There is a long history of anti-semitism in the British media. Israel has always been a sore point in the U.K.

'Israel has always been a sore point in the U.K.'

on one its talk shows I take it?

Meade's fanciful projectionism seems a bit of a trademark of his and is clearly illustrated in this piece of his extoling the brilliance of Clarence Thomas


New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom

What we didn’t know, and what the world at large didn’t know until very recently, was that the New Deal constitution was not as permanent or unalterable as it looked. Intellectually its foundations were shaky, and after two decades of a Clarence Thomas-led assault, the constitutional doctrines that permitted the rise of the powerful federal government could be close to collapse.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the collapse has already come. Back in my Pundit High days, anyone who dared to suggest that the Bill of Rights gave individuals the right to bear arms would have been laughed out of the class as an ignorant yahoo. These days, that is the accepted view of the US Supreme Court and most of the legal profession. The resurrection of the Second Amendment proves that the “dead letter” clauses of the Constitution can come back to life — and suggests that Clarence Thomas understands how this can be done.

The next topic for Constitutional revisionism is the expansive reading of the commerce clause that the New Deal judges used to justify the Roosevelt administration’s ambitious economic programs. The Obamacare health reform depends on that kind of reading of the commerce clause; the penumbras must stretch pretty far for the Constitution to give Congress the right to require all Americans to buy private health insurance. And if the commerce clause can be stretched this far, one must ask whether there is anything that the Constitution blocks Congress from doing.

If gun control and Obamacare were the only issues at stake in the constituional debate, liberals would find Thomas annoying but not dangerous. Losing on gun control and health care frustrate and annoy the center left, but those are only two items on a long list of liberal concerns.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/

really the whole thing is a 'must read' especially the beginning where he compares Clarence Thomas to Frodo Baggins

The person doing the interview started it with blatantly antisemitic rhetoric.

what the BBC announcer seemed to be doing was echoing Finkelstien but do be sure to keep the outrage alive, it provides such a nice distraction doesn't it?

After all, that's straight out Elder of Zion shit...

Second, what is the BBC doing entertaining such trash on one of its talk shows? Do they do that with bigots who hate other ethnic groups?

I believe that they do, that they acknowledge that they exist and that they have touted their influence on American politics for years. The problem is that they are actually a Zionist Lobby which has used the undoubted wrongs done to people of their faith (not race) to justify the nauseating war crimes committed by the state of Israel in recent years.

There is, of course, a similar "Oil Lobby" which allows the equally egregious crimes of oil producing states to be ignored.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Two examples out of many.

The Shatila and Sabra massacres, carried out by the Israeli controlled Phalangist militias with the consent and support of the IDF.

My, those insidious Jews have long fingers. Are you going to hold Israel responsible for everything that happens in the region? Did you ever write for a German magazine?

At that time the IDF was in occupation of that part of Lebanon. They surrounded and controlled all access to the 2 camps in question. They armed and funded the Christian Phalangist militia and additionally supplied military advice. They used that militia for other operations against the Palestinians and Lebanese.

Do not try to parse my contempt for Zionism into a hatred for people who identify as Jewish by applying a stereotypical image of your own to my post.

...and the Jewish State is responsible because they had troops in the vicinity. Can you hear yourself?

Xtian Phalangist militias in Lebanon date back to before World War II -- to say they are a creation of Israel is to ignore history to further your anti-Israeli agenda. What proof do you offer that Phalangist troops were under direct Israeli control? What was the chain of command? I know you see Zionist conspiracies around every corner, but reasonable people require proof of complicity not based on the ethnicity of the accused.

If you want to condemn someone, do it for what they do, not for what their neighbours do.

The Christian auxiliaries were armed and controlled by the Zionist regime in Israel.

The camps were in territory occupied and controlled by IDF forces.

The camps were surrounded by units of the IDF who outnumbered, and were better armed than, the Phalangist militia.

The IDF were aware that the massacres were happening and took no action to curtail the murder and made no attempt to detain those responsible.

The IDF attempted to cover up the massacres by bulldozing the camps and the bodies.

If a neighbour who, you have paid, armed and incited, kills the rightful owners of land you currently control, in your sight, in circumstances when you could have prevented it and then you try to conceal evidence of guilt - you are responsible.

The IDF controlled access to the camps Sabra and Shatila. Right after the assassination of the "Christian" president-elect of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel, the "Christian&quot actually neofascist-Falangism was an ideology shared by right-wing types both in Lebanon AND Franco's Spain)militias showed up at Sabra and Shatila, asking permission to "question" those inside. The IDF had to have known that there was a good chance that the Falangists were there to get vengeance for Gemayel's murder, and that there was no pressing reason to have the Falangists themselves, rather than the IDF, question people.
Therefore, because the IDF clearly had to have known that it they were endangering the Palesitinian refugees, most of whom were not themselves combatants, by allowing the heavily-armed Falangists to enter, Israeli authorities bear a heavy responsibility for the killings.

And that's Israeli authorities...not "Jews". This had nothing to do with Israeli being Jewish. It had to do with how an occupying power treats the innocent refugees inside a refugee camp that occupying power controls.

Please stop equating Israel with "the Jews" or with all things Jewish. That's a demagogic trick, and really, it's a lie. Jewish life and history is much much more than Israel.

Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (2)

....hasn't been the focus of a serious inquiry well over a decade since it was carried out? Same WRT the Rwanda genocide that happened right under the noses of UN peacekeepers. And here's an awful lot more about UN peacekeepers that is constantly whitewashed and covered up...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4223342,00.html

Those crimes make Sabra/Shatilla pale in comparison, but whereas Sharon was held accountable and punished, and the IDF's role was publicized by Israel, the same is not true WRT the Dutch and the UN.

And you say it's not about Jews? Who are you kidding? Seriously.



If it's about sympathy for Palestinians killed @ Sabra/Shatilla, then where is that sympathy now when Palestinians are still suffering in Lebanon under apartheid conditions? Going on for decades now. Not a peep. No sympathy at all. Most of the "pro-Palestinian" anti-I contingent doesn't even know anything about that. NGO's don't give a shit and neither does the UN. Not surprising that the anti-I crowd is unmoved by apartheid vs. Palestinians, but super NGO's like HRW, Amnesty, and the UNHRC are supposed to give a shit. That's their job.

There's not a peep b/c Jews aren't involved, so no one cares. Just as no one cares about Srebrenica or Rwanda, or UN peacekeepers. No emergency sessions at the UN. No Goldstone investigation. NGO's like HRW and Amnesty haven't touched UN peacekeeping crimes. Let's not pretend that it's not about the Jews.

The Dutch were heavily outnumbered, the Israelis were not.

The Dutch did not surround or control access to Srebenica, the Israelis did surround control access to Sabra/Shatilla.

The Dutch did not arm the Serbs, the Israelis did arm the Phalangists.

