115 thoughts on “Human Rights Watch Accuses IDF of ‘Stonewalling’ on White Flag Murders – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. the IDF’s “investigation” of so-called “white flag” deaths

    Which is exactly equivalent to the Council of Foxes’ investigation of last night’s raid on the hen house.

  2. “Human Rights Watch Accuses IDF”

    Is this the same Human Rights Watch who less than a month ago, went to Saudi Arabia asking for donations? Were they collecting the down payment for this report I wonder….

    1. silvia: “Is this the same Human Rights Watch who less than a month ago, went to Saudi Arabia asking for donations? Were they collecting the down payment for this report I wonder….”

      It’s probably good to see that HRW reports like this are making people uncomfortable: I suppose that lies about HRW’s activities are an inevitable byproduct of that duscomfort.

      On HRW and Saudi Arabia:
      http://www.webnewswire.com/node/465036

      If HRW was being paid off by Saudi Arabia, it certainly isn’t reflected in the volume of criticism of Saudi Arabia in HRW reports: http://www.hrw.org/en/publications/reports/237/related

      1. “It’s probably good to see that HRW reports like this are making people uncomfortable:”

        It takes a more credible report to make me unconfortable. In addition to the business trip to Saudi, I also have to consider the author’s long held “sentiments” for the Jewish state. Who is Joe Stork?Here’s a quick Zoominfo summary:

        Joe Stork, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division

        Before joining HRW, Stork was a highly visible anti-Israel political activist and ex-editor of Middle East Report (published by MERIP, the Middle East research and information project). MERIP’s members distributed PLO buttons, posters, and flags, and its anti-Israeli rhetoric reflected the standard Marxist anti-imperialist ideology of the time. MERIP Reports carried laudatory interviews with terrorist leaders and other activists, and Stork’s articles repeatedly condemned “the origins of the State of Israel and its war with the people of the Middle East.” After the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, this organization urged socialists to “comprehend the achievements” of the atrocity. (“Who Are the Terrorists,” MERIP Reports, No. 12, September-October, 1972, at12-13) Similarly, after a Palestinian terror attack on an Israeli school, this organization declared that “all Israeli settlers are potential targets of the Palestinian resistance” (“Ma’alot: an Account and an Evaluation,” MERIP Reports, No. 29, (June 1974, pp. 21-3).

        At HRW, Stork has continued to promote this ideological agenda. Examples include a 2008 letter to President Bush, which exploited international legal terminology, repeated incomplete or false analyses of international law, and minimized or omitted Hamas’ attacks on Israeli border crossings where humanitarian aid is delivered, as well as the diversion of this aid by Hamas. In conjunction with numerous other examples, including a January 2008 statement on Gaza, these publications eschew carefully written, accurate and well-sourced legal analyses for political diatribe, loosely couched in the terminology of international law. Stork and Whitson have both avoided important and well-documented substantive criticism of their work by invoking false ideological allegations and ad hominem attacks.

        1. Nice shift: the Saudi line doesn’t work well, so move to something else. Except

          (a) Joe Stork isn’t the author of the report. From p. 56 : “This report was researched and written by Fred Abrahams, senior researcher in the Emergencies Program, Bill van Esveld, researcher in the Middle East and North Africa
          Division, and Fares Akram, research consultant in the Middle East and North Africa division. It was edited by Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Division,
          James Ross, legal and policy director, and Iain Levine, program director at Human Rights Watch.”

          (2) You lifted that diatribe against him directly from NGO Monitor, an organisation dedicated to the proposition that NGOs concerned with Palestinian rights should just go away, especially if they might embarrass the state of Israel – that is, a source demonstrably far more biased than HRW itself.

          What’s next?

          1. Next, I must read the whole report (63 pages) and the IDF (full) answer.
            Sorry, but I am not going to take a Joe Stark’s – HRW Deputy Director and Editor of the report – word for it.

          2. But apparently you are willing to take NGO Monitor’s word for things without researching them yourself, despite the fact that NGO Monitor has been roundly criticized in Israel for its own bias. You’ve simply proven your own obvious slant in this matter.

          3. Are there any human rights investors you do consider credible, or do you just take issue with the concept of human rights in general?

        2. silvia,

          Its pretty dishonest of you to cite “Zoominfo” as a source when in fact your one source cited is NGO-Monitor, which is known to be a conservative, “pro-Israel” interest group based in Jerusalem that has its own overwheming problems with bias.

          From Wikipedia on NGO Monitor, under “criticism”:

          “A 2005 article in Forward takes issue with NGO Monitor’s statement that Human Rights Watch (HRW) places “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel” and has issued more reports about HRW than on any other of the 75 NGOs it concerns itself with. In his article, Leonard Fein writes that HRW has devoted more attention to five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than they have to Israel; but that, despite extensive correspondence, editor Steinberg has failed to correct the “misleading” claim about HRW on the NGO Watch website. Fein argues that NGO Monitor may not be free of the “narrow political and ideological preferences” of which it accuses HRW.[8] Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, has criticized NGO Monitor for accusing Human Right Watch’s “executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany, of anti-Semitism”. Peratis has further criticized NGO Monitor for not saying where or when HRW claims have been unverifiable.[32]

          In an article for Political Research Associates, which describes itself as “a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society”[33], Jean Hardisty and Elizabeth Furdon describe NGO Monitor as a “conservative NGO watchdog group,…which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests”, adding that “the ideological slant of NGO Monitor’s work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices.”[34]

          Naomi Chazan, in an article for the Jerusalem Post, wrote that Gerald Steinberg, one of “the self-appointed guardians of Israel’s reputation”, has taken symptomatic stances. “He places the blame for international criticism of the offensive on the human rights community here and abroad. His analysis would be comic in its predictability if his disinformation weren’t so dangerous to core Israeli values,” Chazan wrote. She continued that “in his assault on those who question the prudence of the Gaza offensive, Steinberg also stoops to misinformation and disseminates false facts”.[35] Uriel Heilman, a Managing Editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote that there were a couple “disingenuous elements in the May 2009 digest of NGO Monitor and the head of NGO Monitor revised the statement.[36]”

          NGO Monitor has also sharply criticized the Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem, and the New Israel Fund. Its bias on this issue is apparent. From Wikipedia again:

          “NGO Monitor also states that B’Tselem, an NGO that calls itself “The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories”, has employed “abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians”.[27]
          NGO Monitor has criticized the New Israel Fund, which states that its primary objective is “to strengthen Israel’s democracy”, for funding organizations that NGO Monitor claims are engaged in a “campaign to delegitimize Israel.” These claims were denied by the President of the New Israel Fund and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Peter Edelman, who described NGO Monitor’s criticism as “un-democratic and un-Jewish” and “inherently and fundamentally flawed.” [28] Larry Garber, Executive Director of the New Israel Fund, and Elizier Yaari, NIF’s Israel Director and a retired Israeli air force major[29], wrote in an op-ed for The Jerusalem Post that if Israel were to accept the premises of Gerald Steinberg, the director of NGO Monitor, then “Israel’s credibility – and, more important, the nation’s morality – will suffer.”[30]”

          Here’s a link to the JPost op-ed of 2006:

          http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1139395637431

          Really, be honest about your sources and get a better source if you want to imply bias on the part of HRW. Citing an obvisously biased source to “prove” HRW’s bias just doesn’t cut it.

