-
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program … 0
- Why did ‘NYT’ serve as platform for ‘military propaganda’? 1
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel … 7
- George Orwell would hate Israel 30
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president 0
- Why Palestine is different 7
- PLO: Israel has built 16,000 settlement units over the past … 1
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1712
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1368
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 954
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 314
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 302
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 107
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 50
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 50
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program targeting Muslims http://t.co/J7dbBLZZXl, 13 hours ago
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president http://t.co/FXU8YRToQS, 13 hours ago
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag atop Everest http://t.co/jQQ6xcFAWw, 13 hours ago
- George Orwell would hate Israel http://t.co/pXjc9SBxNL, 13 hours ago
- Reluctantly taking down orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got '1000s of positive reactions' http://t.co/uCZ0r5CDey, 13 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- George Orwell would hate Israel (30)
- Hostage: What exactly are Israel’s borders? The ones set in 1948? A country can always alter the boundaries of its...
- Hostage: I have to ask. Has any great man of the past 200 years not been accused of anti-Semitism? Come to think of...
- Hostage: Obsidian, Source for your comment that Orwell was “an admitted anti-Semite”? Obsidian was incorrect in...
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got ’1000s of positive reactions’ (7)
- Shmuel: Derfner writes: Israel is a breeding ground for boors, always has been … and boors just naturally...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “They ["The Union" - J.L.D.] honestly don’t know what they did wrong. They’re genuinely...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “The clip is meant for comedic purposes only . . . In less than one day, the video received...
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (25)
- Ramzi Jaber: Citizen, yet again, I’m afraid you’re right but I hope you’re wrong ;-)
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (34)
- Ramzi Jaber: Yes bintbiba, that’s right… “darabni wa baka, saba’ni wa shtaka”. The rhyme is...
- Annie Robbins: I wonder if there will be an internal jewish coup in the US led by the younger generation or it will...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
- Annie Robbins: ckg, that’s very interesting.
- George Orwell would hate Israel (30)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Alice Rothchild
- Kate
- Ahmed Moor
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
>> [Netanyahu] categorically denied Israel's extensive military and trade ties with South Africa ... accusing his critics of trying "to defame Israel."
Huh. And all this time I thought the correct term was "to bludgeon Israel"... ;-)
>> Buy Palestinian products, not settlement goods
>> A better form of dissent would be “Buy Palestinian products”.
You're right: "We will take everything!" sounds much better than "We will take everything, and leave the Palestinians with nothing!"
>> There are really only a few wrongs that can only be framed in negative terms, and those should be.
I'd love to see this list of "only a few wrongs that can only be framed in negative terms".
Regarding my earlier example directed at eee, I would like to tone down the wording to:
>> That is exactly how
stupidridiculous you sound when you do the same thing on this forum site.The original wording was un-necessarily harsh, and there's far too much of that harshness already on this site.
>> 99% of Israel’s Jews want a Jewish state.
What does "a Jewish state" mean? Do non-Jews have equal rights - or any rights at all? - in "a Jewish state"?
>> Most want a Jewish state based on the 67 borders with some changes ...
What kind of changes? If the Palestinians accept the '67 borders and veto the changes - or if they counter with "some changes" of their own, is that acceptable?
>> Where is the call to BDS those countries?
You seem to have serious comprehension issues.
If you want to read about calls to BDS the US, China and Russia, go to the forum sites that discuss the policies and actions of those countries. If no one has posted calls for BDS on those sites, then you will be in the right place to do so.
On this forum site, the discussion is about the actions and policies of Israel, not the US (other than to the extent to which they affect / are affected by Israel), China and Russia.
If you were on a forum site condemning the policies and actions of Uzbekistan, you would probably find it completely stupid if some Uzbekistani were to say, "Why are people bludgeoning Uzbekistan? Where are the calls for BDS of Israel?" That is exactly how stupid you sound when you do the same thing on this forum site.
>> If ALL countries should abide by international law, then let’s start with the US, China and Russia.
There are many forum sites where the policies and actions of the U.S. China and Russia are discussed and, as appropraite, condemned. If you want to bitch about those countries, do so on one of those sites.
This forum site - as has been pointed out to you on several occasions - is a place for discussion and, as appropriate, condemnation of Israel's policies and actions.
The crimes of other nations do not exist as justification for, or absolution of, Israel's crimes.
>> The Jews already have their state, and we are not going to give it up without a hell of a fight.
And, what, you expect a pat on the back for your attitude? You shit on the Palestinians - whose land Israel keeps stealing and whose lives and livelihoods Israel keeps destroying - for putting up a fight to keep what is theirs, but when Israel does it it's something noble, something brave, something to be admired. What a joke(r).
>> You keep missing the point. ALL countries abide by international law if it helps their interests, otherwise they don’t. That is the standard worldwide. Israel should not be held to another standard.
You're missing the point: All countries should abide by international law PERIOD. Israel is being held to that standard. The fact that other countries fall short of that standard - and they are condemned for their failures - is not a reason to excuse Israel's behaviour.
>> You are welcome to try this method. Don’t complain about the results.
Unlike you, I have no desire to attack, destroy, kill, occupy or subjugate anyone or anything.
>> Are you joking? Was there international inquiry into Russian action in Chechnya? Was there ANY UN condemnation for Russia? Same goes for China and Tibet.
>> Who was the last dissident to go to Chechnya to protect its people? What NGOs operate in Tibet or Chechnya?
Glad to see that you've finally left the Native Americans behind and have arrived in the 21st Century. Not that it changes anything, of course: You're still using the crimes of others to justify the crimes of your own government.
>> Was there ANY UN condemnation for Russia? Same goes for China and Tibet.
I notice that you conveniently omitted Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only was there condemnation, there was invasion, occupation, regime change and, for the leader of Iraq, execution. Perhaps, instead of pressure levied against Israel to reform its criminal ways, you'd prefer to be lumped in with Iraq and Afghanistan and have reform imposed upon you.
Excellent post, LanceThruster.
Too bad your comments will be viewed by some people - well, by at least one person - as destabilization and maximalism. I mean, why address using facts the inaccuracies put forth by proponents of the Israeli side of the debate, when you could simply present yourself as a human being instead of a victim and try to understand "the other"? ;-)
>> ... it has never been debunked eljay, your claim that they changed their charter has been debunked on here.
I didn't say Hamas changed their charter. I said that your earlier point - that Hamas is calling for the destruction of Israel - has been debunked. And the article you linked to supports my statement:
"The charter must be amended because it does not [accurately] reflect the essence of the Palestinian struggle against the Zionist entity, but conveys a message that Hamas [actually] abandoned a long time ago."
Thanks for providing a link to an article - penned by someone you appear to consider an authoritative source - that debunks the claim that Hamas still wants to destroy Israel.
>> Another case of arguing that both sides are to blame, [while only] condeming one side and rejecting condemnation of the other on the grounds that it thwarts peace and reconcilliation.
Blaming both sides would be destabilizing and would not be the "better argument". ;-)
Although I won't stoop to the name-calling that I've seen some people (disappointingly) engage in, I must say that any respect I had (and I did have some) for Mr. Witty has pretty much faded away.
His inevitable use of bafflegab and pseudo-intellectual-sounding drivel in lieu of clear, concise and direct answers, and his obvious devotion to the Israeli side of the argument - in contrast to his hypocritical calls for "balance" and respect for "the other", etc. - have rendered his pronouncements meaningless. (To me, anyway.)
>> No where does it call for the destruction of the Palestinians, like the Hamas charter does.
Why do you persist on promoting this out-dated point? Your link is to a 1988 document which has been debunked numerous times in numerous threads. Example:
link to guardian.co.uk
Such obvious falsehoods detract from your arguments. Maybe your just playing "tit-for-tat" with other forum members, maybe not. Anyway, just a thought.
>> If you drift to condemnation of Israel, you will have to address the issue of continuing conflict and the political role of Hamas (its history, recent history – resumption of shelling of civilians, and present – still militant, opposing negotiation currently).
>> I personally will work to help Gazan civilians, but in no way will I work to help Hamas.
Well, doesn't that sound thoughtful! What a load of hypocritical garbage. Unless, of course, you would avoid "drifting to condemnation of the Palestinians" and "personally work to help Israeli civilians, but in no way work to help the Israeli government".
I’m saying that the parallel with nazi Germany may feel emotionally accurate in the sense of “something is wrong here”, but is nowhere near parallel, nor anywhere near as a extreme by a few powers.
Liquids and gases are both considered fluid physically, but wtter flowing is a very very different phenomena than gas expanding/exploding.
Accuracy in “advertising” is important.
Hmmm...and yet the Free Gaza movement, accord to Mr. Witty, is "directly parallel to the efforts of determined Zionists following WW2 to conspicuously and dramatically land refugees in Israel". I guess both are "emotionally accurate", given that ships are/were involved, but the former is an attempt to break an on-going, illegal blockade of a besieged populace, while the latter was the promotion of illegal immigration to Mandate Palestine.
So much for "accuracy in advertising".
>> I’m angry at Phil for publishing only partial truth ...
You must get pretty angry at yourself for speaking only partial truth.
>> But, the remedy for the outrage is not a single state, but reform.
Be sure to pass that information along to the Israelis and not just the Palestinians.
>> I am outraged and deeply offended by this perversion of Jewish history ... the uniqueness of Jewish suffering and torment during the Second World War.
"Uniqueness of suffering"? Bullshit! What is it with this glorification of suffering, anyway? "Gawrsh, we had us the bestest genocide of 'em all folks!" Fuck that!
