Noam Chomsky forthrightly advocates a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. This does not excuse his totally one-sided view of the conflict.
He indicates that the Israelis broke the ceasefire in November 2008 but does not mention why. They noticed a tunnel being built from Gaza to the Israeli side; this was the same tactic used when Hamas infiltrated Israel a couple of years before to kill two soldiers and capture a third on the Israeli side. In retaliation for destroying the tunnel, Hamas launched heavy rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli towns and cities. It was to silence this attack that Israel launched its massive operations against Gaza in Dec. 2008 and Jan. ‘09.
Legal scholars disagree on this, but there are many who argue that Israel had the legal right to interdict and inspect cargoes heading toward Gaza, to prevent the importation of offensive weaponry. The Israelis were unprepared for the fact that the sixth ship they boarded included “activists” intent on a violent confrontation. Cornered, outnumbered and beset by attackers, Israel’s naval commandos used lethal force.
There is much that Israel can be blamed for before, during and after this tragic incident, but there is also much blame to go around. Prof. Chomsky is smart enough to know this.
Posted by rseliger on Jun 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM
rseliger,
I think you make some good points. I saw youtube video footage of the violent altercation between the ship’s passengers and the IDF soldiers. It certainly looks as though the activists also used lethal force. They attacked and beat several soldiers with clubs and threw one over board into the sea. This has less to do with self defense than blind, bloody rage at Israel. It was certainly not necessary for the activists to attack the soldiers and had they not done this nine people would not have been killed. I’m sure there could be legal problems with the way this whole thing was handled by the IDF but they do have the right to inspect ships coming into Gaza. The Egyptians also exersized this right during their three year blockade and it was found acceptable. Gaza is not a legally recognized part of Egypt either.
I am not suprised that Chomsky didn’t provide the context for the broken ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in November 2008. Failure to do so is tantamount to outright lying. He was deliberately misleading. He didn’t provide a context for this accusation either;
“For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats between Cyprus and Lebanon and killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes holding them hostage in Israeli prisons.”
One loses all credibility as a journalist or scholar not merely because of bias, but arguing in a deliberately misleading fashion. I expect this from FOXNews but not a noted scholar who taught for years at MIT. This is very disappointing. Regardless of one’s political beliefs regarding Israel it is necessary to be objective and fair, reserving judgement until all the facts are accurately presented by all parties concerned. It is important to deal in facts and not hyperbole. This is as much a part of the problem as anything else.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Contrary to rseliger’s assertion, the Gaza blockade is not and never has been about “interdicting and inspecting” cargo for the “importation of offensive weaponry.” Its goal has always been political: to cause the civilian population as much suffering as possible - while still politically excusable - in order for the Palestinians in Gaza to reject and rise up against the Hamas leadership elected in January 2006. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass notoriously explained in 2006.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03
Maintaining a strict embargo on arms and related materiel, which could be used by Hamas against Israeli civilians, is arguably reasonable. But Israel’s severe restriction on medicines, food, and construction material needed to rebuild the thousands of homes - as well as schools and medical facilities - destroyed in Israel’s three-week military offensive two and a half years ago is NOT.
Rseliger “is smart enough to know this,” and his blatantly false assertion about the goals of the Gaza blockade are exposed by simply reviewing the items listed by Israel itself as embargoed.
Posted by Imran on Jun 8, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Sorry, I left out the link for the current embargoed items. See the Economist at:
http://www.economist.com/node/16264970
The source for the Economist article is the Israeli human rights group Gisha.
Posted by Imran on Jun 8, 2010 at 11:03 AM
And rseliger’s statement about the heavily armed Israeli commandos being “cornered, outnumbered and beset by attackers” is a laughable attempt at role reversal.
“As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.”
For the full article by M.J. Rosenberg, see:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03-7
The primary Israeli defense that the passengers attacked heavily armed commandos first, and the poor fellows only responded in kind (i.e. that the passengers were to blame, they should have cooperated non-violently) seemed ludicrous on its face. It is not surprising that even this flimsy excuse for murdering innocents on the high seas is falling apart as the IDF now admits “doctoring” the video, and the hostages side of the story is finally being revealed.
“According to survivors - who include a former ambassador, a Nobel laureate and several well-known human rights activists - the Israeli commandos came heavily armed with explosives and automatic weapons, and some opened fire from the air before landing on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel leading the flotilla ...
Among those offering a contradictory account was Ed Peck, a former U.S. ambassador and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism during the Reagan administration. who was on board the Sfendoni vessel of the Freedom Flotilla.
‘The first thing we knew was the sound of footsteps, and my eye lids flicked open, and there they were, heavily armed,’ said Peck, who was one of the first hostages to be released. ‘The Israeli government keeps referring to the paint guns, but the paint guns were attached to the automatic weapons and the stun grenades and the pepper spray and the tasers and everything else that these guys carry.’”
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05-0
Rseliger’s post defending these outrageous IDF actions demonstrates a much more biased view of the conflict than anything he claims regarding Mr. Chomsky’s excellent peice above.
Posted by Imran on Jun 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM
And if we are looking for “context” surrounding the broken ceasefire agreement, I would respectfully point to the following from a Huffington Post article entitled “Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December.” The article states:
“...The ceasefire agreement that went into effect Jun. 19, 2008 required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.
In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, the agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and “allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza” within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas ...
Despite Israel’s refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Centre (IICC), an NGO which is close to the Israeli intelligence community.
In the first days after the ceasefire took effect, Islamic Jihad fired nine rockets and a few mortar rounds in retaliation for Israeli assassinations of their members in the West Bank. In August another eight rockets were fired by various groups,, according to IDF data cited in the report. But it shows that only one rocket was launched from Gaza in September and one in October.
The report recalls that Hamas “tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement” on other Palestinian groups, taking “a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement,” including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the ceasefire.
On Nov. 4 - just when the ceasefire was most effective - the IDF carried out an attack against a house in Gaza in which six members of Hamas’s military wing were killed, including two commanders, and several more were wounded ...
After that Israeli attack, the ceasefire completely fell apart, as Hamas began openly firing rockets into Israel, the IDF continued to carry out military operations inside Gaza, and the border crossings were “closed most of the time,” according to the ITIC account ...”
Here is the link to the full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/israel-rejected-hamas-cea_n_156639.h html?page=2&show_comment_id=19558888#comment_19558888
It is indeed important to deal in facts not hyperbole.
Posted by Imran on Jun 8, 2010 at 12:30 PM
I guess that I repeatedly touch a nerve for our dear friend, Imran. The rise of Hamas, and the on-and off-again attacks from Gaza, undermined the plan to make Gaza into a new “Singapore”; many Israelis and its supporters (like myself) believe that the blockade is untenable: See http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/07/2739489/israel-facing-tough-choices-on-gaza-as-criticism-of-blockade-mounts.
We shouldn’t doubt, however, that it was imposed as a security strategy. Part of that strategy was to impose punishment on the population of Gaza (to turn them against Hamas), but not mass starvation. Hence the crude remark by an Israeli official, that Imran enjoys quoting, about putting Gazans on a diet.
Imran would surely not enjoy quoting hateful remarks and writings by Hamas and other militants about Israelis and Jews. Alas, these people are enemies; the purpose of a progressive is to look for ways that these people can move beyond their conflict.
Posted by rseliger on Jun 8, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I have repeated stated that the purpose of my posts has always been to respond to misstatements by Zionists, who are either trying to justify the occupation, or in the form of apologetics in order to cover for the crimes being committed in their name. In my opinion, pointing out these erroneous statements is the first best step towards acheiving a just and lasting peace.
For example, my first post was in direct response to your inaccurate blanket statement regarding Israel’s motive for the blockade (weapons). I argued that the goal has always been political, and that the means amounted to collective punishment. I pointed to the non-weapons related items being embargoed as proof of this contention. Rather than dispute this, you now concede that “part” of strategy was indeed political. Progress.
My next post was in direct response to the role-reversal you posed regarding humanitarian activists and heavily armed commandos storming a ship on the high seas. I pointed out that (1) the passengers arguably had a right to defend themselves and (2) that it now appears that the commandos may have actually fired first. While we can disagree about what really happened, is my version any less “progressive” than the official Israeli version that you quote nearly verbatim and without reservation?
And my final post addressed your (and cabby’s) criticism of the lack of “context” regarding the failure of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. But is your context any more or less “progressive” than mine or Mr. Chomsky’s simply because it supports the Palestinian rather than the Zionist narrative? Is it really conducive to peace when we place all blame on Hamas for the ceasefire breakdown (like you do without qualification in your post), but not so when we point out Israel’s errors?
The Palestinians have a side to tell as well, and as the dispossessed, their side is the indispensible one to a just and lasting peace. The first step in helping “people move beyond their conflict” is correctly identifying that causes of that conflict. Obscuring those causes with Zionist propaganda, as we have for over 50 years, serves only to deepen and further such conflict.
Posted by Imran on Jun 8, 2010 at 2:02 PM
“But is your context any more or less “progressive” than mine or Mr. Chomsky’s simply because it supports the Palestinian rather than the Zionist narrative?”
That’s the problem right there, Imran. Chomsky provided no context at all, Zionist, anti-Zionist or otherwise. He simply baldly stated that Israel broke the ceasefire without any further explanation. He also stated that the Israeli Navy were tantamount to pirates on the high seas althroughout their history with no explanation of events at all of any kind whatsoever. This is what I meant by hyperbole replacing facts. Chomsky’s rant was long on hyperbole and short on the relevant facts.
I know that Hamas ceased firing rockets at Israel for the four months of the ceasefire in late 2008. This is beyond dispute. But rocket fire is not the only way to break a ceasefire. Hamas has never denied attempting to tunnel into Israel through Gaza’s northern border. No government in the world would allow terrorists to tunnel into their country to commit acts of terror. After the Israeli incursion which killed the six Hamas gunmen, Israel was willing to unconditionally resume the ceasefire as before. Hamas then responded with rocket fire. This was a mistake.
The actual facts in the Mavi Marmara incident are still not altogether clear and so I will reserve judgement until the much anticipated flurry of investigations are completed. For now I oppose the blockade and believe that as much humanitarian aid as is needed be extended to the people of Gaza. This would be the only decent thing for Israel to do. It should be done immediately.
If Israel just did what it says it is doing, most of the time it would be well supported. But that’s never what it does. Supposedly, israel’s reason for the Gaza siege has been to stop the rocket fire. If it restricted the flow of goods just to search for and stop rockets, no one would object. But, of course, Israel is stopping masses of necessary things, which do not relate to rockets, and this immediately puts the lie to its justifications for the siege. But if the purpose of the siege is to dictate to the people of Gaza who shall govern them, then the siege is a crime against humanity. In no case would Israel have a legitimate reason to stop a ship of humanitarian supplies, and certainly not with a military assault clearly planned in such a way as to maximize the potential for violence.
There are masses of legalisms and manipulated details constantly slathered over the basic facts, as is always the case when states commit crimes. But the basic facts still show through. The purpose of the siege was to punish the people of Gaza for electing Hamas. This is not a legitimate purpose.
Posted by epppie on Jun 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM
What a pity that propagandists from hasbara was coming to spread lies about what happened in Gaza and about Chomsky biased.Chomsky is very well informed and if he is biased he is in Israeli side because a people closed in a cave has the right to defend itself and to riposte with its weak means.But is a siege decided only by Israel without a decision of UN valuable for other countries?Has Israel the “right” to impede help for other countries especially the the other countries are in friendly relations with Israel and could not be any suspicion of bearing weapons
Posted by sherban on Jun 8, 2010 at 11:04 PM
As far as I can tell, the basic process is to pile up heaps of legalisms and detailed allegations, mostly distorted and some simply false (we seem to have seen more false than distored allegations about the flotilla!) in hopes that onlookers will simply throw up their hands and rely on their prejudices to sort things out. And, judging by polls, this is exactly what happens. About the same percentage of Americans that always sides with Israel sided with Israel here. They would be better off relying on basic good sense to sort things out, rather than prejudice. You see some defenseless ships bringing peaceful supplies to an increasingly desperate population. You see those ships subjected to a massive military assault in the middle of the night. You see multitudes of killed and wounded, some of the killed having been killed execution style or otherwise in cold blood, apparently. IT’S NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT AND WRONG HERE. But it takes a lot of ingenuity to stir up a cloud of factules and purported legalisms. And a lot of people stamping that cloud into the air through all media.
The truth has the virtue of simplicity. It’s not necessarily simple, but it has simplicity. Falsehood tends to fall away into complexity and absurdity as it is challenged. Notice how, as the people who survived the flotilla come forward to tell their stories, Israel’s narrative becomes more and more elaborate? Now we hear that the Mavi Marmara had 50 hardened and heavily armed Turkish military trained fighters waiting in ambush for the IDF commandos (who, remember, shouldn’t have been assaulting the ship in the first place)! Even in the face of such a truly massive ambush, supposedly, no one in the IDF got killed. I mean, they are good, really, really good, that they can actually dodge bullets!
Of course, it’s just nonsense. One wonders how much more baroque the stories spun by Israel are going to become.
Posted by epppie on Jun 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM
“The truth has the virtue of simplicity.”
This is the most ridiculous assertion I’ve ever heard. If the truth were simple there wouldn’t so much disagreement. I guess you believe anyone who disagrees with you or who refuses to rush to judgement before all the facts have come to light is “prejudiced” but it is obvious to me who the real prejudiced ones are. I haven’t heard of any Israeli claims to there being Turkish troops on board but I did see a set of fairly damning photos from the Turkish Press showing passengers attacking and seriously injuring several Israeli soldiers. Apparently, they were not so defenseless.
http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=9&rid=2
It is also the case that Israeli soldiers faced lethal mob violence and some were stabbed. This comes from Ha’aretz which is an Israeli source but which is quite critical of Israel and features some of Israel’s most quoted and relied upon critics.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/we-fired-because-we-were-attacked-says-israeli-captain-in-gaza-flotilla-op-1.293571?localLinksEnabled=false
There are also allegations that an Israeli Naval radio operator successfully contacted the ships captain to warn him about Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and was rebuffed with vile threats and racist insults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/full-gaza-flotilla-radio-communication-auschwitz-911-helping-arabs/
Even the Guardian, generally hostile to Israel, reported that the Israeli Navy issued several warnings by radio to the ships captains.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/israeli-attacks-gaza-flotilla-activists
NPR, a fairly objective source, also confirms Israeli warnings and that soldiers were violently attacked as they repelled onto the Mavi Marmara even as they warned the passengers of their peaceful intent to steer the ship away from the blockade to dock in Ashdod where the cargo would be inspected and taken overland to Gaza under the observation of the activists.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127286256
It is very easy to slam anything you disagree with as “hasbara” and Zionist apologetics. Behaving this way only damages your credibility.I am only trying to get all the facts. The problem with issues like this is that everybody immediately takes sides in ignorance and then blindly defends their position as if it were their religion.
Cabby,
Regarding the Gaza ceasefire you are certain Hamas violated. let me offer the following. The ceasefire did NOT prohibit the digging of tunnels. How could it? Since Gaza is an open air prison, the only way to get in and out of it is tunnelling. There are hundreds of such tunnels in and out of Gaza, and they are an essential life-line for its 1.5 million people. While it is undisputed that some of these tunnels are used for military purposes, the ceasefire only required both sides to stop shooting at each other, and as you concede, Hamas held up its end of the bargain, despite Israel’s continuing refusal to hold up its end.
Further, this particular tunnel was 250 METERS INSIDE Gaza, as was the house that Israel raided, as were the Hamas members that Israel killed. This was a clear violation of the ceasefire, without even addressing the numerous Israeli violations/provocations prior to this event, not the least of which was Israel’s refusal to ease the blockade as it had promised. Nothing in the ceasefire prohibited Hamas (or Israel for that matter) from digging tunnels or maintaining any other perimeter fortifications (offensive or defensive) ON THEIR SIDE of the border.
In your desire to defend the Israeli version (despite having to work around the fact that Israel had clearly entered Gaza and fired upon Hamas), you tendered the worst possible motive regarding this tunnel to Hamas, assumed the best possible motive for Israel, but more importantly overlooked the very terms of the ceasefire that rendered the motives of both sides irrelevant as long as they did not act on them by crossing the border and shooting at each other.
While it is easy to criticize others for having a bias as opposed to a “factual” basis for their positions, it is more difficult to subject one’s own views to similar scrutiny.
Posted by Imran on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Cabby,
You are wise to reserve judgment on this Freedom Flotilla incident. Nearly everything we have heard since the attack has come from official Israeli sources, carefully crafted and edited to control the narrative. For example, while the IDF has conveniently provided a video, what is left out is the “context,” i.e. what happened BEFORE the passengers began “resisting.” There is plenty of evidence that ought to exist on this issue, as there were hundreds of passengers on board the flotilla, including journalists. But, all cameras, phone, computers, and notes were taken from all of these hostages (much of it intentionally destroyed by the Israelis on board the ships before even being reviewed).
But for the sake of argument, assuming it was a clear case of a “lynching,” wouldn’t these items actually help Israel make its case? Particularly now, as many of the initial IDF claims are turning out to be inaccurate, we have here hundreds if not thousands of items that could theoretically corroborate Israel’s claims, right? What’s in these items that needs destroying or hiding from the world if it was as clear a case of “lynching” as rseliger would have you believe? While these Israeli actions by themselves are not evidence, they certainly are suspicious if not damning, and beggar logic or common sense.
In any event, here is a link to the latest testimony of the survivors that have recently been released.
http://www.freegaza.org/boat-trips/survivor-testimonies
Posted by Imran on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:56 PM
“The ceasefire did NOT prohibit the digging of tunnels.”
Imran, I’m disappointed. I always regarded you as too clever to make such a statement. I goes without saying that armed gunmen tunneling into another country’s territory is an act of war. This act amounted to breaking the ceasefire. You really seem to be splitting hairs here. You admit in your post, the tunnel was a mere 250 meters away from Gaza’s northern border with Israel. Where do you think they were tunneling to? Isn’t it obvious.
I admit that Israel acted pre-emptively in attacking the tunnel. Israel tends not to wait until it’s to late.
So let me see if I’ve got this right. If Hamas had pre-emptively attacked an IDF patrol 250 meters INSIDE Israel and killed 6 of its soldiers, it could have claimed (and you would have supported) the contention that they did NOT violate the cease fire?
And Hamas presumably could claim this because they are permitted to assume the worst (as you do) about these soldiers’ intentions, regardless of whether they were or were not actually intending to engage in hostilities, based upon their prior history of aggression alone and their proximity to the border? Where do we think these soldiers were aiming their guns? How many times have they crossed over in the past, isn’t it obvious?
Or is it just Israel that gets to engage in assumptions and pre-emptive strikes?
Did you know tunnels are also used as bunkers for storage of weapons and as routes for intellegence gathering. If these are acts of war, what are Israel’s on-going violations of Gaza’s air and sea spaces?
When warring parties declare a cease fire, it does not mean that they cease all work on fortifications (either offensive or defensive) along such border in the event such cease fire fails or expires. Nor does such conduct (by either party) constitute a violation, otherwise Israel’s numerous military exercises and reconaissance/intelligence gathering missions along the border and along Gaza’a coast would then also have been violations. Isn’t it more reasonable and likely that a real ceasefire does not allow for either side to unilaterally make such assumptions, and instead requires that both sides not shoot at each other, regardless of what they THINK of the actions or intentions on the other side of the border?
Posted by Imran on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Imran,
Your post makes perfect sense in a legal vacuum. But reality is quite different. When dire security emergencies arise and quick decisions have to be made to save lives certain assumptions are justified. There is no reason to tunnel that close to the border unless you intend to cross under it. Nothing else makes sense given the known facts. You seem to be rationalizing in your post. The tunnel was literally a stone’s throw from the Israeli border. I can well understand their “assumption” which was probably highly accurate. To do nothing under the circumstances would have been highly irresponsible of Israel.
IDF patrols are in fact common and there would be no reason to assume an unprovoked Israeli attack. Armed gunmen tunneling within meters of your borders is not common and can only be interpreted in one way. I know you disagree but I really think you’re being somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, we can safely assume non-violent intent on the part of Israel, which has NEVER EVER engaged in violence against the Palestinians, but it would be “highly irresponsible” to ignore the obvious violent intent on the part of the Palestinians, especially Hamas, for after all, they are part of that “Islamic culture,” you know. Shame on you.
Enjoyed our chat.
Posted by Imran on Jun 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM
I never said Islamic culture was itself violent. What I meant was that there are many who behave violently in the name of Islam. This is unfortunate but it doesn’t tarnish the reputation of most Muslims who are peaceful and decent people. Sorry if I gave offense.
By the way, you insinuated unfair intent in my analysis. Israel has engaged in attacks but never in the course of a routine border patrol. I don’t believe Israel ever engaged in a sudden, unprovoked attack without warning. There was usually some context even if the military attack was unjust and ill advised.
AS Ilan Pappe wrote in a recent article called What Drives Israel?
“The price for my intellectual dissidence was foretold: condemnation and excommunication. In 2007 I left Israel and my job at Haifa University for a teaching position in the United Kingdom, where views that in Israel would be considered at best insane, and at worst as sheer treason, are shared by almost every decent person in the country, whether or not they have any direct connection to Israel and Palestine.”
And a little further:
“In the past, the free world faced dangerous situations like that by taking firm actions such as the sanctions against South Africa and Serbia. Only sustained and serious pressure by Western governments on Israel will drive the message home that the strategy of force and the policy of oppression are not accepted morally or politically by the world to which Israel wants to belong.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/essay-of-the-week-what-drives-israel-1.1032971
Peter Beinart in his excellent article: The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment:
“...the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism.”
And: “Rationalizing and minimizing Palestinian suffering has become a kind of game.” This point is exactly what is coming back these last days since the Israeli government is controling the information and wants to be the principal investigator of its own crimes.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false
The remark that Chomsky doesn’t elaborate is just ludicrous of course. After dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the issue at hand. Some people just don’t want to know and prefer to stay in a state of “comfortable illusion”, as Chomsky once phrased it.
In the Afterword To Failed States, Chomsky suggests 7 solutions which “for people who believe in democracy [...] are very conservative suggestions”. For example: Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; give up the Security Counsel veto; cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending.
The latest “easing of the blockade” by letting in shaving cream is just one more proof of the moral deficit of this scary bunch of thugs who are a danger to world peace.
Posted by Engelbert on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Cabby, you state regarding Israeli behavior “There was usually some context…”
There always is Cabby, for both sides. It speaks volumes that you will instinctively assume such favorable context for the occupier Israel, and reject out of hand any such context for the occupied Palestinians.
It appears that when you complain about a lack of a “context” in articles like Mr. Chomsky’s above, what you are really just complaining about is the lack of an Israeli context, which to me is stunning, considering that we hear the Israeli context repeated ad nauseam in the MSM all the time. There is no shortage of the Zionist narrative here in the US. But, were it not for people like Mr. Chomsky, you might not even know that there was such a thing as a Palestinian one.
And while there are certainly two sides (or “contexts” if you wish) to a story, these sides are not ethically or morally equal. As I have stated before, there is no equivalence between the violent taker of land and those from whom it is taken. Nor is there any equivalence between the side that uses its overwhelming military superiority to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the suicide bomber who kills a few dozen. It’s the moral equivalence of heavily armed thieves complaining that the lightly or unarmed victim is fighting back. But, hey, “they’re both using violence.”
“Any call for a ‘balanced’ discourse on this issue - where the motto ‘there are two sides to every story’ is revered almost religiously - is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as ‘balance.’ The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure.”
For the full article, see::
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/21-2
You are certainly welcome to your “context.” As for me, I tend to support, rather than criticize, the few lone voices attempting to be heard over the din of the Zionist narrative in the MSM.
Posted by Imran on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM
“It appears that when you complain about a lack of a “context” in articles like Mr. Chomsky’s above, what you are really just complaining about is the lack of an Israeli context…”
Wrong!! Chomsky didn’t provide any context as I pointed out. Don’t assume anything about my position beyond what I explicitly assert. This is unfair and pointless. It is obvious that Chomsky gave no examples of what he meant when he referred to Israel’s “piracy” in the past.
”...the few lone voices attempting to be heard over the din of the Zionist narrative in the MSM.”
Of all the mindlessly parroted mantras, the often repeated one about the allegedly “zionist” media is the stupidest and the most egregiously inaccurate. Outside of FOXNews, who gives a pro-Israel position? The UK Guardian? The BBC? MSNBC? CNN? CBS? TIME? NEWSWEEK? The Washington Post? The New York Times? All these sources, even the last one, have given stark, uncompromising portrayals of Israeli brutality in Gaza, Lebanon, Ramallah in 2002 and has clearly revealed the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians. In my recent research, it is clear that all the major US and UK newsmedia, without a single exception, blamed Israel for the breaking of the Israel/Hamas ceasefire in November 2008. They all gave a stark and brutally honest portrayal of the invasion of Gaza following the broken ceasefire (check the many examples on youtube) and focused heavily on the suffering in Gaza caused by the ongoing blockade. None parroted the Israeli line on the Mavi Marmara incident. They gave both sides, as professional journalists are obliged to do, but Israel came out looking worse. The MSM is fairly unsparing with regard to Israeli actions.
The major media’s honeymoon with the State of Israel ended in the late 1970s and early 1980s during Israel’s aerial bombardment, invasion and occupation of Lebanon. I believe the media is justified in giving such stark portrayals. But don’t spew that utterly offensive and inaccurate nonsense about the “pro-Israel media.” If the media was so pro-Israel, the whole world, including most of the American public, wouldn’t be so outraged at their policies.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Mr. Chomsky has written more books than most people read their entire lives. There’s plenty of “context” in a book (where the time and space can be spent for such things), but it is less conducive for the short article or essay format. If you want to see his context, I would encourage you to read some of his material.
My comments were about the lack of a Palestinian Narrative in the US MSM. So leaving aside the Guardian and the BBC, do you really think that the Palestinian Narrative is now (or even has been) presented on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, TIME, NEWSEEK, The Washington Post and, The New York Times? Are you seriously contending that these entities have equally presented the Zionist and Palestinian Narratives of the conflict, including their respective framing of the causes of the conflict?
It appears that your idea of the Palestinian narrative is criticism of “Israeli actions” only? It is not, and while these actions are rightly criticized, the Palestinian Narrative of dispossession by the primarily European architects of the Zionist Project, has been (and remains) notably absent from these stories. None of these entities dares even address the primary contention of the Palestinian Narrative, that of the “original sin” of these Zionists in decided amonst themselves to forcibly create a Jewish state in Palestine, without even consulting much less securing the consent of the indigenous population. As the triggering event for this conflict, its kind of an important “context,” if you think about it.
We have gotten so used to hearing the Zionist side of things, that even criticism of Israeli “actions” or “policies” is perceived to be the equivalent of presenting or advocating the Palestinian narrative. Incredible.
Posted by Imran on Jun 10, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Cabby,
OK, while it would be better if you read through most if not all of Mr. Chomsky’s books, I’ll give the you book title up front, wherein the “context” you seek is laid out.
“Pirates and emperors, old and new: international terrorism in the real world.”
BTW, most people who have actually been exposed to the Palestinian Narrative would already have been aware of these facts, and would have thought your demand for the proof behind his statement about Israel’s piracy to be naive and/or simply ill-informed.
Posted by Imran on Jun 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM
“It appears that your idea of the Palestinian narrative is criticism of “Israeli actions” only?... None of these entities dares even address the primary contention of the Palestinian Narrative, that of the “original sin” of these Zionists in decided amonst themselves to forcibly create a Jewish state in Palestine, without even consulting much less securing the consent of the indigenous population.”
As someone who has closely followed the Israel/Palestine conflict in the US news media for the past 35 years I must say that the media doesn’t really push either narrative. Admittedly, it takes as a given the State of Israel’s right to exist. This disturbs many people but most of the world also accepts Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state so this doesn’t make the US news media especially “zionist” by comparison. The US news media, like most news media tries to objectively report current facts and issues as they actually now exist. Their job is not to delve far back into history and discuss the deep roots of the current situation. They are journalists not historians. Despite this fact, they have openly explored both the Zionist and Palestinian narratives of history albeit superficially. Interestingly, they have found merit and flaws in both.
They have stressed the holocaust in Europe as a key motivation in creating a Jewish state but also decry the mass expulsion of Palestinians in the course of the 1948 War. They tend to believe that both sides had a legitimate claim to parts of Palestine by 1948 citing UN Partition and long term Jewish settlement in and development of areas of Palestine. At the same time they criticize the merciless expulsions, continued occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians in the territories. Israel existance as an irreversible reality is always assumed as a given. Furthermore, all the neighboring Arab states on Israel’s borders invaded Palestine in 1948, ostensibly with the intention of destroying the nascent Jewish state. This skewed the US perspective towards Israel for a long time. Beginning with the war in Lebanon in 1982 however, the suffering of the Palestinians and their dispossession as a root cause of Mid-East instability, came increasingly to light. Along with it many aspects of the Palestinian narrative also came to light. Israel is also a close US ally. This also affects the US media’s view in a way it doesn’t affect the media in other countries.
Yet, even the US media is increasingly taken aback by Israel’s starkly brutal behavior. These days it really doesn’t appear that they are taking Israel’s side any longer. Media perspective tends to shift with the political winds and prevailing attitudes. More and More the bloom is off the Israeli rose and the Palestinian side of the story is increasingly coming into view for all to see.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Cabby,
I whole-heartedly disagree with your statement that the US news media “doesn’t really push either narrative.” While your posts clearly reflect a more knowledgable view of the conflict than most, I believe that you are most likely confusing information you have received from the progressive media with things you think you heard in the US MSM over the past 35 years. In any event, I’ll leave judgment about the alleged non-bias of the US media regarding the Middle East to the readers of In These Times.
I find it interesting that immediately following your rejection of the US media bias in favor the Zionist narrative, you stress “as a given” such media’s acceptance of Israel’s “right to exist.” And while this appears at first glance to be a seemingly rational assumption, such a “framing of the issue” is a major theme of the Zionist narrative. For what exactly does this mean? The right to a Jewish National Home, or to a Jewish State? The right to exist on pre-1948 Mandate Palestine, the post-1948 war borders, or the pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?
Even though Israelis themselves cannot agree on what this “right to exist” means, it is unequivocally accepted by the US media as the appropriate framing of Middle East conflict. Think about what this means for a second, that the Palestinians have to accept Israel’s (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), that is, the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion without qualification, as the appropriate starting point or framing of the conflict!
Isn’t that convenient, we begin with assuming the legitimacy of occupation (on whatever land the Israelis end up deciding to keep), not with the injustice of the dispossession that triggered the conflict in the first place. You see, the conflict is not really about the dispossesed Palestinians giving up their land to Jews who were fleeing European persecution, its about those gracious Israelis giving up their land to these ungrateful natives for the sake of “peace.” And this is not a pro-Zionist bias?
That is power of “framing the issue,” notwithstanding your comment about the US media’s aversion to discussing history. This history is internalized, accepted almost as faith, and it is then consciously (or unconsciously) presented as the frame or narrative of the conflict.
Criticism of Israeli atrocities in the US MSM (hard to ignore because of their scale and frequency) are simply quibbles about tactics, and should not be confused with the undermining or discarding of the main narrative.
Posted by Imran on Jun 11, 2010 at 10:38 AM
“I find it interesting that immediately following your rejection of the US media bias in favor the Zionist narrative, you stress “as a given” such media’s acceptance of Israel’s “right to exist.” And while this appears at first glance to be a seemingly rational assumption, such a “framing of the issue” is a major theme of the Zionist narrative. For what exactly does this mean? The right to a Jewish National Home, or to a Jewish State? The right to exist on pre-1948 Mandate Palestine, the post-1948 war borders, or the pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?”
I generally agree with the second half of your post which is well argued and quite astute. I think that most people, both inside and outside Israel, have a pretty clear idea of what Israel’s right to exist means. Most of the world accepted Israel’s right to exist “within secure and recognized borders” which basically means they accept the pre-1967 armistice lines as a given. As I’ve said before (as has Finkelstein) that we can accept the reality of Israel without accepting or delving into the issue of the legitimacy of Israel. Most journalists don’t want to get into questioning Israel’s right to exist, not should they. It’s an argument that goes nowhere. What seems to be sustaining the argument is Israel’s unwillingness to offer the Palestinians a viable and just final status agreement. It is the resulting ongoing tension that sustains the issue of Israel’s right to exist. Such an issue would disappear with the formation of a viable independant Palestinian state. Both parties would accept each others existance over time and the issue would become moot . The Israel/Palestine conflict is much like that between Pakistan and India. India has long recognized Pakistan’s reality and legitimacy despite India’s initial bitterness at the separation of Pakistan from India in 1947.
Debate about Plan Dalet aside (this was a secret plan revealed in the 1980s by Israeli “revisionist” historians to expel the Palestinians well before the war even started) Israel accepted the UN partition resolution of 1947 and the Arab League did not. Most of the rest of the world also accepted it. Britain had a legal obligation at the end of its mandate to turn power over to the local inhabitants. Since those local inhabitants consisted of two parties deep in irreconcilable conflict, Britain did the only thing it could do; it turned the whole problem over to the UN. The Palestinians and their Arab League supporters bet on a military victory and lost. The resulting armistice lines became Israel’s internationally recognized borders.
Imran, if the Jews and the Palestinians wanted to form a non-sectarian, binational democratic state, I’d be all for it. The problem is that both sides reject it. The only support for this solution comes from a small circle of intellectuals with no political influence whatsoever. Most people, including the journalists, understand what happened in 1948. But the vast majority of the world’s people have come to acknowledge that both Jews and Arabs had legitimate claims to Palestine. Most people support an end to the illegal occupation by Israel, a lifting of the siege of Gaza and a viable two-state solution. The more Israel resists world opinion on the surest road to peace, the more Israel calls its own legitimacy into question in the eyes of the world.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 11, 2010 at 1:57 PM
It’s a tragedy for Israel today that it is dismissive about factual analysis of its actions whenever these happen to be critical. Noam Chomsky’s insightful piece should have served to inform and mold Israeli public opinion against the criminal activities of its current leadership. Sadly, war-mongering extremists have managed to convince enough Israelis of a make-believe “existential” threat in order to rally support behind its patently criminal conduct. Israelis may imagine that AIPAC and its ilk would be able to muster unequivocal support from Uncle Samin perpetuity - and why not: when even killing Americans wins admiration from current US administration - but it fails to read the writings on the wall. That support is on the wane and the impunity with which it had taken on the world is about to end. In Turkey, it had just lost about the only friend it managed to make in the region. If it maintains this course, it will only have itself to blame for the self-fulfilling prophecy about an existential threat.
Posted by Zia_Ahad on Jun 12, 2010 at 8:15 AM
I read elsewhere that most of the boats of this flotilla were allowed passage, and that violence erupted when Israel demanded the right to inspect the cargo (as countries typically do), and this was refused.
By now, so many stories have sprung up to support either the anti- or pro-Israel perspective that the facts are getting buried deeper every day. Still, if you do some online research of news items, going back
a few weeks to when they first announced their plan to take the flotilla to Gaza, you can probably get a more objective picture of what happened, and why.
Posted by dhfabian on Jun 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM
The roots of the real problem predate the blockade of Gaza. Hamas had been deliberately and violently trying to sabotage the Oslo Peace Process from September 1993 onwards without reprieve. Hundreds of suicide bombings over the period of nearly two decades killing well over a thousand Israelis achieved the objective of destroying a peace intitiative would have made Iran, and their proxies such as Hama and Hezbollah, politically marginalized in the region. Iran has murdered many people and destroyed a peace process that could have led to a total Israeli withdrawl to the 1967 armistice lines with shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. But this isn’t all. They also contributed to the incredible suffering of the Palestinian people themselves.
“Almost 300 children have been killed while taking part in terrorist attacks over the past eight years, a new study conducted by Palestinian Authority researcher Mahdi Jaradat has revealed. A total of 3,973 PA Arabs died in the past eight years while committing acts of terrorism, he found…Hamas carried out more suicide bombings than any other group over the past eight years, with a total of 72. Islamic Jihad was next with 48 suicide bombings, and Fatah was third with 42.”
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2008/11/statistics-of-suicide-bombers.html
Since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada, between five and six thousand Palestinians have been killed by the IDF; far more than Israelis killed by terrorists. But what is amazing is the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians in a fratricidal conflict provoked by Hamas. According to B’Tselem, a widely respected Israeli human rights group, the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians between September 29, 2000 and December 26, 2008 is 593 with 120 of them killed for suspected collaboration with Israel. These figures represent about 10% of the number of Palestinians killed by the IDF during this period.
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp
A detailed statistical analysis by Sean Yom and Basel Saleh confirm that suicide bombings by Hamas began in 1993 in response to the signing of the Oslo Accords, not 1994 as much of the MSM claims.
“Between 1993 and September 2000, 27 suicide missions claimed 120 of the 290 Israeli deaths attributed to Palestinian attacks…”
They further explain that Hamas is the single biggest force behind suicide attacks. Only in 2002 did Fatah commit the most attacks due to the siege of Ramallah in Operation Defensive Shield.
“From 1993 through April 2004, 46 percent of all suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas…”
http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm
I have tried to use mostly non-Jewish sources to make my case. I do believe that although many Palestinians commit these acts out of rage and desperation, Hamas and Iran encourage and support these brutal acts for political advantage. Suicide is not allowed in Islam; however, martyring oneself for Allah (during combat) is not considered the same as commiting suicide. Hamas inculcates religious ferver in order to develop a willing cadre of youths to carry out these missions.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 12, 2010 at 3:27 PM
I agree with cabdriverinchicago, especially on the point about context (or the lack of…). We tend to isolate incidents, disregarding the events and circumstances that culminated with that incident. No one is saying that killing is good. What I am saying is that such incidents don’t simply “come out of the blue.” They are provoked, and responses to provocation are generally predictable. I find it troubling (and revealing) that we tend to disregard the reasons Israel had for setting out to stop the flotilla. There’s a tendency to automatically condemn Israel, regardless of the circumstances, while saying that violence against Israel is entirely “justifiable.”
There is nothing unusual about a country to demanding an inspection of cargo before a ship lands, so why did any flotilla boat refuse to allow an inspection? (I read that the intent was to provoke an attack to create international condemnation of Israel, but at this point, who knows? ). When the Israelis boarded anyway, they were attacked. How did they expect the Israeli’s to then respond? With an apology? Or would it be more rational for the Israelis to assume that the resistance was likely because there were bombs aboard? They were allowed to inspect the other boats, but not this one.
So, I did take this incident out of the context of the larger Gaza crisis precisely to focus on this specific incident —the action and reaction around the flotilla. My larger point is that it is irrational to justify encouraging people to attack Israelis—teaching them that killing Israelis is a virtue and pleasing to God— and then being outraged when Israel responds.
Posted by dhfabian on Jun 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM
I find it highly interesting that the content of the comments are much more balanced and thoughtful than Chomsky’s post. For that I thank all the commenters.
I agree 100% with Seliger that Chomsky’s post is one-sided and also with Cabdriver that, not surprisingly, Chomsky does not provide any context. It is my experience that the Chomsky post is a good example of the pro-Palestinian position.
And this, my friends, causes my deep, deep frustration about this issue. In the US and international academic / journalistic world view (UK Guardian / BBC / MSNBC / CNN / CBS / TIME / NEWSWEEK / WaPo / NYT and, G*d help us, Chomsky), the Palestinian narrative has essentially been unchallenged. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been advanced, but no one seems to want to present the other side. It’s especially frustrating here in the US because the MSM seems obsessed with giving 2 sides to every story regardless of the triviality of the issue, but seems not to want to give the other side of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict.
I want to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, I do, but it is this one sidedness that I cannot abide. If we’re going to constantly hear about 1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that, let’s also hear about the suicide bombers, the rocket attacks and the Hamas charters that specifically warrant killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the earth.
While I do not always agree with Israel’s actions and shake my head at their willingness to be seen as bloodthirsty, I do believe that they are in a completely no-win position now. If they defend themselves they get attacked in the media for militarism and subjugation. If they stand down they get physically attacked in their own country by terrorists.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM
dhfabian and kenister42,
You both have shown some independance and rationality on this issue. I actually didn’t know that all the ships were inspected without a violent incident except for the Mavi Marmara; this adds a whole new perspective to the issue. If I were Navy personel in any country and inspected five ships peacefully while being violently attacked with weapons on the sixth one, I would doubtless suspect something horrible was up and react. I think when all the evidence comes to light, whatever it may be, the majority of people will come to a rational conclusion. I’m not one of those people that take sides out of bias and ignore the facts. I simply want the whole truth no matter what the consequences may be.
I also think that this is a quite astute observation; ”...the Palestinian narrative has essentially been unchallenged. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been advanced…” I think people who closely follow the Israel/Palestine issue from both sides would do well to bear this in mind.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 13, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Some stuff about the floatillas:
1. The boats were bound for Gaza via international then Gazan waters. At no time were they going to have been in Israeli waters. Israel had no right to demand inspection.
2. The blockade was (is) illegal. Israel had no right to stop the boats from docking in Gaza.
3. The boats were in international waters when they were boarded by the IDF, Israel had no right to board them.
4. The floatilla was fired upon before and while being boarded by both Israeli warships and the helicopters that deployed IDF soldiers onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara. No reasonable person could say that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were not entitled to defend themselves at the time they were boarded.
Some stuff about Hamas:
1. Hamas’ last suicide bombing was in 2005.
2. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza and the West Bank.
3. Hamas never adopted the 1988 charter (which calls for the destruction of Israel) as a governmental entity, and it is quite obvious that the language contained within about destroying Israel is a reaction to the decades-long human rights abuses the Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israel.
4. If you still want to zero in on that charter as if it means something, then you also need to wrestle with the fact that by its actions Israel, who is fully capable of it, seems to be intent on actually wiping out the Palestinians. What is more meaningful; the words of Hamas or the actions of Israel?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM
dhfabian,
Your question “There is nothing unusual about a country to demanding an inspection of cargo before a ship lands, so why did any flotilla boat refuse to allow an inspection?” is a good one.
As I have stated before on this website in a discussion with Cabby:
“...I think we can all agree that the right of sovereign state ends (or at least cannot serve as an excuse), if the manner in which that specific right is being exercised constitutes a war crime (see transcript and judgment of Nuremburg Trials). But perhaps an anology would be more helpful.
If a ‘sovereign nation’ decided to herd all of its Jews into an open air prison, impose a blockade upon that prison with the express purpose of ‘putting them on a diet,’ and justify its actions by claiming the ‘right to inspect’ for weapons, would you really have that much trouble seeing that nation’s exercise of its ‘right to inspect’ as unreasonable?
The manner and means by which the ‘right to inspect’ is being implemented, not just its stated goals, are the determinative factors. If the embargoed items were actually limited to weapons, you might have a ‘reasonable’ argument. But you and I both know that this is not the case.
Complying with a ‘sovereign’ nation’s ‘right to inspect’ under such circumstances would be at best legally and morally unconscionable, at worst aiding and abetting a war crime.” Israel has only itself to blame for people’s hesitance (unwillingness) to accept its “right to inspect” excuse by implementing the blockade in such a gross violation of international law.
If Israel had limited the blockade to weapons, they’d have a much stronger case. But you and I both know (based on the non-weapons related items on the embargoed list) that the purpose was to engage in collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.
Regardless of who started shooting first (we’ll find out soon enough), to begin at the boarding (right to inspect), rather than the the purpose/effects of the blockade that are the subject of such boarding (war crime), is something that most people are simply unwilling to do.
Posted by Imran on Jun 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Kenster42,
You state “If we’re going to constantly hear about 1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that, let’s also hear about the suicide bombers, the rocket attacks and the Hamas charters that specifically warrant killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the earth.” Aside from being inaccurate as pointed out by PMureillo, it doesn’t seem to support your point.
We do hear those things, but most people (including those fervently committed to Israel’s “right to exist”) are simply not willing to accept that those things justify, excuse or legitimately provide a “context” for the murder of “1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that,” as you seem to believe or imply.
While many people still buy the Zionist Narrative that the Palestinian resistance constitutes Israel being “physically attacked in their own country by terrorists,” very few are willing to buy that the Israeli conduct you mention in Gaza constituted “defending themselves.”
Accordingly, questioning the treatment of the inmates (can we kill them in this fashion, or simply just starve them) does not in any way constitute an abandonment of the Zionist Narrative or advocacy of the Palestinian Narrative.
Posted by Imran on Jun 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM
PMuriello,
You’re wrong about everything. In the first place the Israelis didn’t start shooting before they were attacked. Here’s a video from Russian Television.
http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/194026
The IDF prepared for the peaceful arrival of the flotilla and repeatedly offered to take all the aid to Gaza after inspection. The Mavi Marmara captain responded with insults and threats.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/israel-no-choice-gaza-flotilla
The idea that Israel had no legal right to stop and inspect the ships is wrong. Here is Article 67 (a) of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, (12 June 1994)
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
The IDF seemed to be acting within their rights according to international law. Furthermore, according to one legal analysis,
“The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration), the first international instrument to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does likewise.”
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/
One of the problems is that international law generally pertains to war between two sovereign states, not non-state actors like Hamas. In any case there is ample precedent in international law for the legality of the IDF actions and the blockade. Egypt also blockaded Gaza for three years for reasons similar to Israel’s. Gaza is not an independant sovereign state. Hamas lawlessly siezed power in 2007 killing the democratically elected Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip and are not recognized as the legitimate sovereign government of Gaza. The PA is but they have been displaced. Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza but must defend itself against the illegal and illegitimate Hamas “government.”
I don’t know where you got your information on Hamas but it is clearly false. Hamas may have stopped suicide attacks in 2005 but clearly encouraged and aided other groups like Islamic Jihad to carry them out.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Hamas won a legislative victory in January 2006 to the 132 member PLC. They won 74 seats or 56% of the vote. The voter turnout was only 77% which means Hamas probably has nowhere near majority support of the Gazan people even at the time and opinion polls have shown that Hamas is even less popular now. As one Palestinian researcher pointed out, the meaning of the results of the 2006 PLC election was somewhat complex.
”...a closer look at the numbers reveals a more complex picture. For one thing, Hamas received only 45 percent of the popular vote. The nature of the electoral system, which magnified the existing fragmentation of Hamas’s opposition, is what gave the Islamist movement the 58 percent of the seats it won. The divided Fatah and four other secular parties won a majority of the popular vote – 55 percent – but only 39 percent of the seats. (A handful of independent candidates won the rest.) Hamas’s support in the wider population is even lower.” Khalil Shikaki Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
Khalil Shikaki’s study further concluded that although Hamas’s popularity is based on frustration with Fatah corruption, most Palestinians generally don’t share Hamas views on the peace process. Shikaki asserts,
“Three quarters of all Palestinians, including more than 60 percent of Hamas supporters, are willing to support reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis based on a two-state solution. During the last 10 years, the trend among the Palestinians has been to move away from hard-line attitudes and to embrace moderate ones. Indeed, more than 60 percent of Hamas voters support an immediate return to negotiations with Israel.”
Shikaki attributes the Hamas victory purely to frustration with the peace process and Fatah corruption.
Also, Hamas was only elected to the PLC, not the presidency. One scholar points out,
“As president, Abbas retains significant governing powers, including: the right to propose legislation; the right to veto legislation (a two-thirds vote of 88 members is required to override a veto); the right to select and remove the prime minister; ultimate authority over the security services; the ability to issue Presidential decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session; and the ability to declare a state of emergency in which he has yet additional powers.”
Hamas is clearly governing illegally. Abbas is the recognized leader of the PA.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Regarding the Hamas Charter I will note the conclusions of a noted Palestinian researcher as presented in a UK House of Commons research document.
Khaled Duzdar, a Palestinian working for the Israel/Palestine Center for Research & Information, wrote shortly after the election that Hamas was a “rigid fundamental radical theocratic movement” that would be unlikely to renounce or modify its charter. He went on to argue that: “Hamas does not believe it must change; it believes that others have to adjust to Hamas”, adding that it would not be compelled to change or moderate its position:
“Hamas believes in one Holy Palestine from the river to sea. It is doubtful they will ever accept any concession on any part of historical Palestine; it is part of their fundamental beliefs.”
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
This comes directly from Article 8 of the 1988 Hamas Charter:
“The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
Here’s a quote from Article 28:
“We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”
Article 22 repeats the slander in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
“This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it…”
Article 32 confirms there belief that the Protocols are real and not a forgery.
“Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…”
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 14, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Cabby,
You state unequivocally that “the Israelis didn’t start shooting before they were attacked.” But I thought you were going to wait until all the facts were in before rushing to judgment on this (“I’m not one of those people that take sides out of bias and ignore the facts. I simply want the whole truth no matter what the consequences may be”).
Especially since the hostages have just been released, and we are only now beginning to get facts contradicting the officially crafted and scripted Israeli story… And even before the upcoming “impartial” Israeli investigation has been completed? Oh well…
And your lengthy posts regarding the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Hamas actually weakens the premise of many Israeli supporters of the blockade; that by engaging in the collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza we can either punish them for supporting/electing Hamas, or in the alternative, get them to “break” with Hamas. For if they did not elect Hamas, and Hamas took power without their consent, what’s the point or purpose in Israel’s gratuitously brutal 4-year-old punishment of a population who, according to you, are as much of a victim of Hamas as Israel is?
Also see: http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/schumers-sippenhaftung-and-the-children-of-gaza.html
In their desire to defend the indefensible, the Israeli excuses seem to be flying all over the map, with no consideration for consistency.
Posted by Imran on Jun 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Here is Senator Charles Schumer’s relevant quote that I inadvertently left out of my post from Juan Cole’s article above:
“And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.”
Posted by Imran on Jun 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM
It’s a tragedy of our times that the survivors of the holocaust have themselves turned into the demons that tomented them. To plead on behalf of a patently apartheid regime in its collective punishment of a nations dispossesed to make room for settlers and corralled into an open air prison is the ultimate irony. It doesn’t take a Naom Chomsky to figure this out. Is it any wonder then that diehard supporters of the bigoted regime in Israel should now take to convoluted and wholly indefensible arguments to try and mask the perpetration of its crimes against humanity. Amazing how any sensible person can bring himself to consider condoning, much less supporting, the unconscionable crimes against a people. To zionist sympathisers, I suppose it is fine to uproot people from their ancestral homes, kill or evict a whole nation and label any resistance as an act of terrorism. Small wonder, then, that the boarding of an aid flotilla by armed commandoes in the high seas (read international waters) and murdering unarmed people of a hitherto friendly country is perfectly legitimate.