    2. Silvia, Silvia…you’re only the 3rd rightist commenter who’s brought up that fake claim originating in the pro-Israel right. HRW did not ask for or raise funds in Saudi Arabia. Its staff gave a briefing to Saudi government officials on the state of human rights in S.A. as HRW saw it. It was a BRIEFING, not a fundraising event. After visiting the Human Rights Watch site I see that the Israeli gov’t is using the Saudi Arabia claim as a talking pt. to discredit the Gaza rpt. Which means you’re right on msg. So Silvia, I wonder whether you have any official or unofficial connection to any Israeli gov’t agency? Are you a hasbara volunteer for the foreign ministry perhaps?

      Not that it will matter to you, propagandist that you are. But here’s HRW’s truthful account of its activities in S.A.:

      * “Human Rights Watch’s fundraising activities in Saudi Arabia in tandem with the kingdom’s authoritarian government raises important questions as to that organization’s objectivity, professionalism, integrity, and credibility.” Regev, quoted by Agence France-Presse, August 13, 2009.

      Human Rights Watch does not take money from the Saudi government – or any government. Human Rights Watch staff attended two private receptions, in Riyadh and Jeddah, hosted by Saudi supporters of Human Rights Watch, in order to present our work in the Middle East and try to build support for human rights in Saudi Arabia. We discussed our work throughout the region, including our reporting on the Gaza conflict. Three people affiliated with the government attended the reception, but were not solicited for money. We held similar receptions in Tel Aviv, Amman and Beirut, among the 150 outreach events we conduct worldwide, including in Moscow, Sao Paulo, Sydney, and Tokyo, as well as in North America and Western Europe. Expanding the networks of citizens supporting human rights ought to benefit all the people of the Middle East.

      Now, if you can find a credible source to confirm yr claim let’s hear it. But I’ll give you a heads up…David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Jeffrey Goldberg, MEMRI, CAMERA & the Israel-first crowd are not credible sources.

      Is this the best you can do, Silvia? Really?

      1. This is what I like about this site. I get called all kinds of sweet names: “Arab Jew”, “rightist-that you are”, “propagandist-that-you-are”. Let’s be clear: I am a REFORMED leftist and as such I consider myself the real progressive here – unlike those who are still frozen in a party line that hasn’t thawed up since the 1960s.

        Not to question HRW findings you say? Not to mention the well documented ideology of their leadership? That may be good enough for you – but not for thinking people like myself.

        1. I am a REFORMED leftist

          Mugged by reality, were you? So was Irving Kristol. But he never called himself a “real progressive” as you fraudulently do. He at least realized that he was no longer progressive & became proud of calling himself what he was, neoconservative. Or would you prefer calling yrself a “neoprogressive?”

          I note you have no reply to my questions about yr possible affiliation with the hasbara machine or Israeli gov’t. I note you have no reply to my correction of yr smear about HRW’s alleged fundraising in S.A. Cat got yr tongue on those matters??

          1. “I note you have no reply to my questions about yr possible affiliation with the hasbara machine or Israeli gov’t.”

            Because that’s so crazy I didn’t think it deserved an answer.

          2. “Crazy” to think that your echoing the hasbara pts of the Israeli foreign ministry might mean you’re coordinating yr online activities in some way with them? Pardon me, but that’s not crazy. That’s prudent given that said FM is actually orchestrating such an online hasbara campaign.

            BTW, yours was a non-answer. Thanks for confirming that you refuse . We’ll draw our own conclusions.

          3. “BTW, yours was a non-answer. Thanks for confirming that you refuse . We’ll draw our own conclusions.”

            Draw to your little heart’s content, my dear Watson.

          4. A “REFORMED leftist”, huh? George Orwell is alive and well in blogland. “Who is Sylvia, what is she?” as William the Bard once said. Seems pretty obvious when this particular Sylvia quite glibly and calmly smears an outstanding and honest organization like HRW. Have we here like Tom the Self-Important of the New York Times a stealth neocon? You know what they say about such creatures that quack and waddle and do such obvious things.

          5. You are confusing Reformed leftist with Former leftist. Not the same.

            A former leftist is someone who has espoused conservative ideas.

            A Reformed leftist is one who has carried the thought process to its natural end (as opposed to the Leftist whose thought process has’nt matured since the 60s.)

          6. Give three examples of when you’ve “carried the thought process to its natural end” and then give three examples of the “thought process that hasn’t matured since the 60s.”

          7. You’ve carried yr thought process through to its natural end in the same way that Israel’s current policies, if carried through to their natural end, will end with Israel ceasing to exist, at least in its current form. In your case the natural end of yr through process is something resembling incohate rumbling and in Israel’s case it is non-existence. Mazel tov to both of you for that.

        2. Frozen in a party line? Who’s frozen here, the one calling for a change in the direction the occupation is headed or the one digging his heels in intent on maintaining the status quo?

      2. “Human Rights Watch does not take money from the Saudi government – or any government. Human Rights Watch staff attended two private receptions, in Riyadh and Jeddah, hosted by Saudi supporters of Human Rights Watch… Three people affiliated with the government attended the reception, but were not solicited for money.”

        A difference only of senantics. Of course governments don’t give money to HRW. Of course HRW doesn’t solicit for money.

        “We discussed our work throughout the region, INCLUDING OUR REPORTING ON THE GAZA CONFLICT [caps mine].”

        I wonder if they included their report on Saudi Arabia when they were in Tel Aviv?

        1. And what I would expect to find in such a statement, is an unequivocal affirmation that they didn’t receive any money from this trip and will receive none. All they are saying is that they didn’t solicit for it. Telling.