The Dutch were not patrons of the Serbs and did not use them as auxiliary forces, the Israelis were patrons of the militias and did use them as auxiliary forces.

The Dutch did not have advance notice of the massacre, the Israelis did.

The Dutch did not attempt to bulldoze the evidence out of existence, the Israelis did.

Similar comparisons between the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and the Israelis

This is about a nuclear armed rogue state, Israel, and its defining political philosophy, Zionism. This is not about people classed as "Jews" because some people of that faith oppose the casual cruelties and denial of liberties used by the State of Israel to control and degrade the Palestinians. These Jewish dissidents are derided, classed as "self-hating" and described as traitors or paid agents on little or no evidence.

Basically you and others like you are engaged ad hominem attacks, and the attempted amendment of history to suit a narrative of a state seeking to justify its cruelties

...for a genocide.

See #47 below for articles disputing the nonsense you wrote.

Your knowledge about Israel's role in Sabra/Shatilla is just as poor.

However an attempt to "score" massacres like a child shouting "you stink worse than me" is an attempt to distract from the subject under discussion. See my reply number 50

And the UN peacekeepers weren't to blame for the other war crimes(as they weren't to blame for Sbrenica)those who carried them out were to blame, as well as the pointlessly restrictive rules of engagement the UN peacekeepers were required to work within.

Had those peacekeepers been allowed to fight like a normal army, they WOULD have stopped Sbrenica and those other events. It was never that the peacekeepers themselves didn't want to.

...due to a genocide of > 8000 people that happened under their watch.

The genocide we all predicted
http://dobbs.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/14/a_genocide_predicted_in_advance

Here's Kofi Annan in a speech about the UN's culpability...
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm9993.doc.htm

An article in which Srebrenica victims won a lawsuit against the Dutch who were responsible for their safety...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0707/Srebrenica-massacre-victims-win-lawsuit-against-the-Dutch

Ken, you couldn't be more wrong about Dutch peacekeepers not being responsible. They were there specifically for protection purposes. They were supposed to act and they did not.

Unlike the Dutch at Sbrenica, the IDF HAD the power to prevent the killings at Sabra and Shatila. The way the UN peacekeeping troops are restricted by their rules of engagement, they actually can't do much of anything anywhere they're deployed. It's as if they were intended to be useless.

And the Dutch, as peacekeepers, were neutral at Sbrenica. In the case of Sabra and Shatila, the Israelis and the fascist Falangists were allies. The IDF COULD have prevented Sabra and Shatila simply by barring the entrance of the fascist Falangists militias into the camps(the militias had no reason to go into those camps-any information they needed could have been gathered for them by the Israelis).

If the UN peacekeepers were allowed to use the same rules of engagement that the other armies in the field could use, they could actually have SUCCEEDED in keeping the peace. They haven't been allowed to because none of the UN's member countries actually wanted the UN to really have the power to stop wars.

Obviously, they would have stopped Mladic if they'd been allowed to by their own rules.

Seems you're blaming the UN now for not doing anything to stop the Srebrenica genocide. Well, that is what Kofi Annan stated so there you go.

However, the court case cited for you in the post you replied to goes to show the Dutch were guilty of not doing what they should have done. Do you disagree with the judgment? After all, that could open up many more future lawsuits against the Dutch government. Seems the Judge doesn't agree with your apologetics WRT Dutch culpability for the genocide of over >8000.

That is the first foolishness you have attempted. The second, disgusting, stupidity is that you are using other massacres to downplay the horror of the ones under discussion, perhaps because you cannot admit the state you support might have done something wrong. All states do evil things but these actions are never mitigated by the wrongs committed by other states. There is no scorecard being kept, "Oh that massacre only scores a 7.2 but look! this one scores 7.391,"

The Dutch nation has admitted culpability although there was an initial attempt by the Dutch forces to deny. The genocide was predicted but the particular incident was not advertised in advance - as the massacre at Chabra/Shatilla was

And so back to the points which none of you apologists have answered -

The UN is guilty of crimes that are magnitudes worse than Sabra/Shatilla, but this is the best part. I'm 100%$ certain you find all UNHRC rulings vs. Israel reasonable. Same WRT politically compromised NGO's like HRW and Amnesty that have never once raised a voice about UN peacekeeping crimes against humanity....
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4223342,00.html

Not a peep.

You wonder why? Well, I'm pretty certain you don't wonder at all. You probably know nothing about those crimes and don't care either. You probably consider all that disgusting zionist propaganda.

But here's one huge difference between the way Israel handled S/S and the way the UN and Dutch have handled Srebrenica. The Israeli populace demanded a real investigation and for those in the IDF guilty to be held accountable. The UN and Dutch, not so much. In fact, not at all. The moral of the story being that all nations are guilty of all kinds of crap, but very few are interested in genuinely trying to make things right. One of those few countries is Israel. I'm sure that eats you up...

As you post on DU I don't think you are a right wing conspiracy theorist but what you are saying is taken straight from the fantasy worlds of such groups:

You need to look at your own posts -- you stated that Israel commits "nauseating war crimes"

When pressed for an example -- your only example was a massacre by Lebanese factional militas where Israeli troops took no part. Your reasoning was, "Israel controlled the region"

So, the rebuttal was there have been similar situations where local militias commit atrocities and UN or other peacekeeping troops did not intervene. So the reverse question is valid... if Israel is culpable for events in which they didn't participate but were committed close by to them then why isn't the same for countries in similar circumstances.

No one, except you, is suggesting that if other countries do something then Israel can. What is being suggested is, if you're going to hold Israel to a standard of culpability, you have to hold ALL countries to the same standard or be accused of assigning guilt based on ethnicity.

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

What are you afraid of?

As to your list, the bottom line is that Israel took responsibility, and did the investigations as their people demanded. The UN and Dutch haven't been held accountable for anything as they continue to sweep all their crimes under the rug. Meanwhile, mega NGO's like HRW and Amnesty are co-collaborators who will never attempt to hold the UN accountable for its crimes.

You respect the UN and those mega NGO's far more than Israel. Despite being corrupt, vile, and unaccountable.

Speaks volumes.

===========

Now for your list...

The Dutch did not attempt to bulldoze the evidence out of existence, the Israelis did.

What are you talking about? The Dutch have evaded responsibility for their actions ever since. Evidence doesn't matter. The Israeli govt publicized their findings. They handled this quickly. 15 years later and the Dutch aren't coming clean. But for some reason, Israel is held to a different standard. Israel publicized their findings and dealt with the situation. The IDF learned from that experience. The same cannot be said of the Dutch. Why are you pretending what Israel's culpability is worse than what the UN and Dutch are responsible for? You don't seem bothered in the least about Dutch and UN culpability. The reason I point this out isn't to deflect criticism, but rather point out that human rights, justice, etc.. aren't at all a priority for you, unless Israel can be blamed. That's the kind of rightwing humanitarianism that Israel's hypocritical neighbors practice. What makes you different from them?

