in a pizza parlour is a terrorist attack, then you really should never talk about anyone else’s morality ever again.”‘

        So killing small children in a pizza parlour is a terrorist attack, but killing small children in a schooll or a palyground, or just using thm for target practice is not?

        Yes, I definitely won’t be discussing morality with you.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:13 pm

        “On the contary, it happened becasue Israel nearly lost the Yon Kippur war. It would have lost were it not for the US rushing to it’s aid.”

        I’ll rely on the mainstream (and logical) view, which is that Camp David was made possible by Israeli victories over Egypt. If it were the other way around, Begin would have gone to Cairo.

        “The King David hotel was a civlian building that houses some British military, but many civlians, By your standard, all of Israel is a mitary target, so you’ve just justified Hamas’ attacks.”

        I’ve commented on the King David hotel elsewhere. The part targeted by the Irgun was the southern wing, which housed the military HQ. And I again refer you to my Pentagon example. How this position makes all of Israel a military target you haven’t made clear.

        “So killing small children in a pizza parlour is a terrorist attack, but killing small children in a schooll or a palyground, or just using thm for target practice is not?”

        Terrorism is defined by the targeting, not the casualties. These are legal concepts. You are talking about your own opinion. I’m sorry if you can’t grasp the difference.

        “Yes, I definitely won’t be discussing morality with you.”

        You’re not discussing it now, and you haven’t discussed it before.

      • MRW
        June 30, 2010, 5:45 pm

        Check the NYT morgue. It (King David) was classified as a terrorist attack at the time by all newspapers worldwide, including the NYT.

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:47 pm

        I continue to be amused by the characterization of the blowing up of busses, pizza palors, discos and cafes as terrorist attacks. It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the Zionist colonialist narrative.

        If not terrorist attacks, then what?

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:52 pm

        I’m not disputing that it was. Most defined it as a terrorist attack. It just doesn’t fit the commonly accepted definition today.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 5:53 pm

        “‘If not terrorist attacks, then what?”‘

        Tell that to Homphi who doesn’t get why the bombing of the King David Hotel was a terrorist attack.

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:59 pm

        No Shingo, I am asking you, quit the deflection bullshit.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 6:25 pm

        The King David Hotel, WAS A HOTEL.

        I know how you and all other Zionist Jews would like to have the right to kill anyone and destroy anything.

        You’re like Benny Morris, laughing at the destruction of the Gaza chicken farms.

        Just another Zionist tool.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 6:31 pm

        Who’s deflecting?

        If Israel had hit a pizza parlor, they’d be claiming it was a Hamas stronghold or was providing god to Hamas, snd therefore that the attack was self defense.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 6:36 pm

        Israel regularly murders civilians and purposefully attacks civilian infrastructure.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 6:38 pm

        And perhaps they’d be right. One thing we know for sure: when Hamas bombed the Sbarro’s, it was not done because it was a military target.

      • Danaa
        June 30, 2010, 7:03 pm

        Hophmi on the flip side:

        “If you can’t admit that killing small children in a playground or a chool is a terrorist attack, then you really should never talk about anyone else’s morality ever again.”

        And to quote Schwartzman:

        “If not terrorist attacks, then what?”

        Ergo, if you call Hamas “terrorist” then what is the IOF? the shoot-and-cry brigade? the peace corps? storm troopers? or, simply, death squads?

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 7:05 pm

        Israel has always held a monopoly on violence against civilians.

        The occupation is an act of violence against the entire Palestinian people. The notion of a Jewish State built in a region that is not predominantly Jewish implied violence, aggression, hatred, etc. etc.

        All this hysteria about Islamism, terrorism, etc. is a side-show.

        Hamas has carried out terrorist actions. That just makes them no different from Israel and the United States – but on a smaller scale.

        Israel has been terrorizing and stealing land while expelling the indigenous population at the same time, for 40+ years.

        Israel has killed 10 times the number of children and 5 times the number of civilians in general since the 2nd intifada.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 7:12 pm

        “Ergo, if you call Hamas “terrorist” then what is the IOF? the shoot-and-cry brigade? the peace corps? storm troopers? or, simply, death squads?”

        I haven’t defined any one movement as “terrorist” in a legal sense. I’ve defined specific acts as terrorist acts. Those who perpetrate them are terrorists.

        The IDF is an army. They are subject to different rules than a guerrilla militia in a non-state. That said, illegal acts committed by armies during war are usually referred to as war crimes, not terrorism. I don’t believe it possible, at least not in the current legal framework, for an army to commit terrorism.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 7:15 pm

        This just in from the most moral army in the world:

        Child Tortured, His Genitals Electrified By Israeli Interrogators

        link to imemc.org

        After beating the child, torturing him and failing to achieve a “confession”, the interrogators used electricity as a means of torture. Yet, he refused to confess to something he did not commit.

        The interrogators brought a battery, likely a car battery, and attached wires to his testis.

        One of the interrogators even told him that after they are done with him “he will never be able to become a father”.

        The interrogator then attached wires to the testis of the child who was bound to a chair, and used electricity an issue that forced the child to tell the interrogator that he “will confess to anything he wants”.

      • azythos
        June 30, 2010, 7:55 pm

        “violent act that purposely targets civilians”

        Make up your mind. Either the above is your definition, and as a result you agree that your […] Zionist entity and the US are the archterrorists, so their governments and helpers should be tried before anyone, or then you endorse the rest of the bilge you write, in which case you continue with the Nazi-style definition of terrorism (and your astonishingly crass ignorance of history.)

        [censored …]

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:14 pm

        “They were in jail, some tortured, some killed.”

        during the british mandate some were thankgodimatheist. i’ve never heard of israel executing their own terroists, they celebrate them.

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:21 pm

        Schwartzman, try not taking the segment out of context. it was used rhetorically in response to this:

        “I continue to be amused by the characterization of the King David hotel bombing as a terrorist attack. It smacks of nothing so much as the adoption of the British colonialist narrative.”

        it’s just shining a mirror on the kinds of hasbara crap we have to listen to here.

      • annie
        June 30, 2010, 8:27 pm

        No Shingo, I am asking you, quit the deflection bullshit.

        WTF schartz? whose deflecting? who’s saying king david wasn’t a terrorist attack? it’s you engaging in bullshit when you isolate shingo’s exact wording of hophmi June 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm comment in a parody of him. so go ask hops not to deflect.

        you guys are playing tag team. do you go our for beers after your shift?

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 8:28 pm

        Remind me about the part where Israel re-enacted the King David bombing complete with body parts and blood. Oh wait, that was the Palestinians and Sbarros. Sorry.

        And remind me again who the popular people in Palestine are. Salam Fayyad and Mustafa Barghouti, right? Oh wait, no, the heros are suicide bombers and children’s TV shows teach kids that blowing yourself up is cool.

        Sorry, sorry, many apologies.

        I have to listen to a lot more of your crap than you do of mine. You’re not the minority here.

      • demize
        June 30, 2010, 8:31 pm

        “One thing we know for sure: when Hamas bombed the Sbarro’s, it was not done because it was a military target.” Hunny, have you ever eaten at Sbarros?

      • demize
        June 30, 2010, 8:32 pm

        Seriously, their food’s pretty good.

      • azythos
        June 30, 2010, 8:38 pm

        “…children’s TV shows teach kids that blowing yourself up is cool.”

        Sure, better teach them that blowing up entire populations, wholesale, from the comfort of your plane or playstation is way cooler. All you feel is a bump. You can go home at five PM and collect your pay, too. Beastly.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 8:39 pm

        In fact I have, at that exact one in 2007, and I believe that was the last time I was at a Sbarros.

