Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 10 (since 2009-12-19 12:15:23)

unverified__8639d2d1

writer; London-based

Showing comments 10 - 1
Page: 1

• Tutu and Breytenbach join call for the Univ of Johannesburg to sever ties with Israeli institution
  • PauldeRooij September 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    RE: comment by R. Witty
    The BDS campaign against apartheid South Africa included an academic boycott as a major component. Now, Ronnie Kasrils (a Jewish anti-apartheid fighter) informs us that the Israeli oppression/dispossession of the Palestinians is worse than what the South Africans experienced. Why is it that with a worse situation one should "engage" with Israeli institutions? If the situation is worse now, then it stands to reason that all Israeli institutions should be boycotted.

    Did Mr. Witty support "boycotting" apartheid universities in South Africa? If so, then why a differnt stance now?

• Thousands converge on Bil'in, Fayyad among them
  • PauldeRooij February 21, 2010 at 11:25 am

    There is a section showing Salam Fayyad addressing and welcoming the crowd, and maybe giving an impression that he has something to do with it. Everyone who is willing to come in solidarity is welcome in Bil'in, although in some cases, as with Fayyad, the organizers must hold their noses. About two weeks ago Fayyad was kissing ass at the Herzliya conference, and publicly hugged Ehud Barak! Fayyad refers to the demonstration as "peaceful demonstration", but that is not what it is; the Bil'in demonstrations are "non-violent resistance".

    Tarachansky also uses the word "confiscate" when referring to the land taken by the wall and the construction of Modin Ilit. "Confiscate" is such a genteel word to refer to theft or grand larceny.

• A political prisoner tries to imagine wearing shoes again
  • PauldeRooij February 21, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Hey Bono, you were wondering where the Palestinian Ghandis or MLKs were? Well, here is one of them, in the Israeli gulag.

• Opponents of Mamilla cemetery desecration take the case to international bodies
  • PauldeRooij February 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm with 1 replies

    Tolerance is in such short supply amongst Israelis that they even have to put it in a museum -- and get the US taxpayer to pay for the building (which is indeed the case).

• Abunimah: Jews can report on Palestinians, but the other way 'round?
  • PauldeRooij February 9, 2010 at 5:51 am

    During the Bosnia vs. Serbia war the BBC stated that it would be unethical to employ a Serbian to report on Bosnia. The issue came up because at that time the BBC employed a British citizen of Serbian origin. A good case can be made that it is unethical to employ a journalist of an oppressor nation to report on the oppressed. It is one thing for the likes of Gideon Levy or Amira Hass to report on the Palestinians because they make it abundantly clear that they are Israeli Jews (in Israel there is a distinction between nationality and citizenship); it is another when Rafi Berg, a journo for the BBC, reports on Palestinians without revealing his origin. Berg refuses to reveal his nationality and the BBC doesn’t provide that either; however, given that he reports mostly on Israeli/settler issues, it is a good bet that he is an Israeli Jew. Will the BBC now accept that it is unethical to employ Berg to report on Palestinian issues? The same thing goes for Tim Franks (BBC), a Zionist who graduated from Habonim Dror, a Zionist youth bootcamp.

  • PauldeRooij February 9, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Richard Curtiss writes:

    As managing editor and subsequently executive editor, the posts he held from 1969 until 1986, Rosenthal reversed one of the Times’ final, unspoken limitations on Jews. Because the Times was reputed to be a Jewish-owned publication, there was an unwritten rule that no Jew could report on Israel, in order to avoid the charge of dual loyalties.

    Source: Richard Curtiss, "New York Times Editor Abe Rosenthal Had A “Passionate Attachment” to Israel" Washington Report, July 2006, pages 34-35.

    So even the NYT was aware at one point about a Bronner-type bias.

• High-ranking Israeli officer: we targeted Gazans without weapons
  • PauldeRooij February 3, 2010 at 5:32 am with 2 replies

    This week sees
    the height of Israeli attempts to undermine the Goldstone report and calls for an international war crimes tribunal; this is a few days before the UN assesses the progress on the recommendations of the Goldstone report. Now, isn't any revelation about military doctrine ahead of this date suspect? Notice the implication of the revelation in this article: yes, the IOF may have killed many civilians, but that had all to do with minimizing the risk to Israeli soldiers… Hey, understand, there is a good reason behind the killings!
    Isn't it possible that the purpose of the Israeli attack was to terrorize the civilian
    population? Many facts are consistent with this scenario. For example,

    Prior to the Israeli attack Matan Vilnai stated that Israel would dispense the people of Gaza a
    "little shoa". Now, this implies that the barbarism and killings were premeditated.
    Avichai Ronsky, the IOF's chief rabbi, was motivating his troops to kill the amalek and not to
    show any mercy. Again, Ronsky's actions are simply not consistent with the new "revelations" about the reasons for killing so many civilians.
    And what about the established principle of using inordinate level of violence against targets? Has MacIntyre heard of the "Dahiya doctrine"? During the Lebanon war the Israeli air force leveled a neighborhood of Beirut, Dahiya. The sole reason for that was to terrorize the population, and there was no suggestion that it had to do with minimizing the risk to soldiers. General Eisenkot openly stated that military doctrine is meant to use huge level of firepower even when there are civilians present. Several other military officers made similar truculent remarks about the intendend violence.
    And what about all the ambulances destroyed both in Gaza and in Lebanon? How did these contribute to the objectives of minimizing risk to soldiers? It is simply preposterous. Ditto, the destruction of factories, sewage & water systems or the electricity generators?

