Trending Topics:

Video: Protesters are attacked at an ‘Israel Alliance’ event at U of New Mexico

ActivismIsrael/PalestineUS Politics
on 237 Comments

Update: Second video added below

Violence broke out at the University of New Mexico campus during a peaceful protest on February 23rd of a lecture by Nonie Darwish, sponsored by UNM Israel Alliance, an affiliate of StandWithUs.

As you can see, members of the audience assaulted a number of UNM students when they began their ‘mic-checking’ action.

The public lecture, “The Arab Spring: Why it’s Failing and How Israel is Involved,”  began at 7PM in the Anthropology lecture hall.  UNM students protested against the Islamophobic rhetoric put forward by Darwish, an author and founder of Arabs For Israel. When the students raised their voices, a number of audience members got out of their seats and used force against the students.

Jordan Whelchel, a UNM student:

“The response to this non-violent protest was a violent assault by parts of the crowd. The mic-check was shouted down by a few of the pro-Israel audience members who began physically forcing the protestors out of the auditorium. One of the pro-Palestine activists, a young woman who studies at UNM, had her face scratched and her hair pulled. A young man was forcibly pulled over a row of seats. One was nearly punched in the face, though another protestor intervened to stop the assailant by putting himself in the way. A phone was destroyed, and a camera only narrowly avoided the same fate.

This reaction came as a shock to the protestors. They desired to use words to shake people out of their comfort and complacency , they anticipated words in return, but were met with fists and shoulders. The only people who protected protestors from physical assault were other protestors. In the hallway, the ones who used a protest tactic widely endorsed by Arab Spring activists were called anti-democratic, pro-terrorist, and so on. “

A student caught much of the event on film before another audience member pushed down her camera. The students were then forced out of the auditorium and called the UNM police, who arrived and filed a report on the incident.

These students were assaulted on UNM campus for simply trying to make their voices heard. It is a shock that a non-violent action was met with such aggression.

UPDATE: Here’s is another video of the action. Note the man lunge into the protesters at 17 seconds:

(Hat tip Susan Schuurman )

Danya Mustafa
About Danya Mustafa

Danya Mustafa is a Palestinian American second year undergraduate student at the University of New Mexico majoring in Human Development & Family Relations and pursuing a minor in Peace Studies. She is currently the U.S.co-coordinator for Israeli Apartheid Week. She is also currently the co-president for the UNM chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

237 Responses

  1. radii
    radii
    February 24, 2012, 1:23 pm

    “It is a shock that a non-violent action was met with such aggression”

    it is the israeli way !!

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      February 24, 2012, 1:38 pm

      And here we thought we protestors were doing a good job of simulating the Occupation and what it entails. This pseudo-IDF behavior by guests to the university have managed to top us in even that!

    • lysias
      lysias
      February 24, 2012, 3:52 pm

      When the German-American Bund did that to protesters at their rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, newsreels of the violence played a big role in turning the American public against the Nazis.

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly
        February 25, 2012, 1:33 am

        seems that violence is the fascist’s only response to dissent. israel firster fascists yesterday at the university of new mexico, pro-hitler fascists sixty+ years ago at a meeting held at a public high school auditorium in southern california. i remember because while participating in a protest against said meeting, i was shocked to see two people forcefully being thrown out of the auditorium, their faces were bloodied, their clothes tattered. their “crime”? standing up and denouncing fascism. as an aside, 4 decades later, upon relating this story at a gathering of anti-zionists, one of those in attendance, a woman, rose up and announced that she was one of those who had been beaten up inside that auditorium. i have a faint memory of a small, bloodied woman being thrown out of that meeting. apparently it was she. what a rare treat, i thought, one of the heroes of my youth reappearing in the same role that she played nearly 40 years ago – fighting hate and injustice. and how’s that for steadfastness?

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        February 25, 2012, 3:56 am

        That’ a coolest story, yourstruly. Thankings.

  2. David Green
    David Green
    February 24, 2012, 1:34 pm

    There’s no excuse for violence. But it’s worth carefully considering the implications of the use of disruptive tactics; any tactic that is used by one group can be used by another. The Palestinian rights movement either has to have the confidence to ignore events like this and carry on with its campaign, or show up, ask questions, and debate. I don’t see any benefit from this sort of disruption, on a pragmatic or moral basis. It would be better to set an example. I think we all know that many Zionsits are nasty people. Why encourage them?

    • Dan Crowther
      Dan Crowther
      February 24, 2012, 1:58 pm

      Is this a joke?

      Decades of zionists ruining peoples lives/careers/repuations – but Palestinian solidarity activists can’t stage a “interruption”?? Sure, Green – whatever you say.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 2:24 pm

        Sounds like a joke to me.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 2:28 pm

        I have not read of a single instance where anti AIPAC or Israel, or pro Palestine or pro I/P peace protesters have used physical assaults against the Israel-firsters.
        Have there been any?

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 2:30 pm

        not that i know of american. did you see the second video. the man who lunged into the crowd held his fist up in that guys face.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 2:56 pm

        Yea I saw that.
        If I was a evil strategist I would encourage them to continue their violent behavior.
        One day they could do it with the wrong crowd in the wrong area of the country that would create such a throw down that it might get them on network news or at minimun on local area TV news.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 5:02 pm

        would create such a throw down that it might get them on network news or at minimun on local area TV news

        it would be on national or international TV in a nanosecond if the sides were reversed. but they are not so my guess would be the israel supporters would have to seriously injure someone for it to even get on state news. and national? it would have to be a massacre.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        February 24, 2012, 7:09 pm

        @ Annie/American,

        Q: … so my guess would be the israel supporters would have to seriously injure someone for it to even get on state news. and national?

        R: I don’t think so. 34 USS Liberty sailors, Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan are all [dead] proof of our successive governments not giving a rat’s ass when Israel does the bidding/killing.

      • anonymouscomments
        anonymouscomments
        February 24, 2012, 9:19 pm

        speaking of the USS liberty, i never knew someone as high profile as ralph nader spoke out on it, and the cover-up:

      • clenchner
        clenchner
        February 25, 2012, 4:55 pm

        Concordia, anyone?

    • annie
      annie
      February 24, 2012, 2:29 pm

      I don’t see any benefit from this sort of disruption

      i do, they exposed the hostile nature of the stand with us crowd. also note how most of those pro i folks were older. i didn’t see many students in the pro israel crowd. this gang is using the university to host their islamophobic speakers. shame on them. they should be hosting it somewhere else.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        February 24, 2012, 2:42 pm

        Fckin A, Annie

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 3:30 pm

        So how do you feel about the Zionists disrupting pro-Palestinian events?

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 3:59 pm

        “So how do you feel about the Zionists disrupting pro-Palestinian events?”

        I, for one, am all for it. Every time some zio thug attacks a woman holding up a banner in congress and shoves her to the floor or shakes his fist in someone’s face or slaps a phone out of some woman’s hand at a speech or protest or shouts epitaphs like anti semite or self hating Jew at anti AIPAC protestors it reaffirms for me our side has already won the public battle.
        All that is left is getting the politicians.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 4:00 pm

        David Green, how old are you?

        So how do you feel about the Zionists disrupting pro-Palestinian events?

        Why do you call them ‘pro-Palestinian’?

        People like you mystify the conflict by saying both sides are equal in the war of narratives.

        It’s no surprise you defend Noam Chomsky’s straw-man/condescending and insulting characterizations of the BDS tactic/movement.

        You insulted Sean McBride when you both had an exchange on the issue of the Israel Lobby.

        Now you’re equivocating.

        Pro-Israel types have used violence and harassment and threats when they disrupt ‘pro-Palestinian’ events.

        Some have been documented here @MW. Why don’t you stop your phony concern for decorum and check out the facts?

        It’s so absurd that you think these activists are on the same level as the pro-Israel crowd.

        If Zionists were physically assaulted at a pro-Palestinian event, then politics go out the window.

        It would be a crime and everyone here would condemn it.

        Phil don’t censor my post. I know you let this guy guest-author articles here.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        February 24, 2012, 4:01 pm

        Have it at — its one thing to disrupt, its another to try and silence. if zio’s merely disrupted, that would be one thing, but they try to ruin your life. and again, this is the same “do anything short of making some zionists uncomfortable” bullsht ive heard for years. these people have blood dripping from their hands, but no one can interrupt one of their racist lectures…..ok brother

      • adamhorowitz
        adamhorowitz
        February 24, 2012, 4:17 pm

        Having organized many event over the years, we were always prepared for disrupters and would have a plan to remove them from the event as quickly and quietly as possible. We would never have allowed a reaction from the crowd like this, and I agree it’s telling. Granted, we never had to contend with anything like the occupy mic check, but that shows some of the genius of the tactic.

        The rationale behind this kind of action is to disrupt the status quo. I don’t agree that it’s a “freedom of speech” issue, no one is going to jail, and it’s not dangerous as in the “fire in a crowded theater” example. You can say it’s an issue of respect or common courtesy, but the counter argument would be that a racist presentation like this isn’t deserving of respect. I understand the perspective.

        Still I think this is an interesting debate, and one that seems to playing out in the movement. The first action of this kind that i can think of is when Olmert was shouted down at the Univ of Chicago (which Ali Abunimah writes about in our Goldstone book). In that case it was a clear argument against letting a war criminal speak weeks after Cast Lead without the voice of Israel’s victims being present. Over time it seems the protests have evolved more silently, similar to the one we posted earlier today from Michigan State – http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/video-michigan-state-students-stage-walkout-on-israeli-soldiers-stories.html . I suspect that tactic developed with this debate in mind, as well as by the way the Irvine 11 students were treated (which was widely viewed as a miscarriage of justice)

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 4:47 pm

        adam, my first awareness of yelling out as a common tactic was observing code pink in congress during the iraq war or calling out rumsfeld at some high profile event, calling him a war criminal. the first time i recall it being applied by rightwingers was when the tea partiers started using the technique in the health care debate directed against local congresspeople. then some congressperson yelled at obama during the state of the nation speech and that cause quite a storm in the press.

        so it’s really been incorporated into national discourse this decade on many fronts.

        i think code pink was the first group that used it over and over before others.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 5:11 pm

        “It’s so absurd that you think these activists are on the same level as the pro-Israel crowd.”

        Actually, I’m saying they’re not. I’m suggesting that the pro-Palestinian activists act like they’re not.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 5:18 pm

        First of all, we might like to distinguish between a Congressional hearing, for example, and a speaker on a college campus. I’m not saying there are any firm and fast rules. Again, when I invite you to speak on my campus, do you want me to have set a previous example of disruption that could be answered in kind? Or do you want to invite civil debate?

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 6:10 pm

        Again, when I invite you to speak on my campus, do you want me to have set a previous example of disruption that could be answered in kind?

        huh? it is more likely stand with us came to the campus, not the other way around. therefore it is quite likely stand with us would prefer no disruption.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 6:16 pm

        we might like to distinguish between a Congressional hearing, for example, and a speaker on a college campus

        for the purpose of this conversation? i’m not sure how olmert being disrupted by students at the university of chicago and netanyahu being disrupted by a student at congress are that much different but for the sake of argument i can make a distinction. where i can really make a distinction is when a gop congressperson starts using the same tactics regardless of where he or she is located, and hired people from corporations going from town to town to disrupt town meetings i could make a distinction there also.

        do you want to invite civil debate?

        with stand with us or horowitz’s group? not really. i think the anti normalization crowd is kind of over debating them. besides, this was not a debate format, it was hosting a person well known for her views.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        February 24, 2012, 7:22 pm

        @ Adam,

        I think you’re totally wrong. ‘oranda heishi nagasaki hibakuki’ wasn’t allowed to be printed by GHQ here in Japan [at first] after WWII, because ‘it was deemed a one-sided story and the US’ point of view not represented well/properly’ [sic]. Its about he A-bomb being dropped on Nagasaki. How one-sided can that be?

        Why do we always need and Israeli POV when we talk about Palestinians?

      • Doctor Pi
        Doctor Pi
        February 24, 2012, 10:34 pm

        I was at an event when Norman Finkelstein was disrupted by one and then another individual. It was all very peaceful and the disrupters were not attacked by the audience. When the first disruption happened Mr. Finkelstein took a very pragmatic approach and asked the audience whether or not the disrupter should leave and the majority in the audience indicated their wish that the disrupter leave. The disrupter left without incident.

      • American
        American
        February 25, 2012, 12:37 am

        “yelling out as a common tactic”

        Watch the British Parliament in action , ‘yelling out’ is an old tradition.

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly
        February 26, 2012, 1:00 pm

        way back in the eightees after appearing on a local radio station I was manhandled by a couple of jewish defense league thugs. Fortunately there were palestinians in the room who came to my rescue. the police were called and they asked me if i wanted to press charges. i said no, opting instead to avoid the hastle. it would have been better to press charges, just as one of the protesters at last year’s jewish federation conference in new orleans has done. likewise the student protesters who were attacked a few days ago for challenging speakers at an “israel alliance” meeting at the university of new mexico should consider availing themselves of the judicial system. this way we can make the political cost of zionist thuggery so expensive that it’ll have to be abandoned. will an attendant public awareness of the israel supporters’ predisposition to violence translate into the realization that palestinians are the victim of this same predisposition on the part of the zionist entity itself? no reason why not?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 1:14 pm

        I agree, the people in that audience committed actual crimes against those protesters by assaulting them.

        That is the simple truth, which has been lost on David Green and the new commentators like ‘Izik’ (who initially portrayed himself as an honest/impartial observer, commenting benignly on the issue).

    • American
      American
      February 24, 2012, 2:48 pm

      The Palestinian rights movement either has to have the confidence to ignore events like this and carry on with its campaign, or show up, ask questions, and debate”

      David, there is nothing to ‘debate”. The debate is over. Israel lost. There is a world majority consensus on I/P. The ‘protest’ now are just to bring attention to their continuing propaganda for the public.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 3:33 pm

        “there is nothing to ‘debate”. The debate is over. ”

        Of course it is. So if you can’t treat them in a civil way, ignore them. Show some self-confidence by having a movement that doesn’t depend on violating freedom of speech.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 5:02 pm

        David Green says:
        February 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm
        “there is nothing to ‘debate”. The debate is over. ”

        Of course it is.”

        No…there isn’t.
        The world agrees, international law agrees, morality agrees, human rights agrees, real politics in ME stability agrees on Israel I/P.
        What you try to call ‘debate’ is simply your insistence that Jews and Israel are a special case and all the above areas of world agreement don’t apply to you.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 5:13 pm

        “So if you can’t treat them in a civil way, ignore them”..David

        When they quit doing their business in my yard and everyone else’s I’ll be happy to ignore them.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 7:02 pm

        why should they be ignored when they travel around infecting public areas with islamophobic rhetoric? there’s nothing they would like better than to be able to continue unimpeded. why should that be facilitated?

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        February 24, 2012, 7:30 pm

        @ David GReen,

        In that case you must be a fan of pro-Israeli pit-bull Alan Dershowitz.

        “In an article published at several outlets, Dershowitz denounced Falk and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer for lending their endorsement to Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who?””

        It’s antisemitic, you know…

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/princeton-prof-turns-down-dershowitz-challenge/#ixzz1nLh5MKOj

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:03 pm

        “In that case you must be a fan of pro-Israeli pit-bull Alan Dershowitz.”

        I abhor him. And if he came to my campus, I would hope that the pro-Palestinians would ignore him. Just ignore him.

      • dahoit
        dahoit
        February 25, 2012, 1:34 pm

        He is a serial liar.Do you think the Palestinians are serial liars?if so ,point out their lies.There is a world of difference in facts and propaganda,which is what these protesters were pointing out.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 24, 2012, 3:35 pm

        Right. Why debate? There’s no point in promoting dialog, challenging your opponent in the open market of ideas.
        One of the traits of non-Democratic regimes is the way they extinguish any form of dialog through bullying. These were the exact same tactics of the “protesters”.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 4:20 pm

        WOW

        What a huge leap.

        Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish and other anti-Arab/Islamophobic ‘Arabs for Israel’ are propagandists who SHOULD be disrupted.

        Disrupting liars and hasbarists is perfectly acceptable.

        It’s common for Zionists to rail against pro-Palestinian activists while ignoring the real censorship activities that Zionists employ to stop a speaker from even getting to the podium.

        The Palestinian solidarity activists are protesting. The Zionists are censoring. There is a difference.

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 5:09 pm

        “One of the traits of non-Democratic regimes is the way they extinguish any form of dialog through bullying. These were the exact same tactics of the “protesters”…Izik

        One of the traits of smart people and realist is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 6:41 pm

        “The Palestinian solidarity activists are protesting. The Zionists are censoring. There is a difference.”

        But you can’t expect those who are not yet informed and secure about this issue to respond well to this tactic, and to make the same distinction you do. They might be turned off or driven off. I’m not saying that you should pander to their sensitivities, but just pragmatically consider what will work and not work. I don’t understand the resistance to just thinking this through. It’s like BDS–it’s a tactic. There’s no reason to make it a doctrine.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 24, 2012, 6:56 pm

        Right, we should just sit quietly and wring our hands while the armored bulldozers and the armed settler pogroms get funded by US aid to the tune of $3 billion plus a year.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 7:00 pm

        If people are so sensitive, David Green, so as to retreat from this issue at the drop of the proverbial hat, then they have already done so due to the fear of probing an issue wrapped up in Jewish identity/the Holocaust/antisemitism/Islam/terrorism/the ME/etc.

        If they’ve made it that far, and they are truly sincere individuals, then they will have the stomach for disruption. Maybe they won’t agree (and I could see their point while dismissing your equivocation), but they won’t retreat at that point.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:04 pm

        “Right, we should just sit quietly and wring our hands while the armored bulldozers and the armed settler pogroms get funded by US aid to the tune of $3 billion plus a year.”

        And how does disrupting Darwish address this problem?

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 9:23 pm

        And how does disrupting Darwish address this problem?

        you should ask the UNM israel advocates who booked her. they seem to think inviting her addresses the problem. the goi putting soldiers on our campus, they seem to think it addresses the problem. we know why these people are brought here, to justify apartheid.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 25, 2012, 6:09 am

        But you can’t expect those who are not yet informed and secure about this issue to respond well to this tactic, and to make the same distinction you do

        So what are you suggesting David? That Zionists are dangerous, violent and unpredictable and therefore should not be confronted?

        When I read your absurd comments, I feel like I’m hearing Witty all over again.

      • American
        American
        February 25, 2012, 10:50 am

        And how does disrupting Darwish address this problem?”…David

        It’s a form of intimidation. If you’re not familiar with that tactic ask AIPAC and the zio character assassins about it.

    • HRK
      HRK
      February 24, 2012, 4:24 pm

      I felt that Ms. Darwish should have been allowed to speak without being interrupted. There are ways to protest an event or speaker which doesn’t silence the other person. I don’t know what Ms. Darwish wanted to say. The point is: How do we know, since we couldn’t hear her?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 5:02 pm

        They did know, which is why they disrupted.

        Why don’t you Google her name? She is in the Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Greet Wilders camp.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        February 25, 2012, 11:57 am

        Green couldn’t be any more wrong – both tactically and morally.

        The tape shows very clearly, a peaceful disruption -that probably would have ended in with the kids leaving on their own – and a violent response to that disruption. The “uninformed” don’t have to know much more than that – non violent protest/violent reaction- to know that something is seriously fcked up here.

        Furthermore, Green pretty much makes an argument one could use against non-violent protest of settlers and the occupation generally: if you protest, they will react violently, so help save them from themselves – people might get hurt, and they will be able to say “they want to destroy israel” etc. and we all know everyone will side with them.

        Green is going to have to get used to the idea that people of conscience the world over find the zionist project in palestine repugnant, and yes, many of those people of conscience have along the way, come to the same opinion about the zionists themselves. So, sorry that these videos screw up your narrative, but they are real and relevant, and if you think the tactics of the protestors are extreme, look again at the opposition.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 25, 2012, 12:16 pm

        Furthermore, Green pretty much makes an argument one could use against non-violent protest of settlers and the occupation generally: if you protest, they will react violently, so help save them from themselves – people might get hurt, and they will be able to say “they want to destroy israel” etc. and we all know everyone will side with them.