The Armenians, the Cambodians, Nanking (Nanjing), the Iraqis over the past 20 years, the Palestinians over the past 60 years, et cetera - there's enough suffering to go around without this "ours was the best of the worst and don't you dare say otherwise!" bullshit mentality. Fuck you and your pity fest.
If you believe that murder and starvation and brutality are wrong, don't do it to other people. And don't justify it with meaningless, one-sided garble such as destabilization, maximalism, 'the other', knots, and 'better arguments'.
"We" are supposed to be better than "they" are, yet every day I read about how "we" are fucking "them" over in myriad ways and calling it freedom/democracy/justice. And then "we" are surprised when "they" don't like it.
Someone asks: "Where are the peaceful protests?" And when the peaceful protests materialize and the protesters get shot at, it's their fault for being "destabilizing".
Someone asks: "Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?" And when he materializes and is imprisoned or assassinated, it's their fault for not having another one on hand to take his place.
Someone argues: "But the Native Americans were shafted 250 years ago!" Jeezus, that one's just too stupid to even address.
The Palestinians have done wrong. The Israelis have done wrong. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been victims. Both side - to use a stupid phrase - need to "present themselves as human beings instead of victims".
The Holocaust was suffering. The Nakba was suffering. Neither one trumps the other - there is no "bestest" suffering. And neither is an excuse to evade dialogue or to avoid compromise.
>> There was nothing that could be construed as anti-semitic in this post. I thought it was very telling of his feelings along with being a very raw and truthful expression of his thoughts.
I agree. But why stop at suggestions of teaching the Holocaust to Palestinians. Why not push for teaching the Nakba to Israelis? Or, better yet, why not push for teaching that ALL "holocausts" are horrible events (without one being "the best of them all")?
>> Why can't the "Museum of Tolerance" on Mamilla cemetery be scrapped, and instead launch a Holocaust museum in the Old City of Jerusalem next to a Nakba Memorial with the ribbon cutting being done by Hedy Epstein and Ghada Karmi?
>> A shared monument of tragedy-- I can't think of a better way to launch a bi-national state for all its citizens.
Nicely put.
>> The effort to “connect” may be the product of peer pressure, that is to say, socially enforced norms by the Jewish community in which Joseph grew up.
Yeah, I do know that it's easier said than done. My best friend is a pretty "lax" Muslim, but he still can't quite free himself from (perceived) familial / religious / communal obligations because they're all so tightly inter-woven. It's a shame: He's a smart guy, hobbled by the expectations of those around him.
>> Good eats in that household ;-)
Damned straight! But...the parents are gone and my several-generations-Canadian wife and I are vegetarian, so the eats ain't quite what they used to be. :-(
But they're still pretty good, so there aren't really any regrets. :-)
>> I think I like learning about the Holocaust so much because I get to connect to my Jewish identity, whatever that may be, without feeling guilty.
I'm curious:
i) Why would you feel at all guilty about "connecting to your Jewish identity"; and
ii) Aside from providing the soothing balm of victimhood, how exactly does learning about the Holocaust reduce the guilt of "connecting to your Jewish identity"?
I'm first generation Canadian, raised Roman Catholic. My dad was Croatian; my mother, Italian. I spent many years "being" Croatian and/or Italian - and a good Catholic - until I finally realized that I'm Canadian and I don't believe in all the gawd bullshit. I love my country (for better or worse), I value reason (and I make an effort to pursue it) and and I have no need to try to "connect" to identities that seem quaint but are completely unnecessary to my person or my life.
You may want to do yourself a favour and strive less to "connect" to these identities and more to simply be who you are.
>> “How does one obtain “sufficient depth of commitment” on the part of Israel?”
>> That’s easy Eljay. If Israel end up attacking the flotilla, it means the participants haven’t tried hard enough to convince the Israelis they are sufficiliently commited.
Yeah, that's kinda what I figured...
>> If you want the flotilla to have any prospect of success at all, you should insist on comprehensive non-violence, with sufficient depth of commitment on the part of all participants.
How does one obtain "sufficient depth of commitment" on the part of Israel?
>> Another problem. If the materials go to Hamas, rather than UNRWA, that will destabalize an otherwise creative effort.
There's that g*ddamned destableization* again!
(*That one's for Mooser.)
Question (to which I expect no direct answer): If none of the materials make it to Gaza, will that also "destabalize" the effort? Or does "destabalization" refer only to things that may negatively impact Israel (and not to things that may negatively impact everyone else)?
>> By promoting illegal immigration to Mandate Palestine, the Zionist movement was directly paralleling attempts to break an on-going, illegal blockage of a beseiged populace? That sure is some strange logic…sorry, “poetry”.
Not that it really matters, but just to keep things temporally correct, I should have said: By attempting to break an on-going, illegal blockage of a beseiged populace, the Free Gaza movement is directly paralleling the Zionist movement's promotion of illegal imigration to Mandate Palestine? That sure is some strange logic…sorry, “poetry”.
>> The Free Gaza movement is directly parallel to the efforts of determined Zionists following WW2 to conspicuously and dramatically land refugees in Israel.
>> The poetry of that parallel ...
By promoting illegal immigration to Mandate Palestine, the Zionist movement was directly paralleling attempts to break an on-going, illegal blockage of a beseiged populace? That sure is some strange logic...sorry, "poetry".
>> The ships will not be fired on, but they may be physically blocked.
That sounds pretty destabilizing. Israel should make the "better argument" and refrain from re-looping the already bulky knot of confrontational maximalism.
>> The Soviet Union instigated the war, because, in December 1965, “the Soviets received an unambiguous message from an authoritative Israeli source that Israel was developing an atomic bomb and intended to arm itself with such a weapon.”
That sounds like a g*ddamned "existential threat" to other nations in the region! At the very least, it would have been "destabilizing". Instead of developing weapons of mass destruction, Israelis should have cared enough about "the other" to show themselves as human beings instead of victims ("Remember the Holocaust!"), to make the "better argument" and to work toward loosening the knot of escalation.
>> one day eljay will wake up staring down the length of witty’s star of david-embossed feety pyjamas.
Talk about destabilizing! 8-o
>> They’ll attempt to do what they did in both Intifadas – provoke, provoke and provoke the Palestinians until they get a violent response.
If the Palestinians truly despise "terrrrr", if they are sincerely interested in listening to 'the other' and working to untie the knot of
mutualmistrust, if they would only present themselves as human beings rather than victims - why, then, no amount of so-called "provocation" could force them to respons in a violent, maximalist or destabilizing manner.Violence on the part of the Israelis is clearly a noble thing. Violence on the part of the Palestinians is nothing more than Israel-bludgeoning anti-semitism.
"Remember the Holocaust."
That sit-down in front of the bulldozer looked pretty destabilizing. I wonder what "better argument" Israel will make in order to loosen the knot (apparently the "word of the week") of impasse.
Mind you, given that something happened to the Native Americans back in 1759, pretty much anything Israel chooses to do is "fair play"...
Crimes of the past are once again used to justify crimes that are on-going, in the present, right now. What a joke(r).
>> He wasn’t going to Israel!! He was on his way to the Palestinian Territories!
I think he meant to say "Greater Israel" or perhaps "The Promised Land". ;-)
It appears that one more clown in Israel would have been one too many. I guess you could call it "destabilizing". :-)
>> Israel has nothing to fear except a lessening of American political dysfunction and corruption.
Despite his protestations to the contrary, I suspect eee would liken the lessening of American political dysfunction and corruption - and the corresponding reduction of aid to Israel - to...oh, I don't know, let's say to the "bludgeoning of Israel by anti-semitic Israel haters". Which - if he qualifies as a member of the "dissident community", is rather maximalist and destabilizing.
He is clearly an anti-semitic Israel hater. Why, he was probably going to destabilize and bludgeon Israel with that maximalist balloon.
>> There is no question that international human rights law is being enforced in such a way as to favor guerrilla organizations and make life more difficult for national armies.
Difficult for national armies operating within their own borders, or difficult for the armies that invade and occupy foreign, soverign nations? Either way, some examples would be nice.
Thanks.
>> To be fair, Muslims need to get their shit together ...
Clarification: In terms of ideology and of reaction to affront. Things like killing cartoonists over various depictions of a man is mind-bogglingly stupid. And the Koran, like the Bible, is just a book. Get over it. If you really must bother with religion, then at least drop the wild-eyed idolatry: After all, it's the words of your gawd, not the paper they're scrawled onto, that you're supposed to be worshipping.
To be fair, Muslims need to get their shit together, but to take admittedly complex socio-politicial issues, to ignore the role of the Western actions and the blow-back the generate, and to pin it all on "Muslims" or "Islamofascism" is vacuous nonsense.
>> When I say lawfare I denote the wrongful manipulation of the law and legal systems to achieve strategic military or political ends.
>> All lawfare actions, whether they work to suppress free speech or to chastise Israel or the US for their defensive measures ...
F*ck me if that doesn't sound like American/Western foreign policy! "Defensive measures" my ass: Storming the world; occupying sovereign nations; destabilizing, delegitimizing and/or installing puppet governments; smashing infrastructure - that's blatant terrorism, not "defensive measures".
>> She didn’t put PBUH after Muhammad’s name. She could’ve at least done that for us.
Neither did you. ;-)
>> How do you untie that KNOT? By humanizing the other, by restraining from ridiculing the other. By making the better argument.
I don't expect a direct answer, but I'll ask the question anyway: Are both sides responsible for humanizing the other, for refraining from ridicule, for making the better argument?
Example: When the Palestinians enagage in a peaceful protest - clearly a "better argument" - and the IDF responds with a destabilizing bullet to the leg or high-velocity tear-gas canister to the head, with whom lies the responsibility for humanizing / refraining from ridicule / making the (next) better argument?
