125 thoughts on “J Street Opposes, Then [Sorta] Supports Congressional Attack on Goldstone – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. It is too bad that I supported J street when it was just formed but now I realise, it is just one other organization and knows how to do “sitting on the fence” job very well.
    And Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Dan Burton, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Mark Kirk et al have consistently opposed any legislation to help UNRWA and the Palestinians and found nothing wanting in the behaviour of Israeli govt.

      1. You are right, it was a rhetorical question. I know you think it is worthy of engagement, and for you no doubt it is. For me it is not. And by the way, J Street has no right to call itself progressive. It simply does not qualify.

  2. Regarding the update: As I said, AIPAC lite.

    I was encouraged when I first learned of the formation of J Street – for about five minutes.

    1. My unsolicited advice to those who have made up their minds already is: take some kaopectate, suppress the urge to vomit, work with JStreet for x number of months — THEN decide. You might be right. I half expect that you are right. But if real progressives abandon J Street at birth, we know what kind of kid it’s going to grow up to become.

  3. It is “funny” how same people demand leaders and soldiers of Sudan, Serbia etc to answer for their war crimes in International Courts but not Israel. Surely the Sudanese and Serbians can use exactly the same logic and reasons to explain their actions as Israel does. They also are/were defending their countries, ethnic “brothers” and making pre-emptive actions. Can anybody seriously believe that there could be a functioning and respected international justice system if one member of the “west” is constantly allowed to take free rides?

    These reasons listed in “J Street would be able to support a resolution that …” are amusing. How not one sided should the resolutions be in cases of attacking and responsibility of the attacker or in cases of occupation and deliberate starvation policy? Would 50% for the attacker/occupier and 50% for the defenders/occupied be fair? If so we have fast to rewrite the history of WW2. Even J Street knows that Israel did not sit and wait patiently for eight years and let rockets to be fired to South Israel. During that time Israel made constant provocations, blocked the borders and made numerous targeted assassinations with huge cost to civilians etc.

    Seems that J Street is reduced to only a new voice in that “Israel is the victim and is treated unfairly” chorus.

  4. ’nuff said about J Street? They’re just another part of the con job we’ve been fed for at least the last ten years – from Clinton through Obama. Confirmation of this can be found in James Petra’s latest book, “Global Depression and Regional Wars. He calls Obama the best con man of them all, and who is completely at the disposal of the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC).

    1. The US Congress reigns as the most spineless, base, boot-licking, lackey. body on earth.
      I am embarrassed to be an american.

      1. I was furious when I heard about this resolution, but the reality is, the Goldstone train has left the station.

        What the US Congress says or does is irrelevant.

        By taking the position it did, it seems J Street has made itself irrelevant as well.

  5. I share everyone’s concerns about JStreet’s centrism and fence sitting. I am especially concerned that an organization based on an issue of justice is prepared to abandon principled positions (in favor of tactical ones). However, I am going to give JStreet some time to demonstrate whether its strategy can work and I intend to work with it. If it is successful in broadening a national discourse, it may make it possible for less centrist views to be heard as well. If not, those of us with perfect political analyses can all continue talking to ourselves here in the blogs.

    1. I agree with your stance.

      But your last sentence is the sort of snark one often hears from self-proclaimed “pragmatists” and it is really out of place. There is nothing wrong with having a “perfect” political analysis, you know. In fact, by definition, there couldn’t be. Rhetoric aside, people should be outraged by cynicism and hypocrisy on the Goldstone Report, and whatever they decide to do, they shouldn’t minimize the sense of outrage. If you lose that sense of outrage and get angrier at the purists than at the cynics you choose to work with, there’s some risk you will become more like the cynics.

    1. I’m pleased to say that both you & your lackey of a boot licking shill, er Congressman are on the wrong side of I-P history. Peace, when it comes, will sweep all your “ideas” before it. For forty yrs. the ideas I’ve espoused have been first smeared, then accepted. The Jewish peace movement’s views on this will become reality. Yours will get swept into the swamp where they belong.

        1. Again w. the JPost? The only problem w. this article besides that it’s a pack of lies, is that Jessica Montel, interviewed in it, told a conference call in which I participated that it WAS a pack of lies & that she had insisted on them publishing an op ed with her own portrayal of B’Tselem’s REAL views of Goldstone, which they did. You didn’t link to her op ed, now did you? I wonder why? Either you didn’t know she wrote one, or you did & it was rather inconvenient for yr perspective. Either way it doesn’t reflect terribly well on you or JPost. Too bad.

          1. You are right that I had not been aware of this op ed, but it basically says same thing as the first article: that B’Tselem accepts the thesis of the Goldstone report (the request for an investigation) while rejecting the nitty-gritty stuff everyone else rejects (see Paragraph 4 in Montell’s article). That’s a reasonable position that I bet even Berman would agree to.

            The op ed was very good. I’ll take B’Tselem over the UN any day. Thanks for showing it to me.

          2. B’Tselem does not “reject the nitty gritty stuff eveyrone else rejects.” It says there are a few minor issues that it has with this or that specific claim or fact but that it accepts the broad strokes of the entire Report & stands by it. B’Tselem would NEVER sign on to Berman’s smear of Goldstone contained in HR 867 so once again you’re dreaming.

          3. In the article you showed me above, Jessica Montel of B’Tselem said the following:

            “THE GOLDSTONE Report is unsettling. I was disturbed by the framing of Israel’s military operation as part of ‘an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience.’ The facts presented in the report itself would not seem to support such a far-reaching conclusion. In light of the sweeping conclusions regarding Israel, the very careful phrasing regarding Hamas abuses is particularly conspicuous. The mission did not find conclusive evidence regarding Hamas’s use of mosques and civilian buildings for military purposes, nor does it criticize Hamas’s firing from and shielding themselves within civilian areas.”

            In short, B’Tselem appears to be saying that the Goldstone report contains a lot of bullshit, but Israel ought to open an inquiry anyway. I would agree with this stance and have written a letter to Berman asking him to revise his bill accordingly.

            The situation reminds me of when the baby took a shit in his mother’s bowl of chicken soup thinking it was the potty. The woman took it to the rabbi to ask if the chicken soup is still kosher. The rabbi explained, “Its kosher, but it stinks.”

          4. You’ve conveniently quoted only one paragraph of a long op ed. I heard Jessica Montel speak on this subject & she does not believe Goldstone contains “a lot of bullshit.” On the contrary, she finds much that is extraordinarily important & useful about it & this is what she said too in her op ed–that’s the part that you left out.

            You’re the one who believes the Report contains a lot of bullshit, not Montell. So kindly don’t words in Montel’s mouth when she can speak for herself.

            the construction on barren hills second, don’t you think?

            No, I don’t. The UN works hard to prevent genocide and to prevent massive violations of international law, which is what the Occupation is. I want the UN involved in monitoring Israeli misconduct & am generally happy w. the role they’re taking (esp. regarding the Goldstone Rpt).

          5. [K]indly don’t words in Montel’s mouth when she can speak for herself.

            I directly quoted Montel. The words were from her mouth when she spoke for herself. I didn’t change one word.

            When I said, “let’s go after the genocides first and the construction on barren hills second, don’t you think?” You answered, “No, I don’t.” In 1998, the UN stood idly by while the Congolese war was in progress. During the same year, they condemned Israel for construction on a barren hill. That’s a mix-up of priorities, but we can agree to disagree about that.

          6. And you didn’t quote the vast majority of the rest of the op ed she wrote which was inconvenient to yr thesis since it those passages she supported the Goldstone Report.