Posted by Zia_Ahad on Jun 15, 2010 at 1:46 AM
I think Cabdriver responded to PMuriello’s comments quite well, but I will add three more:
1. The reason why Hamas’ last suicide bombing was in 2005 is because 2005 is when the last portion of the Israel Security Fence separating itself from other countries was completed. This is the fence that has been condemned and decried by pro-Palestinian folks as a “prison wall”.
2. Let’s be frank - if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians / Gazans, they would have done so a long time ago. They are clearly superior from a military perspective and have the ability to defend themselves from a conventional perspective against pretty much anyone except the US. This speaks to Israeli restraint. Clearly, they have not been as restrained as they should have, but Muriello’s statement is false and misleading.
3. Hatred starts wtih education. A survey of 2007 Palestinian 12th Grade textbooks noted the following:
“The teachings repeatedly reject Israel’s right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, teach Israel’s founding as imperialism, and actively portray a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all. The following description of Israel’s founding represents the dominant dogma about Israel in Palestinian schoolbooks: Defining Israel’s founding as a ‘catastrophe unprecedented in history,’ ‘a theft perpetrated by “Zionist gangs,’ together with numerous other hateful descriptions of Israel as ‘colonial imperialist’ and ‘racist’, compounded by the presentation of the conflict as a religious war, leaves no latitude for students to have positive or even neutral attitudes towards Israel. This negative imagery and religious packaging are compounded by hateful presentations of Israeli policy. The young students are imbued with a Palestinian identity as ‘victims’ just by virtue of Israel’s existence. The well-meaning student is left with no logical justification or religious option to accept Israel as a neighbor or to seek coexistence. Given the total rejection of Israel’s right to exist, on nationalistic and religious grounds, Palestinian terror against Israel since Israel’s founding in 1948 is defined as: ‘resistance … acts of most glorious heroism.’ PA educators teach that fighting Israel is not merely a territorial conflict, but also a religious battle for Islam. The schoolbooks define the conflict with Israel as ‘Ribat for Allah’ – ‘one of the actions related to Jihad for Allah, and it means: Being found in areas where there is a struggle between Muslims and their enemies.’”
Are there similar teachings towards Palestinians in Israeli textbooks?
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 15, 2010 at 3:15 AM
As I have argued before, US MSM criticism of some Israeli policies are but mere quibbles about tactics, rather than an abandonment of the Zionist Narrative. And one could not have asked for a more timely or poignant example of this than the contrast in coverage regarding Helen Thomas’ and Senator Schumer’s remarks.
“Thomas was forced into retirement for declaring that Jews ‘should get the hell out of Palestine,’ but New York Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful politicians in the US, has avoided any criticism or even major press coverage for remarks he made only days later that supported the continued ‘economic strangulation’ of Gaza; in part, because, he essentially argues, the inhabitants of the benighted Strip are not Jewish…
And the fact Schumer could make them without a hint of anger, as if he was merely stating the obvious, and feel no need to recant them after video of the talk was circulated on the internet (several calls to Schumer’s press secretary asking for clarification were not answered), is as telling as it is worrisome.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/17-6
The key words are of course “as if he was merely stating the obvious.” It is a testament to the prevalence of the Zionist Narrative in the US MSM that such an outrageous statement by Senator Schumer barely even registers on the “WTF radar” here.
But in defense of the US media, I would like to point to Comedy Central, and Stephen Colbert’s skit below (hilarious).
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312100/june-09-2010/formidable-opponent—-michael-oren
Posted by Imran on Jun 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Imran
I don’t know where you got the impression that Charles Schumer is one of the most powerful politicians in America but that is far from the truth. I know he’s a Jew from New York, but that hardly makes him the most powerful man in the US Congress!! If he were, Obama wouldn’t have such a hard time getting his agenda through Congress and we’d have single payer health insurance not this crappy health care bill that is a giveaway to big insurance companies. He is the senior senator from NY but that only means that he’s been in congress longer than the other senator from NY. He doesn’t have as much power as many others in Congress.
In the second place, Helen Thomas was not fired because of her remarks about Israel no matter what anyone says. She was fired because of her remarks about sending Jews back to Germany and Poland. Considering the central role both countries played in the almost total extermination of Europe’s Jews, it is pretty clear what Thomas was alluding to.
No news agency can retain a employee who makes such remarks. This has nothing to do with Israel. News organizations have their reputations, credibility and image to protect. Keeping Helen Thomas on at her job is tantamount to endorsing her views. This is impossible for any news agency regardless of who is the target for an employee’s bigoted remarks.
I read Schumer’s comments on Gaza and find them abhorent as you probably realize. Schumer is typical of many Jewish American politicians; liberal on social and economic issues, fascistic on matters regarding Israel.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Cabby,
Senator Charles Schumer is the 3rd ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/12/schumer
And as pointed out in Mark Levine’s article Charles Schumer is:
“... an extremely powerful senator who serves on some of that body’s most powerful committees, such as banking and judiciary.”
I would think these qualifications certainly put him in the category of “one of the most powerful politicians in the US.”
And while he has his differences/difficulties with the Republicans (and some Democrats) on many issues including health care, when it comes to lining up to support Israel and the Zionist Narrative, there is very little space between him and the rest of Congress. See Stephen Zunes’ article entitled Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack:
“International condemnation of the raids continued in foreign capitals. Meanwhile, in Washington, Democratic congressional leaders were lining up alongside their Republican colleagues to defend the Israeli assault.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/11-0
And finally, I (along with many others) vehemently disagree with you regarding whether Helen Thomas’ remarks were anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. See excellent article in Huffington Post by MJ Rosenberg entitled Anti-Israel Does Not Mean Anti-Semitic:
“If she had said that American Jews should ‘get the hell out of America,’ that would be anti-Semitic. But Israel-bashing is quite as permissible as Palestinian-bashing. The only difference is that the second is a popular position that earns votes and campaign donations (see Schumer, Chuck). The first can result in getting fired. Absurd.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/helen-thomas-is-anti-isra_b_611017.html
Posted by Imran on Jun 17, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Cabby,
Glenn Beck literally encouraged people to engage in armed revolt against the U.S. government and all that happened to him was he lost a few sponsors, so don’t tell me it’s just a case of a news org. getting rid of someone with bad opinions. Also it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to come to the conclusion that Helen Thomas, the extremely vocal critic of every recent U.S. war and probably one of the most compassionate people in the world, was advocating another Holocaust.
Also:
1. Thanks for that IDF propaganda, let me share a video in which you can clearly see the IDF fire first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UN4DO1pL5E
2. The Gaza blockade is collective punishment, collective punishment is illegal, therefore the blockade is illegal. Q. E. D.
3. Yes, Hamas would never accept the existence of the state of Israhttp://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast/index.html
kenster42,
2. Israel got their nose bloodied by Hezbollah, so I question the extent to which Israel would be able to defend themselves against the combined might of their neighbors. Anyway, your argument is stupid; Israel COULD have wiped out the Palestinians by now, but not without getting declared a genocidal rogue state and invaded by basically all of their Arab neighbors, most of Europe and maybe even the U.S. (yeah right). They engage in this genocide-by-inches just at the edge of international tolerance.
3. Wow, it’s almost as if decades of brutal colonialism has shaped the Palestinian attitude toward Israel, also all the history (emphasis on HISTORY, not ideology) in that passage you quoted is true I hope this helps.
Imran,
How do you find the patience to argue calmly with atrocity apologists?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 17, 2010 at 12:57 PM
There is a lot of consternation now in Israel about bringing a soldier to court who killed a 64 old woman waving a white flag during the Gaza massacre.
What precedent would that create for the most moral army in the world?
As Ilan Pappe said it in his wonderful article “What drives Israel?”:
“You probably have to be born in Israel, as I was, and go through the whole process of socialisation and education – including serving in the army – to grasp the power of this militarist mentality and its dire consequences. And you need such a background to understand why the whole premise on which the international community’s approach to the Middle East is based, is utterly and disastrously wrong.”
Posted by Engelbert on Jun 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM
PMuriello,
Thanks, its not easy sometimes, especially considering the scale and frequency of the atrocities against the Palestinians.
But this is often their very intention: to deliberately provoke an emotional response in their opponents, so that they can then discredit the messenger (rather than address the message itself).
Engelbert,
You make an excellent observation. It is indoctrination with the Zionist Narrative that allows otherwise rational individuals to engage in these horrible atrocities (i.e. killing a 64 year old woman waving a white flag in order to “defend” nuclear-armed Israel from irrational Palestinian hordes wanting to “throw them into the sea,” for apparently no reason whatsoever, without any recognition or even awareness of the displacement and systematic dehumanization of the indigenous population that is the basis of the conflict).
Posted by Imran on Jun 17, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Imran,
Thanks. I think a lot of it has to do with education. “The Holocaust isn’t just about Jews” as Anshel Pfeffer recently wrote in Haaretz.
Prof. Hanna Yablonka of Ben-Gurion University talks about the “pornograpy of evil” in the context of education in Israel. The focus is on the technical details of the holocaust instead of on the War of Independence. So the complexity of the situation remains hidden to generations of Israeli’s who are brought up with a black and white view of “them against us”.
It’s hard for apologists to understand that one can simply have a moral viewpoint, and that does not mean anti-semitic of anti-Israel. Some of the contributors here seem to suffer from what psychologists call the confirmation bias: you ignore facts that contradict your creed.
Posted by Engelbert on Jun 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Imran, Engelbert, PMuriello,
Comparing Glenn Beck to Helen Thomas is ludicrous. I despise FOX News too. But Beck is a “shock jock”, who does his shtick for ratings and money. Its just a business to him. He even said so when he famously remarked, “I could give a flying crap about the political process. We’re an entertainment company,” His over the top nonsense is meant to entertain people and make money. I realize the wrong people take him seriously but to my knowledge he doesn’t make overt racist insults at ethnic or religious groups the way Helen Thomas did.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/building-an-empire-glenn-beck-makes-32m-a-year.php
When Helen Thomas told Jews to go back to Germany and Poland it was very clear what she meant. She may not have been openly advocating another Holocaust but obviously her overt mention of those two particular countries in Central Europe were meant to convey unambiguous hatred and animosity. In the wake of the flotilla incident it is understandable one could lose their temper and say something rash in the heat of anger. Still, professional journalists are supposed have self control. I cannot remember another example of such behavior from someone normally held in high regard in the journalism profession. PMuriello and Imran, in my view are rationalizing or are just very naive. Would someone be kept on at a news agency if the told all Black people to go back to Africa? I frankly don’t care what people say about Israel itself. But Helen Thomas attacked Jews per se. I’m quit sick of people thinking they can say whatever they want about Jews and pass it off as a “criticism of Israel.”
And excuse my ignorance, but what makes Helen Thomas “one of the most compassionate people in the world?” By the way, there are many critics of the Bush Administrations wars and overall policy in the Middle East who still retain their positions in professional journalism because they didn’t stoop to spouting hate.
I never actually said that I support a full naval blockade of Gaza; certainly not for political purposes and not on security grounds either. I do think there is a middle ground between a debilitating blockade which is obviously collective punishment and exersizing some control over Gaza’s external affairs especially in conjunction with Egypt. This is only reasonable considering Hamas’s rocketing of Israel and their determination to destroy Israel.
Hamas is a terrorist and rogue element no less than is Israel. They illegally siezed control of Gaza in June 2007 and murdered many Fatah members and those known to be their supporters. Abbas attempted to negotiate a deal with Hamas on a power sharing arrangement but to no avail. Hamas are terrorists and outlaws. They are recognized as such not just by the US, the EU and other western states but by several Arab states as well such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. They’re only political objective is jihad and the transformation of all of British Mandatory Palestine into a purely Islamic state with no Jews. This is in their charter and it is beyond dispute.
Imran, I frankly tired of constantly hearing this “Zionist narrative” stuff. You have a very dichotomous world view which is frankly becoming increasingly rigid and difficult to reason with. Mere acceptance of Israel’s right to exist is not a Zionist position. For you this may be sufficient to qualify as zionist but I suspect your views on Israel, as well as those of PMuriello and Englebert, depart from those of the majority of the world’s people.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Cabby,
Blahblahblah, same old anti-Semitism ad hominem every Israel apologist trots out when their fantasies have been destroyed by reality.
Beck only calls himself ‘an entertainer’ when he gets called out on the despicable things he says. Thomas chose Germany and Poland because that’s where the majority of the Jews immigrated from after WWII, once again you’re using the ol’ anti-Semitism strawman. Also you have this gem:
“Would someone be kept on at a news agency if the told all Black people to go back to Africa?”
lmao as if black people chose to come to America in the first place, haha you don’t think so good do you? (I guess that’s why you’re an Israel apologist!)
I’m glad you at least admitted that the current blockade is collective punishment and therefore illegal, and therefore have to accept that the flotilla was not breaking but enforcing international law.
Also you still want to blockade Hamas for relatively ineffective rocket attacks while Israel kills a thousand or so civilians every time it ‘defends itself’ against the Palestinians, even though the only reason Hamas started rocketing after the cease fire is because Israel didn’t hold up their end of the bargain by ending the blockade, you are the biggest hypocrite. And sorry, every objective human rights org. that monitored the 2006 election said Hamas won fair and square, most of the violence was caused by a U.S./Israel-backed coup attempt by Fatah.
Also sorry but basically the entire world wants a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders (including Hamas!), the only two major powers that constantly vote against this in U.N. security councils are, yup you guessed it, Israel and the U.S. Yours is the minority opinion, not ours.
Please don’t post again, you are embarrassing yourself.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 17, 2010 at 5:39 PM
PMuriello,
You really need to grow up and listen for a change. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Slamming Israel for its policies is perfectly acceptable. Telling Jews to go back to Germany and Poland is not. You may be too naive to realize what Thomas really meant but I can assure you that neither Thomas nor the vast majority of the Jewish community were confused at all about the intent of the remarks she made. The main reason she pointed out those two countries was their central role in the holocaust-Germany perpetrated it and Poland hosted all the death camps. Besides the vast majority of European Jews came from Russia which had a Jewish community that well exceded in number Germany and Poland combined.
Ironically, the vast majority of Israeli Jews don’t come from Europe at all but from Arab and other Muslim countries. Their hostility to Arabs surpasses that of the European Jews mostly because, in the runup to 1948, they were treated as badly as the European Jews were treated. They were killed, expropriated and expelled. Not to smart a thing for their Muslim neighbors to do. These Jews were avowedly non-Zionist and had been productive loyal citizens of Muslim countries for centuries. Moreover, the Arab states sent 800,000 angry Jews to Israel where they would form the bulk of the military and labor force of the new state. This was an indispensible “shot in the arm” for Israel. Had the Arab states not made this fatal mistake, Israel may well have faded out quickly or at least been forced to alter itself so as to cease being a Jewish state. As it turned out, the Arab states inadvertently took part in a mutual population exchange. This was not their intention but they did it and in so doing, they ironically ensured Israel’s continued survival.
The analogy I used regarding a hypothetical example of African-Americans being told to return to Africa is a good one. Whether or not they came here under different circumstances than that of the Jews who went to Palestine is irrelevant (by the way most Jews who ended up in Palestine were forced to go there because no other country would take them from the 1930s onward. Maybe you should read some of that history).
The fact that Hamas rocket fire was ineffective is irrelevant. They fired rockets into Israel, period!! The blockade was ended in August 2005 and was restored only when Hamas began smuggling weapons into Gaza from Iran.
Hamas merely won 55% of the seats in the PLC, not the presidency. This hardly gave them the right to illegally sieze control of Gaza by force. Fatah never attempted a coup against Hamas until negotiations broke down and Hamas continued to illegally hold power in Gaza and violently attack Israel.
You clearly don’t read very well. I have long been a supporter of a two-state solution and have said so many times both here and elsewhere.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Cabby,
As I have repeated stated, the purpose of nearly every one of my posts on this website to date has been to directly respond to some factual or logical error advanced by apologists of the Zionist Project.
My primary objection to the Zionist narrative behind these errors is this notion that whatever Israel does be judged by its good intentions alone (which are never questioned) rather than objectively based on its actual actions. In other words, if Israel does it, its not colonialism, imperialism, torture or terrorism because unlike other nations, its goals are noble. This mindset is reflected in numerous posts above, ranging from the flotilla attack to who broke the Gaza ceasefire, in order to justify actions people otherwise would objectively have condemned had ANYONE else done the same.
Years of unquestioned/unchallenged acceptance of the Zionist Narrative has resulted in these errors often-times being repeated “as if merely stating the obvious” or as facts, when they are nothing of the sort.
As a result, I believe this particular narrative is a major hinderance to both proper identification of the causes of the conflict, and to its future resolution in a fair and just manner. I too sometimes tire of addressing the numerous errors caused by such narrative. But addressing such errors is, in my opinion, the first best step towards peace.
I would hope that progressives would, at a minimum, want to at least hear the story or narrative of the dispossessed (whether they agree with it or not). I do not understand why unchallenged presentation of the Zionist Narrative is fine and OK, but advocacy of Palestinian narrative constitutes having “a very dichotomous world view.” It seems that just hearing the Palestinian narrative is simply too much for some to bear (i.e. characterization of this narrative as “rigid” and “difficult to reason with”). Perhaps a subconscious admission of guilt for the sins of the Zionist Project?
Accepting an eventual two-state peace agreement does not require accepting the Israeli narrative of its “righteousness,” nor does it require acceptance of the Palestinian narrative of their being a people upon whom Zionists forcibly imposed themselves. Which narrative is correct, or who is the aggressor/victim is for history to decide.
I insist upon advancing the Palestinian narrative as a corrective to years of unquestioning acceptance of the Israeli narrative. I do not recall many cries for balanced narratives during the previous 50 years, when the dominant strain was how “poor Israel was just defending herself” from hordes who were attacking, apparently for no reason whatsoever, without any discussion of the land grab which was the basis of the conflict.
If we want a just resolution, we must begin with a proper framing of the conflict. Try as Zionists might to obsure the issue of the unlawful land grab with their narrative, the cause of the conflict was Zionists deciding amongst themselves to forcibly create a state in a land where the vast majority of the indigenous inhabitants were not Jewish. The motives of such Zionist notwithstanding, nearly everyone agrees that the desires of the indigenous population were irrelevant to this project, and simply were not taken into consideration. Everything that has followed was a forseeable result of this injustice.
This is not to say that there shouldn’t be an Israel today, but to properly identify what triggered the conflict in the first place. If you believe that this narrative of dispossession is inaccurate, you should explain specifically how it is incorrect, rather than make general statements about it being “rigid” and/or “difficult to reason with.”
Posted by Imran on Jun 18, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Cabby,
You state unequivocally that “I can assure you that neither Thomas nor the vast majority of the Jewish community were confused at all about the intent of the remarks she made.” Really?
Apparently, “you clearly did not read very well” the article I linked for you in my post above from MJ Rosenberg from the Huffington Post entitled Anti-Israel Does Not Mean Anti-Semitic. So, since its short, I’ll quote it for you in its entirety here.
“If one good thing can come out of the Helen Thomas brouhaha, it would be questioning the meaning of the term ‘anti-semitism.’
I have gone back and forth on the whole Thomas affair. One point that has always been clear to me is that her statement was ‘anti-Israel.’ A second is that she should not have been fired for shooting off her mouth (being ‘pro-Israel’ should not be a requirement to hold a job in media or anywhere else). And, third, is that her statement, while anti-Israel, was not anti-Semitic.
Anti-semitism is the dislike of Jews. There is nothing in her intemperate remark that indicates that she does not like Jews. In fact, I know that she is not prejudiced against Jews and has worked and socialized with Jews her entire life. She would not discriminate against Jews in hiring. She would not ban Jews from some theoretical ‘Helen Thomas Country Club.’ She could not care less if Jews moved in next door. And ‘Helen Thomas University’ would not have a quota on Jewish students.
Jews who know her well say she is entirely without prejudice against Jews (or anyone else).
But she clearly does not believe Israel should have been established in 1948. So what. Both the State and Defense departments opposed the establishment of Israel because they thought a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world would mean nothing but trouble. Many Jews who lived in what was then Palestine (like Martin Buber) opposed the establishment of the state. So did the now incredibly anti-Palestinian American Jewish Committee.
Sixty years later Helen Thomas still feels that way.
I think she’s wrong. Israel exists and, no matter what should or shouldn’t have been done in 1948, it is ugly to suggest that the six million Jews of Israel should ‘go back to Poland’ (even if she didn’t mean it literally). But uttering a few repugnant sentences about the State of Israel does not make a person anti-Semitic. Nor would a whole book or ten books making that point. It makes the person who says or writes them anti-Israel—which is nothing more than a statement of disdain about a foreign nation. If a person can dislike or even hate Germany, or Japan, or Poland, or France, or Mexico, he or she can dislike or hate Israel.
If she had said that American Jews should ‘get the hell out of America,’ that would be anti-Semitic. But Israel-bashing is quite as permissible as Palestinian-bashing. The only difference is that the second is a popular position that earns votes and campaign donations (see Schumer, Chuck). The first can result in getting fired. Absurd.”
I suppose that Mr. Rosenberg and all the “Jews who know [Thomas] well and say she is without prejudice against Jews (or anyone else)” are naive, but you know better, huh? You seriously undermine your own credibility by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and then attempting to say that you speak for “the vast majority of the Jewish community” when doing so.
Posted by Imran on Jun 18, 2010 at 11:17 AM
First of all, I don’t spout a Zionist narrative. I support Israel’s right to exist. So do most people. Apparently, you don’t. That is your right but let’s at least understand each other and stop the silly labeling. Like most people I support an end to the blockade of Gaza and a viable and just two state solution. At that point both Israel and the Palestinians can get down to the business of building up their respective societies and economies under conditions of peace in order to bring prosperity to the people of the region. I think Israel should make all reasonable compromises to attain this worthwhile goal.
In the second place, I strongly disagree that Thomas’ remark was merely anti-Israel and not anti-semitic. Mr. Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion. But I am entitled to disagree. I realize that a single remark is not sufficient to entirely define someone but it was sufficiently hateful and offensive for her to be fired. The news agency could not keep her on after making her statement because of their image; they didn’t want to be seen as endorsing her views and I can’t blame them. I know this is hard for you to understand being anti-Israel. But I truely believe that the remark went beyond criticism of Israel which in and of itself would not have gotten her fired.
I believe the Israeli blockade of Gaza to be inhumane and illegal but I also view Hamas’ illegitimate and illegal siezure of power the same way. Hamas is an outlaw and terrorist organization. Most countries, including many Arab states, refuse to recognize their authority in Gaza as legitimate. Perhaps, this is why Egypt participated in a blockade along side Israel. I believe that Israel has legitimate security concerns. Though I believe they have no right to blockade Gaza they do have a perfect right to inspect all ships going into Gaza until such time as the PA is put back in charge of Gaza. I believe this is quite reasonable.
I have never equated anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. There are, however, many who mistakenly think of anti-semitism as merely anti-zionism and cannot distinguish between the two.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 18, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Cabby,
First of all, let me state that I did not say that you spout a Zionist Narrative. You have, on several occassions, bravely and thoughtfully deviated from such narrative.
I was simply noting that your thinking (and that of others) on the flotilla attack and the Gaza ceasefire breakdown is consciously (or otherwise) influenced by such narrative. As a result of this Zionist narrative’s influence, some tend to judge whatever Israel does by its good intentions alone, which are never questioned, rather than objectively based on its actual actions. I feel that this undermines peace by justifying Israeli actions people otherwise would objectively condemned had ANYONE else done the same.
I believe the same problem presents itself on the issue of Israel’s creation in the first place. The Zionist narrative’s focus solely upon the assumed positive intentions/motives for creating Israel (escaping horrible European persecution/pogroms), rather than an objective analysis of the consequences of its actual actions in furtherance of it (the evil perpetrated in displacing an indigenous population that had nothing to do with such persecution) is a real if not main source of the problem. This “blindness” to the consequences of one’s actions is the result of the Zionist narrative, and it leads people to ask silly questions like “why do they hate us,” create caricatures of “the other,” and then engage in actions that we would otherwise never do but for the influence of such narrative.
Accordingly, this Zionist Exceptionalist Narrative (like its American strain) is a real hinderance to finding peace. Most people who recognize this do not confuse such critiques with hatred of Jews or Americans as a people.
Posted by Imran on Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Cabby,
No, your analogy was terrible. Colonial Zionists are not the same as African Americans, and while telling an African American to go back where they came from is purely racist, telling a Zionist Jew to go back where they came from is merely telling a colonial oppressor to go back where they came from, which is not racist and is in fact quite reasonable.
If Hamas, as you claim, did in fact ‘smuggle’ weapons into Gaza from Iran, then the fact that they were ‘smuggling’ suggests that the blockade was still in effect, which violates the terms of the cease fire.
And if you support a two state solution based on the 1967 borders as you claim to, then why continue to support Israel at all in their attempts to ‘defend themselves’ against the Palestinians when they could put an end to the conflict right now by accepting the solution? Indeed it seems that your support for Israel is unconditional if you continue to support them despite the fact that they (and the U.S.) remain the only meaningful obstacle to peace.
One more question: now that you have admitted that the blockade was illegal, are you ready to admit that Israel’s assertion that they had the right to inspect the flotilla was ludicrous? Are you also willing to admit that because the blockade was illegal that the flotilla raids were also illegal, tantamount to piracy and murder?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 18, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Cabby,
The Gaza Blockade, as implemented by Israel, is simply indefensible, and one loses credibility defending it as a security measure when the items embargoed so clearly do not involve weapons.
If Israel was truly only concerned about weapons getting to Hamas, the best course of action all along would have been to search for such weapons only, and then to forward ALL non-weapons related items into Gaza. Israel has only itself to blame for its over-reach in trying to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.
Just look at the items on the embargoed list! I am simply amazed at the moral and legal gymnastics some Israelis are engaging in trying to defend this inhumane (criminal) blockade.
Posted by Imran on Jun 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Imran, I know the official stance is that there is a collective punishment for electing Hamas. But then one has to believe that if Fatah had won, things would have been different. I sincerely doubt that. Before Hamas things were not different.
The blockade was there long before Hamas won the free elections. Fishermen were confined to their 3 mile zone since 2000, the year that big natural gas reserves were found near the coast of Gaza. I have a hunch that stopping the boats so far offshore and using deterrence again to scare off future aid ships, has something to do with their gas business. They don’t want nosey people around there in my view.
If what used to be an economic blockade suddenly becomes a security measure, combined with the excessive violence of the raid, there is something fishy going on.
Posted by Engelbert on Jun 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM
“Colonial Zionists are not the same as African Americans, and while telling an African American to go back where they came from is purely racist, telling a Zionist Jew to go back where they came from is merely telling a colonial oppressor to go back where they came from, which is not racist and is in fact quite reasonable.”
Wrong!! And besides she wasn’t just telling them to return from whence they came. This is rationalizing. She was making clear allusions to something else; otherwise she would have simply said that the Jews of Israel should be repatriated somewhere out of Palestine. That would have been a pretty extreme opinion in and of itself but not really anti-Jewish. Not all the Jews could be colonial Zionists as you put it. Many were forced to go there because they had nowhere else to go. I know you don’t care and can’t identify with Jews at all. You, very much unlike Imran, seem to be anti-semitic and hateful, without even the slightest desire to see both sides.
”...the fact that they were ‘smuggling’ suggests that the blockade was still in effect…”
This comment is absurd on its face. The smuggling was necessary to avoid detection by either Israel or Egypt and thus to try and prevent a full naval blockade. Duh!! I don’t believe that the raid on the flotilla was either piracy or murder from what I have seen. Israel was interested in inspecting the ship and would have taken any and all humanitarian supplies overland to Gaza.
“If Israel was truly only concerned about weapons getting to Hamas, the best course of action all along would have been to search for such weapons only, and then to forward ALL non-weapons related items into Gaza.”
This is precisely what Israel offered to do several times through radio communication with the ship and was rebuffed with hostile threats and insults.
“Israel has only itself to blame for its over-reach in trying to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.”
In truth, Israel doesn’t give a damn about who the Palestinians elect so long as they don’t attack Israel. Israel didn’t blockade Gaza immediately in response to the January 2006 elections; they only did so when Hamas seized power in Gaza and began to smuggle arms into Gaza from Iran.
There is no siege of the West Bank at all which makes the idea that a Fatah victory would have had the same result ludicrous.
Here is wikipedia’s digested account of the main provisions of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994;
“This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked.”
The Israeli blockade was on and off in varying degrees since 2000 as a response to suicide bombings since the second Intifada. Both Hamas and Israel violated the various Egyptian negotiated ceasefires several times. In effect, this all amounted to another war of attrition. At Egypt’s request, Israel refrained from responding to many Hamas attacks but invariably Hamas would draw Israel into open conflict.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 18, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Interestingly, Egypt maintained a blockade in the interest of opposing Hamas and in support of Abbas and the PNA. According to Wikipedia,
“Egypt’s argument is that it cannot open Rafah crossing unless the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas controls the crossing and international monitors are present. Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Hamas wants the border opened because it would represent Egyptian recognition of the group’s control of Gaza. “Of course this is something we cannot do,” he said, “because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–present_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 18, 2010 at 5:10 PM
All this stuff about who smuggles what and why, what is a terrorist, and what one can say or not about jews or Israel is clearly meant to obfuscate the bigger picture. Most of the things discussed are the result of an immoral treatment of one people by another.
Phil Rockstroh said it very well:
“Although my mother fled Nazi Germany, as a child, on a Kindertransport, with a few family valuables sown into her clothing, and I was brought up on the myths and hagiography of the Zionist state, I, over time, came to recognize the folly of the whole colonialist enterprise – the folly of ethnic exclusion and expulsion, the inherent tragedy of nationalism based on the delusion of religious birthright. With much sorrow, I came to the sad realization that the dream of the State of Israel was based on European chauvinism and exceptionalism. This reckoning has been a difficult one for me to bear – the hardest awakening of my adult life.”
http://philrockstroh.com/2010/06/02/regarding-night-terrors-and-its-daylight-rationalization-of-zionist-state/
Posted by Engelbert on Jun 19, 2010 at 3:18 AM
To PMuriello,
At least Imran and Cabby try to keep their language under control. While Imran is clear about his position and whose side he is on, he at least tries to keep it respectable. Imran, I thank you for that and I give you really big points for stating that what’s done is done with Israel being created in 1948. I appreciate it because to me it means we have a shot and reaching a middle ground some day and it also means you have a sense of reality, unlike awesome folks like Helen Thomas who truly seem to think the Jews should get out of Palestine.
Muriello, I know your type very well. Your language and the way you post, is completely inflammatory and very frustrating. You love the labels, don’t you? “Zionist”, “Apologist” etc. You love the “big statement”, too. You seem to subscribe to the “never give in” theory - everything is always big bad Israel and there is no acknowledgment of any ambiguity or sublety or mistakes on the Palestinian or Arab side. If you want to have an honest debate, fine, that’s what we are all here for, but you don’t help yourself or the debate by taking out the flamethrower and hitting the switch.
Re: the blockade, Cabby has a good point about Egypt, which really frustrates those of us who want to eliminate hypocrisy in this discussion. Why is it that it seems that Arab nations who do something get a pass from the pro-Palestine and MSM community, then when Israel does it it’s completely unacceptable. Egypt is now in its 4th year of an almost total land blockade in the Gaza Strip, so why do I never hear about how awful Egypt is? Jordan assigns second tier status to West Bank refugees and has long denied the “right of return” and permanent citizenship. Why don’t I hear about how awful Jordan is? Oh, that’s right, it’s really the Jews’ fault, so we should just blame them.
The security fence is a good example of this. The bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that the security fence worked. The reasons why it is needed and the moral dilemmas around it are troubling and worth discussing, but from a violence-decreasing perspective, it worked. And if the pro-Palestinian community wants to have ANY credibility in my eyes, it needs to acknowledge that and not resort to the BS argument around how the fence created a big prison in the West Bank and Gaza. Dont’ dig tunnels for suicide bombers to come to your neighbor’s country and blow themselves up and maybe your neighbor won’t build a fence.
Regardless, my point is that I get frustrated with people like Muriello because when I make concessions, it’s rarely returned with any acknowledgment, just more pumping of the rhetoric.
For the record, I do agree with Muriello that the only solution here is a 2 state solution with 1967 borders. Given the settlement situation, however, I am not sure how this is currently possible. I’d be interested in your thoughts on how we get there.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 19, 2010 at 8:46 AM
Cabby,
You haven’t really addressed my objection to your analogy at all. You need to reconcile the obvious differences in power between African Americans and Jews in the U.S. and Israel respectively, and also need to reconcile the fact that from the beginning Jewish colonization, which included dispossession and displacement, of Palestine was willful and deliberate, while the importation of African slaves to the U.S. was involuntary. Also, I think your assertion that ‘Israel was the only place for Jews to go’ is absurd; first, the U.S. was a perfectly viable alternative, evidenced by the fact that until only recently the U.S. had the highest population of Jews in the world. You may say that Jews would have been somewhat persecuted in the U.S. too, and that MAY be true, but at least those Jews would not have had to engage in dispossession and displacement. Second, Palestine was not the only place in the world that it was possible for them to establish a Jewish state, they CHOSE Palestine because of the religious significance, and that CHOICE necessitated colonialism. You are being extremely intellectually dishonest.
Also, you haven’t really addressed my point about smuggling either. ‘Smuggling’ implies the illegal importation of a good. Why, in this case, was the importing of weapons illegal? Because of the blockade. What was a condition of the cease fire? The removal of the blockade. So, it seems plain that the blockade was in place even after, according to the terms of the cease fire, it was supposed to be lifted. Therefore, Israel was in violation of the terms of the cease fire.
I can’t really see how you can admit that 1.) the blockade is illegal, 2.) that the raids took place in international waters, and 3.) that goods were taken and people were killed and still come to the conclusion that the IDF did not engage in piracy and murder. According to any useful definition of piracy, if you illegally board a ship in an attempt to take control of it or its passengers/cargo, you are engaging in piracy. You must have some really loose definitions of both piracy and murder. And haha yes, Israel maybe would have taken all humanitarian supplies over to Gaza, minus the ones that are on its blockade list that BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION is collective punishment! Why should the flotilla have complied with Israel’s illegal blockade?
Thanks for all that info about the U.S. client state of Egypt, as if their imposing of an illegal blockade somehow justifies Israel’s illegal blockade. Egypt and other Arab nations have their own culpability in the continued brutalization of the Palestinians, but let’s not forget that it’s the continued refusal of Israel to accept the two state solution that the rest of the world wants that causes this culpability in the first place, plus the fact that it seems only Israel is actively engaged in murder.
Also Cabby, read this http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804 and then tell me that the U.S. and Israel weren’t out to get Hamas from the beginning.
Lastly, I vehemently object to you characterizing me as anti-Semitic; I challenge you to quote me engaging in racism toward Jews. Your accusation is a total ad hominem, a classic Israel apologist tactic.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM
kenster42,
Haha, only an apologist for murder would think that describing murder as ‘murder’ is inflammatory, and I find it reprehensible that you have so many harsh words for me while Israel continues its illegal brutalization of the Palestinians with the tacit support of the U.S. Yes, let’s not use labels like ‘apologist’, or ‘Zionist’, or ‘murderers’, they are too accurate! Perhaps the reason why you are so offended by these labels is because you sense the truth in them and it makes you squeamish about your seeming unconditional support for Israel. I know that when I am inevitably accused of anti-Semitism by all of the Israel apologists that I debate on this issue I don’t feel a scrap of discomfort, because I know that neither myself nor my rhetoric is anti-Semitic. Also please, enlighten me as to what ‘concessions’ you made? Admitting that illegal things are in fact illegal is not a ‘concession’.
The settlement issue is easy; the settlements are clearly illegal, Israel must withdraw completely from the settlements and hand over control to the Palestinians. Whether or not the current Israeli residents can stay there is up to the Palestinians. The Israeli government can compensate any displaced settlers for their losses. Simple.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM
“You haven’t really addressed my objection to your analogy at all. You need to reconcile the obvious differences in power between African Americans and Jews in the U.S. and Israel respectively, and also need to reconcile the fact that from the beginning Jewish colonization, which included dispossession and displacement, of Palestine was willful and deliberate, while the importation of African slaves to the U.S. was involuntary. Also, I think your assertion that ‘Israel was the only place for Jews to go’ is absurd; first, the U.S. was a perfectly viable alternative, evidenced by the fact that until only recently the U.S. had the highest population of Jews in the world.”
This entire statement is absurd beyond belief as well as factually inaccurate. In the first place, the difference in power between Jews and Blacks in America is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Advocacy of forced repatriating of long existing communities to where their ancestors originated is racist irregardless at whom its directed.
Jewish colonization of Palestine didn’t displace the Palestinians; the 1948 War did. This was entirely aviodable had the Palestinians accepted UN resolution 181 in 1947 partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab States. They refused to accept it and decided on going to war which they lost. Jewish colonization didn’t adversely impact the Palestinians during the British Mandate or before and in fact created economic expansion and brought technological advances such as irrigation from which many Palestinian farmers benefitted.
You are also clearly ignorant of the history of the Jews of Europe during and immediately after the holocaust. Just after Kristallnacht in 1938, the US and other countries closed their doors to Jewish refugees and wouldn’t reopen them until the 1950s. I suggest you read David Wyman’s The Abandonment of the Jews which is an excellent historical study of US refugee policy from the early 1930s until the end of WWII. Here’s something interesting from Wyman’s blog;
”...the National Origins Immigration bills of 1921 and 1924…virtually shut America’s doors to immigrants…The law passed in 1921, known as the Johnson Immigration Act, stipulated that the number of immigrants from any one country during a given year could not exceed 3% of the number of immigrants from that country who had been living in the U.S. at the time of the 1910 national census. In other words, if there were 10,000 individuals of Irish origin living in the United States in 1910, the number of immigrants permitted from Ireland in any year would be a maximum of 300. In 1924, the immigration regulations were tightened even further: the percentage was reduced from 3% to 2%, and instead of the 1910 census, the quota numbers would be based on an earlier census, the one taken in 1890. The reason for tightening the restrictions was obvious: it would reduce the number of Jews and Italian Americans, since the bulk of Jewish and Italian immigrants in the U.S. had not arrived until after 1890…As the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified during the middle and late 1930s, the U.S. quota system functioned precisely as its creators had intended: it kept out all but a handful of Jews. The annual quota for Germany and Austria, for example, was 27,370, and for Poland, just 6,542. Even those meager quota allotments were almost always under-filled…during the period of the Nazi genocide, from late 1941 and until early 1945, only 10% of the already miniscule quotas from Axis-controlled European countries were actually used. That means almost 190,000 quota places were unused—almost 190,000 lives that could have been saved even under the existing immigration restrictions.”
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-06-quotas.php
Post-WWII efforts to allow the nearly 300,000 Jews in displaced persons’ camps in allied controlled territory failed as well. The doors to the west remained closed.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 20, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Apparently, a deliberate provocation was planned by group leaders well before the flotilla set out for Gaza. According to some reports, certain activists expressed intentions to use children as human shields should violence break out with Israeli paratroopers;
”...on Sunday, May 30, IHH head Bülent Yildirim was interviewed on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara. He was holding a small child at the time. He said that children had been brought aboard the ships as another means of preventing Israel from attacking. In our assessment, the children will be exploited for propaganda and to deter Israeli security forces from attacking the activist passengers.”
The IHH representitive leading the effort expressed explicit intentions to provoke the Israelis into confrontation and to refuse all cooperation with them;
“Yildirim said at a press conference held aboard the Mavi Marmara that the flotilla’s organizers were in no hurry to set sail and that they were waiting for “the right time,” and perhaps in the meantime “Israel will think logically.” As to a possible confrontation with Israel, he said that the youngest passenger was a one year old boy and that there were elderly people in their 80s. He also said that while their resistance would be nonviolent, they would not allow Israeli soldiers to board the ships (IHH official website, May 29, 2010). The flotilla’s organizers said they wanted the confrontation to take place during the day so that the media could document it for global distribution (Al-Jazeera TV, May 29; interview on the IHH open channel, May 30, 2010)”.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e108.htm
This is from an Al-Jazeera live report;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded
The IDF unloaded the humanitarian aid from the flotilla and delivered it as they have been doing regularly anyhow. Their initial offer was to turn the cargo over to the UN or the Red Cross to be delivered overland to Gaza after it was inspected at the post of Ashdod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrhQTiAJxM&feature=player_embedded
This may provide insight into why violence occured aboard the Mavi Marmara and not the other five ships;
“Despite their claims to be an entirely peaceful organisation, The Foundation for Human Rights, Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) has a history of involvement in Islamic extremism around the world and has been linked with an attempted bombing of an airport in the US. The charity had 40 members on the Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara when it was boarded by Israeli Navy commandos on Monday. Nine people died in the operation. Israeli security sources said that about 40 people set upon their commandos as they abseiled from a helicopter on to the upper deck of the ship, armed primarily with paintball guns intended for use in crowd control. The troops found themselves facing a crowd armed with metal pipes, knives and stun grenades. The activists tied the rope used by the soldiers to a railing on the ship, in the hope of bringing down the helicopter, officials said — forcing the commander to cut the rope and leave four commandos on the deck below.”
Here is an allegation that financial contributions to Hamas was also intended by the group;
“About a hundred of the passengers were carrying wads of $10,000 on them — a total of about $1 million; money the authorities say was bound for Hamas, which controls Gaza.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM
The Boston Globe, a quite liberal newspaper, had this to say;
“The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 Al Qaeda plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France’s former top antiterrorism judge said yesterday. The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had “clear, longstanding ties to terrorism and jihad,’’ former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told the Associated Press in a telephone interview.”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/06/03/investigator_says_flotillas_donor_linked_to_terror/
I strongly agree that the blockade is collective punishment; but that hardly means that Israel has no right to make security arrangements and control what goes into Gaza as did Egypt for over three years. They have a right to prevent arms from reaching Hamas but not to restrict non-lethal goods and the passage of people in and out of Gaza.
The Turkish group behind the Gaza flotilla, the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), has a history of weapons trafficking and was linked to a Montreal terrorist cell, according to a former French counter-terrorism investigator.
“Jean-Louis Bruguiere testified about the IHH during the 2001 trial of “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam, the Montreal-based Algerian terrorist who tried to bomb Los Angeles airport. Mr. Bruguiere testified that the IHH played an “important role” in the Montreal cell and was also “implicated or involved in weapons trafficking,” according to the court transcript. Although a judge, under the French system, Mr. Bruguiere played the role of terrorism investigator. He investigated the Montreal cell in the late 1990s because of its links to attacks in France.”
http://financial-news-update.info/turkish-group-linked-to-montreal-cell/
A relatively recent report by Evan F. Kohlmann, a world renowned Danish anti-terrorism expert, produced a widely read report that claims that IHH has long active links to Al-Qaeda;
“Yet, the phenomenon of charitable front groups that provide support to Al-Qaida is by no means exclusively limited to the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, elsewhere in the Muslim world, other such entities have been established with near equal success – as in Turkey, with the socalled
Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons fromother regional Islamic militant groups.43 IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing
seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.””
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf
Much of Israel’s behavior is reprehensible; but Islamic terrorist groups do exist. They are not simply the figment of neo-con/Israeli imaginations.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Cabby,
Gosh, it’s almost as if illegal immigration exists, and Jews illegally immigrated en masse to Palestine even before the Nazi atrocities! You also need to explain why the Palestinians were obligated to accept resolution 181 in order to blame the 1948 war on them (hint: you won’t be able to do it!). There’s also the uncomfortable fact that Zionism informed much of the Jewish immigration to Palestine from the inception of the British Mandate to today. Either way, post 1948 and especially post June 1967 was textbook colonialism. There’s where your analogy falls apart, and that’s why you are intellectually dishonest in comparing African Americans to Zionist Jews.
And despite your constant flailing about in an attempt to portray the passengers of the Mavi Marmara as terrorists, the fact of the matter is that they were boarded illegally and had every right to defend themselves, up to and including the use of lethal force, which they, unlike the IDF, chose not to utilize. In fact, they didn’t even hold the IDF soldiers they captured hostage; their wounds were treated and they were returned to IDF custody before the Mavi Marmara was raided. There is literally no wiggle room on this, and I’m surprised that we are still talking about it even after you’ve admitted that the blockade is illegal. Also, you haven’t answered my question; if the IDF boarded illegally, killed crew, and confiscated cargo, how is that not piracy? Moreover, what obligation did the crew of the Mavi Marmara have to submit to inspection when it was clear that the IDF would have confiscated the items that were banned under their illegal blockade?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 20, 2010 at 3:33 PM
“Gosh, it’s almost as if illegal immigration exists, and Jews illegally immigrated en masse to Palestine even before the Nazi atrocities!”
This is an absurd and incomprehensible statement. Most of the Jews who went to Palestine went after 1933 and not before. When the option to go west was available, almost all of them took it. The problem was that the west shut down. This is historically accepted all across the spectrum, Muriello. There’s no use in disputing it. After 1945, the British closed Palestine to Jewish immigration until 1948 when they left. The west remained closed too. The only place to go was Palestine so the Jewish refugees ran the British blockade. They had no choice.
I believe both groups had legitimate claims to Palestine by 1948. Jewish settlements, such as Tel Aviv and many of the rural settlements, didn’t displace one Arab before the 1948 War. Had the Palestinians accepted a two state solution then, the Israelis would have been forced to do the same. Had there been no war, the Arabs that fell on the Jewish side of the partition would have surely had it better than those on the other side. When racist Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman proposed realigning the green line so as to put many pre-1967 Arab villages in the West Bank and illegal Jewish settlements within Israel as part of a final status agreement, the Arabs of Umm al-Fahm protested bitterly. They wished to remain under Israeli sovereignty. I lived there for three years and built apartment buildings in Tel Aviv with a team of building tradesmen from Umm al-Fahm; I know first hand why they prefer to live in Israel.
The occupation is wrong. It must end immediately. It is unjust and brutal. I support a two-state solution the likes of which you described.
I don’t believe the blockade itself was illegal; it was the conduct of the blockade that was illegal. Collective punishment and settling foreign populations in an occupied country is forbidden by international laws and conventions. But there are ways to conduct a blockade that is not a form of collective punishment and has no negative humanitarian impact on local populations. The Egyptians enforced a blockade that wasn’t deemed inhumane, illegal or collective punishment.
There was no attack and certainly no piracy. The IDF took the cargo to Gaza as promised. To call it piracy is absurd and the international community rejects this epithet. International law allows the boarding of ships even in international waters in times of war so long as the ports of neutral countries are not obstructed by the action. The Mavi Marmara passengers didn’t act in self-defense but aggressively. The Israelis only wanted to check the cargo. That is their right as it has been Egypt’s. Your accusations are absurd. Israel acted within the law and was attacked by those who violently wanted to provoke a major confrontation with the IDF.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM
It’s a very comprehensible statement; Jews had been immigrating illegally to Palestine for nearly fifty years of their own free will before the Nazi atrocities and the closing of the West, so your assertion that it was the closing of the West that forced the Jews into Palestine is intellectually dishonest. I also see that you chose to ignore the role Zionism played in the willful immigration of Jews into Palestine.
I also don’t care what you ‘believe’ about the claims of both groups; establishment of of a two state solution in Palestine was a mandate of the West, not the result of any democratic process within Palestine, and the Palestinians had no legal or moral reason to accept it, then or now. The only obligation Palestine had or has to accept a two state solution is based on pragmatics, which unfortunately for the Palestinians, seems much more attractive than morality or legality given the nature of Israel’s human rights abuses.
Your distinction between a blockade and its conduct is absolutely meaningless, and a great example of the mental gymnastics Israel apologists engage in to avoid dealing with the fact that Israel regularly commits atrocities. A blockade conducted illegally is an illegal blockade, just as there are many mundane actions that become illegal when you conduct them in a certain way. As a side note it’s rather surreal having to type these words to an adult who, presumably, has a normally functioning brain. I mean seriously, what is your argument?
Your assertion that there was no attack is absurd to the point where I doubt rational discussion with you is even possible. It all hinges on your fantastical claim that it is somehow reasonable and legal for Israel to enforce an illegal blockade, and that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were the aggressors which this firsthand account from a journalist on board the Mavi Marmara during the attack disproves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Xx5SpYTl8
The blockade was illegal and the flotilla was under no legal or moral obligation to submit to it. Israel did not act within the law and in fact provoked the crew into self defense. I’m going to ask you to please stop being so intellectually dishonest in your future replies.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Muriello,
To not even recognize the reality of 1948 (that they were offered a 2 state solution, chose to go to war and lost) is just stunning. It happened. The Palestinians made the wrong decision. Get over it.
Failure to accept reality, however, marks the way the Palestinians have approached this situation for the last 62 years. Hamas is simply the latest incarnation of the Palestinians’ insistence on cutting their collective nose off to spite their face.
Even now, with the Israelis easing on the blockade, Hamas has responded by saying it’s a deception and that they reject it. Just like they reject everything other than their insane pipe dream of removing the Israelis from the land they currently occupy.
You have to live in the now, hoss. No one other than some really hard core people are going to even bother to have a conversation with you if you are going to take it all the way back to 1948.
And how about a little understanding of complexity? It’s not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Your “mental gymnastics” is actually nuance.
OK, 2 state partition. Israel pulls out of the settlements. But will Hamas change their charter to remove everything about killing Jews?
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 20, 2010 at 8:17 PM
kenster42,
Again, the ‘reality’ of the situation is that the establishment of a Jewish homeland and a two state solution in Palestine was ever a mandate of the West, not of the Palestinian people, who were the rightful owners of Palestine. It would not have been ‘wrong’ of them to accept it then, just as it is not ‘wrong’ if they accept it now. The point is that they were not ‘wrong’ to reject it either. It was certainly un-pragmatic of them, but not ‘wrong’. THAT is a nuanced argument, not some semantic somersault over a thing and its conduct which is clearly nonsense.
And I find it hilarious that you think the Palestinians are the ones who are unreasonable; even your boogeyman Hamas is willing to accept a two state solution now, it is Israel that continuously rejects it. If you want to talk about unreasonable, let’s talk about Camp David, let’s talk about how Israel got almost every concession it wanted out of Arafat and made almost none in return, let’s talk about how one of the Israeli negotiators, Shlomo Ben-Ami, said he wouldn’t have accepted Israel’s terms if he was a Palestinian.