        That’s exactly the sense I was getting from his arguments too. He sounds very “liberal Zionist” to me.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 25, 2012, 12:31 pm

        “Furthermore, Green pretty much makes an argument one could use against non-violent protest of settlers and the occupation generally: if you protest, they will react violently, so help save them from themselves ”

        I don’t accept the analogy. If you want to have a decent analogy, then sit in in administrators’ offices who support connections with the apartheid state. Take risks that are at least in the same ballpark as Palestinians who put their bodies on the line.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        February 25, 2012, 2:54 pm

        “…….then sit in in administrators’ offices who support connections with the apartheid state.”
        —————–

        Who the F here doesn’t agree with that? Actions don’t cancel each other out – you can do both. This is not a serious argument against what these kids did or the tactics generally. Something tells me, what you advocate for might just be on the way.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 26, 2012, 2:25 pm

        @ HRK: Hasbara oft quote Nonie Darwish for their propaganda purposes.

    • mudder
      mudder
      February 24, 2012, 5:07 pm

      Two brave student campus protests videos were posted on MW today. One, at UNM a vocal protest and speech disruption, in the tradition of the the UCI students so wrongfully convicted. The other at MSU in the Michigan tradition of silent walkouts, in implicit acknowledgment of the injustice of the same UCI convictions.

      It’s important that we can rationally debate the relative merits and effectiveness of these two opposite approaches.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      February 24, 2012, 6:22 pm

      Americans have been arrested, tried, jailed (?) for disrupting a speech. Freedom of speech means you MUST allow others to speak, especially when it is THEIR hall, THEIR event. Protesting by standing and walking out may be OK if done quickly and quietly. Protesting OUTSIDE the hall is probably OK.

      How much do pro-Palestine folks REALLY LIKE to have Zios shout down THEIR speakers?

      >> On the other hand, the VIOLENCE should be left to the cops. <<

      Demanding a right to have your own meeting go ahead without noisy protest is part of "free speech" and should be NO JOKE to Americans. You don't have to like what's being said. If you don't like it, leave, go outside, and do your own speech-thing outside.

      Come on. [Grow up?]

      • mudder
        mudder
        February 24, 2012, 6:46 pm

        +1

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 24, 2012, 6:58 pm

        This wasn’t a private meeting. This was held on the grounds of a publicly funded university.

      • Donald
        Donald
        February 24, 2012, 7:56 pm

        I agree. I don’t think racist speech from an invited speaker should be disrupted unless the university doesn’t allow anti-racists to organize their own events. If Ali Abunimah couldn’t be invited to this campus and give a speech without it being disrupted then yes, it is legitimate to disrupt speech by Israel supporters. Otherwise no. You can still protest, silently inside the auditorium or loudly outside the building.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 25, 2012, 2:10 am

        But this is a special case – the speaker was not “pro-Israel” but anti-human rights, because she represented the point of view that Palestinians are barely human, if that.. It’s OK to invite the Ku Klux Klan to speak but one should not be surprised if a some black students staged an open mike event.

        “Pro-Israel” is basically a code word nowadays for pro ethnic cleansing. However the speakers and the audience wish to couch that – this is the goal most Israelis support. They just haven’t figured out yet how to do it fast enough without the world noticing. All the more reason to make sure everyone does notice who’s who and what’s what.

        The more I think of it, the more the analogy to the modern Ku Klux Klan holds. These days the KKK describe themselves “pr-white Americans, not anti-anything. Doesn’t mean we think they really reformed, just took some lessons in PC speech.

        So, Donald, are you ready to welcome a KKK polite speaker to a campus next door? and should it be wrong to disrupt their racist speech if it was overtly directed against blacks and/or latinos?

      • Donald
        Donald
        February 25, 2012, 10:17 am

        The KKK analogy is one I’m not sure I know how to answer. I wasn’t thinking of it in those terms. In general I think even noxious people should be able to give speeches in public places, but if open hatred is being espoused it’s not realistic to expect people to sit quietly for it. So I’ll just leave it there.

    • LittleBat
      LittleBat
      February 25, 2012, 2:59 am

      I agree with you David, and I do think that the tactics were disruptive – although, of course, they should not be met with violence. Debate and firm, clear rebuttals of the rhetoric of people like Darwish are the way to go.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 25, 2012, 5:55 pm

      Mayhaps it shows how Israel Firsters barely contain themselves within a thin veneer of civilization, then they arupt into the fascist they are?

  3. annie
    annie
    February 24, 2012, 1:52 pm

    this is an incredible video demonstrating how off the rails these israel supporters are.

    amazing action, amazing video. thank you so much danya and please give my regards to all the awesome new mexicans who took part in this action. new mexico has such a vibrant activist community, we’ve documented their work before on MW. kudos.

    • David Green
      David Green
      February 24, 2012, 3:37 pm

      “this is an incredible video demonstrating how off the rails these israel supporters are.”

      And exactly why did this need to be demonstrated at this point in history?

      • American
        American
        February 24, 2012, 4:04 pm

        “And exactly why did this need to be demonstrated at this point in history?

        Documenting the fact they are ‘still off the rails’ would be my guess.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 4:06 pm

        what point in history would you prefer? if ever. or shall we just hide that little factoid in the closet so as not to embarrass the pro israel activist community?

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 5:24 pm

        “what point in history would you prefer?”

        Given that this is a point where the Palestinian case is increasingly understood, I would prefer that this be a point where their supporters modeled the dignity that they aspire to.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 6:10 pm

        David Green: So, you would have the supporters of the Palestinian (and, dare I say the classic American values compared to any others demonstrated thru world history, given the test of virtue is power) cause be understood by Dick and Jane by–by what? By expecting Dick and Jane to sort through the I-P conflict when their mainstream media, and nearly all their political leaders, do not give them the facts on the I-P conflict, and instead, give them only Bibi N’s radical Zionist POV? The result of what’s been happening for decades now is that Dick and Jane, when they take a pause from sports stats or to eye expensive shoes, and this itself when they are not looking for a job, and/or a way to hang onto their home, look for what’s happening, what’s all this about Iran and Israel? The dignity to model after is that we should do anything short of outright physical violence that gives Dick and Jane a clue how they are being used to the detriment of humanity and most specifically, the Palestinian people–not to mention, harm to yes, Dick and Jane.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 24, 2012, 4:15 pm

        Green: “And exactly why did this need to be demonstrated at this point in history?”

        Because the violence and insanity that characterize Israel is coming to America. This video may be the first of many such altercations to come. With much much worse to follow.

        Some of us see very clearly that whatever madness and poisonous spirits that took over israelis are infecting the entire political landscape in the US. Republicans, democrats, progressives, labor, occupy, the president, all of congress, the courts – you name it. Just look at the Bomb Iran maniac crowd. There is not even the tiniest benefit to the US from such travesty – the US can accomplish every one of its grandest imperial ambitions through diplomacy – faster and better than any bombing campaign. But the bomber madness is all the talk of the town, with hardly a rational thinker in sight. So who did that? and for what reason?

        It is truly unfortunate that zionism can make some otherwise smart people really really stupid.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 5:14 pm

        “This video may be the first of many such altercations to come.”

        So you’re suggesting that a tactic of the pro-Palestinian movement should be to provoke confrontation at Zionist events? Confrontations that of course will rarely be clear in terms of who started what?

        And what do you hope to gain for the Palestinian cause by doing this?

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 6:21 pm

        Confrontations that of course will rarely be clear in terms of who started what?

        i think it’s crystal clear who turned this protest into a physical confrontation.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 6:36 pm

        It may be clear to you and me, but what about those people who are trying to educate themselves about this issue?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 6:49 pm

        Annie was CRYSTAL CLEAR – we are talking about who started the physical altercation. It is OBVIOUS that the pro-Israel crowd swung first – literally.

        What kind of catharsis is someone supposed to get out of a Wafa Sultan/Walid Shoebat/Nonie Darwish speech?

        That nexus of stupidity should be lampooned/mocked/disrupted for what it is – hateful sophistry.

        You are blaming the protesters for being assaulted by crazies.

        Are you going to lecture Rae Abileah(sp) on the virtue of dialogue w/ AIPAC members who wring her neck?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 24, 2012, 7:20 pm

        Wonder how many noticed it was the geezers versus the youngsters? And it was the geezers who were violent. What does maturity mean these days? Were all those hot-headed geezers students?

      • kapok
        kapok
        February 24, 2012, 7:26 pm

        “What about those people who are trying to educate themselves…”

        Ooh, I know! Shoot them is the face at close range with a tear gas canister.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        February 24, 2012, 7:37 pm

        @ David Green,

        Q: but what about those people who are trying to educate themselves about this issue?

        R: Stop pretending you care about those other people, because you honestly don’t and you know it.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 7:59 pm

        david, perhaps you missed the update. there is a second video if you scroll down. notice the guy lunging into the protestors.

        but what about those people who are trying to educate themselves about this issue?

        from darwish? seriously? have you googled any of her videos. i watched one on david horowit’s site last night. scary. that’s the kind of education no one needs.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 8:07 pm

        “This video may be the first of many such altercations to come.”

        So you’re suggesting that a tactic of the pro-Palestinian movement should be to provoke confrontation at Zionist events?

        leap-a-lot?

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:10 pm

        “david, perhaps you missed the update. there is a second video if you scroll down. notice the guy lunging into the protestors.”

        I watched it. I get that the physical violence was precipitated by the Zionists. I also get that Darwish is enraging. When she came to my campus, a friend told me that she had to get up and leave and pace around the quad for an hour. I get it.

        That doesn’t mean that it’s helpful to the Palestinian cause for her to be disrupted. It might work better to explain to other students why she’s loathesome. It might work better to be bigger than the liars and the haters. It might be worth a try.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:30 pm

        “Stop pretending you care about those other people, because you honestly don’t and you know it.”

        I think that there are a lot more people open to understanding Palestinian grievances than ever. They need people with the patience to explain a lot of basic stuff. They don’t all read Mondoweiss or Noam Chomsky.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 9:29 pm

        That doesn’t mean that it’s helpful to the Palestinian cause for her to be disrupted.

        well, in this instance i think it was very helpful actually. so this is not a good example of it not being helpful.

        It might work better to explain to other students why she’s loathesome.

        something tells me the students had already done their research.

        It might work better to be bigger than the liars and the haters. It might be worth a try.

        i already think the students are way bigger than liars and haters. who are you referring to? i neither lie or hate..so who are you referencing?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 25, 2012, 6:12 am

        So you’re suggesting that a tactic of the pro-Palestinian movement should be to provoke confrontation at Zionist events?

        Right David, and women should wear short skirts and plunging necklines in public – you know -it might provoke sexually frustrated men.

        If Zionist events are going to be attended but such violent participants, shouldn’t you be arguing against allowing them to be held?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 25, 2012, 6:16 am

        They need people with the patience to explain a lot of basic stuff.

        Because as David knows, the Palestinians really have time on their side. Try telling a family who’s house is being demolished to be patient.

        Seriously, is it just me, or do all Zionists eventually sound like sociopaths?

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 25, 2012, 2:30 pm

        “It may be clear to you and me, but what about those people who are trying to educate themselves about this issue”.

        Back to the KKK analogy. Darwish’s is hate speech couched as “exercise in education” for the good white people. The people who invited her to speak are the bigger problem, because education is clearly not what they were seeking. What the planners anof the event and the majority of attendees were after is affirmation of their own deeply held racist beliefs and confirmation of personal mantras that muslims/arabs are an inferior brand of humans and should be somehow gotten rid of.

        Those in the audience, the violence they exhibited, their bigotry and intolerance are exactly what one would expect of a KKK audience. Actually, I take that back – it’s worse, because the KKK had to learn to be a bit careful where they stage their events. This one was in broad daylight, on a campus, attended by people who look to be “nice”.

        The biggest problem we have with the horror that israel is becoming are their enablers in the US. It’s very much as if the plantation owners ran the show again. These people – not so much the hate mongering speaker – but her crazied, well coiffed audience, that’s where the problem is. I hope people everywhere will know to do many more of these protests and be brave enough to do it, to counter the hate peddlers lining up behind an ethnic cleansing enterprise.

        And why, right there, in DC in a little over a month, one will get to observe 1000’s of them at the AIPAC conference, all braying for Iranian blood, and buckets of Palestinian life. Very few will be there who give a hoot about this country’s inclusive values. Very few who put their own communities’ and fellow citizens’ interests ahead of their middle eastern conquistador cousins, there to appear in full armor, carrying apocalypse in their wake to whoever might be caught in the line of fire. The AIPAC mobs will be hooting and tooting for the yahoo who plans – in broad daylight – the demise and dispossession of over 2 million people.

        Ultimately, that’s what people should bear in mind when they consider the pros and cons of intervention at KKK gatherings. Behind it all, behind AIPAC, and even alongside J Street and polite 2-state mirage peddlers, is a plan for solving the Palestinian “people problem”. But David Green would have us, who are shocked to the farthest depths of our conscience, practice the virtue of “civility” and give a chance for the plantation owners to say their piece, even as they seek to demolish the homes and exile the slaves’ sympathizers – whom they find a bit too “disruptive”. After all, some of the colonist conquistadors are nice to gays. Why – they even brought a few ethiopian tokens to display as evidence of good deportment….

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 6:24 pm

        I comment here just to register my total agreement with Danaa. There is no question in my mind that the USA’ s leadership has been copying Israel, totally ignoring its own historic best values, and especially ignoring the values taught by the Nuremberg Trials (and won with the blood and treasure of how many Americans?), and enhanced by international law since and by those trials. The current situation is worthy of Kafka entangled with Kant and Gogol, not to mention Nietzsche and Dostoievski. I fear that out of this entanglement will come only Goering, given press by Goebbels-Bernays, and rubber-stamped by “let’s have a beer” Americans who never heard of any of those guys.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 26, 2012, 10:47 am

        David Green is not – and has not – been oppressed for 64 years. I find his condescensions tres annoying

  4. Boycott Israel on Campus
    Boycott Israel on Campus
    February 24, 2012, 2:02 pm

    I hope these brave protesters will quickly stage an event for the new Palestinian woman hunger striker, Hana Yahya al-Shalabi!

    The sooner that Shalabi gets some news coverage, the faster she will be freed.

    She is exactly like Khader Adnan — but is not 66 days into her hunger strike.

    * Electronic Intifada has covered her story at http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/khader-adnan-recovering-not-out-danger-palestinian-woman-takes-hunger-strike#shalabi

    *AntiWar.com has covered it at:

    http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/23/israel-faces-new-hunger-striker-after-reneging-on-prisoner-swap/

    Annie, please trumpet her story everywhere you can!

    Thanks.

  5. annie
    annie
    February 24, 2012, 2:16 pm

    there is another video added, i recommend

  6. Mndwss
    Mndwss
    February 24, 2012, 3:07 pm

    When i was a child and there was a fight in the school yard, kids would surround the fight and scream: More blood, more blood, more blood…

    Here there is not even a fight, it is just onslaught.

    And they chant USA USA USA

    More blood, more blood, more blood…

    More USA , more USA, more USA …

    Grownups acting like little evil children…

  7. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    February 24, 2012, 3:50 pm

    Close to 30 years ago I attended a teach in of sorts that took place at the school on Irving Place and east 16th street in Manhattan, for the Palestinian cause, that included, I believe, one of the heroes of this blog, Elmer Berger. I went into the hallway and got into a discussion with the person who was selling literature. (My position was pro Israel and his was anti.) When Elmer Berger passed my way I asked him a question and he answered it. When I attempted to reenter the teach in, I was bodily lifted and thrown out and my glasses were broken.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 24, 2012, 4:07 pm

      WJ,

      We live in the age of social networking and cell phone cameras.

      I believe you when you tell us about your personal experience.

      However, let’s ask another question. How often does this happen to the pro-Israel camp?

      If it happened so often, then we would surely know! CAMERA would be on it. StandWithUs would be on it.

      What instead is happening more often, is the reverse.

      MW has documented pro-Israel activists disrupting pro-Palestinian events (sure, free speech) but then also using harassment/threats/abuse. One such example has been the subject of an article at MW.

      And we have this of course. Then there is Rae Abileah(sp) too @AIPAC.

      Your example is a truth but it happened 30 years ago?

      This happened ‘today’ and it was an entire audience of crazy pro-Israel types assaulting some kids who spoke up against Israeli colonialism.

      1. Our politics are not the same WJ. You are a Zionist and support colonialism because of your tribal identity.

      2. I do not, and many anti-Zionists do not as well. We act out of principle and you act out of self-interest.

      We are not the same.

      You justify attacks on Iranian scientists just like Ward Churchill justifies 9/11. You support terrorism, and no anti-Zionist here has ever once advocated for suicide bombings.

      The end.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2012, 4:29 pm

        We are not the same, Cliff. Good for you. You’re great and your cause is great.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 4:43 pm

        I know it is, WJ.

        But we’re not the same because I don’t support colonialism.

        While I focus on your country, you could never accuse me of supporting any Arab dictatorship in the region.

        Whereas, in the name of security or fear of existential threats, you will so freely toss your principles (if you have any) in the gutter.

        That’s the difference. I don’t make excuses or resort to ‘it’s complicated’ sophistry.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2012, 4:56 pm

        cliff- If there is something that you wish to discuss, let’s discuss it. but you are not here to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with you.

        you are saying that because your side is right, therefore you have a right to disrupt people you disagree with and because my side is wrong, I do not have that same right. that is the essence of our interaction so far today.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 6:30 pm

        My original point was that if what happened to you was widespread, then pro-Israel/pro-censorship groups like StandWithUs or CAMERA would be all over it.

        We’d be hearing about it all the time and it would be on tape. It isn’t though.

        What IS on tape is stuff like the subject of this article.

        Or the other MW report I posted below, of a StandWithUs member pepper-spraying people at a JVP event.

        Is Wafa Sultan someone you agree with? Or Walid Shoebat? Or the speaker mentioned in the article above who heads a group called, ‘Arabs for Israel’?

        If so, then sure, ‘your side’ is defined by them (your admission, not mine) and should be disrupted.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 24, 2012, 6:42 pm

        We are not the same, Cliff. Good for you. You’re great and your cause is great.

        Considering your cause entails setting car bombs in Tehran? And you’ve said as much that you support it? Or firing missiles into mosques to kill a crippled man and anyone else who happens to be Muslim? Or not even, just unlucky enough to be near the mosque door?

        There is nothing to discuss with supporters of terrorism, WJ.

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      February 24, 2012, 6:40 pm

      wondering jew: I don’t believe your story. What did you leave out? 30 years ago, the word Intifada did not exist. Mandela was unknown. Israel was occupying just Lib… — well you get it. Everyone was cheering Israel.

      Best guess is that it was your personal behaviour, not your flag, that made you being hoovered out.

  8. Cliff
    Cliff
    February 24, 2012, 4:23 pm

    Ok, so I found this old MW article.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/right-wing-israel-advocacy-group-standwithus-attacks-jewish-voice-for-peace-meeting-with-pepper-spray.html

    From a JVP press release:

    Last night, up to a dozen members of San Francisco Voice for Israel/StandWithUs, a right-wing Israeli advocacy group with a documented track record of aggressively taunting and intimidating grassroots peace activists, attended a Bay Area Jewish Voice for Peace community meeting at a South Berkeley Senior Center with the intention of disrupting, intimidating and possibly assaulting Jewish Voice for Peace members. Jewish Voice for Peace is the largest U.S. Jewish peace group dedicated to a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on democracy and full equality — the Bay Area chapter is the founding chapter of the organization. Approximately 50 to 60 people were at the meeting, and you can read eyewitness testimonies here and here.

    Wrapped in an Israeli flag, San Francisco Voice for Israel/StandWithUs (SFVI/SWU) member Robin Dubner, an Oakland based attorney, pepper-sprayed two JVP members in the eyes and face after they attempted to nonviolently block her ability to aggressively videotape the faces of JVP meeting attendees against their will. The members, Alexei Folger and Glen Hauer, were careful to make no physical contact with her or her camera prior to the attack.

    Folger said, “I did not see it coming and all of a sudden there was gooey stuff all over my head and hand. I have never been pepper-sprayed before, my whole head felt like it was on fire.”

    JVP had earlier this year filed a police report about a June SFVI/SWU protest at which JVP and (peace group) Women in Black members were intimidatingly videotaped and threatened by a StandWithUs supporter after being taunted with chants like “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi” or “Kapo,Kapo,Kapo”. Caught on a widely seen videotape was a SFVI/SWU supporter pointing his camera to the faces of silent peace vigil participants while saying “You’re all being identified, every last one of you…we will find out where you live. We’re going to make your lives difficult. We will disrupt your families…”

    For that reason, JVP members were particularly concerned about protecting the safety of meeting attendees and preventing the videotaping.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 24, 2012, 5:04 pm

      If it wasn’t clear or if people weren’t clicking the link:

      The above MW article was about a pro-Israel advocate from StandWithUs (which is the affiliate of the group which sponsered Darwish) who pepper-sprayed JVP members during a JVP event.