The Dutch were ordered by their government to abandon their posts, the IDF was not

Ordered by their government. Hmmm. Was the IDF ordered by its government WRT the killings @ Sabra/Shatilla? No, that was the responsibility of Sharon. Which is worse? You tell me. See, you're trying to condemn the govt of Israel, as though they are responsible for all the calls @ Sabra/Shatilla. As if they ordered it, not Sharon. Why? Meanwhile the Dutch govt is without question guilty and they're still evading responsibility for it. What they did is far worse, but that means nothing to you. Would you accuse the Dutch of the Srebrenica massacre if one of their leading generals was really to blame? I doubt it. But WRT Israel, you can't help yourself. Classy.

I would argue that permitting war crimes to be committed by persons not within your control is a vile, reprehensible and probably cowardly act. I would deny that that action is, of itself, a war crime for it would stretch the definition too far. That said it is a breech of common decency, morality and international law. The important phrase here is "persons not within your control" or are you claiming the Dutch or the UN controlled the Serbs? Are you claiming that the UN ordered the murders in Rwanda or that they provided the money, training and weaponry used by those killers?

By contrast if you have control over the forces committing the war crime you are also guilty of that crime, you are also guilty if you destroy evidence relating to that crime

Given that simple difference consider:
1) the Phalangist militias were part of the Israeli controlled forces, in the Table of Organisation for the invasion;
2) The Phalangists were funded, trained and armed by Israel;
3) The Phalangis commanders advised the Israeli forces of what they would do and (although no documentary proof now exists) it is likely told their political paymasters in Tel Aviv;
4) The IDF did bulldoze the site of the massacres so no further evidence could be gathered.

Now to that enquiry you wave in our faces like a soiled flag:
1) Yes the Israelis did open an enquiry but only after the huge international outcry following the discovery of the cleared sites and the mass graves.
2) Israel had to be forced to begin the enquiry under threat of a reduction in aid.
3) The culpability of the IDF and Israeli politicians was denied by that enquiry though a few "rogue troopers" did receive a little blame.

Now onto your (probably deliberate) conflation with actual, physical bulldozing and destruction of records with "evasion of responsibility". I think even you might recognise there are orders of magnitude of difference between Dutch evasion and covering a mass grave with the rubble of a camp which you controlled.

The Dutch have not held an enquiry, I did not say that they had. They should have done but they probably (wrongly) regard the case tried in open court to their great embarrassment as sufficient. I have observed; for you to ignore yet again; that the Dutch did not control the Srebinica area and were outnumbered by the Serb forces (it could also be said that the Dutch were surrounded). This does not excuse the cowardice of the Dutch commander but does show that that fear was what drove his abrogation of responsibility. The same cannot be said for the IDF looking on whilst civilians died or are you saying that the IDF is filled with cowards afraid to defend humanity whatever their race or faith - I would never be so insulting but you seem willing to accept the idea.

You ask "Was the IDF was ordered by it's government WRT the killings @ Sabra/Shatilla?" This sentence makes no sense but from context I assume you are trying to say that "Was the IDF ordered by it's government to permit the killings at those refugee camps?" to which the answer is "probably, yes". Given the advance notice provided by the Phalangists to the IDF it is likely that the IDF did relay that information to their political masters. Additionally the massacres were very convenient for the IDF for once the deed was done the camps could be erased and the troops they would think of as wasted guarding those camps could be re-assigned to combat duty.

If the IDF was so out of control as to conceal this information then that still leaves the commanders guilty of war crimes. The political masters of the IDF would be guilty of incompetence, willful ignorance and also war crimes because forces they had paid for, equipped trained and colluded with in all other areas did commit those crimes.

Finally you jump the shark off into realms of fantasy so wild I can only treat it with contempt modified by laughter. Making the foolish claim that I would not blame the Dutch if they were the ones that had organised the massacre in Bosnia and then you try to paint me as an anti-semite who has come to visit from the fantasy world you have just constructed.

I have no wish to attempt to translate any more of your twaddle. Please go and learn critical thinking.

1. The investigating Israeli committee (Kahan Commission) did not come to the conclusions you have come to. Not even close. That committee was led by Israel's Head of the Supreme Court and also had Aharon Barak on it. It doesn't get much more credible than that if you know anything about Israel's very liberal/progressive Supreme Court (especially Barak). I doubt you know of its reputation as you probably feel that even the most liberal/progressive Zionists can't be trusted and probably try to whitewash Zio-crimes...

2. That investigation wasn't due to International Community outrage, but rather a demonstration by 10% of the Israeli populace (around 300,000 protesters at the time) demanding an investigation and accountability. That doesn't happen WRT the UN or Dutch, but it does in Israel and that counts for something whether you like it or not.

3. A "probably yes" answer to the question of whether the Israeli govt made all the calls WRT Sabra/Shatilla means you're just throwing feces against the wall hoping something sticks. Again, the Kahan commission didn't come to that conclusion at all.

4. What do you think of all the crimes committed by UN peacekeepers that HRW and Amnesty, for example, have refused to report on? Here's an article again, and of course you know that if you don't trust the content of that article you could easily google the events and other very credible sources making the same claims.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4223342,00.html

There's some pretty serious shit there. It appears you couldn't care less. Of course we know the reason why. For you to admit the UN and mega NGOs like Amnesty and HRW are clearly in the wrong and covering for horrendous crimes is to admit that your main sources of criticism WRT Israel are not credible and are really frauds. The same organizations that WRT Palestinian rights are silent about Palestinian apartheid conditions in Lebanon for the past 6 decades. And also silent about the most rancid, psychotic jew hating incitement since 70 years ago...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11343829#post90

I'm even willing to bet you support the posers in the ISM, Free Gaza, BDS, GM2J, and PSC too, who are BFF with Hamas. Here they are partying it up with their very rightwing fascist friends...



Feel free to prove me wrong. Give it your best shot.

Otherwise, you should consider pretendending elsewhere that you're outraged about human rights violations against Palestinians. Somewhere where you won't be challenged. It's not about human rights, justice, and support of liberal values for you. We both know that. Enough of the pretense.

I apologise to the Commission, I should have researched further. It seems that the significant lack of punishment of the Israelis held responsible was the fault of the Begin government

How it was set up. After that massive demonstration but that was stimulated by the reports of outside news media luckily repeated within Israel. Note; Begin declared reports of IDF involvement to be a "blood libel"

Now let's look at the findings:

...it fits the narrative you used...

and show how it fits my narrative and you deny it. To this end you quote an commentary upon other, valid reports even more critical of Israel than the toothless Kahan Commission. The reports so denigrated would include the MacBride report and the Noam Chomsky/Robert Fisk investigation

I point out that the Kahan commission found Sharon, IDF commanders and Mossad culpable and you deny it.

I show that the Begin Government refused to punish those responsible and you deny it.

I tell how Likud and Kadima still allowed the criminal Sharon to become Prime Minister and you ignore it.