            Pls. don’t repeat yrself. You made the pt about the Congo already. No need to repeat.

          7. Jessica Montell published an almost identical article here:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-montell/the-goldstone-report-on-g_b_306500.html
            Following the paragraph you quoted, and not contained in the JPost op-ed, she explains a possible reason why the mission didn’t find conclusive evidence regarding Hamas’s alleged use of mosques and civilian buildings for military purposes etc:

            Yet these lacunae are an indictment of Israel as much as of the UN report. Justice Goldstone all but begged Israel to cooperate with the mission and provide all the information it has to make its case. Israel refused, thereby dooming the report to a perhaps inevitable blind spot. I cannot avoid the feeling that Israel actually prefers this emphatically harsh, yet flawed report. Israel’s generals and legal advisors will never acknowledge it publicly, but they must know their conduct in the Gaza operation did not accord with international requirements. This would also be reflected in the more measured, nuanced report that would have resulted from Israeli cooperation. Yet such a report would be much harder to denounce.

            One doesn’t have to agree with her second-guessing of Israel’s motives, but her point about Israel’s lack of cooperation is self-evident. The allegations about Hamas came all from Israel, and when they refuse to substantiate them to the very commission tasked with evaluating the evidence they have no grounds for complaints.

          8. Israel explained its decision not to cooperate with the UN-sponsored report. The object was to investigate war crimes that might have been committed by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza during the brief one-month period in which Israel responded to 8 years of rocket and mortar attacks against its civilians, attacks that continue even after the cessation of Operation Cast Lead. One of the people on the commission had already declared Israel guilty in a British newspaper prior to joining the commission. I’ve heard of “innocent until proven guilty” and even “guilty until proven innocent,” but “guilty until proven guilty?” Whether Israel’s reaction to this one-sided objective was appropriate is debatable, but Mary Robinson refused to sully her reputation by taking part in it.

          9. The object was to investigate war crimes that might have been committed by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza

            Sorry, you’re giving us the hasbara line, but not the truth. Goldstone’s brief was to investigate the actions of BOTH SIDES. In fact, he made a fair, balanced mandate fr. the Human Rights Council a condition of accepting the job.

            One of the people on the commission had already declared Israel guilty

            The Report doesn’t assess “guilt” & isn’t a formal legal document. 70 pages of the Report discuss Hamas’ violations of internnational law. The commission member who allegedly found Israel guilty before the commission even met signed the final Report which also found that Hamas was at fault for serious human rights violations. So much for lack of balance.

            Mary Robinson refused to accept the HRC’s mandate to exclusively investigate Israeli violations. Goldstone refused this mandate as well & was granted a mandate to investigate both sides.

            You are so abysmally ignorant it’s beyond pathetic. I feel like I’m spoonfeeding a 12 month old their first meal of solid food. Do you know anything other than what you read at CAMERA, StandWithUs, MEMRI, etc?

          10. I don’t read CAMERA or StandWithUs. i read JPost, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Jewish Journal, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Forward, the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek. I’ve read countless books on the subject by such authors as Benny Morris, Rashid Khalidi, Avraham Sela, Efraim Karsh, and Avi Shlaim. I’ve even browsed through some of the less-than-stellar work of Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, and Stephen Walt (I don’t read any pro-Israel books, magazines, and websites of similarly low caliber).

            I’m getting the feeling though that everything I read is “hasbara,” not because it is spin, but because you personally disagree with it. Not every source from the lists above is hasbara. Or are they all part of the Israel lobby?

          11. Look, I can tell by what you wrote here, where you derive your opinions & information. Jerusalem Post? Sure. WINEP? Absolutely. Jeffrey Goldberg. Sure thing. The other media don’t mean much because you don’t read much there that is reflected in what you write here.

            Pls. don’t try to persuade me that you read Rashid Kahlidi or Avi Shlaim. Yes, you read enough that you know they are on the left and that any balanced person WOULD read them. But you don’t. Or if you do you forget what you’ve read as soon as it passes through your eyes As for Morris, you’re reading his op eds in the NYT & certainly not his scholarly work. There isn’t a word of Morris’ scholarly approach in anything you say. As for Karsh, you could certainly pass for a Karshite. What about Bernard Lewis while we’re at it? Or David Horowitz? Or Daniel Pipes? Or Michael Oren? The Shalem Center? Surely some of these play some role in yr views. C’mon you can admit it to us.

  6. Is there really a “history of bias against Israel at the United Nations”? Or is it that Israel consistently behaves in violation of the UN Charter? Methinks it’s the latter.

    1. Consider this:

      In 1998, when Congo was invaded and reports of torture and cannibalism were widespread and 2.5 million people died in 3 years, the United Nations refrained from issuing any resolutions on the issue. That same year, the UN issued a resolution condemning Israeli construction on a barren hill in Jerusalem.

      1. Another hasbara ploy–find any number of horrible atrocities in the world & tell the UN they have to solve them before they take Israel to task for its atrocities. That’s very convincing.

        BTW, who owned that barren hill? Likely Palestinians as most settlements are built on privately owned Palestinian land according to detailed research conducted by Peace Now. Which would mean Israel violated international law by building on that allegedly “barren hill” in Jerusalem.

        And should we go through the hundreds of other resolutions the UN passed condemning hundreds of other miscarriages of justice throughout the world that same year in addition to that denunciation of Israeli land theft?

        1. The barren hill was in East Jerusalem. Whether Palestinians own East Jerusalem or not is subject to debate. My personal feeling is that Israel owns East Jerusalem, but ought not to build there since it will be ceded to the future Palestinian state if peace ever comes.

          I don’t blame the UN for condemning Israel for its construction policy. I myself criticize Israel’s construction policy as being not conducive to peace.

          The question is why the UN didn’t condemn both the slaughter of the 2.5 million people and Israel’s construction policy? Was there only enough time that year to condemn one, and the UN chose Israel? And how many Congolese civilians suffered because of the UN’s silence that year?

          1. Whether Palestinians own East Jerusalem or not is subject to debate. My personal feeling is that Israel owns East Jerusalem

            No, as usual you misunderstand. It isn’t a question of whether the land belongs to one country or another. This land is PRIVATELY OWNED Palestinian land to which specific individuals have title. Unless you’re a Communist & don’t believe in private property (or a racist who believes only Israelis may own such land) then the issue isn’t national, it’s private.

      2. If other countries are committing human rights violations, then the proper course of action is not to let Israel off the hook, but to go after them as well. No one should get a free ride.

  7. Alright, J Street Schmay Street. So we see what they’re about now. One Israel lobby attacking the eminently fair Goldstone Report wasn’t enough. Now we’ve got another one. Great, what an improvement. And J Street doesn’t even have the basic decency to say “No, please don’t” to Congress’s most recent effort to show all of us Americans exactly how corrupt and demented they (our representatives) truly are. This one was an ethical no-brainer for J Street, and their appalling position on HR 867 pretty much removes them from being a coherent or relevant ethical voice in this discussion. If they’re going to lobby against truth and justice, then how are they any help at all? Is it merely people’s sense that they’re ‘not as rabidly right-wing as Aipac’? Not much of a motto, frankly.

    The U.S. Congress appears to love reminding us about the pure mind-blowing extent of their corruption. Thanks, once again, for the reminder. Yes, American Congress, we know you’re a bunch of patsies who can’t think for yourselves. We get it, you’re a bunch of servile, boot-licking automatons who fall into lock-step when you get your marching orders from the super-wealthy and powerful.