        It’s worth it as long as you’re any place besides New York, though I actually used to go to Sbarro all the time when I was growing up because there is one in Penn Station (though it is completely outdone by Rosa’s). In New York, it is generally an overpriced though good slice of pizza/tourist trap. I think they’re up to something like 3.50 a slice. If you dislike oily pizza, it’s not for you.

      • Donald
        June 30, 2010, 8:45 pm

        “Remind me about the part where Israel re-enacted the King David bombing complete with body parts and blood. ”

        Could I remind you instead about the people in their lawn chairs enjoying the bombing of Gaza? Of course Americans are no better–we get our warnography from CNN.

        How about those Israeli kids who scrawled the cute slogans on the artillery shells bound for Lebanon?

        link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 8:47 pm

        Any corroboration on this story, since it is nowhere besides pro-Palestinian advocacy sites?

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 8:49 pm

        “Could I remind you instead about the people in their lawn chairs enjoying the bombing of Gaza? Of course Americans are no better–we get our warnography from CNN.”

        Frankly, no, because you haven’t reminded yourself about the years of rocket attacks that preceded the war.

        “How about those Israeli kids who scrawled the cute slogans on the artillery shells bound for Lebanon?”

        Yeah, sure, you can remind of that. It’s an isolated incident. Hamas TV shows are the norm.

      • Donald
        June 30, 2010, 8:53 pm

        BTW, what’s at issue here? I’ll agree (I always have) that various Palestinian groups (and others if we include Hezbollah and Lebanon in the discussion) have deliberately killed civilians. It’s also clear (whether people on the Zionist side will agree or not) that the IDF does the same and it has done so on a larger scale. The human rights groups speak of indiscriminate fire, but when that happens over and over again it’s plain old murder. As for the human shield or military target excuse, there are occasions when it might be valid, but most of the time it’s not. And Israel uses human shields too.

        Both sides have committed war crimes. But the Israeli side is the one with its boot on the Palestinian neck and it is the aggressor.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 8:57 pm

        Israel still kills 5 times as many civilians and 10 times as many children. Israel is the one building Jewish only colonies on someone else’s land. Israel just recently butchered 1400 people in 22 days. Israel recently killed 9 activists in international waters.

        Israel is colonizing and stealing land. Etc. etc. etc.

        The IDF regularly gets away w/ murder and in Israel, serving in the IDF is mandatory. People worship the military.

        Israelis make make slogans out of butchering Arabs and Muslims. They print that hate on t-shirts. Oh and the government subsidizes the Jewish only colonies.

        This is a colonial conflict. The violence committed by the weaker party (and the victims) pales in comparison to the fascists who STOLE the land from the indigenous population.

        No amount of Jewish victimhood you try to shove down people’s throats, will change the truth, Zionist.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 9:03 pm

        If an army or member of an army (soldier) cannot become a terrorist then they cannot commit terrorist acts?

        And thus, avoid being labeled ‘terrorists’ – by your logic.

        Anyways, it doesn’t matter. If the only thing preventing one from calling someone a terrorist, if they’ve committed a terroristic action, is that they are part of an official army – then clearly, the usage of this word is to demonize non-State actors. Specifically put to use by the status quo, like Israel and the United States.

        It’s a way to separate the violence committed by the Establishment and then the lesser beings (Hamas and by relation, Palestinians).

        So Israel cannot be labeled terroristic on account that they are a State. Except, when the label is used it’s used to demonize and marginalize.

        Right now, Zionist politicians are trying to block passengers from the MM based on the logic that they were ‘associated’ w/ the terrorist IHH group or something like that.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:22 pm

        “Remind me about the part where Israel re-enacted the King David bombing complete with body parts and blood.  Oh wait, that was the Palestinians and Sbarros.  Sorry.”

        Re-enacted as in holding a national celebration, attended by the elected leader 60 years after the fact?

        “And remind me again who the popular people in Palestine are.  Salam Fayyad and Mustafa Barghouti, right?”

        Yes, one is a corrupt Israeli puppet and the other one is not.  One was allowed to run in the last Palestinians elections, while the other was was beaten 8 times and arrested by Israel so that he couldn’t participate.

        “Oh wait, no, the heros are suicide bombers and children’s TV shows teach kids that blowing yourself up is cool.”

        As opposed to teaching children to write little poems and messages on 500lb bombs about to be dropped on other chidlren.

        “I have to listen to a lot more of your crap than you do of mine.  You’re not the minority here.”

        That’s becasue Israel tends to produce a lot more crap.  Deal with it.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 9:31 pm

        “Re-enacted as in holding a national celebration, attended by the elected leader 60 years after the fact?”

        Thank you, o great defender of the British Empire.

        So they re-enacted it with body parts and blood, you say?

        “Yes, one is a corrupt Israeli puppet and the other one is not. One was allowed to run in the last Palestinians elections, while the other was was beaten 8 times and arrested by Israel so that he couldn’t participate.”

        So you concede my point that the heroes in Palestine are the suicide bombers. Mustafa was polling at a few percentage points, Shingo.

        “As opposed to teaching children to write little poems and messages on 500lb bombs about to be dropped on other chidlren.”

        If you can provide evidence that this was a widespread practice outside of the few photographs that circulated on the net, I’ll concede your point. It was an isolated incident. Suicide bomber children’s shows are not.

        ” Deal with it.”

        LOL. You deal with it.

      • Sumud
        July 1, 2010, 12:18 am

        hophmi what is your fixation w/ suicide bombing? It’s a tactic that was abandoned 5 years ago by Hamas and officially renounced by them in 2006. The last suicide bombing was in 2008.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        In terms of violence, the total number of those killed in 15 years of suicide bombing was just over half the number the IDF killed during the Gaza Massacre in 22 days.

        I sometimes think that Israeli apologists long for the days of suicide bombing, such is the nostalgia. Israel’s policies of continuously terrorising the Palestinians are so much harder to justify when Palestinians adopt moderate behaviour.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 12:56 am

        Brilliantly put Sumud,

        The war lovers ( that includes Zionists) are threatened by moderate behavior. War is the heart and soul of Zionism. It’s the glue that binds their society, which is why they resent being told that Oean is no threat and keep pretending that 22 Arab States have not signed a peace agreement to recognize Israel.

      • Donald
        July 1, 2010, 10:18 am

        What hophmi is doing here is classic Western behavior–emphasize the savage tactics and the glorification of the savage tactics by the people who are the underdogs and pretend that Israelis are civilized even though they are the aggressors and inflict the bulk of the civilian casualties in the conflict. The hypocritical Israeli denial of any bad intent contrasted with the open avowal of vengeful feelings of the Palestinians is all part of the game.

        Hophmi accused me of not condemning the Sderot rocket attacks, but up above I acknowledged that both sides commit war crimes. He doesn’t want to deal with moral consistency–it would wreck his position if he had to acknowledge it.

    • Shingo
      June 29, 2010, 4:45 pm

      “In that light, Hezbollah is still terrorist (directed at Lebanon now, more than at Israel), Hamas is still terrorist, even Fatah is (if one considers Al Aqsa Martyrs as directly associated).”‘

      False. Hezbollah is a political group with an armed militia and according to Hariri, are now part of the Levanese army.

      Hence they are not “armed resistance”, though they are entitled to be and that would be perfectly legal.

      Resistance implies occupation, mass murder and oppression. As always, you are advocating these and condeming resistance.

