Trending Topics:

Egyptian massacre exposes US hypocrisy in Israel and Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 242 Comments

I’m deeply confused by the events in Egypt: by the apparent widespread public support for the massacre of Islamists, by the Muslim Brothers’ hand in sectarian violence, and by the evidence that these events are being driven by Egyptians not by outsiders. A people’s self-determination can mean a people’s choice of conservatism and fascism; the American people reelected George W. Bush in 2004 in some large measure because they believed he had enhanced their security. And I wonder to what extent Egyptian attitudes are today driven by fear that their society will dissolve into another Syria. 

Putting aside my confusion, I go to my area; and here are a few ways that the Egyptian example exposes the hypocrisy of our policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

–The numbers of Muslim Brothers and others slaughtered by the Egyptian government is still less than the number of Palestinians killed during Israel’s 3-week onslaught on Palestine in 2008-2009 also in the name of suppressing violent Islamists (about 1400). Obama and Kerry spoke out immediately against the massacre of the Brothers last week. But on the occasion of the Israeli slaughter– which galvanized outrage around the world– Obama was silent for the 3 weeks preceding his taking the oath of office and always approving since. And Samantha Power won the ambassadorship to the UN recently in part by bragging that she had helped defeat the UN’s efforts to account for Israel’s human rights violations in that massacre.

–The Muslim Brotherhood is now widely described (by Egyptian government propagandists and Coptic Christians) as a terrorist organization. But the United States rightly insists that the Muslim Brotherhood be included in a democratic government. This policy utterly contradicts our policy in Palestine, where the same mainstream/government bloc paints Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the United States goes along with the Israelis and insists that Hamas be excluded from all political arrangements. It’s completely hypocritical and destructive of the principle of self-determination.

–The next time you hear someone lecture the Palestinians about their need to reconcile politically, reflect that the difference between secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas is a chasm in Egypt and surely in Syria too. It’s a deep cultural/political divide inside several Arab polities. Of course I hope that they reconcile, too; but it’s kind of like telling the Tea Party and the Democratic Party to break bread if they were living under occupation. 

–Of course, the religious element is the most disheartening and grievous aspect of the Egyptian coup and the events that followed. When conflicts become religious, people who once got along are willing to burn their neighbors’ houses to the ground, as we’ve seen in the Balkans, Algeria, and Syria. While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians (that people have agency in their affairs, and that people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic), many of my friends on the left differ. As Ed  Moloney speculates: “Out of sight, as now seems more than credible, the Obama WH, the upper crust of the Egyptian military and Israel were embarking on the same mission for very different reasons, using a feigned concern for the wellbeing of ordinary Egyptians to advance their own narrow interests…” I’d broaden the issue to this: what role did Zionism have in inflaming these religious divisions? What role has the successful implantation of violent Jewish nationalism had in causing religious wars in the Middle East? That’s where I can play a part, after all. What model can an American (and Jew) attempt to provide in these circumstances? My American model: to reject religious supremacist ideas.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

242 Responses

  1. NormanF
    NormanF
    August 22, 2013, 11:52 am

    The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian terrorist movement. Its anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-gay and anti-Western. It seeks to wage jihad and impose an Islamic Caliphate upon the world. Its the Islamic equivalent of the Nazis! It has NO place in a democracy. It needs to be wiped out so millions of lives can be saved and people can live in freedom! If democracy means people can vote to enslave their neighbors and themselves, then democracy must be nullified. The Egyptians understand far better than any one else the true nature of the MB and we should be deferring to their judgment. Obama and Kerry do not understand the Middle East and their policies are leading to disaster for the US in an important part of the world. We must not tolerate Islamists any more than we tolerated the Nazis or the Japanese militarists.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      August 22, 2013, 12:11 pm

      This is a genocidal statement. I’m leaving it here so that folks can understand the attitude. Doesn’t bode well for peace….

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 22, 2013, 12:14 pm

        Norman lives in some settlement so he’s not a regular Israeli.
        But it’s bad for the IDF who have so many Normans in the ranks.

        “We must not tolerate Islamists any more than we tolerated the Nazis or the Japanese militarists.”

        That is deluded. Most of the people in the Middle East are Muslim.
        Maybe the Bots should have gone to Patagonia.

      • NormanF
        NormanF
        August 22, 2013, 9:05 pm

        Egyptians are Muslims. They decided they didn’t want to live in an Iranian-style theocratic tyranny. Millions of them went out in the streets to demand the army avert that future. And we’re to tell them, they’re wrong to change their minds? And what about the Christians who don’t want to be second class citizens under Islamic Sharia? They don’t get a voice? Or what about women?

        The Muslim Brotherhoood’s adherence to democracy is tactical. I think the Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan famously put it, “that’s like a streetcar. You just have to know when to get off it.” Men who believe divine law is absolute are not going to tolerate dissent or disagreement. There are people in this world who want to enslave, torture and kill us.

        Its not that cut and dried in the Middle East as a lot of people seem to believe.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 22, 2013, 10:20 pm

        [email protected];

        That is deluded. Most of the people in the Middle East are Muslim. Maybe the Bots should have gone to Patagonia.

        Speaking of delusion , the bots as you call them didn’t go to Patagonia for the simple reason that JERUSALEM isn’t there , dummy.

        A typically lazy , blasé , blasé comment from you ;

        Most of the people in the Middle East are Muslim

        So?Many Muslims are busy tearing their countries like Iraq and Syria to pieces due to the great Sunni Shia divide

        Also in Egypt the current crisis arises because of a deep divide between secular forces and Islamist forces.

        Minorities in the ME are suffering and have suffered because of the Muslims inability to overcome their sectarian hatreds of other Muslims never mind their hatred of minorities

        Perhaps that explains the persecution of the Middle East’s Christians and Jews…

        The 1800s witnessed a multitude of attacks against Jews in Aleppo, Damascus, Beirut, Dayr al-Qamar, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Cairo, Mansura, Alexandria, Port Said, and Damanhur. The 1900s were even more frightful, the most notable massacre occurring in 1941 in Baghdad: 175 Jews killed and nearly 1000 injured. These attacks were historically traumatizing events for communities that had considered themselves (and had been considered) integral to the fabric of Arab society. In Egypt, the ostensible focus of Massad’s case, Jews were harassed, attacked without recourse to justice and were even made to disappear, as archives from the International Committee of the Red Cross indicate.

        http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/joseph-massads-ignorance-of-arab-jewry

        From the days of my early childhood in Egypt, anti-Semitism was not only a common phenomenon, it has been a national characteristic of my country. From Alexandria to Aswan, in every city and small town along the Nile river, anti-Jewish propaganda can be easily found in mosques, bookstores, on the radio, in newspapers and on TV.

        Cont…

        http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-holy-anti-semitic-month-of-ramadan

        AJC: Egypt’s Coptic Community Needs ProtectionNEW YORK, Aug. 14, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — AJC is appalled by the ongoing, targeted attacks on Egypt’s Coptic community. One of the oldest churches in Egypt, built in the 4th century, the Virgin Mary in Minya, was destroyed by fire today, an Egyptian human rights activist has tweeted. Media have reported attacks on churches in the city of Suez and churches in other villages were also attacked, according to media reports.

        Cont…

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/ajc-egypt-copts-idUSnPNDC64344+1e0+PRN20130814

        However, our problem is that we are our worse enemy. We are caught in a stupid and artificial Shia-Sunni feud that was brought into life by our enemies, and also by our inability to become citizens instead of faithfuls. Anyone reasoning in these sectarian terms is an enemy worse than the Zionists, the enemy from within.

        https://www.facebook.com/dyab.a.jahjah?fref=ts

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 23, 2013, 10:50 am

        Miriam, honey

        The rabbis pre “the first aliyah” had very wise injunctions regarding Jews trying to take over the Holy Land.
        Demonising Islam while attempting to sow chaos all over the ME is not a good idea.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 12:39 pm

        Speaking of delusion , the bots as you call them didn’t go to Patagonia for the simple reason that JERUSALEM isn’t there , dummy

        The vast majority of bots didn’t give a damn about where Jerusalem was dummy, seeing as Palestine was not where they wanted to go dummy.

        First of all, Herzl did even consider Palestine as a location for the Jewish state at first. Other locations from Africa to outback Australia were considered.

        Secondly , the vast majority of Jews were opposed to the creations of a Jewish state, including the Jews already living in Palestine.

        Thirdly, most wanted to go up the US or elsewhere, but were forced to opt for Palestine because Zionists in the US lobbied the government to limit Jewish immigrant intakes do that they would be forced to go to Palestine.

        More recently, the Israeli government lobbied the German government to limit the amount of benefits Jewish immigrants from Russia could claim to stem the tide of Russian Jews opting for Germany over Israel.

        So?Many Muslims are busy tearing their countries like Iraq and Syria to pieces due to the great Sunni Shia divide

        A far lazier , blasé , blasé comment seeing as Europe tore itself apart TWICE with two world wars within 30 years, and did so in more that 2 countries.

        Minorities in the ME are suffering and have suffered because of the Muslims inability to overcome their sectarian hatreds of other Muslims never mind their hatred of minorities

        Wow, that’s rich seeing as the two worst wars in history too plane in Europe as well as the worse Genovese in recent history of minorities.

        You really are trying to outdo your own skill at oping mouths to change feet.

        The 1900s were even more frightful, the most notable massacre occurring in 1941 in Baghdad: 175 Jews killed and nearly 1000 injured

        Typical selective Hasbara. What a potty this lying shill never bothers to mention that Jews in Badghdad enjoyed price large and ago of life before WWII. He prefers to rely on some fiction that anti Semitism magically reared it’s ugly head for no reason.

        He’ll never tell you that the flight from Baghdad of Iraq’s Jews was incited by Jewish terrorists setting off bombs against Jewish targets in Baghdad.

        He’ll never tell you that the massacre in 1941 in Baghdad was the results of British incitement to create a pretext for British to take Baghdad in anticipation that the Iraqi leadership was about to kick the British out of Iraq, and that much if the carnage was perpetrated by Gurkas under orders from Britain.

        From the days of my early childhood in Egypt, anti-Semitism was not only a common phenomenon, it has been a national characteristic of my country.

        It might well have been, but not enough to threaten the presence of Jewish communities in those states. It was only when the Zionists began committing massacred against Arabs in Israel that they were forced to leave – over a period of 30 years.

        One of the oldest churches in Egypt, built in the 4th century, the Virgin Mary in Minya, was destroyed by fire today..

        Typical Zionist hypocrisy Miriam. Israel has destroyed hundreds of mosques and Christian churches in Palestine.

        You’re the queen of hypocrisy and double standards, not to mention. selective outrage.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        August 22, 2013, 12:47 pm

        @NormanF and Phil.
        The statement is only not genocidal, but is clear and correct to the last point of it. Muslim Brotherhood denies the rights of minorities and seeks to obliterate its opponents. That is precisely why they under such scrutiny in Egypt and are hated non less than those “evil Zionists”. Throwing the big words as “Genocide” and “Apartheid” has become a fashion here and at other “progressive” crowds- it looks as ridiculous as every criticism of Israel to be branded “Antisemitic” and “Blood Libel”.

      • peeesss
        peeesss
        August 22, 2013, 1:41 pm

        “Muslim Brotherhood denies the rights of minorities and seeks to obliterate its opponents.” Isn’t that what The Zionist State of Israel has been doing to its opponents, Palestinian Muslims and Christians , for the past 65 years.?

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        August 22, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Israel is an apartheid State.

        You are exactly the type of Zionist who cries blood libel and antisemitism at every turn anyway so don’t whitewash Israeli criminality by issuing your lame equivocations.

        The MB are not Nazis and calling for their extermination IS genocide.

        You put ‘evil Zionists’ in quotations as if Zionism is a benign ideology.

        Zionism is evil – as is all colonialism. You are not a moderate. You are a Jewish nationalist and proponent of COLONIALISM.

        Have the honesty to embrace what you are.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2013, 5:08 pm

        Throwing the big words as “Genocide” and “Apartheid” has become a fashion here . . .

        Nobody here is throwing around accusations. The UN Apartheid Convention has a non-exhaustive list of specific acts that constitute the crime against humanity.
        http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/apartheid-supp.html

        Palestine submitted an 800 page dossier to the International Court of Justice that was backed-up by a 1,000 page dossier from the Secretary General, UN Special Rapporteurs, and UN fact finding missions. Those written briefs documented the fact that Israel is committing nearly every constituent act listed in the Convention on the Suppression of Apartheid.
        Written Statement of Palestine (especially Chapter 10)
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1555.pdf
        Dossier and written brief of the UN Secretary General
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1497.pdf
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1557.pdf

        Israel is not a party to either the Rome Statute or the UN Apartheid Convention. So the Court could not cite Israeli violations of any obligations under the terms of those particular treaty instruments.

        But it could employ the same legal tests it used on South African apartheid policies in the Nambia case to declare them illegal acts, i.e. violation of the right of self-determination and the fundamental rights contained in the UN Charter and UN Human Rights Conventions, like the ICCPR, ICESCR, & UNCRC.

        The UN Apartheid Convention simply prohibits violations of the lists of rights enumerated in the Charter and UN human rights conventions
        See the legal analysis in paragraphs 102-111 and the findings of fact in paragraphs 132-134.
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        FYI, many of the findings correspond exactly to constituent acts of the crime of apartheid listed in Article 2 of the UN Convention, and it only takes one to convict the responsible official or officials for crimes committed on the territory of the State of Palestine.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2013, 5:33 pm

        P.S. The preamble of the UN Apartheid Convention notes that several acts listed in the Convention on Genocide may also be considered acts of Apartheid.

        The ICJ found that Israel had cutoff many Palestinian enclaves from their normal sources of water, agricultural lands, and any alternative sources of sustenance. It also noted that Israel had interfered with their freedom of movement. Reports published in the Lancet and the Goldstone findings about persecution, deliberate destruction of sources of sustenance by the IDF, and interference with delivery of international aid to Gaza, indicate a desire to impose conditions of life so severe that they have resulted in malnutrition, stunted growth, and permanent developmental disabilities that have threaten the survival and well being of a significant portion of the population.

        Several interested state parties in the Wall case pointed out that fact to the Court in their written briefs. For example here is an extract from the Written Statement of Lebanon to the ICJ:

        “The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment.”

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1563.pdf

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 22, 2013, 5:40 pm

        ” Throwing the big words as “Genocide” and “Apartheid” has become a fashion here it looks as ridiculous as every criticism of Israel to be branded “Antisemitic” and “Blood Libel”.”

        Fail.
        The Apartheid word really gets to Israel.
        Bring it on.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        August 22, 2013, 6:13 pm

        @Hostage.
        A few thoughts about your comments here and the general line, you’ve been promoting here.
        First, when the Palestinians will be defined as the racial group of people- please make sure to start talking about the apartheid. This the exact wording present in all the legal documents, defining the crime of apartheid. But don’t forget that it will backfire again, as always, since Jews in Israel will present the same claim and argue against apartheid cleansing of ALL Jewish communities around Arab world.
        Second, human rights violations are indeed a bad thing, but only when are presented by the unbiased sources to the court ( see the recent case of Syria, where your crowd has been scratching his head over the alleged crimes or non- crimes of both parties ). Citing the special rapporteur, I presume Mr. Falk and his kind, including the statements by the Lebanon (sic) is just beyond contempt and insults the intelligence of the general public.
        There were and still are lots of national conflicts around the globes, same as in Israel, but none of them was defined as the apartheid. By babbling ” apartheid” every time the national rights of Palestinians are violated or not, makes a mockery of the real pain and suffering of the black people in South Africa.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 22, 2013, 7:05 pm

        Throwing the big words as “Genocide” and “Apartheid” has become a fashion here and at other “progressive” crowds

        Wheras commuting these crimes has been fashionable in Israel.

      • annie
        annie
        August 22, 2013, 9:21 pm

        @NormanF and Phil.
        The statement is only not genocidal, but is clear and correct to the last point of it

        dim, maybe you didn’t understand phil’s point when he said “This is a genocidal statement. I’m leaving it here so that folks can understand the attitude.

        normally genocidal comments such as norms don’t make it thru moderation here. i think phil was making an example with the comment, not offering it up for debate.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 22, 2013, 10:28 pm

        Eichmann was tried for the crime of genocide in Israel and found guilty

        You just like to open your mouth and let your belly rumble

        Wheras commuting these crimes has been fashionable in Israel.

        Name a UN resolution that accuses Israel of genocide

        Well ,of course you can’t because you are throwing senseless accusations around again

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 22, 2013, 10:51 pm

        Robbins

        If the subject is not up for debate then why are YOU bringing it up?

        Tell me, is Norm in a position to commit genocide?!

        How laughable

        You are trivialising genocide

        You are merely expressing hatred of speech you don’t care for , that’s all…

        The upheavals in Egypt are all of the Egyptian people’s own making and yet somehow – Philip Weiss still wants to blame Israel

        The movement to censor speech deemed offensive and hurtful to presumptively vulnerable or historically oppressed groups is also a triumph for the most regressive tenets of contemporary progressivism. Campus speech, civility, and harassment codes reflect and reinforce the now-conventional “progressive” view that speech rights should yield to some imagined right not to be insulted or offended. The censorious effects of this new “right” are felt on and off campus.

        “Free speech does not include hate speech,” adherents of this view often explain absurdly. In fact, guarantees of free speech exist to protect unpopular, offensive, or “hateful” speech that many people would rather not hear. Liberals and self-identified progressives bear much of the blame for popularizing this dangerous nonsense about the regulatory limits that may be imposed on speech in the interests of civility or inoffensiveness. It should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, that the right to speak is nullified when made contingent on the willingness of people with opposing views to listen.

        http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=kaminer_28_3

        http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/vol_28/3/kaminer.jpg

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 23, 2013, 9:25 am

        “Muslim Brotherhood denies the rights of minorities “dimodak.

        Zionists deny the rights of minorities.

        ““Facts on Israel’s systemic discrimination against non-Jewish inhabitants.
        Susan abulhawa
        • Section 5 in the Law of Political Parties and section 7A of the Basic Law: Stipulates that any party platform that calls for full and complete equality between Jews and non-Jews, can be disqualified from any political post. The law demands that Palestinian Arab citizens may not challenge the state’s Zionist identity.
        • Law of Return: “Every Jew has the right to become a citizen no matter where they come from” while the indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants who were expelled in 1948 are expressly barred from returning to their homes
        • Nakba Law: Penalizes any institution that commemorates or publicly mourns the expulsion of the native Palestinian population
        • Anti-boycott law: Provides anyone calling for the boycott of Israel, or its illegal settlements, can be sued by the boycott’s targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. The court will then decide how much compensation is to be paid.
        • Admission Committees Law formally allows neighborhood screening committees to prevent non-Jewish citizens from living in Jewish communities that control 81 percent of the territory in Israel. In March 2011 Israel passed a law to allow residents of Jewish towns to refuse non Jews from living in their communities.
        • Amendment to the Citizenship Law: Stipulates that an Israeli citizen who marries a Palestinian cannot live as a couple in Israel with his or her spouse. A Palestinian spouse can neither gain citizenship nor residency.
        • 93% of the land, the vast majority of which was confiscated from Palestinian owners after 1948, can only be owned by Jewish agencies for the benefit of Jews only. One of these agencies is the Jewish National Fund, which, in its charter forbids sale or lease to non-Jews.
        • Specified Goods Tax and Luxury Tax Law [art 26, Laws of the State of Israel, vol. 6, p. 150 (1952)] Authorizes lower import taxes for Jewish citizens of Israel compared with non-Jewish citizens of Israel.
        • National Planning and Building Law (1965) Through various zoning laws freezes the growth of existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion Jewish settlements and creation of new ones. The law also re-classifies a large portion of established Arab villages as “unrecognized” and therefore nonexistent, allowing the state to cut off water and electricity as well as to simply appropriate that property.
        • Appropriations are carried out under The Requisitions Law which allows a “competent authority” to requisition the land – called “land requisition order” – so that only he may “use and exploit the land” as he sees fit. This applies to “home requisition orders” as well, whereby another “competent authority” who can “order the occupier of a house to surrender the house to the control of a person specified in the order, for residential purposes or for any other use, as may be prescribed in the order. “
        • In the education sector within Israel, as an example, the state spends $192 per year per non-Jewish student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student.
        • There is a planned Mosque Law that will prohibit the broadcasting of the Muslim call to prayer, which has been sounding over that land since the beginning of Islam.
        • Non-Jews living in the West Bank are denied access to the holy places of Jerusalem, which are only a few kilometers away from them.
        • ALSO, for the first time in the history of Islam and the history of Christianity, Palestinian Muslims and Christians in the West Bank and Gaza are denied access to their holy Places of Jerusalem, even on the high holy days of Eid, Christmas, and Easter Sunday.
        • Since Israel took the West Bank, the Christian population has declined from 20,000 in 1967 to less than 7500 today.
        • Military Order 1229: authorizes Israel to hold Palestinians in administrative detention for up to six months without charge or trial. Six-month detentions can be renewed indefinitely, without charge or trial.
        • Military Order 329 and 1650 effectively prevents Palestinians from being anywhere in the West Bank without a specific permit to be there, making it a criminal offense to go from one Palestinian town to another.
        • Military Oder #92 and #158: gives the Israeli military control of all water resources in the West Bank, which belongs to Palestinians.
        • Israel then allows the Palestinians access to only a fraction of the shared water resources, while unlawful Israeli settlements there receive virtually unlimited supplies creating a reality of green lawns and swimming pools for Jewish settlers and a parched life for Palestinians, whose access to water, according to the World Health Organization does not meet the minimum requirements for basic human water needs.
        • Furthermore, that fraction of confiscated Palestinian water is sold to Palestinians at 300% more than what it costs Jewish settlers in the same area. ($1.20/cubic meter vs $.40/cubic meter).
        • Military Orders #811 and #847: Allows Jews to purchase land from unwilling Palestinian sellers by using “power of attorney”.
        • Military Order #25: forbids public inspection of land transactions.
        • Militar Order #998: requires Palestinians to get Israeli military permission to make a withdrawal from their bank account.
        • Military Order #128: gives the Israeli military the right to take over any Palestinian business which is not open during regular business hours.
        • Military Order #138 & #134: forbids Palestinians from operating tractors or other heavy farm machinery on their land.
        • Military Order #93: gives all Palestinian insurance businesses to the Israeli Insurance Syndicate.
        • Military Order # 1015: requires Palestinians to get Israeli military permission to plant and grow fruit trees. This permit expires every year.
        • Through various military orders, according to the WHO, Israel has uprooted 2.5 million trees belonging to Palestinians, and which often represent their only means of sustenance.