    To echo and embellish on ellen’s comment, our American Congress is one of the most corrupt, pathetic, devoid of soul and intelligence political bodies in world history. Language fails us here, how can we fully capture the utter mindlessness and sycophancy of these creeps?

    Our Congress reminds me of one of those late-nite B movie 50’s sci-fi flics, where the people stand up all at once with blank-white zombie eyes and start marching in formation toward some obscure goal. Yeah, I finally get it (took me awhile), they really are zombies. Unbelievable, the rest of the Western world must sometimes just look on us in stunned horror. It might help if someone got up and showed these Congressional schmucks a map of the world, and pointed to the U.S.A, explaining that THAT is the country and the people they are actually supposed to be representing. Ahhh, rrright. Nevermind.

    This is so depressing, contemplating our bought-off American government makes me want take a very long shower. All we can hope is that one day we will be an actual functioning democracy. At this point, I won’t hold my breath.

    We’ll get there, but it might take awhile. Getting more Americans involved in the political conversation and cognizant of the affairs of state would help. Believe it or not (to our international readers), the American people in general are far better than their corrupt and disgusting ruling elite and “representatives”. That’s part of the tragedy of it all.

  8. [Sigh]. I also read 2 books by Michael Oren and one book by Bernard Lewis. I enjoy Tom Segev’s Haaretz editorials and intend on reading One Palestine Complete some day (I skimmed through it and it looked good). Daniel Pipes is the Norman Finkelstein of the pro-Israel side. I read one or two articles by him, decided it was rubbish, and never went to his website again. I occasionally read articles in the Journal of Palestinian Studies when I can get my hands on a copy.

    As for Khalidi and Shlaim, I guess its your word against mine. I say I read them. You say I didn’t. To what purpose? Either I’m a huge liar, or I read a lot of the same great books that you read and have come to a different conclusion about Israel than you did. I don’t accuse you of not reading Michael Oren, etc.

    1. I read lots of work by Israeli rightists & their Diaspora enablers. But yr use of yr alleged reading habits to claim that you are a catholic, open-minded, tolerant individual is non credible. I too read work by those whose views I oppose. I want to know their arguments so I can do a better job of understanding & refuting them when they are wrong. I make no claim, as you do regarding Shlaim, etc. to be open to Lewis’ backward views of modern Islam or Oren’s love affair with U.S. proto-Zionism or other such bunk. Any claim that you make that you are supportive or open to any ideas in books by Avi Shlaim or Tom Segev or Khalidi is once again bunk. I know these writers like the back of my hand & there isn’t a single idea fr. them in anything you write.

      1. It gets wackier and wackier. First you accuse me of reading StandWithUs. Then you accuse me of not reading all of the books that I have read. Now you accuse me of being a Catholic?

        Is there a difference between being open to ideas while disagreeing with them and being close minded and intolerant?

        Is tolerance and open-mindedness the practice of reading a book for the purpose of refuting it? I read Khalidi to learn from him, not to refute him. There are times when I disagree with him on this point or that, but that doesn’t mean I’m intolerant. Do you take the same attitude with Michael Oren or do you take the more “tolerant” approach of reading him so you can tear him apart?

        1. I read Khalidi to learn from him

          That reads very nicely on the printed pg, but yr ideas clearly haven’t been influenced by Khalidi at all. You show absolutely no sympathy for the Palestinians at all. Your allegiance is wholly to Israel.

          that doesn’t mean I’m intolerant

          You’re a pro Israel apologist. Of course you believe you’re the most tolerant fellow around. Aren’t all people who love Israel as much as you the most tolerant people around?

          I read Michael Oren waiting for something useful or creative or insightful but I’m always left with nothing but smooth polished platitudes.

          1. “You show absolutely no sympathy for the Palestinians at all.”

            I did mention in a previous comment that it is a tragedy when children die in war, especially when they are used as human shields. I have unconditional sympathy to those innocent Palestinians who get wrongfully killed by Israeli soldiers or who are cynically used by their own leaders as pawns.

            Do you have similar sympathy for Israelis? Or do you still stand by your comparison of the targeting of “Hamas leaders” to the targeting of Israeli civilians?

            “Aren’t all people who love Israel as much as you the most tolerant people around?”</blockquote

            Is there a conflict between loving Israel and being a tolerant person? Is there a conflict between loving any country and being a tolerant person?

          2. especially when they are used as human shields

            Oh, you must’ve read this in Avi Shlaim or Rashid Khalidi. Where did you read that Hamas uses children for human shields? Not in any of those progressive authors or even the credible media sources you claimed to read. You see, either you lie about reading progressive analysts or else you ignore them.

            The TRUTH is that Hamas has not used children as human shields, period. Goldstone went to Gaza with every intent of uncovering the phenomenon if he could–he wanted to discover that it was true and he couldn’t. He says so.

            Where is your proof? You see I have a little rule in this blog. If you want to make a claim you back it up w. a credible source. I don’t allow sloppy grandstanding & propaganda. I for example have an actual video available on this site which actually shows a Palestinian child (the type you claim is used as a shield by Hamas) except he’s tied to the hood of an IDF jeep & used as–guess what–an Israeli human shield. Whadaya know.

            Do you have similar sympathy for Israelis?

            This is a stupid, insulting question which shows that you haven’t a clue that someone actually wants what’s best for a friend or a nation by criticizing it harshly if necessary when it goes off the rails. Unlike you, I don’t believe enabling Israeli bad behavior does it any good in the long run. Israel, like the drunk or addict, must face its bad habits and renounce them in order to find long term peace & security. You’re the enablers who shield their eyes fr. the unpleasant truth.

            Is there a conflict between loving Israel and being a tolerant person?

            Sad to say but indeed there is. When “loving Israel” becomes enabling and defending Israel’s Occupation then such “tolerance” for Israel’s errors causes a deep conflict. I love Israel but do not tolerate its evil policies. Unlike you, I’m willing to criticize both sides & not protect my own side above all.

    2. Daniel Pipes is not fit to lick the bottoms of Norman Finkelstein’s shoes. That so much of his work is polemical does not alter the reality that Norman Finkelstein is a meticulous scholar who supports his arguments with facts and logic that are virtually impossible to refute. Daniel Pipes is nothing but an ideologue, a racist, and a bigot who tries to pose as a scholar, and who will say or do anything that he believes will further his nasty, destructive agenda.

      If you have read Rashid Khalidi or Avi Shlaim you certainly did not understand or absorb any of it. Nor have you comprehended the real significance of Benny Morris’s work, but that is not surprising since Benny himself has not been able to face the real meaning of his work.

      1. PS Let us not overlook the fact that one of Daniel Pipes’ prime objectives is to silence any voices that might challenge the standard uber-right-wing mythology about Zionism, Israel, Arabs, and Islam. Norman Finkelstein, on the other hand, does not attempt to silence anyone, he merely exposes the lies and myths and pretenses for what they are. Now, why do you suppose Daniel Pipes needs to eliminate anything and everything that contradicts his views, and why do you suppose Norman Finkelstein is OK with letting contradictory narratives be heard, and then refuting them? Hmmmmm?

      2. I’m no fan of Daniel Pipes, so I decline the opportunity to defend him or his work.

        “That so much of his work is polemical does not alter the reality that Norman Finkelstein is a meticulous scholar who supports his arguments with facts and logic that are virtually impossible to refute.”

