This is the video that I took of Gloria Greenfield (aka one of the producers of the movie version of The Case for Israel) and her remarks after the movie was screened. If you want to hear my thoughts on her remarks, click the link below. Sorry about the poor sound, I was sitting pretty far away, and it cuts out suddenly because it could only be ten minutes in length.
What struck me about Ms. Greenfield's comments straight up were that she seemed to be scare-mongering a little bit. It's true, there is anti-Israel activity around the world as well as in the US, but in my personal experience it is still relegated to the extremes of society and there is no immediately threat of it spreading further. I personally think that this is something that American Jews should be aware of and working to prevent, but scaring them into doing so isn't the right way to do it.
You may have seen it in the speech, but she characterized Israel's enemies as "Jew haters" and "Israel haters." Though I prefer to use the term "anti-Zionist" for the most extreme of Israel's critics on this blog, I didn't personally like her use of this kind of black-and-white thinking. College students who participate in "Israel Apartheid Week" might be anti-Semites, but they also might be misguided, misinformed, or simply doing what is fashionable. They can still be saved, in other words.
More importantly, labeling everyone who disagrees with them is something that Israel's enemies do, not Israel's friends. I don't want to see American Jews taking on that "you're with us or you're against us," kind of mentality. It has always been the significant strength of the Zionist, in my opinion, that we are open to compromise and hearing the other side's point of view. I'm sure if I called Ms. Greenfield out on this, she would say that she was only talking about extreme critics of Israel, but just from the nature of her speech, it sounded that way to me.
I will say this: Thank goodness for Ms. Greenfield and those people like her. They do innumerably valuable work. I may disagree with on some things, but that is just because I want to combat the threats to Israel and the Jews most effectively.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Why Are There Anti-Zionist Jews?
There was an interesting discourse between Gloria Greenfield and an audience member last Thursday, but I didn't post it because I found the video too hard to edit. It basically went like this (I'm paraphrasing quite a bit):
Now, I know that others have probably written a lot about extreme anti-Israel Jews/anti-Semitic Jews/"self-hating Jews." Some people think that they have internalize the hatred that others feel against them to such an extent that they have grown to believe it themselves, and take it out on others. Others feel as if they hate Jews and therefore hate themselves because they are Jewish.
I actually think it's a little bit more simplistic than that, though some of the psychological reasons might contribute to it. The reality is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a struggle between Jews and Arabs (who are also Muslims). It would logically follow that those people who are the most interested in the situation would be Jews and Muslims. Christians are only interested when they care about the holy sites of their religion, which is not true of all Christians. Since there are not a lot of Muslims in America, it logically follows that those who care the most about Israel (either for or against) would be Jews.
So where do the anti-Israel Jews come in? For starters, some Jews might see the Arab-Israeli situation as just another issue, like hunger, homelessness of the conflict in Darfur. Because they are Jews, it might be an issue that has a personal connection to them, but that is where their "Jewish-ness" ends. In other words, they care more about the issue because Jews are related, but they still see it as just an issue.
Therefore, they are just as likely to choose the anti-Jewish side as the pro-Jewish side. Even though one side may be principally made up of Jews, that doesn't matter, it is still a side just like another other. On the one hand this is fine, just because Israel is a Jewish state doesn't mean that Jews should look at it differently. These Jews, on the other hand, take things a step further and get sucked into the world of the anti-Zionist propaganda. Because they initially sympathized with Israel's enemies, they started down the road to believing the most egregious lies against Israel.
So in that sense, anti-Zionist Jews don't take on extreme views toward Israel through any kind of psychological backflips, nor is the process any different than non-Jewish anti-Zionists. They just don't care that Israel is a Jewish state, and therefore see no personal connection between them and the Israelis. But again, that's just my theory.
AM: "Why do you think that so many of the most virulently anti-Israel people on college campuses and elsewhere are of Jewish descent? And what should we do to respond to this?"
Greenfield: "Well first I want to make clear that those people you are talking about are not Jews. They have betrayed the Jewish community. Therefore, we should not recognize them as Jews and treat them the way they treat some biblical guy who betrayed his people...by ostracizing them."
Now, I know that others have probably written a lot about extreme anti-Israel Jews/anti-Semitic Jews/"self-hating Jews." Some people think that they have internalize the hatred that others feel against them to such an extent that they have grown to believe it themselves, and take it out on others. Others feel as if they hate Jews and therefore hate themselves because they are Jewish.
I actually think it's a little bit more simplistic than that, though some of the psychological reasons might contribute to it. The reality is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a struggle between Jews and Arabs (who are also Muslims). It would logically follow that those people who are the most interested in the situation would be Jews and Muslims. Christians are only interested when they care about the holy sites of their religion, which is not true of all Christians. Since there are not a lot of Muslims in America, it logically follows that those who care the most about Israel (either for or against) would be Jews.
So where do the anti-Israel Jews come in? For starters, some Jews might see the Arab-Israeli situation as just another issue, like hunger, homelessness of the conflict in Darfur. Because they are Jews, it might be an issue that has a personal connection to them, but that is where their "Jewish-ness" ends. In other words, they care more about the issue because Jews are related, but they still see it as just an issue.
Therefore, they are just as likely to choose the anti-Jewish side as the pro-Jewish side. Even though one side may be principally made up of Jews, that doesn't matter, it is still a side just like another other. On the one hand this is fine, just because Israel is a Jewish state doesn't mean that Jews should look at it differently. These Jews, on the other hand, take things a step further and get sucked into the world of the anti-Zionist propaganda. Because they initially sympathized with Israel's enemies, they started down the road to believing the most egregious lies against Israel.
So in that sense, anti-Zionist Jews don't take on extreme views toward Israel through any kind of psychological backflips, nor is the process any different than non-Jewish anti-Zionists. They just don't care that Israel is a Jewish state, and therefore see no personal connection between them and the Israelis. But again, that's just my theory.
Conspiracy Theory of the Day
Israel wants to control Pakistan? That's a new one to me. Seeing as how Pakistan is also an ally of the US and on good terms with Israel, this theory that Israel wants to take it over is profoundly illogical. Also, the sky is awfully blue today.
HPW: Dubai Releases Footage of New Suspects
On December 25th (so three days ago) the Huffington Post released the latest in the long line of MAM-related articles. There was nothing particularly unusual about the information contained in the article. There was still no proof that Israel (or any other nation) was behind the killing. However, this article was unmoderated which I think is responsible for the large amounts of abusive comments to make their way into the 165-strong thread. Click the link below to read them.
SiberianRat
SiberianRat
Comment of the Day
When called out on this comment, this user replies:
And then follows up with this little gem:
So to say that Orthodox Jews are all bigots, and that this user doesn't trust anyone who even has a Jewish name (whether they are even Jewish or not) is pretty bad. And somehow the comeback that is the equivalent of "most of my friends are Jewish!" isn't going to cut it. As we have long known, one can like individual members of that group and still have a bias against that group in general.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
MJ Rosenberg's Latest Strawman
After his latest "genocide" series of articles, in which he intentionally misrepresented his opponent's viewpoint, anti-Israel Huffington Post blogger MJ Rosenberg has done it again, this time to keep the myth of the all-powerful "Israel Lobby" alive.
The story is about a new Republican candidate for Senate named Tom Campbell who is running for office in California. According to Rosenberg, AIPAC has been "called in" to find out if Campbell is "sufficiently devoted to Israel's interests." In other words, Campbell needs to prove that he is going to be sufficiently pro-Israel before given the okay by AIPAC to run for office.
Was this supported by the actual story, linked by MJ Rosenberg himself, upon which the article was based?
What do you think?
But the fun doesn't end there. Oh no. Rosenberg embarrasses himself even further. Click the link below to find out how.
I'll start with another quote from the article about why this latest "Is he pro-Israel enough?" controversy has become such a big deal for Tom Campbell:
If you think I am misrepresenting Rosenberg with that last remark, don't worry, he makes it perfectly clear in his article what he really thinks:
I wanted to talk about one more thing in Mr. Rosenberg's article: His belief that politicians are not pro-Israel, they are just loyal to "the AIPAC line." On this one particular issue, politicians don't have an opinion, they pledge their loyalty. Rosenberg makes it even more clear here:
MJ Rosenberg's term "the AIPAC line" is also quite interesting, but I think that will be the subject of another article. For now, let me just conclude with an analysis of his latest screed: Rosenberg is intentionally misrepresenting what is going on in the story, he is creating false facts out of nothing at all, and he is doing so for the purposes of demonizing anyone who is pro-Israel in America. It is a low point in the less-than-stellar career of the Huffington Post anti-Israel blogger stable.
