Tuesday, January 05, 2010

What Goldstone--And The World--Can Learn From An 8 Year Old Gazan Girl Named Marya

Back in December, The New York Times had a piece by Ethan Bronner entitled A Mideast Bond, Stitched of Pain and Healing:
He can be impulsive. She has a touch of bossiness. Next-door neighbors for nearly a year, they talk, watch television and explore the world together, wandering into each other’s homes without a second thought. She likes his mother’s eggplant dish. He likes her father’s rice and lamb.

Marya, a Palestinian, and Orel, an Israeli, are 8-year-old neighbors at Jerusalem's Alyn Hospital.

Friendship often starts with proximity, but Orel and Marya, both 8, have been thrust together in a way few elsewhere have. Their playground is a hospital corridor. He is an Israeli Jew severely wounded by a Hamas rocket. She is a Palestinian Muslim from Gaza paralyzed by an Israeli missile. Someone forgot to tell them that they are enemies.

When Orel arrived here a year ago, he could not hear, see, talk or walk. Now he does them all haltingly. Half his brain is gone. Doctors were deeply pessimistic about his survival. Today they are amazed at his progress although unclear how much more can be made.

Marya’s spinal cord was broken at the neck and she can move only her head. Smart, sunny and strong-willed, she moves her wheelchair by pushing a button with her chin. Nothing escapes her gaze. She knows that Orel is starting to prefer boys as playmates and she makes room. But their bond remains strong.

Evelyn Gordon writes that though the article tries to point out a symmetry between the 2 children and their situations, there is a difference. Consider the case of Marya:


She was wounded three years ago, when a missile targeting a Hamas terrorist hit her family’s car instead. Her mother, grandmother, and older brother were killed; she was paralyzed from the neck down.

The Israeli government brought her to Israel for medical care that she couldn’t receive in Gaza. It also brought her father, Hamdi Aman, to be with her, and her younger brother, Momen, so he wouldn’t be separated from his surviving parent.

When Marya’s condition stabilized, the government proposed returning her to Gaza, or else the West Bank. Aman objected, fearing his daughter’s care would suffer. The Israeli media and “a bevy of volunteers” mobilized “to fight on his behalf,” and the government “backed off.”

But actually, the story reveals, it did a bit more than just “back off.” Not only is the Israeli government still funding Marya’s care at Alyn, but it’s also paying for her to attend a bilingual Arabic-Hebrew school nearby and paying her father a stipend equivalent to the minimum wage. In short, it’s doing what it can to make amends for Marya’s unintended injury.
And that is exactly the point, and exactly the difference between Israel and Hamas and why using the claim of being 'balanced' when talking about Israel and Hamas is so ludicrous, degrading and offensive:
That’s precisely the kind of behavior one wouldn’t expect from a country that deliberately targets civilians — because if civilians are intentional targets, why should Israel feel any need to make amends by bringing the Amans to Israel, financing Marya’s medical care, and schooling and supporting her family?


And it’s also where the symmetry breaks down. There’s no mention of any comparable Hamas gesture toward Orel, not even a pro forma verbal apology. That’s because Hamas does deliberately target civilians. So it feels no remorse and no need to make amends.

Marya was wounded before the Gaza war, but other Gazans injured in that conflict were similarly treated in Israeli hospitals. Israel also set up a field hospital on the Israel-Gaza border to treat additional Gazan war victims, though due to Hamas’s intimidation, few came. Thus Israel spent its own money and risked its own doctors’ lives, in an effort to heal the very civilians it allegedly deliberately targeted.

If you’re trying to kill enemy civilians, that’s a bizarre way of achieving your goal. Perhaps Goldstone could learn something about Israel by talking to Marya. [emphasis added]
Let's face it--we all could.

Technorati Tag: and and and .

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

this is a touching and sad story. I hate to see innocent kids suffering.

I agree there's a clear difference between Israel and Hamas, but one should be aware that Israel is a democratic country, while Hamas is just a radical organization. So we're not comparing the same things.