        2. “I wonder if they included their report on Saudi Arabia when they were in Tel Aviv”? This is all tit-for-tat for you, isn’t it? Pretty sad. And you don’t seem able to really deal with or assimilate HRW’s hard-hitting report on human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Doesn’t fit this A-rab loving narrative you want to construct on behalf of those bad, lefty human rights organizations, perhaps?

          As an Israeli, I would hope you’d show some concern for your own country’s actions, rather than continually deflect. Looking critically inward and self-reflecting is a necessary pre-condition of the ethical life. Nobody here is going to be impressed by the “hey, the Saudis do bad things, too” line. Human Rights Watch, which you’re so intent on trashing, has well documented Saudi misbehavior. This discourse of avoidance on your part is rather pathetic.

          1. Warren, I don’t think he’s avoiding the issue. He’s dug himself into a hole [lot of sh*t] so probably deferred his response pending advice from his puppet-masters at the lobby. As it’s the weekend, we’ll have to wait until Monday for a response.

            My apologies for the language, Richard.

          2. I’ll be satisfied that the HRW report is a true reflection of the facts and that it was produced in good faith when these two conditions are fulfilled:

            a. I see a formal statement from HRW declaring that it hasn’t received nor does it expect to receive any monies from any Saudi sources -not just the government.

            b. I see evidence that Joe Stork formerly chief editor of MERIP now deputy director of HRW and editor of said report has changed his views since the following hatemongering statement in a leaflet published by MERIP in 1972 on the Munich massacre:

            “The Western Establishment has freaked out . “Responsible” newspapers and political candidates continuously reach new heights of absurdity and hypocrisy in the mad rush to condemn “international terrorism,” especially when it upsets their fun and games.”

            “No number of actions similar to Munich can create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement of Palestinians and other Arabs, but with this in mind, we should comprehend the achievements of the Munich action.”

            Until then, I see every reason to doubt HRW objectivity.

          3. Even if condition a. was plastered on every billboard in every major city in the world and printed in every newspaper currently in circulation and an international press conference was held to meet your condition b. you’d still denounce HRW because you’re a modern-day Zionist – it’s in your nature.

            I came across ‘The Long Road to anti-Zionism’ today. Read it. Might do you some good (though I strongly doubt it): http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-long-road-to-anti-zionism/

          4. In other words, you want HRW to take a different – and more indulgent – position toward Israel than it does toward other countries. The HRW report has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, and wasn’t written by Joe Stork, but you need something to try and discredit it in your own mind, and that’s the best you can come up with.

            In a sense, that’s a hopeful sign: you realise that there is something wrong with shooting civilians who carry white flags. The next step is admitting that, on the evidence, IDF troops did just that during Gaza. I suppose it may take a while longer for you to admit that, because that realisation would seem to require that you actually do something about it.

          5. But keep in mind that Silvia is a “reformed progressive” in her own words. So she’d have to work awfully hard to get through all the layers of denial that turned her into this before she could admit the truth of what Israel did in Gaza.

          6. I see a formal statement from HRW declaring that it hasn’t received nor does it expect to receive any monies from any Saudi sources -not just the government.

            I think what you’d really prefer to see is HRW refusing to accept any funding fr. ANY source & ceasing to exist. Besides, if Saudis can’t donate to HRW then Israelis shouldn’t as well since HRW reports on Israel as well. And while we’re at it why don’t we prohibit any citizen of ANY nation on which HRW reports fr. donating to it. The ramification are patently absurd.

            I have a suggestion: why don’t we appoint you as Czarina/overseer for all HRW fundrasing? You can decide which dollar the group can accept & which it must reject. And when it ends up being able to accept precisely $1.25 you’ll be happy & HRW can close up shop. That’d be nice work.

            And wow, you’ve dug up thanks to MEMRI or one of those highly non partisan sources of yrs a 35 yr old quotation allegedly made by Joe Stork (note there is no source or link provided to document Silvia’s claim). This is the equivalent of dragging Bill Ayers the reformed “bomb thrower” into the Obama campaign. What does it all mean? Precisely nothing. Silvia, you’re really quite pathetic. A partisan propagandist who seems to have stopped thinking about the time she “reformed” her former progressive political views.

  3. RE: “WHITE FLAG MURDERS”

    RICKY FITTS: “It was one of those days when it’s a minute away from snowing and there’s this electricity in the air, you can almost hear it. And this bag was, like, menacing me. Like a sniper toying with me. For fifteen minutes. And that’s the day I knew there was no overarching life behind things, only… this incredibly malignant force, that wanted me to know there was every reason to be afraid, always. Video’s a poor excuse, I know. But it helps me remember… and I need to remember… Sometimes there’s so much ugliness in the world I feel like I can’t take it, like my head’s going to implode.”

    MY APOLOGIES TO “American Beauty” (1999) –
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/quotes

  4. Silvia, last I heard the Israelis were screaming for concessions from the Saudis before they even budged to fart on the settlement issue. So if the Saudis are good enough for Israel, why not HRW? They didn’t take money from the Saudi government, btw, you squawk like a parrot – did the lobby let you out the cage today?

    Besides, what’s wrong with taking money from foreign governments? Israel leeches off most of the world – be it economic aid or military aid, it’s still money coming from somewhere.

    Anyway, back to the article. It states: “We spent seven to nine minutes waving the flags, and our faces were looking at them [the soldiers],” said the grandmother, who was shot twice. “And suddenly they opened fire and the girls fell to the ground.” Seven to nine minutes is a long time. I’d guess the soldiers radioed in for instructions. So the obvious question is who authorised the killing and why? Why does the IDF always get away with this sort of behaviour?

    Remember Abu Ghraib? How does the world know of that and not this? How is it so easy to go after the US military and yet the IDF remains untouchable? In my view, the answer is morals. Abu Ghraib came to light because Americans said “we did something wrong.” Israelis stonewall all allegations of human rights abuses with “we did nothing wrong.” Morals. We have them. They have none.

    1. “the Israelis were screaming for concessions from the Saudis before they even budged to fart on the settlement issue.”

      Moje, I have no idea what you’re saying. Probably because I’m not a native speaker of English and there is a whole vocabulary that I haven’t acquired as yet.