And haha you still assert that Hamas has this ‘crazy pipe dream’ of destroying Israel despite them being willing to accept a two state solution, you have some major cognitive dissonance going on here.
“OK, 2 state partition. Israel pulls out of the settlements. But will Hamas change their charter to remove everything about killing Jews?”
Probably. But Hamas’ charter, which they have never ratified as a governmental entity, has nothing to do with the legality of the settlements or the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel is required by law to give them back, end of story.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM
kenster42,
You make it sound as if the Palestinians had no reason to resist the Zionist project or the newly created Israel by starting hostilities, and having lost, must now live with the consequences (“chose to go to war”). But if I try to steal your land, and you fight me to keep it, who really “started” it?
It amazes me when Zionists talk about how ‘grateful’ the Palestinians should have been to get what was “offered” by the UN in 1947. It’s the equivalent of me taking half your land without your consent, and when you fight me to try to get it back, I defeat you and take the rest, mocking that you should have been “grateful” for the half I had initially left for you. What hogwash. Can it really be said that your resistance, either before or afterwards, legalized my theft because you had the temerity to use violence?
Despite the Zionist myth that the nasty Palestinian resistance is to blame for the creation of Israel, it should be noted that most Zionists have always believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists have stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel. Secular Zionists, on the other hand, have relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism.
But, let’s be clear here, NEVER was the consent of the native population ever seriously taken into consideration by any of these Zionists or the Europeans. Chaim Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs: “The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem…The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants.” It is this condescending treatment of the indigenous population by its primarily European architects that give the Zionist Project its aura of Colonialism and Imperialism.
While I am sympathetic to the plight of European Jews fleeing persecution, I don’t understand why the onus of this should be placed exclusively on the Palestinians, and only on their land, to the exclusion of the very Europeans responsible for the persecution in the first place, the other European countries’ abominably restrictive immigration policies barring the entry of fleeing Jewish refugees into their own countries (including sadly the US’ as well), or the Zionists who were fanning the flames of fear in Palestine by openly advocating the forcible creation of a Jewish State.
The answer is simple. Of the all the entities involved in this catch-22, the Palestinians were the weakest and easiest upon which to impose, despite having the least to do with the European pogroms against Jews. This is the context in which Palestinians find “being awarded” half of their own land, by the Europeans responsible for the pogroms in the first place, not just hypocritical, but offensive. No people, under such circumstances, would have been grateful, or found such an"award” enough for them.
My problem with the Zionist narrative (and its focus upon its presumed good intentions alone) is that it seeks to obscure the main cause of the conflict by excluding from its narrative an objective assessment of the consequences of its actual actions (the unlawful land grab done without the consent of the indigenous population). Whether this is done intentionally or to ease the conscience of well-intentioned Zionists, I don’t know. But current attempts to criminalize talk about the Nakba are proof of this, and perhaps even a subconscious admission of guilt by Zionists of the sins of their project.
This is not to say that Israel should not exist, but to properly frame the conflict. The self-righteous hubris of some Zionists is simply unbecoming, especially with their being the primary cause of the conflict.
Posted by Imran on Jun 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM
PMuriello,
Jewish immigration to Palestine was not illegal until 1939 when Britain passed the White Paper into law making Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish land purchases illegal. Prior to this point all Jewish immigration was perfectly legal according to both the Turkish local Administration and the British Mandatory Authorities afterward. You may personally object to the fact that Jews emmigrated to Palestine between the early 1880s and late 1930s, but that doesn’t make what they did “illegal” by any means.
Nazi persecution and genocide was not the first instance of European anti-Jewish persecution. It had been going on for centuries. Jews began to emmigrate from Russia to Palestine during the early 1880s and the first decade of the 20th century due to pogroms, violent and lethal attacks on Jewish communities in Russia and Poland. After WWI, tens of thousands of Jews fled pogroms in Russia and Russian controlled lands in Eastern Europe where nearly 200,000 Jews were killed in pogroms between 1918 and 1922. The vast majority of Jews fled to the west but some few thousand went to Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who emmigrated to pre-1948 Palestine came after 1933 when Hitler came to power in Germany and the West, as I previously pointed out, and the west gradually began to close their doors to Jewish immigration.
“In January 1933 there were some 523,000 Jews in Germany, representing less than 1 percent of the country’s total population. The Jewish population was predominantly urban and approximately one-third of German Jews lived in Berlin. The initial response to the Nazi takeover was a substantial wave of emigration (37,000-38,000), much of it to neighboring European countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland). Most of these refugees were later caught by the Nazis after their conquest of western Europe in May 1940…By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468
A little more than half the German Jewish population was saved but this represented less than 5% of the total European Jewish population in 1939. After 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, the west shut its doors and kept them shut. Between 1939 and 1948, Palestine remained the only place Jews could go mostly by illegally running the British blockade.
“The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, a tragedy that was entirely caused by British authorities’ unmitigated enforcement of their policy against the “illegal” Jewish immigrants fleeing from Hitler’s war against them. After World War II, the impact of British opposition was devestating to Displaced Persons (refugees), recently saved from Hitler’s ovens but now in limbo created by international unwillingness to accept them as refugees. The one destination they preferred above all others was Palestine, but entry there was blocked by the British policy. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, 65 “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, 28,000 of whom were still imprisoned when Israel declared independence.”
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
The Jews had few choices after 1939. The world showed little sympathy.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Cabby,
No one doubts that refugees were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist project to escape brutal persecution, but that in no way changes what many consider to be its imperialist character, or provide a blanket excuse for every evil perpetrated in furtherance of it.
The Zionist project was the brain-child of the 19th/20th century Zionists who wanted to create a Jewish State in a land where the overwhelming majority of the people were not Jewish. How does one do that without finding a way to “displace” or “transfer” the natives? Are you truly not familiar with the verbal gymnastics some Zionists engaged in concerning the ethnic cleansing that would be necessary to bring about such a state, or the understandable fear that this would generate amongst the native population?
Does that sound like a refugee who is simply “legally purchasing land” in your neighborhood? Does that deprive the native, who sees and hears the goals of Zionism in his country and then resists, of his innocence? I understand that many of the Zionist myths that make up their narrative are essential for the peace of mind of the well-intentioned. But they’re not true, and conceal a horrible crime. Let’s take some of them, mentioned in the posts above, one at a time.
Pre-1948 Land purchases. There were three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country. That’s a long way from buying up the whole country.
Pre-1948 population. Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent, a large percentage of whom were immigrants encouraged and financed by the Zionists. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third of its total inhabitants.
And we haven’t even addressed yet the activities of Israel’s founding fathers in the late 1940’s (the well-known terrorist activities of Begin, Shamir, et. al.), that created what many refer to as the Palestinian “fleeing” (700,000+) necessary to make up the difference.
While many Zionist would have you believe the conflict began with the 1948 war, the conflict truly “started” when Zionists decided to forcibly implement their project for a Jewish State in a land where the overwhelming majority of the indigenous residents were not Jewish. Everything that has followed (nearly all of it unpleasant, to say the least) was a directly forseeable consequence of such act. This is something that Zionists simply will not acknowledge, despite intuitively knowing it to be true (as evidenced by the vociferous attacks upon the Nakba narrative in Israel recently).
As stated by Ben Ehrenreich:
“The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.” For the full article, see:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/16-2
This is what most people mean when they speak about the Zionist Project’s actions as being “illegal, immoral or colonial.” Taking land without the consent of the indigenous population is theft, despite the best intentions or motivations of the taker. Past persecution does not create a blank check to steal other people’s land or to persecute others.
While it is unquestionably true that a nuclear-armed Israel is now a fact of life that we simply cannot ignore, this fact alone does not change the character of the Zionist Project, or render it’s discussion as an imperialist one off-limits.
Posted by Imran on Jun 21, 2010 at 1:46 PM
And I would simply note that all of this focus upon the Palestinian resistance, without any mention of the underlying land grab that is the very basis of the conflict, is the usual (and perhaps necessary) MO of the Zionist narrative. It is a feeble attempt to blame the indigenous resistance that followed for legitimizing the land grab that most Zionists had been openly advocating for since the 19th Century.
And to say that something is “perfectly legal” is often the last refuge of someone who has run out of other propositions. But for the sake of argument, let’s look at this claim: who specifically made it “legal?” God? Lord Balfour? The Ottoman Sultan? The UN? How many natives did these people bother or deign to consult before granting the deed to their land?
But, enough already. If we’re looking for a solution, let’s start with a simple factual and accurate statement. I’ve gone round and round with numerous Zionists on numerous occasions before, and it all usually comes down to this one sentence:
“We took the land without your consent because we had no other choice, we were facing extermination by Europeans.”
Okay, I get it. But I insist that Zionists be intellectually honest enough to start with “we took the land without your consent,” rather than repeating these Zionist myths about how grateful the Palestinians should have been with the 1948 dictated partition agreement, or how the nasty resistance to the Zionist project was why the land was taken. It’s the least they can do considering what they’ve done to the Palestinian people.
Imagine the paradigm-shift in the peace talks if just one Israeli government declared that they were sorry for imposing upon the Palestinians against their will during the Zionist project, but that they had no other choice, and that henceforth the discussions will focus on making things as right as possible for them.
Contrast this with the current posture of both the Israeli government and some writers who blame the Palestinians for both the land grab and the resistance to it. Its no wonder that we’ve gotten nowhere in finding a just settlement.
Posted by Imran on Jun 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM
“No one doubts that refugees were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist project to escape brutal persecution…”
You miss the point. Jewish refugees only went to Palestine when no other option was available. When other options were available, immigration statistics for European Jews and their chosen destinations, clearly show they overwhelmingly went to western countries. Palestine became a destination only after 1939 when all other options were closed.
There is general agreement that Zionists purchased not more than 7% of the total land mass of Palestine although it did amount to about 20% of the arable agricultural land, the total share of which expanded due to Zionist draining of swamps in the central valley. Jewish settlement displaced no one between 1880 and 1947; it was the first war that did that.
Most of the terror during the mandatory period was by Arabs against Jews. Conservative estimates place Jewish fatalities as a direct consequence of Arab violence at about 650. There were riots and pogroms all through the British mandatory period beginning in 1921 in Jerusalem through 1948 including a long and concentrated spell of rioting from 1936 to 1939 when the British finally clamped down on Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Jews in Palestine can’t really be considered colonizers in the classic sense. They didn’t have control of Palestine in the first place. They didn’t make the laws or enforce them. They didn’t displace native population or exploit them (Jews used exclusively Jewish labor). And despite myriad Jewish contributions to Palestine’s development prior to 1948, Jewish settlement and economic activities remained locally confined and didn’t disrupt traditional life in Arab villages.
The 1948, which was avoidable, changed all this. There was no independant government in Palestine before 1948. Britain was obliged to “turn control of Palestine over to the local inhabitants” according to the terms of its League of Nations mandate. The local inhabitants were one third Jewish and two thirds Arab. The UN assumed Britain’s responsibility at Britain’s request, by partitioning the country equally according to existing demographic patterns. This was the only viable and peaceful solution. Unfortunately, the Arabs rejected it and chose war.
Each Jewish immigration wave was motivated by humanitarian not political concerns. By 1948, both communities having equally legitimate claims were offered an arrangement allowing both sides to peacefully share Palestine which only one side accepted.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 21, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Cabby,
There you go again, wanting to start at 1948, and I can understand why. But recognize that this is a major theme of the Zionist Narrative, as it facilitates ignoring the Zionist Project’s openly stated goals and activities before then.
Refugees do not normally openly declare that they intend to create a separate state in their place of refuge, with or without the consent of the indigenous population. Jewish refugee immigration to other parts of the world was not the same as its ideological immigration to Palestine. Nor was Palestinian resistance to such immigration simply a xenophobic one, with no possible legitimate motivation. And your listing of the friction between Arabs and Jews before 1948 betrays that you know better.
But, enough already. If we’re looking for a solution, let’s start with a simple factually accurate statement. I’ve gone round and round with numerous Zionists on numerous occasions before, and it all usually comes down to this one sentence:
“We took the land without your consent because we had no other choice, we were facing extermination by Europeans.”
Okay, I get it. But I insist that Zionists be intellectually honest enough to start with “we took the land without your consent,” rather than repeating these insulting Zionist myths about how grateful the Palestinians should have been with the 1948 dictated partition agreement, or how their resistance to the Zionist project was why their land was taken in the first place. It’s the least Zionists can do considering the injustices they have perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
Posted by Imran on Jun 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM
“There you go again, wanting to start at 1948…”
The reason is I’m trying to answer your assertions which refer to that war!! Are you deliberately trying to drive me nuts?? Is this an anti-Zionist psyops tactic??
In 1947, there were two nations in Palestine, not one. One third was Jewish and two thirds was Arab. The UN decided Palestine’s political future because it was impossible for the nearly two million inhabitants of Palestine to peacefully resolve the matter on their own. The UN General Assembly opted for partition. The Jews accepted the partition resolution; the Palestinian Arabs did not. There was never a time in history when there was not some foreign power ruling Palestine. There was no independant sovereign government there. It was ruled by Britain at the time war broke out. Both sides had legitimate claims to the land. There is no reason to consider only the Arab side. The UN considered both sides in 1947 and apparently this was unsatisfactory for the Palestinians who prefered to settle the issue by war.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 21, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Imran + Muriello,
“Again, the ‘reality’ of the situation is that the establishment of a Jewish homeland and a two state solution in Palestine was ever a mandate of the West, not of the Palestinian people, who were the rightful owners of Palestine. It would not have been ‘wrong’ of them to accept it then, just as it is not ‘wrong’ if they accept it now. The point is that they were not ‘wrong’ to reject it either. It was certainly un-pragmatic of them, but not ‘wrong’. THAT is a nuanced argument, not some semantic somersault over a thing and its conduct which is clearly nonsense.”
Talk about falling into an easy trap. You both know darn well that the Israelites were on the land well before the Palestinians were and that Israel’s right to the land is an historic right. It is well documented that there was an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there, but they were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.
Look, the Palestinians lose both ways. They were not the original inhabitants of the land and chose the wrong solution pragmatically when confronted with overwhelming force. That’s the reality. Might makes right. We can’t turn the clock back on the American Indians, and we ain’t gonna turn the clock back on the Palestinians. We also can’t turn the clock back on the Jews. “Go back to Germany, to Poland.” Really? How offensive and ridiculous.
Once the Palestinians renounce violence and embrace peace the Israelis will be there to welcome them with open arms. That’s the first move in getting to the two state solution. Continued teaching of hate and false indoctrination in each new generation is not the answer.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Cabby,
Again, you fail to address Imran’s and my fundamental argument: the Palestinians, NOT the British, NOT the Jews, NOT the UN, were the rightful custodians of Palestine, and as such any so-called “nations” that were formed without their consent are invalid. The Palestinians were and are not under any legal or moral obligation to recognize a Jewish state in the lands of Palestine. The fact that the vast majority of them are willing to recognize a Jewish state in Palestinian lands to me is an act of great magnanimity in the face of decades of brutalization at the hands of Israel. Deal with it.
kenster42,
Haha wow I laughed out loud while reading your post, from start to finish. First of all, the Jews were not the original inhabitants of the lands of Palestine; they had to genocide the Canaanites to create Israel. If you really cared about a ‘historical right’ to the Palestinian lands you would be trying to track down any ancestors of the Canaanites (that is assuming the Jews left any alive) and return them to their rightful home.
Second, you say you “can’t turn back the clock” for the American Indians or the Palestinians, failing to see the obvious fact that Zionism is literally turning back the clock for the Jews! Not only that, but you seem to support turning the clock back for a people that have a distant and tenuous ‘claim’ to address in the Jews, but don’t support turning the clock back for peoples with a much more immediate and visceral claim in
the American Indians and Palestinians. Unless you can clarify your position further, I’m afraid I’m going to have to call it racist.
Haha finally you said it, the underlying theme of all Zionist narratives: “might makes right”, lol yes what an astounding moral argument! You aren’t just an apologist for the Palestinian genocides, you’re an apologist for ALL genocides, including the Holocaust. You’re a monster.
“Once the Palestinians renounce violence and embrace peace the Israelis will be there to welcome them with open arms. That’s the first move in getting to the two state solution. Continued teaching of hate and false indoctrination in each new generation is not the answer. “
Haha yes let’s continue to blame the Palestinians who want a two state settlement and not Israel who constantly votes against the two state solution year after year in U.N. security councils. You either don’t live in reality or are literally mentally impaired, please shut up forever.
Haha, “talk about falling into an easy trap”, kenster42 you are not good at thinking.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 21, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Haha I mean seriously, kenster’s and Cabby’s arguments are basically, “Genocide happens: Deal With It.” They are human scum.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM
And they still haven’t shown that the flotilla raids were anything but murder and piracy. All this flailing about and all they’ve succeeded in doing is showing us how repugnant they are.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Imran / Muriello,
Keep on keepin’ on folks. You don’t know me. I’ve done my time. I’ve read People’s History. I’ve read Wounded Knee. I know about AIM. I went to Pine Ridge and picked up trash at the cemetery. I went to the mini-Ivy liberal arts school. I know the deal with your line of thinking on this issue. I am not unsympathetic to the Palestinians cause.
But I am a realist - interesting that you indicate that I don’t live in reality, because I surely live more in the real world than you two.
In the human world, might does make right. It’s not a judgment, just a statement. If it did not, the Nazis would still be in power. The Allies used might to defeat them, thank G*d. I am not justifying any genocide. I am saying that conflicts happen and that the ones in question as well as others (American Indian, Jews, Palestinians, South African, Northern Ireland, Rwanda) were horrible and involved a tremendous amount of egregious behavior. But all these conflicts are over. By going back and trying to relive them and rehash all the issues we go nowhere. South Africa truly had it right - we need reconciliation and we need to move forward. I believe in the two-state solution and want to get there. The settlements are wrong. I get it. But it only works if people make steps on both sides and Hamas, the currently democratically elected entity representing Palestine, has official policies that will not allow the peace process to move forward. Hamas gives, Israel gives. That’s how it works.
On a side note, Muriello, the beauty of living in the US, Muriello, is that you don’t get to tell me to shut up. You may want to mix up your vocabulary, though. Your propensity for hyperbole is amusing but tires quickly.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 22, 2010 at 4:03 AM
PMuriello,
Your namecalling is about as childish as your interjecting “haha” everywhere as a sign of your disapproval of someone’s views. Is this a substitute for having to make an actual argument. From personal experience of 14 years at the UW-Madison, I guess you learned these tactics during your stint on the pink spiked hair/pierced lip debate team!! haha!! (see, I can do that too!!)
But seriously, let’s consider one of your “arguments.”
“A blockade conducted illegally is an illegal blockade, just as there are many mundane actions that become illegal when you conduct them in a certain way.”
This was exactly my point!! The blockade is only illegal so long as it is conducted in a way that makes it a form of collective punishment (banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949). Should Israel, utterly relax the blockade (as it now seems to be doing) to prohibit only arms from entering Gaza and not the free movement of people and humanitarian supplies, the blockade would be recognized as legal under myriad international laws. It is for this reason that no one challenged the Egyptian blockade during the three years it was in effect.
Israel must continue to inspect all ships coming into Gaza until the PA is put back in charge and Hamas steps down and takes up only those posts it was actually elected to: it’s 74 seats in the Palestine Legislative Council. The landing on the Mavi Marmara was not an attack; it was perfectly legal according to international law. The 1994 San Remo Conference on Armed Conflicts at Sea clearly states that ships running a blockade may be boarded and diverted while still in international waters so long as the ports of neutral countries are not obstructed or endangered.
“Paragraph 67 states that it is permitted for belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”. Paragraph 146 states that it is permitted to capture neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo (see entry on 1994 Conference)
Neutral waters is distinct from international waters. It refers to the territorial waters of neutral states.
The “piracy” charge is the most ludicrous. The ship’s cargo was seized according to international law for legitimate purposes of inspection and then directly forwarded on at Israel’s expense to Gaza, it’s originally intended destination.
Your other contention that the Palestinians are the sole custodians of Palestine is also wrong. Many people have been the “custodians” of Palestine for many centuries. True, no referendum was held regarding Palestine’s political future in 1947; Britain’s legal obligation as per its Mandate was only to “turn power over to the local inhabitants.” The means by which this was to be done was not specified in the Mandate. You may not recognize the Mandate’s authority but it was the law and internationally recognized as such. The UN General Assembly decided to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947 and provided an implementation procedure to be followed. The Jews accepted the resolution. The Arabs opposed it and went to war. They broke the law and defied the will of the international community. This was a gamble they were willing to take. The consequences were catastrophic for all concerned.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 22, 2010 at 8:46 AM
I would also like to address your claim that the “Jews committed a genocide against the Caananites.” This oft repeated claim is seen mostly in the growing number of anti-semitic websites of various kinds and is doubtless based on taking certain assertions in the Old Testament out of context. Here is an analysis from a scholarly rabbinical discussion on the issue:
“I’d point out to them that the commandment(s) given in the Torah were not carried out in the way one might think, so it is necessary to read both Joshua and Judges. It’s clear that not only do we in the 21st century have a problem with genocide, but the contemporaneous texts do, as well. It wasn’t carried out in a genocidal fashion, even though the book of Joshua says that the Canaanites were completely wiped out. It also turns around and says, in the next verse, that Canaanites remained, and that the inhabitants were NOT to be wiped out lest wild beasts overrun the cities (a rationale also found in the Torah). In other words, reading an isolated verse in the Torah and taking it at face value, even one as explicit as the commandment we’re discussing, is simply an improper and cavalier way of embracing the Bible.”
“I’d point out to them that the commandment(s) given in the Torah were not carried out in the way one might think, so it is necessary to read both Joshua and Judges. It’s clear that not only do we in the 21st
century have a problem with genocide, but the contemporaneous texts do, as well. It wasn’t carried out in a genocidal fashion, even though the book of Joshua says that the Canaanites were completely wiped
out. It also turns around and says, in the next verse, that Canaanites remained, and that the inhabitants were NOT to be wiped out lest wild beasts overrun the cities (a rationale also found in the Torah).
In other words, reading an isolated verse in the Torah and taking it at face value, even one as explicit as the commandment we’re discussing, is simply an improper and cavalier way of embracing the Bible.”
Proscription of the Canaanite Nations.pdf
Here is the most realistic explanation of the actual history although not from an authoritative source;
“Actually, it is more probably, conforming to current archeology, that there was no Canaanite Genocide. That the Canaanites and Israelites (while individual tribes and city-states doubtless fought wars) slowly coalesced into a single people over the course of a couple of centuries. The five books of Moses were collected from Oral traditions during a time when there was no distinct genres for law codes, history, poetry, legend, science, theology and philosophy. It was all one.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100315103306AAn2yxJ
This version of events accords with what many archaeologists have come to conclude.
We live in a time of rising anti-semitism all over the world. Publicly regurgitating the Joshua narrative from the Old Testament in order to smear Jews with bogus charges of “genocide” in an attempt to relate it to today’s policies in Gaza is merely an effort to stir up anti-semitic hate. These efforts are quite consistent with a centuries old tradition of blood libel against Jews in order to stir up violent hatred against them. Israel’s occupation is harsh; but it is far from a “genocide.” There are five times the number of Palestinian Arabs in all of Israel and Palestine than there were in 1948. It is a strange genocide that results in the fivefold increase in population of the victims rather than their annihilation. Contrast this with the real genocides in Africa over the past 40 years or so that have claimed the lives of over 12 million people or Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia that took the lives of one third of the population. Israeli policies are brutal and must end. But they are not a genocide.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 22, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Cabby brings up a good point.
Muriello/Imran may not make statements that are anti-Semitic (well, IMO Muriello’s statements are tough to swallow and close to the line due to the clear emotion behind them), but rather simply anti-Israel.
However, as a non-Jew who grew up in a heavily Jewish community, I continued to be absolutely floored, in 2010 no less, by the number of people in the world who clearly hate the Jews. I mean floored. We indeed living a time of rising anti-semitism. To that end, Imran/Muriello, I personally would hope that you could be sensitive to that. For every person that is careful to stress that they are criticizing the policies of Israel rather than the Jewishness of its inhabitants, there are 10 more who hate Jews with a passion and say and write the most horrible things.
I’d really like to hear a little more tolerance from the other side. I’ve tried to show my tolerance when I can (“I’m sympathetic to the Palestinians’ plight”), but never seem to get any sympathy or empathy for what the Jewish community has gone through. The Palestinians did not lose 6 million of their own ever. As Cabby noted, their population has increased fivefold over the last 60 years. If that’s genocide, you and I are not reading the same definition.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 22, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Wow, so much garbage to respond to. I’ll start with kenster42:
I don’t care how much so-called liberal arts education you have, if you honestly think that “might makes right” is legitimate in any way then your education didn’t take. One of the fundamental concepts of a liberal arts education is to make the distinction between what “is” and what “ought” to be, and clearly you give primacy to “is” at the expense of “ought.”
And my claim that “might makes right” has been the underlying philosophy to all modern atrocities is not hyperbole, it’s fact. Deal with it.
But that is beside the point. Your continued assertion that it is Hamas, who has said they would accept a two state solution, that prolongs the conflict and not Israel, who without fail votes against it in U.N. security councils, contradicts reality which you claim to live in.
“On a side note, Muriello, the beauty of living in the US, Muriello, is that you don’t get to tell me to shut up.”
I don’t know what this sentence is supposed to mean, so just shut up forever I guess.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Cabby,
“This was exactly my point!! The blockade is only illegal so long as it is conducted in a way that makes it a form of collective punishment (banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949).”
Good! Then we agree that the blockade was illegal and therefore Israel engaged in piracy and murder during the flotilla raids.
Let me lay it out more formally since you seem to be willfully stupid about this issue: There are two possible legal status that the blockade can have; legal or illegal. If the blockade is legal, then it is legal for Israel to enforce it. If it is not legal, then it is not legal for Israel to enforce it. We both agree that the blockade was illegal, and therefore must both reach the conclusion that it was not legal for Israel to enforce it. And because it is the case that during the enforcement of an illegal blockade Israel both killed crew and confiscated cargo, it is the case that Israel engaged in murder and piracy.
And to be extra sure you can’t wiggle out of being intellectually honest about this debate for once, let me address this too:
“The landing on the Mavi Marmara was not an attack; it was perfectly legal according to international law.”
The landing’s legality is contingent on the purpose of that landing being legal, which was the enforcement of the blockade. Since we agree that the blockade is illegal, we are forced to conclude that the landing was illegal, and therefore constituted an attack.
“Your other contention that the Palestinians are the sole custodians of Palestine is also wrong.”
Yet another case of your intellectual dishonesty or willful stupidity. Imran and I were not claiming that Palestinians were the “sole” custodians of Palestine; we were claiming they were the “RIGHTFUL” custodians of Palestine. That is the claim you must deal with.
“I would also like to address your claim that the “Jews committed a genocide against the Caananites.”
Yo, you might be too dumb to understand this but genocide doesn’t necessitate the extinction of a people. That’s commonly understood to be the goal of genocide, but that is almost never the outcome. I mean, I’m sure you would agree that the Holocaust was a genocide, yet not only was Hitler unsuccessful in exterminating all of Europe’s Jews, he didn’t even touch non-European Jews that didn’t fight in the war.
But I’m not going to let you do a semantic tap dance around the main point; that the Canaanites were there first, so if you want to assign primary rights of the lands of Palestine to “whoever was there first” (as if that matters) then you should be trying to track down whatever remaining Canaanites there are and returning their homeland to them.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Speaking of matters of genocide, you deny that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is genocide. Welp, let’s begin with the U.N.‘s definition of genocide:
“.any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. “
(a) Check. (b) Check. (c) Check, and explicitly confirmed by the Israeli government. (d) Check, in the cases of Palestinian women miscarrying because Israeli checkpoints would not give them access to a hospital.Note that only one of these conditions are necessary for an action to constitute a genocide.
And let me address your stupid objection before you even make it: “B-b-but PMuriello, Israel never SAID it intended to destroy the Palestinians!” Fine, for the sake of argument let’s say that an overt declaration of intent is necessary to call an action genocide. That means if Hitler had not overtly stated that he wanted to annihilate the Jews, the Holocaust would not have been a genocide. If his story was that the Jews just accidentally fell into the gas chambers and ovens after which a careless SS officer accidentally bumped the “on” switch, you could not call the Holocaust a genocide. That would be absurd, and it is similarly absurd to make such excuses for Israel.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM
One last thing: I, along with many others including Jews, find it repugnant when people make appeals to the existence of anti-Semitism when engaging in Israel apologetics. The fact that there are anti-Semites in the world does not lend Israel one iota of legitimacy toward its brutalization of the Palestinians. It’s a disgusting abuse of the historical suffering of the Jews and you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing it.
Actually, this is the last thing: haha as if I care about what some idiot with horrible opinions thinks of my ‘maturity level’, there aren’t enough “haha"s in the world to illustrate my contempt for your awful arguments and repugnant morals. also lmao:
“I guess you learned these tactics during your stint on the pink spiked hair/pierced lip debate team!! haha!! (see, I can do that too!!)”
haha you think you “got me”, as if having pink hair and piercings (which I don’t) is somehow worse than being an apologist for atrocity, please shut up forever along with kenster
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM
The fact that you two have this conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust is actually a great example of how the Holocaust has been used to give Israel the moral permit to engage in its own atrocities. Here’s a quote from Uri Averni, an Israeli civil rights activist, about this phenomenon:
“The Holocaust overshadows everything the Israeli people think and do. Our attitude is conditioned by the Holocaust. It conditions Israel to justify any means because compared with the Holocaust any any bad things we do are negligible by comparison. It is a standard of comparison that gives a kind of moral permit to do anything. In a way we are still victims of the Holocaust today but in a different way. It twists our outlook on things.”
So just like the Holocaust conditions Israel to compare its actions to the Holocaust instead of an objective moral standard, you are comparing the Palestinian genocide to the Holocaust instead of an objective moral standard.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Muriello,
Your posts are filled with examples of rigid, dogmatic and intolerant thinking. The conduct of a blockade may be illegal (if it amounts to collective punishment) but the blockade is not necessary itself illegal on that account alone. Your contention is like saying an officer used excessive force in arresting the crime suspect; ergo the arrest itself is rendered illegal. This is foolish. The officer had the right and duty to arrest the suspect; he just crossed the line by using excessive force. The same applies to the Israeli blockade. Most of the world rejects Hamas and its violent seizure of Gaza which few Palestinians support any longer. You seem to find it convenient to ignore this most important factor in the entire issue. Israel has the right to search cargo entering Gaza. The fact that there is no legitimate government in Gaza makes this all the more necessary which is only one reason Egypt has been so forthcoming on holding up their end of the blockade. The blockade is legal so long as it doesn’t create a humanitarian crisis or violate Fourth Geneva or other international conventions.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Muriello,
The UN has never applied these criteria to any situation in the way that you are in order to establish that a genocide is occurring. In the first place, if only (a) or (b) are required to satisfy the definition so broadly defined than there is by this logic a genocide taking place everywhere at all times, including the present US, because people are always being killed and in some manner harmed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. Israel has not engaged in (c) to the extent that it threatens Palestinian survival. Their measures are harsh and create hardship sometimes resulting in death but is not a genocidal threat. Certainly, (d) is not being pursued by Israel; Palestinians have among the highest birthrates in the world. By no means did Israel ever engage in (e).
I have never promoted a “conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust” which is a very narrow conception indeed. But the utter destruction of a society and the murder of at least most of its people, or a sufficient proportion of them to make the victims’ society culturally and practically unviable. Israeli sociologist, Baruch Kimmerling has come up with a much more apt description; politicide. I have never made apologetics for Israeli crimes (of which there have been many) but I am interested in the truth. I don’t abide sloppy reasoning or accusing people or nations of that which they do not do in order to achieve a desired political effect.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Muriello,
As seems to have become the trend you cherry pick from my statements that which with you disagree and ignore the rest. How disappointing.
Your interpretation on the UN’s definition on what constitutes genocide is narrow to the point that pretty much any military action of one country against another can be considered genocide. It renders the definition useless and unable to be applied to anyone.
The proper way to look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation is at what it really is, which is a war. There have been casualties on both sides. There have been moral transgressions on both sides - terroristic behavior on the part of the Palestinians, oppressor behavior on the part of the Israelis. Just because the Israelis have a superior military does not make them practitioners of genocide. Just because the Israelis care enough about the health of their people to prevent unfettered border crossings does not make them practitioners of genocide. Your charge of genocide is indeed emblematic of rigid, intolerant, dogmatic thinking.
Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself. It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much, but where are they treated after the incident? Israeli hospitals where they get superlative care. When the Israeli army uses, as a last resort, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse violent, anti-Israeli demonstrations, where do wounded demonstrators go for treatment? Israeli hospitals, where they get superlative care. “We hate you and our hate leads to bloodthirsty attacks, but, oops, we got injured, so please fix us up so we can hate you and attack you some more.” It’s crazy.
Also, I absolutely will not back down from pointing out your implied assertion that there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever and you cheapen and dilute your argument whenever you try to argue that. There is absolutely no comparison in behavior no matter how many times you say it. The Jews did not attack Germany with suicide bombers and fire rockets at them. The Israelis did not exterminate the Palestinians and did not put them in concentration camps and starve them and make them do forced labor and experiment on them. It is offensive that you think otherwise and shows not only how far apart we are but how far your arguments are away from the mainstream.
Finally, if you can’t understand that while you and I might not agree with “might makes right” as an operating political or moral philosophy but that this philosophy continues to be the primary method of ensuring sovereignty, then you are too far gone, my friend. While military might sometimes results in atrocities, it far more often results in atrocities being avoided. All major western countries are safer from their enemies because of their might. If that might was not there those countries would not be there either.
Oh, and my point regarding free speech was that you don’t have the ABILITY to make me “shut up forever.”
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Cabby,
You really are the king of terrible analogies! My contention is actually like saying that a police officer who conducted a search illegally conducted an illegal search, which is not foolish and is actually quite reasonable. I will also note that police brutality often ends up reducing the culpability of the “criminal” for any supposed crimes they commit, so it seems your analogy actually harms your argument.
“The conduct of a blockade may be illegal (if it amounts to collective punishment) but the blockade is not necessary itself illegal on that account alone.”
Sometimes it’s possible to pinpoint where the dialogue reaches its intellectual nadir; we have reached that point.
Yes, Cabby, if the conduct of a blockade necessarily results in a war crime it is in fact illegal. You have already admitted that the stated conduct of this blockade necessitated a war crime. The only conclusion you can come to is that the blockade was illegal. There is no wiggle room on this. Stop making this nonsense argument. I can’t tell if it’s out of willful stupidity or intellectual dishonesty (probably out of your seeming instinctual need for Israel apologetics), either way just stop.
Now, for your impressively stupid “rebuttal” of my point about genocide:
“The UN has never applied these criteria to any situation in the way that you are in order to establish that a genocide is occurring.”
Unsubstantiated, but for the sake of argument let’s assume this is true. What’s your point?
“In the first place, if only (a) or (b) are required to satisfy the definition so broadly defined than there is by this logic a genocide taking place everywhere at all times, including the present US, because people are always being killed and in some manner harmed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. “
Any criteria satisfies the definition so long as it is being conducted with an intent to destroy an ethnic group. If you can prove that people in the U.S. are being killed with that intent then I don’t see what is so ridiculous about saying genocides are occurring in the U.S. (every race crime is an instance of genocide, hope this helps!)
“Israel has not engaged in (c) to the extent that it threatens Palestinian survival.”
Ignoring the fact that the stated goal of the blockade is to squeeze the Palestinians into submission, Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the UN’s refugee agency, disagrees with you: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”.
“Certainly, (d) is not being pursued by Israel; Palestinians have among the highest birthrates in the world.”
Palestinians having high birth rates says nothing about the existence or non-existence of (d), only the effectiveness of any cases of (d). And I have already provided a case of (d) occurring.
“By no means did Israel ever engage in (e). “
Nor did accuse them of such. Please argue with me, not a strawman.
“I have never promoted a “conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust” which is a very narrow conception indeed.”
Maybe, but you’ve never promoted a conception of genocide that isn’t totally arbitrary or grounded in objectivity either.
“I have never made apologetics for Israeli crimes”
the flotilla raid bro, the flotilla raid
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM
kenster42,
“As seems to have become the trend you cherry pick from my statements that which with you disagree and ignore the rest. How disappointing.”
Pot, kettle…also if I took the time to respond to every stupid thing you said I would probably kill myself
“Your interpretation on the UN’s definition on what constitutes genocide is narrow to the point that pretty much any military action of one country against another can be considered genocide.”
As long as you can prove intent to destroy one of the listed groups, yep. What’s your point?
“It renders the definition useless and unable to be applied to anyone.”
Nope.
“The proper way to look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation is at what it really is, which is a war.”
You can only declare war on a nation, which the Palestinians technically don’t have, so nope.
“Just because the Israelis have a superior military does not make them practitioners of genocide.”
Correct. It is the obvious intention to destroy the Palestinians as a group, both in the past and today, that makes them practitioners of genocide.
“Your charge of genocide is indeed emblematic of rigid, intolerant, dogmatic thinking.”
Nope, it’s emblematic of the ability to objectively apply moral standards to a given situation.
“Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself.”
haha yes how ridiculous to want a woman to be able to give birth to a live baby, you are a monster
“It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much”
Unsubstantiated. They seem to “hate” Israel.
“but where are they treated after the incident? Israeli hospitals where they get superlative care. When the Israeli army uses, as a last resort, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse violent, anti-Israeli demonstrations, where do wounded demonstrators go for treatment? Israeli hospitals, where they get superlative care. “We hate you and our hate leads to bloodthirsty attacks, but, oops, we got injured, so please fix us up so we can hate you and attack you some more.” It’s crazy.”
Gosh, remind me again why they need medical care in the first place? Oh that’s right, because they were illegally attacked by Israel, who according to all objective firsthand accounts was the aggressor. It’s almost as if the onus is on Israel to care for those they wrongly injured! Also your characterization of the crew as “bloodthirsty” is patently false; if they were “bloodthirsty” they would have brought actual weapons and they would have murdered those IDF soldiers they captured instead of treating their wounds and returning them to the IDF before the raid. Intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head again.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 5:00 PM
“Also, I absolutely will not back down from pointing out your implied assertion that there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews.”
Where did I say this? Seriously, where?
“The Israelis did not exterminate the Palestinians”
Except scholars are now of the broad consensus that there were ethnic cleanseings during the 1948 war…
“and did not put them in concentration camps and starve them”
...Gaza bro…
“It is offensive that you think otherwise and shows not only how far apart we are but how far your arguments are away from the mainstream.”
...except I never said this so stop your histrionics and address my actual arguments you simpleton.
“Finally, if you can’t understand that while you and I might not agree with “might makes right” as an operating political or moral philosophy but that this philosophy continues to be the primary method of ensuring sovereignty, then you are too far gone, my friend.”
That’s right, you will never get me to agree that “might makes right” has any place in sovereignty or any question of “ought” whatsoever because it doesn’t. This isn’t a matter of “agree to disagree”, this is a matter of “you are demonstrably wrong.”
“While military might sometimes results in atrocities, it far more often results in atrocities being avoided. All major western countries are safer from their enemies because of their might. If that might was not there those countries would not be there either.”
haha this is a concentrated block of stupid, military might is literally the leading perpetrator of atrocity in the world, and probably the only reason western countries need protection from enemies or even have enemies is because for the last 200 years they have been the biggest perpetrator of atrocity in the world, maybe if we could stop murdering people for a while they would stop hating us and we wouldn’t need a military anymore you myopic retard
“Oh, and my point regarding free speech was that you don’t have the ABILITY to make me “shut up forever.”
well according to your almighty “might makes right” philosophy I could put a bullet in your head and the worst criticism you could level at me was that I won the argument unfairly, although now that I took the time to respond to every one of your facile arguments I would probably just put a bullet in my own brain
haha you are unredeemably stupid, seriously consider shutting up forever
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Wow, where to start with all the ad hominems. You may want to chill out a bit, dude, or take your meds so you can think better. You’re probably ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit too much when you talk about putting a bullet in either of our heads to make a point.
1. “It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much” Unsubstantiated. They seem to “hate” Israel.
Nope. Quite substantiated. Check out this news report from AL JAZEERA, so you know it’s not gonna be biased towards the Israelis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk.
Talk about peaceful intentions! Nothing like a Jew-killing Intifada battle song to get folks amped up about peace!. Notice that they weren’t singing about killing ‘Israel”. It’s interesting to note that out of all the flotilla ships, the only one that had trouble was the Mavi Marmari. Maybe that’s because they were a bunch of Jew-haters who were spoiling for a fight and got one.
2. Intent to destroy a group - Good luck proving that, bro. Not even worth responding to.
3. Exterminating Palestinians - Wow, a revisionist historian argument without proof from 1948? That’s all you have? 5x more Palestinians in the region today than in 1948, more attempts from the Israelis than I can count to try to patch things up and have peace. What says genocide more than “hey, let’s have another round of peace negotiations - maybe we’ll get there this time?”
4. War is war - Nice of you to hit that up on a technicality. So, how about this - Israel is in conflict with a known terrorist organization called Hamas, which is the democratically elected entity for the Palestinian people. Does that sound better?
5. You never understood my point about medical treatment. Everyone on the Palestinian side hates Israel until they need something from Israel. If it weren’t so depressing it might be funny.
6. Gaza = Concentration camp. Totally expected you to go there and you didn’t disappoint. Having the chutzpah to compare Gaza to a concentration camp shows how far off your moral balance is. I’m including a link that should help you out:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-treatment-of-jews-during-world-w.html
When you’re done reading that and absorbing how different that is, an apology would be nice.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM
1. Yes, that one group speaks for all of the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, just like the supposedly small minority of bloodthirsty Israeli Zionists that perpetrate atrocities against the Palestinians speak for all Israelis. And once again, treating the wounds of your enemy then sending them back defies your characterization of “bloodthirsty.”
oh hey look I can post incriminating youtube videos too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP8uZrytG48
2. “Intent to destroy a group - Good luck proving that, bro.”
ignoring the fact that this is the stated goal of the blockade, every human rights group that has done a study on Cast Lead came to the conclusion that civilians were intentionally targeted
3. lol yes Shlomo Ben-Ami, respected historian and Israeli negotiator during Camp David, is a revisionist, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, haha and oh the irony of a Zionist accusing someone of being a “historical revisionist” lmao
4. Sure, the problem is that even without that technicality your argument is beyond stupid. Re-read my last post and come up with an actual rebuttal or concede the point.
5. I did understand your point and I replied by pointing out that Israel has a responsibility to treat the wounds of those who it wrongfully injured, so it’s not “funny” that the Palestinians expect Israel to give them medical treatment, its “reasonable.” That is the claim you need to address.
6. You’re too stupid to post a link properly, but I went and found the article anyway. So here we go:
“Deprived of food, medical care, many of the basic necessities of life” - Check.
“Several Jews were also executed for alleged crimes.” - Check.
“Like the concentration camps, the ghettos were simply a temporary solution to the Jewish problem for the Nazis. Eventually, these ghettos would be emptied and the inhabitants murdered.” - this has been the story for the past 60 years, so Check.
I will concede that the Nazi concentration camps were far worse (not that I ever said “Gaza = Nazi concentration camps” like you seem to think I did), but that is a difference of quantity not of quality; the fact is that there are many similarities between the Nazi concentration camps and the situation in Gaza. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. I owe you no apology.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 6:45 PM
and look at you kenster, I took all that time to respond to you point by point and you didn’t even do me the same favor, half of your rebuttals amount to nothing more than “dude. no.”, you are an intellectually dishonest halfwit who doesn’t even have the decency to abide by his own standards of conduct
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM
It’s about that time, Muriello. You said yourself that these “conversations” eventually reach their intellectual nadir. Well, it’s here. Best of luck to you in your future discussions with people that will tolerate your non-debate debating style. I know I can always improve my arguments but I can comfort myself with my certainty that your sparkling personality will stay the same.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 23, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Muriello,
You are becoming increasingly, abusive, prejudiced, narrow minded and ignorant. You refuse to take into account the arguments of others preferring to continue dogmatically repeat your obnoxious harangues about “Israeli atrocities” over and over again. You ignore evidence presented to you that contradicts your views instead of addressing it. One excellent example is the youtube video posted by both kenster and myself of an Al-Jazeera report explicitly showing certain activists on the Mavi Marmara extolling jihad, professing to seek “martyrdom in Gaza and expressing hatred of Jews calling for their death. The fact that many of them belong to a Turkish based “charity” organization called IHH, a goup with know direct links to Al-Qaeda and Hamas, made no impression on you.
You have also continued to make absurd comparisons between the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza with Nazi treatment of Jews. In the view of most of the sane world, though the Israeli treatment of Palestinians of Gaza is harsh, inhumane and often illegal, it doesn’t compare to the Nazi treatment of Jews. The Nazis didn’t send thousands of tons of humanitarian aid into the Warsaw Ghetto; the Nazis didn’t lift the siege to allow the free movement of people and goods; the Nazis didn’t create the Ghetto because the Jews were sending rockets from Warsaw into Germany but rather with “an intent to destroy the Jews in their entirety.” Did the Nazis work with international aid agencies to distribute aid to the Jews in Warsaw or elsewhere in places under Nazi occupation?
Israeli officials have expressed political reasons for the blockade such as punishment for the support of Hamas. This is brutal and illegal but it is not a genocide. There is no Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. Israel’s behavior clearly fails to satisfy the UN genocide criteria. There is no Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinians; deaths were the result of war not deliberate targeting of civilians. Civilians deaths were never intended. What would be the purpose? The UN has admitted to the validity of Israeli claims that Hamas rocket and artillery fire has often been in the vacinity of civilian structures such as homes, hospitals and schools. IDF return fire was intended for Hamas not civilians. It is Hamas, in its use of human shields, that has committed a war crime. I also think it’s appalling that considering the suffering of the Gaza People, Hamas chose to use its funds from Iran and elsewhere to purchase and develop weapons and not humanitarian and social aid to the people of Gaza. Apparently, they are more interested in serving Iran’s interests than those of the Palestinians.
Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza is illegal. This is very clear. But taking security measures such as inspecting ships is not illegal. Hamas created a security problem. The fact that your arguments don’t take this into account is ridiculous. Had Hamas never done this there would be no problems. Gaza, even under occupation, was a thriving place. Over 100,000 Gazans found good paying work in Israel while Israelis frequently visited Gaza to shop, purchase agricultural goods in bulk for sale in Israel, patronize local businesses and tour. Money flowed from outside into Gaza making it a viable place. Hamas’ violence changed all this for the worse. They have had a debilitating impact on the people there.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM
It is possible to blockade arms and let everything else in without violating international law at all. Lawrence Wright, a journalist with much experience in the Middle East and Gaza in particular responds to a question in this regard;
“Would it be so hard to have a checkpoint system that blocked weapons and allowed everything else?”
“That’s not hard at all, and that’s the way it’s usually done. Netanyahu said, if we open up the blockade, Gaza will become a port for Iran. But it’s completely possible to maintain a ban on weapons just by inspecting what’s coming into the country without shutting out everything.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/06/lawrence-wright-on-gaza.html
This was precisely the Israeli intention with the Mavi Marmara and what will continue to be their policy since the recent easing of the blockade. Egypt has recently completed a deep subsurface concrete wall running the full length of the Gaza/Egyptian border to prevent tunnels from reaching into Egypt. Is this collective punishment as well? The problem is that Hamas is not a legitimate government having violently siezed power. There is thus no legitimate government in Gaza and since there is no one there for Israel (or Egypt) to deal with, both countries have to cooperate to minimize the damage Hamas is doing to everyone concerned. According to an NPR report, Israel has turned over the 10,000 tons of cargo from the Mavi Marmara to the UN for distribution in Gaza.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127863172&ft=1&f=1001
The UN also shares Israel’s goals of national security; it just insists that Israel obey international laws and conventions and not engage in actions that result in the needless suffering of the Gazan People;
Here is recent report from the UN News Centre;
“Acknowledging that Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded, the Quarter said it believed that efforts to maintain security while enabling movement and access for Palestinian people and goods are critical. It pledged to work with Israel and the international community to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza, and urged all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35090&Cr=palestin&Cr1;=
This should resolve all questions on Israel’s blockade and international law for any reasonable person. Israel’s attempt to inspect the ship was neither criminal nor unjust; the former conduct of the blockade was and this issue is presently being resolved.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 23, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Cabby,
“You refuse to take into account the arguments of others preferring to continue dogmatically repeat your obnoxious harangues about “Israeli atrocities” over and over again.”
That’s only because you dogmatically repeat your obnoxious apologetics over and over. Besides, I think it is useful to call things what they are, so I will continue to refer to Israeli atrocities as “atrocities”, thanks.
“One excellent example is the youtube video posted by both kenster and myself of an Al-Jazeera report explicitly showing certain activists on the Mavi Marmara extolling jihad, professing to seek “martyrdom in Gaza and expressing hatred of Jews calling for their death.”
And my counter argument was that it was a invalid generalization to say that because some crew seem to hate Jews that all of the crew hated Jews. I illustrated my point with the video I posted of the IDF soldier saying in reference to Palestinians, “We are humans and they are animals.” It would be invalid to claim on that basis that all IDF soldiers have such prejudices based on that account, and it is similarly invalid to make that claim about the crew of the Mavi Marmara. Although I will say that actions of the IDF during the raid certainly show that sentiment, while the actions of the crew of the Mavi Marmara does not support your claim that they were “bloodthirsty.”
“You have also continued to make absurd comparisons between the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza with Nazi treatment of Jews.”
The comparisons are not absurd; the Gazans suffer under many of the same hardships that the Jews did in Nazi concentration camps. This is an uncontroversial statement because the historical and human rights records support it.
“The Nazis didn’t send thousands of tons of humanitarian aid into the Warsaw Ghetto”
Uh huh, and Israel prevents thousands of tons of humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza with their illegal blockade. Are you really too stupid to see this connection or are you just that intellectually dishonest?
“the Nazis didn’t create the Ghetto because the Jews were sending rockets from Warsaw into Germany but rather with “an intent to destroy the Jews in their entirety.””
The reasons why Israel created the situation in Gaza is irrelevant to the point I made; the living conditions are very similar, this is a matter of fact not opinion.