I take the time to show the Ynet report as the nonsense that it is and you ignore it.

You persist in drawing a false equivalence between the actions of an outnumbered, cowardly force who did not support or finance or arm the instigators and perpetrators of a vile crime and a force that outnumbered, armed, financed, controlled and assisted the perpetrators of a crime planned by both the IDF and the Phalangists as a response to an assassination the Palestinians did not commit.

You persist in the petulant and morally bankrupt claim that because there were have been bloodier crimes than the massacres a Sabra and Shatilla, Israel is somehow shielded from responsibility or blame. This is a convoluted apologia worthy of the most backward Christian fundamentalist preacher defending the crimes of his or her god and equally devoid of any ethical standards.

You live in a fantasy world inhabited only by the "good guys" (Israel and its uncritical supporters) and the "bad guys" (which includes those who dare to voice even minor doubts your heroes). Sorry, the world is not black and white and crimes remain crimes even though there are worse ones.

Only the very first paragraph in that excerpt was commentary. All the rest was straight Kahan. In fact, it's the Kahan Commission that would say your accusations are completely groundless and constitute a groundless libel....

Google the Commission's report and you'll find all this....

The quote you used back at post 85 begins:

I quoted from the conclusions -are you accusing me of lying?

Do you deny that the Chomsky/Fisk investigation was published after Kahan and, as such, could not be refuted by Kahan?

Do you accuse Noam Chomsky of lying or of attaching his name to a baseless report?

Are you accusing Chomsky of being a "Self Hating Jew" as I have seen done elsewhere?

Do you accuse MacBride of lying or of constructing his report from falsehoods?

Do you deny that MacBride was nearly contemporaneous with Kahan?

Do you deny that MacBride was published after Kahan and therefore could not be refuted by Kahan?

Do you deny that MacBride took evidence from many more sources than Kahan and, as such, Kahan could not refute that evidence?

Do you deny that Kahan censured Sharon?

Do you deny that Kahan censured the command of the IDF?

Do you deny that Kahan censured Mossad?

Do you deny that IDF troops were filmed turning refugees back into the camps?

Do you deny that flares were fired by the IDF over the camps at on the nights of the massacres?

Do you deny that the Phalangists were elements of the Israeli forces occupying Lebanon and as such included in the Table of Command?

Do you deny that Israel equipped those Phalangists?

Do you deny Israel financed those Phalangists?

You say post 88 contains words in from the Kahan report, I do not dispute that. Will you now say I do dispute it?

I did not dispute that some of what you quoted in post 85 was from the original report do you say that I did?

I did observe that the words you quoted in 85 came from a commentary (providing evidence) and I will now add that the words chosen have been carefully cherry picked, is this false?

My accusation that you have attempted to excuse these massacres by citing other crimes and massacres still stands, are you prepared to answer now?

You will answer none of my questions because you are not interested in a conversation, only in denial and obfuscation of the clear responsibility of the State of Israel for these criminal acts

Included in the Kahan Commission Report was this...

Incidentally the Phallangist withdrew from their positions with the knowledge of the IDF, They met at Beirut Airport with the knowledge of the IDF, The were given Jeeps by the IDF, they were advised how to enter the camps by the IDF ...

Carry on ...

According to Kahan, the Israelis did not have advance notice.

Do you disagree with Kahan? Is Kahan wrong about the Israelis not having prior knowledge?

Am I wrong about the Dutch having advanced notice by separating the men/boys from the women before they left the Bosnians to their fate?

=========

To answer you, of course the IDF knew they were letting the Phalange in. That's different than the IDF knowing they were about to carry out a massacre.

Now carry on, there's more you want to ignore.

Don't run away now. Let's finish.

Tell me, do you know the reason the Israelis sent the Phalange into the refugee camp?

and I gave a reason in my earlier posts, but probably not the safe one, the post event rationalisation.

Now go back, do some reading then answer the questions I posed. Yes or no answers would be good enough for most.

...since the Kahan Commission said the IDF didn't have advance notice that a massacre would occur.

Seems that you know you screwed up, but can't admit it.

Yes or No, do you agree with Kahan that the IDF didn't have advanced notice of a massacre?

Kahan said the IDF did not have advance notice of the massacres BUT Kahan is irrelevant to my opinion on this as other, trustworthy, reports directly contradict Kahan and established facts give the lie to that Commission's conclusion which is drawn from limited evidence and constrained by it's remit.

When I screw up I do admit it - see previous post.

So that's a "NO" I do not agree with Kahan in respect of the the prior knowledge matter.

Now here is a list of my questions again. You should have had plenty of time to consult with your sources by now. There is nothing in these that depends upon further discussion - unless you are several people, which I do not think

Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 02:02 PM - Edit history (2)

I think the reason we've been talking past each other is because we were basing our knowledge of S/S on different reports.

Seems we'll agree to disagree, but to answer you I'd say Kahan is more credible than the other sources. Besides the fact that the sources you use lack credibility WRT reports on Israel (Fisk, Chomsky, and Richard Falk), those sources - unlike Kahan - were not able to interview both sides. Their data is incomplete no matter how good you think it looks.

The IDF refused to cooperate with your sources. Most likely because they knew way back then it would be a farce (as Goldstone turned out to be). The same one-eyed obsessive haters of Israel then weren't that much different than the ones now, who most Israelis ignore. Just as you probably ignore the most one-eyed obsessive haters of Muslims.

As to the toothless Kahan recommendations, you're right. They called for more serious action against Sharon, for example, and were basically ignored.

WRT Israelis' role with the Phalange - you need to realize why the Israelis sent the Phalange inside the camp. They weren't the Israelis' first choice. The Lebanese Army refused to go in and root out the Palestinian terrorists in the camp. The Phalange agreed. The point being that it was in the interests of the Lebanese Army and the Phalange to deal with the terrorists. The Israelis felt that the Phalange and Lebanese Army weren't doing their part WRT controlling the terrorists and believed it was time those groups risk their troops for once.

As to ethics and morals, I've answered you several times already. I'm not excusing Israel for anything. I still agree with Kahan; in that they were not directly involved and had no prior knowledge a massacre would occur. I bring up Srebrenica to ask why anti-I critics are so obsessed with S/S and pretty much unaware of, or apathetic about the Dutch/UN role in the Srebrenica massacre. What the Dutch did is far, far worse. When taken in isolation w/o context, you could rip Israel all day and make it appear they're a rogue state. In reality, when taking context into consideration this obsession to delegitimize Israel - while at the same time minimizing the Dutch role which was far worse - you expose your political bias. IOW, this isn't about human rights but politics. We both know that the most extreme criticism/delegitimization of Israel has nothing to do with human rights.

What's funny is you bring up ethics and morals. What kind of ethics and morals are you demonstrating when you feel the need to excuse, minimize and explain away Dutch culpability in a genocide that makes Israeli culpability in S/S pale in comparison? It's so hypocritical.