      • Richard Witty
        June 29, 2010, 4:52 pm

        Well, there is the definitional divide.

        If a party maintains a militia, it is not a participant in a democracy yet.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 6:40 pm

        Yes we know all about your make brlieve definitions Witty and your passion for inventing them whenever necessary.

        Hezbollah maintains a militia and has participated on democratic elections.

        You’re fill of shit, as usual.

      • Richard Witty
        June 29, 2010, 7:54 pm

        Maintaining militias (and using them “democratically” against other parties) is what distinguishes a fascist polity from a democratic one.

        You are really stretching to define Hezbollah as merely participants in democracy.

        Lebanon is more like Vichy France, bent to the will of the militia.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 8:39 pm

        “Maintaining militias (and using them “democratically” against other parties) is what distinguishes a fascist polity from a democratic one.”

        Perhaps, but Hezbollah is not doing that. Thanks for pointing that out.

        “You are really stretching to define Hezbollah as merely participants in democracy.”

        Now, I am merely stating the obvious.  You hate the idea of Hezbollah having legitimacy but there’s no denying that in Lebanon’s politics, Hezbollah are regarded as a legitimate part of the government.

        Get over it.

        “Lebanon is more like Vichy France, bent to the will of the militia.”

        Actually the US and Israel are far more bent to the will of the militia (aka the military) that Lebanon ever was. Hezbollah does not use it’s militia to influence politics.

      • Chaos4700
        June 29, 2010, 8:41 pm
      • Chaos4700
        June 29, 2010, 8:47 pm

        If a party maintains a militia, it is not a participant in a democracy yet.

        So now apparently the original thirteen colonies were “fascist” in Witty’s eyes. See kids! This is what dual loyalty does to your patriotism!

      • potsherd
        June 29, 2010, 9:13 pm

        Another fantasy notion from the deluded brain of R Witty.

      • hophmi
        June 29, 2010, 9:28 pm

        I think calling Hezbollah resistance is ridiculous, particularly when all they do is allow the Syrians to occupy Lebanon. The Israelis withdrew from Lebanon; the UN recognized it, and no, the UN does not consider Shebaa Farms an excuse for continued Hezbollah aggression.

        Hezbollah is not only not resistance; they serve a Syrian master and help Syria maintain an occupation of Lebanon.

      • Shingo
        June 29, 2010, 10:25 pm

        ” think calling Hezbollah resistance is ridiculous, particularly when all they do is allow the Syrians to occupy Lebanon.”

        Umm, Syria withdrew from Lebanon in 2006 – right before Israel attacked.

        ” The Israelis withdrew from Lebanon; the UN recognized it, and no, the UN does not consider Shebaa Farms an excuse for continued Hezbollah aggression.”

        Wrong.  Israel were kicked out of Lebanon TWICE and the UN does not recognize any withdrawl.

        And no, the UN does not consider Shebaa Farms an excuse for continued Hezbollah aggression, becasue there hasn’t been any since Israel were kicked out. TWICE.

        “Hezbollah is not only not resistance; they serve a Syrian master and help Syria maintain an occupation of Lebanon.”

        Blah blah blah.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 6:39 am

        “Umm, Syria withdrew from Lebanon in 2006 – right before Israel attacked.”

        They withdrew their troops. Hezbollah is there to do their bidding now.

        “Wrong. Israel were kicked out of Lebanon TWICE and the UN does not recognize any withdrawl.”

        The withdrawal was confirmed by the Security Council in 2000.

        The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is Hezbollah aggression, and this was done before there was any war in Lebanon.

        “Blah blah blah.”

        Is this your signification of agreement with my fact that Hezbollah does Syrian bidding?

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 4:49 pm

        “They withdrew their troops. Hezbollah is there to do their bidding now.”

        Wow, Hezbollah is buzzy. One day they’re doign Iran’s bidding, the next they’re doign Syria’s bidding.

        “The withdrawal was confirmed by the Security Council in 2000.”

        No it wasn’t because Israel hasn’t met the terms of withdrawl.

        “The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is Hezbollah aggression, and this was done before there was any war in Lebanon.”‘

        Seeing as Israel kidnaps peopel al the time (at least 1000 times to be precise), including kidnapping 2 brothers the day before Shalit’s capture, I’m glad you aknowledge Israeli agression.

        “Is this your signification of agreement with my fact that Hezbollah does Syrian bidding?”

        No this is my reaction to your tired and worn out talking point. Hezbollah are Lebanese nationalists, but yout fascisst can;t being ourselfves to accept that populations don’t like being occupied by Israelis, so you insist their agenda is always somethign else.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 5:05 pm

        Yes, Shingo, Hezbollah can do the bidding of more than one country at once. Do you not agree the Hezbollah serves a Syrian master when it comes to internal Lebanon issues, and an Iranian one when it comes to Israel?

        “No it wasn’t because Israel hasn’t met the terms of withdrawl.”

        It was. You can look it up. link to un.org

        The main dispute is over Shebaa Farms, and is the basis for Hezbollah attacks. But Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory, not Lebanese, and thus is not included under UNSC 425, a resolution which, ironically enough, Hezbollah rejects anyway.

        I guess you agree that the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is aggression.

        “No this is my reaction to your tired and worn out talking point. Hezbollah are Lebanese nationalists, but yout fascisst can;t being ourselfves to accept that populations don’t like being occupied by Israelis, so you insist their agenda is always somethign else.”

        That’s simply not accurate, Shingo. They are a militia in Southern Lebanon who forced their way into the government, and they are not Lebanese nationalists; they are Islamic fundamentalists whose fealty to the Syrians could not be clearer; they are fighting for Syrian territory! Let’s stop crying about Israeli occupation of Lebanon. There is no occupation there anymore and there has not been since June 16, 2000. That is not a Zionist talking point. It is the judgment of the United Nations Security Council.

        Why do you deny what Hezbollah admits? Hezbollah admitted that they were trying to provoke the Israelis with the kidnapping, though they did not think the reaction would be as harsh as it was.

      • Schwartzman
        June 30, 2010, 5:40 pm

        Shingo:

        Secretary-General concluded that, as of June 16, 2000, Israel had indeed withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978). The border recognized by the UN is known as the “Blue Line”.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 6:53 pm

        Israel still has some withdrawing to do from the northern half of Ghajjar Village, from the hills of Kfarshouba and from the hamlets of Chebaa Farms that Syria has confirmed as Lebanese. Until Israel takes its thieving hands off these areas, the Hizbullah resistance is very legitimate and very necessary.

        Needless to day, Istael continues to ignore UN demands for maps of land mines in the area.
        Secretary-General concluded that, as of June 16, 2000, Israel had indeed withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978).  The border recognized by the UN is known as the “Blue Line”.

      • Cliff
        June 30, 2010, 7:00 pm

        link to dailystar.com.lb

        Israel regularly kidnaps, tortures, murders Palestinians and Lebanese civilians.

        ‘Hezbollah aggression’ LOL

        Get off of other people’s land, you […]

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 7:03 pm

        Not according the UN it isn’t, and it’s not the will of Lebanese either. In case you forgot, Lebanon is a sovereign country, and under UNSC 1559, it’s supposed to establish control over its armed forces, which means Hizbullah. Shebaa Farms is part of Syria accoridng to the UN. Only Lebanon and Syria differ, naturally, because its gives both an excuse for not reigning Hizbullah in like resolution 1559 tells them to.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:21 pm

        “Not according the UN it isn’t, and it’s not the will of Lebanese either.  In case you forgot, Lebanon is a sovereign country, and under UNSC 1559, it’s supposed to establish control over its armed forces, which means Hizbullah.”