The story is about a new Republican candidate for Senate named Tom Campbell who is running for office in California. According to Rosenberg, AIPAC has been "called in" to find out if Campbell is "sufficiently devoted to Israel's interests." In other words, Campbell needs to prove that he is going to be sufficiently pro-Israel before given the okay by AIPAC to run for office.
Was this supported by the actual story, linked by MJ Rosenberg himself, upon which the article was based?
What do you think?
"Rivals in the race for the Republican nomination are questioning whether former Rep. Tom Campbell is sufficiently supportive of Israel. They base their criticisms on his voting record, statements about a Palestinian homeland and capital, and some of his past associates.Did you see that? It wasn't the lobby who questioned Campbell's pro-Israel viewpoint, it was his fellow Republicans. And although it was not explained exactly why Campbell met with AIPAC, that is also the only time that AIPAC is mentioned in the entire article. MJ Rosenberg's conclusion that Campbell is being led by the Israel lobby is not supported even a little bit.
Their allegations have raised enough concerns for Campbell that he plans to meet Monday with the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He also is reaching out to other Jewish leaders. His campaign's honorary chairman, former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz, weighed in to call Campbell's support for the nation "unwavering.""
But the fun doesn't end there. Oh no. Rosenberg embarrasses himself even further. Click the link below to find out how.
I'll start with another quote from the article about why this latest "Is he pro-Israel enough?" controversy has become such a big deal for Tom Campbell:
""The bigger concern for Campbell is less with Jewish voters than with religious conservatives," Schnur said."Wha, wha, whaaat? Voters?! Campbell is worried about voters? How did this happen? I thought he was worried that the lobby would destroy his career unless he pledged his loyalty to them? Could it be that this is an issue for Campbell because it is an issue for his constituency? Which in turn is how representative democracy is supposed to work? Why didn't this make it into MJ Rosenberg's article? Maybe because it undermines the point he was trying to make: That the lobby is what is really responsible for American support for Israel, not American voters.
If you think I am misrepresenting Rosenberg with that last remark, don't worry, he makes it perfectly clear in his article what he really thinks:
"Every so often the curtain lifts and you see that on this issue -- as on most -- politicians are invariably forced into line by the special interests. `I say forced because, never in a million years, would progressives support the AIPAC line if they were free to vote their conscience. They are not."This is an extreme point of view, even for Rosenberg. I could probably talk about how egocentric it would be to think that no one would ever disagree with me unless they were forced to. I could probably talk about arrogant it is to speak for progressives and assume that only people of "conscience" could disagree with Israel. But instead I will let this quote from Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center speak for me instead:
"The public thinks of the Israelis as having values closer to the values of America. If you didn't have a broad base of public support of acquiescence...you couldn't create the level of support for Israel that exists on the basis of lobby."In every poll ever taken, the majority of Americans support Israel over the Palestinians. Today it is 63% who do so. Yet MJ Rosenberg just refuses to admit that America's politicians reflect the will of the people and their own consciences. It continues to boggle the mind the level of cognitive dissonance he must have, and the profoundly illogical ways in which it manifests itself (i.e. creating an all-powerful Israel lobby that exists only in the imagination).
I wanted to talk about one more thing in Mr. Rosenberg's article: His belief that politicians are not pro-Israel, they are just loyal to "the AIPAC line." On this one particular issue, politicians don't have an opinion, they pledge their loyalty. Rosenberg makes it even more clear here:
"The best part is that no one the Republicans come up with will be as loyal to AIPAC as Barbara Boxer, the Democratic incumbent."See that? If Boxer disagrees with him about Israel and other foreign policy matters, it's because she is loyal to AIPAC. not because she is a thinking individual who has arrived at a different conclusion. It almost strikes me as reminiscent of the accusations that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than America. In this case Boxer is more loyal to AIPAC than she is to America. But maybe I'm just imagining things.
MJ Rosenberg's term "the AIPAC line" is also quite interesting, but I think that will be the subject of another article. For now, let me just conclude with an analysis of his latest screed: Rosenberg is intentionally misrepresenting what is going on in the story, he is creating false facts out of nothing at all, and he is doing so for the purposes of demonizing anyone who is pro-Israel in America. It is a low point in the less-than-stellar career of the Huffington Post anti-Israel blogger stable.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Weekend Challenge: Middle East
It's that time again for the Weekend Challenge! Remember, if you are reading these words right now, you must participate in the challenge, regardless of how much or little you know about the subject material. And the topic is...
Name the Countries of the Middle East
I got 12 out of 15. How did you do?
Name the Countries of the Middle East
I got 12 out of 15. How did you do?
The Role of Peaceful Protesters
In reading Robert Naiman's latest article about the Rachel Corrie court case I grew to thinking about the role that non-violence "resistance" movements play in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. As I am sure we would all agree, non-violent protests are preferable to violent ones, and violent ones should not be encouraged by giving the violent protesters want they want. On the surface, it seems pretty simple. People should not be attacked or harassed by the military (or by police) unless they are doing something that is dangerous or unlawful, like leaving the designated "free speech zone."
Where the Arab-Israeli conflict comes up things get more complicated (as they always seem to): The International Solidarity Movement come to the territories and protest, which one its own is fine. But then they take things to the next level. Here are some examples of the way that the ISM and other groups "protest the occupation:"
As soon as they enter the refugee camp, though, all of these ISM activists come running out into the streets and get in the way. By the time the Israelis clear them out of the way (admit insults and thrown objects) the Palestinians have gotten away. The next day, the bomb detonates at a checkpoint and three IDF soldiers are killed.
In this situation, the ISM interfered with the ability of Israel's military to do it's job. Because of their interference, enemy combatants were able to carry out their deadly mission and three people died for it. Isn't this aiding and abetting the enemy in a conflict situation? Isn't the IDF more than within its rights to kill the ISMers on sight if they try to hinder military operations? I don't think many people would agree.
To take another example, the ISM activists try to tear down the West Bank security barrier. They have taken a step beyond simply protesting and began actively trying to hinder Israeli military hardware. A Palestinian who tried to infiltrate the security barrier would very likely be arrested or even killed. Why should the ISMers expect to be treated differently just because they aren't Palestinians? Put another way, so the ISMers tear down the barrier in one section and then a suicide bomber uses it to try and kill Israelis. Will this even weight on the conscience of the ISM for even a second? Somehow, I don't think so.
So what I am getting at is that there is peaceful protest, and then there is what the ISM and people like them are doing. In cases like the Iraq War, it is pretty simple. Americans protest in the streets of Washington DC, but it would be unthinkable for them to fly to Iraq and run around with insurgents in the streets of Baghdad. If one of them were killed doing this it would be accepted as a consequence of his own poor decision-making. But of course with Israel, things are different.
Not that things were different before the ISM came along, because it wasn't. Arab "protests" led into riots all the way back in the 1920 and 1930s, and today it is quite normal for the Palestinians to have rock-throwers or even riflemen sprinkled throughout a crowd of peaceful protesters. If the Israeli troops try to defend themselves, it would be almost inevitable that they would hit someone who is unarmed.
So perhaps what this court case should be about is the way that nonviolence activists should be allowed to protest in what amounts to a war zone. Running in front of a tank might make for great theater, but if the tank driver is more concerned about incoming rockets than watching where he is going you might just get run over. The reality is that peaceful protesters who insert themselves into a situation where bullets are flying on both sides are putting themselves at risk. As I said before, ISM activists toe the line between helping Palestinians in general and helping Palestinian terrorists, so there might be more to be discussed about the nature of nonviolent protests. As usual, it only ever seems to be Israel who has to think about these things. Any other nation would think, "You're helping our enemies? Sorry, but move out of the way or you're dead." What's happening in the territories isn't political drama, as much as the ISMers might want it to be. It is a war zone, and in wars people get killed.
Where the Arab-Israeli conflict comes up things get more complicated (as they always seem to): The International Solidarity Movement come to the territories and protest, which one its own is fine. But then they take things to the next level. Here are some examples of the way that the ISM and other groups "protest the occupation:"
-"Acting to deter military operations. Some ISM volunteers object to the use of the term human shield to describe their work because, they argue, in a Palestinian context the expression more usually refers to forced use of captive Palestinians by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) when searching Palestinian neighbourhoods."These all sound pretty nonviolent, and they are, but only on the surface. Let's take a hypothetical example of a possible situation during the Second Intifada. Israel gets a tip from an informant that a group of Palestinians are building a bomb and are preparing to detonate it at a checkpoint. They gear up a unit of soldiers and go into the West Bank to arrest the Palestinians and confiscate the bomb parts.