        • (UNICEF): “Conditions have rarely been worse for Palestinian children.” One in 10 Palestinian children now suffer from stunted growth due to compromised health, poor diet and nutrition and 50% of Palestinian children are anemic, and 75% of those under 5 suffer from vitamin A deficiency.
        • Palestinian children are routinely imprisoned for months and years for throwing stones at Israeli jeeps, tanks, and soldiers. Many of them, as young as 12 years old, are tortured and held in solitary confinement.
        • Meanwhile, for bludgeoning a 10 year old Palestinian boy (Hilmi Shusha) to death with the butt of his rifle, an Israeli settler received community service and a fine.
        • A Palestinian man was convicted of rape and sentenced to 1.5 years in prison for having consensual sex with a Jewish woman, because he did not disabuse her of her assumption that he was Jewish.

        The above was posted by an MW participant on an earlier thread.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:02 pm

        First, when the Palestinians will be defined as the racial group of people- please make sure to start talking about the apartheid. This the exact wording present in all the legal documents, defining the crime of apartheid

        Why don’t you try reading those documents before embarrassing yourself further?

        The Apartheid Convention declares that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that “inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination” are international crimes (art. 1). Article 2 defines the crime of apartheid –“which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa” – as covering “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them
        http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html

        Israel regards Jews as a racial group, therefore the oppression and segregation of non Jews (which includes Palestinians) clearly qualified as apartheid.

        John Dugard, expert on international law and crimes if apartheid has compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/un-rapporteur-compares-israel-apartheid-south-africa/6779

        But don’t forget that it will backfire again, as always, since Jews in Israel will present the same claim and argue against apartheid cleansing of ALL Jewish communities around Arab world.

        No they won’t, because in order to do so, Israel would have to recognize and ratify the ICC, which would make the entire state liable to judgements from the ICC.

        Citing the special rapporteur, I presume Mr. Falk and his kind, including the statements by the Lebanon (sic) is just beyond contempt and insults the intelligence of the general public.

        Yawn, how lame can you get? Who do you think the public are dufus? Israel is already regarded as a rogue state who had negative approval ratings in all countries except the US, and it’s standing continues to fall.

        There were and still are lots of national conflicts around the globes, same as in Israel, but none of them was defined as the apartheid

        That’s because there is a difference between conflicts and apartheid as a government policy. Apartheid is one of a number of crimes against humanity.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:38 pm

        Tell me, is Norm in a position to commit genocide?!

        His government already is doing it on his behalf, and 200+ nukes days they can.

        You calm that laughable or are you a sociopath?

        You are merely expressing hatred of speech you don’t care for , that’s all…

        You are merely defending hate speech you agree with.

        The upheavals in Egypt are all of the Egyptian people’s own making and yet somehow – Philip Weiss still wants to blame Israel

        So does Israel dummy. The Israeli government us so wedded to the murderous Egyptian military that they are fighting to keep the aid flowing even as US law makers consider ending it. In fact, they are insisting the aid be a condition of any final agreement they reach with the Palestinians, do clearly they are happy with the job the Egyptian military us doing with butchering Egyptians and crushing Palestinians in Gaza.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:42 pm

        Eichmann was tried for the crime of genocide in Israel and found guilty

        I am pretty sure you could Bibbi tried by a Hanas court for the same crime. While Eichmann was clearly guilty, an Israeli court is hardly credible.

        Name a UN resolution that accuses Israel of genocide

        Name any UN Resolution accusing anyone of genocide.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 2:12 pm

        @Hostage.
        A few thoughts about your comments here and the general line, you’ve been promoting here. First, when the Palestinians will be defined as the racial group of people- please make sure to start talking about the apartheid.

        You must not read those documents very often. The first prohibition of apartheid in international law was Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Here’s how the ICERD defines racial discrimination:

        Article 1

        1. In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

        http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

        Israel is a contracting state party that openly discriminates against its own citizens on the basis of their so-called Arab “nationality” in violation of the ICERD.

        In 1998 the CERD, a treaty monitoring body consisting of a panel of experts elected by all of the state parties, advised that the status of the Jewish-only settlements was clearly inconsistent with the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies of racial segregation contained in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998.
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/89C006EAF4E7FCF585256DEA007480FE

        Here’s an extract from the latest report on Israel:

        The Committee notes with increased concern that Israeli society maintains Jewish and non-Jewish sectors, which raises issues under article 3 of the Convention. Clarifications provided by the delegation confirmed the Committee’s concerns in relation to the existence of two systems of education, one in Hebrew and one in Arabic, which except in rare circumstances remain impermeable and inaccessible to the other community, as well as separate municipalities: Jewish municipalities and the so-called “municipalities of the minorities”. The enactment of the Admissions Committees Law (2011), which gives private committees full discretion to reject applicants deemed “unsuitable to the social life of the community”, is a clear sign that the concerns as regards segregation remain pressing (Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Convention).

        The Committee is extremely concerned at the consequences of policies and practices which amount to de facto segregation, such as the implementation by the State party in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of two entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions for Jewish communities grouped in illegal settlements on the one hand and Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand. The Committee is particularly appalled at the hermetic character of the separation of two groups, who live on the same territory but do not enjoy either equal use of roads and infrastructure or equal access to basic services and water resources. Such separation is concretized by the implementation of a complex combination of movement restrictions consisting of the Wall, roadblocks, the obligation to use separate roads and a permit regime that only impacts the Palestinian population (Article 3 of the Convention)

        “The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its General Recommendation 19 (1995) concerning the prevention, prohibition and eradication of all policies and practices of racial segregation and apartheid, and urges the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate any such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention. CERD.C.ISR.CO.14-16
        http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ISR.CO.14-16.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Tell me, is Norm in a position to commit genocide?!

        FYI, the convention on the crime of genocide treats incitement and failed attempts as international crimes for which individuals can be held criminally liable.

        Any comment that publicly condones, denies, or trivializes a crime listed in the Rome Statute, like genocide, and targets members of a group on the grounds of their race, ethnicity, or nationality is a form of hate speech.
        http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_discrimination/l33178_en.htm

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 23, 2013, 2:31 pm

        @ miriam6 “Name a UN resolution that accuses Israel of genocide”

        http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r123.htm

        “Well ,of course you can’t because you are throwing senseless accusations around again”

        Why don’t you try some research before you wade around in the elephant sh*t?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 2:44 pm

        The very same UN organ that codified and defined the international crime of genocide in UN General Assembly resolution 260 A (III), also condemned the Sabra and Shatila camp massacres and declared them to be an example of the crime of genocide in the text of its resolution 37/123 Part D.
        *Resolution 260 A (III)
        link to un.org
        *Resolution 37/123 Part D
        link to un.org

        Israel is a State Party to the Genocide Convention. The Kahan Commission found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the planning, preparation and commission of the Sabra and Shatila massacres and a number of attempts were made to bring him to trial under various modes of liability in other countries, e.g. Malone, Linda A., “Trying to Try Sharon” (2001). Popular Media. Paper 108.
        http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/108

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 2:50 pm

        You are trivialising genocide

        You are merely expressing hatred of speech you don’t care for , that’s all…

        You are actually trivialising an example of hate speech. The French Union of Jewish Students took Twitter to Court in France over similar offensive online comments. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/technology/twitter-yields-to-pressure-in-hate-case-in-france.html?_r=0

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 23, 2013, 6:56 pm

        [email protected];

        Tell me, is Norm in a position to commit genocide?!

        NO!

        Shingo , yours and others arguments against what you call hate speech are part of a ridiculous doctrine built up by an afraid- of- freedom censorious so- called progressive liberal left that holds that allowing so called hate speech creates an environment in which genocide may become possible , so therefore limits must be imposed on so called hate speech by delineating certain speech as hate speech any speech which others might be uncomfortable with.

        Hitler could have ranted and raved all day long on any Viennese’s street corner but without a powerful army and the machinery ,infrastructure and bureaucracy of an all powerful modern industrialised capitalist state Hitler’s hate speech would have amounted to no more than a hill of beans.

        Same thing with the Turkish genocide of Armenians .

        The Turks also had the modern army and state with which to commit genocide.

        In the West our democracies are string and stable enough to allow tolerance of speech that may be repellent to us.

        In moaning about free speech you dislike you are simply denying that others have the agency and capability to think for THEMSELVES and can be trusted to do so!

        [email protected] said;

        His government already is doing it on his behalf, and 200+ nukes days they can.

        You make this statement just weeks after the death toll in Syria reached over 100,000 , showing you have no sense or sense of perspective whatsoever.

        The upheavals in Egypt are all of the Egyptian people’s own making and yet somehow – Philip Weiss still wants to blame Israel

        I am right

        The sectarian inclinations of Morsi’s short-lived government was one of the reasons at least half the population of Egypt hated Morsi’s government , and also it’s general incompetence at governance , coupled by the unseemly undemocratic eagerness of half the Egyptian population to oust Morsi before his democratically elected mandate ended.

        As for your accusation about Israel’s support of the current regime in Cairo – Israel is merely acting out of it’s own security , national and strategic interests as it is fully entitled to do.

        Israel’s main objective is to see that Cairo maintains it’s treaty obligations with Israel

        What’s more, Morsi’s government demonstrated its willingness to abide by previous peace treaties with Israel.

        Singling out Israel as culpable for exploiting the situation as though the coup has not found support/ denial of coup , elsewhere IS LAUGHABLE

        Equivocations and denial that what happened in Egypt was in fact a COUP are widespread.

        The US refuses to call it a coup, in fact John Kerry went so far as to applaud the military for

        restoring democracy

        The New York Times fudged the issue of whether or not it was a coup .

        The likes of Mona Eltahawy and spokesman for the wretched Occupy movement Laurie Penney have denied that a coup took place.

        So has the E.U’s Baroness Catherine Ashton who has already cozied up to Al sisi’s murderous regime.

        So has Tony Blair and even Amnesty International are alleged by writer Brendan O’Neill to have inadvertently provided propaganda for the Al- Sisi regime by way of a report Amnesty published alleging torture by Morsi’s government

        In fact the entire human rights industry have failed to really condemn the military regime in Egypt and have failed to declare an obvious coup a coup , so why single out Israel?

        The world and his wife has sought to deny a coup took place and is providing moral support and other support for the regime in Cairo .

        One of of the key reasons given by the Egyptian security forces for the destruction last week of pro-Morsi protest camps in Cairo and elsewhere is that the camps were harbouring terrorists, torturers and people with guns.

        The regime refers to its clampdown as a “war against terrorism”, against camps which are actually “terrorist bases” in which people are being “tortured”. It claims that “bodies bearing what appear to be marks of torture have been found [near the camps]”, which has been held up as further evidence that these are actually bases for extremist violence, not democratic protest points, and thus must be destroyed.

        Where did it get these ideas from? In part from Amnesty. One of Amnesty’s most notable contributions to the debate about Egypt over the past six weeks, following the military’s removal of Morsi on 3 July, was the publication of a report claiming that the pro-Morsi camps had become promoters of torture.

        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100231575/did-amnesty-international-unwittingly-assist-the-egyptian-military-in-its-bloody-crackdown-on-protesters/

        What we are witnessing is not simply a violent clampdown by men with guns, but effectively the Western-approved imposition of brute stability in Egypt and the bringing to an end of the Arab Spring and the idea that lay at the heart of it – namely, that Arab peoples are capable of determining their destinies free from external intervention or internal military control. That positive, spring-like belief might have been physically mown down by al-Sisi’s goons, but their guns were loaded by so-called Western liberals.

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the_army_pulled_the_trigger_but_the_west_loaded_the_gun/13925#.Uhfbc-JwbIUI

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/egpyt_latest/13869#.UhfYl-JwbIU

        ‘Democracy is a way of deciding the decision-makers, but it is not a substitute for making the decision’, says Blair, cryptically. This is an open invitation to the violent overthrowing of any elected government that fails to meet Blair’s or Mona Eltahawy’s or Cairo-based radicals’ expectations. And the millions of people who voted for Morsi? Screw them. They are mentally unequipped.

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/egypt_the_end_of_the_arab_spring/13801The#.UhfVk-JwbIU

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 23, 2013, 11:07 pm

        ” since Jews in Israel will present the same claim and argue against apartheid cleansing of ALL Jewish communities around Arab world.”

        But that does not absolve Israel of apartheid.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        August 24, 2013, 5:57 am

        Miriam666


        you say:

        Tell me, is Norm in a position to commit genocide?!

        How laughable

        You are trivialising genocide

        so it’s ok to call for genocide of people because they are

        A) not Jewish
        B) enemies of Israel

        you are truly a monster

        it does not matter whether someone has the capacity to exercise their hateful views or not

        you CAN’T even condemn a call for genocide

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 24, 2013, 2:32 pm

        A good many Palestinians did not regard themselves as “Arabs”. Years ago.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 24, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Shingo , yours and others arguments against what you call hate speech are part of a ridiculous doctrine built up by an afraid- of- freedom censorious so- called progressive liberal left

        No silly girl, it’s identifying hate speech as hate speech. Like it or not, this blog does have a clear set of guidelines as to what is or what is not allowed. Pretty much all blogs do, which is unfortunate, but necessary to prevent them descending into invective and trash talk.

        No one is is afraid of the crap Norman F and your other fellow travellers want to post here. We’ve seen and heard it al before, but allowing such hate speech to be posted will being the blog into disrepute, especially if similar hate speech is posted attacking Israel and it’s supporters.

        It’s not about creating an environment in which genocide may become possible, seeing as those environments already exist in states like Israel.

        Hitler could have ranted and raved all day long on any Viennese’s street corner but without a powerful army and the machinery ,infrastructure and bureaucracy of an all powerful modern industrialised capitalist state Hitler’s hate speech would have amounted to no more than a hill of beans.

        That’s hillarious coming from hypocrites like you and your ilk, who’s comments and arguments are almost entirely based on a foundation of the alledged nasty things Arabs and Iranians have said about Israel. So yes I agree, but Phil’s point was that NormanF’s comment is indictative of the ideology shared by many Israelis, certainly among those in power and yes, they most certainly do have the means and will to do it.

        In moaning about free speech you dislike you are simply denying that others have the agency and capability to think for THEMSELVES and can be trusted to do so!

        Stop being so pathetically dishonest. One of the reasons Phil and Adam had to implement censorship on this blog was to prevent it being highjacked by Nakba and Holocaust denial. Of course, the Nakba denial would have gone unnoticed, but Holocaust denial clearly would not have and this would have been very damaging to the reputation of this blog. When this was proposed by Phil, the consensus was that we agreed. Holocaust denial cannot be tolerated, no matter how much agency and capability to think for THEMSELVES and can be trusted to do so! you believe people have.

        You make this statement just weeks after the death toll in Syria reached over 100,000 , showing you have no sense or sense of perspective whatsoever.

        No, it shows the depths of your own ignorance. 100,000 deaths are abhorent, but they are not genocide. The nukes dropped by the US on Japan claimed that many lives each and Israel’s nukes are far deadlier and more sophisticated that those were.

        I am right

        No, you are delusional.

        The sectarian inclinations of Morsi’s short-lived government was one of the reasons at least half the population of Egypt hated Morsi’s government, and also it’s general incompetence at governance , coupled by the unseemly undemocratic eagerness of half the Egyptian population to oust Morsi before his democratically elected mandate ended.

        As for your accusation about Israel’s support of the current regime in Cairo – Israel is merely acting out of it’s own security , national and strategic interests as it is fully entitled to do.

        Not necessarily, if those intersts mean the Egyptians have to forgo their rights for the sae of Israel’s intersts. It makes Israel’s position repugnant and indicative of it’s reliance on the region remaining decidedly undemocratic. Israel and it’s supporters have always boasted that Israel is the only democracy in the region, but they usually fail to admit that this is how they wish to keep it.

        Israel’s main objective is to see that Cairo maintains it’s treaty obligations with Israel

        Correction: Israel’s main objective is to see that Cairo maintains it’s treaty obligations with Israel, while Israel gets to flout it’s own obligations.

        Singling out Israel as culpable for exploiting the situation as though the coup has not found support/ denial of coup , elsewhere IS LAUGHABLE

        What’s laughable is your denial of Israel’s culpablity. Israel exploits situations anywhere is can every time it can.

        Equivocations and denial that what happened in Egypt was in fact a COUP are widespread

        That’s beyond hillarious. Citing John Kerry and Mona Eltahawy is not evidence the denial is widespread. In fact, the writers from the blog you obsess over, spiked online, have already ridiculed Eltahawy’s idiocy.

        Congress is pushing for aid to Egypt to be cut because ti clearly was a coup.

        So has the E.U’s Baroness Catherine Ashton who has already cozied up to Al sisi’s murderous regime

        Even if that were true, it she does not deny it was a coup. In fact, Europe is calling for aid to Egypt to be cut.

        So has Tony Blair and even Amnesty International are alleged by writer Brendan O’Neill to have inadvertently provided propaganda for the Al- Sisi regime by way of a report Amnesty published alleging torture by Morsi’s government

        So what? That simply proves these actors were complicit, it i not evidence of widespread belief it was not a coup.

        In fact the entire human rights industry have failed to really condemn the military regime in Egypt and have failed to declare an obvious coup a coup , so why single out Israel?

        What are you babbling about? The UN has already condemened it silly girl.

        The world and his wife has universally recognized a coup took place, the only ones denying being a tiny minority. In fact, the US government has not denied it so much as tried to avoid using the term. The only moral support and other support for the regime in Cairo is coming from Saudi Arabia.

        One of of the key reasons given by the Egyptian security forces for the destruction last week of pro-Morsi protest camps in Cairo and elsewhere is that the camps were harbouring terrorists, torturers and people with guns.

        BS that no one is buying, except for Taxi.

        What we are witnessing is not simply a violent clampdown by men with guns

        The mens with guns are the Egyptian army, hence the victims being the Morsi supporters.

        ‘Democracy is a way of deciding the decision-makers, but it is not a substitute for making the decision’, says Blair, cryptically.

        You know you are scraping the barrel when you are quoting a repugnant war criminal with blood on his hands.

        Your post has desceneded into yet another one of your countless incoherent rants Mriam. You seem to have even forgot what it is you were trying to argue.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 24, 2013, 10:29 pm

        Shingo , yours and others arguments against what you call hate speech are part of a ridiculous doctrine built up by an afraid- of- freedom censorious so- called progressive liberal left that holds that allowing so called hate speech creates an environment in which genocide may become possible , so therefore limits must be imposed on so called hate speech by delineating certain speech as hate speech any speech which others might be uncomfortable with.

        As usual you’ve got your facts backwards. I pointed out in my comment that incitement to commit genocide is one of the specific criminal offenses that was covered by the International Convention on the Crime of Genocide from the very first day that it entered into force. Incitement to commit apartheid was also included as a specific criminal offense in the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

        Raphael Lemkin, who defined the crime of genocide and helped draft the terms of the UN convention, was a lawyer and a columnist for Haynt, a leading Zionist daily newspaper before WWII. An interview published in Unzer Weg (Our Way), the Displaced Persons journal, on 28 June 1946 stated that he had also been the General Secretary of a Zionist organization in pre-War Poland. http://www.aapjstudies.org/index.php?id=110

        Jewish and Zionist lobbying groups helped spearhead the efforts to criminalize hate speech through the adoption of memory laws and laws that criminalize:
        * any form of public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, color, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;
        * public condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal that are likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.
        * a public act done because of race, color or national or ethnic origin that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the group targeted.
        http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_discrimination/l33178_en.htm
        http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/racial-vilification-law-australia

        For example:
        * European Jewish communities have closely followed the six-year debate on the proposal, intervening on a number of occasions to express views to national and EU ministers. See UK Jews applaud EU anti-racism drive http://www.jpost.com/Cafe-Oleh/Ask-The-Expert/UK-Jews-applaud-EU-anti-racism-drive
        * Presented for the first time 7 years ago, the Framework Decision contains proposals that will enable EU member states to adopt legislation which will penalise those who seek to incite racial violence and hatred. It was promoted by the European Jewish Congress ever since. See Pan-European Jewish group applauds adoption of EU Framework to combat racism http://www.ejpress.org/printversion.aspx?idd=32868

        Jewish organizations and groups have been some of the most active litagators in cases involving these laws.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 24, 2013, 10:47 pm

        Hitler could have ranted and raved all day long on any Viennese’s street corner but without a powerful army and the machinery ,infrastructure and bureaucracy of an all powerful modern industrialised capitalist state Hitler’s hate speech would have amounted to no more than a hill of beans.