I believe you are ashamed of your position

...and that they never had the courage to respond to later reports because ____________ ?

Again, I have no reason to doubt a commission with Aharon Barak on it. If you knew anything about him, he's arguably the most progressive leftwing liberal in the history of Israel's Supreme Court (which has always been progressive/liberal). If he had seen that his findings were incomplete or wrong, I'm 100% certain he would have held the IDF command accountable. He was not known to hold back any criticism vs. Israel for its policies and actions.

I believe you are ashamed of your position

How so?

you are ashamed to reply. You cannot answer those questions honestly without exposing yourself as a dupe of a repressive government that ignores international law.

I have no reason to believe they're wrong. That Commission is as credible as it gets.

Apparently, you trust Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, and Richard Falk over the Kahan Commission. I don't trust any of their work on Israel.

If you'd like, feel free to raise one of their arguments that challenge the Kahan findings. Maybe we can go from there.

As to International law, what does it matter if you think Israel is repressive & ignores International law when you could care less that the Dutch were far worse? That point isn't even debatable. But we both know why you won't admit it. It's the reason I brought it up in the first place. Hypocrisy.

Can't say I'm too impressed with rightwing humanitarianism. Those who cry loudest about Sabra/Shatilla are silent WRT Srebrenica (an actual genocide that the Dutch were directly involved in). Worse, rightwing humanitarians are silent WRT the main perpetrator of Sabra/Shatilla (Elie Hobeika). They bayed for Sharon's blood, not his. Now that kind of humanitarianism I expect from Syria, Hamas, and Iran. Not from self-styled "progressives".

Lastly, I'm not ashamed of Israel. I'm proud of them and I'll debate their progressive/liberal record vs. any other nation on the planet any day.

The bulk of the questions had nothing to do with the Kahan Commission.

Again you are attempting to justify the Sabra/Shatilla massacres by saying that there have been worse massacres

Sorry, morality does not work that way and you are a moral imbecile if you think it does.

Now answer the questions in post 100

But just for fun, if you think Israel sucks, I'll debate you on that and argue Israel's record vs. any other nation on the planet.

I was brought up Jewish , Camp, Jewish school,Synagogue,, Birthright etc and I disagree.

Can you tell me a part of Jewish history not involving Israel ?

The philosophical acheivements of Spinoza, Maimonides, Bar-Hillel, Hannah Arandt, Isaiah Berlin, Walter Benjamin(and many more)
The scientific and mathematical genius of Einstein, Niels Bohr, Richard Feynman, Hans Bethe, Stephen Jay Gould (to name but a few)
The insights into the human mind provided by Freud, Viktor Frankl, Wilhelm Reich, and a long list of others that continues to grow)
2000 years of literary, artistic, and musical achievement that includes authors and artists far too numerous to name.

A history of political engagement and resistance that continues to inspire the world-in American terms alone, I could cite a well-known list of names from Emma Goldman through Sidney Hillman through Abraham Joshua Heschel, Schwerner and Goodman(who died along with Chaney under that earthen dam in Mississippi) through Phil Ochs, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin through Noam Chomsky and hundreds of thousands of passionate young activists for justice and a better world that work all across the U.S. today(leaving out thousands, I'm sure).

I could post a list of names and deeds that would make your eyes glaze over.

Almost none of which involved Israel(which is not to slight the great achievements of Israelis themselves in many fields, achievements I admire as much as you do)

To say that nothing that involved Israel matters is to say that two milennia of Jewish life, culture, and history were as nothing, were of no value, is to insult generation after generations. It is to indulge in the worst tactic that the Zionist movement ever used:

"Negation Of The Exile".

There's no possible reason to negate 2,000 years of brilliance. To do that is to negate yourself, since you weren't born in Israel(I assume that you're Australian by birth, judging by the flag in your posts).

It doesn't even help Israel itself to negate the exile...because modern Israel, itself, is a child of that exile...for bad and for good.

Even the Anti Zionist fanatical Jews, The Naturei Karta spend MOST of their time involved in Israel activities.

Weird

But people often read history in a way that affirms their previous conclusions. However, the opening summary clearly states:

104. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the events at the refugee camps in Beirut, 8 February 1983.

The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed. Mr. Shamir erred by not taking action after being alerted by communications Minister Zippori. Chief of Staff Eitan did not give the appropriate orders to prevent the massacre. The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister resign, that the Director of Military Intelligence not continue in his post and other senior officers be removed. Full text follows:

I don't understand it.

Jewish Lobby?

I like it when people here are honest about their agenda and it serves as a vivid reminder of precisely why Israel needs to exist and be strong.

but that would not have referred to the original post.

This Zionist Lobby includes AIPAC and AJC, both known for their uncritical support of the extremist regime currently in control of the Israeli State as well as Hadassah the openly Zionist womens organisation. Unfortunately ADL and B'nai B'rith have also become associated with this group, which is a shame given the good work they perform.

It is this lobby and its associates that labels Jews critical of the Israeli regime and Zionism as "Self haters"

Those who hate Israel hate it regardless of whether Likud, Kadima, or Labour/Meretz is in control. It wouldn't matter whether Labour/Meretz replaced Netanyahu tomorrow. The delegitimization campaign would continue.

...during the late 1990's when Labour/Meretz controlled the Knesset....right? They certainly weren't fighting against the Israeli government's Camp David / Taba attempts to create a Palestinian state.

So tell me, which senators and congress critters were intimidated into silence by the "Lobby" back then? And if so, for what possible reasons?

--------

Also, it stands to reason that since most Jews are liberal (overwhelmingly supporting Obama and other liberal policies both here and in Israel) that they too must be intimidated into silence by this "Lobby". Where are their voices? And I don't mean the J-Street types, as they account for a very small fraction of Jewish liberals in America and Israel (they're basically ignored as silly ideologues).

The Camp David accords seem to have been very rapidly ignored, and indeed broken, by successive rulers of Israel - with the full and vocal support of the Israeli lobby in the US.

of Palestinians, funny how you equate that to all of Israel sort of speaks for itself

If you cared about treatment of Palestinians, you'd delegitimize Hamas and the Lebanese government at least as much as you do Israel. So I'm not buying that crap.

As to occupation, you demonize and attempt to discredit the IDF all the time. We just had a conversation about the IDF's role in the flotilla (Marmara) where you couldn't help but accuse Israelis of rappelling down ropes with one hand while shooting down at the deck of "peace activists" with the other.

What has that got to do with occupation of the WB?

Sure seems like demonization and delegitimization to me.

as to Lebanon as I have said a Palestinian state would go a long way towards solving that wouldn't it? and Hamas that I do not spend every post post condemning them means I support them?

and I notice every-time you find yourself in a corner so to speak you cough up the Mamara why is it that can't seem to stick to the subject at hand?