      That is what pro-Israel types do, aside from censoring he Palestinian voice entirely.

      David Green can issue lame-duck equivocations all he wants, it does not change reality.

  9. David Green
    David Green
    February 24, 2012, 5:22 pm

    It’s just remarkable the amount of arrogance and hostility that is displayed by those in response to a suggestion that disruption may not be an intelligent tactic, pragmatically or morally. It’s remarkable how the responses become personal, revealing a great deal of insecurity among those within the pro-Palestinian movement to think through some basic issues.

    Again, we’ve worked hard to make college campuses places where the Palestinian perspective can be promoted at all. Is it wise to engage in disruptive tactics at this point, or continue to educate and advocate?

    The Mondoweiss gatekeepers are much too cocky to even consider it. How predictable, and how telling.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 24, 2012, 6:37 pm

      Again, we’ve worked hard to make college campuses places where the Palestinian perspective can be promoted at all. Is it wise to engage in disruptive tactics at this point, or continue to educate and advocate?

      The Mondoweiss gatekeepers are much too cocky to even consider it. How predictable, and how telling.

      “We”? Who are you and what constituency of the solidarity movement do you represent? I don’t think 99% of the Palestinian solidarity campus activists would agree with you.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:15 pm

        “I don’t think 99% of the Palestinian solidarity campus activists would agree with you.”

        The vast majority that I’ve met over the past 15 years would in fact agree with me. Without a doubt. That doesn’t mean that they’re right or I’m right. It does mean that tactics need to be considered in pragmatic terms, in term of the time and place, and the historical moment.

        I believe it’s time for supporters of the Palestinians to be confident, determined, and maintain their dignity in the face of hasbara. You’re welcome to disagree. I’d like to see a much more bold, assertive, and well-organized movement on my campus and in my community. I’ve waited for years to see that. But it won’t happen because some students take the bait and disrupt a Zionist talk. It will only hurt, in my opinion.

        You’re welcome to inform me of the progress that has been made as a result of disrupting Zionist speakers.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 9:33 pm

        You’re welcome to inform me of the progress that has been made as a result of disrupting Zionist speakers.

        scroll up. exposing the nature of these violent radicals is progress.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 2:51 am

        David Green,

        People who speak out for the Palestinian cause are smeared for simply bringing a Palestinian voice into the discussion or someone who represents the Palestinian experience.

        The notion that disruption tactics/protesting Brand Israel is ‘hurting’ the struggle is absolutely false.

        It’s superfluous of Zionists to call Palestinian solidarity antisemitic for disrupting or protesting or to simply be alienated. They are already alienated by our views – hence why the AIPAC member nearly strangled Rae Abileah(sp). Hence, why these crazy pro-Israel audience members physically assaulted the protestors.

        I want you to substantiate your earlier equivocation.

        And no, if you were actually in the right – then there would not be similar protests happening on college campuses in Europe and the US. There is though. So I guess, you must have spent ‘the past 15 years’ with your head in the sand.

        Considering your against the boycott and against the protest of normalization, it’s no surprise you want Palestinians and their supporters to sit idly by while they are defamed.

        The sense of urgency should inform our activism and we should be ACTIVE – not silent.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        February 25, 2012, 5:44 am

        @ David Green,

        I agree with the fact that ‘we’ can’t fight the Palestinian fight for them. Nevertheless, when up against a monstrous, well-oiled media-machine [and one that doesn’t hesitate to ruin lives and careers], peaceful distraction might be the right tool to get attention and thus messages across. Messages for those who’re not familiar with the IP debacle [are there still any left?]. I hope you’ll agree with me that the violent response as recorded is abhorrent and that nothing validates those actions.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 25, 2012, 6:22 am

        Considering your against the boycott and against the protest of normalization, it’s no surprise you want Palestinians and their supporters to sit idly by while they are defamed.

        Well put Cliff. Green is another example of a gate keeper who expects Palestinian activism to stick to a verb narrow set of guidelines. Ideally, they should be seen and not heard, and preferably not seen at all.

        Green wants them to remain passive and not to embarrass Israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 6:34 pm

        Oh, it’s pretty simple, Green is naive, though well-intended; he simply ignores that, for example, that every candidate for the next POTUS (except Ron Paul), including Obama, is on the record as an Israel Firster. It’s a wonder why those old jewish geezers on the clip bother with violent confrontation at all. It’s in the bag. Ask Jerry Seineld or Curb Your Enthusiasm.

    • American
      American
      February 24, 2012, 6:43 pm

      David,

      There is no hostility or arrogance here.
      There is nothing personal in it here. Or toward you.
      There is no insecurity among those in the I/P movement.
      There are no gatekeepers here.

      What you are seeing is simply the end of most people’s patience.
      It will not be ‘debated’ for another 5, 10, 15 or 60 years.
      People have moved on to whatever action they can take to get a just resolution of I/P.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 6:52 pm

        What you are seeing is simply the end of most people’s patience.
        It will not be ‘debated’ for another 5, 10, 15 or 60 years.

        EXACTLY.

        60+ years of lies, obfuscation, distractions, diversions, and self-important academic condescension.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:18 pm

        “It will not be ‘debated’ for another 5, 10, 15 or 60 years.”

        Nor should it be. Supporters of the Palestinians need to figure out how to organize direct action and political action. They need to stop having their chains jerked by the Lobby. That’s what a helpful end of “patience” would mean.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 9:34 pm

        Supporters of the Palestinians need to figure out how to organize direct action and political action.

        they did, scroll up.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 25, 2012, 6:24 am

        Supporters of the Palestinians need to figure out how to organize direct action and political action.

        So long as they don’t embarrass, inconvenience or provoke Israeli supporters or Israel.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      February 24, 2012, 7:01 pm

      Yes, let’s keep blaming the victims for what their attackers did.

  10. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    February 24, 2012, 5:24 pm

    All those here who are convinced that the debate is over, or that your side is right and the other side is wrong, may in fact be right (at least in theory), but how is the objective observer supposed to know the debate is over unless he gets to hear the debate and how can one side be right and the other wrong unless that observer gets to hear both sides.

    There’s a certain tone deafness to the idea of dialogue let alone the specifics in this case.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 24, 2012, 6:35 pm

      You are again assuming, that people like Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, et. al. are people who would be on the list of voices that should be heard.

      These people are in the Greet Wilders, Islamophobia camp.

      The reality is that there are plenty of people who are simply liars for Israel who should be disrupted and mocked.

      In fact, Israel actively sends out liars and propagandists to officially improve it’s image (Brand Israel) abroad.

      It’s really cynical of you to think this is about honest debate. It isn’t. It isn’t when Palestinian children’s artwork is censored or whenever a Palestinian voice has to be ‘balanced’ with an Israeli one (but not vice versa).

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 24, 2012, 6:45 pm

        Do you suppose WJ would be equally protective if a Grand Wizard from the KKK was giving a lecture at a southern university?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 24, 2012, 6:55 pm

        What about Doug Feith? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? Wolfowitz? etc.

        Why do we need to hear these liars out? We have the documentary record. They have their narrative – which they have used to destroy entire countries.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 24, 2012, 8:20 pm

        Have you seen any of them speaking on campus? For them, a circus would be appropriate. The tactics would fit the event. But that’s not Darwish, however loathesome she is. I think it’s different. Or perhaps you can explain how they’re all the same.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 4:20 am

        For David Green,

        UMass Protests Andy Card and War

        On May 25, 2007 Andrew Card faced hundreds of boos and catcalls as he was given an honorary degree during the graduate school commencement at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

        Before the commencement, about 200 protesters staged a rally and press conference outside the Mullins Center on the UMass campus. Hundreds more students and faculty who opposed the honorary degree would later protest inside the hall.

        Card, former Bush Administration Chief of Staff and chief salesman for the invasion of Iraq as head of the White House Iraq Group, faced signs calling him a war criminal. People are now calling on UMass to rescind the honorary degree.

        The protests followed weeks of growing opposition. 400 protested on May 15 (see the rally and march on YouTube at TraprockPeaceTV) and on May 22 protesters marched from the campus to the Amherst common.

        After the commencement, activists gathered at the Jones Library for a celebration and speakout. Video of both the pre-commencement rally and post-commencement speakout are coming to TraprockPeaceTV.

        Video recorded and edited by Charles Jenks; © 2007 Traprock Peace Center. Websites may embed the video for non-profit use, with attribution. Please let us know if you use the video; email [email protected]

        The protest was organized by a large coalition of campus and community organizations, too numerous to list. Traprock was one of many community groups that supported the tremendous efforts by the UMass community of students, faculty and staff, and UMass organizations.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 24, 2012, 7:35 pm

        “You are again assuming, that people like Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, et. al. are people who would be on the list of voices that should be heard.”

        Who are you to decide who should or shouldn’t be heard? If what they are saying is illegal (e.g., incitement to murder), then you should you place a complaint with the police. Otherwise, allow them to be heard and judged. Don’t decide for others what is proper or improper.

        “The reality is that there are plenty of people who are simply liars for Israel”
        Perhaps. There are likely liars for Palestine as well.
        “who should be disrupted and mocked. ”
        Mocked? Go ahead, it’s your right to mock anyone. Disrupted? Absolutely not. If they wish to be heard and others wish to hear them, then you have no right to interfere with that right, regardless of how you feel about their politics.

        Challenge your opponents in the open market of ideas. If you need to “win” by silencing your opponents, that is a sign of weakness and bullying.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 24, 2012, 9:04 pm

        Let’s put Izik to the test. Tell us what you think about the Nakba, Izik.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 24, 2012, 9:38 pm

        ROFL. Whenever I challenged Zionists I was bullied sooner or later, because their “ideas” are stupid and they know it.

      • annie
        annie
        February 24, 2012, 9:39 pm

        Otherwise, allow them to be heard and judged. Don’t decide for others what is proper or improper.

        because only you get to do that? or were you advocating not deciding the students actions were proper or improper?

        Challenge your opponents in the open market of ideas.

        pro normalization. not everyone has made that choice.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 2:34 am

        @Izik

        Is Holocaust denial illegal in the US? Nope. Do you think we need to sit through a lecture on how there were no gas chambers?

        I don’t care about challenging absolute morons to an ‘open market of ideas’. The people I mentioned are sophists. I would not want to hear Brand Israel activists either.

        If the person in question is sincere, then sure. If they run an organization called ‘Arabs for Israel’ or say the things Darwish has said, which I’ve quoted below – then they deserve to be mocked and disrupted.

        You can think otherwise, because you have completely different politics and believe the things they say.

        Of course you’d defend them. Your very first comment on MW was defending the psychotic audience who physically assaulted a group of college students.

        It’s obvious you wouldn’t mind silencing Palestinian voices, such as the childrens art exhibit censored by Zionists. Yet, you are up in arms after this video? Did the Palestinian solidarity activists go crazy and hit and punch people?

        Why didn’t you comment on the video I posted below? StandWithUs activists pepper sprayed JVP members at one of their events. That is analogous to what happened in the video here, except the pro-Israel crowd were the disrupters – and unlike the pro-Palestinian crowd, they used violence.

        Why don’t you tell us who you think is a pro-Palestinian liar, who frequents college campuses, delivering lectures?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 2:44 am

        Protesting Brand Israel means protesting the normalization of the occupation and colonization of Palestine.

        There is no open market of ideas because often the entire POINT of Brand Israel is to deliver a one-way street speech.

        It is not to debate. In fact, debating would totally undermine Brand Israel.

        The other issue is when Zionists often want to engage in joint dialogue w/ SJP, et. al.

        It’s akin to ‘balancing’ a Palestinian voice w/ an Israeli or Jewish one in the MSM.

        This is not sincere debate – it is a political strategy of convoluting the conflict so thoroughly that people are not able to discern who is carrying out the 45+ year long occupation and colonization of another peoples’ land.

        Noam Chomsky was asked after the Gaza massacre by a pro-Israel ideologue, why he hadn’t spent any time condemning Hamas rockets.

        He replied sarcastically (to the audience’s amusement), that he agrees we should condemn Hamas and immediately compel our representatives and politicians to stop sending billions of dollars a year to Hamas, providing them with diplomatic immunity, etc. etc.

        The joke is obviously that we do none of those things for Hamas, but rather for Israel.

        Should Chomsky have ‘balanced’ his talk w/ equal time devoted to talking about Hamas rockets?

        This is not an equal/neatly symmetrical conflict.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 25, 2012, 8:34 am

        “because only you get to do that? or were you advocating not deciding the students actions were proper or improper?”

        I am advocating that any stifling of free speech is improper, and that the protesters should not have interrupted the session.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 25, 2012, 8:52 am

        “Is Holocaust denial illegal in the US? Nope. Do you think we need to sit through a lecture on how there were no gas chambers?”

        No, you don’t. But I would also not advocate interrupting a lecture about holocaust denial, regardless of how detestable I think it is. This is the price I am willing to pay for Democracy.

        “Of course you’d defend them. Your very first comment on MW was defending the psychotic audience who physically assaulted a group of college students.”

        Sorry, but you are confusing me with someone else. I certainly do not advocate any violent behavior, not the sort of violence the protesters applied and certainly not the sort of violence that was directed to them in response.

        “It’s obvious you wouldn’t mind silencing Palestinian voices, such as the childrens art exhibit censored by Zionists. Yet, you are up in arms after this video? Did the Palestinian solidarity activists go crazy and hit and punch people?”

        How is it “obvious”? You don’t even know me. I have no knowledge of the children art exhibit “censored” by the “Zionists”. In any event, it is very problematic to accuse the “Zionists” of censorship on one hand and actively support the exact same kind of political censorship on the other hand. Free speech isn’t an exclusive right reserved for your political allies only. Either you support free speech for all, or you don’t support it at all.

        “Why didn’t you comment on the video I posted below? StandWithUs activists pepper sprayed JVP members at one of their events.”

        I haven’t seen it. In any event, I have no qualms about condemning violence, regardless of the “camp” it stems from. My morals tend to be absolute – either something is wrong or it isn’t.

        “Why don’t you tell us who you think is a pro-Palestinian liar, who frequents college campuses, delivering lectures?”

        I am not part of the “clique” and I am not active on US campuses – I am an Israeli Jew. There is one particular Muslim leader, Amir Abdel Malik, who is particularly hateful (comparing Israel to the 4’th Reich, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, which support the annihilation of Jews). He is quite active on US campuses and is allowed to speak freely, although I personally feel that his messages are tantamount to incitement to murder. That been said, as long as the law permits him to speak, I will certainly not try to silence him.

        Again, you are advocating the stifling of free speech, this is something I strongly disagree with.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 25, 2012, 11:01 am

        supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, which support the annihilation of Jews

        And this is how we know you’re a xenophobic Nakba denier. Test failed.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 12:37 pm

        Izik said:

        How is it “obvious”? You don’t even know me. I have no knowledge of the children art exhibit “censored” by the “Zionists”. In any event, it is very problematic to accuse the “Zionists” of censorship on one hand and actively support the exact same kind of political censorship on the other hand. Free speech isn’t an exclusive right reserved for your political allies only. Either you support free speech for all, or you don’t support it at all.

        […]I am not part of the “clique” and I am not active on US campuses – I am an Israeli Jew. There is one particular Muslim leader, Amir Abdel Malik, who is particularly hateful (comparing Israel to the 4′th Reich, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, which support the annihilation of Jews). He is quite active on US campuses and is allowed to speak freely, although I personally feel that his messages are tantamount to incitement to murder. That been said, as long as the law permits him to speak, I will certainly not try to silence him.

        Why are you putting censored in quotations? The Palestinian children’s art exhibit WAS censored and it wasn’t censored by Klingons or Rastafarians or nocturnal Hispanic Mormons.

        It was censored by organized Jewish groups like the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of the East Bay. Both are Zionist groups.

        Unless you want to support the argument that it was their Jewish identity that first and foremost informed their decision to put the pressure on MOCHA-Oakland, then it was certainly their Zionist politics at fault.

        The Palestinian solidarity activists did not “censor” (proper quotation use, to mock your pretentiousness) anyone.

        Darwish was allowed to give her hate speech (which you approve of, seeing as how you have made no comments on the actual content of her views).

        Censorship is preventing someone from even making it to the podium. That is what Zionists do by and large.

        Even Zionists themselves will admit that the Palestinian solidarity movement has rarely (IF EVER) been able to get a speaker dis-invited from a college campus lecture.

        The notion that peaceful protest is censorship is evidence that you are exactly as I described you above.

        This is an example of a campaign to censor opposing views:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/video-right-wing-groups-attack-u-s-professors-over-ilan-pappe-speaking-tour.html

        What do you think of the 1948 war? The Nakba? Ilan Pappe? The legitimacy of the settlements? The concept of a State’s ‘right to exist’? The Israel Lobby? The morality of Zionism? Etc.

        All of that will presumably come out sooner or later if you continue to post at Mondoweiss.

        This is a polarizing issue and people who express empty platitudes are either agent provocateurs or ignorant/cowardly and lazy.

        How do you think you’re going to keep commenting on this blog w/o expressing your politics? Will you cherry-pick what threads to comment on? That is revealing in and of itself.

      • dahoit
        dahoit
        February 25, 2012, 1:52 pm

        Incitement to murder?Are you talking about our MSM?Inciting America to kill more innocents?
        Oh yeah,the Zionists are silenced.Sheesh.Every media outlet puts out their screed of hate as civilization..

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 25, 2012, 10:08 pm

        Izik, did you realize you are on a web site that supports, for the most part, the resistance of Hezbollah against the Kossaks of Israel? didn’t they kind of save Lebanon from colonization (OK, OK< I know the plans only went as far as the Litani, but who's to quibble?).

        And most of us see Hamas in context too, generally as the elected representatives of the Palestinians. Those arresting their representatives – well, that's the Judeans and their centurions. Any relations of yours, by any chance?

        As for Israel, I'd say the general attitude here is the same the subjugated Indians of Chile had towards the marauding conquistadors who swooped in from lands beyond, laying claim by virtue of subterfuge.

        Basically, we know what Israel is and what it stands for which is why there is general support for BDS in these quarters (and some of us, like me , support a complete boycott of anything from Israel that on top of complete sanctions on transactions of any kind).

        But towards individual Israelis, a healthy dose of suspicion is recommended, at least until we find they are human beings and have something like a heart rather than a piece of stone pretending to beat periodically.

        Now, please carry on. May I recommend David Green and Donald – our most civilized decorum practitioners?

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 1:55 am

        On what basis did you unleash this wild ad-hominem attack?
        Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are all terrorist organizations according to the US and Europe. I can list countless acts of heinous terror carried out by these groups. There is nothing “xenophobic” in what I wrote.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 2:06 am

        “Why are you putting censored in quotations? The Palestinian children’s art exhibit WAS censored and it wasn’t censored by Klingons or Rastafarians or nocturnal Hispanic Mormons.”

        Because I have no knowledge of the story, and after reading a bit about it, your portrayal of it is inaccurate. The organizers of the children’s art exhibit had a political agenda in bringing the drawings, and then played innocent when the exhibit was taken down for similar political reasons.

        “Darwish was allowed to give her hate speech (which you approve of, seeing as how you have made no comments on the actual content of her views).”

        I did not know of Darwish beforehand. Reading her description on Wikipedia, I could not see anything that would amount to hate-mongering on her side. Do you have an example?

        “Censorship is preventing someone from even making it to the podium. That is what Zionists do by and large. ”

        That is one form of censorship, correct. “Zionists”, to the best of my knowledge, are not engaged in this act of censorship. You’d have to bring significant empirical evidence to make that case, or at least some anecdotes. Censorship is also shouting-down speakers with whom you disagree – in the same manner that Oren, Olmert and many Israeli speakers are not allowed to speak on US campuses. Preventing them from speaking by disturbing their talks, systematically, does amount to the worst kind of censorship.

        So far, I have been subjected to several ad-hominem attacks merely for what people perceive me as. I would say that trying to bully a person into shutting up is also a form censorship.