  5. Well, Israel did something right during the Gaza war, because since it has ended attacks on Sderot and the other communities is way down. Hamas and its allies have been adequately deterred so far. I am aware of the fact that this may change. Anyway, far from having become pacifists the Palestinians of Gaza have resorted to attacking each other.
    “Hamas forces storm the mosque in the southern town of Rafah after its imam, guarded by gunmen, declares that his militant group will impose an Islamic state. Sixteen people are reportedly killed.”
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza-hamas15-2009aug15,0,2289286.story
    Imagine that, weapons in a mosque, who would have guessed.

    1. This is the sort of snide, snarky comment I really detest. If you have something cogent and substantive to say, please do. If all you want to do is be snide take it somewhere else, please.

      The Gaza war was an abject failure. It has deterred no one and nothing. You & I both know there will be many such wars in the future. The diff. bet. us is that you’re prepared to live with such endless hostility & the progressive Jewish left isn’t.

      In the midst of yr snideness you might’ve spared a positive comment for Hamas attacking this imam. But you’re so intent on Palestinian bashing that you only focus on those who are easy victims of yr cynicism. And we all know you’re constitutionally unable to say anything constructive or positive about anything Palestinian, al achat kama v’kama (“all the moreso”) Hamas.

    2. “Far from having become pacifists the Palestinians of Gaza have resorted to attacking each other.” The barbarians, eh.

      If you look past the headline, you see that Hamas engaged in a battle with a group of radical, al-Qaeda-inspired muslims that wish to impose a Taliban-style rule over Gaza – which Gazans oppose. If this group of radicals had crossed the Israeli border to act out “jihad” in Israel you would be here today complaining that Hamas did not do enough to stop them.

      1. “The barbarians, eh.” – Your wording, not mine.
        “Hamas engaged in a battle with a group of radical, al-Qaeda-inspired muslims that wish to impose a Taliban-style rule over Gaza” – As opposed to the liberal democracy the Hamas imposed upon them?

        To Richard: Sorry for posting comments you detest.

        1. As opposed to the liberal democracy the Hamas imposed upon them?

          How ’bout that “liberal democracy” that Israeli Jews have imposed on their fellow Palestinian citizens?? I’d say that democracy is about as irksome to Israeli Palestinians as Hamas’ government is to some Gazans.

          1. “I’d say that democracy is about as irksome to Israeli Palestinians as Hamas’ government is to some Gazans.” This comment actually made me laugh out loud. Israeli democracy is so irksome to Israel’s Arab citizens are all waiting in line to trade their Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship in accordance with Lieberman’s plan (which I do not support, before you accuse me).

          2. Israel’s Arab citizens are all waiting in line to trade their Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship

            And you know how Israeli Arabs feel about their 2nd class citizenship status precisely how? Of course Israeli Arabs don’t want to give up their citizenship. That’s precisely what Israeli rightists like Lieberman wish to compel them to do. This is precisely while they will retain said citizenship until death if necessary. But this does not mean that Israeli Arabs are content with their status by any means. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand any of that since you’re a privileged Israeli-American Jew, smug in your superior rights & privileges as such.

          3. I think the Anglican Church in Jerusalem being the most vociferous about the occupation they would be the first ones whose nationalistic aspirations I’d fulfill.

          4. Again, I’m not sure what this comment means. Given yr ideological perspective, it doesn’t seem reasonable that you’re saying you’d like to fulfill the nationalist aspirations of the Anglican Church for a Palestinian state? Is that what you really mean?

          5. “How ’bout that “liberal democracy” that Israeli Jews have imposed on their fellow Palestinian citizens?? ”

            I’d say that even that is about to become a thing from the past – as agricultors in the North are selling their land to individuals from the Gulf States for 5 times the market price.

          6. Gulf Arabs are buying land in Galilee. No one is saying who is selling. There were articles about it in most major Israeli newspapers.
            So what I am saying is that it could get to a point where democracy and openness can self-destruct.
            I gave you those news so you could have something else to rejoice about – other than the HRW report.

          7. Gulf Arabs are buying land in Galilee. No one is saying who is selling. There were articles about it in most major Israeli newspapers.

            First, you provide not a shred of proof for this claim. I never read such crap in Haaretz. So where else could it be lurking? Yisrael HaYom no doubt. I’m waiting for a link on this one. Your claim is so patently ridiculous I’m almost laughing right now as I write this. This is a perfect false flag argument. In order to divert attention fr the real issue, which is ugly settler racists like Irving Moskowitz and Elad buying Palestinian land under fraudulent circumstances, some Israeli wingnut invents the fabrication that wealthy A-rabs are buying up Israeli land.

            The plain fact of the matter is that such purchases would never be allowed under Israeli law Silvia, you’re peddling fiction as reality. Is that how you see the world? It would make for a halfway decent novelist perhaps, but in the realm we’re dealing with we seek truth & facts instead of fiction.

          8. “plain fact of the matter is that such purchases would never be allowed under Israeli law Silvia, you’re peddling fiction as reality.”

            Here. Widen your Israel knowledge base a little.

            Haaretz
            Report: Gulf Arabs buying up private land in Galilee
            http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107652.html

            Jerusalem Post:
            “Arab tycoons bought agricultural land in Galilee”

            |http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1249418610783

          9. Given the ILA’s role in administering JNF lands – and in discriminating against Israel Arab citizens when doing so – this seems like a case of cosmic retribution. It’s hard to get too excited about Arabs purchasing Israeli land, when Arab citizens of Israel have been prevented for decades for bidding on leases on land in the same area.

            And the origins of the availability of this land for Arab purchase lies in privatisation initiatives brought forward by Netanyahu’s government. Another example of unintended consequences….

          10. This is typical no source Israeli journalism. Where were these alleged purchases made? If Israel is anything like the U.S. land purchases are a matter of public record. Where are the documents verifying who the buyer & seller are? Who was the source for the report? We know none of these important questions. So I’ll sit back & wait till an Israeli journalist really does their job before I make a judgment. BTW, the Haaretz report doesn’t even list a reporter as author. Even though Haaretz is generally a good newspaper, they sometimes come a cropper as they have here.

            And even if there is any truth to this story, when Gulf State Arabs can actually buy Jewish land in Jerusalem then I’ll concede that we have an issue as incendiary as Jews engaging in fraud to gain possession of Arab property in historically contentious areas of the city. Or are you maintaining that an Arab buying land in northern Israel is going to start a race war between Arabs & Jews as could happen in the Old City if Elad, Moskowitz & other groups continue their spurious activity.