        Same thing with the Turkish genocide of Armenians .

        There are people serving jail sentences today for incitement to commit genocide who never killed anyone and who did not have a powerful army and the machinery, infrastructure and bureaucracy of an all powerful modern industrialised capitalist state at their disposal. See Dutch court jails Rwandan woman for incitement to genocide. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/01/us-rwanda-genocide-dutch-idUSBRE9200MR20130301

        In any event, Israeli officials have an enormous army and the machinery, infrastructure, and bureaucracy – including the legions of Hasbrats who publicly incite and encourage others to condone Israel’s crimes against occupied Palestinian and Syrian populations.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 25, 2013, 10:11 pm

        [email protected];

        I do NOT condone the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians.

        Your lack of perspective shows again when you focus on singular Israel’s diplomatic exploitation of the opportunity the coup has presented , – AGAINST the substantial body of evidence showing that widespread denial and failure to call a coup a coup has been the case with national governments and international organisations since the coup in Egypt.

        I quoted Tony Blair as an example of a world figure not only refusing to use the word Coup , but , also the Tony Blair quotes show him as being in active SUPPORT of the coup.

        I did not quote Blair in order to praise him for his stupid views – but to condemn him.

        Shingo says:

        The world and his wife has universally recognized a coup took place, the only ones denying being a tiny minority. In fact, the US government has not denied it so much as tried to avoid using the term.

        You are absolutely wrong. You have got it back to front.

        Actually , those REFUSING to use the word ‘Coup’ have been in the MAJORITY – and those openly stating it was a Coup have been in the MINORITY ( only the African Union and the President of Tunisia’s ruling party Ennahda have bluntly stated that the military take-over in Egypt was a COUP)

        The failure to use the word Coup is hugely significant and dangerous as it appears to offer a ‘green light’ to the Egyptian military that it can, whenever it likes , not just get away with ousting Morsi’s democratically elected government, but it can , potentially get away with ousting ANY future democratically elected government in Egypt.Future governments in Cairo will not now dare defy the army. A political-ideological clash could become a life-and-death onehttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/ju

        So , therefore ,the failure to be unequivocal and firm in using the word ‘Coup’ has HUGE implications for the development of democracy in the Arab world and other parts of the developing world.

        Future governments in Cairo will not now dare defy the army. A political-ideological clash could become a life-and-death one

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/04/egypt-coup-military-morsi-democracy

        That the military in other parts of the world might also see the failure of someone like Obama to call a coup a coup and to condemn it , as a ‘green light ‘ that they too can get away with seizing power for themselves and overturning democracy.

        My main argument was about the FAILURE of many international organisations and national governments to actually use the word or words Coup/ or coup d’état to describe the military ousting of a democratically elected government in Egypt .

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 11:29 pm

        Your lack of perspective shows again when you focus on singular Israel’s diplomatic exploitation of the opportunity the coup has presented , – AGAINST the substantial body of evidence showing that widespread denial and failure to call a coup a coup has been the case with national governments and international organisations since the coup in Egypt.

        There is no substantial body of evidence showing that widespread denial and failure to call a coup a coup. You yourself failed to demonstrate it.

        Quoting Tony Blair, one man no longer acting in any representative capacity is beyond pathetic. In fact, Blair did not deny it was a coup, so much as justify it or supporting it.

        You are absolutely wrong. You have got it back to front.

        No you have. You tried to argue that Ashton was cosying up to El-Sisi, while the EU itself has condemned the coup as a coup.

        Those REFUSING to use the word ‘Coup’ have been in the MINORITY – and those refusing to call it was a Coup have been in the MINORITY. The entire EU has declared it a coup. The British government has definitely not denied it was a coup, preferring to condemn what it calls a “military intervention”.

      • Theo
        Theo
        August 26, 2013, 12:01 pm

        Diamok

        Wow! Israel has an answer for everything!

        The gang of Al Capone accuses the gang of Machinegun Kelly of murder, in reply Kelly accuses Al for the same.
        The nation can go back to sleep, as both parties have equal grievances.
        With it the slate is clean, Israel can go back to grabbing a few more acres of palestinian land and build a few more settler paradises.
        Have you ever considered what will you do when the palestinians want their property back? Patagonia is a nice place, herding lamas is not a bad occupation. Perhaps you can teach the pinguins to fly again!

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 26, 2013, 2:30 pm

        [email protected];

        In all of these links various journalists and Middle East analysts question the fact that the Americans, John Kerry and Obama, and virtually EVERY world government and international organisations have resisted the use of the word Coup

        You want evidence that the MAJORITY failed to call a coup a coup well, here is some evidence :

        In this link to a BBC discussion in the immediate aftermath of the Coup , the three ME analysts ALL refer to the politics of the semantics used to describe events in Egypt and the unwillingness of Obama to use the word Coup.
        Even the Israeli analyst is able to call the coup a coup unlike Obama and the EU and the UN’s Ban Ki Moon .
        Middle East analyst Nabila Ramdani says;

        .. the obvious word that nobody has used so far to condemn what has happened In Egypt is the word coup…I think more crucially the American reaction stands out …. in particular President Obama by not condemning what has happened has effectively legitimised the demise, the removal of a democratically elected government ..

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpu1hdT7OJc

        This newspaper editorial highlights the African Union’s use of the word Coup and points out the FAILURE of the EU to do the same.

        It is, to say the least, ironic that the African Union called the coup for what it was and, notably, the European Union did not

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/egypt-brink-disaster -editorial

        Egypt’s revolution and diplomacy: when a coup is a ‘military intervention’

        Egypt’s revolution and diplomacy: when a coup is a ‘military intervention’

        Allies wary of Mohamed Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood offer cautious welcome to ‘popular’ ouster of Egypt’s president

        Diplomats, however, are showing more mixed and nuanced reactions to the Egyptian military’s move.

        Foreign governments reacting to the Egyptian military’s move against Mohamed Morsi have been getting into semantic knots about the difference between a “coup” and a “military intervention” – though no-one disputes that a democratically elected president, albeit an unpopular one, has been overthrown

        Statements from Washington, London and elsewhere reflected the awkwardness of the issue, with President Barack Obama avoiding use of the C-word to stave off the risk that US financial aid to a strategically important Middle Eastern ally might be cut off by Congress.

        William Hague, the foreign secretary, came up with a formula that decried military “intervention” while pragmatically urging that the transition be fast and inclusive.

        But it was, Hague added, a “popular” move. “We have to recognise the enormous dissatisfaction in Egypt with what the president had done and the conduct of the government over the past year.

        Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, managed to combine two contradictory international responses – noting the “legitimate concerns” of Egyptian protestors” while adding that military interference was always “of concern”.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/egypt-revolution-coup-military-intervention-analysis

        Obama silent over Egypt in muted Washington response to violence

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/obama-egypt-violence-white-house

        Compared to the leading powers of the world such as the US and the EU, Turkey’s principled reaction should be considered a badge of honor. The African Union should also be commended for suspending Egypt’s membership due to the military coup. However, the reactions of both the US and the EU were extremely disappointing, since they refrained from calling it a coup.

        http://big-breaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/shameful-reactions-to-military-coup-in.html#.Uhp34-JwbIU

        Why on earth are you seeking to excuse the likes of John Kerry and Ashton Ban Ki Moon et al in their failure to come out and say clearly that the so called military takeover on Egypt was a Coup?

        You are a HYPOCRITE because elsewhere you have lambasted Taxi for her failure to recognise that a Coup occurred in Egypt and yet, – bizarrely you are perfectly willing to let the most POWERFUL people on this planet get away with denying it was a Coup?

        Are you really going to find at all acceptable John Kerry’s opinion that the military junta in Egypt are restoring democracy ?

        Writer Brendan O’Neill actually had this to say about Ashton and Kerry in the link in my earlier comment:

        Baroness Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s chief of foreign affairs, who, like al-Sisi, is unelected, visited Egypt at the end of July. She met with al-Sisi and his handpicked, unelected president, Adly Mansour. She called on this junta disguised as a transitional power to start a ‘journey [towards] a stable, prosperous and democratic Egypt’. This was after it had massacred hundreds of protesters, placed various politicians and activists in prison, and reinstated the Mubarak-era secret police to wage a ‘war on terror’ against MB supporters. For Ashton to visit al-Sisi and talk about democracy in the aftermath of such authoritarian clampdowns was implicitly to confer authority on the coup that brought him to power and on his brutal rule and actions.

        Cont..

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the_army_pulled_the_trigger_but_the_west_loaded_the_gun/13925#.Uhfbc-JwbIUI

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 27, 2013, 5:40 am

        In all of these links various journalists and Middle East analysts question the fact that the Americans, John Kerry and Obama, and virtually EVERY world government and international organisations have resisted the use of the wordCoup

        So you;ve walked back your claim that they deny a coup took place, to admitting they are merely resisted using the word “coup”.

        You want evidence that the MAJORITY failed to call a coup a coup well, here is some evidence :

        That’s not evidence. The link only refers to Obama.
        We already know Obama has avoided using the term coup but when I last checked, Obama was not the majority of world opinion.
        Even if you were to count the US and the EU, that represents less that a third of the UN. Ban Ki Moon himself does not have the authority to declare it a coup.

        You are a HYPOCRITE because elsewhere you have lambasted Taxi for her failure to recognise that a Coup occurred in Egypt and yet, – bizarrely you are perfectly willing to let the most POWERFUL people on this planet get away with denying it was a Coup?

        You are borderlines insane. I am the fiercest critic of the US and Europe. I find them repugnant, though the fact remains that the EU usually simply follows Washington’s lead and is rarely prepared to contradict Washington’s position on policy.
        <blockquote Are you really going to find at all acceptable John Kerry’s opinion that the military junta in Egypt are restoring democracy ?

        Of course not. Kerry is a pathetic, limp wristed bureaucrat that does as Israel tells him to do. How lame is this guy when he’s uninvited by the Israelis to attend the talks he’s worked so hard to stage and doesn’t even have the spine to put the Israelis back in their place?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 27, 2013, 5:48 am

        In all of these links various journalists and Middle East analysts question the fact that the Americans, John Kerry and Obama, and virtually EVERY world government and international organisations have resisted the use of the wordCoup

        So you’ve walked back your claim that they deny a coup took place, to admitting they are merely resisted using the word “coup”.
        In any case, you are wrogn as usual:

        ‘Setback for Democracy’: World Leaders Critical of Egyptian Coup
        http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/european-leaders-warn-of-setback-to-democracy-after-egypt-coup-a-909447.html
        The meeting of ambassadors came a day after top EU officials said the bloc would “urgently review” its relations with Egypt.
        http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eu-ministers-to-meet-on-response-to-egypt-coup.aspx?PageID=238&NID=52852&NewsCatID=359

        Now why would EU officials feel it necessary to “urgently review” its relations with Egypt if they didn’t believe a coup had taken place?

        You want evidence that the MAJORITY failed to call a coup a coup well, here is some evidence :

        That’s not evidence. The link only refers to Obama.
        We already know Obama has avoided using the term coup but when I last checked, Obama was not the majority of world opinion.
        Even if you were to count the US and the EU, that represents less that a third of the UN. Ban Ki Moon himself does not have the authority to declare it a coup.

        You are a HYPOCRITE because elsewhere you have lambasted Taxi for her failure to recognise that a Coup occurred in Egypt and yet, – bizarrely you are perfectly willing to let the most POWERFUL people on this planet get away with denying it was a Coup?

        You are borderlines insane. I am the fiercest critic of the US and Europe. I find them repugnant, though the fact remains that the EU usually simply follows Washington’s lead and is rarely prepared to contradict Washington’s position on policy.
        <blockquote Are you really going to find at all acceptable John Kerry’s opinion that the military junta in Egypt are restoring democracy ?

        Of course not. Kerry is a pathetic, limp wristed bureaucrat that does as Israel tells him to do. How lame is this guy when he’s uninvited by the Israelis to attend the talks he’s worked so hard to stage and doesn’t even have the spine to put the Israelis back in their place?

        As for Ashton, it’s clear she’s not even speaking for the EU. Even Hague stated in your clip that the military conducted a military intervention in Egypt to overthrow a democratically elected leader and warned that this could set a precedent.

        Hague provided a text book definition of a coup.

      • richb
        richb
        August 23, 2013, 1:06 am

        I’ll add a video from Max Blumenthal on how crazy things have gotten from Egyptian Americans protesting in Washington. I’ve been watching the conversations on line and the Tea Party is literally inciting this.

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oph7xwUYKEg

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 8:50 am

        Thanks Rich,

        An interesting insight into the brilliant mings Taxi is hanging out with and from who she is getting her inside knowledge.

        Not only is Obama a member of the MB, but 6 members of the Obama administration have Muslim Brotherhood ties huh? Wow, the Tahrirs are Tea Partiers too.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        August 23, 2013, 9:23 am

        Wow, they seem to have the same level of intellectual honesty as Zionist Jews/Tea Party goers/etc.

        I guess that right-wing nationalism transcends all racial/religious/cultural boundaries.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 23, 2013, 10:25 am

        The Copt situation is really tragic.

      • richb
        richb
        August 23, 2013, 10:34 am

        I’ve been following this on Twittter since just before June 30. The Tea Partiers, Foxites, Zionists, and Dominionists have been egging the Egyptians on with their conspiracy theories. This is from last year:

        http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/egyptians-who-jeered-clinton-cite-american-conservatives-to-argue-u-s-secretly-supports-islamists/?_r=0

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 23, 2013, 3:23 pm

        “I guess that right-wing nationalism transcends all racial/religious/cultural boundaries.”

        Yeah, it’s the same type of thinking (or mental illness), with just a few changes in labeling. Of course, the funny thing is how annoyed a nationalist of variety A will sometimes get if you point out the similarity to nationalist of variety Z. Unless A and Z happen to be allies.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 7:10 am

        I agree Phil.

        Norman F’s post stands as a perfect example of theme meal sickness that Zionism induces.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 22, 2013, 12:45 pm

      >> NormanF @ August 22, 2013 at 11:52 am

      So much of that post applies to the aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder that hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists and their oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” have been carrying out for over 60 years – and are continuing to carry out – against Palestinians in the name of a Jewish-supremacist, “Greater Israel” state.

      The similarities end when it comes to mass murder. Unlike hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists – who have no problem with mass murder when it suits their purposes – I don’t believe that anyone – not even Zio-supremacists – should be “wiped out”.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 22, 2013, 10:24 pm

        Eljay doesn’t want to see what he calls zio supremacist’s wiped out.
        How saintly of him

        Largely because the point of his comment like all the others he makes is about appearing as politically correct and holier – than – thou – as possible rather than adding anything to the discussion

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 23, 2013, 10:37 am

        >> Eljay doesn’t want to see what he calls zio supremacist’s wiped out.
        >> How saintly of him

        Not saintly, just moral. Something Zio-supremacists don’t undertand. As is evidenced by the fact that you took the time to mock me for not wanting anyone killed, but you didn’t bother to condemn your co-collectivist for advocating mass murder.

        >> … the point of his comment like all the others he makes is about appearing as politically correct and holier – than – thou as possible …

        Wrong again. Advocating for justice and morality is just that: Advocating for justice and morality. You can’t comprehend that because you’re a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist.

        But thanks for taking the time to address my substance-free post, and for revealing a little more about your true self.

      • AlGhorear
        AlGhorear
        August 23, 2013, 11:53 am

        @miriam6 “Eljay doesn’t want to see what he calls zio supremacist’s wiped out.
        How saintly of him

        Largely because the point of his comment like all the others he makes is about appearing as politically correct and holier – than – thou – as possible rather than adding anything to the discussion”

        Wow, Miriam6, that comment is so telling. Is it really inconceivable to you that someone can believe that all peoples, regardless of race, color or creed, should have equal human rights and be treated with respect? Can you really not see that criticism of Zionist ideology by commentators on this site and elsewhere is due to Zionist theft of Palestinian land and resources and denial of their basic human rights?

        Like Eljay, my hope is for peace between the two peoples and a just solution to the crimes against the Palestinian people. I don’t want to see anyone harmed, much less wiped out. It’s called humanism. It has nothing to do with being politically correct.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 22, 2013, 1:19 pm

      “If democracy means people can vote to enslave their neighbors and themselves, then democracy must be nullified.”

      Great! Then we’ll destroy the sham democracy that is present in occupied Palestine (on both sides of the green line) until the Jewish equivalent of Islamism — zionism — is destroyed. It’s nothing more than serially voting to enslave the Palestinians. We shouldn’t tolerate zionism anymore than we tolerated the Nazis or the Japanese militarists. Or Apartheid South Africa.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 22, 2013, 1:53 pm

      @NormanF – – Simplistic viewpoint. Why would Qatar support the MB if it was such a totally dark programme as you claim?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 25, 2013, 6:23 am

      @ NormanF
      Which groups represent the actualized terrorist threat in the USA? Here’s an article discussing the FBI’s database on the subject–don’t forget to note that Muslims have been less of a threat than Jews, which is why, I guess 97% of DHS grants have gone to America’s Jewish communities : http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

  2. yrn
    yrn
    August 22, 2013, 11:57 am

    what role did Zionism have in inflaming these religious divisions? What role has the successful implantation of violent Jewish nationalism had in causing religious wars in the Middle East?
    The Zio’s are to blame on everything, Don’t they Phil
    65 years ago it was Joseph Goebbels today it’s Phil Wiess.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 22, 2013, 12:13 pm

      I think the question is rather “why does the Jewish state need those wars”?

      “The Zio’s are to blame on everything, Don’t they Phil”

      Second question

      Should Israel spend more money on education ?

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 23, 2013, 9:31 am

        Seafoid,
        “Should Israel spend more money on education ?”

        Answer.

        Why waste money on a lost cause?.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 22, 2013, 1:28 pm

      “65 years ago it was Joseph Goebbels today it’s Phil Wiess.”

      It’s both telling and kind of pathetic that you can’t see anything except through the guise of ancient European history. I guess that way you absolve yourself of looking at the crimes your state commits now.

      Oh, and 65 years ago Goebbels had been dead for over three years, Einstein.

      • yrn
        yrn
        August 22, 2013, 3:37 pm

        “It’s both telling and kind of pathetic that you can’t see anything except through the guise of ancient European history.”

        I can’t expect more then an History denier.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2013, 11:30 am

        “I can’t expect more then an History denier.”

        What? Is there any language known to man where this string of words is anything but mindless gibberish?

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      August 22, 2013, 2:22 pm

      The Zios are to blame for a lot yrn.

      You are the Nazi. Not Phil Weiss.

      Phil Weiss does not support colonialism and apartheid.

      You do.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 25, 2013, 6:28 am

      @ yrn
      Actually, the Nazis had a pact with the Zionists. Read The Transfer Agreement. It contains lots of documentation. The Nazis even had a commemorative medal coined with one side Nazi, the other side Zionist. Maybe you can pick one up on Ebay.

      And BTW, Goebbels presided over the presentation of it.

  3. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 22, 2013, 11:57 am

    Gee, Phil, wasn’t Muburak, whom the US supported for so long, right up the last possible minute in fact, a secular ruler? And isn’t the coup on Morsi anti-MB? Should we conclude you’re in the camp of the US and Israel on this? That is, the camp of the bribed Egyptian generals, by default–they sure reject religious supremacist POV, don’t they? Just asking. (And wasn’t Saddam Hussein also all for separation of church (mosque, synagogue) and state?)

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      August 22, 2013, 12:10 pm

      True. And isn’t it true that because Hamas has been more effective resistance to Israel than Fatah in recent years, the anti-Zionist left in the U.S. has to be silent about Hamas policies that it would find offensive in the U.S.?

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 22, 2013, 12:26 pm

        “the anti-Zionist left in the U.S. has to be silent about Hamas policies that it would find offensive in the U.S.?”

        Some people seem to think that way on all parts of the political spectrum–don’t tell the full truth because it might hurt The Cause. Aside from the fact that lying or deception or leaving out important facts is, well, wrong, on the purely utilitarian end of things it can also backfire. People find out you’re lying or leaving out important facts and then they don’t trust you when you’re telling the truth.

      • American
        American
        August 23, 2013, 11:03 am

        ”Some people seem to think that way on all parts of the political spectrum–don’t tell the full truth because it might hurt The Cause.”…Donald

        Amen.
        That is my gripe with many people on both sides.
        Although I admit I dont concentrate as much on the bad polices in ‘ other ideologies’ of Hamas because that is not ‘the core’ of I/P.
        The core is the illegal confiscation and occupation of Palestine.
        It is not about whatever kind of religious law Hamas might want to impose or how they treat women and etc., etc..
        THAT is a separate issue and has nothing to do with why Israel does what it does and why Hamas does what it does re Israel.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 25, 2013, 7:08 am

        /THAT is a separate issue and has nothing to do with why Israel does what it does and why Hamas does what it does re Israel./

        No it’s not because if you are a moral person you have to consider alternatives and how they will affect the situation.