        False.  1559 stipulates that Lebanon si supposed to disarm militias, but the government of Lebanon (of which Hizbullah is a part) does not regard Hizbullah as a militia.

        You Zionists must really hate it when you’re not the only ones exploiting loopholes in UN Resolutions.

        “Shebaa Farms is part of Syria accoridng to the UN.”

        That’s funny.  According to Syria, it’s part of Lebanon. Either way, Israel is still hanging on to land that does not belong to Israel – as usual.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 9:26 pm

        “False. 1559 stipulates that Lebanon si supposed to disarm militias, but the government of Lebanon (of which Hizbullah is a part) does not regard Hizbullah as a militia.”

        Thank you, oh great Syria/Hezbollah lawyer. It’s true. As I said before, Lebanon is the only one who interprets the resolution, which is a binding Chapter VII resolution, in this way. Here on the planet Earth, the militia is Hizbollah.

        “That’s funny. According to Syria, it’s part of Lebanon. Either way, Israel is still hanging on to land that does not belong to Israel – as usual.”

        Yes, this is a old shell game played by that great bastion of human rights, Syria. Either way, none of it justifies Hezbollah crossing into what everyone acknowledges is Israel to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 9:38 pm

        Uh your zionist propaganda is rather outdated. While the UN said that Shebaa farms was Syrian in 2000. It updated its information as far back as 2006 following the second Israel-Lebanon war:

        ….”The United Nations has said in the past that Shebaa is Syrian territory, captured by Israel in the 1967 war: Syria and Lebanon maintain that it is Lebanese land.

        However now UN mapping experts have determined that that the farms are Lebanese territory and that international law requires Israel’s withdrawal, according to a well-informed UN source in Lebanon.

        Work carried out by UN cartographer Miklos Pinter on demarcating the size of the Shebaa Farms is reportedly to be included in an upcoming UN report. The report, due end October, is set to assess implementation of UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Lebanon war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah movement.

        According to a Lebanese government source, the UN last month suggested to Israel that the Shebaa Farms be placed under UN jurisdiction once agreement is reached with Jerusalem.

        The UN’s Lebanon envoy Geir Pederson is said to have informed Israeli officials that ‘that the UN believes that there is merit in the Lebanese claims of sovereignty over Shebaa Farms….”

        And um I think the Syrians and Lebanese would have some say in who the Shebaa farms belong to as nobody disputes it is belongs to one or the other of them. If they are in agreement that it belongs to Lebanon then Israel doesn’t have a say. The real reason Israel wants these farms is due to the water supply that emanates from the area.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:39 pm

        “Do you not agree the Hezbollah serves a Syrian master when it comes to internal Lebanon issues, and an Iranian one when it comes to Israel?”

        Of course not.  If you insist that Hezbollah being armed by Iran means they are Iranian proxies, then what does hatmake the Israel?

        “It was. You can look it up. link to un.org

        Isrle still hasn’t met the terms fo the withdrawl so no, they haven’t.

        “The main dispute is over Shebaa Farms, and is the basis for Hezbollah attacks.”

        Wrong on both counts.  Hezbollah has never attacked Israel and the reason for he skirmishes are the release of Lebanese prisoners

        “But Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory, not Lebanese, and thus is not included under UNSC 425, a resolution which, ironically enough, Hezbollah rejects anyway.”

        Syrai says hebaa Farms is Lebanese territory and Lebanon agrees.

        “I guess you agree that the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is aggression.”

        Yes and you would  agree that Israel has done it on countless occasions, hence Isreli agression is much greater.

        “That’s simply not accurate, Shingo. They are a militia in Southern Lebanon who forced their way into the government, and they are not Lebanese nationalists; they are Islamic fundamentalists whose fealty to the Syrians could not be clearer; they are fighting for Syrian territory! Let’s stop crying about Israeli occupation of Lebanon. There is no occupation there anymore and there has not been since June 16, 2000. That is not a Zionist talking point. It is the judgment of the United Nations Security Council.”

        Bullshit.  Hezbollah took part in elections, and accepted the outcome, even though there is ample evidence the elections were manipualted against them.

        You Ziofascists harp about democracy and when the results are not to your liking, you dismiss the results.  Hezbollah are Lebanese natioalists,.  None of them are Syrians or Iranians, though some are Palestinian refugees.  They are no more religiosj fundamentalists that Likud.

        “Why do you deny what Hezbollah admits? Hezbollah admitted that they were trying to provoke the Israelis with the kidnapping, though they did not think the reaction would be as harsh as it was.”

        Why do you deny what Israel admits?

        The Winograd Commision concluded that Isrla started the war and instigated it.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 9:39 pm

        The above text is from 2007

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 9:41 pm

        And none of this disputes my original point, which is that Israel no longer occupies Lebanon according to the United Nations.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:43 pm

        Homphi

        “Secretary-General concluded that, as of June 16, 2000, Israel had indeed withdrawn its forces from Lebanon, in accordance with resolution 425 (1978). The border recognized by the UN is known as the “Blue Line”.”

        Israel still has some withdrawing to do from the northern half of Ghajjar Village, from the hills of Kfarshouba and from the hamlets of Chebaa Farms that Syria has confirmed as Lebanese. Until Israel takes its thieving hands off these areas, the Hizbullah resistance is very legitimate and very necessary.

        Israel has yet to compy wuith UN Resolutions to provide maps of mined areas.

        Last but not least, the UN concluded in 2007 that Sheeba Farms is  Lebanese territory.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 30, 2010, 9:50 pm

        Yes it does. According to the UN the Shebaa farms are still occupied by Israel as has been posted to you several times in great detail. Are you really this stupid or are you just faking it?

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 9:53 pm

        “Isrle still hasn’t met the terms fo the withdrawl so no, they haven’t.”

        It’s called spellcheck. The UN says they have. Take it up with them.

        “Wrong on both counts. Hezbollah has never attacked Israel and the reason for he skirmishes are the release of Lebanese prisoners”

        Are you serious? Not only has Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, they have lobbed rockets into Northern Israel for years.

        “Bullshit. Hezbollah took part in elections, and accepted the outcome, even though there is ample evidence the elections were manipualted against them.”

        The deal was to allow them to participate in exchange for reining in the militia.

        Look, if you think Lebanon is better ruled by Hezbollah, that’s great. You probably think the assassination of Rafik Hariri was great too. I don’t.

        “They are no more religiosj fundamentalists that Likud.”

        Again, spellcheck. It comes with your word processor. I don’t even know where to start with this one, it’s so beyond ridiculous.

        “The Winograd Commision concluded that Isrla started the war and instigated it.”

        Where did the Winograd Commission report conclude that? And did you miss the part where Sheikh Nasrallah said he never would have authorized the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers if he knew Israel would respond. I’d say that tells you who the instigator is.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:55 pm

        “Thank you, oh great Syria/Hezbollah lawyer.  It’s true.  As I said before, Lebanon is the only one who interprets the resolution, which is a binding Chapter VII resolution, in this way.   Here on the planet Earth, the militia is Hizbollah.”

        Sorry but the Resolution makes no reference to Hezbollah, so Lebanon are free to designate that Hezbollah are not a militia.  In fact, Hariri has gone so far as to stipulate that Hezbollah are part of Lebanon’s army so tough luck.

