Friday, May 11, 2012

Robert Naiman's Tears for Terrorists

Robert Naiman, who you may remember as being a proud participant on the terrorist supporting international law violating flotilla, has come back again to whine and cry about how Israel is being mean to people who have killed hundreds of Israelis. In the process he has disproved the most common complaint about this latest Palestinian hunger strike: that no one is paying attention to it. First up we have a rather large claim:
"More than 1,500 prisoners are currently observing an open-ended hunger strike in defense of basic human rights: the right not to be detained without charge, the right not to be subjected to sustained solitary confinement, the right to be visited by one's family."
First of all, none of those things are basic human rights.  There is no "right" to be visited by one's family in prison, nor against solitary confinement. Even in democracies like America prisons use solitary confinement and family visits are privileges to be earned not rights to be expected. Furthermore, according to B'tselem there are approximately 300 Palestinians being held in administrative detention, not 1,500.

They actually demand much more than that as you can read here, including "the right not to have their cells searched," and "the right to an education" boo hoo hoo. I am sympathetic to some of the prisoners' requests. What I am not sympathetic to is what Naiman does here by trying to make mass murderers look like the real victims and by trying to transform their demands into "basic human rights" which they are denied.

What's even crazier about this article is that like the Palestinian prisoners themselves Robert Naiman already has a lot but demands even more. For example:
"UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally said something under pressure. So did the European Union. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have spoken up. There was a report in the New York Times; before that, there was a report in the Washington Post."
Seems like unlike Daoud Kuttab Naiman is willing to admit that this has received plenty of attention. So what provoked the article?
"But so far, Secretary of State Clinton hasn't said boo. Is it impossible that she could say something? What might happen if a bunch of Americans tried to put pressure on Hillary to speak up?" 
And the entire rest of the article is about Hillary Clinton. Yes, that is what makes the news at the Huffington Post these days. Demands that Hillary Clinton "speak up" for mass murders and terrorists. The UN, the Red Cross, and the European Union isn't enough for some people. The demands just continue.

There isn't much more to say about it, but it would have been nice for Robert Naiman to mention why these people are in prison in the first place. And a word about their victims would have been nice. But I can't say I'm surprised that Naiman didn't feel like it was necessary to mention them. They are just Israelis after all.


  1. While I think it is very nice of you to be sympathetic to some of the demands, I cannot agree with you. I think that the conditions of the Arab prisoners should be diminished, not enhanced.

    If I were the Israelis (who seem to be a lot nicer than I am) I would cut the conditions of the terrorists down to the absolute minimum of the prisons in the region - say, down the Egyptian average, or the Turkish one. Why should the Israeli taxpayer have to support the terrorists in such luxury?

    And let the hunger strikers die. I guarantee you that the other terrorists will get the message.

  2. Honest Reporting Canada got a correction on this very point


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.