        And yet, he’s been refuted dozens of times by dozens of scholars more meticulous than himself. Not only is refuting Finkelstein possible, its actually quite probable. True, not everything he says is insanely stupid, but so many is that his books are revered mostly by the those who think Hezbollah is as American as apple pie.

        “Nor have you comprehended the real significance of Benny Morris’s work, but that is not surprising since Benny himself has not been able to face the real meaning of his work.”

        I prefer to look at it as understanding and accepting Morris’s work in the way that Morris himself understands and accepts his own work.

        1. he’s been refuted dozens of times by dozens of scholars more meticulous than himself

          Clearly not being a scholar yrself how would you know that? And how would you know the quality of the scholarship of those attacking him? Raul Hilberg, the most eminent Holocaust historian of his generation found Finkelstein’s work to be irreproachable. Care to mount any comparable scholar against that?

          Finkelstein is not a perfect scholar. But he is certainly a worthy scholar to grapple w. in whatever discipline he writes about.

          not everything he says is insanely stupid

          Actually I was thinking that was more true of you than Finkelstein.

          his books are revered mostly by the those who think Hezbollah is as American as apple pie.

          But then there’s that little problem of Raul Hilberg that rears its ugly head. Hilberg didn’t give a fig for Hezbollah. All he cared about was Holocaust scholarship. And Finkelstein passed muster w. him. I’m still waiting for as eminent a Holocaust historian to take a counter view to Hilberg about Finkelstein.

          I prefer to look at it as understanding and accepting Morris’s work in the way that Morris himself understands and accepts his own work.

          Only someone who has no familiarity with Morris’ scholarship could say something as nonsensical as you just have. For those of us like Shirin & myself who know both his scholarship and his pamphleteering, Shirin’s remark was self-evident to me. You clearly have heard Morris’ name somewhere & thought it would be good to drop it here about w/o knowing much about what he’s written in either field.

          1. “Care to mount any comparable scholar against that?”

            Benny Morris.

            not everything he says is insanely stupid

            Actually I was thinking that was more true of you than Finkelstein.

            Ooh! Dis! I know you are, but what am I? Um … er … um … Your mom!

            “I’m still waiting for as eminent a Holocaust historian to take a counter view to Hilberg about Finkelstein.”

            I don’t know how to measure eminence, but plenty of Holocaust scholars have taken a counter view to Hilberg. I’m guessing that most scholars don’t have the time, patience, or desire to read and review all of the thousands of Holocaust books published every year, especially one as insignificant as Finkelstein’s.

            “Only someone who has no familiarity with Morris’ scholarship could say something as nonsensical as you just have.”

            Someone like Morris himself, for example?

            By the way, does the rule about providing proof for claims in comments also apply to the allegation that I haven’t read the books that I said I read?

          2. Benny Morris is not a Holocaust historian, nor does he specialize in any academic area that Finkelstein does. Next.

            especially one as insignificant as Finkelstein’s

            This is getting tiresome. Once again, what gives you the right to make such a judgment? What is yr expertise? And don’t tell me you’re relying on so & so or so & so. You make a claim w/o supporting it in any way shape or form. Even Morris has absolutely no academic background in Finkelstein’s areas of expertise.

          3. “Benny Morris is not a Holocaust historian, nor does he specialize in any academic area that Finkelstein does.”

            I guess you agree with me that Finkelstein’s “Image and Reality” isn’t worth the paper its printed on then, if Finkelstein doesn’t specialize in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I thought he wrote some dissertation about how awful Zionists are or some such flim-flam. I don’t remember the details, but Finkelstein sure does talk a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for someone whose “specialization” is limited to the history of the Holocaust.

          4. Benny Morris is a historian of the 1948 war, period. That’s his field. He’s very good as a scholar of that particular era. He stinks when he comments on anything outside of it. He is not equipped to evaluate Finkelstein’s scholarship pertaining to a different historical era.

          5. Benny Morris is a historian of the 1948 war, period. That’s his field. He’s very good as a scholar of that particular era. He stinks when he comments on anything outside of it. He is not equipped to evaluate Finkelstein’s scholarship pertaining to a different historical era.

            Perhaps you haven’t heard of a little book called Righteous Victims which goes over the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even so, I’m sure we can agree that this article by Morris published in the Journal of Palestinian Studies which tears Finkelstein apart concerning his attitude toward 1948 is a valid criticism.

          6. Defensively “tearing someone apart” who has criticized your work does not constitute a valid refutation. It may be that Finkelstein over-simplifies the Palestinian exodus – it has been a long time since I have looked at that particular article. However, Finkelstein, Teveth, and Malalha are absolutely correct that the an awareness of the necessity of what is politely referred to as “transfer” has clearly been part of the Zionist program since Herzl’s Der Judenstadt, and ridding the land they ended up with of as much of the non-Jewish indigenous population as possible was an overriding motivation for Israeli actions during 1948 and after as much as Benny tries to obscure this in his analysis.

          7. He is very good as a scholar of the 1948 war, and considering his own personal biases, extraordinarily honest in his presentation of the events themselves. Sadly he is not able to get past the barrier of his own proclivities in much of his analysis, and so is often unable to draw the most obvious conclusions from his own work, so that has been left to his readers, and to other scholars.

          8. I do not agree with you at all that Norman’s book Image and Reality is not worth the paper it is printed on. On the contrary, I find it an important book. I find that he very effectively takes on a number of the myths and lies about the the conflict. At the very least it should make thoughtful readers reconsider many of their assumptions. And of course his evisceration of Joan Peters’ fraud is a beautiful thing to behold. By the way where IS that great pioneering scholar? She seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, doesn’t she? Wonder why?

          9. I don’t know how to measure eminence, but plenty of Holocaust scholars have taken a counter view to Hilberg.

            As usual, you are unable to offer a single specific example.

            does the rule about providing proof for claims in comments also apply to the allegation that I haven’t read the books that I said I read?

            We have your own words on this page as evidence for the fact that you have either not read them, or if you have read them you comprehended nothing and processed even less.

          10. “As usual, you are unable to offer a single specific example [of a Holocaust historian who criticize Finkelstein].”

            Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.

          11. Goldhagen?! Seriously?! Pardon me, but he is hardly among the respected scholars in the world of Holocaust scholarship, and if memory serves, Finkelstein cleaned his clock. Surely you can do better than that.

  9. “The TRUTH is that Hamas has not used children as human shields, period.”

    I guess they evacuated all of the children out of the densely populated areas from which Hamas fired these rockets. And yes, these pictures and this website are by the Israeli government and not by Rashid Khalidi, so whether you accept them or think its a Jewish conspiracy is your business.

    “Sad to say but indeed there is [a conflict between loving Israel and being a tolerant person].”

    To the best of my knowledge, Khalidi and Shlaim don’t hold this opinion. You must have developed this one around the same time you developed your theories on the moral/legal equivalence of genocide and house construction and Hamas leaders and Israeli civilians.

    1. Do learn what a human shield is before making an ass out of yrself. A human shield is a Palestinian teenager strapped to the hood of an Israeli jeep. It is not a Palestinian teenager who happens to live in the same neighborhood fr. which militants fire rockets.

      I’ve seen these videos before. They have no provenance, don’t say where they were shot or when or who is pictured or where the footage was filmed. It could be a Hollywood back lot or Iraq or Gaza or just about anywhere. Nice try though.

      To the best of my knowledge, Khalidi and Shlaim don’t hold this opinion.