        ” Yes, this is a old shell game played by that great bastion of human rights, Syria.  Either way, none of it justifies Hezbollah crossing into what everyone acknowledges is Israel to kidnap Israeli soldiers.”

        It’s never been a problem for Israel so why complain?  You Ziofascists want your double standards and your cake too.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2010, 9:58 pm

        “And none of this disputes my original point, which is that Israel no longer occupies Lebanon according to the United Nations.”

        Well, it clearly does occupy Sheeba Farns, which part of Lebanon. The UN has since declared that Sheeba Farms is Lebanese territory.

        Tough luck Hasbarats.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 9:59 pm

        The UN has recognized the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. It did so in 2000. That is my point, and I have given you a primary source.

        You’ve given me a lot of stuff about UN cartographers for which you haven’t provided any source, and you haven’t addressed my central point, which is that according to the UN, Israel is in compliance with UNSC 425 and had withdrawn from Lebanon. Provide a link, and I’ll be glad to check it.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 10:03 pm

        “Sorry but the Resolution makes no reference to Hezbollah, so Lebanon are free to designate that Hezbollah are not a militia. In fact, Hariri has gone so far as to stipulate that Hezbollah are part of Lebanon’s army so tough luck.”

        That’s nice. You stick to that interpretation. I’ll stick to mine. Either way, I feel sorry for any people who have to deal with Hezbollah as a governing force.

        “It’s never been a problem for Israel so why complain? You Ziofascists want your double standards and your cake too.”

        Maybe you need reminding on why Israel got involved in Lebanon in the first place. It was because the PLO was using southern Lebanon as a base to stage attacks on Israeli civilians.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2010, 10:10 pm

        You’re simply incorrect, and you still have provided no source that says this.

        I would think that if this were the case, Ali Abuminah would acknowledge it.

        He agrees with me.

        “Lebanon and Syria say the Shebaa Farms, measuring just 22 square kilometers, is Lebanese territory, though the UN has ruled it part of the Syrian Golan Heights, which lie just to the east, across water-rich Mount Hermon.”

        link to electronicintifada.net

        So does this guy, who calls out Sheeba Farms for the Syrian BS that it is:

        “The conflict over the Shebaa farms is only an example that reflects the naivety of a part of the Arab masses. The issue over these farms was created to justify Resistance operations from Lebanon after the UN had created the Blue Line following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. The Shebaa farms were placed inside Syrian territory. It should be noted that Syria, which claims that the farms are Lebanese, has not presented a single document to the UN to prove it. More than that, Syria refuses to demarcate its borders with Lebanon. It rejects especially any demarcation that includes the Shebaa farms under the pretext that these are territory under Israeli occupation.”

        link to web.archive.org

        Maybe you’re part of the naive Arab masses.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        July 1, 2010, 10:09 am

        Yes correct hopmi, the UN did state that Shebaa farms were part of Syria IN 2000 as was stated repeatedly. However (as was stated repeatedly again) in 2007 the UN cartogropher ruled that Lebanon did have a case and that the Shebaa farms were part of Lebanon. Now be a very, very brave boy and try read the entire sentence to the end and then try even harder to comprehend what has been said to you REPEATEDLY. And if you are still struggling use google.

      • hophmi
        July 1, 2010, 10:25 am

        This is tiresome. I asked for a citation indicated that this was the UN position. No one has provided it. All I have seen is an uncited quote, and all of this blather about some UN cartographer.

        Do you know what a citation is? It’s a SOURCE. Usually here it’s a link to another internet site. I’ve provided several now. Simply provide me with a UN document stating that it is the position of the UN that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese, not Syrian.

      • potsherd
        July 1, 2010, 10:27 am

        Even if it did belong to Syria, it certainly doesn’t belong to Israel.

      • Sumud
        July 1, 2010, 10:29 am

        “Maybe you need reminding on why Israel got involved in Lebanon in the first place. It was because the PLO was using southern Lebanon as a base to stage attacks on Israeli civilians.”

        No it wasn’t.

        ‘Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza’
        link to normanfinkelstein.com

      • Sumud
        July 1, 2010, 10:32 am

        The last paragraphs of that piece are specifically about events leading to 1982, and NF draws a parallel to the quite that preceded the blitzkrieg Israel launched on Gaza in December 2008.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        July 1, 2010, 10:33 am

        He’s been told that at length in a number of posts potsherd. He is playing thick..or maybe he isn’t playing.

      • Sumud
        July 1, 2010, 10:41 am

        ..to the *quiet* that proceeded..

      • Miss Dee Mena
        July 1, 2010, 1:46 pm

        You were given the name of the UN cartographer and what he said and when. Put on your thinking cap, get that second neuron firing, be a brave boy and think how you could possibly research it yourself..1,2,3, google ..VOILA. In fact you could have even googled it yourself without being spoon fed. There you go big boy.

      • hophmi
        July 1, 2010, 2:03 pm

        I did research it, and provided you a link to the UN website that states the UN position, and supplemented it with a link to Ali Abunimah’s 2009 article on the topic (your guy, not mine) which supports the UN position.

        The position of the UN is that Shebaa Farms is part of Syria and that Israel has satisfied the terms of 425 and has completed its withdrawal from Lebanon. Again, my offer remains open; substantiate your claim that it is position of the UN that Shebaa farms is part of Lebanon and that Israel has not completed its withdrawal from Lebanon. You haven’t done it.

        Sorry.

        Have a nice day.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 4:28 pm

        “The UN has recognized the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. It did so in 2000. That is my point, and I have given you a primary source.”‘

        In 2007, the UN then recognized Sheeba Farms as belonging to Lebanon, so your source is kinda outdated and irrelevant.

        The UN hasn’t bothered to revise the 2000 position, but it is clearly a flawed conclusion.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 4:48 pm

        “That’s nice. You stick to that interpretation. I’ll stick to mine.”‘

        You’re welcome to your own interpretation, not your own facts.

        No UN Resolutuion mentions anything about Hezbollah.

        “Either way, I feel sorry for any people who have to deal with Hezbollah as a governing force.”‘

        Those who voted for them don’t. nor those who rely on them to kick Israel out of the country when they decide to invade.

        “‘Maybe you need reminding on why Israel got involved in Lebanon in the first place. It was because the PLO was using southern Lebanon as a base to stage attacks on Israeli civilians.”‘

        That bullshit was debunked long ago. . The truth is that a cease fire had been in place for nearly a year, and had been scrupulously honored by the PLO while the Israelis occasionally tried to provoke a casus belli to justify a long-planned invasion.

        When Israel’s ambassador to the UK was shot in London, and not by the PLO, Israeli PM Begin proclaimed that the cease fire had been violated and ordered a massive invasion led by Defense Minister Sharon.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 4:50 pm

        “I would think that if this were the case, Ali Abuminah would acknowledge it.”‘

        Abuminah obviously has his facts wrong.

      • hophmi
        July 1, 2010, 5:01 pm

        “The UN hasn’t bothered to revise the 2000 position, but it is clearly a flawed conclusion.”

        Well, at least you admit that the UN position is the one from 2000, just as I repeatedly stated.

        At any rate, I did some further checking on your claim.

        The basis of your assertion is the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Lebanon War.

        link to daccess-dds-ny.un.org

        Paragraphs 54 through 58 cover Sheb’a Farms and the cartographer. Read them carefully. You will kindly note that they do not connote a new UN position. They are a “provisional definition” and an incomplete one, because Syria did not comply with the SG’s request for documentation. Israel, the SG notes, made the visit by the cartographer possible.