      • American
        American
        August 25, 2013, 8:24 pm

        OlegR says:
        August 25, 2013 at 7:08 am

        /”THAT is a separate issue and has nothing to do with why Israel does what it does and why Hamas does what it does re Israel.”/

        No it’s not because if you are a moral person you have to consider alternatives and how they will affect the situation.””

        Wrong.
        First, because where it concerns Hamas/Palestine the only “alternative”” so far they had been offered by Israel is to totally capitulate and give Isr everything it wants.
        Second, –what morals would you like to compare?
        The morals of each side in the actual conflict?….say the moral difference between Hamas excuting Palestnes suspected of being Isr spies and Israel shooting unarmed Palestine men, women and children?
        Or are you talking about the ‘other moral polices’ of Islam as compared with the moral polices of Judaism?…say in the way ‘some’ Muslins deny women/gays/etc certain rights and the way ‘some’ sects of Judaism also deny certain rights to women/gays/etc.?

        A “moral’ person is first not a hypocrite. Second, war and survival, can lead a otherwise moral person to commit immoral acts —killing period is a immoral act. Third, a moral person can and often does have to “chose” the lesser evil, what is less immoral to them.

        The immoral polices of some of Islam and some of Judaism are ‘equal’–a wash. You of course want to pretend that all of Islam is “alike” whereas as only some of Judaism is immoral about certain rights. ..we all know that Islam is no more all alike than Judaism is all alike.
        Imo–in the actual conflict of I/P Israel is ‘more’ immoral than Hamas by all the examples we have see here time after time and in the actual cause of this conflict.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 22, 2013, 5:51 pm

        @Philip Weiss

        This sounds like projection to me.

        I tried to get you to print criticisms of Hamas policies on MW a number of times without success, and I believe you do not consider yourself a part of the anti-Zionist left, while you do consider me a leftist.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 22, 2013, 7:03 pm

        I tried to get you to print criticisms of Hamas policies on MW a number of times without success

        The fact you are too inept to do a search on MW is not Phil’s fault.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2013, 10:18 pm

        @Philip Weiss

        This sounds like projection to me.

        I’ve never had any problem posting comments here at MW that say religious fundamentalists are not my personal cup of tea, that Hamas has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that the Gaza Cabinet is full of Ministers who have promulgated anti-Semitic material in the form of their public policy statements.

        I don’t think that there are any exceptions to the guarantees of fundamental human rights that would permit either collective punishment or the Gaza population or denial of individual human rights on any of those bases – and have said as much here at MW.

        But Phil is correct, many Anti-Zionists obviously won’t go anywhere near those particular issues if it can be avoided.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 22, 2013, 11:14 pm

        @Hostage

        I was not referring to the comments section, but to the postings.

        And my point is that the Anti-Zionist left is just as likely (if not more likely) to criticize Hamas as other Anti-Zionists such as Mondoweiss.

      • yrn
        yrn
        August 23, 2013, 2:15 am

        Jewish AntiZionism is a mental disorder.
        You are Only Anti Israeli, all other issues just saves the cause.
        never seen, Atzmon,Pape,Greenstien and those UK lefty Jews criticizing Hamas, the liberating organization, that will help Jewish AntiZionists finish the Zionist Regime.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        August 23, 2013, 10:21 am

        Bruce, I do consider myself part of the anti-Zionist left.
        I consider you a leftist.
        I have been critical of Islamism, maybe not enough to your taste

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 23, 2013, 10:33 am

        >> Jewish AntiZionism is a mental disorder.

        Jewish anti-Zionism is as just and moral as Gentile anti-Zionism.

        Jewish supremacism – that’s the mental disorder. And you’ve got it bad.

        But – like the drunkard who vehemently denies that he’s an alcoholic – you won’t admit it, because it would mean acknowledging that you are a hateful and immoral person who supports (and perhaps even commits or is willing to commit) acts of injustice and immorality.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 23, 2013, 11:47 am

        @Philip Weiss

        Thanks for the clarification, as I had the impression you considered yourself anti-Zionist but not on the left, and thus did not take your remark “the anti-Zionist left in the U.S. has to be silent about Hamas policies that it would find offensive in the U.S.” to be self-criticism.

        By the way, I don’t agree that an anti-Zionist left has to be silent about Hamas policies that it finds offensive. It just has to explain its position from its perspective. The left, in general, is anti-neo-imperialist, and thus it understands Hamas also through that lens, while disagreeing with its conservative ideology and policies. Liberals and the right are at best ambiguous with respect to neo-imperalism, and thus find it much easier to demonize Hamas.

        You wrote here,

        While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians (that people have agency in their affairs, and that people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic), many of my friends on the left differ.

        This is not a left position, so I am left to ask, “Exactly what part of the anti-Zionist left or of the left are you part of? ”

        Finally, I have no view one way or the other on your critique of Islamism. My specific complaint is that MW manages to avoid posting about reports such as the Human Rights Watch one which accused Hamas security forces of “routinely subjecting Palestinian detainees in Gaza to torture and abuse” and that three men had “been executed on the basis of “confessions” apparently obtained under coercion.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2013, 12:04 pm

        “Jewish AntiZionism is a mental disorder.”

        Typical facist response to claim that people who disagree with you are mentally defective. Saves you the chore of having to think for yourself…

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:28 pm

        Jewish AntiZionism is a mental disorder.

        No, any kind if Zionism is a mental disorder that requires those in the left it right to suspect their notion of morality, justice and human rights, while insisting it is moral to do so.

        Zionism is racism after all.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        August 23, 2013, 1:31 pm

        Good point; as I wrote that, I reflected, Maybe that’s not a leftwing position. Most of my positions are leftwing, but there are points at which I don’t accept the power analysis of the left. For instance, I’m a socialist in my views on income distribution, but I also believe that human beings are competitive, and overpopulation is an issue, and climate change will make a lot of the left right ideological battles irrelevant….

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 23, 2013, 1:47 pm

        “While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians (that people have agency in their affairs, and that people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic), many of my friends on the left differ.”

        “This is not a left position,”

        Why isn’t it a “left” position? Not arguing here, just asking.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 23, 2013, 1:49 pm

        yrn,

        Jewish AntiZionism is a mental disorder.

        This is exactly like saying that white anti-white nationalism is a mental disorder. Do you really believe that? Is every ethnic group obligated to embrace ethnic nationalism for itself to preserve its mental health?

        Are you down with David Duke? Adolf Hitler?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 23, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Phil,

        and climate change will make a lot of the left right ideological battles irrelevant….

        Ain’t that the truth.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 3:47 pm

        Phil: While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians (that people have agency in their affairs, and that people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic), many of my friends on the left differ.

        This is not a left position, so I am left to ask, “Exactly what part of the anti-Zionist left or of the left are you part of? ”

        I’m always fascinated by the people who seem to think that members of the military will simply follow orders, no matter how patently criminal or illegal, and betray, inform, or pull the trigger on their friends, families, and fellow citizens. It really isn’t a leftist position to deny that people have agency in their own affairs. I really don’t think that anyone in the US or Egyptian government can compel an Egyptian soldier to murder Egyptian demonstrators against their better judgment or wishes.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 23, 2013, 4:20 pm

        @Donald

        Big topic.

        From Wikipedia:

        In the social sciences, agency refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. By contrast, structure are those factors of influence (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc.) that determine or limit an agent and his or her decisions. The relative difference in influences from structure and agency is debated – it’s unclear to what extent a person’s actions are constrained by social systems.

        One’s agency is one’s independent capability or ability to act on one’s will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one’s experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into.

        The left believes structure plays a major – or the major – role in an individual’s ability to act, especially the social class structure. Traditional liberals, neo-liberals, most modern conservatives and libertarians believe that individual agency is the most important.

        Phil if I understand him correctly, and we have discussed this at length, acknowledges structure has a role but considers human agency the greater determining factor in individual human action. This is why he writes,

        “While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians (that people have agency in their affairs, and that people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic), many of my friends on the left differ.”

        Not only does Phil not grant primacy to structure in explaining events in Egypt, he in particular does not consider social class to be the primary structure. For Phil, everyone in Egypt has roughly equal agency to act, or more accurately, equal moral agency to act.

        I don’t consider Phil’s position to be a left position, and I would argue that is why he differs with his leftist friends.

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 23, 2013, 5:17 pm

        “The left believes structure plays a major – or the major – role in an individual’s ability to act, especially the social class structure. Traditional liberals, neo-liberals, most modern conservatives and libertarians believe that individual agency is the most important.

        Phil if I understand him correctly, and we have discussed this at length, acknowledges structure has a role but considers human agency the greater determining factor in individual human action. ”

        Okay, thanks for the explanation. I’m not sure where I stand–probably a bit closer to Phil, but of course what we as individuals think is very heavily influenced by all sorts of factors. This sort of thing is beyond my pay grade, so to speak.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 23, 2013, 7:45 pm

        @Donald

        Think about this:

        To understand what has gone down in Egypt since Mubarak fell do you need to know that el-Sisi is religious and his wife wears the niqab, or that Saudi Arabia is Wahabbist, or that Netanyahu is secular, or that Obama proclaims he is a devout Christian and a Christian by choice, or that Mohamed Morsi has a Ph.d in Material Sciences from USC and believes that Egyptian Copts are just as Egyptian as he is and have as much a right to the Egyptian homeland as he does, or that Prince Bander considers himself an American Hamiltonian conservative, or that Wael Ghonim started a “technology focused NGO to help fight poverty & foster education in Egypt,” or that many Coptic intellectuals hold to “Pharaonism,” which states that Coptic culture is largely derived from pre-Christian, Pharaonic culture, and is not indebted to Greece.

        You don’t need to know any of this to understand events in Egypt or how individuals acted. That people can be violent, tribal, rich, and militaristic, how does that help?

        What does help you understand?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 24, 2013, 2:30 pm

        Most English upper-class Jews were anti-Zionist, prior to First World War. Common sense.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        August 24, 2013, 2:44 pm

        Thanks Bruce, I think that you are demonstrating that I’m not a leftwinger in some of my beliefs. And the difficulty here is that the left is reductive to a view that international capital and power arrangements created this problem, while I think that ordinary human beings, acquisitive and selfish and powerhungry and hungry for belief systems, principally created this problem. They made events in Algeria, largely, and in Syria, and now in Egypt. I’m not denying outside influences, many invisible. The people in Max’s video from DC are Egyptians.
        I do believe a neo colonial imperial model exxplains the deal between the US and Israel, though in that case I think that religious belief, which Marx denigrated, and Chomsky tends to ignore– even when his own religious community manifests its importance– are a far more significant factor than material drivesr, e.g., corproations (which are not just run by materialistic human beings but owned by millions of other materialistic human beings)

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 24, 2013, 4:18 pm

        I agree, Phil.

        Thanks for reminding us that both Marx denigrated it, and Chomsky ignores it, and so look how they abstracted, diverted a key part of the seminal problem, the one you stated, which is, IMO, religious/ ideological belief harnessed to exploitive capitalism–minus the social contract envisioned by John Lock, who was both libertarian individualistic and socialist, hence both are both good work cases in point about what’s a key driving force in all this mess.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 24, 2013, 8:03 pm

        @Philip Weiss

        The problem here is that you reduce leftist analysis to a “view that international capital and power arrangements created this problem.” That’s a very flimsy straw-man argument on your part, unless you take short comments on MW to be in-depth analysis.

        “Power arrangements” is so vague a concept it could cover almost any political phenomena.

        You conveniently avoid any left analyses of the internal dynamics within Egypt, as well as discussions of the actual external influences.

        And under the current re-structuring of the global economy, Egypt is most likely to end up as a failed state no matter which ideology or clique rules, and that has very much to do with global capitalism.

        As an alternative, you present warmed-over cliches of Social Darwinism with a spice of the New Age search for spirituality. On corporations you take a page from Mitt Romney, but forgot to mention corporations are people too. At least you didn’t raise the need for lebensraum.

        But your biggest error is that you do not seem to understand “ordinary human beings.” I hate to break it to you, but the world’s masses are not like the kids you went to Harvard with. I’m surprised you imagined they were.

        I defy you to even begin to explain contemporary Egypt through the lens of religious ideology, in which we see secular liberals allied with Salafis, Copts supporting a military dictator whose wife wears the niqab, Jewish Israelis allied with Wahhabist Saudis, moderate Islamist Turkey aligned with Wahhabist Qatar, which in turn has been in rivalry with Wahhabist Saudi Arabia until Christian America told Qatar to cut it out.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 24, 2013, 8:25 pm

        Bruce,

        Which authors have most influenced your thinking on politics and economics in general?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 24, 2013, 8:27 pm

        My specific complaint is that MW manages to avoid posting about reports such as the Human Rights Watch one which accused Hamas security forces of “routinely subjecting Palestinian detainees in Gaza to torture and abuse” and that three men had “been executed on the basis of “confessions” apparently obtained under coercion.”

        That’s because the same complaint could be made of Israel, the US,Britain etc.

        That’s a a bit like the attempts to use women’s rights in Afghanistan to divert the conversation from war crimes by NATO. The fact is that the conflict has to be tackled in terms of priorities. It is futile to labor domestic human rights violations when only a dysfunctional leadership will ever emerge from the conditions imposed by Israel.

        It seems disingenuous that you would be preoccupied with human rights abuses by Hamas, when Israel is muttering Palestinians at a rate of 1 every two days.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 24, 2013, 8:37 pm

        “Exactly what part of the anti-Zionist left or of the left are you part of? ”

        What parts of the anti-Zionist left do believe exists? You seem rooted in the notion “the anti-Zionist left” is defined by a strict set of guidelines, so where does one find these?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 24, 2013, 8:46 pm

        Bruce,

        I find the labels “left” and “right” to be primitive and crude — incapable of describing the complex operations of the real world. For the sake of labeling, I describe myself as a progressive libertarian — for those who need simple labels. Progressive libertarians are wary of the concentration of too much power in the hands of governments or private interests (including large corporations). They believe that all powerful special interests should be subject to intensive transparency and accountability.

        One should always keep in mind that hard leftists (in the Marxist tradition) murdered as many as 100 million civilians during the 20th century in the pursuit of their lofty egalitarian ideals.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 24, 2013, 9:38 pm

        @Shingo

        So you don’t believe Hamas torture and abuse is a subject for Mondoweiss?

        Or that Hamas torture and abuse should be a concern of Mondoweiss?

        OK!

        And its very disingenuous of you to write that I am preoccupied with human rights abuses by Hamas. To the exclusion of what? Israeli human rights abuses?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 24, 2013, 10:02 pm

        So you don’t believe Hamas torture and abuse is a subject for Mondoweiss?

        Not over and above the Israeli abuses. As I explained, occupation and oppression brings out the worst in people, and when the opposition party, Fatah, collude with Israel to maintain that status quo as well as work to overthrow Hamas, the torture and abuse is a symptom.

        Or that Hamas torture and abuse should be a concern of Mondoweiss?

        Of course it should, but obsessing about it out of context is pointless. We all care about women’s and gay rights too, but how do you address those concerns when those women and members of the gay community already risk being killed or bombed by Israel.

        And its very disingenuous of you to write that I am preoccupied with human rights abuses by Hamas. To the exclusion of what? Israeli human rights abuses?

        Exactly.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 24, 2013, 10:14 pm

        @Phil Weiss & @Citizen

        Israel was not in the main established by Religious Zionists nor was religious belief the main driver for the twentieth century Jewish immigration to Palestine, although Religious Zionism has a much greater influence in Israel today.

        Exploitive capitalism is doing quite fine without religious belief, just turn your heads towards China and Asia. That exploitive capitalism would exploit religion should come as no surprise. It exploits everything in its path to further its aims.

        I’m not sure what you two mean when you write that Marx denigrated religion. He wrote:


        The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

        Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

        The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

        Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

        What part of the above do you object to?

        Chomsky has a problem with Zionism due to his own long relation with it. It was a fascination from childhood. Is is so surprising he cannot view it objectively? Is he the only authority on the left with respect to the Middle East? What about checking out the views of Tariq Ali or any of the leftist Arabs still around?

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 24, 2013, 11:44 pm

        @Shingo

        I am certainly not rooted in a strict set of guidelines which define the Left, and I assume that the anti-Zionist left considers itself on the Left, or otherwise why wouldn’t it just call itself anti-Zionist. Nothing wrong with that. The center and Right can also be anti-Zionist.

        But there must be some set of characteristics or essence, which define the Left, even though there may also be some disputes of what that is.

        I wouldn’t think that asserting – “it is a basic leftist view that material drivers, especially in this capitalist age, are the main ones that drive political and social change,” – would be that controversial a position. Nor would I think it controversial to state that the following is a leftist perspective: “Religious belief is not by and large the main drivers in political and social change.” Samuel Huntington and his Clash of Civilizations is not a leftist thesis. You may not agree with the above assertions, but then why consider oneself to be on the Left?

        I admit that there is some ambiguity of what we mean by the Left, so in its broadest sense Phil may be among it. But if we distinguish between the Left and Liberalism, then I find a hard time classifying Phil as a Leftist, even a dissenting one. Have we ruled out Liberal or even Neo-Liberal anti-Zionists a priori?

        In his dissension, Phil gave a reductionist portrayal of the Left’s perspective and then he wrote that with respect to understanding events in Egypt that “ordinary human beings, acquisitive and selfish and powerhungry and hungry for belief systems…” created the problems in Egypt. Who else on the Left writes like this?

        Phil wrote that most of his positions are leftwing. I’m not convinced. He states, “I’m a socialist in my views on income distribution,” which may be true, but you don’t have to be on the left to favor a narrower income distribution. You can find such people on various ends of the political spectrum. It is how you understand why the income distribution is what it is or how you believe the income distribution should in fact be narrowed that would put one on the Left.

        And Phil states he does not agree with how the Left explains power relationships, writing “I also believe that human beings are competitive,” which is akin to Economic and Social Darwinism, and not a usual position of the Left. He seems to consider “overpopulation” not to be a concern of the Left, which may or not be true depending on how the issue is defined. And he also concludes that “climate change will make a lot of the left-right ideological battles irrelevant.” Hardly!

        And this phrase is quite revealing, while downplaying the importance of material drivers, he gave the example of “corporations (which are not just run by materialistic human beings but owned by millions of other materialistic human beings.)” This is certainly not a Left position. First of all, there are billions of ordinary people on the planet, while only millions own shares in corporations. Second, even in the United States little more than half of the adults own shares, including 401Ks, and the average amount owned is $12000. Third, the overwhelming majority of these millions of “materialistic human beings” owning shares have absolutely no say in how the said corporations are managed. Most are just praying they have enough money for retirement.

        There are conservatives such as Scott McConnell and Andrew Bracevich, just to name two, that take principled positions on Zionism and Israel, and many other issues as well, that have my respect even if I do not share all their values and disagree with them ideologically. Not everyone on the right is neo-imperial, neocolonial, interventionist, or pro-Zionist. It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for Phil to come out as a non-Leftist.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 25, 2013, 12:31 am

        @Shingo

        Excuse me, but you are commenting on a situation of which you don’t know what you are talking about.

        As far as I recall, I never discussed Hamas torture or abuse in any of my postings on MW and very few if any of my comments. My preoccupation has been overwhelmingly with Israeli abuses and torture, and to a lesser extent with the PA and Arab states.

        A significant HRW report on Hamas abuse and torture came out last year. It seemed to me, and from what you write above you also, that considering MW’s strong stand opposing Israeli abuse and torture, this report should have received coverage. But it did not, and it did not even though I raised the issue privately several times. And in fact a decision was made there was no need for it to be covered, and in fact it was not reported in MW.

        So when Phil made the comment on this thread about the anti-Zionist Left having to be silent on Hamas abuses, I felt compelled to respond, even though I had given up commenting on this site. It was hardly obsessive on my part or out-of-context.

        I am opposed to pink-washing as most other people here, but you don’t address women and gay rights in Palestine by avoiding the subject. Gays and women in Palestine shouldn’t have to be at physical risk until the decades required for Hamas to be enlightened, just as much as they shouldn’t have to risk being killed or bombed by Israel.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 1:31 am

        A significant HRW report on Hamas abuse and torture came out last year. It seemed to me, and from what you write above you also, that considering MW’s strong stand opposing Israeli abuse and torture, this report should have received coverage.

        I have read the report, and while it clearly doesn’t paint a rosy picture of Hamas’ human rights record, I don’t think it would come as a surprise to anyone. I think it goes without saying that Hamas are not a democratic or plurastic institution and that they employ violence.

        As I mentioned before, the same report could have been written about Israel’s or America’s judicial system. Israeli apologists will often argue that they are forced to take these measures because they are surrounded by hostile neighbors committed to their destruction and I would imagine Hamas would use the same excuse – of course the difference is that Israel has accepted this state of heightened security as a cost of occupation and land theft, whereas Hamas don’t have a choice in the matter.

        So yes, I am inclined to agree this should have received coverage, the fact remains that this situation is not going to improve until the occupation is ended.

        Gays and women in Palestine shouldn’t have to be at physical risk until the decades required for Hamas to be enlightened

        The fact is that they wouldn’t have to were the occupation to be over. The only reason Hamas have any power is because they are the only alternative political party to Fatah, and because Gaza has been turned into an open air prison. The reason Fatah and Hamas are the players is because they both began as resistance movements to occupation.

