-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 0
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from the country (and anyone who disagrees deserves to be raped) (86)
- Blake: Q. Where are ya from? A. Everywhere but Palestine but Palestine is ours.
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Kate
- Annie Robbins
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Matthew Taylor
- Alex Kane
- Max Blumenthal
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
I hope you guys never watch Family Guy - your heads might explode!
Well excuuuuuuuse me!
LOL. OK.
You could be right, I guess that scene does change how you see the rest. On the other hand, the first restaurant scene still seems to comment that the two Jewish characters' characterisations of the Palestinian cause are wrong.
I don't know anything about LD himself. I don't think it's impossible for somebody like him to take the mick even out of people he's friendly with.
I've just watched the whole thing. The scenes linked above (first time at restaurant + sex-scene) are the only bits I found rly funny, but that's beside the point.
The only bit that seems dodgy to me is where the people in the restaurant all applaud Larry - this seems to suggest they all admire him for getting rid of the guy wearing his yarmulke - seems to imply they are all anti-semites. Can't see any other reason why they're applauding.
As for the two funny scenes, they're funny send-ups of people's exaggerated fears and hatreds. That's all I have to say. I agree to disagree with anybody who does. :)
As I've said, I'm only commenting on what I've seen.
In those famous words: "Calm down, dear."
@ Haytham
Wow. In one comment you have:
- brought up an irrelevant comment I made
- dissed me
- implied that I have plagiarised.
I'm sure you're a lovely polite guy in person though.
@ Taxi @ Haytham
It's not like the scene is of some kid being shot in the head while Larry David stands behind the soldier laughing. He is looking at how Americans of the Jewish or Pal persuasion relate to I/P and showing you the emotional excesses. That is legitimate and it is funny.
Please don't get so caught up in indignation that you can't laugh.
As I say, I've only seen the two scenes. Will have to watch whole thing somewhere to judge of the whole.
The scene embedded at the top of this page clearly mocks American-Jewish over-sensitivity.
It's humorously stereotyping both Jews and Arabs. Stereotyping is a stock in trade of comedy - Jew, Pole, Irishman, whatever. From the scenes I've watched (first time in the restaurant and sex-scene), both anti-Arabism and anti-Jewishism are sent up.
You think the sex scene is supposed to be realistic of what goes on in Palestinian-American women's minds? It's sending up the mentality of Americans on both side of the conflict, Jewish and Palestinian.
Let's not get so indignant that we can't laugh at a funny send-up of people's attitudes. Yes, the conflict and the suffering are serious; but this is a funny send-up of the ways people respond to it.
What? Never watched that programme.
Don't get all indignant. It's comedy. It's just putting strongly held political views in a comic light thru sex with the enemy.
It's not "portraying Palestinian women as sex-crazed, anti-Semitic vixens" - just creating one amusing female Palestinian-American character.
3 words: L. O. L.
Let's not over-egg the pudding. There's no suggestion here that Larry and the writers have a Mondoweiss view of things. They're simply getting some light relief out of the characters taking these things too much to heart. It's making a comment that the hasbara view exaggerates and emotionalises things, rather than a critique of its assumptions.
You guys are misinterpreting this completely. It's ironically pointing out how absurd those fears are in the context of Larry's life.
When the guy looks at the posters and says they're anti-semitic, that's clearly the writers saying that claim is overblown. When Larry worries about women not recognising his right to exist, that's clearly Larry getting over-wrought within a Jewish victim-complex.
It's actually a smart comment on the Jewish mentality. Irony, people!
And they say Americans don't get irony?
Great post.
Any chance of getting a taster chapter from the book - to see if we fancy shelling out?
Wow. What a weird TV show and presenter.
He would make a fine leader but I don't know if he could ever break the Fatah-Hamas duopoly.
"Israel is a country rift..."
The word is "riven". Sorry, but your use of the word made me think!
Mazel Tov. This site has been the best from the start.
Hi Phil.
I don't think the usual political terms "left and right" are particularly useful or relevant to describing the Zionist spectrum. Zionism is about ethno-nationalism, not about the conservative/liberal/socialist socio-economic dimension.
I hereby propose some labels which I think are better:
"Exclusive" Zionists hold that only Jews have fundamental national rights in historic Palestine.
"Inclusive" Zionists hold that both Jews and Palestinians have such rights.