        “What do you think of the 1948 war? The Nakba? Ilan Pappe? The legitimacy of the settlements? The concept of a State’s ‘right to exist’? The Israel Lobby? The morality of Zionism? Etc.”
        I am a Zionist Israeli/Jew. I belong to the social-Democratic left in Israel. I strongly disagree with politics that demonize Israel and that allow no room for dialog. I mean, if you guys prefer Hamas over Abu-Mazen, a one-state solution instead of negotiations on returning the 67′ lines, then I would suggest you do not support peace, but rather the prolonging of the conflict.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 4:34 am

        “And most of us see Hamas in context too”

        I can understand criticism of Israel and even support of the relatively moderate Fatah, but I cannot understand people who support Hamas. Hamas has one of the most racist charters. It has been involved in heinous acts of terror, including the bombing of buses and a disco filled with teens. Given your statements, I realize that you truly abhore Israel, but perhaps you should think twice before you ally yourself with self-described terrorists, especially if you want your claims of supporting “human rights” to have any validity.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

        “generally as the elected representatives of the Palestinians.”
        Hamas essentially toppled the Democratic Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza through a bloody military coup, which left hundreds of Fatah members dead – many were executed. Again, these are not the guys you want to ally yourself with, Abu-Mazen is.

        “Basically, we know what Israel is and what it stands for”
        What does it stand for?

        “But towards individual Israelis, a healthy dose of suspicion is recommended, at least until we find they are human beings”

        So Israelis (that is, Israeli Jews), before proving so, are not considered by you as “human beings”? Do you realize how terrible and racist that statement is?

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 4:36 am

        I don’t know what the “MSM” is.
        As for killing innocents, America and Europe, for the time being, are the only countries that are siding with the people of Syria.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 4:46 am

        Because I have no knowledge of the story, and after reading a bit about it, your portrayal of it is inaccurate. The organizers of the children’s art exhibit had a political agenda in bringing the drawings, and then played innocent when the exhibit was taken down for similar political reasons.

        Any art that is based on war is likely to be political. That’s just common sense.

        You are implying that the children themselves were either coerced or that the intentions of the organizers for the exhibit was to demonize Israel rather than portray what the Palestinian children saw.

        First of all, Israel demonizes itself with it’s actions. The art was simply a reflection of Israel’s self-demonization. When you kill 300 children, you deserved to be demonized.

        I did not know of Darwish beforehand. Reading her description on Wikipedia, I could not see anything that would amount to hate-mongering on her side. Do you have an example?

        You briefly read her Wikipedia page and came to a conclusion based on that?

        You can see her videos on YT. You can Google her name and read her articles.

        Why should I tell you, when you could do some actual research (which isn’t really research, so much as clicking your fingers together and watching her tell you, herself).

        However, I did post an article written by Prof. James Holstun:

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/nonie-darwish-and-al-bureij-massacre/7586

        He quotes her at length and explains why she is a bigot and hate-monger.

        That is one form of censorship, correct. “Zionists”, to the best of my knowledge, are not engaged in this act of censorship. You’d have to bring significant empirical evidence to make that case, or at least some anecdotes. Censorship is also shouting-down speakers with whom you disagree – in the same manner that Oren, Olmert and many Israeli speakers are not allowed to speak on US campuses. Preventing them from speaking by disturbing their talks, systematically, does amount to the worst kind of censorship.

        I have cited examples already. The Palestinian children’s art exhibit was censored by Zionist organizations. You, a Zionist yourself, support this measure (because according to you, there was some conspiratorial ‘agenda’).

        This website – which you have decided to comment on, in spite of it’s obscure name, ‘Mondoweiss’ – implying you knew what the content was here before-hand – has documented Zionist censorship often.

        In fact, simply searching the blog for the word ‘censorship’ will bring many examples.

        Here are some random examples of Zionist censorship or attempts at censorship of the Palestinian experience/voice/POV:

        http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/owner-lacoste-which-censored-palestinian-artist-major-donor-israel-zionist-causes

        http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/42683-jewish-group-boycotts-canadian-kids-book.html

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4093533,00.html

        http://www.forward.com/articles/144334/

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/uncovered-israels-role-planned-us-lawsuit-fight-bds/10350

        http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/us-launches-civil-rights-probe-columbia-university-zionist-censorship-smears

        http://www.jewishresearch.org/v2/2011/press-releases/03-15-11.html

        http://www.forward.com/articles/127972/

        http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3333271.htm

        http://www.jstor.org/pss/2536927

        Apart from the Mondoweiss archives, you can also view Muzzlewatch, from Jewish Voice for Peace:

        http://www.muzzlewatch.com/

        So far, I have been subjected to several ad-hominem attacks merely for what people perceive me as. I would say that trying to bully a person into shutting up is also a form censorship.

        What a ridiculous characterization.

        You are saying the protesters who got violently assaulted are the bullies?

        That is why I knew I had a sense of your political inclinations immediately.

        Your very first comment on this blog was in this thread and was in defense of the assault. In this latest comment of yours, you flip the tables and call the protesters bullies rather than the crowd.

        The mic-check tactic is not meant to ‘shut someone up’. You disrupt a speech, and get your message out. That is the tactic. It is not as though they are pepper-spraying the speaker like a StandWithUs member did to JVP event goers.

        I am a Zionist Israeli/Jew. I belong to the social-Democratic left in Israel. I strongly disagree with politics that demonize Israel and that allow no room for dialog. I mean, if you guys prefer Hamas over Abu-Mazen, a one-state solution instead of negotiations on returning the 67′ lines, then I would suggest you do not support peace, but rather the prolonging of the conflict.

        The only people prolonging the conflict are the ones w/ all the power. Israel prolongs the conflict by expanding the Jewish colonies in the territories which make a contiguous Palestinian State impossible.

        Israel demonizes itself with it’s actions. No form of political discourse is needed to further demonize Israel.

        Simply reciting Israel’s actions is enough. In fact, that is the case and that is why the Palestinian voice is frequently censored.

        I was absolutely right about you, so nothing I said was an insult.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 4:47 am

        The MSM is ‘mainstream media’.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 5:00 am

        @Izik

        Hamas is not even close to as bad as you portray them.

        The charter is an abstraction, whereas Israel’s actions are real and physical.

        Suicide bombing began in 1994. That is 27 years after the colonization and occupation of the territories began.

        Israel kills 10 times as many children and 5 times as many civilians in general than all the various Palestinian militias/terrorist groups/etc. Those are rough estimates, since they have been true all throughout the time since the 2nd Intifada.

        B’Tselem regularly documents Israeli crimes and/or abuses in the OT. They compile all the statistics as well.

        So Israelis (that is, Israeli Jews), before proving so, are not considered by you as “human beings”? Do you realize how terrible and racist that statement is?

        Most Israeli Jews supported Operation Cast Lead. The occupation has been going on for 45 years and there was never a meaningful Israeli peace movement at any time and there will never be one in the future.

        You characterize yourself as a ‘liberal’ but you are specifically concerned with ‘demonization’ rather than whether something is true or not.

        You support the censorship of Palestinian children’s art. You support Nonie Darwish so much, that after I ask you to look into her background, you only lazily read her Wikipedia page.

        In fact, you continue to cite Wikipedia as if it were a credible source. It is not. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. YOU could edit Wikipedia.

        I realize that you truly abhore Israel, but perhaps you should think twice before you ally yourself with self-described terrorists, especially if you want your claims of supporting “human rights” to have any validity.

        No one on this blog supports Hamas.

        Thank you for exposing your true face though. Initially, your first comment on this blog and in this thread made it seem as though you were an impartial voice.

        You are just another Zionist though. You spout typical memes, like placing the weight of the world on the Hamas charter as if the words of the charter have killed thousand and thousands of Israeli children. Nope, it’s actually Israeli cruelty that has killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese children.

        Furthermore, aside from simply killing civilians, Israel also colonizes their land.

        This is a colonial conflict. It is not a conflict between modernity and religious fundamentalism – even though those two issues play a large role.

        I don’t understand why you put emphasis on Hamas’s actions when it is not colonizing Israeli land for 45+ years with no end in sight.

        Your country’s crimes far-outweigh those of Hamas. Furthermore, while Hamas has no support in the West – where I live – your country does. Your country gets away with killing innocent people (even Americans) and also continually stealing land and resources from innocent people.

        I’m more concerned about your country’s actions because MY country supports your colonialization of Palestine. We do not send billions of dollars to Hamas or weapons or diplomatic immunity.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 8:34 am

        “Hamas is not even close to as bad as you portray them.”
        They are exactly as bad as their charter indicates. Putting aside the religious dictatorship they enforce in Gaza, Hamas has a record of the most horrific terror attacks Israel endured. They exploded on buses, discos, parties in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible. That’s about as bad as it gets. After the suicide bombings were eventually thwarted by Israel, they began firing rockets into Israeli towns – in the attempt to kill as many civilians as possible.

        “Israel kills 10 times as many children and 5 times as many civilians in general than all the various Palestinian militias/terrorist groups/etc. Those are rough estimates, since they have been true all throughout the time since the 2nd Intifada.”
        Measuring morality in a conflict through a casualty count is misleading. Unlike Hamas, whose ideology and actions are focused on causing as many civilian deaths as possible, Israel tries to minimize such civilian casualties. In the Gaza War, for example, Hamas cynically used its own civilians as human shields and fired from houses, schools and stored weapons in mosques, all in the attempt to increase the civilian casualties. But even with these explicit attempts, the civilian to militant ratio in the Gaza war, according to Hamas itself, is about 1:1, which compared to the NATO operations in Kosovo or the US operations in Iraq, is a pretty good ratio, which shows that Israel goes to great lengths to protect civilians.

        “Most Israeli Jews supported Operation Cast Lead.”
        Myself included. Hamas fired at my town for 8 years until my government decided to do something about it. Do you think that Israel should have just sat quietly while Hamas bombed its cities?

        “there was never a meaningful Israeli peace movement at any time and there will never be one in the future.”
        Rabin lost his life for Oslo and for withdrawing Israel from every Palestinian city. Barak lost his position after offering Arafat and opportunity to end the conflict. Olmert offered Abu-Mazen 100% of the territories and East-Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. This is the solution I support as well:
        http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm. There was a peace-camp in Israel, and it will rise again if the Palestinian make the strategic decision of promoting peace.

        “You are just another Zionist though”
        What does that mean?

        “I don’t understand why you put emphasis on Hamas’s actions when it is not colonizing Israeli land for 45+ years with no end in sight.”
        Terrorism in Israel didn’t begin with Hamas and certainly did not begin in 67′. Israel has suffered murderous terrorism straight after the 48′ war. I place emphasis on your whitewashing of Hamas because:
        1. Hamas has a history and present of terrorism, and it is troubling that you justify their actions
        2. The Hamas is the enemy of moderate forces in the region. They are a recognized terrorist organization. Supporting Hamas means that you oppose peace. I think that’s a counter-productive approach.

        If you want to advance peace and help the moderates in Palestine and Israel, you should forego the narrative that depicts Israel in a monstrous light and portrays terrorists in a sympathetic one.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 26, 2012, 9:55 am

        You know that stupid charter is approaching the same legendary status as the Protocols of Elder Zion. Me, I’ll worry about Hamas when they’ve killed even half as many children as the Israeli Defense Force. Then I’ll consider them more of a terrorist threat to moderate forces in the region than Israel.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 10:41 am

        Izik said:

        If you want to advance peace and help the moderates in Palestine and Israel, you should forego the narrative that depicts Israel in a monstrous light and portrays terrorists in a sympathetic one.

        The Israelis have shown that they are no partner for peace time and time again.

        Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami said that if he were a Palestinian, he would have rejected Oslo.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/security-expert-formerly-in-bush-i-administration-says-holocaust-rationalizes-israels-nuking-iran.html#comment-424262

        The Palestine papers are documented on MW. There is an entire section set aside for them.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-slams-the-bds-movement-calling-it-a-cult.html#comment-425176

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/security-expert-formerly-in-bush-i-administration-says-holocaust-rationalizes-israels-nuking-iran.html#comment-424183

        Measuring morality in a conflict through a casualty count is misleading.

        No, it’s quite plain. Israel killed Palestinians at a ratio of 100 to 1 during the Gaza massacre.

        Izik said:

        Unlike Hamas, whose ideology and actions are focused on causing as many civilian deaths as possible, Israel tries to minimize such civilian casualties.

        Hamas was nurtured by the Israeli government as a counter to the secular PLO:

        In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a “humanitarian” organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.

        Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll. Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO: the Israelis allowed Yassin’s group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.

        Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream. As Isseroff relates, the Islamists:

        “Encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff (including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama.”

        Again, the motive was to offset Arafat’s influence and divide the Palestinians. In the short term, this may have worked to some extent; in the longer term, however, it backfired badly – as demonstrated by the results of the recent Palestinian election.

        The Hamas infrastructure of mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run. Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for “clean” governance and good administrative practices, which would greatly aid them – especially in comparison to the PLO, which was widely perceived as corrupt. Indeed, “clean government” – and not the necessity of armed struggle – was the main theme of their successful election campaign.

        Source: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/27/hamas-son-of-israel/

        Izik said:

        In the Gaza War, for example, Hamas cynically used its own civilians as human shields and fired from houses, schools and stored weapons in mosques, all in the attempt to increase the civilian casualties.

        Wrong. The Goldstone report found no evidence of human shielding carried out by Hamas.

        However, they did find evidence of human shielding tactics used by Israel.

        In one such case, the Israeli soldiers responsible were only suspended – a slap on the wrist for such a heinous crime.

        http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/26/israel-soldiers-punishment-using-boy-human-shield-inadequate

        Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director of Human Rights Watch:

        The slap on the wrist for these soldiers is another slap in the face for the victims of violations during Operation Cast Lead. Not only do these sentences seem unjustifiably lenient, but two years later, they are the only sentences Israel has handed down for serious human rights violations among the many alleged during the Gaza offensive.

        In fact, every single mainstream NGO did not find evidence of Hamas human shielding. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict is the most thoroughly researched team to go to Gaza. No one else was on the ground getting evidence and conducting interviews.

        Other reports from Israeli NGOs echo the Goldstone Reports findings. One such report was authored by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

        From YNet:

        Much of the report echoes the findings of the Goldstone Report. Some cases are currently under Military Police investigation, while other cases, whose investigation has been completed, are handled by the Judge Advocate General.

        One of the harsher testimonies in the report said IDF soliders used a Palestinian and his minor son as vanguards, forcing them to enter homes, open doors and widows and tear down fences.

        Another Palestinian testified that “IDF soldiers cuffed me and three of my brothers and for three days had us walk ahead of them, and made sure we did so at gunpoint. They used us as human shields by ordering us to go into houses ahead of them.

        “After we’d go out, they would send in the (bomb-sniffing) dogs and only then would they go inside.”

        Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3915558,00.html

        The Goldstone report, on page 18-19, criticizes the effectiveness of the precautions Israel took to minimize human casualties:

        The Mission acknowledges the significant efforts made by Israel to issue warnings through telephone calls, leaflets and radio broadcasts, and accepts that in some cases, particularly when the warnings were sufficiently specific, they encouraged residents to leave an area and get out of harm’s way.

        However, the Mission also notes factors that significantly undermined the effectiveness of the warnings issued. These include the lack of specificity and thus credibility of many pre-recorded phone messages and leaflets. The credibility of instructions to move to city centres for safety was also diminished by the fact that the city centres themselves had been the subject of intense attacks during the air phase of the military operations.

        The Mission also examined the practice of dropping lighter explosives on roofs (so-called roof knocking). It concludes that this technique is not effective as a warning and constitutes a form of attack against the civilians inhabiting the building.

        Finally, the Mission stresses that the fact that a warning was issued does not relieve commanders and their subordinates of taking all other feasible measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

        Izik said:

        But even with these explicit attempts, the civilian to militant ratio in the Gaza war, according to Hamas itself, is about 1:1, which compared to the NATO operations in Kosovo or the US operations in Iraq, is a pretty good ratio, which shows that Israel goes to great lengths to protect civilians.

        Actually, according to the documentary record, Israel does not always come out looking better. In fact, the comparison to other conflicts is pointless anyway. This is a colonial conflict and Israel can achieve it’s ideological goals of colonizing Palestinian land without comparable levels of bloodshed, precisely because the Palestinian people have long been pacified and defeated.

        The violence that Hamas used to carry out (used to, because they have stopped their suicide bombing campaigns for several years now) could just so easily be seen as a drop in the bucket compared to what other terrorist organizations or former terrorist organizations have done.

        In fact, the only comparisons that are legitimate are between the parties involved. Otherwise, you are simply diverting attention from your own country.

        You should be concerned by your own actions and not Serbia, or Kosovo, or whomever else you use to whitewash Israeli criminality.

        And in any case, when we actually look at the record – often Israel appears WORSE than other countries.

        For example, in January 2000, B’Tselem published a report on the GSS interrogations.

        Excerpt:

        **Combating Terrorism in a Democratic Country

        There is no truth to the claim that other “democratic countries” confronted with terrorism use physical force in interrogations. Although cases can be found where security services in other countries used severe violence in interrogations to obtain information or a confession, these cases were exceptional, unauthorized, and non-institutionalized.

        This was not the situation in Israel from the time that the government adopted the methods recommended by the Landau Commission until the High Court’s decision prohibited their use.

        In liberal democracies, the use of physical force during interrogations is explicitly prohibited by law, and offenders are duly tried for their offenses. In these countries, violence and ill-treatment are not considered and approved by a governmental commission, a parliamentary committee and the State Comptroller are not entrusted to oversee their execution, and courts are not required to approve judicial machinations to sanction them.

        The normative difference between Israel and other democratic countries is reflected in the scope of the use of torture in interrogations. Whereas Israel used torture routinely, having tortured thousands of interrogees, other countries rarely used torture.

        Source: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-59243.html

        Israel has legalized torture.

        Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406484,00.html

        Izik said:

        Myself included. Hamas fired at my town for 8 years until my government decided to do something about it. Do you think that Israel should have just sat quietly while Hamas bombed its cities?

        Your mind is a one-way street and you selectively remember history. You only consider Hamas actions and not Israeli actions.

        The rockets killed all of 8 people until the Gaza massacre. In 2 and a half weeks, Israel killed 1400+ Palestinians in Gaza – mostly civilians and among them, mostly women and children.

        I am not surprised that you would approve of this murderous OP, considering you chastised the protesters in the video rather than the abusive, psychotic mob that assaulted them.

        Izik said:

        Terrorism in Israel didn’t begin with Hamas and certainly did not begin in 67′. Israel has suffered murderous terrorism straight after the 48′ war.

        Israel has always carried out much more violence – both in frequency and scope, than the PLO or Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

        There is no difference between a suicide bombing and firing a missile into a crowded street or an apartment complex or at a chicken farm or into a refugee camp.

        The same result is that innocent people die. In fact, the notion that it is acceptable to use these methods as long as it was not your intention to kill innocents is monstrous.

        Hamas is doing an unconvincing job of matching your hysterical characterization whereas Israel not only kills more people – but it does so w/ impunity.

        During the 48′ War, Israel carried out more atrocities than the surrounding Arab armies as well.

        Izik said:

        The Hamas is the enemy of moderate forces in the region. They are a recognized terrorist organization. Supporting Hamas means that you oppose peace. I think that’s a counter-productive approach.

        You are absolutely wrong – both implicitly and explicitly.

        In the past, democratic nations have dealt with groups recognized as terrorist organizations. Their designation as terrorist organizations did not interfere with negotiations if the negotiations were important.

        The African National Congress was placed on the US terror list and Nelson Mandela wasn’t removed from the terror list until only a few years ago.

        In June 2009, the United States Institute of Peace (created by the US Congress), published a report entitled Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility.

        The report was concludes several points, some of which include the following:

        As evidenced by numerous statements, Hamas is not hostile to Jews because of religion. Rather, Hamas’s view toward Israel is based on a fundamental belief that Israel has occupied land that is inherently Palestinian and Islamic.

        Although Hamas, as an Islamic organization, will not transgress shari’a, which it understands as forbidding recognition, it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli. These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya and hudna and Hamas’s own concept of “Palestinian legitimacy.”

        Palestinian legitimacy is a term employed by Hamas to describe its willingness to consider accepting a binding peace treaty, such as the proposal set forth in the API, so long as the treaty is first ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Although Hamas would not directly participate in peace negotiations with Israel, Hamas has indicated that it would be willing to be part of a Palestinian coalition government with Fatah under which Fatah would negotiate the actual treaty.

        Source: http://www.usip.org/publications/hamas

        The report concludes that Hamas is not going away and has demonstrated it’s willingness to take pragmatic steps towards peace in spite of it’s terrorist actions.

        During the run-up to the Gaza massacre, the Israeli MFA report stated that Hamas was ‘careful’ to maintain the cease-fire. The level of rocket fire decreased profoundly during this time.

        It was only after Israel broke the cease-fire, by killing Palestinian militia in Gaza, that the rocket fire resumed. Israel refused to extend the cease-fire to the West Bank.

