Surely you know that Goldstonefacts is an effort to dramatize the Goldstone Report on the Gaza onslaught with celeb readings. Noam Chomsky's sonorous monotone. Norm Finkelstein's Brooklyn twang.
Well the latest chapter they've dramatized is a key section, about Israel's indiscriminate attacks on civilians, Chapter 10 from the original, and the readers are filmmaker Ken Loach and author Arundhati Roy, along with Irish Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire. Takes a little while to load...
What a phenomenal idea. I can’t wait to see what strategy Witty takes up to attack this. Will he label it “fascism?” Will he insist that these people are “terrorist sympathizers” who want to see the Jewish “nation” destroyed? Will he insist that Goldstone was lying? Or better yet, insist that Witty himself knows better what Goldstone was saying than Goldstone’s own words, quoted verbatim?
Chaos, just like you, I enjoy reading Mondowitty every day.
I actually got the first comment in? Darn. I expected mine to be /right/ under his.
Witty will say that this is “unproductive. that it promotes division rather than healing, that it creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust”, etc., etc.
>> Or better yet, insist that Witty himself knows better what Goldstone was saying than Goldstone’s own words, quoted verbatim?
Despite being one of RW’s (South African) “people”, Goldstone is a self-loathing, Israel-hating anti-semite so, clearly, he cannot be trusted to know what he is saying…or what he claims he is saying.
It’s like when a breeze of confusion deflects the Nerf-dart of inquiry, causing it to land in the toy-box of disrepute.
Chapter 13 — Destruction of the Sawafeary chicken farm — is excellent. The filmmaker has interspersed clips of Sawafeary’s UN testimony with on-site footage taken in Gaza, after the IDF’s tank treads crushed 31,000 chickens in their coops — a significant portion of Gaza’s egg supply. Narration is by actor Ross Vashon and author Noam Chomsky.
Last November the US Ho-House of Representatives condemned the Goldstone report (H.Res. 867) by a vote of 344 to 36 — thus the need to rub their mercenary zionist noses in the feces of their own disgrace.
If my KongressKlown Eliot Engel — an advisor to The Israel Project — comes skulking round here, I’m gonna blast him as an enabler of baby chicken murderers. Is that what he calls kosher slaughter?
I listened to the reports and was disappointed in them.
They are emotional invocations, but not any sincere attempt to grapple with the moral questions actually involved.
The Israeli math is that in an environment in which Hamas escalated shelling from desert to Sderot to Ashdod to Ashkelon before Israeli military response, then required them to do something. Hamas dared, much more than dared, insisted, that Israel react militarily.
Hamas then boasted that they would bathe Gazan streets in Israeli blood if they entered on the ground as they had done previously.
So, from that math, “we have to do something militarily, we have to sweep the area of rocket fire infrastructure, we have to do that on the ground, and to do that on the ground, (believing that Hamas was as armed and prepared as they claimed) undertook a militarily careful approach, clearing lines of site, lines of logistical entry.
They went to war.
Hamas hid. They had lied, but their “deterrent” didn’t work.
That was the Israeli math.
The moral failing of the strategy militarily was in not defining an out for themselves if the conditions were different than they ancipated. Instead they plowed on, not stopping at the first devastating air forays, but continuing until they didn’t have any rational targets, and beyond.
To assess what is “beyond” requires looking critically at Israel and at Hamas, with the recognition that there Israel’s military responsibility was critical, real, undeniable.
Leaving out the explanatory sections of the Goldstone report is very dramatic, but is it informative?
…before Israeli military response, then required them to do something. Hamas dared, much more than dared, insisted, that Israel react militarily.
Hamas made clear that they were willing to extend the ceasefire if Israel would abide by the original agreement and lift the blockade. Israel had a choice to accept a negotiatied ceasefire and chose not to. It had a totally non-violent choice to agree to a renewed ceasefire. To pretend otherwise is to engage in hypocritical apologetics, like you usually do. Israel “has no choice” and must “respond” militarily but Hamas, or any Palestinian, must always choose to respond non-violently and must not even feel any rage, regardless of whether their actions are non-violent. Its Israeli Calvinball for you. You get to make up two sets of rules that always favor the oppressor.
And another point, why do you claim that Hamas “dared” Israel to attack Gaza.?Do you think you are a mindreader, because I assure you that you are not. If you can’t even understand what your fellow posters are saying to you, and mostly you can’t or won’t, what grandiose illusion makes you think you can understand the thinking and strategy behind Hamas?
“Hamas made clear that they were willing to extend the ceasefire if Israel would abide by the original agreement and lift the blockade. Israel had a choice to accept a negotiatied ceasefire and chose not to. It had a totally non-violent choice to agree to a renewed ceasefire. To pretend otherwise is to engage in hypocritical apologetics, like you usually do. Israel “has no choice” and must “respond” militarily but Hamas, or any Palestinian, must always choose to respond non-violently and must not even feel any rage, regardless of whether their actions are non-violent.”