          11. Reading the reports, vague as they are, are really talking about Gulf Arab financing for a large land purchase in the Galilee. Since foreigners who are not Jewish are prohibited from purchasing land in Israel, my guess would be that the land was purchased by a Palestinian Israeli from an other Palestinian Israeli with a loan from a Gulf Arab source. Horror of horrors! Stop the presses!

            Israeli law, including the new “land reform” that allows the ILA to sell “absentee” or confiscated Palestinian properties to private parties, specifically prohibits any foreigner who is not eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Right of Return from buying property in Israel.

            On the new law:

            Suhad Bishara, a lawyer from the Adalah legal centre for Israel’s Palestinian minority, said the law had been carefully drafted to ensure that foreigners, including wealthy sheikhs, cannot buy land inside Israel.

            “Only Israeli citizens and anyone who can come to Israel under the Law of Return — that is, any Jew — can buy the lands on offer, so no ‘foreigner’ will be eligible.”

            Another provision in the law means that even internal refugees like Abu Arab, who has Israeli citizenship, will be prevented from buying back land that rightfully belongs to them, Ms Bishara said.

            “As is the case now in terms of leasing land,” she explained, “admissibility to buy land in rural communities like Tzipori will be determined by a selection committee whose job it will be to frustrate applications from Arab citizens.”

            http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/65425

          12. The land reform means that land in Israel can now be bought, not just leased from the ILA. But only citizens and foreigners who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return can buy land. That excludes Arabs from the Gulf States.
            In practice, most Palestinian Israelis will also be excluded because in rural communities prospective buyers will be vetted by a selection committee, just like it is now with leasing land.

          13. Silvia, it is difficult to imagine that you actually believe the drivel you put on these pages. I am sure everyone here knows that Israeli law does not allow the sale of land inside Israel to “individuals from the Gulf States”.

          14. To clarify, I meant state/JNF land, administered by the ILA, which comprises about 93% of Israel. The Haaretz and JPost articles refer to privately owned land.

    3. srael did something right during the Gaza war, because since it has ended attacks on Sderot and the other communities is way down.

      That is clearly and demonstrably contra factual. according to the GOI’s own reports attacks on Sderot and other communities all but ceased during the ceasefire that began in the summer of 2008, and ended with Israel’s violations in November, Also according to the GOI, Hamas was determined to keep the ceasefire, and not only did not participate in any attacks on Israel, but did a creditable job of reining in other militant groups, despite multiple violations by Israel during the first weeks. The situation post-Gaza-assault is considerably worse than it was during the ceasefire.

      The Israeli government knows how to stop the rocket attacks, and it continue to take actions guaranteed to ensure they will continue. That tends to suggest that stopping the rockets is not really what the GOI wants.

          1. Well the facts have been stated before. According to the ceasefire agreement to which BOTH hamas and islamic jihad were party, rocket attacks were to be stopped and prevented by other groups. If I recall correctly, there were at least 28 violations before the idf’s attack on the tunnel in November. Hamas did not take any effective measures against those who violated the ceasefire. Hamas has demonstrated over and over again, including most recently, that it is capable of taking effective measures against those that threaten their interests. After the IDF attack on the tunnel, both sides still said they were abiding by the ceasefire, until the Hamas unilaterally called the ceasefire off in an attempt to blackmail Israel into more concessions. Well, that black mail attempt failed for the Hamas miserably. To say: “The situation post-Gaza-assault is considerably worse than it was during the ceasefire” regarding Israel is so absurd it requires no refutation.

          2. So since allegedly (your ‘recollection’ is a pretty weak reed on which to hang this statistic) Hamas failed to prevent 28 rocket attacks on Israel, then the Israeli populace can hold the Israeli gov’t accountable for not preventing every terror attack that has happened within Israel? I think most people will see the absurdity of this claim. Hamas has made a good faith effort to maintain the ceasefire both before Israel’s tunnel attacks & more recently. Hamas does not & cannot monitor every single square inch of Gaza on a 24 hr basis just as Israel’s far larger & more sophisticated military/police apparatus cannot do so for Israel proper. When it suits you you claim Hamas is a bunch of cowards afraid to fight the IDF during the Gaza war. And when it suits you claim they are the lions of Gaza capable of knowing everything that happens everywhere in Gaza.

            For you not to recognize that the Gaza war was as much a disaster for Israel as it was for Gaza is ludicrous. It gained absolutely nothing. It could’ve maintained the ceasefire had it not violated it by bombing the tunnels in flagrant violation of the ceasefire. It got a war which Israel hoped would destroy Hamas, and which didn’t do so. Israel had planned actually to occupy Gaza and overthrow Hamas according to Israeli soldiers direct testimony. Israel didn’t even accomplish this.

            So we’re back to status quo ante and ea. side is equally wounded by the sheer stupidity of its tactics & strategy. For you not to recognize this is, well-absurd.

          3. I checked. It was actually 38 rocket attacks (not 28). Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Since the Gaza war the number of rocket attacks has been negligible and I hope, but cannot promise, that it stays that way.

          4. Before the Gaza war the number of rocket attacks was negligible as well. Which means that the war accomplished precisely nothing. But it did kill 1,400 Palestinians & 10 Israeli soldiers. So if bloodshed is your sine qua non then the war was a corker.

            And of course it will not stay that way. It never does w/o a real and just peace. To even say you hope that it might w/o realizing that it simply can’t shows the unreality in which you live.

        1. On the contrary, nearly every sentence I have written is based on reports from the Israeli government, and from the right wing Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. I notice that you have not offered a scintilla of support for your claim that attacking Gaza actually improved the situation for the residents of Sderot or any other part of Israel.

          The facts, as documented by the Israeli government itself, show that the most effective way to protect the residents of Sderot and other parts of southern Israel from rocket fire has been for Israel to honourably maintain a ceasefire, and work toward a permanent cessation of armed hostility. Hamas has shown repeatedly that it is willing and capable in that regard. The Israeli government, not so much.

          1. ” I notice that you have not offered a scintilla of support for your claim”
            Shirin, my comments are moderated so they appear many hours after I post them.

          2. And how, exactly, has that prevented you from providing even a shred of support for your assertions?

          3. “how, exactly, has that prevented you from providing even a shred of support for your assertions?”
            Because one of my comments still hasn’t passed moderation.

          4. Oh, I see. How interesting that all your comments presenting excuses for your failure to substantiate your claims have appeared before we have seen any trace of the one in which you present your documentation. In other words, the fact that you have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support your claims is really only due to the fact that Richard has chosen to pass through all your excuses for not supporting your claims before he passes through the one comment in which you provide the long-awaited documentation. Now let’s see if Richard will pass through your comment in which you explain to us why we should believe that.