...that are anti-zionist and committed to one state, full RoR, etc.? Like the ISM and Free Gaza? After all, they were on the Marmara in cahoots with murderous, bigoted Islamist friends of Hamas (you wondered why I bring up the Marmara).

I expect someone who doesn't delegitimize Israel and is for 2 states, as you claim to be, to side more with Liberal Zionists dedicated to 2 states rather than anti-zionists committed to smearing Israel in order to make it a pariah state, which would therefore justify terror as well as Israel's demise.

----------

ETA:

A Palestinian state would go a long way to ending Lebanese apartheid vs. Palestinians? Well whose fault is that? A state has been offered multiple times since 1937 and been rejected each and every time by the Palestinians. But way to go trying to place the blame for Lebanese apartheid onto Israel's supposed reluctance to offer the Palestinians a state. Maybe the PA should drop their absurd demands for RoR. They are just as responsible for the plight of Lebanese Palestinians and are just prolonging their misery by demanding the impossible (which of course you have no problem with).

Yeah, you care about Palestinians.

but I do find your 1937 claims interesting the Peel commission eh, can we take it that you believe Jordan id Palestine, is that your 2 state solution? Not that I'm surprised mind you as you claim to be simultaneously for a 2 state solution while linking us twice to a comment of yours claiming that Palestinians are genocidal towards Jews and in the past you've used Balfour to claim that Greater Israel including the West Bank is Israel thanks for your honesty on that

now as to your own accusations towards me well they are quite false as I support 2 states with the Palestinian one being comprised of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its shared capital I'm sure the Palestinians will allow the very same freedom of access that they are presently allowed to East Jerusalem

...are dedicated to delegitimizing Israel and replacing it with one Palestinian majority state? I don't see how any 2 stater can support them.

It's not a false accusation, now is it?

I've reiterated many times here I'm for something along the lines of Geneva. Both the Clinton Parameters and Olmert's offer are close to that. When the Palestinians and rest of the mideast are ready. As of now they're obviously not. At the very least, they should prove beyond any reasonable doubt they're serious about genuine peace, don't you think?

It's not just Balfour, but yes, I do believe Jews have as valid a claim to Judea/Samaria as the Palestinians. That said, for Israel to give up all claims to that land in exchange for 2 states is remarkable.

Finally, if you "support 2 states with the Palestinian one being comprised of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its shared capital", then why aren't you onboard with the Clinton Parameters, or disappointed with the Palestinian response to that? After all, what you say you support is basically the Clinton deal or Olmert's offer. It seems up until tonight you had major issues with those offers. Are you changing your mind?

and made the Palestinians responsible for what other Arab nations did

...in order for you to accept the 2 state deal you just said you support?

FTR, the Israeli military presence would be for 36 months, or less depending on diminishing regional threats to Israel.

and as to the military occupation it's that last part that allows Israel indefinite occupation as it sees fit

... are you against the two-state solution?!

that is really not a solution at all

... by definition guarantees no Israeli military within the borders of a Palestinian State.

So, why would you be against it?

... that 100% of the West Bank belongs to a Palestinian State?

Every border on the planet is a result of negotiation or force. Since they Palestinians can't take their border by force, they had better learn to negotiate better than they have in the past.

But, maybe a state isn't their ultimate goal?

but thanks for assuring us that because Israel has superior military it can give the Palestinians whatever it pleases at the moment "might makes right" thanks for that

.. but lack of might makes armed resistance a senseless waste of human life. I for one and not interested in seeing any more Palestinian martyrs. I want to see peace.

There would be a Palestinian state today if the Pal Leadership had followed the path of Gandhi and not the path of Yassir Arafat.

Like the Lehi group or the Bielski partisans.

Right ... keep taking the blue pill

... those particular groups came out victorious. In the case of the Bielskis and also the Warsaw Ghetto combatants (who were not ultimately victorious) -- they were literally fighting for their very lives. If they surrendered, they would have been killed -- a great inducement to fight on regardless of odds.

Is it your opinion that the armed resistance of the Palestinian factions would be systematically put to death if they stopped fighting the Israelis? I'm curious to hear what you might think would happen to Palestinians if they accepted the principles of passive, non-violent resistance?

As for Stern Gang, very few people -- and none here to my knowledge -- would suggest that the Stern Gang had a workable plan for achieving a settlement with either the British or the Arab States. That is why Sternist organizations were dismantled.

Or were they fighting for their lives from their homes. Did they commit mass murder of civilians or cause such mass murders to be committed? I think not, though you can correct me if you wish. They may well have killed without due process people thought to be traitors - rather like the Maquis but circumstances do not excuse such acts although they present a narrative within which these acts can be understood.

Now contrast. Were the IDF fighting for their lives within their homeland? No. Is there any narrative, apart from causing terror, which can explain why the IDF allowed war crimes to be committed by Auxiliary forces within their tactical organisation, in closed camps wholly under the control of the IDF which the IDF later bulldozed?

Your arguments, therefore, are moral monstrosities.

Would the Lehi group (do not call it the Stern Gang that is a belittling insult formulated by the British Authorities) or any Israeli settler in Palestine, have been killed by the Mandate forces in Palestine if they had not committed terrorist acts and assassinations? I think not.

It is true that the Lehi group did not have a "workable plan for achieving a settlement" but that was not the point of their existing; they existed to force the mandate forces to the negotiating table whilst distancing the "honest" politicians from the blood and dirt. And as for being dismantled, technically that is true but they were also honoured - wasn't there some famed Israeli politician who came to rule Israel who was a member of that group? Were there not several high ranking commanders of the IDF who came from that group? Was not Mossad largely peopled by Lehi and their sympathisers?

Now contrast - Would Palestinians be killed if they used passive resistance? Some would, as has happened to observers from other nations amongst the Palestinians killed by actions of the IDF when unarmed and often under flags of truce. By the Israeli account such passive resistors "were not seen" or their camera equipment "looked like a rocket launcher". Passive resisters would be allowed to die, just as the current groups of detainee hunger strikers are being allowed to die in Israel. Passive resisters would be largely ignored or moved into what are termed refugee camps where diseases caused by hunger and overcrowding are causing "excess mortality". If you want to know what happens to passive resistors note what the British did in India and before you crow "Ghandi won!" look into the real facts behind the bankrupted British Empire having to abandon its colonies.

First you compare Jewish partisan fighters to Palestinians resistance -- a ludicrous comparisons because, as I pointed out, Palestinians aren't fighting for their very lives. Not even the most over-the-top hater of Israel would suggest that Palestinians would by systematically exterminated if they stopped fighting Israel. Or, is that what you're suggesting?

Then, for some reason, you change tacks and compare the Jewish Partisans to the IDF -- you seem to claim the IDF aren't fighting for their lives. Interesting considering there have been four invasions and two intifadas that were started specifically to reduce the number of Jews in Israel (to zero if possible).

