The question is: if you were an NGO that was receiving as much money from European countries as those listed in this document, how far would you go to satisfy your masters and keep receiving funds?
Remember how far Human Rights Watch went to get funds from Saudi Arabia?
Here is the NGO Monitor Report, which you can also download as a Word document:
Technorati Tag: Israel and NGOs.
54 comments:
Click here to read the report in Google Docs.
Yeah well, sorry but i'm not buying it. I rather believe NGOs than you and other paranoical bloggers, who would NEVER criticize israel, no matter what happens.
Not clear what you are not buying.
Are you actually claiming that the funding of NGOs by foreign governments is made up?
Are you actually saying that the funding of these NGOs by foreign countries has no impact on what the NGOs write?
Maybe you mean that the report is as arbitrary and subjective as your claim that I and other bloggers--who by the way do document their claims--are merely paranoid.
Of course your claim that these paranoid bloggers never criticize Israel no matter what happens is completely unprovable.
But that didn't stop you now, did it.
And you say we are paranoid?
In that case, better not look at the hot water Amnesty International is in:
Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link
No, I'm not sayin that funding of NGOs by foreign governments is made up. I'm also not saying that the funding has absolutely no impact on what the NGOs write. Sure there is some influence, but it's happening everywhere alse too. Israel is no exception in this game. Bishop Tutu (who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize), has once said:
-----------
“But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic … People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful.”
Vanity Fair magazine in October 2007 published a list of what it calls “the world’s most powerful people” – a lineup of the one hundred most influential media bosses, bankers, publishers, image makers, and so forth, who determine how we view ourselves and the world, and who – directly and indirectly -- shape our lives and our futures. Jews made up more than half of the powerful men and women on the Vanity Fair list, reported a leading Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post.
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml
-----------
How about that? How can one believe in american media after all?
Perfaps I went little off-topic... In my prevoius post I was only saying I'm not buying your thoughts about being payed to criticize one particular country (Israel, in that case). Those NGOs are working all around the world and they're criticizing all the governments there. Israel is not an excepton. DThe question is: do you think it should be?
While I fully appreciate your lack of time to go thru the source material and documented facts, I am fully unimpressed by your resultant need to rely on names to back up that same lack of knowledge.
You are very impressed that Tutu has a Nobel prize. Big deal.
So does Arafat, who continued to support terrorism when speaking to his people in Arabic.
So did Carter, whose award was intended as a "kick in the leg" to Bush.
So did Gore, whose claims about Global Warming in his book have been refuted even before he received his prize.
And then of course there is Obama's Nobel prize...
[continued in next comment]
Having said that, let's just go ahead and see what Tutu has said:
The Israeli daily Ha'aretz (April 29, 2002), reporting Tutu's remarks at a conference in Boston, quoted him as saying:
* "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid" "I've been deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa ... I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about... "I say why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? ... The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. Injustice and oppression will never prevail."
* "The Jewish lobby is very powerful": "People are scared in this country [the U.S.], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful--very powerful."
"Critics of Israel are being smeared": "You know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if Palestinians were not Semitic."
"Jewish Arrogance" Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting "an arrogance--the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support,"(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, Nov. 29, 1984)
[continued in next comment]
"Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust Tutu complained about the Jewish monopoly of the Holocaust." (Jerusalem Post, July 26, 1985)
"Forgive the Nazis" During his 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu "urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust" (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989), a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called "a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere." During the visit, Tutu remarked "If I'm accused of being antisemitic, tough luck," and in response to questions about his anti-Jewish bias, Tutu replied, "My dentist's name is Dr. Cohen." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)
"Zionism Is Racism" Tutu has claimed that Zionism has "very many parallels with racism." (American Jewish Year Book 1988, p.50)
"Jews Thought They Had a Monopoly on God" Speaking in a Connecticut church in 1984, Tutu said that "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." In the same speech, he compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa. (Hartford Courant, Oct. 29, 1984)
"Palestine, Not Israel": In conversations during the 1980s with the Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Eliahu Lankin, Tutu "refused to call Israel by its name, he kept referring to it as Palestine." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)
"Jews Cause Refugees": Asked about the Zionism-is-racism resolution, Tutu complained that
"the Jewish people with their traditions, religion and long history of persecution sometimes appear to have caused a refugee problem among others." (South African Zionist Record, July 26, 1985)
[continued in next comment]
Not surprisingly, you use the "Cohen" argument as well. You have absorbed what Dershowitz describes as the ad-hominen fallacy:
"The definition of the ad hominem fallacy is to respond to substantive arguments solely by attacking the person who offered them. The mirror image of this classic fallacy is to try to bolster arguments solely by praising the person who offered them. This is what is happening with respect to the notorious Goldstone report regarding Israel's conduct during the Gaza War. Had Richard Goldstone, a distinguished judge and a prominent Jew, not been the author of the United Nations Human Rights Council report on Israel, it would be tossed in the trash barrel along with other one-sided and biased reports by this prejudice group which targets only Israel for human rights violations. But those seeking to defend this indefensible report point to Goldstone's authorship as proof that it must have credibility. He has in effect placed his "Hechsher," that is his religious certification of purity, on this impure report."
Similarly, in the past you have made the claim that Goldstone is a Zionist--because his daughter says so, "and she should know".
Can you even begin to see the crushing absurdity of such a statement--simultaneously relieving yourself of any need to understand what Zionism is while implying there is something secret being a Zionist that requires me to go to his daughter as the source of information.
That's right: don't try to make a sensible argument based on taking the time and research to make your case--and heaven forbid you look up the statements and actions of Goldstone to prove he is a "Zionist" (whatever that term means to you). No, let's just that well, his daughter says so.
Yeah, right.
And then your finish. Your claim that NGOs "are criticizing all the governments there. Israel is not an exception. The question is: do you think it should be?"
Are you seriously claiming that these NGOs spend the same amount of time and use the same language regarding Sudan--or even Hamas for that matter?
As for that is the question--again: you miss the point. The question is not whether I or anyone thinks they should be. The question is whether their reports are accurate and unbiased.
Your previous claims that I should accept what the NGOs--and Goldstone--say and not criticize and nit-pick is an indication that it is you, not I, who has the problem and think that NGOs are the exception to criticism.
Speaking of "attacking the person who offered them (arguments)", we can see a great example of it in your attack on mr Tutu. Sure, the guy might sometimes get little too radical in his rethoric and I don't agree with his comparasions (of Israel with Hitler), but many times his words got a point. I'm not surprised you don't agree with him, though. By the way, who needs Tutu, when another prize winner, Elie Wiesel, told it all? His words were: "I support Israel. I identify with Israel. I never attack, I never criticize Israel, and the world has no right to criticize Israel." It'd be interesting to know if you agree with him. Especially after you somehow refused to answer my previous question...
I also don't agree with Dershowitz about the Goldstone's report being "one-sided". It criticizes Hamas, too. Your (and his) problem seems to be that the report(s) is (are) equally or more criticel of Israel and its "moral" army. I'm afraid you don't need to be Middle east expert to realize which side used disproportionate and excessive use of force in Gaza. Hint: take a look at body count rate on both sides. Oh, I forgot you blame Hamas for all the casualties...
As for Goldstone, I don't know him in person, but I read an interview where he said: "I am certainly a traditional Zionist and the events surrounding the Report have not changed my views about Israel and its people at all. My grievance is with the present leadership of Israel." http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/21242/goldstone-i-believed-it-would-be-good-israel
Regarding those NGOs, are you seriously claiming that they are criticizing israel only? HRW, for example, criticizes not only Israel but Saudi Arabia (yes, Saudi Arabia!) http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia , Palestine, Iran, and other Middle east countries. Surprise, surprise.
Speaking of "attacking the person who offered them (arguments)", we can see a great example of it in your attack on mr Tutu.
No, actually the exact opposite is true.
Instead of doing research and presenting facts, you are presenting someone's opinion and claiming that I should give it merit because he won a prize.
My rejoinder is simply to address what he has said and done.
No wonder this bothers you.
As far as Mr. Wiesel--not surprisingly your point is completely irrelevant, since I have not offered either him or his reputation as a proof for anything I have claimed.
As far as your previous question, I assume that you are referring to criticizing Israel. If so, rest assured that I have found plenty to criticize about Israel.
But then again, if you bothered to do some research--um, like reading my posts--there would have been no need for you to go off topic and ask that irrelevant question to begin with.
If indeed you read the Goldstone Report--or what I have replied to you in the past--you will note that there is no truth to your claim that the report is even-handed.
If it were, then why has Hamas seen fit to claim that the report does not really criticize them at all? The simple verifiable truth is that in the report's conclusion, there is almost no mention of Hamas by name.
Just what are you basing yourself on when you claim that this report is evenhanded?
I'm afraid you don't need to be Middle east expert to realize which side used disproportionate and excessive use of force in Gaza. Hint: take a look at body count rate on both sides. Oh, I forgot you blame Hamas for all the casualties...
Parroting these claims does not make them true. As long as you are using the term "disproportionate force", please define the term--by which I mean the actual legal definition, not an emotional one.
Though you have declined my request that you define the term Zionist, which you referred to earlier, perhaps you will take the opportunity to define "disproportionate force". We have gone over this ground before, but by all means, let's have at it again.
Hint: body counts do not determine whether the force has been disproportionate.
As far as Oh, I forgot you blame Hamas for all the casualties...
Feel free to back this up with some proof.
As far as HRW goes, by all means show where I said that they only criticize Israel--instead of making straw men to knock down.
Again, this is an issue we have gone over before. The fact that HRW goes to Saudi Arabia for money, and specifically gives their reporting on Israel as the reason for the Saudis to support them speaks volumes.
1.) "My rejoinder is simply to address what he has said and done." --- maybe it's just me, but i had an impression that you did it to discredit him and to suggest he shouldn't be trust (because of some of his words). I think I've seen this tactic before (in case of mr Galasco, Goldstone, AI etc). As for Mr. Wiesel, I never said you had offered him as a proof for something you have claimed. I just felt it would be good to mention him to back some of my points in our discussion.
2.) I'm glad you're (obviously) not one of those who refuse to criticize israel no matter what happens. Self criticism may be painful, but it's always a way to fix ourselves. In many occasions it is even more effective than an outsider's observations. I think that both sides in the conflict (Israeli and Palestinian) should be more self-critical sometimes. It'd be better for all.
3.) "...why has Hamas seen fit to claim that the report does not really criticize them at all? "
--- from what I read, Hamas has sent mixed messages in its reply to Goldstone's report. They formally rejected allegations it had committed war crimes during last year's fighting in Gaza and claimed they did not intentionally target Israeli civilians during the war. I didn't heard them saying that the report "does not criticize them at all". Just a quick thought: when you have a report which is not liked by neither of sides in the conflict, then I think you can hardly say the report is "one-sided".
"The simple verifiable truth is that in the report's conclusion, there is almost no mention of Hamas by name." --- Again, look at the body count and damage caused by either side and compare it. It's a simple logic, really.