        You can judge for yourself why Syria refused to help.

      • hophmi
        July 1, 2010, 5:04 pm

        “You’re welcome to your own interpretation, not your own facts.

        No UN Resolutuion mentions anything about Hezbollah.”

        You’ve forgotten UNSC resolution 1701.

        link to en.wikisource.org

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 6:04 pm

        No need to apologize.

        Sheeba Farms us in Lebanon according to the UN as of 2007. Syria and Lebanon both agree.

        What cannot be disputed is that Israel has no claims to it and is therefore illegally occupying it. Israel is also violating a a condition if the withdrawal that required them to provide naps of the land mines they planted. Israel agreed to do so but refused to actually provide those maps.

      • Shingo
        July 1, 2010, 6:38 pm

        “Paragraphs 54 through 58 cover Sheb’a Farms and the cartographer.  Read them carefully.  You will kindly note that they do not connote a new UN position.” 

        You linked to a 2006 UNSC Resolution when it has been repteadly pointed out that the new finding was made in 2007.

        Are you that thick?

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 1, 2010, 7:38 pm

        “But Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory, not Lebanese,”

        This is where I can tell if a guy is ignorant or a liar…Sheba’a farms and Sheba’a village is definitely Lebanese. The Syrians acknowledge it’s Lebanese.
        “Shebaa Farms: A Lebanese Land Occupied by Israel”
        link to shebaafarms.org

        During the 1967 Six Day War Israeli forces seized a piece of Lebanese territory called the Shebaa Farms, a 25 square kilometer area consisting of 14 farms located south of the Shebaa, a Lebanese village on the western slopes of Mount Hermon. Since Lebanon was not a participant in the Six Day War, UN representatives were biased for Israel, pointing out that the 1923 Anglo-French demarcation and the 1949 Armistice line clearly designated the area as Syrian territory. The UN backed Israel and certified its pullout from Lebanon.

        However, Lebanese and Syrian officials insisted that Syria had officially given the territory to Lebanon in 1951. Lebanese officials pointed to the fact that a number of residents in the area have land deeds stamped by the Lebanese government.

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 1, 2010, 7:40 pm

        Lebanese army maps published in 1961 and 1966 specifically pinpoint several of the Shebaa Farms, including Zebdine, Fashkoul, Mougr Shebaa and Ramta, all of which are designated as being lebanese. Lebanese Ministry of Tourism maps also show the Lebanese-Syrian border running west of the Shebaa Farms. Syria has officially acknowledged the Farms are Lebanese.

        Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon. Assad told a news conference in Paris before ending a state visit to France, Beirut and Damascus will demarcate their countries’ border at Shebaa Farms after Israel withdraws from the region. They will then submit a new map to the UN.

        The Lebanese Resistance has vowed to keep up resistance operations in the area until Israel withdraws.

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 1, 2010, 7:50 pm

        An excellent study of the Sheba’a farms case by Mathieu Cimino:
        “A Brief Introduction to the Shebaa Farms Problem”

        Despite the Shebaa area being small in size (approx. 16 sq.m), the problem is difficult. The village of Shebaa is located in Lebanon, northeast of “Djebel ech-Cheikh” (Mount Hermon) while its farms are located south of the mountian. From the Mandate in 1920 to the Six-Day War of 1967, the farms were considered Syrian territories de jure, i.e. on the maps. During that period – and before – the Lebanese farmers used to cross the mountain area to reach their fields, which were cultivated with apple orchards.

        Thus, Lebanon and Syria were artificially separated in the Shebaa region by the Wadi el-’Assal, a stream. The Lebanese farmers considered that the river to be the border between the two countries.
        French authorities did not take into account the Lebanese farmers who crossed the borders to their who had to reach their farms.

        The Shebaa Farms case was at first nothing but a cadastral issue and border dispute. As a French diplomat noted in 1935, “this issue is linked to the delimitation of the border between Lebanon and Syria. All legal disputes will be resolved when we will be able to determine if a particular farm is located in Syria or in Lebanon. Everything else is irrelevant”.

        In 1950, after the 1948 War, Syria installed an advanced military observation post and carried out topographical surveys in the farms. Thus, from 1920 to 1967, the Shebaa Farms were deemed to be Syrian land on military maps despite the fact that almost all the cultivator of the region were Lebanese and few Syrians lived there. In 1967, Israel invaded the Golan Heights and took the Shebaa Farms. The Israelis expelled the Lebanese farmers that were living there.

        It seems that Israel did not realize it had invaded a de facto Lebanese territory.
        link to joshualandis.com

      • hophmi
        July 1, 2010, 10:29 pm

        Shingo.

        The report is from 2007. I didn’t link to the resolution. I linked to the Secretary-General’s report on the resolution, where the information about the cartographer’s findings are contained. That report is from 2007. That’s why the number on the document is 2007/641. Can’t you tell the difference between a resolution and a report on the implementation of a resolution?

        “This is where I can tell if a guy is ignorant or a liar…Sheba’a farms and Sheba’a village is definitely Lebanese. The Syrians acknowledge it’s Lebanese.”

        Unfortunately, the UN does not. And the Syrian position has one purpose only; to justify further Hezbollah attacks on Israel. The UN has repeatedly rejected the Syrian position.

        See: link to en.wikipedia.org

        There is a whole section on the UN position, well-sourced.

        But one thing has been made clear: The Israeli withdrawal has been certified, and the UN position is that Israel is in compliance with UNSC 425. Thus, the UN has repeatedly called on both Hezbollah and Lebanon to respect the Blue Line and stop its attacks.

        These are the facts. I’ve given you the sources from the UN website. You’ve given me a Lebanese advocacy site called Shebaafarms.org and a blogpost from Joshua Landis, which takes pains to make the point that the Shebaa Farms issue is complex, and that Syria purposely keeps the issue ambiguous so that Hezbollah can claim a right to armed struggle. This is to the UN’s consternation; as the Secretary-General noted in his 2007 report, Syria has not complied with the SG’s request to turn over its maps and documents.

        That’s Syria’s position, no doubt.

        Our discussion here is about the UN position. And the UN position is that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and that, more importantly, Israel has withdrawn, so Hezbollah cannot claim that Israel is occupying territory, and thus, cannot justify attacks. I’ve given you the 2007 report, the operative resolutions, and cites to the history of the issue.

        I can’t give you anything more. It’s your prerogative to agree with the Syrian position on the issue. The Syrian position is simply not the UN position.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2010, 1:06 am

        hophmi
         
        The United Nations does not state that Sheeba belongs to Syrian, only that the area is not covered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 425.  Of course, Israel remain in vilations of Resolution 242 anyway, which demands that Israel withdraw from occupied Syria, so your argument is pointless regardless.

        “This is where I can tell if a guy is ignorant or a liar…Sheba’a farms and Sheba’a village is definitely Lebanese. The Syrians acknowledge it’s Lebanese.”
        “And the Syrian position has one purpose only; to justify further Hezbollah attacks on Israel.  The UN has repeatedly rejected the Syrian position.”

        Go fuck yourself  hophmi.  Israel has done  all the attacking and all the occupyuing and most fo the killing.  Hezbollah has never occupied Israel, and never atacked Israel.

        “Thus, the UN has repeatedly called on both Hezbollah and Lebanon to respect the Blue Line and stop its attacks.”

        Bullshit. The  UN has repeatedly called on both Hezbollah adn ISrael to cease hostilities and respect the Blue line. 

        That’s Syria’s position, no doubt.