      Never trust a hasbaranik who quotes anyone using ellipses. You’ve misquoted & misconstrued me. Never trust anyone whose alleged love of Israel is clouded by hatred or intolerance or ideological bias toward the other side as yours is. You are not a tolerant person except toward Israel. Khalidi & Shlaim would agree w. me 100% on this.

      1. “Do learn what a human shield is before making an ass out of yrself.”

        Would the dictionary definition suffice? Or is the dictionary a hasbara tool?

        “You’ve misquoted & misconstrued me.”

        Please accept my deepest apologies if that is the case. I invite you to clarify the statements you made regarding genocide and Hamas leaders in comparison to construction and Israeli civilians, respectively, so that I do not make the same mistake again.

          1. You ask me to provide proof for the human shields claim, but the proof I provided is not valid because the video was taken by someone in Israeli intelligence? How am I expected to meet your demand for proof if you disqualify proof provided by Israel? You’re moving the goalpost, buddy. Or is that the point: that your point of view is RIGHT especially if Israel says its wrong.

            By the way, I noticed that you’ve neglected to clarify your previous inflammatory statements: Hamas leaders and Israeli civilians, genocide and construction, tolerant people and lovers of Israel, the claim that I’m Catholic (not that there’s anything wrong with that), etc.

          2. the video was taken by someone in Israeli intelligence

            You’re conflating 2 issues. The website you offered is directly &/or indirectly affiliated with Israeli intelligence therefore as a general site it is off limits for this site. Israeli intelligence, including this site, is so riddled w. lies, self-interest & double dealing that I don’t wish to promote anything connected with it.

            I’m not talking about the video itself. As for that, once again there is no provenance for it. It’s not clear who videotaped the incident, where, who is pictured, when it was shot, etc.

            I never said you are a Catholic & have no idea what you’re talking about.

            As for answering questions you offer: here’s my general philosophy which I ask you to respect. If I want to answer a question. I will. If I don’t, I won’t. If I’ve answered a question before or don’t want to wade into a quagmire or whatever other reason I may have for not answering–asking me again to answer a question I didn’t answer to yr satisfaction the 1st time won’t get a diff. result. So don’t bother.

          3. I never said you are a Catholic & have no idea what you’re talking about.

            What about on November 3 at 12:06:

            “But yr use of yr alleged reading habits to claim that you are a catholic, open-minded, tolerant individual is non credible.”

          4. Since you speak English I presume you know the difference between “catholic” and “Catholic.” If you don’t let me send you to the dictionary to learn a bit about this language we supposedly share.

          5. LOL. I stand corrected. I never heard of the un-capitalized “catholic” before.

            Since you use abbreviations like “diff.” (difference) and “yr” (your), I assumed it was a capitalization mistake and not a rarely used word historically related to the capitalized version.

          6. a rarely used word

            This word is not “rarely used.” Most educated English speakers would know it. I presume you’re educated, though your command of the language is limited if you’re not familiar with “catholic.” If you possessed any humility you would merely say: “Wow, a new word. I’d never heard it. Thanks.” Instead you attempt to claim the word is rare, when it isn’t.

          7. “If you possessed any humility you would merely say: ‘Wow, a new word. I’d never heard it. Thanks.'”

            I said basically that at 1:31 and 1:55, but I guess my intention didn’t get across. I sincerely do thank you for the new word.

            I just asked three educated friends of mine, a computer programmer, an English classics major, and a librarian, if they heard of the uncapitalized “catholic.” 2 out of 3 of them never heard the word before and 1 of them (the librarian) gave the wrong definition. Hardly a scientific poll, to be sure, but it comforts me to know that other educated people might assume you were talking about the religion when you weren’t.

          8. I don’t know what an “English classics major” is. But this person should never have received a degree majoring in English literature & not knowing as basic a word as this. Another thing, I wrote the word in the context of a sentence. If you read that sentence to your friends & then asked them to define it, they might do a better job than merely asking them what the word means w/o having any context.

          9. A fair point. I copied and pasted the sentence to a friend of mine who is an high school English teacher and asked her what the word “catholic” meant or referred to in that sentence. She asked what its from and I said it was from a comment to a blog post. She said she thought you were referring to the religion. When I told her the definition of the uncapitalized word, she said she never heard of it and never would have thought of looking it up given that people often don’t capitalize in blog comments when they’re typing fast.

            Again, not a scientific poll, but it appears that 4 out of 4 people I asked would not have understood your meaning here.

          10. Oh, the state of education in the United States these days! This is not an obscure word. My education was in science, not English, and I have known and used that word at least since high school and probably before. I asked five random people just now, and only one thought it referred to the Catholic church.

          11. PS one of my five knew one of the meanings, which is “universal”, and I believe was the original reason for calling the church the Catholic Church. Only one, who happens to be the least educated, and who was educated in Catholic schools, thought it meant the Catholic church, and she jokingly said that the nuns would pull my hair and hit me with a ruler if I wrote it that way.

          12. 3 out of 4. One person understood the meaning. And yes, it’s highly unscientific. I understand the meaning, as does Shirin. So we’re 2 out of 2 against yr poll for what’s it’s worth.

            I’m glad I don’t know your high school English teacher friend. It’s shameful she doesn’t know the meaning of the word.

          13. Guy, you’re just digging yourself in deeper and deeper, here. An educated person should know the word “catholic”, with a lower-case c. You clearly have a limited, impoverished vocabulary. Even if you didn’t know the word, the meaning was pretty obvious in the context of Richard’s sentence. It’s true that it is not an incredibly frequently used word, but it is used and I employ it fairly regularly. Your attempt at wit just further highlights your linguistic ignorance, it’s not really employed in the ways you were using it (let’s just say you don’t have much of a feel for language).

            By telling us your allegedly educated friends didn’t know it, I’m afraid you’re just highlighting the poor language level & intellectual backwardness of the circles you run in. Shirin knew the word, and I don’t think English is even her first language.

            This really isn’t surprising though, because you display a phenomenal ignorance of the subjects you address as well as a weak command of the language. I’d say your slip-up here is symbolic of your general cluelessness. (But please do keep trying to dig yourself out of your self-created hole.)

            And on another subject, your “few bad apples” comment is beyond belief. You are not only ignorant, but apparently wilfully so. There is overwhelming evidence of the IDF’s systematic disregard & contempt for Palestinian civilian lives. A number of courageous IDF soldiers came forward after the massacre of Operation Cast Lead and testified to precisely this fact. They were told by their commanders to regard the Palestinians as a whole, including civilians, as the “enemy” and shoot indiscriminately. You know what happens when you demonize a whole people as “the enemy”? One thing you can get is 100’s of massacred civilians, including 300 children, like what we saw Israel perpetrate in Gaza back at the beginning of this year. Go find the IDF soldiers’ tesimonies, Guy, if you’re genuinely interested in knowing the truth. Richard blogged about this a while back.

          14. “There is overwhelming evidence of the IDF’s systematic disregard & contempt for Palestinian civilian lives.”

            I guess the 2 million leaflets and thousands of phone calls were a momentary fluke of respect for Palestinian civilian life before the IDF went on their mad rampage.

            “Your attempt at wit …”

            Tell me, do you believe in the ideal of a Jewish state or would you prefer that Israel be more catholic?

          15. I guess the 2 million leaflets and thousands of phone calls were a momentary fluke of respect for Palestinian civilian life before the IDF went on their mad rampage.

            Do you think generating a cell phone msg. to someone telling them to abandon their home in the face of massive Israeli invasion, during which they would be either prevented fr. leaving their home or else shot at & possibly killed for doing so–is this showing “respect” for Palestinians?