“Israeli officials have expressed political reasons for the blockade such as punishment for the support of Hamas. This is brutal and illegal but it is not a genocide. There is no Israeli genocide against the Palestinians.”
By whose definition?
“Israel’s behavior clearly fails to satisfy the UN genocide criteria.”
You have not demonstrated this at all.
“There is no Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinians; deaths were the result of war not deliberate targeting of civilians. Civilians deaths were never intended.”
Well the Goldstone report disagrees with you there; the report says explicitly that civilian sites were targeted, and sorry but the logical conclusion of targeting civilian cites with military force is that civilians will die. Period.
“What would be the purpose?”
To further radicalize the population, leading to an escalation of the conflict which could be used as pretense for invasion and further appropriation of Palestinian territories. This is not a new Israeli tactic by any means.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
“The UN has admitted to the validity of Israeli claims that Hamas rocket and artillery fire has often been in the vacinity of civilian structures such as homes, hospitals and schools. IDF return fire was intended for Hamas not civilians.”
Wrong: “The former judge [Goldstone] ]explained that “Israel has said that given the density of the population in gaza - they did the best they could to avoid civilians,” but added that “we certainly looked into the fact that Hamas put their weapons near civilians. We looked for proof but didn’t find it.” - http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-israel-intentionally-targeted-gaza-civilian-sites-1.6956
“It is Hamas, in its use of human shields, that has committed a war crime.”
I will not deny that they have committed war crimes or even that they have committed this war crime (although they only place I have read about them doing this is in pro-Israeli sources), but as the Goldstone report says, they did not do this during Cast Lead. Only two conclusions can be drawn from this; one, that Israel truly thought Hamas was placing weapons near civilians, which suggests that Israel’s intelligence and military is stunningly incompetent and shouldn’t be trusted with a sharp stick, let alone the white phosphorous and cluster munitions. Two, that they knew Hamas was not storing weapons near civillians, but used it as a convenient excuse to attack civillian targets in an effort to destabilize and humiliate the Palestinians. The reality is though that they targeted civilian facilities intentionally; you don’t get to bulldoze multiple chicken farms, killing over 250,000 chickens in the process (which created a meat and egg shortage, by the way) and claim that you were targeting “Hamas weapons.”
“Hamas chose to use its funds from Iran and elsewhere to purchase and develop weapons and not humanitarian and social aid to the people of Gaza.”
except the vast majority of Hamas’ budget goes toward providing social services in Gaza which is how they got elected in the first place you drooling idiot, how dare you claim to value the truth yet spew this vile propaganda, eat shit and die you intellectually vapid monster. if you wonder why I seem so pissed it’s because people like you self-righteously justify atrocity with outright lies
“Using Israeli estimates, he [Matthew Levitt] reckons Hamas probably has an annual budget of between $70m and $90m, 80 to 85 per cent of which it spends on its political work and its extensive networks of schools, clinics and welfare organisations, while 15 to 20 per cent goes on military operations.” - http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/05/hamas-palestinian-israel
“They [Hamas]have had a debilitating impact on the people there. “
Would you say they had a more or less debilitating impact than the constant unprovoked and inappropriate violence from Israel?
“Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza is illegal. This is very clear. But taking security measures such as inspecting ships is not illegal.”
The pretense under which they were inspecting the ships was the blockade. The blockade constitutes a war crime, and is therefore illegal. Therefore their pretense for inspecting the ships was iillegal. Therefore they did not have the right to inspect the ships. You are seriously retarded for trying to stick to your stupid fucking argument.
“It is possible to blockade arms and let everything else in without violating international law at all. “
Yes it’s possible, but that’s not what Israel was doing you moron.
“The problem is that Hamas is not a legitimate government having violently siezed power.”
Read this and then shut the fuck up forever about Hamas’ supposed “illegitimacy”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
“This should resolve all questions on Israel’s blockade and international law for any reasonable person. Israel’s attempt to inspect the ship was neither criminal nor unjust; the former conduct of the blockade was and this issue is presently being resolved. “
The only thing that will resolve all questions is an independent inquiry into the flotilla attacks, not some rationalizing from an intellectually dishonest nitwit on the internet. In the meantime I have again and again demonstrated that your argument about the legality of the blockade is nonsense. Concede the point. Also you literally quoted Netenyahu in trying to justify the blockade as if he is an objective or even trustworthy source, that was either intellectually dishonest or just blatantly stupid.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM
and ugh I already addressed your stupid objection about Israel’s intent to destroy Palestinians here:
“And let me address your stupid objection before you even make it: “B-b-but PMuriello, Israel never SAID it intended to destroy the Palestinians!” Fine, for the sake of argument let’s say that an overt declaration of intent is necessary to call an action genocide. That means if Hitler had not overtly stated that he wanted to annihilate the Jews, the Holocaust would not have been a genocide. If his story was that the Jews just accidentally fell into the gas chambers and ovens after which a careless SS officer accidentally bumped the “on” switch, you could not call the Holocaust a genocide. That would be absurd, and it is similarly absurd to make such excuses for Israel. “
maybe another reason I get worked up, you know aside from that fact that you literally lie in order to justify atrocity, is because I have to say the same thing over and over because you refuse to engage arguments that you can’t reconcile with your irrational pro-Israel worldview. oh and that stupid assertion plucked straight from pro-Israel opinion blogs that Israel somehow had the right to inspect ships under the pretenses of an illegal blockade, lol the UN is going to annihilate that retarded fucking argument and accuse Israel of war crimes for the second time in the last year, sorry about your cognitive dissonance br0ski
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 12:51 PM
“It’s about that time, Muriello. You said yourself that these “conversations” eventually reach their intellectual nadir. Well, it’s here. Best of luck to you in your future discussions with people that will tolerate your non-debate debating style. I know I can always improve my arguments but I can comfort myself with my certainty that your sparkling personality will stay the same. “
Dear kenster42,
You’re an apologist for genocide and atrocity, that makes you human scum. Deal with it.
Love,
PMuriello
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Cabby and Kenster42,
You might want to rethink that Israeli canard you guys parrot in your posts about IHH’s links to terror, as it was one of the very first of the IDF lies to be debunked.
First, the Israeli government failed to provide evidence of individual claims of terrorist affiliations or intentions. See:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/another-idf-claim-unravels-idf-unable-to-support-claim-of-terrorists-aboard-flotilla-ship/
Second, the Israeli government edited its own websites to remove Al-Qaeda assertions after it could not substantiate claims that flotilla passengers had connections to Al-Qaeda. See:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/
Third, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a think tank with ties to Israel’s Defense Ministry, concluded that there is “no known evidence of current links between IHH and ‘global jihad elements.’” See:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/10/turkey-is-medias-latest-target-for-alleged-terror-ties/
And finally, not only does the IHH not appear on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, the group played an active role in delivering humanitarian aid to Haiti after the devastating January earthquake while the US military directed relief efforts there.
Posted by Imran on Jun 23, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Nice catch Imran. Once again Cabby proves himself a hypocrite by claiming to “wait for the truth” while he swallows every Israeli lie, hook, line, and sinker.
also haha kenster’s big finish was “I know I’m wrong about everything but you’re a big poopy head so THERE!” this thread rules
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Muriello,
You are a raving lunatic. You accuse others of being “intellectually dishonest” but you are intellectually underdeveloped. This much is clear. In addition to which you’re a rude moron with little knowledge of the subject about which you speak. You rigid little axiom about the blockade being illegal ergo the ship’s inspection was illegal is ignorant nonsense.
The is much dispute about the legality about Israel’s blockade. Among the many things Israel argues is its right of self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Other arguments follow that since Israel’s situation is unique, many aspects of it are not accounted for under current international law. Some legal opinion is that it is legal.
“CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”. Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control. “On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal,” said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.”
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-israeli-blockade-is-legal.html
The San Remo Manual allows the stopping of ships in international waters due to its mere intent to run a military blockade which is, in most legal opinion, itself an act of war. Israel’s blockade was well known and didn’t obstruct or endanger neutral countries or their ports and vessels. The only remaining issue is whether or not the blockade is illegal by virtue of its being a collective punishment. It can certainly be argued that this is the case according to many respected international observers. According to Israel, however, sufficient aid has been supplied to Gaza. Israeli Defense Ministry records show that in 2009, about 738,576 tons of general humanitarian aid was shipped into Gaza as well as 33,854 tons of cooking gas and 90,455,768 litres of heavy duty diesel fuel for electrical power generation. This year so far, 287,110 tons of general humanitarian goods have been allowed into Gaza (up to June 3rd) and 15,755 tons of cooking gas and 28,772,620 litres of heavy duty diesel fuel for Gaza’s power station.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal/(page)/2 (see pdf link in text on second page)
The idea that Israel’s act amounts to piracy is equally ridiculous.
“Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest,” [James] Kraska [professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College] said. (see Reuters source above)
When the Mavi Marmara passengers attacked the soldiers, their status as noncombatants was at least called into serious question. The issue is not whether all the flotilla’s passengers were belligerents; clearly most were not. But enough of them were to warrant a response to their violent attacks.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM
”...as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.”
The Gaza/Israel conflict is thus considered an official state of war whereby international law regarding military blockades applies.
The flotilla’s passengers had political, not purely humanitarian, concerns.
”...as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade…” Had the groups concerns been purely humanitarian, they would have submitted to an Israeli inspection.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-07/news/ct-oped-0607-krauthammer-20100607_1_blockade-anti-israel-hamas
I’ve already cited several non-Israeli sources, such as French counter-terrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere who determined that IHH was involved in the failed “millennium plot” to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999. There are others as well. I never quoted Netanyahu. I quoted the UN which referred to a remark made by him by way of criticizing it. Read more carefully!!
The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/
I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM
G*d bless you, Cabby.
I gave up actually trying to post lengthy substantiation for my points, because clearly with good ol’ PMuriello, they’re not going to get anywhere.
It’s been goin’ like this for a while:
Cabby - Here’s a 3 paragraph, well-researched, well-sourced argument for why X is X.
PMuriello - Haha, you’re clearly an Israeli apologist piece of human scum who’s evil and advocates Palistininian genocide and atrocities.
I think I got all of PMuriello’s code words in there. Yep, they’re all there.
Muriello, it’s been absolutely fascinating watching your commentary literally devolve before everyone’s eyes. You started out relatively coherent and restrained and proceeded to take the discourse down, notch by notch, until you were literally droppin’ the F-bombs in the last exchange. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Carry on!
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 23, 2010 at 7:51 PM
haha your sources are great, let me pick them apart one at a time:
1. “http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-israeli-blockade-is-legal.html”
The quote you pulled from this blog post (which is an explicitly right-wing blog by the way, hardly neutral) is from this Reuters article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm, which only examines the legality of a blockade, not the legality of a blockade that necessitates collective punishment and is therefore illegal. I’ll also point out that the author is not a legal scholar. Here’s a great excerpt to show you how well researched this article is:
“Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.”
“Israeli authorities” said they fired in “self-defence”, haha you fucking idiot you will literally believe anything you read without one ounce of critical thought so long as it agrees with your worldview
2. “http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-F Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal/(page)/2”
You fucking retard, the Christian Science Monitor is not saying anything about the legality of the blockade in this article, they are just presenting arguments from both sides, giving neither primacy. And the PDF. excerpt you posted is a fucking ISRAELI SOURCE, the fact that you think it’s a trustworthy source speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty.
3. “...as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes…”
This excerpt from Gelb, who is by the way not an expert on international law, does not deal with the claim that the blockade was illegal on the grounds that it constituted collective punishment. Also Gelb is a fucking moron, just like you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-slater/on-the-thought-of-leslie_b_607215.html
4. ” The flotilla’s passengers had political, not purely humanitarian, concerns.
”...as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade…”
Had the groups concerns been purely humanitarian, they would have submitted to an Israeli inspection. “
What’s your fucking point? This says nothing about the legality of the blockade, only the intentions of the crew. NEWSFLASH: It is neither wrong nor somehow sinister to break an illegal blockade, you are literally upholding the law by breaking an illegal blockade, you are so fucking stupid
5. “The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/”
First of all the European Journal of International Law, much like the Christian Science Monitor article you posted, itself makes no claims about the legality of the blockade, but rather quotes other opinions from international legal experts. Furthermore, not even the lawyers who are quoted come to a firm decision, and indeed some make strong cases against the legality of the blockade. Either you didn’t read the article or you are the stupidest fuck on this gay earth.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 7:54 PM
So basically every article you posted either didn’t make a conclusive claim about the legality of the blockade or was the opinion of someone who was not an expert in international or humanitarian law and did NOT address the claim that the blockade was collective punishment and therefore illegal. So in conclusion, you are terrible at researching and I should really go through all those other articles you posted in making your retarded arguments and debunk them as well.
But the best, oh god the BEST line in that whole poorly researched mess comes from you at the very end:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected. “
but that’s just it, the blockade constitutes collective punishment and conclusively adversely affects the population BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, therefore they are not permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea haha you destroyed your own argument for me you are a mental child, I would ask you to stop posting but making you look like an incompetent idiot is so much fun. and as if I care about being rude to a person that lies to justify atrocity, kill yourself you sorry excuse for a human being
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 7:54 PM
kenster42,
“G*d bless you, Cabby.”
yeah a fellow retard would think that the shit cabby posted was quality
“I gave up actually trying to post lengthy substantiation for my points, because clearly with good ol’ PMuriello, they’re not going to get anywhere.”
nope, because your substantiations have been shit from start to finish, poorly reasoned poorly researched shit
“Cabby - Here’s a 3 paragraph, well-researched, well-sourced argument for why X is X.”
you forgot to post words after this moron. oh wait no you didn’t:
“PMuriello - Haha, you’re clearly an Israeli apologist piece of human scum who’s evil and advocates Palistininian genocide and atrocities.”
“I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I”, wow I haven’t heard that one since 3rd grade, nice bro
“Muriello, it’s been absolutely fascinating watching your commentary literally devolve before everyone’s eyes. You started out relatively coherent and restrained and proceeded to take the discourse down, notch by notch, until you were literally droppin’ the F-bombs in the last exchange. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.”
it’s telling that your worst criticism of me is that I drop F-bombs. tell you what, I’ll change my discourse when you change your horrible fucking opinions
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM
cabby and kenster I IMPLORE you to read the article about Gelb very carefully, I’ll repost it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-slater/on-the-thought-of-leslie_b_607215.html
not only does it show that people with important sounding titles can have stupid fucking opinions (and illustrates that you should make sure that the people who are informing your opinions aren’t mentally defective), but it also has a good bit at the end about the flotilla
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Also for all you Israel apologists out there who love to drone on about the Hamas charter, here’s a nifty little excerpt from the Likud charter:
“The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 23, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Cabby,
Oh, now I see what you were doing with that Gelb quote, you were trying to substantiate this claim:
“The Gaza/Israel conflict is thus considered an official state of war whereby international law regarding military blockades applies.”
Which is not only in clear contradiction of international law (you can only declare war on a nation yet Israel refuses to recognize Palestinian statehood), but also totally irrelevant to the argument I am making. You sure do love “proving” irrelevant points don’t you!
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 1:52 AM
PMuriello,
You might want to take a look at this:
http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Behind_Bars_Photo_Bias_Breaks_Out_of_Gaza.asp
Whew, those Gazans have so many similarities to Nazi concentration camp victims. They only have access to Coke, not Pepsi. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 24, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Like Cabby, your inability to think critically causes you to misinterpret sources as supporting your claims. That link only examines the bias in photographing present in SOME media sources; it does not provide an account of the overall situation in Gaza, nor is it representative of the conduct of ALL media sources. You are merely inferring that things are “much better than the media portrays” from those pictures, just as you accuse others of merely inferring that everything is fucked up based on photos of impoverished or killed Palestinians. I have already posted an objective expert’s on the ground assessment of living conditions in Gaza:
“Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the UN’s refugee agency, disagrees with you: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”.”
But I mean if you want to play the “out of context photograph game”, I can play that game:
http://tinyurl.com/2ecp2ch
Sorry bro but the facts are on my side; the living conditions are somewhat similar. It’s clear I should never have argued the point because you are completely incapable of being intellectually honest about it, and anyway it’s just a big strawman you are attacking because you can’t defeat my arguments. You continue to be an intellectually dishonest propagandist and apologist for atrocity.
Also I thought you were abandoning the conversation? Have you changed your tactics from being a Zionist mouthpiece to sniping at me without making any substantive arguments?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM
“Either you didn’t read the article or you are the stupidest fuck on this gay earth.”
Homophobic are we, Muriello? Tsk, tsk, not very progressive.
I quoted the CS Monitor and the EJIL to show that there is widespread disagreement on the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and that legal arguments have been used in support of both sides of the issue.A consensus on the blockade’s legal status has yet to be reached. All Ban Ke Moon has said is that the Israeli blockade must be eased. No official declaration of the blockade’s legality or illegality has yet been made.
There is no reason to regard the Israeli Defense Ministries figures on Israeli aid to Gaza as inaccurate. Simply being an official Israeli source doesn’t cast doubt on its accuracy. When the Israelis want to hide information they tend to suppress it rather than publicly give false information. Over a million tons of humanitarian aid has been delivered to Gaza since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This doesn’t include the thousands of tons of aid coming from private NGOs and other aid organizations. The problem in Gaza is not widespread starvation and lack of medicines and basic needs for the Gazan populace. Much is being supplied. The problem is that Operation Cast Lead was so utterly destructive, leveling a great number of homes, businesses, factories, hospitals and schools, in effect, the vast bulk of the civilian infrastructure, that a humanitarian crisis has been created. One of the problems widely agreed upon is that the Israelis have not allowed in sufficient building materials to repair the damage done and restore normal daily life. Unemployment and homelessness is widespread and most of the population is dependent on outside assistance. The blockade will have to be greatly eased, if not removed altogether, to restore normal life to Gaza.
The reason that Israel prohibited building materials is their dual purpose, an unconvincing reason considering the hardship caused. The cement should be allowed. The blockade has been harsh and unjust; but it was not a deliberate attempt to slowly kill the Gazan population through starvation and disease akin to the Nazi policies toward Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. These allegations of genocide are simply untrue and are belied by the fact that over a million tons of humanitarian aid have gotten into Gaza over the past 18 months. There are also many independant aid organizations in Gaza ministering to the basic needs of the population.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 24, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Your chief argument against the blockade’s legality is based on the “collective punishment” prohibition in 4th Geneva Convention (1949) the application of which to the current Israeli blockade can be called into question. In addition, all my citations of legality came from expert legal opinion such as the individuals cited in the Reuters article. I also relied heavily on the opinions of Australian legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller;
“If the conflict between Israel and Hamas is an international armed conflict (IAC), there is no question that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza. … The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration), the first international instrument to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does likewise. And there is certainly no shortage of state practice supporting the legitimacy of blockades during IAC (the US blockade of Cuba, for example).”
To your point however, about the political complications this creates, Heller also points out,
“However, this rule applies to wars between states. Heller says there’s little evidence “to support the idea that a blockade is legally permissible” in a conflict between a state and a non-state actor. In fact, when the Union used a naval blockade against the Confederacy during the Civil War, it led to European recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent state. Is the Netanyahu government ready to take the risk that the Hamas government in Gaza will gain recognition as an independent state.”
http://southjerusalem.com/2010/06/the-facts-the-law-and-the-table/
The siege is harsh but not lethal and not an endeavor to commit a genocide. Even Hamas admits this;
Hamas officials concede that the blockade has not caused a humanitarian crisis in its classic sense. “There is no starvation in Gaza,” said Khalil Hamada, a senior official at Hamas’s ministry of justice. “No-one has died of hunger. Even so, People have been forced to subsist rather than to live.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7806209/Dispatch-Just-how-hungry-is-Gaza.html
It is also well known that Hamas profits from the blockade by taxing all goods that come through the tunnels for revenue to buy arms. One correspondent attests;
“I met a man with a 2010 Skoda sedan who did the math for me. His new car would’ve cost him $18,000 in Germany or $30,000 if he bought it on the West Bank. Delivered to him by tunnel from Egypt, he paid $50,000 for it plus a $10,000 licensing fee imposed by Hamas. It’s understood the tunnels supply Hamas with at least some of the weapons that Israel’s naval blockade is supposed to keep out. The business through the tunnels also provides Hamas with a revenue stream.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20006903-503543.html
It seems that Hamas has burdened Gazans as much as has Israel.
The Genocide charge is unfounded. Of 1.5 million Gazans, about 1,300 were killed in OCL, hardly a “genocide.” This was inexcusable but it certainly doesn’t indicate that the IDF clearly intended to commit genocide, especially not by the standards of real genocides such as those emerging from contemporary African conflicts.
My objective is not to make apologia for Israel; their policies are wrong and they need to be changed. But I object to prejudicial hyperbole the like of which we don’t even see from Al-Jazeera. I support an end to the blockade, war and occupation. But it will take cooperation on both sides for this to occur. And, of course, Israel must retain the right to defend itself within the confines of international law, which I believe it has observed.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 24, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Cabby,
“No official declaration of the blockade’s legality or illegality has yet been made.”
As always, you are wrong: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html
Not that we need an official declaration for the purposes of this argument since you have already conceded that the blockade constituted collective punishment and is therefore illegal.
“When the Israelis want to hide information they tend to suppress it rather than publicly give false information.”
Wrong: “The former judge [Goldstone] ]explained that “Israel has said that given the density of the population in gaza - they did the best they could to avoid civilians,” but added that “we certainly looked into the fact that Hamas put their weapons near civilians. We looked for proof but didn’t find it.” - http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-israel-intentionally-targeted-gaza-civilia an-sites-1.6956
(note that this is literally copy/pasted from earlier in the thread you idiot, why would you make an assertion that has already been refuted)
Also that stuff Imran posted illustrating Israel’s lies about the IHH.
“These allegations of genocide are simply untrue and are belied by the fact that over a million tons of humanitarian aid have gotten into Gaza over the past 18 months.”
Once again, you haven’t shown this to be the case at all. I have shown that Israel intentionally targeted civilian sites and therefore civilians which satisfies criteria (a) of the definition, it is a matter of public record that Israel has illegally detained and tortured Palestinians which satisfies criteria (b), it is a matter of public record that the purpose of the blockade was to deliberately erode Gazan society which satisfies criteria (c), and I have provided a case of (d) occuring.
In further support of (c), I have already posted this quote from the commissioner-general of the UN refugee agency Karen Koning AbuZayd: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”, so it seems that despite all this humanitarian aid that Israel claims they let through, it wasn’t enough to refute that (c) was occurring.
“The blockade has been harsh and unjust; but it was not a deliberate attempt to slowly kill the Gazan population through starvation and disease akin to the Nazi policies toward Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.”
The stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, and by all objective accounts it was working. You are wrong. I will also point out that you, like kenster, are only harping on this strawman because you can’t defeat my other arguments.
“I quoted the CS Monitor and the EJIL to show that there is widespread disagreement on the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and that legal arguments have been used in support of both sides of the issue.”
No you didn’t you fucking liar, you literally said this in reference to the EJIL article: “The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.” Stop lying.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Anyway, I don’t even know why we are arguing any more when you have already said this:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.”
...and admit this:
“I strongly agree that the blockade is collective punishment”
Let me formalize the modus ponens argument you yourself are making here:
1. If the civilian population is not adversely affected, then Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea.
2. The civilian population is being adversely affected by the blockade.
——————————————————————
3. Therefore, Israel is not permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea.
You are literally forced into this conclusion from your own premises. There is no room for argument. I’ll also note that in all of the articles you posted not one of the legal “experts” arguing for the blockade being legal tackled the contention that the blockade was collective punishment, a contention that you yourself give importance to by this admission:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.”
The only reason you are still arguing is to try to appear to still have a point despite the fact that you have already tacitly conceded argument to me, it’s the cheapest, most shallow debate tactic and I will not allow you to do it.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Muriello,
Here is the 1948 Genocide Convention criteria for determining whether or not a genocide is occurring.
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called “genocide.”
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
It does not appear as though both elements of Article II were present in Israel’s Gaza policy; part one is clearly absent and Article II states that both elements are needed to call a country’s action a genocide. Clearly, there was never an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians of Gaza” by any reasonable estimate.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 24, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Muriello,
Your arguments are getting weaker. In the first place, the EJIL didn’t actually declare the blockade illegal and all those legal experts cited declared unequivocally that it was not an act of piracy. In addition, Israeli statements to the Goldstone Mission were not found to be lies; the mission simply didn’t find sufficient evidence to believe those statements. Also, Israeli accusations of IHH were not lies. The point is controversial but there was no deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Many credible and objective sources, such as the ones I cited, have connected IHH with Islamic Fundamentalist groups including ones engaged in acts of terror. The Turkish government even raided its offices in Istanbul with assistance from French anti-terrorism expert and jurist, Jean-Louis Bruguiere;
”[Bruguiere said]...he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other “incriminating” material.”
According to the report; “Bruguiere, 67, is now the coordinator for the European Union in a terrorism finance tracking program jointly run with the United States.”
Although the US doesn’t have IHH on its State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations one official said this;
“U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that “we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iYybp27J-O2cobEG7eh2c-q3ORHAD9G3D4QO0
The dramatic easing of the blockade by Israel will certainly make the “collective punishment” issue a moot point, allowing them to divert ships to the port of Ashdod to inspect cargo and forward it on overland to Gaza. The UN has affirmed Israel’s right to assure its own security but it must obey international law. The people you cited as testifying to Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza only stated opinions and not official legal determinations of Israeli guilt. Their views could be used, however in support of such an determination. Navi Pillay’s statements led to the investigation that produced the famous Goldstone Report. However, the 2009 UN Human Rights Council’s resolution endorsing the Report’s findings doesn’t have the force of an official legal determination; only the UN Security Council or the International Criminal Court can do that which is why Goldstone personally requested an ICC investigation into war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas. Until such an official determination is made; Israel’s blockade is not technically illegal (though it may be immoral which is not legally a crime). It thus maintains it’s right to inspect ships bound for Gaza on security grounds. Also, Israel has all but lifted the blockade preempting future charges of collective punishment of Gaza.
Thought you’d like this about Hamas urging rocket attacks against Israel from the West Bank;
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-official-palestinians-should-fire-at-israel-from-west-bank-1.297245
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 24, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Cabby,
“Clearly, there was never an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians of Gaza” by any reasonable estimate.”
First of all, you aren’t even making an argument here. You are just reposting the definition of genocide (with which I am very familiar), and then saying, “NU-UH!” It is not clear that it was not Israel’s intent to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. Read carefully the paragraph below this and if you can come up with a coherent, substantive rebuttal then feel free to respond.
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
It is in your best interest to come up with a substantive rebuttal; it takes far less time for me to copy/paste the above paragraph than it does you to type out a wordy pseudo-intellectual “NU-UH”.
“Your arguments are getting weaker”
Assuming this is true (it isn’t), at least I am making an argument.
“In the first place, the EJIL didn’t actually declare the blockade illegal “
no fucking shit idiot, but you claimed they said it was legal, therefore you are a liar
“all those legal experts cited declared unequivocally that it was not an act of piracy.”
Maybe. It depends on whether it is legal for Israel to be at war with Gaza, which is a contested legal issue. It’s an irrelevant point to the greater question of the legality of the blockade and the genocide of the Palestinians so I will concede if only to prevent you from harping on it.
“Also, Israeli accusations of IHH were not lies.”
Bullshit. Even if you assume that Israel genuinely believed the IHH had those terror connections even though they had not one shred of credible evidence supporting it, that is still enough to not trust anything they say. Stop with your meaningless contentions. If really you really want to prove that Israel didn’t lie grapple with Imran’s last post (the one that you conveniently ignored).
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM
“[Bruguiere said]...he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other “incriminating” material.”
That’s nice, please find me an article or news report from 1998 that confirms what Mr. French terror “expert” here is saying, also that was literally over a decade ago and says nothing about the IHH today. You are fucking awful at substantiating claims, just like Israel.
“U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that “we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us.”
yes clearly they are involved with terrorist schemes and not just trying to figure out how to help the local government entity Hamas provide the citizens of Gaza with the aid they need, especially since as I have shown before Hamas provides the vast amount of social services that exist in Gaza, you are a fear mongering idiot with no critical thinking skills whatsoever
“The people you cited as testifying to Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza only stated opinions and not official legal determinations of Israeli guilt.”
yes, when U.N. officials Pillay and Goldstone ruled that the blockade was illegal they didn’t consult the law at all, this is just more Cabby-brand nonsense
second you tried to form the narrative that there was a clear legal consensus with all those retarded articles you posted which is at least disingenuous if not an outright lie, and in the case of the EJIL article you DID outright lie by claiming they had made a legal determination on the issue
“Until such an official determination is made; Israel’s blockade is not technically illegal “
haha this is the dumbest semantic shit, you can call a thing illegal if it demonstrably breaks the law and by your own argument the blockade breaks the law, plus by your own retarded semantics the blockade is not legal either, stop this idiotic sophistry and address the actual argument
also you have tacitly admitted that two legal, authoritative sources (Goldstone and Pillay, probably the most learned people on this issue) have declared the blockade illegal, plus as I have already illustrated you argued for the illegality of the blockade yourself, what are you even still doing here
“though it may be immoral which is not legally a crime”
haha you’re another monstrous immoral fuckhead just like kenster
“Thought you’d like this about Hamas urging rocket attacks against Israel from the West Bank;”
yeah that’s awful, but Israel is still conducting collective punishment because it hasn’t released the restriction on building materials so let’s not get too self-righteous here, also it doesn’t change the fact that you have literally lied about Hamas twice so far
I have you backed into a rhetorical corner and now you’re semantically pissing down your leg in fear, haha I knew you would descend into meaningless legal semantics eventually but I never thought you would try to refute your own argument lmao this thread rules
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 24, 2010 at 7:13 PM
“Sorry bro but the facts are on my side; the living conditions are somewhat similar. It’s clear I should never have argued the point because you are completely incapable of being intellectually honest about it, and anyway it’s just a big strawman you are attacking because you can’t defeat my arguments. You continue to be an intellectually dishonest propagandist and apologist for atrocity.”
For some reason it’s hard for me to let this one go with you. Cabby has clearly been better at putting substantive time and effort into refuting your claims, but I guess I continue to be stunned that you try to create similarity between the conditions of Gazans and the conditions of Nazi concentration camp victims. The facts just aren’t on your side on this point and Cabby illustrated it well - yes, the refusal to let building materials into the country was a big mistake and it needs to end immediately (I am under the impression that it is in the process of ending, but not sure). For better or worse, the Israelis have convinced themselves that they had a good reason for not letting building materials in (to prevent rocket construction). Clearly it’s wrong, clearly it’s not working. OK, point given. But, no one’s starving. Tremendous amounts of humanitarian aid are being passed through. There is no intent here even remotely similar to the Nazis’. You can cherry pick anomalous quotes all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that only a very small percentage of the world population feels the way you do, and it’s because it’s not reasonable position to take.
When we can agree that the Israelis’ treatment of Gazans is unjust without veering into the land of hyperbole, we can get to the next stage of the conversation. Throwing “genocide” and “atrocity” into the mix simply stalls things out. You say I won’t say atrocity because I’m an Israeli propagandist human scum evil etc blah blah blah. I say, and the vast majority of the world agrees with me, it’s because your definition of the confict is not accurate.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM
“For some reason it’s hard for me to let this one go with you.”
That’s because you are emotionally invested in seeing Israel as the overall “good-guy” in this conflict and it would simply be impossible to come to that conclusion if Israel was acting in a manner similar to the Nazis.
“Cabby has clearly been better at putting substantive time and effort into refuting your claims”
No he hasn’t, he’s just been posting more meaningless quotes than you, he hasn’t at all refuted my claim that the living conditions are similar.
“For better or worse, the Israelis have convinced themselves that they had a good reason for not letting building materials in”
For worse. The answer is for worse. And building materials aren’t the only thing on the list that constitutes collective punishment, there are also known terrorist supplies such as clothes, snack cakes and toilet paper!
“But, no one’s starving.”
Unsubstantiated, and also not “yet.” Humanitarian experts have repeatedly expressed that concern.
“Tremendous amounts of humanitarian aid are being passed through.”
As I explained already, humanitarian experts say it’s not enough.
“You can cherry pick anomalous quotes all you want”
lol yes the commissioner-general of the UN refugee agency Karen Koning AbuZayd is an “anomalous source”, please don’t try to lecture me about the credibility of sources because neither you nor Cabby obviously have any idea what the fuck you are talking about
“but it doesn’t change the fact that only a very small percentage of the world population feels the way you do, and it’s because it’s not reasonable position to take.”
haha the dumbest shit, the U.S. once thought slavery was a pretty cool thing, does that mean pro-slavery was a reasonable postition?
“I say, and the vast majority of the world agrees with me, it’s because your definition of the confict is not accurate. “
First of all this is another retarded appeal to authority that the slavery analogy destroys.
Second, the vast majority of the world agrees with you because A) the vast majority of the world is just as inculcated into the Zionist version of the conflict as you are and B) because if they actually applied the definitions of genocide and atrocity properly and objectively they would find that they are as guilty as anyone else.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Addressing some of Cabby’s points that I missed earlier,
“It is also well known that Hamas profits from the blockade by taxing all goods that come through the tunnels for revenue to buy arms.”
This is at least incredibly disingenuous if not an outright lie! 80-85% of Hamas’ budget goes into social services for Gaza. I posted this earlier, you seem to have conveniently ignored it.
“It seems that Hamas has burdened Gazans as much as has Israel.”
haha yes Hamas has also crushed Palestinian infrastructure murdering 1300 Palestinian civilians in the process, and has enforced an illegal blockade that constitutes collective punishment, what the fuck is wrong with your brain
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Also:
“Of 1.5 million Gazans, about 1,300 were killed in OCL, hardly a “genocide.”
OK Cabby, how many Palestinians is Israel allowed to intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide?
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM
I understand that many UN organizations have declared the israeli blockade of Gaza illegal. I read the UNHRO resolution endorsing the Goldstone Report by a vote of 25 to six (with the rest abstaining or not voting). By the way, most of those 25 countries are pretty serious human rights violators themselves. Talk about hypocrisy!! But resolutions such as the one I refered to are merely advisory resolutions; they do not carry the force of law. Only a UN Security Council resolution or an ICC determination (such as the one that declared the separation wall to be a violation of international law) has the force of an official legal determination which is actionable by the UNSC under international law. Until that happens, Israel’s blockade is legal under international law and they have the right to stop and inspect ships bound for Gaza.
In any case, the point is about to become moot. Israel has just satisfied the UN’s Ban Ki Moon that their blockade has been sufficiently eased. Soon building materials will be allowed in as well. Now the “collective punishment” issue has been preempted.
It may interest you to know that Hamas chose to respond to Israel’s easing of the blockade of Gaza by calling on West Bank Palestinians to rocket Israel from their side of the Green Line. Not to smart but I’m glad they were stupid enough to publicly announce this so the world can see what scum they are. By the way, here is more evidence about IHH and their terrorist ties;
“The study also states that an examination of IHH’s telephone records in 1996 showed repeated calls in 1996 to an Al-Qaeda guest house in Milan and to Algerian terrorists operating in Europe (one of whom was notorious Al-Qaeda figure Abu Ma’ali [Abd al-Qadr Mukhtari], who operated in Bosnia). IHH’s name was also mentioned during the trial of Ahmed Ressam held in the United States in 2000 (Ressam was a senior Al-Qaeda operative active in Canada, who at the end of 1999 entered the United States in a car carrying 600 kilograms (1320 pounds) of explosives. He planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.) The United States federal prosecutors called Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate in charge of terrorism affairs, as an expert witness. He testified that IHH had played an important role in Al-Qaeda’s planned attack. According to Bruguière, IHH served as a cover for Al-Qaeda and acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and transferred weapons.”
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm
Israel must continue to inspect cargo bound for Gaza. The existential security threats require it.
“OK Cabby, how many Palestinians is Israel allowed to intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide?”
About 1,300 out of a total population of 1.5 million is not even 1/10th of one percent. If Israel’s intent was genocide don’t you think a higher share of the Gazan civilian population would have been killed? The death of less than 1/10th of one percent of any population has never been called a genocide. It isn’t a genocide by African standards. Those are real genocides.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Cabby,
“By the way, most of those 25 countries are pretty serious human rights violators themselves.”
What’s your point?
“Only a UN Security Council resolution or an ICC determination (such as the one that declared the separation wall to be a violation of international law) has the force of an official legal determination which is actionable by the UNSC under international law. Until that happens, Israel’s blockade is legal under international law and they have the right to stop and inspect ships bound for Gaza.”
Not only is this a meaningless legal semantic but it is flat out absurd. According to this argument, it is legal to rape someone until a judge tells you that you are breaking the law. Your defense of rape would sound something like, “Well it’s not the SEX that is illegal since I have the right to have sex, it’s the non-consent that is illegal. I’m afraid until a court makes a ruling, this rape is legal.” Then you would drool on yourself because you are a slack-jawed idiot.
“In any case, the point is about to become moot.”
The point is not moot; the IDF killed people and confiscated cargo under the pretenses of of an illegal (by your own admission) blockade. They at least engaged in murder if not piracy (the definition of which is “robbery or illegal violence at sea” regardless of what any lawyer says). They will have to answer for this.
“Not to smart but I’m glad they were stupid enough to publicly announce this so the world can see what scum they are. By the way, here is more evidence about IHH and their terrorist ties;”
Hamas is no more “scum” than Israel.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 10:43 PM
And your “evidence”...my god. Just my god. After that last thrashing I gave to your “sources” one would think that you would sharpen up your game, but no, the hits keep coming. First of all, that link you gave is an original report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). If you navigate to their home page, then click on the About Us at the top of the page, in the very first fucking sentence of the very first fucking paragraph you can plainly read that the ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IHCC). You can also read that the IHCC is located near Gelilot north of Tel Aviv. This is an Israeli source inside Israel. This is a biased source, you cannot reasonably cite them in support of your claims. Once again you show that you are either stunningly disingenuous or profoundly retarded about your sources.
But as if that were not enough, I actually went through and read the report. They made plenty of claims about the IHH’s connection to terrorist organization, citing two main sources; “reliable information” (probably some propaganda from Mossad) i.e. “bullshit”, and a study by Evan Kohlmann. Let’s read a bit about Mr. Kohlmann’s expertise, shall we?
“In one such case Kohlmann was put forward as an expert on the Bangladeshi Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami. Under cross examination it transpired that he had never written any papers on the party, nor been interviewed about the group. He had never been to Bangladesh, could not name the country’s Prime Minister nor the name of the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami. Neither could he name a single political party in the country. When he was asked if he had heard of the Bangladeshi National Party – which led the political coalition joined by Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh at that time – he said it sounded “vaguely familiar”.”
“In fact it has never been shown that Kohlmann has ever published anything that has been formally peer reviewed, and it is unlikely that he has because he has never conducted any post-graduate research.”
“This year Kohlmann went as far as putting together a ‘documentary’ he calls The Al Qaeda Plan. It was part of his assistance in the prosecution of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, better known as Bin Laden’s chauffeur.16 Hamdan is being tried before the Military Commission, a special court system created by the US government in blatant violation of basic human rights, as has been pointed out by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. In another case that came to court this year, three men were charged with planning to assist in fighting US troops in Iraq. Like several of the other cases Kohlmann has been involved in, USA v. Mohammed Zaki Amawi et al followed on from an FBI string operation. The prosecution created a multi-hour video montage for presentation to the jurors, which included suicide car bombings, sniper shootings of American soldiers, execution of civilians, and the desecration of bodies. In that case Kohlmann was finally barred from testifying on the basis that his proposed testimony was “not relevant to the issues in this case”. Although the prosecution did not allege that any of the three defendants had any connection to any terrorist group, they nevertheless wanted Kohlmann to provide “general information regarding international terrorism.” The Judge commented that the “limited probative value of his [Kohlmann’s] testimony is outweighed very substantially by its very considerable potential for unfair prejudice to the defendants”.
http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/74-terror-spin/4850-evan-kohlmann-the-doogie-howser-of-terrorism
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 10:43 PM
So to sum this up, to support your claim that the IHH has ties to terrorism you nabbed excerpts from a report from an unofficial Israeli “intelligence” organization, whose main sources are “reliable information” and a study by a widely discredited Islamophobe who has never written anything that has been peer reviewed (including the study that the ITIC cites again and again), has been shown to not know what the fuck he is talking about when put forth as an “expert” witness, and who has been literally barred from testifying because of prejudicial concerns.
YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. JOKE. This whole time you have been nothing but an Israeli mouthpiece, and like them your arguments nor your evidence hold up to even the barest amount of scrutiny. I wouldn’t even give a shit if it wasn’t for the fact that intellectually disingenuous fuckholes like you are the reason the U.S. unconditionally supports Israel and is therefore party to their atrocities.
“About 1,300 out of a total population of 1.5 million is not even 1/10th of one percent. If Israel’s intent was genocide don’t you think a higher share of the Gazan civilian population would have been killed? The death of less than 1/10th of one percent of any population has never been called a genocide. It isn’t a genocide by African standards. Those are real genocides.”
Answer the fucking question; how many Palestinians can Israel intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide? Note that this is a rhetorical question; I know the answer, but I’m waiting for you to either embarrass yourself further by giving me a number, or figure out that you are fucking stupid and concede the argument.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Muriello,
Still trying to get the heart of this here. Can’t let you off the hook for continuing to pretend that there is any similarity between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Nazis v. Jews
Nazis killed 6M Jews, approximately 67% of the total Jewish population in the countries under Nazi control, from 1933 through 1945.
Israel v. Palestine
Best estimate I can find - over the last 60 years somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and between 4,000 - 5,000 Israelis have been killed in the war / conflict (whatever, I’m beyond semantics) between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The latest data I could find on the Palestinian population was that there were 711,000 in 1949 and 4.6 million in 2009.
So in 60 years, the number of Palestinians has increased 650%. In 60 years the total number of Palestinians killed by the Israelis is approximately 0.2% of the current Palestinian population.
On the other side, in 60 years the number of Israelis has increase from 800,000 in 1948 to 7.4 million in 2008. The population has increased 925%. The total number of Israelis killed by Palestine in 60 years is approximately 0.07% of the current Israeli population.
Both very small, statistically insignificant numbers.
So I am answering the question - killing 0.2% of the population over a 60 year period in which the population of the alleged “victim” country grew 650% does not constitute genocide. Not sure what universe anyone lives in where anyone would disagree with this. Happy?
Also, since probably 5,000 Israelis are dead, I might as well ask the question “how many Israelis can the Palestinians kill before I can call it a genocide?” The question makes no sense that way either.
On that front alone, we’re done. But you want to push the point about quality of life. OK, let’s take a look. Note below that this is based on averages, not outliers. Don’t even bother quoting the anomalies:
Medical experiments on “victims” - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Deliberate policy of extermination - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Raping of women - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Starvation - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Organized execution (gas chambers, lethal injection, hangings, shootings) - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Withholding of medicine - Nazis, total withholding of medicine (other than sick, twisted experiment), Israelis - some blockading/withholding of medicine at some times.
Total imprisonment - Nazis yes, Israelis no (and don’t give me that crap about the country being a concentration camp - absolutely not comparable)
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 26, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Oh, and Muriello,
You really can almost track on a graph how your courtesy and civility has deteriorated through this thread.
F-bomb count - WAY UP
Other various perjoratives - UP
Ad hominem attacks - WAY UP
Let’s get those under control, hoss! Can we try to get all three into the “down” category? Heck, I’ll even take “flat”.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM
“Deliberate policy of extermination - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
prove it, there is evidence to the contrary despite your brainless appeals to its effectiveness
“Starvation - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
not for lack of trying, is Israel somehow less repugnant because they failed at starving the Palestinians?
“Organized execution (gas chambers, lethal injection, hangings, shootings) - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
you need to show how this is worse than Israel intentionally killing Palestinians when the intent and outcomes are the same (hint you will not be able to do this, you’re going to keep committing the same ipse dixit fallacy forever and ever)
“Withholding of medicine - Nazis, total withholding of medicine (other than sick, twisted experiment), Israelis - some blockading/withholding of medicine at some times.”
so what you are saying here is that they are similar, hmm thanks for agreeing with me
“Total imprisonment - Nazis yes, Israelis no (and don’t give me that crap about the country being a concentration camp - absolutely not comparable)”
lol prove it, even UN officials call it the “largest open-air prison”
my point stands; they are similar, although as I have already said the Nazis were way worse. also you posted a bunch of statistics about death tolls so I’ll ask you the same thing as Cabby; how many Palestinians need to die in order to call it a genocide? one again, rhetorical question but let’s see how you do with it.
final note: my usage of pejoratives, cursing, and “ad hominems” (note that you do not seem to know what this means) is inversely proportional to the quality of the post I am replying to and proportional to how much effort I have to put in to replying to it; if your post is stupid, expresses repugnant morals, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest and I have to put a lot of time and effort into destroying it (like with Cabby’s last two posts) then I am going open the flood gates in an effort to shame you into either increasing the quality of your posts or abandoning the conversation.
actually I just thought of a great ad hominem:
You don’t really give a shit about whether or not I think there are similarities between the Nazi atrocities and the Israeli atrocities, you are just harping on this because you think you have my argument beat and you need to save some face after the verbal raping you took.
Even though this is probably true, it doesn’t address your argument, therefore it is an ad hominem. When you say things like:
“Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself.”
...and I respond with:
“haha yes how ridiculous to want a woman to be able to give birth to a live baby, you are a monster”
...it is not an ad hominem because it is case that it is monstrous to think that wanting to give birth to a live baby, even in the care of your oppressors whom you despise, is “ridiculous”. Hope this helps!
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 26, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Haha I just noticed this:
“Also, since probably 5,000 Israelis are dead, I might as well ask the question “how many Israelis can the Palestinians kill before I can call it a genocide?” The question makes no sense that way either.”
It only doesn’t make sense because it ignores three important particulars of the conflict; the Palestinians are willing to make peace while Israel is not, they are much weaker, and the conflict has its origins in Zionist colonialism. Zionists have defined the conflict ethnically, it would be impossible for the Palestinians to defend themselves in a non-ethnic way.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Also haha I just realized although the Israeli atrocities are similar to the Nazi atrocities, they are much more like the European atrocities against the Native Americans, especially since it is once again white Europeans colonizing indigenous brown people, haha the more things change…
it’s funny because the more that Israel apologists force me to think about the issue the more comparisons to atrocities of the past I find
wait that’s not funny…
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 26, 2010 at 8:12 PM
“According to this argument, it is legal to rape someone until a judge tells you that you are breaking the law.”
It is this statement that is absurd. And in fact, a criminal is not guilty of an alleged crime until convicted by a court of law. Only with the verdict is he found in criminal violation of the law, not when someone makes an accusation or renders an opinion that the action was criminal. Until the UNSC or the ICC determines that Israel is breaking the law, they have a right to continue the blockade, which by the way they’ve eased.
By the way, if you want to talk about collective punishment, let’s look at the sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003. It was said that over one million Iraqis lost their lives about half of them children. That’s a crime of collective punishment and genocidal to boot. Some US policy makers speculated out loud as to whether or not the sanctions would cause an uprising or some kind of regime change inside Iraq. This seems to be collective punishment for political purposes. The US had no security concerns in Iraq. The allegations of WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda were false. There was no reason for sanctions or war against Iraq. There was no threat.
Israel is dealing with an existential threat. So long as Israel doesn’t blockade normal goods and movement in and out of the Gaza Strip, they are within their rights to search ships bound for Gaza. They can’t be expected to relinquish their security over someone’s petty legal talking points.
Also, I found your discrediting of my anti-terror sources interesting. I’d like to ask where you got them. You also never addressed the issue of Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate, who is the most often quoted source for the claim that IHH has had terrorist ties in the recent past. I wonder what you think of his credibility.
You often make demands that someone prove a negative (“prove Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians isn’t like the Nazi treatment of Jews; prove conditions inside Gaza aren’t akin to those of the Warsaw Ghetto”). The burden of proof is on you since you made the original allegations.
The other absurdity is your implicit claim to have arrived at an exact figure for the number of Palestinians killed required to be considered a genocide. I find this claim both bizarre and disturbing.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 27, 2010 at 2:14 PM
“An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”
Seems to fit pretty well, Muriello.
Life in the concentration camps (this is the “similar” experience you are alleging):
The prisoners’ day began at 4:30 a.m. with “reveille” or roll call, with 30 minutes allowed for morning ablutions. After roll call, the prisoners would walk to their place of work, five abreast, wearing striped camp fatigues, no underwear, and wooden shoes without socks, most of the time ill-fitting, which caused great pain. Prisoners who had been promoted to foremen—were responsible for the prisoners’ behavior while they worked, as was an SS escort. The working day lasted 12 hours during the summer, and a little less in the winter. No rest periods were allowed. One prisoner would be assigned to the latrines to measure the time the workers took to empty their bladders and bowels.
After work, there was a mandatory evening roll call. If a prisoner was missing, the others had to remain standing in place until he was either found or the reason for his absence discovered, even if it took hours, regardless of the weather conditions. After roll call, there were individual and collective punishments, depending on what had happened during the day, and after these, the prisoners were allowed to retire to their blocks for the night to receive their bread rations and water. Curfew was two or three hours later, the prisoners sleeping in long rows of wooden bunks, lying in and on their clothes and shoes to prevent them from being stolen.
A common punishment for escape attempts was death by starvation; the families of successful escapees were sometimes arrested and interned in Auschwitz and prominently displayed to deter others. If someone did manage to escape, the SS would pick 10 random people from the prisoner’s block and starve them to death.
An allegation that there is any resemblance between the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians is patently false and greatly disrespects the memories of those killed by the Jews killed by the Nazis.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 27, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Really? Dispossessing a whole nation and herding them into enclaves smacks of Auschwitz. It is no wonder that an increasing number of international observers are convinced that the Zionist experiment in Palestine was designed to usurp the ancestral homes of Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
The collective dispossession of Palestinians since 1948 is perhaps the only aspect of Israeli agression that remains non-discriminatory - for every action of the Zionist occupation is manifested in an ultra-racist ideology that subscribes to primitive instincts. Israel’s existence is itself mired in controversy - particularly in the wake of its ethnic cleansing of native Palestinians.