        If the cease-fire continued with both sides observing it – then Hamas would be seen as a legitimate political organization. After all, if it complies with the terms of the cease-fire (which it did) – then eventually it will be able to negotiate further w/ Israel.

        Israel did not want to give Hamas that legitimacy though, which is why it instigated the conflict and then went on it’s rampage in Gaza.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 12:33 pm

        Bump, pls let the comment go through. Thanks!

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 26, 2012, 12:59 pm

        Chaos:

        I’m not sure whether this is a valid comparison.
        The “Protocols” are an anti-semitic hoax used to incite violence against Jews.
        The Hamas Charter, on the other hand, is the official ideological document of Hamas, which also incites violence against Jews.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 1:12 pm

        Izik,

        Chaos is pointing out the dishonest way in which Zionists like yourself trumpet the Hamas charter as an excuse to continue the status quo.

        Antisemitism did not stop Israel from become friendly w/ racist SA. It did not stop it from negotiating w/ Abbas.

        Antisemitism is not the issue. It is a smokescreen that people like you use to delegitimize the Palestinian struggle.

        It’s an absurd diversion. No liberation movement has to be perfect and none in history have been.

        The Zionists used terrorism to create their State and planted the first bombs in cafes, taxis, marketplaces, etc.

        Zionists stored weapons in synoguges. The IDF has been documented using human shields. Israel has legalize torture and the IDF has attempted to legalize human shields as a legit tactic.

        The Likud charter parallels the Hamas charter.

        Yet, people like you focus on Hamas terrorism and the charter. Both these things are minuscule in comparison to nearly 50 years of colonialism and the daily abuses, violence, etc. carried out by the Israeli government, army, and settlers against the indigenous Palestinian people.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 26, 2012, 1:13 pm

        Oh, Izik, so you’re not going to address the fact that the IDF is ten times more violent toward civilians than Hamas is?

        Anyway, why don’t you address Cliff? He trounced your nonsense far better than I could have managed. Good job, Cliff. Hop to it, Izik.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 26, 2012, 1:46 pm

        Izik, your Hasbara 1.5 is a little stale. You do know they’ve release version 2.0, right?

        Well, I’ll let Cliff do the deconstruction (thanks Cliff, keep challenging the operating system – you may yet force the PTB to issue a patch – an expensive one this time – it’s not easy to rewrite the script with the 2ss pretension. The program still crashes when it’s removed . Check out the Newclench sub-routine).

        Has anyone noticed how so many of our new oleh Hasbara volunteers just happen to live in Ashdod (OK, some live as far as Ashkelon) and/or just barely escape a suicide -bomber on their way to the yeshiva? Next, he’ll supply us with the name, date and time of his birth at – why – a bona fide Israeli hospital – perhaps in Rehovot? Givataim?

        Hint to everyone: there are hardly any Anglos living in Ashdod. New olehs, failed olehs or soon to be oleh-yoreds (the newest variety). Just not done in bubble land.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 26, 2012, 4:40 pm

        The “Protocols” are an anti-semitic hoax used to incite violence against Jews.

        The “Protocols” are an anti-semitic hoax that Israel has gone to great lengths to validate.

        The Hamas Charter, on the other hand, is the official ideological document of Hamas, which also incites violence against Jews.

        The Hamas Charter contains a qualifier that forbids members harm to those who have not “borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings”
        .

        No such qualifier is seen in the founding documents of organisati­ons like Likud, Shas and Betar all of which pledge the clearance of Palestinia­ns from at least the Jordan to the sea.

        The leader of Shas is well known for his pronouncem­ents calling for the “annihilat­ion of Arabs”.

        Betar has some interestin­g ideas, not dissimilar from Sheik Yassin:

        “Betar supports the concept of a Jewish state with a Jewish Majority in its biblical-h­omeland.” “The entire land of Israel as given to the Jewish people by G-d with it’s eternal capital Jerusalem.­”
        “100% Jewish Labor in all Jewish enterprise­s.”
        “Every great colonizati­on in history, has always entailed a revolt of the natives.”
        “Our aim is to make Betar such a world organism which, at a sign from the center, will be able simultaneo­usly to move tens of thousands of hands in the cities of all countries.­”
        “Disciplin­e is the subordinat­ion of a mass to one leader”
        “every Jew is a “prince” ”
        http://www­.betar.co.­uk/ideolog­y.php

        The King’s Torah is also illuminati­ng:

        http://www­.countercu­rrents.org­/cook09121­0.htm

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 27, 2012, 2:50 am

        I will address everything Cliff wrote, but it will take some time, as I do have to attend a day job. :)

        The responsibility of civilian deaths by the hands of the IDF lies primarily with the Hamas, who knowingly and purposefully places civilians in the line of fire. Also, Israel has effective counter-terrorism that has essentially stopped conventional suicide bombings. Israel spends most of its efforts defending its citizens, whereas Hamas has an agenda of endangering their own.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 27, 2012, 2:57 am

        “Izik, your Hasbara 1.5 is a little stale. You do know they’ve release version 2.0, right? ”

        Is it typical to accuse people of “Hasbara” when you don’t agree with them?

        “Has anyone noticed how so many of our new oleh Hasbara volunteers just happen to live in Ashdod (OK, some live as far as Ashkelon) and/or just barely escape a suicide -bomber on their way to the yeshiva? Next, he’ll supply us with the name, date and time of his birth at – why – a bona fide Israeli hospital – perhaps in Rehovot? Givataim? ”
        Are you referring to me as an Oleh? On what basis? Do you know me? Why do you figure I live in Ashdod? Is it easier to “handle” me by typecasting into some mold that you can fathom?
        I was born in Israel and have lived here ever since. My parents are not anglos. My mother is Egyptian and my father is from Poland. I served in the army, and I am not right winged.

        As I previously stated, I support a two-state solution, with the Palestinians receiving the West Bank, Gaza and East-Jerusalem, yet in your eyes, I am a “Zionist Hasbara drone”, why is that? I don’t hate Arabs, I have nothing against Arabs.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 27, 2012, 4:12 am

        Regarding your residence, which you say is not Ashdod. So where is the place you refer to below?

        Quote: “Hamas fired at my town for 8 years until my government decided to do something about it. Do you think that Israel should have just sat quietly while Hamas bombed its cities??”

        Please name the town (hint: it’s not Tel Aviv or Rehovot).

        Izik, if you are not anglo, then my horse has wings, and flies straight into the rainbow, just like unicorns do.

        As I never tire of telling people around here, the average israeli has very little confidence in their written English (vocabulary, you know – can’t get that from Hollywood movies or school English). And you, Hasbara trainee that you are, you be a native English speaker. That being said, the Egyptian mother is a nice twist. Is this so you could get some Mizrahi AND Ashkenazi credentials?

        The father from Poland – OK, that’s interesting. You know that there were very few Polish Jewish immigrants to Israel after 1950 or so, right? But, whatever.

        How about a more convincing background story? Not that I actually ask for any details since I already know enough, but, out of courtesy for the learned readership, can we get a better model? BTW, we had here a poster, eee was his name – you know him by any chance? he too claimed to be an Israeli – born and bred, who served in the IDF, etc. Alas, he has absconded somewhere – say Hi if you run across him (not that we miss him much).
        Alas, you also didn’t get my original point, I fear. The cover story of support for 2ss on 1967 borders + left-wingism IS built into version 1.0. It’s not working so well lately (Israel having indicated quite conclusively it’s not really all that interested) – maybe you have a friend who could put you on the list to beta test the more advanced 2.0.1? that one comes with binational/Avram Burg version of the “solution” as a variation. Trouble is the system crashes a lot, even with the latest updates. But then – you can ask Cliff for help in rebooting. He has had some experience….

        So where’s Avi when I need him?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 27, 2012, 5:41 am

        The responsibility of civilian deaths by the hands of the IDF lies primarily with the Hamas, who knowingly and purposefully places civilians in the line of fire.

        Your Hasbra doesn’t wash here. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and Israel targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. They shot civlans who were running y or carrying white flags.

        Also, Israel has effective counter-terrorism that has essentially stopped conventional suicide bombings.

        Rubbish. Hamas called for an end to suicide attacks in 2006, which is precisely whe they ended.

        Israel spends most of its efforts defending its citizens, whereas Hamas has an agenda of endangering their own.

        That’s easily proven false. On November 2008, Israel broke a 4 month ceasefire, during which no rockets were fired by Hamas, and the few that did fire were fired by militants not under Hamas control. They arrested or killed those that breached it.

        So Israel failed to protect Israeli civilians by breaking a ceasefire.

        Then for the next month, Israel did nothing to stop the rockets, which were fired in retaliation. Israel did not defend against them and rejected calls from Hamas to return to a ceasefire.

        So I fact, Israel used the redirects of Sderot as human shield s during that period.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 27, 2012, 9:25 am

        I honestly do not understand your aggression or your attempts to demean me.

        “Please name the town (hint: it’s not Tel Aviv or Rehovot)”:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Am

        “Izik, if you are not anglo, then my horse has wings, and flies straight into the rainbow, just like unicorns do.”
        LOL. I’m afraid you will have to eat your hat. I assure you, I am not anglo and have no anglo roots. Israelis are exposed to English through TV shows and literature. I guess I acquired my English simply by being exposed to it. I’m honestly flattered that you don’t believe me, though my written English is far from perfect or eloquent.

        “As I never tire of telling people around here, the average israeli has very little confidence in their written English”
        Then I guess I am not your average Israeli. How many Israelis do you know, by the way?

        “The father from Poland – OK, that’s interesting. You know that there were very few Polish Jewish immigrants to Israel after 1950 or so, right? But, whatever. ”
        LOL. Are you serious? My father was actually born in Israel, like my mother. If you’re interested in my family story, which I’ll be happy to divulge, my
        grandfather left Poland some time before WWII and my grandmother left Egypt in 1946, when things got unfriendly for Jews.

        “Not that I actually ask for any details since I already know enough”
        Amazing. You know my family story just by guessing. What a talent. :)

        “we had here a poster, eee was his name – you know him by any chance? he too claimed to be an Israeli – born and bred, who served in the IDF, etc. Alas, he has absconded somewhere – say Hi if you run across him (not that we miss him much).”
        Sorry. Don’t know the guy or his pseudonym. Israel is a small country, but large enough so personal relationships don’t amount to a full-mesh network. :)

        “Alas, you also didn’t get my original point, I fear. The cover story of support for 2ss on 1967 borders + left-wingism IS built into version 1.0.”
        Well, what can I say. If you know everything about me and my opinions and think that my opinions are “stupid” or “cooked”, then there isn’t much chance for dialog. By the way, a dialog doesn’t necessarily have to lead to me convincing you or the other way around – fat chance of that happening. But a dialog CAN dispel some of the visibly stereotypes you have about Israelis. Without even knowing me, you’ve already decided that I am xenophobic, Arab hating, Anglo and from Ashdod, while none of these assumption are accurate. Perhaps you shouldn’t judge me according to my national categorization, but according to who I actually am.

        I’m willing to take a chance and dialog, even with people who are inherently hostile towards me, are you willing to do the same?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 27, 2012, 9:42 am

        We’re inherently hostile toward you because you’re part of a militaristic, ethnocratic expansionist regime that slaughtered innocent children at a rate exceeding a hundred a month, for a period lasting almost a quarter of a year.

        We’re not about to Neville Chamberlain with you, Izik. Basic human rights, let alone decency, is not something that’s up for debate among modern people.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 27, 2012, 9:53 am

        How many people from Nir Am participated in the ethnic cleansing of Najd, Izik? Was your own family involved in that?

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 27, 2012, 3:03 pm

        I’ll address the peace-process in a different post, as most of your attributions regarding the peace-process are not on this post:

        Cliff says:
        “No, it’s quite plain. Israel killed Palestinians at a ratio of 100 to 1 during the Gaza massacre.”

        According to Hamas itself, around 600-700 of the casualties were militants, which puts the ratio of civilian to militant casualties at about 1:1, which is quite good compared to US and NATO operations, especially considering that Hamas intentionally placed its operatives in residential areas:
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

        “Hamas was nurtured by the Israeli government as a counter to the secular PLO:”
        That is correct, although “nurture” is not the best adjective to describe early Israel-Hamas relations. Just like the US unwittingly armed Al-Qaeda, so did Israel cooperate with Hamas to combat what at the point was a murderous terrorist organization – the PLO. The tides changed during in the 1990’s, in the ensuing peace talks with Israel and Fatah, when Hamas started blowing up buses in city centers to sabotage the talks.

        Cliff says:
        “Wrong. The Goldstone report found no evidence of human shielding carried out by Hamas.”
        The flaws in the Goldstone report have been numerous, as admitted by Goldstone himself in 2011. On that same op-ed, he complemented Israel for making a serious undertaking of investigating itself and derided Hamas for not doing the same. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Hamas, an organization that praises murderers of civilians, will not investigate itself. With regards to the use of Hamas of human shields, there is clear evidence of it. Here it is – straight from the horse’s mouth:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs:
        “Accordingly, Palestinians created a human shield of women and children”
        Here are some more accounts of Hamas using civilians as human shields:
        http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1304

        Cliff says: “In one such case, the Israeli soldiers responsible were only suspended – a slap on the wrist for such a heinous crime.”
        You yourself admit that out of the few cases of Israeli soldiers acting out of line, they were prosecuted. You (and me, by the way) are not pleased with the verdict, which included on-probation jail time and demotion. This sent out a clear message to any soldiers that such behavior is not acceptable. In the IDF, the proper behavior is the norm, while improper behavior certainly isn’t. How many Hamas fighters were charged by Hamas for “improper” conduct towards civilians? That’s right, 0. Why? Because by Hamas ideals, killing civilians isn’t “improper”, it’s norm.

        “This is a colonial conflict and Israel can achieve it’s ideological goals of colonizing Palestinian land without comparable levels of bloodshed, precisely because the Palestinian people have long been pacified and defeated.”

        The war in Gaza wasn’t a “colonial” conflict. Israel retreated from Gaza, how can anyone claim that it wants to “colonize” it after it itself demolished its settlements there, nearly risking civil-war in doing so? The Gaza war is the result of 8 long years of rocket fire against Israeli towns, nothing “colonial” about it.

        “The violence that Hamas used to carry out (used to, because they have stopped their suicide bombing campaigns for several years now) could just so easily be seen as a drop in the bucket compared to what other terrorist organizations or forThe violence that Hamas used to carry out (used to, because they have stopped their suicide bombing campaigns for several years now) could just so easily be seen as a drop in the bucket compared to what other terrorist organizations or former terrorist organizations have done. mer terrorist organizations have done. ”
        Hamas continued with the violence, after Israel effectively put a stop to the suicide bombings. Firing rockets into towns is terrorism, and Hamas did just that for 8 years, after Israel had retreated from Gaza.

        “You should be concerned by your own actions and not Serbia, or Kosovo, or whomever else you use to whitewash Israeli criminality.”
        That’s not the point. The point is that if you’re trying to paint Gaza as a “massacre”, you would have to label NATO’s operations in Kosovo as a massacre as well, because they have a similar civilian to militant casualty ratio (1:1). But Gaza wasn’t a massacre, it was a war, in which Israel took great measures to reduce civilian casualties.

        “The rockets killed all of 8 people until the Gaza massacre. In 2 and a half weeks, Israel killed 1400+ Palestinians in Gaza – mostly civilians and among them, mostly women and children.”
        First, it’s 16, not 8, but that’s besides the point. How many Israelis have to be murdered by Hamas until the government decides to do something about? 20? 30? 100? When is it enough? Why do deny Israel’s right to defend its own civilians?

        “There is no difference between a suicide bombing and firing a missile into a crowded street or an apartment complex or at a chicken farm or into a refugee camp.”
        There’s a huge difference. While Hamas tries to kill AS MANY civilians as it can and focuses its resources on doing so, Israel tries to target military targets as accurately as possible and prevent innocent lives from being lost. Of course there’s a difference. The Israelis attack direct security threats, and Hamas tries to kill women and children.

        “In the past, democratic nations have dealt with groups recognized as terrorist organizations. Their designation as terrorist organizations did not interfere with negotiations if the negotiations were important.”
        Do you prefer Hamas over Fatah? Why? Because Hamas has a more extreme approach towards Israel?

        “The report concludes that Hamas is not going away and has demonstrated it’s willingness to take pragmatic steps towards peace in spite of it’s terrorist actions. ”
        Does this sound pragmatic to you?
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haniyeh-in-iran-hamas-will-never-recognize-israel-1.412310
        Haniya: “”They (West) want from us to stop resistance and acknowledge Israel but I herewith announce that this will never happen.”

        “It was only after Israel broke the cease-fire, by killing Palestinian militia in Gaza, that the rocket fire resumed. Israel refused to extend the cease-fire to the West Bank.”
        The ceasefire ended when Israel attacked a tunnel that Hamas was digging into Israeli territory in order to kidnap a soldier (exactly as they did with Gilad Shalit). I would say that building this tunnel was a violation of the cease-fire. After the Israeli strike, Hamas started launching rockets into Israeli towns. At that point, enough was enough for Israel.

        I’ll address the accusations of “legalized” torture later, but they are essentially wrong as well. Torture is essentially illegal in Israel except for certain conditions. I’m not sure the same applies for the darling Hamas, who shoot political opponents in the kneecaps. Quite a lovely bunch.

        Again, why would you go to great lengths to vindicate the murderous Hamas is beyond me, when you can support the relatively moderate Fatah. Fatah is the only organization that can bring Palestinians some form of Democracy, while Hamas represents the same Taliban-like oppression we’ve seen taken hold of many unfortunate countrires.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 27, 2012, 6:45 pm

        Izik,

        You really are going to have to do a lot better than trying to sell your B grade Hasbra here.  

        According to Hamas itself, around 600-700 of the casualties were militants

        Rubbish.  One menber of Hamas said that 600-700 casualties were members of Hams, not militants.  It was reported that Israel bombed a police academy the first day, killing police 250 cadets who we’re graduating.

        They were not militants.

        . The tides changed during in the 1990′s, in the ensuing peace talks with Israel and Fatah, when Hamas started blowing up buses in city centers to sabotage the talks.

        False again.  The talks had already failed by the time the second Intifada had begun.

        The flaws in the Goldstone report have been numerous, as admitted by Goldstone himself in 2011.

        Goldstone did not admit to any flaws in his report and certainly did not identify any.  In fact, he reaffirmed that the report should not be withdrawn or even changed.

        On that same op-ed, he complemented Israel for making a serious undertaking of investigating itself and derided Hamas for not doing the same.

        Yes he did sell out on this point, seeing as no investigation actually took place and he gave Isrel credit without seeing any part of that investigation. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Israel , an organization that praises murderers of civilians, pretends to investigate itself and never finds any wrongdoing on it’s part.

        With regards to the use of Hamas of human shields, there is clear evidence of it. Here it is – straight from the horse’s mouth:

        Here’s another horse’s mouth. When the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of human shields by the IDF (a practice it had been carrying out for some time), Shin Bet appealed the descision on the grounds that the use of human shields was very useful.

        YouTube is full of examples of the IDF using human shields.

        You yourself admit that out of the few cases of Israeli soldiers acting out of line, they were prosecuted

        Hamas have killed militants who violated the ceasefire with Israel, which is a far more grave judgement.

        . This sent out a clear message to any soldiers that such behavior is not acceptable.

        What was deemed unacceptable was they got caught, or that they had a lowly rank and were scapegoated.  The IDF were given explicit instructions to kill civilians and target civilian infrastructure,

        The war in Gaza wasn’t a “colonial” conflict. Israel retreated from Gaza, how can anyone claim that it wants to “colonize” it after it itself demolished its settlements there, nearly risking civil-war in doing so? The Gaza war is the result of 8 long years of rocket fire against Israeli towns, nothing “colonial” about it.

        This rubbish has all Ben debunked.  Wikileaks revealed that the attack on Gaza had nothing to do with rockets.  After all it was Isrel that violated the ceasefire (on the day of the US presidential elections no less).  Prior to that date, there had been no rockets fired in 4 months.

        Israel also. Optimus to occupy Gaza.

        Hamas continued with the violence, after Israel effectively put a stop to the suicide bombings. Firing rockets into towns is terrorism, and Hamas did just that for 8 years, after Israel had retreated from Gaza.

        Israel did not put an end to the suicide bombings, Hamas did in 2006.  If firing rockets into towns Ipis terrorism, then Israel has perpetrated far more terrorism, having fired 7,700 shells into Gaza over the 10 months after it withdrew.