However, I'm at least glad you've back down from saying "Israel commits nauseating war crimes" and now say that Israel is responsible for them. It may not be true, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Since you fail to grasp the concept -- allow me to explain passive, non-violent resistance. In a campaign to remove people from your land or to promote civil rights a non-violent campaign will always be more successful than a violent one. Yes, non-violent activists will die. Some of Gandhi's supporters died, some of Martin Luther King (and Dr King himself) died. But, ultimately, their deaths strengthened their cause and led to eventual victory.

However, when in a cause to free your country you blow up a school bus or a pizza parlour full of teenagers, you only damage your cause. No one but the most intransigent zealot would support you after those actions. You not only invite massive retaliation, you excuse massive retaliation.

but I did not compare Partisans with Palestinians. The comparison was between the actions of the IDF and the actions of those same partisans showing the IDF lacked the justification the partisans had for their actions.

I then described your arguments in relation to partisans and the IDF to be moral monstrosities.

Moving on to your arguments about the Lehi group they were shown to be to be incoherent as the Jewish settlers were not threatened with death by the Mandate forces. By comparison with the Jewish partisans the actions of the Lehi group were unjustified. The post also demonstrated how the members of the Lehi group were rewarded by the fledgling Jewish state - despite your argument to the contrary.

Further more, my post showed that the Palestinians and their supporters are threatened with death by the actions of the Israeli Government - even when non-violent or just living in the camps. If you want to claim threat to Israel by the repeated actions of the Palestinians, I suggest you read more history than just the high school text books. Have you ever wondered why the Palestinians are refugees from the lands where their ancestors lived? Would foreseeing the dire effect of the establishment of the Israeli State have justified the slaughter of those early Jewish settlers? I say no, the Palestinians at that time would not have been justified. Equally the actions of the dispossessed do not justify the cruel and vindictive acts of the Israeli State.

I have not "backed down" regarding the actions in Lebanon, I just tire of restating the obvious in every post. The war crimes committed in Lebanon were nauseating; rape, execution torture before death and scalping. They were caused, in part, by the actions of the IDF, the Israeli General Staff, Mossad and certain Israeli politicians. This was the conclusion of the Kahan Commission. It was the conclusion of the McBride Commission report. It was the conclusion of both Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk.

The actions of the IDF materially and practically assisted the Phalangist auxiliaries; actions such as refusing to allow the escape of threatened civilians and the illumination of the killing field and the bulldozing of the evidence. These last actions alone mean that the IDF committed war crimes and I ignore the persistent reports of artillery and machine gun fire into the camps prior to the arrival of the Phalangists.

_______________________________________

But history and the evidence does not seem to indicate that that rejection was forced by Israeli actions. There was agreement about a 2 state solution and the removal of the settlements. The accords recognised "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people", and were supposed to begin a process of guaranteeing full autonomy of the Palestinians within 5 years. Because of the intransigence of the minority parties in Israel all offers made to the Palestinians could not be accepted by any of the participating groups. Equally Israel refused to consider terms proposed by the Palestinians. This bad faith negotiation resulted in the withdrawal of the representatives of the Palestinians.

Now for the Olmert offer. Everything was agreed but, guess what there was a sticking point? Israel wanted about 6% of the West Bank, Hamas offered about 2% and Israel refused to negotiate further. The real problem were the illegal and unsanctioned settlements that Israel wants to maintain.

As to the Oslo accords, the original breach was Israel's when it allowed further expansion of Israeli settlements in direct contravention of the accords. Additionally Netanyahu was recorded saying the following:

The Israelis accepted the Clinton Initiatives. The cabinet approved it. Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross stated openly that Israel agreed to it. They also said the Palestinians flat out refused it. During the talks, Arafat told Dennis Ross he could never recognize the existence of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (doing so proves Jews have a valid claim to the land). In fact, Arafat later said he regretted rejecting the offer at Taba...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

Full autonomy is exactly what the Palestinians got when the IDF got out of the territories back in the 90's (where 98% of all Palestinians live) and allowed Arafat to rule. I realize you'll snicker and cry "occupation", but you should know what an occupation is not. It's not an occupation when Israel is unable to enforce law and order in Arafat's domain.

It's not due to Israel's intransigence that the Palestinians couldn't agree to terms. The Israelis did their part, despite what Netanyahu claims. They allowed the PA to have autonomy and they went further than Oslo when they stopped building beyond existing settlements back in the mid 90's. That's not intransigence. Arafat's ongoing commitment to terror in the 90's was intransigence. In fact, the PA violated Oslo in every way imaginable.

As to Olmert's offer, if 6% was the sticking point then all the PA had to do was make that clear and demand from the USA that the gaps be bridged. Maybe you've never heard of the PA's demands for RoR, but that was the real sticking point. Nice try though.

I did not say they did not accept the Clinton initiatives. I said they negotiated in bad faith and, by quoting the leader of Israel during some those years, demonstrated how that bad faith was practised.

Of course you can accuse Netanyahu of lying if you wish, virtually everybody else has.

The problem of Jerusalem is the Temple issue. Arafat did regret that, but the problem was not of his making because the Dome of the Rock (where the Temples were sited) is one of the prime holy sites of Islam and making concessions on that site to Israel would be suicide for any Muslim. In the same way, Israelis making concessions on that site to, say, the Christians would be political suicide for an Israeli. This is one of the reasons that the Temple issue is not part of any negotiation about statehood. Remember also a divided Jerusalem was acceptable to main parties in the negotiation but always, in practise, unacceptable to the minority religious parties in Israeli coalitions.

You have carefully interpreted the Guardian article to make it appear that Arafat regretted not accepting the initiatives at all, whereas he only regretted not accepting them at Taba. A little deeper reading of that same article shows that Arafat and the Palestinians did accept the initiatives, admittedly very late, only to have the Israeli government say it was too late and the Clinton initiatives were no longer on the table.

Occupation. I do not snicker, I never do about issues that are killing and imprisoning people; neither do I deny the reality of that occupation. Israeli is very careful not to enforce "law and order" on the settlements in the West Bank, if they did many more of the "illegal" settlers would be removed back to Israel; strangely all the other laws of Israel are obeyed within those settlements. Here, in essence, is the 2% - 6% problem; Israel wants to maintain the illegal settlements whilst the Palestinians want them removed. True, a few of those illegal settlements have been shut but more have been opened and the settlements are placed on some of the the most productive lands on the West Bank.

This then leads directly into the Right of Return (RoR, please spell out non-standard abbreviations, I may understand them but casual readers may not) which, in relation to the West Bank, is again part of the 2% - 6% issue I identified. In your world, it is not Israel's problem; in the world and words of Ariel Sharon it is a recipe for Israel's destruction; in the world of the Palestinian Authority it is essential to bring back Palestinian refugees from the camps where they have been forced to live. Essentially Israel wants to force upon the Palestinians a diaspora like that enforced upon the Jews by the Romans. Does that mean the Palestinians would be free to return in 4786 CE?