-"Removing roadblocks. These are large unmanned mounds of earth and concrete on roads throughout the West Bank, and sometimes placed at the entrances of Palestinian villages by the IDF, thereby isolating those villages' inhabitants by preventing traffic in or out."
-"Attempting to block military vehicles such as tanks and bulldozers."
-"Interfering with the construction of the West Bank barrier and placing political graffiti on the barrier."
As soon as they enter the refugee camp, though, all of these ISM activists come running out into the streets and get in the way. By the time the Israelis clear them out of the way (admit insults and thrown objects) the Palestinians have gotten away. The next day, the bomb detonates at a checkpoint and three IDF soldiers are killed.
In this situation, the ISM interfered with the ability of Israel's military to do it's job. Because of their interference, enemy combatants were able to carry out their deadly mission and three people died for it. Isn't this aiding and abetting the enemy in a conflict situation? Isn't the IDF more than within its rights to kill the ISMers on sight if they try to hinder military operations? I don't think many people would agree.
To take another example, the ISM activists try to tear down the West Bank security barrier. They have taken a step beyond simply protesting and began actively trying to hinder Israeli military hardware. A Palestinian who tried to infiltrate the security barrier would very likely be arrested or even killed. Why should the ISMers expect to be treated differently just because they aren't Palestinians? Put another way, so the ISMers tear down the barrier in one section and then a suicide bomber uses it to try and kill Israelis. Will this even weight on the conscience of the ISM for even a second? Somehow, I don't think so.
So what I am getting at is that there is peaceful protest, and then there is what the ISM and people like them are doing. In cases like the Iraq War, it is pretty simple. Americans protest in the streets of Washington DC, but it would be unthinkable for them to fly to Iraq and run around with insurgents in the streets of Baghdad. If one of them were killed doing this it would be accepted as a consequence of his own poor decision-making. But of course with Israel, things are different.
Not that things were different before the ISM came along, because it wasn't. Arab "protests" led into riots all the way back in the 1920 and 1930s, and today it is quite normal for the Palestinians to have rock-throwers or even riflemen sprinkled throughout a crowd of peaceful protesters. If the Israeli troops try to defend themselves, it would be almost inevitable that they would hit someone who is unarmed.
So perhaps what this court case should be about is the way that nonviolence activists should be allowed to protest in what amounts to a war zone. Running in front of a tank might make for great theater, but if the tank driver is more concerned about incoming rockets than watching where he is going you might just get run over. The reality is that peaceful protesters who insert themselves into a situation where bullets are flying on both sides are putting themselves at risk. As I said before, ISM activists toe the line between helping Palestinians in general and helping Palestinian terrorists, so there might be more to be discussed about the nature of nonviolent protests. As usual, it only ever seems to be Israel who has to think about these things. Any other nation would think, "You're helping our enemies? Sorry, but move out of the way or you're dead." What's happening in the territories isn't political drama, as much as the ISMers might want it to be. It is a war zone, and in wars people get killed.
Robert Naiman: Rachel Corrie's Day in Court
Out of the stable of the Huffington Post anti-Israel commentators is Robert Naiman, with his latest on the March 10 Rachel Corrie case in ...wait for it...Haifa, Israel. According to Naiman, the Corrie family is suing Israel's defense ministry for her death. If Naimanwere simply reporting the facts, it would be one thing, but as usual, he has to put his own spin on it.
Israel is not praised for holding this court case in the first place. Though I have never heard of such a thing happening in other nations in the region, I suppose this kind of expectation is only natural. What is interesting, however is that four people who Naiman calls "key witnesses," and are members of the International Solidarity Movement are also going to be there. I could write a whole article on the ISM, but needless to say: They have a history of quite blatantly lying to slander Israel, including the use of faked photos in this very case, and yet were allowed to testify. If there was ever a suspect witness, it would be the ISM. On the other hand, they have a right to say their piece along with everyone else.
None of this is relevant, though, because Naiman barely pays lip service to the specifics of the Corrie case and instead jumps onto a soapbox about other topics. We'll start with his claim that this isn't so much about the Corrie incident but is instead, "a test case for the power of the rule of law in Israel, when the rule of law comes into conflict with the policies of military occupation."
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that this court case was about whether Corrie's death was an accident or not. If Israel is trying to cover something up, then that would be one thing, but this case is not about any kind of "policies." Israel already ended the policy of home demolitions in 2005. This case is not about that, yet Naiman is speaking as if it were, as if a guilty verdict would change something about Israel's "policies." Does he know something that we do not?
Anyway, Naiman uses this tenuous connection to speak about Israel's latest victories of the rule of law over military decision-making. He references the movement of the security barrier at Bi'lin, but then immediately dismisses the decision as proof only that Israel's laws are "not totally impotent against the occupation." So it seems as if he is saying that when Israel's courts find the IDF guilty or force them to change something, that is a victory in the struggle. When Israel's courts find the IDF innocent or give them permission to carry on as they are, that means the rule of law is dying. Apparently in Naiman's eyes no pro-Israel ruling can be a legitimate and fair one. That tells you a lot.
Naiman also takes this opportunity to talk about the effectiveness of non-violent protest. This again doesn't have anything to do with the case except that Corrie and other members of the ISM practice non-violent protests (most of the time). A guilty verdict in this case won't change anything in Israel, except that Naiman argues otherwise:
"A necessary condition for the ascendance of a King or Gandhi -type movement in Palestine is that if Palestinian nonviolence activists are killed by the Israeli occupation, the government of Israel pays a significant price for that killing."
First of all, Israel does pay a price for killing a "nonviolence activist" (whatever the frak that term means), but Naiman doesn't find it significant enough. Fine, but his association with the MLK movement is where is argument starts to break down: African-Americans were not at war with the rest of America, nor did they want to destroy it, and everyone involved knew that. It has no baring on Israeli policy if Rachel Corrie was killed during a peaceful protest but there are still Palestinian terrorists building bombs a few miles away. Naiman seems to be of the opinion that this conflict is Israel versus nonviolence activists, but it isn't: It's Israel versus the Palestinian terrorists, with nonviolence activists getting in the way. They may be good intentioned, but the reality is that the ISM got into the most trouble when they actively interfered with Israel's attempts to protect itself.
My favorite part of the article, though, is right at the end, when Naiman finally shows us his true colors:
"They murdered her, and yet she dogs them. It's almost as if she were alive."
Most journalists take care to use "alleged murderers" in cases that have not yet entered a guilty verdict. But Naiman can't be bothered with little things like journalist integrity: Israel is guilty of murder because I proclaim it to be so! Who cares that the IDF made a "convincing case" that she was hidden from sight by the bulldozer! Who cares that the ISM intentionally provided misleading photographs and testimony? I, Robert Naiman, proclaim that Israel murdered Rachel Corrie!
In some ways I'm glad that this case came to court. Now the truth can come out, and we can finally shut down people like Robert Naiman once and for all.
Israel is not praised for holding this court case in the first place. Though I have never heard of such a thing happening in other nations in the region, I suppose this kind of expectation is only natural. What is interesting, however is that four people who Naiman calls "key witnesses," and are members of the International Solidarity Movement are also going to be there. I could write a whole article on the ISM, but needless to say: They have a history of quite blatantly lying to slander Israel, including the use of faked photos in this very case, and yet were allowed to testify. If there was ever a suspect witness, it would be the ISM. On the other hand, they have a right to say their piece along with everyone else.
None of this is relevant, though, because Naiman barely pays lip service to the specifics of the Corrie case and instead jumps onto a soapbox about other topics. We'll start with his claim that this isn't so much about the Corrie incident but is instead, "a test case for the power of the rule of law in Israel, when the rule of law comes into conflict with the policies of military occupation."
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that this court case was about whether Corrie's death was an accident or not. If Israel is trying to cover something up, then that would be one thing, but this case is not about any kind of "policies." Israel already ended the policy of home demolitions in 2005. This case is not about that, yet Naiman is speaking as if it were, as if a guilty verdict would change something about Israel's "policies." Does he know something that we do not?