  6. Moje to Silvia: “…you recently stated: ‘As someone born and raised in an Arab country, I probably would have been beheaded had I claimed there to be an Arab Jew.’ Doesn’t sound reformed or progressive to me, sounds much more like the same-old same-old.”

    It sounds like Silvia’s standard-issue racist bigoted made-up rubbish.

  7. On a related note, here’s more evidence for violations by the IDF:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107447.html

    The article focuses on the abysmal conditions the detainees were held in, adding for almost comic effect an IDF spokesman’s statement:

    In the area in question, soldiers and detainees shared the same conditions, in accordance with the strictest regulations concerning consumption of food and drink, and maintenance of basic living conditions during combat.

    Well, I didn’t know, for instance, that soldiers had to announce they were thirsty 2-3 hours in advance, before they could be given water, “in accordance with the strictest regulations”, or that toilet paper was forbidden to use in combat. I also didn’t know soldiers had to fight blindfolded and handcuffed. That’s quite a remarkable army they have there.

    What the report doesn’t mention is that both the Geneva Convention of 1929 (regarding POWs) and the 4th Convention of 1949 (Art. 49, 83, 88, regarding civilian detainees) stipulate that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” (Art. 49, 4th GC).
    Here, the Gazans were detained not just in the general theatre (the Gaza Strip), but in the very midst of a fighting unit, only a few metres from tanks firing shells, for three days.
    I wonder if this may be interpreted as the most clear-cut case yet of the IDF taking human shields, whether that was the actual intention or not.

  8. Has anyone seen Mark Regev’s response to the report on the BBC:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhZVoqx6Roo

    He states that there are two problems with the HRW report: 1. The witness tetimonies are unreliable because the witnesses are not free to speak out against the Hamas regime. 2. He doesn’t actually state second problem, maybe he forgot. Or, maybe the cue guy mesed up.

    The interviewer states that witness testimonies aside, the report is backed up with medical, balistic and forensic evidence. Regev’s response is that HRW’s reliance on [balistic] evidence lacks credibility because Jane’s in London found a previous HRW report to have been based on speculation and not on facts. According to Regev, that report was “severely criticised” and “torn apart” by Jane’s after they concluded that HRW “don’t know what they are talking about.”

    I looked up Jane’s statement about the HRW report (titled ‘Precisely Wrong’) and found that Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, is quoted as stating, “Human Rights Watch makes a lot of claims and assumptions about weapons and drones, all of which is still fairly speculative, because we have so little evidence.” He goes on to state “What Israel has is total intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (over Gaza), which makes it extremely difficult for them to deny they knew who they were shooting at most of the time…So how has there been this incredible number of civilian casualties, many of whom appear to have been killed by precision missiles, even if we can’t know where the missiles came from?” Definately does not sound like Hewson tore the report apart because HRW doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

    To the BBC, the interview was about the HRW White Flag Deaths report. To Regev, it was an interview about HRW’s credibility its Saudi connections to which the BBC interviewer responds “Human Rights Watch says you stonewall. That sounds like you are stonewalling.”

    By the way, Regev, that yellow tie is hideous. It definately does not go well with that suit.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55T37A20090630?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

    1. Regev is nothing but a professional liar, and he’s not really all that good at his profession. The average seven year old can lie more convincingly than he can.

    2. “Definately does not sound like Hewson tore the report apart because HRW doesn’t know what it’s talking about.”

      It doesn’t sound like that to you because you have no idea what is a drone and what it does. But if it’s any consolation to you, apparently neither does HRW. You can hear a drone – it makes a noise like that of a motorcycle- but it would be practically impossible to see what it does from the ground becausee it flies very high. And what it usually carries are cameras. HRW reached the conclusion that the victims were shot by a missle fired from a drone based on witness testimony and on Israeli missile debris they said they found on the ground. That’s a big stretch because the debris could easily have been brought there and there is practically no way they could have seen the drone fire.

      Indeed, I agree with that Jane’s expert that IDF could put an end to the controversy by producing the relevant pictures. Why are they not doing it? That’s the big question.

      1. The IDF has been using Spike missiles off drones for 3-4 years now – see for example http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/08/08/208315/israel-fields-armed-uavs-in-lebanon.html

        And a drone firing a missile will often be at significantly lower altitude than one carrying out reconnaissance missions, because of (a) the added weight of the missile(s), (b) the need for greater detail (versus a wider area of surveillance) for targeting, and (c) for some missiles, the limited slant range of the missile itself.

        1. I went to Rafael site and none of their Spikes are on drones. But I might have missed something so here’s the link.
          http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.aspx?FolderID=311

          Imagine you were hit by something like that. Do you think you’d be arround to testify about it?

          The article you gave from 3 years ago is rather speculative.

          I am not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying bring the proof.

          1. “Imagine you were hit by something like that. Do you think you’d be arround to testify about it?”

            Of course not. That’s why there were 29 fatalities from the six confirmed spike missile attacks that HRW documents. If you’d bother to read the report instead of desperately clinging to inaccurate hit pieces on it, you’d know that the eyewitness testimonies were from those who were in the vicinity of the strikes but either survived their injuries or were uninjured in the attacks. They didn’t interview any of the 29 dead victims. Please, your arguments are ridiculous!

          2. Well, here’s an article from the Jerusalem Post – hardly a left-wing source – talking about a near-friendly-fire incident when an Israeli UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle… drone) fired on Israeli troops in Lebanon.

            http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1153291989822

            And yet another source that talks about the same use of Spike on UAVs

            http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/72377/a-preliminary-assessment-of-the-lebanon-conflict.html

            Herewith as well an image of Spike missiles on a drone – a European one in this case.

            http://defense-update.com/images/sperwer-b.jpg

          3. Good work unearthing that JPost article, Scott. I think that’s the most credible source so far that weaponized UAVs were used – at least in Lebanon – since it comes from the IDF. The next t.hing needed is an IDF statement – or other Israeli source – connecting the Spike with the UAVs

      2. Silvia,

        “HRW reached the conclusion that the victims were shot by a missle fired from a drone based on witness testimony and on Israeli missile debris they said they found on the ground. That’s a big stretch because the debris could easily have been brought there and there is practically no way they could have seen the drone fire.”

        Again, you are attacking a report you haven’t even read, otherwise you wouldn’t make such ludicrous arguments. The missile debris found was EMBEDDED in bodies and in structures in the vicinity of the blast. They could not have been “easily brought there” as you claim, and you would know that if you had read the report.