>> If you wonder at the connection between my posts and original posts or threads, ask. I’m happy to tell you my reasoning, including what conflicts with it.
Seeing as how you won't provide direct answers to questions, your approach falls somewhat shy of a "realistic discussion".
>> If you’re goal is realistic discussion ...
Pseude-RW: "I made no claim that realistic discussion was my goal; neither did I claim it not to be. I merely asserted that realistic discussion is most likely to be realized in the absence of persistent ridicule."
>> If your goal is realistic discussion, persistent ridicule is not the means to accomplish that.
Diversion and obfuscation in lieu of clear answers to questions is also not the means to accomplish a realistic discussion.
>> I assume that you want to avoid another escalation of conflict ...
I wonder if the destruction of Palestinian homes, water reservoirs, farmlands, factories and lives constitutes "escalation of conflict". Hmmm...no, I guess it can't, seeing as how only the "dissident community" is capable of that.
>> “Sunshine to skies darkened by clouds of mistrust” is vague enough, but somehow didn’t quite sound Wittyesque.
I let my poetic soul get the best of me... ;-)
I'll immerse myself as infrequently as possible... :-)
Blockading Gaza to stop Hamas from "choosing violence as an option" is fine, but the mere discussion of boycott-divestment-sanction (without blockade) to prevent Israel from "choosing violence as an option" is anti-semitic, Israel-hating bludgeoning. What a joke(r).
Pseudo-RW: "I am not in a position to judge the existence of a 'blockade' or of any alleged ill-effects pertaining to one, should one exist. However, for the 'dissident community' to engage in maximalist siege-breaking sends a clear message of 'I'm not listening' to Israel. The Palestinians must present themselves as human beings instead of victims, and be willing to listen to 'the other'. The questionable benefits of the delivery of essential supplies to a besieged group of people will resolve nothing. Only discourse and compromise will bring sunshine to skies darkened by the clouds of mistrust and mutual...*ahem*...I mean of anti-Israeli intolerance."
Hamas sprays bullshit: ' ... setting up “a committee led by Justice ministers” and “an internal panel” that “worked non-stop to reveal the truth” ...
The missiles launched from Gaza at Israeli population centers were not intended to target civilians, it declares. They were aimed instead at military targets. Any civilian casualties were “a result of mistaken fire.”'
Israel gets right down to business with the victim (instead of "human being") angle: 'Israel has vehemently argued that they contain gross errors as well as conclusions rooted in anti-Israel bias.'
(I'm surprised that the Israeli response didn't address the failure of the report to include mention of the Holocaust and related Jewish suffering.)
>> ElJay,
>> You can exagerate the term “elements” to accusation if you like. I think Goldstone can stand criticism of elements of his report.
I've exaggerated nothing. You stated "There were some elements that I read that I thought were negligently judgemental on his part". So, either he was negligently judgemental relating to "some elements", or he wasn't.
Regardless, you managed to avoid answering my questions. Fair enough, you're under no obligation to do so; however, a simple "I'd rather not say" would have been much more honest way out.
>> “There were some elements that I read that I thought were negligently judgemental on his part, not possible to conclude given the limited scope.”
>> Is that calling Goldstone “negligently judgemental”?
Absolutely, unless the "his" in "negligently judgemental on his part" refers to someone other than Mr. Goldstone. But you ignored the entire point of my first question, which I will re-phrase slightly: Were there any elements that you read in the report that you thought were, on Mr. Goldstone's part, negligently judgemental of Hamas?
>> If the question is “Should the Goldstone report be allowed to serve as sufficient basis for a referral to war crimes tribunal?” I don’t think it is, and that efforts to contest that are reasonable goal.
>> If the question is “Are the means that every person interested in opposing that referral took were ethical?” I would answer no.
My second question was neither of those. Please allow me to re-phrase it: Does the “dissenting community” (your words) include people from both sides of the debate surrounding the Goldstone report?
Thanks.
Questions for Richard:
- Was Goldstone "negligently judgemental" (your words) only of Israel, or was he also "negligently judgemental" of Hamas?
- When you express disappointment at the reactions of the "dissenting community", are you referring to "dissenters" on both sides of the argument, or are you excluding and excusing the pro-Israel "dissenters" (the ones who trashed both the report and Goldstone's reputation)?
Thanks.
I literally laughed out loud. Thank you, gentlemen! :-)
>> He’s not a traitor.
I don't believe he is a traitor, but it's been made very clear that many people do believe him to be one.
>> The wording of the recommendations in the report were for the most part not abusive of Israel. There were some elements that I read that I thought were negligently judgemental on his part, not possible to conclude given the limited scope.
Yes, I'm sure he was negligently judgemental of Hamas. Or maybe he got everything bang on regarding Hamas and his judgement failed him only when addressing Israel's crimes...sorry, that's too harsh a word: Israel's "performance".