        With freedom and pluralism, so will come choice as more players throw their hat into the ring.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 25, 2013, 7:36 am

        @ Bruce

        I agreed with what Phil said, most especially here: “And the difficulty here is that the left is reductive to a view that international capital and power arrangements created this problem, while I think that ordinary human beings, acquisitive and selfish and powerhungry and hungry for belief systems, principally created this problem. ”

        Another way of saying this, I think, is the prominence in leftist thought of analyzing human motivation in terms of Marxist philosophy, in terms of international capital (Das Kapital) and the power relationships attendant, is like looking at a bridge (to nowhere, or somewhere bad) and the skills that planned, and constructed it, to deconstruct it. What’s left out, not addressed, is the human foibles, fantasies involved–to suggest what I am trying to explain (not very well, I fear), I will just point out the variety of human motivations Maslow illustrated with a cartoon priority pyramid–with the caveat that I think Maslow’s hierarchy is too rigid.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 25, 2013, 8:05 am

        Have you read The Darker Nations, or The Poorer Nations? Both by Vijay Prashad? http://www.amazon.com/Vijay-Prashad/e/B001HQ5GFA/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 25, 2013, 12:12 pm

        Citizen,

        William Shakespeare had a much better grasp of the deep psychological roots of human political behavior than Karl Marx.

        Irrational ego needs play an even greater role in human affairs than matters of pragmatic self-interest.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 25, 2013, 2:36 pm

        Consider Hitler’s bringing near-total destruction to his own people, when the war obviously had been lost.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 25, 2013, 4:18 pm

        @Citizen

        I get that you agree with Phil. OK, now you or Phil should sketch, outline, or explicate how the current situation in Egypt unfolded by “ordinary human beings” acting “acquisitive and selfish and power-hungry and hungry for belief systems….” Then we can try to determine to what extent your argument has validity.

        I presented to Phil a sketch or outline of the events in Egypt without relying on assuming the above characterization of “ordinary human beings” and without having to demonstrate that Egyptian actors were motivated as you and Phil say they were. In fact, I reject both Phil’s assumption concerning “ordinary human beings” and the conclusion that “ordinary human beings” determined the current situation in Egypt.

        I also did not resort to the behavior of “international capital” as the primary factor explaining Egyptian events, but I did assert that globalization (which is international capital on the move) set the stage for the April Spring and events since. Also, key players involved in the global economy played a major role in Egyptian events.

        While I am sure not every Leftist would agree with my analysis, I am confident it is grounded in a Left perspective. I am waiting for anyone to provide a coherent history of how conflicting religious beliefs determined the present situation in Egypt. Secular and religious individuals have been in the oddest coalitions both inside and outside of Egypt since the fall of Mubarak.

        And if you believe that “human foibles and fantasies” explain Egypt, please tell us how.

        I did not understand your last paragraph. In particular, even if we assume Maslow’s pyramid of needs applies to Egypt, not sure how that helps explain events on the ground. By the way, the Breivik Right incorrectly places Maslow as part of the Frankfurt School and considers him a significant member of the Cultural Marxist cabal destroying American culture.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        August 25, 2013, 4:47 pm

        Bruce,

        Human history is largely a record of the competition among organized criminal gangs (special interests), using a wide variety of ideologies, both secular and religious, and all available methods of physical coercion, to acquire territory, resources, wealth and power.

        How is this a left-wing or right-wing matter? What do those terms really mean, anyway?

        Several of the most notorious gangsters of the 20th century were leftists — Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. — who racked up huge body counts in the quest for absolute power. Their secular ideologies were as dogmatic as the most dogmatic religious ideologies — and bore many structural and thematic similarities to religious ideologies.

        I have no idea of what it is you are trying to argue — I’m not sure you do either.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 25, 2013, 5:21 pm

        @seanmcbride

        The labels “left” and “right” are crude. They are in fact binary, and what they represent have evolved since their original usage also. That is why I think when one criticizes the Left, or the Right, or the anti-Zionist left it’s fair for someone to ask, “to whom exactly are you referring?”

        As your own self-description indicates, I also doubt we are well-served today with this linear representation of political viewpoints. Yet, I also believe it is possible to group individuals into a limited set of political classifications and represent affinities between them.

        I’m not sure “hard leftists” as opposed to “soft leftists” are very helpful labels either. As far as I know Marx never killed anyone, and the bourgeoisie has not willingly given up its power so far. Who knows where Marx would have ended up had he witnessed another 50-100 years or so? Would he have stood along side Lenin and Stalin and become a Marxist-Leninist? From what I have read, I doubt it.

        There was plenty of blood spilt in the Twentieth Century with more than enough blame to go around. Seventeen million died in World War I without the Soviets or totalitarianism playing a role, and that only takes us up to the first fifth of the decade. Lofty egalitarian ideals are not needed to cause mass murder.

      • Bruce Wolman
        Bruce Wolman
        August 25, 2013, 9:05 pm

        @seanmcbride

        I’m sure of what I am trying to argue – I’m not sure it is what you want to hear.

        So let’s leave it at that, since you have no idea what I am trying to argue.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 25, 2013, 11:40 pm

        Phil Weiss pretentiously examines his own navel – yet AGAIN;

        That’s where I can play a part, after all. What model can an American (and Jew) attempt to provide in these circumstances?

        while I think that ordinary human beings, acquisitive and selfish and powerhungry and hungry for belief systems, principally created this problem.

        They made events in Algeria, largely, and in Syria, and now in Egypt. I’m not denying outside influences, many invisible.

        What an absolute cheek

        All those events you refer to in Syria , Egypt and Algeria so dismissively, as stemming from selfish desires ACTUALLY stem from a NORMAL and NATURAL human desire to CONTROL their lives and futures and to determine their OWN HISTORY free from outside interference.

        To misquote the marvellous Dan Crowther

        If Philip Weiss is a left winger, we might as well forget the whole friggin thing.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/us-had-as-much-a-hand-in-egypt-as-in-chile-leftwing-perspectives-on-the-massacre.html/comment-page-1#comment-585771

        You have some nerve shedding crocodile tears for the Algerians, as many of THEIR ( and Mali’s ) current woes are due to the ill advised NATO bombing and removal of the Ghaddafi regime in Libya , which YOU supported , on account of your entirely selfish belief that in doing so , – NATO’s onslaught and removal of Ghaddafi would provide a ‘friend’ for America

        Weiss, as an American blogger you can start by admitting that your support for NATO’s onslaught on the Ghaddafi regime was WRONG –

        as it has meant disaster for North Africa , involving as a DIRECT consequence ,the destruction by the newly unleashed by the overthrow by NATO of Islamist forces – of Timbuktu’s precious priceless heritage , that not only belongs to the Malian people but the whole world.

        Not only that, but, NATO’s onslaught has also DESTROYED the fragile balance of power and relative PEACE in North Africa that had kept the Islamist terrorists at bay and under control for many years.

        You are right when you say you are confused about events , because for one thing , in your support of the NATO campaign to remove Ghadaffi, YOU like British Prime Minister Cameron , the Americans and Sarkozy , chose to IGNORE the pleadings of BOTH the Algerian and the Malian governments would cause untold upheavals in North Africa.

        As if fools like Cameron . Sarkozy and YOU in your patronising way ,actually know BETTER than the governments of North Africa.

        The warning signs were there. It is notable that both Algeria and Mali were implacably opposed to the international bombing campaign over Libya in 2011. They recognised, rightly, that such a violent upheaval in a region like north Africa would have unpredictable, potentially dire consequences. The then government of Mali said that fallout from the bombing of Libya was ‘a real source of concern’; as the BBC reported in October 2011, Mali had been saying since ‘the start of the conflict in Libya’ that ‘the fall of Gaddafi would have a destabilising effect in the region’. Mali’s main concern was that the ethnic Tuareg group, most of which is based in northern Mali and is hostile to Mali government forces, would be emboldened by the return of Tuareg fighters who had trained with and supported Gaddafi but who could no longer stay in Libya following the coming to power of the post-Gaddafi National Transitional Council. This has come to pass. Mali’s current troubles started in January 2012, when former Gaddafi-allied Tuareg fighters, joined occasionally by Islamists who had garnered arms from the fallout in Libya, declared war on the Mali government

        Likewise, the autocratic government of Algeria, Libya’s already troubled neighbour, was instinctively concerned about Western meddling in Libya. The Algeria-Libya pact, though tested by various conflicts of interest, had held relatively strong in north Africa for near-on 40 years. It was the means through which a huge, ostensibly ungovernable swathe of north Africa, incorporating vast, nomad-inhabited desert in Algeria and various tribal territories in Libya, was kept fairly stable. There was a major fallout between Algeria and Libya during Algeria’s bitter civil war in the early 1990s, when Gaddafi initially supported the Algerian Islamist group Front Islamique du Salut. But following Gaddafi’s turn against FIS in 1995, Algeria and Libya became mutual back-scratchers once more, particularly in their close collaboration on intelligence matters with the aim of eliminating their shared ‘Islamist problem’ (1). In 2011, Algeria recognised that international action in Libya threatened to unravel this authoritarian political system that had served it, and stability in north Africa, well for much of the modern period..

        Cont..

        http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/41217124950/how-cameron-created-the-chaos-in-north-africa

        Unintended consequences abound

        The destruction in Timbuktu was the direct result of the poorly thought-out intervention in support of the Libyan rebellion against Muammar Qaddafi. That rebellion and countless weapons have now washed over Africa, sparking among other things the Malian coup that freed Saharan Islamists to wreak havoc on Timbuktu. The Libyan intervention also sparked looting of that country’s archaeological sites and museums, and local Islamists have vented their rage on a Second World War British military cemetery as well as other sites ..

        Cont…

        http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12769/#.UhrDs-JwbIV

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 25, 2013, 6:36 am

        @Philip Weiss
        Yes, it’s true generally. See Donald’s response.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      August 22, 2013, 5:28 pm

      righto, citizen, and hasn’t Mubarak, serial thief, murderer and torturer, just been released from prison ‘on a technicality’ while the military dictatorship prepares charges against morsi. no irony there for western liberals concerned about the bias and intolerance of religious fundamentalists. and all this individual ‘agency’ nonsense is infuriating. western ‘aid’ funded the Mubarak kleptocracy and funds and motivates many of the so-called secular interests in Egypt, intentionally exacerbating existing tensions. mubarek looted, but he knew enough to spread the wealth sufficiently to forge a base of support. I can’t remember where I read it recently, maybe the WSJ, but there was a comment about the incompetence of the morsi regime, unable to provide regular access to even the most basic of needs such as food and gasoline, and remarking at how quickly such previously unavailable items were flowing after morsi’s ouster. wow. imagine that. not that anyone would artificially create such shortages to undermine morsi.

      • Keith
        Keith
        August 23, 2013, 6:57 pm

        MARC B- “all this individual ‘agency’ nonsense is infuriating.”

        I agree. Too big a topic to get into in depth, however, it is amazing the degree to which Western liberal interventionists can ignore the consequences both of imperialism and of current neoliberal globalism. Most of these uprisings are in direct response to Western imposed neoliberalism: no jobs, no money, no food, resource theft, etc. The social environment has been so rendered dysfunctional by Western actions that to deny Western influence and culpability in current events is profoundly ignorant. Virtually all of the Third World has had its development intentionally hindered by Western economic subjugation and de facto control. For example, Egypt’s desire to industrialize was thwarted by Britain. Noam Chomsky discusses:

        “Well, Egypt is an important country. I mean, there is a long interesting history but if we have time to go it, in the early 19th century, Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution. It might have actually carried it out. It was a situation not very much unlike the US at the same time but the US had been liberated to do what it wanted. Egypt was under control of primarily England which would not permit it and the story continues up to the present. I think that the United States and its European allies will do everything they can to prevent full flourishing democracy in Egypt for exactly the reason I mentioned.”
        http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20110224.htm

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        August 24, 2013, 6:34 pm

        you do have to wonder, keith, where on the continuum of imperialist manipulation the ‘agency’ arguers would acknowledge that their analysis dissolves into unmitigated drivel. take the most tragic example in our hemisphere, Haiti, and apply the ‘agency’ argument. it won’t take long for anyone to sound like that dipsomaniac racist, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 24, 2013, 11:11 pm

        MARC B- “all this individual ‘agency’ nonsense is infuriating.”

        I agree.

        But he immediately launched into a discussion about the relationship between a principal and an agent or agency that is addressed by the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise or conspiracy under various international statutes and national laws. Even if we suppose that all of Mubarak’s acts were committed because of orders he received from officials in Washington, he and the principals would still be personally responsible.

        For example: The Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. established that:
        Principle I
        Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

        Principle IV
        The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
        http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

        That’s how personal agency works.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 3:14 am

        you do have to wonder, keith, where on the continuum of imperialist manipulation the ‘agency’ arguers would acknowledge that their analysis dissolves into unmitigated drivel. take the most tragic example in our hemisphere, Haiti, and apply the ‘agency’ argument.

        I have no problem producing documentary proof of CIA wrongdoing in our hemisphere and elsewhere. When I do that, I ordinarily use blockquotes from the official documentary records, published memoirs of the participants, or other third-party verifiable sources.

        I also have no trouble at all applying the principle of personal agency any time an individual makes a moral decision to commit a crime against someone else, while acting on behalf of the CIA or any other principal in a common plan or conspiracy.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        August 25, 2013, 3:09 pm

        hostage, let me go back through the thread, but my criticism of Weiss’s agency argument, as I believe he advanced it, is assigning responsibility to relatively minor actors. something like Sartre’s argument made regarding the mundane involvement, assent of the ‘common man’ to the Nazi war machine. i’m completely comfortable assigning responsibility, legally and morally, to Mubarak. as I said, i’ll go back as much has been added to this thread.

      • Keith
        Keith
        August 25, 2013, 4:59 pm

        HOSTAGE- “Even if we suppose that all of Mubarak’s acts were committed because of orders he received from officials in Washington, he and the principals would still be personally responsible.”

        Of course they are. But that doesn’t mean that the officials in Washington who heavily influenced the course of events are blameless and should get off scot-free. Empire bears a heavy responsibility for the consequences of neocolonialism and neoliberalism. And that includes many corporate executives and military officers, not just the satraps, compradors, and quislings.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 1:06 am

        Hostage: “Even if we suppose that all of Mubarak’s acts were committed because of orders he received from officials in Washington, he and the principals would still be personally responsible.”

        Keith: Of course they are. But that doesn’t mean that the officials in Washington who heavily influenced the course of events are blameless and should get off scot-free.

        Lol! I just stated that the principals [i.e. officials in Washington] would be criminally responsible for any joint criminal enterprise and cited the Principles of International law contained in the Charter Nuremburg Charter, WTF has that got to do with holding them blameless of letting them off scot-free?

        But even if there were evidence that our officials are criminally complicit, all of those soldiers pulling the triggers on unarmed demonstrators are still exercising person agency and are still guilty of murder, just the same.

      • Keith
        Keith
        August 26, 2013, 4:30 pm

        HOSTAGE- “Lol! I just stated that the principals [i.e. officials in Washington] would be criminally responsible for any joint criminal enterprise….”

        Your original statement sans the parenthetical clarification was unclear. I assumed that “principals” referred to the soldiers involved, which has been your emphasis from the get go. Also, your continued reference to a “joint criminal enterprise” suggests legal definitions which would imply having to prosecute officials to hold them to account. Hardly a practical procedure to permit forming an opinion based upon known facts, reasonable assumptions, and logical inference.

        “But even if there were evidence that our officials are criminally complicit, all of those soldiers pulling the triggers on unarmed demonstrators are still exercising person agency and are still guilty of murder, just the same.”

        I find it interesting that you emphasize personal responsibility while downplaying command responsibility. Is that what the military encourages, individuals acting on their own, free to disobey orders? Is that what boot camp teaches, to continually question orders and always apply personal judgment? It seems that you apply much more stringent standards to the grunts than the officers. Apparently, the more command authority you have, the less you have to answer for, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you personally gave an order to unlawfully kill, not merely established procedures virtually guaranteed to result in mass murder such as occurred in Viet Nam with the emphasis on achieving a high body count. And the IMF which is pushing for neoliberalism which precipitated these uprisings, are they blameless too? And where does the empire fit in to this endless tale of Third World woe? And yes, it would be nice if more grunts openly rebelled, however, the main problem lies with the fat-cats who call the shots, and with the system which guides our actions and constrains our options.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 7:42 pm

        Your original statement sans the parenthetical clarification was unclear. I assumed that “principals” referred to the soldiers involved, which has been your emphasis from the get go.

        Well no shit Sherlock, they are personally responsible for murdering the demonstrators, despite your disparaging remarks about personal agency and unsupported allegations about US backing for those crimes.

        I find it interesting that you emphasize personal responsibility while downplaying command responsibility. Is that what the military encourages, individuals acting on their own, free to disobey orders?

        When I was in the service, the US military taught members of the armed forces that they have a duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and that if they choose to carry them out, they do so at their own peril. That was pretty much standard fare, even before the My Lai massacre.

        That theory of personal agency has been the stated policy of our government since the judgement in Little v Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804). It is reflected in the Nuremberg principle which says that superior orders are not an excuse or affirmative defense. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=6&invol=170

        That principle is recognized as part of the laws and customs of war. For example, the eleven soldiers and officers who were involved in the massacre at Kafr Qasim were put on trial. The Israeli Court ruled that the affair was a “crime against humanity” and that a “blatantly illegal order” to murder civilians was involved, which the members of the IDF had a duty to disobey.

        You haven’t offered a shred of credible evidence that US officials played any command role or have a command responsibility in the murders of the Egyptian demonstrators. We’ve had articles here which explain that international criminal tribunals have dismissed aiding and abetting charges against principals, unless there is evidence they had knowledge of the criminal activity or plan and provided specific direction.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 26, 2013, 7:58 pm

        RE: “When I was in the service, the US military taught members of the armed forces that they have a duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and that if they choose to carry them out, they do so at their own peril. That was pretty much standard fare, even before the My Lai massacre.”

        So when were you in the US military? And were you an officer or a grunt or jarhead? (Or were you in the navy or air force?) When I was in the US Army before the My Lai massacre, I was never taught anything except to obey orders, and service them to the nines with my taught “second eight” practical training, always updated with further training during my years of service.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 27, 2013, 1:36 am

        When I was in the US Army before the My Lai massacre, I was never taught anything except to obey orders, and service them to the nines with my taught “second eight” practical training, always updated with further training during my years of service.

        IIRC, the government provided evidence during the Court Martials of Capt. Medina and Lt. Calley which established that the members of their units had received training on the subject of the Geneva Conventions, the Law of War, and copies of the Pocket Rules. There is a link in the sidebar on that subject with copies of the handouts, and one of the Army Field Manuals.
        http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYLAI.HTM

        So when were you in the US military?

        From 1971 to 1992.

        And were you an officer or a grunt or jarhead? (Or were you in the navy or air force?)

        I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and served in combat units and in staff positions of a couple of Unified Combatant Commands. Everyone received basic and continuing professional military education on the laws of war. Members of combat and combat support units received semi-annual or annual training on the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) under DOD Directive 5100.77 DOD Law of War Program, 1974, which was re-issued and updated 1979.

        It was updated and reissued again after I retired and was canceled/replaced by DOD Directive 2311.01E in 2006. Here are links to those:
        * Current 2006 version DoD Law of War Program http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231101e.pdf
        * The 1998 version http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d510077_120998/d510077p.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 27, 2013, 1:58 am

        P.S. Here is an interesting article that discusses the political battle that broke out over the Justice Department and the State Department review of the contents of the revised draft of the DOD Law of War Manual. It has the usual a Weekly Standard spin, but there were politically motivated disagreements over interrogation methods, POW status, & applicability of human rights treaties, & etc. from both the Bush and Obama administrations.
        See Where Is the Law of War Manual? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/where-law-war-manual_739267.html

        Here is a discussion of its demise http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Parks.Manual.pdf

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 27, 2013, 2:16 am

        Air Force? LOL. We had Air force on our Military base. We didn’t even consider them in the military, and neither did they. As I said, I was in the Army before Mai Lai. It was before they handed out cards like this in ’67” http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_wmac.htm

        As I said, I received no training at all except to follow orders and training skill, in my case combat engineering.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 27, 2013, 7:14 am

        Air Force? LOL. We had Air force on our Military base. We didn’t even consider them in the military, and neither did they.

        Lol! The feeling was mutual. I spent a lot of time on Army bases either going through training or during assignments to combat control and special tactics units and whatever the Army was, we were certainly the opposite;-)

  4. American
    American
    August 22, 2013, 12:22 pm

    I am more or less resigned to the fact that the US will always be hypocritical–even when it doesnt chose/want to be —because it will always be caught between whatever humantaran concerns any decent US adm may feel and whatever it thinks is the US own practical and poltcal interest .

    If I could have my solution implemented for this hypocritical personalty it would be to end the one hypocriscy we ‘could’ end wth Israel and I/P.
    And then take our US hands off the steering wheel in the ME and just be a customer at the gas station, not try to run it.
    Just clean up the Isr mess and exit off stage.

    • Donald
      Donald
      August 22, 2013, 2:08 pm

      Almost exactly what I was thinking the other day, from beginning to end. Even the “customer at the gas station” was more or less the same, except I was thinking “buy their oil and that’s it”.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 26, 2013, 8:05 pm

      @ American
      I agree. I would add that we should actually talk to Iran and Assad. And Russia, more. These countries are aware of the benefits of a good relationship with the USA, but the USA pretty much ignores them, preferring to threaten Iran and Assad, and treat Putin like a criminal who needs to be put away–sans any acknowledgement he has good reason to treat us the same way.