            Israel provided no protection whatsoever for Gaza civilians fleeing their home. So don’t ask me to feel admiration for Israel’s tender-heartedness for Gaza civilians by dropping leaflets & making robocalls to them. It was open season on them just as much as on militants themselves. That’s why over 1,100 civilians, 300 of whom were children were killed.

          16. Do you think generating a cell phone msg. to someone telling them to abandon their home in the face of massive Israeli invasion, during which they would be either prevented fr. leaving their home or else shot at & possibly killed for doing so–is this showing “respect” for Palestinians?

            Remind me, who was it who was going to prevent them from leaving their home or else shooting and killing them? As I recall, it was Hamas, and if memory serves, this is what is known as USING PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS AS HUMAN SHIELDS.

          17. Prove it. This is the last time I’m going to allow you to repeat baseless, unsupported claims. Hamas prevented no one fr. leaving their homes. If they did PROVE IT. If you can’t you’re violating my comment rules.

            The only force that prevented Gazans fr. leaving their homes was the IDF, which killed and injured scores of such unarmed civilians as they were streaming away fr. their homes under white flag. These incidents including the names of the victims & circumstances of their deaths are documented by Israeli human rights groups & Goldstone along w. testimony fr. IDF soldiers.

          18. This reminds me of an incident in Lebanon in 2006 in which the Israelis dropped leaflets urging people from a certain village (sorry, the name escapes me right now) to flee their homes, and then strafed the column of fleeing villagers, killing and wounding scores of them.

          19. Remind me, who was it who was going to prevent them from leaving their home or else shooting and killing them? As I recall, it was Hamas…

            Oh, this is rich! It was HAMAS that prevented them from leaving their homes? Where to begin with this?

            I guess you are not at all acquainted with the extremely-well-documented case of the Samuni family in Zeitun in which The Most Moral Army In The World™ forced tens of people – men, women, children, infants, and elderly – to remain in one house while they bombed it to rubble, killing and maiming the people inside, and then refused for days to allow anyone near the house to assist the survivors.

            Or perhaps you are unaware of the many documented cases in which families were shot dead by The Most Moral Army In The World™ after they left their houses carrying white flags.

            I have personal friends who live in Gaza, and have spoken to them a lot about what happened there, and they have all told me that there were very, very few “Hamas fighters” around ever. In fact, some of them never saw any. It was the Israelis, not Hamas, who bombed them, shot them, mistreated them, and prevented them from leaving their houses.

            Bottom line, it was not Hamas that prevented people from leaving their houses, it was The Most Moral Army In The World™.

          20. How old were these educated friends of yours? I have noticed that what passes for education these days would not be considered acceptable in previous times. It is quite amazing that someone who majored in anything to do with English literature would not be familiar with this word. One hopes at the very least that (s)he would have noticed that the word Catholic made no sense at all in the context and manner in which Richard used it, and been prompted by that to look for another meaning.

          21. Richard: “I never said you are a Catholic & have no idea what you’re talking about.

            Guy: “What about on November 3 at 12:06:

            ‘But yr use of yr alleged reading habits to claim that you are a catholic, open-minded, tolerant individual is non credible.’

            LOOOOOOOOOOL! OMG! Are you KIDDING? Dude, the context alone should at the very least have sent you to a dictionary before you replied. The word Catholic, as in the religion, does not make any sense in that sentence, and didn’t you wonder why the word was not capitalized? Geez, no wonder you haven’t comprehended any of those many books and articles you have read from the likes of Avi Shlaim and Rashid Khalidi, and no wonder you have completely missed what Benny Morris’s work really means.

            Here, let me help you out a bit.

            catholic – broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal

        1. To avoid making yourself look a right fool, you might start by actually reading and trying to comprehend the definition you yourself referenced. If you succeed in that, we could consider moving on to having you learn a little basic reasoning.

          There is a noticeable lack of evidence for the allegations that Hamas has used children or anyone else as human shields. There is, on the other hand, an abundance of evidence, amounting to proof, that for The Most Moral Army In The World™ it is Standard Operating Procedure to force Palestinian children and other civilians to act as human shields during their operations in the Occupied Territories. There are, of course, photographs, such as the one Richard referenced. There are also videos. And there is a plethora of testimonial evidence from Palestinians, international witnesses, and Israeli soldiers, all of which confirm that it is common practice. But the most telling evidence of all is the attempts by Israeli commanders to justify the practice, and they insist that it is not to protect Israeli soldiers, but rather – get ready for it! – to protect the Palestinians. Yes, indeed, that is their justification. They do it for the Palestinians’ own good.

          The two most favoured human shield techniques are to force Palestinian children and other civilians to walk in front of the soldiers as they move toward a dangerous situation, and to force Palestinian kids, or women, or old people to accompany them on house raids. The big, brave Israeli soldiers force a Palestinian child, or woman, or old man to walk in front of them to the door of the big, scary house filled with very dangerous terrorists, and to stand in front of the door directly in the line of fire while the oh, so courageous Israeli soldiers stand to the side. The Palestinian is then ordered to knock on the door or to call out to the big, bad terrorists inside. When the door is opened either by someone inside the house or by force, those big, strong soldiers make the Palestinian child enter first, and take the lead as they move from room to room.

          But it’s good that they do this since, according to the Israeli commanders, they are doing it to protect the Palestinians, not the Israeli soldiers. Isn’t that sweet?

          1. Does the demand for proof in comments regarding human shields only apply only to pro-Israel comments or do they also apply to anti-Israel comments as well?

          2. I’ve told you twice that I feature a video of an IDF human shield incident in this blog. In fact, as I recall there are two diff. videos I feature here. Not hard to find it. All you need to do is Google “IDF humans shield” & you’ll no doubt find plenty of documentary evidence.

            And saying the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields is NOT “anti-Israel” & that is an absolutely trief claim in this blog so don’t do it again. And learn the diff. bet. criticzing the IDF and Israeli policy & being “anti-Israel.”

          3. How fascinating – and very telling – that you equate unpleasant facts and realities about Israeli military practice with anti-Israelness.

            I am very surprised that you hvae not at the very least read or seen the statements from Israeli commanders justifying (and thereby admitting to) the IDF’s use of children and other civilians as human shields in the manner I described. As I recall you DO read the Jerusalem Post, and even that unfortunate rag has carried those statements. Ha’aretz has also had a number of reports of the Israeli military’s use of Palestinians as human shields in specific operations, especially house raids. Don’t you read Ha’aretz?

          4. If the allegations are true, then I condemn the event and those responsible unconditionally. I expect you to do the same for when Hamas uses of human shields.

            Let me be clear:
            HUMAN SHIELDS ARE UNACCEPTABLE NO MATTER THE ETHNIC IDENTITY OF THE “SHIELD” OR THOSE USING THE “SHIELD” FOR THEIR OWN ENDS.

          5. I condemn Hamas when they do something I disapprove of. They HAVE NOT used children as human shields. Therefore, this issue isn’t something I’ll be condemning unless it happens.

          6. Hamas does not and has not used civilians, children or otherwise, as human shields, therefore your expectation that I will condemn them for it will go unmet.

            And “IF the allegations are true” against the Israeli military’s practice of using human shields? Really? If? OK, since you are unwilling to do your own leg work on this, I will do some of it for you. Maybe now you will admit that the use of human shields is a standard practice for the Israeli military.

            Here’s a particularly good one from October, 2005

            IDF to appeal human shield ban

            The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said.