         “Our discussion here is about the UN position.  And the UN position is that Shebaa Farms is Syrian and that, more importantly, Israel has withdrawn, so Hezbollah cannot claim that Israel is occupying territory, and thus, cannot justify attacks.”

        Sorry, but Hebollah had never attacked Israel, whiel Israel has not onyl ataxked Lebanon countless times, but continues to violatesd Lebanese territory and air space.
         
        Syria says Sheeba belongs to Lebano and so does Lebanon.

        End of story.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2010, 1:42 am

        Having lost the argument, Shingo moves on to others:

        “Of course, Israel remain in vilations of Resolution 242 anyway, which demands that Israel withdraw from occupied Syria, so your argument is pointless regardless.”

        Nowhere in 242 is Syria mentioned. And of course, my argument is not pointless, because Hezbollah bases its right to armed resistance on the theory that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese. Since that position is at odds with the UN, Hezbollah is acting illegally.

        It is true that Hezbollah has never occupied Israel. It is not true that Hezbollah has never attacked Israel. For those of us on the planet Earth, Hezbollah has attacked Israel many times, by lobbing rockets into Northern Israel, and by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, which UNSC 1701 cited as the trigger for the 2006 war.

        “Syria says Sheeba belongs to Lebano and so does Lebanon.”

        It’s Shebaa, not Sheeba. Sheeba is a cat food. Your argument is cat shit.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2010, 8:28 am

        “Having lost the argument, Shingo moves on to others”

        No Homphi, in typical Hasbrata fashion, you’re pretending to make this about irrelevancies. Here you arem arguing that Hebollah are always attacking Israel, yet you somehow manage to skip the fact that Israel occuied Levbanon and massacred 15,000 – 20,000 people in the process.

        “And of course, my argument is not pointless, because Hezbollah bases its right to armed resistance on the theory that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese.”

        False. You’ll notice that Hezbollah don’t attack Isael unless they invade Lebanon. The only time Hezbollah even neured into Israel was when they captured the Israeli soldiers during a cross border skirmish, something that Israel had done countless times with impunity.

        “Since that position is at odds with the UN, Hezbollah is acting illegally”

        No becasue the UN has never said that Hezbollahhave no right to resists occupation or invasion.

        ” For those of us on the planet Earth, Hezbollah has attacked Israel many times, by lobbing rockets into Northern Israel, and by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, which UNSC 1701 cited as the trigger for the 2006 war.”

        You might want to tell that to Judge Winograd, who said that Israel initiated the war.

        Oh, we’r all waiting on your repornse to the Haáreta articel that quotes Barak saying that the Lebanon invasion was to prvent a Palestinian state. I guess you’ll neeed to consult your Hasbara motehr ship over that one.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2010, 9:44 am

        *Sigh*. For a guy who confuses UNSG reports with UNSC resolutions, you’re a little immodest.

        You keep changing the subject each time you lose an argument. No one denies that Israel has fought wars in Lebanon. Similarly, no one denies that Hezbollah has attacked Israel in the past. This particular discussion is about the UN position on Shebaa Farms.

        I think it’s clear from the position of the UN and the attitude of the Syrians that Shebaa Farms is asserted as a legal basis for continued Hezbollah aggression.

        “No becasue the UN has never said that Hezbollahhave no right to resists occupation or invasion.”

        That is the entire basis of the UN position, reiterated repeatedly. That is the significance of recognizing the Israeli withdrawal. Again, you’re entitled to adopt the Syrian position. But it’s not the UN position.

        “Oh, we’r all waiting on your repornse to the Haáreta articel that quotes Barak saying that the Lebanon invasion was to prvent a Palestinian state. I guess you’ll neeed to consult your Hasbara motehr ship over that one.”

        Spellcheck is found under the tools menu in Word. You must be a really angry person. People make a lot of typos when they type angry. Which Ha’aretz article are you referring to, exactly? I will be glad to take a look at it if you provide me with a link.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2010, 5:24 pm

        No one has confused any UNSG reports with UNSC resolutions Homphi, but if it makes you feel better, then lie away.

        No one denies that Israel has fought wars in Lebanon because Israel has always coveted the Litani. And no Homphi, Hezbollah has neve r attacked Israel.

        “I think it’s clear from the position of the UN and the attitude of the Syrians that Shebaa Farms is asserted as a legal basis for continued Hezbollah aggression.”

        You’re beginning to sound as incoherent as Witty. No, there is no assertion, explicit or otherwise that Shebaa Farms is the motivation for Hezbollah. In fact, during the last episode in 2006, Hezbollah made no mention of Shebaa Farms.
        Sorry to burst your bubble.

        “No becasue the UN has never said that Hezbollahhave no right to resists occupation or invasion.”

        “That is the entire basis of the UN position, reiterated repeatedly. That is the significance of recognizing the Israeli withdrawal. Again, you’re entitled to adopt the Syrian position. But it’s not the UN position.”

        Nor is it Hezbollah’s position. If Hezbollah had ever attacked Israel and demanded the Shebaa Farms you might have a point, but the only demands Hezbollah had ever made were prisoner releases and Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanon that the UN recognizes as Lebanon.

        “Spellcheck is found under the tools menu in Word. You must be a really angry person.”

        Dishonest pepple make me angry, and while you’re miguued by ideology, I haven’t decided if you are dihonest.

        I just happen to be typing from an Iphone and haven’t mastered the keyboard yet, so don’t get your hopes up.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2010, 5:42 pm

        Shingo.

        Why do you make me do this? I cited a 2007 SG report. You told me I was citing a 2006 resolution. Your words: “You linked to a 2006 UNSC Resolution when it has been repteadly pointed out that the new finding was made in 2007.” This was your response when I cited the 2007 report.

        “You’re beginning to sound as incoherent as Witty. No, there is no assertion, explicit or otherwise that Shebaa Farms is the motivation for Hezbollah. In fact, during the last episode in 2006, Hezbollah made no mention of Shebaa Farms.
        Sorry to burst your bubble.”

        Well, now you’re just be purposely thick. Why do you think Shebaa Farms is so important? You know what, just read the wikipedia article. I’ll stop wasting my breath.

        “Nor is it Hezbollah’s position. If Hezbollah had ever attacked Israel and demanded the Shebaa Farms you might have a point, but the only demands Hezbollah had ever made were prisoner releases and Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanon that the UN recognizes as Lebanon.”

        *long sigh* Hezbollah’s basis for resistance, and attacking Israeli soldiers, is that Israel is occupying Lebanese territory. (It has no basis for lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians in the North.) The Lebanese territory that Israel supposedly is occupying is Shebaa Farms. The UN rejects the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese and holds that the Israel withdrawal is complete, and the Shebaa Farms is Syrian and subject to Israel-Syrian negotiations under 242 and 338.

        I’m not being dishonest. This just happens to be the UN position on the issue. You know, Shingo, there are a lot of good international law arguments you could make against Israel. I’m not sure why you choose one that Israel has in its favor.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2010, 10:37 pm

        hophmi

        Why do you make me do this?  I cited a 2007 SG report.  You told me I was citing a 2006 resolution.  Your words: “You linked to a 2006 UNSC Resolution when it has been repteadly pointed out that the new finding was made in 2007.”  This was your response when I cited the 2007 report.

        “Well, now you’re just be purposely thick.  Why do you think Shebaa Farms is so important?  You know what, just read the wikipedia article.  I’ll stop wasting my breath.”