  5. Gart Valenc
    Gart Valenc
    August 22, 2013, 12:29 pm

    Hypocrisy is a gross understatement. There’s a name for the billions of dollars the US continues providing them year after year despite the atrocities carried out, in particular by Israel, on a daily basis: complicity!

    Gart Valenc
    Twitter: @gartvalenc

  6. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    August 22, 2013, 12:35 pm

    RE: “While I am in the camp that these sectarian divisions were Made By Egyptians . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: The sectarian divisions in Egypt might well have been “Made By Egyptians”, but the Egyptians had considerably more than a little help from their “friends” in making these sectarian divisions! ! !

    FOR INSTANCE, AS TO THE CIA HAVING SUPPORTED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN EGYPT (beginning in the mid-1950s), SEE:
    “The CIA and The Muslim Brotherhood: How the CIA Set The Stage for September 11” (Martin A. Lee – Razor Magazine 2004)

    [EXCERPTS] The CIA often works in mysterious ways – and so it was with this little-known cloak-and-dagger caper that set the stage for extensive collaboration between US intelligence and Islamic extremists. The genesis of this ill-starred alliance dates back to Egypt in the mid-1950s, when the CIA made discrete overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood, the influential Sunni fundamentalist movement that fostered Islamic militancy throughout the Middle East. What started as a quiet American flirtation with political Islam became a Cold War love affair on the sly – an affair that would turn out disastrously for the United States. Nearly all of today’s radical Islamic groups, including al-Qaeda, trace their lineage to the Brotherhood. . .
    . . . For many years, the American espionage establishment had operated on the assumption that Islam was inherently anti-communist and therefore could be harnessed to facilitate US objectives. American officials viewed the Muslim Brotherhood as “a secret weapon” in the shadow war against the Soviet Union and it’s Arab allies, according to Robert Baer, a retired CIA case officer who was right in the thick of things in the Middle East and Central Asia during his 21 year career as a spy. In “Sleeping with the Devil”, a book he wrote after quitting the CIA Baer explains how the United States “made common cause with the Brothers” and used them “to do our dirty work in Yemen, Afghanistan and plenty of other places”.
    This covert relationship; unraveled when the Cold War ended, whereupon an Islamic Frankenstein named Osama bin Laden lurched into existence. . .

    SOURCE – http://ce399fascism.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/the-cia-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-how-the-cia-set-the-stage-for-september-11-martin-a-lee-razor-magazine-2004/

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      August 22, 2013, 12:45 pm

      P.S. ALSO FOR INSTANCE, AS TO THE U.K. HAVING SUPPORTED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, SEE:
      “Secret Affairs”, By Mark Curtis, Reviewed by Kim Sengupta, The Independent, 7/30/10

      [EXCERPTS] For years, violent Islamist groups were allowed to settle in Britain, using the country as a base to carry out attacks abroad. This was tolerated in the belief that they would not bomb the country where they lived and that, as long as they are here, the security service would be able to infiltrate them. At the same time mosque after mosque was taken over through intimidation by the fundamentalists. Police and others in authority refused pleas from moderate Muslims with the excuse that they did not want to interfere.
      There was even a name for this amoral accommodation: the “covenant of security”. We now know that jihadists will indeed blow up their home country and that the security agencies signally failed to infiltrate the terrorist cells while they had the chance.
      The part played by officials in the growth of terrorism in Britain is a relatively small-scale affair compared to what went on abroad. Successive UK governments had nurtured and promoted extremists for reasons of realpolitik often at a terrible cost to the population of those countries. Mark Curtis, in his book on “Britain’s collusion with radical Islam”, charts this liaison. He points out how reactionary and violent Muslim groups were used against secular nationalists at the time of empire and continued afterwards to back UK and Western interests.
      The price for this is now being paid at home and abroad. I am writing this review in Helmand, where a few days ago I went on an operation with British and Afghan troops against insurgents whose paymasters, across the border in Pakistan, have been the beneficiaries of US and British largesse.
      Curtis points out that two of the most active Islamist commanders carrying out attacks in Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalalludin Haqqani, had particularly close contacts with the UK in the past. Hekmatyar met Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street when he was a favourite of MI6 and the CIA in the war against the Russians. Haqqani, while not the “Taliban’s overall military commander fighting the British” as Curtis says (he runs his own network parallel to the Taliban), was viewed as a highly useful tool in that conflict.
      The Western use of the Mujaheddin as proxy fighters is well documented. It resulted in the spawning of al-Qa’ida, the spread of international terrorism, and the empowering of ISI, the Pakistani secret police, who became their sponsors. Curtis examines the lesser known by-products of this jihad: the dispatch of Afghan Islamist veterans, with the connivance of Britain and the US, to the wars in the Balkans and the former Soviet republics in central Asia, and ethnic Muslim areas of China. Vast sums of money from the West’s great ally, Saudi Arabia, helped fund the Reagan administration’s clandestine war in support of repressive military juntas in Latin America while, at the same time, buttressing the aggressive Wahabi faith embraced by many terrorist groups.
      The use of hardline Islam by the West was particularly prevalent at the time of the Cold War. In many instances, however, the targets for destabilisation were not Communist regimes but leaders who had adopted left-wing policies deemed to pose a threat to Western influence and interests.
      The UK attempted to combat “virus of Arab nationalism”, after Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in Egypt and nationalised the Suez Canal, by forging links with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation involved in terrorism. The nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq led to a British-American organised coup which was facilitated by Ayatollah Seyyed Kashani, one of whose followers was the young Ruhollah Khomeini. In Indonesia, the removal of Ahmed Sukarno in another military coup by the UK-US was carried out with the help of Darul Islam. Its followers went on to massacre socialists and trade unionists.
      In each of these cases the clandestine backing of Britain and the US strengthened Islamist groups at the expense of secular bodies and moderate Muslims. These groups then went to form terrorist groups whom the West would later have to confront in the “War on Terror”. . .

      ENTIRE BOOK REVIEW – http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/secret-affairs-by-mark-curtis-2038691.html

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 26, 2013, 8:24 pm

        @ Dickerson3870
        Thanks for sharing this info. I also notice you repeatedly show concern for the way the US leaders spurn the principles of The Enlightenment. And you are savvy there; it’s been going on for a long time, undermining the best POV the US used to have to offer. Instead, we now have the Israelization of America. That banished folks like David Duke talk about it does not mean it’s not central fact. Time for patriotic Americans to wake up and smell 6he universal flowers. The White Rose.

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      August 22, 2013, 12:52 pm

      P.P.S. AND, FOR INSTANCE, AS TO ISRAEL HAVING SUPPORTED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD (IN THE FORM OF HAMAS), SEE:
      SEE: “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas”, By Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street Journal, 01/24/09

      [EXCERPT] Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.
      “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.
      Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

  7. American
    American
    August 22, 2013, 12:49 pm

    ‘I’d broaden the issue to this: what role did Zionism have in inflaming these religious divisions? What role has the successful implantation of violent Jewish nationalism had in causing religious wars in the Middle East? ‘….Phl

    I’d say ‘some bit of it’ because of the linkage of the relgous aspects of Judaism’s chosen and gift of Israel as a ‘relgous rght’ and so forth in Zionism and it’s ‘peoplehood nation’ concept relgous morph and meme. That of course will ‘stir’ other relgous against the ‘religon’ when it creates some real lose to the other.
    For the very relgous what looks like or is an assualt on them by another religion is going to rile up everything even more.
    Of course riling up the relgous and makng it a relgous war is good cover for the more down to earth agendas going on that have everyone discontent and mad to begin wth.

  8. August 22, 2013, 1:08 pm

    Hamas was attacked by Israel not because of its idealogy. Not “in the name of suppressing violent Islamists”. That is another nonsence I read on these pages. In fact one of the legal Israel Arab organization is called the Northern Branch of MB. They recently organized demonstrations INSIDE ISRAEL to support Egyptian MB. These were peaceful demonstrations and no police interference was reported
    http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2013/07/14/israeli-muslim-brotherhood-holds-pro-morsi-demonstration/
    The reason Israel attacked Hamas was because Hamas attacked Israel civilians. And Hamas attacked Israel civilians because its official doctrine is to fight Israelis whereever they can and however they can and with whom they can.

    Historically after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza Hamas first massacred PA representatives (read about these horrors in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan#Gaza_Strip_situation_following_Israeli_withdrawal

    and look at

    https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?shdf=CqgBCxILZGVzY3JpcHRpb24aMkdBWkEgLSBIQU1BUyBNQVNTQUNSRSAgICYgTXVyZGVyaW5nIFdvbWFuIENoaWxkLi4uDAsSBnJlYXNvbhoBMwwLEgd2aWRlb0lkGgkyODI1MzA0OTAMCxIKdmlkZW9UaXRsZRoyR0FaQSAtIEhBTUFTIE1BU1NBQ1JFICAgJiBNdXJkZXJpbmcgV29tYW4gQ2hpbGQuLi4MEgd5b3V0dWJlGgRTSEExIhRR0fpqq1Kx6KfXy5BoSNT4yP7nRSgBMhTnpQoIhOR5_-UnT1fYqVmFOZJM0w%3D%3D&passive=true&service=youtube&ltmpl=verifyage&hl=en_US&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fsignin%3Faction_handle_signin%3Dtrue%26feature%3Dverify_age_streamlined%26hl%3Den_US%26next%3D%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DEocnKHR_9XU%26nomobiletemp%3D1
    Following this Hamas forces were shooting Qassam rockets at Israeli settlements located near the Gaza borders, and have staged cross-border raids aimed at killing or capturing Israeli soldiers. In one such raid, on 25 June 2006, Palestinians captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, leading to massive retaliation by the Israeli army which included air strikes against Hamas targets.

    That is how it developed with Hamas. No Islamic ideology was involve.

    On the other hand as we recently learned in article on this site abot Egypt demonizing Palestinians Morci’s MB did not shared Hamas ideas and path of actions. They kept peace with Israel. At least as long as they were in power. They even help brokering cease fire with Hamas in Nov. 2012.

    So – stop this nonsence that Israel fights “in the name of suppressing violent Islamists”. It is the other way around – some violent Isamists want to “suppress” Israel. Here is the list – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Erdogan …. You descriptions contradicts the causality of the events.

    Now make one more step – tell moderator to ban this comments from being posted. That will complete the pattern of …… etc

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 22, 2013, 1:24 pm

      “stop this nonsence that Israel fights “in the name of suppressing violent Islamists”.”

      Yes, israel fights in order to destroy the lives of ordinary Palestinians. It uses Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other nonsense as an excuse.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      August 22, 2013, 1:25 pm

      “Hamas was attacked by Israel not because of its ideology.”

      I wholeheartedly agree. Fatah’s secularism didn’t indemnify it against attack.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 22, 2013, 2:29 pm

        “Fatah’s secularism didn’t indemnify it against attack.”

        Yes, israel is quite comprehensive in murdering Palestinians, Hamas, Fatah; fighters, farmers; politicians, school children; adults, children. So long as they are Palestinians, you people murder them.

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 22, 2013, 5:55 pm

        “Fatah’s secularism didn’t indemnify it against attack.”

        Hamas won the election. Fatah conspired with the US and the Israelis to overthrow it.

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        August 23, 2013, 2:21 am

        Implicit in the anti-theistic critique here is that right minded people should reject the monotheistic laws of the Abrahamaic faiths , essentially the same amongst orthodox judaism, christianity, and Islam, and in the application to palestine , favor fatah and secular Israel over Hamas, regardless of other human rights concerns over which the conflict is based.

        In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Christian brotherhood Tea Partiers (to the msnbc crowd) , are non-persons; if they are being killed, we cant side with them because of their beliefs.

        I think is entirely explanatory of the state of the middle east and palestine, even now the EU , not the islamaphobes at fox, are funding alsis’s butchery and sanctioning Hamas and Hexbollah in a variety of ways.

        Maybe Huntington was right, there is a clash of civilizations, both external and internal. The race is between thos who want to make the Middle east like europe, still colonial, pagan , materialistic, brave new worlders, and those trying to stop the global cultures crushing of all local particularism, of all relevacnce of the old human traditions.

        But one thins should be very clear by now. Secular cosmopolitanism is not democratic unless u mean the democracy of corporate persons, , but acutely violent, with a brutal indifference to the plight of the non persons.

        Welcome to the Hunger Games.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 4:05 pm

        Implicit in the anti-theistic critique here is that right minded people should reject the monotheistic laws of the Abrahamaic faiths

        No, some monotheistic laws are harmless rationalizations which support common sense and universalism. But others are designed to dominate and punish other members of society in ways that are no longer universally accepted. Those laws fall outside the scope of religious freedom and religious toleration.

        In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Christian brotherhood Tea Partiers (to the msnbc crowd) , are non-persons; if they are being killed, we cant side with them because of their beliefs.

        No, the entitlement to the exercise of fundamental human rights isn’t conditional and persons can’t be disqualified on those bases. In most cases no deviation or derogation is permitted at all.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 23, 2013, 10:30 pm

        bilal a:

        Maybe Huntington was right, there is a clash of civilizations, both external and internal. The race is between thos who want to make the Middle east like europe, still colonial, pagan , materialistic, brave new worlders, and those trying to stop the global cultures crushing of all local particularism, of all relevacnce of the old human traditions.

        But one thins should be very clear by now. Secular cosmopolitanism is not democratic unless u mean the democracy of corporate persons, , but acutely violent, with a brutal indifference to the plight of the non persons.

        Excellent post. You make important points that go against the grain of a lot of the thinking here.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 22, 2013, 1:26 pm

      >> That is how it developed with Hamas.

      Hamas did this and Hamas did that.

      Meanwhile, the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel:
      – continued to occupy Palestinian land outside its / Partition borders;
      – remained committed to its “Greater Israel” project;
      – remained engaged in its offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
      – continued to ignore its obligations under international law;
      – refused to be held accountable for its past and on-going (war) crimes (including terrorism and ethnic cleansing); and
      – refused to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      But, yes, that’s how it developed with the victim: Even when the rapist unshackled her hands and lengthened her chains a bit, all she wanted to do was to hurt him. She forces the rapist to beat her and to keep her locked up in his bunker.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 22, 2013, 4:46 pm

      The reason Israel attacked Hamas was because Hamas attacked Israel civilians.

      Wikileaks cables exposed this as yet another lie. They were attacked because the ceasefire on 2008 was going to well and Israel decided that a military option would be necessary to undermine Hamas.

      “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/

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 22, 2013, 5:46 pm

      nlevit “They recently organized demonstrations INSIDE ISRAEL…”

      When was the territory of Kafr Kanna legally annexed to Israel? It was not within Israel’s proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent May 15th 1948.

      MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      “Hamas attacked Israel civilians because its official doctrine is to fight Israelis whereever they can and however they can and with whom they can. “

      The IDF memorial site shows there have been far more military casualties than civilian.

      “Following this Hamas forces were shooting Qassam rockets at Israeli settlements located near the Gaza borders,”

      They’re Cease Fire Lines. Gaza’s borders were created by default of Israel’s proclamation and subsequent recognition May 15th 1948 http://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/notannexed.gif

      “In one such raid, on 25 June 2006, Palestinians captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, leading to massive retaliation by the Israeli army which included air strikes against Hamas targets. “

      Gilad Shalit was a valid military target. You’re contradicting your previous statement ( “The reason Israel attacked Hamas was because Hamas attacked Israel civilians “ )

      “You descriptions contradicts the causality of the events.”

      The causality of the conflict with Israel is the ongoing colonization of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine May 15th 1948 00:01 ME Time

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 22, 2013, 11:29 pm

      Following this Hamas forces were shooting Qassam rockets at Israeli settlements located near the Gaza borders, and have staged cross-border raids aimed at killing or capturing Israeli soldiers. In one such raid, on 25 June 2006, Palestinians captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, leading to massive retaliation by the Israeli army which included air strikes against Hamas targets.

      Rubbish of course. Between September 2005 and June 2006, Israel fired more than 7,700 shells into Gaza. So ISrael were already bombing Gaza.

      The capture of Shalit took place one day after Israel kidnapped 2 Palestinian brothers from GAza city. They have never been heard of since, but it’s only Shalit you heard about.

      They even help brokering cease fire with Hamas in Nov. 2012.

      The ceasefire could have been brokered weeks earlier, but Israel chose to assassinate Hamas’ chief negotiator during a ceasefire to sabotage any such deal.

      some violent Isamists want to “suppress” Israel.

      The only one doing the suppressing is Israel and the best and most pathetic argument you an come up with is that Israel has no choice because Hamas would be doing it to them if they weren’t doing it to the Palestinians.

      A bit like a rapist saying he has to attack his victim in case she fights back.

  9. American
    American
    August 22, 2013, 1:11 pm

    ”the anti-Zionist left in the U.S. has to be silent about Hamas policies that it would find offensive in the U.S.?”….Phl

    I am anti zionist, dont know how left I would be considered outsde of just human or social issues….But in my reality world it’s not about ignoring Hamas violence or policies or being ‘unconditionally’ for them.
    I recongize the fact that if not for Hamas, Palestines and their aspirations would likely have been done for long ago.
    There is no simeon pure in Hamas actions vr Isr actions.
    You just take the side of the most right or least wrong or least guilty in conflicts if you’re going to take a side at all.

  10. hophmi
    hophmi
    August 22, 2013, 1:11 pm

    “The numbers of Muslim Brothers and others slaughtered by the Egyptian government is still less than the number of Palestinians killed during Israel’s 3-week onslaught on Palestine in 2008-2009 also in the name of suppressing violent Islamists”

    *I’m not aware of a pattern of Muslim Brothers firing rockets into the homes of their fellow Egyptians in the way Palestinians from Gaza did before Cast Lead.

    “Obama and Kerry spoke out immediately against the massacre of the Brothers last week.”

    That’s because reports suggested that hundreds of people were killed IN ONE DAY.

    “But on the occasion of the Israeli slaughter– which galvanized outrage around the world– Obama was silent for the 3 weeks preceding his taking the oath of office and always approving since.”

    See * above.

    “The Muslim Brotherhood is now widely described (by Egyptian government propagandists and Coptic Christians) as a terrorist organization. But the United States rightly insists that the Muslim Brotherhood be included in a democratic government. This policy utterly contradicts our policy in Palestine, where the same mainstream/government bloc paints Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the United States goes along with the Israelis and insists that Hamas be excluded from all political arrangements. It’s completely hypocritical and destructive of the principle of self-determination. ”

    It’s sad how you simply disregard the views of Coptic Christians. Anyway, the policies are actually exactly the same. The United States did not stand in the way of Hamas standing in Palestinian elections in 2006. They were elected, continued to preach violence, and have since ruled Gaza like the authoritarians and sectarians that they are. It’s the same with the MB. They got elected, and governed like sectarians and authoritarians, because democracy was not their chief aim.

    “The next time you hear someone lecture the Palestinians about their need to reconcile politically, reflect that the difference between secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas is a chasm in Egypt and surely in Syria too. It’s a deep cultural/political divide inside several Arab polities. Of course I hope that they reconcile, too; but it’s kind of like telling the Tea Party and the Democratic Party to break bread if they were living under occupation. ”

    Lecture? I don’t think the Palestinians are being lectured; it’s what they themselves seem to want, but there are political barriers. I’m actually surprised you’d make this comparison. I tend to think most Hamas members would gladly reconcile with Fatah since many of them are not exactly super-religious, but the leadership is a little more radical than they are. My bet is it’s the same with the MB; most of this violence is probably driven by the more radical wing.

    “what role did Zionism have in inflaming these religious divisions? What role has the successful implantation of violent Jewish nationalism had in causing religious wars in the Middle East? ”

    None, in my view; if anything, Zionism reduced enmity amongst the Arabs by giving them a cause to unite around. You can be a secular Arab or a religious Arab and unite around your hatred of the Jews and their state. Now that Israel has become firmly established, the people have stopped allowing authoritarian leaders to use it as a distraction tactic, and the sectarian divisions are returning.

    You should really be asking the following question:

    As a human rights activist, what responsibility to have to condemn the sectarian and authoritarian tendencies of Islamism? Am I facilitating those tendencies by adopting their narrative on Israel, a narrative that seeks to deflect criticism of their movement in favor of Islamic states?

    • Donald
      Donald
      August 22, 2013, 5:58 pm

      “The United States did not stand in the way of Hamas standing in Palestinian elections in 2006. They were elected, ”

      Interesting how the old Orwellian memory hole works–the US pushed for elections never dreaming Hamas would win. Hamas won, and so the US did what it could to stop a Hamas government from forming. That was the cause of the civil war.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 22, 2013, 6:16 pm

        Elliot Abrams literally conspired with Israeli officials, to subvert the election results.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 22, 2013, 6:59 pm

        Hamas won, and so the US did what it could to stop a Hamas government from forming.

        In fact, the US and Israel refused to accept the outcome. They continued to refer to Abbas as the legitimate leader even though he lost the election.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 23, 2013, 10:34 am

        ” Hamas won, and so the US did what it could to stop a Hamas government from forming. That was the cause of the civil war.”

        That’s one way of putting it. But I think Fatah was most interested in preventing its political rival from taking power (and the international aid money).

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:45 pm

        Wrong Hop.

        Fatah and Hamax wer scheduled to have unity talks but Washington stepped in and told them to forget it and launch a coup.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 24, 2013, 2:29 pm

        Elliot Abrams and a certain American general, schemed to launch a coup.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 22, 2013, 6:04 pm

      That’s because reports suggested that hundreds of people were killed IN ONE DAY.