>> The reaction of the dissenting community exagerated Goldstone’s comments exceedingly, and they conspicuously failed to emphasize even in proportion to the presence in the report, the degree of excessive actions on the part of Hamas.
The dissenting Israeli/Jewish community had no difficulty emphasizing Hamas' actions while minimizing Israel's actions AND condeming Goldstone as a traitor.
>> How do his comments suddenly make his much-reviled report any more credible to the people who bashed it in the first place?
Correction: How do his comments suddenly make his much-reviled report any more credible to the people who utterly trashed it as Israel-bludgeoning propaganda and used its very existence to label him a traitorous Jew?
>> I think you are wrong. I think Goldstone’s comments are accurate, and similar to what I suggested, that Israel take the report seriously for the purpose of improving its professional behavior and status.
I'm curious: How do his comments suddenly make his much-reviled report any more credible to the people who bashed it in the first place?
I'd like to kick off the proceedings:
Goldstone is a self-loathing, anti-semitic, maximalist traitor. Instead of bludgeoning Israel, he should be calling for justice for Native Americans and Mexicans. The Holocaust.
Thank you. :-)
>> Second, try to establish basic security. If the government can establish a basic level of economic and physical security, people may create a culture of achievement — if you’re lucky.
"Try" to esablish security and "if" the government can do it, people "may" create a culture of achievement "if" you're lucky. Nothing like complete wishy-washiness to give a "rule" validity.
>> Third, try to use policy to strengthen relationships. The best policies, like good preschool and military service, fortify emotional bonds.
Military service is a "best policy" for developing relationships? That's just plain fucked up.
>> The president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association Fadi Abboud, said he is preparing to file an international lawsuit against Israel for allegedly “taking the identity of some Lebanese foods” ...
I wonder how this will pan out. To me - and, generally speaking, to people I know - the dishes he names are generic "Middle Eastern" dishes in the same way that "hamburgers", "steak" and "chicken wings" are generic "(North) American" dishes. There's no "appellation"-type uniqueness, such as Champagne or Scotch.
The Nakba - like the Holocaust - is something that happened in the past. But it seems you either haven't noticed or you have chosen to ignore the very obvious fact that the persecution of Palestinians and the theft of their land is on-going. Just to be clear, that means it's happening now, in the present. Y'know, not in the past.
Crimes committed in the past = complete justification for crimes being committed in the present and crimes yet to be committed. Clean and simple. What a joke(r).
>> If the dissenting community were moderate instead of quoting slogans like “Zionism is racism”, then the liberal dissenting community would have a path to shift the political weight to stopping settlement expansion.
Perhaps the "dissenting community" should adopt more moderate slogans such as, say, "A good scrubbing and (ethnic) cleansing makes Israel sparkling fresh!" or "I still have one good eye and a son left to look after me! Thanks, Zionism, you're the best!"
That's *guaranteed* to get results.
(*This is not a guarantee.)
>> We have ame basis. Your refusal to cpnsem the demonstrators inNY while atravking Blumenthal for daring to report ...
You're clearly eager to get a message across, but you need to type just a bit more slowly... ;-)
>> Because the Palestinians are still using violent means to fight what they view as an occupation.
Just like women who are being raped still use violent means to fight what they view as a rape. What a joke(r).
>> The principal obstacle to a Two State Solution are the Jewish “settlers” on the land which would comprise the bulk of the Palestinian state ...
That's only one of *at least* two "principal obstacles", the other one being the Palestinians' right of return to the lands, currently within Israeli control, from which they were cleansed.
Even if the settlers were the only principal obstacle, I don't believe that money would overcome or erase the religious motivation behind their "return" to the (self-)"Promised Land".
Neither did I, but I can't for the life of me imagine how you came up with: "I think he is saying that Israel should respect the Palestinians that live within Israel, affording full Israeli civil rights, consistently applied."
FROM THE ARTICLE:
1. Regarding Israel's "Arabs" (not Palestinians, but "Arabs", "[many of whom] see themselves as part of the Palestinian population, feel the pain of their brothers across the green line"):
Late last year, Rivlin said in a Jerusalem address that Israel's Arab population was "an inseparable part of this country. It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society."
In a speech given in the president's residence, the Knesset speaker called for a fundamental change in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, urging the foundation of a "true partnership" between the two sectors, based on mutual respect, absolute equality and the addressing of "the special needs and unique character of
each of the sides."
2. Regarding Palestinians (not "Arabs") external to Israel:
"I would rather Palestinians as citizens of this country over dividing the land up."
>> Rivlin “would rather accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens than divide Israel and the West Bank in a future two-state peace solution”
>> Witty "Or, he is saying that keeping Israel unified is more important than any other compromise implied."
So, contrary to what Rivlin said, you're saying that Rivlin might be saying that all of what is currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza should become a "unified Israel" to which the crumbs of "you can live and travel anywhere" (as long as you're a devoted member of the "Jewish state") would be thrown to the Palestinians...I mean, to the "Israeli Arabs"? Sounds convenient.