4.) I haven't declined your request to define the term Zionist, I just didn't see it necessary for this discussion. You can always read about it on wikipedia. As for the term "disproportionate force", I don't know the legal definition, but I understand it in the context of how other people/organizations were using it. Politics aside for a moment, killing hundrets of civilians and destroying schools in response to some inaccurate home-made rockets fired on israel is in my opinion a great example of "disproportionate force". Israel didn't try to target those rocket launchers, it tried to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza.
5.) "Feel free to back this up with some proof."
--- Sorry but I'm afraid I don't have time to search through our discussion history. I admit I was probably exaggerating a bit in some of my statements. Perhaps you never really said Hamas is to be blamed for everything, but I sometimes got such an impression after reading some of your posts. Nevermind, maybe it's just me. ;)
By the way, I never said that NGOs are the exception to criticism. I said they're far from being perfect. But I don't believe they were all that wrong and that inaccurate about Operation Cast Lead as Israeli government and some anrgy pro-israel bloggers try to portrey...
1. Discredit him? You made his 'reputation' the issue. I am merely replying with his actual words and actions. You are doing exactly what critics of Goldstone have done: made an issue of his being Jewish and being a respected Judge--making his reputation/religion the issue--and then crying foul when issues of his reputation are addressed, not to mention factual errors in the report.
3.Check out the Google Translation of this:
Are you worried about the paragraphs that talked about the «Hamas» in the report of the Goldstone?
A: On the contrary, all the paragraphs in the report of the Goldstone condemning Israel and exonerate «Hamas» completely of any wrongdoing, for example, the report vindicates «Hamas» of individuals charged with using civilians as human shields, a charge that Israeli forces paste the report, as of Healing «Hamas» All other charges put forward by Israel, even when the report talks about the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, he spoke of military groups and did not speak the name of «Hamas», but the report called for the formation of a commission of inquiry in the Gaza Strip, and «Hamas» will abide by this perspective interest of all Palestinian citizens living on the land of Gaza, and that each of his complaint of our people can apply them to this Committe Translated by Jonathan D. Halevi (Al-Mashahid Al-Siyasi-UK, Arabic, 5Dec09)
Just a quick thought: when you have a report which is not liked by neither of sides in the conflict, then I think you can hardly say the report is "one-sided".
I have seen the media take the easy way out and pat itself on the back when both sides of an issue are angry, and say that this somehow proved that they were 'even-handed'--when in fact it could just as easily mean that they totally messed up the reporting.
"The simple verifiable truth is that in the report's conclusion, there is almost no mention of Hamas by name." --- Again, look at the body count and damage caused by either side and compare it. It's a simple logic, really.
No, it is neither simple nor logic. If you are going to use a legal term, the very least you can do is use it correctly--now that's a simple logic.
4.As for the term "disproportionate force", I don't know the legal definition, but I understand it in the context of how other people/organizations were using it.
So you admit you are using a term that you know nothing about. I wouldn't brag if I were you.
Politics aside for a moment, killing hundrets of civilians and destroying schools
And what are you basing your numbers on?
...in response to some.inaccurate.home-made rockets fired on israel is in my opinion a great example of "disproportionate force".
Are you kidding? We have been through this before.
Are you actually denying that thousands of rockets have been deliberately fired by Hamas into civilian areas over a period of years?
Are you actually saying that Hamas is using rockets that cannot be targeted?
Are you actually saying that these rockets that Hamas is using are home-made?
I just want to confirm you claims on these 3 points, before I respond.
Israel didn't try to target those rocket launchers, it tried to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza.
And what exactly are you basing that on? If on the Goldstone Report, are you aware what his basis is?
5. By the way, I never said that NGOs are the exception to criticism. I said they're far from being perfect. But I don't believe they were all that wrong and that inaccurate about Operation Cast Lead as Israeli government and some anrgy pro-israel bloggers try to portrey...
Apparently we disagree on what "far from perfect" means and why we should assume that they suddenly got their groove back last year.
1.) Ok, forget Tutu. I didn't mention him because of his "reputation", but rather because I thought his words about power and influence of Jewish lobby would help to underline what I wanted to say earlier. It obviously didn't work in right way.
3.) I didn't know about that interview before. I have no idea where and how did you find it. But it just proves my words that Hamas has actually sent mixed messages in its reply to Goldstone's report. It wasn't the first time for Hamas to send mixed messages, though.
"...when in fact it could just as easily mean that they totally messed up the reporting." --- you're right, it could. But I don't think this was the case here. Because those NGOs are not just a bunch of amateurs who pick one particular country (say, Israel) and write biased reports against it. No. Their job is to investigate, expose and publicise ongoing human rights abuses all around the world. They must collect evidence, interview witnesses etc. No government or army in the world loves them, which is somehow natural. Israel is no exception. As I said, those NGOs are unfortunately not perfect. Their job could be much better, but unfortunately Israel refused to cooperate with the investigations. What's more, IDF refused to allow journalists to cover its blockade of the Gaza Strip, which made work for those NGOs much more difficult.
4.) "So you admit you are using a term that you know nothing about." --- why do you think I know "nothing" about it? It's not like that I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know it's legal definition. Big deal. I wonder if you know all the legal definitions for every word you wrote in your blog ;)
"And what are you basing your numbers on?" --- I read some of post-war reports from Israel and other parts of the world. As I said once, I rather believe to them than to israeli PM or israeli army's spokesman.
"Are you actually denying that thousands of rockets have been deliberately fired by Hamas into civilian areas over a period of years?" --- No. But please tell me would you call them "accurate" and - more importantly - how many people have those rockets killed in, say, last 8 years.
"Are you actually saying that Hamas is using rockets that cannot be targeted?" --- No. The problem is that the Operation Cast Lead wasn't just about "targeting" those rocket launchers...
"Are you actually saying that these rockets that Hamas is using are home-made?" --- Not all of them. According to the experts, they have a variety of home-made or smuggled rockets.
"...And what exactly are you basing that on?" --- That one is easy. I simply watched TV news at the time of the Operation Cast Lead. I also read newspapers and reports. I guess they weren't all wrong.
5.) "Apparently we disagree on what "far from perfect" means and why we should assume that they suddenly got their groove back last year." --- Perhaps. The other difference is that you live in Israel while I don't. Therefore you see some issues in different light that I do. I have no problems with that. But let me ask you something. As I said, no government in the world loves those kind of NGOs. Now, if a country like China, Syria or Sudan attacked those same NGOs and tried to delegitimize them (because of their critical reports), whom would you believe?
Because those NGOs are not just a bunch of amateurs who pick one particular country (say, Israel) and write biased reports against it. No. Their job is to investigate, expose and publicise ongoing human rights abuses all around the world.
Glad to hear it. So why is Garlasco tasked by HRW with a job for which he has no prior experience?
The reason Israel did not cooperate with the Commission is because of the bias--of the UNHRC, which has in fact focused on Israel:
The answer to this question lies in the fact that the UNHCR has become politicized - that is, it has become yet another battlefield in the Arab-Israeli conflict, as Palestinians and other Arabs constantly bring charges against Israel to the UNHCR. Given the fact that such violators of human rights as China, Cuba, Russia, Malaysia and Egypt are members of the UNHCR, it should not be seen as surprising that politics, not human rights, dominates discussions at the council, despite the fact that the United Nations' charter calls for the organization to prevent or stop conflicts, not to exacerbate them as the UNHCR has done. Indeed, by 2006 the anti-Israeli bias in the UNHCR had become so bad that then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized it for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel," while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which he termed a "graver" crisis.
Neither Mr. Annan's statement, nor a similar one a year later by Mr. Annan's successor, Ban Ki-Moon, seemed to have much effect. The anti-Israeli bias of the UNHCR has continued unabated, and it is not surprising that an investigatory commission organized by the UNHCR would have an anti-Israeli bias from the start.
(continued in next comment)
It's not like that I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know it's legal definition. Big deal. I wonder if you know all the legal definitions for every word you wrote in your blog ;)
Shame on you! Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use a word unless you know what it means?
You accuse Israel of disproportionate force when you admit you have no clue as to what the term means?
This is consistent with you claiming that BBC is unbiased, despite the internal report to the contrary, your claim of no bias by NGO's despite the fact that they are supported by foreign countries, and fawn over HRW despite the various reports of its questionable conduct.
If you don't know what the words you use mean, then just what credibility do you have altogether???
(continued in next comment)
But please tell me would you call them "accurate" and - more importantly - how many people have those rockets killed in, say, last 8 years.
I see that you know no more about the rockets Hamas used than you know about the legal terms you use. Actually, we've gone through this before.
Here we go again From a previous post:
the Goldstone Report...actually buys into the Hamas line that the rocket[s] they fire into civilian areas are inaccurate--and nevertheless reports on page 473:
1722. Given the apparent inability of the Palestinian armed groups to aim rockets and mortars at specific targets and, the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, it is plausible that one of the primary purposes of these continued attacks is to spread terror – prohibited under international humanitarian law - among the civilian population of southern Israel. [emphasis added]
I suppose we are supposed to pity the terrorists for their inaccurate weapons that they fire into civilian areas anyway. Perhaps they would like to be provided with more accurate weapons?
Actually, Hamas has been very successful in consistently targeting civilian areas in general and schools in particular, as documented by the Goldstone Report:
1692. Where rockets have landed in towns and villages in southern Israel, they have caused localized property damage. This has included private houses1036 and cars.1037 During the operations in Gaza, a total of nine schools and kindergartens in Sderot, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Kiryat Ha Hinoch were hit and damaged by rockets.1038 Two kindergartens were struck and damaged by rocket fire in Ashdod.1039 On 8 January 2009, a Grad rocket hit a school in Ashkelon.1040
Imagine: 9 schools in 5 cities. That seems to be a pattern--one that Hamas followed with great accuracy.
The reason that Hamas has been able to fire their rockets with such accuracy is that contrary to the myth of the terrorists being limited to homemade rockets, they are actually using foreign-made rockets--as the Goldstone Report documents:
1649. There is little independent confirmation of the types of weaponry held by Palestinian armed groups or the number of weapons that may be stockpiled. According to an Amnesty International report, of February 2009, the arsenals held by armed groups in the Gaza Strip include: al-Qassam (or al-Quds), 122mm Grad and 220 Fadjr-3 rockets as well as the al-Battar, the Banna 1 and Banna 2 anti-armour rockets.
(continued in next comment)
...(b) 122 mm Grad rocket
1652. 122 mm Grad rocket is a Russian-designed missile with a range of approximately 20 to25 kilometres. Given the higher level of technological sophistication and the fact that it is manufactured with material not easily (if at all) available in Gaza, it is likely that they are not made in Gaza.