Regarding poor Marya, I think funding her care and paying her school is the least Israel can do for her after destroying her future. However, there's still hundrets of such wounded kids in Gaza that don't get any sort of help from Israel. And that's sad.

Daled Amos said...

I agree there's a clear difference between Israel and Hamas, but one should be aware that Israel is a democratic country, while Hamas is just a radical organization. So we're not comparing the same things.


What. A. Cop. Out!

Hamas is "just" a 'radical organization'!? What in the world does that even mean??

And then--after demeaning what Israel did--you don't mention anything about Sderot.

Oh, that's right: Hamas is 'radical' so there isn't even any point in mentioning them.

Did I mention that your comment is a cop out?

Anonymous said...

Hey, take it easy, DA. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. You can't compare an organization to a country. The asymmetry between the two (among others, the military superiority of a sophisticated army against the home-made rockets) is too big. No wonder why the "symmetry breaks down", as Gordon wrote.

I think we both agree that Hamas is a radical organization with paratroops. Israel and some other countries call them terrorists. All right. But then again, don't be surprised if they act like a traditional guerrilla/terrorist group. I mean, did anyone really expect Hamas to help Orel (BTW, I really like this name; does it have a meaning in Hebrew?) after he was wounded by their rocket? (I wonder if Israel would even allowed them to help him in case Hamas decided to help?).

Israel, on the other hand, is expected to act more like the civilised democracy she claims to be, and less like the "militant state" it appears to be.

Daled Amos said...

If you did not make yourself clear, then perhaps it is because you are using terms in a vague and imprecise manner.

According to Wikipedia, "The term 'militant state' colloquially refers to any individual which holds an aggressive posture in support of an ideology or cause"

Just what ideology is Israel supporting--other than survival?

BTW, there is footnote to that definition:

This should not be confused with a political state or nation that is armed and aggressive.

If in fact you are going to claim that Israel is a "militant state" then define your terms and explain why according to you Israel is the former and not the latter.

In any case, your comparison falls apart when you describe Hamas as an organization. Since Gazans voted Hamas into power--regardless of how much they might regret that choice--Hamas is more than an organization. True, Hamas receives funding from the PA (how do you feel about your tax dollars being sent to Abbas and being passed on to Hamas?) and schools and some other institutions are taken care of by the UNRWA--but Hamas is a government: a terrorist government that exploits its people as human shields, but a government nonetheless.

That still leaves the question of why you claim we should not be surprised if they act like a terrorist group--why would any be surprised to begin with?

The point is that the article incidentally illustrates the foolishness of comparing Israel and Hamas and putting them on the same level.

The fact that Hamas does not act in a human fashion does not relieve us of the responsibility of reminding people of that fact.

Anonymous said...

"This should not be confused with a political state or nation that is armed and aggressive." --- yeah I messed that one up. A nation that is armed and aggressive - that's what I actually meant. Although one can't deny there's also some ideology & religion involved. First thing first, I think Israel is a much more diverse society than most outsiders think. The religious (right-wing) Jews are not the majority, but they have a disproportionate amount of power in Israel, since Israel is officially a Jewish state. Israel is ironically similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran in this way. There is a great article called "The rise of Israel's military rabbis". You can read it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8232340.stm

Back to Hamas, according to wikipedia it is an "Islamic socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force". True, they were elected in Gaza and held a government there.

"The point is that the article incidentally illustrates the foolishness of comparing Israel and Hamas and putting them on the same level." --- I agree one should not compare Israel and Hamas and put them on the same level. You know what the problem? Sometimes Israel actually wants to be compared to Hamas and she insist the world should not be held to a different and higher standards, especially in case of Human rights. I remember a reporter on TV asking some Israeli politician about using Palestinians as human shields in Israeli army and the guy was like, hey don't look at us, Hamas is doing it all the time...

Daled Amos said...

Although one can't deny there's also some ideology & religion involved.

Of course I can, if you are going to be vague.

The religious (right-wing) Jews are not the majority, but they have a disproportionate amount of power in Israel, since Israel is officially a Jewish state.

No, it would be more accurate to say that they have power because they are needed to sustain coalitions--which in fact is completely independent of Israel being a Jewish state or the group in question being members of the "religious right".

And that of course undercuts your next comment:
Israel is ironically similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran in this way.
Israel is secular and Iran is not. So again, explain what you mean when you claim that the 2 are similar.

As for the BBC--you have got to be kidding.
Better you should read these:
BBC Fights to Hide Report on Anti-Israel Bias

Bias for Kids

Report Critical of BBC Mideast Coverage

And I am supposed to take the reporting of the BBC seriously???

True, they were elected in Gaza and held a government there.

Held? Hamas is in control--period.

Sometimes Israel actually wants to be compared to Hamas and she insist the world should not be held to a different and higher standards, especially in case of Human rights.

Nonsense--and your example merely indicates that the media should not one-sidedly condemn Israel and virtually ignore Hamas.

In point of fact, if anything Israel has insisted on holding itself to a higher level when it comes to human rights. The problem is that Israel also demands to live without rockets being fired at its civilians--and that is where the international community becomes self-righteous. Every non-military strategy that Israel has put into place has been criticized.

The world criticizes every step Israel takes without offering any suggestion of its own.

Anonymous said...

- "Israel is secular and Iran is not. So again, explain what you mean when you claim that the 2 are similar." --- Sure, no problem. I wasn't really talking about being secular or not, but let's stop there for a moment. Formally, Israel is a secular democracy where Judaism is privileged. But there are tensions between religious and secular Jews. The religious parties have historically been very strong and able to force religious laws that affect the entire population (Sabbath, for example). Anyway, what I really meant was this: in Iran, the (orthodox) Shiite Muslims have disproportionate power and influence over the population there. In Israel - which is officially a Jewish state - the religious Jews seems to have disproportionate amount of power. Of course, the situation is not the same, but is similar in a way.

Now I'd like to go back to the influence of the religion in Israeli army. There are reports of israeli soldiers talking about "intervention by military and non-military rabbis, who circulated pamphlets describing the war in religious terminology". I have no problem of taking BBC's reports seriously. I don't think they're anti-israel, they're just not pro-israel. But if you don't like BBC, you can still read similar reports in sources like LA Times, (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/25/world/fg-israel-holywar25), Washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003463.html) and Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html).

I hope you don't find all those sources anti-israel, too. :) Now, if some of those radical rabbis had really "encouraged" the targeting of unarmed civilians... how does that make them any different from the radical Hamas on the other side?

- "...if anything Israel has insisted on holding itself to a higher level when it comes to human rights. " --- says who? Israeli PM? Sorry, I'm not buying it. What about Israel's unlawful blockade of Gaza? What about collective punishments of Gazans? What about preventing Palestinian students from leaving the Gaza Strip to study abroad? Not to mention the occupation itself... Higher level my a**.

"The world criticizes every step Israel takes without offering any suggestion of its own." --- that's not true. Tell me which country in the world can afford to kill about 1,200 people (including children) and bomb civilian infrastructure without being criticized? I don't think there's one.

Daled Amos said...

Formally, Israel is a secular democracy where Judaism is privileged.

Privileged? And just what does that vague sentence mean? Just how privileged is Judaism when Muslims are allowed to control the site of the Temple with Jews allowed limited--if any--access???

The religious parties have historically been very strong and able to force religious laws that affect the entire population (Sabbath, for example).

Force? You mean as a member of the government coalition??? So when a religious element in a coalition does it--that's force; what about when other elements push their agenda?

the religious Jews _seems_ to have disproportionate amount of power. Of course, the situation is _not the same_, but is _similar_ _in a way_

Oh come on and spit it out--are you claiming that religious Jews in Israel are like the Shiites or not!?

I have no problem of taking BBC's reports seriously

I suppose if the BBC was honest and would stop blocking the release of a report that is critical of their coverage of the Middle East, I might also. But we all have our standards.

But if you don't like BBC, you can still read similar reports in sources like LA Times, (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/25/world/fg-israel-holywar25), Washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003463.html) and Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html).

And the LA Times and Haaretz both explicitly use the group Breaking The Silence as their source.

The Washington Post article is using the same source--without even bothering to name it.

Wonder why?

I blogged about that group in July of last year.

But hey, if you like the BBC, I guess you'll love Breaking the Silence--who are less than credible.

I hope you don't find all those sources anti-israel, too.

Your mistake is to make this an issue of being anti-Israel or pro-Israel. It is an issue of truth.

Perhaps that is why you have no problem with the BBC and I do.

What about Israel's unlawful blockade of Gaza? What about collective punishments of Gazans? What about preventing Palestinian students from leaving the Gaza Strip to study abroad? Not to mention the occupation itself

Why is the blockade unlawful? Should Israel allow material that can be used to further bomb civilian targets? And are you actually claiming that everything is cut off by the blockade?

How is this an issue of collective punishment? Gazans elected a terrorist group to lead their country, knowing that its charter calls for the war against and destruction of Israel. Israel waited years and tried non-military means. Those did not work, and Hamas did not stop. It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to stop making excuses for Hamas.

Since when does Israel prevent students from leaving? What is your source for this? And what reason is Israel giving? What are the facts?

As far as 'Occupation'--just how is the land 'Palestinian' to begin with?

"The world criticizes every step Israel takes without offering any suggestion of its own." --- that's not true. Tell me which country in the world can afford to kill about 1,200 people (including children) and bomb civilian infrastructure without being criticized? I don't think there's one.

You say point blank that it is not true that no suggestions were made to Israel on alternatives to the various attempts to cut down on Hamas attacks on civilians--and give absolutely no proof.

Your last statement makes absolutely no sense--no one says that there should be no criticism. The issue that it should be based on the facts, not on questionable sources such as the BBC and Breaking the Silence that you embrace without question.

Anonymous said...

1.)"Privileged? And just what does that vague sentence mean?" --- For example, only the Hebrew calendar and Jewish holidays are recognized. What's more, all political parties must pledge allegiance to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state. In 2009 the Knesset debated a law, providing for imprisonment of anyone who denied that Israel was a Jewish and democratic state (source: wikipedia). You see, the problem is that while Israel is trying to convince the world that she is the only democracy in the region, sometimes one can get an impression that this democracy works only for its Jewish citizens. As for your Temple example, do you know that the Constitution of "anti-semitic" Iran, whose leaders "hate jews" says that Jews are equal to Muslims? Do you know that Tehran has over 20 synagogues and one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world? Do you know there are Hebrew schools? Yet Iran is not secular and Islam is eventually its privileged religion. So your example proves nothing.

2.) "So when a religious element in a coalition does it--that's force; what about when other elements push their agenda?" --- Yup, I think there is a difference. If you want the state being separate from religion, then there should be no religious laws that affect the entire population. Simple as that.

3.) "are you claiming that religious Jews in Israel are like the Shiites or not!?" --- I think I've already explained what I mean.

4.) "But we all have our standards." --- I'm sure you have. But I'm not sure it is all about the "truth". There's an interesting article I found: Nearly three-quarters of Israelis view the foreign media as being negative towards Israel, according to a recent poll revealed by Professor Avraham Tzion of Ariel University Center, located in the West Bank. (http://theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/43676/Israelis+View+Foreign+Media+As+%27Anti-Semitic%27.html) . A Little Paranoid? Perhaps. I wonder what kind of newspapers or media sources do you guys trust & read anyway...

5.) You're right, I don't have any problems with NGOs like Breaking The Silence or B'Tselem, either. Especially since it is a NGO and and therefore independent of government authorities. I think it's good to have such organizations everywhere in the world. I'm sure they're not perfect, but they're doing good job. I remember some HR organization that released video footage of Israeli soldiers forcing Palestinians to be human shields some years ago and it even led to a rare case of action against israeli army officer (I say 'rare', because all those promised "investigation" by army are usually just smoke and mirrors). They also did good job with those well-known "Soldiers' Testimonies from Operation Cast Lead".

6.)"Should Israel allow material that can be used to further bomb civilian targets? " --- Of course not. Unfortunately it's not just about that kind of material. Gazans remain almost completely dependent on Israel for fuel, electricity, medicine, food, and other essential commodities. Rebuilding of Gaza can't take place because Israel has put a blockade against any material coming into Gaza. Gaza has no cement, gravel, wood, pipes, glass or steel. The blockade has closed down 98 per cent (!) of Gaza’s industries. There's a 20-page document called "Failing Gaza: No Rebuilding, No Recovery, No More Excuses". BTW, if you think the blockade is not such a big deal, then why does aid agencies, NGOs and international community condemning it? Perhaps they just being anti-israel, right? Remember, Israel’s rightful self-defense against unlawful rocket attacks does NOT justify a a policy amounting to collective punishment!

Anonymous said...

...

7.) "Since when does Israel prevent students from leaving?" --- are you saying you haven't head about Israeli rejection of barring university students from the Gaza Strip from leaving the coastal region to study in European or American universities? Since June 2007, Israel has enforced a strict blockade preventing, with very few exceptions, people and goods from entering or leaving the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure today is any different. Of the more than 1,000 Gazans who applied, Israel allowed 480 to leave for study abroad during the 2007-08 academic year, according to Gisha, an Israeli organization that advocates freer movement of Palestinians. Israel stopped granting such permissions altogether in January 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/31/world/fg-scholars31 and http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041459470&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

8.)"...no one says that there should be no criticism. The issue that it should be based on the facts, not on questionable sources..." --- the problem is that Israeli government and people like you attack and try to discredit just any kind of media source or organization that tries to criticize Israel or accuse her of war crimes. Be it well-known HRW, AI, B'Tselem, BBC or mr Goldstone. Or anyone else who dares to criticize Israel. And what do you call questionable sources? It's pretty discussable. Are Palestinians whose homes were destroyed in Operation Cast Lead trustable? What about those IDf soldiers who fought in Gaza and later talked about war crimes commited there? What about Israeli army and its own "investigations" - can we trust it?

Daled Amos said...

Here we go again:

For example, only the Hebrew calendar and Jewish holidays are recognized.

Are you actually saying that Christians cannot celebrate their holidays? Or that Muslims cannot? The fact that Israel allows continued Muslim control of the Temple Mount directly contradicts your statement.

In 2009 the Knesset debated a law, providing for imprisonment of anyone who denied that Israel was a Jewish and democratic state (source: wikipedia)

Where's the link? You are being vague again: Does the article say that "everyone" must say that Israel is a Jewish state, or is the law directly related to the anti-Israel activities of Arab MK's in the Knesset and require allegiance to the state itself?

As for your Temple example, do you know that the Constitution of "anti-semitic" Iran, whose leaders "hate jews" says that Jews are equal to Muslims? Do you know that Tehran has over 20 synagogues and one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world? Do you know there are Hebrew schools? Yet Iran is not secular and Islam is eventually its privileged religion. So your example proves nothing.

And Muslims claim that Islam is against coercion to convert to Islam--but there is a long history proving that is not true. As far as treatment of Jews in Iran, see:


Iranian Jews Speak Out!

Iranian mullahs’ use of Jews for propaganda would make Goebbels proud

2 2.) "So when a religious element in a coalition does it--that's force; what about when other elements push their agenda?" --- Yup, I think there is a difference. If you want the state being separate from religion, then there should be no religious laws that affect the entire population. Simple as that.

Simple? You've changed the subject and substituted a straw man in its place. The issue was religious coercion--my point was that the religious groups use the same methods available to any other political group.

As for your new topic--Israel is a Jewish state, not a state of Jews. Being a Jew is more than an ethnicity, it is also a religious culture.

3. 3.) "are you claiming that religious Jews in Israel are like the Shiites or not!?" --- I think I've already explained what I mean.

With all the qualifications you added to your original claim, it was not at all clear what you meant.

Daled Amos said...

4. 4.) "But we all have our standards." --- I'm sure you have. But I'm not sure it is all about the "truth". There's an interesting article I found: Nearly three-quarters of Israelis view the foreign media as being negative towards Israel, according to a recent poll revealed by Professor Avraham Tzion of Ariel University Center, located in the West Bank. (http://theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/43676/Israelis+View+Foreign+Media+As+%27Anti-Semitic%27.html) . A Little Paranoid? Perhaps. I wonder what kind of newspapers or media sources do you guys trust & read anyway...

Obviously we trust the kind that does not jump and say Israel massacred 500 Arabs in Jenin--only to have the truth revealed that it was far, far less and that Israel soldiers went door to door, resulting in more deaths than were necessary.

That of course is only one example.

5. Especially since it is a NGO and and therefore independent of government authorities.

Whoa!!!

Have you any kind of idea of the funding these NGO's get from foreign countries?

Analysis of EC Response on Funding for Political NGOs

Like Human Rights Watch

PCHR and B'tselem

I say 'rare', because all those promised "investigation" by army are _usually_ just smoke and mirrors

You make it sound like you're keeping track. Stop being vague--what's your source.

They also did good job with those well-known "Soldiers' Testimonies from Operation Cast Lead".

Oh, so that's it. You want to see Israeli soldiers condemned--regardless of how it is done.

Daled Amos said...

5.Gazans remain almost completely dependent on Israel for fuel, electricity, medicine, food, and other essential commodities. Rebuilding of Gaza can't take place because Israel has put a blockade against any material coming into Gaza. Gaza has no cement, gravel, wood, pipes, glass or steel. The blockade has closed down 98 per cent (!) of Gaza’s industries.

You're being vague again. Care to give sources?

Here are some pictures of Gazans that appeared in a Palestinian paper last year: Via Cooliris: Gaza In Pictures, The Kind The Media--And Protesters--Don't Show You

There's a 20-page document called "Failing Gaza: No Rebuilding, No Recovery, No More Excuses"

And a rebuttal here.

BTW, if you think the blockade is not such a big deal, then why does aid agencies, NGOs and international community condemning it? Perhaps they just being anti-israel, right? Remember, Israel’s rightful self-defense against unlawful rocket attacks does NOT justify a a policy amounting to collective punishment!

Perhaps they, like you, get their info from biased sources that either omit relevant info, skew the facts, and apply a double-standard to Israel--or are perhaps are the ones creating this misinformation.

Remember, Israel’s rightful self-defense against unlawful rocket attacks does NOT justify a policy amounting to collective punishment!

So you're saying the fact that Hamas purposely hides themselves and their weapons among the citizens means Israel can do nothing? Again: what are you suggesting Israel do???

7. are you saying you haven't head about Israeli rejection of barring university students from the Gaza Strip from leaving the coastal region to study in European or American universities?

The reason for the policy is clear--as is the fact that it was opposed from within Israel itself.

And you yourself admit you have no idea if that policy is still in effect.

8. the problem is that Israeli government and people like you attack and try to discredit just any kind of media source or organization that tries to criticize Israel or accuse her of war crimes. Be it well-known HRW, AI, B'Tselem, BBC or mr Goldstone.

Are you seriously claiming that all criticism of Israel should be granted legitimacy automatically?

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The point--which you ignore--is that these criticisms are based on the alleged facts used, not on ad hominen attacks on these people.

You blindly accept everything these groups say, and when I point out errors and mistakes, you claim that I am merely attacking.

The actual question is why you find articles critical of NGO's and the like so disconcerting. NGO's are not by definition run by people who have only good motives or who are actually qualified for what they are doing.

You refer to Human Rights Watch as "well-known HRW"--as if the fact they are well known means they are automatically above criticism. They are not.

So there you stand, criticizing Israel while claiming that the NGO's and Goldstone are unassailable.

It is not the people, but rather the proof, that determines the accuracy--a fact that Goldstone himself knows, which explains why he continues to claim that there are no criticisms of the content of the report out there.

Anonymous said...

1.) "Are you actually saying that Christians cannot celebrate their holidays?" -- No, I'm not saying that. I don't live in Israel and thus I'm not aware of every single law or habit there. All I'm saying is, though, that there are many issues like (like Shabbat, marriage and divorce) where it becomes clear that religion enjoys significant power. You see, Israel defines itself as both Jewish and democratic, concepts which often conflict with each other. The most problematic aspect of Israel defining itself as both democratic and Jewish relates to the status of Israelis who are not Jews. Some people even describe Israel today as an apartheid state. Often, Arabs in Israel call for Israel to be a state "for all its citizens". Those biggest problems they're facing are discrimination in funding, lack of power in government, and let's say, "blocked opportunities" in Israeli life. There are severaly reports and interviews regarding those issues.

2.) "Where's the link?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State

3.) As far as treatment of Jews in Iran goes, I believe you that thing aren't perfect for them, but they still live much better life than some politicians tries to portrey. Having all these Jews in Iran is really poking eyes of those anti-iran propagandists because they can't demonize Iran. The fact is that Iran has the BIGGEST Jewish population in the middle east, outside Israel. If mr Ahmadinejad and "evil" mullahs hated Jews so much, they would have removed all the Jews in Iran by now. Or at least closed those 20 synagogues in Tehran. BTW, there's a great article that should open your eyes: Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/12/israel.iran ). I guess their living conditions in Iran can't be that bad after all...

3.) "The issue was religious coercion--my point was that the religious groups use the same methods available to any other political group." --- And my point is that this should not be happening in a secular state.

4.) "Have you any kind of idea of the funding these NGO's get from foreign countries?" --- So what? Do you have any problems with, say, Swedish government funding some of NGOs? And don't believe in all those conspiracy theories about Saudi-funded HRW. Those NGOs may not be totally independent, but I'd rather believe them than to Israeli PM or Defence minister or army (who'll always do everything they can to hide their mistakes and possible war crimes of their soldiers). Remember IDF ban on reporters in Gaza combat zones? That was a great move for IDF, because it led to very limited coverage and forced journalists to rely on reports from Israeli soldiers and the IDF spokesman. Needless to say, journalists were therefore not really getting an overall picture of the conflict.

5.) "You make it sound like you're keeping track. Stop being vague--what's your source." --- there is a long history proving it.

6.) "Oh, so that's it. You want to see Israeli soldiers condemned--regardless of how it is done." --- Not really; I just don't buy those myths about "moral army" and "self-hating" Jews. And I don't always blindly trust to IDF spokesman.

Anonymous said...

7.) "You're being vague again. Care to give sources?" --- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1223/1224261160385.html

One more thing. "NGO monitor" seems to be a source you trust. Don't you think it may perhaps not be totally free of the some political and ideological preferences of which it accuses other NGOs (like HRW)?

8.) "Perhaps they, like you, get their info from biased sources that either omit relevant info, skew the facts, and apply a double-standard to Israel" --- I dare to say it's very naive and too simplified to think so. But hey - believe what you want to believe.

9.) "Are you seriously claiming that all criticism of Israel should be granted legitimacy automatically?" --- Wrong again. None of those NGOs are perfect and they make mistakes just like everybody else. I don't "blindly accept everything these groups say" (BTW, do you "blindly accept" everything IDF spokesman say?). In fact I think it's always good to be little sceptical. Having said that, there's a difference between being sceptical and those personal attacks on members or those attempts to discredit whole organizations (like HRW, AI, B'Tselem) or a respectfull judge (Goldstone). I mean, some bloggers have really acted like true detectives on their missions to discredit people who dared to criticize Israel. At least that was my impression.