        That’s not the point. The point is that if you’re trying to paint Gaza as a “massacre”, you would have to label NATO’s operations in Kosovo as a massacre as well, because they have a similar civilian to militant casualty ratio (1:1)

        Stupid argument.  Kosovo was not under occupation nor a blockade, and as such, the Serbs were armed and able to fight back. That’s what’s war looks like.  In Gaza, Israe, he been imposing a cruel and I humane blockade, and furthermore, Isral started the war without provocation for political reasons.

        Gaza was a massacre without a doubt.

        First, it’s 16, not 8, but that’s besides the point. How many Israelis have to be murdered by Hamas until the government decides to do something about?

        No one was being murder nbetween June and November 2008 when the ceasefire was in place.  Israel put their own citizens in harms way by breaking the ceasefire and refusing to returnto the ceasefire or extend it.

        While Hamas tries to kill AS MANY civilians as it can and focuses its resources on doing so, Israel tries to target military targets as accurately as possible and prevent innocent lives from being lost.

        Rubbish.  If there were any truth to that, Israel would not have mastered 330 children, or destroyed civilian  infrastructure.  All Israe, does it deem everything to be a  security threat, be it children, hospitals, mosques, schools and then bombs them.   Israel kills  women and children.

        they (West) want from us to stop resistance and acknowledge Israel but I herewith announce that this will never happen.

        Resistance is absolutely necessary.  It does not have to take the forms of violence, but resistance must continue until the occupation ends.

        The ceasefire ended when Israel attacked a tunnel that Hamas was digging into Israeli territory in order to kidnap a soldier (exactly as they did with Gilad Shalit). I would say that building this tunnel was a violation of the cease-fire.

        Sorry but no one cas what to think.  The tunnel story was a bullshit excuse concocted by Israel to justify an attack on Gaza.  As Uri Avnery pointed out, if there was any truth to this story, Israel could easily have placed an ambush where the tunnel exited. What is incredibly stupid and infantile about this bs story is that we are expected to believe that it was more practical for Israel to conduct a raid I Gaza the it was to move  the soldiers out of harms way.

         After the Israeli strike, Hamas started launching rockets into Israeli towns. At that point, enough was enough for Israel.

        As Wikileaks revealed, this was the desired outcome. Israel also rejected calls to return to a ceasefire in Decembersand waited out the month of rocket attacks so that it could sell the story that it had been patient, but had to do something to stop the rockets. The Israeli leadership could have stopped the rocket attacks a month earlier without any loss of life.

         

        Torture is essentially illegal in Israel except for certain conditions.

        But because Israel is a lawless society, it is not enforced.

         

           Again, why would you go to great lengths to vindicate the murderous Hamas is beyond me, when you can support the relatively moderate Fatah

         

        And why would you go to great lengths to vindicate the murderous Israelis leadership and apartheid is beyond us, when you can support democracy, human rights and equality. It is also very revealing that you make such an issue of the Hamas charter while saying nothing of the PLO charter, which is practically the same.

        Fatah is the only organization that can bring Palestinians some form of Democracy, while Hamas represents the same Taliban-like oppression we’ve seen taken hold of many unfortunate countrires.

        You are either insanely deluded or a pathological liar.

        Fatah lost the last elections to Hamas, but not only refused trecognize the outcome, they launched a coup to overthrow Hamas. On top of all this, Abbas continued t insist he was the legitimate elected leader 24 months after his term had expired.  Is that was you take tobe democracy?

        The reaso. You love Fatah so much is because they are corrupt sock puppets of Washnington and Tel Aviv and they are prepared to sell out their own population.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 27, 2012, 6:51 pm

        Here is the Wikileaks cable that revealed the true reason Israel launched Cast Lead.

        In this context, the new memo provides more insight into Israeli decision-making. Dated Aug. 29, 2008 (about two months after the beginning of the Tahdiya, and four months before the beginning of Cast Lead), it notes (emphasis added):

        Regarding the Tahdiya, Hacham said Barak stressed that while it was not permanent, for the time being it was holding. There have been a number of violations of the ceasefire on the Gaza side, but Palestinian factions other than Hamas were responsible. Hacham said the Israelis assess that Hamas is making a serious effort to convince the other factions not to launch rockets or mortars. Israel remains concerned by Hamas’ ongoing efforts to use the Tahdiya to increase their strength, and at some point, military action will have to be put back on the table. The Israelis reluctantly admit that the Tahdiya has served to further consolidate Hamas’ grip on Gaza, but it has brought a large measure of peace and quiet to Israeli communities near Gaza.

        Note the wording of the bolded sentence. The memo does not say that the Israelis believe “military action will have to be put back on the table” because at some point Hamas will break the ceasefire, but rather because Hamas would like to maintain the ceasefire to strengthen its position. Thus if the memo accurately reflects the Israeli government’s thinking, it would appear that the Israelis were, from relatively early on, contemplating breaking the ceasefire in order to cut Hamas off at the knees. While the memo simply confirms what many had already suspected, it provides yet another reason to be highly skeptical of the decision to initiate Cast Lead.

        http://www.lobelog.com/new-revelations-on-the-run-up-to-cast-lead/

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 27, 2012, 9:04 pm

        So how many of the 350+ Gazan children that were murdered do you consider “military personnel,” Izik? How very Israeli.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 28, 2012, 2:29 am

        “False again. The talks had already failed by the time the second Intifada had begun.”

        The 90’s terror-wave has nothing to do with the Intifada. When Israel was withdrawing from Palestinian city after city, Hamas and Islamic Jihad launched a deadly terror-wave on the cities of Israel. To wit:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afula_Bus_suicide_bombing
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizengoff_Street_bus_bombing
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadera_bus_station_suicide_bombing
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_massacre – This was especially nasty, when a second suicide bomber exploded when the rescue party came
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Darom_bus_attack
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramat_Gan_bus_20_bombing
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramat_Eshkol_bus_bombing

        All of these bombings happened in the midst of the peace process and were carried by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

        “Goldstone did not admit to any flaws in his report and certainly did not identify any.”
        From the Goldstone apology:
        “While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy. …
        Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.”

        He admits that his report did not have evidence that was later on revealed.

        “Here’s another horse’s mouth. When the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of human shields by the IDF (a practice it had been carrying out for some time), Shin Bet appealed the descision on the grounds that the use of human shields was very useful.”
        The readers should be aware that the procedure in question is called “Nohal Shachen” (neighbour procedure). This procedure is used in anti-terrorism tactics to address a situation where a suspect refuses to get out of his house. A family member or a neighbour would go to his house and ask the suspect to give himself to the security forces. In 2005, the supreme court criminalized the use of this procedure – for good reason. What you wrote about the Shin-Bet is factually wrong, however. The Shin-Bet never appealed to the supreme court on that decision.

        “Yes he did sell out on this point, seeing as no investigation actually took place and he gave Isrel credit without seeing any part of that investigation”
        There was plenty of investigations whose results were made public. Here’s a link (Warning: PDF) to the official document Israel sent to the UN, describing its investigations. I obviously didn’t see a Hamas equivalent.
        http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/8E841A98-1755-413D-A1D2-8B30F64022BE/0/GazaOperationInvestigationsUpdate.pdf

        “shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that Israel , an organization that praises murderers of civilians, pretends to investigate itself and never finds any wrongdoing on it’s part.”
        LOL. IDF praises killing of civilians? Come on. Give me one instance where the IDF praised the killing of a civilian, just one. You seem to confuse the IDF with Hamas.

        “YouTube is full of examples of the IDF using human shields.”
        Show me.

        “The IDF were given explicit instructions to kill civilians and target civilian infrastructure.”
        That is a deceitful lie. The IDF never had orders to kill civilians. To wit, about 50% of the casualties were civilians. Don’t you think that the IDF, the 4’th most powerful army in the world, when concentrating all its fire-power on the heavily populated Gaza, would be able to kill more than just 500 civilians? Goldstone himself later retracted the claim that Israel targeted civilians. If the IDF did indeed order troops to kills civilians, where is the evidence? Where are the orders?

        “Israel did not put an end to the suicide bombings, Hamas did in 2006.”
        Of course it did. The fact that Israel essentially tore down the terror infrastructure and claimed the heads of many senior Hamasniks, had nothing to do with it. Again, your claim is false. Hamas tries to carry out attacks inside Israel all the time but is thankfully unsuccessful. Here’s an example from just 6 days ago (Warning: Google Translate!)
        http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Freshet.ynet.co.il%2F%25D7%2597%25D7%2593%25D7%25A9%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA%2Fnews%2FPolitics%2FSecurity%2FArticle%2C90952.aspx
        And from 16 hours ago:
        http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART2%2F341%2F118.html&act=url
        And from late 2011:
        http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/281/841.html

        Hamas has never stopped the violence, Israel simply got better at stopping it.

        “having fired 7,700 shells into Gaza over the 10 months after it withdrew.”
        What you are neglecting to mention is that shells fired into Gaza are directed at squads that launch rockets against Israeli towns. Israel does not randomly fire into Gaza.

        “as such, the Serbs were armed and able to fight back.”
        LOL. What are you suggesting then? Should Israel give Hamas some more weapons before going to fight it? You know, to even the odds a bit. :)

        “Israel started the war without provocation for political reasons.”
        Wrong. The background to the Cast Lead is as follows:
        In December 18’th, 2008, Hamas announced the termination of the truce, a day prior its official cessation. On December 24 Hamas and other organizations fired over 60 rockets against Ashqelon, Sderot, Netivot, Kiryat-Gat Ofakim and other towns. On December 27 Israel launched its operation.

        “Gaza was a massacre without a doubt.”
        Was Kosovo a massacre as well? Both wars have similar civilian to militant ratio. You can repeat something, but that won’t make it true. A massacre is when civilians are directly targeted and killed. This isn’t the case.

        “Resistance is absolutely necessary. It does not have to take the forms of violence, but resistance must continue until the occupation ends.”
        By occupation, you mean the 67′ occupation, or the 48′ “occupation”?

        ” The tunnel story was a bullshit excuse concocted by Israel to justify an attack on Gaza”
        If it was concocted by Israel, then show it to be true. Where’s the evidence of a “conspiracy”?

        “But because Israel is a lawless society, it is not enforced.”
        Israel a lawless society? A society in which a former president, one of the most powerful men in the country, is jailed for sexual assault, is not a “lawless” society.

        “It is also very revealing that you make such an issue of the Hamas charter while saying nothing of the PLO charter, which is practically the same.”
        The PLO charter is problematic as well, but certainly does not use the same religious and murderous language as Hamas does.

        “You are either insanely deluded or a pathological liar.”
        Please refrain from this type of attack.

        “they launched a coup to overthrow Hamas”
        When did Fatah launch a coup? The coup was performed by Hamas, in Gaza, against the PA.

        “You love Fatah so much is because they are corrupt sock puppets of Washnington and Tel Aviv and they are prepared to sell out their own population.”
        I don’t love Fatah. Israel has shed a lot of blood at the hand of Fatah terrorists. But Fatah is pragmatic, and does not seem to be dedicated to the ideal of destroying Israel at all costs – which Hamas apparently is. Palestinians need pragmatism, not religious psychos in the form of Hamas.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 6:25 am

         The 90’s terror-wave has nothing to do with the Intifada. When Israel was withdrawing from Palestinian city after city, Hamas and Islamic Jihad launched a deadly terror-wave on the cities of Israel. To wit:

        Israel was not withdrawing from any city.  The Oslo agreement was simply a charade for Isrle to subjugate the Palestinians under a different arrangement.  Israel controlled 100% of the West Bank then as they do today.

        All of these bombings happened in the midst of the peace process and were carried by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

        So did the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.

        From the Goldstone apology:

        The most important fact about the Golstone piece is that it was an op-Ed published in the Washington Post.   It was not a UN letter nor did not instruct the UN to take any actions in light of the so called evidence.

        Goldstone did not issue any apology.  He said he regretted that the fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, but the reality it that  it was not his fault that such evidence was missing.  The fault was Israel’s for refusing to cooperate.

        It stands to reason that his report would have been different had Israel cooperated with the fact finding mission, which they refused to do.  That does not mean the conclusions would have been any different. Indeed, the other members of the investigative team completely rejected any suggestion that the report needed changing.  So did Goldstone for that matter.

        Stating that civilians were not targetted as matter of policy was gross deception on his part.  The Report never claimed that Israel set out to intentionally murder civilians, but said that Cast Lead was “deliberately disproportionate” and intended “to punish, humiliate and terrorize”. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, made this point on Twitter. He commented, that the “crime of indiscriminate warfare” – not “deliberate killing” – was indeed “state policy”, and that there had been “no retraction” on that part.

        Nor does Go,stones op-ed mean civilians were not targetted.  Furthermore, Goldstone specifically said that the Israeli investigation established the validity of SOME incidents, not ALL incidents.  After all, the Jerusalem Postreported Shimon Peres’ description of Israel’s aim as “to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel”.

        Then there’s the so-called ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ (after the Lebanon war in 2006) – coined when the IDF Northern Command chief in October 2008 discussed how Israel would conduct the next war: “civilian villages” would be considered as “military bases”, an “approved” plan, he affirmed.  Another paper written by a reserve Colonel for the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University – titled ‘Disproportionate Force’- observed:

        With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.

        These recommendations were noted by Ha’aretz, two months before Operation Cast Lead, in an article titled, ‘IDF plans to use disproportionate force in next war’.  

        If Goldstone was so sure that Israel’s evidence would have influenced findings about intentionality and war crimes, then why did he not insist it be retracted? Instead, he argued the opposite.

        He admits that his report did not have evidence that was later on revealed.

        Again, he is taking the blame for Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the fact finding mission. Prior to his turnaround, Goldstone repeatedly told how he pleaded with the Israeli government on multiple occasions to participate and cooperate with the investigation. It was not his fault that they did not 

        The readers should be aware that the procedure in question is called “Nohal Shachen” (neighbour procedure).

        And it involves using human shields.  Calling it an anti-terrorism tactic doesn’t change that’s fact.  It’s simply branding for public comsumption.

        Shin-Bet appealed to the supreme court on that decision and continue to violate the ruling.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

        There was plenty of investigations whose results were made public.

        The investigations were  a farce and an obvious cover up. 

        The UN Committee repeated testimony by Israel’s Military Attorney General (MAG) that “the military investigations system he heads is not a viable mechanism to investigate and assess high-level policy decisions”.

         The Committee also noted that the MAG’s “dual responsibilities” as both “legal advisor” to the “military authorities”, as well as “his role as supervisor of criminal investigations…raises concerns”. In other words, Israel’s internal investigations were conducted by the lawyer of the subject of the investigation.

        Goldstone’s new found respect for Israel’s knvestogatiev rpcedure ignores the fact that The Goldstone Report itself noted that the Israeli system “to deal with allegations of serious wrongdoing by armed forces personnel does not comply” with the relevant international principles.  Amnesty International slammed the Turkel Commission into the murderous assault on the flotilla as a “whitewash”. In November 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported that the IDF had investigated 400 “complaints” related to Operation Cast Lead, interviewed “more than 600 officers and soldiers”, and the total number of indictments to date was three. A report by Israeli NGO Yesh Din revealed that between 2000 and 2009, less than 6 percent of investigations by the military police “against soldiers suspected of committing offenses against Palestinians and their property” led to indictments. B’Tselem’s report last year, ‘Void of Responsibility’, featured similar statistics: out of 148 cases in which Palestinians were killed between 2006 and 2009, only 22 resulted in a military police probe.

        The Goldstone Report’s findings were corroborated by other groups and investigations, such as the Human Rights Watch report on white phosphorus, Breaking the Silence’s testimonies, and evidence from PCHR in Gaza. B’Tselem documented 252 dead children, a report by two Israeli used testimonies to allege the use of human shields, and Amnesty International concluded that “Israeli forces committed war crimes and other serious breaches of international law”, including “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians”. There is also the report[PDF] by the US National Lawyers Guild delegation to Gaza, and the Independent Fact Finding Committee report [PDF] commissioned by the Arab League, and made up of experts from South Africa, Netherlands, Norway, Chile/Germany, Portugal, and Australia.

        Lastly and important side point is that in the wake of the publication of the Goldstone Report, Israeli military officials and politicians spoke about the need “for changes in the international laws of war”. Why the imperative to ‘change’ the laws, if Israel had not broken any?

        I obviously didn’t see a Hamas equivalent.

        You obviously didn’t see Israel cooperate with the Goldstone fact finding mission.  Of course, what makes Israel’s investigation of itself any more credible than a tax return filed by Al Capone ?

        “YouTube is full of examples of the IDF using human shields.”
        Show me

        ► 1:07► 1:07www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yVHLrIpXwo
        http://www.btselem.org/human_shields/20060720_human_shields_in_beit_hanun
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-troops-used-11-year-old-boy-as-human-shield-in-gaza-1.272716  
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3387356,00.html

        That is a deceitful lie. The IDF never had orders to kill civilians.

        Breaking the Silence says yu’re the liar.

        To wit, about 50% of the casualties were civilians.

        False. 50% were women and children.  The rest were adut men, only a tiny fraction were militants.  After all, 250 of them were police cadets which the lying IDF designated militants.

        Don’t you think that the IDF, the 4’th most powerful army in the world, when concentrating all its fire-power on the heavily populated Gaza, would be able to kill more than just 500 civilians?

        That irrelevant.  Israel obviously could wipe out th entirpopulation of Gaza, but it would be a PR disaster that would inflict irreparable damage on Israel.

        Goldstone himself later retracted the claim that Israel targeted civilians.

        No he didn’t because as I already explained, the Goldstone Report never made that claim in the first place.

        If the IDF did indeed order troops to kills civilians, where is the evidence? Where are the orders?

        Stupid argument.  The only evidence available to us are Isrel’s actions.  Israel’s leaders obviously would never share the orders with the public.

        Of course it did. The fact that Israel essentially tore down the terror infrastructure and claimed the heads of many senior Hamasniks, had nothing to do with it.

        What BS.  Terrorism doesn’t require infrastructure, which is why terrorism is the chosen method of combat for those who have no infrastructure at their disposal.  Isrel claims their apartheid wall stopped suicide attacks, yet 1,500 Palestinians are able to cli my over, under and around the wall every week, so any suicide bomber could get through and carry out an attack if they wanted to.

        Again, your claim is false. Hamas tries to carry out attacks inside Israel all the time but is thankfully unsuccessful. Here’s an example from just 6 days ago

        Your  example is pathetic.  There’s no evidence that Hamas were involved and the fact that the report didnn’t even make it to an English report suggests it’s baseless anyway. If this were true, Nentenyahu would be al, over this like a rash.

        And from late 2011:

        More BS that wasn’t deemed worthy of an English translation.

        Israel cannot stop the violence (especially given they re so addicted to it). Hamas realized that violence wasn’t helping their cause, so they changed strategy.

         What you are neglecting to mention is that shells fired into Gaza are directed at squads that launch rockets against Israeli towns. Israel does not randomly fire into Gaza.

        Stop lying.  The 7,700 shells fired into Gaza by Israel  I was referring to took 
        Lad between September 2005 and May 2006.  That’s right, Israel fired as many shells into Gaza in 10 months as Hamas and the militant groups combined spam aged to fire in 10 years.  You’ll also find that there were practically no rockets fired by Hamas between September 2005 and May 2006.

        LOL. What are you suggesting then? Should Israel give Hamas some more weapons before going to fight it? You know, to even the odds a bit. :)

        No, though if you want them to stop hitting civilians it might help with targetting the IDF who cowardly hide their bases out of reach of Hamas rockets.  The point I was making was that the Serb conflict was a real war and Cast Lead was a massacre.
        .

        The background to the Cast Lead is as follows: 

        In December 18’th, 2008, Hamas announced the termination of the truce, a day prior its official cessation.

        Debunked.

        Hamas proposed a return to the ceasefire which Israel rejected:

        http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

        And on the 23rd, Olmert went public with his rejection:

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/ehud-olmert-rejects-hamas-offer-of-cease-fire-in-gaza-strip-1.235737

        Thus, by the 24th, Hamas responded with  a bit of lame bravado after beig humiliated.

        Was Kosovo a massacre as well?

        No because:

        1. Gaza is an open air prison whcih made Cast Lead a Turkey shoot
        2.  The the civilian to militant ratio in Gaza was 10 times greater
        3. Gaza was unarmed and had no chance to fight back
        4. Unlike NATO, Israel started Cast Lead and manufactured false pretenses to do so.

        Cast Lead was without doubt, a massacre. A sadistic one at that.

         By occupation, you mean the 67′ occupation, or the 48′ “occupation”?

        The was a 1948 occupation until the PLO accepted the armistice lines as borders for a 2ss.