      Pull your head out of your ass. Hundreds of policemen alone were killed in the opening minutes of Cast Lead.

      Prof. Schabas noted that, at one and the same time, the UN and many governments were still monitoring the on-going genocide in Dafur, while ignoring higher casualty rates in Gaza:

      My own inquiries into this, especially with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, indicate that probably fewer than 1,000 civilians or non-combatants have been killed as a result of State or State-sponsored violence in the past year. In other words, quite possibly more civilians were killed in Gaza in one month by the Israeli Defence Forces than in a year by the Sudanese army.

      http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-genocide-over-in-darfur.html

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 22, 2013, 6:16 pm

        “Pull your head out of your ass. Hundreds of policemen alone were killed in the opening minutes of Cast Lead.”

        Good advice, Hostage. You ought to take it. Many of these policemen were unfortunately also members of the Izz-al-Din-Brigades.

        “Prof. Schabas noted that, at one and the same time, the UN and many governments were still monitoring the on-going genocide in Darfur”

        Yeah, perhaps because there were hundreds of thousands of people killed there.

        Yeah, Hostage, I remember when you pulled this crap with Syria. You said Syria was a lot like Gaza because the daily casualty rate was less than Cast Lead. Wonder if you’d say that now that well over 100,000 people are dead.

        The day people like you stop trying to apologize for Arab atrocities by deflecting attention from then by focusing on Israel, a lot of Arabs will be much better off.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:25 pm

        You ought to take it. Many of these policemen were unfortunately also members of the Izz-al-Din-Brigades.

        Really? According to what non Hasbara sources?

        Yeah, perhaps because there were hundreds of thousands of people killed there.

        You need to update your talking points Hop. Mainstream Hasbarats have stopping pulling the Darfur card every time they got stuck since it was revealed the “hundreds if thousands ” claim was bunk.

        So the most acclaimed study on Darfur came away with “120,000 were excess deaths directly attributable to the conflict, 35,000 of which were violent deaths”.
        http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/04/the-false-darfur-genocide-numbers.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 23, 2013, 4:17 pm

        Yeah, perhaps because there were hundreds of thousands of people killed there.

        No, because there were allegations that the government of Sudan intended to destroy members of certain groups, in whole or in part, simply because they were members of those groups. The ICC Appeals Chamber had already pointed out that killing hundreds of thousands, absent the necessary element of intent, is indictable as murder and persecution, not genocide. In the case of the government of Sudan there is evidence of those other war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not genocide.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 1:18 am

        Yeah, Hostage, I remember when you pulled this crap with Syria. You said Syria was a lot like Gaza because the daily casualty rate was less than Cast Lead. Wonder if you’d say that now that well over 100,000 people are dead.

        Your tendentious interpretation of my comments doesn’t usually pass the giggle test, and this is no exception.

        The idea that Syria or Dafur are somehow like Gaza, would still mean that war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in all of those places need to be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. That’s true whether a state is accused of systematically murdering 10 non-combatants or 10 million. Nothing I’ve said here can remotely be construed as an attempt to apologize for Arab atrocities.

        I’m not “pulling” crap by simply pointing out that legal experts in the field of genocide studies, like Prof. Schabas, and the UN Security Council’s fact finding mission to Darfur have concluded that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed, but that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide – or that those same experts find defenses or excuses for not prosecuting Israeli crimes artificial and unconvincing. See Schabas, The Banality of International Justice, J Int Criminal Justice (2013) http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/06/08/jicj.mqt027.full and
        Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General http://www.un.org/news/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 23, 2013, 5:59 am

        @Hostage

        “Pull your head out of your ass. Hundreds of policemen alone were killed in the opening minutes of Cast Lead.”

        Wasn’t the Gestapo a police force?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2013, 11:37 am

        “Wasn’t the Gestapo a police force?”

        No, they were a secret police organization. It was a domestic intelligence service in the SS, which was a party paramilitary organization.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 23, 2013, 12:16 pm

        The Gestapo had uniforms.

        Doesn’t the Hamas Interior Ministry have secret police?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:51 pm

        The Gestspo were secret police idiot. The point being that those killed by Israel on the first day of Cast Leas were public servants massacred on the day of their graduation.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “The Gestapo had uniforms.”

        So do doormen. BFD.

        “Doesn’t the Hamas Interior Ministry have secret police?”

        Perhaps. But the police murdered by you people were simply police officers.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 23, 2013, 6:46 pm

        First, less than one hundred police died from the initial air airstrike at the police headquarters ceremony. Subsequent strikes on police stations killed more police.
        The ‘cadets’ at the ceremony were a mixture of newly appointed officers from several different police divisions and some ‘big wigs’ who were also present at the ceremony and probably targeted by the IDF. Regardless of what police divisions the dead may have come from, many of the dead policemen wore ‘two hats’, the other hat being al Qassam Brigades combatants.
        No one has effectively proven which ‘cadets’ were uniformed street cops or secret police or al Qassam Brigades reservists.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        August 24, 2013, 2:46 pm

        They slaughtered 100 people indiscriminately in the space of a few minutes. Without warning. Right up there with the Egyptian government, as an atrocity

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 24, 2013, 2:57 pm

        “They slaughtered 100 people indiscriminately in the space of a few minutes”

        Which is fine with hophmi and obsidian. Presumably, then, if Hamas or Hezbollah can launch a surprise missile attack on an Israeli police graduation ceremony it’ll be okay so long as they claim that some of the participants are members of the IDF.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 24, 2013, 3:17 pm

        >> Regardless of what police divisions the dead may have come from, many of the dead policemen wore ‘two hats’, the other hat being al Qassam Brigades combatants.

        And, with that, Obsidian gives his blessing to the assassination of Israeli civilians who, as we all know, wear “two hats”, the other hat being a member of the oppressive Occupation Forces of the supremacist “Jewish State” of (Greater) Israel.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 24, 2013, 6:13 pm

        First, less than one hundred police died from the initial air airstrike at the police headquarters ceremony.

        Wrong. It was 250.

        No one has effectively proven which ‘cadets’ were uniformed street cops or secret police or al Qassam Brigades reservists.

        In fact, no one has demonstrated that there were any Qassam Brigades reservists there at all.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 1:56 am

        First, less than one hundred police died from the initial air airstrike at the police headquarters ceremony. Subsequent strikes on police stations killed more police. . . . many of the dead policemen wore ‘two hats’, the other hat being al Qassam Brigades combatants.

        Wow, just wow! That’s like saying that Udi Fogel wore two hats and that the “Rabbi” was also an IDF officer or that fewer than 6 people died in that particular incident in Itamar. We are still talking about flagrant war crimes in both cases that shouldn’t be condoned or trivialized in this way.

        Police stations and police facilities are civilian, not military objectives. The people that happen to be in one do not loose the protections of the Geneva Conventions, unless they are taking an active part in hostilities. That wasn’t the case here.

        It’s hardly the first time Israel has attacked civilian government objectives – and the repeated attacks on multiple police stations was part of a deliberate plan according to the IDF’s own reports. Israel has attacked and destroyed police stations in the past, in situations, like the invasion of the West Bank during the raid on Es Sammu. It simply believes it can commit bloody murder or mayhem using these sort of flimsy excuses.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 25, 2013, 2:01 am

        @Phil

        Al Qassam Brigade’s website claims many of these policemen as their own, i.e. ‘two hats’. Was Al Qassam Brigades being truthful on their website or did it ‘pad their rosters’ with unaffiliated dead policemen. No one knows.

        Traffic cops and beat cops who take kittens out of trees were no threat to Israel. Hamas Internal Security cops (Gestapo), whose function is to root out collaborators and spies were a threat and were targeted.

        ‘Without warning’.

        Hamas launched a military campaign against Israel that preceded Cast Lead by a few days, so Cast Lead should not have come as much surprise.

        http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=207221

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 25, 2013, 3:17 am

        @Hostage

        You know. You have to wonder when ‘police forces’ are outfitted with AK 47s and camouflaged uniforms.

        http://static2.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/800-7/photos/1319726702-hamas-police-officers-graduate-in-gaza-_898167.jpg

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 25, 2013, 7:18 am

        No we slaughtered uniformed and armed members of security forces
        as a first stage in another cycle of armed hostilities.
        We didn’t machine gunned a demonstration .

      • just
        just
        August 25, 2013, 7:39 am

        What an unholy justification paired with obfuscation riddled with Zionist claptrap. I thought you guys know everything about everyone and you never make mistakes.

        Next you’ll say that these slaughtered police people were responsible for the poor harvest that illegal settlers had — on stolen land and with stolen water. Or maybe for the bad weather. Or maybe because they were trying to be good humans who wanted to protect the innocents from the IOF that regularly kills, maims, and incarcerates the indigenous Palestinians.

        Oh, and by the way, the free folks in Israel regularly elect their terrorists to be leaders of their country. Talk about “two hats”!!!

        Pathetic.

      • annie
        annie
        August 25, 2013, 12:03 pm

        Hamas launched a military campaign against Israel that preceded Cast Lead by a few days, so Cast Lead should not have come as much surprise.

        and israel launched a military campaign against gaza and hamas that preceded the retaliatory response from hamas precisely to get their war on, the one israel had been planning for over 6months. obviously hamas response attacks came as no surprise at all, since this was the intent of israel all along.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 25, 2013, 1:29 pm

        Hamas largely observed the cease-fire with Israel, in six months prior to Israeli rampage in late 2008.

        I continue to understand Obama operatives wanted Israel to “get the job done” before O entered the White House.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 25, 2013, 4:42 pm

        Well. When Qassam Brigades claims the police on the Qassam Brigades website, you sorta have to wonder.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 6:04 pm

        Al Qassam Brigade’s website claims many of these policemen as their own, i.e. ‘two hats’.

        Where’s the link that makes those claims?

        Traffic cops and beat cops who take kittens out of trees were no threat to Israel.

        Neither are children, yet Israel chose the time if day that corresponds to children going to school or coming home. Israel killed over 300 children during Cast Lead.

        Hamas Internal Security cops (Gestapo), whose function is to root out collaborators and spies were a threat and were targeted.

        There is no evidence Israel were targeting them as opposed to all Gazans.

        Hamas launched a military campaign against Israel that preceded Cast Lead by a few days, so Cast Lead should not have come as much surprise.

        No, the reason Cast Lead came as no surprise is because Israel were planning Cast Lead 6 months prior and Wikileaks revealed they Israel’s leaders were concerned that the ceasefire was be editing Hamas and giving them legitimacy.

        Secondly , the ceasefire was due to expire in December and Israel did not want to avoid having to either re-negotiate the terms if it’s renewal or reject it and risk being seen as the rogue state that they are.

        They is why Israel launched a phony raid on November 4th (chosen specifically because the world’d eyes were on the US elections) to break the ceasefire and kill 6 Palestinians. They knew this would incite a response from Hamas, which they managed to spin as an unprovoked attack on Israel.

        Israel did the same in 2011, when they launched attacks on Gaza during a ceasefire (claiming they were routine operations) and then seizing on the rocket response to bomb Gaza. Since when is a cross border raid with 4 tanks a routine operation?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 6:06 pm

        No we slaughtered uniformed and armed members of security forces

        As well as 700 civilians, including 330 children.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 6:11 pm

        You know. You have to wonder when ‘police forces’ are outfitted with AK 47s and camouflaged uniforms.

        They do in the US.

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=us+federal+police+military+uniforms&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pIAaUqn7H6uViQe994CQBQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=320&bih=356#biv=i%7C10%3Bd%7C6i97jb74PVcTDM%3A

        BTW. What is to suggest the caption if your link is not fake?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 25, 2013, 8:22 pm

        “Traffic cops and beat cops who take kittens out of trees were no threat to Israel.

        Neither are children,”

        But they would be if someone smuggled crayons into Gaza.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 25, 2013, 8:32 pm

        We didn’t machine gunned a demonstration.

        The annual Land Day observances commemorate the fact that Israel did, and still does, exactly that.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 8:43 pm

        There’s no reason to wonder until you provide evidence Obsidian.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 12:47 am

        You know. You have to wonder when ‘police forces’ are outfitted with AK 47s and camouflaged uniforms.

        No I have to wonder when you’ll stop beating this dead horse. Maybe they are emulating the automatic weapons and camouflage uniforms worn by the Israeli Border Police, maybe not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkM0ojH2tb4&t=0m55s

        They could just be following the example of hundreds of local police SWAT Teams here in the USA, who also wear camo outfits and carry automatic weapons, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTwlCs0Eyq4&t=0m02s

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        August 26, 2013, 1:42 am

        @Hostage

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556185/Hamas-police-lay-down-law-in-Gaza.html

        Note where the article mentions that two weeks after the 2007 putsch, ‘Hamas has bolstered the police force with about 400 members of its so-called Executive Force and militants on loan from its armed wing, the Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades’.

        This is probably a good time for you to bail on this thread.

        -or-

        http://www.police.ps/ar/albums-action-show-id-1168.htm

        Gaza police w/AKs and camouflage bury one of their own who’d died with the Nusra Front in Syria.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 4:07 am

        @Hostage . . . This is probably a good time for you to bail on this thread.

        -or-

        link to police.ps

        Gaza police w/AKs and camouflage bury one of their own who’d died with the Nusra Front in Syria.

        No, I already pointed out at the start of this thread that civilians who happen to be taking an active role in hostilities can be targeted. The Goldstone report explained that does NOT include members of the military on loan to the police force, performing law enforcement duties. The government of Israel didn’t even try to allege that the Gaza police at the ceremony were engaged in combat operations.

        FYI, if Israel insists on calling members of the al Qassam Brigades a uniformed militia, then they are entitled to be treated as POWs after they are captured – at least until a competent tribunal can rule on their individual cases. We both know that Israel has always refused to do that. So maybe its time for you to bailout of this thread?

        At this point you’re trolling us and trying to use any kind of innuendo to justify a flagrant crime. Why should I bailout, when I can still point-out the glaring holes in your theories and your public display of desperation?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 26, 2013, 6:30 am

        This is probably a good time for you to bail on this thread.

        On the contrary. On the first day Cast Lead,Israel bombed an academy in which recruits were graduating.

        The story you linked to is from 2007. Whatever military personnel might have been absorbed into the police in 2007 would not have been graduating in December 2008.

        Nice try, but fail.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 26, 2013, 7:38 am

        >> … we slaughtered uniformed and armed members of security forces …

        Zio-supremacists like OlegReee – tough as nails and full of swagger – are proud to slaughter dozens up on dozens of members of foreign security forces, but if someone merely kidnaps a single member of the supremacist “Jewish State’s” Occupation Forces, they cry like little girls about the injustice of it all. :-(

  11. eljay
    eljay
    August 22, 2013, 1:59 pm

    >> As a human rights activist, what responsibility to have to condemn the sectarian and authoritarian tendencies of Islamism? Am I facilitating those tendencies by adopting their narrative on Israel, a narrative that seeks to deflect criticism of their movement in favor of Islamic states?

    As a human rights activist, what responsibility to have to condemn the oppressive and supremacist tendencies of Zio-supremacism? Am I facilitating those tendencies by adopting their narrative on “the Arabs”, a narrative that seeks to deflect criticism of their movement in favor of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” of Greater Israel in Palestine?

  12. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    August 22, 2013, 3:08 pm

    The double standard vis a vis Hamas and MB goes beyond a convenient hypocrisy of the moment because US law defines Hamas as a terrorist organization. AIPAC made it so a long time ago. Elected officials are pigeon holed into saying Hamas gets what it deserves.

  13. giladg
    giladg
    August 22, 2013, 3:37 pm

    This is how it goes Philip. When events are too difficult to understand and when the average Joe needs someone to blame for his own self inflicted problems, he blames the Jew. Jews make excellent scapegoats. This is how it has been for the past 2,500 years Philip. How long do you think it will take for Egypt to refocus it’s attention on the “enemy” from the North? I say within the next 18 to 24 months. Trust the goy, they will always show their true colors.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 23, 2013, 11:29 am

      “Trust the goy, they will always show their true colors.”

      Trust the zionist to always show himself as a bigot.

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 24, 2013, 2:59 pm

        ““Trust the goy, they will always show their true colors.”

        “Trust the zionist to always show himself as a bigot.”

        Yeah, that was startling. No self awareness at all. I assume the comment passed moderation so we could all see the mindset at work.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 23, 2013, 1:19 pm

      When events are too difficult to understand and when the average Joe needs someone to blame for his own self inflicted problems, he blames the Jew.

      No, here is how it goes Hasbara troll. When Israel gets caught committing crimes against humanity, it’s apologists tally around and insist that the Hews are being criticized, so as to turn the frame the debate into one about anti Semitism.

      Israel is now trying to insist that continued aid to Egypt should be tied into any future negotiations with the Palestinians. Do you think they are doing that because of their concern for Egypt?

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 25, 2013, 10:43 am

      How did you get to be such an inveterate bigot? Does it not suggest something about the culture you live in that you appear to have no shame about your bigotry?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 27, 2013, 2:58 am

      @ giladg
      2,500 years of total Jewish innocence; that’s a good record.

  14. Pamela Olson
    Pamela Olson
    August 22, 2013, 4:58 pm

    “Of course I hope that they reconcile, too; but it’s kind of like telling the Tea Party and the Democratic Party to break bread if they were living under occupation.”

    It’s not like that — it’s much, much worse. Do you know how empowered the craziest elements of America would be if we were under a similar occupation as the one in Palestine, or a similar breakdown in law and order like the one in Syria, or a military-sponsored coup, complete with massacres of deeply religious Christians, like the slaughter of the MB in Egypt?

    The Tea Party would look like an actual tea party compared to what monster would be unleased in our country. Violent gun nuts, end times fundamentalists, rapists, former torturers, looters — they would have an absolute field day. And the so-called “Democrats” would be even more fractured, spineless, and ineffective.

    I shudder to imagine.

    I’m in general not a big fan of fundamentalists of any stripe. But anti-democratically marginalizing and massacreing them is rarely a good way to bring anyone any kind of sustainable security. The root causes of fundamentalism need to be addressed. And these causes include oppression, disempowerment, fear, anger about injustice, and lack of education and opportunity.

    Shooting people in the streets only exacerbates the root cause. It’s like smoking cigarettes to try to get rid of lung cancer.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 22, 2013, 7:11 pm

      “Of course I hope that they reconcile, too; but it’s kind of like telling the Tea Party and the Democratic Party to break bread if they were living under occupation.”

      I think it’s more analogous to the case of East and West Pakistan. It’s nonsensical to deny recognition and basic human rights to millions of people, while we argue about the wisdom of establishing one Palestinian state, versus two or three. In the meantime, the UN is full of countries that are little more than smallish city-states or “rent-a-states” with < 20,000 people.

      If Gaza is an "enemy entity" under Israeli law, what kind of "entity" is the de facto government that exercises control there?
      1) Israeli officials told the US government that Israel would be "happy" if Hamas took over Gaza, because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/06/07TELAVIV1733.html
      2) The U.S. State Department has a web page which explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition, because they are “a weapon of war between sovereign states.” http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1861_timeline/prevent_confederacy.html
      3) According to the Washington Post and many other sources, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev cited the San Remo Manual and maintained that Israel was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade ANOTHER STATE in the midst of an armed conflict.” [emphasis added] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934.html

      • just
        just
        August 22, 2013, 9:11 pm

        ” According to the Washington Post and many other sources, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev cited the San Remo Manual and maintained that Israel was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade ANOTHER STATE in the midst of an armed conflict.” [emphasis added] link to washingtonpost.com”

        It seems that one side in the conflict has massive and death seeking weapons, and the other has sticks and stones and a whole lot of will to survive.

        It is nice to see Regev admit that Palestine is indeed a State… albeit without rights, freedom, justice, or self- determination. Can he not say the word OCCUPATION?

        I commend the Palestinians for their restraint. Regev wants to paint and justify Israel’s brutality. It is Israeli who wants this never- ending war and spits at justice and peace, while all the time claiming that they are the victims. It’s old, it’s tired, and it’s a lie.

  15. American
    American
    August 22, 2013, 7:16 pm

    For anyone who doesnt feel they have had their intellgence or common sense insulted quite enough in today’s spin, try this BBC article by a State Dept spokesperson explaning why it is necessary to continue military aid to Egypt.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23800033

    It says—- we must continue weapons and US aid money to Egypt to keep defense industry jobs—-SINCE——- the US cut back on it’s own defense buying which would cost them jobs.
    You know a normal person would say well why dont we just take the money since it’ s ours anyway and give it to our own military to ‘buy weapons and keep’ the jobs in the defense industry.

    One day I am going to read one too many of these ‘tell the stupids anythng they cant even count to ten’ and my head really is going to explode.

  16. RJL
    RJL
    August 23, 2013, 12:24 am

    Phil, when you say Islamic violence takes a cue from violent Jewish nationalism, I think you must be standing on your head while typing on the screen. Seeing things upside down, and the exact opposite as they really are. But that’s you-shooting off ridiculous ideas, and waiting for your mostly nutty commentators. Too bad your wrong. Long before there were any “violent” Jewish nationalists, there was Hassan al Banna, who begun the MB in 1928. Not to be outdone, the followers of the Mufti were murdering Jews, without weapons, even before that, though they outdid themselves in 1929 by staging multiple massacres against Jews in British Palestine. Phil, go back to your old job, the one you had before starting MDW.