    There are two hypothesis to determine which explanation is more accurate to explain the IOF's behavior in Gaza 2009:

    Trigger happy soldiers ordered to take no risk; or
    A premeditated and clear order to terrorize the population and exact an inordinate level of destruction.

    What is being dished out by MacIntyre is hypothesis (a), but it is clear that it is the latter that has better explanatory power. Hypothesis (a) seeks to render the crimes "understandable"; hypothesis (b) implies that serious war crimes have been committed. Notice also this:

    Explaining what he saw as the dilemma for forces operating in areas that were
    supposedly cleared of civilians, the senior commander said: "Whoever is left in the neighbourhood and wants to action an IED [improvised explosive device] against the soldiers doesn't have to walk with a Kalashnikov or a weapon. A person like that can walk around like any other civilian; he sees the IDF forces, calls someone who would operate the terrible death explosive and five of our soldiers explode in the air. We could not wait until this IED is activated against us."

    The civilian population was not allowed to evacuate Gaza, and thus the IOF didn't face any "dilemma" about its actions. It would certainly know that anywhere in Gaza, an area with the highest population density in the world, there would be civilians present. And to suggest that even someone walking down the street (possibly away from the soldiers) would present a threat is preposterous. This type of reasoning is an open invitation to commit crimes on a large scale. The example presented at the end of the article is simply absurd. If in the middle of a military assault, with helicopters flying overhead, if a civilian runs, is he really fair game? There are plenty of reasons why civilians should run in the face of huge explosions and the targeting of other civilians including those carrying white flags.
    One would hope that The Independent's intrepid reporter would ask a question about this, and not merely regurgitate the latest hasbara. Alas, one can't expect much from Donald MacIntyre; he merely reports uncritically the lame explanations provided by some military officers. How did MacIntyre manage to
    interview these officers at a critical juncture before the UN session on the Goldstone report? It is difficult to imagine that these officers were willing to talk without the hasbara PR specialists' approval.
    And last, but not least: Ronnie Kasrils, the veteran anti-apartheid fighter in South Africa stated that even during the worst episodes of oppression and violence during the 1970-80s, the South African air force didn't bomb the townships. Now, why isn't MacIntyre providing such context to explain the violence that was perpetrated against Gaza and Lebanon?

• Apparently, Bono's never heard of Jamal Juma'
  • PauldeRooij January 5, 2010 at 4:34 am

    In 2008, Bono (with red glasses) sat next to Tzipi Livni during the funeral service for Tom Lantos, the arch-zionist senator. What was he doing there? Why does he kiss up to this crowd?

• 'Forward' reports: Rightwing Israeli maumau'd gormless Ford Foundation to drop I/P grants
  • PauldeRooij December 20, 2009 at 8:46 am

    Bitterlemons is a dubious project. Former contributors have been hardline zionists like Moshe Arens, Tzipi Livni, etc. Now, I suspect that a person like Khatib cannot have a "dialog" with them. Then what is the point of him lending his name to bitterlemons? And Khatib was a minister of the Palestinian Authority; a rather discredited bunch in the eyes of other Palestinians. Khatib was also a beneficiary of the peace industry -- the funding of Palestinian NGOs willing to play along the peace process agenda. There are some questions about Khatib/Alpher/Bitterlemons.

  • unverified__8639d2d1 December 19, 2009 at 7:41 am with 3 replies

    Yossi Alpher loves to posture as a liberal soul, yet his chequered past (Mossad) and his dubious BitterLemons project should raise questions about him. Two issues about him and BitterLemons:

    (1) BitterLemons is a website where an Israeli and Palestinian view on a given topic can be read side-by-side. As the "About Us" section states it purportedly "focuses on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and peace process". Unfortunately, most Israelis write with little regard to what the Palestinians state about an issue. Thus in BitterLemons, hard core zionists ruminate about the topic du jour without any regard for what the Palestinians think about the issue. There is no attempt in the BitterLemons to engage in dialog and to change one another's viewpoints. There is no back and forth where a Palestinian would confront, say Tzipi Livni, on whatever outrageous statement that she has made. As such, BitterLemons is useful for zionists, because it helps project their view to a wider audience in the Middle East – this is entirely made possible by the legitimacy gained by co-publishing with Palestinians. The fact that the main funder behind the project is the American Jewish Committee (through its assorted foundations) should also indicate the purpose of this website.

    The objectionable aspect of the BitterLemons project should be made clear if one were to use an analogy in a Apartheid South Africa context: it would be a journal where articles written by white supremacist Afrikaners next to articles written by chief Buthelezi and his collaborationist gang. As such, BitterLemons is not a means to engage in meaningful discussions (let alone a reconciliation), because this is not what occurs on the website. Malcolm X once referred to a class of black commentators who didn't confront racism and white culture in the USA as "house negroes". Many of the Palestinians writing for BitterLemons are "house Palestinians".

    The only clear thing about BitterLemons is its name, it certainly only leaves a "bitter" taste behind.

    (2) About Yossi Alpher. On one occasion I had an exchange with him about his liberal usage of the word "terrorism" (www.corkpsc.org/db.php?auid=590). The exchange demonstrates that his position on the nature of the Israeli colonial conflict don't differ much from the likes of Tzipi Livni.

Showing comments 10 - 1
Page: 1