Witty is a troll. He can’t answer that point, so he will just repeat his claim that Israel had no choice, and he’ll run downthread and repeat his claim without acknowledging what you said.
Hamas never made clear anything.
I personally think that Israel erred in not responding positively to the discipline that Hamas demonstrated in the 4 months that the shelling really did stop.
But, the chain of events between the end of the hudna and the Israeli military assault was consistent with my description. That is of escalation.
They may have felt that they were communicating “we will shell military targets until the land crossings are opened to 2004 levels”, but what they communicated to Israel was “we will seek to murder Israeli civilians, and more and more until you respond.”
From the first shelling into the desert, Israel candidly warned that their response would be military.
“Witty is a troll”.
I never said that “Israel had no choice”.
It had bad choices of either not responding to the shelling at all – letting it continue – ignoring it, responding to the shelling of civilians by appeasement (that you recommend), token military response, or grand military response.
It chose grand military response in a manner that could not be stopped once started, rather than a more flexible one.
“responding to the shelling of civilians by appeasement (that you recommend”
Boy, that was as revealing a remark as you’ve ever posted. I recommended that Israel treat Palestinians like human beings, not as animals in a zoo. You see that as “appeasement” because Hamas made the demand. But their demand was just. The blockade should never have been imposed in the first place.
All this blather from you about how content matters, not who says what, and you don’t mean it at all. No surprise there.
“The Israeli math is that in an environment in which Hamas escalated shelling from desert to Sderot to Ashdod to Ashkelon before Israeli military response, then required them to do something. Hamas dared, much more than dared, insisted, that Israel react militarily.”
False on all counts.
First, Israel had already engaged in violence by attacking Gaza and breaking the ceasefire, so from that point onwards, Israel’s actions were not a response.
Secondly, Witty has made this up wholesale as no report supports his made up allegation.
“Hamas then boasted that they would bathe Gazan streets in Israeli blood if they entered on the ground as they had done previously.”
Irrelevant even if this was true. Nothing Hamas said had anything to do with Israel’s strategic, because Israel had already planned this six months prior.
“Hamas hid. They had lied, but their “deterrent” didn’t work.”
Just like their adherence to the 2008 ceasefire and their proposal to return to the ceasefire didn’t work. It didn’t work because Israel had decided on it’s strategy 6 months earlier.
“That was the Israeli math”
The Israeli math was calculated 6 months before Israel broke the ceasefire.
“The moral failing of the strategy militarily was in not defining an out for themselves if the conditions were different than they ancipated. Instead they plowed on, not stopping at the first devastating air forays, but continuing until they didn’t have any rational targets, and beyond..”
False again. Israel’s strategy was planned 6 months prior and implemented regardless of any “conditions”.
Did you read all the quotes from Israeli military leaders, legal analysts and politicians which said that the policy was to inflict harm on civilians?
Why do you approve state-sponsored attacks on civilians, why don’t you regard that as the main failure? Why do you always look for excuses when the Israeli military commits mass murder? The Israelis had the option of accepting peace offers by Hamas and by all Arab leaders which asked nothing more than what rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. Instead, they chose mass punishment of civilians. Because they want to keep what doesn’t rightfully belong to them. What military necessity is that?
What reports are those Lyn? And what was the setting that the reports were made in? Who were they speaking to?
RW: “They are emotional invocations, but not any sincere attempt to grapple with the moral questions actually involved.”
When you are missing Witty’s wooden contribution on the latest article posted on this blog, please provide this link with this cogent substitute:
link to youtube.com
The common response of dissenting journalists is “I know it when I see it”.
But, that is not entirely accurate information. What can be seen is suffering.
Suffering. That fell from the sky. Completely coincidentally with flyovers by Israeli (American-made) jets. At least as the way you seem to like to frame it.
Yep, Witty, and there’s no such thing as pornography either.
>> The filmmaker has interspersed clips of Sawafeary’s UN testimony with on-site footage taken in Gaza, after the IDF’s tank treads crushed 31,000 chickens in their coops — a significant portion of Gaza’s egg supply.
This is what “humanists” call “making ‘better wheels’” and “humanizing ‘the Other’”. And, anyway, if there’s no Security Council-approved international law against crushing 31,000 chickens in their coops, then it ain’t illegal, pure and simple.
Its what is called, “clearing a line of sight”, as was indicated in the written report accompanying the selectively emotional reading.