Now, terrorism. It may have escaped your notice but all terrorism is wrong, whether practised by regular military forces, irregular military forces or uncontrolled civilians. However where there is no Government to plead the case of a group it can sometimes be the only way that group can gain attention and a good example of this is the Lehi Group. How, apart from being successful in securing their aims, were the Lehi Group different from Palestinian terrorists?

The two are NOT synonymous, and it's demagogic to claim that they are.

There are Jewish communities and traditions spread throughout the world. Some of those communities are located in Israel, others are not. Some people in those communities not in Israel wish to move there, others have no wish to do so, and some of those who live in Israel have been known to move to other countries. This is one thing.

There is the State of Israel. It is another thing.

They are separate concepts.

There is not absolute and complete overlap between the two. Sometimes, there's not much at all.

And criticism of the Israeli government is not an attack on "the Jews&quot btw, "the Jews" is not a term that I or most other critics of Israel ever use in a pejorative sense...especially the growing number of those critics who ARE Jewish).

It serves no purpose to constantly try to bring what you know perfectly well to be unjust and false accusations or insinuations of antisemitism into EVERY discussion in the I/P forum. Would you please, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please give that particular tactic a rest?

are not required of them by their self-identification as members of any particular religion or culture.

In fact, we're not demonizing anybody...it's just about holding officials of a particularly important state accountable for their actions.

The objective is to end injustice here...not to persecute anybody or to put anyone at risk.

And if the Israeli government was run by athiests or Christians or even other Muslims and treating Palestinians in this way, we'd be just as outspoken...It's about not wanting collective punishment for a people who aren't guilty of collective crimes.

The status quo is not the only workable choice. And maintaining it isn't going to create any better alternatives. To believe that, you'd have to believe, for example, that South Africa is in a better state today BECAUSE the apartheid officials kept Mandela and his ANC comrades in jail for so long. Are you sure you want to go there?

...ever criticized anyone who is not Jewish?



Right. Never. Not even the Balad Party, which couldn't be more against peace and a 2 state solution than they currently are. We've already established that you and your comrades are not pro-Palestinian. None of you care about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon suffering under state sanctioned apartheid. None of you care about conditions for Palestinians in Gaza under Hamas. It's about hating Israel.

Furthermore, you're not holding Israeli officials accountable. Your problem is with Israel, not them, no matter who is running the government. Labour/Meretz could be back in charge as they were during Barak's time in the late 90's and you'd be just as harsh.

You need to realize it's the Israeli people, not their government, that you have an issue with. If the Israeli people thought it were possible to make peace, get out of the WB, etc.. then they would have voted Netanyahu out just as they did back in 1996, and elect Labour/Meretz to finish the job (not that you'd back Israel's Left). Just as they did 15 years ago.

I wonder if there's any other International Leftist political orgs besides those in Israel that you cannot stand. There are none, are there? In fact, just last year the J14 social protests attracted hundreds of thousands of Israelis, proving without question Israel leftwing credentials. Israel is much farther left than the USA. But I highly doubt you're as vicious with the USA as you are with Israel. Tell me, in the last few years what are you most peeved about WRT the USA?

I(oh, and btw, I'm not personally part of any "movement" on this, but speak and think only for myself, so don't ever accuse me of hivethink again)opposed the settlement construction that continued for most of that period because it seemed(correctly, as it turned out)that this construction was a threat to the peace process.

It's simply a lie to say I have an issue with Israelis or with Jews. I disagree with current majority Israeli opinion on some issues, but it's ridiculous to say that this means I have a problem with Israelis or with Jewish people. Why should I have to support the hardline status quo just to prove that I don't have a problem with Israelis as people? Do you really believe that if the majority of the Israeli electorate hold one set of views, no one can disagree with them WITHOUT being a bigot?

When there was 95% support for the U.S. going to war in Iran, I still opposed that war. I didn't accept that "majority makes right" in my country...and I don't accept it in any other...especially when it's majority for repression.

Besides, I haven't criticized anything that Israel HAD to do just to survive. Even if you defend the Occupation, shira, you can't seriously argue that the Israeli government had to invent the West Bank settler movement in the name of "self-defense". All the presence of those settlements has done is to ratchet up tensions and rub it in the nose of Palestinians that they are, still, powerless in their own land, land they have lived on for at least fourteen centuries.

The religion or ethnicity of the Israeli officials I've criticized is irrelevant. It's not like I'd have been ok with what they were doing if they said they were leading a "Presbyterian state".

If I haven't criticized Israeli Arab politicians by name, it's because they didn't have any real power within Israeli politics. Israeli Arab politicians haven't kicked Israeli Jews out of their homes, or made them stand at checkpoints for hours in the blazing sun, or done anything at all to repress or harm them. As to the Balad Party, it would mean I was against democracy if I called for their party to be banned, which is what I suspect you really want from me on that issue.

Also, there aren't any leftist groups in Israel that I "cannot stand". I disagree with some, as I disagree with some leftist groups here in the U.S.(for the record, I admire a lot of Israeli leftists, especially those in the human rights community, those who want to turn the issues away from "security" before all else to social justice and workers rights, and also groups like the Israeli Committee against Home Demolitions, as I admire some Palestinian figures and disagree with some others), but that doesn't equate to personal hatred of the people within the groups. As to Kadima, it isn't a leftist group and never claimed to be, and even then I don't hate them, I just disagree with OCL. Even with Likud and their partners in craziness in the previous government, the issue was never anybody's Jewishness...nothing that government did was defined by Jewishness or required by it. I oppose the parties in Israel who don't want peace...but, for the love of God, that doesn't mean I want the people in them dead. Why can't you accept that there's a difference between dissent and personal loathing? Why do you demonize ME far more than I could ever have "demonized"

BTW, I praised the Israeli social protests in this forum. The people in those protests are leftwing-but not many of them were also big supporters of the Occupation...some may have been, but none of them would have argued, as you are now trying to do, that the existence of those protests somehow vindicates what the Israeli government does to Palestinians. The social movements on one side of the Green Line don't justify military repression and collective punishment on the other.

And if you ever read any threads in any other forums on DU, you would be aware that I constantly post critically, sometimes furiously critically, about events in the United States(many of them which make me feel far more than "most peeved&quot .

The rise of corporate domination of American politics is a big issue with me, coupled with the massive war machine we still have, the insistence of our ruling class on forcing even more austerity upon us, the rise of the surveillance state, the fascist drug laws we still have here, the continuing bigotry we have here, and the tormenting of kids on schoolyards across this country by bullies. If I haven't discussed that in THIS thread, it's because this thread is hived off and dedicated to one topic.

And, with that, I've established that I don't have Israel, or Israeli leftists, or any other Israelis, or Jewish people(or any other people)living anywhere else, including you(you I find annoying sometimes, but I don't wish any harm towards you)
AND that I don't focus on what the Israeli government does to the exclusion of everything else.


Enough already.