Anyway, Naiman uses this tenuous connection to speak about Israel's latest victories of the rule of law over military decision-making. He references the movement of the security barrier at Bi'lin, but then immediately dismisses the decision as proof only that Israel's laws are "not totally impotent against the occupation." So it seems as if he is saying that when Israel's courts find the IDF guilty or force them to change something, that is a victory in the struggle. When Israel's courts find the IDF innocent or give them permission to carry on as they are, that means the rule of law is dying. Apparently in Naiman's eyes no pro-Israel ruling can be a legitimate and fair one. That tells you a lot.
Naiman also takes this opportunity to talk about the effectiveness of non-violent protest. This again doesn't have anything to do with the case except that Corrie and other members of the ISM practice non-violent protests (most of the time). A guilty verdict in this case won't change anything in Israel, except that Naiman argues otherwise:
"A necessary condition for the ascendance of a King or Gandhi -type movement in Palestine is that if Palestinian nonviolence activists are killed by the Israeli occupation, the government of Israel pays a significant price for that killing."
First of all, Israel does pay a price for killing a "nonviolence activist" (whatever the frak that term means), but Naiman doesn't find it significant enough. Fine, but his association with the MLK movement is where is argument starts to break down: African-Americans were not at war with the rest of America, nor did they want to destroy it, and everyone involved knew that. It has no baring on Israeli policy if Rachel Corrie was killed during a peaceful protest but there are still Palestinian terrorists building bombs a few miles away. Naiman seems to be of the opinion that this conflict is Israel versus nonviolence activists, but it isn't: It's Israel versus the Palestinian terrorists, with nonviolence activists getting in the way. They may be good intentioned, but the reality is that the ISM got into the most trouble when they actively interfered with Israel's attempts to protect itself.
My favorite part of the article, though, is right at the end, when Naiman finally shows us his true colors:
"They murdered her, and yet she dogs them. It's almost as if she were alive."
Most journalists take care to use "alleged murderers" in cases that have not yet entered a guilty verdict. But Naiman can't be bothered with little things like journalist integrity: Israel is guilty of murder because I proclaim it to be so! Who cares that the IDF made a "convincing case" that she was hidden from sight by the bulldozer! Who cares that the ISM intentionally provided misleading photographs and testimony? I, Robert Naiman, proclaim that Israel murdered Rachel Corrie!
In some ways I'm glad that this case came to court. Now the truth can come out, and we can finally shut down people like Robert Naiman once and for all.
Solomonia Takes on Kramer's "Genocide"
MJ Rosenberg apparently was not alone among the far-lefters criticizing Martin Kramer's for his words about suspending pre-natal subsidies for Gazans. However, Solomon over at Solomonia has a great takedown of Rosenberg, which I encourage you all to read. Essentially, Kramer is making the following case:
"I didn't propose that Israel take a single additional measure beyond the sanctions it now imposes with the political aim of undermining Hamas. And I didn't call on the West to "deliberately curb the births of Palestinians." I called on it to desist from deliberately encouraging births through pro-natal subsidies for Palestinian "refugees," which guarantee that Gazans will remain both radicalized and dependent. The Electronic Intifada claims that "neither the UN, nor any other agencies, provide Palestinians with specifically 'pro-natal subsidies.'" This is a lie: UNWRA assures that every child with "refugee" status will be fed and schooled regardless of the parents' own resources, and mandates that this "refugee" status be passed from generation to generation in perpetuity. Anywhere in the world, that would be called a deliberate pro-natal policy. Electronic Intifada: "Kramer appeared to be equating any humanitarian assistance at all with inducement for Palestinians to reproduce." Appears to whom? A pro-natal subsidy is a national or international promise to support the yet-unborn, not humanitarian assistance to the living. The pro-natal subsidy in Gaza is the unlimited promise of hereditary "refugee" status to future generations."
Basically, there's a difference between actively stopping births, which is what Rosenberg claimed Kramer was calling for, and taking steps to encourage families to only have enough children that they are able to support. You know, like the rest of humanity is supposed to do.
Once again, we see Rosenberg's apparent unwillingness to truly understand a subject's point of view and message in favor of creating a flashy, attention-grabbing and Israel-bashing headline. The more he posts on the HP, the more we get a better idea of what kind of journalism they are willing to publish.
Isolation Update: Israel to Help Secure the World Cup
The Jpost yesterday reported that over 30 Israeli security companies have been hired to held secure the World Cup in South Africa. Most of the technology provided by them will be high tech security cameras and shields that (apparently) are "rocket proof." I'm not sure what kind of attack (if any) they are expecting at the World Cup, but I suppose it helps to be prepared. I wonder if any of Israel's enemies will refuse to participate in the tournament because of this decision, if they are even aware that it was made.
Clearly this is one of the signs that the international community is going to isolate and destroy Israel. Any day now, it's going to happen.
Clearly this is one of the signs that the international community is going to isolate and destroy Israel. Any day now, it's going to happen.
Comment of the Day
I couldn't even come up with an appropriate label for this one on the latest unmoderated MAM thread:
The only way it would have been better is if he had answered his own questions. A couple of observations:
1) "The world" remains silent on all sorts of horrid tragedies, of which this incident would not be included. I don't see him complaining about the deaths of actually innocent people in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
2) Have you ever noticed how the only people who complain that no one is allowed to criticize Israel are Israel's critics? Usually right before they criticize Israel? And yet they never seem to realize the irony?
The only way it would have been better is if he had answered his own questions. A couple of observations:
1) "The world" remains silent on all sorts of horrid tragedies, of which this incident would not be included. I don't see him complaining about the deaths of actually innocent people in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
2) Have you ever noticed how the only people who complain that no one is allowed to criticize Israel are Israel's critics? Usually right before they criticize Israel? And yet they never seem to realize the irony?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Case for Israel Is Tonight!
Tonight at a nearby Jewish Community Center I am going to see the movie of "The Case for Israel" and (more importantly) going to attend a discussion led by Gloria Greenfield, the film's producer. I will be taking my camera and notebook, and will report back to see if there I hear anything interesting.
My Owning Post of the Day
I'm going to toot my own horn here for a second and show you a post of mine in which I take down skialethia. I think it's pretty good, but you can decide for yourself.
The True Power of the Jewish Lobby
One of the most interesting parts of The $36 Billion Bargain, which I'm still in the middle of reading, is the section where the author Organski talks about the power of the Jewish lobby. He talks about it in some detail, which I'll get back to at some point, but he basically draws the conclusion that the U.S. government's support for Israel is not in fact based solely or even mostly on the Jewish (or Israeli) lobby. It's based on a variety of factors (which we'll also talk about later), but he says that it is in the best interests of all the people involved to maintain the myth that the US supports Israel because of the lobby alone. This is a really fascinating point of view that I had never considered before.
It's to the benefit of the US government to maintain the myth, because it allows the President, Congress, etc., to support Israel without losing political capital abroad. Anytime Jordan, for example, gets mad at the US for giving money/weapons to Israel, the President can say, "Sorry, but domestic politics requires us to do that, don't blame me". "Domestic politics" is the code word meaning the Israeli lobby, and then the Jordanians nod their heads and think to themselves, "well, the President has to accommodate the Israeli lobby, so we can hardly blame him for supporting Israel. If he could make his own decision, he surely wouldn't support Israel". In reality, the President is supporting Israel because of his own interests, but he doesn't get blamed for it by Israel's enemies. Certainly an ideal situation to be in if you are the President.
It's to the benefit of American Jews to maintain the myth, as the illusion of power is power none the less. Even though the Israeli lobby has much less power than everyone believes, if a junior congressman believes the Israeli lobby has the power to destroy him, he will obey the wishes of the lobby. It's human nature to retain power, and if the Israeli lobbyists can keep supporting Israel by maintaining this myth, they're certainly not going to mythbust it.
It's to the benefit of the anti-Zionist movement to maintain the myth as well, fascinatingly enough. For the anti-Semites among them, they can use it as proof that the Jews are evil. But for the mainstream movement, the myth of the all-powerful Jewish lobby is the most convenient and convincing reason that the United States supports Israel. For all movements in America, they need to be popular movements at a certain level (no matter what MJ Rosenberg says). The anti-Zionists believe that their beliefs are the right ones and that most Americans agree with them (ignoring the biased polls). Therefore, the reason why the US supports Israel is not because Americans support Israel (because that's simply impossible), it's because of the Israeli lobby. This myth is extremely useful for the anti-Zionists because it provides a credible excuse about why their beliefs, while shared by the majority of Americans, are not reflected in the actions of the government.
So there you have it. The myth of the all-powerful Israeli lobby exists and is not going away anytime soon, because all the players involved want to keep it around. Therefore, the question is, what should we as grassroots supporters of Israel say when we are asked about the lobby? I would think that convincing the anti-Zionists that the lobby is in fact not all powerful would be difficult to convince and unlikely to be believed, so it's probably not worth it. Perpetuating the myth might result in more anti-Semites being convinced they were right all along, but we're better off in the long run if the US keeps supporting Israel.
It's to the benefit of the US government to maintain the myth, because it allows the President, Congress, etc., to support Israel without losing political capital abroad. Anytime Jordan, for example, gets mad at the US for giving money/weapons to Israel, the President can say, "Sorry, but domestic politics requires us to do that, don't blame me". "Domestic politics" is the code word meaning the Israeli lobby, and then the Jordanians nod their heads and think to themselves, "well, the President has to accommodate the Israeli lobby, so we can hardly blame him for supporting Israel. If he could make his own decision, he surely wouldn't support Israel". In reality, the President is supporting Israel because of his own interests, but he doesn't get blamed for it by Israel's enemies. Certainly an ideal situation to be in if you are the President.
It's to the benefit of American Jews to maintain the myth, as the illusion of power is power none the less. Even though the Israeli lobby has much less power than everyone believes, if a junior congressman believes the Israeli lobby has the power to destroy him, he will obey the wishes of the lobby. It's human nature to retain power, and if the Israeli lobbyists can keep supporting Israel by maintaining this myth, they're certainly not going to mythbust it.
It's to the benefit of the anti-Zionist movement to maintain the myth as well, fascinatingly enough. For the anti-Semites among them, they can use it as proof that the Jews are evil. But for the mainstream movement, the myth of the all-powerful Jewish lobby is the most convenient and convincing reason that the United States supports Israel. For all movements in America, they need to be popular movements at a certain level (no matter what MJ Rosenberg says). The anti-Zionists believe that their beliefs are the right ones and that most Americans agree with them (ignoring the biased polls). Therefore, the reason why the US supports Israel is not because Americans support Israel (because that's simply impossible), it's because of the Israeli lobby. This myth is extremely useful for the anti-Zionists because it provides a credible excuse about why their beliefs, while shared by the majority of Americans, are not reflected in the actions of the government.
So there you have it. The myth of the all-powerful Israeli lobby exists and is not going away anytime soon, because all the players involved want to keep it around. Therefore, the question is, what should we as grassroots supporters of Israel say when we are asked about the lobby? I would think that convincing the anti-Zionists that the lobby is in fact not all powerful would be difficult to convince and unlikely to be believed, so it's probably not worth it. Perpetuating the myth might result in more anti-Semites being convinced they were right all along, but we're better off in the long run if the US keeps supporting Israel.
The State of the HP: February 2010
Something I've noticed on the Hassan Yousef thread that is exceptional is how strong the pro-Israel presence has become on the Huffington Post. Go over to the comments section of that article and see for yourself. There are many posters all expressing pro-Israel sentiment and supporting each other. Ballpark guess of how many, I'd say around 25.
This is great news from our perspective. The biggest difference that can be made on the Huffington Post in terms of combating anti-Semitism is to make the pro-Israel viewpoint not seem like the minority. Preventing pro-Israel individuals from being ganged up on and insulted, and making anti-Zionist posters think twice before posting something hateful goes a long way on the boards. Thanks to all the people who are (hopefully) reading this blog, and fighting the good fight on the HP. You guys are making a difference, and the Yousef thread shows that.
Something I was wondering about is that the pro-Israel position is so well advocated on this thread in particular might be because the thread is unmoderated. I've never had too much difficulty getting my posts to go through moderation (although it can sometimes take a long time) but it's possible the moderation might be holding up many pro-Israel comments. Have any of you had a lot of comments censored? Or is the Yousef thread simply a sign of things to come, when the pro-Israel posters will be the strongest voices on the Huffington Post?
This is great news from our perspective. The biggest difference that can be made on the Huffington Post in terms of combating anti-Semitism is to make the pro-Israel viewpoint not seem like the minority. Preventing pro-Israel individuals from being ganged up on and insulted, and making anti-Zionist posters think twice before posting something hateful goes a long way on the boards. Thanks to all the people who are (hopefully) reading this blog, and fighting the good fight on the HP. You guys are making a difference, and the Yousef thread shows that.
Something I was wondering about is that the pro-Israel position is so well advocated on this thread in particular might be because the thread is unmoderated. I've never had too much difficulty getting my posts to go through moderation (although it can sometimes take a long time) but it's possible the moderation might be holding up many pro-Israel comments. Have any of you had a lot of comments censored? Or is the Yousef thread simply a sign of things to come, when the pro-Israel posters will be the strongest voices on the Huffington Post?
A Link to Read
I didn't have much time to write today, but I suggest that you instead check out this article about the Camp David negotiations. In short, there is a secret reason that the negotiations fell through, as explained by Saeb Erekat: Israel asked Arafat to acknowledge that the Temple Mount held a religious significance for Jews as well, but he refused to do so. On the one hand, this does make sense, as Arafat would probably have been killed for saying such a thing. But it's yet another nail in the coffin on the myth of the "Bantustan" offer.
Mythbusting: Israel Started It!
On many of the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh related threads (and there have been a lot of those) we see a lot of accusations that Israel is taking the conflict between them and Hamas to the next level (i.e. globally). Posters condemn Israel for acting outside of Gaza and say that doing so is an invitation to Palestinian terrorists to kill Israelis wherever they are. As alysheba hinted earlier, the logic train indicates that if Palestinian terrorists do in fact start killing innocent Israelis around the world, it is Israel's fault for overstepping their bounds. If you look, you can probably find many examples.
For those of you who might be thinking that Israel was the one who has taken the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "to the next level" with this killing (assuming they did it, of course) here is a quick history lesson:
1972: Palestinian terrorists kill eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich, Germany.
1970s: Palestinian terrorists hijack airlines, including those of Air France and other non-Israeli airlines.
1973: Palestinian terrorists attack the Saudi Embassy, and kill US Ambassador Cleo Noel (among others).
1973: Palestinian terrorists attempt three car bombings in New York City.
1985: Palestinian terrorists hijack the MS Achille Lauro. Wheelchair bound Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoffer is killed and then thrown overboard.
2009: Hamas announces that it considers any Israeli or Jew to be a legitimate target, no matter where in the world that they are.
This is not even counting the PLO and Hamas seeking aid and money from all over the world, and this is just what I found in a few minutes. Clearly, it was Israel's enemies who decided to take this conflict worldwide decades before this latest incident. Let's keep this in mind next time someone makes that that accusation.
For those of you who might be thinking that Israel was the one who has taken the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "to the next level" with this killing (assuming they did it, of course) here is a quick history lesson:
1972: Palestinian terrorists kill eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich, Germany.
1970s: Palestinian terrorists hijack airlines, including those of Air France and other non-Israeli airlines.
1973: Palestinian terrorists attack the Saudi Embassy, and kill US Ambassador Cleo Noel (among others).
1973: Palestinian terrorists attempt three car bombings in New York City.
1985: Palestinian terrorists hijack the MS Achille Lauro. Wheelchair bound Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoffer is killed and then thrown overboard.
2009: Hamas announces that it considers any Israeli or Jew to be a legitimate target, no matter where in the world that they are.
This is not even counting the PLO and Hamas seeking aid and money from all over the world, and this is just what I found in a few minutes. Clearly, it was Israel's enemies who decided to take this conflict worldwide decades before this latest incident. Let's keep this in mind next time someone makes that that accusation.
HPW: Hassan Yousef, Son of Hamas Founder, Was Top Israeli Agent
Ha'aretz broke the story of Hassan Yousef yesterday and the HP reprinted it. Yousef was the son of one of the founders of Hamas, and after deciding he wanted no part of the Palestinian culture of death, joined the Shin Bet. Yousef helped prevent dozens if not hundreds of terror attacks and earned the nickname "The Green Prince" after Hamas' green flag. He worked for years, and has since retired to the United States. The reason he's making the news now is that a biography of him is coming out next week.
Needless to say, I was anticipating consternation from the anti-Zionists, and the fact that the article was unmoderated was icing on the cake. However, it really wasn't that bad. The article was taken up mostly by nyckid's latest handle "woodpecker4" and his constant calling for the liberation of Palestine. You can read most of his stuff below, as well as some other comments.
BzBee
It's [the biography of Yousef] just Christian Zionist propaganda.
[it seems to me that the anti-Zionists only care about Palestinian children once they are dead. In terms of building a new state, they're more than willing to let those children do the fighting and live in refugee camps while the BDS movement takes down Israel]
There will be peace once 1947 Palestine is returned to the Palestinians.
Why, because they own the US!
Needless to say, I was anticipating consternation from the anti-Zionists, and the fact that the article was unmoderated was icing on the cake. However, it really wasn't that bad. The article was taken up mostly by nyckid's latest handle "woodpecker4" and his constant calling for the liberation of Palestine. You can read most of his stuff below, as well as some other comments.
BzBee
There's so much propaganda and ppl r blinded by it. The media here is pro Jewish and often fails to sympathize or report the suffering on the other side. Just another example of ppl pushing for their own personal agendas.
The occupation and the*ft of 1947 PaIestine is the 20-21st Century's highest ge*nocide and a crime against humanity and 2ionist terrorism. The PaIestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes and lands in PaIestine
[posted at least twice]
No one from any particular religion should be attacked. The occupiers of Palestine, regardless of religion, are legitimate military targets of the freedom fighters to liberate Palestine from occupation.
Palestinians have the right to fight for the liberation of PaIestine from occupation. Just like the French resistance during occupation in WWII. No amount of Western propaganda can diminish the fact that 1947 Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
The occupation and theft of 1947 Palestine is "It's thoroughly disheartening". It must be reversed and it will be reversed sooner or later. Palestinians will never forget or forgive the occupiers.
You cannot negotiate with the enemy (US-lsrael) in a position of weakness. The so called peace process is a hoax.
The Mandate was a mandate to establish the Palestinian state after British colonization. Britain had no right to give it to other people other than to the Palestinians.
He [Yousef] made a mistake by betraying his people and the cause for the liberation of Palestine from occupation.
All occupiers of Palestine are Iegitimate targets in this war.
[it seems to me that the anti-Zionists only care about Palestinian children once they are dead. In terms of building a new state, they're more than willing to let those children do the fighting and live in refugee camps while the BDS movement takes down Israel]
There will be peace once 1947 Palestine is returned to the Palestinians.
Why, because they own the US!
[although in his defense, the Hasbara Brigade was on the attack]
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
HuffPoWatch User Profile Update: Thabit
Recent news from the Huffington Post, noted anti-Israel (and not-so-occasional anti-Semitic) talkbacker Thabit has now been banned. If you have any doubts that he was acting against the terms of service, simply check out the profile that Matt and I ran on him. He liked to accuse Jews of racism, saying that this was backed up by the Torah and other holy books, among other accusations. But you can see them all for yourself.
Thanks again to the mods for keeping an eye on abusive users.
Thanks again to the mods for keeping an eye on abusive users.
Disturbing Comment of the Day
Even though this was posted yesterday, I still thought it was worth sharing. Four hours after being posted this comment remains. Though that my change by the time this post goes up.
Dubai Police Identify More Suspects, Claim Some Headed For Iran
Ynetnews covers the latest press statement by Dubai police:
"Dubai has identified 15 new suspects in the assassination of a senior Hamas figure at a Dubai luxury hotel, bringing the total number of people believed involved in the death to 26, the government said on Wednesday."
But wait! What's this?
"Dubai police also released passport photos and closed-circuit television footage of the suspects, and said two of them had left Dubai by boat for Iran."
Now, assuming for a minute the Mossad actually did take out this guy, which all the HPers think, why would they go to Iran after the assassination? Of all the places for a high-profile assassin to hide, you'd think Iran would be one of the worst places to go. Unless the Iranian government was in on it somehow, which makes me think this assassination might be a Hamas inside job.
It's possible, of course, that the Mossad went to Iran specifically to throw us off the trail. Those crafty Israelis....
What Were the Goals of the "Irvine 11"?
The HP recently published a long, but interesting, article by one Mark Levine. Levine discusses the legality of prosecuting the "Irvine 11", (the 11 students actively heckling Michael Oren's recent speech at UC Irvine). He makes a convincing case that the state of California should not prosecute the students, and doing so would violate their right to protest. He actually makes a convincing case, I agree with him that the government should not get involved.
However, there was some disagreement about what the students' intentions were. Obviously, none of us can know for sure what the students thought, as we are not mind-readers. Mr. Levine argued that the students simply disagreed with Oren's views and were expressing the fact that they disagreed with him. His evidence of this was that only 11 students out of the 30 or so who came stood up to heckle Oren, and that the students complied with police and did not have to force out.
I disagree with Levine, I think the students were there to do their darnedest to stop Oren from speaking. They knew they couldn't stop Oren outright, but they did the best they could. My evidence is as follows:
1. The fact that the students cheered the loudest when Oren stepped down from the podium part of the way through this speech. This is obvious from the video I posted earlier, and it indicated that the students (at the very least) were happy that Oren had stopped talking. It seems, therefore, that they were pleased he no longer was expressing his views.
2. This Youtube video, identified by Solomonia and produced by StandWithUs. Watch the first three minutes, and note what one of the leaders of the protesters had to say.
So there you go. My views, and Mark Levine's. Draw your own conclusions, but there's one thing I think we can all agree with: these students' actions were the opposite of UCI's values of civil discourse and free exchange of ideas.
However, there was some disagreement about what the students' intentions were. Obviously, none of us can know for sure what the students thought, as we are not mind-readers. Mr. Levine argued that the students simply disagreed with Oren's views and were expressing the fact that they disagreed with him. His evidence of this was that only 11 students out of the 30 or so who came stood up to heckle Oren, and that the students complied with police and did not have to force out.
I disagree with Levine, I think the students were there to do their darnedest to stop Oren from speaking. They knew they couldn't stop Oren outright, but they did the best they could. My evidence is as follows:
1. The fact that the students cheered the loudest when Oren stepped down from the podium part of the way through this speech. This is obvious from the video I posted earlier, and it indicated that the students (at the very least) were happy that Oren had stopped talking. It seems, therefore, that they were pleased he no longer was expressing his views.
2. This Youtube video, identified by Solomonia and produced by StandWithUs. Watch the first three minutes, and note what one of the leaders of the protesters had to say.
So there you go. My views, and Mark Levine's. Draw your own conclusions, but there's one thing I think we can all agree with: these students' actions were the opposite of UCI's values of civil discourse and free exchange of ideas.
HPW: Tzipi Livni Praises Hamas Commander Killing
As you might guess from the title, Tzipi Livni of Kadima praised the death of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh yesterday, but also did not give any hint that Israel had anything to do with his death. The talkbacks were what we have come to expect on any MAM-related thread, so I won't elaborate too much on that. Naturally, the thread is still ongoing at the time of this writing, so I probably have missed more than a few comments.:
woodpecker4
mavash
greatscot
TStringfellow
I would argue that launching a full, unrestrained invasion into Gaza in order to combat a few bottle rockets fits quite nicely within the definition of "terrorism".
Londoncall
Rachel Brownlee
woodpecker4
All people fight to the end for their country and their Iand. Palestinians will fight for Palestine just like George Washington fought for the US during the American revolution. Even if they are weaker, they will will. Time, history and justice is on their side. 1947 Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
mavash
This is shamfull that you can't even deny it. Mossad is a terrorist group for a long long time. Now they don't even care to hide it.
Cynthia Rays
Cynthia Rays
Tzipi (little bird) Livni was a member of Mossad [Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but is true]. No doubt she arranged or carried out some of these hits herself. It seems totally unnecessary for her to comment on this. She would have been much better off saying nothing and continuing the state terror she advocates against the Palestinians.
greatscot
[deleted] Livni sounds like the re-incarnation of the Beast Of Belsen - (the wife of a concentration camp commandant who made lampshades out of Jewish victims' skin). Livni has about as much human compassion. Like many Israelis she is such a dogmatic, committed ziionist that she can rationalize any murder, even the mass killing of children, as in Gaza. She doesn't even rocognise that most of the world wants the 11 perpetrators to hang for their crime (if they are actually guilty, of course), ... along with Netanyahu, who ordered it and the Mossad chief, who carried out the orders.
Aren't the Israelis so cute! "We don't confirm or deny"... - oh, that's just so darn cute! Don't you want to just hug them?
Hank007
Fireslayer
Looking forward to hearing from intelligent Israelis who will someday put these gangsters out of business and bring peace to the region.
mountainforce
Aren't the Israelis so cute! "We don't confirm or deny"... - oh, that's just so darn cute! Don't you want to just hug them?
Hank007
For each Israeli killed by so-called Palestinian terrorists, over 1000 Palestinians have been killed. Now, who is terrorizing whom again?
Fireslayer
And don't forget that Livini supports ethnic cleansing in Israel and is an indictable war criminal.
Of course she supports murder. What do you think the Gaza massacre was all about?Looking forward to hearing from intelligent Israelis who will someday put these gangsters out of business and bring peace to the region.
mountainforce
hollywood is run by zionists, not sure if they would give you the full story.
TStringfellow
"The entire world must support those fighting terrorism," Livni said. "Any comparison between terrorism and those fighting it is immoral."
Wow. So those "fighting terrorism" never use terroristic tactics? So anyone engaged in the fight against terrorism is above criticism? What a typical leap of logic for an Israeli politician.I would argue that launching a full, unrestrained invasion into Gaza in order to combat a few bottle rockets fits quite nicely within the definition of "terrorism".
Londoncall
Of course Livni's parents were terrorists and she is regarded around the world as a war criminal. Talk about low moral ground.
Rachel Brownlee
If they had stolen my land and were squatting in my home then I think I would be fully justified to be banging on their (my) door!
Update: More comments for you
woodpecker4
Any Palestinian fighting for the liberation of Palestine is a hero.
fifteen_pounds
There is no Israel, there is an Occupied Palestine...
woodpecker4
When all the people in the world is a problem except you, then you are the problem. Not the rest of the world.
[post is talking about the son of a Hamas leader who joined the Shin Bet]
woodpecker4
See who controls Wall Street, and you will see to whom the US you owe money. Trillions.
woodpecker4
All occupiers of Palestine are legitimate targets. Palestinians have the right to fight for their country. It's their right.
fifteen pounds
woodpecker4
Update: More comments for you
How about assassinating all those in the Israeli military that killed at least 1300 civilians in Gaza.
Within their warped sense of justice, how could this man be called a terrorist when he was appointed a commander by a duly elected government (Gaza). He was in fact doing his duty of protecting the citizens of that country. He was, as the Israelis constantly say exercising his right to defend his country.
Within their warped sense of justice, how could this man be called a terrorist when he was appointed a commander by a duly elected government (Gaza). He was in fact doing his duty of protecting the citizens of that country. He was, as the Israelis constantly say exercising his right to defend his country.
Can't support murder. What happened to justice? People should be held accountable for their crimes through a court system.
But, this is nothing new for Isreal. They have been murdering people for over 50 years without fair trials.
But, this is nothing new for Isreal. They have been murdering people for over 50 years without fair trials.
Palestinians have the right to fight for their country, for the liberation of Palestine.
Any Palestinian fighting for the liberation of Palestine is a hero.
[response by Macready: "totally agree with you, woodpecker"]
Mahmoud al-Mabhou was a resistance fighter fighting against occupation and for the liberation of Palestine. A true hero.
It [Israel] shouldn't have been in the first place. 1947 Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
fifteen_pounds
There is no Israel, there is an Occupied Palestine...
woodpecker4
When all the people in the world is a problem except you, then you are the problem. Not the rest of the world.
It's interesting that he converted to Christianity instead of Judaism. Let me put it simply: This guy is a propaganda pawn. Maybe he's a willing pawn, maybe he's bedazzled by the "American Dream" and espionage.
I find it highly offensive that his Christian conversion is being used this way. If he is sincere; he will wake up one day and with a crisis of conscience; and another crisis of faith....if he's sincere. This doesn't mean he'll become a Muslim again, but the faith he's experiencing right now is NOT real.
In the meantime, I'm sure he'll capitalize on his fame, play spy games and fly high, but one day he'll fall to earth.
This guy is the pawn of Christian Zionists and Zionists. Maybe it all started out "innocently"...who knows, but there is nothing innocent about Zionism be it Jewish or Christian. It's is a totally misguided direction, with a warped perspective, leading to a very bad place.
I find it highly offensive that his Christian conversion is being used this way. If he is sincere; he will wake up one day and with a crisis of conscience; and another crisis of faith....if he's sincere. This doesn't mean he'll become a Muslim again, but the faith he's experiencing right now is NOT real.
In the meantime, I'm sure he'll capitalize on his fame, play spy games and fly high, but one day he'll fall to earth.
This guy is the pawn of Christian Zionists and Zionists. Maybe it all started out "innocently"...who knows, but there is nothing innocent about Zionism be it Jewish or Christian. It's is a totally misguided direction, with a warped perspective, leading to a very bad place.
woodpecker4
See who controls Wall Street, and you will see to whom the US you owe money. Trillions.
woodpecker4
All occupiers of Palestine are legitimate targets. Palestinians have the right to fight for their country. It's their right.
fifteen pounds
If Israel is to survive, it is going to have to deny Zionism, and allow one person one vote, reparations or the right of return of Palestinians. This is the only solution..
woodpecker4
All occupiers of Palestine are legitimate target in this war.
SiberianRat
Willy Scanlon
[response: "Fanned"]
SiberianRat
This woman is one of the architects of Cast Lead--of course she's gonna rejoice in death--she caused lots of it.
Willy Scanlon
For quite a while it seems that the Israelis are preparing to go to war. Not only do they engage in highly publicized military maneuvers, but they have also issued political threats, assassinated its political opponents in neighboring countries, using Mossad trained hit teams and; have now publicized their new “747 style long range drones to attack its neighbors in the Persian Gulf; especially Iran. They have consistently tormented and oppressed the non-Jewish people in Gaza and the West Bank, both Muslims and Christians through its forced Nazi style occupation and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza ignoring even international condemnation.
In the midst of this maddening bravado, one has to keep in mind that Israel lives by the sword. Israel is an entity that is born out of war and its survives on war. It constantly berates and portrays itself as the victim of the holocaust, yet its government operates as a pariah tyrant in the region, seemingly as extreme as the terrorist cells of Al-Qaida ,or the Nazis government of World War II that tried so very hard to exterminate it. As long as this fabricated product of religious history remains in this mindset, war is always a possibility. Those that live by the sword,die by the sword. ITS TIME FOR ISRAEL TO DIE![response: "Fanned"]
HPW: MJ Rosenberg's "Genocide" Story
The number of talkbacks on MJ Rosenberg's latest article have now reached the point where I feel it is necessary to write a "watch" story about it. Before I do, I feel I should point out that though I can see where Dr. Kramer is coming from, I still don't think his decision is wise or moral.
Many of the comments on the thread were attacking Kramer and his views. Obviously, those will not be included here, as Kramer should be criticized just like everyone else. It is when comments took the next step and demonized Israel beyond the facts on the ground that they will go into the thread.
SpoonieLuv
Many of the comments on the thread were attacking Kramer and his views. Obviously, those will not be included here, as Kramer should be criticized just like everyone else. It is when comments took the next step and demonized Israel beyond the facts on the ground that they will go into the thread.
SpoonieLuv
The only reason that Israel can entertain the idea of genocide ["Israel" isn't entertaining anything. Kramer is.] is because our leaders in the United States allow them to. Our government allows Israelis too much in the way of decisionmaking. The president must intervene and guide the Israelis toward peace by assuming more control over Israeli legislation and policy. We cannot allow our client states to commit genocide or carry out apartheid policies.
SpoonieLuv
Of course it would be inappropriate for any foreign country to exert control over our decisionmaking, because we are an independent nation. Israel is a different case. We give Israel billions of dollars every year to prop up their economy and arm their militant groups. Hence, we have the right to dictate Israeli law. This is the nature of how a functioning empire should work. ["Militant groups?"]
skialethia
As for this "one guy". You're wrong about that too. You see there are many who give this guy the time of day in Israel, because in Israel there is a pervasive mindset of total apathy towards the suffering of Palestinians and a poll taken around the elections last year showed that the majority of Israelis would love the Palestinians moved from the Territories! Then there many settlers who actually condone the King's Torah which is tantamount to a final solution!
Why would Avrum Burg write the book "Defeating Hitler" and say the things he says about Israeli society as he perceives it today? He is absolutely right! And he's not the only one who is witnessing this dangerous morally distorted trend.
skialethia
"I can only imagine how outraged you would be if a foreign country wanted to exert control over US decision making, legislation and policy."