Ah, Witty “knock one out of the park” with his usual callousness and misplaced criticism. After all, it was only “clearing a line of sight”, not killing 31,ooo chickens, utterly destroying a farmer’s livelihood and destroying the only source of eggs(protein) in Gaza. Why was it so overwhelmingly important to “clear a line of sight” you might ask? Well, those chickens might have decided to cross the road, and the IDF had to make sure the road was clear for them to do so. In the Vietnam War parlance, it was necessary to destroy the chickens in order to save them. And now the IDF gets no respect for their humanitarian actions!
But that “selectively emotional reading”. THAT was beyond the pale!!!!!1!
“Its what is called, “clearing a line of sight”, as was indicated in the written report accompanying the selectively emotional reading.”
Yes, as Benny Morris explained, they were Hamas chickens and as when it comes to Palestinians, there is no need for empathy or emotion. That is reserved exclusively for Israel.
So what you’re saying is that it was a matter of military necessity. I see now. Well, I guess if Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Gaza, you’d argue it was clearing a line of sight all the way to Cairo. The only way to respond to such hypocritical and obtuse comments is to ridicule them. Kudos to those who have done so for the past several months (and years).
You leave others with no option but to make a mockery of your posts seeing as you make a mockery of readers’ intelligence by posting this nonsense. Do you really expect to be taken seriously at this point?
Besides, what do you consider your function on this very website to be? Do you think you’re informing anyone, changing other people’s views? You’re not.
His function seems to be undermining the site’s credibility. Why he continues to be tolerated, I can’t understand.
I’m saying that if you really advocate for the report, and not just selections of it, its useful to read the whole thing.
The question that Goldstone was asked included to determine if there were apparent or possible military purposes to specific actions.
In this case, there was a notice that the stated intent of the clearing of the field was to clear a line of sight.
The question of the scope of the Israeli action included the consideration of what scale of action was necessary to complete an otherwise legal action (compelled by the escalation of rocket fire).
The history and claims by Hamas that should the IDF enter Gaza on foot, that they would be killed en masse. The IDF reasoned that to accomplish their mission, the scope of the mission would therefore have to be more intent, more preparatory (airstrikes).
It was partially true, and partially false.
But, the analysis by habitual dissent is to fail to consider the military chain of choices made. And, the consequence, the process of that, is to then ignore the factors that Hamas intentionally or inadvertently contributed to their own community’s harms.
It is still an open question of whether the scope chosen at all was appropriately defense, or entirely punitive. But, to answer that question, you have to inquire into the possible valid military questions.
Israel clearly related to the action as entering a war, not a skirmish.
I’m saying that if you really advocate for the report, and not just selections of it, its useful to read the whole thing.
Have YOU done so? You claimed for quite a while that you did not read it, even though you often commented on it in blissful ignorance of what it said. I would guess that most of us here have read it all: I certainly have.
The IDF reasoned that to accomplish their mission, the scope of the mission would therefore have to be more intent, more preparatory (airstrikes).
One major flaw with this goobledygook reasoning of yours. The Sawafeary farm was not destroyed by airstrikes. It was flattened by bulldozers. Only the Sawafeary house suffered one missile strike, which luckily injured no one. The rest of the damage was done by ground forces who landed on his roof and had no need to “clear a line of sight” from such a height.
And, as eljay has pointed out, the Goldstone Report found the Israeli claim of “clearing a line of sight” to be unbelievable.
“I’m saying that if you really advocate for the report, and not just selections of it, its useful to read the whole thing.”
How would you know Witty? By your own admission, you have never read it, or anything else for that matter.
“The question that Goldstone was asked included to determine if there were apparent or possible military purposes to specific actions.”
Really? Where in the terms of reference is that mentioned? Or did you simply make that one up?
“The question of the scope of the Israeli action included the consideration of what scale of action was necessary to complete an otherwise legal action (compelled by the escalation of rocket fire).”
There is nothing legal about breaking a ceasefire, which Israel did on November 4th 2008.
“The IDF reasoned that to accomplish their mission, the scope of the mission would therefore have to be more intent, more preparatory (airstrikes).”
Absolute rubbish. Israel began the air strikes before there was any statement by Hamas. The air strikes were planned and prepared 6 months prior.
“But, the analysis by habitual dissent is to fail to consider the military chain of choices made.”
In your case, you fail (or refuse) to consider that Israel broke the ceasefire in 2008 and rejected a return to the ceasefire and proposed by Hamas.
“And, the consequence, the process of that, is to then ignore the factors that Hamas intentionally or inadvertently contributed to their own community’s harms.”
So what your arguing is that Israel contributed to the rockets fired after November 4th, by breaking the ceasefire.
Is that your position Witty?
“It is still an open question of whether the scope chosen at all was appropriately defense, or entirely punitive.”
Of course it is. I was entirely aggressive and unnecessary.
“Israel clearly related to the action as entering a war, not a skirmish.”
Make that a massacre. This was never going to be a war.