        From the HRW report:

        “Al-Rayyis showed Human Rights Watch an x-ray of his leg, with tiny black squares where the cubic tungsten fragments from the missile had lodged near the bone. He also has fragments embedded in his chest and torso, he said.

        On January 21 Human Rights Watch inspected the impact crater in the asphalt of the missile blast, about 120 centimeters wide and 80 centimeters deep, in front of al-Rayyis’s grocery store and across from the UNRWA headquarters. Cubic fragments, apparently from the Spike missile, were embedded in some of the dozens of tiny square holes in the shop door, a lamppost 5 meters away, and the UN compound wall 20 meters away.”

        Here’s a further general description of the forensic evidence of the missile attacks:

        “Circuit boards and missile pieces found by Human Rights Watch at attack sites were consistent with a small missile such as the Spike. The missile pieces were inconsistent with either the anti-tank versions of the Hellfire or TOW missiles, both of which Israel also used during Operation Cast Lead, fired from Apache and Cobra helicopters. During the fighting, Human Rights Watch observed Israeli Apache helicopters carrying Hellfire missiles and Cobra helicopters carrying TOW missiles from the Gaza-Israel armistice line, and inside Gaza researchers found numerous Hellfire and TOW missiles and their parts, but Human Rights Watch did not observe any Israeli helicopters carrying Spike missiles. Some missile debris and missile components that Human Rights Watch found contained labels from Motorola, based in the United States, and MCB Industrie of France.

        In addition, blast and fragmentation patterns at strikes investigated by Human Rights Watch strongly indicate the use of the Spike: typically a shallow crater with cubic holes peppered throughout a radius up to 20 meters and cubic tungsten fragments lodged in many of the holes. During the 2006 armed conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, Human Rights Watch found similar missile pieces and blast and fragmentation marks at the site of an attack on two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances, which wounded six medical workers and three patients.[15]

        The fragments that Human Rights Watch found at four of the sites investigated in this report, and fragments taken by doctors from the bodies of those wounded and killed, were all tiny metal cubes, approximately 3 mm on each side. Human Rights Watch took samples of the cubes and missile parts from two of the attack sites and sent them for analysis to the Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) in Oslo, Norway. The IFE reported that the cube was a metal alloy consisting primarily of tungsten, along with traces of nickel and iron.[16] A weapons expert from the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt, FFI), Ove Dullum, also analyzed the samples and reviewed the IFE test results. He concluded, “The weapon used in the attacks was a guided anti-tank missile with sensors and other equipment to precisely hit its target, and was most likely a Spike missile.”[17]”

  9. silvia wrote:

    “An article by Dror Yemini this morning in Ma’ariv (Hebrew)which I first saw a few minutes ago in translation by Noah Pollak – addresses exactly this question: “Who is Human Rights Watch’s Joe Stork?”

    Well, his answer contains an error in the very first sentence, where it calls Stork the author of that HRW report. Since he wasn’t the author of the report, nor did he research it, how is this relevant – assuming that it is true?

    But you know what disgusts me most about you, and Pollack, and all of these other apologists? You work so hard to be ignorant. It must be a considerable effort to remain uninterested when a report provides evidence for the deliberate killing on unarmed civilians in war-time, but you’re ready to do it. To your credit, you are embarrassed by the possibility that such things might occur – witness all the wriggling now, on your part and on Pollack’s – but fundamentally, in these cases, ignorance outweighs decency.

    How many countries can you recall where fine, upstanding citizens worked hard to remain ignorant of atrocities committed in their name? It’s a pretty ignoble list.

    1. “But you know what disgusts me most about you”
      I imagine the fact that I am an Israeli living in Israel

      And frankly my dear, …

      1. Nope, sorry. It’s the next sentence… your efforts at remaining ignorant.

        Have you read the HRW report yet?

      2. That is a really low blow. I find that comment offensive frankly. No one here has ever made such a statement or even insinuation about you. And if they had I would’ve taken them to task for it. I myself have lived in Israel for 2 yrs. Many Israelis read & comment at this blog. For you to claim that your views are disliked because of yr nationality rather than their substance is absolutely ridiculous & obnoxious. I warn you to keep yr comments on a substantive plane. I don’t take kindly to such garbage.

        1. You find my interpretation of the insult directed to me offensive, but not that I was called disgusting, dishonest, ignorant, peddling the truth, rightist, propagandist, all this interspersed with a vulgarity of discourse that I have encountered nowhere else.

          No need to warn. It’s becoming tiresome to write comments while holding my nose shut, just as it is tiresome to try to make sense to people with the intellectual complexity of a cartoon character.

          Adios!

          1. When commenters point out to me adjectives that they find offensive I review the language & ask the other commenter to tone down the rhetoric. But you never did that. I think calling your views “disgusting” was going overboard & I would’ve chided whoever wrote that to you if you’d brought it to my attention before leaving. As for the other adjectives, I think they were justifiable.

            it is tiresome to try to make sense to people with the intellectual complexity of a cartoon character.

            Actually, I think our views might be too complex for you to make sense of them. Or else you’re far too brilliant for us possibly to understand the weightiness & profundity of yr discourse.

            Farewell, Silvia, we hardly knew ye.

    1. Thanks for offering us prime IDF propaganda which proves what? Are you claiming that because in a single instance a Gaza militant did something the IDF thinks isn’t cricket that this justifies the IDF murdering innocent civilians waving white flags? Do tell.

      1. Actually, I haven’t expressed an opinion on the actual topic of the thread because frankly I don’t know. It’s not inconceivable that the HRW report has some truth to it, and I hope the IDF conducts it’s own investigation of the facts. It wouldn’t surprise either me if “militants” were hiding among civilians waving white flags or if the killings were accidental. After all, the majority of the IDF soldiers killed were killed by IDF fire, and I don’t believe that was intentional.

        1. I hope the IDF conducts it’s own investigation of the facts.

          If I’d have been drinking coffee when I read this it would’ve come spewing out my nose in disbelief. An IDF investigation of the “facts???!!!” You’re not saying this with a straight face are you?

          It wouldn’t surprise either me if…the killings were accidental.

          It’s certainly possible that an Israeli tank gunner seeing Palestinian civilians waving white flags only yards from him murders them by “accident.” That’s an entirely credible scenario.