>> I don’t think he is advocating for a single state in the slightest.
He says "he would rather accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens than divide Israel and the West Bank in a future two-state peace solution", and he clearly refers to current non-Jewish Israelis as "Israeli Arabs", not as Palestinians.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday that he would rather accept Israelis as Palestinian citizens than divide Palestine and Israel in a future two-state peace solution.
Referring to the possibility that such an agreement could be reached, Abbas said: "I would rather Israelis as citizens of this country over dividing the land up."
That doesn't make much sense, either. A new, single state should be neither Israel nor Palestine, but an amalgam of the two.
>> the problem of the Israeli right of return is with descendants around the world; what? They have a right to re[t]urn to Israel ... Why is it good for the goose, but not the gander? Please explain ...
*ahem* The Holocaust, reject maximalism, "I'm not listening", Jews are a "nation", don't bludgeon Israel and existential threat. Self-determined themselves, think of "the other", human beings instead of victims or aggressors and, finally, "don't silence me". :-)
It is funny how one "right of return" is clear-cut, while the other is immeasurably complex. Maybe once the Palestinians are welcome as citizens in a "unified Israel", all will be well. "Hearts and minds", you know... ;-)
They can take the land, they can take the water...why not take the gas, too. But just to be clear: It's never about natural resources, it's strictly about "freedom, democracy and justice".
"free reign" - should have been "free rein".
>> Settler Sewage Ruins Palestinian Crops, Drinking Water
Villagers standing near a completely destroyed 70,000 sq m vineyard belonging to the Sabarneh family said they believe it was a deliberate act of sabotage and part of a concerted campaign by the settlers to harass their Palestinian neighbors and vandalize their property.
Beit Ummar has been the target of a number of Israeli military raids at night last month. Activists who have been organizing non-violent protests against the expropriation of their land for the settlements have been arrested and the village blockaded.
In a similar incident last week the Palestinian village of Bruqin, in the northern West Bank, was flooded with sewage from the nearby Ariel settlement, causing contamination of underground water and springs and damaging crops.
Articles such as this one generate in me feelings of disgust and impotent anger. I can only imagine the fury and hatred it must generate in the "hearts and minds" of the people being f*cked over by Israel (state & military) and the settlers to whom it gives free reign.
>> Poll: Majority of Israel’s Jews back gag on rights groups
>> "Israelis have a distorted perception of democracy," said Daniel Bar-Tal, a professor at the university's school of education ... "The public recognizes the importance of democratic values, but when they need to be applied, it turns out most people are almost anti-democratic."
"Israel: We may not be 'the only democracy in the Middle East' but at least we're kosher!" ;-)
>> ... that the army lies all the time about these things ... The official version is just that: an official version.
What? You mean the American military isn't the only one that coughs up "official versions" of incidents that have very little semblance to the facts?! Oh, right, the U.S. Army isn't "the most moral" army in the world... ;-)
>> Any reason why my posts are not appearing?
I think they're appearing under the name "Interested Bystander"... ;-)
The concept of a two party solution suggests that the fight must be about making Palestine a self-sufficient and vibrant state, and worrying less about the injusticies wrought by Israel. Palestinians should focus on this. Israel should do more to enable this. The Arab states and the world community should do more to enable this.
...
A sense of victimhood with the settlers is misplaced and is not a helpful narrative. Is it possible that the narrative of victimhood by, and on behalf of, Palestinians is also not helpful because it distracts from the true job at hand.
>> It either makes sense to dwell on both the US and Israel’s past offences or on neither’s past offences.
Ah, so that's the ploy: Israel continues to commit offences today BUT if you babble just long enough, today becomes tomorrow and then today's offences are "past offences" that can be excused because the U.S. did something in 1863.
What a joke(r).
>> Israel was brutalized in 1948 ... Not one country came to Israel’s help.
>> In 1967, Nasser close the straits of Tiran. Not one country was willing to be part of an international force to reopen them.
Why should anyone have lifted a finger to help Israel? The U.S. had messed up the Injuns somethin' fierce a hunnert or two years before, so until something was done about that, why worry about Israel? What's with all the unfair criticism? Why do you insist on bludgeoning everyone?
What a joke(r).
>> I expect ZERO help from the international community.
Like I said: If Israel were attacked, you wouldn't give a flying f*ck anymore about the Native Americans. What a joke(r).
What most nauseates me about eee's fixation on anything other than Israel's crimes is a strong suspicion that, should Israel ever be brutalized by an aggressor nation (something I do not wish for), he will be among the first hypocrites screaming for immediate retribution. All arguments to the effect that the wrongs perpetrated against Native Americans and other peoples be righted before the aggressor nation is brought to justice will be silenced.
What a joke(r).