    • August 23, 2013, 1:10 pm

      Fully agree, RJL. To add the arab nassacre of Jews in Hebron in1929
      “The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron” “The massacre formed part of the 1929 Palestine riots, in which a total of 133 Jews were killed by Arabs, and brought the centuries-old Jewish presence in Hebron to an end.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
      In fact it was this event together with Safed massacre in which between eighteen and twenty Jews were killed and eighty wounded
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Safed_massacre
      which served as a major initiative to transform and develope Hagana which eventually became IDF.
      “The events also abecame ‘a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'[4] and was ‘engraved in the national psyche of Israeli Jews”

      So please, keep the causal connection of the developements correct.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:49 pm

        In fact it was this event together with Safed massacre …which served as a major initiative to transform and develope Hagana which eventually became IDF.

        False. The Haganah were created in 1920.

        “The events also abecame ‘a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'[4] and was ‘engraved in the national psyche of Israeli Jews”

        That ‘s how it was spun, but the plan all along was to get rid if the Arabs.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 23, 2013, 1:14 pm

      Long before there were any “violent” Jewish nationalists, there was Hassan al Banna, who begun the MB in 1928.

      So what? The MB was not a violent movement at the time, nor did it even exist in Palestine.

      Not to be outdone, the followers of the Mufti were murdering Jews, without weapons

      False again. The record shows that the Mufti ordered the perpetrators of the 1929 riots to stand down,so clearly, they were not followers.

      As for the 1929 Hebron massacre, it began as a riot, not a pre- mediated massacre such as those perpetrated by Zionists to drive the Palestinians from their homes and villages.

      So no, it was not “staged”.

      Stop lying.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 23, 2013, 5:19 pm

      Too bad your wrong. Long before there were any “violent” Jewish nationalists, there was Hassan al Banna, who begun the MB in 1928.

      Well we know for certain that violent Jewish nationalists in the Haganah were carrying out politically motivated assassinations several years before that, in 1924. Avraham Tehomi admitted that he murdered De Haan on Israeli television:

      “I have done what the Haganah decided had to be done. And nothing was done without the order of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi. I have no regrets because he [de Haan] wanted to destroy our whole idea of Zionism.”

      See Shlomo Nakdimon; Shaul Mayzlish, De Haan: The first political assassination in Israel, 1986, Modan Press and
      Haaretz, This day in Jewish history / Zionism’s first political assassination
      http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.532770

      I’ve also commented here in the past about violent Jewish nationalists who were trying to colonize the region of Tel Hai before there was even a British mandate. See Israel Prize winning historian Anita Shapira, “Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force 1881-1948”

      At the time, it was not part of the British OETA territory outlined in the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919”. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv08&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=216

      Several years later, the mandate instrument itself tasked the Allied Powers with the job of establishing the borders. That, and other territory, was added to Palestine in the northern Galilee. The San Remo Conference was mainly devoted to the negotiations over the oil fields in Mesopotamia and the route of the pipeline to the Mediterranean, not to the allocation of mandates. Volume 1 of the League of Nations Yearbook reported that:

      “France and Great Britain signed, at Paris on December 23, 1920, a compact, intended to settle finally “the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo. By this treaty a portion of southern Syria, bordering upon Palestine, is transferred from France to Great Britain. One reason for this transfer appears in this paragraph:
      “The French Government consents to the nomination of a special commission, which, after having examined the ground, may readjust the frontier line in the valley of the Yarmuk as far as Nasib in such a manner as to render possible the construction of a British railway and pipe line connecting Palestine with the Hedjaz railway and the valley of the Euphrates, and running entirely within the limits of the areas under the British mandate.

      “The new frontier includes enough of the Syrian mountain country to enable England to give Palestine a water supply. On the other hand France obtains a share of the Mesopotamian oil lands, and a promise from England not to cede or dispose of Cyprus without the consent of France.

      link to books.google.com

  17. August 23, 2013, 1:43 am

    WHERE MUSLIMS CAN SPEAK FREELY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ? Where can they demonstrate in support of the ousted Morsi government?
    Yes, you guessed it right. IN ISRAEL.
    (This article was written by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, who lives in Israel)
    “Arab journalists and columnists in Israel have been expressing their views about the Egyptian crisis without fear, while their colleagues in Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority are afraid to speak their mind. Israel, for example, is one of the few countries in the Middle East where Muslims are permitted to demonstrate in favor of ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood organization.

    This is not because Israel supports Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood; it is because the Muslim protesters know that in a democratic country like Israel they can hold peaceful demonstrations and express their views without having to worry about being targeted by the authorities.

    Israel has become a safe place not only for Arab Christians, but also for Muslims who wish to express their opinion away from intimidation and violence.

    While pro-Morsi demonstrators are being shot, wounded, arrested and harassed in Egypt, the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories and some Arab countries, in Israel they are free to stage protests and express their views even in the heart of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

    By comparison, the Palestinian Authority, which has come out in support of the ouster of Morsi, continues to crack down on Muslims who voice solidarity with the deposed Egyptian president.

    Today it has become evident that leaders and members of the Islamic Movement in Israel enjoy more freedom and rights than the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and even — under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank — Hamas.”

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3945/muslims-freedeom-of-speech

    • Mayhem
      Mayhem
      August 23, 2013, 10:42 am

      Pro-Morsi demonstration at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 23, 2013, 1:53 pm

        You mean the Al-Aqsa mosque in occupied Jerusalem,

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 23, 2013, 1:05 pm

      WHERE MUSLIMS CAN SPEAK FREELY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ? Where can they demonstrate in support of the ousted Morsi government?
      Yes, you guessed it right. IN ISRAEL.

      What a joke!

      Let them try to speak freely about the Nakba, or even dare to read the names if the villages Israel destroyed in 1948 and watch them get arrested.
      http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Police-arrest-3-at-Nakba-event-stand-off-in-TA

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 23, 2013, 2:49 pm

      “WHERE MUSLIMS CAN SPEAK FREELY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ? … Yes, you guessed it right. IN ISRAEL.”

      Unless those Muslims are marching for the liberation of their homeland, and then they’re likely to get murdered by some idf terrorist.

    • ToivoS
      ToivoS
      August 23, 2013, 5:50 pm

      Khaled Abu Toameh is paid by Western news organizations and is also a writer for the JPost to transmit Israeli propaganda. He is known to make up interviews with “sources” inside the PA to provide story lines pleasing to his Zionists masters ears.

      This link to Gates Institute is a neocon think tank. From their about us:
      Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

      R. James Woolsey, Chairman, U.S. Board of Governors

      Board of Governors (in formation)

      Georgette Gelbard
      M. Zuhdi Jasser
      Lawrence Kadish
      Douglas Murray
      Naomi Perlman
      Ingeborg Rennert
      Rebecca Sugar
      Christine Williams
      R. James Woolsey

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        August 24, 2013, 11:57 pm

        He is known to make up interviews

        @ToivoS, please substantiate your assertion – otherwise you may as well be pissing in the wind.

      • annie
        annie
        August 25, 2013, 12:09 pm

        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Khaled_Abu_Toameh

        Khaled Abu Toameh is a Palestinian journalist, living in Jerusalem, who writes for the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Report. Toameh appears as a commentator in Obsession, the anti-Islamic propaganda film. Abu Toameh is part of a group of Palestinians, Muslims or “former terrorists” who now have recanted or have become hostile to their own background/religion. People like Toameh, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, etc., are taken on tour of the United States to malign Palestinians or Muslims.

        Affiliations

        Hasbara Fellowship Speakers Bureau [5]
        CAMERA [6]

        Contact, References and Resources
        Contact
        Resources

        “Telling the Truth about the Palestinians”: A briefing, Middle East Forum, 27 April 2004. NB: Middle East Forum is run by Daniel Pipes.

        these are islamophobes.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        August 25, 2013, 9:35 pm

        Robbins and ToivoS and most others around here think they can override any pro-Israel position by simply slandering the source of the information. I could well say the same about Blumenthal, Weiss, Lowenstein, Wolman, Dana or Abunimah.
        The arguments, the facts, the history etc are what we should be dealing with if we are to do the issues at stake any justice. To resort to tactics that attempt to dismiss alternative views by cries of Islamophobia, hasbara or by blindly discrediting the origin of the information are disingenuousness in the extreme and only go to expose the shallowness of the proponents of such weasel tactics.
        There has still been nothing said to substantiate that Toameh has reported falsely.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 25, 2013, 11:14 pm

        Mayhem:

        To resort to tactics that attempt to dismiss alternative views by cries of Islamophobia, hasbara or by blindly discrediting the origin of the information are disingenuousness in the extreme and only go to expose the shallowness of the proponents of such weasel tactics. There has still been nothing said to substantiate that Toameh has reported falsely.

        I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out the ideological biases/ organizational connections of a writer, but I agree with you that the actual content of Toameh’s article must be factually/logically addressed if it is to be refuted. Otherwise, the attempted refutation is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 11:35 pm

        Robbins and ToivoS and most others around here think they can override any pro-Israel position by simply slandering the source of the information

        You can expect to quote liars and propagandists and expect to be taken seriously Mayhem.

        If someone is a paid operative of a political source or think tank, they have I credibilty and neither does their reporting.

        FYI. Phil, Lowenstein etc aggregate facts, they don’t make them up.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 25, 2013, 11:52 pm

        There has still been nothing said to substantiate that Toameh has reported falsely.

        Yes there is. I linked to one such example.

        The fact that pro Morsi demonstrations are tolerated does not mean Muslims are free to demonstrate. The 2nd Intifada broke out when Israeli police begab firing lice rounds into crowds of unarmed demonstrators.

      • annie
        annie
        August 26, 2013, 12:05 am

        Sibiriak, i never made any attempt to refute the allegation.i just do not bother with allegations made by people w/these kinds of affiliations. the same way i wouldn’t bother taking the time to address something pam geller said. the sources are beneath me. that’s what happens with you lay with dogs,you get fleas. Toameh is covered w/fleas. bring another source of the allegation and i will take it seriously, otherwise not.

        i don’t even think links to gatestone or memri or camera or any of those orgs should be allowed here. it’s dragging the conversation to that level.

        call it an ad hominem i don’t care. these people are islamophobes.

        “Toameh appears as a commentator in Obsession”

        seriously, have we sunk so low? you debate them then for heavens sakes. and who let that scum link in here? have we no standards? what is the POINT of having moderation if crap like this gets thru: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/egyptian-massacre-exposes-us-hypocrisy-in-israel-and-palestine.html/comment-page-1#comment-586801

        ?????

        seriously, we should just open the floodgates then. why bother with any of it? i cannot believe we’re even discussing proving the guy is a liar when he writes stufflike this:

        it is because the Muslim protesters know that in a democratic country like Israel they can hold peaceful demonstrations and express their views without having to worry about being targeted by the authorities.

        you’ve got to be kidding me.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 12:17 am

        Annie Robbins says:

        i never made any attempt to refute the allegation.i just do not bother with allegations made by people w/these kinds of affiliations

        Okay, that’s fine. I just think that IF a fallacious allegation IS allowed to be made here, it should be refuted–with facts and logic.

        If the “with these kinds of affiliations” logic is taken too far, then just about any pro- Zionist argument with pro-Zionist affiliations could be simply dismissed out of and, without any attempt at refutation. I prefer the “war of ideas” approach, but I understand that others do not.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        August 26, 2013, 10:00 am

        I linked to one such example

        So Shingo is dreaming and Robbins has capitulated.
        The quality of argument has deteriorated to the level of “That’s what I say and I am right.”

      • annie
        annie
        August 26, 2013, 10:46 am

        Sibiriak, if you care to refute it or anyone else does be my guest. my addition of the link/blockquote here http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/egyptian-massacre-exposes-us-hypocrisy-in-israel-and-palestine.html/comment-page-1#comment-587399 was my sole contribution to the dialogue until your comment here: the actual content of Toameh’s article must be factually/logically addressed if it is to be refuted. i feel no personal compulsion or responsibility to refute something just because it’s cleared moderation. but again, be my guest. there are lots of commenters here. you do it. certainly you don’t mean me, because i am on staff “must factually/logically addressed” this guy do you? had i brought the allegation to begin with i could see your point, but i didn’t. i added a link from sourcewatch.

        call it capitulization mayhem, i could care less. this guy’s not worth any of my time. don’t think because you drag in some crap from a hasbara joint like camera or gatestone it deserves a response other than phff. that’s my opinion and i’m sticking with it.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 26, 2013, 11:00 am

        So Shingo is dreaming and Robbins has capitulated.

        And Mayhem sits in the corner with his eyes squeezed tightly, and hos hands on his ears and insists nothing is going on around him.

        I already pointed out that Toameh completely ignored that you can get arrested in Israel merely for reading from a list of the villages Israel destroyed during the Nakba.
        http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Police-arrest-3-at-Nakba-event-stand-off-in-TA

        That only gets you arrested in Israel – no other state in the region.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 11:05 am

        Annie:

        . certainly you don’t mean me

        No, I don’t. The comment of mine which your responded to was not directed at you and did not mention you.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 26, 2013, 11:40 am

        Mayhem:

        So Shingo is dreaming …

        Actually, Shingo’s link is on target.

        Toameh wrote in the quoted article:

        it is because the Muslim protesters know that in a democratic country like Israel they can hold peaceful demonstrations and express their views without having to worry about being targeted by the authorities.

        But the news story linked by Shingo reports that:

        “Zochrot” organization is prevented from laying posters in Rabin Square showing names of pre-1948 Palestinian villages.

        […] Attendees had planned on exiting the building and leaving fliers on the sidewalk and side street outside their offices, which showed the names of Arab villages that existed within the Green Line before the founding of the state.

        That’s a clear example of a group being targeted by Israeli authorities merely for expressing their views– one example out of many possible ones that contradict Toameh’s overly broad assertion.

        While I think it’s fair to say that demonstrators in Israel would not face the kind of violence that MB demonstrators risk facing in Egypt at this time, Toameh’s assertions lack all nuance and thus are misleading and propagandistic.

      • annie
        annie
        August 26, 2013, 12:51 pm

        oh, sorry sibiriak. saw my name http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/egyptian-massacre-exposes-us-hypocrisy-in-israel-and-palestine.html/comment-page-1#comment-587556 and jumped in.

        as an aside, speaking of attacking unarmed protestors, there was that massacre on land day which is another glaring example. unfortunately, way too many glaring examples of israeli violent response in the history of the ongoing nakba.

        needless to say there would be no need for hasbara think tanks or student hasbara units operating out of the PM’s office creating fake framing for israel’s colonization policy if racist islamophobes had an ounce of integrity and told the truth.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 26, 2013, 3:39 pm

        If the “with these kinds of affiliations” logic is taken too far, then just about any pro- Zionist argument with pro-Zionist affiliations could be simply dismissed out of and, without any attempt at refutation.

        Well the guy is a notoriously unreliable source of information. So you can just Google for articles, ‘Israel’s Palestinian Propagandist: Khaled Abu Toameh, Hasbara Agent’. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january072013/toameh-hasbara-ns.php

        There’s really no need to discredit anyone who is sponsored by the Hasbara Fellowship or its affiliates, like StandWithUs. The Fellowship was jointly established and is co-sponsored by Aish International and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It’s not even a thinly disguised Israeli government propaganda sewer.

        In any event, the propaganda and point scoring techniques used by all of these Israeli-backed campus hasbara activists are described in a publication sponsored by the Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the “Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus”. http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

        Annie has discussed that subject here in a number of comments.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        August 26, 2013, 5:30 pm

        Lice rounds, Shingo! I bet they wish they had some.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        August 26, 2013, 11:53 pm

        Mayhem, well here is one complaint against Khaled Abu Toameh.

        http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/shame-on-new-tv.html

        Besides writing in the Jpost and the neocon site Gates Institute he does not really document his accusations against the Palestinians. Vague references to some kind of interview that are impossible to track down but he has clearly established himself as someone who hates the resistance against the Zionist occupation of the West Bank.

        We all know that Israel and their Western supporters have managed to purchase a number of a Arab Muslims and even a few Palestinians to promote Zionism. Hey it is a good job if you can get it. The money is certainly there but those who accept that offer have lost their respect.

  18. Tuyzentfloot
    Tuyzentfloot
    August 23, 2013, 3:49 am

    Jim Lobe has an interesting piece on the deterioration of US-Saudi ties http://www.lobelog.com/washingtons-worries-grow-over-saudi-ties/

    There’s an awareness now of an alarming deterioration of US influence.

    Now in Egypt the events are not only homegrown. The economy is in deep trouble and who controls the money is important. Who gets the foreign money gets to run the country – to some extent. The Saudis and other oil monarchies are putting up that money.

    There’s another component and I mention it to contrast it to the models of religion-based tensions (in Belgium that’s all there is). Compare Egypt to Venezuela: a large part of the community is very poor. As soon as they get one man-one vote the poor get to run the country, but without the money to match. You instantly get opposition from the rich, who tend to control the main media, and a lot of tension with the middle class. Also, the voices of the poor are invisible but the middle class is visible so you get an instant impression of a dictatorship: an impopular minority running the place.

    So in Egypt the islamist parties roughly represent the poor, and for the middleclass that is not a nice position to be in. If then the economy tanks, and with some good campaigning and sabotage(electricity and gasoline have been deliberately withheld), they can be tempted to choose for a dictatorship that gets good money from the outside.

    • American
      American
      August 23, 2013, 10:42 pm

      @ Tuyzentfloot

      that sums it up pretty well.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 24, 2013, 7:17 pm

      Yes, interesting piece. Charles Freeman is quoted as saying the Saudis are fed up “with Washington’s failure to restrain Israeli military adventures and the occupation of Palestinian territory”. Very true.

  19. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    August 23, 2013, 9:17 pm

    I’m deeply confused by the events in Egypt

    Phil must be even more deeply confused by Lebanon and Syria because we don’t see discussions about the horrendous goings-on there where Muslims are slaughtering Muslims by the thousands. I have always wondered why ‘Syria’ doesn’t rate a mention under the ‘Middle East’ menu options on the MW website.
    I assume that if MW can’t twist a story to implicate Israel that it won’t be given air play. So we get nothing about the gas attacks near Damascus or the renewed violence in Lebanon against Hezbollah. And if we do see something it will indubitably be based on tropes about Zionist plots.
    To make an analysis here based upon numbers killed in conflicts is the ultimate in misguided commentary. If we play the cynical numbers game the focus should immediately shift to Syria and Lebanon.
    Phil only seems prepared to discuss matters from his Jewish perspective, ignoring the blatantly obvious manner in which Islamism has grown to be a serious threat to our Western way of life right across the globe. And I am not being Islamophobic – I am just saying it as it is.

    • just
      just
      August 24, 2013, 3:27 pm

      Our “Western way of life” is certainly nothing to “crow” about. Lots of middle eastern and eastern, southern and northern ways of life are quite phenomenal in a good way. You might be a supremacist. You’re definitely wrong.

      (what do you mean by “Western way of life right across the globe”??? That’s a very odd way to refer to your obviously preferred way of life.)

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 24, 2013, 6:17 pm

      I have always wondered why ‘Syria’ doesn’t rate a mention under the ‘Middle East’ menu options on the MW website.

      I always wonder why hasbarats like you keep making that BS claim.

      So we get nothing about the gas attacks near Damascus or the renewed violence in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

      The gas attacks were proven to be BS the first time, and are probably BS now. The renewed violence in Lebanon against Hezbollah was short lived and largely the work of foreign fighters taking revenege for Hezbollah’s role in kicking their asses in Syria.

      What more do you need to know?

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 25, 2013, 10:46 am

      Learn how to use the search function. It may help you avoid looking like such an ass.

  20. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 24, 2013, 1:06 am

    http://www.creationsmagazine.com/articles/C125/Larkin.html

    “The ‘free world’ has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated, and hate which has no outlet except oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam”.

  21. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    August 24, 2013, 5:09 am

    Why are posts after mine appearing while mine languishes in moderation? Stop manipulating your readers!

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      August 25, 2013, 2:50 am

      It’s a conspiracy, of course. And since this is a blog run by Jews, it must be a Jewish conspiracy!

      And frustrating too. I know because it happens to me.

      Even worse, some of my posts don’t get past the moderators. This is even more frustrating, because those are posts of such astonishing brilliance and insight that they would have corrected everyone’s grammar instantly. (And, as a subsidiary benefit, totally solved the I/P problem.)

      However, you can do something about it. Donate a huge chunk of money to MW, with the proviso that it be used to hire me (at an exotic salary, of course) as a full-time moderator. I can promise you that, as a moderator, I would ensure that all my posts would be published promptly, and probably some of yours.

      Up to you.

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 25, 2013, 10:47 am

      Same thing happens to everyone, you, fnlevit and all the other Zionists with massive simultaneous entitlement/persecution complexes need to get a grip.

  22. Ludwig
    Ludwig
    August 26, 2013, 1:28 pm

    The best solution is the total disbandment and disarmament of the Muslim Brotherhood. This issue is one of the most important in the Middle East.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 27, 2013, 5:17 am

      The best solution is the total disbandment and disarmament of the Muslim Brotherhood.

      No a much better solutions would be the total disbandment and disarmament of Likud, Bethar, and the IDF.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 27, 2013, 5:30 am

      Oh, has the MB been stealing land and settling on it since ’67? What kind of model is that for the ME groups and states?

Leave a Reply