The attempts to obfuscate patently criminal actions in indefensibly pseudo-legalistic jargon is exactly how Americans have been duped into the Zionist trap. Today, the bigoted in Israel refuse to even consider ceding any of the territory it illegally occupies - despite numerous UN resolutions - and, we hear talk of the legal! Having agreed to limit their aspirations to a pre-1967 border, Palestinians have been more than generous in allowing Israel to occupy 80% of historic Palestine, and allowing just 20% for themselves. Despite full support of UN resolutions, Israel prefers to occupy the whole of Palestine and condemns an entire nation to Nazi-style subjugation. Hitler would have applauded. You don’t need to be an academic to understand this… just human. It is the human in Chomsky that clearly produced this article.
Posted by Zia_Ahad on Jun 28, 2010 at 3:11 AM
Zia,
Provide evidence please. Israelis did not dispossess Palestine. The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews. Palestine still got to keep a significant portion of the land they had been occupying.
But please refute my argument, don’t change the subject. How does controlling a border “smack of Auschwitz?” Please provide specific examples of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and how that treatment specificlaly compares to the treatment of the Jews in Auschwitz.
Let’s get past this comparison so we can talk about resolution.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Noam Chomsky forthrightly advocates a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. This does not excuse his totally one-sided view of the conflict.
He indicates that the Israelis broke the ceasefire in November 2008 but does not mention why. They noticed a tunnel being built from Gaza to the Israeli side; this was the same tactic used when Hamas infiltrated Israel a couple of years before to kill two soldiers and capture a third on the Israeli side. In retaliation for destroying the tunnel, Hamas launched heavy rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli towns and cities. It was to silence this attack that Israel launched its massive operations against Gaza in Dec. 2008 and Jan. ‘09.
Legal scholars disagree on this, but there are many who argue that Israel had the legal right to interdict and inspect cargoes heading toward Gaza, to prevent the importation of offensive weaponry. The Israelis were unprepared for the fact that the sixth ship they boarded included “activists” intent on a violent confrontation. Cornered, outnumbered and beset by attackers, Israel’s naval commandos used lethal force.
There is much that Israel can be blamed for before, during and after this tragic incident, but there is also much blame to go around. Prof. Chomsky is smart enough to know this.
rseliger,
I think you make some good points. I saw youtube video footage of the violent altercation between the ship’s passengers and the IDF soldiers. It certainly looks as though the activists also used lethal force. They attacked and beat several soldiers with clubs and threw one over board into the sea. This has less to do with self defense than blind, bloody rage at Israel. It was certainly not necessary for the activists to attack the soldiers and had they not done this nine people would not have been killed. I’m sure there could be legal problems with the way this whole thing was handled by the IDF but they do have the right to inspect ships coming into Gaza. The Egyptians also exersized this right during their three year blockade and it was found acceptable. Gaza is not a legally recognized part of Egypt either.
I am not suprised that Chomsky didn’t provide the context for the broken ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in November 2008. Failure to do so is tantamount to outright lying. He was deliberately misleading. He didn’t provide a context for this accusation either;
“For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats between Cyprus and Lebanon and killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes holding them hostage in Israeli prisons.”
One loses all credibility as a journalist or scholar not merely because of bias, but arguing in a deliberately misleading fashion. I expect this from FOXNews but not a noted scholar who taught for years at MIT. This is very disappointing. Regardless of one’s political beliefs regarding Israel it is necessary to be objective and fair, reserving judgement until all the facts are accurately presented by all parties concerned. It is important to deal in facts and not hyperbole. This is as much a part of the problem as anything else.
Contrary to rseliger’s assertion, the Gaza blockade is not and never has been about “interdicting and inspecting” cargo for the “importation of offensive weaponry.” Its goal has always been political: to cause the civilian population as much suffering as possible - while still politically excusable - in order for the Palestinians in Gaza to reject and rise up against the Hamas leadership elected in January 2006. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass notoriously explained in 2006.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03
Maintaining a strict embargo on arms and related materiel, which could be used by Hamas against Israeli civilians, is arguably reasonable. But Israel’s severe restriction on medicines, food, and construction material needed to rebuild the thousands of homes - as well as schools and medical facilities - destroyed in Israel’s three-week military offensive two and a half years ago is NOT.
Rseliger “is smart enough to know this,” and his blatantly false assertion about the goals of the Gaza blockade are exposed by simply reviewing the items listed by Israel itself as embargoed.
Sorry, I left out the link for the current embargoed items. See the Economist at:
http://www.economist.com/node/16264970
The source for the Economist article is the Israeli human rights group Gisha.
And rseliger’s statement about the heavily armed Israeli commandos being “cornered, outnumbered and beset by attackers” is a laughable attempt at role reversal.
“As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.”
For the full article by M.J. Rosenberg, see:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03-7
The primary Israeli defense that the passengers attacked heavily armed commandos first, and the poor fellows only responded in kind (i.e. that the passengers were to blame, they should have cooperated non-violently) seemed ludicrous on its face. It is not surprising that even this flimsy excuse for murdering innocents on the high seas is falling apart as the IDF now admits “doctoring” the video, and the hostages side of the story is finally being revealed.
“According to survivors - who include a former ambassador, a Nobel laureate and several well-known human rights activists - the Israeli commandos came heavily armed with explosives and automatic weapons, and some opened fire from the air before landing on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel leading the flotilla ...
Among those offering a contradictory account was Ed Peck, a former U.S. ambassador and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism during the Reagan administration. who was on board the Sfendoni vessel of the Freedom Flotilla.
‘The first thing we knew was the sound of footsteps, and my eye lids flicked open, and there they were, heavily armed,’ said Peck, who was one of the first hostages to be released. ‘The Israeli government keeps referring to the paint guns, but the paint guns were attached to the automatic weapons and the stun grenades and the pepper spray and the tasers and everything else that these guys carry.’”
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05-0
Rseliger’s post defending these outrageous IDF actions demonstrates a much more biased view of the conflict than anything he claims regarding Mr. Chomsky’s excellent peice above.
And if we are looking for “context” surrounding the broken ceasefire agreement, I would respectfully point to the following from a Huffington Post article entitled “Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December.” The article states:
“...The ceasefire agreement that went into effect Jun. 19, 2008 required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.
In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, the agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and “allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza” within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas ...
Despite Israel’s refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Centre (IICC), an NGO which is close to the Israeli intelligence community.
In the first days after the ceasefire took effect, Islamic Jihad fired nine rockets and a few mortar rounds in retaliation for Israeli assassinations of their members in the West Bank. In August another eight rockets were fired by various groups,, according to IDF data cited in the report. But it shows that only one rocket was launched from Gaza in September and one in October.
The report recalls that Hamas “tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement” on other Palestinian groups, taking “a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement,” including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the ceasefire.
On Nov. 4 - just when the ceasefire was most effective - the IDF carried out an attack against a house in Gaza in which six members of Hamas’s military wing were killed, including two commanders, and several more were wounded ...
After that Israeli attack, the ceasefire completely fell apart, as Hamas began openly firing rockets into Israel, the IDF continued to carry out military operations inside Gaza, and the border crossings were “closed most of the time,” according to the ITIC account ...”
Here is the link to the full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/israel-rejected-hamas-cea_n_156639.h html?page=2&show_comment_id=19558888#comment_19558888
It is indeed important to deal in facts not hyperbole.
I guess that I repeatedly touch a nerve for our dear friend, Imran. The rise of Hamas, and the on-and off-again attacks from Gaza, undermined the plan to make Gaza into a new “Singapore”; many Israelis and its supporters (like myself) believe that the blockade is untenable: See http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/07/2739489/israel-facing-tough-choices-on-gaza-as-criticism-of-blockade-mounts.
We shouldn’t doubt, however, that it was imposed as a security strategy. Part of that strategy was to impose punishment on the population of Gaza (to turn them against Hamas), but not mass starvation. Hence the crude remark by an Israeli official, that Imran enjoys quoting, about putting Gazans on a diet.
Imran would surely not enjoy quoting hateful remarks and writings by Hamas and other militants about Israelis and Jews. Alas, these people are enemies; the purpose of a progressive is to look for ways that these people can move beyond their conflict.
I have repeated stated that the purpose of my posts has always been to respond to misstatements by Zionists, who are either trying to justify the occupation, or in the form of apologetics in order to cover for the crimes being committed in their name. In my opinion, pointing out these erroneous statements is the first best step towards acheiving a just and lasting peace.
For example, my first post was in direct response to your inaccurate blanket statement regarding Israel’s motive for the blockade (weapons). I argued that the goal has always been political, and that the means amounted to collective punishment. I pointed to the non-weapons related items being embargoed as proof of this contention. Rather than dispute this, you now concede that “part” of strategy was indeed political. Progress.
My next post was in direct response to the role-reversal you posed regarding humanitarian activists and heavily armed commandos storming a ship on the high seas. I pointed out that (1) the passengers arguably had a right to defend themselves and (2) that it now appears that the commandos may have actually fired first. While we can disagree about what really happened, is my version any less “progressive” than the official Israeli version that you quote nearly verbatim and without reservation?
And my final post addressed your (and cabby’s) criticism of the lack of “context” regarding the failure of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. But is your context any more or less “progressive” than mine or Mr. Chomsky’s simply because it supports the Palestinian rather than the Zionist narrative? Is it really conducive to peace when we place all blame on Hamas for the ceasefire breakdown (like you do without qualification in your post), but not so when we point out Israel’s errors?
The Palestinians have a side to tell as well, and as the dispossessed, their side is the indispensible one to a just and lasting peace. The first step in helping “people move beyond their conflict” is correctly identifying that causes of that conflict. Obscuring those causes with Zionist propaganda, as we have for over 50 years, serves only to deepen and further such conflict.
“But is your context any more or less “progressive” than mine or Mr. Chomsky’s simply because it supports the Palestinian rather than the Zionist narrative?”
That’s the problem right there, Imran. Chomsky provided no context at all, Zionist, anti-Zionist or otherwise. He simply baldly stated that Israel broke the ceasefire without any further explanation. He also stated that the Israeli Navy were tantamount to pirates on the high seas althroughout their history with no explanation of events at all of any kind whatsoever. This is what I meant by hyperbole replacing facts. Chomsky’s rant was long on hyperbole and short on the relevant facts.
I know that Hamas ceased firing rockets at Israel for the four months of the ceasefire in late 2008. This is beyond dispute. But rocket fire is not the only way to break a ceasefire. Hamas has never denied attempting to tunnel into Israel through Gaza’s northern border. No government in the world would allow terrorists to tunnel into their country to commit acts of terror. After the Israeli incursion which killed the six Hamas gunmen, Israel was willing to unconditionally resume the ceasefire as before. Hamas then responded with rocket fire. This was a mistake.
The actual facts in the Mavi Marmara incident are still not altogether clear and so I will reserve judgement until the much anticipated flurry of investigations are completed. For now I oppose the blockade and believe that as much humanitarian aid as is needed be extended to the people of Gaza. This would be the only decent thing for Israel to do. It should be done immediately.
If Israel just did what it says it is doing, most of the time it would be well supported. But that’s never what it does. Supposedly, israel’s reason for the Gaza siege has been to stop the rocket fire. If it restricted the flow of goods just to search for and stop rockets, no one would object. But, of course, Israel is stopping masses of necessary things, which do not relate to rockets, and this immediately puts the lie to its justifications for the siege. But if the purpose of the siege is to dictate to the people of Gaza who shall govern them, then the siege is a crime against humanity. In no case would Israel have a legitimate reason to stop a ship of humanitarian supplies, and certainly not with a military assault clearly planned in such a way as to maximize the potential for violence.
There are masses of legalisms and manipulated details constantly slathered over the basic facts, as is always the case when states commit crimes. But the basic facts still show through. The purpose of the siege was to punish the people of Gaza for electing Hamas. This is not a legitimate purpose.
What a pity that propagandists from hasbara was coming to spread lies about what happened in Gaza and about Chomsky biased.Chomsky is very well informed and if he is biased he is in Israeli side because a people closed in a cave has the right to defend itself and to riposte with its weak means.But is a siege decided only by Israel without a decision of UN valuable for other countries?Has Israel the “right” to impede help for other countries especially the the other countries are in friendly relations with Israel and could not be any suspicion of bearing weapons
As far as I can tell, the basic process is to pile up heaps of legalisms and detailed allegations, mostly distorted and some simply false (we seem to have seen more false than distored allegations about the flotilla!) in hopes that onlookers will simply throw up their hands and rely on their prejudices to sort things out. And, judging by polls, this is exactly what happens. About the same percentage of Americans that always sides with Israel sided with Israel here. They would be better off relying on basic good sense to sort things out, rather than prejudice. You see some defenseless ships bringing peaceful supplies to an increasingly desperate population. You see those ships subjected to a massive military assault in the middle of the night. You see multitudes of killed and wounded, some of the killed having been killed execution style or otherwise in cold blood, apparently. IT’S NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT AND WRONG HERE. But it takes a lot of ingenuity to stir up a cloud of factules and purported legalisms. And a lot of people stamping that cloud into the air through all media.
The truth has the virtue of simplicity. It’s not necessarily simple, but it has simplicity. Falsehood tends to fall away into complexity and absurdity as it is challenged. Notice how, as the people who survived the flotilla come forward to tell their stories, Israel’s narrative becomes more and more elaborate? Now we hear that the Mavi Marmara had 50 hardened and heavily armed Turkish military trained fighters waiting in ambush for the IDF commandos (who, remember, shouldn’t have been assaulting the ship in the first place)! Even in the face of such a truly massive ambush, supposedly, no one in the IDF got killed. I mean, they are good, really, really good, that they can actually dodge bullets!
Of course, it’s just nonsense. One wonders how much more baroque the stories spun by Israel are going to become.
“The truth has the virtue of simplicity.”
This is the most ridiculous assertion I’ve ever heard. If the truth were simple there wouldn’t so much disagreement. I guess you believe anyone who disagrees with you or who refuses to rush to judgement before all the facts have come to light is “prejudiced” but it is obvious to me who the real prejudiced ones are. I haven’t heard of any Israeli claims to there being Turkish troops on board but I did see a set of fairly damning photos from the Turkish Press showing passengers attacking and seriously injuring several Israeli soldiers. Apparently, they were not so defenseless.
http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=9&rid=2
It is also the case that Israeli soldiers faced lethal mob violence and some were stabbed. This comes from Ha’aretz which is an Israeli source but which is quite critical of Israel and features some of Israel’s most quoted and relied upon critics.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/we-fired-because-we-were-attacked-says-israeli-captain-in-gaza-flotilla-op-1.293571?localLinksEnabled=false
There are also allegations that an Israeli Naval radio operator successfully contacted the ships captain to warn him about Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and was rebuffed with vile threats and racist insults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/full-gaza-flotilla-radio-communication-auschwitz-911-helping-arabs/
Even the Guardian, generally hostile to Israel, reported that the Israeli Navy issued several warnings by radio to the ships captains.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/israeli-attacks-gaza-flotilla-activists
NPR, a fairly objective source, also confirms Israeli warnings and that soldiers were violently attacked as they repelled onto the Mavi Marmara even as they warned the passengers of their peaceful intent to steer the ship away from the blockade to dock in Ashdod where the cargo would be inspected and taken overland to Gaza under the observation of the activists.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127286256
It is very easy to slam anything you disagree with as “hasbara” and Zionist apologetics. Behaving this way only damages your credibility.I am only trying to get all the facts. The problem with issues like this is that everybody immediately takes sides in ignorance and then blindly defends their position as if it were their religion.
Cabby,
Regarding the Gaza ceasefire you are certain Hamas violated. let me offer the following. The ceasefire did NOT prohibit the digging of tunnels. How could it? Since Gaza is an open air prison, the only way to get in and out of it is tunnelling. There are hundreds of such tunnels in and out of Gaza, and they are an essential life-line for its 1.5 million people. While it is undisputed that some of these tunnels are used for military purposes, the ceasefire only required both sides to stop shooting at each other, and as you concede, Hamas held up its end of the bargain, despite Israel’s continuing refusal to hold up its end.
Further, this particular tunnel was 250 METERS INSIDE Gaza, as was the house that Israel raided, as were the Hamas members that Israel killed. This was a clear violation of the ceasefire, without even addressing the numerous Israeli violations/provocations prior to this event, not the least of which was Israel’s refusal to ease the blockade as it had promised. Nothing in the ceasefire prohibited Hamas (or Israel for that matter) from digging tunnels or maintaining any other perimeter fortifications (offensive or defensive) ON THEIR SIDE of the border.
In your desire to defend the Israeli version (despite having to work around the fact that Israel had clearly entered Gaza and fired upon Hamas), you tendered the worst possible motive regarding this tunnel to Hamas, assumed the best possible motive for Israel, but more importantly overlooked the very terms of the ceasefire that rendered the motives of both sides irrelevant as long as they did not act on them by crossing the border and shooting at each other.
While it is easy to criticize others for having a bias as opposed to a “factual” basis for their positions, it is more difficult to subject one’s own views to similar scrutiny.
Cabby,
You are wise to reserve judgment on this Freedom Flotilla incident. Nearly everything we have heard since the attack has come from official Israeli sources, carefully crafted and edited to control the narrative. For example, while the IDF has conveniently provided a video, what is left out is the “context,” i.e. what happened BEFORE the passengers began “resisting.” There is plenty of evidence that ought to exist on this issue, as there were hundreds of passengers on board the flotilla, including journalists. But, all cameras, phone, computers, and notes were taken from all of these hostages (much of it intentionally destroyed by the Israelis on board the ships before even being reviewed).
But for the sake of argument, assuming it was a clear case of a “lynching,” wouldn’t these items actually help Israel make its case? Particularly now, as many of the initial IDF claims are turning out to be inaccurate, we have here hundreds if not thousands of items that could theoretically corroborate Israel’s claims, right? What’s in these items that needs destroying or hiding from the world if it was as clear a case of “lynching” as rseliger would have you believe? While these Israeli actions by themselves are not evidence, they certainly are suspicious if not damning, and beggar logic or common sense.
In any event, here is a link to the latest testimony of the survivors that have recently been released.
http://www.freegaza.org/boat-trips/survivor-testimonies
“The ceasefire did NOT prohibit the digging of tunnels.”
Imran, I’m disappointed. I always regarded you as too clever to make such a statement. I goes without saying that armed gunmen tunneling into another country’s territory is an act of war. This act amounted to breaking the ceasefire. You really seem to be splitting hairs here. You admit in your post, the tunnel was a mere 250 meters away from Gaza’s northern border with Israel. Where do you think they were tunneling to? Isn’t it obvious.
I admit that Israel acted pre-emptively in attacking the tunnel. Israel tends not to wait until it’s to late.
So let me see if I’ve got this right. If Hamas had pre-emptively attacked an IDF patrol 250 meters INSIDE Israel and killed 6 of its soldiers, it could have claimed (and you would have supported) the contention that they did NOT violate the cease fire?
And Hamas presumably could claim this because they are permitted to assume the worst (as you do) about these soldiers’ intentions, regardless of whether they were or were not actually intending to engage in hostilities, based upon their prior history of aggression alone and their proximity to the border? Where do we think these soldiers were aiming their guns? How many times have they crossed over in the past, isn’t it obvious?
Or is it just Israel that gets to engage in assumptions and pre-emptive strikes?
Did you know tunnels are also used as bunkers for storage of weapons and as routes for intellegence gathering. If these are acts of war, what are Israel’s on-going violations of Gaza’s air and sea spaces?
When warring parties declare a cease fire, it does not mean that they cease all work on fortifications (either offensive or defensive) along such border in the event such cease fire fails or expires. Nor does such conduct (by either party) constitute a violation, otherwise Israel’s numerous military exercises and reconaissance/intelligence gathering missions along the border and along Gaza’a coast would then also have been violations. Isn’t it more reasonable and likely that a real ceasefire does not allow for either side to unilaterally make such assumptions, and instead requires that both sides not shoot at each other, regardless of what they THINK of the actions or intentions on the other side of the border?
Imran,
Your post makes perfect sense in a legal vacuum. But reality is quite different. When dire security emergencies arise and quick decisions have to be made to save lives certain assumptions are justified. There is no reason to tunnel that close to the border unless you intend to cross under it. Nothing else makes sense given the known facts. You seem to be rationalizing in your post. The tunnel was literally a stone’s throw from the Israeli border. I can well understand their “assumption” which was probably highly accurate. To do nothing under the circumstances would have been highly irresponsible of Israel.
IDF patrols are in fact common and there would be no reason to assume an unprovoked Israeli attack. Armed gunmen tunneling within meters of your borders is not common and can only be interpreted in one way. I know you disagree but I really think you’re being somewhat disingenuous.
Yes, we can safely assume non-violent intent on the part of Israel, which has NEVER EVER engaged in violence against the Palestinians, but it would be “highly irresponsible” to ignore the obvious violent intent on the part of the Palestinians, especially Hamas, for after all, they are part of that “Islamic culture,” you know. Shame on you.
Enjoyed our chat.
I never said Islamic culture was itself violent. What I meant was that there are many who behave violently in the name of Islam. This is unfortunate but it doesn’t tarnish the reputation of most Muslims who are peaceful and decent people. Sorry if I gave offense.
By the way, you insinuated unfair intent in my analysis. Israel has engaged in attacks but never in the course of a routine border patrol. I don’t believe Israel ever engaged in a sudden, unprovoked attack without warning. There was usually some context even if the military attack was unjust and ill advised.
AS Ilan Pappe wrote in a recent article called What Drives Israel?
“The price for my intellectual dissidence was foretold: condemnation and excommunication. In 2007 I left Israel and my job at Haifa University for a teaching position in the United Kingdom, where views that in Israel would be considered at best insane, and at worst as sheer treason, are shared by almost every decent person in the country, whether or not they have any direct connection to Israel and Palestine.”
And a little further:
“In the past, the free world faced dangerous situations like that by taking firm actions such as the sanctions against South Africa and Serbia. Only sustained and serious pressure by Western governments on Israel will drive the message home that the strategy of force and the policy of oppression are not accepted morally or politically by the world to which Israel wants to belong.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/essay-of-the-week-what-drives-israel-1.1032971
Peter Beinart in his excellent article: The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment:
“...the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism.”
And: “Rationalizing and minimizing Palestinian suffering has become a kind of game.” This point is exactly what is coming back these last days since the Israeli government is controling the information and wants to be the principal investigator of its own crimes.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false
The remark that Chomsky doesn’t elaborate is just ludicrous of course. After dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the issue at hand. Some people just don’t want to know and prefer to stay in a state of “comfortable illusion”, as Chomsky once phrased it.
In the Afterword To Failed States, Chomsky suggests 7 solutions which “for people who believe in democracy [...] are very conservative suggestions”. For example: Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; give up the Security Counsel veto; cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending.
The latest “easing of the blockade” by letting in shaving cream is just one more proof of the moral deficit of this scary bunch of thugs who are a danger to world peace.
Cabby, you state regarding Israeli behavior “There was usually some context…”
There always is Cabby, for both sides. It speaks volumes that you will instinctively assume such favorable context for the occupier Israel, and reject out of hand any such context for the occupied Palestinians.
It appears that when you complain about a lack of a “context” in articles like Mr. Chomsky’s above, what you are really just complaining about is the lack of an Israeli context, which to me is stunning, considering that we hear the Israeli context repeated ad nauseam in the MSM all the time. There is no shortage of the Zionist narrative here in the US. But, were it not for people like Mr. Chomsky, you might not even know that there was such a thing as a Palestinian one.
And while there are certainly two sides (or “contexts” if you wish) to a story, these sides are not ethically or morally equal. As I have stated before, there is no equivalence between the violent taker of land and those from whom it is taken. Nor is there any equivalence between the side that uses its overwhelming military superiority to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the suicide bomber who kills a few dozen. It’s the moral equivalence of heavily armed thieves complaining that the lightly or unarmed victim is fighting back. But, hey, “they’re both using violence.”
“Any call for a ‘balanced’ discourse on this issue - where the motto ‘there are two sides to every story’ is revered almost religiously - is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as ‘balance.’ The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure.”
For the full article, see::
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/21-2
You are certainly welcome to your “context.” As for me, I tend to support, rather than criticize, the few lone voices attempting to be heard over the din of the Zionist narrative in the MSM.
“It appears that when you complain about a lack of a “context” in articles like Mr. Chomsky’s above, what you are really just complaining about is the lack of an Israeli context…”
Wrong!! Chomsky didn’t provide any context as I pointed out. Don’t assume anything about my position beyond what I explicitly assert. This is unfair and pointless. It is obvious that Chomsky gave no examples of what he meant when he referred to Israel’s “piracy” in the past.
”...the few lone voices attempting to be heard over the din of the Zionist narrative in the MSM.”
Of all the mindlessly parroted mantras, the often repeated one about the allegedly “zionist” media is the stupidest and the most egregiously inaccurate. Outside of FOXNews, who gives a pro-Israel position? The UK Guardian? The BBC? MSNBC? CNN? CBS? TIME? NEWSWEEK? The Washington Post? The New York Times? All these sources, even the last one, have given stark, uncompromising portrayals of Israeli brutality in Gaza, Lebanon, Ramallah in 2002 and has clearly revealed the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians. In my recent research, it is clear that all the major US and UK newsmedia, without a single exception, blamed Israel for the breaking of the Israel/Hamas ceasefire in November 2008. They all gave a stark and brutally honest portrayal of the invasion of Gaza following the broken ceasefire (check the many examples on youtube) and focused heavily on the suffering in Gaza caused by the ongoing blockade. None parroted the Israeli line on the Mavi Marmara incident. They gave both sides, as professional journalists are obliged to do, but Israel came out looking worse. The MSM is fairly unsparing with regard to Israeli actions.
The major media’s honeymoon with the State of Israel ended in the late 1970s and early 1980s during Israel’s aerial bombardment, invasion and occupation of Lebanon. I believe the media is justified in giving such stark portrayals. But don’t spew that utterly offensive and inaccurate nonsense about the “pro-Israel media.” If the media was so pro-Israel, the whole world, including most of the American public, wouldn’t be so outraged at their policies.
Mr. Chomsky has written more books than most people read their entire lives. There’s plenty of “context” in a book (where the time and space can be spent for such things), but it is less conducive for the short article or essay format. If you want to see his context, I would encourage you to read some of his material.
My comments were about the lack of a Palestinian Narrative in the US MSM. So leaving aside the Guardian and the BBC, do you really think that the Palestinian Narrative is now (or even has been) presented on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, TIME, NEWSEEK, The Washington Post and, The New York Times? Are you seriously contending that these entities have equally presented the Zionist and Palestinian Narratives of the conflict, including their respective framing of the causes of the conflict?
It appears that your idea of the Palestinian narrative is criticism of “Israeli actions” only? It is not, and while these actions are rightly criticized, the Palestinian Narrative of dispossession by the primarily European architects of the Zionist Project, has been (and remains) notably absent from these stories. None of these entities dares even address the primary contention of the Palestinian Narrative, that of the “original sin” of these Zionists in decided amonst themselves to forcibly create a Jewish state in Palestine, without even consulting much less securing the consent of the indigenous population. As the triggering event for this conflict, its kind of an important “context,” if you think about it.
We have gotten so used to hearing the Zionist side of things, that even criticism of Israeli “actions” or “policies” is perceived to be the equivalent of presenting or advocating the Palestinian narrative. Incredible.
Cabby,
OK, while it would be better if you read through most if not all of Mr. Chomsky’s books, I’ll give the you book title up front, wherein the “context” you seek is laid out.
“Pirates and emperors, old and new: international terrorism in the real world.”
BTW, most people who have actually been exposed to the Palestinian Narrative would already have been aware of these facts, and would have thought your demand for the proof behind his statement about Israel’s piracy to be naive and/or simply ill-informed.
“It appears that your idea of the Palestinian narrative is criticism of “Israeli actions” only?... None of these entities dares even address the primary contention of the Palestinian Narrative, that of the “original sin” of these Zionists in decided amonst themselves to forcibly create a Jewish state in Palestine, without even consulting much less securing the consent of the indigenous population.”
As someone who has closely followed the Israel/Palestine conflict in the US news media for the past 35 years I must say that the media doesn’t really push either narrative. Admittedly, it takes as a given the State of Israel’s right to exist. This disturbs many people but most of the world also accepts Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state so this doesn’t make the US news media especially “zionist” by comparison. The US news media, like most news media tries to objectively report current facts and issues as they actually now exist. Their job is not to delve far back into history and discuss the deep roots of the current situation. They are journalists not historians. Despite this fact, they have openly explored both the Zionist and Palestinian narratives of history albeit superficially. Interestingly, they have found merit and flaws in both.
They have stressed the holocaust in Europe as a key motivation in creating a Jewish state but also decry the mass expulsion of Palestinians in the course of the 1948 War. They tend to believe that both sides had a legitimate claim to parts of Palestine by 1948 citing UN Partition and long term Jewish settlement in and development of areas of Palestine. At the same time they criticize the merciless expulsions, continued occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians in the territories. Israel existance as an irreversible reality is always assumed as a given. Furthermore, all the neighboring Arab states on Israel’s borders invaded Palestine in 1948, ostensibly with the intention of destroying the nascent Jewish state. This skewed the US perspective towards Israel for a long time. Beginning with the war in Lebanon in 1982 however, the suffering of the Palestinians and their dispossession as a root cause of Mid-East instability, came increasingly to light. Along with it many aspects of the Palestinian narrative also came to light. Israel is also a close US ally. This also affects the US media’s view in a way it doesn’t affect the media in other countries.
Yet, even the US media is increasingly taken aback by Israel’s starkly brutal behavior. These days it really doesn’t appear that they are taking Israel’s side any longer. Media perspective tends to shift with the political winds and prevailing attitudes. More and More the bloom is off the Israeli rose and the Palestinian side of the story is increasingly coming into view for all to see.
Cabby,
I whole-heartedly disagree with your statement that the US news media “doesn’t really push either narrative.” While your posts clearly reflect a more knowledgable view of the conflict than most, I believe that you are most likely confusing information you have received from the progressive media with things you think you heard in the US MSM over the past 35 years. In any event, I’ll leave judgment about the alleged non-bias of the US media regarding the Middle East to the readers of In These Times.
I find it interesting that immediately following your rejection of the US media bias in favor the Zionist narrative, you stress “as a given” such media’s acceptance of Israel’s “right to exist.” And while this appears at first glance to be a seemingly rational assumption, such a “framing of the issue” is a major theme of the Zionist narrative. For what exactly does this mean? The right to a Jewish National Home, or to a Jewish State? The right to exist on pre-1948 Mandate Palestine, the post-1948 war borders, or the pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?
Even though Israelis themselves cannot agree on what this “right to exist” means, it is unequivocally accepted by the US media as the appropriate framing of Middle East conflict. Think about what this means for a second, that the Palestinians have to accept Israel’s (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), that is, the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion without qualification, as the appropriate starting point or framing of the conflict!
Isn’t that convenient, we begin with assuming the legitimacy of occupation (on whatever land the Israelis end up deciding to keep), not with the injustice of the dispossession that triggered the conflict in the first place. You see, the conflict is not really about the dispossesed Palestinians giving up their land to Jews who were fleeing European persecution, its about those gracious Israelis giving up their land to these ungrateful natives for the sake of “peace.” And this is not a pro-Zionist bias?
That is power of “framing the issue,” notwithstanding your comment about the US media’s aversion to discussing history. This history is internalized, accepted almost as faith, and it is then consciously (or unconsciously) presented as the frame or narrative of the conflict.
Criticism of Israeli atrocities in the US MSM (hard to ignore because of their scale and frequency) are simply quibbles about tactics, and should not be confused with the undermining or discarding of the main narrative.
“I find it interesting that immediately following your rejection of the US media bias in favor the Zionist narrative, you stress “as a given” such media’s acceptance of Israel’s “right to exist.” And while this appears at first glance to be a seemingly rational assumption, such a “framing of the issue” is a major theme of the Zionist narrative. For what exactly does this mean? The right to a Jewish National Home, or to a Jewish State? The right to exist on pre-1948 Mandate Palestine, the post-1948 war borders, or the pre-1967 borders? Does it mean the right to exist as a “Jewish” State or a “Democratic” State?”
I generally agree with the second half of your post which is well argued and quite astute. I think that most people, both inside and outside Israel, have a pretty clear idea of what Israel’s right to exist means. Most of the world accepted Israel’s right to exist “within secure and recognized borders” which basically means they accept the pre-1967 armistice lines as a given. As I’ve said before (as has Finkelstein) that we can accept the reality of Israel without accepting or delving into the issue of the legitimacy of Israel. Most journalists don’t want to get into questioning Israel’s right to exist, not should they. It’s an argument that goes nowhere. What seems to be sustaining the argument is Israel’s unwillingness to offer the Palestinians a viable and just final status agreement. It is the resulting ongoing tension that sustains the issue of Israel’s right to exist. Such an issue would disappear with the formation of a viable independant Palestinian state. Both parties would accept each others existance over time and the issue would become moot . The Israel/Palestine conflict is much like that between Pakistan and India. India has long recognized Pakistan’s reality and legitimacy despite India’s initial bitterness at the separation of Pakistan from India in 1947.
Debate about Plan Dalet aside (this was a secret plan revealed in the 1980s by Israeli “revisionist” historians to expel the Palestinians well before the war even started) Israel accepted the UN partition resolution of 1947 and the Arab League did not. Most of the rest of the world also accepted it. Britain had a legal obligation at the end of its mandate to turn power over to the local inhabitants. Since those local inhabitants consisted of two parties deep in irreconcilable conflict, Britain did the only thing it could do; it turned the whole problem over to the UN. The Palestinians and their Arab League supporters bet on a military victory and lost. The resulting armistice lines became Israel’s internationally recognized borders.
Imran, if the Jews and the Palestinians wanted to form a non-sectarian, binational democratic state, I’d be all for it. The problem is that both sides reject it. The only support for this solution comes from a small circle of intellectuals with no political influence whatsoever. Most people, including the journalists, understand what happened in 1948. But the vast majority of the world’s people have come to acknowledge that both Jews and Arabs had legitimate claims to Palestine. Most people support an end to the illegal occupation by Israel, a lifting of the siege of Gaza and a viable two-state solution. The more Israel resists world opinion on the surest road to peace, the more Israel calls its own legitimacy into question in the eyes of the world.
It’s a tragedy for Israel today that it is dismissive about factual analysis of its actions whenever these happen to be critical. Noam Chomsky’s insightful piece should have served to inform and mold Israeli public opinion against the criminal activities of its current leadership. Sadly, war-mongering extremists have managed to convince enough Israelis of a make-believe “existential” threat in order to rally support behind its patently criminal conduct. Israelis may imagine that AIPAC and its ilk would be able to muster unequivocal support from Uncle Samin perpetuity - and why not: when even killing Americans wins admiration from current US administration - but it fails to read the writings on the wall. That support is on the wane and the impunity with which it had taken on the world is about to end. In Turkey, it had just lost about the only friend it managed to make in the region. If it maintains this course, it will only have itself to blame for the self-fulfilling prophecy about an existential threat.
I read elsewhere that most of the boats of this flotilla were allowed passage, and that violence erupted when Israel demanded the right to inspect the cargo (as countries typically do), and this was refused.
By now, so many stories have sprung up to support either the anti- or pro-Israel perspective that the facts are getting buried deeper every day. Still, if you do some online research of news items, going back
a few weeks to when they first announced their plan to take the flotilla to Gaza, you can probably get a more objective picture of what happened, and why.
The roots of the real problem predate the blockade of Gaza. Hamas had been deliberately and violently trying to sabotage the Oslo Peace Process from September 1993 onwards without reprieve. Hundreds of suicide bombings over the period of nearly two decades killing well over a thousand Israelis achieved the objective of destroying a peace intitiative would have made Iran, and their proxies such as Hama and Hezbollah, politically marginalized in the region. Iran has murdered many people and destroyed a peace process that could have led to a total Israeli withdrawl to the 1967 armistice lines with shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. But this isn’t all. They also contributed to the incredible suffering of the Palestinian people themselves.
“Almost 300 children have been killed while taking part in terrorist attacks over the past eight years, a new study conducted by Palestinian Authority researcher Mahdi Jaradat has revealed. A total of 3,973 PA Arabs died in the past eight years while committing acts of terrorism, he found…Hamas carried out more suicide bombings than any other group over the past eight years, with a total of 72. Islamic Jihad was next with 48 suicide bombings, and Fatah was third with 42.”
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2008/11/statistics-of-suicide-bombers.html
Since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada, between five and six thousand Palestinians have been killed by the IDF; far more than Israelis killed by terrorists. But what is amazing is the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians in a fratricidal conflict provoked by Hamas. According to B’Tselem, a widely respected Israeli human rights group, the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians between September 29, 2000 and December 26, 2008 is 593 with 120 of them killed for suspected collaboration with Israel. These figures represent about 10% of the number of Palestinians killed by the IDF during this period.
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp
A detailed statistical analysis by Sean Yom and Basel Saleh confirm that suicide bombings by Hamas began in 1993 in response to the signing of the Oslo Accords, not 1994 as much of the MSM claims.
“Between 1993 and September 2000, 27 suicide missions claimed 120 of the 290 Israeli deaths attributed to Palestinian attacks…”
They further explain that Hamas is the single biggest force behind suicide attacks. Only in 2002 did Fatah commit the most attacks due to the siege of Ramallah in Operation Defensive Shield.
“From 1993 through April 2004, 46 percent of all suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas…”
http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm
I have tried to use mostly non-Jewish sources to make my case. I do believe that although many Palestinians commit these acts out of rage and desperation, Hamas and Iran encourage and support these brutal acts for political advantage. Suicide is not allowed in Islam; however, martyring oneself for Allah (during combat) is not considered the same as commiting suicide. Hamas inculcates religious ferver in order to develop a willing cadre of youths to carry out these missions.
I agree with cabdriverinchicago, especially on the point about context (or the lack of…). We tend to isolate incidents, disregarding the events and circumstances that culminated with that incident. No one is saying that killing is good. What I am saying is that such incidents don’t simply “come out of the blue.” They are provoked, and responses to provocation are generally predictable. I find it troubling (and revealing) that we tend to disregard the reasons Israel had for setting out to stop the flotilla. There’s a tendency to automatically condemn Israel, regardless of the circumstances, while saying that violence against Israel is entirely “justifiable.”
There is nothing unusual about a country to demanding an inspection of cargo before a ship lands, so why did any flotilla boat refuse to allow an inspection? (I read that the intent was to provoke an attack to create international condemnation of Israel, but at this point, who knows? ). When the Israelis boarded anyway, they were attacked. How did they expect the Israeli’s to then respond? With an apology? Or would it be more rational for the Israelis to assume that the resistance was likely because there were bombs aboard? They were allowed to inspect the other boats, but not this one.
So, I did take this incident out of the context of the larger Gaza crisis precisely to focus on this specific incident —the action and reaction around the flotilla. My larger point is that it is irrational to justify encouraging people to attack Israelis—teaching them that killing Israelis is a virtue and pleasing to God— and then being outraged when Israel responds.
I find it highly interesting that the content of the comments are much more balanced and thoughtful than Chomsky’s post. For that I thank all the commenters.
I agree 100% with Seliger that Chomsky’s post is one-sided and also with Cabdriver that, not surprisingly, Chomsky does not provide any context. It is my experience that the Chomsky post is a good example of the pro-Palestinian position.
And this, my friends, causes my deep, deep frustration about this issue. In the US and international academic / journalistic world view (UK Guardian / BBC / MSNBC / CNN / CBS / TIME / NEWSWEEK / WaPo / NYT and, G*d help us, Chomsky), the Palestinian narrative has essentially been unchallenged. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been advanced, but no one seems to want to present the other side. It’s especially frustrating here in the US because the MSM seems obsessed with giving 2 sides to every story regardless of the triviality of the issue, but seems not to want to give the other side of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict.
I want to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, I do, but it is this one sidedness that I cannot abide. If we’re going to constantly hear about 1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that, let’s also hear about the suicide bombers, the rocket attacks and the Hamas charters that specifically warrant killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the earth.
While I do not always agree with Israel’s actions and shake my head at their willingness to be seen as bloodthirsty, I do believe that they are in a completely no-win position now. If they defend themselves they get attacked in the media for militarism and subjugation. If they stand down they get physically attacked in their own country by terrorists.
dhfabian and kenister42,
You both have shown some independance and rationality on this issue. I actually didn’t know that all the ships were inspected without a violent incident except for the Mavi Marmara; this adds a whole new perspective to the issue. If I were Navy personel in any country and inspected five ships peacefully while being violently attacked with weapons on the sixth one, I would doubtless suspect something horrible was up and react. I think when all the evidence comes to light, whatever it may be, the majority of people will come to a rational conclusion. I’m not one of those people that take sides out of bias and ignore the facts. I simply want the whole truth no matter what the consequences may be.
I also think that this is a quite astute observation; ”...the Palestinian narrative has essentially been unchallenged. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been advanced…” I think people who closely follow the Israel/Palestine issue from both sides would do well to bear this in mind.
Some stuff about the floatillas:
1. The boats were bound for Gaza via international then Gazan waters. At no time were they going to have been in Israeli waters. Israel had no right to demand inspection.
2. The blockade was (is) illegal. Israel had no right to stop the boats from docking in Gaza.
3. The boats were in international waters when they were boarded by the IDF, Israel had no right to board them.
4. The floatilla was fired upon before and while being boarded by both Israeli warships and the helicopters that deployed IDF soldiers onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara. No reasonable person could say that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were not entitled to defend themselves at the time they were boarded.
Some stuff about Hamas:
1. Hamas’ last suicide bombing was in 2005.
2. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza and the West Bank.
3. Hamas never adopted the 1988 charter (which calls for the destruction of Israel) as a governmental entity, and it is quite obvious that the language contained within about destroying Israel is a reaction to the decades-long human rights abuses the Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israel.
4. If you still want to zero in on that charter as if it means something, then you also need to wrestle with the fact that by its actions Israel, who is fully capable of it, seems to be intent on actually wiping out the Palestinians. What is more meaningful; the words of Hamas or the actions of Israel?
dhfabian,
Your question “There is nothing unusual about a country to demanding an inspection of cargo before a ship lands, so why did any flotilla boat refuse to allow an inspection?” is a good one.
As I have stated before on this website in a discussion with Cabby:
“...I think we can all agree that the right of sovereign state ends (or at least cannot serve as an excuse), if the manner in which that specific right is being exercised constitutes a war crime (see transcript and judgment of Nuremburg Trials). But perhaps an anology would be more helpful.
If a ‘sovereign nation’ decided to herd all of its Jews into an open air prison, impose a blockade upon that prison with the express purpose of ‘putting them on a diet,’ and justify its actions by claiming the ‘right to inspect’ for weapons, would you really have that much trouble seeing that nation’s exercise of its ‘right to inspect’ as unreasonable?
The manner and means by which the ‘right to inspect’ is being implemented, not just its stated goals, are the determinative factors. If the embargoed items were actually limited to weapons, you might have a ‘reasonable’ argument. But you and I both know that this is not the case.
Complying with a ‘sovereign’ nation’s ‘right to inspect’ under such circumstances would be at best legally and morally unconscionable, at worst aiding and abetting a war crime.” Israel has only itself to blame for people’s hesitance (unwillingness) to accept its “right to inspect” excuse by implementing the blockade in such a gross violation of international law.
If Israel had limited the blockade to weapons, they’d have a much stronger case. But you and I both know (based on the non-weapons related items on the embargoed list) that the purpose was to engage in collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.
Regardless of who started shooting first (we’ll find out soon enough), to begin at the boarding (right to inspect), rather than the the purpose/effects of the blockade that are the subject of such boarding (war crime), is something that most people are simply unwilling to do.
Kenster42,
You state “If we’re going to constantly hear about 1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that, let’s also hear about the suicide bombers, the rocket attacks and the Hamas charters that specifically warrant killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the earth.” Aside from being inaccurate as pointed out by PMureillo, it doesn’t seem to support your point.
We do hear those things, but most people (including those fervently committed to Israel’s “right to exist”) are simply not willing to accept that those things justify, excuse or legitimately provide a “context” for the murder of “1,200 Palestinians killed and white phosphorous and all that,” as you seem to believe or imply.
While many people still buy the Zionist Narrative that the Palestinian resistance constitutes Israel being “physically attacked in their own country by terrorists,” very few are willing to buy that the Israeli conduct you mention in Gaza constituted “defending themselves.”
Accordingly, questioning the treatment of the inmates (can we kill them in this fashion, or simply just starve them) does not in any way constitute an abandonment of the Zionist Narrative or advocacy of the Palestinian Narrative.
PMuriello,
You’re wrong about everything. In the first place the Israelis didn’t start shooting before they were attacked. Here’s a video from Russian Television.
http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/194026
The IDF prepared for the peaceful arrival of the flotilla and repeatedly offered to take all the aid to Gaza after inspection. The Mavi Marmara captain responded with insults and threats.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/israel-no-choice-gaza-flotilla
The idea that Israel had no legal right to stop and inspect the ships is wrong. Here is Article 67 (a) of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, (12 June 1994)
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
The IDF seemed to be acting within their rights according to international law. Furthermore, according to one legal analysis,
“The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration), the first international instrument to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does likewise.”
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/
One of the problems is that international law generally pertains to war between two sovereign states, not non-state actors like Hamas. In any case there is ample precedent in international law for the legality of the IDF actions and the blockade. Egypt also blockaded Gaza for three years for reasons similar to Israel’s. Gaza is not an independant sovereign state. Hamas lawlessly siezed power in 2007 killing the democratically elected Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip and are not recognized as the legitimate sovereign government of Gaza. The PA is but they have been displaced. Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza but must defend itself against the illegal and illegitimate Hamas “government.”
I don’t know where you got your information on Hamas but it is clearly false. Hamas may have stopped suicide attacks in 2005 but clearly encouraged and aided other groups like Islamic Jihad to carry them out.
Hamas won a legislative victory in January 2006 to the 132 member PLC. They won 74 seats or 56% of the vote. The voter turnout was only 77% which means Hamas probably has nowhere near majority support of the Gazan people even at the time and opinion polls have shown that Hamas is even less popular now. As one Palestinian researcher pointed out, the meaning of the results of the 2006 PLC election was somewhat complex.
”...a closer look at the numbers reveals a more complex picture. For one thing, Hamas received only 45 percent of the popular vote. The nature of the electoral system, which magnified the existing fragmentation of Hamas’s opposition, is what gave the Islamist movement the 58 percent of the seats it won. The divided Fatah and four other secular parties won a majority of the popular vote – 55 percent – but only 39 percent of the seats. (A handful of independent candidates won the rest.) Hamas’s support in the wider population is even lower.” Khalil Shikaki Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
Khalil Shikaki’s study further concluded that although Hamas’s popularity is based on frustration with Fatah corruption, most Palestinians generally don’t share Hamas views on the peace process. Shikaki asserts,
“Three quarters of all Palestinians, including more than 60 percent of Hamas supporters, are willing to support reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis based on a two-state solution. During the last 10 years, the trend among the Palestinians has been to move away from hard-line attitudes and to embrace moderate ones. Indeed, more than 60 percent of Hamas voters support an immediate return to negotiations with Israel.”
Shikaki attributes the Hamas victory purely to frustration with the peace process and Fatah corruption.
Also, Hamas was only elected to the PLC, not the presidency. One scholar points out,
“As president, Abbas retains significant governing powers, including: the right to propose legislation; the right to veto legislation (a two-thirds vote of 88 members is required to override a veto); the right to select and remove the prime minister; ultimate authority over the security services; the ability to issue Presidential decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session; and the ability to declare a state of emergency in which he has yet additional powers.”
Hamas is clearly governing illegally. Abbas is the recognized leader of the PA.
Regarding the Hamas Charter I will note the conclusions of a noted Palestinian researcher as presented in a UK House of Commons research document.
Khaled Duzdar, a Palestinian working for the Israel/Palestine Center for Research & Information, wrote shortly after the election that Hamas was a “rigid fundamental radical theocratic movement” that would be unlikely to renounce or modify its charter. He went on to argue that: “Hamas does not believe it must change; it believes that others have to adjust to Hamas”, adding that it would not be compelled to change or moderate its position:
“Hamas believes in one Holy Palestine from the river to sea. It is doubtful they will ever accept any concession on any part of historical Palestine; it is part of their fundamental beliefs.”
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
This comes directly from Article 8 of the 1988 Hamas Charter:
“The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
Here’s a quote from Article 28:
“We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”
Article 22 repeats the slander in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
“This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it…”
Article 32 confirms there belief that the Protocols are real and not a forgery.
“Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…”
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
Cabby,
You state unequivocally that “the Israelis didn’t start shooting before they were attacked.” But I thought you were going to wait until all the facts were in before rushing to judgment on this (“I’m not one of those people that take sides out of bias and ignore the facts. I simply want the whole truth no matter what the consequences may be”).
Especially since the hostages have just been released, and we are only now beginning to get facts contradicting the officially crafted and scripted Israeli story… And even before the upcoming “impartial” Israeli investigation has been completed? Oh well…
And your lengthy posts regarding the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Hamas actually weakens the premise of many Israeli supporters of the blockade; that by engaging in the collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza we can either punish them for supporting/electing Hamas, or in the alternative, get them to “break” with Hamas. For if they did not elect Hamas, and Hamas took power without their consent, what’s the point or purpose in Israel’s gratuitously brutal 4-year-old punishment of a population who, according to you, are as much of a victim of Hamas as Israel is?
Also see: http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/schumers-sippenhaftung-and-the-children-of-gaza.html
In their desire to defend the indefensible, the Israeli excuses seem to be flying all over the map, with no consideration for consistency.
Here is Senator Charles Schumer’s relevant quote that I inadvertently left out of my post from Juan Cole’s article above:
“And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.”
It’s a tragedy of our times that the survivors of the holocaust have themselves turned into the demons that tomented them. To plead on behalf of a patently apartheid regime in its collective punishment of a nations dispossesed to make room for settlers and corralled into an open air prison is the ultimate irony. It doesn’t take a Naom Chomsky to figure this out. Is it any wonder then that diehard supporters of the bigoted regime in Israel should now take to convoluted and wholly indefensible arguments to try and mask the perpetration of its crimes against humanity. Amazing how any sensible person can bring himself to consider condoning, much less supporting, the unconscionable crimes against a people. To zionist sympathisers, I suppose it is fine to uproot people from their ancestral homes, kill or evict a whole nation and label any resistance as an act of terrorism. Small wonder, then, that the boarding of an aid flotilla by armed commandoes in the high seas (read international waters) and murdering unarmed people of a hitherto friendly country is perfectly legitimate.