>> RW: I’m saying that if you really advocate for the report, and not just selections of it, its useful to read the whole thing. The question that Goldstone was asked included to determine if there were apparent or possible military purposes to specific actions. In this case, there was a notice that the stated intent of the clearing of the field was to clear a line of sight.
1. Hypocrite. You failed to read the CONCLUSION reached by the Mission on this issue, Mr. “Selections”. (See sections 958-960, which I also posted on September 5, 2010 at 8:21 pm.)
2. Joke(r). You did read the clear, concise and very specific conclusion and, because it undermined your position, you decided to raise the already-debunked question as justification for your position…and you hoped no one would notice just how lame that is.
When you present yourself as a caricature, it’s no wonder people have a hard time taking you seriously.
>> RW: Its what is called, “clearing a line of sight”, as was indicated in the written report accompanying the selectively emotional reading.
Goldstone Report (the non-”selectively emotional reading” part):
958. An inspection of the scene indicates that the area is relatively sparsely populated. The Mission rejects the idea that the Sawafeary farm was destroyed in the pursuit of any military objective.
959. The destruction of the farms appears to have been wanton and not militarily necessary. Not only were the coops with the chickens destroyed, but all of the plant and machinery of the farms as well.
960. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission finds that the Sawafeary chicken farms, the 31,000 chickens and the plant and material necessary for the business were systematically and
deliberately destroyed, and that this constituted a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity.
Then again, RW is a “humanist”, Goldstone is a self-loathing, Israel-hating anti-semite and the facts are terribly inconvenient.
What a joke(r).
When you put it that way, the razing of WTC-1, 2 and 7 could be described as ‘clearing a line of sight’ in downtown Manhattan.
Try out that line at an NYFD dinner for laughs!
The Goldstone conclusions that considered the prospect of militarily strategic objectives, at least regarded the prospect of defensive purpose.
You folks don’t.
I haven’t read the whole report. I’ve the sections that have been posted here by Phil (not the complete PDF that he posted yesterday). I did read the material that was included in the verbal presentation, and I conspicuously saw a reference to Goldstone examining the contention that there was a military purpose to the assault through the chicken farm.
Goldstone attempted to distinguish between what was excessive military response, from plausible or overtly justifiable.
Ultimately, there are only a few options as to manner of “war crime” or justification.
1. Every target sought and every specific manner of targets sought were rational, justifiable, and conducted in conformity with international law and IDF rules of engagement. (That is questionable, on at least the rules of engagement, and per Goldstone on targeting as well.)
2. The military plan was appropriate in scale and method, but was constructed inflexibly and desparately (continuing bombing after all plausible military targets were exhausted).
3. The military plan itself was excessive, as well as carried out carelessly, even ruthlessly.
4. Any military response would have been excessive.
Goldstone’s comments seem to be between 2 and 3, that there was justification, even need, for some military response, but that the selection of targets and manner that the targets were addressed was excessive.
Israel’s counter to that argument is that the Hamas claimed to have sufficient weaponry to make a simple light ground assault impossible, and that if a ground assault was deemed necessary, that prior air strikes would be necessary. It still doesn’t address the mistakes of targeting (hitting the wrong building), or failure to undertake beyond token warning and possible evacuation of civilians, in cases.
The result was mass death. Only ideologues conclude that Hamas did not contribute to that mass death, by its shelling originally, and by its blustering of its military capacity.
Civilians got the short end of the utter absence of communication, the absence of intention to avoid harms to civilians.
Hey Jim, you knocked that ball right out of the park onto Witty’s front yard.
Riiiight. You know more about the report than those on Mondoweiss who have read the report, Witty?
Is this how you know more about apartheid than Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu combined?
Yep, Witty, those chickens were shields protecting arab terrorists.
A highly commendable and respectable undertaking. Kudos.
I’m lucky to have read the WittyWordsmithing (when “blah, blah, blah” gets alternate spellings) so that instead of thinking that the report was meant to highlight the sheer raw brutality Operation Cast Lead unleashed on innocent people and non-combatants, I can see it for the fraudulent emotional appeal from a dyed-in-the-wool Israel hater like Goldstone. Check his birth certificate because he might be some sort of Manchurian Candidate type mole that was meant to be sprung at the right time.
Has anyone seen this?
A “Jewish” militia training in the United States to face-off ‘Muslim Threat’:
link to youtube.com
Yeah, isn’t that one guy Dick Witty running there in the American woods?
He’s got all the credentials, for sure, beginning with defending our home soil by not joining the US military, and instead ridiculing its young recruiters when they dared to punch his door bell, looking for his son. We see the dual citizen instructors served in the IDF, but not the US military.
Let’s all play guns in the woods like we are children and its 1950 small town Ohio.
Are those little round caps made of kevlar?