        If it was concocted by Israel, then show it to be true. Where’s the evidence of a “conspiracy”?

        No conspiracy, just a lie.  Show me the evidence that the tunnel was going to be used to kidnap IDF soldiers?  Oh that’s right, there isn’t any.

        A society in which a former president, one of the most powerful men in the country, is jailed for sexual assault, is not a “lawless” society.

        A society that elects 2 terrorist leaders and numerous thugs and  war criminals to the office of PM, is indeed a lawless society.

         The PLO charter is problematic as well, but certainly does not use the same religious and murderous language as Hamas does.

         

        Or the King’s Torah, which is mandatory reading for the IDF.

         http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/07/04/israeli-ministers-idf-commander-to-honor-racist-rabbi/

         When did Fatah launch a coup? The coup was performed by Hamas, in Gaza, against the PA.

        Surely, not even you’re that stupid.

        http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

        But Fatah is pragmatic, and does not seem to be dedicated to the ideal of destroying Israel at all costs – which Hamas apparently is. Palestinians need pragmatism, not religious psychos in the form of Hamas.

        Your talking points are a decade out if date.

        1. Hamas removed the call for Israel’s destruction from it’s manifesto in 2005.
        2. Hamas called for an end to suicide attacks in 2006
        3. Hamas have proposed a long ceasefire, which Israel gave rejected on the grounds that they are not in “Israel’s strategic interests”, not security.
        4. Hamas signed a declaration in 2095 in Cairo, which Haniyeh said included the recognition of prior agreements between Israel and Fatah/PLO. Interestingly, Avigdor Lieberman declared all prior agreements null and void.
        5. Hamas have said they would not oppose the the Arab Peace Initiative, which recognizes Israel and normalizes relations between Israel and thevArab world. Israel rejected the offer repeatedly.
        6. Hamas have endorsed the two state solution along 1967 borders. Netenyahu successfully campaigned on a platform rejecting the 2ss.

        By any reasonable yardstick, they sound far more pragmatic than Likud.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 28, 2012, 6:58 am

        I’ll respond in length later. One claim stood out among others as a particularly nasty lie:
        “Or the King’s Torah, which is mandatory reading for the IDF.”
        The authors of the King’s Torah, Ha Rav Lior, has been arrested for authoring his inciteful and disgusting book. The claim that his book is “mandatory reading for the IDF” is complete and utter nonsense, and a sad attempt at demonization.

        If what you’re saying is true – I challenge you to present evidence. In what units is the reading mandatory? In what part of the training is it mandatory? Is there an exam afterwards?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 7:18 am

        Shapira was not arrested because of the book, but for terrorist attacks carried out in the West Bank.

        Not surprisingly, he’s always released with little more than a slap on the wrist. The IDF has become overwhelmingly dominated bybreligious nut jobs for whom whack jobs like Shapira and Youssef are considered their spiritual guides.

        Take your time with the rest. I’m sure you’ll need it.

      • Izik
        Izik
        February 28, 2012, 7:40 am

        Where is the evidence for the claim that “Torah Hamelech” is “mandatory reading” in the IDF? You completely ignored that part.

        Let me save you some time – there is none. You either made an honest mistake, or propagated a vicious lie.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 8:06 am

        It was a figure of speech Izik,

        Israel is now ruled by religious extremists. It’s revealing that this is the only point I made that you have bothered to debate.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 6:51 pm

        Cliff, do you mean it’s really cynical to think this is about honest debate, or naive? I think it’s intentionally mendacious on the part of the Israel Firsters everywhere. They will use American notion of fair play, and search for the truth, against that very purpose–honest debate, by weighing the scales in advance, their thumb on the scale. We should recall the obvious, MW is samizadat, the official Amerian bought version is the contrary.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 5:12 am

        Citizen said:

        They will use American notion of fair play, and search for the truth, against that very purpose–honest debate, by weighing the scales in advance, their thumb on the scale.

        Yes, the key point is exploitation.

        Zionists file a complaint that students are being subjected to anti-Israel/antisemitic haranguing by Joseph Massad.

        They fail though, and it reveals that they simply want to get rid of people in a position to challenge their views and potentially change the discourse.

        That is how threatened they feel (constantly) and they exploit legitimate mediums and filibuster.

        I think free-thinking individualism (something I identify as American in character) will not stand for Zionist bullshit (tribalism).

        That is why in some of these cases, sharper minds prevailed.

        All we can ever do is push back against the tide of hysteria w/ the facts.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      February 24, 2012, 6:44 pm

      Ooooh look. I suppose after justifying assassination and terror and other “lite war” activities, I guess we shouldn’t be shocked that you’re trying to defend the act of beating up on protesting college students too.

      That’s a very Israeli notion of “dialogue” isn’t it?

    • mig
      mig
      February 24, 2012, 7:01 pm

      wj, sorry to say this, but that debate has been over looong time ago. You didnt get that memo ?

    • American
      American
      February 24, 2012, 7:16 pm

      WJ,

      Objective observers cannot come to a objective opinion when one or either side lies about the facts.
      Israel has the advantage of years of propaganda and outright lies in the US. I have personally observed 10 years of it. Israel firsters have as you know censored the truth about Israel, the US and I/P for 60 years. They and their supporters continue to lie.
      Despite that, the facts about US-Israel and wrt I/P have started to break through. Although mainly because of the public’s awarness and growing disgust with how Israel uses the US and Americans.
      Nevertheless that has created an opening and advantage with the public I/P activist didn’t have before and they are going for it.
      Israel never allowed them a platform in the US why should they allow Israel one now, particulary when Israel uses the same propaganda they always put forth?
      I don’t see you have any grounds for complaint about anyone else tactics considering Israel’s.

  11. Cliff
    Cliff
    February 24, 2012, 7:13 pm

    David Green is very concerned about Nonie Darwish’s right to Islamophobia.

    Let’s look at the context of StandWithUs’s sponsorship/hosting of people like Darwish:

    http://electronicintifada.net/content/nonie-darwish-and-al-bureij-massacre/7586

    […]StandWithUs manages an impressive stable of Zionist speakers, including several who are Arabs, Muslims, or ex-Muslims: Brigitte Gabriel, Ishmael Khaldi, Walid Shoebat, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Nonie Darwish. Darwish, born an Egyptian Muslim, now an American Evangelical Christian, is one of the most energetic. She manages the website Arabs for Israel and has appeared on FOX News, on the website Frontpage Magazine, and in the film Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. She is also the author of Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. Penguin Books publishes it under its Sentinel imprint — a special line of conservative titles. Since her book’s publication in 2006, Darwish has toured extensively, speaking primarily at colleges and universities.

    Now They Call Me Infidel has blurbs from all the usual crew: Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’Or, former Senator Rick Santorum, Representative Tom “Nuke Mecca” Tancredo, and General Paul Vallely, who advocates the final ethnic cleansing of all Palestinian citizens of Israel. In the book itself, Darwish interweaves stories of her Egyptian girlhood with potted accounts of female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, polygamy, veiling, domestic abuse, honor killings, sharia law, jihad, censorship, hate-oriented education, the rejection of modernity, the cult of martyrdom, Islamic imperialism, and the pathological, groundless hatred of Israel.

    In her interviews and in her book, she insists that she is not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic, and even suggests from time to time that she is still a Muslim. Then she pivots nimbly and attacks “the Arab mind,” “the seething Arab street,” and “the Muslim world,” with its “culture of jihad,” “culture of death,” and “culture of envy.”

    There are “no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims,” and no significant differences within or among Arab or Muslim cultures: for Darwish,
    Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism was essentially jihadist.

    Darwish is allergic to social history: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.”

    Instead of history, scholarship, and footnotes, she gives us a watered-down version of Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind: a dictionary of Islamophobic commonplaces underwritten by the authority of an ex-Muslim native informant: I was there — I know.

    • David Green
      David Green
      February 24, 2012, 8:26 pm

      “David Green is very concerned about Nonie Darwish’s right to Islamophobia.”

      Nonsense. We don’t believe in free speech unless that includes speech we find abhorrent.

      Daniel Pipes came to my campus a few years back. We organized a rally out front of the hall instead of going in. There was intense debate in the student newspaper and other venues about his background and ideas. He slunk in, spoke for about 20 minutes to a couple of hundred people (many just curious, but not Zionists), and slunk out. It wasn’t disrupted. It was challenged, as it should have been. And even the Zionist professors backed off from expressing any support for him.

      The Zionists simply don’t have speakers on campus anymore. They all speak at Hillel. That’s their choice. When they speak on campus, they will be challenged, as I did with Yossi Klein Halevi in 2005. He wasn’t disrupted, but he was completely rattled.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 2:38 am

        David Green,

        You first equivocated without evidence.

        Now you’re telling us that these converts to Evangelical Christianity and ‘Arabs for Israel’ should be ‘debated’.

        On what?

        Their free speech is not being violated. The pro-Palestinian activists did not try to get Darwish banned from giving her hate speech.

        So I was absolutely correct. You are terribly concerned that people listen to people like her uninterrupted.

        You don’t believe there’s a Lobby. You think BDS is a cult. And now you blame these activists who got assaulted (not the other way around) and imply they are violating Darwish’s free speech.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 25, 2012, 10:24 am

        Yes Cliff, you know me through and through. I don’t believe there’s a lobby.

        A fellow named Khalid Abu Toameh spoke at a dorm near where I live in 2009. He did a horrible presentation, and was challenged by members of the audience, including me. In fact, I lost it a little bit at the end, and called him an “idiot.” But it wasn’t disruptive at that point.

        But most of the audience wasn’t inclined to give him much credibility. They came out of the curiosity of a Palestinian journalist supporting Israel. There was no reason whatsoever to be disruptive.

        There might be a reason to be disruptive–for example, if only Zionist speakers are invited. In fact, at the Israel Studies Project a the University of Illinois, only Zionist speakers have ever been invited. One of them, Yossi Klein Halevi, I was quite rude to in 2005. They are now under new management, and the conflict-averse director will not invite overt propagandists, preferring more esoteric scholars and artists. If he were to invite a propagandist, given the history of the program, I would show up and encourage others to show up and intervene. At this point, I would not tolerate it.

        But unless pro-Palestinian speakers are being excluded at some official level, or there is some programmatic bias, I don’t see the point in being disruptive at the Darwish event. I don’t see what is to be gained by it.

        Cliff, you’re welcome to differ. But in doing so, you might want to stop making assumptions about people you don’t know, and you might want to stop being so arrogant.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 1:38 pm

        David Green said:

        Cliff, you’re welcome to differ. But in doing so, you might want to stop making assumptions about people you don’t know, and you might want to stop being so arrogant.

        You’re the only one here who is arrogant. You slandered the solidarity movement by issuing your stupid equivocation and have continued to avoid substantiating the notion that pro-Palestinian activists violently disrupt pro-Israel events.

        In fact, in both scenarios – where it was a pro-Israel audience or a pro-Israel protester – BOTH acts of violence were carried out by the pro-Israel ideologues and without remorse.

        Not only that, but you keep insinuating that this kind of disruption is an act of censorship.

        When Sean McBride questioned you on the Israel Lobby, you only insulted him back.

        Sean McBride:

        You are calling me “ignorant” and “stupid” because I am asking you if Noam Chomsky is a Jewish ethnic nationalist? Are you arguing that he is not a Zionist? How about you: are you a Zionist? A Jewish ethnic nationalist? What exactly is your argument?

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-israel-firsters-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-422698

        Whenever these topics are broached you dismiss them and call everyone a gate-keeper, which is completely nonsensical. ‘We’ aren’t setting the parameters on the discussion.

        YOU are.

        Example:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-israel-firsters-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-422596

        You’ve said nothing new, and slandering Chomsky is old hat on MW. And there’s certainly no reason for me to apologize. You should apologize for polluting MW with your nonsense, and the apology is owed to the Palestinian people.

        In that thread, I wasn’t referring to Chomsky living on a kibutz in the 50s and I wasn’t SLANDERING him either.

        You, Keith, ‘jamesiw'(something like that) and Hostage kept straw-manning my argument.

        Keith said I was slandering Chomsky because I said he wanted to move to Israel in 2010 when he had actually said he’d prefer to live in Israel if he could not live in the US – in 2005. I was not lying or being dishonest and I provided the damn YT link.

        I also explained very clearly how Chomsky changes how he presents himself depending on his audience.

        Then I explained why his characterization of BDS as ‘feel good’ and ‘breaking windows’ was insulting and patronizing/condescending.

        I don’t have to elaborate further.

        You refer to people like myself as being part of the ‘Blankfort Brigade’.

        What’s being argued in this very sensible post has been argued, over the (now) years by Max Ajl, Keith, Gabriel Ash, myself, and others–always, of course, subjected to ridicule by the Blankfort Brigade (including Annie Robbins), implicitly supported by Weiss’s choice of topics. It also reflects basic perspectives put forward over the years by Chomsky & Finkelstein, which are sound, regardless of the “state” issue or the “BDS” issue. The “Israel Firster” debate accepts basic assumptions of U.S. global hegemony. It’s corollary is that the Lobby determines U.S. foreign policy and in doing so undermines “national interests.”

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-israel-firsters-debate.html#comment-422436

        That is another stupid characterization – especially when Jeffrey Blankfort is someone with real experience on this issue. From being shot at by IDF fascists in Lebanon to being spied on by the ADL – he has been consistent and completely sincere/honest in his solidarity w/ the Palestinians.

        @Phil/Adam

        There, happy? You didn’t have a problem with Green mocking Sean McBride in the comments I listed or insulting me.

        When I call him out for being a liar, you censor my entire post.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 26, 2012, 12:21 pm

        @Cliff

        How about, for the sake of making some progress on the Palestinian issue, you stop making this a personal issue. Certainly, I could go back and collect the quotes in which Blankfort, Robbins, and others INITIATED very personal and insulting comments and questioned my motives regarding “damage control” for Zionists, my very identity, etc. I won’t bother. But you simply can’t claim to be objective if you haven’t noticed the litmus test aspect of discourse on MW. This movement, if you call it that, needs tactics and strategy. It doesn’t need a doctrine. “Israel firsters” and other labels are part of a doctrine.

        Let’s follow closely what the consequences of the NM intervention will be. Let’s see if it generates support and solidarity at UNM, or not. I hope that it will. But let’s be honest if it doesn’t. I have no doubt that the violence in these cases is initiated by Zionists. I’m not saying the mic check was a crime. But let’s take a look back during the spring, let’s hear some reporting from UNM on further actions, and let’s see the progress that active support for the Palestinians is making there. This was a disruption, this was a tactic. It provoked violence. The responsibility for the violence is on those who committed it. But let’s keep our eye on the process and its consequences. Let’s have a movement, not a war.

        And stop casting aspersions on those who, I suspect, have been much more active and taken many more risks in the movement than you have.

      • annie
        annie
        February 26, 2012, 1:21 pm

        And stop casting aspersions on those who, I suspect, have been much more active and taken many more risks in the movement than you have.

        are you referencing yourself? does this mean “be nice to your elders”? i’m just trying to figure out if you are pulling rank. it also occurs to me you’ve cast some asperations yourself. is it a two way street?

      • Donald
        Donald
        February 26, 2012, 4:09 pm

        One of the unfortunate things about this blog (not that it’s different anywhere else so far as I can tell) is that the personal quarrels sometimes overshadow the political ones. Anyway, in David’s 12:21 post the politically interesting points are in his second paragraph. But if people want to argue about who insulted whom and so forth it’s my impression that in the Chomsky/Blankfort debates, people on both sides have been pretty vicious towards each other.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        February 26, 2012, 5:12 pm

        Donald (plus Green) – the reason discussions here sometimes seem personal is because when it comes to something as egregious as The Lobby the personal IS political and vice versa.

        You have a Lobby that has taken over the US foreign policy – almost in its entirety. As annie said once (or twice) before, it is no longer possible to separate empire foreign policy from Lobby because the Lobby has embedded its people in every branch and at every level of the state department, the NSA, homeland security and, of course, congress. And through congress, The Lobby’s influence is spilling into domestic policy, accelerated by the Citizen United decision (cf Addelson, Saban et al). For some people, seeing how the country’s entire political apparatus has been subverted to appeal to one very narrow interest is highly disturbing – something they experience on a very personal level. Some (almost never Jewish) may even have friends, family in the US Armed Forces – those who are forced to fight Israel’s misbegotten wars. Others have friends and family among muslim people and/or Palestinians. and for those facing persecution and death is kind of personal too.

        Israel is trying to get away with horrendous atrocities, in which I include the palanned ethnic cleansing (which has really not gone into high gear yet. They are just testing the waters). Thus far, this one country has done far worse than anything Syria is doing now, but look at all the “humanitarian” concern shown towards the latter. Look at the picture on the front page today – Phil’s report from Hebron. Seems personal to the palestinian under the Israeli boot.

        The reason there’s a battle going on about the “Israel First” label is because it is code, just not what some would have it. The opposite of “Israel First” is not “America First”. It is “Human Rights First”. When you cast it in these terms, it becomes more understandable why things get a bit personal. It’s not just Palestinian rights that have been trampled by the zionist supporters in the US (ie, most of those AIPAC attendees, their friends in high and low places, and all the ones they bought and threatened into silence, including the ENTIRE US government). It’s MY human rights that are threatened and every other person in the world who’d like to believe that liberty and justice for all actually means “all”.

        Besides, just how personal can things get when the best and the brightests are banned from the discussions and those who question the banning are lumped into a “brigade”? (not my term, but I was, I believe included, and therefore have every right to take it personally).

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 26, 2012, 6:28 pm

        “i’m just trying to figure out if you are pulling rank. ”

        Yes, this isn’t the first time that you’re trying to figure out something about me at a personal level, that has nothing to do with the substantive issue at hand. You should stop trying to figure such things out, because it’s beside the point.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 26, 2012, 6:31 pm

        “You have a Lobby that has taken over the US foreign policy – almost in its entirety. As annie said once (or twice) before, it is no longer possible to separate empire foreign policy from Lobby because the Lobby has embedded its people in every branch and at every level of the state department, the NSA, homeland security and, of course, congress.”

        This is conspiratorial thinking that doesn’t help us to understand how USFP works. For the 10,000th time. And I’m not being personal.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 26, 2012, 7:18 pm

        David Green,

        You implied I was “casting aspersions” on people with more experience than me on the I-P issue, and generally being unjustifiably judgmental.

        Who are these people? I was only talking about you.

        I cited your comments. I did so because you kept harping on MW ‘gatekeepers’ when it was you who coined the term and others, like ‘the Blankfort Brigade.’

        And anyways, just because someone is involved in an issue for a long time, doesn’t mean they are infallible.

        You don’t seem to care about seniority when it comes to Jeffrey Blankfort.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 26, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Right, so the US voting to shield the massacre in Gaza from the Security Council is in America’s best interests how, exactly? Explain that one, David Green.

      • Sand
        Sand
        February 26, 2012, 7:50 pm

        “conspiratorial thinking” eh! Right… just a few examples why it is not at all conspiratorial.

        — AIPAC spy case: Rosen and Weissman
        — Back in 1992 David Steiner (AIPAC President): Negotiating with Clinton to embed operatives of a foreign lobby in positions in the State Department and NSA. As an aside the mere $100,000 that Katz was offering to fund AIPAC approved candidates — that’s frigging peanuts now!
        — AIPAC (and AIPAC’s congress critters) taking out Chas Freeman.
        — Dennis Ross being able to embed himself not only in the State dept but also the NSC.
        — Jeremy Bash (ex-AIPAC) – COS both @ the CIA and now DOD!
        — chair/minority chair House Foreign Affairs Committee is Howard Berman (D-CA): “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist,”… “is why I went on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”
        — Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), said during the 2006 election to a Jewish audience, “There will be some Democratic chairmen who may not share all my views . . . on Israel [but] … they will not be chairing committees dealing with Israel and the Middle East.”

        I mean [email protected]

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 26, 2012, 8:12 pm

        This is conspiratorial thinking that doesn’t help us to understand how USFP works. For the 10,000th time.

        repeating something 1000 times dowsn’t make your case any atringer David. Such a strategy carried out on such a scale does indeed qualify as a conspiracy, but the available evidence (ie. over 250 cases of espionage investigated by the FBI) proved that it is by no means simply a theory.

        You’re not being personal, just dishonest.