Among Inclusive Zionists, there are "Two-State" Zionists who believe in a two-state solution; while "Post-Zionists" or "One-Binational-State" Zionists believe in a bi-national, one-state solution.
Among Exclusive Zionists, there are "Absolute" Zionists or "One-Jewish-State" Zionists who believe in and aim to create one, Jewish state; while "Pragmatic" Zionists similarly believe in one, Jewish state but recognise in practice the necessity of permitting some sort of Palestinian entity.
Finally, "Non-Zionists" hold that Jews have no national rights in historic Palestine; they most probably support one democratic state, more or less like the Post-Zionist bi-national state but perhaps without any special Jewish character or policy; or they might support a two-state solution as a practical modus vivendi.
We can partition politicians using these labels:
Exclusive-Absolute = Netanyahu;
Exclusive-Pragmatic = later Sharon, Olmert;
Inclusive-Two-State = J-Street? Uri Avnery?
Inclusive-Post-Zionist (Bi-National) = no mainstream Zionist politician?
Non-Zionist = most Palestinians.
There is a big complication, however, in that many Zionists, who might be Two-Staters at heart, in practice actually support Exclusivist politicians, because they regard two states, although ideal, as impossible because of Palestinian belligerence.
Comments and improvements offered in a good spirit are welcome!
It's an ethno-nationalist state created in a country that had two ethnic groups mixed together.
That's the problem.
What are the precise details of the current and proposed services?
Using Egged website, I can already find info on buses to Umm Al-Fahm, Tamra.
E.g. Nazareth-Tamra runs many times per day.
So major Arab-Israeli towns already have some service?
Excellent post.
It's just getting started. The best teams aren't meeting each other yet.
The games have been a bit depressing so far though, you're right, apart from South Africa and England/USA.
I have no real doubt they committed war crimes.
Among other various bad things, such as their support for suicide bombing.
I think Finkelstein is wrong to praise HZB and that his praise weakens support for and the moral standing of the movement.
It's late. I'm going to bed. Good night.
Yes, I suppose if I knew that Hezbollah were a movement that believed in and actioned justice, democracy, tolerance, etc. then there would be no problem. That's not the reality though.
I didn't say either of those things.
Again, if you weren't an idiot, you'd appreciate that the Dahiya point was a reductio argument against such a positon.
Hi Richard.
Cor this place is a tough gig.
They refuse to believe I actually agree with the vast majority of what they believe, just because I entertain a different view of Hezbollah.
Didn't realise before how conformist and knee-jerk this community was.
Such a shame.
Not sure why you hang around, given how different your views are! Don't think it's worth your trouble.
Nope.
If you look at the conversation, you'll see that was a reductio argument against such a claim.
You really are incapable of appreciating any sort of nuance aren't you?
Yeah, cos whether or not there are suicide bombers has no bearing on the conflict.
If you don't think suicide bombing is at the very least a grey area, then maybe we really are further apart than I thought.
You always jump to conclusions: I have a problem with some aspects of resistance... therefore I put all the onus on Palestinians.
Can you see what your mind is doing? Black/white. Trigger-happy. Looking for the worst in any different point of view.
It's not the having an opinion that's conformist, it's the knee-jerk assumptions and trigger-fingers that show this place up as black/white and conformist.
You only want to hear what you're comfortable with and can't stand anything else.
It's cool, I realised.
Either they targeted civilians, or they were recklessly negligent towards them. Either way. Nothing black and white, just my interpretation of what I've seen.
Who said I'm trying to exclude Finkelstein? I agree with you: very important voice, with whom I have a disagreement which I think is important.
People are on such a hair-trigger here! You lot just want to start tilting at shadows everywhere! Zionist infiltrators! Excluders!
Geeze, this is exactly what I can't stand about political movements.
"Hell I disagree with a number of Norm’s positions. But I accept that he is an important voice in this debate and my disagreements are minor in comparison."
Agree.
As for the rest of it, put another record on. Can't I discuss one issue at a time? What do you want, a signed affidavit of all my beliefs and commitments before discussing any one issue?
Christ.
Is this what I can expect from the Mondoweiss community? Absolute conformity of black-and-white ideas?
No one has a monopoly on truth.
Such a shame to see the movement for justice for the Palestinians dissolve into support for a fundamentalist terrorist militia that praises suicide bombing.