1653. While most 122 mm Grad rockets have a range of about 20 kilometres, some have landed 40 kilometres inside Israel.997 Global Security has concluded that on the basis of photographs, that the rockets that struck open space near Yavne and Bnei Darom on 28 December 2008 were Chinese-manufactured 122 mm WeiShei-1E rockets, which can travel distances of 20 to40 kilometres.998
Along with the fact that Hamas uses rockets manufactured by Russia and China--and thus have a longer range--these Grad rockets are also more accurate. According to GlobalSecurity.org:
Recently [prior to January 2009], Hamas imported factory manufactured rockets from China and Iran. Based on a family of Soviet rockets dating back to World War II, these rockets have the range to hit many more Israeli cities, and their introduction help precipitate the current conflict.
The Iranian rocket, called a Grad, has a range of about 12 miles, long enough to hit the Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Sderot. The Chinese rocket, called the WS-1-E (and sold on a rather cheap looking Web site for a defense company) has an even greater range of up to 27 miles, and better accuracy than the Grad. And according to Amanda Castle, the public relations manager at Jane’s Information Group, Israeli intelligence agencies also believe Hamas possesses Iranian Fajr-4 rockets, which have a range long enough to hit Tel Aviv. [emphasis added]
There is a very good reason that civilian areas in Israel are being bombed by Hamas--the terrorists are aiming right at them.
---end of quoted post---
So you didn't know about the accuracy of those rockets nor that they are not just home-made rockets--and you have no problem with that?
And I still cannot get over how you use legal definitions to criticize Israel when you have no clue what they mean.
Meanwhile Hamas spends its money on buying rockets to fire on Israeli civilians, but not to provide shelters for their own people--and you go ahead and blame Israel for the deaths of Gazans Hamas refuses to protect while the leadership hides under hospitals.
The other difference is that you live in Israel while I don't.
I guess that is one less difference--and one more fact you have gotten wrong.
I live in New Jersey.
1.) "Shame on you! Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use a word unless you know what it means? You accuse Israel of disproportionate force when you admit you have no clue as to what the term means?" --- There's no need to get insulting, mister. It's not that I have no clue what it means. You know what's interesting? Americans and Israelis like to use a term "terrorist" anytime they can. But do they all know legal definition of it? And why is there so much confusion and misunderstanding around terms like that? You surely heard the old saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I think we have similar problems with terms like "self-defence" and "disproportionate force". Israel called their operation "self-defence", while the UN and many other countries all around the word called it using a "disproportionate force". I used the term in this context. Period.
2.) Regarding Hamas' rockets, I'm not sure what do you want to tell me. I think the statement from the Goldstone's report (page 473) you pointed out describes the issue at best. I never said you should pity Hamas fighters for their inaccurate weapons. Don't put words in my mouth.
"Imagine: 9 schools in 5 cities. That seems to be a pattern--one that Hamas followed with great accuracy." -- Really? Then why didn't (don't) Hamas target IDF soldiers and objects? It would be seen as much bigger succes for them than targeting some empty school or other civilian objects.
"So you didn't know about the accuracy of those rockets nor that they are not just home-made rockets" --- That's not true. I said Hamas has a variety of home-made and smuggled rockets. As for the accuracy, I guess I can't agree with you. I've heard many Middle east experts and historians from all around the world talking about that issue and they talked about different numbers and facts than you. Since you're probably not an expert nor a historian, I'll stick to listening to them.
"I guess that is one less difference--and one more fact you have gotten wrong.
I live in New Jersey" -- All right, my mistake. But you're probably still a jew with some relatives in Israel (I assume). From what I read on your blog (where you mostly write about issues affecting Israel and the Jewish Community), I see you are kinda emotionally involved in Israel which makes you side with it. At least that's how I see it. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with that, it's your blog after all. But that was what I wanted to say earlier.
To say that Israel is guilty of war crimes for using disproportionate force is to use that term in its legal sense--and the phrase "one man's terrorist..." is a cop-out.
Period.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You wrote that they are using inaccurate homemade rockets.
You're wrong, and to continue to describe them in that way is at best misleading and at worst indicative of knowing no more about the weapons they use than about the meaning of 'disproportionate'.
Why didn't they target the IDF instead of schools? Because that is what terrorists do. Are you seriously saying that number of schools hit is mere chance?
It would be seen as much bigger success for them than targeting some _empty_ school...
You've got to be kidding.
I've heard many Middle east experts and historians from all around the world talking about that issue and they talked about different numbers and facts than you. Since you're probably not an expert nor a historian, I'll stick to listening to them.
Over the Goldstone Report?
Care to quote those sources you rely on that contradict the report? I'm curious.
I've heard many Middle east experts and historians from all around the world
Ask them what 'disproportionate force' means.
(I assume)
You assume wrong, again.
I see you are kinda emotionally involved in Israel
Please don't tell me that you are objective. My personal interest drives me to read resource material--the kind that back up what they say.
I don't have the luxury of making idle assumptions and using words I don't know the meaning of--the way you do.
For that matter, neither does Israel, which is why their claims are so highly documented. No other country has to track the names and activities of the enemy they fight or take copious pictures of each battle.
But hey, go ahead and rely blindly on whatever the Palestinians claim.
After all, that's what the media you follow does.
You know, we could play those word-games all day, but still I believe Israel used disproportionate force in Gaza and you didn't do nothing to prove me wrong. As for those rockets... are you saying Hamas has NO hommade rockets? We could also discuss what does being "accurate" actually mean (in your eyes). If Hamas really has "accurate" rockets as you claim, then what does Israel have? Super-mega accurate ones? :) And also, why do those rockets many times hit no actual target and cause no casualties or damage?
"Why didn't they target the IDF instead of schools? Because that is what terrorists do." --- That's your opinion. It's a pitty you can't prove your words. Do you think that if Hamas had tanks, planes and accurate rockets, they would use it on civilians and not military targets?
"Care to quote those sources you rely on that contradict the report? I'm curious." --- I wasn't saying the report on rockets and their range is wrong, I was talking about their accuracy.
"Please don't tell me that you are objective. My personal interest drives me to read resource material--the kind that back up what they say." --- Fair enough. But don't think you're any more objective because of that. As for me, I always try to be as objective as possible and I'm not afraid to criticize both sides if I feel so. The difference between you and me is that you've been criticizing ONE side (Palestinian) only.
"But hey, go ahead and rely blindly on whatever the Palestinians claim. After all, that's what the media you follow does." --- Says who? And how do you know what kind of media I'm following? I think your (and not just your) problem is that whenever you hear or read some media source or someone criticizing Israel, the first thing you think of is that this person/source/newspaper must somehow be anti-israel or Palestinian. If not, then you assume he must be using unreliable sources. Even if that person/organization comes from Israel. That's the problem I see. There.
but still I believe Israel used disproportionate force in Gaza and you didn't do nothing to prove me wrong.
This is beyond absurd--you admit you have no clue what the legal definition of "disproportionate force" is, offer no suggestion what it should mean, and then you have the gall to claim that I have not disproven a claim you do not understand.
You are the one playing word games. You claim Goldstone is a Zionist, but do not respond to my request to define the word. You don't know what "disproportionate force" is--and I could go on.
If Hamas really has "accurate" rockets as you claim, then what does Israel have? Super-mega accurate ones? :)
Is there a point you are trying to make there?
"Why didn't they target the IDF instead of schools? Because that is what terrorists do." --- That's your opinion.
OK, so you explain why Hamas is firing those rockets into civilian areas.
The difference between you and me is that you've been criticizing ONE side (Palestinian) only.
Actually, the difference I see between us is that I understand the terms I use, I can give concrete sources without resorting to vague references to the media, and do not assume NGOs are automatically correct and working without an agenda.
It would never occur to me that HRW is right because they are "famous" or that Tutu is right because he has won a Nobel Prize (same goes for Wiesel)
"But hey, go ahead and rely blindly on whatever the Palestinians claim. After all, that's what the media you follow does." --- Says who?
The media that jumped on the Palestinian claims about Jenin is the same one that claims that the Goldstone Report found Israel guilty of war crimes--when it was supposedly a fact finding commission and not a judicial one.
And how do you know what kind of media I'm following?
You do not bring sources but quote what the media says: as when you quoted 3 newspapers to support your claim about religious Jews--except that all 3 were quoting the same source, one did not even quote the name of the source, and the source itself is funded by European countries and itself does not give the names for their sources of information but rather quotes them anonymously.
I think your (and not just your) problem is that whenever you hear or read some media source or someone criticizing Israel, the first thing you think of is that this person/source/newspaper must somehow be anti-israel or Palestinian.
No, actually I check it out to see if there is a reliable source or if the media is jumping on Palestinian claims without checking out Israel's side.
If not, then you assume he must be using unreliable sources. Even if that person/organization comes from Israel.
For some odd reason, you assume that Jews/Israelis who speak out against Israel have more believability. According to that logic, democrats and left wingers are especially believable in what they said about Bush, 9/11, etc.
Bottom line, you have no clue how I think.
And you still have no clue what "disproportionate force" means.
1.) How do we know when force is disproportionate? I'd say this is a matter of constant debate. I remember the U.S. saying that Russia has used "disproportionate" force in the South Ossetia conflict with Georgia two yrs ago. Of course, Russia didn't agree with that terminology.
Now, in case of the Operation Cast Lead, a UN fact-finding report used that term while claimed that Israel failed to take precautions to minimize loss of civilian life. International jurist Richard Goldstone used terms like "collective punishment" and "disproportionate force" in connection to Operation Cast Lead, too. His report found that the Israeli air and ground attacks destroyed 5,000 homes; put 200 factories (!) out of operation, including the only flour factory in the country; systematically destroyed egg-producing chicken farms (!); and bombed sewage and water systems. So I think it makes sense. You may disagree with me, but that's how I see it.
2.) "Is there a point you are trying to make there?" --- Sure, I'm trying to realize what does being accurate actually mean in your opinion.
3.) "OK, so you explain why Hamas is firing those rockets into civilian areas." --- I'd say that since they have no accurate rockets to target army objects or some specific targets, they fire those rockets blindly, just to spread fear and terror. Yes, fear and terror, there's no denying of that. Goldstone's report mentions it, as well. However, I can't agree with your answer: ("Why didn't they target the IDF INSTEAD of schools? Because that is what terrorists do."). I'd say that if Palestinian armed groups had better and more accurate rockets or planes they'd rather target Israeli military objects. That's my point.
cont.
4.) "Actually, the difference I see between us is that I understand the terms I use, I can give concrete sources without resorting to vague references to the media, and do not assume NGOs are automatically correct and working without an agenda." --- It doesn't change the fact that you've always been criticizing one side only. I believe you're good at backing your words with sources and terminology, but it still doesn't make you objective, because you only see one side responsible for the crisis. Remember, peace could not be achieved by accusing only one side, when the responsibility lay with BOTH.
As for those NGOs, I think I already made it clear that they're not perfect and that I don't assume they are "automatically correct". The difference is that while you're doing all you can to discredit their work, I'm not that suspicious and I don't believe in those conspiracy theories some pro-israeli bloggers keep spreading around them. That's the difference.