    2. I’m not sure what the issue is supposed to be there. The house is surrounded by the IDF, people come out of the house waving a white flag with the Hamas guy among them, he’s arrested. What’s the problem? How is a white flag abused in that case? The IDF knows he’s there: they have the UAV video and they’ve surrounded the house. It got him outside the house to be arrested without being summarily executed by the IDF, and none of the civilians were killed, either. What’s the basis of the IDF’s claim that this is abuse of a white flag?

      1. He tried to hide among civilians, changed his clothes and in the end surrendered with them, thus endangering them. He could have, a) not plant an explosive devise in a residential area b) not hide among civilians c) surrender alone.

        1. You seem to think being a Palestinian militant requires following the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules of good sportsmanship. When planting an IED never do so where Israeli soldiers patrol (a residential area) but always somewhere it will not endanger the lives of the IDF. Instead of hiding among civilians he must also simply hold up his hands and give himself up like a good little boy so as not to make too difficult for the IDF.

          I think you’re onto something there. Keep it up.

        2. Still no abuse of a white flag… In any case, your (b) and (c) are effectively the same complaint – and there is in fact no way that the IDF, or any infantry unit in that case, would be satisfied with just one person coming out of a house they’ve surrounded. What if there had been two in there? The people in the house came out as a group, with a white flag, and one was arrested. Did the guy from Hamas use the civilians in the house as a human shield? (The implication in that case would be that he had reason to believe the IDF troops outside would shoot him down as he was trying to surrender…) Did he fire from behind them? No – he surrendered. What’s the problem?

          If this is the best the _IDF_ can do to support a claim that Gaza militants were abusing white flags, it’s pretty bloody poor – pathetic, in fact.

  10. “Before the Gaza war the number of rocket attacks was negligible as well.”
    This is not true. Maybe media coverage in the US was negligible.

    1. In the period before the Israeli tunnel attacks the number & certainly lethality & damage fr. Palestinian rocket attacks was minimal. In the period after the tunnel attacks that certainly was no longer the case.

    2. Actually, it IS true, according to reports from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and Israeli right wing security “think tanks” such as the Intelligence and Terrorism Center. There were also multiple reports in the media about the very positive effect of the ceasefire on the residents of Sderot, and how they were able to return to a normal life, take picnics, and so on. All that ended when Israel violated the ceasefire with a series of deadly and provocative attacks into Gaza.

        1. You want me to back up what I say? Great idea, Amir. I’ll tell you what. I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours. You go first.

          1. Fine. As far as I can tell this was the first violation of the truce: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560007,00.html
            It doesn’t matter if Hamas fired the rockets or not since they took responsibility for calm from all groups and nobody was arrested and tried for these violations. These violations continued sporadically until November. Their purpose is not necessarily to kill but to terrorize, disrupt life. The choice quote from the article: “even if there are a few more days of peace and quiet it won’t help, because this situation will not end without a comprehensive IDF operation”. How truly prophetic. BTW, a few weeks ago there was a rocket attack by the same group that Hamas recently attacked in the mosque. It seems that when Hamas wants to reign in competing terror groups, they have the capabilities.
            Please, don’t bother showing me yours. I’m sure its the same old left wing propaganda the media is constantly bombarded with.

          2. Amir, Amir, Amir! Is that really the best you can do? One little news story that doesn’t even address any of the claims you have made, let alone substantiate them? You disappoint me.

            And on top of that, you’ve got your facts wrong. The incident you cited was NOT the first violation – not even close.

            The ceasefire began on June 19. UN observers reported at least eight violations by Israel in the first week, beginning with no fewer than three separate violations on the first day (source: Reuters):

            June 20

            – Israeli army troops near the border east of the southern Gaza town of Rafah opened fire towards Palestinian farmers working in al-Amoor, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            – Israeli troops east of el-Maghazi camp opened fire towards Palestinian farmers, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            – Israeli marine vessels fired towards Palestinian fishermen west of Beit Lahiya, according U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            June 21

            – Israeli marine vessels opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats west of Beit Lahiya, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            – Israeli troops at the border north east of the el-Maghazi camp opened fire towards Palestinian farmers, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            June 23

            – Israeli troops near the border north-west of Beit Lahiya opened fire at a group of people collecting wood, seriously wounding a 70-year-old man, according to U.N. sources.

            June 25

            – Israeli troops east of Rafah opened fire toward farmers, according U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

            June 25

            – Israeli troops stationed near Khan Younis opened fire towards Palestinian farmers. An 82-year-old farmer was seriously injured, according to U.N. sources.

          3. Now, let’s talk about those rockets, shall we? According to the Dec. 22, 2008 Gaza-Hamas Fact Sheet published and distributed by the Israeli Embassy, based on reports from the Ministry of Defense, a total of eleven rockets were fired from Gaza between July 1, and Nov. 4 until Israel broke the ceasefire with a major attack inside Gaza. That is also the number given in the right wing Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report of December, 2008. That is a 99% reduction of rocket fire from the previous four month period, and it brought great relief, and a return to normal life for the residents of Sderot and other areas in southern Israel. The reports acknowledge that Hamas did not fire any rockets during that period. It is interesting to note that one of the groups that did fire rockets is Fatah – you know Mahmoud Abbas’s boys.

            Oh, and here is another fact you got wrong. You claimed that “It doesn’t matter if Hamas fired the rockets or not since they took responsibility for calm from all groups…“. That is incorrect. In fact, Hamas did not take responsibility for calm from all groups, nor would it be even remotely realistic for them to do so. The agreement was that Hamas would “enforce the arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations which had not expressed their opposition“, not on all groups (source is the above-referenced ITIC report of December, 2008). In fact, Hamas did do a creditable, if imperfect, job of restraining all groups.

            It is also important to note that as the ITIC reports, “The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations…in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters).” The ITIC also notes that “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.”

            One big question that arises is this: Given the fact that a ceasefire, admittedly imperfect on both sides, resulted in a 99% reduction in rocket fire, why would the GOI not choose to work hard to continue that state of affairs with a goal of improving compliance by all parties, and ultimately making it permanent? Why would they, instead, take provocative actions that clearly guaranteed an escalation in violence, and an increase in rocket fire on their citizens? Why would they choose, instead of working hard toward a permanent cessation of violence, to disrupt the months of calm and normalcy enjoyed by Israeli citizens in the affected areas, forcing them back into shelters? One inevitable conclusion is that continuing the conflict and not the comfort and well-being of its citizens is the top priority of the Israeli government.

          4. Shirin, cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context. When I have more time I’ll point out all the parts of the report you omitted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *