We're promoting our new Goldstone book. It's the abridged report with a number of fabulous essays accompanying it. Today I want to highlight the fine piece about the Goldstone Report and Congress by the former Washington state congressman Brian Baird.
The great thing about Brian Baird is that he seamlessly combines realism and a leftlib human-rights agenda. Say when he writes about trying to convince fellow congresspeople to support the report.
"[S]trategically it cannot make sense to have 600,000 young people under the age of fourteen 14 essentially living imprisoned in Gaza, unable to come or go for health, education, or economic activity, and through for absolutely no fault of their own. Set aside justice for a moment,it just doesn’t make sense strategically to do that because in the long run that’s going to come back to bite Israel and the United States U.S. as well."
This is a good time to catch up with an amazing conversation that Baird had two months ago with Rabbis Brian Walt and Brant Rosen. It's very long; and I've excerpted a lot of it below. The beauty of this conversation, too, is Baird's marriage of morality and realist. He is chiefly moved by the plight of the Palestinians, and comes out for boycott at the end. He urges Obama to take his power, and be "the decider", and condemn the settlement process, and he might even bring Congress with him. Aye, but Obama is hamstrung by the lobby. Baird's analysis of the lobby runs through these comments. He says it's the "financial influence" of the Israel lobby that is "paramount," overturning an American interest in the Middle East. And then Baird urges other folks to try and take the lobby on, especially inside the Jewish community...Excerpts:
The horror of seeing Gaza. What a moving picture Baird, a clinical psychologist, paints of the room for kids to rehab at Al Quds hospital:
I visited burned-out Al Quds Hospital, which was especially moving. They had - the top floor of Al Quds had been this fantastically inviting therapeutic treatment facility for children. They had the kind of places with those plastic balls that kids can jump and dive in. There were paintings of Disney characters on the wall. There were all the PT and OT things that I know from my own work in rehab settings. And yet it had been hit by white phosphorous bombs that had burned the whole roof in, and an entire wing of the hospital had been destroyed. Ambulances were burned out and crushed in front of the hospital. It had really been - taken a devastating hit to a facility that any of us would have been previously pleased to have available as treatment for our kids, and it now was completely devastated...
I think, first of all, morally, it was unacceptable. And I think, on any standard of international law, it was unacceptable. I read the entire Goldstone report and spoke up on that on the floor of the House, helped lead the effort against the resolution that condemned Goldstone. I think Justice Goldstone did a fair and accurate job, from everything I saw.
There's no question in my mind that what is happening there is collective punishment. And interestingly enough, some of the most pro-Israel people in the Congress I've talked to have said, "Well, yes, it is collective punishment." And then I've pointed out to them that they're accusing Israel of a war crime, and they actually - some of them said, "Well, we don't think it is a war crime." Well, it is, and it is for good reason, actually. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure, schools, hospitals, industrial capacity that had no relationship to war making - completely unjustified and unnecessary and, I think, ultimately, counterproductive. You have four to 600,000 young people in Gaza who - there's no possible way they're responsible for Hamas being in power. And yet they are bearing the brunt of much of the attack and effectively imprisoned...
Another shocker. Congress doesn't know about the Saudi peace initiative of '02.
If you ask any - most of my colleagues, frankly, have no idea that there is an Arab Peace Initiative, that the Arab world has largely said if they reconcile some of the issues with Israel, they would be willing to accept Israel's right to exist and guarantee its existential security, et cetera. Most people don't know that.
So the first reason was one of lack of information. The second one is an inherent bias that doesn't question the information. Many of my colleagues - it's absolutely accurate to say that the vast majority of colleagues who voted for that resolution had never read the Goldstone report. Most had never read the resolution. ...
To be perfectly blunt, a big portion of that is the influence of AIPAC and other lobbyist groups and their financial and other clout in the Congress. People don't necessarily act on the legitimacy of the issue, which they sometimes don't even study. They act on the recommended vote according to AIPAC, to be perfectly blunt...
[T]here's no - there could be no intellectually honest question that the role of campaign contributions from AIPAC and NORPAC and some of the other lobbying groups plays heavily in these issues. Some of the people who spoke on the Goldstone resolution, against the Goldstone Report and for the resolution condemning it - when - I thought to myself, why is that person offering this speech at this time? What is their interest in it? And then when one explored, you could say, "Oh, well, they're running for Senate," or "They're doing this," not necessarily that they had a large pro-Israel constituent per se, but they're - in my belief, some of that at least had a relationship. We're taught to not question the motives of our colleagues, and I respect that tradition. We certainly never do it on the floor. But I will say that my experience and belief is that, for many people, financial concerns of campaign contributions have an impact in their voting decision...
Baird is a moral giant. He stands on the shoulders of Rachel Corrie. Here he is on the inhumanity of the blockade of Gaza.
I think the US should have run the blockade analogous to the Berlin Airlift and said, "Look, we are not going to put up with this." Because the record shows clearly that if all we do is sign documents and exhort our Israeli friends to do something, either - even if it's in the international law, we have minimal success. And I frankly was quite tired and fed up with people at the level of John Kerry and the Secretary of State of the United States being relegated to asking, "Please, please, can you let toothpaste and garbanzo beans and pasta in?" I thought - I felt it was disingenuous and an insult and manipulative to our country. And yet that's where we were at. We were begging for lentils, for goodness sakes, to get in, instead of saying, "Look, this is unjust. It's unlawful. And it's in - it's not in our best security interests or that of Israel. We need to make a change, and there will be consequences if you don't change."
Now here's some more on the Israel lobby. Rabbi Rosen asks, why can't Obama do diddly?
...Could the president just pick up the phone to Netanyahu tomorrow and say, "These settlements have to stop or else?"
Rep. Brian Baird: Yeah.
Rabbi Brant Rosen: Or would he -
Rep. Brian Baird: He could.
Rabbi Brant Rosen: How could he go about doing that?
Rep. Brian Baird: He could. He might be - he could say, for example, "Or no US military sales." He could say - there are a host of - and by the way, not everyone will agree with this. .. But the president truly could say, "We are not going to condone this."And one of the concerns I personally have is that the policies of Israel are increasingly being driven by what I consider extreme ideological and fundamentalist religious motivations that are actually antithetical to many of the values that many of us hold dear in Israel and our own country...
he's the President. He's the chief decider of foreign policy. He has a great deal of say over where USAID money goes or doesn't go. And I think he should exercise that.
Rabbi Brian Walt: So then why doesn't he do that? Again, the question is -
Rabbi Brant Rosen:...maybe I should have taken this in Civics way back when. But could the President pick up the phone tomorrow and say, "This has to happen, or else there will be consequences with future military aid." Could he do that?
Rep. Brian Baird: Yes.Rabbi Brant Rosen: Without being hamstrung by the Congress?
Rep. Brian Baird: The Congress could try. And then you'd have - for example, he could - if the Congress issued some kind of legislative mandate that money go a certain way, he could veto that, and they'd have to override the veto. But he could then come to the American people and say, "Here's why it's not in our national interest to see this happen." He might lose that. But, you know, that's why you're the President...
Rabbi Brian Walt: Well, but he's - then you're asking - then he - from what I understand from - you tell me if I'm wrong. If it goes to that, we're then talking about the President of the United States going head to head with the Israel lobby and with all those who oppose any pressure like that on Israel. I -
Rep. Brian Baird: Exactly. But, you know, we take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And our first priority has to be United States security. That's got to be our first priority. Our security is imperiled when we deviate from our fundamental values of justice and constitutional liberty, and when we fund entities that do that, as well. And that has tended to harm our security internationally.
Here's Baird's rage at the deal we offered Netanyahu last fall, and his call for boycott, and again, his moral giantness, speaking of Israel's effort to destroy nonviolent protest:
we're going to give you $2 billion worth of military hardware with which you can bomb the people of Gaza or somewhere else, and we're going to promise that we'll never, ever ask you again to stop building the settlements which you're not supposed to build again, and we're going to block anybody in an international forum that - where the logic of that is absolutely, completely escapes me....
Many of the people who are insisting - who are tying the - allegedly tying Netanyahu's hands have explicitly as their goal a Greater Israel that extends to the West Bank. Antithetical. You - to negotiate with them. If that's their conditions, you can't get there. You have to just say - politics is about making tough decisions. Elections matter. And leadership matters. And you're going to have to say, "That is not official US policy. We don't believe it's in your security interest. Most importantly, it's not in our security interest. If you insist on going down that road, you will increasingly go down it alone, because we can't abet that. And we have been for too long. You don't have - you know, you don't have to lose our support. But if you go down that road, just like a cocaine addict, I'm not going to pay for your coke anymore."...
The challenge is, to be perfectly frank, the financial influence of AIPAC remains paramount and dominant...
And then I think they especially need to reach out to people on the Foreign Affairs Committee, because - and in the general body of Congress to say, "We will be there for you vocally to support you, as volunteers in campaigns, where appropriate financially, et cetera." That voice has to get out....
As far as a boycott, I think the boycott makes sense. I think it has an impact. Or people - one of the things that's been - some of the folks from New America said it very eloquently. I think it was Dan Levy, actually. He said, "You know, we've been telling the Palestinians for so long that they should engage in nonviolence." In fact, they are. The film “Budrus” demonstrates that. ...
But what's happening is nonviolence is now being delegitimized. People who engage in it are being jailed, prosecuted, told they can't enter certain zones. And even the boycott is being delegitimized... But now we're saying, even though terrorism has stopped, we're going to continue to expand the wall. But the boycott to try to prevent that expansion, the nonviolent resistance, is now somehow delegitimized. It's not Israel that's being delegitimized. It's resistance to any Israeli policy that is being delegitimized. And that's dangerous to Israel. So I'm actually an advocate for the boycott.
Thanks for posting the Baird piece. I was hoping he’d speak out more.
Does anyone know if he’s ever said explicitly why he left Congress?
I think Baird is too easy on Congress. He mentions Lantos. Lantos wasn’t ignorant or uninformed. Lantos rejected any information that didn’t fit into his Zionist worldview. Lantos actively favored, pushed things like Cast Lead.
And how did Lantos get to be head of the Foreign Affairs Committee? How did the Foreign Affairs Committee get to be stocked with rabid Zionists like Lantos and Ros-Lehtinen? Because the dictators of Congress like Pelosi put them there.
These are not dupes of AIPAC, people who want at heart to do the right thing. They are active agents of AIPAC, which means they are active agents on behalf of a foreign power, regardless of the interests of the US.
Baird spoke out more than any congress person recently on the issue, but even he waited until he was ending his congressional career to really speak out loud and clear to all who would listen. I do think he is a moral and ethical giant combined with his realism. That shows just how powerful the Israel Lobby is: money talks and folks walk. How can the funding of US political campaigns be changed, and to what form to end this Zionist strangle hold? Pelosi truly believes the US and Israel’s best interests are one; she has often bragged about all the Jewish relations she has by marriage. I guess she thinks she is the USA. Can’t get much more arrogant than that.
i think he is a moral and ethical giant too.
Congress can be divided into true Zionist believers, venal or cowardly hypocrites, and ignorant dupes. With Baird gone, the number of honest players dwindles to near 0.
Did Brian Baird step down voluntarily? The only voice for Palestine, it seems.
at the risk of repeating myself — Mitchell Bard, in speech to Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors in Fall 2010, said, “The Israel lobby does what the government of Israel wants to have done.”
the comment is part of an answer to a question 64 minutes into the video (also interesting that questioners ask if “Christian zionists will support Israel” if Palestine declares a unilateral state.
link to c-spanvideo.org
Mitchell Bard discusses his book, “The Arab Lobby.”
We should all be armed with this kind of information when we call/write our congressmen & local newspapers and demand that Israel lobbyists register as agents of a foreign government. Because that’s what they are.
did Senator Fulbright not try to bring this in years ago, and the Zionists changed the name to AIPAC (should be IPAC!)?
But if you go down that road, just like a cocaine addict, I’m not going to pay for your coke anymore.”…
The challenge is, to be perfectly frank, the financial influence of AIPAC remains paramount and dominant…
Will be pushing elsewhere. Chris Matthews, Olbermann need to have you guys on since they were absolutely silent about the Goldstone Report
Phil all…
Heating up
Calling on Fred Hiatt and Donald Graham: I am NOT an Israel-Basher and Protest Jennifer Rubin’s Charge
“But Hiatt’s latest hire, Jennifer Rubin, has a tendency to engage in short-cut sliming rather than engaging in the same constructive tone and spirit that my exchanges with Hiatt have had. This is unacceptable — and undermines the brand of the Washington Post.
In an op-ed she wrote today at the Post, Rubin refers to a letter that I organized of policy practitioners, academics, former government officials, and some journalists — both Republicans and Democrats — in the following way:
The usual crowd of Israel bashers has sent the president a letter urging him to go along with a U.N. resolution condemning Israel for its settlements (emphasis added)
At least Ben Smith at Politico had the decency to note that the roster I had assembled included both “usual suspects” and “unusual suspects.”
But without a call from her — without inquiry — the letter I helped organize and draft, which I have sent out making a key point that makes clear in it the following statement:”
link to thewashingtonnote.com
Matlock, Grove, Walt, Gard, Others Sign UN Resolution Letter on Israeli Settlements
link to thewashingtonnote.com
great catch kathleen, that deserves front page attention
Off topic.
Thanks.
Hope everyone pushes getting Phil, Adam on some mainstream outlets to discuss their book. Know there will be resistance since NPR’s Diane Rehm Terri Gross, Neil Conan, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest were completely SILENT about the Goldstone Report. But who knows maybe Dylan Ratigan or Chris Matthews might be willing to break the silence. Maddow not a likely candidate. Her human rights concerns are rather limited
Anyone willing to go on over to Chris Matthews place and ask him to have Phil and Adam on to discuss the Goldstone Report? You can sign up and then go on over to Keith and Maddows place to do the same.
Although Dylan Ratigan is the only one who has even come close to discussing the I/P issue on his program. Bet he was slapped down
Go visit and make a request. you never know
link to hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com
Interesting my comments and suggestions over at Maddow’s are all ready being screened because I have challenged Maddow for what she does not (Goldstone Report, UN report on the Mavi Marmara) and does cover (repeats the Israel lobbies claims about Iran).
Interesting. Have challenged Chris Matthews for years and he has not put me on the monitor list. I went over to Rachel’s to make a request of her to have the Mondoweiss folks on her program as well as patting her on the back about her interview with Micheal Steele last night. Interesting..not coming up right away.
I felt this about Rachel and Keith at the Dem Convention in Denver. Spent some time at the MSNBC stage. Chris Matthews came out into the crowd numerous times asking questions mixing it up. Not so for Rachel or Keith. Kept their distance from the peasants. Over at Olbermann’s there is really no place to discuss except at this base ball blog unless I am missing it. He must not want to hear or mix it up with the peasants. Just tell us what he thinks.
Keith is leaving his MSNBC show–with two years left on his contract; I believe he got the boot–I heard a different entity is taking over MSNBC. Interesting since he’s credited with making MSNBC an alternative to FOX News.
the white phosphorous issue is another horrendous issue not covered by our MSM. Silence
NB the element is phosphorus!
Ever hear Jon Stewart mention the use of white phosphorous by the Israeli military on his program? the massacre on the Mavi Marmara. oops off limits for Stewart.
link to timesonline.co.uk
Who do you think is the criminal in the phosphorous usage? Who does Judge Goldstone name?
Those that used the phosphorous (were they in conformity with IDF rules of engagement or in contradiction), those that administered the training and dissemination of the weapons, those that introduced the weapons into the theatre of war, those that authorized their presence in Israel’s arsenal?
What does Baird conclude would have been an appropriate Israeli response, in the actual time frame (as a realist) where Hamas was in fact shelling Israeli civilians. (Not what Israel should have done prior?)
richard do you have one critical thing to say about dropping white phosphorus on civilians? this legalistic hoovering after moral lint is appalling
Phil,
Israel did not invent how Western armies wage war. What is appalling to me is your zero concern with the life of Israeli soldiers. If you think you can fight better, show us how. Kibbitzing from NY won’t cut it. Become the tip of the spear and then your views on how to thrust it will be respected.
you’re completely wrong on one point eee, kibbitzing in new york will make a big difference for how my country (the US) fights wars and that’s why you spend so much time on this site, because you know this is the thin end of the jewish identity wedge.
this is typical jewish identity call about, You fight, but we don’t.
And you know, I agree with you, I like that everyone gets drafted there. Wait, every Jew gets drafted! except the haredim. You have to figure that out.
Meantime you hold your warrior identity over all the effete pencil-neck me’s of the world, well we’re waking up. and realizing that jewish militarism is not the answer, even proxy militarism for pencil-necks. because what is it, it’s you dropping white phosphorous on little children of a different ehtnicity.
Israeli soldiers have been coming out for years now. Many are terribly upset and deeply troubled by the direction of Israel
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to shovrimshtika.org
You have more goddam respect for Witty and “eee” than any other commenters on this blog. So “eee” is the “warrior” and you are the “pencil-necked geek”?
Jesus, Phil, just give this up, it’s not a very attractive pose, and become the proud muscular sabra you so obviously want to be. You think it doesn’t show, loud and clear?
Oh, and you really think those Palestinian kids are “of a different ethnicity”? Pa-frickin-thetic.
The fact that you always argue on thier terms tells me you want to lose.
Phil,
When I see your country changing the way it fights wars, I will give your argument some credence. But in fact, the US fights wars very much like Israel.
Yes, the haredim do not get drafted, what is your point?
“Jewish militarism” is a nonsensical term. Israel is not more “militaristic” than any other Western country. The IDF is organized and functions like modern Western armies. We don’t have a “warrior identity”. We have a need for self defense. What we are “holding over you” is the simple question:
You have a better way of defending Israel? Come show us how.
Kibbitzing is cheap and anyone can do it.
yes it’s very cheap but we make up with volume
so cheap you’re here, cheeping away
i got more borscht belt where that came from
thats my tradition, yours is sadly, increasingly, ethnic cleansing and judaizing neighborhoods and shooting 65 year old guys in their bed and calling it an accident
can you lose the comma after Jesus, Mooser? It would improve my mood
you’re screeching.
and if you dont think that pencilneck is not an important part of this identity puzzle., then you got an iron liver
We cannot all be so lucky as to have learned at the knees of borscht belt comedians. My tradition is Ben-Gurion and Weizmann and Jabotinsky. It is a tradition of doing and making difficult decisions in the process, not a tradition of kibbitzing.
“Jewish militarism” is a nonsensical term. Israel is not more “militaristic” than any other Western country.
You say you have no Borscht Belt training, but that’s the most hilarious comment on this thread.
Were you in a combat unit of the US Army or in the US Marines, eee–or the IDF? Please tell us.
Which tip of the spear?
Also, do common murderous criminals invent the weapons they use? They do not. Where is that a criminal defense to their use of them?
If Israel cared about the lives of Israeli soldiers, they would stop wasting them in these useless murderous adventures. The IDF was responsible for as many IDF deaths as Hamas during Cast Lead, and just last week they mortared one of their own patrols. This is due entirely to criminal rules of engagement that say Shoot First, then shoot again, because your IDF fingernail is worth the lives of a million cockroaches.
who put what in your cheerios this morning mooser? i step away from my computer for 10 minutes and all hell breaks loose.
So “eee” is the “warrior” and you are the “pencil-necked geek”?
it wasn’t phil who interjected thrusting spears into this conversation, it was eee. the big macho eee ragging on phil for “Kibbitzing from NY ” while eee’s perfectly content to hang around kibbitzing on phil’s blog all day, yapping on phil’s heels like a little chihuahua! talk about hypocritical!
and we all know the reason eee’s here don’t we, because phil’s damn good at what he does.
and wft is this ‘be a heeman and get your ass over to israel and fight damn it, then you can complain’!!!!! well hell no, i don’t see eeeboy lavishing praise on breaking the waves.
what a farce. seriously mooser, if phil wants to respond it’s his own friggin blog, he doesn’t have to listen to this pipsqueek keyboard whiner. eee’s lucky to be posting here, phil could ban him easy enough.
Shmuel,
In what sense is Israel more “militaristic” than the US?
We don’t have a “warrior identity”. We have a need for self defense.
A need for self-defense from people you keep in an open-air prison?
and you really think those Palestinian kids are “of a different ethnicity”? Pa-frickin-thetic.
hmm wiki
ethnicity are not necessarily determined by dna but by shared experience.
In what sense is Israel more “militaristic” than the US?
israel spend more money per capita on warfare (‘defense’) than any country on the planet.
well, not all of it is israel’s money but you get the point.
“Israel did not invent how Western armies wage war.”
No, but it agree to international law limiting the choices it may take. It broke that law.
“What is appalling to me is your zero concern with the life of Israeli soldiers.”
A soldier’s job is to risk his life. What is appalling to me is your insistence that one hold the life of an Israeli soldier superior to that of a Palestinian civilian, when Israeli and International law require that the Israeli military act in ways that minimize the risk to the civilian even if it increases the risk to the soldier. Which is why states must be extremely careful prior to the initiation of force and during the exercise of force.
actually i’m not sure if that’s true anymore (per capita) considering we’re fighting wars in several countries right now.
This is a reply, but to whom (and to what)? I cannot find it any anymore, things change so fast, sigh.
What is the Israeli tradition? It is the tradition that says, “It doesn’t matter what the goyim say, it matters what the Jews do.” That is a tradition of not listening to the UN, the US, to international law, to human rights, etc.
And that is why it is so important that the Palestinian resolution as UNSC go forward and then, if vetoed, go forward in the UNGA, just so the world (curiously led by the South Americans, perhaps because they have suffered for so long under the US heel) can bring Israel to heel — the heel this time of international law rather than of imperialism — over the (I hope) dead body of the USA, former superpower.
We have a need for self defense
Bullshit.
Israel is an armed camp with every adult male except for cultists a permanent member of the armed forces until old age. Israel’s politicians are retired generals and war criminals.
And “self defense” is nothing more than Israeli obfustication for “constant aggression”.
Israel is addicted to war. No other country talks constantly about “the next war” as a certainty, not if it will come, but when. Israel is an army that has a nation, not a nation that has an army.
Avika Eldar commented on this:
link to haaretz.com
Of course it is. It is in a permantn state of war and rejects the Arab PEace initiative becasue it woudl rather remain at war. It has rejected a long ceasefire with Hamas, becaue as Tzipi Livni explained, a long ceasefire is sntrary to Israel’s strategic objectives – which can only be met through militarism.
Sefl defense starts by not putting you own citizens at risk by starting wars.
3e,
The “nation-in-arms” model you suggest (We don’t have a “warrior identity”. We have a need for self defense) is little more than a self-serving myth that has never corresponded to reality. Baruch Kimmerling (“Patterns of Militarism in Israel”, European Journal of Sociology, 34 (1993): 196-223) believed that the term “civilian militarism” best characterised Israeli society in its current phase, but had no doubt as to its fundamentally militaristic nature (according to various parameters he details in his article). His arguments have only been reinforced in recent years.
Different “background “or “cultural background” surely would have been the better expression.
Judaism has nothing to do with ethnicity. Jews are of many different so-called ethnic backgrounds. A universalistic religion, if you will. Found all over and practiced among many different ethnic groups.
I guess this relegates the search for the “Jew Gene” into the dustbin of race-based pretend science just as the disgraced Arian racial genetics pretend research of the 20′s and 30′s
We should show the same concern for IDF troops as gang bangers shooting up a residentional area none. thugs don’t deserve sysmpathy
um hell yeah ISrael is more miltaristic. No you don’t have a need for self defense what you claim to be self defense is something more like self offense.
No other western country puts the emphasise on a warrier ethos as ISrael. it shuns peaceful measure for violence that a militaristic view point.
Lots more military people in the Israeli government than in the US government–how about a glance at just a few of Israel’s many top politicians who were former high ranking military officials,
e.g., Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, Ezer Weizman, Ehud Barak, Shaul Mofaz, Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Mordechai, Amram Mitzna and Menachem Begin? Also, as has been pointed out on this blog many times, it’s hard to be anything in Israel without having served in the IDF. The US executive branch and congress have how many US military veterans? Foreign policy is dictated by chicken hawks. Israeli culture idolizes the IDF soldier in a manner evoking how Nazi Germany idolized the Wehrmacht soldier. During the Vietnam War US soldiers were spit on when they came home; nowadays there’s a thin veneer of honoring them while very few young men and woman desire to join their ranks and our veterans tramp homeless in the streets without proper care for post-traumatic stress disorders. The government had to resort to a back-door draft due to lack of enthsiasm for Bush Jr’s war on Iraq. Today, many soldiers roles are filled by private contractors–about half the American force in Iraq now, for example, are private contractors with guns.
eee
Feel sorry for IDF grunts…sure do.
Look at what they’re fighting for…
Indisputable FACT: Israeli forces have been OUTSIDE of Israel from the moment it was “…. proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”
It has never legally annexed ANY territory it claims OUTSIDE of it’s declared and recognized boundaries…
‘defending’ to keep territories illegally acquire d by war over 62 years, risking IDF forces to do it, justified by BULLSH*T, is BULLSH*T!
Demanding MORE territory in order to have defensible borders to keep illegal settlers safe in illegally acquired territories is also BULLSH*T!
No matter how much of a neighbours territory Israel illegally claims, it will always have a neighbour, who is gonna be p*ssed off and they have a right to armed resistance.
The Jewish homeland State of Israel was DECLARED on May 14th 1948, no more, no less. The ‘historic’ homeland is just that HISTORIC. Whatever occurred or was promised BEFORE declaration is of historical interest only.
Whatever happens OUTSIDE of Israel from the moment Israel declared, is subject to Customary International Law and the UN Charter. Israel is obliged under the UN Charter Chapter XI. It was from the moment it was declared.
Israel VOLUNTARILY occupies. Israel voluntarily acquires territory by war, Israel voluntarily illegally annexes and it voluntarily illegally settles. Israel has a duty to it’s citizens to keep them OUT of “territories occupied” because unfortunately collateral occurs on both sides in a war.
Instead, it asks Israeli soldiers to protect people involved in an illegal activity and you support it and then have the audacity to say “What is appalling to me is your zero concern with the life of Israeli soldiers”
Bizarre!!
wrong civilian deaths from american troops are a sympton of shoddy training. in Israel the killing of civilians is expressedly allow in the ROE and the killing happen as a matter of policiy
It’s called stealing
Critical.
Noone should every use white phosphorous on anyone, or anything like it. That it occurred indicates that Israel regards it as justifiable in some circumstance. Even if it is justifiable in some circumstance (I can’t think of one short of maybe D-Day), that it was used against civilians means that someone made an inhumane decision.
So, who was it? I’m not in the witch-hunt business.
You are familiar with the report. What level did the crime occur at?
Legalistic.
I generally do not comment on specific incidents of accusations of war crimes, because I do not know enough to judge.
Maybe that makes me complicit, for not judging and condemning.
I ALWAYS prefer to propose than to condemn. Maybe proposal emerges from condemnation, I don’t know.
If it does, then articulation of what is proposed should be an EASY next step.
Witty, do you know how much evidence used to condemn the Nuremberg defendants was circumstantial? And do you know how many of the laws proclaimed and enforced there were ex post facto?
Yeah, Witty, you’re open-minded.
I’m still waiting for specifics.
Again and again, condemnation is EASY. The work is in making actual change that results in all of the parties standing.
They’re all listed for you in the Goldstone Report. Do you now want us to spoon feed you Witty?
“Again and again, condemnation is EASY.”
Wrong. Condemnation of Israel is mostly dismissed, ignored, or attacked in the US. Goldstone and various human rights groups put in time and money and effort into finding the truth and then publishing their findings, only to see their work attacked, ridiculed and dismissed by American politicians.
” The work is in making actual change that results in all of the parties standing.”
There won’t be any favorable change for Palestinians if the United States is part of the process and refuses to acknowledge accurate descriptions of Israeli crimes and condemn them just as harshly as it does Palestinian terrorist attacks on civilians.
You could do if you took the time to read the Goldstone report Witty. Why do you prefer to maintain a state of ignorance?
A stunning and calouse statement. You say on one had that no one should use anything like white phosherous or anything like it and on the other discrdit the idea thta it was even used on a civilian population. Yet have not even bothered to read the reports of the excessive use.
“White prosperous was used throughout the ground phase of the operations. The Israeli Government has set out s reasons for doing so, emphasizing that is is not only not a proscribed weapon under international law but that it was deplored with a high degree of success……In addition, the highly toxic substance, used so widely in civilian settings, posed a real health threat to the doctors dealing with the patients…..The Mission understands the need to use the obscurants and illuminant for various reasons during military operations and especially in screening troops from observations or enemy fire. There are, however, other screening and illuminating means which are free from the toxicities, ….inherent in the chemical white prosperous ”
THE USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS, Goldstone Report.
If you are interested in the inhumane decisions, the levels of the massive crime to which you not dare look at closely with an open mind, which to this day is defended by a continued inhumanity of bureaucrats cheered on and supported by those who dare not look at a truth.
>> Noone should every use white phosphorous on anyone … That it occurred indicates that Israel regards it as justifiable in some circumstance.
Sometimes, white phosphorus – like ethnic cleansing – is “necessary”. You know how that is.
>> I generally do not comment on specific incidents of accusations of war crimes, because I do not know enough to judge.
And yet you appear to know enough to judge that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was “necessary” (to create “a good in the world”). And you appear to know enough to judge peaceful protesters as “maximalist” and “destabilizing”.
Israel rained down OP Cast Lead to punish the Gazans collectively for voting in HAMAS. The OP had nothing to do with Israel’s self-defense, nor did Israel let up on its seige all the time HAMAS had kept rockets out of Israel prior to the OP, itself instigated by Israel on November 4th. Some justification. Israel poured down white phosphorous on the caged Palestinians because it could, same as killing chickens in a coop–which Israel also did; I doubt they thought there was any difference.
If Hamas would have stopped their rocket fire in the week leading up to Cast Lead, Israel wouldn’t have attacked. Anyone who denies this is blind.
The siege sucks, Israel is in the wrong (notice I call it a siege now, progress.) Their use of force during Caste Lead was disproportionate and the use of WP was reprehensible.
I can admit this and at the same time lay partial blame on the beginning of Caste Lead on Hamas’ reluctance to stop firing rockets into Israel. Much like Nasrallah, Mashal under estimated Israel’s response to their aggression.
If Hamas would have stopped their rocket fire in the week leading up to Cast Lead, Israel wouldn’t have attacked. Anyone who denies this is blind.
yonira, that’s demented. Israel was determined to attack Gaza and would only have found another excuse. Or gone ahead without one.
Sorry to burst your Hasbara bubble, but Israel had already attacked before there were any rockets. That’s why the rockets started in the first place.
Mashal didn’t underestimate anything. He had no say. Israel had made up it’s mind to atatck 6 months earlier – as they had 6 months before the skirmish with Lebanon.
“If Hamas would have stopped their rocket fire”
Wrong. That should be “If Hamas had stopped their rocket fire ”
If you don’t believe an anti-Zionist like me, ask William Safire.
The four gaping holes in this assertion (there are probably more):
1. If Israel was interested in ending rockets from Gaza they should have adhered to the agreed terms for the cease-fire, in Israel’s case: ending the siege. Hamas demonstrated a willingness and ability to end rockets.
2. If Israel was interested in ending rockets from Gaza they should have not broken the cease-fire on November 4, 2008.
3. Just a day or two after November 4 Israel banned international journalists from entering Gaza – evidence the attack on Gaza was going to occur regardless of what Hamas did or didn’t do.
4. By the IDF’s own admission one of their aims in launching the attack on Gaza was to restore the IDF’s “deterrence” capability after their extremely poor showing in Lebanon in 2006. Whoever thought this up needs their head read – who is afraid of an army that can succeed only by attacking a defenceless civilian population? Nobody.
The choices Israel made at each of these decision points indicate ending rockets was not something Israel was interested in.
Once again, Norman Finkelstein thorough and insightful take on Israel’s real intentions in attacking Gaza:
Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza
Yonira, I can go partway with you. Hamas should not have fired rockets into Israel–it was a war crime. It’s a crime that is tiny in scale compared to Israel’s, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I also agree that the rocket fire provided a handy excuse for Israel’s crimes. There was yet another example of this in the NYT Sunday Magazine article today about Turkey’s foreign policy–in part it reads like it was typed by AIPAC. link Anyway, once again we are told that Israel struck Gaza because Hamas “rained” rockets on southern Israel. (There is no similar description of what Israel did to Gaza–anyone reading the article would think the only people upset by the Gaza War were Islamists.) The rocket fire was a gift to dishonest Western journalists like many who write for the NYT.
I can’t say for sure what Israel would have done if Hamas hadn’t fired rockets, but I suspect as others do that they would have found some other excuse, or would have increased provocations until they got the required rocket fire. If Israel cared so much about those rockets they would have agreed to the Hamas’s just demand that the blockade be lifted as part of a reinstatement of the cease fire.
yonira
“If Hamas would have stopped their rocket fire in the week leading up to Cast Lead, Israel wouldn’t have attacked. Anyone who denies this is blind “
Uh? Jewish forces, under the preemptive Plan Dalet, were outside the extent of Israel’s declared sovereignty before it was even declared, after it was declared and up until the present day, dispossessing, slaughtering, razing, illegally acquiring, illegally annexing , illegally settling. Hamas are an ill equipped response. The results of which pale into insignificance against Israel’s military might, destruction and blatant dis-regard for Palestinian civilians.
“I can admit this and at the same time lay partial blame on the beginning of Caste Lead on Hamas’ reluctance to stop firing rockets into Israel.”
Why? Israel is the Occupying Power. Folk have a right to use arms against the occupier. There is no article stopping belligerents from crossing borders, or firing over borders to attack their opponent’s military once a war is in progress. In fact, had they the means, they have as much right to INVADE and take Israeli territory for strategic purposes as long as hostilities continue. They could even LEGALLY, according to your criteria, use white phosphorous in densely populated civilian areas where they had no forces ( in order to provide them cover of course)
The preemptive war against the Palestinians, begun under Plan Dalet, has been in effect for 62 years. There are no ceasefire/armistice/peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The ceasefires/armistice/peace agreements with Israel have all been between states that all existed BEFORE Israeli statehood.
If Israel doesn’t want Jewish civilians to end up as collateral, it should abide by the GC’s which are there to protect all civilians. A) Keep them out of territories illegally acquired by 1950 B) keep them out of “territories occupied” C) None of which (A or B) have ever been legally annexed to Israel.
If Israeli citizens actually in Israel are in harms way, they should be evacuated from the war zone. Go on a holiday back home to New Jersey or where ever.
When the State of Israel finally comes to it’s senses and withdraws to it’s own territory for the first time in it’s history, a prerequisite for peace full relations, they can return (unless of course Israel decides it’d like to sell the land again and appropriates it by some bizarre legislation… such a nice money spinner)
this legalistic hoovering after moral lint is appalling
Wonderfully apt turn of phrase.
The lint screen’s so filthy, he’s achieved a perfect moral vacuum. ;-)
The Israel lobby has woven a freakin persian’ rug out of such lint.
Witty is clearly ok with this
Rain of Fire: Israel’s Illegal Use of White Phosphorus On UN School in Gaza
link to youtube.com
Witty, if you step on my pink toe, do I get to blungeon you with a baseball bat about the head?
What does Baird conclude would have been an appropriate Israeli response, in the actual time frame (as a realist) where Hamas was in fact shelling Israeli civilians. (Not what Israel should have done prior?)
we’ll say it again here, just for the record, not you, Witty because you never learn
They weren’t. Israel broke the truce on Nov 4, 2008 by killing six Gazans. Since it had planned this fight for months (over eight according to the Israelis), it used our election night to take the heat off what it was doing. Hamas asked for the truce to continue. Israel killed some more. Hamas fired rockets. Israel started the Gaza War.
Of course they were planning it. This is what a military does, it plans for future conflicts. I don’t see why this is so mind blowing to you guys. Do you think Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, or any other country/entity doesn’t do the same?
Even if it was planned, if Hamas stopped the rockets, there wouldn’t have been a OP Caste Lead, the rockets were an excuse for Israel to bomb the crap out of them, Hamas left that door wide open.
Isrel didn’t plan for this conflict, they planned the conflict.
Yuor conflating a contigency in case fo a war with a plan to have a war.
There was no rockets on November 4th, but Israel attacked anyway. They woudl have just kept atatcking until Hamas retaliated. You know, just like Moshe Dayan described with the way Israelis lurded Syria into a war.
It had been stopped right up to Nov 4; and there were no rockets on November 4th, when Israel broke the truce–and a top IDF officer at the time is on public record saying OP Cast Lead was not a defensive act. Yonira is day-dreaming again.
yonira, Israel doesn’t need an excuse to bomb Gaza.
CL wasn’t about the rockets, it was about “reestablishing deterrence” after the IDF got its ass handed to it by Hezbollah. And the IDF was determined to do this whether Hamas cooperated or not.
Why do you chose to remain ignorant Witty? Why dio you not put some time aside and read the Goldstone Report?
Why do you refuser to do it? Are you afraid of what you will find?
“Are you afraid of what you will find?”
Of course I’m afraid.
MRW,
As I thought I had posted here, but doesn’t appear, your comment is an interesting interpretation, that conflicts with my understanding of Hamas declaring a week before the ending of the cease-fire that they would be willing to CONTINUE it if Israel opened the Gaza border.
That still leaves the question open of Israel’s failure to open the Gaza border earlier, but it also clarifies to me that Hamas understood the cease-fire to NOT have permanently ended on November 4, or even functionally ended.
As such, the firing of missiles after the cease-fire was a choice on their part, a choice to go to war, even knowing that Israel would retaliate harshly as they declared for the ten days before they initiated military action.
Richard Witty,
“…declaring a week before the ending of the cease-fire that they would be willing to CONTINUE it…”
” it also clarifies to me that Hamas understood the cease-fire to NOT have permanently ended on November 4, or even functionally ended.”
Really? You’re basing your contention on your interpretation of the word “continue” (in ENGLISH, no less), and what that might implies for the view regarding Hamas’s view of the status of the ceasefire on November 4. Really?? You don’t see the foolishness of this argument at all?? I mean, you can’t see any part of this reasoning which might prove even a smidge less than absolutely reliable?
How about if, instead of pretending that they said “continue,” pretend they said “renew” or “extend…” Does that change your grand clarification???
Obviously to Richard only Palestinians are mature individuals capable of being held accountable for their actions–thus his constant emphasis on Palestinian choices, while gliding over the “open question” of Israel refusing to grant Hamas’s just demand that the blockade be ended.
As for his fear of what he might learn, the Amnesty International report I link here must terrify him–
link
Then you admit you are incapable fo having an honest debate. We already knew that.
Your capacity to lie to otehrs is only surpassed by your ability to lie to yourself Witty.
Hamas did not propse a continuation of teh ceasefire buit a RETURN to it. They stated very clearly that the ceasefire was ove in November.
Thus it logicalyl follows that your theory is completely absurd. What’s more, your admission that Hamas did porpose a return to the ceasefire exposes yours and eee’s lies that Israel had no choice but a miliaristic one.
There is no evidence that Hamas considered the cease-fire to be stil in effect.
Woody,
Please don;t assume Witty is citing any facts. The word was not CONTINUE but RETURN.
This probably needs to be posted here. From Adam’s post above, citing Henry Seigman’s article in the Goldstone book:
link to mondoweiss.net
Thanks, Shingo. That was actully my point.
tree: Thanks to you, and others, for steadily posting and re-posting truths like the great Henry Siegman’s views above. Sometimes Mondoweiss can sound like a broken record, as Richard Witty (and others) continue to put up dishonest alibis for the Israeli attack on Gazan civilians, and patient people like you refute him, again and again.
I doubt Richard is capable of changing. He won’t challenge Henry Siegman, a rabbi and moral giant. He will skulk off, and pop up in a few days with the same tired, twisted view.
But Mondoweiss had almost two million unique visitors last year. It is they who will learn from your patient efforts to tell the truth.
It’s odd how Witty likes to play lawyer yet always ignores the facts, no matter how many times they are pointed out to him. How many angels on that pin, Witty?
Woody,
Renew and extend have the same meaning as continue.
>> RW: Renew and extend have the same meaning as continue.
I admire your precision. You understand that words have meanings and implications. You’re careful to choose the right words to convey your exact thoughts.
For example: The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is “currently not necessary”. Very clear, very precise.
Renew could imply that the ceasefire was over, whereas extend is only applicable during the ceasefire.
Either way, it’s irrelevant because Hamas proposed a RETURN to ceasefire.
You’d know that of you weren’t so scared to read about it.
Either way, it’s irrelevant because Hamas proposed a RETURN to ceasefire.
Did they Shingo? When exactly was this proposal? before or after December 18th, when they decided the cease fire would not be renewed.
I know, I know, November 4th, November 4th. But why would Hamas decide to end/not renew a ceasefire in December if they considered it over on November 4th?
link to telegraph.co.uk
link to nytimes.com
Looking forward to a link from antiwar.com or pressTV to ‘prove’ Hamas offered an extension of a ceasefire.
This would be the December in which Israel bombed a police academy and slaughtered virtually an entire graduating class of Palestinian civil servants?
Oh that’s right. That took place after Israel used foreign aid as bait before Operation Cast Lead. Ooh, how very clever of Israel! (Are you going to accuse that source of indulging in “left wing anti-Semitism?”)
I get how your college friends are complicit and war crimes and you side with them over human rights and the interests of the US in our promises to uphold international law. But really, now?
Chaos,
Sure buddy, whatever you say. No relevance at all to my reply to Shingo’s post, but that seems to be your MO.
It was the same December which Hamas fired 602 projectiles into Israel.
Richard Witty,
“Renew and extend have the same meaning as continue.”
No, they don’t. Or to be more precise, while “continue” could be a rough synonym of either “renew” or “extend,” that does not mean that their meanings are, in every case, the same.
But that hides my larger point (putting aside, of course, the point of the word being “return”), which is the patent lack of logical integrity in attempting to discern the thoughts or opinions of someone about a particular subject, based on a word choice on a different (even if related) subject.
The question of whether Israel broke the cease fire, whether Hamas considered the cease fire broken by Israel and what Hamas intended to state (or imply) by its word choice, are three different subjects. It is logically incoherent to make a conclusion about either of the first two, based on the word choice of the third, where the third does not direct address either of the first two.
The reason is simple: in order for your conclusion to be valid, you must establish that the speaker intended the implication which you draw. Absent that evidence (which you have not shown), you only have an inference, and one cannot reasonably demand a speaker to couch his statements in a way which eliminates inferences, especially, as here, patently unreasonable ones.
So, applied here, even if Hamas used “continue” (putting aside the question of “return”) that, itself, does not constitute any valid evidence regarding its view about the statue of the cease fire on November 4, because there are a myriad possibilities, all as equally likely as the implication as you which to draw, such as that the speaker was being imprecise, purposefully vague, diplomatic to give the foe a face-saving out, using “continue” to mean “resume” (as in continue after interruption), etc., etc., etc.. Absent evidence that your cherished inference was an intended implication, there is simply no reason to believe your inference was, in fact, implied.
So even if “continue” were used, it does not, as a matter of simple logic, mean squat.
Eljay,
You know, or you should, that your quote is misrepresentatively out of context.
The actual paragraph (or maybe two consecutive lines) was “I don’t know if ethnic cleansing was necessary in 1948. I do know that it is no longer necessary.”
You want to spin that sequence as suppressive, then you are just lying.
I don’t know if ethnic cleansing was necessary
and genocide, is that also necessary on occasion?
Richard Witty,
How is what Eljay stated, “misrepresentatively out of context”? In stating that you did not know whether this crime against humanity was “necessary” at one time, but that you know it is not “necessary” now, you implicitly state that such a crime against humanity could, in fact, be “necessary.”
If you are of the opinion (with the recent of the civilized mass of humanity) that such a thing is never “necessary,” then you should take the opportunity to clarify your position and assert that it was a crime against humanity when Israel perpetrated it, and that it is, was, and always shall be, such a crime.
I’m certain that if you take this opportunity to assert that you misspoke (perhaps out of poor word choice), and that you intent to make clear that you absolutely declare ethnic cleaning, both in general and as applied to the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, to be a crime against humanity and/or war crime, that it is worthy of action taken against the perpetrators until the victims are made whole and are returned all of that which has been taken from them, that would go a long way toward clearing up this issue.
Of course, if you refuse to make such a declaration, then you really cannot complain if someone calls you on the ugly implication of your statement.
And for what great gain to humanity might such dreadful things be necessary? What might be bought at such a great price?
Richard wrote–
—————————-
The actual paragraph (or maybe two consecutive lines) was “I don’t know if ethnic cleansing was necessary in 1948. I do know that it is no longer necessary.”
You want to spin that sequence as suppressive, then you are just lying.
——————————–
What exactly does the final sentence mean? As for the first sentence, it clearly means that ethnic cleansing might have been necessary in 1948, but Richard doesn’t know. Richard has immense difficulty determining whether any given Israeli war crime was a war crime. He does not have that problem regarding Palestinian violence towards Israeli civilians.
If you ever achieve moral consistency, Richard, your posts would move from the category of “Demonstrating the moral obtuseness of many liberal defenders of Israel” to the category of “Someone groping towards a fair solution to the problem.”
>> Eljay,
>> You know, or you should, that your quote is misrepresentatively out of context.
>> The actual paragraph (or maybe two consecutive lines) was “I don’t know if ethnic cleansing was necessary in 1948. I do know that it is no longer necessary.”
>> You want to spin that sequence as suppressive, then you are just lying.
Richard, we did this dance once before when you attempted to deny your hateful stance on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. You lied then, and you’re lying again. And while I don’t mind being corrected when I’m wrong, I do have an issue with accusations that I’m lying, especially when they are made by a Zio-supremacist hypocrite who is misrepresenting his own statements.
It took me a while to find the original thread and quotes, but here they are. I’m going to bookmark that thread – and this one – because I know you’re going to attempt to pull this stunt at some point in the future, when you think enough time has passed to make everyone forget that you really did say what I keep saying you said.
[url=link to mondoweiss.net
3 U.S. officers who are angered by the special relationship[/url]
——————————————–
Chaos4700 September 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm
… Then why was it necessary for Jewish immigrants to ethnically cleanse massive swaths of the Palestinian country side? …
Richard Witty September 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“Then why was it necessary for Jewish immigrants to ethnically cleanse massive swaths of the Palestinian country side?”
Currently its not necessary. Its a stupid choice, that can be influenced by those with a better argument.
——————————————–
There you go. You did not refer to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as immoral, unjust, unconscionable or just plain wrong. You merely deflected the discussion by stating that ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”, that is IS (not that it WAS) a course of action which can be avoided.
In the same thread (and since then; and also likely before then), you said: “The establishment of a Jewish state was a good in the world, necessary, progressive, establishing self-determination for the Jewish people … ”
You did not condemn the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that was required for the successful creation and establishment of that state. Because it’s “currently not necessary”.
I’m not sure what happened with my prior post (January 23, 2011 at 2:07 pm), so I’ve resubmitted the full version.
————————————-
>> Eljay,
>> You know, or you should, that your quote is misrepresentatively out of context.
>> The actual paragraph (or maybe two consecutive lines) was “I don’t know if ethnic cleansing was necessary in 1948. I do know that it is no longer necessary.”
>> You want to spin that sequence as suppressive, then you are just lying.
Richard, we did this dance once before when you attempted to deny your hateful stance on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. You lied then, and you’re lying again. And while I don’t mind being corrected when I’m wrong, I do have an issue with accusations that I’m lying, especially when they are made by a Zio-supremacist hypocrite who is misrepresenting his own statements.
It took me a while to find the original thread and quotes, but here they are. I’m going to bookmark that thread and this one because I know you’re going to to attempt to pull this stunt at some point in the future, when you think enough time has passed to make everyone forget that you really did say what I keep saying you said.
Meeting 3 U.S. officers who are angered by the special relationship
————————————-
Chaos4700 September 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm
… Then why was it necessary for Jewish immigrants to ethnically cleanse massive swaths of the Palestinian country side? …
Richard Witty September 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“Then why was it necessary for Jewish immigrants to ethnically cleanse massive swaths of the Palestinian country side?”
Currently its not necessary. Its a stupid choice, that can be influenced by those with a better argument. …
————————————-
And there you have it. You did not refer to the past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as immoral, unjust, unconscionable or just plain wrong. In fact, you didn’t refer to the past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians at all. You merely deflected the discussion by stating that ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary” and that it is (not that it was) an avoidable course of action.
Woody Tanaka above (January 23 @ 12:46 p.m.) has politely asked Richard to clarify Richard’s earlier comments about ethnic cleansing. I predict that Richard will skulk off without responding, only to pop up in a week or so claiming yet again he has been misunderstood.
This kind of behavior would seem to meet the Mondoweiss definition of “trolling.”
And, what was the earlier context of the discussion? And, are you sure that that was the first statement of that sequence?
I think it irritated you, and you did not seek to clarify what I meant at the time, instead choosing to attack.
I’ve stated consistently that the PRESENT is the time frame that we can influence, that anyone alive can influence.
I’ve also stated that I greatly appreciate the change in status for Jews in the world from surviving a century that culminated in genocide, to shift by courage, assertion, and international sympathy to one of self-determination, liberty, health.
So, I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
I was negative six years old in 1948. I had NO influence on the historical events at the time. If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
My expectation is that with the prospect of climate change forcing all delta residents to migrate, that there will be significant population tensions, and likely ethnic cleansing in the future.
Name-calling James is distinctly trolling. My expressing a reluctance to vainly judge the past, is not.
I’m not sure why you are joining in this retroactive McCarthyite purge effort.
It is a SICK irony that you would attack someone who consistently declares that in the present ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should be actively opposed.
Not the first time the self-righteous left has undertaken an interrogation approach.
And please do not claim that you can trust the “historical record” of interactions here, as so many of my responses do not appear in the record. They are moderated. Especially after orchestrated efforts to silence diverse opinion here, “he’s a troll”.
Childish.
Further,
If you asked Phil or Adam, if they regard the actual ethnic cleansing in 1948 (going both ways), as something that they would oppose, I would hope that they would express at least some ambivalence, HONESTLY.
Those that regard the presence of Israel as only a birth in sin, requiring abortion, can avoid that ambivalence, the mixed experience, instead of imagining a birth without pain or a war without casualties.
It is possible to argue without to the bone insult however.
Also James,
Are you serious in describing Woody’s question as polite?
richard, you’re nuts. don’t drag in phil and adam to justify your defense of crimes against humanity.
Both ways? Did the Palestinians ethnically cleanse anyone? Are you trying to draw a false paradigm between the crimes of the Zionists and the crimes of Palestinian CIVILIANS?
Richard, I think it’s obvious you make exceptions for Israel in every regard. So w/ regard to crimes against humanity, it’s acceptable to ethnically cleanse, steal land, colonize, etc. if it’s for a Jewish homeland.
I’ve also stated that I greatly appreciate the change in status for Jews in the world from surviving a century that culminated in genocide, to shift by courage, assertion, and international sympathy to one of self-determination, liberty, health.
So, I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
this is getting more and more bizarre
>> So, I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
Wow. That is just pure hatefulness.
>> … If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
Well, well, well. Despite all your bluster in this thread and elsewhere – and despite your disgraceful attempt to brand me a liar, you’ve proven beyond shadow of a doubt that you accept the past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary” but, for the time being at least, as “currently not necessary”. I’m sure everyone is glad to know that you in 1948 would have held your nose as you cheered on the dirty work others were doing to create your “good in the world”. You are a disgusting person.
>> It is a SICK irony that you would attack someone who consistently declares that in the present ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should be actively opposed.
A beautiful display of aggressor-victimhood! Well done, sir! :-) But once again, you deflect the argument. It is not your opposition to CURRENT ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that is in question.
Annie,
do you defend the constant barrage of projectiles from Gaza? Projectiles which are considered war crimes because of their indiscriminate targeting of civilians?
“this is getting more and more bizarre”
Bizarre, but if you keep reading he clarifies his stance before he then engages in plausible speculation on the likely consequences of global warming.
“If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
My expectation is that with the prospect of climate change forcing all delta residents to migrate, that there will be significant population tensions, and likely ethnic cleansing in the future.”
The first sentence is an acknowledgement that yes, in 1948 he would have held his nose and supported any action that created Israel. So that settles the ethnic cleansing question. He supports it when he thinks it necessary. But he’d said that before.
“Both ways? Did the Palestinians ethnically cleanse anyone? ”
Yes, they did. The entire West Bank was ethnically cleansed of Jews from 1948 – 1967 with the exception of a few hundred in Jerusalem. It started during the Arab revolt, but shifted into high gear with the siege of Jerusalem by a combination of locals and Jordanian army.
It was NOT insignificant, and indicated intent. Similarly to Israel’s failure to stop settlement expansion last year, indicated the intent of the likud government to fail to negotiate for peace, and also fail to unilaterally afford Palestinians beyond incremental improvements in their liberty.
“this is getting more and more bizarre”
Annie,
What do you think the 20th century was like in Europe, particularly for Jews?
Name a date.
You think there was “ethnic cleansing” perhaps? Do you think that it was prosecuted, in what cases yes, in what cases no? Do you care?
Its past you know.
What do you think it was like in the Levant? Name a date. You think there was any ethnic cleansing occurring? Do you care?
donald, yes i know. one might think he’d stop digging, but nooooooo. not the sharpest tack in the box, our witty.
>> donald, yes i know. one might think he’d stop digging, but nooooooo. not the sharpest tack in the box, our witty.
Not the sharpest, not the most hateful (that award goes to eee), but clearly dedicated to “the cause” of his “collective”.
He has made it perfectly clear that he approves of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary”, and he has made it perfectly clear that such ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”. (The future is wide open.)
And now that he has (once again) completely and undeniably exposed himself as a hateful person and a Zio-supremacist hypocrite, he’s on the attack, if only to distract from the fact that his ugliness is showing.
>> … The entire West Bank was ethnically cleansed of Jews from 1948 – 1967 with the exception of a few hundred in Jerusalem.
Hey, RW, watch this: The ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank was unjust and immoral.
There, see how easy that is? Ethnic cleansing is ALWAYS wrong. Only a hateful supremacist could consider an act of ethnic cleansing to be “necessary”, and could further justify its necessity by linking it to the new state – charmingly termed “a good in the world” – created, by force, by his “collective”.
It was the same December which Hamas fired 602 projectiles into Israel.
How many projectiles do you think Israel fired into Gaza that December Yonira?
Yes they did Yonira,
The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.
The readiness of Hamas to return to the ceasefire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Centre, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire that had been in effect up to early November “if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza”.
link to ipsnews.net
It was also reported here:
link to foreignaffairs.com
Wow Yonira, did you even bother to read your links? The second line in the Telegraph report reads:
“The calm is over,” said Ayman Taha, a Hamas spokesman.
The NYT article is just a joke and obviously a pro Israeli propaganda piece that Bronner edited. It asks the question:
Why did Hamas end its six-month cease-fire on Dec. 19? Without even bothering to mention the November 4th attack.
Is there anything more I can do to pierce your hermetically sealed Hasbara bubble?
By Palestinians Witty?
“Do you care?”
no
next question.
I care about what happens to and in the US.
call me an isolationist; you won’t hurt my feelings.
I used to be a caring person, then I encountered yoniras and eee s and all their many iterations and replications, and I decided I couldn’t harbor all that hate and mendacity in my soul; I needed to accentuate the positive: so I just care about the United States.
As opposed to deliberate targeting of civilians Yonira?
What’s that supposed to mean Witty? That they would share your belief that ethnic cleansing was necessary then, but not currently?
Of course you can’t Witty,. You’ve already told us that “ethnic cleansing is currently not necessary”, so you would be contradicting yourself.
But you;re an adult now and you’re position can best be described as supportive of everything that Israel does. So what’s the distinction?
You regard the creation of Israel as a positive development. You support the ethnic purification of Israel and oppose mixed marriages and a single state.. hence it follows that you support the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1947-1948.
You’ve got nothing to fear if you’ve got nothing to hide Witty. The problem is that you refuse to accept responsibility for your extremism and what you have said on this blog.
Look, none of this is new.
Witty has already told us this exact thing before. He said before, like a year ago or so, that he would have accepted the actions because he wanted a Jewish State. He wouldn’t get his hands dirty though.
Why do you guys waste your time with him? He’s boring.
>> Not the first time the self-righteous left has undertaken an interrogation approach.
Oh, poor little Richard, the Zio-supremacist hypocrite. He wanted to brand eljay a liar, but instead ended up admitting that ethnic cleansing is sometimes necessary and that, had he been around at the time, he would have “held his nose” while members of his “collective” got their hands dirty. But he does admit that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is “currently not necessary”, so everything must be kosher, no?
And now he’s all sad that people are bothered by the hateful, Zio-supremacist stuff he said. Boo-hoo. What a disgusting, fraudulent “humanist” hypocrite.
I’m glad that Israel exists.
That it involved struggle to be born, makes its citizens that much more dedicated to it.
There is no guilt that will change that. You want this to be another century-long conflict?
If not, then accept that Israel exists, and that struggle occurred in its birth.
“Zio-supremacist”. You’d have to see me saying that “it is good Palestinians suffer” for that to be true, and I just don’t say that.
You are speaking of a strawman, somebody else.
Just when I think you’ve sunk as low as you could sink Witty, you post something like this and demonstrate yet again that there is no limit to the degree to which you can delude yourself, nor limit to the shameless hypocrisy and denial.
If indeed it is true that these points are components of Liberal Zionism, then surely you are no liberal Zionist After all, you cheer lead the attack on Gaza and support the siege, as you supported the attack on Lebanon.
I can only shake my head in amazement at this statement. Here you are, the same Witty who invents quotes and conversation that never happened, and who professes to read the minds of the IDF, and in spite of hundreds of corrections demonstrating that Israel broke the 2008 ceasefire insists otherwise, declaring that he reserves his judgement until he has the facts.
This is the same Witty, who a few days ago, admitted he was too afraid to read the Goldstone Report because it might shatter his illusions about Israel.
This is the same Witty, who a few months ago, admitted that his tribal allegiances prevent him from accepting certain realities.
This is the same Witty, who either dismisses international law as vague or irrelevant when it doesn’t suit him, or who cites international law (which he know nothing of) when it does.
Its an example of the term “interrogation” to insist on it. You can think of Israeli actions as a crime all you want. You can be a prejudicial judge if you like.
In which case, not only are you NOT a liberal Zionist, but nor are you a progressive either.
Yes, that certainly describes the experience of the resistance to Israeli occupation, as well as the creation of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Do you accept that Hezbollah exists, and that struggle occurred in its birth?
Of course you do Witty. When you say that “ethnic cleansing is no longer necessary” for a greater good, it implies hat the suffering of Palestinians was necessary and good.
>> I’m glad that Israel exists.
Goody for you.
>> That it involved struggle to be born, makes its citizens that much more dedicated to it.
I’m sure it does. But you’re not one of its citizens.
>> There is no guilt that will change that.
That’s part of the Zio-supremacist affliction: You want, you take and you feel no remorse for the theft or the harm done.
>> “Zio-supremacist”. You’d have to see me saying that “it is good Palestinians suffer” for that to be true, and I just don’t say that.
You’re an admitted Zionist, and you believe in and defend the Jewish-supremacist nature of Israel (the Israeli state). Oh, and you approve of the past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Zionists/Jews, even if you have to “hold your nose” to do it. Zio-supremacist.
Ignorance is bliss.
And intentional ignorance is amiss.
How much damage did the “shelling” do, richard? This is not a theater of war, but a captive population with over half of them children, and no weapons or self-defense allowed.
One of the things that awoke me to the true nature of the situation was a report in the (often rather cold-hearted) Economist years ago, quite soon after the Hamas victory and well before Cast Lead, which stated, as I remember, that Israel was responsible by various means for about 30 deaths a month in Gaza (1 per day!) of which half were deaths of non-combatants.
ot but important
Have you seen Liebermann lie again while dismissing Arianna Huffington. Nothing in the Duelfer report confirming Iraq had WMD’s Joe’s nose keeps growing
Joe Lieberman Dismisses Arianna: “I Don’t Think You’ve Read It, SWEETHEART”
Read more: link to businessinsider.com
link to businessinsider.com
Mr. Pinnocchio
Liebermann keeps lying
link to businessinsider.com
He’s like some sort of deformed oatmeal cookie Zionists like.
Do not insult oatmeal.
I believe oatmeal gives you lots of energy. The D Report does, I think, claim that Saddam would, at least after a good dose of oats, have liked to reconstitute a WMD capability after the end of sanctions, mainly to balance Iran. The report also makes clear that this went no further than a wish in his brain and that no planning group had been formed. At that rate Lieberman’s ‘had every intention’ stretches the meaning of the word, but is perhaps an exaggeration rather than a plain lie. His ‘was developing’ is very hard to defend even on the kindliest interpretation and his sneering claim to have read the report more accurately than AH had done is rather awful.
Making a completely unexecuted intention into a casus belli is a bit of a new venture. You might say that, on D’s showing, the existence of the intention would have been a reason to maintain sanctions but no more. You might also say that the war could be justified on D-related grounds only if the replacement for Saddam had no comparable strong wishes (even strong wishes) for WMD, either to balance – or (if the Shia came to power) to support – Iran.
Two important pieces. Have been reading the Christisons pieces for years now. Both former CIA analyst
US was Cheerleader for Massacre
Wikileaks Cables on Israel’s Gaza Onslaught
link to counterpunch.org
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
CounterPunch has accessed Wikileaks’ file of cables on Israel’s Gaza assault two years ago (Operation Cast Lead, December 27, 2008 through January 18, 2009). Though the cables often simply rehash Israeli press reporting, providing little new insight into Israel’s attack or the planning behind it, they show with pitiless clarity the U.S. government to be little more than a handmaiden and amanuensis of the Israeli military machine.
link to counterpunch.org
Gabrielle Giffords, Tom Hurndall and Palestinian Children
Shot in the Head
By ALISON WEIR
There is something particularly horrifying when someone is shot in the head. Perhaps it’s the gruesome image, the destruction of the brain, the clear intent to kill. The recent shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is made even more nightmarish by the location of her devastating injury.
Those of us who focus on Israel-Palestine are acutely aware of this horror.
Several years ago, I was researching the cause of death of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces during the first months of the Second Intifadah, the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. As I counted up the numbers, I was chilled to discover that the single most frequent cause of death in those beginning months was “gunfire to the head.”
In the past 10 years Israeli forces have killed at least 255 Palestinian minors by fire to the head, and the number may actually be greater, since in many instances the specific bodily location of the lethal trauma is unlisted. In addition, this statistic does not include the many more Palestinian youngsters shot in the head by Israeli soldiers who survived, in one form or another.
———————————————————-
folks you can invite Allison Weir to your local campus, church, synagogue, mosque or any other event to speak. Allison Weir is amazing, well informed and oh so reasonable.
Now the head of CNI and If Americans Knew
link to cnionline.org
link to ifamericansknew.org
Allison Weir is a great American. Wikipedia’s description of her organization includes a section on criticism. It’s description of a contrary organization CAIR, does not.
“If Obama saw what white phosphorus did to the kids’ rehab room at Al Quds Hospital in Gaza, maybe he would become a decider?”
This is probably accurate.
Yeah, he’d decide yet again, again not to repeat his Cairo speech.
I’d like to see Obama’s daughters witness the effects of WP then ask their father why he continues to support the people who did that to them, instead of the victims.
Richard,
How do you think you would react if you had a chance to explain the value of the lives of Israeli soldiers to these people?
it’s the money, yes, but there’s another factor to consider: Congress is really run by 20-year olds: they answer the phones, tell the Congressman what’s going on, read the bills. Congressmen spend more than 2/3 of their time begging for money for the next election, so 20 year olds run the show.
Those 20 year olds are more ideologically driven and lesser rational thinkers than even the misinformed congressperson they work for. Liberty University trains kids specifically to work in those offices; certainly Hillel or other Jewish orgs on campus do so as well.
The issue came up when Republicans took the House in Nov 2010: ok, so you have new people in the seats, but are key staffers the same? There’s a lot of power in very immature hands.
Stuart Levey & Dennis Ross are two examples of non-elected staff that wield enormous power, and we KNOW were placed in their positions by Israel lobby — in Mitchell Bard video linked earlier, Bard said so, quite specifically.
btw, C Span discussed GOP proposed budget cuts this morning — several millions to be cut from Egypt; Head Start, community development grants, NPR to be cut, but not Defense, not Homeland Security.
And not Eric Cantor’s untouchable aid to Israel, the biggest chunk of foreign aid. Young volunteer AIPAC staffers and staffer aids work in every nook and crany of congress with any impact on Israel.
certainly Hillel or other Jewish orgs on campus do so as well.
Do you have any clue what hillel is PG? I can guarantee they aren’t training political science majors.
Oh? And who are they connecting with Birthright tours, then? Art History Majors? People studying for social work degrees?
Hillel and Birthright are two separate entities. Are you saying only Poli Sci majors go on Birthright? I am sure both Art History and Social Work majors go on Birthright.
Your arguments are getting less coherent these days.
Wonderful. I’m getting lectured on coherence from a Glenn Beck aficionado. Boy, I love the discussions on Mondoweiss.
This is not a statement of advocacy. The key term in this paragraph used frequently is the word “common”. “White phosphorous is COMMONLY used”.
To me it sounds like a horrible weapon (name one that isn’t), but “commonly” used.
One concern I have about being specific is that specific accusations are limited accusations. They do NOT serve well the effort to overthrow a state, to condemn wholesale, to support the use of the term “evil” (whether an evil empire by Bush, or evil Israel).
I regard the failure to be specific in language, in editorial presentation, to be the equivalent of collective punishment.
I’ll leave the failure to address the specific argument of the relevance of the IDF preparation to consider Hamas’ prior illegal tactics aside as an unanswered question. But, it remains unanswered.
It is a tension of actual war, that us living room critics, have no insight into unless we express it specifically. We are incompetent judges. We can accurately testify that unnecessary suffering occurred, and demand of ALL our leaders that they work to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. But, if we demand it of Israel, but do not demand it of Hamas and factions, then we are war mongering, not war opposing.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“White phosphorus (WP) is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary[1] munitions.
As an incendiary weapon, WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. Since WWII, it has been extensively used as a weapon, capable of causing serious burns or death.[2] White phosphorus is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as “WP”, and the slang term “Willy/Willie Pete/Peter” (dating from World War I) is still commonly used by infantry and artillery servicemen.[citation needed]
WP is also a highly efficient smoke producing agent, burning quickly and causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result, smoke producing WP munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles, or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars. These create smokescreens to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire.”
But not used to incienrate people Witty. Nuclear power is commnly used to, but not to blow up cities.
Why is this a concern? The use of WP specificlaly to burn people is a legitmate accusation and there is ample evidence for it.
Strange comiong from someoe who’s typicalyl very vague and incoherent.
There were no Hamas’ prior illegal tactics, thiough I know you like to pretend that there were.
Unnecessary suffering does not just occur, it is the consequence of unecessary agression.
WP as characterized in Witty’s last paragraph sounds like a metaphor for the handy charge of anti-semitism.
“If Obama read ……………… he would become a decider.”
He already decided to close his eyes, take the jewish money and get ready for that second term. I would rather vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck than to give my choice to that bag of lies again.
“Hillary Clinton on borders for Israel: only the two parties involved can decide the borders, without outside intervention”.
Really?! Then all those land grabs after the WWI and WWII in Europe, forced and decided by the USA, GB and France, are all illegal!!
Poland had to give a great part of its country to Russia, Germany to Poland, Hungary lost 2/3 of the territory it had since over a 1,000 years, Austria gave the german speaking Süd-Tirol to Italy, etc.
According to Hillary Clinton it is all illegal!!
Go back further. Mexico lost a lot of territory to the USA. Australia’s aborigines lost it all to the white invaders! lots of examples;
The white invaders were Irish debt slaves; the Brits used Australia as a dumping grounds, a cheap jail for those who couldn’t afford their to pay their debts.
One way to determine if the use of phosphorus weapons should be condemned or not is to consider there use against the armed vigilantes squatting on Palestinian territory. If using these types of weapons is acceptable to defend against missiles fired out of Gaza, then it should be acceptable to use them against the squatters who kill Palestinian civilians, tear down Palestinian homes, destroy Palestinian water resources, and ruin Palestinian agriculture. If the US arms Israel with white phosphorus weapons to defend themselves against armed Palestinians, the US should arm Palestinians with white phosphorus weapons to defend themselves from armed squatters. It should be obvious the use of these types of weapons is grossly inappropriate for the conflict caused by Israeli militant territorial expansion.
EEE- In response to your denial about Israeli militarism, while I agree that it is not truly unique, Prussia comes to mind, I would like to call your attention to a very recent article on the CounterPunch website dealing with this very topic. The author is a film maker who made a documentary titled “Occupation Has No Future,” which delves into current Israeli society. He notes that “The film explores the Israeli social environment that creates such heightened militarism and leads to attitudes of fear, exclusion, racism, and ultimately aggression. Interviews demonstrate how institutions like the education system and religion, along with practices of victimization, xenophobia, and alienation all contribute to the state’s ability to maintain popular support for conscription and militarization, while simultaneously preserving belief in its label as the “only democracy in the Middle East.”
Additionally, “Even with this new-found knowledge I still found Israel’s all-encompassing system of militarization hard to fathom. The military interpenetrates all aspects of society from the top to the bottom. Civilian institutions completely independent from the military are rare. Hospitals, for instance, are supplied with doctors and resources from the armed forces, so the military is allowed significant, if unofficial, control over policy. The media, a cornerstone in any supposedly “democratic” state, is still subject to military censorship (even if it is rarely imposed, as self-censorship prevails). And the question most often asked in job interviews? “What did you do in the army?”
“From a very young age Israelis are taught about the Jewish history of persecution, and how it continues to this day from all sides—figuratively and literally—in the form of the Arab states and Palestinian terrorism. Criticism of Israeli policy is interpreted as the proliferation of Western anti-Semitism. The military is rarely absent from the classroom. A military emphasis is present not only in the curriculum, but in the form of uniformed soldiers teaching classes, or recruiters advertising their specific units. Even the funding of schools is tied to their rates of military enlistment.”
To all of this I would add that Israel, like Prussia, has been described as an Army with a country. Obviously, the US can also be described as excessively militaristic. This, too, a shared value.
link to counterpunch.org
The use of white phosphorus as a smoke screen is only valid IF THERE ARE ISRAELI forces in the vicinity of where it lands.
I saw no IDF at the UN school.
I have not seen ANY footage showing IDF forces using the cover provided by White Phosphorus.
Perhaps eee or one of the other similarly myopic posters can point something out? Yes?
When it’s used as smoke, it ISN’T being used for illumination. The photos and videos we see are NOT of it’s use as illumination A) Y illumination during the day? B) smoke is not illumination it’s completely different type of configuration C) For illumination and/or smoke there must surely be IDF in the immediate area.
There are two undeniable component concepts that describe Liberal Zionism:
1. We/they exist as a people, as a nation
2. We/they desire to treat their neighbors as humanely as is feasible
I love those two component concepts. I will never renounce them for some suicidal idea, and very very very few Israelis would as well.
Criticism of policies is a different question. I’m very happy to criticize the many idiotic Israeli policies and practices. I’m unwilling to judge, not being privy to all of the facts, or on the jury responsible to.
I won’t call something a crime, not knowing the facts, not knowing the law.
Its an example of the term “interrogation” to insist on it. You can think of Israeli actions as a crime all you want. You can be a prejudicial judge if you like.
Then renounce Operation Cast Lead. Right now.
I have mixed feelings about Operation Cast Lead. The effort to stop Hamas’ and factions’ rockets was necessary. The means to do that were amateurish, partially inneffective (partially effective), often cruel, and exposed Israel to condemnation by propagandists.
Confirming that by your own definition, you are not a liberal Zionist.
Cast Lead had nothing to do with stopping rockets. You’ve had this proven to you repeatedly. If Israel was concerned with stopping rockets, they would have a) stuck to the ceasefire or b) accepted the offer by Hamas to return to the ceasefire.
In other words, you fully endorsed the targeting and massacre of civilians, but regret the bad publicity this gave Israel.