            “Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added.

            <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3387356,00.html"And this from YNet April, 2007:

            IDF soldiers use Nablus youths as ‘human shield’

            “(Video) Peace activist films IDF soldiers ordering two Palestinian youths to stand in front of their vehicle to prevent locals from stoning it

            Ha’aretz, October, 2009:

            Gazans: IDF used us as ‘human shields’ during offensive

            GAZA – The question ‘Who is it?’ was answered with: ‘The Israel Defense Forces.’ Majdi Abed Rabbo, 39, who is a Palestinian Authority (Ramallah) employee and a member of its intelligence apparatus, went down to open the door. Standing there was the son of his neighbors, Mahmoud Daher, and behind him a soldier whose rifle was jammed into Daher’s back.”

            “The soldiers took the elder Daher [Shafiq] to the house of his neighbor to the east, Jaber Zeydan. The door had already been broken, and the neighbors were huddled in one room. The search here, as in the four other homes Daher was forced to enter that day, was conducted in the same way: He entered first, with the soldiers behind him. One soldier placed his rifle on Daher’s right shoulder, and pressed down on his left shoulder.”

            “At about 9 A.M. on Monday, the soldiers took Katari’s son Jamal from the house. During the next four days Jamal accompanied the soldiers and performed several tasks. He was made to enter what he estimates were 10 houses, going in first and calling on the occupants to come downstairs. He preceded the huge army bulldozer that forced its way through the neighborhood, ripping up the streets.

            “In the meantime, that same Monday morning, Shafiq Daher, too, was continuing his mission of protecting Israel Defense Forces soldiers. The second house he was made to check was also empty. It belonged to the Al-Ajarmi family. Daher did not know that his two oldest sons were accompanying other groups of soldiers, and were being forced to smash holes in the walls of houses using sledgehammers. Nor did he know that at that very moment, a soldier was jamming his rifle into the back of his third son, standing at the door of Abed Rabbo’s home.

            Abed Rabbo himself, after being forced to smash a hole in the wall that separated his roof from his neighbors’ roof and to accompany the soldiers inside, was made to enter several houses near the mosque, break into a car and then go into the Zeydan house. He was then taken to the Katari family’s home, where he met Shafiq Daher and told him that his son was all right. At about 2 P.M., a soldier took him outside, pointed to the Abu Hatem house and said, according to Abed Rabbo’s testimony: ‘There were armed people in that house. We killed them. Take off their clothes and take their weapons.’ At first he refused and said that was not his job. ‘Obey orders,’ he was told.”

            “Haaretz spoke with eight residents of I’zbet Abed Rabbo neighborhood, who testified that they were made to accompany IDF soldiers on missions involving breaking into and searching houses – not to mention the family members who remained in the houses the army took over, which were used as firing positions. The eight estimated that about 20 local people were made to carry out ‘escort and protection’ missions of various kinds, as described here, between January 5 and January 12.

            So, it was in fact The Most Moral Army In The World™, not Hamas, who used Palestinian civilians as human shields during so-called Operation Cast Lead.

            B’tselem: 20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun

            And if this does not convince you, there is plenty more where the above came from.

          7. I’m convinced by the evidence. I chose my words poorly. Some jerks in the IDF are responsible for some very disgraceful behavior that goes against the IDF’s rules of conduct. I support a full investigation and prosecution of any wrongdoing in the events referenced.

            But these are a kind of “man bites dog” story, don’t you think? No mainstream organization in Israel supports the treatment of civilians in this way.

            The claim that Hamas is innocent of using human shields is demonstrably false. There are countless videos and reports proving otherwise, but many of them rely on Israeli intelligence which you don’t trust because … I don’t know why … Israelis always lie or some such fiddle-faddle.

          8. No mainstream organization in Israel supports the treatment of civilians in this way.

            You don’t seem to understand. The only organization in Israel that matters, the IDF itself, uses this tactic regularly. And it doesn’t go against the IDF’s rules of conduct or it wouldn’t have appealed the Supreme Court ruling.

            It’s not that I don’t believe Israeli evidence. I believe Israeli evidence that is dated, indicates who filmed it, which subjects are featured, where it was shot, etc. The footage documenting IDF abuses are not only documented by video in this way, but a case has been brought to the Supreme Court, which further documents the phenomenon.

          9. Acc. to the narration of this video, Israel’s military offensive clearly violated the laws of war. Yet Israel seems to think only the Palestinians are bound by these laws, while the fact that allegedly Israel was fighting a so-called “defensive war” excused it fr. such niceties.

            BTW, this video was so propagandistic it was very hard for me to watch it all the way through. But in the passages I did watch I saw no video establishing the use of children as shields by Hamas. If you want me to watch this you’re going to have to provide the time markers of where the footage is on the video. I refuse to give the MFA the satisfaction of sitting through an entire one of their propaganda videos which, btw persuade no one but themselves.

            I saw only one video segment that contained a date-stamp & this video did not display a human shield situation nor did it indicate where it was filmed or who was pictured. The captioning claimed it was Hamas, but that certainly provides no evidence since captions could easily be manufactured to fit whatever need the MFA has.

          10. See 4:00 in the video: Rocket launching from school yard (8.1.09)

            See 4:29 in the video: Terrorists using innocent children as human shield against Israeli snipers (not timestamped, but the kids don’t look too happy about being dragged about and it looks pretty convincing to me)

            See 5:06 in the video: Senior Hamas activists talks about how his first reaction to the call to evacuate civilians was to gather civilians nearby to “defend” (i.e. “shield”) the building.

            See 06:01 of the video: Hamas MP says, “This is why they [the Palestinian people] formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen.”

            Not human shield related, but check out 06:46 through 08:00 which shows children being used as terrorist combatants.

            Here’s the link again: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=58&ar=HamasExploitationofCiviliansV&ak=null

          11. I’ve asked you to provide evidence of civilians being used as human shields. That is something credible that proves it happened. The first video you concede is of someone launching a rocket fr. a schoolyard. Human shields? No.

            In none of the other instances is there any proof of civilians being used as human shields except Palestinians discussing the concept. And even in these instances it’s clear that the civilians were NOT FORCED to act as human shields (which is part of the definition of human shield & is the way in which the IDF uses human shields), but rather that Palestinians willingly act to protect a person or building under threat. In other words, they are not under duress, but act out of a sense of patriotism. Israel’s claim is that Hamas & Hezbollah are so dastardly because they force the local population to protect them under the butt of a gun. And that isn’t the case.

            Not to mention the fact that there are numerous instances from the era when the Palmach and other Israeli militant fighting forces themselves used civilians to shield them and hide weapons in civilian buildings and even synagogues. In other words, Israel would do precisely as Hamas does if it had to do so. It doesn’t because the IDF is not a guerilla fighting force, but rather an established national army.

          12. In other words, Israel would do precisely as Hamas does if it had to do so.

            Does Hamas have to do so? The way I see it is that if they accept prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian and rework a few of the nastier genocidal things from their charter, there would be no need for terrorist bases in civilian areas such as school yards and mosques. There certainly wouldn’t have been need for Palmach bases if the Palestinian Arabs had accepted the partition plan or the Peel Commission.

            Have you nothing to say about the child soldiers, the unsuspecting child suicide bombers, the child couriers of weaponry, the child scouts, etc? Or is is Hamas “doing what it has to do?”

          13. The way I see it is that if they accept prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian and rework a few of the nastier genocidal things from their charter, there would be no need for terrorist bases in civilian areas such as school yards and mosques.