5.) "...as when you quoted 3 newspapers to support your claim about religious Jews--except that all 3 were quoting the same source, one did not even quote the name of the source, and the source itself is funded by European countries and itself does not give the names for their sources of information but rather quotes them anonymously." --- Even if that's true, does it make them wrong? Look, unfortunately I don't have enough time in my life to make sure that anyting I hear or read is true, I have no time to check every time where did the information I read in a report came from. Life is enough complicated and short without that. I'll give you an example. In my school days I never checked at home if every word the teacher said was correct, I simply took it as obvious that it's correct, especially if it had to do with mathematics. Now, if I chose a newspaper or web-site for which I think it has enough reputation and is not biased (although, let's be honest, there is NO such thing as totaly unbiased media), then I don't question its own sources and reliability. Having said that, I'm not saying that they can't be wrong. Hope you understand what I mean.
6.) "For some odd reason, you assume that Jews/Israelis who speak out against Israel have more believability" --- Not really. But if I hear some IDF's soldiers and Israeli HR groups talking about war crimes comitted in Gaza, then I rather believe them than to the army spokesperson of Defence minister. Because those soldiers and HR employees have no reason to lie. Some israelis even call them "self-hating Jews", but I'm not buying that terminology.
1) You miss the point. The issue is not that Russia denied using disproportionate force--the issue is whether they merely denied it, or--as Israel does--address the legal points involved. It is not an issue of constant debate (a vague term), rather it is an issue legal argument on points of law.
As far as "international jurist" Richard Goldstone goes--whose specialty by the way was corporate law, not international--your point about the 200 factories is important in revealing the sloppiness of the report.
Martin Kramer notes a careless discrepancy in the report.
You see, Goldstone accepts at face value Palestinian testimony that 324 (more than your mere 200!!!) factories were destroyed.
The problem is that Amr Hamad, deputy general-secretary of Palestinian Federation of Industries, testified that there were 40,000 jobs lost as a result--and since Goldstone found him credible, that's what his report shows.
If there are 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, that is about 27% out of work--much more when you exclude women and children
However, as the records of the Palestinian Federation of Industries itself shows, there were actually 4,000 factories destroyed.
Now, let's take a look at what a factory is in Gaza:
Perhaps the mission members, hearing the word "factories," thought that 40,000 jobs sounded credible. In fact, more than a quarter (88) of these 324 "factories" employed five people or less, and over half (189) employed from five to twenty people (Federation report, p. 12). The vast majority of these "factories" should really be described as "workshops." Only three employed a hundred or more people.
Because of the sloppiness of the Goldstone Commission, the incorrect number 40,000 is repeated on websites across the Internet, not to mention the misuse of the word "factory".
Of course, Kramer gives the commission the benefit of the doubt. As for me, I think it should be noted that Goldstone was on the board of 3 organizations that were critical of Israel--one of which he resigned from, only when NGO Monitor asked how he could stay on the board and investigate Israel at the same time. Of the other 2, Goldstone signed a document issued by one which expressed “shock at the crimes against civilians”
This is what passes for objectivity.
Not to mention the letter Chinkin signed before joining the commission.
There is member Dr. Hina Jilani, who defended her full acceptance of Palestinian testimony on the grounds that "I think it'd be very cruel to not give credence to their voices."
And of course there is Col Travers, who falsely claims that in the month before Operation Cast Lead only 2 rockets were fired at Israel, when in reality there were 125 in November 2008 and 361 in December, as compared to 11 rockets in the previous 4 months.
Travers also claims that in Lebanon, Israel took out Irish peacekeeping forces and deliberately shot them--a claim no one else has ever made and is not substantiated. Of course, there is more.
Put that together with the UNHRC, and you can keep your Goldstone Report.
(continued in next comment)
3) I'd say that since they have no accurate rockets to target army objects or some specific targets, they fire those rockets blindly, just to spread fear and terror
All well and good, except of course that the Goldstone report says they do
While you're at it, how would you stop those Hamas rockets?
4) but it still doesn't make you objective, because you only see one side responsible for the crisis
I never said I was objective--that's the word you use, not me. But you are the one who came to my blog making claims. I am merely responding to those claims. It other words: your point is irrelevant.
The difference is that while you're doing all you can to discredit their work, I'm not that suspicious and I don't believe in those conspiracy theories some pro-israeli bloggers keep spreading around them. That's the difference.
You're being vague again--you say I am trying to discredit them,
a claim that could mean untruthful means. I am merely relaying instances of their words and actions that illustrate their errors and biases--along with the sources of their funding.
You, on the other hand, defend them by calling them "famous" or what have you, as if the fact they are NGO's gives them an automatic halo.
5) Even if that's true, does it make them wrong?
The question is whether it makes them right. The point is that take that questionable source and insist on using it--something I would not do.
As far as comparing a teacher of math with a reporter giving his opinion--I don't see any comparison.
6)But if I hear some IDF's soldiers and Israeli HR groups talking about war crimes comitted in Gaza, then I rather believe them than to the army spokesperson of Defence minister. Because those soldiers and HR employees have no reason to lie.
You've got to be kidding.
1.) Legal points aside, you must admit that the term disproportionate force is a matter of constant debate among experts and politicians all around the world. Same goes for terms like "collective punishment", "self-defence", "terrorists", "occupation" etc. It seems there is no clear-cut, globally accepted definition of those terms.
About those factories, let's assume the numbers I got are wrong. Ok. But for me, even if there was only 50 factories and even if the majority of them should really be described as "workshops", it still begs the question: why were they destroyed? Those are civilian objects, aren't they? Same goes for destroying egg-producing chicken farms and bombing sewage and water systems. Was it really necessary? Shouldn't we call it collective punishment?
As for those Palestinian witnesses and Palestinian testimony, why do always assume they're automatically wrong? With IDF refusing to allow journalists to cover its blockade of the Gaza Strip it became a very difficult job for them to find the truth. In the end, the journalists and NGO employees had no other chance but to talk with people from Palestinan side and the israeli army spokesperson. Now, if you assume the Palestinian side is only telling lies and you only believe israeli army, then I think you're not seeing the whole picture.
3.) "While you're at it, how would you stop those Hamas rockets?" --- I don't think there's an easy way. But killing thousands of people and destroying civilian infrastructure is surely not the answer. I could probably write more about it tomorrow if I find some time.
4.) "I never said I was objective--that's the word you use, not me. But you are the one who came to my blog making claims. I am merely responding to those claims." --- Fair enough. It's your blog and it was me who came and started this discussion. I thought it'd be interesting to see some arguments and to see things from different angels; but hey, if you don't like it or if I'm driving you nuts I can easily stop writing and leave your blog. Just let me know. :)
5.) "As far as comparing a teacher of math with a reporter giving his opinion--I don't see any comparison." --- maybe it really wasn't the best comparasion but I thought it had a point. Read it again, maybe you'll get it.
6.) "You've got to be kidding." --- all right, then you tell me why would those few soldiers lie? Why would they describe their killing of innocent and mostly unarmed civilians and their vandalism if none of those thing happened in Gaza? As you probably guessed by now, I'm not buying terms like "moral army", especially after I saw those sick T-shirts emblazoned with various images of dead Palestinian babies, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques. The fact that many IDF members were selling and wearing those stupid T-shirt is showing the mentality of how the soldiers are trained to think.
Shouldn't we call it collective punishment?
Obviously not, since you ignore Israel's side of the story--something you cheerfully claim I do in reverse. The fact you cynically reject Israel's side altogether allows you continue making these one-sided claims.
Legal points aside...
Nonsense, the only issue are the legal points of what constitutes disproportionate force--otherwise it is a meaningless emotion-laden term that is used to indiscriminately bash other countries.
The relativism that you advocate means that those who yell the loudest with the greatest number of allies sets the standard.
That is unacceptable--one look at the UN explains why.
The failure to define terrorism is due to blocs of Arab countries and their allies, allowing murderers of women and children to be called "freedom fighters"
About those factories, let's assume the numbers I got are wrong.
You are making a key mistake: it is not you who made the mistake; it is one of many critical errors made by the Goldstone commission.
As for those Palestinian witnesses and Palestinian testimony, why do always assume they're automatically wrong?
Yeah, this coming from the guy who consistently tell ms that he doesn't trust Israel--something that I have never said about the Palestinian Arabs.
With IDF refusing to allow journalists to cover its blockade of the Gaza Strip it became a very difficult job for them to find the truth.
Seems I missed where you mention the Egyptian blockade--just like the media in general. Why do you think that is?
In the end, the journalists and NGO employees had no other chance but to talk with people from Palestinan side and the israeli army spokesperson.
Since when did the blockade mean there were no Israelis to talk to?
Now, if you assume the Palestinian side is only telling lies and you only believe israeli army, then I think you're not seeing the whole picture.
Like I said, that is another of your assumptions--and is merely the flip side of your stating that you do not accept the Israeli side.
By your own words, you do not see the whole picture.
But killing thousands of people and destroying civilian infrastructure is surely not the answer. I could probably write more about it tomorrow if I find some time.
Thousands? That implies at least 2,000. You are already exaggerating the facts. You also assume the target is the civilian--not the military--infrastructure. You are making major assumptions that ignore Israel's side of the story.
Ah, but I forget--that is supposed to be what I'm doing.
Oops.
"You've got to be kidding." --- all right, then you tell me why would those few soldiers lie? Why would they describe their killing of innocent and mostly unarmed civilians and their vandalism if none of those thing happened in Gaza?
Simple: they oppose the war.
They are no better than another soldier, famous for breaking his silence:
When John Kerry returned from Viet Nam, he talked about American war crimes and how ashamed he was--and then ran on that to win election to Congress.
When he decided to run for president, suddenly he was proud to have been a soldier in Viet Nam.
It turned out that there were aspects of his tour of duty that he exaggerated, this was brought out into the open, and he lost.
Classic example:
This is how he described it to the Boston Herald in 1979: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies. . . . The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
In 1986 Mr. Kerry argued on the Senate floor against U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras, again citing the 1968 Christmas in Cambodia and "the president of the United States telling the American people I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me." In a 1992 interview with the Associated Press the story came back: "By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia."
Trouble is, the person who appears to have been wrong here about Mr. Kerry's location was not the president--who was Lyndon Johnson, not Nixon, by the way--but Mr. Kerry himself. His commanding officers all testify to this fact, as do men who were on his boat at the time. And so now, reluctantly, does the Kerry campaign.
-----
These Israeli soldiers--who insist on staying anonymous (a fact you would not accept if the situation were reversed)--are no better than Kerry.
As you probably guessed by now, I'm not buying terms like "moral army", especially after I saw those sick T-shirts emblazoned with various images of dead Palestinian babies, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques.
What T-shirts?
As for the mosques, which Israel said were used to house weaponss, here is Col Tim Collins who investigated and verified the Israeli account.
Here is the video.
Here is the transcript.
So the real question is: why did this colonel find the proof, when Travers did not.
That of course brings us to a point I made that you did not address:
One would expect that if you are going to send a group to investigate war crimes, you would go to great lengths to give every appearance of professionalism and objectivity.
From the flawed UNHRC, whose bias against Israel is known, to the 4 people chosen for the commission--whose lack of objectivity is documented--there is reason to doubt the Commission before even coming to the resultant errors in the report.
You, of course, will say that is nitpicking--a claim that I consider a cop out.
The fact that many IDF members were selling and wearing those stupid T-shirt is showing the mentality of how the soldiers are trained to think.
Please indicate the source--and especially how many soldiers were doing this. If you have no idea, then I am unimpressed by your righteous indignation.
If your claim is true, of course the soldiers are wrong--just as the enormous jump to condemning the entire IDF is convenient and self-serving.
- "Obviously not, since you ignore Israel's side of the story" --- I don't think I'm ignoring anything. In the end, even Israel's side can't deny that those factories (or "workshops") were destroyed. We can discuss about the actual number, but they were destroyed. Same goeas for bombing sewage and water systems and the blockade of Gaza, which affect all the Palestinians living there.
- "The failure to define terrorism is due to blocs of Arab countries and their allies, allowing murderers of women and children to be called "freedom fighters"" --- I think this is too simplified explanation. You're assuming again that America's and Israel's opinion/definition is correct and Arabian is wrong. But it's not just about Arab countries. No. There are also Russia, China, India etc. Ask China or Russia or Sweden if they think Hamas is a terrorist organization. Ask the U.S. about the anti-Iran terrorist groups (Jundallah, for example) they support. What about Hezbollah? Governments all around the world disagree on Hezbollah’s status as a legitimate political entity, a terrorist group, or both. But the actual number of the countries that have officially listed Hezbollah in at least some part as a terrorist organization is only six: Australia, Canada, the U.S., Israel and the UK. Again, only six. So things are little more complicated as you may think.
- "Yeah, this coming from the guy who consistently tell ms that he doesn't trust Israel--something that I have never said about the Palestinian Arabs." --- maybe you didn't say it, but judging by your previous posts it's quite obvious what do you think about Palestinian side and its credibility. As for me, I never said I don't trust Israeli people, I said I don't trust Israeli Defence minister or IDF's spokesperson. By the way, it's not just Israeli army, I'm very sceptical of every army's statements. I don't trust Hamas' spokesperson, either.
- "Seems I missed where you mention the Egyptian blockade--just like the media in general. Why do you think that is?" --- What's your point? Israeli blockade is still there and it's destroying the lives of 1.5 million human beings. I agree the media should write more often about Egyptian blockade, though. The right term should be "Israeli/Egyptian blockade". Why do media mostly mention Israel? Perhaps because Egypt didn't attack and destroy Gaza in the first place.
"Since when did the blockade mean there were no Israelis to talk to?" --- of course it doesn't mean that. I think you know what I wanted to say. Put yourself in the place of a journalist or NGO's employee who wants to make a report during or right after the end of Operation cast Lead. Firstly the IDF refuse to allow you to cover the action in Gaza and after the operation they refuse to cooperate with the investigations. On the other hand, you can hardly find some "credible" and emotionally uninvolved witnesses from Gaza. But you want to hear both sides. What would you do?
- "Thousands? That implies at least 2,000" --- yeah, I wanted to say "thousand".
- "Simple: they oppose the war." -- This could be one possible explanation. But not the only. I mean, how can you tell what are they thinking? Can you prove your words? What if they're not opposing the war and they're actually telling the truth? John Kerry example was good for backing your point, but I don't think it proves anything at all in this case.
"These Israeli soldiers--who insist on staying anonymous (a fact you would not accept if the situation were reversed)--are no better than Kerry." --- this is, again, just your opinion. I can understand those who wants to staying anonymous, though. They also have no benefits to tell their names. What's more, they have a lot to risk: their job, their status, even their own well being. The topic is very painful and most of israelis don't like (want) to hear about it.
- "What T-shirts?" --- I'm surprised you didn't heard about that. Well, maybe I'm not that surprised after all. Anyway, you can read about it and see those T-shirts there:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirts-Mock-Killing-Palestinian-Women-And-Children-During-Gaza-Offensive/Article/200903315245946
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/israeliarmytshirts3.jpg
How do you like it? And how is that different from that silly Hamas TV program for little kids?
- "What T-shirts?" --- I'm surprised you didn't heard about that. Well, maybe I'm not that surprised after all. Anyway, you can read about it and see those T-shirts there:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirts-Mock-Killing-Palestinian-Women-And-Children-During-Gaza-Offensive/Article/200903315245946
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/israeliarmytshirts3.jpg
How do you like it? And how is that different from that silly Hamas TV program for little kids?
I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention--especially since it supports so much of what I have written and undercuts so much of what you have claimed.
At first I was inclined to forgive your error, seeing as how dependent you are on the media and insist on claiming that they are both unbiased and accurate.
However, since the pictures are right there in front of your eyes, maybe you really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Take a look at the 2 pictures on in those 3 articles. I don't know what you think you see, but I see a woman with a machine gun in one hand and in the other--either a grenade or a device to set off a suicide belt.
Take a look at that other picture--the kid is holding a rifle that is bigger than he is.
This is a fact not explored by those articles--and one that you conveniently ignored as well.
The message is clear: women and children who are out to kill Jews deserve to be treated no differently than any other terrorists.
And with all that, the IDF did not support those shirts or their message.
That fact underlies how superficial and just plain insulting your comparison with Hamas is.
Let's go through some differences, shall we:
1. The army condemns the shirts; Hamas encourages and are the producing shows to encourage kids to hate Jews (not just Israelis, mind you, but Jews)
2.Those shirts are not for mass-production--they are for members of the army; those Hamas TV shows that you treat so lightly (you have the gall to say they are nothing more than 'silly'!) are intended to create a hatred for Jews in the next generation of Palestinian Arabs.
Heaven only knows what kinds of psychological trauma such murderous hatred will cause--not that you care. To you, those shows are just silly.
In your defense, maybe you never really saw any of them. Considering how you use terms you admit you don't understand--that is not unlikely.
3.Those shirts make no statement about peace--they are merely a very graphic and provocative statement about those who are out to kill Jews; those Hamas shows will inculcate many things into those kids, including a hatred in those little kids that make peace much more difficult later.
This issue of the T-shirts that you bring up clearly demonstrates the bias and sloppiness of the press--and illustrates aspects of your lack of logic and empathy that are less than attractive.
Man, I had no idea you'd actually try to excuse and downplay those criminal T-shirts and their offensive messages. This is sick. Read the slogans again: "Won't chill until I confirm a kill","1 shot 2 kills", "The smaller, the harder", "Better use Durex"...
I remember reading some readers comments when the news about those T-shirts came out. I was glad to see that condemnation was coming from Israeli Jews as well, who were disgusted by those messages (particularly in light of the revelations of atrocities comitted in Gaza coming from the soldiers). Some even suggested those soldiers deserve jail time at the least for such disgusting and damaging behaviour. In short, almost no one was trying to excuse the barbaric behaviour. For you, those shirts are merely "very graphic and provocative statement about those who are out to kill Jews". Right...
- "I don't know what you think you see, but I see a woman with a machine gun in one hand and in the other..." --- you somehow forgot to mention that the woman seems to be pregnant (hence the slogan: "1 shot 2 kills").
- "The army condemns the shirts"
QUOTE/: In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit's commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won't chill 'til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn't exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year. The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son's fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit's shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.
...
Do your superiors approve the shirts before printing?
"Yes, although one time they rejected some shirt that was too extreme. I don't remember what was on it." :/ END OF THE QUOTE
from http://asherah.buzznet.com/user/journal/3904641/latest-idf-fashion/
Here are some more examples of those shirts. Maybe you'd change your mind after seeing them:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the-smaller-the-tougher.jpg
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e201156e441efc970c-300wi
If you can't see it yourself, the last one shows a Palestinian mother weeping next to her dead baby's grave, also in the crosshairs of a rifle. The slogan suggests it would have been better if the child had never been born. Tell me, do these barbarians honestly consider themselves "the most moral army" in the world? Or is that also dark humour?
You can read many other details here. I don't know if everything this journalist (Uri Blau) wrote in that article is absolutely true, but if it is, then the problem is even bigger then it seems.
http://asherah.buzznet.com/user/journal/3904641/latest-idf-fashion/
Man, I had no idea you'd actually try to excuse and downplay those criminal T-shirts and their offensive messages. This is sick. Read the slogans again: "Won't chill until I confirm a kill","1 shot 2 kills", "The smaller, the harder", "Better use Durex"...
This is not an issue of excusing. It is an issue of war--and sticking to the facts. War stinks, and Israel did not ask for it. Nor did it ask for Hamas to arm their women and children, blur the line between combatent and citizen, or place armed caches in mosques--something that somehow missed the attention of Col. Travers, but no Col Collins. You tell me to look at the slogans. Fine. I'm saying look at the context as well.
What exactly are you claiming--that IDF soldiers are given license to kill kids? Or that the language is offensive in the extreme. I already agreed to the latter. You talk about behavior, but the fact is that IDF soldiers do not shoot women and children. The same cannot be said for Hamas--not only do they shoot rockets at civilians, they also shoot and kill them when they can as well. This of course is a distinction that upsets you claim to evenhandedness.
I remember reading some readers comments when the news about those T-shirts came out. I was glad to see that condemnation was coming from Israeli Jews as well, who were disgusted by those messages (particularly in light of the revelations of atrocities comitted in Gaza coming from the soldiers). Some even suggested those soldiers deserve jail time at the least for such disgusting and damaging behaviour. In short, almost no one was trying to excuse the barbaric behaviour. For you, those shirts are merely "very graphic and provocative statement about those who are out to kill Jews". Right...
- "I don't know what you think you see, but I see a woman with a machine gun in one hand and in the other..." --- you somehow forgot to mention that the woman seems to be pregnant (hence the slogan: "1 shot 2 kills").
Good point, Hamas really doesn't care who they hide behind or use to kill Jews.
(continued)
Anonymous said...
- "The army condemns the shirts"
QUOTE/: In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit's commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won't chill 'til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn't exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year. The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son's fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit's shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.
Bottom line, did the heads of the IDF approve of it?
Here are some more examples of those shirts. Maybe you'd change your mind after seeing them:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the-smaller-the-tougher.jpg
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e201156e441efc970c-300wi
What are the women/children doing in the picture--I can't tell. You have already made clear that the context does not matter to you, but it does to me.
If you can't see it yourself, the last one shows a Palestinian mother weeping next to her dead baby's grave, also in the crosshairs of a rifle. The slogan suggests it would have been better if the child had never been born. Tell me, do these barbarians honestly consider themselves "the most moral army" in the world? Or is that also dark humour?
Very simple: The IDF does not go around telling their soldiers to kill women and children; Hamas does. Hamas even creates children shows to indoctrinate kids to hate Jews.
Since you do not bother to respond to that aspect--instead calling it "silly," it is clear how little it matters to you.
I addressed your point--I expect no less from you.
o I also expect you to address the fact that there are clear indications of anti-Israel bias among all 4 members of the Goldstone Commission.
o I also expect that if you are again going to excuse Goldstone's bias by saying he is a Zionist, that you define what you think that term means.
o I would like an explanation how you can claim to disregard the claims made by both Israel and Hamas, and then go ahead and accept what the media says--when they do accept the claims of the Hamas leadership.
o I expect you to stop making absurd excuses for Hamas--that if they had better arms, they would fire on military targets--and instead of such a desperate cop out point out where in the world firing rockets on civilians is condoned.
o You claim that Israel destroyed water systems--are you aware that Israel supplied water to Gaza during the war?
o You point to the flour mill--are you aware of the documentation that Israel has supplied why they targeted the mill because of Hamas terrorists in the area?
- "This is not an issue of excusing. It is an issue of war--and sticking to the facts. War stinks, and Israel did not ask for it." --- you sound like Israel has nothing to do with current situation. Like Israel was the most peacefull nation in the world and like there is no occupation, no collective punishments, no illegal settlement activity... Oh, I forgot... you only blame one side.
- "I'm saying look at the context as well." --- Sure, I agree the context is important as well. But even then I can't find any excuses or good reasons for printing & wearing those ugly T-shirts, especially if one considers itself "moral" and professional soldier.
- "Good point, Hamas really doesn't care who they hide behind or use to kill Jews." --- there's no mentioning of Hamas there, but if that's how you understand this T-shirt's picture and message (1 shot 2 kills), then I can't help you. I can ony say, that the rest of the world understood the slogan in a different way. Ever heard about dark humor?
- "You talk about behavior, but the fact is that IDF soldiers do not shoot women and children. " --- I'm afraid most of Human Rights organizations and investigators from the UN would disagree with you there. You said the IDF does not go around telling their soldiers to kill women and children; Hamas does. Fine. The problem is whether the IDF tells the soldiers NOT to shoot at civilians. As I mentioned before, a group of Israeli soldiers who fought in the last war in Gaza have testified that the military allowed them to use reckless force. They actually described the Israeli army’s use of human shields and deliberate targeting of civilian structures. You already told your opinion about them and their motives. But I'm afraid you can't proove your thoughts. I can't proove they were saying the truth, either. Either way, I do agree there's still a difference between the IDF and radical groups like Hamas, whose rockets mostly hit civilians. I'm strickly against any targeting of civilians and I condemn Hamas for killing civilians. But maybe you should look at the context as well (in the light of the rocket's (in)accuracy).
- "Bottom line, did the heads of the IDF approve of it?" --- I'll ask you back: did the IDF try to prevent those T-shirts?
- "Since you do not bother to respond to that aspect--instead calling it "silly," it is clear how little it matters to you." --- We could discuss about Israel's role (and how does it actually help Hamas recruiting more radicals) in those cartoons, but yes, "silly" may not be the best choice to describe them. I see Hamas cartoons as a part of their harmfull brainwashing of kids. It's really sad. I've also seen some sick photos of little Palestinians dressed as suicide bombers and I'm feeling sorry for those kids. I hate all the brainwashing and child abuse, even cases like America’s Army video games. I hope I made it clear now.
I'll try to address the rest of your points later.
- "I also expect you to address the fact that there are clear indications of anti-Israel bias among all 4 members of the Goldstone Commission." --- A report that is critical of Israel is not anti-Israel. As for those four members, can you come up with any statements of them that are truly anti-Israel? They may not be "perfect" people who never make mistakes, but... are they really anti-israel?
I don't know enough facts about mr Travers and Jilani to judge them, but I can comment on Chinkin's case. In my eyes, all those attacks on Chinkin (and other members) were somehow predictable. Apparently, Israel believes that only individuals who have never publicly expressed an opinion on Israel and Hamas are entitled to investigate the situation in Gaza. As I remember, Chinkin has been criticizing both sides in the past. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Israeli government and the right-wing bloggers would have had no problems with Chinkin if she had only criticized Hamas...
Attacks on mr Goldstone (despite his history and his reputation) himself are even more disturbing. They don't care about his biography. They don't care that he calls himself a Zionist (definition of Zionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) who love Israel and is a trustee of Hebrew University in Israel. It doesn't matter to them, because their only goal is to discredit the Goldstone Commission at any cost (as they tried with HRW and AI).
Let's meke it clear for once: if someone criticizes Israeli government (not Jews or Israeli people), it no more makes him anti-Israel than criticism of U.S. government policy makes one anti-American.
- "I would like an explanation how you can claim to disregard the claims made by both Israel and Hamas, and then go ahead and accept what the media says--when they do accept the claims of the Hamas leadership." --- That's nonsense. Why do you mean by "media"? I don't believe those stories. Sure, there may have been few cases in which some particular media sources (not all the media) "accepted the claims of the Hamas leadership", but it would be wrong to say the entire media is doing that. Beside, if you don't trust none of the media sources, where do you get information? Who do you listen to? If you think all the media is corrupt and biased, if all the NGOs are anti-israel and if you can't trust neither the UN nor Obama, then I think you are paranoid. What's more, your "sources" are reducted to Israeli government, Jewish blogs and IDF's spokesperson. How does it sounds to you?
- "You claim that Israel destroyed water systems--are you aware that Israel supplied water to Gaza during the war?" --- I didn't know that. Still, it doesn't change the fact that sewage and water systems were considerable damaged during the Operation Cast Lead. At least that's what the reports are saying.
As for the flour mill, I've just read an article from Haaretz and I'm still not sure what to think of it and whom to believe.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147182.html
If Hamas was not killing Israeli civilians for years with thousands of bombs, there would have been no OCL.
And no, I do not only blame the terrorists--I also blame the UN and those who claim to have an obligation to promote peace, but stay on the sidelines until Israel takes action.
Kind of like you. Can you point to any comments you've made over the past 7 years about how barbaric and awful it is that Israeli civilians are the targets of terrorist bombs?
like there is no occupation, no collective punishments, no illegal settlement activity
There you go again, throwing words around. You already admitted to accusing Israel of using 'disproportionate force' without knowing what it meant. Now explain how Israel is guilty of occupation?
Since when do they occupy Gaza? What exactly does Collective Punishment mean, and how is Israel guilty of that? And how are those settlements illegal if they are on land that previously was under control of Egypt/Jordan, Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire, but never a Palestinian state.
By the way, since there has never been a Palestinian state, just why do they deserve a second one?
But even then I can't find any excuses or good reasons for printing & wearing those ugly T-shirts, especially if one considers itself "moral" and professional soldier.
Not asking you to. But then again, this is not an issue of moral--it is unprofessional, but not immoral, since the shirts have nothing to do with IDF policy.
Does it bother you half as much when liberals went around with t-shirts that said 'kill Bush'?
there's no mentioning of Hamas there, but if that's how you understand this T-shirt's picture and message (1 shot 2 kills), then I can't help you.
If not the terrorists of Hamas or Fatah, then just who do you think this is pointed at?
I can ony say, that the rest of the world understood the slogan in a different way.
Cool. Please provide the numbers on that one. That is a cop out.
Ever heard about dark humor?
Well in that case, just what is your point after all. Or maybe you're claiming that moral people don't make comments reflecting dark humor?
As I mentioned before, a group of Israeli soldiers who fought in the last war in Gaza have testified that the military allowed them to use reckless force.
Great! What are the names of these soldiers? Oh wait, they did not testify at all, did they. There was no appearance in court, was there? The names of these people are not known, are they. I don't suppose you are aware of the fact that some of this 'testimony' is made by soldiers who were not even there at the time, based on pure hearsay.
And of course, this group of Israelis depends on satisfying foreign countries to get their funds.
(continued)
But I'm afraid you can't proove your thoughts. I can't proove they were saying the truth, either. Either way, I do agree there's still a difference between the IDF and radical groups like Hamas, whose rockets mostly hit civilians. I'm strickly against any targeting of civilians and I condemn Hamas for killing civilians. But maybe you should look at the context as well (in the light of the rocket's (in)accuracy).
Huh? If there is no way to verify the truth of what they said, and in fact there are questions raised against the veracity of their accounts, why are you wasting time mentioning them?
'...whose rockets mostly hit civilians' Really? Just what proportion of the thousands of rockets over that 7 year span don't hit civilian areas???
'But maybe you should look at the context as well (in the light of the rocket's (in)accuracy).'
Huh???
I'll ask you back: did the IDF try to prevent those T-shirts?
Huh??? How would they prevent them without knowing about them? Or are you claiming they had advanced warning about them?
BTW, these are not cartoons. We are talking about children in these shows, participating and calling in.
We could discuss about Israel's role (and how does it actually help Hamas recruiting more radicals) in those cartoons
So now you are claiming that Israel is to blame for the indoctrination of children by Hamas????
A report that is critical of Israel is not anti-Israel.
I have never said that it is--but the obvious biases and the errors in the report demonstrate a sloppiness that cannot be ignored.
As for those four members, can you come up with any statements of them that are truly anti-Israel? They may not be "perfect" people who never make mistakes, but... are they really anti-israel?
Oh come on. Of course they are not perfect, but that is not the point. There is clear bias here--least of all because of the source of the report: the UNHRC, which did not include Hamas in the original mandate and which ignored Hamas and focused on Israel alone when it accepted the report. Looking at the conclusion of the report, the bias is clear from the enormous preponderance of references to Israel over that of Hamas.
Aside from that, the fact that each and every one of them have made comments that clearly indicate their being judgmental before having all of the facts that they are supposed to be investigating in the first place.
Apparently, Israel believes that only individuals who have never publicly expressed an opinion on Israel and Hamas are entitled to investigate the situation in Gaza. As I remember, Chinkin has been criticizing both sides in the past. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Israeli government and the right-wing bloggers would have had no problems with Chinkin if she had only criticized Hamas...
You continue to toss in irrelevancies such as "What's more, I'm pretty sure that Israeli government and the right-wing bloggers would have had no problems with Chinkin if she had only criticized Hamas... "
Glad to see that your high standards of 'evenhandedness' are
maintained by a letter that says:
"The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are...We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes"
That's it--a mention at the beginning and end of the letter about Hamas, and the rest is just blasting away at Israel. Not a mention of detail, of the years and the thousands of rockets fired.
Attacks on mr Goldstone (despite his history and his reputation) himself are even more disturbing. They don't care about his biography. They don't care that he calls himself a Zionist (definition of Zionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) who love Israel and is a trustee of Hebrew University in Israel. It doesn't matter to them, because their only goal is to discredit the Goldstone Commission at any cost (as they tried with HRW and AI).
What.A.Joke.
What history? What reputation? What a cop out!!! Look at what he actually does and says.
You don't even try to explain what history and reputation you are talking about.
Go ahead: tell me about his history and reputation as a Zionist: WHAT HAS HE ACTUALLY DONE AND SAID THAT BACKS THAT UP.
And don't waste my time with a link to a definition of what Zionism is--like some schoolchild who has no clue (or interest) in a topic and just blindly copies out of a book.
At least the kid copies out of the book. You just give a link.
You are reduced--predictably--to blindly accusing others of having no interest in anything but discrediting Goldstone.
THERE ARE ARTICLES OUT THERE THAT CLEARLY DETAIL ERRORS IN THE REPORT.
That is a fact.
Live with it...or don't.
(continued)
Let's meke it clear for once: if someone criticizes Israeli government (not Jews or Israeli people), it no more makes him anti-Israel than criticism of U.S. government policy makes one anti-American.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Only problem is that I never said anything to the contrary--which is why I have consistently brought source material to the claims I make.
But the fact you resort to claims of personal attacks is absurd.
Sure, there may have been few cases in which some particular media sources (not all the media) "accepted the claims of the Hamas leadership"
Are you aware of the case of Jenin and how lopsided the reporting of the media was?
Or Gaza Beach?
Or the stories about how the poor suffering Gazans had no electricity because of Israel and were sitting in dark rooms--with pictures to prove it.
Except that you could see beyond the curtain over the window that it was the middle of the day outside.
"accepted the claims of the Hamas leadership", but it would be wrong to say the entire media is doing that. Beside, if you don't trust none of the media sources, where do you get information? Who do you listen to? If you think all the media is corrupt and biased, if all the NGOs are anti-israel and if you can't trust neither the UN nor Obama, then I think you are paranoid. What's more, your "sources" are reducted to Israeli government, Jewish blogs and IDF's spokesperson. How does it sounds to you?
Sounds to me that you have never heard of books.
At least that's what the reports are saying.
Which ones and based on what sources? And just what do you expect in a war, anyway?
As for the flour mill, I've just read an article from Haaretz and I'm still not sure what to think of it and whom to believe.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147182.html
I have no problem with that.
I don't even have a problem with you believing a source that runs contrary to Israel's stand.
However, your tirades on how Israel is not to be believed because it is biased--despite the documentation--that is absurd.
- "If Hamas was not killing Israeli civilians for years with thousands of bombs, there would have been no OCL." --- Yeah, yeah. I've heard it before. You sound like Hamas and other radical groups have been firing rockets on Israel Israel out of pure boredom. You don't (want to??) se the whole picture. You don't see the occupation, you don't see inhumane conditions Palestinian are living in, you don't see settlements (and the illegal wall) built on land that the UN has said they have no right to... You never mention the Palestinian Arabs who originally resided in the area that became Israel and were forced to leave their homes in the war of 1948... Those things are obviously not important for you. I'll always condemn Hamas for killing civilians, but please, look at the context as well.
- "And no, I do not only blame the terrorists--I also blame the UN and those who claim to have an obligation to promote peace, but stay on the sidelines until Israel takes action." --- I'm sure you do. You always blame everyone else, except Israel, of course. What else is new?
- "You already admitted to accusing Israel of using 'disproportionate force' without knowing what it meant. Now explain how Israel is guilty of occupation?
Since when do they occupy Gaza? What exactly does Collective Punishment mean, and how is Israel guilty of that? And how are those settlements illegal..." --- First of all, I never said Israel is occupying Gaza. As for the other terms (illegal wall & settlements, occupation etc), I thought we have been through this before. Don't forget that those terms were not my ideas. Several important institutions (like the UN) and many respected experts and professors from all around the world are using them all the time. Now, if things really were that easy and clear as you explained, then why is there so much confussion and misunderstandings around those issues?
- "Does it bother you half as much when liberals went around with t-shirts that said 'kill Bush'?" --- I don't see any comparison, really. It's totally different case.
- "If not the terrorists of Hamas or Fatah, then just who do you think this is pointed at?" --- ask the soldiers who printed those pictures. It's not just the picture. The slogan "1 shot 2 kills" tells a lot. Especially when the army (where those soldiers who wore those T-shirts are from) is claiming they did everything to "minimize civilian casualties" during the offensive in Gaza. What a joke.
- "Well in that case, just what is your point after all. Or maybe you're claiming that moral people don't make comments reflecting dark humor?" --- I'm just trying to make sure whether you understand the slogans on those tasteless anti-Palestinian T-Shirts or not. Because you're the only one I heard excusing and downplaying the real messages of those t-shirts while everybody else condemned them.
- "Great! What are the names of these soldiers?" --- As I said, I can understand those who wants to staying anonymous. They have a lot to risk. Put yourself in their place for a second and think again about their situation.
- "And of course, this group of Israelis depends on satisfying foreign countries to get their funds." --- if that's the way you're explaining it to yourself, then I can't help you. I'm not surprised, though, since I heard your opinion on the media, the NGOs and the UN. I'm pretty sure that even if a senior IDF commander suddently admitted war crimes in Gaza, you'd still find some excuses not to believe him. Israeli propaganda machine can really be satisfied to see guys like you.
- "So now you are claiming that Israel is to blame for the indoctrination of children by Hamas????" --- not really. But I'm saying that Israel has itself been doing enough to help radicalize Palestinian kids. Think about it. Those kids don't even need Hamas TV to radicalise them. They can just step out their house and witness the horrors of Israeli occupation themselves. They don't need Hamas to tell them who destroyed half of Gaza and who killed their relatives. Having said that, I condemn Hamas TV together with every other brainwashing and child abuse.
- "That's it--a mention at the beginning and end of the letter about Hamas, and the rest is just blasting away at Israel. Not a mention of detail, of the years and the thousands of rockets fired." --- If the report really was anti-israel then it would not condemn Hamas's rocket attacks at all. And why do you think it shoud mention all the details of the last few years? The report was about the last war on Gaza, wasn't it?
- "What history? What reputation? What a cop out!!! Look at what he actually does and says. You don't even try to explain what history and reputation you are talking about." --- I think I don't need to. Mr Goldstone's bio and history (and his reputation) is well-known and anyone interested in it can read it for himself.
- "Go ahead: tell me about his history and reputation as a Zionist" --- What's your point? I'm not sure what do you want from me. I don't know mr Goldstone personally and I don't know how strong his feeling about Israel are. One thing is sure, though. He is a Jew and in his interview he said he loves Israel. However, if you can come up with any statements of him or any detail from his bio that is truly "anti-Israel" or that would make him incapable of carrying out his duties, then please go ahead.
"Are you aware of the case of Jenin and how lopsided the reporting of the media was? Or Gaza Beach?" --- Oh, so that's it? Two or three examples in the last 30 years? Beside, it's still not clear what has actually happened in this Gaza Beach incident. There's many different versions and sources describing it. Oh, I forgot... you only believe Israeli side.
- "Sounds to me that you have never heard of books." --- Oh, so books are OK? The author giving his opinion is OK, but journalists writing their reports are not to be trusted? Great logic.
- "And just what do you expect in a war, anyway? --- I'd expect the army not to bomb sewage and water systems in the first place. Especially with such a modern equipment and accurate missiles.
- "However, your tirades on how Israel is not to be believed because it is biased--despite the documentation--that is absurd." - Again, I never said Israel is not to be believed. I just don't believe IDF's spokesperson and Israeli PM. Just as I don't believe Hamas's spokesperson. On the other hand, it is you who have problems trusting people and sources that are not from Israeli side.
You don't see the occupation, you don't see inhumane conditions Palestinian are living in
What a very odd thing to say, considering that you have not seen it either.
Have you actually seen these conditions that you have no problem writing about?
If you want to see the conditions, take a look here, where you can see what the Palestinian media is saying--and the lies that protesters like Tony Blair's sister-in-law are saying.
As for your parroting others about "occupation" "illegal wall" -- as I informed you before, Israel has legal backing on both those points, as well as on the 'settlements'
You never mention the Palestinian Arabs who originally resided in the area that became Israel and were forced to leave their homes in the war of 1948
Now you really must be kidding. Just what is your source???
Check out quotes from Arab Leaders and the media at the time.
but please, look at the context as well.
You still don't realize that there is no context until you get the facts--and you continue to sit comfortably in your chair accepting at face value whatever you read.
Start quoting your sources, for a change. And that does not telling me "everyone knows" or "the media says".
Several important institutions (like the UN) and many respected experts and professors from all around the world are using them all the time.
I'll name mine if you'll name yours.
Now, if things really were that easy and clear as you explained...
Cool--now where exactly did I say they were easy and clear?
If you cannot even quote me correctly, why should I trust you on the unnamed sources you quote?
Make up your mind--first you say those t-shirts reflect "dark humor", and now you say it demonstrates immorality. Which is it? And repeating your claim that it shows immorality over and over--just doesn't cut it.
Because you're the only one I heard excusing and downplaying the real messages of those t-shirts while everybody else condemned them.
I already said it was wrong.
If you cannot even quote me correctly...
- "Great! What are the names of these soldiers?" --- As I said, I can understand those who wants to staying anonymous. They have a lot to risk. Put yourself in their place for a second and think again about their situation.
Pathetic. Do you have any idea how free and open society is in Israel? Have you any idea how much Arab ministers in the Knesset get away with? Have you any idea what professors in Israeli Universities get away with writing?
And bottom line, if you want to be so understanding of those who wish to stay anonymous, then of course you will also understand why those same people and their are so lacking in credibility.
I'm not surprised, though, since I heard your opinion on the media, the NGOs and the UN. I'm pretty sure that even if a senior IDF commander suddently admitted war crimes in Gaza, you'd still find some excuses not to believe him. Israeli propaganda machine can really be satisfied to see guys like you.
Maybe instead of taking potshots at me and making personal comments about me, you should concentrate on backing up your claims about Israel with facts. Just saying...
They don't need Hamas to tell them who destroyed half of Gaza...
Cool! Let's see your source for that. Of course, those photos I referred you to in my previous comment won't help, even though they came from a Palestinian newspaper.
"That's it--a mention at the beginning and end of the letter about Hamas, and the rest is just blasting away at Israel. Not a mention of detail, of the years and the thousands of rockets fired." --- If the report really was anti-israel then it would not condemn Hamas's rocket attacks at all. And why do you think it shoud mention all the details of the last few years? The report was about the last war on Gaza, wasn't it?
You changed the subject--this is about the letter Chinkin signed
Mr Goldstone's bio and history (and his reputation) is well-known and anyone interested in it can read it for himself.
The point is that his actions and words clearly show he already made up his mind before he ever entered Gaza.
However, if you can come up with any statements of him or any detail from his bio that is truly "anti-Israel" or that would make him incapable of carrying out his duties, then please go ahead.
Sure:
Goldstone is a member of the International Center for Transitional Justice, which accuses Israel in its website of grave violations of international law, including 'extrajudicial executions, prolonged administrative detention, torture, forced displacement (often repeated), extensive property confiscation and destruction, movement restrictions, and collective punishment, much of this within the framework of a four-decade-long occupation.”
He is also a member of the ICTJ's Board of Directors since 2004. He signed a document issued by ICTJ six months before he was appointed to head the fact-finding mission, in which the ICTJ expresses “shock at the crimes against civilians” in Operation Cast Lead.
Goldstone is also a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Human Rights, which accused Israel of war crimes before the Goldstone Report was issued.
Goldstone was also a member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch as late as July 2008. The organization accused Israel of war crimes well before the Goldstone Commission was appointed.
When criticized by Human Rights Monitor for the obvious conflict of interest, Goldstone resigned from HRW--but not from the other 3.
The fact is, his membership in those groups illustrate bias, just as in the examples I gave of the other 3 members.
And again, the source for the commission is known to pay attention to Israel more than to other countries--plus the funding for the commission came from Arab countries.
And you are saying there is no sign of bias here???
(continued)
Two or three examples in the last 30 years?
When you start giving me sources for what you say instead of consistently relying on generalizations, I will give you my list. Of course, if you'd like me to give a list of your generalizations and your ad hominen attacks on me, I can oblige you.
Oh, so books are OK? The author giving his opinion is OK, but journalists writing their reports are not to be trusted? Great logic.
Maybe you haven't noticed, books on the subject tend to provide 2 things you will not find articles by journalists:
1. footnotes
2. depth
Otherwise, of course, they are identical!
I'd expect the army not to bomb sewage and water systems in the first place.
Again, you ignore:
1. what Israel has to say about this
2. the fact that Israel provided water and other necessities to Gaza during the war
3. the fact that no matter how accurate the weapons, mistakes happen.
I never said Israel is not to be believed. I just don't believe IDF's spokesperson and Israeli PM
Um....who's left???
(I mean, other than the people who would actually know what is going on...) Your claim is convenient, but as stated makes no sense.
- "What a very odd thing to say, considering that you have not seen it either. Have you actually seen these conditions that you have no problem writing about?" --- It's true, I've never been there personally. But hey, I've also never never been to Egypt, yet it doesn't mean I know nothing about pyramids. My point is, in today's era of internet and TV, there is no need to travel all the way to Iraq or Gaza to learn what's going on there.
Your article (on Blair's sister in law) is at best misleading and at worst absurd. I mean, did you expect there is no markets and shops in whole Gaza? Haven't you heard about smuggling tunnels in Gaza? The fact is that a big part of Gaza remains in ruins, because the blockade, which covers construction materials such as cement and steel, denied Palestinians any chance of rebuilding their homes. Thousands of Gazans are still living in tents, because their homes were razed to the ground during the OCL. But of course, you're only interested in photos that show there is in fact a place in Gaza where people can buy food and clothes for their children. What a paradise, isn't it?
- "As for your parroting others about "occupation" "illegal wall" -- as I informed you before, Israel has legal backing on both those points, as well as on the 'settlements'" --- Right. Then why are those settlements and the wall still illegal under international law? Here's a great article that could explain some things to you, if you're interested:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-scobbie17-2009dec17,0,2895217.story
- "Now you really must be kidding. Just what is your source?"
--- the problem is called "Palestinian right of return" and is still is a matter of constant debate among historians, experts and free press. Your pdf document can't solve it and can't answer all the questions. In wikipedia, it states: "/ The Palestinian refugee problem started during the 1948 Palestine War, when between 700,000 and 750,000 Arab Palestinians fled OR were expelled from their homes and the area that became Israel. /". In short, Arab Palestinians fled in some cases of their own free will, in some cases through fear; in other cases they were expelled.
Here are is another interesting article with many quotes from different sources (pro/cons):
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000481
- "now where exactly did I say they were easy and clear? " --- Then I'm glad we both agree there's no easy answers on those issues.
- "Make up your mind--first you say those t-shirts reflect "dark humor", and now you say it demonstrates immorality" --- I think it does demonstrate immorality and unprofessionalism of those who wore them; not to mention their insensitivity (which is, to be fair, common to armies in the world). But since some people would also describe it as some sort of tasteless black humour, I mentioned it as well. In any case, they were wrong and need to be condemned. Calling them merely "a very graphic and provocative statement about those who are out to kill Jews" is not the best way to do it, if you asked me.
- "Pathetic. Do you have any idea how free and open society is in Israel?" --- Says who? I got different information. Things are not so rosy as you may think. Let's see what does the U.S. say about it:
- U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126286.html ). I was quite surprised (in a positive way) to hear those words from the U.S.. I guess there are some things lobbyist money can’t buy. :)
Perhaps Israel is open society, but only for Jews (at least for those who don't criticize Israeli army). I still remember those attacks on Israeli groups like Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem, who dared to talk about behaviour of Israeli soldiers in the Palestinian territories. They were immidiately called "left-wing traitors" and "self-hating Jews". That's why I have no problems understanding of those who wish to stay anonymous. However, I can also understand why some people don't believe them.
As for mr Goldstone, I'm kinda amused at how many rants the Israeli leadership, israeli apologists and angry bloggers are directing against their fellow Zionist. They ignored that as a Jew, he is less likely to be anti-Israel. That a trustee of an Israeli university is less likely to be anti-Israel than someone who isn’t a trustee of an Israeli university. In the end, a person appointed by a State to investigate WW2 Nazi activity is less likely to be anti-Israel than someone who was never so appointed. They never mentioned those details. Instead, they launched personal attacks on him, calling him SHJ etc. We've seen it before (in case of attacks on AI, HRW, BTS etc).
Again, I have no problems believing that those NGOs are not perfect and that sometimes they make mistakes (who doesn't?). The problem is that the mission of groups like NGO Monitor and many pro-israel bloggers (like you) is not to "restore" balance, but rather to make sure Israel is NEVER (and I mean never) held accountable for its ongoing illegal behavior. Their methods are well known. Either they're trying to use charges of anti-Semitism (to blacken and delegitimize some HR employees, peace activists, journalists and investigators), or they try to make Israel the victims.
- "And you are saying there is no sign of bias here?" --- I'm saying you're exaggerating a bit. I see all those attacks on Goldstone as a witch hunt against him, because he dared to criticize Israel (even though he's a Jew and loves Israel).
- "When you start giving me sources for what you say instead of consistently relying on generalizations, I will give you my list." --- You can keep your list. I'm not interested in wasting my time for proving you that media is not all anti-israel as you believe and that it can be trusted. You know what, believe what you want to believe, it's your life after all.
- "Again, you ignore:
1. what Israel has to say about this
2. the fact that Israel provided water and other necessities to Gaza during the war
3. the fact that no matter how accurate the weapons, mistakes happen."
--- I didn't ignore it. It's just that:
1. I don't trust army's spokesperson and its own investigations (because of events that happened in the past).
2. I think it was the least Israel could do after all.
3. Yes, there's always a possibility. But knowing Israel's policy of collective punishments, it's hard to believe (or proove) it was a pure mistake.
- "Um....who's left???" --- Israeli Human Rights organizations, Israeli journalists, Israeli intellectuals etc.
My point is, in today's era of internet and TV, there is no need to travel all the way to Iraq or Gaza to learn what's going on there
Obviously not. If you were right, pro-Palestinian apologists would not be going around claiming that Gaza was one of the most densely populated places in the world.
The point is that again you resort to vague generalities--all you need for information is TV and the Internet: which TV programs? Which Internet sites? Or do you claim they are all the same. As if TV is unbiased; as if Internet site s do not have an agenda.
Re: Blairs sister-in-law and others, the point is what they say, and what they say clearly do not match the reality. As for you, to say that a "big part of Gaza remains in ruins" again is vague and meaningless.
What exactly do you mean?
Then why are those settlements and the wall still illegal under international law?
They aren't
So instead of arguing the point, you throw a link at me?
Hey, I can play that game too!
Here we gooooooo!
Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies
Legality of the settlements
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW - LEGAL POSITION PAPER
The Great Israeli Settlement Myth
The Illegal-Settlements Myth
Israeli settlements are more than legitimate
Israel's settlements are legal
Israel’s Legal Claim to the land of Israel
International Law And The Arab Israel Conflict
Justice In International Law
The Jewish People's Right to the Land of Israel
The "Mandate for Palestine" & the Law of War
Of course, I can find more articles--including legal scholars, just as you can. But for you to claim that because some legal scholars have written that the settlements are illegal means they actually are illegal is ridiculous!
the problem is called "Palestinian right of return" and is still is a matter of constant debate among historians, experts and free press. Your pdf document can't solve it and can't answer all the questions. In wikipedia, it states: "/ The Palestinian refugee problem started during the 1948 Palestine War, when between 700,000 and 750,000 Arab Palestinians fled OR were expelled from their homes and the area that became Israel. /". In short, Arab Palestinians fled in some cases of their own free will, in some cases through fear; in other cases they were expelled.
And how do you propose to figure under what conditions each left? Are you proposing to grant the same rights to descendants? And just how does the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands fit into this?
I guess there are some things lobbyist money can’t buy.
A statement that speaks volumes about where you are coming from.
They ignored that as a Jew, he is less likely to be anti-Israel
Another absurd comment.
Check out what Richard Silverstein wrote.
Actually, that link no longer works, because Silverstein removed the page--here is the reason why.
By blindly asserting that a Jew who criticizes Israel somehow acquires an extra level of believability, you ignore the possibility that the exact opposite is true: that such a person has an agenda, one so passionate and unthinking that any statement implying something negative about Israel is accepted as fact.
The problem is that the mission of groups like NGO Monitor and many pro-israel bloggers (like you) is not to "restore" balance, but rather to make sure Israel is NEVER (and I mean never) held accountable for its ongoing illegal behavior. Their methods are well known. Either they're trying to use charges of anti-Semitism (to blacken and delegitimize some HR employees, peace activists, journalists and investigators), or they try to make Israel the victims.
And again the best you can do is make vague and general accusations without proof. After all, we both know your claims are not based on actually reading what they write--you're the one, who when asked to define what you mean by 'Zionist' can do no more than give a link, rather than at least rewriting a part of it in your own words.
I'm saying you're exaggerating a bit. I see all those attacks on Goldstone as a witch hunt against him, because he dared to criticize Israel (even though he's a Jew and loves Israel).
Since you are only parroting what you read, and do not even bother to deal with the criticisms of the report are, claims like this understandably carry no weight.
I don't trust army's spokesperson and its own investigations (because of events that happened in the past).
How convenient. So Israel is not believed to defend itself--in spite of the documentation that it provides.
Yet you believe Israeli intellectuals and journalists?
Which ones?
And so when any of them quote the IDF or the government, are they automatically dismissed.
There is nothing noble or open-minded by claiming outright to never believe the IDF or the Israeli government--just a convenient cop out and an excuse to do any of the heavy lifting required to make any real judgement.
i don't think we'll ever agree.
Post a Comment