I think Cabdriver responded to PMuriello’s comments quite well, but I will add three more:
1. The reason why Hamas’ last suicide bombing was in 2005 is because 2005 is when the last portion of the Israel Security Fence separating itself from other countries was completed. This is the fence that has been condemned and decried by pro-Palestinian folks as a “prison wall”.
2. Let’s be frank - if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians / Gazans, they would have done so a long time ago. They are clearly superior from a military perspective and have the ability to defend themselves from a conventional perspective against pretty much anyone except the US. This speaks to Israeli restraint. Clearly, they have not been as restrained as they should have, but Muriello’s statement is false and misleading.
3. Hatred starts wtih education. A survey of 2007 Palestinian 12th Grade textbooks noted the following:
“The teachings repeatedly reject Israel’s right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, teach Israel’s founding as imperialism, and actively portray a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all. The following description of Israel’s founding represents the dominant dogma about Israel in Palestinian schoolbooks: Defining Israel’s founding as a ‘catastrophe unprecedented in history,’ ‘a theft perpetrated by “Zionist gangs,’ together with numerous other hateful descriptions of Israel as ‘colonial imperialist’ and ‘racist’, compounded by the presentation of the conflict as a religious war, leaves no latitude for students to have positive or even neutral attitudes towards Israel. This negative imagery and religious packaging are compounded by hateful presentations of Israeli policy. The young students are imbued with a Palestinian identity as ‘victims’ just by virtue of Israel’s existence. The well-meaning student is left with no logical justification or religious option to accept Israel as a neighbor or to seek coexistence. Given the total rejection of Israel’s right to exist, on nationalistic and religious grounds, Palestinian terror against Israel since Israel’s founding in 1948 is defined as: ‘resistance … acts of most glorious heroism.’ PA educators teach that fighting Israel is not merely a territorial conflict, but also a religious battle for Islam. The schoolbooks define the conflict with Israel as ‘Ribat for Allah’ – ‘one of the actions related to Jihad for Allah, and it means: Being found in areas where there is a struggle between Muslims and their enemies.’”
Are there similar teachings towards Palestinians in Israeli textbooks?
As I have argued before, US MSM criticism of some Israeli policies are but mere quibbles about tactics, rather than an abandonment of the Zionist Narrative. And one could not have asked for a more timely or poignant example of this than the contrast in coverage regarding Helen Thomas’ and Senator Schumer’s remarks.
“Thomas was forced into retirement for declaring that Jews ‘should get the hell out of Palestine,’ but New York Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful politicians in the US, has avoided any criticism or even major press coverage for remarks he made only days later that supported the continued ‘economic strangulation’ of Gaza; in part, because, he essentially argues, the inhabitants of the benighted Strip are not Jewish…
And the fact Schumer could make them without a hint of anger, as if he was merely stating the obvious, and feel no need to recant them after video of the talk was circulated on the internet (several calls to Schumer’s press secretary asking for clarification were not answered), is as telling as it is worrisome.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/17-6
The key words are of course “as if he was merely stating the obvious.” It is a testament to the prevalence of the Zionist Narrative in the US MSM that such an outrageous statement by Senator Schumer barely even registers on the “WTF radar” here.
But in defense of the US media, I would like to point to Comedy Central, and Stephen Colbert’s skit below (hilarious).
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312100/june-09-2010/formidable-opponent—-michael-oren
Imran
I don’t know where you got the impression that Charles Schumer is one of the most powerful politicians in America but that is far from the truth. I know he’s a Jew from New York, but that hardly makes him the most powerful man in the US Congress!! If he were, Obama wouldn’t have such a hard time getting his agenda through Congress and we’d have single payer health insurance not this crappy health care bill that is a giveaway to big insurance companies. He is the senior senator from NY but that only means that he’s been in congress longer than the other senator from NY. He doesn’t have as much power as many others in Congress.
In the second place, Helen Thomas was not fired because of her remarks about Israel no matter what anyone says. She was fired because of her remarks about sending Jews back to Germany and Poland. Considering the central role both countries played in the almost total extermination of Europe’s Jews, it is pretty clear what Thomas was alluding to.
No news agency can retain a employee who makes such remarks. This has nothing to do with Israel. News organizations have their reputations, credibility and image to protect. Keeping Helen Thomas on at her job is tantamount to endorsing her views. This is impossible for any news agency regardless of who is the target for an employee’s bigoted remarks.
I read Schumer’s comments on Gaza and find them abhorent as you probably realize. Schumer is typical of many Jewish American politicians; liberal on social and economic issues, fascistic on matters regarding Israel.
Cabby,
Senator Charles Schumer is the 3rd ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/12/schumer
And as pointed out in Mark Levine’s article Charles Schumer is:
“... an extremely powerful senator who serves on some of that body’s most powerful committees, such as banking and judiciary.”
I would think these qualifications certainly put him in the category of “one of the most powerful politicians in the US.”
And while he has his differences/difficulties with the Republicans (and some Democrats) on many issues including health care, when it comes to lining up to support Israel and the Zionist Narrative, there is very little space between him and the rest of Congress. See Stephen Zunes’ article entitled Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack:
“International condemnation of the raids continued in foreign capitals. Meanwhile, in Washington, Democratic congressional leaders were lining up alongside their Republican colleagues to defend the Israeli assault.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/11-0
And finally, I (along with many others) vehemently disagree with you regarding whether Helen Thomas’ remarks were anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. See excellent article in Huffington Post by MJ Rosenberg entitled Anti-Israel Does Not Mean Anti-Semitic:
“If she had said that American Jews should ‘get the hell out of America,’ that would be anti-Semitic. But Israel-bashing is quite as permissible as Palestinian-bashing. The only difference is that the second is a popular position that earns votes and campaign donations (see Schumer, Chuck). The first can result in getting fired. Absurd.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/helen-thomas-is-anti-isra_b_611017.html
Cabby,
Glenn Beck literally encouraged people to engage in armed revolt against the U.S. government and all that happened to him was he lost a few sponsors, so don’t tell me it’s just a case of a news org. getting rid of someone with bad opinions. Also it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to come to the conclusion that Helen Thomas, the extremely vocal critic of every recent U.S. war and probably one of the most compassionate people in the world, was advocating another Holocaust.
Also:
1. Thanks for that IDF propaganda, let me share a video in which you can clearly see the IDF fire first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UN4DO1pL5E
2. The Gaza blockade is collective punishment, collective punishment is illegal, therefore the blockade is illegal. Q. E. D.
3. Yes, Hamas would never accept the existence of the state of Israhttp://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast/index.html
kenster42,
2. Israel got their nose bloodied by Hezbollah, so I question the extent to which Israel would be able to defend themselves against the combined might of their neighbors. Anyway, your argument is stupid; Israel COULD have wiped out the Palestinians by now, but not without getting declared a genocidal rogue state and invaded by basically all of their Arab neighbors, most of Europe and maybe even the U.S. (yeah right). They engage in this genocide-by-inches just at the edge of international tolerance.
3. Wow, it’s almost as if decades of brutal colonialism has shaped the Palestinian attitude toward Israel, also all the history (emphasis on HISTORY, not ideology) in that passage you quoted is true I hope this helps.
Imran,
How do you find the patience to argue calmly with atrocity apologists?
There is a lot of consternation now in Israel about bringing a soldier to court who killed a 64 old woman waving a white flag during the Gaza massacre.
What precedent would that create for the most moral army in the world?
As Ilan Pappe said it in his wonderful article “What drives Israel?”:
“You probably have to be born in Israel, as I was, and go through the whole process of socialisation and education – including serving in the army – to grasp the power of this militarist mentality and its dire consequences. And you need such a background to understand why the whole premise on which the international community’s approach to the Middle East is based, is utterly and disastrously wrong.”
PMuriello,
Thanks, its not easy sometimes, especially considering the scale and frequency of the atrocities against the Palestinians.
But this is often their very intention: to deliberately provoke an emotional response in their opponents, so that they can then discredit the messenger (rather than address the message itself).
Engelbert,
You make an excellent observation. It is indoctrination with the Zionist Narrative that allows otherwise rational individuals to engage in these horrible atrocities (i.e. killing a 64 year old woman waving a white flag in order to “defend” nuclear-armed Israel from irrational Palestinian hordes wanting to “throw them into the sea,” for apparently no reason whatsoever, without any recognition or even awareness of the displacement and systematic dehumanization of the indigenous population that is the basis of the conflict).
Imran,
Thanks. I think a lot of it has to do with education. “The Holocaust isn’t just about Jews” as Anshel Pfeffer recently wrote in Haaretz.
Prof. Hanna Yablonka of Ben-Gurion University talks about the “pornograpy of evil” in the context of education in Israel. The focus is on the technical details of the holocaust instead of on the War of Independence. So the complexity of the situation remains hidden to generations of Israeli’s who are brought up with a black and white view of “them against us”.
It’s hard for apologists to understand that one can simply have a moral viewpoint, and that does not mean anti-semitic of anti-Israel. Some of the contributors here seem to suffer from what psychologists call the confirmation bias: you ignore facts that contradict your creed.
Imran, Engelbert, PMuriello,
Comparing Glenn Beck to Helen Thomas is ludicrous. I despise FOX News too. But Beck is a “shock jock”, who does his shtick for ratings and money. Its just a business to him. He even said so when he famously remarked, “I could give a flying crap about the political process. We’re an entertainment company,” His over the top nonsense is meant to entertain people and make money. I realize the wrong people take him seriously but to my knowledge he doesn’t make overt racist insults at ethnic or religious groups the way Helen Thomas did.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/building-an-empire-glenn-beck-makes-32m-a-year.php
When Helen Thomas told Jews to go back to Germany and Poland it was very clear what she meant. She may not have been openly advocating another Holocaust but obviously her overt mention of those two particular countries in Central Europe were meant to convey unambiguous hatred and animosity. In the wake of the flotilla incident it is understandable one could lose their temper and say something rash in the heat of anger. Still, professional journalists are supposed have self control. I cannot remember another example of such behavior from someone normally held in high regard in the journalism profession. PMuriello and Imran, in my view are rationalizing or are just very naive. Would someone be kept on at a news agency if the told all Black people to go back to Africa? I frankly don’t care what people say about Israel itself. But Helen Thomas attacked Jews per se. I’m quit sick of people thinking they can say whatever they want about Jews and pass it off as a “criticism of Israel.”
And excuse my ignorance, but what makes Helen Thomas “one of the most compassionate people in the world?” By the way, there are many critics of the Bush Administrations wars and overall policy in the Middle East who still retain their positions in professional journalism because they didn’t stoop to spouting hate.
I never actually said that I support a full naval blockade of Gaza; certainly not for political purposes and not on security grounds either. I do think there is a middle ground between a debilitating blockade which is obviously collective punishment and exersizing some control over Gaza’s external affairs especially in conjunction with Egypt. This is only reasonable considering Hamas’s rocketing of Israel and their determination to destroy Israel.
Hamas is a terrorist and rogue element no less than is Israel. They illegally siezed control of Gaza in June 2007 and murdered many Fatah members and those known to be their supporters. Abbas attempted to negotiate a deal with Hamas on a power sharing arrangement but to no avail. Hamas are terrorists and outlaws. They are recognized as such not just by the US, the EU and other western states but by several Arab states as well such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. They’re only political objective is jihad and the transformation of all of British Mandatory Palestine into a purely Islamic state with no Jews. This is in their charter and it is beyond dispute.
Imran, I frankly tired of constantly hearing this “Zionist narrative” stuff. You have a very dichotomous world view which is frankly becoming increasingly rigid and difficult to reason with. Mere acceptance of Israel’s right to exist is not a Zionist position. For you this may be sufficient to qualify as zionist but I suspect your views on Israel, as well as those of PMuriello and Englebert, depart from those of the majority of the world’s people.
Cabby,
Blahblahblah, same old anti-Semitism ad hominem every Israel apologist trots out when their fantasies have been destroyed by reality.
Beck only calls himself ‘an entertainer’ when he gets called out on the despicable things he says. Thomas chose Germany and Poland because that’s where the majority of the Jews immigrated from after WWII, once again you’re using the ol’ anti-Semitism strawman. Also you have this gem:
“Would someone be kept on at a news agency if the told all Black people to go back to Africa?”
lmao as if black people chose to come to America in the first place, haha you don’t think so good do you? (I guess that’s why you’re an Israel apologist!)
I’m glad you at least admitted that the current blockade is collective punishment and therefore illegal, and therefore have to accept that the flotilla was not breaking but enforcing international law.
Also you still want to blockade Hamas for relatively ineffective rocket attacks while Israel kills a thousand or so civilians every time it ‘defends itself’ against the Palestinians, even though the only reason Hamas started rocketing after the cease fire is because Israel didn’t hold up their end of the bargain by ending the blockade, you are the biggest hypocrite. And sorry, every objective human rights org. that monitored the 2006 election said Hamas won fair and square, most of the violence was caused by a U.S./Israel-backed coup attempt by Fatah.
Also sorry but basically the entire world wants a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders (including Hamas!), the only two major powers that constantly vote against this in U.N. security councils are, yup you guessed it, Israel and the U.S. Yours is the minority opinion, not ours.
Please don’t post again, you are embarrassing yourself.
PMuriello,
You really need to grow up and listen for a change. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Slamming Israel for its policies is perfectly acceptable. Telling Jews to go back to Germany and Poland is not. You may be too naive to realize what Thomas really meant but I can assure you that neither Thomas nor the vast majority of the Jewish community were confused at all about the intent of the remarks she made. The main reason she pointed out those two countries was their central role in the holocaust-Germany perpetrated it and Poland hosted all the death camps. Besides the vast majority of European Jews came from Russia which had a Jewish community that well exceded in number Germany and Poland combined.
Ironically, the vast majority of Israeli Jews don’t come from Europe at all but from Arab and other Muslim countries. Their hostility to Arabs surpasses that of the European Jews mostly because, in the runup to 1948, they were treated as badly as the European Jews were treated. They were killed, expropriated and expelled. Not to smart a thing for their Muslim neighbors to do. These Jews were avowedly non-Zionist and had been productive loyal citizens of Muslim countries for centuries. Moreover, the Arab states sent 800,000 angry Jews to Israel where they would form the bulk of the military and labor force of the new state. This was an indispensible “shot in the arm” for Israel. Had the Arab states not made this fatal mistake, Israel may well have faded out quickly or at least been forced to alter itself so as to cease being a Jewish state. As it turned out, the Arab states inadvertently took part in a mutual population exchange. This was not their intention but they did it and in so doing, they ironically ensured Israel’s continued survival.
The analogy I used regarding a hypothetical example of African-Americans being told to return to Africa is a good one. Whether or not they came here under different circumstances than that of the Jews who went to Palestine is irrelevant (by the way most Jews who ended up in Palestine were forced to go there because no other country would take them from the 1930s onward. Maybe you should read some of that history).
The fact that Hamas rocket fire was ineffective is irrelevant. They fired rockets into Israel, period!! The blockade was ended in August 2005 and was restored only when Hamas began smuggling weapons into Gaza from Iran.
Hamas merely won 55% of the seats in the PLC, not the presidency. This hardly gave them the right to illegally sieze control of Gaza by force. Fatah never attempted a coup against Hamas until negotiations broke down and Hamas continued to illegally hold power in Gaza and violently attack Israel.
You clearly don’t read very well. I have long been a supporter of a two-state solution and have said so many times both here and elsewhere.
Cabby,
As I have repeated stated, the purpose of nearly every one of my posts on this website to date has been to directly respond to some factual or logical error advanced by apologists of the Zionist Project.
My primary objection to the Zionist narrative behind these errors is this notion that whatever Israel does be judged by its good intentions alone (which are never questioned) rather than objectively based on its actual actions. In other words, if Israel does it, its not colonialism, imperialism, torture or terrorism because unlike other nations, its goals are noble. This mindset is reflected in numerous posts above, ranging from the flotilla attack to who broke the Gaza ceasefire, in order to justify actions people otherwise would objectively have condemned had ANYONE else done the same.
Years of unquestioned/unchallenged acceptance of the Zionist Narrative has resulted in these errors often-times being repeated “as if merely stating the obvious” or as facts, when they are nothing of the sort.
As a result, I believe this particular narrative is a major hinderance to both proper identification of the causes of the conflict, and to its future resolution in a fair and just manner. I too sometimes tire of addressing the numerous errors caused by such narrative. But addressing such errors is, in my opinion, the first best step towards peace.
I would hope that progressives would, at a minimum, want to at least hear the story or narrative of the dispossessed (whether they agree with it or not). I do not understand why unchallenged presentation of the Zionist Narrative is fine and OK, but advocacy of Palestinian narrative constitutes having “a very dichotomous world view.” It seems that just hearing the Palestinian narrative is simply too much for some to bear (i.e. characterization of this narrative as “rigid” and “difficult to reason with”). Perhaps a subconscious admission of guilt for the sins of the Zionist Project?
Accepting an eventual two-state peace agreement does not require accepting the Israeli narrative of its “righteousness,” nor does it require acceptance of the Palestinian narrative of their being a people upon whom Zionists forcibly imposed themselves. Which narrative is correct, or who is the aggressor/victim is for history to decide.
I insist upon advancing the Palestinian narrative as a corrective to years of unquestioning acceptance of the Israeli narrative. I do not recall many cries for balanced narratives during the previous 50 years, when the dominant strain was how “poor Israel was just defending herself” from hordes who were attacking, apparently for no reason whatsoever, without any discussion of the land grab which was the basis of the conflict.
If we want a just resolution, we must begin with a proper framing of the conflict. Try as Zionists might to obsure the issue of the unlawful land grab with their narrative, the cause of the conflict was Zionists deciding amongst themselves to forcibly create a state in a land where the vast majority of the indigenous inhabitants were not Jewish. The motives of such Zionist notwithstanding, nearly everyone agrees that the desires of the indigenous population were irrelevant to this project, and simply were not taken into consideration. Everything that has followed was a forseeable result of this injustice.
This is not to say that there shouldn’t be an Israel today, but to properly identify what triggered the conflict in the first place. If you believe that this narrative of dispossession is inaccurate, you should explain specifically how it is incorrect, rather than make general statements about it being “rigid” and/or “difficult to reason with.”
Cabby,
You state unequivocally that “I can assure you that neither Thomas nor the vast majority of the Jewish community were confused at all about the intent of the remarks she made.” Really?
Apparently, “you clearly did not read very well” the article I linked for you in my post above from MJ Rosenberg from the Huffington Post entitled Anti-Israel Does Not Mean Anti-Semitic. So, since its short, I’ll quote it for you in its entirety here.
“If one good thing can come out of the Helen Thomas brouhaha, it would be questioning the meaning of the term ‘anti-semitism.’
I have gone back and forth on the whole Thomas affair. One point that has always been clear to me is that her statement was ‘anti-Israel.’ A second is that she should not have been fired for shooting off her mouth (being ‘pro-Israel’ should not be a requirement to hold a job in media or anywhere else). And, third, is that her statement, while anti-Israel, was not anti-Semitic.
Anti-semitism is the dislike of Jews. There is nothing in her intemperate remark that indicates that she does not like Jews. In fact, I know that she is not prejudiced against Jews and has worked and socialized with Jews her entire life. She would not discriminate against Jews in hiring. She would not ban Jews from some theoretical ‘Helen Thomas Country Club.’ She could not care less if Jews moved in next door. And ‘Helen Thomas University’ would not have a quota on Jewish students.
Jews who know her well say she is entirely without prejudice against Jews (or anyone else).
But she clearly does not believe Israel should have been established in 1948. So what. Both the State and Defense departments opposed the establishment of Israel because they thought a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world would mean nothing but trouble. Many Jews who lived in what was then Palestine (like Martin Buber) opposed the establishment of the state. So did the now incredibly anti-Palestinian American Jewish Committee.
Sixty years later Helen Thomas still feels that way.
I think she’s wrong. Israel exists and, no matter what should or shouldn’t have been done in 1948, it is ugly to suggest that the six million Jews of Israel should ‘go back to Poland’ (even if she didn’t mean it literally). But uttering a few repugnant sentences about the State of Israel does not make a person anti-Semitic. Nor would a whole book or ten books making that point. It makes the person who says or writes them anti-Israel—which is nothing more than a statement of disdain about a foreign nation. If a person can dislike or even hate Germany, or Japan, or Poland, or France, or Mexico, he or she can dislike or hate Israel.
If she had said that American Jews should ‘get the hell out of America,’ that would be anti-Semitic. But Israel-bashing is quite as permissible as Palestinian-bashing. The only difference is that the second is a popular position that earns votes and campaign donations (see Schumer, Chuck). The first can result in getting fired. Absurd.”
I suppose that Mr. Rosenberg and all the “Jews who know [Thomas] well and say she is without prejudice against Jews (or anyone else)” are naive, but you know better, huh? You seriously undermine your own credibility by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and then attempting to say that you speak for “the vast majority of the Jewish community” when doing so.
First of all, I don’t spout a Zionist narrative. I support Israel’s right to exist. So do most people. Apparently, you don’t. That is your right but let’s at least understand each other and stop the silly labeling. Like most people I support an end to the blockade of Gaza and a viable and just two state solution. At that point both Israel and the Palestinians can get down to the business of building up their respective societies and economies under conditions of peace in order to bring prosperity to the people of the region. I think Israel should make all reasonable compromises to attain this worthwhile goal.
In the second place, I strongly disagree that Thomas’ remark was merely anti-Israel and not anti-semitic. Mr. Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion. But I am entitled to disagree. I realize that a single remark is not sufficient to entirely define someone but it was sufficiently hateful and offensive for her to be fired. The news agency could not keep her on after making her statement because of their image; they didn’t want to be seen as endorsing her views and I can’t blame them. I know this is hard for you to understand being anti-Israel. But I truely believe that the remark went beyond criticism of Israel which in and of itself would not have gotten her fired.
I believe the Israeli blockade of Gaza to be inhumane and illegal but I also view Hamas’ illegitimate and illegal siezure of power the same way. Hamas is an outlaw and terrorist organization. Most countries, including many Arab states, refuse to recognize their authority in Gaza as legitimate. Perhaps, this is why Egypt participated in a blockade along side Israel. I believe that Israel has legitimate security concerns. Though I believe they have no right to blockade Gaza they do have a perfect right to inspect all ships going into Gaza until such time as the PA is put back in charge of Gaza. I believe this is quite reasonable.
I have never equated anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. There are, however, many who mistakenly think of anti-semitism as merely anti-zionism and cannot distinguish between the two.
Cabby,
First of all, let me state that I did not say that you spout a Zionist Narrative. You have, on several occassions, bravely and thoughtfully deviated from such narrative.
I was simply noting that your thinking (and that of others) on the flotilla attack and the Gaza ceasefire breakdown is consciously (or otherwise) influenced by such narrative. As a result of this Zionist narrative’s influence, some tend to judge whatever Israel does by its good intentions alone, which are never questioned, rather than objectively based on its actual actions. I feel that this undermines peace by justifying Israeli actions people otherwise would objectively condemned had ANYONE else done the same.
I believe the same problem presents itself on the issue of Israel’s creation in the first place. The Zionist narrative’s focus solely upon the assumed positive intentions/motives for creating Israel (escaping horrible European persecution/pogroms), rather than an objective analysis of the consequences of its actual actions in furtherance of it (the evil perpetrated in displacing an indigenous population that had nothing to do with such persecution) is a real if not main source of the problem. This “blindness” to the consequences of one’s actions is the result of the Zionist narrative, and it leads people to ask silly questions like “why do they hate us,” create caricatures of “the other,” and then engage in actions that we would otherwise never do but for the influence of such narrative.
Accordingly, this Zionist Exceptionalist Narrative (like its American strain) is a real hinderance to finding peace. Most people who recognize this do not confuse such critiques with hatred of Jews or Americans as a people.
Cabby,
No, your analogy was terrible. Colonial Zionists are not the same as African Americans, and while telling an African American to go back where they came from is purely racist, telling a Zionist Jew to go back where they came from is merely telling a colonial oppressor to go back where they came from, which is not racist and is in fact quite reasonable.
If Hamas, as you claim, did in fact ‘smuggle’ weapons into Gaza from Iran, then the fact that they were ‘smuggling’ suggests that the blockade was still in effect, which violates the terms of the cease fire.
And if you support a two state solution based on the 1967 borders as you claim to, then why continue to support Israel at all in their attempts to ‘defend themselves’ against the Palestinians when they could put an end to the conflict right now by accepting the solution? Indeed it seems that your support for Israel is unconditional if you continue to support them despite the fact that they (and the U.S.) remain the only meaningful obstacle to peace.
One more question: now that you have admitted that the blockade was illegal, are you ready to admit that Israel’s assertion that they had the right to inspect the flotilla was ludicrous? Are you also willing to admit that because the blockade was illegal that the flotilla raids were also illegal, tantamount to piracy and murder?
Cabby,
The Gaza Blockade, as implemented by Israel, is simply indefensible, and one loses credibility defending it as a security measure when the items embargoed so clearly do not involve weapons.
If Israel was truly only concerned about weapons getting to Hamas, the best course of action all along would have been to search for such weapons only, and then to forward ALL non-weapons related items into Gaza. Israel has only itself to blame for its over-reach in trying to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.
Just look at the items on the embargoed list! I am simply amazed at the moral and legal gymnastics some Israelis are engaging in trying to defend this inhumane (criminal) blockade.
Imran, I know the official stance is that there is a collective punishment for electing Hamas. But then one has to believe that if Fatah had won, things would have been different. I sincerely doubt that. Before Hamas things were not different.
The blockade was there long before Hamas won the free elections. Fishermen were confined to their 3 mile zone since 2000, the year that big natural gas reserves were found near the coast of Gaza. I have a hunch that stopping the boats so far offshore and using deterrence again to scare off future aid ships, has something to do with their gas business. They don’t want nosey people around there in my view.
If what used to be an economic blockade suddenly becomes a security measure, combined with the excessive violence of the raid, there is something fishy going on.
“Colonial Zionists are not the same as African Americans, and while telling an African American to go back where they came from is purely racist, telling a Zionist Jew to go back where they came from is merely telling a colonial oppressor to go back where they came from, which is not racist and is in fact quite reasonable.”
Wrong!! And besides she wasn’t just telling them to return from whence they came. This is rationalizing. She was making clear allusions to something else; otherwise she would have simply said that the Jews of Israel should be repatriated somewhere out of Palestine. That would have been a pretty extreme opinion in and of itself but not really anti-Jewish. Not all the Jews could be colonial Zionists as you put it. Many were forced to go there because they had nowhere else to go. I know you don’t care and can’t identify with Jews at all. You, very much unlike Imran, seem to be anti-semitic and hateful, without even the slightest desire to see both sides.
”...the fact that they were ‘smuggling’ suggests that the blockade was still in effect…”
This comment is absurd on its face. The smuggling was necessary to avoid detection by either Israel or Egypt and thus to try and prevent a full naval blockade. Duh!! I don’t believe that the raid on the flotilla was either piracy or murder from what I have seen. Israel was interested in inspecting the ship and would have taken any and all humanitarian supplies overland to Gaza.
“If Israel was truly only concerned about weapons getting to Hamas, the best course of action all along would have been to search for such weapons only, and then to forward ALL non-weapons related items into Gaza.”
This is precisely what Israel offered to do several times through radio communication with the ship and was rebuffed with hostile threats and insults.
“Israel has only itself to blame for its over-reach in trying to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza for electing Hamas.”
In truth, Israel doesn’t give a damn about who the Palestinians elect so long as they don’t attack Israel. Israel didn’t blockade Gaza immediately in response to the January 2006 elections; they only did so when Hamas seized power in Gaza and began to smuggle arms into Gaza from Iran.
There is no siege of the West Bank at all which makes the idea that a Fatah victory would have had the same result ludicrous.
Here is wikipedia’s digested account of the main provisions of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994;
“This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked.”
The Israeli blockade was on and off in varying degrees since 2000 as a response to suicide bombings since the second Intifada. Both Hamas and Israel violated the various Egyptian negotiated ceasefires several times. In effect, this all amounted to another war of attrition. At Egypt’s request, Israel refrained from responding to many Hamas attacks but invariably Hamas would draw Israel into open conflict.
Interestingly, Egypt maintained a blockade in the interest of opposing Hamas and in support of Abbas and the PNA. According to Wikipedia,
“Egypt’s argument is that it cannot open Rafah crossing unless the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas controls the crossing and international monitors are present. Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Hamas wants the border opened because it would represent Egyptian recognition of the group’s control of Gaza. “Of course this is something we cannot do,” he said, “because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–present_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
All this stuff about who smuggles what and why, what is a terrorist, and what one can say or not about jews or Israel is clearly meant to obfuscate the bigger picture. Most of the things discussed are the result of an immoral treatment of one people by another.
Phil Rockstroh said it very well:
“Although my mother fled Nazi Germany, as a child, on a Kindertransport, with a few family valuables sown into her clothing, and I was brought up on the myths and hagiography of the Zionist state, I, over time, came to recognize the folly of the whole colonialist enterprise – the folly of ethnic exclusion and expulsion, the inherent tragedy of nationalism based on the delusion of religious birthright. With much sorrow, I came to the sad realization that the dream of the State of Israel was based on European chauvinism and exceptionalism. This reckoning has been a difficult one for me to bear – the hardest awakening of my adult life.”
http://philrockstroh.com/2010/06/02/regarding-night-terrors-and-its-daylight-rationalization-of-zionist-state/
To PMuriello,
At least Imran and Cabby try to keep their language under control. While Imran is clear about his position and whose side he is on, he at least tries to keep it respectable. Imran, I thank you for that and I give you really big points for stating that what’s done is done with Israel being created in 1948. I appreciate it because to me it means we have a shot and reaching a middle ground some day and it also means you have a sense of reality, unlike awesome folks like Helen Thomas who truly seem to think the Jews should get out of Palestine.
Muriello, I know your type very well. Your language and the way you post, is completely inflammatory and very frustrating. You love the labels, don’t you? “Zionist”, “Apologist” etc. You love the “big statement”, too. You seem to subscribe to the “never give in” theory - everything is always big bad Israel and there is no acknowledgment of any ambiguity or sublety or mistakes on the Palestinian or Arab side. If you want to have an honest debate, fine, that’s what we are all here for, but you don’t help yourself or the debate by taking out the flamethrower and hitting the switch.
Re: the blockade, Cabby has a good point about Egypt, which really frustrates those of us who want to eliminate hypocrisy in this discussion. Why is it that it seems that Arab nations who do something get a pass from the pro-Palestine and MSM community, then when Israel does it it’s completely unacceptable. Egypt is now in its 4th year of an almost total land blockade in the Gaza Strip, so why do I never hear about how awful Egypt is? Jordan assigns second tier status to West Bank refugees and has long denied the “right of return” and permanent citizenship. Why don’t I hear about how awful Jordan is? Oh, that’s right, it’s really the Jews’ fault, so we should just blame them.
The security fence is a good example of this. The bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that the security fence worked. The reasons why it is needed and the moral dilemmas around it are troubling and worth discussing, but from a violence-decreasing perspective, it worked. And if the pro-Palestinian community wants to have ANY credibility in my eyes, it needs to acknowledge that and not resort to the BS argument around how the fence created a big prison in the West Bank and Gaza. Dont’ dig tunnels for suicide bombers to come to your neighbor’s country and blow themselves up and maybe your neighbor won’t build a fence.
Regardless, my point is that I get frustrated with people like Muriello because when I make concessions, it’s rarely returned with any acknowledgment, just more pumping of the rhetoric.
For the record, I do agree with Muriello that the only solution here is a 2 state solution with 1967 borders. Given the settlement situation, however, I am not sure how this is currently possible. I’d be interested in your thoughts on how we get there.
Cabby,
You haven’t really addressed my objection to your analogy at all. You need to reconcile the obvious differences in power between African Americans and Jews in the U.S. and Israel respectively, and also need to reconcile the fact that from the beginning Jewish colonization, which included dispossession and displacement, of Palestine was willful and deliberate, while the importation of African slaves to the U.S. was involuntary. Also, I think your assertion that ‘Israel was the only place for Jews to go’ is absurd; first, the U.S. was a perfectly viable alternative, evidenced by the fact that until only recently the U.S. had the highest population of Jews in the world. You may say that Jews would have been somewhat persecuted in the U.S. too, and that MAY be true, but at least those Jews would not have had to engage in dispossession and displacement. Second, Palestine was not the only place in the world that it was possible for them to establish a Jewish state, they CHOSE Palestine because of the religious significance, and that CHOICE necessitated colonialism. You are being extremely intellectually dishonest.
Also, you haven’t really addressed my point about smuggling either. ‘Smuggling’ implies the illegal importation of a good. Why, in this case, was the importing of weapons illegal? Because of the blockade. What was a condition of the cease fire? The removal of the blockade. So, it seems plain that the blockade was in place even after, according to the terms of the cease fire, it was supposed to be lifted. Therefore, Israel was in violation of the terms of the cease fire.
I can’t really see how you can admit that 1.) the blockade is illegal, 2.) that the raids took place in international waters, and 3.) that goods were taken and people were killed and still come to the conclusion that the IDF did not engage in piracy and murder. According to any useful definition of piracy, if you illegally board a ship in an attempt to take control of it or its passengers/cargo, you are engaging in piracy. You must have some really loose definitions of both piracy and murder. And haha yes, Israel maybe would have taken all humanitarian supplies over to Gaza, minus the ones that are on its blockade list that BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION is collective punishment! Why should the flotilla have complied with Israel’s illegal blockade?
Thanks for all that info about the U.S. client state of Egypt, as if their imposing of an illegal blockade somehow justifies Israel’s illegal blockade. Egypt and other Arab nations have their own culpability in the continued brutalization of the Palestinians, but let’s not forget that it’s the continued refusal of Israel to accept the two state solution that the rest of the world wants that causes this culpability in the first place, plus the fact that it seems only Israel is actively engaged in murder.
Also Cabby, read this http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804 and then tell me that the U.S. and Israel weren’t out to get Hamas from the beginning.
Lastly, I vehemently object to you characterizing me as anti-Semitic; I challenge you to quote me engaging in racism toward Jews. Your accusation is a total ad hominem, a classic Israel apologist tactic.
kenster42,
Haha, only an apologist for murder would think that describing murder as ‘murder’ is inflammatory, and I find it reprehensible that you have so many harsh words for me while Israel continues its illegal brutalization of the Palestinians with the tacit support of the U.S. Yes, let’s not use labels like ‘apologist’, or ‘Zionist’, or ‘murderers’, they are too accurate! Perhaps the reason why you are so offended by these labels is because you sense the truth in them and it makes you squeamish about your seeming unconditional support for Israel. I know that when I am inevitably accused of anti-Semitism by all of the Israel apologists that I debate on this issue I don’t feel a scrap of discomfort, because I know that neither myself nor my rhetoric is anti-Semitic. Also please, enlighten me as to what ‘concessions’ you made? Admitting that illegal things are in fact illegal is not a ‘concession’.
The settlement issue is easy; the settlements are clearly illegal, Israel must withdraw completely from the settlements and hand over control to the Palestinians. Whether or not the current Israeli residents can stay there is up to the Palestinians. The Israeli government can compensate any displaced settlers for their losses. Simple.
“You haven’t really addressed my objection to your analogy at all. You need to reconcile the obvious differences in power between African Americans and Jews in the U.S. and Israel respectively, and also need to reconcile the fact that from the beginning Jewish colonization, which included dispossession and displacement, of Palestine was willful and deliberate, while the importation of African slaves to the U.S. was involuntary. Also, I think your assertion that ‘Israel was the only place for Jews to go’ is absurd; first, the U.S. was a perfectly viable alternative, evidenced by the fact that until only recently the U.S. had the highest population of Jews in the world.”
This entire statement is absurd beyond belief as well as factually inaccurate. In the first place, the difference in power between Jews and Blacks in America is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Advocacy of forced repatriating of long existing communities to where their ancestors originated is racist irregardless at whom its directed.
Jewish colonization of Palestine didn’t displace the Palestinians; the 1948 War did. This was entirely aviodable had the Palestinians accepted UN resolution 181 in 1947 partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab States. They refused to accept it and decided on going to war which they lost. Jewish colonization didn’t adversely impact the Palestinians during the British Mandate or before and in fact created economic expansion and brought technological advances such as irrigation from which many Palestinian farmers benefitted.
You are also clearly ignorant of the history of the Jews of Europe during and immediately after the holocaust. Just after Kristallnacht in 1938, the US and other countries closed their doors to Jewish refugees and wouldn’t reopen them until the 1950s. I suggest you read David Wyman’s The Abandonment of the Jews which is an excellent historical study of US refugee policy from the early 1930s until the end of WWII. Here’s something interesting from Wyman’s blog;
”...the National Origins Immigration bills of 1921 and 1924…virtually shut America’s doors to immigrants…The law passed in 1921, known as the Johnson Immigration Act, stipulated that the number of immigrants from any one country during a given year could not exceed 3% of the number of immigrants from that country who had been living in the U.S. at the time of the 1910 national census. In other words, if there were 10,000 individuals of Irish origin living in the United States in 1910, the number of immigrants permitted from Ireland in any year would be a maximum of 300. In 1924, the immigration regulations were tightened even further: the percentage was reduced from 3% to 2%, and instead of the 1910 census, the quota numbers would be based on an earlier census, the one taken in 1890. The reason for tightening the restrictions was obvious: it would reduce the number of Jews and Italian Americans, since the bulk of Jewish and Italian immigrants in the U.S. had not arrived until after 1890…As the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified during the middle and late 1930s, the U.S. quota system functioned precisely as its creators had intended: it kept out all but a handful of Jews. The annual quota for Germany and Austria, for example, was 27,370, and for Poland, just 6,542. Even those meager quota allotments were almost always under-filled…during the period of the Nazi genocide, from late 1941 and until early 1945, only 10% of the already miniscule quotas from Axis-controlled European countries were actually used. That means almost 190,000 quota places were unused—almost 190,000 lives that could have been saved even under the existing immigration restrictions.”
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-06-quotas.php
Post-WWII efforts to allow the nearly 300,000 Jews in displaced persons’ camps in allied controlled territory failed as well. The doors to the west remained closed.
Apparently, a deliberate provocation was planned by group leaders well before the flotilla set out for Gaza. According to some reports, certain activists expressed intentions to use children as human shields should violence break out with Israeli paratroopers;
”...on Sunday, May 30, IHH head Bülent Yildirim was interviewed on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara. He was holding a small child at the time. He said that children had been brought aboard the ships as another means of preventing Israel from attacking. In our assessment, the children will be exploited for propaganda and to deter Israeli security forces from attacking the activist passengers.”
The IHH representitive leading the effort expressed explicit intentions to provoke the Israelis into confrontation and to refuse all cooperation with them;
“Yildirim said at a press conference held aboard the Mavi Marmara that the flotilla’s organizers were in no hurry to set sail and that they were waiting for “the right time,” and perhaps in the meantime “Israel will think logically.” As to a possible confrontation with Israel, he said that the youngest passenger was a one year old boy and that there were elderly people in their 80s. He also said that while their resistance would be nonviolent, they would not allow Israeli soldiers to board the ships (IHH official website, May 29, 2010). The flotilla’s organizers said they wanted the confrontation to take place during the day so that the media could document it for global distribution (Al-Jazeera TV, May 29; interview on the IHH open channel, May 30, 2010)”.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e108.htm
This is from an Al-Jazeera live report;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded
The IDF unloaded the humanitarian aid from the flotilla and delivered it as they have been doing regularly anyhow. Their initial offer was to turn the cargo over to the UN or the Red Cross to be delivered overland to Gaza after it was inspected at the post of Ashdod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrhQTiAJxM&feature=player_embedded
This may provide insight into why violence occured aboard the Mavi Marmara and not the other five ships;
“Despite their claims to be an entirely peaceful organisation, The Foundation for Human Rights, Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) has a history of involvement in Islamic extremism around the world and has been linked with an attempted bombing of an airport in the US. The charity had 40 members on the Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara when it was boarded by Israeli Navy commandos on Monday. Nine people died in the operation. Israeli security sources said that about 40 people set upon their commandos as they abseiled from a helicopter on to the upper deck of the ship, armed primarily with paintball guns intended for use in crowd control. The troops found themselves facing a crowd armed with metal pipes, knives and stun grenades. The activists tied the rope used by the soldiers to a railing on the ship, in the hope of bringing down the helicopter, officials said — forcing the commander to cut the rope and leave four commandos on the deck below.”
Here is an allegation that financial contributions to Hamas was also intended by the group;
“About a hundred of the passengers were carrying wads of $10,000 on them — a total of about $1 million; money the authorities say was bound for Hamas, which controls Gaza.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece
The Boston Globe, a quite liberal newspaper, had this to say;
“The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 Al Qaeda plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France’s former top antiterrorism judge said yesterday. The Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, known by its Turkish acronym IHH, had “clear, longstanding ties to terrorism and jihad,’’ former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere told the Associated Press in a telephone interview.”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/06/03/investigator_says_flotillas_donor_linked_to_terror/
I strongly agree that the blockade is collective punishment; but that hardly means that Israel has no right to make security arrangements and control what goes into Gaza as did Egypt for over three years. They have a right to prevent arms from reaching Hamas but not to restrict non-lethal goods and the passage of people in and out of Gaza.
The Turkish group behind the Gaza flotilla, the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), has a history of weapons trafficking and was linked to a Montreal terrorist cell, according to a former French counter-terrorism investigator.
“Jean-Louis Bruguiere testified about the IHH during the 2001 trial of “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam, the Montreal-based Algerian terrorist who tried to bomb Los Angeles airport. Mr. Bruguiere testified that the IHH played an “important role” in the Montreal cell and was also “implicated or involved in weapons trafficking,” according to the court transcript. Although a judge, under the French system, Mr. Bruguiere played the role of terrorism investigator. He investigated the Montreal cell in the late 1990s because of its links to attacks in France.”
http://financial-news-update.info/turkish-group-linked-to-montreal-cell/
A relatively recent report by Evan F. Kohlmann, a world renowned Danish anti-terrorism expert, produced a widely read report that claims that IHH has long active links to Al-Qaeda;
“Yet, the phenomenon of charitable front groups that provide support to Al-Qaida is by no means exclusively limited to the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, elsewhere in the Muslim world, other such entities have been established with near equal success – as in Turkey, with the socalled
Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons fromother regional Islamic militant groups.43 IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing
seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.””
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf
Much of Israel’s behavior is reprehensible; but Islamic terrorist groups do exist. They are not simply the figment of neo-con/Israeli imaginations.
Cabby,
Gosh, it’s almost as if illegal immigration exists, and Jews illegally immigrated en masse to Palestine even before the Nazi atrocities! You also need to explain why the Palestinians were obligated to accept resolution 181 in order to blame the 1948 war on them (hint: you won’t be able to do it!). There’s also the uncomfortable fact that Zionism informed much of the Jewish immigration to Palestine from the inception of the British Mandate to today. Either way, post 1948 and especially post June 1967 was textbook colonialism. There’s where your analogy falls apart, and that’s why you are intellectually dishonest in comparing African Americans to Zionist Jews.
And despite your constant flailing about in an attempt to portray the passengers of the Mavi Marmara as terrorists, the fact of the matter is that they were boarded illegally and had every right to defend themselves, up to and including the use of lethal force, which they, unlike the IDF, chose not to utilize. In fact, they didn’t even hold the IDF soldiers they captured hostage; their wounds were treated and they were returned to IDF custody before the Mavi Marmara was raided. There is literally no wiggle room on this, and I’m surprised that we are still talking about it even after you’ve admitted that the blockade is illegal. Also, you haven’t answered my question; if the IDF boarded illegally, killed crew, and confiscated cargo, how is that not piracy? Moreover, what obligation did the crew of the Mavi Marmara have to submit to inspection when it was clear that the IDF would have confiscated the items that were banned under their illegal blockade?
“Gosh, it’s almost as if illegal immigration exists, and Jews illegally immigrated en masse to Palestine even before the Nazi atrocities!”
This is an absurd and incomprehensible statement. Most of the Jews who went to Palestine went after 1933 and not before. When the option to go west was available, almost all of them took it. The problem was that the west shut down. This is historically accepted all across the spectrum, Muriello. There’s no use in disputing it. After 1945, the British closed Palestine to Jewish immigration until 1948 when they left. The west remained closed too. The only place to go was Palestine so the Jewish refugees ran the British blockade. They had no choice.
I believe both groups had legitimate claims to Palestine by 1948. Jewish settlements, such as Tel Aviv and many of the rural settlements, didn’t displace one Arab before the 1948 War. Had the Palestinians accepted a two state solution then, the Israelis would have been forced to do the same. Had there been no war, the Arabs that fell on the Jewish side of the partition would have surely had it better than those on the other side. When racist Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman proposed realigning the green line so as to put many pre-1967 Arab villages in the West Bank and illegal Jewish settlements within Israel as part of a final status agreement, the Arabs of Umm al-Fahm protested bitterly. They wished to remain under Israeli sovereignty. I lived there for three years and built apartment buildings in Tel Aviv with a team of building tradesmen from Umm al-Fahm; I know first hand why they prefer to live in Israel.
The occupation is wrong. It must end immediately. It is unjust and brutal. I support a two-state solution the likes of which you described.
I don’t believe the blockade itself was illegal; it was the conduct of the blockade that was illegal. Collective punishment and settling foreign populations in an occupied country is forbidden by international laws and conventions. But there are ways to conduct a blockade that is not a form of collective punishment and has no negative humanitarian impact on local populations. The Egyptians enforced a blockade that wasn’t deemed inhumane, illegal or collective punishment.
There was no attack and certainly no piracy. The IDF took the cargo to Gaza as promised. To call it piracy is absurd and the international community rejects this epithet. International law allows the boarding of ships even in international waters in times of war so long as the ports of neutral countries are not obstructed by the action. The Mavi Marmara passengers didn’t act in self-defense but aggressively. The Israelis only wanted to check the cargo. That is their right as it has been Egypt’s. Your accusations are absurd. Israel acted within the law and was attacked by those who violently wanted to provoke a major confrontation with the IDF.
It’s a very comprehensible statement; Jews had been immigrating illegally to Palestine for nearly fifty years of their own free will before the Nazi atrocities and the closing of the West, so your assertion that it was the closing of the West that forced the Jews into Palestine is intellectually dishonest. I also see that you chose to ignore the role Zionism played in the willful immigration of Jews into Palestine.
I also don’t care what you ‘believe’ about the claims of both groups; establishment of of a two state solution in Palestine was a mandate of the West, not the result of any democratic process within Palestine, and the Palestinians had no legal or moral reason to accept it, then or now. The only obligation Palestine had or has to accept a two state solution is based on pragmatics, which unfortunately for the Palestinians, seems much more attractive than morality or legality given the nature of Israel’s human rights abuses.
Your distinction between a blockade and its conduct is absolutely meaningless, and a great example of the mental gymnastics Israel apologists engage in to avoid dealing with the fact that Israel regularly commits atrocities. A blockade conducted illegally is an illegal blockade, just as there are many mundane actions that become illegal when you conduct them in a certain way. As a side note it’s rather surreal having to type these words to an adult who, presumably, has a normally functioning brain. I mean seriously, what is your argument?
Your assertion that there was no attack is absurd to the point where I doubt rational discussion with you is even possible. It all hinges on your fantastical claim that it is somehow reasonable and legal for Israel to enforce an illegal blockade, and that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were the aggressors which this firsthand account from a journalist on board the Mavi Marmara during the attack disproves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Xx5SpYTl8
The blockade was illegal and the flotilla was under no legal or moral obligation to submit to it. Israel did not act within the law and in fact provoked the crew into self defense. I’m going to ask you to please stop being so intellectually dishonest in your future replies.
Muriello,
To not even recognize the reality of 1948 (that they were offered a 2 state solution, chose to go to war and lost) is just stunning. It happened. The Palestinians made the wrong decision. Get over it.
Failure to accept reality, however, marks the way the Palestinians have approached this situation for the last 62 years. Hamas is simply the latest incarnation of the Palestinians’ insistence on cutting their collective nose off to spite their face.
Even now, with the Israelis easing on the blockade, Hamas has responded by saying it’s a deception and that they reject it. Just like they reject everything other than their insane pipe dream of removing the Israelis from the land they currently occupy.
You have to live in the now, hoss. No one other than some really hard core people are going to even bother to have a conversation with you if you are going to take it all the way back to 1948.
And how about a little understanding of complexity? It’s not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Your “mental gymnastics” is actually nuance.
OK, 2 state partition. Israel pulls out of the settlements. But will Hamas change their charter to remove everything about killing Jews?
kenster42,
Again, the ‘reality’ of the situation is that the establishment of a Jewish homeland and a two state solution in Palestine was ever a mandate of the West, not of the Palestinian people, who were the rightful owners of Palestine. It would not have been ‘wrong’ of them to accept it then, just as it is not ‘wrong’ if they accept it now. The point is that they were not ‘wrong’ to reject it either. It was certainly un-pragmatic of them, but not ‘wrong’. THAT is a nuanced argument, not some semantic somersault over a thing and its conduct which is clearly nonsense.
And I find it hilarious that you think the Palestinians are the ones who are unreasonable; even your boogeyman Hamas is willing to accept a two state solution now, it is Israel that continuously rejects it. If you want to talk about unreasonable, let’s talk about Camp David, let’s talk about how Israel got almost every concession it wanted out of Arafat and made almost none in return, let’s talk about how one of the Israeli negotiators, Shlomo Ben-Ami, said he wouldn’t have accepted Israel’s terms if he was a Palestinian.
And haha you still assert that Hamas has this ‘crazy pipe dream’ of destroying Israel despite them being willing to accept a two state solution, you have some major cognitive dissonance going on here.
“OK, 2 state partition. Israel pulls out of the settlements. But will Hamas change their charter to remove everything about killing Jews?”
Probably. But Hamas’ charter, which they have never ratified as a governmental entity, has nothing to do with the legality of the settlements or the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel is required by law to give them back, end of story.
kenster42,
You make it sound as if the Palestinians had no reason to resist the Zionist project or the newly created Israel by starting hostilities, and having lost, must now live with the consequences (“chose to go to war”). But if I try to steal your land, and you fight me to keep it, who really “started” it?
It amazes me when Zionists talk about how ‘grateful’ the Palestinians should have been to get what was “offered” by the UN in 1947. It’s the equivalent of me taking half your land without your consent, and when you fight me to try to get it back, I defeat you and take the rest, mocking that you should have been “grateful” for the half I had initially left for you. What hogwash. Can it really be said that your resistance, either before or afterwards, legalized my theft because you had the temerity to use violence?