            Ah, the way you see it. So you’re willing to reduce two decades of intense hatred bet. Israel & Hamas along w. assassinations, terror attacks, etc to a simple need to accept prior agreements & change a few things fr its charter. Maybe you’re being deliberately flippant or snide. But it comes across as abysmal ignorance not to mention that it puts the onus entirely on Hamas for the problems that persist when all except you & a few hasbarists know that problems caused on both sides have doomed this relationship if you can call it that.

            There certainly wouldn’t have been need for Palmach bases if the Palestinian Arabs had accepted the partition plan or the Peel Commission.

            Eyes glaze over with yet another attempt to induce coma by bringing up ancient Zionist history w. absolutely no bearing on present day matters.

            When I hear you talk about Israel’s violations of the laws of war in a serious manner rather than a propagandistic one, then we can talk about your feeble attempt to score pts & grandstand against Hamas. Where do you get all this hasbara material from? Rashid Khalidi? Avi Shlaim?

          14. The way I see it is that if they accept prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian and rework a few of the nastier genocidal things from their charter…

            And what is Israel’s responsibility? Should Israel be expected to, for example, honour its own agreements such as, say, its agreement to the United Nation’s Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention, The Convention Against Torture, The International Declaration of Human Rights, UNSC 242, not to mention its own agreements with the Palestinians? Should Israel be held to any standard at all, or is it all one-sided?

          15. Should Israel be expected to, for example, honour its own agreements

            Of course it should. The difference is that Israel’s founding documents don’t specify the genocide of anybody.

          16. This is so beyond lame it is not even worth addressing. This is the lamitude of someone who has painted himself into a tiny, tight corner, and is still unwilling to admit it.

          17. The Hamas Charter is not a founding document. It is a statement written by one individual whose name no one remembers. It is not featured on any official Hamas website that I know as a founding document. Most Hamas leaders haven’t ever read it & don’t know what it says. The only people who know & publicize this document are hasbaraniks like you.

            Israel’s Declaration of Independence is full of bold visions & dreams which it has refused to realize. So Israel is by no means perfect either.

          18. The behavior of a few bad apples over a series of years does not represent the ethics of the IDF on a catholic level.

          19. Some jerks in the IDF are responsible for some very disgraceful behavior that goes against the IDF’s rules of conduct.

            The behavior of a few bad apples over a series of years does not represent the ethics of the IDF on a catholic level.

            Ignoring your embarrassing misuse of the word catholic, OMG, what on EARTH does it take to get through to you?!
            What part of

            IDF to appeal human shield ban

            The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said.

            Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is prepared to make a personal appearance in court to defend the practice, ministry officials added.

            does not make it clear to you that using human shields WAS MILITARY POLICY AT THE VERY, VERY TOP LEVEL?

            No mainstream organization in Israel supports the treatment of civilians in this way.

            So, you do not consider the Israeli military – aka the IDF – to be a mainstream organization in Israel? You don’t consider the Ministry of Defence to be a mainstream organization in Israel? Alrighty then.

          20. Look, the IDF does things I don’t agree with (for example, some of the choices of weaponry used in civilian areas). Luckily, Israel has a world-class Supreme Court and a sizable left-wing citizenry (though it is unfortunately swinging right lately). No army is perfect and I’m not going to make the “most moral army in the world” claim. The US army did far worse in Iraq and more often, and they received nothing close to the backlash the IDF receives, even though the IDF had greater cause for their campaign.

          21. Israel has a world-class Supreme Court

            A few things wrong with that statement. First, the Israeli Supreme Court refuses to adjudicate any cases involving torture by Israeli intelligence officials against Palestinians except for the feww cases in which it approves such torture. Second, the Supreme Court does not have nearly the same stature or influence in Israel as the U.S. Supreme COurt does here. There was no Marbury vs. Madison in Israel that established the power of the judiciary to legislative review. And there is no constitution which also limits judicial power. And in the few cases when the Supreme Court does rule in favor of Palestinian interests or human rights (as on the route of the Separation Wall), the IDF simply ignores the rulings it doesn’t like, something that would never happen here. So much for a “world-class” Supreme Court.

          22. There was no Marbury vs. Madison in Israel that established the power of the judiciary to legislative review.

            See United Hamizrahi Bank Ltd. v. Migdal Kfar Shitufi.

          23. Look, the IDF does things I don’t agree with (for example, some of the choices of weaponry used in civilian areas).

            Well, this is progress of a sort, and I suppose Hillary Clinton would give you “positive reinforcement” for taking a half-baby-step in the right direction, but I won’t. You still don’t get it, so let me state it for you as clearly and simply as I can.

            THE ISRAELI MILITARY COMMITS WAR CRIMES AS A MATTER OF POLICY.

            Get it now?

            Luckily, Israel has a world-class Supreme Court…

            Which has no teeth, and which the Israeli military ignores.

            …and a sizable left-wing citizenry…

            Which has no power, and which the Israeli military ignores.

            The US army did far worse in Iraq and more often, and they received nothing close to the backlash the IDF receives…

            “Johnny stole three cookies, and I only stole one, so how come I’m the one being punished?” The fact that you are resorting to this suggests that you are really out of gas now, so why don’t you give up and have yourself towed out of here? And while you are at it try growing up a bit too so you will sound less like an eight year old next time you decide to speak up?

  10. [Guy’s deliberately flippant argument] puts the onus entirely on Hamas for the problems that persist

    Its not my argument that puts the onus on Hamas. Israel left Gaza way before I made my argument.

  11. Guy, you’re in way over your head, here. Typical little propaganda robot (do you have a little wind-up thingy in the back?).

    You can tell when someone’s lost an argument, they reach for the old Hamas charter. It doesn’t matter how many Palestinian civilians are slaughtered by Israel, for the Guys of the world, Palestinian life is intrinsically less valuable than Israeli life (which is hardcore racism, by the way). 1,100 murdered Palestinian civilians, 300 murdered Palestinian children, ahh no problem, I’ll just point to some words in an old document. Do you have any remote notion what daily life is like for Palestinians in Gaza? To have no real control over your own borders, your own resources, to be at the utter whim of an occupying power?

    You mindlessly parrot the same argument about Palestinian use of civilian human shields when Richard Goldstone specifically investigated that issue and found no evidence for it. You are totally impervious to evidence and fact. I don’t think it would matter how much evidence we supplied you with to support the basic contention that the IDF is contemptuous of Palestinian civilian life, you’re just going to keep singing your indoctrinated song…

    How many innocent Palestinians have to be slaughtered by Israel for you to give a rip, Guy? 3,000? 10,000? I’m just curious, where does your tolerance for IDF atrocity end? Maybe 300 dead Palestinian children from the IDF’s most recent massacre isn’t really enough for you. Where does your bloodlust end, Guy? You apologists for war crimes make me sick to my stomach.

  12. The fact that you are resorting to this suggests that you are really out of gas now, so why don’t you give up

    You’re right. I’m out of gas (though not in the way you intended). I’m tired of arguing.

    I wish the Arab-Israeli conflict could be resolved through flame wars instead of through actual wars. If I thought it could, I would continue trying to convince everyone here that Israel is not so bad even though it has the potential to be a lot better.

    I wish you all well. Shalom. Salaam. Peace.

    1. Israel is not so bad even though it has the potential to be a lot better.

      Israel the country is not so bad. Can’t say the same for its government & policies. But I do agree with the 2nd half of yr comment.

Leave a Reply

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