      • annie
        annie
        February 27, 2012, 12:40 am

        danaa speaks for me

        The opposite of “Israel First” is not “America First”. It is “Human Rights First”. When you cast it in these terms, it becomes more understandable why things get a bit personal. It’s not just Palestinian rights that have been trampled by the zionist supporters in the US (ie, most of those AIPAC attendees, their friends in high and low places, and all the ones they bought and threatened into silence, including the ENTIRE US government). It’s MY human rights that are threatened and every other person in the world who’d like to believe that liberty and justice for all actually means “all”.

        luv ya girly whirly

      • annie
        annie
        February 27, 2012, 1:00 am

        “i’m just trying to figure out if you are pulling rank. ”

        Yes, this isn’t the first time that you’re trying to figure out something about me at a personal level, that has nothing to do with the substantive issue at hand. You should stop trying to figure such things out, because it’s beside the point.

        oh really? if it has nothing to do with the substantive issue at hand
        why are you advising/warning people to “stop casting aspersions on those who… have been much more active and taken many more risks in the movement than you have.

        who prey tell are you referring to? who here has “been much more active and taken many more risks in the movement than” we have?

        who are you defending and how is this not personal? are you speaking of yourself? do you really think you are older than me? or who? what are you talking about? is this a game of you getting to play the personal and then squirming out of it when questioned ? what is this if not personal? who has been much more active and taken many more risks ?

        who? just spit it out david green, if you are going to play the adviser and lecture us about who we are to back off of then have be forthcoming w/ clarity instead of more lecturing “You should stop trying to figure such things out” my a*s. own it dude, don’t hide from your own coded language. you’re making it personal when you lecture like some alleged sage. and you’re probably not more than 2 years my senior..pleeease spare us the drama. i’ve been around the block w/your type.

      • annie
        annie
        February 27, 2012, 1:06 am

        This is conspiratorial thinking that doesn’t help us to understand how USFP works.

        oh really. so please inform us which branch of government the lobby has not embedded its people at every level. state department? the NSA? homeland security ? congress?

        spit it out, this should be very interesting. just name one. the executive branch? lol, seriorusy dude. what branch of government is the lobby not interested in? who have they left alone and why?

        let the sage speak to the uninformed masses and explain why the lobby would never conspire, heavens no. any person who would ever think of that is probably a deranged nutjob blogging in his/her mother’s basement. no doubt.

        ;)

        as opposed to david who has taken many more risks in the movement than we have. riiiiiight/not.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 27, 2012, 5:44 am

        Ievery time David Green has come to this blog, he has displayed the same insufferable sense of entitlement. It’s as though he expects the red carpet to be rolled out for him and everyone here to bend to his wishes.

        It’s amazing that he accuses others of bring gatekeepers, while behaving like one himself.

    • dahoit
      dahoit
      February 25, 2012, 1:53 pm

      I bet her bank account is growing by leaps and bounds.

  12. btbLondon
    btbLondon
    February 24, 2012, 7:14 pm

    Some thoughts from the UK.

    1. This week Zionists physically attacked a mock check point at LSE
    2 When we disrupted the Israel Phil concert at the Royal Albert Hall we had to be protected by Hall staff from determined physical assault.
    3. I have chaired meetings in London which Zionists tried to disrupt with repeated long, tedious and irrelevant interventions. We did not assault them; we managed by firm chairing to shut them up and they give up and walk out. If they would not abide with procedure we have access to hall security and then the police to remove them – we do not physically attack them – that’s what they want us to do.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      February 24, 2012, 9:07 pm

      When you watch the video evidence (let alone personal experience) it becomes explicit EXACTLY where the cycle of violence originates from. Hey, how about statistical data? How DO ceasefires end?

    • American
      American
      February 24, 2012, 9:53 pm

      “When we disrupted the Israel Phil concert at the Royal Albert Hall we had to be protected by Hall staff from determined physical assault”

      That’s sort of ‘iffy’ to me. I don’t think I’d favor disrupting a concert since it isn ‘t a political speech event. Maybe standing outside and holding signs about the Israeli occupation would be better.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        February 25, 2012, 2:10 am

        Nothing is sacred – disrupt EVERYTHING!

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 25, 2012, 11:03 am

        Taxi’s right. Israel set the ground rules. Nothing is sacred to Israeli that isn’t Zionist — not hospitals, not UN personnel, not ambulances, not children’s lives and limbs.

      • Thomson Rutherford
        Thomson Rutherford
        February 25, 2012, 7:16 am

        In the case of a music concert, I agree, American.

  13. vered
    vered
    February 24, 2012, 9:49 pm

    So what causes Israel supporters to think they can put their hands on any vocal opposition? It is impunity, and the bold faced support by institutions and the US apparatus and officials. After all, the Israel project is a sanctioned and financially supported colonial activity, not much different than kingdoms of old that sent out the crusaders or sanctioned colonial activity by the gentry for their profitability. It is no different than Columbus who received his marching “exploration” orders from the crown, etc.

    So, with such support Israel supporters think they can do what they please with anyone who dissents. They constantly seek ways to legitimize apartheid with “respected” educational institutions, that have been thrown to the wind of private money to raise so they can continue their charter – and they want to keep the money flowing from a government which OK’s Israeli atrocity. Whitewashing War Crimes, Latuff has it right –

    WHITEWASHING WAR CRIMES

  14. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    February 24, 2012, 9:58 pm

    Non violence is an easy slogan. Listening to those voices shouting “non violence” while being attacked by Zionist thugs is difficult to take. I think a few well landed upper-cuts or right hooks would have been more appropriate. But I am an old man who in his youth would have left a few bloody noses behind (mine included if memory serves me right).

  15. anonymouscomments
    anonymouscomments
    February 24, 2012, 10:02 pm

    i think people are misinterpreting what they did here, and conflating it with other actions (….green?). i think it is fine to do a walk out, or a “people’s mic” statement in the face of such repulsive speech. you make your point, and then leave (in this case, leave while being assaulted). this seems tame, and reasonable.

    i do, however, think the speakers should get a chance to speak in the end… which they almost invariably DO.

    in fact, the students would have likely walked out after the mic statement, and the assault probably caused more disruption than the planned action would have alone.

    however, i think when we try to do dozens of people’s mic checks in a row, or people refuse to leave, then we cross a line, and it looks like we are shouting down and censoring free speech. such activities which are intent on *disruption* to the point of *ending* the event are not something i support. mainly because it is not very productive strategically, and we risk our own events/meetings getting harassed to the point where we cannot hold them effectively. they also might even look “good” which is obviously counterproductive.

    please note i support the action above, and almost every action i have seen. but perhaps 1-2 times there were actions that i would not support (but that is just my opinion, and people are free to try to shut down a “pro-israel” event, and i will not get all high and mighty and attack their chosen form of protest).

    green, i welcome your opinion, but i think you have to realize that tame, short disruptions are a tactic approved by many, especially students.

    even if the impact for the “general public” is nothing, the *action* itself is very meaningful and cathartic for those doing it. as so many feel so impotent in the face of the hasbara, such actions can build morale and helps people do something tangible. and if the action comes with a succinct message, it does stand a chance at peeking the interest of a moderate attendee in the crowd… but even if it is simply self-indulgent and has little efficacy in the broader struggle, there is power there (don’t we all love watching a good interruption of some war-criminal or racist?…. i think 90% of us do. even if it only makes me “feel good” for a second, it is 100% worth it).

    all things to think about in advance of occupy AIPAC…. next WEEK!

    • anonymouscomments
      anonymouscomments
      February 25, 2012, 3:25 am

      let me also state that there are some exceptions to my personal “rule”…. certain people are so despicable, and undeniably war criminals, i do support attempts to *deny* them a dignified platform to speak, if such has been granted. any and all means necessary, to note the disgust.

      no university should be hosting the most vile actors. but the intellectual hacks should be given a stage to make a mockery of the truth, after we register our dissent.

  16. Pixel
    Pixel
    February 24, 2012, 11:07 pm

    Charges for assault/battery should be immediately pressed.

    Note, too, that things clearly fell along generational lines. The protesters were all young. The attackers, both verbal and physical, were middle-aged and seniors, respectively. It’s amazing what too much prune juice can do.

  17. vered
    vered
    February 24, 2012, 11:15 pm

    I have used this illustration before (link below)), and I think if we are talking about the Palestinians, and what has been done to them (their immediate families, relatives, friends) by the brutal and relentless occupation (think Operation Cast Lead and other brutal and murderous activity) one wonders why we should not expect the same reaction (as in the film)? Remember, the people who have committed these atrocities against the Palestinians do not walk among us like other war criminals might in the past (in secret, hiding themselves because they might be recognized, arrested and prosecuted) – but they are invited as speakers, given places of prominence, and are lauded and supported by our government officials and unfortunately supported by some of our relatives. Think about that as you watch this dramatization, how hardened have we become? –

    I KNOW YOU!

    Hope this does not stretch you rules of posting

  18. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 24, 2012, 11:45 pm

    What if , arriving early, the mic-check folks had just stood along the sidewalk and along the way into the room politely holding signs with an arrow pointing the way, the signs saying “RACIST HATE SPEAKERS–GET YOUR FILL”?

  19. Pixel
    Pixel
    February 25, 2012, 12:11 am

    I don’t mean to be flip.

    I’m not a patient person when it comes to violations of human rights.

    A much more patient friend reminded me that true progress comes “one funeral at a time.” He was referring to the natural deaths of the “Old Guard”.

    Lots of things are happening at once, there’s a confluence of factors and events. Natural aging and natural death are two of them.

    None of the true power players on the world stage, today, and especially the power behind power, are young and many are really, really old. Think about it.

    At some point in the not too distant future, the oldsters are going to start dropping like flies; time marches on and none of us are immune.

    There really is no effective “younger guard” coming from behind who will be able to hold onto the baton. Things are morphing into a different “race” and they’re going to lose. The very definition of power is changing – from power “over” to power “to.”

    The world is waking up; the future belongs to the young.

    • dahoit
      dahoit
      February 25, 2012, 2:06 pm

      I think you’ve got it backwards.All the younger world leaders(Obomba,Cameron,Sarkosy,Sakashiavilli,Clinton(A young wanna be sea hag) ) et al-all poison ivy league morons),in love with lies spewn at them for their whole lives,are the impetus for this global wacko war of terror,and it is the elder folk,raised on a non(or relatively)biased media system that put America first instead of last, speaking the truth.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 7:12 pm

        dahoit, but it’s only a small part of the American elders that have it right, same as it’s only a small part of the younger American folks who have it right. Palestinians, for example, need to know this.

  20. Taxi
    Taxi
    February 25, 2012, 1:14 am

    White Americans attacked by israeli firsters. Things are moving forward very nicely.

    I can’t help myself: I feel glee to see israeli firsters visibly shaken to the point of violence in pubic places heh heh heh.

    • annie
      annie
      February 25, 2012, 1:32 am

      i think we share a certain appreciations taxi

    • annie
      annie
      February 25, 2012, 1:47 am

      wow, it’s at 102,000 viewings. when i first saw it at 11:00 last night it was at 300. it’s gone viral.
      awesome danya, all these protestors, awesome. way to spread the news.

  21. annie
    annie
    February 25, 2012, 3:03 am

    if anyone is interested in the kind of islamophobia this freak darwish pushes…

  22. Cliff
    Cliff
    February 25, 2012, 3:03 am

    I forgot to mention that any honest debate with StandWithUs is impossible and they aren’t worthy of any consideration.

    Same goes for CUFI.

    Although, it would be acceptable and advantageous to challenge them to a public debate.

    We have seen members of CUFI and SWU attempt to make viral videos (and fail). One such video was of a Christmas day, present-opening w/ some otherwise plain-looking, average, blonde American girl.

    In the video she is upset she got a book by Ron Paul. Some jackass in the background is initially heard saying ‘You see, my problem with Ron Paul is…’ and then the girl starts to freak out.

    The entire video was staged and posted by some Zionist blog, on YT w/ a description saying ‘A girl receives Ron Paul’s book’ or something along those lines.

    They tried to present this girl as just another apolitical, or in-the-middle-of-the-road young college student.

    After looking into the story for all of 5 minutes, I found (even before 972+ writers were able to), her Facebook/LinkED/etc.

    She was a college Republican/president of her college’s CUFI and a regional assistant director for StandWithUs or something along those lines. Oh and she is a campaigner for Romney too I believe.

    So it was all a setup.

    We all know other examples of StandWithUs ‘rigging the debate’ so I don’t think it needs to be elaborated upon.

    David Green should substantiate his lazy false dichotomy/equivocation.

    • David Green
      David Green
      February 25, 2012, 10:47 am

      “David Green should substantiate his lazy false dichotomy/equivocation.”

      I’m obviously not defending these groups. At this point, the pro-Palestinian groups are free to organize and act in various ways. I’m not a big fan of the construct of “hate speech” (because it’s been exploited by the Zionists, for one), but it should be noted that what is being practiced is a form of hate speech. Without violating free speech, efforts should be made by pro-justice students and others to broaden the notion of hate speech to include people like Darwish. It should especially be done with people like Daniel Pipes, and it has been done in the past where I live.

      My view is that events that end up in melees tend not to further the cause, whoever can be blamed.

      • American
        American
        February 25, 2012, 1:01 pm

        “At this point, the pro-Palestinian groups are free to organize and act in various ways. “…David

        At this point I think you can drop the description “Pro Palestine” groups and trying to portray I/P as some fight between Israel and Palestine to try and capitalize on US familiarity with Israel and as one that has nothing to do with the US.
        There’s a reason Code Pink signs say End the Occupation. Everyone in the world knows occupation= bad, even if they know nothing about the country occupied.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 1:15 pm

        Fair enough – actually no. Not at all.

        You want us to dialogue w/ Darwish and others sponsered by SWU and their affiliates.

        Do you want us to dialogue w/ the Israeli government and their Brand Israel project too?

        Do you think Palestinian voices should be balanced w/ Zionist voices?

        All you want is to make this more complicated than it is because you care more about upsetting Zionists than you do supporting the Palestinians.

        My view is that events that end up in melees tend not to further the cause, whoever can be blamed.

        You continue to push this convoluted characterization of the events in the video.

        It’s really simple, Green.

        The protesters, protested. Then they were violently assaulted by the audience.

        There isn’t any conspiracy to this. We have two angles. We see it happening in real-time.

        You make the statement:

        “whoever can be blamed”

        Which implies that the protesters could possibly be blamed for their own assault.

        Absolute BS.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 25, 2012, 1:36 pm

        @Phil/Adam

        Why was this particular reply of mine, to David Green – allowed through?

        The other comment I made to Green was not profane and did not violate any of the comment rules.

      • David Green
        David Green
        February 25, 2012, 4:11 pm

        I’ve never advocated “dialogue” with Zionist groups. Never. You just make that up to fit your stereotype of people you oppose.

      • American
        American
        February 25, 2012, 5:15 pm

        David,

        Why don’t you just explain exactly what your position is on I/P and Israel as well as Israel-US relationship.
        Are you for One state?
        Are you for Two states?
        Are you for Israel returning all confiscated land to Palestine?
        Are you for the US continuing billions in aid to Israel.

        You need to make your position clear if you want people to respond reasonably and accurately to your statements.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 5:19 pm

        When is the last time David Duke, or any of his acronym front organizations, were allowed to hold a forum at any American college or university? Duke claims to speak for whites (Christian or otherwide) in a world where whites are fast becoming an even more distinct minority as a factual matter–just look at the latest US Census stats. David Green, would you fight for David Duke to speak at UNM as you have for Ms Mustafa? That is to say, would you allow those audience attendees who agree with Duke, to push and shove another part of the audience who broke into his speech with a mouth mic-chant? Just asking.

        PS: Where were the local campus cops in this fray?

      • annie
        annie
        February 25, 2012, 5:27 pm

        would you fight for David Duke to speak at UNM as you have for Ms Mustafa?

        do you mean ms darwish? i have not heard david supporting for Ms Mustafa in this thread. maybe i should try reading between the lines, as if that would help.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Whatever, Annie, I want to know what is the litmus test for somebody to be allowed to speak on any US college campus?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 26, 2012, 8:33 am

        Yes, my mistake, Annie. Thanks. I meant, “… would you fight for David Duke to speak at UNM as you have for Ms Darwish?”

      • annie
        annie
        February 26, 2012, 12:25 pm

        that’s what i figured citizen. it didn’t seem like david had been fighting for the right of danya’s voice to be heard. i was making a little joke when i said maybe i should try reading between the lines, as if that would help, but i wasn’t altogether clear.

        what is the litmus test for somebody to be allowed to speak on any US college campus?

        one thing i learned from hostage with the irving 11 episode is that agents/representatives of a foreign government do not have a right to freedom of speech to spread propaganda on our universities. first and foremost i would imagine the rights of students of that university to have their speech protected (even if it is loud) should be sacrosanct.

  23. FreddyV
    FreddyV
    February 25, 2012, 6:20 am

    One thing I’m puzzled about. This article reads like something of a shock turn of events. Really? Do you expect Israel Firsters and Christian Fundies to be nice when they hold the most belligerent views of all the Judeo Christian faiths and a bunch of people turn up to their event and start criticising their Golden Calf?

    I think we’ll see far worse than this.

  24. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 25, 2012, 11:40 am

    I am always torn about interrupting conferences. Know it shakes people out of complacency and often the only think that does. But I still have some reservations. The man at 17 seconds was so angry he could barely maintain. Well he did not. And the woman with the blue shirt was also out of control. Awareness is growing.

    • American
      American
      February 25, 2012, 12:37 pm

      I’m often 50-50 on disruption. If the venue is one where there are zionist vr anti zionist or Israel firsters vr anti Israel firster and they get equal time, fine, no disruption.
      But you will notice zionist never put themselves in that position if they can help it.
      Their purpose is to disseminate propaganda unquestioned.
      So I think “intimidating” their propagandist, disrupting and shaking them up is a good tactic in a lot of cases.
      Offense not defense is the key to beating them.

    • David Green
      David Green
      February 25, 2012, 12:37 pm

      Does the fact that somebody becomes enraged make the argument one way or another? I’ve become enraged at Zionist events several times. That doesn’t in and of itself discredit or support my case.

      There are free speech issues here. They are not always paramount or determinative. They may not be relevant in some instances. But they are there, especially in an educational environment. And once again, what’s good for the goose will be good for the gander. Does BDS, etc., want to go this route?

      There’s serious pressure for thoughtless conformity on Mondoweiss, and all of the usual suspects above have had their say. I find it somewhat repellant, somewhat discouraging. There are those who in their self-righteousness and litmus tests make for a smaller tent, unnecessarily so.

      This is an issue that won’t go away in the Palestinian movement and on Mondoweiss, whatever my involvement. Don’t think that there aren’t plenty of people who agree with me, however visible or invisible they may be.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 5:42 pm

        Mr Green, anyway you cut it, it was the rabid Zionists who engaged physically to send free speech. And, it was the anti-Zionist audience members who represented the powerless (the Palestinians)–once upon a time, there were anti-slavery advocates in America who disrupted the status quo (with its police power), and this was repeated in the long fight against Jim Crow. Don’t you think it’s a bit much to ask us here on MW to play purely by college debate rules, the Queen of Marxsbury rules on boxing, when Palestinians are forced to live as no jew wants to live, or any American? And, now ask yourself, who at the meeting subject here became physically violent? It was not those representing those who are not even considered in forceful US foreign policy except rhetorically–why do you liberal views of free speech rights to harp at those representing a view hardly heard at all in the American mainstream media? And again, who are the brownshirts in this video clip subject here? Old jewish geezers who have no clue that the Nuremberg Trials were done for the whole world, not just Jews.

      • AbuGreg
        AbuGreg
        February 25, 2012, 7:11 pm

        [i]I’ve never advocated “dialogue” with Zionist groups. Never. You just make that up to fit your stereotype of people you oppose.[/i]

        I don’t understand how you can accuse him of “just making that up” when the basic point you’ve been hammering in this thread is that anti-apartheid activists should let pro-apartheid activists speak their full mind in a public forum. What are you advocating if not dialogue? What is to be gained from sitting and gritting your teeth silently while a card-carrying Jihad Watch member spouts off about whatever solution to the “Muslim Question” she came up with that day?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 25, 2012, 7:33 pm

        David Green, let us know when we MW commenters attack anyone physically anywhere.

      • kapok
        kapok
        February 26, 2012, 11:53 am

        To hell with free speech! A privileged sect that’s manuevering my country into a pointless war needs to be stopped. With extreme prejudice.

  25. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    February 25, 2012, 7:06 pm

    David Green’s delicate sensibilities are offended by those who would interrupt a public speaking forum that supports the status quo of Israeli aparthied and ethnic cleansing. What do you suggest, Mr. Green?

Leave a Reply