I'll do my best to remember that one next time... ;-)
>> The NPT is an agreement that you cannot withdraw from without consequences. It mocks that whole concept of the NPT ...
What mocks the whole concept of the NPT is countries that HAVE nuclear weapons threatening to destroy a country that DOESN'T have nuclear weapons but which, in accordance with the treaty it has signed, is pursuing a perfectly legitimate civilian nuclear energy programs.
>> Signing the NPT is a forever commitment and that is why Israel did not sign it.
Right, why sign a treaty that you might actually have to abide by, eh? Gotta keep those options open, in case you want to carry out assassinations or genocide.
What a joke(r).
>> ... it is a specific campaign, developed by Palestinian civil society against THEIR oppressors and occupiers (ie. the Israeli state).
There you go bludgeoning Israel again. That kind of maximalist "I'm not interested" attitude is going to get you anywhere. Jerusalem forever and ever, the Holocaust, a Jewish "nation" (except for the "traitors"), Palesterrorists, anti-semitism.
:-)
>> All countries that violate the NPT should be sanctioned.
Well, there you have it: All Iran has to do is unilaterally withdraw from the NPT and - voilà! - it will no longer be in violation of it. All issues and concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program will be resolved in one fell swoop. Israelis will be able to rest easy in the knowledge that an Islamist Holocaust will not be unleashed up them, and the U.S. can avoid invading, occupying and destroying yet another country in which it will have to "stay the course".
According to eee's logic, if his good friend were murdered, he would insist that the murderer not be arrested, tried or punished until all other murderers in the world are arrested, tried and ready for punishment. To do focus on his friend's killer would constitute "special attraction", an unfair criticism used to bludgeon the perpetrator. What a joke(r).
>> someone who’s been recognized by the international community as a peacemaker.
I don't know enough about these women to suggest that they don't merit their honours, but a Nobel Peace Prize does not a peacemaker make. (Obama, anyone?)
Interesting. I took that joke to be a slander against Afghanis, what with America f*cking around their country and hating their freedoms and all.
>> Ultranationalist religious Jews attempted to provoke and intimidate local Palestinian residents ... as hundreds of Israeli police stood guard.
Fuckers, all of them: The provokers and intimidators, and the guards who protect these assholes while shooting at Palestinians who fight back against the provocation and intimidation. You've got to be one heartless piece of shit to think this makes any kind of sense. >:-(
What happened in Nazi Germany wasn't a massacre - here is a real massacre:
link to lewrockwell.com
It happened first, so that means the slaughter of millions was justifiable. Enough with the unfair criticism already! Stop bludgeoning Hitler! ;-)
>> What happened in Gaza was not a massacre. ... Here is a real massacre ...
To suggest that it is acceptable, in the 21st century, for Israeli soldiers - acting on behalf of the state of Israel - to slaughter Palestinians because American settlers, in the 19th century, slaughtered Native Americans is sheer stupidity.
In my opinion:
- People who are reasonably well-educated or who are concerned with the plight of the Palestinians know what "apartheid" means and can appreciate the use of that term to describe the existing situation.
- Using a different term won't matter to the less well-educated, the uninterested or the indifferent.
>> Forty-two MKs from most of the parties in the Knesset signed a petition threatening “a boycott of British goods ... "
That seems rather maximalist. Israel needs to clean its own house instead of bludgeoning Great Britain. Shouldn't Israelis be presenting themselves as human beings instead of victims or aggressors? Shouldn't they be listening to "the other"?
"Remember the Holocaust!"
I'm not American, I'm Canadian. But that, of course, has nothing to do with your using the crimes of others to justify the crimes of your own government. Well done.
I certainly hope it never happens, but should Israel ever succumb to the military might of another nation, it's nice to know that the aggressors will be able to placate you with similarly despicable "reasoning". ("Hey, Israel did bad stuff, so now it's our turn! Go BDS yourself!")
>> Do you know how many times Americans have shot at Iraqi civilians JUSTIFIABLY because they did not stop at road blocks?
If Americans hadn't UNJUSTIFIABLY invaded and occupied Iraq, they'd have no reason to shoot an any Iraqis!
Man, that is just so fucked up!
>> I am against leveling unfair criticism at Israel. To show that criticism is unfair you sometimes need to show how it is not applied in other cases.
Using the crimes of others to justify your own: What justice! What inspiration! What a "nation"! What a joke.
>> Israel’s existence was never premised on any “biblical history” ...
Right, and that's why Israel is the "Promised Land" to which the diaspora is "returning". If Israel were a new country for this so-called "nation" of Jews, there would be no "return", there would be only emigration to it from other nations.
Because the civilians are not presenting themselves as "human beings" - they're only presenting themselves as "victims" or "aggressors". In a sense, they are mobile versions of the terrifying lentil patches and water reservoirs that frighten the IDF into the kind of irreversible shock that apparently makes truces irrelevant.
Sorry, meant to say "that maximalist report". :-)