That's what I have against Finkelstein, for all his great work.
You are a saucy one, aren't you?
What you are really doing, although you don't realise, is policing conformity to a rigid system of thought.
No argument here. Suggests Hezbollah were pretty stupid to set it off.
Israel was planning for war because it has an ongoing conflict with Hezbollah, a heavily armed militia over the border, supported by an enemy state. What country wouldn't plan?
I too remember the "New Middle East". Condoleeza Rice called the war "the birth pangs of a new Middle East".
It was that that sickened me more than anything: the callousness towards the suffering.
As for the rest of the post, it indicates a rather sad refusal to engage with differing views. I am neither ignorant nor malicious, and it is unfair and rude of you to say so. I expect our views on most issues to do with Israel are similarly. I am simply wary of getting stuck in a fixed mind-set. As I keep saying, there are many grey areas in this conflict.
That sounds plausible.
There was probably a mix of motives.
Many people have a black/white view of the conflict, but there is a lot of grey in there.
The most important grey is the conduct of Palestinian resistance.
"Where did they deliberately attack civilians?"
I can't prove this right now. It's my impression from their words and actions.
I actually agree more with Witty's account of the start of the war than with any of the others we've seen.
There was very little righteous about this war from any side.
I demonstrated not for Hezbollah but for a ceasefire.
@VR
Maybe I can explain better.
This is partly a personal and partly a political thing.
On a personal level, I can't stand movements and trends where thinking is black-and-white; where ideological conformity is a badge of membership; where every enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend; where friendly criticism is interpreted as allegiance to the enemy. I have my own views and impressions on the different aspects of the conflict, and they don't necessarily slot into one black-and-white picture.
So when I raise a criticism of Finkelstein, it is in hopes of forwarding the argument about how best to support the Palestinian cause. Because, while I agree with many of his views, I also find he swings too far towards supporting enemies of Israel who are themselves far from attractive.
My opinion of Hezbollah was widely interpreted here as belonging to someone who is pro-Israel. I'm not. But that seems to me exactly the kind of reaction that I am trying to argue against. These things are very grey, not black and white.
Please.
It is very worrying that slight divergences of opinion between people who agree on the big issues are interpreted as some sort of counter-insurgency or something.
I came in because I have met and disagreed with Finkelstein on one particular issue, which I think is emblematic of larger problems in the pro-Palestinian movement of which I am a supporter.
I appreciate that, this being the internet, there are trolls and what-not, but you really are getting a false alarm over me.
It's rather alarming, if this is what diversity of viewpoint creates.
This is part of the reason why I don't usually join movements or communities. I can't stand the conformity and black-and-white thinking.
@tree
Re: Cook, I read his article at the time; it struck me as important too. However, my feeling, admittedly not documented and forensically supported, is that the main point of Hezbollah's rockets was not military as such but to (i) make a point, i.e. that the resistance is alive and undaunted; and (ii) to cause panic in the Israeli public, thereby making the war unpopular and indirectly cause retreat. By their very unguidedness, they couldn't take them seriously as a long-range military weapon.
Re: the relevance of laws of war to weak sides and insurgent-type wars, this is a big question for the world today. I suppose I start from the sanctity of the civilian, as this is just too valuable a protection to lose.
"I don’t think of you as a Zionist, and even if you were your viewpoint would be an addition to the website here. There are just some of us who get a bit excited with a newbie, and jump to conclusions, or get passionate in our responses."
Appreciated, as is your whole comment. I've actually been reading the website for many years, since years before it was this big and popular. It developed slowly into a really great site. I'm just not a great one for online chats.
No disagreement here.
My trouble is, you seem to accept this logic too.
I don't. I think the laws of war are very valuable and must be enforced. Including on Hezbollah.
"code name, you know"
I'm not using any codes or shibboleths, since my views are independently formed. As I've been saying, I judge each issue on its merits. My overall position on Israel/Palestinian does not predetermine my view of Hezbollah.
"I have it on good authority that hezbollah tried to target military installations"
Yes, partially but not totally. They also on occasions deliberately attacked civilians, and they persistently attacked indiscriminately.
"Like it or not, hezbollah are more like the partisan fighters of france and eastern europe, who resisted the german advances"
My definition of terrorism does not depend on anybody's aims or motivations. I call terrorism the deliberate attacking of civilians in order to affect politics. Or something like that.