Yes and that's how Palestinians feel about Israel robbing them of their state, their legal and human rights and their sovereignty!As for this "one guy". You're wrong about that too. You see there are many who give this guy the time of day in Israel, because in Israel there is a pervasive mindset of total apathy towards the suffering of Palestinians and a poll taken around the elections last year showed that the majority of Israelis would love the Palestinians moved from the Territories! Then there many settlers who actually condone the King's Torah which is tantamount to a final solution!
Why would Avrum Burg write the book "Defeating Hitler" and say the things he says about Israeli society as he perceives it today? He is absolutely right! And he's not the only one who is witnessing this dangerous morally distorted trend.
woodpecker4
Does Dr. Martin Kramer's ideas apply to the illegal occupiers of 1947 Palestine?
Jay-DC
The program is not designed to give them a demographic edge, it is designed to provide children w/food and medicine that have been intentionally deprived to them because forgeigners have forced them to live the life of animals, without freedom, without liberty in a prison in order to maintain their own demographic edge.
To insist that they be deprived of this program is not just kicking a person when theyre down. It is raping, torturing and imprisoning a human when they are on their last breath. This is sickening.
To insist that they be deprived of this program is not just kicking a person when theyre down. It is raping, torturing and imprisoning a human when they are on their last breath. This is sickening.
skialethia
Londoncall
Aerows
Basically, he's saying is: "Don't feed the babies in the Gaza gulag. Keep depriving the population of the largest open-air concentration camp in modern-day history of humanitarian aid, so that the old die and don't get replaced."
This is what he's implying and anyone who defends him is just as guilty! [That may be what Kramer is implying, but the characterizations of Gaza is hers alone.]Londoncall
Aren't the hasbarists always telling us what a marvellous mutli-cultural society Israel is? If you look at this video (especially the longer version on YouTube) you can see the audience is almost entirely made up of white men and women in suits, calmly listening to this speech. That makes the racism even more blatant - all these smug western people telling the Arabs they shouldn't be breeding. It makes my skin crawl.
Also, you notice Mr Kramer makes no mention of the large families produced by the settlers, or the violence that emanates from their communities.
Jay-DC
Also, you notice Mr Kramer makes no mention of the large families produced by the settlers, or the violence that emanates from their communities.
Jay-DC
Hahaha, the occupation ended in 1994? You're right, so maybe the Palestinans just want to drive all the jews into the well, or sea, which one is it?
I've heard people say the occupation ended in 2005 w;/ the "disengagement", but 1994, surely you jest?
But unfortunately sir or ma'am, the occupation continues. In international law and cited by an Israeli high court decision (google if you may), an occupation of a territory by a foreigner need not require occupation forces on the territory as is evident in the West Bank. An occupation is when an occupier maintains 'effective control' over the territory.
Dont know what effective control is? i can explain, gaza's air-space, radiowaves, water sources, borders, goods coming in and out, sea-way, etc. etc.etc., are all controlled by Israel. While the vegetable sharon claimed to be fully disengaging, he failed to mention that Israel will maintain control over these aspects. It's quite unfortunate that Isreal sitll occupies Palestine. When will they learn that oppression leads to violence? Stupid Israeli's, occupation is for murderers.
I've heard people say the occupation ended in 2005 w;/ the "disengagement", but 1994, surely you jest?
But unfortunately sir or ma'am, the occupation continues. In international law and cited by an Israeli high court decision (google if you may), an occupation of a territory by a foreigner need not require occupation forces on the territory as is evident in the West Bank. An occupation is when an occupier maintains 'effective control' over the territory.
Dont know what effective control is? i can explain, gaza's air-space, radiowaves, water sources, borders, goods coming in and out, sea-way, etc. etc.etc., are all controlled by Israel. While the vegetable sharon claimed to be fully disengaging, he failed to mention that Israel will maintain control over these aspects. It's quite unfortunate that Isreal sitll occupies Palestine. When will they learn that oppression leads to violence? Stupid Israeli's, occupation is for murderers.
One would hope that you would educate yourself enough to stop patronizing, and start being a human being, St. Cuthbert.
SEQUOIABISON
And we are subsidizing a country that is receptive to these ideas? Stop our aid to Israel or demand that they start treating their Palestinian neighbor with some dignity and respect. [How dare Israel allow freedom of speech to people I disagree with?]
Jay-DC
It seems this professor never played connect the dots. The rise in extremism and violence in Palestine is directly related to the ongoing deprivation of food, medicine, shelter and more importantly freedom. How many of us reading this can honestly say "i'm free"?
I can promise you one thing, if you're in Palestine right now, not one person can honestly and confidently say "i'm free". Israel has taken every vicious and brutal path to silence the 'extremists', yet they have intentionally neglected to extend equality and justice to these victims. When will the israeli supporters realize that by staying silent, they are in effect, giving a drug addict more drugs to kill themselves with.
Very disgusting to see what Israel has become, but it's not surprising, when you consider the tragedy created at it's inception
who38
Jelperman
I can promise you one thing, if you're in Palestine right now, not one person can honestly and confidently say "i'm free". Israel has taken every vicious and brutal path to silence the 'extremists', yet they have intentionally neglected to extend equality and justice to these victims. When will the israeli supporters realize that by staying silent, they are in effect, giving a drug addict more drugs to kill themselves with.
Very disgusting to see what Israel has become, but it's not surprising, when you consider the tragedy created at it's inception
who38
Isn't the Gaza Ghetto another example?
Londoncall
[response]Londoncall
"The need to thin the herd" ... nice. You mean a cull. So that's what Cast Lead was all about, its clear now.
I think the moral compass got lost a long time ago, Lisa.
Thelonius
alysheba 3 I think the moral compass got lost a long time ago, Lisa.
Thelonius
SHOCKING!! Regardless of its median age, a population suffering under an illegal and brutal occupation and/or blockade will exercise its legal and moral right to resist and continue to multiply.
This is another example of an Israel supporter blaming the victims and attempting (albeit, without success) to divert our attention from reality: Palestinians are the occupied (as are parts of Syrian and Lebanese lands), Israel is the occupier; Palestinians are the dispossessed and expelled, Israel is an expansionist state; Palestinians are the oppressed, Israel is the oppressor; Palestinians have hard won international humanitarian law on their side, Israel violates international law each and every day. If Dr. Kramer were really interested in ending this conflict he would urge Israel to accept the peace proposal laid out in the 2002 Arab League's Beirut Initiative - full recognition of Israel as a sovereign state if it complies with international law and returns to its borders prior to the war it launched on 4 June 1967 and agrees to cooperate in finding a "just" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
This is another example of an Israel supporter blaming the victims and attempting (albeit, without success) to divert our attention from reality: Palestinians are the occupied (as are parts of Syrian and Lebanese lands), Israel is the occupier; Palestinians are the dispossessed and expelled, Israel is an expansionist state; Palestinians are the oppressed, Israel is the oppressor; Palestinians have hard won international humanitarian law on their side, Israel violates international law each and every day. If Dr. Kramer were really interested in ending this conflict he would urge Israel to accept the peace proposal laid out in the 2002 Arab League's Beirut Initiative - full recognition of Israel as a sovereign state if it complies with international law and returns to its borders prior to the war it launched on 4 June 1967 and agrees to cooperate in finding a "just" solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
You don't think starving a captive population is genocide? What would you call it?
Jelperman
I'd call it Zionism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Rachel Brownlee
Billy Hell
[link]
Rachel Brownlee
Billy Hell
Rachel Brownlee
Rachel Brownlee
Rachel Brownlee
Speak up, Europa!
It's one thing to assassinate a "bad guy", but it's another to illegally use other nation's passport.
Rachel Brownlee
Go figure?
Chimpy
Fight terrorism -- boycott Israel!
Rachel Brownlee
+ Rachel Brownlee
Rachel Brownlee
SpoonieLuv
Rachel Brownlee
[Busting out an old conspiracy theory.]
ayadian
Because the perpetrators are the Israelis and no one in the world dares to criticize Israel.
Look at this silly story.
Obviously, Israel murdered this Hamas man. Everyone knows that.
But the world is trembling before Israel.
No one dares to directly say to that racist 'state': "You are murderers".
Why is the world scared of the holy state of Israel?
Aarky
Rachel Brownlee