Despite the Zionist myth that the nasty Palestinian resistance is to blame for the creation of Israel, it should be noted that most Zionists have always believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists have stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel. Secular Zionists, on the other hand, have relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism.
But, let’s be clear here, NEVER was the consent of the native population ever seriously taken into consideration by any of these Zionists or the Europeans. Chaim Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs: “The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem…The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants.” It is this condescending treatment of the indigenous population by its primarily European architects that give the Zionist Project its aura of Colonialism and Imperialism.
While I am sympathetic to the plight of European Jews fleeing persecution, I don’t understand why the onus of this should be placed exclusively on the Palestinians, and only on their land, to the exclusion of the very Europeans responsible for the persecution in the first place, the other European countries’ abominably restrictive immigration policies barring the entry of fleeing Jewish refugees into their own countries (including sadly the US’ as well), or the Zionists who were fanning the flames of fear in Palestine by openly advocating the forcible creation of a Jewish State.
The answer is simple. Of the all the entities involved in this catch-22, the Palestinians were the weakest and easiest upon which to impose, despite having the least to do with the European pogroms against Jews. This is the context in which Palestinians find “being awarded” half of their own land, by the Europeans responsible for the pogroms in the first place, not just hypocritical, but offensive. No people, under such circumstances, would have been grateful, or found such an"award” enough for them.
My problem with the Zionist narrative (and its focus upon its presumed good intentions alone) is that it seeks to obscure the main cause of the conflict by excluding from its narrative an objective assessment of the consequences of its actual actions (the unlawful land grab done without the consent of the indigenous population). Whether this is done intentionally or to ease the conscience of well-intentioned Zionists, I don’t know. But current attempts to criminalize talk about the Nakba are proof of this, and perhaps even a subconscious admission of guilt by Zionists of the sins of their project.
This is not to say that Israel should not exist, but to properly frame the conflict. The self-righteous hubris of some Zionists is simply unbecoming, especially with their being the primary cause of the conflict.
PMuriello,
Jewish immigration to Palestine was not illegal until 1939 when Britain passed the White Paper into law making Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jewish land purchases illegal. Prior to this point all Jewish immigration was perfectly legal according to both the Turkish local Administration and the British Mandatory Authorities afterward. You may personally object to the fact that Jews emmigrated to Palestine between the early 1880s and late 1930s, but that doesn’t make what they did “illegal” by any means.
Nazi persecution and genocide was not the first instance of European anti-Jewish persecution. It had been going on for centuries. Jews began to emmigrate from Russia to Palestine during the early 1880s and the first decade of the 20th century due to pogroms, violent and lethal attacks on Jewish communities in Russia and Poland. After WWI, tens of thousands of Jews fled pogroms in Russia and Russian controlled lands in Eastern Europe where nearly 200,000 Jews were killed in pogroms between 1918 and 1922. The vast majority of Jews fled to the west but some few thousand went to Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who emmigrated to pre-1948 Palestine came after 1933 when Hitler came to power in Germany and the West, as I previously pointed out, and the west gradually began to close their doors to Jewish immigration.
“In January 1933 there were some 523,000 Jews in Germany, representing less than 1 percent of the country’s total population. The Jewish population was predominantly urban and approximately one-third of German Jews lived in Berlin. The initial response to the Nazi takeover was a substantial wave of emigration (37,000-38,000), much of it to neighboring European countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland). Most of these refugees were later caught by the Nazis after their conquest of western Europe in May 1940…By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468
A little more than half the German Jewish population was saved but this represented less than 5% of the total European Jewish population in 1939. After 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, the west shut its doors and kept them shut. Between 1939 and 1948, Palestine remained the only place Jews could go mostly by illegally running the British blockade.
“The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, a tragedy that was entirely caused by British authorities’ unmitigated enforcement of their policy against the “illegal” Jewish immigrants fleeing from Hitler’s war against them. After World War II, the impact of British opposition was devestating to Displaced Persons (refugees), recently saved from Hitler’s ovens but now in limbo created by international unwillingness to accept them as refugees. The one destination they preferred above all others was Palestine, but entry there was blocked by the British policy. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, 65 “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, 28,000 of whom were still imprisoned when Israel declared independence.”
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
The Jews had few choices after 1939. The world showed little sympathy.
Cabby,
No one doubts that refugees were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist project to escape brutal persecution, but that in no way changes what many consider to be its imperialist character, or provide a blanket excuse for every evil perpetrated in furtherance of it.
The Zionist project was the brain-child of the 19th/20th century Zionists who wanted to create a Jewish State in a land where the overwhelming majority of the people were not Jewish. How does one do that without finding a way to “displace” or “transfer” the natives? Are you truly not familiar with the verbal gymnastics some Zionists engaged in concerning the ethnic cleansing that would be necessary to bring about such a state, or the understandable fear that this would generate amongst the native population?
Does that sound like a refugee who is simply “legally purchasing land” in your neighborhood? Does that deprive the native, who sees and hears the goals of Zionism in his country and then resists, of his innocence? I understand that many of the Zionist myths that make up their narrative are essential for the peace of mind of the well-intentioned. But they’re not true, and conceal a horrible crime. Let’s take some of them, mentioned in the posts above, one at a time.
Pre-1948 Land purchases. There were three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country. That’s a long way from buying up the whole country.
Pre-1948 population. Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent, a large percentage of whom were immigrants encouraged and financed by the Zionists. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third of its total inhabitants.
And we haven’t even addressed yet the activities of Israel’s founding fathers in the late 1940’s (the well-known terrorist activities of Begin, Shamir, et. al.), that created what many refer to as the Palestinian “fleeing” (700,000+) necessary to make up the difference.
While many Zionist would have you believe the conflict began with the 1948 war, the conflict truly “started” when Zionists decided to forcibly implement their project for a Jewish State in a land where the overwhelming majority of the indigenous residents were not Jewish. Everything that has followed (nearly all of it unpleasant, to say the least) was a directly forseeable consequence of such act. This is something that Zionists simply will not acknowledge, despite intuitively knowing it to be true (as evidenced by the vociferous attacks upon the Nakba narrative in Israel recently).
As stated by Ben Ehrenreich:
“The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.” For the full article, see:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/16-2
This is what most people mean when they speak about the Zionist Project’s actions as being “illegal, immoral or colonial.” Taking land without the consent of the indigenous population is theft, despite the best intentions or motivations of the taker. Past persecution does not create a blank check to steal other people’s land or to persecute others.
While it is unquestionably true that a nuclear-armed Israel is now a fact of life that we simply cannot ignore, this fact alone does not change the character of the Zionist Project, or render it’s discussion as an imperialist one off-limits.
And I would simply note that all of this focus upon the Palestinian resistance, without any mention of the underlying land grab that is the very basis of the conflict, is the usual (and perhaps necessary) MO of the Zionist narrative. It is a feeble attempt to blame the indigenous resistance that followed for legitimizing the land grab that most Zionists had been openly advocating for since the 19th Century.
And to say that something is “perfectly legal” is often the last refuge of someone who has run out of other propositions. But for the sake of argument, let’s look at this claim: who specifically made it “legal?” God? Lord Balfour? The Ottoman Sultan? The UN? How many natives did these people bother or deign to consult before granting the deed to their land?
But, enough already. If we’re looking for a solution, let’s start with a simple factual and accurate statement. I’ve gone round and round with numerous Zionists on numerous occasions before, and it all usually comes down to this one sentence:
“We took the land without your consent because we had no other choice, we were facing extermination by Europeans.”
Okay, I get it. But I insist that Zionists be intellectually honest enough to start with “we took the land without your consent,” rather than repeating these Zionist myths about how grateful the Palestinians should have been with the 1948 dictated partition agreement, or how the nasty resistance to the Zionist project was why the land was taken. It’s the least they can do considering what they’ve done to the Palestinian people.
Imagine the paradigm-shift in the peace talks if just one Israeli government declared that they were sorry for imposing upon the Palestinians against their will during the Zionist project, but that they had no other choice, and that henceforth the discussions will focus on making things as right as possible for them.
Contrast this with the current posture of both the Israeli government and some writers who blame the Palestinians for both the land grab and the resistance to it. Its no wonder that we’ve gotten nowhere in finding a just settlement.
“No one doubts that refugees were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist project to escape brutal persecution…”
You miss the point. Jewish refugees only went to Palestine when no other option was available. When other options were available, immigration statistics for European Jews and their chosen destinations, clearly show they overwhelmingly went to western countries. Palestine became a destination only after 1939 when all other options were closed.
There is general agreement that Zionists purchased not more than 7% of the total land mass of Palestine although it did amount to about 20% of the arable agricultural land, the total share of which expanded due to Zionist draining of swamps in the central valley. Jewish settlement displaced no one between 1880 and 1947; it was the first war that did that.
Most of the terror during the mandatory period was by Arabs against Jews. Conservative estimates place Jewish fatalities as a direct consequence of Arab violence at about 650. There were riots and pogroms all through the British mandatory period beginning in 1921 in Jerusalem through 1948 including a long and concentrated spell of rioting from 1936 to 1939 when the British finally clamped down on Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Jews in Palestine can’t really be considered colonizers in the classic sense. They didn’t have control of Palestine in the first place. They didn’t make the laws or enforce them. They didn’t displace native population or exploit them (Jews used exclusively Jewish labor). And despite myriad Jewish contributions to Palestine’s development prior to 1948, Jewish settlement and economic activities remained locally confined and didn’t disrupt traditional life in Arab villages.
The 1948, which was avoidable, changed all this. There was no independant government in Palestine before 1948. Britain was obliged to “turn control of Palestine over to the local inhabitants” according to the terms of its League of Nations mandate. The local inhabitants were one third Jewish and two thirds Arab. The UN assumed Britain’s responsibility at Britain’s request, by partitioning the country equally according to existing demographic patterns. This was the only viable and peaceful solution. Unfortunately, the Arabs rejected it and chose war.
Each Jewish immigration wave was motivated by humanitarian not political concerns. By 1948, both communities having equally legitimate claims were offered an arrangement allowing both sides to peacefully share Palestine which only one side accepted.
Cabby,
There you go again, wanting to start at 1948, and I can understand why. But recognize that this is a major theme of the Zionist Narrative, as it facilitates ignoring the Zionist Project’s openly stated goals and activities before then.
Refugees do not normally openly declare that they intend to create a separate state in their place of refuge, with or without the consent of the indigenous population. Jewish refugee immigration to other parts of the world was not the same as its ideological immigration to Palestine. Nor was Palestinian resistance to such immigration simply a xenophobic one, with no possible legitimate motivation. And your listing of the friction between Arabs and Jews before 1948 betrays that you know better.
But, enough already. If we’re looking for a solution, let’s start with a simple factually accurate statement. I’ve gone round and round with numerous Zionists on numerous occasions before, and it all usually comes down to this one sentence:
“We took the land without your consent because we had no other choice, we were facing extermination by Europeans.”
Okay, I get it. But I insist that Zionists be intellectually honest enough to start with “we took the land without your consent,” rather than repeating these insulting Zionist myths about how grateful the Palestinians should have been with the 1948 dictated partition agreement, or how their resistance to the Zionist project was why their land was taken in the first place. It’s the least Zionists can do considering the injustices they have perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
“There you go again, wanting to start at 1948…”
The reason is I’m trying to answer your assertions which refer to that war!! Are you deliberately trying to drive me nuts?? Is this an anti-Zionist psyops tactic??
In 1947, there were two nations in Palestine, not one. One third was Jewish and two thirds was Arab. The UN decided Palestine’s political future because it was impossible for the nearly two million inhabitants of Palestine to peacefully resolve the matter on their own. The UN General Assembly opted for partition. The Jews accepted the partition resolution; the Palestinian Arabs did not. There was never a time in history when there was not some foreign power ruling Palestine. There was no independant sovereign government there. It was ruled by Britain at the time war broke out. Both sides had legitimate claims to the land. There is no reason to consider only the Arab side. The UN considered both sides in 1947 and apparently this was unsatisfactory for the Palestinians who prefered to settle the issue by war.
Imran + Muriello,
“Again, the ‘reality’ of the situation is that the establishment of a Jewish homeland and a two state solution in Palestine was ever a mandate of the West, not of the Palestinian people, who were the rightful owners of Palestine. It would not have been ‘wrong’ of them to accept it then, just as it is not ‘wrong’ if they accept it now. The point is that they were not ‘wrong’ to reject it either. It was certainly un-pragmatic of them, but not ‘wrong’. THAT is a nuanced argument, not some semantic somersault over a thing and its conduct which is clearly nonsense.”
Talk about falling into an easy trap. You both know darn well that the Israelites were on the land well before the Palestinians were and that Israel’s right to the land is an historic right. It is well documented that there was an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there, but they were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.
Look, the Palestinians lose both ways. They were not the original inhabitants of the land and chose the wrong solution pragmatically when confronted with overwhelming force. That’s the reality. Might makes right. We can’t turn the clock back on the American Indians, and we ain’t gonna turn the clock back on the Palestinians. We also can’t turn the clock back on the Jews. “Go back to Germany, to Poland.” Really? How offensive and ridiculous.
Once the Palestinians renounce violence and embrace peace the Israelis will be there to welcome them with open arms. That’s the first move in getting to the two state solution. Continued teaching of hate and false indoctrination in each new generation is not the answer.
Cabby,
Again, you fail to address Imran’s and my fundamental argument: the Palestinians, NOT the British, NOT the Jews, NOT the UN, were the rightful custodians of Palestine, and as such any so-called “nations” that were formed without their consent are invalid. The Palestinians were and are not under any legal or moral obligation to recognize a Jewish state in the lands of Palestine. The fact that the vast majority of them are willing to recognize a Jewish state in Palestinian lands to me is an act of great magnanimity in the face of decades of brutalization at the hands of Israel. Deal with it.
kenster42,
Haha wow I laughed out loud while reading your post, from start to finish. First of all, the Jews were not the original inhabitants of the lands of Palestine; they had to genocide the Canaanites to create Israel. If you really cared about a ‘historical right’ to the Palestinian lands you would be trying to track down any ancestors of the Canaanites (that is assuming the Jews left any alive) and return them to their rightful home.
Second, you say you “can’t turn back the clock” for the American Indians or the Palestinians, failing to see the obvious fact that Zionism is literally turning back the clock for the Jews! Not only that, but you seem to support turning the clock back for a people that have a distant and tenuous ‘claim’ to address in the Jews, but don’t support turning the clock back for peoples with a much more immediate and visceral claim in
the American Indians and Palestinians. Unless you can clarify your position further, I’m afraid I’m going to have to call it racist.
Haha finally you said it, the underlying theme of all Zionist narratives: “might makes right”, lol yes what an astounding moral argument! You aren’t just an apologist for the Palestinian genocides, you’re an apologist for ALL genocides, including the Holocaust. You’re a monster.
“Once the Palestinians renounce violence and embrace peace the Israelis will be there to welcome them with open arms. That’s the first move in getting to the two state solution. Continued teaching of hate and false indoctrination in each new generation is not the answer. “
Haha yes let’s continue to blame the Palestinians who want a two state settlement and not Israel who constantly votes against the two state solution year after year in U.N. security councils. You either don’t live in reality or are literally mentally impaired, please shut up forever.
Haha, “talk about falling into an easy trap”, kenster42 you are not good at thinking.
Haha I mean seriously, kenster’s and Cabby’s arguments are basically, “Genocide happens: Deal With It.” They are human scum.
And they still haven’t shown that the flotilla raids were anything but murder and piracy. All this flailing about and all they’ve succeeded in doing is showing us how repugnant they are.
Imran / Muriello,
Keep on keepin’ on folks. You don’t know me. I’ve done my time. I’ve read People’s History. I’ve read Wounded Knee. I know about AIM. I went to Pine Ridge and picked up trash at the cemetery. I went to the mini-Ivy liberal arts school. I know the deal with your line of thinking on this issue. I am not unsympathetic to the Palestinians cause.
But I am a realist - interesting that you indicate that I don’t live in reality, because I surely live more in the real world than you two.
In the human world, might does make right. It’s not a judgment, just a statement. If it did not, the Nazis would still be in power. The Allies used might to defeat them, thank G*d. I am not justifying any genocide. I am saying that conflicts happen and that the ones in question as well as others (American Indian, Jews, Palestinians, South African, Northern Ireland, Rwanda) were horrible and involved a tremendous amount of egregious behavior. But all these conflicts are over. By going back and trying to relive them and rehash all the issues we go nowhere. South Africa truly had it right - we need reconciliation and we need to move forward. I believe in the two-state solution and want to get there. The settlements are wrong. I get it. But it only works if people make steps on both sides and Hamas, the currently democratically elected entity representing Palestine, has official policies that will not allow the peace process to move forward. Hamas gives, Israel gives. That’s how it works.
On a side note, Muriello, the beauty of living in the US, Muriello, is that you don’t get to tell me to shut up. You may want to mix up your vocabulary, though. Your propensity for hyperbole is amusing but tires quickly.
PMuriello,
Your namecalling is about as childish as your interjecting “haha” everywhere as a sign of your disapproval of someone’s views. Is this a substitute for having to make an actual argument. From personal experience of 14 years at the UW-Madison, I guess you learned these tactics during your stint on the pink spiked hair/pierced lip debate team!! haha!! (see, I can do that too!!)
But seriously, let’s consider one of your “arguments.”
“A blockade conducted illegally is an illegal blockade, just as there are many mundane actions that become illegal when you conduct them in a certain way.”
This was exactly my point!! The blockade is only illegal so long as it is conducted in a way that makes it a form of collective punishment (banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949). Should Israel, utterly relax the blockade (as it now seems to be doing) to prohibit only arms from entering Gaza and not the free movement of people and humanitarian supplies, the blockade would be recognized as legal under myriad international laws. It is for this reason that no one challenged the Egyptian blockade during the three years it was in effect.
Israel must continue to inspect all ships coming into Gaza until the PA is put back in charge and Hamas steps down and takes up only those posts it was actually elected to: it’s 74 seats in the Palestine Legislative Council. The landing on the Mavi Marmara was not an attack; it was perfectly legal according to international law. The 1994 San Remo Conference on Armed Conflicts at Sea clearly states that ships running a blockade may be boarded and diverted while still in international waters so long as the ports of neutral countries are not obstructed or endangered.
“Paragraph 67 states that it is permitted for belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and if after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”. Paragraph 146 states that it is permitted to capture neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo (see entry on 1994 Conference)
Neutral waters is distinct from international waters. It refers to the territorial waters of neutral states.
The “piracy” charge is the most ludicrous. The ship’s cargo was seized according to international law for legitimate purposes of inspection and then directly forwarded on at Israel’s expense to Gaza, it’s originally intended destination.
Your other contention that the Palestinians are the sole custodians of Palestine is also wrong. Many people have been the “custodians” of Palestine for many centuries. True, no referendum was held regarding Palestine’s political future in 1947; Britain’s legal obligation as per its Mandate was only to “turn power over to the local inhabitants.” The means by which this was to be done was not specified in the Mandate. You may not recognize the Mandate’s authority but it was the law and internationally recognized as such. The UN General Assembly decided to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947 and provided an implementation procedure to be followed. The Jews accepted the resolution. The Arabs opposed it and went to war. They broke the law and defied the will of the international community. This was a gamble they were willing to take. The consequences were catastrophic for all concerned.
I would also like to address your claim that the “Jews committed a genocide against the Caananites.” This oft repeated claim is seen mostly in the growing number of anti-semitic websites of various kinds and is doubtless based on taking certain assertions in the Old Testament out of context. Here is an analysis from a scholarly rabbinical discussion on the issue:
“I’d point out to them that the commandment(s) given in the Torah were not carried out in the way one might think, so it is necessary to read both Joshua and Judges. It’s clear that not only do we in the 21st century have a problem with genocide, but the contemporaneous texts do, as well. It wasn’t carried out in a genocidal fashion, even though the book of Joshua says that the Canaanites were completely wiped out. It also turns around and says, in the next verse, that Canaanites remained, and that the inhabitants were NOT to be wiped out lest wild beasts overrun the cities (a rationale also found in the Torah). In other words, reading an isolated verse in the Torah and taking it at face value, even one as explicit as the commandment we’re discussing, is simply an improper and cavalier way of embracing the Bible.”
“I’d point out to them that the commandment(s) given in the Torah were not carried out in the way one might think, so it is necessary to read both Joshua and Judges. It’s clear that not only do we in the 21st
century have a problem with genocide, but the contemporaneous texts do, as well. It wasn’t carried out in a genocidal fashion, even though the book of Joshua says that the Canaanites were completely wiped
out. It also turns around and says, in the next verse, that Canaanites remained, and that the inhabitants were NOT to be wiped out lest wild beasts overrun the cities (a rationale also found in the Torah).
In other words, reading an isolated verse in the Torah and taking it at face value, even one as explicit as the commandment we’re discussing, is simply an improper and cavalier way of embracing the Bible.”
Proscription of the Canaanite Nations.pdf
Here is the most realistic explanation of the actual history although not from an authoritative source;
“Actually, it is more probably, conforming to current archeology, that there was no Canaanite Genocide. That the Canaanites and Israelites (while individual tribes and city-states doubtless fought wars) slowly coalesced into a single people over the course of a couple of centuries. The five books of Moses were collected from Oral traditions during a time when there was no distinct genres for law codes, history, poetry, legend, science, theology and philosophy. It was all one.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100315103306AAn2yxJ
This version of events accords with what many archaeologists have come to conclude.
We live in a time of rising anti-semitism all over the world. Publicly regurgitating the Joshua narrative from the Old Testament in order to smear Jews with bogus charges of “genocide” in an attempt to relate it to today’s policies in Gaza is merely an effort to stir up anti-semitic hate. These efforts are quite consistent with a centuries old tradition of blood libel against Jews in order to stir up violent hatred against them. Israel’s occupation is harsh; but it is far from a “genocide.” There are five times the number of Palestinian Arabs in all of Israel and Palestine than there were in 1948. It is a strange genocide that results in the fivefold increase in population of the victims rather than their annihilation. Contrast this with the real genocides in Africa over the past 40 years or so that have claimed the lives of over 12 million people or Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia that took the lives of one third of the population. Israeli policies are brutal and must end. But they are not a genocide.
Cabby brings up a good point.
Muriello/Imran may not make statements that are anti-Semitic (well, IMO Muriello’s statements are tough to swallow and close to the line due to the clear emotion behind them), but rather simply anti-Israel.
However, as a non-Jew who grew up in a heavily Jewish community, I continued to be absolutely floored, in 2010 no less, by the number of people in the world who clearly hate the Jews. I mean floored. We indeed living a time of rising anti-semitism. To that end, Imran/Muriello, I personally would hope that you could be sensitive to that. For every person that is careful to stress that they are criticizing the policies of Israel rather than the Jewishness of its inhabitants, there are 10 more who hate Jews with a passion and say and write the most horrible things.
I’d really like to hear a little more tolerance from the other side. I’ve tried to show my tolerance when I can (“I’m sympathetic to the Palestinians’ plight”), but never seem to get any sympathy or empathy for what the Jewish community has gone through. The Palestinians did not lose 6 million of their own ever. As Cabby noted, their population has increased fivefold over the last 60 years. If that’s genocide, you and I are not reading the same definition.
Wow, so much garbage to respond to. I’ll start with kenster42:
I don’t care how much so-called liberal arts education you have, if you honestly think that “might makes right” is legitimate in any way then your education didn’t take. One of the fundamental concepts of a liberal arts education is to make the distinction between what “is” and what “ought” to be, and clearly you give primacy to “is” at the expense of “ought.”
And my claim that “might makes right” has been the underlying philosophy to all modern atrocities is not hyperbole, it’s fact. Deal with it.
But that is beside the point. Your continued assertion that it is Hamas, who has said they would accept a two state solution, that prolongs the conflict and not Israel, who without fail votes against it in U.N. security councils, contradicts reality which you claim to live in.
“On a side note, Muriello, the beauty of living in the US, Muriello, is that you don’t get to tell me to shut up.”
I don’t know what this sentence is supposed to mean, so just shut up forever I guess.
Cabby,
“This was exactly my point!! The blockade is only illegal so long as it is conducted in a way that makes it a form of collective punishment (banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949).”
Good! Then we agree that the blockade was illegal and therefore Israel engaged in piracy and murder during the flotilla raids.
Let me lay it out more formally since you seem to be willfully stupid about this issue: There are two possible legal status that the blockade can have; legal or illegal. If the blockade is legal, then it is legal for Israel to enforce it. If it is not legal, then it is not legal for Israel to enforce it. We both agree that the blockade was illegal, and therefore must both reach the conclusion that it was not legal for Israel to enforce it. And because it is the case that during the enforcement of an illegal blockade Israel both killed crew and confiscated cargo, it is the case that Israel engaged in murder and piracy.
And to be extra sure you can’t wiggle out of being intellectually honest about this debate for once, let me address this too:
“The landing on the Mavi Marmara was not an attack; it was perfectly legal according to international law.”
The landing’s legality is contingent on the purpose of that landing being legal, which was the enforcement of the blockade. Since we agree that the blockade is illegal, we are forced to conclude that the landing was illegal, and therefore constituted an attack.
“Your other contention that the Palestinians are the sole custodians of Palestine is also wrong.”
Yet another case of your intellectual dishonesty or willful stupidity. Imran and I were not claiming that Palestinians were the “sole” custodians of Palestine; we were claiming they were the “RIGHTFUL” custodians of Palestine. That is the claim you must deal with.
“I would also like to address your claim that the “Jews committed a genocide against the Caananites.”
Yo, you might be too dumb to understand this but genocide doesn’t necessitate the extinction of a people. That’s commonly understood to be the goal of genocide, but that is almost never the outcome. I mean, I’m sure you would agree that the Holocaust was a genocide, yet not only was Hitler unsuccessful in exterminating all of Europe’s Jews, he didn’t even touch non-European Jews that didn’t fight in the war.
But I’m not going to let you do a semantic tap dance around the main point; that the Canaanites were there first, so if you want to assign primary rights of the lands of Palestine to “whoever was there first” (as if that matters) then you should be trying to track down whatever remaining Canaanites there are and returning their homeland to them.
Speaking of matters of genocide, you deny that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is genocide. Welp, let’s begin with the U.N.‘s definition of genocide:
“.any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. “
(a) Check. (b) Check. (c) Check, and explicitly confirmed by the Israeli government. (d) Check, in the cases of Palestinian women miscarrying because Israeli checkpoints would not give them access to a hospital.Note that only one of these conditions are necessary for an action to constitute a genocide.
And let me address your stupid objection before you even make it: “B-b-but PMuriello, Israel never SAID it intended to destroy the Palestinians!” Fine, for the sake of argument let’s say that an overt declaration of intent is necessary to call an action genocide. That means if Hitler had not overtly stated that he wanted to annihilate the Jews, the Holocaust would not have been a genocide. If his story was that the Jews just accidentally fell into the gas chambers and ovens after which a careless SS officer accidentally bumped the “on” switch, you could not call the Holocaust a genocide. That would be absurd, and it is similarly absurd to make such excuses for Israel.
One last thing: I, along with many others including Jews, find it repugnant when people make appeals to the existence of anti-Semitism when engaging in Israel apologetics. The fact that there are anti-Semites in the world does not lend Israel one iota of legitimacy toward its brutalization of the Palestinians. It’s a disgusting abuse of the historical suffering of the Jews and you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing it.
Actually, this is the last thing: haha as if I care about what some idiot with horrible opinions thinks of my ‘maturity level’, there aren’t enough “haha"s in the world to illustrate my contempt for your awful arguments and repugnant morals. also lmao:
“I guess you learned these tactics during your stint on the pink spiked hair/pierced lip debate team!! haha!! (see, I can do that too!!)”
haha you think you “got me”, as if having pink hair and piercings (which I don’t) is somehow worse than being an apologist for atrocity, please shut up forever along with kenster
The fact that you two have this conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust is actually a great example of how the Holocaust has been used to give Israel the moral permit to engage in its own atrocities. Here’s a quote from Uri Averni, an Israeli civil rights activist, about this phenomenon:
“The Holocaust overshadows everything the Israeli people think and do. Our attitude is conditioned by the Holocaust. It conditions Israel to justify any means because compared with the Holocaust any any bad things we do are negligible by comparison. It is a standard of comparison that gives a kind of moral permit to do anything. In a way we are still victims of the Holocaust today but in a different way. It twists our outlook on things.”
So just like the Holocaust conditions Israel to compare its actions to the Holocaust instead of an objective moral standard, you are comparing the Palestinian genocide to the Holocaust instead of an objective moral standard.
Muriello,
Your posts are filled with examples of rigid, dogmatic and intolerant thinking. The conduct of a blockade may be illegal (if it amounts to collective punishment) but the blockade is not necessary itself illegal on that account alone. Your contention is like saying an officer used excessive force in arresting the crime suspect; ergo the arrest itself is rendered illegal. This is foolish. The officer had the right and duty to arrest the suspect; he just crossed the line by using excessive force. The same applies to the Israeli blockade. Most of the world rejects Hamas and its violent seizure of Gaza which few Palestinians support any longer. You seem to find it convenient to ignore this most important factor in the entire issue. Israel has the right to search cargo entering Gaza. The fact that there is no legitimate government in Gaza makes this all the more necessary which is only one reason Egypt has been so forthcoming on holding up their end of the blockade. The blockade is legal so long as it doesn’t create a humanitarian crisis or violate Fourth Geneva or other international conventions.
Muriello,
The UN has never applied these criteria to any situation in the way that you are in order to establish that a genocide is occurring. In the first place, if only (a) or (b) are required to satisfy the definition so broadly defined than there is by this logic a genocide taking place everywhere at all times, including the present US, because people are always being killed and in some manner harmed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. Israel has not engaged in (c) to the extent that it threatens Palestinian survival. Their measures are harsh and create hardship sometimes resulting in death but is not a genocidal threat. Certainly, (d) is not being pursued by Israel; Palestinians have among the highest birthrates in the world. By no means did Israel ever engage in (e).
I have never promoted a “conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust” which is a very narrow conception indeed. But the utter destruction of a society and the murder of at least most of its people, or a sufficient proportion of them to make the victims’ society culturally and practically unviable. Israeli sociologist, Baruch Kimmerling has come up with a much more apt description; politicide. I have never made apologetics for Israeli crimes (of which there have been many) but I am interested in the truth. I don’t abide sloppy reasoning or accusing people or nations of that which they do not do in order to achieve a desired political effect.
Muriello,
As seems to have become the trend you cherry pick from my statements that which with you disagree and ignore the rest. How disappointing.
Your interpretation on the UN’s definition on what constitutes genocide is narrow to the point that pretty much any military action of one country against another can be considered genocide. It renders the definition useless and unable to be applied to anyone.
The proper way to look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation is at what it really is, which is a war. There have been casualties on both sides. There have been moral transgressions on both sides - terroristic behavior on the part of the Palestinians, oppressor behavior on the part of the Israelis. Just because the Israelis have a superior military does not make them practitioners of genocide. Just because the Israelis care enough about the health of their people to prevent unfettered border crossings does not make them practitioners of genocide. Your charge of genocide is indeed emblematic of rigid, intolerant, dogmatic thinking.
Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself. It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much, but where are they treated after the incident? Israeli hospitals where they get superlative care. When the Israeli army uses, as a last resort, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse violent, anti-Israeli demonstrations, where do wounded demonstrators go for treatment? Israeli hospitals, where they get superlative care. “We hate you and our hate leads to bloodthirsty attacks, but, oops, we got injured, so please fix us up so we can hate you and attack you some more.” It’s crazy.
Also, I absolutely will not back down from pointing out your implied assertion that there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever and you cheapen and dilute your argument whenever you try to argue that. There is absolutely no comparison in behavior no matter how many times you say it. The Jews did not attack Germany with suicide bombers and fire rockets at them. The Israelis did not exterminate the Palestinians and did not put them in concentration camps and starve them and make them do forced labor and experiment on them. It is offensive that you think otherwise and shows not only how far apart we are but how far your arguments are away from the mainstream.
Finally, if you can’t understand that while you and I might not agree with “might makes right” as an operating political or moral philosophy but that this philosophy continues to be the primary method of ensuring sovereignty, then you are too far gone, my friend. While military might sometimes results in atrocities, it far more often results in atrocities being avoided. All major western countries are safer from their enemies because of their might. If that might was not there those countries would not be there either.
Oh, and my point regarding free speech was that you don’t have the ABILITY to make me “shut up forever.”
Cabby,
You really are the king of terrible analogies! My contention is actually like saying that a police officer who conducted a search illegally conducted an illegal search, which is not foolish and is actually quite reasonable. I will also note that police brutality often ends up reducing the culpability of the “criminal” for any supposed crimes they commit, so it seems your analogy actually harms your argument.
“The conduct of a blockade may be illegal (if it amounts to collective punishment) but the blockade is not necessary itself illegal on that account alone.”
Sometimes it’s possible to pinpoint where the dialogue reaches its intellectual nadir; we have reached that point.
Yes, Cabby, if the conduct of a blockade necessarily results in a war crime it is in fact illegal. You have already admitted that the stated conduct of this blockade necessitated a war crime. The only conclusion you can come to is that the blockade was illegal. There is no wiggle room on this. Stop making this nonsense argument. I can’t tell if it’s out of willful stupidity or intellectual dishonesty (probably out of your seeming instinctual need for Israel apologetics), either way just stop.
Now, for your impressively stupid “rebuttal” of my point about genocide:
“The UN has never applied these criteria to any situation in the way that you are in order to establish that a genocide is occurring.”
Unsubstantiated, but for the sake of argument let’s assume this is true. What’s your point?
“In the first place, if only (a) or (b) are required to satisfy the definition so broadly defined than there is by this logic a genocide taking place everywhere at all times, including the present US, because people are always being killed and in some manner harmed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. “
Any criteria satisfies the definition so long as it is being conducted with an intent to destroy an ethnic group. If you can prove that people in the U.S. are being killed with that intent then I don’t see what is so ridiculous about saying genocides are occurring in the U.S. (every race crime is an instance of genocide, hope this helps!)
“Israel has not engaged in (c) to the extent that it threatens Palestinian survival.”
Ignoring the fact that the stated goal of the blockade is to squeeze the Palestinians into submission, Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the UN’s refugee agency, disagrees with you: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”.
“Certainly, (d) is not being pursued by Israel; Palestinians have among the highest birthrates in the world.”
Palestinians having high birth rates says nothing about the existence or non-existence of (d), only the effectiveness of any cases of (d). And I have already provided a case of (d) occurring.
“By no means did Israel ever engage in (e). “
Nor did accuse them of such. Please argue with me, not a strawman.
“I have never promoted a “conception of genocide that is obviously solely contextualized in the Holocaust” which is a very narrow conception indeed.”
Maybe, but you’ve never promoted a conception of genocide that isn’t totally arbitrary or grounded in objectivity either.
“I have never made apologetics for Israeli crimes”
the flotilla raid bro, the flotilla raid
kenster42,
“As seems to have become the trend you cherry pick from my statements that which with you disagree and ignore the rest. How disappointing.”
Pot, kettle…also if I took the time to respond to every stupid thing you said I would probably kill myself
“Your interpretation on the UN’s definition on what constitutes genocide is narrow to the point that pretty much any military action of one country against another can be considered genocide.”
As long as you can prove intent to destroy one of the listed groups, yep. What’s your point?
“It renders the definition useless and unable to be applied to anyone.”
Nope.
“The proper way to look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation is at what it really is, which is a war.”
You can only declare war on a nation, which the Palestinians technically don’t have, so nope.
“Just because the Israelis have a superior military does not make them practitioners of genocide.”
Correct. It is the obvious intention to destroy the Palestinians as a group, both in the past and today, that makes them practitioners of genocide.
“Your charge of genocide is indeed emblematic of rigid, intolerant, dogmatic thinking.”
Nope, it’s emblematic of the ability to objectively apply moral standards to a given situation.
“Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself.”
haha yes how ridiculous to want a woman to be able to give birth to a live baby, you are a monster
“It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much”
Unsubstantiated. They seem to “hate” Israel.
“but where are they treated after the incident? Israeli hospitals where they get superlative care. When the Israeli army uses, as a last resort, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse violent, anti-Israeli demonstrations, where do wounded demonstrators go for treatment? Israeli hospitals, where they get superlative care. “We hate you and our hate leads to bloodthirsty attacks, but, oops, we got injured, so please fix us up so we can hate you and attack you some more.” It’s crazy.”
Gosh, remind me again why they need medical care in the first place? Oh that’s right, because they were illegally attacked by Israel, who according to all objective firsthand accounts was the aggressor. It’s almost as if the onus is on Israel to care for those they wrongly injured! Also your characterization of the crew as “bloodthirsty” is patently false; if they were “bloodthirsty” they would have brought actual weapons and they would have murdered those IDF soldiers they captured instead of treating their wounds and returning them to the IDF before the raid. Intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head again.
“Also, I absolutely will not back down from pointing out your implied assertion that there is moral equivalence between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of the Palestinians by the Jews.”
Where did I say this? Seriously, where?
“The Israelis did not exterminate the Palestinians”
Except scholars are now of the broad consensus that there were ethnic cleanseings during the 1948 war…
“and did not put them in concentration camps and starve them”
...Gaza bro…
“It is offensive that you think otherwise and shows not only how far apart we are but how far your arguments are away from the mainstream.”
...except I never said this so stop your histrionics and address my actual arguments you simpleton.
“Finally, if you can’t understand that while you and I might not agree with “might makes right” as an operating political or moral philosophy but that this philosophy continues to be the primary method of ensuring sovereignty, then you are too far gone, my friend.”
That’s right, you will never get me to agree that “might makes right” has any place in sovereignty or any question of “ought” whatsoever because it doesn’t. This isn’t a matter of “agree to disagree”, this is a matter of “you are demonstrably wrong.”
“While military might sometimes results in atrocities, it far more often results in atrocities being avoided. All major western countries are safer from their enemies because of their might. If that might was not there those countries would not be there either.”
haha this is a concentrated block of stupid, military might is literally the leading perpetrator of atrocity in the world, and probably the only reason western countries need protection from enemies or even have enemies is because for the last 200 years they have been the biggest perpetrator of atrocity in the world, maybe if we could stop murdering people for a while they would stop hating us and we wouldn’t need a military anymore you myopic retard
“Oh, and my point regarding free speech was that you don’t have the ABILITY to make me “shut up forever.”
well according to your almighty “might makes right” philosophy I could put a bullet in your head and the worst criticism you could level at me was that I won the argument unfairly, although now that I took the time to respond to every one of your facile arguments I would probably just put a bullet in my own brain
haha you are unredeemably stupid, seriously consider shutting up forever
Wow, where to start with all the ad hominems. You may want to chill out a bit, dude, or take your meds so you can think better. You’re probably ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit too much when you talk about putting a bullet in either of our heads to make a point.
1. “It’s like the Mavi Marmara. They hate the Jews so much” Unsubstantiated. They seem to “hate” Israel.
Nope. Quite substantiated. Check out this news report from AL JAZEERA, so you know it’s not gonna be biased towards the Israelis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk.
Talk about peaceful intentions! Nothing like a Jew-killing Intifada battle song to get folks amped up about peace!. Notice that they weren’t singing about killing ‘Israel”. It’s interesting to note that out of all the flotilla ships, the only one that had trouble was the Mavi Marmari. Maybe that’s because they were a bunch of Jew-haters who were spoiling for a fight and got one.
2. Intent to destroy a group - Good luck proving that, bro. Not even worth responding to.
3. Exterminating Palestinians - Wow, a revisionist historian argument without proof from 1948? That’s all you have? 5x more Palestinians in the region today than in 1948, more attempts from the Israelis than I can count to try to patch things up and have peace. What says genocide more than “hey, let’s have another round of peace negotiations - maybe we’ll get there this time?”
4. War is war - Nice of you to hit that up on a technicality. So, how about this - Israel is in conflict with a known terrorist organization called Hamas, which is the democratically elected entity for the Palestinian people. Does that sound better?
5. You never understood my point about medical treatment. Everyone on the Palestinian side hates Israel until they need something from Israel. If it weren’t so depressing it might be funny.
6. Gaza = Concentration camp. Totally expected you to go there and you didn’t disappoint. Having the chutzpah to compare Gaza to a concentration camp shows how far off your moral balance is. I’m including a link that should help you out:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-treatment-of-jews-during-world-w.html
When you’re done reading that and absorbing how different that is, an apology would be nice.
1. Yes, that one group speaks for all of the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, just like the supposedly small minority of bloodthirsty Israeli Zionists that perpetrate atrocities against the Palestinians speak for all Israelis. And once again, treating the wounds of your enemy then sending them back defies your characterization of “bloodthirsty.”
oh hey look I can post incriminating youtube videos too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP8uZrytG48
2. “Intent to destroy a group - Good luck proving that, bro.”
ignoring the fact that this is the stated goal of the blockade, every human rights group that has done a study on Cast Lead came to the conclusion that civilians were intentionally targeted
3. lol yes Shlomo Ben-Ami, respected historian and Israeli negotiator during Camp David, is a revisionist, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, haha and oh the irony of a Zionist accusing someone of being a “historical revisionist” lmao
4. Sure, the problem is that even without that technicality your argument is beyond stupid. Re-read my last post and come up with an actual rebuttal or concede the point.
5. I did understand your point and I replied by pointing out that Israel has a responsibility to treat the wounds of those who it wrongfully injured, so it’s not “funny” that the Palestinians expect Israel to give them medical treatment, its “reasonable.” That is the claim you need to address.
6. You’re too stupid to post a link properly, but I went and found the article anyway. So here we go:
“Deprived of food, medical care, many of the basic necessities of life” - Check.
“Several Jews were also executed for alleged crimes.” - Check.
“Like the concentration camps, the ghettos were simply a temporary solution to the Jewish problem for the Nazis. Eventually, these ghettos would be emptied and the inhabitants murdered.” - this has been the story for the past 60 years, so Check.
I will concede that the Nazi concentration camps were far worse (not that I ever said “Gaza = Nazi concentration camps” like you seem to think I did), but that is a difference of quantity not of quality; the fact is that there are many similarities between the Nazi concentration camps and the situation in Gaza. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. I owe you no apology.
and look at you kenster, I took all that time to respond to you point by point and you didn’t even do me the same favor, half of your rebuttals amount to nothing more than “dude. no.”, you are an intellectually dishonest halfwit who doesn’t even have the decency to abide by his own standards of conduct
It’s about that time, Muriello. You said yourself that these “conversations” eventually reach their intellectual nadir. Well, it’s here. Best of luck to you in your future discussions with people that will tolerate your non-debate debating style. I know I can always improve my arguments but I can comfort myself with my certainty that your sparkling personality will stay the same.
Muriello,
You are becoming increasingly, abusive, prejudiced, narrow minded and ignorant. You refuse to take into account the arguments of others preferring to continue dogmatically repeat your obnoxious harangues about “Israeli atrocities” over and over again. You ignore evidence presented to you that contradicts your views instead of addressing it. One excellent example is the youtube video posted by both kenster and myself of an Al-Jazeera report explicitly showing certain activists on the Mavi Marmara extolling jihad, professing to seek “martyrdom in Gaza and expressing hatred of Jews calling for their death. The fact that many of them belong to a Turkish based “charity” organization called IHH, a goup with know direct links to Al-Qaeda and Hamas, made no impression on you.
You have also continued to make absurd comparisons between the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza with Nazi treatment of Jews. In the view of most of the sane world, though the Israeli treatment of Palestinians of Gaza is harsh, inhumane and often illegal, it doesn’t compare to the Nazi treatment of Jews. The Nazis didn’t send thousands of tons of humanitarian aid into the Warsaw Ghetto; the Nazis didn’t lift the siege to allow the free movement of people and goods; the Nazis didn’t create the Ghetto because the Jews were sending rockets from Warsaw into Germany but rather with “an intent to destroy the Jews in their entirety.” Did the Nazis work with international aid agencies to distribute aid to the Jews in Warsaw or elsewhere in places under Nazi occupation?
Israeli officials have expressed political reasons for the blockade such as punishment for the support of Hamas. This is brutal and illegal but it is not a genocide. There is no Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. Israel’s behavior clearly fails to satisfy the UN genocide criteria. There is no Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinians; deaths were the result of war not deliberate targeting of civilians. Civilians deaths were never intended. What would be the purpose? The UN has admitted to the validity of Israeli claims that Hamas rocket and artillery fire has often been in the vacinity of civilian structures such as homes, hospitals and schools. IDF return fire was intended for Hamas not civilians. It is Hamas, in its use of human shields, that has committed a war crime. I also think it’s appalling that considering the suffering of the Gaza People, Hamas chose to use its funds from Iran and elsewhere to purchase and develop weapons and not humanitarian and social aid to the people of Gaza. Apparently, they are more interested in serving Iran’s interests than those of the Palestinians.
Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza is illegal. This is very clear. But taking security measures such as inspecting ships is not illegal. Hamas created a security problem. The fact that your arguments don’t take this into account is ridiculous. Had Hamas never done this there would be no problems. Gaza, even under occupation, was a thriving place. Over 100,000 Gazans found good paying work in Israel while Israelis frequently visited Gaza to shop, purchase agricultural goods in bulk for sale in Israel, patronize local businesses and tour. Money flowed from outside into Gaza making it a viable place. Hamas’ violence changed all this for the worse. They have had a debilitating impact on the people there.
It is possible to blockade arms and let everything else in without violating international law at all. Lawrence Wright, a journalist with much experience in the Middle East and Gaza in particular responds to a question in this regard;
“Would it be so hard to have a checkpoint system that blocked weapons and allowed everything else?”
“That’s not hard at all, and that’s the way it’s usually done. Netanyahu said, if we open up the blockade, Gaza will become a port for Iran. But it’s completely possible to maintain a ban on weapons just by inspecting what’s coming into the country without shutting out everything.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/06/lawrence-wright-on-gaza.html
This was precisely the Israeli intention with the Mavi Marmara and what will continue to be their policy since the recent easing of the blockade. Egypt has recently completed a deep subsurface concrete wall running the full length of the Gaza/Egyptian border to prevent tunnels from reaching into Egypt. Is this collective punishment as well? The problem is that Hamas is not a legitimate government having violently siezed power. There is thus no legitimate government in Gaza and since there is no one there for Israel (or Egypt) to deal with, both countries have to cooperate to minimize the damage Hamas is doing to everyone concerned. According to an NPR report, Israel has turned over the 10,000 tons of cargo from the Mavi Marmara to the UN for distribution in Gaza.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127863172&ft=1&f=1001
The UN also shares Israel’s goals of national security; it just insists that Israel obey international laws and conventions and not engage in actions that result in the needless suffering of the Gazan People;
Here is recent report from the UN News Centre;
“Acknowledging that Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded, the Quarter said it believed that efforts to maintain security while enabling movement and access for Palestinian people and goods are critical. It pledged to work with Israel and the international community to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza, and urged all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35090&Cr=palestin&Cr1;=
This should resolve all questions on Israel’s blockade and international law for any reasonable person. Israel’s attempt to inspect the ship was neither criminal nor unjust; the former conduct of the blockade was and this issue is presently being resolved.
Cabby,
“You refuse to take into account the arguments of others preferring to continue dogmatically repeat your obnoxious harangues about “Israeli atrocities” over and over again.”
That’s only because you dogmatically repeat your obnoxious apologetics over and over. Besides, I think it is useful to call things what they are, so I will continue to refer to Israeli atrocities as “atrocities”, thanks.
“One excellent example is the youtube video posted by both kenster and myself of an Al-Jazeera report explicitly showing certain activists on the Mavi Marmara extolling jihad, professing to seek “martyrdom in Gaza and expressing hatred of Jews calling for their death.”
And my counter argument was that it was a invalid generalization to say that because some crew seem to hate Jews that all of the crew hated Jews. I illustrated my point with the video I posted of the IDF soldier saying in reference to Palestinians, “We are humans and they are animals.” It would be invalid to claim on that basis that all IDF soldiers have such prejudices based on that account, and it is similarly invalid to make that claim about the crew of the Mavi Marmara. Although I will say that actions of the IDF during the raid certainly show that sentiment, while the actions of the crew of the Mavi Marmara does not support your claim that they were “bloodthirsty.”
“You have also continued to make absurd comparisons between the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza with Nazi treatment of Jews.”
The comparisons are not absurd; the Gazans suffer under many of the same hardships that the Jews did in Nazi concentration camps. This is an uncontroversial statement because the historical and human rights records support it.
“The Nazis didn’t send thousands of tons of humanitarian aid into the Warsaw Ghetto”
Uh huh, and Israel prevents thousands of tons of humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza with their illegal blockade. Are you really too stupid to see this connection or are you just that intellectually dishonest?
“the Nazis didn’t create the Ghetto because the Jews were sending rockets from Warsaw into Germany but rather with “an intent to destroy the Jews in their entirety.””
The reasons why Israel created the situation in Gaza is irrelevant to the point I made; the living conditions are very similar, this is a matter of fact not opinion.
“Israeli officials have expressed political reasons for the blockade such as punishment for the support of Hamas. This is brutal and illegal but it is not a genocide. There is no Israeli genocide against the Palestinians.”
By whose definition?
“Israel’s behavior clearly fails to satisfy the UN genocide criteria.”
You have not demonstrated this at all.
“There is no Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinians; deaths were the result of war not deliberate targeting of civilians. Civilians deaths were never intended.”
Well the Goldstone report disagrees with you there; the report says explicitly that civilian sites were targeted, and sorry but the logical conclusion of targeting civilian cites with military force is that civilians will die. Period.
“What would be the purpose?”
To further radicalize the population, leading to an escalation of the conflict which could be used as pretense for invasion and further appropriation of Palestinian territories. This is not a new Israeli tactic by any means.
“The UN has admitted to the validity of Israeli claims that Hamas rocket and artillery fire has often been in the vacinity of civilian structures such as homes, hospitals and schools. IDF return fire was intended for Hamas not civilians.”
Wrong: “The former judge [Goldstone] ]explained that “Israel has said that given the density of the population in gaza - they did the best they could to avoid civilians,” but added that “we certainly looked into the fact that Hamas put their weapons near civilians. We looked for proof but didn’t find it.” - http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-israel-intentionally-targeted-gaza-civilian-sites-1.6956
“It is Hamas, in its use of human shields, that has committed a war crime.”