"Does that mean no firing is to be allowed ever?"
You're right, there's a balance to be struck, a judgement to be made. Raining rockets onto towns is on the wrong side of that judgement.
Words contradicting what you say next is right there in the passage you requoted yourself: "deliberately attacked".
"On the contrary, it could not do that, or use that as an excuse for bombing Lebanese towns, that is because Hezbollah was no where near the towns."
What about its HQ's in Dahiya?
Again, your argument is partial. You yourself quote this: "Hezbollah attacks on legitimate military objectives, whatever their extent, do not justify the attacks that were indiscriminate or deliberately targeted civilians."
And you say you "agree that unguided rockets are indiscriminate, and should not be used around innocent civilian population".
So you seem to agree that Hezbollah fought the war using (some) illegal methods (among others). That's enough for me; I won't support them. I won't support any organisation that attacks civilians whether through intention or recklessness.
Yes, allying with the Palestinians of Gaza was a potentially legitimate cause for war, I would say.
But it can't excuse the manner in which Hezbollah conducted the war.
No, I am not ignorant of it.
You are missing my point.
Which is, that your way of thinking provides cover for it.
Your thinking seems to me to be that, if you can't discriminatingly attack military objectives, you may attack indiscriminatingly. This was your justification of Hezbollah's rocket attacks.
I'm sure the IDF would be very interested in developing your argument.
Let's just hope it doesn't become too popular.
@VR
Pardon me, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of "indiscriminate".
In war, you may not use a weapon that may just as well hit a civilian as military object. If you fire an unguided missile vaguely towards a military target positioned amid civilian objects, then you are attacking indiscriminately.
Anyway, if you read my HRW link, you will find that what you cite is only part of the story. They say, "numerous rockets were fired in which there was no apparent legitimate military target in the vicinity at the time of the attack, indicating that civilians were deliberately attacked"
@Shingo
"Israel did do that, but you’re only obsessing about what Hezbollah did. Wake up from your sleep induced comma and consider this. Israel killed 1,300 civilians Emma. Is that a war crime, or are you going to obsess about a few wayward rockets?"
I agree with you here, and already have agreed with this point before.
However, today I want to talk about Hezbollah and its relation to the Palestinian cause. What's wrong with that? We all agree about Israel already.
@Shingo
This is actually an interesting point, amid the blather you are producing.
I think you'll find that, if you cannot attack within the laws of war, you may not attack at all.
The question is, do you want to restrain war within the bounds of law (an outcome that would be good for Palestinians and Lebanese on the whole) or turn it into an anarchic free-for-all (as pro-Israel types like Dershowitz apparently want)?
Your view is a recipe for civilian massacres. For example, the IDF could say, following your logic, "we can't find the fighters so we'll just turn the whole place to rubble". Or should you lobby your Congressman to send them some kind of x-ray missile or something?
I thought I said "Agree".
Do you mean human rights groups like HRW?
See this, titled "Hezbollah rockets targeted civilians".
link to hrw.org
"you ran into someone who knows what they are talking about"
Arrogance is neither becoming nor, usually, well placed.
Thanks for all the considered and reasonable responses to the discussion.
I want to make a few things clear here.
I am not a Zionist, am in fact very committed to the Palestinian cause, and do not have any ulterior motives. I find it disturbing that I am receiving abuse on this score from so many people.
My opposition to Hezbollah's actions has no bearing on whether I am pro or anti Israeli or the Palestinians. It's founded on international law and the facts.
Secondly, I am well aware of the various things people are quoting and linking to me. For instance, I was reading Jonathan Cook's articles during the war itself.
You might like to compare HRW's condemnation of Hezbollah war crimes:
link to hrw.org
@VR
"First, Hezbollah did not come onto the scene out of nowhere..."
Fine with this point.
"Secondly, Hezbollah is not merely a military force..."
Fine with this point.
"Third, if Israel does not want its civilians killed than it should stop placing its military weapons and cadre, firing from the North in poor Arab Israeli neighborhoods..."
Agree. But Hezbollah was, at the very least, recklessly indiscriminate in its attacks. You can see from its website that it also celebrates terrorising civilians, forcing them into shelters, etc..
"So, we can come away with one of two points in regard to this exchange Emma – either you are ignorant (which may be the case), or you are hitting the Hasbara bottle. If you want to hear more I can and will elaborate. "
How many advocates of hasbara go on record saying that Israel committed war crimes? I am getting peeved at people (you are the third) imputing dubious motives to me.
Calling someone ignorant, or possibly ignorant, is usually considered bad manners. I am well aware of the things you said, however they are not the whole story. If you believe Hezbollah was legitimate in rocketing towns containing military installations, then you would presumably also be happy for Israel to do the same to Lebanese towns? Personally I would oppose both.
I would urge you to consider the morality of an organization that celebrates terrorising civilians. It's not inadvertent collateral damage that they're paying homage to on their website.
No dispute there.
@Shingo
"Why is that Emma? Because Israel’s terrorism is acceptable, but not Helzbollah’s"
If you make one more such baseless comment, I will cease responding to you.
"Absolutely. Helzbollah was created as a resistance movement to Israel’s 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon. They succeeded in driving Israel out of Southern Lebanon on 2 occasions, even when faces with a much more powerful military force.
How can you possibly object to that?"
I never did object to it. I objected to their war crimes in 2006.
And going to war helps that how?
Anyway, my main point is that Hezbollah committed war crimes and we shouldn't therefore support them. Do you object to that?
@Shingo
"Hezbollah’s rockets were directed at what they could reach. Most landed in the desert."
They attacked towns. No question. They celebrate this on their website.
Your next two points I'm not getting.
"You don’t attack military objectives, you carry them out. "
In the laws of war, you may only attack military objectives. If you attack anything else, you are guilty of a war crime.
"Is israel a terrorist state? Yes or no?"
Some of its actions are terrorist, some are not.
The education department is not terrorist, many of its military actions have been.
Actually the first rocket attack was at the same time as the raid to take the soldiers prisoner.
The Israelis only later attacked the airport.
Anyway, what difference does it make? The rockets were war crimes. Period.
Would Israel be justified in rocketing Lebanese towns in response to Hezbollah rockets? No. And vice versa.
@Shingo
"Who are you trying to fool"
You are the second commenter to impute some kind of suspiciousness to my motives. The implication is not only false but also ignorant and impolite. You have no idea what my positions are on Israel, and in fact they are the opposite of what you seem to assume.
One of my points is that my commitment to the Palestinian cause does not require any particular viewpoints on such issues as the war in 2006. If anything, I seek to consistently apply my commitments to justice and international law, and not to leave them aside when they are violated by a pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist organisation.
Just because we may differ does not license you to attack my motives, and you only show your own narrow-mindedness when you do. The world is not black and white.
"This is a vacuous argument, because it assumes that Israel alone (who’s leaders are themselves accused of war crimes) are arbiters of who and what constitutes a war criminal."
If you read my posts, you will see that I apply the same standards to all.
"What makes hem criminal? The fact that they oppose the state of Israel?"
No, the fact that they use criminal and terrorist methods.
As to who started the war, Hezbollah did by attacking Israeli soldiers. At the same time they launched rockets on an Israeli town. This was the 12th July; check the Wikipedia article. Israel only started to attack Lebanese infrastructure the next day: the airport, for which it gave a military justification concerning Hezbollah weapons supply. Hezbollah continued launching rockets on Israeli towns on the 13th.
Both Israel and Hezbollah were prepared for a war, so you can't use that to pin it on one or the other.
Whatever the situation regarding incursions of airspace and whatever, there was no serious case for starting a huge war, for escalating it, for attacking civilians, etc., of which both sides were guilty.
Anyway, my main point is that Hezbollah committed war crimes and pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with them. Do you disagree with any of that?
Yes, Israel has resorted to terrorism: in the sense of using violence against civilian targets in order to indirectly affect the opposition's willingness to fight.
I don't understand why people are asking me such questions, as they are not pertinent to the issue at hand.
Namely, should people like Finkelstein who are pro-Palestinian supporters show support for organizations like Hezbollah? I say no. Do you say yes?
@aparisian
Quoting from that Hezbollah website:
"Trés vite face à la barbarie des bombardements Israéliens sur les civils Libanais..."
La barbarie.
If the Israeli bombardments were "barbarism" then so were Hezbollah's.
In other words, Hezbollah were barbaric in their methods, meaning illegal and uncivilised.
"obligeant un million d'Israelien à se refugier"
They actually celebrate the fact that they terrorised civilians.
Again, barbaric.
From the horse's mouth.
Hence why I don't support their methods.
@marc b
"Why tie Hezbollah to Palestine so closely in the first instance?"
Because Hezbollah states that it fights Israel, in part, for the Palestinian cause, and because some supporters of the Palestinian cause also support Hezbollah. I believe that when pro-Palestinians support war-criminals, it weakens the Palestinian position. Pro-Palestinians should avoid associating with such movements, both because they are criminal and because to do so is counter-productive.
"what is your opinion of Hezbollah’s role in the defense of Lebanon in 2006? "
I remember watching this war unfold from the beginning. It was initiated by Hezbollah attacking and taking prisoner Israeli soldiers. So "defense" is a bit of a leading term there. I believe Hezbollah could also have prevented escalation by ceasing their rocket attacks. I don't see that Hezbollah had any serious cause for going to war, and they presented Israel with a just cause for invading Lebanon, i.e. to stop the rockets.
All in all, I don't really think what they did can be called "defense" of Lebanon, even if they subsequently defended against the invasion on the ground and used rockets to try to discourage Israel from going on.
This does not mean I am or was pro-Israel about that war or anything else: I demonstrated outside my government for an immediate ceasefire, and was disgusted by the UK/USA refusal to propose it early. I believe Israel also committed serious war crimes and could have acted to prevent escalation.
I don't think my commitment to justice for the Palestinians implies or requires any particular views about the 2006 war.
@aparisian
"Proportional" means inflicting a level of damage justified by the military objective.
Since the great majority of Hezbollah's rockets were directed at civilian and not military targets, I don't see how those rocket attacks can be called proportional.
Hezbollah decided to fight that war by terrorising Israeli civilians. Actually in a similar way to how Israel has attacked the moral of Gazans and Lebanese, and also to the Blitz. However, this method of war is illegal.
If you're not attacking a military objective, how can the attack be called proportional?
Yes those are all attacks on civilians, or illegitimate blockade in the case of Gaza's economic and humanitarian needs.
Why do you ask? I never questioned these things.
@Chaos 4700
Indiscriminate does not mean guaranteed to hit civilians, it means with reckless indifference to whether it does or not. Hezbollah's rockets hit homes, I believe on occasion both deliberately and collaterally. I've seen a bombed-out house in Haifa myself.
Clearly Israel is serially guilty of this too.
Hezbollah is not in fact "rag-tag" but is a serious organisation with quality training, strategy, technology and support from regional states.
But this isn't really relevant, since being a weak military force does not in any case release you from international and humanitarian law.
Either you hold everybody to this law and try to enforce it, or you allow an extra-legal free-for-all. I think I know which one the Palestinians need to bet on.
I think it's pretty much guaranteed that no movement engaged in war crimes will ever gain justice for the Palestinians. The only possibility is to stand on the justice of their cause, fight legitimately when they have to, make their case, and show their just cause by their actions.
They cannot win a war against Israel by any means fair or foul anyway, so building a movement for justice is the only game in town. Rocketing Israeli civilians is about the most counter-productive strategy possible: Hamas is in some ways the greatest weapon in the Zionist locker.
@syvanen
"more likely hasbara dissembling"
If this remark is directed at my comment, then I find it rather insulting and narrow-minded. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.
Anyway, your own comment seems to imply that victims are entitled to commit war crimes, or that these should be glossed over. I cannot agree. No one is so entitled. Period.
This is the kind of opinion that gives critics of Israel a bad name (i.e. "supporters of terrorism"), makes it easier for real hasbara types to make Israel's case, and blurs the Palestinians' moral standing.
Supporters of the Pals must stand on justice, not support fanatical war criminals like Hezbollah.
I agree with a lot of what Finkelstein says. But not all.
When I met him in the street in about 2006, I questioned his solidarity with Hezbollah. I asked him why he was supporting an organisation that clearly committed war-crimes in the war of that year (i.e. indiscriminate rocketing of Israeli towns).
I can't remember his exact answer, but it didn't satisfy me.
I feel like he swings too far over to support of unreasonable and violent enemies of Israel, which in fact contradicts his own, usual, focus on legality.
Not only is he wrong on this account, IMO, but he also leaves himself open to justified criticism.