        I suspect you won’t, because after all, you’re here to defend Israel right or wrong. Wikipedia is useful when it cites official documents, but  seeing as the authors are anonymous, op eds, such as the one you linked to, should be taken with a grain of salt.  If Shebaa Farms is so important, then Hezbollah would have made it a central issue during the 2006 war.  They didn’t even bother to mention it.

        “*long sigh* Hezbollah’s basis for resistance, and attacking Israeli soldiers, is that Israel is occupying Lebanese territory.”

        You have repeatedly made that claim without so much as producing a sliver of evidence.  The 2006 cross border skirmish was followed up by demands for a prisoner exchange, not the withdrawl of Israel from Shebaa Farms . Hezbollah didn’t even utter the words Shebaa Farms throughout that conflict. 

        “It has no basis for lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians in the North.”

        No less than Israel had for attacking Southern Lebanon, or dropping a million cluster bombs, or attacking Lebanese infrastructure, but yes, I agree.

        “The Lebanese territory that Israel supposedly is occupying is Shebaa Farms.”

        So you admit that Israel is occupying Shebaa Farms, but justify it on the grounds that it supposedly belongs to Syria, while you simulateously ignore the fundamental issue that Israel is indeed occupying land.

        That’s a bit like arguing that stealing a car isn’t really stealing becasue the car you stole doesn’t belong to a particular individual.

        “The UN rejects the Syrian/Hezbollah position that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese”‘

        Actually it doesn’t reject it.  The UN has stated that it agrees Shebaa Farms isn’t icluded in the original UN Resoluion calling for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

        “I’m not being dishonest.  This just happens to be the UN position on the issue.”

        I don’t think you are dishonest.  I’m sure you believe your argument to be sound, but on one hand you insist that Hezbollah is using the Shebaa Farms occupation as reason for their resitance when it has no right to that land (according to you) yet you also insist that Hezbollah is an instrument of Syria, who you insist does have rights to Shebaa Farms.

        You can’t have it both ways.

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 2, 2010, 11:54 pm

        Hophmi’s job: From his own blog:
        link to mlbrenner.blogspot.com

        Radical Left Antisemitism

        2. We have to do a better job in the Jewish community of reaching left-leaning college students to keep them out of radical left clutches. Expanding Birthright Israel is a good idea. Disseminating literature is a good idea. Sending speakers from the Israeli mainstream is a good idea.

        3. We have to do a better job of getting the same mainstream Israelis in the rooms of the progressive churches, and other large organizations who have the ability to move anti-Zionism from the fringe to left-wing mainstream.

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 3, 2010, 12:10 am

        “Anti-Zionists are fundamentally anti-Semitic”
        Yup, that’s hophmi’s as well..

      • Miss Dee Mena
        July 3, 2010, 12:24 am

        No actually the position of the UN as of 2007 is that the Lebanese and Syrians have a point in arguing that the Shebaa farms are part of Lebanon. You are still stuck on what the UN said in 2000.

        And repeating the same false stuff over again will not help you win the argument. Try a new approach cupcake.

      • hophmi
        July 3, 2010, 8:07 am

        Well, at least somebody is reading my blog. Please keep it going. Maybe I’ll even start it up again.

    • VR
      June 29, 2010, 7:54 pm

      Yeah right RW, and than the entire military took over from there, perpetrating the same and greater terror than the gangs. The gangs were limited, not the armed forces does multiple times more with supposed state impunity.

  18. Mooser
    June 29, 2010, 9:45 am

    The only possible (and I’ve tried them all, believe me) attitude toward my fellow citizens since 9-11 is one of complete contempt. And when chicken-hawkery became the new military service, that just completed the picture.
    And then there were those who actually did go off to “fight the terrorists”.

    Me, I’ll get mad at whoever did 9-11 when I’m pretty sure I know what happened. I get a reasonable explanation, I’ll get mad. Until then “Planes go boom, all fall down” doesn’t quite cut it.

    The “terror” that Americans feel is of exactly the same quality and reality as that experienced during a horror movie.

    • Mooser
      June 29, 2010, 9:49 am

      And if you do, in fact, think the “War on Terror” is real, please don’t tell me about it. I don’t care. Call 1-800-GO-ARMY and tell the man in the crisp uniform how you want to defend the “homeland” from “terrorists”. He’ll like it a whole lot more than I will.

      You know what I think? Good, glad you asked! I think the US military invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and proceded to occupy them and basically torture the population until, out of desperation, they tried to resist, a nearly suicidal act against the US. That’s what I think.

      • MRW
        June 30, 2010, 5:52 pm

        It’s a lot simpler than that. Apparently, Bush gives it away in Oliver Stone’s new film when he yells at some leader that war is the only way to stimulate the economy.

    • RoHa
      June 29, 2010, 7:03 pm

      What’s wrong with chicken-hawkery, Mooser? Be Kantian. Think of what the world would be like if it were universal practice.

      • hayate
        June 29, 2010, 9:31 pm

        Using the term chickenhawk to describe these things is both an insult to chickens and hawks. I think chickenshit is much more apt.

      • andrew r
        July 1, 2010, 6:00 am

        Yeah. Poor little guy’s just trying to catch dinner. He’s not cheerleading war from the safety of his switchboard.

    • MRW
      June 30, 2010, 5:48 pm

      Me, I’ll get mad at whoever did 9-11 when I’m pretty sure I know what happened. I get a reasonable explanation, I’ll get mad. Until then “Planes go boom, all fall down” doesn’t quite cut it.

      Ditto. And this was brilliant: “Planes go boom, all fall down” doesn’t quite cut it.

    • potsherd
      July 1, 2010, 10:28 am

      Mooser, I give some slack to the ACLU, which has filed suit against the TSA over the no-fly list.

  19. annie
    June 30, 2010, 9:14 pm

    what came first, the lilypad’s plan or the war on terror. any if the lilypads came first how could we have accomplished that task? the war on terror is an excellent pretext to establish a project for a new american century.

  20. PilgrimSoul
    July 1, 2010, 12:55 am

    Noam Chomsky also said that the word ‘Terrorism’ had been compromised, so it couldn’t be used to any good effect. I never could agree with that. Terrorism is when deadly force against civilians is used to achieve a political goal. The kicker, however, is that states use terrorism more than individuals, movements and organizations. The biggest offender is usually Israel, because of its policy of collective punishment. The massacre of Gaza was a classic example, the cold-blooded murder of civilians, including around four hundred children, to achieve a political goal.

    The most effective way to express this is simply to refer to state terrorism every time the issue of pan-Islamic, religiously-motivated or individual terrorism comes up. And the Christian West needs to understand that state terrorism has always been the way that empire sought to conquer or exploit the developing world. Still, the idea and the word ‘terrorism’ still have validity. Terrorism and state terrorism are both despicable precisely because they target civilians, including children. The four treaties of the Geneva conventions–including the 1949 Geneva convention against barbarity in war–generally define war crimes with that premise in mind. We just need to be much more aggressive in calling state terrorism by its proper name.

  21. Sumud
    July 1, 2010, 8:06 pm

    “We just need to be much more aggressive in calling state terrorism by its proper name.”

    And it would be nice if the ICC had sharper teeth and more support from more countries. I’d even be content for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush, Blair, Howard, [add your “coalition of the willing” leader and/or nominate your war criminals] and Olmert to share cells. Sharon, meh – let him enjoy his liberty.

    • azythos
      July 2, 2010, 1:20 am

      “Sharon, meh – let him enjoy his liberty”
      Seeing him die in his bed is extremely depressing. Let’s hope the others live long enough.

Leave a Reply