I will not deny that they have committed war crimes or even that they have committed this war crime (although they only place I have read about them doing this is in pro-Israeli sources), but as the Goldstone report says, they did not do this during Cast Lead. Only two conclusions can be drawn from this; one, that Israel truly thought Hamas was placing weapons near civilians, which suggests that Israel’s intelligence and military is stunningly incompetent and shouldn’t be trusted with a sharp stick, let alone the white phosphorous and cluster munitions. Two, that they knew Hamas was not storing weapons near civillians, but used it as a convenient excuse to attack civillian targets in an effort to destabilize and humiliate the Palestinians. The reality is though that they targeted civilian facilities intentionally; you don’t get to bulldoze multiple chicken farms, killing over 250,000 chickens in the process (which created a meat and egg shortage, by the way) and claim that you were targeting “Hamas weapons.”
“Hamas chose to use its funds from Iran and elsewhere to purchase and develop weapons and not humanitarian and social aid to the people of Gaza.”
except the vast majority of Hamas’ budget goes toward providing social services in Gaza which is how they got elected in the first place you drooling idiot, how dare you claim to value the truth yet spew this vile propaganda, eat shit and die you intellectually vapid monster. if you wonder why I seem so pissed it’s because people like you self-righteously justify atrocity with outright lies
“Using Israeli estimates, he [Matthew Levitt] reckons Hamas probably has an annual budget of between $70m and $90m, 80 to 85 per cent of which it spends on its political work and its extensive networks of schools, clinics and welfare organisations, while 15 to 20 per cent goes on military operations.” - http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/05/hamas-palestinian-israel
“They [Hamas]have had a debilitating impact on the people there. “
Would you say they had a more or less debilitating impact than the constant unprovoked and inappropriate violence from Israel?
“Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza is illegal. This is very clear. But taking security measures such as inspecting ships is not illegal.”
The pretense under which they were inspecting the ships was the blockade. The blockade constitutes a war crime, and is therefore illegal. Therefore their pretense for inspecting the ships was iillegal. Therefore they did not have the right to inspect the ships. You are seriously retarded for trying to stick to your stupid fucking argument.
“It is possible to blockade arms and let everything else in without violating international law at all. “
Yes it’s possible, but that’s not what Israel was doing you moron.
“The problem is that Hamas is not a legitimate government having violently siezed power.”
Read this and then shut the fuck up forever about Hamas’ supposed “illegitimacy”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict
“This should resolve all questions on Israel’s blockade and international law for any reasonable person. Israel’s attempt to inspect the ship was neither criminal nor unjust; the former conduct of the blockade was and this issue is presently being resolved. “
The only thing that will resolve all questions is an independent inquiry into the flotilla attacks, not some rationalizing from an intellectually dishonest nitwit on the internet. In the meantime I have again and again demonstrated that your argument about the legality of the blockade is nonsense. Concede the point. Also you literally quoted Netenyahu in trying to justify the blockade as if he is an objective or even trustworthy source, that was either intellectually dishonest or just blatantly stupid.
and ugh I already addressed your stupid objection about Israel’s intent to destroy Palestinians here:
“And let me address your stupid objection before you even make it: “B-b-but PMuriello, Israel never SAID it intended to destroy the Palestinians!” Fine, for the sake of argument let’s say that an overt declaration of intent is necessary to call an action genocide. That means if Hitler had not overtly stated that he wanted to annihilate the Jews, the Holocaust would not have been a genocide. If his story was that the Jews just accidentally fell into the gas chambers and ovens after which a careless SS officer accidentally bumped the “on” switch, you could not call the Holocaust a genocide. That would be absurd, and it is similarly absurd to make such excuses for Israel. “
maybe another reason I get worked up, you know aside from that fact that you literally lie in order to justify atrocity, is because I have to say the same thing over and over because you refuse to engage arguments that you can’t reconcile with your irrational pro-Israel worldview. oh and that stupid assertion plucked straight from pro-Israel opinion blogs that Israel somehow had the right to inspect ships under the pretenses of an illegal blockade, lol the UN is going to annihilate that retarded fucking argument and accuse Israel of war crimes for the second time in the last year, sorry about your cognitive dissonance br0ski
“It’s about that time, Muriello. You said yourself that these “conversations” eventually reach their intellectual nadir. Well, it’s here. Best of luck to you in your future discussions with people that will tolerate your non-debate debating style. I know I can always improve my arguments but I can comfort myself with my certainty that your sparkling personality will stay the same. “
Dear kenster42,
You’re an apologist for genocide and atrocity, that makes you human scum. Deal with it.
Love,
PMuriello
Cabby and Kenster42,
You might want to rethink that Israeli canard you guys parrot in your posts about IHH’s links to terror, as it was one of the very first of the IDF lies to be debunked.
First, the Israeli government failed to provide evidence of individual claims of terrorist affiliations or intentions. See:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/another-idf-claim-unravels-idf-unable-to-support-claim-of-terrorists-aboard-flotilla-ship/
Second, the Israeli government edited its own websites to remove Al-Qaeda assertions after it could not substantiate claims that flotilla passengers had connections to Al-Qaeda. See:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/
Third, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a think tank with ties to Israel’s Defense Ministry, concluded that there is “no known evidence of current links between IHH and ‘global jihad elements.’” See:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/10/turkey-is-medias-latest-target-for-alleged-terror-ties/
And finally, not only does the IHH not appear on the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, the group played an active role in delivering humanitarian aid to Haiti after the devastating January earthquake while the US military directed relief efforts there.
Nice catch Imran. Once again Cabby proves himself a hypocrite by claiming to “wait for the truth” while he swallows every Israeli lie, hook, line, and sinker.
also haha kenster’s big finish was “I know I’m wrong about everything but you’re a big poopy head so THERE!” this thread rules
Muriello,
You are a raving lunatic. You accuse others of being “intellectually dishonest” but you are intellectually underdeveloped. This much is clear. In addition to which you’re a rude moron with little knowledge of the subject about which you speak. You rigid little axiom about the blockade being illegal ergo the ship’s inspection was illegal is ignorant nonsense.
The is much dispute about the legality about Israel’s blockade. Among the many things Israel argues is its right of self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Other arguments follow that since Israel’s situation is unique, many aspects of it are not accounted for under current international law. Some legal opinion is that it is legal.
“CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”. Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control. “On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal,” said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.”
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-israeli-blockade-is-legal.html
The San Remo Manual allows the stopping of ships in international waters due to its mere intent to run a military blockade which is, in most legal opinion, itself an act of war. Israel’s blockade was well known and didn’t obstruct or endanger neutral countries or their ports and vessels. The only remaining issue is whether or not the blockade is illegal by virtue of its being a collective punishment. It can certainly be argued that this is the case according to many respected international observers. According to Israel, however, sufficient aid has been supplied to Gaza. Israeli Defense Ministry records show that in 2009, about 738,576 tons of general humanitarian aid was shipped into Gaza as well as 33,854 tons of cooking gas and 90,455,768 litres of heavy duty diesel fuel for electrical power generation. This year so far, 287,110 tons of general humanitarian goods have been allowed into Gaza (up to June 3rd) and 15,755 tons of cooking gas and 28,772,620 litres of heavy duty diesel fuel for Gaza’s power station.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal/(page)/2 (see pdf link in text on second page)
The idea that Israel’s act amounts to piracy is equally ridiculous.
“Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest,” [James] Kraska [professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College] said. (see Reuters source above)
When the Mavi Marmara passengers attacked the soldiers, their status as noncombatants was at least called into serious question. The issue is not whether all the flotilla’s passengers were belligerents; clearly most were not. But enough of them were to warrant a response to their violent attacks.
”...as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.”
The Gaza/Israel conflict is thus considered an official state of war whereby international law regarding military blockades applies.
The flotilla’s passengers had political, not purely humanitarian, concerns.
”...as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade…” Had the groups concerns been purely humanitarian, they would have submitted to an Israeli inspection.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-07/news/ct-oped-0607-krauthammer-20100607_1_blockade-anti-israel-hamas
I’ve already cited several non-Israeli sources, such as French counter-terrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere who determined that IHH was involved in the failed “millennium plot” to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999. There are others as well. I never quoted Netanyahu. I quoted the UN which referred to a remark made by him by way of criticizing it. Read more carefully!!
The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/
I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.
G*d bless you, Cabby.
I gave up actually trying to post lengthy substantiation for my points, because clearly with good ol’ PMuriello, they’re not going to get anywhere.
It’s been goin’ like this for a while:
Cabby - Here’s a 3 paragraph, well-researched, well-sourced argument for why X is X.
PMuriello - Haha, you’re clearly an Israeli apologist piece of human scum who’s evil and advocates Palistininian genocide and atrocities.
I think I got all of PMuriello’s code words in there. Yep, they’re all there.
Muriello, it’s been absolutely fascinating watching your commentary literally devolve before everyone’s eyes. You started out relatively coherent and restrained and proceeded to take the discourse down, notch by notch, until you were literally droppin’ the F-bombs in the last exchange. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Carry on!
haha your sources are great, let me pick them apart one at a time:
1. “http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-israeli-blockade-is-legal.html”
The quote you pulled from this blog post (which is an explicitly right-wing blog by the way, hardly neutral) is from this Reuters article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm, which only examines the legality of a blockade, not the legality of a blockade that necessitates collective punishment and is therefore illegal. I’ll also point out that the author is not a legal scholar. Here’s a great excerpt to show you how well researched this article is:
“Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.”
“Israeli authorities” said they fired in “self-defence”, haha you fucking idiot you will literally believe anything you read without one ounce of critical thought so long as it agrees with your worldview
2. “http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0608/Never-mind-the-Freedom-F Flotilla.-Is-Israel-s-Gaza-blockade-legal/(page)/2”
You fucking retard, the Christian Science Monitor is not saying anything about the legality of the blockade in this article, they are just presenting arguments from both sides, giving neither primacy. And the PDF. excerpt you posted is a fucking ISRAELI SOURCE, the fact that you think it’s a trustworthy source speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty.
3. “...as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes…”
This excerpt from Gelb, who is by the way not an expert on international law, does not deal with the claim that the blockade was illegal on the grounds that it constituted collective punishment. Also Gelb is a fucking moron, just like you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-slater/on-the-thought-of-leslie_b_607215.html
4. ” The flotilla’s passengers had political, not purely humanitarian, concerns.
”...as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade…”
Had the groups concerns been purely humanitarian, they would have submitted to an Israeli inspection. “
What’s your fucking point? This says nothing about the legality of the blockade, only the intentions of the crew. NEWSFLASH: It is neither wrong nor somehow sinister to break an illegal blockade, you are literally upholding the law by breaking an illegal blockade, you are so fucking stupid
5. “The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/”
First of all the European Journal of International Law, much like the Christian Science Monitor article you posted, itself makes no claims about the legality of the blockade, but rather quotes other opinions from international legal experts. Furthermore, not even the lawyers who are quoted come to a firm decision, and indeed some make strong cases against the legality of the blockade. Either you didn’t read the article or you are the stupidest fuck on this gay earth.
So basically every article you posted either didn’t make a conclusive claim about the legality of the blockade or was the opinion of someone who was not an expert in international or humanitarian law and did NOT address the claim that the blockade was collective punishment and therefore illegal. So in conclusion, you are terrible at researching and I should really go through all those other articles you posted in making your retarded arguments and debunk them as well.
But the best, oh god the BEST line in that whole poorly researched mess comes from you at the very end:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected. “
but that’s just it, the blockade constitutes collective punishment and conclusively adversely affects the population BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, therefore they are not permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea haha you destroyed your own argument for me you are a mental child, I would ask you to stop posting but making you look like an incompetent idiot is so much fun. and as if I care about being rude to a person that lies to justify atrocity, kill yourself you sorry excuse for a human being
kenster42,
“G*d bless you, Cabby.”
yeah a fellow retard would think that the shit cabby posted was quality
“I gave up actually trying to post lengthy substantiation for my points, because clearly with good ol’ PMuriello, they’re not going to get anywhere.”
nope, because your substantiations have been shit from start to finish, poorly reasoned poorly researched shit
“Cabby - Here’s a 3 paragraph, well-researched, well-sourced argument for why X is X.”
you forgot to post words after this moron. oh wait no you didn’t:
“PMuriello - Haha, you’re clearly an Israeli apologist piece of human scum who’s evil and advocates Palistininian genocide and atrocities.”
“I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I”, wow I haven’t heard that one since 3rd grade, nice bro
“Muriello, it’s been absolutely fascinating watching your commentary literally devolve before everyone’s eyes. You started out relatively coherent and restrained and proceeded to take the discourse down, notch by notch, until you were literally droppin’ the F-bombs in the last exchange. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.”
it’s telling that your worst criticism of me is that I drop F-bombs. tell you what, I’ll change my discourse when you change your horrible fucking opinions
cabby and kenster I IMPLORE you to read the article about Gelb very carefully, I’ll repost it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-slater/on-the-thought-of-leslie_b_607215.html
not only does it show that people with important sounding titles can have stupid fucking opinions (and illustrates that you should make sure that the people who are informing your opinions aren’t mentally defective), but it also has a good bit at the end about the flotilla
Also for all you Israel apologists out there who love to drone on about the Hamas charter, here’s a nifty little excerpt from the Likud charter:
“The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Cabby,
Oh, now I see what you were doing with that Gelb quote, you were trying to substantiate this claim:
“The Gaza/Israel conflict is thus considered an official state of war whereby international law regarding military blockades applies.”
Which is not only in clear contradiction of international law (you can only declare war on a nation yet Israel refuses to recognize Palestinian statehood), but also totally irrelevant to the argument I am making. You sure do love “proving” irrelevant points don’t you!
PMuriello,
You might want to take a look at this:
http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Behind_Bars_Photo_Bias_Breaks_Out_of_Gaza.asp
Whew, those Gazans have so many similarities to Nazi concentration camp victims. They only have access to Coke, not Pepsi. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Like Cabby, your inability to think critically causes you to misinterpret sources as supporting your claims. That link only examines the bias in photographing present in SOME media sources; it does not provide an account of the overall situation in Gaza, nor is it representative of the conduct of ALL media sources. You are merely inferring that things are “much better than the media portrays” from those pictures, just as you accuse others of merely inferring that everything is fucked up based on photos of impoverished or killed Palestinians. I have already posted an objective expert’s on the ground assessment of living conditions in Gaza:
“Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the UN’s refugee agency, disagrees with you: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”.”
But I mean if you want to play the “out of context photograph game”, I can play that game:
http://tinyurl.com/2ecp2ch
Sorry bro but the facts are on my side; the living conditions are somewhat similar. It’s clear I should never have argued the point because you are completely incapable of being intellectually honest about it, and anyway it’s just a big strawman you are attacking because you can’t defeat my arguments. You continue to be an intellectually dishonest propagandist and apologist for atrocity.
Also I thought you were abandoning the conversation? Have you changed your tactics from being a Zionist mouthpiece to sniping at me without making any substantive arguments?
“Either you didn’t read the article or you are the stupidest fuck on this gay earth.”
Homophobic are we, Muriello? Tsk, tsk, not very progressive.
I quoted the CS Monitor and the EJIL to show that there is widespread disagreement on the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and that legal arguments have been used in support of both sides of the issue.A consensus on the blockade’s legal status has yet to be reached. All Ban Ke Moon has said is that the Israeli blockade must be eased. No official declaration of the blockade’s legality or illegality has yet been made.
There is no reason to regard the Israeli Defense Ministries figures on Israeli aid to Gaza as inaccurate. Simply being an official Israeli source doesn’t cast doubt on its accuracy. When the Israelis want to hide information they tend to suppress it rather than publicly give false information. Over a million tons of humanitarian aid has been delivered to Gaza since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This doesn’t include the thousands of tons of aid coming from private NGOs and other aid organizations. The problem in Gaza is not widespread starvation and lack of medicines and basic needs for the Gazan populace. Much is being supplied. The problem is that Operation Cast Lead was so utterly destructive, leveling a great number of homes, businesses, factories, hospitals and schools, in effect, the vast bulk of the civilian infrastructure, that a humanitarian crisis has been created. One of the problems widely agreed upon is that the Israelis have not allowed in sufficient building materials to repair the damage done and restore normal daily life. Unemployment and homelessness is widespread and most of the population is dependent on outside assistance. The blockade will have to be greatly eased, if not removed altogether, to restore normal life to Gaza.
The reason that Israel prohibited building materials is their dual purpose, an unconvincing reason considering the hardship caused. The cement should be allowed. The blockade has been harsh and unjust; but it was not a deliberate attempt to slowly kill the Gazan population through starvation and disease akin to the Nazi policies toward Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. These allegations of genocide are simply untrue and are belied by the fact that over a million tons of humanitarian aid have gotten into Gaza over the past 18 months. There are also many independant aid organizations in Gaza ministering to the basic needs of the population.
Your chief argument against the blockade’s legality is based on the “collective punishment” prohibition in 4th Geneva Convention (1949) the application of which to the current Israeli blockade can be called into question. In addition, all my citations of legality came from expert legal opinion such as the individuals cited in the Reuters article. I also relied heavily on the opinions of Australian legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller;
“If the conflict between Israel and Hamas is an international armed conflict (IAC), there is no question that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza. … The 1909 Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (the London Declaration), the first international instrument to acknowledge the legality of blockades, specifically recognized the right of belligerents to blockade their enemy during time of war. Article 97 of the San Remo Manual does likewise. And there is certainly no shortage of state practice supporting the legitimacy of blockades during IAC (the US blockade of Cuba, for example).”
To your point however, about the political complications this creates, Heller also points out,
“However, this rule applies to wars between states. Heller says there’s little evidence “to support the idea that a blockade is legally permissible” in a conflict between a state and a non-state actor. In fact, when the Union used a naval blockade against the Confederacy during the Civil War, it led to European recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent state. Is the Netanyahu government ready to take the risk that the Hamas government in Gaza will gain recognition as an independent state.”
http://southjerusalem.com/2010/06/the-facts-the-law-and-the-table/
The siege is harsh but not lethal and not an endeavor to commit a genocide. Even Hamas admits this;
Hamas officials concede that the blockade has not caused a humanitarian crisis in its classic sense. “There is no starvation in Gaza,” said Khalil Hamada, a senior official at Hamas’s ministry of justice. “No-one has died of hunger. Even so, People have been forced to subsist rather than to live.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7806209/Dispatch-Just-how-hungry-is-Gaza.html
It is also well known that Hamas profits from the blockade by taxing all goods that come through the tunnels for revenue to buy arms. One correspondent attests;
“I met a man with a 2010 Skoda sedan who did the math for me. His new car would’ve cost him $18,000 in Germany or $30,000 if he bought it on the West Bank. Delivered to him by tunnel from Egypt, he paid $50,000 for it plus a $10,000 licensing fee imposed by Hamas. It’s understood the tunnels supply Hamas with at least some of the weapons that Israel’s naval blockade is supposed to keep out. The business through the tunnels also provides Hamas with a revenue stream.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20006903-503543.html
It seems that Hamas has burdened Gazans as much as has Israel.
The Genocide charge is unfounded. Of 1.5 million Gazans, about 1,300 were killed in OCL, hardly a “genocide.” This was inexcusable but it certainly doesn’t indicate that the IDF clearly intended to commit genocide, especially not by the standards of real genocides such as those emerging from contemporary African conflicts.
My objective is not to make apologia for Israel; their policies are wrong and they need to be changed. But I object to prejudicial hyperbole the like of which we don’t even see from Al-Jazeera. I support an end to the blockade, war and occupation. But it will take cooperation on both sides for this to occur. And, of course, Israel must retain the right to defend itself within the confines of international law, which I believe it has observed.
Cabby,
“No official declaration of the blockade’s legality or illegality has yet been made.”
As always, you are wrong: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html
Not that we need an official declaration for the purposes of this argument since you have already conceded that the blockade constituted collective punishment and is therefore illegal.
“When the Israelis want to hide information they tend to suppress it rather than publicly give false information.”
Wrong: “The former judge [Goldstone] ]explained that “Israel has said that given the density of the population in gaza - they did the best they could to avoid civilians,” but added that “we certainly looked into the fact that Hamas put their weapons near civilians. We looked for proof but didn’t find it.” - http://www.haaretz.com/news/goldstone-israel-intentionally-targeted-gaza-civilia an-sites-1.6956
(note that this is literally copy/pasted from earlier in the thread you idiot, why would you make an assertion that has already been refuted)
Also that stuff Imran posted illustrating Israel’s lies about the IHH.
“These allegations of genocide are simply untrue and are belied by the fact that over a million tons of humanitarian aid have gotten into Gaza over the past 18 months.”
Once again, you haven’t shown this to be the case at all. I have shown that Israel intentionally targeted civilian sites and therefore civilians which satisfies criteria (a) of the definition, it is a matter of public record that Israel has illegally detained and tortured Palestinians which satisfies criteria (b), it is a matter of public record that the purpose of the blockade was to deliberately erode Gazan society which satisfies criteria (c), and I have provided a case of (d) occuring.
In further support of (c), I have already posted this quote from the commissioner-general of the UN refugee agency Karen Koning AbuZayd: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution”, so it seems that despite all this humanitarian aid that Israel claims they let through, it wasn’t enough to refute that (c) was occurring.
“The blockade has been harsh and unjust; but it was not a deliberate attempt to slowly kill the Gazan population through starvation and disease akin to the Nazi policies toward Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.”
The stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, and by all objective accounts it was working. You are wrong. I will also point out that you, like kenster, are only harping on this strawman because you can’t defeat my other arguments.
“I quoted the CS Monitor and the EJIL to show that there is widespread disagreement on the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and that legal arguments have been used in support of both sides of the issue.”
No you didn’t you fucking liar, you literally said this in reference to the EJIL article: “The European Journal of International Law also confirms that Israel’s act was neither illegal nor an act of piracy.” Stop lying.
Anyway, I don’t even know why we are arguing any more when you have already said this:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.”
...and admit this:
“I strongly agree that the blockade is collective punishment”
Let me formalize the modus ponens argument you yourself are making here:
1. If the civilian population is not adversely affected, then Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea.
2. The civilian population is being adversely affected by the blockade.
——————————————————————
3. Therefore, Israel is not permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea.
You are literally forced into this conclusion from your own premises. There is no room for argument. I’ll also note that in all of the articles you posted not one of the legal “experts” arguing for the blockade being legal tackled the contention that the blockade was collective punishment, a contention that you yourself give importance to by this admission:
“I’ve read both sides from every reliable source. It seems that Israel is permitted to blockade Gaza from the sea so long as the civilian population is not adversely affected.”
The only reason you are still arguing is to try to appear to still have a point despite the fact that you have already tacitly conceded argument to me, it’s the cheapest, most shallow debate tactic and I will not allow you to do it.
Muriello,
Here is the 1948 Genocide Convention criteria for determining whether or not a genocide is occurring.
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called “genocide.”
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
It does not appear as though both elements of Article II were present in Israel’s Gaza policy; part one is clearly absent and Article II states that both elements are needed to call a country’s action a genocide. Clearly, there was never an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians of Gaza” by any reasonable estimate.
Muriello,
Your arguments are getting weaker. In the first place, the EJIL didn’t actually declare the blockade illegal and all those legal experts cited declared unequivocally that it was not an act of piracy. In addition, Israeli statements to the Goldstone Mission were not found to be lies; the mission simply didn’t find sufficient evidence to believe those statements. Also, Israeli accusations of IHH were not lies. The point is controversial but there was no deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Many credible and objective sources, such as the ones I cited, have connected IHH with Islamic Fundamentalist groups including ones engaged in acts of terror. The Turkish government even raided its offices in Istanbul with assistance from French anti-terrorism expert and jurist, Jean-Louis Bruguiere;
”[Bruguiere said]...he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other “incriminating” material.”
According to the report; “Bruguiere, 67, is now the coordinator for the European Union in a terrorism finance tracking program jointly run with the United States.”
Although the US doesn’t have IHH on its State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations one official said this;
“U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that “we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iYybp27J-O2cobEG7eh2c-q3ORHAD9G3D4QO0
The dramatic easing of the blockade by Israel will certainly make the “collective punishment” issue a moot point, allowing them to divert ships to the port of Ashdod to inspect cargo and forward it on overland to Gaza. The UN has affirmed Israel’s right to assure its own security but it must obey international law. The people you cited as testifying to Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza only stated opinions and not official legal determinations of Israeli guilt. Their views could be used, however in support of such an determination. Navi Pillay’s statements led to the investigation that produced the famous Goldstone Report. However, the 2009 UN Human Rights Council’s resolution endorsing the Report’s findings doesn’t have the force of an official legal determination; only the UN Security Council or the International Criminal Court can do that which is why Goldstone personally requested an ICC investigation into war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas. Until such an official determination is made; Israel’s blockade is not technically illegal (though it may be immoral which is not legally a crime). It thus maintains it’s right to inspect ships bound for Gaza on security grounds. Also, Israel has all but lifted the blockade preempting future charges of collective punishment of Gaza.
Thought you’d like this about Hamas urging rocket attacks against Israel from the West Bank;
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-official-palestinians-should-fire-at-israel-from-west-bank-1.297245
Cabby,
“Clearly, there was never an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians of Gaza” by any reasonable estimate.”
First of all, you aren’t even making an argument here. You are just reposting the definition of genocide (with which I am very familiar), and then saying, “NU-UH!” It is not clear that it was not Israel’s intent to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. Read carefully the paragraph below this and if you can come up with a coherent, substantive rebuttal then feel free to respond.
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
It is in your best interest to come up with a substantive rebuttal; it takes far less time for me to copy/paste the above paragraph than it does you to type out a wordy pseudo-intellectual “NU-UH”.
“Your arguments are getting weaker”
Assuming this is true (it isn’t), at least I am making an argument.
“In the first place, the EJIL didn’t actually declare the blockade illegal “
no fucking shit idiot, but you claimed they said it was legal, therefore you are a liar
“all those legal experts cited declared unequivocally that it was not an act of piracy.”
Maybe. It depends on whether it is legal for Israel to be at war with Gaza, which is a contested legal issue. It’s an irrelevant point to the greater question of the legality of the blockade and the genocide of the Palestinians so I will concede if only to prevent you from harping on it.
“Also, Israeli accusations of IHH were not lies.”
Bullshit. Even if you assume that Israel genuinely believed the IHH had those terror connections even though they had not one shred of credible evidence supporting it, that is still enough to not trust anything they say. Stop with your meaningless contentions. If really you really want to prove that Israel didn’t lie grapple with Imran’s last post (the one that you conveniently ignored).
“[Bruguiere said]...he was personally involved in a raid with French and Turkish police at IHH headquarters in Istanbul in 1998, where they found weapons, false documents and other “incriminating” material.”
That’s nice, please find me an article or news report from 1998 that confirms what Mr. French terror “expert” here is saying, also that was literally over a decade ago and says nothing about the IHH today. You are fucking awful at substantiating claims, just like Israel.
“U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Wednesday that “we know that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years. That is obviously of great concern to us.”
yes clearly they are involved with terrorist schemes and not just trying to figure out how to help the local government entity Hamas provide the citizens of Gaza with the aid they need, especially since as I have shown before Hamas provides the vast amount of social services that exist in Gaza, you are a fear mongering idiot with no critical thinking skills whatsoever
“The people you cited as testifying to Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza only stated opinions and not official legal determinations of Israeli guilt.”
yes, when U.N. officials Pillay and Goldstone ruled that the blockade was illegal they didn’t consult the law at all, this is just more Cabby-brand nonsense
second you tried to form the narrative that there was a clear legal consensus with all those retarded articles you posted which is at least disingenuous if not an outright lie, and in the case of the EJIL article you DID outright lie by claiming they had made a legal determination on the issue
“Until such an official determination is made; Israel’s blockade is not technically illegal “
haha this is the dumbest semantic shit, you can call a thing illegal if it demonstrably breaks the law and by your own argument the blockade breaks the law, plus by your own retarded semantics the blockade is not legal either, stop this idiotic sophistry and address the actual argument
also you have tacitly admitted that two legal, authoritative sources (Goldstone and Pillay, probably the most learned people on this issue) have declared the blockade illegal, plus as I have already illustrated you argued for the illegality of the blockade yourself, what are you even still doing here
“though it may be immoral which is not legally a crime”
haha you’re another monstrous immoral fuckhead just like kenster
“Thought you’d like this about Hamas urging rocket attacks against Israel from the West Bank;”
yeah that’s awful, but Israel is still conducting collective punishment because it hasn’t released the restriction on building materials so let’s not get too self-righteous here, also it doesn’t change the fact that you have literally lied about Hamas twice so far
I have you backed into a rhetorical corner and now you’re semantically pissing down your leg in fear, haha I knew you would descend into meaningless legal semantics eventually but I never thought you would try to refute your own argument lmao this thread rules
“Sorry bro but the facts are on my side; the living conditions are somewhat similar. It’s clear I should never have argued the point because you are completely incapable of being intellectually honest about it, and anyway it’s just a big strawman you are attacking because you can’t defeat my arguments. You continue to be an intellectually dishonest propagandist and apologist for atrocity.”
For some reason it’s hard for me to let this one go with you. Cabby has clearly been better at putting substantive time and effort into refuting your claims, but I guess I continue to be stunned that you try to create similarity between the conditions of Gazans and the conditions of Nazi concentration camp victims. The facts just aren’t on your side on this point and Cabby illustrated it well - yes, the refusal to let building materials into the country was a big mistake and it needs to end immediately (I am under the impression that it is in the process of ending, but not sure). For better or worse, the Israelis have convinced themselves that they had a good reason for not letting building materials in (to prevent rocket construction). Clearly it’s wrong, clearly it’s not working. OK, point given. But, no one’s starving. Tremendous amounts of humanitarian aid are being passed through. There is no intent here even remotely similar to the Nazis’. You can cherry pick anomalous quotes all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that only a very small percentage of the world population feels the way you do, and it’s because it’s not reasonable position to take.
When we can agree that the Israelis’ treatment of Gazans is unjust without veering into the land of hyperbole, we can get to the next stage of the conversation. Throwing “genocide” and “atrocity” into the mix simply stalls things out. You say I won’t say atrocity because I’m an Israeli propagandist human scum evil etc blah blah blah. I say, and the vast majority of the world agrees with me, it’s because your definition of the confict is not accurate.
“For some reason it’s hard for me to let this one go with you.”
That’s because you are emotionally invested in seeing Israel as the overall “good-guy” in this conflict and it would simply be impossible to come to that conclusion if Israel was acting in a manner similar to the Nazis.
“Cabby has clearly been better at putting substantive time and effort into refuting your claims”
No he hasn’t, he’s just been posting more meaningless quotes than you, he hasn’t at all refuted my claim that the living conditions are similar.
“For better or worse, the Israelis have convinced themselves that they had a good reason for not letting building materials in”
For worse. The answer is for worse. And building materials aren’t the only thing on the list that constitutes collective punishment, there are also known terrorist supplies such as clothes, snack cakes and toilet paper!
“But, no one’s starving.”
Unsubstantiated, and also not “yet.” Humanitarian experts have repeatedly expressed that concern.
“Tremendous amounts of humanitarian aid are being passed through.”
As I explained already, humanitarian experts say it’s not enough.
“You can cherry pick anomalous quotes all you want”
lol yes the commissioner-general of the UN refugee agency Karen Koning AbuZayd is an “anomalous source”, please don’t try to lecture me about the credibility of sources because neither you nor Cabby obviously have any idea what the fuck you are talking about
“but it doesn’t change the fact that only a very small percentage of the world population feels the way you do, and it’s because it’s not reasonable position to take.”
haha the dumbest shit, the U.S. once thought slavery was a pretty cool thing, does that mean pro-slavery was a reasonable postition?
“I say, and the vast majority of the world agrees with me, it’s because your definition of the confict is not accurate. “
First of all this is another retarded appeal to authority that the slavery analogy destroys.
Second, the vast majority of the world agrees with you because A) the vast majority of the world is just as inculcated into the Zionist version of the conflict as you are and B) because if they actually applied the definitions of genocide and atrocity properly and objectively they would find that they are as guilty as anyone else.
Addressing some of Cabby’s points that I missed earlier,
“It is also well known that Hamas profits from the blockade by taxing all goods that come through the tunnels for revenue to buy arms.”
This is at least incredibly disingenuous if not an outright lie! 80-85% of Hamas’ budget goes into social services for Gaza. I posted this earlier, you seem to have conveniently ignored it.
“It seems that Hamas has burdened Gazans as much as has Israel.”
haha yes Hamas has also crushed Palestinian infrastructure murdering 1300 Palestinian civilians in the process, and has enforced an illegal blockade that constitutes collective punishment, what the fuck is wrong with your brain
Also:
“Of 1.5 million Gazans, about 1,300 were killed in OCL, hardly a “genocide.”
OK Cabby, how many Palestinians is Israel allowed to intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide?
I understand that many UN organizations have declared the israeli blockade of Gaza illegal. I read the UNHRO resolution endorsing the Goldstone Report by a vote of 25 to six (with the rest abstaining or not voting). By the way, most of those 25 countries are pretty serious human rights violators themselves. Talk about hypocrisy!! But resolutions such as the one I refered to are merely advisory resolutions; they do not carry the force of law. Only a UN Security Council resolution or an ICC determination (such as the one that declared the separation wall to be a violation of international law) has the force of an official legal determination which is actionable by the UNSC under international law. Until that happens, Israel’s blockade is legal under international law and they have the right to stop and inspect ships bound for Gaza.
In any case, the point is about to become moot. Israel has just satisfied the UN’s Ban Ki Moon that their blockade has been sufficiently eased. Soon building materials will be allowed in as well. Now the “collective punishment” issue has been preempted.
It may interest you to know that Hamas chose to respond to Israel’s easing of the blockade of Gaza by calling on West Bank Palestinians to rocket Israel from their side of the Green Line. Not to smart but I’m glad they were stupid enough to publicly announce this so the world can see what scum they are. By the way, here is more evidence about IHH and their terrorist ties;
“The study also states that an examination of IHH’s telephone records in 1996 showed repeated calls in 1996 to an Al-Qaeda guest house in Milan and to Algerian terrorists operating in Europe (one of whom was notorious Al-Qaeda figure Abu Ma’ali [Abd al-Qadr Mukhtari], who operated in Bosnia). IHH’s name was also mentioned during the trial of Ahmed Ressam held in the United States in 2000 (Ressam was a senior Al-Qaeda operative active in Canada, who at the end of 1999 entered the United States in a car carrying 600 kilograms (1320 pounds) of explosives. He planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.) The United States federal prosecutors called Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate in charge of terrorism affairs, as an expert witness. He testified that IHH had played an important role in Al-Qaeda’s planned attack. According to Bruguière, IHH served as a cover for Al-Qaeda and acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and transferred weapons.”
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm
Israel must continue to inspect cargo bound for Gaza. The existential security threats require it.
“OK Cabby, how many Palestinians is Israel allowed to intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide?”
About 1,300 out of a total population of 1.5 million is not even 1/10th of one percent. If Israel’s intent was genocide don’t you think a higher share of the Gazan civilian population would have been killed? The death of less than 1/10th of one percent of any population has never been called a genocide. It isn’t a genocide by African standards. Those are real genocides.
Cabby,
“By the way, most of those 25 countries are pretty serious human rights violators themselves.”
What’s your point?
“Only a UN Security Council resolution or an ICC determination (such as the one that declared the separation wall to be a violation of international law) has the force of an official legal determination which is actionable by the UNSC under international law. Until that happens, Israel’s blockade is legal under international law and they have the right to stop and inspect ships bound for Gaza.”
Not only is this a meaningless legal semantic but it is flat out absurd. According to this argument, it is legal to rape someone until a judge tells you that you are breaking the law. Your defense of rape would sound something like, “Well it’s not the SEX that is illegal since I have the right to have sex, it’s the non-consent that is illegal. I’m afraid until a court makes a ruling, this rape is legal.” Then you would drool on yourself because you are a slack-jawed idiot.
“In any case, the point is about to become moot.”
The point is not moot; the IDF killed people and confiscated cargo under the pretenses of of an illegal (by your own admission) blockade. They at least engaged in murder if not piracy (the definition of which is “robbery or illegal violence at sea” regardless of what any lawyer says). They will have to answer for this.
“Not to smart but I’m glad they were stupid enough to publicly announce this so the world can see what scum they are. By the way, here is more evidence about IHH and their terrorist ties;”
Hamas is no more “scum” than Israel.
And your “evidence”...my god. Just my god. After that last thrashing I gave to your “sources” one would think that you would sharpen up your game, but no, the hits keep coming. First of all, that link you gave is an original report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). If you navigate to their home page, then click on the About Us at the top of the page, in the very first fucking sentence of the very first fucking paragraph you can plainly read that the ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IHCC). You can also read that the IHCC is located near Gelilot north of Tel Aviv. This is an Israeli source inside Israel. This is a biased source, you cannot reasonably cite them in support of your claims. Once again you show that you are either stunningly disingenuous or profoundly retarded about your sources.
But as if that were not enough, I actually went through and read the report. They made plenty of claims about the IHH’s connection to terrorist organization, citing two main sources; “reliable information” (probably some propaganda from Mossad) i.e. “bullshit”, and a study by Evan Kohlmann. Let’s read a bit about Mr. Kohlmann’s expertise, shall we?
“In one such case Kohlmann was put forward as an expert on the Bangladeshi Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami. Under cross examination it transpired that he had never written any papers on the party, nor been interviewed about the group. He had never been to Bangladesh, could not name the country’s Prime Minister nor the name of the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami. Neither could he name a single political party in the country. When he was asked if he had heard of the Bangladeshi National Party – which led the political coalition joined by Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh at that time – he said it sounded “vaguely familiar”.”
“In fact it has never been shown that Kohlmann has ever published anything that has been formally peer reviewed, and it is unlikely that he has because he has never conducted any post-graduate research.”
“This year Kohlmann went as far as putting together a ‘documentary’ he calls The Al Qaeda Plan. It was part of his assistance in the prosecution of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, better known as Bin Laden’s chauffeur.16 Hamdan is being tried before the Military Commission, a special court system created by the US government in blatant violation of basic human rights, as has been pointed out by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. In another case that came to court this year, three men were charged with planning to assist in fighting US troops in Iraq. Like several of the other cases Kohlmann has been involved in, USA v. Mohammed Zaki Amawi et al followed on from an FBI string operation. The prosecution created a multi-hour video montage for presentation to the jurors, which included suicide car bombings, sniper shootings of American soldiers, execution of civilians, and the desecration of bodies. In that case Kohlmann was finally barred from testifying on the basis that his proposed testimony was “not relevant to the issues in this case”. Although the prosecution did not allege that any of the three defendants had any connection to any terrorist group, they nevertheless wanted Kohlmann to provide “general information regarding international terrorism.” The Judge commented that the “limited probative value of his [Kohlmann’s] testimony is outweighed very substantially by its very considerable potential for unfair prejudice to the defendants”.
http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/74-terror-spin/4850-evan-kohlmann-the-doogie-howser-of-terrorism
So to sum this up, to support your claim that the IHH has ties to terrorism you nabbed excerpts from a report from an unofficial Israeli “intelligence” organization, whose main sources are “reliable information” and a study by a widely discredited Islamophobe who has never written anything that has been peer reviewed (including the study that the ITIC cites again and again), has been shown to not know what the fuck he is talking about when put forth as an “expert” witness, and who has been literally barred from testifying because of prejudicial concerns.
YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. JOKE. This whole time you have been nothing but an Israeli mouthpiece, and like them your arguments nor your evidence hold up to even the barest amount of scrutiny. I wouldn’t even give a shit if it wasn’t for the fact that intellectually disingenuous fuckholes like you are the reason the U.S. unconditionally supports Israel and is therefore party to their atrocities.
“About 1,300 out of a total population of 1.5 million is not even 1/10th of one percent. If Israel’s intent was genocide don’t you think a higher share of the Gazan civilian population would have been killed? The death of less than 1/10th of one percent of any population has never been called a genocide. It isn’t a genocide by African standards. Those are real genocides.”
Answer the fucking question; how many Palestinians can Israel intentionally kill before I can call it a genocide? Note that this is a rhetorical question; I know the answer, but I’m waiting for you to either embarrass yourself further by giving me a number, or figure out that you are fucking stupid and concede the argument.
Muriello,
Still trying to get the heart of this here. Can’t let you off the hook for continuing to pretend that there is any similarity between the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Nazis v. Jews
Nazis killed 6M Jews, approximately 67% of the total Jewish population in the countries under Nazi control, from 1933 through 1945.
Israel v. Palestine
Best estimate I can find - over the last 60 years somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and between 4,000 - 5,000 Israelis have been killed in the war / conflict (whatever, I’m beyond semantics) between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The latest data I could find on the Palestinian population was that there were 711,000 in 1949 and 4.6 million in 2009.
So in 60 years, the number of Palestinians has increased 650%. In 60 years the total number of Palestinians killed by the Israelis is approximately 0.2% of the current Palestinian population.
On the other side, in 60 years the number of Israelis has increase from 800,000 in 1948 to 7.4 million in 2008. The population has increased 925%. The total number of Israelis killed by Palestine in 60 years is approximately 0.07% of the current Israeli population.
Both very small, statistically insignificant numbers.
So I am answering the question - killing 0.2% of the population over a 60 year period in which the population of the alleged “victim” country grew 650% does not constitute genocide. Not sure what universe anyone lives in where anyone would disagree with this. Happy?
Also, since probably 5,000 Israelis are dead, I might as well ask the question “how many Israelis can the Palestinians kill before I can call it a genocide?” The question makes no sense that way either.
On that front alone, we’re done. But you want to push the point about quality of life. OK, let’s take a look. Note below that this is based on averages, not outliers. Don’t even bother quoting the anomalies:
Medical experiments on “victims” - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Deliberate policy of extermination - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Raping of women - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Starvation - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Organized execution (gas chambers, lethal injection, hangings, shootings) - Nazis yes, Israelis no.
Withholding of medicine - Nazis, total withholding of medicine (other than sick, twisted experiment), Israelis - some blockading/withholding of medicine at some times.
Total imprisonment - Nazis yes, Israelis no (and don’t give me that crap about the country being a concentration camp - absolutely not comparable)
Oh, and Muriello,
You really can almost track on a graph how your courtesy and civility has deteriorated through this thread.
F-bomb count - WAY UP
Other various perjoratives - UP
Ad hominem attacks - WAY UP
Let’s get those under control, hoss! Can we try to get all three into the “down” category? Heck, I’ll even take “flat”.
“Deliberate policy of extermination - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
prove it, there is evidence to the contrary despite your brainless appeals to its effectiveness
“Starvation - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
not for lack of trying, is Israel somehow less repugnant because they failed at starving the Palestinians?
“Organized execution (gas chambers, lethal injection, hangings, shootings) - Nazis yes, Israelis no.”
you need to show how this is worse than Israel intentionally killing Palestinians when the intent and outcomes are the same (hint you will not be able to do this, you’re going to keep committing the same ipse dixit fallacy forever and ever)
“Withholding of medicine - Nazis, total withholding of medicine (other than sick, twisted experiment), Israelis - some blockading/withholding of medicine at some times.”
so what you are saying here is that they are similar, hmm thanks for agreeing with me
“Total imprisonment - Nazis yes, Israelis no (and don’t give me that crap about the country being a concentration camp - absolutely not comparable)”
lol prove it, even UN officials call it the “largest open-air prison”
my point stands; they are similar, although as I have already said the Nazis were way worse. also you posted a bunch of statistics about death tolls so I’ll ask you the same thing as Cabby; how many Palestinians need to die in order to call it a genocide? one again, rhetorical question but let’s see how you do with it.
final note: my usage of pejoratives, cursing, and “ad hominems” (note that you do not seem to know what this means) is inversely proportional to the quality of the post I am replying to and proportional to how much effort I have to put in to replying to it; if your post is stupid, expresses repugnant morals, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest and I have to put a lot of time and effort into destroying it (like with Cabby’s last two posts) then I am going open the flood gates in an effort to shame you into either increasing the quality of your posts or abandoning the conversation.
actually I just thought of a great ad hominem:
You don’t really give a shit about whether or not I think there are similarities between the Nazi atrocities and the Israeli atrocities, you are just harping on this because you think you have my argument beat and you need to save some face after the verbal raping you took.
Even though this is probably true, it doesn’t address your argument, therefore it is an ad hominem. When you say things like:
“Your example of Palestinian women not being able to get to a hospital because of a checkpoint is ridiculous and typical of the “we want it both ways” folks like yourself.”
...and I respond with:
“haha yes how ridiculous to want a woman to be able to give birth to a live baby, you are a monster”
...it is not an ad hominem because it is case that it is monstrous to think that wanting to give birth to a live baby, even in the care of your oppressors whom you despise, is “ridiculous”. Hope this helps!
Haha I just noticed this:
“Also, since probably 5,000 Israelis are dead, I might as well ask the question “how many Israelis can the Palestinians kill before I can call it a genocide?” The question makes no sense that way either.”
It only doesn’t make sense because it ignores three important particulars of the conflict; the Palestinians are willing to make peace while Israel is not, they are much weaker, and the conflict has its origins in Zionist colonialism. Zionists have defined the conflict ethnically, it would be impossible for the Palestinians to defend themselves in a non-ethnic way.
Also haha I just realized although the Israeli atrocities are similar to the Nazi atrocities, they are much more like the European atrocities against the Native Americans, especially since it is once again white Europeans colonizing indigenous brown people, haha the more things change…
it’s funny because the more that Israel apologists force me to think about the issue the more comparisons to atrocities of the past I find
wait that’s not funny…
“According to this argument, it is legal to rape someone until a judge tells you that you are breaking the law.”
It is this statement that is absurd. And in fact, a criminal is not guilty of an alleged crime until convicted by a court of law. Only with the verdict is he found in criminal violation of the law, not when someone makes an accusation or renders an opinion that the action was criminal. Until the UNSC or the ICC determines that Israel is breaking the law, they have a right to continue the blockade, which by the way they’ve eased.
By the way, if you want to talk about collective punishment, let’s look at the sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003. It was said that over one million Iraqis lost their lives about half of them children. That’s a crime of collective punishment and genocidal to boot. Some US policy makers speculated out loud as to whether or not the sanctions would cause an uprising or some kind of regime change inside Iraq. This seems to be collective punishment for political purposes. The US had no security concerns in Iraq. The allegations of WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda were false. There was no reason for sanctions or war against Iraq. There was no threat.
Israel is dealing with an existential threat. So long as Israel doesn’t blockade normal goods and movement in and out of the Gaza Strip, they are within their rights to search ships bound for Gaza. They can’t be expected to relinquish their security over someone’s petty legal talking points.
Also, I found your discrediting of my anti-terror sources interesting. I’d like to ask where you got them. You also never addressed the issue of Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate, who is the most often quoted source for the claim that IHH has had terrorist ties in the recent past. I wonder what you think of his credibility.
You often make demands that someone prove a negative (“prove Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians isn’t like the Nazi treatment of Jews; prove conditions inside Gaza aren’t akin to those of the Warsaw Ghetto”). The burden of proof is on you since you made the original allegations.
The other absurdity is your implicit claim to have arrived at an exact figure for the number of Palestinians killed required to be considered a genocide. I find this claim both bizarre and disturbing.
“An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”
Seems to fit pretty well, Muriello.
Life in the concentration camps (this is the “similar” experience you are alleging):
The prisoners’ day began at 4:30 a.m. with “reveille” or roll call, with 30 minutes allowed for morning ablutions. After roll call, the prisoners would walk to their place of work, five abreast, wearing striped camp fatigues, no underwear, and wooden shoes without socks, most of the time ill-fitting, which caused great pain. Prisoners who had been promoted to foremen—were responsible for the prisoners’ behavior while they worked, as was an SS escort. The working day lasted 12 hours during the summer, and a little less in the winter. No rest periods were allowed. One prisoner would be assigned to the latrines to measure the time the workers took to empty their bladders and bowels.
After work, there was a mandatory evening roll call. If a prisoner was missing, the others had to remain standing in place until he was either found or the reason for his absence discovered, even if it took hours, regardless of the weather conditions. After roll call, there were individual and collective punishments, depending on what had happened during the day, and after these, the prisoners were allowed to retire to their blocks for the night to receive their bread rations and water. Curfew was two or three hours later, the prisoners sleeping in long rows of wooden bunks, lying in and on their clothes and shoes to prevent them from being stolen.
A common punishment for escape attempts was death by starvation; the families of successful escapees were sometimes arrested and interned in Auschwitz and prominently displayed to deter others. If someone did manage to escape, the SS would pick 10 random people from the prisoner’s block and starve them to death.
An allegation that there is any resemblance between the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians is patently false and greatly disrespects the memories of those killed by the Jews killed by the Nazis.
Really? Dispossessing a whole nation and herding them into enclaves smacks of Auschwitz. It is no wonder that an increasing number of international observers are convinced that the Zionist experiment in Palestine was designed to usurp the ancestral homes of Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
The collective dispossession of Palestinians since 1948 is perhaps the only aspect of Israeli agression that remains non-discriminatory - for every action of the Zionist occupation is manifested in an ultra-racist ideology that subscribes to primitive instincts. Israel’s existence is itself mired in controversy - particularly in the wake of its ethnic cleansing of native Palestinians.
The attempts to obfuscate patently criminal actions in indefensibly pseudo-legalistic jargon is exactly how Americans have been duped into the Zionist trap. Today, the bigoted in Israel refuse to even consider ceding any of the territory it illegally occupies - despite numerous UN resolutions - and, we hear talk of the legal! Having agreed to limit their aspirations to a pre-1967 border, Palestinians have been more than generous in allowing Israel to occupy 80% of historic Palestine, and allowing just 20% for themselves. Despite full support of UN resolutions, Israel prefers to occupy the whole of Palestine and condemns an entire nation to Nazi-style subjugation. Hitler would have applauded. You don’t need to be an academic to understand this… just human. It is the human in Chomsky that clearly produced this article.
Zia,
Provide evidence please. Israelis did not dispossess Palestine. The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews. Palestine still got to keep a significant portion of the land they had been occupying.
But please refute my argument, don’t change the subject. How does controlling a border “smack of Auschwitz?” Please provide specific examples of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and how that treatment specificlaly compares to the treatment of the Jews in Auschwitz.
Let’s get past this comparison so we can talk about resolution.
register a new account »Posting Security